Reclaiming Agency: Indigenous Participation in Natural Resource Projects in Alberta
Author: Lennox MacGillivray
November 28, 2024
Executive Summary
Alberta has an abundance of natural resources and much of its economy is based on projects related to these resources. Indigenous equity ownership of natural resource projects in Alberta is a recent development that is starting to gain traction. This paper explores the evolving role of Indigenous Communities in natural resource projects in Alberta, highlighting historical challenges and recent break throughs for Indigenous participation.
Historically, systemic racism and restrictive legislation, particularly the Indian Act, severely limited Indigenous communities’ economic sovereignty and rights over their traditional lands. Important legal changes stemming from key Supreme Court of Canada cases and section 35 of the Constitution have gradually recognized Indigenous land rights, leading to land claim negotiations and increased consultation. This led to the establishment of Impact Benefit Agreements between Indigenous communities and natural resource project developers. While these agreements provided some benefits for the affected communities, they often fell short of ensuring meaningful participation for Indigenous communities.
Recent developments indicate a significant shift towards Indigenous ownership in these projects. This can be seen in recent partnerships between Indigenous groups and major natural resource companies such as Enbridge Inc. These equity agreements allow Indigenous communities to hold a percentage stake in natural resource projects, fostering long-term economic benefits and greater control in decision-making processes. New ways to access capital and support such as the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation play a crucial role in facilitating these partnerships by providing financial support and resources.
This transition aligns with the broader goals of economic reconciliation as outlined in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action. Through greater participation in natural resource projects, Indigenous groups are able to reclaim agency over their communities. This gives them the capacity to make their own decisions about their land, communities and people. Indigenous communities have increased ability to focus on what matters to them because of their meaningful participation in natural resource projects. While colonial groups extending benefits to Indigenous groups does not solve the root inequalities of settler colonialism, it does fill gaps in the historic under involvement of Indigenous groups in the provincial economy. Increased involvement is not a final answer in reconciliation and decolonization, but is a step forward to rectify the past.
Introduction
In August of 2020, six First Nations in Alberta, Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation, Enoch Cree Nation, Kekewin Cree Nation, O'Chiese First Nation, Paul First Nation and Whitefish Lake First Nation, became equity partners in the Cascade Power Project, a $1.5 billion natural gas power plant which finished construction and began operations in 2024. The plant is expected to provide power for about 8% of Alberta, including over 900,000 homes and businesses. Using innovative technology, the new plant is expected to produce considerably more electricity while emitting significantly less emissions than traditional powerplants. The Cascade Power Project is expected to provide hundreds of millions of dollars for the involved communities and has already led to hundreds of jobs during construction, as well as long-term employment opportunities now that operations have begun. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Chief, Tony Alexis, stated that “the investment into this important piece of provincial infrastructure will be transformative to the six First Nations involved. The economic benefits will provide critical and tangible income for future generations.” This transformation for future generations has been decades in the making, beginning with the recognition of Indigenous land rights in the 1950s, and is still unfolding today.
The involved Indigenous communities have felt the positive impacts since the project began. Former Chief Billy Morin, a leader of one of the involved nations, noted that his community had already seen the benefits of the deal with new surgical centre and hockey arena projects in the community thanks to the partnership. He noted the importance of these deals for rural communities that do not have the same opportunities as those near major urban centers. He also explained how his community was able to do important work in reviving their language and culture, and implement them into how they conduct their business. The Cascade Power Project is just one example of how Indigenous communities have become more involved in natural resource projects in Alberta in recent years. Through Cascade, an Indigenous community was able to reclaim agency over itself by meaningfully participating in a natural resource project. They were able to make major improvements to their community and start initiatives to preserve and revive their culture, language and traditions.
Canada’s colonial violence against its Indigenous peoples is a complex and devastating history, yet is still ongoing and unfolding. Indigenous scholar John and Canadian historian Ken Coates examine the control that the Indian Act had over all aspects of Indigenous ways of life, including through the codified management of Indigenous access to resources. The implementation of section 35 of the Constitution and the subsequent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) cases made important changes regarding this participation with natural resources on Indigenous land. Lawyers William Laurin and Joann Jamieson wrote that, despite improvements in the approach to Indigenous participation in energy development, many Indigenous communities still express dissatisfaction, which increases risks for all involved parties. Energy Lawyers Vivek Warrier, Luke Morrison, and Ashley White, as well as president of the Indigenous Resource Council of Canada Stephen Buffalo, outlined the framework for equity ownership and how it can address the dissatisfaction expressed by parties involved in natural resource projects.
First, I will introduce important legal cases that established duty to consult in Canada. Then, I will explore Impact Benefit Agreements and their place in the development of natural resource projects. Equity partnerships are a positive alternative to Impact Benefit Agreements. To participate in equity partnerships, however, Indigenous communities needed access to capital; as such, various avenues for gaining capital became available. After investigating access to capital, I examine equity partnerships and their step towards reconciliation.
Using Borrows’ frameworks of understanding Indigenous rights in land usage and self-determination, this paper explores the ways that Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) and Indigenous equity agreements act as stepping-stones from Canada’s brutal treatment of Indigenous peoples towards a future of true decolonization. Through increased participation in natural resource projects, Indigenous groups are able to reclaim agency over their communities. This gives them the capacity to make their own decisions about their land, communities, and people. Because of their meaningful participation in natural resource projects through Indigenous equity agreements, Indigenous communities gain income, and therefore have more resources to grow and strengthen their communities and culture; having more expendable money allows groups to focus on revitalization. While colonial groups extending benefits to Indigenous groups does not solve root inequalities of settler colonialism, it does fill gaps in the historic under-involvement of Indigenous groups in the Albertan provincial economy. Increased involvement is not a final answer in reconciliation and decolonization, but is a step forward to rectify the past.
Land Claims and the Duty to Consult
For a large part of Canada’s history, largely due to restrictions by the Indian Act, Indigenous communities had limited protection for treaty land and had little to no participation in natural resource projects. Over time, decisions by the SCC recognized and affirmed Indigenous rights; the federal and provincial governments changed the approval requirements for natural resource projects, thus allowing space for Indigenous participation.
The Indian Act restricted Indigenous communities’ ability to manage or benefit from the natural resources on their treaty land. The government had full control of the land, including any natural resources extracted from it and any associated income. As a further injustice, any income that came from Indigenous land stayed under control of the government, and was rarely invested in Indigenous community development. Private companies were able to make considerable amounts of money through natural resource projects and very little of the profits ever ended up in the hands of Indigenous communities. The Indian prevented Indigenous groups from hiring lawyers and making land claims until 1951. This meant that there was little that Indigenous communities could do to work towards any sort of real participation in the natural resource developments that were happening on their land.
Indigenous communities in Alberta gained little agency over usage and resource extraction of Indigenous traditional land until the 1970s, with the introduction of Impact Benefit Agreements. However, Indigenous consultation was not legally encouraged until the 2000s. Through the 1950s, advocates introduced new land claim arguments, which led to the important SCC case of Calder in 1973. This was a landmark decision which made the federal and provincial governments consider that Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal title could still exist if it had not been extinguished. With increased policies protecting Aboriginal rights and land claims, Indigenous claims to traditional land (including natural resources found on the land) strengthened. As a result, they gained the potential to participate and benefit from natural resource projects attached to their land.
The Constitution Act, 1982 recognized and affirmed existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35. This led to further government obligations and further court challenges over land disputes. In the years to come, other SCC cases interpreted section 35 of the Charter and provided more detail on the obligations of the government. R v Sparrow in 1990 was the first case where section 35 was interpreted. The SCC stated that consultation and compensation may be required when infringing Aboriginal rights. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada further clarified the importance of accommodation and consultation “in good faith” in the case of Delgamuukw. In the 2004 case of Haida, The SCC again clarified the government’s duty to consult and accommodate. The SCC explained that there is a duty to consult when the Crown has “real or constructive knowledge of the potential existence of Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.” The decision in Beckman v Little Salmon in 2010 explained that modern land claim agreements do not relieve the Crown of its duty to consult. The SCC built upon their previous decisions in the case of Tsilhqot’in in 2014:
Prior to establishment of title by court declaration or agreement, the Crown is required to consult in good faith with any Aboriginal groups asserting title to the land about proposed uses of the land and, if appropriate, accommodate the interests of such claimant groups. The level of consultation and accommodation required varies with the strength of the Aboriginal group’s claim to the land and the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect upon the interest claimed.
All of these cases established Indigenous rights to land, legally acknowledging that governments and corporations were required to respect these rights. Impact Benefit Agreements emerged as a response to increased obligations regarding the development of natural resource projects on Indigenous lands. Additionally, the clarification of treaty rights was crucial in the development of IBAs in Alberta, as most of the province is made up of treaty land. Treaties are constitutionally recognized agreements between Indigenous groups and the Crown. Treaty rights varied by treaty but often had Indigenous groups share the use of their traditional land in return for money or other benefits. When looking at these treaties it is important to consider the context behind them as what was negotiated and understood by the Indigenous peoples is not always what showed up in the written agreement.
There are three main treaties in Alberta: Treaty 6, Treaty 7, and Treaty 8. Treaty 6 was signed in 1876 and relates to land in central Alberta and Saskatchewan. Treaty 7 was signed in 1877 and relates to land in southern Alberta. Treaty 8 was signed in 1899 and relates to land in northern Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. There are vast amounts of natural resources located on the land connected to these treaties. The 2005 SCC decision in Mikisew Cree outlined that the duty to consult extends to actions that might impact treaty rights. Since 1982, the SCC increased the expectations for the government regarding the duty to consult and accommodate. This meant that, when attempting to develop a natural recourse project, corporations were required to further consider its effects on Indigenous communities. As a result, Indigenous communities gained influence in new projects, and had the ability to involve themselves in decision-making regarding their lands.
Indigenous groups began to negotiate modern land claims after the Calder decision. These claims involved Indigenous groups looking to address wrongs committed against their rights and lands. These land claims continue today and can be specific claims which relate to historic treaties or the Indian Act. There are also comprehensive land claims which deal with Indigenous groups that did not sign treaties. The combination of legal clarifications regarding duty to consult coupled with modern land claims explain why IBAs emerged to negotiate use of Indigenous lands for natural resource projects.
It is also worth mentioning that in 2021, the government of Canada committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIP) into the country. UNDRIP affirms the declaration as a universal, international, human rights instrument and provides a framework for Canada to implement it. Depending on how this is implemented, it could lead to more changes regarding what is expected from the government and/or private companies in the development of natural resource projects.
As the landscape relating to Aboriginal and treaty rights changed, natural resource projects started to function differently as well. Private companies and the government had increased restrictions placed upon them to prevent them from continued exploitation of Indigenous lands and resources. The SCC’s obligations for the government had been laid out, and as a result, it became more difficult for private companies to get approval for their projects.
Impact Benefit Agreements
As government obligations towards Indigenous communities and their land became more enforced, the landscape for natural resource projects in Alberta began to change. Both the federal government and the government of Alberta started considering the impact of these projects on Indigenous communities and how it might align with their duty to consult. Although the ultimate legal responsibility for consultation and accommodation rests with the Crown, the Crown can delegate procedural aspects of the consultation to private companies seeking government approval for their projects. In the Guidelines on Consultation with First Nations on Land and Natural Resource Management, the Government of Alberta specifies that private companies must inform and consult with First Nations as early as possible, ideally during the pre-application stage, and must document and share these documents from the consultation stage. This delegation of the duty to consult shifted the manner in which corporations treated Indigenous communities. Instead of entirely ignoring them, corporations had to acknowledge Indigenous rights to land.
To align with these consultation requirements and to prevent against uncertainty stemming from them, private companies began forming Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) with Indigenous communities. IBAs are legally binding documents between an Indigenous community that will be directly impacted by a project and the developer behind the project. IBAs typically provide the developer with some level of legal certainty that they will be able to move forward with their project. In return, Indigenous communities get benefits that can include monetary considerations and opportunities for employment, education, training, and capacity building.
IBAs typically consist of four stages: pre-negotiation, negotiation, implementation and conclusion. Pre-negotiation involves sharing information with the affected community and discussing the needs, goals and expectations both sides have. Negotiation is when the parties work to agree to what benefits the community will receive and ends when the legally binding IBA is signed. Implementation is when the project has moved forward and involves managing the benefits and impacts of the project and making any necessary changes needed to the IBA. The final step is conclusion when the project ends and the IBA is reviewed to inform on potential future IBAs.
Because of the nature of these agreements, corporations and governments were forced to consider Indigenous communities, marking a clear distinction from before the introduction of IBAs. This meant that, although land and resources were still controlled by colonial forces, Indigenous communities had increased opportunities to regrow, restrengthen, and revitalize their cultures and communities.
A 2016 research study from the University of Ottawa demonstrated that Indigenous communities that have IBAs have economic improvements in income, education, housing and labour force participation. However, most communities that entered into IBAs still sit below the Canadian averages for these categories. Further, there are gender inequalities in job opportunities that grew from IBA opportunities. Although IBAs brought resources and opportunities into Indigenous communities, they do not solve root issues of systemic racism, colonial legacies, and poverty. They do, however, correct historic trends of colonial disrespect and disregard of Indigenous presence and land rights. While IBAs are better than having no agreements at all, there is clear room for improvement.
It is worth noting that most IBAs are confidential. There are no frameworks in place to provide regulation and transparency; outside of the parties involved in specific IBA agreements, and the Government of Alberta, access to IBA information is severely limited. Without independent monitoring, it is difficult to assess whether Indigenous communities are being taken advantage of, especially considering the long history of colonial violence against Indigenous groups. Because of the nature of IBA agreements’ confidentiality, lack of transparency restricts Indigenous communities from conferring with each other. Further, because Alberta’s economy relies so heavily on the natural resource sector, the provincial government has motivations to support natural resource projects. Because of this, IBAs in Alberta have tended to follow lower standards compared to other provinces as it is easier for Alberta companies to get approval for natural resource projects.
This secretive practice benefits those in power. It protects governments and corporations from public and Indigenous scrutiny and draws from colonial histories of exploiting and taking advantage of Indigenous ways of being. Having alternative options for Indigenous communities in Alberta is important. IBAs are an imperfect solution to reconciliation; through IBAs, Indigenous communities are not getting enough benefits to make any considerable change in their communities. IBAs may have some positive benefits for Indigenous communities that have them compared to those who do not. However, better does not mean good enough. After years of IBAs being the main form of consultation and accommodation for Indigenous communities, it was clear that change was needed. As such, equity agreements filled this gap.
Access to Capital
Equity agreements are deals between corporations and Indigenous communities, wherein the community gains a percentage of ownership in a natural resource project. However, to be involved in equity agreements, Indigenous communities needed access to capital; they faced barriers that prevented them from participating in equity ownership deals. Meaningful ownership required large amounts of capital that most Indigenous communities could not access on their own. This has been the biggest obstacle that has stood in the way of Indigenous equity partnerships. Recently, however, new ways of accessing capital are emerging. Options such as the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, the Federal Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program, Indigenous Community Infrastructure Initiative, First Nations Finance Authority, and the First Nation Major Projects Coalition make equity ownership a reality for Indigenous communities.
The Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation (AIOC), was created by the government of Alberta in 2019 to help provide access to capital to Indigenous communities looking to invest in natural resource sectors. The corporation has up to $3 billion in loan guarantees available, as well as funds for accessing professional support to help with large-scale investments, such as legal and economic expertise. The Cascade Power Project was the first project to be funded by the AIOC in 2019. Since then, many of the equity agreements in Alberta have been financed by the AIOC.
The federal government committed to helping with the facilitation of Indigenous equity ownership in 2023. In the 2024 Federal Budget, the federal government highlighted the Federal Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program. They have committed up to $5 billion in guaranteed loans to help support Indigenous economic opportunities and projects. Natural resource and energy projects are eligible under the program, which is important for its viability in many projects based in Alberta. This will hopefully provide another viable option for Indigenous communities to access capital, but it is too early to see the effects of these programs.
The Canada Infrastructure Bank now offers the Indigenous Community Infrastructure Initiative. They offer loans between $5-$100 million for eligible projects and requires the project to include at least 20% Indigenous ownership. Relevant eligible projects include clean power, green infrastructure and transportation. They have assisted with numerous partnerships in Alberta including the Tilley Solar project in Newell and the Deerfoot and Barlow Solar expansion in Calgary. This provides another option for Indigenous communities to become equity owners in natural resource projects.
The First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA) is First Nations owned and was formed in 1993. It seeks to “provide financing, investment and advisory services for First Nation governments across Canada.” The FNFA looks to provide lower interest rate loans with more flexible repayment terms to First Nation governments with eligible revenue streams. This is another viable option that can be helpful for Indigenous communities looking to become an equity partner in a natural resource project. These projects count as an eligible revenue stream to receive a loan.
Another new development is the First Nation Major Projects Coalition (FNMPC). The FNMPC is fully owned and operated by First Nations communities and was created in 2017 by a group of First Nation leaders in British Columbia. They work to advocate for their members to receive a fair share of benefits from projects undertaken in their traditional territories. As of 2024 they have over 155 members across the country, $45 billion of capital available and 17 major projects, the majority of which have an equity ownership component for Indigenous communities. Organizations like the FNMPC have the opportunity to be extremely impactful on Indigenous communities looking to become equity partners in natural resource projects.
These examples demonstrate that there are new options becoming available for Indigenous communities to become equity partners. Indigenous communities that take loans from these organizations must eventually pay them back. This potential economic vulnerability leaves future communities at risk, but because many of these initiatives are new, long-term effects cannot yet be studied. Indigenous communities need to take out loans, often from the government or corporations, just to have partial participation and ownership in their own land. That said, without options of accessing capital, Indigenous communities would have even less resources to participate in Alberta’s natural resource sector. Therefore, having access to capital, however that might look, is a positive step towards economic reconciliation, especially when compared to IBAs.
Equity Partnerships
As IBAs proved to be insufficient for many Indigenous communities, a new option has gained traction and support amongst Indigenous groups in recent years. Equity partnership allows Indigenous communities to pay a large upfront cost and become percentage owners in natural resource projects. This contrasts with merely receiving fixed benefits for the impact on their land under an IBA. By having ownership in land-based projects, Indigenous communities have the ability to see positive impacts; they have flexibility, agency, and choice in how they manage their benefits. In turn, private companies have reduced risk when entering into equity partnerships because they are protected through initial payments; they also enter into projects with business partners. In the 94 Calls to Action, number 92 calls for meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities and opportunities for these communities to participate in the corporate sector and to get “long-term sustainable benefits from economic development projects.” This new model for Indigenous participation aligns more closely with the economic reconciliation portion of these calls, suggesting that Indigenous equity partnership is a step towards reconciliation.
Indigenous communities strive for change resulting from equity partnerships. With the income from these projects, Indigenous communities gain meaningful ownership and economic participation, and strengthen their culture, language, environmental stewardship, sustainability, and preservation of traditions. Additionally, equity partnerships foster collaboration between corporations and Indigenous communities, which is a marked shift from a history of Indigenous segregation. Overall then, equity partnerships are a more positive step forward than IBAs. That said, equity partnerships are structured through a colonial legal system and do very little to respect and honour Indigenous laws and systems of governance; while they do address some aspects of reconciliation, they are not a total reconciliatory tool.
Meaningful ownership and economic participation typically require a stable, long-term revenue source and considerable percentage ownership in the project. Laurin and Jamieson called for a minimum of a 5% ownership stake for it to be considered meaningful to Indigenous communities. More stable and longer-term revenue for Indigenous communities will allow them to re-invest into community infrastructure and capacity-building. Large boosts to Indigenous community economies from equity ownership deals will provide opportunities that have been previously kept from them by government restriction.
Although the long-term effects of equity agreements will take time to appear, there is excitement among many Indigenous communities and positive signs that are already showing up. Indigenous communities are entering into unprecedented deals and the landscape of how they can be involved in natural resource projects is changing. There have already been a number of stories where equity ownership in natural resource projects has led to positive changes in communities, including the Enbridge-Athabasca collaboration, Tamarack Valley agreement, and the Deerfoot and Barlow solar project.
In September 2022, Enbridge, a leading energy company in Canada, announced a landmark collaboration with Athabasca Indigenous Investments, a group of 23 Treaty 6 and Treaty 8 First Nation and Métis communities. Athabasca Indigenous Investments received a 11.57% partnership stake worth $1.12 billion in Enbridge’s new pipeline project. This deal was financed by the AIOC. Justin Bourque, the president of Athabasca Indigenous Investments, explained that “our partner logo theme – Seven Pipelines, Seven Generations – speaks to the long-term value potential of these assets, which will help enhance quality of life in our communities for many years to come.” This goal of generational sustainability is one that many Indigenous communities center their decisions on. Enbridge stated they are interested in similar opportunities in the future after the success of this deal.
Tamarack Valley Energy and 12 Indigenous communities came to an agreement in early 2024 where the Indigenous communities received an extraordinary 85% ownership stake in the project. This is an example where the involved Indigenous communities became majority owners rather than just minority owners. Tyler Letendre, the director of operations and economic development and an Indigenous leader for one of the involved Indigenous communities has claimed that the partnership has been a game changer for his community. He explained equity deals, like this one, allow communities like his to generate their own income. As a result, other organizations, like banks, want to invest in Indigenous communities as well. Agreements like this show the increased opportunities that Indigenous Communities get through equity ownership, allowing them to get more income which they can put towards their community in the ways that matter to them.
In 2023, two Indigenous communities in Calgary, Chiniki and Goodstoney First Nations, became 51% owners in the largest urban solar installation in western Canada. This was funded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank through the Indigenous Community Infrastructure Initiative. It provides sustainable energy for approximately 16,500 homes while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Leaders from the two Indigenous communities spoke to how important deals like these are for generating economic growth and “shaping an equitable and sustainable future.” Axxcelus Capital Advisory, the advisory company where former Chief Morin from the Cascade Energy Project now works, was involved as an advisor for the two Indigenous communities. This shows the relationships that Axxcelus has been able to build with Indigenous communities through providing trustworthy support in multiple equitable ownership agreements.
TC Energy and a group of 72 Indigenous communities announced a partnership in July of 2024 where the communities would get a 5.34% stake in the project for $1 billion backed by the AIOC. The expected value of their stake is about $1.64 billion. This would be the largest equity partnership agreement in Canadian history. However, in September of 2024 it was announced that the agreement had been delayed. The details of the snag have not been released, but the deal is still expected to be completed. This example shows that these increasingly large deals have the potential for immense benefits for Indigenous communities. This agreement would provide economic boosts for 72 Indigenous communities, meaning that its effects will be felt widely across communities.
The law firm Fasken announced that 28% of equity partnership deals for Indigenous communities in Canadian history have occurred in the last two years. This shows that this is a growing trend and that these agreements will continue to become more prominent. Fasken also reported that as of April 2024, 26% of equity deals have taken place in Alberta, the highest in the country. This shows that perspectives are changing in the province when compared to how things functioned under IBAs. Indigenous communities in the province can make real changes in their community because of the economic effect of equity ownership. Equity partnerships can allow both sides to benefit and it seems that private companies in Alberta are more willing to engage in this method respectfully as compared to how they dealt with Indigenous communities when forming IBAs.
Having a real, substantial role in natural resource projects allows Indigenous communities to influence decisions related to the sustainability of their traditional lands. Many Indigenous communities want generational sustainability for their communities and their lands, and having a seat at the table can help keep the land for generations to come. IBAs typically provided some benefits for impacted communities, but would usually not give them any real decision-making power. As equity partners, however, Indigenous communities have opportunities to sit on the board of these projects, provide advice and guidance on the land their people have lived on for thousands of years, and have their thoughts considered as a partner rather than as a step to complete on a checklist.
The preservation and sharing of traditions, culture, and language is another important goal for Indigenous communities when entering into equity partnerships, especially when recognizing the harmful colonial attempts of Indigenous eradication and cultural genocide. With more opportunity and control over how they can reinvest in their communities, preserving Indigenous traditions will be more accessible than it was in the past. Some traditions may also be able to be implemented into the natural resource projects themselves. This is only possible if equity partnerships are honoured and Indigenous voices are respected; given that corporations and Indigenous communities often have different values, the distinction between equity partnerships in theory versus in practice will be crucial to determining the success of this shift. Further, because equity partnerships have been very recently introduced, it is too early to identify the long-term results.
Introducing a stable, long-term revenue source will provide Indigenous communities with increased opportunities to grow and strengthen in ways they have agency over. Access to capital means that Indigenous individuals have more support to invest in cultural pursuits, pursue higher education, fund health programs, and enhance infrastructure. Participating in these agreements provides experience, which attracts other potential investors, creating a feedback loop. By sustaining themselves and actively reinvesting in their communities in manners they see fit, Indigenous communities can drive their own growth rather than simply maintaining the status quo.
Many Indigenous groups also have a goal of building trust and meaningful relationships with their business partners. These communities do not just want to make money off one project; they want to build lasting relationships. Chief Morin, Chief of Enoch Cree First Nation, one of the communities involved in the Cascade Power Project suggested that if “you just build that trust and put the time and effort in… take the time and you might just find that… you may have a new friend for years to come.” This suggests that through meaningful, respectful collaboration, both parties of equity agreements can find success. Further, Chief Morin’s comment suggests that although equity partnerships stem from colonial structures, they can be affected by Indigenous ways of being. By centring human connection as opposed to profit, parties involved in equity partnerships might find increased benefits.
Conclusion
Although equity ownership looks very promising, there are still barriers to success that exist. Large deals of this size are unprecedented for many Indigenous communities, and they may not have people with the expertise to navigate the complexities; additionally, Indigenous communities that enter into these early agreements may be particularly vulnerable to the exploitation of colonial powers. Currently, there is minimum scaffolding in place to prevent exploitation. While not the responsibility of Indigenous peoples to navigate, this risk cannot be ignored. Organizations, like the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, have supports available to mitigate some of these issues, but it will be important to increase supports, education, and transparency as equity partnerships continue to develop.
Having a variety of options for accessing capital will also be important. The president of Athabasca Indigenous Investments explained that it is important that Indigenous communities understand equity partnership, especially now that there are more opportunities to create these agreements. Having pathways available to show Indigenous communities how to navigate these deals will be important as equity partnerships become more common. There is clearly potential for positive results from these deals, but they must be accessible to Indigenous communities.
It is also worth noting that although economic reconciliation is important, putting too great of a focus on it can take away from other forms of reconciliation. In a panel related to this topic, the former Chief of Cowesses First Nation in Saskatchewan spoke to the rush to work on economic reconciliation and how it is coming at the “cost of skipping over the truth of Indigenous people’s history with Canada and the governmental mechanisms that loom large over Indigenous progress.” Leaving space for other forms of reconciliation is crucial in honouring Indigenous ways of being.
As Justin Bourque and Heather Exner-Pirot put it, “Indigenous equity ownership is not the only tool to earn Indigenous consent and support for energy and resource development. But it is a very good one, and it has become the cause célèbre for economic reconciliation.” This description aptly describes equity partnership as a method of purchasing Indigenous consent. While these partnerships have challenges, Bourque and Exner-Pirot believe that “with enough good faith and humility, all sides can come out winners.”
It will take time for the benefits of equity partnerships to create long-term, meaningful change in Indigenous communities. Not rushing the process or hastily searching for new solutions is an effective way to scrutinize the effects of equity partnerships, with the ultimate goal of improving them over the long-term. Allowing meaningful change to happen at a reasonable pace could lead to sustainable improvements.
Throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, natural resource projects have shifted their methods of collaboration with Indigenous communities whose land they work on. In the 1970s, colonial powers paid no attention to Indigenous claims over land; in line with the Indian Act’s assimilationist policies, corporations and government dismissed and exploited Indigenous communities in order to make profit from natural resource projects. However, after a series of landmark cases, IBAs were introduced in an attempt to foster collaboration with Indigenous communities. The movement towards equity ownership marks a pivotal change in how Indigenous Communities engage with natural resource projects in Alberta. This imperfect method was recently replaced by equity partnerships, which offer a bright and encouraging future marking a distinct shift towards reconciliation and respect for Indigenous economic prosperity.
The recent trend of equity ownership represents a significant step in the right direction. Indigenous communities are now getting the opportunity to not just benefit from the natural resources on their land, but have ownership roles in the natural resource projects connected to their land. This allows them to set their own goals and gives them the opportunity to focus on what is important to their communities. This increased participation in natural resource projects allows Indigenous communities to have more agency over their communities.
It is essential to approach this transition carefully, allowing communities to build capacity and ensure that economic reconciliation does not overshadow other forms of reconciliation. By fostering a balanced approach, Alberta can continue to progress from IBAs towards more equity partnerships, paving the way for equitable and sustainable development for Indigenous Communities and the province as a whole.
Comments
Post a Comment