Connect with us

Canadian Energy Centre

Why Canada’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap goes against UNDRIP and the rights of Indigenous people

Published

1 year ago

6 minute read

Indigenous Resource Network executive director John Desjarlais (centre), with Justin Bourque, president of Âsokan Generational Developments, and Shelby Kennedy, community and Indigenous relations advisor with Enbridge. Photo courtesy Indigenous Resource Network

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

Q&A with John Desjarlais, executive director of the Indigenous Resource Network

The Indigenous Resource Network (IRN) is pushing back on Canada’s proposed framework to cap emissions from the oil and gas sector.  

IRN executive director John Desjarlais says the proposal directly contradicts Canada’s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP). 

He says the plan would cap opportunity for Indigenous communities as more take on ownership positions in major energy projects from oil and gas pipelines to liquefied natural gas terminals and carbon capture and storage projects. 

Here’s what Desjarlais told CEC.  

CEC: From the perspective of Indigenous communities across Canada who are involved in natural resources development, what’s your take on the federal government’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap?  

John Desjarlais: There’s a lot of confidence that it will curtail production as well, and obvious concern that it’s going to mean less opportunity.  

We’ve heard from communities that are saying we’re involved already in emissions reduction. There are communities that just want to advance their opportunities in that space. And it’s at a time when there’s probably the greatest appetite for Indigenous involvement, not just in ownership, but advanced business development and procurement. [It could] mean less jobs, less procurement, less ownership opportunity, less investment. 

There are concerns that these impacts are not being heavily understood, measured, contemplated or considered in terms of the policy development and implementation. 

CEC: How does being involved in oil and gas development benefit Indigenous communities?  

JD: There’s a suite of benefits that are coming from increased engagement, and it’s much deeper than just jobs. 

Communities are now jumping into revenue generating assets where they’re creating immediate cash flow, which is allowing them to start to self-determine and invest back into their community either through economic development or through infrastructure programming. 

The other side to it is just the capacity that comes from being involved as an owner. Indigenous business and community leaders are being exposed to the requirements and the acumen needed to successfully participate in the ownership of decision making. That’s accelerating the development of the acumen and capacity of different indigenous communities at greater rates 

CEC: How many communities would you estimate are now participating at this level?  

JD: There’s probably upwards directly of at least 100 different communities now. There are double-digit communities that are involved in at least four or five different deals that are directly involved in the ownership and the benefit side, and then there’s cascading involvement of all the surrounding communities through procurement opportunities and employment. It’s growing quite quickly. 

CEC: Why do you say the proposed emissions cap contradicts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People?  

It’s a policy that’s created to achieve certain goals. Creating those types of targets without Indigenous oversight – not just input, [but] oversight and ownership – is problematic because it contradicts the UNDRIP action plan in terms of stepping out of the way of affording Indigenous peoples and communities the ability to self-determine; to invest where they want to invest, and to grow how they want to grow. 

We hear a lot of community leaders say, ‘we know what’s best for our territories.’ To have policy that limits our ability to make the decisions we want to make in regard to environmental and economic sustainability is a challenge. 

CEC: What would you like to see happen?  

JD: It’s a little hard to roll back and involve communities in a total redesign, but at least if we saw an understanding that there’s certainly going to be an economic impact. If there’s a production cap aspect to it, there’s going to be an economic impact to those Indigenous communities that have established livelihoods and revenue streams.  

There’s the sentiment that if the government truly is advancing this in the direction that they are, then would they consider omission of Indigenous activity so they can continue advancing their economic interests and growth? 

Ideally, [there would be] a policy that’s created in line with UNDRIP that works for communities, industries and governments in their goals. 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 5 hours ago

The Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”

Alberta / 6 hours ago

Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada

International / 6 hours ago

Elon Musk forms America Party after split with Trump

Business

Why it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast

Published on July 6, 2025

By

The Port of Prince Rupert on the north coast of British Columbia. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Moratorium does little to improve marine safety while sending the wrong message to energy investors

In 2019, Martha Hall Findlay, then-CEO of the Canada West Foundation, penned a strongly worded op-ed in the Globe and Mail calling the federal ban of oil tankers on B.C.’s northern coast “un-Canadian.”

Six years later, her opinion hasn’t changed.

“It was bad legislation and the government should get rid of it,” said Hall Findlay, now director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

The moratorium, known as Bill C-48, banned vessels carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of oil from accessing northern B.C. ports.

Targeting products from one sector in one area does little to achieve the goal of overall improved marine transport safety, she said.

“There are risks associated with any kind of transportation with any goods, and not all of them are with oil tankers. All that singling out one part of one coast did was prevent more oil and gas from being produced that could be shipped off that coast,” she said.

Hall Findlay is a former Liberal MP who served as Suncor Energy’s chief sustainability officer before taking on her role at the University of Calgary.

She sees an opportunity to remove the tanker moratorium in light of changing attitudes about resource development across Canada and a new federal government that has publicly committed to delivering nation-building energy projects.

“There’s a greater recognition in large portions of the public across the country, not just Alberta and Saskatchewan, that Canada is too dependent on the United States as the only customer for our energy products,” she said.

“There are better alternatives to C-48, such as setting aside what are called Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, which have been established in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands.”

The Business Council of British Columbia, which represents more than 200 companies, post-secondary institutions and industry associations, echoes Hall Findlay’s call for the tanker ban to be repealed.

“Comparable shipments face no such restrictions on the East Coast,” said Denise Mullen, the council’s director of environment, sustainability and Indigenous relations.

“This unfair treatment reinforces Canada’s over-reliance on the U.S. market, where Canadian oil is sold at a discount, by restricting access to Asia-Pacific markets.

“This results in billions in lost government revenues and reduced private investment at a time when our economy can least afford it.”

The ban on tanker traffic specifically in northern B.C. doesn’t make sense given Canada already has strong marine safety regulations in place, Mullen said.

Notably, completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2024 also doubled marine spill response capacity on Canada’s West Coast. A $170 million investment added new equipment, personnel and response bases in the Salish Sea.

“The [C-48] moratorium adds little real protection while sending a damaging message to global investors,” she said.

“This undermines the confidence needed for long-term investment in critical trade-enabling infrastructure.”

Indigenous Resource Network executive director John Desjarlais senses there’s an openness to revisiting the issue for Indigenous communities.

“Sentiment has changed and evolved in the past six years,” he said.

“There are still concerns and trust that needs to be built. But there’s also a recognition that in addition to environmental impacts, [there are] consequences of not doing it in terms of an economic impact as well as the cascading socio-economic impacts.”

The ban effectively killed the proposed $16-billion Eagle Spirit project, an Indigenous-led pipeline that would have shipped oil from northern Alberta to a tidewater export terminal at Prince Rupert, B.C.

“When you have Indigenous participants who want to advance these projects, the moratorium needs to be revisited,” Desjarlais said.

He notes that in the six years since the tanker ban went into effect, there are growing partnerships between B.C. First Nations and the energy industry, including the Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG project and the Nisga’a Nation’s Ksi Lisims LNG project.

This has deepened the trust that projects can mitigate risks while providing economic reconciliation and benefits to communities, Dejarlais said.

“Industry has come leaps and bounds in terms of working with First Nations,” he said.

“They are treating the rights of the communities they work with appropriately in terms of project risk and returns.”

Hall Findlay is cautiously optimistic that the tanker ban will be replaced by more appropriate legislation.

“I’m hoping that we see the revival of a federal government that brings pragmatism to governing the country,” she said.

“Repealing C-48 would be a sign of that happening.”

Continue Reading

Canadian Energy Centre

Alberta oil sands legacy tailings down 40 per cent since 2015

Published on July 3, 2025

By

Wapisiw Lookout, reclaimed site of the oil sands industry’s first tailings pond, which started in 1967. The area was restored to a solid surface in 2010 and now functions as a 220-acre watershed. Photo courtesy Suncor Energy

From the Canadian Energy Centre 

By CEC Research

Mines demonstrate significant strides through technological innovation

Tailings are a byproduct of mining operations around the world.

In Alberta’s oil sands, tailings are a fluid mixture of water, sand, silt, clay and residual bitumen generated during the extraction process.

Engineered basins or “tailings ponds” store the material and help oil sands mining projects recycle water, reducing the amount withdrawn from the Athabasca River.

In 2023, 79 per cent of the water used for oil sands mining was recycled, according to the latest data from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

Decades of operations, rising production and federal regulations prohibiting the release of process-affected water have contributed to a significant accumulation of oil sands fluid tailings.

The Mining Association of Canada describes that:

“Like many other industrial processes, the oil sands mining process requires water. 

However, while many other types of mines in Canada like copper, nickel, gold, iron ore and diamond mines are allowed to release water (effluent) to an aquatic environment provided that it meets stringent regulatory requirements, there are no such regulations for oil sands mines. 

Instead, these mines have had to retain most of the water used in their processes, and significant amounts of accumulated precipitation, since the mines began operating.”

Despite this ongoing challenge, oil sands mining operators have made significant strides in reducing fluid tailings through technological innovation.

This is demonstrated by reductions in “legacy fluid tailings” since 2015.

Legacy Fluid Tailings vs. New Fluid Tailings

As part of implementing the Tailings Management Framework introduced in March 2015, the AER released Directive 085: Fluid Tailings Management for Oil Sands Mining Projects in July 2016.

Directive 085 introduced new criteria for the measurement and closure of “legacy fluid tailings” separate from those applied to “new fluid tailings.”

Legacy fluid tailings are defined as those deposited in storage before January 1, 2015, while new fluid tailings are those deposited in storage after January 1, 2015.

The new rules specified that new fluid tailings must be ready to reclaim ten years after the end of a mine’s life, while legacy fluid tailings must be ready to reclaim by the end of a mine’s life.

Total Oil Sands Legacy Fluid Tailings

Alberta’s oil sands mining sector decreased total legacy fluid tailings by approximately 40 per cent between 2015 and 2024, according to the latest company reporting to the AER.

Total legacy fluid tailings in 2024 were approximately 623 million cubic metres, down from about one billion cubic metres in 2015.

The reductions are led by the sector’s longest-running projects: Suncor Energy’s Base Mine (opened in 1967), Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Mine (opened in 1978), and Syncrude’s Aurora North Mine (opened in 2001). All are now operated by Suncor Energy.

The Horizon Mine, operated by Canadian Natural Resources (opened in 2009) also reports a significant reduction in legacy fluid tailings.

The Muskeg River Mine (opened in 2002) and Jackpine Mine (opened in 2010) had modest changes in legacy fluid tailings over the period. Both are now operated by Canadian Natural Resources.

Imperial Oil’s Kearl Mine (opened in 2013) and Suncor Energy’s Fort Hills Mine (opened in 2018) have no reported legacy fluid tailings.

Suncor Energy Base Mine

Between 2015 and 2024, Suncor Energy’s Base Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 98 per cent, from 293 million cubic metres to 6 million cubic metres.

Syncrude Mildred Lake Mine

Between 2015 and 2024, Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 15 per cent, from 457 million cubic metres to 389 million cubic metres.

Syncrude Aurora North Mine

Between 2015 and 2024, Syncrude’s Aurora North Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 25 per cent, from 102 million cubic metres to 77 million cubic metres.

Canadian Natural Resources Horizon Mine

Between 2015 and 2024, Canadian Natural Resources’ Horizon Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 36 per cent, from 66 million cubic metres to 42 million cubic metres.

Total Oil Sands Fluid Tailings 

Reducing legacy fluid tailings has helped slow the overall growth of fluid tailings across the oil sands sector.

Without efforts to reduce legacy fluid tailings, the total oil sands fluid tailings footprint today would be approximately 1.6 billion cubic metres.

The current fluid tailings volume stands at approximately 1.2 billion cubic metres, up from roughly 1.1 billion in 2015.

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.

Continue Reading

Trending

X