No “natural” gas? How 'bout some whale oil.

“In one Arctic town, all’s not well.

Nothing left in the tank.

Without a solution, the town won’t survive.”

So read the headlines published in the National Post dated, April 16, 2012 and written by a Jason Unrau.

As scarce as whale oil is these days to the culture of the Inuvialuit  (Inuit) of the western arctic, they’re sitting on trilliums of cubic feet of natural gas but that gas might as well be like the bowhead whale…scarce.

The Arctic town referred to above is Inuvik, long held as the administrative centre of Canada’s Western Arctic and home to the indigenous people known as the Inuvialuit. For over a century, the Inuvialuit have adapted to change to become of significance with the oil and gas industry today, thanks a lot to their 1984 land claim agreement where economic opportunities were outlined as key to survival in today’s society.

However…

“Without a solution, the town won’t survive,” says Joe Lavoie, a 30-year resident of Inuvik and owner of the town’s Home Hardware.

Like Joe, the Inuvialuit too are looking for a solution to survive the natural gas crisis. A crisis that was quite unforeseen; after all, for over 40 years, oil and gas companies have explored and discovered huge natural gas fields with the intention of one day shipping and selling that gas via a pipeline to southern markets.

Intention though, has turned to despair and hope.

“In March, 2010, the National Energy Board gave the Mackenzie pipeline a green light, but last week, the pipeline consortium of Exxon Mobil, Shell and ConocoPhillips decided to shelve the project.”

While these large companies have lots left in the tank with their respective gas fields, it could be the little guy to the town’s rescue…MGM Energy Corp?

“Henry Sykes, president of MGM Energy Corp., a small Canadian firm with gas holdings near Inuvik, could be the town’s white knight. Like many smaller players on the periphery of the great Mackenzie pipeline game, Mr. Sykes was counting on the (pipeline) project to get his product to market.”

Like Mr. Sykes, the Inuvialuit too counted on the pipeline and did assume its construction when it developed its own Ikhil gas field and since 1999, has supplied the town with gas through its own pipeline business. Again, with the assumption the Mackenzie gas pipeline will be built.

One big problem…low gas prices and a gluten of supply with less demand.

Sounds like Inuvik and the Inuvialuit will have to adapt…again.

How ‘bout a Gas to Liquids Refinery (GTL)?

“I suppose if somebody was doing that (building a GTL refinery in Inuvik), the more customers the better and we’d be happy to supply,” said Mr. Sykes. Furthermore, “We’re not in the business of shipping gas, we’re in the business of selling gas.”

I guess the Bowhead whale may be safe after all.

Mining companies band against Bands.

Junior miners revolt over native deals.

Small resource companies band together in the wake of court clashes with aboriginals over development on Crown land.

So read the headline published in the GLOBE AND MAIL dated March 28, 2012 and written by a Jeff Gray.

As courts have declared, the Crown has the duty to consult when it comes to land and resource development.  However, I often wondered…where is the Crown? Junior mining companies in northern Ontario, I hope, are wondering the same.

“Confrontations between native bands and mining companies, particularly in Northern Ontario, have been increasing.” As the headline reads, this time it is with some junior mining companies.

Enter a Darryl Stretch, “whose Solid Gold Resources Inc. was hit in January with a rare court injunction suspending drilling on claims near Lake Abitibi in Northern Ontario.”

“Mr. Stretch said the Wahgoshig wanted him to pay for a $100,000 archeological study to determine if drill sites were disturbing burial grounds. He refused, saying, Solid Gold could not afford it. He says his firm has no legal requirement to consult the band, “It’s not my obligation to go find arrowheads for those people, period,” he said in a phone interview.”

Right?

“What’s being asked of them has nothing to do with consultation.  It has everything to do with compensation, “ says Neal Smitherman, a lawyer who acts for junior miners in disputes with native groups.

As most may agree, lost arrowheads are of the past and has nothing to do with “consultation” on aboriginal and/or treaty rights which is supposed to be of a forward-looking process; i.e. will the affected first nation still be able to hunt, fish, trap, pick berries, etc. if and when there is a proposed development in an area regarded as traditional territory?

Still, finding arrowheads in traditional land use studies have become big business as first nations across Canada now look to the past and big companies have bought into that idea in order to come to some sort of resolution with first nations which then has resulted in great expectations. According to Mr. Stretch, a $100,000 dollar expectation.

According to the courts, Mr. Stretch and his company do play a part in the consultation process. A process that is supposed to look to the future regarding respect for rights.

However, arrowheads of the past have become of great value. Tell that to Mr. Stretch.

The Aboriginal Whisperer?

“Judges ordered to consider cultural factors in sentencing native offenders.”

So read the headline published in the GLOBE AND MAIL, dated March 24, 2012 and written by a Kirk Makin.

Those of you who watch “The Dog Whisperer” on TV will know the star of the show, Cesar Milan and his slogan, “I train people and I rehabilitate dogs.” His show is a huge success; thanks to his techniques used. One can see how fast Cesar can change a dog’s unbalanced behaviour; in fact, within minutes. He has said that dogs are able to not dwell on the past but move forward very quickly.  Simple-minded? Apparently, not so with humans.

Consider the past treatment of Canada’s native offenders who, as a result, may be living too much in the past.

“When sentencing an aboriginal offender, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course, higher levels of incarceration for aboriginal peoples” says Judge LeBel when he had referred to the application of the Gladue report.

In a 1998 court decision, Regina v. Gladue, that case mandated distinctive treatment for aboriginal offenders based on sensitivity to their history, i.e. the oppressive cultural conditions many have grown up with.

The above noted article also referred to the sentencing of two aboriginal offenders who have had alcohol problems, a history of thefts, sexual assaults, and residential school experience full of physical, sexual, emotional, and spiritual abuse.

The issue of colonialism and assimilation of Canada’s Aboriginal people has gained more exposure lately; first with Prime Minister Harper's 2008 apology for the past abuses of the residential school system and now, with the process of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Furthermore, Canada has recognized the need  to address the past experiences by Survivors of residential schools with the Independent Assessment Process where individuals can link current behaviour with their abusive past  and ultimately be compensated.

Fortunately, the court system is willing to look to the past and start to understand the reasons for the high rates of incarceration of Aboriginal people.

Ultimately, in the spirit of healing, one would like a mind of a dog. Too simple.

No bridge for Enbridge?

“B.C. Dene vow to halt Northern Gateway pipeline.”

So read the headline in the GLOBE AND MAIL published March 14, 2012 and written by a Shawn McCarthy.

With Harper at the helm and with current regulations, the Dene will be hard pressed to halt the proposed pipeline. Nevertheless, “Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik’uz First Nations, was part of a delegation in Ottawa Tuesday meeting with opposition members of Parliament to build support for their anti-pipeline stand.”

She reiterated, “Enbridge will never be allowed on our lands.”

Tell that to Harper.

He had recently said, “…that new pipelines to the West Coast are in the national interest.” The National Energy Board must comply and therefore, will certainly approve the project.

The stage is set.

Dwight Nelson, an Ottawa-based consultant and lecturer at Carleton University predicts, “We’re going to see a huge outcry about indigenous human rights” if the pipeline proceeds, “you’re going to see blockades and other militant action, and you’ll definitely see lawyers in massive mobilization.”

Seems the only concrete bridge will be created by the lawyers themselves, transporting them into retirement.

The Truth?...Is Sinclair sincere?

Residential schools “an act of genocide”

Chairman of truth and reconciliation commission says Canada’s treatment of aboriginal children meets the United Nations definition.

So read the headline published in the GLOBE AND MAIL dated February 18, 2012 and written by a Chinta Puxley.

Bold headline but one that is finally said by one of significance, this time by the Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  “Justice Murray Sinclair says the United Nations defines genocide to include the removal of children based on race, then placing them with another race to indoctrinate them.”

Over the years, Canada has been very careful to not expose that truth. Even with its funding agreement with the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (AHF), Canada ensured AHF Board members were not to engage in any advocacy regarding its past treatment of aboriginal children. However, it would be hard pressed for Canada to quell the truth when it established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Still, even with the UN’s definition of genocide, “…the minister of Indian affairs can say this was not an act of genocide.”

With Canada’s denial of the truth, Canadians especially Survivors of the residential school system would be hard pressed to come to some sort of reconciliation. Admittance could go a long way. Perhaps, Canada should take on Jesus’ ethic, “The truth will set you free.”

Reservations brighter future?

“PM’s economic message divides the generations.”

So read the headline published in the GLOBE AND MAIL dated January 25, 2012 and written by a Bill Curry and Gloria Galloway.

“Houston, we have a problem.” Apollo 13 Astronaut Commander, James Lovell, uttered those now famous words while on a lunar mission in 1970. We all know “that problem” was solved after Lovell and his comrades returned to earth safely.

Still, long before then, the Canadian government figured they too had a problem. In fact, what the late Dr. Duncan Campbell Scott, then head of the Department of Indian Affairs, uttered in 1920 was the infamous statement, “I want to get rid of the Indian problem.”

Seems though, after all that time; there still is a problem.  The context of Dr. Scott’s infamous statement was the need to address Canada’s Indigenous occupancy of land across the country. Thus, the establishment of and the failed residential school system as Canada’s Aboriginal people refused the idea of a homogeneous society.  So, what is today’s problem?...and solution?

PM Harper did host a First Nations Summit on January 24, 2012 to perhaps address the problem… the dismal state of first nations affairs and situation across the country and tenuous relationship with Canada.

“Agenda focused on practical improvement sits well with new generation of leaders, but old guard stands firm on land rights. PM sees jobs as key to first nations future.”

Post 1920, division still outlines the relationship with the government and is clear amongst First Nations too.

Until the Indian Act is abolished, one must respect the Treaties with different First Nations and their approach to be treated separately unlike the finality of land claim agreements where communities work together to move forward with certainty on issues such as land rights, harvesting, economy, education, health care and ultimately some financial compensation. Treaties are subjected to interpretation and result in on-going issues of housing, land rights, education, and never ending annual allocation of money…and, some say, unaccountability.

Still, the PM refuses to scrap the Indian Act and instead, “Stephen Harper is pushing ahead with an agenda focused on practical steps to boost the economies of Canada’s reserves, pointing to a promising new generation of native leaders and entrepreneurs as examples of a brighter future.”

Astronaut Commander, James Lovell, did figure out the explosion of two oxygen tanks as the cause of their problem and found steps to address that cause. Stephen Harper and the first nations will need to figure out the cause of the current state of native reserves and their tenuous relationship with each other. I think that is the first “practical step.” Until then, generations will continue to be divided with no brighter future.

Pipeline rules or Aboriginal rules?

“Oil-sands pipeline hits its highest hurdle

Ottawa warns of foreign-financed “radicals” but opposition is led by a business-minded first nation.”

So read the headline published in the GLOBE AND MAIL dated, January 9, 2012 and written by a David Ebner.

“Public vetting of Enbridge’s proposed $6.6-billion Northern Gateway oil-sands pipeline begins Tuesday (Today, January 10, 2012).”

Someone has said, “The mother of all hearings starts today.”

So, is the Gateway pipeline approval a forgone conclusion? Yes, based on the National Energy Board  (NEB) and its history of approving projects, Some say it's a done deal. After all, the NEB’s motto is “In the National Interest.” But, the process, like most projects, will not be without any hurdles. Already, the government is weighing in and some say, are trying to meddle in the process.

Picture from the GLOBE AND MAIL

 “The Conservative government will bring forward new rules to greatly shorten environmental reviews of pipelines and other major projects, arguing that “radical groups” are exploiting the reviews to block proposals vital to Canada’s economic future.” So, what “new rules?” For one, a Timeline.

Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources has said, “…a definite timeline would provide certainty to the participants who are sponsoring the project.” Seems, from the government perspective, some say , if a company applies to build a pipeline, that company will “certainly” be approved.

Introducing new rules though does not omit the “highest hurdle”…Aboriginal opposition?

The arguments concerning native land rights and environmental impact promise a regulatory fight that could travel all the way to the Supreme Court. “The struggle to transport the harvest of Alberta’s vast oil sands enters a new arena this week – a village on the rugged British Columbia coast where the hopes of Canada’s biggest pipeline operator will meet a business-savvy first nation with little appetite for black gold.”

Enter the Haisla First Nation. They are doing business as well as any oil company. Still, regarding the construction of the proposed pipeline, Ellis Ross, Haisla chief councillor has said, “We don’t think that’s in the National Interest.”

The Hearings start today and is hosted by the Haisla First Nation. For the NEB, why not start at the highest hurdle…but it doesn’t mean it’s downhill from there.