Neighbours with very different Indigenous policy
The reaction to the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline reflects the differences in Indigenous policy in the United States and Canada.
In Canada, treaty and Aboriginal rights are included in the Constitution; in the United States, there is no mention. Canadian treaties were negotiated and conducted in a formal manner, recognizing the honour of the Crown. In the U.S., treaties were signed at the barrel of a gun and basically ignored.
In Canada, the treaties have received legal status through constitutional recognition. First Nations peoples have always maintained this fact, but it took inclusion in the Constitution for the courts to give our treaties legal weight.
Therefore, the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline was met with a different response on either side of the medicine line. In the U.S., both the leadership and the people they serve were ecstatic. There were few, if any, voices of support for the pipeline. In the U.S., the Indigenous people have been shoved aside and have no claim to the wealth of the natural resources.
In Canada, our treaties give us the right to be involved in resource development. When the treaties were negotiated, the conversation centred around use of the land for agriculture. The treaty negotiators also stressed that they wanted to share the land with the First Nations.
Now, resource development in Canada must proceed with consultation and the involvement of the First Nations. Natural Law Energy, a totally owned Indigenous corporation, was set to take on an equity stake in the ownership of the pipeline.
Natural Law Energy was originally developed by five First Nations, including the Nekaneet First Nation in Saskatchewan and the Ermineskin Cree Nation, Montana First Nation, Louis Bull Tribe and Saddle Lake Cree Nation in Alberta.
The Alberta government granted TC Energy a loan guarantee for more than a billion dollars and construction on the Canadian side has been underway for some time now.
The pipeline wasn't without opposition in Canada, and while some of the leadership were on side, the general Indigenous population was largely opposed to the environmental impact.
On the other side of the line there was no Indigenous involvement, and although the Trump administration granted a permit to build the pipeline, construction was mired in the courts and little or no construction proceeded.
The Indigenous community was united in opposition to the pipeline; the environmental cost was too high and there was no economic advantage.
The confrontation at Standing Rock and the opposition to the Dakota access pipeline were a good indication of the Native American response to pipeline construction. Plus, politics in the U.S. has changed. It was the Native American vote that made the difference in turning Arizona to the Democrats. Biden had made it clear that he would follow a climate change agenda and the pipeline was on the chopping block.
This pipeline was designed to transport oil from the Athabasca tarsands and the Bakan to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Now the economic viability of the tarsands is questionable and oil companies are writing off tarsands assets right and left. An oil price of $50 a barrel is not viable for heavy crude or synthetic crude like what is produced in the tarsands.
Instead of reading the writing on the wall, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney went full ahead and saw that the Canadian leg of the pipeline was built. Now it's another tarsand-stranded asset.
The total sale of Canadian oil to the U.S. is 3.8 million barrels per day. The Keystone XL pipeline would provide an increase of volume of 830 million barrels for a diminishing demand.
There is much more economically viable light oil in the Middle East and Venezuela. Canada might be third in oil reserves worldwide, but it is a false comparison since it's locked in sand and difficult to extract.
The future emphasis is now on electric vehicles. Both Ford and GM are planning electric car plants in Canada and by the end of this decade the demand for oil will have declined significantly. The internal combustion engine will be remembered fondly, like the old steam locomotives — nostalgic and romantic but a terrible polluter and inefficient.