By KAREN OGEN
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hailed the go-ahead decision by the Cedar LNG project, majority-owned by the Haisla First Nation in B.C. He said it will be “the world’s lowest carbon footprint LNG facility.”
We couldn’t agree more. It was fantastic news that all Canadians should shout from the rooftops.
But can we repeat the type of assertion the prime minister made?
According to the new federal “greenwashing” law, companies (and individuals) must prove the truth of their public statements on climate benefits of their products or programs, or face potential millions in fines.
So does the prime minister now have to “prove” that Cedar LNG is the world’s lowest carbon footprint LNG facility?
Why does this worse-than-fuzzy new law matter to First Nations?
Because it could be used as one more tool to discourage resource companies that might seek Indigenous partnerships, and to obstruct Indigenous investment in energy projects, and frustrate Indigenous benefits from resource projects.
On Canada Day, we reflected on Canada’s shameful history of using laws to keep Indigenous Canadians at the bottom of the economic and social pile.
Perry Bellegarde, when national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, noted in 2021 that Canada and its standard of living ranked sixth in the world according to the UN Human Development Index. But apply that index and its measurements to Canada’s Indigenous people, and they ranked not sixth but 63rd.
Not only did the Indian Act and other colonial laws keep Indigenous Peoples down. From 1927 to 1951, First Nations people in Canada were, by law, not even allowed to hire lawyers. And other people could actually be jailed for helping them raise legal funds.
Such discriminatory measures may have changed, but now we have a green-washing law that is an assault on the freedom of expression constitutionally guaranteed to everyone in Canada. Suppression of information and discussion should be of concern to everyone.
And more: Indigenous groups have invested considerable political and financial capital in the energy industry, and efforts to diminish that industry are a direct threat to economic reconciliation that will provide a meaningful quality of life after generations of economic exclusion.
We have seen suppression before. From 1927 to 1951, First Nations in Canada were legally prohibited, on pain of imprisonment, from publicly advocating for our land and governance rights. That included prohibition on the ceremonies and institutions through which we transmitted information about those rights.
And now we have this new Canadian law that says climate statements or promises must be “based on an adequate and proper test” or “adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology”.
Those have not been defined or announced. So the legal tests are hopelessly vague. But a federal bureaucrat now is empowered to review such statements and to compel court proceedings if he considers them to not meet the fuzzy criteria.
So a climate statement based on science now can be over-ruled by a civil servant.
The fines for making outlawed statements can hit millions. A small business or a First Nation could be fined up to $10 million for explaining on its website how its product or program or partnership would help Canada meet climate and net-zero goals. And a second conviction could cost $15 million.
But the fine could be, instead, three times what Ottawa rules was the presumed “benefit” from the “deception.”
Next year, the Act will allow private citizens to request reviews. Imagine the mischief environmental activists will create. It’s already happening in Europe, where activist groups are filing costly greenwashing lawsuits against energy companies.
Some energy firms have been quick to take down their public messages on climate benefits.
Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson chided them for not waiting until they see what the new “tests” will be.
But why did Ottawa not develop and define the tests before rushing the bill through Parliament?
Only now do we have the Competition Bureau saying it will develop guidance “on an accelerated basis” which means that, first, it will launch a public consultation in the coming weeks.
Why was that not done before the bill was sent to the House of Commons on March 28?
This new law will be challenged, and may well fall. But for now, the potential costs and delays and damage are incalculable and onerous.
We support Prime Minister Trudeau’s endorsement of Cedar LNG’s final investment decision. It truly was a transformational moment for economic reconciliation and the energy transition.
We all just want the same ability to shout from the rooftops when we advocate responsibly for Indigenous energy in Canada.
Karen Ogen is CEO of the First Nation LNG Alliance, and former elected chief of the Wet’suwet’en Nation in B.C.
Footnote: On social media, Rebecca Shulz, Alberta’s environment minister, called this blog “A must read for all Canadians.”
(Posted here 10 July 2024)
