Search

The Canadian Federal Government’s purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline in 2018 was seen by many as a singular action to support the pipeline industry. However, this research will contend that this is not the case because this thesis will show that the federal government has indemnified the oil and gas pipeline industry in Canada over the past 60 years. This will be shown by focusing on three large-scale positive examples of Federal Government indemnification, they are the modern Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, the 1970’s building of Line 9 and the initial construction of the TransCanada pipeline project in the 1950’s. All of these cases relied on direct government fiscal and political support to indemnify the projects so that they could obtain financing and eventually be constructed. By using process tracing this thesis shows how the Canadian federal government has in essence been indemnifying all large-scale pipeline projects throughout a large part of Canada’s history. Explanations for why this support has existed are then explored through a lens of industry structure, and the thesis posits that the pipeline industry’s structure (using the metric of industry size, firm size, profit rate, market concentration and geographical dispersion) is one explanatory factor as to why this policy of indemnification has existed in Canada for such a long period of time.

The Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ontario 2011) introduced a new requirement for archaeologists working in Ontario CRM to engage Aboriginal communities in response to growing criticisms from these communities over being excluded from the process. Considered vague by many involved in the industry, both archaeologists and Aboriginal community representatives have developed their own strategies for complying with these requirements and their own opinions on how what they do over the course of engagement does or does not fit into that policy. However, many Aboriginal concerns remain unaddressed in the current engagement process, leaving open the possibility that tension and conflict may arise in the field. While some archaeologists have been open to the recent changes in policy advocating for more transparency and collaboration, others have been resistant and continued to defend their position of authority over the management and interpretation of the archaeological record.