Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
save over 85%
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

First Nation elders stand on the front steps of the British Columbia Legislature during a protest against the Northern Gateway Pipeline project in Victoria, British Columbia October 22, 2012.

ANDY CLARK/Reuters

Ottawa and the provinces may be aligning on support for new oil pipelines, but the most problematic hurdle remains – staunch opposition among First Nations.

Native leaders in British Columbia and in Eastern Canada say they have no intentions of softening their resistance to projects that would ship bitumen to coastal waters through their territories, even as Alberta Premier Rachel Notley insists approvals are closer than they have been in years.

Stewart Phillip, Grand Chief of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), said his members have not budged from their position that pipelines through the province, including Enbridge Inc.'s Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan Canada's Trans Mountain Expansion, pose unacceptable oil-spill risks. The group has also lent its support to Eastern First Nations' stance against TransCanada Corp.'s Energy East project.

Story continues below advertisement

"Like everyone else, we're monitoring these touchy-feely public statements [from governments] that are floating around. But to my knowledge, there isn't an emerging groundswell of support in First Nations communities, or anything of that nature," Mr. Phillip said.

"Premier Clark and Premier Notley are talking to each other and [Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau is talking to Notley, but they don't want to talk to the indigenous people who are standing in opposition to these projects. They want to dismiss and ignore the opposition and the concerns that underline that opposition," he said.

Ms. Notley said this month she has softened her stance against the Northern Gateway line to Kitimat, B.C., from Alberta. She has also said her officials are discussing a potential deal with B.C. Premier Christy Clark's government that could result in British Columbia's support for a pipeline in exchange for Alberta buying hydroelectric power.

The Alberta Premier spoke to Mr. Trudeau and his cabinet in Kananaskis, Alta., this week about the economic importance to her province, and to the country, of getting Alberta crude to markets that would offer better returns to producers by shipping from the East and West coasts.

Mr. Trudeau said he supports the goal, but reiterated that it must be accomplished with support of First Nations. As it stands, many aboriginal groups are unmoved after years of attempts by governments and industry to convince them that the environment and their territorial rights will not suffer harmful effects, and in some cases have turned down offers of equity stakes in projects. Their opposition raises thorny legal and constitutional issues.

The $7.9-billion Northern Gateway project has a conditional approval from Ottawa, but has bogged down without B.C. First Nations support. Ms. Notley reportedly broached with the federal cabinet the idea of moving the terminus north to Prince Rupert, potentially a less controversial locale.

That won't change the opposition from the UBCIC or Coastal First Nations, a coalition of nine nations in the region, leaders said.

Story continues below advertisement

"I can't speak for First Nations broadly. All I know is our position continues to be opposed to Enbridge, whether it goes through Kitimat or it goes through Prince Rupert. At the end of the day, consultation by Enbridge will result in the same answer from us, which is, we oppose it," said Kelly Russ, Coastal First Nations' chairperson.

TransCanada is expected to file its application for the $15-billion Energy East pipeline to Saint John, N.B., from Hardisty, Alta., next month. It faces resistant First Nations along much of its 4,500-kilometre route. Regional chiefs from Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have all raised concerns and complain there has been inadequate consultation undertaken by the National Energy Board and federal government.

The leaders argue they have a special relationship with the land and must protect it. And they say they are already seeing the impacts of a changing climate from burning of fossil fuels, such as crude derived from the Alberta oil sands.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr extended the hearing deadline by six months to give more time for those talks, but some chiefs suggest there is no room for compromise.

"I would rather starve before I took any money [from TransCanada]," Serge Simon, grand chief of the Mohawk Nation in Kanesatake, Que., said in an interview. "My grandchildren would curse me for leaving them with that legacy."

TransCanada's route requires new pipeline to be built through Quebec, traversing the traditional territory of the Mohawks from Kanesatake and neighbouring Kahnawake. The two bands are opposing the project at the upcoming hearings of Quebec's energy regulator, and have applied for intervenor status with the National Energy Board.

Story continues below advertisement

In a written brief to the Quebec regulator, Kahnawake's environmental chief Clinton Phillips said the community has no confidence in TransCanada's ability to ensure the safety of the line.

(Editor's note. The original online story called the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) by an incorrect name.)

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the authors of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies