Skip to main content

Elected Lax Kw’alaams council has spurned Pacific NorthWest LNG’s proposed site on Lelu Island for exporting liquefied natural gas.

Pacific NorthWest

Two groups of First Nations have issued duelling statements on where aboriginal people stand on oil-sands pipelines, highlighting opposing native viewpoints toward the energy industry.

Aboriginal leaders from Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba said on Wednesday that they are keen to form a national alliance to oppose pipelines from northern Alberta's oil sands.

The visiting delegation met in Vancouver with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to press the case for fighting proposals, such as TransCanada Corp.'s Energy East pipeline venture. Energy East is seeking to take unprocessed bitumen from Alberta to New Brunswick for export, although some of the raw commodity could potentially be refined in the East.

Story continues below advertisement

But a statement issued by a group of First Nations from northern British Columbia declared support for Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings Ltd., which envisages refining bitumen into finished products either in Alberta or northeast B.C., before piping them to the West Coast for export.

"Eagle Spirit's proposal also fairly compensates First Nations for the risks posed to our traditional territories," said a letter signed by 17 hereditary and elected chiefs, who sent their accord dated Tuesday to B.C. Premier Christy Clark, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and federal Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. Forty-eight Lax Kw'alaams tribal leaders and members also signed the letter.

With Eagle Spirit's plans, there are notable dissenting views. Lax Kw'alaams Mayor Garry Reece has said he opposes the pipeline that would enter his group's territory. Given that the elected Lax Kw'alaams council has spurned Pacific NorthWest LNG's proposed site on Lelu Island for exporting liquefied natural gas, it is hard to imagine widespread support for refined oil exports from a location near Lax Kw'alaams, he said.

A representative from Aquilini Investment Group, owner of the National Hockey League's Vancouver Canucks, said during a June news conference that Aquilini backs Eagle Spirit because the concept is to transport through a pipeline refined products instead of tar-like bitumen.

David Austin, an energy lawyer with Clark Wilson LLP in Vancouver, said uncertainty lingers over which projects First Nations might support or oppose.

"It is not clear what the First Nations' intentions are with respect to oil pipelines and oil product pipelines to tidewater. It will take some time to clear the air as to whether there is unanimous agreement on this point," he said in an interview on Wednesday.

Eagle Spirit's backers say they want to continue working with government and industry to study an "energy corridor" that would allow oil and natural gas pipelines to go across northern British Columbia.

Story continues below advertisement

By contrast, chiefs from Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba are warning about the environmental risks posed by energy pipelines, especially any originating from Alberta's oil sands.

"All of these pipeline struggles across Canada are connected," Grand Chief Derek Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs said in a statement. "Even if the pipeline does not burst on your territory or contaminate your sacred waters – even if the pipeline is built on the other side of Canada – we will all suffer the climate-change effects from increased tar-sands production."

Chief Arnold Gardner of the Eagle Lake First Nation from Treaty 3 in Ontario said he is worried about further erosion of aboriginal traditions and increased pollution. "It is pure madness," he said in a joint release with Mr. Nepinak and Grand Chief Serge Simon of the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake in Quebec.

In a resolution, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs pledged to support the three leaders in their efforts to challenge Energy East.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Comments

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:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • 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

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

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.
Cannabis pro newsletter