Transcript Aboriginal Title and the Politics of a Pipeline 2013 BC

Pipeline Politics in the West
From Coal Trains to Classrooms Workshop
North Seattle Community College
June 27, 2013
David A. Rossiter, Huxley College of the
Environment, WWU
Context I – Political Economy
• PM Harper’s stated (2006) aim for Canada to
be an “Energy Superpower”
• Reversion to staples dominated economy
• Retreat from international climate change
mitigation efforts
• Scramble to secure “world price” and get
ahead of “bitumen bubble”
Source: ags.gov.ab.ca
Mining the Sands
Processing the Sands
In-Situ Production
Source: treehugger.com
Source: digitaljournal.com
Source: blog.skytruth.org
The Sands
Source: eoearth.org
Source: blogs.nicholas.duke.edu
Enbridge’s Proposal
• Application – May 2010
• Route – 1,177 km pipeline
through cordillera +
shipping through fjords
• Capacity – 500,000 barrels
of “dilbit” / day
– Twinned
Source: Sierra Club
• Cost - $5.5 billion CAD
Context II – “The Land Question”
• BC largely untreatied, unceded
• Legal recognition of aboriginal title
– Royal Proclamation 1763
– Calder Decision 1973
– Constitution Act 1982
– Delgamuukw Decision 1997
– Haida Decision 2004
– Wilson (Tsilhqot’in) Decision 2007
BC’s Disrupted Resource Economy
• Uncertainty = lack of investment
– Forests, minerals, energy
• 2002 referendum
• 2009 Recognition and Reconciliation Act;
“New Relationship”
• Presently – “Unstable Properties”
Contexts Collide
• Joint Review Panel initiated by NEB Jan 2012
– Summer 2012: visibility and opposition increase
• First Nations’ near universal opposition
– ie. March 2010: Coastal First Nations declaration
banning supertankers
• Environmentalists raise alarm
• Rising provincial uncertainty
– BC’s search for “better deal” / June 2013… “NO”
Fantastic Topographies: Enbridge
• Pipeline as national project
– “(a)lthough the net benefits to the Canadian oil
industry resulting from the Project are very large,
total benefits flowing to all Canadians are greater”
(Northern Gateway application, 2010).
• “It’s a path” – Hill and Knowlton’s contribution
Constraining Stakeholders
• Northern Gateway is committed to meaningful and
open discussion with stakeholders, including
communities and private landowners, and participating
Aboriginal groups... Public consultation is an integral
component of the Project because of NG’s belief that
the Project can be improved by gaining local
knowledge, insight and recommendations... NG
encourages stakeholders and participating Aboriginal
groups to share their thoughts and help identify
environmental, economic and social opportunities for
communities throughout the life of the Project.
• Northern Gateway application, 2010
A Place for First Nations?
• Northern Gateway will set aside scopes of
work from major contractor bid packages and
provide sole-sourcing opportunities to
qualified Aboriginal businesses and joint
venture companies who meet the required
safety qualifications and offer regionally
competitive pricing
• Northern Gateway application, 2010
Fantastic Topographies: Gov’t of
Canada
• PM Harper and Minister Oliver:
– activist opposition “radical”, “foreign”, “terrorist”
• ie. Tides Foundation
• punitive measures through tax code
– support for project as “nation building”
• abstracting local place to national space
• Conservative strategist Rick Anderson:
– “Would we be able to build Canada’s transcontinental
railroad if it had to go through today’s process? Does
anybody today regret that we built it?’’ (2013)
Aboriginal Countertopographies
• Save the Fraser Declaration Nov. 2010:
– “We have inhabited and governed our territories within
the Fraser watershed, according to our laws and traditions,
since time immemorial. Our relationship with the
watershed is ancient and profound, and our inherent Title
and rights and legal authority over these lands and waters
have never been relinquished through treaty or war.”“This
project...and the federal process to approve it, violate our
laws, traditions, values and our inherent rights as
Indigenous Peoples under international law. We are united
to exercise our inherent Title, Rights, and responsibility….”
» St’at’imc Chiefs and Yinka Dene Alliance (Nadleh Whut’en, Saik’uz,
Takla Lake, Nak’azdli, Wet’suwet’en and Tlazt’en Nations)
Conclusions
• Reduction of debate to environment vs.
economy astonishing given:
– Centrality of land claims to BC politics
– Consistent, near unanimous voicing of First
Nation’s territorial claims at hearings and beyond
• At root, issue is not “environmental” or
“economic” but rather one of relations among
people, place, and power
• Hearings (and other forums) as sites of
opposing “wills to power”