CDN NEWS | 
US NEWS 
By Resource Works
More News and Views From Resource Works Here
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s opening pitch on a proposed new oil pipeline from Alberta to the northwest BC Coast suggested First Nations could own 50% of the venture.
Smith speculated the pipeline might cost $20 billion and generate $2 billion a year in revenue. “Can you imagine the impact that would have on those communities in British and in Alberta? It’s extraordinary.”
In the Memorandum of Understanding between Ottawa and Alberta governments, she and Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke of “providing meaningful opportunity for Indigenous rights holders to participate in consultation processes and economic opportunities through Indigenous ownership, partnerships and benefits.”
Alberta formally committed in the MOU to this: “In consultation with Indigenous leadership, utilize the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation (AIOC) to help backstop Indigenous co-ownership of the bitumen pipeline project.”
And the feds said the pipeline project would “create unprecedented opportunities for Indigenous co-ownership, partnership, and economic benefits.”
Trans Mountain benefits in billions
Neither spoke explicitly of pipeline and related revenues that would come to their governments. But we note the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project estimates its benefits will include $46.7 billion in government revenues between 2012 and 2038.
The new pipeline idea has been blasted by some First Nations groups and communities.
Chiefs at the Dec. 2-4 meeting of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) in Ottawa voted unanimously to uphold the federal oil tanker ban off the northwestern BC coast and to support First Nations in BC in their opposition to a potential pipeline. The AFN represents some 600 chiefs.
Chief Donald Edgars of Old Massett Village in Haida Gwaii in BC said at the assembly: “I call on all chiefs to reject this dangerous precedent. I ask the chiefs to stand in support of coastal First Nations who firmly reject any pipelines that propose running through our territories.”
And some other nations and organizations have slammed the new pipeline idea.
A ‘more nuanced discourse’
But as Falice Chin wrote for The Hub: “Look a little closer, and a more nuanced discourse starts to emerge, suggesting a complex, but not impossible, path forward for any such pipeline to materialize.”
She continued: “For John Desjarlais, executive director of the Indigenous Resource Network, which advocates for Indigenous participation in oil and gas, the AFN’s resolution was less about the merits of a hypothetical new line and more about the lack of consultation in developing the MOU.
“We all understand it came quick, it came hard, and then there it was,” Desjarlais said on The Hub’s Alberta Edge podcast.
“There are probably nations that voted unanimously [in the AFN resolution] that are actually involved in ownership, pipeline, and procurement activities and so are not necessarily fundamentally against the idea, but more as a kind of political solidarity.”
And there has been some early Indigenous support for the pipeline project: The eight Métis Settlements of Alberta say they’re interested in purchasing a stake in the pipeline, and want to work with First Nations in BC who oppose the project sustainability. And theFort McKay Métis Nation in Alberta, said it “represents a significant opportunity” and is “something our Members can be proud to help lead.”
Meaningful consultation promised
The Ottawa-Alberta MoU said: “Canada and Alberta are committed to respecting Aboriginal and Treaty rights, engaging in early, consistent, and meaningful consultation with Indigenous Peoples, in a manner that promotes reconciliation, and respects the rights and cultures of Indigenous Peoples while advancing economic opportunities through Indigenous ownership and partnerships.”
And: “Canada and Alberta also agree to engage meaningfully with Indigenous Peoples in both Alberta and British Columbia on this project, with the involvement of the B.C. Government for engagement with B.C. First Nations.”
BC Premier David Eby has protested that his government was not involved or consulted in any way as Ottawa and Alberta worked on their MOU, although he says there were “secret conversations” with Saskatchewan.
Eby says the pipeline isn’t grounded in reality, threatens to be an ‘‘energy vampire’’ draining federal, Indigenous and provincial resources, and it threatens First Nations support for other projects.
Pipeline has popular support
An initial Abacus Data poll found a majority of Canadians, 55%, back such a pipeline, with opposition at 18%. Support is strongest in Alberta, where 74% approve. In BC support was 53%, while 30% opposed it.
Abacus Data also found that among BC NDP supporters 37% support the pipeline it while 47% oppose it. Abacus called that “the sharp fault running right through David Eby’s voting coalition.”
Earlier polling by Angus Reid found 59% of Canadians, including majorities in every region, support a new pipeline. And “in Eby’s province, support significantly outweighs opposition (56% to 33%).”
The call for a new pipeline includes a call for an end to (or changes in) to the 2019 federal ban on oil tankers in restricted northwest BC waters. Angus Reid polling showed 47% of Canadians believe the moratorium could be modified or repealed — if stronger safety measures are in place.
Different pipeline destinations?
Danielle Smith has named Prince Rupert or Kitimat as BC destinations for the new pipeline, to serve Asian buyers.
But while BC Premier Eby is hammering the idea of a pipeline to neither, he has hinted he would be open to a new oil pipeline to the Port of Vancouver.
His government has already indicated it could support more dredging of the harbour to enable bigger tankers to load at the Trans Mountain oil pipeline terminal at Burnaby. Right now, big Aframax-class tankers loading at the Westridge terminal can fill to only 70-80% of capacity due to the channel’s limited depth at the Second Narrows.
Bigger tankers, says Adrian Dix, BC minister of climate and energy, would in the end mean fewer tankers, and thus less risk of a spill.
(Tankers have been moving oil from that Westridge terminal since Jan. 1, 1956, with no spills.)
First Nations have no veto
The federal government’s 67-page guidelines on the duty to consult says First Nation, Métis and Inuit groups have “a reciprocal duty to participate in reasonable processes and Crown efforts to consult and accommodate them.”
But it adds that while these may end in no agreement, “they do not have a veto over the proposed project.”
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that First Nations do not have “a veto” over projects.
That court said in a 2004 decision, on a forestry-licence issue: “The government’s duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples and accommodate their interests is grounded in the principle of the honour of the Crown, which must be understood generously.”
Importantly, the court also held this: “This process does not give Aboriginal groups a veto over what can be done with land pending final proof of the claim. The Aboriginal ‘consent’ spoken of in Delgamuukw is appropriate only in cases of established rights, and then by no means in every case. Rather, what is required is a process of balancing interests, of give and take.”
(The Delgamuukw decision in 1997 included this: “There is always a duty of consultation and, in most cases, the duty will be significantly deeper than mere consultation.”)
100% consensus not required
Ellis Ross, former elected chief councillor of the Haisla Nation, former BC MLA, and now a Conservative MP (and his party’s shadow minister for environment and climate change) points out that for past pipelines governments did not say they needed “100-per-cent consensus from 100 per cent of the First Nations.”
And we see no government saying it now.
Ross supports a new pipeline, but suggests everyone settle down until there is an actual application for a pipeline, from a private proponent. “We’ll get a better idea of what this all means when the application is made.”
Today there is no industry proponent with a detailed pipeline proposal, and a specific route proposed. Until further notice, the Alberta government is the initial proponent of record who will push the project in 2026 to Ottawa’s Major Projects Office.
Will private investors then step up?
As well, such a pipeline to northern BC could not likely be built until 2030 or later and who knows what Asian oil need and demand will look like then?
There is no consensus on when oil demand will peak, but projections from the International Energy Agency have recently been notably eased and extended. It used to project that peak demand would come around 2030 but now suggests demand could continue to rise until at least 2050.
If that kind of demand continues, why would Canada not want to be a prime supplier?
Share This:
YOUNG PROFESSIONALS IN CALGARY: Pints & Politics with Federal MP Greg McLean – June 25th in Calgary: Talk Energy, Meet People, Make Connections – FREE – DETAILS HERE