07) NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE: A MODERN EPISODE OF IMPERIALISM

By Roy Lynn Piepenburg, Edmonton

     In January, a consultation process was begun by the Canadian government regarding the planned building of the Northern Gateway Pipeline, which would run from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, B.C. The media have reported the overwhelming opposition of affected First Nations to the project along that route. Enbridge Corporation, the promoters of the pipeline, have tried to placate that opposition by offering First Nations business and employment development opportunities during the construction phase.

     On March 2, the QMI Agency reported that 60 Alberta mayors, including Mayor Stephen Mandell of Edmonton, had formed a coalition called the Capital Region Board Pipeline Linkages Strategy Committee, a group aimed at promoting and advocating global expansion of the Alberta oil sands. They are so much like Frank Oliver and Richard Secord, exploiters and colonists, that operated in the Edmonton area 1880‑90. They must be reminded that their position is totally in conflict with numerous First Nations that legitimately object to the project.

     When the Driftpile First Nation (Treaty 8 area of northern Alberta) presented to the three‑member panel in late January, their message was clearly resonated. The female Chief and elders testified that oil, gas and logging operations in their area had already had a damaging effect on their traditional hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering activities. They pleaded to the panel, saying the developer must do everything possible not to worsen their social and economic situation. No assurances could be immediately given.

     There is considerable Canadian political history linked to this subject. Recall that in the 1970s a Mackenzie Valley pipeline was under consideration. The Dene and Métis people who lived along that great river expressed broad opposition to the project for mainly two reasons: a) they could foresee serious potential environmental damage in the future, and b) the "aboriginal title" matter of the people had not been resolved. Justice Thomas Berger held extensive consultation meetings and, in the end, concurred with the people in saying the project should be shelved for legitimate reasons. There is a similarity between this scenario and what has unfolded in Alberta and B.C. today.

     The British Crown decreed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that Indian lands in North America could only be purchased from the First Nations with the permission of the government. This was to prevent exploitation of the indigenous peoples. A century later, after the confederation of Canada, the Crown began negotiating numbered Indian treaties in what is now parts of the North West Territories, the prairies, including Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and part of northeastern British Columbia. The vast region of central western British Columbia is the home of First Nations, almost all of whom have not entered into treaties with the federal Crown.

     In 1969, the Trudeau government, in its White Paper on Indian Policy, intended to abolish Indian status and reserves, leading to absolute assimilation of the people. A strong public reaction resulted in the reversal of that policy. Next, in 1973, in a classic case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unequivocally that First Nations did hold "aboriginal title" to the land they occupied. They were seen as in possession of the land and had the right to retain it. Corporations ‑ mining companies, for example - are not satisfied with that aspect of the political and economic order. When the Canadian Constitution was repatriated from Britain in April 1982, Sections 25 and 35, pertaining to the legitimate treaty and aboriginal rights of Indian, Métis and Inuit people, were inserted into it. To ignore that profound reality, will always be a violation of fundamental democracy in this country.

     The federal, Alberta and British Columbia governments are all aware of the legitimacy of the "aboriginal title" right, but in the case of the Northern Gateway pipeline, they prefer to deflect that historic matter. Acting like colonizers of the past four centuries or so, they have a preference for following a policy of "eminent domain," a manner to usurp the true land rights of indigenous people. That is the precise policy that the ill‑informed 60 mayors in Alberta want to steadfastly follow.

     So, what strategy is followed? It's cunning, it sometimes works, but it is not politically or morally correct. The grand design is to induce First Nations (who are in the way, or vocal opponents) to subscribe to the project, while being promised economic benefits in the short‑term. That's a tonic that would presumably make First Nations forget about their "aboriginal title." Remember that 38 years have passed since the momentous S.C.C. decision on that title, and Canada and British Columbia have been incredibly slow and ineffective in settling these land title issues.

     Governments, corporate citizens and the 60 mayors have an obligation to respect the historic, legal rights of First Nations pertaining to lands and resources. Now is as good a time as any to demonstrate action far superior to exploitative practices and expedience associated with colonization.

(The above article is from the April 1-15, 2012, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $30/year, or $15 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $45 US per year; other overseas readers - $45 US or $50 CDN per year. Send to People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, BC, V5L 3J1.)