March 28, 2018
Alberta鈥檚 shameful pipeline politics ignores First Nations
Over the past few years, I have listened with interest to debates over moving Alberta-sourced natural resources to tidewater for export. Plans have come and, sometimes, gone.
One plan that attracts heated responses is Kinder Morgan鈥檚 . If implemented, it would see the 鈥渢winning鈥 of a pipeline running between Edmonton, Alberta and Burnaby, British Columbia.
Provincial governments that should be good neighbours and political allies seem like anything but these days.
Alberta鈥檚 NDP government argues that moving oilsands bitumen toward new markets is essential to maintain energy sector jobs and Canada鈥檚 economy. In its view, B.C. is violating Canadian law in obstructing a federally approved plan. Details on its perspective, and calls to action for Albertans, are on its web page.
Across the provincial border, B.C.鈥檚 NDP government appealed the National Energy Board鈥檚 approval of the project. It argued that the NEB鈥檚 ruling over-steps 鈥.鈥
In my own analysis, I have identified three key problems with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley鈥檚 analysis that demand attention.
Risks don鈥檛 end where the pipeline does
First, Notley focuses on the pipeline as if movement of diluted bitumen would end when the pipeline did.
The pipeline itself is a big piece but only one piece of the puzzle here.
Pipelines might be safer and more efficient than other overland transportation options. That does not mean that an expanded pipeline running through an active earthquake zone would not leak.
In fact, from its beginnings in 1961 to early 2017, the existing Trans Mountain pipeline had .
The heightened risks accompanying an expanded pipeline would not end at the pipeline terminus. Beyond the pipeline are the ships that would transport diluted bitumen from Burnaby to be refined elsewhere before becoming available to consumers.
Expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline would mean increasing the number and size of ships entering and moving across B.C. coastal waters. It would mean increasing marine traffic through waterways that are both deep and narrow, with a
Those factors make transit tricky, potential damage extensive and unpredictable, and a post-spill cleanup of bitumen all but impossible.
鈥淥rdinary鈥 people are affected
Second, Notley frames opposition to Trans Mountain as a war on working people. She speaks about protecting 鈥.鈥 Those jobs are based in the energy sector across Canada, with only a portion of them in Alberta.
Rachel Notley is seen after Justin Trudeau approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
What the premier misses is the tens of thousands of jobs that employ B.C. residents in sectors and . These sectors are especially vulnerable to damage caused by leaks or spills.
That explains why First Nations and other communities alongside river and ocean waters are so opposed to this project.
In B.C., fishing involves more than commercial fisheries. It is connected as well to tourism, recreation and Indigenous cultures. Good jobs are important for all people, working in all places and sectors.
Furthermore, not all people are workers. Children and elders, as well as workers 鈥 all 鈥渙rdinary鈥 people 鈥 have the right to protect 鈥.鈥 People are more than their jobs, and there is more at stake here than jobs.
What about First Nations?
Third, Notley鈥檚 argument frames the dispute as not just between citizens but between governments, specifically the B.C. and Canadian governments.
Even if First Nations whose territories would be crossed by the expanded pipeline , that does not mean that other Nations do not have a legitimate say in decision-making.
Indigenous opposition to this proposal involves leaders of several First Nations whose territories, cultural practices and well-being are threatened by this project.
Some of these Nations have joined together to against not only the expansion but also the . Granted, a number of First Nations support the project, but leaders of other Nations that would face particularly high risks have laid out their case against it. Their response involves both government-to-government action and social activism.
In my scholarship on critical consumption that recognizes the costs and dangers of unbridled consumerism, I recognize , whether activists or spectators.
My colleague Gregory Lowan-Trudeau, an Indigenous environmental education scholar, points out that Indigenous environmental activism offers lessons to all Canadians about 鈥.鈥
As another Indigenous scholar, Roxanne Ornelas, points out, Canada was a late signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
More troubling is the reality that, in current Canadian legal frameworks and processes, Indigenous peoples can remain 鈥.鈥 Even engaging with First Nations, as Kinder Morgan has done, does not ensure that all First Nations鈥 concerns are heard and considered seriously.
Harms reconciliation efforts
Premier Notley can downplay or disregard social activism but, in identifying the governments involved in this issue, any analysis needs to include First Nations governments. Overlooking their role flies in the face of reconciliation between Indigenous and settler peoples, supposedly a top priority for all levels of government and all Canadians.
The Alberta government has gone so far as to , as well as environmental organizations and some B.C. municipalities. In her statements, Notley routinely ignores the fact that she is opposing those First Nations governments.
People might disagree over priorities and strategies, but an analysis that neglects the issues outlined above is duplicitous and cynical 鈥 exactly what we do not need to sustain a meaningful democracy and an equitable society.