Will The Northern Gateway Pipeline Proposal Go Forward?

Originally Published in the ECOreport 

With a decision imminent, a group of prominent Canadian politicians and businessmen are calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to approve the Northern Gateway pipeline project. The Premier’s of Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as three former Conservative cabinet ministers, have joined with the heads of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Chamber of Commerce and B.C. Chamber of Commerce to say this is “a project that’s right for our time.” Will the Northern Gateway Pipeline Proposal go Forward?

 Kitimat, BC - Shawn , CC by SA 2.0
Kitimat, BC – Shawn , CC by SA 2.0

Despite her obvious sympathy with the fossil fuel industry, Premier Christy Clark’s signature is not among them. It has been more than a year since Clark told reporters that the people of British Columbia must approve this project. Any attempt to proceed without that consent, “would be a national political crisis. Whether or not people supported the pipeline, they would band together to fight the federal government if they decided to intrude into British Columbia without our consent.”

To gain that consent, Premier Clark laid out five conditions that must be met.

Technically speaking, the Federal Government could complete the first condition: “successful completion of the environmental review process.” In their press release, the BC government defined this as “a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel and subsequent approval by federal cabinet that the project proceed.”

However at last count there were 10 lawsuits suggesting the environmental review was flawed. Some believe the humpback whale was removed from the threatened species list so that the review panel would not have to explain why it refused to have a recovery strategy for the Whales included in the record.

As the Globe and Mail pointed out this morning, “the panel did not explain which evidence it relied on and which it rejected. For all we know, its report could have been written before the hearings even opened. This is hardly the transparent and accountable process Canadians expect, and are legally entitled to.”

There is no “World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline” (condition two) or corresponding system for land spills (condition three).

It is also becoming increasingly clear that the majority of British Columbians are opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline. That includes many of the First nations whose Aboriginal and treaty rights need to be addressed (condition four).

Enbridge claims they have signed agreements with 60% of the First Nations along the route.

 The May 10 demonstration in Vancouver  - Courtesy Jens Wieting, Sierra Club BC
The May 10 demonstration in Vancouver – Courtesy Jens Wieting, Sierra Club BC

This does not include the Yinka Dene Alliance, who occupy 25% of the land the pipeline would cross.

On their website it says, “The Yinka Dene Alliance of First Nations is committed to using all lawful means to stop this devastating project from ever being built through our territories, and has joined with other First Nations to create a powerful and unbroken wall of opposition.”

“The smart thing for the Government to do is respect First Nations and reject Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project,” a spokesperson said this afternoon. “We hold firm, and again we say by all legal means necessary!”

Nor does Enbridge appear to have the consent of the Haisla First Nation, who claim the proposed Kitimat terminal as part of their ancestral territory.

Will Stephen Harper’s government proceed with the pipeline anyway?

“It would be politically wise for the Canadian Cabinet of Ministers (who hold the power over the final decision) to reject the Northern Gateway Pipeline because, quite simply, we are at a point where they are under enormous scrutiny,” said Eoin Madden, Climate Campaigner for the Wilderness Committee.

“Northern Gateway has garnered massive interest from media and the public, and we are in the long slide towards the 2015 federal elections. Canadians are looking for leadership on what the US President rightly calls the challenge of our generation: climate change. The polls are clear: British Columbians do not want this crazy destructive project to proceed. First Nations, via the Federal and Provincial Courts, hold the keys on whether the pipeline can be built legally. They have spoken very clearly: no means NO! Given that backdrop, an approval means short-term political pain for a shot at glory in the future. I expect a decision to approve the pipeline with onerous conditions (a type of delay), an outright delay on the final decision, or an outright rejection of the proposal.”

The same arguments apply to Clark’s government.  Forcing this pipeline on British Columbians would most likely have negative political repercussions for years to come.

4 thoughts on “Will The Northern Gateway Pipeline Proposal Go Forward?”

  1. David E.H. Smith

    Nature; How Cultures & Traditions can be used to try &
    explain Bullying & Info Deprivation to Protect the Power of

    reading about the fears of retaliation of the Native Women’s Assoc.
    of Canada (NWAC) by powerful chiefs & councils for questioning &
    improving the chiefs/councils plans & decisions, etc., it has
    been suggested that it might be easier to minimize any potential for
    negative “stereo typing” of Native chiefs & their councils

    the most vulnerable Native community members (95% – 99% of the
    members of Native communities),

    non Native funders of Native communities


    et al,

    pointing out once again, but, with greater emphasis, that the most
    vulnerable community members, both; Native & non Native, are
    slowly & painfully becoming aware of the threat that is posed to
    the bullying, information depriving despots (Death-Pots) by way of
    the sharing of the relevant information, in forums that have
    eliminated the fear of retaliation.

    therefore, in regard to the recent, June 5, 2014, comments by the
    grand chief of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians Gordon
    Peters about negative “stereotypes”, it has also been suggested
    that Mr. Peters needn’t be concerned as Native & non Native
    Canadians have made:

    1) the
    distinctions between the bullying despots & the most vulnerable
    community members
    2) the distinctions between those
    chiefs & councils that want/need their community members to start
    getting the relevant information, including the information &
    questions in The WAD Accord & its Compensation

    chiefs & councils who need to keep their community members in the
    dark in order to supplicate the most “vulnerables” to
    limited beliefs & “hopes”

    maintain, &/or, enhance their abusive powers.

    Mr. Peters can take some solace in knowing that he may be able to
    learn more about which bullying, information depriving despots are
    presently being “de-stereotyped”.

    of the chiefs & councils may even graciously admit that some of
    the more abusive aspects of human nature are being used &
    rationalized by despots by claims that the
    abuse of their power is based upon tradition, &/or,
    culture that excludes the comprehension of the abuses by non Natives.
    Doesn’t this suggest that unless you are in the position of being
    able to be bullied, etc., then you are incapable of, &/or, should
    be prohibited from helping those who are being bullied by providing
    the information & safe forums for the discussion, sharing,
    improving information, plans, etc. before they become a decision that
    are acted upon & the human costs are added up? There are many
    examples of this “helping” precedent in other human communities
    around the globe.

    potential sponsors of this “helping process” understand the
    importance of identifying, investigating, prosecuting & enforcing
    the prevention of the abusers from continuing their abuse. Similarly,
    the potential sponsors can assist the most vulnerable community
    members to ascertain the amount of compensation they are due for
    previous abuse. These sponsors who are being considered have also
    observed & understand that the political abuse of the RCMP is
    causing a great deal of morale problems within the non union service
    (see; Paul Palango; “Dispersing the Fog”). Therefore, it is for
    the aforementioned reasons that the potential sponsers would like to
    be considered to help the most vulnerable community members eliminate
    their fears & help the most vulnerable develop the natural
    resources that are accessed by way of the community’s lands. These
    are also the lands that have already been secretly “negotiated”,
    &/or, are in the process of being secretly “negotiated”
    within Canada by way of the despots & without the full due
    diligence sharing of the information with the most vulnerable
    community members.

    are several reasons why some of these foreign corporate sponsors
    might be considered. They are:

    basically, to understand & perhaps prevent bullying despots from
    making secret arrangements whereby,

    exchange for:

    the despots’ cooperation to endorse the last minute “new”
    &”improved” environmental & safety standards, etc. for
    their projects that may be derived from the C – CI Treaty, the EU –
    Canada CET Agreement, the TP Partnership, et al


    the “protection” provided by the bullies for the potential
    foreign participants/ investors from the most vulnerable community

    potential foreign participants/investors may exclusively &
    secretly reward the bullies financially & thereby, further
    legitimize the bullies power & control by way the bullies’
    mechanisms of fear.

    2) some of the potential foreign
    participants are as disgusted with the “unethical” &
    “inhumane” arrangements of corporate Canada & their
    representatives in the government of Canada as many Native & non
    Native Canadians, et al, are. One potential participant said:

    not that we are racist when it comes to dealing with Canadians,

    just that we can’t stand the way that you suck up to us”.

    is to say; while corporate Canada & its political representatives
    “suck up” to the “coveted” foreign investor, the “Canadians”
    also “shi…”, uh, “purge down”. It may be regrettable that
    this bullying is just part of human nature?

    job is to identify & to minimize, &/or, eliminate it.

    while the most vulnerable Native community members may be looking for
    a much “better” deal that protects their rights to live &
    express themselves in the absence of fear, isn’t it reasonable to
    assume that they can also expect to start getting the aforementioned
    relevant information for their humble consideration, including The
    Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord?

    does the “much better deal” by way of these “foreign”
    countries include:

    the elimination of the bullying by the information depriving despots,


    enabling the employment opportunities that can equal those non Native
    Canadians & then use the “better deal” to shrink the
    financial disparity between:

    95% – 99% of the communities’ most vulnerable members


    1% – 5% of the existing political & financial bullies, both;
    Native & non Native?


    et al.

    aren’t the above reasons why The W.A.D. Accord (aka; The
    Australian Question) was developed in the first place? That is to
    say, The Accord was developed in order to ensure that the most
    vulnerable community members are getting the relevant information &
    are getting the opportunity to consider, to discuss, to ask questions
    about it, to improve, to create alternatives, to reject, etc., the
    information & questions in The Accord, including The Compensation
    that is embodied in it?

    way of closing, now that Mr. Peters’ concerns about negative
    stereotyping have been laid to rest, the most vulnerable community
    members, et al, might also consider some of the other areas of
    information that they are continuing to be deprived of that can be,
    &/or, are being abused by the the aforementioned bullies in order
    to strengthen their, the bullies’, “legitimacy” besides:

    the on going land settlements & treaty rights negotiations,

    the development of Aboriginal self-governance


    et al?

    finally, how do you, the readers in North America, China, the
    European Union, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, think that these
    human nature issues can be redressed by The WAD Accord?

    look forward to reading about your questions, your comments, your
    improvements, etc., regarding the above & the information listed


    E.H. Smith





    more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human
    (Nature) Rights & Economics in the C-CI Treaty, the CET
    Agreement, TP Partnership, et al, via The W.A.D. Accord,

    Facebook; “David Smith, Sidney, BC”,


    “David E.H. Smith” to access RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS &


  2. It will be built , and the First Nations will have an opportunity for prosperity . Thousands of people need to be trained to handle a spill on land or sea . First nation leaders are also looking at worst case scenarios , if their fishing grounds are ruined . Like everything else , follow the money .

  3. So – every time you fill up your vehicle with gasoline – you are financing terrorism by sending money to the middle east

    It is all trade offs.

    If you do not want the pipeline then you obviously do not want the welfare money sent to the indians.

  4. Brent Siddons

    “The polls are clear: British Columbians do not want this crazy destructive project to proceed.” You lie only 30% are opposed, the balanced are either undecided or in favour. A classic example of how activists misinform in order to advance their crusade.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top