The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project

Aboriginal self-government is a long standing issue that continues to be a struggle for the First Nations People. To truly understand the scope of Aboriginal self-government within First Nations communities, more effort is needed to understand the legislative system that runs Canada. This issue of self-governance has been very destructive in First Nations communities. After signing the Treaties, First Nations People was stripped of their livelihood and from that point on to abide by the Dominion of Canadas legislative policies. One current issue that would be a perfect example is the Nisga People in British Columbia who is no longer under the protection of the

Throughout history, the Native people of North America and the Europeans have continually had arguments and disputes over land. To this day there are still issues trying to be resolved. Twenty years ago, the beginning of one of the most violent and intense land disputes in present day Canada occurred. This event is now referred to as the Oka Crisis, named after the town Oka in Quebec. This crisis caused a confrontation involving the Quebec provincial police, the Canadian armed forces and the Mohawk people.1 The stand that the Mohawk people took in the town of Oka became a major revelation for the aboriginal people spreading awareness of aboriginal rights across Canada.

Second, Canada’s First Nations’ plight can be improved through self-governance. According to Pocklington, “For several years, Canadian aboriginal leaders have been demanding the recognition of a right of Native self-determination and thereby, for the aboriginal collectivities that choose it a right of self-government” (102). Aboriginal self-governance is a controversial issue in Canada. Before researching the issue I believed that self-governance would deter national unity, after further investigation, I presently believe that the claim for Aboriginal self-governance is justifiable. Although, according to Blakeney, “It will be a real challenge to make effective

Political Scientists, Thomas Flanagan and Roger Townshend explain the key to the big question: “Can a Native State Exist Within a Canadian State?” in the readings: “The Case for Native Sovereignty” and “Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?”. The essay will outline and provide evidence to both sides, whether there could or could not exist a Native State in Canada. The document will argue that Natives are not organized enough to form their own government. Throughout the decades, Natives have agonized many savageries at the hands of the European settlers. The essay will take Flanagan’s side with the belief that Natives should not be sovereign, using the textbooks “Principles of Comparative Politics”, and

The extraction of the bitumen rich tar sands usually entails heating the oil while in the ground so that it may be pumped up to the surface which can be dangerous and cause harm to the surrounding area. The refining of the oil can be even more dangerous to the environment because the tar sands requires a special process of refining that would create copious amounts of greenhouse gases. Many opposing the pipeline also believe that the pipeline would not be as safe as supporters say it would be. Looking at the Keystone 1 Pipeline, the “previous pipeline was said to be safe but leaked much more than anyone anticipated. ‘In its first year, the pipeline leaked 14 times, with the largest spill exceeding 21,000 gallons’” (Swift). TransCanada claimed that the first pipeline would be safe and that it would not leak for many years, yet the pipe still leaked and caused major damage to the surrounding area. This left those affected, as well as other concerned Americans, to wonder why they should trust the company with building another pipeline and why the company’s promises should be trusted again. Environmentalists and those against the Keystone XL Pipeline “also object

The Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project has brought forth many conflicting arguments, thus resulting in some parties being for it and some against it. I believe however, the risks are far greater than the rewards. The controversies surrounding the oil pipeline have brought up significant reports regarding environmental safety and concern with also safety and concern of the public. Due to the fact that presently, there is one operational pipeline running from Alberta to the Pacific Coast, I believe the introduction of a new pipeline would have disastrous consequences if something were to happen whether being an oil spill or a fire. The NEB (National Energy Board) failed to mention significant situations in which this pipeline could significantly

“In a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources, and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy, and peace (Nobel Peace Prize Medalist Maathai 2004).” A Canadian oil company that goes by TransCanada hopes to build an oil pipeline that would extend an enormous 1,200 miles onto an already gargantuan 2,600 mile long pipeline. Keystone XL represents just under a third of the entire Keystone project, and every other piece of pipe has been built and laid out. In fact, TransCanada 's pipeline system is already shipping hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil from the Canadian oil sands across the U.S. border -- and into Illinois (Diamond). The current proposal would take the pipeline on a journey all the way through to Texas. Extracting crude oil from oil sands would be enormously problematic for the environment as it causes the pumping of about 17% more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than standard crude oil extraction. Tar sand oil has levels of carbon dioxide emissions that are three to four times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive removal and refining processes (Friends of the Earth). The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would stimulate employment, the effects would be temporary and the whole scheme would produce a negative long term outcome. The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has caused

Thomas Flanagan disapproves the idea of Native sovereignty ever coexisting with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan identifies the flaws in Townshend’s arguments referring to them as a theoretical approach and not a practical approach. It is true that the sharing of jurisdictional power is the essence of the Canadian state but this cannot apply to the Aboriginals of Canada. One reason a third level of government cannot work in Canada is “In the 10 provinces, Canada has over six hundred Indian bands living on more than 2200 reserves, plus hundreds of thousands of Métis and non-status Indians who do not possess reserves,” (Flanagan 44). Flanagan draws the fact that “No one has proposed a workable mechanism by which this far-flung archipelago could

As stated throughout this piece, First Nations people and their land is in danger if the Northern Gateway Pipeline is built. If given a larger amount of money, the Coastal First Nations would be capable of defending their lands and reviewing the Enbridge plans. Unfortunately this has not happened and all we can do is hope for the best.

The next major environmental issue of the pipeline is the indigenous populations. “Northern Alberta’s, where the tar sands oil comes from, people are coming under attack because of their operation of the tar sands in their livelihoods and cultural traditions.”5 Other people affected by this project are the people who live in communities downstream from the tailing ponds, “they have seen spikes in rates of rare cancers, renal failure, lupus, and hyperthyroidism.” “In the lakeside village of Fort Chipewyan, for example, one hundred of the town’s one thousand-two hundred residents have died from cancer.”5 So not only will this pipeline affect the people living around it but it will also affect the people working on it and living around the tailing ponds, wherever those may be located. With it traversing six U.S. states that means a lot of people could get sick and even die from a project that has so many issues with it before it’s even began to be used for its intended purpose.

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018, a town hall meeting was held at AREA to determine whether or not to advance and increase the production of oil sands and the Northern Gateway Pipeline project. Nine groups attended with various insights regarding the oil sands production and the Northern Gateway pipeline project.

When talking about courage, both sides show it by going against what the other is for. By that I mean the tribes in Sioux are against the pipeline and speaking up even though it could cause them to be arrested or injured. While the people for the pipeline are fighting for their belief in the pipeline, opening up themselves to ridicule and backlash for their views. They both are showing courage within their actions by fighting for their way.

In 1953, the Trans Mountain Pipeline was built to transport oil products from Edmonton, Alberta to Burnaby, British Columbia and Washington State, USA. The 1,147 kilometer pipeline was created to send light crude oil and refined oil products to the west coast to be consumed or exported. Currently, the Trans Mountain Pipeline has the capacity of sending 300,000 barrels per day though its system [1]. The system has also been upgraded to be able to transport heavy crude oils; though at a much slower rate than lighter products [2].

Over the past years, Canadian courts have repeatedly urged that aboriginal title conflicts should be resolved through negotiation, rather than litigation. The primary reason being that litigation is costly and time-consuming. For example, the decision for the Delgamuukw case took a duration of thirteen years. Furthermore, litigations that deal with the issue of aboriginal rights and title are “generally narrowly focused” and “ultimately leaves the question [posed about] how aboriginal rights and title apply unwarned.” For instance, the courts of Canada repeatedly failed to come up with a clear definition on the legal scope of Aboriginal rights despite the fact that they have several opportunities to do so. The Delgamuuku case clearly illustrates this when the Court “did not define how aboriginal title applied for the First Nations involved.” Instead, the Court came to the conclusion that a new trial was required, which ultimately will be more expensive and take longer.

From the moment of organized European appearances in North America, negotiation has been a central characteristic of relationships between aboriginal residents and newcomers. It is a characteristic that has been evident in treaty-making throughout Canada for more than three hundred years and it continues to be the order of the day in modern treaties, claims and agreements being negotiated with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis across in Canada. 1