Campaign Blog
Beneath Enbridge’s PR Spin
Posted Dec 18
On December 2nd 61 First Nations with territory in the Fraser River watershed spoke up against Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline – the Save the Fraser Gathering of Nations Declaration. The same day the Nations published a full page ad in the Globe and Mail.
Enbridge was quick off the bat to respond, emailing its own commentary on the Save the Fraser Declaration to its email lists and posting it to its blog that same morning. Similarly, a few days later after MPs voted on December 7th in Ottawa to call on the government of Canada to pass legislation banning tanker traffic from BC’s North Coast, Enbridge was quick to respond with its own statement.
It would sure be nice if West Coast had the communications staff that Enbridge has at its disposal. However, we’ve been busy calling MPs and pressing them to vote, and the like. So we’ve only gotten around just now to writing our own response to Enbridge’s emails and blog posts.
Enbridge on the Fraser Declaration
Enbridge begins its message on the Fraser Declaration by noting that “some groups” have expressed their opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline. It then attempts to reassure its readers that the pipeline does (really) have the support of “a great many people, including First Nations and community members along the proposed route.”
EnbridgeMagnify.jpegWhile there will always be a diversity of opinion in any community, including First Nations, Enbridge is deliberately vague on specifics. There are now two declarations (the Save the Fraser Declaration and the Coastal First Nations Declaration to Ban Tar Sands Oil Tankers) signed by the vast majority of the Nations directly and indirectly impacted by the Enbridge pipeline. These Nations, as represented by their leadership, are on record as opposing the pipeline. By contrast, Enbridge has not identified a single Nation that supports its position.
(It is true that some Nations have agreed to participate in the environmental assessment of the process, and to accept participant funding to allow them to do so. This is NOT the same as supporting the project, or even endorsing the assessment process. Not one First Nation has gone on record as supporting Enbridge’s pipeline. It is also true that Enbridge has “protocol agreements” with a number of First Nations, which provide resources for those Nations to review the massive amount of data Enbridge has submitted in its application to build these pipelines. None of those Nations have indicated any support for the project itself.)
Enbridge’s use of the phrase “some groups”, without acknowledging the unique role of First Nations, is dismissive. It ignores the fact that these so-called “groups” are Nations that are able to establish Aboriginal Title and have the legal authority to make decisions about the use of their lands and waters. Enbridge’s statement ignores that these Nations have a constitutional right to be consulted and accommodated in relation to government decisions which impact their rights, and that the government has neglected to conduct even the most minimal consultations with many of the Nations downstream of the Enbridge pipeline’s proposed river crossings that have signed the Save the Fraser Declaration. West Coast has discussed these and similar risks for the Pipeline in our Legal Comment on the Coastal First Nations No Tankers Declaration.
Enbridge’s next line of defence is to assert that if there are unacceptable environmental risks posed by the current project, the Joint Review Panel that is currently assessing the project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act, will discover this and stop the project from proceeding. “Impartial, public regulatory processes like the Joint Review Panel are the way Canada decides whether or not projects like Northern Gateway can precede in an informed manner.”
Keep reading this blog post on the West Coast Environmental Law website…
