BACKGROUND
History is not linear. Many pipelines have been built with negative consequences for adjacent communities, but an obvious answer for why these downtrodden aboriginal groups’ rights continue to be trampled upon by the powers that be remains elusive. When analyzing the threats faced by the Beaver Lake Cree nation, an historical foundation is integral; without the benefit of case studies, discerning the optimal methods that must be employed in order to obviate the predicament faced by the BLC nation, or at least seek to mitigate the ecological, psychological, and logistical problems that the Tar Sands projects have caused, would be an impossible feat. Unfortunately, there have been a series of developments over time that mirror many of the elements of this case, and many without the beneficial outcome of the Tsilhqot’in First Nation v. British Columbia case in 2007—the existence of Treaty No. 6 and the ostensible protection that these groups should derive from it notwithstanding.
From the Berger Commission (1974-1977)—which led to the first pipleline attempt never being built—to the original James Bay pipeline agreement with the Northern Québec Agreement in 1975—the first major land cession deal signed in the early twentieth century and worth $225 million in concessions to the Inuit and Cree groups in exchange for land on which the provincial government could build hydroelectric dams—onward, issues surrounding pipeline projects have been ubiquitous. The James Bay Project had its detractors, and for good reason: the project flooded 11,500 km of wilderness land owned by Inuit and Cree people, and lead to massive mercury contamination in fish, and served as the catalyst for the death of an estimated 10,000 caribou. Since then, phase two of the James Bay project has been underway since 1989 and the aboriginal groups were early opponents, eventually reaching an agreement in 2002 and 2004 respectively, allowing it to be conditionally built, as well as the proposed and repeatedly postponed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines project.
In each of these cases, the rights of aboriginal groups have been rendered peripheral concerns in light of the monetary benefits companies would reap upon providing readily accessible oil on a massive scale. What can be done to ensure that history does not repeat itself?
OBJECTIVES
Directing Questions:
• What elements of these previous pipeline-related cases can be dredged up and utilized in a precedential fashion in order to buttress the case of the BLC nation?
• How can Treaty No. 6 be adequately championed to a degree in which it provides ammunition for the BLC to fight their case?
• Can the mistakes made in the past provide insight regarding the best way for the BLC nation to negotiate their cause?
• Will it be possible for the BLC to leverage the rampant trampling aboriginal groups’ rights in the past as a way to highlight what will happen to their own quality of life if the project does indeed move forward?
• What is the most effective way to shed light on this issue?
• Can civil society be utilized? Are there NGOs willing to take up this cause? If so, how can their efforts be operationalized in order to best benefit the BLC nation?
• If the material support from NGOs is not there, are there any journalists or activist groups who specialize in cases such as this? If so, how can they be employed to further the BLC nation’s cause?
GOALS
• Discern what efforts had worked and failed during similarly intrusive and destructive measures to build pipelines in the past in order to provide a substantive foundation for the BLC nation to move forward in preserving their way of life under a legally recognized framework.
• Deconstruct the circumstances surrounding these previous projects ex-ante to deduce the most efficacious manner through which the BLC can protect their rights.
• Highlight the environmental impact of these projects, when work was underway and ex-post, on the aboriginal groups whose land and way of life had been negatively affected by the pipeline.
• Compare and contrast these previous cases with one another and synthesize the most effective means through which the BLC nation can make their case.
• In doing so, highlight the plight of the BLC nation and find methods to publicize the case.
In order to buttress the BLC’s case, a comparative-historical analysis involving case studies of similar predicaments.
Comments