Yinka Dene Alliance
Submission to United Nations Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination
Request for Consideration under the Urgent Action/ Early
Warning Procedure to Prevent Irreparable Harm to Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights in British Columbia, Canada
80th Session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
February 2012
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
Human Rights Treaties Division (HRTD)
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais Wilson - 52, rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva (Switzerland)
Mailing address: UNOG-OHCHR, CH-1211 Geneva 10 (Switzerland)
Tel.: +41 22 917 94 40 Fax: +41 22 917 90 08 E-mail: [email protected]
Chedra Bullock
Human Rights Treaties Division
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)22 917 9440
email: [email protected]
YINKA
DENE
ALLIANCE
Nadleh Whut’en
Wet’suwet’en
Saik’uz
Submitting Organizations
Yinka Dene Alliance: The Yinka Dene Alliance (YDA) is a coalition of six Carrier Sekani First
Nations whose territory in northern British Columbia (Canada) comprises 25% of the proposed
Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines (ENGP). Our homelands have neither been surrendered by
force nor by negotiated agreement with the government of Canada nor the province of British
Columbia. The First Nations people of the Yinka Dene Alliance have occupied our territories since
time out of mind. Archaeological records demonstrate our occupation in their territories dating
back more than 5,000 years. The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines and the National
Energy Board Joint Review Panel both threaten our legal and inherent right to decide what
happens in our territories.
The YDA First Nations are:






Nadleh Whut’en
Nak’azdli
Takla Lake
Saik’uz
Wet’suwet’en
Tl’azt’en
Our territories are found in the headwaters of the Fraser, Skeena and Mackenzie/Arctic
watersheds. Our people have relied on salmon for countless generations, and the ENGP poses a
direct threat to our already threatened salmon populations and habitat, with approximately 500
salmon bearing rivers and streams potentially impacted by the dual oil and condensate pipelines.
Our nations have been making consistent efforts to review the proposed ENGP and make an
informed decision that is respected by both the company and the federal government. Our efforts
have taken place over the past six years, and we have raised numerous environmental, sociocultural, economic, and legal issues with both provincial and federal governments. We have
conducted extensive community engagement to gain input and direction from our people, and we
have partnered with civil society organizations, other First Nations and any community
organizations that share our concerns.
2
Map of some of the Indigenous Nations in British Columbia, Canada, that
have used their laws to declare that the Enbridge pipelines and oil tankers
are not permitted in their territories. Proposed pipeline and tanker route is
superimposed, as is the outline of the territories of Yinka Dene Alliance.
(Accurate as of May 2010)
Introduction:
1. This request is respectfully submitted for consideration by the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”) pursuant to its urgent action and early
warning procedures. The Yinka Dene Alliance have banned the proposed Enbridge
Northern Gateway Pipeline from our territories using our own unextinguished Indigenous
customary laws. We have made an informed decision regarding this project, utilizing our
own and other stakeholder research on both the potential impacts and benefits of the ENGP
project. Our requests to have our decision upheld and respected by both the Canadian
Federal government and the company have been aggressively rejected and opposed.
2. The Yinka Dene Alliance requests action on the part of CERD because Canada has indicated
that it is contemplating conduct that would infringe our Aboriginal Title and Rights as
protected under section 35 of the constitution of Canada. Furthermore, despite
participation by many impoverished First Nations in the prohibitively expensive domestic
consultation process established by Canada, it is manifestly clear that the Canadian
government has already reached a decision to push through this project regardless of the
serious adverse effects on Indigenous peoples and lands and without their free, informed
and prior consent. Furthermore, it is our belief that the extreme diminishment of our
3
constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights by the imposed Canadian consultation process
is a unique and isolated approach to constitutional rights to the extent that it now appears
to be a form of racial discrimination.
3. The proposed Northern Enbridge Gateway Pipeline is a project that will connect the
Alberta tar sands with the Pacific port of Kitimat, British Columbia. The purpose of building
the pipeline is to move 525,000 barrels of oil sands bitumen per day from Alberta to the BC
coast, where supertankers will then transport it to overseas markets.1 A second pipeline
will transport condensate, a toxic natural gas by-product used to dilute crude oil so that it
can be transported by pipeline, from the coast to the tar sands in Alberta.2
4. The 1172 km pipeline will cross approximately 50 First Nations territories and cross over
1,000 rivers and streams, including many fish-bearing streams of critical importance to
Indigenous peoples, including the headwaters of the Fraser River (crossing the Stuart,
Endako and Salmon Rivers) and the headwaters of the Skeena River (crossing the
Sutherland, Morice and Bulkley watersheds). Each of these stream crossings will require
two pipeline crossings, as the project consists of twinned pipelines. The project has the
potential to seriously affect First Nations downstream of these crossings. The toxic effects
of a spill could be felt for hundreds of kilometres, stretching down the entire length of the
Fraser River to the sea.3
5. Statistics show that a pipeline leak and/or and oil spill is inevitable, despite the best
technology available. Between 1990 and 2005 an average of 803 pipeline failures occurred
every year in Alberta.4 Another study found that pipeline spills outnumber spills from all
other sources combined, and that pipelines and fixed facilities are responsible for more
than 2/3 of oil split into water or onto land.5 Enbridge reports that, between 2003 and
2007, its pipelines had an average of 67 oil spills each year.
The Federal Review Process: A Pre-Determined Outcome
6. The Canadian Federal Government (federal Crown) has appointed a three-person Joint
Review Panel that is responsible for reviewing the potential impacts and benefits of the
ENGP and make a recommendation to Cabinet on whether or not the project should be
approved.
7. In Canada, 99% of projects that are reviewed by a Joint Review Panel (The Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board) are approved. The
1
2
3
4
5
Enbridge Information Brochure, January 2009, accessed at www.northerngateway.ca/files/NGP-Brochure.pdf
Ibid.
Correspondence with Professor Jack Stanford, Professor of Ecology, Director of Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana,
May 13, 2009.
Alberta Utilities and Energy Board. 2007. Pipeline Performance in Alberta, 1990-2005.
United Nations Environment Programme (www.unep.org ); International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (www.itopg.com); US
Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.org).
4
panel is also unable to actually consult and accommodate First Nations, according to the
Canadian Constitution and case law.6 Moreover, the Panel has been unilaterally appointed
by the federal Crown with no First Nations involvement (despite numerous requests) and
consists of individuals with backgrounds only in the resource industries (despite numerous
requests for Panel members to be selected based on expertise in Aboriginal rights and title
and salmon ecosystems).
8. Most importantly, the Panel is being tasked with receiving evidence of Aboriginal rights
and title7 from First Nations, and to weigh these against broader ‘societal interests’. Our
rights are unique, and they are constitutionally protected; for this reason we have asked
the federal Crown what criteria or process will be used to weigh or balance these interests,
and our request has gone unanswered.
9. For these and several other reasons, the YDA has made an informed and deliberate decision
to not participate in the JRP process, until an appropriate parallel Aboriginal rights and title
process is negotiated with the federal Crown. For six years we have attempted to negotiate
such a process with the federal Crown, and have been repeatedly rebuffed. To the
contrary, the federal Crown has taken an increasingly intransigent position that the only
option available to First Nations is to participate in the JRP.
10. While earlier attempts to arrange meetings to discuss a parallel process were
acknowledged by the federal Crown and our proposals were heard, a recent letter from the
President of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency refuses any such meeting and
gives the YDA no other option but to participate in the unilaterally developed JRP process.8
To our Nations, this is clearly evidence that this is an imposed process, with a predetermined outcome.
11. The YDA are now left without any avenue of recourse to engage the federal Crown in a
meaningful manner to address our long-outstanding concerns for environmental, sociocultural, and legal impacts stemming from this project.
12. A disconcerting turn of events since the beginning of 2012 has been the aggressive tactics
by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) against the rights of Aboriginal people to participate
in the decision-making process. The PMO and closely-affiliated groups have taken out
major advertising buys in national broadcasters accusing “radical groups” of “hijacking the
regulatory process” and depriving Canadians of jobs and revenue. The PMO has condemned
opposition to the pipeline from any sector to be the work of foreign radicals, who have
stacked the hearings to needlessly delay a beneficial project that will inevitably be
approved.9
Dene Tha’ First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Environment), 2006 FC 1354, at para. 35, affirmed 2008 FCA 20.
Since the Constitution Act, 1982, Aboriginal title, rights and treaty rights have been constitutionally protected under Canadian law.
Although Aboriginal rights are human rights, in general, there has been a failure to “give the Aboriginal perspective the weight it
deserves” in creating and interpreting law.
8 Letter dated Jan. 23, 2012 from Elaine Feldman, President of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Geraldine
Thomas-Flurer, Yinka Dene Coordinator.
6
7
9
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media-room/news-release/2012/1/3520
5
13. Aggressive interference by the PMO on a democratic and quasi-judicial process constitutes
intimidation that is contrary to both democratic and international human rights
principles.10 By tying opposition on environmental grounds with foreign- influenced
radicalism, the PMO is laying the groundwork for dismissing the traditional ecological
knowledge of First Nations as contrary to Canadian sovereignty and economic interests. By
framing the near uniform opposition in BC as a front meant to hijack the Canadian
regulatory process, the PMO discredits and undermines the sincere concerns that
Indigenous peoples in BC have about irreparable harm to their territories. 11
14. The Yinka Dene Alliance is concerned about the sudden escalation of negative messaging
propagated by the PMO about Aboriginal peoples and their concerns about the
environment. The message that Minister Joe Oliver communicated to the BC Chamber of
Commerce on January 24th, 2012 was that the government was already contemplating
infringing Aboriginal rights and overturning any negative decision of the Joint Review
Panel. 12 This statement was made prior to consultation with Aboriginal peoples, indicating
that the decision to prioritize development over Aboriginal interests was already made.
15. A particularly disturbing development came to light on January 26, 2012, when a Canadian
government internal confidential strategy document entitled “Pan-European Oil Sands
Advocacy Strategy” (from April 2011) was released under an Access to Information
Request. This document, from Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, describes a strategy to promote the tar sands in Europe and to mount a public
relations campaign against the environmental concerns raised in Europe against tar sands.
The document specifically identifies “Aboriginal groups” as the Canadian government’s
“Adversaries”, as compared to a list of “Allies” including industry associations, and
troublingly, the National Energy Board which is the federal tribunal whose members
comprise the Joint Review Panel reviewing the Enbridge project (see Annex).13 Minutes of
an internal meeting released simultaneously confirm that the federal government created a
plan jointly with the oil industry to “turn up the volume” and “up… their game” on tar sands
advocacy (see Annex).14 The Canadian government’s blanket characterization, singling out
the entire ethnic group of “Aboriginal groups” or First Nations as “adversaries” in respect of
the tar sands/oil sands makes clear, on its face, that Canada is discriminating directly
against Indigenous peoples in general, and Yinka Dene Alliance in particular as a vociferous
opponent of tar sands infrastructure developments. The fact that Canadian government
spokespersons have distanced themselves from this internal document in media reports
does nothing to change the fact that the government has been engaging in racial
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/environmentalists-departure-sheds-light-on-tension-felt-by-greengroups/article2313991/?from=sec431
10
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/olivers-comments-taint-northern-gateway-environmentalhearings/article2297578/?service=mobile
http://www.joeoliver.ca/news/an-open-letter-from-the-honourable-joe-oliver-minister-of-natural-resources-on-canada’scommitment-to-diversify-our-energy-markets-and-the-need-to-further-streamline-the-regulatory-process/
11
12 http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Oliver+sells+benefits+oilsands+development/6039796/story.html
13 Federal strategy document “Pan-European Oil Sands Advocacy Strategy”, April 2011,
accessed at
http://bit.ly/xDdCV2 at p. 4.
14 See http://bit.ly/wFQSdG.
6
discrimination against First Nations. The treatment of First Nations in this document, and
the memo about “turning up the volume”, accords exactly with the actions that the
Canadian government has undertaken over the last month.
Yinka Dene Indigenous Law
16. Seventy-two Indigenous nations in British Columbia and Western Canada have declared a
ban on tar sands pipelines and tankers projects in their traditional territories and waters,
as a matter of their Indigenous customary law. Two such Declarations have been signed:
the Save the Fraser Declaration in December 2010 and December 2011 (see Annex) by
representatives of over 100 Nations, and the Coastal First Nations Declaration in March
2010 (see Annex) by 9 Nations.
17. The Save the Fraser Declaration bans tar sands oil pipelines and other tar sands
transportation projects throughout the Fraser watershed, and bans tar sands tankers from
crossing through the waters of the south coast and the north coast – “in upholding our
ancestral laws, Title, Rights and responsibilities, we declare: We will not allow the
proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, or similar Tar Sands projects, to cross our
lands, territories and watersheds, or the ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon.”
18. The Coastal First Nations Declaration bans oil tankers throughout the north coast – “in
upholding our ancestral laws, rights and responsibilities, we declare that oil tankers
carrying crude oil from the Alberta Tar Sands will not be allowed to transit our lands and
waters.”
19. The Yinka Dene Alliance are signatories to the Save the Fraser Declaration, and signed on in
support of Coastal First Nations’ Tanker Ban. Both documents represent an exercise of the
Indigenous customary law of the Yinka Dene Nations and have status in Canadian law as an
exercise of our unceded decision-making authority protected by the constitution of Canada,
and at International law as an exercise of our right to self-determination, to be free from
resource developments to which they have not consented.
20. Our laws are based in our inherent rights to the land – our Keyoh/Keyah. These rights and
the law that supports them were the basis of the Carrier Sekani Declaration and Claim of
1982, submitted to the Canadian government to initiate lands claims/treaty negotiations.15
The territory (Keyoh/Keyah) is affirmed through the traditional Bahlats (potlatch) system.
Clans held both rights and responsibilities to the land and waterways, and act as stewards.
Should a disaster occur, their reputation and identity as good stewards of the land would
be diminished. This responsibility is something that is ingrained in the minds and hearts of
the Yinka Dene people.16
See the full text of the Carrier Sekani Declaration and Claim, 1982 at:
http://www.cstc.bc.ca/downloads/Oil%20&%20Gas/AIUS%20COMPLETE%20FINAL%20inc.%20maps.pdf
15
16 Paraphrase from an interview with Nak’azdli Elder Bernadette Rosetti, see:
http://www.cstc.bc.ca/downloads/Oil%20&%20Gas/AIUS%20COMPLETE%20FINAL%20inc.%20maps.pdf
7
International Law
21. Under the current government, Canada was one of the most vocal opponents to the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Since it signed on to
UNDRIP, Canada has not taken steps to effectively implement the Declaration. Canada has
argued that aspects of UNDRIP are inconsistent with Canadian constitutional values despite
significant scholarship by academics and the drafting of UNDRIP provisions by the previous
Canadian government prior to the current government’s election.
22. Canada endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in
November 2010, which sets out the international standard that governments “shall consult
and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own
representative institutions to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval
of any project affecting their lands or territories or resources” (Article 32). While Canada
attached an interpretation to its endorsement of the UN Declaration to the effect that it only
provides guidance and is not binding, it remains the case that through the general
principles of international law, and the American Declaration, Canada arguably has an
international legal obligation to respect First Nations’ ownership and control over their
own territories and resources.17
23. In establishing the regulatory decision-making process for ENGP, Canada has violated, or
set itself on a track to violate, several of its obligations at international law and under The
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. By
stating that it intends to violate Yinka Dene Alliance’s and Indigenous nations’
constitutional Rights and Title and potentially approve the ENGP project despite the lack of
consent from Yinka Dene Alliance and Indigenous nations, Yinka Dene Alliance submits
that Canada has signaled an intention to violate, the Convention as interpreted by General
Recommendation XXIII, which exhorts states to “Ensure that members of Indigenous
peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life and that no
decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed
consent”.
24. Canada’s proposed conduct would likely breach UNDRIP’s provisions on the Indigenous
right to self-determination,18 preservation of culture19 to maintain and strengthen their
relationship to their traditionally-occupied territories, 20 and to be free from resource
developments being constructed in their territories absent their free, prior and informed
consent.21
25. Recognition of Indigenous peoples’ laws and their right to meaningful participation in
decisions taken over their territory is a central tenet of UNDRIP.22 As a result of the failure
17
See Prof. S. James Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (2
nd
ed.) (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2004) at p..148.
UNDRIP Article 4
19 UNDRIP Article 11
20 UNDRIP Article 25, 26, 27.
21 UNDRIP Article 32.
22 UNDRIP Article 27.
18
8
of the Canadian government to implement UNDRIP, Aboriginal Canadians continue to
experience racial discrimination in the form of encroachment on their lands and traditional
territories and interference with the right to self-determination contrary to their
constitutionally-protected and internationally-recognized rights.
Conclusion and Request
26. As defined in the ICERD Convention, the term ‘racial discrimination’ shall mean any
distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national
ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition,
enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in
the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life (Article 1, ICERD).
It is our belief that the extreme diminishment of our constitutionally protected Aboriginal
rights by the imposed Canadian consultation process is a unique and isolated approach to
constitutional rights to the extent that it now appears to have the effect of racial
discrimination. There is truly no other instance in which rights protected under the
Canadian Constitution are treated with such blatant disregard.
27. The Yinka Dene would like to consult in a way that is meaningful with the Federal Crown
about the concerns that we hold about the environmental effects of the proposed pipeline
on their territory. To date, our efforts have been rebuffed and any invitation from the
government to Aboriginal people to share concerns has been withdrawn.
28. The Yinka Dene is concerned that this represents an end to communication outside of the
confines and negative framing of the Joint Review Panel. As the domestic remedy of
government consultation is not producing satisfactory results, the Yinka Dene respectfully
request the Committee to intercede in the interests of preventing the further escalation of
racial discrimination.
29. The Yinka Dene Alliance, along with many other First Nations, have presented the case that
when large-scale resource development projects pose significant risk to those who live
closest to the land, yet the benefits lie in distant cities, regions and countries – this
constitutes a form of environmental racism. The Yinka Dene Alliance believe that this
project places an unacceptable amount of risk on First Nations, with the overwhelming
majority of benefits going to private companies and consumers in Asia. The Yinka Dene
Alliance respectfully requests the Committee to consider this and hold the Canadian
government to account.
30. The Yinka Dene Alliance has demonstrated in this submission a summary of our efforts
over the past seven years to address our issues and concerns in a respectful and
meaningful manner with the Federal Crown. With the recent rejection to our request to
meet with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Crown Consultation
Coordinator) to discuss our options outside of the imposed and now compromised Joint
Review Panel process, we feel that our options of resolving this issue ‘domestically’ are
9
now exhausted. While legal action does remain an option, financial costs are currently
prohibitive for our Nations.
31. We respectfully call upon the Committee to implement its policy of Early Warning
Procedure, and receive our submission about this pending conflict, and the immanent
threats to our human rights.
10
Annexes
Annex 1:
Save the Fraser Declaration
Annex 2:
Coastal First Nations Declaration
Annex 3:
Canadian government strategy document: “Pan-European Oil Sands Advocacy
Strategy” (from April 2011)
Annex 4:
Minutes of Canadian government meeting: Summary of Deputy Minister Meetings
with Industry and the Alberta Government on Oil Sands Outreach and
Communications
Annex 5:
Open letter from natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver
11
Annex 1
12
SA
THE FRA
S
ER
VE
Gathering of Nations
P R O T E C T I N G O U R W AT E R S H E D F R O M O I L
Save the Fraser Declaration
WE THE UNDERSIGNED INDIGENOUS NATIONS OF THE FRASER RIVER WATERSHED DECLARE:
W
e have inhabited and governed our territories
within the Fraser watershed, according to our laws
and traditions, since time immemorial. Our relationship
with the watershed is ancient and profound, and our
inherent Title and Rights and legal authority over these
lands and waters have never been relinquished through
treaty or war.
Water is life, for our peoples and for all living things
that depend on it. The Fraser River and its tributaries
are our lifeline.
A threat to the Fraser and its headwaters is a threat to all who
depend on its health. We will not allow our fish, animals,
plants, people and ways of life to be placed at risk.
We have come together to defend these lands and waters
from a grave threat: the Enbridge Northern Gateway
Pipelines project. This project which would link the Tar
Sands to Asia through our territories and the headwaters
of this great river, and the federal process to approve
it, violate our laws, traditions, values and our inherent
rights as Indigenous Peoples under international law.
We are united to exercise our inherent Title, Rights,
and responsibility to ourselves, our ancestors, our
descendants and to the people of the world, to defend
these lands and waters. Our laws require that we do this.
FRASER NATIONS VISUAL IDENTITY • NOV 2010
Therefore, in upholding our ancestral laws, Title,
Rights and responsibilities, we declare:
We will not allow the proposed Enbridge Northern
Gateway Pipelines, or similar Tar Sands projects, to
cross our lands, territories and watersheds, or the
ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon.
We are adamant and resolved in this declaration, made
according to our Indigenous laws and authority. We
call on all who would place our lands and waters at
risk – we have suffered enough, we will protect our
watersheds, and we will not tolerate this great threat to
us all and to all future generations.
Declared at T’exelc (Williams Lake), Secwepemc Territory, and Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories,
and affirmed by the following Indigenous nations:
Mt. Currie Band/Lil’wat Nation
St’át’imc
Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government
Alexis Creek First Nation
Musqueam Indian Band
Stswecem’c/Xgat’tem (Canoe Creek)
Yakweakwioose
Bonaparte
N’Quatqua
Sumas
Boston Bar First Nation
Nadleh Whut’en
Takla Lake First Nation
Kwakiutl
Bridge River Indian Band
Nak’azdli
T’exelc (Williams Lake Band)
Ktunaxa Nation
Burns Lake Band
Nicomen Indian Band
T’ít’q’et
Cape Mudge Band
Chawathil First Nation
Nooaitch Indian Band
Tl’esqox/Toosey
Campbell River
Coldwater Band
Saik’uz
Tsq’escen First Nation (Canim Lake Band)
Da’naxda’xw Nation
Cook’s Ferry Band
Shackan Indian Band
Tzeachten
Fort Nelson
Esketemc
Siska Indian Band
Ulkatcho Band
Lyackson
Kwantlen
Skatsin/Neskonlith
Upper Nicola
Okanagan Indian Band
Lake Babine Nation
Skeetchestn
Wet’suwet’en
Penticton Indian Band, Okanagan Nation
Lhoosk’uz Dene Nation
Soowahlie
Xat’sūll (Soda Creek)
Quatsino
Lhtako (Red Bluff)
Splatsin
Xaxli’p
Tseshaht First Nation
Adams Lake
SaveTheFraser.ca
Supporting Nations:
Annex 2
13
Annex 3
14
Annex 4
15
Annex 5:
Natural Resources Canada
2012/1
January 9, 2012
An open letter from
the Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources ,
on Canada’s commitment to diversify our energy markets and the need to further streamline
the regulatory process in order to advance Canada’s national economic interest
Canada is on the edge of an historic choice: to diversify our energy markets away from our traditional
trading partner in the United States or to continue with the status quo.
Virtually all our energy exports go to the US. As a country, we must seek new markets for our products
and services and the booming Asia-Pacific economies have shown great interest in our oil, gas, metals
and minerals. For our government, the choice is clear: we need to diversify our markets in order to
create jobs and economic growth for Canadians across this country. We must expand our trade with the
fast growing Asian economies. We know that increasing trade will help ensure the financial security of
Canadians and their families.
Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this
opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to
Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more
hydro-electric dams.
These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They
seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill
good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national
economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints
in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources. Finally, if all other avenues have
failed, they will take a quintessential American approach: sue everyone and anyone to delay the project
even further. They do this because they know it can work. It works because it helps them to achieve
their ultimate objective: delay a project to the point it becomes economically unviable.
Anyone looking at the record of approvals for certain major projects across Canada cannot help but
come to the conclusion that many of these projects have been delayed too long. In many cases, these
projects would create thousands upon thousands of jobs for Canadians, yet they can take years to get
started due to the slow, complex and cumbersome regulatory process.
For example, the Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline review took more than nine years to complete. In
comparison, the western expansion of the nation-building Canadian Pacific Railway under Sir John A.
Macdonald took four years. Under our current system, building a temporary ice arena on a frozen pond
in Banff required the approval of the federal government. This delayed a decision by two months. Two
valuable months to assess something that thousands of Canadians have been doing for over a century.
16
Our regulatory system must be fair, independent, consider different viewpoints including those of
Aboriginal communities, review the evidence dispassionately and then make an objective determination.
It must be based on science and the facts. We believe reviews for major projects can be accomplished in
a quicker and more streamlined fashion. We do not want projects that are safe, generate thousands of
new jobs and open up new export markets, to die in the approval phase due to unnecessary delays.
Unfortunately, the system seems to have lost sight of this balance over the past years. It is broken. It is
time to take a look at it.
It is an urgent matter of Canada's national interest.
The Hon. Joe Oliver
Minister of Natural Resources
Media may contact:
Patricia Best
Director of Communications
Office of the Minister
Natural Resources Canada
Ottawa
613-996-2007
or
Media Relations
Natural Resources Canada
Ottawa
613-992-4447
17