But look a little closer, and a more nuanced discourse starts to emerge, suggesting a complex, but not impossible, path forward for any such pipeline to materialize.<\/p>\n
For John Desjarlais, executive director of the Indigenous Resource Network, which advocates for Indigenous participation in oil and gas, the AFN\u2019s resolution was less about the merits of a hypothetical new line and more about the lack of consultation in developing the MOU.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe all understand it came quick, it came hard, and then there it was,\u201d Desjarlais said on The Hub\u2019s Alberta Edge podcast<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are probably nations that voted unanimously [in the AFN resolution] that are actually involved in ownership, pipeline, and procurement activities,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd so [they] are not necessarily fundamentally against the idea, but more as a kind of political solidarity.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, there\u2019s no unanimous \u201cno\u201d to a pipeline proposal.<\/p>\n \u201cIndigenous people are just tired of being left out,\u201d Desjarlais concluded.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n He likened the response to the rollout of Bill C-5, when the federal government faced backlash over the summer for introducing sweeping legislative changes involving the fast tracking of major infrastructure projects with \u201cvery little to no engagement\u201d with Indigenous communities. Yet a few months later, the Nisga\u2019a Nation applauded Prime Minister Mark Carney for referring British Columbia\u2019s Ksi Lisim LNG project to the very office C-5 created.<\/p>\n The reactions in June\u2014and now\u2014are more about process and respect.<\/p>\n Many First Nations expect early, good-faith engagement before federal and provincial governments make public commitments about a pipeline or potential tanker ban adjustments. The AFN vote reflects that frustration.<\/p>\n Besides, the AFN<\/a> is a lobbying body\u2014a powerful one at that\u2014but not a rights holder. It cannot veto or grant consent to a project on behalf of individual councils.<\/p>\n Coastal nations vs. inland experience<\/p>\n An important nuance to keep in mind in this debate is geographic.<\/p>\n Coastal First Nations, such as Heiltsuk, Haida, Gitga\u2019at, Lax Kw\u2019alaams, and others, have been among the most vocal opponents of allowing crude tanker traffic on the North Coast, citing concerns around stewardship and harvesting rights.<\/p>\n Talks of a new bitumen pipeline seem to have only entrenched their opposition.<\/p>\n \u201cAll they see is risks,\u201d Desjarlais said simply.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the chief of Fort McKay First Nation, which sits north of Fort McMurray in northern Alberta, has already welcomed the MOU<\/a>, calling it a \u201creal opportunity for responsible development.\u201d<\/p>\n And just last week, the M\u00e9tis Settlements of Alberta publicly indicated interest in an equity share<\/a>.<\/p>\n i<\/p>\n B.C. Premier David Eby shakes hands with Nisga\u2019a Nation President, Eva Clayton during a Ksi Lisims LNG announcement of an environmental assessment certificate from the Government of British Columbia in Vancouver, on Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025. Ethan Cairns\/The Canadian Press.<\/p>\n Desjarlais says there\u2019s an immediate change in attitude once you hit B.C.\u2019s interior and head east. He believes it stems from decades of direct experience with oil and gas development locally. The communities farther inland have seen both the benefits and the shortcomings of these projects and are therefore more likely to take a pragmatic approach to negotiations.<\/p>\n And given that the MOU requires any new pipeline to be Indigenous-owned in part, it\u2019s worth considering which nations might be open to saying \u201cyes.\u201d<\/p>\n It may even foreshadow a viable route.<\/p>\n During the Northern Gateway process, more than 30 First Nations<\/a>\u2014most of them inland\u2014signed equity and related agreements with Enbridge. A number of those same nations, including Adams Lake Indian Band<\/a>, Simpcw First Nation<\/a>, and Enoch Cree First Nation<\/a>, later backed the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX).<\/p>\n Over the past decade, many First Nations in Treaties 6, 7, and 8 have repeatedly signalled that equity is an expectation in resource development. The strong uptake of the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation<\/a> (AIOC) loan guarantees\u2014which underwrote major equity stakes in at least nine projects, including the Athabasca Trunkline<\/a> and Cascade Power Project<\/a>\u2014shows how deep that appetite remains.<\/p>\n So powerful is that co-ownership model, Alberta\u2019s Energy Minister Brian Jean recently called it<\/a> \u201cthe secret sauce to getting energy projects built, including a new pipeline to the northwest coast!\u201d<\/p>\n How Indigenous co-ownership works<\/p>\n Before getting to the dollar amounts, it\u2019s important to dispel a persistent misconception around Indigenous equity in major energy projects.<\/p>\n These arrangements are not charity or handouts.<\/p>\n i<\/p>\n Crude oil tankers SFL Sabine, front left, and Tarbet Spirit are seen docked at the Trans Mountain Westridge Marine Terminal, where crude oil from the expanded Trans Mountain Pipeline is loaded onto tankers, near a residential area in Burnaby, B.C., Monday, June 10, 2024. Darryl Dyck\/The Canadian Press.<\/p>\n They are real investments, with real risks, real debt, and real returns\u2014structured like any other partnership between sophisticated capital investors.<\/p>\n Take the 2022 Enbridge deal in northern Alberta, for instance.<\/p>\n In what was described as a historic \u201clandmark collaboration,\u201d<\/a>23 First Nations and M\u00e9tis communities purchased a nearly 12-percent stake in seven Enbridge-operated pipelines in the Athabasca region for $1.12 billion.<\/p>\n The AIOC backed the deal with a $250-million loan guarantee\u2014but that wasn\u2019t free money, nor did it buy the asset. Under the Indian Act, bands can\u2019t use reserve land as collateral<\/a>, making it difficult to access large-scale commercial loans. The backstop simply reduced the cost of borrowing and gave lenders confidence.<\/p>\n The nations still had to raise the remaining capital, secure the loans, and carry the debt themselves.<\/p>\n Thus, like any investor leveraging debt to build long-term value, those 23 groups are whittling down what they owe gradually through the project\u2019s cash flow. Enbridge executives confirmed this fall that \u201cProject Rocket\u201d<\/a>\u2014as the partnership is known\u2014has already generated more than $25 million<\/a> for those communities in its first three years.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is making significant differences for communities to have that stable revenue stream coming in\u2014being able to invest back into their priorities,\u201d Desjarlais explained.<\/p>\n \u201cThese are incredible dollar amounts for communities that are on shoestring budgets,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Other equity deals like Suncor\u2019s East Tank Farm Development<\/a>\u2014a roughly $500-million investment in the bitumen facility north of Fort McMurray\u2014now generate, by Desjarlais\u2019 estimation, tens of millions for participating nations.<\/p>\n But the benefits aren\u2019t just financial. Equity also shifts governance and control.<\/p>\n In practice, that can mean Indigenous representation on project boards or joint management committees. It can mean nations running their own environmental monitoring programs and deploying Indigenous guardians<\/a>. The possibility of procurement guarantees for Indigenous-owned businesses adds yet another layer of incentives in the form of job growth.<\/p>\n \u201cYou don\u2019t have as many [work] camps,\u201d Desjarlais said about the benefits of employing more local workers. \u201cYou don\u2019t have as many of the intermittent workforce. There\u2019s not as much strain on the local infrastructure.\u201d<\/p>\n Together, these mechanisms can turn \u201ciffy\u201d projects into viable businesses.<\/p>\n i<\/p>\n A delegate at the Assembly of First Nations Annual General Assembly in Winnipeg, September 3, 2025. John Woods\/The Canadian Press.<\/p>\n How consultation has changed<\/p>\n When the Federal Court of Appeal struck down Ottawa\u2019s approval of Northern Gateway in 2016, the ruling was blunt. It stated the government had failed to properly consult Indigenous groups<\/a>, even though Enbridge itself had carried out extensive engagement along the proposed route.<\/p>\n The court found that the Crown\u2019s final phase of consultation was \u201cbrief, hurried, and inadequate,\u201d reducing Indigenous participation to a procedural exercise rather than a meaningful exchange.<\/p>\n \u201cConsultation then was very procedural,\u201d Desjarlais said. \u201cIt was a lot of box-checking, a lot of technical stuff that didn\u2019t really get into the relationship side of things. It was very much about\u2014did you send the letter? Did you hold the meeting? Did you share the document?\u201d<\/p>\n In an interview with CBC\u2019s Indigenous unit<\/a>, M\u00e9tis lawyer Bruce McIvor called that old model \u201cmore lip service than substance.\u201d<\/p>\n Hayden King of the Yellowhead Institute pointed to the same structural problem. A letter in the mail, he noted, does not constitute consultation if a nation can\u2019t engage in the process.<\/p>\n The TMX process<\/a> demonstrated that when consultation is relational and backed by real accommodation, outcomes improve. But this involved doubling the consultation team to dedicate 60 people for the endeavour.<\/p>\n According to a former Canada Energy Regulator CEO, the former head of Trans Mountain famously gave his cell phone number to every chief along the route so they could raise concerns with the boss directly.<\/p>\n Desjarlais called that gesture \u201cabsolute best practice.\u201d<\/p>\n But even TMX illustrates the point that deep consultation does not guarantee consent. Protests and delays still occurred.<\/p>\n It did, however, result in some very robust collaborations<\/a>.<\/p>\n i<\/p>\n Pipe for the Trans Mountain pipeline is unloaded in Edson, Alta., June 18, 2019. Jason Franson\/The Canadian Press.<\/p>\n There were also major cost overruns\u2014not all of which were unrelated to consultation and accommodation, but every step added to a very long list of things to do and pay for.<\/p>\n \u201cYou can only, I guess, cut the pie so many ways,\u201d Desjarlais said. \u201cBut I think one of the interesting things about [the current pipeline debate] is no one\u2019s eating any pie anytime if we\u2019re not going to build anything.\u201d<\/p>\n Unanswered questions around a future deal<\/p>\n As B.C.\u2019s own LNG ambitions have demonstrated, governments do not necessarily need blessings from every First Nation affected to move forward with an energy project.<\/p>\n But the Supreme Court of Canada has never set a numerical threshold for what constitutes \u201cadequate\u201d Indigenous involvement. Instead, it emphasized that the process of consultation sits on a spectrum: The stronger the asserted right and the greater the potential impact, the deeper the Crown\u2019s obligation to engage.<\/p>\n It does not, however, mean that Indigenous groups have a legal veto<\/a>. The \u201cno veto\u201d detail is mentioned five times<\/a> in the official \u201chow-to-consult\u201d guide for federal officials.<\/p>\n Any politician who dares to say this part out loud, though, could be met with intense criticism. Just ask Justice Minister Sean Fraser<\/a>.<\/p>\n So now, the feds are flipping the premise, leaning more on the consent side.<\/p>\n \u201cThere needs to be agreement from the province of British Columbia and of Indigenous Peoples, and we are not going to override the jurisdiction of our provinces, and we\u2019re not going to override the rights of Indigenous rights holders,\u201d Julie Dabrusin, minister of environment and climate change, said last week<\/a>.<\/p>\n Legally, none of this is straightforward. If the Major Projects Office were to take on an oil pipeline submission, it could really test the power of Bill C-5.<\/p>\n The way forward is neither simple nor foreclosed. At least on that point, everyone agrees it begins with a conversation.<\/p>\n It\u2019s exactly how Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has framed it so far. When asked about her recent meeting with leaders of two key communities on B.C.\u2019s North Coast, she said it was the start of a dialogue.<\/p>\n Perhaps there will never be enough \u201cyeses,\u201d whatever that number might be. But the \u201cnos,\u201d at the very least, should be informed \u201cnos.\u201d That means giving the proponent\u2014currently Alberta as the stand-in\u2014a chance to make the case.<\/p>\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Hub_AlbertaEdge_banner_1400x356_v2-1.jpg\")
\n <\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CP175017806-2048x1454.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CP175168938-2048x1491.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CP174947849-2048x1411.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/CP17002828-2048x1303.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/FaliceChin_engraveBW-120x120.jpg\")