Strategy & Profile

Aboriginal Engagement

Northern Gateway is committed to consulting with Aboriginal peoples—including First Nations and Métis belonging to a community, group or organization (i.e., Aboriginal groups) — that might be affected by the project.

The goal of Northern Gateway’s Aboriginal engagement program is to inform, educate, engage and learn from participating Aboriginal groups in the planning, design and construction of the project, by providing transparent information that addresses Aboriginal group concerns. This includes information related to environmental stewardship and Northern Gateway’s plan to establish sustainable community benefits and economic business opportunities in Aboriginal communities.

Through implementation of the program, Northern Gateway will provide participating Aboriginal groups with information about the project, answer project-related questions, identify and address interests and concerns and obtain community input into project-planning activities and the Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment. The program will remain ongoing throughout the project’s regulatory, construction and operations phases.

Information gathered through the Aboriginal engagement program will enable Northern Gateway to improve the project by avoiding, reducing or mitigating, wherever reasonable and feasible, potential adverse effects of the project on Aboriginal interests.

Northern Gateway is committed to enhancing potential positive effects by ensuring that First Nations and Métis groups along the pipeline route derive sustainable benefits from project-related activities that arise throughout project development, construction and operations, including economic activity, equity participation, business development, and employment and training initiatives.

To achieve this high level of respectful and meaningful involvement, Northern Gateway is seeking to develop:

  • Aboriginal equity ownership in the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (please see the Economic Performance section of this report, section EC1, for more details);
  • Protocol agreements that provide funds to support a dialogue between Northern Gateway and Aboriginal groups;
  • additional agreements that cover specific opportunities such as employment, training, business procurement and environmental protection; and
  • a coastal community strategy to build upon the local knowledge and skills of coastal First Nations.

Duty to Consult

The federal Crown has a duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples on the potential impacts of a decision by a federal authority on their rights and interests, and the Crown must act honourably with the view to effect reconciliation with the Aboriginal peoples with respect to the interests at stake. The Crown may delegate the procedural aspects of that duty to a project proponent.

For the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is coordinating the federal Crown's duty to consult with Aboriginal people.

In the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel Agreement, the Crown has indicated that it will rely, to the extent possible, on Northern Gateway’s consultation effort and on the JRP process to assist in meeting its duty to consult.

Northern Gateway is committed to meaningful and open discussion with stakeholders, including communities and private landowners, and participating Aboriginal groups, in Alberta and British Columbia. For details on Northern Gateway’s consultation process, please see the ‘Stakeholder Consultation’ section above.

In the case of the JRP, before it issues its report or makes recommendations and decisions, it will receive and consider information from Aboriginal peoples related to how the project may affect potential or established Aboriginal and treaty rights.

The Crown has also outlined in the Northern Gateway JRP Agreement the additional consultation efforts it will undertake directly to fulfill that duty. The CEAA, on behalf of the Crown, will lead consultation if there are any issues related to the project that are beyond the mandate of the JRP. The Crown will continuously monitor the adequacy or sufficiency of its Aboriginal consultation efforts throughout the Panel process.

The Crown has described the details of the Aboriginal peoples consultation plan for Northern Gateway in “Annex III: Aboriginal Engagement and Consultation Approach and Roles and Responsibilities” to the federal “Project Agreement for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project in Alberta and British Columbia”. Annex III outlines the five phases for Crown consultation for the project and the responsibilities of various federal entities. This includes an explanation of how the JRP process fits within those five phases. Full text of this project agreement, including Annex III, is available on the federal government’s Major Projects Management Office website at www.mpmo-bggp.gc.ca/project-projet/ngwpipeline-eng.php.

A separate “Aboriginal Consultation Framework for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project” has also been published and is available on the CEAA website at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=40861.

Regulatory Requirements

National Energy Board (NEB) approval is necessary for the project to proceed. The guidelines for developing and implementing a consultation program are described in Chapter 3 of the NEB Filing Manual (2008). The NEB also provides additional direction relating to its expectations for consultation with Aboriginal people who may be affected by a project in ‘Information to be Filed with Applications Where There May be an Aboriginal Interest’ (April 3, 2002) and in ‘Consideration of Aboriginal Concerns in National Energy Board Decisions’ (March 9, 2006).

Similarly, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Guide to the Preparation of a Comprehensive Study for Proponents and Responsible Authorities (1997) provides guidelines to consider in developing and implementing an engagement program that complies with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act).

Northern Gateway has sought to follow the above regulatory requirements and guidelines while undertaking its Aboriginal engagement program for the project.

Engagement - April 2002 to June 2005

Northern Gateway’s Aboriginal engagement program began in 2002 during feasibility studies at which time various options and routes were being considered. Northern Gateway identified Aboriginal groups with a potential interest in the project, allowing timely and effective notification with those groups.

Northern Gateway started preliminary engagement activities with these Aboriginal groups to provide project information, understand potential interests they may have in the project, and better understand expectations regarding their participation in the project.

Through the course of these early notification activities, Northern Gateway provided information to 171 Aboriginal groups in Alberta and British Columbia.

For more information on this stage of the consultation, please see Volume 5A of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project application, available at www.northerngateway.ca/public-review/application or the Joint Review Panel website at http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca, and in particular Appendix B of for a list of the Aboriginal groups engaged during this stage and Section 3 for a description of the engagement activities).

Engagement - July 2005 to December 2009

In line with Enbridge policy, Northern Gateway is committed to carrying out, in a respectful and transparent manner, consultation with Aboriginal people and communities as defined by Canadian courts, applicable legislation and corporate best practices.

When the project corridor was defined in 2005 as originating in Bruderheim, Alberta, and terminating in Kitimat, British Columbia, Northern Gateway focused its engagement activities on Aboriginal groups and Métis regions located within 80 km (50 miles) to either side of the project corridor and the Kitimat Terminal. Northern Gateway also engaged communities beyond 80 km who identified themselves as having an interest based on their traditional territory traversing the project corridor. This 80-km engagement zone was established in consideration of the scope and scale of the proposed project along with the nature and extent of the Aboriginal interests at stake. Those Aboriginal groups — 85 separate groups in total — were consulted based on:

  • formal recognition as a “Band” as defined in the Indian Act and recognized by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada;
  • constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights, lands and land uses as defined by s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
  • proximity of a reserve or other protected land base to the project right-of-way; and
  • proximity of traditional lands and territories to the project right-of-way.

Coastal Aboriginal groups are also included in the Aboriginal engagement program. These include groups with interests in the confined channel assessment area (CCAA) that are in proximity to shipping routes for tankers calling on the Kitimat Terminal. In all instances, consultation with identified Aboriginal groups varied in accordance with the scope of the rights or interests at stake. While all identified Aboriginal groups were afforded similar opportunities to participate in the project through direct consultations and the completion of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) studies, greater consideration was provided to those groups having an increased likelihood of impact to the exercise of constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, traditional lands and land uses.

Aboriginal groups whose protected interests fell outside of the 80-km engagement zone were not engaged in extensive consultation activities unless specific project impacts were identified. In instances where there were no identified impacts, Northern Gateway shared project information, responded to questions and documented related concerns and interests for consideration in project development.

For more information on this stage of the consultation, including particulars on consultation with each Aboriginal community, identification of the effects on Aboriginal rights and interests, and proposed methods to manage and mitigate those effects to an acceptable level, please see Volume 5A of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project application, available at www.northerngateway.ca/public-review/application or the JRP website http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca. Please see Table 2-1 on pages 2-6 to 2-8 of Volume 5A for a full list of Aboriginal groups engaged by Northern Gateway.

Protocol Agreements

Northern Gateway has introduced a Protocol Agreement that allows for immediate access to capacity funding by Aboriginal groups so they can immediately participate in engagement activities and thereby allowing consultation to occur in a more consistent and timely manner. The agreement specifically states that an executed Protocol Agreement does not indicate support for the project.

As of 31 December 2009, Northern Gateway had entered into 30 relationship protocol agreements with 36 Aboriginal groups. Since signing these relationship protocol agreements, Northern Gateway has begun developing work plans and activities to address the specific concerns and interests and priorities identified by each Aboriginal group.

For more information on Protocol Agreements, please see Volume 5A of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project application available at www.northerngateway.ca/public-review/application or the JRP website at http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca.

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Program

An important component of Northern Gateway’s overall Aboriginal engagement activities is our Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) program. As is the case with Aboriginal engagement generally, the focus of the ATK program has been on Aboriginal groups with communities within 80 km (50 miles) of the proposed right-of-way, as well as Coastal Aboriginal groups with interests in the area of the Kitimat Terminal and the confined channel assessment area. Northern Gateway also extended the ATK program to Aboriginal groups outside of the 80-km radius and whose traditional territory traversed the project for purposes of understanding interests and potential project impacts (if any).

The overall objective of the ATK program is to gain an understanding of and document traditional activities, anticipated project effects on traditional lands and activities, and possible mitigation strategies.

For full details on Enbridge’s Aboriginal engagement and ATK programs, please see volumes 5A and 5B, respectively, of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project application, available at www.northerngateway.ca/public-review/application and the JRP website at http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca.

Summary of Key Interests and Concerns

Aboriginal groups engaged to date have a range of opinions concerning the project. Northern Gateway is committed to considering and responding to project-specific interests and concerns raised by participating Aboriginal groups. In broad terms, interests and concerns identified to date can be categorized as follows:

  • general project information;
  • effects on the environment, including effects of routine activities and potential hydrocarbon spills (marine and terrestrial);
  • cumulative effects of resource development;
  • interests in marine activity on the west coast;
  • logistics, safety and emergency response, both terrestrial and marine;
  • effects on traditional land use and cultural sites;
  • traditional knowledge, participation of Aboriginal groups in ATK programs and use of ATK in the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment;
  • process issues, including capacity funding and participation in the regulatory and environmental review process;
  • community and economic development; and
  • effects on Aboriginal and treaty rights

For a summary of these interests and concerns and Northern Gateway’s responses, please see Volume 5A, Appendix M of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project application, available at www.northerngateway.ca/public-review/application or the JRP website at http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca. Northern Gateway strives to respond promptly to the interests and concerns brought forward by participating Aboriginal groups, using the same means that the Aboriginal group used to make contact with Northern Gateway. Communication with participating Aboriginal groups is aimed at addressing identified interests and concerns to the extent practicable.

Aboriginal input is incorporated into the project design and environmental and socio-economic assessment (ESA) studies. Information received is reviewed by discipline experts for consideration of refinements or modifications to the project, while balancing factors related to community and landowners, environmental, engineering, integrity, cost and constructability issues.

Feedback received up to filing the regulatory application in May 2010 had resulted in refinements to the project in the areas of:

  • pipeline routing;
  • pump station locations;
  • pipeline engineering and construction;
  • operations of the Kitimat Terminal and tankers;
  • project execution and operations;
  • the scope of the environmental assessment; and
  • the geographic extent of field surveys.

First Nations Opposition to the Consultation Process

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency initially consulted with Aboriginal groups on the proposed regulatory process for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

A number of First Nations indicated that their rights include the right to determine what projects can be permitted to proceed on their lands.

A number of Aboriginal groups also made submissions that the proposed consultation process did not meet the Crown’s consultation obligations and that a separate Aboriginal review process was required for the project. The federal government did not accept these submissions and established the previously defined Joint Review Panel (JRP) process to review the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project application. The Government committed to taking a whole-of-government approach to consultation and that as part of this approach it would rely, to the extent possible, on the JRP process to assist in fulfilling its legal duty to consult Aboriginal groups. The Government also noted that the JRP process had proven over time to be an effective means for the review of the environmental impacts of proposed projects and the consideration of broad societal concerns, including those of Aboriginal groups. In the event that project-related issues fall outside the mandate of the JRP, the federal government stated that it would consult directly with the potentially affected Aboriginal groups on these matters at any time. As mentioned in the ‘Duty to Consult’ section above, the federal government has issued a project-specific Aboriginal Consultation Framework for Northern Gateway creating a consultation plan for the project. Funding is available from the CEAA to assist Aboriginal groups with the costs of participating in the JRP process and a majority of the Aboriginal groups along the corridor have submitted applications for such funding. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that a number of Aboriginal groups will maintain their position that the current process does not meet the Crown’s duty to consult.

Documents on the CEAA website contain a description of the Crown’s consultation approach and how the Crown proposes to satisfy its obligations, the federal government’s establishment of the JRP process, and public comments, submissions and requests. These can be accessed through the general CEAA website at www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/details-eng.cfm?cear_id=21799#documents.

Specifically: a copy of the “Aboriginal Consultation Framework for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project” is available on the CEAA website at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=40861 ; and links to the public comments / submissions / requests are available at www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/05/documents-eng.cfm?evaluation=21799&type=7.

First Nations Opposition to the Project

Certain Aboriginal groups have publicly stated their opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. The Aboriginal groups have indicated concern about the potential impacts of a spill, particularly on the salmon fishery in British Columbia. They have indicated that they are considering all options to prevent the project. These options could include legal challenges to the consultation efforts of the Crown or to the JRP process or its outcomes. The result of such legal challenges would ultimately be decided by the courts, but even if unsuccessful, they could potentially increase the risk of project delay.