‘A northwest tidewater bitumen pipeline is the answer to being able to increase our production or increase our economic activity,’ said Dale Swampy, chief executive of the National Coalition of Chiefs.
By Leanne Sanders | Dec 18, 2025
An Indigenous think tank says the push for resource development projects in Canada is creating uncertainty for Indigenous communities about their inclusion and rights, as well as division between communities who are for and against development.
Yellowhead Institute executive director Hayden King says there’s also a lot of confusion and concern around the federal government’s partnership with Alberta and the new federal regulatory regime for oil and pipeline projects.
In an interview with APTN News, King notes the division among First Nation communities on resource development, saying, “This is a conflict of narrative as much as it is a conflict around law and a conflict around rights.”
King is critical in his assessment of how governments view Indigenous participation.
“Just because one First Nation … supports the project, that doesn’t mean that it has the consent from … neighbouring First Nations.”
A case in point is the Nisga’a Nation’s involvement in the Ksi Lisims liquid natural gas project. It is one of the ventures that Prime Minister Mark Carney asked the Major Projects Office to consider for fast tracking. LNG development is not supported by the Gitanyow Nation, which has a longstanding territorial dispute with Nisga’a.
As well, King says, the Nov. 27 signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Alberta and Ottawa hearkens back to an earlier era of Indigenous-Crown relationships.
Many First Nations have been critical not only of the MOU, which aims to get more Alberta bitumen to the West Coast, but also of the provincial and federal legislation that could pave the way for it to happen.
In B.C., there were ongoing concerns about a lack of meaningful consultation, even before two such bills were passed: Bill 14, which deals with streamlined permitting of renewable energy projects and Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act. Both received Royal Assent on May 29.
After their passage, Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief for B.C., Terry Teegee said “the passage of Bills 14 and 15 represents a new low point in the relationship between the Provincial Crown and First Nations.”
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, the president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs which advocates for more than one hundred First Nations was more dramatic in his response.
“There is overwhelming opposition from First Nations all over the province to Bills 14 and 15. With the province’s forced closure of the bills…reconciliation in B.C. is having a near death experience,” Phillip said.
“For the past few weeks, our relationship with the province on the bills has been challenged by unilateral decision making and the province’s condescending attitude that they know what’s best for all First Nations in B.C.”
It’s a different story in Alberta, where the National Coalition of Chiefs (NCC) advocates for responsible resource development. Founder Dale Swampy says the NCC’s mandate is to end on-reserve poverty. He says he understands the concerns of coastal First Nations but says being well informed is part of being a good leader.
“I think the important part of getting people to make informed decisions on projects is to get the chiefs to meet with the proponent to talk about all the issues and concerns that they have,” Swampy says. “I’ve always said once they meet with them and once they realize that, first of all, these are Canadians. And these Canadians are concerned about environmental protection as well.”
Swampy maintains that once chiefs understand the amount of money and resources being spent on integrity and safety systems, as well as on environmental protection plans, they tend to support the project. And he says with the state of the economy, there’s no place for “absolutist” thinking.
“We think the coalition model that the First Nations utilized on Northern Gateway should be the model utilized on this Northern Gateway 2.0,” he explains. “I think it’s key, because we’ve got to stop waiting hat in hand for the province or proponents or the federal government to come and consult with us. We’ve got to lead these projects.”
First Nations leaders, he says “need to be able to not just defend the approval of a project, but defend the opposition of a project.”
The Northern Gateway Pipeline was a proposed $7.9 billion project by Enbridge to build twin pipelines from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C., for exporting Alberta’s oil to Asian markets via a new marine terminal. It faced significant opposition due to environmental concerns, particularly for crossing the Great Bear Rainforest and salmon-spawning rivers. These issues led to the Northern Gateway’s cancellation by the federal government in 2016, despite initial approvals, with the Federal Court of Appeal ruling there was inadequate First Nations consultation.
And coastal First Nations have renewed their vow that a north coast pipeline will never be built.
“As the Rights and Title Holders of the Central and North Coast and Haida Gwaii, we are here to remind the Alberta government, the federal government, and any potential private proponent that we will never allow oil tankers on our coast, and that this pipeline project will never happen,” says Haisla Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett.
King says he foresees that “the future of Indigenous-Crown relations is going to be one where the division is less between Indigenous communities and the Crown and industry, and more between Indigenous proponents of development and those who oppose.” He warns this division could go on for decades.“This is a prime time, because we’ve got a lot of rights, we’ve got a lot of opportunities, and we’ve got to take advantage of it.”