EDITORIAL: Whose rights prevail in ‘nation-building’?

Article content

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Indigenous groups do not have veto power over projects such as pipelines that cross their territory, but the government must meaningfully consult them and accommodate their legitimate concerns. 

But, what happens when a group is so opposed to a project that nothing will satisfy them, no matter how many concessions are made? 

In that case, who has the ultimate power to decide on the merits of the project — the government or the protesters? 

Many environmental groups that have no intention of ever consenting to any fossil fuel energy project, no matter what concessions are made to address their concerns, routinely launch court challenges with the goal of slowing down the approval process to the point where the project becomes economically unviable. 

This seems inevitable given the passage of the Liberal government’s One Canadian Economy Act on Friday, supported by the Conservatives, to green-light “nation-building projects” such as pipelines, mines and energy infrastructure that cross Indigenous territory where treaty rights apply. 

Prime Minister Mark Carney has said the government will not approve fast-tracking projects opposed by Indigenous groups — but what does that mean? 

Does it mean in a jurisdiction where consent is necessary from multiple Indigenous groups that every one of them must agree to the project, or only a majority and, if so, what kind of a majority? 

Does a majority mean 51% or 99% approval and what does a reasonable effort to accommodate concerns mean? 

These are relevant questions because Indigenous protests that blockade rail lines and highways to protest government decisions in this regard will be damaging to our economy at a time when it is already being weakened by the tariff and trade war launched against us by U.S. President Donald Trump. 

Ideally, nation-building projects approved by the federal government will have substantial support from Indigenous communities under agreements which include significant economic benefits from projects crossing their territory. 

From existing court decisions, we already know that projects which run roughshod over Indigenous rights will not survive the judicial process. 

But, at some point, decisions will have to be made on who is the ultimate authority — the government or groups who will always oppose these projects no matter what accommodations are made?