CPT Aboriginal Justice Delegation Day 4: What's in the Pipeline?

12 Aug 2014

Note: these are my own observations/reactions/musings, not Christian Peacemaker Teams’ official communications. Please also follow Caitlin’s delegation blog, Peace Pigeon, and the official CPT Aboriginal Justice tumblr!

Personal ethnographic note: I am white, Jewish descent, and from San Francisco, California, Turtle Island.

##Pipeline Open House

This evening we attended an open house by TransCanada, the corporation building the Energy East pipeline, intended to move dirty oil (bitumen) from the Tar Sands of Alberta eastward. (There are two other planned pipelines as well, one heading west from Alberta, and one heading south into the US, all intended to carry tar sands dirty oil.) Part of the proposed pipeline will pass through Kenora and a great deal of traditional Anishinaabe (Treaty 3) territory, including Grassy Narrows territory. This part of the pipeline is a conversion of pipe originally designed for natural gas, not bitumen.

The passage of dirty oil through their territory is strongly opposed by a large number of Anishinaabe locals. We went to the open house in order to ask about how local indigenous people would be consulted, and whether First Nations would be respected if they chose to reject the passage of dirty oil through their lands. We did that, and then later (in a surprise to ourselves) joined a nonviolent direct action which disrupted the event. Both events ultimately helped some truth to emerge.

Without giving an exhaustive description of the events, here are a few moments of truth. First, we spoke extensively to the “Aboriginal Relations” team. One of them, a member of a First Nation himself, seemed to become less and less comfortable with his words as he went on. He told us that the usual policy is to send information to First Nations and try to engage them in consultation, but if they miss these communications or choose not to respond, they would lose their chance to respond and “silence is consent”. (TW) There was a clear chill in our group at these words, especially in light of our visit tomorrow to the Kenora Sexual Assault Centre.

Another member of the Aboriginal Relations team indicated that the pipeline might be moved if opposed by a First Nation, but told me to speak to an engineer about how possible that would be. I spoke to an engineer called Tammy, who first looked shocked to hear that anyone had told me that the pipeline might be moved, immediately stopping me and asking, “Which one said that?” I declined to give a name. I asked Tammy about three times whether the pipeline could be moved, and she responded bizarrely each time with comments like, “The safety will be monitored regularly. The integrity of the pipeline will be checked and any faulty piece would be replaced.”

I told her repeatedly that I understood about safety, but that I was asking if the route could be altered to accommodate First Nations’ wishes. Getting visibly irritated, she finally replied, “It’s just like the railroad: it’s coming through, and communities will move…when the railroad came, communities formed themselves around it. If they couldn’t, they left.” I was grateful to get some truth from her. I later confirmed with another engineer that the pipeline route, neither conversion nor new build, was likely to be altered significantly. Clearly, there is no intention of respecting the First Nations if they decide to disallow passage of the pipeline through their territory. This reminded me of another comment an Aboriginal Relations person had made: if the First Nations opposed the pipeline, they would require a “process of education”. Though the company and government speaks of “consultation”, I’m increasingly getting the sense that they really mean something more like, “indoctrination”, or perhaps “placation”.

Note, added a few days later: This issue of “consultation” came up a few days later when we were on the Grassy Narrows First Nation reserve, meeting with a leading member of the community, and one of the plaintiffs in the recent Supreme Court case regarding the rights to log Grassy Narrows territory. He said that people often try to avoid “consultation” meetings when they are called, especially by corporations, because companies often claim that whoever was at the meeting is on record as agreeing with their plans. Of course, he added, if you don’t go to the meeting, they’ll also claim that you consented by not going.

##Open to All (as it turns out)

The demonstration, or nonviolent direct action, was led by Anishinaabe veterans of the Grassy Narrows logging blockade, and supported by a number of more settler-dominated environmental and human rights organisations. Rather than give a full account here, I’d like to mention just a few points that affected me most. (A full description of how the open house was disrupted by the action, along with video and pictures can be found here.)

First, the action was women-led (and/or Two Spirit-led) and very non-male-dominated. The most poignant moment of the action is when an 85-year-old woman from Grassy Narrows addressed the open house, saying that she was just trying to preserve some natural resources for her grandchildren. The silence at her remarks was palpable. Interestingly, another of the leaders of the action stated that consultation needed to occur with the women and the elders of the First Nations, “because we are the ones who make these decisions”, presumably not just Chief and Band Council: “Have you asked the women? Ask the women, ask the elders, we’re the ones that make these decisions”

Another interesting point was that two CPT delegates were co-opted into the centre of the protest, so that some white people would be visible to the media: “Go to the front. We need to see you, so it doesn’t look like it’s only us!” Indeed, it is not only you: we are only too happy to stand with you.

Finally, the women leading the protest repeatedly said, “No means no”. What the women demanded stood in stark contrast to TransCanada’s statement, “silence is consent.”