Coastal First Nations remain opposed to B.C. pipeline after Carney meeting

Setting the Stage: Coastal First Nations and the Pipeline Debate This is a CBC podcast. Hey, David, here is your New Year's resolution to be more plugged in to politics. Well, Power and Politics has you covered six days a week with breaking political news and expert analysis. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts and you won't miss an episode. Now on to today's show. The Prime Minister meets with coastal First Nations to discuss major projects in northern British Columbia. After that meeting, those First Nations were clear their position on an oil pipeline has not changed. I'm David Cochran. The Power and Politics podcast starts now. Haida Nation Reiterates Unchanged Opposition to Oil Pipeline We begin in British Columbia, where today Prime Minister Mark Carney met with coastal First Nations to discuss major projects. The meeting comes after the federal government signed a memorandum of understanding with Alberta, which includes a path forward for a possible oil pipeline and the lifting of an oil tanker ban along BC's North Coast. GWIS Jason Alsop is president of the Haida Nation and he joins me now. Gag wise is good to see you again. Thank you for being here, Sir. Speaker 2 Hi, David. Good afternoon. Good to be here. Speaker 1 And based on your comments when you came out of the meeting, it's very clear your position hasn't changed on an oil pipeline. I'm curious whether the Prime Minister or anyone else tried to convince you to change your mind in your conversations today. Speaker 2 I know it was a very productive meeting with the Prime Minister today and and like he said, it was really about building relationships and and starting a a face to face dialogue around areas that we can find alignment and where we can work together amongst the coastal nations and Canada. Speaker 1 Where were things, though on the idea of the of the bitumen pipeline to Prince Rupert, of of lifting the tanker ban because the Prime Minister, his key ministers, members of the government talk about this as a national imperative, the need to get this economic activity in the face of what Donald Trump is doing. What, what was the message from the government to you and the others in the room on that front today, Sir? Speaker 2 But the the message from the government was that, you know, there is a commitment to building a relationship to the journey of reconciliation and and finding areas of alignment. I think there was also more clarity from the Prime Minister's office around his major projects office and his, his process for how that work is to unfold and some productive discussions around, you know, what that looks like in terms of free prior and informed consent and, and undrip and, and how that could be done in a way that does seek consent. Speaker 1 So, So what clarity did they give you on that front? Because I know this has been something people are wondering about, right? That consultation is not a veto and approval and and consent are our consultation and consent are different things is how a lot of people are talking about it. Well, how did the Prime Minister explain to you today how he views those principles? Speaker 2 Well, that obviously there's a a legal requirement to consult and accommodate and the as the bare minimum. But ultimately that we, we need to work together and that we need to form relationships and that, you know, we, we were clear about our position that we would like the oil tanker moratorium act to stay in place. But there are other things we got to look at in terms of the other nation building projects that were announced and the impacts those have on the territory and the work, positive work we could do together. And I think it was clear that just because projects do make that list, there still is a, a process to go through. There's still a lot of work to actually get to a project delivery and although there's need for action to respond to the economic challenges, there's still process, there's still due diligence and a lot of good work that that needs to happen. Existing Shipping Traffic Overwhelms Coast, Relationship Building Continues There there were some measures today based on the statements coming from both sides of the conversation on an extending funding for the Oceans protection plan, reconciliation framework agreement, extending the leases on on tow boats for, for lack of a better term, these sorts of things. So to focus on coastal protection in the wake of the concerns of the increased economic activity from the other projects. But what was your sense guys, on how determined the federal government is to see a pipeline that that goes to the Northwest Coast be is this, did you get the sense that this is a true imperative and priority for them or something an option they are merely considering? Speaker 2 Well, we, we focused again on the areas of alignment. My, my sense is it is, you know, obviously it's an option and was put on the table in the MCU with Alberta and, and something considering the challenges, economic challenges and the relationship with the United States is something he, you know, needs to consider to be responsible leader. But you know ultimately we focused a lot of the dialogue around again these other nation building projects that were announced and really making clear that outside of the pipeline with what we're exist with existing projects, existing shipping traffic and the proposed increases exponentially over 217% in the coming years. The coast is not prepared for the existing traffic, let alone introducing something like bitumen tankers. Speaker 1 So in terms of dealing with that issue, because I know this was a concern you raised when we last spoke. Well, I believe when you were here for the vote on the on, on one of the pipeline votes in Parliament beyond the expansion of the funding for the protection plan, what, what sort of progress are you going to see do you think or were you promised coming out of this on those areas of alignment to better protect the coastline from what's going to be pretty robust activity, whether or not there is a pipeline? Speaker 2 Yeah, well, we'll leave it up to the government to make their formal announcements on things. But I think what what is what was landed from our side was for him to get grounded in the coast, in the realities that we face as coastal communities, as nations, and to understand that that work is imperative. So it does allow us to be able to actually implement the agreements that we already have, you know, hopefully a faster and more effective way to address our current challenges and prepare for for future increases in shipping. So I think it was, you know, as he said, it was a relationship building meeting. It wasn't about being announced and and in that work necessarily, but obviously where we touched on these existing agreements and the work we have to continue to invest in addressing the existing shipping traffic as well as implementing marine protected areas along the Haida Gwaii North Coast and Central Coast. Prime Minister Carney's Commitments and the Journey of Reconciliation So where does this relationship building go from here? I know this was the first face to face and they came to you on on the way to China, which I know was a an important thing to see happen. What what's the next step? Presumably this is not a one off that there will be more meetings. Where does it go from here? Agrees. Speaker 2 Well, it was an important sign of respect by Prime Minister Carney to accept the invitation that we were making. Well, we've made personally and publicly in response to the MOU. Next is to follow up on the discussions and the commitments that were made to really pick up the pace of implementation of our agreements and move that work forward. And you know, as that begins to accelerate and unfold, you know, we will need to be in constant dialogue and and checking in as the nation building projects on the major projects list continue to progress and ensure that there is good communication and in this relationship continues to build as as those processes unfold. Speaker 1 OK, I, I know you said you wanted to leave it to the government to announce what they've decided on. I'm not trying to trap your trick because they've sent us a statement and they talk about the Prime Minister committed to renewing funding for the ocean protection plan that we talked about. And, and coming back with something in 2627 reaffirmed the commitment to conserving 30% of land and water by 20-30, including working with the First Nations on identified marine protected areas in the Great Bear Sea. And to strengthen ocean protection. They will also fund a marine traffic risk assessment study, extend the leases of two emergency towing vessels until 2028, and ensure that towing capacity is consistent with shipping activity. Does that cover it or is there more to come beyond that from today? Speaker 2 That does cover most of what was discussed today. And I think it's important for everyone to understand that those those are, you know, really pre-existing agreements and arrangements that this government is now really committing to. It is work that has been well underway that, you know, that the nations have been leading and working with BC and Canada. But this will allow us to to continue that work. But also the Prime minister's commitment to, you know, make it a priority and to speed things up. You know, he is a action, He's spoke about leading with action and results and you know, that's what we expect to see in implementing these agreements and being able to see those improvements on the ground and our ability to respond and look after our ocean territory. Speaker 1 So just as a final question before I let you go, there has been some criticism of the way this Prime Minister and and the government under his leadership have approached issues on with First Nations and Indigenous peoples in terms of consultation and meeting. But you sound, it sounds like today, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. So tell me if I'm wrong that that you felt respected and heard today. Do you feel better about things? Am I understanding this correctly? Speaker 2 We do, I think we see it as a sign of respect. And I, I think it was, it's really important. And for us, and we, we shared with the Prime Minister our respect for leadership, for the leadership challenge that he faces and keeping the country together and responding to economic challenges and addressing the budget and, and trying to make sure that, you know, all of our this fragile systems right now, the economic system, ecosystems, relationships with with each other, relationships between the province and the federal government, relationships with the indigenous people. So we understand the complexity of the challenge he faces and his, you know, he got out the gates, you know, trying to show that action and having to travel the world and, and, and do everything, you know, perhaps wasn't able to make those early contacts. But, you know, we're here now. And this reconciliation process is a journey. It's not a transactional relationship. It's something that we all need to commit to and and keep working on to adapt to the challenges we all face. Could we see the opportunity? Speaker 1 Right. Yeah. Well, well, so it was good to see you again. It's good to speak with you again. This guy with the president of the Hidden Nation. Thank. Thank you for your time on a busy day, Sir. We appreciate it. Speaker 2 Alright, David, take. Speaker 1 Care. So today's meeting with the Prime Minister, it hasn't changed the coastal First Nations objections to a pipeline to the BC coast. But how much does that matter if there's still no private sector proponent who's come forward to build the pipeline? Joining me now is Sonia Savage. She is a former Alberta Minister of Energy and a former Alberta Minister of the Environment. And of course, lots of experience in the oil sector. So I just have, it's good to see you. Thank you for being here today. Speaker 3 Well, thanks for having me. Is a Private Sector Pipeline Viable Without Government Guarantees? So even before we get to the the objections of the First Nations in British Columbia, this is a pipeline that no one in the private sector has agreed to build yet. So under current conditions, how likely is it that a private proponent will come forward? Speaker 3 Well, I think what we're seeing now is, is with situation in Venezuela and the Americans taking control of Venezuela oil that has now become a political imperative. It's a national interest imperative to get a new coastal pipeline built. And we've seen a lot of de risking of that through the memorandum of understanding to take away a lot of the political and regulatory and policy risk. But there's still some commercial uncertainty for companies to be able to to commit to long term shipping commitments to, to make the pipeline economical. So we've got a lot more political certainty. We have a political and national interest imperative, but there's some more work to do on making it a commercial reality. Speaker 1 So you had said in an interview, I believe, with my colleague Kathleen Petty, that without some sort of a government guarantee, a pipeline simply isn't viable, No private sector proponents going to come forward. Does Venezuela change that opinion or is that just something that you sort of have to set aside as you look at the bottom line here? Speaker 3 Well, I think there there is a concern that oil and we've we've heard President Trump say he wants to keep oil prices low and at $50 a barrel oil that's going to be very challenging for companies to be able to commit to long term shipping agreements. And remember a lot of these companies and pipeline companies too are once bitten twice shy. They've had projects fail before with getting in into regulatory and political hurdles. So I think we're going to need to see some sort of be risking of a pipeline and that doesn't have to be equity ownership, government owning it. There can be a number of ways to de risk a pipeline. It can be funding Indigenous equity through loan guarantees. It can be helping Indigenous groups become Equity Partners. It can be in the form of the government of Alberta taking a shipping commitment with royalty and kind barrels. It can be putting a backstop on what a toll would be, what the cost of shipping would be. And that's not unusual. That happened in the 1970s when Line 9 was built. There was a backstop on the tolls so that companies knew what the price was gonna be, that it wasn't going to be any higher. So it could come in all sorts of forms it doesn't have. It could also come in in terms of putting a lot more infrastructure in on the coast for marine, marine safety. So it can come in all sorts of forms. But I think we're going to need to see something for the private sector to step up. Speaker 1 Well, look at the, the, you know, oil response improvements, this is this I, I think that's a given if this somehow goes, goes ahead. But in terms of giving that, that satisfies the concerns of the coastal First Nations, right. But in terms of giving that financial certainty on the pipeline, on the barrels, I mean, is this a federal government investment is a provincial government of both? How do you see it going? The 'National Imperative' for Pipelines vs. First Nations Opposition Well, I think there's gonna be some conversations, conversations along the the way of who who would be able to step forward. Both the federal government and the provincial government have Indigenous equity programs. The AIC and Alberta federal government has a similar program. So they both have some infrastructure on how to de risk these projects. The province has the ability to commit barrels on on the line, but this isn't just remember this is there is nothing new about this in Canada to backstop and help de risk pipelines. In the 1950's, the federal government, federal government, CD Howe backstopped and underwrote the building of the Trans Canada Main Line to make sure it's an all Canadian route across Northern Canada. They set up a crown corporation and they owned part of it. It wouldn't have been built without that governments intervention. Same with Line 9, same with TMX, wouldn't have been built without the federal government stepping in. And so it's this isn't anything new. And I think now what we're seeing now is there is a political urgency, there is a national imperative to move this kind of project quickly at a time when there's more commercial risk and commercial uncertainty. So if we want to move it fast, if we want to move it quickly, if we want to move it ahead of when companies are prepared to to commit, we're going to have to see, we will have to see some government intervention. Speaker 1 But what does that say about the viability of this entire project? That it requires extraordinary intervention from the government to get it to a point where it can go ahead? Like like is it worthwhile if the if if this is what it takes? Speaker 3 Active right now we've we've seen and we've seen it play out. It's more important to build up North Coast and Northern West Coast pipeline now than it was when Northern Gateway went before the National Energy Board. And that's because we've seen how things have played out in the last 10 years. We only have one market for our project. That product that's the United States takes 90% of oil, Canadian oil production, only 10% gets to alternate markets. And now in the United States, we're seeing, we're seeing competition from other heavy sources of oil from Venezuela, we're seeing our longest trading partner having alternative support sources of supply. So now it's a it's more of a national imperative than ever before. And again, it's not uncommon to see these types of projects de risk. In fact, it's more common to see them de risk than and built with some government government intervention than than not. The only time where pipelines really moved forward without without government and intervention was between at the time of say 2005 and 2010 when Alberta Clipper was built. The first Keystone Pipeline was built when line 3 was proposed and when there was a line 9 was reversed. So there was a period of time when when government backstop wasn't wasn't factored in, wasn't needed. But this is not unusual to require some government de risking. Speaker 1 Well, you say it's a national imperative, and I understand the impulse for that and why people are making the argument. You just look at what's happening in the United States, hour, the hour, day by day and you understand why you want to look for alternative markets. But it is not a First Nations imperative, at least not, you know, in the centre in North Coast of BC and on Haida Gwaii. So you can come up with all kinds of federal or provincial financial instruments to help move this along that that seems like an unchangeable position at least in in what we've heard to to now. Speaker 3 Well, there's certain groups, there's certain groups. Coastal First Nations is has is opposed to it. That's nothing new too. They came out in 2010 when Northern Gateway was first entering into the regulatory process with their own declaration and their own tanker moratorium, and they haven't budged from that. The project was approved by the National Energy Board, by the Joint Review Panel as being in the national interests. Then at that time there was a number of First Nations that were supporting the project and who would have been taking an equity stake in it. Fast forward to today, we still see the the opposition of coastal First Nations, which again that's an organization that is an individual rights holders, individual nations. It's it's, it's more an advocacy group. Speaker 1 But the individual nations are not on board either. Like, you know, the all the ones who have spoken publicly along the route and particularly at the end point along the coast, like they're just not there, right? So so. Speaker 3 Was the at the end of Northern Gateway, there was, there was about 30 Equity Partners who were who would stand to be owners of the Northern Gateway pipeline. I suspect that number and that wasn't going to be majority ownership that was going to have it an equity stake. I think now to build any major infrastructure project like a pipeline, you're going to have to have significant material indigenous equity ownership. They have to have a large partnership in this and by a large partnership, it's not just ownership. They're going to need to be involved in the pipeline safety and monitoring and, and ensuring that it's safe and that would be including on the coast. So I, I think you're going to, to be able to, to get that. I know the government of Alberta, Minister Sani is working hard on on finding a path forward. At the end of the day, when Northern Gateway was vetoed by the by the federal government, there was significant support for it by a number of First Nations who would have had a lot to gain economically. Speaker 1 Well, it was also its approval was overturned by the court before the government did effectively kill it. Well, it's approval was because of lack of consultation and then the government did put the, put the. Speaker 3 Knife down on paragraph so there's you can't rewrite history on paragraph 344 of the court judgment, the Federal Court judgment on Northern Gateway, the court said consultation was not complete and the court set out a whole road map on what steps need to be done and said there was 4 phases of consultation. Government, Matt all met the test in three. And on phase four, there was some steps to, to be complete would take about four months, right? The government instead of completing the consultation vetoed it. So at that point there was a road map forward. There was a, a regulatory decision approving Northern Gateway and a court decision that said you need to complete the consultation. That's the same thing that happened in TMX. And the government chose to complete the consultation there. So we can get there again. And I think now that it's, it's, it's, it's a national imperative to, to get some new access to new markets. I think we can and we we have to get there. Speaker 1 OK, we're out of time. Former Alberta energy minister Sonia Savage. I appreciate your time. Thank you for joining us today. Speaker 3 Thank you. Thanks. Speaker 1 The US president is urging Iranians to keep protesting as demonstrations calling for regime change intensify. Inside Iran: Violent Crackdown and Shocking Death Tolls Reported Donald Trump posted online that help is on the way, but when asked by reporters, the president declined to clarify what exactly that means. Speaker 4 You're gonna have to figure that one out. I'm sorry. Speaker 1 Trump's comments come as the world sees new footage from inside Iran where the regime has cut off Internet in an attempt to shut down the anti government protests. And a warning. This next footage we're about to show you is disturbing. Relatives gathered outside a forensic medical centre in Tehran to identify bodies of their loved ones. It's not clear how many people have died during the violent crackdown by security forces, but the US based human rights activist news agency is reporting more than 2000 people have been killed. Other agencies are warning that that number could be much, much higher. Omid Memarian is an Iranian human rights expert and a senior fellow at Dawn, a Washington based organization focused on the Middle East. Omid, it's good to see you. Thank you for being here today, Sir. Speaker 4 Thanks Davies for having me on. Speaker 1 The New York Times reports that that eyewitnesses say government forces have begun opening fire, apparently with automatic weapons and at times seemingly indiscriminately, on unarmed protesters. What are you hearing from people you spoken to in Iran? Speaker 4 It's been shocking to hear what what has been happening on the streets in Tehran and other cities. We woke up to the news of more than 2000 people, more than 3000 people killed in Iran over the past few days. We have reports by Iran International and CBS that they are claiming that the number is around like 12,000 and it might be up to 20,000 people. These numbers are shocking. And you know, it's it's astonishing how the government has done this in such a very short time. It's obvious that over the past few days that they shut down the Internet and disconnected the country from the outside world. They unleashed a very severe crackdown. And they use us, you know, a huge, very high level of violence. And on Friday, I talked to some people inside the country. On Saturday, they had very limited access to a few people that I got a few messages who participated in the protests. They witnessed a very raw level of cruelty and violence on the streets even in those areas that they had peaceful protests. So things are getting worse and we don't have much information about Tuesday or Monday, but we have heard from different sources that are still in many cities, including Tehran in some areas that protests are are are going. Speaker 1 It it is a very unusual in this day and age not to have sort of, you know, line of sight into any part of the world given the Internet and cell phones. But but Iran is one of those and the discrepancy on the estimates on on deaths of 2000 up to 20,000, so to speak to the challenge that's there. But we have seen reports that state media, they're referring to the demonstrators as terrorists. That is that stage setting for an even more violent response in terms of a crackdown. Speaker 4 The Iranian government has the history of lying to the people there and then. So there's very little trust in what government news agencies claim. But, you know, when you have a protest that there are many different stakeholders in the region and there might be agitators and all that, But it's the responsibility of the government to protect its people. And over the past few years, we have seen that, you know, the government hold no responsibility. Also, the government can easily open the doors of the country and LED international investigators entered the country, human rights organisations entered the country, investigate what happened. If they claim that they are terrorists. And you know, we, we don't know, but we know that the number of people who have been killed by security forces is, is high. And for for that, for that alone, the government should open the country today in in international investigators, human rights organisations and let them see what happened. Speaker 1 We, we have this interesting geopolitical dance happening between the regime and the president of the United States, right? You heard Donald Trump there saying keep protesting, help will be there. But when asked, he said you'll have to find out. I mean, that is not reassuring if you're someone in Tehran advocating for a change in government. We've now seen moving on the wires Oman just a few minutes ago. Iran's UN mission accuses Donald Trump of encouraging political destabilization and inciting violence, threatening Iran sovereignty, and warning that the US and Israel bear legal responsibility for the resulting loss of civilian lives, particularly among the youth. So you have Iran blaming America for what is to come and Israel for what is to come, with no clarity on what kind of support could be there for the people who could face a crackdown of even greater strength. Speaker 4 That's, that's correct. There's no love lost between the United States and Iran and the, the 2 government. And, and at the same time, you know, yes, definitely President Trump's tweet that we are locked and voted and we intervene if violence is a, you know, is used against Iranian protesters. That definitely encouraged some people. We don't know how much, how many of the people who went to the streets were encouraged by Trump, but we know that was encouraging. They might have thought that those people, security forces on the streets, I think twice before they basically shoot at them. Trump's Tweets, Iran's Blame, and a Regime Under Pressure At the same time, the grievances of the people who are on the streets are real. They are very much frustrated with the government. They have had it enough. They are set up with the regime and the government has not been, has not been successful to respond to their basic needs. You know, right now the over the past six months, people have become much poorer and many people have come to this belief that and nothing would would change inside the country unless they there's no Islamic Republic. So that's why many of the chants on the streets are target the supreme leader, Ali Harmony, and people call him a dictator. Dictator and, you know, want him to go. Speaker 1 Well, we, we've seen protests in recent years. We've seen protests, Well, I, I don't know if they're larger than the ones recently, but certainly at the beginning of this, there have been larger scale protests in past years without regime change. How do you view what is happening here now? Does this feel difference? Does it look different, you know, substantively because it is truly difficult to know what is happening inside Iran right now. But the regime does seem prepared to crack down. I mean, how do you see the the risk to us, to the Iranian leaders? Speaker 4 I think that this is a very different wave of protests that that we are witnessing right now in terms of the intensity of the protest, in terms of the number of cities that are involved, in terms of the number of people who are participating in these protests. And the number of cities are this time around is like over 150 cities. And also the fact that people are in a much different position compared to like 2022 protests of the after the killing of Nassau, meaning. And then what is happening now is that people understand that the government is at its weakest position, right? The government also is in a position that they cannot really respond to people's needs when it comes to economy. There is no way out for the Iranian government. You're under a huge amount of sanctions. They cannot cash their, the, the oil that they sell to China, for example. And financially they cannot promise people anything. So, you know, I think, you know, the Iranian government is in, in a, in a very, very, very impossible situation. And that's why they see these protests are very different. They see it as a matter of survival. Speaker 1 Right. So because with the weakening and and of Hamas of Hezbollah, the the switch in Syria in terms of proxies and allies, Iran is really isolated right now. And economically, if it can't, if it can't protect its people and can't provide for its people, then then what is the good of a government like that? So I wonder is the final point with what the president is saying, President Trump, how do you interpret that? How do you think that's being interpreted? And should people count on it I guess is the question I have. Speaker 4 There has been a lot of contradictory messaging coming out of the White House. And I think a lot of that is because to preserve the element of surprise, for example, the president says, you know, Marco Rubio said that the intervention or the the help would not be like military related non kinetic. That means, you know, it might be diplomatic, economic, legal, economic pressure, cyber attacks in many ways. So it could be, it could come in many different forms, but you know, I, I think, you know, it could be anything. the US involvement could be take many forms ranging from targeting assassination, targeted assassination of Iranian leaders or Iranian officials or IIRC or Revolutionary Guards military bases and even Marco Rubio's. A reference to non kinetic option should not be interpreted narrowly. This does not necessarily mean only diplomatic pressure or economic sanctions or cyber operations would be there on the under list. It could also mean that their first at the first phase they don't use the military option, but they might still allow for material support or proxy forces to be active in Iran, which is like a very, very dangerous path. If it has nothing, it has nothing to do with the aspirations of the Iranian for freedom and democracy. So it's, it's a very complicated situation and you know, we have to see what unfolds in the next few days. Speaker 1 Ohmed Mammary and it was great to meet you. The Omid Memarian is an Iranian human rights expert and senior fellow with Don. Thank you for your time today, Sir. Speaker 4 Thank you. Power Panel Discusses First Nations' Consistent Pipeline Opposition Today's not a day for big announcements. It is a day, as I say, for dialogue, for listening and working. There will be a time for coming back with progress, particularly with respect to conservation. Prime Minister Mark Kearney, speaking briefly there to reporters before meeting today with BC Coastal First Nations, say in that meeting they discussed Kearney's push to help build major projects, including a potential oil pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast, something those First Nations are still strongly against even after meeting with the Prime Minister. Speaker 5 Coastal presentations, along with Flex columns and the highest salination oppose any project that proposed to bring oil tankers to the North Coast. We reiterated that there is no technology that can clean up an oil spill at sea and that it would take just one spill to destroy our way of life. Speaker 1 OK, we're gonna start there with the power panel today. Amanda Alvero is a former Liberal Party communications strategist. Lisa Raitt is a former Conservative cabinet minister. Nathan Cullen is a former NDP MP and BC NDP cabinet minister, and Emily Nicola is a columnist for the Devoir. It's good to see you all. Nathan, I'd like to start with you. We heard there from Marilyn Slept earlier on the show Gag wise was on. They seem immovable on this particular issue when it when it comes to giving consent to a bitumen pipeline through their territory. Sonia Savage, though, says she thinks maybe they can get there in the end. What do you make of what we heard and what we saw today with the prime minister's trip up north? Speaker 6 The coastal First Nations have been incredibly consistent. And this is not just with the current leadership. This goes back more than 50 years when Canada first started proposing moving oil on the North Coast and now in a diluted bitumen form. And you heard that from Gog Wise in his comments and I watched the press conference. It's the fact you can't clean up a spill and that's what we learned the last time an oil pipeline was promote proposed a northern gateway that all the research told us that when it still happens, it becomes a permanent effect. And for coastal First Nations, they've been very clear. What was interesting to me there was the the joining in of the communities of Lock Williams as well as the Haisla Nation and as you know the Heisler who are in Kitimat. I've been very progressive, very pro industry and been able to get quite a bit done. The current MP from the region from Heisler and when he was the chief counselor there, he too was supposed to oil because it of this question of risk versus reward and the responsibilities. So no real surprises. It'll be interesting to see how Mr. Carney is able to advance his promises to Alberta. But I I'm not surprised that this happened in the northwest today. This is very, very consistent language from the leadership. Speaker 1 Lisa, it was interesting in speaking with GWIS because there have been some criticism of the federal government's approach to this in terms of dealing with First Nations and Indigenous leaders, that he felt respected by the process and was satisfied with where the relationship is now. Negative Signals Deter Pipeline Investment Despite Government Support But progress on the relationship front, it seems like progress on the pipeline is, is, is going to be far, far, far more difficult, if not impossible after what we heard today. I don't think you can say impossible. I, I think you don't know circumstances can change. What I do know is that it is so early in any kind of process right now to say yes or no. It's definitely gonna happen. They're talking, that's what matters. But I will tell you one thing. This kind of language and open discussion about there's a strong dislike of having an oil pipeline in the north of BC that's not just heard by Canadians, David, that's heard around the world by absolutely everybody. So as a result, it'll be very difficult to tracked somebody who wants to build a pipeline there because they're just hearing negatives. They're hearing that the risk may not be able to be mitigated, that there be an uphill battle. It sounds like it'll be a long time to get some kind of a regulatory approval. Even though the governments in there saying, no, we're here to help, it's still not the signal and not the noises that industry is going to want to hear. Well, you know, and Amanda, Sonia Savage was saying earlier that, you know, the Indigenous objections aside, there's just not enough de risking of the pipeline for private sector proponent at this stage would require probably a significant amount of backstop from the federal, provincial or accommodation of the both. So where do you think things stand right now? Like there wasn't a strong arm it seems from the federal government and this just let's start the relationship process here. Speaker 7 Yeah, I think the Prime Minister handled the setup really well, kind of set the tone This, He said, this isn't about big announcements, this is about dialogue. And then I think the reciprocal was true too. When leaders of those First Nations communities spoke, they really talked about a mutual respect. It was very cordial. It was very pleasant. Lot of talk about alternatives, working together, putting in effort. You can't help but listen to a press conference like that in such stark contrast to what's happening in the US when an administration tries to ram down, you know, their mandate, dumb throats of industry and community. And you see this contrast to how the Canadian government is dealing with First Nations communities objectives. Very real, very fair, objective objections to the pipeline. This is a this is the long game. And I agree with Lisa. I think that it's particularly concerning when the Prime Minister is about to head to China looking for investment opportunities and partnerships. And clearly there is a lot of opposition to a pipeline. But at the same time, I also agree that these doors don't feel closed to me at all. There was a no, but there was really. I felt like the language, the tone signaled that there was a willingness to work together. What that looks like, the path to get there, very murky, very blurry at the moment, but the partnership and the willingness I think is is the key to having at least some of those investment conversations. The Delicate Balance: Conservation, Economic Development, and Bitumen Emily, I took the willingness to work together to be on, let's mitigate the risk of the LNG plant that we know is gonna happen, the critical minerals development we know is going to happen. I, I didn't hear in the news conference or in my conversations with, with with Peguese that there's any openness to bitumen. Like no is a no, is a no, and it will remain a no is what I took from that. How do you view this? Speaker 5 Well, I the science hasn't changed in several decades and it's not about to change as long as there's no way to clean up an oil spill in the ocean. You know what kind of change or openness to dialogue or whatever you wanna call it, people are expecting. However, I do think that it is smart if they are under pending issues such as those that you just mentioned to have that change of tone. Because unfortunately in this country, you often still take an emergency to have the Prime Minister come to the table and sit down with First Nation leaders. And so if they had other issues that they wanted to resolve and work with the federal government with taking the, the the the pipeline as a pretext to actually sit down with the Prime Minister and advance other files and know that because Mark Carney wants something from First Nations, is likely to want to cooperate on other files. I think I think this is really a smart political leadership from First Nations and on the coastal region on that, on in that, in that way. And if it makes people feel like there's hope for a pipeline, it helps them play that game longer, which is good for. Speaker 8 Them. Speaker 1 So, so Nathan, I saw you shaking your head. Or earlier on the idea of people working weather like there, there is a willingness to work together on the things that they're OK with and that have been approved. And like there's gonna be a massive amount of economic activity in that part of British Columbia if all these major projects go ahead. But but is there a path as Sonia Savage said that you can maybe get agreement on the bitumen pipeline? Or does it just seem I don't want to trigger Lisa with seeing impossible but I'm having a hard time to see possible right now. Speaker 6 Well, Lisa is a very hopeful person. I've always known her to be. But hope hope all the way to delusion can be a little bit of a narrow path. Remind me not to play poker with you at any point David, because I can't hide my expressions on feeling the the mitigation that was talked about today was about the current activity which I've I've yet to have anyone tell me different. But there's more going on economically with First Nation support in the northwest of BC then just about anywhere else in Canada. Major mines, multi 10s of billions of dollars going into LNG, all sorts of rail and port expansions. One of the things that frustrates people here in the north is this idea that there's an anti business or anti Canada sentiment or we're being selfish or not willing to take some of the impacts of economic development that helps the entire country. Nothing could be further from the truth. And and that's been one of the things coastal First Nations and the province of BC have been saying. There's a lot going on, 10's and 10s of billions of dollars of investment, trade, diversification, all those things that we're talking about that have support, sometimes tepid, but have support of First Nations. When you put oil bitumen onto the table, it potentially, and it's a serious threat, could disrupt what is a delicate balance of support. So a lot of what we talked about today was around conservation commitments that the feds have already made and that coastal First Nations and the people of BC are deeply invested in. And I think there was respect shown by the Prime Minister and his natural resource minister for showing up and sitting face to face. That was mentioned a lot of times. It's very important. Does that lead to them dropping a century half century long opposition to oil bitumen or change the science of the inability to clean up a major bill? I don't think it does, and I don't think anyone in the private sector is likely to think so either. Speaker 1 Yeah, no, this is an old-fashioned conservation fight. You know, on this particular issue, it's not about emissions and GHG for for the most part, it's about what it would do to the natural habitat if something were to go wrong. So, so Lisa, that like the conversations will continue here, obviously. And I know you, you made the point about the signals of sense to investors into capital and and they could be discouraging. So what is the next move? I mean, it was important for the Prime Minister and Minister Hodgson to meet with the people he met with today. What is the next move there? If you're the government industry, Alberta, and you'll want to try to to move this along, I think it's in the hands of Alberta, quite frankly. You need to be a proponent and you need to have a project and you need to advance it. I think my point and I'm not deluded, Nathan, you know that I'm. Speaker 6 Sorry, sorry, I wasn't calling you deluded. I apologize. Speaker 1 He meant diluted like the bitumen. I don't know. Anyway, my point being, gentlemen, that the reality is, is that like I said, we don't necessarily have a project right now, but I also don't believe that we should not discuss the possibility of a of a project in the future. I don't like absolutism. So you're using the word impossible. You're saying saying the science will never change. Of course it can change. You can figure out a way to encapsulate it in Clathrates. If you want to try to figure out how to get rid of the bitumen so that it's not going to wash up, there it is. There's always work that can be done. There can be mitigation done with the types of tankers going up and down. Impossible is not something that we should be considering because the other side of the Ledger is what happens if that becomes the only game in town, what happens? It becomes that becomes the most important thing that we could possibly provide to the world. And yet we're all sitting here today saying it's impossible. I I don't think everything is impossible other than David saying something nice about the Conservatives that could be impossible. Speaker 6 To hold those shots. Speaker 1 Alright, I I wasn't saying a pipeline is impossible. I think getting the consent of people like Aguis are very difficult, if not impossible at this point in time. Amanda Vera, Lisa Rate, Nathan Cullen, Emily, Nicola. Thank you all so much for being here today. Wrapping Up Today's Discussions on Power & Politics For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca/podcasts.