Rights, Risks And Respect

Full Report (PDF, 854 KB)

A First Nations Perspective on the Lifting of the Federal Moratorium on Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration in the Queen Charlotte Basin of British Columbia

Executive Summary

The First Nations Engagement Process (FNEP) on the question of whether or not to lift the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration in the Queen Charlotte Basin of British Columbia’s coastal waters was announced by Minister Efford on February 18, 2004. Originally slated to end June 30, the information gathering phase was extended to September 3, 2004. By that time the Minister’s representative Cheryl Brooks and NRCAN’s Zoë Carlson had held meetings and conversations with representatives of approximately seventy First Nations communities, including the majority of the communities directly adjacent to or near to the boundaries of the Queen Charlotte Basin. Other communities were from the Winona, Tofino and Georgia Basin areas and a few from inland British Columbia.

The First Nations Engagement Process strove to:

Assist First Nations representatives and community members in getting information about the Government of Canada moratorium review
Ensure that First Nations were aware of the Public Review Process and how to participate if they chose
Provide a forum for information sharing and discussion about the federal moratorium for First Nations who wished to share their views without necessarily wanting to participate in the Public Review, or in addition to participating in that process
Gather and record feedback for the Minister of Natural Resources Canada to inform the federal government about the unique views of First Nations about whether or not to lift the federal moratorium

Many of the meeting participants prefaced the discussion with the caveat that from the First Nation perspective this process was not to be construed as “consultation”. This was to reinforce their view that these discussions would not meet the First Nations understanding of the legal test for “consultation” as set out in the various court cases and government policies.

Most of the participants also conveyed the message that any views and information provided could only be considered preliminary as the First Nations lacked appropriate resources and sufficient time to provide meaningful and informed comment. Further that most First Nations had not had the opportunity to engage in any dialogue with their memberships. Another resounding message was that there was great mistrust of the federal governments’ ability and commitment to hear and respond to anything the First Nations said. In particular – several suggested that the federal government had already reached its decision to support British Columbia’s desire to lift the moratorium and the engagement process was simply an “optics” exercise. Notwithstanding these general caveats the First Nations provided a wide range of thoughts and concerns that they believe must be considered when reaching a decision on whether or not to lift the moratorium.

“First Nations lacked appropriate resources and sufficient time to provide meaningful and informed comment.”

Many comments related to the recognition of rights, the need for greater understanding of risks and the necessity of governments working with First Nations in a respectful manner. Some of the key subjects were:

The need for resolution of unresolved title, rights and jurisdictional issues and, in particular, foreshore rights
Inadequacy of information on key impacts of the lifting of the moratorium on their resources and lifestyles
The need to come together as coastal First Nations peoples to exchange knowledge and views and reach agreement on such a critical matter
Concern about potential impacts of spills on a wide variety of coastal marine life
Belief that potential impacts of offshore activity would be significant with respect to their fishing rights and the correlating traditional practices given the migratory nature of primary fish stocks through the Queen Charlotte Basin
View that impacts of seismic testing to marine species may be too significant to offset the potential economic benefits of offshore exploration and development
Concern that with continued resource exploitation the eventual treaty settlements will be “empty baskets”
Need for meaningful inclusion of traditional ecological knowledge in the science work related to offshore oil & gas
Concern that First Nations were not involved in the design of the engagement and public review processes and that First Nations governments are not being respected because they are not being fully involved in designing studies and participating in decision – making
Concern that given the importance of climate change issues the governments are not more aggressively pursuing alternative energy options
Lack of trust that compensation will be provided for losses to resources and damage to lifestyles

“…impacts of seismic testing to marine species may be too significant to offset the potential economic benefits of offshore exploration and development.”

The numerous First Nations of the Northwest Coast and other coastal communities and inland communities of British Columbia who participated in the FNEP unanimously indicated that it is not in the best interests of their people to lift the oil and gas exploration moratorium in the Queen Charlotte Basin. A small number added the qualifier that “it should not be lifted at this time”.

There are two perspectives contributing to this conclusion. One view is that an informed decision cannot be made on the basis of currently available information. The second view is that there is enough information available now to definitively conclude that the moratorium should absolutely not be lifted. Detailed comments from meetings are included in the Appendix.

Though not one First Nation that met with FNEP endorsed the lifting of the moratorium, many First Nations indicated a preparedness to more fully explore the issue of offshore oil and gas exploration provided they are adequately resourced and given enough time to do so.

When First Nations were asked what the requested resources were needed for, the list included; filling information, knowledge and science gaps, building capacity among their members, support for meetings and decision making between the various First Nations and other levels of government, training and skill development, scientific and technical expertise. It is clear that First Nations support for lifting the moratorium or for moving forward in any way on offshore oil & gas exploration would depend on their level of confidence that they have had a solid opportunity to make well informed decisions in the interests of their people and territories for both today and for the future.

“…as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the Alaskan coast in 1989, the two governments decided to continue their moratoria.”

History of the Process to Date

In 1972, the Government of Canada imposed a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic through Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound due to concerns over potential environmental impacts. The moratorium was subsequently extended to include oil and gas activities. This was followed by a similar prohibition by the Government of British Columbia.

In September 1983, the Governments of Canada and British Columbia carried out a joint federal-provincial review of the potential environmental and socioeconomic effects of oil and gas exploration offshore British Columbia. After numerous public information meetings and public hearings throughout northern coastal British Columbia a report suggested 92 terms, conditions, and recommendations to be applied to offshore oil and gas activities. However, as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the Alaskan coast in 1989, the two governments decided to continue their moratoria.

In 2001, the Government of British Columbia commissioned several studies to assess the potential impacts of offshore oil and gas activities. This was followed by a scientific panel review, also commissioned by British Columbia, which concluded in its January 15, 2002 report that: “There is no inherent or fundamental inadequacy of science or technology, properly applied in appropriate regulatory framework, to justify a blanket moratorium on such activities”. The Panel also concluded that: “There would be several important things that would need to be done before there could be any expectation of investor interest, public or private, in proposals for exploration or development work in the British Columbia offshore.”

In 2002, the Government of British Columbia provided copies of the studies and the scientific panel review report to the Government of Canada and requested that it consider lifting the federal moratorium on oil and gas activities in the Queen Charlotte Basin.

The Federal Approach

As a result of a Cabinet Directive revised in 1999, any future change by Cabinet to the existing West Coast moratorium policy requires a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Such an assessment, undertaken as a public review by an independent federally appointed panel, was deemed to be an appropriate means of consulting key stakeholders as to what needed to be determined prior to making a decision on whether or not to lift the federal moratorium. The federal government therefore initiated a three-part process comprised of:

A science review to assess the science gaps related to possible offshore oil and gas activity
A public review to ascertain public attitudes regarding the moratorium and its potential lifting
A First Nations Engagement process to obtain their knowledge and views on the matter.

The goal of this process is to provide decision makers with a solid understanding of the possible impacts of oil and gas activities in the Queen Charlotte Basin area of offshore B.C. It is important to note that this process itself is not expected to result in a decision on whether or not to lift the moratorium, but rather it is a way of fully exploring the issues and views of British Columbians on this matter. The findings of the process will be used to help inform the Government of Canada’s decision-making as to whether or not to lift the moratorium.

It is important to note that the review is neither mandated, nor intended to address questions regarding ownership or jurisdiction concerning the study area. Also, that any decision to lift the moratorium for specific areas would not immediately result in activities. Before any activity could be undertaken, a regulatory and fiscal management regime would have to be put in place, and project proponents would be required to satisfy any environmental assessment and regulatory requirements.

How the First Nations Engagement Process was Conducted Respecting the unique relationship Canada has with First Nations as well as the significance of their presence and role in the study area a distinct First Nations Engagement process was created to ensure that issues of unique interest to First Nations were fully explored. These discussions were primarily conducted in communities likely to be most directly affected by any future decision in regard to the moratorium, and were not intended to replace or preclude more detailed consultations if and when there is a decision to lift the moratorium or if activity of any sort is proposed. This report, “Rights, Risks and Respect”, presents the results of the discussions. The report also offers some thoughts on important considerations related to engaging with First Nations should there be continued focus on lifting the moratorium or engaging in development related activities at some time in the future.

The First Nations Engagement process was informal. Chiefs and Councillors of each First Nations community directly adjacent to or near to the boundaries of the Queen Charlotte Basin were informed by means of letters, faxes, press releases and phone calls that the First Nations Engagement Process was underway and that the FNEP team would be pleased to meet with them at their convenience. Another set of invitations was sent to Tribal, regional and other coastal aboriginal organizations.

At the meetings, information was provided on the entire federal process. The Federal Science report prepared by the Royal Society (and other materials were distributed). Attendees then asked questions and provided comments from their various perspectives. In some cases only one meeting was held; in others, there were follow up sessions after people had time to review the materials and information. At each meeting the FNEP team recorded comments, then sent these notes back to participants to give them the opportunity to confirm their accuracy and or make changes or additions.

“…the majority of the First Nations in the basin area and several from outside that area have contributed at least preliminary views to this process.”

Given the huge number of competing demands on First Nations leaders to participate in federal and provincial consultation and review processes, the FNEP had a very positive level of participation. In addition to the daily operational requirements of First Nations governments, leaders are often expected to make themselves available for a wide range of activities and meetings, many of which take them away from offices and homes for several days at a time. Furthermore, there are cultural obligations on community leaders surrounding community events, ceremonies and gathering activities that must take precedence over engagement in intergovernmental referrals. While scheduling meetings was challenging, the majority of the First Nations in the basin area and several from outside that area have contributed at least preliminary views to this process.

Who Participated in FNEP

Both individual First Nations and Tribal Councils from all the key cultural groups near to and adjacent to the Queen Charlotte basin participated either directly or through one or more umbrella organizations. They include Haida, Tsimshian, Kwakwaka’wakw and Coast Salish peoples. Detailed lists are provided later in this report.

Umbrella organizations, which represented various First Nations, included:

British Columbia Aboriginal Fisheries Commission (BCAFC); draws its membership from the entire province
Coastal First Nations – Turning Point; a formal alliance of seven First Nations
Native Brotherhood of British Columbia; several hundred individual members and a number of community memberships
Several Treaty and Tribal Fisheries organizations

The Nisga’a Lisims Government did not participate in the First Nations Engagement Process. They have provided a separate report on this issue to the Minister of Natural Resources Canada.

What FNEP Heard from the First Nation Participants

Many of the First Nations who met with the FENP expressed the view that they were not respected as First Nations governments in the design and development of this federal review process on the moratorium. Some felt they should have been involved in the Royal Society of Canada scientific review and in the selection of Public Review Panel members.

They said their view that they were being involved in a token way was reinforced by the fact that the federal government, fully knowing of their capacity limitations, was not providing them any resources to develop and provide thoughtful and informed comment.
Given the preceding statements, a number of concerns about procedural fairness and biased decision making were also expressed.

In different words each of the respondents expressed their inextricable links to the coastal waters and resources as foundational to their very cultures, traditions, livelihood and socio-economic conditions. FNEP was reminded that when the reserves were established
along the coast, the First Nations were given very small tracts of reserve land because, in the words of the government’s Reserve Commissioner Riley, First Nations in coastal British Columbia “does [sic] not require any large tracts of lands, because their actual farm and their larder and their coolers are actually the ocean”. Although the First Nations informed FNEP that they had never needed anyone to tell them that, the recognition and documentation surrounding this information certainly reinforces their views of ownership and rights to jurisdiction and management of the coastal waters and resources.

“Respondents advised that their entire lifestyle is related to the ocean and its resources…”

In elaborating on the nature and extent of the connection to the sea and its resources FNEP was told of uses related to spiritual, economic, social, transportation, bartering, trading, political, subsistence, medicinal, recreational and educational purposes.
Respondents advised that the entire lifestyle is related to the ocean and its resources and that there have already been many cumulative impacts and further damage to the resources could decimate the cultures. Several times, participants wanted FNEP to remind the federal government that the British Columbia coast is different from the East Coast, that is still has a viable fishery, which in their view should be fully rehabilitated as it is a renewable resource. The Council of Haida Nations said, “There is increasing pressure to use the marine resources that are available around the islands. In order to participate in informed debate and make informed decisions about the well being of the sea around Haida Gwaii, the Council of Haida Nations recognizes the need for a holistic perspective of marine and coastal knowledge around Haida Gwaii, integrating traditional, scientific and local sources of information”.

In an area where unemployment of First Nations people is four to five times higher than for non-aboriginal peoples and gross annual incomes are as low as $9,000, people told FNEP they would literally starve without the bounty the ocean provides. As one person stated, “Why would we, some of us will never even own a vehicle or use fuels, risk giving up the very resources that keep us alive. The resources are not just for eating either, but are part of a way of life, gathering food with our families, sharing with our communities. When we harvest and preserve foods we are teaching values and traditions, we are keeping our connections to each other strong, we care deeply about the resources around us and will not trade them for all the money in the world”. First Nations told FNEP that as they are not going away from their ancestral territories they are always cognizant of their responsibility to protect those territories and the resources for future generations. In their view, the currently undefined and unknown risks and potential negative impacts of offshore oil and gas exploration are unacceptable. As one person stated, “Maybe the rigs would be here for 20 to 40 years and then leave, but our people will still be here and what will be left for us? What if government spent the money on improving fisheries and aquatic resources and tourism? With the great bounty and beauty of this area we could feed thousand and entertain many tourists for a very long time.”

Mistrust of science reports done without First Nations involvement and input was a common message, both because many aboriginal people believe they have been misled by past reports and because there is important traditional ecological knowledge that can be contributed by First Nations who have had thousands of years of experience in these territories to accrue knowledge and understanding. However, the First Nations reiterated they could only contribute in this regard if financial resources were provided to them.

Although great care was taken by FNEP to characterize this process as engagement or information sharing, specifically the sharing of information and gathering of comments to help inform a policy decision, First Nations expressed great mistrust of this, frequently expressing their worry that anything they provided to FENP would be construed as “consultation” and used against them if government needed to justify their decision. The FNEP response was to refer to the fact that the question of whether or not to lift the moratorium is a policy decision and the federal government is voluntarily seeking input to inform their decision, not engaging in a legally required consultation to determine whether specific activities might negatively impact or infringe on their rights. FNEP also confirmed that any decision relating to the approval of a proposed activity that could potentially infringe on aboriginal rights or interests would trigger the obligation for full and formal consultation by the federal government.

“…First Nations are opposed to lifting the moratorium because from what they have learned and understand, it is not in the best interests of our people, the resources or their territories.”

Again and again the majority of First Nations told FNEP that the currently available information is inadequate for them to make informed decisions as to whether or not the moratorium should be lifted. Some expressed the opinion that the available information is enough to confirm to them that that moratorium should not be lifted.

In both cases, the First Nations wanted it made clear that they are not saying “no” just to say “no”, rather First Nations are opposed to lifting the moratorium because from what they have learned and understand, it is not in the best interests of their people, the resources and their traditional territories. They believe that risks to environment and lifestyle outweigh the returns.

FNEP heard that resources are needed to focus on bringing all coastal First Nations and organizations together because the coastline cannot be looked at in discrete compartments. They said each area of the coast is connected to the next. “The whole of the territory is like a house. Whatever happens in one room of the house will affect the livability and quality of life in the rest of the house. We are all part of the food chain, who benefits from developing the offshore and who loses? Whatever happens, we are all interconnected and need to work together to develop our resources sustainably.”

First Nations conveyed that culture, traditions and lifestyles are so important and resources are a critical component of culture. They said that First Nations cultures are a major treasure, yet they feel that there seems to be little concern or care that these cultures are protected and preserved, even though they understand that Canada has a fiduciary obligation to make choices and decisions in the interest of First Nations.

Many people suggested that the cumulative environmental impacts of fish farming, forestry, cruise ship traffic, tourism activities, industrial runoff and now offshore oil and gas and/or seismic testing should be examined and documented so that sound environmental and economic decisions can be made. A number of respondents said that government(s) needs to be looking at ways of rehabilitating the environment that has already been degraded as a result of resource-based activities before further degradation is permitted. The strong message was that more comprehensive analysis of impacts is required before a decision of the magnitude of opening British Columbia’s coast to offshore oil & gas exploration can be made in a responsible manner.

“The whole of the territory is like a house. Whatever happens in one room of the house will affect the livability and quality of life in the rest of the house.”

Further, FNEP heard that Canada and British Columbia would need to provide iron clad assurances that if this moratorium is lifted and activity proceeds the two governments will accommodate First Nations rights, title and interests and provide fair compensation for damages and losses to the environment, cultures and lifestyles.

Considerations

The First Nations’ landscape and issues are unique in British Columbia. With first contact with non - aboriginals in British Columbia happening as long as 150 to 200 years later than on the East Coast, cultures and traditions remain very strong, in particular the connection to life styles and economies that rely on the available resources of the land and sea. The abundance of resources, particularly on the coast, means that the people were less nomadic and had more time to devote to the maintenance of highly structured social and governance systems. These traditional and hereditary systems of governance co-exist and operate either in place of or along side of Indian Act systems and have very clear decision making protocols and high standards for environmental stewardship. The absence of treaties clarifying ownership, setting out terms of relationships and the roles and responsibilities over the land and resources over most of the land base and waters in British Columbia creates ongoing controversy and tensions. Within the First Nations there are huge cultural diversity issues based in part on the fact that 64% of Canada’s aboriginal language groups exist only in British Columbia and almost one-third of the Indian Bands in Canada are in British Columbia. There are over 30 different political groups; some aligned culturally, some regionally. Although only 13% of Canada’s total Indian reserve land base is in British Columbia, 71% of Canada’s’ Indian reserves are in British Columbia. This means that there are few, if any, one size fits all solutions. It also means that engagement and consultation processes are complex and time-consuming and that finding consensus and building solutions can be slow and challenging.

“Although troubled, there are still substantial fisheries resources upon which all First Nations rely.”

With the long coastline and great river systems, the common thread linking all coastal and inland First Nations in British Columbia is fish and other aquatic resources. Although troubled, there are still substantial fisheries resources upon which all First Nations rely. Any threat to the water or fisheries resource, either real or perceived, has great potential to unite British Columbia’s First Nations in their efforts to preserve and protect the resource and their access to it.

Relationships between Canada and the First Nations are dynamic and evolving. Change is being driven by a combination of legal, public policy and pragmatic factors. Many of the legal decision on recognition of rights, the subject of title and the obligation to consult exist as a result of First Nations in British Columbia pursuing protection and recognition in the courts. Although several of the responses to FNEP addressed the legal obligations of Canada to First Nations, the writer will leave the discussion of those legal matters to the legal profession (whom she is confident will take that task up with great enthusiasm). It is suggested though, that the Minister’s and his Cabinet colleagues’ ability to place the results of the First Nations Engagement process in context would be helped by a briefing on key legal decisions such as Calder, Sparrow, Guerin, Delgamuukw, Metecheah, Haida and Taku. These cases, many from the Supreme Court of Canada, acknowledge and confirm the existence of aboriginal rights and title, state why government must consult on matters that can impact those rights, remind everyone of the importance of upholding the honour of the Crown and urge the parties to work respectfully to seek negotiated solutions. The pending judgments on Haida and Taku are also important to this moratorium decision process given the geographic area of the moratorium review and the critical questions related to ownership, the degree and nature of consultation and the obligation to accommodate that might be dealt with in the cases.

Driven by legal decisions and the need to create operational certainty in the country the federal government continues to develop and test consultation policies and procedures in order to meet its lawful obligations. Currently there are a range of approaches being implemented by various Departments, Ministries and Agencies. One of the impacts is that First Nations, with no resources to deal with this onslaught are being “buried with consultation and referral processes” For some, it is easiest to just say no, as the surest risk management strategy to ensure that the rights and interests of their people are protected. Other First Nations suggest they are continually being forced to take legal action because it is one of the only ways to slow down the bulldozers that are rolling over them when they lack the resources to properly analyze and respond to consultation requests. It is the view of the author that if any forward momentum on oil & gas emerges, working out a consultation process collaboratively with involved First Nations could prevent much frustration for both parties. This approach could also save both time and money while providing some certainty that the obligation to consult has been appropriately discharged. Additionally, issues that must be resolved can be identified early on and dealt with in a pragmatic, cost effective manner rather than the reactionary and costly responses that have resulted in some other situations.

Treaty Negotiations are ongoing with approximately 50 First Nations in British Columbia. Some of the First Nations in the moratorium review area are engaged in the treaty process, some are not. Both subsurface resources and the question of how far rights extend into the tidal waters are subjects of negotiation. The First Nations and both federal and provincial governments are keenly interested in the decisions and actions coming out of the federal moratorium review. Potentially, these results have the capacity to set precedents or otherwise impact the negotiations and this must be considered in reaching a decision. At a recent First Nations Summit meeting in Vancouver, federal Minister Scott was told by the First Nations of their frustration with the slowness of the treaty process and the concern that the federal government is not living up to its constitutional responsibilities and fiduciary obligations to protect the rights and interests of aboriginal peoples. The First Nations also conveyed that where their rights and interests are being ignored or trampled they would take necessary actions to protect them. These concerns further emphasize the importance of giving appropriate consideration to First Nations views in the decisions about whether or not to lift the moratorium. A number of non-governmental organizations and environmental groups have either aligned themselves with or are supporting one or more First Nations on both specific and general issues in numerous First Nations traditional territories. FNEP was made aware of about six such organizations during the engagement process.

“…both the ultimate destination and the journey that takes us there are very important.…”

Moving Forward

The First Nations Engagement Process was undertaken to determine the unique views of First Nations with respect to whether or not the moratorium should be lifted. This was a simple question, resulting in fairly complex responses from community leaders. While much input was received in terms of the reasons for First Nations concerns regarding making a decision on lifting the moratorium based on presently available information, First Nations made it clear that from their perspective, identifying these concerns does not in any way satisfy the legal requirements for consultation on offshore activities that might take place in future.

First Nations said, “If there is going to be movement forward on this issue further dialogue and formal ‘consultation’ will be required to seek meaningful input with respect to next steps, to determine if there are any potential infringements of aboriginal rights, to identify potential mechanisms for accommodation and/or compensation if deemed necessary.” Some First Nations said that an obvious next step would be to involve them in specifying what additional information is required for them to make an informed decision on the lifting of the moratorium. Some said they would be prepared to participate in conducting further reviews and studies to develop answers to key questions provided they were full partners in the process and received appropriate financial resourcing. While only a few people were prepared to discuss what interests government needed to address if offshore exploration is to move forward, those that replied asked firstly that it be made clear this is a big IF from their perspective, they then provided their list of interests to be dealt with which included the following items:

Consultation protocol – If governments want to move forward on offshore oil and gas exploration they must understand that First Nations need to be involved in designing processes, including the ‘formal’ consultation process, the development of a regulatory regime, and ongoing monitoring
Revenue sharing – If offshore oil & gas exploration proceeds First Nations expect revenue sharing agreements to be negotiated with them before activity commences
Capacity – If offshore oil & gas exploration proceeds First Nations will need resources and training support to develop skills for their people to work in the industry at every level. They will also want capacity to be able to participate in resource management, monitoring and potentially in regulatory activities
Role in management – If offshore oil & gas exploration proceeds First Nations expect the federal and provincial governments to negotiate with them a clearly defined role in management and decision-making and to provide them with the resources for the exercise of that role
Legacy Funds – If offshore oil & gas exploration proceeds, First Nations expect the federal and provincial governments to negotiate with them and put in place a legacy fund that will be available during resource exploitation and after the industry leaves the area
If offshore oil & gas exploration proceeds, First Nations would need to see key science gaps filled, including the incorporation of traditional knowledge. They would want to be part of any study design, establishment of terms of reference and implementation

When addressing First Nations issues, potential for success is increased exponentially by working collaboratively with the First Nations from the outset to develop options. In terms of reconciling the conflicts and tensions in Canada-First Nations relationships on offshore oil and gas it has been noted that both the ultimate destination and the journey that takes us there are very important. First Nations are seeking recognition and respect, manifested in a meaningful role in government decision-making and management within their respective traditional territories. This will need to be done in a manner that is consistent with each First Nation’s objectives and interests, recognizing that First Nations along the British Columbia coast have differing degrees of legal interest along with a range of goals and views with respect to the British Columbia offshore.

Should government decide to continue moving forward on this agenda, in addition to meeting the legal obligations that burden the Crown, the honour of the Crown can also be upheld by involving First Nations communities immediately in the development of a long-term strategy for offshore oil and gas. This would minimize legal risk and potential work disruptions or delays caused by costly litigation, as well as contributing to a positive and productive relationship between First Nations and the federal Crown.

To re-consider their opposition to lifting the moratorium and potential development of an offshore oil & gas industry in British Columbia, First Nations are requesting time, and access to funding to conduct independent research and obtain copies of scientific and socio-economic data, including the documents referenced by the Royal Society of Canada Report. Ensuring that scientific data and socio-economic impact assessments are available to First Nations, with sufficient time to review and understand all the issues, will support informed comment and decision-making on the questions of whether or not to lift the moratorium on offshore oil & gas exploration or how to move forward on the potential development of the industry.

Several aboriginal organizations have indicated to the federal government that they would be interested in partnering with Canada in carrying out any next steps related to the potential lifting of this moratorium. Steps might include, but not be limited to, co-hosting information sharing and discussion forums in First Nation communities along the coast of British Columbia by coordinating a large gathering so that the First Nations can strive for agreement among them. It has been suggested that the agenda for such a meeting would include; reaching agreement on what commonly accepted basic information will be used in the communities, exchanging ideas as to what must or must not be done and how the various First Nations can work together both for the protection of their interests and to maximize the benefits to their people. Further it was suggested that such a meeting would require the attendance of key decision makers from government who were prepared to actually deal with the results of such a session. The platform for moving forward constructively was established by the Right Honourable Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada at the close of the Canada – Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable in April 2004. In the report, Strengthening the Relationship, he stated:

“I would ask the Aboriginal leaders here and elsewhere to make a similar commitment and join with us in making dramatic change a tangible reality. To work with us and to work with one another. To put aside past problems and political rivalries so that we might achieve the dramatic progress we all want. From our vantage point, we will ensure a full seat at the table – as we have ensured today – to Aboriginal communities and leaders. No longer will we in Ottawa develop policies first and discuss them with you later. This principle of collaboration will be the cornerstone of our new partnership.”

Summary

First Nations are objecting to lifting the moratorium because the ocean is their primary source of food, and the gathering of those resources is inextricably linked to their culture and their ultimate survival as distinct peoples. It is their view that the current science indicates to them that the impacts to marine species are too significant to offset the potential economic benefits of offshore exploration and development. Several have also commented that until the issues of ownership and jurisdiction are resolved – no further resources should be exploited in their traditional territories. The concern has been stated that with continued resource exploitation, the eventual treaty settlements will be empty baskets.

“…the federal government needs to acknowledge the rights and responsibilities of First Nations governments…”

In short, most of the First Nations who participated in the Engagement Process told us that before lifting the moratorium more specific information is required so they are able to make informed decisions that serve the interests of their people and the traditional territories over which they have stewardship responsibilities. Some said there is enough information and it all says do not lift the moratorium. Broadly, the First Nations said that the federal government needs to acknowledge the rights and responsibilities of First Nations governments, resolve issues of resource ownership with them and clearly identify risks and mitigation strategies related to offshore oil development before they can agree to lifting the moratorium. In summary, the First Nations told FNEP to tell the federal government that the potential for moving forward in a constructive way on this issue depends on Canada and British Columbia respecting and accommodating First Nations as full partners in the decision-making, management and utilization of the resources in their traditional territories.

While it is not suggested that First Nations consent is an absolute pre-requisite to moving forward on British Columbia offshore oil and gas exploration and development, most parties at least infer that they recognize it would be very difficult to move forward without the support or non- resistance of First Nations. Unquestionably, addressing the myriad of unresolved questions and issues and sorting out the web of relationships between various players to find common ground is a challenging endeavour. Many of the First Nations who participated in FNEP indicated their preparedness to work with Canada in this endeavour. In other places, in those situations where each of the parties has come to the table with genuine good will and commitment to respectfully achieving mutual benefit, it has been possible to resolve the challenges and move forward. First Nations told the FNEP that it may be possible to move forward here too, but only if the decision as to the destination and the choice of a path to that destination is made with their input and involvement. They clearly agree with the Right Honourable Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada when he says, “This principle of collaboration will be the cornerstone of our new partnership.”