Skip to main content

The "Line 9" Enbridge oil pipeline is seen being worked on in East Don Parkland in Toronto, March 6, 2014. The Chippewas of the Thames want the Supreme Court to overturn a permit given to Enbridge Inc. to reverse and expand the flow of the Line 9 pipeline between Sarnia, Ont., and Montreal.

MARK BLINCH/REUTERS

Experts say two cases coming before the Supreme Court this week could become landmarks in defining how Canada regulates industrial activity on indigenous lands.

But for Jerry Natanine of Clyde River, Nunavut – one of two aboriginal communities that will ask the top court to overturn National Energy Board permits – the issue is a lot more visceral.

"The animals that we live off [of] are in danger and, because of that, we feel our lives are at stake."

Story continues below advertisement

Clyde River is to ask the court Wednesday to overturn a permit for a Norwegian consortium to do seismic testing in Baffin Bay.

Read more: Pipeline pits B.C. whales against Alberta jobs

Read more: Indigenous rights declaration not simple

Read more: Ottawa won't require First Nations' consent for Trans Mountain decision

The tests involve a five-year program of 230-decibel sound blasts every 13 to 15 seconds, 24 hours a day, during operating periods. Locals say that would kill or drive away the animals they depend on, a position widely shared across Nunavut.

Lawyer Nader Hasan said the federal government ignored its duty to consult and left that completely – and wrongly – to the board.

"Although the stakes were extremely high, the Crown absented itself entirely from the process," he said.

Story continues below advertisement

No public hearings were held and local people had no chance to examine statements from the proponent. The board didn't even ask itself if that constitutional duty had been met, Mr. Hasan argues.

The Chippewas of the Thames have similar concerns in a case that is to be heard together with Clyde River's.

The Chippewas want the court to overturn a permit given to Enbridge Inc. to reverse and expand the flow of the Line 9 pipeline between Sarnia, Ont., and Montreal.

"Neither the Crown nor the board at any time engaged in meaningful consultation with the Chippewas First Nation regarding the nature of their asserted aboriginal rights and interests," says the band's written argument.

"This … effectively allows the Crown to avoid its constitutional duty simply by choosing not to participate in the board's hearing process."

In both cases, Ottawa argues that the board was qualified to stand in for the Crown and aboriginal groups had plenty of opportunity to get information and express their concerns. In a verdict the two suits are seeking to overturn, the Federal Court of Appeal sided with the government.

Story continues below advertisement

The cases will have a major impact in how Canada assesses such proposals in the future, said Nigel Bankes, chairman of natural resource law at the University of Calgary.

"It raises this question of whether a board has a duty to satisfy itself as to whether the Crown has discharged its responsibilities to consult and accommodate," he said.

He added that because the Chippewas case involves a pipeline, it may be even more important than Clyde River.

"The real challenges that we have in Canada are linear projects that affect so many different communities; therefore, the challenge of consultation and accommodation is much more difficult.

"Clyde River is much about the particulars of what will satisfy the duty. The issue in the Chippewas is much more an issue of principle."

Clyde River, though, has become much better known. Greenpeace, along with other groups such as Amnesty International and the Council of Canadians, has thrown its support behind the community.

An international petition has gathered almost 200,000 signatures.

Celebrity activist and actor Emma Thompson has visited Clyde River. Media mogul Oprah Winfrey, satirist John Oliver and actor Leonardo DiCaprio have tweeted in support.

Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.