Written by: Dr. Gregor Sharp
The prospect of a new pipeline carrying Alberta crude to the northern coast of British Columbia has re-ignited familiar debates on energy, the environment, and economic growth. But amid the political noise, one point has been repeated: any path forward depends on the consent of the Indigenous nations whose lands and waters a proposed pipeline would traverse.
As federal Liberal MP, Jonathan Wilkinson, told CBC earlier this year, “In terms of First Nations, I mean, there needs to be significant support. It doesn’t necessarily have to be unanimous. It wasn’t in the case of Trans Mountain. But there needs to be significant support and at present I don’t think there is.”
Putting aside the question of whether this pipeline should be built, it is worth considering what Indigenous consent actually involves. Despite its prominence in political narratives around major infrastructure projects, the practical meaning of consent is far less clear.
Canada’s laws set out obligations but not a clear process. The duty to consult requires meaningful engagement, and the UNDRIP Act commits Canada to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). But neither the courts nor Parliament have defined how FPIC should actually be expressed or negotiated.
In this context, Earnscliffe’s Indigenous Insights study – a representative quarterly survey of 500 Indigenous respondents nationwide – offers valuable insight into what Indigenous respondents consider essential to meaningful consent.
In the most recent wave, we asked Indigenous respondents across Canada directly about the elements that make FPIC real rather than rhetorical. (For an exploration of the national implications, see my colleague’s article here.)
To begin, we looked at how respondents feel FPIC is being respected in practice – and there is room for improvement. When evaluating the federal government’s track record, only 26% of Indigenous respondents say Ottawa respects FPIC “always” or “often.” The number is nearly identical for the BC provincial government (25%). In Alberta, the share drops to just 15%.
If the current lived experience of FPIC leaves room for improvement, the data also suggests ways this can be improved going forward. Indigenous respondents emphasised that FPIC must begin before decisions are made (80%), with clear information provided well in advance (80%). Indigenous respondents also stressed the importance of having a genuine voice in how benefits and risks are shared (79%).
Financial arrangements matter as well, with three-quarters (75%) of Indigenous respondents saying that revenue sharing is essential. The same goes for respecting Indigenous laws and decision-making systems (75%). Taken together, these expectations outline a comprehensive vision of what consent looks like in practice.
Importantly, the data also make clear that consent is not a yes-no binary. While 68% say a project should not proceed without Indigenous approval, 75% view it as essential that Indigenous peoples themselves define what counts as consent. In other words, approval matters but so does the process that determines how approval is reached.
To this point, it bears underscoring that Indigenous communities are extremely diverse and a single, one-size-fits-all process will not work. A context-driven, nation-specific approach is not only consistent with the spirit of UNDRIP, but the data suggests it’s also central to this conversation.
At first glance, this may seem at odds with a political moment that prizes rapid project approvals. Yet the data suggests that, while meaningfully engaging with consent may require more time at the outset, early nation-specific engagement could set the stage for faster progress overall.
Of course, none of this guarantees that a pipeline (or any major project, for that matter) will proceed. The data does, however, provide some helpful guideposts on where to find common ground in what can feel like an increasingly polarized political moment.
Ultimately, before debating whether a pipeline can or should move forward, it’s worth asking who gets to decide how that decision is made.
