Interesting events renewed discussions around pipeline projects when Alberta Premier, Daniel Smith made social media comments on Jan 21.2025 that Canada should have more nation-building projects and revive Northern Gateway.
It inspired an immediate comment from the President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip expressing interest in reviving the project. “If we don’t build that kind of infrastructure, Trump will,” Phillip said. “And there won’t be any consideration for the environment, for the rule of law… I think we can do better.”
The next day, Chief Phillip retracted the comment leaving questions about the 180-degree pivot.
Some proponents of Indigenous development, like Calvin Helin, a member of the Tsimshian Nation and Principal at INDsight Advisers, a lawyer who specializes in commercial and Indigenous law and best-selling author, thought the event raised questions about influence.
“Environmental groups have infiltrated some Indigenous organizations,” Helin said in an interview. “They managed to support a government that championed their agendas, particularly agendas involving Alberta – objectives like the coastal pipeline ban and changes to the regulatory approval system. In this era of Trump, all they’ve managed to do is to weaken Canada’s position.”
Helin stressed that in 2025, the energy industry clearly understands the mandate to deal seriously with Indigenous interests, with Indigenous leaders coming forward to support natural resource development while respecting the environment. He suggested that Indigenous inclusion and recognition at the outset is essential for energy projects in 2025 and beyond.
Helin had consulted early with Indigenous groups and proposed a robust natural resource corridor from Bruderheim, AB to Grassy Point, BC. The project involved the support of 32 First Nations from the outset. A variety of shared services were proposed to make the corridor more economical than a pipeline. Helin expected the project would create tens of thousands of jobs over the long term, as well as generate tax revenue and royalties, but it was killed by the federal government’s Bill C-48 tanker ban which stopped companies from using terminals along BC’s north coast to ship oil. The project was ultimately abandoned.
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project for a twin pipeline from Bruderheim, AB, to Kitimat, BC, was also stopped by Bill C-48. Both Eagle Spirit and Northern Gateway chose the north BC coast for transportation to Asian markets for the deeper waters that could accommodate larger-capacity crude oil tankers.
The routes of the Eagle Spirit and Northern Gateway pipelines/corridors are quite similar with Eagle Spirit’s route extending a bit farther north in the final leg, as in the maps below.
Recent threats of tariffs on Canadian imports made by U.S. President Trump have stimulated calls to revive pipeline projects to tidewater, including Northern Gateway.
In direct reference to Northern Gateway, Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel has stated to media that Canada would have to designate major pipeline projects as legally required “in the national interest” before companies will consider investing again.
After the cancellation of Northern Gateway, Dale Swampy,the Indigenous leader who helped to establish the Northern Gateway Aboriginal Equity Partners group (AEP), formed the National Coalition of Chiefs(NCC), a group of pro-development First Nation Chiefs who advocate for the development of oil and gas resources in their communities.
Dale Swampy, President of the NCC says it still makes good sense to get a pipeline devoted to bitumen to the West Coast and that Canada has been “putting all its eggs in one basket” for 50 years and has been selling to just one customer while “everybody else in the oil industry, including the U.S., is getting into the global competitive market.”
The Canadian Energy Centre reports that the oil and gas industry is not going into decline over the next decade and in fact, the demand for oil and gas in emerging and developing economies will remain robust through 2050. In light of the multiple effects of U.S. tariffs, Canadian pipelines to tidewater are seen as urgent. Swampy advocates for policy change and the revival of the Northern Gateway project powered by Indigenous equity investment.
“First, we have got to get rid of the oil tanker ban (C-48),” Swampy said. “We’ve got to get more fluid regulatory processes so that we can get projects built in a reasonable timeline so that it doesn’t cost us billions more, waiting for the regular regulatory process to be complete- like TMX. You’ve also got to get the proponents back to the table. We had 31 of the 40 communities already signed on last time. I believe that we can get them signed on again.”
He continues to work with industry to develop an Indigenous-led bitumen pipeline project to the west coast. “We can get this project built if it’s led by First Nations.”
He says other Indigenous leaders are starting to realize the benefits of cooperating with natural resource development, whether it’s mining or the BC LNG projects that he says are now more widely accepted by First Nations.
Stephen Buffalo, President and CEO of the Indian Resource Council of Canada (IRC) agrees.
“I talk about ripple effects,” Buffalo said. “When Jason Kenney was Premier of Alberta, and the Trans Mountain expansion was a big discussion, he wanted to ensure that First Nations had an opportunity to be some sort of equity owner in projects. With the lack of investment capital, he created the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation with the province as a government backstop.”
Buffalo says the IRC has assembled just over $800 million in government backstop for First Nations to participate in projects which found strong proponents. And those projects are related to natural resource development. He acknowledged that some communities – some of them in BC, don’t see the big picture of what Indigenous Opportunities Corporations can allow them to do.
“You shouldn’t get in the way of others that really need access to healthcare and education and want to develop their communities. I always tell people, our land base, that we were given under the Indian Act, isn’t changing what our populations are. We need housing, and we need the infrastructure, which includes clean water.”
He sees the urgent need for First Nations to get out of poverty and alliances to develop natural resources are key.
“ When we landlock our resources, the U.S. economy seems to get better. Now we’re dependent on the U.S. We have to send our oil to the U.S. at a huge discount. Could or should we have Northern Gateway? Absolutely. Should we have Energy East? Absolutely. We’re importing oil, but we have it at home. Why do we need to import it?”
Buffalo agreed that project discussions and regulations have huge value, but the slowness of the discussion, including pushback from environmental groups that influence discussions is negatively impacting First Nation development. In the case of regulations like Bill C-59, the anti-greenwashing bill, Buffalo says it has silenced many of the members of the Indian Resource Council.
“I’m just looking after our communities,” Buffalo says, “the ones that are never written about, talked about, the ones that don’t have clean water, that don’t have adequate housing, that are lacking education foundations, that are lacking good health care. When government regulatory bodies are making decisions, they’re making decisions for those people that they don’t ever see or ever talk to.”
My discussions with Calvin Helin, Stephen Buffalo and Dale Swampy resulted in a few policy suggestions for 2025 and beyond.
Repeal Bill C- 69 – It not only blocks all pipelines but stops mines, refineries, export plants and other energy infrastructure that First Nations want to invest in. C-69 is unconstitutional- as ruled on October 13.2023 by Canada’s top court.
Cut Taxes in Response to U.S. Tariffs– Tax cuts on investment and energy can neutralize the cost of the tariffs with lower taxes and incentivize investment in Canadian projects. Eliminate the Carbon Tax- Carbon tax elimination has been popular with First Nation leaders who have stated the tax has put us at a strategic disadvantage to other countries.
RepealBill C-59, the anti-green-washing bill, which according to Stephen Buffalo has silenced many of the members of the Indian Resource Council and Bill C-48 – the Tanker Ban.
Greenlight LNG Plants and related infrastructure– Canada sells gas exports uniquely to the U.S. There is a strong business case for sales to Asian and European markets. In a recent Canadian Energy Ventures webcast it was revealed that Natural Gas is sold as LNG to Europe at 16X the price Canada sells its gas to the U.S. First Nations are successfully involved in Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG in BC.
Cut Regulatory Delay & Speed Up Approvals – Delay undermines investor confidence that projects can be completed in reasonable timelines.
Reconciliation– Issue clear guidelines on what constitutes meaningful consultation. Industry can treat Indigenous peoples as partners and continue to advance economic reconciliation, including equity partnerships.
Maureen McCall is an energy professional who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
Tariffs may fade. The collision between reconciliation, property rights, and investment will not.
British Columbia will talk about Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2026, and it will keep grinding through affordability. But the issue that will decide whether the province can build, invest, and govern is land use.
The warning signs were there in 2024. Land based industries still generate 12 per cent of B.C.’s GDP, and the province controls more than 90 per cent of the land base, and land policy was already being remade through opaque processes, including government to government tables. When rules for access to land feel unsettled, money flows slow into a trickle.
The Cowichan ruling sends shockwaves
In August 2025, the Cowichan ruling turned that unease into a live wire. The court recognized the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres within Richmond, including lands held by governments and unnamed third parties. It found that grants of fee simple and other interests unjustifiably infringed that title, and declared certain Canada and Richmond titles and interests “defective and invalid,” with those invalidity declarations suspended for 18 months to give governments time to make arrangements.
The reaction has been split. Supporters see a reminder that constitutional rights do not evaporate because land changed hands. Critics see a precedent that leaves private owners exposed, especially because unnamed owners in the claim area were not parties to the case and did not receive formal notice. Even the idea of “coexistence” has become contentious, because both Aboriginal title and fee simple convey exclusive rights to decide land use and capture benefits.
Market chill sets in
McLTAikins translated the risk into advice that landowners and lenders can act on: registered ownership is not immune from constitutional scrutiny, and the land title system cannot cure a constitutional defect where Aboriginal title is established. Their explanation of fee simple reads less like theory than a due diligence checklist that now reaches beyond the registry.
By December, the market was answering. National Post columnist Adam Pankratz reported that an industrial landowner within the Cowichan title area lost a lender and a prospective tenant after a $35 million construction loan was pulled. He also described a separate Richmond hotel deal where a buyer withdrew after citing precedent risk, even though the hotel was not within the declared title lands. His case that uncertainty is already changing behaviour is laid out in Montrose.
Caroline Elliott captured how quickly court language moved into daily life after a City Richmond letter warned some owners that their title might be compromised. Whatever one thinks of that wording, it pushed land law out of the courtroom and into the mortgage conversation.
Mining and exploration stall
The same fault line runs through the critical minerals push. A new mineral claims regime now requires consultation before claims are approved, and critics argue it slows early stage exploration and forces prospectors to reveal targets before they can secure rights. Pankratz made that critique earlier, in his argument about mineral staking.
Resource Works, summarising AME feedback on Mineral Tenure Act modernisation, reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents lacked confidence in proposed changes, and that more than three quarters reported increased uncertainty about doing business in B.C. The theme is not anti consultation. It is that process, capacity, and timelines decide whether consultation produces partnership or paralysis.
The legal layer
Layered on top is the widening fight over UNDRIP implementation and DRIPA. Geoffrey Moyse, KC, called for repeal in a Northern Beat essay on DRIPA, arguing that Section 35 already provides the constitutional framework and that trying to operationalise UNDRIP invites litigation and uncertainty.
Tariffs and housing will still dominate headlines. But they are downstream of land. Until B.C. offers a stable bargain over who can do what, where, and on what foundation, every other promise will be hostage to the same uncertainty. For a province still built on land based wealth, Resource Works argues in its institutional history that the resource economy cannot be separated from land rules. In 2026, that is the main stage.
People criticize capitalism. A recent Axios-Generation poll says, “College students prefer socialism to capitalism.”
Why?
Because they believe absurd myths. Like the claim that the Soviet Union “wasn’t real socialism.”
Socialism guru Noam Chomsky tells students that. He says the Soviet Union “was about as remote from socialism as you could imagine.”
Give me a break.
The Soviets made private business illegal.
If that’s not socialism, I’m not sure what is.
“Socialism means abolishing private property and … replacing it with some form of collective ownership,” explains economist Ben Powell. “The Soviet Union had an abundance of that.”
Socialism always fails. Look at Venezuela, the richest country in Latin America about 40 years ago. Now people there face food shortages, poverty, misery and election outcomes the regime ignores.
But Al Jazeera claims Venezuela’s failure has “little to do with socialism, and a lot to do with poor governance … economic policies have failed to adjust to reality.”
“That’s the nature of socialism!” exclaims Powell. “Economic policies fail to adjust to reality. Economic reality evolves every day. Millions of decentralized entrepreneurs and consumers make fine tuning adjustments.”
Political leaders can’t keep up with that.
Still, pundits and politicians tell people, socialism does work — in Scandinavia.
“Mad Money’s Jim Cramer calls Norway “as socialist as they come!”
This too is nonsense.
“Sweden isn’t socialist,” says Powell. “Volvo is a private company. Restaurants, hotels, they’re privately owned.”
Norway, Denmark and Sweden are all free market economies.
Denmark’s former prime minister was so annoyed with economically ignorant Americans like Bernie Sanders calling Scandanavia “socialist,” he came to America to tell Harvard students that his country “is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
Powell says young people “hear the preaching of socialism, about equality, but they don’t look on what it actually delivers: poverty, starvation, early death.”
For thousands of years, the world had almost no wealth creation. Then, some countries tried capitalism. That changed everything.
“In the last 20 years, we’ve seen more humans escape extreme poverty than any other time in human history, and that’s because of markets,” says Powell.
Capitalism makes poor people richer.
Former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) calls capitalism “slavery by another name.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) claims, “No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars.”
That’s another myth.
People think there’s a fixed amount of money. So when someone gets rich, others lose.
But it’s not true. In a free market, the only way entrepreneurs can get rich is by creating new wealth.
Yes, Steve Jobs pocketed billions, but by creating Apple, he gave the rest of us even more. He invented technology that makes all of us better off.
“I hope that we get 100 new super billionaires,” says economist Dan Mitchell, “because that means 100 new people figured out ways to make the rest of our lives better off.”
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich advocates the opposite: “Let’s abolish billionaires,” he says.
He misses the most important fact about capitalism: it’s voluntary.
“I’m not giving Jeff Bezos any money unless he’s selling me something that I value more than that money,” says Mitchell.
It’s why under capitalism, the poor and middle class get richer, too.
“The economic pie grows,” says Mitchell. “We are much richer than our grandparents.”
When the media say the “middle class is in decline,” they’re technically right, but they don’t understand why it’s shrinking.
“It’s shrinking because more and more people are moving into upper income quintiles,” says Mitchell. “The rich get richer in a capitalist society. But guess what? The rest of us get richer as well.”
I cover more myths about socialism and capitalism in my new video.
