Reviving the Energy East Pipeline: Indigenous Participation, Past Opposition, and Recommendations for the Future

In light of renewed discussions surrounding the revival of the Energy East Pipeline, how are Indigenous communities currently engaging with the project, what forms of opposition did they express in the past, and what are the present Indigenous perspectives on its development?

Reviving the Energy East Pipeline: Indigenous Participation, Past Opposition, and Recommendations for the Future

Author: Edward May

Introduction 

The Energy East pipeline was once envisioned as a monumental infrastructure project that would transport up to 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta to refineries in Eastern Canada. Proposed initially by TransCanada (now TC Energy), the pipeline faced strong opposition and was ultimately abandoned in 2017. However, amid shifting geopolitical tensions and renewed calls for energy security and independence, there is growing discourse about reviving the project. As these discussions evolve, it is critical to assess the role of Indigenous communities: how they were impacted and opposed the project in the past, how they are engaging now, and how future development must promote Indigenous rights, participation, and sovereignty.

Understanding the Energy East Pipeline and Its Revival 

The Energy East project proposed constructing over 4,400 km of pipeline from Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick, crossing six provinces and more than 130 Indigenous territories. Originally estimated to cost $15.7 billion, the project was shelved due to environmental concerns, shifting market economics, and resistance from Indigenous communities and environmental groups (Mertins-Kirkwood).

Fast forward to 2025, global uncertainties, including trade tensions with the United States and rising energy demands, have triggered renewed interest in Canadian energy independence. Policymakers and commentators have recently floated the idea of reviving Energy East to secure a national oil transport passage and diversify Canada's export routes (Mertins-Kirkwood). However, this revival faces numerous legal, logistical, and ethical challenges, not least of which is the question of Indigenous consent.

Past Opposition and Legal Concerns

During its initial proposal, Energy East encountered vocal resistance from Indigenous communities across Canada. The pipeline's proposed path threatened traditional lands, water sources, and ecosystems. Many Indigenous communities raised concerns that Energy East pipeline advanced through its planning and regulatory phases without securing free, prior, and informed consent. (Council of Canadians).

Environmental risks were a key concern. The pipeline route crossed through major watersheds and traditional hunting and fishing grounds, posing risks to ecosystems and food sovereignty. As one analysis noted, spills would disproportionately affect Indigenous communities, whose economies and identities are often intertwined with the land (Robbins).

Beyond environmental concerns, Indigenous groups objected to the government's flawed consultation processes. A report from the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) summarizing First Nation and Métis community engagement found widespread dissatisfaction with the lack of early engagement and transparency. Many communities viewed the consultation process as reactive rather than collaborative (Ontario Energy Board).

Evolving Indigenous Perspectives and Participation

 While many Indigenous communities opposed Energy East in the past, perspectives today are more diverse and nuanced. Some Indigenous leaders argue that pipelines could benefit their communities economically and politically under the right circumstances if Indigenous people are treated as partners rather than obstacles.

Stephen Buffalo, President of the Indian Resource Council, emphasized, “We are First Nations that support pipelines when pipelines support First Nations,” arguing that Indigenous prosperity is not at odds with Canada’s energy future but integral to it. He stresses that consultation must be meaningful and that Indigenous peoples must be seen as partners, not obstacles, in national development projects (Buffalo). 

Similarly, the Indigenous Resource Network argues that Indigenous inclusion in energy projects is essential for economic development and self-determination. These perspectives signal a growing desire among some communities to move from protest to partnership, provided their rights are respected and their voices are genuinely heard (Indigenous Resource Network).

However, others remain deeply skeptical. John Desjarlais argues that Indigenous people continue to be excluded from key energy dialogues, even as the industry invokes reconciliation rhetoric (Indigenous Resource Network). Trust remains fragile without fundamental changes to how governments and corporations engage with Indigenous communities.

Consultation Challenges and Lessons from the Past 

The Energy East experience underscores the complexity of Indigenous consultation in Canada. The pipeline was ultimately cancelled partly due to the recognition that the Crown and industry had not adequately fulfilled their duty to consult. The process illustrated how troubled consultation can become when seen as a regulatory formality rather than a genuine, rights-based engagement (Poitras).

According to the OEB report, Indigenous communities demanded more than compensation. They wanted protection of their rights, cultural recognition, and meaningful decision-making power (Ontario Energy Board). These expectations were largely unmet in the original Energy East process, contributing to its downfall.

Recommendations for Inclusive and Respectful Development 

If Canada is to engage in any future national energy project, whether the revival of Energy East or otherwise, it must do so on different terms. Below are five proposed recommendations for ensuring Indigenous rights and participation are properly respected:

a) Respect for Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC): Canada has committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Any pipeline project must begin with FPIC, not as a one-time formality but as an ongoing, collaborative dialogue (Robbins).

b) Indigenous Equity Participation: Offering Indigenous communities equity stakes in projects ensures they are not merely consulted but are co-owners and co-decision makers. This model is already in place in projects such as the Cedar LNG facility and should become the norm, not the exception.

c) Transparent and Early Consultation Frameworks: Engagement must begin during the project's conceptual stages, not after routes are drawn or investment secured. Preventing the perception that consultation is a checkbox rather than a right (Ontario Energy Board).

d) Infrastructure That Reflects Indigenous Priorities: Many Indigenous communities advocate for an east-west electricity grid powered by clean energy rather than fossil fuel infrastructure. Clean electricity projects, where Indigenous groups are the second-largest asset owners after utilities, would represent a more sustainable and empowering path forward (Mertins-Kirkwood).

e) Capacity Building and Legal Support: Government and industry should invest in Indigenous legal, environmental, and technical capacity so communities can negotiate on an equal footing. A further objective could specifically be funding for independent advisors and community-led environmental assessments (Indigenous Resource Network).

Conclusion: Reconciliation Is More Than Participation, It Is Power Sharing 

The conversation about reviving Energy East ultimately reflects Canada's ongoing struggle to reconcile economic ambition with Indigenous rights. Past mistakes, including inadequate consultation and disregard for environmental impacts, must inform a more respectful and equitable approach moving forward.

The article by Jacques Poitras on the fallout from Energy East illustrates how emotional and complex Indigenous responses to development can be. The case of Phil Fontaine being shouted down at a lecture in Winnipeg shows that tensions over perceived appropriation are real and deeply rooted (Poitras). Meanwhile, the story of Shoal Lake No. 40 First Nation, a community without clean water while Winnipeg benefits from its watershed, is a stark example of systemic injustice that Energy East brought to the forefront (Poitras).

Indigenous communities are not monolithic. While some may support development under the right conditions, others will continue to assert their right to say no. What remains constant is the need for respect, inclusion, and power-sharing. If Canada truly wishes to move forward in the spirit of reconciliation, it must ensure that Indigenous Peoples are not just heard but that their decisions shape the future of national energy development.

CITATIONS

Buffalo, Stephen. “We Are First Nations That Support Pipelines, When Pipelines Support First Nations.” Financial Post (26 November 2019), online: https://financialpost.com/opinion/we-are-first-nations-that-support-pipelines-when-pipelines-support-first-nations.

Council of Canadians. “Energy East Pipeline Would Cut across 180 First Nations.” Council of Canadians (2015), online: https://canadians.org/analysis/energy-east-pipeline-would-cut-across-180-first-nations/.

Indigenous Resource Network. “Why Aren’t Indigenous Peoples Included in Canada’s Fresh Talk of Energy Development?” Indigenous Resource Network (2023), online: https://www.indigenousresourcenetwork.ca/why_aren_t_indigenous_peoples_included_in_canada_s_fresh_talk_of_energy_development.

Mertins-Kirkwood, Hadrian. “An East–West Oil Pipeline Is a Trap—Canada Needs an East–West Electricity Grid.” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (3 February 2023), online: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/an-east-west-oil-pipeline-is-a-trap-canada-needs-an-east-west-electricity-grid/.

Ontario Energy Board. Summary Report, Part One of the First Nation and Métis Community Engagement on Energy East Pipeline Project (Toronto: OEB, 2015), online: https://www.oeb.ca/_html/oebenergyeast/documents/Summary%20Report,%20Part%20One%20of%20the%20First%20Nation%20and%20M%C3%A9tis%20Community.pdf.

Poitras, Jacques. “Pipe Dreams: Energy East Proved Just How Difficult Indigenous Consultations Can Be.” National Post (4 October 2017), online: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/pipe-dreams-energy-east-proved-just-how-difficult-indigenous-consultations-can-be.

Robbins, Jim. “Canada’s Indigenous Bands Rise Up Against a Tar Sands Pipeline.” Yale Environment 360 (3 December 2015), online: https://e360.yale.edu/features/canadas_indigenous_bands_rise_up_against_a_tar_sands_pipeline.