I first heard from my aunt Lucy Jackson in early 2024 about action taking place in the Sahtu with Imperial Oil 鈥� a pipeline needing repair after a breach found in 2022 near Norman Wells.

Imperial Oil was requesting extensions on its operating licences, for permits to repair the pipeline and for extensions on its water-use permits, but the local community felt differently.

My auntie was enraged 鈥� eventually there would be threats of shutting down services by Imperial Oil.

On the company's website, it states: 鈥淲e strive to build strong and lasting relationships with Indigenous peoples built on mutual trust, respect and shared prosperity. This effort is grounded in a commitment to listen, understand and collaborate as we work together to develop energy solutions for future generations. Being in a relationship means being in the community together 鈥� not just when we need something. It means being there for our neighbours. It means we keep
talking and working together, even when the conversations are difficult.鈥�

But Imperial Oil鈥檚 consultations with the Sahtu communities were disappointing at best, and aggressive at worst 鈥� speaking just before the holidays, and still suggesting emergency shutdowns of services if action is not taken fast enough.

What we, collectively here in the territory, have seen unfold in the subsequent weeks is a response from the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated (representing Sahtu beneficiaries), the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, and Sahtu Land and Water Board that, in a legal, process-oriented way, exemplifies Dene values, diplomacy and an inherent respect for nature.

I recently spoke with Mark Cliffe-Phillips, executive director with the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, to learn more. He shared that 鈥渢he main thing is that our board had a lens to upholding the treaty, upholding the Sahtu Agreement. Everything in this decision sets the framework for how our board understands the primacy of the Sahtu Agreement, and, yes, we have federal legislation, but that is only there to implement the intent and purpose of the land claims.

"One of the most interesting parts of the decision that the board put forward is that we weren鈥檛 just looking at the clauses on their own, in either the land claim or in the act, is that we went to intent and purpose of the land claim as the basis for the board's interpretation. So it鈥檚 not just about if this clause says something and it might be interpreted one way or the other. You can鈥檛 make that interpretation solely looking at that, but going back to the claim of ensuring that residents
of the Sahtu have an authority and voice in the decision-making on resource management in the Sahtu. So, that鈥檚 where all decisions should be framed in that light, and, I think, from a co-management board this is probably the first time we have voiced that in a decision of this magnitude.

鈥淎nd this is why you鈥檒l probably see Indigenous law firms or Indigenous advocacy law firms picking up a lot on this decision going forward because it is one of the few modern treaty decisions, aside from the Peel Watershed decision, which we relied on heavily, in the board鈥檚 decision for Imperial as well. So this is just continuing the model treaty, the body of case law, to support upholding treaty rights.鈥�

In a recent interview with lawyer Larry Innes, we reflected on dominant society narratives in the press, and he shared this on the current Imperial/SSI process: 鈥淓veryone is writing this through a lens of, 鈥淥h my gosh, Imperial is going to leave unless we give them everything they want. And that, of course, is a historian perspective 鈥� and completely ignores the fact that Imperial was, absolutely, on people's mind when the land claim was negotiated, and the provisions about
being able to refer these projects to environmental assessment.

"The treaty itself doesn鈥檛 include the words 鈥渆xcept Imperial鈥� but somehow the GNWT, Imperial and the other 'economically interested parties' in this process have assumed that that as the case 鈥� and its an assumption that illustrates why treaties are not read properly by public governments," Innes continued.

"The dominant society party at the table says to the Indigenous Party, 'Accept our world view and negotiate within that frame,鈥� and clearly that is resisted throughout every treaty.鈥�

When I reached out to the Sahtu Secretariat, they connected me with energy consultant and SSI staff member Doug Matthews.

鈥淚t is up to the Sahtu Land and Water Board to decide if Imperial Oil will get the three-year extension for their water licence. And, the really interesting part, is that SSI actually exercised its modern treaty rights to bring this all about, and that鈥檚 the first time that鈥檚 happened, to the best of my knowledge,鈥� said Matthews.

In terms of Indigenous and Crown relations, it's up to us to see the opportunities we have at hand and build a world towards this hope 鈥� not focus solely on criticizing the flaws of the past, or present, processes, however imperfect they may still yet be.

Finally, I spoke with my uncle, Ted Blondin, whose perspective I always cherish. He said, 鈥淣ature doesn鈥檛 know 鈥榬ight鈥� from 鈥榳rong,鈥� it only understands balance. And therefore, if you think about that, when somebody puts in a request for a land-use permit, you got to ask the Elders and the communities about what kind of development happens on their land and how they're affected. Because the Elders are the guardians of what happens on that land and what doesn鈥檛," he said. "They also are providing advice to create that balance. They know that when something happens, the young people are going to get jobs but that, at the
same time, they have to ensure that the environment is protected 鈥� the land, the water, the wildlife, for now and for future generations.

鈥淪o, the Elders are giving advice to create that balance, they are working to align themselves with nature."

My uncle said Imperial Oil wants to come in and fix the pipeline under the Mackenzie River, and the people who rely on the water and the fish from the water know it is already affected. They want to ensure that the water and fish are protected, now and into the future.

"Imperial Oil has not come up with enough evidence to satisfy everybody that what they are planning is safe," he said. "Anything can happen, anything can go wrong, and Imperial Oil has not stepped up to the plate to satisfy the concerns that Elders and people who utilize the fish from that water, is safe enough.

鈥淪o the owners of Imperial Oil should demonstrate all of that, and that is why the environmental review is important... the onus is on Imperial Oil to satisfy the concerns people have that whatever goes wrong, that the protection of the water, and the fish in the water, and the animals that use the water, is protected.
Because we cannot afford anything going wrong, and harming the land, the water or wildlife, now or into the future, that is non-negotiable.鈥�