While watching the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion situation play out from afar, what stands out for me is the use and abuse of the words consent and consensus by both those opposed and those who favour the project.
Merriam Webster defines “consensus” as judgment arrived at by most of those concerned. The key word in this definition is “most”.
According to Kinder Morgan, 51 First Nation communities, including 41 agreements in B.C, have signed comprehensive mutual benefit agreements with the company. The number represents every First Nation along the physical pipeline route and 80 per cent of communities in proximity to the right-of-way.
The opposing side, in equally well-crafted and just as slickly worded Twitter releases and Facebook posts, claim moral authority from all First Nations groups and others who say they have statistical and honourable high ground when it comes to blocking this, and other developments.
These anti-pipeline activists, some funded by American interests, claim that regardless of the support claimed by Kinder Morgan, they alone have the First Nations’ well-being and interests in mind. By appropriating traditional terminology, spellings and even wearing traditional clothing, these groups claim that they have consensus support for their actions.
It is impossible for every single group, or indeed, every single person within a group to agree completely on any given topic, 100 per cent of the time. Taking a topic as confrontational and divisive as a pipeline and asking for complete consensus is simply asking for a fight.
Cheam Chief Ernie Crey from the Fraser Valley, no stranger to the political and press release wars, notes that “no environmental group should speak for all First Nations. “A number of these environmental groups, to advance their own agenda, will take their agenda and fly it under an Indigenous flag,” he says, suggesting that groups with their own agendas should be cautious about making such broad claims of support.
By almost anyone’s standards, achieving 80 per cent approval of anything should constitute consent to go ahead with a development or project construction. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, however, claims that 100 per cent acceptance and consent is the only standard that counts.
Outside of First Nations issues, would it be reasonable to expect 100 per cent of every member of a municipal government to agree with every portion of a housing or recreational development for it to gain approval? Would it be reasonable to expect every provincial or federal government decision to attain Chief Phillips’ desired 100 per cent acceptance in any other governance matters? I’m sure you would agree that the business of governing such a vast and diverse country would come to a rapid, screeching halt.
So what exactly is consensus and what exactly should it be? Is it reasonable to expect that in any given development or project that comes along that 100 per cent approval would count as consensus? Does this seemingly unachievable bar apply only to First Nations decisions, or is this the new normal in politics? What is there about First Nations issues that require such a seemingly unachievable standard be applied to it?
Consensus is not to be confused with unanimity. Consensus means a group or community arrives at a decision by listening to the opinions and concerns of others. By working towards consensus, opinions are put forth, merits are discussed and a final decision is rendered. Not everyone is pleased with the outcome but they realize it is the best decision for the community.
Unanimity on the other hand requires that everyone involved agrees with every part of the decision. I would suggest that for the affected communities and First Nations, Kinder Morgan has achieved consensus for consent, but they have not achieved, nor should they, have to achieve unanimity.
