Three aboriginal girls, smiling and exuberant, look out at the camera from their perches amongst monkey bars and slides on a playground.
The photo can be found on Enbridge's website, in the aboriginal partnership section of the company's proposed $4.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline project.
The picture could be from one of the villages along the pipeline route in northern B.C. or Alberta. Perhaps it's a stock image. There's no way to tell for sure because the picture doesn't have a caption.
The inference is obvious though.
These smiling children represent an image of the company's positive relationship with First Nations on a pipeline project that would take oil from the Alberta tar sands to new markets in Asia.
The reality is not that simple.
While there are First Nations along the pipeline's route who have signed protocol agreements with Enbridge -- establishing a formal relationship with the company -- other First Nations are becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to the project.
Last month, members of the Wet'suwet'en and Saik'uz First Nations were at Enbridge's Calgary headquarters to press home a message the pipeline is not welcome in their traditional territories in northern B.C.
The First Nations handed out pamphlets and DVDs they hoped the employees of Enbridge would read and view to understand their resistance.
The DVD featured statements against the pipeline, as well as a ceremony where First Nations brought water from their territories that was mixed at a pipeline protest event in the summer of 2009 in north-central B.C. "We're making sure that what is left of our resources is going to be protected, including the salmon," said Warner Naziel, a member of the Wet'suwet'en Nation who was at Enbridge's headquarters that morning in front of more than a dozen Calgary police officers who kept an eye on the demonstration.
The Wet'suwet'en and Saik'uz, whose communities are west of Prince George, are part of a group of First Nations refusing to sign the protocol agreements with Enbridge, some of which bring cash, as much as $100,000, to undertake studies of the impacts of the pipeline.
The First Nations, which oppose the pipeline, also include the Nak'azdli, Nadleh Whut'en and Takla Lake First Nations in north-central B.C.; and the Haisla, Gitga'at, Gitxaala and Haida Nations on the northwest coast. "We will not allow any project to proceed that infringes the constitutionally protected rights of our people," said Dolores Pollard, chief councillor of the Haisla Nation, whose territory includes the pipeline project's proposed supertanker port in Kitimat.
"Sooner or later, that's a lesson Enbridge and the federal government are going to learn, either in the court of public opinion or a court of law," she says.
The First Nations are not only concerned by the construction impacts and the threat of spills along the pipeline route and on the coast, but also oppose expanded oil production in the tar sands.
First Nations took their concerns to the world stage recently at the Copenhagen climate change talks.
"We don't want to be a party to the pipeline, especially if it involves allowing the expansion of the tar sands," said Carrier Sekani Tribal Council vice-chief Terry Teegee, who was in Copenhagen.
Enbridge has promised benefits to First Nations: jobs, contract opportunities, and the possibility of an ownership stake in the pipeline.
The company has pointed to 200 permanent jobs it says will be created when the pipeline is constructed and many more temporary jobs during construction.
But those First Nations who are saying no to the pipeline don't believe that aboriginal communities will benefit from this economic activity.
"If we are only looking at the jobs, there's no question this project doesn't make sense for local communities," says Tara Marsden, who is examining the Enbridge pipeline project for the Nadleh Whut'en First Nation. Marsden said the community, 160 kilometres west of Prince George, is considering its legal options.
In 2006, the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, which represents eight bands west of Prince George, including the Nadleh Whut'en, filed a federal court challenge over the federal government's decision to send Enbridge's proposed pipeline to a review panel.
The tribal council wanted the court to overturn the creation of the panel because they said they were not consulted.
The challenge never reached court as Enbridge shelved the project soon after. The pipeline proposal was only resurrected in 2008 after Enbridge secured $100 million from unknown oil producers and refiners to get the project through the regulatory process under the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Some First Nations, including the Nadleh Whut'en, have been trying to pitch a different type of review process to the federal government, one that involves aboriginal peoples more directly.
The idea is to create an aboriginal review process framework that includes either a parallel process or an integrated rights and title process.
However, the First Nations have gained no traction with the federal government on this proposal.
Some northern B.C. First Nations had pitched a similar review process in 2006 with a price tag of $2.4 million, which also failed to interest Ottawa.
The federal government -- which only responded to Citizen questions on the review process via e-mail -- says they are counting on the review panel process to produce information that will be used by Canada to fulfill its legal duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate First Nations' interests.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is meant to co-ordinate the integration of consultation with aboriginal groups into the environmental assessment process. The federal government says its departments have also committed to work together toward a co-ordinated approach for aboriginal consultation.
The distaste for the federal review process and opposition to Enbridge's proposed pipeline project is not universal among First Nations.
Communities like the Lheidli T'enneh just east of Prince George, and the Ts'il Kaz Koh and Nee Tahi Buhn near Burns Lake, west of the city, have signed protocol agreements with the company.
More than 30 protocol agreements have now been signed with First Nations and Metis groups in northern B.C. and Alberta, says Enbridge. While some First Nations have been demonstrating outside Enbridge's Calgary headquarters, representatives of the Nee Tahi Buhn have been meeting with Enbridge officials face-to-face.
The Nee Tahi Buhn is looking for an equity stake in natural resource projects, including the pipeline.
"That's going to be the question for each and every project," says chief Ray Morris.
While no numbers have been discussed with Enbridge on an equity agreement, Morris is confident the details will be successfully hammered out.
He doesn't disagree there are environmental issues with the project, particularly for salmon inland and on the coast, but any concerns are not enough for the Nee Tahi Buhn to oppose the project.
"Oil is not better or worse than what's already on the highways or on the sea or on the rails. Why raise one flag?" questioned Morris.
Ts'il Kaz Koh First Nation chief Robert Charlie says he has respect for other First Nations' concerns over the pipeline project, but he stressed his community can't let business opportunities slip by.
Observed Charlie: "You know, we have deep concerns environmentally about it just like everybody else -- what if this does have a crack in it right in the middle of our yard? But at the same time, you know, when you look at the economic opportunities allocated to us, especially in the North here, they are far and few between. What are you going to do?"
Enbridge remains confident it has good relationships with the vast majority of First Nations, and it will be able to convince First Nations the pipeline project is safe and will bring benefits. However, John Carruthers, president of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, stresses aboriginal communities will need to come to those conclusions themselves.
"I think the right conversations are going on -- the right dialogue is going on -- but the process does take a bit of time for people to get the information needed to get comfortable," he said.
There's no question, from a legal perspective, that First Nations will have a say in the project.
Mounting court cases -- some of them decisions in Canada's highest court -- increasingly indicate that First Nations need to be consulted and accommodated where natural resource projects impact their traditional lands.
While First Nations do not have a veto over projects -- a point laid out in the Supreme Court of Canada's 2004 decision in Haida vs. the B.C. government -- court rulings do show the consultation bar for First Nations is different than for other groups.
"The courts have been pretty clear there needs to be a dedicated process for consultation with First Nations. That could be part of a larger environmental review; nonetheless, the obligations for consultation are different for First Nations than the general public and need to be addressed specifically," said Doug Harris, a professor of law at the University of B.C.
In the key 2004 Haida decision, the Supreme Court said the government had not properly consulted the First Nation over the transfer of a forest licence from MacMillan-Bloedel to Weyerhaeuser and had a duty to do so.
The top court's decision established that the provincial and federal governments had a duty to consult with First Nations on decisions that can impact their lands before aboriginal title has been established.
But the court did not say the consultation will automatically lead to a need for accommodation, only that the consultation may raise issues that require accommodation to preserve First Nations' interests, pending the resolution of their claims.
The court also said that governments retain the right to make decisions where there is no agreement.
Good faith is required at all stages, on both sides, said the court.
Each case will also have to be judged on its own merits, and depend on the weight of the First Nations' claims and impacts.
There may be less need to consult on a temporary road than a mine, for example, said the court.
University of Alberta economist Andre Plourde says the First Nations' question is one of the biggest issues to confront the project.
"How do we manage crossing all of the First Nations territories with a pipeline? Somebody is going to have to decide whether this is doable," says Plourde, an expert in energy and the environment.
While Enbridge has a role to play, Plourde stresses, ultimately, it's the federal government which has the responsibility to consult First Nations.
"You really need governments on your side to be doing this because you can't do it by yourself," he said.
Another important court decision ...
A 2009 federal court ruling found the government had fulfilled its duty to consult a number of Ojibway First Nations in Manitoba over the construction of three pipelines under a review by the National Energy Board.
That was in part because the court found that the impact of the pipeline on the First Nations' claims was negligible.
The court also noted that the fact the First Nations may not have taken part in the National Energy Board review did not justify the demand for a separate consultation with the Crown.
However, the court said that had any of the pipeline projects crossed or significantly impacted areas of unallocated Crown land which was part of an outstanding land claim, a much deeper duty to consult would have been triggered.
"Because this is also the type of issue that the (National Energy Board) process is not designed to address, the Crown would almost certainly have had an independent obligation to consult in such a context," wrote Justice R.L. Barnes.
