paul is correct about land claims, but for a more jaded (and i think realistic) view of the situation, seek out pamela palmater. in theory, it's a better approach. in practice, not at all.
but this is the argument, certainly. it's not an accident that these lines ran through native communities when they were built. sure, the pipelines are already there, but they either run natural gas or much lighter crude. the reversal and similar lines through the general area will spill, and they will spill in indigenous communities. so, it's natural to think they should have some say in the matter - due to questions of sovereignty or just basic democracy.
the coalition is being built around what could be called progressive community activist groups - the type dominated by white liberals that have substituted socialism as an atheist reaction to what is fundamentally a deeply rooted christian value system. it's nimby to the core, just like in bc.
it's going to come down to the politics, of course. unfortunately, militant tactics - coerced or not - are going to harm the activists on a pr front, even as it helps them in court. beneath the upper crust intelligentsia, canada does not hold up to it's reputation as a social left paradise. the news will talk about development producing jobs and violent savages and most canadians will buy it.
....and i don't honestly think the western pipe is even dead yet. keystone will be approved when it's politically viable. this is all of the above, not one or the other.
something else they'll try and trick us with is the idea that it will reduce gas prices, which of course is not true - it's for export.
worst of all, the ndp is supporting it over the western pipelines because it will create union refinery jobs (and the western stuff would be refined offshore).
the courts may save the day in the end, but the canadian people will certainly not.
also...
the party on the streets was quebec solidaire. everybody in the protest movement saw what was coming.
it's a little known fact that clinton had the airforce on standby back in the last referendum. that wasn't something that was actually going to happen. is peladeau less crazy than bouchard? different kind of crazy. the contingent plan has no doubt changed little.
as for where the pq stands on the political spectrum, the truth is they don't. they're opportunistic. it's a thing in canada, where parties represent the positions they think define the way the winds are blowing.
they're not creating this wave of white nationalism (and that's what it is), but co-opting it away from other forces, like the adq, who took a good run at power. it's horrific, and the liberals are being spineless about it - a really sad show, all around. but this is a reaction to hold the ground to keep the movement together...
...just as their previous swing to the left was. let us not forget that the pq was formed primarily as a split from the progressive conservatives, who (outside of social credit) were the most right-wing of the serious parties at the time.