“Unjust and disastrous”: The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry Viewed from Saskatchewan

Scroll this

This is the sixth post in a series on the fiftieth anniversary of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, edited by Mark Stoller.


In its 1976 brief submitted to the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry (MVPI), the Saskatoon Environmental Society (SES) offered a blunt assessment of the proposed project: “If it goes ahead it will be one of the most unjust and disastrous acts ever to be committed in Canada.”1 SES was one of many organizations actively organizing against proposed energy projects in Saskatchewan in the 1970s, particularly hydropower and uranium development close to northern Cree, Métis, and Dene communities. Despite being busy close to home, Saskatchewan organizers felt compelled to participate in the MVPI and to show solidarity with opposition in the north. They recognized the Mackenzie Valley project as a critical front in the broader struggle for Indigenous rights and greater local autonomy, and in questioning the logic of modern energy development. Saskatchewan peoples’ advocacy was shaped by their experiences at home, and their work would in turn be influenced by their engagement with the Inquiry, highlighting the interplay of local and broader struggles in a decade dominated by debates about energy.

By 1974, when the MVPI officially began, people in Saskatchewan had been fighting for over a year against a proposal to dam the Churchill River. Indigenous and environmental groups had responded immediately to the Churchill project with concerns that a dam would cause irreversible harm to northern environments and livelihoods, and that the project promised “development of the north for the benefit of the south.”2 In response, the provincial government launched the Churchill River Study (CRS) in 1973 to study possible impacts.3 But opposition groups were soon as critical of the CRS as they were of the dam project, calling the CRS a “sham” that failed to meaningfully engage local communities and criticizing the narrow terms of reference that forestalled investigation into “legal rights in relation to land claims, hunting and fishing rights, timber rights and compensation for environmental damage.”4 Local organizers complained that Indigenous participation was sought only “for its potential in political propaganda, for what it would look like, not for any real involvement.”5 They feared that the decision on the project had already been made and that the CRS was designed merely to give the appearance of local consultation.

When the MVPI was commissioned in 1974, Saskatchewan groups were skeptical of the proceedings, believing they were another means of rubber-stamping a controversial project. The Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan (AMNSIS) opted against submitting a brief to the Inquiry and instead circulated pamphlets at the Regina hearings in the summer of 1976, including a declaration of solidarity with Dene land claims and the Dene Declaration. Outlining that “land is the basis of any economic and cultural life of a people,” they explained that “we do not believe that the inquiry has been formed to provide justice for Native land claims,” bemoaning that “only Indian lands are subjected to public inquiries” as a matter of the colonial state removing obstacles to development.6 The pamphlet ended by stating that the “land belongs to the Dene people and THE LAND IS NOT FOR SALE.”7

The community of Sandy Bay, located downstream of proposed Churchill dam sites, did submit a brief stating that processes like the CRS and MVPI were “created and funded… in order to give the appearance of public input into government decision making,” arguing that the “very existence” of the MVPI “allow[s] the Dene peoples’ ownership of their land to be called into public question.” Highlighting the disparity in resources between multinational oil corporations and local Indigenous communities, the brief suggested that the public would likely be swayed by arguments in favour of pipeline development, despite clear declarations from the Dene about their “inalienable rights to their own land.”8

Non-Indigenous groups saw the MVPI as an important opportunity to express solidarity with Indigenous organizers and to voice opposition to the excesses of modern energy development. SES put environmental concerns at the forefront of its MVPI brief, outlining the potentially damaging impacts of development at the Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea. But SES also took the opportunity to emphasize Indigenous rights, asserting that land claims had to be affirmed and settled before any large-scale development could take place.9 The Saskatchewan Waffle — a dedicated clique of socialists that had first emerged within the provincial New Democratic Party — also saw the MVPI as an opportunity to signal solidarity with Indigenous voices. Their brief focused on the perils of corporate power and foreign economic control, accusing developers of playing up the “energy crisis” to justify northern resource development. But it also asserted that the “claims and rights of northern people — native people pre-eminently — must come before energy speculation,” and that the group “supports the claims of native people for more meaningful control of their own territory. We reject the lie that oil and gas shortages makes necessary the exploitation of the north.”10

Organizers in Saskatchewan were impressed, then, when the MVPI ultimately recommended against immediate development and called for the settlement of land claims. A report in the AMNSIS monthly newsmagazine stated that “For once, a decision reached by a government commission has made a recommendation in favour of Native people.”11 The result, and Justice Thomas Berger’s overall approach, inspired new ideas about what was possible in Saskatchewan. In 1976, the province commissioned the Cluff Lake Inquiry to examine a proposed uranium mine in Saskatchewan’s far north. Indigenous organizers, environmentalists, and others quickly took issue with the narrow terms of reference and rapid pace of the inquiry, which was expected to report by 1978. The MVPI became something opponents could point to as a successful model. A 1978 report highlighted how Berger “took it upon himself to stretch his terms of reference as far as possible,” creating “a travelling teach-in” that “resulted in a massive consciousness-raising in the North.”12 It included a quote from Berger stating that the MVPI was “not just about a gas pipeline; it relates to the whole future of the North.”13 Opponents of Cluff Lake hoped to see a similar approach taken in Saskatchewan. In another instance, Saskatchewan faith groups pointed to the fact that Berger granted a one year delay along with funding to give local groups more time to organize themselves, rather than forging ahead on an inflexible timeline.14 Berger even met with the Saskatchewan Native Law Student group in 1977, warning them that pro-uranium forces would try to discredit Indigenous voices, but encouraging them to continue organizing as they were in the best position to speak to the future of their own environments and communities.15

The 1970s are remembered as a decade of Energy Crisis that saw controversial energy projects proposed across the country. The MVPI was reflective of struggles happening across the country, and focused national attention on the north. For organizers in Saskatchewan, the MVPI came to be seen as exemplary in many ways and, if nothing else, offered hope that new energy developments were not in all cases a foregone conclusion.


  1. Peter Prebble, “Brief to the Berger Inquiry,” published in Environment Probe 61 (May/June 1976): 3. ↩︎
  2. “Missinipe Achimowin,” New Breed (April 1975): 15. ↩︎
  3. On the conduct of the CRS, see Daniel Macfarlane and Andrea Olive, “Whither Wintego: Environmental Impact Assessment and Indigenous Opposition in Saskatchewan’s Churchill River Hydropower Project in the 1970s,” Canadian Historical Review 102, no. 4 (2021), 620–646. ↩︎
  4. “More money required for study of Churchill River,” The Saskatchewan Indian (June 1974): 8. Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation ultimately conducted its own study into the project, operating on its own terms of reference, the results of which can be found in Philip Ballantyne et al, Aski-Puko—The Land Alone: A report on the expected effects of the proposed hydro-electric installation at Wintego Rapids upon the Cree of the Peter Ballantyne and Lac La Ronge Bands (Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, 1976). ↩︎
  5. “Missinipe Committee Public Statement,” New Breed (May–June 1975): 3–4.
    ↩︎
  6. “THE LAND IS NOT FOR SALE,” Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan, published in New Breed (July 1976): 6. ↩︎
  7. Ibid (AMNSIS). ↩︎
  8. “Submission from the people of Sandy Bay, to the Berger Inquiry,” published in New Breed (July 1976): 5. ↩︎
  9. Prebble, “Brief,” 3–7. ↩︎
  10. “Submission of the Saskatchewan Waffle Movement to the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry,” May 1976. The Saskatchewan Waffle Collection, Provincial Archives of Saskatchewan (Patsy Gallagher papers, R—1284–V–E–15). ↩︎
  11. “The Berger Commission’s Report—Best Seller,” New Breed (July 1977): 24. ↩︎
  12. “Developing the Northlands… dividing the spoils,” New Breed (September 1978): 22–23. ↩︎
  13. Ibid., 22–23. ↩︎
  14. “Inter Church Committee Attacks Government Inquiry,” Briarpatch (July 1977): 30. ↩︎
  15. Clem Chartier, “Natives Gather to Discuss Proposed Uranium Development,” New Breed (September/October 1977): 4–5. ↩︎

Feature image: Churchill River from Ranger’s Corner, Stanley, Saskatchewan, 1936. Canada. Dept. of Interior, Library and Archives Canada, PA-044489.

The following two tabs change content below.

Justin Fisher

Justin is a PhD candidate at the University of Saskatchewan. His research focuses on the 1970s energy crisis, with a particular emphasis on social movement responses.

NiCHE encourages comments and constructive discussion of our articles. We reserve the right to delete comments that fail to meet our guidelines including comments under aliases, or that contain spam, harassment, or attacks on an individual.