Your whole line of argument is flatly racist and contains many seeming contradictions.

61 First Nations “in” British Columbia (it’s certainly arguable that they “own” BC or “are” BC) signed the Save the Fraser Declaration that you can read at http://savethefraser.ca No treaties have ever been signed, no lands ever ceded, and no jurisdiction to approve anything like Northern Gateway exists in either BC or Canada. The entire “process” is a racist fraud.

Second, the purpose of selling oil to China or other carbon-uncontrolled countries is to start a “race to the bottom” in dirty oil resulting in a failure to agree on any standards. If the US refuses dirty oil, sell it to China. If China refuses, sell it to India. If China and India refuse it, sell it to the USA. If all refuse, sell it to Viet Nam or Africa including via the Gulf of Mexico. Sell the dirty oil whatever the costs of infrastructure, diplomatic isolation, climate and ocean acidification conflict, and etc..

This is why nine Nobel Peace Prize winners signed a petition against Keystone XL. This geopolitical effect, which applies if anything more to Northern Gateway, is the central reason for opposition, and it is certainly a genuine reason for internationally funded opposition.

Also consider the Koch brothers’ lobbying, low royalties on oil, cheap/free access to water and natural gas for “upgrading” Tar Sands filth, Canadian diplomatic resources, and the bully pulpit of Mr. Harper and Mr. Oliver all as subsidies not to cause-based groups but to specific dirty companies (TransCanada, Enbridge) which repeatedly lie and break US laws. Are these not “foreign” subsidies too, to the other side?

A “parasite” is defined as an organism that sucks up resources from a host without healing or protecting any of its life systems. By this definition, the activists opposing Keystone XL and Northern Gateway (protecting watersheds, aquifers, atmosphere and a tolerable level of ocean acidity) are symbiotes, but Tar Sands boosters are all parasites.

That definition I am sure would withstand scrutiny by any number of Nobel Prize winners in science.

The definition of “hijack”, likewise, is to steal something and move it away from where it belongs. That reasonably describes both the regulatory attitudes of Christy Clark and Alison Redford and Joe Oliver and Stephen Harper, and the theft of Tar Sands oil at the cost of elevated cancers on the Athabasca.

Now we’ll see if you support free speech or not.