# data[].attributes.body
It's probably impossible to have every person come to a full agreement based on where their priorities lie. The pipeline appears to have clear pros and cons associated with it, so it might be best to see where parties are willing to compromise. As was mentioned, it seems like financial incentives will have the largest influence on the outcome. I would use the issue as a talking point in a classroom that students could use as a means of thinking about whether it is possible for every party involved to be satisfied and how future generations could actively avoid a similar issue.

# data[].attributes.body
Participated in the Pipeline Conundrum talking circle

# data[].attributes.body
Talking Circle

# data[].attributes.body
Talking Circle

# data[].attributes.body
'Reality of the game'. Indigenous communities are realizing they must seize opportunities for their families - employment, schooling for their children etc. How else can Indigenous communities get themselves out of poverty? However, the voices heard within the band are often the ones with more weight. Well said Carrie. This may not be the consensus of all.

# data[].attributes.body
Participated in the Pipeline Conundrum Debate.

# data[].attributes.body
Participated in the Pipeline Conundrum debate

# data[].attributes.body
talking circle

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the point that both Tanya and Bailey made that there can not be any reconciliation if the government are still taking from their land. There is no need to intrude on the 1% of indigenous land. The cyclical nature of this relationship pushes Indigenous communities to accept the money from the corporations and government because they see that the money is the only way they can benefit from these circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
It is a difficult issue to address as there are lots of unresolved issues around the land that needs to be talked about. I agree with Bailey in the sense that to the indigenous people, it has been and it is all about the land to them whether it is for reconciliation or power and just to take that away from that is not being sensitive and considerate of them and their culture at all.

# data[].attributes.headline
Robert made a good point about how the government it suppose to working in the reconciliation with the Indigenous people in Canada while still is using violence and to silence the voices of Indigenous who fight for protecting their lands. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Robert made a good point about how the government it suppose to working in the reconciliation with the Indigenous people in Canada while still is using violence and to silence the voices of Indigenous who fight for protecting their lands. 

# data[].attributes.body
GC

# data[].attributes.body
There are a lot of great points that came from both perspectives of the debate. I think that this is a really hard issue to come to a consensus because there is so much to uncover. I find it confusing that some groups are not all on the same page because usually people that come from the same group, have the same beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
There are so many different perspectives you could take on this subject. It's hard to take all of them into consideration but it is essential to see all perspectives of the impact it could make.

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting to learn that Coastal GasLink rejected a pipeline route endorsed by Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs. Coastal GasLink claimed the alternate route was too costly and posed even greater environmental risks.

Great conversation, everyone in the centre of the circle ! Thank you for raising such important and impactful points.

# data[].attributes.body
Could we not look to move the pipeline so that it is not traveling through and destroying sacred Indigenous spaces especially when Indigenous territories only take up 1 percent of the land.

# data[].attributes.body
If Indigenous territories are only 1% of the land, why can these pipelines not be rerouted so they are not on Indigenous territories and on the remaining 99% of the land (unceded territory)?
The Indigenous communities have already had all of their land taken away from them. Why do these pipelines have to go through the little that they do still have?

# data[].attributes.body
From my understanding, most groups (federal government, RCMP, media, chiefs that support the pipeline) are looking at how the pipeline benefits themselves in a more selfish perspective. Even the chiefs that support the pipelines say that they are going in to have their voices heard, there is also a huge monetary cut that is attractive on a personal level.
My question is: other than the activists who is looking at the pipelines from a Wet'suwet'en community and environmental perspectives, who has the interest of the environment, the communities, the people, the country, and the future in mind.

# data[].attributes.body
It was interesting to see the various points of view and how different beliefs existed even within each group. When Robert mentioned that Indigenous territories only take up around 1% of the land, it made me wonder why pipelines aren't being rerouted and why they're passing through Indigenous peoples territories/lands.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Bailey said. To build the pipeline means the need to go into Indigenous lands so now they want to work with Indigenous people. If the option is to go away from Indigenous land, would there be a working relationship there?

# data[].attributes.body
I find it shocking that CGL in unwilling to compromise on the pipeline placement and not pass through Ceremonial sites. Especially since a recent environmental report shows that CGL is not following proper disposal and preventative measure of harmful contaminants into the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this is a challenging issue to come to a consensus about. Even within groups, there appears to be a lack of agreement about what the safest and most ethical decision about the pipeline going forward.

With respect to the perspective of the band council and the Wet’suwet’en peoples, does working with the government and the CGL result in the safest decision for them if the alternative is that the government and the CGL force themselves into their territory?

# data[].attributes.body
How do CGL and TMX justify putting the pipeline through sacred land and spaces? Could it not be elsewhere?

Considering the recent flooding and the liklihood of it happening again - is a pipeline really the safest option?

# data[].attributes.body
When elected members are speaking on behalf of entire communities, are all voices truly being heard and considered? Elected members voices are amplified more than the hereditary chiefs. Do their opinions truly reflect the feelings of their band? Members of the band council don't want to miss out on money for their particular band if others have already agreed and received monetary compensation.

# data[].attributes.body
There are a lot of unresolved issues in terms of the land that needs to be addressed. There was a lot of talk about money, but questions we need to consider are who is the money really going to? Who is benefitting from it? Is the collaboration with Indigenous people simply a means to an end? Whose voices are actually being considered and heard? Does it reflect the majority? Or are they picking and choosing for their own gain? How can it be generalized that the Indigenous community was consulted when we currently have activists protesting?

# data[].attributes.body
Reserves take up less than 1% of the land in Canada yet it is where the pipeline is being routed through? If this has to be done it should go through the other areas. Why was this area chosen specifically? What message is this saying?

The people are using great points to back their chosen group's side of the issue. However, it is showing how there is a power imbalance within this issue.

# data[].attributes.body
The debate in the centre circle showed how many people are dipping their hands into the pot and the plethora of opinions that come with that. Something I was thinking about is what voices are centered in news articles and how some voices are disproportionally represented over others.

I agree with Tanya's point about the government forcing the Wet'suwet'en people down and then offering money to help them. It may help in the short term but it does nothing on a societal level. It really is just a ongoing cycle based on who has the power in the situation. So the solution and way out of the cycle is social change and a change in point of view of people who have that power, not money.

# data[].attributes.body
It seems like each group has information to back up their points. There are so many different perspectives that can be taken to support each group. I think it is a very political conversation but the values and morals of these groups have been lost along the way. It doesn't seem to be about the people at all and i think that needs to be an important reminder for these groups that it really affects people and their families.

# data[].attributes.body
The Coastal GasLink is definitely a controversial issue to come across with the best solution because there are good points in both views of for and against the pipeline. What are some ways in which we can collaborate together to offer Indigenous communities proper living standards where they are not at risk, while we are still able to receive our resources? Relocating?

# data[].attributes.body
It's a really difficult issue to form an opinion about - there is divided Indigenous voices for and against the pipeline. Playing the 'resource game' - it seems like Indigenous bands believe land will be taken regardless, but by going along with the pipeline development, they can at least get some sort of say in what happens (super sad to think about). Regarding the systems of power, the RCMP and the military has little choice in what they enforce, if they are given order to do something, they cannot go against it (well, they can but they might be reprimanded or fired).

# data[].attributes.body
I think it was a good point that the band council made that one of the reasons why the band council may be supporting or agreeing to the pipeline is because they want to be involved and have a say. The band council may feel like no matter what they do or say the Canadian government is going to do what it wants and build the pipeline anyways, based on the fact that the Canadian government has always done what is best for western settlers without considering indigenous perspectives. Therefore, by showing some sort of support for the pipeline the band council members can at least have a voice in what is being done and may have some influence.

# data[].attributes.body
In one of the articles that I read spoke about Karen Ogen-Toews, who is a former elected Chief of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation. She is a supporter of the pipeline as she said, "if our people are living in poverty, the way to overcome it is through proper training, trades, education, and a job." There are many positives and negatives to this pipeline but it is important to see both sides. As Robert says, we can't loop all Indigenous Peoples together because they are all different. We can't loop all Wet'suwet'en together because some support the pipeline and some do not. Meeting in the middle is difficult when opposite sides have such strong opinions about what they think is right and wrong. It is difficult, but not impossible.