The Wet'suwet'en protest brings into focus values that should help Canadians today and tomorrow with issues of conflict between economic progress and respect for reconciliation with indigenous nations.
 |
| Canadian values in conflict |
Peter Bisson, SJ, Provincial Assistant for Indigenous Relations comments that the current conflict between the Wet’suwet’en First Nations and Coastal GasLink has to do with a natural gas pipeline that Coastal Gaslink wants to build, some of which would pass through traditional Wet’suwet’en territory in the northwestern central interior of British Columbia.
 |
| Authority in question |
The Wet’suwet’en elected chiefs and councils have approved the project, but the hereditary chiefs have not. The hereditary chiefs have proposed at least two alternative routes over the years that would pass over less ecologically and culturally sensitive lands, but the company found these proposals, among other difficulties, too expensive.
Delgamuukw, and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, clarified many questions about Indigenous land titles, but did not resolve all of them or implement them. The Supreme Court decisions certainly mean fair compensation for mutually agreed-to use of Indigenous lands and may imply deeper consultation than has already occurred. Little, if any legislation, that would implement the Supreme Court’s decision has been passed, which is one of the basic reasons why there seems to be an impasse now between the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, Coastal GasLink, the government of B.C. and the federal government.1
Eugene Kung and Gavin Smith report that to uphold the rule of law, the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal title and governance must be meaningfully applied in Crown decision-making.
Canada’s Constitution and judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada recognize the pre-existing nature of Aboriginal rights and title, which are interwoven with Indigenous laws and governance. Furthermore, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which both the federal and BC governments have committed to implement, recognizes “the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.”
Importantly, the source of the inherent rights affirmed by UNDRIP is the pre-existing governance and culture of each Indigenous nation itself — in other words, UNDRIP recognizes rather than creates the rights. The Supreme Court of Canada similarly recognizes in Delgamuukw that constitutionally protected Aboriginal title is not created by Canadian law; rather, Aboriginal title “arises from the prior occupation of Canada by aboriginal peoples.” The SCC also described the system of Clans and houses with Hereditary Chiefs as “the fundamental premise of both Gitksan and the Wet’suwet’en peoples.” Canadian law is playing catch-up by slowly recognizing these rights and governance structures.2
Andrew Kurjata of CBC News reports the alternate route of the Coastal GasLink was too costly and posed greater environmental risks than a route endorsed by Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs. In an interview with reporters on Jan. 27, Coastal GasLink president David Pfeiffer was asked why the company wouldn't move the pipeline's path in order to avoid conflict. "We spent many years assessing multiple routes through the Wet'suwet'en Territory, about six years," Pfeiffer said. "The current route was selected as the most technically viable and one that minimized impact to the environment." Mike Ridsdale, the Office of the Wet'suwet'en's environmental assessment co-ordinator, stated that the alternate route would have followed a path through Wet'suwet'en territory eyed for use by Pacific Northern Gas for an expansion and looping project. The rejected McDonnell Lake route would also run through Wet'suwet'en territory, but would pass farther north, toward Smithers. Mike Ridsdale of the Office of the Wet'suwet'en said Pacific Northern Gas has considered the route for its own pipeline project, depicted in purple.
(Pacific Northern Gas/B.C. Oil and Gas Commission)
https://i.cbc.ca/1.5465329.1581744733!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/mcdonnell-lake-route.jpg
Ridsdale said the route follows "already heavily disturbed areas along the Highway 16 corridor, and away from highly known cultural areas, as well as away from the Skeena headwaters of salmon spawning areas that the Wet'suwet'en rely on." In a letter provided to CBC by the Office of Wet'swuwet'en, Coastal GasLink says it explored the possibility of using the McDonnell Lake route through aerial and computer reviews, and by meeting with representatives of Pacific Northern Gas. The letter — dated Aug. 21, 2014 — also outlines reasons Coastal GasLink rejected the route, including:
It would increase the pipeline's length by as much as 89 kilometres, upping both the environmental impact and as much as $800 million in capital costs. The pipeline's diameter, at 48 inches (121 cm), is too large to safely be installed along the route. (Pacific Northern's pipeline is between 10 and 12 inches (25-30 cm), and the proposed upgrade would be 24 inches or 60 cm.) The McDonnell Lake route would be closer to the urban B.C. communities of Smithers, Houston, Terrace and Kitimat. Re-routing the pipeline would impact an additional four First Nations who had not already been consulted by Coastal GasLink, which would add up to one year of delays to the construction process."From our perspective, the route was not feasible on the basis of those significant environmental and technical issues and therefore route examination ceased," said Coastal GasLink spokesperson Terry Cunha in a followup email to CBC.3
The delay in identification of a solution that protects reconciliation as directed by the Supreme Court and the United Nations will only raise the cost and risk of this investment that is connected to employment in a sunset gas and oil industry.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment