To
start, there are a few aboriginal hereditary chiefs who are against the
construction of a pipeline in northern British Columbia. They come from
some clans of the Wet'suwet'en people, which number about 3,443 (2020). They
have said they are uniformly against any pipeline through lands. They
claim their authority by inheritance and designation without any democratic
accountability. They are using the situation to extort a larger legal
objective they have never achieved otherwise.
Alternately,
Coastal GasLink says it has agreements with all 20 elected First Nations
councils along the 670-kilometre route, but the hereditary chiefs in the
Wet'suwet'en Office say they have “title” to a vast section of land and have
never relinquished it by signing a treaty.
While the Office of the Wet'suwet'en
may have strong views, others are equally strong. Although they have had
broader self-governance talks with the BC government which are independent of
any particular project, they take on new significance as a national debate over
Indigenous land rights and sovereignty flares up across the country.
While the Delgamuukw case was cited as an excuse by the blockaders, that case clarified some issues relating to Aboriginal “title”, but did not outright resolve them. The Delgamuukw case gives some “title” standing, but it does not provide a full veto over projects, as now falsely claimed by the blockaders.
This
particular pipeline project was approved years ago, and the Province of BC
approved its environmental assessment certification following extensive
consultations and community meetings. There is no legal basis for shutting
down the pipeline project.
Historically,
the Wet'suwet'en chiefs have had a financial sweetheart deal with
governments.
They
have an Office in the town of Smithers BC, and have several locations, with
some workers in Vancouver and other towns. They have a web site that makes
grandiose claims.
The
Office was created as a central office for Wet'suwet'en propaganda. Its
been in operation since 1994, and formerly affiliated with the Gitxsan Nation
for many years. The office is not an Indian band or tribal council. Based
on the priorities set by the Board of Directors, staff negotiates program funding
through various sources from federal and provincial governments and
foundations. The office is governed by the Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs
residing throughout traditional territories.
The
Chiefs meet monthly throughout the territories in various locations. It
has been derogatorily called by some “an old farts club” or the “17th-century
native mafia”. About $28 million has been received by this Smithers Office
in the last 7 years, mostly from the Federal and the BC Provincial
government. The BC government has given them millions for “services”.
The
Supreme Court of Canada, in the Delgamuukw decision twenty years ago, stated
that by implication, the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs might hold some
authority on some of the land they claim. Alternately, the First Nations
peoples that support the pipeline are mostly from Indian Act reserves. The
elected chiefs of these reserves hold authority only over reserve land as
stated in the Indian Act, not on another territory. These elected leaders
support the pipeline.
In
December 2018, Wet’suwet’en blockaders prevented some Coastal GasLink workers
(whose pipeline is supposed to transport natural gas to the Kitimat LNG
facility) from passing through some territory. Under the authority of
further Court Injunctions, the RCMP arrested 14 people associated with this
incident on 7 January 2019. Three days later, Wet'suwet'en chiefs and the
RCMP reached a deal to allow road access for pipeline workers.
While
the Delgamuukw case was cited as an excuse by the blockaders, that case
clarified some issues relating to Aboriginal “title”, but did not outright
resolve them. The Delgamuukw case gives some “title” standing, but it does
not provide a full veto over projects, as now falsely claimed by the blockaders. Subsequent
Court cases added to the labyrinth of notions about legitimacy and power, but
there is no clear legal situation for the Wet’suwet’en Office chiefs.
Radical
leaning law professors who regularly appear in the media, enflame expectations
of aboriginal privilege and confuse the public.
Aboriginal
“title” constitutes a beneficial interest in the land, but the underlying
control is retained by the Crown.
Only a very few do not like what the Supreme Court of Canada decreed, and are now blockading the nation in a shakedown. They ignore the full substance of the law, and attempt to confuse others by citing only part of the law to support their fantasy ideas. They wrongly claim “their law” supersedes Canada.
Rights
conferred by Aboriginal “title” include the right to decide how the land will
be used; to enjoy, occupy and possess the land; and to proactively use and
manage the land, including its natural resources. But the court set out a
mechanism by which the Crown can override Aboriginal “title” for the greater
national interest. In this case, the duties to consult and accommodate
have all been excessively met for this particular pipeline construction. Consequently,
the law gave the green light, and was later confirmed by Court
Injunctions. Therefore, it is clear that the blockaders do not have a
legitimate legal argument against the pipeline.
The
government is saying the territory is Crown land, the company has Crown
permits, so therefore the development can happen.
There
has been no process by which Wet’suwet’en customary influence has been
recognized. The “title” claims of the Wet’suwet’en chiefs have yet to be
resolved either by negotiation or litigation. Wet’suwet’en customary
behaviour is not recognized as being an effectual part of Canadian law. While
the NDP government has been having some talks over the last year about the
larger “title” question, the fortunes of the pipeline construction seem to have
scuttled those “larger issue” talks.
Interestingly,
the Wet’suwet’en community had an integral role in helping to shape this
project from the very beginning. There were over 120 in-person meetings
with Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs, as well as over 1,300 other interactions
(calls and emails), and the company says it will continue to collaborate at
every stage of the process.
According
to Coastal GasLink ... “Our collaborative approach with the Wet’suwet’en has
been meaningful and informative. Our detailed discussions included field
schedules, archeology programs, spatial files, stream crossings, wildlife and
vegetation field data, technical reports and surveys.”
“Extensive discussions have taken place with the community regarding the selection of the proposed route. Additionally, we conducted joint socio-economic studies to identify potential cultural, social and economic impacts or benefits of the project. 42 Wet’suwet’en community members were thoroughly engaged on the project to better understand important sites for traditional activities.”
“Extensive discussions have taken place with the community regarding the selection of the proposed route. Additionally, we conducted joint socio-economic studies to identify potential cultural, social and economic impacts or benefits of the project. 42 Wet’suwet’en community members were thoroughly engaged on the project to better understand important sites for traditional activities.”
During
exhaustive negotiations, the Office of the Wet'suwet'en offered an alternate
route that would avoid their most important sites in 2015. Prior to the
Environmental Assessment Certificate being issued, Coastal GasLink analyzed a
number of potential routes.
The analysis of these routes was shared with
the Office of the Wet'suwet'en and the Hereditary Chiefs.
The
analysis determined that the alternative routes were not feasible, and
therefore the route that was ultimately approved by the Environmental
Assessment Office (EAO) was selected. However, following the issuance of
the EAC, and based on input from the Office of the Wet'suwet'en, an alternate
route was identified; the South of Houston Alternate Route (SHAR).
Coastal GasLink applied for and received an amendment to the EAC for the South
of Houston Alternate Route (SHAR).
The protesters' tactic is to confuse for sympathy, peddle misinformation of the law, and create public stunts to make Canada look bad ... they play out their fantasy for media sympathy
Nevertheless,
on the ground, road blockades were made; in response, empowering Court
Injunctions followed. Subsequently, members of the Wet’suwet’en Nation
claim they have launched a court action for a judicial review of Coastal
GasLink’s permit as it relates to ‘man camps’ -- and their documented impact on
violence against women and girls -- and a constitutional challenge over the
potential environmental impacts of a liquid natural gas pipeline and the
resulting carbon emissions.
This
Court process will take years.
Before
the BC New Democrats became government, they politically used the local
Wet’suwet’en chief’s organization for voter support, and schmoozed with anti-pipeline
activists. Now the BC government gets no respect in return, as the legislature
and constituency offices were surrounded by protester crowds. In view of
what the BC government is now faced, which is partly their own creation, they
see it as a job for the police. Having pandered to environmental and
Indigenous activists for years, the NDP should not be surprised that it has
come back against them.
The
Crown and Company have carried out the required consultation and
accommodation. The project is supported by a compelling and substantial
objective, and the Crown's action was consistent with its fiduciary obligation
to the Aboriginal body in question. Therefore, the protest is without
legal merit.
Only a
very few do not like what the Supreme Court of Canada decreed, and are now blockading
the nation in a shakedown. They ignore the full substance of the law, and
attempt to confuse others by citing only part of the law to support their
fantasy ideas. They wrongly claim “their law” supersedes Canada.
The
uninformed supporters across the country are protesting a fiction, highlighted
for example, by a spokesperson on CBC claiming they are a separate country, not
under Canadian law.
Their
interim goal, is to have the RCMP withdraw from “their territory” which would
be a legal mistake. The blockaders act as if they are a law onto
themselves.
They
use Canadian Courts to get things, but if they don’t get everything, they just
reject the jurisdiction and say they are separate and are not bound by Canadian
law.
They
wrongly assert that all is “stolen land” and they own it all.
This
fiction has been helped by the government’s strategy to placate, defer, and
allow a fuzzy legal reality, just to keep the peace.
Historically
the BC government has never entered into a formal treaty with the Wet'suwet'en
Office chiefs, as the government never saw them as legitimate. Court cases
twenty years ago gave some standing, but it is up to the parties to negotiate
any specifics. However, the blockaders do not want negotiation, as they
have already decided on an all or nothing approach.
The
protesters' tactic is to confuse for sympathy, peddle misinformation of the
law, and create public stunts to make Canada look bad. They play out their
fantasy for media sympathy. Every petty grievance is now exploited, as
aboriginal groups across the country pile on, and take advantage for their own
local purpose.
A
grassroots campaign organized on social media, is behind the BC demonstrations
in sympathy with the Wet’suwet’en chiefs, say some on the front lines of
blockades.
Demonstrators
blockaded the Port of Vancouver, the B.C. legislature and a CP Railyard.
They occupied Attorney General David Eby’s constituency office, shut down major
intersections and a bridge in Vancouver, and picketed B.C. government
buildings. Similar actions are happening across Canada. (since this
commentary was written, they also held a protest at the home of Premier John
Horgan on February 18th)
Many
of the people behind the scenes are from a network who met as early as 2010 to protest
the Vancouver Olympics. A number have been involved in organizing around
anti-capitalism, migrant justice, Indigenous sovereignty, low-income housing,
and homelessness. Others are youth who have been activated through climate
change protest, inspired by Greta Thunberg’s Fridays for Future movement.
It
will take much courage and strong resolve by governments, to lead all Canadians
to follow one law, one system of Courts, and democratic principles of
accountability within one Canada.
Now retired, Paul Forseth lives
in Powell River.
He represented his original home
area of New Westminster in the House of Commons for over 12 years, and was
elected with the Reform Party in 1993 and 1997. He was a member of the Canadian
Alliance when elected in 2000. He was re-elected as a Conservative in 2004 and
served until the election of January 2006.
For 23 years he was a Family
Justice Counselor, Divorce Mediator, Child Custody Investigator, Probation and
Parole Officer, and Youth Court Officer in the Corrections Branch and Courts of
BC. Paul has spent considerable time on human rights issues, democratic
renewal, and religious freedom in other countries. He continues as a volunteer
on various community boards.
His opinions are related to
Canadian political culture.
Comments
Post a Comment