Northern Rockies Regional Municipality Mayor Bill Streeper has publicly called out the local Fort Nelson First Nation (FNFN) over its repudiation of government officials at a summit on liquefied natural gas (LNG) it held last week.
[quote]No shale gas development will proceed in FNFN territory until our Nation and our Treaty are respected and our concerns about our land and our waters are addressed.[/quote]
The chief’s decisive actions made headlines across the country, generated a wave of accolades in these pages and other social media, and yielded an uncharacteristically speedy and deferential response from government. Within hours, Environment Minister Mary Polak issued a mea culpa, recanting the proposed regulatory changes. “Our government apologizes for failing to discuss the amendment with First Nations prior to its approval,” stated Polak.
“That is why we will rescind the amendment…until we have undertaken discussions with First Nations.”
Yet Mayor Streeper, who has long ties to the shale gas industry, doesn’t share the government’s contrition and agreement with FNFN’s position. In an open letter castigating his aboriginal neighbours in Fort Nelson, Streeper called the expulsion a “knee-jerk” reaction that constituted “discriminatory exploitation”.
“We’re a one-industry town,” noted Streeper, who apologized to the provincial government on behalf of his community. Underscoring his perceived urgency of developing the industry at all costs, the exasperated mayor stated:
[quote]If LNG fails, this town will fail.
[/quote]
Yet, at no point did Chief Gale reject the industry outright; rather she highlighted her community’s concern with the government’s secretive legislative changes and emphasized that in order for the industry to proceed, it must address a number of key environmental concerns:
[quote]The FNFN is not against development but these projects must be consistent with our values and have respect for the land…First Nation people are the governments of their territories and will make decisions going forward on these projects.[/quote]
The Unist’ot’en camp’s Toghestiy (left) and Mel Bazil stand in the path of 3 pipelines (Two Island Films)
UPDATE: Fort Nelson First Nation drums government, industry reps out of LNG conference, outraged over lack of consultation on surprise gutting of environmental reviews for gas plants. Government issues swift apology and cancels changes (more below).
One of the biggest myths pervading BC’s energy dialogue goes something like this: While First Nations stand united against the proposed Enbridge pipeline, they overwhelmingly embrace Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Sure, Premier Christy Clark can tick off a list of aboriginal allies in her effort to build at least five among a dozen terminals proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert. Just last week, she announced with great fanfare LNG revenue sharing agreements with two coastal nations – Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams.
But a growing group of hereditary leaders, grassroots members and their allies, even some elected governments, are rising up in opposition – from the fracking fields of northeast BC that would supply the industry, to the various proposed pipeline routes across the province, to the coastal communities that would house the hulking terminals.
LNG is designed to achieve higher prices for BC’s gas in Asia, by cooling it to -160 degrees celsius, thus liquefying it so it can be loaded onto tankers bound for China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and India. But it may be investors who are getting cold feet amid the myriad challenges facing the industry.
Gitxsan Nation hereditary chiefs deliver a cease-and-desist order to TransCanada (Photo: Graeme Pole)
In a little-reported but highly significant development a few weeks ago, a group of Gitxsan hereditary chiefs in the Kispiox Valley, near Hazelton, ordered TransCanada to cease and desist test drilling relating to the pipeline it plans to construct to Prince Rupert on behalf of Malaysian, Japanese and Indian LNG partners.
The issue adds more uncertainty to the province’s nascent LNG industry, on top of the unified opposition of all five clans of the Wet’suwet’en Nation to the south; mounting concerns from Treaty 8 and Fort Nelson First Nation in the heart of northeast BC’s fracking country; and increasing scrutiny of the proposed Woodfibre LNG Plant in Squamish territory, near Vancouver.
A brief survey of the geography and indigenous territorial boundaries of BC, juxtaposed with these respective challenges, reveals a far more perilous landscape for this industry to traverse than the rosy picture being painted in Victoria and on press junkets to Asia.
Whether you’re a BC taxpayer about to commit massive public subsidies to this industry, or a board member or shareholder of a company contemplating investing the tens of billions of dollars required to build LNG infrastructure, it may be useful to know the real odds before laying a bet on BC LNG.
A tale of two nations: Hereditary vs. Elected
Understanding the discrepancy between the official story on First Nations’ support for LNG and the emerging, contrary reality requires some sense of the different – often competing – systems of governance amongst BC’s aboriginal communities.
Broadly speaking, there are two main forms of aboriginal government: elected and hereditary. The former is a product of the Indian Act – elected band councils which govern reserves created by the Crown. The latter is an ancestral system of leadership made up of houses and clans – the specific makeup varying from nation to nation. Hereditary governments may also incorporate democratic elements – i.e. not strictly “hereditary” per our western concept of the term – whereby chiefs’ names are passed on through decisions reached in the feast hall or by presiding chiefs or house groups.
Where these systems still exist, hereditary chiefs may hold jurisdiction over their nations’ often vast, resource-rich traditional territories. The Canadian case law on this subject is relatively new and not well defined, but individual nations often have their own laws or internal protocol agreements on the subject of jurisdiction. Elected band councils, meanwhile, are responsible for the much smaller reserves which many First Nations inhabit today. Jurisdiction remains a contentious legal issue, specific to individual nations. That said, a number of deals involving pipelines and energy terminals have been signed by elected councils, which is sewing conflict in some communities.
Gitxsan: Home of Delgamuukw
In Gitxsan territory – which covers some 53,000 square kilometers surrounding the mighty Skeena River in northwest BC – a rogue chief and head of the nation’s treaty society (another entity which can hold considerable sway in aboriginal communities), Elmer Derrick, stoked a firestorm when he signed an unauthorized deal with Enbridge in 2011. Derrick and his cohorts were promptly evicted from the treaty office and the deal was torn up – by the very hereditary chiefs whose support he had erroneously claimed.
The hereditary system is deeply rooted in Gitxsan culture, as it is with their neighbours to the south, the Wet’suwet’en. These two nations together won the landmark Delgamuukw v. British Columbia case at the Supreme Court of Canada. Some of the same 48 hereditary chiefs who initiated the case in 1984 are still alive today, standing in the path of myriad proposed pipelines.
As this federal government summary of the case explains, Delgamuukw legally entrenched the existence of aboriginal title and rights contained in the country’s constitution:
“Delgamuukw confirmed that common law Aboriginal title, recognized as a common law Aboriginal right prior to 1982, was “constitutionalized … in its full form” by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (par. 133)”
The ruling itself noted: “[A]boriginal title confers more than the right to engage in site-specific activities which are aspects of the practices, customs and traditions of distinctive aboriginal cultures…What aboriginal title confers is the right to the land itself.” However, the court stopped short of confirming Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en title, requiring a new case be brought to address that matter specifically.
The ripple effects of this decision continue to be felt today and weigh heavily upon the LNG issue.
Gixtsan chiefs evict TransCanada
BC map of First Nations, highlighting Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en lands
Take a look at the BC Government’s map of First Nations territories. Now, draw a line around the neighbouring Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en nations (pictured to the right). Note how they form a 500 km-long vertical wall, smack in the middle of every major pipeline route proposed across northern BC. Now you have a glimpse of the trouble awaiting these projects, were both nations to block their path.
And that is precisely what’s taking root on the ground right now, though you wouldn’t know it from Christy Clark’s endless stream of LNG photo-ops touting First Nations’ embrace of the industry.
In late March, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief Wa’a (Samson Muldoe) delivered a letter to TransCanada workers conducting test drilling in the Kispiox Valley, related to one of the two major pipelines being eyed to take fracked natural gas from northeast BC to Prince Rupert (see video below).
The letter, signed by a number of high-ranking hereditary chiefs, stated, “As rightful guardians of the territory on which this work is being carried out, this is to instruct TransCanada Pipelines and its contractors and representatives to cease and desist from this work immediately and to remove all their equipment, vehicles and personnel by the end of Tuesday, March 25th, 2014, and to not return thereafter.”
To the point of governance and jurisdiction, the letter continued:
“We assert that the persons representing the Gitxsan Nation, with whom TransCanada Pipelines has been dealing to this point, do not have legitimate right to make decisions with regards to [the territory] where the work mentioned is now taking place – and that TransCanada Pipelines has thus failed to properly consult, as required pursuant to the Delgamuukw Supreme Court of Canada 1997 ruling.”
The chiefs identified impacts on Skeena River salmon from pipelines, LNG terminals and potential fracking in the region as the prime motives for their action.
Petronas’ magic trick
The issue is of particular sensitivity given pipeline owner Petronas/Progress Energy’s attempt to erase the Skeena River and estuary from its project description maps (a story broken by The Common Sense Canadian last year). The uproar over the issue, combined with concern about the impacts of the proposed LNG plant on vital estuary habitat during the worst year on record for Skeena sockeye, forced a significant extension to the initial public comment period on the project.
The eviction order is a wake-up call for TransCanada and it should come as no surprise if Spectra Energy, the proponent of the other major pipeline to Prince Rupert, met with a similar notice from the chiefs.
Wet’suwet’en chiefs ban all pipelines
Meanhwhile, several hundred kilometers to the south, Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs banned all pipelines – including the proposed Enbridge pipeline and two major gas conduits – through their territory last summer.
Hereditary Chief Na’moks, leader of the Tsayu Clan, explained to me on camera last October that the heads of all five Wet’suwet’en clans had voted to ban all pipelines through their 22,000 square kilometer territory – with unmistakable resolve.
Like the Gitxsan chiefs, Na’moks raised fracking – the ultimate source of this gas – as a key concern in reaching their decision:
“When you’re talking about fracking and the dangers that come with it – the waste of water, the poisoning of water, the waste of land…when we allow pipelines, we have to take that responsibility that we’re supporting this industry to continue that. As Wet’suwet’en, we can’t do that.”
LNG means 50,000 new holes in the ground: geoscientist
A fracking drill in BC’s Horn River Basin (Two Island Films)
So these chiefs are right to be concerned about the implications of LNG plans in terms of increased fracking and environmental impacts.
Unist’ot’en Clan holds the line
At the end of a series of forest service roads west of the sawmill town of Houston, BC, lies a solar-powered cabin on the banks of the Morice River. It may soon become ground zero in the battle over BC’s proposed pipelines.
There, members of one of the five Wet’suwet’en clans, the Unist’ot’en, have been strategically occupying their land – directly in the path of two gas pipelines and the Enbridge pipeline – for several years now. Their position is simple: No pipelines will cross their territory, period. They’ve already evicted contractors doing survey work for one of the proposed pipelines, Chevron and Apache’s Pacific Trails project.
I’ve visited the camp on two occasions – this past winter and in its early days in the summer of 2012 – for my forthcoming film Fractured Land. It’s a beehive of activity, with supporters regularly joining the camp for weeks to assist with various chores, the construction of new facilities, and gathering and preparing food.
The Unist’ot’en camp has raised close to $20,000 for bunk house renos
They work to feed themselves in a traditional manner from hunting, trapping and fishing, though one of the camp’s leaders, who goes by the traditional name of Toghestiy, acknowledged to me on a tour of their trapline this winter that with diminished wildlife following years of logging in the region, they are forced to supplement their traditional diet with other food sources.
Though the group runs the risk of being characterized as militant radicals, that would appear, on closer inspection, to be a gross misunderstanding of their motives and philosophy. “We’re not about a fight,” camp regular Mel Bazil explained on our last trip. “I don’t wake up thinking, ‘Is the fight coming on today?’…We’re prepared to protect ourselves, but we’re more prepared to build with people a shared responsibility that we can really believe in – that will not occur from a board room or a government level.”
Many of the camp’s members are are schooled in both western universities and the traditional ways of their people, having left high-ranking jobs in aboriginal governance, social work and other fields to embrace a different way of life, in reaction to serious challenges facing their land and people.
“This planet is in trouble. If we can all agree upon that and not worry about how media and governments are spinning it, we really must all, as a people, take control of ourselves.”
Injunction being sought?
Born into another Wet’suwet’en clan, Toghestiy is married to Freda Huson of the Unist’ot’en, the camp’s frequent spokesperson. The pair were in Vancouver last week for an emergency press conference, after they caught wind of an alleged plan by government and industry officials to obtain an injunction against their camp.
When pressed by the Globe and Mail’s Mark Hume, Chevron representative Gillian Robinson-Riddell denied seeking an injunction. She did, however, seem to acknowledge that the company has yet to secure the social licence it requires from First Nations to commit fully to the project financially:
“We’re working toward a final investment decision but there are a few factors [that have to be confirmed] yet…We are looking for further First Nation support.
Video by Eric Doherty
Camp building broad support
The Unist’ot’en are currently running a crowd funding campaign to further build up their camp. With several weeks to go, they’ve nearly met their goal of $20,000 – evidence of the broad support their cause is attracting. From the looks of it, the group isn’t going anywhere – certainly not without a Herculean effort on behalf of government, industry and law enforcement that could well backfire under public scrutiny.
Canada: The world is watching you
When I asked Ms. Huson what would happen if authorities tried to serve an injunction, she replied:
“Supporters would walk off their jobs and come join us. People from all over have said busloads would come to our camp.” Others as far away as Ontario “would close highways” in sympathy.
“My message is: “Canada, the world is watching you.”
I asked Ms. Huson what she would say to the elected chiefs who have signed LNG deals. “I would ask them, ‘Have you done your homework?'” she replied. “Have you investigated how LNG plants affect the air and water; how you will affect not just your communities, but people upstream and downstream?…And what would your ancestors do?
More First Nations opposition brewing
In northeast BC, First Nations leaders have long worked to balance the natural gas industry’s job benefits to their members with its environmental impacts. But with the shift from conventional gas to riskier fracking, change is in the wind.
Now, as they peer over the horizon at a massive build-up of fracking to feed these proposed LNG terminals, they are increasingly expressing concern for the future. The Fort Nelson First Nation came out swinging in 2012 against 20 proposed long-term water licences for fracking in their territory, forcing the government to pull them off the table – with the exception of one, which is currently being litigated by the band.
In 2013, Chief Sharleen Gale and Lands Manager Lana Lowe co-penned an op-ed in The Globe and Mail, which stopped short of opposing the industry, but raised alarm bells over the implications of LNG for their territory – calling for increased environmental standards and royalty sharing to compensate their community. If anything, their estimate of future impacts was highly conservative, in light geoscientist David Hughes’ figures and the Clark government’s bullish outlook for building LNG plants:
“Should a modest number of LNG plants be built we anticipate at least 3,000 new wells will be drilled and fracked over the next decade. This will remove millions of tonnes of frack sand from our land, and trillions of litres of water from our rivers, unleashing a race for large-scale industrial frack sand mining and freshwater withdrawals…Industry has already proven unable or unwilling to stay within the generous water allocations provided to them for fracking.”
Finally, in a surprise turn of events this week, Fort Nelson First Nation members, led by the strong words of Chief Gale, literally drummed out government and industry representatives from a conference the band was hosting on liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The 3-day conference, titled “Striking the Balance”, was designed to discuss both the economic opportunities and potential environmental impacts of increased fracking in the nation’s territory. But things got off on the wrong foot when the BC Liberal government made a surprise announcement on Tuesday that new sweet gas processing plants would be exempted from environmental assessment.
Chief Gale alluded to the betrayal in her comments from the podium at the event today:
“The word from my elders is you treat people kind. You treat them with respect even when they’re stabbing you in the back…so I respectfully ask government to remove themselves from the room.”
Several dozen government officials promptly arose and left, to the beating of Dene drummers. LNG and shale gas industry representatives were asked to stay behind for a few minutes to hear about the nation’s concerns in greater detail, after which they too were dismissed. (see video here).
The message was received loud and clear by the Liberal government, as Energy Minister Mary Polak issued a swift, statement repealing the planned change to the province’s environmental assessment laws.
“I would like to acknowledge First Nations concerns about amendments to the Reviewable Projects Regulation under the Environmental Assessment Act,” stated Polak. “Our government apologizes for failing to discuss the amendment with First Nations prior to its approval.”
Non-BC First Nations take hard line against fracking
As Common Sense Canadian contributor Kevin Logan asked last year, is Elsipogtog the spark that will light the fire of fracking protest amongst other First Nations in places like BC and Alberta? Fort Nelson Chief Gale and Lands Manager Lowe suggested as much in their Globe editorial at the time:
[quote]Sadly it has taken the images from New Brunswick over the past two weeks to raise the debate around “shale gas” to the national stage. It has taken Elsipogtog people being arrested, and images of burning vehicles to illuminate how raw the tension is between the indigenous peoples, and the federal and provincial governments around unchecked resource extraction…We feel particularly close to our relatives in New Brunswick. We share a connection through our treaties and our concern for the land, water and air and the future generations in the face of shale gas.[/quote]
BC LNG a risky bet
The BC Liberal government is banking on support for LNG from First Nations based on the jobs it is dangling before them – as bloated and unrealistic as these claims clearly are. Now-Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman told political pundit Vaughn Palmer in 2012, “One of the greatest outcomes for this would be that every First Nation young person coming through in the next ten years can get a trade or a job…in the LNG business.”
BC Premier Christy Clark (Photo: Tina Lovegreen)
But in order for BC LNG’s ship to set sail, it will require hundreds of billions of dollars in private capital – not to mention huge taxpayer subsidies. And there are already myriad signs that this boat won’t float – from the government’s difficulty in developing a long-delayed export tax regime, to the lack of a single major investment commitment from any proponent in the 8 or so years the industry has been brewing.
At some point, investors will be confronted with the fact that, on top of all the other risks associated with this incredibly costly and volatile industry, they face growing opposition from First Nations.
Even in the best of circumstances, LNG is a gamble. Given the odds facing BC’s attempts to build an industry, I’d think long and hard before laying my chips on the table.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The passage on hereditary vs. elected governments has been updated since original publication to better reflect the nuances of this subject.
Eagle Spirit’s Calvin Helin speaking the Vancouver Board of Trade
VANCOUVER – A plebiscite defeat for the company proposing a $6-billion oil pipeline across northern British Columbia may have opened the door for another mega-project.
Supporters of a First Nation-backed alternative to the Enbridge (TSX:ENB) Northern Gateway Pipeline are expected to make an announcement today in Vancouver.
Chiefs from two northern B.C. First Nations will join officials from aboriginal-owned and controlled Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings to announce the plans.
Eagle Spirit formed in late 2012 to promote its vision of a First Nations-managed energy corridor across northern B.C., carrying everything from fibre optic, electrical and water lines to pipelines moving liquefied natural gas and Alberta oil.
David Negrin, president of the privately held B.C.-based Aquilini Group, and a former chief operating officer with Alaska’s Alyeska Pipeline Service, will attend the announcement.
Northern Gateway officials say they have some work to do after a non-binding weekend plebiscite suggested about 60 per cent of Kitimat residents disapprove of plans to make their community the west coast terminus of Enbridge’s pipeline.
VICTORIA – The British Columbia government has moved to bring First Nations on board its much-anticipated multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas boom.
Two north coast First Nations signed revenue-sharing agreements Wednesday with the government related to the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas export terminal on their traditional territories near Prince Rupert.
It’s a deal that could be worth up to $15 million for the Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams nations.
Related Stories
Premier Christy Clark and leaders from the First Nations who participated in formal signing ceremonies at the legislature called the agreements — the first such connected to LNG — historic.
Clark said the revenue-sharing agreements signal her government’s aims to include First Nations in the province’s LNG development plans, which she says represent a generational opportunity that will rival Alberta’s oilsands.
The First Nations’ leaders said the achievement indicates willingness among some aboriginal groups to embrace some forms of resource development.
A majority of First Nations have opposed the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project that would move Alberta oil products to B.C.’s coast for export to Asia.
The LNG revenue-sharing agreements were negotiated with the First Nations because their communities, located north of Prince Rupert, are close to a proposed Aurora LNG development at Grassy Point.
Aurora LNG is a proposed joint venture by Nexen Energy ULC (TSX:NXY), a wholly owned subsidiary of CNOOC Limited, INPEX Corporation and JGC Corporation.
“Agreements like this plant the seed for prosperity that lasts for generations,” Clark said at the signing ceremony. “This kind of an opportunity, this kind of co-operation, the stability that this agreement represents today, between First Nations, between government and industry, is going to play a crucial role in creating the confidence that investors need to make sure that their final investments come to fruition.”
By signing the agreements, the First Nations give their support and co-operation for prospective LNG development on their territory, she said.
Metlakatla Chief Harold Leighton said the status quo is no longer acceptable for First Nations who want to be part of development efforts in northwest B.C.
“Revenue sharing agreements related to Grassy Point are a good example of how things can happen when we approach LNG and other types of development in the spirit of partnership and co-operation,” said Leighton. “We have an opportunity to build an economy and improve the social well-being of the Metlakatla and northwest.”
The agreements with Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams involve sharing portions of B.C. government revenues related to the Grassy Point lands.
Clark has said government revenues from prospective LNG developments in the northwest could erase the province’s debt, currently at more than $60 billion.
The rate will rise once the plants recover the capital costs of building what are expected to be multibillion-dollar terminals that will super-cool natural gas into LNG for shipment to Asia. The first such plant could be in operation within four years.
There are about a dozen proposed LNG developments in B.C., but none has moved to the final investment-decision stage.
The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed two complaints today with regards to revelations that the RCMP and CSIS have surveilled citizens, First Nations and environmental groups openly challenging the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.
The complaint with respect to CSIS was filed with the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) – the public watchdog overseeing CSIS – while the complaint regarding the RCMP was submitted to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Interestingly, SIRC’s own integrity was recently called into question with revelations that its head, Chuck Strahl, and a number of other directors have lobbying ties to Enbridge and the oil and gas industry.
Both complaints stem from a story in the Vancouver Observerin November, 2013, which drew on Access to Information documents detailing the security agencies’ efforts to follow and report on the activities of prominent Enbridge opponents. Some of these reports appear to have been shared with the National Energy Board reviewing the proposed pipeline.
Police, spy agency may have broken laws
One particular incident involved a town hall meeting and series of workshops held at a Kelowna church on the eve of the NEB’s Enbridge hearings in that community in February of last year. The surveillance documents track the involvement of the events’ organizers and guest speakers – including Union of BC Indian Chiefs President Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and activist groups LeadNow and Dogwood Initiative (Full disclosure: I was also named in the documents as a guest speaker at the event).
“It’s against the law and the constitution for police and spy agencies to spy on the lawful activities of people who are just speaking out and getting involved in their communities,” says Josh Paterson, Executive Director of the BCCLA.
[quote]This is bigger than an environmental debate – it’s a question of fundamental human rights. There are plenty of undemocratic countries where governments spy on people that they don’t agree with. That’s not supposed to happen in Canada, and when it does, it can frighten people away from expressing themselves and participating in democratic debate. [/quote]
“It’s intimidating for people to learn that they’re being spied on by their own government,” adds Ben West, of ForestEthics Advocacy, one of the groups whose activities have been monitored by CSIS and the RCMP.
“Regular people are being made to feel like they are on a list of enemies of the state, just because they are speaking out to protect their community from a threat to their health and safety or trying to do what’s right in the era of climate change.”
The BCCLA’s Patterson expects the process surrounding both complaints will take at least several months. With respect to the SIRC complaint, CSIS has 30 days to respond directly to the complaint, before it is passed on to the watchdog.
ACFN Chief Allan Adam on tour recently with Neil Young (Canadian Press)
FORT MCMURRAY, Alta. – The First Nation that was the main focus of Neil Young’s recent concert tour about Alberta’s oilsands has withdrawn from a government environmental panel.
The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation announced Friday that it is pulling out of the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring program.
The program is the showpiece of federal-provincial efforts to monitor environmental change in the oilsands region.
A spokesman for the First Nation says it made the move because the program lacks meaningful input from aboriginals and doesn’t deal with concerns about treaty rights.
Last year the Fort McKay First Nation north of Fort McMurray pulled out of the program.
Bruce Maclean, a spokesman for the Athabasca Chipewyan, says the Alberta and federal governments aren’t serious about keeping tabs on the oilsands industry.
“It appears that the Alberta government and Environment Canada see the monitoring program as a way to assure Canadian and foreign investors that the oilsands are being developed in a sustainable way,” Maclean said.
Officials at Alberta Environment and Environment Canada were not immediately available for comment.
The First Nation said monitoring programs should include clear directives to address their concerns about land use and the environment, especially how the oilsands affect air, water and wildlife.
Maclean said the monitoring program did not include enough government money to allow First Nations to have an effective role.
Earlier this month Young played concerts in four Canadian cities to raise more than $500,000 to help the Athabasca Chipewyan band pay for a legal attempt to protect its traditional land north of Fort McMurray.
Young played in Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary, and drew fire from politicians and industry over his comments likening the oilsands to Hiroshima.
Cayoose Creek, where construction of a municipal water intake may be harming salmon habitat (Jim Upton)
LILLOOET, B.C. – Members of a First Nation in Lillooet, B.C., have set up a blockade near that Fraser River district to protest work they believe is destroying fish habitat on disputed land.
Sekw’el’was Chief Michelle Edwards says the blockade on Cayoose Creek (a.k.a Seton River), on Lillooet’s southern outskirts, began at 7 a.m. Friday.
There’s no indication when it could be removed, but Edwards says traffic on nearby Highway 99 is not affected and members are only halting hired contractors at the work site.
Early construction of a water intake on Cayoose Creek Thursday (Michelle Edwards)
She says the District of Lillooet has fast-tracked construction of a water intake on land claimed by the Sekw’el’was, although it knows the project will be appealed to the provincial Environmental Appeal Board.
Edwards says damage is not yet irreversible, but warns the work has the potential to wipe out spawning beds and incubating eggs in a section of Cayoose Creek used by coho, steelhead, chinook, pink, sockeye and bull trout.
She says many First Nations along the Seton and Fraser rivers rely on those salmon runs and, as caretakers of the watershed, the Sekw’el’was must protect the fish.
Neil Young at a benefit concert in Toronto on Sunday (Mark Blinch/AP)
When Neil Young first wandered into Canadian energy politics last year, comparing Fort McMurray to Hiroshima following a trip to the northern industry town in his biomass-powered car, it provoked a handful of rebuttals from conservative columnists. But the legendary Canadian-born rocker’s latest wading into that political and geological morass known alternately as the Alberta oil sands or Tar Sands has been a very different story.
Young’s Canadian concert tour, in support of an oil sands-related legal challenge by the Athabasca-Chipewyan First Nation, has somehow struck a nerve. The media has been rife with stories on Young’s provocative critique of Canadian energy policy and treatment of First Nations, eliciting a tidal wave of responses from everyday citizens, journalists, political pundits, industry advocates and top Harper Government officials.
A google news search of “Neil Young, oil sands” at the time of this writing yielded a staggering 34,000 news items from around Canada and the world.
If the comments posted on this site and others are any indication, Young has somehow fostered a frank debate about the kinds of economic choices we’re making for our future.
Round 1: Harper underestimates Young
The Harper Government underestimated Neil Young from the get-go, beginning with a juvenile rebuttal from a spokesperson for the PMO this past weekend: “Even the lifestyle of a rock star relies, to some degree, on the resources developed by thousands of hard-working Canadians every day.”
Apparently, to the Harper Government, two wrongs do make a right.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver – the Conservative pitbull on critiques of the government’s energy agenda – also chimed in with a rather lame response:
[quote]We don’t go ahead with any project unless it’s safe for Canadians and safe for the environment – it’s a a very rigorous, objective and independent review. We rely on that rather than an entertainer – no matter how talented – who compares Fort McMurray to Hiroshima, which is deeply insulting to the people of Fort McMurray and is both a travesty and a wild exaggeration.[/quote]
Mr. Young – flanked on the four-city tour by First Nations leaders, David Suzuki, and climatologist-cum-BC Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver – wasted no time firing back at Harper and co. through a statement issued yesterday:
[quote]Our issue is not whether the natural resource sector is a fundamental part of the country, our issue is with the government breaking treaties with the First Nation and plundering the natural resources the First Nation has rights to under the treaties…There are better jobs to be developing, with clean energy source industries to help make the world a safer place for our grandchildren.[/quote]
Despite the polarizing nature of his earlier comments about the oil sands as Hiroshima, in his statement yesterday, he expressed compassion for everyday Canadians facing tough choices in today’s economy. “As to the thousands of hard working Canadians, we have respect for all working people,” Young emphasized. “The quandary we face is the job they are working on. They are digging a hole that our grandchildren will have great trouble digging their way out of.”
Canadians chime in
The complex and essential conversation which Young has stoked shows up in the comments section of the many well-read stories appearing on the subject. The sheer volume of responses provides a telling glimpse at the power of Young’s voice. Sure, there are plenty of the simplistic barbs that typically pepper Canadian energy stories – on both sides of the conversation. But there is also much heartfelt grappling with what has become perhaps the defining Canadian question: What role should fossil fuel development play in our economic future?
One oil sands worker simultaneously defends Fort Mac and illustrates the plight many Canadian workers face as a result of the country’s economic policies: “There is no other place in Canada that you will be able to make the type of money to provide for your family, even without any education.”
Another counters:
[quote]Our choices are more like oil vs. electric cars/solar power/biofuels/mass transit expansion/conservation investment/etc. There are so many different paths we could be walking…It’s short-sighted, destructive and counterproductive to progress where we need it.[/quote]
Is it because it’s Neil Young that this debate has suddenly blown up – or because it’s a conversation with which Canadians are about ready to engage? Perhaps it’s a bit of both. While it remains to be seen the longterm legacy Mr. Young’s tour will leave on the public discourse, for the time being, at least, it’s amping up an urgent national discussion.
This site has also seen a fair share of “Neil Young for PM!” comments. That maybe a bit of a stretch – but, hey, if the whole music thing doesn’t work out, Mr. Harper may want to watch his back.
CALGARY – A First Nation is appealing a court injunction against a blockade of an energy company’s drilling site in northern Alberta.
The Lubicon Lake Nation says the injunction granted to PennWest Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT) last month gives the company unfettered access to an oil hydraulic fracturing site in the heart of its traditional territory.
The First Nation says PennWest wanted a week-long injunction but the judge gave a six-month injunction on Dec. 16.
The protesters had been blocking an access road to PennWest’s drilling site by Haig Lake since late November.
The group said the protest was peaceful and was intended to stop the company from fracking on traditional Lubicon territory.
The protesting band and the federal and provincial governments have been trying to work out a land claim deal since the 1980s. The province continued to issue energy leases in the area, including around Haig Lake.
The Lubicon Lake Nation claims more than $14 billion worth of oil and gas has been extracted from its territory without their consent.
“This is our land until the Government of Canada enters into an agreement with us,” Chief Bernard Ominayak said in a news release Monday.
[quote]PennWest, the province of Alberta, and the courts cannot simply choose to ignore our inherent rights and assist industry at the expense of our land and our people.[/quote]
ACFN Chief Allan Adam outside an Alberta court in 2012, challenging Shell’s Jackpine development
by Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
EDMONTON – Simmering disputes over the oilsands between Alberta aboriginals and the provincial and federal governments will break into the open in 2014 as virtually every one of the many recent changes in oversight of the controversial industry comes under legal and political attack.
“All litigation, all the time, is what I see on the horizon,” said Larry Innes, lawyer for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.
Over the last 18 months, Ottawa and Edmonton have rewritten the book on resource development. Everything from how aboriginals will be consulted to land use planning to oilsands monitoring to the basic ground rules for environmental assessment has been changed.
Governments say the new regime is more efficient, predictable and transparent. Aboriginals say it violates their rights and ignores their recommendations.
So as aboriginal groups in British Columbia prepare for an expected attack on the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, Alberta aboriginals are pushing back with a long list of lawsuits either now or soon to be before the courts.
Alberta First Nations line up with oilsands lawsuits
The Fort McKay First Nation is appealing an approval of Brion Energy’s plans for a 50,000-barrel-a-day operation northwest of Fort McMurray. It says the province has violated the constitution by setting up an energy regulator expressly forbidden to hear arguments based on aboriginal rights.
The Mikisew Cree and Frog Lake First Nation are before the courts arguing that Ottawa’s recent amendments to the Fisheries and Navigable Waters Acts run afoul of their rights.
A total of 17 First Nations from around Alberta are trying to get legislation on access to public lands tossed out in a long-running case expected to go to trial this year.
The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation plans to file a lawsuit in January attacking Ottawa’s new environmental assessment legislation after the approval of a major oilsands expansion that it says will violate both treaty rights and federal laws.
At the same time, the Alberta government’s other major oilsands initiatives are running into heavy weather.
All six First Nations in the oilsands area have requested a statutory review of the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan, the government’s attempt to balance development and environmental values. Those same bands, along with many others, have also rejected the province’s plans to centralize and control aboriginal consultation.
One major band — the Fort McKay First Nation — has pulled out of the Joint Oilsands Monitoring program, the showpiece federal-provincial effort to monitor environmental change in the oilsands.
Even the Lubicon Cree First Nation are back in court, with another try in a decades-long attempt to win a reserve and get some royalties on energy extracted from what they say is their land.
Alberta Environment and Minister Robin Campbell declined to be interviewed.
“We work with aboriginal leaders and communities in a variety of areas and will continue to do so,” said spokesman Kevin Zahara. “We will not speculate on possible legal challenges.”
Treaties don’t guarantee development
A big part of the problem is simply the scale of development, said Nigel Bankes, professor of resource law at the University of Calgary.
“In the oilsands area, it’s really the intensity of the development,” he said.
[quote]The treaties give the province the power to take up lands and the argument is there must be a limit to that. That can’t be an entitlement to take away all lands (to) which First Nations have historically exercised hunting rights.[/quote]
Those concerns grow as governments narrow who has the right to air concerns and what concerns they’re allowed to raise.
“I think that’s a fair characterization,” said Bankes, who said that process has been going on for years. “(There’s a) very narrow and stringent standing test and I think that does mean there’s a level of frustration out there.”
Not only are bands barred from raising aboriginal rights at regulatory hearings, two have recently been denied the right to even speak at ones concerning oilsands projects on their doorstep. Lawsuits happen when discussion fails, said Joe Jobin, chief operating officer of the Fort McKay First Nation.
“First Nations have always tried to work with the government on developing a policy that works for First Nations and for industry,” he said.
[quote]The frustration is that the input is not being meaningfully considered. It’s almost like this attitude, ‘Well, if you don’t like it, take us to court.'[/quote]
The result is higher costs for everyone and uncertainty for industry, said Bankes. He added Alberta is increasingly resembling lawsuit-happy British Columbia, which has few treaties.
“What we’re seeing now is the same sort of litigation that we’ve been seeing in B.C. for a long time. This is now being transplanted to the treaty context of Alberta.
“Government has said to itself, ‘Things are clearer here, there’s more security precisely because we’ve got treaties.’ I guess what the litigation that we’re seeing now is calling into question is, is that really true?”
Innes said Alberta bands that have traditionally preferred to negotiate are increasingly through with talking.
“First Nations who have been investing in the process find the process is stacked against them,” he said.
