Gitxsan steps back from pipeline agreement

The Gitxsan First Nation has reversed a decision to participate in a controversial oil pipeline project that would have generated $7 million for the band.

Gitxsan hereditary chiefs voted 78 per cent in favor of withdrawing from the Northern Gateway pipeline agreement during a meeting held on their territory Jan. 17.

“The chiefs reviewed the agreement with Enbridge and it seemed the risks were greater than the benefits,” explained Beverly Clifton-Percival, negotiator with the Gitxsan Treaty Society [GTS].

GTS chief negotiator, Elmer Derrick, had signed on to the $5.5 billion proposed pipeline project with Calgary-based Oil Company, Enbridge Inc. on Dec. 2, 2011.

Enbridge has offered all Aboriginal communities affected by its project—including the Gitxsan—a share in 10 per cent of the pipeline’s ownership, as well as $1 billion in community development money.

But the deal caused a firestorm of controversy among Gitxsan band members and leaders in Hazelton and Kitimaat Village, with many band members and hereditary chiefs claiming they weren’t properly consulted about the deal and that traditional protocol was ignored.

Community frustration and concern following the agreement fuelled a protest among the band members, as a few dozen people set up camp outside the GTS office in Hazelton for weeks while calling for the resignation of Derrick and other negotiators involved in the deal.

But while the Gitxsan First Nation has publicly denounced the pipeline project, they are only one of many Aboriginal communities entangled in the controversial issue.

Enbridge claims that 40 per cent of First Nations along the proposed 1,200 km pipeline corridor have quietly signed on to the deal.

However, critics of the project say Enbridge is refusing to announce the names of those First Nations.

Calls to Enbridge were not returned by press time.
But while the company claims to have the support of some First Nations in B.C., those opposed to the deal have been participating in the lengthy hearing process, which involves a joint review panel of representatives from the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The pipeline review hearings, which began Jan. 11, is expected to wind through communities in B.C. and Alberta, providing a public platform where people can express their views about the pipeline project.

Technical hearings are also set for the fall. The entire process is slated to end in Spring 2013.

Panel discussions are planned following the hearing, after which the federal government will have the final say on the project.

The province says it is also monitoring the panel closely.
“We’re watching the national environmental review process as it works its way through. We’ll be in a position in British Columbia to have a real, meaningful debate about it once all the facts are on the table about the impacts for British Columbia and the benefits for British Columbia and for Canada as well,” said a spokesperson for the BC Minister of Energy and Mines.

The Northern Gateway plan would increase Canadian oil exports shipped by tanker from B.C. ports to China and other Pacific Rim countries. It proposes to link the Alberta oil sands with the west coast of British Columbia by cutting a path through the Great Bear Rainforest.
But First Nations dependent on the rich environment of their traditional territories for cultural and sustenance purposes say they don’t want the project moving forward under any circumstances. They say the cost of oil spills on their ancestral lands and in coastal water shipping lanes are far too great.

Many political leaders have also stepped up to address the controversial proposal.

In an open letter dated Jan. 9, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver claimed that the review process was being hijacked by grassroots environmentalists and foreign special interest groups wanting to undermine Canada’s national economy. The claim was also echoed by Premier Stephen Harper.

“Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth,” said Oliver.

“These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest.”

In response, BC Green Party leader Elizabeth May called Oliver’s statements “disturbing” and “inaccurate.”

“The idea that First Nations, conservation groups, and individuals opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline are opposed to all forestry, mining, hydro-electric and gas is not supported by the facts,” May stated in a letter.

Most disturbing, said May, “is the description of opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline as coming from “environmental and other radical groups. Nowhere in your letter do you mention First Nations. (I notice you mention ‘Aboriginal communities,’ but First Nations require the appropriate respect that they represent a level of government, not merely individuals within communities.)

“The federal government has a constitutional responsibility to respect First Nations sovereignty and protect their interests,” added May.

May also stressed the importance of not expediting the process of a hearing on the matter.

Shawn Atleo, national chief for the Assembly of First Nations, repeated May’s statements when he told reporters last month that Canada must expel the notion that First Nations are merely passive bystanders when it comes to developments affecting their territories.

“We need to move away from the notion that we are only stakeholders when it comes to major projects,” he told a news conference in Ottawa.

“Whether it be a pipeline or a mine, First Nations have real rights (and) those rights must be recognized when it comes to any development in this country,” he stated.

Atleo also asserted that First Nations have “the right to free, prior and informed consent” over projects affecting their territory.

As the number of First Nations in opposition of the pipeline continues to grow, some bands have formed powerful alliances like the ‘Save The Fraser: Gathering of Nations.’ This is a group made up of over 60 BC band chiefs whose goal it is to protect the Fraser River watershed and oppose the Northern Gateway Pipeline project.

The group circulated a petition titled ‘Save the Fraser Declaration’ which has garnered the signatures of dozens of BC First Nation Chiefs.

Chief Art Adolph of the Xaxli’p First Nation, whose territories cover the middle and southern parts of the Fraser watershed, has signed the petition.

“An oil spill into the Fraser River could be devastating for our people,” he said in a statement.

“Since time immemorial the river provides for us, and we have an obligation to protect it,” Adolph added.

“The Enbridge pipeline would risk an oil spill into our rivers and lands that would destroy our food supply, our livelihoods and our cultures,” agreed Chief Larry Nooski of Nadleh Whut’en First Nation, a community west of Prince George. Nooski also signed the declaration.

The proposed pipeline route would go through 38 kilometers of the band’s traditional territory, Nooski told Windspeaker.

Nooski said he, along with other First Nations leaders in the area, had a hand in creating the pipeline petition.
“ We decided to do something rather than sitting back,” he said. “ The declaration is based on First Nation traditional knowledge and laws.”

“Our laws do not permit crude oil pipelines in our territories. This project isn’t going anywhere,” he said.

Nooski said “ it is up to individual First Nations if they want to sign on to the ‘Save The Fraser Declaration’ or join with Enbridge.” But he suspects momentum will continue to grow among First Nations opposing the plan.

“There is strength in numbers and the more First Nations begin to realize the dangers of the Enbridge pipeline, there are more First Nations that have concerns with the project,” he said.

But besides obvious potential environmental concerns, Nooski said it’s “Enbridge’s inability to answer questions,” regarding the hazards of a potential oil spill occurring in the area, that worry him the most.

“ We rely heavily on the waters here for fishing,” explained Nooski. “ If there’s a [oil] leak the impacts could last for generations,” he said.