When the B.C. government announced its promised review of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, earlier this month, it came as a shock to many that it wouldn’t examine human health impacts.

The announcement coincided with the release in the U.S. of the most authoritative study of fracking’s threats to human health ever published, which found “no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health.”

For Caleb Behn, the government’s announcement marked a loss of hope in the less than one-year-old NDP government.

“They’ve shown themselves ready to sacrifice us and the unborn who will come after us in this territory,” Behn told DeSmog Canada.

Behn is Eh-Cho Dene and Dunne Za/Cree from Treaty 8 in northeastern British Columbia, the epicenter of B.C.’s fracking operations. He was the focus of the 2013 documentary Fractured Land.

Since 2010, the B.C. government has authorized the drilling of 4,772 new wells. There are approximately 25,000 wells in B.C., 12,771 of which are reported as active.

We spoke to Behn about his experience of fracking on and near his traditional territory. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The fracking review announced by the NDP last week won’t involve health impacts. What was your reaction to that?

First thing I’ll say, for the NDP to exempt a review of fracking from any health-oriented research is — I don’t know if I have strong enough words — I feel as if it’s criminal hypocrisy.

To give this problematic industry and this problematic technology a pass on health because you’re pro LNG puts Indigenous and rural populations at risk.

Data gaps and knowledge gaps have been acknowledged in every piece of research ever conducted on this issue in British Columbia. The type of research that has been done up to date in B.C. has been entirely inadequate. That’s well known.

The vast majority of original research on fracking — 84 per cent of which has been conducted in the last four or five years — indicates health risks are present or strongly indicated.

More recently I helped facilitate a pilot study looking at muconic acid, amongst other compounds, in the urine of pregnant Indigenous women in northeast B.C.

Muconic acid is a marker of benzene exposure.

The findings are intense.

In essence, rural woman in northeast B.C. have three and a half times the national average of this marker that is likely, but not guaranteed, benzene metabolization.

What’s interesting is Indigenous women within that cohort have six times the national average.

This is the first original research into the potential human health impacts of fracking in northeast B.C. and I’m surprised it hasn’t raised some red flags. It took over two years to conduct.

To avoid addressing these health impacts in a fracking review is hypocrisy of the deepest and most dangerous kind. And it is evident it’s of a very strategic benefit to the LNG industry.

Can you describe the impact fracking has had on your territory and on your people?

Here’s the problem, you’re dealing with chronic or sub-chronic cumulative exposure illnesses that have long latency periods.

In some ways it’s easy to identify certain risks, like a rig blew up and a worker was killed or a rig caught fire and did some damage.

The really troubling bits are the long latency illnesses like cancer, asthma and gestational problems, so things associated with in utero exposure.

As a person with a major birth defect, I am uniquely sensitive to that issue.

It’s things like increased risk of pre-term birth.

Research now indicates that those who live near active gas wells are 1.5 to four times more likely to suffer asthma attacks than those living further away, with the closest groups having the highest risk.

There’s a 2017 study which analyzed birth certificates for infants born in Pennsylvania that found indicators of poor infant health, in this case lower birth weight for babies, born to mothers living near fracking sites.

You combine that finding with our pilot study in northeast of B.C. looking at the markings of benzene exposure in air of pregnant women, you understand why it’s important to use a precautionary approach to these developments.

Is it that we’re poor and colonized that children do poorly in the northeast or is it the consequence of living in a benzene plume? Again without the science and without research, how can we even approach that question?

I can tell you life is hard in the north, kids don’t do well up there. There’s a lot of crime, a lot of abuse. A lot of that comes from colonization, a lot of that comes from racism, from dysfunction in communities.

But what level of that comes from the ambient hydrogen sulfide, ambient benzene?

We don’t have quantifiable numbers.

We also hear about the social impacts, especially for Indigenous women and children, when it comes to industrialization.

Taylor Roades \ DeSmog Canada

What is your experience of those social impacts?

There’s one major issue I can speak to specifically: violence against women.

My aunty has a very successful business in Fort Nelson, working in the oil and gas industry.

It’s confirmed there’s a rise in crime, sexual violence and the trafficking of Indigenous women during booms in the industry.

Research from in 2015 found there is a linear relationship between highly paid shadow populations in industrial camps, a highly masculine culture and a rise in crime and sexual violence and trafficking of Indigenous women.

Fort St. James data from local RCMP shows a 38 per cent increase in sexual assaults in first year of the construction phase of industrial projects, as well as an increase in sex work in areas where there’s increase in industrial traffic.

What I can tell you is that in my experience, it’s a violent, aggressive and competitive world when these industries come in, subject to boom and bust cycles.

The northeast has been made into a sacrifice zone.

The NDP recently announced some big incentives to entice the LNG industry to come to B.C. Combined with a fracking inquiry that won’t study health impacts, what does that new announcement signal to you?

Many of us in the Indigenous community in northeast B.C. in particular had hope in the NDP. But they’ve shown themselves ready to sacrifice us and the unborn who will come after us in this territory.

That is what is on the table, and that’s why it’s really hurtful to hear them exempt public health from the fracking inquiry.

But we do know the NDP assistant deputy minister did inform the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers over a month in advance of them announcing this review, that health would be exempted.

Of course health is the key issue because with health comes massive financial liability. There’s significant power for doctors and medical health advisors in the Public Health Act.

And what you’re seeing in my view is an affirmation that marginal populations far away from the Lower Mainland don’t matter all that much.

In the Indigenous community we don’t have the research dollars to parse out which of this is due to upstream contamination from logging and mining, versus upstream contamination of our air plume by oil and gas.

I think as an Indigenous person from northeast B.C. that is familiar with these issues, that’s why the exemption is so criminally hypocritical.

The current government frequently evokes Indigenous rights and climate change action in the announcements they make, some of which seem at cross-purposes. What is it like to hear government use that language?

It’s eco-imperialism. Because here is what the NDP is doing — they’re adopting the same crass double think politics that the BC Liberals and the federal Liberals have adopted where they mouth the words but even a superficial analysis of their positions and policies identifies the outright lies.

So to claim that somehow Kinder Morgan is going to lead to protecting the coast — it’s not disingenuous, it’s literally double-think.

So in my view as someone from the sacrifice zone, it’s the saddest manifestation of what is worst in the modern colonial state, to not only colonize the land and the water and the children but also the ideas of decolonization.

To take the very terms that were supposed to ameliorate and begin to try to do better and use those terms like reconciliation and decolonization and UNDRIP and the doctrine of free, prior and informed consent, to sully their aspirations with this crass manipulative rhetoric is the saddest reflection of what our province is becoming and what our country is becoming in my view

I really hope your readers think long and hard about the absolute inconsistency with the NDP’s position on Kinder Morgan and fracking and LNG and Site C.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The massive “Canada 150” celebrations of July 1 are finally over, leaving little in their wake but hangovers, a multi-million dollar price tag and mountains of trash.

But for some Indigenous peoples in Canada, the festivities remain a visceral reminder of their continued dispossession from ancestral lands and waters. That’s especially true for those on the frontlines of megaprojects — pipelines, hydro dams, oil and gas wells, liquefied natural gas terminals and mines — that infringe on Indigenous land rights.

DeSmog Canada caught up with three Indigenous people directly involved in local struggles to resist such projects.

Beatrice Hunter 

Beatrice Hunter is an Inuk woman living in Labrador. In May, she was arrested and jailed while defending ancestral territories threatened by Nalcor’s Muskrat Falls project. Hunter was released after 10 days in a men’s prison following a decision by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Have you returned to the site since the court ruling?

Yeah, I returned on Canada Day. It was my way of saying that I am not Canadian, I am Inuk. It was my way of saying that what the government is doing is not right.

How was the experience being back there?

It was good to be back there. It was excellent. Ever since I went to the gate last year with other Labradorians, it’s almost felt like a calling. It feels like you’re actually doing something and you’re not just sitting around waiting for stuff to happen. You’re trying to change it yourself. It was excellent to be with other Labrador Land Protectors.

Obviously there’s been a lot of talk about Canada 150. What do you make of it in the context of Muskrat Falls?

It’s very upsetting and heartbreaking when the Canadian government doesn’t listen to you when obviously the natives of this land were the first peoples here. It shows a lack of respect for Indigenous nations across the country and for them to not admit the wrongs that have been done through the years. It’s another slap in the face.

The federal government has also been talking a lot about “reconciliation.” Do you feel there’s been any progress on that in the last few years?

I feel personally that nothing has actually been happening. It’s the same old story: they make promises and then don’t follow through with them.

What outcome do you and other land protectors hope for?

The best outcome will be to shut Muskrat down. And I still feel the same way. Everybody talks about it being too late, but I feel it’s never too late. The damage is already done but we can try and fix the damage. There’s been billions of dollars been done on the project. Why aren’t government officials and leaders and politicians being audited for it? They obviously have something to hide. If they didn’t have anything to hide, they would just come out with all the information.

Do you plan to keep going to the site?

Yes! Of course! I’m not going to stop. We can’t stop. We have to try to change it. We can’t let big corporations and politicians get away with this because it’s always going to happen if we let them.

Any last words?

I just want to let everybody know that I’m going to keep fighting. That’s what I want everyone to know. Myself and the Labrador Land Protectors are going to keep fighting. We can’t give up. It’s the future. We’re fighting for those who can’t fight for themselves. We’re fighting for our children. We’re fighting for our grandchildren. We’re fighting for our ancestors that weren’t strong enough to go up against the big corporations and governments. I feel it’s like white supremacy. That’s what it feels like to me. Everywhere you look: on TV, on radio, you hear white supremacy. Everywhere. It has to change.

Sadie-Phoenix Lavoie 

Sadie-Phoenix Lavoie is an Anishinaabe woman living in Manitoba. She is a student at the University of Winnipeg, co-founder of Red Rising Magazine, previously served as the vice-president of external affairs for the students’ association and has been involved with the campaign to pressure the institution to divest from fossil fuels.

What do you make of Canada 150 in the context of pipelines and ongoing extraction projects in Manitoba?

I definitely think that Canada 150 is trying to instill this pride of ‘who we are?’ and ‘what is the Canadian identity?’ The fact is that part of the Canadian identity is that extraction of natural resources in their economy. Now, they’re instilling this pride where you have to be prideful of being Canadian which also includes being protective of these types of industries. That’s where it gets really convoluted. We need to dismantle that narrative.

What would you say to settlers and settler politicians?

You have to share responsibilities to these communities and respect Indigenous rights. You’ve done a horrible job historically on this. And you can’t just be approving pipelines using the Canadian identity as a justification of infringing on those Indigenous rights, and therefore having to present that to the Canadian public and government. It’s all fine and dandy that you want to celebrate who you are. However, we still have a lot of conflict that needs to get resolved.

What does that look like specifically for you?

Part of that is respecting Indigenous rights to the land and UNDRIP: free, prior and informed consent in terms of any development on our traditional territories. Even though Justin Trudeau is saying ‘yes,’ there’s no ‘yes’ from the actual majority of Indigenous communities that are going to be directly affected. I’m not going to say that there is 100 per cent consensus within the Indigenous communities on pipelines.

But part of the fiduciary duty to the best interests of Indigenous peoples is you actually having to see there’s a huge demographic of Indigenous peoples that are saying ‘no.’ We have a right to say ‘no’ and a consultation with us isn’t about getting to a ‘yes.’ It’s about meaningful dialogue and respecting the fact that we can say ‘no’ and that doesn’t change with consultation and engagement.

There are other procedures and other things that need to be in place to ensure that pipeline is able to go through. And they haven’t met those. They haven’t met Indigenous rights or the court challenge that’s going on. To assume this pipeline’s going to be jammed down our throats is highly disrespectful on the part of a government that says they want to reconcile with Indigenous communities.

Any final thoughts?

Canada 150 isn’t a celebration for me, as an Indigenous woman. I see it as a celebration for them, to instill pride in their identities. But part of their identity is still being a colonizer, and colonizing me. The historical understanding of taking pride in Canada for all the “good” things it’s done does not erase the actual history of genocide in this country. I think that’s a big thing that Canadians need to accept.

Caleb Behn 

Caleb Behn is an Eh-Cho Dene and Dunne Za/Cree man living in British Columbia. He was the focus of the 2015 documentary “Fractured Land” and previously worked as a lawyer. Behn has frequently criticized the Site C dam — which, if built, would greatly impact the West Moberly First Nation, where his mother is from.

What do you make of Canada 150?

People have to recognize — and it should be quite obvious — that Canada 150 is a brand. Behind the superficial and contrived nature of Canada 150, you see something darker and more painful for Indigenous people.

It’s like from Calvin and Hobbes: they throw down the transmogrifier on colonization and genocide and missing and murdered Indigenous women and rape of the land and chronic representation of Indigenous people in the justice system and massive dispossession of lands and resources. And that becomes — through this magic rebranding exercise — some series of images and motifs and memes that sanitize and normalize what is abuse of relationships and law and land and people.

How does this tie in with the struggles over Site C?

From my perspective in northeast B.C. looking at Site C: behind this sanitized, non-abusive narrative that brands Canada and this 150 year grand experiment of colonization, you have actual tangible violations of good accounting principles, representation in the political process, systemically problematic and dangerous developments.

This urgency that Indigenous people are feeling is an urgency that the dominant colonial society should have felt from its very inception 150 years ago because it was grounded in the deployment of extractive technology and the violation of appropriate relations with human and non-human beings and environments.

That is hyper-relevant for the 21st century. That’s why Site C, Muskrat Falls, Line 3, fossil fuels, violation of law, disrespect of treaties, abuse is all interconnected.

There’s a lot of talk about acknowledging Indigenous rights to land. What do you think this looks like?

Land is such a weak word. It’s the violation of something truly sacred. But then to dress that up as something to be celebrated or unquestionably adopted and marketed within this decaying, decrepit, spiritually and physically contaminated time: that should be the clarion call for all human beings, especially in Canada.

Any final thoughts?

I hope your readers appreciate that as you celebrate the nation-state of Canada and somehow ignore the genocide and the rape and the violation of peoples, principles and land: even if you can get that far internally colonized and simplistically adopting a mindset and model, it’s in your best interest individually and collectively to still question what it is that’s being sold to you and what it is you’re witnessing.

I know what the red stands for in that flag. And I know what the white stands for in that flag. You see so many people unquestionably celebrating. It was really sad. And to see how many Indigenous people and other solid settler allies with their head firmly extracted from their ass are criticizing and engaging that — to me, that was the only real hope in that.

It’s a sad time.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear an appeal brought by the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations that argues the federal government failed to consider their constitutionally protected treaty rights when approving the $9 billion Site C dam in northeast B.C.

The rejection by Canada’s highest court has members of Treaty 8 First Nations wondering who bears the responsibility for determining whether or not a major project like Site C infringes on their rights as a treaty nation.

“This is very sad news,” Roland Willson, Chief of the West Moberly, told Desmog Canada.

“We have a treaty that is a part of the Constitution of Canada and there is no legal mechanism to protect the constitution, that piece of the constitution,” he said.

“Every other part of the Constitution they won’t tread on except the part that’s got to do with Indians — they’ll walk all over that.”

Image: Chief Roland Willson at the 2016 Paddle for the Peace. Photo: Carol Linnitt | DeSmog Canada

Infringement of Treaty Rights Not Adequately Considered

Caleb Behn, a former lawyer whose mother belongs to the West Moberly, said the decision has disturbing implications for the promise of reconciliation between the government of Canada and indigenous peoples.

“For the Supreme Court to think this appeal wasn’t even worth hearing confirms to me what my loyalty and that of my grandfather is worth to the Crown,” he said.

Under Treaty 8, the government of Canada promised to guarantee the rights of local First Nations to hunt, trap, fish and continue their traditional way of life on their land.

The West Moberly and Prophet River nations filed a judicial review of Site C in November 2014, saying the federal government failed to determine if the project, which will flood 107 kilometres of Peace River valley, violates those treaty rights.

In January 2017 a federal court ruled the government wasn’t obligated to make that determination, a ruling that puzzled legal experts.

The Supreme Court has now refused to hear the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations’ appeal of that ruling.

“I’m a Treaty 8 person with a law degree, so I never allowed myself to get truly hopeful, because I’m too familiar with what the law really does to indigenous people, people of colour,” Behn told DeSmog Canada.

“This decision desecrates in my view something much more important that just the decision of the governor in council; this is how little regard sacred treaty, sacred balance, sacred law and natural law are worth in the 21st century,” he said.

A federally appointed Joint Review Panel found Site C would likely cause significant adverse effects on fishing, hunting and trapping in Treaty 8 territory.

The panel — which was instructed not to make a judgment if Site C infringed on treaty rights — found the negative impact of the dam could not be mitigated.

In May of 2016 a group of 250 prominent Canadian academics asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to halt construction of Site C so impacts on indigenous peoples could be properly considered.

Image: Site C construction. Photo: Garth Lenz | DeSmog Canada

Civil Suit Can Address Site C Damages After the Fact

Chris Tollefson, executive director of the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation, previously told DeSmog Canada the two nations can file a civil case to determine if treaty rights have been infringed.

“If that is the only remedy, that that is not a very efficient or effective remedy,” he said.

“Whose responsibility is it to ensure decision are not made that irrevocably harm constitutionally protected rights?”

Chief Willson said a civil suit may be the only option to determine whether Treaty 8 is violated by Site C. The dam reservoir will flood sacred graves and spiritual sites as well as prized habitat

“There is no mechanism to protect the treaty. All we can do is file for damages now,” Willson said.

“This is the insanity of this whole thing: you can’t file a civil claim until there are damages. We have to sit here and wait until they destroy the valley and then file.”

“So they can approve every hair-brained project that comes up now and they only thing we can do is sue for damages,” Willson said.

“What’s the point of a consultation process?”

Tollefson said relying on a civil suit is a losing battle as long as Site C construction continues.

“You wonder whether that task has been assigned to any arm or branch of government or whether in the end all that is left is for this nation to undertake is a very complicated and lengthy proceeding to pursue that argument — which, without an injunction, will be a futile quest.”

Behn added the legal system plays off the disadvantage of indigenous peoples whose rights have long been undermined through Canada’s colonial past.

“We have to suck it up, wait for damage, and re-enter the fray in the same process that has proven itself to be incapable of providing justice for indigenous people.”

New B.C. Government a Final ‘Hail Mary’ for Fight Against Site C

The promise of a new government in B.C. is Chief Willson’s last hope to stop Site C, he said.

The NDP and Green parties have agreed to work together to topple the B.C. Liberal-led government and send Site C for immediate review with the B.C. Utilities Commission, a process the Liberals vetoed.

“That’s our hail Mary,” Willson said.

“We’re all sitting here praying there’s a vote of non-confidence and it will hit the pause button on Site C and stop what’s going on in Bear Flats,” he said.

“That’s the tragedy of this whole thing, the B.C. government is destroying our valley for a completely unnecessary project.”

NDP Party Leader John Horgan formally introduced a motion of non-confidence in the house, Wednesday and the outcome of that motion, whether a new NDP-led government or a re-election, is expect to be known by Friday.

Update July 4, 2017: The headline of this piece previously stated the case had been 'struck down' by the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been updated to more accurately reflect the legal situation.

Image: Valeen Jules at the 2016 Paddle for the Peace. Photo: Jayce Hawkins| DeSmog Canada

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Site C hydro dam in northeastern B.C. may be more than a year into construction, but the federal government still hasn’t determined whether the mega dam infringes on treaty rights — and, according to a Federal Court of Appeal ruling this week, the government isn’t obligated to answer that question.

The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations filed a judicial review in November 2014, arguing the federal government should have determined if the Site C dam infringes on treaty rights prior to issuing permits for the dam, which would flood more than 100 kilometres of river valley.

Seems like a bit of a no-brainer, right? Turns out it’s not.

This week, the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision, which stated that the federal cabinet wasn’t required to determine if there was any  infringement of treaty rights, which are protected under the Canadian constitution.

“How can they authorize a project of this magnitude and not even turn their minds to whether it’s infringement given the history of this file?” Allisun Rana, legal counsel for the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations, told DeSmog Canada.

“Our clients had been told that the Crown would make the determination on infringement at the end of the day.”

But according to the ruling, only the courts can decide whether there is an infringement of treaty rights.

“What the judges are doing is just shifting the question,” said Caleb Behn, a former lawyer whose mother is a member of West Moberly First Nation. “This doesn’t solve the problem. It shifts the blame.”

Panel Found Significant Adverse Effects on Hunting, Fishing and Trapping

The government-appointed panel that reviewed the Site C dam in 2014 concluded the project would likely cause significant adverse effects on fishing, hunting and trapping in Treaty 8 territory and that those effects could not be mitigated.

The joint review panel, however, was instructed not to make a judgement on whether these “adverse effects” constituted an infringement of treaty rights.

In May a group of 250 prominent scientists and academics from across Canada called on Justin Trudeau to halt construction of the Site C dam, saying the impacts of the project on indigenous rights had not been adequately considered.

In a letter, signed by the Royal Society of Canada, the group specifically requested the project be reviewed by Department of Justice to determine if aboriginal and treaty rights were being infringed.

In this week’s decision, the judge didn’t mince words while dismissing  the appeal with costs, meaning the two First Nations must  pay for the government’s costs as well as their own.

“Judicial review is not the proper forum to determine whether the appellants’ rights are unjustifiably infringed,” judge Richard Boivin wrote in his ruling.

First Nations Must Launch Civil Suit To Address Treaty Rights: Court

The decision means the First Nations must file a civil suit to address whether their treaty rights have been infringed. Civil suits of this nature include a full trial and often last several hundred days.

“If that is the only remedy, then that is not a very efficient or effective remedy,” Chris Tollefson, executive director of the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation, told DeSmog Canada. “I find that troubling.”

The ruling leaves a gaping question: if the review panel can’t render judgement on treaty rights and neither can the federal government, then who is keeping guard?

“Whose responsibility is it to ensure decisions are not made that irrevocably harm constitutionally protected rights?” Tollefson said.

“You wonder whether that task has been assigned to any arm or branch of government or whether in the end all that is left is for this nation to undertake is a very complicated and lengthy proceeding to pursue that argument — which, without an injunction, will be a futile quest.”

Injunction Still A Possibility … But Clock is Ticking

If the nations decide to file a civil suit, they could also file an injunction application to stop work until the case has been heard — but that process is also flawed, according to Rana.

“The whole injunction test was not developed in an environmental or aboriginal law context,” Rana said. “It’s not aimed at … balancing the pros and cons that should be weighed when you’re looking at aboriginal or treaty rights.”

Take the Blueberry River First Nation, for example. The Treaty 8 nation in northeastern B.C. filed a civil action for treaty infringement based on the cumulative impacts of decades of industrial projects in their territory nearly two years ago. Blueberry River also filed two injunction applications. It lost the first one, and is still waiting for a ruling on the second one.

“What the court told them on the first one …  is that if your claim is that cumulatively all of these projects infringe on your treaty rights … well, how is stopping this particular authorization solving your problem? Because the problem that you’re asking the court to address at trial is the cumulative effects of all these projects,” Rana said.

In other words: it’s particularly challenging to win an injunction in cases of cumulative effects. Further to that, getting an injunction against a project that’s already well under construction is an uphill battle.

“An injunction against a project that is in the build-out stage could be very difficult to secure,” Tollefson noted. “Even if you could secure it, the band would likely have to guarantee BC Hydro against any losses that it would incur if the challenge is unsuccessful.”

West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations did seek an injunction against site preparation work on the dam in 2015. The court denied the injunction, saying there wasn’t evidence of “irreparable damage.”

If the nations were to file another injunction application before the cutting of old growth forest, for instance, they could win.

“If one had unlimited resources, they could simply keep filing injunction after injunction after injunction, but no one has unlimited resources, right?” Rana said.

The financial burden of having to challenge projects like this in court present a very real barrier to First Nations being able to defend their treaty rights.

#SiteC Dam Ruling Says a Lot About Canada’s Relationship with #FirstNations https://t.co/MtKv0ld1ml #cdnpoli #bcpoli #treatyrights

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 26, 2017

Legal Fight Could ‘Financially Cripple’ First Nations

“If the nations are required to go through a decade of litigation …  and bring injunction application after injunction application to ensure that the dam isn’t built, that would financially cripple and destroy these nations in trying to maintain and preserve their established rights,” said Emily Grier, another member of legal counsel for West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations.

If the government didn’t have to consider constitutionally protected treaty rights while determining whether to issue an environmental assessment certificate for the Site C dam, it raises the question: when do they consider treaty rights?

“At what point is the Crown obligated to stop and make sure that they’re not going too far, that they’re not crossing over into an infringement?” Rana said.

Tollefson said the decision sheds light on the role of cabinet in decision-making under federal environmental law.

“What this case powerfully underscores is that there’s very broad discretion” in cabinet decision-making, he said.

“One would have thought, however, that as part of that exercise in discretion that the impact on constitutionally protected rights would have been a mandatory consideration … but the court seems to say otherwise,” Tollefson said.

The First Nations can apply to seek leave to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court will then decide whether to take the case.

There are also two other outstanding appeals. One regards the province of B.C.’s decision to issue an environmental assessment certificate in 2014 and makes the same argument as the federal case. The appeal was argued in December 2016 and is awaiting judgement. The other case is a judicial review of provincial permits — the court upheld the permits in a ruling last fall, but the First Nations have filed a Notice of Appeal.

“Court decisions don’t sound like much to a lot of people, but there’s a bunch of land that’s about to get lost essentially forever,” Behn told DeSmog Canada. “As a Treaty 8 person on both my mother and my father’s side…my ancestors hoped we could do better than this.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Justin Trudeau’s government has quietly issued its first batch of permits for the Site C dam — allowing construction to move forward on the $8.8 billion BC Hydro project despite ongoing legal challenges by two First Nations.

The federal-provincial review panel’s report on Site C found the 1,100 megawatt dam will result in significant and irreversible adverse impacts on Treaty 8 First Nations.

Caleb Behn, who is from West Moberly First Nation, one of the nations taking the federal government to court, says Trudeau has broken his promise.

“It’s 19th century technology being permitted with 19th century thinking and I expected more from the Trudeau government,” he said. “These permits were our last best hope to resolve this.”

“These permits suggest very strongly that, at least these ministries, if not Trudeau’s entire cabinet, are unwilling to engage in reconciliation with indigenous peoples. I thought this country could be more.”

Charlie Angus, MP for Timmins-James Bay and NDP critic for Indigenous and Northern Affairs, echoed those sentiments.  

“I think this was a real test of the Trudeau government and they failed the test,” Angus said.

“The Liberals seem to be thinking that if they say the right things, it’s somehow the same as doing the right things.”

Trudeau has emphasized building a new relationship with indigenous peoples since taking office in October. He included the following paragraph in every ministerial mandate letter:

“No relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous Peoples. It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous Peoples, based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.”

But with the issuing of the Site C permits, doubts have been cast on that promise.

“We hear from all the key ministers about the nation-to-nation relationship and then they rubber stamp and go ahead with all the big projects,” Angus said.  

For Behn, who was the subject of a documentary called Fractured Land last year, the sense of disappointment was palpable.

“What do they care about a backwater in northern B.C. that only has 40,000 voters?” he asked. “If you spent $9 billion on solar panels, geothermal … you wouldn’t have to run roughshod over indigenous rights."

Liberals Ignore Calls to Delay Permits

The permits allow BC Hydro to block the flow of the Peace River and disrupt fisheries, activities that require federal permission. Until now, the Liberal government hadn’t issued any permits for the dam (the only federal permits issued were doled out during the last election by former prime minister Stephen Harper).

The Site C dam will flood more than 100 kilometres of river valley and impact 13,000 hectares of agricultural land — including flooding 3,800 hectares of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve, an area nearly twice the size of the city of Victoria.

Groups ranging from Amnesty International to the David Suzuki Foundation to the Royal Society of Canada have called on Trudeau to halt construction of the dam.

“The people of Treaty 8 have said no to Site C. Any government that is truly committed to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, to respecting human rights and to promoting truly clean energy must listen,” stated a letter sent to the federal government in February.

Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May has called Site C the “litmus test” for the federal government’s commitment to a new relationship with indigenous peoples.

“It is agonizing to witness the starting gun for a race between bulldozers and justice,” May said in a statement in which she expressed “deep disappointment” with the federal government.

The Royal Society of Canada described the Site C Joint Review Panel report as the strongest and most negative review to be ignored by government.

In its report, the panel wrote that it couldn’t conclude that the power from Site C was needed on the schedule presented, adding: “Justification must rest on an unambiguous need for the power and analyses showing its financial costs being sufficiently attractive as to make tolerable the bearing of substantial environmental, social and other costs.”

The panel recommended the project be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission — however, the B.C. and federal governments approved the dam without further review in late 2014.

Was Consultation With First Nations Adequate?

West Moberly First Nation and Prophet River First Nation will appear in a federal court in Montreal in September to fight their case.

"Sitting down and consulting with the provincial and federal government is a waste of time," said Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nation. "The only option we have is to challenge them in court."

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans responded to DeSmog Canada’s request for comment on the issuing of Site C permits with the following statement:

"For the past seven months, DFO has consulted potentially affected Indigenous groups on the department’s review of BC Hydro’s application for authorization for the main civil construction works. In particular, DFO contacted the Prophet River and West Moberly First Nations, along with ten other potentially affected indigenous groups. DFO officials have made significant efforts to provide opportunities for input, including a July 18 face-to-face meeting between Minister LeBlanc and West Moberly First Nations Chief Roland Willson and Prophet River First Nation Chief Lynette Tsakoza.

DFO will continue to engage with Indigenous groups that have raised concerns about the project to ensure that their concerns continue to be heard and taken into account."

Willson told DeSmog Canada the July 18th meeting marked the first time in six years that his nation has met with an official federal decision-maker on the Site C file.

"We met in Vancouver for about an hour. They sat there and took their notes and shook their heads in disbelief and then hopped on a plane back to Ottawa," Willson said.

"That whole process was to check the box. They haven’t responded to any one of our concerns. If we don’t go, they get to check the box beside the other box saying that we refuse to consult with them. There’s no box anywhere that says ‘this was meaningful.’ The only box is did we show up or didn’t we."

Willson said the Liberals have forgotten their election promises.

"This Liberal government is no different than the previous Harper government. They’re just sneaky. At least with Harper they were upfront about it."

Democracy group LeadNow has launched a phone action across Canada to encourage citizens to "flood the phone lines before they flood the Peace Valley." They are asking Canadians to call their MPs and let them know it is unacceptable for Trudeau to issue permits while there’s an outstanding First Nations legal challenge about the Site C dam. RAVEN Trust is also raising funds to support the First Nations legal challenge.

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Overturned Due to Lack of Consultation

Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the federal government failed to meet even a basic standard of First Nations consultation on another controversial B.C. proposal — the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

With that ruling, the approval of the pipeline was overturned.

“The inadequacies — more than just a handful and more than mere imperfections — left entire subjects of central interest to the affected First Nations, sometimes subjects affecting their subsistence and well-being, entirely ignored,” the judges wrote in their ruling.

“Many impacts of the project — some identified in the Report of the Joint Review Panel, some not — were left undisclosed, undiscussed and unconsidered.”

The question of whether there has been adequate consultation ultimately rests with the courts — but if the Site C dam approval is overturned, a whole lot of public money will be at risk.

.@JustinTrudeau Just Broke His Promise to Canada's #FirstNations https://t.co/RJLo889VNb #SiteC #bcpoli #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/EfwHLHmOcm

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 30, 2016

Muskrat Falls Boondoggle 'Almost Identical' to Site C

We need look no further than the Muskrat Falls debacle in Newfoundland to learn what happens when provinces embark on mega-dam projects without a proven need for the power.

The 824-megawatt Muskrat Falls hydro project now under construction on the Lower Churchill has nearly doubled in cost since first beginning construction (from $6.2 billion to $11.4 billion).

Stan Marshall, the CEO of Nalcor, Newfoundland’s provincial power corporation, has called the project a “boondoggle.”

"It was a gamble and it's gone against us," he told reporters last month.

By 2022, the domestic rate for power in the province is expected to nearly double. For the average homeowner, Nalcor estimates this could mean an extra $150 per month in power costs.

"The generation and transmission project was much too large than was necessary to meet the energy requirements of the province," he said.

"The original capital cost analysis, estimates and schedule was very aggressive and overly optimistic and just didn't account for many of the risks that were known, or should've been known, at the time.”

Muskrat Falls went ahead without review by Newfoundland’s Public Utilities Board and in defiance of the advice of the joint federal-provincial review panel.

Sound familiar?

“It’s almost an identical case,” Marc Eliesen, former CEO of BC Hydro, told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s clear even more so as each day goes by that there really is no business case for Site C, especially with Hydro’s own electricity demand decreasing significantly.”

BC Hydro’s recent annual report shows that demand projections were off by nearly half a Site C dam last year.  

Can The Site C Dam Be Stopped?

With the federal permits in place and B.C. Premier Christy Clark vowing to get the dam “past the point of no return” before the next election, the big question is: can Site C still be stopped?

Eliesen points to examples from other provinces where projects have been halted mid-way.

For instance, in the 1970s, Manitoba Hydro began to build a dam on the Nelson River called the Limestone generating station. After 2.5 years of construction, it became apparent that the long-term power forecasts had changed and construction was suspended.

“They stopped, not withstanding construction for 2.5 years on a generation station that was larger than Site C,” Eliesen said.

“Can you postpone, can you suspend, can you cancel Site C? Basically the experience in other jurisdictions shows that you can if the end result shows that the cost to the ratepayer will be more than if you postpone or suspend.”

The Limestone project resumed seven years later in 1985 once a major export contract was negotiated with Minnesota. Eliesen was chairman of Manitoba Hydro at the time.

“If you want to export the power, you have to make sure it’s exported on a firm power demand basis,” Eliesen said. “Any firm power deal would have to be made in advance on any decision to construct something in British Columbia. It would be folly to think otherwise.”

Selling power at the interruptable rate (often five to six times lower than the firm rate) means you don’t cover the true cost of service.

“You’re going to lose your shirt on it,” Eliesen says. “You’re going to sell power at a price that is less than it cost to create it.”

Image: Caleb Behn via Zack Embree and Fractured Land

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

On the banks of the Peace River on Saturday, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip told hundreds of opponents to the Site C dam that he will be handcuffed if necessary to stop BC Hydro’s mega project from moving ahead. 

“From this point forward we have to really focus our efforts on how we’re going to physically stop this project from happening,” Phillip said during a speech at the 10th annual Paddle for the Peace. “The provincial cabinet recently approved permits to allow construction to begin. That’s where the rubber is going to hit the road.”

An emotional Phillip said B.C. is on the eve of an uprising after the government has repeatedly dealt in “bad faith” with First Nations.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip has vowed to be arrested to stop the Site C Dam.

“If push comes to shove, I for one — being a grandfather of 14 grandchildren who I absolutely adore — I am more than willing to be arrested as long as that will contribute to stopping this project,” he said.

“I know when that moment comes I will not be alone.”

The Last Paddle for the Peace?

About 300 boats took to the water Saturday in what could be the last Paddle for the Peace — held on a stretch of the Peace River that will be flooded if the $8.8 billion Site C dam is built.

Construction is due to start on the dam any day now despite a pending Treaty 8 legal challenge, due to be heard by the federal Supreme Court on July 20.

“This is a watershed moment in the province of British Columbia and in this country,” Phillip said. “We simply can not — we can not allow this to happen.”

Beth Steiner, 8, helps bag lettuce at her parents market garden stand in the Peace Valley. The land the Steiners grow everything from corn to watermelons on will be flooded if the Site C dam is built.

Calls for a moratorium on construction on Site C have gained strength recently with the Greater Vancouver Regional District board, representing 23 local governments and 2.5 million people, voting to ask Premier Christy Clark for a two-year moratorium on construction.

The Peace River Regional District — which includes Fort St. John, the city that would see the most economic activity from the dam — voted on Thursday to write a letter to Clark to request that all construction on Site C be stopped until active court cases regarding the project have been completed.

The B.C. government has been criticized for pushing ahead with the project while ignoring repeated calls for an independent review of costs and demand — a recommendation made by the government’s own panel.

David Suzuki: ‘We Fundamentally Failed’

Famed environmentalist David Suzuki changed his schedule to join the paddle on Saturday (and helped rescue some capsized canoeists while he was at it) because the fight for the Peace Valley is near and dear to his heart. During a keynote speech, he told the crowd about his involvement with stopping the Site C dam for the first time in 1981.

“Thirty-five years later, guess what? We’re fighting exactly the same battles all over again,” Suzuki told the crowd. “What we thought were victories were not victories at all, because we fundamentally failed. We failed to shift the way we see our place on the planet.”

Ranchers Dick and Renee Ardill know the drain of the 34-year fight against the dam all too well. When the dam was first defeated, Dick was a spry 54-year-old. Now he’s 88 and grasps his truck for balance as he walks.

Dick Ardill has spent his 88 years ranching in the Peace Valley. His parents homesteaded the land in 1910.

His daughter Renee is sick of telling their story.

“I’m tired of the whole thing,” she told DeSmog Canada during a break from baling hay. “I’m tired of the stupidity of it.”

“You have to just keep going on and doing your job and, if we lose and they build the thing, we’ll worry about that when the time comes. In the meantime, I’m hoping that someone comes to their senses.”

While the recent rejection of the Peace Valley Landowners Association legal challenge was disappointing, it’s not the end of the world, Renee says.

“The battle goes on.”

Injunctions Will Be Filed to Stop Site C Dam Construction

“This is the tenth year we’ve done this and if BC Hydro and B.C. have their way we won’t be doing it any more,” said Roland Willson, chief of West Moberly First Nation, before canoes were put in the water.

West Moberly Chief Roland Willson.

In an interview with DeSmog Canada, Willson said he’s holding out for the courts to make the right decision.

“The dam is a direct infringement of our treaty rights,” he said.

Willson said injunctions will be filed to stop any construction that will cause “irreparable harm.”

Farmer Ken Boon, who hosts the Paddle for the Peace on his land, says the early construction plans look like a soft start.

“I’m still confident this dam will not be built,” Boon said. “All we’ve got to do is win one court case.”

Ken Boon is confident the Site C dam will not be built.

Boon’s land will be flooded if the dam is built, but he has yet to be approached by BC Hydro about moving.

“I’m pretty sure they’re expecting a lot of these to go to expropriation if things carry on,” he said.

As it stands, Boon and his wife Arlene still aren’t thinking about moving.

‘We’re Being Mowed Over’

Shawna-Marie Phillips is less optimistic. If construction moves forward, a 3,000-man camp will be located one kilometre from her organic farm and ranch.

Sometimes it feels like she’s yelling into the void and nobody’s listening, she said.

Given that the Site C dam is the most expensive public project in B.C. history, yet only one reporter from a major news outlet attended Saturday’s event, Phillips could be forgiven for feeling out of sight and out of mind.

“I feel like we’re being mowed over,” she said.  “I get a feeling that this is the last time.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Residential school survivors, their families, indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike packed the ballroom of the Delta Ottawa hotel on Tuesday for the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (TRC) monumental report on 130 years of ‘Indian’ residential schools in Canada. 

“The eyes of the world and the gaze of history is upon us. What we do now and in the years ahead matters a great deal,” the commission’s chair, Justice Murray Sinclair, said during the report’s launch.

Six years of research and thousands of survivor testimonies led Sinclair and fellow commissioners Dr. Marie Wilson and Chief Wilton Littlechild to conclude residential schools were central to a century-long Canadian government indigenous policy that “can best be described as 'cultural genocide.'”

Beginning in the 1880s, more than 150,000 First Nations, Metis and Inuit children were removed from their families and forced into state-run and church-run schools where physical, emotional and sexual abuse was rampant and indigenous languages and cultural practices banned. The last school closed in 1996.

“There are words, stories, medicines that have been lost forever. We don’t even know the extent of what we lost and we’ll likely never know,” indigenous lawyer Caleb Behn said. Behn is Eh Cho Dene and Dunne-Za/Cree from Treaty 8 territory in northern British Columbia.

The commission’s report documents the crimes perpetuated against the children of residential schools and provides recommendations on how Canada can deal with the legacy of a racist policy designed to “kill the Indian in the child.”

“What the TRC has done is brought out the stories of survivors and awoken something deep and profound in our elders and our young people,” indigenous rights and oilssands campaigner Clayton Thomas-Muller told DeSmog Canada. Muller is a member of the Missinipi Ethinewak  (Big River Cree) in Manitoba.

The commission’s recommendations, 94 in total, are broad in scope and are intended to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. If implemented by the federal government, the recommendations would bring changes to key policy areas such as education, healthcare and justice.

The recommendations could also change business-as-usual in the energy sector.

“There can be no true reconciliation until the fight for land and resources is resolved,” said Crystal Lameman, treaty co-ordinator and tarsands communications manager for the Amisk Sakahikan Nehiyaw or Beaver Lake Cree Nation in Alberta.

“Until then, we will never have true reconciliation or a relationship with Canada based on peace, friendship and sharing as outlined in the treaties,” Lameman told DeSmog Canada.

Implement UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights: Commission's Recommendation

The commission’s report makes multiple references to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and recommends the internationally recognized document be the “framework” for reconciliation in Canada:

“The Commission therefore believes that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the appropriate framework for reconciliation in twenty-first-century Canada. Studying the Declaration with a view to identifying its impacts on current government laws, policy, and behaviour would enable Canada to develop a holistic vision of reconciliation that embraces all aspects of the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians, and to set the standard for international achievement in its circle of hesitating nations.” (pages 243 -244 of the executive summary)

Canada was one of four countries to vote against the declaration in 2007 at the United Nations. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government had and has concerns the founding concept in the declaration of ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) will undermine Canada’s sovereignty and ability to extract resources. 

“When does FPIC matter? Consent is an absolute necessity in a free and just society. We are not asking for the world here,” Behn said.

The declaration requires its signatories to obtain the free and informed consent of indigenous peoples “prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories.” This notion alone could throw a wrench into the Harper government’s plans on transforming Canada into an oil and gas “energy superpower.”

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. (Article 32(2) of UNDRIP)

Canada eventually signed the declaration in 2010, but has not made free, prior and informed consent part of federal policy. A private member’s bill by the NDP for implementing the declaration was voted down last month in Parliament.

Resource Extraction: “You Can’t Address Abuse While Abusing”

“Residential schools violated our bodies and souls. Inappropriate resource development violates our land and culture,” Behn told DeSmog Canada. 

“You can’t address abuse while abusing. You cannot address injustice while perpetrating injustice.”

Behn’s home in northeastern British Columbia is at the centre of the gas fracking bonanza featured in the documentary Fractured Land.

If there is one glaring common dominator between the crimes committed against the children of residential schools and the growing number of legal challenges mounted by Canada’s indigenous people against pipelines, mines and oil and gas developments, it is the lack of consent.

“Part of the colonial conquest and Canada's Indian Act was an attempt to eradicate the family, the most powerful element of indigenous worldview and cosmology,” Muller explains.

“Breaking up families to get indigenous peoples off the land were all part of this exploitation, and is the fundamental foundation of the current Canadian economic model.”

“Every Single Molecule of Us is Connected to the Land”

The Beaver Lake Cree Nation of Treaty 6 is locked in a major lawsuit with the governments of Alberta and Canada concering 19,000 oilsands and other energy projects on their traditional territory northeast of Edmonton. 

“The ongoing violation of nature through unchecked resource extraction is a violation to us. Every single molecule of us is connected to the land,” Lameman of the Beaver Lake Cree told DeSmog Canada.

The Beaver Lake Cree argue in their case that the ongoing environmental degradation of their traditional land violates their treaty rights to hunt, fish and trap. Furthermore, they did not consent to this infringement of their constitutionally protected rights.  

“This Moment Needs to be Used to Push a Social Movement”

Many Canadians will be pessimistic about the current federal government embracing the commission’s recommendations. After all, hasn't Canada been down this road before with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples less than twenty years ago? Its recommendations were largely ignored.

But as Justice Sinclair was quick to point out yesterday, the report was not written solely for Canada’s government today. It was written for the future.

"We've described a mountain and shown you the path to the top. We're calling on you to do the climbing," Sinclair said in his closing remarks.

“Reconciliation is not an aboriginal problem, it is a Canadian one. It involves us all.”

“This moment needs to be used to push a social movement with the moral authority of TRC’s recommendations, like the Idle No More movement which exploded in Canada under Harper,” Muller said.

Canadian political philosopher John Ralston Saul argues in his latest book that Canada’s indigenous people are growing in strength and influence after hitting an abysmal low that is most heinously epitomized by the residential school system. He writes:

“And yes, non-Aboriginals have a choice. We can go on allowing our governments and power systems and corporations to slow or attempt to stop or deform this return of the founding peoples to their proper place. Or we can learn to listen and to understand what is happening. And then we can ensure that we do not continue to be the problem.” (The Comeback, p.68)

“We might not see reconciliation in the next ten years but I guarantee we will see dramatic changes,” Muller told DeSmog Canada.

Image Credit: Derek Leahy, Fractured Land, We Are the Land, Clayton Thomas Muller via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Council of Canadians called on the federal government Tuesday to implement regulation of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in Canada. The process, widely used for unconventional oil and gas recovery in western Canada, is linked to numerous human and environmental health threats and currently faces bans or moratoria in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador. 

“The next Oka in Canadian history is going to be in B.C. and it’s going to be about energy,” indigenous lawyer Caleb Behn said during a press conference in Ottawa addressing the fracking boom in northern British Columbia and other parts of western Canada. 

“I guarantee it. The writing is on the wall. It is just a question of when in my view. That is why the regulators need to step up.”

Behn, who is Eh Cho Dene and Dunne-Za from Treaty 8 Territory in northeastern B.C., and Dr. Kathleen Nolan, co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York, joined the Council of Canadians today in calling on the federal government to safeguard Canadians and their drinking water from the controversial method of releasing natural gas and oil trapped in rock-like shale.

“We need a national water policy that addresses threats to water such as fracking,” Emma Lui, water campaigner with the Council of Canadians, told the press conference this morning at Parliament’s Centre Block.

“With the upcoming federal election, the Council of Canadians hopes to see real federal leadership and commitments to protect our communities, health, water and our water sources from fracking,” she said.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves drilling underground wells 200 to 3,000 metres vertically and another 1,000 metres or more horizontally to penetrate the rock-like shale. Pressurized water mixed with hundreds of toxic substances (including benzene, hydrochloric acid, mercury and formaldehyde) is shot down the well to penetrate the rock and force natural gas or oil to the surface.

A single fracked well consumes anywhere between seven to 23 million litres of water. Poorly constructed or cracked concrete wells have led to the contamination of groundwater with fracking chemicals or methane, a main component of natural gas.

“There are roughly 200 chemicals used in fracking that we know about that have not been assessed by Health Canada or Environment Canada,” Lui explained.

“There is a rapidly emerging body of evidence that shows harms from this activity (fracking) at every stage of the process. With contamination of air, water and social,” Dr. Nolan said.

“People are getting sick.”

Headaches, disorientation, rashes, seizures and asthma are some of the immediate health impacts airborne contaminants from fracking operations can have on people living nearby, Nolan said.

“With water contamination there’s a lag time between the time the contaminants enter the water and then enters the person and then the person gets ill….it could take years or decades before the contaminants reach people,” she said.

“What we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg and that the people who are sick now are basically our biomarkers.”

Behn fears his home territory, which is located in and around Fort Nelson, B.C., and which is at the centre of the Fractured Land documentary, will be destroyed if federal and provincial regulators do not take significant steps to determine the impact fracking operations have on local populations and the environment.

“Absence of proof of harm is not proof of the absence of harm,” Behn said.

A report commissioned and released by Environment Canada last year concluded the potential threat of fracking operations on groundwater “cannot be assessed because of a lack of scientific data and understanding."

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A film about a B.C. indigenous leader torn between two worlds as his people grapple with the impact of hydraulic fracturing on their territory will premiere at the Hot Docs Film Festival in Toronto Tuesday night.

Fractured Land follows Caleb Behn, a young Dene lawyer, as he navigates the conflicts on his physical terrain — where fracking is taking its toll on his land and water in northeastern B.C. — and the conflicts within himself as he struggles to reconcile his traditions with the modern world.

Filmmakers Fiona Rayher and Damien Gillis followed Behn for four years, capturing hundreds of hours of footage of him on his territory, at law school in Vancouver and even consulting with New Zealand’s Maori people, who are also under siege by the fracking industry.

Fractured Land is less an environmental film and more an intense personal tale of Behn’s struggle to come to grips with complex issues such as fracking, resource politics and Canada’s colonial legacy.

The tension is illustrated most clearly by the contrast of Behn’s parents — his mother is a high-ranking oil and gas officer trying to make change from the inside and his father is a residential school survivor and staunch environmentalist.

Fractured Land Official Trailer from Fractured Land on Vimeo.

Behn has blended those two influences to become a young man who sports a Mohawk and tattoos beneath his business suit. In the film, he sits down with Janet Annesley, the former vice president of communications for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. It’s a scene that makes you wriggle in your seat, but it results in one of the film’s more poignant moments when Annesley drops this line: “I think to some degree we are all fractured within ourselves.”

With B.C.’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) export dreams, those fractures are only set to grow for Behn. The gas intended for export would be derived through fracking on his land, which involves drilling deep underground and then fracturing the rock via a blast of high-pressure water, sand and chemicals. The emissions from fracking and LNG plants threaten to triple B.C.’s carbon footprint — rivalling the Alberta oilsands — but the industry also provides jobs for Behn's people.

The documentary avoids becoming another enviro film about emissions statistics or scary fracking tales and charts a different, more universal storyline about, as Behn puts it, “how to best use our heartbeats.”

Hot Docs Screenings

– Tuesday, April 28 at 9 p.m., Tiff Bell Lightbox

– Thursday, April 30 at 2:30 p.m., Scotiabank Theatre

– Saturday, May 2 at 4 p.m., Scotiabank Theatre

The film will have its broadcast premiere on CBC’s Documentary channel later this year.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.