The B.C. government cannot expect support from First Nations for its much-touted liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects if the province insists on steamrolling ahead with the Site C dam, a First Nations chief is warning.

“They want support on LNG, and the level of destruction that is going to bring, and then they want Site C as well. They can’t have them both,” Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nation told DeSmog Canada.

There is no logical reason to have both, Willson added, saying the provincial government has ignored alternatives to Site C, even as the federal Joint Review Panel found there is no immediate need for the power and excess power would be sold at a loss.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Treaty 8 First Nations in B.C. are vehemently opposed to BC Hydro’s plans to build a third massive dam on the Peace River that would flood more than 5,000 hectares of land, swamp more than 330 recorded archaeological sites and — in direct contravention of the 1899 treaty — destroy land now used for hunting, fishing and collecting medicinal plants.

Initially, some Treaty 8 Tribal Association nations were willing to look at what the B.C. government was offering in terms of mitigation and compensation, but, as more information became available, Willson noted a change in attitude.

“Now everyone is opposed,” he said.

The treaty states First Nations have the right to continue with their way of life “for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.”

But with massive resource development in the area, the sun, grass and rivers are all at risk and Site C is the final straw, Willson said.

With high levels of methylmercury in fish because of rotting vegetation from the previous two dams, fishing is restricted and ungulates, such as caribou, are being destroyed by the major projects, said Treaty 8 Tribal Association Chief Liz Logan, who has asked the UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya to call on the government of British Columbia to assess cumulative impacts of industrial activity in the area.

A recent study, Passages from the Peace (PDF), by the David Suzuki Foundation and Global Forest Watch Canada found 28,587 kilometres of pipelines, 45,293 kilometres of roads and 116,725 kilometres of seismic lines used for oil and gas exploration within the Peace region.

“We have become the cash register for the province . . . .Now our way of life is going to be interfered with again,” Logan said.

“We are bush people and this is our grocery store, our pharmacy, our school and our church. It still sustains us.”

The treaty is alive, despite damage inflicted on the ecosystem by resource extraction and previous Peace River dams, so the province should think carefully about ramifications of treaty-breaking, Willson said.

The Joint Review Panel agreed the dam will have significant adverse effects on First Nations practices and heritage and that many of those effects cannot be mitigated.

A total of 21 First Nations would be affected if the valley is flooded and, with numerous legal decisions reasserting First Nations’ constitutional rights, there is growing awareness that a court challenge could hold up the $7.9 billion project for years if the province decides this fall to proceed.

First Nations file for judicial review of panel report

This month the Mikisew Cree First Nation, which has nine reserves in northeastern Alberta, and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, which has eight reserves near the southwestern tip of Lake Athabasca, filed a Federal Court application for a judicial review of the Joint Review Panel report.

The two Treaty 8 First Nations rely on the Peace Athabasca Delta for plant gathering, fishing, hunting and travel through the many lakes and river tributaries and presented evidence at the hearings that showed the Delta is already ecologically stressed, with low water levels affecting wildlife habitat and harvesting.

Any further changes to water levels in the Delta could prevent First Nations from exercising their treaty rights, according to the application, which aims to have some sections of the Joint Review Panel report declared invalid and unlawful, some sections quashed and others referred back to the panel for further consideration.

The application is asking the Federal Court to prohibit the federal and provincial governments from taking any further actions that would allow Site C to proceed until a new report is issued that complies with “principles of procedural fairness.”

BC Hydro spokesman Dave Conway said he could not speculate about the possibility of Site C heading to court.

“However, I can tell you that we aim to fulfill our duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate aboriginal groups,” he said.

Logan said the five Treaty 8 nations have not yet voted on whether to go to court, but there are heavy hints that any attempt to build the dam will immediately become entangled in legal battles.

Chief's mandate: 'Oppose this right to the end'

“The only mandate I have right now is to oppose this right to the end. We are going to go back to our people once we hear the decision,” Logan said.

Willson supports the judicial review of the environmental assessment and then, if necessary, a court challenge.

But going to court is expensive, especially when going up against the deep pockets of BC Hydro and the provincial government, he said.

BC Hydro has talked with more than 50 aboriginal groups in hundreds of meetings since 2007 and will continue to look for mitigation measures, Conway said.

“We are committed to providing lasting benefits to aboriginal groups through the construction and operation of the project. In addition, we are negotiating impact benefit agreements with some First Nations where appropriate,” he said.

An impact benefit agreement could mean a lump sum payment, payments over time, cash equivalent benefits or agreements around provincial Crown land, Conway said.

But a major hurdle is the distrust First Nations have for government.

West Moberley First Nation Chief Roland Willson. Credit: Garth Lenz.

“Nothing the B.C. government has done since I have been chief has made me trust that I can believe anything they do,” Willson said.

Logan said she always tries to be hopeful.

“But, unfortunately, in my 16 years of working with this government, I have learned not to really trust what comes out of their mouth,” she said.

Site C likely to get entangled in court challenges

As decision time approaches, other Site C opponents are counting on the power of First Nations.

There is no doubt Treaty 8 nations have a strong case for stopping the dam plans, said Andrea Morison, coordinator of the Peace Valley Environment Association.

“That bodes very well for the campaign and I absolutely expect it would go to court,” Morison said.

However, in the meantime, Peace Valley residents and First Nations are hoping Site C will be rejected and there will be no need for a legal battle.

That will take more pressure from people in southern B.C., Logan said. A petition to stop the Site C dam and save the Peace River Valley has been set up at StopSiteC.org

“We are doing everything we can, along with our environmental friends from down south, to create awareness and tell people ‘it’s coming out of your pocket,’ ” she said.

Photo: Treaty 8 Tribal Chief Liz Logan by Zack Embree.

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.

James Anaya, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples, upon completion of his 8-day visit to Canada said the country “faces a crisis when it comes to the situation of indigenous peoples of the country.”

The overarching message in Anaya's concluding statement, released yesterday, is that over the last decade Canada has failed to make any meaningful progress on the very serious threats faced by aboriginal communities. 

Anaya's visit comes 10 years after the 2003 visit by UN Special Rapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen who, at the time, stressed “the economic, social and human indicators of well-being, quality of life and development are consistently lower among Aboriginal people than other Canadians.”  In 2004 Stavenhagen noted poverty, infant mortality, unemployment, morbidity, suicide, criminal detention, children on welfare, women victims of abuse, child prostitution are significantly higher in Aboriginal populations compared to any other sector of Canadian society, while education, health, housing conditions, family income, and equal access to economic and social opportunities are much lower.

Canada, Stavenhagen assured the international community in 2003, had “taken up the challenge to close this gap.”

Upon completion of Anaya’s current visit he stated Canada still has a very long way to go in its work to tighten the “well-being gap” between Aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

Canada, notes Anaya, was one of the first countries to extend constitutional protection to indigenous peoples’ rights, yet, he says “despite positive steps, daunting challenges remain” for Canada.

“The well-being gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in Canada has not narrowed over the last several years, treaty and aboriginal claims remain persistently unresolved, and overall there appear to be high levels of distrust among aboriginal peoples toward government at both the federal and provincial levels,” he said.

Although Canada ranks high on international indices of human development standards, he said, “amidst this wealth and prosperity, aboriginal people live in conditions akin to those in countries that rank much lower and in which poverty abounds.”

He noted dismal living conditions, poor education and high suicide rates in aboriginal communities were alarming. This is not new information, said Anaya, who added the Canadian Human Rights Commission “has consistently said that the conditions of aboriginal peoples makes for the most serious human rights problem in Canada.”

He also said that the “disturbing phenomenon” of murdered and missing aboriginal women forms part of the “long shadow” of oppression that includes residential schools and other aspects of Canadian First Nations’ history.

Of additional concern, says Anaya, is the fact that Canada’s ‘solutions’ to the variety of social and economic hardships faced by aboriginal communities “has not appropriately included nor responded to aboriginal views.” He added one hundred and thirty years of Indian Act policies have persistently undermined, and continute to undermine, First Nation’s and Inuit people’s self-governance, which is essential to “creating socially and economically healthy and self-sufficient aboriginal communities.”

Anaya’s preliminary recommendations, reported by Roger Annis on the Vancouver Observer, are listed below. A more in-depth report will be presented to the UN Human Rights Council in 2014.

• Granting an extension to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is examining the history of the residential school policy that dates back more than one century. He says the extension should last “as long as may be necessary.” The Commission’s mandate expires on July 1, 2014, but its work has been obstructed and delayed because the federal government has refused to divulge extensive documentation about residential schools.

• Slowing a “rush forward” with planned legislation this fall to reform the Aboriginal education system. He says there is “profound distrust” among First Nations over the proposed First Nation Education Act. It will set standards for teaching staff, curriculum and students. Aboriginal leaders are concerned the act will impose standards that disregard Indigenous language and culture and that education funding will not be increased. They want immediate increases to education funding, but Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt says there will be no funding increases considered until the new act is passed.
• Establishing a public inquiry into the cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women, whose numbers are estimated at more than 600. The federal government has flatly rejected this, and is ignoring calls from international organizations and provincial governments on the matter.
• Treating the housing situation on First Nations reserves and Inuit communities “with the urgency it deserves.” He says housing conditions are unacceptable and it is “abundantly clear” that funding for aboriginal housing is “woefully inadequate.”
• Adopting a much less “adversarial” approach to dealing with aboriginal land claims and treaty disputes.
• Recognizing that “resource extraction” should not occur on lands subject to aboriginal claims without “adequate consultations” and the “free, prior and informed consent” of the Aboriginals affected.

First Nation’s children on reserves in Canada receive 22 percent less per child in federal funding and more than 500 reserve schools lack access to basic amenities like running water in libraries. The average child on reserve receives $2000 to $3000 less per year in education funding.

In addition First Nation’s communities have been on the front lines of some of Canada’s most ground-breaking – and expensive – legal challenges to environmentally harmful resource extraction. The Beaver Lake Cree Nation is undertaking what could become Canada’s most important challenge to the ever-expanding Alberta tar sands. And the Chilcotin people in Northern British Columbia are just weeks away from what might be the most significant land title hearing in Canada since the precedent-setting 1997 Delgamuukw decision.

Remote front-line communities often face the greatest impacts of resource extraction that threaten land-based ways of life. First Nations, through constitutionally-protected rights and treaty rights, must be ‘adequately consulted’ before resource projects are approved – a requirement often overlook by the Government of Canada.

In addition the lack of meaningful investment into First Nations’ land, economies and culture has led to difficult socio-economic conditions for younger generations. Child poverty is the most striking indicator of the well-being gap that is widening between on and off reserve children.

This graphic, produced by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, shows the disparity between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadian children according to province.

First Nations child poverty by the numbers:

• Each on-reserve First Nations child receives 22% less funding than each child off of reserve.
• 50 per cent of status First Nations children in Canada live in poverty.
• Approximately 3 times as many First Nations children are now in child welfare care than were ever in the residential school system.
• First Nations children are 6 to 8 times more likely to go into child welfare care than non-aboriginal children.
• 65% of kids in child welfare care in Alberta are First Nations (who account for less than 10% of the population).
• 53% of kids in child welfare care in British Columbia are First Nations.
• 1 in 6 children on reserves in Canada doesn't have clean water to drink.
• The cost to pull all First Nations children out of poverty: $1 billion.
• The World Health Organization says, for $1 properly invested in children, the taxpayer saves $7 down the line.
• That’s a net profit of $6 billion.  

For more of James Anaya’s reflections on his visit to Canada, see his written statement on the UN's website.

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.