Title and Rights

Protesters rally against pipelines

Protesters rally against pipelines
About 3,500 voice their objections over Enbridge, Kinder Morgan proposals

By Jonathan Fowlie, Vancouver Sun
October 23, 2012
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Protesters+rally+against+pipelines/7431399/story.html

About 3,500 demonstrators took to the lawn of the B.C. legislature Monday to vehemently oppose two major oil pipelines proposed for the province.
“What are you willing to do to stop them? Are you willing to lay down in front of the bulldozers?” yelled Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations.
“Yes,” called back the crowd. “Who's going to change the 26 Conservative MPs in British Columbia if the federal government tries to jam this thing through?” he continued.
“We will,” came the response. Organized by a coalition of groups, the Defend our Coast demonstration heard from nearly two dozen speakers. All urged Premier Christy Clark and Prime Minister Stephen Harper not to allow either the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline that would carry bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat, or the planned twinning of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline that already carries Alberta oil to Burnaby.
Clark has laid out five conditions that need to be met before any heavy oil pipeline can proceed in B.C., which include: completion of the formal environmental review processes; world-leading marine and land oil spill response and prevention; and British Columbia receiving a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits.
New Democratic Party leader Adrian Dix has spoken against Enbridge, and said that if he wins the next election, his government will withdraw from the current environmental assessment of the Northern Gateway project and set up a “made-in-B.C.” review instead.
Dix has so far taken no formal position on Kinder Morgan, which has not yet submitted a finalized proposal for the twinning.
Harper said over the summer in Vancouver that while he believes it's “vital” for B.C. and the country to get oil to the west coast, the final decision on the Enbridge project will be determined by science, not politics.
“The government obviously wants to see British Columbia's export trade continue to grow and diversify, that's important,” he said at the time. “But projects have to be evaluated on their own merits.”
Not good enough, those in Victoria said Monday.
“Our government is not standing behind us – the people that are here – that are saying 'no more,' ” said Chief Ruben George of the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation.
“Let's hold our government accountable. Let's send a message to them that we have to make a difference.
“We're going to stand together and yes, we are going to win.”
Demonstrators erected a 235-metre black banner – the length of the Aframax tankers that are transporting Kinder Morgan crude oil through Burrard Inlet and Georgia Strait – around the lawn of the legislature and stretched it across neighbouring Belleville Street.
Since legislature guidelines say “objects, such as signs, posters or banners, may not be attached to the grounds, buildings, trees or other property,” demonstrators considered the erection of the banner an act of civil disobedience and said they were willing to be arrested.
“We're showing the gravity of the situation,” said demonstrator Leif Early of Duncan.
“There is no way a pipeline is worth the risk, both for our coast and our ecosystem, as well as the global issue. Putting a pipeline through just makes us even more addicted (to) the dirtiest oil in the world.”
Said Leah Norwood of Qualicum Beach: “How can we call ourselves beautiful British Columbia if we've got this disgusting pipeline running through our forest and destroying our coast?” “If I get arrested, then so be it. It's for a good cause.”
But Const. Mike Russell of the Victoria Police Department said: “We've been happy to facilitate what's been a very peaceful protest today,” adding there were no incidents or arrests.
He said police were willing to allow the giant banner – even across a street – for the duration of the event.
“(There's) nothing I can think of in the Criminal Code that would say it's illegal to put a stake in a lawn,” he said.
“We know it's not going to be there forever and a lot of people are really happy to hear that people are standing up and having their voices heard.”
Dave Coles, national president of the Communications, Energy and Paper-workers Union of Canada, called the pipelines “job killers” that are bad for the environment, don't respect First Nations rights and are destroying Canada's economy.
“Our union represents refinery workers across this country, our union represents workers in the tarsands and our union is diametrically opposed to building the pipelines.”
Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians, said the pipelines will only lead to the expansion of the Alberta oilsands. “Pipelines are the bloodlines of the tarsands. If we allow these pipeline to go ahead, it's going to mean that the industry is setting energy policy in Canada,” she said.
“These pipelines mean that you'll need to keep them full and that means a massive expansion of the tarsands and that means that we will never be able to get the alternative energy future we need.”
jfowlie@vancouversun.com

About 3,500 demonstrators took to the lawn of the B.C. legislature Monday to vehemently oppose two major oil pipelines proposed for the province.

Show more Show Less

CSTC Joins Thousands Against Enbridge

News Release
October 23, 2012

CSTC Joins Thousands Against Enbridge

PDF Version

Dakelh Territory, Prince George, British Columbia. Canada. Yesterday the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) joined thousands of people on the steps of the BC legislature to voice their opposition to oil pipelines and tankers resulting from projects like the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines. First Nations stood united with unions, environmental groups, celebrities and concerned Canadians that want to protect First Nations lands and the environment from oil tankers and pipelines.

Tribal Chief Terry Teegee said, “It was a great day to see over 3,000 people fight for our lands and right to protect it from Enbridge.” He added, “This is only the beginning of the battle for our future generations. Enbridge spells disaster for Carrier Sekani peoples. It's time that the Northern Gateway project just die, and go away.” The National Energy Board is concluding its review of the Enbridge proposal to build twin pipelines that would transect unceded Carrier Sekani territory.

“We are united as indigenous peoples, as an unconquered people that have rights and title to our lands. The government of BC and Canada will never get our consent to build oil pipelines through our lands”, said Chief Martin Louie of the Nadleh Whut'en First Nation, a member of the CSTC. In 2005 the CSTC completed a study on the proposed Enbridge pipelines, and found that it was not worth the risk to Carrier Sekani lands and waterways. Chief Louie said, “Enbridge and the Harper government are colluding to destroy the environment and First Nations people. It's a dangerous game that Harper is playing with First Nations. We will not be bullied. We will fight on the land to protect our environment from the threat Enbridge brings.”

“This week there will be more protests in Prince George. Carrier Sekani people will be there to voice our concerns to local MLAs and MPs. Our land and rights are worth defending, and we will continue to oppose the Enbridge pipeline”, said Tribal Chief Teegee. On Wednesday, October 24 there will be rallies at the Prince George Civic Centre at 5:00 PM.

– 30 –

For further information contact:
Tribal Chief Terry Teegee, RPF: 250-562-6279; Cell 250-640-3256

For more information regarding the rallies visit: www.defendourcoast.ca

Show more Show Less

Nechako sturgeon forgotten in battle over northern gateway

Province appears to have abandoned fight to save the endangered fish

By Stephen Hume, Vancouver Sun

October 12, 2012 3:02 AM

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Nechako+sturgeon+forgotten+battle+over+northern+gateway/7379831/story.html

Take the case of the endangered white sturgeon in the tributaries, lakes and main stem of the Nechako River watershed, which enters the Fraser at Prince George, about 800 kilometres north of Vancouver.

Back in 2008, when Barry Penner was environment minister, he championed a $1.5-million grant to support conservation efforts for the much diminished Nechako white sturgeon population.

A comprehensive recovery plan for the endangered Nechako stocks – a genetically distinct sub-species of the Fraser River population – has been in the works for seven years. It was to be ready by 2009. But it still hasn't been implemented, Canadian Press reported last month.

The white sturgeon, the largest freshwater species in the province, is one of nature's wonders. It can live more than a century and reach enormous sizes.

A 500-kilogram specimen caught and released by British sports angler Michael Snell on the lower Fraser last summer generated newspaper headlines around the world. Another, landed from the Fraser about a century ago, topped 816 kilograms in weight and six metres in length. But they've been severely abused throughout their range in Canada and the U.S.

In the 1890s, the American white sturgeon population collapsed after being commercially harvested for a few years in one of history's more disgusting greed fests. British Columbians were little better. We, too, indulged in a 35-year orgy of overfishing starting in 1880.

Then dams on the upper Columbia River ravaged sturgeon habitat in the U.S. and B.C.

The last hope for North America's largest fish was the Fraser, where the fishery was closed in 1994 and the river, although polluted and modified, remains relatively wild and free flowing.

“The Nechako white sturgeon population is the most endangered sturgeon population in B.C., and they need our help,” Penner said in 2008.

He had an unassailable point. The Nechako had been subjected to massive changes from a dam providing power to an aluminum smelter at Kitimat. Government fish biologists estimated fewer than 400 adults survived of the Nechako's historic population of 8,000.

Now, sensitive sturgeon habitat could be threatened again. The proposed pipeline would cross sturgeon rivers carrying more than half a million barrels of gooey, toxic diluted bitumen from Alberta's oilsands to a tanker terminal to be built at Kitimat.

One provincial government news release in 2008 noted that most of the surviving fish in the Nechako are now already more than 40 years old, the age at which females reach sexual maturity and begin to spawn, However, it warned that while white sturgeon spawn only every five to ten years, the natural death rate for such a population is about eight per cent per year.

Since Penner and the government's enthusiastic endorsement of recovery strategies, the white sturgeon population is now estimated at a scant 335. The simple arithmetic of decline is sufficiently ominous that alarm bells should be ringing.

So where's the province when it comes to arguing the case for the beleaguered Nechako sturgeon at the public hearings into the environmental impacts of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which entered their final phase this week in Prince George?

Nowhere, argues the NDP's feisty young environment critic Rob Fleming.

While government was only too happy to take credit for sturgeon protection, issuing media releases by the sheaf, posing for dozens of photo ops and shovelling out tax dollars for the worthy cause, when it's actually come time to stand up for the imperilled species, it's vanished from the scene.

“Having spent all this money and done all this work, why have the Liberals failed to present this evidence to the joint review panel? By not presenting the evidence they help the pipeline project,” Fleming says.

He has a good point. Political theatre is not leadership. Promises are useless if they don't translate into action. And the endangered sturgeon population now requires a serious advocate in our government, which has a moral and ethical duty to protect the fish on our behalf.

shume@islandnet.com

Nothing exemplifies the apparent confusion of our reigning provincial government regarding the Northern Gateway pipeline project more than the paralytic seizures its own environmental policies induce. Take the case of the endangered white sturgeon in the tributaries, lakes and main stem of the Nechako River watershed, which enters the Fraser at Prince George, about 800 kilometres north of Vancouver.

Show more Show Less

Statement by Chief Edward John, Chair UNPFII

Fifth anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Statement by Chief Edward John, Chairperson of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PDF Version)

Five years ago on this important day, 13 September, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly after more than two decades of intense struggles.

From the moment the UN Declaration was adopted, it became a unique international instrument that set standards and the foundation for the continued survival of indigenous peoples, the protection of their rights, dignity and well-being. The UN Declaration is an international human rights instrument that, today, enjoys universal consensus. It is the same instrument that underpins the activities of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Today we also need to extend our deep gratitude to the many committed representatives of indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, Governments and the United Nations whose passion and dedication lead to the adoption of the UN Declaration.

With the adoption of the UN Declaration five years ago, the Permanent Forum has new and extensive responsibilities to promote the incorporation of the UN Declaration into national law and policy, including national courts and administrative decisions. Second, it calls upon the Forum to follow up on the “effectiveness” of the Declaration – that is to examine and assess the realities on the ground, to see how the Declaration is implemented at the local and national levels and what gaps in implementation persist.

Even as indigenous peoples commemorate this historic moment, there is still a lot of work to be done. We cannot ignore the challenges and gaps in implementation of the UN Declaration, and I call on Governments, UN agencies and indigenous peoples to reaffirm the spirit, principles and rights enshrined in the UN Declaration and to renew our commitment to its full implementation.

Show more Show Less

CSTC Celebrates the 5th Annual Anniversary of the UN Declaration

News Release (PDF Version)
September 13, 2012

Dakelh Territory, Prince George, British Columbia. Canada. Today marks the 5th year anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration). The CSTC is in full support of First Nations in Canada to demand that the federal government work with us to fully implement the UN Declaration, without limitations.

Tribal Chief Terry Teegee stated, “In 2010 Canada finally endorsed the UN Declaration, but our First Nations have not seen any changes to how the Crown upholds its honor in protecting First Nations rights and title.” Teegee continued, “Projects require the free, prior and informed consent from First Nations before they are approved. The Northern Gateway project is a prime example of how the federal government is not living up to the UN Declaration.” First Nations need to provide full consent prior to projects being approved, and processes such as the Joint Review Panel need to be developed in partnership with First Nations. Otherwise these processes are meaningless and do not live up to First Nations expectations and laws.

The Harper government needs to show environmental stewardship and leadership. “Canada has lost its moral authority around the world for how it treats First Nations peoples,” stated Vice Tribal Chief Dolly Abraham. She continued, “Our lands are not for sale. Our waters that sustain all life a under threat from industry and climate change. The UN Declaration is not an aspirational document. It is an international standard that supports our indigenous laws of environmental stewardship and decision-making. Canadians should be calling their MLAs to tell them to implement the UN Declaration with First Nations.”

Several of the CSTC First Nations, such as the Nadleh Whut’en, are developing policies that are based on their traditional laws, and seek to show how the UN Declaration can be implemented. Chief Martin Louie of the Nadleh Whut’en First Nation and Yinka Dene Alliance said, “The UN Declaration is very important because it supports our traditional laws and outlines an international standard for human rights. Canadians need to understand that Canada was built on colonial policies of genocide. First Nations people are recovering and rebuilding our nations and cultures. We have an opportunity to show the world how we can spend the next seven generations healing our relationships with each other and with the land.”

“The UN Declaration needs to be supported by BC and local governments. Implementation will impact how decisions are made in our territories and over many jurisdictions”, noted Tribal Chief Teegee. He concluded, “The CSTC will continue to support the implementation of the UN Declaration, and we acknowledge all the work that went into its creation. But, now the heavy lifting begins to ensure that our human rights are protected, and that everyone benefits from having just and equitable laws and decision-making processes with First Nations in Canada and BC.”

– 30 –

For further information contact:
Tribal Chief Terry Teegee, RPF: 250-562-6279; Cell 250-640-3256
Vice Tribal Chief Dolly Abraham: 250-562-6279
Chief Martin Louie, Nadleh Whut’en First Nation: (250) 570-7759

Show more Show Less

No benefits from Enbridge pipeline for First Nations

Nadleh Whut'en First Nation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 7, 2012

No benefits from Enbridge pipeline for First Nations

Nadleh Whut'en Territory – Fraser Lake, BC, Canada – The Nadleh Whut'en First Nation stands steadfast in its opposition to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project. As the flawed Joint Review Panel enters into final hearings, Enbridge is proclaiming their project is in the 'national interest' and the Christy Clark government is attempting to 'say no to Enbridge' to save her sinking party. The Nadleh Whut'en is reminding the Crown, British Columbians and Canadians that the Nadleh Whut'en people have never given up our inherent and aboriginal rights to our beautiful lands and resources.

Chief Martin Louie stated, “As Aboriginal people in this land now known as Canada and the province of BC, we have never ceded our lands or rights by agreement or by force. We have legally protected rights under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, and in domestic and international law.” Furthermore, Chief Louie added, “The international community is closely watching the Harper government's endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as are we.” In 2010, Canada formally endorsed the UN Declaration, which sets a framework for justice and reconciliation between states and indigenous peoples. If the Joint Review Panel or the Crown approve the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, Nadleh Whut'en will view this as a direct violation of our right to say 'no' to a project that is not in our interest, nor the interest of British Columbians and Canadians.

“The Nadleh Whut'en people will continue to stand firm in our position, with other First Nations and concerned Canadians, in the protection of our rights and title from threats like those posed by Enbridge”, said Chief Louie. He added, “We don't see any benefits from the Enbridge project. Economists can banter all they want about so-called benefits. Caruthers and Harper can proclaim 'in the national interest' or 'nation building' all they want. Canada, BC and Enbridge will NEVER get our consent to build the Northern Gateway pipeline through Nadleh Whut'en territory.”

Chief Martin Louie stated, “WHEN the Enbridge pipeline breaks, or when a tanker crashes on the coast, whether it is in 5 or 50 years, those impacted lands and waterways will be destroyed. This is not acceptable to our people or other Canadians. We are fighting for all Canadians and indigenous peoples. Enbridge needs to pack it up and drop the project.” Chief Louie said, “We will fight Enbridge and the government on ensuring that our lands and waters remain beautiful for present and future generations. The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline will never benefit our people, First Nations and Canadians.”

– 30 –

For more info contact:
Chief Martin Louie at 4dakelh@nadleh.ca or 1-250-570-7759

www.nadleh.ca

Show more Show Less

Is a made-in-B.C. review the best option? Environmental pipeline review would restore province’s leg

By Murray Rankin, Vancouver Sun
September 6, 2012 3:02 AM
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/made+review+best+option+Environmental+pipeline+review+would+restore/7198592/story.html
Last week NDP leader Adrian Dix announced his commitment to a “made in B.C.” environmental review of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and that decision was criticized in a recent Sun editorial. As an adviser to Mr. Dix on this issue, I wish to explain the legal considerations behind this decision.

In 2010, the BC Liberals signed an “Equivalency Agreement” with Ottawa which said, in effect, that an environmental assessment of the Enbridge pipeline and tanker proposal carried out by the Harper government's Joint Review Panel would constitute a B.C. assessment as well.

(It is important to note that the word “Joint” in the term “Joint Review Panel” does not refer to a joint review con-ducted by Canada and B.C. It refers, instead, to a joint review by two federal agencies, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.)

Not many people paid attention to the agreement at the time. But it has profound implications for B.C.'s ability to control its own destiny when it comes to major energy projects like the Enbridge pipeline and tanker proposal, which will profoundly affect our economy and our environment. For example, the long-standing moratorium on oil tanker traffic in the north coast is now at stake.
The Equivalency Agreement means that the provincial Liberal government has given up any say in key areas of B.C. jurisdiction, such as air and water quality, fish and wildlife, forests, Crown lands, and lakes, rivers and streams.

In legal terms, Enbridge Northern Gateway now does not need to undergo any assessment under B.C. laws at all: the Liberals agreed to accept the federal process as being “equivalent.”

This is in no way a “joint review” like others in the past where both Ottawa and Victoria appointed members to panels: in the Enbridge case, the three panel members have no connection with B.C. at all.
With recent changes in federal law made by the Conservatives, the agreement gives Prime Minister Harper and his cabinet ultimate control of the Enbridge decision. It puts B.C. on the sidelines, despite the fact that critical B.C. interests are at stake.

The B.C. government fled to the sidelines in order to avoid taking a position on the tankers and the pipeline, abandoning its responsibilities to defend provincial interests. While federal-provincial collaboration is generally to be encouraged, it is unreasonable to expect Prime Minister Harper to represent B.C.'s interests. That is the job of the B.C. government: it has abandoned that role by signing the Equivalency Agreement.

As Adrian Dix stated, “we have a federal process making a critical decision that's essential to British Columbia that includes no British Columbians on the panel, that has no evidence from the Province of British Columbia, and where British Columbia has abdicated its regulatory responsibility.”

That reality is at the heart of the decision made by Mr. Dix and his caucus to terminate the Equivalency Agreement and to commit to a “made in B.C.” process to re-establish B.C.'s powers. A number of objections have been raised to this move and I want to address these, as they simply do not hold constitutional water.

One objection is that since Ottawa has primary jurisdiction over interprovincial pipe-lines, this is entirely a federal issue. If that were the case there would have been no need for an Equivalency Agreement in the first place. The very fact that B.C. signed the agreement demonstrates that it had certain constitutional powers that were given up in favour of a purely federal process.

A key objection within the Sun's editorial is that the pro-cess is a waste because Adrian Dix is opposed to the Enbridge proposal. Any provincial government must follow all requirements for procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice in that process. This is no different than the current federal situation: Mr. Harper has declared his sup-port for Enbridge, yet there is a federal review underway. In the end, both in Ottawa and Victoria cabinets will make final decisions based on the recommendations from the reviews.

Another objection – one that has been offered by Premier Clark and other Liberals – is that B.C. could stop the Northern Gateway Pipeline if it is approved by Ottawa, merely by withholding the necessary provincial permits. This approach is dubious at best. The courts could not be expected to uphold such actions by a government that gave up its jurisdiction through this agreement, only to use indirect means to unilaterally take it back.

A final objection is that a B.C. process would be a costly duplication of Ottawa's process. The fact is, however, that this action would never have been necessary had the B.C. government not agreed to such a one-sided agreement in the first place. True “joint reviews” have been successfully undertaken by provincial and federal governments, including in B.C. The current Enbridge “Joint Review Panel” is a far cry from these harmonized processes.

The legitimate goal of harmonization is one that Adrian Dix and the NDP support. The so-called harmonization for the Enbridge proposal is simply an abdication of B.C.'s interests in critical areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Bluntly put, the Liberals gave up B.C.'s rights in a way that made it difficult to take them back. But taking them back is the right thing to do.

The B.C. Liberal government signed the Equivalency Agreement. They failed to provide any evidence on behalf of B.C. to the federal review. They have done everything in their power to avoid taking a position on the Enbridge pipeline and tankers. And they knowingly put Mr. Harper in the driver's seat to decide on a project with very significant risks to B.C.'s economy and environment and to First Nations' rights and interests.
Given these actions by the B.C. government, the only responsible way that B.C. can now reassert control of our own economic and environmental destiny is to exit the Equivalency Agreement and conduct our own “made in B.C.” review of the Enbridge pipeline proposal. That is what Mr. Dix has committed to do and in my opinion, this action is necessary to enable B.C. to protect vital B.C. interests.

Murray Rankin is a practicing lawyer and a former law professor of public law and environmental law. He is acting as a volunteer adviser to BC NDP leader Adrian Dix on legal issues relating to the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline.

Last week NDP leader Adrian Dix announced his commitment to a “made in B.C.” environmental review of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and that decision was criticized in a recent Sun editorial. As an adviser to Mr. Dix on this issue, I wish to explain the legal considerations behind this decision.

Show more Show Less

Open Letter: Implementation of UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Nadleh Whut'en First Nation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 31, 2012
Open Letter: Implementation of UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

PDF Version

Nadleh Whut'en First Nation – Fraser Lake, BC, Canada – The Nadleh Whut'en First Nation council would like to inform the citizens of Canada, the provincial and federal governments, as well as third-parties conducting business or interested in conducting business within our territory that we are developing and implementing a suite of policies consistent with supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the 'UN Declaration'). These policies will be created from our traditional laws and jurisdiction that we have never given up. We are seeking to improve the standard of living for our peoples as well as ensuring that future generations benefit from our ancestors teachings.

The Nadleh Whut'en territory is located in north central interior of the lands now known as British Columbia (BC), and our main community is located on the eastern shores of Nadleh Bunket (Fraser Lake). Our people have lived here since time immemorial and we have never surrendered by force or agreement our rights to our lands, resources or culture. Canadians and the world need to know the stories of our history – and that we continue to govern our lands according to our laws – in order to understand how we can reach reconciliation and a path forward for future generations. “We will tell the world our story on our terms, with dignity and respect,” said Chief Martin Louie. “Never again will we have to explain to visitors about our ownership to our homeland, and our children will never again be taken away from us and feel ashamed of being Dakelh, or Yinka Dene. We are people of the land, and it is land and resources that we need to protect for current and future generations.”

The Nadleh Whut'en people of the Carrier (Dakelh) Nation have followed our ancestors’ guidance since time immemorial. The UN Declaration is consistent with and supports our traditional laws, and as such outlines worthy principles to support and implement as we negotiate agreements and reconcile our rights. The UN Declaration contains international human rights standards which Canada has endorsed, demonstrating Canada's support for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world (article 43). The Canadian Constitution (Section 35, Constitution Act, 1982) guarantees that our rights and title must be recognized and respected; the Canadian courts have also supported First Nations rights and jurisdiction to their lands, resources and governance. The UN Declaration contains forty-six (46) articles that affirms our inherent rights as Indigenous peoples, and provides a framework for justice and reconciliation now and into the future, applying existing human rights standards to the specific cultural and social circumstances of First Nations peoples.

Government (federal, provincial and municipal) and third parties that have interests in our territory will be notified about these new policies as they are developed and publically released. Adequate financial support must be provided for us to engage and review proposals that impact our territory. The Nadleh Whut'en First Nation is not against development but it must be done in ways that respect our traditional laws of the land.

www.nadleh.ca (available in early August 2012)
For more information contact Chief Martin Louie at 4dakelh@nadleh.ca or 250-570-7759.

Show more Show Less

Protesters block First Nation members from voting on B.C. treaty ratification

Protesters block First Nation members from voting on B.C. treaty ratification
By: The Canadian Press
Posted: 06/17/2012 5:58 PM

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/protesters-block-first-nation-members-from-voting-on-bc-treaty-ratification-159367095.html

POWELL RIVER, B.C. – A small group of native protesters used trucks and a car to physically block fellow members of a British Columbia First Nation from voting on a treaty with the provincial and federal governments over the weekend.

Clint Williams, chief of the Tla'amin First Nation, also known as the Sliammon, said between 200 and 250 people were expected to vote on the deal at the Salish Centre near Powell River, B.C., on Saturday.
But he said that vote must now be rescheduled, amidst charges by band leaders and even the provincial government that the protesters have derailed a fundamental democratic right and Canadian process.
Meantime, the protesters have issued a statement of their own, saying they are taking a stand against the treaty because they still have many unanswered questions.

“In the back of my head, you know, all I'm thinking is, I still woke up in Canada this morning. I woke up in Canada the day before,” said Williams. “There's a lot of people that had their democratic rights trampled on. Just, I'm pretty frustrated.”

The deal between the provincial and federal governments and First Nation has been nearly two decades in the making and would see the band of 1,000 people receive about 8,322 hectares of land, nearly $30 million over 10 years, self-governing powers, economic-development funding, resource revenue, forestry and fishing rights.

Williams said there was no guarantee of a yes or no vote Saturday, but members still wanted to see exactly in what direction the majority of voters wanted to head.
The vote was to be the last in a series of votes, and the polls were supposed to open between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m., said Williams.

But hours before the polls opened, between 12 and 15 protesters showed up at the Salish Centre.

Williams said they used a truck to block the entrance to some offices and a car to block the entrance to the gymnasium. He said they also parked a truck on the building's northern side.

“Then there was people standing in front of one of the other entrances,” he said.

While police were called to the site, they did nothing to ensure voters could cast their ballots, said Williams.
Identifying themselves as the Concerned Members of the Sliammon First Nation, the protesters issued a three-page document, outlining their grievances.
“We are here today to take a stand against the treaty process,” the organization stated. “This process has had a very negative effect on the Sliammon people and more questions continue to arise.”
The group raised questions on just who is allowed to enrol as a member in the band, saying some who have no blood ties to the band have been allowed to sign up to vote.
The group also alleged election and voting procedures have not been followed, and raised concerns that they have no fishing or water rights.
Only hours after the polls were scheduled to close, Mary Polak, B.C.'s minister of aboriginal relations and reconciliation, lambasted the protesters and even local authorities for taking “no conclusive actions.”
“This is not a First Nations issue,” she said in a statement, noting negotiations have been taking place since 1994. “This is about democracy. Voting is a fundamental right of every Canadian.”
Polak said that in Canada self determination has and always will be obtained through the ballot box, not through intimidation.

Williams said while several public information sessions have already been held on the treaty, the band's ratification committee will sit down with the protesters.
No date has yet been set for another vote, but members will head back to the polling places in the “near future,” he added.

“The remainder of the Sliammon people will vote on this final agreement, and we will find out what the true direction is of the Sliammon people,” he said.
“Once that is determined, we'll pick up the pieces and move on from there. It's a shame that this happened, but we'll do the best to try to rebuild the community once this is behind us. We don't want to see families torn apart because of this.”
— By Keven Drews in Vancouver

Show more Show Less

CSTC Election

NOTICE OF ELECTION

(PDF Version)

ELECTION FOR TRIBAL CHIEF AND VICE TRIBAL CHIEF

JULY 20, 2012

Nominations for the position of Tribal Chief and the Vice-Tribal Chief will be open June 11, 2012 and will close on June 22, 2012. Prior to June 28, 2012, candidates must indicate in writing whether they accept or decline the nomination. All written acceptances must be received on or before June 27, 2012 at 4:00pm in order for the candidates name to appear on the ballot. All candidates nominated must be of Carrier or Sekani ancestry 18 years of age or older, and be a registered Band Member of the listed Eligible Bands, as outlined in “Criteria of Eligible Voters.” Once nominations are accepted, the candidates will be well publicized in the communities.

ELECTION
An election date has been set for July 20, 2012, from 8:00am until 8:00pm with an advance polling date July 15th from 12 noon until 8:00pm. The date, location and times will promptly be publicized in the Member Communities. Community Polling Stations will be established in the Member Bands’ Communities, and a Polling Station in Prince George, B.C. at the CSTC Administration Office, #200 1460-6th Avenue, Prince George, B.C. Once the polling stations are closed, the Community Returning Officers will count the ballots and immediately notify the Chief Electoral Officer by telephone. The results of the election will be announced by the Chief Electoral Officer once all the results are in and totaled. Ratification and confirmation will be announced at the 2012 Annual General Assembly. At this time, the Tribal Chief and Vice-Tribal Chief will officially be sworn into Office.

Loreen Suhr/ Annalise Stillwell
Chief Electoral Officers
Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
Phone: 1-250-964-1016
Fax: 1-250-964-1018
loreensuhr@telus.net
annaclay@telus.net

All candidates nominated must be of Carrier or Sekani ancestry 18 years of age or older, and be a registered Band Member of the listed Eligible Bands, as outlined in “Criteria of Eligible Voters.” Once nominations are accepted, the candidates will be well publicized in the communities.

Show more Show Less

Groups fight back after Conservatives try to dilute environmental laws

Groups fight back after Conservatives try to dilute environmental laws
Fourth in a four-part series: Conservatives attack on environmental groups has created backlash
BY GORDON HOEKSTRA, VANCOUVER SUNJUNE 8, 2012 8:55 AM
HTTP://WWW.VANCOUVERSUN.COM/BUSINESS/GROUPS+FIGHT+BACK+AFTER+CONSERVATIVES+DILUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+LAWS/6747634/STORY.HTML

‘We don’t take it when we are bulldozed,’ says Joe Foy, national campaign director for the Wilderness Committee, referring to the Harper government’s plan to give tax authorities more power to question the political activities of charities.

Photograph by: Ward Perrin, Vancouver Sun

Discord between the Tories and environmentalists began when the federal natural resources minister maligned environmental groups as radicals. It escalated with the introduction of Bill C-38, a package of new laws, some directly targeting charities and environmental protections.

Now it’s war.

Environmental groups are fighting back after the Conservatives accused them of hijacking public decision-making and using foreign funding to damage national economic interests. Their target is Bill C-38 which opponents say weakens fish habitat protection and strengthens the taxman’s powers to question charities.

The changes will bring more scrutiny to foreign funding for charities and also how they use money for political purposes. Charities will also have to take more responsibility for the political activities of groups to which they give money.

It will give bureaucrats new powers to suspend the charitable status of groups, a designation that helps organizations raise money by allowing them to issue receipts for tax deductions.
And Bill C-38 will give an extra $8 million to the Canada Revenue Agency for stepped-up audits of those groups.

Now that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a majority, his government will be able to push through the new laws before parliament breaks for the summer.
Environmental organizations that operate in B.C. are fearful of the changes, but not cowed.

They say they will continue to speak against projects that would carry Alberta oilsands crude to the B.C. coast, including Kinder Morgan’s proposed $4.1-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to the Lower Mainland and Enbridge’s $5.5 billion Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat.

“We don’t take it when we are bulldozed,” says Wilderness Committee director Joe Foy, an environmental campaigner with nearly 30 years of experience in B.C.
The Wilderness Committee recently joined more than 500 organizations in launching a nationwide campaign to get the public to speak out against Bill C-38 and lobby their MPs to do the same. Of major concern are amendments to the fisheries act that limit federal protection of fish habitat to commercial, sport or aboriginal fishing, a change from the current sweeping protection that makes destruction of any fish habitat an offence.

The pushback shouldn’t be surprising given British Columbia was the birthplace of groups such as Greenpeace, now in its fourth decade, which claims three million members worldwide.
Greenpeace Canada had its charitable tax status stripped in 1989 for being too political, but it soldiered on. Greenpeace recently signalled it’s ratcheting up its campaign against the Alberta oilsands and tankers by hanging an anti-pipeline banner from the Lions Gate Bridge.

“The future belongs to [environmental] groups that are bold,” said Will Horter, executive director of the Dogwood Initiative which has been fighting the Northern Gateway project since 2006.
Dogwood, like Greenpeace, can afford to be bolder than some environmental groups because it is not a charity but a non-profit society.

The Victoria-based group opposes the addition of about 200 large oil tankers a year that would be needed to ship oil from the Northern Gateway pipeline to Asia. Dogwood has helped organize rallies, worked with first nations and supported a successful federal parliamentary vote (it had no weight in law) calling for a ban of oil tankers off northwestern B.C.

In 2011, the group plastered downtown Vancouver with posters that pictured a black tanker. When it rained, the water-soluble ink bled, simulating the effect of an oil spill. Then Dogwood handed out more than 250,000 black “notanker.ca” decals that supporters stuck onto one-dollar coins, turning them into an oil-scarred loonie.

In a program it dubbed mob-the-mic, Dogwood signed up more than 1,600 participants to speak out against the Northern Gateway project during National Energy Board hearings underway now.
This infuriated Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver who wants to limit interveners to people directly affected by the project.

Political scientist Marco Navarro-Genie said groups like that have pushed too far already. The research director at the right-wing think-tank Frontier Centre for Public Policy is not surprised the federal government has decided to put a halt to some environmental group’s “incendiary” influence on the public policy debate.

“There seems to have been a greater deal of sympathy among the public and media for a little bit of the radical edge [of environmentalism]. It seems to be based on the notion that you have to push the envelope to get somewhere,” said Navarro-Genie, also a professor at Mount Royal College in Calgary.

“That basically throws out the window any kind of [common sense] conversation about the environment. I think [environmental groups] have done damage to themselves and their cause.”
In the hope of shutting down attacks it deems too political, the Conservatives’ proposed tax measures could lead to reduced funding for groups like the Dogwood Initiative. Under the existing rules, charities can give money to other groups without having to determine whether it will be used for political activity. Dogwood gets 60 per cent of its annual funding — just under $600,000 — this way from charitable foundations in Canada and the U.S.

But the proposed changes will force Canadian charities to count the political activities of the groups they give money to as their own.
According to the Canada Revenue Agency, charities can now pursue political activities to retain, oppose or change the law or decision of any level of government, inside or outside Canada, provided the activities are non-partisan, related to its charitable purpose and limited to 10 per cent of its total budget. For example, as long as charities stay under the 10 per cent limit, they can buy a newspaper advertisement to pressure the government, organize a march to Parliament hill or hire communications specialists to arrange a media campaign.
Charitable groups cannot support political parties or candidates.

When Bill C-38 is passed, charities that grant money to other groups would likely reach their 10-per-cent limit more quickly and that means less money for groups using funds for political activities, says Paula Boutis, a lawyer and president of the Sierra Club of Canada.

“It’s astonishing to me,” said Boutis.

The Conservative government’s main target appears to be Tides Canada, a Vancouver-based registered charity and non-profit foundation.
It had a program budget of more than $13 million in 2010, about half of which it granted to other groups ranging from the Canadian Red Cross and the Sauder School of Business at the University of B.C. to West Coast Environmental Law.

The other half of its budget went to 40 initiatives under Tides’ direct responsibility, including projects to preserve areas of Canada’s boreal forest, protect wild salmon on B.C.’s coast and provide services in the East Scarborough neighbourhood in Metro Toronto.

Earlier this year, Tides Canada defended itself before a Senate committee, where Conservative senators pressed the organization on why it was using foreign funds to oppose the oilsands.
Tides Canada is the only group being audited by the Canada Revenue Agency among 11 environmental and charitable groups interviewed by The Sun.

The organization has received about $60 million from U.S. foundations since its inception 11 years ago.

Other Tides Canada funding comes from individuals, families, businesses and Canadian foundations.

In 2011, only three per cent — or about $600,000 — of its grants went to groups that worked on causes that had anything to do with pipelines or oilsands, said president Ross McMillan.
“It’s just assumed we’re this massive flow-through entity channelling funds through to anti-oilsands or other causes, when nothing could be further from the truth,” said McMillan.
Less than one per cent of Tides’ funding is spent on political activities, he added, well under the 10-per-cent threshold.

But already one of Tides Canada’s most controversial initiatives, ForestEthics, has become a victim of the pressure from the federal Tories.
The high-profile group has been in the headlines over the last decade for convincing office supply giants to move away from paper made from endangered forests. ForestEthics severed ties from Tides Canada last month to ensure Tides did not lose its charitable status, said Valerie Langer, who is heading up one of two new ForestEthics organizations. One ForestEthics group will act as an advocacy group and another as a solutions group that will seek charitable status.

David Suzuki has also stepped away the foundation he helped create to distance himself from any concerns over his advocacy work.
The David Suzuki Foundation received only six per cent of its funding from foreign sources in its last fiscal year and allocates less than one per cent of its resources on political activities, said its CEO Peter Robinson.

“The [federal government] has deliberately targeted a sector and put it squarely into the media, making unfounded wild accusations with the intent of diminishing that voice just as they are about to do large-scale energy projects which include exploration in the Arctic and pipelines,” said Robinson.

The real tragedy is the country is losing a “diversity of voices” which is the mark of a mature society, added Robinson. “[Those] voices always lead to stronger outcomes,” he said.
West Coast Environmental Law says 80 per cent of its funding comes from Canadian sources and they spend less than five per cent of their resources on political activities.

“The fact that our federal government is trying to silence us should be disturbing to all Canadians,” said executive director Jessica Clogg.

The Canada Revenue Agency will not disclose which charities it audits, so it’s difficult to tell if environmental groups are being targeted.

CRA spokesman Philippe Brideau noted an overall audit will determine compliance on political activities, not just the 10 per cent threshold.
On the other side of the political spectrum, the free-enterprise think-tank Fraser Institute has been audited three times, the last time in 1998. Two audits took place under Jean Chretien’s Liberal government, the first under Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government.

If there is another audit, Fraser Institute president Niels Veldhuis is not worried.

He said they don’t consider any of their work to cross the line into political activity and would expect to pass any future audit.

The Fraser Institute gets about 11 per cent of its funds from international sources and spends 30 per cent on international programs, said Veldhuis.
Despite environmental groups’ fears about what the new measures will mean, the Conservative government’s attacks have had the “unintended consequence” of increasing interest in environmental causes, said Pembina Institute executive director Ed Whittingham.

Of the eight environmental groups interviewed by The Sun, six, including the Dogwood Initiative, said their individual donations are up.
Quipped Whittingham: “I’m not sure if the prime minister’s office intended more Canadians to be concerned about the environment after their attacks.”

ghoekstra@vancouversun.com

Show more Show Less

Mining company asks government not to consider aboriginal spirituality in environmental probe

BY PETER O'NEIL, POSTMEDIA NEWS
APRIL 30, 2012
HTTP://WWW.OTTAWACITIZEN.COM/TECHNOLOGY/MINING+COMPANY+ASKS+GOVERNMENT+CONSIDER+ABORIGINAL+SPIRITUALITY/6543042/STORY.HTML

Taseko Mines is pushing to federal government to reconsider reconsider a controversial gold-copper mining project in the B.C. Interior.
Photograph by: External, External

OTTAWA — A Vancouver company pushing the Harper government to reconsider a controversial gold-copper mining project in the B.C. Interior has privately urged Ottawa to ignore aboriginal requests to consider native “spirituality” as a factor in their determination, according to a letter the company sent to Environment Minister Peter Kent.

A new federal environmental review panel “does not have any right to attribute significance to the spirituality of a place per se,” wrote Taseko Mines Ltd. president Russell Hallbauer in a letter obtained under the Access to Information Act and provided to the Vancouver Sun by B.C. independent provincial representative Bob Simpson.

Taseko, which failed in its 2010 bid to get federal approval after a “scathing” federal review, also asked Ottawa to not permit aboriginal prayer ceremonies at pending hearings on the revised proposal.
And children's plays should also be banned, Hallbauer told Kent in his November letter.

The panel allowed “a group of kindergarten children to present a play, in which the children wore fish cut-outs on their heads, moved around the floor, and then all fell over simultaneously, symbolizing the death of the fish,” Hallbauer wrote.

Allowing opening prayers wasn't “appropriate” and a “sensational” anti-project film and the children's play also shouldn't have been part of a process that is supposed to be “objective and fact-based.”
The company also complained that one of the three panel members, metallurgist and former environmental mining supervisor Nalaine Morin, was a member of a First Nations organization in the area that was opposed to the project.

One native leader said Taseko's letter is an affront to aboriginal spirituality.

“We are tied to the land and that's a spiritual area,” said Tsilhqot'in National Government (TNG) tribal chair Chief Joe Alphonse of the proposed open-pit mine about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake, B.C.

“To not even have that as part of the review, you may as well not have a review at all. Let's go turn the Vatican into a casino hall.
“This is exactly what we're talking about when a company is allowed to make those kinds of suggestions. It's wrong.”

Another local First Nations leader, Xeni Gwet'in Chief Marilyn Baptiste, likened Taseko's proposal to the former government-sanctioned residential schools that “outlawed our spirituality, our drumming and our language.”

A federal panel appointed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ruled in 2010 against allowing the proposed Prosperity Mine to proceed. Then-environment minister Jim Prentice, now a senior executive at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, called the panel report “scathing,” and the minority Tory government supported the recommendation.

The federal decision came several months after a B.C. government review resulted in the province giving the project a green light, saying the job and wealth creation more than balanced environmental damage.
The federal panel report was filled with comments on the cultural and spiritual importance to local First Nations of Taseko's property and especially Fish Lake, which Taseko planned to drain and turn into a tailings dump.

“The panel has determined that the loss of the Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) and Nabas areas for current use activities, ceremonies, teaching, and cultural and spiritual practices would be irreversible, of high magnitude and have a long-term effect on the Tsilhqot'in,” the report stated.

The federal government, which is bringing in sweeping legislative changes to make it easier for companies to get approval for natural resource projects, announced in November it would let the company file a new application based on a plan that doesn't include destroying Fish Lake.

Brian Battison, Taseko's vice-president of corporate affairs, stressed that spirituality isn't part of federal legislation and shouldn't be considered.

He said the company is objecting to children's plays, films and prayers because such events bring too much emotion into the hearings.

“The whole process moves so far beyond the true facts that it makes it very, very difficult for everybody I think, including the panel, to not try to consciously or unconsciously reflect all of that in their findings,” Battison said.

“And what happens is the science and the facts get lost, and if they don't get lost they get overwhelmed by these circumstances.”
Battison also said the company would consider a Federal Court challenge if the government appointed a panellist who obviously had a bias in favour of aboriginal opponents.
Simpson, the provincial politician who obtained the document, said the company is displaying hypocrisy given that its August proposal for the New Prosperity mine made repeated references to Fish Lake's spiritual importance to First Nations.

That proposal calls for the tailings facility to be located two kilometres upstream from Fish Lake.
Simpson said it's “condescending” to suggest that a panel of professionals couldn't properly weigh the relative weight of scientific evidence against emotional displays.

“And it's another affront to any possible relationship they could have with the TNG, which quite frankly they will need. There is no way you proceed with this project without a strong relationship with the company and the First Nations.”

poneil@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/poneilinottawa

A Vancouver company pushing the Harper government to reconsider a controversial gold-copper mining project in the B.C. Interior has privately urged Ottawa to ignore aboriginal requests to consider native “spirituality” as a factor in their determination, according to a letter the company sent to Environment Minister Peter Kent.

Show more Show Less