Haida Gwaii relies heavily on wild foods from the ocean and land. An oil spill puts all of that at risk and Island communities are not prepared to accept that risk. Haida Gwaii communities – both Haida and non-Haida – hold strong stewardship values. With a tradition of working together, we are committed to protecting our home from unsustainable, large-scale development projects. This was very clear at the JRP hearings – the Islands are strong and united against the Northern Gateway. Enbridge does not have social license for this project.

“The Panel’s recommendation doesn’t reflect our values. This whole project is absurd from start to finish – it’s totally destructive. We will not allow oil supertankers through our waters and we’re not backing down”, declared Gwaai Edenshaw.

“’The Haida Nation is the rightful heir to Haida Gwaii. Our culture is born of respect; and intimacy with the land and sea and the air around us. Like the forests, the roots of our people are intertwined such that the greatest troubles cannot overcome us. We owe our existence to Haida Gwaii.’ That’s from the preamble of our Constitution and that says it all,” explained April Churchill, former Vice-President of the Haida nation. “We have love and respect for Haida Gwaii, the Earth, and all of its beings. We will persevere in unity.” 

Contacts

Haida Gwaii CoASt Spokesperson, April Churchill:
250.559.2332 | [email protected]

Haida Gwaii CoASt Spokesperson, Gwaai Edenshaw:
778.828.9165 | [email protected]

“The Haida Nation grilled Enbridge executives and pipeline experts with questions about the price of oil, how much money the federal government stands to make and which First Nations are in favour of the pipeline during final hearings for the Northern Gateway project last week in Edmonton. Council of the Haida Nation president Guujaaw and lawyer Terri Lynn Williams Davidson spoke on behalf of the Haida Nation at the Sept. 20 session.

Guujaaw began his questions by asking about prices for crude oil, and how they would be affected by the proposed pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil to Kitimat for transport to markets in the Far East.

Responding, Enbridge’s Neil Earnest said that the price for crude oil in Western Canada would definitely be higher if there was more transportation infrastructure. However, in response to more questions to Guujaaw, he said there is not a clear link between that higher price and the price that consumers in Western Canada would pay for gas at the pump.”

Read the rest of this article at http://www.qciobserver.com/Article.aspx?Id=5631

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

As reported on Northwest Coast Energy News, the Haisla Nation has filed a legal document outlining their opposition to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline.  The central issue for the Haisla Nation is their sovereignty over their territory and their right to be properly consulted.  It is a key question that both the Harper government and Enbridge have preferred to ignore in the hopes that constitutional issues will not beleaguer the pipeline’s progress.  In addition, Enbridge’s original filing of questions to the Haisla and other nations reveal their attempt to discredit opponents of the pipeline.

With the completion of the Joint Review Panel process, now estimated for December 2013, these important questions of territorial rights and sovereignty will come into greater focus as the campaign to stop the pipeline enters the courts.

For Northwest Coast Energy News’ coverage of the Haisla announcement in three related articles, please see:

Haisla Nation confirms it opposes Northern Gateway, demands Ottawa veto Enbridge pipeline; First Nation also outlines “minimum conditions” if Ottawa approves the project

The Empire Strikes Back I: Enbridge takes on First Nations, small intervenors

The Enbridge Empire Strikes Back II: The Haisla “fishing expedition”

Haisla outline where they believe Enbridge Gateway plans are inadequate

Haisla outline conditions, concerns for Northern Gateway project

Read the full original document at the WCEL website

Read “Why the Budget Act is bad news for fish“

What Bill C-38 means for the environment

1. Changes to the Fisheries Act mean that the law may no longer protect all fish and
the waters where they live.
The new protection framework could exclude many fish and watercourses. Generally,
habitat protection will only include permanent alteration or destruction of “commercial,
recreational or aboriginal fisher(ies)” habitat and some activities will be exempt from the
law regardless of how much damage they cause. The federal government will also be
able to hand over the power to authorize destruction of fish habitat to provincial
governments or other entities, which is worrisome.

2. No maximum time limits on permits allowing impacts on species at risk.
This means that there will no longer be any guaranteed review to evaluate ongoing
impacts to endangered species. These potential ‘perpetual’ permits could continue even
where there is a drastic decline in the population of a species affected by the permitted
activity.

3. The National Energy Board (NEB) will be exempted from species at risk
protections.
The NEB will no longer have to ensure that measures have been taken to minimize
impacts on the critical habitat of at-risk species before the NEB approves a pipeline or
other major infrastructure. For example, there is no guarantee that an environmental
assessment will consider the impacts of a proposed pipeline project and related oil
tanker traffic on the habitat of endangered orca whales before the NEB issues a
certificate approving that pipeline.

4. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is being replaced with a new Act
that will significantly narrow the number of projects that will be assessed for their
environmental, social and economic impacts.
Assessments, when they happen, will be less rigorous and subject to time limits that will
place further constraints on public and First Nations’ participation. The new Act will apply
only to “designated projects,” but we don’t yet know what those will be. The new Act
gives the Environment Minister and government officials broad decision-making power:
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency would be able to exempt a
designated project from even going through the assessment process.

5. The federal government is offloading responsibilities to the provinces.
This is troubling because the patchwork of environmental laws and policies at the
provincial level leave doubt as to whether they can act as a sufficient or legally
defensible substitute for federal oversight. Prime examples of this offloading include
shifting responsibility for implementation or enforcement of the Fisheries Act to provinces
and eliminating many federal environmental assessments.

6. Cabinet is now granted authority to override a “no” decision of the National
Energy Board.
This may allow politics of the day to trump an independent, objective process and
undermine the NEB’s expertise.

7. No more joint review panels.
Where a major energy project will be subject to an NEB hearing, a Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency-enabled review panel is prohibited, so there will be
no more joint review panels. Thus, the environmental implications of major energy
projects will now be evaluated only by the energy regulator.

8. Broad decision-making powers are being shifted from the public realm and given to Cabinet and individual Ministers.
This means decisions related to fish habitat protection and environmental assessments
will be allowed to be made behind closed doors with minimal public scrutiny.

9. Significant narrowing of public engagement in resource review panel hearings,
particularly for major oil projects, pipelines and mines.
In order to participate, people will have to prove they will be directly affected or have
relevant information or expertise. In some cases, their contributions may still be ignored.

10. Repeal of two important environmental laws.
The repeal of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, means no more domestic
accountability measures on climate change and the repeal of the National Round Table
on Environment and Economy Act will phase out this valuable advisory body completely.

We know from other such panel visitations in the past, that the quasi-judicial JRP process is an exercise in pretty raw governmental power. There are massive sets of rules and regulations, arbitrary procedures and technical requirements. Unless you are a lawyer, it’s not the most comfortable of circumstances. At face value, the purpose of the JRP is to gather evidence. But, inevitably, if you find yourself on the negative side of a proponent who is being outright supported by the federal government, it’s difficult not to see yourself forced into the position of supplicant – pleading, imploring, offering evidence and testimony in your own defence.

It’s tough to maintain a centre of dignity and integrity in a situation like that. But then, people around here have always been very good at absorbing issues of power and, always respectfully, moving forward through an entirely different axis of action. This is the history of politics on Haida Gwaii.

Read the whole entry here.

Some 50 people occupy the seats at this end of the gymnasium – hereditary chiefs, elected leaders, witnesses, and elders, all of them observing the events.  The remainder of the space is row seating and bleachers, where 400+ islanders also listen attentively, as speakers share their stories with the panel – how they learned to fish, to harvest seaweed, to hunt.  How these activities are essential to who they are, to their survival.  Songs and stories are shared, detailing how Haida culture has continuously evolved along with the ocean for millennia.

Excerpt from a blog posting by Mike Ambach WWF-Canada
View the WWF Blog Posting: In Haida Gwaii, BC, culture evolves with the ocean

There were rough spots: the interruptive policing of what people could say, and could not say, throughout the community  (non-CHN) portions of the hearing; who was allowed to speak and who was not; and the clear perception of the Enbridge lawyer being a back seat driver.

From Blue Sky Haida Gwaii blog
View The way we live now

Among 10 of CoASt’s witnesses were a group of 6-year olds who “spoke for all 5 and 6-year-olds on Haida Gwaii”. The young leaders told the Panel, “the beach is our playground, and we want to protect it.”

CoASt’s last presenter, 14-year-old Jesse Condrotte, came with an important message about his rights. “According to the Declaration of Human Rights, us as human beings are allowed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Soon after, Mr. Condrotte was interrupted by Ms. Leggett who asserted that Jesse’s testimony was argument and did not fit within the Panel’s (conveniently fluid) definition of ‘Oral Evidence’.

 

From the Friends of Wild Salmon Blog, by Valine Crist
View DAY TEN & ELEVEN: OLD MASSETT

And lastly, “The Full Testimony Of Jesse After Being Cut Off At Enbridge Joint Review Panel Hearings” on CoASt’s YouTube channel:

The drums pounded rhythmically, the song filled the hall, the hereditary chiefs proceeded solemnly down the main aisle, as more than 250 people looked on.
It was just after 9 am on day one-Tuesday- of the federal-provincial joint review panel hearing into the Enbridge project on the islands in the community hall in Old Massett.

“Haida Gwaii is our home. Just saying that sounds so powerful,” Alan Wilson-Chief Sgaann 7iw7waans said, welcomed everyone. The Haida people and the Haida Nation have had battles in the past, he said, but “we’ve always come out the victor.
“We have the support of many,” he said, this is our home, Haida Gwaii, and we the people…will protect it at all costs.”
Haida Nation president Guujaaw was the first to formally testify to the panel. His presentation lasted the better part of an hour. He started by describing his early life in Masset, gathering cockles, sea cucumbers and catching smelts.
It was ” typical how our people had developed a relationship with the land, from the early days,” Guujaaw said.
He also told the three member panel that today, he’s able to feed his family “probably five times a week” from the ocean around.
“This is the way I keep in touch with the land,” he said.
Guujaaw talked about Haida stories that go back before the ice age, about 10,000 years ago.
“We know of the time when the whole Hecate Strait was dry land. People lived there and hunted caribou and elk there, and lived in an entirely different way than we do today.”
“We are here to try to make you understand how a culture is born and how it develops,” he said. “Our culture is about how close we can be to the earth. All the material culture is directly from the earth.”
Guujaaw also said it became clear many years ago that industrial exploitation of the islands could be the death knell for Haida culture.
“Where disease and oppression had failed, the destruction of our lands did stand to destroy our culture,” he said.
“In this sanctuary, at this time, if you consider all that has happened to this earth, how many places on this earth can you still go and get your own food? There aren’t that many,” he said, noting that today, food is becoming more and more industrialized, resulting in health problems for many people.
Guujaaw also spoke about the problems oil tankers would create, including bringing introduced species from Asia in their ballast tanks.
“Any place where there is heavy shipping, there is heavy movement of other animals from one place to another. All of these things are of great concerns of ours.”
He said the oil from the proposed Enbridge project “is not essential to life on this planet and would be nothing but grief for the people who live here.”
Margaret Edgars of Old Massett was the next to give testimony to the panel.
She explained how she had learned about Haida traditions and practices from her parents and elders, and said that seafood is the basic food for Haida people.
“If we don’t gather seafood,” she said, “we don’t eat.”
She talked about gather clams and chitons, and even offered some tips on cooking the latter. “Boil them just a short time, they taste almost like abalone,” Ms Edgars said. She also shared the traditional observation that if it’s a good year for berries, it’s going to be a good year for fish.
“If we had an oil spill on our island here, it would be devastating on our way of life,” she said.
Following a short break, Reg Davidson of Old Massett addressed the panel. He underlined that fish is the “number one staple” for him,
“As long as I have been alive, and for generations, there has been an abundance of seafood here. It’s quite scary when the outside world comes onto our territory, when they’re talking about oil tankers,” he said. “We as a people, we survive on the ocean. This is the way we have lived from the beginning of time, and we still do this today.”
Oliver Bell of Old Massett listed all the places that are important to him as a seafood gatherer and a hunter. He said his uncle taught him where to catch various species, and to have respect for them. “I think there is a strong spiritual connection between the Haida people and the ocean,” he said,
“It’s like Russian roulette. That’s what I see happening if you have an oil spill. Our culture and everything would die,” he said. “I want my children and their children to have the same opportunity that I have today,” Mr. Bell said.
The panel returns to the islands for two days of hearings in March in Skidegate.

Old Masset Community Hall:  28, 29 February 2012, Starting at 9:00 am

Skidegate Community Hall:  21, 22 March 2012, Starting at 9:00 am

[CORRECTION: NEW DATES]

Old Masset Community Hall:  28, 29 February 2012, Starting at 9:00 am

Skidegate Community Hall:  21, 22 March 2012, Starting at 9:00 am