Please see the new Press Release from the Council of the Haida Nation on Trudeau’s announcement.  According to CHN President Peter Lantin:

Dear family, friends, and allies:

As you may already know, the Pacific NorthWest LNG project proposed by Petronas has been under environmental review since 2013. On February 10th of this year, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) issued its draft report that states:

“The Agency concludes that the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, on harbour porpoise and as a result of greenhouse gas emissions … With respect to all other valued components, the Agency concludes that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects taking into account the implementation of the key mitigation measures.”

Those of us who have fished this coast and enjoyed its wealth know that this project will cause immeasurable damage to our ocean and quality of life.

Indigenous knowledge and western science say the same thing: The Skeena Estuary is no place for industrial development. The Lax Kw’alaams community knows this – in May they voted to oppose Petronas’ project and rejected a $1.15 billion-dollar deal. For the past six months, the Lax U’u’la have been occupying Gitwilgyoots territory. They are asserting their Indigenous rights and defending their abundant wild salmon and way of life. In January, hereditary leaders from the Skeena Watershed, as well as northern MLAs and our MP, signed the Lelu Island Declaration stating that the estuary must be protected from industrial development.  A team of Russian scientists toured the northwest last month—they spoke of their experiences with an LNG plant on Sakhalin Island and cautioned that Petronas’ plant could decimate Skeena River salmon runs.

HERE ARE THE 2 THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP DEFEND SKEENA SALMON TODAY: 

1. Email your comment to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Tell CEAA and Canadian Ministers why you oppose Petronas’ Pacific NorthWest LNG on Lelu Island.  There’s a form statement below that you can copy, paste, and personalize as you like.

Send to: [email protected]

CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

2.  Send this to 3 friends and encourage them to write their letters of comment, too. This is the last opportunity for citizens to have their say in this review process. Every voice counts.

For the love of Skeena salmon,

Haida Gwaii CoASt

P.S. Here is a link to an online form that makes letter writing simple and quick brought to you by Friends of Wild Salmon.

DRAFT FORM STATEMENT – COPY – PASTE – PERSONALIZE – SEND

Dear Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency,

 I write to you from Haida Gwaii, a pristine and vibrant archipelago off the northwest coast, to express my deep concern for the health and well-being of my mainland neighbours. The Skeena Estuary is an incredibly important and rich ecosystem that provides our northern communities with wild salmon, halibut, shellfish and seaweed. We live off of these resources, and fishing helps to contribute to our economies and overall well-being. Flora Bank, adjacent to Lelu Island, is an essential eelgrass nursery that salmon and eulachon need to survive. Indigenous knowledge of this area states its unique importance, and independent science dating back to the 1970s verifies Flora Bank is critical to their survival.                                                                                                             

The adverse effects of the Pacific NorthWest LNG plant proposed on Lelu Island cannot be mitigated. Our communities and cultures throughout the entire Skeena watershed will be negatively impacted if the proposed plant is built. I implore you to reject this project.

 Sincerely,

Recently the British Columbia Supreme Court (“Court”) released its reasons for judgment in Coastal First Nations v. British Columbia (Environment), 2016 BCSC 34. The BC Environmental Assessment Office (the “EAO”) had entered into an equivalency agreement (the “Agreement”) with the National Energy Board (“NEB”). The Agreement allowed for the EAO to rely on an environmental assessment from the NEB related to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project (the “Project”). The   Court found that the Province of British Columbia had abdicated its statutory duties and breached its duty to consult with the Coastal First Nations when it signed and failed to terminate the Agreement that provided the NEB with sole jurisdiction over the environmental assessment decision-making regarding the Project.

Background

British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Act, SBC 2002, c 43 (the “EAA”) is the main legislative framework for the Province’s environmental assessment process for proposed major projects. In 2008 and again in 2010, the EAO and the NEB entered into equivalency agreements which were intended to avoid redundancy in the approval process and promote a coordinated approach. The equivalency agreements provided that the EAO accepted that any NEB assessment would constitute an equivalent assessment under the EAA. In doing so, the EAO abdicated its decision-making authority.

Coastal First Nations – Great Bear Initiative Society and Gitga’at First Nation (collectively “CFN”) sought, by way of judicial review, a series of declarations setting aside, in part, the Agreement for the Project.  CFN argued that while the EAA granted jurisdiction to the EAO to accept another jurisdiction’s assessment of the Project, the EAA did not authorize the EAO to abdicate its decision-making authority to grant an environmental assessment certificate (a “Certificate”) under the EAA. A Certificate is required prior to the approval of any project. In addition, CFN argued that they were owed a duty to consult prior to the Province entering into the Agreement and before the Province decided not to terminate the Agreement.

Decision

Statutory Interpretation

The Court first considered whether the EAA allowed the Province to abdicate its decision making. CFN argued that while the EAA provided authority for cooperation to avoid duplication of environmental assessments, the provisions of the EAA did not go so far as to allow for the abdication of the Province’s decision making.

In response, the Province argued the authority given to the Province and the exercise of that authority was an example of an effort by the Province to reconcile the overlap in jurisdiction between provincial and federal regulators with respect to environmental assessment.  Therefore the structure of the EAA allowed the EAO to exempt certain projects from obtaining a Certificate. The Northern Gateway project was one such project.

The Court acknowledged that the EAA granted the Province broad discretion to enter agreements with other jurisdictions to allow for equivalent environmental assessment processes. However, the Court concluded that the Province’s unique objectives, political and social goals, and legal obligations that led to the enactment of the EAA required an interpretation of the EAA that did not allow the Province to abdicate its decision-making authority. The Court stated the following:

…it cannot be the intention of the legislators to allow the voice of British Columbia to be removed in this process for an unknown number of projects, when the purpose behind the EAA is to promote economic interest in this province, and to protect its land and environment.

For these reasons, the Court held that despite the Agreement or other similar agreements, reviewable projects must obtain a Certificate under the EAA before projects began. Accordingly, the Court held that the Agreement was invalid to the extent that it purported to remove the need for reviewable projects to obtain a Certificate under the EAA. Finally, the Court declared that the Province must exercise its decision-making authority under the EAA in relation to the Project.

The Duty to Consult and Accommodate

The Court also considered whether there was a constitutional obligation on the Province to consult with First Nations before engaging in government action that may adversely affect First Nations’ rights. CFN argued that the Province had a duty to consult with First Nations before entering into the Agreement, as the Agreement allowed the Province to avoid its obligation to make a decision on the Project. Further, CFN argued that the Agreement provided for unilateral termination as it allowed the Province to terminate the Agreement at any time. Therefore the Province would not have been bound by the federal government’s decision if the Province terminated the Agreement prior to the federal government’s decision to approve the Project and completion of an environmental review process would be required.

In response, the Province asserted that no duty to consult arose in relation to entering into or terminating the Agreement for. The Province argued that pursuant to the Agreement the duty is assumed by the federal Crown. Generally, however, the Province took the position that the duty to consult does not arise until “actual foreseeable adverse impacts on an identified treaty or Aboriginal right or claim must flow from the impugned Crown conduct.” The Province’s position was that there must be a direct link between the adverse impacts and the impugned Crown conduct. If adverse impacts are not possible until after a later-in-time, independent decision, then it is that later decision that triggers the duty to consult.
The Court rejected the Province’s argument that the Agreement shifted sole responsibility for the duty to consult and accommodate to Canada, noting that both the federal and provincial Crown owe “specific responsibilities to consult First Nations as their respective legislative powers intersect”. However, the Court held that the Province did not owe a duty to consult prior to entering into the Agreement because there was little possibility that CFN’s rights would be adversely impacted by the Agreement as the Province retained the ability to unilaterally terminate the Agreement.  Nonetheless, the Province did owe CFN a duty to consult and accommodate on the Project and the duty to consult if the Agreement was not terminated.

By way of remedy, the Court ordered the Province to consult with CFN about the potential impacts of the Project on areas of provincial jurisdiction and how such impacts may affect CFN Aboriginal rights and should be addressed.

Implications

While it is unclear whether this decision will be appealed, it does raise a number of interesting questions with respect to the extent that provinces and the federal government may cooperate in EA processes. This decision makes it clear that the province cannot abdicate its duty to consult to the federal Crown in respect of projects that require both federal and provincial approval. As the Northern Gateway Pipeline Process and the Trans Mountain Process are subject to the same equivalency agreement, it is clear that the Province may adopt the NEB’s assessment.  However, it must consult First Nations about the impacts of the project before the Trans Mountain Pipeline can be approved.

The federal government has recently proposed a suite of new requirements for pipelines, including enhanced environmental requirements and First Nation Consultation. These new requirements provide for robust changes to the NEB’s review process and will likely affect the Northern Gateway Pipeline Process and the Trans Mountain Process. BLG will continue to monitor any appeal and follow the federal pipeline regulatory changes.

Download:  AN OPEN LETTER TO THOSE RELIANT ON SALMON

PRINCE RUPERT, BRITISH COLUMBIA (February 12, 2015) – The Coastal First Nations say a recent announcement by Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings Ltd. is misleading because it ignores unanimous opposition among First Nations communities on the BC coast.

“There isn’t a single First Nation on the coast of BC that supports oil exports,” said Art Sterritt, Executive Director of the Coastal First Nations. “There also isn’t anything new in this announcement. Eagle Spirit is bringing forward the same interior First Nations that supported the Enbridge pipeline, and glossing over the fact that opposition among First Nations who oppose heavy oil pipelines is stronger than ever.”

Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings Ltd. President, Calvin Helin, is from Lax Kw’alaams, a First Nation community located North of Prince Rupert whose territory includes the proposed location of the company’s export terminal at Grassy Point. First Nations leader and Mayor of Lax Kw’alaams, Gary Reece, has made it clear in conversations that his community does not support oil exports through its traditional territories.

Lax Kw’alaams Hereditary leadership is also opposed to the proposed pipeline.

“In meetings with Eagle Spirit and publicly, we’ve stated time and again that we don’t want oil to come through our territory,” said Murray Smith, elder and Tribal Speaker of the Hereditary Chiefs of Lax Kw’alaams. “Nothing will change our minds because the chance of losing our ocean resources is very high. We’ve got clam beds, we’ve got salmon passing through. What part of ‘no’ does Eagle Spirit not understand?”

Opponents of the pipeline note the fact the announcement was made in Calgary.

“Until they can stand up in British Columbia and announce that they have the support of First Nations on the coast, their proposal is dead in the water, just like Enbridge’s Northern Gateway,” said Art Sterritt.

Contact Information:

Art Sterritt
Executive Director
Coastal First Nations
604-868-9110

Check it out on Youtube:

Watch for more T-Shirt and sticker campaigns in the upcoming months.  Let’s get the word out that we don’t need tarsands bitumen travelling through our waters. We want healthy salmon, killerwhales and people!

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]

“Andrew Nikiforuk is one of the most astute, relentless and original writers of his generation.”

The Haida Gwaii Arts Council is pleased to host readings by Andrew Nikiforuk this weekend!

Skidegate – Haida Heritage Centre

Friday, May 24 starting at 7.30pm

Old Massett – Youth Centre

Saturday, May 25 starting at 7.30pm

If anyone would like to join Mr. Nikiforuk for dinner at Charters before the Masset reading, please RSVP before Friday: [email protected]