Gitxsan First Nation Chiefs Prohibit Pipelines in Territory, Canada

Description
In June, 2014 Gitxsan chiefs unanimously announced that they would discontinue discussions on all pipeline development on Gitxsan lands, due to the Crown illegally giving Gitxsan land to Tsimshian First Nation. The Gitxsan Nation claims strong prima facie rights and title to these territories since contact was made in 1846 [2, 10]
See more...
Basic Data
NameGitxsan First Nation Chiefs Prohibit Pipelines in Territory, Canada
CountryCanada
ProvinceBritish Columbia
SiteGitxsan territory, some near Hazelton
Accuracy of LocationHIGH local level
Source of Conflict
Type of Conflict (1st level)Fossil Fuels and Climate Justice/Energy
Type of Conflict (2nd level)Oil and gas exploration and extraction
Oil and gas refining
Transport infrastructure networks (roads, railways, hydroways, canals and pipelines)
Shale gas fracking
Specific CommoditiesLand
Natural Gas
Project Details and Actors
Project Details
Print Rupert Gas Transmission project details:
See more...
Project Area (in hectares)33,000 sq. km (Gitxsan territory)
Level of Investment (in USD)5,000,000,000
Type of PopulationRural
Potential Affected Population5,000-60,000
Start Date01/09/2012
Company Names or State EnterprisesTransCanada Corp. from Canada - Owner/builder of proposed Prince Rupert Natural Gas Pipeline
Pacific NorthWest LNG from Canada - This facility would be the end destination of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project.
Progress Energy Canada Ltd. from Canada - Produces the gas that would go through the pipeline
PETRONAS from Malaysia - Progress Energy Canada, the producer of the gas, is a wholly owned subsidiary of PETRONAS. Pacific NorthWest LNG is majority owned by PETRONAS.
Relevant government actorsCanadian government; British Columbia provincial government; Gitxsan authorities; Gitxsan Treaty Society; Tsimshian First Nation; B.C. Treaty Commission and Crowns
Environmental justice organisations and other supportersThe Council of Canadians; The 'JLS' Report

The Conflict and the Mobilization
Intensity of Conflict (at highest level)LOW (some local organising)
When did the mobilization beginPREVENTIVE resistance (precautionary phase)
Groups MobilizingFishermen
Indigenous groups or traditional communities
Local government/political parties
Neighbours/citizens/communities
Ethnically/racially discriminated groups
Forms of MobilizationBlockades
Lawsuits, court cases, judicial activism
Official complaint letters and petitions
Appeals/recourse to economic valuation of the environment
Issuing of eviction notices asking companies to leave their territory
Impacts
Environmental ImpactsPotential: Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Noise pollution, Soil erosion, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Groundwater pollution or depletion, Large-scale disturbance of hydro and geological systems, Other Environmental impacts
Othernatural gas spills, negative impact on juvenile salmon population at site of proposed liquefaction and export facility
Health ImpactsPotential: Accidents, Exposure to unknown or uncertain complex risks (radiation, etc…), Mental problems including stress, depression and suicide, Occupational disease and accidents, Deaths, Other environmental related diseases
Socio-economic ImpactsPotential: Increase in Corruption/Co-optation of different actors, Displacement, Increase in violence and crime, Lack of work security, labour absenteeism, firings, unemployment, Loss of livelihood, Loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures, Militarization and increased police presence, Social problems (alcoholism, prostitution, etc..), Specific impacts on women, Violations of human rights, Land dispossession, Loss of landscape/sense of place
Outcome
Project StatusPlanned (decision to go ahead eg EIA undertaken, etc)
Pathways for conflict outcome / responseUnder negotiation
Pending
Development of AlternativesCanada's Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favour of the Tsilhqot'in Nation on June 26th, 2014, "recognizing Aboriginal title for the first time in Canadian history". The ruling applied to the territory of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation, which is one community out of six within the Tsilhqot'in Nation. Following the ruling, Tsilhqot'in Nation Chiefs and B.C. Premier Christy Clark signed a Letter of Understanding to commit to a just reconciliation. The letter also provides a foundation for longer term negotiations. One part of the letter specifically focuses on "initiatives that explore economic opportunities, and improve the health, education and socio-economic well-being of the Tsilhqot'in people". (8) Though the Gitxsan Nation was not involved in this case, the ruling provides precedent for other First Nations in similar circumstances and could open doors to alternatives to pipeline development in First Nations' territories. Gwaans Negotiator for Gitxsan Hereditary Cheifs, Beverly Clifton Percival, stated that the Tsilhqot'in ruling signifies that "For the Gitxsan it means the Crown Canada and B.C. must immediately withdraw the illegal offer of Gitxsan Lands in the neighbouring treaty offers." She also said that the ruling "has huge implications on resource development in the Province and Canada". (9)
Do you consider this as a success?Not Sure
Why? Explain briefly.Though Gitxsan chiefs have issued strong and non-negotiable statements regarding their territory, time will tell if the Canadian government and corporations involved will illegally continue with the project or not.
Sources and Materials
Legislations

Section 35 of the constitution act related to Aboriginal and
treaty rights
[click to view]

Delgamuukw Supreme Court decision mandating that Gitxsan hereditary house chiefs be consulted about impacts to their lands
[click to view]

References

(1) Article: 'Gitxsan Chiefs bar natural gas projects from territory near Hazelton, BC'
[click to view]

(2) Article: Gitxsan discontinue discussions on all LNG pipelines
[click to view]

(3) Pacific NorthWest LNG site that explains ownership by PETRONAS
[click to view]

(4) Progress Energy site that explains ownership by PETRONAS
[click to view]

(5) Pacific NorthWest LNG website press release about Prince Rupert Gas Pipeline
[click to view]

(6) Progress Energy website description of fracking
[click to view]

(7) Government Report on Shale Gas activity, pg. 11 on Montney Play
[click to view]

(9) Press release from Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs regarding the Supreme Court ruling on Tsilhqot'in territory and its significance for the Gitxsan Nation
[click to view]

(10) Gitxsan website press release regarding discontinuation of LNG pipeline discussions
[click to view]

(8) Press release regarding the Supreme Court ruling on Tsilhqot'in territory
[click to view]

(11) Blog criticizing the Canadian government's use of money to gain support for pipeline
[click to view]

(12) Article describing controversy around faked Gitxsan chief signatures in support of LNG pipeline
[click to view]

Links

Pacific NorthWest LNG site
[click to view]

Gitxsan First Nation website
[click to view]

Blog post on resistance to LNG pipeline development in B.C.
[click to view]

Media Links

Flashmob in TransCanada open house (video)
[click to view]

Camp Madii Lii, Gitxsan Nation - LNG PROHIBITED (video)
[click to view]

Other Documents

Resistance to pipeline in Madii Lii Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs block LNG personnel from territory (http://canadians.org/blog/lng-pipedreams-fractured-futures-and-community-resistance)
[click to view]

Direct action against LNG Prince Rupert pipeline in Hazelton, B.C. Residents of Hazelton, B.C. stage a direct action protest against pipeline development in their area (http://canadians.org/blog/lng-pipedreams-fractured-futures-and-community-resistance)
[click to view]

LNG Pipeline blockade in Luutkudziiwus territory House of Luutkudziiwus blocks road to LNG pipeline development (http://westcoastnativenews.com/breaking-prince-rupert-gas-transmission-project-being-blocked-on-gitxsan-first-nation/)
[click to view]

Meta Information
ContributorLena Weber, Lund University Department of Human Geography, Human Ecology Division
Last update01/10/2014
Comments