Controversy
The project is opposed by the hereditary chiefs of the Wetʼsuwetʼen, some other First Nations, and environmental activists.[16]
Hereditary chiefs claim jurisdiction over and responsibility to protect traditional Wetʼsuwetʼen territory. They said in 2020 that the jurisdiction of elected band councils, established under the Indian Act, is limited to their reserves.[17][18]
The Wetʼsuwetʼen people were traditionally governed only by hereditary chiefs. However, the Indian Act created another form of governance: the elected band councils. Environmental scholar Avital Meira van Meijeren Karp said that “the Wet’suwet’en First Nation has the elected chief and council which is the colonial governance system that approved the CGL pipeline, a key distinction in this case”.[2] Though the elected band councils agreed to the CGL pipeline construction, the hereditary chiefs opposed the project. The hereditary chiefs said that Wet'suwet'en territory was never ceded to the federal government and that not all Wet'suwet'en people are governed by the decisions made by the elected chiefs and councils created under the Indian Act.[19]
The hereditary chiefs said that 22000 km2 of Wetʼsuwetʼen territory was never ceded to the Government of Canada.[20] When this took place, British Columbia was still a colony, and it did not enter into treaties with the Wetʼsuwetʼen people before joining Canada. Therefore, the chiefs claim that aboriginal title over the Wetʼsuwetʼen peoples' traditional land has not been extinguished. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed hereditary chiefs' land claims in the 1997 Delgamuukw v British Columbia decision, which affirmed Aboriginal title rights and recognized that the Wet'suwet'en have a system of laws that predates colonialism.[19]
Hereditary chief Freda Huson, an organizer of the Unist'ot'en Camp, a protest camp and indigenous healing centre in northern BC, said in 2019 that "Without our land, we aren't who we are. The land is us and we are the land," and also that the energy industry wanted to, "take, take, take. And they aren't taking no for an answer."
Some Wet’suwet’en people have taken a stance against the CGL pipeline project due to environmental and cultural concerns. The Wet’suwet’en rely on their land for food, water, and to support their way of life and relationship with the land.[2] Huson said, “Our people’s belief is that we are part of the land. The land is not separate from us. The land sustains us. And if we don’t take care of her, she won’t be able to sustain us, and we as a generation of people will die”.[2] The CGL pipeline's potential for creating problems around water use, chemical leakages, greenhouse gas emissions, and other impacts on climate change and public health are concerns for the Unist’ot’en Camp.[2] Further, Indigenous groups are increasingly more vulnerable to climate change and are disproportionately affected by its impacts.[2]
Spokesperson for the hereditary chiefs, Chief Na'Moks, said, “We need them [CGL] to understand that what they are doing is destroying our lands, our ecological sites, our burial sites…They have no comprehension of how important it is to our people".[19] According to environmental and Indigenous Studies scholar Kerstin Reibold, many Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs opposed the CGL pipeline project construction as it destroyed traditional Wet’suwet’en cultural sites that were vital to the cultural longevity of their communities.[21]
Others oppose the pipeline on environmental grounds. The CGL project is expected to increase British Columbia's carbon footprint by 8 to 9 megatons. This number is predicted to stop the province from achieving their climate goals.[2] "When burned, this natural gas (transported through the completed pipeline) is equivalent 585.5 million pounds of a day...13 percent of Canada's daily greenhouse gas emissions in 2017."[22] In 2018, environmental activist Michael Sawyer challenged the approval of the pipeline, filing a formal application to require the federal National Energy Board to do a full review. The NEB ruled that the project fell under the jurisdiction of British Columbia, and its British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission.[23] The pipeline also may have an impact on Wetʼsuwetʼen waterways. Sleydo' Molly Wickham, a Gidimt'en clan chief said in 2021, "You could swim in that lake and just open your mouth and drink the water, it's so pristine, and the river is so clear that you can see these very deep spawning beds that the salmon have been returning to for thousands of years."[24] Outside the pipeline itself, construction activities near and around waterways like blasting and riprap armouring could harm the fish population.[25]
According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the CGL pipeline project also affects human and non-human lives. The project had been issued over 50 warnings of repeated non-compliance violations and was flagged for multiple infractions on environmental regulation.[26] British Columbia's Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) found that the CGL pipeline project was responsible for the release of pollution into Fraser Lake.[26] The BCEAO said that a release of water towards Fraser Lake created a plume of sediment in the water that could be seen from the air. Fraser Lake is home to 1,000 people and is a critical habitat for endangered white sturgeon and trumpeter swans.[27] Coastal GasLink's 670-kilometre pipeline crossed 625 fish-bearing streams, creeks, rivers and lakes.[27] The CGL pipeline project has been issued warnings due to its failure to protect sensitive waterway and wetlands from sediment erosion. This erosion harms fish habitats, water quality, and people who depend on these waterways for survival. According to CBC journalist Betsy Trumpener, the Coastal GasLink pipelines repeated non-compliance offences are a violation of the project's environmental assessment certificate.[27]
Some indigenous organizations support the pipeline. The First Nations Liquefied Natural Gas Alliance objected to BC and UN human rights officials who called for a stop to pipeline construction, saying that these officials did not consult indigenous groups supportive of the pipeline before issuing their statements. The First Nations LNG alliance pointed to opportunities for indigenous contracting and "extensive" consultation with indigenous people.[28] Crystal Smith, chief counsellor of the Haisla Nation, which had signed an agreement to allow the pipeline to pass through its traditional land, said in 2020 that "First Nations have been left out of resource development for too long...But we are involved, we have been consulted and we will ensure there are benefits for all First Nations."[29] Victor Jim, an elected chief of the Wetʼsuwetʼen, also signed off on the benefits deal. On February 19, 2020, 200 members of the Wetʼsuwetʼen community attended a meeting in Houston organized by the pro-pipeline North Matters group. Robert Skin, a councillor with the Skin Tyee First Nation, said the project "will look after our children and our children's children." He was critical of the protesters: "They want to stand up with their fists in the air, but I say come and listen to us and get the other side of the story before you go out there and stop traffic and stop the railroad."[30] According to Paul Manly, Green Member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the elected councils had not "consented" but merely "conceded", to the project, seen as inevitable.[29]
The project and the protests exposed divisions within the Wetʼsuwetʼen and Mohawk First Nations. The hereditary chiefs of the Wetʼsuwetʼen opposed the project, while the elected band councils supported it, leading to a call for "a cohesive voice". The railway blockade by the Tyendinaga Mohawks in February 2020 was not organized by the band leadership, while the Haudenosaunee Confederacy external relations committee issued a statement condemning the "RCMP invasion".[31] The hereditary chiefs travelled to the various Mohawk communities to give thanks for their support but met with a third organization, the Mohawk Nation, a separate form of government comprising the various Mohawk communities in Canada and the United States. Grand Chief Serge Otsi Simon of the Kanesatake Mohawk First Nation called on protesters to end the railway blockades as a show of good faith. "Bringing down the blockades doesn't mean that you surrender. It doesn't mean we're going to lay down and let them kick us around. No, it would show compassion. I'm simply pleading with the protesters ... Have you made your point yet? Has the government and industry understood? I think they did." The next day, Simon disavowed his comments after reserve residents barred him from the band council office.[31] Columnist John Ivison suggested that the situation highlighted a need to move on a legislative framework for restructuring authority between the elected councils mandated by the Indian Act and traditional hereditary governments.[32]
