"OTTAWA — The power struggle between B.C. First Nations and the federal government over resource development in the B.C’s North escalated this week with both sides issuing public statements about who has the final say over major projects.Tensions have been high since a Supreme Court of Canada decision in June ruled the Crown can only infringe on an aboriginal or treaty rights if it meets a tough test aimed at reconciling those rights with the broader public interest.
The court ruling, which stressed the need for consent, has triggered lawsuits from First Nations challenging numerous proposed economic development projects.
A delegation of B.C. First Nations leaders travelled to Ottawa this week to warn the federal government not to approve the Site C hydroelectric project in northeastern B.C. They said the provincial and federal governments would have to choose between Site C and the liquefied natural gas developments that affect the Peace River in northeastern B.C.
Chief Roland Willson of the West Moberly First Nation said his people, who would be affected by Site C, are not opposed to resource development. But multiple developments would be too much.
“I’ve said you can’t have both,’’ Willson said told The Canadian Press. “If you want to push Site C, we’re not going to be in favour of any LNG projects, any of the pipeline projects up there. We don’t want to be there but if that’s the case, we don’t have any other choice.’’
The government of Prime Minister Harper has been at the United Nations this week for discussions on global security. But it took the opportunity to tell the world that Harper believes aboriginal people do not have a “veto” over development.
The UN assembly adopted a “consensus outcome document” Monday, which essentially reiterated a 2007 declaration, stating that governments must obtain “free, prior and informed consent” before adopting administrative or legislative measures that might affect indigenous peoples.
The Harper government appears to consider consent in that mean veto. But First Nations leaders said they do not have a veto but that the UN document, like the June Supreme Court of Canada ruling, means government must consult with native governments and seek their consent. Only after that process, if an agreement has not been reached, can Ottawa go on to make the argument that public interest trumps aboriginal rights,
The Harper government adopted the 2007 UN declaration in 2010 but stated publicly that it was an “aspirational” document and that “free, prior and informed consent” shouldn’t be interpreted as a “veto” on development.
On Monday, the Canadian government issued a similar caveat, saying that the new “outcome document” again contained wording on “free, prior and informed consent” that could be “interpreted as providing a veto to aboriginal groups and in that regard, cannot be reconciled with Canadian law.”
Canada was the only member state at the UN General Assembly gathering Monday to object to the UN document.
Aboriginal leaders accused the federal government of misinterpreting the UN declaration and disregarding the Supreme Court of Canada decision involving B.C. Tsilhqot’in First Nation.
Grand Chief Ed John said the Canadian position was an “inflammatory” move aimed at implying that “consent” means “veto.” Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, said the government is “thumbing its nose” at Canada’s highest court."
First Nations ultimatum: Site C dam or LNG, but not both:
