{"id":81725,"date":"2021-01-26T10:12:00","date_gmt":"2021-01-26T11:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/resourcework2.devstudio.work\/?p=81725"},"modified":"2024-11-11T17:40:12","modified_gmt":"2024-11-11T17:40:12","slug":"will-undrip-hurt-development","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resourcework2.devstudio.work\/?p=81725","title":{"rendered":"Will UNDRIP hurt resource development?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The National Council of Chiefs put a significant question to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: Will Ottawa\u2019s UNDRIP bill get in the way of natural-resource development?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a letter, the chiefs reminded the PM<\/a> why the council was founded \u2014 to “communicate the positive side of resource development while advocating for policies that pave the way for more Indigenous involvement in the industry, as employees, contractors, partners and owners.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Council President Dale Swampy continued: “While the affirmation of Indigenous rights is always welcome, there are implications to this legislation, as currently drafted, that is likely to have negative impacts on the many Indigenous communities that rely on resource development as a source of jobs, business contracts and own source revenues. I do not want to see symbolic gestures of reconciliation come at the expense of food on the table for Indigenous peoples.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then came the cruncher: “However well-intentioned C-15 is, in my discussions with legal experts, industry representatives and investment bankers, introducing another layer of uncertainty and risk to development in Indigenous territories…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“This is because it provides no clarity on who can provide or deny consent on behalf of Indigenous nations \u2013 be it Chief and Council, hereditary Chiefs, or small groups of activists; and implies that a single nation can deny consent \u2013 a veto in practice if not in name \u2013 on large linear projects such as a pipeline, railroad or electric transmission line.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, that recalls the still-unresolved issues and chaos around First Nations support for the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline across northern BC. It will feed natural gas to LNG Canada\u2019s processing and LNG export terminal at Kitimat BC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The elected councils of 20 Nations along the pipeline route have approved the pipeline and have benefit agreements with Coastal GasLink. Those 20 include the elected council of the Wet\u2019suwet\u2019en Nation, which says a large majority of the Nation\u2019s members support the pipeline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enter a group of eight (out of a total of 13) Wet\u2019suwet\u2019en hereditary chiefs. The group of eight men claimed exclusive jurisdiction over unceded Wet\u2019suwet\u2019en territory and said they thus had sole authority to approve or reject the pipeline \u2014 and they do not approve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The claim was accompanied by protests and demonstrations of “support for the Wet\u2019suwet-en” \u2014 and blockades of rail lines and roads \u2014 that were staged as far away as England.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some female hereditary chiefs (and one male hereditary chief) spoke in favour of the line, and the group of eight males then declared the women to be no longer hereditary chiefs. The women promptly replied that the men had no jurisdiction or right to strip them of hereditary titles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enter the federal and BC governments, which in May 2020 began discussions with the group of eight hereditary chiefs, and signed an MOU<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The group of eight hereditary chiefs now say they seek this<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“(An) Affirmation Agreement, affirming what Canada and British Columbia agreed to in the May 14th MOU, namely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n