Enbridge opponents blockade Gitxsan treaty office
CBC News, Dec 7, 2011
Opponents of the controversial $5.5-billion Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project are blockading the Gitxsan
First Nation treaty office in downtown Hazelton in northwestern B.C. to protest the deal negotiators signed with the oil giant last week.
- Members of Gitxsan Wolf clan blockade treaty office, Dec. 2011
On Friday, chief negotiator Elmer Derrick and Enbridge jointly announced the deal, saying the Gitxsan hereditary chiefs backed the project.
Community hearings
But several chiefs have now come forward, saying the deal was not sanctioned by the Gitxsan people and traditional protocols were not followed by the negotiators.
The Gitxsan have dozens of hereditary chiefs, some of whom support the Enbridge project and some who are opposed, and the issue of who has the authority to negotiate with Enbridge has become a stumbling block.
Dan Younks is part of the small contingent of Gitxsan members blocking employees from entering the treaty office.
“It’s been peaceful. [We have] a lot of support from the people,” Younks said.
He said the blockade was ordered by Gitxsan hereditary chiefs, and protesters plan to stay as long as necessary.
‘Unsettled and angry’
The blockade leaves Gitxsan negotiator Beverly Clifton-Percival afraid to leave her home.
“There was a public mob outside our office. [I’m] very unsettled and angry.”
The protest comes after Lawrence Patsey, a hereditary chief with the Fireweed clan, told CBC News on Monday the two chief negotiators and executive director behind the Enbridge deal had been fired.
The hereditary chiefs say it’s not clear how they can get out of the Enbridge deal, but say they will fight to rescind it.
Community hearings scheduled
Meanwhile, dates have been released for the Joint Review Panel hearings into the Northern Gateway pipeline that will assess the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and review its application under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act.
The meetings start in Kitimat, B.C., on Jan. 10 and wrap up in Prince George on Jan. 18. Other meetings are already scheduled from Alberta to Prince Rupert, B.C.
The schedule for the remaining locations will be released once the venues have been confirmed.
During the community hearings, the Joint Review Panel will hear oral evidence from registered interveners first.
The panel expects to release the environmental assessment in the fall of 2013. A final decision on the pipeline is expected at the end of 2013.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/12/07/bc-enbridge-gitxsan-blockade.html
Posted on December 8, 2011, in Defending Territory, Oil & Gas and tagged Enbridge pipeline, Gitxsan, Indigenous resistance, native resistance, oil and gas pipelines+Indigenous resistance. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.
Warrior Publications 
Gitxsan shut it down. Woot warriors unite……
I support the resistance of the development here. The hearing sound as if they are being held in a piece -meal fashion. This may be necessary but PLEASE ENSURE that information is effectively and properly compiled. Video recording will be needed. There will have to be an auditor sent by the AFN and the regions. These meetings are often used to spread disinformation and to make guarantees which don’t make it to the final agreement. Submission for consideration of all presentation materials by the Gov’t and the companies should be submitted prior to the meeting.
Public hearing can be effective with preliminary work. When it is not done some people shout others down or interrupt and their submissions are not heard due to a disorganization and poor prior information. Representatives which have been properly selected can do previews and informing others is going to require wider press releases. Summaries of each of the previous meeting must be reviewed to support the needs of those concerned. Development must be responsible and safe and SUSTAINABLE.
Community concerns such as security, employment, liason and interpreter services must be in place as well for meaningful ongoing participation and relationships to be assured as the project advances. Monitoring systems can then be in place with observers, inspectors and technicians. Agreements may have to be negotiated covering the contingencies supported by information from past developments. Advancement is the target with community standards upheld and environmental concerns addressed. There may have to be a much larger insurance commitment in a set aside, and clean-up plan along with the preventative work and maintainence. If a decision is reached to permit crossings community safety is good planning…
Has there been a call for submissions with objectors and supporters providing reviewable data for their positions. Who has been selected for the review panels in each area? Infrastructure support will be necessary as well has a Gov’t official created any plan for road and access…
This is a program of slow annihilation without effective programs of inclusion. Any project that goes ahead with this sort of agreement in principle has been done on a poor business model and should be re-evaluated for it’s efficacy. There is a First nations first policy in employment and services. We must make sure that temporary workers without family and no commitment to our lands be addressed as a precaution. These issues can create a fiasco for Canada. The west has seen this type of development before… Labor issues will be a sweeping problem if they are not planned efficiently and in long range. Have the effected Unions been consulted? A quick start shut down model has been in place and as many as 500 employees temporarily employed leaving a huge footprint and moving on to the next site. The mobile work force makes for non-sustainable works and less quality assurance. Scattered access to employment and lowered standards have marked the forward movement creating a local as well as provincial boom and bust cycle. We can flatten this out and make this effective community development at an efficient pace.
We can do business here, but not at the cost of our future or the future of the planet. ( Downstream and upstream costs, benefits and development has to be planned and co-ordinated for sustainability.)
Regards,
Anne Fox