Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs say an LNG pipeline threatens local wildlife; the Nisg̱a’a Nation sees the potential for economic prosperity
In northwestern British Columbia, where ancient rivers carve their way through towering mountains and forests, a battle is brewing between two neighbouring First Nations over the future of a liquid natural gas pipeline.
The dispute underscores the complexities of Indigenous sovereignty, land rights, and the clash between treaty obligation, environmental stewardship, and economic development pressures.
From their unceded Lax’yip (territory), Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs are challenging Premier David Eby’s push for expansion of liquified natural gas in the province.
The Gitanyow have steadfastly protected their territory, never surrendering it through legal agreement, whether under Crown or Indigenous law. Now, an LNG project, being backed by their Nisg̱a’a Nation neighbours along the Nass River, has put their territorial borders and capacity to safeguard the future of their lands and waters at risk.
The Ksi Lisims LNG floating terminal, slated to be built at the north end of Pearse Island on Nisg̱a’a territory, supplied with natural gas from the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline, and is a partnership between the Nation and a Texas-based LNG company. It poses serious concerns to the hereditary chiefs that are deeply rooted in their commitment to environmental stewardship and Gitanyow Ayookxw (supreme law).
The project will produce 12 million tonnes of LNG annually and is inextricably linked to the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline from B.C.’s northeast, which could, potentially, cut through over 50 kilometres of Gitanyow Lax’yip – that’s four Wilp (House Group) territories.
After decades of shifting the boundaries, a land dispute between the Nisg̱a’a and Gitanyow came to a head with the signing of the Nisg̱a’a Treaty in 2020. Over previous decades, land claimed by the Nisg̱a’a has increased nearly fivefold and has generated a contentious territorial overlap that was factored into borders recognized in the Treaty with the federal government.
The overlap is a stark reminder of the wedge that governments and corporations frequently drive between and through First Nations.
Canada’s first-come-first-served treaty process with First Nations means that the borders the Nisg̱a’a presented, because they got to the negotiating table first, were accepted wholesale by the federal government and written into the document.
The province agreed “to submit to readiness to negotiate a treaty with the Gitanyow Nation on February 1, 1994. Treaty negotiations are lengthy, involving a complex, six-step process.
Gitanyow Wilp sustainability director Tara Marsden says it all comes back to colonialism.
“What they [treaties] all generally have in common is the tactic the government has used to say whoever signs first gets to kind of screw their neighbour over and get a larger pie to work from. It’s been a tactic of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation,” she says.
After decades of intermarriage and friendly relations between the Nations, the Nisg̱a’a Treaty has had serious consequences that include Nisg̱a’a oversight of Gitanyow fisheries and the right to hunt on Gitanyow-Nass territory.
Many First Nations see modern treaties as an opportunity for self-reliance, economic development, and cultural and social security.
Marsden has compassion for the position the Nisg̱a’a find themselves in. “There’s a lot of financial risk with signing a treaty because you take on more responsibility for things like education and health care, and you have to pay for that. So, there’s a lot of pressure and incentive to agree to basically everything,” she said.
And that includes a natural gas pipeline project.
On October 1, the Gitanyow people will have their day in court to challenge that boundary overlap in their Aboriginal Title case Malii vs. The King, but their challenge of the Nisga’a’s environmental assessment review for the Ksi Lisims LNG project has only just begun.
Marsden insists that the two Nation neighbours are friendly — intermarriages have been happening between them well back in historical record. But, Marsden adds, “It’s hard to find common ground when you have different approaches.”
The Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs believe the Nisga’a Treaty was signed under false claims and pretenses. They feel they’ve done the same with the corporate signatories on the Ksi Lisims agreement; Calgary-based Rockies LNG Partnership and Texas-based Western LNG.
In a statement last year, the Chiefs said “The Gitanyow Nation asserts that the Nisg̱a’a Nation rewrote history and the government turned a blind eye, perpetuating a decades-long struggle for justice with the signing of the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement.”
“The Nisg̱a’a greatly expanded their land claim closer to their settlement date so the return of their true traditional territory would be larger,” says Simogyet (Hereditary Chief) Malii.
“Government and Nisg̱a’a benefit from Gitanyow’s ancestral lands while the consequences of disregarding traditional laws and rights have had long-lasting effects that we have felt for generations. This cannot continue, this perceived overlap must be resolved.”
Marsden fears that the proposed Ksi Lisims LNG project imperils their ancestral lands and will exacerbate the global climate crisis.
The Gitanyow will argue in court that any treaty-making process should take direction from the Supreme Court of Canada Tŝilhqot’in Aboriginal title case by implementing the test for title in order to substantiate boundaries, and that territorial overlaps must be resolved prior to entering into treaty negotiations.
On the proof of occupancy and Aboriginal title around the landmark Delgamuukw v. British Columbia case, the Gitksan argued that Aboriginal title need not rely entirely on proof of continuous occupation but rather, “may also be established, at least in part, by reference to Aboriginal law.”
The power, authority and land holdings of Gitanyow Lax’yip (Territory) cannot be separated and remain with rightfully inherited Gitanyow Chief name holders and Git’mgan (Totem Poles). The Gitanyow Lax’yip (territory) spans roughly 6,200 square kilometers across the Nass and Skeena River Watersheds.
In Gitanyow law, lands are tied to inherited names. Stealing a name is the equivalent to stealing land. One of the additional layers of the boundary dispute stems from an alleged claim made by a Gitanyow Wilp member residing in Nisga’a Nation who recently declared himself Gitanyow Hereditary Chief Wii Litsxw. In the 1999 case, Luuxhon v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly recognizes Morris Derrick as Wilitsque (Wii Litsxw). Wii Litsxw, according to Gitanyow Ayookxw, lawfully passed his name to his nephew in 2012. Wii Litsxw’s territory is the largest of all the hereditary name carriers in Gitanyow.
These name-based land claims will be contested in court on October 1. Further, the Gitanyow Chiefs have called on the province to review the 70 page report and submissions from organizations including the David Suzuki Foundation the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, and the Wilderness Committee to the BC Environmental Assessment Office, that either raised concerns or were outright opposed to the project.
In January, Supreme Court Justice Stephens rejected the Nisg̱a’a Nation’s request to be included as a defendant in the Aboriginal title case brought by the Gitanyow on the basis that they were not challenging the Nisg̱a’a Treaty itself. The Nisg̱a’a are appealing that decision in June.
Then, in February, Gitanyow wrote to Ksi Lisims LNG corporate leadership outlining concerns about the project’s impacts, including on local salmon populations.
The Hereditary Chiefs challenged the company to provide evidence that it could keep its greenhouse gas reduction promises.
“To claim their project will reduce carbon emissions is simply not credible,” Chief Simogyet Malii said.
“The implications of the Ksi Lisims project for increasing drought, wildfires, and glacial recession within Gitanyow’s traditional territory and globally are alarming. If Ksi Lisims LNG is dedicated to reducing climate impacts and GHG emissions, Gitanyow challenges the proponents to provide all evidence to support their claims.”
The Chiefs are also calling for an immediate pause on the project to allow time for review by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office, adding that studies must be completed before advancing the project further.
The dispute over land and the Nisg̱a’a Ksi Lisims environmental impact agreement may ultimately come down to good-faith negotiations between neighbours.
“We’re asking for evidence this is actually going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally,” says Marsden. “This is not, nor has it ever been about people opposing one another, it’s about different approaches at the leadership level.”
Read the original article by Sidney Coles on Ricochet website.