Canadians are confused and troubled by the protests unfolding in British Columbia and across the country in relation to the Wet’suwet’en hereditary leaders’ opposition to the Coastal GasLink pipeline project. We are paying attention now because the protests are, at best, inconvenient, and at worst, economically harmful to all of us. Depending on our political stripes, we point fingers, reflexively, at federal or provincial governments, industry, law enforcement, Indigenous leadership or some combination thereof.
So how to capture the essence of this story in a 500-word blog?
In a word, it is complicated. The conflict is multi-faceted, fueled (forgive the pun) by historical, legal, economic and political factors and varying perspectives on each. And as always, the noise can obscure the facts. For example, the Wet’suwet’en hereditary leaders claim that they had suggested an alternate pipeline route to Coastal GasLink, which was rejected for reasons of cost. If true, that would contradict the notion that the hereditary leadership is opposed to any and all development.
There are also suggestions that environmental activists may be inserting themselves into the mix in ways that advance their agenda, but which may not always be consonant with Indigenous interests and preoccupations. It’s important not to conflate the two points of view; to be clear on who holds the Aboriginal rights and title, who governs the territory, and who speaks for Indigenous peoples impacted by development.
And then there’s the prevailing media narrative that seems to pit elected against hereditary leaders, as though only one cares about the economic opportunity that development can bring. We may find this narrative appealing as it plays to our natural predilection for elected forms of government. But it’s not nearly that simple, because these two forms of government have distinct but overlapping mandates and responsibilities for their lands and their people. Moreover, even hereditary leaders are accountable to their membership.
One thing is sure: in the words of the American coach, Marshall Goldsmith, what got us here won’t get us there. Big policies and legislative change are essential, but insufficient. There is simply no substitute for doing the hard work not only to resolve development conflicts, but to lay the foundation that will prevent them from arising in the first place.
And, just like truth must come before reconciliation, knowledge and understanding must come before solutions. In that spirit I have decided to share a list of thoughtful and informative pieces that have been written in recent days. These articles and interviews capture the challenges and realities of the protests well.
Of course, I have views about all of this – but because this conflict, at its core, relates to fundamental questions around who holds Aboriginal rights and title and who speaks for Indigenous peoples, I prefer to highlight their narratives and points of view.
At the very least, I hope that this latest conflict – which is unlikely to be the last of its kind – proves to be the catalyst for expanding our understanding of the reality in which we find ourselves. In the words of Stephen R. Covey, [S]eek first to understand, and then to be understood.
The legal context:
https://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/index/articles/438.php
The legal/political context:
https://sincmurr.com/2020/02/14/what-will-it-take-to-resolve-bc-pipeline-dispute/
https://globalnews.ca/news/6556211/jody-wilson-raybould-wetsuweten/
The historical context:
The economic and political context:
Thanks Corber. I like your sensitivity to the core of the issue and will be sure to check out the websites you recommend. I’ve been keeping up with this story since it broke, but really have no background on which to even start to have an opinion. So double thanks!
It’s beyond complicated, and won’t be unraveled or resolved easily or quickly, I fear. To be continued…