Balancing the Canoe is a reflection and statement of accountability from Sierra Club BC, part of our process to better understand the historical and ongoing impact of our work as experienced by Indigenous peoples.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 23, 2019
Members of the Clayoquot Sound Conservation Alliance (CSCA) are congratulating the Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations for securing a key federal commitment to advance their land-use visions in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, which will conserve the remaining ecologically-rare old growth forests in this iconic region.
Earlier this week, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna announced that the federal government is committing to partner with the two Nations on land-use visions for their territories. This commitment includes funding through the Natural Heritage Conservation Program and will safeguard the remaining old-growth forests in Clayoquot Sound.
The Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht Nations, along with Nature United, put forward an inspiring and innovative proposal to achieve long term community well-being and ecological integrity in their territories and result in a lasting conservation solution for one of the most iconic rainforest regions of the world. The proposal is part of the Nations’ broader plans for economic, social, and ecological well-being — safeguarding the ecologically intact temperate rainforest valleys of Clayoquot Sound is a key part of that vision.
The members of the Clayoquot Sound Conservation Alliance – Canopy, Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Greenpeace, Sierra Club BC, Stand.earth and Wilderness Committee – fully support the Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations’ visions. The federal announcement is an important step toward making the conservation of Clayoquot Sound’s globally rare old-growth rainforests a reality. We commend the federal government for their commitment to partner with the Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht Nations on this vision for a sustainable future, and encourage all levels of government to fully support Indigenous-led conservation initiatives.
We look forward to hearing more details from both the federal and provincial governments about the scope and scale of their support for this work to safeguard Clayoquot Sound.
For more information, please contact:
Lee-Ann Unger, Corporate Campaigner, Canopy (604) 874-5049
Jeh Custerra, Campaigner, Friends of Clayoquot Sound (250) 725-4218
Eduardo Sousa, Senior Campaigner, Greenpeace Canada (778) 378-9955
Tegan Hansen, Forest Campaigner, Stand.earth (250) 354-3302
Joe Foy, Co-Executive Director, Wilderness Committee (604) 880-2580
Over this past week, there has been an explosion of media coverage about Indigenous rights and title as a result of the RCMP raid of both the Gitdumden and Unist’ot’en camps. On Tuesday January 8, tens of thousands of people showed up to solidarity events held in cities and towns across Canada to denounce the use of police force against Wet’suwet’en people asserting their rights on their own unceded territory. Sierra Club BC stands in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en people as they assert their jurisdiction over their unceded lands and waters (read our statement here).
In a statement released yesterday, hereditary Wet’suwet’en chiefs stated that in order to avoid violence they have reached an agreement temporarily allowing Coastal GasLink employees to work behind the checkpoint, but that the pipeline will never be built on their territory. These chiefs are asking people around the world to support them in their ongoing struggle to assert their rights and title and protect their lands and waters.
A number of our membership, wanting to better understand the situation, have reached out to us to ask questions. We’ve begun to answer these to the best of our ability below (and we’ve created a tool where you can write a letter of support). We also encourage people to keep doing their own research. The Office of the Wet’suwet’en provides detailed information on the nation’s hereditary chiefs and governance system. For analysis of Indigenous legal orders and hereditary governance systems more broadly, we recommend you check out the Indigenous Law Research Unit at the University of Victoria which hosts a wealth of resources on their website.
Who are the Unist’ot’en?
The Unist’ot’en (C’ihlts’ehkhyu / Big Frog Clan) are one of five clans of the Wet’suwet’en Nation. Wet’suwet’en territory spans 22,000 square km in northwest BC west of Smithers. It has never been ceded or surrendered by the Wet’suwet’en people, who have occupied their territory for millennia.
The Unist’ot’en checkpoint was established on April 1, 2009. Since then a cabin, healing lodge and pit house have been constructed, as well as a bunkhouse for visitors. The camp is used year-round for healing retreats, culture camps and living. The gated entrance to the camp is on a forest service road about 120 km southwest of Smithers at the Morice River Bridge. Coastal GasLink proposes to build a natural gas pipeline to cross the bridge. The 670 kilometre pipeline project would link the fracking fields of Northeastern BC with a huge liquid gas export terminal in Kitimat. Called LNG Canada, this project is made up of oil and gas companies from China, Japan, Korea and Malaysia, along with Royal Dutch Shell.
Under the Wet’suwet’en hereditary governance system, the Unist’ot’en House Chiefs from the clan have full decision making power (in consultation with their House members) over the lands and waters on their territory. The Unist’ot’en chiefs have not given their consent for the pipelines to go through their territory and say that they never will.
Coastal GasLink applied for an injunction in November 2018 in order to gain access for its workers to cross the checkpoint to start clearing the pipeline route. The BC Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction in December, prohibiting anyone from blocking the bridge, as well as ordering the checkpoint to be dismantled within 72 hours. The Unist’tot’en have refused to dismantle their checkpoint. However, following the destruction of property and arrests at Gitdumden by RCMP earlier this week, the Unist’ot’en are temporarily allowing Coastal Gas behind the checkpoint to work.
Who are Gitdumden?
The Gitdumden are another of the five Wet’suwet’en clans, and they neighbor Unist’ot’en. When the Unist’ot’en camp declined to take down their checkpoint, a decision was made in the feast hall by all Wet’suwet’en leadership that the second Gitdumden checkpoint would be established. The BC Supreme Court injunction was expanded on January 4 to include the Gitdumden checkpoint as well. On the afternoon of Monday January 7, police broke down a wooden gate and arrested 14 people at the Gitdumden Checkpoint. All of these individuals have now been released, and a number of them have been charged with court dates pending.
How does the hereditary governance system of the Wet’suwet’en people function?
The Wet’suwet’en peoples have occupied their territory for thousands of years and have a complex and sophisticated governance system. Just as Canadian law takes years of study and learn, so too does Wet’suwet’en law.
Indigenous legal scholar John Borrows has provided the following overview, “For millennia, their histories have recorded their organization into Houses and Clans, in which hereditary chiefs have been responsible for the allocation, administration and control of their traditional lands. Within these Houses, chiefs pass on important histories, songs, crests, lands, ranks and properties from one generation to the next. The passage of these legal, political, social and economic entitlements is witnessed through Feasts. These Feasts substantiate the territories’ relationships. A hosting House serves food, distributes gifts, announces the House’s successors to the names of deceased chiefs, describes the territory, raises totem poles and tells the oral history of the House. Chiefs from other Houses witness the actions of the Feast and at the end of the proceedings they validate the decisions and declarations of the Host House.” 
All of the hereditary leaders from all of the five clans have withheld consent for new pipeline construction across Wet’suwet’en territories.
What is the formal relationship of the hereditary governance system of the Wet’suwet’en people to the elected band council system?
In a press conference yesterday, Premier John Horgan referred to the challenge of bringing together the “historic band councils” with the “emerging” hereditary systems of governance. In fact, the relationship is reversed. While the hereditary system has existed for millennia and precedes European arrival on the continent, the Band council system was introduced by the federal government in 1876 and imposed on Indigenous Nations through the Indian Act, as part of a post-Confederation assimilation policy.
As it is currently structured, each reserve community within a territory has an election for Chief and Council every few years. The elected Chief and Council under the Indian Act are primarily responsible for things that happen on reserves like water, housing, schools, infrastructure and other issues that affect membership. There are five elected band councils on Wet’suwet’en territory, four of whom have signed agreements with Coastal Gaslink. However, hereditary leaders say those agreements don’t apply to the territories off reserve.
The imposition of the Indian Act band council system over top of hereditary systems has created ongoing tensions in many communities.
The CBC’s Angela Sterritt has written an excellent piece on the differences between elected and hereditary leadership.
What is the relevance of the Delgamuukw decision in relation to the Wet’suwet’en?
Many Canadians have heard of the important 1997 Delgamuukw decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which recognized that Aboriginal title continues to exist over land and water where Indigenous nations have never signed a treaty with the Crown. The territory referred to in the court decision is Wet’suwet’en territory as well as neighboring Gitxsan territory.
The Delgamuukw case was framed around traditional hereditary leadership. Delgamuukw is a chief’s name in the Gitxsan Nation, passed down through generations, and Delgamuukw was one of dozens of plaintiffs in the case, composed of hereditary chiefs from both the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en Nations. Together those leaders forced the Canadian courts to affirm the legitimacy of their oral histories, traditional laws and continuing governance of their lands.
Peter Grant, the lawyer for the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs has stated that hereditary chiefs need to give their free, prior and informed consent in order for the pipeline to be built: “We agree the rule of law has to apply, but doesn’t that mean that when there’s recognition of the proper title holder you deal with the proper title holder?”
On January 9, Unist’ot’en Camp released a statement on the emerging situation, saying “We paved the way with the Delgamuukw court case and the time has come for Delgamuukw II. We have never had the financial resources to challenge the colonial court system, due to the enormous price tag of an Aboriginal title case. Who will stand with us to make sure this pipeline does not go through?”
What is the relevance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to this conflict?
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) represents the basic principles and minimum standards that should guide states in their dealings with Indigenous peoples.[i] Canada became a full signatory (removing previous objections) to UNDRIP in 2016, and both the federal and BC provincial governments have committed to full implementation of UNDRIP. The Canadian government defines UNDRIP as a document that describes both individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples around the world.[ii]
A number of articles of UNDRIP are relevant to this conflict, in particular Article 10 which states: “Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.”[iii]
So what does all of this mean?
At the heart of this conflict is conflicting perspectives over who holds the ultimate jurisdiction for decisions made about resources. While much of the media is framing this as a “pipeline protest” the Wet’suwet’en hereditary leadership view this as exercising their legal right to assert their authority to control what occurs on their territory.
The Wet’suwet’en leadership are getting ready to launch another title case to protect their territory and assert their jurisdiction. They have launched a fundraising page to support this future legal challenge.
We hope this clarifies the complex nature of what at first might appear to simply be opposition to a pipeline, but is in fact, a much more complex case of who holds authority and how natural resources are managed on unceded territories.
What can I do to support?
Donate to the Unist’ot’en Camp Legal Fund to support the Wet’suwet’en rights and title case.
Donate to the Office of the Wet’suwet’en by mailing a cheque to: 205 Beaver Road, Suite #1 Smithers B.C. V0J 2N1 (We will provide updates if/when other ways of donating become available).
Host a solidarity event: See the International Solidarity with Wet’suwet’en event page.
Send a letter to Premier Horgan and Prime Minister Trudeau using our online letter tool.
Call provincial and federal ministers:
BC Premier John Horgan (250) 387-1715
Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Scott Fraser (250) 953-4844
Attorney General David Eby (250) 387-1866
MLA for Stikine (Wet’suwet’en territory) and Forests Minister Doug Donaldson (250) 387-6240
Energy Minister Michelle Mungall (250) 953-0900
Your local MLA and MP
Prime Minister Trudeau (613) 992-4211
Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Carolyn Bennett (613) 995-9666
Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould (613) 992-1416
Follow news updates on the ongoing situation in Wet’suwet’en territory:
Unist’ot’en Camp @UnistotenCamp unistoten.camp
Gidimt’en Checkpoint @gidimt
Chantelle Bellrichard @pieglue (Indigenous journalist onsite)
Michael Toledano @M_tol (Photographer/journalist onsite)
Amber Bracken @photobracken (Photographer/journalist onsite)
Jesse Winter @jwints (Journalist onsite)
Harsha Walia @HarshaWalia (Ally)
#WetsuwetenStrong #Wetsuweten #Unistoten #UnistotenCamp
Indigenous sources of news, commentary and information on Indigenous issues, rights and title:
Union of BC Indian Chiefs @UBCIC ubcic.bc.ca
Yellowhead Institute @yellowhead_institute (Indigenous think tank) yellowheadinstitute.org
Indigenous Law Research Unit @ilruuvic website
Aboriginal Peoples Television Network @APTN aptn.ca
Walking Eagle @TheEagleist (Indigenous satire) walkingeaglenews.com
Tracey Lindberg @traceylindberg (Cree writer, scholar)
Kris Statnyk @gwitchin_kris (Gwitchin lawyer, Mandell Pinder LLP)
Jess Housty @heiltsukvoice (Heiltsuk band councillor)
Angela Sterritt @AngelaSterritt (CBC Indigenous)
Duncan McCue @duncanmccue (CBC Indigenous)
Tanya Talaga @tanyatalaga (Anishinaabe writer, journalist)
Hayden King @hayden_king (Anishinaabe writer, educator)
Christina Gray @stina_gray (Ts’msyen/Dene legal scholar)
Jesse Wente @jessewente (Ojibwe broadcaster, writer)
CBC Indigenous @CBCIndigenous cbc.ca/news/indigenous
Robert Jago @rjjago (Nooksack Tribe/Kwantlen writer, blogger) rjjago.com
âpihtawikosisân (Chelsea Vowel) @apihtawikosisan (Métis writer, educator, podcaster) apihtawikosisan.com
Eriel Deranger @ErielTD (Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Indigenous Climate Action Executive Director) indigenousclimateaction.ca
Cindy Blackstock @cblackst (Gitksan child, youth and family researcher and educator) Indigenous Knowledge Portal
Ryan McMahon @RMComedy (Anishinaabe comedian, writer, podcaster) rmcomedy.com
Makoons Media Group @MakoonsMedia (digital Indigenous storytelling) makoonsmedia.org
Indian & Cowboy @indianandcowboy (Indigenous podcasts, opinion, arts and culture) indianandcowboy.com
Red Man Laughing @RMLPodcast (Indigenous podcast) redmanlaughing.com
StoriesFromTheLand @SFTLpodcast (Indigenous podcast) storiesfromtheland.com
 John Borrows, “Sovereignty’s Alchemy: An Analysis of Delgamuukw v. British Columbia” Osgoode Hall Law Journal (1999) 37 Osgoode Hall L.J. 537-596
[i] J. Anaya, UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, A/HRC/12/34, July 15 (New York: United Nations General Assembly, 2009), https://documents-dds-ny. un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/145/82/PDF/G0914582.pdf?OpenElement.
Feature image by Jen Castro
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Jan 7, 2019
Sierra Club BC is deeply concerned by the actions threatened by the RCMP to forcibly remove Wet’suwet’en people from their unceded territory, namely the Unist’ot’en and the Gidimt’en who are actively managing their lands and waters. By sending in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to enforce the interim injunction acquired by pipeline company Coastal GasLink, the B.C. government is contravening the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Declaration protects the Indigenous right to self-determination, including Article 10 which states that: “Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the Indigenous peoples concerned and agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.”
“In a time when both our provincial and federal governments have made strong commitments to reconciliation and to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it is unconscionable that the RCMP are being used to enable fossil fuel corporations’ efforts to undermine the rights and title of the Wet’suwet’en,” said Mark Worthing, conservation and climate campaigner with Sierra Club BC.
“Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have been clear that their actions are in defence of their lands and waters as well as the climate we all depend on. The Coastal GasLink fracked gas pipeline and the LNG Canada export facility are incompatible with B.C.’s plans to reduce climate pollution.”
As understood from Calder v. British Columbia, Gisday Wa & Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, and the recent Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, Aboriginal title includes the right to use, manage and decide how the land will be used. Aboriginal title also requires Crown governments and others to obtain consent from rightful title holders prior to using the land.
Sierra Club BC is calling on B.C. and the federal government to ensure that both the RCMP and Coastal GasLink respect the inherent and constitutionally-protected rights of the Wet’suwet’en people on their unceded lands.
Mark Worthing, Conservation & Climate Campaigner
You did it!
You helped stop the Trans Mountain pipeline and tankers in the courts!
On August 30, we celebrated a major victory as the project’s approval was quashed by the Federal Court of Appeal. This court ruling is fantastic news for orca whales, for our climate, for Indigenous peoples defending their title and rights, and for the rights of all of us to defend the land and waters we love and call home.
And it happened in part thanks to the help of hundreds of people who stepped up in solidarity with First Nations by supporting our Pull Together campaign. With your help, we raised more than $650,000 for the nations fighting this project in court!
Take a moment to pat yourself on the back. First, we sent Kinder Morgan home to Texas, because the company knew this project was a sinking ship. Now, with your support, Indigenous peoples fought back – and won.
The court agreed with what we’ve been saying all along: that the National Energy Board review was deeply flawed and fell far short of the mark in consulting Indigenous peoples.
The fact that the NEB decided not to include in its review the impacts of marine tanker traffic– which it agreed would pose significant adverse effects to endangered orca whales – meant the government could not rely on the Board’s recommendation in making a decision. And because Canada failed to engage meaningfully with Indigenous peoples, the court ruled this consultation needs to be redone.
This is a stunning blow. And it offers the perfect opportunity for Prime Minister Trudeau to walk away from this pipeline and tankers.
But instead, he’s already doubled down his efforts to push this dangerous project through communities that do not consent.
Trudeau has asked the NEB to reconsider its recommendations – and he’s given it an incredibly tight 22-week timeline to do so.
To make matters worse, this hasty new review is already showing signs of the same flaws that were present in the original review. On September 26, the NEB announced the new review.
We did some digging and found out the NEB was misinforming people about this process.
We found that their website contained inaccurate and conflicting information, leading many people to believe that the deadline for comments on the project was October 3 – less than a week away. It also suggested people need to send in an application to participate and prove that they are “directly affected” or have “relevant information or expertise,” just like the first NEB review process in 2014, which was designed to shut people out of the process.
But we found out that if you want to send a letter of comment on the project, you don’t need to apply and you don’t need to comment by October 3. This deadline is only people who want to apply to be an intervenor or comment on the scope and process of the review (which you should do too, if you can!)
After we pestered them all day, the NEB finally updated their website to correct the wrong info.
It doesn’t look like the NEB has learned much from their past mistakes. Instead, it looks like they’re up to their old tricks and that we’ve got another sham process on our hands – a process destined for another predetermined outcome.
This is what happens when you do a rush job. We see no difference yet between this and Harper’s approach – they’re still trying to confuse people and deny participation.
Get a refresher on the flaws of the last NEB review with our “Credibility Crisis” report: https://bit.ly/2H6zm60
If the Trudeau government takes its commitment to reconciliation and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples seriously, then these rigged and superficial approaches need to become a thing of the past. Indigenous peoples have the right to free prior and informed consent – and they still do not consent.
It’s time for a more modern, democratic process that involves much closer scrutiny, especially of the many environmental, social and economic dangers posed by projects like this.
We are thrilled that the courts have overturned federal approval of this dangerous pipeline and tankers project that would have put so much at risk. But the fight is far from over.
We’ll be helping people ensure they are heard in this new process, and keeping a sharp eye on the NEB to ensure they don’t keep pulling more tricks. It’s still important to use this opportunity to raise your voice, and we hope you’ll participate by sending a letter of comment. Once more details are released on the process, we’ll be in touch about how you can have your say.
Say yes to orcas and salmon – donate now to help us keep fighting this pipeline and oil tankers.
The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations are pursuing legal action over the Site C dam with the goal of stopping the dam completely. They argue that the exercise of rights protected by Treaty 8 requires the protection of the Peace River Valley. Until the case is resolved, they have asked the court to suspend construction in key areas. We expect the court’s decision to be released in the coming weeks.
In the meantime, Adrienne Peacock has provided this guest blog shining a light on the problem of mercury contamination of fish, one of the issues raised in the court case. Adrienne Peacock worked as a consultant to the Peace Valley Environment Association, 1981-82. She has a PhD in Zoology (UBC) and taught environment science/biology at Douglas College for many years.
West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations have been in court seeking an injunction to halt work on the Site C dam until their case for infringement of Treaty 8 can be heard.
One of the many contentious issues is the possibility of mercury contamination of fish, particularly preferred eating fish – top predators like bull trout – in the Peace and its tributaries, as a result of the mobilization of mercury in the flooded areas.
On May 12, 2015, West Moberly Chief Roland Willson delivered 90 kilograms of bull trout, a preferred eating fish, to the BC Legislature. The West Moberly and McLeod Lake bands had received the results of a study which examined 57 fish taken from the Crooked River, a river where fish migrate from the Williston reservoir. Ninety-eight percent of the fish samples contained mercury levels above provincial guidelines (above 0.5 parts per million, or ppm).
In court, BC Hydro claimed that mercury levels are now within acceptable limits and argued that the judge does not need to consider mercury biocontamination because 1) such bioaccumulation won’t happen until after inundation, hence not relevant to this injunction and 2) it’s a matter of moderation in consumption. They have not explained how their results are so different from the 2015 study.
Methylmercury concentration in fish has been known since the 1970s and it is of great concern for human consumption of fish. Methyl mercury poisoning is known as Minamata disease, because mercury contaminated fish in Minamata, Japan, resulted in 46 deaths and hundreds of serious afflictions, from mental disability to crippling paralysis. Low level mercury toxicity is often difficult to diagnose because it can cause subtle nerve disorders.
Mercury is transformed from an inorganic form to an organic form that can enter the food chain when bacteria in soil and vegetation are flooded as a result of dam construction. The organic form then accumulates in each level of the food chain, with the top predators accumulating the most – bioaccumulation. The issue is sufficiently serious that the province has fish consumption warnings for bull trout and dolly varden taken from the Williston reservoir (Healthlinkbc.ca).
In 1982, at the first British Columbia Utilities Site C Hearings, the Peace Valley Environment Association presented evidence, which was apparently new to BC Hydro at that point, that creation of any reservoir is likely to result in predatory fish mercury levels in excess of the Canadian marketing standard of 0.5 ppm.
An advisory for Health Canada recommends that consumption of mercury contaminated fish be limited to one meal per week for adults and much less for children and women of child bearing age. At the press conference in 2015, Chief Willson held up a small candy, a foil-wrapped Hershey’s Kiss, to illustrate how much fish a woman of child bearing age could safely consume from the Crooked River, based on the levels of mercury found. This elevated level was found 50 years after the creation of the Williston reservoir.
Scientists have debated how long it takes reservoir fish to return to pre-impoundment levels of mercury. A recent published study from Quebec1 concluded that in fish-eating fish, that is, predatory fish, mercury levels were up to 8 times higher in reservoirs than in natural lakes and generally took 20-31 years to return to pre-impoundment levels, if there is no additional flooding. In non-fish eating fish, the return to natural levels of mercury seems to be much faster, 10-20 years.
In the online journal, scientists1 suggest that certain reservoir characteristics play a major role in determining the intensity and duration of after-impoundment mercury increases in fish, characteristics such as: flooded area, annual volume of water flowing through the reservoir, filling period, water temperature, and percentage of flooded area located in the drawdown zone. In other words, there are a lot of variables that could affect the timing of a return to pre-impoundment levels of fish mercury.
Dr Drew Bodaly, presenting expert evidence for the PVEA in 1982, was able to predict that even a 2% increase in surface area is sufficient to cause a mercury problem.2 The Site C impoundment would result in a 50% increase in surface area. And with the continual sloughing that is expected in the Site C impoundment (and is seen now along the river and in the Williston reservoir) there will be continual flooding of new soil and vegetation.
BC Hydro has been studying the problem3 and the situation is not quite as clear or benign as their lawyer presented in court. For example, bull trout at 700 mm in length tested about twice as high as levels allowed to be sold in grocery stores. There is clearly a lot that is not yet known about the accumulation of mercury in fish.
If Site C goes ahead, fish might have to be off the table for Chief Willson, and anyone who wants to eat fish from the Peace system, for many, many years to come.
By Adrienne Peacock
Find out how you can help support West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations at witnessforthepeace.ca.
Call on Prime Minister Trudeau to stop Site C construction.
1 François Bilodeau, Jean Therrien & Roger Schetagne (2017) Intensity and duration of effects of impoundment on mercury levels in fishes of hydroelectric reservoirs in northern Québec (Canada), Inland Waters, 7:4, 493-503, DOI: 10.1080/20442041.2017.1401702
2 BCUC Site C Hearings: Transcript Vol. 94, 4 August, 1982, p. 15449
Feature image: Peace River Valley by Louis Bockner.