Montreal, Canada – Mass demonstrations, sit-ins and blockades have gripped parts of Canada over the last month as a movement to support the leaders of an Indigenous nation who are opposed to a multibillion-dollar pipeline project in northern British Columbia (BC) grows.
The hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation have come out against the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which seeks to transport liquefied natural gas from northeast BC to a terminal on the coast near the town of Kitimat.
More:
The 670-kilometre (417-mile) pipeline will cut across traditional Wet’suwet’en lands that cover 22,000sq km across northern BC.
The hereditary chiefs, who under Wet’suwet’en law claim authority over those traditional territories, said they never gave their consent for the project to move forward. They have raised concerns about the pipeline’s potential effects on the land, water, and their community.
On Sunday, a Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief and government ministers said they reached a proposed arrangement on how to move forward. The details of the agreement will not be released until they have been presented to the Wet’suwet’en people.
While Sunday’s agreement represents an important step in a conflict that has gripped much of Canada, the struggle of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs raised important questions of Aboriginal title, land ownership and consultation with First Nations.
“I think it would be a mistake to understand what’s happening right now as just about a natural gas pipeline,” said Eugene Kung, a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law in Vancouver, before the agreement was announced.
“There are much deeper, underlying issues that remain unresolved and that I think are at the root of this,” Kung told Al Jazeera.
Aboriginal title
Key among those underlying issues is the fact that the Wet’suwet’en Nation’s claim to their ancestral lands, through which the pipeline will be built, remains unresolved.
Aboriginal title refers to the inherent right of Indigenous peoples to use and occupy the lands they occupied for thousands of years before the arrival of European settlers. Aboriginal title was “recognised and affirmed” in the Canadian constitution in 1982, and the courts have laid out the test for Indigenous nations to prove their title claims.
In a 2014 case, Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that Aboriginal title flows from the sufficient, continuous and exclusive “occupation” of the land. That can include Indigenous culture and practices, such as hunting or fishing. “Where Aboriginal title has been established, the Crown must not only comply with its procedural duties, but must also justify any incursions on Aboriginal title lands,” the court wrote.
Supporters of the Indigenous Wet’suwet’en Nation’s hereditary chiefs march as part of protests against British Columbia’s Coastal GasLink pipeline, Montreal [Andrej Ivanov/Reuters]
In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to determine Aboriginal title in a case involving the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan nations, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.
The court found that the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs were the rightful holders of title to their unceded territories and recognised that the community’s Aboriginal title had not been extinguished, explained Robert Hamilton, assistant professor at University of Calgary Faculty of Law.
But “for procedural reasons [the Supreme Court] sent the case back to trial” and it was not picked up again, Hamilton told Al Jazeera in a phone interview before Sunday’s announcement.
He said the court signalled to the federal and provincial governments that Aboriginal title remains an outstanding issue that must be resolved. “‘Here’s the test that we’re going to use in determining where Aboriginal title exists … so, you had best get on with the business of negotiating with these parties that have outstanding Aboriginal title claims,'” Hamilton said, about what the court said in Delgamuukw.
The Wet’suwet’en title claim was never resolved, however.
Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief Frank Alec Woos speaks during a news conference at the Mohawk Community Centre in Tyendinaga, Ontario [File: Lars Hagberg/AFP]
On Sunday, Wet’suwet’en Chief Woos, who also goes by the name Frank Alec, said the proposed agreement with the government picks up where Delgamuukw left off.
“What we were always here to do is to protect our yintah [land] … We say to all the developers out there, our pristine waters, our headwaters, our wildlife habitats, our traditional sites … we are going to protect it,” Chief Woos said during a news conference.
It is still unclear what was decided, however, and details of the proposed deal are expected to be presented to the Wet’suwet’en people over the next two weeks.
“While we have disagreement on this issue, we are developing a protocol … to recognise rights and title for the future,” BC Indigenous Relations Minister Scott Fraser said on Sunday in a news conference alongside Chief Woos. “I ask for some space and calm to allow us to continue that work.”
Consultation and accommodation
When Aboriginal title is asserted, as in the case of the Wet’suwet’en, the government holds a duty to consult and accommodate the community when their rights may be infringed by a government decision, such as a resource extraction or development project.
That is a lower standard than when Aboriginal title is established under Canadian law, said Hamilton, as in the Tsilhqot’in Nation case.
The level of consultation and accommodation must be proportional to the potential adverse effects of a decision, or to the strength of the assertion of Aboriginal title, the Supreme Court said in a 2004 decision involving the Haida Nation, also in BC. “The Crown is not under a duty to reach an agreement; rather, the commitment is to a meaningful process of consultation in good faith,” the court said then.
Supporters of the Indigenous Wet’suwet’en Nation’s hereditary chiefs pass by CN Rail as they march as part of protests against British Columbia’s Coastal GasLink pipeline, in Montreal [Christinne Muschi/Reuters]
Governments often outsource the consultation process to third parties, such as the Canada Energy Regulator (formerly known as the National Energy Board). But consultation must be carried out in good faith and what is known as the “honour of the Crown” must be upheld.
The process is flawed, however, because the government is “aiming for the floor” – in other words, it works to meet the minimum standard required, Kung told Al Jazeera. He said the consultation framework was also meant to be temporary until underlying land issues can be resolved, but it is instead “treated as an indefinite norm and as the end of the line in terms of obligations”.
“Obviously, that approach is not working,” Kung said.
Who is consulted?
The groups that are consulted often also become a matter of contention.
In its 1997 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada recognised that the rightful Wet’suwet’en titleholders were the hereditary chiefs.
The nation is divided into 13 houses and five clans: Gilseyhu, Tsayu, Laksamshu, Gidimt’en and Laksilyu. Under Wet’suwet’en law (Anuk nu’at’en), the traditional territory is divided between the houses and clans, and the hereditary chiefs hold authority over their respective areas.
Supporters of the Indigenous Wet’suwet’en Nation’s hereditary chiefs block the Pat Bay highway as part of protests against the Coastal GasLink pipeline, in Victoria, British Columbia [Kevin Light/Reuters]
But the federal and provincial governments have “maintained a policy of denying the Wet’suwet’en title to the land for decades”, said Bruce McIvor, principal at First Peoples Law who represents the Unist’ot’en, a house group of the Wet’suwet’en Nation.
“As long as they maintain the position of denial, they’re in a stronger position to force through major resource extraction projects, such as pipelines or open-pit mines or hydro dams. The legal obligations on them are significantly lower,” McIvor told Al Jazeera.
Meanwhile, TC Energy said it “has the utmost respect” for the Indigenous systems of governance in BC and “strived to engage with all the Indigenous groups along the pipeline route”. It said it has engaged in “a wide range of consultation activities” with the hereditary chiefs, including 120 in-person meetings. The company also said it reached agreements with 20 First Nation bands along the project route, including five Wet’suwet’en bands. Those deals “were developed over many years through collaborative engagement”, it said on its website.
Indian Act chief and councils
The First Nations band council and chief system were created by the Indian Act of 1876, the federal law under which the government regulates and manages the lives of First Nations. The act gives the councils and chiefs, who are elected by First Nations band members, the power to administer the day-to-day running of reserves, the First Nations communities that also were created by the Indian Act.
McIvor said while some First Nations have been able to work through the chief and council system with the support of their members, in the case of the Wet’suwet’en “no one really thought that you can simply go speak to the Indian Act chief and councils”.
The rightful titleholders are the hereditary chiefs, he said, and “to say otherwise is either willful ignorance or simple intention to encourage disagreement”.
Supporters of the Wet’suwet’en nation Indigenous group who oppose the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, protest outside the provincial headquarters of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Surrey, British Columbia [Jesse Winter/Reuters]
It is not clear how many Wet’suwet’en people on an individual level support the Coastal GasLink project or how many are against it. Some have publicly expressed support for the project, some have shown reticent support, and others are strongly opposed.
In the BC Supreme Court decision in late December to issue an injunction allowing construction to continue on the pipeline, Justice Marguerite Church stated that “the Indigenous legal perspective, in this case, is complex and diverse”.
Church also said “the Wet’suwet’en people are deeply divided” over the project.
McIvor said it is understandable that some Indian Act band councils and chiefs would sign on to the project, as communities are impoverished and have been unable to benefit from projects in their territories. “Unfortunately, this is ripe for companies and for [the] government to take advantage of,” he said.
Beyond Canada
Beyond Canadian law, Indigenous rights are also enshrined in international legal frameworks, notably the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). While Canada initially opposed the declaration, it has since signed on and pledged to incorporate it into its national laws. To date, BC is the only place in Canada to pass legislation that aims to get its laws in line with UNDRIP.
That move was welcomed in November as a key step on the path to reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the government. But at the height of the standoff on Wet’suwet’en lands, BC Premier Horgan said the legislation was not retroactive and would not apply to the Coastal GasLink project.
“We want everyone to understand that there are agreements from the Peace Country to Kitimat with Indigenous communities that want to see economic activity and prosperity take place,” he said on January 13. “This project is proceeding and the rule of law needs to prevail in BC.”
Protesters demonstrate in downtown Seattle, Washington, to support the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, a community in British Columbia, Canada opposing a natural gas pipeline [File: Ted S Warren/AP Photo]
Brenda Gunn, associate professor at the University of Manitoba faculty of law, explained that UNDRIP lays out the government’s obligation to obtain Indigenous peoples’ “free, prior and informed consent” if their rights will be affected by a decision.
“One of the key aspects of free, prior and informed consent is the notion of ‘free’ – and this means without coercion and it also means the right to participate according to their own government institutions and determine for themselves who represents them,” Gunn told Al Jazeera.
She said “free” also means people should not seek to divide and conquer Indigenous peoples, or in the case of the Wet’suwet’en, not pit the hereditary chiefs against the band councillors, chiefs or anyone else who supports the Coastal GasLink project.
“Free, prior and informed consent includes the ability to give or withhold consent. You don’t effectively have consent in law if you’re not allowed to say no,” Dunn said.
On Sunday, Canada’s minister of Crown-Indigenous relations, Carolyn Bennett, said major projects need to be put before an Indigenous nation as outlined by UNDRIP.
“It means that at the very first idea of a project, that the rights holders would be there at the table with their Indigenous knowledge and the voices of their nation,” she said during the news conference alongside Chief Woos.
What’s next?
The Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have repeatedly laid out their demands: withdraw federal police (RCMP) officers from their traditional territory and order Coastal GasLink to suspend construction while nation-to-nation discussions with the government are continuing.
It is unclear which, if any, demands are part of Sunday’s proposed agreement, and what the future of the pipeline may be.
Wet’suwet’en land defenders have set up camps and checkpoints to reclaim their traditional territories in the area slated for pipeline construction and stop the project from moving ahead. They have also insisted that the RCMP leave the area and for Coastal GasLink to stop building – and it is unclear what Sunday’s proposed agreement may mean for them.
In January, RCMP officers removed dozens of Wet’suwet’en land defenders and their supporters from the camps along the pipeline route to allow the company to continue with construction activities.
“Obviously, [the RCMP is] not out there to protect the Wet’suwet’en people; they’re out there to protect the CGL employees. We need to correct that,” Wet’suwet’en Chief Woos said on Sunday.
After three days and nights of talks NO agreement on Coastal GasLink has been reached. However, a tentative agreement has been reached on Wet’suwet’en rights and title. This will not be publicly released until Wet’suwet’en people have a chance to review over the next few weeks. pic.twitter.com/2Zevt7FNmP
Late last month, the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) said it could not issue a final certificate authorising construction on the pipeline through a section of Wet’suwet’en territory until Coastal GasLink went back to negotiate with the leadership about some outstanding potential effects. The office said concerns about the project’s effects on a Wet’suwet’en healing centre still needed to be addressed. It gave Coastal GasLink 30 days to conduct more consultations and provide an updated assessment.
“It is very distressing, after we’ve faced assault rifles and endured arrests at the beckoning of CGL, to now be advised by EAO to work collaboratively with them to address these gaps,” Karla Tait, a Unist’ot’en house member and volunteer director at the Unist’ot’en healing centre, said in a statement. In a statement, Coastal GasLink president said construction that was paused for talks between the Wet’suwet’en chiefs and the government will resume on Monday.
“While much has been accomplished, much work remains and we wish all parties success as their work continues and the Wet’suwet’en people consider the proposed arrangement,” David Pfeiffer said.
It was also unclear whether Sunday’s proposed agreement addressed the presence of the RCMP in Wet’suwet’en traditional territories.
Still, Chief Woos told reporters Sunday’s announcement represented “quite a milestone for all of us to view this together”.
“We’re at a point, in this moment in time, to see if the arrangements will work in all aspects of what we stand for as Wet’suwet’en,” he said.
A B.C. teen has a suspected case of H5N1 avian flu — the first known human to acquire the virusin Canada.
The provincial government said on the weekend that B.C.’s chief veterinarian and public health teamsare still investigating the source of exposure, but that it’s “very likely” an animal or bird.
Human-to-human transmission is very rare, but as cases among animals rise, many experts are worried the virus could develop that ability.
The teen was being treated at BC Children’s Hospital on Saturday. The provincial health officer said there were no updates on the patient Monday.
“I’m very concerned, obviously, for the young person who was infected,” said Dr. Matthew Miller, director of the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
Miller, who is also the co-director of the Canadian Pandemic Preparedness Hub, said there have been several people infected with H5N1 in the U.S.,and almost all were livestock workers.
In an email to The Canadian Press on Monday afternoon, the Public Health Agency of Canada said “based on current evidence in Canada, the risk to the general public remains low at this time.”
WHAT IS H5N1?
H5N1 is a subtype of influenza A virus that has mainly affected birds, so it’s also called “bird flu” or “avian flu.” The H5N1 flu that has been circulating widely among birds and cattle this year is one of the avian flu strains known as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) because it causes severe illness in birds, including poultry.
According to the World Health Organization, H5N1 has been circulating widely among wild birds and poultry for more than two decades. The WHO became increasingly concerned and called for more disease surveillance in Feb. 2023 after worldwide reports of the virus spilling over into mammals.
HOW COMMON IS INFECTION IN HUMANS?
H5N1 infections in humans are rare and “primarily acquired through direct contact with infected poultry or contaminated environments,” the WHO’s website says.
Prior to the teen in B.C., Canada had one human case of H5N1 in 2014 and it was “travel-related,” according to the Public Health Agency of Canada.
As of Nov. 8, there have been 46 confirmed human cases of H5N1 in the U.S. this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. There is an ongoing outbreak among dairy cattle, “sporadic” outbreaks in poultry farms and “widespread” cases in wild birds, the CDC website says.
There has been no sign of human-to-human transmission in any of the U.S. cases.
But infectious disease and public health experts are worried that the more H5N1 spreads between different types of animals, the bigger the chance it can mutateand spread more easily between humans.
WHAT ARE THE SYMPTOMS OF H5N1?
Although H5N1 causes symptoms similar to seasonal flu, such as cough, fever, shortness of breath, headache, muscle pain, sore throat, runny nose and fatigue, the strain also has key features that can cause other symptoms.
Unlike seasonal flu, most of the people infected in the U.S. have had conjunctivitis, or “pink-eye,” said Miller.
One reason for that is likely that many have been dairy cattle workers.
“At these milking operations, it’s easy to get contamination on your hands and rub your eyes. We touch our face like all the time without even knowing it,” he said.
“Also, those operations can produce droplets or aerosols, both during milking and during cleaning that can get into the eye relatively easily.”
But the other reason for the conjunctivitis seen in H5N1 cases is that the strain binds to receptors in the eye, Miller said.
While seasonal flu binds to receptors in the upper respiratory tract, H5N1 also binds to receptors in the lower respiratory tract, he said.
“That’s a concern … because if the virus makes its way down there, those lower respiratory infections tend to be a lot more severe. They tend to lead to more severe outcomes, like pneumonias for example, that can cause respiratory distress,” Miller said.
WILL THE FLU VACCINE PROTECT AGAINST H5N1?
We don’t know “with any degree of certainty,” whether the seasonal flu vaccine could help prevent infection with H5N1, said Miller.
Although there’s no data yet, it’s quite possible that it could help prevent more severe disease once a person is infected, he said.
That’s because the seasonal flu vaccine contains a component of H1N1 virus, which “is relatively closely related to H5N1.”
“So the immunity that might help protect people against H5N1 is almost certainly conferred by either prior infection with or prior vaccination against H1N1 viruses that circulate in people,” Miller said.
HOW ELSE CAN I PROTECT MYSELF?
The Public Health Agency of Canada said as a general precaution, people shouldn’t handle live or dead wild birds or other wild animals, and keep pets away from sick or dead animals.
Those who work with animals or in animal-contaminated places should take personal protective measures, the agency said.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 11, 2024.
Canadian Press health coverage receives support through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. CP is solely responsible for this content.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A conservative prosecutor’s attorney struggled Monday to persuade the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reactivate the state’s 175-year-old abortion ban, drawing a tongue-lashing from two of the court’s liberal justices during oral arguments.
Sheboygan County’s Republican district attorney, Joel Urmanski, has asked the high court to overturn a Dane County judge’s ruling last year that invalidated the ban. A ruling isn’t expected for weeks but abortion advocates almost certainly will win the case given that liberal justices control the court. One of them, Janet Protasiewicz, remarked on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights.
Monday’s two-hour session amounted to little more than political theater. Liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet told Urmanski’s attorney, Matthew Thome, that the ban was passed in 1849 by white men who held all the power and that he was ignoring everything that has happened since. Jill Karofsky, another liberal justice, pointed out that the ban provides no exceptions for rape or incest and that reactivation could result in doctors withholding medical care. She told Thome that he was essentially asking the court to sign a “death warrant” for women and children in Wisconsin.
“This is the world gone mad,” Karofsky said.
The ban stood until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never repealed the ban, however, and conservatives have argued the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe two years ago reactivated it.
Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit challenging the law in 2022. He argued that a 1985 Wisconsin law that prohibits abortion after a fetus reaches the point where it can survive outside the womb supersedes the ban. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.
Urmanski contends that the ban was never repealed and that it can co-exist with the 1985 law because that law didn’t legalize abortion at any point. Other modern-day abortion restrictions also don’t legalize the practice, he argues.
Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled last year that the ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother’s consent — but not consensual abortions. The ruling emboldened Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Wisconsin after halting procedures after Roe was overturned.
Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court in February to overturn Schlipper’s ruling without waiting for a lower appellate decision.
Thome told the justices on Monday that he wasn’t arguing about the implications of reactivating the ban. He maintained that the legal theory that new laws implicitly repeal old ones is shaky. He also contended that the ban and the newer abortion restrictions can overlap just like laws establishing different penalties for the same crime. A ruling that the 1985 law effectively repealed the ban would be “anti-democratic,” Thome added.
“It’s a statute this Legislature has not repealed and you’re saying, no, you actually repealed it,” he said.
Dallet shot back that disregarding laws passed over the last 40 years to go back to 1849 would be undemocratic.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin filed a separate lawsuit in February asking the state Supreme Court to rule directly on whether a constitutional right to abortion exists in the state. The justices have agreed to take the case but haven’t scheduled oral arguments yet.
___
This story has been updated to correct the Sheboygan County district attorney’s first name to Joel.
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Better catch this week’s supermoon. It will be a while until the next one.
This will be the year’s fourth and final supermoon, looking bigger and brighter than usual as it comes within about 225,000 miles (361,867 kilometers) of Earth on Thursday. It won’t reach its full lunar phase until Friday.
The supermoon rises after the peak of the Taurid meteor shower and before the Leonids are most active.
In 2025, expect three supermoons beginning in October.
What makes a moon so super?
More a popular term than a scientific one, a supermoon occurs when a full lunar phase syncs up with an especially close swing around Earth. This usually happens only three or four times a year and consecutively, given the moon’s constantly shifting, oval-shaped orbit.
A supermoon obviously isn’t bigger, but it can appear that way, although scientists say the difference can be barely perceptible.
How do supermoons compare?
This year features a quartet of supermoons.
The one in August was 224,917 miles (361,970 kilometers) away. September’s was 222,131 miles (357,486 kilometers) away. A partial lunar eclipse also unfolded that night, visible in much of the Americas, Africa and Europe as Earth’s shadow fell on the moon, resembling a small bite.
October’s supermoon was the year’s closest at 222,055 miles (357,364 kilometers) from Earth. This month’s supermoon will make its closest approach on Thursday with the full lunar phase the next day.
What’s in it for me?
Scientists point out that only the keenest observers can discern the subtle differences. It’s easier to detect the change in brightness — a supermoon can be 30% brighter than average.
With the U.S. and other countries ramping up lunar exploration with landers and eventually astronauts, the moon beckons brighter than ever.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
