Skip to main content

The Globe and Mail

First Nations insist B.C. choose between Site C dam and LNG projects in Peace River region

Tribal Chief Liz Logan watches over West Moberly Chief Roland Willson, left, and Prophet River Chief Lynette Tsakoza while Doig River Chief Norman Davis looks on during a Treaty 8 First Nations agreement signing at the B.C. Legislature in Victoria in 2010.

Geoff Howe/The Globe and Mail

With a decision imminent on the Site C hydroelectric project in northeastern British Columbia, area First Nations have delivered a message to the provincial government: You can have the dam or you can have liquefied natural gas but you will not get both.

The $8-billion dam would lie in the heart of B.C.'s nascent LNG industry.

Chief Roland Willson of the West Moberly First Nation said his community has title to the Peace River valley under a century-old treaty, and a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada has bolstered their say in any industrial development on that land.

Story continues below advertisement

The band is not opposed to resource development, Willson said, but it has issued an ultimatum.

"I've said you can't have both," Willson said in an interview. "If you want to push Site C, we're not going to be in favour of any LNG projects, any of the pipeline projects up there. We don't want to be there but if that's the case, we don't have any other choice."

Willson was in Ottawa on Wednesday to deliver that message to the federal government. However, he and Chief Liz Logan of the Fort Nelson First Nation, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Ghislaini Picard of the Assembly of First Nations did not meet with any federal government officials.

"We've come to Ottawa to try and talk to the decision-makers here and we've not been able to get in front of anybody," Willson told reporters.

The dam would be the third on the Peace River in B.C., flooding 5,550 hectares of land over an 83-kilometre stretch of valley. It would generate an estimated 1,100 megawatts of capacity, or enough to power the equivalent of 450,000 homes a year.

A report by a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment panel in May made no clear recommendation.

Energy Minister Bill Bennett said announcements are expected on environmental certificates from the federal government and the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office next month. If Site C is given the go-ahead, a final decision from the province could come in November.

Story continues below advertisement

"Clearly we would like to have at least some of the Treaty 8 First Nations, as many as possible, involved with the actual project — their contracting firms getting business out of it, their people getting jobs out of it," Bennett said in a recent interview.

"Obviously, with no First Nation formally in support of the project at this time, we still have lots of work to do."

But there is a treaty in place, so the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on land title may not have much bearing on this particular project, he said.

The Crown-owned utility, BC Hydro, has said it needs the dam to provide for future needs and meet the province's legislated clean energy targets.

Ken Boon, a rancher whose land will be under water if the project proceeds, said he hopes the West Moberly band can convince the province to find an alternative.

"I think if they had to choose between the two, they'd choose LNG," he said. "I don't think the government really has the appetite to get into a big litigation battle with First Nations over Site C."

Story continues below advertisement

Willson said the area cannot bear the environmental impact of both LNG and the dam.

"It's too much," he said. "We're already inundated with gas activity. When you look at that, well, they can't have both."

The Peace region is responsible already for 60 per cent of the province's resource revenue, he said.

"Yes there has to be development," Willson said. "But you can't continue to develop and push constitutionally protected treaty rights off to the side. They're at a point now where they've grossly crossed over those lines."

Report an error
Comments

The Globe invites you to share your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful to everyone. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.

We’ve made some technical updates to our commenting software. If you are experiencing any issues posting comments, simply log out and log back in.

Discussion loading… ✨

Combined Shape Created with Sketch.

Combined Shape Created with Sketch.

Thank you!

You are now subscribed to the newsletter at

You can unsubscribe from this newsletter or Globe promotions at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of the newsletter, or by emailing us at privacy@globeandmail.com.