# data[].attributes.body
These questions that were posed by Robert and by our friends in this discussion are great questions I'd like to take with me. The discussion highlighted the complexity of this "conundrum" that I didn't see before and I appreciate that. This way of looking at a particular subject was particularly helpful in analyzing underlying interests and assumptions. Robert's comment that 2% of the land is put aside as reserves and yet the pipeline goes through that... utterly shocking to realize that. We still have a lot of conversations to have with our fellow Canadians and learning to do -- especially learning about how to be an ally...

# data[].attributes.body
The conversation around the long term job opportunity. Job opportunities and a source of income have been promised  in the past to Indigenous communities but they are rarely as prosperous as they are portrayed.
In addition to Nicoles post, it is interesting to see how other Indigenous communities offer support for this loss of land- yet their is a divide between the groups impacted (5/7 say yes) counters the feeling of shared loss that the twitter feed shows

# data[].attributes.body
The tension between hereditary chiefs and elected chiefs and counsellors of band councils provides an interesting perspective into the complexity of the issue of land title and the question of who has the authority to make decisions regarding who can do what to the land. I think about the reasons behind why some would agree to go ahead with the pipelines and why others would not agree with it. Are the needs of these communities being met by these projects? Is it out of necessity that some chiefs decided to give permission to the government and pipeline companies to use their land in exchange for economic benefits? Would these economic gains help the communities in the long-run, or would potential oil spills cause losses that would offset what had been gained? How would other indigenous issues be seen by the government if band members have been shown to be willing to side with big corporations?

# data[].attributes.body
https://crosscut.com/environment/2021/03/indigenous-activists-fight-british-columbias-pipelines-last-mile

"His uprooting was by choice, but not by preference." "“I'm not living in my nation right now. And I can't live in my nation right now,” said McKenzie. He stays away, he says, because he feels unsafe there — that he is targeted and harassed by local police."

This article touches on Mike McKenzie who was forced out of his home 3 years ago due to the pipeline, and has still not returned home. We were looking into activists surrounding the pipeline and McKenzie's connection to the land where he grew up drove him to host rallies to oppose these pipelines. This touches on what Lauren mentioned during the discussion, how Indigenous people have perhaps "agreed" to leave, however it's only because they felt they had to rather than because they wanted to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indigenous activists fight British Columbia's pipelines to the last mile

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Native communities, activists and local government are split over new pipelines and their environmental risks.

# data[].attributes.body
Robert posed the question, why is the pipeline being pushed through indigenous territory when indigenous reservations only take up 1% of the land? All 7 clans on this territory did not give consent to move forward with the pipeline. They feel as though they are still being considered inferior because they are not assimilating. The clans that have consented were promised jobs/ money in return for the use of the land but how long will these jobs last? Using their land for the pipeline is not movement toward reconciliation.

# data[].attributes.body
Looking closer at the role of the RCMP. The RCMP argue that they are simply enforcing court injunctions. The media contend that the methods used by the RCMP in arresting Wet'suwet'en opponents of the pipeline were excessive and unnecessary. Robert highlighted an interesting fact that the RCMP pension fund has investment in the pipeline. Whose interests are the RCMP truly protecting?

# data[].attributes.body
Is the way that we are going in alignment with in reconciliation?

Hearing the Costal GasLink representative discuss how they are using technology and their website to show video evidence of support from the indigenous communities is feeding viewers faulty information that can so easily be assumed to be correct. They are stating they are in alignment with reconciliation when in fact the reason why some bands agreed to build the pipeline is due to trying to escape poverty.

What happens if you change route?

This seems impossible due to the stakeholders and billions of dollars from banks that all collectively decide on what is to happen to this land the pipeline is being build on.

Systems, economy, and money are dominating the conversation and having technology support it, only strengthens the pressure, relationships and superior decisions that are being made.

# data[].attributes.body
I found it so interesting how the CGL project began in 2012. I remember being in my Grade 7 classroom and holding a class debate on the topic of pipelines (the PROS vs. CONS). On the CGL website, it highlights how a 6-day training program will be offered to local Indigenous women and men to help them secure work in the construction industry. One of the big arguments for supporting the CGL project is that it will generate new jobs for Indigenous people. From this viewpoint, I believe Indigenous people are seen as units of disposable labour. What will be done if these people develop health issues? New research has suggests that natural gas may be a more harmful fossil fuel than previously thought -- contributing to symptoms, such as respiratory illnesses and rare cancers. Even the emergency management plans (4-steps) do not look like enough to protect the health and well-being of these workers. Another question I have is in regards to power: How come Indigenous peoples are not central at the discussion table and only included as an afterthought? With this said, I do not think that different Indigenous groups and their members' voices are being heard, represented, or respected.

# data[].attributes.body
Our group was representing the 7 clans ont e the territory, specifically from the hereditary chief. The resource I was looking at the Gidimt'en Checkpoint on twitter, and as I was scrolling through the feed, there was so much support from other nations in sending their heartfelt thoughts and feelings with th the nations being effected by this piepline because their lands are being taken from them. #wetsuwetensaynopipelines @Gidimten

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/unceded-land-case-wetsuweten-sovereignty

Something I wanted to share:
This article explains in detail about the Wet'suwet'en clans decisions about the Coastal GasLink pipeline. What stood out to me the most was how many council members felt if they agree to the pipeline, it may be the best option for their people as it was seen as an opportunity to help with some of the poverty that many experience. Also, the band council has concerns over employment on the reserves which are limited therefore, they felt more inclined to support Canada's policies for more job opportunities.

Also, the circle did a great job in sharing different point of views!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2008, Wet'suwet'en clans opted out of the British Columbia Treaty process and asserted their land rights to their unceded territory in Canada. On December 31, 2019, the British Columbia Supreme Court issued an injunction to allow construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, giving the company unlimited access to Wet'suwet'en lands. The Coastal GasLink pipeline is intended to be 416 miles long, stretching from northeast British Columbia to near Kitimat. Within this swath of land lies 22,000 square kilometers of unceded Wet'suwet'en land. The injunction was firmly rejected by the Wet'suwet'en. On January 7, 2020, the Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs issued an eviction notice to the pipeline company, effective immediately.

Encampments, intended to prevent pipeline construction and reclaim Wet'suwet'en land, play a crucial role in the reclamation of the Wet'suwet'en Peoples' Indigenous land rights. Unist'ot'en Camp was founded in 2010 by Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs. Its mission is to protect Unist'ot'en territory by re-establishing traditional Indigenous governance systems and enacting a free, prior, and informed consent protocol for all activities on Unist'ot'en land. However, intimidation and violence have been ongoing for almost a year. In January 2019, the Unis'tot'en Camp faced intimidation and violence in a raid by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who used chainsaws to break gates the Wet'suwet'en established on their traditional territories to block construction of the pipeline. The raid led to numerous arrests, and the threat of violence and force has not gone away since the raid.

While the Hereditary Chiefs oppose the pipeline, the Wet'suwet'en elected band council signed an agreement to allow the pipeline to go forward. Negotiations regarding the pipeline were only held with the council. The Hereditary Chiefs are the traditional form of government. This shows a lack of recognition from Canada of traditional government systems. Instead, the government is using a form of Indigneous government, the council, which they created and imposed historically to implement Canada's policies and among them, approve economic development projects. The issue of the pipeline is also outside the council's jurisdiction.

To many settler Canadians, however, the idea that these lands in British Columbia do not belong to Canada but rather the Wet'suwet'en Nation, is hard to conceptualize. To understand the situation from an Indigenous perspective, it is useful to take a look at the Wet'suwet'en claim to their unceded land, and the traditional hereditary government system.

Unceded Land

In 1997, the Hereditary Chiefs brought their claim for their ancestral land to the Canadian Supreme Court. The court ruled that the Wet'suwet'en People had not relinquished their land rights and titles to 22,000 square kilometers of land in northern British Columbia. The ruling also recognized the validity of hereditary governance.

Most of the territory of British Columbia was never ceded by the Indigenous Peoples of the land. These Indigenous Peoples have been living on their land for at least 14,000 years, while British Columbia, first a colony now a province, has been around for about 160 years. The cultures, governments, and legal systems of many First Nation Peoples in the region were never extinguished.

At the time of colonization, international and British Law deemed Indigenous land interests were to be respected if the Indigenous People had not signed a treaty or been conquered. The Wet'suwet'en were never conquered nor did they sign a treaty. Nonetheless, without any legal backing, in the 1860s British Columbia started to pass land laws and hand out property interests of the Indigenous land.

Kate Gunn, a lawyer focusing on the rights of Indigenous Peoples writes "The source of the Province's authority over Indigenous lands remains unresolved in Canadian law today." Gunn also writes "The fact that the Province has acted since the 1860s as though it has full authority to decide how Indigenous Peoples' lands are used does not make doing so legal or just."

While the 1997 ruling highlighted that the government did not have the authority to end Aboriginal title of unceded land, it failed to recognize the boundaries of the territory the title applied to. The judges sent the case back to trial due to a defect and also suggested goodwill negotiations may be preferable for what the case was asking.

The Truth and Reconciliation Report: Reconciliation, the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015 pointed out a 1977 Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. This 1977 report recommended that a proposed pipeline should not be built before Aboriginal land claims are resolved and environmental concerns are addressed. Canada should not rush development of projects until land claims are solved.

Hereditary Chiefs and Band Councils

The Hereditary Chiefs are a part of the pre-colonial, Indigenous governance system. There are 13 house chiefs. The Wet'suwet'en People never stopped using their hereditary government system just like they have never stopped occupying their land. The hereditary chiefs have authority over the unceded land and are the titleholders.

A hereditary chief is not necessarily born into the role but begins preparing for their role at a young age. The Wet'suwet'en Nation is made up of five clans, the clans are made up of 13 houses. Each house has a house chief and secondary leaders called wing chiefs. Chiefs are chosen based on their merit, differing from European or British hereditary systems. A chief is responsible for the land and resources of their territory. The Hereditary Chiefs have jurisdiction and authority over their unceded lands.

Karla Tait, a member of the Gilseyhu Clan of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, states "There's a basic amount of respect that Indigenous Peoples need to be shown, [that] our governance system needs to be shown. We can't continue to be considered inferior because we're not assimilated. Because our life-ways and our beliefs and our governance structures are different than Canada's."

The band council was created as a result of the Indian Act of 1876. It was formed as a means to impose a government and leadership structure that is more similar to that of Canada's government system.

Members of the band council are elected by members of the community. However, there are limitations on who is able to vote. Only those with 'Indian status' are able to elect council members. Indian status is determined by the Indian Act which has a long history of limiting who is able to obtain Indian status. This also means that the federal government has control over who can vote for the council.

Many council members felt agreeing to the pipeline was the best option for their people as it was an opportunity to help alleviate some of the poverty that many experience. The band council has concerns over employment on reserves, which is quite scarce, so the council would be more inclined to support Canada's policies for more employment opportunities in the short term. Kim Staton, a lawyer practicing aboriginal law, commented "I think you can say that people are trying their best to do what they can for their people under very difficult circumstances. And when a resource extraction company comes along and says, 'Look, we have all of this money for you,' they are loath not to take it. They're in between a rock and a hard place. I don't think it's a measure of unqualified support."

However, the authority and jurisdiction of the council is limited by the Indian Act. The council does not have authority in the decision making regarding lands outside First Nation reserves. The land the pipeline will impact is not reserve land from the Indian Act. According to the Wet'suwet'en law, the land in question is under the jurisdiction of the Hereditary Chiefs. Many Indigenous Peoples in Canada hold land rights outside reserves, for example, Aboriginal title and rights to lands that have been occupied before colonization, which are protected under the Constitution Act, 1982.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was fully adopted by Canada in May 2016. The Declaration recognizes Indigenous Peoples' right to free, prior, and informed consent in regard to any development on their land as well as self-determination. Article 5 of the Declaration states "Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions." Article 10 of the Declaration states "Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories." Article 18 states, "Indigenous Peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision-making institutions." Article 19 states, "States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. Article 26 states "Indigenous Peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired." Good faith means exercising the historical crown fiduciary duty to guarantee the well being of Indigenous Peoples with special rights in exchange for all the lands taken to make Canada the country it is today.

On the topic of the Declaration, PM Justin Trudeau made a statement saying "[Canada recognizes] the injustices Indigenous Peoples have faced in Canada and continue to face around the world. While we cannot change history, we are working to right persisting historic wrongs." However, in regard to the Wet'suwet'en land-defenders Trudeau said "The situation as it currently stands is unacceptable and untenable. Canadians have been patient. Our government has been patient. But it has been two weeks, and the barricades need to come down now." In response, the Hereditary Chiefs stated "We heard Prime Minister Trudeau just a little while ago talking about the inconvenience Canada has suffered. However, there is a difference between inconvenience and injustice."

Canada is seen around the world as a country that supports Indigenous rights and considers Indigenous issues to be a priority. While Canadian officials often use rhetoric that supports this sentiment, the actions of these officials do not, especially when dealing with development projects, economic reconciliation, and free, prior and informed consent. In addition, when a territory has still pending land claims, or the Indigenous community is divided, it is the time for the government to give the communities the time for them to reach consensus and unify rather than taking advantage of the division to push for a development project.

Research from the Yellowhead Institute at Ryerson University found that, in Canada, 76 percent of injunctions filed by corporations against Indigenous Peoples are granted, but more than 80 percent of the injunctions filed by Indigenous Peoples against corporations and the government are denied.

Cultural Survival supports the Wet'suwet'en People and joins the calls to Coastal GasLink and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to stand down. Unis'tot'en Camp received a grant from Cultural Survival's Keepers of the Earth Fund in 2017-2018.

By Augusta Davis. Photo: Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs, December 2018, photo courtesy of http://unistoten.camp/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unceded Land: The Case for Wet'suwet'en Sovereignty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2008, Wet'suwet'en clans opted out of the British Columbia Treaty process and asserted their land rights to their unceded territory in Canada. On December 31, 2019, the British Columbia Supreme Court issued an injunction to allow construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, giving the company unlimited access to Wet'suwet'en lands.

# data[].attributes.body
Robert brought up a good point about why these routes are always going through reserves and no where else? Reserves only take up 1% of the land in Canada so why should the Indigenous people be affected by these pipelines going through their home? It seems like Indigenous people who live on reserves are still constantly being pushed down and ''bullied''. Their voices aren't strong enough for change to happen so a question is who's voices are powerful and being heard the most?
The pipeline websites make it seem like everything is so seamless, everyone is on board, it's completely safe and effective but like how Lauren said, those 5 clans who agreed might only have agreed because they feel like this is the only option for them. Another great question that was brought up was yes that there is opportunity for jobs but how long do these jobs last for? What will happen when the pipeline is complete?

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting that a majority of the bands whose land the pipeline will be on actually support it but for what reason? Need. I wonder if it didn't come with economic gain what their response would be

# data[].attributes.body
Although 5/7 of the Indigenous bands are in the area and have agreed to go ahead with the pipeline, it doesn't seem like Indigenous people have a lot of better alternatives to making money. Either they refuse the pipeline and continue to live in poverty or they agree to have a pipeline go through their land and receive millions for it and other resources. If there was no dollar amount given to Indigenous people, I wonder if they would still agree to this? Probably not. The Indigenous communities should have already have access to clean water, jobs, and meet the basic needs so they do not have to make decisions like this. Ultimately, the government has the upper hand in this scenario because the communities are backed into a corner.

# data[].attributes.body
After doing research on CGL and TMP, their websites promote the pipeline in such a positive way. They include that they've talked with and have the support of many Indigenous people and that they've taken a whole bunch of safety precautions. These companies promote themselves in such a positive way that it makes the pipeline look like it is the best thing. Looking at the many banks across the world that have contributed billions of dollars to this project, money is one of the driving forces behind the continuation of these projects. Companies will put the money they are getting over the many concerns that are being brought up and over the opinions of the communities that it will be running through.

# data[].attributes.body
The overarching theme in this entire discussion seems that "money is the answer." This pipeline is being pushed because of the economic value it has and it has support based how it can provide economic growth to communities. I wonder how a compromise can be reached or if can at all considering so much money is being poured into this project.

# data[].attributes.body
Robert mentioned a valuable point which is that if Indigenous territories only make up a small percentage of the land, why are most of the pipelines designated to go through their land? Ultimately, there are other parts of the land that the pipelines can be built on. So would one reason be to just protect and benefit non-Indigenous people?

# data[].attributes.body
When considering the stakes from different players in this issue, I think we need to consider not just individual stances but systems of agreement, government, incentive, and freely given consent. For example, when making agreements, according to law, consent needs to be informed and given freely. If nations have financial incentives for agreeing to a deal, such as $2.5 million dollars in the Stellat'en territory, that financial benefit will not be spent equally within the community and it is not every member within the community that is giving consent.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.shakeuptheestab.org/post/pipeline-impact-lng

From the environmental view, this article from Shake Up The Establishment also talks about how the pipeline affects the wildlife in the area. For example,

"Telkwa caribou are highly endangered, with only about 20 animals remaining; the pipeline project will jeopardize almost half of it"

In addition, the tanker presence will impact local whale species due to noise, habitat destruction, etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental Impact of Coastal GasLink Pipeline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The proposed Coastal GasLink pipeline is making headlines for the blatant disregard for indigenous rights involved in its construction. We reviewed some of the environmental impacts of the project, which include negative impacts on wildlife populations and increased greenhouse gas emission.

# data[].attributes.body
Like Robert said, it is a great method to get students to research and flesh out multiple sides of issue without worrying about being personally tied to a controversial position. Perfect starting point to jump from. Highlights also the complications of these issues in terms of costs to certain stake holders. Enables students to practice working through solutions and long term viewpoints.

# data[].attributes.body
When you look on the Coastal Gaslink and Transmountain Pipeline websites, everything appears to be fair and positive. Statements like "We guarantee to safely deliver natural gas..." how can you "safely" deliver this material!? It is impossible for small leaks to not be present with time and they know this...In addition, there are sections with personal Indigenous stories of support towards the pipeline. These stories make it appear like the Indigenous peoples and communities strongly support the notion however, Hereditary Chief Lauren mentioned that these groups are often backed into a corner. They are experiencing intense poverty therefore, for many of them this is the only option. Not to mention the several billion dollars that many banks and major industries have invested...can't really back down now, can we?

# data[].attributes.body
One of the main themes I see is that there is less "power" in support for the ecosystem and for the Indigenous lands while there is a lot of "power" in support for economy so it is biased towards the louder voices.

# data[].attributes.body
Our groups initial research on the RCMP and their roles/responsibilities in the BC Pipeline.

Who: RCMP & Justice System

What: removing protestors when court orders, enforcing and 'ensuring that the job gets done'

When: when court orders and government mandates

Where: B.C. pipeline and Indigenous territories

Why:  "Opponents of Coastal GasLink project were calling for ‘war,’" “rescuing pipeline workers”

What voices are being amplified? The ones that have the most money at stake? Or the ones who have the promise of an economy boost as a result of the pipeline? Both... who does that leave out?

# data[].attributes.body
One of the main issues that concern me is exactly what Lauren brought up.  Many clans are so disenfranchised in their communities, that they are left with no choice but to sign on in order to have a chance to lift themselves out of poverty.  It really does seem that the hold-out clans are the most wealthy of the clans and thereby the most positioned to be able to be activists for their true beliefs.
I wonder if, for instance, there was say, a universal basic income and clean water in all communities, would there still be 5 clans signing onto the pipelines? I don't think so.

# data[].attributes.body
I’m surprised by how many stakeholders are actually for the pipeline. The Hereditary Chief really has to make an effort to get their voice heard, and remind the group of whose land and whose people need to be taken into consideration. Often the preoccupation is with the financial gains for most stakeholders, specifically the Band Counsel representatives, Industry Workers, and Justice System.

Attached is an article about the leaked benefits of some agreements which include:

“education and training benefits, contracting and employment opportunities, annual legacy payments over the lifetime of the pipeline, and ‘general project payments’ to be made in three instalments.”

In addition to this, the BC government has agreed to over $2.5 million for the Stellat'en territory to allow the pipeline through.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anti-pipeline protesters from the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory just east of Belleville, Ont., continue their blockade that has forced CN Rail to shut down its network east of Toronto. Protesters say the blockade is in support of Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs in B.C. who oppose the Coastal GasLink pipeline project which would partially run through their traditional territory.

Does that mean, however, that all the Wet'suwet'en people oppose the pipeline?

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, Andrew Scheer stressed that his Conservative Party stands in support of the project "with the elected councillors of the Wet'suwet'en" Nation and that "the vast majority of of the Wet'suwet'en people" also approve of the pipeline.

But it's not as clear-cut as Scheer suggests. We answer some of the questions at the root of the dispute.

Who along the route supports the project?

The $6 billion, 670-kilometre pipeline will deliver natural gas from the Dawson Creek area in northern B.C., heading west near Vanderhoof to a liquefaction facility in Kitimat. It's part of a $40-billion LNG Canada project.

In September 2018, Coastal GasLink announced that it had signed community and project agreements (also known as benefit agreements) with 20 First Nations band councils along the route of the pipeline. The band councils included those from the Wet'suwet'en Nation.

Who is opposed?

Opposition to the pipeline is being mounted by the majorityof Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs. The clan chiefs have said that despite the agreements signed by the nation's band councils, the project needs the chiefs' authorization to proceed.

They say the band councils are responsible for only the territory within their individual reserves, which were created through the Indian Act. But the hereditary chiefs say they are following Wet'suwet'en law, laws that predate colonization and the Indian Act, meaning they assert authority over the broader 22,000 square kilometres of traditional territory that the pipeline would cross.

"They are following law, which says to them that they need to protect the lands with which they have a sacred connection, which is a much larger piece of territories than the band chiefs are responsible for," said Kim Stanton, a Toronto-based lawyer who practices Aboriginal law.

Do most Wet'suwet'en people back the project?

It's difficult to determine how many of the more than 3,000 members of the Wet'suwet'en Nation approve of the pipeline project. But it has certainly garnered the support of the elected leadership.

Five of six band councils that govern the member nations that make up Wet'suwet'en Nation are among the 20 First Nations band councils to reach benefit agreements with Coastal GasLink. Those five councils represent: Skin Tyee First Nation, Wet'suwet'en First Nation, Witset First Nation, Nee Tahi Buhn Band and Burns Lake Band.

Bonnie Georgie, a member of the Witset First Nation and a former Coastal GasLink employee, told CBC Radio's As it Happens this month that while some people attended meetings and were very vocal in their opposition, "there's quite a bit of support for this project."

However a sixth band council of Wet'suwet'en nation - the Hagwilget Nation Village Council - did not sign an agreement with Coastal GasLink.

Brian Michell, one of their elected councillors, told The Canadian Press last year that the village council never got as far as hearing a dollar figure because they refused to entertain the idea of an agreement.

What about other First Nations with agreements?

There's likely varying degrees of support. In January, Chief Coun. Crystal Smith of the Haisla Nation in Kitimat told The Canadian Press that the project will help the community become less reliant on federal funding by creating jobs for Indigenous people and lifting communities from poverty.

But Nak'azdli Whut'en Chief Alex McKinnon said signing an agreement with Coastal GasLink was one of the most difficult decisions he's ever made.

Stanton, the lawyer, said bands are forced to make very difficult choices about whether to make deals with resource extraction companies. Indian Act bands have been chronically underfunded and under-resourced, she said.

"I think you can say that people are trying their best to do what they can for their people under very difficult circumstances. And when a resource extraction company comes along and says, 'Look, we have all of this money for you,' they are loath not to take it."

"They're in between a rock and a hard place. I don't think it's a measure of unqualified support."

What's in the agreements?

Coastal GasLink has said they won't comment on the benefit agreements since they are supposed to be confidential between the company and each First Nation. And so, those details have mostly been kept from the public.

However, last year, CBC's Chantelle Bellrichard reported on a leaked benefits agreement with Nak'azdli Whut'en. The agreement included education and training benefits, contracting and employment opportunities, annual legacy payments over the lifetime of the pipeline, and "general project payments" to be made in three instalments.

However, one condition sparked criticism - that the band will "take all reasonable actions" to dissuade its members from doing anything that could "impede, hinder, frustrate, delay, stop or interfere with the project, the project's contractors, any authorizations or any approval process."

That included dissuading band members from taking part "in any media or social media campaign."

Has B.C. made separate agreements with First Nations?

Yes. According to the province's website, British Columbia has signed natural gas benefit agreements with First Nations along the Coastal GasLink pipeline route. In all, there are 15 agreements signed. And details of those agreements are public.

For example, the agreement between the province and Stellat'en First Nation stipulates the B.C. government will provide $2.53 million in exchange for allowing the pipeline on Stellat'en territory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why 2 different kinds of Wet'suwet'en leaders support and oppose the gas pipeline | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs in B.C. oppose the Coastal GasLink pipeline project running through their traditional territory. But Andrew Scheer says "the vast majority of the Wet'suwet'en people" support the project. What did the Conservative leader mean by that? CBC explains.

# data[].attributes.body
Hereditary Chief says they feel pressured into agreeing with the pipeline because of the poverty the Indigenous people face. The Band Council is ready to agree. Is this a case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"? There appears to be a disconnect between the Band Council and the Hereditary Chief...