As Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nation (one of the communities most impacted by the dam) has repeatedly said, consultation is not consent. It’s not even consent when First Nations sign benefit agreements with BC Hydro, since many sign under duress. Most Treaty 8 Nations do not want to see the Peace River valley destroyed and most acknowledge that the dam violates Treaty 8 and Indigenous rights. Benefit agreements are signed with BC Hydro out of a need to gain some advantage from a project that is clearly going ahead anyway, a project that most nations do not have the resources to stop or successfully fight in court. This is a familiar pattern repeated all across Canada, as financially strapped Indigenous communities realize that projects are unstoppable even before consultation, and agree to benefits payouts as the least terrible path.

Despite the difficulty and expense of taking governments and crown corporations to court, West Moberly First Nation continues its challenge to Site C in BC Supreme Court, with the respondents being BC Hydro, the BC government and the Gov’t of Canada. It is represented by Sage Legal and eminent BC expert on aboriginal law Jack Woodward. A separate case launched by Blueberry River First Nation seeking damages for cumulative impacts of development and infringement of their Treaty 8 rights includes impacts from Site C.

Across Canada, large dams disproportionately impact Indigenous communities, flooding vast tracts of land and poisoning the water and food supply. As with Muskrat Falls, Keeyask—and the other large dams of BC, Manitoba and Quebec—Site C will violate Indigenous rights. Please read Amnesty International Canada’s Site C Dam: Human Rights at Risk.

Site C lies in Treaty 8 territory. Treaty 8 guarantees a continuance of the traditional way of life, both in terms of hunting and fishing and cultural and spiritual activities.

Under Treaty 8 BC government has the right to push projects through if there’s a demonstrated public need. There is no demonstrated public need for Site C’s electricity, and furthermore alternatives to the dam are cheaper and lower in impact, so provincial and federal governments cannot justify the dam in terms of Treaty 8.