Affirm Indigenous Sovereignty and Defend Mother Earth
Stand with Land Defenders at Annual General Meeting of RBC
A protest is being held at the Royal Bank of Canada’s (RBC) annual general meeting in Etobicoke in the west end of Toronto on April 11. RBC and other banks are heavily involved in projects like the Coastal GasLink (CGL) pipeline, built on unceded land of the Wet’suwet’en without their consent, and imposed through state violence by the RCMP. Legal cases facing several land defenders remain before the courts.
Organizers state: “Indigenous people, impacted community members and youth are coming to Etobicoke to speak truth to power. Join us at 644 Dixon Road on April 11 at 10am to stand in solidarity with the frontlines!”
The website Fossil Free RBC explains RBC’s involvement in the CGL pipeline:
“Built by TC Energy, the 670-km Coastal GasLink pipeline is intended to carry fracked gas from Dawson Creek to Kitimat, BC, where it will be converted to liquified natural gas (LNG) for export to global markets. Despite unequivocal Wet’suwet’en opposition to the project, the pipeline runs through 22,000 square kilometres of the Nation’s unceded territory. It also crosses more than 206 ecologically sensitive waterways. The pipeline is built to carry 2.1 billion cubic feet per day of fracked gas, with a peak capacity of up to five billion cubic feet per day.”
RBC is among five commercial banks (including Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, CIBC and TD bank) that provided the project with working capital, including co-financing a $6.5 billion loan. Originally estimated to cost CAD$6.6 billion, the cost of the project, as of February 2023, has risen to CAD$14.5 billion. The pipeline was physically completed at the end of 2023. Compressor stations along the pipeline and a processing and export facility in Kitimat are still to be completed. RBC, the largest bank in Canada, is also heavily invested in TC Energy. Fossil Free RBC explains:
“RBC also holds over 85 million shares in TC Energy, which translates to about 8.6 per cent of the company or more than a $1.03 billion-dollar stake (at $58/share). RBC not only finances TC Energy; it’s deeply invested in the company, and doubly exposed in the Coastal GasLink pipeline.
“In September 2021, RBC joined the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) – a coalition of financial institutions committed to accelerating economic decarbonization. Yet, between January and October 2021, RBC provided fossil fuel companies with $23.9 billion in loans and underwriting and $51 billion in investments.
“Coastal GasLink contradicts both Canada’s international climate commitments and BC legislation intended to stem the climate crisis. The pipeline is expected to transport up to five billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per day. When burned, this will produce an estimated 585.5 million pounds of C02 each day, which is equivalent to the C02 emissions released from burning over 300 million pounds of coal, or the greenhouse gas emissions from driving more than 59,000 passenger vehicles for a year.
[…]
“The Wet’suwet’en have re-asserted their land use, occupancy, hereditary governance system, and remain the title holders with the authority and jurisdiction to control the unceded lands where the pipeline is currently being built. The project contravenes ‘Anic ‘niwh’it’en (Wet’suwet’en), federal, and international laws, yet TC Energy and Coastal GasLink have refused to withdraw.
“Coastal GasLink also violates free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), as protected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), and which Canada adopted at both federal and provincial levels. Even the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called on the Canadian government to ‘immediately halt the construction and suspend all permits and approvals for the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline in the traditional and unceded lands and territories of the Wet’suwet’en people, until they grant their free, prior and informed consent, following the full and adequate discharge of the duty to consult.'”
|
|