The Tsartlip First Nation is adding its voice to oppose a controversial water line planned for an area north of Victoria.
“We were not informed by you of this project,” Chief Wayne Morris and the council for the Tsartlip First Nation wrote in a January 30, 2009 letter to the Central Saanich mayor and council. “We have received copies of documents from Western Economic Diversification Canada, indicating that you were supposed to have consulted with us on this project.”
The federal and provincial governments have granted over $1 million to the municipality to provide water service to 64 homes in a well-to-do area of the Saanich Peninsula. The bylaws allowing for the water line to proceed are on the agenda for this evening's Central Saanich council meeting.
The chief and council asked that Central Saanich hold the bylaws until they are consulted. “If you choose to proceed, we will take action accordingly.”
Mayor Jack Mar was unavailable before posting time.
The Tsartlip letter said Mount Newton is sacred. So is the point where the water service is planned. “It contains remains of our ancestors,” the letter said. “No work or plans of any kind on [Mount Newton] or Henderson point is to move ahead unless we are informed and have the opportunity to ensure that our sacred sites and our ancestors are in no way disturbed as a result of your activities there.”
(The letter says the Tsartlip name for Mount Newton is WSANEC, though Central Saanich councilor and Tsartlip member Adam Olsen said in an interview the letter is incorrect. The mountain is known as LAUWELNEW, he said.)
Members of the Mount Newton Neighbourhood Association also oppose extending the water line. “There's been very little public process,” said area resident Lori Waters. Senior governments have based their grant and approvals on erroneous information provided by the municipality and have failed to give the project proper scrutiny, she said. “I don't feel like I can trust our governments anymore.”
Andrew MacLeod is The Tyee’s Legislative Bureau Chief in Victoria. Reach him here.
2
Login or register to post comments
DPL
3 years ago
Here we go again. Just
Here we go again. Just another "sacred site" that nobody ever mentioned was sacred before. WE sat through numerous debates over a hill near nanaimo and it finally got into the treaty framework. Did that setlle it? of course not as that treaty is not yet completed.
Will Central Saanich fold? Guess we have to wait and see. With four bands in the area the trend may continue. Wasn't long ago that the Tsecum was claiming owner ship of the airport, another is Woodwyne Farm. It will never end till that gang gets into a treaty and the bundle of rights is negotiated.
MzH2o
3 years ago
LAUWELNEW is a well-known sacred site,
as mentioned on the District website. First Nations valid claims deserve the same respect as anyone’s rights. The Tsartlip First Nation sent representatives to Central Saanich's meeting last night, however, the Mayor did not offer the courtesy to let them to speak to their letter or the issue prior to commencing reading the ByLaw. The District Administrator - despite Western Economic Diversification documents to the contrary - stated "there is no obligation for us to consult." Councillors Mason and Olsen are to be commended for again arguing for mediation and for standing up for First Nations Rights. As Councillor Mason said, it is "irresponsible" for Council to be proceeding on this contentious issue without consultation, transparency, and due public process. The laisse-faire attitude of some members of Council towards municipal bylaws evidenced at last night's meeting was also disconcerting. The District's own procedure bylaw states that each reading will be on a separate day, unless approved by a 2/3 majority vote, but Council still had it on the agenda to ram through three bylaw readings in one night for the controversial project, eliminating possibility for "sober second thought." (Some of us would have liked some sober FIRST thought.) The District Administrator stated "what we've done in the past your worship is that there has been a motion to give all three readings to a bylaw on the same evening. The requirement though is that there be one clear day between third reading and fourth reading.” “I guess if you were following the procedure bylaw to the absolute letter, there would be a motion to give first three readings of a bylaw on the same evening. But it is permissible.” In the end, the Bylaw received one reading, Given the controversy and now not one but now two impending legal suits against the municipality as a result of proceeding, it's surprising that Council didn't take the Administrator's recommendation to shelve any further readings, per Tsartlip’s request, and instead go to mediation . Both sides in the dispute and earlier a Provincial Minister asked for provincially-funded Mediation - a pittance of provincial funds in comparison to the proposed spending for what many view as unnecessary public infrastructure. Opposition groups argue the project shouldn’t proceed as it’s based on: an invalid petition process that the District's Solicitor said would fail a Judicial Review, an incorrect and incomplete grant application, for a project that does not take the environment, First Nations, archaeological, and other concerns into account. Now, when the lawsuits go to court, all taxpayers in the Municipality will pay for the District's decisions. This is ridiculous. Re-petitioning the catchment or mediating a solution is the right thing to do, and would cost the District nothing. What motivations underlie these decisions and such stubborn resolve in the face of mounting opposition? senanus.net