News

A Tyee Series

Sharing the Forests

In new timber deals, what are First Nations really getting? Third in a series.

By Sandra Shields, 13 Apr 2007, TheTyee.ca

Ax and chainsaw

Gaining a cut of the logging, but not many jobs. Photo by David Campion.

Tyee interview

Listen to audio: Kathryn Gretsinger interviews Sandra Shields about First Nations reconciliation.

[Editor's Note: Two years ago, the government of British Columbia and First Nations leaders laid out a vision for a "New Relationship," spurring initiatives aimed at "closing the gap" between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal British Columbians. This is the third article in a four-part Tyee Solutions Reporting Fellowship series by Sandra Shields, who is looking at steps being taken in her home community of the Fraser Valley. To learn more about Shields, her series and Tyee fellowships, go here.]

Leq'á:mél First Nations councillor Barb Leggatt invites me into a boardroom where pieces of paper with Halkomelem words printed on them are taped to the wall, part of the language class held here for local kids. The adjacent hall is used for cultural events and when I called to arrange this interview, drumming and singing could be heard in the background. A busy mother of six children, Leggat works full-time as the band's land-use coordinator as well as serving on council.

The traditional territory of the Leq'á:mél lies between Mission and Agassiz in a stretch of the valley that is squeezed between the sprawling Fraser River and the forested slopes of the Coast Mountains. As an urban transplant to this rural area, it took me months to realize that the dense stands of cedar, hemlock and fir covering the mountainsides have all been extensively logged.

Trees began falling in the Fraser Valley in the 1870s and by the 1920s most of the face of the valley had been hauled to the river and floated to mills near Vancouver. Throughout the 20th century, Stó:lo bands like the Leq'á:mél watched as power saws were invented, logging trucks came into use, and trees continued to leave their traditional territory. Any compensation the Leq'á:mél received was restricted to the seasonal pay their fathers and sons earned in the valley's logging camps.

First Nations across B.C. have lived variations on the same scenario. In recent decades, anger and frustration turned into blockades and court cases until a series of legal decisions pushed the province into a corner. In two separate decisions in 2002, the court said that when it came to resource extraction on Crown land, B.C. had to consult with First Nations and seek to accommodate potential Aboriginal rights and title. The meaning was clear: the province could either change the way it did business, or continue to lose business. So in 2003, then forestry minister Mike de Jong announced that for the first time ever, B.C. would share revenue and access to the forests with First Nations.

The offers the province put on the table contained two parts: there was cash (a small share of the stumpage fees B.C. collects every time a forest company falls a tree on Crown land); and there was timber (the chance for First Nations to do some logging). Called forest and range agreements or FRAs, the deals cut First Nations a fraction of the action in exchange for peace in the woods. With treaties remaining elusive, these interim measures were touted as achieving the dual objectives of giving economic opportunities to First Nations, and creating a stable operating environment and better investment climate for the forest sector.

In January of 2006, the Leq'á:mél became the 100th First Nation in B.C. to sign a forest agreement. They received $760,000 to be paid out over five years, and gained access to 45,000 cubic metres of timber. The press release issued by the province repeated several times that forestry agreements were bringing jobs and economic prosperity to Aboriginal communities. Curious to learn if this was indeed the case, I came to see Barb Leggatt.

What jobs?

"The initial response we got from our community members was 'When do we get to go to work?'" Leggat says. "That was from the loggers who have lost jobs because of the cutbacks in the industry."

Forestry is new terrain for Leggat. She recently attended a workshop with other First Nations who have also signed forestry agreements and discovered that many nations share the same challenge the Leq'á:mél face. Logging is a tough business these days, and there are good reasons for moving carefully, especially when you lack expertise, capital and equipment.

"There are so many things to do, even with the forestry stewardship plan," Leggat says, referring to the extensive document that is required by the Ministry of Forests before harvesting is approved. The plan must address issues like migratory birds and species at risk, slope stability and keeping a sufficient distance from watersheds. Rather than trying to start up a logging operation of their own, the Leq'á:mél are taking the same route as many other First Nations and looking to partner with a company that has experience in the industry.

"There were suggestions from band members that we do it ourselves, but not having the expertise to manage it, that wasn't an option," Leggat says. Instead, the band is close to signing a deal with a company that will then be responsible for selecting the most valuable timber, figuring out how to access it, meeting Ministry of Forests requirements, hiring reliable logging contractors to do the actual harvest, and finding good markets. Once the agreement is signed, Leggat says it will likely be a year before all the Ministry of Forests requirements are met and harvesting can begin.

So what about jobs? One of the things she has learned, Leggat says is that "with the amount of timber we've got, we can't promise any long-term jobs at all, but when we work the agreement out to harvest the timber, we can request that one or two members get hired for the season."

Logging doesn't involve legions of men with chainsaws anymore. It's highly mechanized these days, so while there will be work for a couple of loggers for a season or two and perhaps a few temporary jobs created in the replanting that follows the harvest, the significant job creation, if there is any, will be a result of what the Leq'á:mél do with the revenue.

"Whatever we derive out of this agreement financially is going to be reinvested into a venture on reserve," Leggat says. "So we're just hoping it's substantial enough because we would like to do a service station on the reserve, that's been the wishes of the members for a long time." Situated on Highway 7, the station would include a tourism component and could turn into a number of steady jobs for band members.

"It's not a lot," Leggat says of the deal, "but we're finally getting a chance to get into the sharing of the resource. We never had the opportunity to do so before."

A shaky foundation

Writer Ben Parfitt has covered forestry in B.C. for two decades and is well placed to evaluate the new agreements, something he did at length in a report released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives earlier this year. In the report, Parfitt describes the agreements as "a dramatic departure from what existed previously, which was essentially nothing." But after speaking with First Nations across the province, Parfitt says that much more is needed to create the kind of economic opportunities talked about in provincial press releases.

"Companies that have been in the forestry business for quite some time are losing money," Parfitt says when I speak with him by phone in his Victoria office, "so it seems reasonable to think that new entrants to the industry are going to have to be awfully savvy."

First Nations already involved in forestry have been the best situated to take advantage of the agreements. Parfitt points out that the few nations already in the business gained the traction they've got through court cases or direct action. But the majority of the almost 130 nations that have signed forestry agreements are new to the industry, and the feedback Parfitt got confirmed that as these nations learn more about the costs and risks involved in logging today, many are thinking twice about what to do.

"It's an extremely challenging business environment at the best of times," Parfitt says. "The government has taken the right step in finally acknowledging that they need to do more, but it's a tiny step and ultimately why should we be expecting that First Nations are magically going to be able to produce good results when they're offered one-time allotments of timber in non-specified areas with no guarantee of renewal. That is not the foundation on which to build a viable forestry-related enterprise."

In a worst case scenario, Parfitt says, a nation could harvest and lose money. Indeed, given the economics, some nations may choose not to log at all. Many are opting for the same route as the Leq'á:mél, partnering with an established company rather than start up their own forestry operation. The best case scenario, from a job's perspective, would be profitably logging, and directing those logs to a milling facility where members are working. "But that far end of the spectrum, the high end where the jobs are produced, that is an extremely rare situation in British Columbia."

What is needed?

There are several problems with the agreements when it comes to fulfilling the promises of provincial press releases, but two things are key: time and land. Time is a problem because a five-year term is too short to allow for the kind of long-range planning and investment that successful forestry operations require. What is needed is either renewable agreements or the long-term certainty that will come with treaties.

Land is a problem because most of the agreements, like the one the Leq'á:mél signed, do not come with any land. They come with a relatively small volume of timber to be harvested within a given forest district, but they do not come with ongoing responsibility for a specific land base.

"If you talk to anybody who has experience in forestry, they say you need to find areas of land to work on over time, and if you don't have that, it is extremely difficult to make a go of it," Parfitt says. One of his recommendations is that defined areas of forest land be turned over to First Nations under long-term, renewable forest tenures. With the new forestry agreements, the province set a target of sharing eight per cent of the total annual cut with First Nations. Parfitt suggests that instead of offering volume, the province could work over time to transfer eight per cent of the forested land base. He makes the point that knowing what lands you will manage over time is both economically and ecologically preferable.

Learning to share

Cutting First Nations in for a share of resources is not an area where B.C. has much experience. (Fisheries being an ever-contentious exception.) In a strip-mall in Abbotsford, I sat down with lawyer-turned-politician Mike de Jong who was forest minister when the FRAs were developed. De Jong grew up in the valley and has been an MLA here for more than a decade. Last September, he was moved from Forests to Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

De Jong says his experience with the forestry agreements was instrumental in shifting his view of relations with First Nations which, not surprisingly for a lawyer, "had tended to be very legalistic." He recalls how, as forest minister, he would get calls from First Nations leaders talking about huge unreconciled claims and he would feel like "We are never going to be able to solve this. How do we even have this phone conversation? How do we talk about this?"

Things began to change, he says, when the government took the step to say: "Let's talk about economic opportunity. Let's not forget about rights and title, but let's talk about being part of the economy."

The result was that the province and First Nations began to sign agreements and, for de Jong, two things happened: "First of all, after the agreement I still get calls from the chief but now it is because, 'My stumpage is too high,' or 'I'm having trouble marketing my logs,' and suddenly the engagement is on a completely different plane. Now we're working with one another."

And secondly, he discovered that "At the end of the day, the agreements lived or died, succeeded or failed by the degree of good will that existed between the two parties. If an element of trust was there you could find solutions to things."

He recalls that, "All of that greatly influenced me to the extent that I said we have to work together to find ways to get people involved economically, to be flexible, more flexible than five years ago I would have been around the nature of the agreements."

Keep talking

Issues didn't disappear, de Jong says, but the agreements opened up a conversation that is ongoing. One milestone in that conversation came in 2006 when, under pressure from First Nations leaders, the forest and range agreements were changed to forest and range opportunities. The big difference between the FRAs and the FROs was that the latter were no longer taken as fulfilling the province's duty to consult and accommodate.

But whether they are FRAs or FROs, the conversation about how land and resources should be shared continues. As far as land goes, de Jong says, "The notion was pretty firmly embedded that if you wanted to move from a volume-based tenure to an area-based tenure, that's the reward for getting to a treaty. That's what a treaty is. A treaty is an area-based settlement."

However, with treaties remaining a distant prospect for many First Nations, the conversation is shifting in the direction of considering area-based tenure as an interim step. "If you are more motivated by the desire to effect development, create better economic prospects, better socio-economic conditions," de Jong says, "maybe there is an argument that says, 'Look as an interim treaty measure, as an incremental agreement, let's transfer that. Let's get on with that."

He cautions that this is not a simple step for the province. "Once it's done, the model has been set. Once you have made that kind of decision once, you better be prepared to follow through elsewhere."

In that respect, de Jong says, "The revenue sharing was a huge step for government." And there is pressure to expand that. "People are saying if revenue sharing is good for forestry, what about other resources?"

What is fair?

Under the current forestry agreements, the share of revenues that First Nations receive is based on an annual rate of $500 per member. This per-capita formula has been criticized by First Nations leaders, successfully challenged in court, and in his report, Ben Parfitt finds it to be both insufficient and unfair.

"The cash offers bear absolutely no relationship to the level of activity that is occurring in a First Nation's territory," he explains when I bring it up. "So a First Nation that has a million cubic metres of wood being logged per year on their traditional lands gets treated exactly the same as a First Nation that has only a thousand cubic metres being logged off their territory each year."

As well, there is no relationship between the cash offer and what is occurring on the land base, both in terms of the number of trees coming down and the values of those trees. "So a First Nation that has old growth western red cedar," Parfitt says, "gets the same cash offer on a per-head basis as a First Nation in the interior with a land base filled with dead pine trees."

Citing the precedent of Washington State where a federal judge ruled that Aboriginal people deserved half of the state's salmon fisheries, Parfitt recommends that stumpage fees be split 50/50 between the province and First Nations based on the harvesting activity in individual territories.

"Like stumpage payments channeled into provincial government coffers," Parfitt writes, "stumpage revenues received by First Nations would provide a valuable source of funds for the provision of public services and assist in economic diversification."

Far side of the valley

From the Leq'á:mél band office you can look across the valley to where the jagged peaks of the Skagit mountains rise up behind the growing city of Chilliwack. On a gray winter day, I visited Matt Wealick in his office in a busy Chilliwack shopping plaza owned by the Tzeachten First Nation, of which Wealick is a member.

The young father of two manages forestry operations for the Ch-ihl-kway-uhk Tribe, eight Stó:lo bands from the Chilliwack area that compensated for small allotments of timber by forming an alliance. The resulting FRA provided a pool of capital and timber that spawned a joint venture partnership estimated to be worth $12 million. I came to see Wealick to learn how this innovative approach is working.

Although Wealick is from Chilliwack, he grew up on Vancouver Island where his dad worked as a logger. "Back then you just had to bring a pair of boots, show up at the work site, and you had a job," he says. He followed in his dad's footsteps, but his path reflects how the industry has changed in the space of a generation. While he has on the ground experience all over the province, Wealick also has a forest management degree from UBC and did the additional work required to earn the designation of registered professional forester, becoming one of a dozen First Nation professional foresters in B.C. and augmenting that with a master's degree in environment and management. In 2005 he came home to manage the Ch-ihl-kway-uhk's joint venture with New Westminster-based forestry company Probyn Logs.

Wealick says the Ch-ihl-kway-uhk had reservations about the deal the province was offering, "But the chiefs thought if we don't get in and start doing something now, the logs are going to keep going by, the opportunities will keep going by, and we'll still be sitting here trying to get treaty negotiations settled."

He says, "It's great to have some say in how forest activities are done in the traditional territory, but on the other hand it's only a five-year license so there's not really incentive to put a lot of money into the long-term management of our forests."

Once the agreement was signed, it took the Ch-ihl-kway-uhk three years to get the license they need to start harvesting. Wealick shakes his head over the amount of red tape. "I don't think a lot of First Nations are expecting it," he says. "It's very financially draining and probably emotionally draining as well." Still, he is optimistic about the prospects and expects to start cutting in the fall.

Community forests

One of the things that sets the Ch-ihl-kway-uhk agreement apart is that it includes an 800 hectare woodlot. "We're very pleased to have the opportunity to have a woodlot," Wealick says, "because it is a long-term tenure, it's an area-based tenure. It allows for the incentive to do some long-term planning and make sure the forests in that area are sustainable."

The woodlot lies within the Chilliwack River Valley, a narrow and stunningly beautiful valley in the mountains between Chilliwack and the U.S. border. The ecologically sensitive region is the Ch-ihl-kway-uhk's traditional territory. Ideally, Wealick would like to see the entire 95,000 hectares managed as a community forest. This was what the chiefs had originally requested and Wealick says it's the kind of approach that makes more sense both economically and ecologically.

Community forests are a growing phenomenon in B.C. They are about local control of forest resources and local enjoyment of the benefits offered by those resources. Harvest rates and locations are set by the community according to their objectives and values, whether those be ecological, cultural, spiritual, recreational or aesthetic. The revenue generated supports local priorities including employment and economic development. The provincial government began expanding the volume of timber allocated to community forests several years ago and by October 2006 there were 43 communities either in the application process or operating a community forest agreement.

It sounds ideal for the Chilliwack River Valley and when I say as much, Wealick agrees. "Of course you have other licensees to be concerned about," he says, referring to forestry companies with tenure in the region, "but maybe those licensees wouldn't mind being part of a community forest." He sees the possibility of including a number of stakeholders. "We could manage the valley as one entity," he says, and points out that a community forest approach would better respond to the sensitivities of the region. "But thinking outside the box is definitely what you would need to make it work."

Out of the box

Back in Deroche, I take a walk up the old logging road that climbs into the forest beside the farmhouse where I live. When it comes to forestry and Aboriginal people, FRAs and FROs were out of the box thinking for the B.C. government. This is significant but in the Fraser Valley the results have yet to reach the ground and all indications are that once they do, they will not be as rosy as the provincial press releases promised.

After a 15-minute climb, the logging road levels out for a short stretch and a gap in the trees frames a view of the valley with its toy-sized barns, the thin winding old highway, the sliver glint of the Fraser River and backdropping it all, the snow-covered peaks of the Skagit Range on the southern shore.

The forestry agreements initiated a conversation with First Nations that is ongoing. If this conversation is to bring the kind of results that add up both economically and ecologically, for the Leq'á:mél and the Ch-ihl-kway-uhk, as well as for the forest that surrounds me and the forests that lie on the far side of the snow-capped peaks across the river, a lot more out of the box thinking and talking is going to be required.

Next week: Where can reconciliation take us?  [Tyee]

18  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Capitalism

    5 years ago

    Interesting Article

    I am very interesting in making sure the FN get theirs - however, we need to settle this once and for all.

    We need to settle these land claim issues and give FN their FAIR share. This isn't a land grab. FN can't reasonably lay claim to as much of the province as they have.

    After this, we should move forward.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Why not?

    Quote:
    FN can't reasonably lay claim to as much of the province as they have.

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    claims

    Reasonably lay claim to? OK, so there's some guy who lives in Delbrook or Caufield, let's say he goes to the provincial government office and pulls a map out, draws a couple of lines, pays a fee, and whatever's on the map he owns, has mineral rights to, can take the trees from, divert the water, whatever.....and he can make money off this land, and buy and sell it, even though he never sets foot on it, or comes within a few hundred miles of it. But the people who live just down the road or in the next valley over, or even right on that land - they didn't (and don't) even have the right to go in that government office and fill out the same paperwork. The same paperwork that came into being without acknowledging their existence.

    It's the province of BC that doesn't have a reasonable claim over so much of the place; especially when resource extraction has depleted an area, with no reinvestment, i.e. there's no demonstrable development associated with the extraction of resources, putting the lie to the myth that "white people are better managers" etc. We don't manage at all, other than expediting wholesale resource exports as cheaply as possible. So between the abstraction of provincial incorporation at all (most of the province was incorporated when 98% of it had never been seen yet, and still about 90% is beyond the actual touch/experience of most BCers, including the pols and bureaucrats in charge of cutting up the cake and distributing it to the public, er, their financial/political supporters.

    Explain to me, Capitalism, how it is that the inherited rights - inherited the same way a Briton inherits a farm or the right to hunt in a given wood - stripped away bureaucratic fiat, explain to me how this is "reasonable" if while extolling the virtues of private property on the one hand it was built entirely on stripping the private property rights of individuals without actual any right in British imperial law to do so.

    It's the control of 90% of the province by the resource magnates and the ministry/pols who serve them that's not reasonable....

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    trees for gas stations

    I've seen the logic of the situation the Leq'á:mél have gotten themselves into with their gas station concept. Here's somebody with key highway-side property, at an extremely commercially viable location, who for the relative pittance it costs to build a gas station have to turn to selling off natural resources to get the financing to start what is effectively a small business.

    Excuse me? OK, reserve lands can't be used for collateral, but anyone else with a key location like that wouldn't have to sell off so many square miles of forest in order to come up with the money. A gas station is a money making business and it's not like it's risky financing; why did the Leq'á:mél have to even think about "earning" their investment money, when anybody else would have had it loaned to them, i.e on non-reserve lands.

    And the trade-off of trees for a few jobs in a small business.....well, that's not "reasonable". But because FNs don't have equity in the usual sense, and no other mechnisms exist, the Leq'á:mél and others like them are forced to take part in resource extraction, in the sale of what assets they can, in order to get a friggin' gas station built. A gas station? A gas station?

  • Van Isle

    5 years ago

    Native logging

    Something is fishy with this story. There are a lot of Native bands in B.C. who have logged their lands (reserves) for years. They run their own logging operations themselves and if they need "white" expertise (ie. operations manager) they just hire them on as an employee. Quite often these fail because of the inside bickering and nepotism that is generated from their own board of directors.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Loans

    I think the amount and source of the funding that is being used to finance the whole treaty process - from the First Nations point of view - is highly questionable and suspect.

    It needs to be looked at much more closely and I don't see any journalists with sufficient resources even beginning the process.

    Shields' Tyee series, for all it's needed and welcome, just scratches the surface of the issues subsumed in this subject matter. While the MSM whistles, both sides (who will determine the eventual outcome of this process) are being financed by the Federal and Provincial governments in ways that may very well affect the long term nature of the resource base and the ownership of this province.

    And I'm not talking about what proportion of that asset actually ends up as part of lands owned, operated and controlled by a group of entities collectively known as First Nations bands.

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    questionable and suspect, but because....

    Quote:
    I think the amount and source of the funding that is being used to finance the whole treaty process - from the First Nations point of view - is highly questionable and suspect.

    But isn't the fact that the treaty process is itself expensive (for them as well as us) somehow also inherently questionable and suspect? No offense, but constitutionalities should be something more than a game of lawyers working on the buy-out, or wrangling over arcane traditional ephemera in the course of evolving native-derived common law. The issue that's forced these costs is the over-a-century old BC stonewalling on the surrender of aboriginal title (for a very long time it maintained that it never existed, or if it had it was automatically abolished by our vote to join Confederation, but no one else ever bought that line - not Ottawa, not the half-dozen G-Gs who were confronted with it (and likely at least one queen and more than two kings), and also not the imperial government either. So offloading the costs of settlement now brings us to where the costs are exorbitant just in sheer market value of the assets sand resources in question (never mind damages for misappropriation), but add on the legal fees and it's crazy.

    There's got to be a better way. I do know that the very nature of the money-driven legal machineries inherent in the treaty process are one reason so many are not in the treaty process, and do not regard the current one as even being close to potentially legitimate. Much brouhaha is made of those nations and bands in the process; a list of those who are not is in some ways far more interesting...

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    particulars

    I'm kind of recusing myself from potential comments about this or that band involved with logging operations of one kind or another, because of personal connections on both sides of the equation in the varying instances....too small a place to say anything directly politick about ;-)

    But I do know that, in spite of fledgling logging efforts by one band, reserve lands on the mountainside above were pirate-logged out of Lillooet and it took months for anyone to care/catch on, and no one would stop it, no fines were exacted, etc. Similarly extensive private logging on nearby unstable land is unchallengeable, and the trees being exported some hundreds of miles away despite the emergence of a mill in the valley.

    Basic economics, even colonial economics, is not at work; plunder is what's at work. That mills and logging are seen as "opportunities" by native nations to me shows how far the resource ethic/religion has permeated this place; the ultimate cultural subversion, with the exploited willingly helping in their exploitation. But it's ever been the way, I suppose...depletion of resources is never a good thing, even when it's sold as "sustainable" (which human activity/markets, sorry folks, just ain't).

  • G West

    5 years ago

    I agree completely

    It's just that I think the whole process has become even more suspect of late and the suggestion here by Shields seems to me to be that this process isn't really addressing your pointed and accurate criticisms either.

    But, if the end result is that the potential value of the financial side of a treaty settlement has (by the time the treaty is in place) been eaten up by the monster that is the negotiation process (lawyers, experts, consultants & etc) so that the only thing left is the land - or forest resource - or ore body or rights of way or whatever - then that is going to be the only bargaining chip many bands have left from a potential development point of view.

    Further, since many of these agreements also involve the eventual surrender or transfer to the band of taxation rights or entitlements that status First Nations people heretofore 'enjoyed', they'll be left with next to nothing when it comes to forging the programs and financing the development they actually need.

    No longer eligible for help under the terms of the Indian Act, unable to finance their own development except by surrendering assets, I fear they may be left in a worse position (if that's possible) than many of them are in now.

    I just don't know enough about what's actually going on but the way commercial, logging and mining interests - not to mention certain industrial players in the lower mainland - seem to be salivating over the conclusion of some of these deals is very suspicious and worrying. And of course, the fact that Campbell is holding all the cards and financing both sides of the process is also extremely worrying – all of this without even considering contested governance and democracy issues at the band council level in many cases.

    Even the way De Jong characterizes the whole thing is extremely suspect.

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    suspect politicians

    Quote:
    Even the way De Jong characterizes the whole thing is extremely suspect.

    The way any politician characterizes anything is extremely suspect. A politician only says what he has to while pretending to say everything. The best summation of this kind of thing I've seen was in Halldor Laxness' The Atom Station, more a novella than a novel, about the events and people around a proposal to build a nuclear power station in Reykjavik.

    Cynicism towards politicians (this in a country of only 500,000) is a major theme in the book, summed up by one quip by a character that went something like that "if a politician tells you something is true, believe the opposite. If he swears on your grandmother's grave, you can be doubly sure/bet on it" (or whatever the idiom/ close of the couplet was). I don't think that's the one he got the Laureate for - it doesn't say on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halldor_Laxness but I just posted a query; I think it was Independent People, but perhaps [[Paradise Regained[/i] (''Paradisarheimt'').

    BTW have you read any Rolvaag (o-slash)? Norwegian-American writer, writes in both English and Norwegian; Giants in the Earth/Verdens Grode is the big one.....

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    response to g west

    I hate having to come up with titles for this new system....

    The cession of age-old rights is not something to be taken lightly, and important bands do NOT and that's why they stay out of the process; one of the biggest would be the Lillooet Tribal Council; N'quatqua (D'Arcy) and In-SHUCK-ch (on the Lower Lillooet River) broke away just so they could get independent deals (they're much smaller reserves with different needs and agendas than the big-population "urban" reserves at Mt Currie, Seton-Shalalth and around Lillooet). I think the Lytton Band is out of the process, and other major ones also are; like I said it's an interesting list maybe I should draw it up, even (as if I had time).

    Yeah, the pitch in the media that the Grits ARE going to finally bring the non-treaty era to an end is just that - pitch. They'd have to be in power for twenty more years to do that (which no doubt the media would like), probably longer. It's not just the refusal of Temexw and Lheidli T'enneh, and hopefully the rejection of the Tsawwassen deal, that are the issue; the issue is that a LOT of First Nations and also First Nations people put no faith in the process at all. It's a cash burden; that that cash burden has to be financed by the sale of resources is obscene.

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    that is to say...

    Quote:
    It's a cash burden; that that cash burden has to be financed by the sale of resources is obscene.

    Because it's the resources themselves that are largely the stakes, and also what's been taken - over-taken - since colonization. But I'm not under any illusion - chiefs sold salmon and other resources to the HBC, and the marine fur trade as well as the land-based is the precedent for natives selling resources, as well as the licensing on mines exacted by the chiefs of the Bridge River on their lands and other examples. But in this case it's also the very resources that have been being appropriated/stolen that here are just being further appropriated/stolen, in order to finance the case against the constitutional injustice against them that the treaty process implies but skirts saying directly, i.e. that BC finally acknowledges its role in wrongs done and that natives should have had a say in resources already long sold off (but without a grandfather clause in any treaty for that, either....).

    "Redress"?? That's hardly the word here; more like criminal compensation; when you stop to think about it the residential school compensation, meagre though it is, is only the tip of an even larger iceberg.....

  • G West

    5 years ago

    An interesting sidelight

    Do you know anything about the Cowichan tribe - Somena Nation I think they call it.

    Have a look at this:
    http://somenamedia.blogspot.com/

    I'd be interested to hear your reactions..

    Just something else I've been trying to integrate in the last few days.

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    hmmm.

    Never been sure what to say about Somena, but what I can venture here is that it's an equivalent community to the subdivisions of the Gitxsan and Tsimshian, not exactly a village more like a conglomerate of clans; apparently the territories were intermingled and the various peoples lived amongst each other; there was no one "Cowichan tribes" and although there is a Cowichan First Nation there is no historical "Cowichan people". "Peoples" yes, but Cowichan meaning only the locality and not their own name, which they don't have in a sense useful to use {Uwhulmuhw turns up as Uxwuimixw, Ucwalmicw etc in other Salishan languages; means something lake nation but also in a turf/state sense.)

    It's this kind of intricacy that's needed in any satisfactory treaty settlement, i.e. integration and incorporation of native common law into regular common law; I can see the point of this group wanting reinstatement, same as the Sinixt and others who were "decommissioned" despite there being surviving members (also the Whonnocks, I think; the last couple of whom either live at MacMillan I. with the Kwantlens or with the Nooksacks or another WA tribe), but the more complex issue has to do with the web of hereditary laws and complexities of the kind Somena lays out on the wikipage of the same name (here I mean "Somena" in a personal sense, as it's her username on Wikipedia and how I'm used to thinking of her), and it's not just in regard to her people but to all of them.

    Repeat, all of them, i.e. incorporating the intercommunality of the clan/village system. It's complex and doesn't often translate into our way of doing things; our concepts of government and statehood and the imposed concept of "chief" are have little to do with the way things were, or sometimes still are.

    And if this can be shown to be a case of dispossession, I'd certainly say the heirs of the estate of the dispossessed would have a very valid claim in court, wouldn't you?

    And how many other similar cases did I indicate there might be?.....

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    clarification

    Quote:
    Never been sure what to say about Somena, but what I can venture here is that it's an equivalent community to the subdivisions of the Gitxsan and Tsimshian

    Best you go have a look at those pages on Wikipedia and the many subpages on villages, clans, chieftaincies/titles etc.; it's a traditional body that doesn't translate well into our legal/conceptual framework, and which also got blotted off the map somehow (never studied the particulars though they're all there in the Wiki article I guess, or you'd hope so).

  • G West

    5 years ago

    I read all the Stuff at Wikipedia

    And from what else I've read I'd say there's a lot of controversy there.....
    more later, maybe

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    well, see that's the thing

    that there's controversy in all native nations here - within them - means that there is no common organization or voice; it is still defining itself, but it's so volatile that overturned treaty referenda are only a minor symptom. It's a complex discontent, and still be working out by them as to what they want; this is partly why so many peoples aren't in the process, why traditional law isn't represented or recognized by same, and also why some bands like the Musqueam and Tsawwassen are split as if by an axe over buy-out settlements vs treaties respectful of traditional law and, frankly, more realistic given the scale of damages incurred. Even a casino license isn't enough to compensate for all that; not as bad as in the US - but in the US the tribes have more authority to do what they want on their own land, little remaining though it is.

  • hova87

    5 years ago

    Moving Forward

    I myself am actually a Leqamel member. and only being 20 myself I can't honestly say i know how things used to be but i can only imagine from what my family has told me. BC, yes, is the most beautiful province of canada but truthfully, they're in last place when it comes to dealing with first nations. BC is the only province that doesnt share the revenue of fishing or hunting with first nations, while other provinces do. both the crown and province need to be very careful how they move forward, if they don't take careful steps this kind of thing can end up back firing in their face and potentially causing more problems then we started with.. possibly more dangerious ones.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.