More Protest News from Northwestern BC

Posted by Tad McIlwraith on November 9th, 2005 filed in Court Cases, First Nations, Mining, Resource Use

Stories continue to appear about the fallout from Tahltan protests over mining activities in northwestern British Columbia. In an insightful news story in the Terrace Standard, internal Tahltan politics is identified as a possible threat to aboriginal-provincial relations in British Columbia. It raises questions about how governments negotiate with native communities which are often only loosely united. According to Mines Minister Bill Bennett:

Part of the problem is there is no clear definition of what constitutes enough consultation of native people leading up to the government deciding to approve or deny industrial development, [said Bennett].

And because of the recent mining dispute, Bennett wondered aloud:

“At some point the province has to decide if the Tahltan Central Council [Tahltan government] speaks for the Tahltan people or not,” said Bennett last week. “If we go ahead with a decision based on consultation with the Tahltan Central Council and [a] group of elders takes us to court, what then,” he added.

These questions, then, have legal implications related to whether the government or courts will define acceptable levels of consultation with aboriginal groups.

And, from the online version of Canadian Dimension, comes a substantial review of all of the events leading to the current political situations in Tahltan territory. It also points to the difficulties of negotiating land and resource agreements in communities where multiple systems of leadership can exist.

Share This

Sphere: Related Content


7 Responses to “More Protest News from Northwestern BC”

  1. jamie Says:
    November 9th, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    What a great article. It’s good to see people in the government and the media start to publicly ask some of the hard questions that come up when we are dealing with land and resource use issues.

    Bennett raises many provocative questions that have been trying to wrap my brain around for the last few months including:

    - what amount of “meaningful consultation” is enough for resource extraction to go ahead?

    - Who speaks for Native people - if not elected Band Councils, then who?

    - How can FN band offices be expected to meet demands for participation in enviromental and other assessments with such limited human resources - usually just a few overworked people with a mountain of incomprehensible technical paperwork to wade though?

    I am really curious to see how the government sorts this stuff out. I have long wondered if there needs to be some sort of change in the way that FN communities choose and are represented by their leaders. This is is just a crazy thought that will most likely never work, but perhaps a shift away from the imposed electoral system and toward a system that reflects more traditional leadership values in communities would make a difference. Granted, hereditary systems, class based systems, or meritocratic systems have the potential to end in the same kind of conflict that we are seeing now. Maybe Bennett is correct in stating that “no government group of any kind can have the complete backing nor approval of its constituents.”

  2. Tad McIlwraith Says:
    November 9th, 2005 at 4:36 pm

    Those are helpful questions and observations, Jamie, and I think you are wondering about things are increasingly being wondered about. I’m not so sure that your proposal is as crazy as you say it is … I am hearing more talk these days about communities trying to find ways to promote traditional, or indigenous, forms of governance … perhaps in forms blended with elected leadership. Still, no system may make everyone happy.

  3. esther Says:
    November 9th, 2005 at 7:04 pm

    I think it is important to recall that the tribal council/band council is a colonial imposition upon traditional First Nations forms of governance. As such, the tribal/band council are really puppet regimes acting for the interests of development. The concept of one man as a figurehead/chief is based upon the idea of a European monarch. The one king/chief is in direct opposition to the leadership roles of matriarchs, spiritual leaders, healers, and clan elders found in First Nations communities. The tribal council really is just a way in which to find, arguably, the weakest community member, and place that person(s) in a position of power.
    Additionally, the council often acts in the interest of the colonizing power; i.e., mining companies. The main goal for development (aka: destruction of nature and traditional ways of life) is financial gain for its board, sharholders, and owners. The corporate interest has not evolved to a place where the humans in charge consider the humanity of the people in direct line of harm, and certainly do not consider the well-being of the animals, the land, and all else. As such, we should name them for what they are, killers; of culture, of tradition, of people, of homelands.

  4. Jamie Says:
    November 9th, 2005 at 11:16 pm

    Esther said

    “The one king/chief is in direct opposition to the leadership roles of matriarchs, spiritual leaders, healers, and clan elders found in First Nations communities.”

    I think that what Esther said is partialy true, but it is important to remember that there is no one set form of First Nations governance that works accross the board. There were some cultures that were egalitarian, others that depended heavily on the influence of matirachs, while there were some, especially here on the coast, that had hereditary chiefs who held office whether the people wanted them to or not. They also had class systems and slavery. To say that having one man or chief in power is in direct opposition to other more “First Nations” styles of leadership may be true for some communities, but it surely isn’t the case with all. However, as I said in my earlier post, I don’t think that the current elected chief thing is that great either.

    I have heard some argue that even despite the modern system of band government, the matriarchs, elders, and spiritual leaders still have considerable influence in who leads the community. The situation that is happening in Tahltan territory right now is a good example of that influence being used to challenge the elected leaders.

  5. Tad McIlwraith Says:
    November 10th, 2005 at 8:21 am

    This discussion continues in interesting ways … thank you. While I recognize the colonial origins of elected systems of governance, I’m not sure I’d agree that they always find the ‘weakest person’ to lead. That person may not represent the interests of everyone, either, but they probably represent the interests of some; getting elected would be hard otherwise. Likewise, I don’t agree that simply because you become an elected leader that you abandon your culture or work towards its destruction. People, their lives, and identities are more complex than that … and I think the struggles that are pointed to in the articles, and by Jamie and Esther, reflect the challenges individuals as well as communities face when trying to figure out how best to manage local affairs in both traditional and contemporary ways.

  6. Shirley Says:
    February 6th, 2006 at 2:25 am

    One of the ironies of our time is that we continue to critique a system that never bothered to learn the original language.
    gold-copper and silver are the tongues of the miners of our cultures.
    I don’t know any colonised country other than america/australia that is void of their original language. This is our first and long term loss,
    wuliwun.

  7. Tad McIlwraith Says:
    February 6th, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    Interesting reaction, Shirley. When you say void of their original language, I presume you are referring to aboriginal languages? Or, which original language are you referring to?

    I’d be curious to know how these things play out in places like Papua New Guinea, where mining is a huge industry and almost certainly impacts indigenous peoples (and their languages) in ways similar to those seen in Canada. How would our critique benefit from learning the original language(s)?

Leave a Comment

Close
E-mail It