Lheidli T’enneh Treaty News Roundup

The news stories related to the Lheidli T’enneh’s treaty rejection are growing in number. I’ll post links here as they come in and I’ll put the newest ones at the top.

(Thanks, as usual, to the thorough news aggregators at the Union of BC Indian Chiefs for many of these links.)

April 4, 2007

Just who needs treaties? (Globe and Mail; alternative link)

Treaty-making is, at its core, about non-natives acquiring the right to occupy and use tribal lands. Legally, in those areas of Canada where aboriginal title still exists, which is in most of B.C., it is non-natives who really need the treaties — not the natives … If B.C. and Canada truly want economic certainty, they had better realize who actually needs the treaties. Members of the Lheidli T’enneh band just told them.

The treaty process is in trouble — two tracks, new relationship and all (Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun; alternative link)

Perhaps treaties are too complicated, too far-reaching, for most bands to embrace at this stage in their development.

Better a simpler, less binding process that nevertheless promises some improvement in the lot of native people.

Not for all time. But for now.

April 3, 2007

Treaty vote disappoints mayor (Prince George Citizen)

[Prince George] Mayor Colin Kinsley says he’s disappointed in the Lheidli T’enneh’s rejection of the proposed treaty on the weekend, but added city council will continue to work with the Indian band.

Missed chance (Prince George Citizen)

The B.C. government says there will be no quick, post-rejection tweaking to make the deal more palatable to the Lheidli T’enneh’s dissenters, giving the impression the local band’s treaty talks have gone to the bottom of a rather large pile.

Rejection puts treaty process in doubt (Victoria Times Colonist; alternative link)

With all that money and influence, why do they need treaties?

Treaties require the bands to renounce land claims for all time in return for outright ownership or control of land that is usually a fraction of what they started out claiming.

There may not be enough incentives in the deals being laboriously put together to encourage natives to take that major step.

Ever-richer treaty deal rejected by small Prince George band (Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun; alternative link)

Band members have kept their own counsel in casting what was a secret ballot. But speculation about the reasons for the defeat include native opposition to paying taxes, and concerns about giving up claim to most of the traditional territory of the Lheidli T’enneh.

The deal was complex. Native people have valid historical reasons for mistrusting governments. It is tough to be the first into any unproven process like this one.

Plus there’s the expectation, encouraged by some native leaders and borne out by experience at the negotiating table, that rejection will force governments to offer more land, money and resources next time.

Native frustration with treaty talks easy to understand (The Province; alternative link)

Increasingly, [Bands] are pursuing deals with lumber companies and other firms, sensing that the only way forward at this time is through private business deals — rather than complex government treaty proceedings befogged by politics.

Even if treaties fail, the main goal is to improve aboriginals’ lives (Vancouver Sun editorial; alternative link)

… does this mark the beginning of the end for the treaty process, which has already consumed $1 billion without producing any agreements? … if the treaty process is indeed dead, will its passing launch a dark era of confrontation between British Columbia’s first nations and the federal and provincial governments?

April 2, 2007

‘Other options’ sought (Prince George Citizen)

However, veteran [Lheidli T'enneh] councillor Rena Zatorski said people clearly did not like what they saw in the proposed deal and were not willing to hold their nose for the sake of a quick fix.

“The different members I spoke to have a range of reasons why they voted no,” said Zatorski, who also opposed the treaty. “Some are unhappy with the taxation structure, the Own Source Revenue, some members also don’t feel that it has come to us at a right time, that we don’t have the capacity, the education for implementation. That there are a lot of cleavages internally within the nation itself.”

Membership, she said, is also uncomfortable with the treaty process itself which was undertaken before landmark court rulings like Delgamu’ukw (versus British Columbia, 1997) that changed the legal landscape for First Nations.

Tiny band votes down historic land treaty (Globe and Mail; alternative link)

The no vote by the Lheidli T’enneh kills a treaty that would have clarified the legal status of more than 45,000 square kilometres in eastern British Columbia centred on Prince George. It also disrupts the province’s push to create a more attractive investment climate for further exploitation of natural resources.

And it is a rebuke of B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell’s personal agenda for reconciliation with native bands, which he calls the “new relationship.” Last fall, the Premier called the signing of the final agreement with the Lheidli T’enneh a “historic step” toward that reconciliation.

Financial issues may have lead to B.C. first nation rejecting treaty deal (Canadian Press; alternative link)

… [lawyer and negotiator Mark Stevenson] said, there were concerns among the Lheidli Tenneh that any income from the deal would be deducted from transfer payments they receive from other levels of government.

April 1, 2007

Bell Depressed with Treaty Results (250 News)

Agriculture Minister Pat Bell says he was very depressed to hear that the Lheidli T’enneh had voted down the treaty on their land claims.

“They have voted and you have to respect what that vote was ‘, Bell said. ‘I just don’t know were we will go, as government , from here”

The vote was 123 against the treaty and 111 in favour.

85% of the 273 eligible voters turned out to mark ballots on the treaty.

Northern B.C first nation rejects land claim settlement in 53 per cent vote (Yahoo Canada News) (or here)

[Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Minister] De Jong said the government’s attention will now shift to other ratification votes in the province.

“This isn’t a question of ‘Do we now resume negotiations,’ ” he said. “The membership has said ‘No, we want to remain bound by the Indian Act in the way that we are.’ ”

He called that unfortunate.

“I think the Indian Act has not served that community and others well,” he said.

Share This