More Lheidli T’enneh Treaty News

April 10, 2007

‘Our people are frustrated and angry,’ chief says of never-ending negotiations

The future may well reside in so-called “interim measures” or side deals on specific resource issues between governments and native groups, rather than comprehensive treaties.

April 8, 2007

Treaty rejection in Prince George shakes governments, but won’t kill process (Canadian Press)

Former premier Mike Harcourt is watching the situation with chagrin, aware the Lheidl T’enneh’s rejection … [is] proof of a theory he’s held for a while.

“I’ve been giving speeches for the last three years about nobody being ready to implement treaties,” said Harcourt.

Harcourt was B.C.’s premier when the three-party treaty negotiation process was launched. He now is serving as a commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission, the organization that oversees the treaty process.

He said there are three kinds of post-treaty landings for aboriginal nations: soft landings like what the Nisga’a achieved, hard landings and crash landings.

“A chief at one of the negotiating tables told me half our people are thinking like a nation and wanting to become self governing and self sufficient, and the other half are thinking like a band council under the Indian Act. It’s a dilemma,” Harcourt said.

April 6, 2007

Right choice for Lheidli T’enneh (Prince George Free Press; alternative link)

No one wants to see a treaty signed, only to have the settlement money spent on a lengthy court battle with the Shuswap Nation - no one except their lawyers, anyway.

[And,] self-governance on the scope outlined the final agreement was never feasible with only 273 voting-aged adults.

Treaty rejection in Prince George shakes governments, but won’t kill process (Canadian Press; alternative link)

Money issues, including taxes, are believed to be one of many reasons the Lheidl T’enneh of Prince George narrowly rejected their proposed treaty after more than 15 years of talks.

April 5, 2007

Making a deal and moving forward (Prince George Citizen; alternative link)

As my band, the Salt River First Nation in the Northwest Territories, negotiated and accepted the treaty it was offered (after many years of negotiation) I had the opportunity to sit in on some First Nations informational meetings first hand.

The truth of the matter is, no matter the colour of your skin or your background and upbringing, people are people … I am happy that the cooler heads prevailed in my band.

Lheidli T’enneh had plenty of reasons to vote no (Prince George Citizen; alternative link)

The most basic problem is Canada’s pathetic string of broken promises to aboriginal people, littered throughout history, both before and after Confederation.

Campbell’s early fight haunts treaty rejection (The Province (Michael Smyth); alternative link)

But now you have to wonder if the government spent too many resources convincing the public they were doing the right thing and not enough convincing the Lheidli Tenneh themselves. Did the government even understand what they were up against?

‘Our people are frustrated and angry,’ chief says of never-ending negotiations (Globe and Mail; alternative link)

Chief Edward John of the treaty-oriented First Nations Summit, meanwhile, said yesterday that he has become increasingly pessimistic about positions taken by government negotiators.

“I don’t think they are negotiating in good faith at any of the [treaty] tables,” said Chief John. “They set certain preconditions they won’t deviate from . . . and they completely reject the idea of having a common table for common issues.

“They want to keep us apart, pick us off one by one. Well, it’s not going to work,” he said.

April 4, 2007

First of BC treaties rejected (Black Press)

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip [of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs] … notified Premier Gordon Campbell and Prime Minister Stephen Harper last week of his members’ support for a “unity protocol” that rejects both the conversion of reserve lands to fee-simple ownership and the phasing out of tax exemptions under the Indian Act.

No second chance for Lheidli T’enneh (Prince George Citizen; alternative link)

As for the Lheidli T’enneh, they are relegated back to the 19th-century status of living on federal lands reserved for Indians. They are still subject to the Indian Act. The band is $6 million in debt and has absolutely nothing to show for it. Who can they turn to? No one.

Treaty vote rejected: What’s next? (Prince George Citizen; alternative link)

One of the most stifling issues is the word extinguishment, said both [UNBC professor of Comparative Indigenous-State Relations] Mike Murphy and former Yukon premier (and former B.C. deputy minister) Tony Penikett, now a mediator and Simon Fraser University senior fellow.

Penikett wrote the book Reconciliation: First Nations Treaty Making in British Columbia, and told The Citizen that extinguishment — the giving up of official native status, and the package of rights that go with that — is at the heart of discontent with treaty negotiations.

“All Yukon First Nations agreements allowed for aboriginal entitlement to continue without extinguishment, and in the Nisga’a agreement it is modified but not extinguished,” he said. “Aboriginal groups, and that includes the Lheidli T’enneh from what I’ve heard since the vote, are asking themselves ‘maybe we are further ahead with what we’ve got under court rulings than under a treaty.’ That is a lively debate. The Haida are just not at all interested in a treaty that gives them a small percentage of a land they consider 100-per-cent theirs. They are saying ‘we will set aside that question of ownership and we will work on a succession of agreements around timber harvest, fishing, and items like that.’ It is looking like a better model of reaching agreement for a lot of aboriginal groups.”

Lheidli T’enneh vote no (Robson Valley Times; alternative link)

Lheidli T’enneh band councillor Rena Zatorski said that some band members took issue with the treaty’s handling of taxation, the amount of land and money provided, but there were larger issues at play too.

Zatorski said some members weren’t happy with the negotiating process in general. “[The result] goes to show that the negotiating team didn’t fully listen or respect the concerns of the members,” she said.

Lheidli T’enneh member cheers result (Prince George Free Press)

When it came time for the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation with its 250 members to vote on the ratification of a proposed treaty agreement which put money, land and wildlife harvesting rights on the table, Peter Dexter Quaw said he felt “tremendous relief” when the final answer was ‘no.’

Indeed, when the vote was counted Friday, it had failed to pass by a margin of 53 per cent. That was good news for Quaw who wants to see more information, more compensation and more people with input into the process.

‘Tragedy’ says negotiator (Prince George Free Press)

“Both Canada and British Columbia bargained in good faith from Day 1,” [Treaty Negotiator] Krehbiel said. “There is no reason to expect something better.”

Lheidli T’enneh say ‘no’ (Prince George Free Press)

“The votes speak for themselves,” a shaken [Chief] Frederick told the crowd. “The ratification has been defeated, we will stay under the Indian Act. I don’t know what the next step is. We’ve got over $6 million to pay back [from the 13-year treaty negotiation process]. Who’s going to pay that treaty money back? If you think you’re poor now, you’re going to be poorer when it’s over.”

The troubles with treaties (Prince George Citizen)

… the Liberals must have some serious worries about treaty negotiations now. Stakeholders in the Lheidli T’enneh deal saw two major shortcomings of the process — rank-and-file members felt they weren’t being listened to and one negotiator feared the sheer size of the treaty, 350 pages plus appendices, was simply too cumbersome to sell — and they’re both difficult problems with few solutions. There’s also the question of strained patience, on the part of a federal government that’s shown First Nations aren’t a priority and a non-aboriginal public that’s probably — and unjustly — wondering how a deal containing $13 million and 4,000 hectares of land isn’t enough.

Share This