Jobs Agenda Trumps BC Treaty Process

It appears BC First Nations at the treaty table won't be a priority for the BC government unless they fit the jobs agenda. It was reported here that the BC government is cash strapped and is putting a priority on renting short term certainty over long term stability provided by treaties. Today, it is reported here that Premier Clark is now asking the Federal Government to "...support some of the non-treaty deals we intend to make." It is safe to assume the federal government will not be adding funds to its aboriginal affairs budget therefore Premier Clark is asking the federal government to divert funds from other priorities to 10 non-treaty deals by 2015. 

It is also safe to assume that First Nations at the treaty table will need to frame their interests in terms of jobs to get the attention of the Premier. For example, a first nation will be able to get on the Premier's agenda if they can put a mine or gas plant on their territory.

Local Governments Fill the Treaty Gap

On November 1, 2011 Kitselas First Nation and Terrace signed a Joint Venture Agreement and a Revenue Sharing Agreement. The Joint Venture Agreement enables the two parties to develop and market an Industrial Park and other commercial lands, together. The Revenue Sharing Agreement divides the benefits from the development and marketing of the joint venture lands.

Objectives of the Agreements are to:

• optimize return on investment;
• foster the development of the regional economy;
• attract new business investment to the Terrace area;
• generate tax revenues; and
• address the Parties needs for industrial lands.

BC Municipalities and First Nations are reaching their own agreements. They are filling the Treaty Gap.

First Nation Law Trumps Canadian Law: Politics, Ignorance or Racism?

The politics of BC treaty news is interesting. It's hard to find news that is informative and isn't the site of partisan politics. Take the case of the Vancouver Observer's March 2011 coverage of MP John Weston's suggesting treaties are "un-constitutional". It's written by Daniel Veniez, a self-described centrist with federal liberal ties. The article is a poke at Prime Minister Harper, so the comment section of the article, naturally, is subject to partisan attacks. However, the attacker goes too far and reveals his or her own ignorance or worse - blatant racism. Here is the last two lines of the attack:

"Has Mr. Veniez actually read the treaty?

What about the part where Sliammon law trumps Canadian law. If Veniez supports this measure fully, this opens a very dangerous and slippery slope." [RtHourableSirJohn]

Slippery slope to what? First, under the treaty Sliammon law is Canadian law. Second, the attack is referring to the rules of paramountcy. Under the treaty, Sliammon law is paramount to federal and provincial law (i.e. "trumps") in some matters and in others federal and provincial law is paramount. Why would the attacker think that it's a slippery slope to empower Sliammon to control its own culture, government and other matter internal to Sliammon?

Is it politics, ignorance, or racism? The more I read about BC treaty news, politics, ignorance, and racism are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive categories.

Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group and Canada Square of in Human Rights Commission

Two more stories here and here shine light on the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group's quest to protect its land interests. On Friday, the parties each presented their case.

The Treaty Group's concerns are with logging practices on lands encumbered with its aboriginal title. The group wants a say in the management of harvesting or compensation. Canada argues the Treaty Group has access to Canadian courts or the treaty process to advance its interests, therefore, the OAS court should not be hearing the case. Canada takes this position because, procedurally, the OAS court cannot hear a case until all other legal options are exhausted. The OAS court agreed to hear the case because the Treaty Group's lawyer convinced the court that due to BC Treaty Process policy, the available options are not really options at all because private lands are not subject to treaty negotiations. In addition, a condition of being in treaty negotiations means is that the Treaty Group must not go to a Canadian court - a conundrum for many First Nations.

Even if all remedies in Canada are exhausted the OAS court decisions are not binding. The decision may be available in March 2012.

UVIC Anthropologist Predicts Dramatic Change to BC Treaty Process

TV coverage of a story posted here yesterday, puts more pressure on the private land issue facing several First Nations in BC Treaty Process. UVIC's Brian Thom predicts the outcome of the case before the OAS Human Rights commission could cause dramatic change to the BC Treaty Process.

However, the outcome of the case is not enforceable. It is predicted here that the case maybe the catalyst for change but it will take coordinated action to cause meaningful change. This is because Canada's lawyer says "Canada does not agree with these allegations...Canada takes issue to all aspects of the petition." See the rest of the story here and here.

Is the Harper Government the Problem?

Minister Polak and Chief Commissioner Sophie Pierre, point to the Harper Government for wasting time and money:

Mary Polak, B.C.'s minister of aboriginal relations, said Ottawa's long delay in moving the Tla'amin treaty forward is one of the holdups recently criticized by the B.C. Treaty Commission. Chief Commissioner Sophie Pierre said earlier this month that if federal negotiators aren't given enough authority to reach agreements... governments should consider winding up a process that is nearly 20 years along with more than a billion dollars spent on negotiations alone [full story here].

Can Minister Duncan turn it around, or is the Harper Government committed to wasting time and money? Is Minister Polak deflecting to shield her government from part of the blame?

BC Treaty Process, Private Land and the Standards of International Justice

The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group is the Cowichan Tribes, Lake Cowichan, Halalt, Penelakut, Lyackson and Stz'uminus. They are taking BC Treaty Process policy to a human rights court at international law. The move is unprecedented because, normally, a legal issue must rise up through the courts of country where the problem is located. However, the issue is aboriginal title, an issue Canadian courts say must be resolved through negotiations. The Treaty Group alleges the BC Treaty Process is too constrained to protect their rights and wants the court to say so.

The issue was first reported here. It turns around the 8300 km² E&N Railway Grant in 1884.  About 2700 km² of the land is also the traditional territory of the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group. Through the BC Treaty process, private lands are not on the table during treaty negotiations. Over 80% of the Groups land is in private hands. Due to the rigid policy, they argue, there is little to negotiate. The Group will have its day in court.

It was reported here that “in agreeing to hear the complaint, the Inter-American Commission ruled that the available mechanisms to resolve this dispute in Canada, whether through negotiation or the BC treaty process, are too onerous and too constrained in their protection of human rights to live up to the standards of international justice.” However, no matter the outcome, the decision cannot be enforced - legally. So what’s the point?

If a judgement favours the Treaty Group, it will be political ammunition to budge the policy determining what’s on the negotiating table or not. The issue of private land is a major obstacle for some negotiating tables, while for some like the In-SHUCK-ch table; private land is almost a non-issue. The trial starts tomorrow.

Interim Treaty Investment Authority?

Author and policy entrepreneur, Gordon Gibson with the Gitxsan Treaty Society says the process will take time to conclude treaties but has a solution for the meantime,

That solution could be the creation of an Interim Treaty Investment Authority (ITIA), initially funded by say $1 billion. The purpose of the authority would be to grant loans — not gifts — to first nations for approved projects. For approval, a project would have to be demonstrably feasible to a third-party, independent board of business people.

Gibson says more money for investment and jobs is the solution. It begs this question: wouldn't that $1 billion help close a lot of Final Agreements now? The whole story behind the ITIA is here.

In-SHUCK-ch Chief Negotiator: It's the economy!

During a BC Finance Committee hearing the BC Treaty Commission question surfaces: "Has there been a sufficient return on investment in the BC treaty process given the time and money spent? Has it been worth it?" Eppa (Gerard Peters) In-SHUCK-ch Chief Negotiator goes on the record saying:

"I have to tell you that from the chair I occupy at the treaty negotiations, it has not been."

For In-SHUCK-ch Chief Negotiator, it's the failure to address economic issues that is the main cause for concern. For In-SHUCK-ch, participation "...in the economy has been our intention from the time we started talking about these things in the early to mid-1980s." Economic issues are paramount because the goal for In-SHUCK-ch is to "...ultimately pay our own way in contemporary society." For the whole story see the Hansard transcripts of the hearing at 11:40 here. In-SHUCK-ch is considered one of the lead tables, very close to reaching a Final Agreement.

Minister Duncan: Pace of Negotiations Not Good

Pace of negotiations not good say Duncan, chiefs

‎

Busy October for BC Treaty News

The BC Treaty Commission released its 19th Annual Report here and this press release. The Annual Report asks the fundemental questions:

"Has there been a sufficient return on investment in the BC treaty process given the time and money spent? Has it been worth it?

The report and press release generated the following headlines:

Head of BC Treaty Commission suggests shutting it down

Treaty Commission Sees Lack of Urgency in Negotiations

Tough talk on pathetic treaty process

Speed up treaty process or shut it down, commission chief says

Treaty commission calls for political will

Commission Calls for Recommitment to Treaty Process