NDP Leader Supports In-SHUCK-ch Treaty Negotiations

This story is an article that will appear in the upcoming Ucwalmicw Newsletter, submitted by Eppa (Gerard Peters), In-SHUCK-ch Chief Negotiator.

Our Meeting with Adrian Dix (the next premier?)

Adrian Dix, Eppa (Gerard Peters), and Scott Fraser.

We met recently with NDP leader Adrian Dix.  We explained that In-SHUCK-ch supported the Campbell Liberals in the last general election because of the contrary position the NDP had on IPP developments.  We always saw these potential power projects as a critical part of our economic strategy ever since we entered the BC treaty.  The Christy Clark government is considering changes to the Clean Energy Act that might take this opportunity away.  

We explained that in late 2009, BC’s negotiator agreed to our request for (IPP) water reservations on certain creeks in the Skatin and Samahquam territories.  What followed was hard lobbying from the Independent Power Producers. Cloudworks Energy (who had applications for water some of these creeks) lobbied the Liberals and the water reservations were taken off the table.  All of this occurred during closing negotiations.

Run of River Power Project

With water reservations denied to us, In-SHUCK-ch responded by placing IPP lands on the table.  We said that we wanted to have these transferred to us upon ratification (by us) of treaty.  The remaining treaty lands would transfer on Effective Date of treaty.  BC (and Canada) agreed.  This meant that we could now negotiate with IPP proponents as owners of the land upon which the IPPs would be built.  

Christy Clark now has her eye on the next general election.   She can’t afford to upset the average voter by raising their hydro bills to pay down the escalating hydro costs.  In this scenario, independent power producers are expendable and the value of our agreement is at risk

When we began organizing in the 1980s, it was always for quite straightforward reasons.  We needed to own lands.  We needed to have a measure of control over our territories.  We needed to confirm our rights.  But more than that, we needed to assume our authorities and jurisdictions.  Taken all together, we’d begin the process that would lead us ultimately to reduce our dependency on governments and we would begin to pay our own way.

Our rationale is quite simple.  We can’t wait for the handful of AANDC (formerly INAC) and CMHC houses each fiscal year if we want to catch up to our housing needs.  The answer lies in our own ability to develop a sustainable economy that would allow us to accelerate our community development.  

In-SHUCK-ch Territory Map

After years of raising our pressing need for what I’ve called ‘catch up’ at the treaty table, AANDC has agreed to provide $10 million.  It might sound like a lot, but it’s over 5 (and now 6) years.  The bands (including Douglas) have created a capital projects list that is now being reviewed by AANDC.

Clearly the answer is not in the status quo Indian Act relationship with Canada.  Neither is it in treaty.  Rather, the answer is in maximizing the return from these as we begin a process that will give us the ability to wean ourselves from dependency until finally we can afford to pay our own way.

Treaties are good for remote communities

"Canadians have to start looking at our remote communities differently...Our collective economic wellbeing and our international competitiveness could well depend upon the public policies adopted today that leverage the economic possibilities of many of these communities and their potential to contribute to our nation's wealth" Perrin Beatty, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Strategic investment in remote communities is good for Canada. What's good for remote communities ought to be good for First Nation communities, too. In her testimony to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, BC Treaty Commission's Chief Commissioner, Sophie Pierre made the case for a shift from a social agenda to an economic agenda for First Nation communities in BC.

She quotes a study by Canadian Chamber of Commerce that calls for strategic investment in Canadian remote communities. However, investment is not enough, she says. The Chief Commissioner calls on the federal government to re-commit to the BC Treaty process. Treaties provide the tools First Nation communities need for sustainable economic development. A re-commitment to the treaty process is a commitment to move from a social agenda to an economic agenda.

The Chief Commission says that for too long, the federal government has pushed its social agenda by holding First Nations by both hands. Treaties will untie First Nations from the federal social agenda. She says the federal government and First Nations need to let go of each other.  When a non-First Nation community prospers, First Nations under the federal social agenda don't always share in the wealth generated. In fact, a rising tide can drown those on the economic margins. A shift to an economic agenda will enable First Nations to prosper too. When a First Nation community prospers, the whole region prospers.

The issue is most critical in BC because of the uncertainty on the land. Chief Commissioner thinks it's crazy to not commit to pursuing the $15 billion that concluding treaties will bring to BC. In times of global economic uncertainty we should be doing all we can to make Canada more attractive to investment. Treaties have a known return.

Chief Louie: Control over land key to sustainable economic development, treaty is one option

Oct 20, 2011, Chief Robert Louie, witness to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, explains First Nations land management to a new committee member. He describes the status quo under the Indian Act, the Land Code regime, and the importance of self-government in stand alone agreements or part of a treaty. Land Management is vital for sustainable economic development.


First, Chief Louie explains the status quo,

"Maybe I can use terms in this sense. Under the Indian Act you have a “delegated authority” opportunity, and “delegated” very simply means that the decision-maker is not the first nation community but the government. It's the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development: it's whoever is at the regional director level in the province, whoever is the deputy minister who sits here in Ottawa, or the Indian agents who have sometimes been referred to over the past history."

Second, Chief Louie explains the First Nation Land Code as an incremental step away from the Indian Act, to self-government,

"...about 25% of the Indian Act pertaining to lands is pulled out of the Indian Act, and that jurisdiction now rests with the first nations community, which passes a land code. That's an incremental step because the first nation that passes a land code then has the opportunity to be decision makers. They become lawmakers. It's like the Government of Canada: you pass laws and you have your first, second, and third readings. It has those sorts of powers; it's governmental decision powers."

Third, Chief Louie explains the importance of land management,

"...it is important that first nations economic ventures have sustainability, to look to the future. There have been all kinds of studies done worldwide that prove the point that a first nation needs to have that jurisdiction. The jurisdiction implied in this land management process, the incremental step towards self-government, is a beginning."

 Fourth, Chief Louie explains the next steps needed for First Nations, 

"The next steps beyond this incremental step are what we have at Westbank; that is, authorities over the other areas that we have. Treaty-making includes these other areas. But the most important by far, in my opinion and my experience, is the control over lands and resources."

There is a long wait to sign onto the First Nations Land Management Act. The program is limited to around 10% of First Nation across Canada. The program benefits First Nations with reserve lands in urban areas that can take advantage of their tax exemptions and market pricing of reserve lands. For the majority of non-urban First Nation, the Land Code does little to generate economic activity without the acquisition of additional lands to develop or other economic opportunities to attract investment. For non-urban First Nations or First Nations that cannot resolve the private land issue, the BC Treaty process offers greater opportunity for sustainable economic development. However, the BC Treaty process can be long, arduous and expensive.