Showing posts with label First Nations Summit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Nations Summit. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

BC Treaty Process: Failure of Leadership?

Bill Wilson has published an article claiming the failure of the BC Treaty Process is a failure of among others, leadership. The full story follows...
 
 
 
Trouble is brewing if B.C. treaty process dies
 
Bill Wilson
The Province

Sophie Pierre, chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission, says the commission process should be shut down but only after she serves a requested one-year extension of her contract. This is so sad for so many reasons, the major being the huge cost of this admitted failure.
I am not speaking just about the billions of dollars already spent on this betrayal of trust and mutual respect, I am speaking about the cost that we will all have to pay if land claims and treaties are not resolved soon in B.C.
The B.C. treaty process was the result of a 150-year struggle by B.C. Indians. It was negotiated and created on the strength of the March 1983 amendment to Canada's then new Constitution, following supportive court cases and a more positive public attitude toward the plight of Indians. The obvious background was the Oka confrontation and the general unrest and militancy among Indians.
Then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Tom Siddon, his able minister of Indian affairs, deserve credit for working with the B.C. Indian leadership of the day to pressure the B.C. government to join the process. Educated and motivated by the First Nations Congress leadership, the B.C. business community applied the final pressure on Bill Vander Zalm's government to change B.C.'s century-old policy of land-claims denial.
It seemed that the needs of all the parties were about to be accommodated. Ottawa needed B.C. to be involved in the land-claims process. The Indians needed a mechanism to resolve their outstanding claims and the business community required certainty of land title and jurisdiction.
Nineteen principles were negotiated as the foundation of this process. A tripartite commission was established to be "The Keeper of the Process."
A level playing field of negotiations with three equal parties was prescribed. Mulroney had insisted upon a $125-million policy, research and development fund to allow the Indians to prepare their claims. He also insisted on a repayable loan portion of 10 per cent. The future seemed bright.
Sadly, a change of leadership among Indians, unprepared provincial involvement and the long domination of the Department of Indian Affairs killed the process in its infancy. Many Indian groups signed letters of intent and borrowed money to begin "the negotiations," but the $125-million fund disappeared and the loan-repayment portion was hiked to 80 per cent.
Indian Affairs created the Federal Treaty Negotiation office and manned it with their senior bureaucrats, who knew how to control Indians. They actually went so far as to train "negotiators," who would become the chief negotiators for native nations. Indian Affairs was bound and determined to sabotage the process and did.
The province shares blame for the failure as they had no idea what they were doing from the start and mimicked the federal government. Both groups have no real mandates or vision. The possibility of creative solutions is restricted by the dictate that Indian aspirations must be forced into the little square boxes of federal and provincial regulations, the same ones that created the huge problems that still get worse in Indian communities.
Indians are not blameless. The First Nations Summit has provided no leadership. Instead they seem enamoured with federal and provincial programs when they are not jetting off to Ottawa, New York, Geneva and, more recently, China.
They have provided no independent political strength and have allowed the B.C. treaty process to wither on the vine by electing commissioners content to simply collect their honorariums.
The B.C. government is pushing interim measures, which is an attempt to placate Indians, who have lined up for quick handouts instead of demanding and achieving aboriginal title and self-government. Much of this has been made worse by the ever-increasing mass of lawyers and consultants who enrich themselves through the process.
Our new premier, Christy Clark, talks about development, particularly of mines on Indian land, as a solution to B.C.'s economic woes. One would think that we have had enough history to realize there are no magic solutions. All too often, election posturing replaces well reasoned strategies about how we can move forward on these issues.
The B.C. treaty process must be made to work. The premier can help by simply dictating to her negotiators an expanded, creative mandate for all parties at the negotiating table. Ottawa should be removed from the process and we must re-commit to the 19 principles.
The alternative is to allow the frustration to build among Indian and non-Indian people in B.C. Already we see new court cases that can tie up development for years and unrest that is flowing from land-title uncertainty.
We have a simple choice: We can settle Indian land claims now or later at 1,000 times the expense.
Every B.C. citizen has a basic stake in the just resolution of aboriginal title and treaty grievances. We do not need another Oka or the continuing feeding frenzy at the trough of Indian suffering.
Hemas Kla-Lee-Lee-Kla, Chief Bill Wilson, a lawyer and chief of the Kwawkgewlth people, helped set up the B.C. treaty commission process.
© The Province 2011

Thursday, November 10, 2011

The BC Treaty Commission Needs a New Role

The following letter was sent by In-SHUCK-ch Chief Negotiator to the First Nations Summit in response to a request to fill out a survey regarding the effectiveness of the BC Treaty Commission. It was requested to be made public.




Nov. 10, 2011
To: The First Nations Summit
From In-SHUCK-ch Nation
Subject: BCTC Effectiveness Survey

Howard Grant/Nancy Morgan/Gwaans:

The BC Treaty Commission will only ever be as effective as the Principals allow. The onus is therefore on the Principals to live up to the agreement they made in September of 1992. It is the process and not the keeper of the process that needs fixing. The fix requires agreement among the Principals, and is outside of the scope, so we respectfully decline your request for us to participate in the BCTC Effectiveness Survey. Instead, we offer our own comprehensive assessment.

Canada’s system is perennially slow. To use In-SHUCK-ch Nation as the example, we have been waiting for Canada to arm its negotiator with a mandate so that our table can re-engage following withdrawal of one of our “bands”. This isn’t the first time we’ve had to wait for Canada. British Columbia and In-SHUCK-ch Nation signed our Agreement in Principle months before Canada had authority to countersign. As a consequence of this, the table had to wait to fully engage in stage 5 negotiations. This not only cost us time, but (borrowed) money because we had to maintain our staff. There are too many layers in the federal system that must be streamlined if treaties are expected to proceed at a reasonable pace. Also, there is a built-in schizophrenia because the federal minister serves a fiduciary role on behalf of “Indians” managed by AANDC while having direct responsibility on behalf of Canada for treaties. The answer might be in creating a cabinet post directly responsible for treaty negotiations. This would transform over time to the federal agency responsible for relations with Treaty First Nations as more First Nations ratify treaties. BCTC is not designed to respond to such matters because they are outside of its quite narrow mandate. It’s a matter that would need attention of the federal Principal, perhaps upon recommendation from the FNS executive.

I perceive an inherent flaw in the approach because a single survey to all First Nations participating in the process will be skewed because issues are quite different for those of us in stage 4, or Stage 5, or those at the Common Table. Consideration, therefore, should be given to reviewing the treaty process that reflects this disparity. As a general note, if First Nations leaders wait for the comfort of consensus before risking any action, then this will only be reflected in the glacial pace of negotiations. Our leaderships’ primary focus is quite rightly on the bread and butter issues represented by programs and services. This is reflected in the FNS agenda opening up to accommodate these matters and it distracts from treaties.

Canada will not conclude Final Agreements without a Fish chapter, and they will not negotiate Fish while the Cohen Commission is ongoing. This is clearly an impediment to progress in treaty negotiations that cannot be addressed by the BCTC as keeper of the process – because the commission is not empowered to play a more direct role or to act as intermediary in any way. 

My guess is that the lead tables would view the BCTC as effectively managing within its mandate. By comparison, those stuck without movement in Stage 4 would disagree. First Nations, such as In-SHUCK-ch who have asked the Commission to play a direct role in facilitating our internal relations would say that the commission has delivered. As regards the 6-stage process itself, the BCTC should consider streamlining. For example, Stages 4 and 5 might be combined. This would require the Parties to get serious sooner, and to face mandate issues earlier. This would also save punting of the harder mandate issues from 4 to 5 and the resulting waste of time when the Parties move into stage 5. Also, Incremental treaties, while giving appearances of progress, simply distract from the real objective which must be to complete treaties.

We all (including Canada and British Columbia) bought into a process in 1992 because aboriginal title blankets BC. For a very few First Nations, their reality has transformed undefined aboriginal rights to well defined treaty rights. When we were obliged to draw lines on maps it brought into sharp focus the fact of overlaps among First Nations. Litigation could never resolve the broader questions of title and the need for contemporary ownership of lands, resources and even more importantly, jurisdiction over them. Treaties were the only viable option open to Canada (who took our jurisdiction) BC (who took our land) and to First Nations (who disagree with the “taking”). This has not changed in the interim. What has changed is the urgency. The urgency has decreased among all of the Principals.

In addition to the points raised above we recommend that:

1.      The Principals should empower the Commission to play a direct and active role in assisting the Parties in resolving (mandate) issues when the Parties reach impasse and request the commission’s assistance.
2.      BCTC should institute a policy to suspend funding to First Nations that are not making progress.
3.      Commissioner vacancies should be filled before the retirement of the outgoing Commissioner.

The 2003 BCTC review conclusion was that “the stakeholders interviewed were tempted to measure the success of the Commission against their perception of the success or failure of the treaty process overall, despite the fact that the Commission actually has little direct control over the outcomes at the treaty tables.” This speaks volumes as to the structural failure, we noted above.  The commission was not designed to produce treaties, but rather to fund and manage a process on behalf of the Principals. If it’s to be truly effective, the commission must be retooled. The time has come to reconsider its role. We trust that its full utility might be realized by support for such a retooling from the Principals.



Respectfully,
(original signed and mailed)
Eppa (Gerard Peters)
Chief Negotiator
In-SHUCK-ch Nation
www.inshuckch.com
(604) 970-7891
cc: In-SHUCK-ch Nation Interim Government