The Gitxsan Treaty Model and the Lawsuit Against it

Gitxsan treaty negotiations have taken a long time and cost a lot of money. However, the Gitxsan treaty negotiations are slow going, in part, because the Gitxsan are trying to create their own unique arrangements with BC and Canada. The concept they are pursuing is the Gitxsan Alternative Governance Model. It is characterized in four parts:

1. Taxes: the Gitxsan are prepared to pay income and sales taxes just as other Canadians.
2. Parallel society and Indian Status: the Gitxsan are not interested in the “parallel society” concept at the heart of (which drives) the standard treaty model.
3. Land and economic development: the Gitxsan are not interested in negotiating for “treaty settlement lands.”
4. Uniqueness: ratification requires explicit recognition that the concept of “Bands” and “Gitxsan” are not identical.

Essentially, Gitxsan negotiators want the Gitxsan to be equal but unique Canadians. The Indian Act is completely removed in exchange for a piece of the wealth generated on Gitxsan traditional territory. The wealth would go to the Gitxsan hereditary chiefs to be re-distributed through traditional practices.

The Gitxsan are not united on the issue. A group representing the status quo under the Indian Act are trying to stop the advancement of the Gitxsan Alternative Governance Model. They claim that the Gitxsan Treaty Negotiators are negotiating away their rights, including Indian Status. They also claim the Indian Act and reserve system is integral part of sustaining Gitxsan culture because the reserve system creates enclaves of Gitxsan speakers. The background information and Statement of Claim is here. In the ruling for Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Society, at line 47 the judge states the case "...is not a matter of aboriginal law". Rather, it is a political matter internal to the Gitxsan. 

The plaintiffs take issue with the mandating system. In Spookw v Gitxsan Treaty Society, the judge relates the Gitxsan case to a prior case,  Tsimshian Tribal Council v. British Columbia Treaty Commission. The prior case is cited at line 42. Quoting the prior ruling the judge implies the Gitxsan matter is a political one: 

"The question of for what and how the Tsimshian community should be negotiating is an internal question to be decided collectively by its membership.  It cannot be decided by the BCTC or by the court.  The requirement of securing and advancing a mandate is an open one conducive to debate, persuasion, and resolution through ongoing processes."

The court is likely not going to be intervening in the internal political processes anytime soon. In the meantime, the Gitxsan Treaty Society will be assuming more debt through negotiations and the bands participating in litigation against the Gitxsan Treaty Society will be spending their own money. The winner? Stay tuned for new trial dates in March 2012. In the meantime, follow the money to find the winners!

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.