GLACIAL TREATY PROCESS RESULTS IN SWEET DEALS

Some First Nations benefiting from alternatives to traditional settlements

There was no minimizing the setback last month when one of the earliest participants in the B.C. treaty process voted down a tentative settlement for the second time.

The Lheidli T’enneh, a First Nation of several hundred people based in and around Prince George, joined the treaty-making process at its creation 25 years ago.

After a decade of negotiations with the federal and provincial governments, they became one of the first of B.C.’s 200 First Nations to reach a final agreement.

But the would-be treaty was narrowly rejected — by a dozen votes out of 230 cast — in the spring of 2007, sending the parties back to the table for another decade of rethinking and renegotiation.

The second final agreement, initialled in May of this year, provided land, upfront cash and revenue-sharing valued at $50 million more than the previous deal.

There was also a model for self-government that would have removed the Lheidli T’enneh from the oppressive purview of the Indian Act.

But the result of June balloting was 185 votes against, 137 in favour, proportionally a greater rejection (57 per cent versus 53 per cent) than for the earlier deal.

“Of course it is disappointing, but the people have spoken and we must honour their wishes,” said Chief Dominic Frederick, who was the elected leader of the Lheidli T’enneh at the time of the earlier vote as well.

“We must now try to move forward with the limited resources and opportunities available while we remain under the Indian Act. There is no going back.”

Also muted was the response from Scott Fraser, minister of Indigenous relations and reconciliation in the B.C. government.

“British Columbia respects the democratic choice of the people of Lheidli T’enneh First Nation,” he said via news release. “We will continue to work government to government with Lheidli T’enneh on long-term reconciliation and self-determination in ways that work for their community.”

Most telling was the nonresponse from the keeper of the treaty process, the B.C. Treaty Commission. When the final agreement was initialled back in May, the commission congratulated the parties “on their continued commitment to reconciliation through treaty negotiations.”

Rejection brought only silence from the commission. Not much to say after a quarter-century of effort and only a handful of treaties to show for it.

“Have we just witnessed the end of the modern treaty process?” challenged Bruce McIvor, a lawyer with First Peoples Law, specializing in advancing Aboriginal title and rights.

“It is time we rethink the use of the word ‘treaty,’” he wrote in an article published on the firm’s website. “Unfortunately, because of the federal and provincial governments’ policies of extinguishment, treaty has come to mean the surrender of Aboriginal title and rights — but it doesn’t have to.

“There is a long history of treaties in Canada based on peace, friendship, respect and recognition. We need to get back to that understanding of treaty.”

His view was echoed to some extent by a Lheidli T’enneh elder in a published defence of the vote to reject the second treaty.

“I believe our people made the right decision for the next seven generations of the Lheidli T’enneh,” wrote North Saanich resident Jo-Anne Berezanski in an opinion piece in the Prince George Citizen.

“Our land was taken from my ancestors once. If we had agreed to extinguish our rights on the land this would be offensive to our ancestors and future children. Why do we have to enter into treaty agreements to prove we are the rightful owners of the land?”

Her alternative? “Instead of treaties, why not share in all taxation to the tribes who occupied the territory where industry operates, towns and cities are built and property owners live?

“Give a fair and equitable portion of all taxes collected to the First Nation and then offer us the same deal as Canadians. Don’t take our land and resources in exchange for the welfare state our people live in.”

A single reversal, even as deep-rooted as the one involving the Lheidli T’enneh, won’t be enough to derail the treaty process.

Just last weekend, the Treaty Commission was out with another release congratulating the Northern Shuswap Tribal Council for reaching an agreement in principle with the federal and provincial governments.

But even though the New Democrats launched the treaty process during their 1990s stint in government, they do not appear wedded to the status quo.

“There is no single path to reconciliation,” declared Minister Fraser in his statement on last month’s treaty rejection. “All options are on the table as we work together in partnership with the Indigenous peoples of B.C. toward reconciliation.”

Indeed, Chief Frederick and his people are already in line to access the benefits of some alternatives to treaty settlements.

In late June, the Lheidli T’enneh were one of a dozen First Nations contracting for $620 million worth of jobs and benefit agreements on the natural gas pipeline that is being built to feed the LNG Canada liquefied natural gas plant in Kitimat.

The Lheidli T’enneh are also destined for a fair share of the $550-million Indigenous Housing Fund, announced in Prince George by Premier John Horgan, with Chief Frederick standing alongside him.

Not the permanent solution envisioned by the founders of the modern-day treaty process. But given the glacial pace of treaty-making to date, such side deals are the here-and-now option for many First Nations.

Why do we have to enter into treaty agreements to prove we are the rightful owners of the land? JO-ANNE BEREZANSKI, Lheidli T’enneh member