Motives play vital role in historical matters
Partial truths damaged land treaty settlements
One hundred and fortythree years after the colony of British Columbia joined Canada, what is delaying the final land rights settlements? Why have most B.C. First Nations people not received legal titles to their lands?
In my opinion, too much credibility has been given to pre-1900 government archives. What hasn’t been factored into those “historical truths” is who wrote a specific report and for what objectives.
Are an author’s biases, vested interests or orders from superiors relevant to a document’s credibility? Of course. Yet in all the decades of negotiating “fair settlements,” how much consideration has been given to who signed an archived record — and why?
When B.C. became a province on July 21, 1871, the majority of its non-native 10,000 residents lived on Vancouver Island and along the lower portions of the Fraser and Thompson Rivers. Most had come for the British colony’s gold rushes, then stayed. They became settlers or shopkeepers or employees of the colonial government.
Only a few comprehended how vast and complex B.C.’s geography was. Hardly any understood B.C.’s Indian peoples’ tenure to their nations’ tribal lands.
We can conservatively assume there were over 80,000 First Nations people in 1871 — or eight times the number of non-native B.C. residents. Those Indian individuals had little knowledge about, interest in or interaction with the newcomers.
Under the statutes of confederation, all Indian land rights were decreed Canada’s responsibility. Yet in B.C., all crown lands — including First Nations territories — were in the province’s bailiwick. That is the convoluted genesis for Canada/ B.C. governments’ decades of delays in legalizing all B.C. First Nations land rights.
Of course, in 1871, B.C.’s Indian population had no knowledge about what statutes and laws Canada had enacted. No warnings were given that their land, water, timber, and each native person’s well-being and autonomy, was now to be controlled by Canadian parliamentarians and bureaucrats. Nor were they notified their tribes’ extensive oral history, recording eons of traditional land use, activities and practices, was about to be considered “of no account” by most future legislators and negotiators.
In the 30 years after B.C. joined Canada, a small number of powerful, economically interconnected, men shaped how the financially-strapped new province evolved. Some were reputed to be honest and principled while others were considered to be reaping selfbenefits.
That core group influenced who ran in elections, who was hired as the dominion’s or province’s senior civil servants and who received government contracts. Those power-brokers’ documents are significant in Canada’s and B.C.’s archival history.
Is understanding their priorities and trade-offs critical to comprehending what pre-1900 archives reveal? Again, yes! When a document is used without factoring in its author and his reasons for creating it, readers, particularly negotiators, are working with partial truths.
As one example, let’s consider Joseph Trutch. Why was he appointed B.C.’s first lieutenant-governor?
Trutch was the Colony’s Lands & Works minister, a talented engineer, known to be adept at filling his own pockets, dismissive of Indian land rights and a social climber. He became the lead negotiator for confederation, counselled by Britain’s official representative, B.C.’s Colonial Governor Frederick Musgrave — who was also Trutch’s new brother-in-law.
Trutch pushed for union with Canada as directed. As a civil engineer, his support gave credibility to Prime Minister Macdonald’s dream of a massive country tied by a seato-sea railway. Enough voters agreed, B.C. became Canadian, and Trutch became B.C.’s first lieutenant-governor.
Another example: Everyone researching B.C. Indian lands recognizes Lawrence VanKoughnet’s power. Yet his personal story is not well-known. He was initially hired as an Indian Affairs clerk because Macdonald, a close family friend, recommended him. His dogmatic Upper Canada values helped VanKoughnet advance in Ottawa and his loyalty to Sir John A. enhanced his subsequent career.
VanKoughnet was Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1874 to 1891 and senior compiler of the Indian Act of 1876. He also co-authored the Act’s 1885 amendments, which outlawed potlatches, tribal dances and expanded the residential school system.
Is VanKoughnet’s bigotry revealed in his mass of archival materials? Or that he sometimes didn’t issue investigative reports until after parliamentarians voted? Politically disdained by 1891, he was replaced soon after Macdonald died.
Our governments’ partial truths have accumulated damages, eh? My opinion? Canada must apologize and compensate B.C. First Nation people for decades of legislative mismanagement. And legalize all B.C. Indian land ownership within a deadline. How about by July 21, 2016?