VICTORIA - It's reassuring to know that local First Nations won't be hammering a big 'For Sale' sign into the lawn in front of the B.C. legislature.
The Songhees and Esquimalt bands filed a lawsuit in 2001 arguing that the big stone building sits on property that belongs to them.
And now the provincial and federal governments have agreed, promising $31.5 million to compensate the bands for their lost property. Instead of being sheepish or resentful, the politicians turned the deal into a Saturday morning celebration at the legislature. (Though they did choose to unveil the agreement while Premier Gordon Campbell was half-a-world away in China.)
When the two First Nations launched the legal action in 2001 it was mostly seen as part of the backlash over Campbell's divisive and pointless plan for a referendum on treaty principles.
But in fact they had a good claim.
By the time the Vancouver Island colony was set up in 1849 the British government had decided to recognize the principle of aboriginal ownership throughout the empire. It wanted local representatives to reach agreements showing clearly that natives had agreed to surrender land and been compensated.
So James Douglas, the colony's governor and the regional manager for the Hudson's Bay Company, set out to sign treaties. The deals offered the natives money to give up title to vast tracts of land and also set out areas they would continue to own.
In 1850 Douglas reached one of those deals with the predecessors of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations was one of those agreements. Under he agreement they were to continue to own their village sites, which included the nice piece of waterfront property across the harbour from Fort Victoria. The land was marked on colonial maps as a reserve. (The treaty push only lasted a few years. The British government didn't see enough pressure for development to justify acquiring more land.)
But when Douglas and colonial officials started looked for a site for a legislature in the late-1850s, the reserve caught their eyes. Part of the appeal was that the government wouldn't have to pay; it could just take the land.
And it did.
It's a familiar story. Even when treaties were reached with First Nations, governments and business were often quick to take bits needed for a new community or a highway - or a legislature. It was faster, easier and cheaper than buying property from non-natives. The practice continued at least through the 1940s in B.C.
But the courts have said a deal is a deal. If you take someone's property, you owe them compensation, even if they don't find out about the loss for a century.
All in all it's encouraging that the governments have accepted this claim and reached a settlement. That's a big change.
In 2001 Campbell and the Liberals were still arguing that the Nisga'a treaty should be declared invalid because it gave too much power to the First Nation.
They were planning a referendum to seek support for treaty principles that would have made agreements impossible.
Now five years later the referendum results have been tossed in the dustbin, the Liberals laud the benefits of the Nisga'a treaty and Campbell is championing a New Relationship with First Nations.
The federal government's shift is just as dramatic. It has routinely stalled and stonewalled similar cases for decades.
Partly, the Songhees and Esquimalt bands probably have the International Olympic Committee to thank for the settlement. The governments knew that in 2010 the world media would have jumped all over a story that showed B.C.'s legislature was built on land taken illegally from First Nations.
But the settlement likely also indicates that the provincial government is looking for ways to right old wrongs and remove barriers to the new relationship.
Clearing up the cloud over the province's legislature is another useful step.
Footnote: The ceremony came the day after Aboriginal Affairs Minister Mike de Jong jumped into a dispute between local First Nations and a developer who wanted to destroy a cave they say is sacred. De Jong helped reach a two-week truce, saving the governments from some embarrassment on what was supposed to be a good-news day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Hi Paul
I'm not that sure the land was taken illegally. The locals got tired of the slaves, the drinking and carrrying on in the near proximity of the town. The band took some cash and moved from the old Songees one reserve to Songhees 2, where they are today. I have the old map if you want to take a look, or you can get it for free from DIAND in Vancouver. The reason Douglas stopped doing treaties back then was because London wouldn't send over any more money. But steal? Well its a pretty strong word. Interesting as the modern Treaty process got underway locally, a very few of us used to go to all the main table meetings, public meetings, and a even smaller group sat on the Regional Advisory Committee.as an aside let me mention I never saw a mediaa person at any event beyong a meeting held as one group signed on to the third step.
The piece of land never came up as an issue. Go read the records of the meetings. They used to be public documents, but I'm not too sure Gordon hasn't buried them somewhere. The Temex group of which Songhees are members are once again having treaty meetings locally. And speaking of treaties, as I tend to do, did you know that when BC joined Canada the fed were told the province was covered by treaties. Which of course wasn't true. The 14 very small and vague Douglas Treaties cover very little of the province. Campbell, his old AG and of course his biggest advisor hated the modern treaty idea with a venegnce. His " walk in the snow" conversion was because he wanted a name for himself so did a 180 degree turn. Business has always wanted certainty, accountabiliy and some other comfort words, so Gordon got involved, not in his previous way, but as the new savior of the system. I do agree with you on the point that Gordon dind't like the idea of a blockade or three during the overpriced Olympic event.What a dishonerable way to resolve long standing issues. the Supreme Court of Canada said title may exist, but you have two ways of proving it. In Court or by negotiations. And negotiations are cheaper. This PR event cost a lot of money. Watch for something about to happen and go protest it. Sometimes you get lucky. The songhees got lucky as Gordo caved in with all of us paying the shot. By the way the Esquimalt band is not in the treaty process.
Wow, was that first post sour grapes or what? What verb would the poster have used instead of "steal" if the land under the legislature had belonged to his grandfather?
Stephen Harper wants to travel the world chastising others for human rights violations. It will benefit all British Columbians for some of the violations that took place in the past finally to be recognized and corrected. There will be a cost attached but the harm done to those who suffered the injustices will never be undone. "Suck It Up" as they say, and let's get on with the long overdue process.
I'm not too sure the first poster was talking sour grapes. He had some involvement in the goings on. He did mention that few people bother to follow the long drawn out processes. But are now instant experts. The money pile has gotten to be very large. The auditor general has shown concern. The history I read around the moving of Songhees reserve is as the first poster stated. It may be political correct to say the governments have hammered some first nations, but let's get a grip on reality. The Songhees moved to another place, and as Paul mentioned, the law suit was started as a reaction to Campbell forcing a referendum. A referendum that the large majority of BC citizens didn't bother getting involved in. As a matter of fact no person in the Songess group today have a direct linkage to anyone who signed on the dotted line so many years ago. I read that in the record of decisions from the treaty that Songhees is working as a part of. Called Temex. That, so I understand is part of the probelm with treaty work. Folks move around a lot.The move may have not been the best move for the folks signing it, but steal, I don't think so
Interesting comments regarding our people of the Songhees. As to your coments regarding, "As a matter of fact no person in the Songess group today have a direct linkage to anyone who signed on the dotted line so many years ago". I have direct linkage as you speak. My name comes from my grandfather and my grandfathers father. I have pictures of him & my great great grandmother were the name comes from. I can also give the closest meaning to my name as described in the non-native language called, " ENGLISH". Taiaiake Alfred & Jeff Corntassel,Indigenous Governance Programs University of Victoria
remind us that "that long before the UN designated the rhetorical Indigenous Decade, and before the establishment of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations in 1982, Indigenous peoples have been active and ever vigilant in protecting their ancestral homelands, and using whatever means necessary to ensure their security and survival, including engaging global forums".
One poster complains that "the money pile has gotten to be very large". What does that mean? Is he saying that if justice is expensive then let's not have any? That has had a lot to do with the political resistance to settling land claims, but the "interest clock" will keep ticking until the matters are settled.
Hi One of the folks mentioned a direct Lineage to the early signors of the deal. Interesting but at the treaty meetings I attended as some one supportive of the treaty process the issue of lineage did come up. It wasn't me that said it, go ask the three parties senior negotiators. Of if you are lucky you might find the records of decisions. But I sort of doubt you will find them as I mentioned before. They disappeared from the web site as Campbell took power. I did ask a communications guy I knew in aboriginal affairs within a week of the Campbell take over and he told me they were all archived.
And you are probably aware, our new Government of Canada refuses to sign on to the UN sub committee on aboriginal rights. I don't wish to say nobody is in line for rights, I only state what was on the table. Yes certain aboriginal leaders do press for their rights. But to finally get a grip on "the bundle of rights" it looks like modern treaties are the way to go. So let's get up to the table and get it finished while some of the resources are still on the property. The chap who ran aboriginal studies at UVic got into a public debate years ago with the then federal senior negotiator. He didn't want any treaty discussions for many years. The fed negotiator mentioned the obvious. Keep waiting and the resources you want part of, will get less and less.
A property that is sort of small for the members as so much of it is on long term leases with the fed, or the Locatee leases which aren't legally accepted. How can any first nation person operate a successful business as long as section 28 of the act exists. My Gosh its hard to get some cash to start much of anything. Without a Federal lease of which there are over 50 different kinds)Occupiers are deemed as trespassers under the act, and nobody has much of a legal right to even argue the things in courts. Go ask the fellow who set up a development on the Saancih peninsul. The council decided to shut off the water, beacuse he hand't got their permission. Mind you Boyer vs the queen covered that issue yareas earlier. the fed came up with back dates federal loease. The appeals court used that back dating to throw out the lease. Everyone lost theri homes and their shits. The band lost a lot of face.The banks goit real careful after that. A loss of 125,000 dollars to a senior really hurts. Loss of trust in a band runs higher than that.
The money pile spoken about is the vast amount of cash spent to date. Somebody will have to pay it back as its mostly loans. Some bands owe so much it will take many years to pay it back. Nobody said Justice is too expensive, but justice delayed is Justice denied. It was mentioned that it's dollars to pay back.
Say hello to Chief Sam, or Wilson Bob if you run into them. I consider them both good leaders and they press hard as they should. I suggest they wouldn't call us a buch of protestors. Hey I paid into the self taxation federal plan for years, supported it as did out associations as a means for first nations to get some bucks to work with. The municpalites were taking our tax dollars and providing us with aporx 25 percent of the standard services due to the good old Inidna act. The DIAND Minister communicates with us many times as we did to the provincial minister. We actively supported the Aboriginal Gazette. Go ask Chief Manny Jules. We aren't the enemy. You have lots of them without us. Go read the BC Civil Liberties paper on occupiers. I'm pleased to say some of my words are in that document.
One more little item. Certain bands often suggested that they and only they would decide who the voting members would be. It never sold. This is a three party deal and until a treaty is formed only two governments exist. One person missed on the vote makes it void. The third will exist on noon of the first day of treaty. The same day the federal taxation system ceases. After so many years it's overdue. Almost forgot. The Royal Commission co chairs had a few words about native laws and taxation, for folks who are not band members living on land now called Land set aside for Indians. You might try reading their comments when they appeared before the federal all party committee way back when.
Steven Hume has a good article in the Vancouver Sun this morning. (Friday 24) A number of issues have never been resolved. They can be sorted out with modern treaties. One group he mentions is the Hulquiminum who claim a very large number of sacred sites on the mid island alone.I do recall them asking for, and getting protection for a hill, at the table. Courts can do the job, one place at a time, but the costs would be massive.Not to mention the lenght of time to resolve such issues.
It was earlier mentioned by me that there are two ways, according to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide who owns what. Negotiations or litigation, negotiations being the preferred because of the uncertainty of court decisions and the huge amount of time and money required. Money which is paid for by the taxpayers. Take a look at Les Leye's article in the Times Colonist today( Sat)It's the Tsilhquot'ins. The case has been going the rounds for 15 years, estimated final cost $30 millions , 335 days in court and counting.Identify every trail, every campsite has to be proven etc. Les states the obvious, "the alternative is engage in treaty talk". Nobody can make the band enter treaty talks, but heck they aren't paying the bill either. But of course the result can and will affect them a lot. The assumption is either way it falls, it will eventually end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. The guys who started the thing may well be dead and gone before it's finished. so yes, there is a money pile. Lots of lawyers taking lots of time. These are very important decisions. 50 /50 chance of losing for either side. Les end up by saying. "Maybe it will define aboriginal title more clearly. Maybe it won't". He goes on to say "When the taxpayers look at the money and the time spent on exhaustive reviews of historical details from 160 years ago and ask what any of it has to do with making things right in 2006, a lot of them will conclude there has to be a better way."
Very interesting article I have bookmarked this blog for further browsing.
Share your information further at YourBroadcaster - Creating, Writing & Collaborating.
Post a Comment