British Columbia Treaty Process has failed

[Treaty trap or dead end]

May 29, 2008

David Luggi, Carrier Sekani Tribal Chief's speaking notes at National Day of Action gathering at the Prince George Courthouse


First Nations and the Failure of the Treaty Process

The British Columbia Treaty Process has failed. It has not produced the expected results in Carrier territory. There is evidently no possibility of achieving its stated objectives, much less the ideal of a just reconciliation sought by our people. The reasons for failure are documented and explained by many grass-roots CSTC people. It would be a waste of time and energy to return to what all of us know and have experienced directly in the last few years of involvement with the BCTC process.

It is important that we must now focus our vision and thinking on the many paths in front of us now that the BCTC framework has been proven to be a trap, or at best a dead end. What are the strategic choices First Nations in BC have now? Before making decisions on this question, we need to consider all of our options in light of our experiences with the BCTC, considering the social realities in our communities, and with respect for the teachings and principles that define us as the Original Peoples of this land.

The purpose of this rally is to help us all – grass-roots, academics, politicians, bureaucrats, and activists - think clearly and make good decisions on what to do next so that the future existence of indigenous nations in our homelands is secured. On March 30, 2007, the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation voted down
the first proposed treaty to reach ratification in the BC Treaty Commission process. Just days before, members of the CSTC passed a motion to withdraw from the BCTC process unless government could demonstrate significant change in their negotiating mandates. These events have reaffirmed what
people in First Nations communities have been thinking for a long time: the treaty process has been an exercise in frustration for First Nations, who have borrowed money to slam their heads against a wall of stubborn government greed and racism. We have shattered the shackles of a process that falsely imprisoned us for 13 years. For over a year, we have enjoyed the freedom.

We want to tell all First Nations that freedom from the BCTC process is the first step to the survival of your nationhood. It is now undeniable that the Nisga’a Final Agreement is both a template and symbol of the BCTC vision, and First Nations are being asked to give up too much, with not enough offered in return; for such surrenders of our lands, compromises our nationhood and assimilation of our identities.

Our purpose here is not to judge or discredit those First Nations that are engaged in the BCTC process. It is meant to generate a meaningful dialogue that there are alternatives to the BCTC process. Today we affirm our love of these great lands and remain resistant to government’s unworkable and unjust treaty settlement offerings.

We have been creative and adaptive in using other tools to assert our nationhood in our homelands. When the BCTC process has been criticized in the past, the response has often been, “Well, it’s the only game in town.” Now it is time to recognize and admit that this is simply not true. Our people and
the Canadian public have a right to all the facts and to be informed of all the possible paths available for our survival as Original People. It’s time to stop the games and return to the fundamentals about achieving our objectives.

The objective of treaty negotiations in BC remains “certainty”. The provincial and federal governments concede only that which provides them with the economic and legal certainties they seek, and deny First Nations any certainty at all in terms of a land base for social, economic and political stability.

The reason federal and provincial governments are negotiating with us remains the same as always. They are concerned about the economic impacts of legal uncertainty – without the confirmation of their ownership of our lands economic development in our territories is not secure in the long-term. First Nations have, in the past and present, taken good advantage of this state of uncertainty. Make no mistake; our main objective has always been to regain
and protect our lands and to rebuild our communities on the foundation of our culture;

Taking advantage of the currency of uncertainty will result in a constant cycle of direct and court actions followed by negotiations. The terms and principles of the negotiations will shift to First Nations’ advantage at every turn of the cycle if our people continuously apply the pressure of a credible, underlying
and imminent threat in the form of court actions or direct actions on the land.

This my friends is the only strategy that has proven effective for First Nations in the modern era. The issue of overlaps in the claimed territories of First Nations involved in the BCTC process is a serious problem. The overlap problem may be the result of the template approach being taken in the BCTC process itself, where at the outset the Nisga’a agreed to accept only eight percent of their traditional territory as “treaty settlement land”.

After that, First Nations, seeking to retain all of their traditional territories and expecting to negotiate down to the Nisga’a standard, simply calculated and claimed more than their actual lands.

The result is that roughly 150 percent of the province’s actual acreage is now claimed by First Nations as traditional territory. This fact has been used against First Nations in the media and in negotiations; it creates an ideal situation for the divide and conquer tactics of government, and perpetuates the primitive
myth that indigenous peoples lack advanced systems of governance and are not capable of mutual recognition on a territorial level.

With this confused and contradictory situation creates in practical terms is an ability on the part of the governments to play First Nations against each other - governments select those First Nations who are willing to compromise and deal with them instead of the ones who are committed to standing on principle. Further, even when a First Nation reaches an agreement, that deal is subject to court challenges by neighbouring First Nations whose territories are infringed in the selection of lands in the agreement.

A resolution to the overlap problem through meaningful dialogue among First Nations, followed by the revitalization of our governance systems is crucial to our future. We need no government intervention; we need our values and beliefs respected.

If First Nations can agree on territorial boundaries with one another, and we are able to face the governments as a solid force, our political power will be increased greatly. As it stands, First Nations are engaging the governments as separate and divided groups, when real power can only be achieved if we
recognize the continued respect for each other and driving for a coordinated and cohesive action.

I want to conclude by calling on all First Nations to abandon the BCTC process it is grossly unfair; unjust and unworkable. Together; people-to-people; nation-to-nation we can preserve our culture; our identities and live with measured dignity. Apart and divided; we risk extinction.

Thank you.