Treaty a Done Deal?

Monday, October 30, 2006 03:58 AM

There is no guarantee the treaty that was initialed with the Lheidli T'enneh yesterday will be ratified.

The Traditional Chief of the Lheidli T’enneh, Peter Quaw, says he will not vote for the treaty that was initialed in Prince George Sunday. Premier Gordon Campbell, Federal Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, and Lheidli T’enneh Chief Dominic Fredrick signed the agreement at a ceremony at the Civic Centre.

The treaty settlement requires a 70% vote of support among those who vote. Peter Quaw says "34% of the people at the reserve are from my family and we don’t like the treaty." He says the treaty doesn't go far enough "What can you do with 28 acres of land each?" asks Quaw, "We needed a blue print for the future and we are not about to get it. The cash that comes to the reserve will be gone in a few years and then what will we do? "

At a media conference later, the First Nation’s band from the Valemount area said the land claim settlement includes some of their traditional land. Similarly the Treaty 8 Council of Chief’s advised the Lheidli T’enneh that they are concerned about an overlap of land claims in the Tumbler Ridge, Parsnip River area. The West Moberly band said there already is litigation involving the Williston reservoir. Negotiators say they are prepared to meet with the effected groups.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 03:58 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Gofaster on October 30 2006 4:56 AM

I would count on this being a done deal until all the I's are dotted, the T's are crossed and the ink is very dry.....and even then i will have my doubts as to wether this will ever be done!

Posted by: acrider54 on October 30 2006 6:04 AM

Never

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 30 2006 7:36 AM

IF, if it passes it will cause more problems for the natives in school. Why go to school if you are a rich guy? Would you? I'd drop out and do something stupid.

Posted by: fedup on October 30 2006 8:48 AM

This is a joke thier was no territories until the settlers servayed the land.These treaty talks are just a pay off why even worry about land if the payout is right the deal will be done.Then when that money is gone we will be back to the bank again because it will never be enough.We have to start treating Canadians like Canadians enough with the speacial treatment.

Posted by: Big_B on October 30 2006 8:55 AM

Aboriginal Canadians are recognized as a distinct people in section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Posted by: Becca on October 30 2006 9:16 AM

It is so sad to hear such ignorance by some of the people who posted on this topic. You have no idea what you are commenting on. The people of PG are very racist against the first nations people. This racism is no different than that which enslaved black people in the US (not to mention in Canada) and murdered the Jews in the Holocast. Canada is just more passive and has been sucessful in keeping the true history of Canada and the treatment of the first nations people hidden. Educate yourself. Stop and wonder why would restitution is so important to a group of people who endured cultural genocide.
PS. traditional territories were made by the first nations people 100's of years ago and they were divided by rivers and lakes until the Europeon trappers (Hudson Bay Comp) came and took over for profit.

Posted by: owl on October 30 2006 9:18 AM

"An Aboriginal Canuck must have written that section", says I sarcastically.

Nice to hear that Peter is alive and kicking.

I think the interesting thing is the fact that overlapping of territorial claims is just now emerging. That will continue to be a problem for each and every one of the processes. From my point of view, those who have adjacent claims need to be part of the process. If not, the government will get itself into trouble since they are making decisions without agreement by those parties and could be putting themselves into a position of having to pay compensation as part of future treaties.
-------------------------
"Why go to school if you are a rich guy?" ....

have not got the faintest clue ..... all those kids who are born to rich families and go to school and even stay through to University must be really stupid.

Posted by: owl on October 30 2006 9:32 AM

Becca ..... well said. Thank you for that .... a light in the room.

Posted by: ammonra on October 30 2006 9:45 AM

An interesting point about overlapping territories. This was raised in the Nisga context as well. It is often used as a blunt weapon to ridicule land claims, but I would note that many European countries have overlapping territorial claims as well, and North American countries too.

One of the most important was the claim by both Germany and France over the Alsace and Lorraine areas. It has been moved back and forth for centuries. There are others in Europe too.

Mexico and the USA had a war over who owned parts of Texas and New Mexico, I believe. There was a dispute between Canada and the USA over a small piece of territory in BC, and the border was set by arbitration by the Kaiser, as was the Alaskan panhandle.

Has there been a modern war between First Nations groups over overlapping territory? No!. Then they must be more civilised than us, mustn't they?

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 30 2006 11:27 AM

So you have to be poor to drop out of school? Poor means no support network, no pride, nothing to fall back on, right?

So after this treaty deal I can expect all treaty fellas to stay in school and get an education? Or can I expect more excuses?

I'm white trash, and all I'm seeing posted here is more educated white trash making excuses for people they feel sorry for. Feel sorry all you want, but get out there and do something besides trash my observations on the situation. Lets see you keep one treaty fella in school. I know lots of natives, most aren't treaty, and their biggest problem is they can't stay away from other natives that drag them down. Putting the natives all together only seems to weaken and destroy them. Integration and mainstream at least lets some fellas escape the cycle.

Racism like humor can hurt because it always has a kernel of truth in it. What hurts worse is being afraid to look in the mirror and then getting on with your life.

So don't hold back, tell me how you are all better white trash. And who you have you hired or loaned money to or partied with or defended in school? Sounds like lots of armchair theorist on this site. Hee hee!

Posted by: billposer on October 30 2006 1:17 PM

>This is a joke thier was no territories until the settlers servayed the land

Hunh? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? What makes you think that there were no territories? Not only oral tradition but the reports of fur traders, missionaries, and other Europeans confirm that families and bands had territories over which they exercised stewardship and rights of use. The language has a word for "territory": keyoh.

As for the overlap issues, what is noticeable to me is that the bands that are quoted as raising them are the ones at the remotest boundaries of Lheidli traditional territory, at the northern and eastern extremes. It is quite possible that they weren't paying attention. The bands with which the potential overlap issues were greatest, namely Nak'azdli and Saik'uz, engaged in negotiations over overlap starting at least ten years ago.

Posted by: Harbinger on October 30 2006 4:24 PM

Aboriginals don't wish to assimilate. So leave them alone in their new pick-up trucks and I am sure with all that treaty money, they will eventually fix their own social problems and shortcomings in the years to come. Money solves everything. Doncha know?

Posted by: Harbinger on October 30 2006 4:27 PM

Is this Indian band still gonna get cheques from the Dept. Of Indian Affairs? Jest wunderin'. I've got to budget for the coming years.

Posted by: fedup on October 30 2006 6:03 PM

If you don't agree with the way these treaties are going please don't have an opinion or you will be called racist.As for the territories if you get all the native bands together to decide where the borders lie I bet you will not get your answer.Yes i agree natives where mistreated so have been a lot of folks along the line we have to start looking forward why are native kids haveing so much trouble right now they have just as much opportunity as anyone else if not more.

Posted by: Harbinger on October 30 2006 11:16 PM

I am sure everything will work out just fine.

Posted by: thereasonableman on October 31 2006 10:04 AM

Anyone, no matter what color of skin is a racist. That is a fact, because it is a part of human intuition to recognize a familiar, and favor them as a result.

All you people in fairy tale land, what have you ever done to help and indian ? I bet you avoid them on the street.

I am for settlement of land claims and treaties, and I am for the betterment of their position, because a lot of their problems were created for them, not by them.

And...I use the word indian instead of aboriginal, native, first nations, etc. because that is what my indian friends demand from me.

If you say you're not a racist, you're in denial. The key is to recognize this trait and not allow it to color the way you deal with the person.

Looks like more than the indian didn't stay in school, and I am no better or worse, but I am much more accepting of my shortcomings as a human being than most. I am insignificANT, with the emphasis on ANT. How about you ?