Clear Full Forecast

Treaty Leaves Rank and File Out

By Ben Meisner

Monday, April 02, 2007 02:13 PM

            

It doesn’t make good sense to hold a party before you have played the game and that is what took place with the signing of the Lheidli T’enneh treaty. On hand for the not so official signing was the Premier of the province, the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs, along with various Chiefs from across the province. It truly was a case of too many Chiefs and not enough Indians, those people who ultimately would call the shot as to whether the treaty passed or not.

We seem to have forgotten the near miss that took place in the Nisgaa treaty where it looked like it was heading for the tube, when at the last moment it was saved by handing out some new found money to the rank and file of the reserve.

Until we are prepared to deal with the individual and certainly much more than asking them to vote on something that has already been decided on, we will have problems.

I have long held to the belief that we must finally come to grips with how we are going to make amends to the native population of BC.

What is so wrong with striking a deal with each and every person who has a land claim, why are we now settling land claims in which, when finished essentially place the rank and file members in the same position that existed before their approval?  The money must go to the individual band member; they also must have the right to own their own home, and to make their own decisions on the fate of their families, free of outside interference. We constantly suggest that the native population is somehow beneath our statute without ever looking at the real problem.

The argument that somehow if you give a family money it will all be spent and they will be back to where they started from cannot be proven and until we have tried to give these people equal opportunity, don’t be surprised when they turn down yet another treaty.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

"Until we are prepared to deal with the individual..."

Have the governments refused to deal with the individuals? Or have they tried and where asked to refrain from doing so? I haven't been following these negotiations too closely, so perhaps I shouldn't even be asking this question.

Don't the rank and file first have to decide by majority vote to instruct the leader(s) to approach the governments with the request that settlements be dealt with on an individual claims and property rights principle?

Why would a government refuse to acknowledge such a request when the First Nation wishes to settle under those terms?

There seems to be something between a rock and hard place.

If a company, a government, and individual wish to make a deal with Canfor, does one negotiate with the CEO of Canfor; a person who reports to the CEO; a legal firm acting on behalf of Canfor; etc. Or does one deal with individual shareholders of the company?

Negotiations are held in good faith by those who represent the collective, whether a company, a society, a country, a municipality, whatever.

It behooves those representatives to get back to those they represent to ensure they are negotiating on their behalf and not on the behalf of the negotiators. If individuals within the collective wish to receive benefits directly through an agreement, then the negotiators must take that to the table and negotiate to get that in.

I think this is a simple matter of the negotiators getting it wrong. It happens with other negotiations which have to be taken bsck to the collective for ratification every now and then.

Why there was a signing ceremony prior to a vote is beyond me. If I were a member of the band, I am just the type of person who would say that I am going to vote against the deal just because they take my vote for granted. I do not know how many other people who would stand on such a principle there are.

This whole process has taken far too long and I suspect that instead of wearing people down it has actually raised their backs a bit.

I have not heard of hereditary Chief Quaw for a decade if not longer. As soon as he came back into the public picture it was rather obvious to outsiders who know a bit of history that something might be afoot.
Ben you're absolutely correct. The problem is it might be too much to fast for the vast majority who are intellectually challenged either due to education or substance abuse. They would need protection from their own stupid mistakes for a transition period.

I think without question individual property rights especially home ownership should be principle number 1. This right to land should be protected via a clause that does not allow them to sell any more than half their land with the remainder to be passed down a few generations before it can be fully liquidated. We need to protect them from the heroin addiction costs. For this reason there should be limits to their access to cash, but the cash should still be their individual personal possession.

Maybe a deal could be made for some of their land for an industrial park development with the benefits going directly to the individual members in some kind of perpetuity.
The last posting above really makes me shake my head in disbelief.

The first paragraph is a real eye-opener!

Diplomat, do you care to say why? I don't bite. I think it is quite obvious that if you give a pile of money to someone with substance abuse that they will find a way to get cheated out of their inheritance in short order. What about the next generation then? I don't say it lightly as some of them I am related to.

Think of the swindlers that would swoop in to take advantage of these people. How many from that band are trained in business, for matters such as investing, or building wealth? I would argue very few. Why victimize them through their weakness? Is it not much more compassionate to state the facts and deal with them straight up?

Individuals need to be given a chance at independence and with that comes responsibility that will need to be nurtured until they can take full responsibility for their actions.

In addition where do you get off arguing that home ownership is not the first line of defence against the social ills that plague these people? Have you ever been homeless, or for that matter had no home security to plan your life around? Opinions against home ownership really make me shake my head. Living in a communal setting, without property rights, and surrounded by substance abuse leaves no way out for a lot of people.

Finally I see no reason why they should not be allowed to make a business deal with the city that benefits both communities. Its called a win-win proposal in my books.
Diplomat, do you care to say why?

You wrote:"...vast majority who are intellectually challenged either due to education or substance abuse..."

The vast majority? Have you any evidence, like a properly conducted survey? A vast majority is more than 75% - 85%, so what are you trying to say?

I don't bite either.

No evidence, casual observation. Probably could have been more politically correct.
Most definitely rather than probably.

:-)
An example of what some of the challenges are. When you are up to your backside in allegators, it's difficult to remember that the main objective was to drain the swamp.

I don't have a solution, but we need to remain focused on the real issues as they appear to the First Nations People. I can't really understand what they are. Chester