Clear Full Forecast

The Kemess Decision About Aboriginal Title

By Submitted Article

Sunday, September 23, 2007 03:44 AM

  

Simgigyet Miluulak (Alice Jeffrey, left) and Nii Kyap (Rena Benson) on shores of Amazay Lake performing the eagle down ceremony  Photo by Art Wilson

Opinion piece submitted by  Doug Donaldson, Hazelton



The last notes of a lament song drifted across the mountain lake on a cool breeze that carried puffs of white eagle down. The peaceful, solemn ceremony performed by two Gitxsan hereditary chiefs in their regalia was in stark contrast to the activity at Northgate Mineral’s huge Kemess open-pit copper mine less than six kilometres away. It was also a sobering moment for the chiefs knowing that where they stood could be under 90 metres of water containing tons of acid producing mine tailings if Northgate had its way.

The Eagle Down ceremony performed by the chiefs that day in late August contained a prayer for the spirits of Amazay Lake and for the ancestors of chiefs Nii Kyap and Miluulak who protected its pristine waters for today’s generation.

That prayer was heard judging by recent results. On Sept. 17 a joint BC-Canada mining review panel recommended that Northgate Mineral’s plans for their new Kemess North copper-gold project, including using Amazay Lake as a tailings pond for 750 million tons of acid producing rock, “not be approved as proposed.”

When the chair of the mining review panel made that announcement in front of Gitxsan chiefs and their representatives at Gitanmaax Hall near Hazelton, a jubilant roar erupted from the more than 70 leaders gathered. The roar reverberated throughout the province and Canada. Now the echo coming back from many circles demonstrates a high level of ignorance on how far the issue of aboriginal rights and title has evolved in this country.

But its no wonder such a level of ignorance exists. Since the Gitxsan Delgamuukw Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 1997 provincial and federal government policy has failed to live up to the direction given by the highest court in the land. Despite the New Relationship deal promoted by the Gordon Campbell government in BC, his ministers continue to issue tenure permits to large companies for resource extraction activities on traditional First Nation territories without adequate consultation or accommodation. This leads to companies like Northgate charging ahead with a ludicrous proposals to kill a six-kilometre long, pristine mountain lake, and creating a toxic stew that would need to be contained and monitored for hundreds of years, for a economic benefit that may last for 11 years at the most. If BC had entered into genuine consultation with the Gitxsan on development proposals on the traditional territories, who knows what positive steps may have been created? At the least, a lot of investor’s money wouldn’t have been wasted by Northgate pursuing the lake as a tailings pond option and a significant amount of bureaucrats time, paid for by taxpayers, wouldn’t have been necessary in the three-year mining review panel process.

The echo from organizations like the Mining Association of BC and from the BC Liberal government, in the form of the comments by local MLA Dennis Mackay, are to be expected. It is the whole “jobs or the environment” red herring that is still part of a vocabulary that hasn’t caught up to current reality and the new standards society demands when considering the environment and aboriginal rights. Some in the resource extraction industry have caught up and, along with enlightened bureaucrats, are trying to push the envelope by engaging First Nations in meaningful consultation. But few elected politicians in the ruling BC Liberal or federal Conservative parties are up to speed on the new dynamics. This lack of leadership does not bode well for those of us living in remote, rural areas dependent on resource extraction for part of our economy, and healthy ecosystems for continued survival. Nor does it harbour well for those living in more urban areas who are dependent for their well being on natural resources found in the “heartlands”.

Meanwhile the Gitxsan and non-Gitxsan experience up to 90% unemployment in the 14 communities that are located on the 30,000 square kilometres of traditional territory in northwest BC. Hereditary chiefs like Miluulak and Nii Kyap are well aware of the dependence, despondency and dire social conditions that joblessness helps create. Yet they are also acutely cognizant that humans cannot be separated from the land and that a healthy ecosystem is imperative for a healthy people.

As Miluulak said after concluding the Eagle Down ceremony on the shores of Amazay Lake, “I don’t think we want to follow in the footsteps of Europe or Asia. Look at the Seine or the Danube. Look at the pollution. It’s abominable. There must be alternative methods of development that are economical other than poisoning a lake.”

The issue at the foundation of the mining review panel assessing Northgate’s proposal around the lake is aboriginal title. The precedent and direction on aboriginal title was set in 1997 by the Supreme Court. The sooner we stop dancing around this issue and get on with implementing a ruling that is now 10 years old, the better it will be for everyone living in BC and Canada.


  
Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

I am a third generation Canadian and this makes me as native as anyone in the province. Having said this. I also am glad for this decision. We all own this land and not just one group. thanks to all who have stopped the needless destruction of one of OUR natural resources.
"It was also a sobering moment for the chiefs knowing that where they stood could be under 90 metres of water containing tons of acid producing mine tailings if Northgate had its way.

Unbelievable!!!!!! .... one single picture says it all !!! ..

Well written with some sobering thoughts about the lack of proper process and how much it costs and who is responsible for NOT following a proper process for such matters.

Here is an aerial view of the some of the tailing ponds around the oil sands project in Northern Alberta which store the waters form the Athabaska river used in the oil extraction process.

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1052681013&size=l

Then we have some Nickel tailings near Sudbury ……

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=144357401&size=o

Bring on the tourists with their cameras to show the rest of the world how Canada deals with its environment ….

But then the country is darn huge and we can afford to give up some of it. Right?
I do not see anywhere where REALIST said he/she was Gitxsan.

REALIST claims to be native to this land. After 3 generations I would hope that REALIST can make that claim. Waht other country would REALIST possibly be native of?

I am not a native of this land since I was not born here. My son and daughter, however, can quite correctly claim that Canada is their native land. They cannot, however, claim to be First Nations. There is a considerable difference in the use of the word "native". Native has several legitimate meanings.
“We all own this land and not just one group.”

Yes and no.

We all “own” Canada. However, there are overriding agreements on the Canadian land base which give the provinces the rights to property within their jurisdiction. The forests are in Canada, but the forests on public land are controlled by the provinces. In a similar fashion, the provinces have given municipalities certain rights as well to administer the lands within their jurisdiction. Thus, typically, there are three levels of laws and regulations one must follow. The minimum law/regulation is the federal. Thus Federal environmental laws must be followed throughout Canada. The province can make stricter laws, as can, to some degree, municipalities.

Now, as we get treaty settlements, and even before such settlement, as a result of the Gitxsan Delgamuukw Supreme Court of Canada ruling, there is another level of authority we must deal with.

So, yes, we can say we all “own” this land, but “ownership” has different authority attached to it. Thus, in the case of applying for a mining permit, we are involved as Canadians and are represented by federal departments. We are also involved as residents of BC and are represented by provincial departments. Those who live in the region of the proposed mine may be involved by the Regional District they live in and will be represented by those working for the regional district. Finally, the First Nations residing in the region have another level of “ownership” and will be represented by those they choose from their members.

So, basically the Gitxsan have one more level of “ownership” than everyone else. I am not sure why that is so difficult to comprehend for those who are trying to do something with public lands.
I'm still pissed off that England took over Scotland. Civilizations of the world have always been in constant flux, natives get over it and move on.
Blaming and demanding capitalist renumeration for the residual effects of colonization is no different in principle than going after the children of Hitlers Army. Makes no sense. Yes, we do need to provide help to those who suffered the ill effects of residential schools but not because of some duty to the origional land tenants, but because it is the right thing to help those who are marginalized from society. Provide councelling and education not handouts that allow people to refuse to acknowledge the realities of todays world. We all are victims of capitalization whether we know it or not, so to cater to one group at this time is to help capitalist goals by playing their divide and conquer game. First Nation Elders are forcasting a large increase in deaths due to the enabling effects of free money (Increased drinking and drugging) without education on how to use the money responsibly. The problem is we are applying capitalist solutions to the problems created by capitalism. This is the schizophrenic nature of First Nations relations. First Nations claim that they did not own the land but were a part of the land. Now we hear demands for land ownership and financial renumeration. Welcome to the real world, but if you want to join you need to jump in with both feet and not just a toe. If we want to fix society, we must work to fix the damages cause across the board due to capitalism and not cater to one specific group who suddenly have discovered land ownership and financial greed.
"Civilizations of the world have always been in constant flux, natives get over it and move on."

I guess you have not heard of the breakup of Jugoslavia yet .......

And we have not seen the end of Iraq yet which was another Brit folly of trying to unite different factions ....

Then there is the Soviet Union .....

And of course let us not forget about Israel and Palestine .....

And please forget my ignorance about much of the Asian world, but I know that they have their troubles as well ....

So .... you think people ought to get over it??????

That would be nice ..... but they don't ... it typically takes centuries .....

If we could only learn to handle these things like Switzerland, for instance ....
I agree with native ownership, so much as it amounts to a veto on land developments based on environmental concerns. IMO it can act as a hereditary guard against corporate exploitation of our land resources, thereby giving a purpose for first nations people and a firewall to infiltration by opportunists.
One more post ..... what is the root of it all?????

A basic disrespect by people, every single one of us, of others .......

You see it in many posts on this site ..... !!!

To see posts from individuals on here who do have respect for others gives me a reason to be optimistic ....
I take offence to ‘qwaszxter’ comments about Canada being responsible for genocide of native peoples. That is pure hate speech not based on fact traceable to modern governments of Canada.

Yes the British killed all the natives in Newfoundland and a few settlers spread around some tainted blankets that killed a lot of people in other parts of Canada, but this was not the Canadian government, nor were they the actions of modern Canadian people, so therefore those cases belongs in the history books.

Genocide takes many forms including:
-the Bolshevik (zionist) religious genocide of 60 million Christians under Stalin.
-the Khmer Rouge rural-urban genocide of the entire cities in the entire country of Cambodia.
-the Rwanda hand delivered genocide for race superiority.
-the German concentration camp genocide of problem political populations.
-the Zimbabwe genocide of today against undesirable poor people in the cities over political suppression.
-the Israeli genocide of the nation of Palestine over the last 60 years in a slow genocide of strangulation of the collective that is based on race and religion for the god of land.
-the ongoing genocide of Western nations through greed promotion, globalization, and anti-family/pro-abortion values that sells the life of today financed by the obligations of future societies.

All the above are forms in one way or another of legitimate arguments for genocides currently today, or over the last century.

Sending first nations to residential schools was not genocide in that its intention and effect was to empower the peoples as future equals as human beings; the complete opposite of genocide. The intention of the policy never was to abuse the people, and although crimes took place, I would have to say that the effect was not to cut off the pro-creation of the peoples in any measurable numbers. In fact the trend tended to be the opposite.

A change of culture is not a genocide; and any comparison of the two IMO is extremely disrespectful of the peoples in history that truly did experience genocides. The above mentioned are the true victims of genocide and not the First Nations of Canada.
Yes Owl, it typically does take centuries to "get over it". However the main point of this is eventually we do get over it. If it had been me that had been scooped and sent to residential school I too would have resisted and been rebellious. The net result would be that by refusing to surrender to reality, I would have been punished and possibly killed. That would have been my choice. Reality is you can fight and hope to win or you can accept and survive. We have seen the results of the fight and the deaths and misery has had no end. To refuse to try to integrate is to commit suicide which is the choice and right of all involved. Our responsibility lies in trying to make the transition as easy as possible and it is here where we fall down completely. The idea behind residential schools was in fact humane, however the implimentation of the schools was tragically flawed. Darwin called it the survival of the fittest and while we might not like the way this works the reality in the end is that change is inevitable and those who do not adapt do not continue.
re: The Kemess Decision About Aboriginal Title.

Great decision! Leave the lake the way it is instead of using it as an industrial waste dumping site.

Not long ago fly ash from steel mills and other industry was allowed to spew freely from smoke stacks, totally polluting the countryside downwind with toxic metals and minerals.

Since then strict environmental laws have forced the companies to install precipitators and dust filters that trap all the stuff.

Result: Clean air and a money maker for the companies who sell the captured ash to various buyers as a valuable base commodity.

Let the mining company adopt or develop a method to render the tailings harmless!

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Cheers!
"Similar forced residential boarding schools for native communities were operated in the United States (under the name Indian boarding schools) and in Australia (the Stolen Generation)."

It looks like the Canadian government used others as an inspiration.

The most disturbing thing to me is that representatives of Christian Churches (while under contract) often contravened the teachings of their own religion by being cold-hearted, abusive and morally and ethically deficient.

Canada has done well do admit, apologize and compensate.

Now it is up to the younger generations to move on, live in the present and for the brighter future and relegate the old skeletons to the dust bin of unchangeable history.

"'History is written by the victors.' Winston Churchill."

Churchill's books certainly show how he used that privilege of the victors, even to the point of omitting extremely crucial bits of factual history when it was much better for his story not to mention them.

Nobody is perfect, not even the leaders, the deciders.



"Darwin called it the survival of the fittest and while we might not like the way this works the reality in the end is that change is inevitable and those who do not adapt do not continue."

The theory is quite reasonable. I think the problem with it is that too many still think that it is those that bully their way through to survival are the fittest. They may be in the short run. However, I think that if one were to look at society today, as opposed to 50 years ago and certainly 100+ years ago, those in the industrialized world are becomming much more accommodating of those who do not wield power through guns and bullying.

I think it is fair to say that in recent history we are becoming a "kinder, gentler society". Not that we might not have been there before, such as during parts of the Greek, Roman and Egyptian era, as well as the Chinese Dynasties.
So, are those countries that may decide to fire atomic weapons at one another the fittest? Or are those people who might live in a part of the world that may be remote from such self destructive activities and live a much simpler life be the fittest.

Perhaps the Inu will be survivors and will carry on their traditions, if they can regain them, and be here to continue populating the rest of the Americas after "life" recovers there.

Given an scenario like that, who is the fittest? Is the last person on this earth before the lights go out the fittest? I doubt it. He/she is just the longest survivor, not by design or that person's cunning abilities, but by mere accident.
Like I said we might not like it, but that is reality. To deny this is to live in fantasy. Do I wish humans were better to each other? You bet. But sadly we favour money much more than human lives and this reality will beat down your door.
Truth and Reconciliation hearings are an absolute necessity for the process of *relegating the old skeletons to the dust bin of unchangeable history* to begin.

"I think it is fair to say that in recent history we are becoming a 'kinder, gentler society'."

There are elements in society that are setting examples of kindness and gentleness, to be sure.

But those who forever succeed in setting countries against each other for dubious schemes of political, religious or economic domination have an ever increasing arsenal of the most brutal and destructive weapons of warfare at their disposal.

Shock and Awe. Microwave cannons, white phosphorus cluster bombs, *smart* bombs, unmanned killer drones and robotic warfare. The list goes on.

Weapons of mass destruction on a grand scale, sadly enough in use as we speak.
Watch "rabbit proof fence", to get an idea of what these people may have gone through in their childhoods. My wife could not believe the same things happened in Canada right into the 1970's.
Happy I grew up in a loving, caring household.
I've spoken with dozens of native people who were grateful for the residential schools because it gave them opportunities that they wouldn't have had in their home communities. It also allowed them to escape the drugs and alcohol and abuse that tends to infest smaller communities.
I've spoken with dozens of native people who were grateful for the residential schools because it gave them opportunities that they wouldn't have had in their home communities. It also allowed them to escape the drugs and alcohol and abuse that tends to infest smaller communities.