DOCSLIB.ORG

Kitamaat Village Council KAISLA P.O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kitamaat Village Council KAISLA P.O _________ — 11fl4/IU 1:Z FM. O4b42b2 Donovan & company —— O35 Kitamaat Village Council KAISLA P.O. OX 1101 IWA4A vrwAoE, LC. VOT 2B0 ThLEPIIONE 639-9362, 639-9361 OR 639-9383 FAX 632-2640 August 24, 2009 VIA FAX TO: 613-957-0941 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 2d 160 Elgin St, Floor I2IJD 27Mg Ottawa, ON K1AOH3 J / Attention: Brett Maracle. Panel Manager AND VIA FAX TO: 403-231-3920 Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines 3O0O—4251StSW Calgary. AS T2P 3L8 Attention: John Carruthers, President Dear Mr. Maracle and Mr. Carruthers: Re: Enbridpe Gateway Pipeline Project The Kitarnaat Village Council is whting this letter to set out the concerns of the Haisla Nation with Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipelfne Project and the Crown’s proposed regulatory and environmental review of this project. Introduction Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Project proposes to run two pipelines from A]berta to the British Columbia coast (the ‘proposed project”). One pipeline will carry oil, the other wilt carry condensate. The oil and condensate will be transferred to and from marine tanker5 at a proposed marine terminal at Kitimat, BC The 1-laisla Nation has reviewed the information to date on the proposed projedt, as well as the Crown’s proposed regulatory and environmental review process and approach to consultation, and has identified a number of concerns. The proposed project would entail placing two pipelines through the Kitamaat River watershed, in the heart of Hasla Nation Territory, and building a marine terminal for oil 1 NOV—24—ZOtO 12:27 604S984282 95 F . 035 tankers at the head of Klimat Arm, in close proximity to a number of Haisla Naftn reserves and along the shores of the Haisla’s Natons marine resource grounds. The potential impacts of oi spills associated with the proposed project are of significant concern to the Haisla Nation. The Kftamaat Village Council through correspondence has been seeking involvement in the development of a meaningful process to address Haisla Nation aboriginal rights, ncluding title, within the context of the potential impacts of the proposed project. The Crown has disregarded Aboriginal Rights and Title case law that has been establis’ed in Canada’s own courts by repeatedly ignodng Kitamaat Village Council correspondence requesting a commitment to adequate and meaningful consultation. As set out in the Mikisew Cree’ decision, consultation is not merely a process for First Nations to blow off steam before the Crown proceeds to do what it intended to do all along. Proposed Regulatory and nvironrnental Review Process The Kitamaat Village Council, representing the Haisla Nation, has sought to be involved in the development of an appropriate process for the review of the potential impacts of the proposed project. The federal Crown has repeatedly ignored Kitamaat VUlage Council correspondence seeking involvement in the development of a meaningful orocess to address Haisa Nation aboriginal rights, including tiNe, within the context of the potential impacts of the proposed project The federal Crown has set out a pTocess for a Joirr Review Panel (JRP”) assessment of the Project, in a D’aft Agreement.2 Pursuant to the Draft Agreement, the JRP has been given a limited mandate: to meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (the CEAA”) and the National Energy Bowd Act. The Terms of Reference component of the Draft Agreement identifies the factors listed in subsections 16(1)(a) to (d) and 16(2) of the CE.AA as factors to be considered during the review. Significantly1 these sections do not include any assessment of potential impacts of a project on aboriginal interests that do not have an dimension. The JRP review pitCCss is to be conducted in attordance wth the National Energy Board Rules of Practice and Procedure, 1995, making this a quasi-judicial process ri which there is no ability for the Panel to engage directly in consultation with First Nations. The proposed JRP process clearly grouøs Aboriginal people” with “the public”. The role of First Nations, includfrig the Haisla Nafiorl, in the JRP process, as currently conceived, would be that of interveners. Case law recognties the right of First Nations to “a distinct, if not a more extensive’3 consultation process Mikizew Cree First Nation v, Canada (Mb, Caned/sn Herifags), 2005 SCC 69. Draft Agreement Serween the NtinaI Energy oard and the Minister of the EflVirDflmeFlt concerning the Joint Rev ew Parel of the Ertrlcge Gateway Pro;eDt. 2 Mmsew Cre&. 2 Nov—24—2010 12:27 6046e842e2 96Z P.036 ________________ J.:z, ra bU4O84Z5Z Donovan & company IO37 The proposed JRP process therefore fails to acknowledge the constitutional protection afforded to aboriginal rights and the procedural requirements for consu’tation, set out in the case law and founded in the honour of the Crown, whenever the Crown considers a decision or activity that has the potential to impact aboriginal interests. The Draft Agreement for the JRP refer to a separate and more detailed communication” setVng out the ‘manner in which the Crown proposes to consult with Aboriginal people’ (s. 6.4). The separate communication consists of a letter attaching a document titled “Approach to Crown Consultation for the Northern Gateway Project. This document states that: • The JRP is the key assessment and decision-making body for the project and has a broad mandate under both the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Actlo examine project-related issues. • The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Agency) representing the Crown will lead the initial consultation on the JRP Agreement as well as consultation on the Environmental Assessment Report issued by the JRP. • The Agency will be Ihe contact for the Crown for project-related matters raised by Aboriginal groups that are outside the mandate of the JRP. The Haisla Nation has identified a number of matters that are outside the mandate of the JRP. The first of these is the regulatory and environmental review process itself. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is supposed to be leading consultaton on the Draft Agreement, but to date this consultation has been woefully inadequate. The Haisla Nation has sought meaningful engagement from the Crown in the development of an appropriate process for the review of the potential impacts of the proposed project since 2005. • In October of 2005, the Haisla Nation informed the federal and provincial Crowns of its aboriginal title and rights claim to areas potentially impacted by the proposed project and sought to be meaningfully involved in the developmsnt of an appropriate review proces& • On August 5, 2008, the Haisla Nation sought a commitment from the Crown to Haisla Nation involvement in the design of the regulatory and environmental review process for the proposed project. • On December 28, 20Q8, the Haisla Nation sought information from the Crown on how it proposed to involve the Haisla Nation in the regulatoiy and environmental review of the proposed project. • On February 3, 2009, the Haisla Nation once again sought a commitment from the Crown to consult with the Haisla Nation on the desfgn of a regulatory and environmental review process for the proposed project. The Haisla Nations numerous requests for meaningful engagement at the early stages of the review process — at the design stage of the process — have gone unaddressed. 3 NOV—24—2010 12:2? 6046084282 95z P.03? 11/Z4/1O 12:27 FAX 8046864282 Donovan & Colbp&nY To dale, the oniy communication on this point that the Haisla Nalicn has received from the Crown has beer in the form of standard letters sent to all interested parties or all First Nations pctentally affected by the project. The Haisla Nation has identified specific concerns with respect to the technical aspects of the JRP process Terms of Reference, as set out in its AprU 14. 2309 submission to CEA& To date, there has been no response to these technical comments, and no indicatiori whether or how the JRP process will be modified The Haisla Nation has also identified a number of other matters that are beyond the JRP mandate, including but not limited to: .• Consideration of Haisla Nation law ard stewardship: • Shared decision making; and • Potential infringements of Haisla Nation title and rights that are not environmental’. Infringement of Haisla Nation Aboriginal Title and Rights The unilateral imposition of a Crown selected regulatory and environmental review process ignores two fundamental aspects of Haisla Nation aboriginal title and rights. Firstly, the Haisla people are the stewards of their Terriloi-y and hold the lands and waters in trust for future generations. Secondiy, the Haisla Nation operates under a system of traditional law (Hais(a Nuyem) and H&sla land ownersNp concepts of wa’wais and bagwwyas, Sy failing to involve the F-{aisla Nation in the design of the regulatory and environmental review process for the proposed project, the Crown has ignored aspects of Haisla Nation governance, an impartart dimension of Haisla Nation aboriginai tite and r!ghts Practical Concerns Finally, the Haisla Nation has a number of concerns with respect to nb1dge’s ability to safeguard the environment and Haisla Nation interests. Enbridge owns ard operates a number of oil pipelines in North American jurisdictions and has, despite its espoused goal of achieving zero spills and leaks, had significant spills in recent years. In 2005, the company had 70 spills totalling 9,825 barrels; in 2006, the company had 67 spill totalling 5,663 barrels: in 2007, the company had 65 spills totaIing 13.177 barrels. Further, Enbridge has caused irreparable harm to HasIa Nator, traditionai sites through the felling of culturally modified trees, as a result of work conducted by its contractor, AMEC. The Kitaniaat Village Council has asked both Enbridge and the Crown to mitigate the losses flowing from this activity, but to date neither party has addressed this in good faith.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Colonial Study of Indigenous Women Writers in Canada, the United States, and the Caribbean
    ABSTRACT NATIVE AMERICAS: A TRANSNATIONAL AND (POST)COLONIAL STUDY OF INDIGENOUS WOMEN WRITERS IN CANADA, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE CARIBBEAN Elizabeth M. A. Lamszus, PhD Department of English Northern Illinois University, 2015 Dr. Kathleen J. Renk, Director In the current age of globalization, scholars have become interested in literary transnationalism, but the implications of transnationalism for American Indian studies have yet to be adequately explored. Although some anthologies and scholarly studies have begun to collect and examine texts from Canada and the United States together to ascertain what similarities exist between the different tribal groups, there has not yet been any significant collection of work that also includes fiction by indigenous people south of the U.S. border. I argue that ongoing colonization is the central link that binds these distinct groups together. Thus, drawing heavily on postcolonial literary theory, I isolate the role of displacement and mapping; language and storytelling; and cultural memory and female community in the fiction of women writers such as Leslie Marmon Silko, Pauline Melville, and Eden Robinson, among others. Their distinctive treatment of these common themes offers greater depth and complexity to postcolonial literature and theory, even though independence from settler colonizers has yet to occur. Similarly, the transnational study of these authors contributes to American Indian literature and theory, not by erasing what makes tribes distinct, but by offering a more diverse understanding of what it means to be a Native in the Americas in the face of ongoing colonization. NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY DEKALB, ILLINOIS DECEMBER 2015 NATIVE AMERICAS: A TRANSNATIONAL AND (POST)COLONIAL STUDY OF INDIGENOUS WOMEN WRITERS IN CANADA, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE CARIBBEAN BY ELIZABETH M.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis If You Will
    Salmon Nation People. Place. An Invitation. SALMON NATION Salmon Nation is a place. It is home. Salmon Nation is also an idea: it is a nature state, as distinct from a nation state. Our idea is very simple. We live in a remarkable place. We are determined to do everything we can to improve social, financial and natural well-being here at home. We know we are not alone. Salmon Nation aims to inspire, enable and invest in regenerative develop- ment. A changing climate and failing systems demand new approaches to everything we do. We need to champion what works for people and place. To share what we learn in this place—and to do a lot more of it, over and over... Salmon Nation. People, place—and an invitation. We’d love you to join us on an adventure, charting new frontiers of human possibility, right here at home. ThIS essay, ThIS invitation, is made available under an open license. Feel free to distribute and disseminate, to react and reimagine. Open source projects are made available and are contributed to under licenses that, for the protection of contributors, make clear that the proj- ects and ideas are offered “as-is,” without warranty, and disclaiming liability for damages resulting from using the projects as they are. The same goes for this essay, or thesis if you will. Running an open-source project, like any human endeavour, involves uncertainty and trade-offs. We hope this essay helps to provoke excite- ment and enthusiasm for new ways of thinking and being in the world, but we acknowledge that it may include mistakes and that it cannot anticipate every situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission To: Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel
    Submission to: Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel This report was produced by the Office of Wet’suwet’en Natural Resources Department on behalf of all past and present Wet’suwet’en. This report was produced under serious time, money, and capacity constraints. Until such time as Wet’suwet’en title and rights are formally recognized or a treaty successfully concluded with the Crown, the statement of Wet’suwet’en title and rights and their potential infringements must, as the Supreme Court of Canada said in Haida Nation, constitute an interim and preliminary statement of Wet’suwet’en title and rights, not a final one. The Office of the Wet’suwet’en retains all copyright and ownership rights to this submission, which cannot be utilized without written permission. © 2011 The Office of the Wet’suwet’en. 2 | Page Submission to Northern Gateway JRP Submission Summary 1.0 Scope & Approach 1. The Office of the Wet’suwet’en (OW) presents this submission to the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel. This submission is a component of the Wet’suwet’en response in respect of the proposed Northern Gateway project within Wet’suwet’en territory. 2. The Wet’suwet’en are stewards of the land. They are here to protect their traditional territories and to ensure that future generations of Wet’suwet’en are able to live and benefit from all that their ancestral land provides. The Wet’suwet’en are not opposed to commercial and economic development on their traditional territories as long as the proper cultural protocol is followed and respect given.
    [Show full text]
  • LNG Canada Export Terminal Section 13 – Background on Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups October 2014
    PART C — ABORIGINAL GROUPS INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Environmental Assessment Certificate Application LNG Canada Export Terminal Section 13 – Background on Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups October 2014 The copyright of this document is vested in LNG Canada Development Inc. All rights reserved. LNG Canada Export Terminal Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 13: Background On Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups 13 BACKGROUND ON POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ABORIGINAL GROUPS As set out in the June 6, 2013, section 11 Order, the following Aboriginal Groups may be affected by the Project: . Schedule B (Facility and associated activities) Haisla Nation . Schedule C (Shipping activities) Haisla Nation Gitga’at First Nation Gitxaala Nation Kitselas First Nation Kitsumkalum First Nation Lax Kw’alaams First Nation, and Metlakatla First Nation. Schedule D (Notification) Métis Nation British Columbia As a Schedule D group, Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC) is included in this section of the Application. The section 13 Order issued by the EAO on August 7, 2013, amended Schedule D of the section 11 Order to clarify that the consultation activities (i.e., notification) with MNBC listed on Schedule D are to be conducted by BC on behalf of the Government of Canada, and is not an acknowledgement by BC that it owes a duty of consultation or accommodation to Métis in BC under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In accordance with the AIR, this section of the Application provides available background information for those
    [Show full text]
  • Paddling the Magic Canoe: the Wisdom of Wa’Xaid
    BESHARA MAGAZINE – ISSUE 1 8 : S PRING 2021 PADDLING THE MAGIC CANOE: THE WISDOM OF WA’XAID Briony Penn talks about her relationship with the native elder Cecil Paul – Wa’xaid – and their successful campaign to preserve the glorious Kitlope River area in British Columbia Cecil Paul (Wa’xaid), who died in December 2020, was an elder of the Xenaksiala/Haisla nation from the Kitlope River watershed on the West coast of Canada. Taken from his family and culture for ‘re-education’ at the age of ten, he eventually returned to his native lands and became an active campaigner to protect them from logging and commercial exploitation. David Hyams and Jane Clark talk to his friend, the writer and artist Briony Penn, who has recorded Wa’xaid’s stories and biography in two recent books, about what this wise, gentle man can teach us about life and our relationship to nature. BESHARA MAGAZINE: PADDLING THE MAGIC CANOE 1 Briony Penn is a Canadian naturalist, writer, artist and broadcaster who has become known for her efforts to protect species and environments in her native British Columbia. Her two most recent books have centred on the life and wisdom of Cecil Paul (1931–2020) – native name Wa’xaid (Xaid here is pronounced ‘chaid’, with ch as in loch) – a member of the Xenaksiala/Haisla nation from the Kitlope River watershed on the West coast of British Columbia, with whom she became close friends. Stories from the Magic Canoe of Wa’xaid [1] is a rendering of Cecil’s stories in his own words, whilst Following the Good River [2] is a more detailed biography which includes a comprehensive account of the campaign which he initiated, with the help of many others, to preserve his tribal lands from destructive resource development.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Annual Report
    2016 Annual Report Coast Funds is two separate organizations managing $118 million provided by six private foundations, the Province of British Columbia, and the Government of Canada. Coast Conservation Endowment Fund Foundation is a registered Canadian charity responsible for managing a $2 million regional conservation planning fund and a permanent endowment fund of approximately $56 million. The income generated from this fund provides ongoing funding to First Nations to support conservation science, resource planning, capacity development, and related conservation management activities. Specific dollar amounts are allocated annually to each participating First Nation for eligible projects on the basis of each First Nation’s original funding allocation and the investment performance of the fund. Coast Economic Development Society is a not-for-profit society responsible for managing a $60 million economic development fund in support of First Nation communities and businesses. The capital in this fund is invested in business development initiatives throughout the Great Bear Rainforest and Haida Gwaii, targeting sectors with good potential to support sustainable development in the region and strengthen community well-being. COVER PHOTO Gil Island, protected as a special forest management area in 2016. PHOTO BY Brodie Guy CONTENTS 04 Message from the Chair 06 About Coast Funds 08 Our Mandate 08 Vision 08 Mission 08 Core Values 09 Organizational Principles 10 Participating First Nations 11 Our Project Area 13 Community Well-Being Outcomes
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Haisla Nuuyum Through Stories About Traditional Territory, Feasting and Lifestyles”
    “Learning Haisla Nuuyum through stories about traditional territory, feasting and lifestyles” written by Kundoqk Jacquie Louise Green BSW, University of Victoria, 1998 MPA, University of Victoria, 2000 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Interdisciplinary Studies Kundoqk Jacquie Louise Green, 2013 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Supervisory Committee “Learning Haisla Nuuyum through stories about traditional territory, feasting and lifestyles” written by Kundoqk Jacquie Louise Green BSW, University of Victoria, 1998 MPA, University of Victoria, 2000 Supervisory Committee Co-Supervisor Dr. Mary Ellen Purkis School of Nursing Co-Supervisor Dr. Michael Prince Department of Human and Social Development Departmental Member Dr. Leslie Brown School of Social Work iii Abstract Supervisory Committee Co-Supervisor Dr. Mary Ellen Purkis, Supervisor School of Nursing Co-Supervisor Dr. Michael Prince, Supervisor Department of Human and Social Development Departmental Member Dr. Leslie Brown, departmental member School of Social Work Haisla Nuuyum is our way of life and laws and includes knowledge of place, seasons, weather, feasting, and oolichan fishing including cultural practices that are important to sustain our Nuuyum. Throughout this dissertation work, I examine whether our Nuuyum and its philosophical underpinnings can intertwine and have a productive relationship with contemporary forms of leadership and Chief and Council governance systems. I draw on old Haisla stories of place and identity to examine how they affirm our governing responsibilities within contemporary community leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Huchsduwachsdu Nuyem Jees/Kitlope Heritage Conservancy Management Plan
    Huchsduwachsdu Nuyem Jees/ Kitlope Heritage Conservancy Management Plan May 2012 Haisla Nation Huchsduwachsdu Nuyem Jees/Kitlope Heritage Conservancy Management Plan Approved by: Huchsduwachsdu Nuyem Jees/Kitlope Heritage Conservancy Management Plan Plan Highlights The Huchsduwachsdu Nuyem Jees/Kitlope Heritage Conservancy is collaboratively managed by the Haisla First Nation and the Province of British Columbia through the Kitlope Management Committee. Henaaksiala/Haisla1 cultural values and natural processes will prevail within the conservancy. In the longer term, a Henaaksiala/Haisla cultural centre, built in traditional longhouse style, will provide a place for visitors to learn how Haisla identity is unified through a spiritual connection to the Huchsduwachsdu Nuyem Jees. The cultural centre will exhibit traditional and science- based practices. It will provide shelter, welcome and warmth for visitors to this remote watershed. A key recommendation of the management plan is to encourage and establish research and interpretive programs that utilize traditional ecological knowledge and science-based research to contribute to understanding the ecosystems of the greater coastal area and to inform management practices. The conservancy provides a world-class learning ground for combining scientific research with traditional ecological knowledge, leading to complementary approaches to resource management. The management plan encourages cultural and ecological tourism as well as boating, camping, hiking and fishing. A few developed trails will provide an opportunity for visitors to explore the high country as well as the landscape along the inland waters adjacent to the cultural centre. Haisla Paddlers at Tenth Anniversary of the Decision to Protect the Kitlope 1 Throughout the management plan there will be many references to Henaaksiala and to Haisla people.
    [Show full text]
  • Haisla Nuuyum: Cultural Conservation and Regulation Methods Within Traditional Fishing and Hunting
    Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Vol. 2, No. 2, 2013, pp. 57-82 Haisla Nuuyum: Cultural conservation and regulation methods within traditional fishing and hunting Kundoqk (Jacquie Green) University of Victoria Glasttowk askq (Ray Green) Bakk jus moojillth (Mary Green) Abstract Haisla Nuuyum (Way of Life and Laws) offers cultural teachings that continue to grow and develop throughout generations. This paper translates and interprets stories told to me by my parents about how our Nuuyum illustrates how cultural rituals and ceremonies act or serve as methods of conservation and regulation for fishing and hunting. In these rituals and ceremonies, I include roles of family members as the fisher and hunter prepares for their expedition. I will share accounts of cultural knowledge as it relates to seasons, weather conditions, and the ceremonial rituals required to be performed prior to, during and after the fishing or hunting trip. My analysis includes an examination of, and suggestions for how to apply rituals and ceremonies into contemporary fishing or hunting regulations. Throughout this paper I refer to cultural conservation, as a method that includes rituals and ceremonies in how we practice conservation from our Haisla Nuuyum. Moreover, I explore strategies on how to re-teach cultural conservation to young people. It is important for you as a reader to understand that these cultural teachings are only one example of how a community practiced (and to a certain extent still 2013 J. Green This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Respect for the Spirit in the Land | Haisla First Nation
    governance toolkit Principle: Respect for the Spirit of the Land Government: Haisla First Nation best practices OPPORTUNITY and divided communities. In the face of Haisla The primary residence of the Haisla people is Kitamaat determination to maintain their ancient connection to Village, found at the head of the Douglas Channel on and respect for the land, the logging company, West British Columbia’s north coast. Fraser Ltd., relinquished without compensation all cutting rights in the Kitlope. In 1990, elders of the Haisla First Nation found a logging road flagged into the Kitlope Valley – the PRINCIPLE IN ACTION largest unlogged coastal temperate rain forest water- The Kitlope Management Committee, composed of an shed in the world. Six years later, the equal number of Haisla First Nation and provincial gov- Huchsduwachsdu Nuyem Jees / Kitlope Heritage ernment representatives, administers the management Conservancy was designated through provincial Order- plan that provides guidance for the management of the in-Council under the Environment and Land Use Act to ecology and natural resources within the conservancy. protect the cultural and ecological values of the area. The plan provides direction regarding the types, levels, The Heritage Conservancy is collaboratively managed and locations of uses and activities within the by the Haisla First Nation and the Province of B.C. conservancy, including commercial and recreational through the Kitlope Management Committee. uses, activities and facilities. The plan aims to provide With the government announcement, the Kitlope a balance between conservation, and economic and Valley was set aside from industrial development. Of cultural sustainability while meeting the vision and the 25 largest watersheds on the coast of B.C., it is the objectives for the conservancy and the goals for the only one left unlogged.
    [Show full text]
  • EXPERT REPORT Historical and Documentary Corroboration
    (A37859) EXPERT REPORT Historical and Documentary Corroboration Regarding the Haisla Nation’s Occupation of its Traditional Territory Prepared for Haisla Nation Council December 19, 2011 by Eric Wolfhard, BA (Hons.), LL.B [email protected] (A37859) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………..page 2 2. The Historical Record…………………………………………………page 2 2.1 Earliest Documented References to the Haisla Nation…page 3 2.1.1 Early Ship Logs and Related Contact…………...…page 3 2.1.2 Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) Post Trading and Ship Records………………………………………………………….page 5 2.1.3 Colonial and Missionary Records…………………..page 9 2.1.4 Additional Colonial Records………………………...page 11 2.1.5 Later Survey and Exploration……………………….page 12 2.1.6 Still Later Surveys and Exploration………………..page 14 2.1.7 Early DIA reports……………………………………...page 15 2.1.8 Indian Reserve Commissioner O’Reilly’s Reserve Allotments………..…………………………………….page 15 2.1.9 Haisla Nation Trapline Registration………………..page 17 2.2 Early Land Claims of the Haisla Nation…………………...page 22 2.2.1 1897 Petition to BC for Additional Land……….….page 23 2.2.2 1905 Request for Additional Reserves…………….page 24 2.2.3 Additional Missionary Material Circa 1882-1919...page 25 2.2.4 Prelude to the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs (RCIA) 1913-1916, the RCIA Interviews, and their Aftermath……………………………………………….page 29 3. The Anthropological Record………………………………………..page 36 4. The Archaeological Record…………..……………………………..page 39 5. The Comprehensive Claims Record……………………………....page 41 6. Conclusion……………………………………………………………..page 42 Bibliography………..…………………………...……………………………..page 43 1 (A37859) 1. Introduction I hold a Bachelor of Arts (Hons.) in Political Science from the University of British Columbia and a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Toronto.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Guardian and Watchmen Programs in Canada
    THE NORTHEAST SUPERIOR CHIEFS’ FORUM Aboriginal Guardian and Watchmen Programs in Canada Prepared By: Ecotrust Canada 10/1/2013 There are a number of excellent examples in Canada of Aboriginal leadership in land stewardship, industry monitoring, ecological research, youth mentorship, and the preservation and restoration of cultural sites. This report provides a brief overview of several of these programs, each with its own unique attributes according to the interests and priorities of the sponsoring Nation and the circumstances of their homeland. First Nations –– Guardian Watchmen Programs in Canada 1. Why Guardian Watchmen? First Nations in Canada have always been intentional about their interest in governing ancestral traditional territories in ways that safeguard the health of ecosystems and provide economic benefits to adjacent communities for the current generation and for generations to come. This enduring objective has been challenging since first contact with Europeans. The making of contracts and treaties, together with the making of wars, and the designing of assimilation programs have conspired to enable European economic activity and settlement to establish on the land and sea, often without due consideration to First Nations interests, and rarely with a view to co-creation on the land. While the types of Aboriginal rights in Canada may vary, the reason for Aboriginal rights does not. Aboriginal people have these rights because they existed in Canada before Europeans arrived here (in the case of First Nations people) or before Europeans took control of Métis territories (in the case of the Métis). In recent years, through court and civil actions it is now widely recognized that wherever the Crown (either federal or provincial) is making a decision which might have the effect of infringing an Aboriginal or treaty right the Crown is obligated to consult with the rights holder and if a right would be infringed, in Canada the Crown cannot proceed without accommodation and justification.
    [Show full text]