(VANCOUVER) BC should turn half of the roughly $1 billion it collects annually in stumpage fees from forest companies back to First Nations. A new report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says such a move would be an important step towards a lasting "new relationship" with Aboriginal people.

The report takes a detailed look at nearly 130 forestry accords brokered by the province with First Nations in recent years. Although the government has made a concerted effort to share a portion of revenues and forest resources, the report finds that the agreements are far from equitable. The current situation leaves First Nations with few dollars and minimal access to timber with which to diversify their economies and alleviate poverty and unemployment in their communities.

The accords were prompted by a mounting number of court decisions that forced the province to seek "workable" arrangements with First Nations, whose traditional lands are being rapidly altered by industrial logging while the treaty process crawls forward.

"On average in the past decade, BC collected $1 billion per year in stumpage fees from forest companies logging public lands claimed by First Nations," says Ben Parfitt, resource policy analyst with the CCPA and author of True Partners: Charting a New Deal for BC, First Nations and the Forests We Share. "Yet the money flowing back to First Nations from these accords is just $35 million per year -- 3.5% of the stumpage revenue stream. That certainly isn't enough to bring much-needed economic development to more than 100 First Nations."

The report finds that a longer-term commitment is needed. Timber-cutting rights set out in the accords run for only five years -- far too short a time to attract serious investments and build viable enterprises.

The report also critiques how cash and timber-cutting rights have been allocated. "Offers of cash and timber are based on head counts. The more 'members' a First Nation has on federal Indian Band lists, the more cash and timber they get," Parfitt says. "This automatically penalizes First Nations with small populations. It also fails to consider on-the-ground realities. First Nations whose forests are relatively intact get treated exactly the same as First Nations whose forests are being liquidated."

Parfitt recommends that the province:

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

As most people should know, there were never any treaties signed in BC. The BC government has no legitimate claim to any of the $1 billion. Nor do they have any legitimate authority to govern the province. They are a government of illegal squatters.

Who will get this money? Band councils? What about the Indigenous people that don't have band membership?

The story is already being spun as an historical "new relationship" between Settlers and Indigenous peoples. It makes the government look good and will put more money into a band council system that many Indigenous people in BC have a problem with.

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: RANGER ]

I also wanted to raise the issue that so-called "co-management" policy can be very divisive. This suggested policy seems to have that danger because it does not question the BC government's role as ultimate authority on land use and has a considerable amount of much-needed cash attached to it.

The cash, of course, comes at a cost. Indigenous nations will need to support the BC government's logging policies to access money. This lends authority to the government's colonial practices (i.e. "see, the natives are into it!") and takes the pressure off of government to admit their illegitimate authority over the land and negotiate REAL treaties with the nations that they have occupied illegally for decades.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Erik - Sorry if it appeared that I was painting all BC band councils with the same brush. That was not my intention. I was speaking to the growing number of youth who do not feel that band councils are the best solution to rebuilding strong self-government.

---

No need to apologize, specially not to an overly Anglicized Celt. I'm just a bit sensitive about this line of thinking as it can be used to undermine valid claims. I've heard FN elders complaining about the band councils too, but I just don't know of any other collective authority thats recognised by our courts. For themn to retain any independent communities at all they'll still have to work together in the traditional manner -as a group.

quote:

---

I also wanted to raise the issue that so-called "co-management" policy can be very divisive. This suggested policy seems to have that danger because it does not question the BC government's role as ultimate authority on land use and has a considerable amount of much-needed cash attached to it.

The cash, of course, comes at a cost. Indigenous nations will need to support the BC government's logging policies to access money. This lends authority to the government's colonial practices (i.e. "see, the natives are into it!") and takes the pressure off of government to admit their illegitimate authority over the land and negotiate REAL treaties with the nations that they have occupied illegally for decades.

Economic gain but political loss? Hence, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

---

That could be a problem, ya. In the end however FN are going to rely on a certain amount of logging too, but that doesn't mean it can't be done through more sustainable selective methods. They won an award for the work they did on our island, and the Wisconson Menomini had the reputation as using the most sustainable practices in NA -up until competing companies got the state to tax their business illegally. Still in business though, on a smaller scale.

[ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

I'm not sure how that might affect the province's financial situation. Besides, I don't expect for a second that the BC Liars would share that kind of revenue with anybody--including First Nations.

It also remains to be seen if the 50-50 formula works out to be equitable, depending on whether, or to what degree, the FNs would be part of the provincial or regional road and highway, water, sewage, education, and MSP services, etc., and how they would fund those in either case.

And there's still the issue of FN individuals who are not part of any specific BC-based Nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Is this a good thing?

As most people should know, there were never any treaties signed in BC.

---

Just a minor correction of an overly broad factual assertion.

quote:

---

The Douglas Treaties, 1850 - 1854

Province of Canada Treaties

Treaty negotiation was not limited to the Province of Canada in the 1850s. When the colony of Vancouver Island was established in 1849, British administrators sought to acquire Aboriginal land for settlement and industrial use in the colony. When the colony was established, it was dependant on the fur trade. Then, following the California gold rush of 1848, prospectors pushed further and further north, hoping to find gold.

During a period of four years, 14 treaties were signed between the Aboriginals on the island and the colonial government. Governor James Douglas, chief factor for the Hudson's Bay Company in the area, led this effort. These agreements were known variously as the Douglas Treaties, the Vancouver Island Treaties or the Fort Victoria Treaties. Douglas never used the word treaty in any of his negotiations - he used words like 'sale' or 'deed of conveyance' - but the Supreme Court of Canada would later rule that they were treaties because he was negotiating on behalf of the British monarchy.

The Aboriginals gave up nearly 570 square kilometers of land in exchange for cash, clothing and blankets. They were able to retain existing village lands and fields for their use, and also were allowed to hunt and fish on the surrendered lands.

Treaty-making on Vancouver Island came to an end in 1854 when the colony began to run out of money for further expansion. New settlement and the development of industry on the island had also been slower than anticipated.

---

quote:

---

It also remains to be seen if the 50-50 formula works out to be equitable, depending on whether, or to what degree, the FNs would be part of the provincial or regional road and highway, water, sewage, education, and MSP services, etc., and how they would fund those in either case.

---

Why does the "equity" of the 50/50 agreement depend on that stuff. You realize we are talking about trees right?

quote:

---

Why does the "equity" of the 50/50 agreement depend on that stuff. You realize we are talking about trees right?

---

This is an agreement about sharing revenue from forestry. Right now the BC government sells trees to forestry companies, trees which are not theirs to sell. This deal would give some of the stolen revenue back to the people who have a legitimate claim to the land.

In your comment you brought up the idea that the "equity" of the deal would depend on whether Indigenous people (First Nations specifically) would be willing to pay for provincial roads and services.