GIESBRECHT: Were BC indians cheated by not having treaties?

Tom Fletcher has succinctly described how the Eby government’s aggressive version of reconciliation is pushing British Columbia (BC) toward a land-claim showdown — some might call it a land-claim revolt. The level of incompetence and mismanagement is simply staggering. .FLETCHER: Eby’s DRIPA reform mess is pushing BC toward a land-claims showdown.I offer no excuses for Eby. He is in a class of his own for what appears to be either deliberate deception or ineptitude on a grand scale. But what the Eby government is doing — or not doing — was initiated by previous BC governments, particularly the government of John Horgan, that unwisely made what was supposed to be a purely aspirational document — UNDRIP — into law in 2017. They then passed on the disaster in progress to the hapless Mr. Eby.All of this is made worse by the Cowichan and Gitxalla cases and the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) cases that it is based on. Those cases put both private property and — even BC’s right to manage its own resources without permission from Indian bands — into question. To top it off, BC residents are blindsided by the Musqueam agreement that appears to put a cloud over property ownership in the entire Vancouver area, and the alarming news that more such “agreements” will follow. Considering the fact that there are more than 200 separate Indian bands in BC, each claiming to be a “nation” — this is not news that the 97.2% of the BC population who are not status Indians, and will be paying for all of this largesse, wanted to hear. Combine this with the ultimate outrage of non-indigenous BC residents not even being allowed entry into their own parks, when indigenous “nations” don’t want them there, and one can see that Tom Fletcher is not exaggerating when he calls the situation in BC a “mess.” But why are these harmful agreements, like Musqueam, even considered necessary?.Here is the answer that you will hear from both Indian leaders and federal and provincial politicians: That these “modern treaties” are necessary because BC Indians were not the beneficiaries of the treaties that most Canadian Indians signed.But, is this true? Were BC Indians cheated out of benefits that treaty Indians enjoyed?The fact is that — except for the $5 per year that treaty Indians receive — BC Indians already enjoy all the benefits that treaty Indians have. Let that sink in for a moment: The multi-billion-dollar “modern treaties” that require “co-governing,” a veto over resource development, and being barred from our own parks — developments that are tearing BC apart — could be avoided entirely just by giving every BC Indian $5 per year, aggressively defending Aboriginal title (AT) claims, and abolishing DRIPA and practice directives.Am I exaggerating?No..In the first place, the most expensive special benefits that all Canadian status Indians enjoy have nothing to do with treaties. One of the most expensive of those benefits is the very rich health and dental plan that provides all status Indians with benefits that only wealthy Canadians can afford. In fact, for odd historical reasons, the status Indians in BC enjoy superior benefits to those of treaty Indians elsewhere. And by the way, the claim that the reference to a “medicine chest” in Treaty Six is why Indians receive healthcare is a myth. It is not. It is because providing status Indians with quality healthcare is a federal government policy. The bottom line is that BC Indians receive healthcare that is at least as good as the healthcare received by treaty Indians. (Both groups get far better benefits than most Canadians.)The very rich educational benefits for status Indians are in that same category. BC Indians and treaty Indians get the same rich post-secondary education benefits. It has been federal government policy for decades to provide free education, including university and graduate school education, to any status Indian who qualifies, regardless of family income. This means that the children of even wealthy status Indian parents can qualify to have the full cost of their expensive university educations paid for by taxpayers. It is not uncommon for indigenous professors, senators, and other professionals to take advantage of these programs. Meanwhile, non-indigenous taxpayers have to pay twice — for their own children’s educations and for the education of the children of the privileged indigenous professionals. BC Indians enjoy exactly the same benefits in this regard as do status Indians in treaty areas. This is because of government policy (and not, as sometimes claimed, because of the promise of a school in the treaties.).The same for the income tax exemption that applies to every status Indian who lives and works on a reserve (or has their tax advisor arrange things to make it appear that they do so). BC Indians enjoy this benefit. It has nothing to do with treaties. It actually comes from one of the most poorly decided SCC cases on the books, where a provision in the Indian Act forbidding seizure of property on reserves was twisted by a weak court into a permanent income tax exemption, regardless of income level.And free housing on reserves. No treaty says a single thing about housing. It simply became government policy to build free houses for Indians on reserves — BC included.For reasons never explained to Canadians, billions are spent building houses for reserve residents, while public housing is extremely restricted for other Canadians, including indigenous Canadians who moved away from reserves!And what about the hunting rights on Crown land? Treaties gave Indians the right to hunt on Crown land until it was needed by the government for other purposes. That’s all. I have the same right to hunt on Crown land if I buy a hunting licence. Basically, treaty Indians got a free hunting licence. BC Indians enjoy the same hunting rights as treaty Indians.These are just a few of the expensive benefits that all Canadian status Indians acquire upon birth, in addition to their enjoyment of exactly the same rights that all Canadian citizens are entitled to, that is. But those special entitlements have nothing to do with treaties. BC Indians enjoy them, and so do all the treaty Indians. The only treaty right BC Indians don’t have is the $5 per year, and perhaps some twine and seeds that treaty Indians received in the government’s unsuccessful attempt to turn them into farmers..And if it is pointed out that reserve residents don’t have the right to own land on their own reserve, it must be remembered that the federal government has repeatedly offered to transfer that land to them in exchange for surrendering their special Indian status privileges. The chiefs have refused that offer in 1920, 1933 and 1969.The fact is that the numbered treaties were very modest agreements. They offered a bit of compensation to help Indians make the transition from a semi-nomadic hunting culture to the nineteenth-century version of the modern world. It was the incredibly generous judges and politicians who came after that piled on all of these lavish benefits (generous with taxpayers’ money, that is).So, why are these billion-dollar mega agreements, like the Musqueam, considered necessary? Why is it considered necessary to divide BC up into little mini-chiefdoms, with their own special laws? Why is it considered necessary to (somehow) “co-govern” with 200-plus different “nations”? Why is it considered necessary to thoroughly destabilize the principle of certainty of title that has built this country?The answer to this question seems to be that BC Indian leaders have been very successful lobbyists and marketers. They have somehow managed to convince gullible judges and politicians that the normal requirements of justice — such as the hearsay rule, limitation periods, etc. — shouldn’t apply to them, and that practice directives forbidding the best arguments must be enacted. And they have somehow managed to convince the 97.2% of the BC population who are not status Indians living on reserves, that the entire economy and way of life of the province must be upended to compensate them for the fact that treaties were not signed, in spite of the fact that they enjoy all the special rights that treaty Indians do. But above all, they have somehow managed to convince our judges and elected representatives that “reconciliation” demands the degrading and dismantling of our most important institutions, and grievously damages our economy.Professor Gad Saad has coined a term for what we see playing out in our legislatures and courts in the name of “reconciliation.”He calls it “suicidal empathy.”

GIESBRECHT: Were BC indians cheated by not having treaties?

Related Stories

MORGAN: CBC-funded hit pieces against Canadians are unforgivable

HEINRICHS: Many Canadians can't ignore the bad things in gender ideology

BORG: Toronto wants to look world-class for FIFA 2026 — the reality is falling apart

MCTEAGUE: Carney's pipeline permission slip doesn't address our deeper problems