5.2°C Cloudy 
The chief negotiator for the three-band In-SHUCK-ch Nation this week said he thinks some erroneous information may have led to a vote by one of the three First Nations whose traditional territory centers on the Lillooet Lake-Harrison Lake corridor to pull out of the treaty process on the verge of final agreement.
By a 55-12 vote, members of the Douglas First Nation voted on Saturday (Jan. 30) to end their community’s participation in the In-SHUCK-ch treaty process, which has been ongoing off and on since 1993 with Douglas, Skatin and Samahquam negotiating under the banner of In-SHUCK-ch.
In a statement, Douglas Nation Chief Don Harris said the referendum vote was taken at the request of members who were concerned about protection of the nation’s interests in the final agreement, which was expected to wrap up later this year.
“Given the level of uncertainty around the protection of our interests, we felt that the Douglas members should determine whether or not we continued to participate in the treaty process,” Harris said.
In an interview with The Question on Monday (Feb. 1), Harris said the members and leadership of the approximately 200-member nation remain open to re-engaging in the process pending the outcome of band council consultations and further meetings with band members in March.
“There’s still a slim possibility” that Douglas will re-enter the In-SHUCK-ch treaty process, Harris said.
He added that he has no doubt that members of the Samahquam and Skatin nations will want to meet among themselves, with their negotiator and those representing British Columbia and Canada, to decide on the best way forward.
Gerard Peters (Eppa), a Samahquam member who has been representing the interests of the In-SHUCK-ch at the negotiating table since 1993, agreed, saying that all options are on the table, including trying to bring Douglas back into the fold or Skatin and Samahquam going forward without the Douglas Nation as a partner.
Peters, though, said that based on some of the wording of a Douglas press release announcing the vote’s results, he thinks members may have received erroneous information in advance of the vote that may have affected the outcome.
The Douglas statement mentions a partnership between Douglas and the private energy developer Cloudworks Energy to build six run-of-river power projects within Douglas territory. Referring to the wording of the treaty documents, the statement adds, “In-SHUCK-ch rejected resource revenue sharing with the Province of B.C. in favour of a capital transfer which will severely limit future economic benefits to Douglas.”
Upon hearing the passage for the first time, Peters was incredulous.
“What they’re saying is we rejected resource revenue sharing. We did not,” Peters said. “What we did was we took it in one payment upfront. That had no relation to the revenue stream that was operating between them and Cloudworks, which is completely untouchced. That’s a completely mistaken assumption.
“It’s a terrible error and it’s very revealing. I don’t know where they’re getting their advice, because it’s based on absolutely unsound information.”
Bruce Milne, lead negotiator for the federal government on the In-SHUCK-ch treaty since 2004, agreed that there is “no connection” between the lump-sum revenue sharing agreement in the treaty documents and the Douglas-Cloudworks partnership.
“The treaty revenue sharing option is not linked in any way to revenue sharing that currently or may in the future be arranged with third parties, such as Cloudworks, Inc..” Milne said in an emailed statement. “In fact, direct fee simple ownership of Treaty Settlement Land provides opportunities for business arrangements that are not available in the current Indian Act situation. I don’t understand how this could be considered a limitation on ‘future economic benefits to Douglas,’ Skatin or Samahquam.”
Harris said that while protecting the members’ interests was the reason the referendum vote went forward, it wasn’t the only factor affecting the outcome.
“There were issues on ratification of the treaty, what happens to members if the treaty is ratified,” he said. “There were members who didn’t want to be part of the treaty and the discussion was what would happen to those members.”
Peters said that in addition to leaving the future of the In-SHUCK-ch treaty process up in the air, the decision by Douglas has the potential to scuttle a recently negotiated treaty of “peace and friendship” with the In-SHUCK-ch’s neighbours to the south, the Chehalis First Nation. The two groups have had land-claims disagreements in the past, but Peters said he believed the agreement “would have established good relations into the future between ourselves with us and our neighbours to the south.
“That treaty also hangs in the balance because Douglas withdrawing leaves our situation unsettled.”
While he was clearly unhappy with the outcome of the Douglas vote, Peters began the interview by stating that “life goes on.”
He said he hoped that Douglas would reconsider, but added, “Douglas First Nation has evidently made its choice. They’ll have to live with the consequences of this. Now Samahquam and Skatin members must consider their options. What’s unfortunate is that 55 voters might potentially remove the opportunity for 1,000, the majority of whom shared a vision of getting out from under the weight of the Indian Act and becoming responsible for themselves. I wish them well. Now we must move forward.”
