It’s difficult to ignore the fact that in one way or another, four — count ’em, four — stories in this week’s edition of The Question deal in some way with archeological studies of First Nations cultural or historic sites and artifacts and/or efforts to ensure the preservation of same.
In one instance we see Lil’wat Nation (Mount Currie Band) officials taking action to ensure that a disc golf course doesn’t lead to the denigration or defacement of historic pit houses (istken) near a popular trail near Pemberton. In another, we find non-First Nations lawmakers with the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District wrestling with the question of whether to order a First Nations archeological study for a rezoning proposal before or after a required public hearing on the proposal. In another we see the provincial government seeking input on efforts to implement objectives for the Sea to Sky Land and Resource Management Plan — objectives that seek to ensure the preservation of First Nations cultural places and cultural management areas.
All of these instances are examples of a new, more cooperative relationship that has developed over the past decade or so between local, regional and provincial governments and First Nations in British Columbia. In part, the relationship has evolved because of court rulings such the landmark Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia (1997) and in part because of a genuine desire on the part of both First Nations and non-First Nations people to be good, respectful neighbours.
Either way, the maturing of the relationship is welcome news, though occasionally it will lead to growing pains in the form of new processes to ensure that Aboriginal rights, title and history are respected.
Not so long ago, those seeking to develop a parcel of land, subdivide or build a new backcountry cabin to replace one that’s falling into disrepair, didn’t need to seek archeological studies to determine whether the development encroached on First Nations cultural or historic artifacts. The process was less painful and less onerous — for the proponent. There’s little doubt that in some cases, though, it led to the denigration of sites that the forebears of the land’s first human inhabitants would consider sacred, or at least of historic or cultural significance.
In the new reality, groups such as the Pemberton Wildlife Association (PWA), which is leading the effort to build a new summer cabin at Tenquille Lake to replace one built there in the 1940s, and enjoyed by many since, find themselves unable to complete the project as quickly as they might like. Provincial ministries, local and regional governments now routinely refer all such proposals to the leaders of First Nations whose traditional territories include the site of the proposed project. In many instances archeological studies need to be sought — in some cases at considerable expense (in this case more than $8,000 plus helicopter time). Someone has to pay for that, though we would argue that non-profit groups such as the PWA shouldn’t have to.
While we hate to burden provincial taxpayers with the cost of such studies, in this and all similar cases, we don’t see a viable alternative. Most B.C. taxpayers are keenly aware of the budget struggles faced by leaders in Victoria and elsewhere. However, we think having to wait a few months to get such a project completed, and the monetary cost of the study, are a small price to pay to preserve the heritage of the land we share and build more harmonious relations with our neighbours.
