Friends of Pacific Spirit Park
Dec 9th, 2007 by cmenzies
I had an opportunity to listen to speakers at a Rally against the Musqueam land deal in Pacific Spirit Park today (Dec. 9, 2007). The rally was organized by the Friends of Pacific Spirit Park. About 250 to 300 people attend the rally. A range of speakers addressed concerns about ‘giving’ away ‘our precious park.’ Speakers emphasized that they had no problem with settling aboriginal claims; but not with ‘their’ park. After the speeches a few protesters made their way over to one of the blocks being returned to Musqueam to stake a claim on the land with signs saying save the park.
If you want to hear the speeches <a href=”http://cinema2.arts.ubc.ca/~cmenzies/podcast2/PSP_Rally_Dec_09_2007.mp3″
click here.As a researcher who works closely with First Nations, as well as a community member who values park space, it was interesting listening to the speakers express their upset at losing something they valued. For many of the speakers aboriginal title and rights appeared to be an abstract value that they appreciated intellectually. However, they experienced the park personally and emotionally. The combination of intellectual acceptance with emotional attachment lends itself to people feeling aggrieved with the reality of aboriginal title and rights. One theme that wound itself through many of the talks was the outrage that they had not been consulted. This sentiment reveals a serious lack of understanding of the basis of government-to-government talks that are at the core of all aboriginal-government relations today. And, in this process, it is the provincial and federal governments who represent the the interests of the crown.
At the end of the day the first step will have to be an acceptance by non-aboriginal people that First Nations are here to stay. If people are worried about development and conservation, perhaps it would be appropriate for them to approach Musqueam as the rightful owner of the land and to enter into discussions rather than asking the government to back away from the reconciliation agreement (which, to many First Nations people is the same as acting as though Musqueam has no inherent rights or title to this land).
I would be interested in any comments about this. The issues around aboriginal title and rights are ones that I explore through my professional practice. I have written about these issues in the past (see, Stories from home) and am considering a project focused on the park and golf course issues. Any comments on the issue would be appreciated.
Online resources:
- Musqueam Press Release on Metro Vancouver opposition to reconciliation agreement.
- CBC news story on Metro Vancouver vote.
- Videos of the October 2007 FSP forum have been uploaded on YouTube.
- FPSC facebook group
14 Responses to “Friends of Pacific Spirit Park”
I agree that I and most citizens have a rudimentary understanding of aboriginal title and rights. We understand, however, that this provincial government is arrogant and opportunistic, and that it made no effort explain this decision to those whom it represents in this process. And as several speakers today suggested, which wealthy patrons will benefit from housing development of the valuable land?
With its budget surplus, the province could pay the Musqueam band the revenue it would gain from developing the park land. But instead of investing in public open space (or education, urban infrastructure, or poverty eradication), this government will find clever ways to transfer more wealth to wealthy people. The best interest of the Musqueam and the rest of us has little to do with their decisions.
That said, I like the suggestion that conservationists enter into discussions with the Musqueam. I’m not sure what incentive the Musqueam would have to do so, especially since the government’s high-handed tactics have managed to further embitter this process.
Dear Randall, no argument with your characterization of the provincial government’s past and current practice. All that is very likely an apt description.
What I would point out though is that most First Nations do not want cash handouts -compensation for the infringement of their title and rights, fine – but ultimately most First Nations want access to land that is legally theirs.
For the most recent court decision outlining the extent and nature of aboriginal title take a look at the following court case decision of the BC Supreme Court: Tsilhqot’in Court Decision http://www.anthroblog.tadmcilwraith.com/?s=vickers
Whether or not people feel they have any leverage, the appropriate people to speak to in this debate is the First Nation. I would suggest that calling upon the government to not ‘give’ away land is to rely upon an age-old form of colonialism.
With warm regards,
Charles Menzies
Charles,
I find your characterization of the dilemma — there is a disconnect between the intellectual and emotional responses to the Musqueam land settlement — to be apt. It is similar, I think, to the question that comes up on radio talk shows and occasionally in my classroom: why should we have to pay today for wrongs committed by past generations. That question, like your observation, contains an intellectual acknowledgment of the historical wrongs and an emotional appeal to let the past stay in the past. It ignores — or worse dismisses — the substantial historical context of land claims and treaty-making today.
Your observation is also mindful of the fact that land settlements in populated areas are a new event in the history of aboriginal affairs. For the most part, treaties and land claims are things that happen ‘out there’ or ‘up north’ or generally somewhere else. It is easy to be supportive of the treaty and other land claims processes when they aren’t close to home.
Tad
Hi Charles,
It is important to note that parkland was never on the table, nor requested by the Musqueam – that is, until some well-connected (read: Marty Zlotnik, the top campaign fundraiser for the Premier) golf-lovers demanded protection for their access to golf. This is the reason I did not mention the Musqueam in my comments at the rally, because our dispute is with the provincial government’s decision which was at the behest of, essentially, a golf lobbyist with money & power.
The alternative we propose is simply the original plan: go back to the transfer of the Golf Course in a more timely fashion such that the Musqueam are not forced to wait 7 decades to use it. It is only the 7 decade covenant on the Golf Course land which triggers the need for other developable land for their use. The Sierra Club has no position regarding the development of the UBC Golf Course by the Musqueam. Friends of Pacific Spirit Park was formed as a direct response to the proposal to save the golf course at the expense of the Park – NOT as a response to the Musqueam potentially gaining developable land in general. And the rally took place for the same reason.
I must respectfully suggest that your own advocacy (which I assume is informed by research evidence) on behalf of the Musqueam might be best directed at reducing the length of the Golf Course covenant to a time period in which the Musqueam may develop on it in a timely enough fashion not to require public parkland in its stead.
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric Lorenz
Chair
Lower Mainland Group
Sierra Club of/du Canada, BC Chapter
http://www.sierraclub.ca/lmg
Dear Eric,
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion. I should make one small point clear -this commentary is not done as advocacy -but rather as an attempt to understand the framework through which non-aboriginal peoples understand the nature or aboriginal rights and also who they construct stories of place that-at times- diverge from or ignore the stories of place of aboriginal peoples.
With warm regards,
Charles Menzies
I am relieved to hear that your protest is directed at the government. I hope you do approach the Musqueam to see how you can help with the golf course deal instead.
Our governments depend on pitting non-natives against natives, just as they did back in the settler days when they forced the land surrenders.
Caledonia is a case in point. The government has evaded its own responsibilities to consult (as did BC with the Musqueam)and given residents and developers and organized white supremacists free reign to conduct racist and violent protests.
Don’t go down that road.
Charles,
I am the General Counsel of the Musqueam Indian Band but this comment is made purely in my personal capacity.
First, thank you for your thoughtful comments on the agreement reached between the Band and the Province as part of a historic reconciliation following a century and a half of denial of Aboriginal rights and title. For the sake of our collective future, we must all – Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal – be a part of this reconciliation that has been so strongly urged by the Supreme Court of Canada as well as many other courts.
Those who oppose the return to the Musqueam of a very small part of their traditional territory now contained within Pacific Spirit Park should get beyond simplistic slogans like “Protect Park Land”. Instead,they should follow the link on your page and carefully review the Press Release issued by the Band in reaction to the short-sight decision of the Board of the GVRD to oppose the return. They should reflect on the history of the dispossession of the Musqueam and the relatively recent transfer of the lands to the GVRD against the wishes of the Band and without compensation. They should remember that the transfer was on the basis of an express undertaking by the GVRD to the Court of Appeal that the transfer would be without prejudice to the claim of Aboriginal title by the Band.
Speaking as a non-Aboriginal person, I believe it is simply unjust for non-Aboriginal people to say to the Aboriginal peoples of this Province that, now that we have taken the great bulk of your land without your agreement and without payment to you and developed it for our benefit, we demand that whatever little undeveloped land remains must be kept by you as green space for our enjoyment and you must remain in poverty. That statement is simply a continuation of a colonial attitude dressed in green clothing.
I am reminded of the words of Joseph Conrad in the Heart of Darkness: “The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much.” I urge the Friends of Pacific Spirit Park to look hard at what they are saying and to ask themselves on what moral and legal grounds they are entitled to dictate to the Band how their lands can be used.
Regards,
Jim Reynolds
I appreciate the comments by all and I accept that the Musqueam have rights to be respected. Yet the fact cannot be ignored that the likely outcome of this process, however just and legitimate it may be, will be the destruction of more forest and watershed in the Lower Mainland. I sincerely hope that park advocates such as Eric will approach the band, and I hope the band will be receptive.
Nonetheless, conservationists’ anxiety is that a few well-placed people will keep their golf course and, probably, a few more wealthy people will gain luxurious houses with a view. The Musqueam have the right to decide what to do with the land, but how likely is it they will not use it for maximum gain (just as many nonaboriginals would) at the expense of habitat and public land? We abhor that no matter who gets the proceeds.
Charles (and Mr. Reynolds),
The rally was not “against the Musqueam land deal”. The rally was FOR protection of Pacific Spirit Park and AGAINST the province’s sweetheart deal for the University Golf Course. Your language (Charles) is purposefully rabble-rousing, and represents advocacy without evidence. You are attempting to drive a wedge between First Nations and environmental groups – and you discredit yourself by doing so.
The Sierra Club and the Friends of Pacific Spirit Park are both opposed to the deal to protect the Golf Course at the expense of Pacific Spirit Regional Park. We (the Sierra Club) have no position whatsoever on the transfer of the Golf Course to the Musqueam – which is to say, we are not opposed to it. If that initial deal had gone forward, we would have no reason to stand in its way. It did not go forward for the very specific reason that Gordon Campbell’s top campaign fundraiser, Marty Zlotnik, lobbied Mike De Jong and the Premier to protect the Golf Course from development. The government sided with Marty Zlotnik, and that is why any environmental groups have an interest in this case at all. Personally (not particularly speaking in my capacity as chair of the local Sierra Club Group), when I initially heard that the remedy for the litigation over the sale of the Golf Course was that the province would hand over the course for the Musqueam to build much-needed band housing upon, I thought that was a very positive step.
In conclusion, I urge the provincial government to look hard at what they are saying and to ask themselves on what moral and legal grounds they are entitled to dictate to the Band how their lands (the golf course) can be used. Right now, the government, at the behest of one very wealthy and powerful non-aboriginal businessman, says that the Musqueam cannot use the Golf Course as they see fit until 2083. And the government’s dictating is a heck of a lot more binding than the good-natured pleading of a group of nature-lovers.
My hope is that Dr. Menzies and Mr. Reynolds will both realize that concerned environmental groups are not the opponents of the Musqueam, and thus, that you are truly barking up the wrong trees. You have, in effect, been duped by the government into thinking this is a battle between those on the side of First Nations and those on the side of environmental groups (which is exactly what the government wants!). But you’re wrong. Our dispute is with the corporate-influenced (if not owned!) government of this province.
Eric Lorenz
Chair
Lower Mainland Group
Sierra Club of/du Canada, BC Chapter
http://www.sierraclub.ca/lmg
Dec. 14, 2007
Mr. Lorenz,
Thank you for your message of today addressed, in part, to me. Unfortunately, and with the greatest of respect, it falls short of an adequate response to my earlier message of December 12. (This comment, like my earlier comment, is made purely in my personal capacity and not on behalf of the Musqueam Band.)
I had hoped that this site would offer a forum to thoughtfully discuss the very important issues raised by the recent Reconciliation Agreement reached between the Musqueam and the Province. Charles has set out some of the issues that need to be considered. The major issues, in my view, are those of social justice in partially restoring to the Musqueam land that was illegally taken from them and the recognition of their inherent right of self-government including, of course, their right to say how they wish to use that land.
My earlier message asked the Friends of Pacific Spirit Park to carefully review the Press Release issued by the Band in reaction to the short-sight decision of the Board of the GVRD to oppose the return; to reflect on the history of the dispossession of the Musqueam and the relatively recent transfer of the lands by the Province to the GVRD against the wishes of the Band and without compensation. I also urged them to remember that the transfer was on the basis of an express undertaking by the GVRD to the Court of Appeal that the transfer would be without prejudice to the claim of Aboriginal title by the Band.
Your response shows no sign that you have done any of the above. Instead, you use intemperate language against Professor Menzies (which I will leave him to deal with as he wishes) and suggest that both of us are being duped by the Province. I have a Ph.D. in law and have practiced as a lawyer for almost 30 years, mostly for Aboriginal clients and often against the federal and provincial governments. I believe that I am fully capable of understanding the issues involved in this matter and am nobody’s dupe. It does not contribute to a reasoned discussion for you to make such suggestions.
Dealing with your other comments:
(1) it is difficult to understand your denial that the rally was against “the Musqueam land deal”. A key part of the Reconciliation Agreement is the return to the Band of a small part of the land now comprising Pacific Spirit Park that had been taken from it without its consent and without compensation during the 19 th century and, less than 20 years ago, was transferred by the Province to the GVRD again against the wishes of the Band and on the basis of an express undertaking to the BC Court of Appeal by the GVRD that the transfer was to be without prejudice to the Band’s claim of Aboriginal title. As I understand the objectives of the Friends of Pacific Spirit Park, you wish to prevent the transfer of the lands to the Band for it to use as it sees fit and, instead, to have the lands kept forever as a park. Have I misunderstood your objectives? If I have misunderstood, in what way? If I have not, you are clearly against “the Musqueam land deal” whatever you may be in favour of.
(2) I do not for a moment doubt that the Friends consist of “good-natured … nature-lovers” and “concerned environmentalists.” However, a love of nature is not unique to the Friends and the Musqueam have lived in harmony with their environment for thousands of years. It is for them to decide how they will continue to use their land and not for others, no matter how well meaning. In this regard, I noted that some of the speakers at last Sunday’s rally referred to maintaining Aboriginal spiritual values. With respect, the Musqueam are clearly in a better position to do this than any non-Musqueam, no matter how sincere.
(3) On the question of “the government’s dictating” the terms of the Reconciliation Agreement, I think you underestimate the extent of the negotiations that went into the Agreement and the determination and ability of the Musqueam to protect their rights. In cases like Guerin (establishing the legal enforceability of the Crown’s obligations to Aboriginal people and the legal nature of Aboriginal title), Sparrow (the first case on the constitutional protection for Aboriginal rights) and in the cases on the duty to consult, such as the UBC Golf Course case, the Musqueam have shown that they are ready, willing and able to stand up to the Federal and Provincial Governments. It is patronizing to suggest otherwise.
(4) I do not doubt that your “dispute is with the corporate-influenced (if not owned) government of this province.” However, I believe you must accept that, by opposing the return to the Musqueam of a small part of their traditional territory and seeking to deny to them the right to decide what to do what that land, you are displaying what I described earlier as “a colonial attitude dressed in green clothing”. Your desire to protect the park or challenge the corporate agenda of the provincial government does not change this inconvenient truth;
(5) I have no wish to engage in any “battle between those on the side of First Nations and those on the side of environmental groups” but, in this case, the opposition of the Friends of Pacific Spirit Park to the return of lands to the Musqueam as negotiated by them in the Reconciliation Agreement has placed at least that environmental group in the position that it has chosen to oppose the first nation.
In closing, I would like to express my view that the reconciliation of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians is probably the most important step that must be taken in this Province to ensure our collective future and this requires more than mere lip service. For reconciliation to be achieved, it requires all of us to get involved and non-Aboriginal Canadians will have to be willing to make adjustments but, in my view, basic social justice requires that this occur. I hope that some of the “good-natured … nature-lovers” can see beyond simplistic slogans and, to quote Shari Ulrich at the rally, that they will “Stand up, and right what’s wrong” by playing their part in achieving reconciliation. A hundred and fifty years of denial of Aboriginal rights and title must end.
Regards,
Jim Reynolds
Charles
You have STILL misrepresented the message presented at the rally! I did not hear people at the rally say that they wanted to save “their” park, but rather “the” park. None of the signs that were posted say “Our”, but rather they say “this” or “the” park. Most folks at the rally have never been in the area of the park called “Block F” and there probably haven’t been more than just a handful of the people at the rally that have ever ventured into the Triangle land, but does that diminish the importance of either park areas? No! People were there to talk about the ecological, environmental and physical importance of maintaining park land. They also came to the rally to protest the Provincial Government’s underhanded and cheap tactics to resolve the court case. If you did not hear that message, then I don’t think you were really listening. I would greatly appreciate if you would make the necessary changes to your blog, so the rally is more accurately represented. Thank you.
[Posted anonymously by Moderator]
Thank you Mr Menzie for allowing us a public forum to look at the issues more closely. I have been involved in this process since the powerful Mr Zlotnik managed to save golf for wealthy golfers by convincing the government to include “stranded” parkland in the discussions. Loving the park and realizing the need for natural space in an urban setting, as well as the biodiverse nature of the land in question are all separate arguments in my opinion. I am mostly concerned with the legal implications of what the government is doing. I have heard legal arguments on both “sides” and what I fear the most is that by appropriating the land from the GVRD to give back to the Musqueam, no matter what they do with it (and certainly the thought of it being developed is totally abhorent)the government is setting a legal precedent that will endanger all parkland that was set aside to be kept as parkland in perpetuity. What does perpetuity mean if it can turn around and take it back? How is that different from what the government did to the aboriginal people? I hope we can work with the aboriginal people towards repair of the harm done to them but should it be outside of what I understand is the law that we all agreed to?
Jennifer,
Please could you clarify what you mean when you refer to “the law that we all agreed to”? If you are referring to the legislation that transferred the UEL lands to the GVRD to form Pacific Spirit Park, that law was most certainly not agreed to by the Musqueam. They held public demonstrations against the proposed transfer and went to court to get an order to stop the transfer. The BC Court of Appeal granted an order and only lifted it when the GVRD expressly undertook that the transfer would be without prejudice to the claim of the Musqueam to Aboriginal title to the land. Never have the Musqueam surrendered their Aboriginal title to the land – not in the 19th century when they were first dispossessed and not in 1989 when the Social Credit Government sought to deny their title by passing the University Endowment Land Act. There was no prior consultation with the Musqueam which has been held by the Supreme Court of Canada to be a legal requirement before Aboriginal title can be infringed as was clearly done in this case.
I would also point out that it is clear law – see the Delgamuukw decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 – that the Province has no constitutional power to extinguish Aboriginal title so the 1989 provincial legislation could not be effective to extinguish the Musqueam Aboriginal title to the lands in any event.
Regards,
Jim Reynolds
[…] is a forum that was held on October 18, 2007. The second is their December 9, 2007 rally (see my earlier post for […]