{"id":12,"date":"2017-04-12T12:23:03","date_gmt":"2017-04-12T19:23:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/pspmusq\/?page_id=12"},"modified":"2017-04-12T19:58:48","modified_gmt":"2017-04-13T02:58:48","slug":"results-and-analysis","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/pspmusq\/results-and-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Results and Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"

What did the Musqueam want?<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The demands of the Musqueam were ambiguous in the literature review, even though the Musqueam had clearly stated their requests. In a letter to the UEL Study Team (UEL Special Projects Planning Office), the Musqueam stated two reasonable requests. First, they asked the province to hold the land until a settlement had been reached, especially in regards to the Southern part of the UEL lands as these lands were considered to be most important to them. Second, they asked to be consulted 90 days before any decisions were made about the land (UEL Special Projects Planning Office). Both these requests were ignored on multiple occasions. However, it should be noted that although this was the only study that included the Musqueam for consultation, their inclusion was not meaningful. None of the potential land use plans proposed by the UEL study team included the Musqueam land claims (appendix).<\/span><\/p>\n

The Musqueam not only asked to be acknowledged, they also acted upon their requests. As they believed trail clearing and park related activities of the local residents and environmental groups in the UEL woodland had interfered with traditional Musqueam use of the UEL woodland, they claimed the land by posting \u2018NO TRESPASSING\u2019 signs (cite). A Ubyssey article, published a month after the first land claim, stated, \u201cthe band posted signs at entrances to the UEL last week proclaiming the lands as Indian territory..to draw public attention to its land claim\u201d (cite). These efforts did not stop after the approval for the Park. According to Thomas Nick, (footnote: our interviewee from the Pacific Spirit Park Society) when the park was first established in 1989, \u201cthe Musqueam put up signs all over the park that read \u2018Musqueam Land\u2019,\u201d (cite). When the GVRD accepted UEL for parkland, the Musqueam sought a restraining order to block park development. These actions went unacknowledged once more. The Musqueam fought with their actions because they believed \u201ctransfer of the UEL to GVRD could seriously impede any future land claim negotiation for Musqueam.\u201d(cite).<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite their efforts to raise public awareness, the non-Musqueam residents did not show any kind of meaningful support. The public showed a range of reactions to the claim; from those who felt the claim should be settled before any decisions for the land, to those who outrightly rejected the claim, or who felt it was an issue for the federal government to deal with. Comments such as \u201cwe\u2019re being ripped off\u201d and \u201cthey have no right\u201d from both native and white people were expressed (cite). <\/span><\/p>\n

Government inaction and intention<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The Department of Indian Affairs (DIA), who first staked out the lands that would belong to the Musqueam in 1864, played a significant role in allocation of the Musqueam land. The DIA used land control as a mechanism to keep the musqueam separated from the rest of society. Such enforced land use controls meant confining the Musqueam to their reserves, barring the Musqueam from attending public schools and shutting the Musqueam out from urban life<\/span>. Although the DIA had control over allocation and restriction of the Musqueam land, they failed to deal with the Musqueam land claim regarding the University Endowment Lands as this did not fall under their jurisdiction<\/span>. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Musqueam were told, by the provincial government, that their land claim was not going to be dealt with until the Nishga Indian claim in Northern B.C. was settled<\/span>. The land also belonged to Victoria and not Ottawa, meaning that the provincial government and federal government had to work together concerning decisions around the Musqueam land claim<\/span>. No action was being taken by either the provincial or federal government; \u201cgovernments shuffle[d] Musqueam [land] claim\u201d, as the title of a news article read<\/span>. The Musqueam believed, \u201cthere is no substantive reason why BC and Canada cannot enter into discussions with Musqueam\u201d<\/span>. Additionally, the Musqueam stated \u201cneither the GVRD nor BC governments have done a heritage resource impact assessment of the UEL\u201d, implying that the governments have no justification as for ignoring the land claim<\/span>. <\/span><\/p>\n

In 1987, three years after the Musqueam had submitted their second land claim, under Bill C-16 the province successfully transferred the UEL woodlands to the GVRD as a park<\/span>. This was all done without advance notification to the Musqueam, despite their request to be notified 90 days before any final decisions. Bill C-16 effectively negated the Musqueam land claim as it weakened their claim by taking the land out of the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and transferring it to a third party<\/span>. The Musqueam believed that, <\/span><\/p>\n

“The only reason they did this was…to alienate our land in a third-party interest. Therefore, our claim would be superseded by law and we wouldn\u2019t be able to use that in court. To put it into third party interest and, this would take it out of our hands. Then it must either go through negotiations with Comprehensive Land Claims or through the courts. I think that is their intent.”<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What did the Musqueam want? The demands of the Musqueam were ambiguous in the literature review, even though the Musqueam had clearly stated their requests. In a letter to the UEL Study Team (UEL Special Projects Planning Office), the Musqueam stated two reasonable requests. First, they asked the province to hold the land until a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":34018,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-12","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/pspmusq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/pspmusq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/pspmusq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/pspmusq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/34018"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/pspmusq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/pspmusq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":65,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/pspmusq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12\/revisions\/65"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/pspmusq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}