Communication for Public Decision-Making in a Negative Historical Context: Building Intercultural Relationships in the British Columbia Treaty Process

Abstract

Encouraging involvement in local, regional and national communities in order to develop a healthy democracy is a laudable goal for society. However, culturally marginalized groups that have been historically excluded from such participation, and who utilize communication patterns that differ from the dominant culture, cannot take all the responsibility for becoming engaged. The aboriginal peoples of North America are one such marginalized cultural group. Utilizing data from the current British Columbia treaty process, this study posits communication structures, attitudes, and behaviors that dominant culture groups must adopt in order to build positive long-term relationships for public engagement with historically marginalized cultural groups.

Keywords:

• Canada
• Native American
• First Nation
• Community Development
• Civic Participation

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Garry Merkel, Kathryn Teneese, Cheryl Casmir, and Rob Louie of the Ktunaxa Nation treaty team as well as Katherine Beavis and Isabel Budke for their help with knowledge of other aspects of the BC Treaty process

Notes

1. See Kozuback (2006).

2. The term First Nation, while not a term that has been adopted in reference to all peoples of pre-conquest heritage in North America, will be utilized throughout this research in support of the concept that Native peoples in North America existed as sovereign nations prior to the arrival of European colonizers and other foreign interests.

3. Based on BCTC parameters for permission to utilize dialogue session transcripts as data sources for the present research, all direct quotes from dialogue session participants or Main Table participants are designated by role of the participant along with the designated number of the dialogue session (DS#). All quotes that are taken from artifact publications are listed in the references section and cited accordingly. Additionally all quotes are from First Nation sources unless otherwise designated (i.e. provincial negotiator, federal negotiator, etc.).

4. The Ktunaxa Nation Council is located in the most south-eastern corner of British Columbia and is a First Nation group whose citizens, according to the Ktunaxa Nation website “originate from the Ktunaxa or Kootenai culture … the Nation also contains descendants of the Kinbasket family, a small group of Shuswap (Secwepemc) people who journeyed east from Shuswap territory in the mid-1800s into Ktunaxa territory looking for a permanent home. Ktunaxa leadership allowed the Shuswap Kinbasket people to stay in Ktunaxa territory where they eventually settled in the Invermere area and became members of the Ktunaxa Nation” (Ktunaxa Nation, 2005).

5. In March 2007 the Lheidli T'enneh First Nation rejected the treaty Final Agreement that had been signed by the three negotiating parties in October of 2006. A probe into the reasons for the rejection by the community (BCTC, 2007b) indicated that there was an inadequate process for ensuring that all First Nation members felt involved and/or adequately informed about all the ramifications of the treaty agreement.

6. The Nisga'a First Nation was the first modern-day treaty to be signed in British Columbia. It was finalized by ratification in the Canadian parliament on April 13, 2000, after 110 years of efforts by the Nisga'a Nation to have land claim grievances redressed. The Nisga'a treaty was signed under a process established prior to the current treaty process (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 2004).

7. Crossing either provincial or international borders is constricted by dominant culture interests.

8. The members of the Tsawwassen First Nation ratified the first treaty made under the six-stage process on July 25, 2007 (Baird, 2007).

9. The BC negotiator made a comment to the effect that the Ktunaxa Nation was not unique in having to consider issues around the existence of National Parks within their territory. The Canada negotiator, because National Parks are a federal issue, took the opportunity to explain that the Ktunaxa are in fact unique given the particular class of the National Parks within their territory. The inability to understand and acknowledge the uniqueness of each First Nation by non-First Nation people is an extension of colonialist attitudes.

10. In 2007 a public opinion survey was administered by a research group from the University of British Columbia (Harshaw, Sheppard, Kovak, & Maness, 2007) for Canadian Forest Products regarding public opinions about forest use in the Radium Forest District (Ktunaxa Nation territory). Attitudes towards the rights of First Nations in forestry decisions were primarily negative and, as evidenced in the written comments, were also based on an overall ignorance of those rights.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Marcella LaFever

Marcella LaFever (Ph.D., University of New Mexico) is a full-time Lecturer in the Department of Communication Studies at California State University Stanislaus