{"id":684,"date":"2023-05-10T12:24:12","date_gmt":"2023-05-10T16:24:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/chapter\/__unknown__\/"},"modified":"2025-03-02T17:13:46","modified_gmt":"2025-03-02T22:13:46","slug":"fn_reserve_case_mlib","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/chapter\/fn_reserve_case_mlib\/","title":{"raw":"Case. McLeod Lake Indian Band","rendered":"Case. McLeod Lake Indian Band"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\nReserve Lands are established by the Indian Act<\/em><\/a> and represent an egregious colonial practice that, among many other things, removes and restricts property rights of Indigenous Peoples. \u00a0In particular, First Nations and its members have limited options regarding land development and economic development.\u00a0 The Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management<\/a> (Framework Agreement), adopted and enacted in 1996, enables First Nations to opt out of sections of the Indian Act <\/em>and to acquire planning and management rights for their Reserve lands.\u00a0 Full rights to manage Reserve lands can be pursued through the modern BC Treaty process.\u00a0 These options for First Nations represent a continuum of control over property rights on Reserve lands, thus affecting how land use planning is practised. \u00a0This case highlights how the McLeod Lake Indian Band (MLIB) has learned to function within this context and, to the best of their ability, maximise benefits from restricted opportunities available by choosing to operate under the Framework Agreement.\u00a0 Learners are encouraged to understand and appreciate the practice of land use planning on Reserve lands that is very different from other jurisdictions in British Columbia (BC).\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n
\r\n

\u201c<\/em><\/p>\r\n

\u201cWe, The Tse\u2019Khene Nation (People of the Rock), are proud people. \u00a0We believe the Creator put us here as stewards of the land. \u00a0We will regain our Traditions to cultivate a respected, united, self-sufficient community.\u00a0 We recognize all people <\/em>as equal regardless of name and ancestry. \u00a0Our governing body is elected based <\/em>upon integrity, honor, accountability and transparency to all members. \u00a0Together <\/em>we will provide healthy, educated, self-sufficient and prosperous lifestyles for our <\/em>future generations\u201d<\/em><\/p>\r\n

McLeod Lake Indian Band Vision Statement, April 10, 2001.[footnote]McLeod Lake Indian Band Land Code, 2022.[\/footnote]\r\n<\/em><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Members of the McLeod Lake Indian Band (MLIB) are of the Tse\u2019Khene[footnote]McLeod Lake Indian Band refers specifically to the Band, the form of governance dictated by the Indian Act.\u00a0 Culturally, the members of MLIB are part of the Tse\u2019Khene people, which also includes the Tsay Keh Dene Nation and Kwadacha Nation.\u00a0 Accordingly, members of the McLeod Lake Indian Band can be distinguished as the McLeod Lake Tse\u2019Kene.\u00a0 Alternate spellings: Tse Keh Nay; Tse Kay Dene.[\/footnote], an extension of the Athapascan speaking peoples of northern Canada.[footnote]McLeod Lake Indian Band website<\/a>.[\/footnote]\u00a0 Traditionally, Europeans refer to Tse\u2019Khene as \u201cSekani.\u201d\u00a0 The roughly 108,000 km2<\/sup> traditional territory (as shown on Map 1 and described in Box 1) has been occupied by McLeod Lake Tse\u2019Khene since before European contact.\u00a0 The main settlement of the McLeod Lake Indian Band is located on McLeod Lake, about 150 kilometres north of Prince George.\u00a0 Throughout its history, the McLeod Lake Tse\u2019Khene people have remained defiant in protecting their lands and interests.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Map 1.\u00a0 McLeod Lake Tse\u2019Khene Traditional Territory (approximate boundary)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1167\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"775\"]\"MLIB Sources: base map from iMapBC<\/a>. Licensed under the Open Government Licence \u2013 British Columbia<\/a>. Boundary of traditional territory: McLeod Lake Indian Band Land Use Plan (2004)<\/em>.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n
<\/div>\r\n
\r\n

Box 1. The McLeod Lake <\/strong>Tse\u2019Khene<\/strong> traditional territory<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n

To the south, the height of land separating the Arctic and Pacific watersheds near Summit Lake.\u00a0 To the east, following that height of land to the border of British Columbia and Alberta.\u00a0 To the north, following the border to the Peace River, west, following the southern bank of the Peace River to Williston Lake, south, following the western bank of Williston Lake to the western bank of Manson Arm, south, along the west bank of Manson Arm, southwest and west, along the height of land between Manson River and Eklund Creek and Jackfish Creek, southwest.\u00a0 To the west, along the height of land between the Nation River watershed and the Omineca River watershed, south and east along the height of land separating the Arctic and Pacific watersheds to the commencement point.<\/p>\r\n

Source: territory <\/span>as described by oral history in the 2004 McLeod Lake Indian Band Land Use Plan<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

European Contact and Cultural Erosion<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n

European fur traders first settled in the area in 1805 at Fort McLeod, which served as the first trading post west of the Rockies and is the oldest continuously occupied non-Indigenous settlement in BC.\u00a0 The opportunity to trade with Europeans at Fort McLeod enticed the traditionally nomadic Tse\u2019Khene people to establish nearby residences.\u00a0 But this contact had consequences.\u00a0 \u201cExposure to disease, alcohol, firearms contributed to the systematic breakdown of almost all their laws, customs and social systems\u201d[footnote]Land Use Plan<\/a> (2004), p. 5.[\/footnote] and had profound and devastating effects on the Tse\u2019Khene.\u00a0 From 1840 to 1925, the recorded population was reduced from 202 to 60.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\nIn 1867, through section 91(24) of The Constitution Act<\/em>, 1867<\/em>, the Government of Canada was granted law making power over all \u201cIndians and Lands reserved for the Indians\u201d to ensure the \u201cPeace, Order and Good Government of Canada.\u201d\u00a0 By these laws the McLeod Lake Tse\u2019Khene were arranged onto five Reserves, which combined for a total land base of 244 km2<\/sup>.\u00a0 The extent of original set of McLeod Lake Indian Reserves (#1-5) are depicted in Map 2.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nMap 2.\u00a0 McLeod Lake Reserve Lands and Fee Simple Lands\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1168\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"854\"]\"MLIB Source: McLeod Lake Indian Band (2021). Land Use Plan, p. 9.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n
\r\n

The erosion of the traditional territory of the McLeod Lake Tse\u2019Khene and their culture continued throughout the twentieth century with devastating effects.\u00a0 The McLeod Lake Tse\u2019Khene were subject to institutional assimilation at Lejac Indian Residential School (1930s-1976), the economic impact of closure of Fort McLeod as a trading post (1956), and the flooding of 1,761 km2<\/sup> of traditional territory following the construction of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam (1969).[footnote]Golder Associates (2009). \"Overview of McLeod Lake Indian Band Traditional Knowledge of Alpine Ecosystems as Relevant to the Proposed Roman Coal Mine.\" Report No. 07-1414-0149.[\/footnote]\u00a0 By the 1970s, the traditional livelihood of the Tse\u2019Khene had been compromised significantly.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

Formalisation of Tenure<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n

The erosion and transformation of the traditional territory of the McLeod Lake Tse\u2019Khene took place within a process of \u201ctenure formalisation.\u201d[footnote]Baxter, Jamie, and Michael Trebilcock (2009). \"\"Formalizing\" Land Tenure in First Nations: Evaluating the Case for Reserve Tenure Reform.\" Indigenous Law Journal<\/em> 7(2).[\/footnote]\u00a0 (See Box 2 for a definition of tenure formalisation.)\u00a0 In Canada and other colonised countries (e.g., United States, New Zealand, Australia), many of the historical efforts at tenure formalisation centred on granting a person legal title to small portions of traditional territory.\u00a0 According to Baxter and Trebilcock, the physical boundaries created by the reserve system serve as a means for implementing government policy with the eventual goal of \"civilisation.\"\u00a0 They also characterise the Canadian reserve system as a \u201cvestige of past attempts to promote the norms, if not the legal rights, of private ownership\u2026while maintaining central control of tenure administration in First Nations communities.\u201d[footnote]Baxter & Trebilcock (2009), p. 70.[\/footnote]\u00a0 Voluntary enfranchisement[footnote]Generally, to enfranchise refers to giving someone the legal right to vote. In the context of Indigenous peoples, enfranchisement, whether voluntary or, more likely, enforced by the federal government, refers to a legal process for terminating or losing one\u2019s Indian Status under the Indian Act and attaining Canadian Citizenship. Enfranchisement under the Indian Act was extinguished via amendments in 1985. See The Canadian Encyclopedia<\/em><\/a> and Indigenous Foundations<\/a>.[\/footnote] packages, which have been presented in various incarnations were offered as alternatives to the restrictive property interests afforded under the reserve system.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

\r\n

Box <\/strong>2<\/strong>.\u00a0 <\/strong>Tenure <\/strong>formalisation<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n

Baxter and Trebilcock define tenure formalisation as follows.<\/p>\r\n\"Our definition seeks to characterise formalization in terms of goals to improve tenure security and transferability.\u00a0 In this sense, formalization captures attempts to create greater predictability by:\u00a0 (1) leveraging the coercive power of the state\u2014for example, through the judiciary\u2014to enforce land tenure regimes for rights holders against counter-claimants; and (2) harmonising the group\u2019s land tenure regime with the regime that is already administered by the state for outsiders, potentially increasing the familiarity of the group\u2019s system for some rights holders.\u00a0 It would be an oversimplification to regard formalisation merely as a process of imposing private property rights on individuals within the group; the state can recognise and enforce land tenure at various levels of governance.\u00a0 For example, the federal government in Canada might directly administer a tenure regime in a First Nation by granting individuals limited possessory and use rights.\u00a0 Alternatively, a First Nation might be vested with a sphere of protected communal rights, which the federal government enforces against outsiders, but within which the community defines the parameters of its own land tenure regime.\u00a0 Both of these scenarios exist to some degree under the status quo in Canada today.\u00a0 Finally, given autonomous and well-supported Indigenous institutions such as bureaucracies, courts, and social services, \u201cformal\u201d land tenure can be interpreted as a property regime that is defined and enforced by a First Nation\u2019s own government\u2014an arrangement that accords more closely with some First Nation peoples\u2019 ultimate visions of self-governance.\u00a0 Overall, our definition of formalisation reinforces our emphasis on exploring how tenure security and transfer rights relate to development outcomes, rather than fixating on the process of formalisation itself.\"[footnote]Baxter & Trebilcock (2009), pp. 62-3.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

\r\n\r\nEfforts to implement tenure formalisation by Canadian governments were opposed by Indigenous peoples, who have generally regarded tenure formalisation as either inappropriate to cultural traditions or as a thinly veiled attempt at assimilation (or both).\u00a0 This criticism is not to suggest that Indigenous peoples are opposed to tenure reform or private land ownership.\u00a0 On the contrary, achieving greater stability and minimising uncertainty over lands management have been a central theme in Indigenous rights advocacy throughout the twenty-first century.\u00a0 However, most attempts at tenure formalisation have been imposed in a homogenised and centralised manner, lacking the \u201csocial, economic, political, geographical and historical context\u201d necessary to create tenure regimes congruous with the traditions, practices, and capacities of the many individual nations inhabiting the land base known as Canada.[footnote]Baxter & Trebilcock (2009), p. 49.[\/footnote]\r\n

Consequently, Indigenous peoples experience the dichotomy of having cultural values tied to the land with restricted rights to access and use the land.\u00a0 The inability for Indigenous peoples to exercise greater authority in managing Reserve lands and the assets generated by those lands is cited frequently as a contributing factor toward many of the injustices currently occurring on Reserve lands.\u00a0 Some of these injustices include inadequate housing, unsafe drinking water, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, elevated suicide rates, and spousal abuse.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

\r\n

Learning Modules\r\n<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n