- Slides: 12
Archaeological Heritage and the Trans Mountain Pipeline: Preliminary Research on Potential Specific Claims Kristina Hannis and Hayley Zacks, UBCIC Research UBCIC 52 nd AGA September 30, 2020
Overview • • • Introduction to Specific Claims Project Origins Historical Context Methodology Initial Findings Research Needed: Process, Consultation and Compensation
Specific Claims The specific claims process is the federal government’s approach to addressing past wrongs related to Indigenous reserve lands, assets, and treaties. Specific claims arise when a First Nation alleges Canada failed to uphold its lawful obligations with respect to Indigenous lands and resources. This failure can include (but is not limited to) failure to protect reserve lands from destruction or expropriation, including for rights of ways; failure to properly consult or compensate First Nations for such alienations; and failure to reserve or protect lands that, by law, should have been reserved (such as village sites and graveyards). Development of claims requires comprehensive research into archival records, oral testimony, legal instruments, maps, and archaeological records. Resolution of claims typically involves cash settlement, though Nations have long argued that other options – such as land or revenue-sharing approaches – should be options for an approach to redress.
Project Origins In 1956, archaeologists Charles Borden and Jim Baldwin visited a village site devasted by the Trans Mountain pipeline construction and made the following notes: “Striking example of wanton and thoughtless destruction and for the need for archaeologists attached to pipe crews. Utilize this example to press for legislation to Source: Kinder Morgan Canada protect archaeological remains and to provide for investigation when destruction is unavoidable”
Historical Context • March 21, 1951: Original Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company established under Special Act of Parliament • September 4, 1951: prohibition of legal claims removed from the Indian Act • December 13, 1951: TMP approved by the Board of Transport following three-day private hearing Source: Trans Mountain ULC
Methodology Created GIS map overlaying archaeological sites and pipeline Searched Remote Access to Archaeological Data Reviewed archaeological reports Collated data with outside sources
Initial Findings • There are 98 archaeological sites within 100 m of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline (TMP) • At least 32 First Nations have archaeological sites impacted by TMP • TMP has destroyed or damaged 64% of archaeological sites it crosses within 100 m • 89 of 98 sites require future research to determine their potential to be filed as a spec claims. At least 58 of which are due to damage by TMP
Types of Sites Impacted [VA LUE ] [VALUE] Cultural Material Cultural Depression Burials CMTs Cairn Peteroform Rockshelter
Potential Failures of Gov’t to Meet Lawful Obligation 100 Number of Arch Sites 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Total Trans Mountain Pipeline Grazing Road Construction Logging Causes for Specific Claims Recreational Use Hydro Development
Research Needed: Process, Consultation and Compensation • Were First Nations informed in 1951 about TMP? • If so, what did this process look like? • Did federal gov’t consult FNs about lost reserve land? • Was there any effort from the federal gov’t to compensate FNs for the loss of reserve land or heritage sites? • Can specific claims arise from the original pipeline construction? How many? What kinds?
Thank you! Questions? Kristina Hannis (khannis@ubcic. bc. ca) Hayley Zacks (hzacks@ubcic. bc. ca)