NEGOTIATING
THE PRODUCTION OF SPACE
IN TL'AZT'EN TERRITORY, 1969-1984
by
Philip Kluane Morris
B.A., The University of Victoria, 1994

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

m
NATURALRESOURCESAND
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (GEOGRAPHY)

©Philip Kluane Morris, 1999
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
JUNE 1999
All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or
other means, without the permission of the author.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN
BRITISH COLUMBIA
LIBRARY
Prince George, BC

Negotiating
the Production of Space
in Tl'azt'en Territory, 1969-1984
Abstract

Henri Lefebvre has suggested that through social practices which visualize, administer,
and use lands and resources, a society produces the space in which it operates. He
emphasized the heterogeneity of social space and argued that it is a group' s political
power which determines its ability to influence the production of space. Historical
geographers have described the means by which Europeans created new geographies in
British Columbia, but little attention has been paid to the role Native people may have
played in the production of space. There is a need to recognize pre- and post-contact
Native spatiality and its influence on the legal and social spaces of British Columbia.
Prior to the arrival of Europeans in central British Columbia, the territory of the Tl'azt'en
people was a social and political landscape. Gradually Euro-Canadian visualization,
administration and uses of land and resources were superimposed on Tl'azt'en space.
Yet Tl'azt'en spatiality was never totally erased. As a result, Tl'azt'en territory can
neither be viewed as a space which reflects purely the Tl' azt'en, nor purely the EuroCanadian, production of space. Instead the territory is made up of shared spaces and
hybrid spaces which resulted from the interaction of Tl' azt' en and Euro-Canadian
societies. The Tl'azt'en' s ability to influence the production of space varied with their
political power but never completely disappeared. The potential continued to exist for
Tl ' azt' en spatiality to influence the production of space in their territory if they gained
more political power.
The social processes involved in the production of space are perhaps most visible when
two parties are negotiating the allocation and management of lands and resources. In the
1970s the Tl ' azt' en were engaged in negotiations with the Pacific Great Eastern/British
Columbia Railway and the Provincial Government over the construction of a railway
through their traditional territory. The Tl ' azt' en used their Indian Reserve rights and
threats of blockades to create a political space in which they could engage the
Government in negotiations over the administration of lands and resources in their
territory. The parties reached an agreement by which the Tl'azt'en acquired thirty-five
new reserves and a Tree Farm License. Through these negotiations Tl'azt'en social and
economic goals were inscribed to a significant degree within the spatial organization of the
territory. Like current treaty negotiations, the negotiations between the Provincial
Governrnent and the Tl ' azt' en in the 1970s involved compromises by both parties, and
resulted in the creation of new hybrid social spaces which reflected the goals and
strategies of both groups.

11

Table of Contents
Abstract .................... ...... .ii
List of Maps ..... ... ..... ...... v
List of Figures ................. vi
List oflnterviews ........... ..vii
Acknowledgments .......... .viii
Notes ... ... ........................ .ix

Introduction
Chapter One - The Production of Space and the Geographies of B.C.
1.0
Introduction
1.1
The Production of Space
1.2
Geographies of Power
1.3
The Space that Difference Makes
1.4
Spaces ofNegotiation and Negotiated Spaces
1.5
The Production of Space in British Columbia
1.6
Native Influence on British Columbian Space
1.7
Creating Spaces ofNegotiation: Native Geopolitical Action in B.C.
1.8
Methodology
Chapter Two- Geographic Change in Tl'azt'en Territory 1800-1969
2.0
Introduction
2.1
Tl'azt'en Territory
2.2
The Fur Trade and the Omenica Gold Rush
Indian Reserves: the First Non-native Organization of Tl' azt' en space
2.3
Introduction of Government Administration, 1900-1926
2.4
1926-1969
2.5
2.6
Conclusion
Chapter Three- Tl'azt'en Negotiations with PGE/BCR 1969-1974
3.0
Introduction
3.1
Native People and Railway Development in British Columbia
3.2
The Pacific Great Eastern Railway
3.3
Negotiations between PGE and the Tl'azt'en, Winter 1968/69
3.4
The January 1969 Agreement
3.5
Relations between PGEIBCR and the Tl' azt'en During Construction
3.6
Concerns about the Impact of the Railway on Wildlife
Tl'azt'en Re-open Negotiations, August 1973
3.7
3.8
Expanding the Scope ofNegotiations
3.9
Conclusion

1

5
5
8
10
14
16
18
20
24

29
30
32
35
37
44

55

59
60
62
64
68
71
75
79
84
88

lll

Chapter Four- Tl'azt'en Negotiations with the Provincial Government, 1974-1984
4.0
Introduction
90
Native Blockades - Contesting the Production of Space
4.1
91
4.2
Tl'azt' en Exercise their Property Rights
93
4.3
Negotiations Resume Concerning Economic Development Options
101
Tl'azt'en Decide to Negotiate for Timber Rights
4.4
104
Provincial Offer/Tl ' azt' en Counter Offer/Provincial Offer
4.5
107
The 1984 Agreement
4.6
113
Conclusion
4.7
118
Chapter Five- Negotiated Spaces and New Spaces of Negotiation
5.0
Negotiated Spaces: The Space Created by the 1984 Agreement
5.1
Spaces ofNegotiation: Continuing Tl'azt' en Geopolitical Action
5.2
Conclusion

119
130
134

References

135

IV

LIST OF MAPS

Map 2.1 Northern British Columbia
Map 2.2 Tl'azt'en Territory, 1800s

sources: Traditional Territory boundary from 1998 map in Tl' azt' en NROC. Keyoh boundaries
represented by contemporary Registered Trapline boundaries. Line-work obtained from Ministry
of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Map 2.3 Tl'azt'en Reserves, 1871-1926

sources: Reserve applications and allocations from: DIA File 985/30-26-1, Vol.l 1948-1969
Tl'azt'en NROC; "Barricade Treaty" Documents Compiled by the Carrier Sekani Tribal
Council, Tl'azt'en NROC; and reports prepared for Tl'azt'en Nation by Yasmeen Qureshi and
Linda Vandenberg and Associates. Data on private land from Crown Land Registry, Surveyor
Generals Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.

Map 2.4 Development in Tl'azt'en Territory 1940s-60s

sources: Portable saw mill locations from: "Sawmill Inventory and Preliminary Investigation."
Fort St. James District, Ministry of Forest. Timber harvesting locations from: Box: 37 Stuart
Lake P.S.Y.U. GR 1110, BCARS; and from interviews with Pierre John (June I, 1998), Robert
Hanson (June 4, 1998), and Jimmy Monk (June 12, 1998), Johnny Anatole (June 16, 1998),
Norman Prince (June 19, 1998), Bob and Doug Hoy (June 25, 1998).

Map 2. 5 Tl' azt' en Reserves, 1940s-1960s

sources: Reserve applications and allocations from: DIA File 985/30-26, 1960-1968.; and Camp
24 File, Vol. I, Tl'azt'en NROC. Data on private land from Crown Land Registry, Surveyor
Generals Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.

Map 3.1 PGE Extensions in Northern B.C.

source: John Wedley, 1998. "A Development Tool: W.A.C Bennett and the PGE Railway." BC
Studies 117:30.

Map 3.2 Pacific Great Eastern Railway Route
Map 3.3 The January 1969 Agreement

source: Surrender and Compensation lands from: G.L. Ritchie (PGE) to A.C. Roach (DIA).
January 31, 1969. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB vs. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

Map 3.4 The Land Exchange in July 1973

source: Surrender and Compensation lands from: L.F. Swannell to J.D. Hartley. August 3, 1973.
Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

Map 3.5 The Reconfiguration ofTl'azt'en Territory, 1974

sources: Licensee Operating Areas provided by Prince George Regional Office, Ministry of
Forests; Data on private land from Crown Land Registry, Surveyor Generals Branch, Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.

Map 5.1 The Final Agreement, 1984

sources: New reserves from: Agreement Between Tl'azt'en Nation and British Columbia Railway
and the Government of British Columbia, June 1988. Tl'azt'en NROC. Tree Farm License 42
boundary from Tanizul Timber Ltd.

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3

Tl'azt'en Reserves, 1871-1898
Tl' azt' en Reserves, 1898-1926
Tl'azt'en Reserves, 1949

36
43
53

Figure 3.1a
Figure 3.1b
Figure 3.2a
Figure 3.2b
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4

Surrender Lands, 1969
Compensation Lands, 1969
Surrender Lands, 1973
Compensation Lands, 1973
Stuart Trembleur Band Council Resolutions, August 30, 1973
Band Strategy Meeting, October 13, 1974

68
69
77
77
80
88

Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5

Letters to BCR from Tl'azt'en Children, April 1975
Tl'azt'en Reasons for Blockading BCR, April28, 1975
Tl'azt'en Remove the Blockade, August 15, 1975
Band Members ' Statements to the Minister, February 17, 1977
Stuart Trembleur Band's Counter Offer, July 15, 1977

95
96
101
109
111

Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2

Tl'azt'en Reserves Included in TFL 42
Compensation Lands, 1984

120
125

VI

LIST OF INTERVIEWS
Interview Date

Second Interview

..~Y.~.~.~!.A!~.~ .......................................................M~.Y...?§:...!.?.2.L ................. .....................!.Y.'!.€!...1:..!.2.?.§. .....................
..9..~~!)-.Y..A!!?.~!.~................................ .................M~E~~.??.~.J?..?.~.:................. ................f..f!.~t:Y.f:!:Y.):..!.2.?.§. ................
.}~~,!"!..~.1.~~.~~................................... .................M~E~~.~.?.~...I.?..?.~.:.....................................................................................
..l.~~!)-.Y...~!)-.~!9.!~............................ ....................l-~!.1:~ .. !.§.,..!.?.2.~........................................................................................
..9.9.!.~~~..~!:1.~.~~ .............................. ................. J!:l.~!?.. L?:.J2.?.~.~.......................................................................................
.. f.x~~..P.~~~!.l: ............................................~~P.!~.JE.l?.~r. ..!.?.1.J2.?..?.~.................................................................................
..M~~.P..~~~!.l: ........................................................ .l.~!.!:~ ..?: .. .l.2.?..?. ..................... ....................................................................
.. ~9.~~!:!.-H~!.l:~~!.l: ............................. ................... }~!.1:~ ..1.:.. ~2.?..?...................... .....................!.Y.'!.€!.} :..!.2.?.§......................
..M~E!~..!i~~~!.l: ............................... ...............!.q.'!.Y.f:!rY...!.l:.. .!.?.2.?.::............... ....................................................................
.. P..~Y.!.~ ..'i~.Y. ........................................................M.~x.. L~~..J.2.?.~.~ .......................................................................................
..~9.~..!i9.Y............................................................. }~!.1.~ ..?2.,..!.?.2.~.................... ................................................................... .
.. P..?.YEiJ:J.g.Y. ...................................... ....................l-~!.1.~ ..?2.,..!.?.2.~........................................................................................
.. §g..~.~~~........................................... ...............f.f!. k!..lf.q!.Y...?.:.. l.?.?.§:: ............... ....................AP.E!.\..?.:)2.?.2. ....................
..?..!~!!.~..!.~~..................................... ....................}~!.1.~ .. !.1.. .1.2.?.!?. ..................... ....................................................................
..~.~!~.~~).~~~P.h............................... ..................!..1f.t!.<!. .l.?.: .. !.2.?.§.~................... ....................................................................
.. M9.!!.!.~..l.~~~P.h............................... ...................11!:.!.!..?..9.~ ..!.2.?.§.................... .................................................................. ..
..~.\~~.. ~:.. !.9.~.~.P.~ .................................................!.~!.1.~ ..?.:.)2.?..?. ....................................................................................... ..
..~!.l:~.!~.M.~~~~~ ............................................... J~~!?.J.?.:.J2.?.~.~................... ............. ..!.q.'!.Y.c:.a:..!.J:.J?.2.?.:: ............. ..
..!.!~~Y... M.~!.J:~................................................. J~~!?.J.?:.J2.?.~.::'................................~~P.!!?.JE.l?.~r. ..L?.1.J2.?..?.~.............
..~.?.P..h!.~.M.~!.l:~................................................ ..l!:l.~~.J.?:.J2.?.~.:................... ............. ..!.q.'!.Y.C:.:Y...!.L.!.?.2.?.:: ............. ..
..l.~~~~.M.~!.l:~....................................................... }~!.1.~..?~:...!.?.2.~.................... ................ f..f!.~t:Y.C:Z.:Y...~: ..!.2.?.2............... ..
..!:!.~.~~!.1:.?..~~.1.~ ................................................... }~!.1:~ ..?.:.. .1.2.?..?...................... ....................................................................
.. !:!.~ ..r.!!?.1I~ ................................... ...................J:1.q:..c:.~ ..1:..!.2.?.§.................... ................!..C:.IJ.lf.q.'J!..?L.!.2.?.2. ................
..~~.l.P.~.. ~!~r.r.~ ..................................................... .!.~!.!.~.::'::...'.?..?.~.~.................... ....................................................................
..I~.?.!ll:~~ ..r.!.~.!T.~..............................................f.~.l?.r.~~!Y...??..,..!.?.2.~................ .................................................................. ..
..N9.~~.f.!.~.~.~ ............................. ....................!.Y.'!.€!...!.?.:...!.?.2.§.................... .................................................................. ..
..~~.I.~~~A~.~.. T.~.~~~.~....................... ............. . !.q.'!.Y.c:z.a:..!.L l.?.?..?.::............... ....................................................................
..N.~~~.Y..I.?.!ll: ...................................................... .!.~!.1.~ ..?~:...!.?.2.~.................... ....................................................................
..I~.IE..~.~!!?E!.~~9: ........................... .................l.~!?.~~!Y...~/.)2.?.2.~................. ....................................................................
Paul Williams

June I, 1998*

Unless otherwise indicated, all interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. The audio tapes
and transcriptions have been deposited at the Tl'azt' en Nation Natural Resource Office, Tache
Village.
* - interview was not recorded
- - interview was audio and video recorded
" - interview was not audio recorded, but portions were video recorded.
The author was present at all the interviews except: Morris Joseph, Danny Alexis #2 and Justa
Monk #2. Annie Booth, Gail Fondahl, and Christine Callihoo assisted me in conducting the
interviews shown in italics. I greatly appreciated the assistance of Cheryl Pierre in arranging the
interviews.

Vll

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank former Chief Harry Pierre, current Chief Danny Alexis and all the Tl' azt' en
people for the warm welcome they extended to me every time I was in their community. I will
never forget your generosity, warmth, and friendship. Special thanks to Beverly Bird and the
staff of the Tl ' azt' en Natural Resources Office for giving me a space to work in their office,
access to their information resources, and so much of their time. For their friendship I am
especially thankful to Robert and Marie Hanson, Max Duncan, Terrance Austin, Bruce Alexis,
Frank Duncan, Doreen Austin, Jimmy and Sophie Monk and Morris Joseph. I had the great
pleasure of working with Cheryl Pierre on this project. Her assistance in sifting through dusty
boxes of files and in setting up all my interviews was invaluable. She was a wonderful person to
work with.
My research, which provides some information on the Tl ' azt'en community' s aspirations for
Tree Farm License 42, is part of a project entitled Linking Forestry and Community: Lessons for
Aboriginal Forestry from the Tla 'zt 'en Nation. The research is sponsored by Forest Renewal
British Columbia. The Principal Investigator is Dr. Annie Booth (Environmental Studies
Program, UN BC). Dr. Gail Fondahl (Geography Program, UN BC) and Umit Kiziltan (Executive
Administrator, Tl'azt' en Nation) are the co-investigators. Research assistants for the project are
Christine Callihoo, Cheryl Pierre, and myself.
I am indebted to Yasmeen Qureshi and Linda Vandenberg and Associates for the work they had
done for the Tl'azt' en Nation in assembling and annotating Department of Indian Affairs files.
John Pousette (MOF, Prince George) and Phil Spencer (MOF, Fort St. James) gave generously of
their time to supply the operating areas data for Map 3.5. Charlie Klassen, (Timber Tenures
Branch, MOF, Victoria) and Cathy Proud (Access to Information Officer, MOF, Victoria) were
very helpful in providing me with copies of the Ministry ' s files on TFL 42. The maps were
created by Vemon Remesz.
I also want to thank my family and friends - in many ways they played a large part in making
these last two years successful and also enjoyable. Most importantly, I wish to thank Gail
Fondahl, my supervisor. Her enthusiasm for my work, her patience as my ideas were
developing, and her friendship were, for me, what made the research an:d the writing such a
perfect experience.

Vlll

NOTES

The Tl ' azt' en Nation
In the Carrier language, 'Tl' azt' enne' means ' people from the head ofthe lake '. This designation
is shared by five related Carrier villages in the Stuart Lake region. In the late 1800s the
Government considered the populations of these villages to comprise two Bands: the Tache
Band, made up of the villages of Tache, Pinche and Portage, and the Trembleur Lake Band, made
up of the villages of Kuzche and Middle River. Later each of the five villages were considered to
be a separate Band. Then, in 1959, the five Bands were amalgamated and became known as the
Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band. The Band changed its name to The Tl' azt' en Nations in 1987. (In
1993, the village of Portage left the Tl' azt' en Nation to become a separate Band- the Yecooche
First Nation.) Though it was not their official name until 1987, in this thesis I will refer to the
people from the head of the lake as either: ' The Tl ' azt' en', or 'the Band' .
Placenames
The English spellings of place names in Tl' azt' en territory have changed over time, and some
Tl 'azt' en villages also have several commonly used names. In the list below the village names
used in this thesis are given first, followed by alternate names and spellings.
Tache - Thatce, Tachie, Tachi.
Binche - Pintce, Pinchi, Pinche.
Portage - Nancut, Yekutce, Yecooche.
Kuzche- Grand Rapids, ' Kuztce, Grand Rapide.
Middle River - Dzitl'ainli, Gelangle, Trembleur Village.

Abreviations
Tl'azt'en NROC- the Tl ' azt'en Natural Resource Office Collections, Tache Village.
Tl'azt'en BOBC- the Tl ' azt' en Band Office Basement Collections, Tache Village.
BCARS - the British Columbia Archives and Records Service, Victoria.
TTB - Timber Tenures Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria.
GR- National or British Columbia Archives Record Group
DIA- Department oflndian Affairs and Northern Development
MOF -Ministry of Forests
PGE- Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company
BCR - British Columbia Railroad Company (POE changed its name to BCR in 1972)
TFL - Tree Farm License

IR - Indian Reserve

lX

Introduction.

In the early 1980s the Tl'azt'en Nation was granted a 54,000 hectare Tree Farm
License and thirty-five new Reserves. The acquisition of such substantial legal rights to land
by a First Nation was of considerable historical significance yet, like many stories of Native
geopolitical action this Century, it has not yet been told. Contrary to the assumption that
the geography of British Columbia has been shaped by non-native forces alone, this thesis
argues that the Tl'azt' en played a significant role in the creation of these new spaces in their
territory.
Chapter One discusses ideas about the nature of social space, and provides a review
of the literature on spatial change in British Columbia. The French philosopher, Henri
Lefebvre, suggested that every society -whether rural or urban, agricultural or industrialorganizes the territory, or produces the space, it occupies. Differences in economic, political
and social practices will result in different societies producing different spaces. However,
any particular society's space is also the product of a complex internal process characterized
by the mixing of different groups' spatialities. Drawing from Lefebvre's observation that
power is a key variable in this process, geographers have given attention to the way
dominant groups fashion social space. However, to a large extent, scholars have left
unexplored the geographies created or influenced by the less empowered. Lefebvre did argue
that multiple influences on the production of social space will produce a hybrid space-

2

hybrid in the sense that it is the combination of two or more influences, and also in the sense
that it is something new created from their interaction.
Chapter Two will trace geographic change in Tl ' azt' en territory between 1800 and
1968. The legal and economic spaces created in Tl' azt' en territory in this period were
influenced by pre-contact Tl ' azt'en social practices and by post-contact Tl'azt'en political
and economic activity. Tl ' azt' en power to organize and administer the land and resources of
their territory decreased gradually after contact but a significant aspect of the space of the
territory up to the early 1970s was the compatibility of Tl ' azt' en and non-native use. This
chapter contributes to our understanding of spatial change in Native territories in the midTwentieth Century -a period which has been neglected by historians and geographers.
However, the chapter is also intended to provide the context for a more in-depth study of
events in Tl' azt' en territory in the 1970s.
Chapter Three will show how, at a time when the Provincial Government's actions
were reconfiguring Tl ' azt' en territory to the greatest extent since contact, the Tl ' azt' en
found themselves with an opportunity to participate to some degree in the production of
this space. In negotiations resulting from the construction of a railway through seven of
their reserves, the Tl ' azt' en had the opportunity to create new legal spaces which reflected
the spatiality of their community. However, as the railway and the forest industry it served
brought profound change to the area, the Tl ' azt' en chose to also use the power of their
reserve land rights and threats of blockades to expand the scope of the negotiations in an
effort to challenge and shape the Government administration of their territory.
A negotiation process between two groups in a society may provide the best
opportunity to understand how social interaction produces hybrid spaces. Through the

3
course of negotiations the spatiality of each may be somewhat visible in what each attempts
to negotiate for. The outcome of the negotiations may also clearly reveal the extent of each
group' s influence. Chapter Four traces the negotiations from 1975 to their completion in the
early 1980s. To deal with the reconfiguration of their territory caused by the encroachment
of non-native development, the Tl'azt' en decided that, in addition to securing more lands as
Reserves, they should negotiate for timber rights. The Tl' azt'en struggled to keep the
Provincial Government at the negotiation table, but, fifteen years after the negotiations
began, a settlement was reached.
Chapter Five will describe how Tl ' azt'en spatiality was manifested in the hybrid
negotiated spaces created by the final agreement. The reserves the Tl'azt' en selected clearly
represent the diversity present within the Tl'azt'en community, and demonstrate the
community's desire to hold on to traditional activities and to be integrated with the outside
economy. Though they were constrained and influenced by the Euro-Canadian
administration of space, it was the Tl ' azt' en who created these reserves, and they reflect the
Tl ' azt' en community- a community with its own economic, social and therefore, spatial
identity. The Tl ' azt' en' s influence on the production of space is also manifested in the Tree
Farm License (TFL) they received. Their geopolitical action altered the Government's vision
of their territory to the extent that the Government granted them resources normally only
given only to large corporations, not communities. The negotiations also led to an
unprecedented integration of Provincial land and Federal Indian Reserve land for the purpose
of forest management. In both these ways the TFL is a hybrid space created through ·
negotiation- the Tl ' azt' en and the Government created the space of the TFL, and because of
this it is somewhat different from other TFLs in the province. The Tl ' azt'en did not get

4
everything they wanted from the negotiations, and the settlement was a reflection of their
political power at the time. The struggle over the production of space in the Tl'azt'en's
territory continues however. It also continues in the territories of many First Nations in
British Columbia and, whether it is manifested in reserves, a TFL, a co-management
arrangement, or in treaty settlement lands, negotiations over the production of space will
produce hybrid social spaces.

5

One.

1.0

The Production of Space and
the Geographies of British Columbia

Introduction

This chapter begins with a review of ideas about the social practices and social processes
which make and re-make the space of a society. I then discuss the work of geographers who
have been concerned with the history of spatial change in British Columbia. It is clear that
European constructions of space were imposed on Native territories, but the literature has
not adequately portrayed the complexity of this process. In particular, there is a need to
account for the continuing existence and influence of Native visualizations, administrations,
and uses of their territories. A more complex reading of the space of British Columbia is
possible if we consider the heterogeneous nature of social space, and recognize that through
economic and geopolitical actions, and through assertions of their own spatiality, Native
people have influenced the geography of British Columbia.

1.1

The Production of Space

Until the middle of this century it was often assumed that space and society were separate
entities which may have influenced each other in various ways, but which could be examined
and analyzed independently. ' More recently, however, scholars have argued that " [a]n
understanding of space in all its complexity depends upon an appreciation of social
processes ... [and] an understanding of the social process in all its complexity depends upon

1

Joe Painter, 1995 . Politics, Geography and Political Geography - A Critical Perspective. London: Arnold.
Page 20.

6
an appreciation of spatial form. " 2 Aware ness of this interdependence has informed inquiry
into the nature of space by turning attention to social practices. 3 As David Harvey
suggests, "[t]here are no philosophical answers to philosophical questions that arise over the
nature of space - the answers lie in human practice. " 4 One of the key social practices that
has been examined by scholars has been how societies engage in territorial organization. 5 A
Marxist philosopher, Henri Lefebvre, has perhaps most influenced this scholarship by
suggesting that "(social) space is a social product." 6
Lefebvre argued that a society produces space just as it produces identity, law or art.
His analysis focused principally on the development of urban form under Twentieth
Century capitalism. However, Lefebvre contributed what are considered foundational
concepts, and his work remains indispensable to understanding the politics of space in a
variety of contexts. 7 His central point is that the cultural, political and economic practices
of a society shape the territory it occupies.
Social practices are generally categorized as being material or discursive. Discursive
social practices are those that invest meaning in space through the way it is perceived,

2

David Harvey, 1973. Social Justice and the City. London: Edward Arnold. Cited in The Dictionary of
Human Geography. R.J. Johnston , Derek Gregory and David M. Smith (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell. Second
Edition ( 1986). Page 370.
3
Robert Sack, 1993. "The Power of Place and Space." The Geographical Review 83:328.
4
Harvey, Social Justice and the City, 444.
5
See, e.g., Michael Chisholm and David M. Smith (eds.), 1990. Shared Space, Divided Space: Essays on
Conflict and Territorial Organization. London: Unwin Hyman. For a consideration of how law modifies
space see Nicholas Blomley, 1994. Law, Space and the Geographies of Power. New York: Guilford Press.
For a discussion of the contemporary spatial organization of regions of the United States of America where
Indian tribes have both legal and traditional lands see Imre Sutton, 1991. "The Political Geography of Indian
Country." American Indian Culture and Research Journal 15(2): 1-35.
6
Henri Lefebvre, 1974. La production de I 'espace. Paris: Anthropos. Translated into English by Donald
Nicholson-Smith, 1991. The Production ofSpace. Oxford: Blackwell. Page 46.
7
Derek Gregory, 1994. The Dictionary of Human Geography, R.J. Johnston, Derek Gregory and David M.
Smith (eds.) Oxford: Blackwell. Third Edition, Page 482. Gregory makes a similar point in " Lacan and
Geography: the Production of Space Revisited." Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and
Postmodernity. Georges Benko and Ulk Strohmayer (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell. Pages 203-231.

7
named and defined. The construction of a space's image and identity is called visualization
by Lefebvre. Material social practices, on the other hand, are those that involve physical

interaction with spaces- what Shields calls "interventions in the landscape." 8 These would
include the use of nature, alteration of natural features, and the creation of "the built
environment." 9 I would suggest that a third category of social practices should be defined so
that attention is given to the important activities which are the interface between the
discursive and the material. This intermediary category includes those social practices that
translate discursive codes into a physical expression of social order. These include the
organization, allocation, and regulation of spaces, and what Lefebvre called 'planning' and
'surveillance'. I will refer to these kind of practices as administration. The social
production of space, therefore, involves three basic social practices: visualization,
administration, and use of land and resources.
Three other points made by Lefebvre are of interest here. Societies differ in their
forces of production (i.e. natural resources, labour, technology, and knowledge) and in their
relations of production (i.e. the class relations which determine who controls the forces of
production). Because these differences would mean that lands and resources are defined,
organized, allocated and used differently, Lefebvre points out that different societies produce
different spaces. Secondly, he also notes that since every society or "mode ofproduction
has its own particular space, the shift from one mode to another must entail the produt::tion
of a new space." 10 These points suggest that the production of space is a complex process

8

Rob Shields, 1997. "Sp(!tial Stress and Resistance: Social Meanings of Spatialization." Space and Social
Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity. Georges Benko and Ulk Strohmayer (eds.). Oxford:
Blackwell. Page 188.
9
Shields, "Spatial Stress and Resistance," 188.
10
Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 46 (emphasis added).

8

which is influenced by multiple actors and processes, and that social space is impermanent
and subject to continual reworking by social forces. Another point made by Lefebvre is that
if the production of space is inextricably social, it must be explored with questions about the
capacity of different sectors of society to influence the process. Thus, the inquiry into
"productive capacity or creative process leads us in many cases to political power." 11

1.2

Geographies of Power

Geographers first found application for Lefebvre's concepts in their studies of the economy
of the capitalist city. 12 However, more recently geographers have begun to specifically
explore the path opened up by Lefebvre into questions about power and agency in the
production of space. Many scholars now hold that " [g]eography is about power.. . [T]he
geography of the world is not a product of nature but a product of the histories of struggle
between competing authorities over the power to organize, occupy and administer space." 13
In part due to a recent "worldwide interest in contact processes, and in the strategies and
tactics of colonization," geographers have given more attention to the geographies of
domination and exploitation. 14
Power discrepancies in a society often result in the less empowered "living within
the world as constructed by the dominant group." 15 The dominant group in a society may
exert its power through the "monopolization of space and the relegation of weaker groups to

11

Lefebvre, The Production ofSpace, 116.
See, e.g. , Neil Smith, 1984. Uneven Development: nature, capital and the production of space. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
13
Gearoid 0 . Tuathail, 1996. Critical Geopolitics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Page 1.
14
Cole Harris, 1997. " Social Power and Culture Change in Pre-Colonial B.C." BC Studies 115 & 116:45.
15
Pamela Shurmer-Smith and Kevin Hannam, 1994. Worlds of Desire, Realms of Power: A Cultural
Geography. London: Edward Arnold. Page 125 .
12

9
less desirable environments." 16 These landscapes of exclusion, whether they be in South
Africa or in the capitalist city, support the basic premise that "the exercise of power over
people necessarily involves the creation of geographies." 17
However, critics have accused some geographers of being "preoccupied" with the
discourses and practices of dominant groups. 18 Scholars studying power relations of many
kinds have been guilty of representing social encounters with simplistic and stereotypical
dichotomies such as 'powerful subject/disempowered other'. 19 A simplistic view of social
relations has meant that in many cases scholars have written "imperial history" rather than
"spatial history." 20 By concentrating on the capacity of the more powerful, geographers
have failed to adequately consider the role of the less empowered in the production of space.
Analyses which oversimplify the power relations involved in the production of
space will distort the complexity of the social experience and, therefore, oversimplify and
inaccurately portray the nature of the space produced. In particular, there is a danger that
spaces produced in the midst of power discrepancies will be falsely portrayed as
homogenous and devoid of any internal difference, ambivalence, or contradiction. Accounts

David Sibley, 1995 . Geographies of Exclusions: Society and difference in the West. New York:
Routledge. Page ix.
17
R.J. Johnston, Derek Gregory and David M. Smith (eds.), 1994. The Dictionary of Human Geography.
Oxford: Blackwell. Third Edition, Page 364.
18
Vera Chouinard, for e.g. , makes this charge concerning Nicholas K. Blomley's Law, Space, and the
Geographies of Power. New York: Guildford Press. 1994. See her book review in Antipode 28(2):21 0.
19
See Lisa Law, 1997. "Dancing on the Bar: sex, money and the uneasy politics of third space."
Geographies of Resistance. Steve Pile and Michael Keith (eds.). New York: Routledge. Page 107.
20
This is the point made by Paul Carter, 1988. The Road to Botany Bay: An Exploration of Landscape and
History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Cited in Allison Blunt and Gillian Rose, 1994. " Women's Colonial
and Postcolonial Geographies." Writing Women and Space: Colonial and Postcolonial Geographies. A.
Blunt and G. Rose (eds.). New York: Guilford Press. Page 12.
16

10
which emphasize the homogeneity of space also leave little room for the potential existence
and influence of resistance. Alternatively, a recognition of ' difference' leads to a more
complex and accurate reading of space.

1.3

The Space That Difference Makes 21

Lefebvre did argue for a recognition of the roles ofboth powerful and less powerful
influences in the production of space. He suggested that every social space is the outcome
of a process in which many "contributing currents" combine? 2 He also went to great lengths
to describe how space was produced through the mixing of greater and lesser influences. 23
Recognition of the role of relatively smaller influences can result in insights not
generated by simplified representations of power. For example, Lefebvre was particularly
concerned with the influence of previous social practices on the present production of space.
He stated that "no space ever vanishes utterly, leaving no trace," and that some within a
society would "continue to experience space in the traditional manner." 24 The existence of
multiple actors and influences, Lefebvre argued, would result in the "intertwinement" and
simultaneous existence of multiple social spaces that " interpenetrate one another and/or

21

I borrow this phrase from Edward Soja, I 996. Third Space: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-andIm agine Places. Oxford: Blackwe ll. Page v. It should be noted that the concept of ' difference ' owes its
origin to the tactics of dominance and exclusion. To create and maintain the social divisions that are
advantageous to its continued empowerment and authority, the dominant group must first recognize and
construct the 'Other.' Yet, Homi Bhabha also views this recognition of ' difference' as one of the contradictory
and ambivalent moments of colonial power. For thi s reason ' difference ' is often seen by scholars as the origin
point of counter-hegemonic strugg le. See Blunt and Rose, " Women ' s Colonial and Postcolonial
Geographies," 12.
22
Lefebvre, The Production ofSpace, 109.
23
He elaborated on this point by say ing that "a fruitful analogy, it seems to me, may be found in
hydrodynamics, where the principle of the superimposition of small movements teaches us the importance of
the roles played by scale, dimension, and rhythm . Great movements, vast rhythms, immense waves- these
all collide and ' interfere ' with one another; lesser movements, on the other hand, ' interpenetrate' ... social locus
could only be properly understood by taking [these] two kinds of determinations into account. Lefebvre, The
Production of Space, 87.
24
Lefebvre, The Production of Space, I 64 and 79.

11

superimpose themselves upon one another." 25 Picking up on these ideas Edward Casey
states that even in the most hegemonic space, " [t]he heterogeneous in space is present as the
trace of historical as well as the prospect of the differential. " 26 Difference, therefore, will
often result in the production of a hybrid space - one that reflects the influence of multiple
sectors of a society.
Recent criticism of their overemphasis of the power of the dominant group to
produce space has prompted scholars to attempt balance the existing literature on the
'geographies of dominance' with increased attention to the ' geographies of resistance. ' 27
Critiques of Eurocentric perspectives have played a role in the development of this
literature. 28 However, as Matthew Sparke has noted, its development has largely been due
to a redefinition of the nature and location of power. 29 A more complex view of social
relations has led to a recognition that power is not only present in the hands of the
dominant, but exists at many sites, scales and levels within social relations. Geographers
have thus begun to give more attention to the intrinsic heterogeneity of space and to the
ambiguity and weakness present in a hegemonically produced space.

25

Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 86.
Edward S. Casey, 1998. "The Production of Space or the Heterogeneity of Place." The Production of
Public Space. Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith (eds.). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
Inc. Page 79.
27
See Steve Pile and Michael Keith (eds.), 1997. Geographies of Resistance. New York: Routledge ; Nancy
L. Poluso, 1995. " Whose Trees Are These: Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia."
Antipode 27(4):383-406; Lisa Law, 1997. " Dancing on the Bar: sex, money and the uneasy politics of third
space." Geographies of Resistance. Pages 107- 123; and Lynn A. Staeheli, 1994. " Empowering political
struggle: spaces and scales of resistance." Political Geography 13(5): 387-390.
28
See, e.g. , J.M. Blaut, 1993. The Coloniser 's Model of the World: Geographical Di.ffusionism and
Eurocentric History. New York: Guilford.
29
Matthew Sparke, 1998. "A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography and the Narration
of Nation." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88(3):465 . For many scholars, including
Sparke, Michel Foucault has made the principle contribution to a more sophisticated view of power.
26

12

According to J.M. Jacobs, the purpose of detailing stories of resistance has been to
give attention to the "previously repressed narratives" of the marginalized and less
powerful. 30 Lefebvre himself also recognized the potential existence and impact of deliberate
efforts of the subordinate against the dominant group in the production of space. 31 Yet how
have geographers suggested resistance and struggle occur within space or influence the
production of space? Steve Pile and Michael Keith argue that if the practices of the
dominant seek to produce spaces that reinforce their power, then "resistance seeks to
occupy new spaces, to create new geographies, to make its own place on the map." 32 This
is manifested in the way various social actors manipulate spaces to overcome scalar or
spatial barriers and constraints. 33 However, scholars have paid the most attention to how
weaker groups attempt to find or create "a terrain of struggle" in which to encounter the
dominant group. 34

0

J. M. Jacobs, 1997. "Resisting Reconciliation : The Secret Space of (post)Colonial Australia."
Geographies of Resistance. Steve Pile and Michael Keith (eds.). New York: Routledge. Page 202.
31
" Pressure from below must therefore also confront the State in its role as organizer of space, ... and its ability
to intervene in space can and must be turned back against it, by grass-roots opposition, in the form of counterplans and counter-projects designed to thwart strategies, plans and programmes imposed from above"
(Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 383). According to Gregory, Lefebvre was sensitive to the role of
resistance because part of the project of The Production of Space was to provide a critique of capitalism in
support of the 1968 popular uprising and student protests in France. His concern was that 'concrete space' (a
spatiality historically more connected to the body and 'everyday life ') had been 'colonized' and replaced with
' abstract space.' The twentieth century capitalist economy and state had colonized everyday life through the
practices of ' commodification and bureaucratization, planning, architecture, spectacle and r ill c ~ .
Lefebvre envisioned, and hoped for, a campaign of resistance to emerge which would be informed by counterdiscourses based in his ' metaphilosophy' , and which would take the form of counter-social practices
('festivals') more sensitive to the essential connection between human spatiality and the human body. See
Derek Gregory, 1993. Geographical Imaginations. Oxford: Blackwell. Page 395; and The Dictionary of
Human Geography, 482.
32
Pile and Keith, Geographies of Resistance, xi.
33
For examples of these types of spatial strategies see Lee Lucas Berman, 1998. "In Your Face, in Your
Space: Spatial Strategies in Organizing Clerical Workers at Yale."; and Robert Q. Hanham and Shawn
Banasick, 1998. "Japanese Labor and the Production of the Space-Economy in an Era of Globalization. Both
in Organizating the Landscape: Geographical Perspectives on Labor Unionism. Andrew Herod (ed.).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pages 203-224 and 99-119.
34
Staeheli, " Empowering political struggle," 387.
'

13
Drawing from cultural theorist Homi Bhabha, geographers have theorized the
potential existence of a site of resistance within the dominant group's discourse and
production of space. This site of resistance has been called ' third space' in a deliberate
attempt to oppose the reduction of social relations to binary categories. 35 Third space is
seen as a "fissure" in the dominant group' s production of space where contradictory social
meanings from the past can "erupt into the present. " 36 Third space is, therefore, "a space of
inbetweeness" in imposed spatial formations, where neither group is totally dominant and
social relations can be re-negotiated.37 The concepts of hybridity and third space suggest the
same conclusion: space produced under hegemonic conditions is complex, ambivalent and
unstable, and it "must be seen as both oppressive and enabling, filled not only with
authoritarian perils but also with possibilities for community, resistance, and emancipatory
change."38
The production of space is a social process and it should be conceptualized as more
complex than as being simply the work of the dominant. Difference within a society,
whether through its mere presence or its overt resistance to hegemonic conditions, may
influence a society ' s visualization, administration, and use of space. This would result in the
creation of a hybrid social space.

35

See Homi Bhabha and Victor Burgin, 1994. "Visualizing Theory." Visualizing Theory. Lucien Taylor
(ed.). New York: Routledge Pages 454-463 ; Edward Soja, 1996. Third Space: Journeys to Los Angeles and
Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Oxford: Blackwell; and Lisa Law, 1997. "Dancing on the Bar." : sex,
money and the uneasy politics of third space." Geographies of Resistance. Steve Pile and Michael Keith
(eds.). New York: Routledge . Pages 107-123 .
36
Gregory, " Lacan and Geography," 228.
'7
> Gregory, "Lacan and Geography," 228.
38
Soja, Third Space, 87. In fact for Homi Bhabha ' third space' is ' hybridity '. See Katharyne Mitchell,
1997. " Different Diasporas and the Hype of Hybridity." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
15 :536.

14

1.4

Spaces of Negotiation and Negotiated Spaces

One area where the role of difference in the production of a hybrid space may be most
recognizable is where two parties are engaged in negotiations over the administration and use
of land and resources. If one of the parties is relatively less powerful, it will employ various
political strategies to attempt to create a forum, or 'space of negotiation', where it will have
the opportunity to make its voice heard. Much of the literature has focused on the creation
of such political spaces of resistance, yet surprisingly few authors give any account of how
space is reconfigured as a result of these efforts. 39 This is partly attributable to the fact that
many authors are consciously more concerned with discourse than with material space. 40 It
is also true that not all social struggles are over land, but it does appear that analyses have
become preoccupied with abstract social processes and have been side-tracked from
documenting actual spatial forms. As Katharyne Mitchell states,
"the contemporary celebration of the disruptive qualities of diasporic identity,
hybridity, and third spaces is premature .. .it is the fetishization of these terms that
allows for their quick appropriation; in order to ensure more progressive meanings
the concepts must be historically and geographically located. This type of
theorizing, one which is embedded in specific histories and maps, enables a richer
comparative understanding of processes and events, and avoids the kinds of
slippages and abstract spatial metaphors so common to literary criticism and cultural
studies." 41

39

There are some accounts which show ' the space resistance makes' but they appear to be the exception rather
than the rule . See, e.g., Hanham and Banasick, "Japanese Labor and the Production of the Space-Economy in
an Era of Globalization." Though more concerned with the struggle itself, Ripmeester mentions spaces chosen
and created by Ontario Indians in resistance to the prospects of life within the constructed world of a Catholic
mission. Those who chose not to live at the mission chose lands that would become their Indian Reserves.
See Michael Ripmeester, 1995. '" It is scarcely to be believed ...': The Mississauga Indians and the Grape
Island Mission, 1826-1836." The Canadian Geographer 39(2):157-168.
4
° For an argument against this trend see Don Mitchell, 1996. The Lie of the Land: Migrant Workers and the
California Landscape. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pages 4-5.
41
Katharyne Mitchell, 1997. " Different diasporas ," 551. She is particularly critical of the work of Edward
Soja.

15
More attention should be paid to the spaces produced as outcomes of social
relations, rather than just to the spatial dimension of social interaction. Negotiations
between groups in a society give us an opportunity to identify and understand both the
social relations and the spatial outcomes. In negotiations over the production of space the
values and goals of each group are made visible in what each attempts to negotiate for. 42
Differences in the relative power of the groups may exist, but a negotiated agreement would
produce a hybrid 'negotiated space ' that reflects to some degree the modes of production
and spatial strategies of both groups.
There is a need to recognize that one group's ability to impose its spatial
organization on another is not as absolute as Ken Brealey or Cole Harris have suggested. 43
Instead social space is more often heterogeneous, and multiple influences 'intertwine' and
' interpenetrate' to produce a hybrid space. At certain times, the power of one group to
influence the production of space may be limited, but their spatiality may continue to exist
and to have the potentia] to re-emerge if the group gains enough political power. This may

(I ~\

be most visible where a typically less empowered group is able through poli ical efforts to
engage the dominant group in negotiations over the definition, the administration or the use
of lands and resources.
Lefebvre ' s concept of the Production of Space emphasizes the social practices and
social relations that create social space. It calls attention to the significance of political
power and encourages a recognition of the heterogeneity of space. The Production of Space,

42

See, e.g., Barbara Morehouse, 1996. " Conflict, Space and Resource Management at Grand Canyon."
Professional Geographer 48( 1):48.
43
See Cole Harris, 1995. "Towards a Geography of White Power: The Cordilleran Fur Trade." The Canadian
Geographer 39(2):131-139; and Ken Brealey, 1997. "Travels From Point Ellice: Peter O'Reilly and the
Indian Reserve system in British Columbia." BC Studies 115 & 116:182-236.

16
therefore, appears to be a useful tool for understanding the spatial history of British
Columbia and providing insight into: pre-contact Native spatiality and its persistence into
the modem era; colonial and post-colonial constructions of Native territories; Native
geopolitical action and contemporary spatiality; and, negotiations over the production of
space.

1.5

The Production of Space in British Columbia

The space now known as British Columbia was Native space- a space defined,
administered, and used by Native societies. The works of Cole Harris, Ken Brealey and
Daniel Clayton have explored the practices by which Europeans re-produced the geography
of this part of North America. 44 These authors trace how European spatial imagination was
introduced into Native spaces, first through discourse and cartography, later through the
institution of a new land administration, and also through European settlement and use of
lands and resources. By emphasizing the tactics by which geographic change was imposed
on, and negatively affected, Native people, this literature has made an important contribution
to our understanding of the construction of British Columbian spaces.
Yet these works often do not consider the possibly of Native influence on the
European production of space. 45 Harris' The Resettlement of British Columbia has been
criticized for not exploring how Native people "might have appropriated, transformed, or

44

See Cole Harris, 1997. The Resettlement of British Columbia: Essays on Colonialism and Geographic
Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press; Daniel Clayton, 1992. "Geographies ofthe
Lower Skeena." BC Studies 94:29-59; Ken Brealey, 1995. "Mapping Them Out: Euro-Canadian
Cartography and the Appropriation of the Nuxalk and Ts'ilhqot'in First Nations' Territories, 1793-1916."
The Canadian Geographer 39(2): 140-156; and Ken Brealey, 1997. "Travels From Point Ellice: Peter
O'Reilly and the Indian Reserve system in British Columbia." BC Studies 115 & 116:182-236.
45
See, especially, Cole Harris, 1995. "Towards a Geography of White Power; and Brealey, "Peter O'Reilly."

17
subverted the culture of the colonizers for their own purposes", and for not including more
"Native voices." 46 Similar omissions can be seen in the work of Ken Brealey.
The approach of these works stands in contrast to the recognition that historians
have given to Native agency. 47 A scarcity of sources which contain data on Native action for
earlier periods of British Columbian history are partly responsible for the lack of accounts of
Native influence on the production of space. However, it must be noted that the goal of
both Brealey and Harris has been to deconstruct readers' perspectives, and replace them
with a view of British Columbia as a space of injustice. To do this, they have emphasized
European power and suggested that Native power was insufficient to challenge and influence
geographic change.
Over-reliance on "official sources of data" is one of the principle reasons that authors
have discounted the actions and potential influence ofless empowered groups in society. 48
Harris tends to infer, with limited information from Native sources, that European imposed
geographic change caused widespread dislocation and disruption to Native societies in
British Columbia. In a more recent work, however, he admits that the lack of data has meant
that representations of the contact period are "preliminary and inconclusive. " 49

46

Tina Loo, Book Review of Cole Harris, 1997. The Resettlement of British Columbia: Essays on
Colonialism and Geographic Change. BC Studies 117:66
47
See, e.g., Robin Fisher, 1977. Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia,
1774-1890. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press; Arthur J. Ray, 1974. Indians in the Fur
Trade: Their Role as Hunters, Trappers and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660-/870.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press; and Robin Brownlie and Mary-Ellen Kelm, 1996. "Desperately
Seeking Absolution: Native Agency as Colonialist Alibi?" Out of the Background: Readings on Canadian
Native History. K. Coates and R. Fisher (eds.). Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman Ltd. Second Edition. Page
211.
48
Vera Chouinard, Book Review of Nicholas K. Blomley, 1994. Law, Space, and the Geographies of Power.
New York: Guildford Press. 1994. Antipode 28(2):21 0.
49
Cole Harris, 1997. "Social Power and Culture Change in Pre-Colonial B.C." BC Studies 115 & 116: 79.

18
Harris and Brealey have done much to bring to our attention the European influence
on British Columbia' s spatial form. Yet, as recognized elsewhere in the discipline,
geographers should do more to represent the complexity and ambiguity present in social
relations and, therefore, in the production of space. At a time when Native people are reasserting traditional territorial ownership, organization and place-names, accounts ofNative
influence on and resistance to the European production of space are informative.

1.6

Native Influence on British Columbian Space

Consideration of the influence ofNative people in the production ofBritish Columbian
space must begin with an appreciation of the pre-contact Native production of space. The
anthropologist E,N. Wilmsen has noted that Aboriginal peoples often "face an obstacle
uniquely applied to that classificatory status- the claim that they, alone among the peoples
of the earth, have no institutions in land." 50 What we must recognize instead is that, as
Bruce Willems-Braun has pointed out, "long before the contact period (from time
immemorial), First Nations peoples had clear conceptions of ownership, political authority,
and social and ecological responsibilities ... [a First Nation's territory was] a fully social and
politicallandscape." 51 It is even more important to recognize that Native visualization,
administration and use of spaces did not disappear after contact. Recent assertions of
traditional family and Nation territories by Native people also give credence to Lefebvre's

50

E.N. Wilmsen (ed.), 1989. We Are Here: Politics of Aboriginal Land Tenure. Berkeley: University of
California Press. Page ix.
51
Bruce Willems-Braun, 1997. " Buried Epistemologies: The Politics ofNature in (Post)colonial British
Columbia." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87(1 ):24.

19
statement that "[n]othing disappears completely ... In space, what came earlier continues to
underpin what follows. The preconditions of social space have their own particular way of
enduring and remaining actual within that space." 52 Accounts of how this has been true in
British Columbia are greatly needed.
Another step forward in our understanding of the production of space is to
deconstruct the assumption that European power to re-make the life-world ofNative people
was absolute, and that Native people were always negatively effected by European
generated change. For example, Harris makes an important observation when he points out
that, at first, the "geopolitical games" of mapping andre-inscribing Native space as European
space "took place elsewhere and, [prior to extensive settlement] had a negligible impact on
the people of the region." 53 Susan Marsden and Robert Galois ' s remarkably detailed
account of a Tsimshian Chief s efforts to organize his fur trading territories is evidence that
in some areas of British Columbia, Native organization of space continued to be the
organization of space for some time after contact. 54 We need to recognize that there was
great diversity in the nature and timing of contact and geographic change experienced by
different Native groups. More research into the experience of single Native groups is needed
to develop a fuller understanding of the actual impact of European imposed production of
space, and the way in which Native and European spatiality interacted in the period since
contact to produce the space of British Columbia.

~ Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 229.

53

Harris, "Social Power and Cultural Change," 66.
Susan Marsden and Robert Galois, 1995. "The Tsimshian, The Hudson ' s Bay Company, and the
Geopolitics of the Northwest Coast Fur Trade, 1787-1840." The Canadian Geographer 39(2): 169-183.
54

20
1.7

Creating Spaces of Negotiation: Native Geopolitical Action in B.C.

Marsden and Galois' account of the Tsimshian fur trade was successful in stripping away
some of the invisibility ofNative politics and strategies. Their work provided some
recognition of the potential for Native geopolitical action in the contact period, and showed
how Native goals were inscribed on the social landscape. Bruce Stadfeld, an historian, has
made a contribution to our understanding ofNative geopolitical action by detailing
encounters between Natives and non-natives over the definition and use of land in
Nineteenth Century British Columbia. He found that "the definition that resulted was often
dictated and shaped by these individual negotiations and conflicts; the land itself was
recreated to reflect these power struggles." 55 Yet, Stadfeld was more concerned with the
Native power to create spaces of negotiation, rather than with the actual physical spaces
which resulted from these encounters.
As Ken Coates and Robin Fisher have pointed out, very little has been written on the
experience ofNative people in the mid-Twentieth Century.56 Perhaps scholars have the
impression that what transpired in this period was only a ' playing out' of histories and
geographies determined in the previous period. Paul Tennant's work has certainly shown
that Native people continued to make history this Century (and I would argue that they also
continued to make geography). 57 Yet a significant gap still exists in our understanding of
what happened in the spaces of Native territories between the settlement period and the

55

Bruce Stadfeld, 1993. " Manifestations of Power: Native Response to Settlement in Nineteenth Century
British Columbia." M.A. Thesis, Department of History, Simon Fraser University. Page 60.
56
Ken Coates and Robin Fisher eds. 1996. Out of the Background: Readings on Canadian Native History.
Missassauga: Copp Clark Ltd. Second Edition. Page 2.
57
See three works by Paul Tennant: Aboriginal People and Politics: The Indian Land Question in British
Columbia, 1849-1989. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press; " Native Indian Political
Organization in British Columbia, 1900-1969: a response to Internal Colonialism." BC Studies 55 :3-50; and
"Native Indian Political Activity in British Columbia 1969-1983 ." BC Studies 57: I 12-136.

21

period of modern Native political activism (i.e. 1975). The power discrepancy that was
often present this Century between Native people and the Provincial Government and
industry is obvious in the experiences of the Cheslatta or the Tsay Keh Dene with hydroelectric developments. 58 In cases such as these, Native groups were unable to create a space
of negotiation where their influence could be incorporated into planning, and thus EuroCanadian constructions of space were imposed on Native people and their territories. In the
1970s, Aboriginal land use and occupancy mapping projects began making Native spatiality
more visible and, therefore, influential. 59 These type of studies, and the history of Tl' azt' en
territory described in Chapter Two, should help us recognize that the re-emergence ofNative
spatiality as a shaping force in British Columbian geography in the 1980s and 1990s is not
that surprising, given that Native visualization, administration, and use of space was never
totally dispatched or destroyed by the Euro-Canadian production of space.
Political power is the key variable which determines the ability of groups to influence
the production of space and, as Native political power has increased, Native resistance to the
Euro-Canadian production of space has grown significantly in British Columbia. Two recent
articles by geographers have dealt with this subject. Nicholas Blomley describes blockades
in British Columbia as an action which materially and symbolically challenge Government
ownership and jurisdiction and non-native use oftraditional Native space. 60 Blockades are
in fact an assertion of Native space, and an effort to influence the Euro-Canadian view of

58

See Mary Koyl, 1993. "Cultural Chasm: A 1960s Hydro Development and the Tsay Keh Dene Native
Community of Northern British Columbia." M.A. Thesis, Department of History, University of Victoria.
59
See, e.g., M.R. Freeman, 1976. The Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Project. Department of Indian and
Northern Affairs; and Hugh Brody, 1981. Maps and Dreams: Indians and the British Columbia Frontier.
Vancouver: Douglas and Mcintyre.
60
Nicholas B1omley. 1996. "'Shut the Province Down': First Nations Blockades in British Columbia
1984-1995." BC Studies 111:5-35.

22
that land. Their purpose is to create a space of negotiation where two visions of the same
space can be reconciled. Blomley' s article does not discuss what, if any, negotiations
resulted from blockades in British Columbia, or if negotiations resulted in the production of
hybrid spaces. Blomley does suggest that more research of such Native resistance on a case
by case basis is required.
Matthew Sparke has discussed the 1991 Delgamuukw court case during which two
representations of the same space (Euro-Canadian maps and Gixtsan and Wet'suwet'en
maps) were placed injuxtaposition. 61 Gixtsan and Wet'suwet'en spatiality, manifested in
place names, House territories, and resource use sites, challenged observers to rethink British
Columbia's official geography. Sparke is particularly interested in the Native strategy of
using legal action to challenge the legal system's own foundation, and using the non-native
technology of cartography against the state. 62 In the court room, the two historical
geographies stood in stark contradiction, and did not result in the negotiation of a
compromise. Though he concludes that the Gixtsan and Wet'suwet' en efforts to dismantle
the dominant production of British Columbian space failed, Sparke' s account captures the
power relations that produced that outcome.
Through various geopolitical efforts, Native people have begun to, as Brealey puts it,
"cast some doubt over the legitimacy of our own space." 63 Recently Native people have
done this by creating some powerful spaces of negotiation: "the space of Calder v. Attorney

61

Matthew Sparke, 1998. "A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography and the Narration
of Nation." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88(3):464.
62
For more on Native use of cartography in resistance to Government representations of space see Ken
Brealey' s forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia; and
Nancy L. Poluso, 1995 . " Whose Trees Are These: Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan,
Indonesia." Antipode 27(4):383-406.
63
Brealey, "Peter O ' Reilly," 235 .

23

General, Nisga'a AlP, of the blockades, and Delgamuukw v. BC, ... of the Sechelt Self
Government Act, and the British Columbia Treaty Commission."64 I would suggest that the
treaty negotiations which are now taking place in British Columbia are negotiations through
which Native lives and goals will be inscribed in space. Through these negotiations Native
visualization, organization and use of lands will to some degree be manifested in the
production of new hybrid spaces.
Yet an examination of spatial change in Tl'azt'en territory reveals that the Tl'azt'en
had a significant influence on the production of space prior to the contemporary period of
Native geopolitical action. As I have stated earlier, a more accurate perception of the
historical geography of British Columbia must begin with an appreciation of pre-contact
Native spatial organization, and its persistence outside and within the imposed EuroCanadian productions of space. Chapter Two will describe how European constructions of
space were introduced on top ofTl'azt' en space between 1800 and 1968, but remained
"suspended" (as Brealey has put it) because Tl'azt'en visualization, administration and use
of land continued. 65 Tl'azt' en spatiality was never fully suppressed and continued to be
influential in moments of political opportunity. The potential also existed for it to re-emerge
to influence the Government production of space to a greater degree if Tl' azt' en political
power should increase.
The social interaction involved in the production of social space is perhaps most
visible when two parties are negotiating the allocation and management of lands and
resources. Chapters Three, Four and Five will document the Tl'azt'en's negotiations with

64

65

Brealey, "Peter O'Reilly," 235.
Brealey, "Peter O' Reilly," 235.

24
the Pacific Great Eastern/British Columbia Railway and the Provincial Government between
1969 and 1984. An examination of this period shows clearly the nature and extent of the
Tl ' azt' en' s influence on the space of the territory. Through these negotiations the Provincial
Government's administration of the territory was altered, but not to the extent the Tl'azt' en
had hoped for. Nonetheless, Tl' azt'en social and economic goals were inscribed within the
spatial organization of the territory to a significant degree, and the space of the Final
Agreement was a hybrid which reflected the influence of both Euro-Canadian society and the
Tl ' azt' en.

1.8

Methodology

I was given the opportunity to study the history of the Tl ' azt' en and their territory because
of my involvement with a research project studying the Tl ' azt' en' s operation of Tree Farm
License 42. That research began with the questions: why did the Tl 'azt'en want timber
rights? and, what were their original expectations for their community forestry operation?
To understand the Tl ' azt' en ' s motivations and aspirations in the talks with the Government
which led to the granting of Tree Farm License 42, it was necessary to review all available
written sources on Tl' azt' en history, and also to conduct interviews with many Band
members. I was fortunate to be able to spend a lot of time in the community, and to even
live in Tache for two months. It is apparent to me that research into the experience this
Century of individual First Nations is required, rather than research done at arms length, or
with too much reliance on non-native written sources, or in a manner that would not uncover
inaccuracies in our assumptions ofNative/Non-native interaction. While studying the
process of political, economic and spatial change in Tl ' azt' en territory between the 1800s

25

and the early 1980s, I was always conscious of the current politics of space in British
Columbia, and it was my desire to write a thesis which linked the two. The theoretical
framework was chosen because I believed that it is applicable to any period ofNative
history- pre or post-contact- and because I felt that the ideas would also be well
understood by the Tl' azt' en.
Written and oral data are both the products of people who have incomplete and
limited powers of observation, and selective and fallible memories.66 The researcher must
also be aware that an oral and written record was produced in a specific context, including
the time it was written, the purpose, and the original intended audience of the record. The
information must be evaluated for validity (degree of conformity with other sources, i.e.
accuracy), and reliability (consistency with which an individual will tell the same story about
the same events on a number of different occasions). 67 Reliability is checked by doing
multiple interviews of same person, accuracy checked by consulting other sources and
comparing accounts.68 I did enough interviews to be able to check for validity. I did a few
second interviews but did not feel that more comprehensive tests for reliability were needed.
The literature on conducting interviews advises the researcher to be conscious of his
assumptions so that they are managed. Preconceived conclusions can result in the researcher
posing leading questions which can distort a respondent's account of the past. 69 Researcher
assumptions can also result in a narrow plan of questioning. I attempted to use open ended

66

Gary Okihiro, 1996. "Oral History and the Writing of Ethnic History." Oral History: An Interdisciplinary
Anthology. David K Dunaway and Willa K. Baum (eds .). Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Page 202.
67
Alice Hoffman, 1996. "Reliability and Valid ity in Oral History." Oral History, 89.
68
Valerie Raleigh Yow, 1994. Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. London:
Sage Publications. Page 21 .
William Cutler, 1996. " Accuracy in Oral Hi story." Oral History, I 02.

69

26
questions to decrease the potential for distorted answers, and to allow each respondent the
scope to develop the answers he or she chose. 70 I had an interview guide but I generally
asked the respondent to tell their own story, starting with their childhood. This was a
deliberate effort to allow the respondent to bring up those things from Tl 'azt' en history
which they thought were important or interesting. Obtaining a more complete life history
was also beneficial for placing specific events in context, and avoided projecting my own
perspective in the interviews by overly directing the subject matter. Because of this
approach, the interviews did not focus on the 1970s negotiations with the Railway and the
Provincial Government. But getting detailed information on the railway negotiations from
interviews was not as desirable or necessary because I had found written sources which
covered the dispute with the railway. This meant that I relied less on peoples' memories to
reconstruct events of the railway negotiations. Instead the interviews were used to
supplement the written sources, and to provide information on the earlier history which was
not recorded in either Government or Tl ' azt' en written sources. The interviews also
provided accounts ofTl' azt' en participation in the mining, freighting and forestry activities
in their territory that is not found elsewhere. The interviews produced information about
the nature and extent of the impact of non-native activities on Tl'azt'en activities.
Primary written sources were obtained from several locations. Sixteen Record
Groups at the Provincial Archives were searched for information concerning the history of
non-native activity in the area and relations between the Tl ' azt'en and non-natives. I found
little information at the Archives on the Tl ' azt'en. This research primarily helped
reconstruct the history of forestry activity in their territory. It was important to
70

Donald A. Ritchie, 1995. Doing Oral History. New York: Twayne Publishing. Page 68.

27
supplement this information about non-native activity with Tl'azt' en views of forest
development, and with information about Tl'azt'en involvement as wage labourers.
Additional data on Crown Grants and land transactions were obtained from the Land Titles
Branch, Ministry of Lands, Environment and Parks, Victoria. Documentation on the
Tl ' azt'en' s application for a TFL was obtained from the Resource Tenures Branch,
Ministry of Forests, Victoria.
A variety of contemporary and historical documentation, most notably a collection
of Department oflndian Affairs' files, was available at the Tl'azt'en Natural Resources
Office in Tache Village. The Band' s own files were contained at the Band Office, also in
Tache. Unlike other situations where the Native people did not document their experience in
their own writing, the Tl' azt' en produced and saved a large written record of their
negotiations with the Railway and the Provincial Government. 71 The most significant source
at this location was a considerable collection of the written record from the Band's fifteen
year negotiations with the Pacific Great Eastern/British Columbia Railway and the Provincial
Government. This collection included correspondence between the Band, DIA and the
railway company. More importantly the Band Office collection contained letters between
the Band and its lawyer, between Band members, and between the Tl'azt' en and other
Bands. It also provided transcripts of Band meetings and of negotiation meetings.
The written Tl ' azt'en sources, and the oral data, have allowed me to better document
how the Tl'azt'en's perceived their experiences than would be possible with only
Government sources. I have purposefully included many quotes from these sources in my

71

See Mary Koyl, 1993. " Cultural Chasm: A 1960s Hydro Development and the Tsay Keh Dene Native
Community of Northern British Columbia." M.A. Thesis, University of Victoria. Page 16.

28
account in an effort to not filter the Tl ' azt' en's words, and to make the point that the
Tl ' azt' en had a voice in these negotiations. Yet I should emphasize that my purpose is not
to present the events from multiple viewpoints, but rather I have used the Tl'azt' en sources
to uncover the Tl'azt'en' s role in the events.
I often refer to the Tl ' azt' en community as it were a single entity. As I have
described on Page ix, the identity of the Tl ' azt' en community is complex and evolving. It is
also wrong to assume that all Tl ' azt' en shared the same experiences and possessed the same
goals, or that the Tl'azt' en always acted in concert. I do not wish to oversimplifY the nature
of the Tl'azt'en community in my account. However, at many times in the events depicted
here the Tl ' azt'en community was unified in their experience and perceptions- the
Tl ' azt'en have probably never been as united in any matter as they were in their struggle
with the Railway. But it should also be noted that, as with any community, there exists a
diversity of interests and perspectives within the Tl'azt' en membership. This, in fact, is
recognizable in the variety of types of spaces the Tl' azt' en created in the events to be
described in the pages which follow.

29

Two.

2.0

Geographic Change in Tl'azt'en Territory to 1969.

Introduction

This chapter traces how the European production of space was introduced into Tl'azt'en
territory. This review of Tl' azt' en land history is intended to set the stage for a more in-depth
study of the period of 1969-1984. It is not intended to be an examination of cultural and
economic change ofthe Tl 'azt'en. 1 European modes of visualization, administration, and use of
space were gradually superimposed over Tl 'azt'en organizations and uses of space. Though
altered and constrained, Tl'azt'en spatiality was not erased or displaced. For a long time the two
geographies existed simultaneously with little conflict, and linkages between the two were
created.
As the non-native mode of production was instituted in Tl' azt' en territory (i.e. a
government directed property rights system), it was employed by the Tl'azt'en to gain
recognition and protection for lands and resources they valued. Tl'azt'en spatiality, which also
transformed somewhat along with their economy, shaped the creation oflegal spaces within new
production of space through various forums such as the Barricade Treaty, the Reserve
Commissions, and the registration oftraplines. However, we will see that an accurate portrayal

For more on these subjects see: A.G. Morice, 1892. "Are the Carrier Sociology and Mythology Indigenous or
Exotic?" Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada for the year 1892. Pages 109-128; Julian
Steward, 1941 . "Recording Culture Changes Among Carrier Indians of B.C." Exploration and Field Work of the
Smithsonian institute in 1940. Pages 83-90; Vernon Kabrinky , 1977. "The Tsimshianization of the Carrier
Indians." Problems in the Prehistory of the North American Sub-arctic: the Athapascan Question. Helmer (ed.). The
Archeology Association of the University of Calgary ; and Douglas R. Hudson, 1983. "Traplines and Timber:
Social and Economic Change Among the Carrier Indians of Northern British Columbia." Ph.D. Dissertation.
Department of Anthropology , University of Alberta.
1

30
of the history ofTl'azt'en space requires consideration of both their legal rights to land and the
geographies ofTl'azt'en wage labour and continuing off-reserve bush economy. The spaces recreated in Tl'azt'en territory this century were not simply non-native spaces, and opportunity
and power to produce space were not solely in the possession of non-natives. Through this
period Tl' azt' en power to control the production of space in the territory diminished
significantly, but it was only in the late 1960s that the Euro-Canadian production of space
reconfigured the territory in such a way the Tl'azt'en's off-reserve space was significantly
reduced.

2.1

Tl'azt'en Territory

The territory ofthe Tl'azt'en people is located in central British Columbia (see Map 2.1). It is
situated just north of present day Fort St. James in the forested uplands where the Nechako
Plateau meets the Omenica Mountains. The territory is centred on Stuart and Trembleur Lakes
and mostly lies within the Fraser River watershed.
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, Tl' azt' en territory was a fully social and political
landscape. The boundaries of the territory were recognized by the neighbouring Carrier groups:
Nak'azdli to the south and east, Takla to the north, and Babine to the west. The Tl'azt'en had
named the places and features around them, and they had organized the territory in keyohs
(family hunting and gathering grounds). Map 2.2 is an attempt to represent the way in which the
keyoh system organized the territory and distributed resource access rights among Band

Northern British Columbia
Map 2.1

\

\

---,._
N.W._T.

) ~,
'

\

\

--l

I
\

Legend
Provincial Highway
Tl'azt'en Traditional Territory

N

A

31
members. It also shows the Tl ' azt' en' s fi ve permanent village sites? The Map does not show
their numerous hunting and fishing camps, their trails, their gathering sites, nor the location of
their salmon weirs.
In order of importance the primary resources used by the Tl' azt' en in the 1800s were:
salmon, whitefish, char, small game, and berries.3 Large game became a major part of the
Tl ' azt' en' s diet when moose moved into the area in the early 1900s. Rights to resources were
controlled by two social institutions: the clan system and the balhats system. Under the clan
system "resources at the local level [for example, a fish weir site or beaver hunting area] were
owned by clan members in that village, but the clan system also provided a means for sharing the
resources of [different] local groups." 4 Conflicts between resource users and changes in the
ownership of keyohs or resource sites were regulated by the balhats system - a feast system
concerned with community structure, reciprocity, and wealth distribution. The Tl ' azt'en had
sets of rules governing access and use of resources: for example, hunting or gathering on another' s
keyoh without permission was a serious offense. 5 By their administration and use of the area
the Tl ' azt' en produced the space known as Tl ' azt' en territory.

For a di scussion of Tl' azt' en keyohs see Julian Steward, 1960. "Carrier Acculturation: the Direct Historical
Approach. " Culture in History: Essays in the Honour of Paul Radin . New York: Columbia University Press.
Pages 733-744. On Map 2.2 the organi zation of Tl' azt'en territory through the keyoh system has been suggested by
using contemporary trapline boundaries. Unfortunately the map therefore is not an accurate depiction ofTI ' azt' en
keyohs in the 1800s and it does not refl ect the existence of the clan system. Steward attempted to map keyohs in
the Stuart Lake region , but his research focused more on the southern end of Stuart Lake and his informants were not
Tl' azt' en, but Nak'azdli . I felt I should not use Steward 's map without further research and without further
consultation with the Tl 'azt 'en.
3
Hudson, "Traplines and Timber," 58.
4
Hudson, 'Traplines and Timber," 58.
5
Hudson, "Traplines and Timber," 55 ; and interview with Russell Alec (May 28, 1998).
2

~

•

•

Scale: 1:300,000

~

Tl 'azt'en keyohs have been
derived from contemporary
trapline boundaries.
N

•

•

O

Hudson's Bay Fort

Hudson's Bay
Freight Route

Tl'azt'en Keyoh

Tl'azt'en Village

.. •

,

•

~

'

....

"\..

~,

'-

~

•

....

...

~

-'"'

'-.

.. .. _....--

-

.. .,.
,

•

Map 2.2

..

'l.J~ kor,

•
.'·
....

~

~'-'

- ..

Tl'azt'en Territory
1800's
~...

.

~,

..

:

..~

•

I

..

..

:.

: •#

.

_.,.
r

/

.. •

•

,

-

~ c\.

-

- ~

·········· \0 '\

• _,..

C"J
Q.

.

L

... a

- -'j·

...... :...... ~ .

·

.. -

.

.

••
•

•

..
Fort St. James

.·,.

..,..

..

.

. to the Omenica
gold fields
:'

,. :

:.-;;,.
.

~

I-~~ ..

.

.

. ...

.. .. . ...... .. ...

.. ...

.

32
2.2

The Fur Trade and the Omenica Gold Rush

In 1806,just south ofTl'azt'en territory at the outlet of Stuart Lake (Nak'al bun), Simon Fraser
founded a fur trading post which became the administrative centre for the trading district known
as New Caledonia. 6 About the time when the Hudson's Bay Company took over the North
West Company in 1821, the post at Stuart Lake was given the name Fort St. James. As the
Tl'azt'en began to trade furs and obtain goods at the Fort it produced some realignment of the
Tl'azt'en's yearly round and seasonal movements. This was augmented by the establishment of
a Catholic mission near the Fort in 1873. 7 Thus a pattern emerged whereby the Tl'azt'en lived
in relative isolation up the lake but accessed the resources and opportunities of the Fort, the
Mission, and the settlement of Fort St. James. 8
While the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) built forts and trading posts in the interior to
introduce a new mercantile economy into Native space and to divert the flow of furs away from
other European buyers on the coast, the fur traders at Fort St. James recognized the Tl'azt'en's
"clear control of resources at the local level. "9 The fur traders deliberately allowed the fur trade
to operate within the Tl'azt'en's existing keyoh system. 10 The handful of Europeans stationed
at Fort St. James had neither the ability nor the reason to impose a new administrative structure
as the Tl'azt'en's own socio-spatial organization could be used to produce the furs the HBC
needed. 11
6

Other HBC posts in New Caledonia included: Fort McLeod on McLeod Lake, Fort Fraser on Fraser Lake, Fort
George on the Fraser River, Fort Kilmaurs/Fort Babine on Babine Lake, and Fort Connelly on Bear Lake.
7
William O' Hara, 1992. "A Permanent Mission At Stuart Lake." The Beaver 72(2):42.
R For the comments of Justa Monk on the role of trips to Fort St. James in life of the Tl'azt'en community see
Bridget Moran , 1994. Justa: A First Nations Leader. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press. Pages 12-14.
9
Hudson, "Traplines and Timber," 85.
1
° For an understanding of how the HBC actively used the existing social organization of the Stuart Lake Carriers see
Donald Harris and George Ingram, 1972. "New Caledonia and the Fur Trade." Western Canadian Journal of
Anthropology 3( I): 179-195; and F. E. Klippenstein, 1996. "The Challenge of James Douglas and Carrier Chief
Kwah." Reading Beyond Words: Contexts for Native History. Jennifer Brown and Elizabeth Vibert (eds.).
Peterborough: Broadview Press. Pages 124-151.
11
As Fisher has stated "fur traders occasionally contemplated modification of Indian customs, but they lacked the
power and, ultimately , the will to effect such changes." Robin Fisher, 1977. Contact and Conflict: IndianEuropean Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Page 47.

33
However, Tl'azt'en socio-spatial organization was clearly now being influenced by
external European actions and European economic forces. The HBC established some of its own
infrastructure and attempted to gain power in the economy of the region. 12 In addition, when the
trapping economy became established, the harvest of summer salmon was no longer the single
dominant activity in the Tl'azt'en communities. The Tl 'azt'en mode of economic and spatial
production was, therefore, altered as keyohs became more significant relative to fishing sites, and
power structures within the communities were re-aligned. 13 As Fisher points out "[ c]learly the
fur trade brought change to Indian society, and yet it was change that the Indians directed and
therefore their culture remained intact." 14 The space of the fur trade in Tl'azt'en territory then
cannot be classified as either European or Native, but rather was a hybrid product ofTl'azt'en
socio-spatial organization and exogenous European influences.

12

While there were elements of the fur trade which could be characterized as co-operation, the interaction between
Native trappers and non-native fur buyers was also competitive. In particular, European Fur traders tried to tie
Native trappers to particular trading posts by offering credit and gifts. However, "the Carriers were able to remain
independent of both the need for trapping and the goods at the posts because of the dependence of the traders on the
CatTiers for fish and labour" (Hudson, "Traplines and Timber," 89). HBC attempted to reduce the Carrier fishing
monopoly by establishing its own whitefish fishery on Cunningham Lake (Yeko bun) in 1827, and by putting a
Company post at the north end of Babi ne Lake (Nado bun) in the early 1820s to access salmon from the Skeena
River system. Thereafter large amounts of salmon were transported from Babine Lake to Fort St. James (with
Tl'azt'en labour). Later, in the 1880s, a paddle wheeler service began bringing provisions from the coast up the
Skeena to Hazelton. From Hazelton supplies were transported with pack horses and a sloop to the head of Babine
Lake. Tl' azt' en people transported the freight over a portage to Stuart Lake where another boat would take it on to
Fort St. James. (See Map 2.2) With the institution of this supply link Fort St. James became "virtually
independent" of local Native food production. Prior to this HBC traders had difficulty lowering fur prices because
Native trappers would collectively refuse to sell them dried fish unless the fur price was acceptable to Native
trappers. This occurred at least twice ( 1835 and 1848). Hudson, "Trap lines and Timber," 89-90.
13
Access to salmon in the Tl' azt' en communities was controlled by leaders of the matrilineal clans, but when the
fur trade raised the level of importance of trapping, the power of these leaders began to diminish in favour of the
patrilocal groups who came to control the trapping territories. Later, Indian Agents, the Indian Act and the teaching
of mi ssionaries further undermined the system of matrilineal inheritance of resource access rights. Hudson,
"Traplines and Timber," 85 and 152.
1
~ Fisher, Contact and Conflict, 47. For an account of how Native trappers controlled and restructured their trapping
territories see Susan Marsden and Robert Galois, 1995. "The Tsimshian, the Hudson's Bay Company, and the
Geopolitics of the Northwest Coast Fur Trade, 1787-1840." The Canadian Geographer 39(2): 169-183.

34
Omenica Gold Rush
In 1863 gold was discovered north of Tl' azt' en territory in the Omenica Mountains. Some
miners reached the Omenica by traveling through the heart ofTl'azt'en territory: from Fort St.
James miners went up Stuart Lake (Nak'al bun), Tache River (Duldli koh), Trembleur Lake
(Dzinghu bun), Middle River (Yoono' koh) and Takla Lake to Takla Landing, where a trail led
east into the Omenica watershed. By 1871, at the peak of the Omenica rush, enough miners were
passing through Fort St. James to warrant opening an overland route. 15 The new trail went
directly north from Fort St. James and only briefly crossed Tl'azt'en territory near Cripple Lake
(see Map 2.2). Activity began to decline after 1871 and by 1876 the gold fields were almost
deserted. 16
Though the trading post, and the mercantile economy it introduced, were new realities in
Tl ' azt'en territory, and though Europeans began crossing Tl'azt'en territory, they had not yet
claimed or attempted to directly administer Tl'azt'en space. The fur trade and the gold rush may
have created some new transportation routes, increased access in and around Tl'azt'en territory,
and resulted in economic interaction between Europeans and the Tl'azt'en. But this period saw
Europeans only move through Tl'azt'en organized space- they had yet to institute a
comprehensive new spatial order in the territory.

15

Arne K. Carlson and Lesley S. Mitchell, 1997. "Cultural Heritage Review of a Portion of the Fort Saint James
Forest District B.C." Report Prepared for the Ministry of Forests by Traces Archaeological Research and
Consulting Ltd.
16
Audrey Smedley L'Heureux, 1989. Fort St. James- From Trail to Rail: Vol.J Surveys and Gold 1862-1904.
Page 39.

35

2.3 Indian Reserves -The First Non-native Organization of Tl'azt'en Space
18 71 Reserves
Indirectly however, the Omenica gold rush was the catalyst for the first articulation of an
exogenous vision ofTl ' azt' en space. It was often the Colonial and Provincial Government's
practice to create Indian reserves at such time as the settlement or development of an area was
anticipatedY The passage of miners through Fort St. James and the use ofthe waterways in
Tl ' azt' en territory suggested the need to reserve some lands for the Tl' azt' en. In 1871 , en route
to the Omenica to perform his duties as Gold Commissioner, Peter O'Reilly established the
boundaries for three Tl ' azt' en reserves at the villages of Grand Rapids, Tache and Pinche (see
Map 2.3). However, the anticipated settlement of miners in the region did not materialize and
instead, in the late 1870s and 1880s, the region became less, rather than more of a focus of nonnative activity. 18
Explorations commissioned by the Provincial Government, such as that ofN.B. Gauvreau
in 1891 , signaled the Government's desire to see the territory brought into 'use'. 19 A
comprehensive survey of travel routes, resources, and settlement potential was published to
attract to the region settlers who could be agents for the Government in the transformation of
Tl ' azt' en territory into the space of British Columbia. The Provincial Government also hoped
that the announcement in the late 1880s of plans to build the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
would encourage settlement and development in New Caledonia. 20 The proposed railway
renewed Government anticipation of an influx of settlement in the region, and in 1892 another
allotment of Indian Reserves took place.
Robert E. Cail , 1974. Land, Man , and the Law: The Disposal of Crown Lands in British Columbia, 1871-1913.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Page 189.
18
L' Heureux , 1989. Fort St. James. 35 . For reason s why Fort St. James lost some of its importance see Harris
and Ingram, "New Caledonia and the Fur Trade," 188.
19
Province of British ColumBia, "Exploration Survey of New Caledoni a: Report of N.B. Gauvreau. " Crown Land
Surveys, 189 I .
20
Hudson, "Traplines and Timber," 122. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway route which connected Prince George
and Prince Rupert passed well south ofTI'azt'en territory . It was constructed between 1909 and 1914.
17

,.. J

4

~

'

•

.....

,.

,

•

..

...

•

~

,

D

-

~ >-----+--.J.----.1----'

•

.

• _.

6

-.

'

• I

~.

.
.

~

Map 2.3

..

'\

••

•

1871- 1926

Tl'azt'en Reserves

) F

Whitefish Lake IR6 L.....[___J.--+-------1

•

nd Rapids IRS

..,.,

...

.'\
Stevan IR4
.,

•Soyandostar IR2

........._

-•

...

.

~

,
~I

""""-

"'

,.,

~~
•

... -

f

'

..

...

•I

.

~

iJ J~ ~- 1

ron IR9

' ..

Scale 1 : 200,000

I Private Land 1926

Surveyed Crown Land

1926 Allotment

191 6 Allotments

191 5-1 6 Applications

191 1 Applications

1898 Allotments

18 71 Allotments

LEGEND

, :=1 .,

,.

I

~

N

D

I

----

IRl 0

I

•

~

36
1892 Reserves
In 1892 O'Reilly significantly enlarged the Tl'azt' en's three existing reserves, and granted them
seven new reserves (see Figure 2.1 and Map 2.3). We do not know how much input the
Tl ' azt'en had in choosing the location or size of these reserves. The arbitrary and artificially
straight boundary lines were products of a non-native mode of spatial organization. Yet to the
extent that they contained sites already used by the Tl ' azt'en, the reserves are at least a
reflection of Tl' azt' en spatiality.21
Tl'azt'en Reserves

1871
Allotment

1892
Allotment

1898
Survey

Purpose

.I!:.~h.~J~L ...................................................... .1.1-Q..............................!.?.~. ........................... ..1.§.?.~....................... .Y.. J.~ .~!.f.!.~~~ ..
..r.!.~~~.~}~......................... .............................?..?.Q................................~~. .............................. ?.?..~....................... .Y.. J.~ .~!.f.!.~~~ ..
..J:':l.~!).~~ .~~ ............................................................................................19.Q.............................}?.?:........................Y..~!.J.~ .~!.f.!.~~~ ..
.Y.~~!:I.~.!~Y..J.~1........................................................................................1§.?............................... : 1~.....................f.~~.~. . ~~~~ ..
.~.~~~.?.~.?.~~~.. !.~?.................................................................................... ..l.~. ...............................!.t:± .........t!.':!!).~ !) f.f..~~h.~!)J!i..~.~!!:l:P...
.9.~!.':1 !~. ~.!.........................................................................................?.~. .. ............................2.1~........................Y..~!.J.~ .~!.f.!.~N!:l: ..
..~~. .~.~.~9.~!~~ ..~~....................................................................................?J.................................11. ......... t!.':!!)~ .f. ~h.~!) . .~! P...
.I.~.~~.!~.~.. L~~ ...........................................................................................t.!.?...............................?.?.~......... .H.~!)~! .f. ~h.~~Ei..~.~!!:l:P...
..~~.~.~!:.~}~: ........................ ...................................................................... :±§.. ...............................1?.......... .H.~!).~ .f. ~h !)J!i. .~! P...
.9.~~!)9..~.':1.P.!.~~ ..~~.?........... ...............................1-Q................................§QQ.. ............................ ~.~~........................Y..i.!.J.~ .~!.f.!.~~~ ..
Total

930

4,807

5,199

Figure 2.1 Tl'azt'en Reserves 1871-1898
Note: In all cases except Pinche IR2, the differences in acreage between the 1892 allotment and the 1898 survey are
due to inaccuracies in O' Reilly' s field estimates. In the case ofPinche IR2 the difference resulted because the
surveyor appears to not have followed the instructions O ' Reilly gave in his 1892 Minutes of Decision. (See Specific
Claims Documents, Tl ' azt ' en NROC).

Despite the fact that the reserves projected a new exogenous visualization ofTl'azt'en
territory (most importantly they implied Crown ownership of the territory), their demarcation
did not immediately result in actual changes in the way Tl ' azt' en used the lands and resources of

21

As defined in Chapter I, a group ' s 'spati ality' refers to the way they visualize, administer and use space. By this
time the Tl' azt' en economy was beg inning to include animal husbandry and gardening. The Government encouraged
and accommodated the further development of a sedentary lifestyle by providing larger tracts of land around villages,
but mainly the new reserve locations reflect the fact that the Tl'azt'en' s economy was still dominated fi shing,
hunting and trapping.

37

the territory. There was little or no non-native presence in Tl ' azt'en territory and little or no
competition for game resources and land. The land on both sides of the reserve boundaries
continued to be functional Tl'azt'en spaces. Provincial Government and Tl'azt'en visions ofthe
territory would continue to exist simultaneously until Euro-Canadian social practices of
administration and use could be introduced.

2.4

The Introduction of Government Administration, 1900-1926

Blomley states that a property regime involves two elements: "the categorization and
organization of space whereby every space is known, named and positioned," and "the
establishment of rules of interaction by which space can be used, shared and appropriated." 22
The Tl'azt'en's reserves were the first building blocks of the Euro-Canadian property rights
system in Tl'azt' en territory, but they did not have immediate or very significant effects on
Tl ' azt' en mobility or land use . However, in the early 1900s, several Euro-Canadian institutions
began to extend their influence in Tl'azt'en territory, and for the first time introduced a new order
into Tl'azt'en lives and space.
It was Catholic missionaries who first put in place an exogenous system of administration

on the Tl ' azt'en. The priests installed Band members as ' church chiefs' and 'church policemen'
in each Tl'azt'en village to regulate behaviour during the absence of the priest? 3 The priests also
acted as liaisons between the Carrier of the Stuart Lake region and the Provincial and Federal

22

Nicholas Blomley, 1997. "The Properties of Space: History, Geography, and Gentrification." Urban Geography
18(4): 286.
23
O'Hara, "A Permanent Mission At Stuart Lake," 39.

38
Governments by providing information needed by the Governments and by petitioning on behalf
of the Carrier concerning hunting, fishing and trapping issues. 24
After the colony of British Columbia joined the Dominion of Canada in 1871 the Federal
Government moved to assert its jurisdiction in British Columbia. In 1884 it brought in legislation
forbidding Potlatching, one of the means through which many Native groups in British Columbia
transferred title to land and resources and resolved internal resource disputes? 5 In 1890, the
Federal Department oflndian Affairs (DIA) established an Indian Agency in Hazelton which
would be responsible for a large region which included Tl'azt'en territory. In 1910, DIA set up
the Stuart Lake Agency to deal with Stuart and Fraser Lakes region. Its office was located in
Fraser Lake. DIA began to assert control in the region in the administration of Indian Reserve land,
Band political structure, and many other aspects of Native lives. 26

Game Laws
Indian Agents along with the RCMP were responsible for ensuring Native compliance with laws
and regulations concerning hunting, fishing and trapping. Letters written by chiefs in the region
and other documents suggest that Carrier were aware of the game laws that were being put in
place, and that they were concerned about some of the regulations. It is also clear that they felt
they had to comply with the new administrative institutions (the motivation behind their

24

See for example "Correspondence, 1903, with Indian Superintendent Protesting on Behalf of the Carrier Indians"
and "Correspondence, 1919-1920, with Premier John Oliver, Protesting on Behalf of the Carrier Indians" by A. G.
Morice. Tl'azt'en NROC.
25
Peter Dimitrov, 1986. "An Investigation of the Carrier-Sekani Registered Trap line System." Report prepared for
the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. Page 17. Tl'azt 'en NROC.
26
For a discussion concerning some of the ways which the Indian Act constrained Indian mobility and economic
opportunity see Evelyn Peters, 1997. "Challenging the Geographies of 'Indianness' : The Batchewana Case." Urban
Geography 18(1 ):55-61.

39
petitions to the Government was to make compliance more tolerable). 27 Game laws were a
significant agent in turning Native space into Government space, yet the written records indicate
that through petitions and protest Native people did have an influence on the way the laws were
drafted and instituted. It is also clear that in the late 1800s and early 1900s priests and Indian
Agents were conscious that they were dealing with the co-existence of Carrier law and Provincial
law. They used Carrier law in fact on numerous occasions in their handling of resource and
justice issues. 28 In this period European administration began to touch aspects ofNative lives
but certainly it was not did not immediately erase Native administration.

The Barricade Treaty
In the early 1900s an increasing coastal fishing industry began putting a strain on salmon stocks.
This caused the Federal Marine and Fisheries Department to prohibit the Native practice of
constructing fish weirs to catch salmon on interior rivers, claiming that it prevented too many
salmon from reaching the spawning grounds. In 1911 the Tl'azt'en, along with the Nak'azdli,
entered into an agreement known as the Barricade Treaty with the Department to not use fish
weirs in the rivers in exchange for three forms of compensation: 1) the right to fish with nets in
lakes; 2) that nets, farming implements and seeds be supplied annually by the Federal
Government to each Tl'azt'en family; and 3) that sites used as bases for fishing for whitefish and
char be granted to them as reserves. In the agreement neither the number nor the location of the
new reserves was specified. Within a year the Tl'azt'en requested three new reserves under the

27

For letters written by Carrier chiefs in Nechako Plateau and Stuart Lake Region see RG 10, Volume 6735, File
420-3 . Tl'azt'en NROC. This file contains only one letter signed by a Tl'azt'en chief. See also "Correspondence,
1903, with Indian Superintendent Protesting on Behalf of the Carrier Indians" and "Correspondence, 1919-1920, with
Premier John Oliver, Protesting on Behalf of the Carrier Indians" by A. G. Morice. Tl'azt'en NROC.
2
R See Joanne Fiske, 1997. "From Customary Law to Oral Tradition ." BC Studies 115-116:274-275.

40
Treaty (see' 1911 Applications' on Map 2.3), but the Government postponed dealing with these
requests until the McKenna-McBride Commission examined the Tl'azt'en's reserves in 1915. 29
The Barricade treaty was a significant event in the establishment of Government control
and administration over Tl'azt'en resources and space. While ultimately the Tl'azt'en may not
have had the power to be able to continue to use the fish weirs, the Government gave
considerable recognition to the Tl'azt'en's use of the salmon resource, and this led to the need to
find a negotiated solution. 30 There may have been a power discrepancy between the two groups
but the process of negotiation created a new space of fishing in Tl' azt' en territory. It cannot be
said that it was either entirely a Tl'azt'en space or entirely an Government imposed spacerather it was a hybrid space. First, the Barricade Treaty saw the Government agree to something
it rarely allowed - fishing with nets in lakes. This agreement also considerably changed the
location of Tl' azt' en fishing.
The agreement specified that the Tl'azt'en would from then on net salmon in Stuart Lake
rather than catch them with weirs on rivers and streams, and the agreement also made the
Tl'azt'en rely more on other species besides salmon. Now that they had nets the Tl'azt'en
began spending two or three weeks in the fall fishing char on the rock shelves which surrounded

The same three parcels did not appear in the Tl'azt 'en's reserve applications at the 1915-16 Commission hearings,
but the Tl'azt'en did request six parcels which were at least partly used as fishing bases. Five of these applications
(Whitefish IR6, Eagle Creek IR6, Tezzeron IR8, Pinche IRlO, and Cunningham IR11) were granted, and one
(Tezzeron IR9) was granted but later 'disallowed' by the Dictchburn and Clark Reserve Commission in 1923.
Government records and interviews with Band members indicate that the Government did not supply the promised
seeds and farming implements, and only provided nets to the Tl'azt'en for one or two years after the agreement was
executed. The failure of the Government to fulfill these provisions of the treaty and to grant the 1911 requests for
fishing station reserves is currently the subject of a Specific Claim. "Barricade Treaty", Documents Compiled by the
Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. Tl'azt'en NROC. See also interview with Jimmy Monk (September 18, 1998).
30
Documents surrounding the negotiations clearly show that the terms of the agreement were not imposed on the
Tl'azt'en , and that they held considerable power to negotiate the terms. For an argument that the Barricade
Agreement was an early recognition of First Nations fishing rights see Barbara Lane, 1978. "Federal Recognition of
Indian Fishing Rights in British Columbia: The Fort Fraser Agreement of June 15, 1911 , and the Fort St. James
Agreement of June 19, 1911." Report prepared for the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. TI'azt'en NROC.
29

41

the many islands in Stuart Lake. Though the government allowed this practice, the Tl'azt'en
continued to control the management of fishing locations at the local level. Families or individual
Band members came to ' own' certain islands, and this ownership was passed down by
inheritance. 31 The space of hunting, trapping and fishing was being deliberately changed by the
Government during the first part of the Twentieth Century through the introduction of new laws
and regulations but, to at least some degree, it was influenced by Native protests or through
direct negotiations.

Crown Land Survey and Land Sales
Besides those at the HBC and the Mission, and occasional prospectors, in the early 1900s there
were few whites in Stuart Lake region. 32 The south end of Stuart Lake was one ofthe first
places to be occupied by Euro-Canadians in Western Canada. Yet because it was mainly forest
land and had a short growing season, it remained one of the last regions to be extensively settled
by non-natives. 33 Up to this time only coarse maps had described the area, but in 1911 a survey
produced the first detailed map of the Stuart Lake region. 34 The survey made Tl'azt'en space
considerably more visible to the Government: it was a deliberate effort to organize and extend
administrative control over the area.
The 1911 survey also superimposed a grid of lots on the parts of the territory which the
Government wished to make available for pre-emption (see Map 2.3). Up to 1910, in the area

31

Interview with Jimmy Monk and Frank Duncan (September 17, 1998).
Audrey Smedley L'Heureux, 1989. Fort St. James - From Trail to Rail: Vol.2 Settlement Begins, 1905-1914.
Page 3.
33
Hudson , "Traplines and Timbers," 55.
34
See British Columbia Government Department of Lands, "Pre-emptor's Map-Stuart Lake Sheet 1913." Tl'azt'en
NROC.

12
·

42
shown on Map 2.3 (excepting the immediate vicinity of the village of Fort St. James), there were
only 7 lots which were privately owned. However, construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific
Railway between 1909-1914 triggered a land boom along the rail line, and throughout the
N echako region. 35 The 1911 survey of Crown lots facilitated a wave of r -

t~

and, by

1912, there were 125 privately owned lots in Tl' azt' en territory. Yet these alienations of Crown
land were very speculatory in nature- with most of the land holders never coming to use, or
even to see the land they purchased - and a significant percentage of the lots reverted to the
Crown within two or three years of purchase. By 1926 there were only 45 private lots in
Tl'azt'en territory, some of which are shown on Map 2.3. 36 Actual non-native settlement and
land use in the area continued to be very limited, and mostly on the fringes ofTl'azt'en territory.
It appears that any disruption and dislocation of the Tl' azt' en caused by the acquisition of land

in Tl' azt' en territory by non-natives was considerably less in extent than that experienced by
other Bands. 37

The McKenna-McBride Commission.
At the McKenna-McBride Indian Reserve Commission hearings in 1915 and 1916 the Tl'azt'en
applied for nine new reserves. Six of the Tl ' azt' en' s applications were granted in 1916. The

35

Hudson, "Traplines and Timbers," 128.
I was not able to show all of the privately held land because in several cases the lot numbers in the Crown Land
Register have been changed by re-survey and I was unable to locate them . It should be noted that some of the
parcels shown on Map 2.3 are divided between several owners. I obtained the data for private land holdings from the
manual registers of the Crown Lands Registry Division, Surveyor Generals Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks, Victoria.
37
Some of the Wet'suwet'en people, for example, experienced considerable dislocation and loss of opportunity when
white settlers pre-empted land in their territory. See Maureen and Frank Cassidy, 1981 . Proud Past: A History of
the Wet'suwet ' en of Moricetown B. C. Moricetown : Moricetown Indian Band.

36

43
seventh reserve granted by the Commission was land not desired by the Tl ' azt'en, and the
Tl'azt'en had it replaced in 1926 by a parcel in a different location (see Map 2.3 and Figure
2.2).38
Tl'azt'en Reserves

1898
Survey

1916
Allotment

1926
Survey

Tache IRl
1655
1655
1655
Pinche IR2
728
728
728
Nancut
IR3
372
372
372
.....................................................................................................................................................................................

.. Y.~.~!-!~!.~.Y.}~i .......................................................... i1.?..................................11.?......................................1.1.?..

Carsoosat IR5
124
124
124
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Whitefish Lake IR6
20
11 .2
Pinche
IR7
22.5
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Tezzeron IR8
40
40
Tezzeron
Lake
IR9
300
Disallowed
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Pinche Lake IRlO
80
24

..~~.r:!~.\~ h.~!!.!:)~J..I................. ......................................... .....................................~....................................?.:.~~-

..9..~.\ ~ !.~.J.~L .......................................................... 21.?.. ................................?.1.?...................................... 21~..
..~.?.Y..~r:!9.?.~~~r.J.~.......................................................11....................................i1.. ......................................1i.

Teeslee IR3
253
253
253
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Stevan
IR4
49
49
49
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
..9.E!!.t:~.9..~!!P.\~.~--~-~?. ..................................................?.~1..................................?..~.1.. ....................................?.~i .
..~!! .\~.f !?.~.~--~~§. .................... ......................................... .................................. iQ........................................1Q.
Total

5,199

5,687

5,346.52

Figure 2.2 Tl'azt'en Reserves 1898-1926
Note: As the numbering of the reserves indicates, at this time the Government perceived the Tl ' azt' en to
be two Bands: the Tache Band and the Trembleur Lake Band.

Though encroachment was not an overwhelming issue, the Band saw value in securing
recognized rights to lands, and continued to attempt to do so whenever it had the opportunity.
The Band' s applications were a deliberate effort to reconcile Tl'azt'en needs with the property
rights institution that had been superimposed on their own. They had to frame their requests for

18
·

In part, the 1916 Reserve Commission allocated the Band more land because when O' Reilly established their
reserves in the 1890s the Tl' azt' en population was small due to recent epidemics: measles in 1850, smallpox in
1862, and measles in 1887 (Hudson, "Traplines and Timber," 99). In 1923, when Ditchburn and Clark reviewed the
decisions of the 1916 Commission, Tezzeron IR9 was deemed ' not reasonably required ' and removed from the
Tl' azt' en's reserve allotments. For more information about Tl' azt' en reserve applications and allotments in the
period between 1871 and 1968 see an Internet Site created by Megan Gaffney and Kris Farrell entitled "A Short
Hi story of Tl'azt'en Reserves." (http://otaku.unbc.ca).

44
land within rules and lines that had been introduced into their territory, and to some extent had,
therefore, adopted the view of land as a commodity. But the Tl ' azt'en influenced where they
would receive reserve lands, and were participants in producing those spaces. The power
discrepancy between the Indian Reserve Commissions and the Band is very clear, yet the impact
the Tl ' azt'en had in the creation of the geography of their territory is also apparent. The
Tl ' azt' en' s land applications in 1916 and their registration of trap lines in late 1920s exemplify
that, though they no longer were the principal administrative power in their territory, they
participated in the production of space during this period.
A full discussion of DIA and Provincial Government administration is beyond the scope
of this chapter, but it is clear that the impact of these agencies increased significantly during the
first half of the Twentieth Century. The Tl 'azt' en lost some of their authority to administer and
use their territory as new lines and laws were imposed on their space. However, it should also
be noted that most of the territory remained the exclusive space of the Tl'azt'en people, and
their use and traditional organization of that space was not erased or forgotten.

2.5

1926-1969.

Our view of the geographic change that took place in Tl ' azt' en territory in the mid part of the
Twentieth Century must begin with a recognition that Tl'azt'en visualization, administration and
use of off-reserve land and resources continued. The reserve system by no means had
completed the Euro-Canadian re-production of Tl ' azt' en territory. Hunting, fishing and trapping
continued to be viable and socially important activities for the Tl'azt'en through the mid part of
this Century. Yet the community's off-reserve space also evolved as Tl'azt'en spatiality began
to include wage labour in mining, forestry, and guiding. The compatibility ofTl'azt'en use and

45
non-native use of the territory was a significant aspect of the space of the territory from the
1940s to the 1960s. Because of these things, even as Provincial administration and non-native
use extended further into the territory, Tl'azt'en space continued to extend well beyond the
boundaries of their reserves. But, despite the fact the territory largely remained their space and
that non-native use was compatible with their own, the Tl'azt'en did continue to make efforts to
increase their legal land rights.

Registered Trapline System
As part of an effort to improve conservation and reduce conflicts the Provincial Government
introduced the Registered Trapline System in 1926. It was specifically designed "to introduce a
-~

Government presence into the wildemess."

39

The Government began keeping careful tabs on the

productivity of trap lines, and instituted regulations which stated that a trapper had to achieve a
certain level of production or his trapline could be given to another. Though Native trappers
recognized that their traditional internal control of access to resources was being replaced by an
outside government system, it might well have been seen as necessary and "agreeable" to most
Native trappers in north-central British Columbia. 40
lfNative trappers found the Provincial regulations necessary it was only because of the
presence of non-native trappers who did not follow Native hunting and trapping laws. The

39

Dimitrov, "Carrier-Sekani Registered Trapline System," 21. In order to improve stewardship of game resources
the Registered Trapline System replaced the existing one year permits (which carried the right to renew), with more
secure licenses which could be passed on by inheritance or sold. The system also placed an emphasis on
establishing metes and bounds descriptions of trap line boundaries to reduce conflicts between trappers.
411
Some Native trappers in the Hazelton area refused to register their traplines, claiming that the Government had no
right to regulate what was an Native ancestral right. But according to the DIA agent in charge of Indian trapping
many Natives in north-central British Columbia found the Registered Trapline System "agreeable" as it provided
much needed security and "reinforces tribal customs." This was probably far from an objective opinion. See
Inspector of Indian Agencies to Provincial Game Board. August 5, 1925. RG 10, Volume 6735, File 420-3A.
Tl ' azt' en NROC.

46
Native trapper and non-native trapper had similar resource uses but appear to have had different
perceptions of what constituted well regulated and lawful use ofthe land: "On the one hand, the
non-native settlers, preoccupied with European notions of homesteading that 'legally' defined
land-use boundaries according to exclusive individual 'ownership' titles, were confronted by the
Carrier-Sekani Indian system of land use ' ownership' and 'title' that was based on different ' clan
related' rights of access, flexible usage and rotational harvesting patterns to ensure species
conservation. " 41
As a consequence of the existence of two systems of land usage, ownership, social
structure and wildlife management, conflict between Native and non-native trappers was
common in the Nechako plateau. 42 I found no evidence of clashes between Tl ' azt' en and white
trappers, either before or after 1926. But because of problems elsewhere in the Province, the
Registered Trapline system was instituted to bring order by more clearly mapping traplines and
by creating a mechanism of control and administration for fur harvesting. The registration of
traplines in 1926 was an undeniable sign of ever expanding Provincial Government presence in
Tl ' azt' en territory. Yet, when the Tl ' azt' en applied to register their trap lines, they in essence
applied to inscribe the boundaries of their keyohs within the Government' s new management of
the territory . The registered trap lines did not carry the rights to all game, fish and plant
resources as did the Tl'azt'en keyohs. It is also clear that, though the Tl'azt'en influenced the
location of the boundaries, they did not have a large influence on the rules which would govern
fur harvesting, nor have the ability to keep timber harvesting from taking place in their traplines.
But the traplines were passed down through inheritance similar to keyohs, and the registered

41
42

Dimitrov, "Carrier-Sekani Registered Trapline System," 19.
Dimitrov, "Carrier-Sekani Registered Trapline System," 20.

47
trapline areas are the most obvious example of how Tl ' azt' en spatiality was expressed within the
Euro-Canadian production of space in the territory. Even today the Tl ' azt' en use the terms
' keyoh' and ' trapline ' interchangeably, and recognize each other's keyohs based on the
boundaries of their registered trap lines. 43
There are currently only a few non-Tl ' azt' en trap lines in Tl ' azt' en territory. This points
to the limited nature of non-native activity in Tl ' azt' en territory in the late 1920s when trap lines
were registered. It also shows that the Tl' azt' en were unwilling to sell their trap lines because
trapping remained an important activity for them well into the 1970s, and also because the
traplines carried more meaning for the Tl ' azt' en than just the right to trap. 44

Forest Development and Wage Labour
The Tl ' azt' en economy has undergone several changes since the 1800s. After the arrival of
Europeans the Tl ' azt' en incorporated the fur trade into their existing fishing and hunting
economy. Later they added gardening and animal husbandry to produce products which could be
sold to non-natives and which could be used to supplement their own consumption of fish and
gan1e. But in the 1940s, a reduction in the amount of salmon and a decline in fur prices caused
the Tl ' azt' en to turn more to seasonal wage labour. 45 Opportunities to be employed in logging
also arrived in the 1940s. From this time on Tl ' azt' en families supported themselves with a
combination of wage labour, trapping, and subsistence.

43

More research is required to piece together the history of changes to trapline boundaries before and after 1926.
Map 2.2 shows the current Regi stered Trapline License boundaries in Tl ' azt' en territory to represent Tl'azt'en keyohs
in the 1800s.
44
See Hudson for more information concerning the extent and nature of Tl 'azt' en trapping activity from the 1800s
to 1980.
45
Hudson, "Traplines and Timber," 140.

48
In the 1940s, several Tl' azt' en who had their own horse teams worked as falling and
skidding contractors for the two mills in Fort St. James. This harvesting took place at a few
locations on the west side of Stuart Lake (see Map 2.4). Between 1940 and 1944 many
Tl ' azt'en also cut cordwood for the Pinche Lake illercury mine. 46 By the mid 1950s horses had
been replaced by machinery, and timber farther in from the lake shores could be harvested.
Motorized boats made timber farther up Stuart Lake, and eventually on Trembleur Lake,
accessible. While the amount of land affected by logging increased, the intensity of the
operations remained relatively low. At this time logging was selective and also slow. It took
decades to complete all the harvesting shown on Map 2.4; for example, the block on the East
bank of the Tache River took six years to harvest. This was because of low technology and
because harvesting operations were still seasonal.
None of the Tl' azt' en that I interviewed felt that the logging that took place in the 1950s
and 60s significantly damaged hunting, fishing and trapping land. 47 It is also important that no
logging took place above Trembleur Lake on the Middle River- the most important moose
hunting and beaver trapping area for the Tl 'azt'en. Tl'azt'en men were involved at every stage
of forestry activity in their territory: falling, skidding, driving logs down the Tache River, and

46

Cinnabar deposits located on the North side of Pinche Lake were devel oped by Cominco in 1940 to supply
mercury to make fuses and precision instruments for the Allied war effort. The cordwood cut by the Tl'azt'en fueled
a crusher, kiln and condenser used in processing the ore. The trees were harvested by Tl' azt' en in an area east of the
mine (See Map 2.4). They skidded the logs to the shore of Pinche Lake with horses. The wood was sawn into the
required lengths, and from there a short, narrow gauge railway transported the cordwood to the mine site. The
Tl'azt'en people who worked there stayed in scattered camps near the logging operations. (Interviews with Johnny
Anatole [June 16, 1998], Jimmy Monk [June 12, 1998], Russell Alec [May 28, 1998], Pierre John [June 1, 1998]).
A small settlement was also established next to the mine for the non-native mine employees - it was the first nonnative townsite in Tl' azt' en territory . The mine ceased production in 1944 when the Allies re-secured sources of
mercury in Spain and Italy . "The Pinchi Lake Story ." Cominco Magazine, October 1965 :22-25. Northwest
Collection, BCARS.
47
See, e.g., interviews with Robert Hanson (June 1 and 4, 1998), Johnny Anatole (June 16, 1998), Jimmy Monk
(June 12, 1998), Russel Alec (May 28, 1998), and Norman Prince (June 19, 1998).

•

&

Selective Logging
(1960s)

Mercury Mine

Portable Sawmill

Recreation Lodge

Road

~

1 ' 220.000

Logging Trail

~

N

•

Selective Logging
(1950s)

Trembleur Trail

•

•

~

~

•

'

Selective Logging
(1940s)

Tl'azt'en Reserve

LEGEND

'

.,

~

.-

.,

...

1

•

-

-

•

•

..

..

~

\

•

-

•

,

'#

... ._.

~

""

•

•

\

•

~

..._.
•

~

'I

I
I

Map 2.4

A

•

'
... _

~

'\

'\

.

' • _.

-

'

6.

~

~- . ,

~

~

.
•

'"
••

Development in
• Tl'azt'en Territory
1940s - 1960s

- --·
..

"'•

~

9
14

~

~

,,

'I

II

•

!

"

- ~,._

... .

I

I

1.,.

-

..

•

..

4

• ...

,

•

"'

•

'

_.

,

.....

•

•

~-~

f '

.rfl.

,.

~

•

,

,.

.ll

•

------

49

towing log booms down Stuart Lake to the mills at Fort St. James. Tl'azt'en men formed at least
fifty percent of the labour force for forestry operations in Tl' azt' en territory. 48 Many Tl' azt' en
were also employed at the mills in Fort St. James and at portable sawmills. The locations of
some of these mills are shown on Map 2.4. 49
Wage labour did not replace, but was integrated into, the Tl'azt'en's seasonal round.
Generally logging was done in the winter and saw milling in the summer, but the harvest of fur,
game and salmon remained central to Tl'azt'en culture and economy. The expansion of timber
harvesting into the area was a sign of the power of the Government to allocate the resources of
Tl' azt'en territory. But timber harvesting was not perceived by the Tl'azt'en as a threat to the
hunting and trapping economy, but as an opportunity to supplement the bush economy with
wage earnings. Tl'azt'en men have pride in the work they did along side non-native loggers.
These areas of timber harvesting were not simply 'spaces of non-native development', but were
very much Tl'azt'en spaces as well. Though the Tl'azt' en may no longer have had ultimate
administrative control in their territory, they continued to be the main users of their territory.
The areas of timber harvesting shown on Map 2.4 are best described as 'shared spaces'.

Non-native Recreation
Non-native recreation in the region increased exponentially in the mid part of the Century.
Several recreational lodges were constructed in Tl'azt'en territory (see Map 2.5). As with timber
harvesting, these were not spaces of exclusion but spaces of opportunity for the Tl'azt'en.

48

Interview with Bob and Doug Hoy (June 25, 1998).
Hudson, ("Traplines and Timber," 141) states that portable mills were located along the Tache river, Trembleur
Lake and Stuart Lake. Yet several TI'azt'en told me that bush mills were only set up in the Tezzeron-Pinche area, as
shown on the Map 2.4. The data for the map came from a Ministry of Forests report that did not cover the Tache
Riverffrembleur Lake area.
49

50
According to a DIA official, "at one time or another most of the Tl'azt'en male population" found
work as guides for non-native fisherman and hunters at these lodges. 5° Tl ' azt' en women were
also employed in housekeeping duties and in serving food at the lodges. Justa Monk, spoke of
Nakalat Lodge, at the north end of Stuart Lake, in this way:
What a role it has played in the life of our family! For sixteen years my dad worked there
for part of every year. My brothers and sisters worked there, and I worked there for
years after I quit the mill. Very often when my dad was there our whole family would
join him, if not right at the lodge, then in our cabin just across the bay from Nakalat.
Nakalat Lodge is on the edge of our hunting and fishing territory and our trapline, so at
the same time that some of us were working at the lodge, we were also able to live offthe
land. That was very important to our family life. 5 1

Land Sales
The nature of non-native ownership of land in the territory changed in the mid part of the
Twentieth Century. The number of privately owned lots went from forty-five in 1926 to fiftythree in 1955 (see Map 2.5). But twenty-four of these lots were small islands in Stuart Lake that
were bought by non-natives as locations for summer cabins. (The scale of the map prevented me
from being able to show the islands. Most are located in the area of the lake between Pinche IR2
and Tache IRl, and between Carsoosat IRS and Nancut IR3.) As described earlier, part ofthe
Tl 'azt'en seasonal round involved netting char each fall at the rock shelves surrounding the many
islands in Stuart lake. Families camped out on the islands for two or three weeks in the early fall
to catch and smoke fish for winter. Despite evidence of Native use and the presence of Tl' azt' en
smokehouses, beginning in the 1940s several of the islands were sold by the Crown. 52 Cabins

511

C.S . Johnston-Watson (Assistant Superintendent, Stuart Lake Agency, DIA) to J.W. Churchman (Director,
Indi an-Eskimo Economic Development Branch, DIA). March 31, 1969. DIA Railway Right-of-Way File 985/31-226, 1968-1972. Tl ' azt' en NROC.
51
Moran, Justa: A First Nations Leader, 63-64.
52
-See "Islands in Stuart Lake." Tl 'azt'en NROC.

51
were built by non-natives in some cases on the very site where the Tl'azt' en had a smokehouse
or camp. 53
More research is required to determine how many Tl ' azt'en were displaced in this way,
and how much the purchase of an island curtailed a Band member' s ability to use the island or
the reefs around them. In the period up to 1969 the alienation ofthe Tl ' azt' en' s islands was the
most significant case where the Tl ' azt' en have been disrupted and displaced by non-native
actions. Yet the Tl ' azt' en still fish around the islands, and many ofthe islands are still referred
to as ' belonging' to Band members -the Tl ' azt'en visualization, administration and use ofthese
spaces has not yet been totally erased.

Camp 24
With the establishment of sawmills in Fort St. James many Tl ' azt' en began spending the
summers there working in the mills. With the permission of the Catholic Church in 1950 the
Tl ' azt' en built and occupied a group of 15-20 shelters on Mission lands. Some Tl ' azt' en also
began to live there year round. The place became known as Camp 24 (see Map 2.5). In 1957
health concerns and complaints from the non-native Village of Fort St. James prompted DIA to
consider purchasing land for a reserve on which the Tl' azt'en who wanted to live in Fort St.
James could build proper houses.

53

Interview with Jimmy Monk and Frank Duncan (September 17, 1998).

52

Plans to create a reserve for the Tl'azt' en required that the five bands- Portage, Tache,
Pinche, Grand Rapids, and Middle River- be amalgamated so that one reserve could be
purchased for them all. 54 The amalgamation took place in 1959, and the Tl'azt'en became known
as the Stuart-Trembleur Lakes Band. The purchase of the portion of the Mission's land on
which Camp 24 was situated was approved in principal by the Deputy Minster of DIA in 1959 .
.Yet in 1960 the purchase was postponed, and by 1964 DIA decided that they would no longer
consider purchasing land for the Tl' azt' en.55 In 1965 the Tl' azt' en resolved to purchase a 20
acre piece of property just south of Fort St. James on their own (see Map 2.5). 56 The purchase
did not take place, though it is not clear why. Camp 24 was tom down and burned by order of
the Village ofFort St. James in April1968.

54

Mr. Underwood (Superintendent, Stuart Lake Agency, DIA) to DIA Regional Office. May 16, 1958. Nak'azdli

DIA Survey and Reserves File 163/25-11. Camp 24 File, Vol.l , Tl ' azt' en NROC.

55

The purchase was delayed and eventually canceled due to three issues: opposition by non-native residents of Fort
St. James to creating a reserve so close to the town ; the fact that DIA was investigating the potential of creating an
off-reserve arrangement; and the announcement that a railway would built through Fort St. James to Takla Lake
made DIA officials believe that the Tl'azt'en people would find work north of Fort St. James and the reserve in town
would no longer be required . W.E. Grant (Superintendent, Stuart Lake Agency, DIA) to Regional Office (DIA).
March 22, 1960. DIA Surveys and Reserves File 985/30-26-l, Vol.l 1948-1969. Tl'azt'en NROC.
56
Henry G. Castillou (Lawyer for Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band) to J.V. Boys (Indian Commissioner for British
Columbia). July 10, 1964. DIA File 985/30-0-1, Vol.2 1963-1968. Tl ' azt'en NROC; and Stuart Trembleur Lakes
Band Council Resolution. December 15, 1965. DIA File 985/30-0-1 , Vol.2 1963-1968. Tl'azt'en NROC.

53
Applications for New Reserves
In the 1940s the Tl 'azt'en received four new parcels of reserves land (see Map 2.5 and Figure
2.3). These were lands which were being used by the Tl'azt'en, but it is not known exactly why
the Government decided to grant the Band more land at this point. 57
Tl'azt'en Reserves

1926
Survey

1940s
Allotments

Tache IRI
1655
2019.8 .
····················································
............................................................................................
Pinche IR2
728
728
Nancut!R3
372
372
.................................................... ·············································................................................

..Y..~.' l ~~!.~.Y.. :1............................................................ 1:1.?.........................................11:?...

Carsoosat IR5
124
124'
·····················
············································································
...............................................
.
Whitefish Lake IR6
11.2
11.2
.................................................................................................................................................
Pinche
IR7
22.5
22.5
.................................................................................................................................................
Pinche IR7A
195
Tezzeron
IR8
40
40
.................................................................................................................................................
Pinche Lake IR I 0
24
24

..~!!.~~.!~. ~.~!!.l.. ~~.!..l. ................................................?.:.~~ ...................................... ?..:§.?...

Pinche lRI2
128
Hanson
IRI3
10
.................................................................................................................................................

..9..~.\~~. !.~..! J........................ .................................... 21.?.........................................?.1:?...
..~.~Y..' l !!9.~~~.~r.J.~........................................................11:.......................................... 1:1..

Teeslee IR3
253
253
....................................................
.............................................................................................
Stevan
IR4
49
49
................................................................................................. ................................................

..9.E~!?:9..~~P.!~.~..!.~?. .................................................. ~.~1.........................................?..?.1..
.......................................19...........................................1.Q..

..~~ \~.fE!?.~~..~~ ~
Total

5 346.52

6,044.32

Figure 2.3 Tl'azt'en Reserves 1949

In the 1960s the Tl'azt'en also made several attempts to secure other lands which they used (see
Map 2.5). In 1960 the Band requested that lands near to Tache IR1, Nancut IR3 and Whitefish
Lake IR6 which they used for hay, grazing and gardening be granted to them as reserves. 58 The

57

For information concerning Tl'azt'en use of these lands see DIA File 985/30-26-1, Vol.l 1948-1969. Tl 'azt'en
NROC.
ss Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band Chief and Council to Grant (DIA). January 14, I 960. DIA File 985/30-26, 19601968. Tl 'azt'en NROC.

•

I.

4

~

1'

•

....

,.

,

.,

.

......_

,.

..

•

....-'

41

.
lit

~

I

~

l a

....

-

~
6

...
i>

~

--~-

-.

;• I

'---J__J.-+----1

•

·--

~

•

(

.............

.. '
-----

Map 2.5

,

"\

...

''-

••

.......

1940':s - 1960's

,
Whitefish Lake IR6

Grand Rapids IRS

~ ~~--!~. t

•Soyandostar IR2

\ Teeslee

...
..

,

I

~

"'

,

•

~

•

~

N

l

F

~-~

......

,---,-------,

,-----,------,------,

~

•

~

.,. ,, .
Scale 1 : 200,000

D

D

Private Land 1955
SuNeyed Crown Land

•

•

1940's Allotments
1960's Applications

-

LEGEND

•

,.

1926 ReseNes

,.Tezzeron IRS

I

I

L, -

,
- .

•

~~

.
Tl'azt'en Reserves

•

~

54
requests were unsuccessful. 59 In 1968 the Band requested that a reserve that they found little
use for (Tezzeron Lake IR8) be exchanged for a more useful parcel of land on the south side of
Pinche Lake. 60 DIA supported the proposal but it appears that the Province refused the request,
and the transaction did not take place. The Band was also considering an exchange of Hanson
IR13 for an adjacent parcel that had more desirable frontage on Babine Lake. When the Tl'azt' en
learned that the legal title to the shore line would be retained by the Province they decided not to
complete the exchange.61
Their applications for new reserves and their attempts to exchange existing reserves for
more useful and valuable lands show that the Tl'azt'en's strategy continued to be to create legal
spaces for themselves within the new production of space. This strategy was adopted even
though encroachment and competition in Tl ' azt'en territory were relatively minor compared to
the experience of other Bands. Despite the fact that their spatiality was more extensive than
could ever be captured by Indian reserves, the Tl'azt'en lacked the political power to influence
the Government's allocation of lands and resources to any greater extent.

59

DIA agreed that, because of the Band ' s low figure for per capita acreage, additional land should be obtained for the
Tl ' azt'en. Yet it was learned that, though it might consider land exchanges, the Provincial Government would not
sell more land to DIA. DIA therefore recommended that Band members apply to lease the lands they required, or
obtain hay cutting permits. See Mr. Arneil (Indian Commissioner for British Columbia) to Grant (DIA). January
26, 1960. DIA File 985/30-26, 1960-1968. Tl' azt' en NROC; and Government Agent to Grant (DIA) . February 3,
1960. DIA File 985/30-26, 1960-1968. Tl ' azt'en NROC.
60
Stuart-Trembleur Lakes Band Council Resolution. March 27, 1968. DIA File 985/30-26. Tl'azt 'en NROC. The
parcel the Tl'azt'en desired was on the west bank of Pinche Creek as it left Pinche Lake (see Map 2.5). It is not
known why the Tl ' azt'en wanted this land.
61
This exchange was proposed by the owner of the land on both sides of Hanson IR13. The old Hudson ' s Bay
Company portage trail crossed the front of the property and was claimed by the Province as a public road. For more
information see DIA File 985/30-26. Tl'azt 'en NROC.

55
2.6

Conclusion

This chapter has highlighted some of the significant steps in the introduction of a new spatial
order in Tl ' azt'en territory. At some point in the history of the region there was a shift from a
Tl ' azt ' en production of space influenced by non-Tl ' azt'en, to a Euro-Canadian production of
space influenced by the Tl ' azt'en. But determining when that shift happened may not be as
important as recognizing that both groups participated in the re-production of space. Tl ' azt'en
ability to dominate the production of space in their territory was eroded over time, but the
interaction of the Tl ' azt' en and non-natives produced a landscape made up of hybrid spaces,
negotiated spaces, and shared spaces.
Elsewhere in the Province the reserve system turned "Indian Nations into proprietary
enclaves ofthe modem state." 62 Yet, for the Tl'azt'en, the creation of reserves did not
immediately result in physical separation from the resources of their territory. Only a very few
parcels of private land were not de facto Tl ' azt' en space, and non-native activity in the territory
to a great extent did not dislocate or disrupt Tl' azt' en off-reserve resource use. In fact, the areas
of forestry and recreation activity were spaces that the Tl 'azt' en shared with non-natives.
The Tl' azt' en also adopted a strategy of attempting to have their land and resource use
recognized by Government institutions. In this period their power and ability to achieve this
seems to have been connected to opportunities created by the Government (for e.g., the
Barricade Treaty negotiations, the Reserve Commissions, and the Registration ofTraplines).
However in the 1960s the Tl ' azt'en increased their capacity to consider reserve land issues, and
took the initiative in trying to increase their land rights.

62

Brealey, "Mapping them out," ISO.

56
The Tl ' azt' en became involved in what some have called ' non-native activities' such as
farming, logging, and saw milling. Though the importance of the bush economy remained high,
their participation in the wage labour economy meant that the spatial dimension ofTl ' azt'en
lives changed over time. But a strong and distinct Tl' azt'en spatiality still existed which, if given
the political power and opportunity, could influence and negotiate the production of space in
Tl ' azt' en territory.
There had been many changes in Tl ' azt' en territory but, up to the 1960s, it appears that
not having absolute legal control of their territory was not immediately devastating for the
Tl ' azt' en. Yet, because the Tl ' azt'en's off-reserve resource use was not recognized in law to any
significant extent, there was a precondition for future conflict. Should incompatible development
enter those spaces that had value to the Tl ' azt' en but were not protected for them by the
Government, it would seriously threaten the Tl ' azt' en.

Spaces of Incompatibility
In the late 1960s the economy of the region began to shift out of the reach of the Tl 'azt' en. A
number of developments resulted in the Tl ' azt' en finding that their off reserve space - both their
bush economy space and their wage labour space- was becoming smaller. An increase in the
world demand for mercury made production again feasible at the Pinchi Lake mine. However,
when it re-opened in 1968, opportunities for the Tl'azt'en were few as the operations used
technology requiring considerable training and experience. Also the new ore processing plant was

57

powered by electricity, and therefore Tl ' azt ' en labour was no longer required to supply the mine
with cord wood. 63
When pulp mills were built in Prince George in the mid 1960s, large forestry corporations
took over the small companies operating in the Stuart Lake region. The pulp mills could utilize
smaller diameter.timber and eventually clear cut harvesting replaced selective harvesting. Logging
operations also became year round, and the amount of timber being removed increased
substantially, but because operations increasingly used more machinery and ran year round the
Tl 'azt' en found their opportunities for wage labour decreasing. In the mid 1960s six sawmills
were in operation in Fort St. James, but by this time the type of work the Tl'azt'en had
previously been able to get was disappearing.64 The mills were becoming less labour intensive
and positions required increasing levels of training. Also the mills began operating year round
and required their employees to work year round as well. This interfered with the pattern of
many Tl'azt'en people's lives and "an expanding non-Indian labour force displaced seasonal
Indian labour." 65
One of the most significant changes in Tl'azt'en territory since contact was the
construction ofthe Tache-Fort St. James road. As early as 1954 the Tl ' azt' en had tried to have a
road built from Tache to Fort St. James. In 1965 DIA and the Province agreed to jointly pay for
the road to be built. The motivation for the Province was that it needed a road to access the
timber in Tl'azt'en territory, as the Department of Fisheries had ordered that transport of logs
by water should be phased out. The Tache road was completed to all season standard in 1969.

61
·

"How We Do It At Pinchi Lake, B.C." Cominco Ltd. Information Pamphlet. Northwest Collection, BCARS.
Johnston-Watson (DIA) to Churchman (DIA). March 31, 1969. DIA Railway Right-of-Way File 985/31-2-26,
1968-1972. Tl' azt' en NROC.
65
Hudson , "Traplines and Timber," 146.
64

58
For the Tl ' azt'en it was an exciting project- until then they had traveled to Fort St. James by
boat in the summer, or by sleigh in the winter. The road was a development the Tl'azt' en
wanted, yet it also had negative consequences, such as increased non-native access to their
territory for both recreation and logging. The improved access to Fort St. James also caused
significant changes within the Tl' azt'en communities:
In 1971 there will still very few cars in the village and more often than not the trip to the
Fort was made by boat or, in winter, by skidoo. The old days of teams of horses and
meadows and haying were just about finished. By the early 1970s I only remember one
team of horses in Tachie and a few head of cattle, owned by Za Williams. Year by year
as the road to the Fort became more passable, and as more villagers owned vehicles,
gardens were disappearing too. 66
With the building of the road and the change in the law allowing Natives access to alcohol,
villages like Tachie and Portage and Pinchi seemed to change overnight. Years before,
people were working at hides and drying fish and preparing for winter; now the
settlements were quiet as people jumped into their cars and trucks and headed into town.
The centre of life was no longer our villages; it had shifted to the hotels and grocery stores
in the Fort and Vanderhoof. 67

Today the Tl'azt'en characterize their earlier history as a time when they were isolated and
independent. They believe their independence stemmed from the ability to live off the land
unimpaired by non-native settlement and development. From that spatial and socio-economic
centre, the Tl'azt'en were able to benefit from interaction with non-native activities. The
Tl ' azt'en's isolation was increasingly altered by the gradual increase of non-native access in the
territory and the development of forest resources, but even in the late 1960s the core of their
territory was still very much Tl ' azt'en space. In 1969 the road to Tache began to alter this
somewhat, but it would be a railroad that would most change the nature of both their isolation
and their independence.

66
67

Moran , Justa: A First Nations Leader, !03.
Moran , Justa: A First Nations Leader, 137-138.

59

Three.

3.0

Tl'azt'en Negotiations
with PGE!BCR, 1969-1974

Introduction

In 1968 the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company, a Crown corporation, began
construction of a rail line through the heart of Tl' azt' en territory. The railway was built
through seven of the Tl'azt' en's reserves prior to the finalization of a right-of-way
agreement. Early on the Tl 'azt' en decided that they wanted compensation in the form of a
land exchange for the reserve right-of-ways needed by the railway, and they identified
several parcels of land that they wanted to be reserved for them. However, as construction
proceeded, the Tl'azt'en found that activities related to the construction of the railway had
impacted their hunting and trapping success. They also began to realize that the railway was
opening up their territory to intensive forestry, which would further undermine the security
of their bush economy but provided fewer opportunities for employment. The Tl'azt'en,
therefore, re-opened the negotiations and then expanded the scope of the negotiations to
include compensation for ecological damage, and the provision of economic development
opportunities for the Tl 'azt' en community. Their ability to resist the Government's
production of an incompatible space in their territory resulted from their determination, the
empowerment of Native people throughout North America, and the power of their rights to
the Reserve land on which the railway had been built. This chapter will give an account of
the Tl'azt'en's efforts between 1969 and 1974 to gain recognition for their existing Reserve
rights, to create new Reserves which reflected their spatiality, and to engage the Government
in negotiations which would re-affirm andre-inscribe the place of the Tl'azt'en community
in their territory.

60

3.1

Railway Development and Native People in British Columbia

Transportation infrastructure plays a significant role in the production of space. By altering
distance and accessibility, roads and railways are powerful tools which can be employed to
reconfigure an isolated territory into a hinterland. More efficient transportation pushes back
the frontier, stimulating economic activity and permitting increased government surveillance
and administration. New modes of economic production are introduced through increases in
exchange and interaction, and through the resultant changes in the value and importance of
land and resources in the region. In these ways the construction of transportation routes
actuate governments' and industrial capital's visualizations of space, but as their use in
British Columbia shows, railways have also proven to be dislocating and disruptive to those
who inhabit the regions they enter.
Native people have often suffered from the social, economic and environmental
changes resulting from railway development. Jim MacDonald has described how the
construction and operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway caused the Tsimshian, an
independent community that took advantage of new economic options, to fall into a state of
economic dependency and political subordination. 1 Hugh Brody has laid out the connection
between railroad development and settlement and industrial expansion in Northeastern
British Columbia, and how this resulted in the erosion of Native ability to use traditional
lands. 2 Frank Leonard has pointed out how, in the midst of the cut-throat business of

1

James McDonald, 1990. " Bleeding Day and Night: The Construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
Across Tsimshian Reserve Lands." The Canadian Journal of Native Studies I 0(1 ):33-69.
2
Hugh Brody. 1981. Maps and Dreams: Indians and the British Columbia Frontier. Vancouver: Douglas
and Mcintyre. See Pages 117-125.

61
railway construction and operation, managers of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway paid little
attention to the impact of the railway on native people. 3 Railroads have been characterized
by Harris as agents of disruption and dislocation in the Native communities in the Fraser
Canyon. 4 Railroads were major land users/holders and their construction fragmented and
colonized Native life-worlds. The 1914 slide caused by construction along the Canadian
National rail line in the Fraser Canyon blocked the passage of migrating salmon for many
years, causing significant suffering to Native people throughout the entire Fraser River
watershed. The railways, along with other non-native impositions, were also reminders that
"power in the canyon resided elsewhere. " 5
It seems clear that "[t]he Native Indians of British Columbia can hardly be expected

to look on the railroads in the same light as a person who lives within the fabric oftoday's
industrial society." 6 Yet, like most social encounters, the experience ofNative people with
railway construction also has an element of ambiguity. It is inaccurate to say that railway
development has been wholly detrimental to Native people. Many Native people benefited
from the wage labour provided by railway construction. This includes those Tl'azt'en who
worked as labourers in the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Pacific
Great Eastern Railway. 7 It is also interesting to note that, in the first half ofthis century,

3

Frank Leonard, 1988. "A Thousand Blunders - The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and Northern
British Columbia 1902-1919." Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of History, York University.
4
Cole Harris, 1997. The Resettlement of British Columbia: Essays on Colonialism and Geographic Change.
Yancounver: University of British Columbia Press.
5
Cole Harris. 1992. " The Fraser Canyon Encountered." BC Studies 94:28.
6
"The Socio-Economic Effects of the British Columbia Railway 's Dease Lake Extension on the StuartTrembleur Lakes Indian Band." Page I . Report for British Columbia Railway Company by Envirocon Ltd.
and Pearse-Bowden Economic Consultants Ltd. February 1974. Box: No.400 Various Bound Reports.
Tl ' azt'en BOBC.
7
Douglas R. Hudson, 1983. " Traplines and Timber: Social and Economic Change Among the Carrier
Indians of Northern British Columbia." Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of
Alberta. Page 140.

62
railways facilitated greater Native political activity by increasing the ability to travel,
communicate, and coordinate on both provincial and regional scales. 8 The railways of
British Columbia may be one of the clearest representations ofthe relative dominance of
capital and government over Native people, but they have also been sites of Native protest
and resistance, and of negotiations and even legal victories. Yet railways have been
overwhelmingly negative for Native people because they cause rapid and radical changes to
the spaces they enter, with little opportunity for Native people to influence, or benefit from,
the development. The case of the Tl'azt' en and Pacific Great Eastern Railway illustrates
that railways are a powerful agent of change, but also that the less empowered can take an
active role in the production of space.

3.2

The Pacific Great Eastern Railway

The expansion of Pacific Great Eastern Railway (PGE) was a "major preoccupation of the
W.A.C. Bennett government." 9 In the late 1950s the crown corporation's tracks were
extended from their northern terminus at Prince George to Dawson Creek and Fort St. John.
Further construction began in the 1960s on extensions to Mackenzie, Fort Nelson, Fort St.
James and Dease Lake (see Map 3.1). Several motivations have been identified for the
expansion of the PGE. Tomblin has argued that the rationale was found in 'defensive
expansionism' . 10 It has also been suggested that the PG E was part of Bennett's plan to make

8

Paul Tennant, 1990. Aboriginal People and Politics: the Indian Land Question in British Columbia 18491989. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Page 72.
9
John Wedley, 1998. "A Development Tool: W.A .C Bennett and the PGE Railway." BC Studies 117:29.
10
Tomblin suggests that the Government expanded the PGE system as a strategy to defend British
Columbia' s north from the entrepreneurial ambitions and political influence of Ottawa and Alberta. See
Stephen G. Tomblin, 1990. " W.A.C. Bennett and Province-Building in British Columbia." BC Studies
85 :49.

PGE Extensions in Northern B.C.
Map 3.1

N

A

Dawson
Creek

Fort St. James Extension 1963-68
Takla Extension 1968-73
Dease Lake Extension 1969Other PGE Extensions:

Fort St. Johr'VDawson Creek 1952-58
Fort Nelson Extension 1968-71
McKenzie Spur 1966

Canadian National Railway
Tl'azt'en Territory

63
the Yukon Territory part of British Columbia. 11 However, it appears that more than
anything else the PG E was a development tool: "[i]n effect, Bennett handed the PGE a
pioneering role reminiscent of the early years of the CPR - it was to open the north as the
CPR had once opened the west."

12

The forest industry in the Fort St. James area had remained small, not for want of
forest resources, but because of a lack of adequate transportation. 13 In 1960 the
Government decided that a railway should be built to Fort St. James. It would provide a
transportation link to ship out the lumber processed at mills in Fort St. James, and to
transport pulp wood and wood chips to the new pulp mills to Prince George. Construction
began in 1963 from ajunction in the Fort St. John line just north ofPrince George, and the
PGE reached Fort St. James in 1968.

While the Fort St. James Extension was still under

construction the Government announced its intention to continue the line north from Fort St.
James to Takla Landing to access the large tracts of forest land not presently economically or
practically accessible. A year later the Government announced that the line would continue
past Takla Landing across very remote territory to Dease Lake. 14 The Takla and Dease Lake
extensions would greatly increase the size of the hinterland for the Fort St.

11

See Karl M. Ruppenthal and Thomas Keast, I 979. The British Columbia Railway- A Railway Derailed.
Vancouver: Centre for Transportation Studies, University of British Columbia. Page 20.
12
Wedley, "A Development Tool," 32. "Development Tool" was defined by the Royal Commission as
"the concept of building a railroad in advance of need for the purpose of promoting development." Report of
the Royal Commission on the BC Railway, I 978 . Vol.2, Chap.2, Page 80.
13
Bob Hoy. Interview June 25, I 998.
14
Government studies had predicted that the Dease Lake Extension would result in the construction of
sawmills at Dease Lake, Takla Landing, and in the Groundhog Valley, and a pulp mill at Stikine Crossing.
The studies also foresaw traffic originating from the Cassiar Asbestos mine and from future development of the
Groundhog coal fields . There were other motives as well. CNR also had ideas about building north either from
Hazelton or Terrace. There is evidence that the Dease Lake Extension was an effort to build ahead of the CNR
and capture all the future resource development traffic in the Northwest comer of the Province. The
Government also saw the Dease Lake Extension as a project that would bring them one step closer to the
dream of having PGE reach into the Yukon and eventually connect with the Alaska railway. Wedley, "A
Development Tool," 45; and Ruppenthal and Keast, A Railway Derailed, 3.

64
James and Prince George mills. And though the Dease Lake Extension was never completed,
the Fort St. James and Takla Extensions were to be a major boost to the industry in Fort St.
James, faciliating the beginning of the modern forest industry in the region.
Whether from the office of the Premier, the offices of the Ministry of Forests, or
from the mills in Fort St. James and Prince George, Tl ' azt' en territory was generally viewed
as unused and vacant land. The Takla Extension was, therefore, designed to implement an
industrial vision for the territory. The only possible contradictions to this vision were a
handful of Indian Reserves along the proposed route, but to those planning the project these
were not perceived as obstacles. Nor did the planners pay attention to the fact that the
Tl ' azt' en lived there and used the resources of the territory outside the reserves. Yet the
Tl ' azt'en would challenge the Government's and industry ' s vision of that space, and the
plans to reproduce the territory according to that vision. The Tl ' azt' en would engage the
Railway and Government in negotiations first to try to receive some reparation for the use of
reserve lands by PGE, and later to position themselves to deal with the economic and
environmental changes brought about by the railway.

3.3

Negotiations Between PGE and Tl'azt'en, Winter 1968/69.

In May 1967, PG E informed the Department oflndian Affairs and Northern Development
(DI A) that the route proposed for the Takla Extension went through six Tl'azt'en reserves.

15

PGE did not submit a formal request for the required right-of-ways until November 6 of

1968, by which time crews were already at work clearing the right-of-way north of Fort St.

15

PGE to J.V. Boys (Indian Commissioner for British Columbia, DIA). May 3, 1967. DIA Surveys and
Reserves File 985/30-26-1 , Vol. I, 1948-1969. Tl ' azt' en NROC.

65
James (see Map 3.2). 16 It was certainly technically feasible to build the railway without
touching the Band' s lands but there is no evidence that PGE had any alternate route plans if
they were unable to make an agreement with the Band for the use of their lands. 17 What is
clear is that PGE did not consider that the Band had the ability to prevent the railway from
going through the reserves, and never considered taking anything but the best route. 18 The
Indian Reserves, or the Tl'azt' en themselves, were not perceived as obstacles which should
deflect its intentions. The comment of a DIA official in response to the complaint of a Band
member suggests what may have been both a DIA and a PGE perspective on the use Indian
reserve land for right-of-ways- that is, that PGE was doing the Band a favour by crossing
their reserves:
While the route chosen is advisable for the Railway Company, the railway line might
be built outside of Reserve lands and should that happen, the effect on your way of
life would still be considerable without any possibility of gaining the benefits [of a
compensation agreement]. 19

16

DIA formally informed the Band of PGE' s plans on November 15th. However, according to Harry Pierre, the
Tl'azt'en had first found out about the railway when a Band member found metal tags on trees marking out the
route through Tache IR I. A.C. Roach (Superintendent, Stuart Lake Indian Agency, DIA) to Chief Harry
Pierre. November I 5, I 968. DJ A Surveys and Reserves File 985/3 I -2-26, I 968- I 972. Tl ' azt' en NROC ;
Interviews with Harry Pierre, March 4, I998 and January 27, 1999.
17
Order in Council 1036/ 1938 and Privy Council Order 208/1930, which enacted the transfer of the Indian
Reserve lands in British Columbia to the Dominion, contain clauses permitting the resumption of onetwentieth of the reserve lands for the making of roads or other works of public utility or convenience. The
Provincial policy was to attempt to negotiate a compensation agreement for the surrender of lands required for
public purposes. However, there is a provision in Section 35 of the Indian Act which permits the imposition
of Provincial expropriation of Indian Land without an agreement. In that case, compensation would be
determined by a board of arbitration. D.I.F. MacSweeen, 1985. "Order-in-Council 1036 - The Remnants of
Colonial Rule." Indians and the Law II.- A Continuing Legal Education Seminar, January 1985, Vancouver.
18
MacDonald has stated that right-of-ways are so prevalent on Indian lands that reserves appear to be
" powerful magnets" which attract every road, rail , pipe and power line (MacDonald, " Bleeding Day and
Night," 60). As Blomley points out, " [t]he official position is that, in many cases, there was no way around
the reserve ... A more cynical reading might suggest that the expropriation of reserve land, as opposed to
privately held land, offered the path of least resistance." Nicholas Blomley, 1996. "Shut the Province Down ':
First Nations Blockades in British Columbia I 984-1995." BC Studies Ill: 19.
19
J.W . Churchman (DIA) to David Joseph . June 9, 1969. DIA Railway Right-of-Way File 985/30-26, 19671969. Tl ' azt' en NROC.

~

•

~

Scale 1 : 350,000

Road

Built Railway to
Prince George

Proposed Railway
Route

Tl'azt'en Reserve

I

-

...

~

N

-,

'-

:t~

I, ',

l

-

•

•

..

.

'

-----

I

,)

__ ,

-

~

Map 3.2

IRS

,

--'
~....

~

'

•

• I

._.

...

-

.

'

~.

.J ', Tache IRl

\

',

\

..

' --

'

~'•

· · ·· itefish LCJke I ~

\

•

•

I

II

I ~

~ :l l r IR2

-

'

I

a

'

•

'

......

•

4

'It

'
'
J;'

~

~

'

I

•

"

I

'

~

•

' ' ....

- ---

- ....
-~

\

...

•

,
•

~

• ..

'

'

\

'

~

he IRlO

~t~

•

,.

"' .
.

.,. .'

,

• Tezzeron IR8
Pinche IR7A

,•

4

•

~~--

...

•

..

,
,
•• •
•,

ij

I

f

If( ~ ~ JJ<J. .£

9

'.

.... •

"

f. ~

~.~

.

' ... ...... ....

•

••

' ' .........

~

•

.... .

Pacifi(: Great Eastern
Railway Route
..

Rapids

'

""

~

#

~r~

. tk ,· ~.

~

-

Nancut --

,,

,

~

....
_ Gelangle
IRl

I

•

•

_
•
'(IIIII'"··~-- -._
•

\

... -...

~

Hansen IR13
~

...

~

__ I •

...

-

~
..

•

-

...,

..

'

.. ,..,

..

Eagle Creek IR6

.,

.,

66

In early December DIA officials at the Stuart Lake Agency asked the Band to consider what
form of compensation it would like for the surrender of the land required for by the Railway.
There was a sense of urgency as construction would be delayed if the crews reached the first
reserve and a deal was not yet in place, but the Band Council replied that it was not
prepared to make a deal "on such short notice, or give authority to the railway to enter the
reserves for the purpose of carrying out surveys, clearing or construction of the
railway ... until the Band has determined what they consider to be fair compensation for the
land required by the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company. " 20 The Band Council
indicated that it would not make any decisions until after Christmas when more Band
members would be available to participate in the discussion. The Band Council also told DIA
that it would handle the negotiations with PGE on its own. 21 Independence from DIA and a
commitment to community discussion and decision making were the pattern that the Band
followed for the duration of the negotiations.
Through December crews continued to clear the right-of-way towards Tache IRl.
DIA claimed to have been monitoring the situation to ensure that the work crews did not do

any clearing on reserve lands.22 However, given the total absence of discussions between

20

A. C. Roach (DIA) to Regional Superintendent of Administration (DIA). December 2, 1968. DIA Railway
Right-of Way File 985/30-26, 1967-1969. Tl'azt ' en NROC.
21
C.S. Johnston-Watson (Assistant Superintendent, Stuart Lake Indian Agency, DIA) to J.W. Churchman
(DIA). March 31, 1969. DIA Surveys and Reserves File 985/31-2-26, 1968-1972. Tl'azt'en NROC. In this
same spirit, in August 1969 the Band Council informed DIA that it did not feel that the land exchange should
be conducted under Section 35 of the Indian Act. It was concerned about "the broad powers of decision
Section 35 gives to the Minister to conduct the exchange on the Band's behalf." It seems that the Band was
satisfied after DIA assured it that, despite the way Section 35 reads, the Minister merely approves the decision
of the Band- "the final decision as to what exact exchange parcels of land are to be acceptable in exchange rests
entirely in the Band Council and no one else." See J.H . MacAdams (Administrator of Lands, DIA) to
Regional Director (DIA). September 3, 1969. Land Claims Second Copies, File STB vs. BCRail.
Tl'azt'en BOBC.
22
C.S. Johnston-Watson (DIA) to J.W. Churchman (DIA). March 31 , 1969. DIA Surveys and Reserves File
985/31-2-26, 1968-1972. Tl'azt'en NROC.

67

PGE and the Band, it is not hard to understand that the community was concerned that PG E

would not stop at the reserve boundary. In early January Band Councilor Augustine
Joseph fired a rifle into the air to get the attention of the crew as they worked close to the
reserve. Though he was charged and sentenced to a jail term for his action, work on the
right-of-way was halted until PGE and the Band could meet to negotiate a deal. 23
The Tl ' azt'en did not have a say in whether or not the railway would be built
through their territory, nor any influence on its exact route. But by establishing that it
would decide what it wanted as compensation, that it would negotiate independently with
PGE, and by taking its time in making a deal with PG E, the Band asserted its authority over

the reserves. The reserves were sites of ' difference ' and Native power within the Provincial
Government' s production of space, and the Tl ' azt' en' s reserve rights gave them the ability
to delay construction, and leverage in the negotiations over compensation.
PGE officials finall y sat down with the Chief and Council on January 15, 1969. PG E

stated that the railway would now go through Eagle Creek IR6 as well. The Chief and
Council came to the meeting knowing what they wanted from PG E - the option not only to
trade the land needed for the rights-of-way but also the portions of the reserves that the
rights-of-way would ' cut off' from the main part of the reserves. A DIA official reported:
"PGE did not want to include the fractions .. . but the Indian people insisted that these be

included in the trade because they would be very small isolated parcels of land with little
value." 24 The Tl ' azt' en wanted to increase their legal land rights; in trading the cut-offs,
they could make a larger deal.
23

Augustine Joseph served two of his nine month sentence in a Prince George jail and then was released.
Interview with Ed John, February 9, 1998, and with Harry Pierre January 27, 1999.
24
C.S . Johnston-Watson (DI A) to J.W. Churchman (DI A). March 31 , 1969. DI A Surveys and Reserves File
985/3 1-2-26, 1968-1972. Tl'azt'en NROC.

68

3.4

The January 1969 Agreement

A second meeting was held with PGE on January 25th. Band members came prepared to
make a deal. They decided to surrender the cut-offs on each of the reserves except for oneGrand Rapids IRS , because the railway passed through the centre of the reserve and they felt
that too much land would be lost. They chose to surrender the whole of Soyandostar IR2
because the tracks would be laid so close to the shore of Trembleur Lake that it would cease
to be a suitable place for Za Williams' hunting, fishing and trapping camp. As shown in
Figure 3.1a, the Band members voted to surrender the 57.1 acres required by PGE for the
rights-of-way on the seven reserves and an additional 321 acres in cut-offs, for a total of
378.1 acres.
Tl'azt'en Reserves
Affected by PG E
Tache IRI

Original
Acreage

Approximate
Acreage of
Right-of-Way

1655

11.4

Approximate
Acreage of CutOff
152

Total to be
Surrendered
163.4

.9E~~~.~.~P.!.~~}~~...................... ...................?..~.~-- .............................. )}:.~ ........................................: ..............................!}:.?...

Stevan IR4
49
3.1
30
33.1
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Teeslee IR3
253
6.7
50
56.7
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..~~. .~!) 92~.!~~-.~~..............................................i1................................... ~.:9......................................1~.............................. ~~. .Q..

.9.~!.~l} \~}~J. ..................................................?.i?................................. .J.}:.~..................................... .?.~.............................. ~?.. .~..
. ~ !~.. r.~~~.. ~ §.............................................. iQ................................... ~.:9...................................... L~..............................f.Q. .Q..
Total

57.1

321

378.1

Figure 3.1a Surrender Lands, 196925

Once the acreages to be surrendered were known, the Council met in another room to decide
the terms of the proposal that would be put to PGE. After an hour, Chief Harry Pierre
proposed to PGE that the Band receive three acres for every one the used, or cut-off, by the

25

G.L. Ritchie (Right-of-Way and Lease Agent, PGE) to A.C. Roach (DIA). January 31, 1969. Box: Land
Claims Second Copies, File: STB vs. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

69
railway. Under these terms the Band would receive 1,134.3 acres of new reserve lands.
Harry Pierre also presented the five parcels the Band would like to receive (See Figure 3.2a
and Map 3.3). POE stated that the request was reasonable, but the deal could only be
approved by the Minister of Lands.

Tl'azt'en Land Selections

Acres

Rationale for Selection

1.

Parcel at west end ofTrembleur Lake

50*

A favourite hunting and fishing campsite.

2.

Lot 3022, 3022A, 2023 adjacent to
Pinche IR2

488

Lake shore property suitable for development into summer
home sites to provide lease revenue. Also medicine and
berry picking area.

3.

Parcel on Kuzkwa river, at outlet of
Tezzeron Lake

120*

Hunting and fishing campsite, a favourite spot of the Pierre
family.

4.

Parcel at east end ofTrembleur Lake

8*

A cabin site for Za Williams and his family, to replace the
one which had been on the surrendered Soyandostar IR2.

5.

Lot 2371 and easterly portion of 2370

468*

Probably for development for lease lots and/or Hunting and
Fishing Lodge.

Total

1134*

Figure 3.1b. Compensation Lands, 1969 26

* approximate

Though the Band had concerns about the railway, it did not appear to have the option to not
grant the right-of-ways:
It was felt by the Indian people and expressed by Mr. Pierre that the Railway will
greatly affect those resources, particularly wildlife resources, used extensively by the
Indian people for food. The Middle River along which the POE travels is considered
to be one of the finest moose hunting areas in British Columbia. The game will
definitely be affected in the future by the railway and this to them, the Indian people,
was a matter of great concern. Other points of inconvenience ranging from access to
noise were mentioned by Mr. Pierre and he informed the POE officials that as soon as
he received a commitment from them in writing or, to use his own words 'in black
and white' , the PO E would be permitted to pass through the Reserves. 27
26

G.L. Ritchie (PG E) to A.C. Roach (DIA). January 31, 1969. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB
vs . BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC ; and C.S. Johnston-Watson (DIA) to J.W. Churchman (DIA). March 31 , 1969.
DIA Surveys and Reserves File 985/31-2-26, 1968-1972. Tl'azt'en NROC.
27
C.S . Johnston-Watson (DI A) to File. January 28, 1969. DIA Surveys and Reserves File 985/31-2-26, 19681972. Tl ' azt' en NROC.

•

•

Scale l : 350,000

Proposed Railway
Route

..

~

N

---

~

...

Compensation
Land

Tl' azt'en Reserve

LEGEND

Surrendered Land

•

'

...

A

~

•

--

..,

"

•

..

~

Eagle Creek IR6

.,

,.

1'

14

•

...

~

- ....

'W' ~

•

~

-

...

5

'

\

,

-

'··

'#

•

•

..

'

.
•

,

-

}

__ ,

~

/

-4

I~

..

•

,

l

I

''

' ' ..... '
'\
\

~

' .....

-

6

.

'

• I

~

'

' \ Tache IRl

•

.

• --

•

Map 3.3

.

~

..

'"

' ....

,

-

••

....

..

January 1969
Agreement

'
I ~1

Soyandostar IR2

........_..

~r~- ~- ~~

~
•

a ..

._

...,

.

~

,,
...

•

..

,

•• •
~

[

I

,,

!i

'

..
I

r

'

4

~

f '

•

. r- ~

.,.

,

"'.

.

,.

~

•

,

•

~

A

..

.

70

The speed at which the Band completed these negotiations may seem surprising
given the significant change it represented, the size of the construction project, and the fact
that it impacted so many of the Band's reserves. But at this time, the Band could only try
to make best of the situation by using the opportunity to secure as much new reserve lands
as possible. The apparent efficiency with which they conducted the negotiations and chose
the compensation lands can be attributed to the capacity of Chief Harry Pierre, the
confidence that the Band membership had in him, and the fact that the Tl'azt'en were
experienced in considering exchanges and other land transactions. 28 Most importantly, it
seems clear that the Band wanted to secure more land for reserves and, therefore, needed
little time to consider the deal with PGE, and were even excited to have the opportunity to do
so.
The Tl'azt'en's choices in the January 1969 Agreement are a reflection of the
economic, political and spatial strategies of the community. Their decision to surrender the
cut-offs shows that the Tl ' azt'en wished to enlarge their legal land base, and were willing to
trade lands they perceived as less valuable. At this time neither the Federal or Provincial
Governments recognized the existence of Aboriginal title but the Tl'azt'en did not attempt
to question their jurisdiction in Tl'azt'en territory. Nor did the Tl'azt'en try to contest the
Provincial Government's land administration; rather they strove to negotiate their place
within it. However much the Tl'azt'en's efforts to trade and acquire parcels of land suggest
that they had adopted the Euro-Canadian visualization of land as a commodity, their land
selections also illustrate that they still placed a high priority on the traditional economy. At
this point the Tl'azt'en appear to not have the power, nor the need to protect off-reserve
28

In 1965 the T1'azt'en considered purchasing land in Fort St. James . In I 968 they were considering land
exchanges involving Hanson lR 13 and Tezzeron IR8. In the early 1960s the Band had also formally requested
several new reserves- see Chapter Two. For comments praising the capacity of Chief Harry Pierre see C.S.
Johnston-Watson (DIA) to File. January 28, 1969. DIA Surveys and Reserves File 985/31-2-26, 1968-1972.
Tl'azt' en NROC.

71

hunting territories. The strategy behind selecting Parcels One, Three, and Four was to secure
bases from which they could access traditional resources of the territory. These selections
show the Tl'azt' en' s lives had never been contained or dictated by their original reserve
allotment, and that Band members continued to use many off-reserve sites.
The location of reserves at sites already used by certain families may also reflect who
within the community had the power to influe.nce the decision on land selections. The land
selections do not reflect the fact that many Tl'azt'en worked part of the year as wage
labourers for the forest industry. The choice of Parcels Two and Five do show that the
Tl ' azt' en were seeking new ways to bring in revenues. The Tl'azt' en had goals and
strategies, (some which were unique to Native society, some not) that they sought to
inscribe in space when they had the opportunity to secure lands within the Government
production of space.

3.5

Relations Between PGE and the Tl'azt'en During Construction

On January 31st, PG E advised that the proposal had been approved in principle by the
Minister ofLands.Z9 The speed with which the Band' s terms traveled from their tiny
isolated village to the people in power in Victoria reveals how very anxious PGE and the
Provincial Government were to proceed with the clearing and construction of the railway.
PGE requested that it be given "timely confirmation that the Railway could proceed," adding

that "the small details as to the variable acreages will need to be decided after a legal
survey." 30 In fact, what was meant was that the details of the agreement could be worked
out after the railroad was constructed. This manner of haste would mean first, that the right29

Two days after the meeting in Tache the Band's terms were presented to the Director of Lands, and the next
day to Ray Williston, Minister of Lands. G.L. Ritchie (PGE) to A.C. Roach (DIA). January 31 , 1969. Box:
Land Claims Second Copies, File : STB vs. BCRail. Tl'azt' en BOBC.
30
G.L. Ritchie (PG E) to A.C. Roach (DIA) . January 31, 1969. Box : Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB
vs. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

72

of-way would be cleared prior to its exact location being known, and second, that the line
would be constructed prior to a signed agreement. These would both have important
consequences.
The Band did oblige PGE's desire to re-start the project and quickly issued a Band
Council Resolution on February 2, 1969 permitting the PGE to proceed. The Band did so
because it did not want to unnecessarily antagonize PGE, and also because it wanted the land
exchange to be completed as soon as possible. It was especially anxious to be able to
develop the lands it had chosen adjacent to Pinche IR2 into cottage lease lots to bring in
revenue. The Band was already working towards leasing fifty shorefront lots on Pinche IR2,
and was aware that it could take months or years to develop its new lands even after the land
was in its possession.
PGE completed clearing the right-of-way in mid-March 1969. The Band requested
that PGE determine the exact acreages involved so that the land exchange could proceed. 31
There would be no quick conclusion to the land deal, however. First, the approval of the
Minister oflndian Affairs would be required. Yet in the spring of 1969, as DIA' s Stuart Lake
Agency was reporting on the proposed exchange to several levels within the Federal
Department, the Minister's office in Ottawa was receiving letters from Band member David
Joseph of Middle River Village. He had various questions and comments on the deal that the
Band had negotiated.32 Thorough briefings to Ottawa had to be written by local DIA officials
to explain David Joseph' s dissent and to reassure Departmental Headquarters that the deal
31

A. C. Roach (DIA) to F. Walchli (Regional Superintendent of Economic Development, DIA). March 12,
1969. DIA Railway Right-of Way File 985/30-26, 1967-1969. Tl ' azt'en NROC.
32
In three letters that Spring Joseph requested compensation from PGE for the important Trembleur Trail
which would be blocked by the steep railway grade. The railway was also built right on top of the trail for
long stretches. He was also generally dissatisfied with the deal the Band had made and pointed out that only
two people from Middle River Village (Gelangle IRI) had attended the January 25, I 969 negotiation meeting.
DIA informed Chief Harry Pierre of the complaints, but was satisfied that Camille Joseph, (hereditary chief of
Middle River Village) had represented the interests of that village at the meeting. The Band later requested
that PGE build level crossings of the railway grade at strategic locations to make travel across the right-of-way
on foot or snowmobile easier.

73

was in the best interests of the whole Band. Though there is no written record of such, it is
very likely that discussion and deliberation about the deal also continued within the Band.
Further delay was also caused by the Federal Surveyor General's office, which had
not yet issued survey instructions to PGE. Concerned that nothing had happened since
January, and sensing that both federal departments needed every encouragement to be
expedient, in late May the Band made it clear that it would "cancel the whole proposal
unless Ottawa acts immediately."33 That the Band knew it had that power would become
even more significant two years later.
Though survey instructions were issued a short time later, PGE decided to postpone
the surveys until fall. In the fall PGE said the surveys would be done in the spring. When
spring came it said they would be done in summer. The delays in completing the surveys
continued and were the major reason that the land exchange took many years longer to
complete than it should have. The delays caused the Band to be frustrated, wary, and to
eventually reconsider the deal. 34
Other irritations also strained relations between PGE and the Band. PGE had
originally indicated that the right-of-way through Gelangle IRl would cut off only a small
corner of the reserve. However, these plans were altered by PGE without consultation and
the right-of-way was cut right through the centre of the reserve. If PGE thought that the

33

Note to File regarding phone conversation between Stuart Lake Agency Official (DIA) and F. Walchli (DIA).
May 27, 1969. DIA Railway Right-of- Way File 985/31-2-26, 1968-1972. Tl'azt'en NROC.
34
The Band viewed the failure of PGE to complete the surveys with much suspicion: "BCR promised on July
22, 1970 that the survey would be completed before the end of 1970, promised on July 7, 1971 that the survey
would be completed for October of 1971 , and promised on September I of 1971 that the survey would be
completed for 1972. In fact, the survey work was only completed in October of 1973 ... Estimates from a legal
surveyor indicated that the necessary surveys could have been completed in one to two months." (Stuart
Trembleur Lakes Band Press Release. August 15, 1975. Land Claims Second Copies, File STB v. BCRail.
Tl ' azt' en BOBC) At times PGE stated that its delays would allow the Band time to settle on which lands it
desired in the exchange, but this was never the reason the surveys were delayed. Rather PGE had only one
survey crew to do all its work across the Province. If the delays had some strategic purpose for PGE or the
Provincial Government, it was a ill-advised strategy given that a signed agreement did not exist between the
parties. The delays allowed the Band significant time to reconsider the deal it had made.

74

Band would not notice or care, it was mistaken. On July 10, 1969, Roach (DIA) reported:
I attended a meeting yesterday with the Tache Band Council. .. [they] are of the
opinion that 200 acres have been severed by the location of the railway line rather
than the 32 suggested. They are quite incensed about this as they feel the Railway
should have had the courtesy to approach them before proceeding. Would you
please contact Mr. Ritchie of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway immediately for an
explanation as this whole thing could be blown sky high. 35
There is no documentation of the Band's discussions with POE about this issue; however the
end result was that the additional acres cut-off at Gelangle IR1 were factored into the land
exchange according to the original3-for-1 exchange formula. Later the Band decided to not
surrender the cut-off at Gelangle IR1, to delete its request for Compensation Lands Number
Five,36 and to add four new parcels to their land requests. 37 The shuffling of parcels of land
clearly show the Band operating within Euro-Canadian modes of visualization and
administration of space, yet their land selections show a mix of traditional and capitalist
economic goals. The Band was attempting to find the best land strategies to deal with, and
benefit from, the gradual encroachment of non-native activities in their territory.
There remained some uncertainty about the exact location of all the Compensation
Lands because POE had still not completed the survey of the right-of-way and cut-offs, and
therefore the acreages could not yet be calculated. Apart from a juggling of some the
acreages, there were no other changes to the Band's land selections until 1976. However,
35

A.C. Roach (DIA) to F. Walchli (DIA). July I 0, 1969. Box : Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB vs.
BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.
36
Parcel 5 was taken out of the Band's land request in the spring of 1969. The Band had realized that the
land was generally boggy and unsuitable for development. In November 1970, the Band also decided to not
surrender the 200 acres cut-off at Gelangle lR I. The size of the cut-off had dramatically increased and the Band
was not comfortable giving up that much land at Middle River. The combination of these two decisions
resulted in a reduction of 112 acres from the total acres the Band would get from the land exchange.
37
The four new parcels selected were: Lot 1471 , adjacent to Nancut IR3 (the old homestead of Band member
Tom Monk); a 20 acre parcel within Lot 4952 (desired for its frontage on Whitefish Lake and because it
contained hay meadows used by Band members) ; 300-500 acres in either Lot 4111 or 3111 (desired for their
proximity to Fort St. James) ; and the southern half of Lot 3608 adjacent to Tache IRI. The Band was
considering adding these lands after they were aware of the increase in the cut-off at Gelangle IR1 and after
deciding not to acquire Parcel 5. However, when it was later decided to not surrender the cut-off at Gelangle
IR I, the acreages of many of the exchange lands had to be adjusted to fit the four new parcels into their request.

-------- ----- - --------------------------------------------------~
75

another issue arose that caused the Tl'azt' en to begin to question whether the land exchange
was the appropriate form of compensation.

3.6

Concerns about the Impact of the Railway on Wildlife

Those in the Tl'azt'en community most involved in traditional activities began to notice a
significant reduction in wildlife in their hunting grounds along the railway route. In 1970 and
1971 Camille Joseph sent six letters to PG E and DIA calling attention to his reduced trapping
and hunting success. He blamed the railway and requested that he be compensated directly
by PGE with an annual payment so that he could buy food to replace what he could no
longer get from the bush: "Please help me out with the money I ask for ... The PGE went thru
our reserve and ruin our trap lines [and] beaver dams and that is where I make my living for
my family, that' s why I ask for a reward from you which I hope I get." 38
He was not the only Band member claiming that railway had threatened his ability to
provide food for his family , and in August 1971 DIA requested that Chief Harry Pierre
supply a list of people requesting compensation for impacts on wildlife and for the fact that
the steep and high right-of-way grade impaired access on their traplines. 39 Letters

38

Camille Joseph to DI A. August I0, I 97 I. Box : Land Claims Second Copies. File: STB vs . BCRail
Tl ' azt' en BOBC .
39
The requests for money from PGE materialized partly because PGE had paid Za Williams $500 as
compensation for the displacement of his cabin on Soyandostar IR2 . Also, all the letters to DIA should be
understood in the context that prior to amalgamation in 1959, each village had dealt directly with DIA through
its own Chief, not through the Chief at Tache. Further, though Chief Harry Pierre was making efforts to
encourage Band members otherwise, many among the Band membership still looked to DIA to handle their
affairs and make important decisions . While there were some significant underlying issues about the structure
of the Band following amalgamation which are still a factor in the politics of the Band today, the letters to DIA
and PGE were not a sign that the Band members were dissatisfied with Chief and Council, or that Chief and
Council was ignoring their concerns. As Band members became aware of the impact of the railway on wildlife,
the deal the Band had made made Jess sense. Band members did not blame Tache; they blamed PGE. For a
discussion of the legacy of amalgamation and the dependence of Band members on DIA see C.S. JohnstonWatson (DIA) to J.W . Churchman (DIA). March 31, 1969. DI A Surveys and Reserves File 985/31-2-26,
1968-1972. Tl ' azt' en NROC ; and Interview with Harry Pierre, January 27, 1999.

76

requesting compensation for the loss of wildlife continued through 1972 and 1973.40 Band
members also wrote to DIA about including some parcels in the land exchange, though these
were ones that were already part of the Band's current requests.41
By the spring of 1973 the construction of the railway was complete as far as Takla
Landing and trains began running. This underscored the fact that the Band had not yet
received any compensation for the right-of-ways through their reserves. Officials at PGE
were indeed "seriously concerned with relations with the Stuart-Trembleur Band."42 Yet
while PGE continued to receive letters alleging that the railway had impacted wildlife, was
aware that the Band viewed it with increasing suspicion, and acknowledged that there
"might be difficulty in finalizing the agreement," PGE believed that the difficulty only lay in
the Tl'azt'en deciding what lands they wanted. 43 In fact, though some final acreages and
boundaries still needed to be worked out, in July 1973 , the Band Council was ready to
request that the exchange be completed as shown in Figures 3.2a and 3.2b, and on Map 3.4.

40

See DIA Regional Railway Right-of- Way File 985/31-2-26, Vol.2 1970-74. Tl ' azt'en NROC.
People in Portage Village requested that DIA include in the exchange land adjacent to Nancut IR3 and a
parcel ofhayland on Whitefish Lake (see Note 37). Though they knew that the Chief had agreed with them to
request these parcels, these Band members directed their petitions to DIA because, as discussed in Note 39,
these Band members had the impression that DI A was the authority which would ultimately decide what lands
were included in the land exchange.
42
L.F. Swannell to J.D. Hartley (Canadian Executive Service Overseas). March 26, 1973 . DJA Railway
Right-of-Way File 985/31-2-26-1 , Vol.l , 1971-1976. Tl ' azt' en NROC. Swannel, the former Chief Forester
for B.C, was hired by DI A to assi st the Band in the land exchange. He helped the Band by getting them maps
and doing field checks of the lands involved, but he did not have to help the Band decide which lands it
wanted. His main role was to report to DIA whether the Band's decisions were sound.
43
Swannell to Hartley, March 26, 1973. DIA Railway Right-of-Way File 985/31-2-26-1 , Vol.l , 1971-1976.
Tl ' azt'en NROC.
41

77

TI'azt'en Reserves
affected by PGE

Original
Acreage

Acres to be
Surrendered in 1969
Agreement

Acres to be
Surrendered,
July 1973

TacheiRI
1655
163.4
88.20 .
··········
······································· ...........................................................................................................................................
.9.!.~!'!9..~-~.P.!.~~J~.~..........................................?..~.~........................................!.?. . .?..:.................................... ..?.: .:~.§.:..

--~~-~~~-~-~~: . ......................................................... :7.?.......................................... }.~.:.!.. . .................................... }.?.:.?.9. .
.I~.~~.!~~.J.~?. ......................................................?..~.?. ..........................................?..~:.?. .......................................§.?.. .?.9..
..~~.Y.~!.I:~9.~!~~..I.!~- ?............... ................................ i~ .. ................................ ............~: . ..............................................~: . .
.9.~!-~!'! .\~J~.!....................................................?.:7.?. ..........................................~.~.:.~......................................?.;?.:9.?..:..
..§~ !~..~!.~~~.J.~§............................................... iQ..............................................?.9........................................;?}. .?.~..
Total

378.1

306.08

Compensation: 306.08 x 3 = 918.24

Figure 3.2a. Surrender Lands, 1973

Tl'azt'en Land Selections

* Surrender of right-of-way only, not cut-off.

Acres

Rationale For Selection

I.

Lot 686, West end of Trembleur

80

Hunting and fishing campsite, also potential for leasing

2.

Lots 3022, 3022A, 3023,

488

Extension of Pinche IR2 for Tl 'azt'en home sites, or for

4.

Vicinity of Lot 3649, East end of
Trembleur lake

I 0*

Base for hunting, trapping and fishing. A new cabin had
already been built here by Za Williams to replace the one

........ .. h~~............................................................. ..................... ..~~-~!!-. ~..~.\~.~-~................................................................................................. ..

.......... ~.~J.~~~!).!.~?..~!.!'!~~-~ ..Y.!.l.!~ ~: ........................................ !~.~-~-~- ..~~--~~P.P.~.~-~.?.~~ -~-~H~~: .............................................................
..?.:... .. h9.!..§~.?.~..?.!.l.. ~~-~~-~-~.i.~~ ..............................!.?.9....~~-~~..f.?.!..h.~!'!~!!.l. ..!!.~P.P.!!.J: ,.. ~!.l.~..t!.~N!.!: .............................................
........................................................................................................!.2.~.E~.lE.?.~.~?...~9.'E..~.?.~.~~.?.9.~~~~}.~:................................................
5.

Portion of Lot 1471, adjacent to

50*

Extension ofNancut IR3 to include farm lands used by

.......... P.~.~~ ~..Y.AJ).~ ~................................................................~~!.!:~..~-~.!'!?.~~~~: ......................................................................................... ..

Portion of Lot 4952, fronting on
20* Hay land/pasture, and as base hunting, fishing and trapping .
........ ...~.i.!~. ~~-. ~.~ ............................................................. ............................................................................................................................
7. Lot 3111A or 4111 , Fort St.
100* Potential home sites for Tl'azt'en living in Fort St. James,
James
plus possible rentals to other parties for commercial or
residential use
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
8. The south half of Lot 3808
50* Extension of Tache IR I to provide land for future Band
members ' homes.
Total
918*
6.

Figure 3.2b. Compensation Lands, 1973 44

*Approximate

The decision to not surrender the cut-off at Gelangle IR 1, and differences in the estimated
and surveyed acreages of the right-of-ways and cut-offs, resulted in a significant decrease in

44

Source: L.F. Swannell to J.D . Hartley. August 3, 1973. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v.
BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

•

I

~

Scale 1 : 350,000

PGE Railway

Compensation
Land

Surrendered Land

Tl'azt'en Reserve

LEGEND

•

I

-

~

N

I

,.

'

'

-

~

•

~

.

....

•

,

'*

~

•• ... "

... •

...
...

..

~
.

•

-

..,

'

~.

.. """

&

Eagle Creek IR6

.,

-

.
•

#

' ~r

.
...

',.,

4

I

•

__ ,

- -

"T

•

.

,

\ \

~

-

...

Tache

•
-~~

•

Map 3.4

.

1

~l

~

'"

'

~

~

•

..

-

'"

••

..

a

The Land Exchange
in July 1973

Rapids IRS. -

'

._

...

,

~

~

I

...

'- , , ,
- •
i

/;

•

••

~

r

li

II

4

•

'

t -

...

.,

,

•

~

•

"'.

.

,.

~

•

,

It

~

. .

78
the amount efland the Tl ' azt' en would receive in the land exchange ( 1134 acres vs 918
acres). Parcels One through Four remained substantially the same. But, despite having over
two hundred less acres to work with, the Tl'azt'en decided to add several new parcels to
their land request. Further internal discussions had led to further diversity in their spatial
and economic strategies. Parcels Five and Six were chosen to assist the farming activities of
the people of Portage Village. Parcel Seven was chosen for the benefit ofTl'azt'en people
living and working at the sawmills in Fort St. James, while Parcel Eight was for those who
chose to continue to live in Tache.
The Tl'azt'en would have benefited from acquiring these lands, especially those that
provided opportunities outside of the bush economy . A majority of the Tl'azt' en, however,
still relied on game meat and other resources found off-reserve; merely securing more reserve
land began to appear to be a losing strategy when it was the larger tracts of wildlife habitat
that had always provided the Tl'azt'en their security and independence. It was those
wildlife resources that the railway had threatened. The land exchange did not provide a
solution to this problem, and the Band, therefore, started thinking about re-opening the
negotiations.
Neither DIA nor PGE were aware that the Band was considering this- it was actually
even a sudden turn around for the Band leadership, as they were so near to finalizing the land
exchange. Yet Band members had not ceased suggesting to DIA or PGE that the decrease of
wildlife resources would be catastrophic. However, the consistent response to their
petitions was: "Your Band Council has already agreed on a land exchange with the railway
as the means of compensation for the reserve lands taken. No money is to be paid to any

79
Band member according to the agreement." 45 After hearing the words "according to the
agreement" every time they approached PGE or DIA, it is not surprising that eventually the
Tl ' azt' en took a look at whether they had, in fact, ever entered into an agreement.

3.7

Tl'azt'en Re-open the Negotiations

The early 1970s in British Columbia saw increased communication between Bands, and the
growth ofNative political organizations. 46 By forging links across the Province between
Native people these organizations contested the division and separation which colonial and
Department oflndian Affairs administration had created with the 'Indian Band' and 'Indian
Reserve' systems. British Columbia's political space was effectively reconfigured as
communication between Bands increased. Empowered by a sense of collective struggle and
by knowledge of other Band ' s actions, Native people found a space from which they could
more effectively mount resistance against a variety of concerns and, "[i]n 1973 the
contemporary era of British Columbia Indian political protest began."47
The Tl'azt'en influenced and were influenced by the development ofNative
organizations and the general empowerment experienced by Native people at this time. On
August 9, 1973 Chief Harry Pierre asked DIA to forward all information on the 1969
45

R.M Mcintyre (Development Officer, DIA , Prince George) to Camille Joseph. January 17, 1973. Box:
Land Claims Second Copies, File : STB v. BCRail. Tl'azt' en BOBC.
46
" By 1972 the political environment of British Columbia Indians was radically different from what it had
ever been in the past. The British Columbia Association of Non-Status Indians and the Union of British
Colubmia Indian Chiefs were now the dominant elements in Indian politics, each having some two hundred
full-time employees and an annual budget in excess of $2 million ." (Tennant 1990: 165). When the New
Democratic Party defeated the Social Credit Party in the August 1972 provincial election, Native people were
optimistic that the new government would recognize Aboriginal title and begin negotiating land claim
settlements. There was also now a "thriving set of Indian publications ... [that] provided much political
information, not only about organizations, issues, and the leaders within the province, but also about events
and developments elsewhere in Canada and in the United States .... For the first time political ideas and
information circulated widely and quickly among British Columbia Indians." Paul Tennant, 1990.
Aboriginal People and Politics : The Indian Land Question in British Columbia 1849-1989. page 165.
47
Tennant, Aboriginal People and Politics , 171 . See also Pages 174-175.

80
agreement reached with PG E to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. In mid-August Chief Harry
Pierre met with Harry Crosby of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs in Vancouver to discuss
whether the Band had ever made a binding agreement with PGE. 48 Then, on August 30, 1973,
the Band issued three Band Council Resolutions (Figure 3.3):

Stuart Trembleur Band Council Resolutions, August 30, 1973.
1. That any land exchange acceded to in 1969 be held in abeyance.

2. Whereas the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad has built a road bed, laid tracks, and is running trains
in the right-of-way which we gave permission for the Railroad to survey and clear; and whereas the
Pacific Great Eastern Railroad (now called British Columbia Railroad) has failed to complete the
trading of land; and whereas the trains have disrupted our way of life and the game on the reservation,
we do hereby resolve that the negotiations be re-opened with the Railroad with the demand that
$7,000,000 plus a 3 for I trade ofland can be recovered from the British Columbia Railroad as
compensation for the land, the use of the land, and the loss of game.
3. That if British Columbia Railroad (BCR) fails to enter into negotiations with the Band within two
months, that the Band wi II take action towards stopping the passage of trains through reserve land or
towards levying a toll on all trains which pass through the private right-of-way on reserve lands.

Figure 3.3 49
At first British Columbia Railway (BCR) waited to see whether DIA would endorse the
Band' s actions by approving the Band Council Resolutions as per normal procedure, but
BCR eventually decided to meet with the Band and discuss its new claim. Harry Crosby,
who had now been retained by the Band to represent them, met with BCR in Vancouver on
November 1st- the very day the Band had said the blockade would go up ifBCR did not

°

come to the table. 5 Crosby explained that the Band felt that the negotiations in January
1969 had not resulted in an enforceable contract, only an agreement to make an agreement.

48

Harry Crosby had also assisted the Fort St. John Band in a dispute with PGE concerning right-of-ways on
their reserves in 1971-72.
49
Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band, Band Council Resolutions 10/73-74, 11/73-74 and 12/73-74. August 30,
1973. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl ' azt' en BOBC.
50
Harry Crosby had worked for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, but when he was hired by the Band his title
changed to 'student at law ' with the firm of Shore and Helsing, Vancouver. In later years he refers to himself
as a barrister and solicitor.

81
He pointed out that the Band only gave permission to the Railway to survey and clear land
on the reserves, not to construct the roadbed and lay tracks, and therefore every time trains
ran through the reserves a trespass was committed. He explained that the Band felt that it
had the right to proceed against the railway for trespass, and a right to prevent further
trespasses. He also said that the Band felt that it had a possible action against the Railway
under the tort of nuisance for the disruption it had caused to trapping, fishing and Band
members' way of life. 51 It was made clear to BCR that the Band's claim was not based on
Aboriginal rights, but on property rights and the ecological and social impact of the
railway. 52 This is significant because the Tl'azt'en did not seek, at this time, to challenge
the authority of the Provincial Government to administer the lands and resources of their
territory outside their reserves. This meeting and later correspondence made it clear that the
Band did not seek to prevent the railway from using the line it had built, but sought to
negotiate a new agreement concerning compensation.
At another meeting two days later in Tache, Band members told BCR of a significant
decline in hunting success and of damage to fishing streams caused by railway. 53 While the
railway went through only ten of the Tl ' azt' en's traplines, it affected the whole community.
The Tache and Middle Rivers along which the railway ran were considered communal
hunting areas even though they were within particular Band members' trap lines. 54 These

51

Notes by DIA Official of a meeting November I, 1973 between BCR, Harry Crosby and DIA in Vancouver.
DIA Regional Railway Right-of-Way File 985/31-2-26, Vol.2, 1970-1974. Tl ' azt ' en NROC.

52

The Tl'azt' en deliberately decided not to base their claims on Aboriginal rights . This was because, at the
time, the recognition and definition of Aboriginal rights was anything but certain. See Michael Asch, 1989.
"To Negotiate into Confederation: Canadian Aboriginal Views on Their Political Rights." We Are Here:
Politics of Aboriginal Land Tenure. E. Wilmsen (ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Page 119.
53
At the November 3, 1973 meeting were representatives from BCR and DIA, the Minister of Transportation
and Highways, two MLAs, the Executive Assistant to the Premier, Harry Crosby, Chief Harry Pierre, the
Band Council, and 60 band members. Notes by DIA Official of Meeting in Tache November 3, 1973. DIA
Railway Right-of-Way File 985/31-2-26, Vol.2 . 1970-1974. Tl ' azt ' en NROC.
54
" The Socio-Economic Effects," 16.

82
rivers were in fact where most Band members obtained their moose and beaver, and because
of this the railway had a widespread effect on the community. Chief Harry Pierre said that
the land exchange discussed in 1969 was compensation for lost reserve land, but not for loss
of hunting and trapping resources. The Band and BCR agreed that a study be done to
investigate the impact of the railway; further negotiations would be carried out after
completion of the study. BCR agreed to pay for the study and to pay the Band $5,000 as a
permit fee for use of the right-of-ways while the study was being carried out. But the
Railway stated that regardless of the results of the study the $7 million asked for by the
Band was too much. BCR hired a consultant, and the impact study started in December
1973.
On April 9, 1974 the results of the impact study were presented at a meeting in
Tache. The report concluded that:
The Indian People have suffered damages over the years 1969 to the present. These
damages have been in the form of reductions in monetary income from trapping, plus
a reduction in real incomes from the use of moose and fish as a source of food. In
addition they have suffered considerable anxiety and concern over the potential
impact of the railway in permanently impairing their ability to utilize the fish and
wildlife resources of the country.55
The consultants made the following observations: 1) Between 1969 and 1973 moose seemed
to have abruptly disappeared from areas around Tache and Middle Rivers and Trembleur
Lake, and Band members had had to either forego obtaining moose during the fall , or hunt
more intensely in new areas ; 2) Trapping revenue appeared to have declined drastically over
the same period despite a marked increase in fur prices. The most significant declines were
in harvest of muskrat and beaver; 3) There was no evidence of a decline in salmon but,

55

"The Socio-Economic Effects," 74.

83
because of salmon' s four year spawning cycle, effects of the railway construction could not
be truly determined until after 1977. The total monetary damages caused by the
construction and operation of the railway were estimated to be $251 ,000 (damages to
trapping were estimated at $70,000, to hunting $176,000 and to fishing $5 ,000). 56 The
report pointed out that these estimates only included the cash value of these activities, not
the cultural, social, and spiritual value of the resources and of hunting, fishing and trapping
activities. It was emphasized that " [w ]ere the decreased effectiveness of these traditional
activities to continue, it might be expected that they would either be eventually abandoned,
or would cease to represent meaningful and valuable activities. The significance of these
activities in maintaining the social structure of the Indian community has been established.
Loss of these activities would have profound consequences." 57 The consultants concluded
that the disturbance of wildlife had arisen as a result of the construction, not the operation of
the railway. The report therefore recommended that if BCR completed the remedial
recommendations contained in the report that the effect of the BCR on the Band would not
continue in the future. 58
Though the Tl ' azt' en had already made their concerns very clear, the impact study
did give their claims an articulation that could not be dismissed easily by BCR. In particular

56

The study also found that "during the period of 1969-1973 it would appear that the level of government
ass istance payments increased significantly, although it would be difficult to determine the extent of and
reasons for this increase." "The Socio-Economic Effects," 25 .
57
"The Socio-Economic Effects," 76.
58
The remedial actions recommended by the report were: terminate boat and barge traffic on Tache and Middle
Rivers; move railway construction crew camps away from water bodies; remove oil drums, batteries, and
pilings from streams; make culverts passable for fi sh; seed cut banks which were close to water bodies;
reconstruct the Trembleur Trail which connected Tache, Grand Rapids and Middle River Villages and was
used by Band members to access traplines ; and make crossings of the railway grade where needed. "The
Socio-Economic Effects," 73.

84

the report captured how significantly the railway had impacted the Tl ' azt' en' s security:
"Many Band members feel that their use of the land and its resources has been seriously
threatened by the railway line, and that the future of the Band is uncertain as a result of this
threat. " 59 Yet, while the report validated the allegations and complaints of the Band, DI A
officials present at the April 9th meeting stated that "most of the Band members disagreed
with the findings." 60 The Band objected to the report' s recommendation that if the Railway
undertook the remediations, paid $251 ,000 in damages, and completed the land exchange that
the Band would be adequately compensated.
The Tl ' azt' en had lost their security - the wildlife resources of their territory- and
until those resources were returned to an adequate level or were replaced with some other
means of income, they would not feel compensated. The desire to develop a new economic
base was the rationale behind requesting $7 million, and though the Band eventually dropped
the demand for money, it continued to seek compensation in the form of a new economic
base for the community. BCR did not agree to the recommendations of the report either. It
agreed to repair damages related to the construction of the railway but would not commit to
paying further compensation. The meeting was adjourned with only an agreement to
continue the negotiations.

3.8

Expanding the Scope of the Negotiations

The railway, however, was no longer the only source of change that the Tl'azt' en felt
threatened by. They were becoming aware that more and more non-Tl ' azt'en were using
their territory. The impact study, for example, pointed out that an increase in sales of
59

"The Socio-Economic Effects," 26.
District Real Estate Officer (D IA) to File. April 9, 1974. DI A Railway Right-of-Way File 985/31-2-26,
Yo1.2. 1970-1974. Tl 'azt ' en NROC .

60

85

private lots on both Trembleur and Stuart Lakes was expected, and that use of the StuartTrembleur Lakes system and its fish and wildlife resources by white sport-fishers was
expected to increase substantially. A ware ness of these issues caused the Band to
recommend, at the April 9th meeting, that moose hunting by non-natives be closed in the
entire area between Pinche Creek (which runs through Pinche IR2) and the south end of
Takla Lake. The construction of new roads in the territory also added to the concern ofthe
Band that for the first time its use of wildlife resources was threatened by competition with
non-natives. Band members also expressed concern about the number of agricultural and
recreational leases being granted to non-natives within their traplines. 61
More importantly, the railway and new road construction had made the timber in the
heart ofTl'azt'en territory economically accessible. In 1974, the Ministry afForests
divided the territory into Company Operating Areas, and companies were allocated timber
quotas in the area opened up by the railway (see Map 3.5). Two mills and a town site were
built at Leo Creek as a result of the increase in forest development in Tl ' azt'en territory. 62
After generations of relative isolation with only a gradual increase in non-native presence,
development was now entering Tl'azt'en territory very rapidly. More intensive industrial
timber harvesting, now year round and in the heart of the territory, would bring ecological
changes that would further threaten Band members' abilities to supply their families with
food. Yet the forestry industry no longer offered the wage earning opportunities the earlier
forest industry had. Opportunities for employment were fewer because of structural and
technical changes in the industry. The labour force was now unionized, and Native people

61

Bill Graham, "Tachie Reserve: Indian trappers air their beefs," December 1973. Prince George Citizen.
William Young (District Forester, Prince George District, MOF) to Chief Forester (MOF). December 3,
1973 . Box: 37, Stuart Lake PSYU, File: 239, GR 1110 BCARS. The only other non-native settlement
which had ever existed in Tl'azt'en territory was the one built to house workers at Pinchi Mine. It was
occupied only from 1944-49.
62

·"

f·

•

~

,..

-

'

~

~-

D

Surveyed Crown
Land

Scale l : 350,000

Unallocated Forest
Land

~

N

D

D

Private Land

•

.,. .....~

--

I

I

I

I

I

I

;a.,: _ .. - -· -

"

•

•

1

·-

-- .~

\11- ~J. - .,-

•

I

'
~I

-"A

4o

.

_...

~

-1

..

~,.

..... -·" . ,.... ..... .-·-·"'*·-'(.

....

'\

'·..

i

-~~ -----

•

'--

1

.._

I

I

I

.'

...

I

~

I

i

I

I

I

T I

I

~

';

,

~,

l

I

I

I

~

·-

~-

#

•

... _

.

... • J

-

'

'\

r-

I
__ __,I

'

r
--J

......_
..,._ _

..

Apollo·Forest
Products

I
~ - - ~

·-·-·1.

•

·"

.

~

I

·'

•

.. I

'\

.._

\.

.

)

'....'....

~~.

"-·-

\

.,,..·-

.,...-

-·-·I
.

·-.'

...

~

"'· .. )

1.,

.

I

~

.

...

.,.
.'
.,

., .
.
....

- ~- . ..,

'·.......

., • "

\."·

~

iI

.

""---...... ~

Map 3.5

.. ··-.....__·_ : ~ The Reconfiguration of
·· \ ~,- ~ Tl'azt'en Territory 1974

Ta kla Forest •
Products

~

-·-·-·

... ...,.

.....I , ...:-· ...,

\._
•

...

,/')

- ~-

'PrBducts
·,.'- ..... ; ..... ......

Licensee Operating
,
Areas
1

,.

t•

-

BQifour Fore

.... _

(I Recreation Lodge

PGE Railway

Road

...

~

. ~-~
.,.. .,,;

~.

/-

.,.a .

Cr ~ \ Townsite

.~~,~~

LEGEND

,. .... '

r

'..i \ '..

._

~

)

Tl'azt'en Reserve

...

....

f-

,..

.

. ·-·.t
~._

,

I

4

/

.'.

.tI

"I.
'·\

~

1

.

t
+

)

'. I

\

.;' ,.1

·

'\

....

l

.

.. ·• ...

... , ___ .,i
_,

4

...! -· ~~--.

.

..

.

~

'-·--·

,..

,,.·

-·I

~

,~.......

"·
.
-.-.-.-~-

,

•

I'"-.-~-

..

·,

..

~ - - - - - - - - - ~
..
\

~......

....

.._...

.....
"'

•

-#

..

86

were passed over for jobs because of their race, their lack of education, and because most
Tl'azt'en chose not to work year round. Tl'azt'en territory was being reconfigured by
increasing non-native access and use, and by increasing Government administration of the
territory. The Tl'azt'en found their off-reserve space- both their bush economy space and
their wage labour space - becoming smaller.
The Band was well aware of the changes represented by Map 3.5, and in the spring
of 1974 they altered their negotiation strategy. In particular, the Band now felt it needed to
challenge the Government' s administration of its territory , and the Tl'azt'en decided that
their negotiations over the railway should be expanded to include their other issues of
concern: "The Band's traditional territory is being assigned to other uses by the Provincial
Government. The Band should be consulted regarding land use in the area, decisions
regarding land use have been detrimental to the Band ... .The Band wishes to negotiate these
issues with the Provincial Government." 63 Further reasons why the Tl'azt'en needed to
expand the negotiations beyond their grievance with the railroad were suggested to them by
Crosby on May 27, 1974:
The effects of the BCR upon the Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band's way of life will seem
very mild when compared to the damage which will be brought about by this North
West Development Plan.64 In my opinion the only way in which you can control
the effect of the North West Development Plan upon your way oflife is to
63

Harry Crosby to Lands Section (DIA). February 13 , 1974. DIA Right-of-Way File 985/31-2-617, Vol.3,
1973-1977. Tl'azt' en NROC.
64
McCullum described the North West Development Plan in this way: "The flames of discord are being
fanned in Northwest British Columbia by an enormous $500 million secretly planned agreement between the
federal and provincial governments, announced in 1973 and 1974, that would create more than 20,000 new
jobs for the economically unstable North - railways, highways, instant towns, mines, hydro schemes, super
sawmills, increased logging, and even a steel mill poured out of the febrile imaginations of the federal and
provincial civil service ... There were no impact studies on the environment, the social structure, the economic
benefits, or how the residents of the Northwest quarter felt about this massive influx of capital."(Page 133) The
Plan hoped that with improved infrastructure, private capital would bring smelters, pulp and paper mills, and
mining development to the north. "The development project then , once announced with such fanfare, has
gone underground, which scares the Natives and permanent residents in the North perhaps more than the
grandiose plans. Accustomed, as many of them are, to boom-and-bust dreams, they took the instant town and
super sawmills with a grain of salt, but the planning behind closed doors and the known road and rail
surveying before land claims were settled, leaves all Northerners uneasy." Hugh McCullum, 1975. This
Land is Not For Sale. Toronto: Anglican Book Centre. Page 135.

87
control the developments in Stuart-Trembleur Lake area yourselves. I am afraid that
if you do not act now, or very soon, it will be too late for the Band to control
development, and you will be left with nothing to do but complain about the
damages. 65
Late that Spring, Crosby attempted to get Government ministers to agree to sit down with
the Band. Reinforced with threats of blockades, the Band's efforts to expand the scope of
the negotiations and to access the decision makers within the Government were successful.
Crosby advised the Band that "the B.C. Government appears to be prepared to negotiate the
Stuart Trembleur Band's claim." 66 However, some momentum was lost when Chief Harry
Pierre resigned in July, 1974. It was mid-August before the new Chief and Council were
elected, and it was August 30th before the Band had put together a negotiating committee. 67
In October, the Band ' s negotiating committee (Chief John Alexis, Ed John, Sebastian
Anatole, and Harry Pierre) went to Victoria to meet with the Government. Prior to leaving
for Victoria, the community advised the committee on what to negotiate for. Comments
made at the meeting are shown in Figure 3.4.

65

Harry Crosby to Chief Harry Pierre. May 27, 1974. Box : Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v.
BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.
66
Harry Crosby to Rose Pierre (Interim Band Manager). August 15 , 1974. Box: Land Claims Second
Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl 'azt'en BOBC.
67
See Rose Pierre to Harry Crosby. August 8, 1974; and Justa Monk (new Band Manager) to Harry Crosby.
August 15, 1974. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

------~-------------------------------------------------- -

88

Band Strategy Meeting, October 13, 1974.
•

"The railway damaged trapline, blocked creeks, blocked skidoo trail, damaged trees. No moose.
Trains go by everyday and make money while we lose out in every way." Frederick William.

•

"BCR chased away moose and fur bearing animals- hence traplines are no good to us. If no deal
then blockade for sure." Louie John.

•

"It's our land and we want fair compensation. Tell the whiteman he took our land and he's
bossing us around. They should at least listen to us this once in the BCR deal." Eugene Joseph.

•

"Grand Rapids reserve belongs to my family- if there is no compensation to her family I will
help in the blockade." Agnes Mattess.

•

"Make sure it's $7 million otherwise we ' ll blockade the railway." Jimmy MonJ<.

•

"There were no treaties in B.C. The land still belongs to Indians. Indians were pushed onto
reserves and whiteman took the land without paying us for it. If no deal then BCR can take their
railway somewhere else." Ed John.

Figure 3.4 68

3.9

Conclusion

Between 1968 and 1974 Tl ' azt'en territory was significantly changed. What had still been
largely Tl'azt'en space was reconfigured by the construction of a railway which changed
wildlife patterns so significantly that many Tl'azt'en lost their economic independence. The
railway opened up the territory to intensive forestry and resulted in the allocation of timber
rights to forest companies. Road construction to access the timber also threatened to greatly
increase other non-native activities in the area. Yet this would not become another typical
'railroading' ofNative people.
The very fact that the railway ran through the Tl'azt'en's reserve lands ironically
gave them the opportunity to benefit somewhat from the railway. At first, the Tl'azt'en

68

These comments were taken from the meeting notes; they are not verbatim. I have edited them for clarity.
Notes of October 13, 1974 Band Meeting. Box : Self Government Files 1974-1986. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

89
chose compensation in the form of new reserves. The negotiated right-of-way agreement
gave the Tl'azt'en a chance to make land selections which reflected the mixed economy and
internal diversity of their communities. This was a moment when Tl'azt'en land use and
economic goals emerged to influence the production of space in their territory. Securing
lands within the Government administration of space had been the strategy of the Tl' azt' en
for almost a century - a way of placing themselves within the new society in British
Columbia. But, as they became aware of the consequences ofthe reconfiguration oftheir
territory by non-native social practices, and as they were more aware of other Native
struggles in the Province, the Tl'azt'en decided to directly challenge the new definition,
administration and use of their traditional space.
Through assertions of property rights which were created and recognized by the
Government production of space, the Tl'azt'en opened up a political space where they
could approach the Government and use leverage to get it to negotiate the issues they were
concerned about. The Tl' azt' en would contest the vision of Government and industry that
the territory outside Indian reserves was non-native space. The Tl'azt'en would contest the
allocation and use of the territory's resources without consultation with those who would be
most affected by the changes. At this point the Tl 'azt' en had not yet fully developed their
own vision of what to negotiate for. But in the years to come they would articulate their
own social and economic goals to the Government in an attempt to modify the
Government's vision and administration of the territory. The Tl'azt'en would have to
continually recreate the space of negotiation, but now that the Tl' azt' en had brought the
Provincial Government to the table, negotiations over the production of space in Tl'azt'en
territory had truly begun.

90

Four.

4.0

Tl'azt'en Negotiations with
the Provincial Government, 1975-1984

Introduction

A majority of the Tl' azt' en' s energy and time during the fifteen years of negotiations was
spent trying to get the Government recognize their concerns and to be willing to discuss
solutions. A significant achievement was made in the summer of 1974 when the
Government promised to enter into negotiations over more comprehensive issues than just
the right-of-ways through the seven reserves. However, relations between the parties
deteriorated quickly thereafter and the Band erected a blockade on the railway in April 1975
to force the Government back to the table. The Tl' azt' en eventually removed the blockade,
but continued for many years to use the threat of a blockade to keep the negotiations from
stalling.
When discussions did occur they centred around creating a new economic base for the
Tl ' azt' en community. In 1976, the Tl ' azt'en decided that securing rights to timber would be
the most promising way of coping with the spatial and economic change occurring in their
territory. In 1978, the parties agreed on the components of a settlement: a land exchange,
monetary compensation, and timber rights. The details of this settlement, however, took
several more years to work out. The Band did not get everything it had desired from the
negotiations, and many of the particulars concerning the timber rights were dictated by the
Government, not negotiated. However, the reserves the Tl ' azt'en chose and the Tree Farm
License they received were hybrid products of interaction and compromise between the
economic, political and spatial strategies of different actors within society.

91

4.1

Native Blockades - Contesting the Production of Space

Space, as the product of social processes, can reflect the influence of multiple voices present
within a society. To influence or bring about change in the visualization, administration, and
use of space less empowered groups may resort to protest and active resistance. The
blockade, for example, is a spatial tactic that has been used by groups to exert power over
the mobility of people and resources in an effort to gain leverage in political relations.
If Native people view non-native transportation systems as "the capillaries of
colonial appropriation," 1 then the blockade can be seen as an attempt to challenge that
appropriation of their traditional space. It is a challenge to government control and
ownership of land and an assertion ofNative spatiality. The blockade is designed to
reconfigure the Euro-Canadian vision of space which would otherwise confine Native people
to reserves or deny them a voice in what happens in their territories: "[a]s a statement
concerning sovereignty and place, a blockade must be of profound importance for people
who have been denied them." 2
The "highly particularized nature" of blockades is often ignored, and insufficient
attention has been given to "underlying grievances, local contexts, and Aboriginal histories."3
However, some generalizations can be made. Native blockades in the 1970s were
predominantly about reserve lands, either loss of land through recent expropriation or

1

Cole Harris, 1997. The Resettlement of British Columbia: Essays on Colonialism and Geographic Change.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Page 184.
2
Nicholas Blomley, 1996. " ' Shut the Province Down' : First Nations Blockades in British Columbia, 19841995." BC Studies 3:25.
3
Blomley, "Shut the Province Down," II.

.-------------------------------------------------

-

92
through the McKenna-McBride Commission 'cut-offs' .4 In those cases the blockade was
used to protest the lack of consultation or adequate compensation concerning lands to which
Bands had recognized rights. In contrast, in the 1980s most Native activism was related to
land outside reserves for which comprehensive claims had been submitted. Blockades were a
strategy used to stop the exogenous development of traditional territories in the absence of
treaties. 5 Blockades have been a significant tactic for Native people especially since 1975
and they have forever changed the way the government and citizens of British Columbia
perceive their space. This in tum has affected the administration and use of lands and
resources in British Columbia.
The blockade is generally employed when less confrontational methods have failed. 6
Yet while its use can contest and resist the production of space by the Government and nonnative economy, in itself the blockade does not necessarily result in a reproduction of that

4

'Cut-offs' were lands which had alienated from Indian Reserves in the 1920s in the southern part British
Columbia by the Federal and Provincial governments without consultation or compensation. Tennant,
Aboriginal People and Politics: the Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1849-1989. Vancouver:
University of British Columbia Press, 207.
5
See, e.g, Nettie Wild, 1993 . "Blockade: It's About the Land and Who Controls It." Video. Canada Wild
Productions, about the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en protests in the early 1990s.
6
Though Frideres seems to imply that conflict is always effective and overstates its potential for equalizing
power relations, the following statement does give some insight into the blockade as a last resort tactic. I
believe this captures the way the Tl ' azt'en approach issues: "Aboriginals prefer (as a cultural attribute) to
solve problems without resorting to direct confrontation or overt conflict. Their preference is to discuss the
issue, evaluate a range of alternative solutions, and then attempt to achieve near consensus, on the accepted
solution. [But when they have exhausted less confrontational methods] Aboriginals have found that they can
use conflict as a strategy to achieve their goals and objectives .... conflict forces the opposition parties to
directly negotiate with the aggrieved parties. In doing so, dominant parties are forced to deal with the
minorities as equals. In short, the dominant-subordinate relationship changes to one of equals ... the dominant
group may be forced to change its policies, attitudes, and behaviour toward the group initiating the conflict."
James S. Frideres, 1998. Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Contemporary Conflicts. Scarborough: Prentice
Hall, Allyn and Bacon. Page 333.

------,---------------------------------------------~

-

93
space. The outcomes are often blurred and ambiguous, but a blockade is rarely meant to
create permanent material spaces. Instead, like any other political tactic, the blockade is
intended to change the existing power relations of a society in order to open up a space of
negotiation.

4.2

The Tl'azt'en Exercise Their Property Rights

The Tl ' azt'en negotiating committee met with Government representatives several times in
the fall of 1974. At these meetings the Tl ' azt' en made it clear that they sought a new
economic base for their communities as the viability of their mixed economy of hunting and
fishing and wage labour had been threatened by the construction of the railway and the
changes in the forest industry. In response, the Government agreed to fund a study to look
at economic development options for the Tl ' azt'en. This was a significant concession by
the Provincial Government because it indicated that it was willing to at least consider
compensation additional to the land exchange. However, any optimism built up during the
fall that a resolution to the dispute was in sight soon faded. On January 3, 1975, Crosby
informed the Band that Norman Levi (Minister of Human Resources) had failed to keep his
commitment to make arrangements for the economic development study. He said that
"negotiations are not proceeding properly", and the Tl ' azt' en "should consider enforcing
their property rights on their reserves by preventing a trespass by the BCR .... This action
should have the limited purpose of bringing the Government into negotiations with you." 7

7

Harry Crosby to Justa Monk (Band Manager). January 3, 1975. Box : Land Claims Second Copies, File:
STB v. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC .

94
The Band decided, however, not to block the railway but to exercise patience. It
would be three and a half months until the Tl'azt'en could get the Government to attend a
negotiation meeting. At that meeting, on March 21, 197 5, several issues were discussed in
general terms but little progress was made. The Band said it would consider compensation
in the form of an annual rent for the use of the right-of-ways, but the Government refused to
consider this option.8 The Tl'azt'en also expressed an interest in becoming involved in
forestry and in starting a sawmill, and suggested that they be given an area for hunting and
trapping "that will be untouched by the white people. " 9 This meeting failed to produce
anything more than superficial discussion, but the parties did agree to meet again on April
28th.
It had been over five years since the Railway had begun construction through the

Band's reserves. The Band felt that the Government had never properly responded to its
demand for $7 million, nor offered anything more than vague promises of assistance. It also
seemed that once the railway was operational, BCR and the government failed to give the
negotiations with the Band a high priority. Tl'azt'en saw this as disrespect for their people
and a lack of recognition of their concerns. School children's letters, shown in Figure 4.1, are
the voices of a community that felt it had been patient, and that its claims were reasonable,
even common sense.

8

Justa Monk to Chief Catherine Patrick (Nazko Indian Band). April I, 1975. Box: Land Claims Second
Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl 'azt' en BOBC.
9
Notes from Meeting with AlfNunweiler (Minister without Portfolio, responsible for Northern Affairs in
British Columbia) and the Band 's Negotiation Committee. March 21 , 1975. Box: Self Government Council
Files 1974-1986. Tl ' azt'en BOBC.

95

Letters to BCR from Tl'azt'en Children, early April 1975
•

"I think our people are just getting tired to have people taking their land for free - what about
paying for it once in a while?" Dolores Mattess, Grade 5

•

"It certainly upset the animal community in the area. The older people say that it reduces their
trapping to more than half of what it was before. I think that if the BCR cannot pay for the damage
they shouldn't build more railroads." Corinna Pierre, Grade 5.

•

"I am just wondering why our people have to fight so much for the money that your company
owe them. 'Thou shall not steal. ' Does this not apply to the BCR?" Beverly Anatole, Grade 6.

•

"We would like you to realize that the land you took away to pass your railway was in fact our
property. How would you like the Indian people do the same to your own property and, of
course, not paying the damage done?" Rosaline Monk, Grade 7.

•

"I hope you realize the number oftraplines you have been spoiling." George Pierre, Grade 7.

Figure 4.1 10

It is interesting to note how central the concept of property rights (i.e. trap line and reserve

rights) are to the children ' s comments. Though it is often assumed otherwise, Native
communities do not necessarily have difficulty in understanding and adopting a foreign
property rights system because they have always possessed their own. From the beginning,
the Tl'azt'en avoided formulating their claims in terms such as 'Aboriginal rights,' which
were as yet undefined in Canadian legal discourse, but chose to use well established EuroCanadian legal concepts. And that is perhaps why the Band grew increasingly frustrated
with the way the Government ignored its claims - claims that were based solely on nonnative law. The Tl' azt' en were not challenging Government jurisdiction, but they were
challenging the Government to administer the territory in such a way that the needs of the
local inhabitants were considered. The Band's task was not small. The Tl'azt'en were

10

Attachment to Justa Monk to Ed John (Councilor). April 14, 1972. Box: Land Claims Second Copies,
File: STB v. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

96
attempting to negotiate land and resource issues with a Province which generally did not give
much recognition to Native off-reserve land use, and was still hoping that the issue of
Aboriginal title to traditional territories would disappear.
There had been very little progress since the Tl ' azt'en re-opened the negotiations in
the summer of 1973, and for this they blamed the Government's unwillingness to offer them
something substantial and tangible. The Government appeared content with the status quo
and in no hurry to bring the negotiations to a close. The Band, therefore, resolved to try
another tactic to force the Government to take them seriously and work towards a
resolution. On April 28, 1975 the Tl'azt'en blockaded the railway on Tache IR. Figure 4.2
contains the Band' s explanation for erecting the blockade.

Tl'azt'en Reasons for Blockading BCR, April28, 1975
" Our Band has tried to negotiate with the B.C. Government for economic development, but we have
been met with delays, failure to attend meetings, and being shuffled from one government department
to another. The Band approached the Government about economic development in July 1974, and it
was not until October that Mr. Levi, Minister of Human Resources, arranged a meeting with the
Band. At that meeting the Minister agreed to consider economic development, and it was also agreed
that the Minister Without Portfolio [AlfNunweiler] would assist in working out details of the
economic development plan.
Nunweiler planned a meeting for April 28, 1975 but on the day of the meeting asked to be excused.
At this time the Band decided they had enough of the Government's delaying tactics, failure to attend
mutually arranged meetings, the Government's refusal at times to deal with the Band's lawyer, and
the shuffling from one Government department to another - so the blockade went up immediately - in
anticipation that they might enter into serious negotiations with the Band."

Figure 4.2 11
The Band did not take pleasure in blockading the railway, and apologized to those who were
laid off or were otherwise affected by it. 12 The three and a half month blockade caused three
11

Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band Press Release. August 15, 1975 . Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File:
STB v. BCRail. Tl ' azt' en BOBC.
12
"Our Band realizes the serious economic hardships the blockade has produced for the Takla Lake Band, the
sawmills, the logging companies, proprietors and other groups and individuals. To those people and the
organizations we humbly apologize. Our fight is not with them ." Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band Press Release.
August 15, 1975. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

97
mills to shut down, and another to cut production in half. At least 320 employees of
sawmills and logging companies were laid offY The blockade also halted construction of the
Dease Lake Extension, and stopped the transport of supplies to the communities on Takla
Lake. Being able to block the railway might have been a small victory but stopping the
trains and holding up the economy was never the goal; getting the Government to negotiate
with the Band was the goal. The Tl'azt'en desired an opportunity to engage the
Government and industry in dialogue about how they and non-native people could co-exist.
This primarily meant coming to an agreement over the organization and allocation of the
space valued by both parties.
At the beginning of relations with PGE the Band had asserted its authority over its
reserves, and created a space from which to negotiate. With the blockade the Tl' azt' en
exerted control over their whole territory, and over the economy which was dependent on
the territory. In fact the purpose of the blockade could be said to have been to extend
Tl 'azt'en control from the reserve out. Even though the blockade was on-reserve, it created
a material and political Tl'azt' en space off-reserve. It materially reconfigured the territory
by impeding the flow of resources and preventing access. It also created a political ' space of
negotiation'- a terrain which did not conform to typical encounters between Native people
and development, and a space where the power discrepancy between the Tl' azt' en and the
Government was decreased. The Tl' azt' en had created a space of negotiation in 1969 in the
course of discussions about reserve lands. But with threats of a blockade in the summers of

13

Silvican Resources ' Lovell Cove mill on Takla Lake, and Netherland Overseas' Prince George and Leo
Creek mills were shut down shortly after the blockade was put in place. P&T Mills Ltd. in Williams Lake
was forced to reduce its production and laid off 60 workers. Several logging contractor companies in Fort St.
James laid off employees. See The Province, July 21, 1975. "Indians Vote to Lift BCR Blockade but..."; and
Steve Whipp, July 21 , 1975. "Railway Blockade Proves Costly." The Prince George Citizen.

98
1973 and 1974, and with the actual blockade in 1975 the Tl'azt'en had pushed open a space
of negotiation concerning off-reserve issues. The purpose of the blockade was not to reclaim
the whole territory, but to create a situation where negotiations would occur.
The Band did not, however, define negotiations as meetings. Negotiation to the
Tl ' azt'en meant genuine information exchange and discussion, tangible proposals, and a
mutual willingness to compromise. Since the Provincial Government had been brought into
the negotiations in 1974, the Band had come to view meetings with suspicion. To them
meetings that accomplished nothing were a delay tactic of the Government, as frustrating as
the way the Railway had continually put-off completing the surveys. On May 22, 1975 the
Band even turned down an offer to meet with the Premier:
Unfortunately there have been so many exploratory talks and discussions that [we]
are getting tired of meetings. Your offer of discussion with the Premier does not
contain any suggested agenda. Is the Premier prepared to discuss the Band's
position, to present a proposal, or merely to demand that the blockade be lifted.
the Band is reluctant to set a meeting unless the Government has some proposal to
make about their claims. 14
This event shows the confidence the Tl'azt' en had in the leverage which their property
rights and the blockade gave them. They were not so desperate as to take any opportunity
the Provincial Government offered. In a letter to AlfNunweiler in July the Band made it
clear that it would only meet with ministers of the Government who had the authority to
negotiate on behalf ofBCR and the Provincial Government, and that it would only meet if the
ministers had an offer that was specific and in writing. The Band also demanded that the

14

Harry Crosby to Steve Wood (Staff Consultant for Minister AlfNunweiler). May 22, 1975. Box: Land
Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl 'azt' en BOBC.

99
government give it a detailed written report of the plans for development in its territory. 15
The Government responded that it would not negotiate while the blockade was still in place.
The summer of 1975 brought a new round ofNative protests in British Columbia. 16
Blomley states that in May and June of that year there were at least thirteen Native
blockades in British Columbia: " [t]he upsurge of activism that occasioned blockades- as
well as other modes of protests- was due partly to a growing Native radicalism in the
United States and partly to a deepening dissatisfaction with the Province' s continued
dismissal of Aboriginal title." 17 In the summer of 197 5 the Mount Currie Indian Band set up
a blockade to protest of the expropriation of reserve land for a public road. The Neskonlith
Band blocked a logging road to prevent non-Natives access to the fish and game resources
Band members depended on for food. The Ohiat Band closed a hiking trail through its
reserve complaining that too many tourist were using its land and were leaving garbage.
Nimpkish Band members set up a toll on a bridge to demand that the Government negotiate
cut-off claims and land claims. The Mowachat Band blocked a road on its reserve that led to
a pulp mill and wharf to protest the expropriation of reserve lands by the Ministry of
Highways. 18
The Provincial Government was aware that its actions in the dispute with the
Tl ' azt' en would have ramifications for dealing with the other Native blockades in the
Province. It feared giving any sign that blockades were an effective avenue for getting it to

15

Harry Crosby to AlfNunweiler (Minister Responsible for Northern Affairs). July 2, 1975. Box: Land
Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl ' azt'en BOBC.
16
See Paul Tennant, 1990. Aboriginal People and Politics, 179.
17
Nicholas Blomley, 1996. " Shut the Province Down," 8-9.
18
The information on these blockades came from two newspaper articles: "Province Wide Militancy
Continues." Nesika Newspaper, July 1975 ; and " Indians Face Charges After Roadblock Ended." The Citizen,
July 21 , 1975. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl ' azt 'en BOBC.

100
address grievances. The Tl'azt'en seemed to recognize the Government's dilemma and
conceded that they would lift the blockade on the day the Government renewed negotiations
with them. The Band even provided specific dates for such a meeting to take place. 19
However the Province did not respond to this gesture. It was no longer willing to
negotiate with the Tl'azt'en and, by way of letter on July 30, 1975, made what it called a
"final offer". According to the offer the Band would be granted the 3-for-1 land exchange
and $50,000, and "if the Band does not choose to accept this offer, and to take down the
blockade by August 15, 1975, the Railway will consider other courses of action." 20 The
Tl ' azt' en did not appear willing to see if BCR was bluffing, and though they had considered
launching their own court action, they apparently felt the best solution to the dispute would
not come through litigation. 21 Thus, on August 15th the Tl'azt'en removed the blockade and
issued the statement shown in Figure 4.3:

19

Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band Press Release. August 15, 1975. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File:
STB v. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.
20
N.C. Norris (Vice President, BCR) to Harry Crosby. July 30, 1975. Box: Land Claims Second Copies,
File: STB v. BCRail. TI'azt'en BOBC.
21
As early as 1974 and also during the blockade the Band asked DIA for advice and financial support should it
decide to pursue legal action against BCR. These requests caused much debate within DIA about whether the
Band had a strong case. I did not find record of any advice DIA gave to the Band in this regard or concerning
BCR's own threat of legal action, but it is possible that such advice might have influenced the Band to take
down the blockade on August 15th to avoid having the dispute go to the courts. In January 1976 the Federal
Department of Justice did issue an opinion to DIA that said "the Band cannot make a successful case in court."
Assistant Deputy Minister (DIA) to Regional Assistant Director General (DIA). DIA Railway Right-of-Way File
985/31-2-26-1, Vol. I 1971-1976. Tl'azt'en NROC.

101
Tl'azt'en Remove the Blockade, Aug. 15,-1975
"The Band does not accept the final package offer. The Band feels that [BCR and the B.C.
Government] have no rights to threaten or offer final settlements on their terms- since it indicates a
lack of seriousness and a lack of good faith in negotiating a settlement. ...Keeping in mind that the
Band has already made a concession [that it would lift the blockade when the Government met with
the Band] we agree to give a further concession - in hopes that we will get the BCR and B.C.
Government to the negotiating table.
Our Band realizes the serious economic hardships the blockade has produced for the Takla Lake Band,
the sawmills, logging contractors, proprietors and other groups and individuals, and to these people
and the organizations we humbly apologize . ... We agree to give the BCR permission to use the
tracks which it has constructed across the seven reserves of the Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band for two
months, in return for serious and meaningful negotiations with the BCR and the B.C . Government.
.. .They are on our land, and they are trespassing and they must pay the price. We hope the
Government realizes our sincerity and determination in settling this dispute. We wish to see that
same sincerity and determination on their part also."

Figure 4.3 22
4.3

Negotiations Resume Concerning Economic Development Options

Native protests in the summer of 1975 appeared to result in progress on some issues of
Native concern. In early September, for example, the provincial government announced that
an agreement had been reached with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to establish a joint
Indian-Government Committee to examine the entire subject of the 'cut-offs'. 23 The
Tl ' azt'en' s negotiations also took a significant step forward in September. The parties met
in Fort St. James on September 13th for the first time since March. 24 At this meeting the
Provincial negotiators told the Band' s negotiating committee that they had been given the
authority to make a deal without going back to cabinet. This was seen as significant by the
Tl ' azt' en, because for the first time the people with whom they were negotiating could no
longer be evasive or stall by saying that someone else had to make the decisions. This was

22

Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band Press Release. August 15 , 1975. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File:
STB v. BCRail. Tl ' azt ' en BOBC.
23
Norman Levi (Minister of Human Resources) Press Release. September 3, 1975. Box: Land Claims Second
Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl ' azt' en BOBC.
24
The Provincial representatives were AlfNunweiler (the new Minister of Human Resources), and N.C. Norris
(Vice President, BCR). The Band' s Negotiation Committee was Chief John Alexis, Harry Crosby, Ed John,
Sebastian Anatole, Duncan Joseph , Danny Alexis, and Amelia Feli x.

102

the type of negotiations the Band had hoped for when it first expanded the scope of the
negotiations in 1973. The Tl 'azt'en had succeeded in creating a space of negotiation on the
issue of their community ' s co-existence with non-native society. Ed John clarified that the
Band' s negotiating committee was not the decision maker: "we do have to go back to the
Band for an OK." 25
The Tl' azt' en' s basic position had not changed since the summer of 1973. They
wanted to go ahead with the land exchange, but wanted that to be only part of an economic
development package that would give them security and opportunity. The Band's
negotiating committee was still under instructions from the Band membership to pursue the
$7 million. The purpose of the money was to "develop some sort of income ... We would
like our people to work instead of living on social assistance." 26 The package the Band
wanted would also consider that there were diverse needs within the community: "[t]he
trappers have to be protected against the loggers, ... and another thing we should be looking
at is how we can look after the old people. They will not be able to work for the money like
the rest of us. So we have to sort of compensate them because they are part of the Band
members." 27 When he was clear about the Band's goals AlfNunweiler, who had replaced
Norman Levi as the Province ' s negotiator, was sympathetic and willing to discuss ways of
bringing income to the Band. At the September 13th meeting the Government asked about
the possibility of minerals on the Tl' azt' en' s reserves, and the Band expressed an interest in
having a sawmill. The Government once again promised to finance a study of the Band's
economic development options.
25

Minutes of Meeting September 13 , 1975 at Fort St. James. Box: Self Government Council Files 19741986. Tl'azt'en BOBC.
26
Minutes of Meeting September 13 , 1975 at Fort St. James. Box: Self Government Council Files 19741986. Tl'azt'en BOBC.
27
Minutes of Meeting, September 13, 1975 at Fort St. James. Box: Self Government Council Files 19741986. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

103

At a subsequent meeting on October 18, the Government presented the current forest
development plans in the Band's territory. Crosby said that this information "was helpful in
allowing the Band to understand what the future holds in store for them. " 28 The
Government also offered to give the Band information it had requested on bidding for
silviculture contracts. The Band also felt that the Government had indicated at this meeting
that the Band would be included in future economic development planning processes, and
that the government would attempt to sort out some of the problems Tl'azt'en trappers
were experiencing because of new logging in the area. There was much reason for optimism
as good progress had been made in the two months since the blockade had been taken down.
The Government seemed to have significantly changed its view of the situation and now
treated Tl'azt'en with respect, listened to their concerns, and was trying to work out
solutions.
The results of the economic development study were presented at a meeting of Band
members on January 30, 1976. 29 Also present was Allan Williams, the Minister of Labour
and Minister Responsible for Indian Affairs. He had replaced AlfNunweiler as the
Province's lead in the negotiations with the Tl'azt'en. The consultant reported on various
options which had been investigated to bring income and employment to the Band, including
a shopping centre, mining, guiding businesses, and a sawmill. The consultants did not
consider any of these options to be feasible , but suggested that Band members could set up
three small logging contracting companies- two based in Tache and one based in Portage.

28

Crosby to Nunweiler. October 31, 1975. Box : Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail.
Tl ' azt' en BOBC.
29
Minutes of Band Meeting for Presentation of Study by Edwin Reid Consultants Ltd. January 30, 1976.
Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

104

4.4

Tl'azt'en Decide to Negotiate for Timber Rights

The consultant's suggestion was not the solution the Tl 'azt'en were hoping for. Working as
contractors for other companies would not bring the them the revenue, the security, the
autonomy, nor the number of jobs they wanted. Not long after this meeting the Band
resolved to negotiate for something that the neither the Government, nor its economic
development report had suggested- timber rights. The Tl'azt'en's experience since the
early 1900s and especially since the beginning of the railway negotiations had shown them
that legal rights to lands and resources were necessary to have any power to participate in
the production of space. With few rights to off-reserve resources and, therefore, limited
ability to protect their bush economy from advancing forest development, the Tl'azt'en
began to search for an alternative economic base. They decided that having timber rights was
a way to benefit from the forest industry, which had come to dominate their territory and
the region's economy.
Securing timber rights seemed to be a promising direction, but it would only directly
benefit the portion of the Tl' azt' en community who were experienced or interested in
logging. Because the Band' s negotiating committee wanted to spread the benefits of the
settlement with BCR throughout the community, they now began discussing how they could
bring tangible benefits to those in the band who engaged in more traditional economy.
Trappers and those most dependent on fish and wildlife resources were the ones in the
community who had suffered the most from the railway and the intensification of logging,
yet how could they be compensated and/or protected?
As early as 1973 Band members had expressed a desire to secure rights to the lands
along their traplines or at favourite hunting and fishing locations where they had cabins. It

105

was felt that much would be gained by creating reserves for their cabins because some cabins
had recently been destroyed by logging companies, and because of the difficulty (if not the
mere requirement) of acquiring a Provincial permit for the cabin sites. 30 The Band would
continue to negotiate for an exclusive hunting and trapping area, but in the mean time it was
decided to attempt to get rights to land around the cabins of Band members. This became
part of the Band' s strategy in the Spring of 1976. Though it did not protect wildlife habitat,
it offered the knowledge that at least the cabins would be safe from destruction.
The Band did not plan on making room for the cabin parcels by reducing the acreage
of the other lands already chosen, but by increasing the total acres that it would request. In
May the Band was considering 25 parcels, 12 of which were trap line cabin parcels but it
appears that deliberations over their land selections continued through the summer. 31 The
Band did not give the Government its lands request until October 1976.
I have not been able to find what the October 1976 land selections were, and it is also
unclear why it took seven months for the Band to submit the request. There may well have
been lengthy deliberations within the Band about who should get a reserve for their cabin,
and perhaps some Band members had to go through the process of picking a site on which
they would like to build a cabin in the future . It is also not clear why the Government failed

30

According to the Prince George Citizen, MOF had said that partial blame for destruction of trappers' cabins
and traps by logging operations lay with the Indians " for not making adequate maps" to show the locations of
their improvements. Band members complained that "Indians are unable to even lease enough land to protect
their cabins. We're not trying to take the whole forest, we just want enough land to build a cabin on." Some
Band members had received Special Use Permits for their cabin sites as the result of meetings held with the
Department of Recreation and Conservation in th e late 1970s, but wanted their cabin sites to have reserve
status so would not have to pay the annual fee which cost up to $40/year. See Bill Graham, "Didn't Make
Maps" Prince George Citizen, December 10, 1973 ; Chief John Alexis to Don Grant (MOF, Prince George
Region). August 22, 1980. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File : STB v. BCRail. Tl ' azt ' en BOBC; and
Interview with Harry Pierre, January 27, 1999.
31
Harry Crosby to Justa Monk. May 27, 1976. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail.
Tl ' azt'en BOBC.

106
to fulfill a promise it had made in the Spring to make the counter-offer once it had received
the Tl ' azt' en' s land request. It is likely partly due to the fact that at the time BCR was
experiencing major labour and economic problems.
The Dease Lake Extension was "launched with insufficient prior planning and with
no better than a superficial knowledge of potential resources and traffic." 32 By 197 6, the
British Columbia Railway was plagued with "construction problems, planning problems,
[and] money problems. There were labour problems, managerial problems and political
problems. Some problems resulted from inadequate planning, the hurried constructions of
branch lines, and over reliance on borrowed money. Other problems resulted from political
interference, inadequate staffing, and labour-management myopia." 33 These issues
eventually led to the shut down of the construction of the Dease Lake Extension in late
1976. The grade had been completed almost to Dease Lake, but the tracks were only
operational to a point just north ofTakla Lake. The project was $120 million over-budget,
and it was estimated that another $135 million would be required to complete the line to
Dease Lake. Provincially BC R was also operating at a substantial loss (about $150,000 /day)
and on February 7, 1977, the Government appointed a Royal Commission oflnquiry into all
aspects ofthe management of the Railway.
The Commissions report was made public on November 17, 1978. It recommended
that the Railway not be operated beyond Fort St. James unless shippers were willing to
assume all of the real costs.34 However, the Takla Extension continued to operate through

32

John Wedley, 1998. "A Development Tool : W.A.C. Bennett and the PO E Railway." BC Studies 117:47 .
Karl M. Ruppenthal and Thomas Keast, 1979. The British Columbia Railway - A Railway Derailed.
Vancouver: Centre for Transportation Studies, University of British Columbia. Page v.
4
> For more on the Royal Commission see Ruppenthal and Keast, A Railway Derailed.
33

107
Tl'azt' en territory, as it had since the summer of 1973, as a logging railroad for the mills at
Lovel Cove, Leo Creek, Fort St. James and Prince George.

4.5

Provincial Offer/ Tl'azt'en Counter-Offer/ Provincial Offer

The problems with BCR operations seriously set back the negotiations between the
Provincial Government and the Tl' azt'en. In January 1977, after two scheduled meetings
had been canceled by the Province, the Band warned the local forest companies and the
Takla Band that it had set a deadline of mid-February for Government to come to a meeting
or the blockade would be set up again. 35 This threat did bring the Government to the table,
possibly because BCR and the Government could not politically or economically afford
another blockade of the Takla Extension.
On February 19th to a gathering of one hundred fifty Band members, Allan Williams
announced that the Province was prepared to proceed with the land exchange as proposed
by the Tl'azt'en in October 1976. The announcement was not received as positively as he
might have wanted, and Williams seemed disappointed when the Tl ' azt'en reminded him
that its demand was still for seven million dollars in addition to the land exchange. 36
Williams replied in frustration that the Province would not pay more than $50,000, but
added that his Government was interested in making economic development opportunities

35

Justa Monk to Mark French 's Store, Takla Landing. January 18, 1977; and Justa Monk to Chief William
George (Takla Band) January 18, 1977. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl ' azt' en
BOBC .
36
A DI A official reported how hopeful the Province seemed that its announcement of acceptance of the land
exchange would satisfY the Band. See Special Claims Officer (DI A) to F.J. Walchli (DIA). February 24, 1977.
DIA Railway Right-of-Way File 985/31-2-617, Vol.3 1973-1977. Tl'azt' en NROC.

108
available "to the Native people throughout this part of the Province if that is the wish of the
Native people." 37
This was the sort of vague proposal that Band members were tired of hearing. Figure
4.3 shows some of the comments Band members made in response to Allan Williams' offer.
Another year had passed, and yet not much had changed. The Government still had not
offered the Band what it considered a satisfactory solution, and the Band continued to ask
for one. These comments also convey the impression that the Tl ' azt' en had hoped that nonnative people would have made a place/space for them within the new set of opportunities
presented by the forest industry which had brought change to the territory. Instead, the
Tl ' azt' en had found that they had to fight to modify the production of space to more fully
include them. The dialogues that took place over the course of the negotiations were the
components of an interactive process that resulted in the production of a hybrid social
space. Lefebvre would have classified the Tl'azt'en's voices as "lesser movements" which
occur within a society when two spatialities "interpenetrate" and influence one another. 38

37

Transcript of Meeting at Tache Village. February 19, 1977. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB

v. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC .

'x Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 86-87.

109

Band Members' Statements to the Minister- February 17, 1977.
•

"Things were pretty good around here, there's not too many difficulties in success that [we] have
had with the government, Whiteman , loggers and mines, but as time has been going on ... the
only thing we been getting from Government is a hard time . ... We don't like to be forced to be
put in positions like this where we cannot rely on resources of the land as we have done in the
past." Ed John.

•

" Each time the white man came there's more. They come on our land and spoil everything and
as a result we Indians suffer more . We no longer can hunt as before for there is so little game left.
Long ago my home used to be where ever I hunt, now I am only allowed to have one home and
that home has to be on the reserve. ... they have no right whatsoever to build a railway through
our reserve without our consent which we did not give them .. .. they took our land, as much of it
as they wanted. What land I have they spoil- our trapline." Justa Hanson.

•

"Where you get the idea of offering $50,000? There 's a population of 500 people in Tache
alone. Ifyou give them a $100 a piece it wouldn ' t be enough." Alec Thomas.

•

" Mr. Allan Williams and representatives of BCR you have heard my people's feelings now, ...
You understand their way of thinking and that the livelihood, the way of livelihood, for the
native people that you have destroyed. And I'm pretty sure you must realize it. Their land that
you make a boundary around for them and said, ' Now look, you Indians, you stay inside the
boundary line, and if any white trespasses us you charge them ' .. ..but the $50,000, like the
young girl said it, it's more like dropping in a bucket. You making a lot of money with this ...
but we are losing every way, that's what my people think. Like Louie John said, I might be the
last Indian to be stepped on . ... That's my people's feelings. " Chief Justa Monk.

Figure 4.439
After this meeting, a DIA official said that the Provincial Government felt like it was "being
held ransom. It is not prepared to back down, and therefore expects that the Band is likely,
once again, to blockade the line . .. .In the event of another blockade, ... BCR will request
expropriation ofthe rail right-of-way under Section 35 of the Indian Act." 40 However, DIA
would not have proceeded with expropriation in these circumstances and therefore, the

39

A transcript was produced from a recording of the meeting. I have changed some of the punctuation.
Transcript of Meeting at Tache, February 19, 1977. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail.
Tl ' azt ' en BOBC.
40
Special Claims Officer (DI A) to F.J. Walchli (DI A). February 24, 1977. DIA Railway Right-of-Way File
985/31-2-617, Vol.3 1973-1977. Tl ' azt ' en NROC.

110

Province's threat to expropriate was not as powerful as the Band's to blockade. 41 Thus on
March 16th, the Government asked the Band to submit a counter proposal to the
Government's February 17th offer of the land exchange plus $50,000. 42
The Band presented its counter-offer in July. It replaced the claim for $7 million
with the proposal shown in Figure 4.4. "The basic philosophy behind these requests" the
proposal reads, " is to ensure that our Band has the economic base necessary to sustain the
community and to provide the facilities necessary to ensure that the Reserves will develop
as an attractive place for Stuart Trembleur People to live." 43 The Band had asked for $7
million in 1973 because it was not yet sure what would be best to negotiate for. But after
considering the issue for several years the Band now was able to articulate a more well
developed strategy for adapting to the changing circumstances. One of the Tl'azt'en's main
goals was to continue to live in their villages and in their territory. Land and resource rights
constituted the main part of their strategy to reconfigure the territory to re-establish the
viability of their communities. They asked for 10 acres for every acre surrendered to the
railway, the right to harvest 141 ,600 cubic metres oftimber annually on Provincial land, and
an exclusive hunting area. As an expression ofTI'azt' en goals, the July 1977 Counter Offer
was a manifestation of 'difference' which when voiced to the Government had the potential
to effect the production of space in Tl'azt' en territory.

41

The fact that DIA would not allow the Province to expropriate gave the Band tremendous power to get the
Province to address its demands . But the Band was not necessarily always aware ofDIA's position. BCR's
threat to expropriate was still an issue in August 1978, and the Band wrote to DIA to determine if the Province
had made application under Section 35 to expropriate the railway right-of-ways. DIA officials met with the
Band and stated that no such application was "on file." They also clarified that DIA policy was that land
cannot be taken without consent of the Band and that in this case that policy was "in force." See Band
Councilor to C.E. Riach (DIA) August 9, 1978; Regional Special Projects (DIA) to Headquarters Special
Projects (DIA) September I , 1978; and response September 14, 1978. DIA Railway Right-of-Way File 985/312-617-1 , Vol.2, 1976-1980. Tl ' azt ' en NROC.
42
"Stuart-Trembleur Working On Proposal" Caledonia Courier, March 16, 1977. DIA Forestry File 5820617 Vol.l , 1968-1981, Binder: Tanizul Timber Ltd.- DIA Correspondence. Tl'azt'en NROC.
43
The Stuart Trembleur Band ' s Counter Offer. July 15, 1977. Box : Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB
v. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

111

excerpts from the "Stuart Trembleur Band's Counter Offer- July 15, 1977"
Preamble: "In the early 1970s the frontier finally passed beyond the traditional territory of the Stuart-Trembleur
Lakes Band. Both a road and a railroad were extended beyond Pinchi and Tache Villages .... Coincidental with
the arrival of the Railway, our Band members started to experience a decrease in their subsistence income .
... For the first time the management of resources in the Stuart Trembleur Territory has become an issue for the
44
Band. Of primary concern is the management of resources for compatible use."
"Band members question why development of timber resources should be allocated to corporate interests from
outside the community, removing all resource management and development opportunities from the original
inhabitants. When trapping and hunting opportunities are destroyed, these opportunities must be replaced by
other opportunities managed by the community. For this reason we wish to continue the negotiations for a
timber harvest license commenced in October 1975."
The Band will consider as compensation. the following:
I) The 944 acres presently agreed upon, plus an island in Cunningham Lake known as Skooby Island. The
island is presently being leased by the Joseph brothers (band members) and is used as a base for their guiding
outfit.
2) Further to the 944 we have selected, we request an additional 7 acres of land for every acre we are giving up.
This would amount to an additional 2,142.56 acreage. The total land exchange would amount to 3,086.56
acres. Our band strongly feels that a greater land base would be most beneficial to us
3) The Provincial Order in Council I 036 not apply to the present and future reserve lands of the Stuart
Trembleur Band, [so that their reserves would be exempt from future expropriation].
4) 8 years rent for use of reserve lands: $15,000/year = $144,000.
5) A resource base as follows:
a) Timber cutting rights at 50,000 cunits [141,600 cubic metres] for next 30 years. These will be located
within area now called the Stuart Lake Pulp Harvesting Forest. This timber will be the basis of a logging
operation to provide employment and revenue for Band.
b) Exclusive hunting rights within the area bordered by the Stuart, Cunningham, Trembleur and Tezzeron
Lakes. These hunting privileges will be for our people who are dependent on hunting to provide subsistence
for themselves.
6) Provincial Government grants sufficient to develop and make viable 5(a). Including machinery and
equipment required for a logging operation. Also the Band would like to establish an operation that would
manufacture materials for log houses - both for commercial purposes and for our own housing program.
7) Provincial Government grants to help off-set costs for community sewage systems.
8) Housing for elders. There are 35-40 elders, many have inadequate housing, many need constant care.
9) A Recreation and cultural complex.
10) Maintenance of roads in villages ofTache and Binche, and in the future, in Portage.

Figure 4.4
The counter-offer was presented to the Government at a meeting in Victoria on August 4,
1977. The Government did not respond quickly to the Band's proposal, and by late August

44

This statement supports the argument I presented in Chapter Two, that the Tl'azt'en had not felt that they
were negatively impacted by non-native activity in their territory prior to the railway.

112
the Band again felt that it may have to set up the blockade to make any progress in the
negotiations.45 However, though it would be several months before the next face to face
negotiations took place, a blockade did not go up.
When the Government did sit down with the Band on December 5, 1977 it made an
offer of $100,000 for use of the right-of-way and as partial compensation for ecological
impact. The Government said no to Points 3, and 6 to 10. Points 6 to 10 were said to be
outside of the realm of Provincial jurisdiction because they were community projects on
Federal land. In response to Point 3 Allan Williams said: "It will remain ... OIC 1036 was
agreed on in 1929 by the two Governments." Chief Justa Monk then asked: "Was there any
Indian input?" 46 The answer, of course, was no. This dialogue exemplifies how much things
had changed since 1929 when native people had relatively little role in the reconfiguration of
land. In the 1970s, though it took tremendous effort, the Tl ' azt'en were able to get the
Government to some degree to negotiate the terms of spatial production with them.
The Province did agree to give the Band Scooby Island, but was not prepared to
consider adding significant acreage to the land exchange. 47 However, in a move that would

45

This is reflected in a September 14, 1977 letter from new Chief Justa Monk to Chief of the Takla Band "I
would advise you and your people to be prepare with supplies they might need. Since the Government and
the BC Railway will not stop playing games with us, I feel , and so do my people, that we should blockade
the railway until this is finalized ." Justa Monk to William George (Chief of the Takla Band). September 14,
1977. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl ' azt ' en BOBC.
46
Notes of Meeting, December 4, 1977. Box: Land Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl'azt' en
BOBC
47
John Alexis and Russel Alec, the Band' s economic development staff, had begun to identify additional
lands should the government agree to the 10 to I exchange formula . The substantial land gains would have
made it possible to consider agricultural operations as a economic development option. For example, the
people in Portage Village had voiced an interest in securing the land surrounding Whitefish and Cunningham
Lakes , and Nancut and Whitefish Creeks as a land base for their existing cattle raising operations and to also
start larger scale farming. While the Portage area may be suitable to these activities the rest of Tl ' azt' en
territory is not. See " Proposal put forward by the people of Portage," March 1976. DIA Railway Right-of-Way
File 985/31-2-26 Vol.2. Tl'azt 'en NROC.

113

eventually bring a resolution to the negotiations, the Province agreed to grant the Tl'azt'en's
request for rights to 141,600 cubic metres of timber. The Tl' azt' en questioned how the
Government would be able to allocate timber to them when other companies seemed to
already have all the timber rights in it territory. The Government responded that it would
find a way.

4.6

The 1984 Agreement

At the meeting in December representatives from the Ministry of Forests (MOF) had already
suggested that the means of giving the Tl'azt'en timber rights should be a Tree Farm License
(TFL). The TFL is the most secure form oftenure in the Province, and the only major
license which grants exclusive harvesting rights to a specific area. Both of these
characteristics were highly valued by the Band. 48
According to the new Forest Act (1978) the Government could not directly award a
TFL but had to advertise the proposed license and invite applications. While the
Government had promised to grant the Band access to timber the legislated process for the
granting of TFLs would have to be followed. One of the unique aspects of a TFL is that it
combines the license holder's private lands and Provincial forest land. MOF saw that if the

48

Today some Band members question whether it would have been better to have been allocated a Forest
License which has fewer management responsibilities for a similar profit margin. Interviews with Ed John
(February 9, 1998), and Harry Pierre (March 4, 1998).

114
Band could offer its reserve lands in its bid for the license it would have a clear advantage
over other applicants. 49
MOF proposed that the TFL be located in the area between Stuart and Trembleur

Lakes west of the Tache River. 5° Since the discontinuation of water-based logging in the mid
1970s, the area had remained inaccessible and unallocated because there was as yet no bridge
across the Tache River. The location of the TFL was seen as favourable by part of the
TI ' azt'en leadership because it was very close to the community, had good natural
boundaries, and had some very high quality timber. Some Band members expressed concern
about the proposed location because the area contained some of the most difficult and
expensive logging terrain in the Fort St. James region. Today, some Band members continue
to question why the Band agreed to the location of the TFL. 51 The Band's July 1977
proposal had suggested that the timber rights be in Stuart Lake Pulp Harvesting Forest, east
of the Tache river, and Band members also discussed trying to get timber in the Middle River
area. 52 But when MOF suggested the Band be given a TFL in the Tanizul Lake area the Band
agreed.
In December 1978 the parties had agreed that the settlement would include a land
exchange, some monetary compensation and 141,600 cubic metres annually in timber
rights. 53 While the TFL was being set up, the surveying of the exchange parcels progressed
49

L.W. Lehrle (Director, Timber Management Branch, MOF) to W.G. Bishop and R.W. Robbins (Assistant
Deputy Minister, MOF). March 3, 1980. File: 870-3-2, TTB (Mini stry of Forests, Timber Tenures Branch,
Victoria).
50
Mr. Mercer (Forester, DI A) to Cliff Bird (Manager, Prince George Indian District, DIA). March 30, 1978.
DIA Forestry File 5820-6 I 7 Vol. I, 1968-1981 , Binder: Tanizul Timber Ltd.- DIA Correspondence, Tl'azt'en
NROC.
51
Interviews with Ed John (Febru ary 9, 1998), Harry Pierre (March 4, 1998), Ralph Pierre (June 8, 1998), and
Thomas Pierre (February 23 , 1998).
52
Interviews with Harry Pierre (March 4, 1998), and Ralph Pierre (June 8, 1998).
53
Jones (Regional Forester DIA) to File. DIA Forestry File: 5820-617 Vol.l, 1968-1981, Binder: Tanizul
Timber Ltd.- DIA Correspondence. Tl'azt'en NROC.

115
and in July 1980 Crosby advised Allan Williams that "the Stuart Trembleur Band has
reached agreement in principle on most points in its negotiations with the B.C. Government
and B.C. Railway. The last item is settlement ofthe terms of the Tree Farm License ... .It is
proposed that the meeting focus mainly on the economic viability of the Tree Farm
License." 54 The main issue was the amount of timber available in the proposed area. It had
been determined that the area only was capable of supplying approximately 85,000 cubic
metres annually, far below the figure agreed to in 1978. The Band proposed expanding the
area of the TFL to include more timber, but the Government adopted the position that the
settlement would now be on basis of the Tanizul area, not a certain volume of timber. 55
The TFL was advertised on May 7, 1981. In anticipation of preparing a bid the
Band had incorporated Tanizul Timber Ltd. earlier that Spring. Shares in Tanizul are held in
trust for all Band members by six Board of Directors. The Band also voted to allow the
Band's reserves to be included in Tanizul's application for a TFL. 56 By the closing date,

54

The Band did not want to agree to a venture that did not have a chance of success. A number of concerns
about viability had recently arisen out of a study done for the Band by T.M. Thompson & Associates. The
issues the Band wanted to discuss were: I) ensuring that the license area would provide a sustained yield of at
least 141 ,600 cubic metres, 2) that the government finance the Tache River bridge and the main access road,
and 3) the constraints the Band would face selling the wood that came from the TFL. The concerns about
selling the timber stemmed from several factors. The license the Government drafted for the Band's TFL
contained a clause that prohibited the license holder from building a manufacturing plant because MOF claimed
that there was already enough milling capacity in the region. The Band would have to sell to other
manufacturers but the log market was highly competitive and difficult to enter. The Band was concerned that
partly because of a feeling of animosity from other local companies towards the award of the TFL to the Band,
that they would have to truck their logs longer distances to other mills. Finally, though Provincial
regulations prohibited the overseas export of unmanufactured timber, Indian Bands who harvested timber on
their Federal reserve lands had benefited from being able to export their timber. Under the terms of the license,
the Tl 'azt'en however, would not be able to export the timber from the TFL. Harry Crosby to Allan
Williams (Attorney General) and Tomas M. Waterland (Minister of Forests). July 21 , 1980. Box: Land
Claims Second Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl'azt'en BOBC. Concerning non-native discontent with the
Band receiving timber rights see Interviews with Ed John (February 8, 1998) and Russel Alec (June 4, 1998).
55
See for example Tom Waterland (Minister of Forests) to Allan Williams (Attorney General). August 20,
1980. File: 870-3-2, TTB.
56
" Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band Band Council Resolution." June 6, 1981. Box: Land Claims Second
Copies, File: STB v. BCRail. Tl ' azt'en BOBC .

116

July 18, 1981 , applications from Netherlands Overseas Mills Ltd, East Fraser Logging Ltd,
and Tanizul Timber had been submitted.
Applications for TFLs are judged on three criteria: potential social benefits, potential
revenue to the Government, and the potential to incorporate private land into forest
management. The fact that it had twenty reserves which it could include in the TFL, and
that it intended to hire local employees, meant that the Band's proposal would be difficult to
contest. On September 9 and 10 the Ministry of Forests held a public hearing in Fort St.
James to review the three applications. Shortly after, the Minister of Forests indicated to
the Band and DIA that he would grant the license to the Tl'azt'en as soon as the Federal
Government issued the Order in Council required to have the Federal Indian reserve lands
come under Provincial jurisdiction for the purpose of forest management. 57 Lawyers from
DIA and MOF worked throughout the fall on the means to overcome the regulatory and
jurisdictional obstacles presented by this unprecedented integration of Provincial and Federal
land. In January the Federal Privy Council issued "The Stuart Trembleur Lake Band
(Tanizul Timber Ltd.) Timber Regulations", which made the all timber grown on the
specified reserves subject not to DIA's Indian Timber Regulations but to the Provincial
Forest Act, Ministry of Forests Act, and Range Act.

57

Dennis Novak (DIA) to F. Walchli (Regional Director General, DI A). September 14, 1981. DIA Forestry
File 5820-617 Vol.l , 1968-1981 , Binder: Tanizul Timber Ltd.- DIA Correspondence. T1'azt'en NROC.

117
The Ministry of Forests awarded TFL 42 to The Tl'azt'en in February 1982.58 The
actual signing of the License occurred a year later in April 1983, because the Band could not
be granted the license prior to the preparation and approval of a management and working
plan. With the granting of the TFL the Band received a 25 year renewable license with
exclusive right to harvest timber on 54,000 hectares of Provincial land.
Once the Tl'azt' en had secured timber rights, the land exchange and monetary
compensation could be finalized. DIA produced the first draft of the agreement in December
1984, but it took several more years to make the document acceptable to the Federal
Department of Justice and the Province's legal advisors. 59 The agreement was finally
executed by the parties on June 3, 1988. The Band received $207,370 and the promise of
gravel resources as compensation for BCR having taken gravel from several reserves during the
construction ofthe railway. The Tl'azt'en also surrendered 306.1 acres of reserve land (as in
July 1973, see map 3.4 and table 3.2a), and in return the Tl ' azt'en were granted 1,115.768
acres ofland (approximately 3.64 acres received per acre surrendered). 60 The Band selected
34 parcels of Provincial Crown land. Another ten acre parcel belonging to BCR at the Leo
Creek town site was added into the agreement in 1987. The TFL and the 1984 Agreement
reserves were new Tl ' azt' en spaces within the negotiated configuration of space. The hybrid

58

The Government awarded the TFL to the Tl'azt' en despite "vigorous protests" from the unsuccessful
applicants. Ron Goodwin (Assistant Deputy Minister, DIA) to Deputy Minister (DIA). March 5, 1982. DIA
Forestry File 5820-617 Voi.I , 1968-1981. Binder: Tanizul Timber Ltd.- DIA Correspondence. Tl'azt ' en
NROC. The application by Netherlands Overseas Mills Limited was rejected early in the review process. It
lacked detail, and it " did not successfully dispute a probable conflict of interest between ownership of
processing plants and the license condition that the harvest be directed to the open log market." East Fraser
Logging Company's proposal was adequate but MOF objected to its transportation and marketing scheme, and
to the fact that most of profits would be withdrawn from the local area. East Fraser also did not propose to
emphasize local hiring, or the hiring of Native people, and anticipated creating 20 jobs fewer than Tanizul's
proposal. "Evaluation of Applicants for Tree Farm License 42." Cabinet Submission by Ministry of Forests,
October 27, 1981. File: 870-3-l-42A TTB .
59
See DIA Railroad Right-of- Way File E5667-07554, Vol.l, 1984-1988. Tl'azt'en NROC.
60
Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band Annual Report, 1984. Page I 0. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

118
space of Tl' azt' en territory which was made up of the TFL, the 1984 Agreement reserves
and the remainder of the territory will be described in Chapter Five.

4. 7

Conclusion

In 1974 the Tl ' azt' en expanded the scope of the railway negotiations beyond the issue of
right-of-ways on their reserves. In doing so the Tl'azt' en extended their influence in the
production of space out from their reserves to the whole territory . Through threats of
blockades, a three month blockade, and by demanding the right to a voice in shaping
development which affected them, the Tl ' azt' en opened up a space of negotiation with the
Provincial Government. This space of negotiation was a place where a small Native
community could sit across the table from a Government minister and have an effect on how
the territory was viewed, administered, and used. Between 1969 and 1983 the Tl'azt' en' s
geopolitical actions had only resulted in the creation of this space of negotiation. But with
the granting of the TFL in 1983 and the later acquisition of the 35 new reserves the Tl'azt'en
had created negotiated spaces- visible signs of the influence of the Tl'azt'en in the
production of space in their territory.

119

Five.

5.0

Negotiated Spaces and
New Spaces of Negotiation

Negotiated Spaces: The Space Created by the 1984 Agreement

Through the opportunity presented by the railway negotiations, Tl'azt'en economic and
social goals influenced the production of space in the territory to the most significant degree
since the early 1900s. The negotiations resulted in the creation of new legal spaces which
can be conceptualized as hybrid spaces- ones which reflect the non-native mode of
production, but also the spatiality ofthe Tl'azt'en community.

Tree Farm License 42
A Tree Farm License is an organization of space conceived of by Euro-Canadian society, but
the Tl'azt'en chose to use it to meet their economic goals. Because of this the Tl'azt'en's
TFL is different from other TFLs in the Province. First, the most unique aspect of TFL 42
is that Federal Indian Reserve land and Provincial land are combined into one unit for the
purpose of forest management. Thirteen Tl'azt'en reserves make up part ofthe land base of
the license (see Figure 5.1 and Map 5.1). This integration ofFederal Indian Reserve land and
Provincial land was unprecedented and points to how the Tl ' azt'en's geopolitical efforts had
changed the way both Governments were willing to administer their lands. The negotiations
truly created a hybrid space- in the sense that the TFL was shaped by multiple influences,
and in the sense that it was something new produced from their interaction.

120

Entire Reserve
included in TFL

Portion of Reserve
included in TFL

J:... T.~.~~-~~-~J~?................... ........... ............. . .?.:..... 9.~.!.~~!~--~~}...........................................

..?.:... ~.~~Y~E..~.~~

.. 2:. . . .9.~~-~--~~P.~.~-~--~~.?..............................

3. Tezzeron IR8
10. Tache IR1
················································································ ....................................................................................
4. Pinchi Lake IR7A
11. Pinche IR2
................................................................................
....................................................................................
5. Pinchi Lake IR7
12. Nancut IR3

. ~.: . . ~.~~~-~~--~~~~--~~-~.? ............................. ..}.~:....Y.~~~-~!.~1.:..~.~~7. Carsoosat IRS

Figure 5.1 Tl'azt'en Reserve Lands in TFL 42

The Provincial Government saw the inclusion of reserve lands in the TFL as desirable
because it would improve the management of the timber normally out of its reach. MOF felt
that forests on Indian reserve land throughout British Columbia were not adequately
managed. 1 The grafting of Tl ' azt' en lands onto the TFL land base would improve the
management of those reserve lands and therefore decrease the potential for infestations and
fire on reserve land to impact adjacent Provincial timber resources. The Provincial
Government also felt that the utilization of Reserve timber would contribute to the forest
industry of the region. A small TFL in central B.C. was also seen by Tom Waterland, the
Minister ofF orests as an opportunity "to begin the introduction of an Interior log market,
and would show that small or non-integrated companies could manage the forest as well as
the larger or integrated companies, two long-standing Waterland beliefs."2 The Federal
Government was also enthusiastic to see this new jurisdictional arrangement occur because
1

"Evaluation of Applicants for Tree Farm License 42." Cabinet Submission by Ministry of Forests, October
27, 1981. File: 870-3-I-42A TTB .
2
Mike Sasges, "Contest of tree license, 15 year first." The Vancouver Sun, September I, 1981.

121

of the obvious benefits that would accrue to the Tl'azt'en from the TFL, and also because it
believed it would open the way for other creative arrangements with Indian lands in British
Columbia.
When the idea of the TFL was originally proposed during the negotiations, the
Province had stated that the Tl'azt'en would be allowed to export a volume of timber equal
to the volume produced by the Reserve lands included in the TFL (approx. 3,300 cubic
metres). Export of timber from Provincial lands prior to manufacture is prohibited, but
Bands in British Columbia have benefited from the fact that their reserves, which are Federal
land, are not subject to this law. However, MOF later decided that it would not allow the
export of volumes oftimber equal to the reserve volumes because it would undermine the
export policy and appear to show favoritism. 3 But, as stated in Chapter Four, MOF seemed
especially anxious to incorporate the Tl ' azt'en's reserves into the TFL because it was the
Tl'azt' en's biggest advantage over the other applicants. The Tl'azt' en agreed that ifMOF
paid for the bridge and main access road they would remove their request that timber from
reserves be exportable.4
The second difference about the TFL is that it is held by a community company. At
the time it was large forestry corporations which normally received timber rights from the

3

The Provincial government felt that there was "extreme danger in appearing to give a special benefit to the
Indian Band." There was also concern that giving the Tanizul the right to export timber "might produce a
backlash in a particular case" and would "seriously affect subsequent TFL applications." Allan Williams
(Attorney General) to Tom Water land (Minister of Forests). April 24, 1981. File:870-3-2, TTB.
4
Allan Williams (Attorney General) to Tom Waterland (Minister of Forests). April 24, 1981. File:870-3-2,
TTB . MOF chose to pay for the bridge and the main road into the TFL because Tanizul could not afford it, but
also so that the Tl'azt'en would not have any right to claim control over access to the TFL or to the area west
of the TFL: "In no way can we Jet the Indians assume that this TFL, if awarded, gives any control to areas
behind. Their only control may be within their Indian Reserves, but certainly they cannot be permitted to
control access through and accross Provincial Lands." L.W. Lehrle (Director, Timber Management Branch,
MOF) to W.G. Bishop and R.W. Robbins (Assistant Deputy Ministers, MOF) . March 3, 1980. File: 870-3-2,
TTB.

122

Province. The Tl' azt' en' s argument that benefits from resource development should accrue
to local people modified, at least in this case, the Ministry of Forests' normal allocation of
space. Giving a TFL to a community marked a different approach to resource management
for that time. Yet, not only was the timber granted to a community, it was granted to a
Native community- and this was a striking sign of a change in the way the Provincial
Government viewed the place of Native people in British Columbian society.
Unlike other forest companies which are run by distant, profit seeking share-holders,
Tanizul Timber Ltd. is run by a community appointed Board of Directors. Since operations
began Tanizul has attempted to manage the TFL to meet the community's goals. This has
meant that to some extent the TFL is a space produced by the Tl' azt' en. Recently the
Tl'azt'en have begun to consider modifying the Tanizul Timber's decision making process
so that it better reflects traditional Tl'azt'en social structures such as clans and keyohs. 5
The Tl'azt'en saw the TFL as an opportunity to gain back a measure of control over a
portion of their traditional territory. 6 For example, in its application for the TFL the Band
informed the Government that it intended to implement a management scheme which would
recognize the community's wildlife, plant gathering, hunting and trapping activities in the
TFL area, and it emphasized that: "[t]he Band would decide what (and where) trade-offs
would take place in the Band's best interest, with no outside interference." 7

5

Interview with Ed John, February 9, 1998. For more information on the community aspects of the operation
ofTFL 42 see the report and video being produced by the research project entitled: "Linking Forestry and
Community in the Tl ' azt'en Nation : Lessons for Aboriginal Forestry." Principal Investigator, Dr. Annie
Booth (Environmental Studies Program, UNBC).
6
Tanizul Information Sheet. April 1983. Tl'azt ' en NROC.
7
D.T. Grant (Regional Manager, Prince George MOF) to L.W. Lehrle (Director, Timber Management Branch,
Victoria MOF). May 5, 1980. File: 870-3-1-42, TTB .

123
However, though the TFL is certainly a Tl'azt'en space, it is still very much
Provincial land. As the following comment by an MOF official shows, the Provincial
Government did not agree with the Tl'azt'en having the power to manage the TFL as their
exclusive space: "This is all very nice ... [but] all demands on the area cannot be met without
jeopardizing the Public Sustained Yield Unit Allowable Annual Cut if non-normal practices
and priorities are allowed to proceed. This should be stressed to the Natives. This is still a
Provincial Resource, not a land exchange proposition. The area cannot be managed
differently than other tracts of land due to the philosophies of the licensee. " 8
The TFL gave the Tl'azt' en the exclusive right to harvest timber on Crown land, but
when they accepted the license the Tl ' azt'en had to agree to manage the land according to
Provincial regulations. The Province had its own designs for the space of the TFL. It
wanted to see the forest resources on the land brought into use in a manner similar to that of
other timber harvesting areas in the province. MOF realized that it would make the
production of an industrial landscape smoother if the Natives were doing it themselves:
"Any protests or concerns about resource use conflicts or environmental problems on the
area would most likely be originated by the Indians. These would be minimized and would
be readily resolved ifthe Indians obtain the TFL." 9 As the Tl'azt'en themselves have
learned, though they manage the TFL, this tenure is but a component within a larger
landscape produced by the Provincial Government, the forest industry, and Canadian
society.

8

Grant to Lehrle, May 5, 1980. File: 870-3-1 -42 , TTB.
J.A.K. Reid (Staff Consultant, MOF) to A.C. MacPherson (Assistant Deputy Minister, MOF). September 23,
1981 . File:870-3-2, TTB.

9

124

The Tl'azt'en have had to manage the TFL within the parameters for annual cut,
stumpage rate, and environmental protection set by MOF, and within the limits of the log
market and regional economy. The Tl'azt' en's 'differences' (their social and economic goals,
and their strategies for resource management), have been constrained by these external
factors. The Tl'azt'en had enough political power to get the Government to grant them
timber rights, but their power to shape the production of space within the TFL has been
limited. Yet, when it was originally established, and year by year as it was managed, the
Tl ' azt' en and the Government created the space of the TFL - it is a hybrid space resulting
from the interaction, negotiation and compromise of both parties' goals and spatial
strategies.

New Reserve Lands
In the final agreement the Tl'azt'en also received 1,115 acres of new reserve land which they
used to create 35 new reserves (see Map 5.1 and Figure 5.2). Seven of the eight parcels
selected by the Tl'azt'en in July 1973 appear in the final agreement. 10 Parcels 1, 3 and 4
were chosen as bases from which Band members could hunt, trap and fish. Parcels 2 and 34
provided lands which could be developed into lease lots to bring in revenue for the Band.
Parcels 5 and 6 were farm and hay lands used by the people of Portage Village. And Parcel 7
was chosen for the benefit ofTl'azt'en people who needed a place to live when working at
the sawmills in Fort St. James.

10

There were changes to some of these parcels. The land known as Parcel 2 in 1973 was listed as two parcels
in the fmal agreement (I have numbered them Parcel2 and Parcel 34). Parcel 3 was moved farther downstream
on the Kuzkwa River and reduced in size from 120 acres to 40. Parcel 4, which was intended to replace
Soyandostar IR2 where Za Williams had had his cabin, was reduced to one acre and moved from the shore of
Trembleur Lake to Kazchek Lake to be closer to his trapline.

125

Legal Description
Lot 686

I.

Reserve Name
Dzin Tl ' at IR46

Acres
80

Rationale for Selection
Hunting, Fishing & Trapping Base. Also
potential for development into Lease Lots

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2.

Block A, Lot 3022,

Addition to Pinche IR2

195

Extension of Pinche IR2, potential for

34 .

Lot 3023

Chundoo Lhtan La IR45

I 05

Medicine and berry gathering site and potential

7.

Block B, Lot 4111

North Road IRI9

100

Home Site for Band members in Fort St.

.............. .?..!~.~~..A}.. ~2!.}9.?.?.A......................................................................................... .A~Y.~.!!?.P.~~!J:LiE~~..h.~.~~~..h.~!.~...................................... ..
................................................................................................................................................... !?!..~~Y.~.!!?.P.~~~.!.!.~~.9..~~.~.~-I?.J::!?.~~ .................................
..?..-..........h2!.. ~.~?.I. ....................................... .I!.'.!?.. .?..~J~? .....................................1.Q.... H.~.~!.~!}Ei~. ~h.~~ !!f:..Ir.~P.P.!!J: ..~~.~.l?. ..........................
.A:..........h.<?.!..?.Q?.2.........................................I~~?:..~h.l?.h.J.~.?. ................................... .1. ... H.~E.!.~!}Eil ..f..\~h.~!}Ei.!!f:..Ir.~P..P.!!.l: ..~~.~-1?. ..........................
..?.:....... ...~.!!?.~~..A;.. h.9.!.. ~.1.?..!.....................A.1.~E!.i.~~.. !.9..N~~.~~.~. ~~................ L9.Q.... ,I ~!~!J:~.!2~.2f.~~~!:i.!.!~~.. f.~r..f..~~.~ ..................... ..
§ ..........~.!!?.~~..A;.. 1.?.~.?.. ............................~.i.h!.:~:.~ ..c :.h~.h .. !.~ .........................!.Q... ~x!.P.~~!.~r.t?..h~.~~ .. ~!J:~..H~!}~~~- f.f..~~h.iP. .. ~.~~-1?. .... ..
James
....................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................................................................

.J·......... .?..!~.~~.. ~,.. ~!?.L?.§. : . .................. ..A.1.~.\!.i.~~.. ~-~-.T.~~h.~.~~.L ...................!.Q.... ,l ~!~.~~!2~..9.f..I~~)} ~)~.L ............................................... ..
9.

Block A, Lot 1465,
Jhch ' az Uz Ta Tsoh
40 Farming/Pasture Land
Block A, Lot 1466,
IR44
.............. .?..!9.~~..:A,.. h2!.. ~.1.~.?................... ..............................................................................................................................................................................

.. .1. 9.:.......h.9.!..?.~.?.9.........................................~.~!?.2~-Y.. .~~~--'.!~. : .~............. ...........?.:.~.. .. Y.~~~..~~..?..~~.~. 9E.~..9.~!.1.~!J: ..~.~.~.i,~~.~~...................... ..
II.

Block C, Lot 3613,
Sisul Tl ' o K' ut IR21
375 Future Sawmill Site, formerly hay meadows
Block B, Lot 904,
used by Band members
Block C & D, Lot 330,
...............~.!~ ~.. ~ .. f.~ ..~.. P..~ ..h.~~.. ~.?..!................................................................................................................................................................................ .
12.
Block C, Lot 3611 ,
Sisul Tl ' o K ' ut IRI4
19.2 Rationale not known

...............~.!!?.~~..A;.. h2L?.§.?................................................................................................ ................................................................................................... .
.. .1..~. . .......h.<?.!.. l~~~....................................... ..I~~?:..q.~h.J.~.?.................................... .1. ... H.~E.!.iEEiJ.\~h.\!}Ei.!!f:..Ir.~P.P.!.~ .. ~.~.~.l?. ........................ ..
.. J..1.:.... ...h2!..J.~~.! .........................................hb.9.h.. ~.9.. !.~~ .................................... .1. ....li!!.~!.~!}Ei~. ~h.\!}Ei ..~.. Ir.~P.P.!.~ .. ~.~-~.1?. ..........................
.. J..?.: .... .. h2!..J.2.~.?.........................................~~!.l:!~~.I.!..h.~~~.. !.\~} ............................. .'.. ....li!!E.!A!} ~..f..!~hA!}Ei ..~..Ir.~P..P.!.~ ..~.~-~.1?. ......................... .
.. .1. 1?.:.......h2!..~~. .?........................................ .!?..~~h..! . ?.h.J.~?..! ..................................Q. .?. .... H.~~~.iE l..f..\~h.\!} ..~..Ir.~P.P.!.~ .. ~.~~-~ ..........................
.. .1. ?.:...... h2 .2.~?........................................ }.!!~..!S.).Y...T.!.'.!?.h..!~?.? ..........................'... . ~.~~.~!}Ei~ ..f..\~hA!}Ei ..~..Ir.~P.P.!.~ ..~~-~.1?. ......................... .
.. .'..?.:...... .?..!!?.~~..A,.. h2!..?.§.?.L ..................I~~.!~!.J.~~~.......................................... .1.. ... H.~.~!.~ ~..f..\~h.~!} ..~..Ir.~P.P.!~ ..~.~.~.~ ..........................
...1..?.: .... .. h2!..?.~. ........................................M~.~~!?..A.. )} 92 .~~........................ ) ... ~!J:!.~!}Ei~ ..f..~~hA!}Ei ..~..Ir.~P.P.!~ .. ~~.~.l?. ......................... .
..?..9.: .... .. h2!..J.~?.~...................................... ..I~~?: h.t?.h..! 2 .J.~: . ........................ ..1. .... H.~!J:~.~!}Eil ..f..\~h.~!}Ei..~..Ir.~P.P.!.~ ..~~.~.l?. ......................... .
..?..!.:...... h9.!..?.2.9.!.. .......................................~.~-~~~!~.~9.h. Y..?. ............................... J ..... !i!!.~!.~!! l..f..\~h.i.!} ..~..I!.~P.P.!.I?: ..~.~.~.I?. ..........................
..?.:?:. ..... .?..!!?.~~..A,.. h.<?.!..~§.~§. ................... .9...! .:~.Y. ..~.~.f.h2.!~.~.................... . 1. ... H~E.!.~!} ~..f..~~h.i.!}Ei ..~..Ir.~P.P.!~ ..~~.~.l?. ..........................
..?.}.: ...... h2!..?..!.Q?....................................... ..! .:~.Y..!.':i.!?.9..!~: .?..................................Q.-.?. .... H.!!.~!.i.!} ! ..f..~~h.~!! ..~..Ir.~P.P.!E. .. ~~.~.l?. ........................ ..
..?..1.: .......h2!..?. ~?.........................................h~..T.~.I?..f.h!?.. P..l?:.. ~~.?...................... .1..... H.~E.!A~ ~. ~h.~!} ..~..Ir.~P.P.!.~ ..~~.~.l?. ..........................
..?..?.:.......~.!~.~~..A,.. h2!...1.1.?..!................... ..I~~--~~ .'.. !i~..T.\!).~)~..?.:7. ..... ................1..... H.!!.~!.~~ ~. ~h.~!} ..~..Ir.~P.P.!.~ ..~!!:~.~ ..........................
..?..?.:.......h2!..?. ~.?....................................... ..~.~~~..!?.~.~h.!..~!?.~ ..!~..~~....................... .1..... H.!!.~!.~!} ~. ~h.~!}Ei ..~..Ir.~P.P.!.~ ..~.~~.l?. ..........................
..?..?.: .... .. .?..!!?.~~..A,...':-:2L~§. ...................... .I~..!?.~h.I...~~~.~....................................... . 1. .... H.!!.~tiEEiJ.\~h.\!!Ei..~..Ir.~P..P.!.~ .. ~.~.~-1?. ........................ ..
..?..?.:.... .. h2L?. ~~ ........................................I~!!!J: ..I!~.. :~: .. .l.~~.?.............................. ..1. .... H.~!J:~.iE ! ..f..\~h.~!}Ei.!!f:..Ir.~P.P.!.~ .. ~.~~.l?. ..........................
..?..?.:.......~.!!?.~~..A;...':~2!..?.§.?..!................... ..! .~.~~ ..~h2.!~~.L ................. ............... )... .. H.~.~!.~!} J.l~h.~!}Ei ..~..Ir.~P.P.!E. ..~.~~.~ ..........................
..?..9.: ...... .?..!!?.~~..A,.. h2!..?.~.?.~ ....................~.~~:.~.h.~.!..~~~.?..................................?..-.?. .... H.!!.~!.~!} ! ..f..\~h.\!}Ei..~..Ir.~P.P.!.~ ..~-~-~-~ ........................ ..
..?..!.:.......h2!..~ ?. ...................................... ..~.~h.T.~.~~.~ ..!.~~ ............................ .'..... H.!!.~~-~!}Ei~. ~h.~!}Ei ..~..Ir.~P.P.!.~ .. ~~.~.l?. ........................ ..
..?..?:.......h2L?.Q?..!.........................................~ .~?:..T.~~~-~-~~..1.!~: ..~ ...............................'... .. H.!!.~!.~!} ~. ~ A!}Ei ..~..Ir.~P.P.!!J: ..~.~.~.l?. ..........................
..?.}: .... ...h2!..?.9.?.?.........................................N.9.!?..! ~. ~: .~ ......................... ...........?.:.~ .. ...J::i. !!.~!.iE ~. ~h.\!}Ei ..~..Ir.~P..P.!!J: ..~~-~.1?. ........................ ..
35.

Lot I, Plan 12020, within
Lots 2074 and 2074A

Figure 5.2

The Noo ' n Che IR49

Total

10

1115 .7

BCR property at Leo Creek townsite

•

..,
,

,

LE E~

...

"'

..-

•

...

...

--

•

..,

~ ~

Road

~

N

•

::-·

PGE Railway

T.F.L. 42

-----.::

•

~

~

-~ .

··.

Q

....." -

21

. . . .

~

~

...

4

J
~

- -t.

4

.,

.

..

.
.._...._

18

~

•

4

'l

~.._

•

_r-

-----~

~

- ' "'-....//

•
1"\L

---

\ ._ . ..-""

· 25

v

.

_.,

~-

ll

•
......

_.

~
·/----"

~,. ,

.

---....::::i &

-

'

----'- -- ..-

...

'\

..., ,,

,...-··

•

:,~-,

..

·"

..

..

•

,...

.

/~

.,

.-......

~ :

......

1. .

•

'

•

.

/

•

!

~---~~~

.

..

.

I

.

-

~~

-

•

I ' I """"'"

-

•

----._

-~~'

/ -4

\

-

-

•

-. ~

---

/

/

~

,

•

A

-

I

'

·"

_;'(

'

.

,--

••

.......,_

" ·-

-c._--..- ~

.

-

t-

•

•

•
..

-'

~ -- -, ---- II, -

,

..

\

..

--.____ ,\t
--_;
,.

~

--

~~
~L,
' _ -~- ~ · - "
'·
~ ~
-~
._ __ _ l

.-

·; \

--.............

• II

~2

..

~

, ,.

•

. ~

'\

~

'

I

- I
,,

I

~

1 ...

J

-.....

~

~

. ' 2~

.. _

)

r' -- - -'!

. ~

·.

-~"--.

~
Y
...

0

, ..,

411

•

lo

...

.,

"\

•

...,.

•

Map 5.1

1984

~-

Fi
n;
a
l
Agreement
..

'T. F. L. ~

,

7

•

\J\J

'

\

'

.

....
, '

1~

•

•

"'-- "-

.. '

'

....

,.
.
..

1-'

o ]
- I

'

'
•

•

•

'-I ~ ..

..

'

~ ,

~

Scale l : 250,000

Compensation
Land

Surrendered Land ...

-~

~I

•

,.,.,.,

-... ,.. ..

~

..

~

....- - " ...

•

~

, ·"'

Tl'azt'en Reserve

•

...

•

-

\

l

\

.

1e

.

126

After July 1973 the Tl ' azt' en had decreased the size of some of these parcels and
had deleted Parcel 8. It also appears that in 1977 the Government agreed to grant 3.6 acres
for every acre of reserve land used or cut off by the railway. These two factors meant that
when the Tl'azt' en were selecting lands to include in the land exchange in the late 1970s they
had 474.7 acres more to work with than in 1973.
The Tl'azt'en therefore added several other parcels to their land requests. The Band
moved to secure land adjacent to the north boundary of Tache reserve where the new sewage
lagoon had been built partially off-reserve (Parcel 8). Parcel 9 was selected to secure more
hay and farm land near Portage. A small Island in Cunningham Lake (Parcel 10) was added
because it was the base from which two Band members ran a guiding business. The
Tl ' azt' en also chose to secure a large piece ofland close to Tache Village (Parcell!). It was
hayland which had been used for many years by the Tl ' azt' en, but it was mainly chosen to
be the site ofthe sawmill the Tl'azt'en were planning to build to utilize the timber from the

TFL.
The Tl ' azt'en' s land use had never been contained or dictated by the boundaries of
their original reserve allotment, and even though many of their activities were largely
unrecognized by the Government administration of space, Band members had continued to
use the whole territory for gathering, trapping, hunting and fishing. In the negotiations the
Tl ' azt'en were not able to get Government to agree to creating an exclusive hunting area for
them, so they decided that one way that they could improve the security of their hunting
and trapping activities was to secure rights to lands on which Band members had cabins.

127

Twenty-one one acre sites were selected for this purpose (Parcel 4 and Parcels 1333). In reviewing the Tl ' azt' en's land selections some DIA officials in Ottawa questioned
these one acre sites. Their small size and scattered nature did not fit the Department's
policy for Addition to Reserves Policy. 11 But there was a logic to the way the cabin
reserves are spread throughout the territory; the sites amount to an expression (though
obviously a constrained expression) of the Tl'azt'en's family hunting and trapping
territories. The Tl'azt'en remained cognizant of their own spatial organization and use of
the territory and, with the opportunity presented by the railway negotiations, sought to
secure spaces within the new production of space which reflected their spatiality.
We must also note that a political process was at work within the Tl'azt'en
community as they selected the 35 new reserves, and the selection of sites used by certain
families may reflect who within the community had the power to influence where the
Tl'azt'en community would create new spaces. But it does appear that the selection of
lands was done through an open community process, and that the lands selected represent
well the diversity of interests within the community.
It is important to point out that the new reserves were an expression not of pre-

contact, but mid-Twentieth Century Tl'azt'en spatiality. The selection of farming/hay
lands, bases for hunting and fishing, a site for a sawmill, a site for homes in Fort St. James,
lands which could be leased, and land for a guiding business speak of the community's desire
to hold on to traditional activities and to be integrated with the outside economy. It was the
Tl ' azt'en, not DIA or a Reserve Commissioner, who created these reserves, and they reflect

11

See DIA Railway ROW File £4557-07554 Vol.l 1984-1988.

128
the Tl'azt'en community- a community with its own economic, social and, therefore,
spatial identity. Though the Tl'azt'en were constrained by the limit on the number of acres
they could choose, by the Government's survey grid and, in a few cases, by the presence of
other land holders, the land selections were an expression of the spatial dimension of
Tl'azt'en lives. This spatiality emerged to create new legal spaces within Tl'azt'en
territory.

The Remainder of the Territory
Through the railway negotiations, the Tl'azt'en influenced the Government production of
space, but only for a moment and only to a limited degree. Though they were able to get the
Government to allocate them rights to timber and certain lands, the Tl'azt'en did not
permanently alter the way the territory was administered, and two things which the
Tl'azt'en sought were not part of the final agreement they made with the Provincial
Government. During the negotiations the Tl'azt'en had wanted to make the Government
continue to consult with them concerning non-native activities and development in the
territory, but this type of provision did not make it into the written settlement. The
Government also refused to create an exclusive Tl'azt'en hunting area. The Tl'azt'en's
reserves and the TFL gave some legal recognition for the Tl'azt'en's use oflands within their
territory, but with the execution of the final agreement the Tl'azt'en no longer possessed a
space of negotiation in which to negotiate the allocation and administration of lands and
resources in the remainder of the territory.

129
The issues facing Tl ' azt'en hunters and trappers resulting from the intensification of
forest development and other types of encroachment were not well addressed by the final
agreement. The remainder ofthe territory essentially became the space of forest companies,
and of ever increasing non-native recreational users. Band members' off reserve bush
economy space continued to be eroded, and throughout the 1980s and 1990s the Tl' azt' en
struggled with the incompatibility of their lives and the intensive forestry that now
dominates their territory. They have had little opportunity to have their concerns heard, nor
have they had much success in getting jobs in the forest industry. Their Trapline Licenses
are a Government recognized interest, but only offer protection against damage to the traps
and trails, not against damage to wildlife habitat. In the 1980s and 1990s the Tl'azt'en have
had almost no avenue of complaint concerning the impact of forestry on hunting, fishing and
trapping. This is a striking change from the period ofthe railway negotiations when they
had the Government' s attention.
The space of the 1984 Agreement was the hybrid product of negotiations. The new
reserves, the TFL, and the amount of influence the Tl'azt'en community would have on the
remaining spaces of the territory were all compromises. These components of the
settlement were negotiated and worked out in relation to other interests and other peoples'
spatialities. The railway negotiations should be viewed as a time when the Tl'azt'en
influenced the production of space to the degree possible given their political power at the
time. But the power struggle over the production of space in Tl'azt'en territory continues,
and the Tl' azt' en's efforts in the 1970s to secure rights within the new system of

130

organization of their traditional space did not prevent them from later mounting other
challenges against that system.

5.1

New Spaces of Negotiation: Continuing Tl'azt'en Geopolitical Action

Spaces of negotiation are locations within the politics, culture and discourse of a society
where groups with different interests and perspectives engage in dialogue. Such social
interaction, Lefebvre would suggest, can result in the combination and intertwinement of the
historical or diverse spatialities present within a society. In the 1970s the Tl ' azt'en used the
fact that BCR had not finalized a written agreement with them, and threats of blockades to
open up a space of negotiation with the Provincial Government. At the negotiation table the
Tl'azt'en were able to articulate their goals and their needs. At the table the Tl'azt'en were
able to exert some influence on the way the Government perceived the territory, and
therefore on the way lands and resources were allocated and administered. However, after
the agreement was executed, their ability to access Government ministers, to get the
attention of resource managers, to get legal recognition for lands which they used, and to
demand a share of the benefits from resource development, disappeared. The Agreement
created new legal spaces for the Tl'azt'en but it did not perpetuate the space of negotiation
that had existed during the railway issue.
In the 1980s and 1990s the Tl ' azt'en have undertaken new political initiatives to try
to get the Government and industry to engage in dialogue over visualization, administration
and use of the territory. In April 1982, a month after the TFL was granted, together with
the other member Bands of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, the Tl'azt'en submitted to the

131

Federal Treaty Negotiation Office a declaration which claimed ownership of their territory
and expressed their desire to negotiate a treaty. By putting their traditional territory
boundary on the map and asserting a spatiality as yet unrecognized by the Governrnent, the
Tl ' azt'en embarked on another effort to re-produce the space of their territory.
The Provincial Government refused for several years to acknowledge the existence of
Aboriginal title or to negotiate treaties. The Tl'azt'en attempted to gain political power
through other initiatives: protesting against the Kemano Completion project, submitting
claims concerning the size and number of the reserves they were granted in the early 1900s,
and seeking recognition for Aboriginal fishing rights. Many other Native groups chose to
assert their ownership of their territories and force the Government to negotiate with them
about land and resource issues by setting up blockades on roads and rail lines.
Court decisions in the 1980s gradually gave more legal recognition to the existence of
Aboriginal title in British Columbia. These rulings and Native blockades and other protests
eventually forced the Province in 1990 to agree to begin treaty negotiations. Subsequently,
some Native groups have also been given a greater role in the administration of space through
fisheries and park co-management arrangements. The Courts have also ruled that Native
groups must be consulted regarding development in their territories. So far this has only
meant that Native people are given an opportunity to review development plans, and this
mechanism has not resulted in much power for the Tl ' azt' en to influence decisions. It is
interesting to note, however, that the Tl ' azt' en have begun to analyze forest development
and pesticide use plans, on a keyoh by keyoh basis. Despite all the political and geographic
change that has occurred since contact, the Tl'azt' en' s keyohs continue to be their basic unit

132

of spatial administration. Recently the Tl'azt'en have recently undertaken a Traditional Use
mapping project in order to make their historic and contemporary land use more visible to
others, and thus challenge the non-native view of their territory as 'empty space', devoid of
any culture.
Treaty negotiations have been frustratingly slow and the Tl'azt'en have had little
opportunity to shape administration and use of their territory while negotiations are
underway. Yet, throughout the Province, Native power has continued to grow in the late
1990s, and as Native spatiality and alternate mappings of traditional territories have been
asserted, British Columbia's official geography has been significantly destabilized. It
appears that the Euro-Canadian production of space can no longer be imposed on Native
territories - rather the reconciliation of the two productions of space will have to be worked
out through negotiation. A recent event in Tache illustrates this.
In March, 1999 the companies holding Forest Licenses in central British Columbia
produced a plan which would increase the amount of timber harvested in Tl'azt' en territory
and would re-align Licensee Operating areas. The fact that this re-organization ofTl'azt'en
space occurred without Tl'azt'en input while they are at the treaty table greatly disturbed
the Tl'azt' en leadership. Demonstrating the significant political power the Tl'azt' en now
possess, the Band convened a meeting in Tache on April 9th with the Minister of Aboriginal
Affairs, the Minister of Forests, Provincial and Federal treaty negotiators, representatives of
the British Columbia Treaty Commission, local Mayors, and representatives from the
Licensees.

133

On the wall of the meeting hall hung maps depicting the proposed Licensee
Operating Areas. Beside these the Tl'azt' en mounted their own maps, showing Tl'azt'en
place-names and Tl ' azt' en traditional use sites. Reinforced by words from Tl' azt' en leaders
Harry Pierre, Justa Monk, Ed John and Chief Danny Alexis, the Tl'azt' en' s maps asserted
the existence of an alternate vision of the territory. Holding the meeting in Tache, having
Band members in the audience, and placing these radically different mappings on the wall
were a deliberate strategy to make visible Tl 'azt' en spatiality, in a direct challenge to the
Euro-Canadian visualization of the territory. Having done this the Tl ' azt' en demanded that
the Province negotiate an Interim Measures Agreement with them that would govern the
way the Tl ' azt'en would have input into the administration of their territory in the period
until a treaty could be completed.
The politics of space in British Columbia today is probably most evident in the fact
that all persons who spoke at the meeting opened their remarks by acknowledging that they
were in Tl ' azt'en territory. The Provincial Government has at the very least recognized that
Tl ' azt' en' s claim of ownership and interest in their territory is an alternate production of
space that must be reckoned with. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs agreed to the
Tl ' azt' en' s request for Interim Measures negotiations to commence. This was perhaps the
most significant event in the Tl ' azt' en' s geopolitical actions since the settlement ofthe
railway issue. The Tl ' azt' en have once again opened up a space of negotiation which will
give them a direct influence on the production of space in their territory.

134
5.2

Conclusion

Lefebvre has suggested that through economic, cultural, or political interaction the
spatialities of different groups are mixed and intertwined to produce hybrid social spaces.
Detecting the nature and extent of such influences in the production of social space,
however, may be difficult. Yet, the Tl 'azt' en's trap line licenses, reserves, and TFL, the
spaces of the fur trade and the Barricade Agreement, the geographies ofTl'azt'en hunting,
trapping, fishing, and wage labour, and the space of their territorial claim are evidence that
the Tl'azt'en have played a large role in the production of space.
Political power is usually a key determinant in how much one group's production of
space influences another, and struggles over the definition, administration, and use of space
are often an integral part of society. Certain configurations of political power between
groups will mean that the production of space will be negotiated - and this was the case with
the Tl'azt'en's negotiations with the Provincial Government in the 1970s. In these
negotiations the Tl'azt'en, to some degree, articulated their spatiality in the land selections
they made and in their arguments about how the territory's resources should be managed and
allocated. This was an important time in the history ofTl'azt'en geopolitical action as their
voice significantly influenced the legal and political shape of their territory. To an even
greater extent however, current negotiations taking place in British Columbia concerning the
reconciliation ofNative title and Government title may also result in the creation of new
hybrid socio-spatial arrangements.

135

References
Archival Resources
British Columbia. "Exploration Survey ofNew Caledonia: Report ofN.B. Gauvreau."
Crown Land Surveys. Tl'azt'en NROC.
British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. GR 1110, Box:37, Stuart Lake Public Sustained
Yield Unit. BCARS.
British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. File 870-3-2, TFL42/Tanizul Timber Ltd. TTB.
British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. File 870-3-1-42 . TTB.
British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. File 870-3-1-42A. TTB.
Canada, Department oflndian Affairs. RG10, Volume 6735, File 420-3. Tl ' azt' en
NROC.
Canada, Department oflndian Affairs. File 985/31-2-26, 1968-1972. Tl 'azt' en NROC.
Canada, Department oflndian Affairs. File 163/25-11 , Camp 24, Vol. I. Tl ' azt' en
NROC.
Canada, Department oflndian Affairs. File 985/30-26- 1, 1948-1969. Tl 'azt' en NROC.
Canada, Department oflndian Affairs. File 985/30-0-1 , 1963-1968. Tl' azt' en NROC.
Canada, Department oflndian Affairs. File 985/30-26, 1967-1969. Tl ' azt' en NROC.
Canada, Department oflndian Affairs. File 985/31-2-26-1 , 1971-1976. Tl ' azt' en NROC.
Canada, Department oflndian Affairs. File 985/31-2-617, 1973-1977. Tl'azt' en NROC.
Canada, Department oflndian Affairs. File 985/31-2-617-1 , 1976-1980. Tl ' azt' en
NROC.
Canada, Department of Indian Affairs. File 5820-617, 1968-1981. Tl ' azt'en NROC.
Canada, Department oflndian Affairs. File E5667-07554, 1984-1988. Tl ' azt' en NROC.

136
Dimitrov, Peter, 1986. "An Investigation of the Carrier-Sekani Registered Trap line
System." Report Prepared for the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. Tl'azt'en NROC.
Envirocon Limited, 1974. "The Socio-economic Effects of the British Columbia
Railway's Dease Lake Extension on the Stuart-Trembleur Lakes Indian Band." Report
for British Columbia Railway Company.
Land Claims Second Copies, File STB vs. BCRail. Tl ' azt'en BOBC.
Lane, Barbara 1978. "Federal Recognition oflndian Fishing Rights in British Columbia:
The Fort Fraser Agreement of June 15, 1911, and the Fort St. James Agreement of Junen
19, 1911." Report prepared for the Union of British Columbia Indian Cheifs. Tl'azt'en
NROC.
Morice, A.G. "Correspondence, 1903, with Indian Superintendent Protesting on Behalf
of Carrier Indians." Tl'azt'en NROC.
Morice, A.G. "Correspondence, 1919-1920, with Premier John Oliver, Protesting on
Behalf of the Carrier Indians." Tl'azt'en NROC.
SelfGovernment Files 1974-1986, Tl'azt'en NROC.
Stuart Trembleur Lakes Band. Annual Report, 1984. Tl'azt'en BOBC.

Published Sources
Asch, Michael 1989. "To Negotiate into Confederation: Canadian Aboriginal Views on
Their Political Rights." We Are Here: Politics ofAboriginal Land Tenure. E. Wilmsen
(ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Berkhofer, Robert F. 1995. Beyond the Great Story: History as Text and Discourse.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Berman, Lee Lucas 1998. "In Your Face, in Your Space: Spatial Strategies in Organizing
Clerical Workers at Yale." Organization the Landscape: Geographical Perspectives on
Labor Unionism. Andrew Herod (ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Pages 203-224.
Bhabha, Homi and Victor Burgin, 1994. "Visualizing Theory." Visualizing Theory.
Lucien Taylor (ed.). New York: Routledge. Pages 454-463.

137
Blaut, J .M. 1993. The Coloniser 's Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and
Eurocentric History. New York: Guilford.
Blomley, Nicholas 1994. Law, Space and the Geographies of Power. New York:
Guilford Press.
Blomley, Nicholas 1996. '" Shut the Province Down': First Nations Blockades in British
Columbia 1984-1995." BC Studies 111:5-35.
Blomley, Nicholas 1997. "The Properties of Space: History, Geography, and
Gentrification." Urban Geography 18(4):28-295.
Blunt, Allison and Gillian Rose (eds.), 1994. Writing Women and Space: Colonial and
Postcolonial Geographies. New York: Guilford Press.
Brealey, Ken 1995. "Mapping Them Out: Euro-Canadian Cartography and the
Appropriation of the Nuxalk and Ts'ilhqot'in First Nations' Territories, 1793-1916."
The Canadian Geographer 39(2):140-156.
Brealey, Ken 1997. "Travels From Point Ellice: Peter O'Reilly and the Indian Reserve
system in British Columbia." BC Studies 115-116:182-236.
Brealey, Ken (forthcoming). Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University
of British Columbia.
Brody, Hugh 1981. Maps and Dreams: Indians and the British Columbia Frontier.
Vancouver: Mcintyre.
Brown, Jennifer and Elizabeth Vibert (eds.), 1996. Reading Beyond Words: Contexts for
Native History. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Brownlie, Robin and Mary-Ellen Keirn 1996. "Desperately Seeking Absolution: Native
Agency as Colonialist Alibi?" Out of the Background: Reading on Canadian Native
History. K. Coates and R. Fisher (eds.). Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman Ltd. Second
Edition. Pages 210-222.
Cail, Robert E. 1974. Land, Man, and the Law: The Disposal of Crown Lands in British
Columbia, 1871-1913. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Carlson, Arne K. and Lesley S. Mitchell, 1997. "Cultural Heritage Review of a Portion of
the Fort Saint James Forest District B.C." Report Prepared for the Ministry of Forests
by Traces Archaeological Research and Consulting Ltd.

138
Carter, Paul 1988. The Road to Botany Bay: An Exploration of Landscape and History.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Casey, EdwardS. 1998. "The Production of Space or the Heterogeneity of Place." The
Production of Public Space . Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith (eds.). New York:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Cassidy, Maureen and Frank 1981. Proud Past: A History of the Wet 'suwet 'en of
Morice town B. C. Moricetown: Moricetown Indian Band.
Chisholm, Michael and David M. Smith (eds.), 1990. Shared Space, Divided Space:
Essays on Conflict and Territorial Organization. London: Unwin Hyman.
Chouinard, Vera. Book Review ofNicholas K. Blomley, 1994. Law, Space, and the
Geographies of Power. New York: Guildford Press. Antipode 28(2):21 0.
Clayton, Daniel 1992. "Geographies ofthe Lower Skeena." BC Studies 94:29-59.
Coates, Ken and Robin Fisher (eds. ), 1996. Out of the Background: Readings on
Canadian Native History. Missassauga: Copp Clark Ltd. Second Edition.
Cutler, William 1996. "Accurarcy in Oral History." Oral History: An Interdisciplinary
Anthology. David K. Dunaway and Willa K. Baum (eds.). Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Second Edition. Pages 99-1 06.
Fisher, Robin 1977. Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British
Columbia, I 774- I 890. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Fiske, Joanne 1997. "From Customary Law to Oral Tradition." BC Studies 115116:267-288.
Freeman, M.R. 1976. Th e Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Project. Department oflndian
and Northern Affairs.
Frideres, James S. 1998. Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Contemporary Conflicts .
Scarborough: Prentice Hall, Allyn and Bacon.
Gregory, Derek 1998. "Lacan and Geography: the Production of Space Revisited."
Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Pas/modernity. Georges Benko and
Ulk Strohmayer (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell. Pages 203-231.
Hanham, Robert Q. and Shawn Banasick, 1998. "Japanese Labor and the Production of
the Space-Economy in an Era of Globalization. Organization the Landscape:

139

Geographical Perspectives on Labor Unionism. Andrew Herod (ed.). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press. Pages 99-119.
Harris, Cole 1995. "Towards a Geography of White Power: The Cordilleran Fur Trade."
The Canadian Geographer 39(2):131-139.
Harris, Cole 1997. The Resettlement of British Columbia: Essays on Colonialism and
Geographic Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Harris, Cole 1997. "Social Power and Culture Change in Pre-Colonal B.C." BC Studies
115-116:45-82.
Harris, Donald and George Ingram, 1972. "New Caledonia and the Fur Trade." Western
Canadian Journal ofAnthropology 3( 1): 179-195.
Harvey, David 1973. Social Justice and the City. London: Edward Arnold.
Hoffman, Alice 1996. "Reliability and Validity in Oral History." Oral History: An
Interdisciplinary Anthology. David K Dunaway and Willa K. Baum (eds.). Walnut Creek:
Altamira Press. Pages 87-93.
Jacobs, Jane M. 1997. "Resisting Reconciliation: The Secret Space of (post)Colonial
Australia." Geographies of Resistance. Steve Pile and Michael Keith (eds.). New York:
Routledge. Page 20:202-218.
Johnston, R.J., Derek Gregory and David M. Smith (eds.), 1986. The Dictionary of
Human Geography, Oxford: Blackwell. Second Edition.
Johnston, R.J., Derek Gregory and David M. Smith (eds.), 1994. The Dictionary of
Human Geography, Oxford: Blackwell. Third Edition.
Kabrinky, Vernon 1977. "The Tsimshianization ofthe Carrier Indians." Problems in the
Prehistory of the North American Sub-arctic: the Athapascan Question. Helmer (ed.). The
Archeology Association of the University of Calgary.
Klippenstein, F.E. 1996. "The Challenge of James Dougals and Carrier ChiefKwah."
Reading Beyond Words: Contexts for Native History. Jennifer Brown and Elizabeth
Vi bert (eds. ). Peterborough: Broadview Press. Pages 124-151.
Law, Lisa 1997. '"Dancing on the Bar': sex, money and the uneasy politics ofthird
space." Geographies of Resistance. Steve Pile and Michael Keith (eds.). New York:
Routledge. Pages 107-123.

140

Lefebvre, Henri 1974. La production de l 'espace. Paris: Anthropos. Translated into
English by Donald Nicholson-Smith, 1991. The Production ofSpace. Oxford: Blackwell.
L'Heureux, Audrey Smedley 1989. Fort St. James- From Trail to Rail: Vol.l Surveys
and Gold 1862-1904. Vanderhoof: Northern B.C. Book Publishers.
L'Heureux, Audrey Smedley 1989. Fort St. James- From Trail to Rail: Vol.2 Settlement
Begins, 1905-1914. Vanderhoof: Northern B.C. Book Publishers.
Loo, Tina. Book Review of Cole Harris, 1997. The Resettlement of British Columbia:
Essays on Colonialism and Geographic Change. BC Studies 117:66.
McDonald, James 1990. "Bleeding Day and Night: The Construction ofthe Grand
Trunk Pacific Railway Across Tsimshian Reserve Lands." The Canadian Journal of
Native Studies 10(1 ):33-69.
Marsden, Susan and Robert Galois, 1995. "The Tsimshian, the Hudson' s Bay Company,
and the Geopolitics of the Northwest Coast Fur Trade, 1787-1840." The Canadian
Geographer 39(2):169-183 .
McCullum, Hugh 1975. This Land is Not For Sale. Toronto: Anglican Book Centre.
Mitchell, Don 1996. The Lie ofthe Land: Migrant Workers and the California
Landscape. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Mitchell, Katharyne 1997. "Different Diasporas and the Hype of Hybridity."
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15(5):533-554.
Moran, Bridget 1994. Justa: A First Nations Leader. Vancouver: Aresnal Pulp Press.
Morehouse, Barbarra 1996. "Conflict, Space and Resource Management at Grand
Canyon." Professional Geographer 48(1 ):46-57.
Morice, A.G. 1892. "Are the Carrier Sociology and Mythology Indigenous or Exotic?"
Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada for the year 1892. Pages
109-128.
O' Hara, William 1992. "A Permanent Mission At Stuart Lake." The Beaver 72(2):42.
Okihiro, Gary 1996. "Oral History and the Writing of Ethnic History." Oral History:
An Interdisciplinary Anthology. David K Dunaway and Willa K. Baum (eds.). Walnut
Creek: Altamira Press. Pages 199-214.

141

Pile, Steve and Michael Keith (eds. ), 1997. Geographies of Resistance. New York:
Routledge.
Painter, Joe 1995. Politics, Geography and Political Geography- A Critical Perspective.
London: Arnold.
Peters, Evelyn 1997. "Challenging the Geographies of ' Indianness': The Batchewana
Case." Urban Geography 18(1 ):55-61.
Poluso, Nancy L. 1995. " Whose Trees Are These: Counter-Mapping Forest Territories
in Kalimantan, Indonesia." Antipode 27( 4):383-406.
Ray, Arthur J. 1974. Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Hunters, Trappers and
Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660-1870. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Ripmeester, Michael 1995. '"It is scarely to be believed ... ': The Mississauga Indians and
the Grape Island Mission, 1826-1836." The Canadian Geographer 39(2):157-168.
Ritchie, Donald A. 1995. Doing Oral History. New York: Twayne Publishing.
Ruppenthal, Karl M. and Thomas Keast, 1979. The British Columbia Railway -A
Railway Derailed. Vancouver: Centre for Transportation Studies, University of British
Columbia.
Sack, Robert 1993. "The Power ofPlace and Space." The Geographical Review 83:326329.
Shields, Rob 1997. "Spatial Stress and Resistance: Social Meanings of Spatialization."
Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity. Georges Benko and
Ulk Strohmayer (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Shurmer-Smith, Pamela and Kevin Hannam, 1994. Worlds of Desire, Realms ofPower: A
Cultural Geography. London: Edward Arnold.
Sibley, David 1995. Geographies of Exclusions: Society and difference in the West. New
York: Routledge.
Smith, Neil 1984. Uneven Development: nature, capital and the production ofspace.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

142
Sparke, Matthew 1998. "A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada,
Cartography and the Narration ofNation." Annals of the Association ofAmerican
Geographers 88(3):463-495.
Soja, Edward 1996. Third Space: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagine
Places. Oxford: Blackwell.
Staeheli, Lynn A. 1994. "Empowering political struggle: spaces and scales of resistance."
Political Geography 13(5):387-390.
Steward, Julian 1941. "Recording Culture Changes Among Carrier Indians of B.C."
Exploration and Field Work ofthe Smithsonian Institute in 1940. Pages 83-90.
Steward, Julian 1960. "Carrier Acculturation: the Direct Historical Approach." Culture
in History: Essays in the Honour of Paul Radin. New York: Columbia University Press.
Pages 733-744.
Sutton, Irnre 1991. "The Political Geography oflndian Country." American Indian
Culture and Research Journall5(2): 1-35.
Tennant, Paul 1990. Aboriginal People and Politics: The Indian Land Question in British
Columbia, 1849-1989. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press;
Tennant, Paul 1982. "Native Indian Political Organization in British Columbia, 19001969: a response to Internal Colonialism." BC Studies 55: 3-50.
Tennant, Paul 1983. "Native Indian Political Activity in British Columbia 1969-1983."
BC Studies 57: 112-136.
Tuathail, Gearoid 0 . 1996. Critical Geopolitics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Wedley, John 1998. "A Development Tool: W.A.C Bennett and the PGE Railway." BC
Studies 117:29-50.
Tomblin, Stephen G. 1990. "W.A.C. Bennett and Province-Building in British
Columbia." BC Studies 85:29-50.
Wild, Nettie 1993. "Blockade: It's About the Land and Who Controls It." Video. Canada
Wild Productions.

143
Willems-Braun, Bruce 1997. "Buried Epistemologies: The Politics ofNature in
(Post)colonial British Columbia." Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers
87(1 ):3-31.
Wilmsen, E.N. (ed.), 1989. We Are Here: Politics ofAboriginal Land Tenure. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Yow, Valerie Raleigh 1994. Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide for Social
Scientists. London: Sage Publications.

Unpublished Sources
Gaffney, Megan and Kris Farrell, Internet Site entitled "A Short History ofTI'azt'en
Reserves." (http://otaku. unbc.ca).
Hudson, Douglas R. 1983. "Traplines and Timber: Social and Economic Change Among
the Carrier Indians ofNorthern British Columbia." PhD. Dissertation. Department of
Anthropology, University of Alberta.
Koyl, Mary 1993. "Cultural Chasm: A 1960s Hydro Development and the Tsay Keh
Dene Native Community of Northern British Columbia." M.A. Thesis, Department of
History, University of Victoria.
Leonard, Frank 1988. "A Thousand Blunders -The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
Company and Northern British Columbia 1902-1919." Ph.D. Dissertation, Department
of History, York University.
Stadfeld, Bruce 1993. "Manifestations of Power: Native Response to Settlement in
Nineteenth Century British Columbia." M.A. Thesis, Department of History, Simon
Fraser University.