The decisions now facing B.C.'s mining industry and government have something in common with the decision to give women the vote.
There is a whole other column we could write on the suffrage issue, looking at why it took decades longer for aboriginal women to get the vote, and how the exclusion of women was a European concept that was anathema to traditional indigenous government, where women were part of the decision making. For the purpose of the point at hand, however, let's just stick to a simple comparison.
There were those who realized women's suffrage was a just and wise cause. Some offered platitudes and little more. And some fiercely opposed giving up any of the power, control and profits that they have always enjoyed and believe to be their birthright.
We know how that turned out and how history views that story. The question for the companies and politicians meeting at the Vancouver Roundup this week is "when it comes to working with First Nations, what group do you fall into and how will history view you?"
The ridiculous argument that held sway for far too long was that women were inferior to men and incapable of making important decisions, therefore giving them the vote would lead to political, economic and societal chaos.
Those who oppose treating First Nation as equal partners in mining might use more circumspect arguments than the "little woman," "your place is in the home" "don't worry your pretty little heads" rhetoric of old. But their way of thinking is no less offensive or patronizing: They believe they know best, and that First Nations only mess things up and should just mind their place and be grateful for whatever benefits might be tossed their way.
Just like those who fought tooth and nail to "keep women in their place, " they see First Nations as a threat to their hold on power and cannot imagine recognizing their rights and treating them as genuine equals and partners.
First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining (FNWARM) believes, however, that overcoming such attitudes should be easier in 2015 than it was for women a century ago - for three key reasons:
1. Economic leverage: Women did not have it when they fought to become equal in society. First Nations do have it now;
2. Public support: Most Canadians support fair treatment of First Nations, and recognize the advantages of working with them to achieve environmentally sustainable development. Public views on protecting land and water are more in tune with those of First Nations, than with those of the province and industry. The Mount Polley tailings pond disaster has made it clear to most British Columbians that weak regulations and monitoring and a purely industry driven agenda are bad for everyone.
3. The old system does not work. Mining can no longer take precedence over all other land uses and stakeholder interests. This should have been clear from the past two decades during which most major new metals projects were killed or stalled by First Nation opposition. The Tsilhqot'in decision should have removed all doubt.
Trying to maintain the status quo would only delay the inevitable and leave BC ill-prepared to capitalize once commodity prices and demand rise again.
So the debate at this week's Roundup should be about the solutions First Nations are developing in the current absence of any substantial suggestions from governments and industry.
Increasingly, government and industry will be faced with detailed mining policies from First Nations, such as the one unveiled in December by the four North Shuswap First Nations, and with indigenous protected area plans, such as the Tsilhqot'in Tribal Park proposal.
Increasingly, they will need to embrace the various "aboriginal ranger" programmes to monitor and manage protected areas, and to ensure that where resource development does occur the regulations and conditions are respected and environmental impacts are carefully assessed.
These measures are coming from the people who live in the mostly remote areas where projects are pursued, who depend on the land and water, and who have been their stewards for countless generates before the first European settlers ever arrived in BC. They have merit.
To ignore us would be to imply our ideas are silly and we cannot be trusted to get it right, which would be just as offensive and wrong as the claims of old that women could not be trusted with the vote or political office.
Bev Sellars is the chief of the Xat'sull (Soda Creek) First Nation.
