CHARBONNEAU – If you dig it up in your yard, cover it up and forget about it

IF YOU’RE DIGGING around in your yard and you find something that may have some archaeological significance, leave it where you found it and don’t tell anyone.

It’s not the right thing to do but it’s the prudent thing to do.

The problem is the vagueness contained in B.C.’s Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) as to what is sacred to First Nations.

B.C. Premier Eby acknowledged that  the HCA needs to be  overhauled. He referred to a Kamloops case where property owners paid over $100,000 and had their land essentially seized.

“If you’re digging in your garden and you have the misfortune of uncovering an ancient Indigenous archeological site, there are going to be consequences,” Eby said.

The  Kamloops property owner in question did the right thing and all it did was bring them grief. It all started last June when the owner decided they wanted to build a small garden on the empty lot, which they’d purchased in 2004, for residents of a neighbouring seniors facility.

Almost immediately, two skulls were unearthed. That’s when their grief began.

The work stopped immediately. Police and Tk̓emlúps te Secwépemc were notified.

Seven months after the initial finding, the owner had racked up $130,000 in bills; $50,000 in archaeological fees and $88,000 in legal costs.

Kúkwpi7 (Chief) Rosanne Casimir said: “These are our relatives, and our laws and cultural protocols obligate us to care for them with dignity and respect.”

They may be someone’s relatives but just whose relatives is not certain.

An independent archeologist, hired by the property owner, preliminarily concluded that the two skulls were not from undisturbed ancient burial ground.

Rather, the archaeologist concluded they were likely contained in imported sand fill (mixed with concrete, brick, and plastic debris) that were dumped onto the site, possibly before 2004, and did not originate there as part of an ancient burial.

The lot now is in limbo. It cannot currently be developed without going through the B.C. archaeological regulatory process which is stalled.

The HCA was an attempt by the B.C. government to define First Nations  rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The problem with the HCA is the use of the word “intangible” which doesn’t define what’s sacred or not.

Cori Ramsay, UBCM president said her group wants to see a good system for preserving heritage but intangible could mean expanding protection to many more properties.

As well, the language was vague about who would ultimately make decisions about what land was sacred.

A lot has changed since the HCA was first proposed.

The public outcry over the B.C. Supreme Court decision that recognized Aboriginal title for the Cowichan on lands in Richmond this past summer has soured the public mood over reconciliation.

And a New Brunswick court ruled that private property cannot be given to First Nations as part of a settlement — the rights of all citizens must be considered in reconciliation.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, head of the Union of British Columbian Indian Chiefs, recognizes the shift in public opinion. “It’s an incredibly hostile environment now. I don’t think it’s so much the NDP as what’s happening globally,” he said.

David Charbonneau is a retired TRU electronics instructor who hosts a blog at http://www.eyeviewkamloops.wordpress.com.