This paper will go over the Grace Islet Land dispute.  This case study involves a businessman named Mr. Slawsky who obtained a building permit to construct a retirement home on Grace Islet.  During construction, 15 First Nations burial cairns were discovered that halted the project (Alisa-Miriam 2014).  This paper will begin with an introduction of the main events of the Grace Islet dispute through the use of a timeline.  It will finish with a discussion about the problems with heritage conservation laws in British Columbia, and address some of the issues brought up by the commenters of the news articles.

Introduction

August 14, 2014

“Native burial site near Saltspring Island at centre of land debate”

(retrieved from theglobeandmail.com)

• Edmonton business man, Barry Slawsky, has all of the required permits and wants to build a retirement home on Grace Islet near Saltspring Island in British Columbia.

• Archaeologists have identified the island as a registered aboriginal heritage site that has ancient burial cairns over it.

• Archaeologists found that the construction impinges on some of the burial sites.  Particularly, the way the houses are constructed has them straddling two of the cairns, with the building partially inside one of the structures.

• Darcy Matthews, an independent archaeologist who is an expert in burial cairns, claims that he is certain this is an ancient cemetery.  

• “In 2007, archeologists found 15 burial cairns, but Mr. Slawsky applied for and received his building permit on May 3, 2011. As part of the process, B.C.’s archeological branch approved Mr. Slawsky’s site alteration permit application, which met stipulations to protect the islet’s burial cairns, such as enclosing them in plywood boxes.” (Alisa-Miriam 2014).  

December 2, 2014

“B.C. may buy Grace Islet home to settle First Nation land dispute”

(retrieved from theglobeandmail.com)

• Lorne Brownsey, former deputy minister of aboriginal affairs, has been asked to try and broker a deal between the province and the landowner.

• Mr. Slawsky - “I’m not dealing with the government on any discussions of a potential sale (Jane 2014)

• The site was registered as an archaeological site in 1966 after First Nations artifacts were found.

• “Mr. Skawsky obtained a building permit in 2011. His lawyer noted the provincial archeology branch approved the building plans, which are designed to protect the burial cairns. A crawl space has been built around those sites that are underneath the home.” (Jane 2014)

• Mr. Alexander, Mr. Slawsky’s lawyer, said the legal action threatened by the Cowichan Tribes could lead to significant uncertainty for B.C. landowners.

January 16, 2015

“Province to review heritage law after battle over Grace Islet”

(Retrieved from the timescolonist.com)

• George Nicholas of Simon Frasier University says that: “the Grace Islet case highlights inconsistencies in B.C. laws, where cemeteries established after 1846 are better protected than earlier burial sites, which fall under the Heritage Conservation Act.” (Lindsay 2015)

• Because the burial site dates from before 1846, it is managed under the Heritage Conservation Act — not the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, which offers greater protection (Lindsay 2015).

• “That’s an issue that comes up with Grace Islet where the landowner, following the rules, seeks to protect the burials by building around them. But does that constitute respect and also adequate protection?” (Lindsay 2015).

• Robert Phillips of the First Nations Summit called the government’s decision to purchase Grace Islet an important step. “But I think more steps need to be made,” he said.

• “You need to involve First Nations to a greater degree.” (Lindsay 2015).

• Phillips, a member of the First Nations working group on heritage conservation, said First Nations have been pressing government for some time to take action. (Lindsay 2015).

August 10, 2015

“Home on ancient aboriginal cemetery in B.C. to be demolished”

(retrieved from theglobeandmail.com)

• Under the province’s Heritage Conservation Act, it is illegal to damage, desecrate or alter a burial place that has historical or archeological value (Justine 2015)

• “On the one hand, this resolves the case so to speak … but it does not do anything to revise how the heritage act is being employed,” said George Nicholas, a professor of archeology and director of Simon Fraser University’s Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage project (Justine 2015).

• Government of British Columbia and the Nature Conservancy of Canada struck a deal with Mr. Slawsky, offering him a total of $5.45-million – $850,000 for the land and $4.6-million as a settlement (Justine 2015).

• Ms. Hannah, regional vice-president of the nature conservancy of Canada, said the resolution was “absolutely” a win and “a giant step in the right direction around respecting cultural values and the significance of a site to First Nations,” she conceded it remains to be seen how Grace Islet will affect other land claims (Justine 2015).

Discussion

     In this particular case, it was the province of British Columbia who were responsible for selling land that was already deemed an archaeological site.  This is a unique case where the government should be responsible and pay for their mistake.  The government of British Columbia did the morally right thing and bought the land back, but this method of regaining the land may lead to some problems.  It may encourage other land owners to make a profit by acquiring land that has the remains of First Nations people on it and sell it back to the government for a much higher price.  Moreover, buying the land back from the owner may not be an effective method, if the land owner is very wealthy.  If the land owner has a lot of money, he or she will ultimately be in control of who that land belongs to.  Money may not be a factor to influence the land owner’s decision and they can hold onto the land.  This may force people to protest which could very easily become violent.  

George Nicholas, an SFU archaeology professor outlines the main problem with the laws in British Columbia.  Post 1846, a burial site in British Columbia is classified as a cemetery, but Pre-1846 it is an archaeological site and the remains are considered artifacts (Justine 2015).  This is a problem because registered cemeteries are protected by the law.  Burial sites dated to pre 1846 are considered to be heritage sites and will not have the same protection.   

     Some of the commenters in the article make the argument that there is no place that does not contain the remains of the dead.  The commenter is making the argument that ultimately wherever we construct a building there will likely be human remains if we dig deep enough.  The commenter does have a valid point, but the case of Grace Islet it is different.  The island contains many ancient First Nation burial cairns.  This is not the same as simply finding human remains on the islet.  The cairns are equivalent to a First Nations cemetery and should be treated with the same rules as any other cemetery is treated with.  One of the commenters on the “Native burial site near Saltspring Island at centre of land debate” article defended the First Nations burial cairn by saying: “Just for one moment stop and think how you would feel if someone was allowed to build a house on top of your parents remains” (Alisa-Miriam 2014).  It is important to make this comparison because it invites someone who may not understand the importance of burial cairns to think about them in a familiar context, the remains of their family.  One commenter replied to this comment by saying “I would feel fine and they would not care after all, they are DEAD” (Alisa-Miriam 2014).  It is hard to tell if the commenter truly believes what they said, or if they are just being provocative.  If we take the commenter seriously, the problem is simply that he or she does not value the remains of the dead, even if they are the remains of their own family.  While this may be true, it does not mean that others also do not value their ancestors, or that they are silly to do so.  The solution to this problem will be difficult to find.  One of the problems lies in the fact that people are going to place different values on the burial cairns, and therefore it is important to put yourself in someone else’s shoes in order to understand what these sites mean to them.

     The comments on the page have a plus or minus voting system that allows viewers to support the comments they most agree with.  This system puts the most popular comments on the top of the comment page for everyone to see.  The top comment from the B.C. may buy Grace Islet home to settle First Nations land dispute article was: “Ummm, if it’s that important maybe the Cowichan band would like to purchase it?” (Jane 2014) this comment is similar to many other comments from other news sources.  The commenters are upset that the government is spending tax dollars to fix a problem that they caused in the first place.  I understand why they are upset, and the government should not have created this mess in the first place, but buying the land back was probably the only peaceful option to get the land back.  Buying the land back from the landowners will not be an effective method to protecting the land, but it may be the only method for now.  A more effective method to protect the land is to educate the population of the importance of the burial cairns to the First Nations communities.  Hopefully, this knowledge will lead people to take the initiative to protect and respect land that is sacred to others.