The treaty making process is not a process the Sliammon First Nation entered into blindly. In 1995, the community held a referendum to get approval from its citizen’s to enter the process and proceed with negotiating a treaty on their behalf. The referendum resulted in an overwhelming declaration of support of almost 90% YES. From there, the Treaty team worked with the community in developing a vision for the future, which was incorporated into and guided the creation of the AIP. However, the NO vote on November 22 for some Sliammon people was deemed to be a victory of NO over YES, good over evil.

When asked "Why NO?" The response was "No Means NO." While its true that NO does have a very clear meaning, "NO" is not a simple word to understand on such a very complex matter. A NO can only be clearly understood when a very simple, straightforward question is asked. Is the sky blue? Yes or no. Do you like Gordon Campbell? Yes or no. Do you want to have sex? Yes or no. A NO to the Sliammon AIP is not a clear NO. Instead it leads to the question "What does NO mean NO to?" The AIP is a multifaceted document built on six years of negotiation and 180 years of experience in what doesn’t work and what the community does not want.

Unfortunately the NO to Sliammon exposes the entire treaty making process in BC to scrutiny. The NO in Sliammon can affect the future of all treaty negotiations in BC.

A NO in a First Nation community could mean the community doesn’t want self-government, it doesn’t believe in land claims, and it doesn’t support or believe in its leaders. Which leads to the question, "Does a win by 8 votes, or even 12, give anyone, including a Chief or Council, the right to act at all?" If the tables were turned and the 8-vote lead was for YES, would the 8 votes be enough to proceed? If the answer to the 8 vote YES lead is there is not enough difference to proceed with implementing the interim agreement (AIP), then the same must apply to a NO vote… there is not enough to shut down the negotiation.

It is not enough to vote NO. You must also have a specific and clear answer why. Of course a knowledgeable, well-informed respondent can only provide this. That is, a response by someone who has made the efforts to improve their knowledge on all aspects of the process – evaluating the benefits and disadvantages, understanding the needs and desires of all parties involved, having vision on the needs of future generations, knowing the difference between an AIP and a legally binding agreement, and really understanding the opposing points of view. My Band’s Chief Sophie Pierre best said it when she said, "A mind is a like a parachute… it works best when it’s open."

This is a sensitive time we live in. It is a time when there is opposition and frustration by the non-Aboriginal community and Aboriginal communities to the modern day treaty making process. Eight years into the process and $64 million later, there still isn’t a treaty signed under this process, and there is no AIP ratified by a First Nation community (Note: the Sechelt AIP signed over a year ago was ratified by Chief and Council, not the community).

Some of the dust particles are beginning to settle in Sliammon. What the next steps are is beginning to be mapped out, addressing questions such as: Do you continue with the process or end it and put 17 Band members out of work? Or do you try of find a way to uncover the questions and interpretations of the AIP that resulted in the NO vote? If so, was a NO because something was not in the agreement, was in the agreement, or to something else altogether?

We must understand that there may never be a perfect agreement. Negotiations are outcomes of all parties involved – they are compromises where one party gains something in trade for something they lose. It is a balancing act that can only be tested in practice. Furthermore, it is a leap of faith and trust… in leadership. Trust that the people have in leadership now and in the future. Remember treaty teams do not implement agreements, the leadership and government does – Chief and Council, Presidents, Premiers and Prime Minister. Treaties are a vote of trust in leadership.