The BC Treaty Process

(NOTE FROM THE PUBLISHER: The following feature report and writing is copyright. You are welcome to invite others to visit this web site to view the material but not to make copies, distribute by e-mail or print it without permission. Please respect the author's work and rights.)

Yes, it is true the new BC Government is committed to treaty talks. However, prepare to say goodbye to the ideology of "Everything is on the table." Out the window goes interest-based negotiations and in comes Gordon Campbell's positional-based My Way or the Highway principle of treaty talks.

( Insert mega cringe by all naive, values-driven Harvard-trained Getting-To-Yes negotiators.)

No question about what's driving the Campbell regime's approach. The government will be seeking clear direction from the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutional questions about Aboriginal Self-Government . . . a.k.a. challenging the Nisga'a Treaty.

(NOTE - The Nisga'a Treaty is still in force today. It must have irked Campbell and friends to see the Forest Practices Board's announcement this week that it intends to proceed to conduct audits of compliance and enforcement on Nisga'a lands as required by the Treaty Agreement. )

Turtle Island Native Network has learned that in an expected, but still disappointing presentation, BC Government treaty negotiators have told First Nations what's on and what's not on the treaty table.

Not On - Aboriginal Rights and Title style self-government.
On - Delegated municipal-style government.

Not On - Discussion of fee simple lands. Willing buyer/Willing seller land talks.
On - Narrow and general Crown Land discussions - quantum and location only.

Not On - Fiscal relations. Jurisdiction. Taxation. Constitutional status of land. Freeze on crown land sales during treaty talks.
On - Broad discussions of ownership of lands and resources and their management.

Not On - Protection of Aboriginal Rights from majority rule mentality.
On - Referendum (a commitment that treaty tables will still be active during the referendum.)

Not On - Oil and Gas reources
On - Discussions on ownership of sub-surface resources on treaty settlement land.

Despite the narrowed mandate dictated by the government and the use of vice-grips on the talks at treaty tables, negotiators still have plenty to discuss.

"Broadly we are able to discuss with you ownership of lands and the resources and management of those lands and resources. In regards to lands, we can discuss land quantum, surface and sub-surface resources, government residual powers of expropriation, ownership of existing protected areas and parks. The scope of First Nation land management authority and treaty settlement lands."

The provincial negotiators also can remove the bit and bridle for awhile and discuss the identification of economic opportunities related to lands and resources related to treaty settlement lands. There may be some protection measures (I believe this is related to culturally and spiritually-significant sites) as well as access to resource harvesting areas.

Here are some of the other matters they Can discuss under the new treaty negotiation rules outlined by the province.

Ownership of forest resources on treaty settlement lands. Application of provincial standards on treaty settlement land. Measures to protect forest health. Measures to protect forest economy regarding timber from treaty settlement land. Fire protection.

They can talk about the issue of access to lands but keeping in mind that further provisions may be necessary depending upon the outcome of the treaty referendum. Public access to treaty settlement land. Access by provincial and federal employees. Access by the public to navigate the waters. Access by First Nations through Crown Lands for specific purposes.

Ownership of roads and highways running through treaty settlement land.

Discussion can proceed on allocation and management of fisheries after the province finishes its review of the proposals that have already been tabled by the Canadian government. Examples include the Sliammon Agreement-In-Principle and the Nuu Chah Nuulth Agreement-In-Principle.

Negotiations can proceed on the management of migratory birds - designated species, the harvesting of all species, and requirements necessary for monitoring the hunting of birds.

Negotiations can continue regarding environmental issues. For example, when do federal or provincial laws apply on settlement lands and the participation of First Nations in environmental assessment processes on settlement lands.

Treaty tables can still talk about some issues that are very important to First Nations. For example, the province has agreed to carry on with talks about the protection of cultural artifacts, the protection of heritage sites both on and off treaty settlement lands, and has agreed to negotiate repatriation of artifacts that are now in federal and provincial institutions.

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR - It seems to me that the red flags that have been raised in the province's outline of how it wants to proceed include - 1.) Affirmation of the Referendum. 2.) Refusal to talk about Fee Simple Land. Discussions about willing seller/buyer issues are now off the table. 3.)No moratorium during treaty talks to prevent the provincial government from Selling off Crown Lands that First Nations want. 4.)Imposing of a Right Wing narrow concept of First Nations Governance that does not respect or recognize Aboriginal Rights and Title. (I am not suggesting this is how BC's negotiators spoke to First nations during their recent presentations. These are my words and my inferences taken from, and my interpretations of the information I have gathered and received.)

Regarding Governance, here's what I believe the Campbell government's negotiators want to impose on BC's Treaty talks.

"We have instructions that we can offer to negotiate a municipal-style delegated form of self-government outside of the treaty context. Our instruction on this topic is forthcoming. We have not yet received detailed instructions."

I will have more to say about this particiular subject because I believe the BC Government has marched madly and blindly into a trap regarding the so-called municipal-style delegated form of self-government.

In fact, it is my understanding that there is no such thing. There is no such example available. There is no municipal-style delegated form of self-government.

Yes, there is the Sechelt model of Self-Government. But the provincial government is an outside player in this type of process. It is really a process between Canada and First Nations. Those two parties may or may not decide to allow the province a seat at their table. They can cut a deal on their own that is similar to the Sechelt model, but there is no need to agree to the province's participation.

Sechelt was willing to collaborate with the province. But that was a different time, and under different circumstances, and the politics of the day were very different. Now, other First Nations could easily thumb their noses at the Campbell government and go ahead and work out a deal with Canada. Would Canada be willing? Canada's Policy on Self Government states that it prefers tripartite processes. But being able to play "good guy - bad guy" may be an attractive negotiating chip for the real Liberals to counter BC's right-wing regime, and to help them deal with other pesky federal/provincial politics and relations issues.

That scenario exists as an option, with or without the BC Government's permission or its watered-down process for treaty talks.

NOTE: The BC Government says it is still committed to Interim Measures and the Treaty Related Measures initiative as a way to help accelerate the treaty process.