Is the BC Treaty Process falling apart?

(pullout)

Page 1

The future of the treaty process in British Columbia is in question, following a move by the Sechelt band to pull out of negotiations and instead have their claims decided in court.

The Sechelt band is the first and only First Nation in the BC Treaty Process to reach stage five, during which a final agreement is negotiated. The band completed stage four with the signing of an agreement-in-principle (AIP) in April 1999.

Under the AIP, the Sechelt band would receive $52 million in cash, as well as almost 933 hectares of new land, with the current Sechelt land - just over 1,000 hectares - redesignated as Sechelt treaty land.

The proposed treaty would also give the band control of a gravel pit, ownership of surface and sub-surface resources on the land in question, and 14 existing commercial fishing licences.

The AIP includes provisions for future additions to treaty settlement lands, and continuation of Sechelt self-government.

The proposed treaty would also see band members lose their exemption from sales tax over eight years, and their exemption from personal income tax over 12 years.

The Sechelt band has been in the treaty process since 1994, although negotiations broke down briefly in 1998 when the band started legal proceedings, claiming Aboriginal title to its traditional territory. That legal action was put on hold when all parties agreed to resume negotiations, but on May 31, the Sechelt band served notice of its intention to resume litigation. The legal action is set to resume 90 days after notice was served, giving all parties a three-month window of opportunity to get things back on track before heading to the courts.

Peter Smith, spokesperson for the provincial Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs said what Sechelt seems to be looking for is an entirely different type of treaty than had been negotiated under the agreement-in-principle. Smith explained that the band had initially indicated it was looking for a cash-only treaty, and that was what guided negotiations.

"It seems that what they're saying now . . . they want a different type of treaty. Obviously when you work through the negotiations towards a final settlement, or a final agreement, you expect that there be some room, and some movement on some of the provisions of the proposed settlement. And that's expected through a process of negotiations. But what they seem to be talking about now is substantially different than the agreement-in-principle that they signed in April of 1999." Smith said.

"This is different than any other set of negotiations in the treaty process. We have a signed agreement. We have a deal here. We expected there would be some fine-tuning as we move toward a final agreement. But what they're talking about now is provisions and demands that are substantially different than the provisions that they agreed to a year ago," Smith said.

Robert Joe is a member of the Sechelt band. According to Joe, the main point in the AIP that band members object to is the amount of land being given up under the proposed treaty.

"We're giving up 99 per cent of our territory . . . all of our territory is 2,000 square kilometres, and that is the biggest issue that we really want people to look at. Everybody is looking at how much we're getting, but nobody is really looking at how much we're giving up," Joe said.

Another point raising concern is the elimination of tax exemptions. Joe said that, with elimination of tax-exempt status, any of the money received by bands through the treaty process will just be paid back to the government through taxation.

"I read somewhere they're willing to offer us the money, and they want to take taxation away, and other bands have figured they're going to pay the money back in eight years. I believe ours is up to seven years, and we'll pay all the money back, the $52 million," Joe said.

Joe said the Sechelt band is taking its claims back to court in an attempt to prove title to its traditional lands, dding the band has more than enough physical evidence to prove its occupation of the land for more than 150 years.

"If we can do that, we know that'll put fear into the governments, and they talk about compensation, and that would be great for us," Joe said.

As far as the band's apparent turn-around from wanting a cash-only treaty to wanting a land-based treaty, Joe blames the band's former lawyer and financial advisor, who Joe characterized as "two consultants that were leading us down their paths, and not our paths."

"They've been with our band for 30 years. We believe that they weren't working for us. We believe that they were working for the government," Joe said.

Several attempts were made to contact Sechelt chief negotiator Chief Gary Feschuk for comment but none of the calls were returned by press time.

All parties involved should have a clearer picture of the future of treaty negotiations with the Sechelt band after June 15, when representatives from the band were scheduled to meet with federal and provincial representatives to look at whether or not there is a future.

"I know the governments are just going to come with sugar coating, sugar coating over a candy apple. It looks good. On the outside, it's fine, but what's on the inside could be rotten," Joe said.