Eligibility battle looms over treaty negotiations

Page 3

Graham Allen, treaty negotiator for the Sechelt Indian Band in British

Columbia, accused provincial negotiators of appartheid politics during

side table talks on treaty eligibility criteria and land issues.

"Sechelt is not South Africa," he said, after provincial negotiator,

Gina Delimari, dropped a bomb shell, April 10, Delimari announced the

provincial policy in province-wide treaty negotiations would not include

compensation to non-Aboriginals who have gained their native status

through marriage.

Allen said he could not believe the province was going to classify

Indigenous people according to their racial origins.

"For the province to suggest we have two categories of band members is

something we'll never accept. We cannot get involved in these kinds of

divisive issues. We are not pre-Mandelian South Africa. This is ugly,

ill considered, and monstrous," said Allen.

Allen said the decision would have a huge impact on Sechelt and

Squamish negotiations.

"We didn't expect this," said Sechelt chief Garry Feschuk. "All band

members are entitled to vote, and now the province is saying they are

going to determine who has eligibility rights to receive benefits under

the treaty? We can't pick and choose our people and say you don't have

the right to entitlement. We are one band..all this is going to create

controversy within the band."

Feschuk said the policy would be not accepted by the band, who attained

self-government in 1985, and has eligibility criteria established in

their constitution.

"We are not going to divide our people. We aren't going to pick and

choose who is eligible and who is not."

Federal negotiator Bill Wray said the federal government recognizes the

Sechelt's creiteria for band membership for treaty negotiations and

compensation purposes. Wray said that when the federal government

recognized the Sechelt's right to self-government in 1986, it accepted

the definitions of band membership as set out in the Sechelt

constitution. He wouldn't comment on the provincial decision.

Although provincial negotiators have denied there is a per capita

compensation formula, both Feschuk and Allen felt per capita settlement

funding must be behind the move to classify the Sechelts along racial

origin lines.

"If there isn't a per capita funding formula, what difference does the

ancestry of a band member make," said Feschuk.

"Treaties are with Aboriginal people. The benfits of those treaties

are for Aboriginal people... We want to negotiate with people of Sechelt

ancestry. We're not talking about band membership lists," Delimare

argued.

Delimari said the province would consider non-Aboriginal children, who

have been adopted by band members as eligible for treaty compensaion.

Elder Gilbert Joe claimed the policy would create " a legal nightmare",

and that the Sechelt would oppose it.

Lee Dixon, the band Indian registry adminstrator, said that as of March

there were 926 registered Sechelt band members. No one since 1986 has

received band membership through marriage. Estimates of the number of

Sechelt members potentially affected by the proposal were not available.

Negotiations also failed on land issues with the province again

refusing to provide interim protection status for lands claimed by the

Sechelt. Frustration and acrimony marked the discussions. The source

of friction between negotiators includes nine lots of traditional lands

outlined in the February, 1995 Sechelt land claims proposal, and a

request by the Sechelt nation for interim protection measures to ensure

the availability of those lands for a treaty settlement.

"The province is saying they won't protect areas where there are

pre-existing active tenures, leases, and licenses, but they also want to

protect 'proposed' future interests. We're opposed to that", Feschuk

said.

Delimari said the province assesses lands for negotiations based on

several criteria

including the value of the land, how it's used, current and proposed

interest, and how the land will be trated in federal cost sharing

agreements.

Allen said the Sechelt have made it clear that they will respect all

existing leases, and tenures, but they will not recognize the terms of

leases and licenses applied for after the Sechelts made public their

intentions for those lands.

Delimari offered to make alternate lands available to the Sechelt if

existing tenures and licenses became negotiating stumbling blocks. But

her suggestion was met with frustration.

"We're back to where we were 200 years ago," said Feschuk. "What you're

taking from our land claim in proposed and active interest leaves us

with nothing. Now you're dictating what lands we can have. Theses

aren't up for negotiation. If we go back and make another selection,

then the proposed interests will come in. What you give us is barren

land. It's already been logged off."

Sechelt Elder women in the audience applauded Faschuk's remarks.

Negotiators moved the eligibility question forward to the next main

table session in Sechelt to be held May 14. Land issues will be

discussed again at a side table slated for April 25. The Sechelt claim

is in stage four, the agreement in principle stage, of the six stage

B.C. Treaty Commission process.