News and Comment

by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy, Oneida

Turtle Island Native Network

www.turtleisland.org

"The People United Will Never be Defeated. The People United Will Never be Defeated!" With their enthusiastic chants, their many megaphoned-words, and their sea of signs, they claimed to be -the- Opposition. A majority government in BC quickly spawned grassroots fear, and a political backlash from a coalition of several hundred labour, Aboriginal, student & anti-poverty groups who rallied outside the BC legislature.

As a worker vacuumed the royal-red carpet that snaked down the stairs, protestors gathered on the front lawn of the legislature buildings in Victoria July 24th, framed by a fence and carefully watched by security guards and police.

Union issues, Aboriginal rights - speech followed speech - fueling the feelings of the crowd. But then their attention turned

to the front steps. One man began rocking the security fence, forcing it to sway - his lone action attracted encouraging words from others, eventually his persistence prompted physical support from others.

The fence swayed, sprung back in resistance, then swayed, swayed and finally went down, stomped down as dozens of feet moved forward.

Police and security guards restrained themselves and chose not to use force to stop the oncoming. Besides, if needed, more police and horses were close by.

Some if it seemed bizarre - police photographers taking pictures of people taking pictures of them taking pictures, of the protestors.

Where the royal-red carpet finished its climb to the top, the wrought iron security doors were locked shut, preventing protestors from getting inside where the Liberal government's first Throne Speech was to be delivered. Also behind the closed doors? Riot police, who waited for the worse.

The worse in this case, was a loud expression of democratic fear by a few, against a majority government. While the demonstrators were kept outside, the presence of the protestors, their strength of numbers and their success in blocking the front entrance, forced the Lieutenant Governor to sneak in a rear door.

The new government's Throne Speech in British Columbia promised better services for children, families and First Nations. It talked of forging a relationship of reconciliation with First Nations through workable, affordable treaties which provide certainty, equality and finality.

But the Liberals' political lightning rod also stood firm - the promise of a treaty referendum. There it was, a red flag being waved in front of a raging bull. In its dark shadow, the promise of justice and protection of Aboriginals rights seemed like another kind of bull. "As the minister responsible for justice, the Attorney General will ensure the protection of aboriginal rights, and will ensure that the rule of law applies equally for all British Columbians under our country's Constitution."

The government's 'to do' list also mentioned another subject that's likely to raise serious First Nation land and resource concerns - the Campbell government said it will fulfill its promise to "increase access to Crown lands and resources, to create jobs in tourism, mining, forestry, farming, ranching and oil and gas extraction". Let's watch how this one plays out at the treaty tables that are starting to stir again.

As well, the BC government promised Urban Aboriginals their voices will be heard - "My government will be unwavering in its efforts to provide aboriginal British Columbians with the same sense of hope and opportunity as non-aboriginal British Columbians. To that end, my government will establish a permanent First Citizens' Forum that will provide aboriginal citizens living on- and off-reserves with a means to share their priorities and ideas with my government."

"The Premier and the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations will

work to ensure that the federal government is living up to its responsibility to materially improve the quality of life, education and health care of aboriginal families, both on- and off-reserve. For its part, my government will make a major financial commitment to advance that goal."

As promised, it will double the First Citizens' Fund from $36 million to $72 million over the next four years. The BC government promised to consult First Nations leaders to "determine what changes, if any, should be made to that Fund to maximize its benefit to native friendship centres, aboriginal students and aboriginal families."

Efforts will be redoubled to address urban aboriginal issues, to build capacity, and to "negotiate reasonable interim measures agreements". Hmm. Referring to treaty language on urban issues?

"My government will honour its pledge to fast- track treaty talks, under the Attorney General's guidance as the Minister Responsible for Treaty N

egotiations. British Columbians want to negotiate fair and honourable treaty settlements with First Nations. They also want a direct say on the principles those treaties will reflect.

Within the next year, my government will fulfill its commitment to hold a provincial referendum on the principles that will guide my government's approach to treaty negotiations."

A legislative committee will be appointed to consult with all British Columbians, including First Nations. That committee will draft the questions that will be asked in the referendum. The First Nations Summit has vowed to boycott the process.

Here's another hot potato served up on the political platter. "My government will also offer to negotiate delegated models of self-government with First Nations, to ensure that all aboriginal governments have the same legal status in British Columbia as they do in every other province." This is code for nothing more than local government, and never mind this nation-to-nation stuff.

News and Comment

by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy, Oneida

Turtle Island native Network

www.turtleisland.org

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 irke

d Campbell and friends to see the Forest Practices Board's announcement that it intends to proceed to conduct audits of compliance and enforcement on Nisga'a lands as required by the Treaty Agreement. )

In an expected, but still disappointing presentation in July, BC Government treaty negotiators 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. (This was later clarified to say there would be exceptions involving treaty tables that are more advanced)

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 majorit

y 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 mea

sures (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 fis

heries 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 insti

tutions.

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 partici

pation.

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.

(. . . to be continued)