News

Treaty Team Negotiations
Activity Update

Gitxsan Chief’s Summit
October 2004

This is a summary of activity that has occurred at the treaty table since the last summit in October 2003.

Negotiating teams

Firstly, we have had several changes in personnel on the federal and provincial sides of the table.

Federal

Negotiator Dave Miranda was replaced by Gordon Campbell on the federal side early in 2004. Chad Rudiak remains as the treaty analyst. We also deal with Bruce Reid as technical negotiator on treaty issues regarding fish and Lee Montgomery who provides scientific support.

Provincial

Chief negotiator Lyle Viereck was replaced early in 2004 with Roger Graham as senior negotiator for the provincial team. Mary Ethel Audley came on board as negotiator replacing Norman Marcy who was absent from the table for more than a year. Joanna Tombs is now the treaty analyst, replacing Mark Atherton, who took over from Mark Price.

Working Group Sessions

Working group sessions were held every 4-6 weeks. Since March 2004 locations alternated between Hazelton, Vancouver and Victoria to accommodate budget cuts to the BC Treaty teams that limits their traveling ability. Each side takes turns taking a record of decisions and action items for each party at the table.

The B.C. Treaty Commission (BCTC) takes an active role in chairing the Working group sessions. The BCTC commissioner assigned to our table is Jody Wilson and the treaty analyst is Bev Sellars. They have made efforts to deal with some issues that relate to the federal and provincial negotiator’s mandate and have attended Gimlitxwt meetings to see what is being discussed.

Topics of discussion were curtailed at times by the limited provincial mandate given to the BC negotiating team and the fact that policy development is ongoing within the provincial government at the same time as treaty talks. This year we prepared a tripartite work plan that was signed by the respective chief negotiators at the most recent main table treaty session on Sept. 17, 2004. A copy of this work plan is part of this report. Human service issues are currently on hold as the province refines the mandate and policy for treaty tables

Currently discussions are focused on a fish chapter within our treaty. This includes examining the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) policies and discussions of Gitxsan fishing rights as they pertain to the decision-making of the Wilp. The fish chapter primarily deals with food, social and ceremonial use of the resource. Data collection of recorded data on Gitxsan fish stocks is just starting to be discussed. We will be presenting the fish chapter to the Gimlitxwt for discussion and feedback. It is important for the Simgigyet and Huwilp to be involved in all aspects of this chapter. Much of this work is a continuation of the struggles the Simgigyet and Wilp members undertook in the late 1970s, and before, regarding our aboriginal rights in relation to fish stocks. The purpose of the chapter is to protect our rights of fishing with respect to food social and ceremonial use. Our goal is to protect the sustainability of the Xsan and ensure that our hon remain strong and viable forever, this means protecting the ax and habitat in which they live. We have also presented the rights of the Wilp to utilize and designate users of hereditary fishing sites. The chapter also speaks to eligibility of utilizing a fishing site in accordance with Gitxsan Ayookw. We continue to emphasize the use of trade and barter within our system. In order to strengthen our case at the treaty table we work with the Huwilp to articulate concerns, conduct research on the Gitxsan position historically, and put forward concerns given by Huwilp and by commercial fisherman. We are also using technical support to assist with data.

The topic of commercial harvesting will be captured in a harvest document that is a set of negotiations outside of the BC treaty process. These negotiations are important and collection of good data and a critical analysis of that data is essential. These discussions have not begun but the Simgigyet will need to put their efforts in on this discussion as well.


Discussions at the treaty table continued on outstanding issues in the language and culture agreement-in-principle that was signed in December 2002. Some of the issues were resolved but others need work. Progress is steady on this document.

We have dealt with some treaty process issues as well such as chapter drafting, approval process for agreement-in-principle stage, the treaty ratification process, public education opportunities, a guide for observers and issues related to media, and main table meeting planning.

The watershed planning model is discussed at the treaty table as a means of dealing with the lands and resources chapter. Your negotiating team raised issues regarding Canada and BC’s response to the model. These issues arose from the Gimlitxwt meetings that gave direction to our negotiators.

As part of yearly operations, we prepare a work plan for our side of the treaty table. Each working group session is attended by our team of chief negotiator, negotiator and executive director. When meetings are held in our territory the treaty analyst attends and assists with policy and mandate analysis of current government policies and legislation. The mission is reconciliation of Gitxsan Huwilp interests with that of the Crown. Work and activity is based on what has been tabled in the Treaty One process (1994-96) and the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1997 Delgamuukw decision.

Short Term Forestry Agreement

The GTO is negotiating a Short-Term Forestry Agreement (SFTA) with the BC Ministry of Forests. The SFTA is what is known as an interim measures agreement (IMA). The purpose of IMA’s is to ensure the Gitxsan receive benefits from resource extraction on the traditional territories while the long process of negotiating a comprehensive treaty takes place. Without IMA’s, our resources continue to leave the traditional territories without Gitxsan benefiting in a meaningful way. IMA’s are a short-term strategy to achieve some of the things described in our Delgamuukw decision. It may take a number of years to conclude a treaty. The Gitxsan do not want the situation to remain as is – the status quo – regarding resource extraction activities on the Huwilp. The Short-Term Forestry Agreement is one way to change the status quo in our favour.

These negotiations commenced in late August 2003 and have continued to March of this year. We reviewed the drafts of the SFTA at six Gimlitxwt meetings. The provincial government is recognizing the Wilp and the entire Gitxsan territories in the agreement. They also recognize the critical connection that the Huwilp have to the lax yip. It is important to note that the SFTA is one document in a series of three that can lead to the negotiation of a long-term agreement. Also worth noting is that the SFTA is different from all the other forest and range agreements signed by Band Councils in that the Gitxsan are represented as hereditary chiefs in this document.

Consultation and Accommodation

It has been difficult in trying to negotiate details with the provincial government on the accommodation of aboriginal rights aspect set out in our Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision in 1997. But two documents worked on by your negotiating team during the past year, the Gitsegukla Watershed Pilot Project and the Consultation and Accommodation Protocol, are very important pieces in reconciling Gitxsan decision-making in the Wilp with provincial government decision-making through Ministry of Forests (MoF) personnel. The processes outlined in these documents are intended for use with all government mini stries no matter what the activity. What will change from issue-to-issue is the type of data needed to make an informed decision about resource development on Gitxsan lax yip. The terms of reference for the Gitsegukla Watershed Pilot Project is based on the watershed planning process and decision-making by the Simgiigyet of the watershed so higher level planning and setting management directives are done before licensees become involved. This is a real opportunity for relationship-building and reconciliation between the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the Gitxsan Huwilp.

The Consultation and Accommodation Protocol will be refined with experience and further negotiations and discussions. It is seen as a living process that will provide comfort and certainty for the Simgiigyet and MoF related to forestry activity on Gitxsan lax yip. The process to create sustainable watershed plans are specific examples of negotiations at work. It is the natural outcome of the years of work that went into the Delgamuukw land title action and is one starting point on the road to ownership, jurisdiction and self-government.

The revenue sharing part of the SFTA is $2.6 million annually and in negotiations it has been made very clear to the province that in the long term agreement the Gitxsan want a fulsome discussion of true revenue sharing based on the 50/50 direction of our grandfathers. As well, compensation for provincially sanctioned resource activities on the lax yip will be articulated by the Gitxsan Simgigyet. While no provincial compensation monies may exist, we want at minimum a firm and longstanding commitment on behalf of the province to forest restoration and watershed rehabilitation on Gitxsan territories.

The concept of a trust (a legal entity) is being explored and a draft will be presented for deliberation. The trust will be dealing with the revenue sharing and tenure and will be controlled through trustees representing the clans and selected by the Simgiigyet of the Gimlitxwt. In support of work on the trust we have sought two legal opinions and have had two foresters assisting the forestry committee with negotiations, tenure options and other related matters.

The Gitxsan negotiating team for matters associated with consultation and accommodation are Gordon Sebastian, Elmer Derrick and Beverley Clifton- Percival. Monthly reports are given to the forestry committee and the Gitxsan Treaty Society board of directors, and are available to the Gimlitxwt.

Northgate Minerals and the 5 Nations group

Stemming from a meeting in Prince George attended by the GTO’s lax yip information clerk, a meeting was held in January of this year between a group of five nations to discuss the proposed expansion of Kemess Mines by Northgate Minerals Corporation. The group, calling itself the 5 Nations, is made up of the Kwadacha First Nation, the Tsay Keh Dene First Nation, the Takla First Nation, Fort Connelly (Bear Lake; the Patrick Family) and the Gitxsan House of Nii Kyap. The meetings regarding the impact of a new mine (Kemess North) in the northeast part of the Gitxsan territories continued for some time until a motion was passed at the First Nations Summit in June 2004 stating that the 5 Nations group oppose the project and want to see the data that looks at the full environmental impact of the mine. To that end, Dave Porter of Kwadacha First Nation negotiated an agreement funding the 5 Nations group $250,000 to be used to analyze the environmental reports done to date and provide an articulation of an consultation and accommodation protocol with Northgate Minerals.

The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council initially controlled the funds but administration is now with the Tsay Keh Dene as members of the 5 Nations group. Justa Monk was hired as spokesperson for the 5 Nations. Gordon Sebastian has been speaking to the project, as endorsed by Wilps Nii Kyap, and Beverley Clifton-Percival and Julie Morrison have been providing negotiation and technical assistance in the meetings. Reconciling this mining development could be another important step in putting into reality the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1997 Delgamuukw decision on aboriginal title

The project is slow moving but steady, with sessions happening approximately every six weeks. Monies are divided between $150,000 to develop/negotiate a consultation and accommodation model and $100,000 to hire technical experts to review the scientific data and articulate the 5 Nations interests with respect to rights and title on the land where the proposed Kemess North mine sits.

The 5 Nations have agreed to a joint management approach to decisions made on this territory and recognition is given to a certain degree of the Ada’ox of Nii Kyap to this region. The management structure is formatted as a resource management authority proposed by the Gitxsan and built on the watershed approach to decision making. The Consultation and Accommodation Protocol proposed between the 5 Nations and Northgate Minerals is the same as used in our Short-Term Forestry Agreement.

Stewart Omenica Resource Road

This project is a result of an economic measures agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the Gitxsan Treaty Office. It is designed for the Gitxsan Huwilp to determine the impacts of the proposed road on the Lax Yip. The consultation and accommodation process around this road development will also be established following along the same lines as the model created under the Gitsegukla Watershed Pilot Project.

The 13 Huwilp effected by the proposed road met in the summer of 2003 and decided they would proceed with the technical work. It was too late in the season to do it at that time so it was conducted in the summer of 2004. A company called Geo North did the geotechnical work assessing road construction and Eco For did the cultural and environmental assessment. The reports are in the process of being distributed to the 13 impacted Huwilp. Meetings will be held to make a decision on whether or not they support the project and to articulate their concerns to the province. This project does not mean that we support the road but it is an opportunity to dialogue with the government before a decision is made.

As well, we have tried to establish a working relationship with Takla Band on the proposed road development. This has been difficult but communication lines are open. We had tried to get meeting times with them and eventually met in Prince George a couple of times and set a date for a community meeting in 2004. We went to Takla in February 2004 and were able to share what the plans were regarding undertaking the technical work.

During the summer of this year there were two members from the effected areas who attended the field work conducted by Geo North and Eco For: Charles Sampson, Wilp Nii Kyap, and Charles Alexander from Takla Band. We will be holding more meetings to discuss the next steps in analyzing and responding to this proposed resource-based development.

Summary

Overall you can see the tables and activity as such:

1. Treaty Negotiations – On-going
Treaty Team Members: Elmer Derrick, Gordon Sebastian, Beverley Clifton Percival, Julie Morrison
2. Interim Forest Agreement – March 2003 to June 2003
Treaty Team Members: Elmer Derrick, Gordon Sebastian, Beverley Clifton Percival
Forestry Committee: Merle Greene(resigned), then Terry Jack
3. Short Term Forestry Agreement
Treaty Team Members: Elmer Derrick, Gordon Sebastian, Beverley Clifton Percival
Forestry Committee: Jack Sebastian, Walter Wilson, Terry Jack, Art Matthews
Committee Members observing at meetings: Jack Sebastian
( Smithers), Terry Jack (Vancouver), Art Matthews (Terrace)
4. Stewart Omenica – February 2003 to March 2005
Treaty Team Members: Elmer Derrick, Beverley Clifton Percival
5. Northgate Minerals Corporation ( Kemess Mines) – July 2004 – January 2005
Treaty Team Members: Elmer Derrick, Gordon Sebastian, Beverley Clifton Percival, Julie Morrison & a member of Wilps Nii Kyap along with other Four nation’s representatives
6. Kemess Mine Expansion Environmental Review Process – November 2004 – May 2005
Treaty Team Members: Elmer Derrick, Gordon Sebastian, Beverley Clifton Percival, Julie Morrison & a member of Wilps Nii Kyap along with other Four nation’s representatives