Page

I of 2

Amy Sandy
it

From:
Sent:
To:

Robert[phillips@wlake.com]
October 1, 2003 5:41 PM
Wenona Michel;Tina Dixon;Thomas Philffps; Sharon Taylor; Sara Cousins; Rose Jack; Mary
Thomas;Marg Casey; Kristy Palmantier; Kristine fuchie; Julie Hany;Joanne Rarnsey; Jari Heikkila;
Jane Michel; God Keener; George Girouard; Frances Supemault; Ellie Sellals; Elizabeth Pete;
Edna Boston; Dora Demerc; Donnella Sellars; Donna Dixon; Chris lAfycotte; CliffThorstenson;
Wllie Alphonse Jr.; Chief Roy Christopher; Chief HankAdans;Chief Dorothy Phillips;Cheryl
Chapman; Britta Langin; Ben Nelson; Amy Sandy; alana dixon; Agnes Young; Agnes Jack; Ron
Murphy

Subiect: Canada's Response to the NSKI Land Sharing Offer

Canada's response to the NSIQ Land Sharing Ofrer is attached, or just read below. Now, before you get your hopes up too
high 0 know you are prepared fior this), Canada is coming back with an initial offer of "a land package of appm.lmately

100rfi)0hectaresrr...andifwe"consideritnecessary,morelandmaybestafirsedatalaterdate." Ihavemanyquestionson
&is 'rland packageri, and especially disagree with it if this 100,000 hectares included ownerstrip and co-management lands
together. Also, the word "may* really concerns me because it insinuates they do not have to do it. This is considerably too
low a number to consider but it is not surprising considering the present AIP's out there. Also, it is far less thsn the Haide
Ofler ol20'/" of their territory or 200,000 hectares made by BC that the Haida refused. I'm going to call and write to
Guujaw about some of the inforrration on the Haida (ie. population demographics and size of their traditional temitory).
Also, the First Nations Summit will be doing a ctnparetiative analyslr of the cunent AIP's out there, maybe we sbould
request that the Haida Offer be included in this analysis as well. I'm thinking the Haida may have the same nr:mber of people
as we do, but the size of their traditional territory may be larger. Anyways, the NSIQ Lsnd Shering Ofrer lr ebout 24%
(ownerrhip and coagt) of our tradftional teritory. So, from my point of view our offer is very reasonable and we
should not water it down too quick$. I beliwe both Canda and BC are checking ors how we will react, but I know ttrey
want an agremenq so we should stick to our position as much as possible (I know it flies in the face of interest based
negotiations, but the govrnment is being positional too). Here are some additional points from Canada's reqponse. First
past presentations by Canada and the Scoping Exercise in Lands were not successful and wasted value time. Secon4 both
the Scoplng Eretclse and the I\IRTWG werc not procemes thst we have to livc by, or ln any fom a templrrte thai we
must follow, tt Jurt did not have that mandate. In fact, I was not involved and I know litle about what NRTWG did in the
pa$. Howwer, I will follow up with Sara and others on the team. So thst argument about NSTWG and the Scoping goes out
the doorfrom my point of view. Third, Canada wants the NStQ to f'further refine" our land selection. This could be done,
but I do not believe we should be at the beck and call of the BC govemment on this one. So what if BC gives f)'ecember
2@3 as an ultimahrm. Time is not of the essence, the best treaty deal is the most inportant thing here and we strould not
agree to arything less. Fourth, Canada really wants us to select tftop priority prrcek for ownenhip-.landl conpenble to
other agreenents, taking into consideretion the value of the land and tre population". What if the other agreements in
BC really do not work for us. We said time after time that the otber AIP's will not be a template, md I do not think Canada
has understood that message. Again it is a frcookie-cutiler appmacht Fiffh, it sounds at this point if we do not agree with
the 100,000 hectares it is going to be a long cold winter. Canada will have to move away from this number. Thfu tr
Caneda's number, not ours. Sixtb in terms of "creating and funding new bodies formanagement purposesn, our
understanding is that this whole reletionchlp will be redefincd and a new relrtionohip wlll erist barcd on a goverrrmentto-govemment relationrhip, not a fee simple holder, or a stakeholder, or a glorified delegated govemnent The
pruent management bodier do not worlc Finally, the NSIQ will be creative, but BC and Canada will have to do the same
and the govrnment will have to think outside of this little box they cr:rrently sit in. This has to happen if Canada ever
expects a heaty with the NSIQ. So, read on and do not get too upset. It ir negodationr after all and one way or another
things will change,I just hope it is sooner than later...Kukstseftsemc.

CANADA'S RESPONSE TO
NStQ LAND SHARING OFFER SEPTEMBER

2OO3

Canada would like to thank NSIQ for the time and effort that has gone into this land
presentation. NSIQ has identified 544,958 ha of land to be designated as NSIQ Lands.
Another 761,448 ha has been identified as requiring special management where NSIQ wishes
to be directly involved in decision-making. The identification of these land areas tells the

rcnl2003

NsroTREAw NecornTIoNS
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

SrpreMBER 29,2003
WTHoUT PREJUDIcE

CANADA'S RESPONSE TO
NStQ LAND SHARING OFFER SEPTEMBER

2OO3

Canada would like to thank NSIQ for the time and effort that has gone into this
land presentation. NSIQ has identified 544,958 ha of land to be designated as
NSIQ Lands. Another 761,448 ha has been identified as requiring special
management where NSIQ wishes to be directly involved in decision-making. The
identification of these land areas tells the Parties which lands are important to
NSIQ and creates a good basis for selecting treaty lands.

Canada presented its interests in land to NSIQ in the past, and also expressed,
in the scoping exercise, its view of what might constitute, from Canada's
perspective, a starting point for negotiations. The current land proposal is an
increase from the land base proposed by the Natural Resources Technical
Working Group, whereas we had anticipated further focusing.

All Parties are aware that progress in land negotiations by December 2003 is
critical if B.C. is to commit additional resources to the table. In light of this
timeline, Canada intends to be direct about what actions must be taken to move
the negotiations forward. lt is necessary that NSIQ further refine their land
selection and focus on top priority parcels for ownership. The land package must
be comparable to other agreements, taking into consideration the value of the
land and the population. lt must respect the interests of all Parties and also be
acceptable to people living in the area. NSIQ should also consider what they
prefer with respect to a land/cash balance. Canada is willing to cost-share land
statusing with B.C. once NSIQ has identified a land package of approximately
100,000 hectares. Since the land statusing process is lengthly, an early start
would be advantageous. Should the Chief Negotiators consider it necessary,
more land may be statused at a Iater time.
Canada would like more specific details from NSIQ on "Special Management
Areas" and joint decision-making with B.C. on land and resources. Canada would
like to encourage NSIQ to pursue creative options for meeting their interests in
land in addition to obtaining treaty lands. Some of those options may be more
suitable than ownership and some may be outside treaty. Exploration of these
options, and their applicability to specific land parcels, can be canied out by the
NSIQ or by the Working Group. Canada is not interested in creating and funding
new bodies for management purposes.

Canada acknowledges that land is critical to the success of AIP negotiations. We

are pleased with NStQ's commitment to this process and we are encouraged by
the increased productivity in the negotiations. We look forward to proceeding
with the exploration of NSIQ interests on the topic of land.

\
_i

ODMA\PCDOCSVANCOUVR\234323\1

Page 1of I

Page 2 of 2

Parties which lands are important to NSIQ and creates a good basis for selecting treaty lands.
Canada presented its interests in land to NSIQ in the past, and also expressed, in the scoping
exercise, its view of what might constitute, from Canada's perspective, a starting point for
negotiations. The current land proposal is an increase from the land base proposed by the
Natural Resources Technical Working Group, whereas we had anticipated further focusing.
Alf Parties are aware that progress in land negotiations by December 2OO3 is critical if B.C. is
to commit additional resources to the table. In light of this timeline, Canada intends to be direct
about what actions must be taken to move the negotiations forward. lt is necessary that NSIQ
further refine their land selection and focus on top priority parcels for ownership. The land
package must be comparable to other agreements, taking into consideration the value of the
land and the population. lt must respect the interests of all Parties and also be acceptable to
people living in the area. NSIQ should also consider what they prefer with respect to a
land/cash balance. Canada is willing to cost-share land statusing with B.C. once NSIQ has
identified a land package of approximately 100,000 hectares. Since the land statusing process
is lengthly, an early start would be advantageous. Should the Chief Negotiators consider it
necessary, more land may be statused at a later time.
Canada would like more specific details from NSIQ on "Special Management Areas" and joint
decision-making with B.C. on land and resources. Canada would like to encourage NSIQ to
pursue creative options for meeting their interests in land in addition to obtaining treaty lands.
Some of those options may be more suitable than ownership and some may be outside treaty.
Exploration of these options, and their applicability to specific land parcels, can be canied out
by the NSIQ or by the Working Group. Canada is not interested in creating and funding new
bodies for management purposes.
Canada acknowledges that land is critical to the success of AIP negotiations. We are pleased
with NStQ's commitment to this process and we are encouraged by the increased productivity
in the negotiations. We look forward to proceeding with the exploration of NSIQ interests on
the topic of land.

r01212003