IT’S GOING to be a while yet before details of a Liber- al party lawsuit to force a referendum on the Nisga’a treaty come to light. Speaking to the Union of BC. Municipalities last week, Liberal leader Gordon Campbell the party has law- yers working out the details. The lawsuit would argue __ that the treaty constitutes, an . amendment to the constitu- tion, and that therefore a B.C. law applies that re- quires a referendum, ‘British Columbians deserve. a vote on the Nisga’a principles,’ said Campbell. for 50 to 60 treaties, If we - are lo truly right the future we must all stand up for our constitution Tights of all British Colum- bians, aboriginal and non- aboriginal alike,”’ he said. Campbell said the initialed treaty will create special status native governments with powers that can over ride those of the provincial and federal governments in atleast 14 areas. “Worst of all, every one of these changes will be made without public con-'- sent. The Nisga’a will have... a vote —- as they should. and for the | said Campbell. “Nor will British Colum- bians even have an ap- portunity to a fair and balanced consideration of the facts.’’ Campbell criticized the more than $25 million that'll be. spent by the government ‘to - sell the Nisga’a deal. ‘He was set up a special campaign office, staffed by the best spin doctors in the government,’’ he said. kkk kk Presidents of the pro- vince’s Liberal constituency associations also discussed ‘claims agreements. The Terrace Standard, Wednesday, September 30, 1998 - A5 _ Libs aim to force treaty vote Legal beagles are working out the details of the lawsuit, Campbell says ing two weeks ago. Terrace resident Derrick Curtis, who represents the north on the party executive, said the gathering wants certainty and equality for all B.C, citizens in any land And, they’re angling toward a referendum ou land claims principles. “When it.comes down to it, who do you trust? Glen Clark or the people of B.C.?" said Curtis. He said it was important that the government’s ads promoting the Nisga’a treaty be challenged because of their content. Gordon Campbell “They will form the basis A CHRONOLOGY - But the rest of us won’t,”’ the Nisga’a deal at a meet- Referendum push a new idea By JACK EBBELS OVER THE last several months, a number of people have called for a province-wide referendum on the Nisga’a Final Agreement. That has raised questions about - the existing ratification process, and how it was developed. In response, I’m pleased to offer the following chronology. The federal government began . negoliations with the Nisga’a .Tribal Council to resolve their land claims in 1976. B.C. was invited to formally participate in those negoti- ations, but refused, The province was granted observer status instead, Canada and the Nisga’a reached a framework agreement to guide their negotiations, It made no mention of a referendum. This is consistent with the approach taken in the 11 treaties signed in Canada since the 1982 Constitution Act took cffcct. None of these treaties has gone toa referendum. In August 1990, based on recom- mendations from the Interim Report of the Premier’s Council on Native Affairs, the Social Credit government announced a new land claims policy for B.C. MR. TREATY: Jack Ebbels, the province's chief treaty negotiator on the Nisga‘a talks, signs a souvenir copy of the treaty during the Aug. 4 initialling ceremony. The Nisga’ a have a vole because the trealy is about their rights, and aboriginal rights can not be legally delegated to band councils or tribal councils, Therefore, Nisga’a mem- bers must approve the agreement in order for it to be legally binding. By contrast, the treaty in no way affects the rights of British Colum- bians in general. The provincial and federal governments have the authorily and responsibility to enter into treaties on their behalf. In keeping with previous treaties, governments insisted the Nisga’a people ratify the agreement by referendum so we could be sure we had something the Nisga’a com- munily had accepted. Finally, the head of the BC, Treaty Commission — the body charged with safeguarding the in- tegrity of the negotiation process — has pointed out that holding a province-wide referendum at this poiat would leave the province open to legilimate charges of bargaining in bad faith. In a recent news release, Acting Chief Commissioner Kathleen Kealing said, ‘‘referendum would mark the cad of the negotiation of It recognized the need for provin- ‘cial involvement to ensure B.C.’s interests were, represented, :and--to achieve certainty, for jobs. and-in- vesiment. B.C. officially joined the federal government and the Nisga’a as a full partner at the negotiating table in October, 1990, In early 1991, the framework agreement reached earlier by the federal government and the Nisga’a Tribal Council was renegotiated to include ihe province as a party to the negotiations. In this renegotiation, the entire scope, topics and process — in- cluding the ratification process — were revisited and amended to the ‘satisfaction of the government of the day. Theu-native affairs minister Jack Weisgerber signed the agreement on behalf of the province, which again made no mention of a referendum, casions criticizing the idea of a referendum on the provincial posi- tion :and: prinicples for negotiating -land claims. -. bebe 3G, a Nothing in the public record indi- cates there was any discussion at all of sending individual treaties to referendum. After the Nisga’a Agrecment in Principle was signed in 1996, treaty negotiators — myself included — held a series of public meetings in every part of the province, We explained the substance and details of the agzeement, including the ratification process which it spelled out clearly: the Nisga’a people would vote on the treaty; the province would hold a free vote in the legislature; and Canada would address the issue in Parliament. Again, there was no mention of a provincial referendum. The full text of the Agreement i in Principle was available to the pub- lic during the subsequent B.C. elec- and the official opposition agreed the final treaty agreement should be putto a free vote in the legislature. - Affer the election, the legislature established an all-party commitiec to seek public input on the Nisga’a Agreement in Principle and on land claim issues, generally. The committee held public hear- ings in every region of the pro- vince, and its majority report recommended sending the final Nisga’a agreement io a free vote in the legislature. Opposition members of that com- mittee submitted a minority report which called for a province-wide referendum. This was, to the best of my knowledge, the first time the Official Opposition had officially taken this position. Some have asked, if the Nisga’a people are voting on the treaty, shouldn’t all British Columbians: vote? But this question misses the point, in that the Nisga’a and other modem day treatics throughout British Columbia.” This history makes it clear that there have been numerous op- ‘portunities since 1991 to influence the Nisga’a treaty ralificalion pro- cess. However, there has been no con- ceried campaign to incorporate a public referendum until now, when it is clearly too late to try to change the agreed-upon ratification pro- cess. I believe the agreement we now have before ug is fair and practical for all British Columbians. TI en- courage the public io request, read and ask questions about the Nisga’a - agreement, Copics are on the Inter- net at hitp:/Avww.aaf.gov.be.ca/aaf/ and through our toll-free line: 1-800-880-1022. You can also get this information through your local MLA. Jack Ebbels was the chief negoti- ator on the Nisga’a treaty for the In fact, Mr. Weisgerber was quoted in the media on different oc- tion campaign. At the time, both the government different situations, British Columbians are in entirely province. He’s aiso the deputy min- ister of aboriginal affairs. Cost of treaty is a rising target By MEL SMITH Throughout the Nisga’a negotiations which concluded in July, estimates of the total cost of the agreement to the federal and provincial governments, and ultimately the Canadian tax- payer, have been a moving target very difficult to estimate. This much is sure, however, that the initial price tag put on the deal underestimates the total cost, which is continuing to move ever upward, Back in 1995, the provincial government an- nounced that B.C, and Ottawa were offering $125 million, 1,900 sq. —_ km of Crown land, a share of the Nass River fishery, and the prom- & ise of aboriginal self government. By ithe @ time the draft agree- ment in principle was @ released in 1996, the & cash component had Gm jumped to $190 mil- § lion. lB But this figure failed to include any valua- tion for ihe, Crown Mel Smith land to be transferred and the value of the tim- ber thereon, Under pressure, the government weported that the Crown land was worth $107 million, This then would bring the cost of the deal up to nearly $300 million. Reputable critics were quick to point out that the government had seriously underestimated the value of the land and the resources given up in the deal, At $107 million, this works out to~ only $228 per acre. But independent aSSESS~ ments of the timber. resources alone put the value at $350- to $490-million.. The Value of the minerals, including the pres clous minerals, under the land are unknown and : the value of the extensive water rights extended to the Nispa’a under the deal have never been calculated. . Another substantial cost component is the lost revenue to the provincial government: Wa Nisga'a government will not pay provincial property taxes on the 1930 sq. km of land to be transferred to them, nor any capilal or wealth - taxes W@ Nisga’a government will be exempt from paying the Goods and Services Tax, Social Ser- vices Tax, Motor Fuel Tax and, according to a government publication, Nisga’a government and Its corporation will be treated the same as a municipality in the payment of income tax. The fact is that municipalities don’t generally pay income tax, but neither do they operate ex- tensive entrepreneurial enterprises like Nisga’a government. i Nisga’a will be exempt from the payment of provincial timber fees (stumpage) and other provincial fees for water rights, mineral rights, and wildlife and fishing licences, etc. i Nisga’a citizens will be exempt from the payment of provinclal property taxes on their residences. The total value of the foregoing exemptions is impossible to quantify. There are other inducements as well which governments have given to conclude the deal. These include $41 million to upgrade highways in the territory; $30 million to pick up the tab ‘for the Nisga’a negotiating fees and implemen- tation costs and the promise by the province to look favorably upon an application by Nisga’a to the Forest Renewal Fund to rehabilitate Nisga’a forests. One Nisga'a spokesman has stated that they could seck: $200 nuillion: from the fund. Perhaps the greatest cost component of all will be the ongoing cost to senior governments of. the operation of Nisga’a government, oo, The trealy imposes a perpelual obligation on senior governments to financially backstop Nispa’a government and ils public programs. Only if it becomes ‘feasible’? will such fiscal iransfers be reduced over lime. One economic study commissioned by the Fisheries Survival Coalition put the total cost of the Nisga’a deal at $1 billion. The government now concedes that the cost is at least $490 mil- lion. Having regard to the fact that the Nisga’a deal is the template for 50 or more other land claim agreements, what are the implications of these revised figures on a province-wide basis? If you extrapolate the more conservative estimate for the Nisga’a deal ($490 million) to the roughly 150,000 aboriginal citizens that stand to benefit from treaties, the total cost rises to $13 billion. But given the more realistic estimates of Crown land values and the un- certain price tag for aboriginal government, the costs could approach $30 billion. What are the long-term benefits likely to be derived from these kinds of expenditures to a collective-based sociely? -Will the. lot of the average native person covered by these treaties be substantially improved as a result? Sad to say these are questions that are not even being asked, much less answered, in offi- cial circles, Mel Smith was a lawyer, senior bureaucrat and constitutional adviser to a series of Social Credit governments in B.C., retiring in 1991. He’s the author af Our Home or Native Land?, | lives in Victoria and is a columnist with BC. Report, This column was “commissioned by the com- at pany t that owns the Ferrace Standard. CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE TERRACE STANOARD The Mail Bag Isa Black Day Dear Sir: For a lot of native groups it’s a Black Day in B.C. David Black, who's solar system includes The Ter- race Standard, has issucd an cdict that his papers will not support or condone the Nisga’a land deal. On CBC -Newsworld,. Black seemed almost . apologetic about his announcement as he pleaded with his editors to call him if they had a beef.” 1 for one don’t care much what Black says. Since the deal was made The Terrace Standard has given fair and objective coverage to the story. "The op-ed page has been full of stories and letters covering the historic agrecment. ; : Mr. Black is locking the barn door after the horse has bolted. The letters to the editor page will ‘take, care -af the rest. The pen is mightier than the sword: the ward pro: cessor is mightier than the Uzi, but is David ‘Black » mightier than Moc? Brian Gregg, Terrace, B.C. (Editor's note: David Black, the owner. of this news- paper, has said he opposes the Nisga’a treaty and that this will be reflected in the editorials on the editorial page. This does not affect news stories, letters to the editor, columnists or other commentary, Dear Driver An open letter to Licence Number DBH 285: Today my 16-year-old daughter and I were driving, She is the proud recipient of ber learner’s licence. While waiting on the overpass for the light to tum ercen, you pulled up behind us. , When (he green arrow caine on, she cautiously checked to make sure that the straight through traffic was fully stopped and that it was safe to proceed, Av process that took maybe two seconds. I certainly hope that we didn’t dein you from some important appointment — like maybe a dale witha defensive driving instructor, perhaps a course in con- trolling road rage. You, licence DBH 285, your horn does indeed work, but maybe the sun was in your eyes aad you didn’t see’ the prominently displayed bright orange learner’s sign. These kids are trying to learn safe and cautious driving, and I would hope thal they would learn courtesy as they sce it from other drivers, C. Anderson, Terrace, B.C. Congrats, Jack Dear Sir: Congratulations to Mayor Jack Talstra and other local city councillors for their apposition to a referendum on the Nisga’a final agreement. This treaty was made in the northwest and is. un- derstood by the people of the northwest. We do not need people from the lower mainland, like Liberal MLA Mike De Jong, deciding if it is good for us. We also do not need the rest of Canada or the rest of BC telling us if we should accept the treaty, which is what Liberal Jeader Gordon Campbell suggests. Mayor Talstra and 1 may not always see cye-to-eye politically, but we both understand thie” importance of the final agreement to our communities and support it wholeheartedly, Perhaps Mike De Jong and the Liber- als should take a page from Mayor Talstra’s book, and stop playing politics with this historic agreement. Helmut Giesbrecht, MLA, Skeena Nisga’a details needed Dear Sir: I’m starting to get some feedback from the Nisga’a people over the letter I’ve put in The Terrace Standard conceming the negotiating of a woodiot and watershed protection, I fecl comfortable with asking for these two requests because they are basic survival needs and not financial gains such as some people are interested in. 1 would like to encourage these Nisga’a people wilh the negalive comments to please put your thoughts in The Terrace Standard for ali to sec. I think that would be a much better way of expressing any bard feclings. L can’t recall if] mentioned it to the Nisga’a negotiat- ing team but | certainly have mentioned it lo the provincial negotiators as well as the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the Premicr’s Office. I do realize that everything comes with a price and I expected the two basic survival needs to be negotiated by the NDP government in the way of payment by ci- ther cash, land or some other agreed upon method. After all, the province docs have an obligation to look after third party interests in land claim negotia- tions, After all, the province docs have an obligation to look after third party interests in land claim negotia- tions. But. alas! Instead of the provincial negolialors at- tempting to negotiate in this fashion they simply said to the Nisga’a that the non-Nisga’a community wanls two basic survival issues and no mention of any type of payment. So it’s quite understandable that these re- quests were denied by the Nisga’a tcam. ~ So the provincial negotiators come back to us and - said, “they said no’’, And that was to be the end of it as far as the NDP government was concemed. All] can say to that is thank God we have more than one © politi: cal party in B.C. Then the provincial negotiators had the nerve.to tell ‘this community how hard they worked lo gel fee simple land excluded from Nisga’a controk |. Yet in the very first brochure ever published by the Nisga’a Tribal Council on January 1992 it clearly states that existing private homes afc nol to be on the “table for negatiation. I don’t mean to be calling the provincial negotiators liars but so help me, I can't find the truth in their state- ment. Maybe they would’ also like to clarify this by “way of letter lo The Terrace Standard. Lloyd irinson, Nuss Camp, B.C. The Terrace Standard welcomes letlers to the editor. Our deadline is noon Friday for the following Wed- nesday’s issue, Our mailing address is 3210 Clinton St, Terrace, B.C. V8G 5R2, Our fax number is 250- 638-8432. We particularly welcome. letters via e-mail. Our e-mail address is standard@kermode.net "More letters, Page AG” a i