it

Page I of 2

Amy Sandy

From: Robert[phillips@wlake.com]

Sent: October 1, 2003 5:41 PM

To: Wenona Michel;Tina Dixon;Thomas Philffps; Sharon Taylor; Sara Cousins; Rose Jack; MaryThomas;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;CherylChapman; Britta Langin; Ben Nelson; Amy Sandy; alana dixon; Agnes Young; Agnes Jack; RonMurphy

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 toohigh 0 know you are prepared fior this), Canada is coming back with an initial offer of "a land package of appm.lmately100rfi)0hectaresrr...andifwe"consideritnecessary,morelandmaybestafirsedatalaterdate." Ihavemanyquestionson&is 'rland packageri, and especially disagree with it if this 100,000 hectares included ownerstrip and co-management landstogether. Also, the word "may* really concerns me because it insinuates they do not have to do it. This is considerably toolow a number to consider but it is not surprising considering the present AIP's out there. Also, it is far less thsn the HaideOfler ol20'/" of their territory or 200,000 hectares made by BC that the Haida refused. I'm going to call and write toGuujaw 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 sbouldrequest that the Haida Offer be included in this analysis as well. I'm thinking the Haida may have the same nr:mber of peopleas 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 weshould not water it down too quick$. I beliwe both Canda and BC are checking ors how we will react, but I know ttreywant an agr€emenq so we should stick to our position as much as possible (I know it flies in the face of interest basednegotiations, but the gov€rnment is being positional too). Here are some additional points from Canada's reqponse. Firstpast presentations by Canada and the Scoping Exercise in Lands were not successful and wasted value time. Secon4 boththe Scoplng Eretclse and the I\IRTWG werc not procemes thst we have to livc by, or ln any fom a templrrte thai wemust follow, tt Jurt did not have that mandate. In fact, I was not involved and I know litle about what NRTWG did in thepa$. Howwer, I will follow up with Sara and others on the team. So thst argument about NSTWG and the Scoping goes outthe 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)'ecember2@3 as an ultimahrm. Time is not of the essence, the best treaty deal is the most inportant thing here and we strould notagree to arything less. Fourth, Canada really wants us to select tftop priority prrcek for ownenhip-.landl conpenble toother agreenents, taking into consideretion the value of the land and tre population". What if the other agreements inBC 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 Canadahas understood that message. Again it is a frcookie-cutiler appmacht Fiffh, it sounds at this point if we do not agree withthe 100,000 hectares it is going to be a long cold winter. Canada will have to move away from this number. Thfu trCaneda's number, not ours. Sixtb in terms of "creating and funding new bodies formanagement purposesn, ourunderstanding is that this whole reletionchlp will be redefincd and a new relrtionohip wlll erist barcd on a goverrrment-to-govemment relationrhip, not a fee simple holder, or a stakeholder, or a glorified delegated govemnent Thepruent management bodier do not worlc Finally, the NSIQ will be creative, but BC and Canada will have to do the sameand the gov€rnment will have to think outside of this little box they cr:rrently sit in. This has to happen if Canada everexpects a heaty with the NSIQ. So, read on and do not get too upset. It ir negodationr after all and one way or anotherthings will change,I just hope it is sooner than later...Kukstseftsemc.

CANADA'S RESPONSE TONStQ LAND SHARING OFFER SEPTEMBER 2OO3

Canada would like to thank NSIQ for the time and effort that has gone into this landpresentation. 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 wishesto be directly involved in decision-making. The identification of these land areas tells the

rcnl2003

3

NsroTREAw NecornTIoNSFOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

SrpreMBER 29,2003WTHoUT PREJUDIcE

RESPONSE TOOFFER SEPTEMBER 2OO3

\_i

CANADA'SNStQ LAND SHARING

Canada would like to thank NSIQ for the time and effort that has gone into thisland presentation. NSIQ has identified 544,958 ha of land to be designated asNSIQ Lands. Another 761,448 ha has been identified as requiring specialmanagement where NSIQ wishes to be directly involved in decision-making. Theidentification of these land areas tells the Parties which lands are important toNSIQ 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'sperspective, a starting point for negotiations. The current land proposal is anincrease from the land base proposed by the Natural Resources TechnicalWorking Group, whereas we had anticipated further focusing.

All Parties are aware that progress in land negotiations by December 2003 iscritical if B.C. is to commit additional resources to the table. In light of thistimeline, Canada intends to be direct about what actions must be taken to movethe negotiations forward. lt is necessary that NSIQ further refine their landselection and focus on top priority parcels for ownership. The land package mustbe comparable to other agreements, taking into consideration the value of theland and the population. lt must respect the interests of all Parties and also beacceptable to people living in the area. NSIQ should also consider what theyprefer with respect to a land/cash balance. Canada is willing to cost-share landstatusing with B.C. once NSIQ has identified a land package of approximately100,000 hectares. Since the land statusing process is lengthly, an early startwould 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 ManagementAreas" and joint decision-making with B.C. on land and resources. Canada wouldlike to encourage NSIQ to pursue creative options for meeting their interests inland in addition to obtaining treaty lands. Some of those options may be moresuitable than ownership and some may be outside treaty. Exploration of theseoptions, and their applicability to specific land parcels, can be canied out by theNSIQ or by the Working Group. Canada is not interested in creating and fundingnew bodies for management purposes.

Canada acknowledges that land is critical to the success of AIP negotiations. Weare pleased with NStQ's commitment to this process and we are encouraged bythe increased productivity in the negotiations. We look forward to proceedingwith the exploration of NSIQ interests on the topic of land.

: : ODMA\PCDOCSVANCOUVR\234323\1

Page 1of I

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 scopingexercise, its view of what might constitute, from Canada's perspective, a starting point fornegotiations. The current land proposal is an increase from the land base proposed by theNatural 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. isto commit additional resources to the table. In light of this timeline, Canada intends to be directabout what actions must be taken to move the negotiations forward. lt is necessary that NSIQfurther refine their land selection and focus on top priority parcels for ownership. The landpackage must be comparable to other agreements, taking into consideration the value of theland and the population. lt must respect the interests of all Parties and also be acceptable topeople living in the area. NSIQ should also consider what they prefer with respect to aland/cash balance. Canada is willing to cost-share land statusing with B.C. once NSIQ hasidentified a land package of approximately 100,000 hectares. Since the land statusing processis lengthly, an early start would be advantageous. Should the Chief Negotiators consider itnecessary, more land may be statused at a later time.

Canada would like more specific details from NSIQ on "Special Management Areas" and jointdecision-making with B.C. on land and resources. Canada would like to encourage NSIQ topursue 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 outby the NSIQ or by the Working Group. Canada is not interested in creating and funding newbodies for management purposes.

Canada acknowledges that land is critical to the success of AIP negotiations. We are pleasedwith NStQ's commitment to this process and we are encouraged by the increased productivityin the negotiations. We look forward to proceeding with the exploration of NSIQ interests onthe topic of land.

r01212003