During the past two years, five First Nation Treaty groups concluded AIP agreements with the governments and moved into the Final Agreement stage of the process.   The AIP’s that were finalized were not comprehensive in nature, and  put off or “punted” the negotiation of a number of the key issues to the Final Agreement stage.  

In the anticipation of establishing precedents that they would try to impose on all other treaty tables in the province, the governments refused to negotiate any of the substantive issues at other tables, including our Ditidaht / Pacheedaht  table.  The governments’ refusal to discuss the key issues left us in the position of confining negotiations to what are referred to as “process” chapters.   The governments’ strategy appears to be to force all other First Nations to accept the conditions and language of the AIP’s referred to above;  or to back away from negotiations until Final Agreements were concluded elsewhere. 

 The AIP’s signed by the Ma Nuulth;  Lheidli T’enneh;  Sliammon;  Tsawwassen;  and Yekooche do not meet the treaty objectives established by the Ditidaht and Pacheedaht membership.  Moreover, it does not appear that the groups in Final Agreement negotiations are able to successfully negotiate the key issues that were “punted” in their AIP’s.

 Given the untenable position that the governments have placed us in, Ditidaht and Pacheedaht, along with the Nuu chah nulth  and the Hamatla treaty groups,  in collaboration with the Hul’qumin’num Treaty Group, developed a comprehensive Framework for the Completion of Treaties.  This document addresses  all aspects of treaties in a manner that would enable any treaty group to negotiate their own treaty in the context of their respective circumstances, opportunities and priorities. Treaties would be based on intended outcomes – as they would affect each party – rather than being based on the “positions” of the parties. 

This comprehensive Framework was sent to both the Federal and Provincial Ministers on November 8, 2004 by the eleven Chiefs involved.  The Chiefs made this in the form of a political representation and challenged the Ministers to identify any aspects that are deemed unworkable by either government;  to explain why it is unworkable; and to provide an alternative that can meet the objectives of First Nations.   At the Special Meeting of the Assembly of First Nations in Ottawa in early December,  a motion was passed that Grand Chief Phil Fontaine make representation to the Ministers to reply in a substantive manner to the Framework for the Completion of Treaties.  Much of the success in advancing this Framework at the political level must go to AFN Regional Chief Sean Atleo, who has been a strong supporter of the concept from its inception.

 The advent of the federal election on January 23^rd has effectively put any consideration of revised government mandates on hold.  Treaty meetings continue with some progress being made, but it will not be until a new Cabinet and Minister is appointed that any substantial progress can be anticipated.

A summary of the concept of the Comprehensive Framework for Completion of Treaties along with a brief outline of what the 105 page Framework document contains is available on the Outline and Summary of Comprehensive Framework for the Completion of  Treaties page.

The November 8, 2005 letter of transmittal to the Ministers and the full text of the Framework for the Completion of Treaties can be accessed by clicking here.