Governance Review - Treaty Settlement Implications
Saturday, June 14, 2003
The Gabriola Governance Review Committee's consultant, Tom Reid, has reviewed the Snuneymuxw Agreements in principle and offered comments on important features related to consideration of municipal status for Gabriola, a portion of which is outlined below:
Lands that form Snuneymuxw Treaty Settlement Land (TSL) would lie beyond the authority of local governments, including the regional district, Islands Trust and municipalities. However, the AIPs include the creation of a joint Snuneymuxw-Islands Trust land use strategy for Gabriola, to be developed by a Gabriola land committee that would be established by the Snuneymuxw and the Trust. The Snuneymuxw will also develop land use plans for their TSL. After the final agreement becomes effective, changes to the Snuneymuxw plans or to the Gabriola OCP must be consistent with the joint land-use strategy. Note: Lands that are owned by the Snuneymuxw but do not form part of the TSL would be subject to local government rules and regulations.
Lands that would become Snuneymuxw Treaty Land (TSL) on Gabriola include these:
•In addition to the Degden Bay petroglyphs site, IR 5, and IR 6, another 564 hectares of land would be transferred to the Snuneymuxw to form part of the Snuneymuxw Treaty Land. These are located as follows: Kensington Lands (396 ha), Chelwood Road near Leboeuf Bay (26 ha), and lands adjacent to the Kensington property (142 ha).
•Up to 2,800 ha of unidentified lands in the RDN, some of which could be on Gabriola. Included in this (based on the Snuneymuxw web site) are 11 parcels totaling about 211 ha adjacent to the Kensington lands. While it isn't definitive that these will in fact be transferred to Snuneymuxw, or that other properties won't be transferred, it is helpful to put this information into perspective. The taxable assessed value of the 211 ha totals $1.16 million, or 0.2% of the island's total tax base. In other words, the loss of tax base due to the treaty would probably be extremely slight. (Note that the 564 ha for Kensington and other lands referenced in the bullet above were already excluded from the 2002 tax base, so the tax impacts in this report have already taken that loss into account.)
Clauses that seems clear
A. If the Gabriola OCP is reviewed prior to the final Snuneymuxw agreement, the Gabriola Local Trust Committee must consult with the Snuneymuxw during the review process. Under municipal status, however, it would be the municipal council who must consult with the Snuneymuxw.
B. After the final agreement is signed, the Snuneymuxw can, with some restrictions, add more lands to the TSL. If Gabriola is a rural status community, there is no local veto on such future additions; the Trust and the RDN do not have this power. Under municipal status, municipal council would have veto power over such additions to TSL.
C. Certain municipal roads, to be determined at the time, will be deemed to remain municipal roads even though they may be on or adjacent to TSL. Note that while this principle may be clear, its application is not clear at this time. This principle could affect Gabriola under municipal status but not under rural status.
What is not clear
Various changes could affect a municipality differently than a rural community, but there isn't enough information available yet to be sure.
A. Will the boundaries of the Gabriola fire district be amended to exclude TSL if Gabriola remains under rural status? It is expected that if a municipality is created, its letters patent will exclude TSL.
B. There is to be a "Gabriola land committee" established by the Trust and the Snuneymuxw. The committee will develop a joint land use strategy for the island. The AIP uses the term «Islands Trust» in this regard but it is not clear if this means the Executive, the Council, or the Gabriola Local Committee. If it is the local committee, then municipal status would mean the "Gabriola land committee" is to be established jointly by the Snuneymuxw and the municipal council.
C. The AIP makes a number of references to responsibilities and consultations regarding the province and the Snuneymuxw with respect to road access and utility corridors adjacent to or through TSL. Normally, when a municipality is created, responsibility for roads shifts from the province to the municipality. Would this mean the municipality replaces the Crown in these responsibilities and consultations with Snuneymuxw? Or would they remain Crown responsibilities even within the municipality (perhaps by special designation, like a highway)? One of the concerns here boils down to this: would the municipality have to maintain roads identified in the AIP as Crown corridors, and if so, would the municipality get any revenue for this?
While the municipal veto of post-agreement additions to TSL is a clear difference between municipal and rural status, many other important elements (like road responsibilities) are not clear. More details are needed but are unlikely to be forthcoming in the immediate future, so it is not possible to be more specific as to the differences between municipal status and rural status for Gabriola in the context of a Snuneymuxw treaty settlement.
|
