Aboriginal Land Claims
Discussed at SFU Forum

While the shadow of standoffs like the one at Gustafsen Lake still looms large over native land claim settlements in BC, native leaders and provincial and federal negotiators agree that the treaty negotiation process provides some hope for resolution of this complex problem.

At a forum on aboriginal land claims held at SFU on September 19, Joe Gosnell, president of the Nisga'a Tribal Council, and Gerry Thorne, a treaty negotiator for the provincial Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, agreed that the Nisga'a treaty should be completed within the next month. David Osborn, a federal negotiator for the Nisga'a treaty, admitted that the process had been held up while the province and the federal government resolved cost-sharing issues.

Christie Clark, Liberal candidate for the Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain riding, attended the forum, but did not share the optimism of those involved in the treaty process. Clark said, "We firmly believe that aboriginal peoples need to have the economic opportunities that will only be provided by settlement." However she expressed concern about the way the NDP is currently negotiating: "We would do two things differently. Number one -- one law for all British Columbians ... the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] and resource management laws must apply." Currently, this is part of the provincial mandate to negotiate, but Clark claims, "We get mixed messages from the politicians in the Harcourt government." The second key to Liberal policy, said Clark is, "to make sure that it's an open process." Again, the provincial mandate requires that negotiations be open to all British Columbians. Gosnell stated, "The whole agreement is open to everyone ... As far as we're concerned it's public knowledge." He admitted that there were some exceptions but pointed out that the Nisga'a negotiators did not know what the agreements on these issues would be. Clark said, "With the Nisga'a claim, with regards to land, fishing and mining resources, we don't even know what they've got on the table. These are the issues that concern other British Columbians. Our concern is that the whole process will fail if there is that element of fear in the general population." Clark also indicated that the Liberals, if in government, would seek a mandate for negotiation before the process got started.

All of the speakers on the forum panel emphasized the complexity and difficulty of land claim negotiations. Alec Robertson, Chief Commissioner of the BC Treaty Commission, pointed out that the problem stretches back at least as far as the settlement of BC. The province is unique in that only a small part of Vancouver Island was purchased from the aboriginal population, according to the procedures set out in the 1763 Royal Proclamation. In the proclamation, George III of England claimed ultimate title to colonial acquisitions, but required his representatives to purchase traditional territories from their aboriginal inhabitants at public meetings. The vast majority of British Columbia was never sold or ceded to the province by natives for the simple reason that the government ran out of money to do so. Robertson pointed out that this became a problem because, "In 1921, ... [an international body recognized] that aboriginal rights survived settlement and could, in fact, be substantive." The BC government responded by banning natives from filing suit against it. It was not until 1973 that the Nisga'a finally succeeded in presenting their land claim case to the Supreme Court. The province argued that native title to the land had been extinguished through settlement and homestead law, a position known as the "weight of history argument." Though the Nisga'a lost the case on a technicality, the Court ruled that aboriginal rights had not been extinguished. Robertson said, "Legislation [to extinguish aboriginal title] must clearly intend to do so."

Chief Leonard George, of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation of the Burrard Indian Band, explained that, "We come from two different spheres of understanding of what leadership is to our peoples." In his language, there is no word for, or concept of "Chief." Leadership is of a spiritual, rather than political nature, as is the native attitude towards land. Naturally, this different perspective complicates the negotiation process.

Both Gosnell and Tom Paul, land claim coordinator for the Sechelt Indian Band, emphasized that the purpose that the purpose of treaty settlements is self-sufficiency for aboriginal peoples. Gosnell said, "We're going to get away from being 'wards of the state.' Wards of the state, God it's insulting!" He also cited a Price Waterhouse study, commissioned by the Nisga'a, that indicated that the tribe have lost between $2 billion and $4 billion through dispossession from their traditional territory. Again, the history of paternalism, colonialism and racism suffered by the native population affects the position of the First Nations negotiators in the treaty process.

Osborn and Thorne pointed out that the treaty negotiation process is also complicated by the vast number of legal issues that must be resolved, on top of the differences in perspective that must be addressed. As well as settling on a land and monetary compensation, jurisdiction on parks, resources and services must be determined and clearly defined. Cultural issues, and the return of native artifacts legally and illegally obtained, are also on the negotiation table. Taxation issues must be dealt with. Osborn pointed out that the scope of the treaty agreements is unprecedented, nationally and internationally.

Currently, forty-eight distinct aboriginal groups are at some stage of the treaty process.

---

homepage current issue past issues search contact

---

more issue #4