7

_ hatives, will be contested? _
For answers to this and other queries, I asked.

after a four-year trial,

VICTORIA — It is important to try to make some

sense out of the B.C. government's rather confusing |

Position(s) regarding native land claims, _
It is important because decisions taken based

upon the.New Democrats’ compassion for aboriginal

peoples will affect each and every one of us who are

. other than aboriginal. | :
That-comipassion is noble and welcome, even long

overdue,

However, the NDP must take care not to have it
override the rights of the rest of the people it was.

elected to serve. Ls

_. Both Attorney-General Colin Gablemann and

Native Affairs Minister Andrew Petter have told

the Legislature that they want to negotiate the

specific rights — not title, but rights — for natives.
They prefer to do. that through discussion and

agreement, rather than through the courts in a’

“winner-take-all” confrontation.
_ Does that mean previous court decisions stand?

Does it mean any appeals against decisions already |

ruled upon in favour of the government, not the

Mr, Gablemann in an interview for an explanation of
where the Gitksan Wet’Suset’en case stood.
_ You will recall that the natives have appealed
the decision of Chief Justice Allan McEachern,
that. ruled they do not —
Tepeat, not — have title ‘to the central B.C, area
where they reside.
Here is the attorney-general’s adamant stand on
that part of the issue: :
"The Gitskan Wet’Suwet’en are claiming that
they have'a proprietary interest, Le., that they *own*
all of their traditional territory,

."We are arguing categorically that they do *not*

own all of that territory, that.they have no title’, in
the European sense of that word, to their lands. |. -
"We are saying, however, that we are prepared,

in lands other than fee simple, to discuss with them

Py

a Terrace Review — April 16, 1992 ; .

the nature of their aboriginal right." |

Now that seems fairly’ straightforward, and
should lay to rest any fears of the NDP caving in
"lock, stock and barrel” to native land claims, as the

‘previous Social Credit administration kept saying.

Mike Harcourt would.

However, what this government-also says is that
the natives have’ rights ’sui generis’ over those
lands. a ' .

Rather than have’ this. ink-stained wretch
attempt to explain what that means, I defer again to
Attorney-General Gablemann:

‘ "The best layperson’s language which I have
heard to interpret the Latin is ’a right
other which may exist in law’,” he says.

"In other words, it is not a fee simple; it’s not
some other kind of right. It’s an undefined one, and
one which has no legal definition,”

Clear as mud, right? 7 .

_ It would appear that the government wants to

negotiate a definition of ‘sui generis’ as it applies to

‘land in British Columbia. Mr. Gablemann says the

government acknowledges that such an. aboriginal |

right exists; it just does not know how to describe it
or to interpret it.

Native rights to fish and hunt and traverse the
land seems to be assured, and few would argue with
that. .

However, it would’ appear that negotiating the
extent and nature of native rights’sui generis’ might
even lead to retroactive payments to the Indians for
resources and minerals taken from "their" land over
the last 100 years, — 7 .

That could be very, very costly... and very, very
, Scary. ; .
- Mr. Gablemann says that the Gitskan court case
was not a "win" for the people of B.C., but rather just
a victory for a particular legal argument, |
' The attorney-general even states that his govern-
ment does not even believe that the court decision is

-in the best interests of the people of B.C,

, ma, . . ae a yt F
Vet wy . oo . '

‘ .

unlike any -

i