HOW LONG
HAS THIS —
GONE ON?

m 1763: Royal Proclamation
recognizes “Nations or Tribes”
own their lands under British
sovereignty and requires colo-
hial governments ta purchase
such lands by treaty.

m 1850-54: Vancouver island
Governor James Douglas
signs 14 treaties with natives
to buy 358 sq. miles. Natives
pramised rights to hunt, fish on
unsettled lands.

m 1858: Mainland becomes a
colony also under Douglas,
who Is directed by London to
sign more treaties,

i 1860-64: Instead of treaties,
Douglas brings in system of
assimilation — Christianity,
small reserves,

Mm 1866: The two colonies
unite as B.C. New lands com-
missioner Joseph Trutch takes
hard line, limits new reserves
to 10 acres a family.

m 1870: Trutch denies exis-
tence of aboriginal land title.
Says Douglas treaties gifts in
exchange for friendly relations.
m@ 1870s: B.C. joins Confeder-
ation, Ottawa urges reserves
of 80 acres a family in B.C,
Province declines,

@ 1884: Parliament outlaws
the potlatch — the major so-
cial, aconomie and cultural in-
stitution of coastal natives.

m 1887: Nisga'a, Tsimshian
chiefs goa to Victoria to
demand title, treaties and self-
government. Government
commission rejects demands
as disloyal.

1890s: Nisga’a natives start
own newspaper. Nisga’a Land
Committee, led by Arthur
Calder, becomes first native
pressure group.

B 1912: New fed Tory govern-
ment agrees to commission to
settie the B.C. Indian question
by re-examining reserve sizes.
Hearings last four years.

m 1913: The Nisga’a Land
Committee petitions Britain,
demanding title, treaties and
self-government. Feds agree

to allow’ Nisga’a appeal to Brit,

courts, as long as Ottawa

selects and pays for lawyers. ©

Natives refuse those terms.

wm 1916: McKenna-McBride
Commission adds 87,000
acres fo B.C. reserves +
valued at $5,10/acra — but at
same time takes away 47,500
acres worth $27.00/acre.

m 1916-20: Allied Indian
Tribes of B.C. held protest
meetings. . indian —_ unrest
spreads. A wave of potiatch
arrests, convictions and jail-
ings Is carried out.

w 1921: Imperial Privy Council
rules aboriginal title throughout
empire a pre-existing right that
“must be presumed to hava
continued unless the contrary
is established." Fed officials
realize they must at all costs
keep B.C. natives from bring-
ing their case to the courts,

Mm. 1924: McKenna-McBride
Commission reserve cut-offs
are adopted. For next 50 years
this is maln symbol of white
immorality for natives.

m 1927: Parliament outlaws
receipt of maney by anyone
from a native for claims-
related activity. it is now illegal
for natives to press claims.

@ 1947: Natives get the right
to vote In provincial elections.
“4g 1949: Nisga'a leader Frank
Calder elected B.C. MLA,

wm 1951: After abolishing ap-
peals to the Imperial. Privy
Council from Canadian courts,
fads repeal laws that prohibit
claim and potlatch activity,

m 1955: Frank Calder and-

other Nisga’a chiefs form the
Nisga’a Tribal Council to pur-
- gue their claim.

wi 1960: Natives get the right

7 to vote in federal elections,

m.1969: The Nisga’a take land
claim to B.C. courts which rule
"Indian title never existed.

m 1973: Supreme Court of
. Canada nules the Nisga’a held
title before B.C. was created.
Court splits evenly on whether
the Nisga’a still have title,
Feds agrees to negoliate.

wi 1976: Ottawa, Nisga'a start
talks.’ B.C. sends observers,

. sefuses to participate. Other -

native groups prepare claims,
mi 1990: B.C. agrees to enter
Nisga'a negotiations.
(1991-1993: B.C. courts .re-
ject Gitksan land claim to title.
“41994: Gitksan put appeal to
Supreme Court of Canada on
hold for one year to negotlate.
Nisga‘a talks enter’ final and
-eritical stage.

The Terrace Standard, Wednesday, Octaber 5, 1994 - AS.

“What we don’t like about the Government Is thelr saying: ‘We will give you this much land.’ How
_ ean they give it when it is our own? We cannot understand It. They have never bought It from us or
our forefathers. They have never fought and conquered our people, and taken the land that way, and
yet they now say that they will give us so much land — our own land.”
— Nisga’a chiefs to government commission in 1887

THE LAND QUESTI

A beginner’s guide to land claims and why we’re negotiating ©

By JEFF NAGEL

YOU want to
boil the land
claims conun-
drum down to

its roots, forget the philosoph-
ies of right and wrong.

Dispense with the rhetoric
that natives. have been
maltreated, their land stolen,

. their culture crushed.

Throw, out.the divisive argu-
ments that natives feed off the
public trough, fish and hunt
without limits, and pay little or
no tax.

Look at the practicalities:

@ Claims are unresolved.

@ Natives are determined to
press for a resolution.

M If it tsu’t resolved through
negotiations it will be decided
by the courts,

Governments — and by exten-
sion, the people — can decide
whether they wish to negotiate or
defend their interests in court,

The courts are a crapshoot, A
roll of the dice that could result in
a winner-take-all outcome.

The issue here is whether
aboriginal title — ownership of
the land by native people stifl ex-
ists.

The province of B.C. long held
that such ownership never existed
— that native peoples never bad
the white concep! of ownership of
the land — and that any native
title was extinguished in the cola-
nial period.

Hard-liners take comfort in
BC. Supreme Court Justice Allan
McEachern’s controversial 1991
miling against the Gitksan and
Wet’suwet'en in their claim for

traditional territories centred on -

the Hazeltons.

They take that as a sign that the
province’s bargaining position is
greatly strengthened because both
McEachem and the B.C. Court of
Appeal ruled that title no longer
exists,

That is a dangerous assumption.

If the case stays in the courts,
the final and only word in the end
will belong to the Supreme Court
of Canada.

That’s what happened when the
Nisga’a brought their claim to the
Nass Valley, north of Terrace, to
the courts in 1969.

Lower courts in B.C. first dis-
missed the case, ruling that
aboriginal title never existed.

Then in 1973, the coin was.

tossed — and it landed on edge.

DEBUNKING MYTHS

By JOE GOSNELL

Joe Gosnell is the president of
the Nisga’a Tribal Council.

HE NISGA’A are

weary of myths —

not the legends of

our forefathers —
but the fanciful, exapgerated
stories about what will happen
when we seltle the Land Ques-
tion.

Some of these storics result
from fear and misunderstanding
of the treaty scltlement process,
which began more than 100 years

ago and is just now beginning to |

show hope of progress.

Some other stories are — I have
to say il — racist put-downs by
mean-spirited people who, driven’
by greed, have Mo concept of
sharing.

We have been exploited by
greedy people since soon after the
first traders, who we called the
Boston men, came by ship to pil-
lage our fish, our furs, our timber
and sparkling mineral ore,

We were denicd our rights,
pushed aside by piracy, edict and

_the cold grasp of the marketplace.

And now that we are embarked
On our quest for recognition and
dignity, we sec the same old atti-
tudes surfacing again.

People with. whom we want to

share arc denying the rights that
have been acknowledged by Can-
ada’s couris and protected by our

country’s constitution, ee

Let us look at some of these
myths and answer them once and
all.

@ Myth; That the Nisga’a will
take away the property and rights
of people who reside and make a
living in our ancestral lands.

Answer: No, no, no. Fee simple
property rights are not, have not
and will never be on the bargain-
ing table, We have no intention of
pushing people out or making
their lives difficult.

The Supreme Court of Canada,
in its landmark decision, agreed
that aboriginal title cxisted before
B.C. was created. But they split
on the question of whether the
Nisga’a still own the land.

Three Justices of the Court
agreed that title was never ex-
tinguished and that they still hold

it today.

Three Justices ruled that title
was extinguished in the colonial
ea an

And a seventh Justice refused to
rule because of a technicality.

That close call prompted the
federal government to begin ne-
goliating with the Nispa’a” in
1976. It wasn’t until 1990 that
B.C, agreed to join the talks and
full-scale negotiations got un-
derway,

The Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en
are also appealing the lower court
decisions on their claim to the
Supreme Court of Canada.

But they agreed this spring to
put the appeal on hold for one
year to attempt negotiations with
the provincial and federal govern-
ments.

. If negotiations fail and the
Gitksan claim goes to the

Supreme Court. of Canada, the. -

of money are being committed
without accountability. We have

~ nothing to hide, The details relate

to bargaining positions —~ a fact
of life in any negotiations when
the stakes are high. But it is well
known that our aim is to share in
the proceeds of the wealth that
still remains in our land. And to
share it honorably and justly.

‘Em Myt: That aboriginal peapte
laze around reserves like South

A Nisga’a treaty will signal
an unprecedented economic
upturn that will bring millions
of dollars into the region.

Mi Myth: That we have a secret
agenda behind the confidentiality
necessary to negotiations between
the Nisga’a Tribal Council, the
federal and provincial goverm-
ments,

Answer: We have heard a lot of
this recently from some resource

users, and the Reform Party of |
. Canada, which is putting pressure

on the . federal and provincial.

governments to.“‘open wp” the.:
-, process on grounds that vast sums :.

Seas natives in the lap of luxury,
while Canadian taxpayers pay the
bill. This was Reform MP Herb
Grubel’s contribution to the
debate. .

Answer; How many of you
have actually seen the decay and
despair on Indian reserves? Yes,
we have been allotted money for

“some community buildings and”
‘services, for some new housing,

but, on many occasions, the funds

. provided by, the Department: of .

coin will be tossed for a second
time,

Federal and provincial govern-
ments have decided that’s a risk
they don’t want to take.

The fear is that we could wake
up one morning and discover that
vast tracts of land are no longer
legaily part of British Columbia.

That would profoundly affect
the province’s economy and the

international investors’ con-
fidence in B.C,
* But the other side of the coin —

an outright rejection of land
claims in the country’s highest
court could be just as-bad.

Rejection would alienate B.C.
natives, and leave moderate na-
tive leaders with little ammuni-
tion to quell radicals.

It would mean more pain and
misery on reserves. More road
blockades. More court injunc-
tions. More uncertainty.

Instead, say the feds and the
province, negotiations are the
route to.a great Canadian com-
promise.

An outcome without outright
winners and outright losers.

An outcome we. can all live
with.

:. ’m inclined to agree, .

Indian and Northern Affairs in
one year’s budget dry up and are
not renewed the next. The same
thing has happened too many
times to economic projects which
had our hopes up, but withered
away because of poor planning
by government, policy changes,
disinterest or mismanagement

We have communities without
adequate waler, transportation
links or fire prevention service.
We have hurt, anger and, yes, al-
coholism and despair, We have
more than 85 per cent uncmploy-
ment among a people who tradi-
tionally provided and cared for
each other, What are people to do
when their pride has been
stripped away?

a Myth: That aboriginal people
don’t know how ta manage
money; that a big settlement will
be handed out -to be: squandered
on new cars and high living.

Answer: There will be some
money available to band mem-
bers for much-needed services
and requirements, but the tribal
counci] . and = various tribal
businesses that have been set up
have demonstrated that money
can be Invested to bring
worthwhile returns to our people
and our communities, We expect

‘to expand on this entrepreacur-
ship thtough joint ventures with.

industrial investors. int resource

~ and other fields of activity.
im Myth: Terrace : ‘and “region

a BY 1913, the Je Niega'a a
Land Committee had
drawn up its famous
“Nishga Petition”,
which they sent to the —
Imperial Privy Council
In London the same
year, The document
asserted that no
Nisga'a territory had
been ceded to the
Crown and called on
London to recognize
that the Nisga’a still
own the land.

very good | business.

HAT DOES not

mean that we should

give away the farm

or that secrecy about
what's on the table should be
tolerated.

People deserve to know more
about the negotiations than
they've been told to date.

Anything that will affect the
people of this area so profoundly
must be carefully actutinized by
all affected.

There are three public forums’

-on land claims taking place in
Terrace over the next two weeks.

The first is Thursday, .Oct. 6,
when MP Mike Scott holds his
public forum on the subject at 7
p.m, at the R.E.M. Lee Theatre.

At the same time. and place a
week later, on Thursday, Oct. 13,
aboriginal affairs minister: John
Cashore will answer questions
from the floor..

And on Tuesday, Oct. 20, the
federal government’s chief nego-
tiator in the Nisga’a talks, David
Osbom, will take questions at 7
p.m. at the R.E.M. Lee.. .

The people of Terrace awe it to
themselves and to their neigh-
bours, the Nisga’a, to attend these
meetings and leam.what they can
about our common future.

Smart money is on a deal —

Joe Gosnell

will suffer an economic slow-
down once a treaty is signed.
Answer: Wrong, again. A
Nisga’a treaty will signal an un-
precedented economic upturn that
will bring millions of dollars into

‘the region, as we move into ihe
‘next phase of self-sufliciency.

Carefully-planned economic
growth — investment,’ develop-

-ment and a myriad of business

opportunities — will make, Ter-
race one of the most “dynamic

. citles in the province. The money

that Nisga’a people apend at local

‘ shops - and: businesses . will, - by

conservative. estimates, ...double

once the treaty is signed.

- Pot. simply, treaty. ra