From HBreen@island.net Mon Mar 23 11:49:49 1998
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:08:52 -0800
From: Howard Breen <HBreen@island.net>
Reply-To: NanooseNet@mail.island.net
To: hbreen@island.net
Subject: NN: Delgamuukw decision backgrounder

Delgamuukw decision backgrounder: I post the following from my friend 
Steve Rison who I believe has written a thorough summary and analysis
of the Delgamuukw ruling. I hope you find it as informative as I have. 
-Howard

Delgamuukw and the BC Treaty Process: Where Are We Now?
======================================================
By Steve Rison             March 15, 1998


Although three months have passed since the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) 
handed down its decision in the Delgamuukw v. British Columbia case, there 
is still considerable debate about its meaning. Over one-hundred hereditary 
and elected leaders of British Columbia First Nations signed a Statement to 
Minister Stewart & Minister Cashore in January which articulates their 
perspective on the Delgamuukw decision, but no direct response from either 
provincial or federal governments has emerged yet. Needless to say, there 
are many lawyers pouring over every word of the decision in an attempt to 
see how it might affect the bargaining positions of all the various players 
in the treaty process, including municipal governments and third parties. 
In this article I will attempt to explain in plain language some of the 
opinions that have been expressed thus far, so that we can evaluate what, 
if any, impacts or opportunities this landmark decision might hold for the 
environmental community. In addition, I will also provide a brief summary 
of the First Nations Statement to Ministers, mentioned above, and a few of 
the tentative comments coming from government bureaucrats.

The Delgamuukw case has been in the courts since the early 1980s, and was 
initiated by the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en peoples with the aim of forcing 
the BC government to recognize Aboriginal title to their traditional 
territory, encompassing some 58,000 square kilometers in north-central 
British Columbia. This Court action was necessary for the Gitksan and 
Wet'suwet'en because of the provincial government's long-held view that 
aboriginal rights in BC were extinguished after 1871 and that any legal 
action should be for compensation from the Government of Canada. The case 
is remarkable for its length, and especially for the detailed and extensive 
oral evidence that was presented.

The SCC could not rule on a number of the factual and legal issues specific 
to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, such as the extent of their territory, 
their claim for Aboriginal title, and their claim for self-government 
rights. These will have to be decided in a new trial, or negotiated through 
treaties. However, the Court made some far-reaching decisions in regard to 
a number of very important issues of general law. These include the 
admissibility of aboriginal oral history as evidence, the nature of 
aboriginal title, the test for proving aboriginal title, infringement of 
aboriginal title, and extinguishment of aboriginal title.

Before describing each of these issues, it is important to understand the 
relationship between aboriginal rights and aboriginal title. Existing 
aboriginal rights were affirmed in Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 
1982. In Delgamuukw, the SCC says that "aboriginal rights fall along a 
spectrum with respect to their degree of connection to the land" and that 
aboriginal title is at one end of that spectrum. At the other end of that 
spectrum are rights which involve practices, customs, and traditions which 
are not tied to any specific tract of land, and in the middle are 
site-specific rights to engage in a particular activity. Thus aboriginal 
title is a form of aboriginal rights, and is protected by the Constitution.

Oral Evidence

The question surrounding the admissibility of oral history as evidence and 
the weight it should receive in relation to more conventional forms of 
evidence was one of the primary reasons for the SCC agreeing to accept the 
appeal case. In Delgamuukw the Supreme Court asserted that in 
aboriginal-rights cases oral history must not be systematically rejected 
nor undervalued as a result of its nature as hearsay evidence. If such a 
categorical treatment was allowed, this would place an insurmountable 
obstacle in the way of proving aboriginal title for most aboriginal groups, 
who did not have written records at the time the Crown asserted its 
sovereignty over the territory in 1846. Previously, oral histories had only 
been allowed as evidence to confirm documentary evidence but was not given 
any independent weight. The Court has decided that the laws of evidence 
must be adapted in these cases to accommodate oral histories and place them 
on an equal footing with documentary evidence, as warranted after careful 
evaluation on a case-by-case basis.

The Nature of Aboriginal Title

This is seen as the most important aspect of the Delgamuukw decision. 
Previous Court rulings have avoided trying to provide a detailed 
description of aboriginal title, but in Delgamuukw the SCC put considerable 
effort and detail into this part of the decision. Aboriginal title is 
described as a right in land which belongs to a class of its own, and which 
has three distinctive dimensions.

First, aboriginal title is inalienable to third parties, and "cannot be 
transferred, sold or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown."

Second, aboriginal title "arises from the prior occupation of Canada by 
aboriginal peoples," that is, prior to the assertion of British 
sovereignty. Aboriginal title does not depend for its establishment upon 
the Royal Proclamation of 1763 nor is it a grant from the Crown. It 
pre-existed the Crown's interest in the land.

Third, aboriginal title is held communally and cannot be held by individual 
aboriginal persons. It is a collective right held by all members of an 
aboriginal nation, and any decisions made with respect to that land must be 
made by that community. Several ramifications may arise from this. The 
characteristic of communal decision making may cast doubt on the validity 
of historic transfers of land where those signing the treaties may not have 
had the consent of the whole community to do so. Communal decision making 
in regard to the land may also provide an internal structure upon which to 
build the broader organization of aboriginal self-government.

The nature of aboriginal title, then, consists in its inalienability to 
anyone but the Crown, its source based on historic occupation, and its 
right as a collective or communal interest. The SCC elaborates even further 
on aboriginal title by defining what it consists of. It includes the right 
to exclusive use and occupation of the land for a variety of purposes (both 
traditional and modern), and those uses must not be irreconcilable with the 
nature of the group's attachment to the land.

This characterization of aboriginal title goes beyond all previous Court 
decisions on this subject, which generally limited aboriginal interest in 
land to a right to use it for traditional cultural practices. Courts did 
not go so far as to include any right of ownership of the land, and did not 
allow for non-traditional or commercial exploitation. The SCC in its 
Delgamuukw decision not only declared aboriginal title to be a form of 
communal ownership of the land with a right to exclude other users, but 
also stated that this title includes mineral rights and the right to engage 
in modern commercial exploitation of the natural resources on that land. 
The one limitation to this range of uses is that any such activity or use 
must not prevent the continuity of the relationship of an aboriginal 
community with its land.

For example, aboriginal-title land that was traditionally occupied as a 
hunting ground could not be converted into a strip mine, which would 
destroy its value for such a use, nor could special ceremonial or cultural 
sites be converted into parking lots. The values for which land receives 
the status of aboriginal title must not be destroyed through its use.

Finally, if an aboriginal group wishes to use some of its lands in a way 
which aboriginal title does not permit, then the land must be surrendered 
to the Crown in order to remove aboriginal title on the land before such a 
use can occur.

The Test for Proving Aboriginal Title

The test for proving that aboriginal title exists contains three elements 
which revolve around occupation and use. It is in this context that the 
admissibility of oral history as evidence becomes so important, since 
archaeological evidence is scanty or non-existent in many cases and 
documentary records were unknown before contact.

First, the aboriginal group asserting a claim to aboriginal title must show 
that they occupied the land in question prior to the date on which the 
Crown asserted sovereignty over that land. In British Columbia this date is 
the year 1846, and is more recent than the time of first contact. This 
distinction is important because the time for determining aboriginal rights 
is the time of first contact, while the time for identifying aboriginal 
title is the time at which the Crown asserted sovereignty.

Second, if present occupation of the land is relied upon as the basis for 
proving that the land was occupied before 1846, then there must be 
continuity in that occupation between pre-sovereignty and the present. 
There is some flexibility in the continuity requirement, with the intent 
being that the connection between the people and the land has been 
substantially maintained. This leaves some room for justifiable gaps in 
occupation, such as might have occurred as a result of the encroachments of 
colonizers.

Third, at the time of sovereignty the aboriginal occupation must have been 
exclusive. This flows from the nature of aboriginal title which involves 
the exclusive use and occupation of the land. The SCC also allowed room for 
overlapping claims, in the form of shared exclusivity, where two 
neighbouring aboriginal groups may have jointly occupied some land, but 
excluded all others.

The Infringement of Aboriginal Title

While the SCC defined the nature and content of aboriginal title in 
Delgamuukw, it also affirmed that aboriginal title is not absolute, and 
thus may be infringed by both the federal and provincial governments. Ho  
wever, any infringement of aboriginal title must pass a test of 
justification, in two parts.

First, the infringement "must be in furtherance of a legislative objective 
that is compelling and substantial." Although we are familiar with the 
common objectives of conservation and environmental protection, the SCC 
expanded this list of examples to include the development of agriculture, 
forestry, mining, hydroelectric power, infrastructure, general economic 
development of the interior of BC, and the settlement of foreign 
populations to support these aims. These kinds of objectives may in general 
justify infringement of aboriginal title, but particular measures or 
government acts would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Second, the infringement must be consistent with the special fiduciary 
relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples. This may take the 
form of giving first priority to aboriginal interests, or accommodating the 
participation of aboriginal people in the exploitation of a resource, or 
lowering barriers to participation by aboriginal people in the exploitation 
of a resource. In addition, there is a duty of meaningful consultation 
with, and in some cases (such as hunting and fishing regulations) consent 
of, aboriginal groups whose rights under title are being infringed. That 
consultation must be in good faith and must intend to substantially address 
their concerns. The economic aspect of aboriginal title means that fair 
compensation will be required when aboriginal title is infringed.

The Extinguishment of Aboriginal Title

Aboriginal title is now protected under Section 35(1) of the Constitution 
Act of 1982, and extinguishment of aboriginal title is considered to be a 
form of infringement of that title. Therefore, extinguishment of aboriginal 
title by a legislative act of the federal government would have to meet the 
test for infringement described above; it would require the consent of the 
aboriginal group, and fair compensation would have to be part of the 
deliberations. The Court also made it clear that provincial laws cannot now 
and never could extinguish aboriginal rights or title.

To summarize the importance of the Delgamuukw case the following points can 
be made:
In aboriginal-rights cases, oral history must not be systematically 
devalued.
Aboriginal title is a right in the land itself although not an absolute 
right, and includes the right to exclusive use and occupation, derives from 
pre-sovereignty occupation, is a collective right, and is inalienable 
except to the Crown.
Aboriginal title includes the right of use for a variety of both 
traditional and modern purposes, includes mineral rights, and its use must 
not be irreconcilable with the aboriginal people's attachment to the land.
Proof of aboriginal title requires exclusive, pre-sovereignty occupation 
and continuity of occupation between pre-sovereignty and the present.
Infringement of aboriginal title may occur by both federal and provincial 
governments, but must be for a compelling and substantive legislative 
objective, must be consistent with the special fiduciary relationship 
between the Crown and aboriginal peoples, and must include meaningful 
consultation with aboriginal people.
Extinguishment of aboriginal title can only take place as a result of 
federal legislation, it must have the consent of the aboriginal people, and 
fair compensation must be included.

Now that we have a general understanding of the Delgamuukw case, we can 
have a more informed look at the BC First Nations Statement to Ministers. 
The following are asserted to be the fundamental principles for a new 
relationship between FNs and the Crown.

Aboriginal title applies to all of BC, as confirmed by the Delgamuukw 
decision.
Aboriginal rights on the land approximate the equivalent of jurisdiction.
There will be NO EXTINGUISHMENT of aboriginal title or rights.
Government alienation of lands and resources must be suspended until 
informed consent of FNs is obtained.
Province-wide, legally binding Interim Measures must be agreed upon until 
treaties are negotiated.
The continuation of their relationship to their lands is the only 
acceptable limit to FNs' use of their lands and resources.
Infringement on aboriginal rights and title requires fair compensation 
(past, present, & future).
Want fair agreements to remove uncertainty for neighbours and business 
community.
Want good-faith negotiations about sharing and coexistence.

The First Nations state that it is not their intention to destroy the 
provincial economy but rather to assume their rightful place as full 
participants in the economy and future of the province. Perhaps the issue 
of most immediate concern to governments and third parties in this 
Statement is the call for an interim freeze on any further alienation of 
Crown land and resources until province-wide interim-measures agreements 
can be negotiated. Resource industries would view this as a direct threat 
to their viability, and the provincial government would consequently view 
it as a threat to industry employment.

Rather than being presented for an assessment of its merits, the FNs 
Statement to Ministers is included here to show their perspective on the 
meaning of the Delgamuukw decision. No such comprehensive statement has 
been issued by either the provincial or federal governments, although a few 
general comments have been made. The provincial government:
Has indicated that it will obey the law, although the interpretation and 
application of the law have yet to be determined.
Prefers negotiation to litigation, but will not negotiate with an 
aboriginal group which chooses to litigate.
Will make an effort to redesign the negotiation process to simplify and 
streamline some of the regulatory environment and some of the consultation 
so that economic development can continue.
Will examine staffing levels and financial resources committed to the 
process with a view to increasing them.
Will back decisions made by line ministries.
Has most recently redoubled its efforts to reach a timely conclusion in the 
negotiations for a treaty with the Nisga'a Nation.


Some non-governmental opinions have been expressed. One such opinion has 
come from a Vancouver-based legal firm which deals particularly with 
forest-sector clients. In regard to forest operations, the following points 
were noted:
Aboriginal title, while confirmed in principle, must still be proven in 
Court by each aboriginal group; not a very likely scenario.
Forestry is a justifiable infringement of aboriginal title.
There is no set standard of consultation; this will require further case 
law.
Aboriginal consent is not specifically required for forestry operations to 
proceed.
Many difficult questions remain unanswered, and await further litigation. 
These include the nature of the rights held, the degree of consultation 
required to infringe, and the amount of compensation required.
Cumbersome forestry approval processes will likely slow down even more.
While full consultation with aboriginal groups when infringing any 
aboriginal rights would be prudent, few cases would require consent for 
timber-cutting permits.
No change in the ability of an aboriginal group to obtain an injunction to 
stop development on its traditional territory.

Another, rather alarmist, interpretation of Delgamuukw was delivered to the 
Vancouver Board of Trade, where the decision of the SCC was characterized 
as creating the most serious state of crisis in the province's history in 
regard to provincial sovereignty, as lacking in proper legal foundation, 
and as ruining the provincial land claims process. The speaker's points 
included these grim assessments:
Crown ownership of the land mass of BC has been drastically undermined.
Province's ability to make land resource decisions has been seriously 
hamstrung.
Aboriginal groups have been given special status in legal proceedings in 
regard to rules of evidence and aboriginal perspective.
Aboriginal title has been made superior to other forms of land tenure, and 
can only be infringed when rigid test conditions are met and compensation 
is paid.
The SCC failed to confirm that lawmaking authority rests solely with 
Parliament or provincial legislatures.

The speaker's proposed remedies for all these defects are:
To immediately replace the BC treaty process with a legislated solution, 
such as was recently done in Australia with regard to its Aborigines. The 
proposed federal statute would automatically extinguish aboriginal title on 
all alienated (tenured) Crown land, past, present, and future, and would 
pay compensation based on statutory criteria. There would be no limit or 
hindrance on the province's authority to continue to infringe on the 
remaining aboriginal-title lands.
That compensation would be the sole responsibility of the federal 
government.

Such a radical "final solution" would hold an appeal to certain segments of 
our population, but the current political and social climate in Canada 
would seem to preclude the possibility of its success.

The primary significance of the Delgamuukw decision appears to be in its 
treatment of the nature and content of aboriginal title, how it is proved, 
how it can be infringed, and how it can be extinguished. Translating this 
decision into practical and specific situations has yet to be accomplished, 
and, as shown by this brief review, there is a wide diversity of opinion in 
this regard. Even so, is there anything which the environmental community 
can take from this very important Court case? Yes, I think there is.

Most importantly for us is the stated intention of many of the First 
Nations to continue to negotiate rather than return to the Courts. When the 
litigation route is chosen, we are essentially frozen out of the process, 
and have no opportunity to affect the outcome. The legal route is a bit of 
a crap shoot, since there is usually a winner and a loser, and there is no 
way of knowing ahead of time which way the decision will go. The Delgamuukw 
decision took nearly a quarter of a century to make its way through three 
levels of the legal system. Can our natural environment survive another 
quarter century in tact while further legal cases wind their way through 
these complex maneuvers? I fear not. As long as negotiations are 
proceeding, we will have an opportunity to be involved, and we will have an 
opportunity to build better relationships with the First Nations 
communities.

Another important aspect for us is the apparent boost in the strength of 
the bargaining position of First Nations in their attempts to gain more 
control over their lives, including their cultures, their traditional 
lands, and their aspirations for the future. There is already a strong 
aboriginal cultural revival happening in BC, and some aboriginal groups 
have never lost their cultural traditions and pride but only recently have 
been able to show them in a public way after decades of repression. The 
Delgamuukw decision should help to support this process. With a 
strengthened aboriginal hand at the negotiating table, governments and 
corporations will be trying harder to reach settlements which truly 
recognize and accommodate First Nations interests, which in many ways we 
share.

Some perceive a threat to the natural environment in having control of some 
land-use decision making pass into the hands of First Nations from the 
authority of provincial ministries and their corporate clients. Some 
aboriginal groups do not currently appear to have the capacity to take on 
such responsibilities. Well, judging by the past and present record of 
 government / industry performance in "managing for all values" and 
protecting ecosystem integrity, perhaps it is time to cooperate and work 
with First Nations in order to achieve the healthy environment and healthy 
communities that we all desire.

Finally, what we can take from Delgamuukw is some satisfaction and 
confidence that we are still a just society, that our highest Court in the 
land recognizes that we the people want done what is right. We want equity 
and fairness, especially for those who have been the undeserving victims 
for over a century, of injustice, of might-makes-right politics, of 
double-dealing and deceit and outright theft, even if the price may be 
great. We have to be willing to pay it, or we do not deserve to be called 
an honourable people.


Sources:

Davis & Company Barristers & Solicitors - Forestry Bulletin February 1998

First Nations Summit - Statement to Ministers, January 31, 1998

Melvin Smith, QC - speech to Vancouver Board of Trade, Feb. 10, 1998

Pacific Business and Law Institute conference, Feb. 12-13, 1998: Papers 
presented
	Graham Garton, QC - Delgamuukw: The Supreme Court Makes Oral History
	Brian Slattery - The Definition and Proof of Aboriginal Title
	Denis de Keruzec - The SCC Decision in Delgamuukw
	Louise Mandell, QC - The Delgamuukw Decision

Pape & Salter Barristers & Solicitors - Delgamuukw Summary, January 09, 
1998

Premier Clark & Minister Cashore addressing TNAC, Feb. 02, 1998

SCC Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, December 11, 1997


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NANOOSE CONVERSION CAMPAIGN  - Email: convert@alternatives.com
Submissions:                   NanooseNet@mail.island.net
Subscriptions:                 NanooseNet-Request@mail.island.net
World-Wide Web:                TO BE ANNOUNCED
STOP NUCLEAR SUBMARINE WEAPONS TESTS IN GEORGIA STRAIT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~