EDITORIAL & OPINION — BC land claims a contentious issue — Closed doors

Few political activities are as fraught with frustration as the negotiation of native land claims. For this reason, some governments prefer to undertake the sensitive exercise entirely behind closed doors, without public input. In contentious cases, they turn to unelected judges, rather than the public, for direction. In this way, they have quashed debate and dissension, and muted the clash of cultures that still plagues aboriginal policy-making.

Land claims are easier to settle when there is little competing interest in the land being claimed. This explains the relative ease with which politicians have carved out a new territory called Nunavut from the eastern half of the Northwest Territories. Few Canadians know much about the land-claim settlement that takes effect next spring, and most taxpayers are blissfully unaware about how it will affect their pocketbooks.

By contrast, land-claim settlements are a volatile issue in British Columbia, where the entire province is blanketed by largely outstanding claims, many overlapping with one another. Most citizens are keenly aware of the recent Nisga’a treaty, a $490-million deal that is expected to be a model for other settlements. And most have heard of the Delgamuuk decision, brought down in late 1997 by the Supreme Court of Canada, which confirmed the recognition, in law, of a land tenure identified as “aboriginal title.” In essence, the court found that aboriginal title “encompasses an exclusive right to the use and occupation of land, i.e., to the exclusion of both non-aboriginals and members of other aboriginal nations.”

As might be expected, both cases have cast a pall of uncertainty over the province, particularly with respect to resource development. Citizens from Nanaimo to Fort Nelson, from Stewart to Fernie, are worried about other implications. They are multiplying the cost of the Nisga’a treaty with the hundreds of other outstanding claims and blanching. They fear more job losses and growing budget deficits as their weak economy totters into recession.

They are also fuming about being left out of the process. There was no public consultation before the Nisga’a agreement was signed. And, in the Delgamuuk case, there was no public debate about the government’s decision to ask the courts to overturn a previous ruling that had, in effect, quashed the more controversial aspects of aboriginal title.

British Columbians aren’t opposed to policies that protect the rights of aboriginals; they merely want some say in the policy-making process, as is their democratic right.

The Nisga’a treaty has also exposed divisions among aboriginals. Some nearby tribes oppose the deal, which has yet to be ratified, even some Nisga’a have raised concerns about the agreement. Some of these dissidents have threatened to take their disputes to court, thereby complicating the matter further.

These internal disputes have caught politicians by surprise. Typically, treaties were negotiated with aboriginal leaders under the assumption that natives “speak with one voice” on such matters. This assumption is being challenged by aboriginals themselves. Times have changed, and so have aboriginal communities, which are now made up of individuals with increasingly divergent views on everything from their association with Canada, to resource development and self-government.

There are no easy answers to the divisive issue of aboriginal rights, but stifling public debate only exacerbates the widening chasm between natives and non-natives. It drives a wedge between natives seeking a return to ancestral ways and those wishing to incorporate modern ideas and technologies.

Time marches forward, never backward, and the inescapable reality is that we all share this great nation. Land-claim negotiations should be a public process, inclusive of everyone who potentially has to live with the consequences.