A brief history of B.C. treaty talks

The slow march to aboriginal title recognition started with Social Credit, and included a referendum still misunderstood today

Former premier Mike Harcourt changed the province's legal position to recognize aboriginal title in the early 1990s

VICTORIA – A few weeks before the landmark decision declaring aboriginal title proven by the Tsilhqot’in Nation, I picked up a used university textbook that looked like a handy reference.

Geography in British Columbia: People and Landscapes in Transition, by Brett McGillivray (UBC Press, Second Edition) is a good reference, except where it strays from geography into politics.

This 2005 edition came out not long before the B.C. Treaty Commission started producing agreements, notably with the Tsawwassen First Nation. It recounts the establishment of the Ministry of Native Affairs by the Bill Vander Zalm government in 1990, and the election the next year of Mike Harcourt’s NDP, who reversed the province’s historical legal position and tried to accept the existence of aboriginal title.

At this point the textbook departs from the facts and leads its freshman pupils into left-wing dogma.

McGillivray writes: “When the Liberal Party won the 2001 election (with all but two seats), it launched a province-wide referendum on treaty negotiations, prompting commentators to suggest the government was ‘trying to impose 19th century ideas on a 21st century problem’.”

“Commentators” in the above quote is of course only one commentator, veteran lefty Vancouver columnist Stephen Hume.

This quote was indeed representative of the media consensus at the time. On TV, aboriginal leaders burned their ballots while denouncing the referendum as racist and divisive. The public, and later university students, were taught that Gordon Campbell’s government was exploiting racism for political gain.

In fact, this referendum was one of a long series of efforts to untangle the legal knot left by Canada and B.C.’s failure to complete historical treaties after 1900.

Seven of the eight questions in the 2002 referendum were simply to confirm the existing position of B.C. treaty negotiators. The purpose, then as now, was to settle treaties.

The first question asked if private land should be exempt from expropriation for treaty settlements. Private property rights are not so much a 19th century idea as a 17th century one, defined in 1690 by John Locke.

What remains true today is that no society has made significant social and environmental progress without individual property rights. See the woeful state of most of Canada’s communally owned aboriginal reserves, where individually owned property isn’t permitted.

When their appeal reached the highest court, the Tsilhqot’in dropped claims of private property held by non-aboriginal residents in the region. This was a wise move considering that pushing people from their homes would lead to violent confrontations.

Other referendum questions related to preserving public access to Crown land for hunting, fishing and park use. All were endorsed.

The only new question asked if aboriginal self-government “should have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia.”

Arguably, that’s what has emerged from the Tsilhqot’in case, which upholds provincial jurisdiction over public forest policy on environmental and fire protection on aboriginal title lands.

By 2009, frustrated with a lack of progress, due to Ottawa’s inaction as well as inconsistent leadership from aboriginal communities, the Campbell government tried to cut the knot. Its proposed Recognition Act would have accepted a form of aboriginal title across the province, based on 30 historical “indigenous nations.”

That idea originated not with the province but with the First Nations Leadership Council. It was rejected by a broader group of aboriginal leaders later that year.

The best way forward, also endorsed in the 2002 referendum, is sharing land use planning. B.C. has also begun sharing resource revenues.

The most likely path, however, is back to court for years to come.

Tom Fletcher is legislature reporter and columnist for Black Press. Twitter: @tomfletcherbc

 

Just Posted

Langley rollover crash slows traffic on 200 Street in Willoughby

Crews called to Monday afternoon collision involving two cars

VIDEO: Langley BMX racers propel pumpkins down their track

Once the standard race day was over, riders let a series of gourds roll down their Brookswood track.

Fort Langley wakes up to a flower bombing

A team from a village floral shop wanted to do a beautification project.

Abbotsford mom stuck in Africa over adoption delay

Kim and Clark Moran have been waiting four weeks to bring son home

Township mayor Jack Froese talks short- and long-term goals for third term

Tree bylaw, pot sales among topics that will need attention in coming months

B.C. sailor surprised by humpback whale playing under her boat

Jodi Klahm-Kozicki said the experience was ‘magical’ near Denman Island

Ovechkin has 4 points as Caps rough up Canucks 5-2

WATCH: Defending champs pick up impressive win in Vancouver

Vancouver mayoral hopefuly admits defeat, congratulates winner Kennedy Stewart

Ken Sim of the Non-Partisan Association apologized for the time it took to acknowledge Stewart won

Mental fitness questioned of man charged in Chilliwack River Valley shooting

Peter Kampos told his lawyer ‘his dreams are being stolen and turned into drugs’ at Surrey Pre-trial

B.C. government moves to tighten resource industry regulations

New superintendent will oversee engineers, biologists, foresters

Election watchdog seeks digitally savvy specialists to zero in on threats

Move follows troublesome evidence of online Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election

More court before Dutch man charged in Amanda Todd case is extradited here

Appeals must be dealt with in Europe, before charges faced in B.C.

Most Read