Article Five: BC Land Claims and Modern Treaties

In 1763, King George III issued a document called the Royal Proclamation that contained a number of rules with regards to the purchase of aboriginal land. It stated the existence of Aboriginal title and mandated that their land could only be ceded by means of a treaty. With the exception of the Douglas Treaties, Treaty Eight, the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and the Nisga'a Treaty of 1998, most of British Columbia’s land has not been settled by treaties. This is makes things quite complicated in terms of land ownership and settling land disputes with the natives. In the fifth part of our six-part series on early twentieth century Canada, we will examine how precedent has influenced how land claims are handled, and how even today there is much work to be done to resolve the issues of aboriginal land.

In Canada, there are two types of native land claims: comprehensive claims and specific. This link explains the difference.

On December 3 of 1990 a taskforce was created with the job of finding a way to start negotiations between the the First Nations of BC, the Government of BC and the Government of Canada. In 1991 the BC Claims Task Force released their report which recommended that a commission established to handle the treaty process. This was done in 1992 with the creation of the BC Treaty Commission. They are currently handling the disputes of 60 different aboriginal groups in 49 separate negotiation processes and were responsible for the Nisga’a Treaty and the Tsawwassen First Nations Final Agreement in recent years.

This map shows which Aboriginal groups have claimed which part of BC.

However, there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the government and court’s decisions and actions with the process. In 2002, the liberal party sent out a referendum that has received vocal dissent from critics and aboriginal groups, the intention of the referendum being to gauge the public opinion of native land rights. Elections BC received only thirty-five percent of the ballots, questions were phrased in the negative (Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements Yes/No, which is confusing) and it was ultimately considered to be a ridiculous waste of time and resources. As well, the court ruled in 2007 that the Xeni Gwet’in Nation should receive half of its claimed land, a stark contrast from the averag five percent for other nations. This outraged many First Nations and made them question whether they should take part in the process at all.

As well, many of the aboriginal leaders have received strict criticism for their role in the treaty process. Bertha Williams questions the motives of the Chiefs in agreeing to sign the treaty, and points to the infrastructural upgrades of Tsawwassen terminal as a point of concern.

This is the territory given to the Tsawwassen nation.

These events are significant because they show Canada’s commitment to resolving the great wrongs and legal mistakes of the past, as explored in our previous article. To some, however, the process represents the government’s disregard for the Aboriginals and their desire to spin the land agreements in their favour. It’s quite ironic, with perhaps some poetic justice,  that what is the government’s attempt to make up for their profound moral failures is seen as nothing more than yet another profound moral failure.