Nesika: The Voice of B.C. Indians -- Vol. 2 No. 2 (March 1973 - Special Issue) · UBCIC Periodicals

Nesika: The Voice of B.C. Indians -- Vol. 2 No. 2 (March 1973 - Special Issue)

Edit item

Title

Nesika: The Voice of B.C. Indians -- Vol. 2 No. 2 (March 1973 - Special Issue)

Is Part Of

1.06-01.02 Nesika: The Voice of BC Indians

1.06.-01 Newsletters and bulletins sub-series

Date

March 1973

Subject

volume

issue

Language

Identifier

1.06-01.02-02.03

topic

Contributor

Type

periodical

extracted text

Page Two

N E—E S |-K A

March, 1973

Colonial policy recognized Native Title

(Continued from Page 1)

lands, arid the Act did not provide
compensation.

ACTUAL TREATMENT

If the claim based on native title
is denied because of extinction,
what were the circumstances of
extinction?

In the few cases where lands
were surrendered by treaty or
agreement, some form of
compensation was given. Was that
compensation fair and enough?

The extinction of title for the
remainder of B.C. Lands — if,
indeed, title has been extinguished
— was not done by negotiation nor
compensated for. Reserves were
set aside from time to time for
exclusive use of Indians, but the
title is vested in the Crown, and our
people’s right of occupancy and
use of remaining lands have been
effectively denied.

Was that treatment and lack of
compensation fair and adequate?

_ RECOGNITION IN 1943 & 1960
Native title has been recognized
as recently as 1943 and 1960 by
statutes.
We refer to Chapter 19 of the
Statutes of Canada, 1943-44, and to
Chapter 187 of the Revised Statutes

of British Columbia, 1960. These:

reciprocal Acts concern an
agreement on the development of
mineral claims on Indian Reserves
in the Province.

Each of these Acts contains the
Agreement. of 1943 itself.in which

the following. provision is found:

‘Whereas -from. time ‘to time
Treaties have been made with the
Indians -for:: the: surrender: “for
various considerations of their
personal and usufructuaty rights
to territories now- included ‘in ‘the
Province of British Columbia, such
considerations including the
setting apart for the exclusive use
of the Indians of certain definite
areas of land known as. Indian
Reserves .

The fact is that’ most of the
Reserves in B.C. were not set up by
treaties, that payment under
treaties were not meaningful, and
that there was no payment for the
taking over of rights of Indians to
their territories.

But the important point in these
statutes is that as late as 1943 the
Govenment and Parliament of
Canada recognized that there had
been native title, and that title had
given the Indians ‘‘personal and

usufructuray rights to
territories ...in British
Columbia.”

OTHER RECOGNITIONS

Native title has been recognized
in other jurisdictions; Spain-as a
colonial power, Great. Britain. in
North America .and her. other
colonies, the United States.

. Authorities argue strongly that
native title is a doctrine of
International Law and, therefore,

that there is a presumption that

Canadian law corresponds to
International Law. ;
It is surely too late for Canada
"now to expressly deny native title,
or to pay lip service to the concept
and imply that-it is not practical to
-determine claims. on existance of
native title.

_ SUMMARY OF
BASIS OF CLAIM
A claim is hereby presented to
the Government of Canada on the
following basis:

(a) That Indians of BC. had

“ native title to the lands
formerly. used or occupied. by
them;

Since the arrival of the first
‘white settlers, our people were
progressively and are now
totally denied the rights which
native title conferred. as to the
lands, and .are- progressively
being deprived of-the rights to
hunt and fish over these lands;
{c) That this denial —

deprivation of rights has been
done . without. agreement and
without compensation, and only
in very few cases by agreement
but with nominal compensation;

(b)

‘should feel that;

and -

(d). That the Government of
Canada must now accept the
validity of our claim based on
native title and agree with our
people on suitable terms for
settlement.

Placing and Timing of Claim

The Union has decided to present
the claim to the Government of
Canada for the following reasins,
among others:

1.. The actions .which have
resulted in the present situation
of Indians which in turn give
rise to this claim were acts of
state; the remedy can only be
by further acts of state.

2. The land claim of Indians of
B.C. is, apart from the matter
of hunting and fishing rights,
primarily for compensation —
not for a declaration of present
title.

The claim arises out of actions of
different authorities
responsible for the general
system of land tenure and land
grant — the Hudson’s Bay
Company, ~ the Colonial
Administration, and the
Provincial Government.

The Federal Government has the
constitutional responsibility for
Indian Affairs, and, therefore,
the responsibility for dealing
with their claims.

If the Federal Government
‘in -accepting
Indian claim; it may claim for
contribution against the Provincial
Government, this should not delay
dealing: with the-claim.

A DIFFERENT FOOTING

The claim hereby, presented i is on
a ‘quite a different footing from. that
of.the Nishga. Tribe... ._

Our Submission. is that. Indians
did have native title before white
settlers came; that whatever may

be the present situation about the ~

title, Indians of B.C. have been and
are; now. effectively denied
occupancy and use of land and
deprived of. benefits. of that title
without or with nominal
compensation. ;

As has been stated, the claim
here is for compensation — not for
return or declaration of present
title: /

ON ITS MERITS

Further, the claim here
presented needs dealing with on its
merits.

These merits will not be affected
by the outcome of the Nisgha Case.

Our claim for compensation is
based on denial of rights. inherent
in native title.

If the Supreme Court of Canada
will hold that title exists, our claim
for loss must be dealt with, unless
the Government decides to return
the province to the Indians.

Tf the Court will hold that title no
longer exists, this does not deny its
past existence; claim for
compensation stands. ,

Statement of the Claim -

Briefly, the basic claim is this:
(a): That Indians had and enjoyed

benefits of native title to lands

making up B.C., such as
personal and usufructuary
rights including use and
exploitation of land and
adjacent waters.

That Indians, lost their rights
conferred by native. title
through different ways — by
simple proclamation, adverse
occupation, legal enactment,
imposition of the legal system
which turned: B.C. into Crown
lands. :
That under early treaties or
‘agreements for Indian
surrender of their rights were
“paid” in kind.

For example, under treaties for
land surrender in the Victoria
area, a cash payment of two
pounds ten shillings per man was
Stated. What the Indians actually
got were three Hudson’s Bay
Company blankets; each blanket
was 17 Shillings wholesale.

(b)

(ce)

Except Tréaty No. 8, nothing was |

paid to Indians for the rest of the
lands comprising B.C.

(d) That, besides other rights of
native title, B.C. Indians
enjoyed full rights to hunt and
to fish all over the province;
that Indians were assured in
treaties or agreements of
freedom to hunt and fish over
unoccupied lands; that their
right to hunt have been largely

denied or eroded by game laws:

or by. measures: like the
Migratory Birds Convention;
that their right to fish,
specially salmon or kokanee,
is increasingly pressured and
attacked.

BASIS OF COMPENSATION

(e) That these rights were of real
value; compensation or
adjustment. should be made
now as follows:

G) Land , (including minerals and

timber ) ,
Although difficult, valuation
can be done in terms of money.
Since restoring rights of
occupancy and use is not
practical, the only just and
right course is to compensate
for. what has been taken.

(ii) Guarantee of Continued
Hunting Rights ,
Indians have never consented
to the taking away of hunting
rights, nor -agreed -to

international.treaties or other -

laws limiting hunting rights.
Thus the claim is for the return
of rights; where impossible,
the claim is for compensation.
(iii) Fishing Rights

The BNA Act gives full
jurisdiction to the Parliament
of Canada. This jurisdiction is

. limited. .by such measures as
~ thes International Salmon and
Halibut Conventions. Because
-of this, some negotiation-may
‘be needed for restoration. of
full rights of Indians. to fish.
Subject ‘to such. possible
negotiation: and to
compensation. where
restoration of rights to: fish is
impossible (e.g., fishery has
been destroyed), the claim is
for preservation of the rights
and return of the rights where

these have been abolished.

LAND ADJUSTMENT ,
FOR INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS

This' Claim ._— basically~ for
compensation and seemingly
practical to deal with generally by

- money award — does not prejudice
certain current or potential.

individual claims for adjustment of
Reserve boundaries or extents.

Some of these claims are
referred: to in, this: Submission. in
the part on Riparian. or Foreshore
Rights. Other. claims concern
adjustment of the McBride-
McKenna. Commission settlement,
Reserves .that were not enough to
accommodate the people when set
up, others.

Such claims will also have to be
settled — some under the part of
this Claim on Foreshore Rights;
some by a continuing Claims
Commission, others by negotiation
with the involved parties or

- authorities.

Extent of the Claim
1. GEOGRAPHICAL

The Claim stands on the position
that native title extended to all
territory now part of B.C.

Native title, though a well known
concept, is not the same as the title
system we know today. Generally,
native title is based. on use. and
occupancy and has been defined in
Canada as ‘“‘a personal and
usufructuary right. ay

These features of native title and

required proof of native title before
the US. Indian Claims
Commission sometimes lead to the
idea that. claim. based on native
title only affects areas in actual
and habitual use in a literal’sense:
~ But claims before the U.S.
Claims Commission are derived

from U.S. law statute and not from _

common or Internation law. Thus,
in Canada, we do not DANES this
limitation:

“Oh, let ’em stay for a while.
What possible harm can they do?”

SOLID GROUNDS

The claim to all territory of B.C.
stands on solid grounds. First, the
argument based on the nature of
Indian life prior to tthe coming of
settlers and setting-up the Reserve
system. Second, the argument
based on alaleresie or decisions of
authorities.

FIRST GROUND ©

Originally, Indians in B.C. made
their living from some cultivation

‘of the soil and mainly from natural

products of forest, land and water.

_ They. had identifiable. areas of
settlements as well as much larger .

areas for timber making, berry-
picking, hunting, .and. fishing.
Precise boundaries of tribal
regions are not easily found. today,
but research show that such areas
embraced the whole Province.

Further, the tribes within those
areas.used unoccupied,. remote or

. mountainous parts in a very real

sense. Very dependent upon the
balance of nature in very practical
ways, the tribes used all physical
features of. land: and water that

made up that balance.

SECOND-GROUND

The following expert opinions or

decisions support the position that
native title covered all territory in
B.C.:

(a) Anthropologist Wilson Duff
has spent 20 years studying
Indians of ‘B.C. and: has
concluded:

“It is not correct to say-that
the Indians did not :‘own’ the
land but only roamed over the
face of it and “‘used’ it.The
patterns. of ownership and
utilization which they imposed

upon the lands and waters

were different from those
recognized by our system. of
law, but were nonetheless
clearly defined and cqulastig
respected.

_ Even if they didn’t subi
and cultivate the land, they did
recognize ownership: of _ plots
used for village sites, fishing
places, berry and root patches,

_and similar purposes. Even if

' they didn’t subject the forests
to wholesale logging, they did
establish.ownership of tracts
used for hunting, trapping and
food-gathering. Even: if. they
didn’t sink mine shafts into the
mountains, they did own peaks
and valleys of mountain. goat
hunting and as sources of 1 raw
materials.

Except
inaccessible areas which are
not utilized even today, every
part of the Province \ was
formerly within the owned and
recognized territory of one or
other of the Indian tribes.”

Though. statute limits. Indian

claims before the U.S. Claims -

Commission to lands ‘‘actually
in their use. and‘ occupation,”
the. U.S. Court of Claims has

for barren. and -

given wide meaning of the
extent of Indian title.

ALASKA NATIVE CLAIM

In Tlingit and Haida Indians of
Alaska v. the U.S., on the question
of Indian title and extent of that.
title, the Court held that the
Indians have a claim and
concluded:

“We do not mean to
depart ...from the rule... that
Indian title . . ..must be shown by
proof of actual use and occupancy
from time immemorial.

But as is obvious from a study of
the many cases involving proof of
Indian title... that where the
Indians have proved that they used
and occupied a definable area of
land, the barren, inaccessible or
useless areas encompassed within
such: overall tract. and controlled
and dominated by the owners of
that surrounding land, as well as
the barren mountain peaks
recognized by all as the borders of
the area of land, have not been
eliminated from the area of total
ownership but rather have been
assigned no value in the making of
an. award, if any, to the-Indians.”

U.S. FIELD COMMITTEE

“The Alaska Native. land
claims are primarily based upon
‘aboriginal use and occupancy’ —
and the. ‘rights’? associated ‘with
this use. Understanding of
‘aboriginal use and occupancy’ in
both an historic and a current |
context is of primary importance.”

The Committee found, among
others, the following: -

“The aborisined Alaska
Native completely used _ the
biological resources of the land,
interior and contiguous waters in
general balance with . their
sustained ‘human | carrying
capacity and this use was only
limited in scope and amount by-
technology.

“In their use of the biclozical
community for livelihood the
Native people ‘occupied’ the land
in the sense of being on and over
virtually all of it in pursuit: of their
subsistence, but ‘they did ~ not
‘occupy’ the land in any agrarian
or. legal ‘sense as understood by-
Anglo-American jurisprudence.”

2. SPECIFIC EXTENT

(a) Surface Rights — Claim for
compensation includes claim for
loss of use of surface. rights
including timber, hunting and
fishing, water, riparian and. off-
shore rights. - -

(b) Mineral Rights — Claim
includes compensation for
minerals. Rights of occupancy and
use included right to exploit
minerals. Only when a system of
(Continued on Page 3)

Page Four

N E S FT K A

Total award for one claim to benefit all

(Continued from Page 3)

Superintendent General of Indian
Affairs on April 23, 1924. ~

QUIETING TITLES ACT

These foreshore or riparian
rights have been lessened or.
abolished in many instances by
actions of the Federal and
Provincial. Governments and by
their agencies.

These rights should now be
restored to and preserved for the
Indians by the Federal
Government by -any measure
needed, for example: by purchase,
-negoliation or action under the
Quieting Titles Act.
restoration is not possible,
adequate compensation must be
paid for benefits denied.

Individual cases and remedies
may vary, but these instances are
so widespread and their results so
far-reaching -in loss to Bands
concerned; thus the Claim on
foreshore or riparian rights is part
of the general Land Claim.

CONTROVERSY SINCE 1871,

There has been controversy over
ownership of foreshore rights since
B.C. entered Confederation in 1871.
Under a Terms of Union clause:

“... the charge of the
Indians and the trusteeship and
management of the land
reserved fer their use and
benefit shall be assumed by the
Dominion Government ... and
in the case of disagreement
between the two governments
respecting the quantity of such
tracts of land to be so granted,
the matter shall be referred to
the decision of the Secretary of
State for the Colonies.”’

The actual transfer was not
completed till 1938 because a
dispute came up at once about the
quantity of land to be transferred
by the Province.

‘But in 1924 an agreement was
reached on “Public Harbours’”’ in
‘B.C. by the Dominion and
Provincial Governments.

ORDERS-IN-CO
Each
similar
(Dominion, P.C. 941; Provincial,

O/C 507) on this agreement.

Each Order-in-Council provided

“that the ‘ownership of ‘all other

ungranted foreshore of tidal or
non-tidal waters and lands covered
with water in British Columbia .. .
belong to and are vested in the
Province.”’ :

Thus, in 1938, when lands set
aside as Reserves were actually
transferred to the Dominion
Government by Provincial Order-
in-Council 1036 (which is
completely silent on the disposition
of foreshore rights), the Province
presumed that ownership of the

UNCIL

Government passed

foreshore remains with’ the
Provincial. Crown.
Unless the foreshore was

specified in the grant setting up the
Reserve, the Indians would only

“have access and use over the
foreshore.

POSITION OF PROVINCE
Despite Provincial
Government’s assurances that
Indians would have the sema
riparian rights as any landowner
or occupier of land, these rights
have been constantly lessened and
abolished by that Government.
Order-in-Council 1036 reserves to
the Province the right to enter
upon any of the lands transferred
for the: use and benefit of the
Indians to the
Government, as follows:

‘s

.. for making roads,
canals, bridges, towing paths of
other works of public utility. or
convenience; so nevertheless
the land so resumed shall not -
exceed one-twentieth part of
the lands aforesaid...”

This allows the Provincial
Government to  expropriate

Where:

Orders-inCouncil.

Dominion.

without compensation up to five
percent of Reserve land.

This clause has been. abused in
several instances.

TSAWWASSEN BAND

In 1959, for example, some 7.682
acres of the Tsawwassen Band
Reserve land -was taken for an
access road to a new ferry slip.
Another 0.13 acres was taken for a
highway turnabout including a 33-
foot right of way bordering on part
of the Reserve’s foreshore. :

The Band thus lost access to this
foreshore.

The same. attitude. is the
Provincial Government’s view on
an accretion- to land forming a
Reserve fronting on water.

That. Government, by virtue of
the 1924 Agreement, argues that if
it owns the foreshore, then the
transfer of Reserves in 1938 did not
include the foreshore. Thus it
claims that accretion is to the
foreshore, not to the Reserve.

THE COMMON LAW VIEW

This position is opposite to the
common law view of accretion as
set in Attorney-General of B.C. v.
Neilson.

In this case, the Supreme Court
of Canada decided that
accretion — a gradual and unseen
growth of land out of the sea or
river — belongs to the owner of the
land next to and touching upon the
water.

Thus, in common law, accreted
lands would go to the Dominion
Government for the use and benefit
of Indians as owners of lands next
to and touching upon the water.

The Provincial position has in
certain cases denied the Indians
the chance to develop” accreted
lands.

MUSQUEAM BAND

In July 1969, for example, the
Musqueam Band claimed some 377
acres of tidal flats as accreted land
and asked that these lands be
added to the Reserve.

The Federal Government
refused because, among other
reasons, it adopted the Provincial
Government’s position that the
foreshores were not included when
the lands were transferred to the
Federal Government in 1938.

This position of the Provincial
Government, apparently accepted
by the Federal Government are
wholly opposite to these
Government’s position
Reserves were set aside when B.C.
entered Confederation.

Therefore, the Land Claims

“cannot be considered settled until

this matter is satisfactorily dealt
with. .

Use of Proceeds
of Settlement

Because of the very large sums
resulting from awards, we must
think of who should benefit, and
how benefits should be shared.

There are two choices:

1. That each case, where a
Reserve was set up or a Treaty
or Agreement ended, be
treated entirely separately and
that the award be reserved
exclusively for the use of the
Band or Indians concerned;

2. That, while each case forms
a separate claim in detail, the
total awards be regarded as
received under one general
claim in behalf of, and be used
for the equal benefit of, all
Indians of B.C. tesa their
Bands.

ABASIC APPROACH

Prof. Lysyk has summarized the
basic approach in his paper on the
proposed Alaska Native
Settlement: ‘

“The current measures can
be said to reflect the general
philosophy expressed in the
Federal Field Committee
reports that the land claims
Jegislation should not only

when -

serve as a means of settling the
legal and moral claims, but
should be seen alse as an
opportunity to provide a
‘foundation for social and
economic advancement for the
natives. *

“The stated policy
objectives, apart from
achieving a fair and just
settlement of ‘native. claims,
include maximum
participation. by natives in
decisions affecting their rights
and property, the vesting in
them as rapidly as feasible of
control. over the lands and
moneys provided under the
legislation, and the
accomplishment of . these
objectives without establishing
permanent racially defined
institutions or rights, without
creating a reservation system
or lengthy wardship or
trusteeship, and without
additional tax exeipplonee or
priviliges.

“The rights of natives as
citizens of the United States

and Alaska would’ be
undiminished.”’
Subject to certain points, we

submit that these policy objectives
are suitable guidelines for the use
and administration of proceeds of
the settlement of our. Claim.

AGENERAL CLAIM —
Accordingly, we submit that

method 2 be accepted and followed.
The following should be

considered under this method:

) It is difficult to determine
the present descendants or
successors in title of the
Indians involved with the
treaties or establishments of
many years ago; thus it would
be hard to ensure. possible or
fair distribution of proceeds. to
individual families or bands.
(2) General principles. must be
laid down for the terms. of
reference. Yet there are many
individual reserves and
settlements; and
circumstances’ differ. If
awards were handled
separately, unfairness and
injustices may happen.

(3) Compensation will be
awarded on the basis of land in
occupancy or use at the time
the rights were lost or denied.
A hundred years ago there
’ were great differences in sizes
of areas occupied or used by
different tribes or bands.
These differences did not
depend on the population of the
‘tribe but on the habits and
economy of the region.
To assign proceeds separately
now would. likely prejudice
those who were less nomadic
100 years ago.

DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION

We are strongly attracted by an
Indian Development Corporation
to administer funds along the lines
of the Alaska Native Development
Corporation.

Such a corporation — the setting
up, distribution of shares to
Indians, and the appointment and
election of Indian directors —
should greatly benefit our people.

There will be financial returns as
well as development and training
in awareness. and skill in
administering financial and
business affairs.

Due to certain provisions for
organization of Bands and Band
Councils, we do not propose
regional corporations as suggested
in Alaska.

But, in general, we look to
payment of earnings of. the
Development Corporation on per
capita basis to Band Councils.

BAND RESPONSIBILITY

The various Band Councils will
admiriister and pay earnings for
the benefit of the Band.

Because of the huge sum of total

March, 1973

The Official Monthly Publication of the
~ Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs

2140 West 12th Ave., Vancouver 9, B.C.
_ Telephone — 736-6751

The official voice of the Union of B.C. Indian
Chiefs, this publication is intended for the use
- and pleasure of all- native people in this
province. While the Union encourages all

contributions such as reports,

viewpoints

(letters to the Editor), poetry, etc., we reserve
the right to edit all contributions. Letters to the. .
Editor must bear signature of the writer, and
viewpoints expressed therein are not necessarily

those of the Union.

FREE TO ALL REGISTERED B.C.
NATIVE INDIANS .

OTHERS $5.00 PER YEAR

STAFF: Lou Demerais.— Editor

Correspondents:

settlement, we recommend
payment of the total award be
annual and divided over a period of
years, as in Alaska.

The concept of the award as a
fund for .all the Indians, as
proposed, lends itself to a system
of annual. payments into the
treasury cf the Development
Corporation until the total award
has -been paid in, and payments
invested as received.

Conclusion

Finally — while the settlement
awarded is compensation for past
takings or denials of rights, not in
substitution for present rights
under the Indian Act — we submit
that the settlement of our Land
Claim and the _ proposed
administration of the award will
have important and far-reaching
implications for the future status
and welfare of the Indian people.

The Government has said _ it:

wishes to discuss new concepts of
Indian organization ~ and
administration.

The acceptance of our Claim, the
implementation of this Submission
will redress an ancient and serious
-wrong, remove a legitimate and.
deep-seated sense of grievance,
and produce a _ co-operative

Perlas Sabino, Cindy Wilson -- Reporters

G. McKevitt, Brentwood Bay, Tel.
652-3148; Margaret Woods,
Ahousat;, Phyllis Hanna, Port Alberni; N.C, Derriksan,
Westbank; Arnold Earl, Roberta Sam, Lytton.

Terrace; Edgar Charlie,

atmosphere for discussion of ‘the
future.

The participation by the TiaINS
in. the benefits and other
advantages of one award — in
recognition of rights and not as a
continuing hand-out or quasi-
subsidy —. will enable Indians to
enjoy again some proper sense of
dignity and self-sufficiency.

FOR ALL CITIZENS

This and. the practical
opportunities and advantages from
development from the Settlement, -
and all implications for the future
make this Claim a prospect for
mutual advantage of all citizens —
Indian and non-Indian.

‘Respectfully submitted,

On behalf of the Union of British
Columbia Indian Chiefs by the.
undersigned, being all’ the
Members of the Chiefs Council.

PHILIP C. PAUL
NEBER MAITLAND
GEORGE WATTS
FORREST WALKEM
DELBERT GUERIN
WILLIAM SCOW
VICTOR ADOLPH

* HARRY DICKIE.
ADAM ENEAS
HOWARD WALE
IRVINE HARRY

ED KELLY
RONALD SEYMOUR
T.A. GREENE

NATIVE TITLE — _ The
Government of Canada apparently
understands, though it will not
recognize it, that ‘‘aboriginal

right,’ “aboriginal title,” “native
right,’ ‘‘native title,” ‘personal
and usufructuary right,”’ and

“Indian right’ are the same thing.

FEE SIMPLE TITLE — ‘The
legal concept is that the use and
occupation of a definite territory
by a tribe or band.meant that the
tribe or band had a type of
ownership of the territory. The
tribe or band had ‘‘native title,”
“Indian title,” or ‘‘aboriginal title”’
to that land.

The concept is that the “native
title’ is slightly different from ‘‘fee
simple” ownership. If a person
buys a home in Vancouver, he will
have a “fee simple’? title to the
land.

“Native title’’ is difterent from
“fee simple’ title because _ the
owner of the ‘‘native title’ cannot
sell the land to anyone he chooses.
The “native title’ can only be
“surrendered” to the government,

Definition of Terms

the ‘Crown.’ Other than
there is no difference.
PERSONAL AND
USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS —
“Native title’? is sometimes
described as. a ‘“‘personal and
usufructuary right.’ It is
“nersonal”’ in that only the band or
tribe can hold the right. They
cannot transfer the right to any
other person. It can ‘only be
surrendered to the Crown.

The words ‘‘usufructuary. right”
mean that the band or tribe has full
rights to use the land and adjacent
waters — they cam hunt and fish,
harvest berries, cut timber or dig
up minerals. They have complete
rights to use the land. :

It is this “native title’ that the
claim presented to the
Government by the UBCIC
defends. It is this ‘“‘native title’
that the Government apparently
refuses to recognize. It is this
“native title’ that the Supreme
Court seems to have voted on 3-3 in
regard to the Nishga Case.

that,

Files

Cancel

Union of BC Indian Chiefs Historic Newsletters