|
The 1997 Supreme Court
Delgamuukw decision, (File No. 23799) does not appear to be a landmark
decision in any way shape or form. The Delgamuukw decision did not
provide indigenous people or hereditary chiefs with unfettered ownership
of claimed lands.
The decision held that
hereditary title was not absolute, and could be overridden to allow for
projects in the best interests of non-indigenous
people.
 |
| Supreme Court of Canada |
The decision did not set out
the extent of claimed lands; that still must be negotiated. Claims are
still outstanding.
The Delgamuukw decision did not
provide hereditary chiefs with ownership of claimed lands; it held that
indigenous land ownership was held by the community, not by chiefs.
Indigenous people cannot enjoy
land ownership rights that surpasses the rights of non-indigenous land
owners. When we are faced with public works projects including natural
resources developments, roads and highways, power transmission lines,
telephone and cable lines, transmission towers and a host of other works,
our property rights can be overridden by expropriation or easements with
commensurate compensation.
The BC tentative agreement
cannot be allowed to change to course of common law land ownership
precedents.
Finally, the Delgamuukw decision
did not address indigenous governance, sovereignty, or any of the issues
respecting indigenous self-governance. Those issues remain unresolved.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that such issues would require a
separate trial.
Negotiating with hereditary
chiefs under this backdrop is very high risk. Our Prime Minister’s pleas
for patience are nonsense.
The government has not shared
the substance of the alleged agreements with us, so we have nothing to be
patient about.
This government has made no
effort to ensure that road and rail disruptions won’t start up again tomorrow, or
on any subsequent day. We are left vulnerable without excuse.
This government has to go; it
is failing to maintain order and peace.
|
Comments
Post a Comment