By Terence Ho | Foundation of HKPLTW
Terence is a Research Coordinator for the Foundation of HKPLTW with interests in history & traditions, social organization & inter-group relations, culture & religion, and economics & politics of Canadian Indigenous People and Visible Minorities. Follow him on Twitter: @hkpltw
Terence is a Research Coordinator for the Foundation of HKPLTW with interests in history & traditions, social organization & inter-group relations, culture & religion, and economics & politics of Canadian Indigenous People and Visible Minorities. Follow him on Twitter: @hkpltw
The B.C. Treaty Process and Canada’s general cases with the First Nations reflect a view that the First Nation decision-making authority inherent in Aboriginal title, and in an Indigenous laws and rights, does not apply until it has been determined in court or recognized by the Crown in an agreement. This view ultimately put the burden of proof on First Nation communities to prove to state institutions that Aboriginal title exist in order for that pre-existing titles to apply. This is in contrast to the recognition approach, which starts by acknowledging First Nation rights and title.
More than two decades after the B.C. Treaty Process was created, continued pattern of making decisions in the absence of First Nation consent — without resolving the underlying Aboriginal title — undermines the constitutional foundations.
This approach creates distrust among the First Nation communities. Despite the B.C. Treaty Process trying to reach agreements with First Nations over title, many First Nation peoples are uncomfortable accepting to resolve issues of Aboriginal title using non-Aboriginal systems. Due to the general and widespread distrusts, the B.C. Treaty Process is viewed controversially.
As a result, many First Nation communities found themselves at cross purposes with the British Columbian government and the Crown. Summarizing their viewpoints, they generally believe the process would never only continue developing lands at the expense of First Nation peoples — to cede their title aside from what is explicitly outlined in the treaty. The debates are numerous and ongoing.
To improved relationship with First Nations, I think there are two points. First of all, the constitutional recognition of the inherent rights and Aboriginal title would be the necessary approaches at reconciliation and to Indigenous rights. These approaches means implementing consent that allows First Nation peoples to make decisions about what happens to their territories. Furthermore, a meaningful consultation means including First Nations in the design of the consultation and review processes, something that First Nations communities have been demanding. Not only would this reduce future appeals, it would also result in better decisions.
Bibliography
Crowe, Keith. “Comprehensive Land Claims: Modern Treaties”. The Canadian Encyclopedia, 11 July 2019, Historica Canada. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/comprehensive-land-claims-modern-treaties. Accessed 20 December 2021.
Hanson, Eric. “Aboriginal Title.” Indigenous Foundations. First Nations and Indigenous Studies UBC, 2009. Accessed 20 December 2021.
Irwin, Robert. “Aboriginal Title”. The Canadian Encyclopedia, 25 September 2018, Historica Canada. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-title. Accessed 20 December 2021.
Tennant, Paul, Aboriginal People and Politics: The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1849-1989 Vancouver: UBC Press, 1990.
This is an opinion article; the views expressed by me. Follow Me on Twitter: @hkpltw And @Terry_Terence97
Foundation of HKPLTW (Canada) 