Generous Rulings for Canada's Natives Spur Backlash
10/25/99
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Generous rulings for Canada's natives spur backlash
Source: Reuters
Status: Copyright 1999, contact source for permission to reprint
Date: October 25, 1999
Byline: Randall Palmer
OTTAWA - By most standards it's been a good autumn for Canada's
Indians but their victories in the courts and in the political arena
have left some non-natives seething, worried they are taking a back
seat.
The implications of the native victories have been sweeping and
affect areas as diverse as the lobster fishery, a billion-dollar gas
project and the potential payment of tens of billions of taxpayer
dollars to Indians.
The courts have made it clear that agreements made with Indians
should be interpreted generously, and the Liberal government insists
that negotiating treaties and other deals is the only way to maintain
peace and bring justice.
The result in some cases, however, has been turmoil. Financial costs
have been high and the wisdom of applying different rules to
different people has come into question.
"If they're not careful, they're going to go into chaos if they allow
two sets of laws to govern two sets of people," Member of Parliament
Chuck Strahl of the opposition Reform Party told Reuters.
Kicking the season off was the Supreme Court's Marshall decision last
month, which has allowed Mi'kmaq Indians in Atlantic Canada to fish
out of season and without a license, due to a 1760 treaty. White
fishermen, some of whom paid C$200,000 for a license, were barred,
and violence ensued.
On Wednesday, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the government's
National Energy Board to again look at whether Mi'kmaq concerns were
fully taken into consideration when the board gave the go-ahead to
the C$1.7 billion Sable Island pipeline to carry natural gas to
Atlantic Canada and New England from offshore Nova Scotia.
The project, which was supposed to start pumping gas next month, is
nearly finished. There is confusion over whether it will now be
delayed.
And on Thursday, the federal government introduced legislation to
ratify a treaty with the Nisga'a tribe, or First Nation, in British
Columbia giving it about C$490 million in compensation, mostly cash,
but also including government land.
The Nisga'a treaty is viewed as a model for codifying relations with
the vast, resource-rich province of British Columbia - all of which
is claimed by various Indian tribes.
But, combined with the Supreme Court's 1997 Delgamuukw decision,
which declared that natives retained a proprietary interest in the
land and its resources throughout much of Canada, it has encouraged
new claims to be registered and old treaties to be reopened.
University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan commented in
the National Post newspaper that Quebec and the four Atlantic
provinces were now "sitting targets" for future decisions requiring
the negotiation of treaties.
"And the Nisga'a treaty, with its extravagant price tag (perhaps
ratcheted even higher by then), will be the model, just as it will be
for future treaties in B.C.," he wrote.
One accounting firm's estimate is that the cost for British Columbia
alone could hit C$40 billion to C$50 billion.
In addition to ruling on fish, last month's Marshall decision also
handed the Mi'kmaq people the right to make a living from
"gathering", and they are interpreting that to mean getting into the
lucrative commercial forestry business without the same rules
applying to them that apply to non-native forestry firms.
The Indians themselves - who number about 700,000 of Canada's 30
million people - say it is outrageous to question rights that have
been ruled on by the Supreme Court.
"Some refer to our treaties as 'ancient' and say their provisions no
longer apply," said Phil Fontaine, national chief of the main Indian
group, the Assembly of First Nations. "The terms of the Magna Carta
sill apply to free men and women everywhere. There is no statute of
limitations on injustice."
The policies have, however, led to charges of racism.
"This government has squashed the principle of equality with the
Nisga'a treaty," Reform's Gurmant Grewal, himself an immigrant from
India, told Parliament on Friday.
"No longer will hard work be the determining factor whether one can
make a living in forestry, fishing or mining. Success will be based
on race."
The federal Indian affairs minister, Robert Nault, dismissed this as
"ridiculous", in remarks to reporters outside the House of Commons.
"This is about equality, this is about economic opportunity for First
Nations people," he asserted.