TITLE – 60 years since Native title was allowed in a Canadian court
This book is about Indigenous land titles, west of the Rocky Mountains, relying on the testimony and writings of dozens of Indigenous leaders. Furthermore, it is about the recent construct of “Aboriginal title,” and the Canadian courts’ use of the new term to attempt to define Indigenous Peoples into assimilated structures of governance within Canada.
In the Introduction, the book addresses the questions, What is title? Who has title? What is jurisdiction, and where does it come from? It also provides an in-depth review of British Columbia history which is not commonly understood, and describes the situation of Indigenous Peoples in what is now known as British Columbia, Canada, in terms of the colonizing actions of the last two centuries.
At the center of this book is a review of the highlights in legal terms of the results of 70 important title and rights cases. The key meanings are highlighted, providing an easy to follow progress of the BC and Canadian judges’ formulation of Aboriginal rights over 60 years.
The rulings of the colonial court are then summarized and compared to the way Indigenous Peoples describe their own relationship to land, their own jurisdictions, and also international descriptions of the rights of peoples. These comparisons are presented as a chart, with the contrasting titles and descriptions set across from each other, section by section.
There are 26 distinct languages spoken by the original peoples in the area now known as the Province of British Columbia. Among these nations, almost every one wrote a historic Declaration or Statement describing themselves and their country – like a collective affidavit – in the early 20th century. 34 pages of substantial excerpts from these statements are included.
The political, social and economic impact of the court rulings in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, have not produced a logical improvement in terms of decolonization, but a tightening of definitions and restricting of economic opportunities which has created a policy funnel that only rewards actions of assimilation by Indigenous Peoples. The results of key rulings, Native actions for justice, and other factors are examined in an analysis of the current situation in British Columbia. This section describes in detail, with many interesting witness statements, the circumstances surrounding the launch of key cases, and a thorough investigation of the governments’ responses, to the present day.
Finally, to support the reader, a 50 page Timeline of events concerning the expression of land title west of the Rockies is provided. A Glossary of terms with respect to their particular usage in Canada is also provided, and an extensive list of Sources and References.
This research has been supported over many years by many people and organizations, notably: Society for Our Grandmother Earth; the Association for Learning and Preserving the History of WW2 in Asia, BC Chapter; and Skela7ksten Skel7antsut.
This information is brought forward to aid the state, through its citizens, to come to constructive arrangements that do not extinguish Indigenous title and rights, but respect their title lands so that the Peoples can move forward with a self-determining economic future. As it was said during the Constitution Express: “The authority of Indian nations does not depend on the Canadian constitution. A Canadian constitution can only accommodate Indian rights – it cannot diminish, alter or eliminate them. Such power rests only with the citizens of the various Indian nations.” – From, “Indian Nations and The Constitution – A Position Paper,” Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. November 15, 1980.
Clouding nations older than the last Great Flood, the young province of British Columbia has bought time and occupation with bad faith and violence.
From White and Bob, 1965 to Cowichan, 2025 colonial courts force assimilation by hollowing out their own legal construct: “Aboriginal title.”
AQ Special Issue #1 – TITLE:
272 pages black and white 8.5″ x 11″ soft cover ISBN 9781738790258 Special Issue of “Archive Quarterly ~ journal of the west wasn’t won”, ISSN 2819 585X
The Nlaka’pamux and St’at’imc nations first declared protection of the entire area in 1985.
A decade of organizing; profile-raising concert festivals; and unflinching determination at endless negotiations with government resulted in the Stein Valley Nlaka’pamux Heritage Park and an unspoiled wilderness.
Here, Chiefs Ruby Dunstan and Byron Spinks of Lytton share their roles, then and now, and personal connections to the Stein.
Park Board member John Haugen explains a little about the UNESCO process for World Heritage Site designation, and Vancouver-based sound ecologist Hildegard Westerkamp shares her photos and recollections of the first festival in the alpine.
At the first Stein Valley Festival, 1985. Photo by Hildegard Westerkamp.
Deer in the headlights.
Hunting moratoriums are issued across Indigenous Nations as resource extraction activity reduces habitat below critical levels amid over-hunting.
Many Peoples have enacted and posted rules on the ground, gone to court for injunctive relief against industries licensed by the crown, and put themselves on the roadblock: between the deer and the headlights.
A bull moose in Taku River Tlingit territory, where the people have appealed to BC hunters not to hunt moose, in spite of BC’s opening of Limited Entry Hunt lotteries. Photo: Taku River Tlingit First Nation.
The Nuxalk Defense of Ista, 1995
Head Chief Nuximlayc’s statement on the 30th Anniversary: “They had been harvesting five million cubic meters of wood – every year – in Nuxalk territory. After the EU stopped buying it, after that, the timber harvest dropped to 200,000 cubic meters. That’s why we still have trees today.”
Nuxalk leaders of the House of Smayusta invited environmentalists to stay and join the reoccupation of Ista, King Island, in September 1995. Many were detained for defying the court injunction, and, later, the court’s jurisdiction.
Nuxalk hereditary Chiefs at Ista, September 1995. Photo from Nuxalk Nation.
When DFO cut the Líl’wat Elders’ fishing nets
A five-week roadblock of the Lillooet Lake Road ensued, after fisheries officers came in and destroyed the Elders’ salmon fishery in 1975.
Wénemqen of Tilálus was 16 years old at the time, and he recalls the roadside discussions, the visiting Chiefs, patrolling the road, media tactics, and jail.
54 people were arrested for “obstructing a public highway” – their own road. The bogus charges were thrown out; the jurisdiction issue remains.
Líl’wat people sit on the road through their village, blocking traffic from Pemberton to Lillooet. Photo – Lil’wat Peoples Movement, archived online with riseupfeministarchive.
That day in Court: the Sparrow decision turns 35
In 1986, Chief Joe Mathias of Squamish spoke to the BC Aboriginal Peoples Fisheries Commission about recognizing DFO’s right to define conservation.
Reflecting that each community represented at that meeting was grappling with multiple – if not dozens or hundreds – of fishing charges, Mathias asked the Committee to challenge the federal government’s monopoly on “conservation.”
A few years later, the BC Aboriginal Peoples Fisheries Commission developed the Inter-Tribal Fishing Treaty of Mutual Support and Understanding. Image: the Treaty logo.
More:
World Council of Indigenous Peoples
held its first Annual General Meeting in Tseshaht, Nuu-chah-nulth, in October of 1975. Delegates from nineteen countries attended the three-day conference, identifying their barriers to equality as self-determining Peoples and Nations occupied by settler states with foreign values. Their work set the pace for ongoing representation in the international United Nations forum for diplomacy and cooperation.
Welcoming people from around the world to the first WCIP conference.Photo: Ha-SHILTH-sa newspaper, Dec. 1975.
Canada’s “Strategic Words and Tactics Team”
was revealed to Native leaders by sympathetic individuals in government in the 1970s and 80s. The Team has kept busy. Canada’s policy to deny “undefined Aboriginal rights” – including title – provides instead a suite of legislation which enables First Nation Band Councils to surrender their rights, in favour of rights defined by Canada.
At the 7th Annual General Assembly of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, all Indian Bands agreed to refuse federal transfer payments and program funding – rejecting government control.
The BC Association of Non-Status Indians joined them, “amalgamating the on- and off-reserve people and changing the political movement once and for all. The solution was the same for both of us: a just settlement of the Indian land question, and respect for our own governance.”
With quotes from media at the time, and comments from published interviews with Hereditary Kwagiulth Chief Hemaas, Bill Wilson and Grand Chief Saul Terry, St’at’imc; and Hereditary Wet’suwet’en Chief Ron George, unpublished 2018 interview.
Documentary resource: Nesika ~ The Voice of BC Indians, Volume 3, Issue 13, May 1975. Reporting on the Rejection of Funds and Militant May.
Bill C-31, 1985, and the first Reinstatement of Non-Status Indians
The federal objective “to keep lands reserved for Indians under the power of male Indians,” was one of the primary reasons for the first legislation respecting Indigenous Peoples, in 1869.
In order to achieve this, Canada defined who was, and who was not, a “Status Indian.” This Status, providing the right to live on-reserve and be a member of an Indian Band or First Nation, and pass Status to children, was increasingly denied to Native women.
With 40 legal actions against the government’s Registrar for wrongful misappropriation of entitlement, and a 1982 recommendation of the United Nations ICESCR treaty body, Canada removed some of the sexist restrictions to coincide with their new constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
First Ministers Conference on the Constitution, April 2, 1985
The Constitution Act, 1982, was passed for Canada with a British condition: the rights of Aboriginal Peoples, in Section 35, must be elaborated.
A formula to amend the Constitution was included in Section 37 of the Act: the country must hold First Ministers Conferences immediately, and specifically protect key aspects of the “existing rights” of Aboriginal Peoples in an amendment to the Constitution.
In 1985, Canada’s Prime Minister Brian Mulroney chaired the conference. He made an elaborate speech which, 40 years later, has still not been realized: “As a Canadian and as Prime Minister, I fully recognize and agree with the emphasis that the Aboriginal Peoples place on having their special rights inserted into the highest law of the land, protected–as we all want ours–from arbitrary legislative action.”
His statements were completely undermined by a report leaked ten days later.
Documentary Resources:
First Ministers Conference, Ottawa, April 2, 1985. Morning Session. Verbatim Transcript.
Including Statements of: Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, DAVID AHENAKEW (Chief, Assembly of First Nations), KEVIN DANIELS (Metis National Council), SAM SINCLAIR (President, Metis Association of Alberta), Louis (Smokey) BRUYERE (President, Native Council of Canada), MR. JOHN AMAGOALIK (Inuit Committee on National Issues)
First Ministers Conference, Ottawa, April 2, 1985. Afternoon Session. Verbatim Transcript.
Including Statements of: Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, GEORGE WATTS (Assembly of First Nations), HAROLD CARDINAL (Prairie Treaty Nations Alliance), CHIEF SOLOMON SANDERSON (Assembly of First Nations), HARRY W. DANIELS (Vice-President, Native Council of Canada), ZEBEEDEE NUNGAK (Inuit Committee on National Issues), M. SIOUI (chef de la Nation huronne Wondat de la Province de Quebec), JOHN CROSBIE (Canada), JIM SINCLAIR (Saskatchewan), ROLAND PENNER (Attorney-General, Manitoba), GEORGES ERASMUS (Northern Vice-Chief, Yukon and Northwest Territories, Assembly of First Nations), RICHARD HATFIELD (New Brunswick), JOHN AMAGOALIK (Inuit Committee on National Issues), BRIAN R.D. SMITH (Attorney General, British Columbia), JOE COURTEPATTE (President, Alberta Federation of Metis Settlement Associations, Metis National Council), FRED HOUSE (President, Louis Riel Metis Association, British Columbia), PETER LOUGHEED (Alberta), WILLIAM BENNETT (British Columbia)
“The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s,” the draft Nielsen Report to Cabinet: April 12, 1985
A draft memorandum for Cabinet, produced by the Deputy Prime Minister, Erik Nielsen, was leaked to the press at the same time the federal government was making overtures to Aboriginal self-government in the First Ministers Conference and reinstating Non-Status Indians in Bill C-31.
The Nielsen Task Force Report draft for Cabinet was titled, “The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s.”
The Report recommended slashing financial support for Indigenous political organizations.
Anticipating tens of thousands of people regaining Indian Status with changes to the Indian Act under Bill C-31, the government’s “Buffalo Jump” plan also hinged on devolving fiduciary responsibilities for Native health care, education, and economic development to the Provinces.
At the same time, the near-final Sechelt Self-Government Agreement made an example of an Indian Band which agreed to extinguish their title and rights, accepting instead a municipal role with small lands, powers of taxation, and the ability to engage in business – which is not possible under the Indian Act.
For First Nations faced with the failing First Ministers Conference – where Premiers showed no intention to support Aboriginal self-government in the Constitution; and the impending cut to federal funding; the direction of the intended “Buffalo Jump” stampede became clear.
Documentary Resources:
“Buffalo Jump of the 1980s” – Nielsen Report – “Funding cuts drive FNs into compromising programs,” Ottawa Citizen, April 19, 1985; AFN press release, May 8, 1985.
The Nisga’a Final Agreement: A 25th Anniversary Retrospective
Excerpts from a negotiation that exceeded a century:
“You saw us laughing yesterday because you opened the book and told us the land was the Queen’s and not the Indians’. That is what we laughed at. No one ever does that, claiming property that belongs to other people. We nearly fainted when we heard that this land was claimed by the Queen. The land is like the money in our pockets, no one has a right to claim it.” Chief Am-Clamman of Kit-wil-luk shilts, 1887.
With statements from 1884-1889 collected by Reverends of the Methodist Missions,
Excerpts from the Northwest Coast Commission at Port Simpson and the Nass, 1887,
The 1913 petition of the Nisga’a to the British King,
The Allied Tribes statement, formed in alignment with the Nisga’a position,
The role of the White and Bob hunting case, Nanaimo, in the Calder title case,
The Calder title case, and federal land Claims policy announced in 1973, in response to it,
Synopses of events across BC and Canada from 1912 to 1997, in court and on the ground, as they affected the Nisga’a case,
Debates of the BC politicians as they explained the Nisga’a Final Agreement,
Excerpts from the 2000 treaty,
And the court cases – by BC politicians and Nisga’a people – that followed it.
Documentary Resources:
Letter from the Methodist Missionary Society to the Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs respecting British Columbia troubles, May 1889.
Including: Protest of Port Simpson Chiefs to Mr. O’Reilly; Statement of Skidegate Chiefs; Affidavits of: John Ryan, Chief Paul Legaic, Louis Gosnell, Chief Alfred Doudoward, Charles Abbott, Chief Herbert Wallace, Richard Wilson, Chief David Mackay, Chief Arthur Calder, Charles Russ, George A. Gibson, Chief Scaban, Chief Ness-Pash, Chief Clay-Tsah, Chief Tat-Ca-Kaks, Job Calder; more.
Papers Relating To The Commission Appointed to Enquire into the Condition of the Indians of The North-West Coast,1888, Government Printer at Victoria.
Including: Testimony of Chiefs George Kinsada, Adam Kishni, Moses, Albert Shakes, Samuel Seymour, Frederick Allen, Arthur Gurney, Nease Youse, Tallahaat, Sabassah, Hawillah, Job Calder (or Nouse), husband of Victoria, chiefess of the Naas Indians, Mountain, Matthew Naas, Charles Russ, Neis Puck, Kledach, David Mackay, Arthur Calder (son of Chieftainess Victoria), Hawillah, Am-Clamman, Paul Kledach (son of Chief Kledach), Paul Legaic, Richard Wilson, Alfred Doudoward. Charles Abbott, Gemmuc, Donald Bruce, Matthew Aucland, A. Leighton, and petitions and Letters;
And Statement of BC Premier William Smythe, 1887; Reserve Commissioner O’Reilly, Report and memos of Commissioners; etc.
“Nisga’a Treaty – Final Agreement Act – Bill C-51 – Committee Stage”– notes and quotes from the Provincial Government’s debate televised on CPAC and recorded on the Government’s website, Hansard. January 18-20 1999.
Closing Statement: Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en Chiefs, 1990
At the end of 370 days of testimony, and at the end of the trial for title, Hereditary Chiefs made a statement to close the proceedings.
“Three years have passed since we made our opening statements to this court; at that time you did not know who Delgamuukw and Gisdaywa were. We, the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en, must be compensated for loss of the Land’s present integrity and for the loss of economic rents. We ask that the court not only acknowledge our ownership and jurisdiction over the Land, but to restore it to a form adequate for Nature to heal in terms of restoration.”
The West Wasn't Won 