Paul Fromm photo FORMER North Shore News columnist Doug Collins sports a ribbon for free speech in Oliver, B.C., last Saturday. speech seminar nixed ‘Robert Galster News Reporter ' robert@nsnews.com ' THE cancellation of a - seminar that was to feature Doug Collins and several others did not stop the retired North Shore News columnist from airing his views. I defended freedom in the 1940s when Hitler was on the loase, in the 1950s when McCarthy was on the loose, in the 1970s when the federal hate laws were passed, in the 1990s when those idiots in Victoria passed their mis- named Human Rights Act, and I shall go on defending freedom until the day I die.” Saturday’s seminar was organized by Bernard Klatt, whose Oliver-based Internet provider received international attention = because several alleged hate groups use the service. As a result, Oliver made national headlines several weeks ago when the Wiesenthal Centre’s Sal Littman concluded the town as a whole constituted a hotbed of racist activity. Littman also called the Okanagan town the hate capi- tal of Canada. Dubbed as a seminar for free speech, the event was scheduled to take place last Saturday ac a community hall in Oliver, B.C., but the town’s council ‘cancelled the rental agreement for the facility on Friday. In -addition to Collins, speakers scheduled to speak at e event included Doug Christie, lawyer for Ernst Ziindel and James Keegstra, _ and: Paul: Fromm, a former Ontario teacher. Both Zundel ‘and ‘Keegstra question the authenticity of the documen- tation’. supporting —the ‘Holocaust. ° « “It tends to bring out the extreme in people and the > potential for violence was high _-and in the interest of public safety we cancelled it,” said “. Oliver mayor Linda Larson. “< Collins nevertheless made --the trip to the Okanagan town and delivered his prepared Dr. Bert Lee is pleased to announce the opening of the Seymour Denial Cenire Parkgate Village Shopping Centre 200-3650 Mt. Seymour Parkway {above the Bank of Montreal) 924-5289 IA Appointments Sam-fpm Tues. to Sat. ‘anh’ See Our Yellow Page As General & Specialy Dentistry Dr. Daryl Chin wishes to announce the relocation of his dental practice to : : Tradewinds Dental Centre ‘speech at a press conference ~~ outside the town’s municipal | 57 Lonsdale Avenue, “hall. nie 38 hk : North Vancouver, During his 25-minute ta . : Collins made a case for free- (N.W. comer of Lonsdale Ave. & Esplanade) NEW PATIENTS WELCOME - dom of speech — both his 987-8802 own: and that of others — using a colorful choice of §& Mon & Tics 10am - 7pm words before winding up with: § Wed & ‘Thurs gam ° ie pm :. “I will conclude by saying ‘that Lam 77 years of age, that MUFFLER SALE | PRICE * MARCH 25TH TO MARCH 28/98 Bring this ad to any Budget Brake & Muffler focation, and receive this unbelievable 1/2 price offert* °V/2 price sale on front brake pads and rear shoes _NORTH VANCOUVER 1350 Marine Dr. 1315 Cotton Dr. East of Corner of Cotton Dr. & Lions Gate Main St. (Near 2nd Narrows) / 984-4296 | 980-8517 * NOT VALID WITH ANY OTHER OFFERS | their use and benefit, Wednesday, March 25, 1998 — North Shore News — 9 ted white, m.p. advertorial, March 25/1998 CONFUSION REIGNS The December 11, 1997 Delgamuukw Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada has probably created a crisis for B.C. in terms of the Native land claints process. Whilst it is true that the Court ordered a new trial (after a first trial lasting 13 years and costing as much as $20 million), and stated that B.C. has the power to extinguish abo- riginal title, it also decided that ORAL evidence of historical events by aborig- inats in such cases should, in effect, be accepted as if it was WRITTEN histori- cal proof. It also defined aboriginal title as “the right to exclusive use and occu- pation of the land” including “the right to choose to what use the lands can be put.” The Count said that aboriginal title falls short of title in fee simple only in that the lands must be held collectively and can only be sold to the Crown. it also set out the rules as to how a native band estab- lishes aboriginal title over a given area, saying that the group must prove occupan- cy prior to 1846, continuity of occupation, and exclusivity of occupation. This seems Pretty reasonable at a glance, but instead of determining these matters on the basis of common law principles, the Court has 7 ordered that equal precedence must be given to “the aboriginal perspective” of what these terms mean. In summary, the Court has drastically undermined the Crown ownership of $4% of the Province, put almost insurmountable hurdles in the way of provincial government land tesources decisions, and supplanted the common law with a new system of law based on handed down oral evidence being given equa! weight as written evi- dence. NATIVE REACTION Within twce months of the Supreme Court decision, several pages of impossi- ble demands from the native leadership had been delivered to federa! and provin- cial ministers. A full copy is available from my office, but “highlights” include: ° We assert our aboriginal title to all of B.C. ; © The B.C. Government has no authority to extinguish aboriginal title. * All provincial and federal gov- ernment alienation of lands must be suspended until arrangements are made with First Nations and our informed consent is obtained. * Canada and British Columbia must put an immediate freeze on any further alienation of land and resources. ¢... treaty funding to be in the | form of contributions (not loans) and to forgive all existing loans © to drop ail hunting and fishing charges against First Nations citi- zens. B.C. OBLIGATIONS Article 13 of B.C.’s Terms of Union with Canada from 1871 reads: “The charge of the Indians end the trusteeship and management of the lands reserved for shall be assumed by the Dominion Government, and a policy as liberal as that hitherto pursued by the British Columbia Government, shall be con- . tinued by the Dominion Government after the Union.” The Article then goes on to require B.C. to provide tracts of land to the federai government in order to establish additional Indian reserves in accordance with past practice. In other words, under the Terms of Union, the expressed constitutional obligation of B.C. was to provide lands for reserves while all other obligations to the native peoples became the jurisdiction of the federal gov- ernment. A year earlier, in 1870, the legislation making Manitoba a province specifically mentioned unextinguished aboriginal! title and how it would impact upon land con- veyances. Because of this, it is hard to believe that the question of aboriginal title would have been overlooked by federal authorities with respect to B.C. just one year later. This leads to the conclusion that negotiators recognized that B.C. was deal- ing with Indian affairs in a different manner — by establishing reserves, a position which appears to be confirmed by the fact that an Order in Council was passed on July 19, 1924 by the federal government formally acknowledging that B.C. had sat- isfied all of the obligations of Article 13. On March 17, 1992 however, the Harcourt NOP Government opened a Pandora’s box by stating in its Throne Speech that “We recognize aboriginal title and the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government.” The pigeons, it seems, have now come home to roost as @ result of the Supreme Court definition of what constitutes aboriginal title. Native bands are now challenging the province’s right to build schools or grant licenses for resource development, and they are claim- ing ownership of the entire province. THE AUSTRALIAN WAY Australia, like B.C. has never signed treaties with its aboriginal! peoples, and, like the Supreme Court of Canada, the Australian High Court ruled in 1992 that native title existed, creating problems for the Government in terms of land manage- ment. Approximately four years later, Prime Minister Howard’s Government | introduced and passed the Native Title Act, which abandoned the land claims process and replaced it with a legislated solution aimed at balancing aboriginal rights with a workable and certain land management process. The Australian Senate rejected the Native Title Act, by a smalt margin, late in 1997, but the Howard Government has already passed the Act again, with a few } amendments, and has sent it back to the Senate, where debate is expected to begin on March 30, 1998. Under Australian par- liamentary rules, twice rejection of a Government bill by the Senate allows the Government to call a “double dissolution” election of BOTH the Parliament and the Senate, and Howard says he is prepared to fight an election on the’ issue if the Senate refuses to pass- the Bill. if an answer to the B.C. situation could be found by learning from the Australian experience, Canadian legis- fation would probably need to do at least three things. Firstly, make provi- sion to automatically extinguish aborig- inal title (as permitted in the Delga- muukw Decision) over any B.C. Crown land where there are timber licenses, mining leases, grazing permits, etc. Secondly, allow aboriginal title to exist over unalienated Crown land as long as it remained unatienated. Thirdly, estab- lish a special tribunals process to award fair compensation to any aborig- inal group for loss of aboriginal _ title over any area included in any tand tenure issued after December 11, 1997 — the date of the Delgamuukw Decision. the way things are shaping up, just like Australia, Canada will probably soon be forced to legislate an end to all the uncertainty. Pizase send your opinions to Refo-m’s Critic for Indian Affairs, Mike Scott MP at the House of Contiaons, Ottawa, Ontario, KIA OAS. Fax (613) 993-9007, email scotts.:@parl.ge.ca --Ted White, M.P. ; #302-1200 Lynn Valley Road,‘North Vancouver, B.C. V7J 2A2. -: ‘Tels 666-0585 ° Fax: 666-0509, Internet: http://www.reform.ca/white-t/ :