Northern Public Affairs, September 2013



Yüklə 1,28 Mb.
Pdf görüntüsü
tarix08.08.2018
ölçüsü1,28 Mb.
#61419


Northern Public Affairs, September 2013

J

th

  Anniversary  of  



the Supreme Court of  Canada decision Calder et al. 

v. Attorney-General of  British Columbia, [1973] SCR 313 

(“

a  particular  moment  of   pause  since  Frank  Calder 



on his legacy and on the initiatives of  which he was a 

in  Canadian  jurisprudence  and  a  reshaping  of   the 

political  landscape  of   British  Columbia,  ultimately 

These developments continue to guide the approach 



1890 Land Committee and 1913 Petition

These outcomes are the result of  a singular but far 

reaching objective of  the Nisga’a Nation — to re-

meeting with the premier of  British Columbia and 

-

tition  to  the  Privy  Council  in  England  setting  out 



the Petition was a statement that was unanimously 

adopted at a meeting of  the Nisga’a Nation held at 

Kincolith on the 22nd day of  January, 1913:

We are not opposed to the coming of  the white peo-

ple into our territory, provided this be carried out 

justly and in accordance with the British principles 

as we expect, the aboriginal rights which we claim 

should be established by the decision of  His Maj-

esty’s Privy Council, we would be prepared to take 

while claiming the right to decide for ourselves the 

terms upon which we would deal with our territory, 

we would be willing that all matters outstanding 

-

ly adjusted by some equitable method to be agreed 



upon which should include representation of  the 

Indian Tribes upon any Commission which might 

From  this  remarkably  prescient  statement, 

which has guided the Nisga’a Nation for over a cen-

tury, one can see some basic principles behind the 

not  only  include  recognition  of   our  territory,  but 

also the right to ‘decide for ourselves’ how we would 

Third,  the  Petition  highlighted  our  willingness  to 

take ‘a moderate and reasonable’ position in order 

impressive efforts, there is no record the Petition was 

Instead, in 1927, the federal government made 

it illegal for Indians in Canada to organize or raise 

Nonetheless, the efforts of  the Nisga’a Land Com-

mittee established the mandate for the next genera-



Frank Calder

Frank  Arthur  Calder  was  born  August  3,  1915  at 

Job  and  Emily  Clark,  they  consented  to  his  adop-

tion  to  Arthur  Calder  (Na-qua-oon)  and  Louisa 

-

golx had dreamed that Emily would conceive a son 



qua-oon  presented  a  very  young  Frank  Calder  to 

the Nisga’a chiefs who were gathered at a meeting 

had described their struggle as equivalent to shifting 

going to send this boy to school where the K’umsii-

learn how the white man eats, how the white man 

talks, how the white man thinks, and when he comes 

After studying at residential school, Frank went 

LETTER FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

of  the Calder decision



Edward Allen


Photo cr

edit: Nisga’a Lisims Gov

er

nment


16 Northern Public Affairs, September 2013

to high school in Chilliwack and then to the Univer-

graduated  from  the  Anglican  Theological  College 

CCF (precursor to the NDP) in the riding of  Atlin 

Canadian legislature — even though he did not have 

1

 



Frank Calder was also one of  the key leaders in 

establishing  the  Nisga’a  Tribal  Council  in  1955  to 

pursue the mandate of  the hereditary chiefs set out 

-

parent that while it was no longer illegal to organize 



and discuss land claims, the federal and provincial 

governments  had  no  intention  of   entering  into  a 

Expressing the spirit of  the times, in 1969 Prime 

Minister Pierre Trudeau summarized the dismissive 

-

ment in respect of  the Nisga’a demands for recogni-



tion of  our Aboriginal rights:

rights because no society can be built on historical 

Frank  Calder  approached  Thomas  Berger 

-

Tribal  Council  commenced  an  action  in  the  Su-



preme Court of  British Columbia against the Attor-

ney-General of  British Columbia for a declaration 

“that  the  aboriginal  title,  otherwise  known  as  the 

Indian  title,  of   the  Plaintiffs  to  their  ancient  tribal 

legal declaration was the preferred approach of  the 

Nisga’a leadership because it would allow the court 

to state the legal conclusion that Nisga’a aboriginal 

title still existed without having to immediately ad-

-

ate a comprehensive settlement with Nisga’a Nation 



rather than face any subsequent legal proceedings to 

The parties to the case agreed that the territory 

subject to the action consisted of  1,000 square miles 

in  and  around  the  Nass  River  Valley,  Observatory 

Inlet, Portland Inlet, and the Portland Canal, all lo-

was dismissed at trial by the Supreme Court and the 

Court of  Appeal of  British Columbia rejected the 

In  his  book, 

Thomas  Berger  summarized  the  hurdles  in  bring-

frame the case so that the courts would take it seri-

and  judges  had  no  experience  in  adjudicating  such 

Calder case Don 

Rosenbloom recounted, this case was not even on the 

radar screen of many members of the legal profession 

who apparently were equally dismissive of even the 



Changes to Aboriginal Law

On January 31, 1973, the Supreme Court of  Canada 

released  the  reasons  for  judgment  for  Calder.  Six  of  

the seven judges who heard the case ruled that Ab-

original  title  existed  as  a  matter  of   law  in  Canada, 

regardless of  any grant or act of  recognition by the 

that any existing title of  the Nisga’a Nation had been 

extinguished by the laws pertaining to land enacted 

evince a clear and plain intent to extinguish Aborig-

basis of  a technicality that the action was not properly 

However, despite the technical result, Calder has 

served ever since as a catalyst for important changes 

the reasoning behind the decision introduced a plu-

ralistic perspective into Canadian law, opening the 

door  to  concepts  of   legal  ownership  from  sources 

In his reasons for decision of  the Court of  Ap-

peal,  Chief   Justice  Davey  had  commented  that  the 

Nisga’a people “were undoubtedly at the time of  set-

tlement a very primitive people with few of  the in-

stitutions of  civilized society, and none at all of  our 

false and outdated notions, Justice Hall commented 

The assessment and interpretation of  the historical 

documents and enactments tendered in evidence 

must be approached in the light of  present-day re-

search and knowledge disregarding ancient concepts 

formulated when understanding of  the customs and 

culture of  our original people was rudimentary and 




Northern Public Affairs, September 2013

incomplete and when they were thought to be whol-

As Michael Asch observed in the 30

th

 anniver-



sary of  the Calder decision, 

 Calder 

wrote at page 191:

Rarely in the history of  a country is a court judg-

ment so momentous that it causes society to reex-

counted the 1973 judgment of  the Supreme Court 

-

to the way in which Canada constructs Aboriginal 



rights and, in so doing, propelled this issue from the 

The language of  Calder

-

Some 


of  the origins in Canadian law for the recognition of  

inherent rights can be found in the language of  Jud-

Although I think that it is clear that Indian title 

in British Columbia cannot owe its origin to the 

Proclamation of  1763, the fact is that when the 

settlers came, the Indians were there, or-

ganized in societies and occupying the land 

as their forefathers had done for centuries. 

This is what Indian title means and it does 

not help one in the solution of  this problem to call 

asserting in this action is that they had a right to 

continue to live on their lands as their forefathers 

had lived and that this right has never been lawfully 

This language has been mirrored in the leading 

 [1996] 2 SCR 507 at paragraphs 30 — 33:

In my view, the doctrine of  aboriginal rights exists, 

of   one  simple  fact:  when  Europeans  arrived 

in  North  America,  aboriginal  peoples  were 

already  here,  living  in  communities  on  the 

land,  and  participating  in  distinctive  cul-

tures, as they had done for centuries.  It is this 

fact, and this fact above all others, which separates 

aboriginal peoples from all other minority groups in 

Canadian society and which mandates their special 



is also supported by 

the prior jurisprudence of  this Court.  … in 

the judgments of  both Judson J. and Hall J. 

(each  speaking  for  himself   and  two  others) 

the  existence  of   aboriginal  title  was  recog-

nized . . .  

The  position  of   Judson  and  Hall  JJ.  on  the 

basis for aboriginal title is applicable to the 

s. 35(1).  Aboriginal title is the aspect of aboriginal 

aboriginal land rights.  As such, 



the explanation 

of  the basis of  aboriginal title in Caldersu-

pra

, can be applied equally to the aboriginal 

Both  aboriginal  title  and  aboriginal  rights 

arise  from  the  existence  of   distinctive  ab-

original communities occupying “the land as 

their  forefathers  had  done  for  centuries”… 

Thus  Calder  introduced  a  perspective  that  has 

informed the current doctrine concerning the con-

Calder  has  also  contributed  to  developments  in 

policy and jurisprudence internationally, particular-



Treaty of  Waitangi Act 

Waitangi Tribunal and gave the Treaty of  Waitangi 

The  Tribunal  was  empowered  to  investigate  pos-

sible  breaches  of   the  Treaty  by  the  New  Zealand 

government or any state-controlled body, occurring 

the Motunui — Waitara report, Waitangi Tribunal 



Calder was cited:

Nonetheless the approach of  the New Zealand 

Courts, and of  successive Governments, does not 

compare favourably with that taken by other Courts 

and Governments in their consideration of  Indig-

treaties with the original Indian populations have 

been recognized by the Courts, and in areas not 

covered by treaties, common law rights are regarded 

as vesting in native peoples by virtue of  their prior 

occupation (refer for example, Calder v Attorney-Gener-



al of  British Columbia 

Uncertainty

One of  the key outcomes of  the Calder decision is the 

political and economic uncertainty which manifest-



Uncertainty could be seen at the personal lev-

el expressed in the comments of  leading politicians 

were  the  remarks  of   then  Prime  Minister  Pierre 

-

haps you have more legal rights than we thought you 



3

 

There  was  also  uncertainty  amongst  ranking 



th

 anniversary of  the Calder deci-

sion hosted by the University of  Victoria in 2003, re-

tired Justice Gérard La Forest of  the Supreme Court 

of  Canada commented on the surprise he personally 

experienced when Calder

been Assistant Deputy Attorney General of  Canada 

and explained that even the leading policy advisors 

of  the day were caught completely off  guard by this 

Uncertainty  as  to  existence  of   Aboriginal  title 

became a new variable in British Columbia’s polit-

Nisga’a  Tribal  Council  decided  that  it  would  pro-

claim the result in Calder to be a victory for the Nis-

-

lowing  the  decision,  the  leadership  stated  that  the 



Calder decision had put the issue of  legal uncertainty 

Nelson  Leeson,  who  later  served  as  President  of  

Nisga’a Nation, had been brought in to assist with 

received strict instructions that whenever a camera 

was  pointed  anywhere  in  his  direction,  he  was  to 

ensure that he captured airtime and promoted the 

-

tainty  acquired  a  political  life  of   its  own  creating 



As  one  example  of   the  far-reaching  effects  of  

this uncertainty, the results of  a 1990 Price Water-

house study on the economic impacts of  uncertainty 

reached the following conclusions:

•  Uncertainty  was  associated  with  a  $1  billion  im-

•  Lost  capital  expenditures  in  the  mining  industry 

were estimated to be $50 million per year, and a fur-

ther $75 million per year of  expenditures were de-

To  this  day,  one  can  see  the  lasting  effects  of  

**REGISTRATION NOW OPEN**

 

CREATING CANADA: From the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to Modern Treaties



October 7, 2013

Auditorium, Canadian Museum of Civilization

 

Early Registration (before Sept 13) $125 + HST



After Sept 13, $249 + HST

 

Explore the importance of the Royal Proclamation for understanding of Canadian history, land 



claims and self-government agreements, and the treaty making process — both historic and 

modern. Featuring prominent academics, Aboriginal leaders and legal experts, this symposium 

will give you the background and context you need to work successfully with treaty organiza-

tions across Canada.

 

Hosted by the Land Claims Agreements Coalition.



More details and registration links at www.landclaimscoalition.ca.


20 Northern Public Affairs, September 2013

Northern Development website includes:

The federal government is negotiating treaties in 

British Columbia (BC) in order to resolve questions 

of  uncertainty with respect to land ownership and 

usage, the management and regulation of  lands and 

 

Uncertainty about the existence and location of  



Aboriginal rights create uncertainty with respect 

to ownership, use and management of  land and 



Land Claims Policy

Soon after Calder, there was shift in addressing land 



In All Fair-

recounted the history:

[B]y early 1973 the whole question of  claims based 

on aboriginal title again became a central issue; the 

decision of  the Supreme Court of  Canada in the 

Calder Case, an action concerning the right of  as-

sertion of  Native title by the Nishga Indians of  Brit-

ish Columbia, established the pressing importance 

-

er, while dismissing the claim on a technicality, split 



evenly (three-three) on the matter raised: did the 

native or aboriginal title still apply or had it lapsed? 

At the same time, the Cree of  James Bay and the 

Inuit of  Arctic Quebec were trying to protect their 

position in the face of  the James Bay Hydro Electric 

It is from these actions that the current 

method of  dealing with Native claims 

emerged. 

Nisga’a Final Agreement

law, politics and international Indigenous rights, the 

main intent behind launching the case was to force 

Calder deci-

Canada came to the negotiation table with the 

to its position that since the Supreme Court split on 

whether Aboriginal title had been extinguished, the 

which case Aboriginal title had never existed in Brit-

When the language of  the Nisga’a Final Agree-



Calder was of  course highlighted in the Preamble to 

our treaty:



WHEREAS the Nisga’a Nation has sought a just 

and equitable settlement of  the land question since 

the arrival of  the British Crown, including the 

preparation of  the Nisga’a Petition to His Majesty’s 

Privy Council, dated 21 May, 1913, and the conduct 

of  the litigation that led to the decision of  the Su-

preme Court of  Canada in Calder v. the Attorney-Gen-

eral of  British Columbia

 in 1973, and this Agreement is 

intended to be the just and equitable settlement of  

Of  course Frank Calder was with the negotiat-

-

tion wound its way through the House of  Commons 



and Senate, many of  us distinctly recall the House 

of   Commons  debate  when  the  Reform  Party  of  

-

ing  motions  to  the  proposed  settlement legislation, 



late  evening,  on  the  parliamentary  channel  which 

was broadcasting the votes in the House, the camera 

just managed to capture in the distance, in the upper 

elderly gentlemen — Frank Calder and Rod Robin-

son — both of  whom were vigilantly monitoring the 

Campbell Decision

We celebrated the effective date of  our treaty, but a 

few days later the Nisga’a Nation was once again in 

of  the Liberal Party Gordon Campbell, future At-

torney General Geoff  Plant, and future Minster of  

Forestry (and eventually Aboriginal Affairs) Michael 

constitutional  validity  of   the  Nisga’a  Final  Agree-

issue with the Nisga’a Government provisions of  the 

In  their  statement  of   claim,  they  asserted  that 

the  treaty  violated  the  constitution  because  parts 




21

Northern Public Affairs, September 2013

of   it  set  out  Nisga’a  Government  legislative  juris-

diction inconsistent with the exhaustive division of  

powers  granted  to  Parliament  and  the  Legislative 

Assemblies of  the provinces by sections 91 and 92 

of  the 


the legislative powers set out in the treaty interfere 

that  non-Nisga’a  Canadian  citizens  who  reside  in 

or have other interests in the territory subject to the 

Nisga’a Government were denied democratic rights 

guaranteed  to  them  by  Section  3  of   the  Canadian 

Charter of  Rights and Freedoms

Ironically, in this instance it was the challengers 

to the treaty that faced a number of  interesting hur-

to disprove 

-

defend the Nisga’a Final Agreement from any such 



very  few  instances  in  Canadian  litigation  in  which 

the Crown in right of  Canada and a Province actu-

ally defended the constitutionally protected right to 

In this instance, Calder once again provided the 

framework of  reference for consideration of  Aborig-

paragraph 20, Justice Williamson wrote in his deci-

sion:

It is not disputed that long before the arrival of  Eu-



ropeans, the Nisga’a occupied substantial areas of  

territories, and systems in place for governing 

Justice Williamson ruled at paragraph 179:

For the reasons set out above, I have concluded 

that after the assertion of  sovereignty by the British 

Crown, and continuing to and after the time of  

Confederation, although the right of  aboriginal 

people to govern themselves was diminished, it was 

-

ernment could be extinguished after Confederation 



expressed that intention, or it could be replaced or 

such rights cannot be extinguished, but they may 

Court of  Appeal arrived at the following conclusion 

on the legal validity of  the Nisga’a Final Agreement: 

The Treaty has been carefully crafted to respect 

-

to be: an honourable attempt to resolve important 



but disputed claims, to achieve reconciliation, and to 

lay the foundation for a productive and harmonious 

future relationship between the Nisga’a Nation and 

5

 



Conclusion

th

 anniversary of  the Calder 



decision, we continue to celebrate the many accom-

plishments of  Frank Calder, the legacy of  that gen-

eration  of   great  leaders,  and  the  many  important 

outcomes that have resulted from the Calder

These outcomes include a sea change in Canadian 

jurisprudence  which  now  includes  recognition  of  

self-government; a shift in the political landscape of  

Canada  that  recognizes  the  uncertainty  that  con-

tinues  to  challenge  Canadian  political,  social,  and 

economic institutions in the absence of  reconcilia-

tion; and a major shift in policy to address the issue 

the Nisga’a Nation has begun to reap major bene-

There has also been a resurgence in our pride and 

-

cissitudes of  the Indian Act



what we may be able to celebrate at our 50

th 


anni-

 

Edward  Allen  is  Director  of   Communications  &  Intergov-



ernmental Relations for the Nisga’a Lisims Government. He 

Footnotes

Calder and the Representation of  Indigenous 

Let Right Be Done: Aboriginal 

ed Hamar Foster, 

Heather Raven and Jeremy Webber

3  Kevin Roberts 



-

eng/1100100016299/1100100016300





 2013 

Yüklə 1,28 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə