1September 1993 2 3 4 Native Land Claims in British Columbia 5 Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Allan McEachern 6 Supreme Court of British Columbia 7 March 8, 1991 8 9 ================================ 10 11 No. 0843 12 Smithers Registry 13 14 15 16 In the Supreme Court of British Columbia 17 18 19 20 21 Between: 22 23 DELGAMUUKW, also known as KEN MULDOE, suing on 24 his own behalf and on behalf of all the 25 members of the HOUSE OF DELGAMUUKW, and others 26 27 Plaintiffs 28 29 30 And: 31 32 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE 33 OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 34 OF CANADA 35 36 Defendants 37 38 39 Reasons for Judgment of The Honorable Chief Justice Allan 40 McEachern. 41 42 Dates of Trial: 374 Days between May 11, 1987 and June 30, 1990 43 44 Counsel: 45 46 Stuart Rush, Peter Grant, Louise Mandell, Michael Jackson, Murray 47 Adams, Stanley Gunther, Leslie Pinder, Michael Fleming and David 48 Paterson for Plaintiffs 49 50 D.M.M. Goldie, Q.C., C.F. Willms, P.G. Plant, N.J. Prelypchan, 51 J.M. Mackenzie, T. A. Sigurdson, L.A. Fenlon, and D.J. O'Byrne 52 for the Attorney General of British Columbia 53 54 J.A. Macaulay, Q.C., M. Marvyn Koenigsberg, Loryl D. Russell, 55 Murray T. Wolf and Michael W. Frey for the Attorney General of 56 Canada 57 58 Date: Friday, March 8, 1991 59 60 61 <+SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS+> 62 ================================================================= 63 64 65 1. The last Great Ice Age, which lasted many thousands of 66 years, covered nearly all of British Columbia. It ended about 67 10,000 years ago. 68 69 2. The origins of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en and other 70 aboriginal peoples of the north-west part of the province are 71 unknown. It is generally believed they migrated here from Asia. 72 73 3. There is archaeological evidence of human habitation in 74 the territory as long as 3,000 to 6,000 years ago. This is 75 limited to village sites both at the coast at Prince Rupert 76 harbour and at a few locations alongside the Skeena and Bulkley 77 Rivers. The evidence does not establish who those early 78 inhabitants (or visitors) were. 79 80 4. The plaintiffs are 35 Gitksan and 13 Wet'suwet'en 81 hereditary chiefs who have brought this action alleging that from 82 time immemorial they and their ancestors have occupied and 83 possessed approximately 22,000 square miles in north-west British 84 Columbia ("the territory"), and that they or the Indian people 85 they represent are entitled, as against the province of British 86 Columbia, to a legal judgment declaring: 87 88 (a) that they own the territory; 89 90 (b) that they are entitled to govern 91 the territory by aboriginal laws 92 which are paramount to the laws of 93 British Columbia; 94 95 (c) alternatively, that they have 96 unspecified aboriginal rights to 97 use the territory; 98 99 (d) damages for the loss of all lands 100 and resources transferred to third 101 parties or for resources removed 102 from the territory since the 103 establishment of the colony; and 104 105 (e) costs. 106 107 5. No relief is claimed by the plaintiffs in this action 108 against Canada which was joined as a defendant for procedural 109 reasons. The action against Canada is dismissed. In this 110 Summary, "Crown" refers to the Crown in right of the Colony or 111 Province of British Columbia except where the context indicates 112 otherwise. 113 114 6. The plaintiffs allege the territory is divided into 133 115 separate territories (98 Gitksan, and 35 Wet'suwet'en), and each 116 of these separate territories is claimed by an hereditary chief 117 for his House or its members. Some chiefs claim several 118 territories, and some chiefs claim territories for other chiefs 119 who are not plaintiffs. 120 121 7. Map 1 on p. 6 of the judgment is a generalized map of 122 the province showing the general location of the territory. Map 2 at 123 p. 7 is a reduction of a detailed map of the territory. It shows 124 the approximate external boundary of the territory. The 125 individual territories claimed by the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en 126 chiefs are shown on maps 3 and 4, at pp. 8 and 9. [Maps are 127 unavailable] 128 129 8. Aboriginal interests arise (a) by occupation and use of 130 specific lands for aboriginal purposes by a communal people in an 131 organized society for an indefinite, long period prior to British 132 sovereignty; or (b) under the <+Royal Proclamation, 1763+>. 133 134 9. Aboriginal rights under (a) above arise by operation of 135 law and do not depend upon statute, proclamation or sovereign 136 recognition. Such rights existing at the date of sovereignty 137 exist and continue at the Crown's "pleasure." Unless surrendered 138 or extinguished, aboriginal rights constitute a burden upon the 139 Crown's title to the soil. 140 141 10. <+The Royal Proclamation, 1763+> has never applied to 142 or had any force in the Colony or Province of British Columbia or 143 to the Indians living there. 144 145 11. Linguistics, genealogy, history, and other evidence 146 establish that some of the ancestors of some of the plaintiffs or 147 the peoples they represent have been present in the territory for 148 an indefinite, long time before British sovereignty. 149 150 12. These early ancestors lived mainly in or near several 151 villages such as Gitanka'at, Gitwangak, Kitsegucla, Kispiox, 152 Ksun, Old Kuldo, New Kuldo, Gitangasx and possibly at Gitenmaax 153 (Hazelton) which are all on the Skeena River; at Kisgegas on the 154 Babine River; and at Hagwilget and Moricetown on the Bulkley 155 River. Each of these villages, six of which are now abandoned, 156 were strategically located at canyons or river junctions where 157 salmon, the mainstay of their diet, could most easily be taken. 158 Furthur, these early ancestors also used some other parts of the 159 territory surrounding and between their villages and rivers, and 160 furthur away as circumstances required, for hunting and gathering 161 the products of the lands and waters of the territory for 162 subsistence and ceremonial purposes. 163 164 13. [Paragraphs misnumbered in the original. No paragraph 165 13.] 166 167 14. Prior to the commencement of the fur trade these early 168 aboriginals took some animals by snares, dead falls and other 169 means, but there was no reason for them to travel far from their 170 villages or rivers for this purpose, or to take more animals than 171 were needed for their aboriginal subsistence. 172 173 15. There may have been sparse incursions of European trade 174 goods into the territory overland from the east or south, or from 175 unknown seaborne sources (perhaps from Asia) before the arrival 176 of Capt. Cook at Nootka on Vancouver Island in 1778. That date, 177 however, or more particularly the start of the sea otter hunt on 178 the north Pacific coast which started within the following 5 179 years, was the likely start of European influences in north-west 180 North America. 181 182 16. The fur trade in the territory began not earlier than 183 the establishment of the first Hudson's Bay posts west of the Rockies 184 (but east of the territory), by Simon Fraser in 1805-1806, and 185 more probably a few years after that. 186 187 17. Trapping for the commercial fur trade was not an 188 aboriginal practice. Apart from commercial trapping, there were 189 no significant changes in aboriginal practices between first 190 contact with European influences within a few years on either 191 side of 1800 and the assertion of British sovereignty. The use 192 of modern implements such as mechanical traps and guns since the 193 time of contact does not change the nature of an aboriginal 194 right. 195 196 18. The law of nations and the common law recognize the 197 sovereignty of European nations which established settlements in 198 North America. 199 200 19. Great Britain asserted sovereignty in the territory not 201 earlier than 1803, and not later than the <+Oregon Boundary 202 Treaty, 1846+>, or the actual establishment of the Crown Colony 203 of British Columbia in 1858. For the purposes of this case it 204 does not matter precisely when sovereignty was first asserted. 205 206 20. The title to the soil of the province became vested in 207 the Imperial Crown (Great Britain) by operation of law at the 208 time of sovereignty. The plaintiffs recognize this title, but 209 argue that their claims constitute an interest which is a burden 210 upon the title of the Crown. 211 212 21. The purpose of sovereignty and of creating the Colony 213 of British Columbia in 1858 was to settle the colony with British 214 settlers and to develop it for the benefit of the Crown and its 215 subjects. 216 217 22. The aboriginal interests of the post-contact ancestors 218 of the plaintiffs at the date of sovereignty were those exercised 219 by their own more remote ancestors for an uncertain long time. 220 Basically these were rights to live in their villages and to 221 occupy adjacent lands for the purpose of gathering the products 222 of the lands and waters for subsistance and ceremonial purposes. 223 224 23. These aboriginal interests did not include ownership of 225 or jurisdiction over the territory. Those claims of the 226 plaintiffs are dismissed. 227 228 24. But for the question of extinguishment, the plaintiff's 229 aboriginal sustenance rights would have constituted a legally 230 enforceable, continuing burden upon the title of the Crown. 231 232 25. Upon the establishment of the colony, the Crown, both 233 locally and in London, enacted a number of laws providing: (a) 234 that all the lands of the colony belonged to the Crown (which 235 would be the Imperial Crown at that time); (b) that the laws of 236 England applied to the Colony; (c) giving the Governor and later 237 a Legislative Council authority to grant the lands of the colony 238 to settlers; and (d) authorizing the Crown through the Governor 239 to make laws and exercise legal jurisdiction over the colony 240 including the territory. 241 242 26. The policy of the Colony of British Columbia was (a) to 243 allot lands to the Indians for their exclusive use, called 244 reserves, comprising their village sites, cultivated fields and 245 immediately adjacent hunting grounds; (b) to encourage settlement 246 by making and available for agriculture and other purposes; and 247 (c) to permit Indians, along with all other citizens to use the 248 vacant Crown lands of the colony. 249 250 27. Part (a) of this policy did not usually work a well as 251 intended. Reserves were mainly allotted in the territory in the 252 1890's and they were "adjusted" by a Royal Commission in 253 1912-1914. Although reserves in the territory included most 254 occupied villages, they were very small because it was thought 255 secure access to strategic fishing sites was more important than 256 acreage. The evidence does not fully explain why the Indians of 257 the territory did not receive strategic sites <+and+> acreage 258 except that the Indians often failed or declined to participate 259 in the allotment process. 260 261 28. It is the law that aboriginal rights exits at the 262 "pleasure of the Crown," and they may be extinguished whenever 263 the intention of the Crown to do so is clear and plain. 264 265 29. The pre-Confederation colonial enactments construed in 266 their historic setting exhibit a clear and plain intention to 267 extinguish aboriginal interests in order to give an unburdened 268 title to settlers, and the Crown did extinguish such rights to 269 all the lands of the colony. The plaintiffs' claims for 270 aboriginal rights are accordingly dismissed. 271 272 30. At the same time, the Crown promised the Indians of the 273 colony, which applies also to the territory, that they (along 274 with all other residents), but subject to the general law, could 275 continue to use the unoccupied or vacant Crown land of the colony 276 for purposes equivalent to aboriginal rights until such lands 277 were required for an adverse purpose. Further, this promise 278 extends to any alienated lands which are returned to the status 279 of vacant Crown lands. Thus, lands leased or licensed for 280 logging, for example, become usable again by Indians and others 281 when such operations are completed. 282 283 31. The unilateral extinguishment of aboriginal interests 284 accompanied by the Crown's promise and the general obligation of 285 the Crown to care for its aboriginal peoples created a legally 286 enforceable fiduciary, or trust-like duty or obligation upon the 287 Crown to ensure there will be no arbitrary interference with 288 aboriginal sustenance practices in the territory. 289 290 32. When the colony joined the Canadian Confederation in 291 1871 the charge of Indians and Indian lands was assumed by the 292 Dominion (Canada); all colonial lands, subject to existing 293 "interests," accrued to the province; and the province agreed to 294 furnish whatever land was required for reserves. In 1924 Canada 295 acknowledged that British Columbia had satisfied its obligations 296 with respect to furnishing lands for Indian reserves. 297 298 33. The promise made and obligation assumed by the Crown 299 in colonial times, while not an "Interest" to which Crown lands 300 are subject, can only be discharged by the province and continues 301 to the present time as a duty owed by the Crown subject to the 302 terms mentioned above. 303 304 34. Since Confederation the province has had: (a) title to 305 the soil of the province; (b) the right to dispose of Crown lands 306 unburdened by aboriginal title; and (c) the right, within its 307 jurisdiction under s. 92 of the Constitution, to govern the 308 province. All titles, leases, licenses, permits and other 309 dispositions emanating from the Imperial Crown during the 310 colonial period or from the Crown in right of the province since 311 Confederation are valid in so far as aboriginal interests are 312 concerned. The province has a continuing fiduciary duty to permit 313 Indians to use vacant Crown land for aboriginal purposes. The 314 honour of the Crown imposes an obligation of fair dealing in this 315 respect upon the province which is enforceable by law. 316 317 35. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the Gitksan and 318 Wet'suwet'en people are accordingly entitled to a Declaration 319 confirming their legal rights to use vacant Crown land for 320 aboriginal purposes subject to the general law of the province. 321 322 36. The orderly development of the territory including the 323 settlement and development of non-reserve lands and the 324 harvesting of resources does not ordinarily offend against the 325 honour of the Crown. This is because the province has many other 326 duties and obligations additional to those owed to Indians and 327 because (a) the territory is so vast; (b) game and other 328 resources are reasonably plentiful; and (c) most Indians in the 329 territory are only marginally dependent upon sustenance 330 activities. 331 332 37. The right of Indians to use unoccupied, vacant Crown 333 land is an not an exclusive right and it is subject to the 334 general law of the province. The Crown has always allowed 335 non-Indians also to use vacant Crown lands. 336 337 38. For the reasons stated in the Reasons for Judgement, it 338 is not advisable to specify the precise rules that would govern 339 the relationship between the Indians and the Crown. Instead, 340 that question should be left to the law relating to fiduciary 341 duties which provides ample legal remedies. 342 343 39. Part 15 of this judgment describes the circumstances 344 which the province and the Indians should take into consideration 345 in deciding whether any proposed Crown action may constitute a 346 breach of its fiduciary duty to Indians. Generally speaking, the 347 operative word is "reconciliation" rather than "rights" or 348 "justification." 349 350 40. As the Crown has all along had the right to settle and 351 develop the territory and to grant titles and tenures in the 352 territory unburdened by aboriginal interests, the plaintiffs' 353 claim for damages is dismissed. 354 355 41. If I have erred on the question of extinguishment, and 356 the plaintiffs aboriginal interests or any of them are not 357 extinguished, the evidence does not establish the validity of 358 individual territories claimed by Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en 359 Chiefs. Instead, therefore, the claim for aboriginal rights in 360 such circumstances would be allowed not for chiefs or Houses or 361 members of Houses, but rather for the communal benefit of all the 362 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en peoples except the Gitksan peoples of 363 the Kitwancool Chiefs who did not join in this action. 364 365 42. These aboriginal rights, if any, would attach not to 366 the whole territory but only to the parts that where used by the 367 plaintiffs' ancestors at the time of sovereignty. The parts so 368 used by each of the plaintiff peoples are defined in Part 16, and 369 they are shown on Map 5 at p. 281. [Map unavailable] 370 371 43. The Counter Claim of the province, which was brought 372 for procedural reasons, is dismissed. 373 374 44. Because of the importance of the matter, the divided 375 success the parties have achieved, and other reasons mentioned in 376 the judgment, no order is made for costs. 377 378 45. The specific judgment of the Court is detailed in Part 379 21. 380 381 46. In Part 22 I have made some comments about Indian 382 matters. 383 384 385 386 <+PART 21+> 387 388 <+THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE+> 389 ================================================================ 390 391 392 The foregoing answers the legal issues arising for decision 393 in this case. It remains only to state my conclusions in more 394 precise form and to add some comments. Nothing I have said 395 applies in any way to any lands set aside as Indian reserves. 396 397 (1) The action against Canada is dismissed. 398 399 (2) The plaintiffs' claims for ownership of and 400 jurisdiction over the territory, and for aboriginal rights in the 401 territory are dismissed. 402 403 (3) The plaintiffs, on behalf of the Gitksan and 404 Wet'suwet'en people described in the Statement of Claim (except 405 for the Gitksan people of the Houses of the Kitwankool chiefs), 406 are entitled to a Declaration that, subject to the general law of 407 the province, they have a continuing legal right to use 408 unoccupied or vacant Crown land in the territory for aboriginal 409 sustenance purposes as described in Part 15 of these Reasons for 410 Judgment. 411 412 (4) The plaintiffs' claims for damages are dismissed. 413 414 (5) The Counterclaim of the province is dismissed. 415 416 (6) In view of all the circumstances of this case, 417 including the importance of the issues, the variable resources of 418 the parties, the financial arrangements which have been made for 419 the conduct of this case (from which I have been largely 420 insulated), and the divided success each party has achieved, 421 there will not be any order for costs. 422 =====================