Editor:
Aren't Bertha Williams and Susan Jones insulting the Tsawwassens by telling us that small payouts ("financial inducements") to elders bought approval of the Tsawwassen treaty? Or don't Williams and Jones know that aboriginal title has never been proven in court?
In short, Williams and Jones can tell us the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Supreme Court of Canada have recognized that aboriginal title exists, that aboriginals have hunted, fished and gathered, that they have made use of the land communally, but, to date, no band has proven aboriginal title.
At risk of simplifying, let me offer what law profs and lawyers have told me: If the courts were to recognize an aboriginal title claim, they would be recognizing title to a very small piece, or very small pieces, of land used exclusively and permanently; the courts won't recognize aboriginal title claims to vast tracts of land.
Williams and Jones could argue the courts have not finished defining aboriginal title; however, they could also argue the Supreme Court of Canada has made it plain through its decisions that it prefers aboriginal groups reach negotiated settlements, which the TFN has done.
So shouldn't Williams and Jones give Kim Baird and the Tsawwassens credit for playing the cards they were dealt?
(FYI: The Native Journal, www.nativejournal.ca, has been running features on aboriginal law decisions for two or three years.)
Greg J. Edwards
