News

For Immediate Release
10:00 a.m. EST

The highest court in the land needs to follow its own Delgamuukw ruling from seven years ago and lay down the law on consultation and accommodation of aboriginal rights said a Gitxsan leader today.

The comments came at the start of a two-day hearing in front of the Supreme Court of Canada where BC and a forest company, supported by four other provinces and the federal government, are seeking to severely limit the nature of consultation and accommodation that must occur when aboriginal rights are violated.

“All we are asking is that the law as was set out by the Supreme Court be followed and we are consulted before activities occur on our traditional territories,” said Gitxsan Treaty Office executive director Gordon Sebastian. “Just a little consultation and perhaps accommodation before things like timber harvesting occurs. Instead we get the full force of five provinces and Canada coming after us – a tiny First Nations in northwest B.C. It puts a whole new meaning to March madness.”

BC’s Ministry of Forests and forest giant Weyerhauser are appealing a lower court ruling stating they neglected to consult and accommodate the Haida First Nation – a neighbour to the Gitxsan -- before transfer of a forest harvesting license on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwaii). BC, Weyerhauser, with Canada and the attorney generals of four other provinces intervening on their behalf, maintain they do not have to follow the SCC’s 1997 Delgamuukw ruling on consultation and accommodation unless the aboriginal rights in question have already been defined in previous litigation.

“What they are asking for would make the whole Delgamuukw decision in 1997 meaningless,” said Sebastian. “It is absolutely ludicrous. The Supreme Court judges knew back then that our people deserve more than this. We have title to the land. Governments and companies need to come and talk to us if they are going to obey the law. Our people are not second-class citizens.”

The Gitxsan are intervening on behalf of the Haida. The crux of their argument is not just that the original ruling on consultation and accommodation must be upheld, but that the Crown has to undertake these activities with the recognized decision-making authority within the First Nation. In the case of the Gitxsan, this is with the Wilp, or House group. Each of the more than 50 Wilps have a distinct land base within the traditional territory.

“The Wilp must be consulted at the planning and operational level on any activities that occur on the traditional territories,” said Gitxsan treaty negotiator Gwaans (Beverley Clifton-Percival), “That’s the way it’s been in our system for the last 10,000 years.”

-30-