Nisga’a treaty contentious

Your Sept. 14 editorial about aboriginal land claims being conducted “behind closed doors” raises questions about the Nisga’a treaty. The treaty, also conducted without public input, has now become a contentious public and political issue.

To garner support for the treaty, the government of British Columbia has circulated a brochure that makes various statements to support its contention that the agreement will have no adverse impact on the people of the province.

However, it is stated that, along with other land and resources, the Nisga’a will be given mineral rights. This, I think, is a most contentious issue in view of the fact that there are 49 other land claims being negotiated — also behind closed doors — which presumably will be based on the Nisga’a agreement.

Those opposing the agreement can make the point that, although aboriginals base their claims to a considerable extent on their traditional use of the land and resources, they never did have a tradition of mining or the knowledge of the extraction and use of metallic minerals. Even their canoes were carved out with mussel-shell adzes.

In the same issue, there is a story about Cumberland Resources exploring a project in the Nunavut region, where it is stated that pre-existing mineral rights were “grandfathered.” This brings up a good point.

I believe it would be better for all concerned, including the majority of people of aboriginal descent, if all land claims were quashed. However, the process has perhaps gone too far to be reversed. But it would be only fair and reasonable to exclude mineral tenure — particularly pre-existing mineral tenure — from any future, racially based allocations of land and resources.

Walter Guppy

Tofino, B.C.