Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Title to Indian reserves in British Columbia : a critical analysis of order in council 1036 Smith, Donald Myles 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A6_4 S54.pdf [ 7.82MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077705.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077705-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077705-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077705-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077705-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077705-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077705-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077705-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077705.ris

Full Text

TITLE TO INDIAN RESERVES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ORDER IN COUNCIL 1036 by DONALD MYLES SMITH B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f Guelph, 1977 LL.B., The U n i v e r s i t y o f Windsor, 1981 A MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE FACULTY OF LAW  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1988 O  Donald Myles Smith, 1988  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and  scholarly  or  her  for  of  Law  The University of British C o l u m b i a 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T Date  DE-6(3/81)  1Y3  September 9, 1988  I  I further  purposes  gain  the  shall  requirements  agree  that  agree  may  representatives.  financial  permission.  Department  study.  of  be  It not  that  the  Library  by  understood be  an  advanced  shall  permission for  granted  is  for  allowed  the  make  extensive  head  that  without  it  of  copying my  my or  written  ABSTRACT  Indian  reserves  When B r i t i s h  i n British  Columbia  joined  Columbia  have  a unique  history.  C o n f e d e r a t i o n , t h e Terms  o f Union  r e q u i r e d t h e p r o v i n c e t o convey r e s e r v e lands t o Canada i n t r u s t , for  t h e use and b e n e f i t  o f the I n d i a n s .  That  constitutional  o b l i g a t i o n , imposed by t h e Terms o f Union, was not f u l f i l l e d many y e a r s a f t e r t h e date o f union.  I t was not u n t i l  "form o f tenure and mode o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " the  1929 t h a t a  f o r a l l reserves i n  p r o v i n c e was agreed upon by t h e two governments.  later, which  the p r o v i n c i a l conveyed  Canada. been  most  reserves  passed  outside  Order  inside  had  been  transferred  the  same  terms  t o Canada i n 1884),  reserves,  which  found  had been  i n C o u n c i l 1036, Belt to  t h e r e s e r v e s which had  t h e Railway B e l t ,  and c o n d i t i o n s  Nine y e a r s  t h e o l d Railway  Pursuant t o the 1929 agreement,  established  Other  government  until  (a s t r i p  of land  that  were t o be governed by  i n Order  established  i n C o u n c i l 1036.  pursuant  to treaty  Number 8, were not f o r m a l l y t r a n s f e r r e d u n t i l 1961.  The purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s i s t o examine t h e h i s t o r y l e a d i n g up to  the transfer  critically Council  of reserve  lands i n B r i t i s h  analyze the t i t l e  1036.  which  passed  Columbia,  pursuant  The examination o f Order i n C o u n c i l  an a n a l y s i s o f t h e p r o p r i e t a r y and m i n e r a l r i g h t s .  rights  transferred,  and t o  t o Order i n 1036 i n c l u d e s such as water  The t r a n s f e r instrument i s a n a l y s e d i n d e t a i l  i n o r d e r t o determine what r i g h t s and i n t e r e s t s were passed t o the ii  Dominion  and  reserves  in  what the  was  reserved  old  c o n d i t i o n s , pursuant  Railway  to  Belt  the  province.  share  the  to P r i v y C o u n c i l Order 208,  i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study. Eight reserves w i l l  The  not be  establishment  and  d e a l t w i t h here.  s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the t r a n s f e r instruments,  Because  the  terms  and  same  they w i l l  a l s o be  t r a n s f e r of Treaty However, due  to  the  some of the comments and  a n a l y s i s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the o t h e r r e s e r v e s w i l l  be a p p l i c a b l e to  the T r e a t y E i g h t r e s e r v e s .  The to  C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e d the p r o v i n c e to convey r e s e r v e  the  Dominion.  appropriate levels of  to  o f Her  Crown  The  describe Majesty's  title  and  the  term a  "conveyance"  transfer  of  governments. transfer  of  property  property  the  reserves,  Terms  the  of  Union  strictly between  certain  aspects  interests  between  I t i s submitted  r e q u i r e d the  t r a n s a c t i o n must be  not rights  Therefore,  l e v e l s o f governemnt are examined h e r e i n . because  is  lands  "conveyance"  analyzed  from a  that,  of  Indian  constitutional  law p e r s p e c t i v e .  by  One  o f the  f e a t u r e s o f Order i n C o u n c i l 1036  the  province  of  a right  to resume up  i s a reservation  t o one-twentieth  of  any  reserve lands.  That i s a term o f the conveyance t h a t continues to  concern  bands i n B r i t i s h  this to not  Indian  c o n d i t i o n of the  the requirements be  construed  Columbia.  transfer i s invalid  of the Terms of Union. as  a  grant  of  real  I t i s submitted  that  because i t i s c o n t r a r y The  estate,  conveyance should but  rather  as  a  t r a n s f e r o f p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t s pursuant  to l e g i s l a t i o n .  Order  i n C o u n c i l 1036,  (and the F e d e r a l c o u n t e r p a r t , P r i v y C o u n c i l Order  208),  viewed  should  submitted  be  that  this  as  delegated  delegated  legislation.  legislation  i s ultra  It i s further vires  to  the  e x t e n t t h a t i t p u r p o r t s t o g i v e the p r o v i n c i a l government a power of resumption  over Indian r e s e r v e l a n d s .  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  i  INTRODUCTION .  1  CHAPTER I : HISTORICAL BACKROUND  5  Pre-Confederation - C o l o n i a l Indian P o l i c y C o n f e d e r a t i o n - Terms o f Union, 1871 I n d i a n Reserve Commission 1875-1910 The McKenna-McBride Agreement and Royal Commission 1913-1916 The I n d i a n A f f a i r s Settlement A c t s and the D i t c h b u r n - C l a r k Agreement S c o t t - C a t h c a r t Agreement The Settlement o f the Form o f Conveyance - 0/C 1036 The P r o v i n c i a l Claim t o a "Reversionary I n t e r e s t " CHAPTER I I : NATURE OF TITLE TO CROWN LANDS Background - " I n t e r e s t s " i n Land Crown's P r o p r i e t a r y I n t e r e s t i n Land Crown Lands and P u b l i c Lands Crown Lands i n Canada D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r o p e r t y - C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1867 Crown Lands i n B r i t i s h Columbia - Terms o f Union CHAPTER I I I : TRANSFER OF CROWN LANDS FROM PROVINCE TO DOMINION T r a n s f e r o f Crown Lands G e n e r a l l y T r a n s f e r from P r o v i n c e t o Dominion T r a n s f e r o f Crown Land Pursuant t o Terms o f Union The Railway B e l t T r a n s f e r - P r e c i o u s Metals Waters i n the Railway B e l t CHAPTER IV: THE FORM OF CONVEYANCE ORDER IN COUNCIL 1036 The Conveyance "In T r u s t " The P r o v i n c i a l I n t e r e s t by Way o f t h e P r o v i s i o n s i n 0/C 1036 The E x c e p t i o n o f S t r e e t s and Roads Use o f Sand and G r a v e l on Reserves Water R i g h t s Waters i n the Railway B e l t v  5 10 12 21 22 23 29 33 42 . 43 45 46 48 49 53  58 58 59 61 62 64  67 68 72 73 76 79 90  CHAPTER IV: THE FORM OF CONVEYANCE ORDER IN COUNCIL 1036 (Cont'd) The Right t o Resume Land What i s Resumption? L i m i t s on the Resumption Power C a l c u l a t i o n o f Resumable P o r t i o n P r o c e d u r a l Requirements f o r Resumption Compensation f o r Lands Resumed Implied Compensation Past P o l i c y Regarding Compensation Mineral Rights The I n d i a n Reserves M i n e r a l Resources A c t CHAPTER V: CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WITH THE TRANSFER  91 94 ..101 105 I l l 115 .....120 124 127 130 133  A r t i c l e 13 o f the Terms o f Union 137 C o n f l i c t w i t h S e c t i o n 91(24), C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867 ...142 The Railway B e l t Reserves 150 N a t i v e R i g h t s and the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1982 152 Conclusions 155 BIBLIOGRAPHY  159  APPENDIX A  .165  APPENDIX B  168  vi  1 INTRODUCTION  Indian  reserves  interesting not  history.  in  British  for  a  ceded  small  their  area.  have  reserves  i n the  Most o f the  e s t a b l i s h e d pursuant  inhabitants  Columbia  to  treaties,  right  The  to  a  absence  by  larger  of  treaties  by  bands  traditional generated been  lands.  While  were  the  original  i n exchange  i n much of  British  c l a i m s put  forward  unsurrendered  the  province  interest  aboriginal  land  in  their  claims  have  much i n t e r e s t and s c h o l a r l y works, r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e  written  Columbia.  about The  establishment analyze  their  and  territory  i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the c u r r e n t l e g a l concerning  unique  which  Columbia most  a  of  the  e s t a b l i s h e d reserve  purpose Indian  of  this  reserves  in  work  lands  is  British  the conveyance of r e s e r v e lands  to  in  British  examine  Columbia,  has  the  and  to  from the p r o v i n c e t o  the  Dominion, i n t r u s t f o r the use and b e n e f i t of the  Indians.  When B r i t i s h Columbia j o i n e d C o n f e d e r a t i o n i n 1871  i t agreed  to  convey lands t o the Dominion t o be used as I n d i a n r e s e r v e s i n the province.  This  consequently constitutional  agreement  became  part  obligation  was  noted  of  the  was  not  i n the  Canadian settled  Terms o f  Union  Consitution.  until  1938,  1  when  and The B.C.  B r i t i s h Columbia "Terms o f Union", being a schedule t o an Order of Her Majesty i n C o u n c i l a d m i t t i n g B r i t i s h Columbia i n t o the union (16 May, 1871), R.S.C. 1970 Appendix I I , 279. H e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as the "Terms o f Union".  2 finally Many  transferred  other  Belt,  reserves  a strip  Railway,  most  which  o f the r e s e r v e s  were  of land  within  the Railway B e l t of  tenure  side  previously  pursuant t o t h e Terms o f Union.  i n Council.  2  t h e boundaries o f t h e Railway  on e i t h e r  had been  by Order  o f t h e Canadian  transferred  By an agreement  Pacific  t o t h e Dominion reached i n 1929,  r e s e r v e s were t o be s u b j e c t e d t o t h e same "form  and mode o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n "  3  as r e s e r v e s  o u t s i d e the  Belt.  It i s this the  subject  "form o f tenure and mode o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " t h a t i s of analysis  here.  The I n d i a n  reserves  that are  governed by t h e agreed form o f tenure expressed i n 0/C 1036 and Privy  C o u n c i l Order 208 comprise most o f t h e r e s e r v e s  Columbia. that  These  they p u r p o r t t o convey  and r e s e r v a t i o n s . close  Orders are r o u g h l y analagous t o t i t l e  Indeed,  lands s u b j e c t  to certain  i n British deeds, i n conditions  the agreed form o f conveyance  t o t h e s t a n d a r d Crown  grant  o f t h e day.  i s very  However, an  a n a l y s i s o f the t r a n s f e r can not be a c h i e v e d simply by r e f e r e n c e t o concepts o f p r o p e r t y o r conveyancing law. not, s t r i c t l y speaking, a conveyance a t a l l ,  The t r a n s a c t i o n was  but r a t h e r a t r a n s f e r  2  B r i t i s h Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l No. 1036, J u l y 29, 1938, see appendix. The Order i s sometimes h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as 0/C 1036.  3  The S c o t t - C a t h c a r t Agreement was embodied i n f e d e r a l P r i v y C o u n c i l Order No. 208, February 3, 1930, see appendix (sometimes h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as P.C. 208). I t c o n t a i n s the d r a f t form o f conveyance which u l t i m a t e l y became 0/C 1036. These documents w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the following chapters.  3 of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n right  of  and  British  Accordingly  the  Columbia  the  individual  of  the  title  forms  Crown  be  in  the  to  of  h i s t o r y leading  Crown  land  from the Crown i n  right  of  examined i n t h i s  to c o n s t i t u t i o n a l issues  a review of  nature  to  transaction w i l l  p a r t i c u l a r reference  Following  c o n t r o l over c e r t a i n lands  lands  tenure.  will The  Canada.  light,  with  involved.  up  be  t o the  transfer,  distinguished  transfer  of  from  Crown  lands  between l e v e l s of government w i l l be g e n e r a l l y reviewed b e f o r e p a r t i c u l a r t r a n s a c t i o n e f f e c t e d by 0/C The  a n a l y s i s of  the  the nature o f t i t l e rights,  in  Finally,  the  Indian  view  Constitution.  t o Indian r e s e r v e s of  will  the  tenure and be  Based on  of  the  to  and  P.C.  in  describe  208  the  mineral  0/C  administration  this analysis I w i l l  In p a r t i c u l a r , I w i l l province  mode of  s c r u t i n i z e d against  1036  attempt t o  contained  the  in detail.  i n c l u d i n g water and  reservations  of tenure", expressed i n 0/C flawed.  i s analyzed  t r a n s f e r instrument w i l l  form o f  reserves  1036  4  1036.  governing  d i c t a t e s of  argue t h a t the  the  "form  i s constitutionally  attempt t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the r i g h t  resume a p o r t i o n of  reserve  lands  for public  purposes i s i n v a l i d .  B e f o r e proceeding, a word of c a u t i o n i s i n o r d e r .  The  analysis  w i l l be r e l e v a n t t o those r e s e r v e s which were t r a n s f e r r e d pursuant to Order i n C o u n c i l  1036,  and  to those r e s e r v e s  T h i s aspect of the t r a n s f e r Chapters I I and I I I .  i s discussed  which are s i t u a t e  more  fully  in  4  within B.C.,  the were  o l d Railway  Belt.  e s t a b l i s h e d pursuant  under separate instrument, included  here  established transfer variety example,  because  and  because of  instrument. of  of  ways  in  to  i n 1961.  reserves,  treaty,  and  the  d i f f e r e n c e i n the a l s o be  the  noted  lands by  were the  l a n d owners, and consequently  analysis  reserve  might  o f f e r e d here.  well  affect  However,  the  the  way  they  wording  were  of  that  there  set  apart.  federal  issues  a  For  government title  The h i s t o r y of  general  the  are  the nature o f  might be a f f e c t e d by the o r i g i n a l Crown g r a n t . particular  were t r a n s f e r r e d  difference i n  reserve  Eastern  These r e s e r v e s have not been  5  some r e s e r v e s were purchased  from i n d i v i d u a l  i n North  the  I t should which  Other  remarks  discussed  in  any and the  f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s w i l l have some r e l e v a n c e t o a l l I n d i a n r e s e r v e s in British  Columbia.  B r i t i s h Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l No. 2995, November 28, 1961. These r e s e r v e s were e s t a b l i s h e d pursuant t o T r e a t y No. 8.  5 CHAPTER I HISTORICAL BACKGROUND  Pre-Confederation  According assume  the  - C o l o n i a l Indian P o l i c y  t o the Terms of Union, the f e d e r a l government was charge  of  lands under a p o l i c y  the "as  Indians liberal  B r i t i s h Columbia Government."  1  if  of  not  misleading,  government. Governorship  i n view  During  the  the  c h o i c e of words was  the  past  years  policy  of  the  colony  of  o f James Douglas the word  y e a r s immediately  management  of  as t h a t h i t h e r t o pursued  The  early  a p p r o p r i a t e d e s c r i p t i o n of  a n y t h i n g but  and  "liberal"  Indian p o l i c y .  to  Indian by  the  ambiguous,  the  colonial  under  the  seems almost  However, i n the  an  seven  p r e c e d i n g Union the p o l i c y might be d e s c r i b e d as  "liberal".  During h i s tenure as Governor o f the colony o f Vancouver I s l a n d (and  later  traditional North  of  mainland  British  America.  policy  That  P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1763,  British  Columbia),  of d e a l i n g w i t h  policy,  which  was  Douglas  followed  the  native populations i n  reflected  i n the  Royal  r e c o g n i z e d the n a t i v e " i n t e r e s t " i n the land  and  demanded t h a t i t be  any  l a n d f o r purchase and  respected. settlement,  Before  the  Crown c o u l d open  the n a t i v e i n t e r e s t  had  to  B r i t i s h Columbia "Terms of Union", being a schedule to an Her Majesty i n C o u n c i l a d m i t t i n g B r i t i s h Columbia i n t o the May, 1871), R.S.C. 1970 Appendix I I , 279. Hereinafter refer the "Terms of Union".  6 be  formally  purchased,  or  "surrendered",  and  other  suitable  p r o v i s i o n s made f o r the f u t u r e w e l f a r e of the n a t i v e s . Between  1850  treaties  with  interest  in  and the  1857,  Governor  Indians  certain  of  lands  Vancouver  were  exchange f o r money ( a c t u a l l y  Douglas  made  Island,  relinquished  the cash was  a  number  whereby  to  converted  the  of  their  Crown  to  in  blankets)  and the promise t h a t t h e i r v i l l a g e s and garden s i t e s would remain undisturbed  forever.  In  2  response  to  d e a l humanely w i t h the n a t i v e s and means  of  subsistence,  Douglas  instructions  supply them w i t h an  began  u n l i k e the p r e s e n t r e s e r v e system.  Imperial  to  The  formulate  a  to  alternate  policy  Indians were t o be  not  settled  on r e s e r v e s , w i t h any unused p o r t i o n s o f r e s e r v e l a n d t o be l e a s e d to  the  highest  bidder.  Any  proceeds  from  leasing  would  be  c r e d i t e d t o the band t o h e l p d e f r a y the c o s t o f a d m i n i s t e r i n g the charge of the I n d i a n s .  Although was  never  3  the formal s u r r e n d e r process begun on Vancouver I s l a n d completed  due  to  implement h i s r e s e r v e p o l i c y .  l a c k of  funds,  Douglas  proceeded  to  He s t i p u l a t e d t h a t r e s e r v e s were t o  2  See c o p i e s of t r e a t i e s i n , "Papers Connected w i t h the I n d i a n Land Q u e s t i o n " , B r i t i s h Columbia L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. S e s s i o n a l Papers, 2nd P a r i . , 1 s t Sess., 1876. The "Papers" have been p u b l i s h e d s e p a r a t e l y as, Papers Connected w i t h the Indian Land Question: 18501875 ( V i c t o r i a : Wolfenden, 1875). The t r e a t i e s are reproduced at pages 5-10 of the Wolfenden p u b l i c a t i o n .  3  Robert C a i l , Land, Man, and the Law: The D i s p o s a l of Crown Lands i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871 1913 (Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Press, 1974), 174.  be and  set aside  i n a l l areas  that reserves  should  each p a r t i c u l a r Band. (Chief  Commissioner  liberality Indians  of of  his the  dissatisfaction  of the be  of  defined according  Lands  policy  and  Works) i n  regarding  Coquitlam the  e s t a b l i s h e d f o r them.  i n h a b i t e d by t o the  Indians,  d e s i r e s of  I n s t r u c t i o n s from Douglas t o C o l o n e l Moody  4  with  province  size  the  River of  1863  size  of  reserve  the  illustrate reserves. had  reserve  the The  expressed  which  had  been  Douglas wrote t o Moody:  I beg t h a t you w i l l t h e r e f o r e , immediately cause the e x i s t i n g r e s e r v e t o be extended i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h the wishes o f the N a t i v e s , and t o i n c l u d e t h e r e i n an area so l a r g e as t o remove f r o m t h e i r m i n d s a l l c a u s e s o f dissatisfaction. Notwithstanding my p a r t i c u l a r i n s t r u c t i o n s t o you, t h a t i n l a y i n g out I n d i a n r e s e r v e s the wishes o f the N a t i v e s themselves, w i t h r e s p e c t t o boundaries, should i n a l l cases be complied with, I hear v e r y g e n e r a l complaints of the smallness of the areas s e t apart f o r t h e i r use. I beg t h a t you w i l l take i n s t a n t measures t o i n q u i r e i n t o such complaints, and t o e n l a r g e a l l the I n d i a n r e s e r v e s between New Westminster and the mouth of the H a r r i s o n R i v e r , b e f o r e the contiguous lands are o c c u p i e d by o t h e r p e r s o n s . 5  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , when Douglas f i n a l l y for  allotting  left  reserves.  White s e t t l e r s were by t h a t time e x e r t i n g more pressure  accommodate native  presumably  population. Ibid.,  175.  Ibid.,  179.  As  productive the  colony  registering  no  codified  l a n d g r a n t s and the colony's new  and  he  definite,  for  system  r e t i r e d i n 1864  Indian  l e a d e r s were a l l too eager to  farmers moved  at  the  away  expense of  from  a  fur  the  trade  8 economy t o an an  asset  and  and  agricultural more as  "unproductive"  prosperity  that  Accordingly,  policy  element  (reserves  In  1864  were  seen  policy  were  by  set  limiting  reserves  some  of  the  both  the  white  change.  for  its  in  of that p o l i c y  aboriginal  title  was  the  essential of  the  ceased.  of  Lands f o r  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n the colony  adopted a  to  ten  larger  accordance  the  settlers.  benefit  Commissioner  acres 6  As  per  family,  with  reserves  the  dismissed  new  by  which  a r e s u l t of pressure allotted  Douglas's g e n e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s were reduced, and new restricted  to  Although  in  the  as  "uncivilized"  impediment  remained  aside  o s t e n s i b l y based on past p r a c t i c e . settlers  to  became C h i e f  new  were viewed l e s s  an  follow  began  l i b e r a l implementation  The  as  Douglas  still  Joseph T r u t c h  Indians Viewed as  undoubtedly  followed  B r i t i s h Columbia. policy  they  Indian  general  Indians) any  a liability.  would  the  base, the  policy.  the  new  7  was from  pursuant  to  r e s e r v e s were Any  notion  administration  of and  r e s e r v e s were t o be a l l o t t e d a c c o r d i n g t o the p r e s e n t needs of the Indians  only.  apparently  The  agreed  then  Colonial  that reserves  should  Secretary, not be  too  W.A.G.  Young,  large.  In h i s  i n s t r u c t i o n s to T r u t c h he s t a t e d t h a t the a l l o t t e d r e s e r v e s 6  7  Ibid.,  175  and  should  202.  F o r a good r e v i e w o f t h i s p o l i c y and examples of Reserve r e d u c t i o n s , see C a i l , 180 and Robin F i s h e r , Contact and C o n f l i c t : Indian - European R e l a t i o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1774 - 1890 (Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Press, 1977), 163-164.  9  i n no case  "be o f such an extent as t o engender the f e e l i n g i n the  mind o f t h e Indian t h a t the l a n d i s o f no use t o him, and t h a t i t w i l l be t o h i s b e n e f i t t o p a r t with  The  C o l o n i a l Secretary  I n d i a n bands from s e l l i n g  may  it."  have  their  8  only  intended  land heritage.  h i s remarks c o u l d be seen t o support  to  discourage  On another  a policy of limiting  view,  reserves  t o a s i z e t h a t would be adequate o n l y f o r a band's s u b s i s t e n c e .  By  limiting  policy  the s i z e  of reserves  was d i s r e g a r d e d .  another  I f the reserves  f e a t u r e o f Douglas's  were kept  small  enough  t h e r e c o u l d be no thought o f l e a s i n g unused p o r t i o n s t o d e r i v e an income  f o r t h e maintenance o f t h e band.  threads  i n the c o l o n i a l  existing village and  to this  respected  sites  limited  reserve  policy  i t may be s a i d  prior  interest  that  alienating  their  that the  reserve  lands,  colonial  i n the l a n d .  common element i n the p o l i c y was t h a t the Indians from  was  and gardens were i n c l u d e d i n a l l r e s e r v e s ,  extent  t h e Indians'  Indian  One o f t h e few common  A further  were  and thereby,  policy  prevented  presumably,  t h e i r f u t u r e s u b s i s t e n c e was a l s o p r o t e c t e d .  There had a l s o been some progress of 1867  reserves  i n the l a t t e r  the f i r s t  list  years  of Indian  i n the s y s t e m a t i c  o f the colony's reserves  recording  existence.  appeared  In  i n t h e B.C.  Young t o T r u t c h , l e t t e r dated November 6, 1867, i n "Papers Connected with t h e Indian Land Question", 205.  10 Gazette.  Shortly  Province's f i r s t  after  Union,  C h i e f Commissioner  "Return  of  A l l Indian reserves  British  Columbia".  Legislature",  This  and  9  was  reported  the D i s t r i c t s o f Vancouver  British  Columbia  of  Union",  passed  "Terms Council Affairs  Order in  (May  the  new  16,  presented  union  Pearse  (the  i n the  as  o f 74  a  P r o v i n c e of  "Return  to  the  reserves situated i n  Westminster  and Y a l e .  1871  joined that  1871).  B.W.  (surveyed)  I s l a n d , New  1871  1872,  o f Land and Works) prepared a  a total  C o n f e d e r a t i o n - Terms o f Union,  In  in  10  was  C o n f e d e r a t i o n pursuant t o the  same  year  The  as  an  Imperial  jurisdiction  governed  by  Article  Privy  over Indian 13  of  the  C o n s t i t u t i o n a l document:  "13. The charge o f the Indians, and the t r u s t e e s h i p and management o f the lands r e s e r v e d f o r t h e i r use and b e n e f i t , s h a l l be assumed by the Dominion Government, and a p o l i c y as l i b e r a l as t h a t h i t h e r t o pursued by the B r i t i s h Columbia Government s h a l l be c o n t i n u e d by the Dominion Government a f t e r the Union. To c a r r y out such p o l i c y , t r a c t s o f l a n d o f such e x t e n t as i t has h i t h e r t o been the p r a c t i c e o f the B r i t i s h Columbia Government t o a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h a t purpose s h a l l from time t o time be conveyed by the L o c a l Government t o the Dominion Government i n t r u s t f o r the use and b e n e f i t o f the Indians, "Return of Indian Reserves", B r i t i s h Columbia, Journals, 1st P a r i . , 2nd S e s s . 1872-3, Appendix S e s s i o n a l Papers. See Note 1, supra.  11 on a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Dominion Government; and i n case o f disagreement between t h e two Governments r e s p e c t i n g t h e q u a n t i t y o f such t r a c t s o f l a n d t o be so granted, the matter s h a l l be r e f e r r e d f o r t h e d e c i s i o n o f the S e c r e t a r y o f State f o r the C o l o n i e s " . Thus the Dominion Government assumed l e g i s l a t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over Indians  and "lands r e s e r v e d  f o r t h e i r use and b e n e f i t " .  a c o n f i r m a t i o n o f the Dominion's j u r i s d i c t i o n c o n t a i n e d 91(24) o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, was t o address  the i s s u e o f r e s e r v e  unsatisfactorily, misleading  1867.  However,  lands.  i t d i d provide  "arbitration"  of  procedure  land,  a  that  rather  reserve  t o the Dominion,  f o r the use and b e n e f i t o f the Indians. quantity  It did this  due t o i t s ambiguous and  were t o be "conveyed" by the Province  respecting  i n Section  The A r t i c l e ' s main purpose  t o say t h e l e a s t ,  wording.  T h i s was  lands  i n trust  In case o f disagreement  remedy  was  s e t out i n A r t i c l e  provided.  13 was  never  The used  because the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments e v e n t u a l l y reached a  negotiated  settlement.  However,  i t would  be over  65  years  b e f o r e any "conveyance" as r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e 13 was e f f e c t e d .  The  reason  t h a t n e g o t i a t i o n s took so long are many and v a r i e d .  However, i t may be g e n e r a l l y e x p l a i n e d as f o l l o w s . t o convey lands government  f o r the use o f the Indians,  jurisdiction  over  determined t o g i v e up as l i t t l e valued  those  lands,  Having agreed  and g i v e the f e d e r a l the Province  l a n d as p o s s i b l e .  was  Crown l a n d was  as the key t o p r o s p e r i t y , and j e a l o u s l y guarded by the new  province.  The f e d e r a l government on the o t h e r  when i t r e a l i z e d  just  how g r e a t l y past  hand, was shocked  colonial  policy  differed  from I n d i a n r e s e r v e p o l i c y  i n the r e s t  of the  country.  The  "ten  acre per f a m i l y " r u l e of a l l o t m e n t r e l i e d upon by the P r o v i n c e far  below  reasonable  what and  the  just  p a r t i e s were p o l e s  It  federal  government  allotment.  As  that  the  n e g o t i a t i o n s began,  Dominion Government,  unaware of  the  g u l f that  separated  Article  was  written.  I t has  t h a t Joseph T r u t c h was c o n t e n t i o u s and  to  be  a  the  two  least,  was  apart.  seems obvious  13  considered  was  the  two  at  Indian  been suggested  by  p e r s o n a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the  ambiguous language of the  Article.  p o l i c i e s when one  historian  deliberately  1 1  I n d i a n Reserve Commission 1875-1910  If  i t was  Indian quickly  not  land p o l i c y became  were marked by the Dominion. be  clear  allotted  on  was  prior  to  1871  t h a t past  quite different  apparent.  The  a k i n d of  years  Columbia  from Dominion p o l i c y , i t  immediately  " b i d d i n g " war  British  f o l l o w i n g Union  between the  province  The Dominion took the p o s i t i o n t h a t r e s e r v e s the  b a s i s of  eighty  acres  per  and  should  family, while  the  p r o v i n c e stuck t o the "ten acre r u l e " , e v e n t u a l l y moving t o twenty ( f o r new  reserves o n l y ) .  Cail, Ibid.,  186. 195.  1 2  13 Finally, a  another approach was  l a y missionary, with  British when  Columbia.  allotting  agent  gather  the  experience  in  Duncan proposed t h a t no  reserves,  dealt with separately Indian  much  suggested by Mr. W i l l i a m Duncan,  but  that  each  Indian  required  appointed t o l i v e  information.  matters  nation  should be  p a r t i c u l a r needs. among each  Duncan's  nation  suggestions  included^ the r e d u c t i o n o f r e s e r v e s where the acreage was be  more  than  necessary.  The  Provincial  Government  for  the  British  appointment Columbia.  Commission federal  of  the  I t was  first hoped  formed  the b a s i s  Indian  Reserve  that  through  of  passed  terms o f the agreement,  an  Order  i n council  agreement  work  of  out  for the The the  and the p r o v i n c e accepted the p r o p o s a l i n  a r e c i p r o c a l Order i n c o u n c i l on January 6,  "Report o f s u b j e c t of Columbia. P a r i . , 1st  setting  also  1 3  the I n d i a n l a n d q u e s t i o n would be f i n a l l y s e t t l e d .  government  and  adopted  Commission  the  An  found t o  Duncan's views and passed them t o Ottawa f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  Duncan's s u g g e s t i o n s u l t i m a t e l y  in  fixe'd acreage be used  a c c o r d i n g t o i t s own  s h o u l d be  Indian  1876.  14  the Government o f B r i t i s h Columbia on the Indian Reserves (Aug. 17, 1875)." British L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. S e s s i o n a l Papers, 2nd Sess. 1876.  P r i v y C o u n c i l O r d e r , Nov. 10, 1875, and British Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l 1138, passed Jan. 6, 1876. The B r i t i s h Columbia Order i s reproduced i n "Papers Connected w i t h the Indian Land Question", 160-163.  14 Under the the  work  Agents,  of as  terms of the gathering suggested  agreement the information,  by  Duncan.  Commissioners were t o  rather  The  than  notable  using  do  Indian  features  of  the  agreement were:  1)  no  f i x e d acreage was  determining 2)  a  t o be used by the Commissioners when  reserve  "liberal  policy"  size; was  t o be  pursued i n r e s e r v i n g  lands,  and the amount of l a n d should r e f l e c t the needs o f each Nation based on t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r circumstances  and  economy. 3)  reserves  were  population  of  Crown  be  each  periodically. from  to  Nation,  The lands  proportionate  extra  and  the  being land  in  size  increased required  excess  or  the  decreased  would  would  to  be  revert  taken to  the  province. 4)  Portions the  of  official  existing reserve  reserves as  that  determined  were not by  the  included  in  Commissioners  were t o be r e t u r n e d t o P r o v i n c i a l c o n t r o l , upon payment of compensation f o r any  The  requirement t h a t any  reserve  should  revert  s u p p o r t i n g the p r o v i n c e ' s  improvements.  land, from time to time d e l e t e d from a  to  the  province,  s t e a d f a s t l y maintained,  Terms of  Union,  any  later  viewed  claim to a "reversionary i n t e r e s t " .  province  that  was  lands  by  i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  conveyed t o the  Dominion  for  as The the the  use and b e n e f i t o f the Indians would r e v e r t t o the p r o v i n c e they  n o t be  actually  required  by  the Indians.  The  should federal  government's p r o p o s a l s o f November 10, 1875 have been i n t e r p r e t e d by some w r i t e r s t o be a r e c o g n i t i o n o f the p r o v i n c e ' s r e v e r s i o n a r y interest.  Although  1 5  i t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t the f e d e r a l  government  viewed t h i s p a r t o f the agreement i n the same way as the Province, the wording o f the agreement encouraged the p r o v i n c e t o continue i t s claim.  The " r e v e r s i o n a r y i n t e r e s t " and the problems i t caused  w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r , i n more d e t a i l .  The  I n d i a n Reserve Commission began i t s work i n 1876 as a j o i n t  commission Dominion  with  three  government  members,  and continued  appointed  Alexander  until  1910.  Anderson  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o the Commission, while B r i t i s h Columbia A r c h i b a l d McKinlay.  Gilbert  Malcolm Sproat  chairman o f the J o i n t  Commission.  short  the p r o v i n c i a l  lived  because  o p e r a t i o n s t o be too c o s t l y . but 1880.  Gilbert  Sproat  continued  Sproat r e s i g n e d amidst  as  The their  appointed  was chosen t o be the  The t r i p a r t i t e government  Commission was considered i t s  I t was d i s s o l v e d a t the end o f 1877, as s o l e  Commissioner  until  March,  c o n t r o v e r s y and was succeeded by  David Borthwick "The P r o v i n c i a l Reversionary I n t e r e s t in Indian Reserves - A Unique P r o p o s i t i o n , " (unpublished, 1975), Department o f Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development L i b r a r y S e r v i c e s , Ottawa.  Peter  O ' R e i l l y , who  federal  Indian  served  from  Superintendant  1880 for  r e s e r v e Commissioner from 1898  to  to  British  least.  The  conflicting Indians. Nations sizes 1875.  commissioners  pressures The  in  Commission  the  Province  according  to  the  Notification  r e s e r v e s was  from  of  forwarded  was  subject  meet  of  a  the  served  the  with  great  the  appropriate  location  I t was  the commission's work bogged down.  the  where i t was  and  various  size  and  deal  Dominion  in  to V i c t o r i a , 1 6  to  reference  exact  by p u b l i c a t i o n i n the G a z e t t e .  Columbia,  a s c e r t a i n the  terms  Vowell,  Indian reserve  agreement of  t o be  commissioner)  complained  were  about the  allotted confirmed  at t h i s f i n a l stage where  and  gazetted.  of the  used v a r i o u s excuses t o w i t h h o l d o f f i c i a l  It  is still  allotted  by  first  Joint  approved by the p r o v i n c i a l the Gazette  would p r o v i d e  were r e s e r v e d 1 6  Cail,  1 7  Cail,  early  The  approval.  from  Commission  government.  Certainly,  u s e f u l n o t i c e t h a t the  settlement,  but  i t was  213. 224,  needed  and a l s o F i s h e r ,  197.  not  (as  province  commissioners  and  1 7  a matter o f some doubt as t o whether the  the  of  In f a c t , none of the r e s e r v e s  approved  extravagance  of the  a l l o t t e d by e i t h e r the j o i n t commissioners, o r G i l b e r t Sproat sole  as  v e r y c o n t r o v e r s i a l , to say  Province, to  and  the  were  the  A.W.  1910.  The work o f the f i r s t Commission was the  1898.  to  be  reserves formally  publication in described  lands  a p r e r e q u i s i t e to  17 the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a r e s e r v e by the J o i n t Commission. to  the  were  agreement  to  between the  two  governments,  determine"  the  "extent  " f i x and  reserve "after f u l l of  any  e n q u i r y on the spot"  f u r t h e r approval  or  dissolved procedure  Just  and was  r e p l a c e d by  a  locality"  to  the  L a t e r , when the J o i n t Commission  was  dissolution  of the a l l o t m e n t procedure.  Commissioner,  of  I t was  the  Joint  suggested  c o n f i n e i t s work t o the more s e t t l e d  been done i n these  Superintendent remote  a  ratification  areas.  of  areas,  Those  the  t h a t the  Commission  areas of the p r o v i n c e where  and  Indian A f f a i r s  Commission  t o reduce the c o s t  the s e t t l e m e n t of the Indian r e s e r v e i s s u e was  in  no mention by  p r o v i n c i a l government made a p r o p o s a l designed  the  was  each  necessary  single  that  of  agreed upon.  prior  work had  Commissioners  There was  1 8  ratification  e i t h e r l e v e l o f government.  and  the  According  most urgent.  the Commission d i s s o l v e d ,  would a l l o t  allotments  Once  would  be  lands t o subject  tribes to  the  approval o f the C h i e f Commissioner o f Lands and Works, and i n case of  disagreement  Supreme  The  Court.  Joint  allotments 1 8  1 9  by  the  final  arbiter  would be  the  British  Columbia  but  idea  1 9  Commission the  was  dissolved i n  Superintendent  of  1877  Indian  B r i t i s h Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l No. 1138,  the  Affairs  was  January 6,  of  never 1876.  B r i t i s h Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l 279, January 30, 1877; Dominion Order i n C o u n c i l , February 23, 1877.  18 realized.  Instead,  allotting subject with As the  reserves  Gilbert  as  sole  t o the approval  a right  o f appeal  p r e v i o u s l y noted, Joint  o f the Commissioner t o the Supreme Court  none o f the r e s e r v e s  government may  settlement agreed another  allotments.  t h e work  be e x p l a i n e d issue.  of B r i t i s h  Columbia.  by Sproat o r  by the p r o v i n c e . over any  of protest  by t h e  by a d e s i r e t o n e g o t i a t e a Instead  i t was j u s t  were  and Works  allotted  the lack  of  o f Lands  t o the Supreme Court  Perhaps  o f the r e s e r v e  r o u t e o f appeal  taken  on  His allotments  Commission were approved o r g a z e t t e d  Sproat's  federal  carried  Commissioner.  N e i t h e r was t h e r e any appeal of  Sproat  of resorting  as expedient  t o the  t o c a r r y on with  Commissioner.  A f t e r Sproat r e s i g n e d , under p r e s s u r e , i n 1880, he was r e p l a c e d by  Peter O ' R e i l l y .  of  Joseph  Commissioner O ' R e i l l y was t h e b r o t h e r - i n - l a w  Trutch.  With  this  appointment,  s u i t e d t o p r o v i n c i a l views was e s t a b l i s h e d .  a  new  policy,  more  The d e c i s i o n s o f the  new r e s e r v e commissioner were t o be s u b j e c t t o the approval o f the Indian  Superintendent  Works.  Any  Governor.  20  point  disputes  and  t o be  Commissioner settled  the p e r f e c t man  consequently  t h e work  along c o m p a r a t i v e l y  the C h i e f  were  O ' R e i l l y was  o f view,  requirements,  and  i n spite  o f the I n d i a n  quickly.  by  o f Lands  the  from  Lieutenant  the p r o v i n c i a l  o f the new  Reserve  and  approval  Commission  Much o f h i s time was spent  moved  revising  F i s h e r , 199, and see P r i v y C o u n c i l Order No. 1334, J u l y 19, 1880.  (reducing) had  reserves  allotted  been a l l o t t e d ,  these  were  However,  239  had  by  Sproat.  1894  federal  funds  and  were  the  overcome  However  the  determining reserved  disagreements  by  the  earlier the  the  Consititution.  time,  may  may  of  been  were  reserves ( a l l of  surveyed.  exhausted,  Although not  have been  a  and  reserve  allotments  Commissioner O ' R e i l l y .  have  some  within reserve  2 2  23  earlier  work  Indians",  i t might s t i l l  from the date  621  significance  i s s u e of when a p a r t i c u l a r r e s e r v e became  for  Commission  had  crews.  over  subsequent allotments  477  f o r surveys  O ' R e i l l y had t o d i s c h a r g e the survey  Apparently  1885,  been approved by the P r o v i n c e  "O'Reilly reserves")  by  By  2 1  the  meaning  allotted  f o r m a l l y approved  by  "lands  of  the  until  when  the Joint  O'Reilly's  be c o n s i d e r e d t o have been an Indian r e s e r v e  o f the e a r l i e r  allotment.  The  p r e c i s e time  when a  r e s e r v e became "lands r e s e r v e d f o r the Indians" i s r e l e v a n t to the claim lands  of  federal  reserved  jurisdiction, lands  do  legislative for  the  provincial  not  apply.  Indians  another p a r t o f t h i s paper.  F i s h e r , 200-201.  2 2  Cail,  2 3  Ibid.,  224. 225.  fall  over  under  the  land.  exclusive  laws which would otherwise  This  2 1  jurisdiction  issue  will  be  discussed  Since federal  affect  those  further i n  20 O ' R e i l l y was succeeded i n 1898 by A.W. government federal  was  and  i n power  the  issue  Province  re-affirmed  and  usual  Indians  contentious  i t s "reversionary were  pressing  The L a u r i e r  r e l a t i o n s between  became  to  The  and  p r o v i n c i a l governments  addition  lands.  i n Ottawa  Vowell.  strained of  reserve  interest"  the i s s u e  again. size,  the In the  i n a l l reserve  of a b o r i g i n a l  title  the f e d e r a l government was prepared t o take a l l i s s u e s t o the  courts f o r settlement.  On February 26, 1907 the p r o v i n c i a l government passed an Order in  council proclaiming  action  to re-claim  alienated  pursuant  r e p l i e d with and  any  portions  t o the Indian  of reserve Act.  24  The  land  recommending  that  Federal  t o have  the  issue  settled  by  the c o u r t s .  2 5  The  had a l s o suggested t h a t a conference was necessary t o r e -  any  "surplus"  declined issues  been  Government  a d j u s t the r e s e r v e s which had been a l l o t t e d t o expedite of  had  i t s own Order which r e j e c t e d the p r o v i n c i a l p o s i t i o n  proposed  Province  i t s r e v e r s i o n a r y i n t e r e s t , and  this  land  offer,  to  provincial control.  p r e f e r r i n g t o wait  - aboriginal t i t l e ,  reversionary  c o u l d be s e t t l e d by the c o u r t s .  until  the r e t u r n  The the  interest,  Dominion  contentious  reserve  size-  2 6  24  B r i t i s h Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l No. 125, Feb. 26, 1907.  25  P r i v y C o u n c i l Order No. 2739, Dec. 19, 1907.  26  Ibid.  21 The McKenna-McBride Agreement and Royal Commission 1913-1916  The  d i f f e r e n c e s between the  two  governments were not  u n t i l the d e f e a t of the L a u r i e r government i n 1911, of  a  Conservative  government,  a t t i t u d e toward B r i t i s h Reserve Commission had  Columbia.  the  position  appointed 1912,  Dr.  was  J.A.S.  to  be  abandoned. McKenna  resolved  reversionary interest, r e s o l u t i o n o f the  as  The  conciliatory  a c t u a l work o f the due  t o the  new  Indian  strained  retired in  government  i n Ottawa  S p e c i a l Commissioner,  a  McBride,  result the  1912.  27  of  Columbia.  were:  (1)  (3) r e s e r v e s i z e .  aboriginal  agreement on the o t h e r  to  a more  and Ottawa, and when Vowell  land question i n B r i t i s h  matters  24,  The  and the r e t u r n  in  May,  t o i n v e s t i g a t e the i s s u e s and n e g o t i a t e a s e t t l e m e n t o f the  Indian  As  adopted  come to a h a l t i n 1908  r e l a t i o n s between V i c t o r i a 1910  which  resolved  title  The  three  outstanding  aboriginal  title,  McKenna agreed  i s s u e , thus  paving  negotiations  between  McKenna  the way  and  s i g n e d on  I t p r o v i d e d f o r the appointment o f a Royal  where necessary.  to defer to  matters.  "McKenna-McBride Agreement" was  a d j u s t the acreage  (2)  Premier September  Commission  of a l l o t t e d r e s e r v e s and c r e a t e new  In t u r n , the p r o v i n c e agreed  to l e g a l l y  reserves reserve  any a d d i t i o n a l lands and convey a l l r e s e r v e lands as f i n a l l y  fixed  The. t e x t of t h i s agreement may be found i n the Report of t h e Royal Commission on I n d i a n A f f a i r s f o r the P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia ( V i c t o r i a : Acme Press, 1916) V o l . I, 10-11.  22 by  the  Commission.  The  reversionary interest, become e x t i n c t . reserve The  lands  to  saw  fit,  Agreement  free  f o r the b e n e f i t was  accepted  by  both  1876  (allotted -  1910)  r e s e r v e s were recommended.  The I n d i a n Agreement  Affairs  with  governments, submitted  by  and completed i t s  During the course o f the Commission's work,  reserves  Commissions,  to deal  28  The Royal Commission began i t s work i n 1913  existing  their  o f the Indians.  o f each t o approve any r e p o r t  Commission.  r e p o r t i n 1916.  convey  except i n the case o f any Band which might  as they  t o the r i g h t  the Royal  agreed  Otherwise, the Dominion was  McKenna-McBride  subject  province  by  were  the  various  reviewed and  Indian  adjusted,  1,000  Reserve and  new  29  Settlement  Acts  and  the  Ditchburn-Clark  In o r d e r t o implement the Commission's Report, both governments passed l e g i s l a t i o n ( v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l i n t h e i r terms) empowering the  Executive  to  do  recommendations  of  the  a l l acts Royal  necessary  Commission,  to  and  carry  out  i f necessary,  the to  Dominion P r i v y C o u n c i l Order No. 3277, November 27, 1912; B r i t i s h Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l 1341, December 18, 1912. Cail,  237.  23 enter The  into  further negotiations  Commission's  W.E.  Ditchburn  years  1920  1923.  were  were r e c t i f i e d . Ditchburn Council.  The  The  The  Indian  land  u l t i m a t e l y reviewed  and  agreed  Treaty  No.  Report  (No.  date.  8  in  the  original  f i n a l l y confirmed  Dominion  report,  Finally,  surveyed,  Several  and  Order  by r e c i p r o c a l  confirmed  the  these  the  i t was  Commission) would agreed  that  upon  Orders-in-  Report  t h a t the i s s u e of Indian lands i n B.C.  of  by  Report of the Royal Commission, as amended by  (which lands were d e a l t with 91)  amended  3 0  C l a r k (B.C.) between the  e x c e p t i o n o f c u t - o f f s recommended i n the Railway B e l t . mutually  question.  amendments were not e x t e n s i v e .  discovered  and C l a r k was 3 1  was  the  (Dominion) and Major J.W.  and  inaccuracies  Report  on  with  3 2  settled  a l l lands  It  was  covered  i n a separate be  the  at  by  Interim a  later  being  duly  conveyance would be e f f e c t e d i n accordance with c l a u s e 7  o f the McKenna-McBride Agreement.  S c o t t - C a t h c a r t Agreement  The Royal  l e g a l surveys Commission  f o r the r e s e r v e s a l l o t t e d o r confirmed  would  take  s e v e r a l years  to  complete.  by  the  In  the  3 0  B r i t i s h Columbia Indian Land Settlement Act, S.C. 1920, c.51, and Indian A f f a i r s Settlement Act, S.B.C. 1919, c.32, s o m e t i m e s h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as the "Settlement A c t s " .  3 1  P r i v y C o u n c i l Order No. 1265, J u l y 19, 1924; British Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l No. 911, J u l y 26, 1923.  32  p r i v y C o u n c i l Order No.  1265,  J u l y 19,  1924.  24 meantime  the province  another  issue  which  and Dominion had p l a g u e d  continued  n e g o t i a t i o n s on  t h e two governments  since  Confederation  - t h e problem o f the Railway B e l t  Block l a n d s .  F o l l o w i n g a 1927 Royal Commission i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o  the  caused  problems  British these  Columbia, areas  eventually Railway  Belt  province, reserves  i t was  would  done  by these  be  agreed  returned  i n 1930.  and Peace  arrangements contained  federally that  River  administered  a l l unalienated  Block  before  could  had t o be made  within  those  The in  the reciprocal  agreement  d e a l t with  was  be re-conveyed  t o the  regarding The  a l l Indian  the Indian  Scott-Cathcart  land issues that the issue of  lands.  S c o t t - C a t h c a r t Agreement i s a document o f g r e a t  the h i s t o r y o f Indian  with  This  i n the  would be a f f e c t e d by the t r a n s f e r , and a l s o addressed conveyance o f a l l o t h e r r e s e r v e  lands i n  t h e lands  areas.  Agreement, o f March 22, 1929 s e t t l e d  River  areas i n  to the province.  However,  33  and Peace  reserves  i n British  Orders-in-Council the "tenure  importance  Columbia.  which  approved  Together i t , the  and mode o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " o f  I n d i a n r e s e r v e s both i n s i d e and o u t s i d e t h e Railway B e l t and Peace R i v e r Block,  and thereby  c r e a t e d a c e r t a i n u n i f o r m i t y f o r most o f  the r e s e r v e s i n the p r o v i n c e .  The C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1930, 20 - 21 Geo. V, c.26 (U.K.), r e p r i n t e d i n R.S.C. 1970, Appendix I I , a t 365. The memorandum o f agreement between the Dominion and B r i t i s h Columbia which p e r t a i n s t o the r e - t r a n s f e r o f f e d e r a l l y h e l d lands i n B.C. i s embodied i n the Act, a t p. 392.  25 The main p r o v i s i o n s of the Agreement are as f o l l o w s :  1) The  form of the conveyance f o r lands o u t s i d e the  and  Peace  Schedule  River A,  Block  annexed  areas  to  the  was  agreed  upon  and  This  form  Agreement.  became the form of conveyance used i n 0/C 2) The  Indian  Block land  reserves  were t o be outside  those  inside  governed  the by  areas.  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " of Railway  terms  of  the  the  That  Belt  detailed  in  eventually  1036. Belt  terms o f i s , the  and  the  Peace  River  conveyance  "tenure  B e l t r e s e r v e s was  the terms s e t out i n Schedule  3) The  Railway  Railway  and  of  mode of  t o be governed  by  A.  McKenna-McBride  Agreement  regarding  d i s p o s i t i o n of " c u t - o f f " lands were amended, a l l o w i n g the  the lands  t o be e i t h e r s u b d i v i d e d or s o l d "en b l o c " .  4) Any by  a d d i t i o n a l lands r e q u i r e d f o r the Indians, not p r o v i d e d f o r the  province  McKenna-McBride "at a reduced  Commission  were  or nominal p r i c e "  to  be  and  granted would be  by  the  subject  t o r e v e r t t o the p r o v i n c e i f the Band should become e x t i n c t .  5) I n d i a n c l a i m s t o the  f o r e s h o r e of t h e i r  r e s e r v e s were l e f t  the " i n v a r i a b l e p o l i c y of the P r o v i n c e to c o n s i d e r the  rights  to  26 5) o f  the  upland  owners,"  which  the Indians i n the same way  "fully  protected  the  rights  of  as other upland owners or o c c u p i e r s  of land."  6) I t was  recommended t h a t the P r o v i n c e r e p e a l t h a t s e c t i o n of the  Land  Registry  registration patent  to  provincial  Perhaps  of  did  railway of  not  reserve  most  the  i n land  lands,  (article  important  agreement on Railway B e l t .  have  lands had  Union  interest  1924,  s.47)  which  derived  without  the  from  prohibited a  Dominion  consent  of  the  Executive.  lands o u t s i d e the Belt  (R.S.B.C.  any  Indian  the  Agreement was  Act  to  be  feature the  the  Scott-Cathcart  form of conveyance of  The  conveyed  of  reserves by  the  inside  province,  the  reserve Railway  since  a l r e a d y passed t o the Dominion under the 11)  and  a  formal  grant  by  statute i n  the  Terms  1883.  An Act R e l a t i n g t o the I s l a n d Railway, the Graving Dock and Railway Lands o f the Province, S.B.C. 1884, c.14. There has been some d i s p u t e and u n c e r t a i n t y i n the case law as t o t h e e x a c t date t h a t the Railway B e l t was a c t u a l l y t r a n s f e r r e d , o r taken out of the c o n t r o l of the B.C. Government. The l e g i s l a t i o n was b a s e d on a D o m i n i o n / P r o v i n c i a l agreement which was t o be r a t i f i e d by both the B.C. l e g i s l a t u r e and the f e d e r a l Parliament. The P r o v i n c i a l S t a t u t e (Dec. 19, 1883) p r o v i d e d the p r o v i n c i a l r a t i f i c a t i o n and t h e Dominion p a s s e d a s i m i l a r Act to r a t i f y the agreement on A p r i l 19, 1884 (See S.C. 1884 c.6). Without d e c i d i n g the p o i n t , the Supreme Court of Canada i n d i c a t e d t h a t the t r a n s f e r was not complete u n t i l the passage of the Dominion legislation. However t h e r e was no unanimity among the judges on t h i s p o i n t - see f o r example The Queen v. F a r w e l l (1887), 14 S.C.R. 392 at 417 and 420. In George v. M i t c h e l l (1912), 3 W.W.R. 162, the B.C. Court of A p p e a l h e l d t h a t the d a t e o f t h e F e d e r a l A c t was  34  27  N e v e r t h e l e s s , the Dominion, by t h i s agreement imposed the terms of the p r o v i n c i a l which they had  "conveyance" of I n d i a n r e s e r v e s upon r e s e r v e  a l r e a d y owned.  T h i s was  r e s e r v e s i n the B e l t ,  lands  comprising  virtually Dominion  "Railway  unrestricted  transfer  lands such  to  give  f o r the bands  who  because the Dominion a l r e a d y owned the  the  agreed  unfortunate  lands  the  Belt from  Indian the  province  reserves"  province.  certain  In  rights  as are c o n t a i n e d i n the p r o v i s o s of 0/C  under 1929  over  1036.  a  the these  Perhaps  the p a r t i e s had o n l y u n i f o r m i t y i n mind, but i t i s l i k e l y t h a t the Dominion made c o n c e s s i o n s on the Railway get  concessions  from  to get on w i t h the  The Council  the p r o v i n c e on  o t h e r r e s e r v e s and,  No.  Agreement  208,  in  3 5  was  1930.  formally In  the  approved  1930.  36  By  was  signed,  article  and  13 o f  became p a r t o f the the  re-transfer  r e s e r v e s i n the s u b j e c t areas were excluded  c o n c l u s i v e of the  by  Privy  f o l l o w i n g year,  agreement c o n c e r n i n g the r e - t r a n s f e r of the Railway R i v e r Block  simply,  transfer.  Scott-Cathcart Order  B e l t reserves i n order to  the  B e l t and Peace  C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  agreement, from the  a l l Indian  re-transfer,  transfer.  P r i v y C o u n c i l O r d e r No. 208, F e b r u a r y 3, 1930, s e e a p p e n d i x . 20-21  II,  George 365.  V,  C.26  (U.K.),  i n R.S.C.  1970,  Appendix  28 but  t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s i n the S c o t t - C a t h c a r t d r a f t  form o f  conveyance (as s e t out i n P.C. 208) were made a p p l i c a b l e t o them. The A r t i c l e reads as f o l l o w s : 13.  Nothing i n t h i s agreement s h a l l extend t o t h e lands i n c l u d e d w i t h i n Indian r e s e r v e s i n t h e Railway B e l t and t h e Peace R i v e r B l o c k , but t h e s a i d r e s e r v e s s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o be v e s t e d i n Canada i n t r u s t f o r t h e I n d i a n s on t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s s e t o u t i n a c e r t a i n o r d e r o f t h e Governor General o f Canada i n C o u n c i l approved on the 3 r d day o f February, 1930 (P.C. 208). 3 7  Thus,  the "tenure  r e s e r v e s i n t h e Railway identical  t o 0/C  Constitution discussed Railway they  were  previously to  "form  these  of this  lands,  between  Indian  Belt  be  t h a t the  from o t h e r r e s e r v e s i n t h a t  11 o f the Terms  o f the Railway  i n the will  t o remember  by the p r o v i n c e .  i n Article  The Dominion had these  lands due  o f Union  and Peace  River  and the Block  by  Therefore, the r i g h t s t h a t t h e p r o v i n c e regained by v i r t u e  o f conveyance"  agreement  The s i g n i f i c a n c e  a c q u i r e d the r i g h t s o f ownership over  grant  of  "constitutionalized",  For now i t i s important  not "conveyed"  s t a t u t e i n 1883. over  1036) became  r e s e r v e s were d i f f e r e n t  t h e agreement  subsequent  of administration"  B e l t , as s e t out i n P.C. 208 (and i n terms  A c t , 1930.  later.  Belt  and mode  o f the terms  and c o n d i t i o n s i n the  s e t o u t i n P.C. 208, were  the p a r t i e s ,  acquired  and can not be viewed  h e l d back by the p r o v i n c e as a "grantor" o f l a n d s .  3 8  by  as r i g h t s Because o f  37  I b i d . , 395.  38  The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s w i l l be noted i n l a t e r c h a p t e r s .  29 this,  and due  t o the i n c l u s i o n o f P.C.  Constitution, different  the  legal  "Railway  Belt  position  208,  by r e f e r e n c e ,  reserves"  than  other  continue  Indian  to  i n the  be  reserves  in a  in  the  province.  The Settlement o f the Form o f Conveyance - 0/C  It  took  a  governments reserves.  long  to  time  agree  for  upon  the  provincial  form  of  form  provincial  conveyance  was  agreed  wrangling  I t was  39  over  upon, form  not u n t i l 1929  and  subsequent  delayed the  o u t s i d e the Railway B e l t u n t i l J u l y 29, 1938. a brief,  but w e l l  federal  of  Indian  various  authorities Agreement.  correspondence in  the  t h a t the S c o t t -  to  that,  transfer  years  1036.  of reserves  federal up  to  has  negotiations  Borthwick's h i s t o r y  between leading  further  David Borthwick  documented h i s t o r y o f the  l e a d i n g up t o the passage o f 0/C to  the  ( s u b j e c t t o the completion o f surveys) by  both governments by 1924.  written  and  The McKenna-McBride Report, as amended by D i t c h b u r n and  C l a r k , had been approved  Cathcart  the  1036  and  refers  provincial  the S c o t t - C a t h c a r t  40  P r i v y C o u n c i l Order No. 1265, J u l y 19, 1924: Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l 911, J u l y 26, 1923.  British  David Borthwick, "The B i r t h o f B.C. Order i n C o u n c i l 1036" (unpublished, 1975), Department o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s and Northern Development L i b r a r y S e r v i c e s , Ottawa. The correspondence r e f e r r e d t o i n Borthwick's paper are a t t a c h e d t o i t as " e x h i b i t s " .  30 In  1926,  Columbia,  T.D.  Patullo,  provided  then  Duncan S c o t t  A f f a i r s ) w i t h a copy of the which, the reserves.  province  unrestricted  in  the  grant.  t o waive any  v i r t u e o f the Later,  Scott  control  and  be  that  stood  This  of  give  potential  for  Indian  rejected  Indian  i s an  reserves  important  e a r l y i n the n e g o t i a t i o n s , conflict  between  the  were necessary the  issue  the Terms o f  province  d i v i s i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e powers under the  a  voice  which  point,  and  of  and by  Union.  4 4  in  the  in  the  would one  be  which  It i s interesting  the Dominion foresaw  form  in  i n the  certain reservations  the  form,  Indians were e n t i t l e d  developed f u r t h e r i n another chapter.  t o note t h a t ,  was  h i s ground on  noted t h a t  would  management 4 5  Indian  requested a s t r a i g h t ,  such r e s e r v a t i o n s  r i g h t s t o which the  grant  unconstitutional.  of  t r a n s f e r of  counter-proposal  Scott  specifically  Crown  British  p r o v i n c i a l Crown grant  McKenna-McBride Agreement and  standard  will  felt  public interest.  refused  standard  This  4 2  for  i n s i s t e d on the r e s e r v a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d He  4 3  lands  (Deputy Superintendent  r e j e c t e d by S c o t t , who  transfer.  t u r n by P a t u l l o , who standard  of  proposed, would govern the  T h i s was  4 1  Minister  conveyance  and  Constitution.  41  Borthwick, "Order i n C o u n c i l 1036", e x h i b i t s A,  42  I b i d . , e x h i b i t C.  4 3  I b i d . , e x h i b i t D.  44  I b i d . , e x h i b i t E.  4 5  I b i d . , e x h i b i t L.  B.  the the  31 There legal  was  a  advice  break  from  i n the correspondence  the Office  memos t o t h e A t t o r n e y he  confided  for  that  the province  Department.  was o n s h a k y since  that  ground  The  may  was c o n t r a r y  be w i l l i n g  and  t h e McKenna-McBride  put  forward  the  "reversionary  of  Indeed,  until  felt  t o be  This  4 7  Province  Union  Article  was  properly  demand  mention  required  o f a complete  two p a r t i e s continued  22,  1929.  the  agreement,  The  form  a  e x h i b i t M.  4 7  Ibid.,  e x h i b i t 0.  suggested  o f Union d i d  concessions considering  of land,  was  convey i t s  from  the  that the interest".  a term  t o b i c k e r over t h e form o f  Agreement was u l t i m a t e l y s i g n e d  a n d i t was a p p r o v e d  Ibid.,  Union  which  transfer of the provincial interest.  o f conveyance  4 6  to  "reversionary  "conveyance"  of  an argument  t h e Terms  argument any  In particular,  I t was  asked  which  an ingenious  the Scott-Cathcart  been  province  the grant,  t o t h e Terms  Nevertheless,  something  d i d not 13  had  Attorney-  the  from  negotiations.  contrary  What i s  4 6  the  that  the reservations  Agreement.  i t could  indicative  The  seen  interest",  require,  Terms  were  advisers  t o support the p r o v i n c i a l p o s i t i o n .  because  Dominion.  legal  i n them  compensation  grant.  from  sought  Patullo's  t o pay  memorandum  t o previous  reservations  not  General-  i n the standard  i n demanding  the  that  Patullo  G e n e r a l a r e o f some i n t e r e s t b e c a u s e  interesting i s the return  General's  is  of the Attorney  some o f t h e r i g h t s r e s e r v e d  more  while  was  included  b y P.C.  208  conveyance on  March  as Schedule  A of  ( F e b . 3,  1930)  and  32 B.C.  0/C  1151  (September 24,  1930).  tenure e v e n t u a l l y became 0/C  Order  i n C o u n c i l 1036  Grant o f the day.  was  very  similar  of  any  proposed works r e f e r r e d to  allay  constitutionality  of  administration  Indian  of  t o the  However t h e r e were important  p r o v i s i o n f o r the Department of  inserted  S c o t t - C a t h c a r t form of  1036.  is  was  The  48  one  Dominion's  unilateral  reserves.  The  of  specifically  any  sub-divided  provided  for  road  I t i s not c e r t a i n how  the exact  this the the  p r o v i s i o n s i n the  and  n a t u r a l gas were  f o r a re-conveyance of Compensation  building  r e s e r v e s f o r use o u t s i d e the r e s e r v e s .  over  interference i n  usual  lands.  notified  Perhaps  concerns  provincial  along w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s c a l l i n g  quarter  t o be  to i n the p r o v i s o s .  the  Crown  d i f f e r e n c e s . There  Indian A f f a i r s  standard grant r e s e r v i n g m i n e r a l s , petroleum omitted,  standard  materials  was  also  taken  from  4 9  form of conveyance was  finally  agreed upon.  Perhaps, the p a r t i e s were under p r e s s u r e t o expedite  an  on  agreement  Railway  matter  agreement  4 9  to  i t s relationship  were  conducted  in a  with  the  I t would a l s o appear t h a t the  n e g o t i a t i o n s immediately  l e f t few d e t a i l s recorded. 4 8  due  B e l t r e - t r a n s f e r agreement.  "nitty-gritty" the  this  prior  to  confidential  the  manner  However, the correspondence  The S c o t t - C a t h c a r t Agreement was t o P r i v y C o u n c i l Order No. 208.  s i g n i n g of that  provides a  a t t a c h e d as Schedule  The terms of the Order i n C o u n c i l w i l l Chapter 4.  be  has  analyzed  4 in  33 pretty  good  p i c t u r e of  the  process  C a t h c a r t form of conveyance was  of  the  Railway  continued This  Belt  stalling  been agreed  i t s heels  by  the  the  province  was  5 0  At one  In  attempted  to  interests.  formal made  transfer  government  of  reserves.  p o s s i b l e by  continued  surveys o f r e s e r v e s , and the o l d i s s u e  p o i n t the p r o v i n c e re-opened the i s s u e s  o f " c u t - o f f s " i n the Railway interest".  provincial  upon, the p r o v i n c i a l  on  b i c k e r i n g over the o f f i c i a l of reserve s i z e .  Scott-  form of conveyance f o r I n d i a n r e s e r v e s o u t s i d e  had  t o drag  The  a compromise o f the former extreme  p o s i t i o n s , but one which h i g h l y favoured  Even though the  negotiation.  B e l t and the p r o v i n c i a l " r e v e r s i o n a r y  conjunction  re-negotiate  the  with form  these of  claims,  the  conveyance,  province  in  order  to  s t r e n g t h e n t h e i r water r i g h t s and m i n e r a l r i g h t s i n r e s e r v e lands. The  newly  Dominion,  proposed and  the  Peace R i v e r Block 1938.  The  form  form  Indian  of  reserves  were f i n a l l y of  this  conveyance  was  rejected  outside  the  Railway  conveyed by  0/C  1036,  "conveyance"  i s identical  form agreed upon by Messrs. S c o t t and C a t h c a r t , i n  on to  by  the  Belt  and  July  the  29  draft  1929.  The P r o v i n c i a l Claim to a "Reversionary I n t e r e s t "  As p r e v i o u s l y noted, that 5 0  the  Terms  of  Borthwick,  the p r o v i n c i a l government was  Union  did  not  require  them  "Order i n C o u n c i l 1036", 5.  to  of the view "convey"  a  34 complete  interest  According  to  transfer  an  (fee  their  simple)  in  the  interpretation,  interest  of  "use  and  Indian  they  were  In the event  longer  their  the  example,  i n the  case  "revert"  to  their  in  Joint  1138,  excess  the  Band's  reserve  surrender  control.  claim  that  lands  -  the  Province  found  a  reversionary  an  -  land  no for  would  support  for  According  were  found  would  to  to  e s t a b l i s h e d the  reserves.  amounted  5 1  while  benefit"  for sale  excess  obliged  to  to  be  in  "revert" to  argued t h a t the Dominion approval  process  to  and  reserves  lands.  t h a t the Indians  "use  Indian  Indian  needs,  I t might be  provincial  on  where  settlement  The  the  o r d e r s - i n - c o u n c i l which  Commission  0/C  province.  of  the  provincial of  for  provincial  position  original  land a  only  b e n e f i t " over  r e t a i n i n g the u n d e r l y i n g t i t l e . required  reserve  acceptance  interest.  of  the this  of  the  However,  the  r e f e r e n c e t o a r e v e r s i o n i n favour of the P r o v i n c e must be viewed i n the context o f the e n t i r e agreement.  The  J o i n t Commission  e s t a b l i s h e d t o s e t t l e the s i z e of I n d i a n r e s e r v e s . had  been e s t a b l i s h e d p r i o r  the  federal  logical  that  government any  t o 1871  pursuant  to  but none had the  lands which were not  Terms  Some r e s e r v e s  been conveyed to of  Union.  the  Province.  P r o v i n c e may  The  It i s  included i n a reserve,  approved by the J o i n t Commission, would not need t o be by  was  as  "conveyed"  r e f e r e n c e to a r e v e r s i o n i n favour of  the  be seen as an agreement by the f e d e r a l government not  Borthwick,  "Reversionary  I n t e r e s t " , 3.  35 t o c l a i m any  i n t e r e s t i n p r o v i n c i a l land  Terms o f the Union) t h a t was  (under A r t i c l e  13 of  not u l t i m a t e l y s e t apart as an  the  Indian  reserve.  The  original  agreement  regarding  the  establishment  of  Indian  r e s e r v e s a l s o contemplated a continuous adjustment of r e s e r v e based on  population.  revert  to  the  data.  This  Any  province,  feature  land i n excess of a band's need was from  of  the  i n d i c a t i o n of a continuing the  province.  any  extra  provincial  Crown lands.  reversionary give  up  required  aspect  more l a n d  of  time  agreement  i f and  time was  depending perhaps  in  the  future  Province  would  be  when i t was  necessary.  It i s  the  " t a k i n g " s i d e o f the  agreement may  e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n was  agreement was  In support  other  sociological  from  on  doubtful  at  the  time  due  negotiated.  of i t s r e v e r s i o n a r y c l a i m ,  were o n l y those i n t e r e s t s i n the and  on  the  the p r o v i n c e  could  argue  t h a t the i n t e r e s t s t h a t were to be conveyed pursuant t o A r t i c l e  use  to  understood,  i n drastic decline  factors,  the  bound t o  T h e i r focus  be more e a s i l y  of  that  giving effect  " g i v i n g " s i d e of the agreement, ad i n f i n i t u m .  arid  strongest  taken  agreement they would a l s o be  the  disease  the  updated  planned t o r e l y  that p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s s e r i o u s l y considered  to  on  c o r o l l a r y t o t h a t p r o v i s i o n was  I f the the  to  to  i n t e r e s t h e l d by the Crown i n r i g h t  However, the  land  size  b e n e f i t of the  Indians  13  l a n d t h a t were necessary f o r the  - a limited usufructuary  interest.  Such a l i m i t e d right  to s e l l  interest develop land,  r e s e r v e lands  could their  or  usufructuary surrender.  restrict  lands.  mineral  interest  i n the  r i g h t s nor  f o r development purposes.  the  ways  rights would  in  which  hence  the  i n exchange cease  underlying  and  include mineral  Indian  A  to  province  surrendered  lands.  The  surrender  immediately  interest  would  acquire  federal  would  upon become the  government c o u l d This  was  the s i t u a t i o n i n O n t a r i o , as h e l d by the P r i v y C o u n c i l  i n S t . C a t h e r i n e ' s M i l l i n g and Lumber Co. v. The Queen.  In o r d e r t o f u l l y I n d i a n bands, the  develop  federal  and manage lands  Province  was  transferred.  t h a t such  However,  an  this  P r o v i n c i a l Government's own  Cas.  The  interest position  statements  Indian p o l i c y .  (1888) 14 App.  5 2  f o r the b e n e f i t of  government would r e q u i r e a p r o p r i e t a r y  i n t e r e s t e q u i v a l e n t t o a fee simple. the  the  a l l of  not d i s p o s e of any i n t e r e s t f o r the b e n e f i t of the band. i n essence  might  f o r compensation  exist  provincial  the  limited  Bands  For example, i f a band sought t o  timber  The  unburdened, interest  i n t e r e s t might not  46.  e a r l y p o s i t i o n taken  was may  never i n t e n d e d be  challenged  w r i t t e n i n defence  to by  by be the  of t h e i r  37 In  his  1875  Report  Walkem e x p l a i n e d Indians and aimed  at  and  Indian  defended  reserves.  treating  on  colony's  Walkem noted  the  Indians  r e p o r t , Walkem s t a t e d the r e a l Dominion as,  the  reserves,  as  Attorney  5 3  past p o l i c y  General regarding  t h a t past c o l o n i a l p o l i c y fellow' s u b j e c t s .  In  the  i s s u e between the p r o v i n c e and  the  "what a s s i s t a n c e i n land s h a l l  British  5 4  Columbia  g i v e t o enable the Dominion t o c a r r y out her I n d i a n p o l i c y ? " answering t h i s q u e s t i o n , the A t t o r n e y General  noted  the  l a n d t o be p r o v i d e d ought t o enhance those p u r s u i t s . Indians  hunters; then  (2)  into  three  stock  considered  general  breeders  what  and  l a n d was  categories: farmers;  necessary  and  (1) (3)  5 6  In  5 5  t h a t the  He d i v i d e d  fishermen  and  labourers.  He  f o r each group.  i n t e r e s t i n g t o note h i s comments w i t h r e s p e c t t o  now  different  p u r s u i t s o f the Indians of B r i t i s h Columbia and suggested  the  was  It i s  fishermen:  No good r e a s o n e x i s t s why " f i s h e r i e s , " s u c h as those e s t a b l i s h e d by our merchants... s h o u l d not be e r e c t e d i n s u i t a b l e p l a c e s f o r the b e n e f i t of the Indians, and be i n time p r o f i t a b l y c o n t r o l l e d and conducted by themselves...The e s t a b l i s h m e n t of lumber m i l l s and o t h e r i n d u s t r i e s would u n q u e s t i o n a b l y f o l l o w success i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . 5 7  53  "Report of the Government o f B r i t i s h Columbia on the Subject of Indian Reserves", British Columbia, L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, S e s s i o n a l Papers, 2d P a r i . , 1st s e s s . , 1876, 57.  54  Ibid.,  60.  55  Ibid.,  58.  56  Ibid.,  63.  5  Ibid.,  63-64.  7  38 In  the  preceding  comments,  there  B r i t i s h Columbia's Indian p o l i c y was  is  evidence  that  Indians. Douglas  necessary  I t should foresaw  a  also  l e a s e d , w i t h the proceeds Early  British  principles policy  of  Columbia  of  remembered  whereby  that  unused  early  Indian  on,  Governor  lands  might  Indian  policy  I t may  and  be  was  perhaps  more  assimilation.  not  based  p r o p e r l y viewed On  either  view  as white to  would need at l e a s t  s e t t l e r s enjoyed  an i n t e r e s t  - a fee simple i n t e r e s t .  grant  skills  fisheries,  successive  reserve  and  l a n d base i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  timber,  water,  Commissions  and  mineral  routinely  Walkem's r e p o r t was past  policy  disregards  as the  probably  enlightened puffery,  the  and  reference  description  shows the n e c e s s i t y of bestowing the  purpose.  use  and  benefit  of  the  of  their  rights.  Indeed,  water  rights,  stations.  a view  commendable.  land  intention  reserved  w r i t t e n with  the  an  f i s h e r i e s and s p e c i f i c lands f o r timber and f i s h i n g  for  The  a  their  i n their  Indians e v e n t u a l l y founding s u c c e s s f u l i n d u s t r i e s out o f  traditional to  as f u l l  on  as  of  b a s i s f o r the p o l i c y as espoused by Walkem, the Indians, o r "trustee",  be  d i r e c t e d t o the maintenance o f the Band.  equality.  integration  pursuits.  f o r t h i s g o a l would be a l l o t t e d t o the be  system  of  t o i n t e g r a t e the Indians i n t o  white s o c i e t y by d e v e l o p i n g t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l s k i l l s and Such l a n d as was  part  t o show the  But  even  if  one  policy  that  remains  a broad i n t e r e s t i n l a n d i n t r u s t Indians  i n order  to  effect i t s  39 Prior enacted amended  t o the r e s o l u t i o n  l e g i s l a t i o n t o support  t h e i r claim.  t h e s e c t i o n o f t h e Land  reservation Dominion  o f the r e v e r s i o n i s s u e , t h e p r o v i n c e  o f lands  In 1899 the p r o v i n c e  A c t , which  f o r the purpose  provided  o f conveying  f o r the use and b e n e f i t o f the Indians,  them  f o r the t o the  by adding the  words, and i n t r u s t t o r e - c o n v e y t h e same t o t h e P r o v i n c i a l Government i n case such lands ceased t o be used by such Indians; 5 8  The  1908 Land A c t p r o v i d e d t h a t : I t s h a l l be l a w f u l f o r the Lieutenant-Governor i n Council to, a t any time, grant, convey, q u i t - c l a i m , s e l l o r d i s p o s e of, on such terms as may be deemed a d v i s a b l e the i n t e r e s t o f the P r o v i n c e , r e v e r s i o n a r y o r otherwise i n any I n d i a n r e s e r v e , o r any p o r t i o n t h e r e o f . . . 5 9  This  s e c t i o n was  Revised  Statutes  carried  forward  of B r i t i s h  i n subsequent  Columbia,  until  e d i t i o n s of the  i t was  repealed i n  1970.  In c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h these enactments, the p r o v i n c e amended the Land R e g i s t r y Act, the consent  i n 1910, t o p r o h i b i t the r e g i s t r a t i o n  o f the Lieutenant-Governor)  o f any t i t l e  d e r i v i n g from  the Dominion which formed p a r t o f an Indian r e s e r v e . 58  S.B.C. 1899, c. 38, s. 9.  59  S.B.C. 1908, c.30, s.80.  60  S.B.C. 1910, c.27, s.2.  (without  6 0  As noted  40 earlier, in  this  s e c t i o n was  the S c o t t - C a t h c a r t  occasion,  sell  repealed,  Agreement  o f 1929.  i t s reversionary  The  the  practical  to  well,  of  to reserve  without  the  the  of  the  both  rhetorical  land  that  legislation  was  claim  to  l e g i s l a t i o n served surrendered  only was  remnant the  extinct.  However,  that  a  holder  o f the p r o v i n c i a l  reversionary  reversionary  Agreement,  interest  of  Executive. would  that lands  a  quiet  interest  was  the  Dominion  i n the  T h i s c o n d i t i o n continued  6 1  See S.B.C. 1931, c.32, s.2.  6 2  Borthwick,  "Reversionary  event  left  valid,  the of  interest.  abandoned. i n this  would of  any  by the terms of  virtually  interest  As  Whether o r not the  claim u n t i l ,  i t was  o f the r e v e r s i o n a r y  Indian  the  the p r a c t i c a l purpose o f f o r c i n g purchasers  stipulation  unalienated  bind  lands would be unable t o r e g i s t e r h i s  persisted i n their  McKenna-McBride  practical  legislation  Indian lands t o a l s o pay f o r the p r o v i n c i a l  The p r o v i n c e the  a  6 2  and  i t held.  p r o v i n c i a l c l a i m a g a i n s t a Dominion patentee. provincial  the  t o r e s e r v e lands, sometimes u s i n g  had  the s a n c t i o n  sale  d i d , on  d i d sanction  c o u l d not, by u n i l a t e r a l  re-convey  effect  Dominion patent interest  activity  The p r o v i n c e  Dominion  and  and sometimes u s i n g an Order i n c o u n c i l .  legislative  purposes.  The p r o v i n c e  61  interest,  r e g i s t r a t i o n o f Dominion patents a Crown grant,  f o l l o w i n g the recommendations  agreement  "re-convey"  the  Band  The  any  becoming  through t o become p a r t o f the  I n t e r e s t " , at 10.  41 "conveyance" claim  was  Council.  of  Indian  finally  reserves  dropped  in  i n 0/C 1969  1036. by  The  reversionary  Provincial  Order  6 3  B r i t i s h Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l No. 1555, May 13, 1969.  in  42 CHAPTER I I NATURE OF TITLE TO CROWN LANDS  Eventually, Dominion,  British  i n trust  Order  i n Council  under  which  Columbia  Railway B e l t  1036.  Prima  facie,  and Peace R i v e r B l o c k ,  1  identical effect  by  and c o n d i t i o n s  by Canada  (found i n  as w e l l as t o those r e s e r v e s  R e c a l l t h a t P r i v y C o u n c i l Order No. 208  c o n c e r n i n g r e s e r v e s i n t h e Railway B e l t , conveyance  o f t h e Indians,  the terms  lands are h e l d  lands t o the  1036) apply t o most o f t h e r e s e r v e s o u t s i d e the  w i t h i n t h e Railway B e l t .  of  reserve  f o r the use and b e n e f i t  the t r a n s f e r r e d  Order i n C o u n c i l  conveyed  i n the Scott-Cathcart  i n i t s terms  t o Order  approved t h e d r a f t  form  Agreement o f 1929, which i s  i n Council  1036.  o f P r i v y C o u n c i l Order No. 208 and B r i t i s h  The  combined  Columbia  Order  i n C o u n c i l 1036 was t o g i v e a common t i t l e t o v i r t u a l l y a l l o f the I n d i a n r e s e r v e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, under t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and c o n t r o l o f t h e f e d e r a l government.  T h i s was not, s t r i c t l y is  n o r m a l l y used  speaking, a "conveyance",  to describe  i n d i v i d u a l t o another.  a transfer  as t h a t  of property  term  from one  Rather i t was a t r a n s f e r o f c e r t a i n lands  from t h e Crown i n r i g h t o f the p r o v i n c e t o the Crown i n r i g h t o f Canada.  Any a n a l y s i s  o f the t r a n s a c t i o n  understanding t h a t the "conveyance"  must  proceed  from the  o f r e s e r v e lands was a c t u a l l y  The T r e a t y Reserves i n t h e North E a s t e r n B.C. were t r a n s f e r r e d under s e p a r a t e instrument ( B r i t i s h Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l No. 2995, Nov. 28, 1961).  43  a t r a n s f e r o f the Crown's p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t government t o another. interpreted  by  from one branch o f  The t r a n s f e r instrument  reference  t o t h e law  cannot simply  relating  to  conveyances.  Regard must be had f o r the nature  of the Crown's i n t e r e s t  lands,  control  and  Parliament  the  management  o r the p r o v i n c i a l  and  of  that  be  in its  interest  by  legislature.  Because o f the d i v i s i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e powers some o f the terms o f the conveyance may r a i s e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l problems. will  be  explored  later.  conveyance i s accepted,  Even  i f the v a l i d i t y  there i s s t i l l  o f the form of  some u n c e r t a i n t y as t o the  e f f e c t o f some o f the c o n d i t i o n s expressed and  These i s s u e s  therein.  Before  these  o t h e r matters can be addressed, however, i t w i l l be u s e f u l t o  examine the nature  o f the Crown's i n t e r e s t i n i t s l a n d g e n e r a l l y .  I t has o f t e n been expressed  by t h e h i g h e s t j u d i c i a l  the u n d e r l y i n g o r u l t i m a t e t i t l e Crown.  Leaving  aside,  authority that  t o Indian r e s e r v e lands i s i n the  f o r the moment, the n o t i o n o f  "Provincial  Crown" and " F e d e r a l Crown", l e t us examine what the t i t l e c o n s i s t s of.  Background - " I n t e r e s t s " i n Land  Canadian law r e g a r d i n g ownership o f l a n d has i t s o r i g i n s i n the common  law.  landholder. connection  with  Land  itself  Rather,  a  i s not  person  may  strictly hold  "owned"  certain  by  the  rights in  a p i e c e o f land, o r t o put i t another way, he has  44  a  c e r t a i n " e s t a t e " or  Crown's t i t l e may ownership. interests  be  "interest" described  A l l other held  of  i n a piece  as  "allodial",  interests in  the  Crown.  land  The  2  or  a "fee simple  e s t a t e " i n the l a n d .  l o t , f o r example,  simple"  he  Only of  absolute  "tenurial", one  the  may  being  come  to  sense o f t h a t term, i s to  as  "fee  G e n e r a l l y speaking,  this  i n t e r e s t i n l a n d t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l can h o l d .  The  h o l d e r o f a fee simple  the  purchases a house the  of the d e s c r i b e d p a r c e l of l a n d .  i s the h i g h e s t  are  When one  i s described  land.  or one  closest  "ownership" o f land, i n the t r a d i t i o n a l own  of  owner of  holds a number o f r i g h t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a  c e r t a i n d e s c r i b e d p i e c e of l a n d .  Instead o f owning the fee simple For  c o n s i d e r the  land holder i n  t o possess a bundle of r i g h t s connected w i t h the  example,  he  has  the  whatever purpose he may use),  land i t s e l f ,  right  please  the r i g h t t o s e l l  to  e x c l u s i v e l y use  ( s u b j e c t t o any  the  s i l v e r ) he  use  any  use  water f l o w i n g over the  and  sell  land. 2  for  or l e a s e i t t o someone e l s e , the r i g h t  and  another  land  statutes regulating  make use of the s u r f a c e o f the land, and any m i n e r a l s may  land.  find  t r e e s growing on  under the the  land,  land,  lease  them to o t h e r s .  the  right  to  Similarly,  one  sand,  could  sell  and He  or  any  surface.  to  a more q u a l i f i e d r i g h t  to  For  gravel  take  has  some of h i s r i g h t s  example, or  virtually  the  gold  right  can  He  (except  to  other  he  may  sell  minerals  a l l of  the  on  to his  rights in  A.H. O o s t e r h o f f and W. B. Rayner, Anger and Hornsberger Law o f Real Property, 2d ed., v o l . 1 (Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 1985), 80.  45  the  "bundle"  but r e s e r v e  or hold  back  one o r more.  example would be the r e s e r v a t i o n o f mineral of the land.  A  common  r i g h t s from t h e s a l e  The buyer would then have bought a s m a l l e r bundle o f  r i g h t s than t h e purchaser had t o s t a r t with.  He may pass on t h a t  bundle i n t a c t o r he may h o l d some r i g h t s back, o r dispose separately.  When we i n q u i r e  into  nature o f an " i n t e r e s t " i n land,  the "nature  o f them  of t i t l e "  we are seeking  o r the  t o determine the  s i z e o f t h e "bundle o f r i g h t s " and t h e k i n d o f r i g h t s i n c l u d e d i n the  bundle.  Crown's P r o p r i e t a r y I n t e r e s t i n Land  Ever s i n c e  the r e i g n o f W i l l i a m  t h e Conqueror  (1066 A.D.) the  Crown has been deemed t o be t h e owner o f a l l u n a p p r o p r i a t e d of  t h e realm,  i n c l u d i n g i t s c o l o n i a l possessions.  all  Crown lands,  the  f e e simple e s t a t e .  flow  numerous  lands  Therefore, i n  t h e Crown has a l l o f the i n t e r e s t s t h a t make up From t h e p r e r o g a t i v e  additional  rights  over  Crown  powers o f the Crown land  and a l l  other  lands.  The  Crown's  prerogative  proprietary  vacantia",  (personal  flowing  from  t h e Royal  i n c l u d e the ownership o f a l l mines o f g o l d and s i l v e r  ("Royal Mines") wherever "bona  interests  property  situate within  being rather  certain than  kinds land),  t h e realm,  the r i g h t t o  o f abandoned certain  fish  property and r o y a l  46 swans.  Also,  3  the  l a n d which has  Crown i s e n t i t l e d  become ownerless  due  a l l p r e v i o u s l y granted  to a lack of h e i r s  i s s a i d t o "escheat" t o the Crown). of  to  Perhaps the most  (the land  significant  these r i g h t s i s the r i g h t t o "Royal Mines". <  The  Crown a l s o owns, by v i r t u e o f i t s p r e r o g a t i v e r i g h t s ,  foreshore seabed  ( a l l lands between h i g h and  (including  limits,  and  minerals).  the  low  a l l m i n e r a l s thereunder) bed  of  a l l tidal,  tidal  water mark),  the the  within i t s t e r r i t o r i a l  navigable  rivers  (including  4  Crown Lands and P u b l i c Lands  Until and  approximately  interests  therefrom  was  revenues.  as  as  t o cover  he  a l l the  King  these  had  Parliament  to c a l l  whereby  the  King  3  H.S. Theobald, 1929), 1-5.  4  Ibid.,  1-4.  sources  Law  his  revenue and  was  running  lands  generated  hereditary at  the  one  time  government,  upon P a r l i a m e n t  to  supply  eventually placed c e r t a i n controls  surrendered The  The  ordinary  expenses o f  on the d i s p o s i t i o n o f Crown lands, and made  could deal with  pleased. Crown's  from  the King  funds.  the  the  revenue  increasingly  additional  lands  known  The  sufficient but  in  1700,  finally the  an arrangement  major  p o r t i o n of  of the Land (London: W.  was his  Clowes,  47 hereditary known as that  revenues  the  each  ordinary  Civil  to  List.  reigning and  Parliament  in  return  In England,  5  Monarch,  hereditary  upon  this  for  system  accession,  revenues  shall  an  annual  sum  continues  so  agrees  be  paid  c o n s o l i d a t e d revenue fund i n r e t u r n f o r a f i x e d annual  In  earlier  times  there  was  no  distinction  p r o p e r t y h e l d by the Crown i n a p e r s o n a l a political  capacity.  arrangement, revenues are The  to  the  Civil  p a i d i n t o a fund, t o be  the  and  the  control  and  management o f  other  sources  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l theory vested  sum.  between  that held i n  or consolidated the  Crown  appropriated  by  fund  but  the  Parliament.  ("privy purse") t o use  management  words, the p u b l i c , through Parliament,  and  in  the  as  She  but the remainder of Her o r d i n a r y and h e r e d i t a r y revenues  under  control  is  into  drawn  c a p a c i t y and List  revenues  Queen s t i l l has p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y  pleases, are  title  Under the  that a l l  i n the Crown.  of  the  of now  Parliament. has  a l l p u b l i c lands  from  revenue. and  other  the b e n e f i c i a l  revenues d e r i v e d  hereditary  In  6  Crown  use, lands  However,  revenue are s a i d to  7  Gerard LaForest, N a t u r a l Resources and P u b l i c Property Under the Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n , (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1969), 5. Ibid.,  6.  See A t t y . - Gen. B.C. v. A t t y . - Gen. Canada (1889), 14 App. Cas. 295, a t 301 (Sometimes h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as the "Precious Metals" c a s e ) .  in be  48 Crown Lands i n Canada  In B r i t i s h lands  and  enjoyed disposed  colonial  had  in of  Canada, the  prerogative rights  the  United  Kingdom.  a l l revenues  s o v e r e i g n owned a l l ungranted  and In  generated  privileges practice from  similar  the  colonial  b e n e f i t o f the c o l o n i e s i n which they were s i t u a t e . local  assemblies  each l o c a l  Crown lands 8  l a c k e d c o n t r o l over t h e i r revenues.  assembly was  to  those  held  and  for  the  However, the Eventually,  granted the power t o c o n t r o l i t s revenues  by l e g i s l a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h a t passed  i n England.  In h i s work on n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s and p u b l i c p r o p e r t y i n Canada, Gerard L a F o r e s t (now Canada) reviews  Mr.  J u s t i c e L a F o r e s t , o f the Supreme Court of  the l e g i s l a t i o n g r a n t i n g each o f the o r i g i n a l  p r o v i n c e s c o n t r o l over t h e i r r e s o u r c e s .  four  He p r o v i d e s t h i s summary  of the s i t u a t i o n at C o n f e d e r a t i o n . T h i s , t h e n , was t h e s i t u a t i o n a t C o n f e d e r a t i o n i n the p r o v i n c e s o r i g i n a l l y u n i t i n g t o form the Dominion of Canada. The e n t i r e c o n t r o l , management, and d i s p o s i t i o n o f the Crown lands, and the proceeds o f the p r o v i n c i a l p u b l i c domain and c a s u a l revenues a r i s i n g i n these p r o v i n c e s were c o n f i d e d to the e x e c u t i v e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the p r o v i n c i a l governments and t o the l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n of the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s so t h a t Crown lands, though s t a n d i n g i n the name of the Queen, were, w i t h t h e i r a c c e s s o r i e s and i n c i d e n t s , t o a l l i n t e n t s and purposes the p u b l i c p r o p e r t y of the r e s p e c t i v e p r o v i n c e s i n which they were s i t u a t e . 9  L a F o r e s t , N a t u r a l Resources, Ibid.,  14.  11.  49  I t i s n o t c e r t a i n whether B r i t i s h Columbia had a c q u i r e d c o n t r o l of  a l l h e r e d i t a r y revenues by Imperial  Confederation  i n 1871.  Union had t h e e f f e c t property  However,  10  statute before  article  i t entered  10 o f t h e Terms o f  o f a c h i e v i n g t h i s by making t h e d i v i s i o n o f  s e c t i o n s i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867 a p p l i c a b l e t o the  new p r o v i n c e .  1 1  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r o p e r t y - C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867  In  constitutional  "indivisible".  1 2  theory  and i n law the Crown  However,  because  Canada  i s said  has  a  t o be  federal  c o n s t i t u t i o n which d i v i d e s l e g i s l a t i v e powers between t h e s e v e r a l provinces "in  and t h e Dominion, r e f e r e n c e i s o f t e n made t o the Crown  right  When  o f Canada",  the resources  provinces property was  or " i n right o f Canada  remained v e s t e d  resources, resources.  1 1  distributed  and t h e Dominion, t h e "ownership",  o r more simply, 1 3  province.  between t h e  or t i t l e  i n the Crown i n d i v i s i b l e .  d i s t r i b u t e d - was the c o n t r o l ,  1 0  were  of" a particular  t o the  What, i n law  b e n e f i t and management  o f the  the r i g h t t o t h e b e n e f i c i a l use o f the  T h e r e f o r e any t r a n s f e r o f p r o p e r t y between l e v e l s o f  I b i d . , 31, f o o t n o t e 26. Ibid.  1 2  See Her Majesty i n Right o f the P r o v i n c e o f A l b e r t a v. Canadian Transport Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 61, a t 10-11; [1977] 2 A l t a . L.R. (2d) 72, a t 79-80 (subnom. In r e P a c i f i c Western A i r l i n e s L t d . )  1 3  L a F o r e s t , N a t u r a l Resources, 17-18.  50 government  i n Canada  i s not  a  transfer  of  title,  but  rather  a  t r a n s f e r o f the r i g h t t o the b e n e f i c i a l use o f the p r o p e r t y . The  distribution  mainly of  resources  sections  Acts  certain  contained  i n t h a t they  charges  provinces  110,  Confederation  on  the  therein i s similar  distribute federal  s a l a r y o f the Governor G e n e r a l . the  at  by P a r t V I I I of the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1867.  the  Lists  of  113,  and  and 117.  the The  to  governed  The  1 4  the  effect  old  Crown p r o p e r t y w h i l e  c o n s o l i d a t e d fund,  Civil  imposing  including  the  P r o p e r t y i s d i s t r i b u t e d between  1 5  Dominion  is  by  s e c t i o n s 102,  most important  o f these  purpose o f t h i s study are s e c t i o n s 109,  and  107,  108,  s e c t i o n s f o r the  117:  109  A l l Lands, Mines, M i n e r a l s and R o y a l t i e s b e l o n g i n g t o the s e v e r a l P r o v i n c e s of Canada, Nova S c o t i a , and New Brunswick at the Union, and a l l Sums then due o r payable f o r such Lands, Mines, M i n e r a l s , or R o y a l t i e s , s h a l l belong t o the s e v e r a l P r o v i n c e s o f O n t a r i o , Quebec, Nova S c o t i a , and New Brunswick i n which the same are s i t u a t e o r a r i s e , s u b j e c t t o any T r u s t s e x i s t i n g i n r e s p e c t t h e r e o f , and t o any I n t e r e s t o t h e r than t h a t of the P r o v i n c e i n the same.  117  The s e v e r a l P r o v i n c e s s h a l l r e t a i n a l l t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e P u b l i c P r o p e r t y not otherwise d i s p o s e d of i n t h i s Act, s u b j e c t t o the Right o f Canada t o assume any Lands or P u b l i c P r o p e r t y r e q u i r e d f o r F o r t i f i c a t i o n s or f o r the Defence o f the Country.  C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867, 30-31 R.S.C. 1970, Appendix I I . 191. L a F o r e s t , N a t u r a l Resources,  105.  109,  Vict,  c.3  (U.K.),  in  Because B r i t i s h own d i s t i n c t Article  Columbia entered C o n f e d e r a t i o n  terms, these must a l s o be examined.  13 o f t h e Terms  o f Union  concerns  property r e l a t i v e t o Indian reserves. Dominion  i s allotted  [stocks, more  bonds,  pursuant  purposes). property  The  property  to Section  Bear  117  sections  retained  (property  required  107  o f assuming f o r defence  t h e Dominion,  to Confederation.  virtually  (section  the p o s s i b i l i t y  i t a c q u i r e d came from the p r o v i n c e s  provinces  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  the d i s t r i b u t i o n of  i n mind t h a t t h e e n t i t y , prior  with i t s  I t should be noted t h a t the  i n two  e t c . ] and 108) w i t h  o f i t s own  property  later,  had no  Therefore,  any  - the o l d c o l o n i e s .  a l l of their  property v i a  s e c t i o n s 109 and 117.  It  s h o u l d be noted,  however, t h a t although  the s e c t i o n s r e f e r  t o p r o p e r t y "belonging t o " t h e p r o v i n c e s o r , t h e " p u b l i c p r o p e r t y " of  the provinces,  control.  This  discussed  these i s due  earlier.  terms  actually  mean b e n e f i c i a l  t o the nature  The P r i v y  Council  of  "public  use and  property",  h a s commented  on t h e  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r o p e r t y i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1867: In c o n s t r u i n g these enactments, i t must always be kept i n view t h a t , wherever p u b l i c l a n d w i t h i t s i n c i d e n t s i s d e s c r i b e d as "the p r o p e r t y o f " o r as "belonging t o " the Dominion o r a P r o v i n c e , these e x p r e s s i o n s merely import t h a t the r i g h t t o i t s b e n e f i c i a l use, o r t o i t s proceeds, has been a p p r o p r i a t e d t o the Dominion o r t h e P r o v i n c e , as t h e c a s e may be, a n d i s s u b j e c t t o t h e c o n t r o l o f i t s l e g i s l a t u r e , the l a n d i t s e l f being v e s t e d i n the Crown. 16  S t . C a t h e r i n e s M i l l i n g and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 a t 56, per Lord Watson.  52 Sections  109 and 117 o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867 have been  i n t e r p r e t e d as r e s i d u a r y c l a u s e s , g i v i n g the p r o v i n c e s c o n t r o l o f all  public  assigned  property  t o t h e Dominion.  specifically so  limited  considered section  The  and p r e r o g a t i v e Although  r e f e r to "public property" i t .  1  7  In St. Catherine's  t o be simply  109.  a restatement  revenues  not  otherwise  section  109  does n o t  judicial  c o n s t r u c t i o n has  Milling,  section  o f what was expressed i n  18  wording  of section  j u d i c i a l consideration.  109  has been  the subject  The s e c t i o n d e a l s with  and R o y a l t i e s b e l o n g i n g  t o the s e v e r a l Provinces  However,  i t can be broken  into  lands, and (2) r o y a l t i e s . the expression  minerals  down  two s u b j e c t s :  ..." .  (1) p u b l i c  T h i s i s so because the c o u r t s have h e l d  "lands"  i n section  but " r o y a l t i e s " has separate  P r e c i o u s Metals  o f much  " A l l Lands, Mines,  Minerals  that  117 was  109  includes  mines and  legal significance.  In the  case, Lord Watson s t a t e d :  The e x p r e s s i o n "lands" i n t h a t a r t i c l e [ a r t i c l e 11 o f the Terms o f Union] a d m i t t e d l y c a r r i e s w i t h i t t h e baser metals, t h a t i s t o say, "mines" and "minerals" i n the sense o f s e c t i o n 109. Mines and m i n e r a l s , i n t h a t s e n s e , a r e incidents of land... 1 9  A t t y . - Gen. O n t a r i o v. Mercer (1883), 8 App. Cas. 767, at 775-76 (P.C.). 14 App. Cas. 46, a t 57 ( P . C ) . 14 App. Cas. 295, a t 305.  53 Lord  Watson went on t o h o l d  metals  that  "royalties",  including  ( g o l d and s i l v e r ) were not " i n c i d e n t s o f l a n d " .  "royalties" stemming  refers  from  t o those  the r o y a l  proprietary  prerogative.  109 has not r e c e i v e d  rights  Although  i n section  definition,  i t has been h e l d t o i n c l u d e such p r e r o g a t i v e 2 0  and  The term  o f t h e Crown  "royalties"  r o y a l mines ( g o l d and s i l v e r ) ,  precious  the  an e x h a u s t i v e  escheats.  term legal  r i g h t s as  21  Crown Lands i n B r i t i s h Columbia - Terms o f Union  As  a r e s u l t of a r t i c l e  o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, those which o b v i o u s l y and  except  modified  10 o f the Terms o f Union the p r o v i s i o n s 1867 a p p l i e d t o B r i t i s h Columbia,  only  concerned the o r i g i n a l  t o the extent  by the s p e c i f i c  where  Terms  the general  o f Union.  four  provinces,  provisions  Article  except  were  10 reads as  follows: 10. The p r o v i s i o n s o f the " B r i t i s h North America Act, 1867," s h a l l (except those p a r t s t h e r e o f which are i n terms made, o r by r e a s o n a b l e intendment may be h e l d t o be s p e c i a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o and o n l y a f f e c t one and not the whole o f the P r o v i n c e s now comprising the Dominion, and except so f a r as the same may be v a r i e d by t h i s Minute) be a p p l i c a b l e t o B r i t i s h Columbia i n the same way and t o the l i k e extent as they apply t o the other Provinces o f the Dominion, and as i f the colony o f B r i t i s h Columbia had been one o f the Provinces o r i g i n a l l y u n i t e d by the s a i d A c t .  2  o  21  Ibid. A t t y . - Gen. Ont. v. Mercer, supra f . n . 17.  54 La F o r e s t has to  apply  the  Constitution c o l o n y had,  noted  property Act,  1867  t h a t one  of the e f f e c t s of a r t i c l e  sections to  (including  British  109  Columbia,  and  117)  whether  or  10  was  of  the  not  the  p r i o r t o C o n f e d e r a t i o n , gained c o n t r o l o f the Crown's  hereditary revenues.  In t h i s r e g a r d La F o r e s t p o i n t s out:  22  Though i t does not appear t h a t the s o v e r e i g n ever f o r m a l l y surrendered the t e r r i t o r i a l and c a s u a l revenues t o B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a b e f o r e C o n f e d e r a t i o n as o c c u r r e d i n the o l d e r p r o v i n c e s , i t has been assumed by the h i g h e s t a u t h o r i t y t h a t t h i s was the c a s e . 2 3  The  author  case. that  cites,  among  other  authorities,  I t appears t h a t i n a l l of the British  Columbia  entered  the  authorities  Confederation  in  Precious cited control  Metals  the of  fact the  Crown's h e r e d i t a r y revenues i s t r u l y assumed, as opposed t o being actually  proved.  However,  the  issue  is  likely  of  little  s i g n i f i c a n c e anymore because of a r t i c l e 10 and the P r i v y C o u n c i l ' s d e c i s i o n i n A t t y . - Gen.  A l b e r t a v. A t t y . - Gen.  2 2  L a F o r e s t , N a t u r a l Resources,  2 3  I b i d . , 32,  2 4  [1928] A.C.  footnote 475.  26.  31.  Canada.  24  In t h a t  55 case,  the c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d s e c t i o n 3 o f The  Section  3 was  very  similar  i n i t s wording  A l b e r t a Act, to  article  10  1905. of  25  the  Terms o f Union and the c o u r t h e l d t h a t :  ...the e f f e c t o f t h i s s e c t i o n . . . ( p l a c e s ) the P r o v i n c e of A l b e r t a i n the same p o s i t i o n as the o t h e r P r o v i n c e s i n r e g a r d t o p r o p e r t y , except as v a r i e d by the s t a t u t e , e i t h e r by express terms or reasonable i m p l i c a t i o n . 2 6  I t seems reasonably c l e a r then t h a t B r i t i s h Columbia was in  the  same p o s i t i o n  as the  other  provinces with  respect to  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r o p e r t y under the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, also  clear  from  Constitutional  the  status  case  law  that  and  are  capable  2 7  the  Terms  of  placed  1867.  of  It i s  Union  modifying  or  the  have  varying  the s e c t i o n s o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, ( i n c l u d i n g the p r o p e r t y s e c t i o n s , 109  There  are  two  to  articles  their  face  vary  the  found  i n s e c t i o n s 109  i n the  general  and  117.  and  117).  1867  2 8  Terms o f Union which appear scheme o f These  are  property Article  on  distribution 11  - dealing  w i t h the t r a n s f e r of r a i l w a y b e l t lands - and A r t i c l e 13 - d e a l i n g w i t h the t r a n s f e r o f lands f o r I n d i a n r e s e r v e s . VII c.3  In f a c t ,  (Canada), i n R.S.C. 1970,  Article  2 5  4-5 Edw. 317.  2 6  [1928] A.C. 475 a t 485-6. See a l s o Metals Case", 14 App. Cas. 295 at 304.  2 7  Jack v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 294, a t 299-300, 301-302; [1979] 2 C.N.L.R. 24 (S.C.C.) at 27-29.  2 8  See P r e c i o u s Metals case, 14 App.  Cas.  Appendix I I , the  295,  "Precious  303-4.  and  56 11  has  been d e s c r i b e d  writer  is  Article  unaware  13.  In the  as  of  an  any  exception similar  from  s e c t i o n 109.  judicial  The  29  interpretation  of  30  Precious  Metals  case  the  Privy Council considered  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between A r t i c l e 11 and s e c t i o n 109: The 11th A r t i c l e ... i s a p a r t o f a g e n e r a l s t a t u t o r y arrangement, of which the l e a d i n g enactment i s , t h a t , on i t s a d m i s s i o n t o t h e F e d e r a l Union, B r i t i s h Columbia s h a l l r e t a i n a l l the r i g h t s and i n t e r e s t a s s i g n e d t o i t by the p r o v i s i o n s of the B r i t i s h North America Act, 1867, which govern the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y and revenues between the P r o v i n c e and the Dominion; the 11th A r t i c l e b e i n g n o t h i n g more than an e x c e p t i o n from these p r o v i s i o n s . 3 1  If  Article  property One  11  can  possible effect  retain  viewed  as  an  p r o v i s i o n s perhaps A r t i c l e  Columbia r e t a i n i n g  the  be  of  implications i n chapter  those  pursuant of  would  this  to  from  "constitutional  general  could  a l s o be  so  viewed.  be  that,  instead of  British  t o s e c t i o n 109,  lands which are t o be  article  the  13  " a l l lands", e t c . pursuant  a l l lands except  Indians  this  exception  13.  The  exception"  reserved for  possible will  they  be  legal  examined  five.  Ibid.,  304.  However, i n Jack v. The Queen, [1979] 2 C.N.L.R. 24, t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada seemed t o a c c e p t the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t A r t i c l e 13 c o u l d v a r y another S e c t i o n of g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1867, s. 91(24) (Indians and lands r e s e r v e d f o r the I n d i a n s ) . 14 App.  Cas.  295,  303-304.  57 In summary i t i s noted the  that B r i t i s h  Columbia  i s generally i n  same p o s i t i o n as a l l the o t h e r p r o v i n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the  "ownership"  of p u b l i c property  and revenues.  The s p e c i a l  terms  under which the p r o v i n c e entered C o n f e d e r a t i o n have c o n s t i t u t i o n a l status  and  application  are capable  of varying  the p r o v i s i o n s of  i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867.  Article  general  13, which  r e q u i r e s the p r o v i n c e t o convey lands f o r I n d i a n r e s e r v e s , may be viewed  as  an e x c e p t i o n  or v a r i a t i o n  p a r t i c u l a r l y s e c t i o n s 109 and 117.  o f those  general  terms,  58  CHAPTER I I I TRANSFER OF CROWN LANDS FROM PROVINCE TO DOMINION  T r a n s f e r o f Crown Lands  Generally  There are s i g n i f i c a n t to  an  individual  government. the  and  other  the  a  i n the  i n the grant various  individual, the  and  d i f f e r e n c e s between a Crown  transfer  A normal Crown grant  fee simple  included  legal  land  less  between  whatever  l e v e l s of  r i g h t s o f way).  mineral  or  were rights  Once the l a n d i s granted t o an  i t ceases t o become p u b l i c o r Crown l a n d .  management,  convey  reservations  ( u s u a l l y the Crown r e s e r v e s  (and t h e government)  interest,  land  t o an i n d i v i d u a l would  f e e simple i s no longer v e s t e d Crown  of  grant  i n the Crown. ceases  control  I t follows  t o have  i n o r over  That i s , that  any b e n e f i c i a l the  land.  The  p r o v i n c i a l government may, pursuant t o l e g i s l a t i o n , have a c e r t a i n regulatory no longer Crown  i n f l u e n c e over l a n d h e l d by i n d i v i d u a l s i n f e e , but i t enjoys b e n e f i t s r e l a t e d t o "ownership".  would  prerogative  also  retain  (foreshore,  i t s interest Royal  Mines,  flowing  The p r o v i n c i a l from  etc.) unless  the  Royal  specifically  granted w i t h the f e e simple.  When l a n d i s t r a n s f e r r e d from the Crown i n r i g h t o f a to  the Crown  conveyed,  i n r i g h t o f the Dominion,  since  i t remains  What i s accomplished  vested  the f e e simple  i n the Crown  province i s not  "indivisible".  i s not a "conveyance" i n law, but r a t h e r  a  59 t r a n s f e r o f b e n e f i c i a l use and c o n t r o l .  1  But  since beneficial  use  and c o n t r o l i s a l l any government has with r e s p e c t t o Crown lands, when t h i s land.  i s t r a n s f e r r e d i t leaves  virtually  no  interest  in  the  2  The  government t h a t has  the  b e n e f i c i a l use  of the  l a n d i s the  o n l y government t h a t can dispose o f t i t l e t o the l a n d . clear  whether  there  is  any  preferred  method  3  I t i s not  for transferring  p u b l i c l a n d from a p r o v i n c e t o the Dominion, o r v i c e v e r s a .  T r a n s f e r from P r o v i n c e t o Dominion  The  Supreme Court  governments Resource  on  has  various  Reference,  4  commented on occasions.  the  Court  a t r a n s f e r of  In  the  Saskatchewan  considered  t r a n s f e r o f Rupert's Land from the  Imperial  l a n d between  the  effect  Natural of  the  Crown t o the Crown i n  r i g h t o f Canada:  See P r e c i o u s Metals case, 14 App. Cas. 295. cases on t h i s p o i n t w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o l a t e r .  Other  The Crown may, depending on the circumstances of the transfer, retain c e r t a i n prerogative rights, or " r o y a l t i e s " , i n t h e l a n d . SeePreciousMetalscase,generally. O n t a r i o Mining R e f e r e n c e Re S.C.R. 263.  Co. v. Seybold, Saskatchewan  [1903] A.C  Natural  73.  Resources,  [1931]  60 I t i s o b j e c t e d t h a t , although the T e r r i t o r i e s were made p a r t of the Dominion and became s u b j e c t t o i t s l e g i s l a t i v e c o n t r o l , t h e r e was no grant or conveyance o f the lands by t h e I m p e r i a l Crown t o t h e Dominion; but t h a t was not r e q u i s i t e , nor was i t the proper method o f e f f e c t i n g the transaction. I t i s not by g r a n t i n t e r p a r t e s t h a t Crown lands are passed from one branch t o another of the King's government; the t r a n s f e r takes e f f e c t , i n the absence of s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n , sometimes by Order i n C o u n c i l , sometimes by d e s p a t c h . There i s o n l y one Crown, and the lands b e l o n g i n g t o t h e Crown a r e and r e m a i n v e s t e d i n i t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f them and the e x e r c i s e o f t h e i r b e n e f i c i a l use may, from time t o time, as competently a u t h o r i z e d , be r e g u l a t e d upon the advice of d i f f e r e n t M i n i s t e r s charged w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e s e r v i c e . 5  Later  in  considered  A.G. the  Canada  v.  validity  Columbia t o the Dominion. foreshore of  Coal  Harbour,  Higbie  of The as  a  et  al.,  transfer  6  of  the land  a result  of  a provincial  t o t r a n s f e r the p r o p e r t y .  doubt  the  to  sufficient,  whether  o r any,  order  in  council  l e g i s l a t i v e authority.  on the l e g a l e f f e c t o f the o r d e r .  I b i d . , at  from  Court  British  Dominion claimed t h a t i t owned the  c o u n c i l which purported as  Supreme  7  Two  The  was  order i n  There was passed  Court was  some with  divided  members o f the Court h e l d  275.  [1945] S.C.R. 385. However, i t was unanimously h e l d t h a t the p r o v i n c i a l o r d e r - i n - c o u n c i l was an "admission o f f a c t " t h a t Coal Harbour was a " p u b l i c harbour" p r i o r t o 1871. It f o l l o w e d then, as a matter of law, t h a t the p r o p e r t y passed t o the Dominion v i a s e c t i o n 108 and Schedule 3 o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1867. See the judgments of Kerwin, J . at 426-7, and Rand, J . at 435.  61 the it  o r d e r i n c o u n c i l v a l i d as a "conveyance" n o t i n g , however, t h a t was  not a conveyance  Justice  i n the s t r i c t  legal  sense.  The C h i e f  stated:  The o r d e r s i n c o u n c i l may be upheld as v a l i d , because both Governments, i n a c t i n g as they d i d , were e x e r c i s i n g powers which are p a r t o f the r e s i d u a l p r e r o g a t i v e o f the Crown, o r because t h e t r a n s f e r from one Government t o another i s not a p p r o p r i a t e l y e f f e c t e d by o r d i n a r y conveyance. The King does not convey t o h i m s e l f ... 8  Rinfret,  C.J. then quoted a t l e n g t h from the Saskatchewan  Resources Reference, the same passage  that  has been  Natural  referred to  herein.  T r a n s f e r o f Crown Land Pursuant t o Terms o f Union  Under "convey" reserves transfer  t h e Terms land  t o t h e Dominion  British  Columbia  i n two  o f the Railway and j u d i c i a l  Belt  lands  consideration.  the  Since  11 and 13 o f the Terms o f Union  to  f o r Indian  the subject  of  t h e wording  of  are s u b s t a n t i a l l y the  i t i s useful  l e a d i n g cases concerning the Railway B e l t  [1945] S.C.R. 385, a t 402.  -  obliged  ( a r t i c l e 11). The  has been  same r e g a r d i n g t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o convey,  was  instances  ( a r t i c l e 13) and f o r the Railway B e l t  litigation articles  o f Union,  transfer.  t o examine  62 The Railway B e l t T r a n s f e r - P r e c i o u s Metals  In  the  metals  first  i n the  c o n s t r u e the By  Article  case, which Railway  Belt  "conveyance" 11,  the  concerned lands,  9  the ownership the  Privy  line  of  British  actually  r a i l w a y . . ."  g r a n t e d by  Council  had  o f those lands pursuant t o A r t i c l e Columbia  government  "convey t o the Dominion Government, i n t r u s t the  of precious  The  40-mile  was  to 11.  obliged  to  . . . p u b l i c lands along  wide  an A c t o f the l e g i s l a t u r e  strip  of  i n 1883.  i n t e r e s t i n g t o compare the wording o f a r t i c l e 13 which  land 10  was  It i s  states:  "to c a r r y out such p o l i c y [Indian p o l i c y ] t r a c t s of l a n d . . . s h a l l from time t o time be conveyed by the L o c a l Government t o the Dominion Government i n t r u s t f o r the use and b e n e f i t o f the I n d i a n s . . . " In both cases, the o b l i g a t i o n specified  purpose.  Note  i s t o convey  however,  that  land  article  i n trust 11  for a  refers  to  " p u b l i c l a n d s " a term which the P r i v y C o u n c i l f o c u s s e d on i n t h e i r j udgment.  P r e c i o u s Metals case, 14 App.  Cas.  295.  An A c t R e l a t i n g t o the I s l a n d Railway, the Graving Dock, and Railway Lands o f the P r o v i n c e , S.B.C. 1884, c.14. (enacted Dec. 19, 1883).  63  The  following  passage  from  the  Privy  Council  decision  i l l u s t r a t e s the approach taken i n c o n s t r u i n g the l a n d t r a n s f e r :  Whether the p r e c i o u s metals are or are not t o be h e l d as i n c l u d e d i n the g r a n t t o the Dominion Government, must depend upon t h e meaning t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e words " p u b l i c l a n d s " i n the 11th A r t i c l e o f Union. The Act 47 V i c t . c. 14, s. 2, which was passed i n f u l f i l l m e n t o f the o b l i g a t i o n imposed upon the P r o v i n c e by t h a t a r t i c l e and the agreement of 1883, d e f i n e s the area of the lands but i t throws no a d d i t i o n a l l i g h t upon the nature and extent o f the i n t e r e s t which was intended t o pass t o the Dominion. The o b l i g a t i o n i s t o "convey" the lands, and the Act p u r p o r t s to "grant" them, n e i t h e r e x p r e s s i o n being s t r i c t l y a p p r o p r i a t e , though s u f f i c i e n t l y i n t e l l i g i b l e f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes. The t i t l e t o the p u b l i c lands o f B r i t i s h Columbia has a l l along been, and s t i l l i s , v e s t e d i n the Crown; but the r i g h t t o a d m i n i s t e r and t o dispose o f these lands t o s e t t l e r s , t o g e t h e r w i t h a l l r o y a l and t e r r i t o r i a l revenues a r i s i n g therefrom, had been t r a n s f e r r e d t o the P r o v i n c e , b e f o r e i t s a d m i s s i o n i n t o the f e d e r a l union. Leaving the p r e c i o u s metals out o f view f o r the present, i t seems c l e a r t h a t the o n l y "conveyance" contemplated was a t r a n s f e r t o the Dominion o f the p r o v i n c i a l r i g h t t o manage and s e t t l e the lands, and t o a p p r o p r i a t e t h e i r revenues. I t was n e i t h e r i n t e n d e d t h a t the lands should be taken out o f the P r o v i n c e , nor t h a t the Dominion Government should occupy the p o s i t i o n o f a f r e e h o l d e r w i t h i n the P r o v i n c e . The o b j e c t o f the Dominion Government was t o recoup the c o s t of c o n s t r u c t i n g the r a i l w a y by s e l l i n g the l a n d t o s e t t l e r s . Whenever l a n d i s so d i s p o s e d o f , the i n t e r e s t o f the Dominion comes t o an end. The l a n d then ceases t o be p u b l i c land, and r e v e r t s t o t h e same p o s i t i o n as i f i t had been s e t t l e d by the P r o v i n c i a l Government i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f i t s administration. That was a p p a r e n t l y the c o n s i d e r a t i o n which l e d t o the i n s e r t i o n , i n the agreement o f 1883, of the c o n d i t i o n t h a t the Government o f Canada s h o u l d o f f e r the l a n d f o r s a l e , on l i b e r a l terms, w i t h a l l c o n v e n i e n t speed. 11  It the  i s important  words  which  "convey"  t o note  (in article  t r a n s f e r r e d the 14 App.  the  Cas.  lands). 295,  P r i v y C o u n c i l ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of 11)  and  "grant"  It i s said  a t 301-302.  that  ( i n the  statute  n e i t h e r term i s  64 "strictly  appropriate"  was  a t r a n s f e r t o the  and  settle  the  not throw any interest  since  the  only  Dominion of the  lands.  The  Court  "conveyance" province's  intended  right  a l s o noted t h a t the  " a d d i t i o n a l l i g h t upon the nature  which was  contemplated  to be  and  passed t o the  statute did  extent of  Dominion."  P r i v y C o u n c i l looked t o the Terms o f Union and the 1883 based  on  "nature  the  obligation in article  11,  t o manage  i n order  to  the The  agreement, resolve  the  and extent o f the i n t e r e s t " of the Dominion i n the Railway  Belt.  Based on  the  above i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f  the  t r a n s f e r , the  Privy  C o u n c i l reached the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n :  I t t h e r e f o r e appears t o t h e i r L o r d s h i p s t h a t a conveyance by the P r o v i n c e o f " p u b l i c lands", which i s an assignment of i t s r i g h t t o a p p r o p r i a t e the t e r r i t o r i a l revenues a r i s i n g from such lands, does not imply any t r a n s f e r o f i t s i n t e r e s t i n revenues a r i s i n g from the p r e r o g a t i v e r i g h t s o f the Crown [e.g. revenues from p r e c i o u s m e t a l s ] . 1 2  Waters i n the Railway B e l t  The  Privy  Council  had  another  opportunity  to  t r a n s f e r o f the r a i l w a y lands pursuant t o a r t i c l e of Union, i n B u r r a r d rights  i n Railway  1 2  Ibid.,  1 3  [1911] A.C.  Power Company v. The  Belt  303. 87.  lands  had  King.  been granted  consider  the  11 o f the Terms C e r t a i n water  1 3  to  the  appellant  company by  the  B r i t i s h Columbia Water Commissioner, who  purported  t o act under the B r i t i s h Columbia Water Clauses C o n s o l i d a t i o n 1897.  The  14  lands, right  the of  proprietary  the  meaning  of  therefore statute  Court h e l d t h a t ,  under  could  91  The of  lands the  exclusive  not  a r e s u l t of the  rights therein  Dominion. section  as  were p u b l i c  Constitution  federal  a f f e c t the  had  the a  British  number  Columbia  of  t r a n s f e r of to  waters o f  Act,  those  lands.  referred  to  the  Crown  within  1867 The  in the  and  were  provincial  lands,  because  the  1 5  F i s h e r i e s Reference,  questions  the  lands  jurisdiction.  water r i g h t s were i n c i d e n t a l t o those  In  belonged  Act,  their  them  Lordships  concerning  the  ownership of f i s h e r i e s i n t i d a l waters and n o n - t i d a l waters w i t h i n the  Railway B e l t .  o f government had  The  1 6  Province  authority to l e g i s l a t e with respect to  f i s h i n g r i g h t s i n the waters. waters, the the  Province  Province  right  to  respect general the  to  1 5  1 6  had  fish  the  and  no  in  that  S.B.C. 1897, [1911] A.C.  waters,  title  since  waters  to  the  a  was  their  a  level  exclusive  h e l d t h a t , as regards  licences for t i d a l  tidal  non-tidal  I t was  j u r i s d i c t i o n to l e g i s l a t e .  exclusive  p r i n c i p l e that  soil, 1 4  issue  the  sought t o determine which  Nor  tidal could  waters s i n c e  public  right.  Lordships  f i s h e r y derives  Dominion owned the  the With  applied from  "whole  title  Atty.-Gen. B.C.  at  94.  v. Atty.-Gen. Canada, [1914] A.C.  to  solum",  c.45. 87,  the  153.  66 they  owned  f i s h e r y .1  the  7  In  reaching  this  a g a i n c o n s t r u e d the t r a n s f e r of the Railway to  the  Dominion.  Referring  to  the  d e c i s i o n the  B e l t from the  earlier  Court  Province  Precious  Metals  d e c i s i o n , the Court s t a t e d :  T h e i r L o r d s h i p s can see n o t h i n g i n the judgment above r e f e r r e d t o w h i c h c a s t s t h e s l i g h t e s t doubt upon t h e c o n c l u s i o n to which they h a v e come f r o m a direct c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the terms of the grant i t s e l f , namely, t h a t the e n t i r e b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n e v e r y t h i n g t h a t was t r a n s f e r r e d passed from the P r o v i n c e t o the Dominion. There i s no r e s e r v a t i o n o f anything t o the g r a n t o r s . The whole solum o f the b e l t l y i n g between i t s extreme boundaries passed t o the Dominion, and t h i s must i n c l u d e the beds of the r i v e r s and l a k e s which l i e w i t h i n the b e l t . Nor can t h e r e be any doubt t h a t e v e r y r i g h t s p r i n g i n g from the ownership o f the solum would a l s o pass t o the grantee, and t h i s would i n c l u d e such r i g h t s i n o r over the waters o f the r i v e r s and l a k e s as would l e g a l l y flow from the ownership of the s o l u m . 18  The  Court  determine  had  the  again  looked  "interests"  to  the  which  S p e c i f i c a l l y , they noted t h a t t h e r e was t o the g r a n t o r s had  (the P r o v i n c e ) .  been r e s e r v e d o r excepted  i n c o u n c i l 1036  Ibid  1 8  Ibid.  passed  of with  166.  grant  to  lands.  no r e s e r v a t i o n o f  anything  T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t i f anything  - such r e s e r v a t i o n might have reduced  at  the the  i n the grant - as was  the i n t e r e s t o f the F e d e r a l Crown.  1 7  terms  done i n Order or q u a l i f i e d  67 CHAPTER IV THE  Order  FORM OF CONVEYANCE - ORDER IN COUNCIL 1036  i n C o u n c i l 1036 was t h e instrument o f t r a n s f e r  of t h e I n d i a n r e s e r v e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. the  provincial  and f e d e r a l  Council  Order  subject  to identical  0/C  1036.  governments,  No. 208 t h e r e s e r v e s  f o r most  By agreement between and pursuant  i n t h e Railway  terms and c o n d i t i o n s t o those  to Privy Belt  were  expressed i n  Although the form o f t h e Order was v e r y s i m i l a r t o the  s t a t u t o r y form o f a Crown grant, we have seen t h a t the t r a n s f e r o f Indian  r e s e r v e s was n o t s t r i c t l y  "grant".  speaking,  a  "conveyance"  or  I n t h i s c h a p t e r t h e t r a n s f e r instrument w i l l be analyzed  i n o r d e r t o determine j u s t what i n t e r e s t i n t h e s u b j e c t lands passed  t o the federal  government,  and what was h e l d  back by the  province.  I t has been noted p r e v i o u s l y t h a t t h e wording o f the conveyance i n 0/C 1036 i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o t h e wording the  McKenna  - McBride  agreement.  of Section 7 of  The o p e r a t i v e words  o f the  t r a n s f e r a r e as f o l l o w s :  TO HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT - GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL: The undersigned has the honour t o RECOMMEND: THAT under a u t h o r i t y o f S e c t i o n 93 o f the "Land Act", being Chapter 144, "Revised S t a t u t e s o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1936", and S e c t i o n 2 o f Chapter 32, " B r i t i s h Columbia S t a t u t e s 1919", b e i n g the "Indian A f f a i r s Settlement Act", the lands s e t out i n schedule a t t a c h e d h e r e t o be conveyed  68 to H i s Majesty the King i n the r i g h t of the Dominion of Canada i n t r u s t f o r the' use and b e n e f i t of the Indians of the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia, s u b j e c t however t o the r i g h t o f the Dominion Government t o d e a l w i t h the s a i d lands i n such manner as they may deem best s u i t e d f o r the purpose of the Indians i n c l u d i n g a r i g h t t o s e l l the s a i d lands and fund or use the proceed f o r the b e n e f i t of the Indians s u b j e c t t o the c o n d i t i o n t h a t i n the event of any I n d i a n t r i b e or band i n B r i t i s h Columbia a t some f u t u r e time becoming e x t i n c t t h a t any lands hereby conveyed f o r s u c h t r i b e o r band, and n o t s o l d o r d i s p o s e d o f as h e r e t o f o r e p r o v i d e d , o r any unexpended fund being the proceeds of any such s a l e , s h a l l be conveyed o r r e p a i d t o t h e g r a n t o r , and t h a t s u c h c o n v e y a n c e s h a l l a l s o be s u b j e c t t o the f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n s : 1  The Order i n c o u n c i l p u r p o r t s t o convey the l a n d t o the King i n r i g h t o f Canada " i n t r u s t " f o r the use and b e n e f i t o f the  The  Indians.  Conveyance "In T r u s t "  In Guerin v. The Queen,  2  the Supreme Court o f Canada c o n s i d e r e d  the e f f e c t o f the t r a n s f e r o f I n d i a n r e s e r v e s i n B r i t i s h The from  Court the  province  Columbia.  d i s t i n g u i s h e d the r e s e r v e s i t u a t i o n i n B r i t i s h situation had  i n St. Catherine's  transferred t i t l e  to  Milling,  the  reserves  B r i t i s h Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l 1036, See Appendix. [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 14 App.  Cas 46  55 N.R.  (P.C).  3  161.  noting to  the  J u l y 29,  Columbia that  the  Crown i n  1938.  69 right  o f Canada.  Of course  4  the t i t l e  was both b e f o r e  and a f t e r  the t r a n s f e r v e s t e d i n the Crown, but the Crown i n r i g h t o f Canada had  a c q u i r e d the r i g h t t o the b e n e f i c i a l use and management o f the -  lands. of  One important  the p r o p e r t y .  stipulated reason old  that  aspect o f t h a t r i g h t i s the r i g h t t o dispose  The Canada  operative had  the r i g h t  o f the t r a n s f e r to s e l l  the  t h a t such express language was used probably  dispute  over  the  claimed  language i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h or  words  otherwise,  consistent  that  with  "reversionary  a provincial  would u n d e r l i e the  lands.  The  r e l a t e s t o the  interest".  interest,  Agreement,  p r o v i n c i a l government conceded t o abandon the claimed  The  reversionary  the f e d e r a l i n t e r e s t .  McKenna-McBride  clearly  It i s  wherein  the  reversionary  i n t e r e s t , except i n the event t h a t a band became e x t i n c t .  The o r d e r a l s o makes i t c l e a r t h a t the t r a n s f e r o f the lands t o Canada i s i n t r u s t  f o r the use and b e n e f i t o f the I n d i a n s .  does not l i m i t the nature o f the i n t e r e s t granted, restricting purpose  i t to a usufruct.  underlying  I t i s simply  the t r a n s a c t i o n .  5  f o r example, by  a statement  In o r d e r  i n c l u d i n g the s a l e  of  reserve  o f the  f o r the f e d e r a l  government t o c a r r y out the terms of the " t r u s t " , management,  This  lands),  ( t h a t i s , the i t would  be  4  Guerin v. The Queen, 173.  [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335, a t 380-381; 55 N.R  5  See the d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s p o i n t by the F e d e r a l Court o f A Guerin v. The Queen (1982), 45 N.R. 181 a t 250. Although t h Court o f Canada r e v e r s e d the d e c i s i o n o f the F e d e r a l Court o the l a t t e r c o u r t ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f the meaning o f the words " was not c o n t r a d i c t e d .  70 n e c e s s a r y t o a t l e a s t have the f e e simple i n t e r e s t i n the l a n d s . Neither  does  the c o n d i t i o n  becomes e x t i n c t  restrict  requiring  t h e scope  re-conveyance  when a  o f the i n t e r e s t  6  band  transferred.  I t might be viewed as a c o n d i t i o n subsequent t h a t does not a f f e c t the  absolute  interest  event may o c c u r .  7  granted u n t i l  such time  as t h e t r i g g e r i n g  In any event t h e c o n d i t i o n i s no l o n g e r o f any  p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t s i n c e i t s r e p e a l by o r d e r i n c o u n c i l i n 1969.  8  An analogous case on t h i s p o i n t i s Re T a x a t i o n o f U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba Lands, [1940] 1 D.L.R. 579 (Man. C.A.). The Manitoba Court o f Appeal c o n s i d e r e d t h e e f f e c t o f a conveyance o f l a n d from Canada t o t h e University. The deed r e c i t e d c e r t a i n t r u s t s and c o n d i t i o n s under which t h e lands were t o be h e l d by the University. The lands were t o be used f o r t h e purpose o f o p e r a t i n g t h e u n i v e r s i t y , and i n t h e event o f the u n i v e r s i t y c e a s i n g i t s o p e r a t i o n s , t h e l a n d was t o r e v e r t t o t h e f e d e r a l Crown. The U n i v e r s i t y c l a i m e d t h a t under the terms o f the conveyance they d i d not h o l d t h e f e e s i m p l e e s t a t e , b u t o n l y a power o f management and s a l e over the lands, which were s t i l l v e s t e d i n the Crown. The Court r e j e c t e d t h i s argument, and s t a t e d : the e x p r e s s i o n i n the f i r s t p r o v i s o , " s u b j e c t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g t r u s t s and p u r p o s e s " does n o t r e s t r i c t t h e scope o f the g r a n t - a l l the t r u s t s and purposes s t a t e d a r e merely t h e aims o f the U n i v e r s i t y which t h e U n i v e r s i t y would n a t u r a l l y d i s c h a r g e a n d a c c o m p l i s h i n i t s own n o r m a l o p e r a t i o n s , ( a t 592). Re T a x a t i o n o f U n i v e r s i t y D.L.R. 579, a t 592.  o f Manitoba  Lands,  [1940] 1  B r i t i s h Columbia Order i n C o u n c i l No. 1555, May 13, 1969.  The Act,  s t a t e d a u t h o r i t y under which the o r d e r i s made i s the Land s e c t i o n 93, chapter  empowered t h e p r o v i n c i a l purpose o f conveying the  144, R.S.B.C.  That  legislation  e x e c u t i v e t o r e s e r v e Crown lands f o r the  them t o t h e f e d e r a l government i n t r u s t , f o r  use and b e n e f i t o f t h e Indians.  authority  1936.  i s the Indian  Affairs  The o t h e r Settlement  noted Act.  statutory That A c t  a u t h o r i z e d , i n broad and g e n e r a l terms, t h e Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l t o do anything necessary Agreement, required  f o r the f i n a l  provincial simply  including  and f e d e r a l  such  t o c a r r y out the McKenna-McBride  further  settlement  negotiations  as might  be  o f a l l d i f f e r e n c e s between the  governments.  I f the l a t t e r  9  a u t h o r i z e d t h e e x e c u t i v e branch  t o c a r r y out the terms o f  the McKenna-McBride Agreement, i t would be arguable  t h a t t h e many  provisoes  included with  Statute.  The e a r l i e r agreement had simply c a l l e d f o r a conveyance  of  the t r a n s f e r  s t a t u t e had  were not a u t h o r i z e d by the  t h e lands i n t r u s t , w i t h a reconveyance i n case any band should  become e x t i n c t . Settlement conduct  However, t h e t h i r d s e c t i o n o f t h e I n d i a n  A c t g i v e s the p r o v i n c i a l  Affairs  executive the f l e x i b i l i t y t o  f u r t h e r n e g o t i a t i o n s and e n t e r i n t o f u r t h e r agreements.  S.B.C. 1919, c.32.  72 The  P r o v i n c i a l I n t e r e s t by Way  The  of the P r o v i s i o n s  o r d e r i n c o u n c i l contained  transfer  was  characterized  subject. as  several  Some  exceptions  or  of  i n 0/C  "provisoes"  these  in  granted.  being  at  reservations  from  excluded.  That which i s excepted must be  the A  time o f  reservation  intangible thing  - t o be  to  for  be  retained  example,  a  right  reservation property  grantor  for.  1 1  of  operates  t o the  the  the is  so  that  his  benefit  way). as  i f the the  -  has  grantor  had  grantee had  p a r t i c u l a r r i g h t which the  the  something t h a t  is  may  be  interpreted  as  an  be  defined a  right  grantor  said  granted  (for  that  the  grantor  exception,  had  "reserved i n that  bargained out of  the  i t does  not  t h i n g granted at any  w i t h the l a n d " .  I t would appear t h a t the o n l y t r u e e x c e p t i o n  0/C  1036  is  the  final  s t r e e t s , roads, e t c .  1  o  provision  Therefore,  Rayfuse v. Mugleston,  time, or i t does not  which  a  whole  become p a r t o f the 1 2  or  desires  granted  been  and  then g r a n t e d back t o  Sometimes a t h i n g which i s s a i d t o be  grant"  be  form p a r t of  thing  also  may  A  usually  the  the  grant.  which the  over  It  1 0  the  i t can  some b e n e f i t  newly c r e a t e d  grantee and  the  grant  t o which  provisions  t h i n g which i s "excepted" out o f a grant does not thing  1036  excepts  "run in  a l l travelled  a l l s t r e e t s , roads, e t c . which  [1954] 3 D.L.R. 360  I I  G. B a t t e r s b y , ed., W i l l i a m s on Butterworths, 1975), 548.  Title,  12  Rayfuse v. Mugleston, supra, at  368.  (B.C.C.A.), at p  4th ed.  (London:  73 come w i t h i n t h e language o f t h e e x c e p t i o n were not t r a n s f e r r e d t o the  Dominion  f o r the use and b e n e f i t o f t h e Indians,  but remain  under t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and c o n t r o l o f t h e p r o v i n c e .  The E x c e p t i o n o f S t r e e t s and Roads  The e x c e p t i o n i n 0/C 1036 reads as f o l l o w s :  PROVIDED a l s o t h a t a l l t r a v e l l e d s t r e e t s , roads, t r a i l s , and o t h e r highways e x i s t i n g over o r through s a i d lands a t t h e date hereof s h a l l be excepted from t h i s g r a n t .  It  should  "existing"  first  be  noted  that  those  streets, etc.  a t t h e date o f 0/C 1036 - J u l y 29, 1938 - a r e excluded  from t h e g r a n t .  The e x c e p t i o n does not reach any roads which have  come i n t o b e i n g a f t e r J u l y 29, 1938. in  only  the Railway  Belt  the date  I n t h e case o f r e s e r v e lands  i s that  of the Scott-Cathcart  Agreement as approved by P.C. 208 - February 3, 1930.  Any out  l a n d which f a l l s  of the grant  w i t h i n the e x c e p t i o n  which  operates  provincial legislative control.  as  an  ( o r any r e s e r v a t i o n  exception)  i s under  I n P r u d e n t i a l T r u s t Co. v. The  74 Registrar, of  t h e Supreme Court o f Canada commented upon the e f f e c t  1 3  reservations  and e x c e p t i o n s  in  a  grant  from  t h e Crown  Dominion:  The i n t e r e s t s r e t a i n e d by the Dominion, whether i n the form o f r e s e r v a t i o n s o r e x c e p t i o n s i n t h e g r a n t . . . were beyond t h e o p e r a t i o n o f p r o v i n c i a l law; they were p r o p e r t y o f Canada and under s. 91 o f t h e BNA A c t , w i t h i n t h e exclusive l e g i s l a t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of Parliament. 1 4  By  analogy,  exception  any i n t e r e s t s  retained  by  i n 0/C  1036  or reservations  legislative  control  and a r e p r o p e r t y  British  Columbia v i a  a r e beyond  within  the  federal exclusive  j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e .  The  main i s s u e w i t h r e s p e c t  t o t h i s exception  was a " t r a v e l l e d s t r e e t , road, t r a i l 29,  1938.  o r other  i s what i n f a c t  highway" as o f J u l y  The p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s p r o v i s o  i s , that  a l l roads w i t h i n the meaning o f t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Highway are covered by t h e e x c e p t i o n .  Act  1 5  That i s , a l l p u b l i c roads t h a t were  13  [1957] S.C.R. 658; 9 D.L.R. (2d) 561.  1 4  Ibid.,  1 5  R.S.B.C. 1979, c.167.  (S.C.R.) a t 660; (D.L.R.) a t 562.  in  existence  question were  were  of  fact  "travelled  Columbia  Supreme  not  consider  the  word  not  in  that  provincial Indians", the  reserve  (allotted) apply  to  federal  meant the  prior  "in  s t r e e t s and  road.  The  the The  0  but  1 7  the  the  roads  province  reserves  this not  affect  been  provincial Court  position  also  were  which  took  the  66 f e e t  on the  federal set  that  while t h e  a road  "lands  for  jurisdiction.  apart  as a  address  issue.  in  ground  reserved  declaration  d i d not  on t h i s  argued  did  declaration a l l  contention  exclusive  had  include  British  Court  public  provincial  Indian  under  i nquestion  provincial  could  1 8  could  t o 1911  before  by the  o f a 1911  were  2  Queen  use"  challenged  roads w i t h i n i t . o r the  The  exception  legislation  as such  I t would be a  1 6  The f e d e r a l government  o f way t h r o u g h  The Dominion  was a r g u e d  i n Moses v .  as a r e s u l t  rights  1 9  Since  that  conveyance. as t o which  exception"  as a p u b l i c  that  and  width.  use  case  arguments.  insisted  position roads  the  the  1938.  roads Court  from  given  in  "travelled"  province  the  i n any  " p u b l i c roads"  The  was  excluded  reserve  could  not  either  the  The  judgment  Don MacSween, " O r d e r i n C o u n c i l 1036: The Remnants o f C o l o n i a l Rule", i n I n d i a n s a n d t h e Law ( V a n c o u v e r : C o n t i n u i n g L e g a l E d u c a t i o n S o c i e t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 8 5 ) , a t 3.1.06.  1 6  1 7  [1977] 4 W.W.R. 474  (B.C.S.C).  1 8  See " w r i t t e n argument" o f F e d e r a l D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e i n M o s e s Supreme C o u r t f i l e , V a n c o u v e r R e g i s t r y No. 43319/75.  1 9  Moses,  2 0  Ibid.  [1977] 4 W.W.R. 474,  at  476-477.  76 was  confined  trespassing upon  t o the issue  on t h e reserves,  reserve  lands  interpretation be  said  that  width  the road  Use  may  they  the resumption exception  o f whether  a question depend  of fact. on  had a r i g h t power.  remains a  authorities  road  t o enter  Although  the  unresolved,  i t may  i s included  i n the  Furthermore,  t h e date  were  when  any  the actual particular  was e s t a b l i s h e d .  o f Sand and G r a v e l ,  Another gravel  on  the question  i s largely  reserve  based  provincial  o r whether  o f the roads  exception of  o f whether  on  Reserves  p r o v i s i o n o f 0/C  and o t h e r  road  1036 r e s e r v e s  building  a right  materials.  t o use sand and  I t reads  as f o l l o w s :  PROVIDED a l s o t h a t i t s h a l l be a t a l l t i m e s l a w f u l f o r a n y p e r s o n d u l y a u t h o r i z e d i n t h a t b e h a l f by Us, Our h e i r s and successors, t o take from o r upon any part of the hereditaments hereby granted, any g r a v e l sand, stone, l i m e , timber or other m a t e r i a l w h i c h may b e r e q u i r e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , maintenance, o r r e p a i r o f any roads, ferries, bridges, o r other p u b l i c works. But nevertheless paying t h e r e f o r e r e a s o n a b l e c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r s u c h m a t e r i a l s a s may be t a k e n f o r u s e o u t s i d e t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e h e r e d i t a m e n t s hereby granted:  The  clause  agents) required defined  reserves  t o take  a  right  the described  f o r the specified quite broadly  provision  of  t h e Crown  materials, but only  p u b l i c works.  but they  f o r compensation  (or their  authorized  those  which are  The s p e c i f i e d  works are  must be " p u b l i c works".  There i s a  to  f o r  be  paid,  but  only  those  77 m a t e r i a l s taken and used o u t s i d e the boundaries o f the  In a normal Crown grant a non-exclusive one  man  "profit  the  land  the  land.  a prendre",  the  soil."  itself,  as  the  "profits  of  person  the  granting  of  sand, g r a v e l  The  r i g h t i s non-exclusive  The  owner of  stone,  the  rights  to others.  (the Crown) has no  timber,  or land  the  standard  Crown grant  in  therefrom of  using  etc.,  are  because i t does property i s not  in  the  precluded  including  In e f f e c t ,  the  the  holder  of  "ownership" o f the m a t e r i a l s  but o n l y a r i g h t t o use what s t i l l might r e m a i n .  In  vested  a p r o f i t by  the same m a t e r i a l s as he p l e a s e s ,  similar  the r e s e r v e d r i g h t  right  as  something out  as  possession  construed  taking  " p r o f i t " must be  exclusive  soil".  from d e a l i n g w i t h  i s , "a  d i s t i n g u i s h e d from making  Such t h i n g s  give  that  l a n d of another and  The  2 1  " p r o f i t s o f the s o i l " . not  t h i s r e s e r v a t i o n might be  o f e n t e r i n g upon the  a p r o f i t of  reserve.  (which was  22  first  proposed by  the  p r o v i n c e t o govern the conveyance of Indian r e s e r v e s ) the r i g h t take  such  materials  compensation. However,  in  compensation,  This 0/C  was  i s more 1036  at l e a s t  the  expressly like  a  clause  stated  true  the boundaries o f the r e s e r v e .  "profit  expressly  f o r such m a t e r i a l s  to  as may  be a  without  prendre".  provides be  to  used  for  outside  T h i s o b v i o u s l y q u a l i f i e s the vol.  right  2 1  John S. James, Stroud's J u d i c i a l D i c t i o n a r y , (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1974) at 2141.  4,  2 2  Bayview P r o p e r t i e s L t d . v. Atty.-Gen. V i c t o r i a , [1960] V.R. 214 (Supreme Court o f V i c t o r i a , Aus.) at 216.  78 o f the p r o v i n c e t o take the s p e c i f i e d " p r o f i t s of the  The was  r e s e r v a t i o n o f sand and  inserted  gravel  i n early  sufficed  to  g r a v e l i s used r a r e l y  Crown g r a n t s ,  maintain  a  when  wagon  p r o v i n c e does not r e l y on t h i s outdated large  q u a n t i t i e s of m a t e r i a l s used  works.  soil".  a  road.  few  today.  wagon  It  loads  Presumably  2 3  of the  r e s e r v a t i o n t o o b t a i n the  i n modern major c o n s t r u c t i o n  However, the compensation i s s u e might be c o n s i d e r e d w i t h a  view t o m i n i m i z i n g  the  impact  o f the use  (even  i f rare) of  this  reservation.  I f a p o r t i o n o f an I n d i a n r e s e r v e was public 1036, from  road or  resumed  other  maintain  (whether t h a t road later)  portions  public  of  roads  was  originally  excepted  the  Band  to  reserve  free  should the  covered by a p r o v i n c i a l ,  "within  the  have of  provide  charge  boundaries  of  from  to  gravel  build  the  0/C  or  reserve"?  Even though p u b l i c roads may  be o f some b e n e f i t t o the band, they  may  and  a l s o fragment  band l a n d .  at  s u b t r a c t from the  E a r l y road b u i l d i n g was  power, without reading  reserves,  o f t e n a i d e d by the  compensation being p a i d .  least,  c o u l d have  the  effect  f u r t h e r supplement the g e n e r a l p u b l i c by f r e e of  charge.  MacSween, a t 3.1.06  total  area  resumption  T h i s r e s e r v a t i o n , on of  causing  of  the  Band  one to  s u p p l y i n g road m a t e r i a l s  79 Perhaps the  one way t o a v o i d  such  a result  would be t o i n t e r p r e t  "boundaries" o f the r e s e r v e t o not i n c l u d e  passed  to provincial  administration  roads which  and c o n t r o l .  This  have would  i n c l u d e a l l roads excepted, resumed, o r taken pursuant t o s e c t i o n 35  (and i t s p r e d e c e s s o r s ) o f the I n d i a n A c t .  T h e r e f o r e , i f road  2 4  m a t e r i a l s were needed f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n o r maintenance in  those areas, compensation  would be r e q u i r e d because  o f roads the areas  no l o n g e r form p a r t o f the r e s e r v e .  Water R i g h t s  Order i n C o u n c i l 1036 r e s e r v e s c e r t a i n water p r i v i l e g e s t o the Crown  o r persons  acting  under  i t s authority,  i n the f o l l o w i n g  terms:  PROVIDED a l s o t h a t i t s h a l l be l a w f u l f o r any person d u l y a u t h o r i z e d i n t h a t b e h a l f by Us, Our h e i r s and s u c c e s s o r s , t o take and occupy such water p r i v i l e g e s , and t o have and enjoy such r i g h t s o f c a r r y i n g water over, through o r under any p a r t s o f the hereditaments hereby granted, as may be r e a s o n a b l y r e q u i r e d f o r mining o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes i n the v i c i n i t y o f the s a i d hereditaments, paying t h e r e f o r e a r e a s o n a b l e compensation: The f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s are noted r e g a r d i n g t h i s  provision:  1. The p r o v i s i o n i s l i m i t e d t o water p r i v i l e g e s f o r t h e s p e c i f i e d purpose o f mining and a g r i c u l t u r a l o p e r a t i o n s i n the v i c i n i t y o f an I n d i a n r e s e r v e .  I n d i a n Act, R.S.C. 1970, c.I-6, s.35.  80 2. I t a l l o w s the Crown t o have the p r i v i l e g e o f u s i n g water on the r e s e r v e o r o f c a r r y i n g water over the r e s e r v e as may be r e a s o n a b l y r e q u i r e d f o r the s p e c i f i e d purposes. 3. Compensation must be p a i d f o r the use o f such p r i v i l e g e s .  Apparently carriage  of  reservation  water  agricultural does  this  by  i s not w i d e l y  flumes  or  purposes i s f a l l i n g  not r e s t r i c t  the Indians'  open  into use  used today, as the  ditches  disuse.  and  f o r mining The  2 5  enjoyment  or  reservation  o f such water  r i g h t s as are a t t a c h e d t o the r e s e r v e lands, but merely a l l o w s the Crown  the  privilege  of  using  or  carrying  r e s e r v e f o r the s p e c i f i e d purposes.  water  on  or  over a  I t does not p u r p o r t t o be an  e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o water on the r e s e r v e .  Perhaps t h i s c l a u s e c o u l d be used t o j u s t i f y the g r a n t i n g o f a p r o v i n c i a l water l i c e n c e ( o r easement f o r the purpose o f d i v e r t i n g water)  f o r waters on  legislation and  grant  land  with  source.  the p r o v i n c i a l permission a  water The  2 6  procedure  line,  to  27  apply  Under  authorities licensee  when  legislation  i f the p a r t i e s  competent  reserves.  t o the  water works easement. be  Indian  may  can not  grant  to cross  diverting also  the p r e s e n t  agree on  licences  another person's  water  provides  water  water  from  an  a  distant  expropriation  compensation f o r the  Although the p r o v i n c e would not normally these  legislative  provisions  2 5  MacSween, p. 3.1.06.  2 6  Water A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c.429, ss.24, 27.  2 7  Water Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c.429,  s.24.  so  as  to  81 interfere result  with  to  a  Indian  certain  reserve extent.  e x p r o p r i a t i o n procedure reserve  lands.  easement  In  could  It  this  p r o v i s o may  allow  i s d o u b t f u l , however  event,  be  compensation  authorized  with  the  affect  i s necessary,  i n connection  that  that  i n the Water Act c o u l d u n i l a t e r a l l y  any  only  land,  and  an  mining  or  a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s i n the v i c i n i t y of the r e s e r v e .  It enjoy  i s not the  clear  full  whether  range  because p r o v i n c i a l area many y e a r s water  licensing  currently  of  Indian  common  legislation  ago. in  governed  by  cannot  legislative  jurisdiction  28  affect  Water lands  of  in British  riparian the  t h e r e has  in British  the  legislation  law  superseded  Since 1 8 6 5 force  reserves  rights.  are  Parliament.  which  under However,  ante-dated  reserves.  riparian fact  rights  that  boundaries. federal by  on  reserve  lands  water  does  flowing  government has  that  Indian  more  exclusive  not  respect  The  the  issue by  of the  jurisdictional  difficulties  chosen t o work w i t h i n the  of  legislation  i s f u r t h e r complicated  I t i s perhaps because of such  the Water A c t .  ensure  of  is  provincial  many  to p r o v i n c i a l  establishment  i n this  system  the  water l i c e n c e s t h a t were i s s u e d pursuant the  is  been some system of  Normally  2 9  which  This  common law  Columbia,  Act.  Columbia  system  that  the  provided  A good system o f water management can h e l p to people  benefit  from  a  scarce  resource.  2 8  Land Ordinance, Ordinances o f the L e g i s l a t i v e o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1865, No. 27 ss.44-50.  2 9  R.S.B.C. 1979  c.429.  The  Council  82 statutory  scheme can  irrigation,  a l s o allow f o r uses of water, such  t h a t are necessary  recorded  are  reserve s i t u a t i o n .  30  some problems w i t h  water r i g h t s  the p r o v i n c i a l  when t h a t system  The  spray  i n a modern economy, but would not  be p e r m i t t e d under th,e common l a w .  However t h e r e  as  system of  i s a p p l i e d t o the  system operates  on a f i r s t  Indian  i n time,  first  i n r i g h t b a s i s , and t h e r e i s a f i n i t e amount of water which can recorded to  use  f o r use water  from any  may  lose  g i v e n source.  his  The  entitlement  to  h o l d e r o f the some  or  be  right  a l l of  the  a l l o t m e n t i f he i s not making s a t i s f a c t o r y use o f i t .  Because the  provincial  a claim for  l e g i s l a t i o n d i d not permit  water r i g h t s  until  other claimants now,  1888,  i n the  reserve  Indians t o f i l e  lands were twenty y e a r s  same area.  The  behind  s t a t u t o r y scheme does not  and never d i d r e c o g n i z e any r i g h t t o water based on l e n g t h of  use  or  aboriginal  had  included  reserves, valid. the  a  the  until  3 1  r e s e r v a t i o n of did  not u n t i l 1921  allotment  filed.  Although  legislation  I t was  effective  title.  by  reserve  date was Since  a f t e r 1888,  claims  water not  rights  when  recognize  Commissioners,  establishing  those  the date  were f i l e d  on  and  records  even  then,  as  the  on which the r e c o r d behalf  of  Indian  was  bands  the I n d i a n Water Claims Act d i d not go v e r y f a r  3 0  See Rugby J o i n t Water Board v. E.R. 497 (Ch.D.), at 508.  3 1  I n d i a n Water Claims Act, S.B.C. 1921, ss • 2 3 • p  Commissioners  t h a t c l a i m s were r e c o g n i z e d based on  deemed t o be  no  various reserve  Walters, 2nd  [1966] 3 A l l Sess.,  c.19,  83 to  remedy  the  late  start  of  Indian  bands  i n recording  water  rights.  The  "use i t o r l o s e i t " f e a t u r e , which q u a l i f i e s water  rights  under the l e g i s l a t i o n , may be g e n e r a l l y viewed as a reasonable to  apply  i n a system of water  licencing.  However i t may  problems when a p p l i e d t o an I n d i a n r e s e r v e . apart  f o r the  heritage well  an  entire  f o r future generations.  as  the uses  dramatic more  b e n e f i t of  change  like  a  t o which  over  the  The land  the y e a r s .  municipality,  as  band,  change  i s the  membership. will  see  32  a  corresponding provincial  recent  amendments  as  a  on-reserve  In t h i s  to  be  respect  opposed  to  a  land  base  increase  governments  should  to  a reserve i s  large  ranching  The need f o r water i n One example o f dramatic  the  Indian  i n membership,  i n c r e a s e i n on-reserve  as  subject  Act,  regarding  As a r e s u l t o f these l e g i s l a t i v e changes most substantial  and  population,  i s put, may  t o the need i n 1988.  cause  Reserve lands are s e t  operation, or other i n d i v i d u a l e n t e r p r i s e . 1888 may not compare  one  population.  continue  management o f water r e s o u r c e s , and i n a way  to  and  perhaps  The f e d e r a l  cooperate  that w i l l  a  and  i n the  address the  unique needs o f I n d i a n r e s e r v e l a n d s .  An A c t t o Amend the Indian Act, S.C. 1985,  bands  c.27.  84 In  the  absence  government  the  unmanageable rights  over  Indian  waters  o r d i n a r y domestic water,  both  in  waters  touching  and  would  the  important  It i s d i f f i c u l t  and  a  right  and  have not rights,  However  with  since  to  right  to  use  rights right  of to  in  an  reserves. water  access use  of  riparian  their  r e a l l y been  flow  for of  to a l l  ground  and  water  the  and  by  flow  the  would  a c o u r t might r e s o l v e a c o n f l i c t  licensee.  pursuant  lands  of  the  right, federal  91(24) o f the C o n s i t u t i o n Act,  requires  provincial  to r i p a r i a n  Because  i n t e r f e r e n c e with  reserve  affected  licenses.  I n d i a n band, c l a i m i n g use  provincial  associated  split  certain  r e l a t i n g t o use  t o p r e d i c t how  provincial  any  be  levels  t o an undiminished  the  l e g i s l a t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n section 1867,  enjoy  the  two  would  adjacent  quality,  reserve,  c o n f l i c t with p r o v i n c i a l  between an  or  the  While the r i g h t of access, and r i g h t s t o use of  33  the  the and  s u r f a c e waters  Water Act,  would  include  purposes, quantity  on  between water  bands  actually  these  surface waters.  cooperation  j u r i s d i c t i o n over  way.  Theoretically  ground  of  water federal  legislation  or  water  rights  cooperation. ante-dates  e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f many r e s e r v e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, i t may  the  be  See Gerard La F o r e s t , Water Law i n Canada: The A t l a n t i c P r o v i n c e s (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1973). Chapter 9 p r o v i d e s a good review o f the Canadian law r e g a r d i n g riparian rights. L a F o r e s t , Water Law,  44.  3 4  85 that,  despite  associated others,  the exclusive  with reserve  obtained  Judicial provide  lands  jurisdiction,  are s u b j e c t  water  t o t h e p r i o r r i g h t s of  regarding  insight  into  waters  i n t h e Railway  the r e s o l u t i o n  of  Belt  may  jurisdictional  c o n f l i c t over water s i t u a t e on f e d e r a l l y administered the  rights  pursuant t o p r o v i n c i a l law.  decisions  some  federal  lands  within  province.  The  first  major case t o d e a l w i t h t h e t r a n s f e r o f the Railway  B e l t was The Queen v. F a r w e l l .  35  The p l a i n t i f f ,  Farwell,  claimed  ownership o f a t r a c t o f land i n s i d e the B e l t based on a p r o v i n c i a l grant the  made i n 1885.  The Supreme Court o f Canada h e l d t h a t , a f t e r  date o f t r a n s f e r the p r o v i n c e  ceased t o have any c o n t r o l over  the lands w i t h i n the B e l t , and t h e r e f o r e the p l a i n t i f f ' s t i t l e was invalid.  Following decisions Appeal  o f the P r i v y  later  landholders The  t h e p r i n c i p l e s t a t e d i n F a r w e l l , and o t h e r  ruled  Council,  that  the B r i t i s h  provincial  water  subsequent  Columbia records  Court o f issued  to  i n t h e B e l t p r i o r t o the t r a n s f e r (1884) were v a l i d .  P r i v y C o u n c i l had j u s t e a r l i e r h e l d t h a t the p r o v i n c e  could  3 5  The  3 6  George v. M i t c h e l l (1912), 3 W.W.R. 162 (B.C.C.A.)  Queen v. F a r w e l l  (1887), 14 S.C.R. 492.  3 6  86 not  i s s u e water l i c e n c e s over water i n c l u d e d i n the B e l t a f t e r the  transfer,  since  the  land  and  e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the  In  the  Burrard  the  water  Dominion.  Power case,  the  rights  give  the  Dominion  Court h e l d  jurisdiction  over  Constitution  Act,  argued t h a t had  passed  waters  on  "agreement"  lands  1867  even i f the to  jurisdiction. argument has  the  exclusive  the  The  reasoning  used by  province the  s i g n i f i c a n c e t o the reserves  embodied  in  in  article  B.C. 11  3 8  the  and  s.  e f f e c t of  The  was  executive  91 (IA)  of  the  province land  maintained  and  had water  legislative  Court i n r e j e c t i n g t h i s  i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n over After  of  the  t o the Dominion  p r o p r i e t a r y r i g h t s t o the  Dominion,  Indian  i s now  property).  the  great  that  legislative  under what  (public  under  37  the t r a n s f e r o f " p u b l i c lands" by the p r o v i n c e to  were  the  referring  Terms o f  to  Union,  the Lord  Mersey s t a t e d : To h o l d t h a t the P r o v i n c e a f t e r the making o f such an agreement remained at l i b e r t y t o l e g i s l a t e i n the sense contended f o r would be t o defeat the whole o b j e c t of the agreement, f o r i f the Province c o u l d by l e g i s l a t i o n take away the water from the land i t c o u l d a l s o by l e g i s l a t i o n resume p o s s e s s i o n o f the l a n d i t s e l f , and t h e r e b y so derogate from i t s own grant as t o u t t e r l y d e s t r o y i t . 3 9  3 7  Burrard  3 8  Ibid.,  3 9  Ibid.  Power Co. 94.  v. The  King,  [1911] A.C.  87  (P.C).  87 If the reasoning  i n t h e above noted  cases  i s a p p l i e d t o Indian  r e s e r v e s i t would appear t h a t the r i p a r i a n r i g h t s o f use and flow will prior  be s u b j e c t t o r i g h t s  o f l i c e n s e e s who a c q u i r e d t h e i r  t o the establishment  of the reserve.  right  Any l i c e n c e s  which  a f f e c t t h e supply o r q u a l i t y o f waters on r e s e r v e lands, and which were i s s u e d subsequent t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t regarded  as u n l a w f u l  i n t e r f e r e n c e with  o f t h e r e s e r v e may be  federally  administered  waters.  An  alternative  legislation ownership  had a b o l i s h e d  o f a l l waters  province. obtained That  argument  Hence i s through  might  certain  be  that  riparian  rights  t o be i n t h e Crown  the only  way  i n which  t h e Crown, pursuant  the  provincial  by d e c l a r i n g  i n right  water  rights  o f the can be  t o t h e s t a t u t o r y scheme.  seems t o be t h e e f f e c t o f t h e c u r r e n t water l e g i s l a t i o n .  By  the time t h a t t h e r e s e r v e s were conveyed t o Canada, t h e common law water  rights  superseded  normally  associated with  by l e g i s l a t i o n ,  However, the p r o v i n c i a l  r e s p e c t i n g water r i g h t s d i d not p u r p o r t jurisdiction.  re-enacted  4 0  ownership  along  legislation  t o apply  t o waters under  When i n 1939 t h e water  l e g i s l a t i o n was  i n i t s modern form, t h e r e was no express  See, 1892  had been  and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d not be passed  as p a r t o f t h e l a n d t r a n s f e r .  federal  land  exclusion of  f o r example, the Water P r i v i l g e s Act, 1892, S.B.C. c.47, s.2.  88 waters under property  i n a l l waters  conveyance effected  o f most  i n 1938.  conveyance, whether  The A c t simply  4 1  i n the Crown  of the reserves I f a court  provincial.  was t o look  r i g h t s passed,  there  only  reference  Columbia  was  t o the terms o f the i n order  i s nothing  t h a t waters were not i n c l u d e d w i t h  v e s t e d the However the  in British  as i n the Railway B e l t cases,  water  suggest The  federal j u r i s d i c t i o n .  t o determine  i n 0/C  1036 t o  the t r a n s f e r r e d land.  t o water r i g h t s i s the p r o v i s o ,  noted  above,  which r e s e r v e s c e r t a i n " p r i v i l e g e s " t o the p r o v i n c e .  The that or  negotiations  preceding  the passage o f 0/C  the p r o v i s o does not g i v e the p r o v i n c e  ownership  passed, change  o f water  i n July the form  Scott-Cathcart strengthen  their  on r e s e r v e s .  Just  1938, t h e p r o v i n c i a l o f conveyance  Agreement  that  o f 1929.  1036  exclusive rights to, before  negotiators  had been  agreed  The p r o v i n c e  water r i g h t s i n r e s e r v e  indicate  lands  0/C  1036 was  attempted t o upon i n the attempted  to  by r e p l a c i n g the  second p r o v i s o w i t h the f o l l o w i n g c l a u s e :  2.  That a l l water r i s i n g , being o r f l o w i n g i n , on, under o r t h r o u g h t h e s a i d l a n d s be exempted from t h i s conveyance and t h a t i t s h a l l be l a w f u l f o r the Province o r f o r any person a u t h o r i z e d i n t h a t b e h a l f by the P r o v i n c e t o take and use so much o f the s a i d lands as  Water Act, 1939, S.B.C. 1939, c.63, s.3. T h i s was the f i r s t time t h a t the v e s t i n g p r o v i s i o n d i d not e x p r e s s l y exclude f e d e r a l waters. The 1892 Act, noted above, was the f i r s t A c t which s p e c i f i c a l l y v e s t e d a l l waters, except those under federal j u r i s d i c t i o n , i n the Crown p r o v i n c i a l .  89  may be r e q u i r e d f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n , maintenance and o p e r a t i o n o f works f o r s t o r i n g , d i v e r t i n g and conveying water, paying t h e r e f o r e a reasonable c o m p e n s a t i o n . 42  The  province  attempted,  rights  from  conveyance.  clause  i s evidence  the  that  unsuccessfully  the  The  to  rejection  common law  exempt  of  water  the  f o r the b e n e f i t o f the  Indians,  to  the  carry  privilege  of  Crown  lands on payment o f reasonable  to  and  compensation.  noted, the r i g h t s of a band may  be  o t h e r s p r i o r t o the establishment  I t should  use  above  rights in  lands were preserved the  a l l water noted  reserve  subject  water  only  over  A l s o , as p r e v i o u s l y  subject to r i g h t s acquired  o f the  the  by  reserve.  f i n a l l y be noted t h a t s i n c e the f e d e r a l government i s  competent t o l e g i s l a t e w i t h r e s p e c t t o waters on r e s e r v e  land, i t  would be t h e o r e t i c a l l y p o s s i b l e t o have a f e d e r a l s t a t u t o r y scheme t h a t would operate currently  e x c l u s i v e l y on  empowers  band  waters on r e s e r v e s , federal all  and  and  provincial  the circumstances  properly  and  cooperative  reserve  councils  to  lands.  enact  jurisdictions  i s apparent.  Act,  Act  concerning  In view  of  i t appears t h a t the o n l y p r a c t i c a b l e way  of  managing  water  approach which i s c u r r e n t l y b e i n g  Indian  by-laws  Indian  so the p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t between the  effectively  Borthwick,  The  "Order R.S.C.  i n Council 1970,  1036",  c.I-6,  43  resources  i s . the  pursued.  exhibit F - l .  s.81(l)(f),  (1),  (o).  90 Waters i n the Railway B e l t  Before  leaving  the  subject  the  unique p o s i t i o n of  be  addressed.  practical  The  problems  of  water r i g h t s  reserves within federal  caused  the  their  reserve  lands,  o l d Railway B e l t  government  by  on  moved  exclusive  to  must  remedy  the  j u r i s d i c t i o n over  waters i n the B e l t by adopting the p r o v i n c i a l water l e g i s l a t i o n as t h e i r own.  The  Railway B e l t Water A c t  was  4 4  f i r s t enacted i n  1912  i n response t o the d e c i s i o n i n the B u r r a r d Power case.  The  Dominion moved s w i f t l y  p a s s i n g an o r d e r i n c o u n c i l transfer  the  province.  strengthened 1912.  The  prohibited that  the  The with Act  further  acquisition  in  the  the  act of 1912  provincial  Belt  Water  Act  Burrard  Belt  1911)  rights  was  of  decision,  which p u r p o r t e d to in  the  Belt  the  power  was  the  Railway B e l t  Water Act,  water  in  of  were  rights  riparian to  be  of  to  delegation  rights  the  and  administered  in  Crown,  provided under  the  1909.  c o n t a i n e d some s e r i o u s  statute  Power  this  a l l ungranted  B r i t i s h Columbia Water Act,  The  water  passage of  vested  waters  of  l e g a l i t y of the  the  (December 20,  administration  4 5  after  1909  therefore  44  R.S.C. 1927,  4 5  Cail,  4 6  Railway B e l t Water Act,  had  d r a f t i n g mistakes,  been  amended  repealed. in  1913  The to  46  c.211, o r i g i n a l l y enacted by S.C.  1913,  S.C.  1913,  c.45.  Railway  allow  1912,  122.  since  for  c.47.  provincial  administration  pursuant  to  l e g i s l a t i o n i n f o r c e from time t o time. in  1926  1927.  and  47  I t was  48  n e i t h e r was to  consolidated not  in  included  i t repealed.  the  any  The Act was  Revised  most important  water i n the administration  effect  Railway B e l t as a l l o t h e r  the Water Act o f 1913,  of  the  under the lands  of  Canada,  consolidations,  I t remains i n f o r c e and  4 9  water  amended again  Statutes  i n subsequent  I n d i a n r e s e r v e s i n the o l d Railway B e l t .  The  provincial  still  but  applies  5 0  Act was  t o put  a l l land  same system o f water  in British  Columbia.  and  rights  That i s ,  and i t s s u c c e s s o r s a p p l i e d t o the waters o f  the Railway B e l t , i n c l u d i n g waters on Indian r e s e r v e s .  The  Right t o Resume Land  Perhaps the most c o n t r o v e r s i a l of the p r o v i s i o n s i n 0/C the  first  l/20th right  one,  of  1036  is  which g i v e s the p r o v i n c e the r i g h t t o resume up  to  reserve  t o take  land  lands. from  The Indian  provincial reserves  government  pursuant  4 7  Railway B e l t Water Act, 1926,  4 8  Railway B e l t Water Act, R.S.C. 1927,  4 9  5 0  S.C.  1926,  claims  to t h i s  the  clause  c.15.  c.211.  However t h e r e were some minor amendments c r e a t e d by Railway B e l t Water Act, 1928, S.C. 1928, c.6.  the  The Act s t i l l a p p l i e s t o Indian Reserves i n the Railway B e l t because they were excepted from the g e n e r a l r e t r a n s f e r o f the B e l t .  92  without  payment  provision  for  examined  here  effect, i s as  of  compensation.  Indian in  bands  detail  in  in  It  British  an  is  very  Columbia  effort  i n c l u d i n g whether compensation  a  to  troublesome  and  i t will  determine  i s required.  its The  be  legal  proviso  follows:  PROVIDED NEVERTHELESS t h a t i t s h a l l at a l l times be l a w f u l f o r Us, Our h e i r s and successors, or f o r any person o r persons a c t i n g i n t h a t b e h a l f by Our or t h e i r a u t h o r i t y , t o resume any p a r t of the s a i d lands which i t may be deemed n e c e s s a r y t o resume f o r making roads, c a n a l s , bridges, towing paths, or other works of p u b l i c u t i l i t y or c o n v e n i e n c e ; so, n e v e r t h e l e s s t h a t the l a n d s so t o be resumed s h a l l not exceed one-twentieth p a r t of the whole o f the lands a f o r e s a i d , and t h a t no such resumption s h a l l be made o f any l a n d s on which any b u i l d i n g s may have been e r e c t e d , o r which may be i n use as gardens o r otherwise f o r the more convenient o c c u p a t i o n of any such b u i l d i n g s :  It any  can  be  seen t h a t  p a r t o f the  There  is a  such  or  further  compensation  may  being  i s t o be  to  the  the  province  t o resume  t o l / 2 0 t h of the whole.  resumption  power,  that  b u i l d i n g has been e r e c t e d o r t h a t i s i n use for not paid,  compensation i s necessary. limit  allows  but o n l y up  exception  "otherwise  building"  proviso  " s a i d lands",  l a n d upon which any garden  the  the be  more convenient resumed.  nor  is  There  occupation is  i t expressly  I t i s also unclear  no  mention  stated  that  whether the  c a l c u l a t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o each r e s e r v e ,  t o t a l area o f a l l r e s e r v e s  of  i n the Schedule t o 0/C  1036.  any as any of no  l/20th  or t o  the  93 This  provision,  verbatim has  like  most  from the standard  and t h e r e  considered Columbia and  are v e r y  the province  Court  resume.  Columbia  few  had a r i g h t  I t was  52  0/C  reproduced  o f the t i m e .  cases  where  the c l a u s e  In the Moses  case  h e l d t h a t the resumption  purpose o f making surveys to  was  the  t o e n t e r upon I n d i a n  lands  held  that  the Orders  i n Council  208) were v a l i d l y  passed  valid  f o r the  the  Indian  Columbia  Lands  (British  pursuant  I n d i a n A f f a i r s Settlement  Although  British  power was  the a u t h o r i t y o f the p r o v i n c i a l British  has been  i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f e x e r c i s i n g the r i g h t  1036 and P.C.  federal  It  5 1  c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o Indian  i n p r i v a t e grants.  Supreme  the others,  form Crown g r a n t s  r e c e i v e d minimal j u d i c i a l  lands,  of  Settlement  to  A c t and Act.  5 3  t h e Court d i d not g i v e any d e t a i l e d reasoning, i t f u r t h e r  c o n s t r u e d the p r o v i s i o n as being a " r e s e r v a t i o n t o the p r o v i n c e o f a  right  purposes  t o resume  possession  o f p u b l i c works",  o f a p o r t i o n o f each and  that  such  reserve f o r  r e s e r v a t i o n d i d not  c o n s t i t u t e a t a k i n g o f lands o r an a l i e n a t i o n o f lands as p r o v i d e d f o r i n the I n d i a n A c t .  5 4  See f o r example the Land Schedule, Forms 9 and 11. Moses v. The Queen, 490-91. I b i d . , 490. Ibid.  A c t , R.S.B.C.  1924,  c.131,  [1977] 4 W.W.R. 474, a t 485, and  94 What i s a Resumption?  The  Court  i n Moses  "reservation"  i n the  described grant.  the  It  right  could  to  not  resume  have  as  been  a an  " e x c e p t i o n " , as the t h i n g t o be excepted was not i d e n t i f i e d a t the time  o f the g r a n t .  The r e s e r v a t i o n was  of a r i g h t  t o take back  any  p a r t o f the l a n d up t o a s p e c i f i e d  amount.  On the b a s i s o f  the  holding  reading  o f the p r o v i s i o n  this  i n Moses  and on the p l a i n  i s a reservation of a right  the l a n d a t some f u t u r e date. details Similar  on  what  a  resumption  century  and  there  to claim a certain  The Moses case does not p r o v i d e any  resumption  i s and  how  i t operates  p r o v i s i o n s were used i n A u s t r a l i a is a  interest i n  larger  body  of  case  i n law.  i n the l a s t  law  from  that  jurisdiction.  Before  reviewing  regarding definitions  the  the j u r i s p r u d e n c e  resumption  should  power  be noted.  of  from  Canada  the  A resumption  Crown,  and  Australia  some  legal  has been d e f i n e d as  follows:  1)  Resumption i s a word used i n the s t a t u t e o f 31 Hen. 6., c.7, and i s t h e r e taken f o r the t a k i n g again i n t o the King's hands such lands or tenements as upon f a l s e s u g g e s t i o n o r o t h e r e r r o r he had made l i v e r y o f t o an h e i r , o r granted by p a t e n t unto any man". 55  John S. James, Stroud's v o l . 4, 2387.  Judicial  D i c t i o n a r y , 4th ed.,  95 2)  The a c t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e Crown o r o t h e r a u t h o r i t y , o f reassuming possession of lands, rights, e t c . , w h i c h h a v e b e e n b e s t o w e d on others. 5 6  In  Australia  context that  t h e term  "resumption"  as we use the term  "expropriation".  i n the o l d Crown grants  right  t o resume  B r i t i s h Columbia. and  the Crown  future  lands  was  o f t h a t colony used  In  a  5 7  used  i n the same  However, i t seems the r e s e r v a t i o n o f a  i n the same way  as  i t was i n  There were no e x p r o p r i a t i o n s t a t u t e s i n e f f e c t ,  preferred  contingencies  t o use the r e s e r v a t i o n  rather  than having  back a t a time when the value  The  i s today  t o provide  t o bargain  had g r e a t l y  for  f o r t h e land  increased.  purpose o f the r e s e r v a t i o n has been noted i n t h e case law. dissenting  McPhillips,  opinion  J.A. commented  i n Caine  v.  Corporation  upon the need  of  Surrey  f o r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to  r e a l i z e upon the r i g h t o f resumption i n Crown g r a n t s :  Roads are e s s e n t i a l i n the development o f any c o u n t r y and the L e g i s l a t u r e i n i t s wisdom and w i t h proper r e g a r d t o economy and f u t u r e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p r o v i d e d f o r e v e n t u a l i t i e s and safeguarded the municipal a u t h o r i t y from undue e x a c t i o n s upon the p a r t o f the owners o f l a n d f o r compensation f o r rights-of-ways f o r roads. Were t h i s n o t f o r e s e e n the r e t a r d i n g o f settlement would be g r e a t e r than i t now i s and 5 6  S i r James A.H. Murray, ed. A New E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y on H i s t o r i c a l P r i n c i p l e s , V o l . 8 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914), 559.  5 7  Douglas Brown, Land A c q u i s i t i o n (Sydney: Butterworths, 1972), see Chapter 4, g e n e r a l l y , 12-19.  5 8  [1920] 2 W.W.R. 681.  5 8  96 would leave s e t t l e r s without roads o f n e c e s s i t y owing t o the e x t e n s i v e o u t l a y consequent upon e x p r o p r i a t i o n proceedings and purchase o f l a n d f o r road purposes. I t may be assumed, that roads w i l l n o t be u n d u l y e s t a b l i s h e d and, i f e s t a b l i s h e d , i t r e a s o n a b l y may be assumed as w e l l t h a t they are roads o f b e n e f i t and advantage t o the a d j o i n i n g lands. The allowance o f c a p r i c i o u s o b j e c t i o n t o resumption would be d e s t r u c t i v e o f the d e c l a r e d p u b l i c p o l i c y o f the L e g i s l a t u r e and the present a c t i o n i s an o b j e c t i o n o f t h a t c h a r a c t e r and i s wholly without m e r i t . 5 9  In Cooper v . S t u a r t  6 0  the P r i v y C o u n c i l c o n s i d e r e d  of a resumption power i n an A u s t r a l i a n Crown g r a n t . had, for  amongst other being  contrary  points,  argued  that  t o the r u l e a g a i n s t  r e j e c t e d t h a t argument w i t h the f o l l o w i n g  the v a l i d i t y The a p p e l l a n t  the r e s e r v a t i o n perpetuities.  was  void  The c o u r t  reasoning:  Assuming next (but f o r the purposes o f t h i s argument o n l y ) t h a t the r u l e has, i n England, been extended t o the Crown, i t s s u i t a b i l i t y , when so a p p l i e d , t o the n e c e s s i t i e s o f a young Colony r a i s e s a very d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n . The o b j e c t o f the Government, i n g i v i n g o f f p u b l i c lands t o s e t t l e r s , i s not so much t o dispose o f the l a n d t o p e c u n i a r y p r o f i t as t o a t t r a c t other c o l o n i s t s . I t i s simply i m p o s s i b l e t o f o r e s e e what l a n d w i l l be r e q u i r e d f o r p u b l i c uses before the immigrants a r r i v e who a r e t o c o n s t i t u t e the p u b l i c . T h e i r p r o s p e c t i v e wants can o n l y be p r o v i d e d f o r i n two ways, e i t h e r by r e s e r v i n g from settlement p o r t i o n s o f land, which may prove t o be u s e l e s s f o r the purpose f o r which they are r e s e r v e d , o r by making grants o f l a n d i n settlement, r e t a i n i n g the r i g h t t o resume such p a r t s as may be found n e c e s s a r y f o r the uses o f an i n c r e a s e d p o p u l a t i o n . To adopt the f i r s t o f these methods might tend t o d e f e a t the very o b j e c t s which i t i s the duty o f a c o l o n i a l governor t o  I b i d . , 688. (1889), 14 App. Cas. 286  (P.C).  97 promote; and a r u l e which r e s t s on c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f p u b l i c p o l i c y cannot be s a i d t o be r e a s o n a b l y a p p l i e d when i t s a p p l i c a t i o n may probably l e a d t o t h a t r e s u l t . T h e i r L o r d s h i p s have, a c c o r d i n g l y , come t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , assuming the Crown t o be a f f e c t e d by the r u l e a g a i n s t p e r p e t u i t i e s i n England, i t was n e v e r t h e l e s s i n a p p l i c a b l e i n the year 1823, t o Crown grants o f land i n the Colony o f New South Wales, o r t o r e s e r v a t i o n s o r d e f e a s a n c e s i n such g r a n t s t o t a k e e f f e c t on some c o n t i n g e n c y more o r l e s s remote, and o n l y when necessary f o r the p u b l i c g o o d . 61  The the  case o f Cooper v. S t u a r t  validity  resume.  of a reservation  The a p p e l l a n t  appears t o be the l e a d i n g case on i n a Crown  i n Cooper c h a l l e n g e d  grant  of a r i g h t to  the v a l i d i t y  o f the  f o l l o w i n g r e s e r v a t i o n i n a Crown g r a n t :  r e s e r v i n g t o H i s Majesty, h i s h e i r s and s u c c e s s o r s . . . such p a r t s o f the s a i d land as are now o r s h a l l h e r e a f t e r be r e q u i r e d . . . f o r a highway o r highways; and, f u r t h e r , any q u a n t i t y o f land, not exceeding t e n acres, i n any p a r t o f the s a i d grant, as may be r e q u i r e d f o r p u b l i c p u r p o s e s . . . 62  He  sought  a declaration  resume any q u a n t i t y  that  of land  the r e s e r v a t i o n  not exceeding  t o the Crown t o  t e n acres  because i t was, (a) v o i d f o r repugnancy t o the grant, it  v i o l a t e d the r u l e a g a i n s t  perpetuities.  Several  was  invalid  and (b) t h a t " p r i v a t e law"  conveyancing cases were c i t e d i n support o f the a p p e l l a n t ' s argument following  but the Court reasoning:  I b i d . , 293-94. I b i d . , 288.  rejected  their  applicability  first  w i t h the  98 Assuming t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s , and t h e v e r y t e c h n i c a l r u l e which they e s t a b l i s h , t o be a p p l i c a b l e t o a Crown g r a n t o f p u b l i c p r o p e r t y i n a Young Colony, i t appears t o t h e i r L o r d s h i p s t h a t the r e s e r v a t i o n i n the grant o f 1823 does not c o n s t i t u t e an e x c e p t i o n w i t h i n the meaning o f the r u l e . An e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t by which the g r a n t o r excludes some p a r t o f t h a t which he has a l r e a d y given, i n o r d e r t h a t i t may not pass by the grant, but may be taken out o f i t and remain with himself. A v a l i d e x c e p t i o n operates immediately, and the s u b j e c t o f i t does not pass t o the grantee. Their L o r d s h i p s are o f o p i n i o n t h a t t h e grant t o Hutchinson c a r r i e d t o him t h e whole 1400 a c r e s , b u t s u b j e c t t o a defeasance as t o 10 a c r e s . The whole and every p a r t o f the lands granted v e s t e d , and have, from the 27th o f May, 1823, to November, 1882, been i n the ownership and p o s s e s s i o n o f the grantee or h i s representatives, subject to that p r o v i s i o n , which the p l a i n t i f f d e s c r i b e s i n h i s statement o f c l a i m as a " r e s e r v a t i o n o f a r i g h t t o resume any q u a n t i t y o f l a n d , n o t e x c e e d i n g t e n a c r e s , i n any p a r t o f the s a i d grant". I t i s obvious t h a t such a p r o v i s i o n does not take e f f e c t immediately, i t l o o k s t o the f u t u r e , and p o s s i b l y t o a remote f u t u r e . I t might never come i n t o o p e r a t i o n , and when p u t i n f o r c e i t t a k e s e f f e c t i n defeasance o f the e s t a t e p r e v i o u s l y granted, but not as an e x c e p t i o n . 6 3  A c c o r d i n g t o  t o  r e s u m e  P r i v y  a c e r t a i n  " d e f e a s a n c e " f r o m  t h e  t h e  o f  a m o u n t  t h a t  g r a n t  p a r t  b e c a u s e  o p e r a t e s  i n  t h e  p r o v i s i o n  i n  a g r a n t  g r a n t e d , a n d  a s  t h e  p o s s e s s i o n  s u b j e c t  t o  C o u n c i l  f u t u r e ,  w h o l e o f  o f o f  t h e  i t  d o e s  a " d e f e a s a n c e "  I b i d . , 289-90.  n o t  t h e  r e s e r v a t i o n  o f  a g r a n t  I t  i s  T h e  a n y t h i n g l a n d s  f r o m  t h e  s p e c i f i e d  a n  a  r i g h t a s  i m m e d i a t e l y . o f  a w a y  t h e  f r o m  i n t o o f  a m o u n t .  t h e t h e  a  " e x c e p t i o n "  i n s e r t i o n  p a s s e s d a t e  o f  o p e r a t e s  n o t  o p e r a t e  a l l .  t h e  g r a n t e e o f  o u t  t a k e  o f  t h e  g r a n t .  a t  n o t  p a r t  t h e  l a n d  i f  d o e s  t h e n ,  I t  s u c h  a  e s t a t e o w n e r s h i p  g r a n t ,  b u t  99 A defeasance  has  been d e f i n e d as some t h i n g which d e f e a t s  the  o p e r a t i o n o f a deed o r document, and i f c o n t a i n e d i n the same deed it  i s called a condition.  It  has  also  been  6 4  noted  that  before  a  defeasance  consummated any c o n d i t i o n s must be s t r i c t l y p e r f o r m e d . t h i s t o 0/C  1036,  65  can  Relating  i t c o u l d be argued t h a t a l l c o n d i t i o n s c o n t a i n e d  i n the t h i r d p r o v i s o ( n o t i c e t o the Department of I n d i a n are c o n d i t i o n s precedent As w e l l ,  i t c o u l d be  t h a t t h e i r planned lands,  and  be  t o the o p e r a t i o n of the r i g h t t o resume.  argued t h a t the p r o v i n c e would have t o show  resumption  d i d not  Affairs)  fall  d i d not exceed l / 2 0 t h of the r e s e r v e  i n t o any  o f the o t h e r e x c e p t i o n s .  Until  t h i s i s done, t h e r e i s no o b l i g a t i o n on the f e d e r a l government nor on the Indians t o y i e l d up p o s s e s s i o n of the resumed l a n d .  Support King,  6 7  a  above  p r o p o s i t i o n i s found  a d e c i s i o n o f the Supreme Court  the Court of  f o r the  construed  water  lot.  a right The  of Canada.  o f resumption  Crown patent  i n Power  contained  contained  a  6 6  v.  The  In t h a t  case  i n the  grant  p r o v i s i o n which  6 4  Re Storey; ex p. Popplewell (Eng.C.A.).  6 5  John Blake, ed., J e w i t t ' s D i c t i o n a r y o f E n g l i s h Law, 2nd ed. v o l . 1 (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1977), 579.  6 6  Note, however, the d e c i s i o n i n Moses, supra, wherein the Court h e l d t h a t the p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s c o u l d not be charged w i t h t r e s p a s s , due t o the n e c e s s i t y of making s u r v e y s p r i o r t o complying w i t h the n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s i n 0/C 1036.  6 7  (1918),  56 S.C.R. 499;  (1882) 21 Ch.D.  42 D.L.R. 387  23,  at  81,  100 reserved twelve  the r i g h t months  improvements. "condition according resume  notice The  68  and upon court  i n the g r a n t " .  6 9  this  prescribed  payment  referred  t o the law o f Quebec  had been  rejecting  t o resume a l l o r p a r t o f the l o t upon g i v i n g o f compensation to this  The a p p e l l a n t (Civil  provision  tried  as a  t o argue  that  Code) the Crown's r i g h t t o  (barred  argument the Court  f o r any  by  passage of time).  described  In  the o p e r a t i o n o f the  r i g h t t o resume:  Had t h e c o n d i t i o n e n t a i l e d an o b l i g a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f the grantee, t h a t o b l i g a t i o n would, p e r h a p s , have been s u s c e p t i b l e o f n e g a t i v e p r e s c r i p t i o n under a r t . 2210 C C . by n o n f u l f i l l m e n t o f i t d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f 30 y e a r s , o r d u r i n g a s h o r t e r p e r i o d under some o t h e r p r e s c r i p t i o n p r o v i s i o n . But I i n c l i n e t o t h i n k t h a t the Crown's r i g h t o f resumption d i d not impose any o b l i g a t i o n upon the h o l d e r o f the l a n d . I f t h e r e was a n y t h i n g t h a t c o u l d p r o p e r l y be c a l l e d an o b l i g a t i o n c o n t r a c t e d by t h e g r a n t e e and b i n d i n g h i s successors i n t i t l e i t was t o s u r r e n d e r o r d e l i v e r up p o s s e s s i o n o f the p r o p e r t y . That o b l i g a t i o n would a r i s e , however, o n l y when 12 months had e l a p s e d a f t e r n o t i c e had been d u l y g i v e n o f i n t e n t i o n t o e x e r c i s e t h e r i g h t o f r e s u m p t i o n and t h e o t h e r t e r m s o f t h e c o n d i t i o n , i f a p p l i c a b l e , had been complied w i t h . 7 0  The Crown Patent i s s e t out i n the d e c i s i o n o f the Exchequer Court, a t (1916), 16 Ex.C.R. 104, a t 114. See Supreme Court o f Canada d e c i s i o n , 42 D.L.R. 387, a t 388. I b i d . , 390.  101 Note the surrender  comments w i t h r e s p e c t  possession  to  the  grantee's o b l i g a t i o n to  o f the p r o p e r t y .  That o b l i g a t i o n would a r i s e  o n l y when a l l a p p l i c a b l e terms of the  " c o n d i t i o n " - i . e . the r i g h t  t o resume - had  been complied w i t h by the Crown.  L i m i t s on the Resumption Power  As noted above, some o f the are  included  resumability been  in of  erected.  exceptions  the  to  proviso  gardens The the  and  case right  Surrey  7 1  the  -  law  on  have  municipality  the  land  Columbia Court o f Appeal i n one of  l i m i t a t i o n s on the power t o resume l/20th  upon which resumptions  been  out o f Crown g r a n t s the  the  this  to i n d i v i d u a l s ) .  Court o f Appeal) claimed  resumed once for  exercise  i t fell  within  t h a t the the  the  report,  was  a f f e c t e d by the resumption.  plaintiff  required  of  any  the l a n d was  The  have  but  the  the  British  Corporation the  right  l a n d (the M u n i c i p a l  however, i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e r e  [1920] 2 W.W.R. 681.  by  In Caine v.  exception  more convenient o c c u p a t i o n  evidence as t o what a c t u a l use  i s scarce,  r i g h t which was  The  non-  buildings  attempted t o e x e r c i s e  t o resume up t o l / 2 0 t h o f the p l a i n t i f f ' s allowed m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o  any  considered  o l d case.  had  limitation,  Act,  reserved  (Respondent i n  land could  "gardens or  not  be  otherwise  such b u i l d i n g s " .  The  put does not appear i n was  no  b u i l d i n g that  t r i a l judge gave a broad  102 interpretation evidence, land".  the  to  the  exception  proposed  road  and  actually  concluded  that,  encroached  upon  on  the  "garden  The b r i e f judgment on t h i s p o i n t i s as f o l l o w s :  S t r i c t l y speaking, i t may seem erroneous t o speak o f any l a n d o u t s i d e of the f o u r w a l l s of a b u i l d i n g as b e i n g i n use f o r the more convenient o c c u p a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g , but t o my mind the word "occupation" has here a much wider meaning. I would say t h a t r e g a r d must be had t o the uses t o which the b u i l d i n g i s put and so having r e g a r d I would say t h a t a driveway t o a house i s i n use f o r the more c o n v e n i e n t o c c u p a t i o n o f the house and the o r d i n a r y farm barnyard i s i n use f o r the more convenient o c c u p a t i o n o f s t a b l e and barn. In my view, i t i s not a q u e s t i o n as t o the e x t e n t o f the ground so used, whether a r e s t r i c t e d o r a generous area the q u e s t i o n i s one of f a c t . Was i t so used? One guide t o a d e c i s i o n on t h i s q u e s t i o n of f a c t o r , perhaps I s h o u l d say, one element which s h o u l d e n t e r i n t o the c a l c u l a t i o n , i s this: Is the l a n d withdrawn from the l a r g e r purposes o f the farm, the growing of g r a i n , the d e p a s t u r i n g of c a t t l e , and the l i k e , and kept f o r use i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the house and farm b u i l d i n g ? Looking at the matter i n t h i s l i g h t , I have no h e s i t a t i o n i n h o l d i n g t h a t a l l the l a n d t o the south of the p l a i n t i f f ' s house, o f h i s s t a b l e , and o f h i s barn, r i g h t up t o the south boundary of h i s l a n d was l a n d i n use f o r the more convenient o c c u p a t i o n o f these b u i l d i n g s . I need not, t h e r e f o r e , go i n t o d e t a i l s , but I should add t h a t , i n my o p i n i o n , the evidence shows t h a t the proposed road a c t u a l l y encroaches i n d e t a i l upon garden l a n d . 7 2  The m u n i c i p a l i t y appealed, but the Court o f Appeal trial  judge.  The  Court  nevertheless  deals  exception  resumption.  to  of  Appeal  exclusively One  judgment  with of  the  the  i s also  682-83.  brief  interpretation  Justices  on  agreed w i t h the t r i a l judge and another d i s s e n t e d .  Ibid.,  agreed with the  appeal In the  of  but the  simply  103 deciding what  o p i n i o n Mr.  might  be  Justice  included  as  Martin garden  e l a b o r a t e d on land  in  the  association  issue with  building:  I am o f the o p i n i o n t h a t the important word "gardens" should not be h e l d t o mean i n t h i s country, as was s t r o n g l y urged upon us, s u p p o r t e d by E n g l i s h a u t h o r i t i e s , o n l y a r e a s i n c l o s e d by w a l l s , f e n c e s , e t c . , f o r i t i s an open and n o t o r i o u s f a c t even i n our own c i t i e s t h e r e are innumerable gardens f r o n t i n g on the s t r e e t s which have no i n c l o s u r e towards the highway, but simply a boundary curb (and o f t e n not even t h a t between the g r a s s and the pavement) as i s indeed the case i n the spacious garden which on a l l s i d e s surrounds the Parliament b u i l d i n g s i n V i c t o r i a . There are, of c o u r s e , v a r i o u s k i n d s o f gardens, such as k i t c h e n or flower, o r t r e e , e t c . or nursery, which v a r y i n s i z e and k i n d i n urban o r suburban r e s i d e n c e s , o r farms o r c a t t l e or c h i c k e n ranches, e t c . "Garden" i s a wide and h i s t o r i c a l l y f i r s t one which we have a u t h e n t i c w r i t , was " p l a n t e d " by the Almighty, Gen. 8), and He "took the man and put Eden t o d r e s s i t and keep i t " (15); for i n i t :  p o p u l a r word, and the i n f o r m a t i o n from h o l y "Eastward i n Eden" ( i i him i n t o the Garden o f i t was a t r e e garden,  grew every t r e e t h a t i s p l e a s a n t t o the s i g h t and good f o r food; the t r e e of l i f e a l s o i n the middle of the garden, and the t r e e o f knowledge o f good and e v i l ; Nothing e l s e i s mentioned as growing i n i t , and though i t was watered by f o u r r i v e r s and guarded by cherubim and a f l a m i n g sword, a f t e r Adam and Eve were e j e c t e d t h e r e i s no word of any w a l l o r o t h e r i n c l o s u r e surrounding i t . Second, a d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n arose under s a i d sec. 325 of the M u n i c i p a l Act, 1914, ch. 52, r e g a r d i n g the e x c e p t i o n a g a i n s t the resumption of lands "which may be i n use as gardens o r otherwise f o r the more convenient o c c u p a t i o n of any such b u i l d i n g s " . The language i s open d o u b t l e s s t o extremes o f c o n s t r u c t i o n i n e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n , as i l l u s t r a t e d by c o u n s e l a t the Bar, but b r o a d l y and simply i t means, I t h i n k , t h a t i f t h e r e are b u i l d i n g s upon "the whole (area) o f the lands granted as a f o r e s a i d " (here o r i g i n a l l y 160 a c r e s ) which are s u b j e c t e d t o the power of resumption, then any p a r t o f t h a t l a n d which i s " i n use as gardens or o t h e r wise f o r the more convenient o c c u p a t i o n o f *** such b u i l d i n g s " i s excluded from resumption.  104 As t o whether o r not the use o f a p i e c e o f l a n d as "a garden o r o t h e r w i s e " i s a "convenient o c c u p a t i o n " i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h any " b u i l d i n g " , o r the many b u i l d i n g s o f a farmstead o r o t h e r w i s e , t h a t i s a matter o f f a c t dependent upon the circumstances o f each c a s e . 7 3  One trial,  final  should  the p l a i n t i f f  injunction of  point  forbidding  resumption.  dismissed  be noted  had  successfully  the m u n i c i p a l i t y  The B r i t i s h  the appeal  about  from  Columbia  the Caine  case.  sought  permanent  exercising  Court  by the m u n i c i p a l i t y .  a  the r i g h t  o f Appeal  On f u r t h e r  At  simply  appeal t o  the Supreme Court o f Canada Surrey's appeal was d i s m i s s e d without additional ruling.  reasons,  but t h e Supreme  I t was h e l d t h a t  permanent  injunction  the p l a i n t i f f  covering  m u n i c i p a l i t y was f r e e t o attempt the p l a i n t i f f ' s  Court  varied  the o r i g i n a l  was not e n t i t l e d  a l l of h i s lands. resumption  to a  Rather,  the  o f some o t h e r p a r t o f  l a n d , o r t o o b t a i n the r e q u i r e d p a r c e l by r e g u l a r  expropriation proceedings.  7 4  In the Caine case the v a l i d i t y o f the r e s e r v e d r i g h t t o resume in  the Crown g r a n t  was not c h a l l e n g e d and a l l c o u r t s seemed t o  assume i t s v a l i d i t y . some  interesting  resumption action  However, t h a t  practical  proceedings.  o f the p r o v i n c e ,  case  strategies  p r o v i d e s the b a s i s f o r t o be  employed  against  I f a Band wanted t o d e f e a t the u n i l a t e r a l i t appears  that  this  c o u l d be done by  7 3  I b i d . , 683-84.  7 4  C o r p o r a t i o n o f Surrey v. Caine (1920), 60 S.C.R. 654.  105 e r e c t i n g a b u i l d i n g ( a p p a r e n t l y any b u i l d i n g would do) planting  a  garden  on  the  required  land.  The  and  perhaps  province  cannot  resume u n t i l i t has p r o v i d e d n o t i c e and plans o f the proposed work t o the  Department.  which lands  I t would l i k e l y be  were r e q u i r e d before  resumption had been met. the p r o v i n c e be  gained  the  fairly  easy t o a n t i c i p a t e  requisite  pre-conditions  to  I f a Band wanted t o " p l a y h a r d b a l l " with  over the i s s u e o f compensation, some advantage c o u l d  by  employing  such a s t r a t e g y ,  and  thereby n e u t r a l i z i n g  the t h r e a t o f resumption.  C a l c u l a t i o n o f Resumable P o r t i o n  Due  to  province  the to  wording  of  0/C  argue t h a t the  1036  right  acreage o f a l l r e s e r v e s scheduled  The only  resumption  o f the  Schedule A a t t a c h e d are  entitled  reserves the  to  the lands  t o 0/C  resume  i n any  lands"  t o be  hereto..."  conveyed by 0/C  l/20th l i m i t  "said  up  l/20th  1036. one  75  possible  for  The of  the  total  1036.  the  "said  i s found  conveyed: .  be  t o resume r e l a t e s t o the  p r o v i s i o n r e f e r s to  d e s c r i p t i o n of  description  i t might  the  i n the  "the  province  lands  and  the  preceding s e t out  contends t h a t  total  Therefore,  lands"  acreage  in  they  of a l l  i f they have reached  p a r t i c u l a r r e s e r v e they  T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has been n o t e d a u t h o r i t i e s , see, MacSween, 3.1.07.  by  could  legally  provincial  106 exceed t h a t  limit  i n that reserve  resumptions  pursuant  to  0/C  so  1036  long  does not  t o t a l area o f r e s e r v e s i n c l u d e d i n the  This likely  i s an find  province  extreme  favour  could  take  power and  particular  Band  not  a  and  back thereby  f o r whose  conveyed.  strong  an  indeed,  use  and  but  due  of  l/20th  their of  the  which would  not  t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n the  defeat benefit  to  one  reserve  Undoubtedly, the  argument,  total  exceed  and On  entire  totally  the  schedule.  i n a c o u r t o f law.  resumption  apart  argument  as  or  the the  via  the  of  the  interest reserve  province  the  more  was  set  must know t h i s i s  wording  of  the  Order  in  c o u n c i l i t c o u l d be r a i s e d as a l e g a l i s s u e .  In  the  Columbia courts  Moses nor  the  neither  Court  of  indicated that  each r e s e r v e . t o the  case,  the  the  Appeal  Supreme  ruled  resumption  In the Supreme Court,  was Mr.  public works".  76  of (my  a p o r t i o n of emphasis).  By  each  t h e r e was not  issue,  limited  to  The  Court  British but  the  reserve  of a r i g h t  to  f o r purposes  of  Court  the  moot, s i n c e the roadwork  o f Appeal d e c i s i o n was  d e c i s i o n of the  of  J u s t i c e Andrews r e f e r r e d  brief,  an i n t e r e s t i n g q u a l i f i c a t i o n whereby the p r o v i n c e  to r a i s e  both  l/20th  the time the case reached  Court o f Appeal the i s s u e of t r e s p a s s was been completed.  of  the  p r o v i s i o n as a " r e s e r v a t i o n t o the p r o v i n c e  resume p o s s e s s i o n  had  on  Court  i n any  future  but  agreed  proceedings  i n s t i t u t e d t o determine whether the p r o v i n c e had resumed more land 7 6  Moses v. The  Queen, [1977] 4 W.W.R. 474,  at  490.  107 than i t s h o u l d have, i n the event province Court, "...  had  Mr. I  am  the  right  t o resume some l a n d .  Justice  C r a i g went  of  opinion  the  t h a t the Court d e c i d e d t h a t the  on  that  to  dismiss  the  trial  Speaking  7 7  the  appeal  judge  was  f o r the saying, right  in  c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the p r o v i n c e has  the r i g h t t o resume up t o l / 2 0 t h  of the lands i n each r e s e r v e " .  (my  7 8  emphasis).  The p r e s e n t p o l i c y o f the p r o v i n c i a l government i s t o take land pursuant public  t o s e c t i o n 35 of the I n d i a n Act when i t r e q u i r e s l a n d f o r  purposes.  The  79  present  policy  r e g a r d i n g resumptions  has  been d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s :  Where a resumable allowance remains u s i n g Order i n c o u n c i l 1036/208 o r o t h e r and an agreement can be consummated, the P r o v i n c e w i l l accept the s e c t i o n 35 I n d i a n Act t r a n s f e r : "For highway purposes and o t h e r works o f p u b l i c u t i l i t y or convenience." Where the resumable allowance has a l r e a d y been expended, a s e c t i o n 35 I n d i a n Act t r a n s f e r i s d e s i r a b l e but a s e c t i o n 37 Indian Act surrender may prove necessary. A change i n c u r r e n t p o l i c y w i t h r e s p e c t t o the c u r r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t o n l y one-twentieth of any one r e s e r v e i s resumable, may be necessary should the resumable allowance i n r e s p e c t of the i n d i v i d u a l r e s e r v e have been "spent", the Band not wish t o consummate an amicable agreement and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n made by the p r o v i n c e t h a t the p r o j e c t must proceed. 80  7 7  Moses v. 101.  7 8  Ibid.,  7 9  MacSween,  8 0  Ibid.  The Queen, [1979] 5 W.W.R. 100  102. 3.1 .07.  (B.C.C.A.), at  108 The  policy  allowance opposed  statement  remains,  reveals  the p r o v i n c e  t o the u n i l a t e r a l  Supposedly  this  is a  sign  that will  exercise o f good  even  though  accept  a  a s.35 t r a n s f e r as  o f t h e resumption faith  on  the part  province,  n o t t o take l a n d without some compensation.  province  retain  reserve  while  i t s right  accepting  used  lands  t o provide  should  Act?  the p r o v i n c e  be i n c l u d e d  v i a section  for  any  taking  compensation  with  the case  Highways effect  of a  pursuant t o  the lands  i t needs,  such limit.  taken by any p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t y , 1036, should  proposition  be i n c l u d e d  i n the  i s found i n the B r i t i s h  and the case law d e a l i n g w i t h compensation  8 1  of land  f o r lands  pursuant  t o the A c t .  taken under the Highway Act,  the power o f resumption, was c o n s i d e r e d in  part  limit.  f o r the f o r e g o i n g  Columbia Highway A c t  l/20th lands  of the  But can the  i n the computation o f the l / 2 0 t h  35 o r 0/C  c a l c u l a t i o n o f the l / 2 0 t h  Support  full  power.  Even though a s e c t i o n 35 t r a n s f e r  I t i s suggested t h a t a l l lands whether  a  a t r a n s f e r of reserve  s e c t i o n 35 o f the Indian is  t o resume  resumable  of B r i t i s h  Pacific  and P u b l i c  Works.  o f t h e then  section  The  issue  p a r t l y under  by a Board o f A r b i t r a t i o n  Properties  L t d . v. M i n i s t e r o f  The a r b i t r a t o r s c o n s i d e r e d  82  16(l)(b)  o f t h e Highway  Highway Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c.167.  the  A c t (now  s e c t i o n 1 4 ( l ) ( b ) ) which reads as f o l l o w s :  (1978), 14 L.C.R. 299.  of  See s s . 6 and 14.  109 16.(1)  Compensation s h a l l be p a i d i n r e s p e c t o f l a n d s e n t e r e d upon and taken p o s s e s s i o n of under t h i s P a r t f o r the f o l l o w i n g matters o n l y :  (b)  Lands which were o r i g i n a l l y granted t o some person by the Crown, e i t h e r i n r i g h t o f the P r o v i n c e or Canada, and by the t a k i n g o f which the t o t a l area taken f o r the purpose of highways from the lands comprised i n the o r i g i n a l Crown grant i s found t o exceed one-twentieth of the t o t a l area o f the lands comprised i n the Crown grant, and then o n l y f o r the area i n excess o f one-twentieth of t h a t t o t a l area; but, where the lands comprised i n the Crown grant have been s u b - d i v i d e d i n t o p a r c e l s by any r e g i s t e r e d conveyance o r p l a n o f s u b d i v i s i o n the area o f l a n d which may be so taken from any p a r c e l without the payment o f c o m p e n s a t i o n s h a l l n o t e x c e e d onet w e n t i e t h o f the a r e a o f t h a t p a r c e l , and where l a n d s a r e b e i n g t a k e n from two o r more o f the p a r c e l s at the same time the t o t a l area t o be so taken without the payment o f compensation s h a l l be appointed among those p a r c e l s on the b a s i s of t h e i r respective areas. 8 3  The  claimant  dedications  (British of  roads,  Pacific to  be  non-compensable l / 2 0 t h area.  P r o p e r t i e s ) sought c r e d i t i n c l u d e d i n the The c l a i m was  f o r past  calculation  expressed  of  as f o l l o w s :  In computing the v a l u e of those p o r t i o n s of the s a i d lands which may be taken by the M i n i s t e r without compensation by v i r t u e o f the p r o v i s i o n s o f s. 16(1) of the Highway Act, the Claimant has i n c l u d e d the area of road d e d i c a t i o n s t o the Crown o f l a n d p a r c e l s which have been s u b d i v i d e d by the Claimant, and i t i s the p o s i t i o n o f the M i n i s t e r t h a t the Claimant i s not e n t i t l e d t o c l a i m such road d e d i c a t i o n s as p a r t o f the s t a t u t o r y non-compensable r e s u m p t i o n . 84  Ibid.,  302.  Ibid.,  303.  the  110 It  was  under  argued Part  that  I  of  16(l)(b),  they  portion.  The  8 5  by  "dedication"  the  should  Act be  and,  such  lands  therefore,  credited  to  the  had  been  pursuant  to  non-compensable  "taken" section l/20th  Board agreed w i t h t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t a t i n g :  I t would seem t h e r e f o r e t h a t " d e d i c a t i o n " may be one means o f t a k i n g encompassed by the language of s.16.  of  the  The A r b i t r a t o r s are of the view, t h a t at the v e r y l e a s t , t h e r e i s ambiguity as t o whether use o f the word "taken" i s t o be l i m i t e d simply t o " e x p r o p r i a t e d " i n the context of t h i s s e c t i o n , o r whether i t must be g i v e n some broader meaning. I t seems legislation i n favour encroached  Section provides o f the  w e l l s e t t l e d i n law t h a t any ambiguity i n which a u t h o r i z e d e x p r o p r i a t i o n must be r e s o l v e d o f those whose property, or r i g h t s , are being upon:... 86  107(1)  of  the  Land  Titles  Act,  R.S.B.C,  c.219,  t h a t upon r e g i s t r a t i o n o f a s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n any  portion  l a n d shown as a highway o r f o r p u b l i c use  dedicated  t o p u b l i c use  provides  for  a  f o r the  qualification  provisions i n sub-section i n t r u s t f o r an  Indian  purposes shown. of  the  operation  is  automatically  Sub-section of  some  of  (2) the  (1), where the Crown i n r i g h t o f Canada,  Band, i s the owner of the  subdivision.  In  view of the B r i t i s h P a c i f i c P r o p e r t i e s case i t appears t h a t i f an Indian Band decides  to sub-divide  the l a n d f o r p u b l i c use,  and  dedicate  then such lands should  c e r t a i n portions  be i n c l u d e d i n the  c a l c u l a t i o n o f the l / 2 0 t h resumption power i n 0/C 8 5  I b i d . , 303-304.  8 6  Ibid.,  304.  of  1036.  Ill P r o c e d u r a l Requirements f o r Resumption  Apart are  no  from  the n o t i c e requirement  procedures  province's  right  stipulated  t o resume.  c o n t a i n e d i n 0/C 1036 there  t o govern  the e x e r c i s e o f the  The n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n  i n 0/C 1036  reads as f o l l o w s :  PROVIDED a l s o t h a t the Department o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s s h a l l through i t s p r o p e r o f f i c e r s be a d v i s e d o f any work contemplated under the p r e c e d i n g p r o v i s o e s t h a t p l a n s o f the l o c a t i o n o f such work s h a l l be f u r n i s h e d f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n of t h e Department o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s , and t h a t a reasonable time s h a l l be allowed f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s a i d p l a n s and f o r any n e c e s s a r y a d j u s t m e n t s o r arrangements i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e proposed work.  In  accordance  procedures  with  this  the province  provision, currently  and p u r s u a n t observes  t o i t s own  the  following  requirements:  1.  The i n i t i a l n o t i f i c a t i o n t o Canada o f t h e i n t e n t i o n t o c a r r y out such surveys as are necessary t o d e f i n e the project.  2.  The o f f i c i a l n o t i f i c a t i o n t o Canada o f t h e p r o j e c t accompanied by complete p l a n s and t h e i n t e n t i o n t o resume p u r s u a n t t o t h e p e r m i t t i n g document g i v i n g Canada a r e a s o n a b l e time t o c o n s i d e r t h e p l a n s and suggest changes.  3.  To make such changes t o p l a n s as may prove necessary t o proceed w i t h the resumption o f t h e l a n d pursuant t o t h e p e r m i t t i n g document and i t i s now P r o v i n c i a l p r a c t i c e t o g i v e t h e f u l l e s t P r o v i n c i a l support p o s s i b l e , ( i . e .  112 by o r d e r i n c o u n c i l ) t o n o t i f y Canada by a copy of the resuming document, a f t e r which e n t r y can be made f o r the purposes o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . 8 7  In  the  past  the  order  i n council,  Also,  i n the  resumption  and  past, the  subject  t o the  also  lands  been  province the  According  pursuant Railway  right  province. to  give  to  order  followed  the  Moses  i n council,  t o 0/C  1036  be d e a l t w i t h  an  resume  provincial practice.  order  and  past  the  have  province  (the s i t u a t i o n may 208  of  t o resume.  o r a surrender  B e l t where Dominion P.C.  the p r e s e n t  possession  the  case  by  in  "conveyed"  the 90  land To  to  the have the  summarize,  been i n c o n s i s t e n t . does  not  require  be  different  i n the o l d  i s r e l i e d upon, but t h i s  will  MacSween, 3.1.08. the procedure  a  i n o r d e r t o resume land  later).  T h i s was  8 8  council  Band C o u n c i l R e s o l u t i o n s  8 9  up  in  effected  passed  to  i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f the r i g h t  procedures  federal  Dominion has  province's  obtained  been  t h a t appears t o be  the  acknowledging  has  f o l l o w e d i n the Moses case.  See, f o r example, P r i v y C o u n c i l Order No. 1399, March 25, 1949, Department of I n d i a n A f f a i r s Reserve General R e g s i t r y No. 12412. See, f o r example, Band C o u n c i l R e s o l u t i o n o f the Lower N i c o l a Band, August 29, 1962, Department o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s Reserve General R e g i s t r y No. X13790.  113 In  a ruling  that  o f the B r i t i s h  the exercise  Columbia Supreme Court i t was  o f the r i g h t  t o resume l a n d  i s subject  t o the  review o f the Court under the J u d i c i a l Review Procedure A c t that  the resuming  law  doctrine  Mr.  Justice  authority  of f a i r n e s s . Hinds  jurisdiction.  dealt  The  must  comply w i t h  the  held  9 1  and  administrative  In the case o f Moser v. The Queen,  9 2  with  province  a  preliminary  were  e x e r c i s i n g t h e r i g h t o f resumption found i n t h e Crown grant,  they  the  case w i t h i n  Review grant  Procedure  that  because  to h i s  they  were not a c t i n g pursuant  argued  objection  t o a " s t a t u t o r y power",  so as t o b r i n g  the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the Court under the J u d i c i a l Act.  The  Court  noted  that  neither  the Crown  nor the Land A c t (R.S.B.C. 1936, c.144, and i t s successors)  s t i p u l a t e d how a d e c i s i o n t o resume l a n d pursuant t o a r e s e r v a t i o n in  a Crown grant  should  be e f f e c t e d .  I t was noted f u r t h e r ,  the M i n i s t e r o f Highways, i n t h i s case, o b t a i n e d  h i s authority to  resume land, based on the r e s e r v a t i o n i n the grant, (now s.6) o f the Highway A c t .  9 3  from S e c t i o n 8  Mr. J u s t i c e Hinds d i s m i s s e d  p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n w i t h the f o l l o w i n g  that  the  reasoning:  In any event, t h e d e c i s i o n o f the M i n i s t e r t o resume a p o r t i o n of the subject property, w h i l e founded on the r e s e r v a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n the Crown grant, was e x e r c i s e d o r made under the powers o r r i g h t s c o n f e r r e d by s . 8 ( l ) o f the Highway A c t .  91  R.S.B.C. 1979, c.209  92  Moser v. The Queen (1981), 24 L.C.R. 226.  93  Moser v. The Queen (1981), 24 L.C.R. 226, a t 232.  114 . . . i t t h e r e f o r e f o l l o w s t h a t the M i n i s t e r ' s d e c i s i o n wast o paraphrase s.2(2)(b) of the J u d i c i a l Review Procedure Act - i n r e l a t i o n t o the e x e r c i s e , or r e f u s a l t o e x e r c i s e of a s t a t u t o r y power. 94  The  Plaintiff  in  the  manner i n which the  case  had  complained  the  held  t h a t the M i n i s t e r ' s e x e r c i s e o f h i s d i s c r e t i o n t o resume the  land  it  doctrine  amounted t o an  also the  the  noted  of  exercised.  arbitrary  I t was  violated  resumption power was  about  f a i r n e s s because,  abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n .  95  the  M i n i s t r y ' s methods of  l o c a t i o n of  the  land  opportunity  to  Indian r e s e r v e  suggest  alternative locations.  by  the  an  i n t e r e s t i n g example of  handed"  t h i r d proviso  approach on  i n 0/C  the  r i g h t t o resume.  Ibid.,  233.  I b i d . , 234-235. Ibid.,  235.  1036. how  part  a of  The Court the  regard,  negotiation  resumed d e p r i v e d  land, such an o p p o r t u n i t y  circumstances,  In t h i s  that  t o be  i n the  9 6  Mr.  it  was  regarding  Moser of  an  With r e s p e c t  to  appears t o be  safeguarded  Moser case i s nonetheless might  province,  deal  with  a  "high-  when e x e r c i s i n g a  115 Compensation f o r Lands Resumed  The  issue  o f whether  resumed pursuant the C o u r t s . was  never  Court  be p a i d  f o r lands  t o 0/C 1036 o r P.C. 208 has never been decided by i n the Moses case but  a d j u d i c a t e d nor commented upon by the Supreme Court o r  when  Majesty's  of B r i t i s h  the right  transferring  t o resume  government,  Arguably  the s i t u a t i o n i s  i s reserved  as compared  between  to a  in a  document  levels  o f Her  grant  t o an  Crown  However, b e f o r e t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s analyzed, r e f e r e n c e  be made  resumed,  Columbia.  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and c o n t r o l  individual. will  must  The i s s u e was r a i s e d and argued  o f Appeal  unique  compensation  t o t h e case  and  law r e g a r d i n g  the general  common  compensation  f o r lands  law p r i n c i p l e s  regarding  compensation f o r lands c o m p u l s o r i l y a c q u i r e d .  It  would  necessary  appear  from  when a r i g h t  t h e case  law t h a t  t o resume r e s e r v e d  no compensation i s  i n a Crown grant, i s  exercised.  Although t h i s exact p o i n t was not i n i s s u e i n Power v.  The  the d e c i s i o n n e c e s s a r i l y  King,  9 7  implies t h i s .  In t h a t  the Crown e l e c t e d t o i n s t i t u t e e x p r o p r i a t i o n proceedings  case  i n order  t o a c q u i r e land, i n s t e a d o f e x e r c i s i n g i t s r i g h t t o resume, which it  had r e s e r v e d  i n the o r i g i n a l  n e v e r t h e l e s s contended  (1918),  Crown  patent.  The  Crown  that the value of the subject land f o r  42 D.L.R. 387 (S.C.C.).  compensation parcel  was  purposes,  was  resumable.  greatly  The  Court  reduced agreed  because with  the  this  whole  argument,  stating:  I t i s i n c o n t e s t a b l e t h a t i t i s the v a l u e o f the owner's i n t e r e s t immediately b e f o r e the e x p r o p r i a t i o n f o r which he i s e n t i t l e d t o compensation. Upon a l l the evidence I should i n c l i n e , t o the view t h a t the i n t e r e s t , i f s u b j e c t t o t h i s c o n d i t i o n o f resumption, had no s u b s t a n t i a l v a l u e . 9 8  I t s h o u l d be noted, however, t h a t the wording o f the resumption i n Power  specifically  the l a n d . which  a l l o w e d f o r compensation  T h i s i s d i f f e r e n t from the resumption power i n 0/C  i s silent  not go  "no  s u b s t a n t i a l value",  referred  of  into  on compensation  did  reading  f o r improvements  the  to  detail  grant,  i n one  why  altogether.  the land,  The  subject  instance  because  1036  Court i n Power  t o resumption,  but perhaps the r e a s o n i n g was that  to  compensation  i t i s necessarily  had  based on a  was  expressly  excluded i n a l l  others.  In the Moser c a s e ,  9 9  although the p o i n t was  Court made the f o l l o w i n g comments r e g a r d i n g  not i n i s s u e ,  compensation:  I t i s noted w i t h i n t e r e s t t h a t s. 16(1 )(b) o f the Highway A c t , R. S.B.C. 1960 (now s. 1 4 ( l ) ( b ) o f the Highway Act, R.S.B.C. 1979), d e a l s w i t h the matter o f compensation t o be p a i d f o r l a n d s t a k e n under P a r t I o f t h e A c t - which i n c l u d e d s.8. As the p o r t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y 9 8  Ibid  99  Moser v. The Queen (1981), 24 L.C.R. 226.  389.  the  117 resumed d i d not exceed o n e - t w e n t i e t h o f the t o t a l a r e a c o n t a i n e d i n the Crown grant, no compensation i s payable t o the p e t i t i o n e r . 1 0 0  This  case  cannot  compensation Court's  view  case  resumption  was  Court  Moses  based  law,  as  i s treated  i n Moses  effect.  1 0 3  -  as  1 0 2  a  Stuart  the  proposition  of  Highway  Highway  that  a resumption. Act  which  no The  limits  resumption  Court If  did such  i t may  be  Act  indicates  than an e x p r o p r i a t i o n ,  and  1 0 1  that  a  i n that  A c c o r d i n g t o the P r i v y  the B r i t i s h  i s something  Columbia  reserved  Supreme  out  of  a  s a i d t o operate as a defeasance, w h i l e i n not  a  specify  right  how  the  i s reserved  i t a c t u a l l y takes e f f e c t , that  compensation  1 0 0  I b i d . , 232-33.  1 0 1  (1889), 14 App.  102  [1977] 4 W.W.R. 474.  1 0 3  the  case  i s p a i d f o r resumed lands.  notwithstanding that future  f o r the  i n the  differently  In Cooper i t was the  stand  on  well  i n Cooper v.  grant.  to  not the r e s e r v a t i o n i n the Crown g r a n t .  no compensation Council  said  i s ever payable  compensation,  The  be  Cas.  reservation out  of  the  took grant-  i f at a l l , i n the  f o r such  reservation  is  286.  However, the Court i n Moses perhaps i m p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d the r e a s o n i n g i n Cooper v. S t u a r t , t h a t the resumption o p e r a t e s as a defeasance. The Dominion had argued t h a t the resumption took e f f e c t as a defeasance, w h i l e the p r o v i n c e argued t h a t i t was a r e s e r v a t i o n from the grant. Without commenting upon how the resumption worked, the Court c h a r a c t e r i z e d the r i g h t t o resume as a r e s e r v a t i o n from the g r a n t .  118 reflected  i n the p r i c e  have a l r e a d y  paid  bargained  f o r the l a n d .  for their  respective interests  over the l a n d a t the time o f the g r a n t . individual,  t h e r e s e r v a t i o n o f such  purchase p r i c e . a bargain  That i s , the p a r t i e s  An o r i g i n a l grantee,  and r i g h t s  Normally, i n a s a l e t o an a right  would  reduce the  undoubtedly a c q u i r e d land a t  r a t e , as the e a r l y l a n d p o l i c y was aimed a t a t t r a c t i n g  s e t t l e r s who would improve the l a n d and, e v e n t u a l l y the economy. But i n o r d e r t o purchase the l a n d a t such a low, o r nominal p r i c e , the grantee that  agreed  t o take  the Crown might  the p r o p e r t y  i n the f u t u r e  s u b j e c t t o the c o n d i t i o n  take  back  up t o 5  percent  (l/20th) of the land.  To  successors  without  in title,  the e x e r c i s e o f the r i g h t  compensation, may not seem as reasonable.  t o resume,  However,  they  would have been aware o f the c o n d i t i o n when they purchased, and no doubt would have bargained  accordingly.  analogous  respect  Indian the  bargaining  with  Bands d i d not b a r g a i n  with  the province  over  1036.  the p r o v i n c e .  A t l e a s t the To some  extent  condition,  perhaps  payment o f compensation, t o pay.  The f e d e r a l government n e g o t i a t e d  the form  agreeing t o t h e c o n d i t i o n . the  t o 0/C  t h e r e was no  F e d e r a l Government d i d , but t h e r e was no purchase p r i c e , nor  any r e a l q u i d p r o quo i n v o l v e d . with  Of course,  o f the conveyance,  ultimately  Since the f e d e r a l government agreed t o  i t should  be u l t i m a t e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r  i f the p r o v i n c e  i s not l e g a l l y  required  119 There are two cases from A u s t r a l i a , which are i n c l u d e d here f o r reference,  on  the  issue  Courts d e c i d e d t h a t  of compensation.  pursuant t o the r e s e r v a t i o n  resume i n the Crown grant no compensation interesting  In both  104  t o note, however, t h a t  was  cases the  o f the r i g h t  necessary.  to  It i s  i n each case the Crown grant  e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d the r i g h t t o resume without compensation.  Finally, the  i t has been s a i d t o be the law i n A u s t r a l i a t h a t s i n c e  power t o resume under a Crown g r a n t i s c o n t r a c t u a l i n nature,  t h a t power i s t o be determined a c c o r d i n g t o the express o r i m p l i e d terms o f the g r a n t . of  1 0 5  T h i s makes much sense, e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t  the p r e c e d i n g comments r e g a r d i n g the resumption as one  t h i n g s i n c l u d e d i n the "bargain" f o r the l a n d . t h a t s i n c e 0/C  1036  I t might be argued  does not e x p r e s s l y s t a t e t h a t no  w i l l be p a i d , the r e v e r s e should be i m p l i e d .  o f the  compensation  Such an i m p l i e d term  - f o r r e a s o n a b l e compensation - would be r e a s o n a b l e i n view o f the common  law  presumption  in  favour  of  compensation  f o r lands  c o m p u l s o r i l y a c q u i r e d by the s t a t e f o r p u b l i c purposes.  Thomas v. Sherwood (1893), 9 App. Cas. 142 ( P . C ) , see pp. 143 and 149; Worsely Timber Co. L t d . v. M i n i s t e r f o r Works (1933), 36 W.A.L.R. 52 (Aus). Brown, 29.  120 Implied  Compensation  There i s a common law presumption a g a i n s t t h e t a k i n g o f p r i v a t e property subject  without  compensation.  t h e common  t o be superseded by an A c t o f the l e g i s l a t u r e ,  are now s t a t u t e s i n o p e r a t i o n allow  However,  106  f o r various  law i s  and there  i n a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n Canada which  expropriations.  Any r i g h t t o e x p r o p r i a t e  must  be based upon a s t a t u t e and, i n common law j u r i s d i c t i o n s any r i g h t to  compensation  authorizes  must  also  the taking.  be  based  upon  the statute  which  However, due t o t h e common law r u l e s o f  s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the Courts w i l l i n v a r i a b l y imply a r i g h t t o compensation i n t h e s t a t u t e t h a t  authorizes  the  i n unequivocal  contrary  rule  i n t e n t i o n i s expressed  applies  delegating  most  strongly  legislative  the taking  to the construction  powers.  unless  terms. of a  This  statute  107  However, these common law presumptions may have no a p p l i c a t i o n to the exercise The  courts  o f a r i g h t t o resume c o n t a i n e d  have  recognized  a distinction  resumption and a power o f e x p r o p r i a t i o n , appear  t o be  any c a s e  where  this  i n a Crown  between  a  although t h e r e  distinction  is  George S. C h a l l i e s , The Law o f E x p r o p r i a t i o n , (Montreal: Wilson & L a f l e u r , 1963), a t 3.  grant.  power o f does not expressly  2d ed.  I b i d . , 82-83. See a l s o 44 Halsbury's Laws, ( 4 t h ) , p a r a . 906, a t 557. See a l s o Newcastle Breweries L t d . v. The King, [1920] 1 K.B. 854, a t 866.  121 considered.  There does seem t o be good reason  1 0 8  two  powers d i f f e r e n t l y i n law,  as  a  result  respective  of  be  as  bargained Railway  as  opposed  for  belt  in  t o resume l a n d i n 0/C a compulsory  to  a  a  Crown  (governed  grant.  by  P.C.  of  resumption  federal-provincial 1929.  The  in  province  208)  for  their  could  -  The  not  of  embodied i n the  the  government  Scott-Cathcart  reserve  I n d i a n r e s e r v e s i n the Railway B e l t .  not  resumption.  conveyance o f lands s i n c e the p r o v i n c e was  agreement, which was  land  i n P.C.  208  authorized  by  condition contractually  are  provincial  agreement  and  C e r t a i n l y the  a right  the  1036  taking of  r e s e r v a t i o n or  "conveyance" which r e s e r v e s right  i f the resumption power i s viewed  p a r t i e s c o n t r a c t u a l l y bargaining  right  construed  statute,  this  lands  in  subject  stems  the  Dominion  stipulated the  that  Dominion  Agreement and enacted  on  to  the the  the Indian  province. lands  conditions  embodied i n P.C.  pursuant  t o the  British  a  the  from  a  Agreement  right  out  of  of  not the g r a n t o r of  a the  A c c o r d i n g t o the r e - t r a n s f e r C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  That  agreement  would continue expressed  208.  the  of  Rather,  1930,  Indian r e s e r v e s were not i n c l u d e d i n the r e - t r a n s f e r of the by  the  rights.  Perhaps the could  the  for treating  in  t o be  the  But see, f o r example, Power v. Thomas v. Sherwood, supra.  Indian  The  vested  in  Scott-Cathcart  Lands  King,  lands  further  P r i v y C o u n c i l Order 208  Columbia  the  was  Settlement  supra,  and  122 Act.  T h e r e f o r e , the  1 0 9  conditions  -  is  right  based  "Settlement A c t " .  to  upon  resume  the  I t i s also  -  agreement  embodied  and  a l l the  of  1929  other  and  the  i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  1930.  I t i s apparent t h a t the resumption power over the "Railway B e l t r e s e r v e s " i s based on a s t a t u t e and not upon the terms o f a g r a n t . The  same c o u l d be  said  has been noted t h a t Majesty's law. lands,  the  1036.  It  a t r a n s f e r o f p r o p e r t y between l e v e l s o f Her  Government  Although  o f the resumption power i n 0/C  i s not,  the  Terms  Courts  strictly  of  have  Union  held  speaking,  call  that  a p p r o p r i a t e f o r such a t r a n s f e r .  a conveyance  in  "conveyance"  of  for a  this  term  i s not  really  The t r a n s f e r o f I n d i a n r e s e r v e s  has always been based upon a s t a t u t e - b e g i n n i n g w i t h the Terms o f Union.  In  Moses,  authority  of  Provincial therefore  British  Columbia  the  Executive to  Supreme  pass  0/C  S t a t u t e - the I n d i a n A f f a i r s validly  a u t h o r i z e d by Settlement  subject  made.  federal  Act  characterized are  the  The  statute,  ( 1920 ) .  1 1 0  Court The The  1036  was  held  that  based  British Orders  that  Columbia in  P.C.  enactments.  1 0 9  S.C.  1 1 0  Moses v. The Queen, [1977] 4 W.W.R. 474,  the  upon  208  a  was was  I n d i a n Lands  Council  t o the common law r u l e s o f s t a t u t o r y 1920,  held  Settlement A c t - and  also  as d e l e g a t e d l e g i s l a t i v e  Court  As  should  be  such they  interpretation.  c.51. at 490.  123 Among paid  these  rules  i s the  f o r land compulsorily  p r o v i d e s otherwise. to  above  that  compensation. compensation Even i f 0/C might the  presumption  be  "Settlement  to  taking  the  and P.C.  of  as  ultra  land  are  exercise  208  the  statute  i n the two  Orders i n C o u n c i l  relative  attacked  a  compensation  unless  There i s nothing  authorizes The  1036  acquired  that  without  the  since  the  A c t s " - do not so e x p r e s s l y  expressly  payment the  provide.  of  power.  compensation enabling  of  issue  resumption  e x p r e s s l y excluded vires,  be  statutes referred  s i l e n t on  of  must  they  statutes-  1 1 1  Since the Orders i n C o u n c i l are r e a l l y l e g i s l a t i v e enactments, and  not  Crown g r a n t s  the  reference  viewed i n a s t r i c t p r o p e r t y sense, given. to  as  resumption  sense, but  " t a k i n g back" of something which had  "expropriate", the  without  or  presumption  compensation  the  right  person w i t h interest.  "take"  any  to  pursuant  against  should  apply.  compensation  "interest"  the  has  i n the  to  land,  be  be viewed as a r i g h t  of  should  been  not  p r e v i o u s l y been  statutory  taking It  should  rather i n i t s ordinary  In t h i s sense the r i g h t t o resume may  Hence  that  a  law  to  held  authority.  property finally to  including a  be  apply  rights noted to  any  usufructuary  1 1 2  See f o o t n o t e 107, supra, and p a r t i c u l a r l y , Newcastle Breweries L t d . v. The King, [1920] 1 K.B. 854, at 866. See C h a l l i e s , 73, and Commissaries d'Ecoles de Ste Rose v. Charbonneau, [1953] S.C. 477 ( Q u e . S . C ) .  124 Past P o l i c y Regarding Compensation  The  policy  regarding  of  although  agreement t h a t conveyance  was  reservation  or  no  the  Superintendent  British (now public  46  upon  dated of  part  has  1929  the  some  Dominion The  light  somewhat  appears  Before  transfer.  sheds  governments  been  there  i s required.  by He  18,  1926  Affairs  T.D.  the  the  to  be  form  of  opposed  any  correspondence  on  the  1 1 4  Duncan the  issue  of  land  Patullo  35)  draft  of  of  of  standard grant must be  of  the  Indian  the  Act  to  of  Lands  for  Indian  Act  reserves  for  the  from  Deputy form  i n s i s t e d that  expressed doubts r e g a r d i n g  section  Scott,  Minister  s e c t i o n 46  taking  In h i s r e p l y ,  ,  (then  advised t h a t for  1 1 3  rejected  Patullo  c o n t a i n e d i n the  (now  Dominion  resumed  most  in  June  Indian  He  and  inconclusive.  provided  public interest. section  is  offered  purposes.  reservations  the  agreement  Columbia).  s.35)  lands  r e s t r i c t i o n s i n the  letter  conveyance  for  compensation  compensation, but  a  provincial  for  agreed  preceded  In  the  compensation  inconsistent,  which  both  certain  kept, i n  the  s u f f i c i e n c y of protect  that  public interest.  Borthwick, "Order i n C o u n c i l 1036", E x h i b i t C. David Borthwick has appended c o p i e s o f correspondence between p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l o f f i c i a l s t o h i s paper, and r e f e r r e d t o them as " e x h i b i t s " . Borthwick, "Order i n C o u n c i l  1036", E x h i b i t  D.  125 C l e a r l y , the p r o v i n c i a l government d i d not want t o be dependent upon  t h e Dominion  through  E x e c u t i v e f o r i t s consent They  reserves.  independent interest.  power  saw t h e r i g h t  t o take  lands  Apparently Patullo  to construct  t o resume  as r e q u i r e d  was concerned  h i s main  concern  seemed  t o be t h e l a c k  as a necessary f o r the public  that  s e c t i o n 46 o f the I n d i a n A c t , compensation would but  roads  pursuant t o  have t o be p a i d , o f an independent  a u t h o r i t y t o e x p r o p r i a t e lands when needed f o r p u b l i c purposes.  There  followed  a number  o f exchanges  between  these two men.  P a t u l l o sought the advice o f h i s A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l i n a memorandum dated 13 January 1 9 2 8 .  I n the memo P a t u l l o e x p l a i n e d t h a t he  115  d i d not want t o g i v e up the r i g h t t o resume but suggested t h a t the p r o v i n c e might w e l l agree t o g i v e compensation. which  followed  issue. the  d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y  address  opinion  t h e compensation  The s u g g e s t i o n made by P a t u l l o i n the above-noted memo i s  only  indication  compensation The  1 1 6  The l e g a l  that  the province  would  be w i l l i n g  f o r resumptions i n the case o f I n d i a n r e s e r v e  s u g g e s t i o n was a p p a r e n t l y  never  raised  to  pay  lands.  i n correspondence  between the two governments.  The Cathcart  draft  form  Agreement,  o f conveyance, eventually  agreed  became  upon  0/C 1036.  i n the ScottAs p r e v i o u s l y  noted, the document i s s i l e n t on the i s s u e o f compensation. 115  I b i d . , E x h i b i t M.  116  Ibid  /  E x h i b i t 0.  There  126 was  inserted  in  the  the  provision  consultation  with  appear t o be  a compromise t o s e t t l e the  regarding Indian  lands  silence was  the  of  also  the  order  ability  Department of  of  the  province  v i a the r e s e r v a t i o n s the  a  document  the  that  Dominion  However,  in  the  really  not  d e a l t w i t h by  most  part,  case  the  federal  Court.  e i t h e r the  deal  land  change  (1924).  with the  resumed in  this  1 1 7  the p r o v i n c e  the  the  Dominion  The  has  f o r lands agreed  with  government  taken  the  resumed,  and  that argued  although t h a t  issue  of  view. that issue  compensation  was  Supreme Court o r the Court of Appeal  Columbia.  i s curious  province  allow  the  t o resume land f o r p u b l i c purposes without payment o f  any  compensation, The  before  would  Perhaps  for  no  necessary f o r resumed lands,  not  It  for  Moses  was  for B r i t i s h  was  compensation i s r e q u i r e d  has,  compensation was  unilaterally  and  which came s t r a i g h t from the  "conveyance" i n 1938  no  This  conveyance.  forms of the p r o v i n c i a l Land Act  Ever s i n c e the position  to  there  p r o v i s i o n from the o r i g i n a l p r o p o s a l , standard  Affairs.  compensation  However,  notice  concerns o f the  i n the  regarding  compromise.  Indian  for  Indian  Act  for  that  the  that  required  for public purposes.  1 1 8  1 1 7  R.S.B.C. 1924,  1 1 8  Indian Act,  was  f e d e r a l government agreed t o  a  major  compensation  departure to  be  from  paid  for  past  policy.  lands  taken  As w e l l , i n most of the numbered t r e a t i e s c.131, schedule, Form No.  R.S.C. 1927,  c. 98,  s.48.  9.  127 made between  Canada  and v a r i o u s  Indian  tribes,  compensation was  r e q u i r e d f o r lands resumed by Canada f o r p u b l i c p u r p o s e s . treaties reserve  only  r e q u i r e d payment  lands,  would be p a i d  while  others  f o r the v a l u e  f o r improvements  stipulated  o f the area  area would be added t o t h e r e s e r v e . w i l l be examined again i n the next  Mineral  The were  silent  on t h e i s s u e  case,  the Privy  and Peace  River  t r a n s f e r instrument base  compensation  o r an e q u i v a l e n t  The i s s u e o f compensation  chapter.  Agreement and subsequent Orders i n C o u n c i l  c o n s t r u c t i o n governing Belt  1 2 0  on a p p r o p r i a t e d  either  lost,  Some  Rights  Scott Cathcart  Metals  that  1 1 9  metals  passed  o f mineral Council  rights.  applied  In the P r e c i o u s  the usual  rules of  conveyances t o the t r a n s f e r o f the Railway Block  lands.  I t was h e l d  that  s i n c e the  was s i l e n t on t h e i s s u e o f m i n e r a l r i g h t s , the t o the grantee  (Dominion)  as i n c i d e n t s o f  "land", w h i l e t h e p r e c i o u s metals remained w i t h t h e p r o v i n c e .  As  A l e x a n d e r M o r r i s , The T r e a t i e s o f Canada w i t h t h e Indians (Toronto: B e l f o r d s , C l a r k e & Co., 1880; Coles, 1979), 313-370. T r e a t i e s No. 3 through 9 a l l r e s e r v e d a r i g h t t o Canada t o a p p r o p r i a t e lands from r e s e r v e s f o r p u b l i c purposes, paying due compensation f o r any improvements. See T r e a t y No. 4 (1874), i n M o r r i s , 333, and T r e a t y No. 9 (1905) f o r examples r e q u i r i n g compensation f o r land and improvements. The c l a u s e i n t r e a t y No. 9 i s r e p r i n t e d i n , B r a d f o r d W. Morse, ed., A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and t h e Law (Ottawa: C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1985), 293-4.  128 noted p r e v i o u s l y , the what they 11,  termed a  and  lands". right  the  to  from  the  and  settle  revenues.  The  d e c i s i o n was  influenced  arrangement" expressed the  t r a n s a c t i o n was  manage  territorial  "commercial  o b l i g a t i o n of The  1 2 1  Privy Council's  province described  the  lands  to as  and  were s a i d  from the o r d i n a r y t e r r i t o r i a l  to  rights.  in Article  convey  "public  a  t r a n s f e r of  the  to  appropriate  the  r i g h t s t o p r e c i o u s metals,  royal prerogative  differ  which d e r i v e  i n legal quality  In the absence of  language  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the p r e c i o u s metals were a l s o t o be conveyed, did  not pass w i t h the t r a n s f e r o f the  land.  the  l a c k of  specific  reference  to minerals  i n 0/C  with the l a n d .  would i n c l u d e o i l and  g o l d and  is  arguable  to  Article  reserve the  not  13  is  be  different  lands  lands"  Unlike were  at the  1 2 2  Ibid.,  303.  r i g h t s on  Railway to  Belt be  jurisdiction.  d i s p o s a l of  (1889), 14 App.  "commercial  d e c i s i o n i n the  intended  1 2 1  the  Precious Indian  t r a n s f e r r e d f o r the  the  territorial  placed  the  were t o be  reserves  provincial  11,  from  a p p l i e d to mineral  Indians.  Indian  silver.  t h a t because the t r a n s f e r o f Indian r e s e r v e s  embodied i n A r t i c l e should  but would exclude  Cas.  295,  the  lands  use  It  agreement"  i t is  The  b e n e f i t of clear  that  removed  from  not  f e d e r a l government  at 301-302.  This  Metals case  and  were  has  pursuant  reserves.  permanently They  likely  1036  the e f f e c t o f t r a n s f e r r i n g the base m i n e r a l s gas,  they  1 2 2  Based on the d e c i s i o n i n the P r e c i o u s Metals case i t i s that  by  "public for  the  129 purpose o f r a i s i n g  revenue.  Any  revenue t h a t might be  generated  from the management of I n d i a n r e s e r v e s i s t o enure t o the b e n e f i t o f the  band  If  I n d i a n bands are  the  should those  and  b e n e f i t the  lands were s e t a p a r t .  t o b e n e f i t from t h e i r  they n o t a l s o b e n e f i t from any  reserve  minerals  lands  t h a t may  why  exist  on  lands?  Article carry  f o r whose use  on  13  expressed  a policy  as  intention  liberal  p r o v i n c e , and  to a s s i s t  conveyed  the  to  the  that  the  Dominion  would  as t h a t p r e v i o u s l y f o l l o w e d i n the  i n t h a t purpose, r e s e r v e lands were t o be  Dominion.  The  past  policy  of  the  colonial  government does not p r o v i d e much i n s i g h t i n t o the i s s u e of whether I n d i a n bands were t o b e n e f i t from any m i n e r a l s on t h e i r r e s e r v e s . However, because lands were r e s e r v e d out o f the p u b l i c domain, f o r the  exclusive  reasonable  to  use  and  assume  benefit that  any  of  the  minerals  managed f o r the b e n e f i t o f the Indians. Columbia  joined  confederation  Indians,  that  would  I t was the  i t might  have  also  only a f t e r  provincial  w i t h separate p r o p e r t y r i g h t s t h a t may  connected  with  reserve  underlying  title  because  the  was  lands  always were  viewed  reserved  b e n e f i c i a l use o f the lands was liberal minerals reserves.  policy  would  including  such  have  mineral  as  being  from  the  in  which  the  rights. the  public  be  The  Crown,  but  domain,  the  beneficial  might  British  have been  r e s e r v e d f o r the I n d i a n s .  included  "royalties"  as  been  government  became concerned  lands,  be  found  use on  A truly of a l l Indian  A c c o r d i n g t o the summary o f c o l o n i a l p o l i c y made by  the  130 p r o v i n c i a l A t t o r n e y General i n 1875, was  ( r e f e r r e d t o i n Chapter  e n v i s i o n e d t h a t bands might become s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t through  e x p l o i t a t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s connected was  the  policy,  resources legal not  The  i t should  not  distinction affect  a  with t h e i r reserves.  matter  a v a i l a b l e were timber,  developed  fish,  copper,  between base metals  general  policy  that  whether  and  the  I f that  particular  o i l or gold.  p r e c i o u s metals  Indian  the  reserves  The  should  should  be  Order  in  reached  an  f o r the b e n e f i t of the band.  I n d i a n Reserves M i n e r a l Resources Act  Shortly Council  lands. passed  after  1036,  agreement  the  The  1 2 3  in  the  conveyance  federal  concerning  1943.  understanding  the  agreement 1 2 4  that  and  The the  result  of  the  reserve  management was  Metals  minerals  in  apparently  metals  had  lands  by  governments  of  embodied  parties  base  Precious  of  provincial  Dominion but the p r e c i o u s metals a  1) i t  been  had not. decision.  on  reciprocal proceeded  reserve statutes from  the  t r a n s f e r r e d to  the  T h i s view was The  preamble  probably to  the  agreement i s as f o l l o w s :  "Crerar-Carson Agreement" The agreement i s i n the r e c i p r o c a l l e g i s l a t i o n , noted below.  reproduced  I n d i a n Reserves M i n e r a l Resources Act, S.B.C. 1943, c.40, and The B r i t i s h Columbia I n d i a n Reserve M i n e r a l Resources Act, S.C. 1943-44, c.19.  131 Whereas from time t o time t r e a t i e s have been made w i t h the Indians f o r the surrender f o r various considerations of t h e i r p e r s o n a l and u s u f r u c t u a r y r i g h t s t o t e r r i t o r i e s now i n c l u d e d i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g the s e t t i n g apart f o r the e x c l u s i v e use o f the Indians o f c e r t a i n d e f i n i t e areas o f l a n d known as I n d i a n r e s e r v e s ; And whereas the s a i d I n d i a n r e s e r v e s were conveyed t o the Dominion Government as t r u s t e e f o r the Indians under the terms and c o n d i t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n an agreement dated the 24th day o f September, 1912, between the Dominion Government and the P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia; And whereas the p r e c i o u s metals i n , upon o r under the lands comprising such r e s e r v e s are not i n c i d e n t s o f such lands but b e l o n g b e n e f i c i a l l y t o t h e Crown i n t h e r i g h t o f t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t the development o f a l l the m i n e r a l s i n , upon o r under such lands i s a t p r e s e n t i m p r a c t i c a l s i n c e the p r e c i o u s and base metals are c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d and cannot be mined s e p a r a t e l y ; And whereas i t has been agreed between the Governments o f the Dominion o f Canada and t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia, t h a t as a m a t t e r o f p o l i c y and convenience and f o r the development o f such m i n e r a l s and without thereby a f f e c t i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r l e g a l r i g h t s o f e i t h e r o f the s a i d Governments, the P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia s h o u l d have charge o f t h e development o f a l l m i n e r a l s and m i n e r a l c l a i m s both p r e c i o u s and base, i n , upon o r under the s a i d Indian reserves.  The staked,  Agreement p r o v i d e s the procedure t h e method f o r c a l c u l a t i n g ,  by which c l a i m s are t o be  distributing,  and c o l l e c t i n g  r o y a l t i e s and o t h e r f e e s , and g e n e r a l l y a l l o w s f o r the p r o v i n c e t o a d m i n i s t e r those  details.  In paragraph  3, the term  "mineral" i s  d e f i n e d t o i n c l u d e g o l d and s i l v e r but exclude c o a l , petroleum and natural  legislation  does not  a f f e c t any r i g h t s t o o i l and gas t h a t the Indians c o u l d  otherwise  claim.  gas, e t c .  Therefore,  the r e l a t e d  The main p o i n t o f the Agreement was t o p r o v i d e some way o f  administering  mineral  rights  on Indian  reserves  based  upon the  132 assumption t h a t  ownership of the m i n e r a l s  p r o v i n c e , owning the p r e c i o u s metals, base  metals.  administration  The of  legislation  mineral  claims  was  to  be  still  held  f o r the  i n effect  reserves.  and  b e n e f i t of the  between the  and the Dominion, owning the attempted  by  to  allowing  c o l l e c t a l l revenue from any m i n e r a l r i g h t s . be d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between the two  split  simplify  the  the  province  to  The proceeds were to  governments (the Dominion share Indians).  The  legislation is  governs the management o f m i n e r a l s  on  Indian  133 CHAPTER V CONSITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WITH THE  If  the  transfer  conveyance,  and  reservations subject and  to  of  construed  contained  challenge  conditions  definition Columbia.  On  would  the  on  Indian this  as  in  might  of  have  reserve any  i s viewed  other  Order  in  grant  Council  would  no  would not  apply.  then  might  the be  as  providing  a  special  the  province  of  British  construed  the  for  exercise  changing  of  the  be  defined  The  not  a  be  of  I n d i a n s , " the requirement  land,  as  grounds.  reserves  longer  of 1036  the  as  many terms  resumption  character  lands from r e s e r v e lands to p r o v i n c i a l l a n d s . lands  strictly  constitutional  view,  effect  lands  TRANSFER  of  the  power resumed  Because the resumed  "lands  reserved  for  the  o f surrender, imposed by the Indian Act,  However, the a b i l i t y  o f the two  governments t o  r e a c h such an agreement r e g a r d i n g r e s e r v e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia  may  have been r e s t r i c t e d by the d i c t a t e s o f the Terms o f Union and  the  Constitution viewed  as  a  Act,  1867.  price  of  Particularly,  delegated  i f the  legislation,  r e s p e c t i v e governments are r e s t r i c t e d by any and  the  division  of  powers s e t out  the  transaction i s powers  enabling  i n the  of  legislation  Constitution.  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l aspects of the t r a n s f e r w i l l now  the  These  be examined.  P r i o r t o Union the colony of B r i t i s h Columbia had r e s e r v e d some l a n d f o r Indians but many bands were without the  early  Douglas  treaties  there  had  reserves.  been  no  Except f o r  attempt  by  the  134 colonial was  government t o o b t a i n s u r r e n d e r s  a p p a r e n t l y no c l e a r c o l o n i a l  which  struck  Indian p o l i c y .  On  Dominion  to  officials  province  be  used  been  fully  agreed  as  Columbia  P a r t o f the deal  t h a t the Dominion would take over the "charge o f the I n d i a n s " . the  British  There  was  part,  between  Indian t i t l e .  Dominion  its  was  of  to  Indian  aware  of  and  convey  the  certain  Reserves. the  Had  unsettled  lands the  state  A f f a i r s i n the p r o v i n c e , i t i s l i k e l y t h a t more thought  to  the  Dominion of  Indian  and  detail  would have gone i n t o the e x p r e s s i o n of t h i s agreement i n the Terms of  Union.  As i t was,  language o f A r t i c l e  The  first  Dominion o f  the agreement was  of  "charge"  Article  of  the  more  significance  government's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l reserved already  for  the  1867  that  is  The  the  assumption the  the  t r u s t e e s h i p and  10  restating  would govern the union.  the  f o r Indians of  the  p r o v i s i o n s of  have made s e c t i o n 91(24) a p p l i c a b l e .  by  a r t i c l e must be viewed as  simply  Article  an  and  responsibility  Indians.  stipulated  America Act,  than  13  Indians  management of t h e i r r e s e r v e d l a n d s . having  i n the ambiguous  13.  paragraph the  expressed  and  lands  of  Union  British  North  Terms  the  federal  T h i s , of course, would  Without  the  obligation  to  convey lands t o the Dominion, B r i t i s h Columbia would have been i n the same p o s i t i o n as the o r i g i n a l f o u r p r o v i n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o  135 the  underlying  interest  St.  Catherine's  Milling  B r i t i s h Columbia  One than  must  i n reserve 1  confirm  a  the  applicable to  that A r t i c l e  the  C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1867. requires  would be  and  principles  Indian  lands  in in  today.  assume then  simply  lands,  13  applicability  was  of  intended  s e c t i o n 91(24) o f  Indeed the second paragraph  conveyance  of  lands  t o do more  reserved  for  t h a t the  province  was  Dominion  could  the  of A r t i c l e  the  Indians  13  from  B r i t i s h Columbia t o the Dominion.  The lands  expressed was  liberal  so as  that that  Government". colonial  reason  A  the  hitherto  dispute  pursued  British  as  Columbia  the q u a n t i t y o f lands t o be r e s e r v e d , r a t h e r than  the  quality  o f the p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t Chapter  one,  the  colonial  but  the  policy  was  on  in  "a  dispute  policy,  focused  noted  the  out  reserve  the  past  over  carry  convey  of  government's  soon arose  by  to  "liberality"  that  t h a t was policy  early  t o be  conveyed.  in British  As  Columbia  a p p a r e n t l y would r e q u i r e a f u l l p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t t o be h e l d by the government i n t r u s t f o r the  Indians.  St. C a t h e r i n e ' s M i l l i n g and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46, h e l d t h a t the Crown i n r i g h t of the P r o v i n c e o f O n t a r i o h e l d the b e n e f i c i a l t i t l e t o I n d i a n R e s e r v e Lands, s u b j e c t t o t h e " u s u f r u c t u a r y i n t e r e s t " o f the Indians. When the I n d i a n i n t e r e s t was surrendered, the p r o v i n c i a l t i t l e became unburdened and complete, l e a v i n g the f e d e r a l government w i t h no r i g h t to d i s p o s e o f the l a n d s .  136 Out there  of the e a r l y emerged  the novel  reversionary continuing the  interest  in  order  eastern  with  Canada  provincial  lands  reserved how  held  On  the  Terms  i t s face,  proprietary  application  of  the  may  The  assume  federal  f o r the  for a  dispute  reserve  size,  there  an  underlying  of  Union 13  interest  these  of  a  of  a  contrary  to  settling  a  reserve  mechanism  the "trusteeship  in  later  central  lands  were  and when  interest.  2  from B r i t i s h Columbia  requires in  o f t h e Dominion,  proprietary  apparently  government.  i s nothing  should r e t a i n  notion  government's  Indians  unmanageable  Article  federal  allowed  runs  i n favour  a conveyance o f Indian r e s e r v e s  province's  province  lands.  illustrated  Dominion,  problem.  government  Indian  governments  By r e q u i r i n g the  of  The  lands  reserves  government  reserves.  i n reserve  of  13, w h i c h a p p a r e n t l y r e q u i r e s t h e p r o v i n c e  the federal  management"  the s i z e  the p r o v i n c i a l  i t s proprietary interest  that  experience  by  interest  language o f A r t i c l e relinquish  to  claim  i n a l l Indian  provincial  to  and  negotiations concerning  addressed transfer lands  Although regarding  i n i t s terms  of  upon  the the  t o suggest  any p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t  this  i n reserve  the the  Article issue that  of the  lands.  See, S t . C a t h e r i n e s M i l l i n g and Lumber Co. v . The Queen ( 1 8 8 8 ) , 14 App. C a s . 46 (P.C.) - D o m i n i o n c o u l d n o t dispose of timber r i g h t s on s u r r e n d e r e d land; also, O n t a r i o M i n i n g Co. v . S e y b o l d , [1903] A.C. 73 (P.C.) The D o m i n i o n c o u l d n o t a p p r o p r i a t e a p o r t i o n o f l a n d s f o r m a k i n g r e s e r v e s o u t o f a l a r g e r a r e a s u r r e n d e r e d by t r e a t y ; a l s o , A t t y . - G e n . Quebec v . A t t y . - G e n . Canada, [1912] 1 A.C. 401 (P.C.) - D o m i n i o n c o u l d n o t d i s p o s e o f minerals following a surrender.  137 The  p r o v i n c i a l government  later  underlying  interest  in  reserve  this  issue  was  used  as  a  over  the  form  of  attached,  was  reversionary have the  served federal  justify  the  conflict  Article  If  of  1036,  in  i s  incidents  reservations  of  the  the  ultimate  requires  reserve  lands,  reservation land, the  province  regains 13  i n the  s u c h as Crown over a  in the  province?  during  claim  to  an  "generosity"  on  the  negotiations  with  for  the  province  the  "reversionary  conditions  giving  up  i t s  interest"  may  of  this  claim  out can  conveyance i f those terms  of not  are  in  the c o n s t i t u t i o n .  Union  a  transfer  the of  most a  sand,  of  the  to  gravel  and  lands.  of  entire  objectionable  right  right  beneficial  preclude  their  transfer,  surrender  Terms o f  13  chip  their  extracting c e r t a i n concessions  the  control  control  Although  requirements of  certain  Does A r t i c l e  quo  up  but  The  the  the of  pro  purpose  terms of  Article  interest  bargaining  government,  with  13  quid  interest. the  lands,  conveyance.  the  gave  the By  resume timber.  province exercising  interest in  such a continuing  Indian power of  proprietary  feature land  of  and  other  Through has the  0/C  these  retained power  reserve  a the  lands.  management  and  138 No c o u r t has passed judgment  on the nature o f the  which i s r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e 13.  "conveyance"  However, A r t i c l e 11 o f the Terms  o f Union, which i s s i m i l a r i n i t s wording t o A r t i c l e judicially  considered.  The  l e a d i n g cases r e g a r d i n g  13 has  the t r a n s f e r  of the Railway B e l t lands have been noted i n Chapter I I I . P r e c i o u s M e t a l s case the P r i v y C o u n c i l d e s c r i b e d A r t i c l e obligation also  t o convey  be viewed  convey  as an o b l i g a t i o n on  reserve  Reference  3  c e r t a i n lands.  lands.  In  the P r i v y C o u n c i l  the again  Presumably the p a r t  British  been  Article  In the  11 as an 13  may  o f the p r o v i n c e Columbia  to  Fisheries  r e f e r r e d t o the conveyance i n  A r t i c l e 11 as a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n , and one which c o u l d not be a l t e r e d by e i t h e r the p r o v i n c i a l o r f e d e r a l government.  I t was  there stated:  By the second c l a u s e o f paragraph 11 the Government o f B r i t i s h Columbia became bound t o convey t o the Dominion Government, o r r a t h e r t o the Crown i n r i g h t o f the Dominion, i n t r u s t , t o be a p p r o p r i a t e d i n such manner as the Dominion Government s h o u l d deem a d v i s a b l e i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h i s r a i l w a y , a c e r t a i n extent o f p u b l i c l a n d s , . . . N e i t h e r the L e g i s l a t u r e o f the P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia nor t h a t o f the Dominion has power by l e g i s l a t i o n t o a l t e r the terms o f t h i s Order i n C o u n c i l (which i s i n e f f e c t an Imperial s t a t u t e ) , o r t o r e l i e v e themselves from the o b l i g a t i o n s i t imposes upon them. (emphasis added). 4  Atty.-Gen. B r i t i s h Columbia v. Atty.-Gen. Canada, App. Cas. 153 (P.C.) 4  Ibid.,  164.  [1914]  139 In  the  Precious  "exception" S e c t i o n 109 of  the  to  section  case, 109  Article  of  the  11  was  described  C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  as  within  section  distribution  1867.  their  of  the  geographic  boundaries.  It  C o n s t i t u t i o n which  of p r o p e r t y .  However, because the  is  not  be  excepted  out  of  v e s t e d i n the p r o v i n c e pursuant been determined  the  Railway  Crown l a n d s .  effect  13  Because the  Belt  operates  they  remained had  extent  and  them out  as  an  of  provincial  need f o r a conveyance  l o c a t i o n o f the  exception  to  by  lands were  necessary.  s e c t i o n 109,  If  then i t s  s h o u l d be t o a d j u s t the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r o p e r t y under the  combined  follows: union  which  and  I f the lands  a conveyance at some f u t u r e date was  constitution. the  excepted  There would have been no  settled,  lands  the  at the date o f union i t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t the  the p r o v i n c e .  Article  general  t o s e c t i o n 109.  Terms o f Union would have simply  not  5  the  governs  most I n d i a n r e s e r v e s were undetermined a t the date o f union, could  an  d e c l a r e s the g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t the p r o v i n c e s own a l l  lands  primary  Metals  Based on effect  of  the r e a s o n i n g Article  13  a l l lands which belonged  continued  union, except  t o belong  i n the  and  Railway  s e c t i o n 109  Belt  cases,  would  be  t o B r i t i s h Columbia b e f o r e  to B r i t i s h  Columbia  after  the  as the  date  of  I n d i a n r e s e r v e s , which were t o be t r a n s f e r r e d to the  Crown i n r i g h t of the Dominion, upon a p p l i c a t i o n by the Dominion.  Atty.-Gen. B r i t i s h Columbia v. Atty.-Gen. Canada 14 App. Cas. 295, at 304.  (1889),  140 Once the 13  quantity  imposed  an  and  l o c a t i o n of the  o b l i g a t i o n on  the  lands  province  was  to  settled,  Article  transfer i t s entire  p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t i n the lands t o the Dominion.  By  r e s e r v i n g c e r t a i n i n t e r e s t s , such as the  portion  of  the  constitutional  lands,  British  obligation.  Columbia  I t was  has  right not  noted e a r l i e r  resume operates,  when e x e r c i s e d , as a defeasance.  t h a t A r t i c l e 13,  on any  the  conveyance  t o resume a  fulfilled  that  its  a right  to  I t i s doubtful  6  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , contemplates a r e v e r s a l of  i n whole or  i n part.  Yet  this  i s the  practical  e f f e c t of a resumption.  In the B u r r a r d Article  11,  to  Power  case i t was  7  convey  land  normally  convey waters a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the B r i t i s h Columbia had the  Railway  provincial  Belt  water  h e l d t h a t the o b l i g a t i o n , i n implied  land.  The  an  obligation  Attorney  General f o r  argued t h a t the waters were not i n c l u d e d lands  and  were  legislation.  In  therefore  subject  rejecting this  to  with  to  the  argument  the  Board commented: To h o l d t h a t the P r o v i n c e a f t e r the making o f such an agreement remained a t l i b e r t y t o l e g i s l a t e i n the sense contended f o r would be t o defeat the whole o b j e c t of the agreement, f o r i f the Province c o u l d by l e g i s l a t i o n take away the water from the l a n d i t c o u l d a l s o by  Cooper v. 289-90.  Stuart  B u r r a r d Power Co.  (1889), v. The  14  King,  App.  Cas.  [1911] App.  286  (P.C),  Cas.  87  at  141 l e g i s l a t i o n resume p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l a n d i t s e l f , and t h e r e b y so d e g r o g a t e from i t s own g r a n t as t o u t t e r l y destroy i t . 8  Pursuant provincial some of  not  grant.  resumption by  reservation  legislation,  in  0/C  p u r p o r t e d l y r e s e r v e d out  considered  to  be  of the  legislation  in  of  the  obligation  imposed  on  the  The  "grant"  the of  power of and  derogation  However the terms of the "grant" i t s e l f may  derogation  1036,  resumed p o s s e s s i o n  lands t h a t i t p r e v i o u s l y t r a n s f e r r e d .  was be  the  government has,  the  resumption may  to  so i t of  the  be viewed as a  province  by  Article  13.  The  fact  t h a t the  federal  government  conditions  i n Order i n C o u n c i l 1036  invalidity  i n the  transfer.  agreed  t o the  cannot cure  I t i s not  government had  originally  t r a n s f e r without  conditions.  persuaded  the  that  65  years  governments the transfer.  of  conditions  attached  wrangling  compromise was  ought  not  with  94.  to  The  to  f o r the be  1036  were  not  I t i s quite possible that  s t r u c k simply was  0/C  intransigent  bound  u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n some of i t s a s p e c t s .  Ibid.,  agreement.  Perhaps the f e d e r a l n e g o t i a t o r s were  Whatever the reason  beneficiaries  constitutional  i n s i s t e d upon a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d  c o n t r a r y t o the d i c t a t e s o f A r t i c l e 13. after  and  open t o governments i n a  f e d e r a l s t a t e t o amend the c o n s t i t u t i o n by simple federal  a  terms  t o get  provincial on  with  agreement, the by  i t , i f  the  Indian i t  is  142 C o n f l i c t w i t h S e c t i o n 91(24),  I f the  is  of  property  certainly  exclusive reserved  1867  form o f t r a n s f e r i s not c o n t r a r y t o A r t i c l e  distribution power  C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  in  the  the  conflict  legislative for  under  constitution, with  jurisdiction  Indians.  The  the  of  power  the  Indian  and  the  resumption  Act  Parliament of  13  and  over  resumption  the lands  which  the  p r o v i n c e h o l d s over a l l I n d i a n r e s e r v e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia allows the  provincial  administrative power may  government  to  power over  have  a  continuing  "lands r e s e r v e d  legislative  and  Indians".  The  f o r the  a p p a r e n t l y be e x e r c i s e d by the u n i l a t e r a l  a c t i o n of the  p r o v i n c i a l government over the o b j e c t i o n s o f both the I n d i a n band and the f e d e r a l government.  The p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s are of the  view t h a t no compensation i s r e q u i r e d when lands are resumed,  and  it  the  law  If  the  from  and  appears t h a t t h a t view i s c o n s i s t e n t , at l e a s t ,  concerning resumption paramount  resumptions power to  the  in  i s valid,  grants i t is  provisions i n  to  individuals.  apparently  the  with  Indian  separate  Act  which  otherwise  govern the t a k i n g or o t h e r d i s p o s i t i o n of r e s e r v e lands f o r p u b l i c and  other  federal  purposes.  negotiators  jurisdictional nevertheless  While  9  were  problems  acceded  to  that the  there aware the  i s some  indication  that  the  of  constitutional,  or  the  resumption  provincial  power  demands.  9  See, f o r example, R.S.C. 1970 ( e x p r o p r i a t i o n ) , and s.37. ( s u r r e n d e r s ) .  1 0  See d i s c u s s i o n of n e g o t i a t i o n s i n Chapter  10  posed, Perhaps  c.I-6, I.  they the  s.35  143 n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n i n 0/C allow  the  resumption Dominion  1036  was  seen as a compromise which would  f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s some v o i c e power. a veto  However the over  the  notice  i n the  clause  province's  exercise  does not  right  o f the  give  the  t o resume, and  consequently the u n i l a t e r a l nature of the p r o v i n c i a l power remains open t o o b j e c t i o n on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l grounds.  As  previously  upheld i n the  noted,  the  Moses c a s e .  validity  raised  here.  d e a l t w i t h i n any or  the  r i g h t to  However i t i s not  1 1  B r i t i s h Columbia c o u r t s c o n s i d e r e d are  o f the  resume was  c l e a r whether  the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s which  I f s i m i l a r issues  were  raised  they  were  The  Judgment o f Mr.  J u s t i c e Andrews i n  the Supreme Court i s remarkable f o r i t s l a c k o f e x p l a n a t i o n  to  the  reached.  passage  not  s a t i s f a c t o r y manner i n e i t h e r the Supreme Court,  Court o f Appeal.  conclusions  the  A f t e r s e t t i n g out  o f both  0/C 1036  the h i s t o r i c a l  and P.C.  208,  of  the  background  Andrews, J .  concluded: The B r i t i s h Columbia Indian Lands Settlement Act (Canada) and the I n d i a n A f f a i r s Settlement Act ( B r i t i s h Columbia) gave the Governor i n C o u n c i l and the Lieutenant-Governor of B r i t i s h Columbia i n C o u n c i l , r e s p e c t i v e l y , broad powers f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s e t t l i n g a l l d i f f e r e n c e s between the governments of the Dominion and the p r o v i n c e . Privy Council 0. 208 and order i n c o u n c i l 1036 were v a l i d l y made pursuant t o the a u t h o r i t y e s t a b l i s h e d by these two s t a t u t e s . In my view, the s e c t i o n s o f the Indian Act then i f f o r c e r e g a r d i n g t a k i n g lands f o r p u b l i c purposes and a l i e n a t i n g l a n d had no a p p l i c a t i o n t o the p r o v i s i o n s o f P r i v y C o u n c i l 0. 208. The d r a f t form o f conveyance approved by P r i v y Moses v. The Queen, [1977] 4 W.W.R. 474, W.W.R. 100 (B.C.C.A.)  affd,  [1979] 5  144 C o u n c i l 0. 208 e s t a b l i s h e d the terms on which I n d i a n lands i n the p r o v i n c e were t o be h e l d by the Dominion and i n t h i s r e g a r d p r o v i d e d f o r a r e s e r v a t i o n t o the p r o v i n c e of a r i g h t t o resume p o s s e s s i o n o f a p o r t i o n o f each r e s e r v e f o r purposes o f p u b l i c works. The r e s e r v a t i o n of such a r i g h t t o the p r o v i n c e d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a t a k i n g o f lands or an a l i e n a t i o n of l a n d s , as p r o v i d e d f o r i n the I n d i a n Act (R.S.C. 1927, c.98, ss.48 and 50). N e i t h e r does the present e x e r c i s e o f t h i s r i g h t come w i t h i n s . 3 5 ( l ) o f the Indian Act now i n f o r c e , r e g a r d i n g the t a k i n g of l a n d f o r p u b l i c purposes pursuant t o s t a t u t o r y powers, or s.37 o f the Act, r e q u i r i n g a surrender o f lands b e f o r e they may be a l i e n a t e d or otherwise d i s p o s e d o f . 1 2  By the time the case reached moot,  since  already  the  case  occurred.  Andrews J . , t h a t further which  reasons.  had  been  had  The the  the  as  raised,  Court as  provincial  to  has  d i d not the  the  on  a  trespass  a f f i r m e d the right  to  deal with  parties  i t was  had  virtually which  had  judgment  of  resume,  a l l of the  apparently  without issues  agreed  to  I t i s u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t the Moses case  1 3  o f Appeal  right  based  o f Appeal  province  The  a Court  been  Court  settle collateral issues. stands  the Court of Appeal  precedent,  resume  f o r the  is valid.  p r o p o s i t i o n that  The  constitutional  i s s u e s do not appear t o have been b e f o r e e i t h e r c o u r t , o r i f they were they were not  addressed.  [1977] 4 W.W.R. 474,  at  490.  See Moses v. The Queen, [1979] 5 W.W.R. 100, a t 101 (B.C.C.A. ).  145 Mr. and  Justice  Andrews h e l d t h a t t h e e x e c u t i v e  0/C 1036) were v a l i d l y made pursuant  Indian  Lands  Settlement  Settlement  A c t (B.C.).  A c t (Canada),  orders  (P.C. 208  t o the B r i t i s h  Columbia  and t h e I n d i a n  Affairs  He noted t h a t these two s t a t u t e s bestowed  broad powers on t h e e x e c u t i v e branches o f government t o s e t t l e a l l differences evident  concerning  from  Indian A f f a i r s  the language  l e g i s l a t i o n , expressed  scrutinized  legislation.  However,  t o the rules  because  which  apply  a s t a t u t e o f Canada  t o delegated  a u t h o r i z e s the  e x e c u t i v e t o do whatever i s necessary t o achieve a c e r t a i n that  does n o t bestow u n f e t t e r e d powers.  powers  must  be s u b j e c t  a c t s o f Parliament,  the  The e x e r c i s e o f t h e d e l e g a t e d power must  according Just  the s t a t u t e s .  That i s  i n v e r y g e n e r a l terms, p u r p o r t s t o delegate  d e c i s i o n making powers. be  of  i n the Province.  t o the e n a b l i n g  result,  Their broadly  expressed  statute, other  specific  and the C o n s t i t u t i o n .  In Moses, Andrews J . , h e l d t h a t the s e c t i o n s o f t h e Indian A c t regarding  the taking  or alienation  of reserve  lands  a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f P r i v y C o u n c i l Order 2 0 8 " ,  "had no 14  which  e s t a b l i s h e d t h e terms on which Indian lands i n B.C. would be h e l d by  the Dominion.  The r e s e r v a t i o n o f the r i g h t  t o resume d i d not  c o n s t i t u t e a t a k i n g o r a l i e n a t i o n o f lands as p r o v i d e d f o r i n the Indian section  Act.  Neither  d i d t h e e x e r c i s e o f the power come w i t h i n  35 o r 37 o f the A c t .  1 5  According  1 4  [1977] 4 W.W.R. 474, a t 490.  1 5  Ibid.  t o t h e judgment the  146 resumption form and  of  conveyance  confirmed  resolve It  power a p p a r e n t l y  is  the the  orders  by  arises  e s t a b l i s h e d by  P.C.  208.  the  t h a t are  form  of  arguably  be  so,  and  vires.  Moses h i g h l i g h t s the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  agreed  i t should  o f the resumption  conveyance  ultra  from the  S c o t t - C a t h c a r t Agreement,  While t h a t may  i s s u e of the v a l i d i t y agreed  independently  reservation.  supporting  In  fact  not  the  executive  reasoning  in  conflict.  Regardless o f whether the r e s e r v a t i o n o f the r i g h t t o resume i s a  " t a k i n g " w i t h i n the meaning o f the  that  right  Privy  does  in  C o u n c i l Order  taking  reserve  conflict  with  fact 208  lands the  result has  for  Indian  in  a  taking  e s t a b l i s h e d an public Act,  p r o v i d e s s p e c i f i c procedures  I n d i a n Act,  a  the e x e r c i s e of  of  purposes. statute  It of  executive  order,  phrased  enabling  legislation  such  i s s u e d pursuant  S u r e l y Parliament  a power t o the  is  in  direct  Parliament  which  f o r any d i s p o s i t i o n o f r e s e r v e lands,  an  Parliament?  lands.  a l t e r n a t e method f o r  i n c l u d i n g the t a k i n g o f lands f o r p u b l i c purposes. that  reserve  can  to  overrule  c o u l d not  e x e c u t i v e branch  by  Is i t p o s s i b l e  the a  most g e n e r a l l y  specific  have i n t e n d e d the  the B r i t i s h Columbia Indian Lands Settlement  general  Act to  of  grant  language of  Act.  Even i f Parliament had passed s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n g r a n t i n g the province challenge  the on  resumption  power,  constitutional  that  grounds.  could  still  Because the  be  subject  effect  of  to the  power i s t o g i v e the p r o v i n c e a l i m i t e d but e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n  147 over  lands r e s e r v e d f o r the Indians,  with  the  1867.  division  Of  course  of  legislative  i t i s apparently  powers i n the  methods have been found  C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  t o a v o i d the  imposed by s e c t i o n s 91 and 92 o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n . "cooperative have  managed  f e d e r a l i s m " , the to  enact  cross-jurisdictional transport. specific  1 6  The  example  f e d e r a l and  complementary fields  as,  Railway B e l t of  in conflict  strictures  In a s p i r i t  provincial  legislation  governments  to  govern  inter-provincial  Water A c t  federal legislation  1 7  ,  noted  which  such  trade  earlier,  adopts  provincial  The B.C.  Lands  provincial  Act  did  not  purport  to  adopt  and is a  law i n o r d e r t o overcome j u r i s d i c t i o n a l problems. Settlement  of  Indian law  r e g a r d i n g the t a k i n g of lands f o r p u b l i c purposes.  The  "Settlement  McBride  Agreement,  necessary right  Act"  of  and  did  specifically  authorized  the  t o c a r r y out t h a t agreement. resumption  agreement addressed  in  the  refer  to  executive  to  the  McKenna-  do  anything  There i s no r e f e r e n c e t o a  McKenna-McBride  Agreement.  the i s s u e of the conveyance i n terms t h a t are  i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h any r e s e r v a t i o n s from the conveyance. 7  i t i s declared  That  that  Indian  reserves  shall  be  In c l a u s e  conveyed  by  the  p r o v i n c e t o the Dominion: . . . s u b j e c t o n l y t o a c o n d i t i o n t h a t i n the event of any I n d i a n t r i b e o r band i n B r i t i s h Columbia at some f u t u r e time becoming e x t i n c t , then any l a n d s w i t h i n the territorial 1 6  See, g e n e r a l l y ,, P e t e r Hogg, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law Canada, 2d ed., ((Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1985), 295-303.  1 7  R.S.C. 1927,  c.211  of  148 boundaries of the P r o v i n c e which have been conveyed t o the Dominion as a f o r e s a i d f o r such t r i b e or band, and not s o l d o r d i s p o s e d o f as h e r i n b e f o r e mentioned, o r any unexpended f u n d s b e i n g t h e p r o c e e d s o f any I n d i a n Reserve i n the P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia, s h a l l be conveyed or r e p a i d t o the P r o v i n c e , (my emphasis) 18  Clause  8 of  taking  the  reserve  Commission  was  applications out  Agreement  their  obliged  to  lands  specifically  for  sitting.  f o r such  public The  "do  file  The  e v e r y t h i n g necessary  consistent  permitted  the  with  the  t a k i n g of  payment of compensation.  lands the  of  the  Agreement,  i s clear  that  to  they  hear  were  recommendations  Indian  "Settlement  were t o  any  setting  governments  letter  of  Royal  agreement Act  which  f o r p u b l i c purposes,  b i n d the e x e c u t i v e branches t o f o l l o w the McBride  were  issue  the  T h i s p a r t of the  1 9  Although  while  t o c a r r y the  provisions  reserve  the  an i n t e r i m r e p o r t  respective  of the Commissioners i n t o e f f e c t " . was  purposes  commissioners  t a k i n g s and  recommendations.  d e a l t with  upon  A c t s " d i d not  o f the McKenna-  be  guided  by  the  agreement i n e x e r c i s i n g t h e i r broad d e l e g a t e d powers.  It  is  worth  noting  empowered the  executive  Commissioners  concerning  from  the  affected  Indian Act 1 8  1 9  t o the  bands  that  federal  t o c a r r y out cut-offs,  the  contrary".  The  statute  Act  obtaining any  d i d not  Agreement",  specifically  recommendations of  without  "notwithstanding  "McKenna - M c B r i d e f o o t n o t e 27. Ibid.  the  surrenders  p r o v i s i o n s of similarly  supra,  the  the  specify  Chapter  I,  149 t h a t the Governor i n C o u n c i l c o u l d , by order, method  of  taking  provisions  of  the  lands Indian  for  public  Act  t o the  c r e a t e an a l t e r n a t e  purposes, contrary.  notwithstanding The  inclusion  the s p e c i f i c c l a u s e r e g a r d i n g c u t - o f f s i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t had  considered  the  Indian  land  Indian Act. the  potential  question  I t was  cut-offs,  Commissioners p r o h i b i t e d any had  the  2 0  reserve  lands  lands  which be  and  the  certain  provincial  empowered  to  of  p r o v i s i o n s of  government  the  recommend.  the  Indian  Act  The  to  compensation  the  must  the  land  s e t out i n  a s p e c i f i c procedure f o r t a k i n g  f o r p u b l i c purposes. subject  to  insisted  i n accordance w i t h the procedures  Act a l s o p r o v i d e d  permitted  Council,  and  settlement  s a l e o r a l i e n a t i o n o f r e s e r v e lands u n t i l  The  is  i n B.C.  between the  Parliament  f o r e s e e n t h a t most bands would not consent  been surrendered  the A c t .  conflict  of  be  " E x p r o p r i a t i o n " of consent paid  of to  the  the  reserve  Governor  band.  2 1  in The  e x p r o p r i a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s o f the Act were a p p a r e n t l y not viewed, at that  time,  question. separate  as  an  impediment  settlement  of  the  Indian  lands  Once i t became apparent t h a t the p r o v i n c e i n s i s t e d on a method of t a k i n g lands  "Settlement  o n l y way  f o r p u b l i c purposes, the f e d e r a l  A c t " ought t o have been amended t o allow the r i g h t of  resumption, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the  to  i n which the  the  Indian A c t .  T h i s would have been  Governor i n C o u n c i l c.98  s.  could  conceivably  2 0  I n d i a n Act, R.S.C. 1927  50.  2 1  I n d i a n Act, R.S.C. 1970, c.I-6, s.35 i s the r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n governing " e x p r o p r i a t i o n " of r e s e r v e l a n d s . At the time t h a t the S c o t t - C a t h c a r t Agreement was reached, the r e l e v a n t p r o v i s i o n was found i n R. S. C. 1927, c.98, s.48.  150 have  the  because  power the  government,  to  override  exercise and  of  a  the  therefore  statute power  of  Parliament.  resides  i s contrary  to  with  the  the  That  is  provincial  d i v i s i o n of  powers  under the c o n s t i t u t i o n .  The  Railway B e l t Reserves  The  foregoing  discussion regarding  o f the t r a n s f e r agreement may within and  the  Railway B e l t and  Peace R i v e r  t o the  the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n f i r m i t y  not be a p p l i c a b l e t o Indian Peace R i v e r B l o c k .  Block, which had  been t r a n s f e r r e d  Dominion were r e - t r a n s f e r r e d i n 1930  re-transfer  took  C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  Section  the  form  1930.  of  The  Reserves  Railway B e l t  unconditionally  t o the p r o v i n c e .  a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment,  in  The the  22  1 o f t h i s Imperial  Statute  states:  1. The agreements s e t out i n the schedule t o t h i s Act are hereby confirmed and shall have the force of law n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g anything i n the B r i t i s h North America Act, 1867, o r any Act amending the same, o r i n any Order i n C o u n c i l o r terms or c o n d i t i o n s o f union made or approved under any such Act as a f o r e s a i d . 2 3  20-21 George V c. 26 I I , p. 365 and pp. 392 Ibid.,  366.  (U.K.), i n R.S.C. 1970, e t seq.  Appendix  151 In o t h e r  words, the 1930  agreement concerning  the r e - t r a n s f e r  of the Railway and Peace R i v e r lands superseded the Terms o f Union and  the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867.  Section  13  of that  agreement  reads as f o l l o w s :  13. Nothing i n t h i s agreement s h a l l extend t o the lands i n c l u d e d w i t h i n Indian r e s e r v e s i n the Railway B e l t and the Peace R i v e r Block, but the s a i d r e s e r v e s s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o be v e s t e d i n Canada i n t r u s t f o r the Indians on the terms and c o n d i t i o n s s e t out i n a c e r t a i n o r d e r o f the Governor General o f Canada i n C o u n c i l approved on the 3rd day o f February, 1930 (P.C. 2 0 8 ) . (emphasis added) 2 4  This  means  that  t h e terms  and c o n d i t i o n s  under  which the  Dominion h o l d s Indian Reserves i n the Railway B e l t and Peace R i v e r Block  have been  conditions Council  i n P.C. 208  1036.  challenge conditions provisions  entrenched  i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n .  are the same as those  In the r e s u l t ,  the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n Order  although validity  i n Council  may be immune  1036  from c h a l l e n g e  B e l t and Peace R i v e r Block r e s e r v e s .  Ibid.,  395.  The terms and  found  i t may  i n Order i n  be p o s s i b l e t o  o f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n s and lands, with  those  identical  respect  t o Railway  152 Native  Rights  Section  and the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1982  35 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n  Act, 1982  affirms existing aboriginal rights. t h a t the Indian 35.  the  Indian  title the  i n t e r e s t i n reserve  i n traditional Indian  least  27  i n favouring  taking.  compensable  r i g h t i s deeply  traditional  Crown. 25  lands.  by S e c t i o n  i n t h e G u e r i n case,  The Court f u r t h e r  i n t e r e s t i n land,  and p o s s e s s i o n  described  which  i s at  similar to beneficial  title  i t benefits  that  rooted  practice  aboriginal  i n the past  T h i s p r a c t i c e may be d e s c r i b e d  title  practice  upon a is a o f the  B r i a n S l a t t e r y suggests  has r e q u i r e d  p r i o r t o the purchase  title  from the common  the payment o f compensation  aboriginal t i t l e .  Crown  that  was t h e same as a b o r i g i n a l  2 6  The n o t i o n  2 8  Crown i n e x t i n g u i s h i n g  aboriginal  land  " i n t e r e s t " i n land,  compulsory  that  i s protected  I t has been suggested t h a t because a b o r i g i n a l  presumption  and  l e g a l r i g h t i n Canada, and t h a t  i n t e r e s t as a unique  a recognized  law  tribal  a r i g h t of occupation  ownership. is  lands  The Supreme Court o f Canada h e l d , was a r e c o g n i z e d  recognizes  I t may be open t o argument,  i n t e r e s t i n reserve  aboriginal t i t l e  25  of that  a  surrender  of  i n t e r e s t by the  as p a r t o f the "common law  C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1982, as enacted by Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.), 1982 c . l l .  2 6  G u e r i n v. The Queen, at 171-172.  [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161,  2 7  Guerin, 55 N.R. 161, a t 174.  2 8  B r i a n S l a t t e r y , "Understanding A b o r i g i n a l (1987), 66 Canadian Bar Review 727, a t 751.  Rights"  153 of  aboriginal  jurisdiction  rights".  2 9  Because  Parliament  over Indians and lands r e s e r v e d  has  legislative  f o r the Indians, i t  has  been competent t o pass l e g i s l a t i o n which v a r i e s t h e common law  of  aboriginal  permits  the taking  surrender the  rights.  of reserve  lands  i n the Indian  f o r public  legislation.  i s a p r o v i n c i a l statute, compulsory t a k i n g  reciprocal the  federal  i t provide  concerning point  and t h e r e f o r e  l e g i s l a t i o n f o r 0/C could  not  authorize  o f r e s e r v e lands without compensation.  The  l e g i s l a t i o n i s not s p e c i f i c enough t o o v e r r i d e  common law r e q u i r i n g  does  overrides  The I n d i a n A f f a i r s  Settlement A c t which i s the p u r p o r t e d e n a b l i n g  the  which  without  But t h e common law o f a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s can only  amended by s p e c i f i c f e d e r a l  1036  A c t which  purposes  i s an example o f s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n  common law.  be  The p r o v i s i o n  compensation  f o r the amendment  compulsory  f o r aboriginal  of the Indian  a c q u i s i t i o n of reserve  has been addressed above.  title.  Nor  Act provisions  lands.  This  S l a t t e r y argues t h a t  latter  the e f f e c t  of s. 35 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  1982 i s t o make even t h e f e d e r a l  expropriation  to aboriginal  or  power i n a p p l i c a b l e  not t h e p r o v i s i o n  reserve very  lands from the e x e r c i s e  least,  requiring taken,  goes t h a t  t h e power  compensation  because  2 9  I b i d . , 751-2.  3 0  I b i d . , 766.  i t might  Whether protect  o f t h e resumption power.  At the  t o be p a i d  ought  very  3 0  well  o f resumption  o f t h e common  compensation.  far,  lands.  t o be construed as  f o r the a b o r i g i n a l  law p r e s u m p t i o n  interest  i n favour of  154 The  British  s e c t i o n 35 the  Columbia Court of Appeal has  o f the  C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  1982  l e g i s l a t i v e powers of Parliament i n so  was  held  that  f a r as  f o r food. or  groups,  priority  must be  specifically  which a l l o c a t e  t o the a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t t o  to  federal  to  the  Indian  food  relevant  to  the  issues  addressed  aboriginal  rights  in  legislation the  due  to  constitution.  the  That  the fish  persons  given  case i s s i g n i f i c a n t because i t found a b o r i g i n a l  paramount  may  Sparrow case  In a l l o c a t i n g r i g h t s t o take f i s h among v a r i o u s  Although not the  legislation  In the  3 1  federal f i s h e r i e s regulations  r i g h t t o take f i s h must be s u b j e c t  interpreted  as being a l i m i t a t i o n on  i n t e r f e r e with e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . it  recently  fishery.  here,  r i g h t s to  affirmation general  3 2  be of  principle  might be used t o p r o t e c t the  Indian i n t e r e s t i n r e s e r v e lands from  the  p r o v i n c i a l government  executive  action  of  the  attempted resumption o f r e s e r v e  The reserve two  Scott-Cathcart  l e v e l s of  of the  viewed as  and  the  a binding  government w i t h r e s p e c t  Crown i n r e s e r v e lands.  an  lands.  Agreement,  lands might be  i n case of  ensuing  transfer  of  agreement between  the  t o the  underlying  interest  However, s i n c e most o f the  Indian  bands i n B r i t i s h Columbia have never surrendered t h e i r a b o r i g i n a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r r e s e r v e lands, by  section  permissible  35  of  f o r the  the  t h a t i n t e r e s t s h o u l d be  Constitution  Act,  1982.  If  protected it  was  f e d e r a l government t o agree t o a resumption of  3 1  Sparrow v. The  3 2  I b i d . , 607-608.  Queen, [1987] 2 W.W.R. 577  (B.C.C.A.)  155 the  Crown's u n d e r l y i n g  interest  i n reserve  lands,  t h e power t o  resume lands may not be a p p l i c a b l e t o the I n d i a n i n t e r e s t i n those lands.  That  interest,  may  interest, well  which  i s t h e same  be p r o t e c t e d  as  an  aboriginal  by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1982.  That does n o t mean t h a t i t would be i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e p r o v i n c e t o o b t a i n lands f o r p u b l i c purposes from I n d i a n r e s e r v e s i n B.C. Indian  A c t has,  appropriating  f o r many  reserve  years,  lands  for public  surrender o f the Indian i n t e r e s t . still  be open  aboriginal  to provincial  interest  provided  method f o r  purposes,  without  a  Presumably t h i s method would  3 3  authorities,  i n reserve  a  The  lands  since  the "existing"  had been q u a l i f i e d  by the  e x p r o p r i a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e I n d i a n A c t p r i o r t o t h e enactment of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1982.  Conclusions  The  agreement  administration" transfer from  concerning f o r Indian  of reserves  constitutional  transfer  i s void  t h e "form reserves  by Order  o f tenure  i n B.C.,  i n Council  infirmities. or voidable,  This  and mode o f  and t h e eventual  1036, may w e l l  does  but r a t h e r  c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e t r a n s f e r may be u l t r a v i r e s .  not mean certain  suffer  t h a t the terms and  In p a r t i c u l a r , the  r e s e r v a t i o n by the p r o v i n c e o f a r i g h t t o resume one-twentieth o f 3 3  I n d i a n Act, R.S.C. 1970, c.I-6, s.35. The s u b j e c t was f i r s t d e a l t w i t h i n t h e 1886 I n d i a n A c t , R.S.C. 1886, c.43, s.35  156 each  reserve  apparently  legislative  powers  i n t e r f e r e s with  under  the  impasse  in  negotiations,  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  Constitution  agreement reached by Messrs. S c o t t an  the  and  but  Act,  Cathcart  the  may  1867. have  compromise  of  r e s u l t e d i n a continuing unsettled state of a f f a i r s . in  British  Columbia  resent  provincial  authorities.  only  they  were  territories, their  never  but  benefit  the  are  the  resumption  They have treated  paltry  i n danger  good  with  regarding  reserves  that  of  reduced  being  to  1929  has  claimed  by  object.  their  were  resolved  Indian bands  power  reason  The  Not  traditional  established  by  the  for  unilateral  a c t i o n o f the p r o v i n c i a l government, without compensation.  As  noted  administration joint  above, may  the  be  administration  agreement  viewed of  as  an  Indian  regarding  attempt  reserves  to  in  tenure  create B.C.  born o f compromise between the two  can  in  not  succeed  C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  The  t r a n s f e r of  altering  the  division  reserve  lands  pursuant t o 0/C The  terms and  The  t r a n s f e r was  and ought t o be c o n s i d e r e d the  this  governments,  powers  Consititution.  1036  in  can  conditions  the Order cannot be i n t e r p r e t e d i n the same way  under  of  the  1867.  viewed as a normal conveyance.  i n Crown g r a n t s .  of  a kind  Surely  attempt, which was  and  be  found i n  as i d e n t i c a l terms  r e q u i r e d by the Terms of Union  as p a r t of the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f The  not  resumption  viewed as a r e s e r v a t i o n from a grant,  but  power  should  property not  be  r a t h e r a c o n d i t i o n of a  157 t r a n s f e r which was e f f e c t e d pursuant  to l e g i s l a t i o n .  Indeed, a l l  of  scrutinized  a  Order  i n Council  delegated  legislation.  Privy  Council  reserves  to  the  certainly  a  piece  1036  Order same  can  208,  be  which  subjected  conditions  of delegated  as  the  as  piece  t h e Railway  other  legislation.  Belt  reserves,  The  Railway  of  is Belt  r e s e r v e s were a l r e a d y owned u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y by the Dominion before the  Scott-Cathcart  agreement  was  reached.  The p r o v i s o s  i n the  form o f conveyance can not be viewed as r e s e r v a t i o n s from a grant by the p r o v i n c e . by  However, the Railway B e l t r e s e r v e s are a f f e c t e d  the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1930,  and the adoption  t h e r e i n o f the  S c o t t - C a t h c a r t "form o f tenure and mode o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " .  In  many r e s p e c t s  i t was  fortunate  that  Indian  reserve  lands  were t r a n s f e r r e d by the p r o v i n c e t o the Dominion, i n t r u s t f o r the Indians.  The t r a n s f e r makes i t c l e a r t h a t t h e r e i s no u n d e r l y i n g  interest  which  transfer  instrument  nature  of t i t l e  rights  that  i s i n conflict allows  to  created  by  apparent  a t the time  the Indian  a relatively  Indian  are a s s o c i a t e d  problems  with  reserves, with  reserve  the Terms  lands. Milling  o f Union  r e q u i r e d "conveyance",of r e s e r v e lands ensured  However,  the  "form  of  tenure"  of  property  Although case  were  the  were not  s t r u c k , the  t h a t those problems  would not plague the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Indian Columbia.  The  a n a l y s i s o f the  o r the k i n d s  the S t . C a t h e r i n e s that  certain  interest.  affairs  that  was  i n British ultimately  158 chosen  created  province. their  some d i f f e r e n t  problems  for  Indian  bands  in  the  They are f a c e d w i t h the p r o s p e c t o f l o s i n g a p o r t i o n of  reserve  lands  without  surrender  and  without  compensation.  T h i s s i t u a t i o n , which i s unique i n Canada, ought t o be  rectified.  159 BIBLIOGRAPHY  Books and  Articles  B a t t e r s b y , G., ed. Butterworths,  W i l l i a m s on T i t l e . 1975.  4th ed.  London:  Blake, John, ed. J e w i t t ' s D i c t i o n a r y of E n g l i s h Law. v o l . 1. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1977.  2nd  ed.,  Borthwick, David. "The B i r t h o f B.C. Order i n C o u n c i l 1036." Ottawa: Department of I n d i a n A f f a i r s and Northern Development, L i b r a r y S e r v i c e s , 1975. . "The P r o v i n c i a l R e v e r s i o n a r y I n t e r e s t i n I n d i a n Reserves - A Unique P r o p o s i t i o n . " Ottawa: Department of I n d i a n A f f a i r s and Northern Development, L i b r a r y S e r v i c e s , 1975. B r i t i s h Columbia. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. "Papers Connected w i t h the I n d i a n Land Question." S e s s i o n a l Papers, 2nd P a r i . , 1st Sess., 1876. . "Report o f the Government o f B r i t i s h Columbia on the Subject o f I n d i a n Reserves." S e s s i o n a l Papers, 2nd P a r i . , 1st Sess., 1876. '  . "Return o f I n d i a n Reserves." J o u r n a l s , 1st P a r i . , Sess., 1872-3. Appendix, S e s s i o n a l Papers.  Brown, Douglas.  Land A c q u i s i t i o n .  Sydney: Butterworths,  2nd.  1972.  C a i l , Robert. Land, Man, and the Law: The D i s p o s a l of Crown Lands i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1913. Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Press, 1974. Canada. Report of the Royal Commission on I n d i a n A f f a i r s f o r the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. v o l . 1. V i c t o r i a : Acme Press, 1916. C h a l l i e s , George, S. The Law o f E x p r o p r i a t i o n . M o n t r e a l : Wilson & L a f l e u r , 1963.  2nd  ed.  F i s h e r , Robin. Contact and C o n f l i c t : I n d i a n - European R e l a t i o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1774-1890. Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Press, 1977. Halsbury's Laws of England. Butterworths, 1973.  4th ed.  v o l . 44.  London:  160 Hogg, P e t e r . Toronto:  C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law C a r s w e l l , 1985.  of Canada.  2nd  James, John, S. Stroud's J u d i c i a l D i c t i o n a r y , Sweet & Maxwell, 1974.  ed. v o l . 4.  London:  L a F o r e s t , Gerard. N a t u r a l Resources and P u b l i c P r o p e r t y Under the Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n . Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1969. .  . Water Law i n Canada: The A t l a n t i c P r o v i n c e s . I n f o r m a t i o n Canada, 1973.  Ottawa:  MacSween, Donald. "Order i n C o u n c i l 1036: The Remnants of C o l o n i a l Rule." I n I n d i a n s and t h e Law. Vancouver: C o n t i n u i n g L e g a l Education S o c i e t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985. M o r r i s , Alexander. The T r e a t i e s of Canada with the I n d i a n s . Toronto: B e l f o r d s , C l a r k e & Co., 1880; Coles, 1979. Morse, B r a d f o r d W., ed. A b o r i g i n a l Peoples C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1985. Murray, S i r James, A.H., ed. Historical Principles. 1914.  and the Law.  Ottawa:  A New E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y on v o l . 8. Oxford: Clarendon  Press,  O o s t e r h o f f , A.H., and W.B. Rayner. Anger and Hornsberger Law of Real P r o p e r t y . 2nd ed. v o l . 1. Aurora, O n t a r i o : Canada Law Book, 1985. Slattery, Brian. "Understanding Bar Review 727. Theobald, H.S.  The Law  Aboriginal Rights."  of the Land.  London: W.  66 Canadian  Clowes,  1929.  Cases Atty.-Gen. A l b e r t a v. A t t y . -Gen.  Canada, [1928] A.C.  Atty.-Gen. B.C. (P.C).  v. Atty.-Gen. Canada (1889), 14 App.  Atty.-Gen. B.C.  v. A t t y . -Gen.  Canada, [1914] A.C.  475 Cas.  153  (P.C). 295  (P.C).  Atty.-Gen. Canada v. H i g b i e e t a l . , [1914] S.C.R. 385. A t t y . -Gen.  O n t a r i o v. Mercer (1883), 8 App.  Cas.  767  (P.C).  161 Atty.-Gen. Quebec v. A t t y . -Gen. Canada,  [1912] 1 A.C. 401 ( P . C ) .  Bayview P r o p e r t i e s L t d . v. Atty.-Gen. V i c t o r i a , (Sup. C t . V i c t o r i a ) (Aus.).  [1906] V.R. 214  B r i t i s h P a c i f i c P r o p e r t i e s L t d . v. M i n i s t e r o f Highways and P u b l i c Works (1978), 14 L.C.R. 299. B u r r a r d Power Company v. The King,  [1911] A.C. 87 ( P . C ) .  Caine v. C o r p o r a t i o n o f Surrey, [1920] 2 W.W.R. 681 (B.C.C.A.); v a r ' d (1920), 60 S.C.R. 654. Cooper v. S t u a r t (1889), 14 App. Cas. 286 ( P . C ) . George v. M i t c h e l l  (1912), 3 W.W.R. 162 (B.C.C.A.).  G u e r i n v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; rev'g [1983] 2 F.C. 656 (F.C.A.). Jack v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 294. Her Majesty i n Right o f the P r o v i n c e o f A l b e r t a v. Canadian T r a n s p o r t Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 61 (subnom. I n P a c i f i c Western A i r l i n e s L t d . ) .  re  Moser v. The Queen (1981), 24 L.C.R. 226 ( B . C . S . C ) . Moses v. The Queen, [1977] 4 W.W.R. 474 ( B . C . S . C ) ; a f f ' d 5 W.W.R. 100 (B.C.C.A.). Newcastle Breweries L t d . v. The King, (Eng. K.B.). O n t a r i o Mining Co. v. Seybold,  [1979]  [1920] 1 K.B. 854  [1903] A.C. 73 ( P . C ) .  Power v. The King (1918), 56 S.C.R. 499. P r u d e n t i a l T r u s t Co. v. The R e g i s t r a r ,  [1957] S.C.R. 658.  Rayfuse v. Mugleston, [1954] 3 D.L.R. 360 (B.C.C.A.). Reference Re Saskatchewan N a t u r a l Resources, [1931] S.C.R. 263. Re T a x a t i o n o f U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba Lands, [1940] 1 D.L.R. 579 (Man. C.A.). Re Storey; ex. p. Popplewell (1882), 21 Ch. D. 23 (Eng. C.A.). Rugby J o i n t Water Board v. Walters,  [1966] 3 A l l E.R. 497 (Ch.D.).  162 S t . C a t h e r i n e s M i l l i n g and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.). Sparrow v. The Queen, [1987] 2 W.W.R. 577  (B.C.C.A.).  Thomas v. Sherwood (1893), 9 App. Cas. 142 ( P . C ) . Worsely Timber Co. v. M i n i s t e r f o r Works (1933), 36 W.A.L.R. 52 (W. Aus. S . C ) .  S t a t u t e s and Orders British  Columbia  An A c t R e l a t i n g t o the I s l a n d Railway, the G r a v i n g Dock and Railway Lands o f the P r o v i n c e , S.B.C. 1884. c. 14. Highway Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 167. I n d i a n A f f a i r s Settlement Act, S.B.C. 1919, c. 32. I n d i a n Reserves M i n e r a l Resources Act, S.B.C. 1943, c. 40. I n d i a n Water Claims Act, S.B.C. 1921, 2nd Sess., c. 19. J u d i c i a l Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 209. Land Act, S.B.C. 1899, c. 38. Land Act, S.B.C  1908, c. 30.  Land Act, S.B.C  1924, c. 131.  Land Ordinance, Ordinaces o f the L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1865, No. 27. Land R e g i s t r y Act, S.B.C  1910, c. 27.  Land R e g i s t r y Act, S.B.C  1931, c. 32  Water Act, 1939, S.B.C. 1939, c. 63 Water Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 429. Water Clauses C o n s o l i d a t i o n Act, 1897, S.B.C  1897, c. 45.  Water P r i v i l e g e s Act, 1892, S.B.C. 1892, c. 47.  163 B r i t i s h Columbia No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.  1138, 279, 125, 1341, 911, 1036, 2995, 1555,  Orders i n C o u n c i l  January 6, 1876; January 30, 1877; February 26, 1907; December 18, 1912; J u l y 26, 1923; J u l y 29, 1938; November 28, 1961; May 13, 1969.  Canada A l b e r t a A c t , 1905, 1970, Appendix I I .  4-5  Edw.  V I I , c. 3  (Canada),  i n R.S.C.  An A c t t o Amend the Indian A c t , S.C. 1985, c. 27. B r i t i s h Columbia 1943-44, c. 19.  Indian  Reserve  Mineral  Resource  Indian A c t , R.S.C. 1886, c. 43. I n d i a n A c t , R.S.C. 1927, c. 98. Indian A c t , R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-6. Railway B e l t Water A c t , S.C. 1912, c. 47. Railway B e l t Water A c t , 1913,  S.C. 1913, c. 45.  Railway B e l t Water A c t , 1926, S.C. 1926, c. 15. Railway B e l t Water A c t , R.S.C. 1927, c. 211. Railway B e l t Water A c t , 1928, S.C. 1928, c. 6. Canada P r i v y C o u n c i l Orders (Unnumbered), November 10, 1875; (Unnumbered), February 23, 1877; No. 1334, J u l y 19, 1880. No. 2739, December 19, 1880. No. 3277, November 27, 1912; No. 1265, J u l y 19, 1924; No. 208, February 3, 1930; No. 1399, March 25, 1949.  A c t , S.C.  164 U n i t e d Kingdom Consitutional Appendix I I .  A c t , 1867, 30-31 V i c t . ,  c. 3, i n R.S.C. 1970,  C o n s i t u t i o n a l A c t , 1930, 20-21 Geo. V., 1970, Appendix I I . C o n s i t u t i o n a l A c t , 1982, (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.  c. 26,  as enacted by Canada  i n R.S.C. A c t , 1982,  Order o f Her Majesty i n C o u n c i l A d m i t t i n g B r i t i s h Columbia Into the Union, May 16, 1871, i n R.S.C. 1970, Appendix I I .  165 APPENDIX  A  Reproduction o f Order i n C o u n c i l 1036.  I hereby  c e r t i f y t h a t the f o l l o w i n g i s a t r u e copy o f a Minute o f the  Honourable t h e E x e c u t i v e C o u n c i l o f t h e P r o v i n c e o f  British  Columbia,  approved  by H i s Honour t h e L i e u t e n a n t -  Governor on the 29th day o f J u l y , A.D. 1938.  To His Honour The Lieutenant-Governor  in  Council:  The undersigned has the honour to RECOMMEND:—  THAT  Chapter  under a u t h o r i t y o f S e c t i o n 93 o f the "Land A c t " , being  144, "Revised  S e c t i o n 2 o f Chapter  Statutes  of B r i t i s h  32, " B r i t i s h  Columbia,  1936", and  Columbia S t a t u t e s 1919", being  the "Indian A f f a i r s Settlement A c t " ,  the lands s e t out i n schedule  attached h e r e t o be conveyed t o H i s Majesty  the King i n the r i g h t  of t h e Dominion o f Canada i n t r u s t f o r t h e use and b e n e f i t o f the Indians  of the Province  the r i g h t  of B r i t i s h  Columbia,  s u b j e c t however t o  o f t h e Dominion Government t o d e a l w i t h the s a i d  lands  i n such manner as they may deem best s u i t e d f o r the purpose o f the Indians i n c l u d i n g a r i g h t t o s e l l the s a i d lands and fund o r u s e  166 (ORDER IN COUNCIL No. 1036... Continued)  the  proceeds  f o r the b e n e f i t  o f the Indians  subject  to the  c o n d i t i o n t h a t i n the event o f any I n d i a n t r i b e o r band i n B r i t i s h Columbia hereby of  a t some  conveyed  future  time  f o r such t r i b e  as h e r e t o f o r e p r o v i d e d ,  proceeds  o f any such  grantor,  and t h a t  following  sale,  such  becoming  extinct  that  any lands  o r band, and not s o l d o r d i s p o s e d  o r any unexpended shall  conveyance  be conveyed shall  also  fund  b e i n g the  or repaid  t o the  be s u b j e c t  t o the  provisions:-  PROVIDED NEVERTHELESS t h a t i t s h a l l a t a l l times be l a w f u l f o r Us, Our h e i r s and s u c c e s s o r s , o r f o r any person o r persons a c t i n g i n t h a t b e h a l f by Our o r t h e i r a u t h o r i t y , t o resume any p a r t o f the s a i d lands which i t may be deemed n e c e s s a r y t o resume f o r making roads, c a n a l s , b r i d g e s , towing paths, o r o t h e r works o f p u b l i c u t i l i t y o r convenience; so, n e v e r t h e l e s s t h a t the lands so t o be resumed s h a l l not exceed one-twentieth p a r t o f the whole o f t h e l a n d s a f o r e s a i d , and t h a t no such r e s u m p t i o n s h a l l be made o f any l a n d s on which any b u i l d i n g s may have been e r e c t e d , o r which may be i n use as g a r d e n s o r o t h e r w i s e f o r t h e more c o n v e n i e n t o c c u p a t i o n o f any such b u i l d i n g s : PROVIDED a l s o t h a t i t s h a l l be l a w f u l f o r any person d u l y a u t h o r i z e d i n t h a t b e h a l f by Us, Our h e i r s and s u c c e s s o r s , t o take and occupy such water p r i v i l e g e s , and t o have and enjoy such r i g h t s o f c a r r y i n g water over, through o r under any p a r t s o f the hereditaments hereby granted, as may be reasonable r e q u i r e d f o r mining o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes i n the v i c i n i t y o f the s a i d hereditaments, paying therefor a reasonable compensation. PROVIDED a l s o t h a t t h e Department o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s s h a l l through i t s proper o f f i c e r s be a d v i s e d o f any work contemplated under the p r e c e d i n g p r o v i s o e s t h a t p l a n s o f the l o c a t i o n o f such work s h a l l be f u r n i s h e d f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n o f the Department o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s , and t h a t a reasonable time s h a l l be  167 (ORDER IN COUNCIL No. 1036... Continued) allowed f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the s a i d p l a n s and f o r any n e c e s s a r y adjustments o r arrangements i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the proposed work: PROVIDED a l s o t h a t i t s h a l l be a t a l l times l a w f u l f o r any person d u l y a u t h o r i z e d i n t h a t b e h a l f by Us, Our h e i r s and s u c c e s s o r s , t o take from o r upon any p a r t o f t h e h e r e d i t a m e n t s hereby g r a n t e d , any g r a v e l , sand, s t o n e , l i m e , timber o r o t h e r m a t e r i a l which may be r e q u i r e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , maintenance, o r r e p a i r o f any roads, f e r r i e s , b r i d g e s , o r o t h e r p u b l i c works. But n e v e r t h e l e s s paying t h e r e f o r reasonable compensation f o r s u c h m a t e r i a l as may be t a k e n f o r use o u t s i d e t h e boundaries o f t h e hereditaments hereby g r a n t e d : PROVIDED a l s o t h a t a l l t r a v e l l e d s t r e e t s , roads, t r a i l s , and o t h e r highways e x i s t i n g over o r through s a i d lands at t h e date hereof s h a l l be excepted from t h i s g r a n t . AND TO FURTHER RECOMMEND THAT a c e r t i f i e d approved,  be t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e R e g i s t r a r  O f f i c e i n t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia  copy o f t h i s minute, i f i n each  Land  Registry  t o t h e i n t e n t t h a t such  c e r t i f i e d copy be accepted by him as a conveyance o f t h e s a i d  land  t o H i s Majesty t h e King i n t h e r i g h t o f the Dominion o f Canada as r e p r e s e n t e d by the Department o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s o f Canada, without further  formal  instrument  of transfer  subject  t o the said  p r o v i s o e s and c o n d i t i o n s . AND TO FURTHER RECOMMEND THAT a c e r t i f i e d copy o f t h i s minute, i f approved,  be forwarded  t o the Superintendent  A f f a i r s a t Ottawa.  DATED t h i s 29th day o f J u l y A.D. 1938.  General  o f Indian  168 APPENDIX B  Reproduction  o f P r i v y C o u n c i l Order 208  and the S c o t t - C a t h c a r t Agreement, being Schedule Two o f P.C. 208.  P.C. 208  Certified  t o be a t r u e copy o f a Minute o f a Meeting o f t h e  Committee o f t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l , approved by H i s E x c e l l e n c y the Governor General  on t h e 3 r d FEBRUARY 1930  The Committee o f t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l have had b e f o r e them a Report, dated 24th January, 1930, from the Superintendent General o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s , s u b m i t t i n g t h a t , pursuant t o c e r t a i n S t a t u t e s o f Canada and o f t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia (Ca. 1920, Chapter 51, B.C. 1919, Ch. 32) Your E x c e l l e n c y i n C o u n c i l and H i s Honour t h e Lieutenant-Governor o f B r i t i s h Columbia i n C o u n c i l were r e s p e c t i v e l y a u t h o r i z e d t o take such a c t i o n as might be necessary t o c a r r y o u t a c e r t a i n agreement made on t h e 2 4 t h day o f September, 1912, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Indian lands i n t h e s a i d Province, a copy o f which s a i d agreement i s a t t a c h e d as schedule One h e r e t o . The M i n i s t e r s t a t e s t h a t i n pursuance o f t h e s a i d agreement a R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n was c o n s t i t u t e d t o r e p o r t on t h e m a t t e r s a f o r e s a i d , and d u l y r e p o r t e d on the 30th o f June, 1916, whereupon the Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l , on t h e 26th day o f J u l y , 1923, made an Order (No. 911) approving o f the s a i d r e p o r t , and Your E x c e l l e n c y i n C o u n c i l , on the 19th day o f J u l y , 1924, (P.C. 1265) made an Order a p p r o v i n g t h e r e o f except as t o c u t - o f f s i n the Railway B e l t . The M i n i s t e r f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t on t h e 22nd day o f March, 1929, a f u r t h e r agreement with r e s p e c t t o Indian lands i n the Province of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a was e n t e r e d i n t o between r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the Governments o f Canada and o f the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia r e s p e c t i v e l y , a copy o f which s a i d agreement w i t h schedules c o n t a i n i n g a l i s t o f the r e s e r v e s i n the Railway  169 B e l t and Peace R i v e r Block and a d r a f t of the form o f conveyance i n the s a i d agreement r e f e r r e d t o are h e r e t o a t t a c h e d as schedules Two, Three and Four. The M i n i s t e r a c c o r d i n g l y recommends t h a t t h e s a i d last mentioned agreement and the schedules a f o r e s a i d be approved and the agreement d i r e c t e d t o be c a r r i e d out a c c o r d i n g t o i t s terms upon the approval t h e r e o f by the Lieutenant-Governor o f B r i t i s h Columbia i n C o u n c i l . The M i n i s t e r f u r t h e r recommends t h a t the S u p e r i n t e n d e n t General o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s be a u t h o r i z e d , pursuant t o S e c t i o n 48 of the I n d i a n A c t (R.S.C. 1927, Ch. 98), t o agree t o the t a k i n g f o r any s u c h p u b l i c work as i s m e n t i o n e d i n t h e d r a f t form of conveyance a t t a c h e d hereto as schedule Four an area i n excess of the one-twentieth t h e r e i n p r o v i d e d f o r on payment o f the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r the b e n e f i t of the Indians o f such sum by way o f compensation f o r the l a n d so taken as the Superintendent General o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s my determine. The Committee concur i n the f o r e g o i n g recommendations submit the same f o r Your E x c e l l e n c y ' s a p p r o v a l .  and  170 Schedule  2  MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN DR. DUNCAN C. SCOTT AND MR. W. E. DITCHBURN ON BEHALF OF THE DOMINION GOVERNMENT, AND MR. HENRY CATHCART AND MR. 0. C. BASS ON BEHALF OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT.  The  undersigned  Governments Columbia,  having  to consider  Columbia,  Province  of Indian  arising  o f t h e lands  designated  the i n t e r e s t  the Department  British  been  by t h e i r  o f the Indians  Affairs  Belt  of British,  and t h e P r o v i n c e o f  out o f the proposed  i n t h e Railway  respective  transfer  t o the  and the Peace  River  Block; and t o recommend c o n d i t i o n s under which the t r a n s f e r may be made w i t h  due r e g a r d  t o the i n t e r e s t s  affected  beg t o r e p o r t as  follows:-  As  the tenure  and mode  Reserves i n t h e Railway governed  Belt  thought,  be  Province  t o t h e Dominion  areas i t was thought conveyance  o f the I n d i a n  as t h a t  Reserves  question  outside  had been  and remained undecided  t o c o n s i d e r a few important with  o f t h e conveyance  by t h e those  a d v i s a b l e t o agree i f p o s s i b l e upon a form o f  particularly  Province  and t h e Peace R i v e r Block would, we  by t h e terms  Governments f o r some time  the  of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the Indian  matters  and  before the furthermore  germane t o I n d i a n a f f a i r s i n  the hope o f making recommendations which would  promote t h e ease and harmony o f f u t u r e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .  171 1. the  We  have agreed  Province  Railway  Belt  t o the and  t o recommend the  Dominion o f  the  Peace  the  River  form of conveyance from  Indian  Block  reserves outside  hereunto  annexed  the  marked  "A" .  2. "Land  We  have agreed  Registry Act"  necessary section  i n view should  t h a t , the p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 47 of the  (R.S.B.C 1924, of  be  the  repeal, w i l l may  be  settlement  repealed,  P r o v i n c e undertake t o so  chapter  and  advise  now  the  and  127)  being  arrived  at,  cases  said  of  pending  arising,  p e r m i t t e d by Order i n C o u n c i l as p r o v i d e d  longer  the  representatives  recommend, and,  recommend t h a t i n proper  no  the such  registration  i n said section  47.  3.  We  have c o n s i d e r e d c l a u s e 4 o f the document known as the  McKenna-McBride agreement, which reads as f o l l o w s : "4. The lands which the Commissioners s h a l l determine are not necessary f o r the use o f the Indians s h a l l be s u b d i v i d e d and s o l d by the Province at p u b l i c a u c t i o n . " It varied  i s considered so  that  Governments, be  either  that t h i s  i t be  through  subdivided  provided  their  p r o v i s i o n might that  on  beneficially  agreement  r e s p e c t i v e Departments,  for sale,  appear most advantageous i n the  or  disposed  circumstances  of  en  between the  lands  bloc,  of each  as  be the may may  particular  case, but t h a t such s a l e and d i s p o s a l s h a l l be by p u b l i c a u c t i o n ; and as t o d i s p o s a l o f timber, m i n e r a l and s i m i l a r r i g h t s , the same  172 should  be  dealt  Governments  with  through  by  their  agreement proper  between  the  Departments,  respective  and we  shall  recommend a c c o r d i n g l y t o our r e s p e c t i v e Governments.  4.  I t was brought up by the Dominion r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t h a t a  necessity  existed  f o r a d d i t i o n a l lands  p o r t i o n s of the Province, on Indian A f f a i r s , by  the Province  prices  fixed  reversionary  by  t h e Land  interest  the Indian  i n various  f o r by the Royal Commission  and i t was suggested t h a t such lands be granted  a t a reduced  d i s p o s a l thereof, of  not p r o v i d e d  f o r Indians  o r nominal  price,  Act, the Province  i n such lands,  In such  to  from the have i t s  o r the proceeds o f s a l e o r  as i n Indian Reserves proper,  interest.  apart  event,  on the e x t i n c t i o n  the P r o v i n c e  to re-  imburse the Dominion the purchase p r i c e p a i d by i t f o r s a i d  It this  i s , with  question  great  respect,  of Indian  lands  considered finally  good  settled,  policy  lands.  t o have  and t h a t  some  c o n s i d e r a t i o n be g i v e n by the P r o v i n c i a l Government t o a r e d u c t i o n in price.  5.  I t was urged  by the Dominion  representatives  t h a t the  Indian claims t o the foreshore o f t h e i r r e s e r v e s be r e c o g n i z e d by the Province,  but the P r o v i n c i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s p o i n t e d out t h a t  it  and i s t h e i n v a r i a b l e p o l i c y  has been  consider  the r i g h t s o f the upland  owners,  o f the Province and t h a t  this  to  policy  f u l l y p r o t e c t e d the r i g h t s o f the Indians i n the same way as other upland owners o r o c c u p i e r s o f l a n d .  173 In t h i s c o n n e c t i o n the f o l l o w i n g l e t t e r from the l a t e Oliver,  dated  the  23rd.  of  April,  1924,  was  Premier  before  the  representatives:-  "Ottawa, A p r i l 23, 1924. The Honourable, The Superintendent Ottawa.  General o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s ,  Dear S i r : Re:  I n d i a n Reserves i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  R e f e r r i n g t o o u r c o n v e r s a t i o n o f y e s t e r d a y and having r e f e r e n c e t o the f e a r s expressed by the Indians t h a t where t h e i r r e s e r v e s f r o n t e d on the water, access to t h e i r lands might be i n t e r f e r e d w i t h by c o n s t r u c t i o n of wharfs, docks, booms o r o t h e r o b s t r u c t i o n s e r e c t e d o r p l a c e d along any f o r e s h o r e being i n the P r o v i n c e , as I e x p r e s s e d myself y e s t e r d a y , I would f a v o u r a p o l i c y t r e a t i n g the Indians on e x a c t l y the same f o o t i n g as I would t r e a t the whites, and would i f necessary a d v i s e t h e Government o f t h e P r o v i n c e t o g i v e t h e I n d i a n Department a w r i t t e n assurance t o t h a t e f f e c t . I am, however, o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t no such a s s u r a n c e i s necessary, as I t h i n k the p r i n c i p l e o f R i p a r i a n R i g h t s would apply t o any I n d i a n r e s e r v e s having water f r o n t a g e to the same extent as R i p a r i a n R i g h t s would apply t o the same l a n d s were s u c h l a n d s s u b j e c t t o t h e p r i v a t e ownership o f any person o t h e r than an I n d i a n . In o t h e r words, R i p a r i a n R i g h t s would a c c r u e t o t h e I n d i a n s (through the I n d i a n Department) t o the same extent as they would apply t o a white owner. I should be p l e a s e d i f you would o b t a i n the advice o f your l e g a l Department on t h i s phase o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . I am, Yours f a i t h f u l l y , John O l i v e r " .  174 I t was this  letter  c o n s i d e r e d by the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the Province expressed  the  policy  which  in  f o l l o w e d , and w i l l be f o l l o w e d by the Province  6.  Regarding Indian  R i v e r Block,  we  Reserves i n the  have agreed t h a t the  the  past  that  has  been  i n the f u t u r e .  Railway B e l t and  Peace  Indian Reserves s e t apart  by  the Dominion Government i n the Railway B e l t and i n the Peace R i v e r Block  (as shown i n Schedule hereto  annexed), and  a l s o the  Indian  Reserves s e t apart b e f o r e the t r a n s f e r o f the Railway B e l t and Peace  River  Block  excepted from the River  Block,  and  by  the  Province  to  reconveyance o f the shall  be  held  the  Dominion  Railway B e l t and  i n trust  and  the  shall the  administered  be  Peace by  the  Dominion under the terms and c o n d i t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n the Agreement dated  24th, September, 1912,  between Mr.  S i r R i c h a r d McBride, (as confirmed of the 1265,  S t a t u t e s o f 1919) approved 19th.  Number  911,  approved  conveyance marked  "A"  Respectfully  McKenna and the  Hon.  by Dominion S t a t u t e , Chapter  32  i n the Dominion Order i n C o u n c i l Number  J u l y , 1924, 26th. of the  B e l t and the Peace R i v e r  J.A.  of  and  Provincial  July,  Indian  1923,  and  Order i n C o u n c i l in  Reserves o u t s i d e  the the  form  of  Railway  Block.  submitted.  DATED at V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia, t h i s 22nd. day of March,  1929.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077705/manifest

Comment

Related Items