Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Canada and U.S. public policy on aboriginal land claims 1960-1988 : Alaska and British Columbia compared Bryant, Michael J. 1989

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_A8 B79.pdf [ 6.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097742.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097742-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097742-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097742-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097742-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097742-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097742-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097742-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097742.ris

Full Text

CANADA AND U.S. PUBLIC POLICY ON ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS 1960-1988: ALASKA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA COMPARED By Michael J . Bryant B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of P o l i t i c a l Science We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1989 © Michael James Bryant, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT T h i s t h e s i s p r o v i d e s a comparison of the p u b l i c p o l i c y outcomes in Alaska and B.C. i n the area of n a t i v e land c l a i m s . In both Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s , n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s are f i l e d by a b o r i g i n a l groups seeking r e c o g n i t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , and/or compensation f o r l a n d taken by the s t a t e . The goal of an a b o r i g i n a l group making a land c l a i m i s to a c h i e v e settlement with the s t a t e . For both n a t i o n s , s e t t l e m e n t has h i s t o r i c a l l y meant anything from the t r a d i n g of beads and b l a n k e t s f o r huge t r a c t s of l a n d , through the a l l o c a t i o n of m i l l i o n s to b i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s to a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s , to e l a b o r a t e p r o f i t - s h a r i n g schemes between n a t i v e s and i n d u s t r y . American Indians have been more s u c c e s s f u l , compared with t h e i r Canadian brethren, i n a c h i e v i n g f a i r s e t t l e m e n t s over time. Alas k a and B r i t i s h Columbia p r o v i d e two contemporary examples of t h i s phenomenon: in A l a s k a , the n a t i v e people a c h i e v e d settlement f o r t h e i r enormous land c l a i m i n 1972; i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 19 n a t i v e land c l a i m s , f i l e d s i n c e 1976, remain stagnant as the governments of Canada and B r i t i s h Columbia r e f u s e to n e g o t i a t e a settlement with Canadian a b o r i g i n a l s . Why was there settlement i n A l a s k a , while i n B.C. there appears no settlement i n s i g h t . ? The goal of the t h e s i s i s to provide an e x p l a n a t i o n as to why the p o l i c y outcomes in B r i t i s h Columbia and A l a s k a are d i v e r g e n t . The method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n v o l v e s the t e s t i n g of a s e r i e s of "independent v a r i a b l e s " -- p u b l i c o p i n i o n , environment, p l u r a l i s m , s t a t i s m , and s t r u c t u r a l marxism -- that e x p l a i n p o l i c y i i outcomes. Each e x p l a n a t i o n w i l l be measured f o r i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e , and w i l l be ranked at the end of the t h e s i s i n terms of i t s importance i n e x p l a i n i n g the "dependent v a r i a b l e " , or p o l i c y outcome. The r e s u l t s of the comparison o f f e r a p r i m a r i l y s t r u c t u r a l marxist argument, with i n t e r r e l a t e d s t a t i s t concerns a l s o p l a y i n g a p i v o t a l r o l e i n the f i n a l p o l i c y outcome. T h i s t h e s i s argues t h a t , i n e x p l a i n i n g the divergence i n Canadian and American p o l i c i e s c o n c e r n i n g a b o r i g i n a l land c l a i m s , the i n t e r e s t s of business and s t a t e a c t o r s t r a n s c e n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s , as w e l l as n o n - p o l i t i c a l and c u l t u r a l f o r c e s . Nonetheless, the s i g n i f i c a n t n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n i n A l a s k a , together with the Alaskan n a t i v e p o l i t i c a l e f f o r t s , serve as important causes of the p o l i c y outcome. One f i n d s that s t a t e a c t i o n by governmental a c t o r s , together with the s t a t e ' s p r o t e c t i o n of the c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t , l e d to the settlement of n a t i v e land c l a i m s i n A l a s k a . These i n g r e d i e n t s are absent in B r i t i s h Columbia, thereby e x p l a i n i n g the d i v e r g e n t Canadian p o l i c y which r e j e c t s the settlement of the 19 o u t s t a n d i n g B.C. n a t i v e land c l a i m s f i l e d s i n c e 1976. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 I BACKGROUND 5 II INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 1. P u b l i c Opinion E x p l a n a t i o n 12 2. Environmental E x p l a n a t i o n 15 3. P l u r a l i s t E x p l a n a t i o n 16 4. S t a t i s t E x p l a n a t i o n 18 5. M a r x i s t E x p l a n a t i o n 20 III FINDINGS 1. P u b l i c Opinion V a r i a b l e 23 2. Environmental V a r i a b l e 31 3. P l u r a l i s t V a r i a b l e 34 4. S t a t i s t V a r i a b l e 47 5. M a r x i s t V a r i a b l e 71 IV CONCLUSION 83 NOTES 101 BIBLIOGRAPHY 121 i v LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS Table 1a Native P o p u l a t i o n -- B.C. (1986)/Alaska (1970) 92 l b N a t i v e P o p u l a t i o n : Percentage of T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n --B.C. (1986)/Alaska (1970) 92 1c Native P o p u l a t i o n D e n s i t y : Per 1000 Square M i l e s --B.C. (1986)/Alaska (1970) 93 Table 2a R e g i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n s of the A l a s k a F e d e r a t i o n of N a t i v e s 1969 94 2b B r i t i s h Columbia: Comprehensive Claims -- Accepted Claims, e t c . (1974-1985) 95 2c Approximate Area of B.C. Comprehensive Claims (In Hectares) 96 Table 3a A b o r i g i n a l Land Claim Settlements: Average Number of Years Between F i l i n g of Land Claim and Settlement --B.C. (l974-78)/Alaska (1967-1972) 97 3b A b o r i g i n a l C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R e c o g n i t i o n : 1960-1988 — U n i t e d States/Canada 97 Map I Comprehensive N a t i v e Claims i n B r i t i s h Columbia (1985) 98 Map II A b o r i g i n a l E t h n i c Groupings i n A l a s k a (1971) 99 Map I I I Areas of Membership of Native O r g a n i z a t i o n s — Alaska (1971) 100 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I n many ways t h i s t h e s i s i s a p r o d u c t o f two s c h o o l s t h a t r a r e l y c r o s s p a t h s w i t h i n p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e : c o m p a r a t i v e p u b l i c p o l i c y a n d a b o r i g i n a l p o l i t i c s . N o t c o i n c i d e n t a l l y , t h e s t r u c t u r a l a n d a n a l y t i c a l b a s i s o f t h e t h e s i s r e l i e d on two e x p e r t s i n t h o s e f i e l d s , r e s p e c t i v e l y : D r . G e o r g e H o b e r g , J r . , whose g r a d u a t e s e m i n a r on c o m p a r a t i v e p u b l i c p o l i c y , t o g e t h e r w i t h e x h a u s t i v e d r a f t r e v i e w s , p r o v i d e d t h e s t r u c t u r a l i n s p i r a t i o n f o r t h e t h e s i s ; a n d , my t h e s i s a d v i s o r D r . P a u l R. T e n n a n t , whose w r i t t e n a n d s p o k e n w o r d s b o t h i n s p i r e d my g r a d u a t e s t u d y i n p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e , a n d o p e n e d my e y e s t o what I am s u r e w i l l be a l i f e t i m e f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n C a n a d a . As t o my f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h p o l i t i c s a n d g o v e r n m e n t , I t h a n k my f a t h e r , Ray T. B r y a n t — an i n v a l u a b l e l i n k t o s e v e r a l s o u r c e s f o r t h i s t h e s i s , my f a v o r i t e i n t e l l e c t u a l s o u n d i n g b o a r d , a n d a m a s t e r o f p o l i t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . And gladly they would learn, and gladly teach. v i INTRODUCTION In the Un i t e d S t a t e s , Indians r e t a i n a d i s t i n c t l e g a l base from which they can overcome r e p r e s s i v e p o l i c i e s and a c t i v i t i e s . The n a t i v e Americans enjoy autonomous self-government, an e n f o r c e a b l e t r u s t r e l a t i o n s h i p with the f e d e r a l government, and t i t l e to l a r g e t r a c t s of l a n d . The American c o u r t s , at l e a s t i n t h i s c e n t u r y , have c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c o g n i z e d inherent r i g h t s v e s t e d i n I n d i a n s . In Canada, e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s are p r o t e c t e d under The C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,1982, a l t h o u g h the nature of those " e x i s t i n g " r i g h t s has yet to be determined. For example, the q u e s t i o n as to whether a b o r i g i n a l l a n d t i t l e e x i s t s i n cases where the Crown has not e x p l i c i t l y e x p r o p r i a t e d , s e t t l e d , or e x t i n g u i s h e d that t i t l e has not been answered to t h i s date. A b o r i g i n a l l a n d t i t l e , while p r o t e c t e d i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s , i s n e g o t i a b l e in Canada, and only with the r e l e v a n t p r o v i n c e ' s consent. Herein l i e s a key d i f f e r e n c e between U.S. and Canadian a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y . Both American and Canadian a b o r i g i n a l people face r e c a l c i t r a n t p o l i c i e s from s t a t e / p r o v i n c i a l governments that o b s t r u c t f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i v e reforms aimed at f u r t h e r r e c o g n i z i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . However, u n l i k e the Canadian f e d e r a l government, the American f e d e r a l government has h i s t o r i c a l l y i n t e r v e n e d when a s t a t e has not f o l l o w e d the s p i r i t of n a t i o n a l p o l i c y concerning I n d i a n s . In the growing i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n of indigenous problems, the American Indian s i t s at the c u t t i n g edge of i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i c y and l e g a l developments. The Alaskan Land 1 Claims settlement i s a case i n p o i n t : the f e d e r a l government s e t t l e d with the Alaskan Indians at a c o s t of c l o s e to a b i l l i o n d o l l a r s , and granted over 40 m i l l i o n a c r e s to the n a t i v e people. On the other hand, today i n Canada there i s the s i t u a t i o n where nineteen comprehensive land c l a i m s i n B.C. remain s t a t i c while the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia r e f u s e s to n e g o t i a t e w i t h the Indians. The stalemate c o n t i n u e s . Why i s there settlement i n one country, and not i n the other? T h i s t h e s i s e x p l o r e s the causes of divergence i n a b o r i g i n a l land c l a i m s p o l i c y i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Although the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia and A l a s k a experiences form the crux of the argument, an e f f o r t has been made throughout the t h e s i s to expand from the p r o v i n c e / s t a t e comparison to a n a t i o n a l comparison. B.C. and A l a s k a are not anomalies i n t h e i r c o u n t r y ' s a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y ; indeed, they are i n d i c a t i v e of the d i v e r g e n t nature of indigenous l a n d c l a i m s p o l i c y i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . To introduce the reader to i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g a b o r i g i n a l peoples and a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s , I have i n c l u d e d a s u b s t a n t i a l background with the r e l e v a n t h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s , and the key terms and concepts. T h i s background i n c l u d e s a b r i e f summary of the events surrounding the two p o l i c y outcomes, which w i l l be b o l s t e r e d by g r e a t e r d e t a i l as the t h i r d s e c t i o n d e v e l o p s . The second s e c t i o n presents s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the p o l i c y outcome. These causes of p o l i c y outputs, or "independent 2 variables," are separated i n t o the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s : p u b l i c o p i n i o n , p l u r a l i s m , environment or n o n - p o l i t i c a l , s t a t i s m , and marxism. V a r i o u s measures w i l l be d e r i v e d from these independent v a r i a b l e s t h a t w i l l f a c i l i t a t e the assessment of each p o s s i b l e explanat i o n . The t h i r d and l a r g e s t s e c t i o n o f f e r s the findings f o r the measures proposed i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , with each c a t e g o r y ( p u b l i c o p i n i o n , environmental, p l u r a l i s t , e t c.) d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y . Throughout S e c t i o n I I I there are some d i s t i n g u i s h i n g comments made to p l a c e the i s o l a t e d f i n d i n g s i n t o c o n t e x t . However, i t i s important to keep i n mind that each e x p l a n a t i o n i s to be d e a l t with s e p a r a t e l y i n t h i s t h i r d s e c t i o n . A s y n t h e t i c argument does not completely u n f o l d u n t i l the c o n c l u d i n g f o u r t h s e c t i o n . The v a r i o u s e x p l a n a t i o n s are ranked i n terms of importance i n the C o n c l u s i o n , s p e c i f y i n g the key v a r i a b l e and i t s i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p with the r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s e x p l a i n i n g divergence. The goal of t h i s t h e s i s , then, i s to e v a l u a t e and i n t e g r a t e the v a r i o u s independent v a r i a b l e s to form a coherent and c o m p e l l i n g e x p l a n a t i o n as to why the "dependent variables" --the policy outputs of Canada and the United S t a t e s i n the area of a b o r i g i n a l l a n d c l a i m s -- are d i v e r g e n t . DEPENDENT VARIABLE: The dependent v a r i a b l e f o r t h i s comparative study i s the settlement of a b o r i g i n a l l a n d c l a i m or c l a i m s . Settlement i n e f f e c t r e q u i r e s the agreement of both s t a t e and a b o r i g i n a l 3 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , producing some s o r t of a c t of law. In Al a s k a there was settlement; i n B r i t i s h Columbia there has not been. S p e c i f i c a l l y , these are the two p o l i c y outcomes: A l a s k a : In l a t e 1971 P r e s i d e n t Nixon s i g n e d the A l a s k a N a t i v e Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which had e a r l i e r been r a t i f i e d by the Alaska F e d e r a t i o n of N a t i v e s . The ANCSA e x t i n g u i s h e d a l l outstanding n a t i v e c l a i m s to land, p r o v i d i n g compensation based on land use and occupancy i n exchange f o r a $962.5 m i l l i o n grant to Alaska n a t i v e s , a land grant of 40 m i l l i o n a c r e s , and the c r e a t i o n of n a t i o n a l and v i l l a g e r e g i o n a l p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n s . B r i t i s h Columbia: The P r o v i n c e ' s p o s i t i o n i s that no unextinguished a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s e x i s t i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Because the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y over lands and r e s o u r c e s f a l l s to the pr o v i n c e s of Canada, the f e d e r a l government w i l l o nly n e g o t i a t e n a t i v e land c l a i m s with the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the p r o v i n c i a l government. 1 Thus, of the nin e t e e n o u t s t a n d i n g a b o r i g i n a l land c l a i m s i n B.C., none w i l l be n e g o t i a t e d as long as the c u r r e n t f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y i s i n e f f e c t . 4 I BACKGROUND Before i n v e s t i g a t i n g those f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n the settlement of n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s , the Canadian and American p o l i c y outcomes, as w e l l as c e r t a i n concepts i m p l i c i t i n the p o l i c i e s , need to be c l a r i f i e d . A b o r i g i n a l people i n Canada, under s.37 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1982, i n c l u d e "the In d i a n , I n u i t , and M e t i s . " A l a s k a ' s a b o r i g i n a l p o p u l a t i o n i s made up p r i n c i p a l l y of Eskimo people, together with American I n d i a n s . In B r i t i s h Columbia, the overwhelming m a j o r i t y of a b o r i g i n a l s are Indian. A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s encompass a broad range of powers, p r i v i l e g e s , and f a c u l t i e s h e l d by the indigenous people of a n a t i o n . T h i s essay w i l l c o n c e n t r a t e on the a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t to land, or a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , and not on r i g h t s concerning f i s h i n g , hunting, and self-government. A b o r i g i n a l or Indian t i t l e r e f e r s to "those p r o p e r t y r i g h t s which inure to n a t i v e people (Indian and Eskimos) by v i r t u e of t h e i r occupation upon c e r t a i n lands 2 from time immemorial." Many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y are determined i n the courtroom. One can s a f e l y say that American and Canadian j u r i s p r u d e n c e on a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s developed along s i m i l a r l i n e s , with Canadian j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s f r e q u e n t l y r e f e r r i n g t o U.S. 3 d e c i s i o n s on t h i s s u b j e c t matter. The source of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s was d e f i n e d by U.S. Ch i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l , who a s s e r t e d that an a b o r i g i n a l c l a i m was a l e g a l l y r e cognized and e n f o r c e a b l e r i g h t to occupy those lands h e l d by Indians from time immemorial. In the landmark j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n 5 on a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l s t a t e d t h a t the U.S. f e d e r a l government had an o b l i g a t i o n to p r o t e c t Indian i n h a b i t a n t s of the U n i t e d S t a t e s " i n the p o s s e s s i o n of t h e i r 4 lands." Johnson v. Mcintosh and Worcester v. Georgia a f f i r m e d that t h i s h i s t o r i c a l o b l i g a t i o n of the f e d e r a l government went beyond that of a moral and l e g a l requirement, but was a l s o a p r a c t i c a l common law p r i n c i p l e based on f e d e r a l s o v e r e i g n t y : " i f the f e d e r a l government t r u l y has ' u l t i m a t e dominion' over a b o r i g i n a l lands, then others cannot invade those lands without 5 t h r e a t e n i n g the government's u l t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y . " Canadian j u r i s p r u d e n c e has embraced C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e . ^ As Douglas Sanders p o i n t s out, M a r s h a l l ' s views were c i t e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n Canada's f i r s t higher c o u r t d e c i s i o n c o n s i d e r i n g a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , the S t . Catharine's M i l l i n g Co. case of 1887. In r e v i e w i n g that d e c i s i o n i n 1964, Mr. J u s t i c e N o r r i s concluded i n Regina v. White and Bob that "the judgment of the l e a r n e d c h i e f j u s t i c e [ M a r s h a l l ] i s e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t with the o p i n i o n of the P r i v y C o u n c i l i n St. 7 Catherines M i l l i n g ..." Furthermore, Canada's landmark d e c i s i o n on a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , the 1973 C a l d e r case, i n o u t l i n i n g the e x i s t e n c e of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n Canadian law, e x p l i c i t l y adopted g the M a r s h a l l d o c t r i n e of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e . The judges on the Calder case s p l i t 3-3-1 on whether a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e s t i l l e x i s t e d in the Nass V a l l e y , but a l l s i x judges agreed on the e x i s t e n c e of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e . Mr. J u s t i c e Judson, alt h o u g h r u l i n g a g a i n s t the Nisga'a Indians, e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e s the e x i s t e n c e of 6 a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n B r i t i s h Columbia: the f a c t i s that when the s e t t l e r s came, the Indians were t h e r e , o r g a n i z e d i n s o c i e t i e s and occupying the land as t h e i r f o r e f a t h e r s had done f o r c e n t u r i e s . T h i s i s what Indian t i t l e means ... One can conclude, then, that both c o u n t r i e s show convergence i n t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of the d o c t r i n e of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e — a l e g a l and moral r i g h t to land based on common law p r i n c i p l e s . T h i s i s where c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and j u d i c i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s end, however: Canadian and American a u t h o r i t y over a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i s d i v e r g e n t , and t h i s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d in the t h i r d s e c t i o n . Once a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r a c e r t a i n a r e a , what happens next? The answer i s that e i t h e r the Indians a s s e r t and r e t a i n t h e i r t i t l e to that land, or the s t a t e e x t i n g u i s h e s that r i g h t . Black's Law D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s " e x t i n g u i s h " as "to put an end t o ; " extinguishment as "the d e s t r u c t i o n or c a n c e l l a t i o n of a r i g h t , power, c o n t r a c t , or e s t a t e . " 1 ^ Thus, i f the s t a t e e x t i n g u i s h e s a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , i t puts to an end the Indian r i g h t to that land, thereby assuming t h a t r i g h t to the s t a t e . N e i l Mickenberg notes that the U.S. government's a b i l i t y to e x t i n g u i s h Indian t i t l e "has never been doubted or d e n i e d . " 1 1 In Canada, the S t . C a t h a r i n e ' s M i l l i n g case e s t a b l i s h e d the r i g h t of the Crown to e x t i n g u i s h a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e — "a 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 , dependent upon the good w i l l of the 1 2 S overeign." Extinguishment may occur by O p u r c h a s e or t r e a t y , 1 3 2) conquest, or 3 ) l e g i s l a t i o n . In Alaska the l a n d t i t l e was e x t i n g u i s h e d by purchase and l e g i s l a t i o n , and i n B.C. there i s 7 d i s p u t e over whether or not the a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e has been e x t i n g u i s h e d . The A l a s k a N a t i v e Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) granted u n r e s t r i c t e d a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e to 40 m i l l i o n a c r e s of f e d e r a l p u b l i c domain, with the r e s t of the a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e e x t i n g u i s h e d and purchased at a c o s t of $962 M i l l i o n . In B.C., other than the t r e a t i e s t h a t Governor Douglas n e g o t i a t e d on b e h a l f of the Hudson's Bay Company, the Crown has not e x p r e s s l y purchased the 1 4 lands from the Indians, with the e x c e p t i o n of T r e a t y No. 8. There i s a l s o no e x p l i c i t l e g i s l a t i o n e x t i n g u i s h i n g a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n B.C. The P r o v i n c e ' s p o s i t i o n on the 19 n a t i v e land claims c u r r e n t l y under q u e s t i o n i s that "there are no 1 5 unextinguished a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia," based on the argument that " C o l o n i a l Acts and Ordinances as w e l l as ... a c t i o n s of the government t h e r e a f t e r " i m p l i c i t l y e x t i n g u i s h e d a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n B.C. 1^ A l l 19 a b o r i g i n a l l a n d c l a i m a n t s argue that a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e remains because there i s no B.C. l e g i s l a t i o n e x t i n g u i s h i n g a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n the P r o v i n c e . T h i s l e g a l q u e s t i o n w i l l presumably be p a r t i a l l y answered by the c u r r e n t Gitksan-Wetsu'eten case on t r i a l i n the B.C. Supreme Court. The events l e a d i n g to the ANCSA were as f o l l o w s . Although the U.S. Organic Act of 1884 p r o v i d e d that Congress would q u i c k l y l e g i s l a t e terms f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n A l a s k a , land c l a i m s n e g o t i a t i o n s with the Alaskan n a t i v e peoples d i d not reach the p o l i t i c a l agenda of the F e d e r a l Government u n t i l the 8 1960's. A f t e r the Alaska Statehood Act was passed i n 1958, the Alaskan l e g i s l a t u r e c r e a t e d a Department of N a t u r a l Resources. T h i s department's D i v i s i o n of Lands determined the s t a t e ' s l a n d s e l e c t i o n program, and began to choose, manage and d i s p o s e of v a r i o u s t r a c t s of Alaska's 102 m i l l i o n a c r e s . By 1961, when four n a t i v e v i l l a g e s f i r s t f i l e d land c l a i m s t o t a l l i n g 5.8 m i l l i o n a c r e s , the D i v i s i o n of Lands had a l r e a d y f i l e d p a t ents to 1.7 1 7 m i l l i o n a c r e s of that land. The land patented by the s t a t e was used f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of roads and dams, as w e l l as f o r the e x p l o r a t i o n of o i l . In 1966, two years p r i o r to the d i s c o v e r y of o i l in Prudhoe Bay, the Sec r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r e x e r c i s e d h i s f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t y to h a l t a l l d i s p o s a l of p u b l i c lands i n Al a s k a to which n a t i v e s claimed a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , u n t i l the U.S. Congress e s t a b l i s h e d a s t r u c t u r e for s e t t l e m e n t . N e g o t i a t i o n s between s t a t e and n a t i v e s began at t h i s time, with the Al a s k a Native Foundation f i l i n g 17 separate n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s . Two years l a t e r , 1968, an enormous o i l r e s e r v e was tapped i n Prudhoe Bay, and plans for a t r a n s - A l a s k a p i p e l i n e were announced w i t h i n months of o i l being s t r u c k . However, the S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r extended the land f r e e z e u n t i l a land c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t was reached, thereby h o l d i n g up the $2 B i l l i o n p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n . In December 1969 a new S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , Walter H i c k e l , was given permission by the House I n t e r i o r 1 8 Committee to " l i f t the fre e z e f o r the p i p e l i n e . " However, on A p r i l 1, 1970 a c o u r t i n j u n c t i o n barred the I n t e r i o r S e c r e t a r y from g r a n t i n g permits requested by o i l companies to b u i l d the 9 p i p e l i n e . F i n a l l y , i n l a t e 1971 an agreement between s t a t e and n a t i v e s was reached, and the Al a s k a N a t i v e Claims Settlement Act was passed. The Comprehensive Land Claims p o l i c y of the Canadian government s t a t e s that the Comprehensive Claims Branch r e c e i v e s , reviews and anal y z e s a land c l a i m , and a f t e r t h i s examination recommends to the M i n i s t e r of Indian and Northern A f f a i r s whether that c l a i m i s accepted f o r n e g o t i a t i o n . The Government of Canada then proceeds with the n e g o t i a t i o n of the land c l a i m s u b j e c t to 1 9 p r o v i n c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the n e g o t i a t i o n s . Because the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia does not p a r t i c i p a t e i n such n e g o t i a t i o n s , based on t h e i r r e j e c t i o n of unextinguished a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n B.C., the 19 o u t s t a n d i n g B.C. land c l a i m s do 20 . . not proceed. U n l i k e the u n l i m i t e d number of c l a i m s that may be accepted f o r n e g o t i a t i o n by the U.S. Congress, the Canadian f e d e r a l government l i m i t s the number of n e g o t i a t i o n s that may proceed at one time to s i x , and only one c l a i m can be n e g o t i a t e d 21 at a time i n each P r o v i n c e . I t i s expected that the major land c l a i m s t r i a l i n B r i t i s h Columbia, concerning the G i t k s a n Wetsu'weten c l a i m to 20,000 square m i l e s i n northwestern B.C., w i l l not be decided f o r another two y e a r s . The f i n a l j u d i c i a l outcome might be delayed f o r many more years, s i n c e the B.C. Supreme Court d e c i s i o n c o u l d be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. With the c u r r e n t Comprehensive Claims P o l i c y i n e f f e c t , a b s o l u t e l y no progress can be made i n n e g o t i a t i n g land c l a i m s d i s p u t e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia 10 • u n t i l the f i r s t c l a i m accepted f o r n e g o t i a t i o n , the Nisga'a c l a i m , i s s e t t l e d . Thus, even i f the G i t k s a n Wetsu'weten win t h e i r case i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n the e a r l y 1990's, and then win an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court years l a t e r , the mounting number of land c l a i m s (19 and r i s i n g ) w i l l not see s e t t l e m e n t f o r many more years to come due to the one-at-a-time Comprehensive Claims P o l i c y . I t would f o l l o w that some Canadian a b o r i g i n a l peoples w i l l not l i v e to see the r e s o l u t i o n of t h e i r peoples' land c l a i m . 1 1 II INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: 1. P u b l i c Opinion E x p l a n a t i o n ; Andrew S h o n f i e l d suggests that we are "much more f i r m l y the 22 p r i s o n e r s of our n a t i o n a l h i s t o r i e s than we imagine." P o l i c y thus may be u l t i m a t e l y determined by the past, and those a t t i t u d e s which have p r e v a i l e d over time. On the one hand, the divergence i n n a t i v e la n d c l a i m s p o l i c y i n Alaska and B r i t i s h Columbia c o n t r a d i c t s the premise that the Canadian p o l i t i c a l c u l t u r e i s more a c c e p t i n g of government i n t e r v e n t i o n than i s the 23 s u s p i c i o u s American c u l t u r e . However, t h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n may be e x p l a i n e d by B.A. Keon-Cohen's suggestion that the p r o s p e c t s of a c h i e v i n g j u s t i c e v i a an "Anglo" system decreases as 24 a t t i t u d m a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c r e a s e . With such a theory i n mind, Anthony King argues that whereas in Canada, among other c o u n t r i e s , "governments do t h i n g s whether or not they are demanded, in the US governments act o n l y on demand ... i n other words, p u b l i c o p i n i o n may p l a y a more important part in American 25 p o l i t i c a l l i f e than elsewhere." I t i s the b e l i e f s and assumptions of American people that guides American p o l i c y , 2 6 argues King. Thus, one would expect American p u b l i c o p i n i o n to be more sympathetic to a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s than Canadian p u b l i c opin i o n . Indeed, i f there e x i s t e d i n a n a t i o n an a t t i t u d e t hat would accept or even embrace a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s to land, then one would expect there to be the settlement of a la n d c l a i m . What are American and Canadian a t t i t u d e s towards a b o r i g i n a l peoples? If 1 2 the American n a t i o n viewed the n a t i v e c u l t u r e as a l e g i t i m a t e l e n s through which to view t h e i r country, and a b o r i g i n a l i s m was not a l e g i t i m a t e element of the Canadian mosaic, then one would expect divergence i n p o l i c y . The measures f o r P u b l i c O p inion v a r i a b l e used i n t h i s study w i l l not be geared towards r e c o g n i z i n g the p l e t h o r a of m u l t i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y statements, the myriad of programs aimed at enhancing the d i v e r s i t y of a n a t i o n ' s c u l t u r e , or other h i g h l y p u b l i c i z e d aspects of p o l i c y p r o c e s s . C e n t r a l to the a t t i t u d e s of a p o p u l a t i o n are the symbols of a n a t i o n , not the l e g i s l a t i o n of those symbols. As Murray Edelman suggests, the p u b l i c can be 27 "ambivalent and anxious f o r reassurance," and the dramatic and p u b l i c i z e d f e a t u r e s of the p o l i t i c a l process do convey a reassurance to the p u b l i c that t h e i r c u l t u r e i s being p r o t e c t e d or enhanced. Raymond Breton argues that embedded i n the s t a t e are symbols of i d e n t i t y : " i n d i v i d u a l s ... expect to r e c o g n i z e themselves i n the values and meanings i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the c u l t u r e 2 8 of p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s . " Edelman and Breton's t h e o r i e s would p r e d i c t t hat a b o r i g i n a l symbols in America would be p o s i t i v e and i n Canada would be n e g a t i v e , and such an outcome would help e x p l a i n d i v e r g e n c e . Taken together, then, the measures f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e w i l l be 1) p u b l i c o p i n i o n about the image of Indians ( p o s i t i v e , n e u t r a l or n e g a t i v e ) , and 2) the l e v e l of t o l e r a n c e and a p p r o v a l of p r o - a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y (demanding or ambivalent about the p o l i c y outcome). Both measures w i l l i n v o l v e s p e c u l a t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n s 13 and p u b l i c o p i n i o n r e s e a r c h . I f the f i r s t measure e x p l a i n s divergence, one would expect images a s s o c i a t e d with n a t i v e s to be p o s i t i v e i n the U.S., and neg a t i v e i n Canada. The second measure may b e t t e r e x p l a i n the divergence, however. A symbol may be n e g a t i v e l y or p o s i t i v e l y viewed by p u b l i c o p i n i o n , but the degree of s t a t u s c o n f l i c t i n a s o c i e t y over that symbol i n d i c a t e s the acceptance or r e j e c t i o n of that image. Thus, although the Quebecois c u l t u r e may not be embraced by a l l anglophones i n Canada, the francophone image has been accepted as a l e g i t i m a t e symbol of Canada. I use the words " t o l e r a n c e or a p p r o v a l " as the measure of acceptance, because a p u b l i c ' s acceptance of a b o r i g i n a l i s m c o u l d be as much an expres s i o n of ambivalence, as a show of sympathy f o r a co u n t r y ' s indigenous peoples. I f the second measure e x p l a i n s the divergence i n p o l i c y , then one would expect p u b l i c demand f o r land c l a i m s e t t l e m e n t s i n the U.S., and e i t h e r the f e r v e n t r e j e c t i o n i n Canada of n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s or a p l a c i d ambivalence towards n a t i v e p o l i c y . 1 4 2. Environmental E x p l a n a t i o n : According to the environmental theory of p u b l i c p o l i c y , f o r c e s e x t e r n a l to the p o l i t i c a l process e x p l a i n d i v e r g e n c e i n p o l i c y between the U.S. and Canada. T h i s theory i s based on the argument that v a r i o u s e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s or p r o c e s s e s , such as demography or i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , i n e v i t a b l y produce a c o r e set of problems -- e.g., unemployment compensation, care f o r the e l d e r l y , and r e g u l a t i o n of hazardous t e c h n o l o g i e s -- t h a t every 29 nation has to address. C l a r k Kerr, among o t h e r s , argues that the pace of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and the source of c a p i t a l are 30 p a r t i c u l a r l y dependent upon the response of a given p o p u l a t i o n . Sheer numbers can determine what reaches the p o l i t i c a l agenda, and the importance a t t a c h e d to an issue on that agenda. For example, i f the s i z e and d i s t r i b u t i o n of the a b o r i g i n a l p o p u l a t i o n of a s t a t e or p r o v i n c e comes to dominate that s t a t e / p r o v i n c e , then one would expect a b o r i g i n a l i s s u e s to dominate the p o l i t i c a l agenda. The q u e s t i o n of concern i s whether the B.C. and A l a s k a n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n and demography f i g u r e s p r o v i d e an e x p l a n a t i o n for d i v e r g e n t p o l i c i e s i n A l a s k a and B.C. Do sheer numbers determine what reaches the p o l i t i c a l agenda and what importance i s attached to i s s u e s that do? For t h i s environmental p r o p o s i t i o n to l e a d to a divergence i n p o l i c y between the two c o u n t r i e s , one would expect ( 1 ) the percentage of n a t i v e s i n Alaska to be high, and the make-up of the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n i n B.C. to be s m a l l ; (2) a higher d e n s i t y of Alaskan n a t i v e s i n 1 5 A l a s k a , as compared to the d e n s i t y of n a t i v e s i n B.C. 3. P l u r a l i s t E x p l a n a t i o n : Those adopting the p l u r a l i s t argument take a p o l i t i c a l approach to e x p l a i n p o l i c y outcomes, which are seen as dependent upon the p r e f e r e n c e s of i n t e r e s t groups in s o c i e t y . A c c o r d i n g to t h i s group p o l i t i c s theory, "the behaviors that c o n s t i t u t e the process of government cannot be adequately understood apart from groups, e s p e c i a l l y the o r g a n i z e d and p o t e n t i a l i n t e r e s t groups, 31 which are o p e r a t i v e at any p o i n t i n time" (David Truman). The v a r i o u s i n t e r e s t groups in s o c i e t y become " p o l i t i c i z e d on a 3 2 c o n t i n u i n g or i n t e r m i t t e n t b a s i s . " Thus, p u b l i c p o l i c y i s a game of winners and l o s e r s , with no systematic b i a s i n power over a number of p o l i c y a r e a s . In the end, Truman argues, "governmental d e c i s i o n s are the r e s u l t a n t of e f f e c t i v e access by 3 3 v a r i o u s i n t e r e s t s . " The t h r e e measures f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e w i l l be ( i ) the number of p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t i n g the native groups, ( i i ) the l e v e l of f i n a n c i a l r esources for these groups, and ( i i i ) the nature of t h e i r c o o r d i n a t i o n . According to the p l u r a l i s t argument, i f a l l three measures were s u b s t a n t i a l , then one would expect there to be a l a n d c l a i m s settlement i n favour of those a c t o r s . But what o r g a n i z a t i o n s play t h i s p l u r a l i s t i c game? In the arena of n a t i v e p o l i t i c s i n A l a s k a , the i n t e r e s t groups came in the form of "Brotherhood"s, "Conferences" and " A s s o c i a t i o n s , " suggesting umbrella o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; however, they were a l l s p e c i f i c r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of d i s t i n c t regions and e t h n i c i t y . 1 6 T h i s r e g i o n a l and e t h n i c o r g a n i z a t i o n i n a b o r i g i n a l groups i s a l s o present i n B r i t i s h Columbia, where i t i s the t r i b a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s that are p r i n c i p a l l y f i n a n c e d and that best represent the a b o r i g i n a l i n t e r e s t . Non-native o r g a n i z a t i o n s must a l s o be taken i n t o account: what i n t e r e s t s , i f any, j o i n e d i n the n a t i v e cause in Alaska? Do such i n t e r e s t s e x i s t i n B.C.? Because there are no a n t i - n a t i v e or a n t i - l a n d c l a i m groups, whose sole f u n c t i o n i s to c o n t e s t n a t i v e demands, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to measure n a t i v e groups o f f a g a i n s t t h e i r opponents. In B.C., for i n s t a n c e , the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y has always opposed n a t i v e land c l a i m settlements ( f o r reasons to be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r ) . To compare the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y ' s massive res o u r c e s to n a t i v e groups' would be m i s l e a d i n g because the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y concerns i t s e l f with l o g g i n g , and has no measurable r e s o u r c e s devoted to opposing land c l a i m s . I t i s the i n t e r e s t s of those groups opposing n a t i v e land claims that I am concerned with, and such i n t e r e s t s f a l l under s t a t i s t and marxist v a r i a b l e s . Thus, the opponents to land claims w i l l not be d e a l t with at the l e v e l of p l u r a l i s m , but at an i n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t r u c t u r a l l e v e l . For the measurement of the p l u r a l i s t v a r i a b l e , then, the n a t i v e groups of A l a s k a and B.C. w i l l be compared. Thus, i f p l u r a l i s m can e x p l a i n the d i v e r g e n c e i n p o l i c y , then one would expect Alaskan n a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s with g r e a t e r s i z e , f i n a n c i n g and c o o r d i n a t i o n than t h e i r B.C. c o u n t e r p a r t s . If the p l u r a l i s t v a r i a b l e i s paramount, then i t i s the p o l i t i c a l c a p a c i t y of Alaskan and B.C. n a t i v e s that e x p l a i n s why there was 1 7 settlement i n A l a s k a , and why there has been no s e t t l e m e n t i n B.C. 4. S t a t i s t E x p l a n a t i o n : The s t a t i s t approach sees i n s t i t u t i o n s of law and bureaucracy, and the i n t e r e s t s of governmental a c t o r s , as occupying the dominant r o l e in policy-making. Because economic and s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s have become " l a r g e r , and more complex and r e s o u r c e f u l , " i n s t i t u t i o n s are "prima f a c i e more important to c o l l e c t i v e l i f e " (David March and Johan O l s e n ) . ^ 4 Thus, i f the s t a t e and i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s recognized the a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t to l a n d , then one would expect the settlement of a b o r i g i n a l l a n d c l a i m s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i f the a b o r i g i n a l people h o l d some inherent r i g h t s to l a n d that was recognized by the s t a t e , then one would expect l a n d c l a i m s to be s e t t l e d . Secondly, i f the s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s were more f a c i l i t a t i n g i n the U.S. than i n Canada with regards to procedures for s e t t l i n g l a n d c l a i m s , then one would expect d i v e r g e n c e in p o l i c y . The f i r s t p r o p o s i t i o n produces a yes or no answer, although the c l a r i f i c a t i o n and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these c o n s t i t u t i o n a l powers, or lack t h e r e o f , i s an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n . To measure the second p r o p o s i t i o n I w i l l examine the time between the acceptance of the n a t i v e land c l a i m f o r n e g o t i a t i o n , and the settlement or formal d e n i a l of the c l a i m . But most i m p o r t a n t l y I w i l l o u t l i n e and c o n t r a s t the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g a l b a s i s f o r s t a t e a c t i o n in a b o r i g i n a l land c l a i m s p o l i c y -- Canadian and 18 A m e r i c a n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y o v e r n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s . I n t e r t w i n e d w i t h t h e r o l e o f i n s t i t u t i o n s i s t h e r o l e o f g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t o r s , who M a r c h a n d O l s o n s e e a s o c c u p y i n g a 35 d o m i n a n t r o l e i n c o n t e m p o r a r y l i f e . T h u s , o n e w o u l d e x p e c t t h a t t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f a l a n d c l a i m i n A l a s k a was i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t o r s . C o n v e r s e l y , o n e w o u l d e x p e c t a g e n e r a l r e j e c t i o n o f l a n d c l a i m s e t t l e m e n t s f r o m C a n a d i a n g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t o r s b e c a u s e s e t t l e m e n t was n o t i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t . I f s t a t i s m e x p l a i n s t h e d i v e r g e n c e o f p o l i c y , t h e n , one w o u l d e x p e c t g r e a t e r f a c i l i t a t i o n i n t h e U . S . t h a n i n C a n a d a w i t h r e g a r d s t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f l a n d c l a i m s ; e x p l i c i t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n t h e U . S . , a n d a n a b s e n c e o f s u c h r i g h t s i n C a n a d a . F u r t h e r m o r e , one w o u l d e x p e c t t h e p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d A l a s k a t o f a v o u r l a n d c l a i m s i n A l a s k a , a n d t h e r e l e v a n t l e a d e r s i n B . C . a n d C a n a d a t o r e j e c t o r s t i f l e p r o g r e s s i n s e t t l i n g c l a i m s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . W i t h t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e p u b l i c o p i n i o n v a r i a b l e i n m i n d , t h e s t a t i s t v a r i a b l e mus t e s t a b l i s h t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e o f i n t e r e s t s o f g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t o r s f r o m s o c i e t a l i n t e r e s t s . I f p o l i t i c i a n s i n A l a s k a a n d W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . r e s p o n d e d t o a p u b l i c demand f o r t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f l a n d c l a i m s , t h e n t h e s t a t i s t v a r i a b l e l o s e s i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e . H o w e v e r , i f g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t o r s a c t i n t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s , i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f s o c i e t a l d e m a n d s , t h e n t h e s t a t i s t v a r i a b l e i n c r e a s e s i n i m p o r t a n c e . T h e s t a t i s t e x p l a n a t i o n i s b a s e d on t h e i d e a t h a t " t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l l i f e makes 3 6 a d i f f e r e n c e . " T h u s , one w o u l d e x p e c t g o v e r n m e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s 1 9 and a c t o r s to provide an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the divergence i n p o l i c i e s between the two c o u n t r i e s . 4. M a r x i s t E x p l a n a t i o n ; Expanding on the s t r u c t u r a l M a r x i s t argument, Fred Block. argues that there e x i s t s a tendency f o r s t a t e agencies to " o r i e n t t h e i r programs toward the goal of f a c i l i t a t i n g and encouraging of p r i v a t e investment," thereby i n c r e a s i n g the chances of p o l i c y 37 being i n the g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t of c a p i t a l . Those who run the s t a t e agencies are dependent upon the maintenance of some 3 8 "reasonable l e v e l of economic a c t i v i t y . " Leo P a n i t c h goes on to say that the l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n c r e a t e s a " c o n f r a t e r n i t y of power," i n which the n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t and business i n t e r e s t s are at one, e n s u r i n g the smooth f u n c t i o n i n g of the r e l a t i o n s h i p 39 between s t a t e and c a p i t a l i s t c l a s s . Thus, a c c o r d i n g to the s t r u c t u r a l M a r x i s t argument, the f o l l o w i n g would be t r u e : i f business i n t e r e s t s b e n e f i t t e d from the settlement of a l a n d c l a i m , then one would expect there to be s e t t l e m e n t . The q u e s t i o n , then, i s whether Alaskan b u s i n e s s b e n e f i t t e d from a s e t t l e m e n t , whereas B.C. business c u r r e n t l y b e n e f i t s from the s t a t u s quo. If such a s c e n a r i o i s t r u e , why d i d each i n d u s t r y i n t e r p r e t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s d i f f e r e n t l y ? S p e c i f i c a l l y , why does the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y r e j e c t land c l a i m s i n B.C.? D i d the o i l companies recognize that a settlement i n A l a s k a was necessary to maintain reasonable economic a c t i v i t y i n that s t a t e ? The measures w i l l be as f o l l o w s : 1 ) whether the major 20 resource i n d u s t r y i n A l a s k a and B.C. supported or opposed settlement of n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s ; 2) whether i t was i n the c a p i t a l i n t e r e s t of the s t a t e / p r o v i n c e to s e t t l e , or to maintain the s t a t u s quo by r e j e c t i n g l a n d c l a i m s ; 3) whether settlement i n Alaska and B.C. would promote or t h r e a t e n "business c o n f i d e n c e " ( B l o c k ) * ^ i n that s t a t e / p r o v i n c e . I f the M a r x i s t v a r i a b l e decided the p o l i c y outcome, one would expect that settlement of land c l a i m s was supported by Alaskan i n d u s t r y and r e j e c t e d by B.C. i n d u s t r y ; that settlement was i n the business i n t e r e s t i n Alas k a , but was not i n B.C.; and, that settlement would preserve business c o n f i d e n c e and f a c i l i t a t e the c l i m a t e of investment i n Alas k a , but spark c o n f u s i o n and d i s t r e s s f o r business c o n f i d e n c e in B.C. Under the s t r u c t u r a l M a r x i s t argument, then, one would expect the land c l a i m to be i n the c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t in Ala s k a , and not i n the c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t i n B.C. Block argues that business c o n f i d e n c e i s r o o t e d i n the narrow s e l f - i n t e r e s t of the i n d i v i d u a l c a p i t a l i s t seeking p r o f i t . As a r e s u l t , the f a c i l i t a t i o n of bu s i n e s s c o n f i d e n c e o f t e n p l a c e s c o n s t r a i n t s on 41 s t a t e p o l i c i e s . In other words, the s t a t e ' s concern f o r other i n t e r e s t s -- for example, p o l i t i c a l investments, popular o p i n i o n , human r i g h t s , or n a t i v e i n t e r e s t s -- would be compromised f o r gr e a t e r c a p i t a l i s t b e n e f i t s . T h e r e f o r e , one would expect the f u l f i l l m e n t of business i n t e r e s t s through the r e j e c t i o n of lan d c l a i m s i n B.C., and the settlement of land c l a i m s i n A l a s k a . 21 Why was there settlement i n A l a s k a , yet no s e t t l e m e n t i n B.C.? What v a r i a b l e or combonation of v a r i a b l e s best e x p l a i n s divergence i n n a t i v e land c l a i m s p o l i c y i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and Canada? Each independent v a r i a b l e s t a t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s r e p r e s e n t s a d i f f e r e n t l e n s through which p u b l i c o p i n i o n , p o l i t i c a l and j u d i c i a l a c t o r s , and i n d u s t r i a l l e a d e r s view the land c l a i m s p o l i c y of t h e i r p r o v i n c e / s t a t e or c o u n t r y . The measures from each of these v a r i a b l e s o f f e r s to the reader an i s o l a t e d look at why there was d i v e r g i n g p o l i c y outcomes. With the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the f i n d i n g s , then, one can i n c r e m e n t a l l y p i e c e together an answer to the q u e s t i o n s posed, and, f i n a l l y , c o n c l u s i o n s may be drawn. 22 I l l THE FINDINGS 1. P u b l i c Opinion V a r i a b l e The f i n d i n g s f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e suggest that non-native Americans' and Canadians' a t t i t u d e s towards n a t i v e s i s dominated by the s t a t u s that North American Indians h o l d i n two a r e a s : 1) h i s t o r i c a l l y , as an oppressed people l i v i n g i n an i n d u s t r i a l i z e d world; a m i n o r i t y misunderstood by whites to be "at the end of the t r a i l ; " 2) s y m b o l i c a l l y , as a s t e r e o t y p e d group unable to shake the Indian "image" of poverty, drunkenness, and l a z i n e s s . Behind these unfortunate a t t i t u d e s h e l d by non-natives l i e s widespread ambivalence and ignorance. H i s t o r i c a l l y , Canadians have always been p r e d i c t i n g the demise of t h e i r indigenous people. Diamond Jenness, whose s t u d i e s f o r a long time were c o n s i d e r e d to be the d e f i n i t i v e works on Indians i n Canada, concluded i n h i s 1934 volume that 42 "doubtless a l l t r i b e s w i l l d i s a p p e a r . " Abhorrent s o c i o -economic c o n d i t i o n s of the Indian f u e l t h i s n o t i o n , and t h e i r 43 e f f e c t s are h i g h l y v i s i b l e to the p u b l i c . As a r e s u l t , V i c t o r V a l e n t i n e argues, the a b o r i g i n a l peoples "have become i s o l a t e d 44 from the mainstream of Canadian s o c i a l and economic l i f e . " T h i s r e a l i t y i s not unknown to the Canadian p u b l i c . John Berry concluded from h i s 1981 study that Canadians view a b o r i g i n a l peoples as h o l d i n g a "dependent p o s i t i o n that i s 45 l a r g e l y o u t s i d e the framework of the l a r g e r s o c i e t y . " Berry, Rudolf K a l i n and Donald T a y l o r found i n t h e i r 1974 study of M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m f o r the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e that d e s p i t e the 23 p u b l i c consciousness of an indigenous presence, a b o r i g i n a l peoples "are c l e a r l y r e l e g a t e d to the bottom of the e t h n i c 46 h i e r a r c h y . " T h e r e f o r e , Canadians view Indians as a sad m i n o r i t y r a v i s h e d by the poverty and h i s t o r i c a l s u b j u g a t i o n that a modern i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y hands to a people dependent on the Canadian s t a t e . Non-native Americans a l s o b e l i e v e that there e x i s t s an Indian "problem" in t h e i r c o untry, although the U.S. has h i s t o r i c a l l y h e l d a more s e n s a t i o n a l i s t p i c t u r e of the n a t i v e Indian; that v a n i s h i n g race. By the 1820's the image of the American n a t i v e was "thoroughly s t e r e o t y p e d , " and there emerged the " n e a r - u n i v e r s a l f e e l i n g that the e x t i n c t i o n of the Indian was suddenly impending." 4 7 T h i s widespread f a t a l i s m about the Indian's f u t u r e has b a r e l y f a l t e r e d , and f o r over one hundred and f i f t y years d i s t i n g u i s h e d Americans have gone on r e c o r d s t a t i n g t h a t , although the d e c l i n e of the Indian was " u n f o r t u n a t e , ... 48 the Indians' demise was i n e v i t a b l e . " Hazel Hertzberg o f f e r s a t h o u g h t f u l account of Indians' American i d e n t i t y : "To most Americans, Indians belonged to a c o l o r f u l and r a p i d l y r e c e d i n g past, i n t e r e s t i n g to r e c a l l but l a r g e l y i r r e l e v a n t to modern 49 l i f e . " Thus, with non-native people i n both Canada and the U.S. viewing t h e i r n a t i v e Indians as an e c l i p s e d m i n o r i t y , r e p l e t e with the s c a r s of f a t a l i s m and of o p p r e s s i o n , the indigenous p o p u l a t i o n s of those c o u n t r i e s share s i m i l a r s t a t u s from an h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . As to a b o r i g i n a l s ' symbolic s t a t u s and image, there i s both 24 s p e c u l a t i v e and e m p i r i c a l evidence to c o n f i r m what we a l r e a d y know: the non-native a t t i t u d e towards Indians i s a t best ignorant, at worst a p p a l l i n g l y n e g a t i v e . Such an image appears to take two forms: the r o m a n t i c i z e d f o l k image of the conquered, yet proud I n d i a n ; and the impoverished n a t i v e of urban sidewalks, h o l d i n g no job, no money, and no sense of what i t takes to be a r e s p e c t a b l e m i d d l e - c l a s s c i t i z e n . 50 Nineteenth century images of American Indians produced the unwavering tendency f o r people h o l d i n g crude ideas about n a t i v e s to encapsulate the Indian i n an image, and only an image. Hazel Hertzberg v o i c e s the e x a s p e r a t i o n that Indians experience i n t r y i n g to shake the "image" image: " I t i s ... dehumanizing c o n s t a n t l y to be t r e a t e d as an image rather than as a person, 'to have to p l a y Indian i n order to be Indian,' i n Arthur Parker's 51 poignant phrase." Thus, i f the Indian d i d not a c t the romantic "image," h i s c u l t u r e was somehow i n v a l i d a t e d , and h i s race became a dying one. Amazingly enough, t h i s "image of the Indian ... has s u r v i v e d v i r t u a l l y i n t a c t to the present, making i t one of the 52 h a r d i e s t s t e r e o t y p e s i n American h i s t o r y . " In Canada too there e x i s t s t h i s image of the n a t i v e as an anachronism c l i n g i n g to h i s 53 t a i l - f e a t h e r s and peace-pipe. One does not have to look hard to f i n d i n Canadian the p a t r o n i z i n g p u b l i c r i t u a l s that attempt 54 to c e l e b r a t e the more romantic f o l k l o r e of a b o r l g i n a l i s m . Past and present r e s e a r c h suggests that the romantic f o l k image of a b o r i g i n a l s a c t s i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y with a harsher, d i r t i e r p i c t u r e of an impoverished people who cannot seem to escape the 25 welfare generations that they are borne i n t o . George Simpson and J.M. Yinger summarize the exhaustive i n f o r m a t i o n e x p l a i n i n g the p r e j u d i c i a l consequences of c u l t u r a l c o n t a c t between whites and Indians: "As the white man came i n t o c o n t a c t with the I n d i a n s , he u s u a l l y t r e a t e d them with harshness and p r e j u d i c e . He looked upon the n a t i v e c u l t u r e s as i n f e r i o r and demanded e i t h e r r a p i d 55 a s s i m i l a t i o n or s e g r e g a t i o n . " Moreover, the negative impressions which permeate the symbols surrounding the F i r s t People do nothing to water down the image of the "whisky I n d i a n , " and a l l that that e n t a i l s . Indeed, the contemporary n e g a t i v e image of North American Indians i s very much a product of urban stereotypes -- inner c i t y decay i n f e c t s a c o l l e c t i o n of v i s i b l e urban Indians, g i v i n g way to what Hugh Brody c a l l s "non-middle c l a s s h a b i t s and a t t i t u d e s : r e l a t i v e u n c l e a n l i n e s s , l a c k of r e l i a b i l i t y i n work, drunkenness, and v i o l e n c e . Rick Ponting and Roger G i b b i n s ' e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h on Canadians' p e r c e p t i o n s of Indian peoples are the most widely used and respected s t u d i e s on t h i s t o p i c i n Canadian p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e . A 1980 study by Ponting and G i b b i n s concludes that " p e j o r a t i v e s t e r e o t y p i n g of Indians was not uncommon 57 ( p a r t i c u l a r l y in the P r a i r i e p r o v i n c e s ) . " "In t h i s sense Indians are seen as l a z y , l a c k i n g i n m o t i v a t i o n , f a c t i o n a l i z e d , o v e r l y dependent upon government handouts, and f a c i n g s e r i o u s C O problems with the use of a l c o h o l . " James F r i d e r e s , a Canadian Indian who grew up on a r e s e r v e , goes f u r t h e r than Ponting and G i b b i n s ' e m p i r i c a l study suggests when he concludes t h a t 26 whether b l a t a n t l y or c o v e r t l y , most Canadians s t i l l b e l i e v e that N a t i v e s are b i o l o g i c a l l y and s o c i a l l y i n f e r i o r ; as a r e s u l t , these people b e l i e v e that there i s a sound r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t N a t i v e s ^ a t both the i n d i v i d u a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e v e l . While F r i d e r e s cannot produce a p u b l i c o p i n i o n survey to c o n f i r m h i s statements, i t i s true that b l a t a n t p r e j u d i c e and r a c i s m r a r e l y m a n i f e s t s i t s e l f through e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h because i t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t to get persons to admit to a s t r a n g e r that they h o l d unsavory o p i n i o n s about a subjugated m i n o r i t y . ^ What l i e s behind these negative a t t i t u d e s toward a b o r i g i n a l people? The simple answer i s that ambivalence, apathy, and ignorance shape American and Canadian a t t i t u d e s towards Indian peoples. T h i s answer e x p l a i n s the lack of profound thought found in the populace, and the lac k of s c h o l a r l y work done at an e l i t e l e v e l . C o n s i s t e n c y , understanding, and concern with regards to n a t i v e peoples and n a t i v e i s s u e s do not c h a r a c t e r i z e Canadian or American p u b l i c o p i n i o n . Indeed, ambivalence i s both the cause and the e f f e c t of the a b o r i g i n a l peoples' lowly s t a n d i n g i n the symbolic order of these two n a t i o n s . A prime example of such ambivalence may be found i n the United S t a t e s r i g h t around the time that ANCSA was passed. In the e a r l y 1970's a group of Indians from South Dakota captured the media a t t e n t i o n of a n a t i o n with t h e i r s e i z u r e of the small town of Wounded Knee. With e x t e n s i v e news coverage on a d a i l y b a s i s , and "background r e p o r t s d r a m a t i z [ i n g ] the p l i g h t of Native Americans as the most d e p r i v e d and e x p l o i t e d e t h n i c group i n the United S t a t e s , " c o n d i t i o n s were i d e a l f o r studying the a t t i t u d e s 27 of o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s . Such a study was conducted by Robert P a n z a r e l l a and Ansley Lamar, who found that even r e v o l u t i o n a r y t a c t i c s c o u l d not wake Americans from t h e i r deep s l e e p over Natives and t h e i r s t a t u s as America's saddest m i n o r i t y . Even at the moment of g r e a t e s t n o t o r i e t y , the problems of Native Americans f a i l e d to impress both Black m i n o r i t y and White m a j o r i t y group members i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . They had only the s p a r s e s t n o t i o n s of the s p e c i f i c pg^blems a n o " demands of the N a t i v e Amer i c a n s . The only impressions that Americans do seem to p i c k up through t h e i r i n d i f f e r e n c e towards n a t i v e Indians are s t e r e o t y p i c a l ones, and a p a u c i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e on t h i s aspect of American p o l i t i c a l c u l t u r e . Indeed, the e d i t o r s of the only major U.S. s o c i o l o g i c a l work done on a b o r i g i n a l Americans d i s c o v e r e d that Despite popular s t e r e o t y p e s of the "drunken I n d i a n , " the "honest I n d i a n , " or "Indian g i v i n g " there i s a s e r i o u s lack of i n f o r m a t i o n about the e x t e n t to which Indian people have accepted and^conform to the v a l u e s and norms of American s o c i e t y . Other than h i s t o r i c a l and a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l works on American Indians, which almost always d e a l with Indians of the p a s t , there i s next to nothing done on American Indian people of the 64 contemporary e r a . American p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s do d i s c u s s Indian p o l i c y and i t s f a i l u r e s , but never i n v e s t i g a t e popular a t t i t u d e s . Furthermore, " s o c i o l o g i c a l l y speaking, the f i e l d of Indian-white r e l a t i o n s i s s t i l l a no-man's-land."^ P e r s o n a l l y , I have yet to f i n d an e m p i r i c a l study on American a t t i t u d e s towards a b o r i g i n a l peoples, other than the P a n z a r e l l a and Lamar study on r e a c t i o n s to Wounded K n e e . ^ A l l of which r e f l e c t s the 28 l a c k of profound thought on North American I n d i a n s , and the widespread ambivalence in American a t t i t u d e s towards a b o r i g i n a l peoples. At l e a s t i n Canada there e x i s t s some major r e s e a r c h done on the s c a r c i t y of a c c u r a t e information h e l d by Canadians with regards to t h e i r indigenous people. Canadians are ambivalent and uninformed about a b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e and i t s r a d i c a l l y misunderstood d i v e r s i t y . I t i s c l e a r from Ponting and G i b b i n s ' p u b l i c o p i n i o n s t u d i e s that a b o r i g i n a l i s s u e s are not given a high p r i o r i t y by most Canadians, nor i s the p u b l i c w e l l - i n f o r m e d 6 7 about Indian A f f a i r s : " l e v e l s of knowledge and awareness of 68 a b o r i g i n a l i s s u e s were found to be g e n e r a l l y low." On balance, the Canadian p u b l i c "appeared to be ... more c h a r a c t e r i z e d by 69 i n d i f f e r e n c e and moderation." K a t i e Cook, who reviewed contemporary Canadian research on t h i s t o p i c , concluded that "by and l a r g e ... the p u b l i c ' s image of Indians i s s t e r e o t y p e d and 70 unencumbered by any r e a l depth of f a c t u a l knowledge." Indeed, most Canadians do not even understand what the term " a b o r i g i n a l 7 1 people" means! Canada's p o l i c y f o r a b o r i g i n a l land c l a i m s may indeed be i n f l u e n c e d by p u b l i c o p i n i o n , as Breton, Edelman and S h o n f i e l d ' s t h e o r i e s would suggest. However, the p u b l i c o p i n i o n v a r i a b l e does not p r o v i d e an e x p l a n a t i o n for the d i v e r g e n t p o l i c i e s of Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . There i s n o t h i n g to suggest that Americans h o l d any higher o p i n i o n s of n a t i v e s or n a t i v e j u s t i c e than Canadians do. The non-native p o p u l a t i o n s of both c o u n t r i e s 29 p a i n t an a p p a l l i n g p i c t u r e of the indigenous people of t h e i r country, and both h o l d ambivalent and p e s s i m i s t i c a t t i t u d e s as to the a b o r i g i n a l peoples' past, present and f u t u r e . On the whole, non-native Canadians and Americans do not c a r e , do not understand, and do not t h i n k about a b o r i g i n a l people beyond the 72 preconceived images they a l r e a d y h o l d . Why then does the American Indian, d e s p i t e a l l the h a r d s h i p s and near decimation, s i t on the c u t t i n g edge of i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i c y and l e g a l developments concerning indigenous peoples? With ugly a t t i t u d e s about a b o r i g i n a l peoples h e l d by non-natives i n both n a t i o n s , there i s c l e a r l y some other e x p l a n a t i o n f o r d i v e r g e n c e i n p o l i c y to be found from the other independent v a r i a b l e s . 30 2. Environmental V a r i a b l e The f i n d i n g s f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e do not p r o v i d e a d e c i s i v e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r divergence in p o l i c y (Cf. Table l a - c ) . The environmental v a r i a b l e cannot completely e x p l a i n the outcome of a p o l i c y because the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n i n both A l a s k a and B.C. r e p r e s e n t s a f r a c t i o n of the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n , yet c l a i m s l a n d t i t l e to l a r g e t r a c t s of land. The s i z e of the m i n o r i t y i s not n e a r l y as important as how the m a j o r i t y views that m i n o r i t y . E x a c t l y how s m a l l or l a r g e a m i n o r i t y the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n i s e s t a b l i s h e s where each a b o r i g i n a l group s t a r t s from, but cannot e x p l a i n how each group f i n i s h e s . Notwithstanding the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s v a r i a b l e , the f o l l o w i n g i s c l e a r : i n the case of A l a s k a and B.C. n a t i v e s c l a i m i n g land t i t l e , the former had a b i g head s t a r t . The A l a s k a n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n was 51,528 one year p r e v i o u s to the settlement of ANCSA in 1971, which i s over 15 thousand l e s s 90 than the B.C. r e g i s t e r e d Indian p o p u l a t i o n i n 1986. T h i s p o p u l a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s d e s p i t e the l a r g e r s i z e of A l a s k a , which i s 1.6 times the s i z e of B.C. The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , however, i s i n the n a t i v e makeup of the r e s p e c t i v e p o p u l a t i o n s : 17% i n A l a s k a (1971) versus 2.1% in B.C. (1986). That the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n i s higher i n Alaska i s not s u r p r i s i n g : i n Canada's northern r e g i o n s , where cl a i m s s e t t l e m e n t s have been reached, the a b o r i g i n a l peoples make up a s i m i l a r makeup of the p o p u l a t i o n 16 % of the p o p u l a t i o n i n Yukon, and 17% i n the North West T e r r i t o r i e s . An Alaskan n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n which was seven times 31 the p r o p o r t i o n of B.C.'s does present an important e x p l a n a t i o n for d i v e r g e n c e . 17% i s l a r g e m i n o r i t y p o p u l a t i o n (Cf. Blacks in the U.S., who are 12% of the p o p u l a t i o n ) , g i v i n g the n a t i v e s a loud v o i c e and a b i g v o t e . On the other hand, the d e n s i t y of the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n ( a b o r i g i n a l peoples per square mile) i n B.C. i s n e a r l y twice that of A l a s k a . A l a r g e m a j o r i t y of A l a s k a a b o r i g i n a l people l i v e i n s m a l l , predominantly N a t i v e v i l l a g e s , most of which are i n the 91 northern and western r e g i o n s of the s t a t e (Cf. Map II and I I I ) . S i m i l a r l y , v i l l a g e s of B.C. Indians r e s i d i n g o u t s i d e the major urban c e n t r e s l i n e the c o a s t a l areas of the p r o v i n c e . Although u n l i k e the Alaska n a t i v e s , B r i t i s h Columbia a b o r i g i n a l peoples do not c l a i m t i t l e to the e n t i r e p r o v i n c e , the 19 comprehensive 92 c l a i m s do cover the g r e a t e r p a r t of B r i t i s h Columbia (Map I ) . There i s nothing to suggest that the d e n s i t y of the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n e x p l a i n s divergence i n p o l i c y between the two s t a t e / p r o v i n c e s ; indeed, the f i g u r e s c o n t r a d i c t such a p o l i c y outcome. These f i g u r e s are important because d e s p i t e the l a r g e m i n o r i t y of n a t i v e s i n A l a s k a , t h e i r numbers d i d not s u b s t a n t i a t e a l a n d c l a i m that b l a n k e t e d the e n t i r e area of A l a s k a . One should not l o s e s i g h t of the f a c t that a b o r i g i n a l people in Alaska made up l e s s than one f i f t h of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of the s t a t e , yet claimed l a n d t i t l e to f i v e f i f t h s of that s t a t e . In summary, t h i s n o n - p o l i t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n p r o v i d e s an important f a c t which begins to e x p l a i n d i v e r g e n c e : the d i f f e r e n c e i n n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n s as a percentage, with Alaska 32 n a t i v e s making up 17% of the s t a t e ' s p o p u l a t i o n to B.C.'s 2%, c l e a r l y g i v e s Alaska n a t i v e s a head s t a r t . However, the v a r i a b l e by i t s e l f has major l i m i t a t i o n s . I t i s i m p l a u s i b l e f o r n a t i v e s to ever t r u l y dominate a region i n terms of outnumbering the non-n a t i v e s . Moreover, although these numbers remained r e l a t i v e l y unchanged a f t e r Alaska became a s t a t e i n 1958, se t t l e m e n t d i d not occur u n t i l 1972. To be sure, the c r e a t i o n of the A l a s k a N a t i v e Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) d i d not occur because the p o l i t i c a l , j u d i c i a l , and i n d u s t r i a l a c t o r s i n Anchorage and Washington suddenly r e a l i z e d that t h e r e were a l o t of Indians i n A l a s k a . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s v a r i a b l e w i l l g ain p o l i t i c a l importance as other v a r i a b l e s are t e s t e d -- i . e . , these f a c t s p r o v i d e necessary background to the e v a l u a t i o n of more important v a r i a b l e s . But standing alone, the r e s u l t s of the environmental measures says very l i t t l e about why land c l a i m s were s e t t l e d in A l a s k a , but not s e t t l e d i n B.C. 33 3. P l u r a l i s t V a r i a b l e : As p o i n t e d out e a r l i e r , the i n t e r e s t groups l o b b y i n g f o r Alaskan n a t i v e i n t e r e s t s were named "Brotherhoods", and "Conferences" (e.g., Tanana C h i e f s Conference, Al e u t League, A r c t i c N a t i v e Brotherhood), yet p r i n c i p a l l y they were r e g i o n a l l y and e t h n i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e bodies. Unavoidably, n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s are f i l e d by r e g i o n , and Alask a was no exception (Cf. Map I I — I I I ) . In B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r the purposes of a comparative a n a l y s i s , the r e l e v a n t bodies at the i n t e r e s t group l e v e l were t r i b a l groups, such as the Nisga'a, Gitksan-Wetsu'wet'en, and Kitamaat T r i b a l C o u n c i l . A l i s t of these groups i s p r o v i d e d i n Table 2a-c. Before d i s c u s s i n g the measures f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e , the events l e a d i n g up to the p o l i t i c a l ascendancy of n a t i v e s i n Alaska and in B.C. need to be d i s c u s s e d . When c e r t a i n f o r c e s threatened the 93 s u b s i s t e n c e economy that most Alaskan n a t i v e s depended on, n a t i v e p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y gained momentum. That momentum was ai d e d by the c i v i l r i g h t s movement and the 1964 War on Poverty, which generated "an e x p l o s i o n of government programs in Alaska 94 which e f f e c t e d a l l N a t i v e communities." Furthermore, n a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e c e i v e d d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t a s s i s t a n c e from 95 churches, and c u l t u r a l and p h i l a n t h r o p i c i n s t i t u t i o n s . Community development programs, a p l e t h o r a of boards and agencies concerned with p o v e r t y , and the d e l e g a t i o n of some a u t h o r i t y from the Bureau of Indian A f f a i r s a l l r e s u l t e d i n a massive p o l i t i c a l upheaval: 34 The fear of l o s i n g t h e i r l a n d aroused the N a t i v e people and e v e n t u a l l y u n i t e d and r a d i c a l i z e d them. By 1968, even i n h a b i t a n t s of the most remote v i l l a g e s knew what was at stake. What happened inqthe v i l l a g e s i n A l a s k a in the 1960's was a r e v o l u t i o n . With the r i s i n g u n c e r t a i n t y c r e a t e d by the f i l i n g of l a n d c l a i m s by a b o r i g i n a l groups, the S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , Stewart L. U d a l l , d i s c o n t i n u e d the d i s p o s a l of p u b l i c lands i n Alaska u n t i l the U.S. Congress s t r u c t u r e d a s e t t l e m e n t with the A l a s k a n a t i v e s . While the i n t e r e s t of the S e c r e t a r y w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n a l a t e r s e c t i o n , h i s d e c i s i o n to impose a p a r t i a l 97 l a n d f r e e z e i n 1966, and a " s u p e r f r e e z e " i n 1968, was i n p a r t a r e s u l t of n a t i v e l o b b y i n g . Emil N o t t i , who would be the f i r s t p r e s i d e n t of the peak a s s o c i a t i o n f o r Alaska n a t i v e s (the A l a s k a F e d e r a t i o n of N a t i v e s ) , s a i d that h i s and other n a t i v e s ' e f f o r t s to lobby the Secretary of the I n t e r i o r were i n s t r u m e n t a l to 98 U d a l l ' s d e c i s i o n . Although t h i s l o b b y i n g e f f o r t may not have been the key f o r c e behind the l a n d f r e e z e , i t was an important step on the road to s e t t l e m e n t . In the same year as the i m p o s i t i o n of the l a n d f r e e z e , 1966, Alaska n a t i v e leaders j o i n e d f o r c e s to form the A l a s k a F e d e r a t i o n of N a t i v e s (AFN). Despite the r e g i o n a l c o n f l i c t s present among the v a r i o u s Alaska n a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s , a b o r i g i n a l l e a d e r s were aware of the growing number of l a n d c l a i m s e t t l e m e n t b i l l s b efore Congress; there thus e x i s t e d an imperative to form a u n i t e d 99 f r o n t . However, the formation of the AFN i n 1966 d i d not a u t o m a t i c a l l y b r i n g u n i t y and consensus to the A l a s k a lobby. The AFN's f i n a n c i a l s t a b i l i t y was " c o n t i n u a l l y s u b j e c t to c e n t r i f u g a l 35 p r e s s u r e s , " adding to a l i s t of d i v i s i v e f o r c e s . Indeed, David Baker observed that even a f t e r the c r e a t i o n of the AFN, " r e g i o n a l d i v i s i o n s c o n t i n u e d to co m p l i c a t e attempts to mount an e f f e c t i v e and u n i t e d N a tive movement." 1^ 1 Thus, the AFN was f o r c e d to become a " m u l t i - i s s u e p r e s s u r e group" i n order to ga i n the 1 02 funding necessary to make the land c l a i m s lobby. Through f e d e r a l c o n t r a c t s , l a r g e p r i v a t e donations, and grants from agencies o u t s i d e of the land c l a i m i n t e r e s t (e.g., O f f i c e of Economic O p p o r t u n i t y , and a H e a l t h R i t e grant) the AFN's funding 1 03 reached c l o s e to $ 1 M i l l i o n i n 1969. The e f f o r t s and accomplishments of the AFN were a l l part of the process that saw t h i r t e e n major land c l a i m s f i l e d by separate a s s o c i a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t i n g e t h n i c group and r e g i o n . (Table I I , Map 2). I n c l u d i n g o v e r l a p p i n g c l a i m s , the i n t e r e s t groups claim e d a l a n d 1 0 4 mass that exceeded the t o t a l area of Al a s k a . Even with the AFN's impressive funding, the ANCSA might not have t r a n s p i r e d without other f o r c e s working f o r s e t t l e m e n t . The p o l i t i c a l lobby that l e d to the ANCSA, i n f a c t , was not completely dependent on a u n i t e d , coherent f e d e r a t i o n of i n t e r e s t groups from A l a s k a , but was a i d e d by f o r c e s i n Washington and elsewhere. Indeed, the p l u r a l i s t i c b a t t l e was won in the H a l l s of Congress, with a smal l number of n a t i v e l e a d e r s , and v a r i o u s non-native p r e s s u r e groups, l o b b y i n g the key members of the Senate, Congress, and House of Re p r e s e n t a t i v e Committee on 105 I n t e r i o r A f f a i r s . I t was c r u c i a l that the AFN r e c e i v e d powerful l o b b y i n g support from l i b e r a l i n t e r e s t groupings l i k e 36 the United Auto Workers, and the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Churches. A.M. E r v i n a t t r i b u t e s the n a t i v e successes i n the non-native arena to "the p o l i t i c a l c a p a c i t y of the core members of the AFN in t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n of the c o m p l e x i t i e s of American 1 07 p o l i t i c s . " I U / An i l l u s t r a t i o n of the AFN's p o l i t i c a l muscle can be found in the events surrounding the nomination of the s u c c e s s o r to I n t e r i o r S e c r e t a r y Stewart U d a l l . Walter J . H i c k e l , who had been Governor of A l a s k a s i n c e 1967, became the one Cabinet nominee of Pr e s i d e n t Nixon's to be opposed by the Senate. H i c k e l had promised to " b r i n g i n d u s t r y i n t o the s t a t e " of A l a s k a , and had pursued that economic goal without c o n s i d e r a t i o n of c o n s e r v a t i o n or n a t i v e i n t e r e s t s . Thus, "the prospect of H i c k e l as head of 1 0 8 the I n t e r i o r Department c h i l l e d most n a t i v e s of A l a s k a , " and the H i c k e l nomination "became c o n t r o v e r s i a l a f t e r c o n s e r v a t i o n groups questioned h i s d e d i c a t i o n to environmental p r o t e c t i o n and . . . . . . . . 109 others c r i t i c i z e d h i s t i e s with o i l companies." Moreover, as Governor, H i c k e l had opposed S e c r e t a r y U d a l l ' s l a n d f r e e z e , saying that "What U d a l l can do by e x e c u t i v e o r d e r , I can undo." 1 1^ 1 On the second day of h i s c o n f i r m a t i o n h e a r i n g s , and a f t e r "more than three weeks of i n t e n s i v e p r e s s u r e from the N a t i v e s , " H i c k e l promised to r e t a i n the f r e e z e f o r two more years or u n t i l the c l a i m s were s e t t l e d . 1 1 1 With H i c k e l ' s nomination on the l i n e , the Alaska n a t i v e land c l a i m s became an i s s u e d u r i n g the H i c k e l c o n f i r m a t i o n h e a r i n g s . The Senate I n t e r i o r Committee, l i k e the AFN, "struck a bargain with the nominee: h i s r e t e n t i o n 37 of the f r e e z e became one of the c o n d i t i o n s of h i s 1 1 2 c o n f i r m a t i o n . " Although the power of the AFN was c l e a r l y f a c i l i t a t e d by the Committee and other i n t e r e s t s , the f a c t that the n a t i v e lobby group became a p i v o t a l a c t o r i n the c o n f i r m a t i o n of a Cabinet nomination demonstrates the impressive p o l i t i c a l c a p a c i t y of the A l a s k a n a t i v e s . To summarize, then, the Alaskan n a t i v e p o l i t i c a l c a p a c i t y produced 13 major lan d c l a i m s from 17 r e g i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s ; p r i v a t e and p u b l i c f i n a n c i n g of n e a r l y $ 1,000,000, with other non-land c l a i m s i n t e r e s t s i n mind; and, a s i n g l e a b o r i g i n a l p o l i t i c a l v o i c e that l o b b i e d s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r a l a n d c l a i m s e t t l e m e n t , d e s p i t e d i s u n i t y among i t s r e g i o n a l membership. Furthermore, the a b o r i g i n a l lobby gained i n s t r u m e n t a l support from non-native lobby groups. In the end, the n a t i v e s were s u c c e s s f u l i n Washington, both in g a i n i n g a v o i c e i n the c o n f i r m a t i o n of the S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , and i n j o i n i n g other f o r c e s to b r i n g about a settlement. 1 1 3 David Truman's d i s c u s s i o n of " t a n g e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s " , which both p o l i t i c i z e d and m o b i l i z e d groups, would apply not only to A l a s k a n a t i v e s , but to B r i t i s h Columbia Indians as w e l l . In the same decade as A l a s k a n a t i v e s ' p o l i t i c a l ascendancy, B r i t i s h Columbia n a t i v e s r a l l i e d together to become a p o l i t i c a l f o r c e to be reckoned with. The Trudeau government's 1969 White Paper --a d v o c a t i n g wholesale a s s i m i l a t i o n of Indians and the d i s m a n t l i n g of the Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development 1 1 4 (DIAND) -- p r o v i d e d a c a t a l y s t for a p o l i t i c a l e x p l o s i o n . 38 Paul Tennant observes that p r i o r to t h i s White Paper there e x i s t e d a "dim and i l l - d e f i n e d " view of the " a p p r o p r i a t e b a s i s of . . . 1 15 p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n ... i n the B.C. a b o r i g i n a l community." Although the f u l l - s c a l e a r r i v a l of the a b o r i g i n a l p o l i t i c a l c a p a c i t y i n B.C. was p r i m a r i l y a r e t a l i a t i o n to the White Paper, i t was a l s o a r e a c t i o n to the e t h n i c e x p l o s i o n t h a t shook the i n t e r n a t i o n a l community. 1 1^ Indeed, the i n t e n s i f i e d p o l i t i c i z a t i o n of B.C.'s indigenous groups was a product of the times that a f f e c t e d both Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . L i k e the 13 i n t e r e s t groups that c l a i m e d land t i t l e i n Alaska, 19 t r i b a l groups in B r i t i s h Columbia f i l e d land c l a i m s with the Comprehensive Claims Branch of DIAND. During the l a t e s e v e n t i e s , the B.C. A b o r i g i n a l C o u n c i l , r e p r e s e n t i n g both s t a t u s and non-status Indians, a s s i s t e d i n o r g a n i z i n g l a n d c l a i m s to be submitted in Ottawa by t r i b a l groups. I t s members a l s o made up the T r i b a l Forum, which d e a l t with the f e d e r a l government on the day to day a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s p e c t s of Indian A f f a i r s . However, the r o l e of the A b o r i g i n a l C o u n c i l has d i m i n i s h e d because a l l but one of the 20 o u t s t a n d i n g land c l a i m s have been accepted by the Comprehensive Claims Branch. The T r i b a l Forum d i s s o l v e d i n 1987 1 1 7 to be r e p l a c e d in 1988 by a more powerful lobby. The r e c e n t l y assembled B.C. F i r s t Nations Congress makes up the p r o v i n c e ' s component of the Assembly of F i r s t N a t i o n s , which represented s t a t u s - I n d i a n s i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t a l k s that l e d to Canada's Charter of R i g h t s . The "Congress" d e f i n e s i t s membership as c o n s i s t i n g of those groups deeming themselves F i r s t 39 Nations, whether the groups are s t a t u s or non-status Indians, 1 1 8 t r i b a l groups or communities, urban or r u r a l . Thus, the Congress c r e a t e s a forum -- "the most important component to B.C. Indian p o l i t i c s " -- that takes over the r o l e of the o l d T r i b a l Forum, and, s i g n i f i c a n t l y , e s t a b l i s h e s a peak a s s o c i a t i o n f o r 1 1 9 B r i t i s h Columbia In d i a n s . U n l i k e the Al a s k a F e d e r a t i o n of N a t i v e s , however, the A b o r i g i n a l C o u n c i l , and the cu r r e n t 'Congress' have a presence only with a h a n d f u l of p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l s and the f e d e r a l i o n Department of Indian and I n u i t A f f a i r s . I t w i l l have to be seen whether the 'Congress' gains the p u b l i c presence i n B r i t i s h Columbia that the AFN had i n Alaska, where any f o l l o w e r of the Alaskan land c l a i m s process c o u l d immediately i d e n t i f y the key 1 21 Indian p r e s s u r e group -- the AFN. What i s of c h i e f concern here, however, i s that u n l i k e the Alaskan experience i n v o l v i n g a prominent peak a s s o c i a t i o n , land claims i n B.C. are l o b b i e d f o r both by a r e l a t i v e l y obscure peak a s s o c i a t i o n , and by separate t r i b a l groups. To produce a l a n d c l a i m for n e g o t i a t i o n t r i b a l groups are funded p r i m a r i l y by the Department of Indian A f f a i r s , as w e l l as by the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e . As a c l a i m i s assembled, and once that c l a i m i s accepted f o r n e g o t i a t i o n by the Comprehensive Claims Branch, the Department of Indian A f f a i r s loans the t r i b a l i 22 groups money to present t h e i r case. In B.C., t h i s f i g u r e was approximately h a l f a m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n 1987 f o r 18 of the 19 groups, with the Nisga'a T r i b a l C o u n c i l r e c e i v i n g $1 M i l l i o n , 4 0 down from the $1.5 M i l l i o n they had been r e c e i v i n g a n n u a l l y s i n c e 12 3 1973. However, as Fred W a l c h l i , the c h i e f f e d e r a l n e g o t i a t o r for the B.C. Comprehensive Claims Branch, p o i n t s out, i t i s not the c u r r e n t amount spent by the f e d e r a l government that i s worth noting , but the f a c t that today nineteen out of twenty land claims f i l e d have been accepted f o r n e g o t i a t i o n . Moreover, the f e d e r a l government co n t i n u e s to fund the t r i b a l groups' defense of a comprehensive c l a i m a f t e r i t has been accep t e d f o r 12 4 n e g o t i a t i o n . The p o i n t i s that i n both p o l i c y and p r a c t i c e , the funding f o r the p r o c e s s i n g of l a n d c l a i m s i s not an o b s t a c l e to settlement for B.C. n a t i v e p o l i t i c a l groups. To summarize, then, the B.C. n a t i v e p o l i t i c a l c a p a c i t y has produced 19 separate t r i b a l groups, a l l of which are h e a v i l y financed by the f e d e r a l government. There i s the recent emergence of a peak a s s o c i a t i o n p r o v i d i n g l e a d e r s h i p f o r B.C. Indians, but t h i s group's focus i s not e x c l u s i v e l y on land c l a i m s . Most i m p o r t a n t l y , the B.C. Indian p o l i t i c a l experience has seen 19 out of twenty o u t s t a n d i n g l a n d c l a i m s accepted f o r n e g o t i a t i o n by the f e d e r a l government. Those n e g o t i a t i o n s , however, have yet to begin. It might be suggested that absence of a s i n g l e v o i c e lobbying f o r n a t i v e land c l a i m s i n B.C. e x p l a i n s divergence i n p o l i c y outcomes between the two s t a t e / p r o v i n c e s . At one time B r i t i s h Columbia n a t i v e s d i d have a peak a s s o c i a t i o n -- the Union of B.C. Indian C h i e f s . However, that p e r i o d between 1969-74 saw no progress i n the land c l a i m s p r o c e s s . In f a c t , the p o l i t i c a l 41 u n i t y of Alaskan n a t i v e s was a p r e r e q u i s i t e to s e t t l e m e n t , while in Canada such i s not the case. The mass of l a n d c l a i m s faced by the U.S. Congress was the key m o t i v a t i o n f o r the formation of the AFN. The c o m p e t i t i o n f a c i n g B.C. t r i b a l groups l o b b y i n g f o r settlement i s not r i v a l land c l a i m s -- a l l but one land c l a i m i n 1 2 6 B.C. was accepted by the Comprehensive Claims Branch — but the B.C. p r o v i n c i a l government. Paul Tennant observes that i n B r i t i s h Columbia " u n i t y of s t a t u s and non-status Indians i s a widely accepted i d e a l ; and t r i b a l groups are g e n e r a l l y accepted 1 27 as the b a s i c p o l i t i c a l u n i t . " Indian l e a d e r s i n B r i t i s h Columbia overcame the o b s t a c l e s and e s t a b l i s h e d a p o l i t i c a l t r a d i t i o n which remains v i g o r o u s l y a l i v e today not o n l y i n the p r o v i n c e but a l s o a c r o s s Canada, f o r B r i t i s h Columbia Indians have s i n c e 1969 played a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y l a r g e p a r t i n the contemporary n a t i o n a l Indian p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . But i f the B.C. n a t i v e p o l i t i c a l lobby was so e f f e c t i v e , and they c o u l d achieve at l e a s t l i m i t e d success at the f e d e r a l l e v e l , why then c o u l d the n a t i v e lobby not move the p r o v i n c i a l government to p a r t i c i p a t e i n land c l a i m n e g o t i a t i o n s ? Before c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n , one should keep i n mind that the p l u r a l i s t v a r i a b l e alone w i l l not e x p l a i n t h i s phenomenon. Co n c l u s i o n s can only be formed with the other f i n d i n g s i n mind, and thus the p l u r a l i s t e x p l a n a t i o n w i l l o n l y begin to p r o v i d e answer. Notwithstanding t h i s c o n t e x t u a l s u g g e s t i o n , the p l u r a l i s t v a r i a b l e does provide some c o m p e l l i n g evidence. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that B.C. Indian l e a d e r s are as powerful a n a t i v e group as can be found i n Canada, with some n a t i v e s such as C h i e f 42 Joe Mathias, George Watts, and B i l l Wilson p l a y i n g c r i t i c a l r o l e s in Canada's 1983-86 c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e s , yet remain merely a thorn i n the s i d e of the p r o v i n c i a l government. B.C. a b o r i g i n a l groups cannot reach the P r o v i n c e ' s p u b l i c agenda because the government uses a narrow j u r i s d i c t i o n a l argument to avo i d even d i s c u s s i n g n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s . A major reason f o r the Province's r e j e c t i o n of l a n d c l a i m s , simply put, i s that in the m u l t i p l i c i t y of i n t e r e s t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the Indian lobby o f f e r s nothing to the p r o v i n c i a l government. With two percent of the B.C. p o p u l a t i o n , the a b o r i g i n a l s c e r t a i n l y do not possess a s i g n i f i c a n t vote. With widespread non-native ambivalence about 1 29 a b o r i g i n a l people shared a c r o s s Canada, the land claims i s s u e holds no p o l i t i c a l rewards f o r the p r o v i n c i a l government. Furthermore, at l e a s t d u r i n g the s e v e n t i e s and e a r l y e i g h t i e s , most of B.C.'s Indian l e a d e r s were L i b e r a l s (the n a t i o n a l governing p a r t y f o r almost a l l of t h i s p e r i o d ) at the f e d e r a l l e v e l , but were New Democrats (the O p p o s i t i o n p a r t y in B.C. f o r 1 3Q a l l but three years of t h i s p e r i o d ) at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . Thus, with the a b o r i g i n a l l e a d e r s p o l i t i c a l l y a l l i e d to the f e d e r a l government p a r t y , and opposed to the p r o v i n c i a l government p a r t y , one f i n d s another e x p l a n a t i o n f o r why the n a t i v e lobby has been f a c i l i t a t e d at the f e d e r a l l e v e l , but shelved at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . The B.C. n a t i v e lobby possesses enough o r g a n i z a t i o n and f i n a n c i n g to f i l e a p p l i c a t i o n s and defend land c l a i m s , but i t does not boast the p o l i t i c a l c l o u t to make the p r o v i n c i a l government move on t h i s i s s u e . Such p o l i t i c a l 43 l i m i t a t i o n s do c o n t r i b u t e to B.C. n a t i v e groups' i n a b i l i t y to s u c c e s s f u l l y lobby the P r o v i n c e . However, i t would appear even from t h i s d i s c u s s i o n that i n s t i t u t i o n a l f o r c e s p l a y as much a f a c t o r i n the B.C. n a t i v e lobby's f a i l u r e as does the n a t i v e s ' l i m i t a t i o n as a small and d e c r e p i t m i n o r i t y i n t h e i r p r o v i n c e . These o b s e r v a t i o n s w i l l be c l a r i f i e d with a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s . On a broader s c a l e , the p o l i t i c a l s t r e n g t h of the a b o r i g i n a l peoples i n Canada and the U.S. i s a l s o impressive on the n a t i o n a l scene. In Canada and e s p e c i a l l y i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , indigenous l e g a l i s s u e s and concerns are " i n c r e a s i n g l y being managed by indigenous i n s t i t u t i o n s devoted e n t i r e l y to r e p r e s e n t i n g the 1 3 1 i n t e r e s t s of indigenous people." In the U n i t e d S t a t e s there i s a myriad of a s s o c i a t i o n s , c o u n c i l s , and foundations p u r s u i n g a 1 39 wide range of f u n c t i o n s , both g e n e r a l and s p e c i f i c . B.A. Keon-Cohen concludes that "there i s no doubt t h a t , i n d i v i d u a l l y and c o l l e c t i v e l y , t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r e n g t h has been a major f o r c e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the improvement of the I n d i a n s ' p o s i t i o n i n 1 3 3 American s o c i e t y over the past decade [1970's], In Canada, too, the n a t i v e p o l i t i c a l c a p a c i t y i s a v i g o r o u s one. Even p r i o r to the 1978-'82 c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p e r i o d which saw 1 34 a massive n a t i v e lobby, there e x i s t e d "a p l e t h o r a of n a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , with s e v e r a l being i n v o l v e d i n e x t e n s i v e l e g a l 135 r e s e a r c h and a c t i v i t y . " A t o t a l of $56.5 M i l l i o n i n t r a n s f e r payments f o r n a t i v e land c l a i m s was granted by the Department of Indian and I n u i t A f f a i r s i n 1986/7, and a f u r t h e r $39 M i l l i o n 136 spent in loans, investments, and advances for n a t i v e c l a i m s . 44 Despite the abundance of money a l l o c a t e d to Canadian • • 137 a b o r i g i n a l peoples, the p e r c e p t i o n e x i s t s that American Indians have achieved g r e a t e r success i n moving governments to "more accommodating and s e n s i t i v e p o l i c i e s with consequent 1 2 g reforming l e g i s l a t i o n . " Keon-Cohen argues that U.S. " o r g a n i z a t i o n s have pr e s s e d s u b s t a n t i a l land c l a i m s and a s s o c i a t e d p r i v a t e landowners [ s i c ] , to a much gr e a t e r extent, h i s t o r i c a l l y speaking, than n a t i v e s in Canada or A u s t r a l i a . " He a t t r i b u t e s t h i s comparative success to the presence of the Indian C i v i l R ights Act, which balanced a l i m i t a t i o n on the power of band governments with a number of p r o v i s i o n s p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r s o v e r e i g n t y ; and, to a more open p o l i t i c a l process in the U n i t e d 1 39 S t a t e s . Both of these arguments r e l a t e to the s t a t e and i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s , and thus I w i l l d i s c u s s them i n a d i f f e r e n t e c t i o n . However, f o r now one can conclude that Keon-Cohen's a s s e r t i o n does not deal with the p l u r a l i s t i c s i d e of the rgument. One needs f u r t h e r evidence to e x p l a i n the B.C. n a t i v e lobby's i n a b i l i t y to i n v o l v e the p r o v i n c i a l government in land c l a i m s n e g o t i a t i o n s . I t would appear t h a t Canadian i n s t i t u t i o n s and government a c t o r s may p l a c e B.C. n a t i v e s i n an impossible s i t u a t i o n , whereby the Province begins with the premise that n a t i v e land c l a i m s are a f e d e r a l problem, and ignores any arguments otherwise. Other than t h i s imponderable, there i s no evidence t h a t , compared to Canadian n a t i v e l o b b y i s t s , the Alaskan i n t e r e s t groups conducted themselves at a s u p e r i o r l e v e l of 45 p l u r a l i s t p o l i t i c s . N e i t h e r the s i z e of the groups, nor t h e i r access to adequate funding e x p l a i n s divergence i n p o l i c y . It i s true that the Alaskan Indians had a peak a s s o c i a t i o n l o b b y i n g d i r e c t l y with government; however, when the Union of B.C. Indian C h i e f s h e l d such a s t a t u s i n B r i t i s h Columbia from 1969-74 there was no progress made i n r e s o l v i n g land c l a i m s . Alaska n a t i v e s achieved a d e c i s i v e p o l i t i c a l triumph t h a t B r i t i s h Columbia n a t i v e s c o u l d not match, i n the Alaskan's s u c c e s s f u l lobby of S e c r e t a r y U d a l l that r e s u l t e d in the s t a t e 'land f r e e z e . ' Although S e c r e t a r y U d a l l ' s d e c i s i o n was p i v o t a l to the f i n a l outcome, i t i s not c l e a r that the n a t i v e lobby caused the land f r e e z e . Indeed, the i n t e r e s t s of the s t a t e and i t s a c t o r s may shed l i g h t on U d a l l ' s moratorium. To be sure, the A l a s k a n a t i v e lobby operated i n an i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g t h a t a l l o w e d success f o r Alaska n a t i v e s , while i n Canada i t would appear t h a t f o r c e s o u t s i d e the c o n t r o l of B.C. n a t i v e groups denied them a p l u r a l i s t i c v i c t o r y . D e s p i t e the p o l i t i c a l l i a b i l i t i e s of B.C. n a t i v e s , i n c l u d i n g a lack of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , p r o v i n c i a l government support, and v o t i n g power, there were other f o r c e s at work in B r i t i s h Columbia which transcended the n a t i v e lobby. Although the members of the Al a s k a F e d e r a t i o n of N a t i v e s were s u c c e s s f u l , i t would appear that t h e i r success cannot be a t t r i b u t e d to i n t e r e s t group p o l i t i c s alone. B r i t i s h Columbia n a t i v e i n t e r e s t groups are a numerous, h e a v i l y funded f o r c e that continue to face an o b s t a c l e t h a t Alaskan i n t e r e s t groups d i d not. What, then, were these o b s t a c l e s ? . 46 4. S t a t i s t V a r i a b l e : In r e f e r e n c e to the success of American n a t i v e p o l i t i c a l groups, Keon-Cohen argues t h a t the U n i t e d S t a t e s government has been more accommodating than Canada with respect to n a t i v e j u s t i c e due to 1) the presence of the Indian C i v i l R i g h t s Act, which o f f e r s e x t e n s i v e p r o t e c t i o n to the r i g h t s of indigenous American Indians; and 2) a more open p o l i t i c a l process i n the United S t a t e s . The f i r s t p o i n t i s a dated one, s i n c e today Canada has a Charter of R i g h t s that recognizes and a f f i r m s " e x i s t i n g " a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s , whatever they may be. Although the nature of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n Canada i s not yet d e f i n e d , and the American Indians c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s are c l e a r l y s p e l t out, the f a c t i s that there i s the presence of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n of indigenous r i g h t s i n Canada. However, the second p o i n t , that the American p o l i t i c a l system i s more open than Canada's, d e f i n i t e l y a p p l i e s w i t h respect to a b o r i g i n a l i s s u e s , today as much as ever. The conventions of P a r l i a m e n t a r y d i s c i p l i n e i n Canada -- u n l i k e the more open checks and balances l e g i s l a t i v e system i n the U n i t e d St a t e s -- ensure that p o l i c y d i s c u s s i o n s at the e x e c u t i v e l e v e l , at l e a s t , take p l a c e i n c l o s e d Cabinet and caucus meetings and not i n the l e g i s l a t u r e . The U.S. Freedom of Information Act i s fa r more e x t e n s i v e than i t s e q u i v a l e n t i n Canada, and thus o f t e n 1 40 the p o l i c y process i s kept out of the p u b l i c eye. D e s p i t e the advent of the h i g h l y v i s i b l e F i r s t M i n i s t e r s Conferences on A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s i n 1983, '84, '85 and '87, n e g o t i a t i o n s between 47 the f e d e r a l government, a b o r i g i n a l groups, and the premiers were uns u c c e s s f u l at the open m i n i s t e r i a l l e v e l . I nstead, the i 41 meaningful t a l k s took p l a c e i n "backroom meetings." The "s.37 1 42 process" f a i l e d to produce any p r o g r e s s i n d e f i n i n g the nature of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n Canada. However, what was d i s a p p o i n t i n g to one p a r t i c i p a n t i n the M i n i s t e r i a l Conferences was not the outcome, but the s e c r e t i v e process i t s e l f : Almost e n t i r e l y l e f t out of the whole process has been the p u b l i c . ... There i s no adequate j u s t i f i c a t i o n ... for governments not r e l e a s i n g t h e i r p o s i t i o n papers and d r a f t p r o p o s a l s as the process moves a l o n g . ... I f not hampered by the s e c r e c y a s s o c i a t e d with the s.37 process, however, the media would undoubtedly do a b e t t e r ^o^ of i n f o r m i n g and s t i m u l a t i n g p u b l i c debate. But why i s i t that a s e c r e t i v e process disadvantages Canadian a b o r i g i n a l peoples compared to American Indians? A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n Canada are not d e f i n e d i n the C h a r t e r of  R i g h t s , and there has been l i t t l e to no p u b l i c debate on t h i s i ssue that c o u l d very w e l l e f f e c t many Canadians. Thus, the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l conferences o f f e r e d a prime o p p o r t u n i t y to b o l s t e r the p u b l i c debate on a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . However, with the s.37 process shrouded i n s e c r e c y , t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y was l o s t . On the other hand, i t c o u l d be argued that the P a r l i a m e n t a r y process allows g r e a t e r f a c i l i t a t i o n of government p o l i c y , without the c o n s t r a i n t s of a checks and balance system. For a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y t h i s argument does not h o l d , because in the U n i t e d S t a t e s the land claims process a l l o w s g r e a t e r f a c i l i t a t i o n i n s e t t l i n g c l a i m s . N e i l Mickenberg, i n comparing a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n Canada and the United S t a t e s , f i n d s t h at Canadian c l a i m s meet 48 "formidable p r o c e d u r a l impediments." The f i n d i n g s f o r Alaskan and B.C. land c l a i m s a f f i r m t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n (Table 3). Almost immediately a f t e r the U.S. S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r imposed a f r e e z e on f u r t h e r State s e l e c t i o n s of lands i n 1966, r e g i o n a l and c i t y a b o r i g i n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s f i l e d l a n d c l a i m s with 1 45 the I n t e r i o r Department. By 1967, 13 major c l a i m s were f i l e d b l a n k e t i n g the e n t i r e s t a t e , thereby a l l o w i n g an average of 4.69 years f o r the s t a t e to s e t t l e the claims f i l e d between the years 1966 and D e c , 1971, when P r e s i d e n t Nixon signed i n t o law the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. On the other hand, 13 B.C. c l a i m s f i l e d by t r i b a l groups were accepted f o r n e g o t i a t i o n by the Comprehensive Claims Branch between December 1977 and 146 147 November, 1984. Other than the anomalous Nisga'a c l a i m , the o l d e s t c l a i m , by the Gitksan-Wetsu'eten t r i b e , i s c u r r e n t l y under t r i a l i n the B.C. Supreme Court. There has been no settlement i n any of these c l a i m s (nor the s e v e r a l c l a i m s that followed) because the B.C. government r e f u s e s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the process, thereby s t a l l i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s . The Canadian land c l a i m s process, t h e r e f o r e , y i e l d s an average p e r i o d of 6.46 years per c l a i m f o r the p e r i o d up to December 1988 with no settlement 1 48 in s i g h t . As the I n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s p o i n t s out, i f the c u r r e n t s t a t e p o l i c y remains in p l a c e , then the r e s o l u t i o n of land c l a i m s i n B.C. w i l l i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d continue on i n t o the next c e n t u r y . Why? i ) I n s t i t u t i o n a l i s m 49 The f i r s t e x p l a n a t i o n i s an i n s t i t u t i o n a l one, and the second r e s t s i n the i n t e r e s t s of p u b l i c a c t o r s . From an i n s t i t u t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , I w i l l begin with the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l powers concerning a b o r i g i n a l people and l a n d s . S e c t i o n 35 of The C o n s t i t u t i o n Act r e c o g n i z e s and a f f i r m s " e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s " of Canadian In d i a n s , I n u i t , and M e t i s . A c c o r d i n g to Canadian c o u r t s , the a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t to hunt and gather foods 149 "has always been r e c o g n i z e d " (R. v. Sparrow). T r e a t y r i g h t s held by a b o r i g i n a l peoples are p r o t e c t e d under S e c t i o n 35 ( 3 ) . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, the q u e s t i o n of whether Indian t i t l e to land s t i l l e x i s t s i n B.C. i s yet to be d e c i d e d i n the c o u r t s . Although the inherent r i g h t to use and occupy t r a d i t i o n a l lands 1 50 i s acknowledged by the Canadian j u d i c i a r y , the c r i t e r i a f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g whether that r i g h t i s " e x i s t i n g " has not been determined. F i n a l l y , the r i g h t to self-government i s not c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d i n Canada, d e s p i t e e f f o r t s to do t h i s v i a the 's.37 p r o c e s s ' . On the other hand, s i n c e the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y American Indians have enjoyed a unique s t a t u s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , with the c o u r t s c o n s i s t e n t l y acknowledging that the Indians possess sovereignty based on t h e i r " i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y to r e g u l a t e t h e i r 1 51 i n t e r n a l a f f a i r s " ( T a l t o n v. Mayes). David Case e x p l a i n s that "Native American communities are conceded to have o r i g i n a l s e l f -governing powers, not granted by the f e d e r a l government, but 1 50 subject to l i m i t a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d under f e d e r a l law." In a d d i t i o n to t h i s s o v e r e i g n t y , the Indians h o l d a t r u s t 50 r e l a t i o n s h i p with the f e d e r a l government, and t i t l e to l a r g e 1 5 4 t r a c t s of l a n d . The c o n t r a s t between the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l powers of the two c o u n t r i e s i s s t r i k i n g (Table 3 ) , but how the a b o r i g i n a l peoples and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e n a t i o n s e x e r c i s e these powers must be e x p l o r e d to c l a r i f y the divergence. The P r e s i d e n t of the U n i t e d S t a t e s i s empowered to n e g o t i a t e t r e a t i e s under a r t i c l e II ( i i ) of the C o n s t i t u t i o n , and the Senate must r a t i f y the t r e a t y by a t w o - t h i r d s m a j o r i t y . Only Congress holds power to d e a l d i r e c t l y with the Indians, through the Commerce Clause, a r t i c l e I ( v i i i ) 3 . "Consequently, both the executive and j u d i c i a l branches have become accustomed to a l l o w i n g Congress to take the lead in determining Indian p o l i c y and look to c o n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n t i n f o r m u l a t i n g t h e i r own ideas about the r i g h t s of Indians and the 1 5 5 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the f e d e r a l government." T h i s f u l l or complete power of Congress over the f i e l d of Indian A f f a i r s i s deemed to be a "plenary" power. 1 5 6 , In the words of one commentator, "Indians and Indian Country are 1 57 v i r t u a l l y at the mercy of Congress." However, i t would be o v e r g e n e r a l i z i n g to say, as some commentators have, that Congress's power i s omnipotent in the area of n a t i v e a f f a i r s . Congress does not h o l d any omnipotent a u t h o r i t y over a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y , but i n s t e a d p r o v i d e s the p r i n c i p a l forum f o r p o l i c y f o rmation. Indeed, the P r e s i d e n t ' s r o l e should not be underrated: "as ' c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t o r , ' the p r e s i d e n t s e t s the d i r e c t i o n of the f e d e r a l government and demands f a i t h f u l 51 implementation of h i s p o l i c y by e x e c u t i v e p e r s o n n e l . " I w i l l d i s c u s s the importance of the P r e s i d e n t ' s i n t e r e s t s l a t e r , i n c o n s i d e r i n g the r o l e of governmental a c t o r s . The p o i n t to be taken here i s that the r o l e of the f e d e r a l government i s supreme in Indian A f f a i r s , and Congress's power has always been used 1 59 e x t e n s i v e l y . As a r e s u l t , the r o l e of i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e s i s almost always transcended by that of the f e d e r a l government: Thus, most s t a t e laws -- important laws c o n t r o l l i n g zoning, environmental d e g r a d a t i o n , domestic r e l a t i o n s and c h i l d w elfare -- do not extend to Indian country. S i m i l a r l y , Indian lands, some 5 | g Q 0 0 , 0 0 0 a c r e s , cannot be taxed by S t a t e s or c o u n t i e s . T h i s f a c t has l e d the U.S. f e d e r a l government to be more p r o t e c t i v e of indigenous i n t e r e s t s than have the s t a t e s . The f e d e r a l government o f t e n i n t e r v e n e s to c h a l l e n g e r e c a l c i t r a n t s t a t e s i n the Supreme Court when f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i v e reforms are not honored at a l l l e v e l s . 1 ^ 1 Moreover, the c o u r t s have developed a " p r o t e c t i v e s h i e l d i n d o c t r i n e " a g a i n s t s t a t e 1 6 2 attempts to encroach upon a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . I t i s c l e a r , then, that the U.S. f e d e r a l government i s the u n r i v a l e d p r o t e c t o r of American Indian r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s . The nature of f e d e r a l i s m i n Canada prevents the f e d e r a l government from t a k i n g such a predominant p o s i t i o n i n a b o r i g i n a l a f f a i r s . S e c t i o n 91 (24) of the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1982 g i v e s the f e d e r a l government l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y over "Indians, and lands reserved f o r the I n d i a n s , " but i t i s not c l e a r as to how f a r that a u t h o r i t y extends. Kenneth Lysyk p o i n t s out the c o n f u s i o n over the two s u b j e c t matters: "the p r i n c i p l e s and cases r e l e v a n t to 52 the scope of the term 'Indians' are not n e c e s s a r i l y of a s s i s t a n c e in determining what f a l l s w i t h i n 'lands r e s e r v e d f o r the 163 I n d i a n s . ' " Moreover, in c o n s i d e r i n g l a n d c l a i m s , the f e d e r a l government p o i n t s to p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over lands and resources, and thus the Comprehensive Claims Branch a c c e p t s a 1 64 c l a i m f o r n e g o t i a t i o n subject to p r o v i n c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The j u r i s d i c t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s surrounding a b o r i g i n a l a f f a i r s are c o m p l i c a t e d , and as of yet there has been no agreement over whose r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i t i s to n e g o t i a t e with a b o r i g i n a l peoples, and who should compensate i f the land t i t l e i s e x t i n g u i s h e d . In the only r e l e v a n t j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n on t h i s matter, S e c t i o n 91 (24) played no r o l e i n the outcome of the c a s e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the Province of B.C. s t i c k s to i t s p o s i t i o n t h at t h i s S e c t i o n , together with A r t i c l e 1 of the Terms of Union, excludes B.C. from r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the extinguishment of land c l a i m s . 1 ^ It i s remarkable that while f e d e r a l i s t b a t t l e s over j u r i s d i c t i o n u s u a l l y see governments f i g h t i n g f o r power over a given area, i n the case of a b o r i g i n a l i s s u e s , r i g h t s , and p r i v i l e g e s , the ambitions of the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments are s t r a n g e l y muted. Moreover, Canadian f e d e r a l i s m has allowed the f e d e r a l and v a r i o u s p r o v i n c i a l governments to pursue t h e i r own p o l i c i e s which, at any g i v e n time, c o u l d be 1 en r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . In t o t a l c o n t r a s t to the s i t u a t i o n i n the United S t a t e s , the Canadian f e d e r a l government has always "looked forward to the day when Indian lands would become m u n i c i p a l i t i e s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the p r o v i n c e s . To t h i s 53 end the F e d e r a l Government has c o n t i n u a l l y sought to t r a n s f e r 1 68 j u r i s d i c t i o n over Indians to the p r o v i n c e s . " I n s t i t u t i o n s pose a p o t e n t i a l c o n s t r a i n t on a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y i n Canada. C l e a r l y , the f e d e r a l government i s r e s p o n s i b l e for l e g i s l a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g Indians and t h e i r l a n d s . I t does not f o l l o w , however, that the f e d e r a l government i s r e s p o n s i b l e for n e g o t i a t i n g land c l a i m s and compensating i f necessary. The land which B.C. n a t i v e s c l a i m to be t h e i r s i s land that f a l l s under the P r o v i n c e ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . Whether the c l a i m covers p r o v i n c i a l l y - o w n e d l a n d , or lan d owned by a t h i r d p a r t y , c l e a r l y the land c l a i m c r o s s e s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l boundaries. Thus, there e x i s t s w i t h i n Canadian f e d e r a l i s m a dual r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in d e a l i n g with n a t i v e land c l a i m s . Because the Province of B.C. r e f u s e s to accept t h i s o b l i g a t i o n , the major c o n s t r a i n t to r e s o l v i n g land claims i n B.C. i s an i n s t i t u t i o n a l one. The philosophy and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l powers of the two c o u n t r i e s are i n s t a r k c o n t r a s t , with the U.S. f e d e r a l government assuming t o t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , and the Canadian government pushing as much o f f as c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a l l o w a b l e to the p r o v i n c e s . One can e a s i l y conclude that the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l power i s more complete and c l e a r in the U n i t e d S t a t e s , d e s p i t e the f a c t that both c o u n t r i e s have faced n a t i v e i s s u e s s i n c e t h e i r c o n f e d e r a t i o n . Moreover, c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in land j u r i s d i c t i o n p o i n t to a major i n s t i t u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e : i n Alaska the land was f e d e r a l l y owned, i n B.C. i t i s p r o v i n c i a l l y owned. Thus, there must be c o o p e r a t i o n i n Canada, and no need 54 f o r s t a t e involvement in the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Nonetheless, there d i d e x i s t an i n s t i t u t i o n a l o b s t a c l e i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s which had stymied the settlement of Indian land c l a i m s s i n c e the 1950's. In 1946 the C o n g r e s s i o n a l mandate to "hear and determine c l a i m s " through the Indian Claims Commission was i n i t i a t e d by President Harry Truman's Indian Claims Commission Act. However, p r i o r to the 1970's the Indian Claims Commission had " f a i l e d ... to e x e r c i s e the i n i t i a t i v e i n h e a r i n g 1 69 and determining the claims f i l e d b efore i t . " W r i t i n g i n 1969, one commentator concluded that "the Commission has chosen to s i t as a co u r t and, as a r e s u l t , the C o n g r e s s i o n a l mandate has been 1 70 u t t e r l y f r u s t r a t e d . " However, i n the l a t e 50's and e a r l y 60's, when j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s and the d i s p o s a l of s t a t e l a n d under the Alaska Statehood Act appeared to j e o p a r d i z e a b o r i g i n a l 1 71 land c l a i m s , the U.S. S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r f r o z e a l l f u r t h e r p u b l i c land d i s p o s a l s u n t i l Congress c o u l d come up with some s t r u c t u r e f o r settlement with the Alask a I n d i a n s . Here the a b o r i g i n a l i n t e r e s t was threatened by s t a t e p o l i c y , and the f e d e r a l government intervened to p r o v i d e a r e s o l u t i o n v i a Congress. I t would f o l l o w that the i m p o s i t i o n of a land f r e e z e in Alaska was against the i n s t i t u t i o n a l t r e n d that stymied, r a t h e r than f a c i l i t a t e d , the settlement of land c l a i m s . Notwithstanding the importance of S e c r e t a r y U d a l l ' s a c t i o n , which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the next s e c t i o n , i t i s c l e a r that American n a t i v e land c l a i m s e x i s t i n an i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g which a l l o w s i n t e r v e n t i o n l i k e that of the I n t e r i o r S e c r e t a r y ' s land f r e e z e . 55 In the U n i t e d S t a t e s , then, although the i n s t i t u t i o n a l path to the settlement of n a t i v e land c l a i m s may swerve, there i s a c l e a r , u n a d u l t e r a t e d d i r e c t i o n . In B r i t i s h Columbia, the 19 l a n d c l a i m s f i l e d with the Comprehensive Claims Branch s i t dormant as the p r o v i n c i a l government r e f u s e s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the n e g o t i a t i o n process, and the f e d e r a l government l i m i t s the n e g o t i a t i o n of land c l a i m s to one-per-province. The B.C. government o u t r i g h t l y r e j e c t s N a t i v e land c l a i m s , and views Native A f f a i r s as a c l e a r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 1 72 of the f e d e r a l government. The p r o v i n c e ' s p o s i t i o n , as s a i d b e f o r e , i s confounding when one c o n s i d e r s that c o n t r o l over land i s a p r o v i n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . T h i s s i t u a t i o n suggests a powerful c o n t r a s t to the s i t u a t i o n i n A l a s k a , where the land f e l l under f e d e r a l a u s p i c e s . Nonetheless, the Canadian government does nothing to advance the l a n d c l a i m s p r o c e s s : the f e d e r a l government w i l l not take a l e a d e r s h i p r o l e by proposing a compromise with the P r o v i n c e , nor w i l l f e d e r a l o f f i c i a l s 1 7 3 n e g o t i a t e a l l a s p e c t s but those which i n v o l v e the P r o v i n c e . Moreover, the one-at-a-time p o l i c y f o r n e g o t i a t i n g land c l a i m s w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y hamper the r e s o l u t i o n of the r i s i n g number of land c l a i m d i s p u t e s , once the Indian t i t l e q u e s t i o n i s answered in the c o u r t s . Regardless of which government i s c o r r e c t with regards to a b o r i g i n a l land c l a i m s i n B.C., the end r e s u l t i s that there w i l l a p p a r e n t l y be no a b o r i g i n a l land c l a i m s s e t t l e d in B r i t i s h Columbia as long as the c u r r e n t p o l i c i e s are i n p l a c e . But t h i s 56 does not have to be the case. As I s a i d b e f o r e , i n s t i t u t i o n s pose a p o t e n t i a l c o n s t r a i n t which only becomes a r e a l i t y because the Province of B.C. s h i r k s i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a p a r t i c i p a n t in the land c l a i m s process. Although the f e d e r a l government cannot proceed by i t s e l f , i t makes no e f f o r t to compromise on an i s s u e of n a t i o n a l importance. The i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t that the U.S. Indian Claims Commission p l a c e d i n the path of l a n d c l a i m settlement i n Alaska was one that the f e d e r a l government c o u l d and d i d remove. The nature of f e d e r a l i s m i n Canada does not a f f o r d that o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the f e d e r a l government. However, n e i t h e r p r o v i n c i a l nor f e d e r a l government makes any c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t , which causes the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c o n f u s i o n over n a t i v e land c l a i m s . The i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t , then, i s very much a masquerade f o r narrow, l e g a l i s t i c arguments which seek to a v o i d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , r a ther than r e s o l v e a c e n t u r y - o l d i s s u e that c o u l d drag on i n t o the next c e n t u r y . The q u e s t i o n i s why does B r i t i s h Columbia f o r c e t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t to h a l t the land c l a i m s process, while i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s a l l such c o n s t r a i n t s were removed in the case of ANCSA? i i ) GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS The i n t e r e s t s of governmental a c t o r s o f f e r a more powerful e x p l a n a t i o n for divergence i n n a t i v e land c l a i m s p o l i c y than does the i n s t i t u t i o n a l v a r i a b l e . The a c t i o n s of the U.S. S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , the Nixon a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and the American c o u r t s l e d Alaska n a t i v e land c l a i m s over i n s t i t u t i o n a l o b s t a c l e s and 57 down the path that would r e s u l t i n the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Ac t . The notable absence of such a c t i o n s i n Canada has t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the absence of land c l a i m s settlement i n B.C. The d i v e r g i n g a c t i o n s of Canadian and American governmental a c t o r s begins to e x p l a i n the divergence in p o l i c i e s with more c l a r i t y than does the i n s t i t u t i o n a l v a r i a b l e a l o n e . The f i n a l p i e c e to the comparative p u z z l e i s the 'why' -- an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the a c t i o n s and i n t e r e s t s of Canadian and American governmental a c t o r s who p l a y e d a r o l e i n the p o l i c y outcomes. In the U n i t e d S t a t e s the P r e s i d e n t s e t s the tone f o r the s t a t e ' s e x e c u t i v e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and oversees s e v e r a l important e x e c u t i v e agencies that d e a l with a b o r i g i n a l i s s u e s , such as the J u s t i c e Department, the O f f i c e of Management and Budget, and the Department of the I n t e r i o r , as w e l l as departments that conduct n a t i v e programs i n the f i e l d s of education, h e a l t h , a g r i c u l t u r e , 1 74 and s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . One c o u l d argue that the P r e s i d e n t ' s d i r e c t r o l e i n these departments i s extremely l i m i t e d . However, the P r e s i d e n t i s the f i n a l gatekeeper, and thus he c r e a t e s a d i s t i n c t i v e atmosphere f o r a b o r i g i n a l p o l i t i c s . Indeed, when Lyndon Johnson, who was a supporter of Indian causes, was P r e s i d e n t , the e x e c u t i v e branch **ref l e c t [ e d ] t h i s p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e and [made] d e c i s i o n s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n tune with Indian d e s i r e s . " On the other hand, the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s of Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy C a r t e r , and Ronald Reagan f o l l o w e d t h e i r P r e s i d e n t s ' " s t a r k and c a l l o u s stance towards Indians," thereby 1 75 accomplishing l i t t l e i n the way of Indian r e l a t i o n s . 58 In Canada the i n f l u e n c e of p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s ' i n t e r e s t s a l s o plays a r o l e in a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y . Due to the i n s t i t u t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y i n n a t i v e a f f a i r s , the Prime M i n i s t e r does not n e c e s s a r i l y determine the tone f o r Indian r e l a t i o n s . F e d e r a l i s m d i c t a t e s that a b o r i g i n a l land c l a i m p o l i c y c r o s s e s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l borders, and t h e r e f o r e p r o v i n c i a l premiers a l l have an i n t e r e s t in t h i s area. Whether a p r o v i n c i a l government h e l p s determine the advancement or suspension of the land c l a i m s p r o c e s s l a r g e l y depends on whether a premier and h i s government dec i d e to cooperate with the f e d e r a l government, or decide to s e n s a t i o n a l i z e and obscure an a l r e a d y c o m p l i c a t e d i s s u e . The same can be s a i d of the a c t i o n s of the Prime M i n i s t e r and M i n i s t e r f o r Indian A f f a i r s , both of whom set the tone f o r the d i s c u s s i o n of a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y . Out of chaos comes o r d e r : should a f i r s t m i n i s t e r decide to manipulate and exacerbate the u n c e r t a i n t y that f e d e r a l i s m poses on the n a t i v e land c l a i m s p o l i c y f o r m a t i o n , he or she can do i t , and settlement of land c l a i m s w i l l be denied; should the f i r s t m i n i s t e r decide to work with the f e d e r a l i s t system, to c r e a t e order i n t h i s i s s u e , he or she can do i t , and settlement of land c l a i m s becomes r e a l i t y . Thus, a l t h o u g h on the surface i t would appear that f e d e r a l i s m c r e a t e s chaos i n forming n a t i v e p o l i c y , i n f a c t i t i s o f t e n the i n t e r e s t s of Canadian p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s alone that e x p l a i n s the l a c k of order i n Canadian n a t i v e p o l i c y . L i k e the P r e s i d e n t i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , the Prime M i n i s t e r c r e a t e s the c o n d i t i o n s f o r the d i s c u s s i o n of a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y . 59 An i l l u s t r a t i o n i s found i n the Trudeau government's 1969 White Paper on Canadian n a t i v e p o l i c y , which was very much a product of Trudeau's 1 i b e r a l - i n d i v i d u a l i s t t h i n k i n g . The t h r u s t of the paper s t r o n g l y r e j e c t e d the idea of s p e c i a l l e g a l and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u s f o r a b o r i g i n a l peoples: "we won't recognize a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . We w i l l r e c o g n i z e t r e a t y 1 7 6 r i g h t s . " The M i n i s t e r of Indian A f f a i r s at the time, Jean C h r e t i e n , o f f e r e d some f r i g h t e n i n g words for a b o r i g i n a l peoples: "the u l t i m a t e aim of removing the s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e s to Indians from the C o n s t i t u t i o n may take some time, but i t i s the goal to 1 77 be kept c o n s t a n t l y i n view." The idea was to make the Indian-government r e l a t i o n s h i p a commercial, c o n t r a c t u a l one, as opposed to the American t r u s t r e l a t i o n s h i p which gave Indians s p e c i a l s t a t u s . B r i a n Schwartz observes that Trudeau adopted a 1 i b e r a l - i n d i v i d u a l i s t approach that r e j e c t e d h i s t o r y - b a s e d 1 78 groupism. It i s c l e a r from h i s speeches that Trudeau was extremely unsympathetic to indigenous r i g h t s : the time i s now to decide whether the Indians w i l l be a race apart i n Canada, or whether i t w i l l be Canadians of f u l l s t a t u s . ... I f we think of r e s t o r i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s to the Indians w e l l what about the French who were d e f e a t e d at the P l a i n s of Abraham? Shouldn't we r e s t o r e r i g h t s to them? And what about the Acadians who were deported -- shouldn't we compensate f o r t h i s ? ... What about the Japanese Canadians who were so badly t r e a t e d at the end or d u r i n g 7 t h e l a s t war? What can we do to redeem the past? y In Canada, then, the Prime M i n i s t e r and M i n i s t e r f o r Indian A f f a i r s r e j e c t e d a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s as i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t . Since 1973 the f e d e r a l government has reversed t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o l i c y , 60 although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to b e l i e v e that Trudeau t o t a l l y abandoned such 1 i b e r a l - i n d i v i d u a l i s t thoughts as are found i n the '69 White Paper. The Mulroney government, which took o f f i c e i n 1984, has yet to forward an a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y which would d i s t i n g u i s h i t s e l f from p r e v i o u s Canadian governments. Indeed, d e s p i t e three F i r s t M i n i s t e r s Conferences on A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s , the P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e government has not changed the land c l a i m s p o l i c y , nor the ambiguous r e c o g n i t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , both of which were i n h e r i t e d from the Trudeau governments. One f i n d s an i n t e r e s t i n g c o n t r a s t between the thoughts of P i e r r e Trudeau and a speech P r e s i d e n t R i c h a r d Nixon gave i n Congress on American Indian p o l i c y w i t h i n a year a f t e r Trudeau's government r e l e a s e d the 1969 White Paper: the goal of any new n a t i o n a l p o l i c y toward Indian people: to strengthen the Indian's sense of.autonomy without t h r e a t e n i n g h i s sense of community. Nixon's words suggest that the p o l i c y of the f e d e r a l government was to advance the Indian i n t e r e s t . Whether the m o t i v a t i o n was p o l i t i c s or j u s t i c e , i t became c l e a r as the events surrounding Alaska unfold e d , that i t was i n P r e s i d e n t Nixon's i n t e r e s t to have "the sentiments of h i s s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n message ... 1 8 1 embodied i n the c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t . " Mary C l a y Be r r y , w r i t i n g on the f i n a l outcome, concluded that The importance of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s support of the c l a i m s cannot be underestimated. D e s p i t e i t s n a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s , the c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t remained a h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d p i e c e of r e g i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n , not the s o r t upon which the White House g e n e r a l l y takes a s t r o n g stand. But the White House p l a i n l y d e c i d e d to use the 61 Alaskan s i t u a t i o n t o back up the P r e s i d e n t ' s J u l y 1970 message on Indian s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Perhaps, as w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r , there e x i s t e d a business i n t e r e s t as w e l l , but at l e a s t at the l e v e l of p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s , the Indian cause appeared to be advanced. I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t i n an era of i n c r e a s i n g human r i g h t s awareness, an A d m i n i s t r a t i o n would serve a cause which h e l d impressive p o l i t i c a l p o t e n t i a l . P r e s i d e n t Nixon had sent out a j u d i c i o u s message i n h i s s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n p o l i c y , and the n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s i s s u e i n A l a s k a o f f e r e d a means to prove such p o l i t i c a l v a l o u r . The next q u e s t i o n , to be d e a l t with i n the s e c t i o n f o l l o w i n g , i s what other i n t e r e s t s were advanced besides p o l i t i c a l appearances? Was ANCSA an outcome motivated by j u s t i c e , or was there another i n c e n t i v e ? The Alaska-B.C. comparison h i g h l i g h t s the d i f f e r e n c e s found i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Trudeau and Nixon's speeches o f f e r some i r o n y : Nixon, rather than Trudeau, appears to be the great p r o t e c t o r of human r i g h t s ; a l i b e r a l c a r r y i n g the t o r c h of j u s t i c e and s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n . But i t was the a c t i o n of the U.S. S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , Stewart L. U d a l l which f o r c e d a l l p a r t i e s -- government, business, and n a t i v e s — to pursue the settl e m e n t of n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s . The S e c r e t a r y ' s land f r e e z e of 1966 and ' s u p e r f r e e z e ' of 1968 was c l e a r l y motivated by reasons of j u s t i c e and c o n s e r v a t i o n . U d a l l was "a well-known supporter of c o n s e r v a t i o n , r e c l a m a t i o n , and n a t i o n a l park improvement 1 8 3 l e g i s l a t i o n " d u r i n g h i s s i x years i n the U.S. House. The S e c r e t a r y would be one of Kennedy's f i r s t Cabinet appointees, and 62 the author of a book on c o n s e r v a t i o n i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . I t was the o p i n i o n of Emil N o t t i , the f i r s t p r e s i d e n t of the Alaska F e d e r a t i o n of N a t i v e s , that S e c r e t a r y U d a l l ' s motives fo r e n a c t i n g the l a n d - f r e e z e were honorable: " [ U d a l l ] d i d i t because 1 85 i t was the r i g h t t h i n g f o r n a t i v e people." N o t t i argued that U d a l l , a p a r t - I n d i a n h i m s e l f , wanted to advance the Indian cause in - A l a s k a , and the S e c r e t a r y became convinced that the land-f r e e z e would serve that end. In f a c t , before l e a v i n g o f f i c e i n 1968 the S e c r e t a r y expanded the f r e e z e f o r another 2 years, thereby p r e v e n t i n g any t r a n s a c t i o n s on f e d e r a l l a n d s , from the p a t e n t i n g of s t a t e lands to the awarding of homesteaders t i t l e s . 1 8 6 These a c t i o n s , however, were threatened by another governmental a c t o r , Walter J . H i c k e l . The A l a s k a Governor was nominated by P r e s i d e n t - e l e c t Nixon to succeed S t u a r t U d a l l . When asked about the land f r e e z e imposed by S e c r e t a r y U d a l l i n 1968, H i c k e l , s a i d "What U d a l l can do by E x e c u t i v e Order, I can 187 undo." To be sure, H i c k e l ' s i n t e r e s t i n the A l a s k a n a t i v e land c l a i m s was c l e a r l y p o l i t i c a l : h i s c o n f i r m a t i o n as S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r i n 1969 was c o n d i t i o n a l on h i s r e t e n t i o n of the 1 88 land f r e e z e which he had opposed as Governor of A l a s k a . Moreover, w h i l e I would not suggest t h a t H i c k e l pursued settlement of l a n d c l a i m s f o r h i s own p r o f i t , i t should be noted that the c o n t r o v e r s i a l Governor d i d h o l d t i e s with o i l 1 89 companies. At the very l e a s t , t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n would c o n f i r m H i c k e l ' s sympathy to b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s -- p a r t i c u l a r l y the o i l 63 i n d u s t r y . H i c k e l ' s i n t e r e s t s , however, were o v e r r u l e d by p o l i t i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s borne out of S e c r e t a r y U d a l l ' s l a n d f r e e z e . Once that f r e e z e was i n place the Alaska n a t i v e s c o u l d f o r c e Walter H i c k e l to abandon h i s i n t e r e s t s and uphold the l a n d f r e e z e . C l e a r l y , S t u a r t U d a l l was the c r u c i a l p l a y e r i n the f i n a l outcome. In 1970 a new Governor of Alask a was e l e c t e d who r e c o g n i z e d the "growing importance of N a t i v e s i n s t a t e p o l i t i c s , " and he proceeded to a l l y with the n a t i v e s to a c h i e v e prompt 1 90 s e t t l e m e n t . At the f e d e r a l l e v e l , the Nixon a d m i n s t r a t i o n sought to g i v e substance to the P r e s i d e n t ' s 1970 message on 191 . . Indian autonomy. The i n s t i t u t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n allowed f o r such a c t i o n , a l t h o u g h none of i t may have t r a n s p i r e d had i t not been f o r U d a l l ' s a c t i o n , together with the p o l i t i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s p l a c e d on Walter H i c k e l by Alaskan n a t i v e l e a d e r s . There are v a r i o u s f o r c e s at work here -- s t a t i s t , p l u r a l i s t , environmental — and why they a l l came together i n v o l v e s the a c t i o n s of another governmental a c t o r , the c o u r t s , and another i n t e r e s t to be d i s c u s s e d i n the next s e c t i o n . W i t h i n a year of H i c k e l ' s c o n f i r m a t i o n as S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , i t was c l e a r that the p o l i t i c a l h andcuffs p l a c e d upon the former Governor were not str o n g enough to endure h i s s i n g l e -minded p u r s u i t to b u i l d an Alaskan p i p e l i n e . By December 1969 S e c r e t a r y H i c k e l , through e x t r a o r d i n a r y e f f o r t s , convinced the Senate and House I n t e r i o r Committee to l i f t the land f r e e z e that S t u a r t U d a l l had i n i t i a t e d i n 1966. U d a l l ' s '66 land f r e e z e 64 o c c u r r e d two years b e f o r e o i l had been d i s c o v e r e d i n Prudhoe Bay, and S e c r e t a r y H i c k e l argued that l i f t i n g the f r e e z e would not a f f e c t the settlement of n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s , nor would the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a p i p e l i n e have damaging environmental e f f e c t s . But c o n s t r u c t i o n of the p i p e l i n e d i d have u n c e r t a i n environmental e f f e c t s , argued c o n s e r v a t i o n groups, and c r o s s e d land claimed by 192 Alaskan n a t i v e s . I t i s c l e a r that n a t i v e s and c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s would have l o s t t h i s argument had i t not been fo r Judge George L. Hart, J r . , who i s s u e d a temporary i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t the p i p e l i n e p r o j e c t i n A p r i l 1970. The f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t , then, slowed the i n t e r e s t s of b u s i n e s s u n t i l n a t i v e and environmental i n t e r e s t s c o u l d be r e s o l v e d . In the case of B r i t i s h Columbia, the s i t u a t i o n i s the o p p o s i t e , with no government a c t o r f o r c i n g the n a t i v e i n t e r e s t i n t o the f o r e f r o n t . Prime M i n i s t e r Trudeau would drop h i s p o l i c y of not r e c o g n i z i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n 1970 amid the n a t i v e uproar over the '69 White Paper. A f t e r the 1973 Calder case, which r e c o g n i z e d the e x i s t e n c e of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , Trudeau gave in to the prospect of c o n s i d e r i n g a d i s c u s s i o n of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s with Canadian I n d i a n s . D e s p i t e t h i s j u d i c i o u s change i n d i r e c t i o n , i t i s c l e a r that Canada was r e a l l y only c a t c h i n g up with the i n t e r n a t i o n a l pendulum on indigenous r i g h t s . From 1973 on Canada's j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s would r e c o g n i z e a "growing s e n s i t i v i t y to n a t i v e r i g h t s i n Canada," as C h i e f J u s t i c e Dickson 1 93 put i t i n Simon v. the Queen. But the c o u r t s were l e a d i n g t h i s t r e n d t h a t p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s r e s i s t e d and continue to r e s i s t 65 i n Canada. On the s u r f a c e , i t appeared to be i n the s p i r i t of "growing s e n s i t i v i t y " that f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments got together i n the e a r l y 1980's to c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e c o g n i z e a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . However, because those governments n e g l e c t e d to d e f i n e those r i g h t s , the s t a t e ' s h i s t o r i c a l p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and o c c a s i o n a l o u t r i g h t r e j e c t i o n i n advancing the a b o r i g i n a l i n t e r e s t remained i n t a c t . In the 1978-82 p a t r i a t i o n p r o c e s s , as w e l l as the three F i r s t M i n i s t e r s Conferences on A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s f o l l o w i n g 1982, the premiers and Prime M i n i s t e r c o u l d not come up with a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l formula f o r r e c o g n i z i n g and 1 94 a f f i r m i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s that was agreeable to a l l p a r t i e s . D e s p i t e ample o p p o r t u n i t y to r e s o l v e a b o r i g i n a l people's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u s , a l l that the F i r s t M i n i s t e r s c o u l d agree on was a r e c o g n i t i o n of " e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s " (s.35.1 C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Act, 1982). A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s were a c a r d to be p l a y e d by the F i r s t M i n i s t e r s i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l poker game that m o d i f i e d a b o r i g i n a l and t r e a t y r i g h t s i n a "vague and 1 95 u n c e r t a i n manner." The c r e a t i o n of s.35, with the i n s e r t i o n of the word " e x i s t i n g , " was a v i c t o r y f o r the p r o v i n c e s who were unsure what the f u l l r e c o g n i t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n would e n t a i l . The premiers acted only i n t h e i r p r o v i n c e ' s i n t e r e s t , and thus were more i n c l i n e d to d i s m i s s entrenchment of a b o r i g i n a l 1 96 r i g h t s than to think out a more e q u i t a b l e r e s o l u t i o n . Douglas Sanders argued at the time that s.35 was being d r a f t e d that the 66 a d d i t i o n of the word ' e x i s t i n g ' i n the r e c o g n i t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l 1 97 r i g h t s " i s d e t r i m e n t a l to Indian i n t e r e s t s . " I t would appear, then, that d e s p i t e e x t r a o r d i n a r y o p p o r t u n i t i e s at the i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e v e l , the impasse to d e f i n i n g Canadian a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n came i n the form of F i r s t M i n i s t e r s . The Mulroney governments' f a i l u r e s i n the 1983-'87 F i r s t M i n i s t e r s Conferences on A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s would c o n f i r m t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n about the Trudeau e r a . F i r s t m i n i s t e r s c o u l d have w r i t t e n a new h i s t o r y f o r a b o r i g i n a l people, perhaps should have, but d i d n ' t . Indeed, the h i s t o r y of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n Canada has been w r i t t e n by judges, not p o l i t i c i a n s . A b o r i g i n a l t i t l e was not 1 9 8 l e g a l l y a f f i r m e d u n t i l a f t e r the C a l d e r case in 1973. Not u n t i l a f t e r the 1986 Guerin case was the q u e s t i o n of c r i t e r i o n f o r the extinguishment of r i g h t s determined, and even then with 1 99 u n c e r t a i n t y . Not u n t i l 1986 was the entrenchment of the a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t to f i s h confirmed, a g a i n , a f t e r a B.C. Appeal Court d e c i s i o n -- R. v. S p a r r o w . 2 ^ And i n a l l these j u d i c i a l c a ses, of course, one saw the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments i n t e r v e n i n g to deny the e x i s t e n c e of an a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t . Thus, the Canadian s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e c o g n i z e s a b o r i g i n a l peoples, yet the p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s r e f u s e to e l a b o r a t e , c l a r i f y , or d e f i n e what those r i g h t s are u n t i l Canada's c o u r t s t e l l them to . The c o u r t , as a governmental a c t o r , cannot by i t s e l f advance n a t i v e i n t e r e s t s . I t i s the p l a c e of Canadian p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s to do t h a t , and they do not. 67 M e a n w h i l e , i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a t h e i n t e r e s t o f p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s h a s a l w a y s b e e n s h a m e l e s s l y e x p l i c i t . B . C . ' s S o c i a l C r e d i t g o v e r n m e n t , w h i c h h a s h e l d o f f i c e s i n c e 1 9 7 5 , r e m a i n s t h e c e n t r e o f " h o s t i l i t y t o I n d i a n c l a i m s a n d t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o 201 n e g o t i a t i o n . " A s B . C . M i n i s t e r o f I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l R e l a t i o n s i n 1 9 8 5 , G a r d e G a r d o m r e f l e c t e d t h e p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t o f B . C . p u b l i c a c t o r s : " t h e P r o v i n c e h a s f u l f i l l e d i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n o f I n d i a n l a n d s u n d e r i t s t e r m s o f u n i o n w i t h C a n a d a . T h i s p o l i c y h a s r e f l e c t e d t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e 2 0 2 m a j o r i t y o f B . C . v o t e r s s i n c e C o n f e d e r a t i o n . " M r . G a r d o m ' s c o m m e n t s a r e c u r i o u s , c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s h a v e n e v e r b e e n a n e l e c t i o n i s s u e , w h e r e v o t e r s c o u l d r e f l e c t t h e i r p o s i t i o n . Y e t h e g o e s o n t o s a y t h a t i t w o u l d b e m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e " i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f a l l C a n a d i a n s . . . t h a t a b o r i g i n a l i n t e r e s t s b e r e v i s i t e d a n d r e s t a t e d , b u t u n d e r 203 u m b r e l l a s o t h e r t h a n N a t i v e t i t l e . " G a r d o m s e e m s t o r e j e c t a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n B . C . b a s e d o n a ' w e ( B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a n s ) v e r s u s t h e y ( B . C . I n d i a n s ) ' s c e n a r i o : M a n y o f o u r f i r s t c i t i z e n s a r e p u r s u i n g n o t o n l y o w n e r s h i p o f l a n d , w h i c h t h e y g e n e r a l l y d e f i n e a s ' a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e ' , b u t a l s o v a r i o u s ' a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s ' o v e r l a n d s , w a t e r , a n d r e s o u r c e s - n a t u r a l a s s e t s t h a t m o s t B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a n s b e l i e v e s h o u l d b e c o n t r o l l e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f a l l B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a n s • • • I t a p p e a r s t h a t B . C . I n d i a n l e a d e r s . . . h a v e b e e n g e n u i n e l y l e d t o a n t i c i p a t e t h a t a b o u t 6 0 , 0 0 0 p e o p l e , l e s s t h a n t w o p e r c e n t o f B . C . ' s p o p u l a t i o n , m a y ^ a c h i e v e . . . l e g a l p r e - e m i n e n c e o v e r 2 . 8 m i l l i o n p e o p l e . T h e p e r c e p t i o n h e r e i s t h a t t h e a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i s s u e i s r e j e c t e d b y B . C . v o t e r s . I t w o u l d f o l l o w t h a t M r . G a r d o m a t 6 8 l e a s t p e r c e i v e s t h a t i t i s i n h i s p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t to r e j e c t land c l a i m s . Thus, there e x i s t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia the phenomenon whereby governmental a c t o r s b e l i e v e they would be the bearer s of bad news should they f a c i l i t a t e the land c l a i m s settlement p r o c e s s . What i s important here i s that i n the h i s t o r y of B.C. l a n d c l a i m d i s p u t e s , there has never been a governmental a c t o r to p l a y the r o l e that U.S. S e c r e t a r y of I n t e r i o r S t u a r t U d a l l d i d i n advancing the n a t i v e i n t e r e s t i n A l a s k a . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n i s confirmed by the two other prominent S o c i a l C r e d i t spokesmen on n a t i v e land c l a i m s , A l l a n W i l l i a m s and B r i a n Smith. While At t o r n e y G e n e r a l , W i l l i a m s h e l d the view that l a n d c l a i m s were "a convenient tag to give to what are g r i e v a n c e s 205 that have gone back over a century or even more." B.C.'s Atto r n e y General f o r the g r e a t e r part of t h i s decade, B r i a n Smith, argued that the key m o t i v a t i o n behind n a t i v e land c l a i m s was money: " A l l they want i s d o l l a r s . They don't want to throw anybody o f f the l a n d , they j u s t want b i l l i o n s and b i l l i o n s of 206 d o l l a r s . " B r i a n Smith went much f a r t h e r than t h i s a l i e n a t i n g a c c u s a t i o n , when he s a i d that "You s t a r t n e g o t i a t i n g l a n d c l a i m s 207 and you're down the N e v i l l e Chamberlain route." Needless to say, these are st r o n g words by a p r o v i n c e ' s c h i e f law o f f i c e r , i mplying t h a t the Indi a n s , l i k e the Nazis i n Chamberlain's day, are enemies of the s t a t e and t h e r e f o r e not worthy of d i s c u s s i o n . Furthermore, former B.C. premier B i l l Bennett was a staunch opponent of the r e c o g n i t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , and one of the 69 key a c t o r s to block e x t e n s i v e entrenchment of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s 208 i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n . Why i s i t i n the i n t e r e s t s of B.C. p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s , then, to a v o i d d i s c u s s i o n over a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e ? The p e r c e p t i o n , on one hand, does e x i s t t h a t l a n d c l a i m s settlement would be p o l i t i c a l l y unpopular, and t h e r e f o r e i t i s i n t h e i r p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t to s e n s a t i o n a l i z e and oppose the n a t i v e la n d c l a i m s i s s u e . However, i f an y t h i n g , the f i n d i n g s from the c u l t u r a l e x p l a n a t i o n proved that non-native Canadians and Americans do not d i f f e r i n t h e i r ignorance, p r e j u d i c e , and ambivalence towards a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s . Yet there was r e j e c t i o n i n one country, and settlement i n the o t h e r . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e may be a deeper e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the o p p o s i t i o n to l a n d c l a i m s d i s p l a y e d by B.C. p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s . One can conclude that the i n t e r e s t s of p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s , i n c o n j u n c t i o n with the c o n s t r a i n t s o f f e r e d by i n s t i t u t i o n s , do suggest divergence. U.S. p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s saw the Indian cause as one worth pur s u i n g , while Canadian p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s d o g m a t i c a l l y r e s i s t intergovernmental c o o p e r a t i o n , thereby s t i f l i n g a b o r i g i n a l l a n d c l a i m s settlement i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Both the U.S. c o u r t s and S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r S t u a r t U d a l l made n a t i v e land c l a i m s i n Alaska "not j u s t a n a t i v e problem, but 209 everybody's problem." However, i n Canada such governmental a c t o r s are e i t h e r powerless due to i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s , or man i p u l a t i v e due to p a r o c h i a l p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s . I t must be emphasized that Canadian government a c t o r s do have a c h o i c e , and they choose not to make a j u d i c i o u s o p p o r t u n i t y out of an 70 i n s t i t u t i o n a l problem. The f i n a l q u e s t i o n to be asked, then, i s why i t i s i n the American i n t e r e s t to s e t t l e land c l a i m s , and i n the Canadian i n t e r e s t not to? 5. M a r x i s t V a r i a b l e : The nature of f e d e r a l i s m not only p l a c e s s e r i o u s c o n s t r a i n t s on the r e s o l u t i o n of l a n d c l a i m s settlement i n Canada from an i n s t i t u t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , but a l s o f a v o r s business i n t e r e s t s . Because the p r o v i n c e has c o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over lands and r e s o u r c e s , the f e d e r a l government accepts land c l a i m s f o r 21 0 n e g o t i a t i o n s u b j e c t to p a r t i c i p a t i o n by the p r o v i n c e . What t h i s amounts to i n B.C. i s that the province a c t s i n the i n t e r e s t s of what Block would c a l l "business c o n f i d e n c e , " by s t i f l i n g n e g o t i a t i o n of land c l a i m s that would not be i n the i n t e r e s t of the key resource s e c t o r of the economy — f o r e s t s . On the other hand, the settlement of land c l a i m s i s i n the b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t of the major resource i n d u s t r y i n A l a s k a --o i l . In January 1968 A t l a n t i c - R i c h f i e l d and Humble o i l companies announced that they had found a " s u b s t a n t i a l " o i l r e s e r v e i n Prudhoe Bay. By J u l y i t was estimated that 9.6 b i l l i o n b a r r e l s had been found, and s p e c u l a t i o n on a Trans-Alaskan p i p e l i n e from the North Slope to Valdez began. Because a l l p u b l i c d i s p o s a l of s t a t e l a n d had been f r o z e n by the S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r i n 1966, p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o u l d not begin u n t i l n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s were s e t t l e d . S e c r e t a r y H i c k e l was s u c c e s s f u l i n l i f t i n g t h i s l a n d f r e e z e i n l a t e 1969, so that p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n 71 c o u l d begin. However, i n A p r i l 1970 a f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s a l l o w e d c o n s t r u c t i o n u n t i l n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s were r e s o l v e d . Thus, to s a t i s f y Alaskan business i n t e r e s t s through the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the p i p e l i n e , l a n d c l a i m s were n e g o t i a t e d and s e t t l e d by Congress. To be.sure, t h i s v a r i a b l e p r e s e n t s a s t a r k c o n t r a s t : while the B.C. f o r e s t r y i n d u s t r y i s the key o p p o s i t i o n group that r e j e c t s land c l a i m s i n B.C. (both p u b l i c l y and through the c o u r t s ) , the A l a s k a o i l i n d u s t r y was the key l o b b y i s t that brought settlement i n Washington. When n e g o t i a t i o n s began i n A l a s k a , the l a n d f r e e z e p r o v i d e d the imperative f o r a quick land c l a i m s e t t l e m e n t . Added to t h i s c a t a l y s t was the AFN's t h r e a t to drag the land c l a i m s through the U.S. Court of Claims, which c o u l d have h e l d up economic 21 1 development i n A l a s k a f o r some t h i r t y y e a r s . T h i s t h r e a t to Alaskan c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t s , together with the use of c o u r t i n j u n c t i o n s by N a t i v e s and e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s to block c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Trans-Alaskan P i p e l i n e , c r e a t e d a sense of urgency f o r the S t a t e , the N a t i v e s , and commercial i n t e r e s t s that a quick r e s o l u t i o n of the land c l a i m s through a p o l i t i c a l s o l u t i o n i n the F e d e r a l Congress should be a c h i e v e d . S u c c i n c t l y expressed, the pragmatic r e a l i t y of an Alaskan Land Claims Settlement Act was r e c o g n i z e d , and because of the c o n t i n u i n g e x i s t e n c e of the f r e e z e , p r o p o s a l s f o r a s e t t l e m e n t g r a d u a l l y s h i f t e d i n favour of N a t i v e demands. By 1970 the o i l i n d u s t r y j o i n e d p r o - s e t t l e m e n t f o r c e s , r e a l i z i n g that s e t t l e m e n t of n a t i v e land c l a i m s was a p r e r e q u i s i t e to c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Alaskan p i p e l i n e . In A p r i l 1971, the American Petroleum I n s t i t u t e (API) launched a $4 M i l l i o n a d v e r t i s i n g campaign around the theme, "A country that 72 runs on o i l can't a f f o r d to run s h o r t . " The API emphasized the need to develop Alaskan reserves to l e s s e n U n i t e d S t a t e s . 213 dependence on f o r e i g n o i l . David Baker, who wrote a case study on the ANCSA f o r the Eas t e r n A r c t i c Study S e r i e s , concluded t h a t the o i l i n d u s t r y lobby played the "most important" r o l e i n s e c u r i n g a s e t t l e m e n t . Mary Clay Berry argues that " i t took the o i l companies' p e r s i s t e n t i n t e r e s t i n the c l a i m s settlement to move R e p r e s e n t a t i v e A s p i n a l l , chairman of the House I n t e r i o r 214 Committee." By i n f l u e n c i n g key members of Congress, and 21 5 " g e t t i n g a l l the p r i n c i p a l s to work i n c o n c e r t , " i t would appear that the f o r c e s j o i n e d together i n something comparable to P a n i t c h ' s " c o n f r a t e r n i t y of power," where busi n e s s and the s t a t e i n t e r e s t s are at one: the new Governor of Alaska ... recog n i z e d that a settlement would b r i n g a welcome i n f u s i o n of c a p i t a l i n t o A l a s k a . The Nat i v e s and the new a d m i n i s t r a t i o n j o i n e d f o r c e s to achieve the prompt settlement they r e a l i z e d was i n t h e i r mutual i n t e r e s t . Indeed, the h a l f - b i l l i o n d o l l a r revenue-sharing p r o v i s i o n between n a t i v e s and the v a r i o u s Alaskan i n d u s t r i e s was "con s i d e r e d not too h i g h a p r i c e to pay," s i n c e the long term i n t e r e s t s of 2 1 7 c a p i t a l i s m were ser v e d . Adding to t h i s M a r x i s t e x p l a n a t i o n i s the f a c t t h a t those groups opposing settlement of the ANCSA were not forwarding the c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t . The e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s l o b b i e d f o r the l a n d f r e e z e to c o n t i n u e u n t i l Congress e s t a b l i s h e d a comprehensive 218 l a n d use p l a n . But the f a c t remained that the s t a t e of A l a s k a "remained i n s e r i o u s economic t r o u b l e and d e s p e r a t e l y needed the 73 r o y a l t i e s from the o i l which would flow through the p i p e l i n e . Hence, the u n d e r l y i n g b a s i s f o r a s t a t e - N a t i v e a l l i a n c e was 21 9 f o r g e d . " That " u n d e r l y i n g b a s i s " was the c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t . Gordon S c o t t H a r r i s o n , from the I n s t i t u t e of S o c i a l , Economic, and Government Research, observes t h a t Indeed the acceptance of the l a n d c l a i m s settlement by a l l of the e s t a b l i s h e d economic i n t e r e s t s i n A l a s k a --the s t a t e government, the c o r p o r a t e o i l d e v e l o p e r s , the chambers of commerce, the independent miners and the labour i n t e r e s t s -- stems from the f a c t t h a t i t does not s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e d i s t r i b u t e e x i s t i n g wealth among those groups in the S t a t e . Rather, i t promises to incgggse t n e t o t a l amount of wealth a v a i l a b l e to a l l • • • T h i s c o l l e c t i o n of Alaskan c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t s p r a c t i c a l l y c a r i c a t u r e s P a n i t c h ' s " c o n f r a t e r n i t y of power." Thus, the M a r x i s t argument that "those who manage the s t a t e apparatus have an i n t e r e s t i n using the s t a t e ' s resources to f a c i l i t a t e a smooth 221 flow of investment" appears to be t r u e i n the case of A l a s k a . But does i t p r o v i d e an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r divergence? I f l a n d c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t was i n the c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t i n A l a s k a , then the s t a t u s quo remained i n the c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t i n B r i t i s h Columbia. U n l i k e the o i l i n d u s t r y i n A l a s k a , the key resource i n d u s t r y i n B.C., f o r e s t r y , d i d not see land c l a i m s settlement as a p r e r e q u i s i t e to the smooth o p e r a t i o n of that i n d u s t r y . Indeed, the a b i l i t y of f o r e s t companies l i k e MacMillan B l o e d e l L i m i t e d to l o g where they wish has become a symbol of business c o n f i d e n c e i n B.C. I w i l l use the Meares I s l a n d d i s p u t e as a case i n p o i n t . In 1984 MacMillan B l o e d e l L i m i t e d e l e c t e d to e x e r c i s e i t s 74 l e a s e , g r a n t e d by the p r o v i n c i a l government, to cut timber i n the area of Heelboom Bay on Meares I s l a n d , an area occupied and used 222 by n a t i v e s over a long p e r i o d of time. The company was met by e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s and c o n s e r v a t i o n a l i s t s , which i n c l u d e d the Indian people of Meares I s l a n d and other B.C. n a t i v e s . I n j u n c t i o n s were sought by both the Indians and MacMillan B l o e d e l , and the Attorney General of B.C. i n t e r v e n e d on b e h a l f of MacMillan B l o e d e l to c h a l l e n g e the Indian c l a i m i n c o u r t . D i d the Indians have the r i g h t to delay l o g g i n g , pending the r e s o l u t i o n of the Indian t i t l e q u e s t i o n , or d i d the f o r e s t g i a n t have the r i g h t to l o g based on the l e a s e that the P r o v i n c e had granted the company? D e s p i t e the economic arguments o f f e r e d by the P r o v i n c e on b e h a l f of MacMillan B l o e d e l , Mr. J u s t i c e Peter Seaton concluded i n h i s B.C. Court of Appeals d e c i s i o n that "the evidence does not e s t a b l i s h t h a t l o g g i n g Meares I s l a n d i s e c o n o m i c a l l y e s s e n t i a l to 223 MacMillan B l o e d e l . " I t was the symbol that t h i s d i s p u t e r e p r e s e n t e d f o r a l l f o r e s t r y companies, and indeed the P r o v i n c e i t s e l f , t h a t was i n q u e s t i o n . In the words of J u s t i c e Seaton, Meares I s l a n d i s important to MacMillan B l o e d e l i n t h i s way. MacMillan B l o e d e l has gone through a l l of the necessary steps to o b t a i n p e r m i s s i o n to c u t . I f i t i s stopped here there i s a worry that i t w i l l be stopped elsewhere. Meares I s l a n d has become the f r o n t l i n e i n the d i s p u t e over Indian t i t l e . ... Meares I s l a n d i s important to MacMillan B l o e d e l not because of t r e e s , but because i t i s where the l i n e has been drawn. I t has become a symbol. I would argue that that symbol even went beyond the r i g h t of MacMillan B l o e d e l to l o g , becoming a symbol f o r economic order as 75 determined by the s t a t e : the Meares I s l a n d case, l i k e a l l land c l a i m s d i s p u t e s , t h r e a t e n e d the a b i l i t y of the s t a t e to maintain the i n t e r e s t s of c a p i t a l i s m by a l l o w i n g the smooth f u n c t i o n i n g of the l o g g i n g i n d u s t r y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Indeed, J u s t i c e Seaton addressed such r a m i f i c a t i o n s i n h i s reasons f o r judgement: " I t was s t r o n g l y p r e s s e d upon us that an order suspending l o g g i n g on Meares I s l a n d would threaten the 225 whole of the c o a s t ; indeed the whole of the Province ..." The judge was not i n f l u e n c e d by such an argument, forwarded by the B.C. A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . The B.C. Court of Appeal h a l t e d l o g g i n g on Meares I s l a n d u n t i l a d e c i s i o n on land c l a i m d i s p u t e s 226 c o u l d be reached. Such a judgement resembles the 1970 U.S. f e d e r a l c o u r t i n j u n c t i o n which h a l t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n of the 227 p i p e l i n e u n t i l N a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s were s e t t l e d . However, in d i r e c t c o n t r a s t to the A l a s k a s i t u a t i o n , i n B r i t i s h Columbia the s t a t e d i d not proceed to n e g o t i a t e a s e t t l e m e n t , but continued to r e j e c t land c l a i m s based on the f a c t t h a t , u n l i k e the Alaskan c a p i t a l i s t s , B r i t i s h Columbia c a p i t a l i s t s stood to l o s e i f land 228 c l a i m s settlement became a r e a l i t y . The c o u r t , as a governmental a c t o r , p r o t e c t e d n a t i v e i n t e r e s t s from business and s t a t e i n t e r e s t s i n both B.C. and A l a s k a . But t h i s a c t i o n i s not enough: i n A l a s k a , p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s f o l l o w e d the c o u r t ' s l e a d and s e t t l e d the land c l a i m s ; i n B.C., the s t a t e has not advanced i t s p o s i t i o n d e s p i t e J u s t i c e Seaton's d e c i s i o n . In both cases, i t i s the b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s t h a t d i c t a t e why the s t a t e proceeds d i f f e r e n t l y . Here indeed i s a c o m p e l l i n g e x p l a n a t i o n f o r 76 divergence i n p u b l i c p o l i c y : the i n t e r e s t s of c a p i t a l i s m as p r o t e c t e d by the s t a t e . L i k e the Alaska economy i n the l a t e 60's, B.C.'s economy i s threatened by the p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l debate over n a t i v e l a n d 229 c l a i m s . However, whereas A l a s k a and Washington saw the settlement of land c l a i m s as i n the best i n t e r e s t of the s t a t e , V i c t o r i a and Ottawa do not b e l i e v e that t h i s i s the case i n B.C. The B.C. f o r e s t i n d u s t r y argues t h a t because much of the Crown f o r e s t land i n the Province i s encompassed by one or another Native l a n d c l a i m s , "few companies would be immune from the p o t e n t i a l impact of l e g a l or p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n undertaken to come 230 to g r i p s with t h i s i s s u e . " Such would a l s o have been the case in A l a s k a , i f not to a g r e a t e r degree, s i n c e the s i z e of the land c l a i m i n Alask a was c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r than i n B.C. L i k e the p r o f i t - s h a r i n g components of the ANCSA, j o i n t b u s i n e s s ventures or p a r t n e r s h i p s c o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d i n B.C. between f o r e s t companies and Indian bands — "a p o i n t o f t e n emphasized by f e d e r a l Indian A f f a i r s o f f i c i a l s who favour n e g o t i a t i o n of the land c l a i m s . " 2 3 1 However, while the settlement of the ANCSA r e l i e v e d the economic u n c e r t a i n t y p r e v a l e n t i n Al a s k a i n 1970, the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y sees settlement of land c l a i m s i n B.C. as opening a "'Pandora's Box'" that would l e g a l i z e and i n t e n s i f y the 232 u n c e r t a i n t y a l r e a d y p r e v a l e n t . In other words, a land c l a i m r e s t o r e d business c o n f i d e n c e i n A l a s k a , but would c r u c i f y b u s i n e s s c o n f i d e n c e i n B.C. As a r e s u l t , r e g a r d l e s s of the 77 f e d e r a l r h e t o r i c s y m p a t h e t i c t o a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s , t h e s t a t e w i l l n o t i n t e r v e n e t o s e t t l e l a n d c l a i m s . The n e x t q u e s t i o n i s why i t was i n was i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f b u s i n e s s t o s e t t l e i n A l a s k a a n d n o t s e t t l e i n B . C . Why d i d t h e d i f f e r e n t i n d u s t r i e s p e r c e i v e t h e i r s e l f - i n t e r e s t d i f f e r e n t l y ? C o n t r a r y t o t h e s i t u a t i o n i n A l a s k a , w h e r e n a t i v e c l a i m s e t t l e m e n t was a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a n a t i v e c l a i m s do n o t s u s p e n d l o g g i n g a c t i v i t y t h r o u g h o u t t h e P r o v i n c e , o r e v e n s i g n i f i c a n t l y hamper i t . A s t h e V i c e P r e s i d e n t o f M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l , F r e d M o o n i n , p o i n t s o u t , n a t i v e c l a i m s a r e " d i s q u i e t i n g " a n d a t t i m e s " d i s r u p t i v e , " b u t t h e n a t i v e b l o c k a d e s a n d c o u r t i n j u n c t i o n s w h i c h h a l t l o g g i n g m e r e l y p r o d u c e " f r i c t i o n p o i n t s " i n t h e p r o v i n c e . " N a t i v e c l a i m s 233 a r e c e r t a i n l y n o t c l o s i n g o u r s h o p . " On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i n A l a s k a t h e n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s d i d c l o s e t h e o i l i n d u s t r y ' s s h o p : " u n t i l t h e l e g a l r i g h t s o f t h e N a t i v e s [ w e r e ] d e t e r m i n e d , t h o s e r i g h t s s t a n d i n c o u r t a g a i n s t a n y a t t e m p t t o b e g i n p i p e l i n e 234 c o n s t r u c t i o n a c r o s s t h e d i s p u t e d l a n d . " F r o m t h e t i m e t h a t t h e U . S . D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . made t h i s l a t t e r r u l i n g i n 1 9 7 0 , u n t i l t h e t i m e o f s e t t l e m e n t i n 1 9 7 1 , " t h e c o s t . . . t o t h e o i l c o m p a n i e s c a n be r e c k o n e d i n m i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s . " 2 3 5 T h u s , a t t h e h e a r t o f t h e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r d i v e r g e n t p o l i c i e s , b o t h o f i n d u s t r i e s a n d g o v e r n m e n t s , i s t h e d i f f e r e n t p r o b l e m s f a c i n g t h e o i l i n d u s t r y o f A l a s k a a n d t h e f o r e s t i n d u s t r y o f B . C . I n A l a s k a t h e r e was a p i p e l i n e t o be b u i l t , a 78 t i m e t a b l e to b u i l d i t , and the insurmountable impasse of a s t a t e l a n d f r e e z e , and then a c o u r t i n j u n c t i o n , both of which d i s a l l o w e d c o n s t r u c t i o n on the l a n d over which the p i p e l i n e was to pass. The removal of t h a t f r e e z e , v i s a v i s the settlement of n a t i v e land c l a i m s , was a p r e r e q u i s i t e to p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n . In B r i t i s h Columbia, there are c o u r t i n j u n c t i o n s h a l t i n g l o g g i n g 236 a c t i v i t y i n v a r i o u s pockets a c r o s s the p r o v i n c e . However, the a t t i t u d e of the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y i s not one of urgency, but i n s t e a d companies l i k e M acMillan B l o e d e l r e c o g n i z e that "the f i b r e w i l l s t i l l be t h e r e " with or without n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s e t t l e m e n t . "Whether we b i l l the P r o v i n c e , or the G i t k s a n 237 doesn't matter to [MacMillan B l o e d e l ] . " There i s no need at t h i s time f o r the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y to encourage the settlement of l a n d c l a i m s and thus f o r e s t companies co n t i n u e to oppose n a t i v e c l a i m s on land which the company holds a l e a s e to l o g on. The p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s i n B.C. c o n f i r m the idea that settlement of land claims w i l l open a 'Pandora's Box'. The Intergovernmental A f f a i r s M i n i s t e r i n 1985, Garde Gardom, a r t i c u l a t e s the u n c e r t a i n t y r a i s e d by l a n d c l a i m s i n B.C.: "Do Canadians i n a l l c o n s c i e n c e request t h e i r e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s to r a i s e from Canadian taxpayers the vast amounts of money, land and resources that would be r e q u i r e d to s a t i s f y [ a b o r i g i n a l ] 238 demands?" Then, and now, settlement i s viewed by both s t a t e and business as a curse to the smooth flow of investment. Mr. Gardom argued that I t i s abundantly c l e a r , i f p u b l i c lands are made a v a i l a b l e f o r Indian land c l a i m s e t t l e m e n t s , the t h i r d 79 p a r t y i n t e r e s t w o u l d e i t h e r h a v e t o b e s h a r e d o r r e m o v e d . B u t i f s o , t o w h a t e x t e n t ? . . . A n d c o m p e n s a t i o n w o u l d h a v e t o b e p a i d t o t h e h o l d e r s o f t h o s e i n t e r e s t s . A g a i n , w h o p a y s ? Who c a n c a l c u l a t e t h e s i z e o f t h e b i l l ? Who c a n e s t i m a t e t h e e c o n o m i c a n d f i s c a l c o n s e q u e n c e s t h a t m i g h t b e i n v o l v e d ? 240 S t a t e a c t o r s l i k e G a r d o m s h r o u d w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y t h a t w h i c h s t a t e a c t o r s i n W a s h i n g t o n a n d A l a s k a r a t h e r e x p e d i t i o u s l y r e s o l v e d . T h u s , t h e p r o v i n c e i n t e r v e n e s o n b e h a l f o f b i g b u s i n e s s - - t h e f o r e s t c o m p a n i e s — i n l o g g i n g d i s p u t e s s u c h a s i n M e a r e s I s l a n d , S o u t h M o r e s b y , a n d t h e S t e i n V a l l e y . 2 4 1 S i m i l a r l y , b u s i n e s s a n d s t a t e i n t e r e s t s a r e a t o n e i n A l a s k a a n d B . C . , w i t h g o v e r n m e n t d e f e n d i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s o f c a p i t a l i s m : t h e " c o n f r a t e r n i t y o f p o w e r " w o r k t o g e t h e r t o r e s t o r e b u s i n e s s c o n f i d e n c e i n A l a s k a a n d B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . I n A l a s k a t h a t e f f o r t t r a n s l a t e d i t s e l f i n t o s e t t l e m e n t w i t h t h e n a t i v e p e o p l e s , a n d i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s a n d t h e p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t u s e t h e P r o v i n c e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y o v e r l a n d t o b u i l d a n i m p a s s e f o r s e t t l e m e n t w i t h t h e a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s . I t w o u l d f o l l o w t h a t t h e M a r x i s t v a r i a b l e a l s o o f f e r s a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ' s o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e e n t r e n c h m e n t o f a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n : t h e " r e c t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l I n d i a n t r e a t i e s a n d r e - w r i t i n g o f l a n d c l a i m s o n s o m e m o r e n e a r l y e q u i t a b l e b a s i s " m e a n t s e r i o u s e c o n o m i c l o s s e s 242 f o r B . C . , A l b e r t a , S a s k a t c h e w a n a n d M a n i t o b a . T o u s e a m a j o r C a n a d i a n l a n d c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t t o t e s t t h i s a r g u m e n t , o n e f i n d s c o n f i r m a t i o n i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f Q u e b e c . W h e n s e t t l i n g n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s d i d a d v a n c e t h e b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t i n Q u e b e c , C a n a d i a n i n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l c o o p e r a t i o n i n n a t i v e p o l i c y 80 suddenly became a r e a l i t y . The James Bay h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t became for the Quebec government the e q u i v a l e n t of the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the A l a s k a p i p e l i n e . Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa's m u l t i - b i l l i o n d o l l a r " P r o j e c t of the Century" i n v o l v e d h a r n e s s i n g enormous amounts of "cheap" power from the r i v e r s 243 f l o w i n g i n t o James Bay. T h i s was to be done through the d i v e r s i o n of r i v e r s , c o n s t r u c t i o n of dams, and f l o o d i n g of "lands over which the James Bay Cree and I n u i t had hunted, trapped and 244 f i s h e d f o r y e a r s . " With the Bourassa government r e f u s i n g to allow the n a t i v e s to h a l t the p r o j e c t , the James Bay Cree won and then l o s t a c o u r t i n j u n c t i o n to h a l t the development. However, for the week that f o l l o w e d the i n i t i a l c o u r t v i c t o r y the p r o v i n c i a l government moved q u i c k l y to b r i n g a r e s o l u t i o n to the land c l a i m s c o n t r o v e r s y . Although undoubtedly the n a t i v e s faced impediments i n r e a c h i n g an agreement with a h i g h l y i n s e n s i t i v e Bourassa government, i t was c l e a r that there would be a settlement. J u s t as the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a Trans-Alaskan p i p e l i n e was c r u c i a l to that s t a t e ' s economic v i a b i l i t y , so d i d the economic f u t u r e of Quebec seem to l i e i n the James Bay h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t . Settlement of l a n d c l a i m s was necessary for development, and was unquestionably i n the c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t of both s t a t e / p r o v i n c e s . Thus, i n November 1975 a "great landmark" i n n a t i v e settlement was a c h i e v e d . The agreement between the Cree and I n u i t i n Northern Quebec and the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments i n v o l v e d $75 M i l l i o n over 10 years, $75 M i l l i o n i n r o y a l t i e s on the hydro development over a 81 longer p e r i o d of time, the a l l o c a t i o n of 5,250 square m i l e s to the n a t i v e s , e x c l u s i v e hunting and f i s h i n g r i g h t s on another 245 60,000 square m i l e s , and much more. In Quebec, as i n A l a s k a , the s t a t e saw that i t was i n the c a p i t a l i s t i n t e r e s t to seek a land c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t , so that the " P r o j e c t of the Century" c o u l d proceed. Why i s there d i v e r g e n c e i n a b o r i g i n a l land c l a i m s p o l i c y ? In A l a s k a , i t was i n the i n t e r e s t s of business f o r the s t a t e to pursue settlement of n a t i v e land c l a i m s i n that s t a t e , i n order that the t r a n s - A l a s k a n p i p e l i n e c o u l d be b u i l t . In B r i t i s h Columbia, on the other hand, i t i s apparent that settlement of land c l a i m s i n B.C. would not i n c r e a s e the major resource i n d u s t r y ' s wealth. Moreover, the i n t e r e s t s of busi n e s s remain i n t a c t as long as the 'Pandora's Box' of settlement i s not opened. Settlement would not be i n the i n t e r e s t s of c a p i t a l i s m i n B.C., and so there i s no n e g o t i a t i n g away the r e i n s of power. Marxism does p r o v i d e an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r divergence of s t a t e and s t a t e a c t o r s to r e s o l v e n a t i v e land d i s p u t e s . 82 IV CONCLUSION The independent v a r i a b l e s should be ranked, in terms of importance, as f o l l o w s : l ) M a r x i s t , 2 ) S t a t i s t , 3 ) P l u r a l i s t , 4)Environmental, 5 ) P u b l i c O p i n i o n . The P u b l i c Opinion e x p l a n a t i o n s t r o n g l y suggests convergence, not d i v e r g e n c e , and thus i s the l e a s t e f f e c t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n for why there i s settlement i n A l a s k a , and non-settlement in B.C. However, t h i s v a r i a b l e i s u s e f u l because the convergence of Canadian and American a t t i t u d e s towards n a t i v e s u l t i m a t e l y negates the p o l i t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r non-settlement in B r i t i s h Columbia. To the extent that one can r e l y on s p e c u l a t i v e l i t e r a t u r e and a case study on the n a t i v e s e i z u r e of Wounded Knee, the advancement of the n a t i v e cause i n the U.S. has and w i l l c o n t i n u e to meet with l i t t l e to no r e a c t i o n from American p u b l i c o p i n i o n . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n would a l s o be true f o r Canada. C e r t a i n l y Rick Ponting's d e s c r i p t i o n of n a t i v e i s s u e s remaining on "the p e r i p h e r y of Canadians' c o n s c i o u s n e s s " would apply e q u a l l y i n the United S t a t e s . The environmental e x p l a n a t i o n by i t s e l f cannot e x p l a i n divergence because a b o r i g i n a l l a n d c l a i m s p o l i c y i s i n t e n s e l y p o l i t i c a l and unavoidably charged with emotions and a t t i t u d e s about the symbol of a b o r i g i n a l i s m i n a n a t i o n . T h i s i s an issue about j u s t i c e that i s f a c i l i t a t e d , o b s t r u c t e d , or delayed due to a wide a r r a y of f o r c e s t h a t have l i t t l e to do with the number of a b o r i g i n a l s i n B.C. or A l a s k a . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n was an extremely l a r g e 17% i n A l a s k a and a r e l a t i v e l y 83 i n s i g n i f i c a n t 2% i n B.C. Such a d i f f e r e n c e i n p o p u l a t i o n s g i v e s n a t i v e s a s t r o n g e r v o i c e i n A l a s k a , r e l a t i v e to i t s non-native p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s t r a n s l a t e s i n t o g r e a t e r p o l i t i c a l c l o u t , simply because the n a t i v e s have a g r e a t e r vote i n A l a s k a than i n B.C. However, one should not expect much from t h i s v a r i a b l e . A s u b s t a n t i a l v o t i n g m i n o r i t y and g r e a t e r p o l i t i c a l c l o u t i n A l a s k a than i n B.C. does not by i t s e l f e x p l a i n d i v e r g e n c e . The f a c t t h a t s o - c a l l e d s o c i a l i s t v o t e r s who supported the New Democratic Pa r t y have made up a 35-48% m i n o r i t y i n post-war B r i t i s h Columbia has not t r a n s l a t e d i n t o e l e c t o r a l success f o r that m i n o r i t y : a l l but one e l e c t i o n s i n c e 1952 has favored the s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r m i n o r i t y of S o c i a l C r e d i t v o t e r s . Roman C a t h o l i c s i n Northern I r e l a n d are as s i g n i f i c a n t a v o t i n g m i n o r i t y as one can f i n d , yet t h i s has not r e s u l t e d i n p o l i c i e s f a v o r a b l e to C a t h o l i c s t h e r e . Indeed, sometimes a l a r g e group can i n s p i r e a f e a r f u l m a j o r i t y to q u e l l and oppress the demands of the t h r e a t e n i n g group. There i s not a powerful argument here e x p l a i n i n g d i v e r g e n c e . There i s a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n here as to why Alaskan p o l i t i c i a n s take n a t i v e s more s e r i o u s l y than B.C. p o l i t i c i a n s do: the a b o r i g i n a l s can i n f l u e n c e the vote i n Alaska with a 17% m i n o r i t y , while i n B.C. the n a t i v e vote makes a meager d i f f e r e n c e i n o n l y a few r i d i n g s . But i t should not be f o r g o t t e n that judges c a r e not about e l e c t i o n s , and b u s i n e s s l e a d e r s care more about how m a j o r i t y p o l i t i c s a f f e c t s t h e i r f o r t u n e s , than which p o l i t i c i a n p u l l s the purse s t r i n g s . C l e a r l y , there i s more to t h i s i s s u e than p o p u l a t i o n f i g u r e s . 84 The p l u r a l i s t v a r i a b l e transcends c u l t u r a l and n o n - p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s simply because the s u b j e c t of a b o r i g i n a l land claims i s , i n both Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s , a h i g h l y charged p o l i t i c a l i s s u e . D e s p i t e the c o n t r a s t i n g accomplishments of the Alaska n a t i v e lobby and the B.C. n a t i v e lobby, the AFN's successes cannot be a t t r i b u t e d to a s u p e r i o r p o l i t i c a l machine alone. A b o r i g i n a l groups i n both A l a s k a and B.C. put forward impressive l o b b y i n g e f f o r t s , with s t r o n g f i n a n c i a l support, that took on s t a t e / 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 . B.C. n a t i v e s d i d not have a u n i f i e d v o i c e i n Ottawa, but t h i s d i d not i n h i b i t the acceptance of land c l a i m s f o r n e g o t i a t i o n . A l a s k a , meanwhile, used i t s p o l i t i c a l c a p a c i t y to lobby the r e l e v a n t p o l i t i c a l a c t o r s . Indeed, the Alaskan p l u r a l i s t e f f o r t was impressive enough to a t t a i n an e x t r a o r d i n a r y s e t t l e m e n t . In B.C. the p r o v i n c i a l government's p o s i t i o n of not even d i s c u s s i n g n a t i v e land c l a i m s remains unmoved by the B.C. n a t i v e lobby, and t h i s p r e s e n t s an i n t e r e s t i n g h y p o t h e s i s f o r d i v e r g e n c e : c o u l d d i f f e r i n g p o l i c y outcomes i n A l a s k a and B.C. be e x p l a i n e d by the B.C. n a t i v e lobby's f a i l u r e to change the p r o v i n c i a l government's p o s i t i o n ? Is divergence i n p o l i c i e s the r e s u l t of a s u c c e s s f u l lobby i n A l a s k a versus a f a i l e d one i n B.C.? Now that that a l l the f i n d i n g s have been presented, one may f u l l y d e a l with t h i s quest i o n . Answering t h i s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s more than j u s t a monocausal p l u r a l i s t approach. C e r t a i n l y B.C. n a t i v e groups l a c k the v o t i n g power, p o l i t i c a l a l l i a n c e , and p u b l i c sympathy t h a t one would 85 expect from a lobby with e x t r a o r d i n a r y demands. But d u r i n g the s e v e n t i e s and e a r l y e i g h t i e s , the p o l i t i c a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n with the f e d e r a l government remained at odds with the p o l i t i c a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l o p p o s i t i o n of the p r o v i n c i a l government, and t h i s f a c t expands the answer to our q u e s t i o n i n t o a more m u l t i - c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n . Since the f e d e r a l e l e c t i o n of the P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e s i n 1984, the p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n of n a t i v e s to the f e d e r a l government has been severed, although t h i s has made no d i f f e r e n c e i n Canada's a b o r i g i n a l land c l a i m 246 p o l i c y . These f a c t s , taken t o g e t h e r , a c t u a l l y obscure the p l u r a l i s t e x p l a n a t i o n to the p o i n t where one must draw on other v a r i a b l e s i n order to develop a s a l i e n t e x p l a n a t i o n . In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , there are s e v e r a l reasons f o r ' t h e n a t i v e lobby's f a i l u r e i n B.C., and n e i t h e r a p l u r a l i s t , nor an i n s t i t u t i o n a l , nor a marxist argument, by i t s e l f , e x p l a i n s i t . The P r o v i n c e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l o p p o s i t i o n to l a n d c l a i m s n e g o t i a t i o n , together with n a t i v e groups' l a c k of o r g a n i z a t i o n , v o t i n g s t r e n g t h , and p o l i t i c a l c o n n e c t i o n s , adds to the f o r c e of the powerful business i n t e r e s t i n opposing the n e g o t i a t i o n or settlement of land c l a i m s settlement i n B.C. P l u r a l i s m i n B.C. d i c t a t e s t hat c e r t a i n f o r c e s stamp out the n a t i v e p o l i t i c a l c a p a c i t y , whereas in Alaska these same f o r c e s shared the i n t e r e s t of the Alaskan n a t i v e lobby. Moreover, B.C. a b o r i g i n a l e f f o r t s h i t an impasse at the i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e v e l which Alas k a n a t i v e s were a b l e to overcome, due to the i n t e r v e n t i o n of American governmental a c t o r s . Here, at the l e v e l of the s t a t e , there i s a 86 c l e a r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r d i v e r g e n c e . In the U n i t e d S t a t e s the f e d e r a l government r e t a i n s complete c o n t r o l over a b o r i g i n a l l a n d c l a i m s p o l i c y . In c o n t r a s t , Canada's Comprehensive Claims p o l i c y acknowledges the c o n s t r a i n t s that Canadian f e d e r a l i s m p l a c e s on the land c l a i m s p r o c e s s . Whereas B.C. must p a r t i c i p a t e i n the process due to t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y over lands and resources, the s t a t e of A l a s k a had no a u t h o r i t y i n l a n d c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t s . F e d e r a l i s m i n Canada i s such that i n s t i t u t i o n s present a mammoth c o n s t r a i n t on the l a n d c l a i m s p r o c e s s due to the i n t e r e s t s of government a c t o r s . D e s p i t e the P r o v i n c e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n over p u b l i c lands, the B.C. government uses narrow, l e g a l i s t i c arguments to absolve B r i t i s h Columbia from a B r i t i s h Columbian i s s u e . Thus, there i s n e g o t i a t i o n and settlement i n A l a s k a , and a f e d e r a l i s t stalemate i n B r i t i s h Columbia. T h i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l angle of the s t a t i s t v a r i a b l e does not completely e x p l a i n d i v e r g e n c e , simply because governments i n Canada do have the a b i l i t y to s e t t l e l a n d c l a i m s through intergovernmental c o o p e r a t i o n . However, B.C. and Ottawa i n s t e a d wait f o r the c o u r t s to formulate a s t r u c t u r e f o r s e t t l e m e n t , a path that w i l l push the Canadian la n d c l a i m s process i n t o the next c e n t u r y . The settlement of l a n d c l a i m s i n the U.S. — mandated by Congress through the Indian Claims Commission Act -- a l s o faced impediments due to a stagnant and u n c o o p e r a t i v e Indian Claims Commission. Yet there was s e t t l e m e n t i n A l a s k a . In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , the key v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e the m o t i v a t i o n s behind the 87 P r o v i n c e ' s d e c i s i o n to manipulate f e d e r a l i s m i n Canada, and the i n t e r e s t s which f u r t h e r e d the i n s t i t u t i o n a l advantage of the f e d e r a l government i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . These m o t i v a t i o n s and i n t e r e s t s u l t i m a t e l y e x p l a i n d i v e r g e n c e i n a b o r i g i n a l l a n d c l a i m s p o l i c y . A c t i n g together with the i n s t i t u t i o n a l v a r i a b l e are the i n t e r e s t s of governmental a c t o r s . The U.S. S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r ' s i m p o s i t i o n of a f r e e z e on the p a t e n t i n g of s t a t e l a n d in 1966 set the d i r e c t i o n f o r the p o l i c y outcome i n A l a s k a . S t u a r t U d a l l ' s a c t i o n s would be the c a t a l y s t f o r the se t t l e m e n t p r o c e s s , although s e v e r a l other a c t o r s and i n t e r e s t s would have a hand i n the f i n a l outcome. In both s t y l e and substance, the Nixon a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the 1970 Governor of A l a s k a , among o t h e r s , rode the wave that would b r i n g the Alask a N a t i v e Claims Settlement A c t . By the l a t e 60's p u b l i c a c t o r s c o u l d read the w r i t i n g on the w a l l , both i n terms of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and p o l i t i c a l commitments made, and subsequently i t was i n the governmental i n t e r e s t to s e t t l e with the n a t i v e s . F o l l o w i n g the land f r e e z e , i t was the encouragement of the Nixon a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , together with a key j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n t h a t h a l t e d p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n u n t i l a n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t was reached, t h a t p r o p e l l e d the land c l a i m s process i n t o the end r e s u l t of se t t l e m e n t . In Canada, other than the anomalous f e d e r a l n e g o t i a t i o n s with the Nisga'a people, there has yet to be a f e d e r a l or p r o v i n c i a l p o l i t i c i a n , or a j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n , that has attempted to a l t e r the s t a t u s quo by i n i t i a t i n g n e g o t i a t i o n 88 with B.C. a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s . The o p p o r t u n i t y f o r f e d e r a l -p r o v i n c i a l c o o p e r a t i o n i s there f o r B.C. p o l i t i c i a n s , but they choose to r e j e c t t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a reason. The i n s t r u m e n t a l r o l e p l a y e d by governmental a c t o r s i n both B.C. and Alaska s i t u a t i o n s was c h i e f l y m otivated not j u s t by i n s t i t u t i o n a l and p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s , but by another d r i v i n g f o r c e . The s t r u c t u r a l M a r x i s t v a r i a b l e p r o v i d e s the most co m p e l l i n g e x p l a n a t i o n f o r d i v e r g e n c e of p o l i c y . The i n t e r e s t s of c a p i t a l i s m might not have been r e a l i z e d without the ambivalence of p u b l i c o p i n i o n , the i n t e n s e l y p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s , and determined s t a t i s t f o r c e s at work. However, more than any one other e x p l a n a t i o n , the s t a t u s of the s t a t e / p r o v i n c e ' s business i n t e r e s t best determined the outcome. In B r i t i s h Columbia, the s t a t e p l a c e d a l o c k on the "Pandora's Box" that the r e c o g n i t i o n of c u r r e n t a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e would have opened. The B.C. p r o v i n c i a l government used j u r i s d i c t i o n a l arguments to d i s g u i s e the business i n t e r e s t t h a t would be threatened i f the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y ' s r i g h t t o log on l e a s e d p r o p e r t y was thrown i n t o q u e s t i o n . In the U n i t e d S t a t e s , b u s i n e s s , s t a t e , and n a t i v e s j o i n e d i n a " c o n f r a t e r n i t y of power" to produce a settlement that would not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d i s t r i b u t e c a p i t a l i n A l a s k a , but f a c i l i t a t e the smooth flow of c a p i t a l and ensure that business i n t e r e s t s p r e v a i l e d . Notwithstanding these f i n d i n g s , the M a r x i s t v a r i a b l e does not alone e x p l a i n d i v e r g e n c e . The environmental, p l u r a l i s t , and s t a t i s t v a r i a b l e s are important. Although settlement might not 89 have occu r r e d had i t not been f o r the o i l l o b b y , i t was the a c t i o n s of government a c t o r s l i k e U d a l l and the c o u r t s , that made the n a t i v e problem everybody's problem. Should s t a t e a c t i o n i n Canada p l a c e the B.C. f o r e s t i n d u s t r y i n a p o s i t i o n where i t becomes l e s s c o s t l y to s e t t l e l a n d c l a i m s than to r e j e c t them, then presumably both i n d u s t r y and s t a t e would pursue the r e s t o r a t i o n of business i n t e r e s t s and s e t t l e with the n a t i v e s . Indeed, t h i s may become the case i n the p r o v i n c e , as the B.C. A s s i s t a n t Deputy M i n i s t e r f o r Indian A f f a i r s r e p o r t e d i n January 247 1989: "The co s t of not doing c l a i m s i s begin n i n g to i n c r e a s e . " A p u b l i c p o l i c y r e p o r t seems to c o n f i r m the idea t h a t s t a t e a c t i o n , through the advent of c o u r t i n j u n c t i o n s , c o u l d t h r e a t e n economic and business i n t e r e s t s to the p o i n t where B.C. would have to co n s i d e r s e t t l i n g : Government o f f i c i a l s b e l i e v e the c o u r t s ' w i l l i n g n e s s to grant i n j u n c t i o n s c o u l d e v e n t u a l l y reach a stage where the p r o v i n c e i s f o r c e d to weigh the c o s t of s e t t l i n g Indian land c l a i m s ... with the co s t of d e l a y e d or l o s t economic investment. ... The pre s s u r e on the p r o v i n c i a l government to r e s o l v e l a n d c l a i m s d i s p u t e s w i l l i n c r e a s e as n a t i v e Indians move to determine the v a l i d i t y of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , and the c o u r t s grant i n t e r i m i n j u n c t i o n s u n t i l those c l a i m s are s e t t l e d . Indeed, the business i n t e r e s t appears to be the prime concern when s t a t e a c t i o n g i v e s n a t i v e i n t e r e s t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Although the i n i t i a l a c t i o n of a p o l i t i c i a n may have n a t i v e or p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s i n mind, i n the end the sett l e m e n t appears to occur due to economic concerns. AFN a t t o r n e y Edward Weinberg a p t l y summed up t h i s idea i n h i s e v a l u a t i o n of the ANCSA: the settlement was due "two percent to the j u s t i c e of the case, 90 n i n e t y - e i g h t percent to the need f o r o i l . " In B r i t i s h Columbia, A s s i s t a n t Deputy M i n i s t e r E r i c Dendoff observed that You begin to see an e s c a l a t i n g and more d i f f i c u l t p r o s p e c t f o r the p r o v i n c e i n terms of economic development. If you look h i s t o r i c a l l y why p r o v i n c e s n e g o t i a t e d l a n d c l a i m s , i t was around the thought t h a t major s e r i e s of i n i t i a t i v e s were threatened. One such i n i t i a t i v e , which Dendoff r e f e r s to, i s the James Bay h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t i n Quebec. In that case governmental a c t o r s , both p o l i t i c a l and j u d i c i a l , saw the n a t i v e i n t e r e s t as i n the b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t of the s t a t e . As a r e s u l t , t h e r e was a major lan d c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t . Where n a t i v e s f a i l i n B.C., then, they were s u c c e s s f u l i n Quebec. Again, the key v a r i a b l e s are the a c t i o n taken by a governmental a c t o r -- the c o u r t s -- and the i n t e r e s t s of b u s i n e s s . Thus, a marxist argument, with the i n t e r r e l a t e d s t a t i s t v a r i a b l e i n mind, e x p l a i n s the divergence i n p o l i c y . The c o n t r a s t i n g p o l i c i e s of Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s hung on a myriad of c i r c u m s t a n c e s gauged by the s t a t e , which manipulated i t s p o s i t i o n , both i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y and p o l i t i c a l l y , to advance the i n t e r e s t s of c a p i t a l i s m . I t would appear, then, t h a t the American Indian may s i t on the c u t t i n g edge of i n t e r n a t i o n a l indigenous r i g h t s f o r more than j u d i c i o u s , or n e c e s s a r i l y commendable reasons. For American a b o r i g i n a l l e a d e r s seeking c a p i t a l i s t support f o r land c l a i m s , there are two s i d e s to the c o i n that brought settlement i n A l a s k a . One c o u l d s p e c u l a t e that the n a t i v e i n t e r e s t must not i n t e r f e r e with the smooth flow of c a p i t a l i n order that settlement of land c l a i m s o c c u r s . 91 N T H U O m " b a e n r D ' s 7 0 ^ 7 1 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NATIVE POPULATION Absolute Number 67,061 51,528 B.C. (1986) A laska (1970) Province/State P e r c e n t 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 NATIVE POPULATION Percentage of Total Population B.C. (1986) A laska (1970) Province/State 92 Table 1b 1 / / A 17% 2 3% 1 — J Table 1c DENSITY OF NATIVE POPULATION Per 1000 Square Miles 180 D 160 140 e 120 n 100 s 80 i 60 t 40 y 20 0 Z7 / • j / A 167 | 87 1 1 1 1 <> 1 / 1 " B.C. (1986) A laska (1970) Province/State Source for Tables 1a, b, c: David Baker, Eastern Arctic Study C a s e Study Ser ies: The A laska Native C la ims Settlement (Kingston: Centre for Resource Studies, 1982) 15. C a n a d a , Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, "Registered Indian Population By Age-Sex-Res idence , 1986" Report L P R 1 6 . 93 TABLE 2a TABLE J u REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS OF THE ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES 1969 Association Ethnic Groups Region Year of Formation Alaska Native Brotherhood Alaska Peninsula Association Aleut League Arctic Native Brotherhood Arctic Slope Native Association Bristol Bay Native Association Cook Inlet Native Association Copper River Indian Association Chugach Native Association Fairbanks Native Association Kenaitze Indian Association Kodiak Area Native Association Kuskokwim Valley Native Association Native Village of Tyonek Northwest Alaska Native Association Tanana Chiefs' Conference Village Council Presidents' Associ ation Principally TUngit and Haida Aleut Aleut Eskimo Eskimo Eskimo, Aleut Mixed Eyak Indian Eskimo Mixed Kenal (Athabaskan) Eskimo and Aleut Eskimo Moquawkie India Eskimo Athabaskan Eskimo Southeastern Alaska principally Alaska Peninsula Aleutian Islands & Pribiloffs Nome & tha Seward Peninsula North Slope Bristol Bay Anchorage Region Copper River Area Prince William Sound Fairbanks Kenai Peninsula Kodiak Island Bethel Region Tyonek Reservation Kotzebue to Point Hope Interior Alaska, Yukon and Tanana Valleys Lower Yukon and Kuskokwin Valleys 1912 1967 1967 Reactivated 1966 1966 replaces 'Inupiat Paltot' 1967 1967 1966 1961 1966 1966 1962 1962 Source: A. E. Ervin, 'The Emergence of Native Alaska Political Capacity,' Musk-Ox, 19, 1976, p. 9. 94 TABLE 2b BRITISH COLUMBIA; COMPREHENSIVE CLAIMS Accepted Claims; Claims from the f o l l o w i n g B.C. Native groups have been accepted for n e g o t i a t i o n by the f e d e r a l government in conformity with the f e d e r a l comprehensive claims p o l i c y : 1. Nisga'a T r i b a l C o u n c i l (1974) 2. Kitwancool Band (1977) 3. Gitksan Wet'suwet'en T r i b a l c o u n c i l (1977) 4. Kitamaat V i l l a g e C o uncil ( H a i s l a Nation) (1978) 5. A s s o c i a t i o n of United Tahltans (1980) 6. Nuu-Chah-Nulth T r i b a l Council (1983) 7. Council of Haida Nation (1983) 8. Heilts u k Nation (1983) 9. Nuxalk Nation ( B e l l a Coola) (1983) 10. Nazko-Kluskus Bands (1983) 11. Kaska Dena Council (1983) 12. C a r r i e r - S e k a n i T r i b a l C o uncil (1983) 13. A l k a l i Lake Band (1983) 14. Taku T l i n g i t ( A t l i n Band) (1984) 15. A l l i e d Tsimshian T r i b e s (1987) 16. Council of the Tsimshian Nation (1987) 17. Nlaka'pamux Nation (Thompson S a l i s h ) (1987) 18. Kootenay Indian Area c o u n c i l (1987) 19. Kwakiutl F i r s t Nations (submitted June 1984) Rejected Claims; 1% Musqueam Band (December 1977) Claims Under Review; Claims from the f o l l o w i n g Native groups are c u r r e n t l y under review by the O f f i c e of Native Claims and the Department of J u s t i c e : 1. Sechelt Band (submitted Oct. 1984) 2. Homalco Band (submitted Dec. 1985) A n t i c i p a t e d Claims; 1. L i l l o o e t T r i b a l C o u n c i l 2. The S a l i s h of Georgia S t r a i t 3. S t o ; l o Nation 4. Shuswap Nation T r i b a l C o uncil 5. Okanagan T r i b a l C o u n c i l 6. Southern Vancouver Islan d T r i b e s 7. C h i l c o t i n T r i b e 95 T a b l e 2c APPROXIMATE AREA OP B.C. COMPREHENSIVE CLAIMS (In Hectares) • Claimant Group Area 1. Nisga'a Tribal Council 2,375,000 ha. 2. Kitwancool Band 828,000 ha. 3. Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Tribal Council 5,172,000 ha. 4. Haisla Nation 1,094,000 ha. 5. Association of United Tahltans 10,797,000 ha. (Includes areas in the Yukon) 6. Nuu-Chah-Nulth T r i b a l Council 1,469,000 ha. (Includes waters on westcoast of Vancouver Island) 7. Council of the Haida Nation 984,000 ha. 8. Heiltsuk Nation 1,297,000 ha. (Includes waters on coast) 9. Nuxalk Nation 1,422,000 ha. 10. Nazko-Kluskus Bands 1,734,000 ha. 11. Kaska-Dena Council 8,484,000 ha. (Includes are in the Yukon) 12. Carrier-Sekani Tr i b a l Council 17,578,000 ha. 13. A l k a l i Lake Band 453,000 ha. 14. Taku T l i n g i t (Atlin Band) 2,672,000 ha. (Includes area in the Yukon) 15. Kootenay Area Indian Council 6,359,000 ha. 16. A l l i e d Tsimshian Tribes 984,000 ha. (Includes waters on the coast) 17. Council of the Tsimshian Nation 2,875,000 ha. (Includes waters on the coast) 18. Kwakiutl F i r s t Nations 4,562,000 ha. (Includes waters on the coast) 19. Nlaka'pamux Nation 1,859,000 ha. 20. Sechelt Band 391,000 ha. 96 Table 3a ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIM SETTLEMENTS Average Number of Years Between Filing of Land Cla im and Settlement B .C . (1988) A laska (1972) Source: A . E . Ervin, "The Emergence of the A laska Political Capaci ty," Musk Ox (19) 1976, 9. Canada , Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, "Fact Sheets : Native C la ims in Canada , " February 1985. Table 3b Aboriginal Constitutional Recognition: 1960-1988 United States C a n a d a Explicit Acknowledgement Y e s Y e s Self-government Y e s No Tribal Judiciary Y e s No Land Title Y e s Unclear Fishing Y e s Y e s Hunting Y e s Unclear Treaty Rights Y e s Y e s 97 MAP I COMPREHENSIVE NATIVE CLAIMS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA REVENDICATIONS GLOBALLS DES AUTOCHTONES EN COLOMBIEBRITANNIQUE I indiquaat IUI 0» I* ColombiaBtilanniQu* na npr#Mnf«nt qua <t» fimiiai aopronmaiivat dani lasquaiiat aulochlonai ont ra*ena'iqu* un in i t i t l La dalimuation aiacle 0» t»» lortmt Dour criaqua group* cour* 0«t negotiation* *ur rat ntglamantt parliculrar* (1) ConMll tribal de> Ni»hgaa HI Nation naitla [r.ilaot da (41 Aiaociation daa Tanltani unit (SI ConMil inbal CM* Nuu€nart Nultn (?1 COAMII da la nation ttatda (81 Natron hait!*uk (Balla-Ballal (SI Natron nmam fBalta-Coota) (1R Conaail tribal (Ml NuliO* P.lu**u* (11) Contail 0*> Dana* (13) Consail tribal da* Carnafi Sakani (13) Banda dAlkai. Lakt (14) Band* d'Atl.n (Tafcu tting.it Tha ara* indicated cm I tie map of Bnlufi ColufTibx rapraMnii only approiimitc boundana) ol tfta areas in *nieh ln« »a"Ou» ptacisa aalinaaiion o< in«M araas tor each, claimant group •nil be determined as negotiation proceed on t M mow ale claim* (t| Niihga Tribal Council ft Kitwancool Eland (4) Haitla Nation (Kilamaat Village) 11} Astocianon of Un.lad TaMtani (81 NuvCiian Nu'tn Tttbtl Council (7> Council of Hairja Nation It) Heilltuk Nanon (Belli Bella] (9l NviMH Matron <Ba"a Cooler (1Q) Nazko Rluinu* Tribal Council (Ii) KaskaOana Council (1?) Car*** S«*ar» Tribal Council (13) Alkali Lake Band Allin Band (Taku Tlingitl SOURCE: L i v i n g T r e a t i e s : L a s t i n g Agreements, Canada, R e p o r t o f t h e Task F o r c e t o Review Comprehensive C l a i m s P o l i c y ( Ottawa: Department of I n d i a n A f f a i r s and N o r t h e r n Development, 1985) 98 CHUKCHI BCRINO SEA Map : Aboriginal Ethnic Groupings in Alaska Source: A.M. Erv in , 'The Emergence of Native Alaska P o l i t i c a l Capacity, 1959-1971' Musk-Ox, 19, 1976, p. 4. s > H H Source: A.M. Ervin, "The Emergence of Native Alaska P o l i t i c a l Capacity, 1959-1971," Musk-Ox, 19, 1976, p. 18. NOTES Although the f e d e r a l government has been n e g o t i a t i n g a la n d c l a i m with the Nisga'a s i n c e 1976, t h i s a c t i o n was i n i t i a t e d w i t h the f a l s e impression that the Province of B.C. would p a r t i c i p a t e i n the n e g o t i a t i o n s . In January 1976, B.C. A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l A l l a n W i l l i a m s and a s e n i o r p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l expressed a w i l l i n g n e s s to " n e g o t i a t e " w i t h the Nisga'a. That i n t e n t i o n was subsequently withdrawn, but not before the f e d e r a l government had begun n e g o t i a t i n g with the northern B.C. t r i b e . Once that p r o c e s s had begun, i t was too l a t e to withdraw n e g o t i a t i o n s . However, those n e g o t i a t i o n s w i l l never reach settlement without the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the P r o v i n c e , u n l e s s the c o u r t s change the r u l e s of the game. (Paul Tennant, A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r , Department of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Interview, 16 June 1989). The Nisga'a n e g o t i a t i o n s , then, remain an anomaly r a t h e r than an exc e p t i o n to the f e d e r a l p o l i c y on a b o r i g i n a l l a n d c l a i m s . 2 N e i l Mickenberg, " A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s i n Canada and the Un i t e d S t a t e s , " Osgoode H a l l Law J o u r n a l (9) No.1, 1971, 119. 3 120. C f . Ca l d e r v. A.-G. B r i t i s h Columbia [1973] S.C.R. 313, 4 W.W.R. 1, 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 ( S . C . O . , and Regina v.  White and Bob, 1964, 50 D.L.R. 613. 4 Johnson v. Mcintosh (1823), 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, at 591 . 5 Worchester v. Georgia (1832), 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, at 551-52. ^ Note t h a t C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s l a t t e r r e f e r e n c e — reg a r d i n g the American f e d e r a l government's 'ultimate dominion' over a b o r i g i n a l l a n d s -- i s not the case i n Canada. As the Background w i l l e x p l a i n , the d o c t r i n e of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s and Canada i s o u t l i n e d i n Chief J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ' s judgements. However, i n Canada, u n l i k e i n the U.S., no one l e v e l of government ho l d s ' u l t i m a t e dominion' over n a t i v e a f f a i r s and a b o r i g i n a l l a n d s . (These p a r a n t h e t i c a l remarks w i l l be el a b o r a t e d on throughout the t h e s i s ) . 7 Regina v. White and Bob (1964), 52 W.W.R. 193 (B.C.C.A.) 212. C f . S t . C a t h a r i n e ' s M i l l i n g and Lumber Co. v. the Queen (1887), 13 S.C.R. 577 at 610: The value and importance of these [U.S. j u d i c i a l ] a u t h o r i t i e s i s ... [ t h a t ] they without e x c e p t i o n r e f e r i t s o r i g i n to a date a n t e r i o r to the r e v o l u t i o n and re c o g n i s e i t as a continuance of the p r i n c i p l e s of law 101 or p o l i c y as to Indian t i t l e s then e s t a b l i s h e d by the B r i t i s h government, and t h e r e f o r e i d e n t i c a l with those which have a l s o c o n t i n u e d to be re c o g n i z e d and a p p l i e d i n B r i t i s h North America. g Calder v. A.-G. B r i t i s h Columbia [1973] S.C.R. 313, 4 W.W.R. 1, 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 (S.C.C.) at 151, 193-96. g — 11 W.W.R. A whole l i t e r a t u r e has been devoted to the importance of the Calder case to a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n Canada, but fo r now I w i l l conclude that the Calder case s p l i t 3-3-1 on the whether a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e s t i l l e x i s t s i n the Nass V a l l e y . The importance of the case t o t h i s essay i s t h a t a l l s i x judges agreed on the e x i s t e n c e of the concept of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e . C f . K. Lysyk "The Indian T i t l e Question i n Canada ..." The  Canadian Bar Review 51 (1973) 450; Douglas Sanders, "The Nisga'a Case," B.C. S t u d i e s 19, Autumn 1973. 1 ^ McRoberts v. McRoberts i s c i t e d i n t h i s d i c t i o n a r y to b e t t e r d e f i n e the term: "'Extinguishment' connotes the end of a t h i n g , p r e c l u d i n g the e x i s t e n c e of f u t u r e l i f e t h e r e i n ..." 1 1 Mickenberg, 129. C f . Johnson v. Mcintosh 21 U.S. at 259, r e p r i n t e d i n Mickenberg. Here C h i e f J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l s t a t e s t h a t "The U n i t e d S t a t e s ... m a i n t a i n , as a l l o t h e r s have maintained, that d i s c o v e r y gave an e x c l u s i v e r i g h t to e x t i n g u i s h the Indian t i t l e of occupancy, e i t h e r by purchase or by conquest ..." 1 2 S t . Ca t h a r i n e ' s M i l l i n g Case v. R (1888), 14 A.C. 46, 4 Ca r t . 107 (PC), at 55. 1 3 Lysyk 475-76. 1 4 Wilson Duff, Indian H i s t o r y of B r i t i s h Columbia, v.1: The  Impact of the White Man ( V i c t o r i a : P r o v i n c i a l Museum of N a t i o n a l H i s t o r y and Anthropology, 1964) 67, 70. T r e a t y No. 8 was one of the twelve t r e a t i e s n e g o t i a t e d by the Dominion of Canada between 1871 and 1923. 15 . . B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , "Re: Indian Land Claim L i t i g a t i o n , " F i l e : CI 130-31 ( [ V i c t o r i a ] : [ M i n i s t r y of the Attorney G e n e r a l ] ) , [August 19, 1987]) 1. 1 6 B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , "Re: Indian Land Claim L i t i g a t i o n " 1. 1 7 Mary Clay Berry, The A l a s k a P i p e l i n e : The P o l i t i c s of O i l  and N a t i v e Land Claims (Bloomington: Indiana U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975) 33. 1 8 Berry 115. 1 02 1 9 "The F e d e r a l N a t i v e Claims Process G u i d e l i n e s , " Comprehensive Claims Branch, B.C. Operations, January 1988. Cf. f t . 1 f o r the anomalous e x c e p t i o n to t h i s p o l i c y . 2 0 C f . endnote #1. 2 1 . . . . L i v i n g T r e a t i e s : L a s t i n g Agreements, Report of the Task Force to Review Comprehensive Claims P o l i c y , (Ottawa: Department of N a t i v e A f f a i r s and Northern Development, 1985) 13. 22 Andrew S h o n f i e l d , Modern C a p i t a l i s m (New York: Oxford U P r e s s , 1965) 387. 23 Anthony King, "Ideas, I n s t i t u t i o n s , and P o l i c i e s of Government: Part I and I I , " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l Science 3 (1973) 302-4. 24 B.A. Keon-Cohen, "Native J u s t i c e i n A u s t r a l i a , Canada, and the U.S.A.: A Comparative A n a l y s i s , " Monash U n i v e r s i t y Law  Review (7) June 1981: 272. 25 • . Anthony King, "Ideas, I n s t i t u t i o n s and the P o l i c i e s of Government: Part I I I , " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e nce (3) 1973: 41 1 . 2 6 King 418. 2 7 Murray Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of P o l i t i c s (Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s P r e s s , 1967) 189. 28 Raymond Breton, "The p r o d u c t i o n and a l l o c a t i o n of symbolic r e s o u r c e s : an a n a l y s i s of the l i n g u i s t i c and e t h n o c u l t u r a l f i e l d s i n Canada," The Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y  and Anthropology 21:2 (May 1984) 126. Cf. Joseph G u s f i e l d , The  C u l t u r e of P u b l i c Problems, (Chicago: U of Chicago P r e s s , 1981) 182, i n Breton 126. 29 George Hoberg, " D e f i n i t i o n of P u b l i c P o l i c i e s , " Pamphlet: T o p i c s i n P u b l i c P o l i c i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, F a l l 1988, 1-2. 3 0 Kerr 102. 3 1 David Truman, The Governmental Process, 2nd e d i t i o n (New York: A l f r e d A l Knopf, Inc., 1971) 502. 32 Truman 502. 3 3 Truman 507. 34 . . . James March and Johan O l s e n , "The New I n s t i t u t i o n a l i s m , " American P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e Review 78 (1984) 734. 103 March and Olsen 734. 3 6 March and Olsen 747. 37 Fred Block, "The R u l i n g C l a s s Does Not Rule," S o c i a l i s t  R e v o l u t i o n 7 (1977) 15. 3 8 Block 15. 39 Leo P a n i t c h , Ed., The Canadian S t a t e (Toronto: U of Toronto Press, 1977) 13. 4 0 Block 16, 27. 4 1 Block 27. 42 Diamond Jenness, Indians i n Canada (Ottawa: P r i n t e r to the King, 1932) . 43 For an a c c u r a t e r e p o r t of t h i s C f . V a l e n t i n e 80-93. 4 4 V a l e n t i n e 47. 45 John W. Berry, "Native Peoples and the Larger S o c i e t y , " A Canadian S o c i a l Psychology of E t h n i c R e l a t i o n s , ed. Robert C. Gardner and Rudolf K a l i n (Toronto: Methuen P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1981) 218. 46 John W. Berry, Rudolf K a l i n and Donald M. T a y l o r , M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m and E t h n i c A t t i t u d e s i n Canada (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1977) 214. 47 Thomas Conway, " P u b l i c I n t e r e s t i n the I n d i a n , " The  Indian H i s t o r i a n , 5:1 ( S p r i n g , 1972) 40. 48 Conway 39. B r i a n D i p p i e o u t l i n e s the p e r v a s i v e n e s s of the V a n i s h i n g Race the o r y : Many Americans l o o k i n g about them have r a i s e d the ... qu e s t i o n and come to the ... c o n c l u s i o n : the Indian was a V a n i s h i n g Race. Although a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , s t a t i s t i c i a n s , government o f f i c i a l s and a myriad of Indian experts have been denying the theory of the Va n i s h i n g Race s i n c e the middle of the n i n e t e e n t h century, i t s p r i n c i p a l t e n e t s are deeply engrained i n American thought and remain potent to t h i s day i n popular c u l t u r e ( B r i a n W. D i p p i e , " T h i s Bold Wasting Race," Montana. The Magazine of Western H i s t o r y (January, 1973) 5 ) . 1 04 Hazel H e r t z b e r g , The Search f o r an American Indian  I d e n t i t y ( [ S y r a c u s e ] : Syracuse U Press, 1971) 318. T h i s " p e r v a s i v e theme i n American t h i n k i n g about the I n d i a n " (Dippie 5), t hat the n a t i v e i s an anachronism d e s t i n e d f o r demise i n a c o l o n i a l world, holds powerful n a t i o n a l i s t i c i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the American pe o p l e . In 1938, the U.S. Commissioner of Indian A f f a i r s John C o l l i e r c a p t u r e d t h i s time-honored p e r c e p t i o n : "For n e a r l y 300 years white Americans, in our z e a l to carve out a n a t i o n made to o r d e r , have d e a l t with the Indians on the erroneous, yet t r a g i c , assumption that ...[they] were a dying r a c e . " (John C o l l i e r , " O f f i c e of Indian A f f a i r s , " Annual Report,  S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , 1938 (Washington, D.C.: S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , 1938) 209.) By p l a c i n g Indians on r e s e r v a t i o n s and w r i t i n g them o f f as a d e f e a t e d people, many Americans simply stopped t h i n k i n g about the f a t e of t h e i r indigenous people, i f they ever gave a thought at a l l . 50 W i l l i a m G. Robbins, "The Conquest of the American West: H i s t o r y as a Eulogy," The Indian H i s t o r i a n (10) 1977: 7. With the development of the V a n i s h i n g Race theory came an o r i e n t a t i o n that emphasized the m y t h i c a l r a t h e r than the h i s t o r i c a l , i t s e l f an a b b e r a t i o n of American ethnocentrism. James Fenimore Cooper's Las t of the Mohicans p l a c e d the n a t i v e people "at the end of the t r a i l , " and s i m i l a r works of l i t e r a t u r e i n turn "gave l i f e to a m y t h i c a l view of the I n d i a n " (Conway 40) and thereby became the n o s t a l g i c approach which Americans adopted to imagine I n d i a n s . 5 1 H e r t z b e r g 319. 52 H e r t z b e r g 319. Robert F. Berkhofer a p t l y summarizes the imaginary c h a r a c t e r of American's o p i n i o n s on Indians: For most Whites throughout the past f i v e c e n t u r i e s , the Indian of i m a g i n a t i o n and ideology has been as r e a l , perhaps more r e a l , than the N a tive American of a c t u a l e x i s t e n c e and c o n t a c t . As p r e - c o n c e p t i o n became c o n c e p t i o n and c o n c e p t i o n became f a c t , the Indian was used f o r the ends of argument, a r t , and entertainment by White p a i n t e r s , p h i l o s o p h e r s , poets, n o v e l i s t s , and movie makers among many. ... Although modern a r t i s t s and w r i t e r s assume t h e i r own imagery to be more i n l i n e with " r e a l i t y " than that of t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s , they employ the imagery f o r much the same reasons and o f t e n with the same r e s u l t s as those persons of the past they so o f t e n scorn as uninformed, f a n c i f u l , or h y p o c r i t i c a l . As a consequence, one f i n d s l e s s of a c u m u l a t i v e development i n the genealogy of the imagery, f o r the b a s i c images of the good and bad Indian p e r s i s t from the era of Columbus up to the present without s u b s t a n t i a l m o d i f i c a t i o n or v a r i a t i o n . (Robert Berkhofer, J r . , The White Man's Indian (New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1978) 3.) 105 "The m a j o r i t y of Canadians tend to h o l d what may be c a l l e d f o l k images of the N a t i v e p e o p l e s . These images g e n e r a l l y take two c o n t r a s t i n g forms, but both view the Indian as the remnant of a p o p u l a t i o n that i s f a s t d i s a p p e a r i n g . The negative image ... i s of a Tonto f i g u r e , a heathen w a r r i o r who hindered the progress of p i o n e e r expansion, a drunk, a m i s f i t , or a welfare case. The p o s i t i v e image d e p i c t s the N a t i v e peoples as pa r t of the North American h e r i t a g e whose c u l t u r e and a r t must be preserved" (Mark Nagler, N a t i v e s Without a Home (Don M i l l s : Longman, 1975) 8) . 54 Cf., f o r example, the f i r s t morning of the March 1983 F i r s t M i n i s t e r s Conference on a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . F o l l o w i n g a morning p r a y e r , the Assembly of F i r s t Nations passed around a peace p i p e . "Photographs of the ceremony made f r o n t pages across the c o u n t r y . " ( B r i a n Schwartz, F i r s t P r i n c i p l e s , Second Thoughts (Montreal: I n s t i t u t e f o r Research on P u b l i c P o l i c y , 1986) 96. The e f f e c t of t h i s on a b o r i g i n a l symbolic s t a t u s i s what Thomas Berger c a l l s a d e p r e c i a t i o n of Canadian a b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e , much i n the way Americans view t h e i r Indian's c u l t u r e as l o s t or d e s t r o y e d : There i s a tendency f o r us to d e p r e c i a t e n a t i v e c u l t u r e . Many white n o r t h e r n e r s have argued that the n a t i v e way of l i f e i s d y i n g , that what we observe today i s a p a t h e t i c and d i m i n i s h i n g remnant of what e x i s t e d i n the past. The argument a r i s e s as much from our a t t i t u d e s toward n a t i v e people as from any process of r e a s o n i n g . ... We tend to i d e a l i z e those a s p e c t s of n a t i v e c u l t u r e that we can most e a s i l y understand, or that we can a p p r o p r i a t e to wear or to p l a c e on a s h e l f i n our own homes. We simply do not see n a t i v e c u l t u r e as d e f e n s i b l e . Many of us do not even see i t as a c u l t u r e at a l l , but only as a problem to be solved.(Thomas Berger, Northern F r o n t i e r , Northern Homeland: The Report  of the Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e E nquiry, V o l . 1 (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1977) 93. 55 George E. Simpson and J . M i l t o n Y i n g e r , R a c i a l and  C u l t u r a l M i n o r i t i e s , 3rd Ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965) 144-45. Roy H. Pearce a t t r i b u t e s t h i s image "to the i n f l u e n c e of the idea of the savagism which American t h i n k e r s d e r i v e d form e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y S c o t t i s h h i s t o r i a n s and moral p h i l o s o p h e r s " (David Bidney, "The Idea of the Savage i n North American E t h n o h i s t o r y , " J o u r n a l of the H i s t o r y of Ideas V o l . 15 (1954) 325). H e r t z b e r g adds to savagism those "remarkably p e r s i s t e n t " n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y images of Indians that invade the a t t i t u d e s of Americans, and i n s u l t romantic redmen, drunken degenerates, o i l - r i c h 1 06 p r i m i t i v e s , p a t h e t i c v i c t i m s of the white man's greed, *the v a n i s h i n g Americans,' b l o o d t h i r s t y savages, at once s t r o n g , s i l e n t , war-whooping, enduring and n o n e x i s t e n t . ... O c c a s i o n a l l y a c t u a l Indians turned up at important p u b l i c ceremonies, l i k e p r e s i d e n t i a l i n a u g u r a t i o n s , mounted on horseback and wearing s p e c t a c u l a r P l a i n s warbonnets. The I n d i a n , when he was thought of at a l l , thus l i v e d i n a never-never land, detached from space and time, unconnected with the f a m i l i a r everyday world (Hertzberg 318-319). ^ Hugh Brody, Indians on S k i d Row (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1971) 45. T h i s p r o v o c a t i v e l y t i t l e d r e p o r t was i s s u e d under the a u t h o r i t y of DIAND. The author, a noted Canadian s o c i o l o g i s t , went out i n t o the urban slums of a P r a i r i e c i t y , as w e l l as other communities in Canada, to study the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s among n a t i v e s and non-natives on " s k i d row." 57 R e g i n a l d Bibby, P r o j e c t Canada: A Study of Deviance,  D i v e r s i t y , and Devotion in~ Canada ( L e t h b r i d g e : U of L e t h b r i d g e , 1975) 16. R e g i n a l d Bibby o r c h e s t r a t e d a P r o j e c t Canada study that saw some 2,000 Canadians f i l l out e x t e n s i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . In a q u e s t i o n s u g g e s t i n g that " i n g e n e r a l Canadian Indians have i n f e r i o r i n t e l l i g e n c e compared to whites," about 1 i n 5 Canadians a c t u a l l y agreed with t h i s i n s u l t . 5 8 J . Rick Ponting and Roger G i b b i n s , Out of I r r e l e v a n c e (Toronto: Butterworth & Co., 1980) 78. In Canada, at l e a s t , t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n of Indians with a l c o h o l i s , on one hand, not unwarranted: the Canadian Indian i s o v e r - r e p r e s e n t e d i n f e d e r a l p r i s o n s (4% of Canadian p o p u l a t i o n ; 6-10% of t o t a l inmate p o p u l a t i o n ) , w i t h a l c o h o l abuse c i t e d as "a d i r e c t r e s u l t " f o r "most n a t i v e c r i m e s . " (Ponting and G i b b i n s 59, 60). However, the u n f a i r s t e r e o t y p e of the drunken Indian i n both Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s r e s u l t s not from s t a t i s t i c s , but from g r o s s l y exaggerated and o f t e n erroneous images. 59 F r i d e r e s 3. C f . Hugh Brody's study i n which he shows that there are s t i l l white communities that openly d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t l o c a l n a t i v e s . ^ F r i d e r e s ' comments on the value of evidence m i s s i n g an e m p i r i c a l punch o f f e r s a c o n v i n c i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the use of s p e c u l a t i v e , h i s t o r i c a l , and s o c i o l o g i c a l works i n a s s e s s i n g American and Canadian a t t i t u d e s : "although i t may never be p o s s i b l e to q u a n t i f y the degree of racism that e x i s t s i n a given s o c i e t y , the evidence unmistakably r e v e a l s that racism widely d i s t o r t s the a t t i t u d e s of White Canadians toward Native p e o p l e s " ( F r i d e r e s 3). Such an o b s e r v a t i o n would c e r t a i n l y apply to the a t t i t u d e s of non-native Americans as w e l l . 1 07 Robert P a n z a r e l l a and Ansley Lamar, " A t t i t u d e s of Blacks and Whites Toward Native American R e v o l u t i o n a r y T a c t i c s f o r S o c i a l Change," Human R e l a t i o n s , V o l . 32 (1) 1979: 69. 6 2 P a n z a r e l l a and Lamar 73-4. 6 3 Bahr et a l . 313. 64 C f . Bahr e t . a l P r e f a c e , where the e d i t o r s d i s c u s s express s i m i l a r e x a s p e r a t i o n : "one of the g r e a t v o i d s that was s t i l l e v i d e n t f o l l o w i n g our search was the almost i n c r e d i b l e d e a r t h of i n f o r m a t i o n about Indian people today." (Bahr x i . ) . 6 5 Bahr x. 66 In i n t e r v i e w s with Rick Ponting ( S o c i o l o g y , U of C a l g a r y ) , Paul Tennant ( P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , U . B . C ) , Douglas Sanders (Law, U . B . C ) , C.E.S. Franks ( P o l i t i c a l S t u d i e s , Queens) and Dr. Johnson (Law, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington) -- the l a t t e r a l e a d i n g American l e g a l s c h o l a r on a b o r i g i n a l peoples — a l l of whom are d i s t i n g u i s h e d academics i n the f i e l d of a b o r i g i n a l i s m , no one knew of any study done which d i s c u s s e d contemporary American a t t i t u d e s about I n d i a n s , at l e a s t not at a comparable l e v e l to Rick Ponting or John B e r r y ' s s t u d i e s i n Canada. 6 7 P o n t i n g and G i b b i n s , 1980, 92. 68 P o n t i n g , 1987: 9. An Index of F a m i l i a r i t y with Native Events/Phenomena was developed i n Ponting's 1976 and 1986 s t u d i e s , and "on a l l but two of the items a m a j o r i t y of respondents s a i d they were "not at a l l f a m i l i a r . ' " For example, i n response to q u e s t i o n s of f a m i l i a r i t y with a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n the Canadian c o n s t i t u t i o n , with the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l conferences i n v o l v i n g F i r s t N ations and F i r s t M i n i s t e r s , or with the e x i s t e n c e of the Assembly of F i r s t N a t i o n s , over s i x t y percent of the respondents were not at a l l f a m i l i a r with these phenomena. (Ponting, 1987 10-11). 6 9 Ponting and G i b b i n s , 1980, 92. 70 Cook 24. Ponting found t h a t Canadians were not at a l l knowledgeable about the demographics of the N a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n (Rick J . P o n t i n g , " P u b l i c O p i n i o n On A b o r i g i n a l Peoples' Issues In Canada," Canadian S o c i a l Trends (Winter 1988) 9 ) . V i c t o r V a l e n t i n e ' s study p o i n t e d to the misunderstanding of the d i f f e r e n c e between n a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s . ( V a l e n t i n e 117). 71 P o n t i n g , 1988 10: "Without a s s i s t a n c e from the i n t e r v i e w e r , almost a t h i r d of Canadians f a i l e d to i n d i c a t e even an approximate understanding of the term." 108 72 J.E. Chamberlin expresses the almost hopeless s i t u a t i o n t h a t a b o r i g i n a l peoples face when t r y i n g to a l t e r a symbolic order that a l l o w s p o p u l a t i o n s to hear, see, and f e e l no e v i l w ith r e s p e c t to these indigenous people and t h e i r i s s u e s : ... h i s t o r y i n v o l v e s the d i s c o v e r y ... of s i g n i f i c a n t i n i t i a t i v e s ... In North America, f o r reasons that were t r a g i c perhaps but b a s i c a l l y i n e s c a p a b l e , the i n i t i a t i v e s were f o r the most p a r t non-native. The n a t i v e people, of course were an i n s e p a r a b l e p a r t of the s t o r y and i n f a c t took the e a r l i e s t , and o f t e n h o s p i t a b l e i n i t i a t i v e . But almost from the moment they welcomed the f i r s t s e t t l e r s , ... they became pa r t of the p r o c e s s over which they had no c o n t r o l . L a t e r n a t i v e i n i t i a t i v e s were consequently i n the main e i t h e r d e t e r m inedly w a r l i k e or i n recent times m i l i t a n t i n a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d (and e s s e n t i a l l y non-native) way, employing l e g a l means, the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the media, and some ... c o n f r o n t a t i o n techniques ... These native i n i t i a t i v e s .. have been, however compelling, s t i l l a reaction to situations which were created by forces beyond t h e i r control, and to white attitudes which were both cause and ef f e c t of these i n i t i a t i v e s . (Chamberlin 22) 90 David Baker, Eastern A r c t i c Study Case Study S e r i e s : The  A l a s k a N a t i v e Claims Settlement ( K i n g s t o n : Centre f o r Resource S t ud i e s , 1982) T5~. Canada, Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development, " R e g i s t e r e d Indian P o p u l a t i o n By Age-Sex-Residence , 1 986" Report #PR16. 91 Baker 15. 92 Note that MAP I d e t a i l s B.C. comprehensive la n d c l a i m s as of 1985, and does not r e f l e c t the 6 a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s a c c e p t e d f o r n e g o t i a t i o n between 1985 and 1988. (As of June, 1989 another 3 c l a i m s has been accepted, b r i n g i n g the running t o t a l to 23). 93 A.E. E r v i n , "The Emergence of the A l a s k a P o l i t i c a l C a p a c i t y , " Musk Ox (19) 1976, 5. A s u b s i s t e n c e economy may be d e s c r i b e d as p a s t / p r e s e n t - o r i e n t e d , with the f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s : p l a n e r i s t i c a u t h o r i t y , extended f a m i l i e s , g e n e r a l i z e d s k i l l s to serve community needs, h o l i s t i c / i n d e p e n d e n t , c o n t r o l l e d by l o c a l / n e i g h b o r h o o d i n s t i t u t i o n s , and set i n remote, r u r a l areas ( B i l l Hanson, Dual R e a l i t i e s -- Dual S t r a t e g i e s (Saskatoon: B i l l Hanson, 1985) 16). 94 G.A. McBeath, and T.A. Morehouse, The Dynamics of A l a s k a  N a t i v e Self-Government (Maryland: U n i v e r s i t y Press of America, 1980) 37. 9 5 Cf. E r v i n 7-8. 109 Berry, The A l a s k a P i p e l i n e 38-39. 97 J u s t before S e c r e t a r y U d a l l l e f t o f f i c e , he expanded the l a n d f r e e z e , "withdrawing f o r two years a l l unreserved p u b l i c lands i n A l a s k a i n order to p r o t e c t the n a t i v e ' s r i g h t s " (Berry, The A l a s k a P i p e l i n e 60). qq E m i l N o t t i , Telephone I n t e r v i e w , 25 May 1989. 99 E r v i n 8. 1 0 0 Cf. Berry 62-4; Baker 20; E r v i n 8. 1 0 1 Baker 20. 1 0 2 E r v i n 8. 1 0 3 E r v i n 8. 10 4 . • • G.W. Rogers, " P a r t y P o l i t i c s or P r o t e s t P o l i t i c s : C urrent P o l i t i c a l Trends i n A l a s k a , " The P o l a r Record V o l . 14, 91 (1969) 446. 1 0 5 E r v i n 11. 1 0 6 E r v i n 11. 1 0 7 E r v i n 12. I Q Q K i r k e K i c k i n g b i r d and Karen Ducheneaux, One Hundred  M i l l i o n Acres (New York: Macmillan P u b l i s h i n g Co., Inc., 1973) 45. 1 n Q u y Congress and The N a t i o n , V o l . I l l : 1969-72 (Washington, D.C.: C o n g r e s s i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y Inc., 1973) 97a. H i c k e l had s a i d at a December news con f e r e n c e that he opposed " c o n s e r v a t i o n f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n ' s sake" and that h i g h n a t i o n a l standards f o r c l e a n water "might hinder i n d u s t r i a l development." K i c k i n g b i r d and Ducheneaux 45. 1 1 1 Berry 61. 1 1 2 . . Berry 61. N o t t i c onfirmed t h i s assessment i n an i n t e r v i e w , 27 May 1989. 1 1 3 Truman 40. 1 1 4 Cf. Thomas Berger, F r a g i l e Freedoms (Toronto: C l a r k e , Irwin, 1981) f o r a p a s s i o n a t e account of these h i g h l y charged times i n the Canadian a b o r i g i n a l community. 1 10 1 1 5 Paul Tennant, "Native Indian P o l i t i c a l O r g a n i z a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1900-69: A Response to I n t e r n a l C o l o n i a l i s m , " B.C. S t u d i e s 55 (1982) Autumn, 47. Cf. Berger. Alan C a i r n s , L e c t u r e , P o l i t i c a l Science 402, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 7 February 1987. 1 •) 7 Cf. Berger. Paul Tennant, L e c t u r e , P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e 405, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 7 February 1987. 1 1 8 Paul Tennant, Interview, 13 December 1988. Dr. Tennant, an a s s o c i a t e p r o f e s s o r i n P o l i t i c a l Science at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, has w r i t t e n the onl y works on B.C. Indian p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and i s c u r r e n t l y completing a book that b r i n g s t h i s t o p i c up to date. 119 Tennant, Interview. Cf. Vancouver Sun 26,27,28 October 1988, A1. 1 20 Tennant, Interview. B.C. F i r s t Nations Congress l e a d e r , C h i e f Joe Mathias, has e x e c u t i v e c o o r d i n a t i v e power, and the advent of a s t e e r i n g committee at h i s c o n t r o l . Dr. Tennant noted that t h i s , together with the name change i n the a b o r i g i n a l peak a s s o c i a t i o n , "shows a s i g n i f i c a n t change i n B.C. Indian p o l i t i c s . I t g i v e s u n i t y ... and i s seen by a b o r i g i n a l people, and by the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments as f o c u s s i n g Indian p r e s s u r e on the f e d s . " As of June 1989, i t would appear that the Congress of F i r s t Nations has begun to e s t a b l i s h i t s e l f as a s i g n i f i c a n t peak a s s o c i a t i o n f o r B.C. Indians. Congress l e a d e r s and s e n i o r e x e c u t i v e s of B.C.'s primary resource i n d u s t r i e s assembled i n a "meeting [ t h a t ] was the f i r s t i n i t s k i n d between Indian l e a d e r s and i n d u s t r y . " The two groups exchanged views on Indian land c l a i m s , and agreed to meet i n the f u t u r e . ("News Rele a s e , " W h i s t l e r , B.C., 16 June 1989). 121 Anchorage D a i l y Times, E d i t o r i a l , 5 December, 1969. 1 22 Canada, Department of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e f o r Canada, 1986-87 Annual Report (Ottawa: Department of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e , 1987) 41. 123 Canada, Indian and Northern A f f a i r s Canada, "Fact Sheets: N a t i v e Claims i n Canada," ([Ottawa], [ O f f i c e of Na t i v e C l a i m s ] , February, 1985). 1 2 4 Fred W a l c h l i , Interview, 5 December 1988. Mr. W a l c h l i i s the c h i e f f e d e r a l n e g o t i a t o r f o r the Comprehensive Claims Branch of B.C. 1 05 Cf. endnote #1 f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of the anomalous Nisga'a n e g o t i a t i o n s . 1 1 1 1 2 6 " B r i t i s h Columbia: Comprehensive Claims," Native Claims f i l e - 0017A, Comprehensive Claims Branch, B.C. Operations, January 1988. 127 . . . . . Paul Tennant, "Native P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969-1983," B.C. S t u d i e s 57 (1983) S p r i n g : 135. 1 28 Tennant, "Native Indian P o l i t i c a l O r g a n i z a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1900-69" 48. 1 2 9 . . . Cf. f i n d i n g s on P u b l i c O p i n i o n V a r i a b l e . 1 "30 Tennant, In t e r v i e w , 9 J u l y 1989. 1 3 1 Keon-Cohen 267. 1 32 Eg., the N a t i v e American R i g h t s fund e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1970, and the C o u n c i l of Energy Resource T r i b e s i n 1975. 1 3 3 Keon-Cohen 267. 134 Cf. Douglas Sanders, "The N a t i v e Lobby," And No One  Cheered, Ed. K e i t h Banting and R i c h a r d Simeon (Toronto: Methuen P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1982); Menno Bo l d t and J . Anthony Long, ed.s, The Quest f o r J u s t i c e : A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s (Toronto: U of Toronto P r e s s , 1 985); Edward McWhinney, Canada  and the C o n s t i t u t i o n 1979-1982 (Toronto: U of Toronto Press, 1982). 1 3 5 Keon-Cohen 267. 136 Canada, Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development, 1986-87 Annual Report (Ottawa: DIAND, 1987). 1 37 Eg., i n 1984/85 S o c i a l A s s i s t a n c e Expenditures to B.C. Indians t o t a l e d $36.9 M i l l i o n , and i n Canada t h i s f i g u r e was $235 M i l l i o n ("Registered Indian S o c i a l A s s i s t a n c e Expenditures By Region, 1973-74 To Date," S o c i a l Development D i r e c t o r a t e , Indian and I n u i t A f f a i r s Program, F i l e 09188, 10 December 1985. 1 3 8 Keon-Cohen 266. 1 3 9 Keon-Cohen 266. 1 40 B r i a n Schwartz, F i r s t P r i n c i p l e s , Second Thoughts (Montreal: The I n s t i t u t e f o r Research on P u b l i c P o l i c y , 1986) 319. 1 4 1 Schwartz 319. 1 1 2 1 42 The "s.37 p r o c e s s , " as i t has become c o i n e d by Schwartz and o t h e r s , r e f e r s to the means by which F i r s t M i n i s t e r s Conferences were to d e f i n e the nature of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s , as c a l l e d f o r by s.37 of the C h a r t e r . 143 1 44 1 45 Schwartz 324-5. Mickenberg 134. E r v i n 8. 1 46 is i 1 47 Indian and Northern A f f a i r s Canada, "Fact Sheets: N a t i v e Claims i n Canada," 1985. Cf. endnote #1. 1 48 The comparison of "average years per c l a i m f o r A l a s k a and B.C." may appear to be a m i s l e a d i n g use of f i g u r e s , s i n c e no settlement i s i n s i g h t i n B.C. However, the use of such f i g u r e s i s only to q u a n t i f y the su g g e s t i o n that the American l a n d c l a i m s process i s more f a c i l i t a t i n g than the Canadian p r o c e s s . C l e a r l y , t h i s i s the case. 1 4 9 Regina v. Sparrow (1986) 32 C.C.C (B.C.C.A.) at 81. 1 ^ o Calder v. A.-G. B r i t i s h Columbia [1973] S.C.R. 313, 4 W.W.R. 1, 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 (S.C.C.). Mr. J u s t i c e Dickson i n the Guerin case (at 335 D.L.R.) and l a t e r C h i e f J u s t i c e Nemetz c l e a r e d up any misunderstandings over the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the 3-3-1 s p l i t i n the C a l d e r . Nemetz, C.J. p o i n t e d out t h a t the Calder case "recognized a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e as a l e g a l r i g h t d e r i v e d from Indians' h i s t o r i c o c c u p a t i o n and p o s s e s s i o n of t h e i r t r i b a l l a n d " (R. v. Sparrow 81 C . C . C ) . 151 Cf. f o r eg., Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) 30 U.S. (5 Pet) 1 r e f e r r e d to t r i b a l s o v e r e i g n t y i n the con t e x t of "domestic dependent n a t i o n s . " 1 52 David S. Case, A l a s k a N a t i v e s and American Laws (Anchorage: U of Alaska P r e s s , 1984) 435. 1 53 Case 5. Case d e f i n e s t h i s " t r u s t r e l a t i o n s h i p " as " o b l i g a t i o n s a r i s i n g from a d i v i d e d p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t i n which one p a r t y holds and manages the ^ l e g a l ' i n t e r e s t i n p r o p e r t y f o r the ^ e q u i t a b l e ' b e n e f i t of another. The U n i t e d S t a t e s f r e q u e n t l y does have a true t r u s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y over N a t i v e American r e s o u r c e s , and that r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f r e q u e n t l y r e q u i r e s that funds ob t a i n e d from the s a l e or l e a s e of those r e s o u r c e s be used to pr o v i d e s p e c i f i c s e r v i c e s . " 1 54 C f . , g e n e r a l l y , F. Cohen, Handbook of F e d e r a l Indian Law ( C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e : M i c h i e B o b b s - M e r r i l l , 1 982). 1 1 3 155 Vine D e l o r i a , J r . , and C l i f f o r d M. L y t l e , American  Indians, American J u s t i c e ( A u s t i n : U of Texas P r e s i ^ 1983) 34. "The d e s t i n y of Indian l i v e s i s so f i r m l y grasped by c o n g r e s s i o n a l hands that even the c o u r t s have been r e l u c t a n t to c h a l l e n g e t h i s t r a d i t i o n . " ( D e l o r i a J r , and L y t l e , 42) 1 5 6 Cohen 217-220. 1 5 7 D e l o r i a J r . , and L y t l e 40. 1 5 8 D e l o r i a J r . , and L y t l e 40. 1 S9 Cf. Trade and I n t e r c o u r s e Act 1 S t a t . 137 (1790). 1 6 0 D.H. Getches, D.M. R o s e n f e l t , and C F . W i l k i n s o n , F e d e r a l Indian Law Cases and M a t e r i a l s (St. P a u l : West P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1979) x i x - x x i i . 161 162 163 Keon-Cohen 258. D e l o r i a J r . , and L y t l e 51, 52 Ken Lysyk, "The Unique C o n s t i t u t i o n a l P o s i t i o n of the Canadian I n d i a n , " The Canadian Bar Review (45) 514. 164 "In A l l F a i r n e s s " : a n a t i v e c l a i m s p o l i c y :  comprehensive c l a i m s (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1981). Cf. f t . #1 and the I n t r o d u c t i o n f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n of the Nisga'a n e g o t i a t i o n s with the f e d e r a l government: an anomaly i n the h i s t o r y of the comprehensive c l a i m s process caused by the m i s p e r c e p t i o n that B.C. would n e g o t i a t e with the f e d e r a l government and Nisga'a people. 1 6 5 A.-G. of Canada v. A.-G. of O n t a r i o , (1910) A . C 637, i n which the J u d i c i a l Committee of the P r i v y C o u n c i l r u l e d that p r o v i n c i a l governments d i d not have to compensate the f e d e r a l government f o r n e g o t i a t i n g a t r e a t y which gave c l e a r t i t l e to land to a p r o v i n c e . Douglas Sanders p o i n t s out i n Indians and  the Law I I I (p.2.2.06-8) that S e c t i o n 91 (24) p l a y e d no r o l e i n the outcome of the case, nor d i d i t e s t a b l i s h f e d e r a l l i a b i l i t y f o r a n n u i t y payments under p r e - C o n f e d e r a t i o n t r e a t i e s i n O n t a r i o and Quebec. B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of the Attorney G e n e r a l , "Re: Indian Land C l a i m L i t i g a t i o n , " F i l e : CI 130-31 ( [ V i c t o r i a ] : [ M i n i s t r y of the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ] , [August 19, 1987]) 1. 1 6 7 Keon-Cohen 258. 1 68 R i c h a r d H. B a r t l e t t , "The Indian Act of Canada," B u f f a l o Law Review (27) 1978: 603. 1 14 169 John T. Vance, "The C o n g r e s s i o n a l Mandate and the Indian Claims Commission", North Dakota Law Review, V o l . 45, 1969: 335. 1 70 Vance 335: " I t has not c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n s of law to the Court of Claims, i t has given o n l y l i p s e r v i c e to the C o n g r e s s i o n a l d i r e c t i v e to e s t a b l i s h an I n v e s t i g a t i v e D i v i s i o n . " 1 7 1 Cf. Tee-Hit-Ton Band v. U.S., (1955) 348 U.S. 272. 1 72 C f . "Background" s e c t i o n of t h i s paper. The Province argues that a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , i f i t d i d e x i s t i n B.C., represented a l i a b i l i t y of the f e d e r a l government which e x i s t e d at the time of C o n f e d e r a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , the P r o v i n c e says, any p o t e n t i a l compensation f o r n a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s f a l l s to the f e d e r a l government based on A r t i c l e 1 of the Terms of Union. Such p o s i t i o n by the p r o v i n c i a l government d e f i e s l e g a l reasoning. As Douglas Sanders p o i n t s out, If a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e was not e x t i n g u i s h e d b e f o r e 1871 there was no " l i a b i l i t y " of the p r o v i n c e i n 1871. There was a f a c t of Indian ownership, but that f a c t does not, i t s e l f , g i v e r i s e to a government l i a b i l i t y . L i a b i l i t y would on l y a r i s e on a t a k i n g of the p r o p e r t y r i g h t . (Douglas Sanders, "The A b o r i g i n a l T i t l e Q u estion in BC," [Unpublished paper, F a c u l t y of Law, U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., May 1986], 8 ) . 1 73 Cf. endnote #1. Again, I emphasize that the f e d e r a l government would not have ent e r e d i n t o n e g o t i a t i o n s with the Nisga'a -- i n which today they do n e g o t i a t e those a s p e c t s which i n v o l v e only the feds -- i f the Government had known that B.C. would not be p a r t i c i p a t i n g . The f e d e r a l government d i d not take a l e a d e r s h i p r o l e here, they were merely m i s l e a d to b e l i e v e t h a t the Province had r e v e r s e d i t s p o s i t i o n . 1 74 175 176 177 D e l o r i a J r . , and L y t l e 35. D e l o r i a J r . , and L y t l e 35-6, Schwartz 108. U n i t e d Kingdom, P a r l i a m e n t a r y Debates (Hansard), House of Commons (London: Her Majesty's S t a t i o n a r y O f f i c e ) 3 March 1982. 178 180 Schwartz 22. 1 79 Schwartz 22-3. N a t i o n a l American Indian P o l i c y , Senate Report No. 92-561, 7 December, 1971, 6. 1 15 1 8 1 Berry 160. 1 8 2 Berry 162. 183 Congress and The Nat i o n , V o l . I I : 1965-68, (Washington, D . C : C o n g r e s s i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y Inc., 1969) 652. 1 84 Cf. Stewart L. U d a l l , The Quiet C r i s i s (New York: Avon Books, 1963). 185 186 187 188 N o t t i , I n t e r v i e w , 26 May 1989. Berry 60. K i c k i n g b i r d and Ducheneaux 45. Berry 61. T h i s v e r s i o n was confirmed by N o t t i , the f i r s t p r e s i d e n t of the AFN, which w i t h h e l d i t s endorsement of H i c k e l u n t i l the Governor promised to r e t a i n the l a n d f r e e z e . 1 8 9 C o n g r e s s i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . I l l : 746. 1 90 Berry 139-41. Berry notes that the s t a t e d e s p e r a t e l y needed the r o y a l t i e s from the o i l which would flow through the p i p e l i n e , and t h i s cemented a s t a t e - N a t i v e a l l i a n c e . 191 1 92 1 93 1 94 Berry 153-62. Mary C l a y Berry 115-121. Simon v. The Queen [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387, at 399. The assumptions and phenomena that h i n d e r e d the n a t i v e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l lobby of the 1980's i n c l u d e c o n f l i c t i n g premises and p r i o r i t i e s , the elemental r u l e s of the game, and the e r r o r s i n s t r a t e g y and t i m i n g on the pa r t of the n a t i v e l e a d e r s . With both f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments, together with the n a t i v e l e a d e r s , " r e l u c t a n t to develop i t s p o l i c y p o s i t i o n i n the absence of a p o l i c y p o s i t i o n from the other s i d e , " (Boldt and Long, ed. comment, 72), there does appear an i m p o s s i b i l i t y i n a c h i e v i n g any meaningful consensus on a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s and t h e i r p l a c e i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n . S a l l y Weaver, an expert on a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c y , expresses s i m i l a r pessimism i n a c h i e v i n g a d e f i n i t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s t h a t w i l l be "meaningful to a l l p a r t i e s , " due to the f e d e r a l government's d i f f i c u l t i e s with a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s demands ( S a l l y Weaver, " F e d e r a l D i f f i c u l t i e s with A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s Demands," The Quest f o r J u s t i c e 147). 195 . W i l l i a m Babcock, quoted by Bruce George, MP: U n i t e d Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons, 23 February 1982: 810-11. 116 1 96 Indeed, Douglas Sanders p o i n t s out t h a t as l a t e as J u l y 1980 the p r o v i n c e s were i n g e n e r a l p o o r l y informed, with only one p r o v i n c e having a c l e a r p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s (Sanders, "The N a t i v e Lobby" 307). 1 97 Sanders, i n a b r i e f given to a number of Canadian and B r i t i s h MP's, e x p l a i n e d that the word " e x i s t i n g ' would "perpetuate the d i f f e r e n t i a l treatment of the v a r i o u s Indians, I n u i t , and M e t i s p e o p l e s , " who a l r e a d y f a l l i n "at l e a s t t h i r t e e n d i f f e r i n g l e g a l c a t e g o r i e s . " Sanders a l s o expressed the f e a r that p r o v i n c i a l governments, such as B r i t i s h Columbia, w i l l now have the ammunition to r e f u s e r e c o g n i t i o n of past c l a i m s to a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e : "Those who have l o s t the most w i l l get n o t h i n g . " ( U n i t e d Kingdom, Hansard, 23 February 1982: 810-11). 198 199 200 C a l d e r v. A.G.B.C. (1973) 64 W.W.R. Guerin v. The Queen [1984] 2 S.C.R. at 376-77. R. v. Sparrow (1986) 32 C.C.C. (B.C.C.A.) 201 : i a t 202 iber 203 Paul Tennant, "The P r o v i n c e and Land Claims N e g o t i a t i o n , " unpublished c h a p t e r , May 1989: 21-2. Garde Gardom, "Why Land Claims i n B.C.?" The P r o v i n c e , 8 Decembe , 1985. Gardom, "Why Land Claims i n B.C.?". 204 The Vancouver Sun, 9 September 1986, r e p r i n t e d i n Paul Tenant, "The P r o v i n c e and Land Claims N e g o t i a t i o n , " unpublished chapter, 1989. 205 B r i t i s h Columbia, L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, Hansard, 3 August 1977: 4283. 206 The Vancouver Sun, 13 June 1985, r e p r i n t e d i n Tennant, "The Province and Land Claims N e g o t i a t i o n " 21-4. D e s p i t e the absence of such evidence, Smith e s t i m a t e d that B.C. Indians were i n t e n t on g a i n i n g ten b i l l i o n d o l l a r s , which, he s a i d , would mean "payouts the e q u i v a l e n t of, or l a r g e r then, the amount of money in the e n t i r e budget of the p r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia." 207 Paul Tennant, "Q and A f o r whites about Indian l a n d c l a i m s , " Vancouver Sun 7 December 1985 No.4. 208 Bennett was one of the four Western premiers that blocked entrenchment of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n the "Guy Fawkes Day Compromise" (November 5 1981) t h a t e l i m i n a t e d the r e c o g n i t i o n and a f f i r m a t i o n of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s (McWhinney 99). 209 N o t t i , I n t e r v i e w , 25 May 1989. 1 1 7 2 1 0 T h i s i s the f e d e r a l p o l i c y , a l t h o u g h (as mentioned p r e v i o u s l y ) t h e r e does e x i s t an e x c e p t i o n to t h i s p o l i c y -- the n e g o t i a t i o n s with the Nisga'a t r i b e s i n c e 1973. 21 1 E r v i n 1 1 . 212 E r v i n 1 1 . 213 Berry 1 46. 214 Berry 1 64. 215 Baker 25. 216 Baker 25. 217 Baker 25. 218 Berry 139-40. 219 Berry 163. 220 G.S. H a r r i s o n 1971," A r c t i c V o l . XXV, (3) September 1972, 233. 22 1 Block 22. 222 M a r t i n v. The Queen (Meares I s l a n d c a s e ) , [1985] B.C. Court of Appeal R e g i s t r y CA 003529'(B.C.C.A.) 14. 223 M a r t i n v. the Queen 14. "We were t o l d t h a t something l i k e one percent of the tree-farm l i c e n c e i n q u e s t i o n i s on the I s l a n d . " 224 M a r t i n v. the Queen 15. 225 M a r t i n v. the Queen 22. 22 6 M a r t i n v. the Queen 23. In September 1985 B.C. Supreme Court J u s t i c e A l l a n MacEachern r u l e that the Meares I s l a n d case would be merged wit h the Gitksan-Wetsu'etan c l a i m of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , which i s c u r r e n t l y under t r i a l . 227 Congress and The Nation, V o l . I l l : 807. 228 The P r o v i n c e w i l l not c o n s i d e r r e v e r s i n g i t s p o l i c y of not n e g o t i a t i n g with the Indians, u n t i l the a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e q u e s t i o n i s r e s o l v e d through the c o u r t s . The G i t k s a n Wetsu'weten cas e , c u r r e n t l y under t r i a l i n the B.C. Supreme Court, w i l l presumably answer t h i s q u e s t i o n . 1 18 229 The C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s of B r i t i s h Columbia, N a t i v e Indian Land Claims i n B r i t i s h Columbia (Vancouver: C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s of B.C., 1986) 3. T h i s background paper d e s c r i b e s the t h r e a t s to b u s i n e s s c o n f i d e n c e to B.C.'s major resource i n d u s t r y : D i s r u p t i o n of f o r e s t i n d u s t r y o p e r a t i o n s i s seen by N a t i v e groups as a means of drawing a t t e n t i o n to t h e i r cause. F o r e s t companies engaged i n l i c e n s e d and l e g a l l o g g i n g a c t i v i t i e s have a l r e a d y found themselves i n the middle of the emotional p u b l i c debate and the complex l e g a l i s s u e s surrounding N a t i v e l a n d c l a i m s . The r e s u l t has been c o s t l y d i s r u p t i o n of l o g g i n g p l a n s , the need f o r companies to a s s e r t timber h a r v e s t i n g r i g h t s through c o u r t a c t i o n , and u n c e r t a i n t y about the s e c u r i t y of long term tenure and a c c e s s by the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y to Crown f o r e s t l a n d i n the p r o v i n c e . 230 The C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s of B r i t i s h Columbia 13. 231 The C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s of B r i t i s h Columbia 14. 232 The C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s of B r i t i s h Columbia 14. T h i s background paper concludes t h a t a number of s c e n a r i o s c o u l d u n f o l d should a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e i n B.C. i s r e c o g n i z e d : revenue s h a r i n g , N a t i v e a p p r o v a l f o r c u t t i n g p e r m i t s , j o i n t business ventures, N a t i v e c o n t r o l of l a n d and c a p i t a l a s s e t s a f t e r tenure agreements e x p i r e , and "complex n e g o t i a t i o n s " over compensation for f o r e s t i n d u s t r y employees, c o n t r a c t o r s , and other l o c a l b u s i n e s s e s . " I r r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h i s i s or i s not a b i a s e d assessment, the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y , at l e a s t , sees lan d claims settlement as d i s a s t r o u s to the b u s i n e s s c o n f i d e n c e of t h e i r i n d u s t r y , together with having s e r i o u s "consequences for the g e n e r a l B.C. economy and the B.C. taxpayer" (pg. 14). 233 F r e d Moonin, V i c e P r e s i d e n t MacMillan B l o e d e l , Interview, 17 May -1989. 234 Stewart E. Perry and Mark W. Frankena, "Land T i t l e f o r the A l a s k a N a t i v e s and t h e i r Economic Development," Review of  R a d i c a l P o l i t i c a l Economics (4) 1972: 75. 235 P e r r y and Frankena 75. 2 36 There have been i n j u n c t i o n s granted which h a l t e d economic development p r o j e c t s i n Meares I s l a n d , McLeod Lake, Deer I s l a n d , r a i l w a y expansion was prevented along the Thompson R i v e r , and a Westar Timber p r o p o s a l to c o n s t r u c t a b r i d g e f o r access to the Sustut was blocked i n the K i s p i o x a r e a . ("Injunctions c o u l d f o r c e B.C. to s e t t l e land c l a i m s , " B r i t i s h Columbia P o l i t i c s and  P o l i c y V o l 2., No. 12, January 1989: 8. 1 19 F r e d Moonin, Interview. 2 3 8 Gardom "Why Land Claims i n B.C.?". 239 Gardom "Why Land Claims i n B.C.?". 240 As Premier, B i l l Bennett o f t e n d e c l a r e d that "we w i l l not s e l l out B r i t i s h Columbia l o c k , s t o c k , and b a r r e l , " thereby c o n t r i b u t i n g to the s e n s a t i o n a l i s t f a l l a c y t h a t the Indians were f i g h t i n g f o r the e n t i r e p r o v i n c e , i n c l u d i n g t h i r d - p a r t y p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t s . C f . Sanders, Indians and the Law I I I . 241 . . . In j u d i c i a l a c t i o n taken by f o r e s t companies a g a i n s t the n a t i v e p r o t e s t o r s i n the Meares I s l a n d case, L y e l l I s l a n d case, and, of c o u r s e , the Calder case, the A t t o r n e y General of B.C., on b e h a l f of the P r o v i n c e , i n t e r v e n e s on b e h a l f of the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y . 242 * McWhinney 99. 243 Hugh McCullum and Karmel McCullum, T h i s Land i s Not For  S a l e (Toronto: A n g l i c a n Book Centre, 1975) 25. 2 4 4 McCullum 67. 245 McCullum 66. McCullum compares the A l a s k a and James Bay s e t t l e m e n t s i n terms of what the n a t i v e s r e c e i v e d , and o f f e r s some i n s i g h t f u l comments on the nature of l a n d c l a i m s s e t t l e m e n t s i n North America (Cf. Chapter 2 and 4 ) . 246 Again, the Mulroney government, d e s p i t e the e f f o r t s i n the 1984-6 C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Conferences, has made no change to the a b o r i g i n a l p o l i c i e s h i s government i n h e r i t e d from the Trudeau L i b e r a l s . 247 " I n j u n c t i o n s c o u l d f o r c e B.C. to s e t t l e l a n d c l a i m s , " B.C. P o l i t i c s and P o l i c y , V o l . 2: No.12, January 1989: 8. 248 . . " I n j u n c t i o n s c o u l d f o r c e B.C. to s e t t l e l a n d c l a i m s " 8. 249 " B i l l i o n D o l l a r U.S. Settlement R a i s e s Canadian N a t i v e Hopes," Toronto S t a r , 30 September 1972. 250 " I n j u n c t i o n s c o u l d f o r c e B.C. to s e t t l e l a n d c l a i m s , " 8. 1 20 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anchorage D a i l y Times. 5 December, 1969. Asch, M i c h a e l . Home and Native Land. Toronto: Methuen P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1984. Babcock, W.T. Who owns Canada. Ottawa: Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n i n Support of the N a t i v e Peoples, 1976. B a r t l e t t , R i c h a r d H. "The Indian Act of Canada." B u f f a l o Law  Review (27) 1978. Baker, David. E a s t e r n A r c t i c Study Case Study S e r i e s : The  A l a s k a N a t i v e Claims Settlement. Kingston: Centre f o r Resource S t u d i e s , 1982. Bear, Leroy L i t t l e . B o l d t , Menno. Long, J.A. Ed.s. Pathways to  S e l f D e t e r m i n a t i o n Toronto: U of Toronto Press, 1984. Berry, Mary C l a y . The A l a s k a P i p e l i n e : The P o l i t i c s of O i l and  N a t i v e Land C l a i m s . Bloomington: Indiana U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975. Berry, John W. "Native Peoples and the Larger S o c i e t y . " A Canadian S o c i a l Psychology of E t h n i c R e l a t i o n s . Ed. Gardner, Robert C. K a l i n , R u d o l f . Toronto: Methuen P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1981. Berry, John W. K a l i n , R u d o l f . T a y l o r , Donald M. M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m and E t h n i c A t t i t u d e s i n Canada. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1977. Berger, Thomas. F r a g i l e Freedoms Toronto: C l a r k e , I r w i n , 1981. Berger, Thomas R. Northern F r o n t i e r , Northern Homeland: The -Report of the Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e Enquiry, V o l . 1. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1977. Berger, Thomas. V i l l a g e Journey. New York: H i l l and Wang, 1985. Berkhofer, Robert F. J r . The White Man's In d i a n . New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1978. Bibby, R e g i n a l d . P r o j e c t Canada: A Study of Deviance,  D i v e r s i t y , and Devotion i n Canada. L e t h b r i d g e : U of L e t h b r i d g e , 1975. Bidney, David. "The Idea of the Savage i n North American E t h n o h i s t o r y . " J o u r n a l of the H i s t o r y of Ideas. V o l . 15. 1954. Block, F r e d . "The R u l i n g C l a s s Does Not Rule." S o c i a l i s t  R e v o l u t i o n 7 (1977). 121 B o l d t , Menno. Long, J . Anthony. Ed.s. The Quest f o r J u s t i c e :  A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s . Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1985. Breton, Raymond. "The p r o d u c t i o n and a l l o c a t i o n of symbolic r e s o u r c e s : an a n a l y s i s of the l i n g u i s t i c and e t h n o c u l t u r a l f i e l d s i n Canada." The Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and  Anthropology 21:2 (May 1984). " B r i t i s h Columbia: Comprehensive Claims . " N a t i v e Claims f i l e -0017A. Comprehensive Claims Branch. B.C. O p e r a t i o n s . January 1988. B r i t i s h Columbia. M i n i s t r y of the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . "Re: Indian Land Claim L i t i g a t i o n , " F i l e : CI 130-31. [ V i c t o r i a ] : [ M i n i s t r y of the Attorney G e n e r a l ] ) . [August 19, 1987]. Brody, Hugh. Indians on S k i d Row. Ottawa: Inf o r m a t i o n Canada, 1971 . Canada. Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development. " R e g i s t e r e d Indian P o p u l a t i o n By Age-Sex-Residence,1986." Report #PR16. Canada. Indian and Northern A f f a i r s Canada. "Fact Sheets: Native Claims i n Canada," [Ottawa]: [ O f f i c e of N a t i v e C l a i m s ] , February, 1985. Canada. Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development. 1986-87 Annual Report. Ottawa: DIAND, 1987. Canada. Department of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e f o r Canada. 1986- 87 Annual Report. Ottawa: Department of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e , 1987. Case, David S. A l a s k a N a t i v e s and American Laws. Anchorage: U of A l a s k a Press, 1984. Cohen, F. Handbook of F e d e r a l Indian Law. C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e : M i c h i e B o b b s - M e r r i l l , 1982. C o l l i e r , John. " O f f i c e of Indian A f f a i r s , " Annual Report,  S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , 1938. Washington D.C.: S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , 1938. Conway, Thomas. " P u b l i c I n t e r e s t i n the I n d i a n . " The Indian  H i s t o r i a n . 5:1. S p r i n g 1972. Congress and The N a t i o n . V o l . I I : 1965-68. Washington, D.C.: C o n g r e s s i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y , Inc., 1969. Congress and The N a t i o n . V o l . I l l : 1969-72. Washington, D.C.: 1 22 C o n g r e s s i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y , Inc., 1973. Cook, K a t i e . Images of Indians Held by Non-Indians. Ottawa: Research Branch Indian and Northern A f f a i r s Canada, 1984. The C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s of B r i t i s h Columbia. N a t i v e  I n d i a n Land Claims i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver: C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s of B.C., 1986. D e l o r i a , Vine J r . , and L y t l e , C l i f f o r d . American I n d i a n s ,  American J u s t i c e A u s t i n : U of Texas Press, 1983. D i p p i e , B r i a n W. " T h i s Bold but Wasting Race." Montana, The  Magazine of Western H i s t o r y . January, 1973. D i p p i e , B r i a n W. The V a n i s h i n g American. Middletown: Wesleyan U P r e s s , 1982. Duff, Wilson. Indian H i s t o r y of B r i t i s h Columbia, v.1: The  Impact of the White Man. V i c t o r i a : P r o v i n c i a l Museum of N a t i o n a l H i s t o r y and Anthropology, 1964. Edelman, Murray. The Symbolic Uses of P o l i t i c s Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press, 1967. E r v i n , A.E. "The Emergence of the Alaska P o l i t i c a l C a p a c i t y . " Musk Ox (19) 1976. "The F e d e r a l N a t i v e Claims Process G u i d e l i n e s . " Comprehensive Claims Branch. B.C. O p e r a t i o n s . January 1988. F r i d e r e s , F r i d e r e s . Native People i n Canada: Contemporary  C o n f l i c t s 2nd ed. Scarborough: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1983. Gardner Robert C. K a l i n , Rudolf. Ed.s. A Canadian S o c i a l  Psychology of E t h n i c R e l a t i o n s . Toronto: Methuen, 1981. Gardom, Garde. "Why Land Claims in B.C.?" The P r o v i n c e . 8 December, 1985. Getches, D.H., R o s e n f e l t , D.M., and W i l k i n s o n , C F . F e d e r a l  Indian Law Cases and M a t e r i a l s St. P a u l : West P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1979. G i t k s a n Wet'suwet'en. Pamphlet. G i t k s a n Wet'suwet'en T r i b a l C o u n c i l . H a z e l t o n , B.C., 1987. G u s f i e l d , Joseph. The C u l t u r e of P u b l i c Problems. Chicago: U of Chicago P r e s s , 1981. Hanson, B i l l . Dual R e a l i t i e s — Dual S t r a t e g i e s Saskatoon: B i l l Hanson, 1985. 1 23 H a r r i s o n , G.H. "The A l a s k a N a t i v e Claims Settlement Act, 1971" A r c t i c V o l . XXV. (3) September 1972. Hertzberg, H a z e l . The Search f o r an American Indian I d e n t i t y . [ S y r a c u s e ] : Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1971. H i r s c h f e l d e r , A r l e n e . American Indian S t e r e o t y p e s i n the World  of C h i l d r e n Metuchen: Scarecrow Press Inc, 1982. "In A l l F a i r n e s s " : a n a t i v e c l a i m s p o l i c y : comprehensive c l a i m s . Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1981. Indian and Northern A f f a i r s Canada. "Fact Sheets: Native Claims in Canada." 1985. " I n j u n c t i o n s c o u l d f o r c e B.C. to s e t t l e l a n d c l a i m s . " S p e c i a l Report. B r i t i s h Columbia P o l i t i c s and P o l i c y . V o l . 2. No.12. January 1989. Keon-Cohen, B.A. "Native J u s t i c e i n A u s t r a l i a , Canada, and the U.S.A.: A Comparative A n a l y s i s . " Monash U n i v e r s i t y Law Review (7) June 1981. K i c k i n g b i r d , K i r k e . Ducheneaux, Karen. One Hundred M i l l i o n  Acres. New York: Macmillan P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1973. King, Anthony. "Ideas, I n s t i t u t i o n s , and P o l i c i e s of Government: Part I and I I . " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e nce 3 (1973). King, Anthony. "Ideas, I n s t i t u t i o n s , and P o l i c i e s of Government: Part I I I . " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e 3 (1973). Lysyk, Ken. "The Indian T i t l e Question i n Canada ..." The  Canadian Bar Review 51 (1973) 450. Lysyk, Ken. "The Unique C o n s t i t u t i o n a l P o s i t i o n of the Canadian Indian," The Canadian Bar Review (45) 514. March, James. Olsen, Johan. "The New I n s t i t u t i o n a l i s m . " American P o l i t i c a l Science Review 78 (1984). McBeath, G.A. and Morehouse, T.A. The Dynamics of Alaska Native  Self-Government. Maryland: U n i v e r s i t y Press of America, 1980. McWhinney, Edward. Canada and the C o n s t i t u t i o n : 1979-1982. Toronto: U of Toronto P r e s s , 1982. Mickenberg, N e i l . " A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . " Osgoode H a l l Law J o u r n a l (9) No.1. 1971. Moonin, F r e d . V i c e P r e s i d e n t MacMillan B l o e d e l . Interview. 17 May 1989. 124 Nagler, Mark. N a t i v e s Without a Home Don M i l l s : Longman, 1975. N a t i o n a l American Indian P o l i c y . Senate Report No. 92-561 . 7 December, 1971. N o t t i , E m i l . Telephone Interview: Anchorage, A l a s k a . 25 May 1 989. P a n i t c h , Leo. Ed. The Canadian S t a t e . Toronto: U of Toronto P r e s s , 1977. P e r r y , Stewart E. Frankena, Mark W. "Land T i t l e f o r the A l a s k a N a t i v e s and T h e i r Economic Development." Review of R a d i c a l  P o l i t i c a l Economics. ( 4 ) . 1972. P o n t i n g , J . R i c k . " P u b l i c Opinion On A b o r i g i n a l Peoples' Issues In Canada." Canadian S o c i a l Trends. Winter, 1988. Ponting, J . R i c k . G i b b i n s , Roger. Out of I r r e l e v a n c e . Toronto: Butterworth & Co., 1980. " R e g i s t e r e d Indian S o c i a l A s s i s t a n c e E x p e n d i t u r e s By Region, 1973-74 To Date." S o c i a l Development D i r e c t o r a t e . Indian and I n u i t A f f a i r s Program. F i l e 09188. 10 December 1985. Robbins, W i l l i a m G. "The Conquest of the American West: H i s t o r y as a Eulogy." The Indian H i s t o r i a n . (10) 1977. "A Rocky Road to C a p i t a l i s m f o r A l a s k a N a t i v e s . " Business Week. 28 November, 1977. Rogers, G.W. "Party P o l i t i c s or P r o t e s t P o l i t i c s : C u r r e nt P o l i t i c a l Trends i n A l a s k a , " The P o l a r Record V o l . 14. 91. 1969. Sanders, Douglas. "The A b o r i g i n a l T i t l e Question i n B.C.." [Unpublished paper. F a c u l t y of Law. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. May 1986.] Sanders, Douglas. P r o f e s s o r , F a c u l t y of Law. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Interview. 13 February 1989. Sanders, Douglas. "The Native Lobby." And No One Cheered. Ed. Banting, K e i t h . Simeon, R i c h a r d . Toronto: Methuen P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1982. Sanders, Douglas. "The Nishga Case." B.C. S t u d i e s 19, Autumn 1973. Schonback, Samuel. "What the Red Man Needs." C a t h o l i c World. 1972: 3 ( 1 ) . Schwartz, B r i a n . F i r s t P r i n c i p l e s , Second Thoughts. M o n t r e a l : 125 The I n s t i t u t e f o r Research on P u b l i c P o l i c y , 1986. S h o n f i e l d , Andrew. Modern C a p i t a l i s m . New York: Oxford U P r e s s , 1965. Sim, Heather. "Indian Coverage i n Canadian D a i l y Newspapers, 1977: a Content A n a l y s i s , " Ottawa: Indian and Northern A f f a i r s Canada, 1978. Simpson, George E. Y i n g e r , J . M i l t o n . R a c i a l and C u l t u r a l  M i n o r i t i e s . 3rd Ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. S l a t t e r y , B r i a n . A n c e s t r a l Lands, A l i e n Laws: J u d i c i a l  P e r s p e c t i v e s on A b o r i g i n a l T i t l e . Regina: U n i v e r s i t y of Saskatchewan N a t i v e Law Centre, 1983. Stedman, Raymond. Shadows of the I n d i a n . Norman: U of Oklahoma P r e s s , 1982. Tennant, P a u l . A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r , Department of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e . I n t e r v i e w . 13 December 1988. Tennant, P a u l . L e c t u r e . P o l i t i c a l S c i e nce 405. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 7 February 1987. Tennant, P a u l . "Native Indian P o l i t i c a l O r g a n i z a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1900-69: A Response to I n t e r n a l C o l o n i a l i s m . " B.C.  S t u d i e s 55. 1982 Autumn. Tennant, P a u l . "Native P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969-1983." B.C. S t u d i e s 57 (1983) S p r i n g . Tennant, P a u l . "The P r o v i n c e and Land Claims N e g o t i a t i o n . " [Unpublished c h a p t e r . May 1989.] Tennant, P a u l . "Q & A f o r whites about Indian land c l a i m s , " Vancouver Sun. 7 December, 1985 No. 4. Truman, David. The Governmental P r o c e s s . 2nd e d i t i o n . New York: A l f r e d A l Knopf, Inc., 1971. U d a l l , Stewart L. The Quiet C r i s i s . New York: Avon Books, 1963. U n i t e d Kingdom. P a r l i a m e n t a r y Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. London: Her Majesty's S t a t i o n a r y O f f i c e . 3 March 1982. V a l e n t i n e , V i c t o r . "Native Peoples and Canadian S o c i e t y . " C u l t u r a l Boundaries and the Cohesion of Canada. Ed., Breton, Raymond. Mo n t r e a l : The I n s t i t u t e f o r Research on P u b l i c P o l i c y , 1980. 1 26 van Brummelen, Harro. " S h i f t i n g P e r s p e c t i v e s : E a r l y B r i t i s h Columbia Textbooks from 1872-1925." B.C. S t u d i e s (60) 1983-84. Winter, 21-22. Van Loon, R i c h a r d . W h i t t i n g t o n , M i c h a e l . The Canadian P o l i t i c a l  System. 3rd E d i t i o n . Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson L t d , 1981. Vance, John T. "The C o n g r e s s i o n a l Mandate and the Indian Claims Commission." North Dakota Law Review. V o l . 45. 1969. W a l c h l i , F r e d . Interview. 5 December 1988. CASES and STATUTES A.-G. of Canada v. A.-G. of O n t a r i o . (1910) A.C. 637. Ca l d e r v. A.-G. B r i t i s h Columbia [1973] S.C.R. 313, 4 W.W.R. 1, 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 (S.C.C.) 11 W.W.R. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) 30 U.S. (5 Pet) 1. Ma r t i n v. The Queen (Meares I s l a n d c a s e ) . [1985] B.C. Court of Appeal R e g i s t r y CA 003529 (B.C.C.A.). G u e r i n v. The Queen. [1984] 2 S.C.R. Indian C h i l d Welfare Act P.L. 95-608. Johnson v. Mcintosh (1823), 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543. M a r t i n v. The Queen. [1985] B.C. Court of Appeal R e g i s t r y CA 003529 (B.C.C.A.). N a t i o n a l American Indian P o l i c y . Senate Report No. 92-561. 7 December, 1971. Regina v. Sparrow. (1986). 32 C.C.C. (B.C.C.A.) 81. Regina v. White and Bob [1964], 50 D.L.R. Simon v. The Queen. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387. St. C a t h e r i n e ' s M i l l i n g and Lumber Co. v. the Queen (1887), 13 S.C.R. 577. Tee-Hit-Ton Band v. U.S. (1955) 348 U.S. 272. Trade and I n t e r c o u r s e Act 1 S t a t . 137 (1790). Worchester v. Georgia (1832), 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, at 551-52. 1 27 

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.831.1-0097742/manifest

Comment

Related Items