What other papers are saying

Page 4

In two recent rulings the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld aboriginal rights under centuries-old treaties, even when they clash with federal and provincial laws.

The rulings will help Canada's 500,000 status Indians in their chronic struggles over land claims, affecting such projects as the James Bay hydroelectric dam in Quebec and logging plans in the Temagami area of Ontario.

On May 24, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of Conrad Sioui, a Huron charged with violating Quebec provincial park laws by cutting saplings and building fires for a religious ceremony. It said a document signed in 1760 giving Hurons the right to practice their religion was a validity treaty and could not be ignored without their consent.

And on May 31 the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Ronald Sparrow of the Musqueam Band, who was convicted of fishing in British Columbia's Fraser River with a salmon net bigger than allowed by government rules. The decision made a strong statement about Native rights.

If federal and provincial governments want to pass laws interfering with guarantees of aboriginal rights in the Charter of Rights, the court said, they must show a valid legislative objective and be prepared to consult with Native groups and provide appropriate compensation. This puts the burden on governments to respect existing treaties - no matter how long they have been in disuse - and to prove their laws do not arbitrarily curtail treaty rights. It appears to create, in effect, a constitutional requirement for aboriginal participation in developing new laws affecting treaty rights.

It is worth remembering Native groups won constitutional protection of their rights only after a last-ditch protest at the Alberta legislature in 1981, which changed the mind of then premier Peter Lougheed. It was not a hollow victory.

The Globe and Mail - June 4, 1990