There is an interesting piece about Terry at: http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/36thParl/cmt01/1997/hansard/ab1127.htm
1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) SALMON ARM WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1996 Issue No. 21
The Chairman announced that 'The committee is to look into the application of key issues arising out of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, which was signed in February of this year, between the Nisga'a, the government of Canada negotiators and the government of British Columbia negotiators. It may lead to the first modern treaty in British Columbia.
Secondly, we want to find out about the key issues arising from this and how they can be applied to treaty negotiations throughout British Columbia. There are, I think, about 47 bands in negotiations at various stages in a six-level process, and some bands are not in the treaty process at all. Thirdly, how progress can be made towards treaty settlements with aboriginal people beneficial to all British Columbians.... We are to provide opportunities for all citizens, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to express their views on these matters. We've visited about 20 communities and heard from about 250 people who have come forward, and we've got a number of people here to hear from today.'
Terry gave evicence as follows:
T. Cumpstone: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Terry Cumpstone. I live here in Salmon Arm. I appreciate having the opportunity to address you this afternoon -- or more likely, suppertime, this evening. I will make it brief.
To jump right into it, the B.C. treaty mandate papers state: "Treaties will ensure that the province's transportation, utility and communication networks are maintained. These networks will remain within Crown jurisdiction." Then I read from the AIP, page 28, agreement-in-principle No. 12. After having read what I said about the B.C. treaty mandate, the AIP states: "The Nisga'a nation will own all roads within Nisga'a lands, but British Columbia will hold a perpetual, exclusive right-of-way for the Nisga'a highway and Crown roads...." My question is: who do we believe? Do we believe the AIP, or do we believe the B.C. treaty mandate?
Jack, do you care to answer this?
J. Weisgerber: Well, I'm not sure if you've finished your comments. I'll be happy to answer....
T. Cumpstone: Okay, I'll carry on. Why I bring this up.... We are under the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that the people of British Columbia own these roads. They're our roads. They're not anybody's roads; they're the people's roads. They're not Joe Blow's roads, and Joe Blow can't go and stand up and put a sign up there and say: "You can't go down here." He goes to jail. Why can the natives do it? Why can the natives put up a roadblock? There's Green Mountain, Douglas Lake and Adams Lake, to name a few. It goes right back to this principle. The B.C. treaty mandate states that the roads will remain under the jurisdiction of British Columbia and will not be given to the Nisga'a. We're giving the roads away. We're giving them the rights. I can't understand it.
What should happen, the recommendations that I say.... The ownership of the key transportation corridors should be non-negotiable. Listen: non-negotiable. The roads in B.C. belong to the people of British Columbia. They are paid for by taxpayers' dollars, and they belong to B.C. The corridors should be non-negotiable objectives of B.C. in all treaty negotiations. Now, if I'm wrong, tell me. If the natives own the roads, tell me. But don't say they belong to me, and then have the natives put up a roadblock so I can't go through to my cottage. I'm finished.