Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (January 1990)

Edit item

Title

Is Part Of

1.06-01.08 Union of BC Indian Chiefs Newsletter

1.06.-01 Newsletters and bulletins sub-series

Date

January 1990

Subject

Language

Identifier

1.06-01.08-01.01

topic

Contributor

Type

periodical

extracted text

UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS
NEWSLETTER

#200 - 73 WATER STREET
VANCOUVER, BC V6B 1Al
Tel: (604) 684-0231
PAX: (604) 684-5726

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

As the 1980s drew to a close
last month, an extremely
important event occurred -- an
event that is significant for
every Indian Nation in Canada
whose Aboriginal Title and
Rights have not been fully
recognized by the Crown.

On December 18, 1989, for the
first time in history, the
Government of Canada formally
stated in writing its position
on how our Nations’ Aboriginal
Title and Rights have been

extinguished in British
Columbia. This statement was
submitted by the Attorney

General of Canada to the B.C.

Supreme Court in the
Delgamuukw (Gitksan Wet
Suet’En) land title case. (A

copy of the Attorney General’s
statement is enclosed.)

January 1990

It is now clear for all to see
that the Government of Canada
categorically rejects our
Indian Nations’ assertion of

ownership, sovereignty and
jurisdiction over our
traditional territories.

Through the Attorney General’s
statement, the Government of
Canada is saying to Indian
people that we have NO
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS WHATSOEVER:
NO HUNTING AND TRAPPING
RIGHTS! NO FISHING RIGHTS!
NO GATHERING AND BERRY-PICKING

RIGHTS! The only so-called
"rights" Canada recognizes
are those pertaining to
existing reserve lands as

defined by the Indian Act and
other federal legislation.

I look upon the Attorney
General’s statement as final
and absolute proof that the
federal government has been
and is continuing to pursue a
TERMINATION POLICY AIMED AT
EXTINGUISHING INDIAN
NATIONHOOD, SOVEREIGNTY AND
ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS
THROUGHOUT CANADA. There can
be no mistake about it. The
"Buffalo Jump of the 1980’s"
remains a reality in the
1990s.

Still, some believe that in
1990 our Indian Nations should
be cooperating with the
Mulroney government by
participating in its
comprehensive claims process,
its LRT Review anda its
"community self-government"
termination initiatives.
Why? What advantage is to be

gained? This is the same
government, with the same
policies, that is fighting
tooth-and-nail against our
Aboriginal Title, Rights and
Jurisdiction in court. This

is the same government that
refuses to reopen
constitutional discussions on
our Nations’ Aboriginal
Rights. This
government that is stepping up
its campaign to replace our
Indian Nations’ long-standing
political agenda with its own
fiscal and administrative
priorities.

With the recent passing of
Grand Chief George Manuel
still fresh in my heart and
mind, I must ask:

HAVE WE FORGOTTEN HOW TO FIGHT
BACK?

is the same

My first message for the new
decade, then, is that the
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
will continue to fight back
without compromise against the
extinguishment and termination

policies of the Mulroney
government. We will not
cooperate with a government
that seeks to bury our
Nations’ Title, Rights and
Jurisdiction, once and for
all, in a sealed casket of
legislated administrative
reforms. We will not give

our consent, by participating
in the government’s policy and
program initiatives, to the
destruction of Indian
Nationhood in the 1990s.

We will fight back, as we did
in 1969 against the "White
Paper" and again in 1980-82
over patriation of the
Constitution. We will fight
back, with all the resources
at our disposal, for an
equitable, just and
comprehensive settlement of
the Land Question in B.C. We
will fight back for. non-
extinguishment treaties to
replace the Indian Act --
Nation-to-Nation treaties that
will define a new,
constitutional relationship
with Canada based on
recognition of our Nations’
Aboriginal Title, political
sovereignty, and our Peoples’
inherent right of self-
determination.

WELCOME TO THE 1990’s!

SELF-DETERMINATION, ABORIGINAL TITLE AND POLITICAL POWER

For Indian Nations, SELF-
DETERMINATION is the process
of exercising self-governance
without external interference.
This is a natural right
flowing from our position as
the First Nations to rise upon
the soil. Our Nations were
not established by force or

coercion, nor were they
created with the signing of a
law on a piece of paper. Our

Nations were created from

natural laws.

From time immemorial, our
Indian Nations practiced
uncontested, supreme and
absolute power over our
territories, our resources and
our lives. Our Nations
exercised the right to govern,
to make and enforce laws, to
decide citizenship, to wage
war or to make peace, and to
manage our lands, resources
and institutions. ABORIGINAL
TITLE AND RIGHTS are the terms
we use today to describe these
fundamental national treaties.

ABORIGINAL TITLE AND RIGHTS
mean that we, as Indian
Peoples, hold Title and have
the right to maintain our
SACRED CONNECTION TO MOTHER

EARTH by governing our
territories through our own
forms of government. Our

nations have a natural and
rightful place within the
family of Nations of the
World. Our political, legal,
social and economic systems
development in accordance with
the laws of the Creator since
time immemorial and continue
to this day.

Our power to govern rests with
the people, like our
Aboriginal Title and Rights,
it comes from within the
people and cannot be taken
away. As with our power to
govern, we possess the natural
right to determine our future.

While we say that we, like all
human beings, have the natural
right to decide our own way of
life independent of external
intervention, TO HAVE THE
RIGHT IS NOT THE SAME AS
EXERCISING THE RIGHT. Our
nations may choose to exercise
the right, but there are
competing forces in the world
who seek to deny us how we
will decide our political
future, how we decide to use
and dispose of our natural
resources, and even how we
decide to practice our social
and cultural life.

To illustrate this point, we
only have to look at our
Nations’ recent efforts to
exercise political self-
determination in our relations
with the state of Canada.

The State of Canada was only
recently established under its
own constitution in 1982.
Prior to 1982, Indian Nations
strongly urged Canada to enter
into a dialogue where our
Nations might join the new
Canadian state in political
confederation. Our proposal
was that our Nations and the
people of Canada would share
political power in ae fully
confederated Canadian state.

Despite our greatest efforts,
the leaders of Canada rejected
all of our proposals.
Instead of renewing efforts to
enter into dialogue with our

Nations, the Canadian
leadership chose subterfuge
and manipulation. Instead of

entering into mutually defined
negotiations, the Canadian
leaders chose to deny our
Nations as an equal place at
the negotiating table. The
Canadian leaders rejected any
Giscussion of our SHARING
POLITICAL POWER with their
governments. Our Nations
were advised that there was no
place for them in the new
state of Canada.

On April 17, 1982, the new
constitution of the state of
Canada was proclaimed but no
Indian Nation would share in
the political powers defined
in the federal system of
governments. By the decision
of the representatives of the
Canadian people, our Indian
Nations were placed outside of
the Canadian political systen.

Since 1982, our Nations have
been outside the state of
Canada in search of political
status. Consistent with the
fact that the leaders of
Canada denied our choice to
enter confederation on the
basis of our Nations’ right to
self-determination, over the
past seven years the state of
Canada has worked very hard to
frustrate the exercise of
self-determination by our
Nations.

The government of Canada has
said to its people and to
world that it has worked to
include our Indian Nations in
its constitutional process.
This is not true. Indeed,
the government of Canada has
worked to divide our nations
in an effort to create only
the appearance we have
participated. Canadian
government representatives say
that “there is not yet a

consensus" among Indian
Nations on the Canadian
constitution. How can there

be a consensus among. our
Nations, or how can there even
be a process of negotiations
at this late date, when almost
eight years ago the leaders of
Canada showed their disdain
for our Nations by rejecting
all of our proposals and then
proclaimed a constitution
without us?

The peoples of Canada and the
world have all been the
victims of a sham, a fiction
perpetrated by the Government
of Canada. There are no
negotiations now on the
Canadian constitution that
involve our Indian Nations.
What is actually occurring is
a public fiction meant to
conceal the efforts by the
Canadian state to break up our
Nations and confiscate our
lands and resources. In the
international community, this
fiction is being perpetrated
even now with the aim of
denying our Nations the right
to decide our own political
future without Canadian
interference.

THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF OUR
NATION RESTS SOLELY ON OUR OWN
CHOICES, but Canada must stop
its attempts at interfering

with our decisions. Canada’s
uncompromising rejection of
legitimate Indian national
aspirations for self-

determination make a lie of

Today after eight years, the
constitutional process remains
suspended in the twilight zone
of Canadian government lies,
double-speak, propaganda and
manipulation. As our Indian
Nations go about’ defining
their agenda for the 1990s, it
should be remembered that TRUE

SELF-DETERMINATION AND - REAL
POLITICAL POWER ARE
EXPRESSIONS OF OUR NATIONS’
ABORIGINAL TITLE AND INHERENT

its reports of cooperation
with Indian Nations.

SOVEREIGNTY. AND THESE CAN
ONLY BE FULLY RECOGNIZED
THROUGH NON-EXTINGUISHMENT

NATION-TO-NATION TREATIES THAT
DEFINE THE TERMS OF OUR
NATIONS’ ENTRY INTO
CONFEDERATION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has 20th Anniversary Celebration
commemorative posters, t-shirts, hats, pens, note pads for sale.
For more information contact our Vancouver office at 200 - 73
Water Street, Vancouver, V6B 1Al, 684-0231.

Copies of the "Indian Act and What It Means" and "The Sechelt Act
and What It Means" are available at a cost of $5.00 per copy.

Newsclipping service is available to paid members of the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs and is mailed monthly.

* & &

CHIEFS MASK:
Gallery.
Chiefs.

An Indian Owned and Operated Indian Book Store and
An organization owned by the Union of B.C. Indian

We presently carry over 550 native titles and frequently update
our stock.
Order or write today!!
CHIEFS MASK
73, Water Street

Vancouver, BC V6B 1Al1
(604) 687-4100 FAX: (604) 684-5726

LEGAL COMMENTS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL’S STATEMENT:

For the first time in Canadian
legal history the # Federal
Government has been ordered by
the Court to declare it’s
position regarding whether
aboriginal title in British
Columbia is extinguished, and
by what means.

On December 11, 1989, the
Attorney General of Canada
declared their position.
This is what they say:

Canada will not recognize any
rights of ownership or
jurisdiction over the
territory of Indian Nations

because they say that’ the
claim of ownership and
jurisdiction is a claim of
sovereignty which was
extinguished completely when

Great Britian asserted control

over Canada.

Canada recognizes that Indian
people had aboriginal title
when the Europeans arrived but
they define title to be
confined to the use and
occupation of specific sites

for villages, fishing,
hunting, trapping and berry
picking.

Canada’s position is that
whenever any government,
federal or provincial, passed

any law which affected the
ability of the Indian people
to use their village sites,
fishing, hunting, trapping or
berry picking grounds,
aboriginal title was then
extinguished by “adverse use
or alienation" of the
territories. Canada assumes
no fiduciary obligations to
protect adverse use from

occurring.

Further, if Indian people have
not used those particular
village sites, hunting,
fishing, trapping or berry
picking areas continuously,

where there is a "discontinued
use" for a period of time, the
area sites are "abandoned" and
aboriginal title in that place
is extinguished.

Therefore, according to the
federal government, aboriginal
title only exists where there
has been continuous use of
occupation of village sites,
hunting, trapping, fishing
areas and berry picking areas
and where the government has
not chosen to interfere or
give away those areas. There
is no right of self-
government. There is no
recognition that aboriginal
title is a right to use
resources of the territory to
survive into the future.
There is no recognition of the
spiritual or cultural
relationship to the land.
There is no recognition of any
fiduciary obligation on the
federal government to protect
aboriginal title or treaties.
There is no meaning which the
federal government gives to

S35 of the Constitution Act,
1982.

ATEMENT _THE AT EY GENE OF CANADA! OsiITiIoO
ON _ EXTINGUIS DIMINU OR_AB E

OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS IN THE CLAJM ARPA

1. THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP OF AND JURISDICTION
OVER ALL THE LANDS IN THE CLAIM AREA.

e Attorney General Cana sponds:

Ownership and jurisdiction constitute a claim to
sovereignty. If the Plaintiffs ever had sovereignty, it was
extinguished a ai by the assertion of sovereignty by Great
Britain.

2. THE PLAINTIFFS! CLAIM, IF ANY, TO ABORIGINAL RIGHTS BASED
ON USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE CLAIM AREA.

The -torney General of Canada r ° :

As to extinguishment, this occurred when sovereign
authority was exercised in a manner necessarily inconsistent with
the continued existence of aboriginal rights whether by legislation
or otherwise, For example general legislation, when it was
accompanied by actual adverse use or alienation, was necessarily
inconsistent with the continued existence of aboriginal rights and
thereby caused their extinguishment. Just as proof of use and
occupation rights must relate to specific areas, proof of
extinguishment, diminution or abandonment must similarly relate to
the same areas.

With regard to abandonment, proof of aboriginal rights
requires continued traditional use and occupation of the various
parts of the claim area. Wherever evidence demonstrates that the
Plaintiffs' traditional use and occupation of an area has been
discontinued for a significant period of time or that their
traditional way of life has been altered so that traditional
activities of use and occupation have been largely replaced by non-
traditional activities, then aboriginal rights to that area are
lost. This lack of continued use can be considered as an
abandonment of the traditional use and occupation necessary to
establish aboriginal rights.

The Attorney General of Canada takes the position that
extinguishment, diminution or abandonment has taken place in many
instances in relation to the use and occupation rights claimed by
the Plaintiffs.

- 27

The following types of use and occupation rights have
been extinguished, diminished or abandoned where the evidence
indicates activities necessarily inconsistent with traditional use
and occupation or a discontinuance of traditional use and
occupation:

VILLAGE AND FISHING SITES (outside Reserves): Through
legislated uses, rights or interests necessarily
inconsistent with aboriginal use and occupation of the
site or, in many instances, through discontinuance of
traditional use and occupation by the Plaintiffs;

FISHING: To the extent that the fishing right is
necessarily inconsistent with the Fisherles Act, such
rights have been extinguished or diminished by Fisheries
legislation and, in some places, the right has been lost
by non-use}

HUNTING/TRAPPING: To the extent such rights include the
right to hunt or trap, wherever, whenever or by whatever
means the Plaintiffs choose, such rights have been
diminished by applicable Provincial legislation. Such
rights have also been extinguished whenever other
legislated uses, rights or interests of areas have
occurred, which other uses, rights or interests are
necessarily inconsistent with hunting or trapping, such
as resource development or grants in fee simple.
Furthermore, lack of continual use by the Plaintiffs has
resulted in the loss of rights, in many instances.

BERRY PICKING: Such rights have been extinguished
wherever other legislated uses, rights or interests of
the areas are necessarily inconsistent with berry-
picking, such as resource development, forest management
practice or grants in fee simple. Also lack of continual
use by the Plaintiffs has resulted in the loss of rights,
in some instances.

Aboriginal rights will subsist where traditional use and
occupation has continued and sovereign authority has not been
exercised in a manner necessarily inconsistent with such use and
occupation.

UNDAMENT ERENCE BETWEF E_ ATTORNEY GENER: 8
POSITION AND THAT OF THE PROVINCE

The Attorney General of Canada does not take the position
that blanket extinguishment of aboriginal rights based on use and
occupation has ever occurred in the claim area by any of the means
set out in paragraphs 34, 35, 36 or 37 of the Province's Further
Amended Statement of Defence or Particulars thereto.

MMK : wt
1tr107.ind

December 11, 1989

UNION CHALLENGES VANDER ZALM LIE

(UBCIC PRESS RELEASE - January 18, 1990)

Premier Vander Zalm’s remarks Wednesday evening, January 17, 1990
concerning the provincial government being able to take a more
active role in Indian land claims as a result of the success of
his Council on Native Affairs would be welcome and, indeed,
historical were it not for the fact that his statement is a lie.

The provincial government’s position on land claims has not
changed under Vander Zalnm. The B.C. government still refuses to
recognize aboriginal title and rights. When Mr. Vander Zalm
speaks of a "more active role" in land claims negotiations, he is
alluding to his government’s decision to attend negotiation
meetings as an official observer, as opposed to an unofficial
observer. Either way, an observer is not active.

Mr. Vander Zalm’s recent maneuvering to dialogue with Indian
Bands and Tribal Councils through his Premier’s Council is
nothing more than an attempt to patronize Indians by offering
them lottery program dollars (which they are already eligible to
receive) while diverting attention away from the long-standing
issue of recognition of Aboriginal Title and Rights.

* *« &

The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, January 20, 1990

By TERRY GLAVIN
Sun Native Affairs Reporter
Premier Bill Vander Zalm lied when he said his

‘ government is taking a more active role in
‘addressing Indian land claims, says the Union of
’ B.C. Indian Chiefs.

The chiefs’ union issued the statement in the

. wake of Vander Zalm’s televised address Wednes-

day.
“Our success through the premier’s native

. Indian advisory council ... has encouraged us to

take a moré active role in effectively dealing with
native land claims,” the premier said.

B.C. Indian leaders say they have no evidence
that the B.C. government is complying with their
century-old demand and dealing with land claims.
Since the 1970s the federal government has also

-asked the B.C. government to deal with Indian
land claims. —

Vander Zalm’s remarks on Wednesday would
be welcome and historic “were it not for the fact

ace

Dee cbt eee SP Bay os

Saas
acc te a)

CHIEFS Continued from page one

that his
statement is a lie,” the chiefs’ union
stated, adding that Vander Zalm
appears to be referring to his deci-
sion to send observers to land claims
negotiations.

The only such talks going on in
B.C. involve Nisga’a leaders and the
federal government.

A Jan. 8 bulletin published by
Vander Zalm’s council on native
affairs makes an assertion similar to
the remark the UBCIC calls a lie.

The bulletin contains an article
headlined ‘“‘Province Joins Land

Claims Talks,” but the article itself -
reports that the B.C. government is

only officially observing the talks. =:

Vander Zalm’s claims about “#
more active role” in dealing with the

question of aboriginal title were also’ '
_questioned. Friday by Ed Joh

spokesman for the Carrier-Sekani _
Tribal Council, who offered Vandet -
Zalm some suggestions about how té -
assume such an active role. WG:
The government should take‘a:
strong and flexible attitude oh
resolving the aboriginal title ques-"
tion, John said. ial

SOCIAL CREDIT PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN UNDERWAY

It is obvious a government-
wide plan is now in place in
B.C. in an attempt to pacify
the province’s 77,000
registered Indian people and
the public at large. With
the Native Affairs Ministry
acting as advisory hub,
several departments have begun
to provide programs and
program funding to Indians,
including: Social Services and
Housing, Labor (Alcohol and
Drugs), Health Education,
Advanced Education, Tourism
and the Solicitor-General.

the above list the
government funding
catch-all for Indians, the
First Citizens Fund, along
with some long-overdue items
such as settlement of a cut-
off claim left over from Dave
Barrett’s NDP government, and
the setting up of a justice
council in the Chilcotin area
and you have all the elements
necessary for a propaganda
campaign.

Add to
usual B.C.

In fact, a recently released
edition of the government’s
"Provincial Report" is

obviously intended as a tool
of this campaign. In the
eight-page tabloid completely
devoted to Indians, there are
no fewer than 40 stories and
16 photos detailing all the
good things Mr. Vander Zalm
and his government is doing
for Indians.

Under the bold headline - Co-
operative spirit replaces
fighting words - the
"newspaper" carries ae lead

story that begins as follows:

"A new spirit is afoot in B.C.
as aboriginal people and the
provincial government find
positive ways of cooperating

on what once were issues
discussed only in fighting
words."

The article then goes on to
give an overview of the many
initiatives being undertaken,
all of which are detailed in
the rest of the "newspaper",
while generally trying to give
the impression Victoria
suddenly can’t do enough for
Indians.

Enough, that is, except
recognize title and rights,
and settle the Land Question.

JUSTICE DENIED:

RACISM ON TRIAL IN THE 1980’8

The 1980’s will be remembered
for various reasons by
different people and groups in
Canada. For Indian People,
the decade might well be
remembered as a period in time
in which government justice
systems across Canada finally
received much-needed scrutiny
and challenge.

From Nova Scotia to Alberta,
provincial justice systems
were, in effect, put on trial.
To the surprise of many
people, but not to Indians,
the systems have been found to
be racist, unfair and grossly
inadequate in their treatment
of native people.

In the 1980’s, in a _ country
which wouldn’t recognize the
inherent right to self-
government for its original
inhabitants in its
constitution, the following
"trials" were either begun or
completed:

1. The Donald Marshall
Inquiry, Nova Scotia.

Costing an estimated $7
million, a royal commission
into the wrongful conviction
and ll-year incarceration of
the then 17-year old Micmac
Indian found:

a) that the Court of Appeal
made a serious and fundamental
error when it concluded that
Donald Marshall Jr. was to
blame for his wrongful
conviction;

b) that the court
selectively used the evidence
before iz as well as

information that had not been
submitted in evidence in order
to reach its conclusions;

c) that the court took it
upon itself to ‘convict’
Marshall of a robbery with
which he was never charged;

da) that the court was in
error when it stated that
Marshall ‘admittedly’
committed perjury;

e) that the court did not
deal with the- significant
failure of the Crown to
disclose evidence, including
the conflicting statements by
witnesses to defence counsel;

f) that the court’s
suggestion that Marshall’s
“untruthfulness . . . contri-
buted in large measure to his
conviction" was not supported
by any available evidence and
was contrary to evidence
before the court...

g) that the court’s decision
amounted to a defence of the

criminal justice system at
Marshall’s expense, notwith-
standing evidence to the
contrary;

h) that the court’s
gratuitous comments in the

last pages of its decision
created serious difficultly
for Donald Marshall Jr. both
in terms of his ability to
negotiate compensation for his
wrongful conviction and also
in terms of public acceptance
of his acquittal.

The royal commission’s seven-
volume report said the Nova

Scotia justice system is
riddled with racisn,
ineptitude and unfairness.

It also said:

"The evidence is persuasive
and the conclusion inescapable
that Donald Marshall Jr. was
convicted and sent to prison,
in part at least, because he
was a native person."
a The Manitoba Native
Justice Inquiry.

This inquiry has not yet
issued its final report and
will probably do so in March
of this year. It is
focussing primarily on two
separate incidents involving
Indian people who died:

a) Helen Osborne =- she was
abducted off a street in The
Pas, Manitoba by four drunken
whitemen in 1971 and _ was
murdered, stabbed 56 times
with a screwdriver. Sixteen
years passed before one of the
four was convicted despite the
fact it was common knowledge,
even to law officials, as to
who had committed the murder.

b) J.J. Harper - He was shot
in 1987 by a Winnipeg police
officer who later claimed
Harper had attacked him and

tried to take his gun. The
officer mistook Harper for a
car thief. A subsequent

police investigation of the
incident was botched and the

policeman was exonerated.
The officer who botched the
investigation committed

suicide on the day he was to
testify at the inquiry.

In the course of its
investigation, the inquiry,
which includes an Indian

judge, opened its doors to
people from throughout
Manitoba and not surprisingly
Indian people and groups took
advantage of the opportunity.

a Rolf Inquiry, Blood
Tribe, Southern Alberta.

This inquiry, conducted by
judge Carl Rolf, was
established by the provincial
government to look into how
the justice system treats
members of the Blood Tribe
after four of its members were
murdered.

Besides these four murders,
which the Blood Tribe says
were never investigated
properly, the inquiry is also
hearing from tribal members on
the inadequacy of policing for
Canada’s largest reserve.
The tribe had its own police
force. in the -1970%e but it
went out of existence because
the federal government refused

funding and the Alberta
government refused
recognition.

The tribe now has a police
force again, this time with
provincial recognition and co-
operation.

his Native Justice Council,
Chilcotin Territory, B.C.

Rather than set up ae full-
fledged justice inquiry in
B.C., as called for by the
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,
the B.C. provincial government
opted for a safer political
approach.

Obviously fearful of what an
inquiry would disclose, the
B.C. government set up the
Chilcotin justice council
after the death in 1988 of
Katie Ross of the Williams
Lake area. The 56-year old
Indian woman died from a
gunshot wound that went
undetected despite spending 15
hours in hospital. In the
hospital, she was tied to a

By the provincial government’s
own admission, the Chilcotin
justice council is merely a
consultative body made up of
Indian people and justice
system officials.

As such, it has no powers of

subpoena and its
recommendations are not
binding on the _ provincial
government.

bed in the children’s ward.
A coroner’s jury, after
reviewing the death, suggested
Mrs. Ross’ skin color had
something to do with the way
she was treated.

"THE SAME AS YESTERDAY
The Lillooet Chronicle the Theft of Their
Lands and Resources" BY Joanne Drake-Terry

JUST PUBLISHED:

The majority of British Columbians believe that Indian peoples
have been unjustly deprived of their lands and resources.
Recognizing this, most people are eager to end the obvious
inequalities of economic, social and cultural positions by
sharing lands and resources. But to date elected officials have
refused to respond to public pressure to negotiate a fair
settlement of the Indian land question. The government’s
position forces Indian peoples into costly litigation in Canadian
courts to influence change.

This book examines the unscrupulous use of political power in
British Columbia during the 19th and 20th centuries that resulted
in the takeover of valuable lands and resources in Lillooet
territory and in other Indian territories. Remarkably, Lillooet
history is fully supported by documents generated by the
adversary culture.

The Same as Yesterday is a cool and reasoned account by the
Lillooet that their title and rights exist. It also looks at
racism and the human cost of maintaining the status quo. This
paradigm is contained in the Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe.
The Declaration was sworn by seventeen Lillooet Chiefs on May 10,
i911. Lillooet history makes a strong case for treaty-making in
British Columbia, this being one means’ recognized under
international law for Canada to settle the Indian land question.

ALL PROCEEDS TO THE STL‘/ATL’IMX PEOPLE.

TO ORDER CONTACT:
Lillooet, BC VOK 1V0. Phone:

Lillooet Tribal Council, PO Box 1420,
(604) 256-7523.

Chiefs Mask Bookstore, 73 Water Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 1Al.
Phone: (604) 687-4100

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, 200 - 73 Water Street, Vancouver, BC
V6B. Phone: (604) 694-0231.

Files

Cancel

Union of BC Indian Chiefs Historic Newsletters