Periodical
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (September/October 1992)
- Title
- Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (September/October 1992)
- Is Part Of
- 1.06-01.08 Union of BC Indian Chiefs Newsletter
- 1.06.-01 Newsletters and bulletins sub-series
- Date
- September 1992
- Language
- english
- Identifier
- 1.06-01.08-03.04
- pages
- 6
- Table Of Contents
-
Message from the President............p. 2
Elijah Harper, MLA, Press Statement
on the Charlottetown Accord.......p. 3
Facts and Questions for our People
and Leaders about the B.C. Treaty
Commission .......................................p. 4
Commentary by Renae Richards.... p. 6 - Contributor
- Chief Saul Terry
- Renae Richards
- Elijah Harper
- Type
- periodical
- Transcription (Hover to view)
-
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
NEWSLETTER
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
First Nations Say "NO" To Accord!
6 1 % majority rejects self-government deal
B o y c o t t e f f e c t i v e in A l b e r t a , M a n i t o b a , O n t a r i o , Q u e b e c
On October 26, a large majority of First Nation
citizens rejected the Charlottetown Accord by voting
"No" in the national referendum. The preliminary
count by Elections Canada of over 200 on-reserve
polling stations shows that 61.2% of First Nation
voters said "No" to the Accord. At the same time,
many First Nations in Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario and
Quebec boycotted the referendum vote by refusing to
allow polling stations on their reserves.
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs was the first
aboriginal organization in the country to oppose the
Charlottetown Accord openly. Treaty 6, 7 and 8
chiefs in Alberta were also early opponents of the
Accord.
On the Wednesday before the vote, Elijah
Harper, M.L.A., announced that there were "too
many risks in the Accord'' and that if he was to vote
now, he would vote "No." Speaking at the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs' 24th Annual General Assembly
banquet in Vancouver, Mr. Harper said that on
October 26 he would respect the boycott by his Red
Sucker Lake First Nation in Manitoba and would not
vote in the referendum. It is believed that Mr.
Harper's support for the "No" position had an
important influence on the final outcome of the vote
nationally.
Commenting on the results of the referendum,
Chief Saul Terry, President of the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs, stated that the strong "No" vote was
' 'a clear victory for First Nation sovereignty and our
historic nation-to-nation relationship with the
Crown." Chief Terry said that the result was also "a
victory for our grass-roots community people, who
were not consulted or fully informed about the
package, who were not given enough time to consider
the package, and who were told to say 'Yes' just
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
because a small group of national leaders said so. We
welcome the result as a victory for democracy over
the political elites."
THE UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS
C O N G R A T U L A T E S A L L FIRST NATION
ELDERS, CITIZENS AND LEADERS ACROSS
CANADA WHO STOOD UP COURAGEOUSLY
FOR THEIR ABORIGINAL A N D T R E A T Y
RIGHTS A N D SAID " N O " TO T H E
CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD !
SPECIAL EDITION
IN THIS ISSUE
Message from the President
p. 2
Elijah Harper, MLA, Press Statement
on the Charlottetown Accord
p. 3
Facts and Questions for our People
and Leaders about the B.C. Treaty
Commission
p. 4
Commentary by Renae Richards.... p. 6
Page 1
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT:
S T A T E M E N T BY C H I E F S A U L T E R R Y O N T H E
O C T O B E R 26TH R E F E R E N D U M V O T E
Y
ESTERDAY'S " N O " VOTE
ON THE C H A R L O T T E TOWN A C C O R D W A S N O T
A REJECTION OF ABORIGINAL
PEOPLES OR ABORIGINAL SELFGOVERNMENT. THE PEOPLE OF
CANADA DID NOT TURN THEIR
BACKS ON US, NOR DID THEY
KICK US IN THE FACE, AS SOME
HAVE SAID.
THE UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS WELCOMES
THE RESULT OF YESTERDAY'S VOTE AS A CLEAR
VICTORY FOR FIRST NATION SOVEREIGNTY AND OUR
HISTORIC NATION-TO-NATION RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE CROWN.
WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY FOR
SECTION 35 OF THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION, WHICH
WE MAINTAIN ALREADY RECOGNIZES A " F U L L B O X "
OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS, INCLUDING
OUR INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT.
AND WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY
FOR OUR GRASS-ROOTS COMMUNITY PEOPLE, WHO
WERE NOT CONSULTED OR FULLY INFORMED ABOUT
THE PACKAGE, WHO WERE NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME
TO CONSIDER THE PACKAGE, AND WHO WERE TOLD
TO SAY " Y E S " JUST BECAUSE A SMALL GROUP OF
NATIONAL LEADERS SAID SO.
WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY FOR
DEMOCRACY OVER THE POLITICAL ELITES IN THIS
COUNTRY. THIS IS TRUE FOR OUR OWN COMMUNITY
PEOPLE, AS WELL AS FOR THE PEOPLE OF CANADA
AS A WHOLE.
TODAY, I WANT TO REASSURE THE CITIZENS OF
OUR FIRST NATIONS THAT OUR ABORIGINAL AND
TREATY RIGHTS CONTINUE TO EXIST - AND THAT
WE H A V E PRESERVED THE BEST PROCESS FOR
ACHIEVING ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT: THE
NATION-TO-NATION PROCESS WITH CANADA.
I ALSO WANT TO REASSURE THE PEOPLE OF
CANADA THAT WE DO NOT SEE THE REJECTION OF
THE CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD AS A VALID EXCUSE
FOR BLOCKADES OR DISRUPTIONS. DIRECT ACTIONS
BY OUR NATIONS ARE PROVOKED B Y THE FEDERAL
OR PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS. THEY ARE OUR
NATIONS' L A S T RESORT FOR DEFENDING OUR
TERRITORIES, RESOURCES AND PEOPLES.
BLOCKADES ARE NOT A THREAT TO BE MADE
OUT OF PERSONAL ANGER OR FRUSTRATION,
Page 2
ESPECIALLY B Y ABORIGINAL LEADERS AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL.
WE MUST MOVE FORWARD IN A SPIRIT OF
DETERMINATION, CONFIDENCE AND OPTIMISM
BASED ON WHO WE ARE AS SOVEREIGN NATIONS.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE INHERENT RIGHT OF SELFGOVERNMENT. OUR TASK BEGINNING TODAY IS TO
M A K E THIS A R E A L I T Y T H R O U G H O U T OUR
TRADITIONAL TERRITORIES ON A NATION-TONATION BASIS WITH CANADA.
UBCIC: October 27,1992
CONGRATULATIONS!
To Chief Saul Terry upon his re-election as
President of the Union of B . C . Indian
Chiefs, October 22, 1992 at the UBCIC 24th
Annual General Assembly.
Chief Terry is now serving his 5th term as
President.
Welcome!!
Wendy Ancell - Librarian, UBCIC Resource
Centre
Dianna Rai - Reception / Support Staff
Rhonda Johnson - Articling Student
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
ELIJAH H A R P E R , M.L.A.
STATEMENT T O T H E MEDIA O N T H E C H A R L O T T E T O W N A C C O R D
OCTOBER 21, 1992
As during the Meech Lake debate, I believe
my role is to listen to the voices of Aboriginal
peoples and represent those voices. I have listened
to the despair and the hopes of Aboriginal Peoples
across this land. I have listened to the concerns of
Aboriginal peoples about the "Charlottetown
Accord". I have weighed these concerns against
the hopes.
I have expressed concerns about the Accord
for several weeks. But I must now take a position.
I do not do so lightly.
I believe that the proposed constitutional
reforms must be improved. I believe that First Nations'
peoples deserve more time to fully debate and consider. We
have been patient for 125 years. We are now given a few
weeks to decide on our rights. We cannot be forced by a
deadline to entrench a bad risk. As during the Meech Lake
debate, i f I was to vote now, I must once again say " N o " .
The death of the Meech Lake Accord gave great
promise, great opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. A n
opportunity to have our long-standing concerns dealt with.
Aboriginal peoples did not let this opportunity pass.
Aboriginal leadership has worked tirelessly to improve
our communities through constitutional change. And we
have gained political support for many of these changes.
This political support has come at a cost however.
Perhaps it is the price of a quick fix.
The Accord has many good features for Aboriginal
peoples. It finally recognizes that Aboriginal peoples are a
fundamental characteristic of Canada. It recognizes our
inherent right of self-government and our right to promote
our languages, cultures and traditions. This is a great
achievement. The Accord allows for greater participation by
Aboriginal peoples in national institutions. It facilitates
rectifying some of the problems with treaties.
When I received the Accord, I hoped it would help
fulfill the aspirations of Aboriginal peoples. I was faced with
wording that was confusing, with conflicting clauses, with
promises that are vague, that are incomplete. First Nations'
communities are unsure what it means for their well-being.
We deserve, at least, a completed agreement. There
is no agreement regarding Aboriginal representation in
the Senate and House of Commons. As well, the political
accords must be concluded. We must know that we will
get what we negotiated for. This Accord is not yet ready
for the consideration of First Nations.
The Accord does not entrench an obligation to
finance self-governments or provide additional
land and resources to Aboriginal peoples. This is
a serious practical threat to self-government.
Aboriginal peoples will be given a statement in
a political accord which merely commits
government to the "principle" of providing
fiscal resources, and only pursuant to selfgovernment agreements. This will be only a
political agreement and can change with
governments. The provinces have an entrenched
commitment to equalization payments under the
Constitution. First Nations deserve no less. There is a double
standard.
And there are other uncertain limitations on our
right of self-government.
Our treaties, made nation to nation, are sacred to
many First Nations' peoples and the Accord risks their
integrity and may alter our fundamental relationship with
the federal government.
We can only be invited to First Ministers'
Conferences and can only speak on matters that directly
affect us. Our well-being is affected by all national matters
and we deserve the right to fully participate. The Accord says
we are one of three orders of government. I fear that we will
instead be the third order of government.
There are too many risks in the Accord. It does not
provide a path from poverty, so much as an obstacle course.
Fear of risks can be overcome by trust. But First Nations'
peoples do not have that trust. When people selling this
Accord say to us " W e know there are risks in this Accord for
you and many things are unclear and must still be worked out
but trust us", we cannot accept that. Our history of dealings
with government and officials and the Prime Minister explains
this. Even today, the unwillingness of the Manitoba
government to facilitate a process for dealing with the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report saddens our leadership.
The legal text flowing from the Accord justifies our
distrust. The French text does not mirror the English legal
text or our understanding of what was negotiated in three
important ways.
These changes in the French text were made, without
the consent of First Nations' peoples and over their objection.
This is not dealing in good faith with Aboriginal peoples and
our representatives.
Continued page 5
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Page 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ELDERS, CHIEFS A N D CITIZENS OF OUR NATIONS
FROM:
CHIEF SAUL TERRY, PRESIDENT
DATE:
MAY
RE:
B.C. Treaty Commission, First Nations Summit
15,
1992
The following is a statement by UBCIC that was handed out at the First Nations Summit meeting in Vancouver on May 15th.
The course that is being set by the Summit is very dangerous to the aboriginal title and rights of all of our peoples. Our future
generations' inheritance is being placed in jeopardy. Decisions are being made in the name of the people without the people being
consulted or fully informed. I urge you to review the facts and questions in the UBCIC statement.
If you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to contact the Union's office in Vancouver (Phone: 684-0231;
F A X : 684-5726).
•
* ***
FACTS A N D QUESTIONS FOR OUR PEOPLE A N D
ABOUT THE
B.C. T R E A T Y C O M M I S S I O N
IT'S A
LEADERS
FACT:
— The federal government's extinguishment (surrender)
policy for aboriginal title and rights remains in place. It has not
been changed and the government has no intention of changing
it. This cannot be denied.
-- Under the Treaty Commission that is being set up by the
First Nations Summit with the federal and provincial governments,
extinguishment will be on the table in land claims negotiations.
The Treaty Commission will be overseeing surrender
(extinguishment) negotiations on our aboriginal title and rights.
This cannot be denied.
-- The organizers of the First Nations Summit have stated
publically that the Treaty Commission would not go forward
unless the federal government dropped its extinguishment policy,
yet the Treaty Commission is going ahead without any changes
whatsoever to the extinguishment policy. This cannot be denied.
- Our people have the right to give or refuse their full and
informed consent to any land claims negotiation process, like the
Treaty Commission, which will involve the surrender and
extinguishment of our aboriginal title and rights. This cannot be
denied.
QUESTIONS:
Have the people in our communities been given the
opportunity to be fully informed about the facts concerning the
Treaty Commission and extinguishment?
Does any leader have a mandate given directly by his or her
people to proceed with the Treaty Commission and negotiate the
extinguishment and surrender of aboriginal title and rights?
Why is the First Nations Summit in such a rush?
-- The words "nation-to-nation" are never used in the B.C.
Claims Task Force recommendations or in the terms of reference
approved for the Treaty Commission. The Treaty Commission
process is not based on nation-to-nation negotiations. This cannot
be denied.
Page 4
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
ELIJAH continued from
RESOURCE CENTRE UPDATE
page 3
Distrust by Aboriginal people is worsened by a process
that ended up with closed-door deal-making, limited to a few
people. This flawed the Meech Lake Accord. Reliance on that
process again is regrettable.
I place greater trust in the ability of First Nations - by
political will - to enjoy their right of self-government and ensure
their well-being than I currently place in this particular Accord.
It subjects us, perhaps eternally, to risks that are too great.
And these risks would not be borne only by Aboriginal
peoples. I believe that the quality of life of all Canadians
depends on the well-being of its First Peoples.
The constitutional debate has let us see, explore, who we
all are. This now a valuable foundation on which to build our
future.
So here is my recommendation.
Because of the lack of time given to First Nations, the
complexity of the Accord and its significance to us and because
changes appear to be necessary, a " N o " or Yes vote may not
be best for Aboriginal peoples or Canada at this time.
I encourage First Nations' peoples not to be forced to a
vote. I encourage them not to take a position at this time. We
need to work through this Accord in our communities. We need
clarification. We need full debate. We need time.
Non-participation in the Referendum by First Nations is
the preferred option and I ask of governments that First
Nations' peoples not be required to decide on constitutional
amendments for another six months.
The UBCIC staff must be beginning to think that the librarians
are a little bit like the seasons... they come and they go.
Unfortunately, two librarians have come and gone at the
UBCIC over this past year. Both Tim and Gerald left to take
positions at academic libraries.
I am here to stay. In that statement is a commitment to
the UBCIC and to myself to meet the many challenges this
special library affords. It is an impressive and valuable collection. The task which lies ahead to better organize it, maitain it,
and direct its growth while serving those who depend on it and
opening the doors to all those who may benefit from it, is
almost overwhelming.
The first priority has been to carefully weed the entire
collection so that outdated, no longer correct, and no longer
needed materials are taken off the shelves to make room for
new materials and to also make remaining materials more
easily accessible. Following the weeding process, the Library
will be moved upstairs to the 7th Floor where the UBCIC has
now relocated its Vancouver offices. The new space is infinitely better in every respect offering needed improvements in
everything form lighting to flexibility for the physical arrangement of the Library itself.
Wendy Ancell
UBCIC Librarian
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS
SUBSCRIPTION
FORM
NAME:
FOR OFFICE U S E O N L Y
ADDRESS:
DATE RECEIVED:
CHEQ/M.O.:
EXPIRY DATE:
PROVINCE/STATE:
POSTAL/ZIP C O D E :
1 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
MEMBER BANDS:
$25.00
INDIVIDUALS:
$35.00
NEWSCLIPPING
MEMBER BANDS:
$75.00
INDIVIDUALS:
$100.00
T O T A L A M O U N T
Please
make
cheque
or money
order
payable
E N C L O S E D
in Canadian
funds to:
$
U N I O N O F B.C. I N D I A N
700-73 W a t e r S t r e e t , V a n c o u v e r , B . C . , V 6 B
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
CHIEFS,
1A1
Page 5
W H O ' S CHOOSING YOUR CHILDRENS' READING MATERIALS?
One important issue we have identified in discussions of our sovereignty is the right to educate
our children. Many bands have set up their own schools and hired staff to teach their children in a way that is
compatible with their culture. Unfortunately the good intentions often break down when it comes to choosing
the books for the children to read.
Very few librarians have the time to read books before they spend your money to buy books for your
children. Most librarians base their buying decisions on book reviews and catalogue descriptions.
Book reviews are almost always writtenfroma non-native perspective. Even the most liberal thinker
is not necessarily thinkingfroma native perspective. As an example a recently published book on Native
economic development From Wooden Ploughs to Welfare received wonderful reviews in newspapers all across
Canada. My review of the same book was certainly not complementary because my review was writtenfroma
native perspective.
The other source which librarians use for information is the catalogue. Catalogue descriptions are not
only writtenfroma non-native perspective but are usually written by people who haven't even read the book.
They base their description on interviews with the author or a quick glance through the book. It is not unusual
to have a very racist book described in glowing terms in a catalogue. The purpose of the catalogue is to sell the
books to libraries and book stores.
I have recently experienced a number of incidents where teachers and librariansfromband schools have
requested books which are not the kind of books I would want my children to be taught. These books
reinforce stereotypes about Native peoples, and promote no positive insights into Native culture. Often these
books are written by people who have not received the permission of the people to tell their stories and are
examples of theft of culture and image but because of their appeal are heavily marketed to schools and
libraries.
Leaders of our communities have aright,in fact a responsibility, to ensure that the teachers and
librarians they hire are using materials which respect Native traditions and values.
There are checklists available for evaluating books for racism. If you need help please contact me.
Renae Richards, Manager
Chiefs Mask Bookstore
CHIEFS MASK BOOKSTORE
73 Water Street
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA V6B 1A1
Telephone: (604) 687-4100 Fax: (604) 684-5726
We presently carry 700
Native Titles and we do mail
orders world-wide!
C a l l , order or write today.
RAINBOW
MOTEL
Housekeeping Non-Smoking Units
by the Day or Week
Your Host & Manager
John Cameron
An Indian owned and operated Indian Bookstore.
A non-profit organization owned by
the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.
Page 6
Bag 9000
Burns Lake, B.C.
V0J 1E0
Telephone: (604) 692-7747
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
NEWSLETTER
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
First Nations Say “‘NO”’ To Accord!
61% majority rejects self-government deal
Boycott effective in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec
On October 26, a large majority of First Nation
citizens rejected the Charlottetown Accord by voting
‘*No’’ in the national referendum. The preliminary
count by Elections Canada of over 200 on-reserve
polling stations shows that 61.2% of First Nation
voters said ‘‘No’’ to the Accord. At the same time,
many First Nations in Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario and
Quebec boycotted the referendum vote by refusing to
allow polling stations on their reserves.
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs was the first
aboriginal organization in the country to oppose the
Charlottetown Accord openly. Treaty 6, 7 and 8
chiefs in Alberta were also early opponents of the
Accord.
On the Wednesday before the vote, Elijah
Harper, M.L.A., announced that there were ‘‘too
many risks in the Accord’’ and that if he was to vote
now, he would vote ‘‘No.’’ Speaking at the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs’ 24th Annual General Assembly
banquet in Vancouver, Mr. Harper said that on
October 26 he would respect the boycott by his Red
Sucker Lake First Nation in Manitoba and would not
vote in the referendum. It is believed that Mr.
Harper’s support for the ‘‘No’’ position had an
important influence on the final outcome of the vote
nationally.
Commenting on the results of the referendum,
Chief Saul Terry, President of the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs, stated that the strong ‘‘No’’ vote was
‘a clear victory for First Nation sovereignty and our
historic nation-to-nation relationship with the
Crown.’’ Chief Terry said that the result was also ‘‘a
victory for our grass-roots community people, who
were not consulted or fully informed about the
package, who were not given enough time to consider
the package, and who were told to say ‘Yes’ just
because a small group of national leaders said so. We
welcome the result as a victory for democracy over
the political elites.’’
THE UNION OF B.C, INDIAN CHIEFS
CONGRATULATES ALL FIRST NATION
ELDERS, CITIZENS AND LEADERS ACROSS
CANADA WHO STOOD UP COURAGEOUSLY
FOR THEIR ABORIGINAL AND TREATY
RIGHTS AND SAID ‘‘NO” TO THE
CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD !
©-
SPECIAL EDITION
IN THIS ISSUE
Message from the President p. 2
Elijah Harper, MLA, Press Statement
on the Charlottetown Accord —_ p. 3
Facts and Questions for our People
and Leaders about the B.C. Treaty
Commission p. 4
Commentary by Renae Richards.... p. 6
SEP TEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Page 1
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT:
STATEMENT BY CHIEF SAUL TERRY ON THE
OCTOBER 26TH REFERENDUM VOTE
Yestenpays *‘NO”’ VOTE
ON THE CHARLOTTE-
TOWN ACCORD WAS NOT
A REJECTION OF ABORIGINAL
PEOPLES OR ABORIGINAL SELF-
GOVERNMENT. THE PEOPLE OF
CANADA DID NOT TURN THEIR
BACKS ON US, NOR DID THEY
KICK US IN THE FACE, AS SOME
HAVE SAID.
THE UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS WELCOMES
THE RESULT OF YESTERDAY’S VOTE AS A CLEAR
VICTORY FOR FIRST NATION SOVEREIGNTY AND OUR
HISTORIC NATION-TO-NATION RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE CROWN.
WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY FOR
SECTION 35 OF THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION, WHICH
WE MAINTAIN ALREADY RECOGNIZES A ‘‘FULL BOX’’
OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS, INCLUDING
OUR INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT.
AND WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY
FOR OUR GRASS-ROOTS COMMUNITY PEOPLE, WHO
WERE NOT CONSULTED OR FULLY INFORMED ABOUT
THE PACKAGE, WHO WERE NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME
TO CONSIDER THE PACKAGE, AND WHO WERE TOLD
TO SAY ‘‘YES’’ JUST BECAUSE A SMALL GROUP OF
NATIONAL LEADERS SAID SO.
WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY FOR
DEMOCRACY OVER THE POLITICAL ELITES IN THIS
COUNTRY. THIS IS TRUE FOR OUR OWN COMMUNITY
PEOPLE, AS WELL AS FOR THE PEOPLE OF CANADA
AS A WHOLE.
TODAY, I WANT TO REASSURE THE CITIZENS OF
OUR FIRST NATIONS THAT OUR ABORIGINAL AND
TREATY RIGHTS CONTINUE TO EXIST -- AND THAT
WE HAVE PRESERVED THE BEST PROCESS FOR
ACHIEVING ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT: THE
NATION-TO-NATION PROCESS WITH CANADA.
I] ALSO WANT TO REASSURE THE PEOPLE OF
CANADA THAT WE DO NOT SEE THE REJECTION OF
THE CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD AS A VALID EXCUSE
FOR BLOCKADES OR DISRUPTIONS. DIRECT ACTIONS
BY OUR NATIONS ARE PROVOKED BY THE FEDERAL
OR PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS. THEY ARE OUR
NATIONS’ LAST RESORT FOR DEFENDING OUR
TERRITORIES, RESOURCES AND PEOPLES.
BLOCKADES ARE NOT A THREAT TO BE MADE
OUT OF PERSONAL ANGER OR FRUSTRATION,
ESPECIALLY BY ABORIGINAL LEADERS AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL.
WE MUST MOVE FORWARD IN A SPIRIT OF
DETERMINATION, CONFIDENCE AND OPTIMISM
BASED ON WHO WE ARE AS SOVEREIGN NATIONS.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-
GOVERNMENT. OUR TASK BEGINNING TODAY IS TO
MAKE THIS A REALITY THROUGHOUT OUR
TRADITIONAL TERRITORIES ON A NATION-TO-
NATION BASIS WITH CANADA.
UBCIC: October 27, 1992
CONGRATULATIONS!
To Chief Saul Terry upon his re-election as
President of the Union of B.C. Indian
Chiefs, October 22, 1992 at the UBCIC 24th
Annual General Assembly.
Chief Terry is now serving his 5th term as
President.
Welcome!!
Wendy Ancell - Librarian, UBCIC Resource
Centre
Dianna Rai - Reception / Support Staff
Rhonda Johnson - Articling Student
—
Page 2
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992 —
ELIJAH HARPER, M.L.A.
STATEMENT TO THE MEDIA ON THE CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD
OCTOBER 2i, 1992
As during the Meech Lake debate, I believe
my role is to listen to the voices of Aboriginal
peoples and represent those voices. I have listened
to the despair and the hopes of Aboriginal Peoples
across this land. I have listened to the concerns of
Aboriginal peoples about the ‘‘Charlottetown
Accord’’. I have weighed these concerns against
the hopes.
I have expressed concerns about the Accord
for several weeks. But I must now take a position.
I do not do so lightly.
I believe that the proposed constitutional
reforms must be improved. I believe that First Nations’
peoples deserve more time to fully debate and consider. We
have been patient for 125 years. We are now given a few
weeks to decide on our rights. We cannot be forced by a
deadline to entrench a bad risk. As during the Meech Lake
debate, if 1 was to vote now, I must once again say ‘‘No’’.
The death of the Meech Lake Accord gave great
promise, great opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. An
opportunity to have our long-standing concerns dealt with.
Aboriginal peoples did not let this opportunity pass.
Aboriginal leadership has worked tirelessly to improve
our communities through constitutional change. And we
have gained political support for many of these changes.
This political support has come at a cost however.
Perhaps it is the price of a quick fix.
The Accord has many good features for Aboriginal
peoples. It finally recognizes that Aboriginal peoples are a
fundamental characteristic of Canada. It recognizes our
inherent right of self-government and our right to promote
our languages, cultures and traditions. This is a great
achievement. The Accord allows for greater participation by
Aboriginal peoples in national institutions. It facilitates
rectifying some of the problems with treaties.
When I received the Accord, I hoped it would help
fulfill the aspirations of Aboriginal peoples. I was faced with
wording that was confusing, with conflicting clauses, with
promises that are vague, that are incomplete. First Nations’
communities are unsure what it means for their well-being.
We deserve, at least, a completed agreement. There
is no agreement regarding Aboriginal representation in
the Senate and House of Commons. As well, the political
accords must be concluded. We must know that we will
get what we negotiated for. This Accord is not yet ready
for the consideration of First Nations.
The Accord does not entrench an obligation to
finance self-governments or provide additional
land and resources to Aboriginal peoples. This is
a serious practical threat to self-government.
Aboriginal peoples will be given a statement in
a political accord which merely commits
government to the ‘‘principle’’ of providing
fiscal resources, and only pursuant to self-
government agreements. This will be only a
political agreement and can change with
governments. The provinces have an entrenched
commitment to equalization payments under the
Constitution. First Nations deserveno less. There is adouble
standard.
And there are other uncertain limitations on our
right of self-government.
Ourtreaties, made nation to nation, are sacred to
many First Nations’ peoples and the Accord risks their
integrity and may alter our fundamental relationship with
the federal government.
We can only be invited to First Ministers’
Conferences and can only speak on matters that directly
affect us. Our well-being is affected by all national matters
and we deserve the right to fully participate. The Accord says
we are one of three orders of government. I fear that we will
instead be the third order of government.
There are too many risks in the Accord. It does not
provide a path from poverty, so much as an obstacle course.
Fear of risks can be overcome by trust. But First Nations’
peoples do not have that trust. When people selling this
Accord say to us ‘*We know there are risks in this Accord for
you and many things are unclear and must still be worked out
but trust us’’, we cannot accept that. Our history of dealings
with government and officials and the Prime Minister explains
this. Even today, the unwillingness of the Manitoba
government to facilitate a process for dealing with the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report saddens our leadership.
The legal text flowing from the Accord justifies our
distrust. The French text does not mirror the English legal
text or our understanding of what was negotiated in three
important ways.
These changes in the French text were made, without
the consent of First Nations’ peoples and over their objection.
This is not dealing in good faith with Aboriginal peoples and
our representatives.
Continued page 5
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Page 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: ELDERS, CHIEFS AND CITIZENS OF OUR NATIONS
FROM: CHIEF SAUL TERRY, PRESIDENT
DATE: MAY 15, 1992
RE: B.C. Treaty Commission, First Nations Summit
The following is a statement by UBCIC that was handed out at the First Nations Summit meeting in Vancouver on May 15th.
The course that is being set by the Summit is very dangerous to the aboriginal title and rights of all of our peoples. Our future
generations’ inheritance is being placed in jeopardy. Decisions are being made in the name of the people without the people being
consulted or fully informed. I urge you to review the facts and questions in the UBCIC statement.
If you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to contact the Union’s office in Vancouver (Phone: 684-0231;
FAX: 684-5726).
OK He
FACTS AND QUESTIONS FOR OUR PEOPLE AND LEADERS
ABOUT THE
B.C. TREATY COMMISSION
IT’S A FACT:
-- The federal government’s extinguishment (surrender)
policy for aboriginal title and rights remains in place. It has not
been changed and the government has no intention of changing
it. This cannot be denied.
-- Under the Treaty Commission that is being set up by the
First Nations Summit with the federal and provincial governments,
extinguishment will be on the table in land claims negotiations.
The Treaty Commission will be overseeing surrender
(extinguishment) negotiations on our aboriginal title and rights.
This cannot be denied.
-- The organizers of the First Nations Summit have stated
publically that the Treaty Commission would not go forward
unless the federal government dropped its extinguishment policy,
yet the Treaty Commission is going ahead without any changes
whatsoever to the extinguishment policy. This cannot be denied.
-- The words ‘‘nation-to-nation’’ are never used in the B.C,
Claims Task Force recommendations or in the terms of reference
approved for the Treaty Commission. The Treaty Commission
ss isnot n nation-to-nation negotiations. This cannot
be denied.
-- Our people have the right to give or refuse their full and
informed consent to any land claims negotiation process, like the
Treaty Commission, which will involve the surrender and
extinguishment of our aboriginal title and rights. This cannot be
denied.
QUESTIONS:
Have the people in our communities been given the
opportunity to be fully informed about the facts concerning the
Treaty Commission and extinguishment?
Does any leader have a mandate given directly by his or her
people to proceed with the Treaty Commission and negotiate the
extinguishment and surrender of aboriginal title and rights?
Why is the First Nations Summit in such a rush?
|
Page 4
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
ELI JAH continued from page 3
Distrust by Aboriginal people is worsened by a process
that ended up with closed-door deal-making, limited to a few
people. This flawed the Meech Lake Accord. Reliance on that
process again is regrettable.
I place greater trust in the ability of First Nations - by
political will -to enjoy their right of self-government and ensure
their well-being than I currently place in this particular Accord.
It subjects us, perhaps eternally, to risks that are too great.
And these risks would not be borne only by Aboriginal
peoples. I believe that the quality of life of all Canadians
depends on the well-being of its First Peoples.
The constitutional debate has let us see, explore, who we
all are. This now a valuable foundation on which to build our
future.
So here is my recommendation.
Because of the lack of time given to First Nations, the
complexity of the Accord and its significance to us and because
changes appear to be necessary, a ““No’’ or Yes vote may not
be best for Aboriginal peoples or Canada at this time.
I encourage First Nations’ peoples not to be forced to a
vote. J encourage them not to take a position at this time. We
need to work through this Accord in our communities. We need
clarification. We need full debate. We need time.
Non-participation in the Referendum by First Nations 1s
the preferred option and I ask of governments that First
Nations’ peoples not be required to decide on constitutional
amendments for another six months.
RESOURCE CENTRE UPDATE
The UBCIC staff must be beginning to think that the librarians
are a little bit like the seasons... they come and they go.
Unfortunately, two librarians have come and gone at the
UBCIC over this past year. Both Tim and Gerald left to take
positions at academic libraries.
I am here to stay. In that statement is a commitment to
the UBCIC and to myself to meet the many challenges this
special library affords. It is an impressive and valuable collec-
tion. The task which lies ahead to better organize it, maitain it,
and direct its growth while serving those who depend on it and
opening the doors to all those who may benefit from it, is
almost overwhelming.
The first priority has been to carefully weed the entire
collection so that outdated, no longer correct, and no longer
needed materials are taken off the shelves to make room for
new materials and to also make remaining materials more
easily accessible. Following the weeding process, the Library
will be moved upstairs to the 7th Floor where the UBCIC has
now relocated its Vancouver offices. The new space is infi-
nitely better in every respect offering needed improvements in
everything form lighting to flexibility for the physical arrange-
ment of the Library itself.
Wendy Ancell
UBCIC Librarian
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS
SUBSCRIPTION FORM
NAME: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE RECEIVED:
ADDRESS: CHEQ/M.0.#:
EXPIRY DATE:
PROVINCE/STATE: POSTAL/ZIP CODE:
| YEAR SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER MEMBER BANDS: $25.00 INDIVIDUALS: $35.00
NEWSCLIPPING MEMBER BANDS: $75.00 INDIVIDUALS: $100.00
TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED §
Please make cheque or money order payable in Canadian funds to:
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS,
700-73 Water Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6B IAI
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Page 5
WHO'S CHOOSING YOUR CHILDRENS' READING MATERIALS?
One important issue we have identified in discussions of our sovereignty is the right to educate
our children. Many bands have set up their own schools and hired staff to teach their children in a way that is
compatible with their culture. Unfortunately the good intentions often break down when it comes to choosing
the books for the children to read.
Very few librarians have the time to read books before they spend your money to buy books for your
children. Most librarians base their buying decisions on book reviews and catalogue descriptions.
Book reviews are almost always written from a non-native perspective. Even the most liberal thinker
is not necessarily thinking from a native perspective. As an example a recently published book on Native
economic development From Wooden Ploughs to Welfare received wonderful reviews in newspapers all across
Canada. My review of the same book was certainly not complementary because my review was written from a
native perspective.
The other source which librarians use for information is the catalogue. Catalogue descriptions are not
only written from a non-native perspective but are usually written by people who haven’t even read the book.
They base their description on interviews with the author or a quick glance through the book. It is not unusual
to have a very racist book described in glowing terms in a catalogue. The purpose of the catalogue is to sell the
books to libraries and book stores.
I have recently experienced a number of incidents where teachers and librarians from band schools have
requested books which are not the kind of books I would want my children to be taught. These books
reinforce stereotypes about Native peoples, and promote no positive insights into Native culture. Often these
books are written by people who have not received the permission of the people to tell their stories and are
examples of theft of culture and image but because of their appeal are heavily marketed to schools and
libraries,
Leaders of our communities have a right, in fact a responsibility, to ensure that the teachers and
librarians they hire are using materials which respect Native traditions and values.
There are checklists available for evaluating books for racism. If you need help please contact me.
aa Renae Richards, Manager
= Chiefs Mask Bookstore
4
4
S MASK BOOKSTORE
73 Water Street
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA V6B 1A]
Telephone: (604) 687-4100 Fax: (604) 684-5726
rl
%
|
v)
¢
RAINBOW MOTEL
OKSTORE
We presently carry 700
Native Titles and we do mail
orders world-wide!
Call, order or write today.
Housekeeping Non-Smoking Units
by the Day or Week
Your Host & Manager
John Cameron
FYOLSNOOG NSWWSITIHD FIOLSNOOE NSWW SIFIHD
CHIEFS MASK BOOKSTORE CHIEFSMASK 8O
| | Bag 9000
An Indian owned and operated Indian Bookstore.
A non-profit organization owned by Burns Lake, B.C.
the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. V0) 1EO
b FYOLSNOOE NSVW SIZIHD Telephone: (604) 672-7747
Page 6 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
-
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
NEWSLETTER
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
First Nations Say "NO" To Accord!
6 1 % majority rejects self-government deal
B o y c o t t e f f e c t i v e in A l b e r t a , M a n i t o b a , O n t a r i o , Q u e b e c
On October 26, a large majority of First Nation
citizens rejected the Charlottetown Accord by voting
"No" in the national referendum. The preliminary
count by Elections Canada of over 200 on-reserve
polling stations shows that 61.2% of First Nation
voters said "No" to the Accord. At the same time,
many First Nations in Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario and
Quebec boycotted the referendum vote by refusing to
allow polling stations on their reserves.
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs was the first
aboriginal organization in the country to oppose the
Charlottetown Accord openly. Treaty 6, 7 and 8
chiefs in Alberta were also early opponents of the
Accord.
On the Wednesday before the vote, Elijah
Harper, M.L.A., announced that there were "too
many risks in the Accord'' and that if he was to vote
now, he would vote "No." Speaking at the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs' 24th Annual General Assembly
banquet in Vancouver, Mr. Harper said that on
October 26 he would respect the boycott by his Red
Sucker Lake First Nation in Manitoba and would not
vote in the referendum. It is believed that Mr.
Harper's support for the "No" position had an
important influence on the final outcome of the vote
nationally.
Commenting on the results of the referendum,
Chief Saul Terry, President of the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs, stated that the strong "No" vote was
' 'a clear victory for First Nation sovereignty and our
historic nation-to-nation relationship with the
Crown." Chief Terry said that the result was also "a
victory for our grass-roots community people, who
were not consulted or fully informed about the
package, who were not given enough time to consider
the package, and who were told to say 'Yes' just
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
because a small group of national leaders said so. We
welcome the result as a victory for democracy over
the political elites."
THE UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS
C O N G R A T U L A T E S A L L FIRST NATION
ELDERS, CITIZENS AND LEADERS ACROSS
CANADA WHO STOOD UP COURAGEOUSLY
FOR THEIR ABORIGINAL A N D T R E A T Y
RIGHTS A N D SAID " N O " TO T H E
CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD !
SPECIAL EDITION
IN THIS ISSUE
Message from the President
p. 2
Elijah Harper, MLA, Press Statement
on the Charlottetown Accord
p. 3
Facts and Questions for our People
and Leaders about the B.C. Treaty
Commission
p. 4
Commentary by Renae Richards.... p. 6
Page 1
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT:
S T A T E M E N T BY C H I E F S A U L T E R R Y O N T H E
O C T O B E R 26TH R E F E R E N D U M V O T E
Y
ESTERDAY'S " N O " VOTE
ON THE C H A R L O T T E TOWN A C C O R D W A S N O T
A REJECTION OF ABORIGINAL
PEOPLES OR ABORIGINAL SELFGOVERNMENT. THE PEOPLE OF
CANADA DID NOT TURN THEIR
BACKS ON US, NOR DID THEY
KICK US IN THE FACE, AS SOME
HAVE SAID.
THE UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS WELCOMES
THE RESULT OF YESTERDAY'S VOTE AS A CLEAR
VICTORY FOR FIRST NATION SOVEREIGNTY AND OUR
HISTORIC NATION-TO-NATION RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE CROWN.
WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY FOR
SECTION 35 OF THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION, WHICH
WE MAINTAIN ALREADY RECOGNIZES A " F U L L B O X "
OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS, INCLUDING
OUR INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT.
AND WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY
FOR OUR GRASS-ROOTS COMMUNITY PEOPLE, WHO
WERE NOT CONSULTED OR FULLY INFORMED ABOUT
THE PACKAGE, WHO WERE NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME
TO CONSIDER THE PACKAGE, AND WHO WERE TOLD
TO SAY " Y E S " JUST BECAUSE A SMALL GROUP OF
NATIONAL LEADERS SAID SO.
WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY FOR
DEMOCRACY OVER THE POLITICAL ELITES IN THIS
COUNTRY. THIS IS TRUE FOR OUR OWN COMMUNITY
PEOPLE, AS WELL AS FOR THE PEOPLE OF CANADA
AS A WHOLE.
TODAY, I WANT TO REASSURE THE CITIZENS OF
OUR FIRST NATIONS THAT OUR ABORIGINAL AND
TREATY RIGHTS CONTINUE TO EXIST - AND THAT
WE H A V E PRESERVED THE BEST PROCESS FOR
ACHIEVING ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT: THE
NATION-TO-NATION PROCESS WITH CANADA.
I ALSO WANT TO REASSURE THE PEOPLE OF
CANADA THAT WE DO NOT SEE THE REJECTION OF
THE CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD AS A VALID EXCUSE
FOR BLOCKADES OR DISRUPTIONS. DIRECT ACTIONS
BY OUR NATIONS ARE PROVOKED B Y THE FEDERAL
OR PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS. THEY ARE OUR
NATIONS' L A S T RESORT FOR DEFENDING OUR
TERRITORIES, RESOURCES AND PEOPLES.
BLOCKADES ARE NOT A THREAT TO BE MADE
OUT OF PERSONAL ANGER OR FRUSTRATION,
Page 2
ESPECIALLY B Y ABORIGINAL LEADERS AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL.
WE MUST MOVE FORWARD IN A SPIRIT OF
DETERMINATION, CONFIDENCE AND OPTIMISM
BASED ON WHO WE ARE AS SOVEREIGN NATIONS.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE INHERENT RIGHT OF SELFGOVERNMENT. OUR TASK BEGINNING TODAY IS TO
M A K E THIS A R E A L I T Y T H R O U G H O U T OUR
TRADITIONAL TERRITORIES ON A NATION-TONATION BASIS WITH CANADA.
UBCIC: October 27,1992
CONGRATULATIONS!
To Chief Saul Terry upon his re-election as
President of the Union of B . C . Indian
Chiefs, October 22, 1992 at the UBCIC 24th
Annual General Assembly.
Chief Terry is now serving his 5th term as
President.
Welcome!!
Wendy Ancell - Librarian, UBCIC Resource
Centre
Dianna Rai - Reception / Support Staff
Rhonda Johnson - Articling Student
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
ELIJAH H A R P E R , M.L.A.
STATEMENT T O T H E MEDIA O N T H E C H A R L O T T E T O W N A C C O R D
OCTOBER 21, 1992
As during the Meech Lake debate, I believe
my role is to listen to the voices of Aboriginal
peoples and represent those voices. I have listened
to the despair and the hopes of Aboriginal Peoples
across this land. I have listened to the concerns of
Aboriginal peoples about the "Charlottetown
Accord". I have weighed these concerns against
the hopes.
I have expressed concerns about the Accord
for several weeks. But I must now take a position.
I do not do so lightly.
I believe that the proposed constitutional
reforms must be improved. I believe that First Nations'
peoples deserve more time to fully debate and consider. We
have been patient for 125 years. We are now given a few
weeks to decide on our rights. We cannot be forced by a
deadline to entrench a bad risk. As during the Meech Lake
debate, i f I was to vote now, I must once again say " N o " .
The death of the Meech Lake Accord gave great
promise, great opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. A n
opportunity to have our long-standing concerns dealt with.
Aboriginal peoples did not let this opportunity pass.
Aboriginal leadership has worked tirelessly to improve
our communities through constitutional change. And we
have gained political support for many of these changes.
This political support has come at a cost however.
Perhaps it is the price of a quick fix.
The Accord has many good features for Aboriginal
peoples. It finally recognizes that Aboriginal peoples are a
fundamental characteristic of Canada. It recognizes our
inherent right of self-government and our right to promote
our languages, cultures and traditions. This is a great
achievement. The Accord allows for greater participation by
Aboriginal peoples in national institutions. It facilitates
rectifying some of the problems with treaties.
When I received the Accord, I hoped it would help
fulfill the aspirations of Aboriginal peoples. I was faced with
wording that was confusing, with conflicting clauses, with
promises that are vague, that are incomplete. First Nations'
communities are unsure what it means for their well-being.
We deserve, at least, a completed agreement. There
is no agreement regarding Aboriginal representation in
the Senate and House of Commons. As well, the political
accords must be concluded. We must know that we will
get what we negotiated for. This Accord is not yet ready
for the consideration of First Nations.
The Accord does not entrench an obligation to
finance self-governments or provide additional
land and resources to Aboriginal peoples. This is
a serious practical threat to self-government.
Aboriginal peoples will be given a statement in
a political accord which merely commits
government to the "principle" of providing
fiscal resources, and only pursuant to selfgovernment agreements. This will be only a
political agreement and can change with
governments. The provinces have an entrenched
commitment to equalization payments under the
Constitution. First Nations deserve no less. There is a double
standard.
And there are other uncertain limitations on our
right of self-government.
Our treaties, made nation to nation, are sacred to
many First Nations' peoples and the Accord risks their
integrity and may alter our fundamental relationship with
the federal government.
We can only be invited to First Ministers'
Conferences and can only speak on matters that directly
affect us. Our well-being is affected by all national matters
and we deserve the right to fully participate. The Accord says
we are one of three orders of government. I fear that we will
instead be the third order of government.
There are too many risks in the Accord. It does not
provide a path from poverty, so much as an obstacle course.
Fear of risks can be overcome by trust. But First Nations'
peoples do not have that trust. When people selling this
Accord say to us " W e know there are risks in this Accord for
you and many things are unclear and must still be worked out
but trust us", we cannot accept that. Our history of dealings
with government and officials and the Prime Minister explains
this. Even today, the unwillingness of the Manitoba
government to facilitate a process for dealing with the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report saddens our leadership.
The legal text flowing from the Accord justifies our
distrust. The French text does not mirror the English legal
text or our understanding of what was negotiated in three
important ways.
These changes in the French text were made, without
the consent of First Nations' peoples and over their objection.
This is not dealing in good faith with Aboriginal peoples and
our representatives.
Continued page 5
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Page 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ELDERS, CHIEFS A N D CITIZENS OF OUR NATIONS
FROM:
CHIEF SAUL TERRY, PRESIDENT
DATE:
MAY
RE:
B.C. Treaty Commission, First Nations Summit
15,
1992
The following is a statement by UBCIC that was handed out at the First Nations Summit meeting in Vancouver on May 15th.
The course that is being set by the Summit is very dangerous to the aboriginal title and rights of all of our peoples. Our future
generations' inheritance is being placed in jeopardy. Decisions are being made in the name of the people without the people being
consulted or fully informed. I urge you to review the facts and questions in the UBCIC statement.
If you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to contact the Union's office in Vancouver (Phone: 684-0231;
F A X : 684-5726).
•
* ***
FACTS A N D QUESTIONS FOR OUR PEOPLE A N D
ABOUT THE
B.C. T R E A T Y C O M M I S S I O N
IT'S A
LEADERS
FACT:
— The federal government's extinguishment (surrender)
policy for aboriginal title and rights remains in place. It has not
been changed and the government has no intention of changing
it. This cannot be denied.
-- Under the Treaty Commission that is being set up by the
First Nations Summit with the federal and provincial governments,
extinguishment will be on the table in land claims negotiations.
The Treaty Commission will be overseeing surrender
(extinguishment) negotiations on our aboriginal title and rights.
This cannot be denied.
-- The organizers of the First Nations Summit have stated
publically that the Treaty Commission would not go forward
unless the federal government dropped its extinguishment policy,
yet the Treaty Commission is going ahead without any changes
whatsoever to the extinguishment policy. This cannot be denied.
- Our people have the right to give or refuse their full and
informed consent to any land claims negotiation process, like the
Treaty Commission, which will involve the surrender and
extinguishment of our aboriginal title and rights. This cannot be
denied.
QUESTIONS:
Have the people in our communities been given the
opportunity to be fully informed about the facts concerning the
Treaty Commission and extinguishment?
Does any leader have a mandate given directly by his or her
people to proceed with the Treaty Commission and negotiate the
extinguishment and surrender of aboriginal title and rights?
Why is the First Nations Summit in such a rush?
-- The words "nation-to-nation" are never used in the B.C.
Claims Task Force recommendations or in the terms of reference
approved for the Treaty Commission. The Treaty Commission
process is not based on nation-to-nation negotiations. This cannot
be denied.
Page 4
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
ELIJAH continued from
RESOURCE CENTRE UPDATE
page 3
Distrust by Aboriginal people is worsened by a process
that ended up with closed-door deal-making, limited to a few
people. This flawed the Meech Lake Accord. Reliance on that
process again is regrettable.
I place greater trust in the ability of First Nations - by
political will - to enjoy their right of self-government and ensure
their well-being than I currently place in this particular Accord.
It subjects us, perhaps eternally, to risks that are too great.
And these risks would not be borne only by Aboriginal
peoples. I believe that the quality of life of all Canadians
depends on the well-being of its First Peoples.
The constitutional debate has let us see, explore, who we
all are. This now a valuable foundation on which to build our
future.
So here is my recommendation.
Because of the lack of time given to First Nations, the
complexity of the Accord and its significance to us and because
changes appear to be necessary, a " N o " or Yes vote may not
be best for Aboriginal peoples or Canada at this time.
I encourage First Nations' peoples not to be forced to a
vote. I encourage them not to take a position at this time. We
need to work through this Accord in our communities. We need
clarification. We need full debate. We need time.
Non-participation in the Referendum by First Nations is
the preferred option and I ask of governments that First
Nations' peoples not be required to decide on constitutional
amendments for another six months.
The UBCIC staff must be beginning to think that the librarians
are a little bit like the seasons... they come and they go.
Unfortunately, two librarians have come and gone at the
UBCIC over this past year. Both Tim and Gerald left to take
positions at academic libraries.
I am here to stay. In that statement is a commitment to
the UBCIC and to myself to meet the many challenges this
special library affords. It is an impressive and valuable collection. The task which lies ahead to better organize it, maitain it,
and direct its growth while serving those who depend on it and
opening the doors to all those who may benefit from it, is
almost overwhelming.
The first priority has been to carefully weed the entire
collection so that outdated, no longer correct, and no longer
needed materials are taken off the shelves to make room for
new materials and to also make remaining materials more
easily accessible. Following the weeding process, the Library
will be moved upstairs to the 7th Floor where the UBCIC has
now relocated its Vancouver offices. The new space is infinitely better in every respect offering needed improvements in
everything form lighting to flexibility for the physical arrangement of the Library itself.
Wendy Ancell
UBCIC Librarian
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS
SUBSCRIPTION
FORM
NAME:
FOR OFFICE U S E O N L Y
ADDRESS:
DATE RECEIVED:
CHEQ/M.O.:
EXPIRY DATE:
PROVINCE/STATE:
POSTAL/ZIP C O D E :
1 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
MEMBER BANDS:
$25.00
INDIVIDUALS:
$35.00
NEWSCLIPPING
MEMBER BANDS:
$75.00
INDIVIDUALS:
$100.00
T O T A L A M O U N T
Please
make
cheque
or money
order
payable
E N C L O S E D
in Canadian
funds to:
$
U N I O N O F B.C. I N D I A N
700-73 W a t e r S t r e e t , V a n c o u v e r , B . C . , V 6 B
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
CHIEFS,
1A1
Page 5
W H O ' S CHOOSING YOUR CHILDRENS' READING MATERIALS?
One important issue we have identified in discussions of our sovereignty is the right to educate
our children. Many bands have set up their own schools and hired staff to teach their children in a way that is
compatible with their culture. Unfortunately the good intentions often break down when it comes to choosing
the books for the children to read.
Very few librarians have the time to read books before they spend your money to buy books for your
children. Most librarians base their buying decisions on book reviews and catalogue descriptions.
Book reviews are almost always writtenfroma non-native perspective. Even the most liberal thinker
is not necessarily thinkingfroma native perspective. As an example a recently published book on Native
economic development From Wooden Ploughs to Welfare received wonderful reviews in newspapers all across
Canada. My review of the same book was certainly not complementary because my review was writtenfroma
native perspective.
The other source which librarians use for information is the catalogue. Catalogue descriptions are not
only writtenfroma non-native perspective but are usually written by people who haven't even read the book.
They base their description on interviews with the author or a quick glance through the book. It is not unusual
to have a very racist book described in glowing terms in a catalogue. The purpose of the catalogue is to sell the
books to libraries and book stores.
I have recently experienced a number of incidents where teachers and librariansfromband schools have
requested books which are not the kind of books I would want my children to be taught. These books
reinforce stereotypes about Native peoples, and promote no positive insights into Native culture. Often these
books are written by people who have not received the permission of the people to tell their stories and are
examples of theft of culture and image but because of their appeal are heavily marketed to schools and
libraries.
Leaders of our communities have aright,in fact a responsibility, to ensure that the teachers and
librarians they hire are using materials which respect Native traditions and values.
There are checklists available for evaluating books for racism. If you need help please contact me.
Renae Richards, Manager
Chiefs Mask Bookstore
CHIEFS MASK BOOKSTORE
73 Water Street
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA V6B 1A1
Telephone: (604) 687-4100 Fax: (604) 684-5726
We presently carry 700
Native Titles and we do mail
orders world-wide!
C a l l , order or write today.
RAINBOW
MOTEL
Housekeeping Non-Smoking Units
by the Day or Week
Your Host & Manager
John Cameron
An Indian owned and operated Indian Bookstore.
A non-profit organization owned by
the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.
Page 6
Bag 9000
Burns Lake, B.C.
V0J 1E0
Telephone: (604) 692-7747
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
NEWSLETTER
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
First Nations Say “‘NO”’ To Accord!
61% majority rejects self-government deal
Boycott effective in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec
On October 26, a large majority of First Nation
citizens rejected the Charlottetown Accord by voting
‘*No’’ in the national referendum. The preliminary
count by Elections Canada of over 200 on-reserve
polling stations shows that 61.2% of First Nation
voters said ‘‘No’’ to the Accord. At the same time,
many First Nations in Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario and
Quebec boycotted the referendum vote by refusing to
allow polling stations on their reserves.
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs was the first
aboriginal organization in the country to oppose the
Charlottetown Accord openly. Treaty 6, 7 and 8
chiefs in Alberta were also early opponents of the
Accord.
On the Wednesday before the vote, Elijah
Harper, M.L.A., announced that there were ‘‘too
many risks in the Accord’’ and that if he was to vote
now, he would vote ‘‘No.’’ Speaking at the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs’ 24th Annual General Assembly
banquet in Vancouver, Mr. Harper said that on
October 26 he would respect the boycott by his Red
Sucker Lake First Nation in Manitoba and would not
vote in the referendum. It is believed that Mr.
Harper’s support for the ‘‘No’’ position had an
important influence on the final outcome of the vote
nationally.
Commenting on the results of the referendum,
Chief Saul Terry, President of the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs, stated that the strong ‘‘No’’ vote was
‘a clear victory for First Nation sovereignty and our
historic nation-to-nation relationship with the
Crown.’’ Chief Terry said that the result was also ‘‘a
victory for our grass-roots community people, who
were not consulted or fully informed about the
package, who were not given enough time to consider
the package, and who were told to say ‘Yes’ just
because a small group of national leaders said so. We
welcome the result as a victory for democracy over
the political elites.’’
THE UNION OF B.C, INDIAN CHIEFS
CONGRATULATES ALL FIRST NATION
ELDERS, CITIZENS AND LEADERS ACROSS
CANADA WHO STOOD UP COURAGEOUSLY
FOR THEIR ABORIGINAL AND TREATY
RIGHTS AND SAID ‘‘NO” TO THE
CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD !
©-
SPECIAL EDITION
IN THIS ISSUE
Message from the President p. 2
Elijah Harper, MLA, Press Statement
on the Charlottetown Accord —_ p. 3
Facts and Questions for our People
and Leaders about the B.C. Treaty
Commission p. 4
Commentary by Renae Richards.... p. 6
SEP TEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Page 1
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT:
STATEMENT BY CHIEF SAUL TERRY ON THE
OCTOBER 26TH REFERENDUM VOTE
Yestenpays *‘NO”’ VOTE
ON THE CHARLOTTE-
TOWN ACCORD WAS NOT
A REJECTION OF ABORIGINAL
PEOPLES OR ABORIGINAL SELF-
GOVERNMENT. THE PEOPLE OF
CANADA DID NOT TURN THEIR
BACKS ON US, NOR DID THEY
KICK US IN THE FACE, AS SOME
HAVE SAID.
THE UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS WELCOMES
THE RESULT OF YESTERDAY’S VOTE AS A CLEAR
VICTORY FOR FIRST NATION SOVEREIGNTY AND OUR
HISTORIC NATION-TO-NATION RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE CROWN.
WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY FOR
SECTION 35 OF THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION, WHICH
WE MAINTAIN ALREADY RECOGNIZES A ‘‘FULL BOX’’
OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS, INCLUDING
OUR INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT.
AND WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY
FOR OUR GRASS-ROOTS COMMUNITY PEOPLE, WHO
WERE NOT CONSULTED OR FULLY INFORMED ABOUT
THE PACKAGE, WHO WERE NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME
TO CONSIDER THE PACKAGE, AND WHO WERE TOLD
TO SAY ‘‘YES’’ JUST BECAUSE A SMALL GROUP OF
NATIONAL LEADERS SAID SO.
WE WELCOME THE RESULT AS A VICTORY FOR
DEMOCRACY OVER THE POLITICAL ELITES IN THIS
COUNTRY. THIS IS TRUE FOR OUR OWN COMMUNITY
PEOPLE, AS WELL AS FOR THE PEOPLE OF CANADA
AS A WHOLE.
TODAY, I WANT TO REASSURE THE CITIZENS OF
OUR FIRST NATIONS THAT OUR ABORIGINAL AND
TREATY RIGHTS CONTINUE TO EXIST -- AND THAT
WE HAVE PRESERVED THE BEST PROCESS FOR
ACHIEVING ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT: THE
NATION-TO-NATION PROCESS WITH CANADA.
I] ALSO WANT TO REASSURE THE PEOPLE OF
CANADA THAT WE DO NOT SEE THE REJECTION OF
THE CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD AS A VALID EXCUSE
FOR BLOCKADES OR DISRUPTIONS. DIRECT ACTIONS
BY OUR NATIONS ARE PROVOKED BY THE FEDERAL
OR PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS. THEY ARE OUR
NATIONS’ LAST RESORT FOR DEFENDING OUR
TERRITORIES, RESOURCES AND PEOPLES.
BLOCKADES ARE NOT A THREAT TO BE MADE
OUT OF PERSONAL ANGER OR FRUSTRATION,
ESPECIALLY BY ABORIGINAL LEADERS AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL.
WE MUST MOVE FORWARD IN A SPIRIT OF
DETERMINATION, CONFIDENCE AND OPTIMISM
BASED ON WHO WE ARE AS SOVEREIGN NATIONS.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-
GOVERNMENT. OUR TASK BEGINNING TODAY IS TO
MAKE THIS A REALITY THROUGHOUT OUR
TRADITIONAL TERRITORIES ON A NATION-TO-
NATION BASIS WITH CANADA.
UBCIC: October 27, 1992
CONGRATULATIONS!
To Chief Saul Terry upon his re-election as
President of the Union of B.C. Indian
Chiefs, October 22, 1992 at the UBCIC 24th
Annual General Assembly.
Chief Terry is now serving his 5th term as
President.
Welcome!!
Wendy Ancell - Librarian, UBCIC Resource
Centre
Dianna Rai - Reception / Support Staff
Rhonda Johnson - Articling Student
—
Page 2
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992 —
ELIJAH HARPER, M.L.A.
STATEMENT TO THE MEDIA ON THE CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD
OCTOBER 2i, 1992
As during the Meech Lake debate, I believe
my role is to listen to the voices of Aboriginal
peoples and represent those voices. I have listened
to the despair and the hopes of Aboriginal Peoples
across this land. I have listened to the concerns of
Aboriginal peoples about the ‘‘Charlottetown
Accord’’. I have weighed these concerns against
the hopes.
I have expressed concerns about the Accord
for several weeks. But I must now take a position.
I do not do so lightly.
I believe that the proposed constitutional
reforms must be improved. I believe that First Nations’
peoples deserve more time to fully debate and consider. We
have been patient for 125 years. We are now given a few
weeks to decide on our rights. We cannot be forced by a
deadline to entrench a bad risk. As during the Meech Lake
debate, if 1 was to vote now, I must once again say ‘‘No’’.
The death of the Meech Lake Accord gave great
promise, great opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. An
opportunity to have our long-standing concerns dealt with.
Aboriginal peoples did not let this opportunity pass.
Aboriginal leadership has worked tirelessly to improve
our communities through constitutional change. And we
have gained political support for many of these changes.
This political support has come at a cost however.
Perhaps it is the price of a quick fix.
The Accord has many good features for Aboriginal
peoples. It finally recognizes that Aboriginal peoples are a
fundamental characteristic of Canada. It recognizes our
inherent right of self-government and our right to promote
our languages, cultures and traditions. This is a great
achievement. The Accord allows for greater participation by
Aboriginal peoples in national institutions. It facilitates
rectifying some of the problems with treaties.
When I received the Accord, I hoped it would help
fulfill the aspirations of Aboriginal peoples. I was faced with
wording that was confusing, with conflicting clauses, with
promises that are vague, that are incomplete. First Nations’
communities are unsure what it means for their well-being.
We deserve, at least, a completed agreement. There
is no agreement regarding Aboriginal representation in
the Senate and House of Commons. As well, the political
accords must be concluded. We must know that we will
get what we negotiated for. This Accord is not yet ready
for the consideration of First Nations.
The Accord does not entrench an obligation to
finance self-governments or provide additional
land and resources to Aboriginal peoples. This is
a serious practical threat to self-government.
Aboriginal peoples will be given a statement in
a political accord which merely commits
government to the ‘‘principle’’ of providing
fiscal resources, and only pursuant to self-
government agreements. This will be only a
political agreement and can change with
governments. The provinces have an entrenched
commitment to equalization payments under the
Constitution. First Nations deserveno less. There is adouble
standard.
And there are other uncertain limitations on our
right of self-government.
Ourtreaties, made nation to nation, are sacred to
many First Nations’ peoples and the Accord risks their
integrity and may alter our fundamental relationship with
the federal government.
We can only be invited to First Ministers’
Conferences and can only speak on matters that directly
affect us. Our well-being is affected by all national matters
and we deserve the right to fully participate. The Accord says
we are one of three orders of government. I fear that we will
instead be the third order of government.
There are too many risks in the Accord. It does not
provide a path from poverty, so much as an obstacle course.
Fear of risks can be overcome by trust. But First Nations’
peoples do not have that trust. When people selling this
Accord say to us ‘*We know there are risks in this Accord for
you and many things are unclear and must still be worked out
but trust us’’, we cannot accept that. Our history of dealings
with government and officials and the Prime Minister explains
this. Even today, the unwillingness of the Manitoba
government to facilitate a process for dealing with the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report saddens our leadership.
The legal text flowing from the Accord justifies our
distrust. The French text does not mirror the English legal
text or our understanding of what was negotiated in three
important ways.
These changes in the French text were made, without
the consent of First Nations’ peoples and over their objection.
This is not dealing in good faith with Aboriginal peoples and
our representatives.
Continued page 5
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Page 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: ELDERS, CHIEFS AND CITIZENS OF OUR NATIONS
FROM: CHIEF SAUL TERRY, PRESIDENT
DATE: MAY 15, 1992
RE: B.C. Treaty Commission, First Nations Summit
The following is a statement by UBCIC that was handed out at the First Nations Summit meeting in Vancouver on May 15th.
The course that is being set by the Summit is very dangerous to the aboriginal title and rights of all of our peoples. Our future
generations’ inheritance is being placed in jeopardy. Decisions are being made in the name of the people without the people being
consulted or fully informed. I urge you to review the facts and questions in the UBCIC statement.
If you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to contact the Union’s office in Vancouver (Phone: 684-0231;
FAX: 684-5726).
OK He
FACTS AND QUESTIONS FOR OUR PEOPLE AND LEADERS
ABOUT THE
B.C. TREATY COMMISSION
IT’S A FACT:
-- The federal government’s extinguishment (surrender)
policy for aboriginal title and rights remains in place. It has not
been changed and the government has no intention of changing
it. This cannot be denied.
-- Under the Treaty Commission that is being set up by the
First Nations Summit with the federal and provincial governments,
extinguishment will be on the table in land claims negotiations.
The Treaty Commission will be overseeing surrender
(extinguishment) negotiations on our aboriginal title and rights.
This cannot be denied.
-- The organizers of the First Nations Summit have stated
publically that the Treaty Commission would not go forward
unless the federal government dropped its extinguishment policy,
yet the Treaty Commission is going ahead without any changes
whatsoever to the extinguishment policy. This cannot be denied.
-- The words ‘‘nation-to-nation’’ are never used in the B.C,
Claims Task Force recommendations or in the terms of reference
approved for the Treaty Commission. The Treaty Commission
ss isnot n nation-to-nation negotiations. This cannot
be denied.
-- Our people have the right to give or refuse their full and
informed consent to any land claims negotiation process, like the
Treaty Commission, which will involve the surrender and
extinguishment of our aboriginal title and rights. This cannot be
denied.
QUESTIONS:
Have the people in our communities been given the
opportunity to be fully informed about the facts concerning the
Treaty Commission and extinguishment?
Does any leader have a mandate given directly by his or her
people to proceed with the Treaty Commission and negotiate the
extinguishment and surrender of aboriginal title and rights?
Why is the First Nations Summit in such a rush?
|
Page 4
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
ELI JAH continued from page 3
Distrust by Aboriginal people is worsened by a process
that ended up with closed-door deal-making, limited to a few
people. This flawed the Meech Lake Accord. Reliance on that
process again is regrettable.
I place greater trust in the ability of First Nations - by
political will -to enjoy their right of self-government and ensure
their well-being than I currently place in this particular Accord.
It subjects us, perhaps eternally, to risks that are too great.
And these risks would not be borne only by Aboriginal
peoples. I believe that the quality of life of all Canadians
depends on the well-being of its First Peoples.
The constitutional debate has let us see, explore, who we
all are. This now a valuable foundation on which to build our
future.
So here is my recommendation.
Because of the lack of time given to First Nations, the
complexity of the Accord and its significance to us and because
changes appear to be necessary, a ““No’’ or Yes vote may not
be best for Aboriginal peoples or Canada at this time.
I encourage First Nations’ peoples not to be forced to a
vote. J encourage them not to take a position at this time. We
need to work through this Accord in our communities. We need
clarification. We need full debate. We need time.
Non-participation in the Referendum by First Nations 1s
the preferred option and I ask of governments that First
Nations’ peoples not be required to decide on constitutional
amendments for another six months.
RESOURCE CENTRE UPDATE
The UBCIC staff must be beginning to think that the librarians
are a little bit like the seasons... they come and they go.
Unfortunately, two librarians have come and gone at the
UBCIC over this past year. Both Tim and Gerald left to take
positions at academic libraries.
I am here to stay. In that statement is a commitment to
the UBCIC and to myself to meet the many challenges this
special library affords. It is an impressive and valuable collec-
tion. The task which lies ahead to better organize it, maitain it,
and direct its growth while serving those who depend on it and
opening the doors to all those who may benefit from it, is
almost overwhelming.
The first priority has been to carefully weed the entire
collection so that outdated, no longer correct, and no longer
needed materials are taken off the shelves to make room for
new materials and to also make remaining materials more
easily accessible. Following the weeding process, the Library
will be moved upstairs to the 7th Floor where the UBCIC has
now relocated its Vancouver offices. The new space is infi-
nitely better in every respect offering needed improvements in
everything form lighting to flexibility for the physical arrange-
ment of the Library itself.
Wendy Ancell
UBCIC Librarian
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS
SUBSCRIPTION FORM
NAME: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE RECEIVED:
ADDRESS: CHEQ/M.0.#:
EXPIRY DATE:
PROVINCE/STATE: POSTAL/ZIP CODE:
| YEAR SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER MEMBER BANDS: $25.00 INDIVIDUALS: $35.00
NEWSCLIPPING MEMBER BANDS: $75.00 INDIVIDUALS: $100.00
TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED §
Please make cheque or money order payable in Canadian funds to:
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS,
700-73 Water Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6B IAI
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Page 5
WHO'S CHOOSING YOUR CHILDRENS' READING MATERIALS?
One important issue we have identified in discussions of our sovereignty is the right to educate
our children. Many bands have set up their own schools and hired staff to teach their children in a way that is
compatible with their culture. Unfortunately the good intentions often break down when it comes to choosing
the books for the children to read.
Very few librarians have the time to read books before they spend your money to buy books for your
children. Most librarians base their buying decisions on book reviews and catalogue descriptions.
Book reviews are almost always written from a non-native perspective. Even the most liberal thinker
is not necessarily thinking from a native perspective. As an example a recently published book on Native
economic development From Wooden Ploughs to Welfare received wonderful reviews in newspapers all across
Canada. My review of the same book was certainly not complementary because my review was written from a
native perspective.
The other source which librarians use for information is the catalogue. Catalogue descriptions are not
only written from a non-native perspective but are usually written by people who haven’t even read the book.
They base their description on interviews with the author or a quick glance through the book. It is not unusual
to have a very racist book described in glowing terms in a catalogue. The purpose of the catalogue is to sell the
books to libraries and book stores.
I have recently experienced a number of incidents where teachers and librarians from band schools have
requested books which are not the kind of books I would want my children to be taught. These books
reinforce stereotypes about Native peoples, and promote no positive insights into Native culture. Often these
books are written by people who have not received the permission of the people to tell their stories and are
examples of theft of culture and image but because of their appeal are heavily marketed to schools and
libraries,
Leaders of our communities have a right, in fact a responsibility, to ensure that the teachers and
librarians they hire are using materials which respect Native traditions and values.
There are checklists available for evaluating books for racism. If you need help please contact me.
aa Renae Richards, Manager
= Chiefs Mask Bookstore
4
4
S MASK BOOKSTORE
73 Water Street
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA V6B 1A]
Telephone: (604) 687-4100 Fax: (604) 684-5726
rl
%
|
v)
¢
RAINBOW MOTEL
OKSTORE
We presently carry 700
Native Titles and we do mail
orders world-wide!
Call, order or write today.
Housekeeping Non-Smoking Units
by the Day or Week
Your Host & Manager
John Cameron
FYOLSNOOG NSWWSITIHD FIOLSNOOE NSWW SIFIHD
CHIEFS MASK BOOKSTORE CHIEFSMASK 8O
| | Bag 9000
An Indian owned and operated Indian Bookstore.
A non-profit organization owned by Burns Lake, B.C.
the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. V0) 1EO
b FYOLSNOOE NSVW SIZIHD Telephone: (604) 672-7747
Page 6 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992
Part of Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (September/October 1992)