Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (September/October 1992)

1.06-01.08 Union of BC Indian Chiefs Newsletter

1.06.-01 Newsletters and bulletins sub-series

September 1992

english

1.06-01.08-03.04

6

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

Chief Saul Terry

Renae Richards

Elijah Harper

periodical

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