U.B.C.I.C. News (Summer 1998)

Transcription (Hover to view)

UBCIC NEWS

U.B.C.I.C
5th Floor, 342 Water Street
Vancouver, B.C.
V6B 1B6
T: (604) 684-0231 F: (604) 684-6726
Email: [email protected]

NEWS

Compromise & Subjugation in Modern land Agreement

T

hefirst"modern land claims agreement" or treaty was recently completed between the Nisga'a, Canada
and B. C. The Nisga'a Agreement provides a clear picture of Canada and B.C.'s intentions in entering
into modem treaties, and what all other Indigenous Peoples' negotiating treaties can expect to achieve.
T H E M A I N FEATURES OF THE
NISGA'A A G R E E M E N T ARE:

TAX EXEMPTION IS ELIMINATED

>
The tax exemption for
Nisga'a citizens is eliminated.
Nisga'a will pay income tax, sales
tax, and GST
FIDUCIARY DEVOLVED AND REPLACED
BY SELF-FINANCED "SELF
ADMINISTRATION"

>
The Indian Act no longer
applies to the Nisga'a, instead the
Nisga'a Agreement establishes a
form of "self government" which
translates to the administration of
social programs which Nisga'a
governments will eventually selffinance. Self government will be a
form of self administration which
includes: taxation, business
licensing, zoning, public works,
policing, financial administration,
marriage, adoption, local health and
local education.
ABORIGINAL TITLE IS CONVERTED TO
TREATY SETTLEMENT LANDS

>
All Aboriginal Title of the
Nisga'a is "converted and modified"
[read "extinguished"] in exchange

SUMMER 1998

for a parcel of Nisga'a settlement
Land of approximately 1192 square
kilometres. Nisga'a retain only 8%
of their original Aboriginal Title
territory in "fee simple" ownership,
Crown title is recognized over the
totality of Nisga'a's former traditional
territory.
>
The Nisga'a Agreement
contains "certainty language" which
clearly establishes that the Nisga'a
clearly agree to recognize underlying
provincial title and jurisdiction over
all non-settlement lands.
>
The province and Canada
retain ultimate authority over natural
resources (fish, wildlife, forests, etc.)
The Nisga'a harvest of these
resources is for "domestic purposes"
and the process for establishing
numbers is clearly set out in the
Agreement.
>
Where Canada or B.C. are
willing to acknowledge Nisga'a
jurisdiction to manage resources, this
is usually only to the extent that
Nisga'a standards "meet or exceed"
provincial and federal standards or
do not contradict provincial or
federal laws.
>
The Nisga'a Agreement is
subject to the Canadian Constitution,

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and
the Criminal Code.
>
Rights of third parties are
explicitly recognized in the
Agreement, Nisga'a Agreement rights
will not be allowed to interfere with
third party interests.
Below, we describe the main
features of the Nisga'a Agreement.
"Compromise" Continued on Page 4

IN THIS ISSUE...
NISGA'A:
2.

President's Message

10. Gitanyow First Nation
11. Interior Alliance

13. Huuy-ay-aht F.N.
13. Mohawk Council
14. Research Update
15. Sierra - Fisheries
16. International
News & Events
18. UBCIC Mailbox
20.-21. In Memorium

1

UBCIC NEWS

Message From the President
Why the Nisga'a Agreement Must Not
Be a Blueprint
Open Letter to the Citizens of Indian Nations,
Canada and British Columbia

T

he agreement with the Nisga'a is being desperately pursued by the Federal and Provincial Governments
because theyfear they are running out of time. First, the B. C. Treaty Commission is in shambles and second, more
and more people (native and non native) are coming to truly understand the push behind both
the
Federal
Comprehensive Claims Policy and the British Columbia Treaty Commission. The main reason that the powers that be
in government are emploring religious institutions, corporate associations, trade unions, etc., to support the Nisga'a
initiative is that the process may get out of their control before the deal is signed.

Whether knowing or
unknowing of government
policy I am certain that the
general upbeat feeling
expressed over the Nisga'a
Treaty are genuine. As a
leader I am mandated to
protect Aboriginal Title, at
the same time to explore
avenues to settle the
outstanding land question
between the Federal Crown
and Indian Nations fairly
and justly through a
solution which practically
accommodates our Peoples
within the state of Canada.
But we, that is native and
non-native people, have
begun to really understand
what is b e i n g done
politically, economically
and socially in the so called
' l a n dclaims'negotiations.
Our message may finally
be getting through. The
truth will have a shocking
impact upon our various
nations, indeed all fair
minded people should be
dismayed when they learn
that the agenda is more than
creating certainty for the
economy. Treaties and
their certainty provisions

held in reserve ghettos until
we capitulate to giving up
"Thefew million dollars being offered
our priceless homelands for
a few hectares ofsettlement
by thefederal and provincial governments as
land which will soon be too
compensation in these negotiations will in a small to be of benefit, much
few shortyearis he recouped by taxes collected like the Indian reserves are
now.
The few million
fromourpeople'sincome and newly acquired
dollars being offered by the
privilege of fee simple land taxes."
federal and provincial
governments
as
compensation in these
negotiations will in a few
are really about ' T A K I N G that we are distinct Peoples,
short years be recouped by
O U T ' (extinguishing) the
with distinct identifiable
taxes collected from our
Indian Nations. Changing
territories, with our own
people's income and the
Nations to mere delegated
governing systems, with our
newly acquired privilege of
village c o u n c i l s or
own distinct languages and
fee simple land taxes.
f e d e r a l municipalities. In
histories. We are being asked
Taxes for land Indigenous
some parts of the world it is
to use our power of consent to
people once owned outright
now
called
"ethnic
deny to our future generations
under Indian Title. The
cleansing". It is practised to
the benefits of Title from their
Federal and Provincial
a much moresubtlelevelupon
homelands. The traditional
coffers will be more than
our people but it is still
leadership, along with
replenished. In essence,
genocide.
The most
ordinary Indigenous people,
through taxes, we will be
deplorable fact in this case is
have been usurped by neopaying ourselves for the
-that they expect us to provide -colonial leadership that are
loss of Title. The Federal
our consent.
working with the settler
and
Provincial
governments to bring this
Governments will walk
Genocide may seem
aberration of settlement to a
away without concern for
harsh terminology, but this
final conclusion. The thinking
financing "land claims"
treaty once and for all, alters
seems to be that if we give
settlements. So much for
the reality of Indigenous
consent to such an agreement
the statements about
Nations. We are being asked
it
cannot
be
seen
as
genocidal.
bankrupting the economy.
to g i v e our c o n s e n t to
The rest of us are being
eradicating or renouncing
"Message"
Continued on page 3

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS
Message from the President
Continued from Page 2

Ask now who shall be
truly bankrupt? It will be
we the Indian Nations as
we w i l l be forced to
surrender over to Canada
our territorial integrity and
all the riches that that
represents.
Furthermore, the
governance system which
emerges from this deal is
defined by the settlers,
authorized by the settlers
and to serve the settlers.
Our t r a d i t i o n a l
I n d i a n governments are
replaced by the delegated
authority ofa "third order''
of government sanctioned
by the F e d e r a l a n d
P r o v i n c i a l
Governments. This is not

... the governance system whichemergesfromthis deal is defined by
the settlers, authorized by the settlers and to serve the settlers.
selfdetermination, this is
permission to be selfadministering Canadian laws
and systems. What are the
division of powers going to
mean and are they going to be
real division of power? Will
such an agreement really
mean self-determination for
our Nations? We shall also
be distracted by involvement
in another colonial quagmire
of internal renting of what is
left of our lands and
resources. Our hereditary
and elected leadership will
have to deal with the resulting
socio-economic fall out. This
is the stage which has been
set for us. I feel there is a
drop door to this stage floor.
Nowhere in any of the

media, is it seriously reported
that law suits have been filed
by Nisga'a hereditary chiefs
and ordinary citizens against
the
apparent
neoc o l o n i a l administrations
that have been negotiating
these treaties of surrender and
capitulation. There seems to
be a deliberate policy of hear
no evil, speak no evil, see no
evil, therefore report no evil.
The Gitanyow people,
as part ofthe Gitk'san Nation
have experienced first hand
the dishonor of the crown as
demonstrated in the land
overlap issue. This has
exposed the Canadian treaty
policy of first come, first
served. In this way other
communities or nations are

being strategically forced
to the treaty table or as in
the Gitanyow case to the
court to defend their
infringed upon Title. One
must conclude that this is
just another reason not to
be involved in this sham of
a scheme.
In retrospect, to
paraphrase a saying after
the holocaust of the Jewish
people,: Where were we
when they took the lands of
the James Bay Cree? Where
were we when they took
the homelands ofthe Yukon
Peoples? Now that they
are coming to take a
Nation'slandandresources
in our own back yard, where
are we?

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs

30th Annual Assembly
October 20, 21, 22, 1998

"Self Determination
Without Compromise"
At
Sandman Inn — Georgia Street
Vancouver, B.C.
For more information contact Millie Poplar at UBCIC Tel: (604) 684-0231 Fax: (604) 684-5726
email: [email protected]

SUMMER 1998

3

UBCIC NEWS

"COMPROMISE"
Continuedfrom Page 1
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is
preparing a longer analysis which
can be obtained by calling our
offices.
MODIFICATION OF ABORIGINAL
TITLE AND RIGHTS

Instead of the traditional
"extinguishment" language ("cede,
release and surrender") the language
used in the Nisga'a Agreement is not
be so blunt. Aboriginal title and
rights will not be extinguished
outright; Instead, they will be
defined and limited out of existence.
Aboriginal Title and Rights are
reduced and transformed
("modified" in the language of the
Nisga'a Agreement) into the treaty
rights set forth in the Agreement.
This is done through clauses which

Canada and the Minister of National Defence have full authority to
carry out activities related to national defence and security on Nisga'a
Lands, in accordance with federal laws of general application.

Canada and B.C. ensure the
protection of their citizens under "
modern land claims agreements.
Third party interests are explicitly
recognized and protected from an
infringement that may result from the
recognition of an aboriginal right.
Nisga'a agree to recognize those rights
regardless of how those rights were
granted, and of the fact that they were
not involved in the granting of those
rights. Nisga'a recognize forestry
tenures, fee simple ownerships, and
road and utility rights of way.

LANDS

>
convert and reduce all
existing aboriginal or title rights of
Nisga'a into those contained within
the Agreement;
>
ensure that the Agreement
will be the "full and final settlement"
of all aboriginal title or rights;
>
release all rights not listed in
the Agreement to Canada; and
>
exhaustively set forth all the
Section 35 rights of the Nisga'a,
including the manner of their
exercise, and all the limitations to
those rights to which the Parties
have agreed.

The Nisga'a Agreement
extinguishes all Aboriginal Title of the
Nisga'a Nation to the entirety of their
traditional territory, and converts
Nisga'a original title to "fee simple"
title to a parcel of 1,930 square
kilometres of land (plus, several
smaller pieces of land equalling
approximately 62 square kilometres)
equalling approximately 8% of the
Nisga'a original traditional territory.
Provincial Crown title is recognized
over 100% of the area which was
formerly Nisga'a's traditional title
lands. The Nisga'a can apply to have
the Provincial land registry system
apply to parcels of Nisga'a Lands to
register indefeasible title under the
Land Title Act.

The Nisga'a Agreement is
intended to be the "full and final
settlement" the Nisga'a's aboriginal
title and rights, and will not be open
for re-negotiation if another
Indigenous group negotiates a better
deal.

Nisga'a retain all mineral rights
contained within the 8% parcel of
Nisga'a settlement Lands. B.C. owns
all of the mineral rights within the rest
of the Nisga'a's former traditional
territory: BrC-.-ownsall"Submerged '
lands within Nisga'a Lands, except for
the former Indian Reserves. B.C. and

4

Canada reserve the right to
expropriate Nisga'a Lands for public
purposes.
Canada and B.C. have
ensured that they, and the public,
have broad rights of access to
Nisga'a settlement Lands and that
Nisga'a laws will not interfere with
the Crown's use of settlement lands.
In the Nisga'a Agreement,
Nisga'a agree to allow public access
to Nisga'a Public Lands for
"temporary non-commercial and
recreational uses" and will also
provide reasonable opportunities for
the public to fish and hunt. Nisga'a
Government can make laws
regulating public access, and charge
permit or licencing fees for hunting
and fishing on Nisga'a Lands.
Canada and the Minister of
National Defence have full authority
to carry out activities related to
national defence and security on
Nisga'a Lands, in accordance with
federal laws of general application.

SECTION 35 RIGHTS

Although the rights granted in
the Nisga'a Agreement are
recognized as "treaty rights" under
Section 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982 which "recognizes and affirms"
existing aboriginal and treaty rights,
they will be a different species of
Section 35 right.
At present, under Section 35,
courts interpret treaties so that
>
ambiguous expressions in
treaties are resolved in favour of the
Indians;
Continued on Page 5

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS

"COMPROMISE"
Continuedfrom Page 4
>
treaty provisions are given a
fair, liberal and large interpretation;
>
the honour of the Crown is
assumed when interpreting treaties
(Courts assume that the Crown
intended to act honourably toward
aboriginal peoples, and with the best
interests of the aboriginal peoples in
mind, while entering treaties); and
>
any suggestion of "sharp
dealing" (unfair bargaining) is not
sanctioned.
These protective principles of
interpretation are removed from the
Nisga'a Agreement, and the
protective features of Section 35 will
not operate. At present, for
example, Canadian Courts require
that aboriginal rights to resources
are granted a high priority in
considerations by Canada and B . C .
Following the Sparrow
decision, the aboriginal fishery can
only be limited for conservation
purposes. Under the Nisga'a
Agreement, Nisga'a rights to fish
and wildlife are reduced and only
equal to commercial and recreational
interests.
The Nisga'a Agreement
contains these provisions which
remove common law protection:
There will be no presumption that
doubtful or ambiguous expressions
or terms are to be interpreted in
favour of any particular Party or
Parties.
Nisga'a agree that the Crown has no
consultation obligations respecting
the Section 35 rights of the
Indigenous group other than those
obligations set out in the Treaty.

...Canada and B.C. have negotiated out of the necessity to fully
and meaningfully (perhaps, to the point of obtaining consent)
consult the Nisga'a...

The Section 35 rights set out in the
Treaty will be interpreted solely on
the basis of the rights set out in the
treaty, without any distinction based
on whether the right is a modified
aboriginal right or a new treaty right.
If Canadian courts recognize
or expand aboriginal rights in the
future (for example, by recognizing a
commercial interest in wildlife, or a
guaranteed and priority access to
water) Nisga'a, and other Indigenous
groups who allow their rights to be
defined through treaties, will not
benefit.

Consent vs Consultation

In the Nisga'a Agreement,
Canada and B.C. have negotiated out
of the necessity to fully and
meaningfully (perhaps, to the point
of obtaining consent) consult the
Nisga'a over land use decisions in the
Nisga'a's former traditional territory,
as required by the Supreme Court in
Delgamuukw. "Consultation" is
defined in the Agreement as a .
notification of proposed plans,
together with a consideration of any
comments which the Nisga'a have on
the situation. Consultation under the
Agreement does not involve any
meaningful decision making power
recognized in the Nisga'a, and falls
far short of requiring Nisga'a
consent. At best, Nisga'a achieve a
right to participate in comanagement committees (often on an
advisory basis, with ultimate
decision making power resting with
B.C. and Canada).

W H O CAN TREATY AWAY
ABORIGINAL TITLE?

Canada and B.C. recognize
that the illegality of current modem
land claims processes rests in the
fact that Indigenous citizens are not
fully or meaningfully involved or
informed in the negotiations.
In the Nisga'a Agreement,
Canada and B.C. have exacted a
legal promise from the Nisga'a that
they have the right to enter into the
Agreement on behalf of all Nisga'a.
Nisga'a promise that, in the event
that Nisga'a citizens do not agree
with the terms of the Agreement, and
bring law suits in the future
(claiming, for example, that the
Nisga'a government had no right to
extinguish their title over their
traditional territory), Nisga'a agree
that they will cover any costs to
Canada and B.C. The result of this
clause is that Nisga'a citizens will be
suing the Nisga'a nation, and any
dollar settlement will come from the
Nisga'a peoples themselves, and not
from government.
. The Agreement sets out the
process the Nisga'a will use to show
that their people give their consent,
or "ratify", the Agreement. First, a
motion must be passed at an
assembly in which a simply majority
of voters approve sending the
Agreement to a referendum.
Second, a referendum will be held in
which a simple majority (50% plus
one) of those who vote can approve
the Agreement.

Continued on Page 6

SUMMER 1998

5

"COMPROMISE"
Continuedfrom Page 5
COMPENSATION FOR
PAST WRONGS

In this Agreement, Nisga'a
releases Canada, B . C . and all other
persons from all past or future
actions or claims based on the
abrogation or infringement of their
aboriginal title or rights.

BREACH

The certainty language in the
Nisga'a Agreement require that the
parties agree that if one or more
parties breaches the agreement, and
do not keep the promises they made
under the Agreement, the other
Parties must keep their promises.
The Nisga'a Agreement
contains the following clause:

...Nisga'a may be forced to honour their agreements (ceding aboriginal
title and rights to all areas not included under the Agreement) if
Canada and B.C. do not honour the obligations they made.

province, and third parties have their
rights and interests recognized and
protected. These rights are not
defined or in any way limited by the
Agreement. Nisga'a, on the other
hand, have all of their rights reduced
to the written word of the Agreement.
NATURAL RESOURCES

The Nisga'a Agreement
requires that the Nisga'a relinquish all
ownership and authority of resources
on their traditional territories to the
Crown. Ownership of resources will
be limited to treaty settlement lands
and limited authority to harvest and
manage resources within their
resource allocations as set out in the
modern treaty.

Forests
In the Nisga'a Agreement,
Nisga'a
will own all forest resources
A breach of the Treaty by any
Party will not relieve any other upon Nisga'a Lands, while the
province acquires ownership and
Party from its obligations under the
control over all forest resources within
Treaty.
the rest of the Nisga'a's former
traditional territory. Nisga'a
This clause suggests that
ownership of the forest resource, is
Nisga'a may be forced to honour
subject
to existing forest tenures on
their agreements (ceding aboriginal
Nisga'a Lands which will continue for
title and rights to all areas not
five years, subject to provincial laws.
included under the Agreement) i f
The Nisga'a may make laws
Canada and B . C . do not honour the
regarding the harvest of timber,
obligations they made. For example,
subject to meeting provincial forest
if B.C. decides that it cannot afford
standards, but have very little control
to make the payments required under
over the manufacture or sale of
the treaty, or i f they minimize the comanagement agreement provisions of - timber. B.C. laws regarding timber
scaling and timber marks will apply to
the agreement, Nisga'a will not get
timber harvested on Nisga'a lands.
their lands and rights back.
For the first five years, a Forest
The net impact of the
Transition
Committee, comprised of ,
"certainty" provisions sought by
one member from Nisga'a and B . C .
Canada and B . C . will be to create a
will
manage the forests on Nisga'a
double standard with regard to title
Lands.
and interests in the land. Canada, the

6

Water
B.C. owns all water within
Nisga'a settlement Lands. B.C. will
reserve to Nisga'a a water allotment
of 300,000 cubic decametres for
domestic, industrial and agricultural
purposes. A l l existing senior water
licences (issued prior to March 22,
1996) must be filled before the
Nisga'a will be allowed to take from
their water allocation. Nisga'a must
apply for licences from B.C. in order
to make use of the Nisga'a water
reservation.
Natural Resources: Fisheries,
Wildlife & Migratory Birds
Nisga'a recognize Canada and
B.C.'s ownership and jurisdiction of
the resources, and in turn get an
"allotment" of these resources.
Nisga'a can pass laws regarding the
manner in which the Nisga'a will
harvest their resource allocations,
and these will prevail over federal
and provincial laws. Management
Committees are established for these
resources which allow the Nisga'a to
"co-manage" these resources. The
Committees make recommendations
to Canada or B . C . who retain
ultimate authority to make
management decisions. The main
features of the Nisga'a Agreement
with regards to natural resources
are:
>
Nisga'a harvest of these
resources will be for "domestic
purposes," which grants a right to
eat, but not to found an economy
upon these resources.
> , The harvest will be subject to
conservation, health and public

Continued on Page 7

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS

"COMPROMISE"
Continuedfrom Page 6
safety requirements. The right to
restrict the harvest for these
purposes, allows the Crown fairly
broad powers to restrict Nisga'a
harvests (night hunting, for
example, may be found to threaten
public safety).
>
Nisga'a will retain the right
to trade or barter these resources
among themselves, or with other
aboriginal peoples, but not with any
non-aboriginal people. Any
commercial sale of these resources
must be according to federal and
provincial laws.
>
Nisga'a jurisdiction will be
reduced to the right to pass laws
regarding their own internal harvest
of these resources subject to the
number allocations allowed by
Canada and B.C.
>
"Management Committees"
(comprised of Nisga'a, and federal
and/or provincial representatives)
will be established for these
resources which will allow some
Nisga'a participation in resource
management. Nisga'a will make
recommendations for their harvest
to these Committees. These
Committees will either approve or
disapprove the "Management or
Harvest Plans", and then forward
them to Canada or B . C . Canada or
B.C. will have ultimate authority to
approve the Management or Harvest
Plans.

...Instead of challenging this history, in modern land claims
agreements Indigenous Peoples are "negotiating space in the
basement of the Master's house "
clearly set out in the Agreement, some
examples
are:
Forest Tenures and Processing
B.C. agrees, in principle, to
grant Nisga'a Nation a forest tenure
for an annual cut of up to 150,000m3,
harvested according to federal and
provincial laws. Nisga'a will pay all
applicable fees (i.e., stumpage fees)
for these trees. B.C. will only grant
this timber tenure if it meets local
employment needs, local public
interests, and provides economic
opportunities for the region. If
Nisga'a want a Tree Farm Licence,
the tenure must include a portion of
Nisga'a Lands.
The Agreement protects the
existing B.C. forest industry. Nisga'a
agree to not establish a timber
harvesting facility (aside from for
their own use, or for value-added
manufacturing) for a ten year period,
unless as a joint venture with an
existing timber manufacturing facility.
Nisga'a promise to make timber
harvested on Nisga'a lands
"reasonably available" to local mills.

Participation in the General
Commercial Fishery:
Canada and B.C. will provide
funds to enable Nisga'a to increase its
participation (through purchasing
vessels and licences) in the general
commercial fishery. Nisga'a
participation will be on the same basis
as other
commercial fishers, and will
ECONOMIC ELEMENTSOF
RESOURCES
be subject to federal and provincial
laws. The amounts provided will be
as follows: Canada: 5.75 million and
A right to the resources is not
B.C.: 5.75 million. (Nisga'a can
equivalent to a right to an economy
spend up to 3 million for other
founded upon the resources.
Nisga'a ability to have an economy
fisheries activities).
based upon natural resources is

SUMMER 1998

Processing Facilities:
The Agreement protects
existing fish processing plants.
Nisga'a agree that they will not
"establish a new fish processing
facility capable of processing more
than 2,000 metric tons of round
weight per fish year, within eight
years of the effective date, except as
agreed to by the Parties."

"Negotiating Space in the
Basement of the Master's
House"
Canada was formed on
Denial: Denial of the existence of
Indigenous Peoples and Nations;
Denial of our right of Self
Determination; Denial of our Title
to our traditional territories.
Canada's existence is based upon
the denial of the prior (and
continued) existence of Indigenous
Peoples. Instead of challenging this
history, in modem land claims
agreements Indigenous Peoples are
"negotiating space in the basement
of the Master's house" negotiating
into a state which makes no changes
to its structures and laws to allow
for our unique Indigenous reality.
The Nisga'a Agreement does
not establish or recognize any
separate order of government, or
require Canada or B.C. to make any
changes in their Constitution, or to
make constitutional room for the
Nisga'a as a self determining People.
The Agreement does not alter
federal or provincial division of
powers. The Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms applies to the
Continued on Page 8

7

"COMPROMISE"
Continuedfrom Page 7
Nisga'a government. Nisga'a have
negotiated into Canada at the status
quo.
Nisga'a governance powers
and jurisdictions are the hybrid
combination of an Indian Band and a
B.C. municipality, with land
'ownership" rights equivalent to a
private citizen.
Nisga'a have the right to
practice their culture and use their
language "in a manner consistent
with this Agreement." This means
that the oral histories, traditions, and
laws of the Nisga'a are only valid i f
they do not conflict for the powers
allowed for in the Agreement.
Federal and provincial laws
apply to the Nisga'a and its
governments, institutions, citizens,
and lands. This is not an agreement
which evidences the Nisga'a right of
Self Determination as an Indigenous
Nation, rather it is an agreement in
which the Nisga'a "negotiate into
Canada" in a position much the same
as a domestic municipality.
International laws and covenants
relating to the self determination of
Indigenous Peoples will not apply.
The Agreement will prevail
over any Nisga'a laws. Nisga'a
governments have the principle
authority, as defined in the
Agreement, over Nisga'a
Government, citizenship, culture,
language, Lands, and assets. Nisga'a
Government can make laws these
areas, and Nisga'a laws will prevail
over federal and provincial laws. In
many areas, Nisga'a can make laws,
subject to meeting federal or
provincial standards. Examples are
child and family services,
solemnization of marriages, and K 12 Education on Nisga'a Lands
Nisga'a Government can

8

Nisga'a governance powers and jurisdictions are the hybrid
combination of an Indian Band and a B.C. municipality, with land
'ownership " rights equivalent to a private citizen.
prescribe penalties for the violations
of its laws, including penalties,
imprisonment and fines but these
cannot exceed the penalties for
summary convictions under federal
and provincial laws (currently, this is
approximately 6 months in jail and a
$2,000 fine). Nisga'a Government has
no authority over criminal law.
Nisga'a' can establish their own
court and police force, but they will be
bound to follow provincial standards,
and subject to the ultimate control of
B.C.
Generally, the Indian Act no
longer applies to the Nisga'a Nation or
its citizens.

C A P I T A L T R A N S F E R AND

Canada and B.C. will pay to
the Nisga'a (Canada will pay 92.4%
and B.C. 7.6 % of the amounts due)
the following amounts as capital
payments. (The total amounts are not
set out, but will be paid over a period
of fifteen years):
>
>
>
>

22 million at effective date
22 million next year
13 million for the secondseventh anniversaries
the amount for the eighth to
fourteenth anniversaries will be
determined according to the
formula set out in the
Agreement.

Nisga'a will repay, with
interest, the negotiating loans it
received from Canada. The total
amount of the negotiating, loans is not
set out in the Agreement, but is in
excess of twelve million dollars.

FISCAL RELATIONS

Canada's colonial history has
given rise to fiduciary obligations on
the part of Canada. Legally, this
fiduciary should operate as a form of
protective interest in which Canada is
obliged to guard the rights and
interests of Indigenous Peoples. At
present, Canada has a fiduciary duty
to protect aboriginal title lands, and a
general duty to provide for the health
and welfare of Indigenous Peoples, in
areas such as the provision of
education and health services.
Canada's primary goal, in entering
into the Nisga'a Agreement, is to
devolve its fiduciary obligations
towards Indigenous Peoples, while
ensuring that Nisga'a deliver and selfG O T I A T I O N LOAN
finance the programsN Eand
services set
by Canada.
Fiscal Financing Arrangements:
Every five years the parties will
agree upon fiscal financing
agreements by which Canada and
B.C. will provide funds to enable
Nisga'a to carry out agreed-upon
public programs and services to
Nisga'a and, where agreed, nonNisga'a citizens. The levels of
funding provided will be comparable
to funding generally available in
northwest B.C. The recognition of
Nisga'a jurisdiction in certain areas
does not create or imply a financial
obligation on the part of Canada or
B.C.
Nisga'a citizens are eligible to
participate in programs operated by
B.C. and Canada for the public, to the
extent that Nisga'a has not assumed
responsibility for those programs and
services under a fiscal financing
arrangement.
Continued on Page 9

SUMMER 1998

REPAYMENT

UBCIC NEWS

"COMPROMISE"
Continuedfrom Page 8
Own Source Revenue
Agreements:
A main goal of the
Agreement is to ensure that the
Nisga'a become "self sufficient" in
providing the agreed upon federal
and provincial programs and
services. The Agreement sets out a
formula for determining Nisga'a
"own source revenue" to determine
where revenue of the Nisga'a
(gained through resource
extraction, or taxes, for example)
should be used to finance programs
and services. Ultimately, Nisga'a
own source revenue will be used to
reduce payments for programs and
services received from the federal
and provincial governments.

The Nisga'a Agreement does
not provide a vehicle for the
Decolonization or achievement of
Self Determination...
If, within 20 years of the
Agreement, Canada or B.C. enter into
another treaty in northwest B.C.
which provides for a broader tax
exemption than that allowed in this
Agreement the parties will negotiate
and attempt to reach an agreement to
provide the Nisga'a Nation and
Villages with a similar tax exemption.
Theoretically, no tax exemption will
be granted to Nisga'a citizens.
CONCLUSION

A l l treaties or Agreements with
Canada (and B.C.) must be measured
against our existence as Peoples with
an inherent right to Self Determination
and our obligation to protect and use
the Lands and Resources.
TAXATION
The Nisga'a Agreement does
not provide a vehicle for the DeNisga'a Government can
Colonization or achievement of Self
make laws to directly tax Nisga'a
Determination of the Nisga'a People.
citizens on Nisga'a Lands to raise
Self-Govemment and Selfrevenues for government purposes,
Administration are a far cry from
but this does not limit Canada or
recognition of our right of Self
B.C.'s powers to impose taxes.
Determination.
Nisga'a can agree with Canada and/
Canada and B.C. have
or B.C. to grant Nisga'a authority
negotiated an agreement which gives
to tax non-Nisga'a citizens on
them the certainty they crave, while
Nisga'a Lands or to coordinate
not recognizing the Aboriginal Title or
Nisga'a tax regimes with federal
Rights of the Nisga'a. If, as B.C. has
and provincial systems.
clearly indicated, the Nisga'a
The tax immunity granted by
Agreement is a "blue print" for what
section 87 of the Indian Act will
all other Indigenous Peoples can
eventually not apply to Nisga'a
expect out of treaty talks it is time for
citizens. After eight years Nisga'a
us, as Peoples and as Nations, to recitizens will have to pay all
_evaluate.our participation in these
transaction (sales) taxes, and after
negotiations. Our responsibility, as
twelve years they will have to pay
Peoples, is not to "negotiate space in
all other taxes (income and
the basement of the Master's House",
property taxes, for example).
but to honour our legacies and
Nisga'a citizens have no immunity
uniqueness as Indigenous Peoples and
from taxes leveled by Nisga'a
Nations we can settle for nothing less.
governments on them.

Chiefs Mask
Bookstore
This
summer
the Chiefs
M a s k has
been busy
with
preparing book
orders for the upcoming Fall
Semester at the Institute o f
Indigenous Government.
Students purchasing books for
the next semester may inquire
at any time to the status o f
books required for their
courses.
Plans are afoot for the
Union of B . C . Indian Chiefs
website, which will include the
Chiefs Mask Bookstore, soon
after the entire catalogue will
be available on-line for quick
and easy access.
The fall semester is
shaping up to be an equally
interesting year for the
bookstore in general. N o t only
available are books but other
such items as lapel pins,
portfolio bags, T-shirts, mugs
and pens. A l l items are
available by mail order.
For further inquiries
please call the Chiefs Mask
during U B C I C Office hours,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at
Tel: (604)684-0231
Fax: (604) 684-5726
OR
Email: [email protected]

SUMMER 1998

9

UBCIC NEWS

NISGA'A AGREEMENT:

T

oday is a day of sorrow for the
Gitanyow Nation. Our songs of
sorrow will flow over the land,
not only for ourselves but also for the
Nisga'a Chiefs, who are without the
very land the Creator gave them. And
for all aboriginal people in British
Columbia and Canada because now
the governments have succeeded in
forming the first Dictatorship in the
history of Canada. They will have
completed the task of divide and
conquer. The outright theft of land
from which all aboriginals have taken
the very food needed to survive.
Today the governments will
have destroyed the "Na'yis'yeg'a" the
very markings that showed the
boundaries between nations. The
markings, the trodden trails of our
grandfathers showing the land they
loved and protected. The two
governments have taken the lands of
the Nisga'a Chiefs and that of the
Gitanyow Nation through the offer of
fee simple and core lands to the
Nisga'a.
The aboriginal people of British
Columbia have to remind the Crown of
its obligation to the people of this
province. The signing of the final
agreement might be the best thing for
the Nisga'a Tribal Council, the federal
and provincial governments but that
doesn't mean it's the best thing for the
rest of British Columbia. This hasty
agreement affects all of us, in the sense
that the governments will use this
agreement as a template for the rest of
B.C. The major issue is the
extinguishment of aboriginal rights, to
dictate where the people can or cannot
access resources on their territories.
Evidence of ownership is well known
by the governments but is not
recognized as the governments have
successfully bribed their way onto lands
we all know are worth more than the
190 million they offered the NTC. I do
not understand how a Chief would be ~
willing to give the very lifeline the
Creator gave him. The Gitksan /

10

Gitanyow

First

Nation

Through the lies and deceit, the governments have
successfully destroyed the existence of the aboriginal
way of life, as well as the laws of our people."

Gitanyow laws state that the Chief is
responsible for the keeping of the land
and resources for the use of future
generations. Money is not the answer
because sometime in the future the
money will disappear and what will the
people have to survive. The land is to be
protected it is the very lifeline as history
has told us through the years. The
history of ownership is held in the totems
and they are the proof that we have been
here on the territory for hundreds and
hundreds of years. Through the lies
and deceit, the governments have
successfully destroyed the existence of
the aboriginal way of life, as well as the
laws of our people.
Glen Clark says he is making
history but, did he ever think about the
destruction he has reined over the land
by signing a treaty that will strip a nation
of its right to the land and by dictating
where and when, if ever, they can take
food off their land. What type of self
government can be implemented when
you have to follow provincial laws on
your own territory. Aboriginals have
always had their own government, their
own laws. Now there is Only
extinguishment. The land we depend on
holds the blood of our ancestors, blood
that flowed while they protected the land.
This land is worth the blood of our
people and now we see how easy it is for
the governments to take away from the
minority as Glen Clark calls us.
- Fee simple lands issued to the
NTC, Fee simple lands on Gitanyow
territory. These lands can be sold and/or
used as collateral against the loans. But,
what will happen to he chief who now
depends on a government that has
holding on these lands? Where will they
find land to access resources and what
will happen to the power handed down

from generation to generation?
Glen Clark has stated that he is
willing to lose the next election in order
to have the agreement go ahead. Does
he not realize that it took the
aboriginals of this province to get him
where he is today? This is a guarantee
that he will lose the next election
because he has committed the worse
offense, he has stolen the land of the
Gitanyow, a right that was not granted
him. Signing of this agreement, one he
has probably never read, guarantees his
dictatorship, forming a minority group
of people on the very land that was
theirs to begin with.
Sorrow cries are heard today. By
the works of Glen Clark and his
government, access by the Gitanyow
people on Gitanyow territories is now
limited to the access, provision required
from the NTC. But as my grandfather
said, "The truth will prevail. Stand on
the truth and you will succeed.
Chief Gu guhl (Peter Williams),
former president of the Gitanyow
stated,. "Those that heard our history
will shine like the light of day. When
the Chiefs of Kitwancool - Gitanyow
tell the history it will again shine. It
will shine and be like the greatest laws
in our Canadian government. It will be
like the laws of our white brothers.
This is what they call the Constitution.
This is what our history amounts to.
This is to prove who rules over the
hunting grounds and our village of
Kitwancool. And also over Gitanyow
territory. Our government of Canada
and B.C. will see our history. If they
don't see our history, nothing will be
clear to them.
Debbie Good
Gitanyow Negotiating Team

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS

NISGA'A AGREEMENT:

Interior Alliance
Southern Carrier Tshilqot'in Stl'atl'imx Secwepemc Nlaka'pamux Okanagan

INTERIOR ALLIANCE DENOUNCES NISGA'A "TEMPLATE"AS
A VIOLATIONOFHUMAN RIGHTS.
The members of the Interior Alliance have
always had great respect for the Nisga'a Nation and its leaders We agreed with the late James
Gosnell, when he told the First Ministers of Canada during the constitutional talks in the 1980s,
that First Nations "own this land lock, stock, and barrel"
(Kamloops, Shuswap Territory / August 3, 1998)

It has been a long struggle for
unequal bargaining power between
Alliance has no choice but to publicly
all First Nations to have our
the parties of that treaty.''
speak out on the contents of this
collective human rights as peoples
Chief Manuel added, ' 'Jean
''treaty''. First Nations have opinions
respected by having our aboriginal
Chretien is guilty of using the 19th
on the recognition and protection of
title recognized and respected by the
century approach just like United
aboriginal title and rights much like
Governments of Canada and British
States President, Andrew Jackson. In
Canadians have opinions on Canadian
Columbia. In the end it was the
the 1830's the U.S. Supreme Court
Unity and Quebec Secession.
Supreme Court
Chief Justice John
of Canada and
Marshall ruled that
their historic
"...from our point of view the Nisga'a model is a grossthe Cherokee
Delgamuukw
Nation had title to
violation of the Nisga'a human rights as peoples within
decision on
their lands and
December 11,
the meaning of international law, and we blame Prime international
1997 that forced
sovereignty.
Minister Chretien and Premier Glen Clark for
the federal and
President Jackson is
taking advantage of the unequal bargaining power reported to have
provincial
between the parties of that treaty."
governments to
said "John
acknowledge
Marshall has made
that aboriginal
his decision now let
title exists in Canada and includes an
The Interior Alliance is already
him enforce it." The Cherokee were
economic component
on record opposing the Nisga'a
then marched out of their lands on a
Now that the federal and
"Treaty" as a model, Chief Arthur
"trail of tears". In Canada today
provincial governments have
Manuel said today "the Nisga'a Final
history isrepeatingitself. Canada's
succeeded in getting the Nisga'a
Agreement will never be accepted as a
Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio
Tribal Council leadership to give up
template, or prototype, by the
Lamer issued the Delgamuukw
their title and rights, both the federal
membership and leadership of the
decision last December. Now the
and provincial governments have
Interior Alliance. The Nisga'a model
head of the executive branch, Prime
announced they intend to use the
completely undermines the legal
Minister Jean Chretien, is ignoring
Nisga'a Final Agreement as a
principles and framework for
the head of the judicial branch about
"template" with other First Nations
reconciliation of aboriginal title with
the nature and scope of aboriginal title
in B.C. to eliminate ancestral
-Crown presence that the Supreme of
and rights. I have no doubt we will
aboriginal title and rights by
Canada as set our in the Delgamuukw
see great harm come from them on
replacing them with a new form of
decision. Moreover,fromour point of
the sad journey into the future the
reduced and restricted treaty rights.
view the Nisga'a model is a gross
Nisga'a are now being told to
violation
of the Nisga'a human rights as
The Governments of Canada
embark on by the federal and
peoples within the meaning of
and British Columbia obviously
provincial governments, and by
international law,'and we blame Prime
intend to apply the Nisga'a Final
some of their own leaders.
Minister Chretien and Premier Glen
Agreement as a model far beyond the
Clark for taking advantage of the
Nass Valley. Therefore, the Interior

SUMMER 1998

11

UBCIC NEWS

Assembly of First Nations
SUPREME COURT DECISION SUPPORTS THE RIGHTS OF FIRST NATIONS
Aug-20-98: The Supreme Court's decision concerning the right of Quebec to secede from Canada is a
justification of the First Nations' position concerning their rights within the Canadian Confederation. That is how the
AFN's National Chief, Phil Fontaine, and also the AFN's Regional Chief, Ghislain Picard, qualify the Supreme
Court's decision.
the decision a statement of the First
right of self-determination and even
"As part of this decision, the
Nations' right to Self-determination
secession. This paragraph confirms that,
Court recognizes the validity of our
across Canada" adds Quebec's Regional
and I quote: "the right of self-determinaarguements in the whole issue of the
Chief, Ghislain Picard.
rights of First Nations. Now, it is up to tion in international law generates at best
So, this decision means, for the
an opening to a right to external selfus to develop those arguements to
First Nations in Canada, that neither
ensure that our rights
Quebec nor any other provwill be protected in the
ince in Canada can interfere
possible event of a
"the right of self-determination in international
law with the rights of
unilaterally
Quebec seperation"
the First Nations. Furthergenerates at best an opening to a right to external
stated National Chief,
more, the Court states that
self-determination in the case offormer colonies..."
Phil Fontaine.
even if there was secession it
The Court's
cannot be done without the
decision even goes
rights and interests of the
determination in the case of former
further since it recognizes, for any
First Nations being completely protected,
colonies, in the case of oppressed
oppressed or colonized people, the
with their complete and equal participapeoples...or in the case where a clearly
right to seperate from those who
tion in all stages of the process. Finally,
defined group is denied meaningful
subjected them to such oppression.
the Court indicates to the international
access to the government to pursue their
"Paragraph 138 of the decision
community that no Nation recognize a
political, economic, social and cultural
is, to my consideration, that which
secession that would be pursued without
development." We see in this element of
recognises more than any other, the
the consent of the First Nations.

Conference on Children Exposed to Family Violence

CALL FOR PRESENTATION
The BC/Yukon Society of
Transition Houses is requesting
proposald for presentations at the
Fifth International Conference on
Children Exposed to Family
Violence to be held October 27 29, 1999 in Vancouver, B.C.
The conference will bring
together councillors, transition
house staff/shelter workers,
social workers, educators,
psychologists, researchers,
lawyers, members of the criminal
justice system, advocates, youth
and others who work with children
and their families.

Submissions are invited for papers,
posters or workshops. These
submissions should address the
theme of the conference Integrating
Research, Policy and Practice
through one of the following
streams:

>
>
>
>

Preventing the Cycle of Violence
Early Intervention for Children
-Children at Risk
Custody and Access

>

Minority and Special Needs

>

Aboriginal People

>

Juvenile Justice

>

Trauma and Children

PRESENTATIONS A R E LIMITED
TO 20 MINUTES AD WILL BE
GROUPED
TOGETHER
IN
SESSIONS WITH A C O M M O N
THEME.
P R O P O S A L S FOR
WORKSHOPS AND PANELS MAY
A L S O BR S U B M I T T E D FOR
REVIEW.
For more information contact:
BC/Yukon Society of Transition
Houses

Suite 1112, 409 Granville Street,
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 1T2
tel 604-669-6943
fax 604-682-6962
email [email protected]
web site http://home.istar.ca/-bcsyth

Send Proposals to the above address or via email to [email protected]
Must be received no later than February 1,1999

12

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS

Huuy-ay-aht First Nation Mohawk Council of Kahnawake
Official Notice to the Federal and Provincial
Visas to be Issued and Fees Collected from HikersGovernments
Using First Nation Lands on Parks Canada's West It istimeto once again remind you that your society is
rich at the expense of our People. It is our land and resources
Coast Trail
that support your People and governments. It is you and your
governments that have exploited the wealth of our country
July 28, 1998, Bamfield B . C . - Hikers on one
while excluding us from our rightful patrimony and its benefits.
of Canada's most popular wilderness trails will be
It is you and your governments that have confined us to what
required to obtain visas and pay fees as they cross into
little land base remains under our jurisdiction. It is you and
reserve lands owned by the Huu-ay-aht First Nation on
your governments that have sought to control our lives and
Vancouver Island's west coast.
destiny to our detriment. You have proven again that you
Starting today, Huu-ay-aht representatives will be
cannot be trusted.
stationed on a reserve southeast of Bamfield. The West Coast
The recent move by the province to impose taxes on our
Trail, the major feature of Pacific Rim National Park, cuts
People is another example of a direct attack on the legal and
through the reserve. About 650 people hike the popular trail
aboriginal rights of First Nations peoples. The
each year. Visas will be issued to hikers who will be asked to
Kahnawakeroninon totally reject this blatant unilateral
pay a fee in recognition that they are on Huu-ay-aht lands.
infringement on our tax immunity. We have consistentiy over
The exchanging of visas and fees in keeping with
the course of years attempted to resolve outstanding issues
traditional practices where visitors to First Nations
including taxation issues without ever receiving a cooperative
lands routinely presented gifts upon their arrival.
response from either the federal or provincial governments. We
In 1970, Canada took the southwestern portion of
have also been subject to tax maneuvers by both governments
Huu-ay-aht lands and waters and turned them into park.
which have resulted in a serious erosion of our unique tax
Elsewhere in the park, forest companies were compensated
immune status,firstby the imposition of the harmonized GST
for loss of access to trees as was one First Nation to the south
and provincial tax structure, then by the revenue option on the
of the Huu-ay-aht.
William's Court decision and now with this tax imposition.
"We were effectively alienated from our own reserve
The fact we possess tax immunity for a reason which is
lands, and have been for many, many years," says Robert
supported by federal law. Our tax exemption is a tangible form
Dennis, chief councillor of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation.
of recognition of our aboriginal landrightsand distinct status as
"The federal government knows this. It promised twenty
aboriginal people. The attempts to limit and control our rights
years ago to negotiate and equitable settlement with us.
to the point of their extinction is tantamount to absolute
We've waited in good faith. The wait is over."
assimilation and political genocide. Furthermore, these tax
"There is no need for the government to delay for
schemes will result, if they are not successful, in the elimination
years like this," added Spencer Peters, the Huu-ay-aht
of our distinct identity as aboriginal people with ties to the
head hereditary chiefs. "The Dididaht First Nation
North American continent which no other people can ever
faced an identical issue to ours. It was resolved through
claim.
negotiations with Canada in the early 1990's. We want
Due to the failure of the federal and provincial
the same treatment"
governments to come to reasonable terms regarding our position
In compensation for not developing their reserve
on taxation and given the magnitude of the threat to our
lands, and in recognition of the ongoing use of Dididaht lands
national Mohawk identity with these continuing infringements
by thousands of hikers, the federal government did the
of our aboriginal and legal rights we are left with no recourse
following:
but to exercise our jurisdictional prerogatives unilaterally. You
can take comfort in the fact that we have taken this lesson from
- compensated the Dididaht First Nation 9.5 million for the
your playbook. We will begin our jurisdictional control over
loss oftimberrights (First Nations can cut and sell all trees
economic development matters with attention concentrated on
on reserve lands if they choose)
third party interests in land being nationalized or taxed. We
- compensated the Dididaht 2.2 million for previous use of
will also initiate user fees on our highways, waterways, railways
reserve lands by hikers
-and on utilities. We will plan a tax protest starting in
- promised to pay the Dididaht $25,000.00 yearly for use of
Kahnawake. As part of our economic development we will
their reserve lands.
establish a duty free zone for the territory of Kahnawake.
In response to repeated calls to settle this issue, Parks
The denial by the federal government to uphold it's
Canada has said that ongoing treaty negotiations, which
fiduciary obligations and the assimilationist policies of the
could drag on for many years, are the proper forum to
provincial government have forced us to act in a manner we
determining what is owned by the Huu-ay-aht First Nation.
have avoided for far too long. Since we have been unable to get
Furthermore, it says no money is available.
you to work with us we are left with working alone for our own
Contact: Robert Dennis (250) 728-3080
interests. Our own best interests will be the only consideration
from this point forward.
SUMMER 1998

13

UBCIC NEWS

U N I O N O F B.C. INDIAN C H I E F S
RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH

ATTENTION ALL
RESEARCHERS!
COMING SOON

A BC RESEARCH MANUAL
The Union of BC Indian Chiefs is publishing a
research manual for BC community-based, non-professional
researchers which will be available this Fall from the
Chiefs Mask Bookstore. The manual is called Researching
the Indian Land Question in BC: An Introduction to
Research Strategies and Archival Research for Band
Researchers.
Research staff at the UBCIC have been preparing this
how-to book for more than a year now. The manual is aimed
at beginner researchers, but also contains much useful BCspecific information that will be of interest and help to
more experienced researchers investigating any aspect of the
Indian Land Question in BC.
In addition to covering basic research skills, the
manual also has detailed information about how best to
approach reserve land research, land use and occupancy
mapping, oral testimony, archaeology, map research,
genealogy and legalresearch,among other subjects. We
anticipate this manual will be of interest to all BC First
Nationsresearchers,whether they are involved with land
claims, traditional use studies, band and tribal council
business, heritage issues, land andresourcematters,
sustainable development, membership or genealogy, and
other land-related issues.
The UBCIC Research Department and the UBCIC
Resource Centre have been serving BC communities for over
25 years. The UBCIC Research Department puts on a number
ofresearchskills education workshops every year, and the
UBCIC Resource Centre assists Band researchers from
around the province. We are basing the content of this
research manual on what we know the growing number
of BC First Nation researchers want to know.
Researching the Indian Land Question in BC: An
Introduction to Research Strategies and Archival Research
for Band Researchers will be available this Fall from the
Chiefs Mask Bookstore (the publication price has not yet been
set, but will be shortly).
Please contact Chiefs Mask Assistant Manager
Mildred Chartrand if you would be interested in ordering a
copy (Phone: 1-604-684-0231, Fax: 1-604-684-5726 or e-mail
[email protected]).
i

14

-

NEW! AT THE UBCIC
^ R E S O U R C E CENTRE -

THE UBCIC RG 10 FILE
FINDER
The UBCIC Research Department has developed a
database for searching the National Archives of Canada's
Record Group 10 (RG 10 is the National Archives collection
of Department of Indian Affairs records). The database
information was compiled from National Archives of Canada
RG 10 finding aids available in electronic format as of April
1997.
As you are aware, there are a number of other "tools"
for navigating the complex world of RG 10 - the paper or
hard copy "Inventory" and "finding-aids", as well as the
MTNISIS finding aids on computer diskette and Archivia, the
Aboriginal Peoples CD-ROM for computer searches. If you
have already tried these tools, you will appreciate our easy,
one-stop keyword search database.
The UBCIC RG 10 FILE FINDER is accessible to all
BC First Nationsresearchersat the UBCIC Resource Centre.
It will also be available later this Fall on the UBCIC
Research Internet site, so keep watching the UBCIC
Newsletter for details.

UBCIC RESEARCH
DEPARTMENT TO LAUNCH
INTERNET WEBSITE!
Also coming this Fall from the Union of B C
Indian Chiefs, a B C First Nations research
website. We are now in the process of building
this website, and look forward to sharing our
information and acting as an information
clearinghouse regarding BC First Nations research
issues.
Please look for announcements and details
about our website address in the next UBCIC
Newsletter (or get in touch with UBCIC Research
, @ 1-604-68.4-0231 or [email protected]).

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS

SIERRA L E G A L D E F E N S E F U N D
Canada Failing to Enforce Fisheries Act Against
Polluting Mines in B.C.
July 2, 1998, Vancouver, B.C.— Canada's ongoing failure to adequately
enforce its environmental laws is against the subject o f a p o t e n t i a l
i n v e s t i g a t i o n by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)
the watchdog set up under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). The Sierra Club of B.C., the Taku Wilderness Association and the
Environmental Mining of B.C., represented by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund, have
files a Submission in Montreal requesting an investigation by the CEC.
The Submission asserts that the
government of Canada has failed to
enforce the Fisheries Act against
mining companies that are depositing
toxic substances into fishing bearing
waters. Three notorious mines in B.C.
are highlighted.

first time that N A F T A
environmental watchdog will be
putting Canada's environmental track
record under the microscope.
"This NAFTA Submission will
increase international scrutiny of
Canada's blatant disregard for
environmental
laws and Canada's failure
1. The Tulsequah Chief Mine
to
protect
salmon
habitat" said David
in the Taku River valley, near the B.C.
Boyd,
Executive
Director of Sierra
Alaska border, has been discharging
Legal.
"
Canada
is becoming an
acutely toxic effluent laced with high
environmental
outlaw
whose actions
levels of lead, copper and zinc into
betray
our
politicians'
bogus rhetoric
prime salmon habitat since 1950's.
about conservation.
2. The Mount Washington
"No wonder there is a salmon
Mine on Vancouver Island is
crisis in B.C. when this kind of toxic
depositing so much copper into the
pollution is allowed to continue for
Tsolum River that once healthy
decades without the government lifting a
salmon runs have all but disappeared.
finder" said Bill Wareham, Executive
Coho salmon runs into the Tsolum
Director of the Sierra Club of B.C.
River that numbered 15,000 in the
"Canada and the mining industry need
1960's before the mine was
to clean up their act byrepresentingthe
operated now number less than one
law and protecting salmon habitat."
hundred.
"For over fifty years the
3. The Britannia Mine,
Tulsequah River and its salmon have
located 50 km north of Vancouver, has
been poisoned by toxic effluent from the
been described as the worst single
Tulsequah Chief Mine, yet the law has
point source of metal pollution in
never been enforced," said Don Weir of
North America by Environmental
the Taku Wilderness Association. "As
Canada, depositing up to a ton of
one of the last largest intact watersheds
copper into Howe Sound daily.
on the West Coast of North America, the
Taku River deserves better."
These three mines are violating
s.36(3) of the Fisheries Act every day,
Canada's failure to enforce the
and have been breaking the law for
Fisheries Act against the mining
decades, yet have never been
industry in B.C. has contributed to the
prosecuted. Canada is thus violating
salmon crisiscurrentlygripping the West
its obligation under NAFTA to enforce
Coast Across B.C., 142 runs of Pacific
its environmental laws.
salmon have gone extinct during this
century, and another 624 runs are at high
This Submission follows last
risk of disappearing. The causes
week's decision by the CEC to begin a
formal investigation into Canada's
include mining pollution,
failure to enforce the Fisheries Act
hydroelectric power of development
against B.C. Hydro for damage to fish
logging, urbanization and over-fishing.
habitat caused by dams, marking the

SUMMER 1998

[L.I.S.N.]
League of Indigenous
Sovereign Nations of the
Western Hemisphere
Conference
" M A N YNATIONS,BUT ONE PEOPLE
IN NORTH, CENTRAL AND SOUTH
AMERICA: A VISION FOR THE 21ST
CENTURY"
The L.I.S.N. and the Mashpee
Wampanoag Nation will be hosting a
political and spiritual conference from
October 10th through the 12th, 1998, at
"55 Acres," Mashpee Wampanoag
Tribal Land in Mashpee, Massachusetts.
The conference will focus on the
political and spiritual struggle of our
people, and it will be a new unity beginning
without Government and Non-Indian
Patemalisn. We strongly urge all concerned
Native People of the Western Hemisphere
and all affiliated Non-Indian allies to attend
this historic event.
DIRECTIONS: From points North — go
south on Route 3 to Cape Cod, cross the
Sagamore Bridge to Route 6 South. Take
Exit 2 and follow Route 130 South approximately 7 miles to Great neck Road North.
Follow Mashpee Rotary, then take Great
Neck Road South; go one mile to event on
the right.
From points West — Follow 1495
South to Cape Cod, cross the Bourne
Bridge, follow Route 28 South, take Route
151 South to theMashpee Rotary, take
Great Neck Road South one mile to event
on right.
Camping available on grounds. Housing
available for Elders. Arrangements for
hotel can be made for others.

No Drugs, Alcohol or Firearms will be
allowed.
FOR INFORMATION: Russell Peters,
Jr., 306 Great Neck Road, Mashpee, M A
02649; Phone 508^77-7218 or the
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Office 508477-0208.
OR Contact: L.I.S.N. of the Western
Hemisphere, C/O Piscataway Indian Nation,
PO Box 312, Port Tobacco, MD 20677;
Phone 301-932-1704.

15

UBCIC NEWS

INDIGENOUS WORLD

U . K . REPORT CHALLENGES U . S . ANNEXATION OF
HAWAI'I:

Annexation could be declared invalid
Pat Omandum - Honolulu Star Bulletin
August 11, 1998

Hawaii's annexation by the United States could be declared invalid,
according to a United Nations report The report said the situation of native Hawaiians now
takes on a "special complexion " because of, among other reasons, President Clinton's
November 1993 Apology Resolution to native Hawaiians.
The study recommends Hawaii
be retrained to a U.N. List of NonSelf-Governing Territories - a list of
Indigenous Peoples colonized by
another country. Such action could
make Hawaii eligible for
decolonization as well as a U.N.sponsored plebiscite.
The 73-page unedited final
report, submitted after nine years of
reviewing treaties, agreements and
other constructive arrangements
between nations and Indigenous
Peoples, was filed July 30 in Geneva.
For Hawaiian groups such as
Ka Lahui Hawaii and Ka Pakaukau,
which have pushed the sovereignty
issue at the international level for
nearly two decades, the timing
couldn't be better. Over the next two
days, Hawaiians and others will
gather at Iolani Palace to observe
Hawaii's centennial annexation
anniversary.
"It's perfect timing," said
Mililani Trask, an attorney and
governor of Ka Lahui Hawaii. "I
couldn't have asked for anything
more."
Trask said this is the first
official U.N. document that not only
makes reference to Hawaii, but finds
against the validity of the treaty of
annexation and calls for the United
Nations to re-list Hawaii as a colony.
Attorney Hayden Burgess said, ..
"Many of us have been waiting for
the report for many years." But it is
just the first step in a long process the
U.S. government undoubtedly will

16

fight, he said. "The United States is not
going to give up that easily," he said,
pointing out that the nation has been
trying abolish the committee that would
review the issue.
Burgess has been to the United
Nations many times to ask that Hawaii
bere-listedas a colony, speaking for
local organizations and the World
Council for Indigenous Peoples.
Trask said that the report,
expected to be posted on the U.N. Web
site on Saturday, shows that an
international audience is watching with
interest how the United States handles its
native Hawaiian situation, one which
U.S. State Department officials consider
a "domestic problem."
"It means that we now have a
clear interest being expressed by other
states (nations) to support our effort and
expressing interest now onreceivingthe
real story about what's happening in
Hawaii," she said.
Trask, who received a copy of the
report in Geneva, will speak about it
tomorrow during annexation events.
Naysayers, she said, have repeatedly
doubted whether Hawaiian activists
would be effective in the international
arcana. But the report goes a long way
to show how viable these international
claims really are, she said.
Both Ka Lahui and Ka Pakaukau
believe there isn't any way to achieve
Hawaiian autonomy or independence
within the U.S. system. But there is in .
the international system.
^_
Miguel Alfonso Martinez of
Cuba, the special chairman who

prepared the report for the U.N.
Working Group on Indigenous
Populations, wrote that Clinton's
apology resolution recognizes the 1893
overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy
took place unlawfully.
"By the same token, the 1897
treaty of annexation between the
United States and Hawaii appears as an
unequal treaty that could be declared
invalid on those grounds, according to
international law of thetimes,"said
Martinez, who was appointed to head
this project by the U.N. human rights
commissioner.
"It follows that the case of
Hawaii could bere-enteredon the list
of non-self-governing territories of the
United Nations and resubmitted to the
bodies in the organization competent in
the field of decolonization," he said.
Hawaii was placed on the U.N.
list in 1946 as a colony under the
United States, but was removed in 1959
when it became an American state.
Others removed on the list include
Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto
Rico, which wasremovedfrom the list
previously, butreturned,Trask said.
The General Assembly of the United
Nations voted to put New Caledonia
back on the list in the late 1980s over
protests of the United States, France
and Great Britain. But the political
atmosphere has changed, Burgess said.
"Now there is very little opposition to
the U.S."
"Hawai'i"
Continued on Page 17

"HAWAI'I" continued

If Hawaii is returned to the list,
he said, the first most important
question will be: "Who are the people
to be decolonized? Is it only native
Hawaiians, or is it all of those who
have suffered as a result of the
overthrow? The thing Hawaii needs to
address is to see itself in the mirror and
ask itself, who are we who have been
decolonized? I don't think it's going to
work to just limit it to the native
Hawaiian race. It was a nation that
was overthrown, not just native
Hawaiians."
Then, if the matter reaches the
voting stage, the question will be who
votes, Burgess said. "The exercise of
self-determination must be done by
people who were colonized." And they
must be given choices, he said, such as
whether they want to maintain state
status, or be independent, or have a
free association with the United States.
The working group, which
recently met, sent the Martinez report
to the U.N. Subcommission on the
Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities, where it will
accept testimony from U.N. members
and indigenous groups. A final edited
version goes to the U.N. Commission
on Human Rights, and to the U.N.
General Assembly, for adoption.
So far, the United Nations has
accepted three progress drafts as
official U.N. documents, including one
that contained accounts by Queen
Liliuokalani on the push by foreigners
to limt the monarchy's power and to
seek annexation. Liliuokalani's
description of Hawaii's political climate
during her time changed the
complexion of the issue, Trask said.
Meanwhile, Ka Pakaukau's
Kekuni Blaisdell told a U.N.
decolonization committee seminar this
June in Nadi, Fiji, that 17 colonies
remain on the U.N. list, with three in
the Pacific pressing for selfdetermination with an option for
independence. Blaisdell said
colonialism in the Pacific, in various
forms, has accelerated and intensified
rather than declined. The United
Nations in 1990 mandated to eradicate

colonialism by the year 2000.
"It is imperative," he said, "that
we indigenous peoples become more
involved in the dominant, western
decolonization process, that we generate
ourowninitiativesand that such actions
be recognized."
A U.N. supervised plebiscite
would entitle Hawaiians to vote for a
form of government, such as
incorporation as a U.S. state, free
association or an independent or
autonomous government.
Hawaiian groups will focus
lobbying efforts on U.N. member nations
that signed treaties with Hawaii before it
became a state.
"We're not saying give Hawaii
independence, we're just saying re-list
Hawaii," Trask said. "Have the U.N.
take a look at it, and give our people the
opportunity to make a choice, which we
never had in 1959."
Tom Coffman, whose book
"Nation within" about America's
annexation of Hawaii has generated
widespread discussion, said the U.N.
report is "really important because what
I've found in my research of the period of
1893 to 1898... was that over and over
the question of whether Hawaiians would
be allowed to vote on annexation came
up, and over and over, the Republic
government conspired with
annexationists in Washington to prevent
Hawaiian'sfromvoting."
Article Forwarded by:
South Pacific Peoples Foundation
Email: [email protected]
Http://www.sppf.org
EVENTS

1998
Tribal L a w a n d
Government Conference
6 Paper Presentations and
A Reconsideration of Cherokee Nation
v. Georgia by the American Indian
Nations Supreme Court.

SACRED BUFFALO:
B A C K F R O M OBLIVION
HONORING OUR PAST, RESPECTING OUR
PRESENT, VISIONING OUR FUTURE
Inter Tribal Bison Cooperative's First
Annual National Conference
September 20 -23, 1998
Adam's Mark Hotel; Denver, Colorado
Keynote Speakers: Vine DeLoria, N. Scott
Momaday, Kevin Gover
Join us as Tribes and Elders celebrate the
Sacred Buffalo from a cultural,
environmental and spiritual perspective.
Activities to include: Sessions, ITBC
Reception, Buffalo Meat Cook-off,
Story Telling, Awards, Banquet, Auction,
Dance and more!
For more information and registration
form contact:
Karen Little Thunder or Carla Brings Plenty
InterTribal Bison Cooperative
P.O. Box 8105, Rapid City, SD 57709
605-394-9730 fax 605-394-7742
E-mail: [email protected]
website: www.intertibalbison.org

INDIGENOUS P E O P L E S D A Y
P O W W O W & INDIAN M A R K E T
Saturday, October 10,1998
10 am to 6 pm
Civic Center Park, Allston Way
at Martin Luther King Way,
Berkeley, California.
All drums are invited.
Grand Entry 1 pm.

Celebrate the new holiday in honor
of all our ancestors, the people
continuing the struggle today and
future generations. Exhibition
dancing, Gourd Dancing, Intertribal
dancing, Contest dancing, Round
dancing. Enjoy Native American
foods and Arts & Crafts.
Sponsored by the City of Berkeley.

University of Kansas
Lawrence KS 66045
For more info:
http://www.law.ukans.edu/~tribalaw/
conference.html

For information call: 510-615-0603;
e-mail:

[email protected]
or visit: www.jps.net/redcoral/Pow.html

17

UBCIC NEWS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

— BULLETINS

—

NOTICES

ELECTIONS
ALEXIS CREEK/TSIHLQOT'IN

INDIAN HOMEMAKERS'

August 18/98

Association of B.C.

New Address as of September 1/98:
251 East 11th Ave
Vancouver, B.C.
V5T 2C4
Tel: (604) 876-0944
Fax: (604) 876-1448

ANNUAL G E N E R A L M E E T I N G

Pacific Association of First Nations Women

Chief: Ervin Charleyboy
[re-elected ]

UNITED NATIVE NATIONS
August 21/98

President: Viola Thomas [Re-elected]
V/President: Scott Clarke [Re-elected]

CONFERENCE

B.C. ASSOCIATION OF ABORIGINAL
FRIENDSHIP CENTRES

#204- 96 East Broadway, Vancouver, B.C. V5T 4N9

3RD ABORIGINAL

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

FUNDING AND FUNDRAISING
CONFERENCE

5:00 p.m.
September 29, 1998

2nd Floor-Suite 211
96 East Broadway
Vancouver, B.C.

November 12-13,1998
Victoria Conference Centre
Early Registration to Sept 25/98: $295.
After Sept 25/98: $345.
One Day Rate: $195.
Group Rates available.

Please call Lenore @ (604) 873-1833
to confirm attendance.

18

For More Information call Diane Nicholls @:
1-800-990-2432

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS

MAP OF THE SOVEREIGN INDIGENOUS NATIONS
TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES: JUNE, 1993
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs' map of the Sovereign Indigenous Nations Territorial Boundaries is the only contemporary
map that accurately shows the traditional tribal territories of the 23 Indian Nations in British Columbia. The six colour map measures
28"x36".
The tribal territories are the homelands of distinct Nations, within which their respective peoples share a common language,
culture and traditional forms of political and social organization. These homelands have been occupied by the Indian Nations since
time immemorial. Up to the present, the Indian Nations in British Columbia have never surrendered their ownership of their homelands
(aboriginal title), nor have they surrendered their original sovereignty as nations to govern their homelands (inherent jurisdiction).
Information on the territorial boundaries was compiled by the Union's research portfolio and President's office between July,
1990 and April, 1993 from archival research and information provided by elders, chiefs, and tribal councils. Chief Saul Terry, President
of the Union and a graduate of the Vancouver College of Art (now the Emily Carr College of Art and Design), prepared the working
drafts for the map.
Design and cartography for the June, 1993 map was done by David Sami, chief cartographer of Multi Mapping Ltd. in
Vancouver, B.C., using a 1:2,000,000 scale base-map from the Surveys and Environment Branch of the British Columbia Ministry
of Environment, Lands and Parks. A l l territorial boundaries shown on the map are subject to further revision, as additional information
becomes available. Contact the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs at (604) 684-0231 for ordering information.
28" x 36" / Scale: 1:2 000 000 / Six Colours

SUMMER 1998

19

UBCIC NEWS

In Memorium ~ In Memorium
Robert (Bob) Manuel
February 4, 1947 - August 8, 1998
It was with deep sorrow that the UBCIC and many friends in Indian Country learned of the sudden
passing of former UBCIC President Robert (Bob) Manuel on August 8th, 1998 at the Royal Inland Hospital in
Kamloops, B.C following emergency surgery at age 51.
As well as Chief of the Neskonlith Indian Band from 1977 to 1987, Bob was a member of the Executive
Council of the UBCIC from 1976 to 1980 and played a major role in leading and organizing the Constitution
Express in 1980, that led to the addition of Section 35 protecting Aboriginal Rights in the Canadian
Constitution.
From 1983 to 1984, Bob chaired the A F N Chiefs Bilateral Commission. From 1987 to 1997, Bob
concentrated his efforts on the development of policy positions on Aboriginal Title and Shuswap Nation
reconstruction, decolonization and unity through the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council.
In 1997 Bob was a candidate for National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and, following this,
appointed as Executive Liaison to the A F N for the Interior Nations Alliance.
Services were held at the Neskonlith Indian Band Hall in Chase. Bob was laid to rest on August 12th,
1998 near his father, Grand Chief George Manuel, at the Neskonlith burial grounds.
The eulogy was given by Bob's sister, Vera, who wrote:

"There is no simple way to describe Bob Manuel and how he touched the lives of so many
people in so many different ways. Tofindthe words is as complex and challenging as his life was.
A complicated and yet a simple life. Bob's life was very basic, a life of "walking with the people ",
a testament to his humility as a human being and to his greatness as a crusader, a champion for
the people, a conscientious leader, a son walking in the footsteps of his father, guided by his
mother's teachings, a protective and caring brother, a loving husband andfather, a playful and
joyful uncle and grandpa. He believed in the creator, language, history, tradition, grandparents,
Elders, family, First Nations people, and the land.
Robert Manuel had strong principles. He never waveredfrom his belief that we as
Indigenous people share a sacred duty, an enormous responsibility and a fundamental right to
care for this land and its' abundant gifts of resources that can never be exchangedfor money,
status or any other personal gain. Bob always felt that Aboriginal Title is the foundation of our
existence here on earth, its a spiritual connection that we, as Indigenous people, need to maintain
into the future..."

Bob is survived by his wife Lorna; daughters Geniveve and Geraldine; sons Wayward and Evan; grandchildren
Corinna and Desiree; brothers and sisters Vera, Arthur, Richard, Doreen, Arlene, Martha, George Jr., Ida and
Ara.
He will also be greatly mourned by the many friends and colleagues he inspired over the years and, no
doubt, even the many opponents he challenged to deal honourably with Indian people.

20

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS

In Memorium ~ In Memorium
Clara Linklater Tizya
July 15, 1913 - August 16, 1998
Clara Linklater Tizya was bom July 15, 1913, at Rampart House, to Archie Linklater and Katherine
Netro. She grew up nomadically between Rampart House, Fort Yukon, Dawson and Old Crow, wherever life's
demands took her family.
Although her father was of Scottish descent from the Orkney Islands, and her mother of the Ninsyag and
Vuntut G'witchin, Clara embraced both cultures with a beauty and dignity respectful of her heritage.
She married Peter Tizya, son of John Tizya and Sarah Moses in 1930 at St. Lukes Church in Old Crow.
Together they lived a traditional lifestyle and raised, over a span of 40 years, 13 children: Katherine, Lena,
Helen, Mildred, Archie, Ethel, Trudy, Douglas, Lula-Belle, Rosalie, Charles, Stewart and Lulu-Belle.
They left in 1946 to accomodate their children's education, and made their home between Carcross and
Whitehorse.
Clara left the Yukon in 1966 to begin a new life in Vancouver, British Columbia. After 30 years of city
life, she returned and bought herself a little comer of the Yukon at Tagish, and began commuting between
families in Vancouver and the Yukon.
Her host of colleagues, friends and relatives knew her passion for reading, writing, travelling and her
particular devotion to the church, which guided her life and brought her such Joy.
Clara always held to the belief that the G'witchin led a beautiful life - it wasn't a hardship because it was
the only life they knew, and that gave her the strength and courage to face the challenges before her.
To all who knew and loved her, words cannot capture the energy, wisdom, dignity and discipline that made
the Matriarch, Friend, Caregiver, and Advisor.

A Nation is Not Conquered Until the Hearts of
Their Women are on the Ground.
A Memorial Service was held at Christ Church Cathedral, Whitehorse, Yukon on Wednesday, August
19, 1998 with a reception at Hellaby Hall.
The Funeral Service was held at St. Paul's Anglican Church, Vancouver, British Columbia on
Saturday, August 22, 1998 with a reception at the family home on East 17th Avenue.
Clara is survived by her husband Peter; daughters Katherine, Lena (Peter), Helen, Mildred, Ethel,
Trudy, Rosalie, Lulu (Mark); sons Charles and Stewart (Charlene); grandchildren Norma, Mark, Darwin,
Bonnie, Robin, Brad, Tim, David, John, Joseph, Janette, Janice, Daine, Mark, Justin, Sandra, Kirk, Christian,
Kelly, Douglas, Cheyenne, Shawna, Tynyca, Katherine, Charissa, Stewart Jr., Erika, Dana, Paige; greatgrandchildren Shane, Nicholas, Daryl, Sophie, Sarah, Jade, Matthew, Kyle, Michael, Courtney, Brandy,
Sarah, Ryan, Aaron, Robin. Predeceased by her children: Lula-Belle, Douglas and Archie.

SUMMER 1998

21

UBCIC NEWS

UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

SUBSCRIPTION FORM
NAME: ______________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE RECEIVED: _____
CHEQ/M.O. #
________
EXPIRYDATE:_______

ADDRESS:____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

PROVINCE/STATE/COUNTRY:

_POSTAL/ZIP CODE:

1 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION RATES
NewsLETTER
NewsCLIPPING

Member Bands:

Individual:
$75.00

$35.00
Individual: $100.00

T O T A L AMOUNT ENCLOSED $
Please make cheque or money order payable to: UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS, 5TH FLOOR - 342 WATER STREET.
VANCOUVER, B.C.. V6B 1A1

CHIEFS MASK

ARTS & CRAFTS

- FIRST NATIONS

-JEWELLRY

- ABORIGINAL ISSUES

- POTTERY

- INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS

-PRINTS

-LAND CLAIMS

- T-SHIRTS

CONSIGNMENTS

ACCEPTED

BOOKS

ACCEPTED

CONSIGNMENTS

BOOKS

-LEATHERWORK
-ART
-MASKS
- CHILDREN'S BOOKS
-BEADWORK
-POETRY
- POW WOW MUSIC

CALL, WRITE OR
DROP IN TODAY!

- AND MUCH MORE!

Owned and operated by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs - 5th Floor 342 Water Street in Gastown (604) 684-0231
NOW SERVING THE INSTITUTE OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNMENT

22

SUMMER 1998


UBCIC NEWS







U.LB.C.I.C.
NEWS

&th Floor, 342 Water Street
Vancouver, B.C.
Vé65 1B6
T: (604) 684-0231 F: (604) 684-6726
Email: [email protected]







Compromise & Subjugation in Modern land Agreement

he first "modern land claims agreement" or treaty was recently completed between the Nisga’a, Canada
and B.C. The Nisga'a Agreement provides a clear picture of Canada and B.C.'s intentions in entering
into modern treaties, and what all other Indigenous Peoples’ negotiating treaties can expect to achieve.



THE MAIN’ FEATURES OF THE
NISGA'A AGREEMENT ARE:







Tax EXEMPTION 1S ELIMINATED

> The tax exemption for
Nisga’a citizens is eliminated.
Nisga’‘a will pay income tax, sales
tax, and GST



Fmuctary DEVOLVED AND REPLACED
BY SELF-FINANCED "SELF
ADMINISTRATION"

> The Indian Act no longer
applies to the Nisga’'a, instead the
Nisga'a Agreement establishes a
form of "self government" which
translates to the administration of
social programs which Nisga'a
governments will eventually self-
finance. Self government will be a
form of self administration which
includes: taxation, business
licensing, zoning, public works,
policing, financial administration,
marriage, adoption, local health and
local education.



ABORIGINAL TITLE IS CONVERTED TO
TREATY SETTLEMENT LANDS

> All Aboriginal Title of the
Nisga‘a is "converted and modified"
[read "extinguished"] in exchange

for a parcel of Nisga'‘a settlement
Land of approximately 1192 square
kilometres. Nisga'a retain only 8%
of their original Aboriginal Title
territory in "fee simple" ownership,
Crown title is recognized over the
totality of Nisga'a's former traditional
ternitory.

> The Nisga'a Agreement
contains "certainty language" which
clearly establishes that the Nisga‘a
clearly agree to recognize underlying
provincial title and jurisdiction over
all non-settlement lands.

> The province and Canada
retain ultimate authority over natural
resources (fish, wildlife, forests, etc.)
The Nisga'a harvest of these
resources is for "domestic purposes"
and the process for establishing
numbers is clearly set out in the
Agreement.

> Where Canada or B.C. are
willing to acknowledge Nisga'‘a
jurisdiction to manage resources, this
is usually only to the extent that
Nisga‘a standards "meet or exceed"
provincial and federal standards or
do not contradict provincial or
federal laws.

> The Nisga'a Agreement is
subject to the Canadian Constitution,

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and
the Criminal Code.

>

Rights of third parties are

explicitly recognized in the
Agreement, Nisga'a Agreement nghts
will not be allowed to interfere with
third party interests.

Below, we describe the main

features of the Nisga'a Agreement.

"Compromise" Continued on Page 4

IN THIS ISSUE...



2.



Nisca'A:

10.
17.

President's Message
Gitanyow First Nation

Interior Alliance





13.
13.
14.
15.
16.

18.

20.-21. In Memorium

Huuy-ay-aht F.N.
Mohawk Council
Research Update
Sierra — Fisheries
International
News & Events
UBCIC Mailbox





SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS





Chief Saul aa X'wisten







f



Message From the President

Why the Nisga'a Agreement Must Not
Be a Blueprint

Open Letter to the Citizens of Indian Nations,

Canada and British Columbia



he agreement with the Nisga'a is being desperately pursued by the Federal and Provincial Governments
because they fear they are running out of time. First, the B.C. Treaty Commission is in shambles and second, more
and more people (native and non native) are coming to truly understand the push behindboth the Federal
Comprehensive Claims Policy and the British Columbia Treaty Commission. The main reason that the powers that be
in government are emploring religious institutions, corporate associations, trade unions, etc., to support the Nisga’a
initiative is that the process may get out of their control before the deal is signed.

Whether knowing or
unknowing of government
policy I am certain that the
general upbeat feeling
expressed over the Nisga’a
Treaty are genuine. As a
leader I am mandated to
protect Abonginal Title, at
the same time to explore
avenues to settle the
outstanding land question
between the Federal Crown
and Indian Nations fairly
and justly through a
solution which practically
accommodates our Peoples
within the state of Canada.
But we, that is native and
non-native people, have
begun to really understand
what is being done
politically, economically
and socially in the so called
‘land claims’ negotiations.
Our message may finally
be getting through. The
truth will have a shocking
impact upon our various
nations, indeed all fair
minded people should be
dismayed when they learn
that the agenda is morethan
creating certainty for the
economy. Treaties and
their certainty provisions







"The few million dollars being offered

by the federal and provincial governments as



_ compensation in these negotiations will in a
= fewshort years be recouped by taxes collected —

—frome our people ontoine and newly acquired
—privilege of ee ible land t faxes. '

is











arereallyabout ‘TAKING-
OUT’ (extinguishing) the
Indian Nations. Changing
Nations to mere delegated
village councils or
federal municipalities. In
some parts of the world it is
now called ‘‘ethnic
cleansing’’. It is practised to
amuchmore subtle level upon
our people but it is still
genocide. The most
deplorable fact in this case is

that they expect us to provide

our consent.

Genocide may seem
harsh terminology, but this
treaty once and for all, alters
the reality of Indigenous
Nations. Weare being asked
to give our consent to
eradicating or renouncing

that we are distinct Peoples,
with distinct identifiable
territories, with our own
goveming systems, with our
own distinct languages and
histories. We are being asked
to use our power of consent to
deny to our future generations
the benefits of Title from their
The traditional
along with
ordinary Indigenous people,
have been usurped by neo-
-colonial leadership that are
working with the settler
governments to bring this
aberration of settlement toa
final conclusion. The thinking
seems to be that if we give
consent to such an agreement
it cannot be seen as genocidal.
The rest of us are being

homelands.
leadership,

heldin reserve ghettos until
we capitulate to giving up
our priceless homelands for
a few hectares of settlement
land which will soon be too
small to be of benefit, much
like the Indian reserves are
now. The few million
dollars being offered by the
federal and provincial
governments as
compensation in these
negotiations will in a few
short years be recouped by
taxes collected from our
people’s income and the
newly acquired privilege of
fee simple land taxes.
Taxes for land Indigenous
people once owned outright
under Indian Title. The
Federal and Provincial
coffers will be more than
replenished. In essence,
through taxes, we will be
paying ourselves for the
loss of Title. The Federal
and Provincial
Governments will walk
away without concer for
financing “‘land claims’’
settlements. So much for
the statements about
bankrupting the economy.

"Message"
Continued on page 3



SUMMER 1998

Messaze from the President

Continued from Page 2



Ask now who shall be
truly bankrupt? It will be
we the Indian Nations as
we will be forced to
surrender over to Canada
our territorial integrity and
all the riches that that
represents.
Furthermore, the
governance system which
emerges from this deal is
defined by the settlers,
authorized by the settlers
and to serve the settlers.
Our traditional
Indian governments are
replaced by the delegated
authonty ofa “‘third order’”’
of government sanctioned
by the Federal and
Provincia!
Governments. This is not



UBCIC NEWS

... the governance system which emerges from this dealis defined by
the settlers, authorized by the settlers and to serve the setilers.

selfdetermination, this is
permission to be self-
administering Canadian laws
and systems. What are the
division of powers going to
mean and are they going to be
real division of power? Will
such an agreement really
mean self-determination for
our Nations? We shall also
be distracted by involvement
in another colonial quagmire
of internal renting of what is
left of our lands and
resources. Our hereditary
and elected leadership will
have to deal with the resulting
socio-economic fall out. This
is the stage which has been
set for us. I feel there is a
drop door to this stage floor.

Nowhere in any of the

media, is it seriously reported
that law sutts have been filed
by Nisga’a hereditary chiefs
and ordiriary citizens against
the apparent neo-
colonial administrations
that have been negotiating
these treaties of surrender and
capitulation. There seems to
bea deliberate policy of hear
no evil, speak no evil, see no
evil, therefore report no evil.

The Gitanyow people,
as part of the Gitk’san Nation
have experienced first hand
the dishonor of the crown as
demonstrated in the land
overlap issue. This has
exposed the Canadian treaty
policy of first come, first
served. In this way other
communities or nations are

being strategically forced
to the treaty table or as in
the Gitanyow case to the
court to defend their
infringed upon Title. One
must conclude that this is
just another reason not to
be involved in this sham of
a scheme.

In retrospect, to
paraphrase a saying after
the holocaust of the Jewish
people,; Where were we
when they took the lands of
the James Bay Cree? Where
were we when they took
the homelands ofthe Yukon
Peoples? Now that they
are coming to take a
Nation’s land and resources
in our own back yard, where
are we? €

tInion of B-C. Indian Chier








30th Annus
october 20 5 eo Sembly 4

22 4"



fe

ithour Cp mination

"Self Dete

MPpromise

At
Sandman Inn — Georgia Street
Vancouver, B.C.

email: [email protected]

. oe —___ iii iY






For more information contact Millie.Poplar.at UBCIC Tel: (604) 684-0231 Fax: (604) 684-5726



SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS
"COMPROMISE"

Continued from Page 1



The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is
preparing a longer analysis which
can be obtained by calling our
offices.



MODIFICATION OF ABORIGINAL
TITLE AND RIGHTS





Instead of the traditional
"extinguishment" language ("cede,
release and surrender") the language
used in the Nisga'a Agreement is not
be so blunt. Aboriginal title and
rights will not be extinguished
outright; Instead, they will be
defined and limited out of existence.
Abonginal Title and Rights are
reduced and transformed
("modified" in the language of the
Nisga'a Agreement) into the treaty
rights set forth in the Agreement.
This is done through clauses which

> convert and reduce al!
existing aboriginal or title rights of
Nisga'a into those contained within
the Agreement;

> ensure that the Agreement
will be the “full and final settlement"
of all aboriginal title or nghts;

> release all rights not listed in
the Agreement to Canada; and

> exhaustively set forth all the
Section 35 nghts of the Nisga'a,
including the manner of their
exercise, and all the limitations to
those nights to which the Parties
have agreed.



The Nisga'a Agreement is
intended to be the "full and final
settlement” the Nisga‘a's aboriginal
title and nghts, and will not be open
for re-negotiation if another
Indigenous group negotiates a better
deal.

Canada and the Minister of National Defence have full authority to
carry out activities related to national defence and security on Nisga'a
Lands, in accordance with federal laws of general application.

Canada and B.C. ensure the
protection of their citizens under °
modern land claims agreements.
Third party interests are explicitly
recognized and protected from an
infringement that may result from the
recognition of an aboriginal right.
Nisga'a agree to recognize those rights
regardless of how those nghts were
granted, and of the fact that they were
not involved in the granting of those
rights. Nisga'a recognize forestry
tenures, fee simple ownerships, and
road and utility rights of way.



J LANDS





= imi |
The Nisga'a Agreement

extinguishes all Aboriginal Title of the
Nisga'a Nation to the entirety of their
traditional territory, and converts
Nisga’a original title to “fee simple"
title to a parcel of 1,930 square
kilometres of land (plus, several
smaller pieces of land equalling
approximately 62 square kilometres)
equalling approximately 8% of the
Nisga’a original traditional territory.
Provincial Crown title is recognized
over 100% of the area which was
formerly Nisga‘a's traditional title
lands. The Nisga'a can apply to have
the Provincial land registry system
apply to parcels of Nisga'a Lands to
register indefeasible title under the
Land Title Act.

Nisga‘a retain all mineral nights
contained within the 8% parcel of
Nisga’a settlement Lands. B.C. owns
all of the mineral rights within the rest
of the Nisga‘a's former traditional

Canada reserve the nght to
expropriate Nisga'a Lands for public
purposes.

Canada and B.C. have
ensured that they, and the public,
have broad nights of access to
Nisga’‘a settlement Lands and that
Nisga‘a laws will not interfere with
the Crown's use of settlement lands.

In the Nisga'a Agreement,
Nisga’a agree to allow public access
to Nisga’a Public Lands for
"temporary non-commercial and
recreational uses" and will also
provide reasonable opportunities for
the public to fish and hunt. Nisga’a
Government can make laws
regulating public access, and charge
permit or licencing fees for hunting
and fishing on Nisga'a Lands.

Canada and the Minister of
National Defence have full authority
to carry out activities related to
national defence and security on
Nisga'a Lands, in accordance with
federal laws of general application.



Se eer pee
~~. SECTION'35'RIGHTS?.

el





Although the nights granted in
the Nisga'a Agreement are
recognized as “treaty nghts" under
Section 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982 which "recognizes and affirms"
existing aboriginal and treaty nghts,
they will be a different species of
Section 35 nght.

At present, under Section 35,
courts interpret treaties so that
> ambiguous expressions in
treaties are resolved in favour of the

ternitory:: B-C--owns all-submerged —— Indians;

lands within Nisga'a Lands, except for
the former Indian Reserves. B.C. and

Continued on Page 5



SUMMER 1998

"COMPROMISE"

Continued from Page 4



> treaty provisions are given a
fair, liberal and large interpretation;
> the honour of the Crown is
assumed when interpreting treaties
(Courts assume that the Crown
intended to act honourably toward
aboriginal peoples, and with the best
interests of the aboriginal peoples in
mind, while entering treaties); and
> any suggestion of "sharp
dealing" (unfair bargaining) is not
sanctioned.



These protective principles of
interpretation are removed from the
Nisga'a Agreement, and the
protective features of Section 35 will
not operate. At present, for
example, Canadian Courts require
that aboriginal nghts to resources
are granted a high priority in
considerations by Canada and B.C.

Following the Sparrow
decision, the aboriginal fishery can
only be limited for conservation
purposes. Under the Nisga'a
Agreement, Nisga’‘a rights to fish
and wildlife are reduced and only
equal to commercial and recreational
interests.

The Nisga'a Agreement
contains these provisions which
remove common law protection:

There will be no presumption that
doubtful or ambiguous expressions
or terms are to be interpreted in
favour of any particular Party or
Parties.

Nisga’a agree that the Crown has no
consultation obligations respecting
the Section 35 rights of the
Indigenous group other than those
obligations set out in the Treaty.

UBCIC NEWS

... Canada and B.C. have negotiated out of the necessity to fully
and meaningfully (perhaps, to the point of obtaining consent)

consult the Nisga'a...

The Section 35 nghts set out in the
Treaty will be interpreted solely on
the basis of the nghts set out in the
treaty, without any distinction based
on whether the nght is a modified
aboriginal night or a new treaty right.

If Canadian courts recognize
or expand abonginal nghts in the
future (for example, by recognizing a
commercial interest in wildlife, or a
guaranteed and priority access to
water) Nisga’a, and other Indigenous
groups who allow their rights to be
defined through treaties, wil! not
benefit.



WHO CAN TREATY AWAY
ABORIGINAL TITLE?







| Consent ‘vs. Consultation

In the Nisga'a Agreement,
Canada and B.C. have negotiated out
of the necessity to fully and
meaningfully (perhaps, to the point
of obtaining consent) consult the
Nisga'a over land use decisions in the
Nisga’‘a's former traditional territory,
as required by the Supreme Court in
Delgamuukw. “Consultation” is
defined in the Agreement asa .
notification of proposed plans,
together with a consideration of any
comments which the Nisga'a have on
the situation. Consultation under the
Agreement does not involve any
meaningful decision making power
recognized in the Nisga’a, and falls
far short of requiring Nisga'a
consent. At best, Nisga'a achieve a
right to participate in co-
management committees (often on an
advisory basis, with ultimate
decision making power resting with
B.C. and Canada).



Canada and B.C. recognize
that the illegality of current modern
land claims processes rests in the
fact that Indigenous citizens are not
fully or meaningfully involved or
informed in the negotiations.

In the Nisga'a Agreement,
Canada and B.C. have exacted a
legal promise from the Nisga'a that
they have the nght to enter into the
Agreement on behalf of all Nisga’a.
Nisga'a promise that, in the event
that Nisga’a citizens do not agree
with the terms of the Agreement, and
bring law suits in the future
(claiming, for example, that the
Nisga'a government had no right to
extinguish their title over their
traditional territory), Nisga‘a agree
that they will cover any costs to
Canada and B.C. The result of this
clause is that Nisga’a citizens will be
suing the Nisga'a nation, and any
dollar settlement will come from the
Nisga'a peoples themselves, and not
from government.

_ The Agreement sets out the
process the Nisga’a will use to show
that their people give their consent,
or "ratify", the Agreement. First, a
motion must be passed at an
assembly in which a simply majority
of voters approve sending the
Agreement to a referendum.

Second, a referendum will be held in
which a simple majority (50% plus
one) of those who vote can approve
the Agreement.

Continued on Page 6



SUMMER 1998



Cat it AWS
"COMPROMISE"



Continued from Page §



...Nisga'a may be forced to honour their agreements (ceding aboriginal
atle and rights to all areas not included under the Agreement) if
Canada and B.C. do not honour the obligations they made.





COMPENSATION FOR
PAsT WRONGS







In this Agreement, Nisga'a
releases Canada, B.C. and all other
persons from all past or future
actions or claims based on the
abrogation or infringement of their
aboriginal title or rights.



BREACH







The certainty language in the
Nisga'a Agreement require that the
parties agree that if one or more
parties breaches the agreement, and
do not keep the promises they made
under the Agreement, the other
Parties must keep their promises.

The Nisga'a Agreement
contains the following clause:



A breach of the Treaty by any
Party will not relieve any other
Party from its obligations under the
Treaty.



This clause suggests that
Nisga'a may be forced to honour
their agreements (ceding aboriginal
title and rights to all areas not
included under the Agreement) if
Canada and B.C. do not honour the
obligations they made. For example,
if B.C. decides that it cannot afford
to make the payments required under
the treaty, or if they minimize the co-
management agreement provisions of -
the agreement, Nisga’a will not get
their lands and rights back.

The net impact of the
"certainty" provisions sought by
Canada and B.C. will be to create a
double standard with regard to title
and interests in the land. Canada, the

province, and third parties have their
rights and interests recognized and
protected. These nghts are not
defined or in any way limited by the
Agreement, Nisga’a, on the other
hand, have all of their nghts reduced
to the written word of the Agreement.



NATURAL RESOURCES





The Nisga'a Agreement
requires that the Nisga’a relinquish all
ownership and authority of resources
on their traditional territories to the
Crown. Ownership of resources will
be limited to treaty settlement lands
and limited authority to harvest and
manage resources within their
resource allocations as set out in the
moder treaty.

Forests

In the Nisga'a Agreement,
Nisga'a will own all forest resources
upon Nisga'a Lands, while the
province acquires ownership and
control over all forest resources within
the rest of the Nisga'a's former
traditional territory. Nisga’a
ownership of the forest resource, is
subject to existing forest tenures on
Nisga'a Lands which will continue for
five years, subject to provincial laws.

The Nisga'a may make laws
regarding the harvest of timber,
subject to meeting provincial forest
standards, but have very little control
over the manufacture or sale of
timber. B.C_laws regarding timber
scaling and timber marks will apply to
timber harvested on Nisga’a lands.
For the first five years, a Forest
Transition Committee, comprised of .
one member from Nisga’a and.B.C., ..
will manage the forests on Nisga'a
Lands,

Water

B.C. owns all water within
Nisga’a settlement Lands. B.C. will
reserve to Nisga'‘a a water allotment
of 300,000 cubic decametres for
domestic, industrial and agricultural
purposes. All existing senior water
licences (issued prior to March 22,
1996) must be filled before the
Nisga'a will be allowed to take from
their water allocation. Nisga'a must
apply for licences from B.C. in order
to make use of the Nisga'a water
reservation.

Natural Resources: Fisheries,
Wildlife & Migratory Birds

Nisga'a recognize Canada and
B.C.'s ownership and jurisdiction of
the resources, and in tum get an
“allotment” of these resources.
Nisga‘a can pass laws regarding the
manner in which the Nisga‘a will
harvest their resource allocations,
and these will prevail over federal
and provincial laws. Management
Committees are established for these
resources which allow the Nisga’a to
"co-manage" these resources. The
Committees make recommendations
to Canada or B.C. who retain
ultimate authority to make
management decisions. The main
features of the Nisga'a Agreement
with regards to natural resources
are:

> —Nisga'a harvest of these
resources will be for "domestic
purposes," which grants a right to
eat, but not to found an economy
upon these resources.

> _. The harvest will be subject to
conservation, health and public

Continued on Page 7



SUMMER 1998

“COMPROMISE”



Continued from Page 6

safety requirements. The right to
restrict the harvest for these
purposes, allows the Crown fairly
broad powers to restrict Nisga'a
harvests (night hunting, for
example, may be found to threaten
public safety).

> Nisga’a will retain the right
to trade or barter these resources
among themselves, or with other
aboriginal peoples, but not with any
non-aboriginal people. Any
commercial sale of these resources
must be according to federal and
provincial laws.

> Nisga’‘a jurisdiction will be
reduced to the nght to pass laws
regarding their own internal harvest
of these resources subject to the
number allocations allowed by
Canada and B.C,

> “Management Committees"
(compnised of Nisga'a, and federal
and/or provincial representatives)
will be established for these
resources which will allow some
Nisga'a participation in resource
management, Nisga'a will make
recommendations for their harvest
to these Committees. These
Committees will either approve or
disapprove the “Management or
Harvest Plans", and then forward
them to Canada or B.C. Canada or
B.C. will have ultimate authority to
approve the Management or Harvest
Plans.



ECONOMIC ELEMENTS OF.
RESOURCES





A nght to the resources is not
equivalent to a right to an economy
founded upon the resources.

Nisga’a ability to have an economy
based upon natural resources is

... dnstead of challenging this history, in modern land claims
agreements Indigenous Peoples are "negotiating space in the

basement of the Master's house"

clearly set out in the Agreement, some
examples are: .. -.

Forest Tenures and Processing

B.C. agrees, in principle, to
grant Nisga'a Nation a forest tenure
for an annual cut of up to 150,000m3,
harvested according to federal and
provincial laws. Nisga‘a will pay all
applicable fees (1.e., stumpage fees)
for these trees. B.C. will only grant
this timber tenure if it meets local
employment needs, local public
interests, and provides economic
opportunities for the region. If
Nisga'a want a Tree Farm Licence,
the tenure must include a portion of
Nisga‘a Lands.

The Agreement protects the
existing B.C. forest industry. Nisga'a
agree to not establish a timber
harvesting facility (aside from for
their own use, or for value-added
manufacturing) for a ten year period,
unless as a joint venture with an

existing timber manufactunng facility.

Nisga'a promise to make timber
harvested on Nisga’a lands
“reasonably available" to local mills.

Participation in the General
Commercial Fishery:

Canada and B.C. will provide
funds to enable Nisga’a to increase its
participation (through purchasing
vessels and licences) in the general
commercial fishery. Nisga'a
participation will be on the same basis
as other commercial fishers, and will
be subject to federal and provincial
laws. The amounts provided will be
as follows:. Canada: 5.75 million and
B.C.: 5.75 million. (Nisga’a can
spend up.to 3 million for. other...
fisheries activities).

Processing Facilities:

The Agreement protects
existing fish processing plants.
Nisga'a agree that they will not
"establish a new fish processing
facility capable of processing more
than 2,000 metric tons of round
weight per fish year, within eight
years of the effective date, except as
agreed to by the Parties."

UBCIC NEWS



“Negotiating Space in the
Basement of the Master's
House"







Canada was formed on
Denial: Denial of the existence of
Indigenous Peoples and Nations;
Denial of our right of Self
Determination; Denial of our Title
to our traditional terntories.
Canada's existence is based upon
the denial of the prior (and
continued) existence of Indigenous
Peoples. Instead of challenging this
history, in modern land claims
agreements Indigenous Peoples are
"negotiating space in the basement
of the Master's house" negotiating
intq a state which makes no changes
to its structures and laws to allow
for our unique Indigenous reality.

The Nisga'a Agreement does
not establish or recognize any
separate order of government, or
require Canada or B.C. to make any
changes in their Constitution, or to
make constitutional room for the
Nisga’a as a self determining People.
The Agreement does not alter
federal or provincial division of
powers. The Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms applies to the

Continued on Page 8



SUMMER 1998

UACIC ve wy

"COMPROMISE"



Continued from Page 7

Nisga'a governance powers and jurisdictions are the hybrid
combination of an Indian Band and a B.C. municipality, with land
‘ownership" rights equivalent to a private citizen.



Nisga'a government. Nisga’a have
negotiated into Canada at the status
quo.

Nisga'a governance powers
and jurisdictions are the hybrid
combination of an Indian Band and a
B.C, municipality, with land
‘ownership" nights equivalent to a
private citizen.

Nisga'a have the nght to
practice their culture and use their
language "in a manner consistent
with this Agreement." This means
that the oral histories, traditions, and
laws of the Nisga'a are only valid if
they do not conflict for the powers
allowed for in the Agreement.

Federal and provincial laws
apply to the Nisga‘a and its
governments, institutions, citizens,
and lands. This is not an agreement
which evidences the Nisga'a nght of
Self Determination as an Indigenous
Nation, rather it is an agreement in
which the Nisga'a “negotiate into
Canada" in a position much the same
as a domestic municipality.
International laws and covenants
relating to the self determination of
Indigenous Peoples will not apply.

The Agreement will prevail
over any Nisga'a laws. Nisga'a
governments have the principle
authority, as defined in the
Agreement, over Nisga‘a
Government, citizenship, culture,
language, Lands, and assets. Nisga'a
Government can make laws these
areas, and Nisga’a laws will prevail
over federal and provincial laws. In
many areas, Nisga'a can make laws,
subject to meeting federal or
provincial standards. Examples are
child and family services,
solemnization of marriages, and K-
12 Education on Nisga'a Lands

Nisga'a Government can

prescribe penalties for the violations
of its laws, including penalties,
imprisonment and fines but these
cannot exceed the penalties for
summary convictions under federal
and provincial laws (currently, this is
approximately 6 months in jail and a
$2,000 fine). Nisga'a Government has
no authority over criminal law.

Nisga‘a’ can establish their own
court and police force, but they will be
bound to follow provincial standards,
and subject to the ultimate control of
B.C.

Generally, the Indian Act no
longer applies to the Nisga'a Nation or
its citizens.



NEGOTIATION lous REPAYMENT



Pa hoe #

Canada and B.C, will pay to
the Nisga'a (Canada will pay 92.4%
and B.C. 7.6 % of the amounts due)
the following amounts as capital
payments. (The total amounts are not
set out, but will be paid over a period
of fifteen years):

> 22 million at effective date

>» 22 million next year

> 13 million for the second-
seventh anniversaries

> the amount for the eighth to
fourteenth anniversanes will be
determined according to the
formula set out in the
Agreement.

Nisga'a will repay, with
interest, the negotiating loans it
received from Canada. The total
amount of the negotiating loans is not
set out in the Agreement, but is in
excess of twelve million dollars.



FiscaL RELATIONS







Canada's colonial history has
given rise to fiduciary obligations on
the part of Canada. Legally, this
fiduciary should operate as a form of
protective interest in which Canada is
obliged to guard the nghts and
interests of Indigenous Peoples. At
present, Canada has a fiduciary duty
to protect abonginal title lands, and a
general duty to provide for the health
and welfare of Indigenous Peoples, in
areas such as the provision of
education and health services.
Canada's primary goal, in entering
into the Nisga'a Agreement, is to
devolve its fiduciary obligations
towards Indigenous Peoples, while
ensuring that Nisga’a deliver and self-
finance the programs and services set
by Canada.

Fiscal Financing Arrangements:

Every five years the parties will
agree upon fiscal financing
agreements by which Canada and
B.C. will provide funds to enable
Nisga’‘a to carry out agreed-upon
public programs and services to
Nisga’a and, where agreed, non-
Nisga‘a citizens. The levels of
funding provided will be comparable
to funding generally available in
northwest B.C. The recognition of
Nisga‘a jurisdiction in certain areas
does not create or imply a financial
obligation on the part of Canada or
B.C.

Nisga’a citizens are eligible to
participate in programs operated by
B.C. and Canada for the public, to the
extent that Nisga'a has not assumed

_ Tesponsibility for those programs and

services under a fiscal financing
arrangement.

Continued on Page 9



SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS



“COMPROMISE”



Continued from Page 8

Own Source Revenue
Agreements:

A main goal of the
Agreement is to ensure that the
Nisga'a become "self sufficient" in
providing the agreed upon federal
and provincial programs and
services. The Agreement sets out a
formula for determining Nisga'a
"own source revenue" to determine
where revenue of the Nisga'a
(gained through resource
extraction, or taxes, for example)
should be used to finance programs
and services. Ultimately, Nisga’a
own source revenue will be used to
reduce payments for programs and
services received from the federal
and provincial governments.



5



wits ct a i fe oe
Se BTwation





Nisga'a Government can
make laws to directly tax Nisga‘a
citizens on Nisga'a Lands to raise
revenues for government purposes,
but this does not limit Canada or
B.C.'s powers to impose taxes.
Nisga'a can agree with Canada and/
or B.C. to grant Nisga'a authority
to tax non-Nisga'a citizens on
Nisga'a Lands or to coordinate
Nisga'a tax regimes with federal
and provincial systems.

The tax immunity granted by
section 87 of the Indian Act will
eventually not apply to Nisga'a
citizens. After eight years Nisga'a
citizens will have to pay all
transaction (sales) taxes, and after
twelve years they will have to pay
all other taxes (income and
property taxes, for example).
Nisga'a citizens have no immunity
from taxes leveled by Nisga'‘a
governments on them.

The Nisga'a Agreement does
not provide a vehicle for the
Decolonization or achievement of
Self Determination ...

If, within 20 years of the
Agreement, Canada or B.C. enter into
another treaty in northwest B.C.
which provides for a broader tax
exemption than that allowed in this
Agreement the parties will negotiate
and attempt to reach an agreement to
provide the Nisga'a Nation and
Villages with a similar tax exemption.
Theoretically, no tax exemption will
be granted to Nisga‘a citizens.



CONCLUSION







All treaties or Agreements with
Canada (and B.C.) must be measured
against our existence as Peoples with
an inherent right to Self Determination
and our obligation to protect and use
the Lands and Resources.

The Nisga'a Agreement does
not provide a vehicle for the De-
Colonization or achievement of Self
Determination of the Nisga'a People.
Self-Government and Self-
Administration are a far cry from
recognition of our right of Self
Determination.

Canada and B.C. have
negotiated an agreement which gives
them the certainty they crave, while
not recognizing the Aboriginal Title or
Rights of the Nisga'a. If, as B.C. has
clearly indicated, the Nisga'a
Agreement is a “blue print" for what
all other Indigenous Peoples can
expect out of treaty talks it is time for
us, as Peoples and as Nations, to re-

_ evaluate.our participation in these

negotiations. Our responsibility, as
Peoples, ts not to "negotiate space in
the basement of the Master's House”,
but to honour our legacies and
uniqueness as Indigenous Peoples and
Nations we can settle for nothing less.

©

Chiefs Mask
Bookstore

This
summer
the Chiefs
Mask has
been busy
with
preparing book

orders for the upcoming Fall
Semester at the Institute of
Indigenous Government.
Students purchasing books for
the next semester may inquire
at any time to the status of
books required for their
courses.



Plans are afoot for the
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
website, which will include the
Chiefs Mask Bookstore, soon
after the entire catalogue will
be available on-line for quick
and easy access.

The fall semester is
shaping up to be an equally
interesting year for the
bookstore in general. Not only
available are books but other
such items as lapel pins,
portfolio bags, T-shirts, mugs
and pens. All items are
available by mail order.

For further inquiries
please call the Chiefs Mask
during UBCIC Office hours,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at
Tel: (604) 684-0231
Fax: (604) 684-5726

OR
Email: [email protected]



SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS

NISGA'A AGREEMENT:



oday is a day of sorrow for the

Gitanyow Nation. Our songs of

sorrow will flow over the land,
not only for ourselves but also for the
Nisga’a Chiefs, who are without the
very land the Creator gave them. And
for all aboriginal people in British
Columbia and Canada because now
the governments have succeeded in
forming the first Dictatorship in the
history of Canada. They will have
completed the task of divide and
conquer. The outright theft of land
from which all aboriginals have taken
the very food needed to survive.

Today the governments will
have destroyed the “‘Na’yis’yeg’a’’ the
very markings that showed the
boundaries between nations. The
markings, the trodden trails of our
grandfathers showing the land they
loved and protected. The two
governments have taken the lands of
the Nisga’a Chiefs and that of the
Gitanyow Nation through the offer of
fee simple and core lands to the
Nisga’a.

The aboriginal people of British
Columbia have to remind the Crown of
its obligation to the people of this
province. The signing of the final
agreement might be the best thing for
the Nisga’a Tribal Council, the federal
and provincial governments but that
doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for the
rest of British Columbia. This hasty
agreement affects all of us, in the sense
that the governments will use this
agreement as a template for the rest of
B.C. The major issue is the
extinguishment of aboriginal rights, to
dictate where the people can or cannot
access resources on their territories.
Evidence of ownership is well known
by the governments but is not
recognized as the governments have
successfully bribed their way onto lands
we all know are worth more than the
190 million they offered the NTC. I do
not understand how a Chief would be ~
willing to give the very lifeline the
Creator gave him. The Gitksan /

Gitanyow First Nation





Through the lies and deceit, the governments have
successfully destroyed the existence of the aboriginal
way of life, as well as the laws of our people."







Gitanyow laws state that the Chief is
responsible for the keeping of the land
and resources for the use of future
generations. Money is not the answer
because sometime in the future the
money will disappear and what will the
people have to survive. The land is to be
protected it is the very lifeline as history
has told us through the years. The
history of ownership is held in the totems
and they are the proof that we have been
here on the territory for hundreds and
hundreds of years. Through the lies
and deceit, the governments have
successfully destroyed the existence of
the aboriginal! way of life, as well as the
laws of our people.

Glen Clark says he is making
history but, did he ever think about the
destruction he has reined over the land
by signing a treaty that will strip a nation
of its right to the land and by dictating
where and when, if ever, they can take
food off their land. What type of self
government can be implemented when
you have to follow provincial laws on
your own ternitory. Aboriginals have
always had their own government, their
own laws. Now there is only
extinguishment. The land we depend on
holds the blood of our ancestors, blood
that flowed while they protected the land.
This land ts worth the blood of our
people and now we see how easy it is for
the governments to take away from the
minority as Glen Clark calls us.

~ Fee simple landsissued to the
NTC, Fee simple lands on Gitanyow
territory. These lands can be sold and/or
used as collateral against the loans. But,
what will happen to he chief who now
depends on a government that has
holding on these lands? Where will they
find land to access resources and what
will happen to the power handed down

from generation to generation?

Glen Clark has stated that he is
willing to lose the next election in order
to have the agreement go ahead. Does
he not realize that it took the
aboriginals of this province to get him
where he is today? This is a guarantee
that he will lose the next election
because he has committed the worse
offense, he has stolen the land of the
Gitanyow, a right that was not granted
him, Signing of this agreement, one he
has probably never read, guarantees his
dictatorship, forming a minority group
of people on the very land that was
theirs to begin with.

Sorrow cries are heard today. By
the works of Glen Clark and his
government, access by the Gitanyow
people on Gitanyow territories is now
limited to the access, provision required
from the NTC. But as my grandfather
said, “‘The truth will prevail. Stand on
the truth and you will succeed.

Chief Gu guhl (Peter Williams),
former president of the Gitanyow
stated,. ‘“Those that heard our history
will shine like the light of day. When
the Chiefs of Kitwancool - Gitanyow
tell the history it will again shine. It
will shine and be like the greatest laws
in our Canadian government. It will be
like the laws of our white brothers.
This is what they call the Constitution.
This is what our history amounts to.
This is to prove who mules over the
hunting grounds and our village of
Kitwancool. And also over Gitanyow
territory. Our government of Canada
and B.C, will see our history. if they
don’t see our history, nothing will be
clear to them.

Debbie Good
Gitanyow Negotiating Team



10

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS



NISGA'A AGREEMENT:



Interior Alliance

Southern Carrier Tshilgot'in Stl'atl'ime Secwepeme Nlaka'pamux Okanagan



Iwrerror Aiuance Denounces Misea’s “Tempiare’ As
A Mrowarion oF Homan Riexrs.

(Kamloops, Shuswap Terntory / August 3, 1998) The members of the Interior Alliance have
always had great respect for the Nisga’a Nation and its leaders. We agreed with the late James
Gosnell, when he told the First Ministers of Canada during the constitutional talks in the 1980's,
that First Nations ‘‘own this land lock, stock, and barrel.’’

It has been a long struggle for
all First Nations to have our
collective human rights as peoples
respected by having our aboriginal
title recognized and respected by the
Governments of Canada and British
Columbia. In the end it was the

Alliance has no choice but to publicly
speak out on the contents of this
““treaty’’. First Nations have opinions
on the recognition and. protection of
aboriginal title and rights much like
Canadians have opinions on Canadian
Unity and Quebec Secession.

unequal bargaining power between
the parties of that treaty.”’

Chief Manuel added, ‘‘Jean
Chretien is guilty of using the 19th
century approach just like United
States President, Andrew Jackson, In
the 1830's the U.S. Supreme Court











Supreme Court Chief Justice John
of Canada and Marshall ruled that
ee "...from our point of view the Nisga’a model is a gross ee _—
Aetna violation of the Nisga’a human rights as peoples within checlandsand
December 11, the meaning of international law, and we blame Prime international

1997 that forced Minister Chretien and Premier Glen Clark for sovereignty.

the federal and ki d : a President Jackson is
provincial taking advantage of the unequal bargaining power reported to have
governments to between the parties of that treaty.”’ said ‘‘John
acknowledge Marshall has made
that aboriginal his decision now let

title exists in Canada and includes an

economic component.

Now that the federal and
provincial governments have
succeeded in getting the Nisga’a
Tribal Council leadership to give up
their title and rights, both the federal
and provincial governments have
announced they intend to use the
Nisga’a Final Agreement as a
““template’’ with other First Nations
in B.C. to eliminate ancestral
aboriginal title and rights by
replacing them with a new form of
reduced and restricted treaty rights.

The Governments of Canada
and British Columbia obviously
intend to apply the Nisga’a Final
Agreement as a model far beyond the
Nass Valley. Therefore, the Interior

The Interior Alliance is already
on record opposing the Nisga’a
*“Treaty’’ as a model, Chief Arthur
Manuel said today “‘the Nisga’a Final
Agreement will never be accepted as a
template, or prototype, by the
membership and leadership of the
Interior Alliance. The Nisga’a model
completely undermines the legal
principles and framework for
reconciliation of aboriginal title with

- Crown presence that the Supreme of
Canada as set our in the Delgamuukw
decision. Moreover, from our point of
view the Nisga’a model is a gross
violation of the Nisga’a human rights as
peoples within the meaning of
international law; and we blame Prime
Minister Chretien and Premier Glen
Clark for taking advantage of the

him enforce it.’’ The Cherokee were
then marched out of their lands on a
“‘trail of tears’’. In Canada today
history is repeating itself. Canada’s
Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio
Lamer issued the Delgamuukw
decision last December. Now the
head of the executive branch, Prime
Minister Jean Chretien, is ignoring
the head of the judicial branch about
the nature and scope of aboriginal title
and rights. I have no doubt we will
see great harm come from them on
the sad journey into the future the
Nisga’a are now being told to
embark on by the federal and
provincial governments, and by
some of their own leaders.

e



SUMMER 1998

11

UBCIC NEWS







Supreme Court Decision Supports THe Ricuts of First Narions

Aug-20-98: The Supreme Court's decision concerning the right of Quebec to secede from Canada is a
Justification of the First Nations’ position concerning their rights within the Canadian Confederation. That is how the
AFN's National Chief, Phil Fontaine, and also the AFN's Regional Chief, Ghislain Picard, qualify the Supreme
Court's decision.
the decision a statement of the First
Nations' right to Self-determination
across Canada" adds Quebec's Regional
Chief, Ghislain Picard.

So, this decision means, for the
First Nations in Canada, that neither

Quebec nor any other prov-

right of self-determination and even
secession. This paragraph confirms that,
and I quote: “the nght of self-determina-
tion in international! law generates at best
an opening to a right to external self-

"As part of this decision, the
Court recognizes the validity of our
arguements in the whole issue of the
rights of First Nations. Now, it is up to
us to develop those arguements to
ensure that our nghts





will be protected in the ; a aA ; ince in Canada can interfere
possible event of a WTR RY ACS Cag LU eae | unilaterally with the rights of
eee ar F Fe AM RMR TCR the a a aaa
ed Nationa el, A A E Py Tae | more, the Court states that
Phil Fontaine. self-determination in the case of former colonies... syrah ei Pceiwaniceceasianit
The Court's cannot be done without the







rights and interests of the
First Nations being completely protected,
with their complete and equal participa-
tion in all stages of the process. Finally,
the Court indicates to the international
community that no Nation recognize a
secession that would be pursued without
the consent of the First Nations.

decision even goes
further since it recognizes, for any
oppressed or colonized people, the
right to seperate from those who
subjected them to such oppression.
"Paragraph 138 of the decision
is, to my consideration, that which
recognises more than any other, the

Conference on Children Exposed to Family Violence
CALL FOR PRESENTATION

determination in the case of former
colonies, in the case of oppressed
peoples...or in the case where a clearly
defined group is denied meaningful
access to the government to pursue their
political, economic, social and cultural
development.” We see in this element of



The BC/Yukon Society of
Transition Houses is requesting
proposaid for presentations at the
Fifth International Conference on
Children Exposed to Family
Violence to be held October 27 -
29, 1999 in Vancouver, B.C.

The conference will bring
together councillors, transition
house staff/shelter workers,
social workers, educators,
psychologists, researchers,
lawyers, members of the criminal
justice system, advocates, youth
and others wno work with children
and their families.

Submissions are invited for papers,
posters or workshops. These
submissions should address the
theme of the conference integrating
Research, Policy and Practice
through one of the following
streams:

> Preventing the Cycle of Violence
> Early Intervention for Children

>» -Children at Risk

> Custody and Access

> Minority and Special Needs

> --Aboriginal People

> Juvenile Justice

>. Trauma and-Children

PRESENTATIONS ARE LIMITED
TO 20 MINUTES AD WILL BE
GROUPED TOGETHER IN
SESSIONS WITH A COMMON
THEME. PROPOSALS FOR
WORKSHOPS AND PANELS MAY
ALSO BR SUBMITTED FOR
REVIEW.

For more information contact:

BC/Yukon Society of Transition
Houses

Suite 1112, 409 Granville Street,
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 1T2

tel 604-669-6943 fax 604-682-6962
email [email protected]

web site http://home.istar.ca/-besyth



Send Proposals to the above address or via email to [email protected]
Must be received no later than February 1, 1999







12

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS



Huu-ay-aht First Nation

Visas to be Issued and Fees Collected from Hikers
Using First Nation Lands on Parks Canada’s West
Coast Trail

July 28, 1998, Bamfield B.C. - Hikers on one
of Canada’s most popular wilderness trails will be
required to obtain visas and pay fees as they cross into
reserve lands owned by the Huu-ay-aht First Nation on
Vancouver Island’s west coast.

Starting today, Huu-ay-aht representatives will be
stationed on a reserve southeast of Bamfield. The West Coast
Trail, the major feature of Pacific Rim National Park, cuts
through the reserve. About 650 people hike the popular trail
each year. Visas will be issued to hikers who will be asked to
pay a fee in recognition that they are on Huu-ay-aht lands.
The exchanging of visas and fees in keeping with
traditional practices where visitors to First Nations
lands routinely presented gifts upon their arrival.

In 1970, Canada took the southwestern portion of
Huu-ay-aht lands and waters and turned them into park.
Elsewhere in the park, forest companies were compensated
for loss of access to trees as was one First Nation to the south
of the Huu-ay-aht.

*‘We were effectively alienated from our own reserve
lands, and have been for many, many years,’’ says Robert
Dennis, chief councillor of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation.
**The federal government knows this. It promised twenty
years ago to negotiate and equitable settlement with us.
We've waited in good faith. The wait is over.”’

““There is no need for the government to delay for
years like this,’’ added Spencer Peters, the Huu-ay-aht
head hereditary chiefs. ‘‘The Dididaht First Nation
faced an identical issue to ours. It was resolved through
negotiations with Canada in the early 1990's. We want
the same treatment.”

In compensation for not developing their reserve
lands, and in recognition of the ongoing use of Dididaht lands
by thousands of hikers, the federal government did the
following:

- compensated the Dididaht First Nation 9.5 million for the
loss of timber rights (First Nations can cut and sell all trees
on reserve lands if they choose)

- Compensated the Dididaht 2.2 million for previous use of

reserve lands by hikers

- promised to pay the Dididaht $25,000.00 yearly for use of
their reserve lands.

In response to repeated calls to settle this issue, Parks
Canada has said that ongoing treaty negotiations, which ~
could drag on for many years, are the proper forum to
determining what is owned by the Huu-ay-aht First Nation.: -
Furthermore, it says no money is available.

Contact: Robert Dennis (250) 728-3080



Mohawk Council of Kahnawake

Official Notice to the Federal and Provincial

Governments

It is time to once again remind you that your society is
rich at the expense of our People. It is our land and resources
that support your People and governments. It is you and your
governments that have exploited the wealth of our country
while excluding us from our rightful patrimony and its benefits.
It is you and your governments that have confined us to what
little land base remains under our jurisdiction. It is you and
your governments that have sought to control our lives and
destiny to our detriment. You have proven again that you
cannot be trusted.

The recent move by the province to impose taxes on our
People is another example of a direct attack on the legal and
aboriginal rights of First Nations peoples. The
Kahnawakeroninon totally reject this blatant unilateral
infringement on our tax immunity. We have consistently over
the course of years attempted to resolve outstanding issues
including taxation issues without ever receiving a cooperative
response from either the federal or.provincial governments. We
have also been subject to tax maneuvers by both governments
which have resulted in a serious erosion of our unique tax
immune status, first by the imposition of the harmonized GST
and provincial tax structure, then by the revenue option on the
William’s Court decision and now with this tax imposition.

The fact we possess tax immunity for a reason which is
supported by federal law. Our tax exemption is a tangible form
of recognition of our aboriginal land rights and distinct status as
aboriginal people. The attempts to limit and control our nights
to the point of their extinction is tantamount to absolute
assimilation and political genocide. Furthermore, these tax
schemes will result, if they are not successful, in the elimination
of our distinct identity as aboriginal people with ties to the
North American continent which no other people can ever
claim.

Due to the failure of the federal and provincial
governments to come to reasonable terms regarding our position
on taxation and given the magnitude of the threat to our
national Mohawk identity with these continuing infringements
of our aboriginal and legal rights we are left with no recourse
but to exercise our jurisdictional prerogatives unilaterally. You
can take comfort in the fact that we have taken this lesson from
your playbook. We will begin our jurisdictional control over
economic development matters with attention concentrated on
third party interests in land being nationalized or taxed. We
will also initiate user fees on our highways, waterways, railways

-and on utilities. ‘We will plan a tax protest starting in
Kahnawake. As part of our economic development we will
establish a duty free zone for the territory of Kahnawake.

The denial by the federal government to uphold it’s
fiduciary obligations and the assimilationist policies of the
provincial government have forced us to act in a manner we
have avoided for far too long. Since we have been unable to get
you to work with us we are left with working alone for our own
interests, Our own best interests will be the only consideration
from this point forward.



SUMMER 1998



13

UBCIC NEWS



2 a

RESE

ATTENTION ALL
RESEARCHERS!
COMING SOON

A BC RESEARCH MANUAL

The Union of BC Indian Chiefs is publishing a
research manual for BC community-based, non-professional
researchers which will be available this Fall from the
Chiefs Mask Bookstore. The manual is called Researching
the Indian Land Question in BC: An Introduction to
Research Strategies and Archival Research for Band
Researchers.

Research staff at the UBCIC have been preparing this
how-to book for more than a year now. The manual is aimed
at beginner researchers, but also contains much useful BC-
specific information that will be of interest and help to
more experienced researchers investigating any aspect of the
Indian Land Question in BC.

In addition to covering basic research skills, the
manual also has detailed information about how best to
approach reserve land research, land use and occupancy
mapping, oral testimony, archaeology, map research,
genealogy and legal research, among other subjects. We
anticipate this manual will be of interest to all BC First
Nations researchers, whether they are involved with land
claims, traditional use studies, band and tribal council
business, heritage issues, land and resource matters,
sustainable development, membership or genealogy, and
other land-related issues.

The UBCIC Research Department and the UBCIC
Resource Centre have been serving BC communities for over
25 years. The UBCIC Research Department puts on a number
of research skills education workshops every year, and the
UBCIC Resource Centre assists Band researchers from
around the province. We are basing the content of this
research manual on what we know the growing number
of BC First Nation researchers want to know.

Researching the indian Land Question in BC: An
Introduction to Research Strategies and-Archival Research
jor Band Researchers will be available this Fall from the
Chiefs Mask Bookstore (the publication price has not yet been
set, but will be shortly).

Please contact Chiefs Mask Assistant Manager
Mildred Chartrand if you would be interested in ordering a
copy (Phone: 1-604-684-0231, Fax: 1-604-684-5726 or e-mail”
ubcic@bc. sympatico.ca). :

UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS



RCH RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH |



——





NEW! AT THE UBCIC
"RESOURCE CENTRE -
THE UBC/IC RG 710 FILE
FINDER

The UBCIC Research Department has developed a
database for searching the National Archives of Canada’s
Record Group 10 (RG 10 is the National Archives collection
of Department of Indian Affairs records). The database
information was compiled from National Archives of Canada
RG 10 finding aids available tn electronic format as of April
1997,

As you are aware, there are a number of other “‘tools’’
for navigating the complex world of RG 10 - the paper or
hard copy “‘Inventory’’ and ‘‘finding-aids’’, as well as the
MINISIS finding aids on computer diskette and Archivia, the
Aboriginal Peoples CD-ROM, for computer searches. If you
have already tried these tools, you will appreciate our easy,
one-stop keyword search database.

The UBCIC RG 10 FILE FINDER is accessible to all
BC First Nations researchers at the UBCIC Resource Centre.
It will also be available later this Fall on the UBCIC
Research Internet site, so keep watching the UBCIC
Newsletter for details.



UBCIC RESEARCH
DEPARTMENT TO LAUNCH
~~ INTERNET WEBSITE!

Also coming this Fall from the Union of BC
Indian Chiefs, a BC First Nations research
website. We are now in the process of building
this website, and look forward to sharing our
information and acting as an information
clearinghouse regarding BC First Nations research
issues.

Please look for announcements and details
about our website address in the next UBCIC
Newsletter (or get in touch with UBCIC Research

_@ 1-604-684-0231 or [email protected]).







14

SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS



SIERRA LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Canada Failing to Enforce Fisheries Act Against

Polluting Mines in B.C.

July 2, 1998, Vancouver, B.C.-- Canada’s ongoing failure to adequately
enforce its environmental laws:is against the subject of a potential
investigation by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)
the watchdog set up under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). The Sierra Club of B.C., the Taku Wilderness Association and the
Environmental Mining of B.C., represented by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund, have

files a Submission in Montreal requesting an investigation by the CEC.

The Submission asserts that the
government of Canada has failed to
enforce the Fisheries Act against
mining companies that are depositing
toxic substances into fishing bearing
waters. Three notorious mines in B.C.
are highlighted.

1. The Tulsequah Chief Mine
in the Taku River valley, near the B.C.
Alaska border, has been discharging
acutely toxic effluent laced with high
levels of lead, copper and zinc into
prime salmon habitat since 1950’s.

2. The Mount Washington
Mine on Vancouver Isiand is
depositing so much copper into the
Tsolum River that once healthy
salmon runs have all but disappeared.
Coho salmon runs into the Tsolum
River that numbered 15,000 in the
1960’s before the mine was
operated now number less than one
hundred.

3. The Britannia Mine,
located 50 km north of Vancouver, has
been described as the worst single
point source of metal pollution in
North America by Environmental
Canada, depositing up to a ton of
copper into Howe Sound daily.

These three mines are violating
s.36(3) of the Fisheries Act every day,
and have been breaking the law for
decades, yet have never been
prosecuted. Canada is thus violating
its obligation under NAFTA to enforce
its environmental laws.

This Submission follows last
week’s decision by the CEC to begin a
formal investigation into Canada’s
failure to enforce the Fisheries Act
against B.C. Hydro for damage to fish
habitat caused by dams, marking the

first time that NAFTA
environmental watchdog will be
putting Canada’s environmental track
record under the microscope.

‘*This NAFTA Submission will
increase international scrutiny of
Canada’s blatant disregard for
environmental laws and Canada’s failure
to protect salmon habitat’’ said David
Boyd, Executive Director of Sierra
Legal. “‘Canada is becoming an
environmental outlaw whose actions
betray our politicians’ bogus rhetoric
about conservation.

““No wonder there is a salmon
crisis in B.C, when this kind of toxic
pollution is allowed to continue for
decades without the government lifting a
finder’’ said Bill Wareham, Executive
Director of the Sierra Club of B.C.
“*Canada and the mining industry need
to clean up their act by representing the
law and protecting salmon habitat.”’

“For over fifty years the
Tulsequah River and its salmon have
been poisoned by toxic effluent from the
Tulsequah Chief Mine, yet the law has
never been enforced,’’ said Don Weir of
the Taku Wilderness Association. ‘‘As
one of the last largest intact watersheds
on the West Coast of North America, the
Taku River deserves better.”’

Canada’s failure to enforce the
Fisheries Act against the mining

industry in B.C. has contributed to the
salmon crisis currently gripping the West
Coast. Across B.C., 142 runs of Pacific
salmon have gone extinct during this
century, and another 624 mins are at high
risk of disappearing. The causes
include mining pollution, —
hydroelectric power of development,
logging, urbanization and over-fishing.





[L.1.S.N.]

League of Indigenous

Sovereign Nations of the
Western Hemisphere
Conference





“Many NATIONS, But ONE PEOPLE
In NortH, CENTRAL AND SOUTH
America: A Viston FoR TxE 21sT
CENTURY"

The L.LS.N. and the Mashpee
Wampanoag Nation will be hosting a
political and spintual conference from
October 10th through the 12th, 1998, at
"55 Acres," Mashpee Wampanoag
Tribal Land in Mashpee, Massachusetts.

The conference will focus on the
political and spiritual struggle of our
people, and it will be a new unity beginning
without Government and Non-Indian
Paternalisn. We strongly urge all concerned
Native People of the Western Hemisphere
and all affiliated Non-Indian allies to attend
this historic event.

DIRECTIONS: From points North — go
south on Route 3 to Cape Cod, cross the
Sagamore Bridge to Route 6 South. Take
Exit 2 and follow Route 130 South approxi-
mately 7 miles to Great neck Road North.
Follow Mashpee Rotary, then take Great
Neck Road South; go one mile to event on
the nght.

From points West — Follow I 495
South to Cape Cod, cross the Bourne
Bridge, follow Route 28 South, take Route
151 South to theMashpee Rotary, take
Great Neck Road South one mile to event
on mght.

Camping available on grounds. Housing
available for Elders. Arrangements for
hotel can be made for others,

No Drugs, Alcohol or Firearms will be
allowed.

FOR INFORMATION: Russell Peters,
Jr., 306 Great Neck Road, Mashpee, MA
02649; Phone 508-477-7218 or the
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Office 508-
477-0208.

OR Contact: L.LS.N. of the Western
Hemisphere, C/O Piscataway Indian Nation,
PO Box 312, Port Tobacco, MD 20677,
Phone 301-932-1704.



SUMMER 1998



UBCIC NEWS







INpIGENous Wor-o

U.N. Report Cuarences U.S. ANWEXxation oF
Hawal': Annexation could be declared invalid



Pat Omandum — Honolulu Star Bulletin

August 11, 1998

Hawaii's annexation by the United States could be declared invalid,

according to a United Nations report. The report said the situation of native Hawaiians now
takes on a "Special complexion" because of, among other reasons, President Clinton's
November 1993 Apology Resolution to native Hawaiians.

The study recommends Hawaii
be retruned to a U.N, List of Non-
Self-Governing Territories - a list of
Indigenous Peoples colonized by
another country. Such action could
make Hawaii eligible for
decolonization as well as a U.N.-
sponsored plebiscite.

The 73-page unedited final
report, submitted after nine years of
reviewing treaties, agreements and
other constructive arrangements
between nations and Indigenous
Peoples, was filed July 30 in Geneva.

For Hawaiian groups such as
Ka Lahui Hawaii and Ka Pakaukau,
which have pushed the sovereignty
issue at the international level for
nearly two decades, the timing
couldn't be better. Over the next two
days, Hawaiians and others will
gather at Iolani Palace to observe
Hawaii's centennial annexation
anniversary.

"It's perfect timing," said
Mililani Trask, an attorney and
governor of Ka Lahui Hawaii. "I
couldn't have asked for anything
more."

Trask said this is the first
official U.N. document that not only
makes reference to Hawaii, but finds
against the validity of the treaty of
annexation and calls for the United
Nations to re-list Hawaii as a colony.

Attorney Hayden Burgess said, ..

"Many of us have been waiting for
the report for many years." But it is
just the first step in a long process the
U.S. government undoubtedly will

fight, he said. "The United States is not
going to give up that easily," he said,
pointing out that the nation has been
trying abolish the committee that would
review the issue.

Burgess has been to the United
Nations many times to ask that Hawaii
be re-listed as a colony, speaking for
local organizations and the World
Council for Indigenous Peoples.

Trask said that the report,
expected to be posted on the U.N. Web
site on Saturday, shows that an
international audience is watching with
interest how the United States handles its
native Hawaiian situation, one which
U.S. State Department officials consider
a "domestic problem."

“It means that we now have a
clear interest being expressed by other
states (nations) to support our effort and
expressing interest now on receiving the
real story about what's happening in
Hawaii,” she said.

Trask, who received a copy of the
report in Geneva, will speak about it
tomorrow during annexation events.
Naysayers, she said, have repeatedly
doubted whether Hawaiian activists
would be effective in the international
areana. But the report goes a long way
to show how viable these international
claims really are, she said.

Both Ka Lahui and Ka Pakaukau
believe there isn't any way to achieve
Hawaiian autonomy or independence
within the U.S. system. But there isin .
the international system.

Miguel Alfonso Martinez of
Cuba, the special chairman who

prepared the report for the U.N.
Working Group on Indigenous
Populations, wrote that Clinton's
apology resolution recognizes the 1893
overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy
took place unlawfully.

"By the same token, the 1897
treaty of annexation between the
United States and Hawaii appears as an
unequal treaty that could be declared
invalid on those grounds, according to
international law of the times," said
Martinez, who was appointed to head
this project by the U.N. human rights
commissioner.

"It follows that the case of
Hawaii could be re-entered on the list
of non-self-governing territories of the
United Nations and resubmitted to the
bodies in the organization competent in
the field of decolonization,” he said.

Hawaii was placed on the U.N.
list in 1946 as a colony under the
United States, but was removed in 1959
when it became an American state.
Others removed on the list include
Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto
Rico, which was removed from the list
previously, but returned, Trask said.
The General Assembly of the United
Nations voted to put New Caledonia
back on the list in the late 1980s over
protests of the United States, France
and Great Britain. But the political
atmosphere has changed, Burgess said.
"Now there is very little opposition to
the U.S."

"Hawai'i"
Continued on Page 17



"Hawal'l" continued

If Hawaii is returned to the list,
he said, the first most important
question will be: “Who are the people
to be decolonized? Is it only native
Hawaiians, or is it all of those who
have suffered as a result of the
overthrow? The thing Hawaii needs to
address is to see itself in the mirror and
ask itself, who are we who have been
decolonized? I don't think it's going to
work to just limit it to the native
Hawalian race. It was a nation that
was overthrown, not just native
Hawaiians."

Then, if the matter reaches the
voting stage, the question will be who
votes, Burgess said. "The exercise of
self-determination must be done by
people who were colonized.” And they
must be given choices, he said, such as
whether they want to maintain state
status, or be independent, or have a
free association with the United States.

The working group, which
recently met, sent the Martinez report
to the U.N. Subcommission on the
Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities, where it will
accept testimony from U.N. members
and indigenous groups. A final edited
version goes to the U.N. Commission
on Human Rights, and to the U.N.
General Assembly, for adoption.

So far, the United Nations has
accepted three progress drafts as
official U.N. documents, including one
that contained accounts by Queen
Liliuokalani on the push by foreigners
to limt the monarchy's power and to
seek annexation. Liliuokalani's
description of Hawaii's political climate
during her time changed the
complexion of the issue, Trask said,

Meanwhile, Ka Pakaukau's
Kekuni Blaisdell told a U.N.
decolonization committee seminar this
June in Nadi, Fiji, that 17 colonies
remain on the U.N. list, with three in
the Pacific pressing for self-
determination with an option for
independence. Blaisdell said
colonialism in the Pacific, in various
forms, has accelerated and intensified
rather than declined. The United
Nations in 1990 mandated to eradicate

colonialism by the year 2000.

"It is imperative," he said, “that
we indigenous peoples become more
involved in the dominant, western
decolonization process, that we generate
our own initiatives and that such.actions
be recognized.”

A U.N. supervised plebiscite
would entitle Hawaiians to vote for a
form of government, such as
incorporation as a U.S. state, free
association or an independent or
autonomous government.

Hawaiian groups will focus
lobbying efforts on U.N. member nations
that signed treaties with Hawaii before it
became a state,

"We're not saying give Hawail
independence, we're just saying re-list
Hawaii,” Trask said. "Have the U.N.
take a look at it, and give our people the
opportunity to make a choice, which we
never had in 1959."

Tom Coffman, whose book
“Nation within" about America's
annexation of Hawaii has generated
widespread discussion, said the U.N.
report is “really important because what
I've found in mry research of the period of
1893 to 1898... was that over and over
the question of whether Hawaiians would
be allowed to vote on annexation came
up, and over and over, the Republic
government conspired with
annexationists in Washington to prevent
Hawaiian's from voting.”

Article Forwarded by:

South Pacific Peoples Foundation
Email: [email protected]
Http:/Avww.sppf.org

eae



“21998 Tribal Law and
Government Conference



6 Paper Presentations and
A Reconsideration of Cherokee Nation
v. Georgia by the American Indian
Nations Supreme Court.

University of Kansas
Lawrence KS 66045
For more info:
http://www. law.ukans.edu/~tnibalaw/
conference. html





SACRED BUFFALO:
Back From OBtLivion

Honorinc Our Past, Respectinc Our
PRESENT, VISIONING OuR FUTURE







Inter Tribal Bison Cooperative's First
Annual National Conference
September 20 -23, 1998
Adam's Mark Hotel; Denver, Colorado

Keynote Speakers: Vine DeLoria, N. Scott
Momaday, Kevin Gover

Join us as Tribes and Elders celebrate the
Sacred Buffalo from a cultural,
environmental and spintual perspective.
Activities to include: Sessions, ITBC
Reception, Buffalo Meat Cook-off,

Story Telling, Awards, Banquet, Auction,
Dance and more!

For more information and registration
form contact:

Karen Little Thunder or Carla Brings Plenty
InterTribal Bison Cooperative

P.O. Box 8105, Rapid City, SD 57709
605-394-9730 fax 605-394-7742

E-mail: [email protected]
website: www.intertibalbison.org





INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DAY.
POWWOW & INDIAN MARKET
ae air .

os Lg he













Saturday, October 10, 1998
10 am to 6 pm
Civic Center Park, Ailston Way
at Martin Luther King Way,
Berkeley, California.

All drums are invited.
Grand Entry 1 pm.

Celebrate the new holiday in honor
of all our ancestors, the people
continuing the struggle today and
future generations. Exhibition
dancing, Gourd Dancing, Intertribal
dancing, Contest dancing, Round
dancing. Enjoy Native American
foods and Arts & Crafts.

Sponsored by the City of Berkeley.

For Information call: 510-615-0603;
e-mail:
[email protected]

or visit: www.jps.net/redcoral/Pow.html



17

UBCIC NEWS



ELECTIONS |



INDIAN HOMEMAKERS'
Assoctation of B.C.



New Address as of September 1/98:
251 East 11th Ave
Vancouver, B.C.

VST 2C4
Tel: (604) 876-0944
Fax: (604) 876-1448







| ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING











pacific i

#204- 96 East Broadway, Vancouver, B.C. VST 4N9



ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

5:00 p.m.
September 29, 1998

2nd Floor - Suite 211
96 East Broadway
Vancouver, B.C.



Please call Lenore @ (604) 873-1833
to confirm attendance.



18

-- Notices







ALEXIS CREEK/TSIHLOQOT'IN
August 18/98

Chief: Ervin Charieyboy
[re-elected ]







Unrrep Native NATIONS
August 21/98

President: Viola Thomas [Re-elected]

V/President: Scott Clarke [Re-elected]
= a - :
Pepe the

OTH TNC )

B.C. AssociATION OF ABORIGINAL

ag a =
FRIENDSHIP CENTRES ——







4 3RD ABORIGINAL, _
FUNDING AND FUNDRAISING — =

CONFERENCE




November 12-1 3. 1998 Be
Victona Conference Centre

oa le
eee

Early Registration to Sept. 25/98: $295.
After Sept. 25/98: $345. #
One Day Rate: $195. -

Group Rates available. mt

«For-More Information call Diane Nicholls @:
1-800-990-2432 lee



SUMMER 1998

UBCIC NEWS



MAP OF THE SOVEREIGN INDIGENOUS NATIONS
TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES: JUNE, 1993

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ map of the Sovereign Indigenous Nations Territorial Boundaries is the only contemporary
map that accurately shows the traditional tribal territories of the 23 Indian Nations in British Columbia. The six colour map measures
28" x 36".

The tribal ternitones are the homelands of distinct Nations, within which their respective peoples share a common language,
culture and traditional forms of political and social organization. These homelands have been occupied by the Indian Nations since
time immemorial. Up tothe present, the Indian Nations in British Columbia have never surrendered their ownership of their homelands
(aboriginal title), nor have they surrendered their original sovereignty as nations to govern their homelands (inherent jurisdiction).

Information on the territorial boundaries was compiled by the Union’s research portfolio and President’s office between July,
1990 and Apnil, 1993 from archival research and information provided by elders, chiefs, and tribal councils. Chief Saul Terry, President
of the Union and a graduate of the Vancouver College of Art (now the Emily Carr College of Art and Design), prepared the working
drafts for the map.

Design and cartography for the June, 1993 map was done by David Sami, chief cartographer of Multi Mapping Ltd. in
Vancouver, B.C., using a 1:2,000,000 scale base-map from the Surveys and Environment Branch of the British Columbia Ministry
of Environment, Lands and Parks. All territorial boundaries shown on the map are subject to further revision, as additional information
becomes available. Contact the Union of B.C, Indian Chiefs at (604) 684-0231 for ordering information.

28" x 36" / Scale: 1:2 600 000 / Six Colours





es ae

ENS
es SNS
Boris

4 Koa
<h

* .
¥ Bea
a ."



















SUMMER 1998 19

UBCIC NEWS













In Memorium ~ In Memorium







Robert (Bob) Manuel
February 4, 1947 - August 8, 1998

It was with deep sorrow that the UBCIC and many friends in Indian Country learned of the sudden
passing of former UBCIC President Robert (Bob) Manuel on August 8th, 1998 at the Royal Inland Hospital in
Kamloops, B.C following emergency surgery at age 51.

As well as Chief of the Neskonlith Indian Band from 1977 to 1987, Bob was a member of the Executive
Council of the UBCIC from 1976 to 1980 and played a major role in leading and organizing the Constitution
Express in 1980, that led to the addition of Section 35 protecting Aboriginal Rights in the Canadian
Constitution.

From 1983 to 1984, Bob chaired the AFN Chief's Bilateral! Commission. From 1987 to 1997, Bob
concentrated his efforts on the development of policy positions on Aboriginal Title and Shuswap Nation
reconstruction, decolonization and unity through the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council.

In 1997 Bob was a candidate for National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and, following this,
appointed as Executive Liaison to the AFN for the Interior Nations Alliance.

Services were held at the Neskonlith Indian Band Hall in Chase. Bob was laid to rest on August 12th,
1998 near his father, Grand Chief George Manuel, at the Neskonlith burial grounds.

The eulogy was given by Bob's sister, Vera, who wrote:



“There is no simple way to describe Bob Manuel and how he touched the lives of so many
people in so many different ways. To find the words is as complex and challenging as his life was.
A complicated and yet a simple life. Bob's life was very basic, a life of "walking with the people",
a testament to his humility as a human being and to his greatness as a crusader, a champion for
the people, a conscientious leader, a son walking in the footsteps of his father, guided by his
mother's teachings, a protective and caring brother, a loving husband and father, a playful and
joyful uncle and grandpa. He believed in the creator, language, history, tradition, grandparents,
Elders, family, First Nations people, and the land.

Robert Manuel had strong principles. He never wavered from his belief that we as
Indigenous people share a sacred duty, an enormous responsibility and a fundamental right to
care for this land and its' abundant gifts of resources that can never be exchanged for money,
Status or any other personal gain. Bob always felt that Aboriginal Title is the foundation of our
existence here on earth, its a spiritual connection that we, as Indigenous people, need to maintain
into the future..."

Bob is survived by his wife Loma; daughters Geniveve and Geraldine; sons Wayward and Evan; grandchildren
Corinna and Desiree; brothers and sisters Vera, Arthur, Richard, Doreen, Arlene, Martha, George Jr., Ida and
Ara.

He will also be greatly moumed by the many.friends.and-colleagues he inspired over the years and, no
doubt, even the many opponents he challenged to deal honourably with Indian people.





20

SUMMER 1998





UBCIC NEWS







In Memorium ~- In Memorium











Clara Linklater Tizya
July 15, 1913 - August 16, 1998

Clara Linklater Tizya was bor July 15, 1913, at Rampart House, to Archie Linklater and Katherine
Netro. She grew up nomadically between Rampart House, Fort Yukon, Dawson and Old Crow, wherever life's
demands took her family.

Although her father was of Scottish descent from the Orkney Islands, and her mother of the Ninsyag and
Vuntut G'witchin, Clara embraced both cultures with a beauty and dignity respectful of her heritage.

She married Peter Tizya, son of John Tizya and Sarah Moses in 1930 at St. Lukes Church in Old Crow.
Together they lived a traditional lifestyle and raised, over a span of 40 years, 13 children: Katherine, Lena,
Helen, Mildred, Archie, Ethel, Trudy, Douglas, Lula-Belle, Rosalie, Charles, Stewart and Lulu-Belle.

They left in 1946 to accomodate their children's education, and made their home between Carcross and
Whitehorse,

Clara ieft the Yukon in 1966 to begin a new life in Vancouver, British Columbia. After 30 years of city
life, she returned and bought herself a little corner of the Yukon at Tagish, and began commuting between
families in Vancouver and the Yukon.

Her host of colleagues, friends and relatives knew her passion for reading, writing, travelling and her
particular devotion to the church, which guided her life and brought her such Joy.

Clara always held to the belief that the G'witchin led a beautiful life - it wasn't a hardship because it was
the only life they knew, and that gave her the strength and courage to face the challenges before her.

To all who knew and loved her, words cannot capture the energy, wisdom, dignity and discipline that made

the Matriarch, Friend, Caregiver, and Advisor.







A Nation is Not Conquered Until the Hearts of
Their Women are on the Ground.

A Memorial Service was held at Christ Church Cathedral, Whitehorse, Yukon on Wednesday, August
19, 1998 with a reception at Hellaby Hall.

The Funeral Service was held at St. Paul's Anglican Church, Vancouver, British Columbia on
Saturday, August 22, 1998 with a reception at the family home on East 17th Avenue.

Clara is survived by her husband Peter; daughters Katherine, Lena (Peter), Helen, Mildred, Ethel,
Trudy, Rosalie, Lulu (Mark); sons Charles and Stewart (Charlene); grandchildren Norma, Mark, Darwin,
Bonnie, Robin, Brad, Tim, David, John, Joseph, Janette, Janice, Daine, Mark, Justin, Sandra, Kirk, Christian,
Kelly, Douglas, Cheyenne, Shawna, Tynyca, Katherine, Charissa, Stewart Jr., Erika, Dana, Paige; great-
grandchildren Shane, Nicholas, Daryl, Sophie, Sarah, Jade, Matthew, Kyle, Michael, Courtney, Brandy,
Sarah, Ryan, Aaron, Robin. Predeceased by her children: Lula-Belle, Douglas and Archie.









SUMMER 1998 21

UBCIC NEWS
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

SUBSCRIPTION FORM



NAME:



ADDRESS: . . ee ee ene
CHEQ/M.O. #.

EXPIRY DATE:





FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE RECEIVED:





PROVINCE/STATE/COUNTRY: Postal/Zip Cope:

I Yearn Su BSCRIPTION RATES

NewsLETTIER Individual: $35.00
NewsCLIPPING Member Bands: $75.00 Individual: $100.00
TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $

Please make cheque or money order payable to: UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS, 5TH FLOOR - 342 WATER STREET,
VANCOUVER, B.C., V6B IAI



aX

CHIEFS MASK BOOKS





BOOKS ARTS & CRAFTS
- FIRST NATIONS - JEWELLRY
- ABORIGINAL ISSUES - POTTERY
- INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS - PRINTS
- LAND CLAIMS wR - T-SHIRTS
ay
- LEATHERWORK
- ART
- MASKS
- CHILDREN'S BOOKS
- BEADWORK
- POETRY
- POW WOW MUSIC
CALL, WRITE OR _ AND MUCH MORE!

DROP IN TODAY!

Owned and operated by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs - 5th Floor 342 Water Street in Gastown (604) 684-0231

NOW SERVING THE INSTITUTE OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNMENT



e



22 Summer 1998