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

1.06-01.08 Union of BC Indian Chiefs Newsletter

1.06.-01 Newsletters and bulletins sub-series

June 1998

english

1.06-01.08-09.01

22

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

Chief Saul Terry

Debbie Good

periodical

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: ubcic@bc.sympatico.ca 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: ubcic@bc.sympatico.ca 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: ubcic@bc.sympatico.ca 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 hdempst@istar.ca web site http://home.istar.ca/-bcsyth Send Proposals to the above address or via email to Hightower@sunshine.net 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 ubcic@bc.sympatico.ca). 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 ubcicres@web.net). 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: sppf@sppf.org 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: itbc@enetis.net 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: turtleislandmonument@yahoo.com 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: ubcic@bc.sympatico.ca 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: ubcic@bc.sympatico.ca . 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: ubcic@bc.sympatico.ca 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 hdempst@istar.ca web site http://home.istar.ca/-besyth Send Proposals to the above address or via email to Hightower@sunshine.net 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 ubcicres@web.net). 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: sppf@sppf.org 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: itbc@enetis.net 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: turtleistandmonument@yahoo.com 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