Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (December 1999 Edition)

Transcription (Hover to view)

Union of B. C. Indian Chiefs

NEWSLETTER
D E C E M B E R 1999 EDITION

UBCIC Chiefs Rally Behind Implementation into
the Next Millennium
Chiefs from around the province
gathered in Kelowna at the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs 31st Annual General
Assembly on November 2, 3,4, 1999 to
strategize over the lack of recognition of
aboriginal title and rights in British
Columbia. Failure on behalf of governments to respond in honourable fashion
to the Delgamuukw Decision has motivated numerous bands from around the
region to begin implementing their
rights to the land itself, which will be
heating up into the year 2000 according
to U B C I C President and Chief Stewart
Phillip of the Penticton Indian Band.
In 1999 several bands have taken
the lead in exercising their right to the
resource which was later followed by the
Marshall Decision in Miq'Maq traditional territory.
"The Supreme Court of Canada says so,
the Marshall Decision says so, the law of
the land is coming down on our side and
you have the mind set of the provincial
and federal government where they don't
want to recognize the law of the land,"
stated Chief Ron Derrickson. "I made
sure the Prime Minister was aware that i f
he ever went to the Supreme Court of
Canada and asked to set aside a judgement in favour of the native people, Oka
would be like a Christmas party. When
that happens and when we have nothing
to lose, everything goes," added the
Westbank Chief.
President Stewart Phillip encouraged the Assembly to support the
communities that go out and take action
on their land, and take the time to stand
with them and share the anxiety and the
frustration they are experiencing.
WINTER 1999

"The only way we are going to be able to
sustain our movement and to increase
our strength is to go out to the sites and
support one another. This is our last
chance to make that kind of consorted
effort to arrest the extinguishment
agenda of both the provincial and federal
governments," said Chief Phillip.
The President's message was loud
and clear and had the support of the
delegation and over a hundred observers.
"We own our traditional territories and
we own the resources within those
traditional territories, and have a legal
legitimate right to enjoy the wealth that
flows from the resources within our
territories. Until there is justice, there
will never be peace in this province, and
there will never be economic certainty."
There is absolute refusal on behalf of the
governments to take the Delgamuukw
Decision and the Marshall Decision
seriously.
The government of the day
continue to perpetuate aboriginal economic marginalization, continue to avoid
dealing with the Delgamuukw Decision,
and continue to perpetuate their policies
and processes to extinguish our aboriginal title and rights.
"We're getting nothing but a
litany of more promises upon promises.
We have waited patiently for the government's to change their positions and it's
pretty clear their purpose is to continue
their dispossession and disentitlement
they started so many hundreds of years
ago. The time has come for us to realize
that only we can change that agenda by
implementing our rights to the resources," stated Chief Phillip.

The governments have consistently failed
to negotiate in good faith in spite of the
fact a recent court decision indicated
they have a legal obligation to do so.
Rather than embrace that decision as an
opportunity, in typical fashion the
government appealed the decision
because they do not want to be restrained
by the courts.
Mike Sakamoto on behalf of
Federal Treaty Negotiations South
addressed the assembly and delivered the
message that the treaty table is still the
best viable option for negotiations in
B.C.
Chief Ron Derrickson had no
problem responding by telling Mr.
Sakamoto the treaty process is Dead!
Dead! Dead!, and to take that message
back to his predecessors.
Economic Rights of Indian
Communities, 1986 Comprehensive
Federal Claims Policy, Overlap of
Indians in Land Claims Agreements and
Aboriginal Title Implementation was the
focal point of the duration of the 31st
Annual General Assembly.
A U B C I C Special Assembly will
be considered for early 2000 to continue
the assertion and protection of aboriginal
title and rights in British Columbia.

1

UBCIC

NEWS

Message From the President
Delivered to the UBCIC 31st Annual General Assembly

Chief Stewart Phillip
Okanagan

I would like to take this
opportunity to welcome
all the delegates to our 31st
Annual General Assembly.
It seems like on the
one hand such a very short
time that I was elected as the
fourth President of the Union
of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and yet
on the other hand,
considering what has taken
place this year within the
province of British Columbia,
as well as across Canada, it
seems like a very long time
ago.
For those of you that
were present at our 30th
Annual General Assembly
when the election took place,
you may recall that I spent a
great deal of time talking

a b o u t my t h r e e
granddaughters, and how
their future motivated
everything that I do.
I recall at that
conference, one of the elders
got up and asked a very
important question about her
own grandchildren. It was
Agnes Dick who said, "What
does the future hold for my
grandchildren?" She went
on to say that she was greatly
concerned and fearful about
their future.
The last year for me
and my family and our
community has been very
exciting and at the same time
it was a very challenging
year. Shortly after the
election, I recall it was
December 11th, 1998, and
one y e a r s i n c e the
Delgamuukw Decision of
1997, and within that year,
the governments had failed to
respond in an honorable
fashion to the Delgamuukw

IN THIS ISSUE...
2.

President's Message

3.

Land Rights and
Negotiations

4.

Delgamuukw: "A Right to
the Land Itself

6.

Tsawataineuk Band
Council

7.

UBCIC Press Release

8.

Truth Behind Treaty
Making

13.
14.

2

UBCIC

Conference

Announcements

Decision.
T h e
government at that
time, I believe was
still in a state of
shock because they
had never ever
contemplated the
courts taking that
position and
acknowledging and
validating the things
our elders have told
us for generations.
Namely, that
we own our ancestral
lands, and we own
our traditional

territories and we own the
resources within those
traditional territories, and we
have a legal legitimate right to
enjoy the wealth that flows
from the resources within our
territories.
We all in this room
understand how that legal
right has been consistently
denied by the governments
since the very beginning. The
governments of this day
continue to perpetuate our
economic marginalization,
continue to avoid dealing with
the Delgamuukw Decision,
and continue to perpetuate
their policies and processes
that seem to extinguish our
aboriginal title and rights.
In many meetings such
as this, people such as Joan
who speak very truthfully and
honestly, we heard many
comments that really what the
governments policy represent
is cultural genocide.
F r o m the very
beginning it has been the
intent of all governments to
forcibly assimilate us into
mainstream Canadian Society.
In order to do that they need to
remove us from the final
pieces of land that are left
from our traditional territories,
namely our reserves.
The B.C. Treaty
Process and the failure of the
1986 Comprehensive Claims
Policy to live up to the legal
standards that exist now, as a
c o n s e q u e n c e o f the
Delgamuukw Decision, are all
evidence of the intents of the
governments.
The governments have

consistently failed to
negotiate in good faith in
spite of the fact that a recent
court decision has indicated
they have a legal obligation
to negotiate in good faith.
Rather than embrace
that decision as an
opportunity in typical
fashion the government
appealed the decision
because they do not want to
be restrained by the courts.
They want to continue on
with their policy and
programs of forceful
a s s i m i l a t i o n and
disentitlement.
I recall when we
were standing on the steps
of the Art Gallery and it was
pouring rain. We had
managed on very short
notice to assemble in the
neighborhood of 150
demonstrators.
We talked about the
Delgamuukw Decision and
what it means to our
communities. I recall there
were elders at that
demonstration as well as
children. M y granddaughter
who at that time was just a
few months old participated
in her first demonstration.
I sincerely hope that
when she is as old as I am
she is not sitting in a room
similar to this crying the
failure of the governments
to uphold their duty and
obligations to us as
indigenous people of this
country.
MESSAGE
(Continued on page 10)
WINTER 1999

UBCIC

NEWS

Land Rights & Negotiations
Measuring Canada's 1986 Comprehensive Claims Policy against the
Supreme Court of Canada's 1997 Delgamuukw Decision
(Draft #3 for Discussion) Algonquin Nation Secretariat. Ottawa, October 4, 1999

The Delgamuukw decision has
created a significant amount of discussion about Aboriginal title and rights.
However, the federal government has so far - steadfastly refused to change its
existing policies to conform to the
direction of the Court.
In particular, the government of
Canada has insisted that its 1986 Comprehensive Claims Policy remains the
only readily available basis for global
negotiations over land, resources, and
Aboriginal interests.
Although Canada has been
prepared to adjust the process for
negotiations (witness the B C Treaty
Commission, or the "made in Atlantic"
and "Made in Quebec" processes which
have been offered to some First Nations
in those regions), it remains adamant
that the policy will remain the same.
This short paper is intended to
measure the federal Comprehensive
Claims policy against the standards,
principles and process laid out by the
Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw. We cannot hope to cover all of the
issues here, but out intention is to
provide readers with some clear comparisons to highlight the fact that the
Comprehensive Claims policy is inconsistent with the state of Canadian law.

Negotiations vs. litigation
The S C C made it clear that
negotiations were the preferred route for
resolving issues related to Aboriginal
title and rights. Canada's response has
been that it already has a policy to guide
negotiations: the 1986 Comprehensive
Claims policy. Federal officials are also
on record as saying that i f First Nations
want a declaration of title, or i f they want
to apply the Delgamuukw principles and
processes, then they must got to court - it
is simply not available through negotia-

WINTER 1999

tions. This position is not consistent
with the direction of the Court.
In Delgamuukw, the Supreme
Court established some basic principles
and standards to be applied in standards
to be applied in situations where Aboriginal title is at issue. The Court did
not easy that these principles and
standards were only to be applied in
litigation. In fact it went to great lengths
to describe the principles and a process
of reconciliation, and then concluded
that negotiations were the best forum in
which to resolve these issues. It is hard
to imagine that the Court would have
gone into such great detail regarding
principles without intending that these
would be applied in a negotiation
context.

What Delgamuukw says
The Supreme Court concluded
that Aboriginal title is a real property
right, which enjoys constitutional
recognition and protection via s. 35 of
the Constitution Act, 1982. It held that,
where Aboriginal title exists, and where
it has been infringed, the Crown must
justify its infringement and reconcile its
assertion of Crown title with Aboriginal
title. The Court identified two steps in
the justification test:
First, the Crown must establish
that the infringement of the Aboriginal
right is in furtherance of a legislative
objective that is compelling and substantial (ie., those which are directed at
either the recognition of the prior
occupation of North America by Aboriginal peoples, or the reconciliation of
Aboriginal prior occupation with the
assertion of the sovereignty of the
Crown.)
Second, the Crown must establish
that the infringement is consistent with
its special fiduciary relationship with

Aboriginal peoples.
In Delgamuukw, the Supreme
Court of Canada identified three aspects
of Aboriginal title that must be considered in connection with infringement
and justification:
Aboriginal title encompasses the
right to exclusive use and occupation of
the land.
Aboriginal title encompasses the
right to choose to what uses the land can
be put, subject to the ultimate limit that
those uses cannot destroy the ability of
the land to sustain future generations of
Aboriginal peoples.
Lands held pursuant to Aboriginal
title have an inescapable economic
component.
After justification, the Crown
must take steps to reconcile its assertion
of title with Aboriginal title. This can
take a number of forms:
In some instances, 'consultation'
will be required, but in most cases, it will
"substantially deeper than mere consultation" - in other words, a real and authentic role in land use management and
allocation decision. In other instances,
(the Court gave the example of provincial fish and wildlife laws), First Nation
consent will be required.
If infringement can be justified,
then in many cases compensation will be
due. Acknowledging the value inherent
in Aboriginal title lands and resources,
the Court indicated that diminished
rights would normally require "valuable
consideration".
The surrender of Aboriginal title,
in the Courts view, is only required when
extreme measures are proposed by the
First Nation, ones which would sever the
connection between future generations
and the land. The Court gave two
Land Rights & Negotiations
(Continued on page 9)

3

UBCIC NEWS

DELGAMUUKW:

" A RIGHT TO THE L A N D ITSELF"

For the first time in Canadian history, the unanimous bench of the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the
existence of aboriginal title, as a "right to the land itself, in the Delgamuukw v. B.C. Case.
Delgamuukw
was brought forward
by G i t k s a n and
Wet'suwet'en
hereditary Chiefs who
sought recognition o f
their aboriginal title
over their traditional
territories.
Historically, Canadian
Courts has only
recognized the existence
of "aboriginal rights".
Aboriginal rights were
comprised of the right to
carry out certain activities (such as hunting and fishing), but

In summary, the Supreme Court said that:

they fell short of a full recognition of a right to the land itself.

F i r s t , a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e e n c o m p a s s e s the r i g h t

In Calder the Supreme Court o f Canada addressed the

to e x c l u s i v e use and o c c u p a t i o n o f l a n d ;

question of aboriginal title in 1973. However, the decision

s e c o n d , aboriginal title encompasses the right to

was not binding because the Court split on a technical point.

choose to what uses land can be put, subject to the

Ultimately, the Court in Calder did acknowledge that

ultimate limit that those uses cannot destroy the

Indigenous Peoples' have a form of title to the Land and its

ability of the land to sustain future generations of

resources by virtue of the fact that we were here first.

...the fact is that when the settlers came, the Indians
were there, organized in societies and occupying the
land as their forefathers had done for centuries. This
is what Indian title means...

It was not until the Calder case i n 1973 that the federal
government even considered seriously the fact that
Indigenous Peoples' might have an interest in the Land or any
rights related to Land. The result of the Calder decision was
that Canada started to formulate "land claims policies" as a
means of attempting to address Indigenous Peoples' land
rights. However, it remained the position of the federal
government that aboriginal title may not exist, or that i f it did
exist at one time that any proprietary interest in the land had
been extinguished. The Delgamuukw case was the first to
address the issue of the existence of aboriginal title directly.

4

WINTER 1999

UBCIC NEWS

aboriginal peoples; and third, the lands held pursuant
to aboriginal title have an inescapable economic
component.

Main points of the Delgamuukw decision:
•

Aboriginal Title is an Aboriginal Right protected under
Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982;

•

Aboriginal Title is a collective right to the land itself,
held by all members of an Indigenous Nation.
Aboriginal Title is not limited to historic uses of the
lands, but rather, includes the right of Indigenous
Peoples to an economic use o f the lands and
resources (timber, oil and gas, etc.) upon the land to
sustain their Peoples;

•

Aboriginal Title is a property interest which competes
on an equal footing with Crown title;

•

Indigenous Peoples have the right to the exclusive
use and occupation o f A b o r i g i n a l Title lands,
therefore, in some cases the consent of Indigenous
Peoples is required before government can authorize
uses or projects upon Aboriginal Title lands;

•

The Province cannot extinguish Aboriginal Title;

•

The oral histories of Indigenous Peoples (such as
stories, legends, and community histories) must be
weighed on an equal footing with traditional forms of
written evidence by Courts; and

•

The C r o w n has an obligation to negotiate i n good
faith with Indigenous Peoples in questions
surrounding Aboriginal Title.

WINTER 1999

5

UBCIC NEWS

Tsawataineuk
Band Council
December 2, 1999
Joel Chan
Funding Services Officer
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
1550 Alberni Street
Vancouver, B.C.
Re: Third Party Management
The Tsawataineuk Band is taking a stance against the
strong-arming of INAC for the following reasons.
The band went into a financial bind when all the Capital
Projects were near completion. (Schools, Wells Project, Incinerator,
PDP, Generators, Shoe Protection, Hydro). The schools project did
the most damage. We were taken advantage of by a large consulting firm. Where was INAC during the beginning of this project,
prior to the Band hiring DNA? Considering this was a multimillion
dollar project, I would think that all the policies would come into
play before we did any spending, not after.
When the Band had to lay the staff off, every single employee got laid off. The Council at that time did not consider
keeping the accounting staff on. The existing staff was expected to
volunteer their time. Once again, where were INAC and its policies? At that time, only one accounting staff member volunteered
her time on a part time basis. Therefore when the end of the fiscal
year was close at hand, the books were so far behind.
To add to our problems, within this two-year period we had
three INAC F.S.O.s., which didn't help matters.
The Band Council was expected to hire a qualified accountant, unfortunately the Band hired a fraud. This person with a forked
tongue was able to draw certain members of Council and Band
members into his web of deceit. This all sounds melodramatic,
however you know it is true; you were even part of some of the
meetings discussing the bands accounting office and the problem
with our accountant.
A Remedial Management plan was expected to be worked
on, it was submitted to INAC with what the Band Council considered a realistic working plan, however INAC did not accept it. It
was handed to the Accountant; he worked on it, but never completed
the proforma statements. Once again, where was INAC's funding
services officer who should have shown the band what to do? The
Council was left to flounder.
This so-called accountant was in Kingcome for fourteen
months, fourteen months to make a mess of one year of accounting
work. Joel, you know very well what we had to go through to get
the accountant out of Kingcome.
During this time, it was decided to call CESO in to see what
they had to offer. Someone had a great idea to use them for training.
Yes it was a pilot project, however it was not monitored by INAC,
as it should have been, being a pilot project. There was much
dialogue between CESO and INAC, without the consultation of
Council. It did not work out as planned, because they were advisors
only.

6

Presently the required services for the Band are being looked
after, by the Social Development worker, we also have a qualified
teacher, and our Hydro system is being looked after. Where does
INAC, or you get off on relying on a person or two who have been
calling you to say the band services are in jeopardy? Did it ever
occur to you that these people are politically against the existing
Council, crying wolf, rather than saying anything factual?
It is INAC's policy to believe anyone that calls you in regard
to problems on reserve, rather than checking for facts? If this is the
case, then you do not belong in the position that you are in. You are
hired to assist the Band in a neutral manner. I asked before and I
will ask you again, what is your mandate as a Funding Services
Officer, is it strictly to lay down the law when it suits you? What is
INAC's mandate in regard to Capacity Building? What does
Capacity building mean to you? I do expect this to be answered
Joel.
Here is a prime example of laying down the law when it
suits you. You were fully prepared to get the Band Council to meet
YOUR choice of third party manager when we met in Campbell
River. Yet when we brought someone to you, that we want to work
with to make things right for our community, you say that you have
to get proposals, and these proposals have to go the Committee?
That's double talk. It's all right for you to hand us a firm without
getting proposals, but we can't do it. You are proving to our Band
that you are not willing to help us.
How does third party management really help the Bands?
Please explain this to us. (Outside of Gilford, who only had one
person controlling the office for decades?)
Yes one of our problems over the years has been political
fighting amongst our people. Although nothing is perfect, there is a
certain amount of unity amongst our Council NOW, our prime
concern is staying out of Third Party Management, this also means
becoming more financially responsible. We do have a plan to do
this, and we can prove it once his audit is complete, our financial
statements are up to date and we can prepare a five year remedial
management plan which will be much more realistic than before.
The proforma statements will also be completed.
The current Tsawataineuk Band Council came into effect in
June/99, five a half months ago. INAC has been threatening us
since then and has not tried to be of assistance.
The Tsawataineuk Band will not accept third party management. When our 98/99 audit is complete and you have done the
preliminary review, you will release the balance of this years
funding to us. We will have the 1999/2000 audit completed by the
deadline. We will have the Remedial Management Plan completed.
A Band Manager will be fired and an Accountant will be hired, to
oversee our accounting office. A l l policies and procedures will be in
place for Council, staff and programs to ensure financial accountability. A l l staff and Council will be trained by the Mor Group.
This is final!
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Tsawataineuk Band Council
cc

UBCIC (all bands)
John Watson, Regional Director General, INAC
Wendy John, Associate Regional Director General, INAC

WINTER 1999

UBCIC NEWS

UBCIC Press Release

Assembly of First Nations

DELGAMMUKW: 2 YEARS L A T E R

Bulletin

Vancouver, B.C. - December 11, 1999-Chief Stewart
Phillip, President of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs reaffirms the Delgamuukw decision of December 11,1997.
"Two years later as the millennium looms over us it appears
for all intents and purposes that governments, including
some First Nations will be dragged kicking and screaming
from the dark ages into Delgamuukw.
Chief Phillip adds, "It is ironic that whenever the courts
rule in favor of Aboriginal people there is the utmost
resistance and denial applied by those parties who have the
most to benefit from by continuing to defy the judicial
applications of Delgamuukw."
Chief Phillip further states, "Unfortunately when the courts
rule in favor of Aboriginal people, all too often the status
quo digs in their heels of resistance. Rather than being a
weapon and tool to aid First Nations people the law becomes a weapon and tool used to further deny and deprive
First Nations people."
He asks, "On December 11, 2000, will Delgamuukw be
reduced by governments, bureaucrats, scholars and lawyers
to a Y2K derivative? The UBCIC chiefs and I will continue this uphill battle against defiance and ignorance of the
anti Delgamuukw elements. We intend to firmly uphold
Delgamuukw and fully assert and insert Delgamuukw into
the political, social, economic and human fabric of First
Nations where it rightfully belongs."
In conclusion, Chief Phillip states that, "The acceptance
application and implementation of Delgamuukw is case law
that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs will continue to uphold
and apply where and when possible, without exception.
Clearly the treaty process in British Columbia is mutating
into a highly questionable exercise that serves only to
further frustrate and antagonize all parties engaged in it,
while defying the principles and tenants in Delgamuukw.
Delgamuukw would go a long distance to ensure that the
validation of it is the antidote to the stalemate that the B.C.
Treaty Process has become."
For more information contact:
Chief Stewart Phillip (604) 684-0231 or (250) 490-5314

WINTER 1999

November 24, 1999
National Chief Meets with Manning to Discuss Reform
Attacks on First Nations
Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First
Nations, met with Preston Manning, leader of the Reform
Party, on November 23 to discuss his concerns about the
tone and level of attacks the Reform Party has been directing against First Nations citizens and governments.
"Mr. Manning and his party have been attacking First
Nations at an unprecedented level in the past year.
Whether the issues is land claims, the Nisga'a Treaty, the
Marshall decision or other key issues related to First
Nations, the party has been using particularly mean-spirited
language to portray our peoples and our issues. I met with
Mr. Manning to ask him to tone down the rhetoric and the
personal attacks", stated National Chief Fontaine.
In the fall of 1998, National Chief Fontaine met with the
leader of the Reform Party to discuss comments and positions that the party was discussing in public. At the time,
an agreement had been reached to avoid using attacks
which would cause unnecessary alarm and confusion with
Canadians. This agreement has simply not been respected.
"Mr. Manning and certain members of his caucus have
increased their attacks and driven the level of discussion on
First Nations issues to an all-time low. Using terminology
such as race-based policies, attacking the integrity of First
Nations governments claiming that First Nations enjoy
'special rights and privileges' by virtue of their treaties is
unwarranted fear-mongering that cause tensions and worry
among Canadian citizens. This is a totally unacceptable
attitude on the part of a party which also is the Official
Opposition and which claims to speak for all Canadians.
Obviously, they do not speak for us when they attack us, as
First Nations and as a group, in this fashion", concluded the
National Chief.
The National Chief has asked a meeting with Mike Scott,
Aboriginal Affairs critic for the Reform Party, in the near
future to raise his concerns.
Contact: Jean LaRose (613) 241-6789 ext. 251

1

UBCIC NEWS

Truth Behind
Treaty Making
Introduction

NOW AVAILABLE!

Canada's history has been marked
by forced removal of Indigenous
Peoples' from our lands, resources,
laws, languages and cultures. As
Indigenous Peoples, we have been
colonized and subject to the laws and
control of Canada. Our own laws and
relationship with the land have been
under attack, we have been asked to
assimilate and to accept Canadian laws
and assertions of ownership of our lands
and resources.
Indigenous Peoples have honoured
our sacred responsibilities and
maintain the legacy of our ancestors
in the face of a colonial government
which has steadfastly refused to acknowledge our existence
as Peoples and Nations, and has sought to sever our
connections to the Land and our Cultures. Indigenous
Peoples have sought to negotiate treaties and land
claims agreements with Canada, in the hopes that
through these agreements, our existence as Peoples would
be recognized, and we could honour our responsibilities to
the Land.
In modern treaty negotiations, Indigenous Peoples
aspirations of Self Determination and Decolonization are not achieved. Instead, modern treaties
have become the newest vehicle for the deconstruction of
Indigenous Nations and the assimilation of Indigenous
Peoples.

8

Through modern land claims
agreements, Canada asks that
Indigenous Peoples fundamentally
alter our relationship to the land which
is the foundation of our cultures.
Indigenous Peoples, through modern
treaties, are asked to:
Replace our inherent right of Self
Determination with a limited and
delegated form of self-government;
Recognize the paramouncy of Canadian
laws over our own laws; and
Exchange our Aboriginal Title to our
territories for "fee simple" title to treaty
settlement lands.
Through modern treaties, Indigenous Peoples will lose our
spiritual connection to, and obligation to care for, the land.
Through modern treaties, Indigenous Peoples trade the gifts
and obligations given by our Creator, in order to purchase a
limited form of recognition from the Canadian government.
To order your copy of the Truth Behind Treaty Making
Contact Mildred Chartrand at the Chiefs Mask Bookstore
[email protected].
Price: $5.00 plus s/h
Discounts on orders of 10 copies or more.

WINTER 1999

UBCIC NEWS
Land Rights & Negotiations
(Continued from page 3)
examples: an open pit mine, or a parking
lot on a sacred site. It is only in this
context that the Court made any mention
of a requirement for extinguishment.
In short, the Supreme Court of
Canada has recognized that Aboriginal
title is a real property right, and that
has a value. The Court has also recognized that other governments must
justify any infringement of that property
right, and reconcile the assertion of
Crown title with the reality of Aboriginal
title.

Recognition vs. denial, and extinguishment.
The existing Comprehensive
Claims policy denied that Aboriginal
title exists. Negotiations proceed on the
basis that "some rights" might exist, but
without any recognition of Aboriginal
title.
Just the same, the policy requires
a complete surrender and extinguishment
of any of the rights that "may exist".
Given what the Court has concluded
regarding the nature, scope and value of
Aboriginal title, this requirement can
only bee seen as sharp dealing and
dishonourable to the honour of the
Crown.
The failure to recognize the
existence of Aboriginal title and rights at
the outset immediately tips the scales
away from First Nation rights and
objectives, and instead focuses the
discussion on federal needs and objectives (and those of third parties and
provincial interests).
Canada cannot have its cake and
eat it to: It cannot demand that First
Nations consider extinguishment of their
rights, without even recognizing those
rights as a basis for subsequent negotiations. The way the policy works now,
Canada concedes nothing but gains
everything at the end. This is entirely
one-sided and bears no resemblance to
the process of cooperative reconciliation
that the Court called for.
Most important, as we have
shown already, Delgamuukw makes it
clear that extinguishment is not required

WINTER 1999

to reconcile Aboriginal title with Crown
title, except in extreme and limited
circumstances. Canada's continued
insistence on extinguishment, without
even a tacit recognition of title in the
first place, flies in the face of the Supreme Court's conclusions.

Ownership and resource
revenues.
As already stated, Canada does
not admit to the existence of Aboriginal
title in its Comprehensive Claims policy.
Therefore, there is no recognition that
First Nations actually own the lands and
resources within their traditional territories. The "resource revenue sharing"
components of existing Comprehensive
Claims agreements reflect this denial the First Nation "share" is arbitrarily
capped, and does not reflect their
ownership of the resources in question.
This is inconsistent with the Court's
findings in Delgamuukw, which, as we
have stated, included the recognition that
Aboriginal title has an "inescapable
economic component" that comes by
virtue of First Nation's right to "exclusive use and occupation" of their lands
and resources.
In addition, the policy explicitly
denies that First Nations own subsurface
resources - which is also at variance with
the findings of the court in Delgamuukw,
where it concluded that Aboriginal title
does indeed include minerals, oil and
gas, and other subsurface resources.

Value of assets, compensation,
loan funding.
Related to the previous point, the
Comprehensive Claims policy does not
permit the real book value of Aboriginal
assets (ie. traditional lands & resources)
to be considered in negotiations. Instead, "benefits" to come from a final
agreement are subject to arbitrary
measurements: for instance, "comparability" with other settled claims and
available budgets (which in turn are
established unilaterally and arbitrarily).
Again, this is in opposition to the
Supreme Court's findings in Delgamuukw, which confirmed that Aboriginal
title is a property right with a real value,

one not normally given up without
"valuable consideration".
Moreover, under the smokescreen
of being "forward looking", the existing
Comprehensive Claims policy explicitly
prohibits any compensation for past
losses, damages, infringements or
foregone revenues. This too is contrary
to the Supreme Court's findings in
Delgamuukw, where they made it clear
that in cases of infringement, and
depending on the degree, compensation
is due.
Finally, under the existing policy,
negotiations are covered through "loans"
given to the First Nation by Canada and/
or the province, to be re-paid from the
final cash settlement. This arrangement
lends itself to abuse, and has been used
in the past by Canada to manipulate First
Nations' decision making processes.
However, if, as the Supreme Court of
Canada found, First Nations who have
aboriginal title actually own their lands
and resources, then how can Canada
maintain this approach?

Interim measures.
The existing Comprehensive
Claims policy is notorious for its lack of
effective interim protections for Aboriginal lands and resources, and for beneficiaries (no claimant group has been able to
obtain interim relief for elders since the
Council for Yukon Indians did so back in
the early 1980's). Because of this
situation, Aboriginal lands and resources
continue to be alienated while negotiations take place, without any remedy.
First Nations are not provided any
meaningful interim role in land and
resource management during negotiations. A s well, elders receive no interim
relief, despite the fact that negotiations
often continue for years. This arrangement is prejudicial to the interests of
First Nations and their members.
On the other hand, by recognizing
that Aboriginal title is a real property
right, and that infringement requires
justification, Delgamuukw appears to say
that interim measures are essential in
any reconciliation of Crown title with
Aboriginal title - before the proposed
infringing activity, and not after.
Land Rights & Negotiations
(Continued on page 10)

9

UBCIC NEWS
Land Rights & Negotiations
(Continued from page 9)

Federal responsibilities vs.
provincial governments
The existing Comprehensive
Claims policy gives an effective veto to
provincial governments over most of the
key areas of negotiations - lands, resources, and revenue sharing. The
reason for this, says Canada, is that
according to the Constitution, the
provinces have a beneficial interest in
the lands and resources within their
borders. This puts First Nations in a
very difficult position, since, as history
demonstrates, provincial governments
have been the most hostile towards First
Nations and their rights.
Delgamuukw changed the rules as
far as provincial veto powers goes. The
Court found that the federal government's s. 91(24) responsibilities for
"Indians" and "lands reserved for
Indians" applies to Aboriginal title lands
within provincial boundaries. This
means that Canada now has the tools at
its disposal to protect First Nations from
the adverse interests of the province, and
to compel provincial governments to act
in an honourable way.
Federal officials have been at
pains to try and explain this one way. So
far, the best they can do is to take a
narrow view, that the Court's comments
were only intended to refer to federal
lands (ie., national parks etc.) within
provincial boundaries, or, that Aboriginal title must be proven before any
federal obligation kicks in. It is clear
that Canada does not at this time intend
to exercise its legislative responsibility to
protect First Nations from adverse
provincial interests.

Unilateral policy development.
Finally, it is worth taking a step
back to look at the policy development
process itself. The Comprehensive
Claims policy was designed and imposed
unilaterally by Canada, without real
participation by First Nations, and
without taking their legitimate concerns
and constitutional rights into account. It

is developed to serve the interests of
Canada, without due regard to the rights
of First Nations, or Canada's fiduciary
obligations to the First Nations.
It is precisely this conflict of
interest which taints the whole policy
and process: on the one hand, Canada
has a fiduciary duty to act in the best
interests of First Nations; it has a
s.91(24) responsibility to protect their
interests against the provinces; and it has
a duty to act honourably and without
sharp dealing.
And yet the current policy,
developed and implemented unilaterally,
allows Canada to act in its own interests,
to the detriment of First Nations.
In Delgamuukw, the Court's
comments about consultation and
reconciliation imply that the basis for
negotiations should be cooperatively
negotiated between Canada and the First
Nation, and not unilaterally imposed by
one party. This translates into a mutually agreed upon policy, which itself is
the result of good faith negotiations.
Unfortunately, to date the federal
government has refused to commit to
amending its policy to conform with the
principles and standards set out in
Delgamuukw, let alone undertake policy
revision cooperatively with the First
Nations.

Conclusions
There is much more that could be
said on each of these points, and many
additional items that could be raised as
well. However, the purpose of this paper
is simply to begin the process of measuring the existing Comprehensive Claims
policy against the standards set by the
court in Delgamuukw. Based on the
results of this preliminary analysis, it
appears that Canada's efforts to cling to
the Comprehensive Claims policy look
increasingly untenable, given the stark
contrast between the rights which the
Courts have recognized, and the bleak
alternative that Canada is prepared to
offer.

MESSAGE (Continued from page 2)
I think the federal and provincial
governments of this country have a very
shameful history of dealing with us
indigenous people.
Towards the end of January we
held a Delgamuukw Think Tank. We
assembled people from all over the
province and we looked at the various
means and ways of bringing pressure to
bare on the provincial and federal
governments to essentially get off their
butts and begin to deal with the reality of
Delgamuukw.
When I look back on the record of
that meeting, many of the things that we
felt were necessary have in fact been
carried out. I recall Gordon Sebastian
who is the legal counsel for the Gitksan
got up and delivered a powerful and
passionate speech about how there is
nothing in the Forestry Act that said we
couldn't go out and start cutting down
trees.
I don't think anybody at that time
really thought for a moment that we were
actually going to get out onto the land
and begin to harvest timber in the
magnitude that it has happened and will
continue to happen.
I had the opportunity in the last
year to get out to a number of
communities. I was at the Mount Currie
Declaration Day. I was really impressed
by the unity they have accomplished in
Stl'atl'imx territory.
There was reference made to that
earlier today, how in spite of the fact that
some of them are in the process and
some are not, they are able to come
together and celebrate the fact they are
still here resisting the oppression of the
governments.
I recall in February we had a
Delgamuukw Conference in Kamloops;
The Delgamuukw National Review and
there was probably in the neighborhood
of a couple hundred people that were
present there.
I participated in a number of
debates regarding the Nisga'a Final
Agreement. The government had an
individual traveling around the province.
He had quite the electronic presentation
MESSAGE (Continued on page 11)

10

WINTER 1999

UBCIC NEWS
MESSAGE (Continued from page 10)
of the Nisga'a Agreement with his laptop. His name was
Patrick Kelly and he traveled from community to community
and I encountered him on at least three different occasions.
He was selling the Nisga'a Agreement as the template
agreement that at the end of the day everyone was going to live
happily ever after. We were there to give the other side of the
picture.
Were finding that subsequent to recent events were
getting a lot of phone calls from different interest groups.
Colleges and Universities are finally to begin to realize that
along with us this so-called B.C. Treaty process is failing
miserably.
Now there is a far greater interest in the things that we
have been saying for the last several years. The interest is what
is the alternative approach to cede, release and surrender?
At one point during the last year, I was invited to a high
level meeting in Montreal which was sponsored by the
Department of Indian Affairs. I really debated whether I should
go to that meeting or not. M y heart told me that I shouldn't go
and it was a meeting of Senior Managers of the Department all
the way across this country.
Yet at the same time I was curious because I had never
been to such a meeting. I was going to send staff and then I
thought I should go myself, then I thought it would be safer to
send staff. Then I finally decided I would take the risk and I
would go myself. I am really glad that I went.
When I got there, there was in the neighborhood of 400
civil servants from the Department and it was quite an
impressive group of people. There was very few aboriginal
people present there.
Scott Searson was the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs
then; Number two to Jane Stewart. During the first day it went
until 10:00 in the evening and it was a very long day. In the
evening Scott Searson sponsored what he referred to as a Bear
Pit session.
During that session he said he would entertain any
question from the assembled Senior Mangers. Throughout the
next two or three hours most of the questions were o f a
management nature about how to improve communication
between region and headquarters, and those kind of typical
questions.
Scott Searson was attempting to wind down this session
and there was a aboriginal individual from the Yukon who has
been involved in this struggle for about twenty five to thirty
years and he asked one question. "How can you expect us to
form a partnership with yourselves when you demand that we
extinguish ourselves in order for that relationship to exist?"
It got very quiet in that room in spite of the fact there
was a few hundred people present. Scott Searson had a cordless
microphone and he was holding onto it and he stared at the
floor for almost a better part of a minute. He finally looked up
across the room at the individual and said, "Your absolutely
right. The expressed policy of the Department is cede, release
and surrender."
I felt like leaping out of my chair and cheering because it
is the first time I had ever heard an honest answer from a
WINTER 1999

federal official at that senior level.
It was heart lifting for me because Grand Chief Ed John
was at that meeting and so was Robert Louie. They are both
members of the Executive of the First Nations Summit. That is
the reality.
Scott Searson left that position and was replaced by I
believe Rene. Two months I get letter that makes reference to
that particular meeting. She gives me this very double speak
convoluted explanation of what Scott Searson had really said. It
was the certainty language that you see i n the Nisga'a
Agreement. Certainty is just another word for cede, release and
surrender our extinguishment.
So throughout the year we have been struggling with the
absolute refusal of the governments to take the Delgamuukw
Decision seriously and to take the Marshall Decision seriously.
Were getting nothing but a litany of more promises upon
promises. It is really encouraging to see people of all political
stripes that are beginning to wake up and realize that these
processes are meant to extinguish our aboriginal title and rights.
People are beginning to realize that we can only rely on
ourselves to change that agenda. We have waited very patiently
for the governments to change their positions and it's pretty
obvious that they are not going to do that. The whole purpose is
to continue that dispossession and disentitlement that they
started so many hundred years ago.
As we look forward into the upcoming year, we have to
realize that it's incumbent upon each and every one of us to get
involved in this struggle. It's incumbent upon each and every
one of us to work at whatever level we are at to be able to raise
funding and to educated our people with respect to the issues.
As we discussed this morning we know we have a group
of people that are currently in New York. During lunch I got a
phone call from them and we know they are going from the
United Nations in New York to Washington D.C., and from
there to Europe.
That work is very important and we need to sustain that
in the upcoming year and the years thereafter. What we also
need to do is reach out to our own individual communities.
I have been to a number of communities throughout the
last year and I greatly appreciate those invitations. It gives me
an opportunity to go to the communities and learn about the
issues.
I was in Lytton in the last year and I really learned a lot
about the fishing issues and watershed agreements. I had no
knowledge of those issues until I went there and listened to their
Tribal Council talk about those issues.
A lot of those things made sense to me after. That has
been the case as I moved throughout the province.
In the next year I would like to see myself be invited to
individual band meetings throughout the province. So we can
talk about the issues with the people at the community level and
hear what they have to think about the issues and the
recommendations that they have from their perspective.
I know a long time ago that is what happened in this
province and there was a lot of that kind of development work
done at the community level, but we have since moved away
MESSAGE (Continued on page 12)

11

UBCIC NEWS
MESSAGE (Continued from page 11)
from that and I think we need to go back and re-create that type
of politics at the community level.
That is the only way were going to be able to sustain our
movement and to increase our energy and strength.
I think we all recognize as Chief Ron Derrickson had
said earlier this morning, that this is our last chance to be able
to make that k i n d of a consorted effort to arrest the
extinguishment agenda of both the provincial and federal
governments.
It's going to take a lot of determination and a lot of
resolve on all of our parts when communities like Westbank
take action, or Neskonlith, Adams Lake, Spallumcheen, Siska,
Williams Lake, and all of those communities that are now out
on the land exercising their aboriginal rights and title.
We need to take the time to support them whether it be
by letter or phone calls, or actually going to the sites of their
various blockades. Joan and I have made efforts to do that.
Ever time we go to their activities there is a tremendous amount
of appreciation expressed by the people that are standing on the
front line that we have taken the time and effort to stand with
them, and share the anxiety and the fear, and the frustration
they are experiencing.
It was reported this morning that our legal accounts are
increasing daily with respect to the court actions in the courts
right now. We know that it's a waste of time to attempt to
negotiate with the governments because of their refusal to
negotiate in good faith, and because of the extinguishment
agenda.
So that only leaves the two options of direct action and
litigation which both work together. It's very expensive to
mount a defense and we need to re-activate those organizations
at the community level to undertake fund raising. We need to
set up special accounts so that money is put into specific bank
accounts and used for the expressed purpose they were donated
for.
I don't think things are going to get any easier in the
upcoming year. I think they are going to get a lot more intense
and will require a lot more of our individual time.
We have to move out from under the shadow of the
safety of our band offices and realize the real struggle is not
within the setting of the reserve, but outside the boundaries of
the reserve.
It has everything to do with our traditional territories and
the resources contained therein. That is a pretty big step for a
lot of people. Some of us have been involved in those types of
things for many years, but for some people it's a real stretch.
At the same time people should understand that when we
work together collectively we are there to support each other.
Were there when were needed. I don't think there has been
enough of that going on either.
Many years ago that is the way we related to one
another. I think agreements and alliances between ourselves
are far more important than any agreement we could ever make
with the government.
We should never doubt the fact that what the
governments agenda is. We heard this morning from Peter

12

DiGangi about the Price Waterhouse report that was
commissioned to determine exactly what the encumbrance of
aboriginal title is costing.
It's costing a tremendous amount of money and that is
precisely why the government is trying to extinguish title. The
governments are attempting to extinguish title in order to
facilitate this whole business of the global economy, free trade
agreements and N A F T A .
That is the reality of why these processes are in place
and that is the reality o f why the government is investing
hundreds and thousands of dollars into these processes.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the government
developing a social conscience and deciding to right historical
wrongs. They are simply trying to as I continuously say they
are attempting to divest us of what is rightfully ours.
If that happens then there will be no more indigenous
people. That is the end and the end of that road is Canadian
citizenship. That is what our elders have been telling us for
generations.
I am really hopeful that people are beginning to realize
the reality of this and going out and confronting this issue head
on and not hanging back, and in some capacity, motivating
yourself to support these actions whether it's as simple as
having a debate with one of your coworkers or colleagues.
Or standing back from these glossy promises of the
government and saying, "Is that really what they are offering or
is this really legitimate? Are they really thinking about the
interest of my children here?" If your able to do that then you
will realize what were up against.
Make no mistake the government is absolutely relentless
in its efforts and are absolutely ruthless in their motives and we
have to be as equally relentless in resisting this.
It takes me full circle back to my granddaughters. The
reason that I am here and the reason I put in the kind of hours
that I do, and the reason I am never at home on the weekends is
because of that, and for no other reason.
I know a small group of leaders are committed to
sovereignty can't accomplish this by ourselves. We need the
general support of the people at the community level before it
will succeed.
With that kind o f support it will give us strength and
confidence to be able to confront the backlash that is going to
develop. What were really talking about is a restructuring of
the economy in this country.
A restructuring o f the economy that it's going to
accommodate our legal legitimate interest that has been denied.
Up until now we have been relegated to these enclaves of
poverty known as Indian reserves.
Nobody is going to help us in this struggle except
ourselves. It's the people that you see sitting around you and
the people you left this morning wherever you originated from
to come to this meeting. That is the only people that we can
count on.
In closing, we are seeking a just resolution of the land
question in the province, and until there is justice there will
never be any peace in this province. There will never be any
economic certainty. Not until our issues are resolved in a just
and fair manner.

WINTER 1999

UBCIC NEWS

PROTECTING KNOWLEDGE
Traditional Resource Rights in
the New Millennium
Thursday, February 24 - Saturday, February 26, 2000
FIRST NATIONS HOUSE OF L E A R N I N G
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A
VANCOUVER, BRITISH C O L U M B I A
What is indigenous cultural and intellectual property?
What cultural and intellectual property rights do First Nations want to be recognized?
Can First Nations communities develop their own system(s) for protecting traditional resource rights?
The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs is hosting a three day legal conference exploring traditional resource rights, or cultural and intellectual property rights issues affecting indigenous peoples. We are committed
to delivering this important and timely information-sharing event as a public service to all Indigenous Peoples.
This is a new and "cutting-edge" area of law that affects us all, and on a daily basis. International organizations
like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) are turning
their attention to indigenous knowledge. Corporate interests are increasingly interested in "tapping into" our
traditional knowledge. It is important for us to compare notes, and to hear from the leading experts in this
emerging field, so that we can protect this very important legacy from those who have come before us.
We encourage all First Nations communities in B.C. to attend this conference. For the latest information, please
check out our website at http://www.ubcic.bc.ca
There appears to be a tremendous amount of interest in this event, so please register quickly to ensure your
place.
This conference is being brought to you with the support of:
The Law Foundation of British Columbia
Legal Services Society of British Columbia
U B C Museum of Anthropology&
U B C First Nations Law Program

WINTER 1999

13

UBCIC NEWS

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- BULLETINS -- NOTICES

INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA

Information Notice
A L L CERTIFICATES O F INDIAN STATUS.
WHICH D O N O T DISPLAY A N EXPIRY DATE.
MUST BE RENEWED BEFORE
J A N U A R Y 1. 2000
It is very important that all registered Indians visit their
band office or the B C Regional office of the department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development to renew their
Certificate of Indian Status card i f their status card does not
contain an expiry date. A l l previous versions of the status card
will only be valid until January 1, 2000.
The purpose of issuing Certificate of Indian Status cards
is to verify that the cardholder is a registered Indian. Status
cards are only useful if the photographs are current. It has
come to our attention that some registered Indians have been
denied services because some service providers have questioned
whether their status cards are still valid.
To remedy this situation, it has been decided that all
status cards issued to individuals under the age of eighteen will
have an expiry date of two (2) years and all status cards issued
to individuals over the age of eighteen will have an expiry date
of five (5) years from the date of issue.

This policy is effective immediately.
It should be noted that the five year expiry date does not
mean that the cardholder ceases to be a registered Indian at the
end of the five-year period. It only means that if the cardholder
intends to use the status card to obtain certain services and
benefits, it must be renewed every five years.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please
contact your Band office.

FIRST NATIONS B I G SISTER
MENTORING PROGRAM

Role modelling and mentorship is an integral part of growing
up Aboriginal in Canada and surviving the trip from childhood
through adolescence into adulthood. There are many ways to
take on the responsibility of mentoring. The following program
describes one method of becoming a mentor.
The First Nations Big Sister Mentoring Program is an initiative
to service all First Nations ancestry youth living in B . C . Lower
Mainland. This program uses the B i g Sister model where a
woman maintains a friendship with a younger girl or boy and
spends one on time with her/him. A Big Sister provides the
guidance and support to a child, exposes them to different
opportunities and is the child's companion exclusively. What
the First Nations B i g Sisters Mentoring Program is trying to
achieve is more involvement of First Nations, Aboriginal and
Metis women in the Big Sisters agency. Only these woman can
provide the cultural integrity and support to our youth during
their voyage through life as Aboriginal People.
Big Sisters of the B.C. Lower Mainland located in Vancouver,
is the only Big Sisters agency in Canada with a formal Aboriginal outreach initiative. It is a unique endeavour geared towards
our Aboriginal caseload, which comprises 20% of our little
sisters and brothers. Most our little sisters express a preference
to be matched with a Big Sister of similar ancestry and culture.
Our children are encouraging us to take an active role in
guiding them, and children living in the city benefit greatly
from connectedness with their own people.
If there is a Big Sisters agency in your area, it may be of interest
to contact them. It is very likely that many Aboriginal and
Metis children require someone to be their Big Sister. Taking
the opportunity to be a friend to a child in need and help enrich
their lives is rewarding and often life changing experience. A l l
my relations.
Alanaise O. Ferguson, Program Coordinator Counsellor
(604) 873-4525

NEXT UBCIC NEWSLETTER
DEADLINE

January 15, 2000
If you have information that you would like to see in the next
edition of the UBCIC NEWSLETTER, please fax to the attention of UBCIC NEWSLETTER at (604) 684-5726 or email to:
[email protected]

14

WINTER 1999

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 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

WINTER 1999

15

UBCIC

NEWS

UNION

OF B.C. INDIAN

CHIEFS

SUBSCRIPTION FORM
NAME:

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
B A T E RECEIVED:
CHEQ/M.O. #

ADDRESS:

EXPIRY D A T E :

POSTAL/ZIP CODE:

PROVINCE/STATE/COUNTRY:

1 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION RATES
NewsLETTER

Individual:

$35.00

T O T A L A M O U N T ENCLOSED $
Please make cheque or money order payable to: UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS, 5TH FLOOR - 342 WATER
VANCOUVER, B.C.,

V6B

STREET,

1AI

CHIEFS MASK BOOKS
ARTS & CRAFTS
-JEWELLRY

- ABORIGINAL

-POTTERY

ISSUES

- INTERNATIONAL
- LAND

- PRINTS

INDIGENOUS

- T-SHIRTS

CLAIMS

ACCEPTED

CONSIGNMENTS

- FIRST NATIONS

CONSIGNMENTS

ACCEPTED

BOOKS

-LEATHERWORK
-ART
- MASKS
- CHILDREN'S

BOOKS
-BEAD WORK

- POETRY
-POWWOW

CALL,

WRITE OR

- AND MUCH

MUSIC
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
N O W S E R V I N G T H E INSTITUTE OF INDIGENOUS G O V E R N M E N T

16

WINTER 1999


Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs

NEWSLETTER



DECEMBER 1999 EDITION





UBCIC Chiefs Rally Behind Implementation into
the Next Millennium

Chiefs from around the province
gathered in Kelowna at the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs 31st Annual! General
Assembly on November 2, 3, 4, 1999 to
strategize over the lack of recognition of
aboriginal title and rights in British
Columbia. Failure on behalf of govern-
ments to respond in honourable fashion
to the Delgamuukw Decision has moti-
vated numerous bands from around the
region to begin implementing their
rights to the land itself, which will be
heating up into the year 2000 according
to UBCIC President and Chief Stewart
Phillip of the Penticton Indian Band.

In 1999 several bands have taken
the lead in exercising their right to the
resource which was later followed by the
Marshall Decision in Miq'Mag tradi-
tional territory.

"The Supreme Court of Canada says so,
the Marshall Decision says so, the law of
the land is coming down on our side and
you have the mind set of the provincial
and federal government where they don't
want to recognize the law of the land,"
stated Chief Ron Derrickson. "I made
sure the Prime Minister was aware that if
he ever went to the Supreme Court of
Canada and asked to set aside a judge-
ment in favour of the native people, Oka
would be like a Christmas party. When
that happens and when we have nothing
to lose, everything goes," added the
Westbank Chief.

President Stewart Phillip encour-
aged the Assembly to support the
communities that go out and take action
on their land, and take the time to stand
with them and share the anxiety and the
frustration they are experiencing.

"The only way we are going to be able to
sustain our movement and to increase
our strength is to go out to the sites and
support one another. This is our last
chance to make that kind of consorted
effort to arrest the extinguishment
agenda of both the provincial and federal
governments," said Chief Phillip.

The President's message was loud
and clear and had the support of the
delegation and over a hundred observers.
“We own our traditional territories and
we own the resources within those
traditional territories, and have a legal
legitimate right to enjoy the wealth that
flows from the resources within our
territories. Until there is justice, there
will never be peace in this province, and
there will never be economic certainty."
There is absolute refusal on behalf of the
governments to take the Delgamuukw
Decision and the Marshall Decision
seriously.

The government of the day
continue to perpetuate aboriginal eco-
nomic marginalization, continue to avoid
dealing with the Delgamuukw Decision,
and continue to perpetuate their policies
and processes to extinguish our aborigi-
nal title and rights.

"We're getting nothing but a
litany of more promises upon promises.
We have waited patiently for the govern-
ment's to change their positions and it's
pretty clear their purpose is to continue
their dispossession and disentitlement
they started so many hundreds of years
ago. The time has come for us to realize
that oniy we can change that agenda by
implementing our rights to the re-
sources," stated Chief Phillip.

The governments have consistently failed
to negotiate in good faith in spite of the
fact a recent court decision indicated
they have a legal obligation to do so.
Rather than embrace that decision as an
opportunity, in typical fashion the
government appealed the decision
because they do not want to be restrained
by the courts.

Mike Sakamoto on behalf of
Federal Treaty Negotiations South
addressed the assembly and delivered the
message that the treaty table is still the
best viable option for negotiations in
B.C,

Chief Ron Derrickson had no
problem responding by telling Mr.
Sakamoto the treaty process is Dead!
Dead! Dead!, and to take that message
back to his predecessors.

Economic Rights of Indian
Communities, 1986 Comprehensive
Federal Claims Policy, Overlap of
Indians in Land Claims Agreements and
Aboriginal Title Implementation was the
focal point of the duration of the 31st
Annual General Assembly.

A UBCIC Special Assembly will
be considered for early 2000 to continue
the assertion and protection of aboriginal
title and rights in British Columbia.









WISHING YOU AND
YOURS A SAFE AND
HAPPY HOLIDAY
SEASON











WINTER 1999

Chief Stewart Phillip
Okanagan

i
~~
[would like to take this
_uill opportunity to welcome
all the delegates to our 31st
Annual General Assembly.

It seems like on the
one hand such a very short
time that I was elected as the
fourth President of the Union
of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and yet
on the other hand,
considering what has taken
place this year within the
province of British Columbia,
as well as across Canada, it
seems like a very long time
ago.

For those of you that
were present at our 30th
Annual General Assembly
when the election took place,
you may recall that I spent a
great deal of time talking

Message From the President

Delivered to the UBCIC 31st Annual General Assembly

about my three
granddaughters, and how
their future motivated
everything that I do.

I recall at that
conference, one of the elders
got up and asked a very
important question about her
own grandchildren, It was
Agnes Dick who said, “What
does the future hold for my
grandchildren?” She went
on to say that she was greatly
concerned and fearful about
their future.

The last year for me
and my family and our
community has been very
exciting and at the same time
it was a very challenging
year. Shortly after the
election, I recall it was
December 11th, 1998, and
one year since the
Delgamuukw Decision of
1997, and within that year,
the governments had failed to
respond in an honorable
fashion to the Delgamuukw



IN THIS ISSUE...

2. President's Message

3. Land Rights and
Negotiations

4. Delgamuukw: "A Right to

the Land Itseli"

6. Tsawataineuk Band

Council
7. UBCIC Press Release
8. Truth Behind Treaty

Making
13. UBCIC Conference

Announcements



Decision.

The
government at that
time, I believe was
still in a state of
shock because they
had never ever
contemplated the
courts taking that
position and
acknowledging and
validating the things
our elders have told
us for generations.

Namely, that
we own our ancestral
lands, and we own
our traditional



territories and we own the
resources within those
traditional territories, and we
have a legal legitimate right to
enjoy the wealth that flows
from the resources within our
territories.

We all in this room
understand how that legal
right has been consistently
denied by the governments
since the very beginning. The
governments of this day
continue to perpetuate our
economic marginalization,
continue to avoid dealing with
the Delgamuukw Decision,
and continue to perpetuate
their policies and processes
that seem to extinguish our
aboriginal title and nights.

In many meetings such
as this, people such as Joan
who speak very truthfully and
honestly, we heard many
comments that really what the
governments policy represent
is cultural genocide.

From the very
beginning it has been the
intent of all governments to
forcibly assimilate us into
mainstream Canadian Society.
In order to do that they need to
remove us from the final
pieces of land that are left
from our traditional territories,
namely our reserves.

The B.C. Treaty
Process and the failure of the
1986 Comprehensive Claims
Policy to live up to the legal
standards that exist now, as a
consequence of the
Delgamuukw Decision, are all
evidence of the intents of the
governments.

The governments have



consistently failed to
negotiate in good faith in
spite of the fact that a recent
court decision has indicated
they have a legal obligation
to negotiate in good faith.

Rather than embrace
that decision as an
opportunity in typical
fashion the government
appealed the decision
because they do not want to
be restrained by the courts.
They want to continue on
with their policy and
programs of forceful
assimilation and
disentitlement.

I recall when we
were standing on the steps
of the Art Gallery and it was
pouring rain. We had
managed on very short
notice to assemble in the
neighborhood of 150
demonstrators.

We talked about the
Delgamuukw Decision and
what it means to our
communities. I recall there
were elders at that
demonstration as well as
children. My granddaughter
who at that time was just a
few months old participated
in her first demonstration.

I sincerely hope that
when she is as old as I am
she is not sitting in a room
similar to this crying the
failure of the governments
to uphold their duty and
obligations to us as
indigenous people of this
country.

MESSAGE



CaS ren ro UL)



WINTER 1999

Land Rights & Negotiations

UBCIC NEWS

Measuring Canada's 1986 Comprehensive Claims Policy against the
Supreme Court of Canada's 1997 Delgamuukw Decision

(Draft #3 for Discussion) Algonquin Nation Secretariat. Ottawa, October 4, 1999





The Delgamuukw decision has
created a significant amount of discus-
sion about Aboriginal title and rights.
However, the federal government has -
so far - steadfastly refused to change its
existing policies to conform to the
direction of the Court,

In particular, the government of
Canada has insisted that its 1986 Com-
prehensive Claims Policy remains the
only readily available basis for global
negotiations over land, resources, and
Aboriginal interests.

Although Canada has been
prepared to adjust the process for
negotiations (witness the BC Treaty
Commission, or the "made in Atlantic"
and "Made in Quebec" processes which
have been offered to some First Nations
in those regions), it remains adamant
that the policy will remain the same.

This short paper is intended to
measure the federal Comprehensive
Claims policy against the standards,
principles and process laid out by the
Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamu-
ukw. We cannot hope to cover all of the
issues here, but out intention is to
provide readers with some clear compari-
sons to highlight the fact that the
Comprehensive Claims policy is incon-
sistent with the state of Canadian law.

Negotiations vs. litigation

The SCC made it clear that
negotiations were the preferred route for
resolving issues related to Aboriginal
title and rights. Canada's response has
been that it already has a policy to guide
negotiations: the 1986 Comprehensive
Claims policy. Federal officials are also
on record as saying that if First Nations
want a declaration of title, or if they want
to apply the Delgamuukw principles and
processes, then they must got to court - it
is simply not available through negotia-



tions. This position is not consistent
with the direction of the Court.

In Delgamuukw, the Supreme
Court established some basic principles
and standards to be applied in standards
to be applied in situations where Abo-
riginal title is at issue. The Court did
not easy that these principles and
standards were only to be applied in
litigation. In fact it went to great lengths
to describe the principles and a process
of reconciliation, and then concluded
that negotiations were the best forum in
which to resolve these issues. It is hard
to imagine that the Court would have
gone into such great detail regarding
principles without intending that these
would be applied in a negotiation
context.

What Delgamuukw says

The Supreme Court concluded
that Aboriginal title is a real property
right, which enjoys constitutional
recognition and protection via s. 35 of
the Constitution Act, 1982. It held that,
where Aboriginal title exists, and where
it has been infringed, the Crown must
justify its infringement and reconcile its
assertion of Crown title with Aboriginal
title. The Court identified two steps in
the justification test:

First, the Crown must establish
that the infringement of the Aboriginal
right is in furtherance of a legislative
objective that is compelling and substan-
tial (ie., those which are directed at
either the recognition of the prior
occupation of North America by Aborigi-
nal peoples, or the reconciliation of
Aboriginal prior occupation with the
assertion of the sovereignty of the
Crown.)

Second, the Crown must establish
that the infringement is consistent with
its special fiduciary relationship with



Aboriginal peoples.

In Delgamuukw, the Supreme
Court of Canada identified three aspects
of Aboriginal title that must be consid-
ered in connection with infringement
and justification:

Aboriginal title encompasses the
right to exclusive use and occupation of
the land.

Aboriginal title encompasses the
right to choose to what uses the land can
be put, subject to the ultimate limit that
those uses cannot destroy the ability of
the land to sustain future generations of
Aboriginal peoples.

Lands held pursuant to Aboriginal
title have an inescapable economic
component.

After justification, the Crown
must take steps to reconcile its assertion
of title with Aboriginal title. This can
take a number of forms:

In some instances, 'consultation'
will be required, but in most cases, it will
"substantially deeper than mere consulta-
tion" - in other words, a real and authen-
tic role in land use management and
allocation decision. In other instances,
(the Court gave the example of provin-
cial fish and wildlife laws), First Nation
consent will be required.

If infringement can be justified,
then in many cases compensation will be
due. Acknowledging the value inherent
in Aboriginal title lands and resources,
the Court indicated that diminished
rights would normally require "valuable
consideration".

The surrender of Aboriginal title,
in the Courts view, is only required when
extreme measures are proposed by the
First Nation, ones which would sever the
connection between future generations
and the land. The Court gave two

Land Rights & Negotiations
(Continued on page 9)



WINTER 1999

3

UBCIC NEWS
DELGAMUUKN:



‘“*A RIGHT TO THE LAND ITSELF”

For the first time in Canadian history, the unanimous bench of the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the
existence of aboriginal title, as a “right to the land itself, in the Delgamuukw v. B.C. Case.



Seer

Delgamuukw
was brought forward
by Gitksan and
Wet’suwet’en
hereditary Chiefs who
sought recognition of
their aboriginal title
over their traditional
territories.
Historically, Canadian



Courts has only
recognized the existence
of “aboriginal rights”.

Aboriginal rights were [pete

comprised of the right to ~
carry out certain activities (such as hunting and fishing), but
they fell short of a full recognition of a right to the land itself.
In Calder the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the
question of aboriginal title in 1973. However, the decision
was not binding because the Court split on a technical point.
Ultimately, the Court in Calder did acknowledge that
Indigenous Peoples’ have a form of title to the Land and its

resources by virtue of the fact that we were here first.

.. the fact is that when the settlers came, the Indians
were there, organized in societies and occupying the
land as their forefathers had done for centuries. This
is what Indian title means...

It was not until the Calder case in 1973 that the federal
government even considered seriously the fact that
Indigenous Peoples’ might have an interest in the Land or any
rights related to Land. The result of the Calder decision was
that Canada started to formulate “land claims policies” as a
means of attempting to address Indigenous Peoples’ land
rights. However, it remained the position of the federal
government that aboriginal title may not exist, or that ifit did
exist at one time that any proprietary interest in the land had
been extinguished. The Delgamuukw case was the first to
address the issue of the existence of aboriginal title directly.





ee rican enema

In summary, the Supreme Court said that:
First, aboriginal title encompasses the right
to exclusive use and occupation of land;
second, aboriginal title encompasses the right to
choose to what uses land can be put, subject to the
ultimate limit that those uses cannot destroy the
ability of the land to sustain future generations of

’

Ie ! Ai LON

“sek as oo cS
Be oe Gal
: ‘ ’ } :

iE





WINTER 1999

UBCIC NEWS







aboriginal peoples; and third, the lands held pursuant

to aboriginal title have an inescapable economic

component.
Main points of the Delgamuukw decision:

e Aboriginal Title is an Aboriginal Right protected under
Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982;

e Aboriginal Title is a collective right to the land itself,
held by all members of an Indigenous Nation,
Aboriginal Title is not limited to historic uses of the
lands, but rather, includes the right of Indigenous
Peoples to an economic use of the lands and
resources (timber, oil and gas, etc.) upon the land to
sustain their Peoples;

e Aboriginal Title is a property interest which competes
on an equal footing with Crown title;

e Indigenous Peoples have the right to the exclusive
use and occupation of Aboriginal Title lands,
therefore, in some cases the consent of Indigenous
Peoples is required before government can authorize
uses or projects upon Aboriginal Title lands;

e The Province cannot extinguish Aboriginal Title;

e The oral histories of Indigenous Peoples (such as
stories, legends, and community histories) must be
weighed on an equal footing with traditional forms of
written evidence by Courts; and

e The Crown has an obligation to negotiate in good
faith with Indigenous Peoples in questions
surrounding Aboriginal Title.





\

;

ok

/
»

<

XN

-

VF













WINTER 1999

UBCIC NEWS

Tsawataineuk
Band Council

December 2, 1999

Joel Chan

Funding Services Officer

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
1550 Alberni Street

Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Third Party Management

The Tsawataineuk Band is taking a stance against the
strong-arming of INAC for the following reasons.

The band went into a financial bind when all the Capital
Projects were near completion. (Schools, Wells Project, Incinerator,
PDP, Generators, Shoe Protection, Hydro). The schools project did
the most damage. We were taken advantage of by a large consult-
ing firm. Where was INAC during the beginning of this project,
prior to the Band hiring DNA? Considering this was a multimillion
dollar project, I would think that all the policies would come into
play before we did any spending, not after.

When the Band had to lay the staff off, every single em-
ployee got laid off. The Council at that time did not consider
keeping the accounting staff on. The existing staff was expected to
volunteer their time. Once again, where were INAC and its poli-
cies? At that time, only one accounting staff member volunteered
her time on a part time basis. Therefore when the end of the fiscal
year was close at hand, the books were so far behind.

To add to our problems, within this two-year period we had
three INAC F.S.O.s., which didn't help matters,

The Band Council was expected to hire a qualified account-
ant, unfortunately the Band hired a fraud. This person with a forked
tongue was able to draw certain members of Council and Band
members into his web of deceit. This all sounds melodramatic,
however you know it is true; you were even part of some of the
meetings discussing the bands accounting office and the problem
with our accountant.

A Remedial Management plan was expected to be worked
on, it was submitted to INAC with what the Band Council consid-
ered a realistic working plan, however INAC did not accept it. It
was handed to the Accountant; he worked on it, but never completed
the proforma statements. Once again, where was INAC's funding
services officer who should have shown the band what to do? The
Council was left to flounder.

This so-called accountant was in Kingcome for fourteen
months, fourteen months to make a mess of one year of accounting
work. Joel, you know very well what we had to go through to get
the accountant out of Kingcome.

During this time, it was decided to call CESO in to see what
they had to offer. Someone had a great idea to use them for training.
Yes it was a pilot project, however it was not monitored by INAC,
as it should have been, being a pilot project. There was much
dialogue between CESO and INAC, without the consultation of
Council. It did not work out as planned, because they were advisors
only.



Presently the required services for the Band are being looked
after, by the Social Development worker, we also have a qualified
teacher, and our Hydro system is being looked after. Where does
INAC, or you get off on relying on a person or two who have been
calling you to say the band services are in jeopardy? Did it ever
occur to you that these people are politically against the existing
Council, crying wolf, rather than saying anything factual?

It is INAC's policy to believe anyone that calls you in regard
to problems on reserve, rather than checking for facts? If this is the
case, then you do not belong in the position that you are in. You are
hired to assist the Band in a neutral manner. I asked before and I
will ask you again, what is your mandate as a Funding Services
Officer, is it strictly to lay down the law when it suits you? What is
INAC's mandate in regard to Capacity Building? What does
Capacity building mean to you? I do expect this to be answered
Joel.

Here is a prime example of laying down the law when it
suits you. You were fully prepared to get the Band Council to meet
YOUR choice of third party manager when we met in Campbell
River. Yet when we brought someone to you, that we want to work
with to make things right for our community, you say that you have
to get proposals, and these proposals have to go the Committee?
That's double talk. It's all right for you to hand us a firm without
getting proposals, but we can't do it. You are proving to our Band
that you are not willing to help us.

How does third party management really help the Bands?
Please explain this to us. (Outside of Gilford, who only had one
person controlling the office for decades?)

Yes one of our problems over the years has been political
fighting amongst our people. Although nothing is perfect, there is a
certain amount of unity amongst our Council NOW, our prime
concern is staying out of Third Party Management, this also means
becoming more financially responsible. We do have a plan to do
this, and we can prove it once his audit is complete, our financial
statements are up to date and we can prepare a five year remedial
management plan which will be much more realistic than before.
The proforma statements will also be completed.

The current Tsawataineuk Band Council came into effect in
June/99, five a half months ago. INAC has been threatening us
since then and has not tried to be of assistance.

The Tsawataineuk Band will not accept third party manage-
ment, When our 98/99 audit is complete and you have done the
preliminary review, you will release the balance of this years
funding to us. We will have the 1999/2000 audit completed by the
deadline. We will have the Remedial Management Plan completed.
A Band Manager will be fired and an Accountant will be hired, to
oversee our accounting office. All policies and procedures will be in
place for Council, staff and programs to ensure financial account-
ability. All staff and Council will be trained by the Mor Group.
This is final!

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Tsawataineuk Band Council

cc UBCIC (all bands)
John Watson, Regional Director General, INAC
Wendy John, Associate Regional Director General, INAC



6

WINTER 1999

UBCIC Press Release

DELGAMMUKW: 2 YEARS LATER

Vancouver, B.C. - December 11, 1999--Chief Stewart
Phillip, President of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs re-
affirms the Delgamuukw decision of December 11, 1997.

"Two years later as the millennium looms over us it appears
for all intents and purposes that governments, including
some First Nations will be dragged kicking and screaming
from the dark ages into Delgamuukw.

Chief Phillip adds, "It is ironic that whenever the courts
rule in favor of Aboriginal people there is the utmost
resistance and denial applied by those parties who have the
most to benefit from by continuing to defy the judicial
applications of Delgamuukw."

Chief Phillip further states, "Unfortunately when the courts
rule in favor of Aboriginal people, all too often the status
quo digs in their heels of resistance. Rather than being a
weapon and tool to aid First Nations people the law be-
comes a weapon and tool used to further deny and deprive
First Nations people."

He asks, "On December 11, 2000, will Delgamuukw be
reduced by governments, bureaucrats, scholars and lawyers
to a Y2K derivative? The UBCIC chiefs and I will con-
tinue this uphill battle against defiance and ignorance of the
anti Delgamuukw elements. We intend to firmly uphold
Delgamuukw and fully assert and insert Delgamuukw into
the political, social, economic and human fabric of First
Nations where it rightfully belongs."

In conclusion, Chief Phillip states that, "The acceptance
application and implementation of Delgamuukw is case law
that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs will continue to uphold
and apply where and when possible, without exception.

Clearly the treaty process in British Columbia is mutating
into a highly questionable exercise that serves only to
further frustrate and antagonize all parties engaged in it,
while defying the principles and tenants in Delgamuukw.
Delgamuukw would go a long distance to ensure that the
validation of it is the antidote to the stalemate that the B.C.
Treaty Process has become."

For more information contact:

Chief Stewart Phillip (604) 684-0231 or (250) 490-5314



UBCIC NEWS
Assembly of First Nations

Bulletin

November 24, 1999

National Chief Meets with Manning to Discuss Reform
Attacks on First Nations

Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First
Nations, met with Preston Manning, leader of the Reform
Party, on November 23 to discuss his concerns about the
tone and level of attacks the Reform Party has been direct-
ing against First Nations citizens and governments.

"Mr. Manning and his party have been attacking First
Nations at an unprecedented level in the past year.
Whether the issues is land claims, the Nisga'a Treaty, the
Marshall decision or other key issues related to First
Nations, the party has been using particularly mean-spirited
language to portray our peoples and our issues. I met with
Mr. Manning to ask him to tone down the rhetoric and the
personal attacks", stated National Chief Fontaine.

In the fall of 1998, National Chief Fontaine met with the
leader of the Reform Party to discuss comments and posi-
tions that the party was discussing in public. At the time,
an agreement had been reached to avoid using attacks
which would cause unnecessary alarm and confusion with
Canadians. This agreement has simply not been respected.

"Mr. Manning and certain members of his caucus have
increased their attacks and driven the level of discussion on
First Nations issues to an all-time low. Using terminology
such as race-based policies, attacking the integrity of First
Nations governments claiming that First Nations enjoy
‘special rights and privileges’ by virtue of their treaties is
unwarranted fear-mongering that cause tensions and worry
among Canadian citizens. This is a totally unacceptable
attitude on the part of a party which also is the Official
Opposition and which claims to speak for all Canadians.
Obviously, they do not speak for us when they attack us, as
First Nations and as a group, in this fashion", concluded the
National Chief.

The National Chief has asked a meeting with Mike Scott,
Aboriginal Affairs critic for the Reform Party, in the near
future to raise his concerns.

Contact: Jean LaRose (613) 241-6789 ext. 251



WINTER 1999

UBCIC NEWS



Truth Behind
Treaty Making

Introduction

Canada’s history has been marked ff
by forced removal of Indigenous
Peoples’ from our lands, resources,

a
if



laws, languages and cultures. As
Indigenous Peoples, we have been
colonized and subject to the laws and
control of Canada. Our own laws and
relationship with the land have been
under attack, we have been asked to
assimilate and to accept Canadian laws
and assertions of ownership of our lands
and resources.

Indigenous Peoples have honoured
our sacred responsibilities and
maintain the legacy of our ancestors
in the face of a colonial government

which has steadfastly refused to acknowledge our existence
as Peoples and Nations, and has sought to sever our
connections to the Land and our Cultures. Indigenous
Peoples have sought to negotiate treaties and land
claims agreements with Canada, in the hopes that
through these agreements, our existence as Peoples would
be recognized, and we could honour our responsibilities to
the Land.

In modern treaty negotiations, Indigenous Peoples
aspirations of Self Determination and De-
colonization are not achieved. Instead, modern treaties
have become the newest vehicle for the deconstruction of
Indigenous Nations and the assimilation of Indigenous
Peoples.

NOW AVAILABLE!

Bi tO oar oe Net | Through modern land claims



agreements, Canada asks that
Indigenous Peoples fundamentally
alter our relationship to the land which
is the foundation of our cultures.
Indigenous Peoples, through modern
treaties, are asked to:

Replace our inherent right of Self
Determination with a limited and
delegated form of self- government;

| Recognize the paramouncy of Canadian
laws over our own laws; and

Exchange our Aboriginal Title to our
territories for “fee simple” title to treaty
settlement lands.

Through modern treaties, Indigenous Peoples will lose our
spiritual connection to, and obligation to care for, the land.
Through modern treaties, Indigenous Peoples trade the gifts
and obligations given by our Creator, in order to purchase a
limited form of recognition from the Canadian government.

To order your copy of the Truth Behind Treaty Making
Contact Mildred Chartrand at the Chiefs Mask Bookstore
[email protected].

Price: $5.00 plus s/h

Discounts on orders of 10 copies or more.



WINTER 1999

PeYiim tus mcme ou e Ler)

(Continued from page 3)



examples: an open pit mine, or a parking
lot on a sacred site. It is only in this
context that the Court made any mention
of a requirement for extinguishment.

In short, the Supreme Court of
Canada has recognized that Aboriginal
title is a real property right, and that
has a value. The Court has also recog-
nized that other governments must
justify any infringement of that property
right, and reconcile the assertion of
Crown title with the reality of Aboriginal
title.

Recognition vs. denial, and ex-
tinguishment.

The existing Comprehensive
Claims policy denied that Aboriginal
title exists. Negotiations proceed on the
basis that "some rights" might exist, but
without any recognition of Aboriginal
title.

Just the same, the policy requires
a complete surrender and extinguishment
of any of the rights that "may exist".
Given what the Court has concluded
regarding the nature, scope and value of
Aboriginal title, this requirement can
only bee seen as sharp dealing and
dishonourable to the honour of the
Crown.

The failure to recognize the
existence of Aboriginal title and rights at
the outset immediately tips the scales
away from First Nation rights and
objectives, and instead focuses the
discussion on federal needs and objec-
tives (and those of third parties and
provincial interests).

Canada cannot have its cake and
eat it to: It cannot demand that First
Nations consider extinguishment of their
rights, without even recognizing those
rights as a basis for subsequent negotia-
tions. The way the policy works now,
Canada concedes nothing but gains
everything at the end. This is entirely
one-sided and bears no resemblance to
the process of cooperative reconciliation
that the Court called for.

Most important, as we have
shown already, Delgamuukw makes it
clear that extinguishment is not required

to reconcile Aboriginal title with Crown
title, except in extreme and limited
circumstances. Canada's continued
insistence on extinguishment, without
even a tacit recognition of title in the
first place, flies in the face of the Su-
preme Court's conclusions.

Ownership and resource
revenues.

As already stated, Canada does
not admit to the existence of Aboriginal
title in its Comprehensive Claims policy.
Therefore, there is no recognition that
First Nations actually own the lands and
resources within their traditional territo-
ries. The "resource revenue sharing"
components of existing Comprehensive
Claims agreements reflect this denial -
the First Nation "share" is arbitrarily
capped, and does not reflect their
ownership of the resources in question.
This is inconsistent with the Court's
findings in Delgamuukw, which, as we
have stated, included the recognition that
Aboriginal title has an "inescapable
economic component” that comes by
virtue of First Nation's right to “exclu-
sive use and occupation" of their lands
and resources.

In addition, the policy explicitly
denies that First Nations own subsurface
resources - which is also at variance with
the findings of the court in Delgamuukw,
where it concluded that Aboriginal title
does indeed include minerals, oil and
gas, and other subsurface resources.

Value of assets, compensation,
loan funding.

Related to the previous point, the
Comprehensive Claims policy does not
permit the real book value of Aboriginal
assets (ie. traditional lands & resources)
to be considered in negotiations. In-
stead, "benefits" to come from a final
agreement are subject to arbitrary
measurements: for instance, "“compara-
bility" with other settled claims and
available budgets (which in turn are
established unilaterally and arbitrarily).

Again, this is in opposition to the
Supreme Court's findings in Delgamu-
ukw, which confirmed that Aboriginal
title is a property right with a real value,

UBCIC NEWS
one not normally given up without
"valuable consideration”.

Moreover, under the smokescreen
of being "forward looking", the existing
Comprehensive Claims policy explicitly
prohibits any compensation for past
losses, damages, infringements or
foregone revenues. This too is contrary
to the Supreme Court's findings in
Delgamuukw, where they made it clear
that in cases of infringement, and
depending on the degree, compensation
is due.

Finally, under the existing policy,
negotiations are covered through "loans"
given to the First Nation by Canada and/
or the province, to be re-paid from the
final cash settlement. This arrangement
lends itself to abuse, and has been used
in the past by Canada to manipulate First
Nations’ decision making processes.
However, if, as the Supreme Court of
Canada found, First Nations who have
aboriginal title actually own their lands
and resources, then how can Canada
maintain this approach?

Interim measures.

The existing Comprehensive
Claims policy is notorious for its lack of
effective interim protections for Aborigi-
nal lands and resources, and for benefici-
aries (no claimant group has been able to
obtain interim relief for elders since the
Council for Yukon Indians did so back in
the early 1980's). Because of this
situation, Aboriginal lands and resources
continue to be alienated while negotia-
tions take place, without any remedy.
First Nations are not provided any
meaningful interim role in land and
resource management during negotia-
tions. As well, elders receive no interim
relief, despite the fact that negotiations
often continue for years. This arrange-
ment is prejudicial to the interests of
First Nations and their members.

On the other hand, by recognizing
that Aboriginal title is a real property
right, and that infringement requires
justification, Delgamuukw appears to say
that interim measures are essential in
any reconciliation of Crown title with
Aboriginal title - before the proposed
infringing activity, and not after.







WINTER 1999

UBCICNEWS =
Vim treme Cee ELS ih)



(Continued from page 9)

Federal responsibilities vs.
provincial governments

The existing Comprehensive
Claims policy gives an effective veto to
provincial governments over most of the
key areas of negotiations - lands, re-
sources, and revenue sharing. The
reason for this, says Canada, is that
according to the Constitution, the
provinces have a beneficial interest in
the lands and resources within their
borders. This puts First Nations in a
very difficult position, since, as history
demonstrates, provincial governments
have been the most hostile towards First
Nations and their rights.

Delgamuukw changed the rules as
far as provincial veto powers goes. The
Court found that the federal govern-
ment's s. 91(24) responsibilities for
"Indians" and "lands reserved for
Indians" applies to Aboriginal title lands
within provincial boundaries. This
means that Canada now has the tools at
its disposal to protect First Nations from
the adverse interests of the province, and
to compel provincial governments to act
in an honourable way.

Federal officials have been at
pains to try and explain this one way. So
far, the best they can do is to take a
narrow view, that the Court's comments
were only intended to refer to federal
lands (ie., national parks etc.) within
provincial boundaries, or, that Aborigi-
nal title must be proven before any
federal obligation kicks in. It is clear
that Canada does not at this time intend
to exercise its legislative responsibility to
protect First Nations from adverse
provincial interests.

Unilateral policy development.

Finally, it is worth taking a step
back to look at the policy development
process itself. The Comprehensive
Claims policy was designed and imposed
unilaterally by Canada, without real
participation by First Nations, and
without taking their legitimate concerns
and constitutional rights into account. It

is developed to serve the interests of
Canada, without due regard to the rights
of First Nations, or Canada's fiduciary
obligations to the First Nations.

It is precisely this conflict of
interest which taints the whole policy
and process: on the one hand, Canada
has a fiduciary duty to act in the best
interests of First Nations; it has a
s.91(24) responsibility to protect their
interests against the provinces; and it has
a duty to act honourably and without
sharp dealing.

And yet the current policy,
developed and implemented unilaterally,
allows Canada to act in its own interests,
to the detriment of First Nations.

In Delgamuukw, the Court's
comments about consultation and
reconciliation imply that the basis for
negotiations should be cooperatively
negotiated between Canada and the First
Nation, and not unilaterally imposed by
one party. This translates into a mutu-
ally agreed upon policy, which itself is
the result of good faith negotiations.

Unfortunately, to date the federal
government has refused to commit to
amending its policy to conform with the
principles and standards set out in
Delgamuukw, let alone undertake policy
revision cooperatively with the First
Nations.

Conclusions

There is much more that could be
said on each of these points, and many
additional items that could be raised as
well. However, the purpose of this paper
is simply to begin the process of measur-
ing the existing Comprehensive Claims
policy against the standards set by the
court in Delgamuukw. Based on the
results of this preliminary analysis, it
appears that Canada's efforts to cling to
the Comprehensive Claims policy look
increasingly untenable, given the stark
contrast between the rights which the
Courts have recognized, and the bleak
alternative that Canada is prepared to
offer.







MESSAGE (Continued from page 2)

I think the federal and provincial
governments of this country have a very
shameful history of dealing with us
indigenous people.

Towards the end of January we
held a Delgamuukw Think Tank. We
assembled people from all over the
province and we looked at the various
means and ways of bringing pressure to
bare on the provincial and federal
governments to essentially get off their
butts and begin to deal with the reality of
Delgamuukw.

When I look back on the record of
that meeting, many of the things that we
felt were necessary have in fact been
carried out. I recall Gordon Sebastian
who is the legal counsel for the Gitksan
got up and delivered a powerful and
passionate speech about how there is
nothing in the Forestry Act that said we
couldn’t go out and start cutting down
trees.

I don’t think anybody at that time
really thought for a moment that we were
actually going to get out onto the land
and begin to harvest timber in the
magnitude that it has happened and will
continue to happen.

I had the opportunity in the last
year to get out to a number of
communities. I was at the Mount Currie
Declaration Day. I was really impressed
by the unity they have accomplished in
Stl’atl’imx territory.

There was reference made to that
earlier today, how in spite of the fact that
some of them are in the process and
some are not, they are able to come
together and celebrate the fact they are
still here resisting the oppression of the
governments.

I recall in February we had a
Delgamuukw Conference in Kamloops;
The Delgamuukw National Review and
there was probably in the neighborhood
of a couple hundred people that were
present there.

I participated in a number of
debates regarding the Nisga’a Final
Agreement. The government had an
individual traveling around the province.
He had quite the electronic presentation

MESSAGE (Continued on page 11)



10

WINTER 1999

MESSAGE (Continued fromipagegl 0)

of the Nisga’a Agreement with his laptop. His name was
Patrick Kelly and he traveled from community to community
and I encountered him on at least three different occasions.

He was selling the Nisga’a Agreement as the template
agreement that at the end of the day everyone was going to live
happily ever after. We were there to give the other side of the
picture.

Were finding that subsequent to recent events were
getting a lot of phone calls from different interest groups.
Colleges and Universities are finally to begin to realize that
along with us this so-called B.C. Treaty process is failing
miserably.

Now there is a far greater interest in the things that we
have been saying for the last several years. The interest is what
is the alternative approach to cede, release and surrender?

At one point during the last year, I was invited to a high
level meeting in Montreal which was sponsored by the
Department of Indian Affairs. I really debated whether I should
go to that meeting or not. My heart told me that I shouldn’t go
and it was a meeting of Senior Managers of the Department all
the way across this country.

Yet at the same time I was curious because I had never
been to such a meeting. I was going to send staff and then I
thought I should go myself, then I thought it would be safer to
send staff. Then I finally decided I would take the risk and I
would go myself. I am reaily glad that I went.

When I got there, there was in the neighborhood of 400
civil servants from the Department and it was quite an
impressive group of people. There was very few aboriginal
people present there.

Scott Searson was the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs
then; Number two to Jane Stewart. During the first day it went
until 10:00 in the evening and it was a very long day. In the
evening Scott Searson sponsored what he referred to as a Bear
Pit session.

During that session he said he would entertain any
question from the assembled Senior Mangers. Throughout the
next two or three hours most of the questions were of a
management nature about how to improve communication
between region and headquarters, and those kind of typical
questions.

Scott Searson was attempting to wind down this session
and there was a aboriginal individual from the Yukon who has
been involved in this struggle for about twenty five to thirty
years and he asked one question. “How can you expect us to
form a partnership with yourselves when you demand that we
extinguish ourselves in order for that relationship to exist?”

It got very quiet in that room in spite of the fact there
was a few hundred people present. Scott Searson had a cordless
microphone and he was holding onto it and he stared at the
floor for almost a better part of a minute. He finally looked up
across the room at the individual and said, “Your absolutely
right. The expressed policy of the Department is cede, release
and surrender.”

I felt like leaping out of my chair and cheering because it
is the first time I had ever heard an honest answer from a

UBCIC NEWS
federal official at that senior level.

It was heart lifting for me because Grand Chief Ed John
was at that meeting and so was Robert Louie. They are both
members of the Executive of the First Nations Summit. That is
the reality.

Scott Searson left that position and was replaced by I
believe Rene. Two months I get letter that makes reference to
that particular meeting. She gives me this very double speak
convoluted explanation of what Scott Searson had really said. It
was the certainty language that you see in the Nisga’a
Agreement. Certainty is just another word for cede, release and
surrender our extinguishment.

So throughout the year we have been struggling with the
absolute refusal of the governments to take the Delgamuukw
Decision seriously and to take the Marshall Decision seriously.

Were getting nothing but a litany of more promises upon
promises. It is really encouraging to see people of all political
stripes that are beginning to wake up and realize that these
processes are meant to extinguish our aboriginal title and rights.

People are beginning to realize that we can only rely on
ourselves to change that agenda. We have waited very patiently
for the governments to change their positions and it’s pretty
obvious that they are not going to do that. The whole purpose is
to continue that dispossession and disentitlement that they
started so many hundred years ago.

As we look forward into the upcoming year, we have to
realize that it’s incumbent upon each and every one of us to get
involved in this struggle. It’s incumbent upon each and every
one of us to work at whatever level we are at to be able to raise
funding and to educated our people with respect to the issues.

As we discussed this morming we know we have a group
of people that are currently in New York. During lunch I got a
phone call from them and we know they are going from the
United Nations in New York to Washington D.C., and from
there to Europe.

That work is very important and we need to sustain that
in the upcoming year and the years thereafter. What we also
need to do is reach out to our own individual communities.

I have been to a number of communities throughout the
last year and I greatly appreciate those invitations. It gives me
an opportunity to go to the communities and learn about the
issues.

I was in Lytton in the iast year and I really learned a lot
about the fishing tssues and watershed agreements. I had no
knowledge of those issues until I went there and listened to their
Tribal Council talk about those issues.

A lot of those things made sense to me after. That has
been the case as I moved throughout the province.

In the next year I would like to see myself be invited to
individual band meetings throughout the province. So we can
talk about the issues with the people at the community level and
hear what they have to think about the issues and the
recommendations that they have from their perspective.

I know a long time ago that is what happened in this
province and there was a lot of that kind of development work
done at the community level, but we have since moved away

MESSAGE (Continued on page 12)



WINTER 1999

11

UBCIC NEWS

MESSAGE (Continued from page 11)

from that and J think we need to go back and re-create that type
of politics at the community level.

That is the only way were going to be able to sustain our
movement and to increase our energy and strength.

I think we all recognize as Chief Ron Derrickson had
said earlier this morning, that this is our last chance to be able
to make that kind of a consorted effort to arrest the
extinguishment agenda of both the provincial and federal
governments.

It’s going to take a lot of determination and a lot of
resolve on all of our parts when communities like Westbank
take action, or Neskonlith, Adams Lake, Spallumcheen, Siska,
Williams Lake, and all of those communities that are now out
on the land exercising their aboriginal rights and title.

We need to take the time to support them whether it be
by letter or phone calls, or actually going to the sites of their
various blockades. Joan and I have made efforts to do that.
Ever time we go to their activities there is a tremendous amount
of appreciation expressed by the people that are standing on the
front line that we have taken the time and effort to stand with
them, and share the anxiety and the fear, and the frustration
they are experiencing.

It was reported this morning that our legal accounts are
increasing daily with respect to the court actions in the courts
right now. We know that it’s a waste of time to attempt to
negotiate with the governments because of their refusal to
negotiate in good faith, and because of the extinguishment
agenda.

So that only leaves the two options of direct action and
litigation which both work together. It’s very expensive to
mount a defense and we need to re-activate those organizations
at the community level to undertake fund raising. We need to
set up special accounts so that money is put into specific bank
accounts and used for the expressed purpose they were donated
for.



I don’t think things are going to get any easier in the
upcoming year. I think they are going to get a lot more intense
and will require a lot more of our individual time.

We have to move out from under the shadow of the
safety of our band offices and realize the real struggle is not
within the setting of the reserve, but outside the boundaries of
the reserve.

It has everything to do with our traditional territories and
the resources contained therein. That is a pretty big step for a
lot of people. Some of us have been involved in those types of
things for many years, but for some people it’s a real stretch.

At the same time people should understand that when we
work together collectively we are there to support each other.
Were there when were needed. I don’t think there has been
enough of that going on either.

Many years ago that is the way we related to one
another. I think agreements and alliances between ourselves
are far more important than any agreement we could ever make
with the government.

We should never doubt the fact that what the
governments agenda is. We heard this morning from Peter



DiGangi about the Price Waterhouse report that was
commissioned to determine exactly what the encumbrance of
aboriginal title is costing.

It’s costing a tremendous amount of money and that is
precisely why the government is trying to extinguish title. The
governments are attempting to extinguish title in order to
facilitate this whole business of the global economy, free trade
agreements and NAFTA.

That is the reality of why these processes are in place
and that is the reality of why the government is investing
hundreds and thousands of dollars into these processes.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the government
developing a social conscience and deciding to right historical
wrongs. They are simply trying to as I continuously say they
are attempting to divest us of what is rightfully ours.

If that happens then there will be no more indigenous
people. That is the end and the end of that road is Canadian
citizenship. That is what our elders have been telling us for
generations.

I am really hopeful that people are beginning to realize
the reality of this and going out and confronting this issue head
on and not hanging back, and in some capacity, motivating
yourself to support these actions whether it’s as simple as
having a debate with one of your coworkers or colleagues.

Or standing back from these glossy promises of the
government and saying, “Is that really what they are offering or
is this really legitimate? Are they really thinking about the
interest of my children here?” If your able to do that then you
will realize what were up against.

Make no mistake the government is absolutely relentless
in its efforts and are absolutely ruthless in their motives and we
have to be as equally relentless in resisting this.

It takes me full circle back to my granddaughters. The
reason that I am here and the reason I put in the kind of hours
that I do, and the reason I am never at home on the weekends is
because of that, and for no other reason.

I know a small group of leaders are committed to
sovereignty can’t accomplish this by ourselves. We need the
general support of the people at the community level before it
will succeed.

With that kind of support it will give us strength and
confidence to be able to confront the backlash that is going to
develop. What were really talking about is a restructuring of
the economy in this country.

A restructuring of the economy that it’s going to
accommodate our legal legitimate interest that has been denied.
Up until now we have been relegated to these enclaves of
poverty known as Indian reserves.

Nobody is going to help us in this struggle except
ourselves. It’s the people that you see sitting around you and
the people you left this morning wherever you originated from
to come to this meeting. That is the only people that we can
count on.

In closing, we are seeking a just resolution of the land
question in the province, and until there is justice there will
never be any peace in this province. There will never be any
economic certainty. Not until our issues are resolved in a just
and fair manner.



12

WINTER 1999

UBCIC NEWS

PROTECTING KNOWLEDGE
Traditional Resource Rights in
the New Millennium

Thursday, February 24 - Saturday, February 26, 2000

FIRST NATIONS HOUSE OF LEARNING
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA

What is indigenous cultural and intellectual property?
What cultural and intellectual property rights do First Nations want to be recognized?
Can First Nations communities develop their own system(s) for protecting traditional resource rights?

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs is hosting a three day legal conference exploring traditional re-
source rights, or cultural and intellectual property rights issues affecting indigenous peoples. We are committed
to delivering this important and timely information-sharing event as a public service to all Indigenous Peoples.

This is anew and "cutting-edge" area of law that affects us all, and on a daily basis. International organizations
like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) are turning
their attention to indigenous knowledge. Corporate interests are increasingly interested in "tapping into" our
traditional knowledge. It is important for us to compare notes, and to hear from the leading experts in this
emerging field, so that we can protect this very important legacy from those who have come before us.

We encourage all First Nations communities in B.C. to attend this conference. For the latest information, please
check out our website at http://www.ubcic.bce.ca

There appears to be a tremendous amount of interest in this event, so please register quickly to ensure your
place.

This conference is being brought to you with the support of:

The Law Foundation of British Columbia
Legal Services Society of British Columbia
UBC Museum of Anthropology&
UBC First Nations Law Program



WInTER 1999 13

UBCIC NEWS



First NATIONS Bic SISTER
MENTORING PROGRAM





ALL CERTIFICATES OF INDIAN STATUS.

WHICH DO NOT DISPLAY AN EXPIRY DATE.

MUST BE RENEWED BEFORE
JANUARY 1. 2000

It is very important that all registered Indians visit their
band office or the BC Regional office of the department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development to renew their
Certificate of Indian Status card if their status card does not
contain an expiry date. All previous versions of the status card
will only be valid until January 1, 2000.

The purpose of issuing Certificate of Indian Status cards
is to verify that the cardholder is a registered Indian. Status
cards are only useful if the photographs are current. It has
come to our attention that some registered Indians have been
denied services because some service providers have questioned
whether their status cards are still valid.

To remedy this situation, it has been decided that all
status cards issued to individuals under the age of eighteen will
have an expiry date of two (2) years and all status cards issued
to individuals over the age of eighteen will have an expiry date
of five (5) years from the date of issue.

j icy is effective immediatel

It should be noted that the five year expiry date does not
mean that the cardholder ceases to be a registered Indian at the
end of the five-year period. It only means that if the cardholder
intends to use the status card to obtain certain services and
benefits, it must be renewed every five years.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please
contact your Band office.



NEXT UBCIC NEWSLETTER
DEADLINE

January 15, 2000

If you have information that you would like to see in the next
edition of the UBCIC NEWSLETTER, please fax to the atten-
tion of UBCIC NEWSLETTER at (604) 684-5726 or email to:

[email protected]

Role modelling and mentorship is an integral part of growing
up Aboriginal in Canada and surviving the trip from childhood
through adolescence into adulthood. There are many ways to
take on the responsibility of mentoring. The following program
describes one method of becoming a mentor.

The First Nations Big Sister Mentoring Program is an initiative
to service all First Nations ancestry youth living in B.C. Lower
Mainland. This program uses the Big Sister model where a
woman maintains a friendship with a younger girl or boy and
spends one on time with her/him. A Big Sister provides the
guidance and support to a child, exposes them to different
opportunities and is the child's companion exclusively. What
the First Nations Big Sisters Mentoring Program is trying to
achieve is more involvement of First Nations, Aboriginal and
Metis women in the Big Sisters agency. Only these woman can
provide the cultural integrity and support to our youth during
their voyage through life as Aboriginal People.

Big Sisters of the B.C. Lower Mainland located in Vancouver,
is the only Big Sisters agency in Canada with a formal Aborigi-
nal outreach initiative. It is a unique endeavour geared towards
our Aboriginal caseload, which comprises 20% of our little
sisters and brothers. Most our little sisters express a preference
to be matched with a Big Sister of similar ancestry and culture.
Our children are encouraging us to take an active role in
guiding them, and children living in the city benefit greatly
from connectedness with their own people.

If there is a Big Sisters agency in your area, it may be of interest
to contact them. It is very likely that many Aboriginal and
Metis children require someone to be their Big Sister. Taking
the opportunity to be a friend to a child in need and help enrich
their lives is rewarding and often life changing experience. All
my relations.

Alanaise O. Ferguson, Program Coordinator Counsellor
(604) 873-4525





Visit the Union of B.C. Indian
Chiefs Website:

://www.ubcic.be.ca













14

WINTER 1999

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 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, 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: 1:2 000 600 / Six Colours





































WINTER 1999 15

UBCIC NEWS
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

SUBSCRIPTION FORM



















PROVINCE/STATE/COUNTRY: PostaL/Zip CopE:

i YEAR SuvuBSCRIPTION RATES

NewsLETTER Individual: $35.00

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

3 ~@











BOOKS ARTS & CRAFTS
- FIRST NATIONS - JEWELLRY

cy
S| - ABORIGINAL ISSUES - POTTERY S
es R
S - INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS - PRINTS S
v

ey
- LAND CLAIMS - T-SHIRTS 2
i € .
S z - LEATHERWORK a
S - ART tS
2 - MASKS 5
S| - CHILDREN'S BOOKS S

- 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 - Sth Floor 342 Water Street in Gastown (604) 684-0231
NOW SERVING THE INSTITUTE OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNMENT









16 WINTER 1999