Periodical
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (May 2000 Edition)
- Title
- Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (May 2000 Edition)
- Is Part Of
- 1.06-01.08 Union of BC Indian Chiefs Newsletter
- 1.06.-01 Newsletters and bulletins sub-series
- Date
- May 2000
- Language
- english
- Identifier
- 1.06-01.08-11.01
- pages
- 24
- Table Of Contents
-
IN THIS ISSUE...
2. Fish Farm Presentation
3. Forestry Update
6. UBCIC Research Conf.
8. Delayed Justice
9. Letter to the Premier
10. UBCIC Press Releases
12. Explanation of Tax
Exempt Status
14 Indian Homemakers
16 A.F.N. Press Releases
17 Cheam
18 Haida Nation
19 Interior Alliance
20 Softwood Lumber Agree.
21 Carrier Sekani - Contributor
- Chief Stewart Philip
- Terry Glavin
- Wendy Ancell
- Chief June Quipp
- Type
- periodical
- periodical
- Transcription (Hover to view)
-
Union of B.C.Indian Chiefs
NEWSLETTER
MAY 2000 EDITION
Message From the President
In the months
that have passed
since the 31st U B CIC Annual General Assembly discussions were held
with
Chiefs and
Chief Stewart Phillip
community people
Okanagan
all over the province who are deeply
concerned about the relentless attack on
our lands and resources that continues
while Canada and B C "play politics"
with us. They tell those of us who are
outside the B C Treaty Process that treaties can only be negotiated within the
B C T C . We categorically reject this
process as unacceptable because it does
not recognize Aboriginal title or deal
with compensation, and is based on a
land selection model and loan funding.
At the same time, First Nations Summit
members involved in the treaty process,
now owe millions of dollars in loan
funding and have nothing to show for
their efforts to negotiate in good faith
with governments. They are rejecting
the "insulting offers" being put on the
table by federal and provincial B C T C
negotiators. As a result, many communities, both inside and outside the B C T C
process, are actively implementing their
title on the land and in the courts. The
U B C I C has given strong political support to all communities involved in the
logging cases currently before the courts,
as well as those who are taking other
political action on the ground.
It is critical for all Indigenous
Nations to work together to challenge
SPRING
2000
government policies and negotiating
mandates that are both illegal and unjust. I draw your attention to the following issues that require our immediate
attention.
In January, 2000, the UBCIC,
along with the Interior Alliance and the
First Nations Summit, issued a Joint
Consensus Statement condemning the
1986 Comprehensive Claims Policy and
calling on the government to change it.
As of April 2000, we still have not
received any support from Robert Nault,
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, regarding c h a n g i n g this
assimilationist policy that is designed to
extinguish our title and entrench devolution through "self-government" agreements. In doing so, he ignored the
R C A P report which recommended replacing this extinguishment policy with
one based on the recognition, affirmation and implementation of our Aboriginal title. He also ignores the 1997
Supreme Court Delgamuukw decision
which recognizes that Aboriginal title to
our traditional territories and resources
exist in British Columbia. Delgamuukw makes the Comprehensive Claims
policy illegal but both the federal and
provincial governments continue to use
it as the basis of their political relationship with us.
The UBCIC and the Interior A l liance nations have also been working to
bring this issue to the national forum
through the Assembly of First Nations,
under the direction of Chief Arthur
Manuel, our national representative on
the A F N Delgamuukw Implementation
Strength of Douglas Treaties
Highlights Failure of Current
Talks
Chief Robert Sam supports Chief
Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC in
his statements regarding the virtual collapse
of the treaty talks in British Columbia.
Chief Robert Sam states, "There have
been no negotiations from the Province or the
Federal Government. There is only lots of
rhetoric, but no negotiations and we wholeheartedly support Stewart Phillip in declaring
that the treaty process is going nowhere. The
British Columbia Claims Task Force Report
states that each party shall come to the table
with a mandate, but the negotiators from the
Province and Canada have told us time after
time at our table that they can't go for a
mandate until they see progress at our table.
Progress to them means putting our Douglas
Treaty Rights on the table. We will never do
that."
Chief Sam also added, "This is a real
insult, they consistently want us to give up
our Douglas Treaty rights as part of any new
deal. These rights were promised to us by
the Imperial Government in 1850 and we
expect them to be honoured, not carved up on
a new treaty table."
Our Te'mexw table is one of forty-two
tables in the province which are stalled due
to the Federal and Provincial Government
bottom lines-bottom lines which breach the
intent of the BC Claims Task Force Report.
Where is the Good faith?
In celebrating the 150th Anniversary
of our Douglas Treaties, we can only wonder
at the failure of the current treaty "negotiations" Astute critics, such as Chief Stewart
Phillip of Penticton, have pulled attention to
the collapse of the treaty process, causing a
defensive reaction on the part of the defenders of the B.C. Treaty process. Defenders
include Miles Richardson, Chief Commissioner at the B.C. Treaty Commission in his
role as "keeper of the process". This
celebration will mark the continued exercising of our Douglas Treaty Rights.
MESSAGE (Continued on page 13)
1
UBCIC
NEWS
1. Disease
Presentation to the House of Commons Standing The high density
pens in which Atlantic
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
salmon are farmed provide
The
Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs is a
political organization which
represents Indigenous peoples
from across the Province.
Our primary mandate is to
protect the Aboriginal Title
and Rights of our members.
The reason that we have
requested an appearance
before you here today, is that
the continuing growth of the
fish farms and aquaculture
operations threaten and
infringe Aboriginal Title and
Rights. Fish farms are of
great concern to the
membership of the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs.
The Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs' membership
unanimously passed a
resolution (contained in the
booklet "Fish Farms: Zero
Tolerance" attached as
Exhibit " A " to this
presentation) expressing our
united opposition to fish
farms.
IN THIS ISSUE...
Salmon and other
marine resources provide the
bulk of the diet for many
indigenous peoples in this
province. The oceans and
rivers are the gardens that
aboriginal peoples harvest
food within, and this is the
reason that aboriginal peoples
are so concerned about fish
farms. Any actions which
threaten salmon or marine
life threaten our health, wellbeing and the livelihood of
our Peoples. Fish farms
completely contaminate and
destroy their immediate
environment, and marine life
and indigenous fish stocks.
A l l Indigenous
Nations territories include
streams, rivers, or oceans.
Each and every Indigenous
Nation is therefore impacted
by fish farms. Fish farms
seriously and severely impact
Aboriginal Title Lands and
Waters. W a t e r i s
contaminated, poisoning
salmon, shellfish, and other
marine life. The immediate
dangers include disease,
2.
Fish Farm Presentation
3.
Forestry Update
6.
UBCIC Research Conf.
8.
Delayed Justice
9.
Letter to the Premier
10.
UBCIC Press Releases
12.
Explanation of Tax
Exempt Status
2
14
Indian Homemakers
16
A.F.N. Press Releases
17
Cheam
18
Haida Nation
19
Interior Alliance
20
Softwood Lumber Agree.
21
Carrier Sekani
destruction of habitat,
and escaped farmed
salmon forcefully
displacing other
marine life (such as
herring and oolichan)
or colonizing
indigenous salmon
stocks.
Currently,
within British
Columbia, there is a
grave crisis in the
fishery. The fishery
has been totally
mismanaged to such a
great extent that there
are less and less
indigenous salmon
available. Many indigenous
species of indigenous salmon
have become endangered and
are on the verge of extinction.
Fish farms will push the
fishery further towards the
brink of absolute extinction.
Salmon are a resource
greatly treasured and shared
by all Indigenous Peoples
within British Columbia.
They are born in one area,
grow to the maturity in
another, and live their adult
lives in ocean waters, to return
to the place of their birth for
their life cycle to continue.
Salmon bind all people
together. When salmon are
threatened, the livelihood and
way of life of all Indigenous
Peoples are threatened.
The right of aboriginal
peoples to the fishery stems
from the fact that salmon, and
other ocean resources, have
been and continue to be, an
integral part of the lives and
cultures of indigenous peoples.
In order for our aboriginal
rights to continue to exist,
salmon have to continue to
exist. Fish farms threaten the
continued existence of
indigenous salmon stocks, and
also of other marine resources.
Dangers of Fish Farms to
Salmon and Other Marine
Resources:
I want to draw your
attention to seven separate
areas in which farmed salmon
and aquaculture operations
pose a danger to indigenous
salmon stocks, and all marine
life:
an ideal breeding ground for
outbreaks of diseases and
infections. In order to
control this problem, farmed
salmon are fed antibiotics on
a regular basis. The risk of
farmed salmon infecting our
salmon stocks is very high,
this is particularly so given
the open net cages which are
in use in British Columbia,
which allow ocean waters to
flow freely through the net
cages, carrying disease,
waste, and bacteria into
ocean waters. In Atlantic
Canada, and in other areas
of the world, hundreds of
thousands of farmed salmon
have had to be killed
because they became
infected with diseases which
could potentially infect us
and our salmon stocks. We
do not want this to happen
here.
Farmed salmon are
fed antibiotics to fight
naturally occurring diseases.
The antibiotics can cause
the diseases to mutate, and
these mutant strains are
released into ocean waters
exposing indigenous
stocks. V i r a l , fungal and
bacterial infections have
been passed to our stocks as
a result of fish farms.
Shellfish have been
found with h i g h l y
abnormal concentrations of
antibiotics. Our people,
who rely more heavily on
shellfish, have their health
compromised because of the
accumulated amounts of
antibiotics which are
ingested through shellfish.
PRESENTATION
(Continued on page 4)
SPRING 2000
UBCIC
NEWS
FORESTRY
UPDATE
O v e r the past six months there have been a n u m b e r of
logging cases which have gone forward in B.C. courts. The purpose of
all the forestry cases is to force the Province to recognize Aboriginal title
in its decision making process.
The Province's position has remained
the same, and they have made no
meaningful changes to their policies
regarding Aboriginal title, and interest in
the trees, following the Delgamuukw
Court case which recognized that
Aboriginal title is an interest in the land
itself, which incorporates an economic
interest. A t present, the Province's
position is that they will not recognize
Aboriginal Title in B.C. until it has been
either recognized through treaty, or
proven in a court case.
As there have been no court cases
which have specifically recognized
Aboriginal Title "on the ground" (i.e.,
which have said that "Aboriginal title
exists here"), and most of B.C. is not
covered by treaties, this means that the
Province is not taking any steps to
address Aboriginal Title within B.C.,
aside from continuing to deny that it
exists.
Many Indigenous Nations and
communities, over the past six months,
have chosen to challenge the Province's
continued refusal to acknowledge or
address Aboriginal Title by bringing
court challenges to the Province's
forestry regime. The forestry cases have
come in two separate categories. The
first is cases where the Indigenous
peoples have gone to court to challenge
the Province's right to issue interest in
the trees to both itself and third parties.
The second era, is cases where
Indigenous peoples have been brought to
court by the Province because they chose
to assert their Aboriginal Title by
harvesting trees in order to build much
SPRING
2000
needed housing for their members. Each
of these two areas is discussed below.
1. Challenge of Province's Right to
issue interests in the trees:
Challenge of Province's
jurisdiction to issue interests in the trees
to third parties (or, to itself) without first
accommodating Aboriginal Title and
reconciling Aboriginal Title with Crown
title. Two of the main cases which are
currently underway involve the
Okanagan Nation (the Westbank MellinEllen application) and the Haida Nation.
Okanagan Nation/Westbank: "MellinEllen") Application
The Province choose to issue a
harvest and haul contract to a third party
which would allow them to log cutblock
118 ("Mellin-Ellen"), even though the
Okanagan Nation asserts Aboriginal
Title to the area. The Province did not
seek to accommodate the Aboriginal
Title, nor to reconcile the Aboriginal
Title with Crown title in the area because
there was not treaty in place recognizing
Aboriginal Title and no court case had
specifically recognized that the
Okanagan Nation had title to that
particular cut-block.
"Harvest and haul" contracts
allow the Province to hire a third party to
go in and cut and harvest timber, the
Province then directly sells the timber
and keeps the revenue. In the case of the
harvest and haul contract which
Westbank challenged the Province on the
basis that the Province has no right to
issue interests in the forests until it has
addressed Aboriginal Title. The
Province argued, in Court, that it did not
have to accommodate Aboriginal title
unless this title had been proven in
Court, or had been negotiated under a
treaty.
Westbank also argued that the
Province does not have jurisdiction to
deal with the trees without first
accommodating Aboriginal title, because
the Constitution Act, 1867, under
Section 109, only recognizes the
Province's powers over resources (such
as timber) that are not otherwise
encumbered". A s aboriginal title has
not been addressed, this means that any
interest that the Province has in the trees
is encumbered, and the Province does not
have clear title because Aboriginal title
exists over the resources.
Westbank argued that these
matters could be addressed based on
Westbank's asserted Aboriginal title,
while the Province argued that a full trial
was necessary and that Westbank should
be required to prove their Aboriginal title
in Court before the Province has any
constitutional duty, under Section 35, to
accommodate that title. The original
court action in the Mellin-Ellen
application was completed in the first
week of April, and the parties are
awaiting the Court's decision.
FORESTRY UPDATE
(Continued on page 11)
3
UBCIC
NEWS
PRESENTATION
(Continued from page 2)
2. Pollution
The effluent which is released by farmed salmon is
staggering. The sewage from thousands of contained farm
salmon, together with debris of feeding pellets, and other toxic
materials is released directly into the waters which our people
rely upon for our food. Some clam and kelp beds, which are
located in close proximity to fish farms have become
completely unusable because they are so contaminated by fish
farm waste.
A fish farm is equivalent to having an untreated and
unregulated sewage facility on our shores. Pollution and
effluent flow freely from fish pens and cause most residents
species of fish and marine life to disappear from the area as a
direct result of the destruction of their habitat.
Oceans are the gardens which sustain the lives of many
Indigenous Peoples. Ask yourselves: Would you like this type
of volume of toxic pollution to be released on a daily basis into
your garden or food supply?
3. Predation on Young Stock
Young herring and salmon are drawn to fish farm cages
because of the lights which are illuminated at night. These
young herring and salmon are eaten by the farmed fish. In
some instances, farmed fish eat so many of the young
indigenous stocks that they have little need of additional food.
4. Algae
Effluent from fish farms provides ideal conditions for
algae to grow. Algae can kill indigenous stocks either by
poisoning them (for example, through the production of toxins)
or through the deprivation of oxygen caused by massive algae
growth. In addition, shellfish are vulnerable to the toxins
produced by excessive growth of algae. Toxins from algae can
contaminate shellfish making them unsafe to eat.
5. Drugs and Chemicals
In addition to antibiotics, fish farms introduce a variety
of other chemicals into the water. These chemicals poison the
water and build up in the food supply. The drugs and chemicals
include colorants (to make the flesh of farmed salmon red) and
fungicides. These chemicals escape into the surrounding
waters, potentially poisoning resident marine life, and
eventually poisoning our Peoples as they accumulate in the food
chain.
6. Colonization
Farmed salmon which escape from their pens pose
significant risks to indigenous stocks.
The salmon that are farmed in B.C. are not indigenous to
B.C. waters. Primarily, because they are easier to factory 4
produce, fish farms produce Atlantic salmon. Atlantic salmon
are not true biological salmon, but are genetically trout. Unlike
genetically true salmon, Atlantic salmon spawn more than once
and there is the possibility that they could live in our rivers and
lakes for several years producing more than one generation of
young.
A primary concern of Indigenous Peoples is that the
Atlantic salmon continue to escape from their pens, and may
begin to colonize and over-take the habitat of existing
indigenous salmon. Over the past five years, hundreds of
thousands of farmed Atlantic salmon have escaped. There is no
recovery system in place, and no way of tracking what happens
to these fish once they are loose in the ocean. The province has
assured us that Atlantic salmon cannot spawn in B.C. waters.
However, there have been numerous incidents where Atlantic
salmon have already been found spawning in rivers on
Vancouver Island. I have spoken to elders on the Fraser River
system who found numerous Atlantic salmon in their fishing
nets migrating with the indigenous salmon to their spawning
grounds.
Farmed salmon can migrate with indigenous stocks into
inland spawning areas. In British Columbia, Atlantic salmon
have been found 100 miles up the Skeena River, over 250 miles
from the nearest fish farm. On Vancouver Island, Atlantic
salmon have been found in the Zeballos and Thasis rivers.
Bearing in mind that one spawning Atlantic salmon can
produce in excess of 4000 eggs, the dangers are great that
Atlantic salmon can displace our own, already endangered and
fragile indigenous salmon stocks.
7. Displacement of Herring, Oolichan and Rock Cod
Fish farms located near herring spawning grounds, or
the traditional habitat of oolichan and rock cod have caused
these species to abandon their traditional areas.
Aboriginal
Title:
Those Indigenous Nations on whose waters fish farms
are located experience immediate and destructive impacts.
Traditional harvesting grounds (clam beds, herring spawning
grounds, etc.) as well as the waters and water beds are
contaminated and poisoned. Any use of Aboriginal Title Lands
(including waters) requires the full and informed consent of the
Indigenous Nation concerned. The provincial government has
ignored the concerns and opposition to Indigenous peoples on
this issue.
Summary:
The federal government has the responsibility for
ensuring that all indigenous salmon and all other marine
resources are adequately protected and safe. The federal
government also has a fiduciary duty to ensure that Aboriginal
Title and Rights are fully and properly protected. Fish farms
pose a very real and on-going threat to the fishing rights of
aboriginal people, and to the aboriginal title of those Indigenous
peoples located on ocean waters.
SPRING 2000
UBCIC
A l l Indigenous Nations who rely upon marine resources
or salmon have their rights as well as their health jeopardized
and threatened by fish farms. The "right to fish" enjoyed by all
Indigenous Peoples' will be hollow and meaningless i f
indigenous salmon stocks become extinct, and other marine
resources are poisoned past the point when they can no longer be
safely eaten by our people. Without fish, there is no "right to
fish". Fish farms move salmon away from being a natural
resource which is both precious and sacred to Indigenous
peoples, and turn our oceans into factories which manufacture
commercially cloned salmon for market.
When government authorizes any activities, they have a
legal duty to ensure that these activities do not abrogate or
derogate from aboriginal title or rights. It is clear that fish
farms, both with their threat to indigenous salmon and other
marine life, and the siting of fish farms on the aboriginal title
waters and lands of aboriginal peoples (with the resultant
pollution, denial of access to traditional marine resources,
and harvesting grounds) seriously derogate aboriginal title and
rights.
In the present case, government has not undertaken any
serious study about the impact that fish farms will have upon our
aboriginal title or rights. At a minimum, fish farms reduce the
ability of aboriginal title lands and waters to sustain Indigenous
Peoples, reduce the economic benefit to Indigenous Peoples of
those lands and waters, and will potentially halt or restrict any
further access to the fish fishery (through poisoning, or
displacing indigenous marine resources).
The limited economic benefits of factory-producing
farmed salmon cannot override our Aboriginal Right to the
fishery, and cannot erase the relationship which we have had
with the fishery for generations. As well, any analysis of the
economic benefits of factory producing farmed salmon has to
take into account the economic loss that Indigenous peoples
suffer, and the loss to all British Columbians and Canadians
should indigenous salmon become extinct.
Allowing fish farms to go ahead in our marine waters, is
like an acknowledgment of defeat on the part of the federal
government. It would be like deciding that indigenous salmon
stocks cannot be saved, and therefore deciding to turn our
oceans and waters into a factory for producing farmed fish
foreign to our waters.
Recommendations:
The U n i o n o f B . C . I n d i a n C h i e f s makes s e v e r a l
recommendations to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans about the actions which are necessary in order to
preserve indigenous salmon stocks and other marine resources
from the dangers posed by fish farms. We urge the Standing
Committee to take these recommendations seriously, as the
health and continued existence of our salmon and marine
resources is dependent upon the Federal Government taking
action to halt fish farms in B.C. waters.
NEWS
2. That the Federal Government, under its constitutional
jurisdiction over fisheries and oceans exercise its discretion to
halt the development of any new aquaculture operations in
British Columbia. The preservation of indigenous salmon
stocks and other marine resources requires a zero tolerance to
fish farms policy on the part of the Federal Government. Other
jurisdictions, such as Alaska, have recognized this fact.
3. That existing fish farms be removed from locations which
permit them to infringe upon Aboriginal Title and Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, either because they poison local marine
resources, or because they deny access to traditional harvesting
areas to Indigenous Peoples.
4. That existing fish farms be removed from marine waters
and transferred to entirely land contained systems which do not
have the potential to endanger indigenous salmon stocks or
other marine resources.
5. That the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertake a
comprehensive review of the impact that fish farms and
aquaculture have upon the Aboriginal Title and Rights of the
Indigenous Peoples who rely upon the fishery and marine
resources for our livelihood. This review should investigate:
(a) Risk to the aboriginal right to fish of all Indigenous People
Fish farms and aquaculture operations pose a serious risk to the
right to fish of all Indigenous peoples in B.C., both in marine
and inland fisheries;
(b) Economic and cultural losses suffered by Indigenous
communities as a result of fish farms.
Indigenous communities suffer significant economic and
cultural losses as a result of fish farms, including the denial of
access to salmon, shell fish, and other marine resources because
of the imposition and presence of fish farms, and the
contamination of traditional harvesting areas by the effluent
released from fish farms;
(c) Health risks posed to Indigenous Peoples by fish farms
Indigenous peoples endure greater health risks posed by fish
farms, both because of the proximity of many of our
communities to fish farms, and also due to our dietary
dependence and reliance on fish farms and other marine
resources. The effluent and waste materials discharged from
fish farms therefore has a great impact on the health and wellbeing of Indigenous populations.
The health component of the review should include a
study of the cumulative impact of antibiotics and other
chemicals used in fish farming upon Indigenous peoples who
rely so heavily upon fish, shell fish, and marine resources as a
staple part of our diet;
1. That the Federal Government dedicate adequate resources
toward the restoration of the indigenous salmon stocks, and
other marine resources, in British Columbia.
PRESENTATION (Continued on page 6)
SPRING
2000
5
UBCIC
NEWS
PROTECTING KNOWLEDGE--TRADITIONAL
(February 23-26, 2000, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.)
M a n y of y o u may k n o w that the U n i o n of British
Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) recently hosted a three-day
conference exploring traditional resource rights, or cultural and
intellectual property rights that affect not only B C First Nations
but all Indigenous Peoples around the world. The conference,
originally intended to be a small event to follow-up on the
ImplementingDelgamuuk'w—LegallmplicatiomforAlbniginal Title
Research Conference (March 1999), quickly grew into something
bigger when a need and desire was expressed for a forum to
discuss these issues. The conference was a success with close to
500 people registered and speakers from around B C , Canada and
the World. We were very happy to see so many representatives
from the B C First Nation communities. We were also able to get
Indigenous speakers, like Terri Janke and Ghillar from Australia,
Deborah Harry from California, Barbara Wilson from Haida
Gwaii and Jeanette Armstrong to give their perspectives.
The conference was meant to give First Nations a general
overview of intellectual property rights. It is an area of law that is
developing as more and more industry-driven investments and
different governments try to incorporate "traditional knowledge"
in their operations. O n the International scene organizations like
the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World lntellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) are turning their attention to
indigenous knowledge. In fact, in mid-March, there was an
international meeting in Seville, Spain about what is known as
Article 8 (j)oi the Convention of Biological Diversity. Article 8(f)
states:
"[Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as
appropriate] Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve
and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous
and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for
the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and
promote their wider application w i t h the approval and
involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and
practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits
arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and
practices."
The ProtectingKnowledge Conference resulted in the
preparation of a document called "The Spirit of the Conference"
which outlined some of the key concerns of First Nations
communities relating to our traditional resource rights. This
document also laid out a list of actions that Nations can take to
protect their knowledge and rights.
We have worked hard to update our conference website
with as much conference material as possible and we encourage
you to check our conference page at hup://www.ubcic.bc.ca/
protect.htm. Y o u can now download the conference kit which
contains background information and papers relating to the
conference theme. If you have any questions, please contact the
U B C I C Research Department.
6
PRESENTATION
(Continued from page 5)
(d) Impact on indigenous salmon stocks, and other marine
resources, of the Atlantic salmon which have escaped (and will
escape in the future) from existing fish farms
Hundreds of thousands of Atlantic salmon have already
escaped from existing fish farms. This review must include a
serious investigation of the incidents where Atlantic salmon
have escaped, where they have been observed migrating
with indigenous stocks, and also where they have been
observed spawning in B . C . rivers.
Visit the Union of B . C . Indian
Chiefs Website:
http://www.ubcic.bc.ca
SPRING 2000
UBCIC
NEWS
RESOURCE RIGHTS IN T H E NEW M I L L E N N I U M
Actions
1. W e w i l l take steps within our own
communities to ensure that our people, and
in particular our children, learn our own
laws concerning the acquisition and use o f
knowledge and resources, and the credentials o f knowledge-keepers, so that they can
fully enjoy the right to self-determination.
Spirit of the Conference
Although we have been subjected to colonial forces for
several centuries, we retain and affirm all o f our inherent
collective rights as sovereign nations. These rights include
the right to protect our own survival, i n particular, by
protecting our cultures, language, and knowledge systems
from expropriation, encroachment, or theft.
1. Indigenous Peoples' own languages, knowledge systems
and laws are indispensable to their identity, and are a
foundation for self-determination.
2. Indigenous Peoples' knowledge systems are inextricably
and inalienable connected with their ancestry and ancestral
territories.
3. Indigenous Peoples' heritage is not a commodity, nor the
property of the nation-state. The material and intellectual
heritage of each Indigenous People is a sacred gift and a
responsibility that must be honoured and held for the
benefit of future generations.
2. W e condemn all trade i n unlawfullyobtained resources or knowledge, and we w i l l act jointly at
the local, regional, national, and international levels to
deprive corporations and governments o f any profit from
such trade through effective international legal, political
and economic actions.
3. W e w i l l cooperate to establish an effective international
network to monitor the activities o f corporations i n the
ancestral territories o f Indigenous Peoples worldwide, and
to support Indigenous Peoples everywhere in the full
exercise of their rights.
4. W e w i l l take steps to prevent any assertion o f intellectual property rights to the genetic integrity or genetic
potential o f biotic systems in our ancestral territories.
5. W e w i l l press for the ratification and full implementation of all international conventions i n the fields o f human
rights, Indigenous Peoples, and their ecosystems, which we
deem applicable.
6. We w i l l work together for the speedy adoption o f the
Draft Principles and Guidelines on the Heritage o f Indigenous Peoples by the United Nations.
4. Indigenous rights, individual and collective, are define
7. We w i l l promote the adoption o f the Principles and
by Indigenous laws. The starting-point for any considera-
G u i d e l i n e s b y our o w n N a t i o n s and Peoples as an
tion of rights to learn, use or transmit Indigenous k n o w l -
international compact among ourselves, and as a basis for
edge therefore must therefore be the laws of the Indigenous
dealing with non-indigenous interests, and we w i l l work
peoples concerned.
together to establish a global registry of Indigenous Nations
and Peoples who have agreed to implement the Principles
5. The use o f Indigenous Peoples' knowledge or resources
and Guidelines within their o w n territories.
is unlawful and illegitimate unless it is done in a conformity
with the laws o f the Peoples concerned.
8. We support all international standard-setting initiatives
by Indigenous Peoples that advance these actions.
SPRING 2000
7
UBCIC
NEWS
No Reasons Left For
Delayed Justice
It took him a while to get his head around the
idea, but eventually Bill Vander Zalm said he was all
for it. Rita Johnson, his successor, said the same
thing and got the ball rolling. Brian Mulroney was
behind the idea 100 percent. Prime Minister Jean
Chretien was, too, and still is. Premier Mike
Harcourt liked the ideas so much he put it into high
gear. Preston Manning wants it done fast and cheap.
Glen Clarke wanted it, Dan Miller wants it, and Gordon
Campbell fairly gushes about it. Ujjal Dosanjh says he's just
crazy about the idea and can't wait to get going on it. Gordon
Wilson was for it when he was in the opposition benches, and
he's for it still. Corky Evans says that of all the things
government should be doing, it's the most important of all.
But watching the race for the leadership of the B.C. New
Democratic Party has persuaded me that the idea of concluding
treaties with B.C.'s aboriginal peoples may be doomed. For all
the big talk, the whole effort is going nowhere.
Federal politicians can always resort to the excuse that
the treaty process condemns them to wear the albatross of B.C.
politics about their necks. Social Credit died, so that's an even
better excuse, and it's one we should allow the federal Tories, to
be fair. The Reform Party, or whatever it's calling itself these
days, and the B.C. Liberals who used to be called the Social
Credit party, want treaties in which First Nations will agree to
throw themselves off cliffs. Those two parties haven't formed
government yet. That's their excuse. But what possible excuse
do the New Democrats have?
They don't need one, apparently. Instead they have the
Nisga'a agreement, which is the result of negotiations that were
already under way when Harcourt won his majority. They also
have the B.C. treaty process — designed and implemented after
the Nisga'a talks began — which the New Democrats also
inherited from Socreds and Tories but for which the New
Democrats also claim credit A n d they will tell you about the six
stages of the process, from filing a statement of intent to
implementation, and about its stakeholder-consultation
processes, and its many-faceted third party advisory
mechanisms, and they will give you Internet addresses and
leaflets and the time and places of workshops and background
papers until you want to die from boredom.
This is not to say they are not better than B.C. Liberals,
whose policy on treaty-making is to lie through their teeth.
They will tell you that the reason they are challenging the
Nisga'a treaty in court is because it was rammed through the
B.C. legislature. They will not tell you that the B.C. legislature
spent more time debating the Nisga'a treaty than any other law
in the legislature's 129 year history. They will tell you that the
Nisga'a treaty, because it allows the Nisga'a people a primary
right to legislature on matters of Nisga'a language and culture,
amounts to an amendment to the Constitution, and because of
this, B.C. law requires a provincial referendum. They will not
8
tell you that if it is an amendment to the Constitution, it also
requires a referendum in Newfoundland and Manitoba, as well
as the approval of legislature representing at least seven
provinces with at least 60 percent of the Canadian population,
. But the New Democrats have a decade in power. They
don't have an excuse.
Instead, they have Ujjal Dosanjh, who , as
attorney general in 1995, allowed the pathetic little
landlord-tenant dispute at Gustafsen Lake in the
Cariboo to become a cowboys and Indians
showdown straight out of an old Saturday matinee,
then he presided over its escalation until it became
the largest peacetime military mobilization in
Western Canada's history. And while thousands of
rounds of ammunition were being discharged, he stood in front
of the television cameras and hectored everyone about how it
must be understood that there is "one law for all" in British
Columbia, just like the Reformers and the B.C. Liberals always
say. In his campaign for the N D P leadership, he scarcely
mentioned the idea of treaty-making.
They also have Gordon Wilson. He used to have this
annoying habit of publicly congratulating himself for being the
first provincial politician to raise the specter of "rights based on
race", an Orwellian circumlocution that cloaks the denial of
common-law rights to aboriginal people i n the garb of
evenhandedness. Before he became a New Democrat, Wilson
went to Ottawa to wag his finger at the Supreme Court of
Canada for daring to presume that their findings in the matter
of Delgamuukw Versus the Queen should have any legal force
on the Pacific side of the Rockies. During his campaign for the
NDP leadership he actually managed to commit the sin of
thinking outside the box a little bit, proposing an expedited
treaty process and a sort of "joint tenancy" approach with First
Nations in cases where aboriginal title and provincial tenures
would conflict. And for having an imagination for once, he was
vilified for once by Dosanjh and by many other New Democrats.
Then there was Corky Evans, who has called B.C.'s
inability to conclude reasonable treaties with First Nations "the
most important issue facing the province", which it probably is.
Evans wants the whole idea put into high gear again. He has
proposed that the B.C. government immediately set aside public
lands for benefit of First Nations, with revenues going into a
public trust until such time as treaties are settled. Whatever his
faults, Evans hasn't shied away from acknowledging what
everybody already knows, which is that the treaty process is a
bit of an expensive joke, and without some real movement on
the part of the province, it's dead in the water for everybody but
consultants and lawyers. For this, we're all supposed to
imagine that Evans is, well, you know, all very passionate and
everything but a bit of a fruitcake.
One thing all the politicians continue to insist is that
litigation is the worst way to settle questions of aboriginal rights
and title. They say nobody wins with the courts.
But when you look at the what's happened over the past
decade, all that's clear is that there is no excuse for any of it at
all.
Terry Glavin
February 17-24, 2000 Issue of Georgia Straight
SPRING 2000
UBCIC
L E T T E R TO THE
PREMIER
March 7, 2000
Dear Honorable Ujjal Dosanjh, Premier of B.C.
Re: Anthany Dawson, deceased, DOB: 21-06-69
I am writing to express my concern and sense of outrage
over the ongoing delays that B.C.'s so called justice system
continues to visit upon Nancy Dawson, the mother of the late
Anthany Dawson. I understand that the scheduled January
2000 inquest has been indefinitely postponed and that
furthermore, rather than being conducted in Victoria, it will be
now held in Sidney.
Why the sudden move to Sidney? Is this to discourage
supporters of the Dawson family from attending?
Anthany Dawson, the deceased, son of Nancy Dawson,
died a few months ago, from what appears to have been yet
another obvious case of police brutality. Let me be explicitly
clear, I understand that Anthany not only suffered from physical
police brutality but probably died as a direct consequence of the
racist attitude harbored by many of the Victoria police officers.
I understand that Anthany was severely beaten from
head to toe. I am also aware that the Victoria police department
specialize in the frequent use of the electronic tazer gun. I have
been told that Anthany's body bore marks which have been
attributed to the repeated use of a tazer gun.
Adding insult to injury I was astounded to learn that
Anthany's brain was missing for several weeks. Clearly
Anthany was defiled in life and even in death he is being
treated in an undignified and disrespectful manner. It this an
acceptable standard of operation for the Province coroners
office?
Furthermore, the grieving mother, Nancy Dawson, had
to search for her son's missing brain and has been advised it is
at V a n c o u v e r General H o s p i t a l and she must make
arrangements to repatriate it to his remains. This is
irresponsible, unacceptable and inhumane behavior on the part
of government.
I am respectfully request that the investigation be
conducted by a non-police agency. Furthermore, this
investigation must be broad in scope, inclusive and far
reaching. I also wish your government to determine if human
rights violations have occurred and subsequently i f it is deemed
that police have violated the human rights of Anthany Dawson
then appropriate charges be laid at once.
Real leadership must be exercised in the treatment of
Aboriginal people, not only in the province of British Columbia
but across this land called Canada. Alarmingly, Aboriginal
NEWS
people are being victimized and killed by law enforcement
officers at unprecedented rates. No doubt you have seen the
news on T V about Indians dying in Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. Public opinion speculates that their deaths have been
attributed to the brutal actions o f police officers.
I strongly advise that rather than publicly chastising Mr.
Zirnhelt about anger management, that you focus on the
violence within the cadres o f police officers, in B . C . In
particular those in the Victoria Police Department who target
aboriginal people to assault, injure and in some instances
tragically kill.
At the next Premier's conference/meeting, the Premiers
would be wise to commit to improve the treatment and care of
aboriginal people. Our human rights are constantly being
violated and our people are still being killed in what only can be
characterized as hate crimes. Unfortunately their killers are the
very people who are supposed to be protecting them
I can assure you that i f a badge and a weapon continue to
give any law enforcement officer(s) the apparent right to injure
or murder Aboriginal people I will not be able to quell the
growing anger and outrage in our Aboriginal communities.
Obviously police academies have a long way to go to
improving the attitudes and behaviors of their recruits who
ultimately become officers of law. Hopefully you government
will play a pro active role in investigating law enforcement's
role in the death or injury of Aboriginal people in B.C.
Furthermore, I hope that your government can play a
role at the national level in ensuring that nor more Aboriginal
people die as a consequence of hate, violence and brutality that
is directed at them by racist law enforcement personnel.
As the leader of the Union of B . C . Indian Chiefs I know
that it is highly probable that the R C M P ' s report on the actions
of the Victoria Police Department will reflect a self-serving
bias. When will this report be released? If it is not released rest
assured that there will be pressure brought to bear to have it
publicly released.
In 1972 First Nations people throughout B.C. were
mobilized by the suspicious, brutal death of the late Fred Quilt.
Almost 30 years later our people are still facing similar and
chilling fates at the hands of law enforcement personnel. In
1972 First Nations people rallied around the family and
community of Fred Quilt, in a battle to ensure that nor more
First Nations people would meet their death at the hands of law
enforcement officials.
What has changed since 1972? Today, I and other First
Nations political leaders throughout British Columbia are
united in our demand for justice in the brutal death of Anthany
Dawson. Anthany's young life was snuffed out and stolen, but
we will keep his memory alive forever in our struggle to seek
justice in an unjust society!
Let the killing of First Nations people be stopped and let
us put an end to the covert racism within this countries
institutions of power.
Chief Stewart Phillip, U B C I C President
cc Nancy Dawson
SPRING 2000
9
UBCIC
NEWS
Aboriginal Leader Warns that Judge's Refusal to
Shorten Logging Case, Places B.C. Court System
on Trial in the Eyes of Aboriginal Peoples
(Vancouver, Coast Salish Territory/March 23, 2000)
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs responded today to a court
decision issued March 20, 2000, by Justice Sigurdson, of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia in the matter of The Queen
v. Wilson-Jules-Derrickson.
The Adams Lake, Neskonlith, Okanagan, Spallumcheen
and Westbank Indian Bands made a judicial application in
order to have certain issues decided quickly on a point of law,
rather than proceeding to a full trial.
The Bands argued that the Forest Act and Code are
unconstitutional because they grant provincial decision-makers
unstructured discretion to make decisions which risk infringing
aboriginal title or rights, without setting out the steps that
provincial officials must take in order to accommodate
aboriginal rights and title in accordance with the Delgamuukw
decision.
The Bands also argued the provincial legislation could
be found to be unconstitutional, as a point of law, without the
need to first prove the existence and infringement of aboriginal
rights.
The Bands had wanted the point of law argued to reduce
the overall costs of bringing this litigation and drastically
shorten the time frame in having the Delgamuukw decision
implemented.
Justice Sigurdson decided he did not have enough factual
evidence to be able to decide on the question of law the Bands
raised at this point in the proceedings.
While the Court agreed that the Bands may be correct
that the legislation is unconstitutional, the Court found that this
question should be decided after both sides have had the
opportunity to introduce evidence about the existence of
Aboriginal rights (Aboriginal title and the right to log), and the
impacts of the forestry legislation upon those rights, before a
decision is made about the constitutional validity of the
legislation.
Justice Sigurdson still has to rule on an application
before him, that the Province pay the Bands legal costs in the
event that they are forced into a full aboriginal title trial.
Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs, stated today, "We are extremely disappointed
with the decision of Judge Sigurdson in this matter. He could
have exercised his discretion and speeded up the process by
hearing evidence on the constitutionality of the Provincial
Forest Act and Code vis-a-vis Aboriginal title and rights. Judge
Sigurdson, through his decision, is causing more financial
hardship among the Bands by forcing them into a more costly,
lengthy proceeding. We find it farcical that the B.C. Judiciary
doesn't accept the fact that Aboriginal title exists in this
province and proceed forthwith to implement the Delgamuukw
Decision. It appears to us that when other Supreme Court of
Canada decisions affecting non-aboriginals are rendered in this
country, the Court decisions are respected by government and
lower courts. Our experiences as Aboriginal peoples, following
the Delgamuukw decision are delay and denial on the part of
10
the governments and lower courts. We are fed up with
Canada's double standard for justice and we are giving notice
that we are placing the B . C . judicial system on trial by our
peoples and we will expose this egregious situation to the
international community."
UBCIC Support Cheam Band's Defense of
their Aboriginal Title Territory
Coast Salish Territory, April 17, 2000 — The U B C I C
confirmed their support for the Cheam Band's defensive action
to protect their Aboriginal title territory from further
encroachment by the Provincial government.
On March 30, 2000, the Cheam Band was informed
about the "Fraser Lowlands Protected Area Study," which
recommends the taking of Cheam's important and vital riparian
territory.
Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC stated
today, "What is happening to the Cheam Band, is taking place
across the province. The province is denying the very existence
of Aboriginal title despite the Supreme Court of Canada's
landmark Delgamuukw decision. We understand their
frustration and we intend to provide all the support we can to
their struggle to have a fair negotiation process. At this time we
offer our 'unconditional' support to the Cheam Band."
During a meeting in Vancouver today, the Assembly of
Firs Nations Executive Committee, including the National
Chief, Phil Fontaine also adopt a resolution supporting the
Cheam Indian Band, which shall be released April 18, 2000.
UBCIC Offers Condolences to Family and
Squamish Nation in Untimely Death of Chief Joe
Mathias
(Vancouver, Coast Salish Territory, March 10, 2000)
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs' learned today about the
untimely passing of Squamish Chief Joe Mathias.
Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC stated, " I
learned about the sudden and unexpected death of Chief
Mathias as I was driving to attend the First Nations Summit
meeting for the first time in seven years. -I was completely
stunned and greatly saddened by the news. Upon arriving in
Squamish, I offered condolences on behalf of the Okanagan
Nation and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. I pointed out that
although we didn't always agree on political matters we always
had nothing but the greatest respect for Chief Joe Mathias. Our
message to the family of Chief Joe Mathias, the Squamish
Nation and the First Nations Summit, was that we have to
complete the work for Chief Mathias and get our Aboriginal
title recognized by the governments. To this end, we pledged to
work in unity with the First Nations Summit to achieve this to
honour the memory of Chief Joe Mathias."
The First Nations Summit meeting was cancelled. The
U B C I C hopes to attend the next meeting to discuss how unity
can be strengthened among First Nations in British Columbia
and across the country.
SPRING 2000
UBCIC
Truth Behind
Treaty Making
NOW AVAILABLE!
In
modern treaty negotiations, Indigenous Peoples
a s p i r a t i o n s o f S e l f D e t e r m i n a t i o n and D e colonization are not achieved. Instead, modern treaties have
become the newest vehicle for the deconstruction of Indigenous
Nations and the assimilation of Indigenous Peoples.
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
M i l d r e d Chartrand at the Chiefs M a s k Bookstore
(604) 684-0231 or [email protected].
Price: $5.00 plus s/h
Discounts on orders of 10 copies or more.
NEWS
FORESTRY UPDATE
(Continued from page 3)
Haida Nation: T F L 39 Application
In the Haida petition, the Haida are in court in an
attempt to have T F L 39 (which renewed a fifty year tree farm
license to a major forest company) cancelled because the
Province has not adequately addressed Aboriginal Title prior to
making the decision. Additionally, several years ago the Haida
brought a court action asking for a legal interpretation of
wording in the Forest Act which states that the Province has
ownership of all of the trees in the Province which are not
"otherwise encumbered". In that case, the Court said that i f
Aboriginal title exists it would amount to an encumbrance on
the Province's title, and would limit the way that the Province
could deal with the trees, until it had first addressed Aboriginal
title.
In the most recent court action, the Haida asked for a
ruling that the Province was bound to consider the asserted
Aboriginal title of the Haida, which was general public
knowledge, prior to renewing T F L 39. The province argued
that the matter should go to a full court case in order to
determine whether or not Aboriginal title existed, and that they
had no obligation to accommodate unproven Aboriginal title. A
decision is pending, as to whether or not the Court will require
the case to go to a full trial, before making a determination on
this issue.
2.
Exercise of Aboriginal Title: Tree Harvesting
Operations
Under authorization of their individual tribal councils, a
number of individual communities in the Okanagan Nation
(Okanagan Band and Westbank) and Secwepemc Nation
(Adams Lake, Neskonlith and Spallumcheen) commenced
timber harvesting. The province issued stop work order under
it's forestry legislation and then went to Court in an attempt to
seek court orders to enforce the stop work orders that they
issued.
A t Court the Bands argued that the Province was not
entitled to enforce its stop work orders until it had showed that
it had accommodated Aboriginal title, and did not have the
freedom to simply prevent Aboriginal peoples' from exercising
their title until the Province had shown that it had taken the
title meaningfully into account in their decision making. The
province argued that it did not have to take any steps to
accommodate the asserted Aboriginal title, until that title was
either (1) proven in Court or (2) recognized under treaty.
Disposition of the Harvested Trees:
In all three cases (Okanagan, Westbank and the
Secwepemc cases) the Court has ordered that, through a process
of negotiation with the Province as to timing, and silviculture
requirements, that the Bands are entitled to harvest and haul the
FORESTRY UPDATE
(Continued from page 18)
SPRING
2000
11
UBCIC
NEWS
First Nations Owned Municipal Corporations
The following summary was prepared at the request of
the Assembly of First Nations. It explains a recent change in
the Income Tax Act that may affect corporations and other
entities owned by First Nations.
For example, for a corporation owned by a First Nation
that is a municipality, activities carried on by the corporation in
a province outside that First Nation's reserve under an
agreement entered into with the government of that province,
will not be included in determining whether more than 10% of
the corporation's income is from activities carried on off the
reserve.
What type of First Nation is considered a Canadian
municipality?
Entities that are owned by a Canadian municipality in
combination with
The Tax Court of Canada has determined that a band (a
first nation) that is exercising powers of self-government and is
providing the types of services that municipalities typically
provide can be considered a Canadian municipality for income
tax purposes. To determine i f it is considered a municipality, a
First Nation should contact the Agency's local tax services
office. The municipal status of each First Nation will be
resolved based on its particular situation.
- the federal government;
- a provincial government;
- a federally-owned entity.; and/or
- a provincially-owned entity;
may be exempt regardless of the geographical location in which
they carry on their activities.
Explanation of tax exempt status
Who has tax exempt status?
Paragraph 149(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act exempts a
Canadian municipality from income tax. Certain municipalowned-entities, certain entities owned by First Nations that are
municipalities are exempt from income tax under paragraphs
149(l)(d.3) to (d.6) of the Income Tax Act.
Detailed overview of tax-exempt status
The following is an overview of the exemption from
income tax for municipal owned entities.
A n entity that is at least 90% owned by one or more
municipalities will be exempt from income tax as long as,
starting in 1999, no more than 10% of its net income comes
from activities carried outside the geographical boundaries of
the municipalities.
For a First Nation that is municipality, the geographical
boundary is considered to be the boundary of its reserve.
However, income from activities carried on outside the
geographical boundaries does not include income from activities
carried on by and entity under a written agreement with:
- the federal government;
- a provincial government;
- another municipality;or
- a corporation that is exempt by these provisions and controlled
by one of the other levels of government;
if those activities are carried on within the geographical
boundaries of that other level of government.
For a First N a t i o n that is a m u n i c i p a l i t y , the
geographical boundary is considered to be the boundary of its
reserve.
However, income from activities carried on outside the
geographical boundaries does not include income from activities
carried on by an entity under a written agreement with:
- the federal government;
- a provincial government;
- another municipality; or
- a corporation that is exempt by these provisions and controlled
by one of the other levels of government;
if those activities are carried on within the geographical
boundaries of that other level of government.
Fore example, for a corporation owned by a First Nation
that is a municipality, activities carried on by the corporation in
a province outside that First Nation's reserve under an
agreement entered into with the government of that province,
will not be included in determining whether more than 10% of
the corporation's income is from activities carried on off the
reserve.
Entities that are owned by a Canadian municipality in
combination with:
the federal government;
the provincial government;
- a federally-owned entity; and/or
a provincially-owned entity;
may be exempt regardless of the geographical location in which
they carry on their activities.
F.N.'s Municipal Corporations (Continued on page 13)
12
SPRING 2000
UBCIC
F.N.'s Municipal Corporations (Continued from page 12)
In certain circumstances, the exemption may be available
through a chain of entities. For example i f an entity is exempt
under the new rules, its wholly-owned subsidiaries may also be
exempt from tax. The exemption continues to apply all the way
down a chain of subsidiary entities as long as each subsidiary
meets the 100% ownership test. As well, each subsidiary must
meet the rules regarding income from activities carried on
outside the geographical boundaries of the municipalities.
For example, as long as each subsidiary corporation
meets the 10% geographical boundary income test, where
exempt Corporation A owns 100% of Corporation B , which
owns 100% of Corporation C, and so on, all the corporations
may be tax exempt.
However, i f Corporation C only owns 95% of
Corporation D, Corporation D is not considered exempt. Nor
are any of its subsidiaries, even i f they are 100% owned by
Corporation D. In addition, i f a corporation in the chain does
not meet the 10% geographical boundary income test, that
corporation and any corporation below it in the chain will not
be exempt.
When a corporation's tax status changes from exempt to
non-exempt (or vice versa), the corporation is treated as i f had
begun a new existence. A year-end is deemed to occur at the
time of the change. At that time, the corporation is deemed to
have disposed of all its property at fair market value and
immediately reacquired it at that fair market value. Any
accrued gains or losses will be included in that year. This
applies to all property, whether it is inventory or capital. Any
loss carryovers from previous years and any accumulated tax
credits are not available to the corporation after a change in
status.
The deemed disposition rules treat the corporation as
though it had a new existence carrying all its property at fair
market value as of the date of the change in its tax status.
When the status changes, the corporation can select a new year
end, regardless of when its previous year end occurred.
NEWS
CHIEFS MASK BOOKSTORE
The C h i e f s M a s k B o o k s t o r e h a s b e e n d o i n g
g r e a t s i n c e being o n t h e w e b . If you h a v e
a c h a n c e p l e a s e t a k e a m o m e n t to
b r o w s e o u r site a t w w w . u b c i c . b c . c a
a n d click on t h e C h i e f s M a s k
B o o k s t o r e . T h e r e y o u will find a list of
b o o k s a v a i l a b l e plus o p t i o n s in m a k i n g
book orders. T h e Chiefs M a s k email address
is c m b o o k s @ u b c i c . b c . c a . H o p e t o h e a r f r o m y o u s o o n .
A l s o available in limited q u a n t i t i e s is the m a n u a l
p u b l i s h e d by t h e U n i o n of B.C. Indian Chiefs and
distributed solely by t h e Chiefs M a s k B o o k s t o r e ,
" R e s e a r c h i n g t h e I n d i a n L a n d Q u e s t i o n in B C -An
introduction
to Research Strategies & Archival
Research
for Band Researchers",
e d i t e d by L e i g h O g s t o n . T h e cost
is $ 2 0 . 0 0 for a b o u n d c o p y . T h e m a n u a l is available o n
t h e U B C I C w e b s i t e w i t h a v e r y limited s t o c k of b o u n d
c o p i e s for s a l e . O r d e r y o u r c o p y n o w !
T h e following title is a v a i l a b l e at a r e d u c e d price of
$ 1 6 . 9 5 . " T h e S a m e A s Y e s t e r d a y — The
Lillooet
Chronicle the Theft of Their Lands and Resources"
by
author Joanne Drake-Terry.
I invite y o u to r e a d t h e s e b o o k s a n d h a v e your
f r i e n d s a n d c o l l e a g u e s k n o w a b o u t t h e m . If y o u have read
a b o o k a n d w o u l d like to s u b m i t a r e v i e w , p l e a s e d o . A l l
c o m m e n t s a r e w e l c o m e a n d c a n b e p u b l i s h e d in the n e x t
i s s u e of t h e U B C I C N e w s l e t t e r w i t h p e r m i s s i o n f r o m the
writer.
It is at this t i m e I w o u l d like t o t h a n k y o u f o r your
c o n t i n u e d s u p p o r t in t h e C h i e f s M a s k B o o k s t o r e .
Mildred Chartrand
Assistant Manager
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE
(Continued from page 1)
Committee. The U B C I C strongly supports the Committee's mandate, but despite the fact that several A F N resolutions have been passed
by the Chiefs in Assembly, we have had to pressure the A F N to show real commitment by providing the necessary political will and
resources to carry on the work set out for the Committee. Chief Manuel has consistently tried to move this initiative along, but he needs
the support of the Chiefs to ensure the Committee's success. The A F N Annual General Assembly will be held July 10-13 in Ottawa. I
urge all Chiefs to support and endorse the activities of the Delgamuukw Implementation Committee, so that we can continue our efforts
to challenge the government's policy and action regarding our Aboriginal title.
The UBCIC calls on every Indigenous community in B.C. to speak out against the extinguishment of our title and rights
without our consent, and about the continuing alienation of our lands and resources while the governments of Canada and BC.
engage in manipulative strategies designed to divide us. In 1969, Chiefs came together in Kamloops to form the U B C I C . One of the
first orders of business was to challenge the then Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chretien's White Paper policy. Now he is Prime
Minister and we are still fighting the same extinguishment policy today. As President I am committed to carrying on this work by
acting on the UBCIC's political philosophy and principles which are rooted firmly in the knowledge that, as Indigenous Nations, we
have Aboriginal title over the lands and resources on traditional territories.
SPRING
2000
13
UBCIC
NEWS
Indian Homemakers
Association of B.C.
April 17, 2000
Dear Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh
Apprehension of Aboriginal Children Still a Thriving
Business in B.C.
"Residential Schools might no longer be relevant in
today's society, but the business of apprehending and abusing
our children is still an everyday occurrence!" This statement
was made by the women of the Indian Homemaker's
Association of B.C. at an emergency meeting held at their head
office in Vancouver on Sunday, April 16, 00 in response to
learning of another of our children's apprehension. Why is this
still happening? "It's a thriving business. Just look at the
courtrooms" stated a concerned Elder. "How much money
does the Ministry of Child and Family Services receive from the
Federal Government per Aboriginal child in care?" asks
another.
Aboriginal people appear to be the biggest economic
boom for Canada since the fur trade. If you don't believe that
fact, just ask the Ministry how many Aboriginal children are in
care. Our children might appear to be the different commodity
now instead of furs, but the same reasoning exists. "The more
you take, the more money you make" Ironically, Aboriginal
people are still, as they have always been, relevant to the
economy of Canada!
We find it not only confusing, but also despicable that
the Ministry's Social Worker entrusted to protect all children
grossly fail when it comes to Aboriginal children. Specifically,
the new Ministry of Child and Families states in their Staff
Training Manual, "... the way we serve children and families is
changing. Instead of doing business in isolation we are
reaching out to include the Aboriginal community in planning
and service delivery to their children."
Our confusion with this is that on April 14, 2000, it took
four police officers and one Social Worker unfamiliar to the
family to show up at our hearing an speech impaired client's
residence without a female officer nor a sign language
interpreter, nor an Aboriginal Family Support Worker at 6 p.m.
Friday night to conduct a routine "home visit". Unfortunately
they chose to arrive at a time of day when most Aboriginal
services are closed, thus further ensuring very limited support to
the family. The fact is, the ministry via their social worker
created another form of an abusive/controlling relationship for
her and her children, all in the spirit of protection.
There are still many parents and children out there
whose cries of abuse and distress seem to fall on deaf ears when
seeking protection and support from the Ministry. More often
14
than not their distress turns to tragedy. Often we find, that
when an Aboriginal family is "actually heard" such as in this
recent case of the young Aboriginal, hearing and speech
impaired single mother of four, who, in complying with the
results of her and her children receiving the Ministry's
"support" to end a violently abusive and controlling
relationship, typically and shamefully became re-victimized.
Even though she complies with all the Ministry's demands reasonable or otherwise - her children are still apprehended
from her repeatedly.
The massive confusion and distress suffered by this
mother to why apprehension was occurring by the Social
Worker that night was never answered. Also, during her
children's interrogation, the mother was held in another room.
Police officers said that they needed to keep an eye on her
because she's just like all the rest of the native women who run
away with their children. She replied, "I'm not like that, I
won't run away with my children, there's no need for me to run,
I haven't done anything wrong." These types of attitudes and
generalizations are insulting! Indian Homemakers question is...
i f our native woman are running away with their
children... Why?
M C F failed to provide her with their reason for being
there with four police officers for "routine home visit" late
Friday evening, other than when after interviewing their
children, they accusingly told her that her eldest son said,
"daddy was here!" The mother, although physically limited in
her hearing, responded by saying that's not what he is saying!
She might have been restrained by police as the children
were being interrogated by strangers, but she is able to read lips
and she tried to explain to them what her son was really saying,
but they wouldn't listen and then proceeded to apprehend her
children at that time.
Their mother has a restraining order of "No Contact"
through the courts between her estranged husband and herself
and her children. In this action by M C F an over reaction to a
simple and natural statement of "Daddy was here," made by a
child, who, missing his other parent and just earlier that day
watching his daddy on a video witnessed by a Family Outreach
Worker of the Indian Homemakers Association of B.C. during a
home visit with the family at 3:00 p.m. of that same day? Was
M C F really only looking for any reason to apprehend? Was
she, their disabled mother set up? Do social workers generally
make home visits to disabled single parents with four small
children and intimidate them with the force of four police
officers, after 7 p.m. on Friday nights?
The lack of respect they showed to these children by not
allowing their distraught mom to comfort and reassure them
before the situation escalated is also extremely pathetic. They
could have alleviated the children's distress at anytime by
allowing the mother to walk them to the vehicle. No mother
wants to see her children abused in this way when she can
prevent it. Or, they could have asked the mother to tell the
children in a good way to go with them. Instead, M C F and four
police officers literally and publicly ripped the children from the
real safety of their home and arms of their mother. Shame on
them!
APPREHENSION
(Continued on page 15)
SPRING
2000
UBCIC
APPREHENSION (Continued from page 14)
Then they proceeded to further traumatize the family
including the neighborhood witnessing this abusive action by
using further "Excessive force" Since when does it take five
adult males, four of them police officers to shove four
screaming and terrified small children into a "get away car" of
strangers while listening to the pitiful cries of their speech and
hearing impaired mother? If these four small children ages 10,
7, 5, and 2 years old and there five foot nothing disabled mother
posed such a physical threat to M C F ' s male social worker that
four male police officers were needed then where were the
dogs? Or better yet, where was their common sense? Where
was this sense of morality and ethics? What are her and her
children's actual rights? Does anyone care?
Indian Homemakers asks, "How would you ever expect
any child to reach out to the Ministry or police officers when
needing protection i f faced with violence, when M C F and the
police, in this case, are the violators?" We also wonder who, if
anyone, physically checked these children for the bruises they
must have received from these very same people who we as tax
payers entrust so blindly to protect them?
The only thing these poor, abused children received
aside from their trauma was the mixed messages that the rules
of protection only apply i f you are non-aboriginal! Sadly, they
were also receiving the message that its not important that their
mother is sincerely making valid efforts to provide a safe and
loving home. By her complying with all the demands and
changing rules placed on her by the Ministry - including
attending additional parenting courses, the Indian Homemakers
believes she has indeed met their demands. This young
Aboriginal mother has made great strides in building her self
esteem and traditional parenting skills in spite of a ministry
who doesn't recognize any of her accomplishments. She was
also supporting her children's growth and development by
actively volunteering in their pre-school program.
We thank God that this distraught, single, aboriginal,
hearing and speech impaired mother of four had the strength
and common sense, after being left alone in her empty house
with no support, to not add her being abused by making the
right choices. She did not mm to alcohol or suicide, she chose
instead to reach out to the women of her community for support.
We deeply respect her choice and commend her for it. "So,
who's the next victim of a ministry that clearly doesn't follow
their own training procedures we ask? You? Maybe if your
aboriginal!
What is the real truth? is the Ministry's coffers once
again depleted? Are they once again conducting a "Claw
Back" to replenish the bank? Is the "Claw Back" our children
this time instead of money from our already marginally funded
yet over burdened s o c i a l programs?" The o r i g i n a l
overspending was stated as caused by more children in care.
Again, most children in care are Aboriginal. Surprised? Not
us.
NEWS
RESOURCE CENTRE
The Y 2 K upgrading of hardware and software in the Resource
Centre is all but completed. A l l computers are now Pentiums
and we have moved from a Windows 3.11 platform to Windows
98. We have also upgraded our word processing and library
application software to the most current versions. It has been a
learning curve for Lorraine and I as we reformatted hard drives
and did everything from deal with peripheral device problems to
getting two CPUs to share one monitor, keyboard and mouse.
We had some very frustrating days when we didn't want to see
anything that plugged into an electrical outlet ever again but we
have both gained a lot of knowledge and confidence from the
process. We also saved a lot of money by doing it ourselves.
Morgan Young, who has been helping us catch up on our
backlog of cataloguing over the past year, thanks to special
funding from D I A N D , is nearing the end of her contract. She
has made a visible difference. A lot of material came off our
office backlog shelves and went onto the shelves in the Resource
Centre. We hope to be successful in our application again this
year for an H R D C grant to hire a summer student. That student
will be able to start the last half of the project to get our older
collection of Brian Deer classified materials into our catalog
database. Our catalog is available to look at on the Internet at
the U B C I C website www.ubcic.bc.ca.
I recently found a number of website addresses for Canadian
aboriginal economic development sites in the newsletter put out
by C A N D O (Council for the Advancement of Native
Development Officers). If you are involved in economic
development, you might want to look at:
www.aboriginalbusiness.on.ca
www.infoexport.gc.ca
www.linknet.ns.ca/links
www.aboriginalmap.ic.gc.ca
www.sae.ca
www.abc.gc.ca
www.fnfp.gc.ca (this one is particularly related to forestry
initiatives)
I know that Records Management is of concern to many Bands.
For those of you within driving distance of Vancouver, there is
going to be three records management courses offered in the
evening starting the third week of September at Vancouver
Community College. I'll let you know more details later in the
summer. Summer_what a wonderful thought.
Wendy Ancell, M L S
UBCIC Librarian
On behalf of the Elders, Board of all the Aboriginal
Women and their families of the Indian Homemaker's
Association of B.C.,
Jeannette Angus, IHA President
SPRING
2000
15
UBCIC
NEWS
Assembly of First Nations
National Chief Insists on Changes to Bill C-20 to
Reflect Full Participation of First Nations
Healthy People Build Healthy Communities
March 13. 2000
April 6. 2000
The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations is
calling on the government and all political partied to amend
Bill C-20, the Clarity Bill. The amendments must properly
reflect and include an equal role for First Nations in any future
referendum on secession by and any provinces and any
negotiations that may lead to the separation of a province from
Canada.
"The federal government is moving ahead with
legislation that clearly does not reflect the Constitution Act of
1982. The A c t states very clearly that First Nations and
Aboriginal governments must be recognized as full participants
in any discussion of a constitutional nature. The secession of a
province is clearly a major constitutional change yet we are not
included in this proposed legislation as full and equal partners
in the talks to be conducted following a referendum", stated
National Chief Fontaine.
The National Chief appeared before the Legislative
Committee studying B i l l C-20. He tabled proposed
amendments before the Committee that would recognize and
support the role of First Nations in this issue. While some
committee members expressed support for the amendments,
they do not appear to have been incorporated in to the proposed
legislation at this point.
"I intend to press this important issue with the
government and all the opposition parties. The Constitution
clearly sets our critical role in such matters. The Meech Lake
Accord was opposed and defeated by First Nations and Elijah
Harper because it failed to recognize the Aboriginal Peoples of
this land as first peoples and partners. Bill C-20 suffers from
the same historical inaccuracy. Fundamental changes to the
constitution of Canada cannot and will not be made successfully
without the consent of Aboriginal Peoples", concluded the
National Chief.
The National Chief and members of the Executive will
be talking with Cabinet Ministers, government M P ' s , and
Opposition Leaders to push for the changes to the Bill. Debate
resumes March 13 and the efforts will be focused during that
week.
Chiefs from across Canada have called for a
comprehensive approach to deal with the poor social conditions
that contribute to an escalating First Nations health crisis.
"There is a direct link between healthy communities and
healthy people," said Ghislain Picard, A F N Vice Chief for
Quebec and Labrador.
Chiefs attending the A F N Confederacy meeting in
Ottawa heard some staggering statistics: Diabetes is epidemic
among First Nations and the number of cases is expected to
double or triple in the next 20 years; Health Canada says HIV/
AIDS is pandemic in First Nations communities and First
Nations are experiencing the highest rates of suicide in Canada
with young suicides (ages 15-18) five times the national
average.
"Our peoples' health is in jeopardy. It is a national
crisis that needs to be addressed now without further delay,"
said Vice-Chief Picard, Co-Chair of the A F N Chiefs Committee
on Health. "We passed resolutions this week calling for the
federal government and relevant ministries to work with us to
develop a coordinated strategy to improve First Nation health.
Health is not only about the individual —it is about healthy
communities."
"As First Nations we take a holistic approach to health.
Many serious health problems can be directly related to poor
social conditions in our communities: lack of economic
opportunity, low levels of formal education, poor housing and
lack of the basic necessities of the life like clean drinking."
Over 200 Confederacy delegates learned that A F N
National Chief Phil Fontaine had received a commitment from
Finance Minister Paul Martin in recent discussion to convene
an interdepartmental committee of federal ministers to work
with First Nations governments to develop a national First
Nations economic development strategy. It is hoped the
strategy will be announced as part of the 2001/2002 Federal
Budget.
Vice Chief Picard said progress on improving social
conditions for First Nations citizens is an essential step in
helping First Nations move towards economic self-sufficiency.
"Meantime, it is important that all appropriate branches
of the government work with us to deal with the First Nations
health crisis and to make our communities healthy and viable,"
he said. "First Nations have the right to the same health
standard enjoyed by all Canadians."
Contact Jean LaRose (613) 241-6789 ext. 251
Contact: Jean LaRose (613) 241-6789 ext. 251
16
SPRING 2000
UBCIC
National Chief and Executive Support The Cheam
Band Involved in Dispute
April 19. 2000
The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations,
Phil Fontaine, along with the Executive Council, pledged the
organizations support to the Cheam Indian Band, who are
currently embroiled in a land dispute with the province of
British Columbia. Yesterday the National Chief and members
of the Executive Council passed a resolution of support for
Cheam, members of the Executive council then traveled to the
community Tuesday evening in a show of support and
solidarity.
"We feel its necessary to support the Cheam people who
are currently involved in a ongoing land dispute with the
Province of British Columbia. This dispute is not only about
securing a land base it is about developing and sustaining an
economic future," said National Chief Fontaine.
Since the 1950's the Cheam people have been trying to
engage the federal government and the province in talks to
resolve their outstanding land claims. Most recently the Cheam
people maintain their right to their land as it is secured in
section 35.1 of the Canadian Constitution, and the Supreme
Court of Canada's Delgamuukw decision of December 11, 1997
confirms the Cheam Band enjoys unextinguished Aboriginal
title to their lands and territories.
The National Chief is calling on British Columbia
Premier Ujjal Dosanjh to deal with this outstanding issue
urgently and in good faith. "This situation has to be dealt with
quickly without further delay. Premier Dosanjh has both the
ability and authority to work with the Cheam people in order to
settle this issue to ensure the community can utilize the
resources available in order to sustain a viable economic base
for its community. The alternative can only be one of
confrontation and unnecessary hardship," concluded the
National Chief.
Contact: Naline Rampersad (613) 612-1785
Re: Post Secondary Education
NEWS
A Message From the
Cheam Indian Band
As
you are undoubtedly aware, the Cheam Indian
B a n d is involved i n an active land dispute with the
Province o f British Columbia. In fact, we have been forced
to take direct action by effecting the closure o f a road know
as Ferry Island Road, which runs through one o f the parcels
of land i n dispute.
Rather than deal with the issues of contention, Premier
Dosanjh has publicly conveyed the feeble excuse, through a
cowardly press statement issued on A p r i l 16, 2000, that he
w i l l not consider any future negotiations w h i l e the Cheam
Band continues to undertake acts o f c i v i l disobedience.
Further, we have had no direct communication from the
office o f the Premier.
A t this time, on behalf o f the Cheam Indian Band, we
would like to ask for your immediate political support. The
Province o f British C o l u m b i a continues to 'hold i n contempt' our Section 35.1 Constitution rights as w e l l as our
aboriginal rights as outlined in the December 11, 2000
Delgamuukw decision.
The Province o f British Columbia continues to carry on
'business as usual' in spite of the Delgamuukw decision.
Accordingly, the Province continues to accelerate the
A meeting with Finance Minister Paul Martin was held
on March 21, 2000, in Ottawa, On. Minister Martin was
informed that there was a growing number of First Nations
students applying for Post Secondary Education (PSE) funding
and that many who applied were often deferred and put on
waiting lists. The Minister stated that he was unaware of this
situation and to commit increased funding for PSE, evidence
was required to substantiate the need.
Thus, I need your assistance in gathering the names of
students who are waiting to access PSE funding. Officials at
the Assembly of First Nations will be contacting your PSE
administrators in your communities and regions by telephone to
collect this information. Your cooperation and support for this
initiative will assist us in our efforts to lobby for increased
funding.
I thank you for your time and commitment to First
Nations education.
SPRING 2000
alienation o f our aboriginal title lands through various landuse-planning exercises such as the so-called Protected Area
Strategy and the L a n d and Resource Management Planning.
We ask that you immediately write Premier Dosanjh and
demand that he deal with our land issues i n a forthright and
honest manner.
Sincerely yours,
Chief June Quipp
Cheam Indian B a n d
17
UBCIC
NEWS
FORESTRY UPDATE
(Continued from page 11)
trees to be milled. The parties are free to
negotiate about whether or not the
proceeds of the timber (the milled wood)
will be either used to build housing for
band members, or sold with the profit
paid into a trust account pending the
outcome of the cases.
Additionally, the Bands are free
to replant the harvested areas, and
argued that they should be allowed to
replant in a manner which restores the
forest for the traditional uses of their
people, and not simply to re-grow
another cash crop as required under
Provincial forestry practices. The Court
ordered that both the Bands and the
province were entitled to recover their
costs for the preparation and harvesting
of the blocks, and that the parties should
negotiate about what these costs are.
In the Westbank Hidden Creek
action, the court decided that a full trial
was necessary in order to determine
whether or not the Province was entitled
to enforce its stop work order, and that
the Band would have to prove that it has
Aboriginal title to the area in question.
Westbank has since appealed this
decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal and
is awaiting a decision. The full trial in
this matter has been scheduled for the
Spring of 2001.
In the Okanagan and Secwepemc
action, a decision is still pending as to
whether or not the Bands will be forced
into a full Aboriginal right title, or
whether or not the Court can decide the
action based on asserted Aboriginal title.
The Bands have argued that i f they are
forced into Court to prove their
Aboriginal title, in order for the province
to accommodate that title, that the
Province should be forced to pay for the
Band's legal costs in bringing this matter
to Court. Decisions on these matters are
still outstanding.
The combined series of actions, in
w h i c h Indigenous Peoples are
challenging the Province's absolute
assertion of ownership and refusal to
acknowledge the existence o f
Aboriginal title are moving forward.
This is the first time that the Province
has ever been faced with united actions,
on the part of Aboriginal peoples,
18
Council of the Haida Nation Takes on Forestry
Giant, Seeks to Invalidate License
Skidegate- The Council of the Haida Nation has filed a petition in B.C.
Supreme Court challenging the Province's authority to transfer a tree farm license
agreement from MacMillan Bloedel to Weyerhaeuser.
The license, which allows the American-owned company to log tens of
thousands worth upwards of $100 million a year from the traditional lands of the
Haida people, was transferred to Weyerhaeuser without the consultation or approval
of the Haida Nation.
"The effects of this license have already proven to work against the wellbeing of our people and our culture," says Guujaaw, President of the Haida Nation.
In 1997 the Haida Nation challenged the replacement of TFL 39 in which the
B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that aboriginal title constitutes an encumbrance over
Tree Farm Licenses. The license allows the holder to log 1.2 million cubic meters of
timber per year on Haida Gwaii. "We have attempted to address this through
negotiations," says Guujaaw. "But the Government still does not accept-that we
have a legitimate interest. That must be corrected."
The petition filed today in B.C. Supreme Court seeks to have the license
agreement, known as Tree Farm License 39, declared invalid. Until recently,
MacMillan Bloedel ltd. held TFL 39. Last October, the B.C. government approved
in principle the transfer of M B to US forestry giant Weyerhaeuser Inc. in November,
the sale was completed and Weyerhaeuser assumed control of all of M B ' S logging
licenses.
Of direct concern to the Haida Nation is Block 6 of T F L 39, that portion of
the license agreement that pertains to Haida Gwaii, also known as the Queen
Charlotte Islands. In the past five years for which data is available, Weyerhaeuser's
predecessor logged more than 4.4 million cubic meters of wood on the islands. The
amount of cedar, spruce and hemlock logs taken off the islands filled more than 770
barge loads, and was worth $586.8 million on the Vancouver log market.
The continued logging of red cedar trees is of particular concern to the Haida
Nation, as the species is central to Haida culture. T F L 39 also encompasses
important cultural sites including villages, camps and cedar use areas. "The Tree
Farm License Agreements are strong enough, now an American company will have
the added support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which
will bind the Province to massive compensation payouts if any lands are to be
spared," says Guujaaw.
Tree Farm Licenses have been given out on the premise of logging natural
forests which took root thousands of years ago, including trees several hundred years
old, followed by the repeated logging of plantation trees. "The fate of the land
parallels with fate of the Haida cultural heritage," says Guujaaw.
Contact: Guujaaw, President of the Haida Nation (250) 559-8250
demanding that the Province
acknowledge and accommodate our
existing Aboriginal title. The individual
Aboriginal communities (Okanagan,
Westbank, Adams Lake, Neskonlith,
Spallumcheen and Haida) are bringing
these actions forward in an attempt to
stop the Province's "business as usual"
approach and continued denial of the
existence of Aboriginal title.
SPRING
2000
UBCIC
NEWS
Interior Alliance
OPEN LETTER: To All of the Aboriginal Nations and Communities
Participating in the British Columbia Treaty Process
In 1973, the federal government
adopted a national policy to negotiate the
extinguishment of Aboriginal title and
rights in Canada; this was the
Comprehensive Claims Policy. In 1986,
the Comprehensive Claims Policy was
revised by the federal government and in
1990, the federal government removed
the restriction of only negotiating with
six Aboriginal claimant groups: at a time
in order to "accelerate" the
extinguishment of Aboriginal title.
In 1992, the "made in B.C."
British Columbia Treaty Commission
(BCTC) Process was created in order to
implement the federal Comprehensive
Claims Policy in British Columbia. The
NDP government of Mike Harcourt and
Glen Clark subsequently brought into the
provincial government bureaucracy
ranks, individual experienced with
implementing the federal Comprehensive
Claims Policy, notably, Mr. Tony
Penikett, former N D P Premier of the
Yukon Territorial Government, who
presided over the Y u k o n Final
Agreement.
We are writing because for the
first time since 1992 — when the British
Columbia Treaty Commission Process
began — all of the major Aboriginal
organizations in B.C. have adopted a
consensus Statement in order to:
Categorically reject the Federal
Comprehensive Claims Policy and
Canada's implementation of this policy.
Affirm that Aboriginal title exists
in B.C. and Canada
Press for the replacement of the
Comprehensive Claims Policy with a
new policy of Recognition, Affirmation
and Implementation of Aboriginal Title.
During meetings held in
Vancouver on January 27-29, 2000, there
was also a consensus on a political
strategy that will lead to the exercise of
Aboriginal title through initiatives across
the province.
On December 11, 1997, the
Supreme Court of Canada issued its
landmark Delgamuukw decision
affirming that Aboriginal title exists in
B . C . and Canada, rendering the
Comprehensive Claims Policy illegal in
light of this court decision. The
Delgamuukw decision sets out legal
principles and a framework for the
recognition, reconciliation and
implementation of Aboriginal title along
with Crown title.
protecting and enforcing our respective
Aboriginal title. It should be noted we
have a video of the federal Minister of
Indian Affairs, Robert Nault, on January
10, 2000, while traveling in Western
Quebec with National Chief Phil
Fontaine, drawing a line in the sand, by
categorically stating that the federal
government will not negotiate the
recognition of Aboriginal title, or
compensation for infringements of
Aboriginal title.
After the Delgamuukw decision,
our Interior Alliance patiently waited for
the governments to demonstrate to us,
what the courts refer to as "the honour
of the Crown", by offering to negotiate
the recognition of our Aboriginal title in
accordance with the Supreme Court of
Canada decision.
What we have received instead
from the governments of Canada and
British Columbia is gamesmanship. Our
Interior Alliance Nations were told by
the previous Minister of Indian Affairs,
Jane Stewart, to either enter into
negotiation under the B C T C process, or
go to court.
Our Interior Alliance decided to
choose a third option. A number of our
communities have exercised Aboriginal
title by conducting Timber Harvesting
Operation within our Ancestral
homelands. We did so under our own
permitting system. The Governments of
British Columbia has dragged our
communities into court and our
communities are defending themselves in
court. These court proceedings are
numerous and at different levels,
including the British Court of Appeals.
In his January 10, 2000,
statements, Minister Nault, presents a
frank assessment that no Minister of the
Crown has a right to recognize
Aboriginal title, because this would
require a federal "Cabinet decision",
which essentially means that federal
recognition of Aboriginal title requires
the support of Prime Minister Chretien.
Minister Nault's comments places
into context the recently announced
"Treaty Related Measures" (TRM's), or
so-called "Improvements" to the BCTC
Process, as being merely a manipulative
public relations technique designed to
paint Aboriginal Nations and peoples as
a greedy and unreasonable if and when
these T R M ' s are r e j e c t e d as
e c o n o m i c a l l y and e c o l o g i c a l l y
unsustainable by Aboriginal Nations and
peoples.
Meanwhile, as per the meeting
and consensus statement of January 28,
2000, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,
the Interior Alliance, the First Nations
Summit and the Assembly of First
Nations are now united against the
Federal Comprehensive Claims Policy
and the implementation of that policy.
The Government of Canada
intends to continue denying and delaying
the opportunities afforded by the
Supreme Court o f Canada's
Delgamuukw decision for our Aboriginal
Nations and peoples.
In our view, the "Treaty
Settlement M o d e l " the Chretien
government is trying to impose on
Aboriginal Nations and peoples through
the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f the
Comprehensive Claims policy, has
origins in his 1969 White Paper on
Indian Policy.
OPEN LETTER (Continued on page 20)
We will need to be unified in
SPRING 2000
19
UBCIC
NEWS
OPEN LETTER (Continued from page 19)
We believe that the federal government is deliberately
using Aboriginal poverty to keep the Comprehensive Claims
Policy and Process alive. We also know that the outstanding
$100 million in demand loans and the threat of legal action is
keeping many Aboriginal groups engaged in the so-called
Treaty process — even though the governments refuse to
negotiate the recognition of Aboriginal title or compensation—
simply because many Aboriginal groups cannot afford to repay
the loans. This is tantamount to blackmail and we urge any of
you caught in this situation to bring this fundamental injustice
into the public eye.
From the beginning, the federal Cabinet's objective in
implementing the Comprehensive Claims Policy in British
Columbia has been the extinguishment of Aboriginal title, and
the recent Delgamuukw decision has not changed their minds.
We only have to look at the terms and conditions contained in
the so-called "modern treaties", particularly the Nisga'a Final
Agreement and the Sechel Agreement-in-Principle, to see what
the federal and provincial negotiating positions are regarding
the extinguishment of Aboriginal title, or "certainty" as the
lawyers now call it.
The recent "insulting offers", to groups negotiating
under the Comprehensive Claims Process shows a clear pattern
that the governments are ignoring the legal principles and
framework set out in the landmark Delgamuukw decision. The
problem is that the federal negotiators mandates come from the
Comprehensive Claims Policy which only deals with
administrative land matters, not the recognition of Aboriginal
title, or compensation for infringing upon Aboriginal title.
So the purpose of our unified effort in B.C. and across
Canada, is to press the federal Cabinet to replace the federal
Comprehensive C l a i m s P o l i c y w i t h a p o l i c y for the
Recognition, Affirmation and Implementation of Aboriginal
Title. However, in our estimation, the policy will be difficult to
replace for all of the Aboriginal title territories in British
Columbia, as long as some Aboriginal Nations or communities
in British Columbia cling to the process that does not work,
places you deeper in debt and produces only "insulting offers".
Through the Delgamuukw decision we now have a
strong legal foundation and politically we have the makings of a
regional, national and international strategy to attack the unjust,
unfair and illegal Comprehensive Claims Policy, which has
remained relatively unchanged since Jean Chretien first
announced it in the House of Commons in 1973, not long after
his infamous 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy. The law has
changes and so must the policy.
To conclude, for the sake of this generation and for those
yet unborn, we urge those of you negotiating under the
Comprehensive Claims Policy, through the Comprehensive
Claims Process, to leave the table and join with us in pressing
the federal Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, to recognize
Aboriginal title and compensate for any infringements of
Aboriginal title.
Canadian First Nations Join Together in
Washington, D.C. to Present Views on
Softwood Lumber Agreement
Washington, April 13 —Today, members of the Grand
Council of the Crees and the B.C. Interior Alliance delivered
written submissions to the U.S. government concerning the
impacts of forestry and trade in response to a call by the office
of the United States Trade Representative for input.
In the last six months, both groups have traveled to
Washington to lobby U.S. political representatives on their
opposition to proposed "free trade" of softwood lumber when
the current Canada/US. Softwood Lumber Agreement expires
in April 2001. Recognizing the potential threats to their
interests if unregulated softwood lumber trade between Canada
and the U.S. is allowed, the Interior Alliance and the Grand
Council have decided to work together in Washington.
Sam Etapp of the Grand Council of the Crees noted,
"Our coming together on the lumber trade issue makes perfect
sense, considering that the forestry industry joined together a
long time ago with government to defend Canada's
unsustainable practices."
Chief Arthur Manuel of the B.C. Interior added that, "In
coming together, we have strong Aboriginal opposition to the
Canadian foresty industry's rhetoric about the need for "free
trade" in wood products that are produced in a manner that
harms our cultures.
In their brief to the U.S. Trade Representative, the Grand
Council asserts that present forestry practices in Quebec are
violating their treaty rights through the ongoing liquidation of
the forests within their subsistence land base. Ignoring these
impacts, and their treaty, the Crees contend, amounts to a
subsidy for the industry in Quebec.
The B.C. Interior Alliance's submission affirms that
Nations within the south central interior of B.C. - about a third
of the province - have Aboriginal Proprietary interests over the
land and resources. By ignoring these interests and their
aboriginal title, the B.C. Government and the forestry industry
are garnering resources and revenues at the expense of their
culture and livelihoods.
Following the filing of their written submissions,
representatives of the Interior Alliance and the Grand Council
will meet with several members of the Senate and Congress to
inform them of their reservations about potential unregulated
softwood lumber trade between Canada and the U.S. should
Canada's forest regime not first be reformed.
Robert Kitchen, a representative of the Grand Council of
the Waswanipi Nation, concluded that "Both groups hoped that
their efforts this past week would lead to a broader and more
informed debate among U.S. political and trade officials in the
coming months.
Contact: Romeo Saganash (418) 564-1598
Chief Art Manuel (250) 314-7179
Chief Art Manuel, Chairman
20
SPRING 2000
UBCIC
NEWS
C a n a d a a n d B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a B e i n g I n v e s t i g a t e d by
International Human Rights Organization for Alleged Violations
Against Carrier Sekani First Nation
Vancouver - In November of last year the Government of
Canada and the Government of British Columbia were asked to
respond by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
to a petition alleging human rights violations against our people
— The Yinka Dene, better known as the Carrier Sekani First
Nations of Carrier Sekani Tribal Council.
The Commission, which is a branch of the Organization
of American States based out of Washington, D.C., has taken
the dramatic and historic step of asking these governments to
respond to a petition by a Canadian indigenous nation
challenging their attempts to reallocate all of the timber rights
within an aboriginal claimed and occupied traditional territories
to large corporate companies without respect to aboriginal
rights and title and without aboriginal consent.
We are bringing this information to the attention of the
people of Canada and British Columbia because while this
action is taking place at the highest levels of the international
human rights system, there has been a public silence
surrounding this development. In fact, these governments are
expected to give a preliminary response to the Commission's
inquiries this week and we believe the public ought to be
inquiring about the substance of this response.
We also wish to have the public understand that the
Government of British Columbia is right now approving forest
development plans and is attempting to issue new cutting
permits over our sacred forests to these forestry corporations.
They are carrying out this intrusion into our lands over our
vehement protests.
This action by the provincial government goes against
our interests and strikes at the very heart of our physical and
spiritual survival. The potential short and long term damage
this action poses to our people cannot be over emphasized.
This then is the basis of our petition to the Commission.
Moreover, we are urgently asking this Commission to issue
precautionary measures to prevent the wholesale giving away of
our forests that will ultimately lead to their eventual
destruction. As well, we are asking the Commission to
make itself available to mediate a solution to this conflict.
Additionally, we are requesting from the Commission
that it seeks from the Government of Canada full clarification
in regard to all authorized and pending concession proposals,
agreements and plans with respect to the exploitation of any
natural resources within the area of our communities and lands;
and in regard to other plans or initiatives that will affect our
communities and traditional lands.
The precautionary measures we are seeking include, at a
minimum, the immediate suspension of all new permits,
licenses, and concessions for logging and other natural resource
development activity on lands used and occupied by our people
in this province, a suspension of the reallocation of lease rights
within the specified territory, and specific measures to ensure
SPRING
2000
that the logging and such other natural resource development
activity in fact is not accelerated and does not continue unless
pursuant to a suitable arrangement with ourselves negotiated
under the auspicious of the Commission or through the British
Columbia treaty process.
We are hopeful this human rights complaint against
Canada and British Columbia and the actions taken to date by
the Commission will bring our plight to the attention of the
international community, and that this will produce the desired
effect of giving us some protection and control over our lives
and our lands. We remain hopeful the Canadian public will
support us in our efforts to survive as a people, as a distinct
culture, and as a valuable contributor to the Canadian
community.
Other countervailing action we have undertaken to date
recently include unequivocally rejecting the provincial
government's latest recommendations to those same forest
companies where it is asking them to change the logistics of
their harvesting, albeit cutting remains concentrated in our
traditional territory our rejection is based on the same concerns
listed in our petition to the Commission.
Currently, our treaty talks with Canada and British
Columbia have been cancelled by these two governments
because the provincial government refuses to negotiate with us
while it is being litigated against. The Saik'uz First Nation, a
member first nation of the Tribal Council, is initiating litigation
against the provincial government contesting their consultation
policies, specifically as it surrounds the advertisement of a new
forest license in their traditional territory.
PROTEST RALLY
The Carrier Sekani is organizing a protest
rally regarding our Human Rights petition
against Canada. This protest rally is
scheduled for Victoria, B.C. on May 24th
& 25th, 2000.
This protest rally is in follow up to our
announcement and rally held in Vancouver on March 7th, 2000 in conjunction with
the First Nations Summit Meeting.
Contact Ann Ketlo (250) 562-6279
21
UBCIC
NEWS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
POW WOW
15th Annual Cedar Cottage / Trout Lake
"Honoring the Resiliency of Native
Veterans and Families"
--
BULLETINS
--
NOTICES
Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship
Centre Society
Tsawwassen Golf and Country Club
1598-52nd Street, Tsawwassen
Friday, May 26, 2000
$75.00 - includes Green Fee & Roast Beef Buffet
Prizes for Everyone!
To register or for more information Contact:
May 12,13, 14, 2000
(604)251-4844 Jean Allbeury Ext.321
Wayne Liao Ext. 305
Trout Lake Community Centre
3350 Victoria Drive, Vancouver, B.C.
UPPER NICOLA
Alcohol & Drug Free
ADMISSION BY DONATION
2nd Annual
"Thunder in the Valley Father's Day Contest
Pow Wow
June 16, 17, 18,2000
Siem Lelum - Khowutsun Reserve Park
5574 River Road, Duncan, B.C.
M C : Harold Belmont
Arena Director: Duane Howard
Host Drum: Thunderchild Singers
Honor Drum: Fly in Eagle Singers
Admission: $3.00 per day
Contact: Harold Joe (250) 748-9404
Vancouver: (604) 253-1020
22
ANNUAL NATIVE GOLF
TOURNAMENT
July 15, 2000
Merritt, B.C.
Nicola Valley Golf Course
PRIZES FOR E V E R Y O N E
Texas Scramble
Junior Divison (8-16
$40.00
9 Holes
Baron of Beef Lunch
Steak Dinner
yrs.)
$50.00
18 Holes
Baron of Beef Lunch
Steak Dinner
For more information contact (250) 768-2263
email: [email protected]
c/o 3255 C Shannon Lake Road
Westbank, B . C . V 4 T 1R6
Visit the Union of B.C. Indian
Chiefs Website:
SPRING 2000
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
SPRING 2000
23
UBCIC
NEWS
UNION OF B. C. INDIAN CHIEFS
SUBSCRIPTION FORM
NAME: ___________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE RECEIVED:
CHEQ/M.O. #___________
EXPIRY DATE: _________
ADDRESS:
________________________________ POSTAL/ZIP CODE:
PROVINCE/STATE/COUNTRY:
1
YEAR
SUBSCRIPTION
NewsLETTER
Individual:
RATES
$35.00
T O T A L AMOUNT ENCLOSED $
Please make cheque or money order payable to: UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS, 5TH FLOOR - 342 WATER STREET,
VANCOUVER,
B.C.,
V6B 1A1
CHIEFS MASK BOOKS
ARTS & CRAFTS
-JEWELLRY
- ABORIGINAL
-POTTERY
ISSUES
- INTERNATIONAL
- LAND
INDIGENOUS
-PRINTS
CLAIMS
- T-SHIRTS
-
ACCEPTED
CONSIGNMENTS
- FIRST NATIONS
CONSIGNMENTS
ACCEPTED
BOOKS
LEATHERWORK
-ART
- MASKS
- CHILDREN'S
BOOKS
- BEAD WORK
- POETRY
- POW WOW MUSIC
CALL, WRITE OR
DROP IN TODAY!
- AND MUCH
MORE!
Owned and operated by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs - 5th Floor 342 Water Street in Gastown (604) 684-0231
NOW SERVING THE INSTITUTE OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNMENT
24
SPRING 2000
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
NEWSLETTER
MAY 2000 EDITION
Mes
rReeres
jai ae
hae -
Gs
“'j| #nthemonths
F “that have passed
| since the 31st UB-
AS 4CIC Annual Gen-
Fe see ay cussions were held
Chief Stewart Phillip with Chiefs and
| Okanagan community people
all over the province who are deeply
concerned about the relentless attack on
our lands and resources that continues
while Canada and BC "play politics"
with us. They tell those of us who are
outside the BC Treaty Process that trea-
ties can only be negotiated within the
BCTC. We categorically reject this
process as unacceptable because it does
not recognize Aboriginal title or deal
with compensation, and is based on a
land selection model and loan funding.
At the same time, First Nations Summit
members involved in the treaty process,
now owe millions of dollars in loan
funding and have nothing to show for
their efforts to negotiate in good faith
with governments. They are rejecting
the "insulting offers" being put on the
table by federal and provincial BCTC
negotiators. As aresult, many commu-
nities, both inside and outside the BCTC
process, are actively implementing their
title on the land and in the courts. The
UBCIC has given strong political sup-
port to all communities involved in the
logging cases currently before the courts,
as well as those who are taking other
political action on the ground.
It is critical for all Indigenous
Nations to work together to challenge
e From the President
government policies and negotiating
mandates that are both illegal and un-
just. [draw your attention to the follow-
ing issues that require our immediate
attention.
In January, 2000, the UBCIC,
along with the Interior Alliance and the
First Nations Summit, issued a Joint
Consensus Statement condemning the
1986 Comprehensive Claims Policy and
calling on the government to change it.
As of April 2000, we still have not
received any support from Robert Nault,
Minister of Indian and Northern Af-
fairs, regarding changing this
assimilationist policy that is designed to
extinguish our title and entrench devolu-
tion through "self-government" agree-
ments. In doing so, he ignored the
RCAP report which recommended re-
placing this extinguishment policy with
one based on the recognition, affirma-
tion and implementation ofour Aborigi-
nal title. He also ignores the 1997
Supreme Court Delgamuukw decision
which recognizes that Aboriginal title to
our traditional territories and resources
exist in British Columbia. Delgamu-
ukw makes the Comprehensive Claims
policy illegal but both the federal and
provincial governments continue to use
it as the basis of their political relation-
ship with us.
The UBCIC and the Interior Al-
liance nations have also been working to
bring this issue to the national forum
through the Assembly of First Nations,
under the direction of Chief Arthur
Manuel, our national representative on
the AFN Delgamuukw Implementation
SPRING 2000
Strength of Douglas Treaties
Highlights Failure of Current
Talks
Chief Robert Sam supports Chief
Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC in
his statements regarding the virtual collapse
of the treaty talks in British Columbia.
Chief Robert Sam states, "There have
been no negotiations from the Province or the
Federal Government. There is only lots of
rhetoric, but no negotiations and we whole-
heartedly support Stewart Phillip in declaring
that the treaty process is going nowhere. The
British Columbia Claims Task Force Report
states that each party shall come to the table
with a mandate, but the negotiators from the
Province and Canada have told us time after
time at our table that they can't go fora
mandate until they see progress at our table.
Progress to them means putting our Douglas
Treaty Rights on the table. We will never do
that."
Chief Sam also added, "This is a real
insult, they consistently want us to give up
our Douglas Treaty rights as part of any new
deal. These rights were promised to us by
the Imperial Government in 1850 and we
expect them to be honoured, not carved up on
a new treaty table."
Our Te'mexw table is one of forty-two
tables in the province which are stalled due
to the Federal and Provincial Government
bottom lines-bottom lines which breach the
intent of the BC Claims Task Force Report.
Where is the Good faith?
In celebrating the 150th Anniversary
of our Douglas Treaties, we can only wonder
at the failure of the current treaty "negotia-
tions” Astute critics, such as Chief Stewart
Phillip of Penticton, have pulled attention to
the collapse of the treaty process, causing a
defensive reaction on the part of the defend-
ers of the B.C. Treaty process. Defenders
include Miles Richardson, Chief Commis-
sioner at the B.C. Treaty Commission in his
role as "keeper of the process". This
celebration will mark the continued exercis-
ing of our Douglas Treaty Rights.
UBCIC NEWS EEE
Presentation to the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
J he Union of B.C.
all. Indian Chiefs is a
political organization which
represents Indigenous peoples
from across the Province.
Our primary mandate is to
protect the Aboriginal Title
and Rights of our members.
The reason that we have
requested an appearance
before you here today, is that
the continuing growth of the
fish farms and aquaculture
operations threaten and
infringe Aboriginal Title and
Rights. Fish farms are of
great concern to the
membership of the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs.
The Union of B.C,
Indian Chiefs’ membership
unanimously passed a
resolution (contained in the
booklet “Fish Farms: Zero
Tolerance” attached as
Exhibit “A” to this
presentation) expressing our
united opposition to fish
farms.
Forestry Update
Delayed Justice
Exempt Status
Cheam
Haida Nation
Carrier Sekani
Fish Farm Presentation
UBCIC Research Conf.
Letter to the Premier
UBCIC Press Releases
Explanation of Tax
Indian Homemakers
A.F.N. Press Releases
interior Alliance
Softwood Lumber Agree.
Salmon and other
marine resources provide the
bulk of the diet for many
indigenous peoples in this
province. The oceans and
rivers are the gardens that
aboriginal peoples harvest
food within, and this is the
reason that aboriginal peoples
are so concerned about fish
farms. Any actions which
threaten salmon or marine
life threaten our health, well-
being and the livelihood of
our Peoples. Fish farms
completely contaminate and
destroy their immediate
environment, and marine life
and indigenous fish stocks.
All Indigenous
Nations territories include
streams, rivers, or oceans.
Each and every Indigenous
Nation is therefore impacted
by fish farms. Fish farms
seriously and severely impact
Aboriginal Title Lands and
Waters. Water is
contaminated, poisoning
salmon, shellfish, and other
marine life. The immediate
dangers include disease,
destruction of habitat,
and escaped farmed
salmon forcefully
displacing other
marine life (such as
herring and oolichan)
or colonizing
indigenous salmon
stocks,
Currently,
within British
Columbia, there is a
grave crisis in the
fishery. The fishery
has been totally
mismanaged to such a
great extent that there
are less and less
indigenous salmon
available. Many indigenous
species of indigenous salmon
have become endangered and
are on the verge of extinction.
Fish farms will push the
fishery further towards the
brink of absolute extinction.
Salmon are a resource
greatly treasured and shared
by all Indigenous Peoples
within British Columbia.
They are born in one area,
grow to the maturity in
another, and live their adult
lives in ocean waters, to return
to the place of their birth for
their life cycle to continue.
Salmon bind all people
together. When salmon are
threatened, the livelihood and
way of life ofall Indigenous
Peoples are threatened.
The right of aboriginal
peoples to the fishery stems
from the fact that salmon, and
other ocean resources, have
been and continue to be, an
integral part of the lives and
cultures of indigenous peoples.
In order for our aboriginal
rights to continue to exist,
salmon have to continue to
exist. Fish farms threaten the
continued existence of
indigenous salmon stocks, and
also of other marine resources,
Dangers of Fish Farms to
Salmon and Other Marine
Resources:
[ want to draw your
attention to seven separate
areas in which farmed salmon
and aquaculture operations
pose a danger to indigenous
salmon stocks, and all marine
life:
l. Disease
The high density
pens in which Atlantic
salmon are farmed provide
an ideal breeding ground for
outbreaks of diseases and
infections. In order to
control this problem, farmed
salmon are fed antibiotics on
a regular basis. The risk of
farmed salmon infecting our
salmon stocks is very high,
this is particularly so given
the open net cages which are
in use in British Columbia,
which allow ocean waters to
flow freely through the net
cages, carrying disease,
waste, and bacteria into
ocean waters. In Atlantic
Canada, and in other areas
of the world, hundreds of
thousands of farmed salmon
have had to be killed
because they became
infected with diseases which
could potentially infect us
and our salmon stocks. We
do not want this to happen
here.
Farmed salmon are
fed antibiotics to fight
naturally occurring diseases.
The antibiotics can cause
the diseases to mutate, and
these mutant strains are
released into ocean waters
exposing indigenous
stocks. Viral, fungal and
bacterial infections have
been passed to our stocks as
a result of fish farms.
Shelffish have been
found with highly
abnormal concentrations of
antibiotics. Our people,
who rely more heavily on
shellfish, have their health
compromised because of the
accumulated amounts of
antibiotics which are
ingested through shellfish.
PRESENTATION
Grol iialeere mm esto
SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
KASS AIASAL
WAS ANS.
Over the past six months there have been a number of
logging cases which have gone forward in B.C. courts. The purpose of
all the forestry cases is to force the Province to recognize Aboriginal title
in ifs decision making process.
The Province’s position has remained
the same, and they have made no
meaningful changes to their policies
regarding Aboriginal title, and interest in
the trees, following the Delgamuukw
Court case which recognized that
Aboriginal title is an interest in the land
itself, which incorporates an economic
interest. At present, the Province’s
position is that they will not recognize
Aboriginal Title in B.C. until! it has been
either recognized through treaty, or
proven in a court case.
As there have been no court cases
which have specifically recognized
Aboriginal Title ‘on the ground” (i.e.,
which have said that “Aboriginal title
exists here”), and most of B.C. is not
covered by treaties, this means that the
Province is not taking any steps to
address Aboriginal Title within B.C.,
aside from continuing to deny that it
exists,
Many Indigenous Nations and
communities, over the past six months,
have chosen to challenge the Province’s
continued refusal to acknowledge or
address Aboriginal Title by bringing
court challenges to the Province’s
forestry regime, The forestry cases have
come in two separate categories. The
first is cases where the Indigenous
peoples have gone to court to challenge
the Province’s right to issue interest in
the trees to both itself and third parties.
The second era, is cases where
Indigenous peoples have been brought to
court by the Province because they chose
to assert their Aboriginal Title by
harvesting trees in order to build much
needed housing for their members. Each
of these two areas is discussed below.
1. Challenge of Province’s Right to
issue interests in the trees:
Challenge of Province’s
jurisdiction to issue interests in the trees
to third parties (or, to itself) without first
accommodating Aboriginal Title and
reconciling Aboriginal Title with Crown
title. Two of the main cases which are
currently underway involve the
Okanagan Nation (the Westbank Mellin-
Ellen application) and the Haida Nation.
Okanagan Nation/Westbank: “Mellin-
Ellen”) Application
The Province choose to issue a
harvest and haul contract to a third party
which would allow them to log cutblock
118 (“Mellin-Ellen”), even though the
Okanagan Nation asserts Aboriginal
Title to the area. The Province did not
seek to accommodate the Aboriginal
Title, nor to reconcile the Aboriginal
Title with Crown title in the area because
there was not treaty in place recognizing
Aboriginal Title and no court case had
specifically recognized that the
Okanagan Nation had title to that
particular cut-block.
“Harvest and haul” contracts
allow the Province to hire a third party to
go in and cut and harvest timber, the
Province then directly sells the timber
and keeps the revenue. In the case of the
harvest and hau] contract which
Westbank challenged the Province on the
basis that the Province has no right to
issue interests in the forests until it has
addressed Aboriginal Title. The
Province argued, in Court, that it did not
have to accommodate Aboriginal title
unless this title had been proven in
Court, or had been negotiated under a
treaty.
Westbank also argued that the
Province does not have jurisdiction to
deal with the trees without first
accommodating Aboriginal title, because
the Constitution Act, 1867, under
Section 109, only recognizes the
Province’s powers over resources (such
as timber) that are not otherwise
encumbered”. As aboriginal title has
not been addressed, this means that any
interest that the Province has in the trees
is encumbered, and the Province does not
have clear title because Aboriginal title
exists over the resources.
Westbank argued that these
matters could be addressed based on
Westbank’s asserted Aboriginal title,
while the Province argued that a full trial
was necessary and that Westbank should
be required to prove their Aboriginal title
in Court before the Province has any
constitutional duty, under Section 35, to
accommodate that title. The original
court action in the Mellin-Ellen
application was completed in the first
week of Apmil, and the parties are
awaiting the Court’s decision.
FOKESIKY UPDATE
(Continued on page 11)
SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
PRESENTATION
(Continued from page 2)
2. Pollution
The effluent which is released by farmed salmon is
staggering. The sewage from thousands of contained farm
salmon, together with debris of feeding pellets, and other toxic
materials is released directly into the waters which our people
rely upon for our food. Some clam and kelp beds, which are
located in close proximity to fish farms have become
completely unusable because they are so contaminated by fish
farm waste.
A fish farm is equivalent to having an untreated and
unregulated sewage facility on our shores. Pollution and
effluent flow freely from fish pens and cause most residents
species of fish and marine life to disappear from the area as a
direct result of the destruction of their habitat.
Oceans are the gardens which sustain the lives of many
Indigenous Peoples. Ask yourselves: Would you like this type
of volume of toxic pollution to be released on a daily basis into
your garden or food supply?
3. Predation on Young Stock
Young herring and salmon are drawn to fish farm cages
because of the lights which are illuminated at night. These
young herring and salmon are eaten by the farmed fish. In
some instances, farmed fish eat so many of the young
indigenous stocks that they have little need of additional food.
4. Algae
Effluent from fish farms provides ideal conditions for
algae to grow. Algae can kill indigenous stocks either by
poisoning them (for example, through the production of toxins)
or through the deprivation of oxygen caused by massive algae
growth. In addition, shellfish are vulnerable to the toxins
produced by excessive growth of algae. Toxins from algae can
contaminate shellfish making them unsafe to eat.
5. Drugs and Chemicals
In addition to antibiotics, fish farms introduce a variety
of other chemicals into the water. These chemicals poison the
water and build up in the food supply. The drugs and chemicals
include colorants (to make the flesh of farmed salmon red) and
fungicides. These chemicals escape into the surrounding
waters, potentially poisoning resident marine life, and
eventually poisoning our Peoples as they accumulate in the food
chain.
6. Colonization
Farmed salmon which escape from their pens pose
significant risks to indigenous stocks.
The salmon that are farmed in B.C. are not indigenous to
B.C. waters. Primarily, because they are easier to factory -
produce, fish farms produce Atlantic salmon. Atlantic salmon
are not true biological salmon, but are genetically trout. Unlike
genetically true salmon, Atlantic salmon spawn more than once
and there is the possibility that they could live in our rivers and
lakes for several years producing more than one generation of
young. ;
A primary concern of Indigenous Peoples is that the
Atlantic salmon continue to escape from their pens, and may
begin to colonize and over-take the habitat of existing
indigenous salmon. Over the past five years, hundreds of
thousands of farmed Atlantic salmon have escaped. There is no
recovery system in place, and no way of tracking what happens
to these fish once they are loose in the ocean. The province has
assured us that Atlantic salmon cannot spawn in B.C. waters.
However, there have been numerous incidents where Atlantic
salmon have already been found spawning in rivers on
Vancouver Island. [ have spoken to elders on the Fraser River
system who found numerous Atlantic salmon in their fishing
nets migrating with the indigenous salmon to their spawning
grounds. .
Farmed salmon can migrate with indigenous stocks into
inland spawning areas. In British Columbia, Atlantic salmon
have been found 100 miles up the Skeena River, over 250 miles
from the nearest fish farm. On Vancouver Island, Atlantic
salmon have been found in the Zeballos and Thasis rivers.
Bearing in mind that one spawning Atlantic salmon can
produce in excess of 4000 eggs, the dangers are great that
Atlantic salmon can displace our own, already endangered and
fragile indigenous salmon stocks.
7. Displacement of Herring, Oolichan and Rock Cod
Fish farms located near herring spawning grounds, or
the traditional habitat of oolichan and rock cod have caused
these species to abandon their traditional areas.
Aboriginal Title:
Those Indigenous Nations on whose waters fish farms
are located experience immediate and destructive impacts.
Traditional harvesting grounds (clam beds, herring spawning
grounds, etc.) as well as the waters and water beds are
contaminated and poisoned. Any use of Aboriginal Title Lands
(including waters) requires the full and informed consent of the
Indigenous Nation concerned. The provinciai government has
ignored the concerns and opposition to Indigenous peoples on
this issue,
Summary:
The federal government has the responsibility for
ensuring that all indigenous salmon and all other marine
resources are adequately protected and safe. The federal
government also has a fiduciary duty to ensure that Aboriginal
Title and Rights are fully and properly protected. Fish farms
pose a very real and on-going threat to the fishing rights of
aboriginal people, and to the aboriginal title of those Indigenous
peoples located on ocean waters.
4
SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
All Indigenous Nations who rely upon marine resources
or salmon have their rights as well as their health jeopardized
and threatened by fish farms. The “right to fish” enjoyed by all
Indigenous Peoples’ will be hollow and meaningless if
indigenous salmon stocks become extinct, and other marine
resources are poisoned past the point when they can no longer be
safely eaten by our people. Without fish, there is no “right to
fish”. Fish farms move salmon away from being a natural
resource which is both precious and sacred to Indigenous
peoples, and turn our oceans into factories which manufacture
commercially cloned salmon for market.
When government authorizes any activities, they have a
legal duty to ensure that these activities do not abrogate or
derogate from aboriginal title or rights. It is clear that fish
farms, both with their threat to indigenous salmon and other
marine life, and the siting of fish farms on the aboriginal title
waters and lands of aboriginal peoples (with the resultant
pollution, denial of access to traditional marine resources,
and harvesting grounds) seriously derogate aboriginal title and
rights.
In the present case, government has not undertaken any
serious study about the impact that fish farms will have upon our
aboriginal title or rights. At a minimum, fish farms reduce the
ability of aboriginal title lands and waters to sustain Indigenous
Peoples, reduce the economic benefit to Indigenous Peoples of
those lands and waters, and will potentially halt or restrict any
further access to the fish fishery (through poisoning, or
displacing indigenous marine resources).
The limited economic benefits of factory-producing
farmed salmon cannot override our Aboriginal Right to the
fishery, and cannot erase the relationship which we have had
with the fishery for generations. As well, any analysis of the
economic benefits of factory producing farmed salmon has to
take into account the economic loss that Indigenous peoples
suffer, and the loss to all British Columbians and Canadians
should indigenous salmon become extinct.
Allowing fish farms to go ahead in our marine waters, is
like an acknowledgment of defeat on the part of the federal
government. It would be like deciding that indigenous salmon
stocks cannot be saved, and therefore deciding to turn our
oceans and waters into a factory for producing farmed fish
foreign to our waters.
Recommendations:
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs makes several
recommendations to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans about the actions which are necessary in order to
preserve indigenous salmon stocks and other marine resources
from the dangers posed by fish farms. We urge the Standing
Committee to take these recommendations seriously, as the
health and continued existence of our salmon and marine
resources is dependent upon the Federal Government taking
action to halt fish farms in B.C. waters.
1. That the Federal Government dedicate adequate resources
toward the restoration of the indigenous salmon stocks, and
other marine resources, in British Columbia.
SPRING 2000
2. That the Federal Government, under its constitutional
jurisdiction over fisheries and oceans exercise its discretion to
halt the development of any new aquaculture operations in
British Columbia. The preservation of indigenous salmon
stocks and other marine resources requires a zero tolerance to
fish farms policy on the part of the Federal Government. Other
jurisdictions, such as Alaska, have recognized this fact.
3, That existing fish farms be removed from locations which
permit them to infringe upon Aboriginal Title and Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, either because they poison local marine
resources, or because they deny access to traditional harvesting
areas to Indigenous Peoples.
4. That existing fish farms be removed from marine waters
and transferred to entirely land contained systems which do not
have the potential to endanger indigenous salmon stocks or
other marine resources.
5. That the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertake a
comprehensive review of the impact that fish farms and
aquaculture have upon the Aboriginal Title and Rights of the
Indigenous Peoples who rely upon the fishery and marine
resources for our livelihood. This review should investigate:
(a) Risk to the aboriginal right to fish of all Indigenous People
Fish farms and aquaculture operations pose a serious risk to the
right to fish of all Indigenous peoples in B.C., both in marine
and inland fisheries;
(b) Economic and cultural losses suffered by Indigenous
communities as a result of fish farms.
Indigenous communities suffer significant economic and
cultural losses as a result of fish farms, including the denial of
access to salmon, shell fish, and other marine resources because
of the imposition and presence of fish farms, and the
contamination of traditional harvesting areas by the effluent
released from fish farms;
(c) Health risks posed to Indigenous Peoples by fish farms
Indigenous peoples endure greater health risks posed by fish
farms, both because of the proximity of many of our
communities to fish farms, and also due to our dietary
dependence and reliance on fish farms and other marine
resources. The effluent and waste materials discharged from
fish farms therefore has a great impact on the health and well-
being of Indigenous populations.
The health component of the review should include a
study of the cumulative impact of antibiotics and other
chemicals used in fish farming upon Indigenous peoples who
rely so heavily upon fish, shell fish, and marine resources as a
staple part of our diet;
PRESENTATION (Continued on page 6)
5
UBCIC NEWS
PROTECTING KNOWLEDGE-- TRADITIONAL
(February 23-26, 2000, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC)
Many of you may know that the Union of British
Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) recently hosted a three-day
conference exploring traditional resource rights, or cultural and
intellectual property rights that affect not only BC First Nations
but all Indigenous Peoples around the world. The conference,
originally intended to beasmall event to follow-up on the
Implementing Delgamuuk’*w—Legal Implicationsfor Aboriginal Title
Research Conference(March 1999), quickly grew into something
bigger when a need and desire was expressed for a forum to
discuss these issues. The conference was a success with close to
500 people registered and speakers from around BC, Canada and
the World. We were very happy to see so many representatives
fromthe BC First Nation communities. We were also able to get
Indigenous speakers, like Terri Janke and Ghillar from Australia,
Deborah Harry from California, Barbara Wilson from Haida
Gwaliand Jeanette Armstrong to give their perspectives.
The conference was meant to give First Nations a general
overview ot intellectual property rights. It isan area of law that is
developing as more and more industry-driven investments and
different governmentstry to incorporate “traditional knowledge”
in their operations. On the International scene organizations like
the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) are turning their attention to
indigenous knowledge. In fact, in mid-March, there was an
international meeting in Seville, Spain about what is known as
Article 8 (j) of the Convention of Biological Diversity. Article 8(j)
States:
“(Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as
appropriate] Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve
and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous
and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for
the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and
promote their wider application with the approval and
involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and
practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits
arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and
practices.”
The Protecting Knowledge Conference resulted in the
preparation of adocument called “The Spirit of the Conference”
which outlined some of the key concerns of First Nations
communities relating to our traditional resource rights. This
document also laid outa list of actions that Nations can take to
protect their knowledge and rights,
We have worked hard to update our conference website
with as much conference material as possible and we encourage
youto check ourconference page at http://www.ubcic.be.ca/
protect.htm. Youcan now download the conference kit which
contains background information and papers relating tothe
conference theme. If you have any questions, please contact the
UBCIC Research Department.
(Continued from page 5)
(d) Impact on indigenous salmon stocks, and other marine
resources, of the Atlantic salmon which have escaped (and will
escape in the future) from existing fish farms
Hundreds of thousands of Atlantic salmon have already
escaped from existing fish farms. This review must include a
serious investigation of the incidents where Atlantic salmon
have escaped, where they have been observed migrating
with indigenous stocks, and also where they have been
observed spawning in B.C. rivers.
Visit the Union of B.C. Indian
Chiefs Website:
6
SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
Tee ee ee ee
Spirit of the Conference
Although we have been subjected to colonial forces for
several centuries, we retain and affirm all of our inherent
collective rights as sovereign nations. These rights include
the right to protect our own survival, in particular, by
protecting our cultures, language, and knowledge systems
from expropriation, encroachment, or theft.
1. Indigenous Peoples' own languages, knowledge systems
and laws are indispensable to their identity, and are a
foundation for self-determination.,
2. Indigenous Peoples' knowledge systems are inextricably
and inalienable connected with their ancestry and ancestral
territories.
3. Indigenous Peoples' heritage is not a commodity, nor the
property of the nation-state. The material and intellectual
heritage of each Indigenous People is a sacred gift and a
responsibility that must be honoured and held for the
benefit of future generations.
4. Indigenous rights, individual and collective, are define
by Indigenous laws. The starting-point for any considera-
tion of rights to learn, use or transmit Indigenous know!l-
edge therefore must therefore be the laws of the Indigenous
peoples concerned.
5. The use of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge or resources
is unlawful and illegitimate unless it is done in a conformity
with the laws of the Peoples concerned.
Toe
RESOURCE RIGHTS IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM
i a Actions
1. We will take steps within our own
=| communities to ensure that our people, and
in particular our children, learn our own
laws concerning the acquisition and use of
knowledge and resources, and the creden-
i} tials of knowledge-keepers, so that they can
= fully enjoy the right to self-determination.
~~ 2, We condemn all trade in unlawfully-
obtained resources or knowledge, and we will act jointly at
the local, regional, national, and international levels to
deprive corporations and governments of any profit from
such trade through effective international legal, political
and economic actions.
3. We will cooperate to establish an effective international
network to monitor the activities of corporations in the
ancestral territories of Indigenous Peoples worldwide, and
to support Indigenous Peoples everywhere in the ful!
exercise of their rights.
4. We will take steps to prevent any assertion of intellec-
tual property rights to the genetic integrity or genetic
potential of biotic systems in our ancestral territories.
5. We will press for the ratification and full implementa-
tion ofall international conventions in the fields of human
rights, Indigenous Peoples, and their ecosystems, which we
deem applicable.
6. We will work together for the speedy adoption of the
Draft Principles and Guidelines on the Heritage of Indig-
enous Peoples by the United Nations.
7. We will promote the adoption of the Principles and
Guidelines by our own Nations and Peoples as an
international compact among ourselves, and as a basis for
dealing with non-indigenous interests, and we will work
together to establish a global registry of Indigenous Nations
and Peoples who have agreed to implement the Principles
and Guidelines within their own territories.
8. We support all international standard-setting initiatives
by Indigenous Peoples that advance these actions.
SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
No Reasons Left For
Delayed Justice
It took him a while to get his head around the
idea, but eventually Bill Vander Zalm said he was all
for it. Rita Johnson, his successor, said the same
thing and got the ball rolling. Brian Mulroney was
behind the idea 100 percent. Prime Minister Jean
Chretien was, too, and still is. Premier Mike
Harcourt liked the ideas so much he put it into high
gear. Preston Manning wants it done fast and cheap.
Glen Clarke wanted it, Dan Miller wants it, and Gordon
Campbell fairly gushes about it. Ujjal Dosanjh says he’s just
crazy about the idea and can’t wait to get going on it. Gordon
Wilson was for it when he was in the opposition benches, and
he’s for it still. Corky Evans says that of all the things
government should be doing, it’s the most important of all.
But watching the race for the leadership of the B.C. New
Democratic Party has persuaded me that the idea of concluding
treaties with B.C.’s aboriginal peoples may be doomed. For all
the big talk, the whole effort is going nowhere.
Federal politicians can always resort to the excuse that
the treaty process condemns them to wear the albatross of B.C.
politics about their necks. Social Credit died, so that’s an even
better excuse, and it’s one we should allow the federal Tories, to
be fair. The Reform Party, or whatever it’s calling itself these
days, and the B.C. Liberals who used to be called the Social
Credit party, want treaties in which First Nations will agree to
throw themselves off cliffs. Those two parties haven’t formed
government yet. That’s their excuse. But what possible excuse
do the New Democrats have?
They don’t need one, apparently. Instead they have the
Nisga’a agreement, which is the result of negotiations that were
already under way when Harcourt won his majority. They also
have the B.C. treaty process — designed and implemented after
the Nisga’a talks began — which the New Democrats also
inherited from Socreds and Tories but for which the New
Democrats also claim credit And they will tell you about the six
stages of the process, from filing a statement of intent to
implementation, and about its stakeholder-consultation
processes, and its many-faceted third party advisory
mechanisms, and they will give you Internet addresses and
leaflets and the time and places of workshops and background
papers until you want to die from boredom.
This is not to say they are not better than B.C, Liberals,
whose policy on treaty-making is to lie through their teeth.
They will tell you that the reason they are challenging the
Nisga’a treaty in court is because it was rammed through the
B.C. legislature. They will not tell you that the B.C. legislature
spent more time debating the Nisga’a treaty than any other law
in the legislature’s 129 year history. They will tell you that the
Nisga’a treaty, because it allows the Nisga’a people a primary
right to legislature on matters of Nisga’a language and culture,
amounts to an amendment to the Constitution, and because of
this, B.C. law requires a provincial referendum. They will not
__
EEE
tell you that if it is an amendment to the Constitution, it also
requires a referendum in Newfoundland and Manitoba, as well
as the approval of legislature representing at least seven
provinces with at least 60 percent of the Canadian population.
But the New Democrats have a decade in power. They
don’t have an excuse.
Instead, they have Ujjal Dosanjh, who , as
attorney general in 1995, allowed the pathetic little
landlord-tenant dispute at Gustafsen Lake in the
Cariboo to become a cowboys and Indians
showdown straight out of an old Saturday matinee,
then he presided over its escalation until it became
the largest peacetime military mobilization in
Western Canada’s history. And while thousands of
rounds of ammunition were being discharged, he stood in front
of the television cameras and hectored everyone about how it
must be understood that there is “one law for all” in British
Columbia, just like the Reformers and the B.C. Liberals always
say. In his campaign for the NDP leadership, he scarcely
mentioned the idea of treaty-making.
They also have Gordon Wilson. He used to have this
annoying habit of publicly congratulating himself for being the
first provincial politician to raise the specter of “rights based on
race”, an Orwellian circumlocution that cloaks the denial of
common-law rights to aboriginal people in the garb of
evenhandedness. Before he became a New Democrat, Wilson
went to Ottawa to wag his finger at the Supreme Court of
Canada for daring to presume that their findings in the matter
of Delgamuukw Versus the Queen should have any legal force
on the Pacific side of the Rockies. During his campaign for the
NDP leadership he actually managed to commit the sin of
thinking outside the box a little bit, proposing an expedited
treaty process and a sort of “joint tenancy” approach with First
Nations in cases where aboriginal title and provincial tenures
would conflict. And for having an imagination for once, he was
vilified for once by Dosanjh and by many other New Democrats.
Then there was Corky Evans, who has called B.C.’s
inability to conclude reasonable treaties with First Nations “the
most important issue facing the province”, which it probably is.
Evans wants the whole idea put into high gear again. He has
proposed that the B.C. government immediately set aside public
lands for benefit of First Nations, with revenues going into a
public trust until such time as treaties are settled. Whatever his
faults, Evans hasn’t shied away from acknowledging what
everybody already knows, which is that the treaty process is a
bit of an expensive joke, and without some real movement on
the part of the province, it’s dead in the water for everybody but
consultants and lawyers. For this, we’re all supposed to
imagine that Evans is, well, you know, all very passionate and
everything but a bit of a fruitcake.
One thing all the politicians continue to insist is that
litigation is the worst way to settle questions of aboriginal rights
and title. They say nobody wins with the courts.
But when you look at the what’s happened over the past
decade, all that’s clear is that there is no excuse for any of it at
all.
Terry Glavin
February 17-24, 2000 Issue of Georgia Straight
8
SPRING 2000
LETTER TO THE
PREMIER
March 7, 2000
Dear Honorable Ujjal Dosanjh, Premier of B.C.
Re: Anthany Dawson, deceased, DOB: 21-06-69
I am writing to express my concern and sense of outrage
over the ongoing delays that B.C.’s so called justice system
continues to visit upon Nancy Dawson, the mother of the late
Anthany Dawson. I understand that the scheduled January
2000 inquest has been indefinitely postponed and that
furthermore, rather than being conducted in Victoria, it will be
now held in Sidney,
Why the sudden move to Sidney? Is this to discourage
supporters of the Dawson family from attending?
Anthany Dawson, the deceased, son of Nancy Dawson,
died a few months ago, from what appears to have been yet
another obvious case of police brutality. Let me be explicitly
clear, I understand that Anthany not only suffered from physical
police brutality but probably died as a direct consequence of the
racist attitude harbored by many of the Victoria police officers.
I understand that Anthany was severely beaten from
head to toe. I am also aware that the Victoria police department
specialize in the frequent use of the electronic tazer gun. I have
been told that Anthany’s body bore marks which have been
attributed to the repeated use of a tazer gun.
Adding insult to injury I was astounded to learn that
Anthany’s brain was missing for several weeks. Clearly
Anthany was defiled in life and even in death he is being
treated in an undignified and disrespectful manner. It this an
acceptable standard of operation for the Province coroners
office?
Furthermore, the grieving mother, Nancy Dawson, had
to search for her son’s missing brain and has been advised it is
at Vancouver General Hospital and she must make
arrangements to repatriate it to his remains, This is
irresponsible, unacceptable and inhumane behavior on the part
of government,
I am respectfully request that the investigation be
conducted by a non-police agency. Furthermore, this
investigation must be broad in scope, inclusive and far
reaching. I also wish your government to determine if human
rights violations have occurred and subsequently if it is deemed
that police have violated the human rights of Anthany Dawson
then appropriate charges be laid at once.
Real leadership must be exercised in the treatment of
Aboriginal people, not only in the province of British Columbia
but across this land called Canada. Alarmingly, Aboriginal
UBCIC NEWS
people are being victimized and killed by law enforcement
officers at unprecedented rates. No doubt you have seen the
news on TV about Indians dying in Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. Public opinion speculates that their deaths have been
attributed to the brutal actions of police officers.
I strongly advise that rather than publicly chastising Mr.
Zirnhelt about anger management, that you focus on the
violence within the cadres of police officers, in B.C. In
particular those in the Victoria Police Department who target
aboriginal people to assault, injure and in some instances
tragically kill.
At the next Premier’s conference/meeting, the Premiers
would be wise to commit to improve the treatment and care of
aboriginal people. Our human rights are constantly being
violated and our people are still being killed in what only can be
characterized as hate crimes. Unfortunately their killers are the
very people who are supposed to be protecting them
I can assure you that if a badge and a weapon continue to
give any law enforcement officer(s) the apparent right to injure
or murder Aboriginal people I will not be able to quell the
growing anger and outrage in our Aboriginal communities.
Obviously police academies have a long way to go to
improving the attitudes and behaviors of their recruits who
ultimately become officers of law. Hopefully you government
will play a pro active role in investigating law enforcement’s
role in the death or injury of Aboriginal people in B.C.
Furthermore, I hope that your government can play a
role at the national level in ensuring that nor more Aboriginal
people die as a consequence of hate, violence and brutality that
is directed at them by racist law enforcement personnel.
As the leader of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs I know
that it is highly probable that the RCMP’s report on the actions
of the Victoria Police Department will reflect a self-serving
bias. When will this report be released? If it is not released rest
assured that there will be pressure brought to bear to have it
publicly released.
In 1972 First Nations people throughout B.C. were
mobilized by the suspicious, brutal death of the late Fred Quilt.
Almost 30 years later our people are still facing similar and
chilling fates at the hands of law enforcement personnel. In
1972 First Nations people rallied around the family and
community of Fred Quilt, in a battle to ensure that nor more
First Nations people would meet their death at the hands of law
enforcement officials.
What has changed since 1972? Today, I and other First
Nations political leaders throughout British Columbia are
united in our demand for justice in the brutal death of Anthany
Dawson. Anthany’s young life was snuffed out and stolen, but
we will keep his memory alive forever in our struggle to seek
justice in an unjust society!
Let the killing of First Nations people be stopped and let
us put an end to the covert racism within this countries
institutions of power.
Chief Stewart Phillip, UBCIC President
cc Nancy Dawson
SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
Aboriginal Leader Warns that Judge’s Refusal to
Shorten Logging Case, Places B.C. Court System
on Trial in the Eyes of Aboriginal Peoples
(Vancouver, Coast Salish Territory/March 23, 2000)
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs responded today to a court
decision issued March 20, 2000, by Justice Sigurdson, of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia in the matter of The Queen
vy. Wilson-Jules-Derrickson.
The Adams Lake, Neskonlith, Okanagan, Spallumcheen
and Westbank Indian Bands made a judicial application in
order to have certain issues decided quickly on a point of law,
rather than proceeding to a full trial.
The Bands argued that the Forest Act and Code are
unconstitutional because they grant provincial decision-makers
unstructured discretion to make decisions which risk infringing
aboriginal title or rights, without setting out the steps that
provincial officials must take in order to accommodate
aboriginal rights and title in accordance with the Delgamuukw
decision.
The Bands also argued the provincial legislation could
be found to be unconstitutional, as a point of law, without the
need to first prove the existence and infringement of aboriginal
rights.
The Bands had wanted the point of law argued to reduce
the overall costs of bringing this litigation and drastically
shorten the time frame in having the Delgamuukw decision
implemented.
Justice Sigurdson decided he did not have enough factual
evidence to be able to decide on the question of law the Bands
raised at this point in the proceedings.
While the Court agreed that the Bands may be correct
that the legislation is unconstitutional, the Court found that this
question should be decided after both sides have had the
opportunity to introduce evidence about the existence of
Aboriginal rights (Aboriginal title and the right to log), and the
impacts of the forestry legislation upon those rights, before a
decision is made about the constitutional validity of the
legislation,
Justice Sigurdson still has to rule on an application
before him, that the Province pay the Bands legal costs in the
event that they are forced into a full aboriginal title trial.
Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs, stated today, ““We are extremely disappointed
with the decision of Judge Sigurdson in this matter. He could
have exercised his discretion and speeded up the process by
hearing evidence on the constitutionality of the Provincial
Forest Act and Code vis-a-vis Aboriginal title and rights. Judge
Sigurdson, through his decision, is causing more financial
hardship among the Bands by forcing them into a more costly,
lengthy proceeding. We find it farcical that the B.C. Judiciary
doesn’t accept the fact that Aboriginal title exists in this
province and proceed forthwith to implement the Delgamuukw
Decision. It appears to us that when other Supreme Court of
Canada decisions affecting non-aboriginals are rendered in this
country, the Court decisions are respected by government and
lower courts. Our experiences as Aboriginal peoples, following
the Delgamuukw decision are delay and denial on the part of
the governments and lower courts. We are fed up with
Canada’s double standard for justice and we are giving notice
that we are placing the B.C. judicial system on trial by our
peoples and we will expose this egregious situation to the
international community.”
e
UBCIC Support Cheam Band’s Defense of
their Aboriginal Title Territory
Coast Salish Territory, April 17, 2000 — The UBCIC
confirmed their support for the Cheam Band’s defensive action
to protect their Aboriginal title territory from further
encroachment by the Provincial government.
On March 30, 2000, the Cheam Band was informed
about the “Fraser Lowlands Protected Area Study,” which
recommends the taking of Cheam’s important and vital riparian
territory.
Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC stated
today, “What is happening to the Cheam Band, is taking place
across the province. The province is denying the very existence
of Aboriginal title despite the Supreme Court of Canada’s
landmark Delgamuukw decision. We understand their
frustration and we intend to provide all the support we can to
their struggle to have a fair negotiation process. At this time we
offer our ‘unconditional’ support to the Cheam Band.”
During a meeting in Vancouver today, the Assembly of
Firs Nations Executive Committee, including the National
Chief, Phil Fontaine also adopt a resolution supporting the
Cheam Indian Band, which shall be released April 18, 2000.
©
UBCIC Offers Condolences to Family and
Squamish Nation in Untimely Death of Chief Joe
Mathias
(Vancouver, Coast Salish Territory, March 10, 2000)
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ learned today about the
untimely passing of Squamish Chief Joe Mathias.
Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC stated, “I
learned about the sudden and unexpected death of Chief
Mathias as I was driving to attend the First Nations Summit
meeting for the first time in seven years. I was completely
stunned and greatly saddened by the news. Upon arriving in
Squamish, I offered condolences on behalf of the Okanagan
Nation and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. I pointed out that
although we didn’t always agree on political matters we always
had nothing but the greatest respect for Chief Joe Mathias. Our
message to the family of Chief Joe Mathias, the Squamish
Nation and the First Nations Summit, was that we have to
complete the work for Chief Mathias and get our Aboriginal
title recognized by the governments. To this end, we pledged to
work in unity with the First Nations Summit to achieve this to
honour the memory of Chief Joe Mathias.”
The First Nations Summit meeting was cancelled. The
UBCIC hopes to attend the next meeting to discuss how unity
can be strengthened among First Nations in British Columbia
and across the country.
10
SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
Truth Behind
Treaty Making
NOW AVAILABLE!
€}, modern treaty negotiations, Indigenous Peoples
é 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.
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 modem 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 moder 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
(604) 684-0231 or [email protected].
Price: $5.00 plus s/h
Discounts on orders of 10 copies or more.
FORESTRY UPDATE
(Continued from page 3)
Haida Nation: TFL 39 Application
In the Hatda petition, the Haida are in court in an
attempt to have TFL 39 (which renewed a fifty year tree farm
license to a major forest company) cancelled because the
Province has not adequately addressed Aboriginal Title prior to
making the decision. Additionally, several years ago the Haida
brought a court action asking for a legal interpretation of
wording in the Forest Act which states that the Province has
ownership of all of the trees in the Province which are not
“otherwise encumbered”. In that case, the Court said that if
Aboriginal title exists it would amount to an encumbrance on
the Province’s title, and would limit the way that the Province
could deal with the trees, unti! it had first addressed Aboriginal
title.
In the most recent court action, the Haida asked for a
ruling that the Province was bound to consider the asserted
Aboriginal title of the Haida, which was general public
knowledge, prior to renewing TFL 39. The province argued
that the matter should go to a full court case in order to
determine whether or not Aboriginal title existed, and that they
had no obligation to accommodate unproven Aboriginal title. A
decision is pending, as to whether or not the Court will require
the case to go to a full trial, before making a determination on
this issue.
2. Exercise of Aboriginal Title: Tree Harvesting
Operations
Under authorization of their individual tribal councils, a
number of individual communities in the Okanagan Nation
(Okanagan Band and Westbank) and Secwepemc Nation
(Adams Lake, Neskonlith and Spallumcheen) commenced
timber harvesting. The province issued stop work order under
it’s forestry legislation and then went to Court in an attempt to
seek court orders to enforce the stop work orders that they
issued.
At Court the Bands argued that the Province was not
entitled to enforce its stop work orders until it had showed that
it had accommodated Aboriginal title, and did not have the
freedom to simply prevent Aboriginal peoples’ from exercising
their title until the Province had shown that it had taken the
title meaningfully into account in their decision making. The
province argued that it did not have to take any steps to
accommodate the asserted Aboriginal title, until that title was
either (1) proven in Court or (2) recognized under treaty.
Disposition of the Harvested Trees:
In all three cases (Okanagan, Westbank and the
Secwepemc cases) the Court has ordered that, through a process
of negotiation with the Province as to timing, and silviculture
requirements, that the Bands are entitled to harvest and haul the
FORESTRY UPDATE
(Continued from page 18)
SPRING 2000
il
UBCIC NEWS
First Nations Owned Municipal Corporations
Explanation of tax exempt status
The following summary was prepared at the request of
the Assembly of First Nations. It explains a recent change in
the Income Tax Act that may affect corporations and other
entities owned by First Nations,
What type of First Nation is considered a Canadian
municipality?
The Tax Court of Canada has determined that a band (a
first nation) that is exercising powers of self-government and is
providing the types of services that municipalities typically
provide can be considered a Canadian municipality for income
tax purposes, To determine if it is considered a municipality, a
First Nation should contact the Agency’s local tax services
office. The municipal status of each First Nation will be
resolved based on its particular situation.
Who has tax exempt status?
Paragraph 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act exempts a
Canadian municipality from income tax. Certain municipal-
owned-entities, certain entities owned by First Nations that are
municipalities are exempt from income tax under paragraphs
149(1)(d.3) to (d.6) of the Income Tax Act.
Detailed overview of tax-exempt status
The following is an overview of the exemption from
income tax for municipal owned entities.
An entity that is at least 90% owned by one or more
municipalities will be exempt from income tax as long as,
starting in 1999, no more than 10% of its net income comes
from activities carried outside the geographical boundaries of
the municipalities.
For a First Nation that is municipality, the geographical
boundary is considered to be the boundary of its reserve.
However, income from activities carried on outside the
geographical boundaries does not include income from activities
carried on by and entity under a written agreement with:
- the federal government;
- a provincial government;
- another municipality;or
- a corporation that is exempt by these provisions and controlled
by one of the other levels of government;
if those activities are carried on within the geographical
boundaries of that other level of government.
For example, for a corporation owned by a First Nation
that is a municipality, activities carried on by the corporation in
a province outside that First Nation’s reserve under an
agreement entered into with the government of that province,
will not be included in determining whether more than 10% of
the corporation’s income is from activities carried on off the
reserve.
Entities that are owned by a Canadian municipality in
combination with
- the federal government;
- a provincial government;
- a federally-owned entity; and/or
- a provincially-owned entity;
may be exempt regardless of the geographical location in which
they carry on their activities.
For a First Nation that is a municipality, the
geographical boundary is considered to be the boundary of its
reserve.
However, income from activities carried on outside the
geographical boundaries does not include income from activities
carried on by an entity under a written agreement with:
- the federal government;
- a provincial government;
- another municipality; or
- a corporation that is exempt by these provisions and controlled
by one of the other levels of government;
if those activities are carried on within the geographical
boundaries of that other level of government.
Fore example, for a corporation owned by a First Nation
that is a municipality, activities carried on by the corporation in
a province outside that First Nation’s reserve under an
agreement entered into with the government of that province,
will not be included in determining whether more than 10% of
the corporation’s income is from activities carried on off the
reserve.
Entities that are owned by a Canadian municipality in
combination with:
the federal government;
the provincial government;
- a federally-owned entity; and/or
a provincially-owned entity;
may be exempt regardless of the geographical location in which
they carry on their activities.
F.N.’s Municipal Corporations (Continued on page 13)
12
SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
F.N.'s Municipal Corporations (Continued from page 12)
In certain circumstances, the exemption may be available
through a chain of entities. For example if an entity is exempt
under the new rules, its wholly-owned subsidiaries may also be
exempt from tax. The exemption continues to apply all the way
down a chain of subsidiary entities as long as each subsidiary
meets the 100% ownership test. As well, each subsidiary must
meet the rules regarding income from activities carried on
outside the geographical boundaries of the municipalities.
For example, as long as each subsidiary corporation
meets the 10% geographical boundary income test, where
exempt Corporation A owns 100% of Corporation B, which
owns 100% of Corporation C, and so on, all the corporations
may be tax exempt.
However, if Corporation C only owns 95% of
Corporation D, Corporation D is not considered exempt. Nor
are any of its subsidiaries, even if they are 100% owned by
Corporation D. In addition, if a corporation in the chain does
not meet the 10% geographical boundary income test, that
corporation and any corporation below it in the chain will not
be exempt.
When a corporation’s tax status changes from exempt to
non-exempt (or vice versa), the corporation is treated as if had
begun a new existence. A year-end is deemed to occur at the
time of the change. At that time, the corporation is deemed to
have disposed of all its property at fair market value and
immediately reacquired it at that fair market value. Any
accrued gains or losses will be included in that year. This
applies to all property, whether it is inventory or capital. Any
loss carryovers from previous years and any accumulated tax
credits are not available to the corporation after a change in
status.
The deemed disposition rules treat the corporation as
though it had a new existence carrying all its property at fair
market value as of the date of the change in its tax status.
When the status changes, the corporation can select a new year
end, regardless of when its previous year end occurred.
CHIEFS MASK BOOKSTORE
The Chiefs Mask Bookstore has been doing
great since being on the web. If you have
a chance please take a moment to
browse our site at www.ubcic.bc.ca
and click on the Chiefs Mask
Bookstore. There you will find a list of
books available plus options in making
book orders. The Chiefs Mask email address
is [email protected]. Hope to hear from you soon.
Also available in limited quantities is the manual
published by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and
distributed solely by the Chiefs Mask Bookstore,
“Researching the Indian Land Question in BC - An
introduction to Research Strategies & Archival Research
for Band Researchers”, edited by Leigh Ogston, The cost
is $20.00 for a bound copy. The manual is available on
the UBCIC website with a very limited stock of bound
copies for sale. Order your copy now!
The following title is available at a reduced price of
$16.95. “The Same As Yesterday — The Lillooet
Chronicle the Theft of Their Lands and Resources” by
author Joanne Drake-Terry.
| invite you to read these books and have your
friends and colleagues know about them. If you have read
a book and would like to submit a review, please do. All
comments are welcome and can be published in the next
issue of the UBCIC Newsletter with permission from the
writer.
It is at this time | would like to thank you for your
continued support in the Chiefs Mask Bookstore.
Mildred Chartrand
Assistant Manager
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE
(Continued from page 1}
Committee. The UBCIC strongly supports the Committee's mandate, but despite the fact that several AFN resolutions have been passed
by the Chiefs in Assembly, we have had to pressure the AFN to show real commitment by providing the necessary political will and
resources to carry on the work set out for the Committee. Chief Manuel has consistently tried to move this initiative along, but he needs
the support of the Chiefs to ensure the Committee's success. The AFN Annual General Assembly will be held July 10-13 in Ottawa. I
urge all Chiefs to support and endorse the activities of the Delgamuukw Implementation Committee, so that we can continue our efforts
to challenge the government's policy and action regarding our Aboriginal title.
The UBCIC calls on every Indigenous community in B.C. to speak out against the extinguishment of our title and rights
without our consent, and about the continuing alienation of our lands and resources while the governments of Canada and BC.
engage in manipulative strategies designed to divide us. In 1969, Chiefs came together in Kamloops to form the UBCIC. One of the
first orders of business was to challenge the then Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chretien's White Paper policy. Now he is Prime
Minister and we are still fighting the same extinguishment policy today. As President I am committed to carrying on this work by
acting on the UBCIC's political philosophy and principles which are rooted firmly in the knowledge that, as Indigenous Nations, we
have Aboriginal title over the lands and resources on traditional territories.
SPRING 2000 13
UBCIC NEWS
K/
&
Oh
Indian Homemakers
Association of B.C.
April 17, 2000
Dear Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh
Apprehension of Aboriginal Children Still a Thriving
Business in B.C.
“Residential Schools might no longer be relevant in-
today’s society, but the business of apprehending and abusing
our children is still an everyday occurrence!” This statement
was made by the women of the Indian Homemaker’s
Association of B.C, at an emergency meeting held at their head
office in Vancouver on Sunday, April 16, 00 in response to
learning of another of our children’s apprehension. Why is this
still happening? “It’s a thriving business. Just look at the
courtrooms” stated a concerned Elder. “How much money
does the Ministry of Child and Family Services receive from the
Federal Government per Aboriginal child in care?” asks
another.
Aboriginal people appear to be the biggest economic
boom for Canada since the fur trade. If you don’t believe that
fact, just ask the Ministry how many Aboriginal children are in
care. Our children might appear to be the different commodity
now instead of furs, but the same reasoning exists, “The more
you take, the more money you make” Ironically, Aboriginal
people are still, as they have always been, relevant to the
economy of Canada!
We find it not only confusing, but also despicable that
the Ministry’s Social Worker entrusted to protect all children
grossly fail when it comes to Aboriginal children. Specifically,
the new Ministry of Child and Families states in their Staff
Training Manual, “... the way we serve children and families is
changing. Instead of doing business in isolation we are
reaching out to include the Aboriginal community in planning
and service delivery to their children.”
Our confusion with this is that on April 14, 2000, it took
four police officers and one Social Worker unfamiliar to the
family to show up at our hearing an speech impaired client’s
residence without a female officer nor a sign language
interpreter, nor an Aboriginal Family Support Worker at 6 p.m.
Friday night to conduct a routine “home visit”. Unfortunately
they chose to arrive at a time of day when most Aboriginal
services are closed, thus further ensuring very limited support to
the family. The fact is, the ministry via their social worker
created another form of an abusive/controlling relationship for
her and her children, all in the spirit of protection.
There are still many parents and children out there
whose cries of abuse and distress seem to fall on deaf ears when
seeking protection and support from the Ministry. More often
than not their distress turns to tragedy. Often we find, that
when an Aboriginal family is “actually heard” such as in this
recent case of the young Aboriginal, hearing and speech
impaired single mother of four, who, in complying with the
results of her and her children receiving the Ministry’s
“support” to end a violently abusive and controlling
relationship, typically and shamefully became re-victimized.
Even though she complies with all the Ministry’s demands -
reasonable or otherwise - her children are still apprehended
from her repeatedly.
The massive confusion and distress suffered by this
mother to why apprehension was occurring by the Social
Worker that night was never answered. Also, during her
children’s interrogation, the mother was held in another room.
Police officers said that they needed to keep an eye on her
because she’s just like all the rest of the native women who run
away with their children. She replied, “I’m not like that, |
won't run away with my children, there’s no need for me to run,
I haven’t done anything wrong.” These types of attitudes and
generalizations are insulting! Indian Homemakers question is...
if our native woman are running away with their
children...Why?
MCF failed to provide her with their reason for being
there with four police officers for “routine home visit” late
Friday evening, other than when after interviewing their
children, they accusingly told her that her eldest son said,
“daddy was here!” The mother, although physically limited in
her hearing, responded by saying that’s not what he is saying!
She might have been restrained by police as the children
were being interrogated by strangers, but she is able to read lips
and she tried to explain to them what her son was really saying,
but they wouldn’t listen and then proceeded to apprehend her
children at that time.
Their mother has a restraining order of “No Contact”
through the courts between her estranged husband and herself
and her children. In this action by MCF an over reaction to a
simple and natural statement of “Daddy was here,” made by a
child, who, missing his other parent and just earlier that day
watching his daddy on a video witnessed by a Family Outreach
Worker of the Indian Homemakers Association of B.C. during a
home visit with the family at 3:00 p.m. of that same day? Was
MCF really only looking for any reason to apprehend? Was
she, their disabled mother set up? Do social workers generally
make home visits to disabled single parents with four small
children and intimidate them with the force of four police
officers, after 7 p.m. on Friday nights?
The lack of respect they showed to these children by not
allowing their distraught mom to comfort and reassure them
before the situation escalated is also extremely pathetic. They
could have alleviated the children’s distress at anytime by
allowing the mother to walk them to the vehicle. No mother
wants to see her children abused in this way when she can
prevent it. Or, they could have asked the mother to tell the
children in a good way to go with them. Instead, MCF and four
police officers literally and publicly ripped the children from the
real safety of their home and arms of their mother. Shame on
them!
APPREHENSION
(Continued on page 15)
14
SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
APPREHENSION (Continued from page 14)
Then they proceeded to further traumatize the family
including the neighborhood witnessing this abusive action by
using further “Excessive force” Since when does it take five
adult males, four of them police officers to shove four
screaming and terrified small children into a “get away car” of
strangers while listening to the pitiful cries of their speech and
hearing impaired mother? If these four small children ages 10,
7,5, and 2 years old and there five foot nothing disabled mother
posed such a physical threat to MCF’s male social worker that
four male police officers were needed then where were the
dogs? Or better yet, where was their common sense? Where
was this sense of morality and ethics? What are her and her
children’s actual rights? Does anyone care?
Indian Homemakers asks, “How would you ever expect
any child to reach out to the Ministry or police officers when
needing protection if faced with violence, when MCF and the
police, in this case, are the violators?” We also wonder who, if
anyone, physically checked these children for the bruises they
must have received from these very same people who we as tax
payers entrust so blindly to protect them?
The only thing these poor, abused children received
aside from their trauma was the mixed messages that the rules
of protection only apply if you are non-aboriginal! Sadly, they
were also receiving the message that its not important that their
mother is sincerely making valid efforts to provide a safe and
loving home. By her complying with all the demands and
changing rules placed on her by the Ministry - including
attending additional parenting courses, the Indian Homemakers
believes she has indeed met their demands. This young
Aboriginal mother has made great strides in building her self
esteem and traditional parenting skills in spite of a ministry
who doesn’t recognize any of her accomplishments. She was
also supporting her children’s growth and development by
actively volunteering in their pre-school program.
We thank God that this distraught, single, aboriginal,
hearing and speech impaired mother of four had the strength
and common sense, after being left alone in her empty house
with no support, to not add her being abused by making the
right choices. She did not turn to alcohol or suicide, she chose
instead to reach out to the women of her community for support.
We deeply respect her choice and commend her for it. “So,
who’s the next victim of a ministry that clearly doesn’t follow
their own training procedures we ask? You? Maybe if your
aboriginal!
What is the real truth? is the Ministry’s coffers once
again depleted? Are they once again conducting a “Claw
Back” to replenish the bank? Is the “Claw Back” our children
this time instead of money from our already marginally funded
yet over burdened social programs?” The original
overspending was stated as caused by more children in care.
Again, most children in care are Aboriginal. Surprised? Not
us.
On behalf of the Elders, Board of all the Aboriginal
Women and their families of the Indian Homemaker’s
Association of B.C.,
Jeannette Angus, [HA President
SPRING 2000
RESOURCE CENTRE
The Y2K upgrading of hardware and software in the Resource
Centre is all but completed. All computers are now Pentiums
and we have moved from a Windows 3.11 platform to Windows
98. We have also upgraded our word processing and library
application software to the most current versions. It has been a
| learning curve for Lorraine and I as we reformatted hard drives
and did everything from deal with peripheral device problems to
getting two CPUs to share one monitor, keyboard and mouse,
We had some very frustrating days when we didn’t want to see
anything that plugged into an electrical outlet ever again but we
have both gained a lot of knowledge and confidence from the
process. We also saved a lot of money by doing it ourselves.
Morgan Young, who has been helping us catch up on our
backlog of cataloguing over the past year, thanks to special
funding from DIAND, is nearing the end of her contract. She
has made a visible difference. A lot of material came off our
office backlog shelves and went onto the shelves in the Resource
Centre. We hope to be successful in our application again this
year for an HRDC grant to hire a summer student. That student
will be able to start the last half of the project to get our older
collection of Brian Deer classified materials into our catalog
database. Our catalog is available to look at on the Internet at
the UBCIC website www.ubcic.be.ca,
I recently found a number of website addresses for Canadian
aboriginal economic development sites in the newsletter put out
by CANDO (Council for the Advancement of Native
Development Officers). If you are involved in economic
development, you might want to look at:
www.aboriginalbusiness.on.ca
www.infoexport.ge.ca
www.linknet.ns.ca/links
www.aboriginalmap.ic.gc.ca
Wwww.sae.ca
www.abc.ge.ca
www.fnfp.ge.ca_ (this one is particularly related to forestry
initiatives)
I know that Records Management is of concern to many Bands.
For those of you within driving distance of Vancouver, there is
going to be three records management courses offered in the
evening starting the third week of September at Vancouver
Community College. [Pll let you know more details later in the
summer. Summer_what a wonderful thought.
Wendy Ancell, MLS
UBCIC Librarian
15
UBCIC NEWS
Assembly of First Nationy
National Chief Insists on Changes to Bill C-20 to
Reflect Full Participation of First Nations
March 13, 2000
The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations is
calling on the government and all political partied to amend
Bill C-20, the Clarity Bill. The amendments must properly
reflect and include an equal role for First Nations in any future
referendum on secession by and any provinces and any
negotiations that may lead to the separation of a province from
Canada.
“The federal government is moving ahead with
legislation that clearly does not reflect the Constitution Act of
1982. The Act states very clearly that First Nations and
Aboriginal governments must be recognized as full participants
in any discussion of a constitutional nature. The secession of a
province is clearly a major constitutional change yet we are not
included in this proposed legislation as full and equal partners
in the talks to be conducted following a referendum”, stated
National Chief Fontaine.
The National Chief appeared before the Legislative
Committee studying Bill C-20. He tabled proposed
amendments before the Committee that would recognize and
support the role of First Nations in this issue. While some
committee members expressed support for the amendments,
they do not appear to have been incorporated in to the proposed
legislation at this point.
“T intend to press this important issue with the
government and all the opposition parties. The Constitution
clearly sets our critical role in such matters. The Meech Lake
Accord was opposed and defeated by First Nations and Elijah
Harper because it failed to recognize the Aboriginal Peoples of
this land as first peoples and partners. Bill C-20 suffers from
the same historical inaccuracy. Fundamental changes to the
constitution of Canada cannot and will not be made successfully
without the consent of Aboriginal Peoples”, concluded the
National Chief.
The National Chief and members of the Executive will
be talking with Cabinet Ministers, government MP’s , and
Opposition Leaders to push for the changes to the Bill. Debate
resumes March 13 and the efforts will be focused during that
week.
Contact Jean LaRose (613) 241-6789 ext. 251
Healthy People Build Healthy Communities
April 6, 2000
Chiefs from across Canada have called fora
comprehensive approach to deal with the poor social conditions
that contribute to an escalating First Nations health crisis.
“There is a direct link between healthy communities and
healthy people,” said Ghislain Picard, AFN Vice Chief for
Quebec and Labrador.
Chiefs attending the AFN Confederacy meeting in
Ottawa heard some staggering statistics: Diabetes is epidemic
among First Nations and the number of cases is expected to
double or triple in the next 20 years; Health Canada says HIV/
AIDS is pandemic in First Nations communities and First
Nations are experiencing the highest rates of suicide in Canada
with young suicides (ages 15-18) five times the national
average.
“Our peoples’ health is in jeopardy. It is a national
crisis that needs to be addressed now without further delay,”
said Vice-Chief Picard, Co-Chair of the AFN Chiefs Committee
on Health. “We passed resolutions this week calling for the
federal government and relevant ministries to work with us to
develop a coordinated strategy to improve First Nation health.
Health is not only about the individual] —it is about healthy
communities.”
“As First Nations we take a holistic approach. to health.
Many serious health problems can be directly related to poor
social conditions in our communities: lack of economic
opportunity, low levels of formal education, poor housing and
lack of the basic necessities of the life like clean drinking.”
Over 200 Confederacy delegates learned that AFN
National Chief Phil Fontaine had received a commitment from
Finance Minister Paul Martin in recent discussion to convene
an interdepartmental committee of federal ministers to work
with First Nations governments to develop a national First
Nations economic development strategy. It is hoped the
strategy will be announced as part of the 2001/2002 Federal
Budget.
Vice Chief Picard said progress on improving social
conditions for First Nations citizens is an essential step in
helping First Nations move towards economic self-sufficiency.
“Meantime, it is important that all appropriate branches
of the government work with us to deal with the First Nations
health crisis and to make our communities healthy and viable,”
he said. “First Nations have the right to the same health
standard enjoyed by all Canadians.”
Contact: Jean LaRose (613) 241-6789 ext. 251
16
SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
National Chief and Executive Support The Cheam
Band Involved in Dispute
April 19, 2000
The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations,
Phil Fontaine, along with the Executive Council, pledged the
organizations support to the Cheam Indian Band, who are
currently embroiled in a land dispute with the province of
British Columbia. Yesterday the National Chief and members
of the Executive Council passed a resolution of support for
Cheam, members of the Executive council then traveled to the
community Tuesday evening in a show of support and
solidarity.
“We feel its necessary to support the Cheam people who
are currently involved in a ongoing land dispute with the
Province of British Columbia. This dispute is not only about
securing a land base it is about developing and sustaining an
economic future,” said National Chief Fontaine.
Since the 1950’s the Cheam people have been trying to
engage the federal government and the province in talks to
resolve their outstanding land claims. Most recently the Cheam
people maintain their right to their land as it is secured in
section 35.1 of the Canadian Constitution, and the Supreme
Court of Canada’s Delgamuukw decision of December 11, 1997
confirms the Cheam Band enjoys unextinguished Aboriginal
title to their lands and territories.
The National Chief is calling on British Columbia
Premier Ujjal Dosanjh to deal with this outstanding issue
urgently and in good faith. “This situation has to be dealt with
quickly without further delay. Premier Dosanjh has both the
ability and authority to work with the Cheam people in order to
settle this issue to ensure the community can utilize the
resources available in order to sustain a viable economic base
for its community. The alternative can only be one of
confrontation and unnecessary hardship,” concluded the
National Chief.
Contact: Naline Rampersad (613) 612-1785
Re: Post Secondary Education
A meeting with Finance Minister Paul Martin was held
on March 21, 2000, in Ottawa, On. Minister Martin was
informed that there was a growing number of First Nations
students applying for Post Secondary Education (PSE) funding
and that many who applied were often deferred and put on
waiting lists. The Minister stated that he was unaware of this
situation and to commit increased funding for PSE, evidence
was required to substantiate the need.
Thus, I need your assistance in gathering the names of
students who are waiting to access PSE funding. Officials at
the Assembly of First Nations will be contacting your PSE
administrators in your communities and regions by telephone to
collect this information. Your cooperation and support for this
initiative will assist us in our efforts to lobby for increased
funding.
I thank you for your time and commitment to First
Nations education,
A Message From the
Cheam Indian Band
s you are undoubtedly aware, the Cheam Indian
rs Band is involved in an active land dispute with the
Province of British Columbia. In fact, we have been forced
to take direct action by effecting the closure of a road know
as Ferry Island Road, which runs through one of the parcels
of land in dispute.
Rather than deal with the issues of contention, Premier
Dosanjh has publicly conveyed the feeble excuse, through a
cowardly press statement issued on April 16, 2000, that he
will not consider any future negotiations while the Cheam
Band continues to undertake acts of civil disobedience.
Further, we have had no direct communication from the
office of the Premier.
At this time, on behalf of the Cheam Indian Band, we
would like to ask for your immediate political support. The
Province of British Columbia continues to ‘hold in con-
tempt' our Section 35.1 Constitution rights as well as our
aboriginal rights as outlined in the December 11, 2000
Delgamuukw decision.
The Province of British Columbia continues to carry on
‘business as usual' in spite of the Delgamuukw decision.
Accordingly, the Province continues to accelerate the
alienation of our aboriginal title lands through various land-
use-planning exercises such as the so-called Protected Area
' Strategy and the Land and Resource Management Planning.
We ask that you immediately write Premier Dosanjh and
demand that he deal with our land issues in a forthright and
honest manner.
Sincerely yours,
Chief June Quipp
Cheam Indian Band
Sprino 2000
17
UBCIC NEWS
O29) 325 AU ya
(Continued from page 11)
trees to be milled. The parties are free to
negotiate about whether or not the
proceeds of the timber (the milled wood)
will be either used to build housing for
band members, or sold with the profit
paid into a trust account pending the
outcome of the cases.
Additionally, the Bands are free
to replant the harvested areas, and
argued that they should be allowed to
replant in a manner which restores the
forest for the traditional uses of their
people, and not simply to re-grow
another cash crop as required under
Provincial forestry practices. The Court
ordered that both the Bands and the
province were entitled to recover their
costs for the preparation and harvesting
of the blocks, and that the parties should
negotiate about what these costs are.
In the Westbank Hidden Creek ~
action, the court decided that a full trial
was necessary in order to determine
whether or not the Province was entitled
to enforce its stop work order, and that
the Band would have to prove that it has
Aboriginal title to the area in question.
Westbank has since appealed this
decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal and
is awaiting a decision. The full trial in
this matter has been scheduled for the
Spring of 2001.
In the Okanagan and Secwepemc
action, a decision is still pending as to
whether or not the Bands will be forced
into a full Aboriginal right title, or
whether or not the Court can decide the
action based on asserted Aboriginal title.
The Bands have argued that if they are
forced into Court to prove their
Aboriginal title, in order for the province
to accommodate that title, that the
Province should be forced to pay for the
Band’s legal costs in bringing this matter
to Court. Decisions on these matters are
still outstanding.
The combined series of actions, in
which Indigenous Peoples are
challenging the Province’s absolute
assertion of ownership and refusal to
acknowledge the existence of
Aboriginal title are moving forward.
This is the first time that the Province
, has ever been faced with united actions,
on the part of Aboriginal peoples,
Council of the Haida Nation Takes on Forestry
Giant, Seeks to Invalidate License
Skidegate- The Council of the Haida Nation has filed a petition in B.C.
Supreme Court challenging the Province’s authority to transfer a tree farm license
agreement from MacMillan Bloedel to Weyerhaeuser.
The license, which allows the American-owned company to log tens of
thousands worth upwards of $100 million a year from the traditional lands of the
Haida people, was transferred to Weyerhaeuser without the consultation or approval
of the Haida Nation.
“The effects of this license have already proven to work against the well-
being of our people and our culture,” says Guujaaw, President of the Haida Nation.
In 1997 the Haida Nation challenged the replacement of TFL 39 in which the
B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that aboriginal title constitutes an encumbrance over
Tree Farm Licenses. The license allows the holder to log 1.2 million cubic meters of
timber per year on Haida Gwaii. “We have attempted to address this through
negotiations,” says Guujaaw. “But the Government still does not accept-that we
have a legitimate interest. That must be corrected.”
The petition filed today in B.C. Supreme Court seeks to have the license
agreement , known as Tree Farm License 39, declared invalid. Until recently,
MacMillan Bloedel ltd. held TFL 39. Last October, the B.C. government approved
in principle the transfer of MB to US forestry giant Weyerhaeuser Inc. in November,
the sale was completed and Weyerhaeuser assumed control of all of MB’S logging
licenses.
Of direct concern to the Haida Nation is Block 6 of TFL 39, that portion of
the license agreement that pertains to Haida Gwaii, also known as the Queen
Charlotte Islands. In the past five years for which data is available, Weyerhaeuser’s
predecessor logged more than 4.4 million cubic meters of wood on the islands. The
amount of cedar, spruce and hemlock logs taken off the islands filled more than 770
barge loads, and was worth $586.8 million on the Vancouver log market.
The continued logging of red cedar trees is of particular concern to the Haida
Nation, as the species is central to Haida culture. TFL 39 also encompasses
important cultural sites including villages, camps and cedar use areas. “The Tree
Farm License Agreements are strong enough, now an American company will have
the added support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which
will bind the Province to massive compensation payouts tf any lands are to be
spared,” says Guujaaw.
Tree Farm Licenses have been given out on the premise of logging natural
forests which took root thousands of years ago, including trees several hundred years
old, followed by the repeated logging of plantation trees. “The fate of the land
parallels with fate of the Haida cultural heritage,” says Guujaaw.
Contact: Guujaaw, President of the Haida Nation (250) 559-8250
demanding that the Province THe Nisca’a TREATY iS FINALLY RaTiFieD:
acknowledge and accommodate our
existing Aboriginal title. The individual | xepenece
Aboriginal communities (Okanagan, gee Se EST?
Westbank, Adams Lake, Neskonlith,
Spallumcheen and Haida) are bringing
these actions forward in an attempt to
stop the Province’s “business as usual”
approach and continued denial of the
existence of Aboriginal title.
oF
) BLEW IT ON
ALVERTISING
THE DEAL.
18
— SPRING 2000
UBCIC NEWS
Va ETE
OPEN LETTER: To All of the Aboriginal Nations and Communities
Participating in the British Columbia Treaty Process
In 1973, the federal government
adopted a national policy to negotiate the
extinguishment of Aboriginal title and
rights in Canada; this was the
Comprehensive Claims Policy. In 1986,
the Comprehensive Claims Policy was
revised by the federal government and in
1990, the federal government removed
the restriction of only negotiating with
six Aboriginal claimant groups: at a time
in order to “accelerate” the
extinguishment of Aboriginal title.
In 1992, the “made in B.C.”
British Columbia Treaty Commission
(BCTC) Process was created in order to
implement the federal Comprehensive
Claims Policy in British Columbia. The
NDP government of Mike Harcourt and
Glen Clark subsequently brought into the
provincial government bureaucracy
ranks, individual experienced with
implementing the federal Comprehensive
Claims Policy, notably, Mr. Tony
Penikett, former NDP Premier of the
Yukon Territorial Government, who
presided over the Yukon Final
Agreement.
We are writing because for the
first time since 1992 — when the British
Columbia Treaty Commission Process
began — all of the major Aboriginal
organizations in B.C. have adopted a
consensus Statement in order to:
Categorically reject the Federal
Comprehensive Claims Policy and
Canada’s implementation of this policy.
Affirm that Aboriginal title exists
in B.C. and Canada
Press for the replacement of the
Comprehensive Claims Policy with a
new policy of Recognition, Affirmation
and Implementation of Aboriginal Title.
During meetings held in
Vancouver on January 27-29, 2000, there
was also a consensus on a political
strategy that will lead to the exercise of
Aboriginal title through initiatives across
the province.
On December I 1, 1997, the
Supreme Court of Canada issued its
landmark Delgamuukw decision
affirming that Aboriginal title exists in
B.C. and Canada, rendering the
Comprehensive Claims Policy illegal in
light of this court decision. The
Delgamuukw decision sets out legal
principles and a framework for the
recognition, reconciliation and
implementation of Aboriginal title along
with Crown title.
After the Delgamuukw decision,
our Interior Alliance patiently waited for
the governments to demonstrate to us,
what the courts refer to as “the honour
of the Crown”, by offering to negotiate
the recognition of our Aboriginal title in
accordance with the Supreme Court of
Canada decision.
What we have received instead
from the governments of Canada and
British Columbia is gamesmanship. Our
Interior Alliance Nations were told by
the previous Minister of Indian Affairs,
Jane Stewart, to either enter into
negotiation under the BCTC process, or
go to court.
Our Interior Alliance decided to
choose a third option. A number of our
communities have exercised Aboriginal
title by conducting Timber Harvesting
Operation within our Ancestral
homelands. We did so under our own
permitting system. The Governments of
British Columbia has dragged our
communities into court and our
communities are defending themselves in
court. These court proceedings are
numerous and at different levels,
including the British Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, as per the meeting
and consensus statement of January 28,
2000, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,
the Interior Alliance, the First Nations
Summit and the Assembly of First
Nations are now united against the
Federal Comprehensive Claims Policy
and the implementation of that policy.
We will need to be unified in
protecting and enforcing our respective
Aboriginal title. It should be noted we
have a video of the federal Minister of
Indian Affairs, Robert Nault, on January
10, 2000, while traveling in Western
Quebec with National Chief Phil
Fontaine, drawing a line in the sand, by
categorically stating that the federal
government will not negotiate the
recognition of Aboriginal title, or
compensation for infringements of
Aboriginal title.
In his January 10, 2000,
statements, Minister Nault, presents a
frank assessment that no Minister of the
Crown has a right to recognize
Aboriginal title, because this would
require a federal “Cabinet decision”,
which essentially means that federal
recognition of Aboriginal title requires
the support of Prime Minister Chretien.
Minister Nault’s comments places
into context the recently announced
“Treaty Related Measures” (TRM’s), or
so-called “Improvements” to the BCTC
Process, as being merely a manipulative
public relations technique designed to
paint Aboriginal Nations and peoples as
a greedy and unreasonable if and when
these TRM’s are rejected as
economically and ecologically
unsustainable by Aboriginal Nations and
peoples.
The Government of Canada
intends to continue denying and delaying
the opportunities afforded by the
Supreme Court of Canada’s
Delgamuukw decision for our Aboriginal
Nations and peoples.
In our view, the “Treaty
Settlement Model” the Chretien
government is trying to impose on
Aboriginal Nations and peoples through
the implementation of the
Comprehensive Claims policy, has
origins in his 1969 White Paper on
Indian Policy.
OPEN LETTER (Continued on page 20)
SPRING 2000
19
UBCIC NEWS
OPEN LETTER (Continued from page 19)
We believe that the federal government is deliberately
using Aboriginal poverty to keep the Comprehensive Claims
Policy and Process alive. We also know that the outstanding
$100 million in demand loans and the threat of legal action is
keeping many Aboriginal groups engaged in the so-called
Treaty process — even though the governments refuse to
negotiate the recognition of Aboriginal title or compensation—
simply because many Aboriginal groups cannot afford to repay
the loans. This is tantamount to blackmail and we urge any of
you caught in this situation to bring this fundamental injustice
into the public eye.
From the beginning, the federal Cabinet’s objective in
implementing the Comprehensive Claims Policy in British
Columbia has been the extinguishment of Aboriginal title, and
the recent Delgamuukw decision has not changed their minds.
We only have to look at the terms and conditions contained in
the so-called “modern treaties”, particularly the Nisga’a Final
Agreement and the Sechel Agreement-in-Principle, to see what
the federal and provincial negotiating positions are regarding
the extinguishment of Aboriginal title, or “certainty” as the
lawyers now call it.
The recent “insulting offers”, to groups negotiating
under the Comprehensive Claims Process shows a clear pattern
that the governments are ignoring the legal principles and
framework set out in the landmark Delgamuukw decision. The
problem is that the federal negotiators mandates come from the
Comprehensive Claims Policy which only deals with
administrative land matters, not the recognition of Aboriginal
title, or compensation for infringing upon Aboriginal title.
So the purpose of our unified effort in B.C. and across
Canada, is to press the federal Cabinet to replace the federal
Comprehensive Claims Policy with a policy for the
Recognition, Affirmation and Implementation of Aboriginal
Title. However, in our estimation, the policy will be difficult to
replace for all of the Aboriginal title territories in British
Columbia, as long as some Aboriginal Nations or communities
in British Columbia cling to the process that does not work,
places you deeper in debt and produces only “insulting offers”.
Through the Delgamuukw decision we now have a
strong legal foundation and politically we have the makings of a
regional, national and international strategy to attack the unjust,
unfair and illegal Comprehensive Claims Policy, which has
remained relatively unchanged since Jean Chretien first
announced it in the House of Commons in 1973, not long after
his infamous 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy. The law has
changes and so must the policy.
To conclude, for the sake of this generation and for those
yet unborn, we urge those of you negotiating under the
Comprehensive Claims Policy, through the Comprehensive
Claims Process, to leave the table and join with us in pressing
the federal Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, to recognize
Aboriginal title and compensate for any infringements of
Aboriginal title.
Chief Art Manuel, Chairman
Canadian First Nations Join Together in
Washington, D.C. to Present Views on
Softwood Lumber Agreement
Washington, April 13 —Today, members of the Grand
Council of the Crees and the B.C. Interior Alliance delivered
written submissions to the U.S. government concerning the
impacts of forestry and trade in response to a call by the office
of the United States Trade Representative for input.
In the last six months, both groups have traveled to
Washington to lobby U.S. political representatives on their
opposition to proposed “free trade” of softwood lumber when
the current Canada/U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement expires
in April 2001. Recognizing the potential threats to their
interests if unregulated softwood lumber trade between Canada
and the U.S. is allowed, the Interior Alliance and the Grand
Council have decided to work together in Washington.
Sam Etapp of the Grand Council of the Crees noted,
“Our coming together on the lumber trade issue makes perfect
sense, considering that the forestry industry joined together a
long time ago with government to defend Canada’s
unsustainable practices.”
Chief Arthur Manuel of the B.C. Interior added that, “In
coming together, we have strong Aboriginal opposition to the
Canadian foresty industry’s rhetoric about the need for “free
trade” in wood products that are produced in a manner that
harms our cultures.
In their brief to the U.S. Trade Representative, the Grand
Council asserts that present forestry practices in Quebec are
violating their treaty rights through the ongoing liquidation of
the forests within their subsistence land base. Ignoring these
impacts, and their treaty, the Crees contend, amounts to a
subsidy for the industry in Quebec.
The B.C, Interior Alliance’s submission affirms that
Nations within the south central interior of B.C. - about a third
of the province - have Aboriginal Proprietary interests over the
land and resources. By ignoring these interests and their
aboriginal title, the B.C. Government and the forestry industry
are garnering resources and revenues at the expense of their
culture and livelihoods.
Following the filing of their written submissions,
representatives of the Interior Alliance and the Grand Council
will meet with several members of the Senate and Congress to
inform them of their reservations about potential unregulated
softwood lumber trade between Canada and the U.S. should
Canada’s forest regime not first be reformed.
Robert Kitchen, a representative of the Grand Council of
the Waswanipi Nation, concluded that “Both groups hoped that
their efforts this past week would lead to a broader and more
informed debate among U.S. political and trade officials in the
coming months.
Contact: Romeo Saganash (418) 564-1598
Chief Art Manuel (250) 314-7179
20
SPRING 2000
Part of Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (May 2000 Edition)