Periodical
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (December 2001 Edition)
- Title
- Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (December 2001 Edition)
- Is Part Of
- 1.06-01.08 Union of BC Indian Chiefs Newsletter
- 1.06.-01 Newsletters and bulletins sub-series
- Date
- December 2001
- Language
- english
- Identifier
- 1.06-01.08-12.01
- pages
- 18
- Table Of Contents
-
inside this issue....
2. Message from the President
3. Incremental Certainty
4. Skwelkwek'welt
6. Message from the Administrator
Resource Centre
7. Recommendations for the
Referendum Ballot
8. Health, Child & Families
10. UBCIC Research
12. Sliammon Vote No to ATP
13. What is the White Paper 2001
14. Self Determination vs Self
Termination Poster - Contributor
- Chief Stewart Philip
- David Dennis
- David Hunt
- Arlette Alcock
- Carol Dawson
- Beverley O'Neil
- Type
- periodical
- periodical
- Transcription (Hover to view)
-
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
NEWLETTER
December 2001 Edition
UBCIC Members Support the Defeat of Minister Nault's First
Nations Governance Act and Callfor Resignation
Representatives of the Union of
B . C . Indian C h i e f s ' member
communities helped to defeat the federal
government's " F i r s t N a t i o n s '
Governance" (FNG) Initiative, during a
national meeting of First Nations held in
Ottawa, December 4-6, 2001.
The U B C I C members joined with
others to form the "First Nations
Coalition for Inherent Rights". The
"coalition" of First Nations from British
Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec
was instrumental in rejecting the federal
Minister of Indian Affairs proposed F N G
Initiative.
The Assembly of First Nations
Confederacy also adopted a
resolution calling for N a u l t ' s
resignation, or for the Prime Minister to
remove him.
As expected, following the
national Assembly of First Nations
meeting, Robert Nault, has already stated
he intends to ignore the m a j o r i t y
d e c i s i o n o f the democratically
elected leadership of First Nations across
Canada, and work with those First
Nations who will support him. Minister
Nault has also reportedly said: "I think it's
high time that the (AFN) restructure itself
so it can work with the government of
Canada".
It is because o f N a u l t ' s
"arrogant, confrontational and
disrespectful" attitude and his "divide
and rule" approach that the A F N
Confederacy meeting voted for his
resignation.
Chief Stewart Phillip, President
of the Union of B . C . Indian Chiefs,
stated today "we have prepared
information materials alerting all First
Nations people about the threat to our
inherent right of self-determination, which
Bob Nault and his pre-ordained colonialstyle legislation represents. We are
encouraging all First Nations to continue
to oppose the federal government's
proposed F N G legislation using all the
tools available at our disposal.
First Nation Coalition For Inherent
Rights
We must continue the dialogue
among us; we must continue to stand
together for what is right and just for our
people, and we must ensure that not a
moment is lost as we do.
May I suggest that the lines of
communication we opened be reinforced
and strengthened. Let's begin discussing
next steps and vow to begin driving our
agenda immediately. We must push
forward lest the momentum we have
generated becomes dissipated.
Grand Chief Larry Sault - Association of
Iroquois and Allied Indians
INSIDE THIS ISSUE....
Dear Colleagues,
2. Message from the President
We won a great victory in
Ottawa this week. From the outset we
knew that Minister Nault's insidious First
Nations Governance Act was an
infringement on our Inherent and Treaty
Rights and our sovereignty. We made our
arguments so cogently and worked so
effectively together that we were able to
convince fellow chiefs to reject the work
plans that threatened our people. The
level of teamwork that we achieved over
the several days was tremendous.
We have a huge task before us:
we must work together to further develop
a national work plan on Aboriginal title
and Treaty rights, and enhance the
economic and social development of our
communities across this country, and we
must engage the Government of Canada
in that endeavour. It's a tall order.
3. Incremental Certainty
4. Skwelkwek'welt
6. Message from the Administrator
Resource Centre
7. Recommendations for the
Referendum Ballot
8. Health, Child & Families
10. U B C I C Research
12. Sliammon Vote No to ATP
13. What is the White Paper 2001
14. Self Determination vs Self
Termination Poster
1
the end of the day. If all else failed then Nault would proceed
with or without the consent of the Chiefs.
The U B C I C joined forces with Manitoba, Ontario, and
Quebec and formed the "First Nations Coalition for Inherent
Rights" rejecting the cut and not so dried deal Nault had with the
Assembly of First Nations. On the second day the numbers came
out 126-49 against Nault's project. It is because of Nault's
arrogant, confrontational and disrespectful attitude and his
"divide and rule approach" that the A F N Confederacy meeting
passed a resolution for his resignation. With Delgamuukw in
hand-is all this political rhetoric necessary?
Premier Gordon Campbell is on the verge of fulfilling his
election promise to gain the input from the general public on how
to proceed with first nations people in the B . C . Treaty
Commission? The questions are either Yes or No and are
designed to extract further the rights and settlement lands from
first nations people. Every redneck in the country will receive a
complimentary self-addressed stamped envelope and will have a
democratic voice on the way government deals with Indians.
Whether you are in the treaty process or not,
Skelkwekelt,
Bill C-36, Minister Nault's arrogant approach to
December 11, 2001 rolled around this calendar year,
dealing
with
his
responsibility, or be it the Liberal Governments
if you are of first nations ancestry, one thinks of the historic 1997
bogus
election
promises,
these initiatives will all impact and land
Delgamuukw Decision. After all it is the fourth year since the
on
the
laps
of
first
nations
people.
decision came down marking the first time aboriginal title on the
The
protection
and
assertion of aboriginal title and the
ground for first nations people was recognized. The
rights
that
flow
from
that
title
is the responsibility of each and
Delgamuukw Decision was celebrated around the country. First
every
individual.
Nations
need
to be more organized in their
nations' organizations, leaders and their membership felt the
efforts
than
ever
to
respond
to
a
call for action until Delgamuukw
victory in the Supreme Court of Canada would be a beginning for
comes
out
of
hibernation.
change. Anew era in the way governments will respect and forge
So when you reflect back to December 11, 2001, if you
a new relationship with first nations people. Think again.
have
a
heart,
there will be a sense of sadness in light of 9-11,
When December 11, 2001 arrived this year the media
marking
the
three
month anniversary of the attacks.
and the general public have only one thing on their mind But
on
our
historic day, what makes me angry is
Terrorism. Three months since the attacks vigils will be held to
witnessing
the
continued
attacks on our traditional territories
remember the innocent victims and loss of life that occurred at
and
continually
being
denied
the right to enjoy the bounty from
the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the plane crash site that was
our
lands.
The
attack
on
a
unique
and distinct culture. The
indeed very tragic to say the least. " A day that changed the
passing
of
our
elders
who
could
not
share in a victory that was
world forever," is echoed.
ours,
a
victory
what
would
"change
the
lives of first nations
When our day arrived to change our world forever, if
people
forever."
The
1997
Supreme
Court
of Canada's
you were optimistic, you felt there would be vast improvement in
Delgammukw
Decision.
Where
were
your
thoughts today?
our way of life. Quietly as December 11 wares on, the
Message From
the President
th
Skelkwekelt people have been swept off their traditional territory
the same way you would sweep the ants off your blanket during a
picnic. When does the Delgamuukw Decision come over the hill
to save the day?
Will the Anti-terrorism Act (Bill C-36) ensure that we
can protest peacefully against giant corporations, or will first
nations people get clubbed over the head for rightfully occupying
and protecting their traditional territories, and be labelled as
terrorists in our own backyards? What is the difference between
biological warfare and the widespread of Smallpox through the
blankets - Who looked after our best interests?
This month the A.F.N Confederacy in Ottawa raised the
question on the direction the leadership of the day would proceed
with Minister Nault's Governance Act Initiative. Do the Chiefs in
assembly agree to co-operate with Nault's 1.26 million-dollar
project in exchange for talks on self-government, and socioeconomic conditions? According to Nault he was convinced the
National Chief and his Executive would sell it to Confederacy by
2
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs would like to wish you
and yours a safe and healthy Holiday Season.
May the Great Spirit guide us all down the path of selfdetermination and give us the strength to safeguard the
rights and interests of all indigenous people and their
homelands.
The U B C I C offices will be closed from December 24th,
2001 and will re-open January 7, 2002
INCREMENTAL CERTAINTY AGREEMENTS
The British Columbia government has
signalled that it intends to embark on a new
type of agreements with Indigenous Peoples
within B.C. The province calls these new
agreements "incremental certainty
agreements". Incremental certainty
agreements will be proposed to Indigenous
Peoples both outside of, and inside of, the
treaty process, under different names. For
those within the treaty process, these
agreements will be called "interim measures
agreements" or "slip AIPs", while they will be
sold to those outside of the treaty process as
agreements regarding Aboriginal Title lands (and our right to
benefit from the resources) that are available outside of the
treaty process.
"Indigenous Peoples will be asked to put
their Aboriginal Title into "hibernation"
for a period of time by renting certainty to
the Province.,"
These new agreements fit within the policy change wanted
by the provincial Liberal government, because they will not
address Indigenous Peoples' of jurisdiction over, or ownership
of, lands and resources. Instead, Indigenous Peoples will be
asked to put their Aboriginal Title into "hibernation" for a period
of time by renting certainty to the Province, with the result that
the permits and permissions that the Province issues to third
parties to allow them access to lands/resources cannot be legally
challenged. Thus, the province can continue to make these
agreements (which will not be "treaties") whatever the results of
the treaty referendum.
The new certainty agreements, sold with the incentive of
minimal economic benefits, are simply Canada and B.C.'s latest
attempt to get access to our Aboriginal Title Lands and
Resources without the full and informed consent of our
Peoples. Indigenous Peoples agree to "rent" certainty to the
Province, so that the Province and third parties have access to
our Aboriginal Title lands and resources for a set period of time.
In exchange for agreeing to put their Aboriginal Title to sleep,
or into hibernation, Indigenous peoples will be offered money or
other economic incentives, "and a limited form of co-management
over the particular area or resource. The co-management deals
offered will vest ultimate decision-making power with the
Province.
The new certainty agreements (treaties, Slim AIPs, or
interim measures agreements) will require that Indigenous groups
relinquish (or agree not to practice/put into hibernation) all
ownership and authority of resources on their traditional
territories to the Crown.
The new incremental certainty agreements will allow the
Province to say that they have met the "consultation"
requirements that have been imposed on governments by the
Courts, and will allow the Province to have unhindered access to
Aboriginal Title lands and resources. The incremental certainty
agreements will be for a specific period of time, and may be for a
particular area and/or resource industry (i.e., forestry).
Some of the main problems with the incremental certainty
agreements are:
1.
Standard of Consent: It is unclear what the
standard of consent will be for the new certainty agreements. It
is likely that a simple vote of band councils or negotiating teams
may be deemed sufficient to approve these agreements about
Aboriginal Title Lands and Resources, without the need for the
consent of the entire Indigenous Nation.
Canada and B.C.'s new proposals to achieve "certainty"
through interim measures agreements or "incremental certainty
agreements" raise the possibility that land and resource decisions
can be made by band councils or negotiation teams. It is likely
that the new certainty agreements - which will, in effect, put
Aboriginal Title to sleep or into hibernation for a period of years
- will not require the approval of the collective membership of an
Indigenous Nation.
2.
Extinguishment. The Province claims that the
new incremental certainty agreements do not result in
extinguishment of Aboriginal Title and Rights. However, for all
practical purposes, when an Indigenous People agree to grant
unhindered access to their Lands and Resources for a specific
period of time (subject only to the input /benefits which they have
negotiated under the new certainty agreement) the practical result
is extinguishment. Aboriginal Title which has been put into
"hibernation" (put to sleep for as long as the incremental
certainty agreement lasts) is practically extinguished for that
period of time, because the people's jurisdiction over, and right to
benefit fully from that land, is extinguished.
3.
Double Standards: The new incremental
certainty agreements operate under a double standard. Canada
and B.C.'s sovereignty, or ownership of Land and resources, is
not challenged, Canada and B . C . do not have to "prove" their
title or jurisdiction - it is simply assumed.
Through the new certainty agreements, Indigenous
peoples will not have their Aboriginal Title, jurisdiction and right
to benefit from the totality of their territories recognized. In
exchange for a limited recognition of their land/resource rights
and minimal economic incentives, the Indigenous group will
accept the Crown's underlying title and exclusive ownership and
jurisdiction over their Aboriginal Title lands, for as long as the
incremental certainty agreement lasts.
* The B.C. Treaty Commission has proposed that this be
done through "Slim AIPs" where Indigenous peoples enter into
pre-treaty agreements which would grant a temporary "certainty"
and allow the province to access lands/resources.
3
SKWELKWEK'WELT
"The People Will Never Leave Their Homelands"
NESKONLITH INDIAN BAND
(Ottawa, Ontario, December 6, 2001) Chief Arthur Manuel, who
is in Ottawa attending an Assembly of First Nations meeting, said
today that he was disappointed by the court injunction against the
current Skwelkwekwelt Protection Centre and MacGillavry lake
camp. But he noted that the court-imposed restrictions were
temporary and limited and he said they would do nothing to stop
his people from using their Aboriginal title lands in the area. "We
will not hesitate to continue to protest this attempted land grab
by Sun Peaks," Manuel said, "and we will never surrender our
lands," Chief Manuel said.
The interlocutory injunction granted to Sun Peaks
yesterday prohibits the named individuals from erecting
structures in the base area of the Sun Peaks Resort and within
one hectare of McGillvray Lake. It does not prohibit them from
being in either location during the daytime and the injunction was
granted for a 190-day period, or until the issue is decided in a
separate court case on the Trespass orders issued by the B.C.
Assets and Land Corporation.
"The judges reasoning in granting the injunction," Chief
Manuel said, "Was the balance of convenience - but sadly, in this
case it means putting the convenience of snowboarders and
corporate profits above the convenience of our Elders and landusers and having an adequate diet. This is our land and these are
our areas where our people have always gone to hunt and we
were not preventing one skier from going down the mountain.
But they are evicting Secwepemc women and children from their
homes. It is shameful."
Earlier today the Elders and land users at the
Skwelkwekwelt Protection Centre issued a press release charging
that the injunction was another attempt at "ethnic cleansing" on
Secwepemc Territory by Sun Peaks and the Province of British
Columbia. They also insisted that they will not abandon their
homeland.
"Our people in the Sun Peaks areas have the full support
of the Neskonlith Indian Band." Chief Manuel said. He also
called once again on B . C . Attorney General Geoff Plant to return
to the discussion that Plant unilaterally broke off two weeks ago.
"Trespassing charges and interlocutory injunctions will
never solve the issue of Aboriginal title," Chief Manuel said, "The
tactics will only increase bitterness and escalate the problem. The
province and the federal government have to assume their
responsibilities in this matter. Otherwise, we may be heading
down a road we will all regret later.
4
U B C I C PRESS RELEASE
Skwelkwekwelt Protection Center to Carry Out Direct
Actions & Return to Occupy Their Lands and
Mountains: Demands that Sun Peaks Resort Leave
Territory Altogether!
(Coast Salish Territory/Vancouver, December 12, 2001)
Since their forced eviction from their homes at Skwelkwekwelt
yesterday, representatives of the Skwelkwekwelt Protection
Center have been in discussions with supporters from around
the province, the country and internationally about having backup to assist in re-establishing homes on their 1862 Neskonlith
Douglas Reserve (which is also Secwepemc Aboriginal title
territory). They have received now numerous offers of
assistance for further direct actions on the ground.
The Skwelkwekwelt Protection Center has made many
reasonable attempts to have their title, rights and interests
r e c o g n i z e d in the a r e a where the S u n P e a k s Resort
Corporation wants to expand its year round destination resort.
After the 'bad faith' treatment the Secwepemc Elders
and peoples have received by the Sun Peaks Resort, the
provincial government, the RCMP, and the provincial court
system, the position of the Secwepemc of Skwelkwekwelt is
that they now want to convince the S u n P e a k s Resort
Corporation, it is in their best interests to vacate the territory
altogether. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs' supports this
position.
Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC stated
today "the labelling of the Secwepemc at Skwelkwekwelt as
'trespassers' and forcibly removing them from their homes
marks a new and dangerous phase in the history of Aboriginal
and Crown relations in the province of B.C. The South, Central
interior is a region where the vast majority of the Indigenous
communities have not entered into the illegal and immoral B.C.
Treaty process, so when the Attorney-General of B.C., Geoff
Plante, walked away from discussions with Chief Arthur Manuel
last month and used the police to evict Secwepemc people
and demolish their homes at Skwekwekwelt, he as much as
said it's open season on Indigenous peoples, use the tactics
of the eighteenth century and force them off their lands. As a
leader, I have no choice but to support all Indigenous peoples
who resist this 'brute force' approach to settling the land
question in British Columbia. There will never be any certainty
in B.C. if this abuse of power continues to escalate."
CHILCOTIN NATIONAL CONGRESS
Westcoast Warriors Society
Westcoast Warrior Society Mobilizing a Support
Force to Assist Secwepemc Peoples in Returning to
"Sun Peaks and B.C. Government Assault on Occupy Skwelkwek 'welt
(Press Release - December 11, 2001)
Secwepemc Camps a Threat to all Indigenous Peo(December 12, 2001) The Westcoast Warrior
ples: Time for Action on the Ground to Commence"
The Chilcotin National Congress
respresentatives have been in contact with the
Secwepemc peoples from the Skwelkwek'welt Protection Center, following their forced removal from
their traditional territory yesterday. The Chilcotin
National Congress is a Council of Hereditary Chiefs.
The Sun Peaks Resort is obviously behind the
actions of the provincial government and the R C M P
in their plans to remove Secwepemc peoples from the
area. We are ready to provide support on the ground
to the Skwelkwek'welt Protection Centre in order to
defend their territory from outside aggression.
If Gordon Campbell's administration thinks
they are going to get away with calling Indigenous
peoples "tresspassers" and using the police to remove
them, then they have another thing coming.
The majority of the Indigenous communities in
the South, Central Interior of B.C. are not in the
bogus B C Treaty Process, so the results will mean
nothing to us. We will take what is ours and not
negotiate for it.
The Secwepemc of the 1862 Neskonlith Douglas Reserve have told us they now want the Sun Peaks
Resort to leave the area forever. We are ready to help
convince the ski resort to look elsewhere to locate,
perhaps back to Japan
-30Contact:
Dave Quilt
(250) 394-7055
Danny Case
(250) 392-2278
Francis Laceese (250) 659-5655
Society is there to offer asistance to Indigenous communities who request support. The Westcoast Warriors respects
the wishes of the Indigenous community asking for help.
In the case of the Skelkwek'welt Protection Center,
the Westcoast Warriors have been put on a 24 hour alert to
assist the Secwepemc peoples in returning to occupy thier
1862 Neskonlith Douglas reserve lands and mountains at
Skwelkwek'welt.
We will not stand idly by and watch as our Indigenous peoples are forcibly evictedfromtheir traditional
territories, as the RCMP did on behalf of the Sun Peaks
Resort Corporation and the B.C. government.
It is now our understanding that the Secwepemc
people of the 1862 Neskonlith Douglas reserve want to
help to convince Sun Peaks Resort Corporation to willingly
leave Secwepemc lands adn mountains permanently. We
are ready to assist the Skwelkwek'welt Protection Center in
their goals and objectives.
David Dennis,
Spokesperson
We are urging each and every community to offer their
support to the Elders, traditional land-users and youth who
have protected and defended the aboriginal title interests
for their future generations. The dispute has incurred
significant legal costs as the result of the enforcement
actions of the R C M P and the courts. Any and all monetary
donations will be greatly appreciated by the Elders, youth
of the Skwelkwek'welt Protection Centre.
You can deposit your donation directly:
Skwelkwel'welt Protection Centre
Royal Bank (Chase, B.C. Branch)
Account # 00880-003-1005529
or send your donations of letters of support to:
Skwelkwel'welt Protection Centre
Secwepemc Nation
c/o P.O. Box 608
Chase, B.C.
V 0 E 1M0
5
Message From the Administrator
G
reetings to you all! My name is David Hunt and I
am the Administrator of the Union of B.C. Indian
Chiefs. I was hired on in this position in July
2001. I have been associated with the UBCIC since 1981,
first as Chief Councillor of the Kwakiutl Band and latter as
Chairman of the Kwakiutl District Council.
Since taking on this position I have been filling
staff vacancies and am happy to report that we have once
again a full complement of qualified effective staff.
Should you be in the area drop by and have a coffee.
Here at the UBCIC we continue to assist the
members with various issues such as Skwelkwek'welt,
Tsawataineuk Road Access, Melvin Creek and Half Way
River. Our assistance is with press releases and making
contact with various government officials and
organizations.
As usual we continue to try to secure financial
resources so that we may better serve the membership.
With the new Provincial Government we have been able to
maintain our funding level with respect to the Joint Policy
Council, Health, Children and Families.
On behalf of myself and the staff at the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs, I wish you all a safe and Happy
Holiday Season and a Brighter and more positive NewYear.
Gilakasla
David J. Hunt
RESOURCE CENTRE
Wow, the U B C I C Resource Centre has been through so
many changes in the past few months, I'm not too sure where to
begin!
One of the most significant changes that has taken place
in the Resource Centre is staffing. Wendy Ancell, Head
Librarian and Lorraine Brooks, Library Technician, left the
U B C I C Resource Centre to pursue other career paths. I stepped
in as Acting Head Librarian in September of this year and will
continue in this position until January 2002, when our new Head
Librarian will begin. Also in September we hired Library
Technician, Arlette Alcock, who has continued the task of
cataloguing our backlog of items. Both Wendy and Lorraine are
missed, and their hard work and dedication to the Resource
Centre will never be forgotten.
Since many of you may not know much about Arlette
and I, I thought this would be a great opportunity for us to
introduce ourselves and let you know a little bit about who we
are and how we came to work at the U B C I C Resource Centre.
My name is Jenn Campbell and I am a recent graduate
of the Langara College Library Technician program. I am
originally from Oshawa, Ontario and have been living in this
beautiful city for the past two and a half years. It was the
mountains which brought me here, I am an avid hiker in the
summer and enjoy snowboarding in the winter.
In addition to my Library Technician Diploma I also
have a Bachelor of Arts in History from the University of Guelph.
I began working in libraries 5 years ago while I was still a
university student and it was my passion for books and
information that drew me to the library each and everyday.
My career at the Union of B C Indian Chiefs Resource
Centre began in the summer of2000 when I was hired on as a
summer student. I enjoyed every minute of working here and felt
very lucky that I was given the opportunity to work in such a
wonderful and important Resource Centre. When I was
contacted again in December of 2000 and asked if I would work
here full-time I, of course, jumped at the chance. To this day I
love coming into work everyday and truly enjoy helping and
serving the needs of our library users. Thank you.
Tsleil-Waututh Nation
B u r r a r d Indian Band
As a result of the recent elections please
remove Leonard George from your records as
Chief.
Our newly elected Chief and Council are as
follows:
Chief Leah D. George-Wilson
Councillor Travis George
Councillor Justin George
Councillor Gerald (Joe) Thomas
6
Tansi,
My name is Arlette Alcock and I am one of the library
technicians on the 4 floor. I have been imported from
Saskatchewan where I lived for the last 15 years. I live with my
grown children in Vancouver now, but I was born and raised in
the Kootenay Valley in the interior of B.C. Coming back to
Vancouver to live after so many years is wonderful, where else in
Canada do flowers grow outside in December? I went to school
in Saskatchewan and I still own land up north in the boreal forest
of that province.
I love cross-country skiing, but I don't see a lot of people
skiing to work around here. I also love gardening, so this warm,
wet climate is an excellent environment for me. My music, however
is my great passion, and I spend a lot of time writing songs and
performing here and there around town.
t h
(Continued on page 11)
Recommendations for the Referendum Ballot
Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs Report
Recommendation: Your Committee recommends that the following be the ballot for a referendum on provincial principles
on treaty negotiations:
Vision: The Province of British Columbia is engaged in treaty negotiations with the Federal Government and Aboriginal
Governments to reconcile Crown title and claims of Aboriginal title. It is hoped that treaties will serve as a basis for a new
relationship that will lead to a prosperous future for all British Columbians.
Whereas: The Government of British Columbia has committed to providing the public with a one time, province-wide referendum
vote on the provincial principles guiding treaty negotiations; and
The objective of this referendum is to receive public endorsement of the principles to revitalize the process of negotiating treaties; and
A clear definition of Aboriginal rights and title and new relationships with Aboriginal people are best established in treaties; and
The Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply equally to all British Columbians; and
The Federal Government's primary constitutional and financial responsibility for treaties must be maintained;
Therefore, do you support the following provincial principles for negotiations:
OPENNESS
1.
Treaties should be negotiated in as transparent a
manner as possible. Yes or N O
2.
Treaty negotiation should be responsive to the input
of local community and economic interests
Yes or No
3.
Local Government participation in the treaty process
is guaranteed. Yes or No
ABORIGINAL GOVERNANCE
9.
The Province will negotiate Aboriginal Government with the
characteristics and legal status of Local Government.
Yes or No
10. Treaties must strive to achieve administrative simplicity and
jurisdictional clarity amongst various levels of government.
Yes or No
11. Province-wide standards or resource management and
environmental protection will continue to apply. Yes or No
PROPERTY AND INTEREST ISSUES
4.
Private property is not negotiable, unless there is a
willing seller and a willing buyer. Yes or No
5.
Continued access to hunting, fishing and recreational
opportunities will be guaranteed for all British
Columbians. Yes or No
6.
12 Treaties should provide mechanisms for harmonization of
land-use planning between Aboriginal Governments and
Local Governments. Yes or No
SETTLEMENT
13. Affordability should be a key factor in determining the
amount of land provided in treaty settlements. Yes or No
The province will maintain parks and protected areas
for the use and benefit of all British Columbians.
Yes or No
14. Treaties must ensure social and economic viability for all
British Columbians. Yes or No
7.
All terms and conditions of provincial leases and
licenses will be honoured. Yes or No
15. The existing tax exemptions for Aboriginal people should be
phased out. Yes or N o
8.
Fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of
commercial interests will be assured. Yes or No
16. Treaty benefits, including cash and land, should be
distributed and structured to create economic opportunities
for all, including those living on and off reserve. Yes or N o
7
Healthy Child & Families Program
By Carol J. Dawson - UBCIC Health, Child &Families Coordinator
Just recently the U B C I C received the Ministry of Health (MOH) *****PLEASE NOTE that our office will soon be providing a
Aboriginal Health Division contract for the 2001 - 2002 fiscal year.
draft agenda, location and other details pertinent to these 2
The contract remains the status quo, and with the exception
ofhealth
the forums.
community
work plan is essentially the same as the previous fiscal year.
This means that we have the same budget of $52,500.00,
which while this is a small amount it is certainly helpful in
terms of some of the activities it permits us to engage in on
behalf of the membership. Two years ago and last year our
office was optimistic that we would have an opportunity to
enhance our budget and work plan, unfortunately given the
agenda of the Liberal government funding challenges are
the order of the day.
The M O H contract is related to the Provincial Aboriginal Health
Services Strategy (PAHSS) policy table, of which the UBCIC
is a participant and has been for the last 3 years.
Also in the New Year the Health Association of B C (HABC) under
whose auspices the policy table of the First Peoples Health Council
(FPHC) exists, is sponsoring, an Aboriginal Health Conference at
the Victoria Conference Centre, January 14, - 15* 2002.
I have been asked to participate on a panel at this conference, whose
target group is physicians. It is hoped that with a variety of
Aboriginal presenters the physicians will be educated on a broad
scope of health challenges that confront Aboriginal people on a
daily basis. The physicians will be provided an incentive of course
credits.
E Y E CARE/VISION C A R E POLICIES
Given the short time frame of the U B C I C / M O H health contract
our office in essence will be undertaking a year of work in 3 months.
One main piece of our contract is the joint U B C I C / M O H 1 day
community forum related to basic health information dialogue.
While these changes, were initiated by the provincial government,
it is the federal government who is responsible for Non-Insured
Health Benefits (NIHB) for status Indians.
This process permits us 2 community forums, in two different
locations. Originally discussions included planning for 5 to 7
community forums, however, once again due to current government
fiscal restraints and cut backs we are unfortunately down to 2.
Non Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) have been drastically eroded
over the last few years as the federal government proceeds to
dismantle the last vestiges and semblance of fiduciary obligation to
the Aboriginal community.
•
•
•
•
•
•
8
Each community health forum will host up to 20
community members
Each community health forum will be for a 1-day
period, basically from 9:00 A M to 4:00 PM.
The first community health forum will take place in
Vancouver on January 30, 2002, and will include the
UBCIC members of the Child and Families Technical
Working Group, as well as members of the BC Native
Homemakers Association, the Chehalis Band, The
Cheam Band, and The Seabird Island Band.
The second community health forum will take place
at Tsakis, Fort Rupert, BC and will include UBCIC
members of the Kwakiutl Band, The Gwawaenuk
Band, The Kwicksutaineuk Band, with 2 invitations
to the Kwakiutl District Council Health Authority to
attend.
Part of the UBCIC/MOH contract deliverables include,
a summarization of the findings of the 2 community
health forums. These findings will be substantiated
through a survey tool to be engineered in cooperation
between the UBCIC and M O H .
The UBCIC Child & Families T W G contains a fair
representation of the UBCIC membership and allows
us to capture this balance in the January 30, 2002,
community health forum.
M O R E C U T S TO NON-INSURED IN T H E NEW YEAR?
A s a precautionary measure I would advise the membership
of the UBCIC to acquire all the items they need from their
Non-Insured benefits (NIHB) before December 31,2001. The
federal government has brought us some nasty surprises
when a new year rolls round. These nasty surprises often
include the de-listing of medications and the denial of medical
supplies and equipment.
The recent drastic B.C. Health Care cuts will drive the federal
government to respond in kind by limiting the programs,
benefits and financial support that they have a fiduciary
obligation to provide status Indians.
Over the years these cuts have run into the thousands. So
beware & prepare yourself. Get the NIHB supplies you
need now, do not wait for the New Year to come.
DECEMBER 12. 2001 - MINISTRY OF HEALTH C O R E
REVIEW REVISIONS.
Be advised that the B.C. Ministry of Health has made
good on their threat to downsize the number of Health
Authorities in B.C. They have been drastically butchered
from approximately 52 to incredibly - 5!
In all likelihood this will probably mean an even narrower
and limited inclusion of the disenfranchised Aboriginal
British Columbian, as well as the poor and sick British
Columbians.
If y o u h a v e I n t e r n e t a c c e s s p l e a s e v i s i t :
www.healthplanninq.qov.bc.ca to review all the
amendments to health care. If you do not have access
to the Internet please call the Communications Branch.
Ministry of Health Planning @ (250) 952-1887 to request
a complete package of information.
CHILD WELFARE ISSUES
The next UBCIC Child and Families T W G will be taking place
in the New Year. UBCIC Legal Counsel, Ardith Walkem,
has collected several files and print materials from our office.
S h e requires a variety of these documents to complete the
U B C I C discussion paper, on Alternatives to Delegation.
I am positive that Ardith will provide us with a high quality
document that meets the expectations of the U B C I C
membership while also satisfying the contractual obligations
that we have with M C F .
Recently we have had J P C review a disc of information left
us by volunteer Kathleen Chong Fong. This disc contains
very valuable data as it relates to Aboriginal Child Welfare
issues and legislation. Ardith Walkem has the disc in hand
now and she will hopefully extrapolate from the excellent
preliminary research undertaken by Chong Fong. W e will
probably be posting some of this information on the UBCIC
website thereby finally establishing a UBCIC Child a n d
Families space.
W e were advised to attempt to keep our story to a maximum
of two pages given that this is our first official newsletter
with our new communications person; I have obviously
exceeded this request.
In concluding I wish to thank the Chiefs and their members
for their support and direction that they provide and guide
us with. Thanks are also extended to the dedicated and
helpful U B C I C Child and Families Technical Working Group.
In conclusion, I take this opportunity to thank you for the
privilege of working with you over the last year. May
you and your loved ones, be blessed, especially at this
time of year by the Creator. May your homes and hearts
be filled with the love and joy that truly epitomizes the
special art of giving, sharing and caring.
Merry Christmas from a Christmas Carole.
O n another note, we hope to be forwarding you the minutes
from your last Child & Families T W G very soon.
CHANGES IN MCF IN THE YEAR 2002.
With the Core Review process undertaken and completed
by December 04, 2001, this Liberal government is already
implementing major changes throughout all of its various
ministries.
There will be human resource cuts, program and financial
cuts, the reconfiguration of some programs and services and
in all likelihood the total elimination of positions and services.
What will a UBCIC/MCF contract look like after March
31, 2002? This remains to be seen. If regional models,
similar to those health structures, are implemented, the
Aboriginal community may find heavy competition for
the few available programs and dollars. Some of this
competition may even be non-Aboriginal!
W e have not organized any lobbying, protests or any activity
related to the B C Government's Core Review process.
Such actions are dependent upon the wishes of our
membership.
2nd National Conference on Diabetes
and Aboriginal Peoples
January 24-27,2002
Quebec Convention Centre
The First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health Canada and
Social Services Commission and the National Aboriginal
Diabetes Association will co-host the 2nd National on Diabetes
and Aboriginal Peoples
Who should attend: People who are affected by Diabetes, their
families, their communities
Community, regional and national leaders
Community development workers and school teachers
Health care providers
Scientists and those involved in diabetes research
For more information contact Ms. Francine Vincent
Tel: (416) 842-1540
Fax: (416) 842-7045
email: [email protected]
9
UBCIC Research - New Staff, Continued Commitment
T h e w i n d s o f change have b e e n b l o w i n g at U B C I C Research,
C o n t i n u i n g s u p p o r t for the U B C I C R e s e a r c h mandate w a s c o n -
b u t o u r roots r e m a i n firmly planted.
firmed in an October 2001 poll o f U B C I C
I n particular, this year
has b r o u g h t staff changes to the Research D e p a r t m e n t .
The
n e w U B C I C Research team includes Jackie B o t t e r i l l , Research
members and
m e m b e r s u n d e r t a k e n as p a r t o f a strategic r e v i e w o f t h e
nonorga-
nization by Stephen O l s o n and Associates Ltd. T h e poll ranked
D i r e c t o r ; J o d y W o o d s , Senior Researcher; and R o b y n L a b a ,
research n u m b e r o n e o u t o f list o f s e v e n activities d e e m e d
Researcher. It has also b r o u g h t potential changes to the S p e -
most appropriate
to s u p p o r t
the
the a s s e r t i o n o f title a n d rights.
cific C l a i m s process a n d a regenerated c o m m i t m e n t to p u r s u i n g the U B C I C Research Department's mandate and to p r o d u c i n g quality research. W e are dedicated to w o r k i n g o n beh a l f o f bands to advance specific claims. W e continue to w o r k
w i t h d i e law f i r m M a n d e l l P i n d e r w h o p r o v i d e s expert legal
analysis o f U B C I C research findings. We also devote time a n d
resources to raise funds to facilitate e d u c a t i o n outreach, research p u b l i c a t i o n s , c o m m u n i t y research capacity b u i l d i n g , i n -
To
help bands m o v e their specific claims
forward,
the
U B C I C
Research t e a m has a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the specific claims p r o cess
fostered
b y years o f
base tracking the progress
U B C I C .
U B C I C
Resource
Centre
specific claims research and a
data-
o f all specific claims researched
Research also has
full access to the
e q u i p p e d w i t h archival materials
by
U B C I C
related
to
specific claims, including:
f o r m a t i o n b u i l d i n g a n d sharing, a n d contribute to p r o v i n c i a l
a n d n a t i o n a l research forums a n d initiatives.
UBCIC Priorities
•
M a n y i m p o r t a n t first e d i t i o n B C h i s t o r y
•
T h e R G 10 ( D I A R e c o r d s ) series f o r B C
books
•
Reserve
•
Minutes o f Decisions
•
Colonial
•
M c K e n n a - M c B r i d e reports and interviews
•
correspondence
Indian Reserve Commission Minutes o f
Decision
•
Schedules
1879-1910.
D o c u m e n t s f r o m a variety o f other
(Department
sources
o f Indian Affairs, B C Archives,
Federal Archives, church records,
government
ministry documents, oral testimony, and
logical
archeo
evidence).
Stephen C. Olson and Associates Ltd. A Strategic Plan for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, October, 2001
Specific Claims: Changes and Opportunities
TYPES OF SPECIFIC CLAIMS
and
Land surrenders and "cut-offs"
m i s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b y the
federal
Land sales and other alienations
Treaty 8 and "Douglas Treaties"
g o v e r n m e n t o f I n d i a n trust funds o r
•
•
Reserve boundaries
Commonage reserves
by the g o v e r n m e n t to compensate
•
•
Rights-of-way (road, railway, hydro)
Pre-Confederation "Douglas Reserves"
•
Reserve establishment and history
First N a t i o n o n outstanding
•
lawful obligations o w e d to it by
•
•
the federal g o v e r n m e n t w i t h
respect
to I n d i a n
resources and
lands,
entitlements.
Specific claims involve
the
illegal alienation o f Indian
lands, n o n - f u l f i l l m e n t o f
treaties
and
agreements
between F i r s t N a t i o n s and the
C r o w n , breaches o f obligations
arising f r o m the I n d i a n A c t o r
10
laws
A specific c l a i m is a c l a i m by a
•
Graveyards, burial areas, sacred sites
•
•
•
Fishing stations
Water rights and irrigation projects
Land erosion and accretions
•
•
Riparian and foreshore rights
Reserve resource use and extraction
other
federal
assets. T h e y c a n also i n c l u d e failure
First N a t i o n s for alienated
or
d a m a g e d reserve lairds a n d assets.
The Independent Claims Body
There continues to be a large backlog of specific claims
under review at the Specific Claims Branch. There are
currently 631 claims in the system, the majority o f which
have yet to reach negotiation. Since 1991, there have been
an average of 61 new specific claims submitted each year,
while only 18 specific claims per year reach a final resolution.
According to D I A consultant, E d John, 50 per cent o f all
new claims come from British Columbia.
To address this backlog and other issues surrounding the
specific claims process, Canada is currently establishing an
Independent Claims Body (ICB), w i t h the legislative
authority to oversee the negotiations of claims with a value
of $5 million or less. Consequently, the nature of filing
specific claims and research funding could soon change.
Canada views the I C B as the means of bringing fairness
and expediency to specific claims negotiations. However,
the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and other First Nations
technicians have raised concerns about the ICB's proposed
$5 m i l l i o n cap o n monetary awards, as w e l l as the
appointment process, policy criteria and the role First
Nations are to play i n the process. Despite these concerns,
it appears the proposed I C B is moving ahead.
Resource Centre (Continued from page 7)
My parents were both Metis, my mother was Blackfoot and
Black Irish (1918-1989) and my father was Cree and French
(1913-1979). Both of them are gone now , but I am sure they
helped me when I was struggling in school, and I know they
guided me back to Vancouver and to the UBCIC so that I could
do the work for my people that I was meant to do. I often feel
them near me.
I am happy to be working at the UBCIC and I have been
treated with kindness and patience from everyone, thank you for
making me feel so welcome.
We have taken on many projects this past year in the
library, some of the more important are outlined below.
Within the past year we have added 57 RG-10 reels to
our collection. Most of the reels are the newly microfilmed
material from the Office of the Indian Commissioner, while the
rest of the films are a small assortment of reels that relate to
schools, education, and Band funds
This summer I spent a few months revamping the
existing Resource Centre page on the UBCIC website. I have
added many new pages to help the IIG students as well as
researchers find useful information on the internet. There is a
page dedicated to helping users find articles, with links to many
of the local Aboriginal newspapers sites as well as links to
periodical indexes that can be used to search for journal articles.
There is also a page dedicated to helping users do research on the
The Ross River Case — Implications for Douglas
Specific Claims
The upcoming Supreme Court of Canada hearing, Ross River v.
Canada and the Government of Yukon, may have significant
implications for B.C. Douglas Reserve claims brought before
the Specific Claims Branch. Ross River argues that, i n the
absence o f official instruments
(filed legal documents), other
t
ypes o f records, such
The First Governor of BC, lames
as
correspondence and
Douglas (1851-1864), instructed his
agents to lay out reserves on the administrative entries, should be
mainland in accordance with the regarded as acceptable and legally
wishes of the bands. Often Douglas
b i n d i n g evidence o f reserve
and his agents made verbal promises
T h i s challenges
to bands recognizing and reserving c r e a t i o n .
specified lands. Many o f these Canada's p o s i t i o n o n w h a t
reserves were surveyed but the c o n s t i t u t e s the c r e a t i o n o f
surveys were not registered or were reserves under the Indian Act.
later cut off by Joseph Trutch (1867
The Specific Claims Branch has
onward). A Douglas Claim attempts
to h o l d the G o v e r n m e n t to historically rejected Douglas
Douglas' original promises. They c l a i m s . W h i l e r e c o g n i z i n g
are very difficult to prove because D o u g l a s ' authority to create
of limitations on the types o f reserves, the SCB has maintained
evidence that the Specific Claims
that in the absence of any order
body will consider
i n c o u n c i l , letters patent or
proclamation, it is impossible to prove that Douglas did in fact
create reserves i n law.
What Is a Douglas Reserve Claim?
Please feel free to contact us i f you have any questions or
comments.
Jackie, Jody or Robyn will be happy to talk with you.
Union of B C Indian Chiefs
Research Department
#500-342 Water Street
Vancouver, B C
V 6 B 1B6
604-684-1231
[email protected]
In our next newsletter article we will describe how the
Specific Claims Process works.
Internet. This page is divided into many subject areas each with
links to the many useful websites available. Please visit the
Resource Centre site: http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/Library.
This summer the Resource Centre was lucky enough to
participate in the First Nations Workers Summers Institute hosted by
UBC's First Nations House of learning. The institute was held for those
information workers who wanted to learn the basics of organizing a
library collection. Participants attended workshops on descriptive
cataloguing, map training, and archival techniques. The UBCIC
Resource Centre welcomed the participants to a half-day tour of the
library. This allowed the students to take a look at our wonderful library
and see how we have solved the many challenges of organizing a
collection with an Aboriginal focus. It was a great learning experience
for the students as well as for us. There may be another institute held
again this summer, I will keep you posted as to when and where it may
happen.
11
Sliammon Vote No to Agreement in Principal
By Beverley O'Neil
Quietly the vote came and went on the November 22 in
apply to a N O vote... there is not enough to shut down the
negotiation.
the Sliammon First Nation near Powell River. There was no big
It is not enough to vote N O . You must also have a
media fan fare, mass television or print coverage. Six years of
specific and clear answer why. Of course a knowledgeable, well-
negotiations and research, community information sessions, late
informed respondent can only provide this. That is, a response
hours, mixed emotions, and 180 years of the Sliammon Nation
by s o m e o n e who has m a d e the efforts to improve their
being denied a c c e s s to their resources came down to a 10-hour
knowledge on all aspects of the process - evaluating the
period resulting in a vote of 189 to 181 against the Agreement in
benefits and disadvantages, understanding the needs and
Principal (AIP). What was to be a celebration of the first AIP in
desires of all parties involved, having vision on the needs of
the B C M o d e m Day Treaty Making Process to be ratified or
future generations, knowing the difference between an AIP and a
approved by the First Nation community became a party of N O -
legally binding agreement, a n d really understanding the
sayers and an infinite list of uncertainties around the future of the
opposing points of view. My Band's Chief Sophie Pierre best
Sliammon Nation.
said it when she said, "A mind is a like a parachute... it works
The treaty making process is not a process the Sliammon
First Nation entered into blindly. In 1995, the community held a
best when it's open."
This is a sensitive time w e live in. It is a time when there
referendum to get approval from its citizen's to enter the process
is opposition and frustration by the non-Aboriginal community
and proceed with negotiating a treaty on their behalf. The
and Aboriginal communities to the modem day treaty making
referendum resulted in an overwhelming declaration of support
process. Eight years into the process and $64 million later, there
of almost 90% Y E S . From there, the Treaty team worked with
still isn't a treaty signed under this process, and there is no A I P
the community in developing a vision for the future, which was
ratified by a First Nation community (Note: the Sechelt AIP
incorporated into and guided the creation of the AIP. However,
signed over a year ago was ratified by Chief and Council, not the
the N O vote on November 22 for some Sliammon people was
community).
deemed to be a victory of NO over Y E S , good over evil.
W h e n asked "Why N O ? " The response was "No Means
NO." While its true that NO does have a very clear meaning,
S o m e of the dust particles are beginning to settle in
Sliammon. What the next steps are is beginning to be mapped
out, addressing questions such as: Do you continue with the
" N O " is not a simple word to understand on such a very complex
process or end it and put 17 Band members out of work? Or do
matter. A NO can only be clearly understood when a very
you try of find a way to uncover the questions and interpretations
simple, straightforward question is asked. Is the sky blue? Yes
of the A I P that resulted in the N O vote? If so, w a s a N O
or no. Do you like Gordon Campbell? Yes or no. Do you want
because something was not in the agreement, was in the
to have sex? Yes or no. A NO to the Sliammon AIP is not a
agreement, or to something else altogether?
clear NO. Instead it leads to the question "What does NO mean
We must understand that there may never be a perfect
NO to?" The AIP is a multifaceted document built on six years of
agreement. Negotiations are outcomes of all parties involved -
negotiation and 180 years of experience in what doesn't work
they are compromises where one party gains something in trade
and what the community does not want.
for something they lose. It is a balancing act that can only be
Unfortunately the NO to Sliammon exposes the entire
tested in practice. Furthermore, it is a leap of faith and trust... in
treaty making process in B C to scrutiny. The NO in Sliammon
leadership. Trust that the people have in leadership now and in
can affect the future of all treaty negotiations in B C .
the future.
A NO in a First Nation community could mean the
R e m e m b e r treaty t e a m s do not implement
agreements, the leadership and government does - Chief and
community doesn't want self-government, it doesn't believe in
Council, Presidents, Premiers and Prime Minister. Treaties are a
land claims, and it doesn't support or believe in its leaders.
vote of trust in leadership.
Which leads to the question, "Does a win by 8 votes, or even 12,
give anyone, including a Chief or Council, the right to act at all?"
First run in Kahtou Newspaper - December 2001.
If the tables were turned and the 8-vote lead was for Y E S , would
Beverley O'Neil is a citizen of the Ktunaxa Nation, President of
the 8 votes be enough to proceed? If the answer to the 8 vote
O'Neil Marketing & Consulting and Numa Communications Ltd.,
Y E S lead is there is not enough difference to proceed with
a s w e l l a s a f r e e l a n c e writer. T e l . (604) 9 1 3 - 1 9 0 5
implementing the interim agreement (AIP), then the same must
www.designingnations.com
12
What is the White Paper 2001
The White Paper - 2001 (First Nation's Governance Act and
First Nations Fiscal Institutions Initiative) which C a n a d a has
proposed will make sweeping amendments to the Indian Act
and First Nation government structures, with the aim of
removing Canada's on-going fiduciary obligations towards
Indigenous Peoples. This aggressive legislative package
is an updated version of the Liberal government's 1969 White
Paper.
The White P a p e r - 2 0 0 1 :
•
Transfers Canada'sfiduciaryduties towards Indigenous
Peoples in the areas of reserve lands, money, and membership into the hands, and onto the shoulders, of Band Councils;
•
Undermines the Nation-to-Nation relationship between
Canada and Indigenous Peoples;
•
Transfers more control and therefore, legal liability, for
small parcels of reserve lands to Band governments;
•
Increases our accountability tothefederalgovernment while
reducing the federal government's own liabilities, fiduciary
obligations and responsibilities to our Peoples;
•
recognized. Our goal is not to abolish the Indian Act so that
we can become the Indian Agents ourselves.
Why does Canada want to amend the Indian Act?
Canada's mismanagement of the powers that it appropriated
to itself under the Indian Act have resulted in large areas
where the f e d e r a l government is legally a n d f i s c a l l y
responsible for the errors it has made. A s a result of the
control over our lives that the Canadian government has
taken (often by force and coercion), Canadian courts have
found that the Canadian government has a fiduciary duty to
Indigenous peoples, and must act in our best interests and
to protect our interests. Right now, there are over 200
outstanding court cases against the federal government. The
Governance Act and First Nations Fiscal Institutions Initiative
will not address the underlying problems that Indigenous
communities face, and instead will force Indians to s u e
Indians instead of suing the Minister and Canada.
Changes to the Indian Act and Band governance which are
contained in the First Nations Governance Act and First
Nations Financial Institutions Act are those areas where
Canada has the greatest fiduciary obligations, and therefore
the most financial and legal risk.
"Delegated Self—Government"
vs.
Our Inherent Right of Self-Determination
Puts Band Councils in the position of administering our
own poverty;
•
Alters the current voting regimes for Band governments,
perhaps to the point of incorporating a say for non-members who live on reserve; and
•
Converts Band Councils into "corporations" with powers
similar to local municipalities.
Minister Nault claims that the White P a p e r - 2 0 0 1 recognizes
our "self-government" abilities or our right to pass laws. Selfgovernment, the way that C a n a d a defines it, is merely
Canada's permission for Indigenous Peoples to take over
the "self-administration" of Canada's own laws and policies.
The White Paper - 2001 does not extend any inherent rights
of self-governance or Self-Determination of our peoples, but
rather reflects an increased scope of by-law making powers
under the Indian Act.
Through the changes to the Indian Act Canada proposes to
have Indigenous Peoples administer Canada's own laws and
programs. Our traditional forms of governance will be further
converted into corporate structures, with a status similar to
a domestic municipality.
By agreeing to "consult" with Canada about its proposed
Governance Act the danger is that Indigenous Peoples may
be seen to have "consented" to being reduced to a domestic
municipal government, because we have not insisted on the
r e c o g n i t i o n of o u r rights, a s s o v e r e i g n n a t i o n s , at
International law.
•
Canada wants to wash its hands o f its
fiduciary obligations to Indigenous Peoples
— to have us hold out our hands and agree
to carry Canada's "Indian problem" o n our
own backs.
Do we want to amend the Indian Act?
No. W e want a new relationship with the Crown that is based
upon the recognition, and implementation of our Aboriginal
Title a n d Rights, including our inherent right of SelfDetermination.
The Indian Act will eventually be abolished at a pace that
Indigenous peoples themselves decide, only when our
A b o r i g i n a l Title a n d Right of S e l f Determination a r e
Self-Determination will never be achieved through a
process where Canada "delegates" small areas of
authority, in an attempt to convert our Chiefs to
Mayors, and band governments to corporations or
municipalities.
- Chief Stewart Phillip,
President, Union o f B.C. Indian Chiefs
13
SELF -TERMINATION
(Delegation of 91(24) powers)
SELF -DETERMINATION
section 35 recognition
•
Flows from our Right as Sovereign Nations and Peoples
•
Requires Canada's permission
•
Reflects our traditional governance structures
•
Reflects Canada's idea of what our governments should
be (corporate/municipal)
•
Reflects our Rights, among the Peoples of the World, to choose
•
Is a form of domestic municipal government, subject to
Canadian law
•
Aboriginal Title: To have our Aboriginal title, jurisdiction
and right to benefit from our lands and resources recognized and
respected to the totality of our traditional territories.
•
Devolution: Canada wants to remove itself from the
"Indian business" by having Indian Peoples take over the
adminisration and delivery of its programs.
•
Self Determination: To be governed according to and
under our own laws and traditions and to maintain our nationhood and status as Peoples
•
No special relationship between Indigenous Peoples and
their Aboriginal title territories will be recognized, (instead,
bands will be given expanded control over reserve lands)
Our Self-Determination will be determined according to
our political, legal and economic ability to push back the
assertion of settler forces to claim 100% exclusive
jurisdiction over our Aboriginal Title and Rights. We
already have a third order of government (equal to that
of the federal government and provinces) and reject any
suggestion that we are merely municipalities.
•
Assimilation: Canadian laws, including the Charter with
its focus on individual rights over collective rights, and government models apply to Indigenous Nations and communities.
•
Traditional governance forms replaced by band council
corporate-type structures.
- Chief Arthur Manuel,
Chair, Interior Alliance
What does White Paper - 2001
1.
propose?
Lands and the management of reserve lands
What does Canada want?
C a n a d a ' s aim is in the White Paper - 2001 is to have
approval (and therefore, legal responsibility) vest with Band
councils for reserve land transactions, such as long term
leases or surrenders. Proposed changes to the lands part
of the Indian Act are being sold as "giving Indians greater
control of their lands." In fact, this is only for reserve lands,
and the amendments do not address the recognition of our
Aboriginal Title over our traditional territories.
Why do Indigenous Peoples say No?
Canada has been held liable for the errors it made in its
administration of Indian reserve lands. A s a result of the
Governance Act, Indigenous Peoples will be responsible for
the administration of reserve lands. Where errors are made,
Indians will have to sue other Indian people (their Chief and
Council) instead of suing Canada.
14
The reserve lands portion of the Indian Act will cease to
apply when our Aboriginal Title to our lands and resources,
and our Right of Self-Determination, have been recognized.
Anything less than a full recognition of our Aboriginal Title
and Right of Self-Determination is merely a "tinkering" with
the Indian Act, resulting in less federal responsibility towards
our Peoples.
2.
Band Council System
What does Canada want?
Band governments will be converted to "corporations", and
acquire powers similar to that of a municipality. The proposed
changes to the Indian Act will give band councils powers
similar to local/municipal governments. Canada is trying to
define our inherent right of governance into one that fits easily
into the Canadian constitutional framework, and is merely
"Self Administration" of existing programs and services and
not true Self Determination.
Why do Indigenous P e o p l e s say No?
C a n a d a c l a i m s that t h e s e a m e n d m e n t s are the
implementation of "inherent self-government". In reality what
these amendments do is to put Band Councils in a position
of legal liability, so that federal responsibility for administering
programs and services can be placed in the hands of Band
governments.
and is framed to protect "individual rights" and does not reflect
the value that Indigenous Peoples place upon "collective
rights and responsibilities." T h e justifications Canada uses
to argue that the Charter s h o u l d apply to Indigenous
communities reflects the paternalistic presumption that
Indigenous g o v e r n a n c e s y s t e m s and customs are not
sufficient to protect the unique individuality of our members.
4.
The legal structure of Bands councils will change so that
they become "corporate" or "municipal" organizations. Bands
(or other Indigenous organizations) will take over the duties
and delivery of services which are currently carried out by
DIAND in the areas administering all of the fiduciary trust
obligations that C a n a d a owes to Indian peoples, including
such crucial areas as reserve lands, government and monies.
There is no recognition of our inherent Right of SelfDetermination, which is a right Indigenous Peoples have at
International L a w to govern our Peoples as we have done
since time immemorial. Our Right to Self-Determination must
be recognized, it is a right which we share with all Peoples
of the world: It is not a right that Canada can grant us
"permission" to exercise.
Elections/Membership
3.
Fiscal Relations and Funding
What does C a n a d a want?
C a n a d a w a n t s to " o f f - l o a d " the chronic problems of
underdevelopment caused by the application of the Indian
Act onto Bands and the private sector. The First Nations
Fiscal Institutions Initiative will create a series of bodies to
oversee many of the fiscal operations of band governments.
Canada's intention is to move away from Indigenous-Nation
based government, towards one that is like a municipality,
(i.e., funding for Tribal Councils may be eliminated to make
way for "local government" financing).
The First Nations Financial Institutions Act will establish the
following bodies:
•
First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC): The FNTC
would have the role of overseeing the taxation
process on reserve, including a provision for the
representation of non-member tax payers.
•
First Nations Financial Management Board
(FNFMB): The F N F M B would advise or supervise
First Nations' financial operations. This could
include reviewing First Nations' audits, and deciding
whether or not First Nations financial bylaws should
be approved.
•
First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA): The
F N F A will oversee a First Nations "fund" from which
First Nation governments could borrow money, like
the municipal government financing system. This
legislation is will ultimately change the source of
funding for B a n d governments, so that Bands
produce their own "revenue" and decrease reliance
on federal government funding; and
•
First Nations Statistical Institute (FNSI): The FNSI
would operate much like Statistics Canada and
would collect information on Indigenous Peoples and
governments.
What does C a n a d a want?
The White P a p e r - 2001 proposes large-scale changes to
the ways in which band government elections are carried
out. The c h a n g e s will incorporate the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, and may include:
•
a split system of voting which differentiates between
on and off-reserve members; and
•
providing for the involvement of non-members
in voting or decision making on reserve for
matters which affect them.
W h y do Indigenous Peoples say No?
Membership problems which band governments face are
government-created (Canada forcibly replaced traditional
forms of g o v e r n a n c e with the Indian Act, and imposed
m e m b e r s h i p rules which excluded members, primarily
women and their children). Canada is now trying to pass
these problems to Bands. Canada is trying to divest itself of
the l e g a l responsibility in the areas of e l e c t i o n s and
membership, leaving Indigenous Peoples to deal with the
problems created by government policy, without providing
any further funding or land base.
The bulk of the changes which Canada is proposing will be
with the aim of implementing the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms on Indigenous governments. T h e Charter
reflects ideals which were formulated in a Western context,
Why do Indigenous Peoples say No?
The denial of our Aboriginal Title
our Lands and R e s o u r c e s has
Indigenous P e o p l e s face. T h e
initiatives do not take into account
are woefully under-funded and
and right to benefit from
resulted in the poverty
financial accountability
the fact that many Bands
do not have adequate
15
resources to meet the very real and pressing needs of their
people. Instead of seriously addressing the problem of
under-funding, "financial accountability" suggests that the
Bands are at fault because they have failed to manage their
f u n d s properly, rather than that existing f u n d i n g is
inadequate.
C a n a d a must recognize our Aboriginal Title and right to
benefit from the resources on our Aboriginal Title territories,
which would provide adequate resources to enable our
governments to deal with the real and pressing needs of our
peoples. Instead, with these changes, Canada has taken
the morally reprehensible position that we need to have a
"Big Brother" in place to monitor our spending of the meagre
resources that Canada forwards to our Band governments
from the wealth created from our own Aboriginal Title Lands
and Resources.
CONSULTATION ^ CONSENT
it so that Indigenous women are not discriminated
against, change Canada's "paternalistic" relationship
with Indigenous Peoples, etc. Our own poverty
and disadvantaged state will be used as the
justification to sell these federal initiatives, which
will be said to be "good for" Indigenous Peoples.
•
CHOOSE
•
16
Focus on "individuals" or non-nation groups: Canada
will attempt to bypass First Nations governments,
undermining the Nation to Nation relationship which
Canada has with Indigenous Nations by "consulting"
with individuals.
•
Make the amendments appear to be voluntary and
carry the consent of Indigenous Peoples.
•
M a k e e x t e n s i v e u s e of a b o r i g i n a l m e d i a (for
example, television commercials have been
d e v e l o p e d to run o n the A b o r i g i n a l P e o p l e s
Television Network).
•
U s e " A b o r i g i n a l A d v o c a t e s " or " F i r s t N a t i o n
Champions" to sell the amendments. Aboriginal
Advocates will be individuals, groups, organizations
and businesses who "buy in" to these initiatives.
Unfortunately, it seems as though the national A F N
office is considering participating in s u c h a n
initiative.
•
Claim that the Governance Act and First Nations
Fiscal Institutions Initiative correct the disadvantaged
status of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. It will be
claimed that these changes address poverty, make
SELF-DETERMINATION
NOT
SELF-TERMINATION
•
T h e First Nation's Governance
Act results in the
transferring of the tool of the oppression of Indian
peoples - the Indian Act - into our own hands;
•
Indigenous Nations' Aboriginal Title is ignored, instead
we are given increased management of small parcels of
reserve lands;
•
Canada's Nation-to-Nation relationship with Indigenous
P e o p l e s is reduced, along with C a n a d a ' s fiduciary
obligations to Indigenous Peoples; and
•
Indigenous Peoples right of Self-Determination is not
recognized, instead band councils are given increased
powers to Self-Administer C a n a d a ' s programs and
services.
Canada's Consultation and Communications Strategy:
C a n a d a is trying desperately to make it appear that
the amendments proposed in the White Paper—2001 are
"First Nations driven" and to carry the consent of Indigenous
Peoples. The First Nations Governance Act and First Nations
Fiscal Institutions Initiative are backed by an aggressive
Consultation strategy. Canada's strategy for selling the White
Paper-2001:
The danger of "consulting" with C a n a d a over the
proposed changes is that Indigenous Peoples will
be seen to having "consented" to the legislative
changes that Canada will impose upon our people.
Through legislation such as the First Nation's
Governance
Act and First Nations Fiscal Institutions Initiatives, Canada
is incrementally getting Indigenous Peoples' consent to the
devolution of Canada's trust obligations by off-loading their
obligations to Bands on a program-by-program basis.
Our elders and leaders from the past have always cautioned
us against becoming the Indian Agent, against forgetting who
we are and forgetting our right of Self-Determination, and
taking over the administration of the programs and services
which Canada set up in order to control and contain our
peoples. A s Indigenous Peoples and leaders, we refuse to
do this: We reject outright, the White Paper - 2001.
of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Interior Alliance).
A Call to Action
•
Letters to the Prime Minister.
•
Lobby the local M . P and Senator from your area - by
telephone, letters and personal visits.
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Interior Alliance call
upon all Indigenous Peoples to join us to fight Canada's
White P a p e r - 2 0 0 1 .
•
Information slowdowns: The TransCanada Highway and
many other transport and communications arteries pass
through reserves across the country.
Choose
Self-Determination over SelfTermination. W e , as Indigenous Peoples and
Leaders, outright reject Canada's White Paper 2001 (First Nations Governance
Act and First
Nations Financial Institutions Act).
•
Launch a Caravan and Set up a C a m p On Parliament
Hill: A caravan from B.C. to Ottawa could be started,
and pick up peoples from across the country.
1.
5. House of Commons and Senate
2.
An assertive action plan to implement our Right
of Self-Determination to our Aboriginal Title
Lands and Resources.
Refuse to be restricted to small parcels of reserve lands,
and under C a n a d a ' s laws: Exercise our Right of SelfDetermination on the ground.
A s Indigenous Peoples we do not require Canada's
p e r m i s s i o n to p r a c t i c e our R i g h t of SelfD e t e r m i n a t i o n , a n d right to benefit from our
Aboriginal Title Lands and Resources. Indigenous
Nations should, according to their own laws and
traditions, make the decision to move back onto the
Land and assert our Aboriginal Title.
3.
Education of all Indigenous Peoples
Organize a series of meetings and workshops to
explain the impact that the White Paper - 2001 will
have upon our Aboriginal Title and Right of SelfDetermination to the members of our Nations. This
must include meetings in urban areas so that we
ensure all of our members are included and aware
of the impact of this legislation.
C a n a d a ' s p r o c e s s is d e s i g n e d to misinform
Indigenous Peoples. It is essential to make efforts
to let people at the community level know what the
implications of the First Nations Governance Act and
the First Nations Fiscal Institutions Initiative are, and
what actions are being taken to create alternatives.
This could include distributing information and
holding community workshops.
4.
Community action
Some examples of actions that individual communities could
take include:
•
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs,
Northern Development & Natural Resources:
Once the Bill is referred to the Standing Committee our
opposition to Nault's legislative agenda should be recorded
as evidence. Since Nault is trying to separate our peoples
from our leaders we should demand hearings across the
country in our o w n c o m m u n i t i e s , just a s t h e R o y a l
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples did. W e should develop
clear and consistent messages outlining our opposition to
Nault's legislation in order to deliver to the Standing
Committee.
6. Media
The government is highly sensitive about media coverage.
Where ever possible, the media need to be brought in to the
debate. Press conferences, media events designed to attract
the press, and interviews with reporters should be organized
and carried out
7. The General Public:
It is important to educate the public about this issue, and
obtain public support and commitment where ever
possible. Existing support group networks should be used,
(i.e. Aboriginal Rights Coalition, Council of Canadians, labor
unions, churches, etc.) They should b e advised of the
situation a n d requested to start their own letter writing
campaign or supportive actions.
8. International Actions
An international aspect of the action plan is necessary. T h e
message c a n be that 1) C a n a d a is violating Indigenous
peoples right to self-determination, and 2) is unjustifiably
infringing on section 35 constitutional protections.
Community Declarations - signed by individuals and
forwarded to the Prime Minister (with copies to the Union
17
SELF vs. SELF
DETERMINATION
ABORIGINAL
TITLE
• Shared (communal) interest in the Land held by all
members of an Indigenous Nation
• Decisions about Aboriginal Title are made by all
members of the Indigenous Nation
• Inherent and inalienable relationship between the
Peoples and the Land
• Indigenous Peoples, as Sovereign Nations, have the
right to an economy based upon access to and use
of resources [Delgamuukw)
+ A Legacy we are bound to preserve for our
future Generations
SELF
DETERMINATION
• Granted by the Creator
• Inherent Ownership and Jurisdiction over Lands,
Resources, and the Laws of our Peoples
• Inherent Right of all Peoples to determine their own
destiny according to their Distinct Laws, Traditions,
and Systems of Governance
• Inherent Right of all Peoples, flowing from their
relationship with the Land, to live with Pride and
Dignity
DE-COLONIZATION
• lndigenous Peoples reclaim our own traditional
Laws and right of Self-Determination
• Indigenous Peoples re-assert our Aboriginal Title,
and our right to build our futures based on the
Land and Resources upon the Land
» Recognition of our power and responsibility as a
people to control our futures, and to live according
to the laws given us by the Creator
NATION-TO-NATION
RELATIONSHIP
• Treaties, at International law, are Agreements
entered into between and among Nations
• Agreements between Sovereign powers are
interpreted and enforced through international
tribunals or courts
• Canada has a fiduciary obligation to guard the
rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples until
Indigenous Peoples reclaim therightof
Self Determination
TERMINATION
Regina v. Catarat • Regina v. Badger •
Regina v. Benton, Cardinal and Bull •
Regina v. Charles • Regina v. Little •
Claxton v. Saanichton Manna Ltd.
•
Nowegijick v Regina • Simon v The
Queen • Regina v. Bartleman • Regina
v. Taylor and Williams • Regina v. White
and Bob • Regina v. Morris and Olson •
Regina v. Sioui • Regina v. Sikyea •
Horse v. The Queen • Halfway River First
Nation v. British Columbia (Ministry of
forests] • Regina v. Cote • Nunavut
Tunngavik Inc. v. The Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans •
Regina v. Jones and
Nadjiwon •
Horseman v. The Queen
• Regina v. Trudeau and Toulouse
•
Regina v. Noel *
Regina v. Howard
•Eastmain Band v. Canada • Regina v.
Battisse • Regina v. Tennisco • Ontario
(A.G.) v Bear Island Foundation • Pawis
v. The Queen • Francis v.TheQueen •
Re Paulette and Registrar of Land Titles •
Regina v Hare • Regina v. Bellegarde •
Regina v. Tobacco • Regina v. White •
Myran v. The Queen • Regina v. Rodger's
• Elk v. Regina • Regina v. George •
Regina v. Paul • Regina v. McCoy •
Regina v. Fox • Prince and Myron v. The
Queen • Rex v. Wesley • Cardinal v.
Attorney General of Alberta • Regina v.
Sutherland, Wilson and Wilson • Regina
v. Napoleon • Regina v. Mousseau •
Regina v. Standingwater •
Regina v.
Shawana • Regina v. Recollet • Frank v.
The Queen • Moosehunter v. The Quoad
•Regina v. Wesley • Regina v. Mirasty •
Regina v. Smith • Regina v. Stongquiil •
Regina v. Eninew • Regina v. Agawa •
Regina v. Little Bear • Regina v. Corbierre
• Regina v. Martin, Plasway and Seward
• Regina v.Sundown• Daniels v. White
and The Queen • Regina v. Mclntyre •
Regina v. Wolverine • Regina v. Sampson
•Cheechoo v. Regina • Cree Regional
Authority v. Canada • Hydro Quebec v.
Canada and CoonCome• la Commission
Scolaire Kativik v. Procureur General du
Quebec • Naskapis de Schefferville Band
v. Procureur General du Quebec • Regina
v. Cooper • Regina v. Jackson • Regina
v. Bombay •
Regina v. Marshall
•
Regina v. George
TREATY & INTERIM
AGREEMENTS
• "Certainty" agreements limit and define Aboriginal
Title & recognize Crown Title
• Consensus decision malting about Aboriginal Title is
not required
• Fragments of an Indigenous Nation (bands or groups
of bands) make agreements about Aboriginal Title
• Aboriginal Title is extinguished and/or put into
hibernation
• Economic access to resources requires Canada's
permission and is subject to Canadian laws and quotas
SELF
GOVERNMENT
• Self Administration of delegated authority granted
by Canadian governments
• Indigenous Peoples deliver government programs and
services, according to Canadian laws and standards
• Traditional governments are transformed into
corporate structures
• Indigenous Nations are equivalent to a domestic
municipality and not Sovereign Indigenous Nations
NEO-COLONIZATION
• Indigenous Peoples agree to help Canada impose
Canadian laws and values on our own People
• Indigenous Peoples are distracted negotiating for
government permission to exercise their rights
• Devolution of federal responsibilities into the
hands of Indigenous Peoples
Indian Act
Governance Act
first Nations fiscal Institutions Initiative
first Nations Land Management Act
B.C. Treaty Commission
Comprehensive Claims Policy
TRI-PARTITE
AGREEMENTS
• Provinces are not nations and cannot enter
Nation-to-Nation treaties
• Domestic contracts which will be interpreted in
Canadian courts according to Canadian laws
• Indigenous Peoples become responsible for
delivering government programs and services
• Indigenous Peoples become liable and responsible
for delivering government programs and services
CANADA'S WALL OF SHAME
Cases where treaty peoples have been forced into Court in
an attempt to have their treaty rights recognized.
FOUNDING HEAD OFFICE
315 Yellowhead Highway
Kamloops,B.C.V2H 1H1
Tel (250) 828-9746
Fax (250) 829-0319
Canada has consistently broken its treaty promises.
With this history of broken treaties and broken promises,
the question arises: Treaties? Why bother?
www.ubcic.bc.ca
VANCOUVER OFFICE
5th Floor, 342 Water Street
Vancouver, B.C.V6B 1B6
Tel (604) 684-0231
Fax (604) 684-5726
LAND = PEOPLE = SOVEREIGNTY
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
NEWLETTER
December 2001 Edition
UBCIC Members Support the Defeat of Minister Nault’s First
Nations Governance Act and Call for Resignation
Representatives of the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs’ member
communities helped to defeat the federa!
government’s “First Nations’
Governance” (FNG) Initiative, during a
national meeting of First Nations held in
Ottawa, December 4-6, 2001.
The UBCIC members joined with
others to form the “First Nations
Coalition for Inherent Rights”. The
“coalition” of First Nations from British
Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec
was instrumental in rejecting the federal
Minister of Indian Affairs proposed FNG
Initiative.
The Assembly of First Nations
Confederacy also adopted a
resolution calling for Nault’s
resignation, or for the Prime Minister to
remove him.
As expected, following the
national Assembly of First Nations
meeting, Robert Nault, has already stated
he intends to ignore the majority
decision of the democratically
elected leadership of First Nations across
Canada, and work with those First
Nations who will support him. Minister
Nault has also reportedly said: “I think it’s
high time that the (AFN) restructure itself
so it can work with the government of
Canada”.
It is because of Nault’s
“arrogant, confrontational and
disrespectful” attitude and his “divide
and rule” approach that the AFN
Confederacy meeting voted for his
resignation.
Chief Stewart Phillip, President
of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,
stated today “we have prepared
information materials alerting all First
Nations people about the threat to our
inherent right of self-determination, which
Bob Nault and his pre-ordained colonial-
style legislation represents. We are
encouraging all First Nations to continue
to oppose the federal government’s
proposed FNG legislation using all the
tools available at our disposal.
First Nation Coalition For Inherent
Rights
Dear Colleagues,
We won a great victory in
Ottawa this week. From the outset we
knew that Minister Nault’s insidious First
Nations Governance Act was an
infringement on our Inherent and Treaty
Rights and our sovereignty. We made our
arguments so cogently and worked so
effectively together that we were able to
convince fellow chiefs to reject the work
plans that threatened our people. The
level of teamwork that we achieved over
the several days was tremendous.
We have a huge task before us:
we must work together to further develop
a national work plan on Aboriginal title
and Treaty nghts, and enhance the
economic and social development of our
communities across this country, and we
must engage the Government of Canada
in that endeavour. It’s a tall order.
We must continue the dialogue
among us; we must continue to stand
together for what is right and just for our
people, and we must ensure that not a
moment is lost as we do.
May I suggest that the lines of
communication we opened be reinforced
and strengthened. Let’s begin discussing
next steps and vow to begin driving our
agenda immediately. We must push
forward lest the momentum we have
generated becomes dissipated.
Grand Chief Larry Sault - Association of
Irequoisand Allied Indians
INSIDE THIS ISSUE...
2. Message from the President
3. Incremental Certainty
4. Skwelkwek’ welt
6. Message from the Administrator
Resource Centre
7. Recommendations for the
Referendum Ballot
8. Health, Child & Families
10. UBCIC Research
12. Sliammon Vote No to AIP
13. What is the White Paper 2001
14. Self Determination vs Self
Termimation Poster
Message From
the President
A: December 11, 2001 rolled around this calendar year,
if you are of first nations ancestry, one thinks of the historic 1997
Delgamuukw Decision. After all it is the fourth year since the
decision came down marking the first time aboriginal title on the
ground for first nations people was recognized. The
Delgamuukw Decision was celebrated around the country. First
nations’ organizations, leaders and their membership felt the
victory in the Supreme Court of Canada would be a beginning for
change. Anew era in the way governments will respect and forge
a new relationship with first nations people. Think again.
When December 11, 2001 arrived this year the media
and the general public have only one thing on their mind ~
Terrorism. Three months since the attacks vigils will be held to
remember the innocent victims and loss of life that occurred at
the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the plane crash site that was
indeed very tragic to say the least. “A day that changed the
world forever,” is echoed.
When our day arrived to change our world forever, if
you were optimistic, you felt there would be vast improvement in
our way of life. Quietly as December 11" wares on, the
Skelkwekelt people have been swept off their traditional territory
the same way you would sweep the ants off your blanket during a
picnic. When does the Delgamuukw Decision come over the hill
to save the day?
Will the Anti-terrorism Act (Bill C-36) ensure that we
can protest peacefully against giant corporations, or will first
nations people get clubbed over the head for rightfully occupying
and protecting their traditional territories, and be labelled as
terrorists in our own backyards? What is the difference between
biological warfare and the widespread of Smallpox through the
blankets — Who looked after our best interests?
This month the A.F.N Confederacy in Ottawa raised the
question on the direction the leadership of the day would proceed
with Minister Nault’s Governance Act Initiative. Do the Chiefs in
assembly agree to co-operate with Nault’s 1.26 million-dollar
project in exchange for talks on self-government, and socio-
economic conditions? According to Nault he was convinced the
National Chief and his Executive would sell it to Confederacy by
the end of the day. [fall else failed then Nault would proceed
with or without the consent of the Chiefs.
The UBCIC joined forces with Manitoba, Ontario, and
Quebec and formed the “First Nations Coalition for Inherent
Rights” rejecting the cut and not so dried deal Nault had with the
Assembly of First Nations. On the second day the numbers came
out 126-49 against Nault’s project. It is because of Nault’s
arrogant, confrontational and disrespectful! attitude and his
“divide and rule approach” that the AFN Confederacy meeting
passed a resolution for his resignation. With Delgamuukw in
hand-is all this political rhetoric necessary?
Premier Gordon Campbell is on the verge of fulfilling his
election promise to gain the input from the general public on how
to proceed with first nations people in the B.C. Treaty
Commission? The questions are either Yes or No and are
designed to extract further the rights and settlement lands from
first nations people. Every redneck in the country will receive a
complimentary self-addressed stamped envelope and will have a
democratic voice on the way government deals with Indians.
Whether you are in the treaty process or not,
Skelkwekelt, Bill C-36, Minister Nault’s arrogant approach to
dealing with his responsibility, or be it the Liberal Governments
bogus election promises, these initiatives will all impact and land
on the laps of first nations people.
The protection and assertion of aboriginal title and the
rights that flow from that title is the responsibility of each and
every individual. Nations need to be more organized in their
efforts than ever to respond to a call for action until Delgamuukw
comes out of hibernation.
So when you reflect back to December 11, 2001, if you
have a heart, there will be a sense of sadness tn light of 9-11,
marking the three month anniversary of the attacks.
But on our historic day, what makes me angry is
witnessing the continued attacks on our traditional territories
and continually being denied the right to enjoy the bounty from
our lands. The attack on a unique and distinct culture. The
passing of our elders who could not share in a victory that was
ours, @ victory what would “change the lives of first nations
people forever.” The 1997 Supreme Court of Canada’s
Delgammukw Decision. Where were your thoughts today?
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs would like to wish you
and yours a safe and healthy Holiday Season.
May the Great Spirit guide us all down the path of self-
determination and give us the strength to safeguard the
rights and interests of all indigenous people and their
homelands.
The UBCIC offices will be closed from December 24th,
2001 and will re-open January 7, 2002
2
Part of Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Newsletter (December 2001 Edition)