• About
  • Comprehensive Claims – policy & protest
  • Gustafsen Lake 1995 standoff

The West Wasn't Won

~ Outlive the colonial world.

The West Wasn't Won

Monthly Archives: September 2014

A brief timeline of the life of: The Union of BC Indian Chiefs

06 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by Kerry Coast in Union of BC Indian Chiefs

≈ 1 Comment

Prepared for the UBCIC 40th Anniversary Special Edition of

The St’át’imc Runner newspaper, November 2009.

 

Throughout the 1960’s, Indian leaders from across Canada had traveled to Ottawa to present to the Standing Committee formed to provide consultations on changes to the Indian Act. What surprised them was that they were all saying the same thing.

 

1965 – The National Indian Advisory Board was formed Board. It was a federal program to get advice on modifying the Indian Act, and had membership from Indians across Canada as well as Canadian politicians such as Arthur Laing.

 

December, 1967 – 28 Indian leaders from across Canada, who had been meeting as brought together by their roles in the National Indian Advisory, formed the National Indian Brotherhood. They would use their travel opportunities as NIAB members to meet with people in the communities about the Brotherhood.

 

Early 1969 – The North American Indian Brotherhood had two meetings – one in Ottawa and one in BC. They discussed the need for provincial and territorial organizations, and President Don Moses was charged with traveling throughout BC to talk to the Chiefs and community people about forming a BC organization.

 

Summer, 1969 – The 100 Mile Moccasin Walk was organized by the Indian Homemakers Association of BC. Participants walked from Vancouver City Hall to Hope, collecting pledge money for their walk. The focus was to raise money to bring all the BC Chiefs together. After a second walk, they had raised enough money.

 

November 18, 1969 – Approximately 180 leaders from the Indian Bands of BC met in Tkemlups to bring their common issues together. Faced with a new federal policy on Indians that would erase Indian Reserves, Indian Status, and Treaties, they united to form a single voice of resistance to extinguishment of title and rights. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs was formed, and the Non-Status Indians present formed the BC Association of Non-Status Indians.

The first Executive of the Union was Heber Maitland from Kitimat, Phillip Paul from Tsartlip and the South Island Tribal Federation, and Forrest Walkem from Cook’s Ferry.

In solidarity with Indian organizations across Canada, they successfully forced the White Paper Policy into remission.

Immediately following the founding of the organization, the Union hired several people to travel the province promoting unity and drafting a Constitution and Bylaws in consultation. Bill Wilson and Doreen Swalkem were there.

The objective of the Union was to launch a single battle for all Indian claims.

 

1970 – Nisga’a Chiefs attended a Union meeting and asked support for their claim that Indian title, specifically Nisga’a title, had never been extinguished. They asked the Union to join their case, but they were denied by the argument that if the Nisga’a lost, they would all lose. The case proceeded with dozens of Nisga’a Chiefs as appellants, but was titled Calder et. al. vs the Attorney General of British Columbia.

 

1971 – The Union hired E Davy Fulton, previously a BC Judge, to prepare a submission to the federal government that would articulate the nature of the tribes’ complaint against the colony and frame their claim to the government. Demanding restoration, restitution and compensation of their lands and rights, the Chiefs’ paper was submitted in December after several drafts had led to an acceptable submission, and it was filed representing 160 Chiefs present at the meeting when it was accepted. This paper was a claim for compensation of lost use of lands and rights by the Indians to the whole of what was now BC. While it was not competing with the Nisga’a case for a Declaration of existing aboriginal title, it created a second approach to the governments – simply asking for compensation without prejudice to the title question.

 

Early 1970’s – Indian Agents throughout BC were replaced by District Indian Tribal Councils, who took on the job of administering Indian Affairs funds to their member Bands. The Districts were not nation-based, but regionally based. This was part of the Nations’ unified strategy to have administration of Indian funds devolved to the nations and Bands themselves, but only about half of the monies previously allocated actually reached the Councils.

 

1973 – The Calder case was concluded in the Supreme Court of Canada. Prime Minister Trudeau is known to have persuaded at least one, and probably three, judges to find against aboriginal title, and a fourth to suspend his judgement and cite a procedural flaw in the case. Still, three judges decided that aboriginal title in British Columbia had not been extinguished by any provincial or federal act.

 

1974 – The Trudeau – Chretien federal administration introduced the Comprehensive Claims Policy. Based on extinguishment of title in exchange for compensation to cut-off lands, the Policy remains the bottom line of “modern day treaty negotiations” in BC. Many Bands became involved.

 

1974 – The Union set up its own programs for social services, housing, education and culture to replace DIA in BC.

 

1974 – Fall – The first armed roadblock in many decades occurred at Cache Creek, when an Elder’s house burned down and the DIA would not provide assistance. The roadblock ended when the participants made stuffed replicas of themselves, sat them around the campfires at night, then snuck out past police lines.

 

April 1975 – The Union decided to reject all federal funding. The conditions attached to the funds, and the stark shortage of them, made the Chiefs realize they were simply being controlled and limited by what was really an inadequate amount of funds. People in the communities grew gardens, District Councils supported business, and the new economic initiatives created unwanted competition for the non-native businesses in the rural areas. By Fall time, Union Members began to receive funds again. Many were offered up to triple their previous payments, on the somewhat unwritten condition that they fall away from the Union. The split that was created here would see the formation of other organizations competing for membership and splitting the Union.

 Nesika-Jan 75 cut-ff action planned

April –  Robert Manuel, Bill Wilson and Steve Point were elected to the Union Executive.

 

Summer 1975 – The Constitution of the Union was read out in Assembly by Steven Point.

 

October 1975 – The World Council of Indigenous Peoples was formed in Nanaimo, with George Manuel becoming the first President.

 

1977 – George Manuel was elected the first President of the UBCIC. Delbert Guerin had also run for President. Saul Terry was elected Vice President.

 

1978 – The Western Indian Agriculture Corporation was formed with Gordon James and Robert Pasco at the center.

 

            Fishing wars erupted in the Fraser fisheries. DFO arrested dozens of people for fishing during closed times, or for failing to comply with the regulation that they cut off the snout and dorsal fin of each salmon they caught. Almost 40 court cases ensued, and all but one was won on the argument of aboriginal rights.

 

            People occupied and shut down Indian Affairs offices throughout the Interior.

 

BCANSI becomes the United Native Nations

 

Early 1980 – Spallumcheen Chief and Council approach the Union for assistance in reclaiming their children from the provincial welfare bureaucracy. The Indian Child Caravan ensued. In late 1980, the Indian Child Caravan rolled into the UBCIC’s General Assembly and provoked a debate about the new repatriation of the Constitution that Prime Minister Trudeau was promoting. The Constitution Express ensued.

 

December 1980 – The Constitution Express rolled out of Vancouver and Prince George bound for Ottawa. Almost a thousand people were to join that train as it made its way across Canada to protest the lack of reference to Indian rights in the new Constitution, which would replace the BNA Act of 1867.

 

Philip Paull and Robert Manuel in Ottawa with the Constitution Express.

Philip Paull and Robert Manuel in Ottawa with the Constitution Express.

1980’s – the Aboriginal Council formed to pursue a common platform for land-claim negotiations. Later it became the First Nations Summit, in 1992, with the creation of the BC Treaty Commission.

 

1980-81 – the Constitution Express riders made their way to Europe. Along with fifty Chiefs, ordinary people from the villages traveled to Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium and England to make the people aware of the Indian position in Canada. Their travels and influence, particularly on the House of Lords in England, caused the adoption into the Canadian Constitution Section 35 (1): “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”

 

1984 – Grand Chief George Manuel died.

 GM - Indian Govt

1990 – The Union submitted its proposal for treaty-making in BC to the federal government: “A Comprehensive Framework Treaty between First Nations in British Columbia and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.”

 

A poster created by the Union.

A poster created by the Union.

Late 1990 – Federal Indian Affairs Minister Tom Siddon returned to the Union with an ultimatum in response to their treaty proposal. The result was the BC Claims Task Force, which the Union did not participate in but criticized severely when its report came out.

 

1992 – The report of the BC Claims Task Force produced 19 recommendations for treaty making in BC. The BC Treaty Commission came to life, with the First Nations Summit as an administrative body for treaty loan funding.

 

            The Tsilhqot’in Tribal Council prepared: “Stolen Jurisdiction Reclaimed: The Control of Indigenous Education in Canada.” for the UBCIC.

 

1995 – The Institute of Indigenous Governance was borne of five years of negotiations in the Union and BC’s Joint Policy Council. Post-secondary accredited, it was part of the approach to nation governance and received over $1million a year employing Native academics.

 

            The Gustafsen Lake stand off near 100 Mile House saw Canada respond to Sundancers’ request for a third party, independent and impartial tribunal to hear the land question with a ground force larger than any since the Korean War. The Union declared their support for the Sundancers’ position.

 

1998 – Chief Stewart Philip became the fourth President of the Union.

 

2002 – The Union mobilized people across the province to demonstrate against the new Liberal government’s referendum on treaty making in BC. They staged many ballot-burning events.

 

2002 – The Tsawwassen Accord was signed between the First Nations Summit, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, and the Assembly of First Nations. This accord was an agreement that the three main provincial organizations would do whatever they could together to advance the cause of Indian jurisdiction over Indian children.

The Accord resulted in an attempt by the federal government to have Indian Bands assumes full responsibility over their children and families without a fraction of the usual federal budget, and by cutting the fiduciary obligation of the crown to ensure the safety and well-being of Indian children.

The Regionalization of Family and Child Services was stopped short early in 2008 because most regions of arbitrarily drawn child-welfare maps across the province could not gain majority support of the Indian Bands they were supposed to represent.

 

2004 – The New Relationship was drawn into existence by Premier Gordon Campbell and the Presidents of the FNS, AFN and UBCIC.

 

2007 – The New Relationship Trust, $100m, was established. This Trust was said to be an open fund to the Bands of BC to pursue their stated priorities. Unfortunately, after six months of touring through the communities, the Trust Board failed to adopt the priorities as laid out to them by people from the communities, who said repetitively that their priorities were youth and Elders, health and language. Instead, while the Elders die and the youth languish, the Board decided to invest 80% of the $100m in Canadian companies on the stock exchange. It has been reported recently that this Trust has been recommended to many Bands and Indian Affairs bureaucrats to help fulfill their mandates.

 

2009 – The UBCIC, AFN and FNS revealed their legislative action plan to make Indian title and rights a legislative directive of the province of BC. In a reported attempt to legislate the impetus of the New Relationship, the Indigenous Recognition and Reconciliation Act written by the First Nations Leadership Council and BC in partnership was rejected overwhelmingly by almost every single Band in BC, and at least in part by the remainder.

While the rejection of this major action did not result in the immediate call for election in each of the three provincial organizations, it did influence the Assembly of First Nations’ National Chief campaign. BC Chiefs made it known that they would not support Shawn Atleo if he continued in support of the so-called Recognition Legislation. Atleo withdrew his support for the proposed legislation, and won the national Chieftainship, with many other factors in play.

 

Timeline created by Kerry Coast in 2009, on the occasion of the Union’s 40th anniversary.

CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 1919

06 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by Kerry Coast in Indigenous Declarations

≈ 1 Comment

CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. November 12, 1919

 

APPENDIX A

STATEMENT OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

                                    PART I. – GENERAL INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

            The Statement prepared by the Committee appointed by the Conference held at Vancouver in June, 1916, and sent to the Government of Canada and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, contained the following:

            The Committee concludes this statement by asserting that, while it is believed that all of the Indian tribes of the province will press on to the Judicial Committee, refusing to consider any so-called settlement made up under the McKenna Agreement, the Committee also feels certain that the tribes allied for that purpose will always be ready to consider any really equitable method of settlement out of court which might be proposed by the Government.

            A resolution, passed by the Interior Tribes at a meeting at Spence Bridge on the 6th of December, 1917, contained the following: –

            We are sure that the Governments and a considerable number of white men have for many years had in their minds a quite wrong idea of the claims which we make, and the settlement which we desire. We do not want anything extravagant, and we do not want anything hurtful to the real interests of the white people. We want that our actual rights be determined and recognized. We want a settlement based on justice. We want a full opportunity of making a future for ourselves. We want all this done in such a way that in the future we shall be able to live and work with the white people as our brothers and fellow citizens.

            Now we have been informed by our Special Agent that the Government of British Columbia desires to have from us a statement further explaining our mind upon the subject of settlement, and in particular stating the grounds upon which we refuse to accept as a settlement the findings of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia, and what we regard as necessary conditions of equitable settlement.

            In order that our mind regarding this whole subject be understood, we desire first to make it clear what is the actual present position of the Indian land controversy in this Province of British Columbia.

            Throughout practically the whole of the rest of Canada, tribal ownership of lands has been fully acknowledged, and all dealings with the various tribes have been based upon the Indian title so acknowledged.

            It was long ago conceded by Canada in the most authoritative way possible that the Indian tribes of British Columbia have the same title. This is proved beyond possibility of doubt by the report of the Minister of Justice, which was presented on January 19, 1875, and was approved by the Governor General in Council on January 23, 1875. We set out the following extract from that report:

            Considering then these several features of the case, that no surrender or cession of their territorial rights, whether the same be of a legal or equitable nature, has been ever executed by the Indian Tribes of the province – that they allege that the reservations of land made by the Government for their use have been arbitrarily so made, and are totally inadequate to their support and requirements and without their assent – that they are not averse to hostilities in order to enforce rights which it is impossible to deny them, and that the Act under consideration not only ignores those rights, but expressly prohibits the Indians from enjoying the rights of recording or pre-empting land, except by consent of the Lieutenant-Governor, the undersigned feel that he cannot do otherwise than advise that the Act in question is objectionable as tending to deal with lands which are assumed to be the absolute property of the province, an assumption which completely ignores as applicable to the Indians of British Columbia, the honour and good faith with which the Crown has in all other cases since its sovereignty of the territories in North America dealt with their various Indian tribes.

            The undersigned would also refer to the British North America Act, 1867, section 109, applicable to British Columbia, which enacts in effect that all lands belonging to the province, shall belong to the province, ‘subject to any trust existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than the province in the same.’

            That which has been ordinarily spoken of as the ‘Indian title’ must of necessity consist of some species of interest in the lands of British Columbia.

            If it is conceded that they have not a freehold in the soil, but that they have an usufruct, a right of occupation or possession of the same for their own use, then it would seem that these lands of British Columbia are subject, if not to a ‘trust existing in respect thereof,’ at least ‘to an interest other than the Province herein.’

            Since the year 1875, however, notwithstanding the report of the Minister of Justice then presented and approved, local governments have been unwilling to recognize the land rights which were then recognized by Canada, and the two governments that entered into the McKenna-McBride Agreement failed to recognize those land rights.

            If the two governments should now be willing to accept the report and Order in Council of the year 1875 as deciding the land controversy, they would thereby provide what we regard as the only possible general basis of settlement other than a judgment of the Judicial Committee of His Majesty’s Privy Council.

            By means of the most direct and independent petition of the Nishga Tribe, we now have our case before His Majesty’s Privy Council. We claim that we have a right to a hearing, a right which has now been made clear beyond any possibility of a doubt. Sir Wilfred Laurier, when Prime Minister, on behalf of Canada, met the Indian Tribes of Northern British Columbia, and promised without any condition whatever that the land controversy would be brought before the Judicial Committee. Moreover, the Duke of Connaught, acting as His Majesty’s representative in Canada, gave positive written assurances that if the Nishga Tribe should not be willing to agree to the findings of the Royal Commission, His Majesty’s Privy Council will consider the Nishga petition. In view of Sir Wilfred Laurier’s promise, and the Duke of Connaught’s assurances, both of which confirm what we regard as our clear constitutional right, we confidently expect an early hearing of our case.

            Before concluding these introductory remarks, we wish to speak of one other matter which we think very important. No settlement would, we are very sure, be real and lasting unless it should be a complete settlement. The so-called settlement which the two governments that entered into the McKenna-McBride Agreement have made up is very far indeed from being complete. The report of the Royal Commission deals only with lands to be reserved. The reversionary title claimed by the Province is not extinguished, as Special Commissioner McKenna said it would be. Foreshores have not been dealt with. No attempt is made to adjust our general rights, such as fishing rights, hunting rights and water rights. With regard to fishing rights and water rights, the Commissioners admit that they can make nothing sure. It is clear to us that all our general rights, instead of being taken from us as the McKenna-McBride Agreement attempts to do by describing the so-called settlement thereby arranged as a “final adjustment of all matters relating to Indian affairs in British Columbia” should be preserved and adjusted. Also we think that a complete settlement should deal with the restrictions imposed upon Indians by Provincial Statutes and should include a revision of the Indian Act.

            Now, having as we hope made clear the position in which we stand and from which we look at the whole subject, we proceed to comply with the desire of the government of British Columbia.

 

            PART II – REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION

                        Introductory Remarks

            The general view held by us with regard to the report of the Royal Commission was correctly stated in the communication sent by the Agents of the Nishga Tribe to the Lord President of His Majesty’s Privy Council on 27th May, 1918.

            We now have before us the report of the Royal Commission, and are fully informed of its contents, so far as material for the purposes of this statement. The report has been carefully considered by the Allied Tribes, upon occasion of several meetings, and subsequently by the Executive Committee of the Allied Tribes.

            Two general features of the report which we consider very unsatisfactory are the following: –

  1. The additional lands set aside are to a large extent of inferior quality, and their total value is much smaller that that of the lands which the Commissioners recommend shall be cut off.
  2. In recommending that reserves confirmed and additional lands set aside be held for the benefit of the bands, the Commissioners proceeded upon a principle which we consider erroneous, as all reserved lands should be held for the benefit of the Tribes.

 

                        Grounds of Refusal to Accept

            In addition to the grounds shown by our introductory remarks, we mention the following as the principle grounds upon which we refuse to accept as a settlement the findings of the Royal Commission:

  1. We think it clear that fundamental matters such as tribal ownership of our territories require to be dealt with, either by concession of the governments, or by decision of the Judicial Committee, before subsidiary matters such as the findings of the Royal Commission can be equitably dealt with.
  2. We are unwilling to be bound by the McKenna-McBride Agreement, under which the findings of the Royal Commission have been made.
  3. The whole work of the Royal Commission has been based upon the assumption that Article 13 of the Terms of Union contains all obligations of the two governments towards the Indian Tribes of British Columbia, which assumption we cannot admit to be correct.
  4. The McKenna-McBride Agreement, and the report of the Royal Commission ignore not only our land rights, but also the power conferred by Article 13 upon the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  5. The additional reserved lands recommended by the report of the Royal Commission, we consider to be utterly inadequate for meeting the present and future requirements of the Tribes.
  6. The Commissioners have wholly failed to adjust the inequalities between Tribes, in respect of both area and value of reserved lands, which Special Commissioner McKenna, in his report, pointed out and which the report of the Royal Commission has proved to exist.
  7. Notwithstanding the assurance contained in the report of Special Commissioner McKenna, that “such further lands as are required will be provided by the Province, in so far as Crown lands are available.” The Province, by Act, passed in the spring of the year 1916, took back two million acres of land, no part of which, as we understand, was set aside for the Indians by the Commissioners, whose report was soon thereafter presented to the governments.
  8. The Commissioners have failed to make any adjustment of water-rights which in the case of lands situated within the Dry Belt, is indispensable.
  9. We regard as manifestly unfair and wholly unsatisfactory the provisions of the McKenna-McBride Agreement relating to the cutting-off and reduction of reserved lands, under which one-half of the proceeds of sale of any such lands would go to the Province, and the other half of such proceeds, instead of going into the hands or being held for the benefit of the Tribe, would be held by the Government of Canada for the benefit of all the Indians of British Columbia.

 

            PART III. – NECESSARY CONDITIONS OF EQUITABLE SETTLEMENT

                                    Introductory Remarks

  1. In the year 1915, the Nishga Tribe and the Interior Tribes allied with them, made proposals regarding settlement, suggesting that the matter of lands to be reserved be finally dealt with by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that all other matters requiring to be adjusted, including compensation for lands to be surrendered, be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada. These proposals the Government of Canada rejected by Order in Council, passed in June, 1915, mainly upon the ground that the Government was precluded by the McKenna-McBride Agreement from accepting them. For particulars we refer to “Record of Interviews,” published in July, 1915, at pages 21 and 105. It will be found that to some extent these proposals are incorporated to this statement.
  2. Some facts and considerations which, in considering the matter of additional lands, it is, we think, specially important to take into account, are the following: –

            (1.) In the three states of Washington, Idaho and Montana, all adjoining British Columbia, Indian Title has been recognized, and treaties have been made with the Indian tribes of those States. Under those treaties, very large areas of land have been set aside. The total lands set aside in those three states considerably exceed 10,000,000 acres, and the per-capita area varies from about 200 acres to about 600 acres.

            (2.) Portions of the tribal territories of four tribes of the Interior of British Columbia extend into the States above-mentioned, and thus portions of those tribes hold lands in the Colville Reservation, situated in the State of Washington, and the Flathead Reservation, situated in the State of Montana.

            (3.) By treaties made with the Indian Tribes of the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, there has been set aside an average per-capita area of about 180 acres.

            (4.) For the five Tribes of Alberta that entered into the Treaty No. 7, whose tribal territories all adjoin British Columbia having now a total Indian population of about 3,500, there was set aside a total area of about 769,000 acres, giving a per capita area of 212 acres.

            (5.) The facts regarding the Indian Tribes inhabiting that part of Northern British Columbia lying to the East of the Rocky Mountains shown in Interim Report No. 91 of the Royal Commission at pages 126, 127 and 128 of the Report show that the Royal Commission approved and adopted as a standard for the Indians of that part of the Province occupying Provincial lands the per capita area of 160 acres of agricultural land per individual, or 640 acres per family of five, set aside under Treaty No. 5.

            (6.) As shown by the fact above stated, all the Tribes that are close neighbours of the British Columbia Indians on the South and East have had large areas per capita set aside for their use and benefit, and the Indians inhabiting the North-Eastern portion of British Columbia have also been fairly treated in the matter of agricultural lands reserved for them. Notwithstanding that state of affairs, the areas set aside for all the other British Columbia Tribes average only 30 acres per capita, or from one-fifth to one-twentieth of the average of reserves set aside for their neighbours.

            (7.) It may also be pointed out that at one time even this small amount of land was considered excessive for the needs of the Indian Tribes of British Columbia, as is shown by the controversy which in the year 1873 arose between the two governments on the subject of acreage of lands to be reserved for the Indians of British Columbia. (See report of Royal Commission at pages 16 and 17.) At that time the Dominion Government contended for a basis of 50 acres per family or 16 acres per capita, and the British Columbia government contended for a basis of 20 acres per family or 4 acres per capita.

            (8.) It may further be pointed out that at that very time, while the governments were discussing the question whether each individual Indian required 16 acres or 44 acres, the provincial government was allowing individual white men each to acquire 160 acres West of the Cascades and 320 acres East of that range, each pre-emptor choosing his land how and where he desired.

            (9.) All the facts which we have above stated when taken together prove conclusively, as we think, that the per capita area of 30 acres recommended by the Royal Commission is utterly inadequate, and that a per capita area of 160 acres would be an entirely reasonable standard. That conclusion is completely confirmed by the knowledge of the actual land requirements of our Tribes.

            (10.) At the same time it is clear to us that, in applying that standard, the widely differing conditions and requirements of the various sections of the Province should be taken into consideration.

            (11.) We proceed to state what are the conditions and requirements to each of the sections to which we have referred.

            (12.) For that purpose we divide the Province into five sections as follows:

  1. Southern Coast.
  2. Northern Coast, together with the West Coast of Vancouver Island.

            III. Southern Interior.

  1. Central Interior.
  2. Northern Interior.

            In the case of Section I all conditions are favourable for agriculture, and the Indians require much more agricultural land.

            In the case of Section II the conditions are such that the country is not to any great extent agricultural. The Indians require some additional agricultural land together with timber lands.

            In the case of Section III the conditions are more favourable to stock raising than agriculture. Throughout the Dry-Belt irrigation is an absolute necessity for agriculture. The Indians require large additional areas of pasture land.

            In the case of Section IV there is abundance of good agricultural land. But the climatic conditions are not favourable for stock raising and fruit growing. The Indians require additional areas of agricultural land.

            In the case of Section V the conditions are wholly unfavourable to both agriculture and stock raising. The main requirement of the Indians is that, either by setting aside large hunting and trapping areas for their exclusive use or otherwise, hunting and trapping the main industry upon which of necessity they rely, should be fully preserved for them.

  1. It is quite clear to us that these conditions of settlement require to be considered by the Government of Canada as well as the Government of British Columbia.

 

                                    SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE

 

                        Conditions Proposed as Basis of Settlement

            We beg to present for consideration to the two top Governments the following which we regard as necessary conditions of equitable settlement:

  1. That the Proclamation issued by King George III in the year 1763 and the Report presented by the Minister of Justice in the year 1875 be accepted by the two Governments and established as the main basis of all dealings and all adjustments of Indian land rights and other rights which shall be made.
  2. That it be conceded that each Tribe for whose use and benefit land is set aside (under Article 13 of the “Terms of Union”) acquires thereby a full, permanent and beneficial title to the land so set aside together with all natural resources pertaining thereto; and that Section 127 of the Land Act of British Columbia be amended accordingly.
  3. That all existing reserves not now as parts of the Railway Belt or otherwise held by Canada be conveyed to Canada for the use and benefit of the various Tribes.
  4. That all foreshores whether tidal or inland be included in the reserves with which they are connected, so that the various Tribes shall have full permanent and beneficial title to such foreshores.
  5. That adequate additional lands be set aside and that to this end a per capita standard of 160 acres of average agricultural land having in case of lands situated within the dry belt a supply of water sufficient for irrigation be established. By the word “standard” we mean not a hard and fast rule, but a general estimate to be used as a guide, and to be applied in a reasonable way to the actual requirements of each tribe.
  6. That in sections of the Province in case of which the character of available land and the conditions prevailing make it impossible or undesirable to carry out fully or at all that standard the Indian Tribes concerned be compensated for such deficiency by grazing lands, by timber lands, by hunting lands or otherwise, as the particular character and conditions of each such section may require.
  7. That all existing inequalities in respect of both acreage and value between lands set aside for the various Tribes be adjusted.
  8. That for the purpose of enabling the two Governments to set aside adequate additional lands and adjust all inequalities there be established a system of obtaining lands including compulsory purchase similar to that which is being carried out by the Land Settlement Board of British Columbia.
  9. That if the Governments and Allied Tribes should not be able to agree upon a standard of lands to be reserved that matter and all other matters relating to lands to be reserved which cannot be adjusted in pursuance of the preceding conditions and by conference between the two governments and the Allied Tribes be referred to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to be finally decided by that Minister in view of our land rights conceded by the two Governments in accordance with our first condition and in pursuance of the provisions of Article 13 of the “Terms of Union” by such method of procedure as shall be determined by the Parliament of Canada.
  10. That the beneficial ownership of all reserves shall belong to the Tribe for whose use and benefit they are set aside.
  11. That a system of individual title to occupation of particular parts of reserved lands be established and brought into operation and administered by each Tribe.
  12. That all sales, leases and other dispositions of land or timber or other natural resources be made by the Government of Canada as trustee for the Tribe with the consent of the Tribe and that of all who may have such rights of occupation affected, and that the proceeds be disposed of in such way and used from time to time for such particular purposes as shall be agreed upon between the Government of Canada and the Tribe together with all those having rights of occupation.
  13. That the fishing rights, hunting rights and water rights of the Indian Tribes be fully adjusted. Our land rights having first been established by concession or decision we are willing that our general rights shall after full conference between the two Governments and the Tribes be adjusted by enactment of the Parliament of Canada.
  14. That in connection with the adjustment of our fishing rights the matter of the international treaty recently entered into which very seriously conflicts with those rights be adjusted. We do not at present discuss the matter of fishing for commercial purposes. However, that matter may stand. We claim that we have a clear aboriginal right to take salmon for food. That right the Indian tribes have continuously exercised from time immemorial. Long before the Dominion of Canada came into existence that right was guaranteed by Imperial enactment, the Royal Proclamation issued in 1763. We claim that under that Proclamation and other Imperial enactment, Section 109 of the British North America Act, the meaning and effect of which were explained by the Minister of Justice in the words set out above, all power held by the Parliament of Canada for regulating the fisheries of British Columbia is subject to our right of fishing. We therefore claim that the regulations contained in the treaty can not be made applicable to Indian Tribes, and that any attempt to enforce those regulations against the Indian Tribes is unlawful, being a breach of the two Imperial enactments mentioned.
  15. That compensation be made in respect of the following particular matters:

            (1) Inequalities of acreage or value or both that may be agreed to by any Tribe.

            (2) Inferior quality of reserved lands that may be agreed to by any Tribe.

            (3) Location of reserved lands other than that required agreed to by any Tribe.

            (4) Damages caused to the timber or other natural resources of any reserved lands as for example by mining or smelting operations.

            (5) All moneys expended by any Tribe in any way in connection with the Indian land controversy and the adjustment of all matters outstanding.

 

  1. That general compensation for lands to be surrendered be made.

            (1) By establishing and maintaining an adequate system of education, including both day schools and residential industrial schools, etc.

            (2) By establishing and maintaining an adequate system of medical aid and hospitals.

 

  1. That all compensations provided for by the two preceding paragraphs and all other compensation claimed by any Tribe so far as may be found necessary be dealt with by enactment of the Parliament of Canada and be determined and administered in accordance with such enactment.
  2. That all restrictions contained in the Land Act and other Statutes of the Province be removed.
  3. That the Indian Act be revised and that all amendments of that Act required for carrying into full effect these conditions of settlement, dealing with the matter of citizenship, and adjusting all outstanding matters relating to the administration of Indian affairs in British Columbia be made.
  4. That all moneys already expended and to be expended by the Allied Tribes in connection with the Indian land controversy and the adjustment of all matters outstanding be provided by the Governments.

 

                        PART IV. – CONCLUDING REMARKS

                In conclusion we may remark that we have been fully informed on all matters material to the preparation of this Statement, and have been advised on all matters which we considered required advice. We have conducted a full discussion on all points contained in the Statement, and have been careful to obtain the mind of all the principal Allied Tribes on all the principal points. These discussions have taken place at various large inter-tribal meetings held in different parts of the Province, together with a meeting of the Executive Committee. As result, we think we thoroughly understand the matters which have been under consideration. Having discussed all very fully, we now declare this Statement to be the well-settled mind of the Allied Tribes.

            We have carefully limited our Statement of what we think should be conditions of settlement to those we think are really necessary. We are not pressing these conditions of settlement upon the Governments. If the Governments accept our basis and desire to enter into negotiations with us, we will be ready to meet them at any time. In this connection, however, we desire to make two things clear. Firstly, we are willing to accept any adjustment which may be arranged in a really equitable way, but we are not prepared to accept a settlement which will be a mere compromise. Secondly, we intend to continue pressing our case in the Privy Council until such time as the Governments shall have arrived at a basis of settlement with us.

            To what we have already said we may add that we are ready at any time to give whatever additional information and explanation may be desired by the Governments for the further elucidation of all matters embraced in our Statement.

            We may further add that the Allied Tribes as a whole and the Executive Committee are not professing to have the right and power to speak the complete mind of every one of the Allied Tribes on all matters, particularly those matters which specially affect them as Individual Tribes. Therefore, if the Governments should see fit to enter into negotiations with us, it might become necessary also to enter into negotiations regarding some matters with individual tribes.

            We certify that the Statement above set out was adopted at a full meeting of the Executive Committee of the Allied Tribes of British Columbia held at Vancouver on the 12th day of November, 1919, and by the Sub-Committee or the Executive Committee on the 9th day of December in the same year.

 

                                                            PETER R. KELLY,

                                    Chairman of Executive Committee and

                                                Member of Sub-Committee.

 

  1. A. TEIT,

                                    Secretary of Executive Committee and

                                                Member of Sub-Committee

UBCIC Aboriginal Rights Position Paper, 1979

06 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by Kerry Coast in Union of BC Indian Chiefs

≈ 2 Comments

UNION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN CHIEFS

 

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS POSITION PAPER

 

 

Aboriginal Rights means that we as Indian People have the right within the framework of the Canadian Constitution, to govern through our own unique forms of Indian Governments (Band Councils) an expanded version of our Indian Reserve Lands that has an adequate amount of associated resources and is large enough to provide for all the essential needs of all our people who have been defined as our citizens or members of our Indian Governments.

 

 The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs entered its Eleventh Annual Assembly on October 15, 1979, in the essence of optimism and energy. This marked the year the collective Spirit of the Indian people of British Columbia was revived and strengthened.

 

                                    Aboriginal Rights Position

 

WHEREAS the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs was established to oppose the White Paper Termination Policy, and;

 

WHEREAS this opposition was to be in the form of the development of an Aboriginal Rights Position and Land Claims Position for the Indian Governments of British Columbia, and;

 

WHEREAS an Aboriginal Rights Position Paper has been developed and endorsed in principle in two (2) previous Annual Assemblies, and;

 

WHEREAS it has been introduced at this 11th Annual Assembly of Chiefs for third and final endorsement;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Aboriginal Rights Position paper as presented by the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs’ Indian Government Portfolio be given final endorsement by this Assembly of Chiefs, and;

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it form the basis for our position in all discussions relating to land Claims, Aboriginal Rights, the British North America Act and the Indian Act, and;

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Indian Governments continue the process of implementing the Five (5) Articles and the Twenty-Four (24) Jurisdictional Areas, and;

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs’ Indian Government Portfolio explore and define specific areas which can be implemented through our Indian Governments and that the Portfolio continue toward strengthening our Indian Governments throughout the province.

 

 ————————————————————————————————————                                                                                                                                   CONTENTS

 

TWENTY-FOUR (24) AREAS OF INDIAN JURISDICTION ……………………. A

THE NATIONAL INDIAN GOAL (B.N.A. ACT STRUCTURE)…………………. B

INDIAN GOVERNMENT MANIFESTO…………………………………………… C

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS…………………………………………………… D

OUR PEOPLE SPEAK……………………………………………………………… E

 

 ————————————————————————————————————                                                                                                                         INTRODUCTION

       A

 

It is our undeniable responsibility as leaders to clearly say what we have been directed by our Indian Governments to state which is contained within these pages.

 

Traditionally, as aboriginal people, we had uncontested, supreme and absolute power over our territories, our resources and our lives. We had the right to govern, to make laws and enforce laws, to decide citizenship, to wage war or make peace and to manage our lands, resources and institutions. We had our own political, legal, social and economic systems.

 

The power to govern rests with the people and, like our aboriginal rights, it comes from within the people and cannot be taken away.

 

Our Aboriginal Rights Position Paper represents the foundation upon which we, the Indian people of British Columbia, will negotiate a better relationship within Canada. It is presented on behalf of our people in the spirit of optimism, dignity, co-operation and strength. The goals of our people from our past through the present, to those yet unborn provide the framework through which we will possess the tools necessary to further develop and strengthen our Indian identity within Canada. An effective implementation of our position will resolve the current political, economic, educational and social problems facing our people. It will mean that, for the first time, Indian people will be able to share in the wealth of Canada and at the same time other Canadians will have the opportunity to enjoy the full benefits of our rich heritage.

 

Since 1969, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs has been involved in extensive research and consultation with Indian people throughout the province in relation to the totality of Aboriginal Rights. We have found through this work that our people have no desire, under any circumstances to see our Aboriginal Rights extinguished. Our people have consistently said that our Aboriginal Rights cannot be bought, sold, traded or extinguished by any government. Our responsibilities and our right to be who we are can never be relinquished.

 

The foundation of our position is:

  1. a) recognition that we are the original people of this land,
  2. b) recognition that we have the right to choose and determine the type of authority we wish to exercise through our Indian Governments,
  3. c) the expansion of our Reserve Lands,
  4. d) the expansion of our Indian resources including finances based on needs as identified by our people,
  5. e) the expansion of the jurisdiction and authority of our Indian Governments (Band Councils).

 

Aboriginal Rights must be recognized, expanded and entrenched within the British North America Act.

 

Indian people have a strong role to play in strengthening the unity of Canada. We have every reason and right to bear our responsibility in this regard. We are confident that the foundation we build today is a solid one and that the final result of true negotiations will mean a stronger Canada.

 

 THE INDIAN CHIEFS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, TAKING ALL THE FOREGOING INTO CONSIDERATION, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM AS OUR ABORIGINAL RIGHTS POSITION THAT:

 

Article I

We are the original people of this land and have the absolute right to self-determination through our own unique forms of Indian Governments (Band Councils).

 

Article II

Our Aboriginal Rights to self-determination, through our own unique forms of Indian Governments are to be confirmed, strengthened and expanded, through the British North America Act.

 

Article III

Our Indian Reserve lands are to be expanded to a size that is large enough to provide for the essential needs of all our people.

 

Article IV

Adequate amounts of lands, waters, forestry, minerals, oils, gas, wildlife, fish and financial resources are to be made available to our Indian Governments on a continuing basis and in sufficient quantities to ensure socio-economic self-determination for the peace, order and just government of Indian people.

 

Article V

Our Indian Governments or Legislatures are to have exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to matters coming within classes of subjects, hereinafter referred to, without limiting the scope of the possible subjects to be under the jurisdiction and authority of our Indian Governments (Band Councils), including;

 

            Section 1

The development of a constitution and the amendment, from time to time, of the constitutions of our Indian Governments.

 

            Section 2

The establishment and maintenance of regulations pertaining to who shall be a citizen or member of our Bands under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 3

The management of all Indian reserve lands, including all other Indian lands or Indian resource areas that will, from time to time, be established under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 4

All waterways and bodies of water associated or defined as being associated with our Indian reserve lands, including any form of water rights and foreshore rights that, from time to time, will be under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 5

All air space above all Indian reserve lands, bodies of water and Indian resource areas established under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 6

All forests that are located on Indian reserve lands including all other Indian forest resource reserves that will, from time to time, be established under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 7

All mineral resources located under and within boundaries of all those lands, waters and resource areas established under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 8

All oil and gas resources located within the boundaries of our Indian reserve lands and within any additional lands or waters that, from time to time, may be negotiated and agreed to be the federal, provincial and Indian Governments as being under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 9

The conservation management of all migratory birds that pass through Indian reserve lands, including those Indian migratory bird sanctuary reserves that will, from time to time, be negotiated and established under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 10

All the wildlife resources contained within Indian reserve lands and all other Indian wildlife resource areas that will be negotiated and agreed to be federal, provincial and Indian Governments as being under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 11

All fish resources contained within the waterways and bodies of water that are defined as Indian Fisheries by Indian Governments.

 

            Section 12

The conservation of all lands, waters and resources that have been established under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 13

The productive management of the environment affecting all lands, waters and resource areas that may be negotiated and agreed to by federal, provincial and Indian Governments as being under the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 14

The establishment and management of the economy through the development, implementation and enforcement of regulations, on such matters as trade, commerce, and the formation of companies within the framework of Indian Government objectives.

 

            Section 15

All areas of Indian education as defined by the authority and jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 16

The maintenance of social order within the jurisdictional objectives of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 17

All matters pertaining to the proper health, welfare and care of our people as defined by Indian Government objectives.

 

            Section 18

The solemnization and dissolution of marriage within the institutions of traditional Indian religions.

 

            Section 19

The safeguarding of all Indian sacred places. The protection of our right to practice our religions, cultures and languages.

 

            Section 20

The development of communication systems within the framework of Indian Government objectives.

 

            Section 21

All revenues accruing within the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 22

The administration of justice, including the constitution, maintenance and organization of Indian Governments courts.

 

            Section 23

The imposition of penalties for the violation of any laws of the Indian Governments in relation to any matter coming within the jurisdiction of Indian Governments.

 

            Section 24

All matters of local or private nature on Indian reserve lands, including other lands, waters and resource areas that will, from time to time, be established within Indian Government jurisdictional boundaries.

 

 

      B

Diagram of proposed Government relationship under the British North America Act

 

 ATRPP diagram 1979 – unavailable.

The diagram was simply a collection of boxes containing the following text:

THE CANADIAN NATIONAL INDIAN GOAL

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT

 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

SECTION 91

  1. Changes of Constitution of Canada
  2. Regulation of Trade and Commerce
  3. Raising of Money
  4. Postal Service
  5. Census and Statistics
  6. Military
  7. Civil Servants Salaries
  8. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses
  9. Navigation and Shipping
  10. Quarantine and Hospitals
  11. Coastal and Inland Fisheries
  12. Ferries
  13. Currency and Coinage
  14. Banking
  15. Savings Banks
  16. Bills of Exchange & Notes
  17. Interest
  18. Legal Tender
  19. Bankruptcy and Insolvency
  20. Patents of Invention and Discovery
  21. Copyrights
  22. INDIANS AND LANDS RESERVED FOR THE INDIANS
  23. Naturalization and Aliens
  24. Marriage and Divorce
  25. Criminal Law
  26. Penitentiaries

 

INDIAN GOVERNMENT

Our Indian Governments or Legislatures are to have exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to matters coming within classes of subjects, hereafter referred to, without limiting the scope of the possible subjects to be under Indian control. Some of the areas to be under the jurisdiction and authority of our Indian Governments (Band Councils) include: 

  1. Band Constitutions
  2. Citizenship
  3. Land
  4. Water
  5. Air
  6. Forestry
  7. Minerals
  8. Oil & Gas
  9. Migratory Birds
  10. Wildlife
  11. Fisheries
  12. Conservation
  13. Environment
  14. Economic Development
  15. Education
  16. Social Development
  17. Health & Welfare
  18. Marriage
  19. Cultural Development
  20. Communications
  21. Revenues
  22. Justice
  23. Indian Law Enforcement
  24. Local & Private Matters

 

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

  1. Amendments to Constitution
  2. Direct Taxation
  3. Borrowing Money
  4. Provincial officers & offices
  5. Management & sale of public lands
  6. Prisons
  7. Hospitals

 

  1. MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE PROVINCE
  2. Licensing of Shops, Saloons, Taverns
  3. Local Works & Undertakings
  4. Incorporations of Companies
  5. Marriage
  6. Property & Civil Rights
  7. Administration of Justice
  8. Imposition of Punishment
  9. Local or Private Matters

 

 

 C

 INDIAN GOVERNMENT MANIFESTO

 

            In presenting our Aboriginal Rights Position Paper, we are re-affirming our right to be here and the responsibilities given to all nations of Indians on this continent. These rights and responsibilities held us together as nations of people for thousands of years and we celebrate our survival and the beauty of our land. We now share our land with others and both our people and the European-Canadian people can draw strength from each other. We seek the unity and strength of Canada in the same way that we seek the unity and strength of our people.

 

            The relationship which exists between Indian nations and the Governments of Canada has never been clearly understood. We have always taken for granted that Indian institutions and European institutions would co-exist in Canada. Many of the European colonial leaders held a similar conviction. They sought to be known and to be respected by the heads of our nations. They asked our leaders to make alliances and agreements. They did not question the authority of our leaders to speak on behalf of our people, just as our leaders did not question the authority of the colonial leaders.

 

            At the same time as open recognition was being given to Indian governments and Indian cultures there were other colonial figures who refused to recognize Indian governments. They advocated the destruction not only of Indian governments and Indian cultures, but of Indian people themselves.

 

            These two opposite views have continued to co-exist in Canada and British Columbia. However there are signs that recognition of and respect for Indian people, their cultures and their governments has been growing. The time is now right for a clarification of the status of Indian governments within Canada and within British Columbia.

 

 

THE BASIC PRINCIPLES

 

            Two principles are basic to the position of the Indian people of British Columbia. The first is the principle of self-determination of peoples. This is a principle of International law, restated most recently in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada has signed both Covenants. Both provide as their first article that:

 

            All peoples have the right to self-determination.

            By virtue of that right they freely determine their

            political status and freely pursue their economic,

            social and cultural development.

 

            The principle of the self-determination of peoples is a basic political and legal concept. To be effective it must exist with a second principle, that of the equality of peoples. For self-determination to have meaning, there must be a basic respect between political communities.

 

            The British North America Act of 1867 sets Indian nations apart, recognizing their uniqueness within Canada. Canadian governments have undercut that fact by deliberately minimizing the significance of the constitutional provisions. Indian governments are treated as municipal governments. Our communities are unique in coming under federal jurisdiction, yet they have not been given full recognition as a distinct order of government within Canada. This can change. Canada can fulfill the promise of the British North America Act and take a leading role internationally in applying the principles of self-determination and equality of indigenous people.

 

 

SELF-DETERMINATION

 

            Our right of self-determination is a right which we have not and will not surrender. The Canadian government will have to accept that Indian people are a people who will not disappear.

 

            In our quest for self-determination, we should not be called separatists. The tensions between the English and the French have led governments to refuse to even listen to our position. We are committed to a strengthening of Canada for we have more at stake in this country than anyone else.

 

 

MODELS OF SELF-DETERMINATION

 

            Serious discussion on models of self-determination has begun in Canada. There has been considerable interest in the Inuit’s achievement of home-rule in Greenland. The Inuit now have an elected parliament and an increasing jurisdiction over all matters affecting the Island.

Greenland remains a part of Denmark but as a politically distinct part. For example, Greenland may withdraw from the European common market though Denmark may remain a member.

 

            The people of Canada have shown interest in a model of self-determination. For example:

            – the “devolution” proposals of the United Kingdom which offered Scotland and                           Wales regional parliaments and a measure of home-rule;

            – the Spanish constitution of 1978 in which home-rule has become possible for a                            number of regions of Spain; and,

            – the home-rule parliaments established in Catalonia and the Basque region.

Another example is the special status of Micronesia in relation to the United States.

 

            While non-Indians have been slow to accept our ideas, there has been a dramatic change in the last few years. Judge Thomas Berger, in the Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry in 1977, discussed the concept of Indian self-determination and called for a “social contract” between the Indian people and the political institutions of Canada. Since then the need for special constitutional provisions on Indian rights has been recognized by the Canadian Bar Association in their report “Towards a New Canada” by the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on National unity; by the Quebec Government’s White Paper “Quebec-Canada: A New Deal” and by the Quebec Liberal Party Proposal “A New Canadian Federation.” In February 1979, the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers agreed that Indian people had to be considered in the process of constitutional change. They agreed to ass a new item to their agenda, “Canada’s Native Peoples and the Constitution.” On September 28, 1979, Prime Minister Clark agreed that the National Indian Brotherhood would have a full, equal and on-going role in the federal-provincial discussions on that agenda item.

 

            These events signal a new willingness of Canadians to discuss and resolve the basic questions of Indian political rights.

 

 

THE POSITION OF THE INDIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

            To the Indian people of British Columbia, the questions of the constitution, the Indian Act and Land Claims are simply different parts of Aboriginal Rights. They can be resolved by full recognition of Indian Government. That recognition requires changes to the existing order which we will now describe.

 

  1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

 

            Section 91 (24) of the British North America Act of 1867 gave the Parliament of Canada legislative jurisdiction over “Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians.” The Indian Act, which was enacted under the authority of Section 91 (24), is treated by Canadian law as the source of authority for Indian band councils. Indian governments existed for thousands of years before Europeans came to Canada. Indian people can never accept the notion that the authority of their governments is a grant from those who came from elsewhere. The proper way to establish Indian relations to the rest of Canada is not by the Indian Act but by a basic political agreement, a covenant or social contract. The use of a basic agreement will respect the principle of the equality of peoples. The agreement will be recognized as part of the constitution of Canada. As an agreement it cannot be changed without the consent of both sides. As part of the Constitution both sides will be compelled, by law, to respect its terms.

 

            The agreement will describe the place of Indian governments within Canadian federalism. It will define Indian rights to renewable resources – rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather – on lands outside the limits of Indian governments. It will also deal with Jay Treaty Rights, resource sharing, taxation, the paramountcy of Indian Government laws over provincial legislation and Indian representation in the institutions of the central government.

 

 

  1. THE POWERS OF INDIAN GOVERNMENTS

 

            The agreement will entrench Indian governments into the Constitution and create a legislative body that may be called the House of Indian Governments. Band governments will be strengthened and will be the basic constituent units of the Indian governments. Indian people will directly elect their representatives to the new governmental body and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs will be dissolved.

 

            The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs has defined the powers it feels are appropriate for Indian governments. They are set out in twenty-four points near the beginning of this document. It is clear that the powers of Indian governments will basically be similar to those of the provinces. In addition certain powers that are presently federal, such as powers in relation to fisheries, marriage and divorce, must be vested in Indian governments for the areas under the jurisdiction of those governments.

 

            Indian governments will have the authority to draft Bills of Rights which will apply within their jurisdiction in the same way that certain provinces have their won Bill of Rights. Any constitutional Bill of Rights will apply to Indian governments subject to the terms of the basic agreement establishing Indian governments and defining their powers.

 

 

  1. REPRESENTATION TO THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

 

            The agreement, as part of the constitution of Canada, will define the structure and the powers of Indian government and its relationship to other governments in Canada. Indian government will be a recognized order of government parallel to provincial government. The federal government will have jurisdiction over matters outside the jurisdiction of Indian governments (and outside the jurisdiction of provincial governments). Relations between Indian governments and provincial governments will be handled by mutual agreement (as relations between provinces are currently handled). Citizens within the jurisdiction of either an Indian government or a provincial government will elect members to the federal parliament and be represented in other institutions of the central government which have a regional structure.

 

            At present, provincial boundaries are respected in the boundaries for constituencies for members of the federal House of Commons. No federal constituency in Canada has ever crossed the boundaries of a province or territory. The Senate, as well, reflects provincial boundaries, though in a different way. There are four regional divisions in Canada, each defined in terms of one or more province. A certain number of Senators are appointed for each division. At present the so-called “Indian seat” in the Senate must come within one of the four regional divisions. Other institutions of the central government have regional representation as well, either as a result of legislation or practice.

 

            Recognition of Indian governments as a distinct order of government in Canada will mean the creation of federal constituencies which group together Indian government areas in various regions of Canada. There will be “Indian seats” but in exactly the same way that there are “British Columbia seats” in Parliament. This will not be a system of special representation, as in New Zealand where there is a racial or ethnic franchise. It will be the direct result of the recognition of Indian governments as equal to provincial governments within Canadian federalism.

 

 

 

  1. FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

 

            Stable and workable financial arrangements are of fundamental importance. Historically Europeans confiscated Indian resources with little or no compensation, leaving an inadequate land and resource base for the Indian communities. Moreover, the federal government uses funding as a method to control Indian communities. The existing approach locks Indian communities into a permanent welfare system which does not lead to any positive solutions. The controversy over the Local Government Guidelines of 1975 is being re-enacted in 1980 with the Local Services Agreements. These controversies will continue endlessly unless basic changes are made in the financial arrangements which affect Indian communities. It is only when structures of dependence and welfare are removed that equality and self-determination can be achieved. Four arrangements are essential to bring about the desired change.

 

            Firstly, there must be an increased land and resource base for Indian communities. Land and resource issues have never been resolved in British Columbia, a fact acknowledged by the federal government in their statement on Aboriginal Title Claims in 1973.

 

            Secondly, Indian governments, like provincial governments must qualify for equalization payments. We agree with the philosophy that there should be equal standards of public services in all parts of the country. The payments are unconditional. The provinces are free to choose their own priorities. This is the kind of block, predictable funding that Band governments have sought for their people. It is funding based on need, not short-term politics. For example, in the fiscal year 1979-80, Prince Edwards Island received approximately seventy-six million dollars in equalization payments. It has a population of just over one hundred thousand people. For the Atlantic provinces, equalization payments have represented about 25% of their governmental revenues.

 

            Thirdly, Indian governments must be the vehicles for the delivery of programs and services to Indian people presently funded by the federal government. There exists a large, costly, inefficient bureaucracy to deliver services and channel monies for Indian people. The Indian Affairs bureaucracy competes with Indian governments for authority and, inevitably, maintains the colonial character of Indian-government relations in Canada. The recognition of Indian governments will lead to the assumption of basic administrative and program responsibilities that are now the “white man’s burden” of the Department of Indian Affairs. Administrative cost savings will be substantial and political responsibility for Indian programs will rest where it should, with Indian people.

 

            Fourthly, Indian Governments must be the direct recipients of transfer payments, whether they are equalization, revenue sharing or program monies. These payments will be regular items in the budget of the federal government and will be paid directly to Indian governments. In other words, these transfers of funds will be handled in the same manner as transfers to provincial and territorial governments. The reporting and accounting will be defined by agreements to be negotiated between Indian governments and the federal government, and not by the Department of Indian Affairs or any other government department. This will establish maximum flexibility and will dramatically reduce the administrative costs involved.

 

            We do not want a settlement of Aboriginal Rights which in any way reflect a policy of termination or a final case settlement as characterized in the James Bay and Alaska type of agreements. We want the recognition of Indian Governments on a continuing basis within Canadian federalism. Indian self-determination will free both Indian people and non-Indian people from structures of colonialism and dependence. It will pour meaningful content into the principles of self-determination as annunciated at the United Nations. Canada can then offer the International community an inspiring and realistic model upon which to build.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       D

 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

 

In order to implement Indian Government, we propose:

 

            That a Ministerial Committee be established with a mandate to negotiate the          implementation of the Indian Government manifesto, and;

 

            That the structure of the Committee be comprised of three Ministers and three       Indian representatives appointed by the Indian Governments. This Committee will            have the ultimate responsibilities for recommending the final agreement to      Parliament, and;

 

            That the Ministerial Committee appoint an Arbitrator to overcome impasses. This   person may be called in by either party to help resolve differences, and;

 

            That the Ministerial Committee be established to sit for two (2) years.

 

                        SECRETARIAT

 

We propose that a Secretariat be appointed by the Ministerial Committee comprised by an equal number of representatives from the Indian Governments and the Federal Government and:

 

            That the Secretariat be a working group to carry on the day to day negotiations      underlying the implementation of the Indian Government Manifesto.

 

            That the Secretariat, if necessary, call upon the services of the Arbitrator to settle   any differences which may arise.

 

            That the Secretariat, if necessary, call upon the services of the Arbitrator to settle   any differences which may arise.

 

            That the Secretariat have a separate office with funding available to hire support    staff.

 

            That the Secretariat be empowered to conduct inquiries under the Inquiries Act.

 

 

 

 

     E

Our People Speak

 

                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

OUR PEOPLE SPEAK…………………………………………………               1

 

SACRED CIRCLE OF LIFE…………………………………………..               8

 

            OUR CHILDREN

            OUR YOUNG PEOPLE

            OUR PARENTS

            OUR ELDERS

 

THE HARMONY OF ALL LIFE…………………………………………          16

 

            The Land and The Water

            The Fish

            The Animals

            The Plants

 

THE LAWS OF OUR LIFE………………………………………………..          27

 

            Authority over Indian Religion

            Authority over Indian Education

            Authority over Indian Culture

            Authority over Indian Communications

            Authority over Indian Health

            Authority over Indian Land Management

            Authority over Indian Socio-Economic Development

            Authority over Indian Law

            Authority over Indian Government

 

 

LAND CLAIMS IN B.C.

 

1763: Royal Proclamation, a statement of British Policy clearly recognizing Indian lands and rights. It has never been repealed and has the force of law in Canada.

 

1849: James Douglas of Hudson Bay Company and later governor, secures Indian land for white settlement by Treaties on Vancouver Island.

However outrageoud those treaties, they do represent formal recognition of aboriginal rights.

 

1850: The English start flooding in, clearing land for agriculture and threatening the salmon in their rush for gold. Reserves are set up.

 

1867: Section 109 of the British North America Act gives jurisdiction and ownership of land and natural resources to the provinces.

 

1871: Declaring ownership and control of the land, the non-Indians of B.C. join the confederation of Canada. For the next 20 years, there is a great push to destroy the Indian lifestyle.

 

1880: Start of our historical battle for our land claims. Individual tribes and local groups start making representations, petitions and start sending delegates to the provincial and Federal governments. Chiefs of the Lower Fraser and South Vancouver Island protest encroachment on Indian land.

 

1887: The Chiefs of Port Simpson and the Nass petition for return of their land and formal treaty guaranteeing their rights to those lands forever. “What we don’t like about this government id their saying this: ‘We will give you so much land.’ How can they give it to us when it is our own land.”

 

1890: Nishga land claim committee formally organized by Arthur Calder.

 

1889: Treaty 8 signed with the Beaver and Slavey Indians in the north east.

 

1906: Squamish delegation go to England with a petition.

 

1909:  20 tribes from southern B.C. send delegations to London.

 

1913: The “Nishga Petition” demanding a legal judgement on the land claim is formally adopted by Nishga Land commission.

 

1915/16: Nishga delegations to Ottawa to lobby.

 

1915/16: McKenna/McBride Commission and the cut off lands.

 

1915: Meeting at Spences’ Bridge and

 

1916: Meeting on Mission reserve for the Allied Tribes of B.C. to present land claims directly to the Imperial Privy Council.

 

1919: “Statement of Allied Tribes of B.C. to the Government of B.C.,” prepared by Peter Kelly, a Haida Minister, and incorporating for the first time all claims for Indian Tribes in the Province. This is also the first demand for action on related social and economic issues. It is also the first petition to both the Provincial and Federal Governments.

 

1920/24: Allied Tribes fight the Bill to make the McKenna/McBride Commission the final settlement for land claims in B.C. They are successful.

 

1926: The Allied Tribes, through Peter Kelly, Andrew Paull, Chief David Basil and Chief Chillihitza, present land claim positions to Parliament which sets up a Joint Committee to hold hearings and make recommendations.

 

1927: Joint Committee judges that land claims are not proven. They also make a recommendation, later to become law, that fund raising by Indian organizations for land claims become a criminal offense. They further recommend an annual Special Vote with $100,000 for improvement for Indian life, to be administered by the Department of Indian Affairs. No leaders have ever accepted the B.C. Special Vote as payment for land title.

 

1931: The Native Brotherhood. Andrew Paull organizes protests from groups around fishing, land and social issues.

 

1942: Indian commercial fishermen have to pay federal income tax. Andrew Paull organizes protests from the south and joins the Native Brotherhood.

 

1943: Andrew Paull attends the meeting and is elected President of the Brotherhood of Canadian Tribes. This is to become the North American Indian Brotherhood.

While the Native Brotherhood and the North American Indian Brotherhood share many concerns, one difference keeps them apart. The Native Brotherhood seeks equal rights for Indians; the North American Indian Brotherhood argues that we have special rights for our own ways of life as aboriginal inhabitants of this country.

 

1946 to 1951: Peter Kelly and Andy Paull fight for and succeed in getting revisions to the Indian Act.

 

1949: B.C. Indians get the vote. Frank Calder elected to Provincial Legislature.

 

1950’s: Question of Aboriginal land rights is heard more and more.

 

1955: Nishga Tribal Council formed to continue the work of the Nishga Land Committee.

 

1959: Joint Parliamentary committee convened to hear question on committee “So long as the title question is not dealt with, every Indian in B.C. feels that he is being tricked and will never be satisfied.” He died soon after. George Manuel and William Walkem of the Native Rights Committee continued to press the question of Indian Land title in B.C.

 

1960: Land Claims is a major issue for Indians in B.C.

 

1963: Regina vs. White and Bob. Clifford White and David Bob of Nanaimo are charged for hunting deer out of season and their defense is based on Aboriginal rights, that they were hunting on traditional tribal territory. The White and Bob case becomes the land claims rallying point. South Vancouver Tribal Federations organized by Wilson Bob, Dave Elliot, Fred Miller, Phillip Paul and Mike Underwood and together with the Native Brotherhood they sponsor the case.

 

December, 1964: White and Bob decision. Supreme court upholds the treaties but avoids the question of land title. Federal government reimburses all costs of this court case and promises to open negotiations on B.C. land claims, provided one group represents 75% of the B.C. Indians. Several organizations are formed to meet this requirement but none last.

 

1969: Nishga Tribal Council decides to press its claim independently in the case of Calder (et al) vs. the Attorney General of B.C.

 

1969: (two months later) Liberal government issues White paper on their Indian Affairs reversing their stand on Indian Land Claims and refusing to recognize aboriginal land title as valid.

 

1969: Formation of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs unites most of the leaders of the previous organizations to fight this stand and to work towards a settlement of the land claim. Under great pressure and protest from Indian people and organizations all over Canada, the Federal Government agrees to give funds to groups working for land claims settlements.

 

1969: N.D.P. position paper in B.C. recognizes that Indian title has never been extinguished and has to be negotiated.

 

1972: U.B.C.I.C. leaders present “Claim Based on Native Title” in Ottawa.

 

1973: Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the Calder Land Case. Three justices rule that the Nishgas have aboriginal rights to 1,000 square miles of the Nass Valley. 3 justices say no, and the 7th justice gives judgement on the case and not the issue.

 

1973: (August 8th) The present government acknowledges the 1763 Royal Proclamation to be a Declaration of Indian lands and that the federal government has lawful obligations to negotiate. The Province of B.C. was expected to have input into these negotiations.

 

1975: Rejection of Government funding by U.B.C.I.C.

 

1979: 11th Annual General Assembly adopts the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Aboriginal Position Paper outlining the principles of Indian Government.

 

OUR PEOPLE SPEAK

 

            The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ Eleventh Annual Assembly was an outstanding example of how the Indian delegates of British Columbia want to fit into the Canadian mosaic. First of all, we want to be recognized as the first aboriginal peoples of this country. Secondly, we want to regenerate our hereditary right to self-reliance and self-determination. We want to achieve self-determination and our aboriginal rights through our own form of Indian governments.

            The determination of our people for self-reliance through our own Indian Governments can be seen in fact that this conference was totally Indian designed. The speakers and resource people were Indians, the delegates and observers were all Indians.

            The silk screens, carvings of silver, gold, copper, wood, and all other art work at the assembly art showroom was done by Indian artists from various parts of B.C. The organizer was an Indian. Participants and organizers of the “Indian Expression” and talent show were all Indian. The Indian land claims question is being recaptured by our people in British Columbia. The Indian songs, dancers and the power of the drum is bringing back strength to our Indian nations and declaring our identity with our homeland. That to me is Indian Government being regenerated back to life: our aboriginal right to self-determination is being exercised by our people here in British Columbia.

            The priority of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is the regeneration of Indian Government. But Indian Government does not lie in the hands of an organization. It lies in the hands of families, clans, bands and in every reserve community in British Columbia. It is the responsibility of the local people to study, learn and implement the kind of authority you want in your Indian Governments. Indian communities all work at different levels in different ways, therefore Indian Governments can only be developed at the Indian reserve level. Every time a Band takes the initiative to make their own policies, regulations and laws for your people, it is Indian government; and every time we take an aboriginal right case to court, it is Indian government and every time Indian people stand together to face the federal or provincial government on various issues affecting our people, that is Indian Government in action.

            The message presented by all Indian people at the Eleventh Annual General Assembly came loud and clear. The message is “we are no longer prepared to live on our knees.” From now on we will fight on our feet for our right to self-reliance through our Indian Governments.” This expression for Indian self-determination was being asserted by the Indians at our Assembly. We are sick and tired of the white man’s heavy handed control over our lives. We want to control our lives within the framework of our beliefs and traditions in our Indian homeland, British Columbia.

                        Yours in Indian Strength and Recognition of Aboriginal Rights,

                        George Manuel, President

                        Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs

                        Shuswap of the Neskainlith Band

 

 

“Aboriginal rights are the responsibility given to all nations of Indians on this continent. They are powers and controls of four elements of life and nature. These rights held us together as nations of people for thousands of years for the purpose of survival and the beauty of our country. Aboriginal rights is our heritage: ours, regardless of whether we want it or not. It can’t be given away, sold or denounced and no government or legislation can abolish it. The Indian is born with it.

            Sovereignty is a balance of nature which one takes pride in exercising. It is our Aboriginal rights to maintain its earthly wealth by preservation and respect and to maintain the philosophy therein with dignity. Communalism fantasy is so great that it makes it beautiful to live and beautiful to die.”

            Jacob Kruger, Penticton Band

 

 

“The position of most of the Indian people in British Columbia today is quite unique in that no treaties or agreements or any other transaction were ever entered into with the Federal or Provincial governments, dealing with their land rights and rights to the resources of the sea and their rivers and the lakes.”

            Godfrey Kelly, Skidegate Band

 

 

“We happened, as Indian people, to be put back here on this continent on one side and the Great Spirit has given us fish, birds, vegetation to live on. As the non-Indians came in they have taken control of most of it and they’ve given us very little and what ever we have left now we are struggling to try and hold it… for we know the fish is ours, the game is ours, and also the fowl and birds is ours, and also the country is still ours because we are non-treaty Indians.”

            Rosie Stager, Mount Currie Band

 

 

“…’for as long as the river shall flow your people will be permitted to hunt and fish for their needs for as long as there are Indians around.’ This is what James Douglas wrote. We have copies of that document. He wrote this on behalf of the Queen. And your government today, they just completely ignore that. It’s like they say, to hell with that, who the hell is he making an agreement with like that? Everybody stands for the Queen, then why don’t they respect what James Douglas did on her behalf?…”

            Ted Seward, Squamish Band

 

“We were the richest people in the world, we didn’t have a penny in our pocket, but we were the richest people in the world. We had everything: we had game, we had fish, we had everything. Everything was just natural, but I am told now I have to wait for my pension to buy my food, there’s no more out there. That’s what we’re fighting about.”

            Sam Mitchell, Fountain Band

 

“Self-determination has to be our goal and our quest is to recover our land, energy and resources and political authority that is entrusted to the white political institution. We are saying: ‘for the past 100 years we gave you, the white government the responsibility to manage our lands, energy and resources and political authority. You have mismanaged that trust and responsibility now we are taking it back into our hands and we will manage our own resources through our own Indian political institutions. This is known both by Indian people and white people as Land Claims or Aboriginal Rights.”

            George Manuel, Naskainlith Band

 

“What we sell out now we are stealing from our children. The land and nature is not ours to sell it is only ours to honour, respect and protect for our children and our children’s children. And they say only through protecting our land and our children can we again hope for complete self-respect and peace of mind.”

            Randy Chipps, Cheanuh Band

 

“A just Aboriginal Rights settlement in B.C. will affirm our rights as Indian people to control our own lives and the means to live for the rest of time. We must accept no less if we expect to survive.”

            George Manuel, Neskainlith Band

 

“We talk about human rights. My human rights is to stand up and have the necessary equipment and the type of things that is necessary so that Indian people operate in the way that the dominant society doesn’t. As far as human rights is concerned, we, the Indian people are human…”

            Chief John L. George, Burrard Band

 

“The ways of Indian people are in the minds of the old people. Where they go, we go.”

            Tina Marie Christian, Spallumcheen Band

 

“Indian resources are now returning. We are still fortunate, the old resource people are still around. We now have the knowledge and ability to run our own affairs.”

            Chief Roy Christopher, Canim Lake

 

“Our words will come back to you like quiet echoes from the past. Be proud, be strong, have respect, keep our ways, give courage to your children that our words will not be empty – that our people will be strong.”

            Casper Charlie, Anderson Lake Band

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(sacred circle of life image)

 

The first stage is childhood – you grow and learn many things that are supposed to be taught to us since the creation of time. During this part of our lives, we are taught that our minds and our hearts are closest to the creator of all good things. At this stage, the way the parent treats the child is always remembered by the child, and this is the way the child will treat you as an elder. He will respect the rest of life that has been given to us in the proper manner.

The next stage is adolescence.

This is the stage where young people are taught that all life is our relation and that each living thing on this earth needs each other to live. In this stage of adolescence, a person’s body is strong, it is swift in spirit, mind and body, with a strong heart and a strong will. It is during the adolescence stage of life where we see hard training and rigorous training for our minds and body and will to be strong.

The young people are taught by their parents to have great respect for the elders and to do whatever they can do to help the elders, for they are the ones who are teaching the ways that have been given to us since the creation of time. They cut the wood, find the food, hunt, get water, build shelters or homes.

The next stage is parenthood.

We are blessed with the right to give life to another human being in a sacred manner. We must have great respect for this. As a parent, we go through many kinds of suffering in bringing up children. In this part of life, we must have an understanding mind, a warm heart for children in a sacred manner even though it may seem hard. You must have kindness, at the same time, you must have the strength, to discipline our children so that they will not get carried away and do harm to other living things on this earth.

As a parent, we must share everything we have as a part of the community with the rest of the community. In this way, they will learn. As parents, we must have respect for all living things that have been given to us. We must respect our elders.

The last stage we go through is being an Elder.

During this stage of life, the Elders do most of the teaching. They usually have the greatest of patience for the children and great understanding. They also believe and live strongly in the spiritual way of our people. They know all manner of things of the spiritual manner because they lived through it during the many years of life they have lived on the sacred mother Earth. In this stage of life, they teach the young people through the stories given to Indian people from generation to generation. They teach the values of Indian ways, the rules and regulations, the laws of our Indian people, and the wisdom of our ancestors who have passed before us. They also teach respect, honesty, courtesy and the kindness and the way our ancestors have suffered in order for our Indian ways to be taught to us today. When the Elders have completed this beauty in their lifetime, they die; but in the Indian way, when a person passes on, they are reborn into the spirit world.

This is what is called the sacred circle of life, where we are born from the spirit world into the physical world of our own lives right now. We are born into childhood, to the teenage level, to parenthood, to the elderly stage. When we are reborn back into the spirit world, the cycle has been completed and we go through the cycle once again.”

            Derek Wilson, Haisla from Kitamaat Band

OUR CHILDREN

 

“Last year, I got a hundred dollars for my fur. When I got money, I bought Christmas stuff for my mom, my sisters, my grandma, my auntie and everyone. It is fun when you go Christmas shopping. This year I don’t get too much because the whiteman came and buggered up our wildlife.”

Everette Gauthier, West Moberly Lake Band, aged 10

 

“Now on this reserve, parents have got respect from their children. It is good to be on a reserve that doesn’t drink – the families get along good. It is great value to have the elders to tell us the things we do not know. It is good and great to learn where and how we stand by using our power.”

Child of Alkali Lake

 

“At one time, the welfare of a child was the concern of everyone in the community and the rearing of a child was a very important responsibility. The children were the future, they carried on the names, the traditions and the teachings of the Elders so they would continue to grow strong and never die. Indian children had many grandparents and numerous aunts and uncles who were not all related by blood but related nonetheless by a strong bond. It was through these relationships that a strong foundation of responsibility and trust was formed within each community.

Children have been removed from their own communities to be raised by non-Indians, have been deprived of their own right to their heritage and have been deprived of their identity as Indian people. Only after we have begun to take back our responsibilities can we begin to build a better future for our children.”

Julie Newman, Squamish Band

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OUR YOUNG PEOPLE

 

“We want the Nimpkish Band to hire us to paint the totem poles and the long house, cut the grass in the graveyards to make Alert Bay look nice. We’d also like other jobs like working in the office, day care and the museum. We plan to make something of our lives and those jobs will help us. We want to know more about our culture because it’s important to us and will be with us all our lives.”

Kwawkewlth Children, Alert Bay

 

“We have to help young people acquire all the tools that are necessary to survive in society. Education doesn’t stop just in the schools. Parents, the community, the way the Chief acts, the way the Council acts, and all the other people in the community educate all the time. Whether they like it or not.

There is no time to waste. We must take immediate and definite steps to overcome the confusion and frustration that push our young people to alcohol and drugs and suicide.  We must give them something strong and positive to relate to and ensure that they are fully involved in the construction of our Indian governments. I see faith and hope being restored to the young minds with the belief emerging that maybe there is a place in the world for each one of them. No development should take place without the approval of those who have the most to lose.”

Bob Manuel, Neskainlith Band.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OUR PARENTS

 

“Love your children and know how to love your children. These two items make up the main rules of caring for your children. All parents love their children unless there is something terribly wrong with them. To really love your children you have to show your children that you really love them. Also, if you know your customs and traditions, teach them to your child. Make your child proud of his heritage. Most of your customs and traditions in raising your child are in the previous words I have written because we would not have been able to survive this far as Indian people if they were not practiced by our ancestors. I have just written them in the language of the white man.”

Xavier Eugene, Shuswap Band

 

“We have an interest in every Indian child in the community for it is understood that what our Indian children become will be reflected in what the community is going to be. What we do to our children we are doing to the community, and to ourselves.

B.C. Native Women’s Society

 

“You know in teaching our kids our values, we don’t only talk about them, we also have to practice them. Where we can begin is to make the family unit like one again, and talk with the kids every day about our old values. Our greatest gift was life itself.”

Walter Leech, Lillooet Band

 

“We are Indian people with a past that is filled with honour, harmony sharing and respect for each other and nature. Our traditions of life were passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. Essential to those traditions is the understanding that we are sacred and that our children are gifts of the great spirit. It is part of our tradition to love our children, to be patient with them, to treat them with respect. Today we are Indian people who still care about our values and wish to pass those values down to generations to come. It is within our power to live according to our Indian traditions in the context of a modern world we have endured – we prevail. We are parents, we care about the education of our children – it is accepted in the common law all over the world that a parent has a right to say how his child shall be educated. The idea of making education meaningful to Indian children by putting it in under Indian control is simply common sense.”

Phillip Paul, Coast Salish, Tsartlip

Stewart Phillip, Okanagan, Penticton

Robert Sterling, Thompson, Nicola Valley

Mary Louise Williams, Lil’wat, Mount Currie

Al Mason, Hartley Bay

Muriel Roberts, Skwah Band

 

 

 

 

 

 

OUR ELDERS

 

“It is elders who have seen the things that have been happening to our people over the many years of their lives. The Elders are more than willing to share their knowledge with the future generations if we will only ask them. If you want to know something about the old ways of Indian life, talk to an Elder. Indian people have always known what great resources our elders are to us. We have always known to respect and look after our elders – we can remember this when we are looking to use old ways in a new manner. The elders are our main sources of research and verification and I can assure you that is not a token situation. I cannot adequately cover the contribution our elders have made to the total education programs. If the very old will remember, the very young will listen.”

Shirley Leon, Chehalis Band

 

“My mum was the head of our clan – she was a good counselor, guide, our protector. She taught me everything I know and the different kinds of work we Indians are skilled at. If you have Elders who are available, they are very valuable in your villages. Do not hesitate to write down their stories and their counseling.”

Francisca Antoine, Necoslie Reserve

 

“They thought we were gonna die off and disappear but we didn’t. And here we are. Boy, you are coming back, we are coming back. You have to tell your young people, your children. This is why we include our elders. You have to tell your young people what it was like in the old days. When we were still ourselves.”

Dave Elliot, Elder of Saanich Band

 

“You see, our roots are deep; our trails are there. Everywhere you go you see our signs. There are stories to be told of what has happened in these mountains, some not so good and some very good. There are also legends that have been told to us in the past, through many generations. To us Indian people it is priceless. Do the white men understand what this means to us? No. To us our land is our survival and the strength of our people.”

Johnny Morgan, Elder of Bonaparte Band

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE HARMONY OF ALL LIFE

 

Harmony of all life basically means that all of the creation of life has been given to us by the Creator of all good things. To live in a sacred manner in everyday life everybody needs each other. There are many different peoples of this earth: I don’t mean the different races of this earth, but in the Indian way the things I’m going to talk about, animals or anything like that, we call them people – human beings.

 

The first one is the two legged people, the ones that walk on their two legs; the four legged people, those are the ones that walk on their four legs, the bear, the deer, the elk; the fish of the sea, the salmon, halibut, whales; the feather of the sky – the eagle, owl, raven, hawk; the plants that live closest to the earth – plant life, the plant people; the trees, different roots and the berries we eat. All these things are called human beings in the Indian way.

 

One of the things that I have been told many times is, in the Indian way, these are called your brothers and sisters because they help you in a sacred manner, they help you in your everyday life.

 

Within these two legged people, there are four sacred colours, and the colours are red, yellow, black and white. Each of these colours represents a people or a nation of red people. The yellow people, black people and the white people have been given to us in this creation of life.

 

The two legged people are the weakest of all creation. Each one of these need the other four brothers and sisters to help them live in everyday life. The Elders have told many of the young people that I deal with that the rest of the four brothers and sisters are so powerful that they sacrifice their lives to the two legged people many times so they can feed themselves, and grow strong in a sacred manner. First of their most humble brothers and sisters is the four legged – the deer, elk, moose, mountain goat, beaver. All the four legged animals that walk upon this earth give themselves up for the two legged people. They allow their bodies to be taken, to be killed so they may be eaten. The flesh used to give us strength. In the old days of clothing, the furs that had been given by the four legged people were used for clothing. That’s how much they loved us, and that’s how much they sacrificed themselves for us in order for us to live.

 

The second of the four brothers and sisters is the fin ones, they also sacrificed their lives for the two legged people. Salmon, oolichans, the shelled ones that live in the ocean – clams, oysters, abalone, seal, whale, many of these, also, they sacrificed their lives for the two legged people in order for them to be strong. They humbled themselves so much as to give up their lives for the rest of their brothers and sisters to live.

 

Third of these brothers and sisters in the Feathered People, the people of the sky. The eagles, ravens, hawks, owls, many other birds that fly in the sky; ducks, geese, many of these also give up their lives in different ways for us to live. Many of them feed us with their own bodies, many of them give up their own bodies so we can use their feathers in sacred ways to help our people, when we pray in the Indian way, like the eagle, hawk and the owl. Many of these have done that because we, the two-leggeds, are the weakest. They sacrifice their lives for us in a sacred manner.

 

Last of the brothers and sisters are the Plant People, the ones that set their feet deep into the earth to live. They spread their arms out close to the sky in thanks given for the life that has been given to them, the branches and leaves, they thank the grand father, the Creator, for the life that has been given to them. They also humble themselves so much as to allow their bodies to be used, to help the two legged people. The trees, if it wasn’t for the trees, we would not have paper, we would not have warmth when we set the wood on fire. The plants that live into the earth like the potatoes, corn and many of the other plants that we can eat, they sacrifice their lives for us.

 

We need all of these things, we need all of these human beings, to live in a sacred manner, to live in a harmonious manner. At the same time these four people need the weakest – the two legged people – to live. Because of the greed and jealousy, the hunger, and the plain stupidity of the two legged people many of our brothers and sisters are dying away. This one old man told me one time that it’s the two legged people that are going to have to stop themselves, from the destruction of the rest of our brothers and sisters.

 

There are many other things that have been given to us to live in this creation of life. The earth has been given to us to live on, the air that we breathe, the water that we drink and cook with has been given to us to live with, the moon and the sun also have many ways of helping the creation to live.

 

The earth, in the Indian way, we call it our Mother, mainly because she sacrificed her body for her to give us life, all the rest of the creation needs air to live with. The air, we call it our grandfather, sky world and star nation.

 

The water we need to cleanse ourselves, purify ourselves. It’s used in many ways to help our people, used for many things to grow, the plants and all that. The fin ones live in the water.

 

The moon is our grandmother, she’s the one that controls the waters of this earth. At the fullest of our grandmother moon that’s when the highest tides come. It also controls the water of our bodies, that’s why in the full moon, we get active. We want to move fast all the time, She also gives us light during the night time. She gives protection during the nighttime. That’s our grandmother, the moon.

 

The sun, is our grandfather, he’s the one that gave us fire. Also, he is the one who gives us warmth during the day time. With this warmth there are many other things he’s given to the children of Mother Earth. He gives us strength for the plants to grow, gives warmth for the rest of the Creation to grow. Gives them protection with all his blanket of warmth. Also gives us the power to see, with his powerful light that comes down upon us.

 

All of these things here bind together in a circle. Each one of these elements of life that has been given to us needs each other to live, to live in harmony. That’s why in the Indian way, everything that we talk about on earth, on our mother the Earth, is our relation and we must try to teach and to help our children understand that everything that lives on this earth, our mother the earth, is our Brother and Sister. One of the things that have been given to us, passed on from generation to generation, taught to us by grandparents, 2nd great grandparents, is respect. Respect of our own selves, our own bodies, our own minds, our own heart, our own spirit, and most of all respect for the rest of our relations on this earth has been taught to us and we must carry it on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE WATER                                               THE LAND

 

“Land is the basis of our culture. Our spirituality comes from the land. We have to return our strong value of respecting the earth and the gift of the land we still have in our care. That is where our songs come from, where our culture comes from, where our ancestors have returned to.”

Phillip Paul, Tsartlip Band

 

“To speak some of my mind. We are the original people. We were given this land to live on in our traditional way.”

Madeline Davis, Elder from East Moberly Band

 

“‘The land is our culture and it is our only future.’ Before the coming of the Europeans, we lived as one with the land and waters. We have our own systems of government, our own way of educating our children, our own way of managing the land and its resources for the benefit of all. In short we had sovereignty over our own lives and means to live. These are our aboriginal rights. We have never given up, through agreement or legislation, our aboriginal rights to control our own lives and means to live.”

George Manuel, Neskainlith Band

 

 

 

THE FISH

 

“Indians and fish are inseparable. This has been quite so throughout the history. Traditionally, the fisheries resources formed the economic base of the Indians throughout the entire West Coast.”

Godfrey Kelly, Skidegate Band

 

“Historically, all facets of community life among the Coast Salish including patterns of work, religious rituals, community ceremonies, leisure activities, and the arts originated in the communities’ usage and relationship to the sea.”

Gus Underwood, Tsawout Band

 

“Our fish is our survival, our culture is our survival… the white man has been trying to change our ways for the longest time. I don’t think there’s any way you would be able to change the old folks’ ways because it is the way they lived, all their lives. The old folks can’t live any other way. We young people can’t live any other way because we learned from our old folks. We learn how to cut fish, dry fish, can fish, they teach us how to make dresses, moccasins and vests. We learn these things from them and we are going to live like them.”

Gladys Joe, Mount Currie Band

 

“I need our fishing, it is a way of life, it’s not only food. Our people had ceremonies because they thought that it was so important, the fish to us were so important. It is not just something to eat, it is a way of life.”

Mary Louise Williams, Mt Currie Band

 

“As long as we native Indians have a heritage that we are proud of, as long as we have traditions that we are proud of, and as long as we have oru hereditary rights, especially fishing rights, we will protect everything we have and we will strongly protest and more impositions regarding these rights.”

Chief Saul terry, Bridge River Band

 

“For thousands of years, we have depended on the powers of the waters to provide food to Indian people along the river systems and the coastal areas. Abalone, clams, crabs, oysters, seaweed, kelp, whale, sea lion, sea urchins, cockles, mussels, sea-prunes and many species of fish have been very important to our Indian way of life throughout the centuries… History shows that we have never surrendered our lands and resources. Legally and morally, the lands, the salmon and the marine resources should be under Indian responsibility and control. Indian people consistently face extremely hard struggles in determining means and ways of protecting our fishing rights.”

Lillian Basil, Mowachaht band

 

“The value of money isn’t the same value as fish. Fish has been a part of my life all my life. I’ve always known I’ve had a right to fish. My grandfather taught me a lot. He brought me up to the mountains and down to the river. He taught me what rights we had and he told me this is ours. Whenever he felt like going down to the river he said there was no restrictions. There is a lot of people that really depend on fish. The closures by Fisheries really affect the people. They always felt it was a guaranteed reserve right to fish any day of the week. It was passed down by my grandparents. It’s our reserve right. I was told by my grandfather, ‘this is your land and your fish. Don’t let anyone take it away.'”

Bradley Bob, Fountain Band

 

“Fish is one of our basic food, without that food I do not think we would be a people much longer….”

Gordon Antoine, Coldwater Band

 

“As for the fish, it’s used very extensively in our religious ceremonies. The Coast Salish people and the Lillooet had potlatches and the fish was one of the main foods in their religious ceremonies and that’s still being done today. We still hold our potlatches so, if this fish is taken away from us, part of our religion is being taken away.”

Frank Rivers, Squamish Band

 

“We as Indian people do not have to decide on or go over the concept of Aboriginal Rights any longer. We know what our fishing rights are.”

Steven Point, Skulkayn Band

 

“DDT was sprayed into our waters and what resulted in ten years was scant salmon stocks, as well as the immediate death of thousands of salmon. With my own eyes, I saw miles and miles of young salmon dead on the beaches… fish has become endangered to the extent that the Nimpkish people have had to give up their food fishery just to sustain an adequate spawning escapement. Every legislation the government has put in place with the idea of helping us has been a detriment. They are failing because every one of these programs has been designed without Indian input.”

Basil Ambers, Tunour Island Band

 

“The Fraser River is an artery of life and it is important to maintain those arteries of life, not only for Indian people, but for all citizens of the country.”

Saul Terry, Bridge River Band

 

“I want to declare here that Indian people are the owners and have jurisdiction over marine resources in the West Coast and hence claim our rights to manage, control and protect these and other resources.”

George Manuel, Neskainlith Band

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE ANIMALS

 

“I pass judgement not on those who live under dictatorship and cannot speak, but to those who live in freedom and fail to do so. The natives of Moberly Lake have lived off the land all their lives. This may include trapping, hunting, fishing and snaring rabbits. The land has treated us good, it is a simple way of life. We measure our weakness only in order to know our strength, and our strength lies within the land. So in order to maintain our strength we would look at some sort of plan to preserve the diversity of species and ensure the wildlife is available to meet the economic needs of the Indian people. What we really believe is a land which we have lived off in the past and will continue to live off in the future.”

Buddy Napoleon, East Moberly Band

 

“You people are going to destroy our fishing, hunting, and trapping. When you do this, you are destroying our way of life. In other words, you are trying to make our native person to live like the white man. This is very impossible to do because the native people was the first to be in this country. We lived off the land.”

Charlie Peat, Lower Post

(To Northern Pipeline Agency)

 

“The only source of living is in the land, for these people. It was a long time ago they used to use pack horses, dog packs and in the winter, they either backpacked or used dog teams to bring in the food such as moose, caribou, goats, where ever they killed a game.”

Annie Boya, Lower Post

 

“As long as there is the sun that goes over we shall never stop hunting in this country and where ever we like to do so, as long as the sun is still there.”

Thomas Hunter, Halfway Band

 

“Our people have always depended on the land for our livelihood; the men were always great hunters and they still are. Presently, we are an oppressed nation, we are the aboriginal people of this country and we have never participated in any decision making in any form. We want to gain control of our lives, we want to have pride in ourselves, we want to have our religion back and all the values.

Terry Brown, Lower Post

 

“Maybe you can give us a few bucks, but that isn’t going to support us for the rest of our lives like the traplines. If the pipeline is going to be put through our traplines, why don’t they set a piece of land where nothing is going to affect us. We want a big piece of hunting area where no one else can get in except us.”

Clarence Apsassin, Blueberry Band

 

 

 

 

 

THE PLANTS

 

“The land gives us vegetables that we grow, the berries that we preserve, the water that we drink. I was taught to save this land and I respect it for that reason.”

Chief John Dokkie, West Moberly Band

 

“We had nothing but wildlife, planted our own gardens, had our own everything. Them were the days when there was lots of land, we raised things in the proper way without interfering with the others.”

Dolly Felix, Cooks Ferry Band

 

“The importance that I see in family gardening is that we give our children responsibility. That is our living and it teaches us and exercises our minds for the future. We are not living just from day to day. We should all be aware too that we are one day going to have to grow our own vegetable garden.”

Gabe Bartleman, Elder of Tsartlip Band

 

“My grandmother used to make the racks outside, anywhere around the field. And she squashes the Saskatoon berries with something and she just spread them on top of a mat made out of something inside the maple bark. She spreads it the thickness she wants. I guess after two or three days, she turns it over and it’s dry right through. You can just break a piece off and just eat it. It’s lovely. When we kids got hungry they would break a piece for us and we would go and play. She would go up in the mountain and you do the same with huckleberries.”

Leah Hope, Elder of Seabird Island

 

“Our agricultural technology and our distribution system of food amongst Indian families is part of our traditional cultural values that kept our Indian Government self-reliant and strong for many centuries. No people have been entirely free of scourge, or famine, but Indian societies were free of protein deficiency in the normal cycle of the generations. The Indian nations have given more to the world of technology than they have received from it. The Indian community of man.”

George Manuel, Neskainlith Band

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE LAWS OF OUR LIFE

 

 

AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN RELIGION

 

“Our maker put us on this island and we must thank hi everyday no matter how hard your work will be, it will help. My ancestors never surrendered this island we call North America. It still belongs to us no matter how many Government there is. You must get together with one mind and one spirit, one word. Together, ask your maker, ask his servants to make you strong, to give you knowledge to teach you how to go about making things good for your children’s children.”

Mary Ann Michael, St. Mary’s Band

 

“Many religious rites were established and performed through the centuries with the first return of the sockeye salmon in the Fraser River, and in the Skeena and other large rivers along the B.C. Coast. All designed in appreciation to nature’s bounteous goodness.

The same can be said also to the annual return of the huge herring schools, from which were harvested the herring roe and kelp, the traditional food of the Indian people in earlier times and the present period.

Besides this, the return of the Oolichan fish also marked occasions for huge, colourful festivities, in which the Indian people performed the specific rites for the incoming first runs of the salmon.

The sea, rivers and lakes were like their larders. They harvested their needs as required, and they preserved for future needs, the surplus of their requirements. They developed a very close spiritual relationship to all these resources, and to the total environment, and there were also taboos established by the younger generations with each successive generation, to safeguard the continuity of these resources of salmon.”

Godfrey Kelly, Skidegate Band

 

“We have seen the desecration of Indian burial grounds in other areas in the past, and we certainly aren’t going to give permission for further desecration in our own area. The Elders too said the Burial Grounds must be protected at all costs in order to abide by the laws of Nuxalk Nation.”

Edward Moody, Bella Coola Band

 

“The second you think about burning, it has to be done. You go to see Louis Charlis and he tells you about the type of food to be burnt, he knows what to look for, he counsels us on how to clear our minds so we can do the burning. It’s part of our responsibility to the dead to recognize these things. If we don’t do it, it may cause more problems.”

Chief Tommy Sampson, Tsartlip Band

 

“Who used burning to help himself after losing two children, and he said that no psychiatrist could ever have done the job as well. There is a lot of satisfaction, spiritually and emotionally, if we didn’t have those things that are Indian, like burning, what else would we look to. I could never go to a psychiatrist. If they took that away from me I would be finished as an Indian.”

Sammy Sam, Tsartlip Band

 

“My great-grandfather wanted food and I couldn’t get over it. That is the way Indians used to live. I had to go look for it because it was bothering me. Louie Charlie, Religious Leader of his people, he explained if there are problems in a family, burning can be used to help them. It is called upon when spirits of the dead come to the family. The work is very sacred.”

Elizabeth Jack, Tsartlip Band

 

“We haven’t changed anyone else’s religions and we won’t let them change ours.”

Chief Tom Sampson, Tsartlip Band

 

“Since the dawn of our history, Spotted Lake or “Klilok,” as we call it, has been a medicine lake. Indians from all tribes came to visit the lake for the medicine that the lake contained. The ceremonial cairns and tombs that surround the lake testify to that. Some of these are so ancient that they have sunk underground and only the tops are above ground. Some are buried altogether. There are many stories told by our ancestors about the cures this lake has provided, physically and spiritually, through its medicinal powers. Its medicine powers are not to be taken lightly. This lake is a Chief among lakes. Its powers are above the purely physical.”

Jeanette Bonneau, Okanagan Tribal Council

 

 

THE CEREMONY

In the chapel

I sat cross-legged

Forming a part

Of the circle of people

 

We were told before we sat

That prayers might be answered

Some soon

Others not.

That there might be

A test first.

 

He began

By taking from a can

Some fungus to burn.

It smouldered as he waved it

Over his red-blanket,

That held all his things.

 

Each piece he purified:

A charm first with smoke,

He did the same

To his white eagle-feather.

He waved his hand about his pouch.

And then into an abalone shell

To smolder its life away.

 

From his pouch

He took a stem and bowl;

All the while mumbling softly

As his helper drummed rapidly

With head bowed.

 

With pipe together

And filled with tobacco and bark

He tamped it with a quill.

There was quiet in the room.

We made no sounds

As he quickly pointed

To the six directions:

To the west: north: east and: south:

To the earth, and: to the sky.

 

The drum stopped.

And he spoke,

“Creator.

Thank you for my heart,”

And I cried inside.

 

            Isaac Frank, United Native Club

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN EDUCATION

 

“Long ago our people never had anything called school, each day itself was a page, each event was a lesson. Each day of one’s life revealed a story, each day was a part of the learning process of life. The things our people learned were in relation to living in harmony with our mother, the earth. Our history lessons were in the form of stories in our language. Our grandparents were our teachers and our guides in our years of growing.”

Lillian Gottfriedson, Similkameen Band

 

“Education encompasses everything that goes on everyday. My philosophy said the world around me is our school. I think the important part of education for anybody is learning about your cultural identity. I consider myself very lucky. I have very strong grandparents, if I ever strayed away from my culture, my grandparents would set me on the right track.”

Anfinn Siwallace, Bella Coola Band

 

“If there should ever be a breakdown of the system, our people need our traditional lifestyle in order to survive. Our grandfathers knew we would need both ways in order to live and their prayer must have been for us to find a way of merging these two ways of life. Let us bring our minds together as our grandfathers before us and act now to ensure the continuation of our future generations.”

George Abbott, Lytton Band

 

“When potlatching was outlawed, this was when we lost control of teaching the children proper behaviour in the Indian way of life. We were told if we didn’t move from our original home to a place with a school, we wouldn’t get better. We did and look what it has done for us – NOTHING.”

Jack Peters, Elder of Ohiaht Band

 

“Indian Education to me is that you learn your own language and your own culture, plus learning about the future. It means a lot to be so I can learn my own language and background.”

Student, Grade 11

 

“We know that you want to learn to talk in your language. It is not your fault that you can’t talk. For each of you young people, don’t blame yourself, don’t think you are not an Indian. You were born an Indian and you will always be an Indian. These are our children, our children are Indians, they will learn our values so that they will continue the teachings of our people even after we are gone.”

Abel Joe, Cowichan Band

 

“For those who want this identity, they deserve to be made aware of their history and culture so they may be proud of their place. Our children and grandchildren have the right to learn the skills to survive in their respective communities or outside their communities if they choose. Without education and skills suited to their potential, they could end up with no choice. Indian Education is very much a part of our lives. We want what is best for our children and we believe that learning their own culture is very much a necessity.”

Annie Jimmie, Lower Kootenay Band

 

“Indian Education is to teach the younger ones the Indian culture and the Indian ways of life and to teach them to hunt the deer and the other animals.”

Student, Grade 9

 

“When we send our children to school, we cannot expect them to learn the ways of our Indian people. Where is the wisdom of Indian people in schools? It isn’t there.”

Jeanette Bonneau, Penticton Band

 

“Mount Currie is getting control of their own school. This was done through the strength of a group of parents in Mount Currie who looked at what was happening to their children and said – that is enough. We’ll find our own way. Since 1972, when the School Board of Mount Currie had an alternate set of 21 students, the school has grown to house some 220 students, from nursery to the year 12. The school has graduated some 55 Indian students from the year 12 in the past 5 years. Those graduates from Mount Currie seem to have confidence in their Indianness, and have a measure of personal self-worth and integrity that the public and residential school system did not foster.”

Mount Currie Band School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All that I have been I am.

 

AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN CULTURE

 

“There were fried cockles, deer meat stew, seaweed, herring roe, salmon and many other delicacies. Real Food. After the eating, there was the artwork and crafts to admire and maybe to buy – argillite carvings from the Queen Charlotte Islands, silver and gold, beaded chain jewelry, crocheted and knitted blankets, clothes and oil paintings. The talent and skill filled the hall. And then the dancing. A new dance group from Port Simpson. The Kaien Island Dancers. Haida dance groups. Kitwancool dancers. Performers from Metlakatla, Alaska. The buttons on the capes flashed and made the Raven, Eagle and Killer-Whale come alive and dance. The small children danced with the young teenagers and young adults and middle-aged and elders. The children were everywhere dancing, sitting and among the crowds, playing outside. Everyone danced and sang and drummed and met old friends and new ones, too. I was home again.”

Val Dudoward, Port Simpson Band

 

“Bella Coola is a community well on the way to becoming one of the strongest, independent reserves. They are extremely fortunate to have their Elders who have been patiently waiting for the day that the children awaken and heed their predicament of nearly losing their culture. The Elders were patient for years waiting, and are exercising that same patience in working with the members of the community who are to learn dancing, singing and the language. The children in the nursery school dressed button blankets dancing, the young mask dancers, the young sisters. It was a moving experience.

…As I danced I was a whole new person, I wasn’t me, it wasn’t Dinah that was dancing; it was my grandmother. I was all the people that had no homes, dancing.”

Dinah Schooner, Bella Coola Band

 

“Five million dollars could not buy my culture.”

Mary Louise Williams, Mount Currie Band

 

“I do not need money to carry on my culture.”

Ray Harris, Chemainus Band

 

“My tears flow like a river when I see the artifacts returned from the government, I wonder what the Elders would say, I know they would have rejoiced.”

Mrs. Cranmer, Elder from Nimpkish Band

 

“We shall not deny we came here to do the ritual of our forefathers.”

Tommy Hunt, Kwawkewlth Band

 

“It is okay to be an Indian person and there are so many beautiful things I can give to my people in the community. The legends and stories are very powerful things that our ancestors used a long time before the whiteman came. They are simple and basic in our culture.”

Glen Williams, Mount Currie Band

 

“Many of our elders have recorded our history and the very young listened. Songs and dances are taught and the regalia has been taken out of storage. Our young people are seeking knowledge and now many are taking part in the feasts. In Gitanmaax we are rebuilding our culture. It is a slow and painful journey.”

Jane Mowatt, Gitanmaax Band

 

“On March 8 and 9, 1980, the Seton lake Nation Singers hosted the gathering in Shalalth. The reason for the gathering was to try and interest more people in the revival of the old days.”

Garry John, Seton Lake Band

 

“Band Chief Bill Roberts spoke and commented on the dances saying each dance has a story originating from past beliefs of tribes in the area. The Cannibal Bird Dance in which the great mask’s beak came to life with its loud clapping was one of the dances featured.

What caught my eye was the involvement of the children in the ceremonies as they danced proudly around the gymnasium floor.”

Darryl Watts, Kincolith Band

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN COMMUNICATIONS

 

“The Elders pass down through the generations our legends and history. A storyteller had to be tolerant, sensitive, respective, gentle and emotional and self-disciplined to listen even when a subject may seem boring. Stories are like documentaries and humourous just like in real life and a story teller always remembers to balance bad with good.”

Dinah Schooner, Bella Coola Band

 

“The base for our form of writing comes from the tradition of the storyteller. The development of our own communications systems expresses the needs and dreams of our Indian people. The people’s right to know and the people’s right to express these two principles we rest our work.”

Dinah Schooner, Bella Coola Band

 

 

 

AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN HEALTH

 

“Our level of health is related to all aspects of our lives. It is the right of Indian people to retain our cultural identity and shape our future according to our aspirations and our own values.”

Bobby Joseph,

Quoted from Jack Beaver’s Report.

 

“Spotted Lake was made by the Creator and is very sacred. The White society did not bring this Lake from Europe and place it in Osoyoos. We are not going to carry the Lake from its natural state. What is more important here, money or a person’s health. What we are concerned about is the person’s health.”

Larry Pierre Senior, Elder from Penticton Band

 

“Why is it always them that has to control us? We have to have control of our own health. The rebuilding of fish is imperative to the health of our people. Any interference with the rebuilding of our food and economic base is a direct threat to Indian health.”

Basil Ambers, Turnour Island Band

 

“Elders made their presentation during the Alert Bay Health Inquiry. They spoke of herb medicine they used to gather and use to cure many diseases and ailment prior to using modern medicine. They said they wanted to go out again to gather herbs to teach the young people its value.”

Angela Matilpi, Alert Bay Band

 

“Indian medicine is… you have to go in the bush to get the medicine. Sometimes you have to walk for hours before you find this medicine.

The thing is to go out to get this medicine and try and fix it yourself, this is our drawback. We depend on other people to make it. Try and make it yourself, because it’s not that hard.”

Louise Dudoward, Port Simpson

 

“I feel the Elders could be used more, with their knowledge of the different types of medicine. I use the Elders an awful lot. I think, for the most part, that CHR’s (Community Health Representatives – federally funded programming) do speak with their Elders. Like whenever I can, I will use Indian medicine, the little I know. The amount depends on building up the trust of the Elders and this is up to each of us. It takes time.”

Diane Brown, Skidegate Band

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN LAND USE MANAGEMENT

 

“In the early nineteen hundreds was the building of the Grand Coulee Dam. They built that thing when a part of our Indian peoples’ livelihood was provided by salmon. When they built this they never consulted with us in regards to what compensation would be given our people or what would replace it. They made the decision and once the dam was built, there was no more salmon.”

Xavier Eugene, Shuswap Band

 

“The Nazko Band’s concern regarding the oil and gas exploration since the beginning of oil exploration which represents further erosion of the Indian rights. The issuance of licenses for adjacent areas to reserve land means development activity and the possibility of removal of resources prior to settlement of aboriginal rights in the areas around Williams Lake.”

Dennis Patrick, Nazko Band

 

“We come before you today to tell you that if construction begins on the Alcan pipeline in the province of British Columbia, the lives of many Indian people in the province of British Columbia will be hurt, Indian culture and Indian way of life will be fractured in many areas, and the Indian people of British Columbia will not let this happen.”

Ray Hance, Toosey Band

To House of Commons Committee

 

“We are not militant opposers to everything that happens, but we have outstanding concerns that relate to our livelihood. Take a drink of Fraser River water from the Vancouver areas, if you want to know if it is polluted or not. There used to be so many salmon in the river, that a rock thrown in the river would lay on their backs and it would not sink – they were so thick. Pollution is the greatest agent destroying our natural resources.”

George Manuel, Neskainlith Band

 

“Our sea foods which we rely on most year round will be contaminated also all shell fish. An oil spill will possibly affect the salmon, ling cod, and other bottom fish in and around our areas. It will most certainly kill off water fowl which my people also depend on. I know accidents will happen. There is no guarantee that it won’t but then those accidents that could ruin my people’s way of living which we are so accustomed to, you could say with us Indians of this country it is the only way we can survive, we don’t make a great deal of money at our employment so depend a lot on our seafoods. And who knows if we had a bad oil spill it may affect our place of employment.”

Bert Charles, Cheanuh Band

 

“The Island is divided into two parts and we have very strong winds and tides, if there ever is an oil spill up there it will affect both sides of the Island. We depend a lot upon the herring and sea weed and all the salmon, and all different kinds of shell fish. Massett has a Cannery and if anything should happen and the cannery had to close down we would have no employment and we will have nothing to live on. There are also canneries at Port Simpson North of Prince Rupert and one at Bella Bella and we all depend on resources from the sea.”

Caroline Wesley, Skidegate Band,

Queen Charlotte Islands

 

“We don’t think the pipeline should go across the river because it might break open, and leak and pollute the water for drinking and fishing.”

Terry Elaine Carlick, Lower Post Band, Age 15

 

“When kids go swimming they get sores, sometimes the water’s polluted and kids don’t like that. The pollution has been around here for a long time. The sawdust gets in our eyes. Kids get infection in their eyes because of the sawdust. I don’t like what’s going on because of the pulp mill pollution.”

Connie Mark and Evelyn Savey, Mowachaht Band, Ages 11 and 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

 

“Life was good and strong – our people had pride in the values of our civilization. It was possible for a man to live with his family and relatives because wealth belonged to a family as a whole. Every member of the family had the right to use family property. This is how we lived as a nation of people – this is how we want to live. This is what we mean when we talk about having our own Indian Government.”

George Manuel, President, UBCIC

 

“I like the business of farming, I think a lot of people could if they just recognize the economics of it. I like to see the crop grow from there to there, I like to see a crop harvested, it’s kind of nice to watch a calf grow to a large animal. I don’t know if I had any real expectations when I went into the field of agriculture, but I felt it was something I wanted to do. It’s important that Bands must have something to offer young people after they complete their training in whatever field.”

Chester Douglas, Cheam Band

 

“Sim-Valli Enterprises was formed with the intent of helping members of the Okanagan Nation gain self-reliance in education, health and other fields. It is not formed to make an individual or group rich in terms of finances, but to become rich in a better understanding off their world, their lives and to help them plan for future generations.”

Sim-Valli Enterprises, Keremeos

 

 

“Leadership in the Agricultural Economic Sector must be developed. The agricultural potential of reserves must be protected to ensure the interests of the community are protected.”

Bob Pasco, Oregon Jack Band

 

“We depend on fur-bearing animals. Even when a person can’t find work, he goes into the bush for a certain length of time and makes his living on trapping. Trapping helps keep us off welfare during the off-seasons when there is no other work. In the summertime, our people find jobs – they go guiding, they go to work – life is a lot better in the summer time after spring break-up. Some of the women go trapping, and all of the women go berry-picking in the summer. They make a living selling moccasins, mukluks and moosehide jackets.”

Amy Gauthier, East Moberly Band

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN LAW

 

“Whenever marriages, taking a name, a death or a new Chief was recognized, there were potlatches held. The person giving the potlatch prepared and readied everything himself. A lot of work was done by himself and his immediate family. The potlatch was in itself a form of social order because it had very strict rules to be adhered to.

Equal rights of all the people were guarded. Hunting grounds, root digging grounds and root digging parties were all handled the same way. Whenever things for all the people were to be discussed all the head men of family groups or clans met to talk over matters of importance. Only when each head man had spoken and agreement was reached were the meetings closed. All the people of the village recognized and listened to their clan Chiefs of family heads.”

Mary Louise Williams, Mount Currie Band

 

“I was raised between two societies. Raised by two Grandmothers. My Indian Grandmother spoke no English, lived on a Reservation in the United States all of her life and clung to her ancestors’ ways. She taught me pride in my native blood, respect for my people and their culture and how to survive using all the old ones’ skills. She never forgave my mother for weakening her bloodline and never spoke to her after my birth. Her repeated advice to me was, “Marry your own kind, live the way of your ancestors.”

My white Grandmother had never met a Native person before my father married my mother. She was a good mother because it was the “Christian” thing to do. She took me to her church and Bible school, taught me the importance of a formal education and all the skills to be a good “white wife and mother.” She never would admit I was part Indian. Her advice to me was, “Marry your own kind, live as the white people live.”

Who then were my people? I look like my white father and act and feel like my Native mother.

I left my Grandmothers and went out into the world. I graduated from high school and college, served time in the Army and still did not find the answer, “Who then are my people?”

I had a good job, a nice apartment and friends of every race. One evening at a large dinner party, as I sat in a room full of good friends, I suddenly realized how very lonely I was and that I had been lonely for a very long time. I left the dinner party, went home and took a good long look at myself in the mirror. I looked like any well groomed, young white woman. I combed out the beauty shop curls, washed off the well applied make-up and took off the expensive cocktail dress. Now dressed in levis, old moccasins and shirt, with my hair in the braids of my youth, some of my mother showed through. I got in my car and drove out into Mojave. I stayed there three days, doing all the things my mother’s mother had taught me in my youth, to purify my mind and body in the ways of the old ones. Then I returned to my people.

I have been alone many times, since that evening fifteen years ago, but I have never again been lonely. In this present day when so many of us have so many different bloods flowing in our veins I say to others who live in lonely confusion in their minds, return to your people wholeheartedly, the call of your ancestors is strong. Follow it faithfully and you will find peace.

To others I remind you that to weaken that bloodline is to bring sorrow, confusion and loneliness to your children.

To be a half breed is to live in two worlds, belonging to neither, accepted by neither. It takes a strong commitment to choose one way of life and follow that path no matter where it leads.

For fifteen years I have lived with and for my people. I’ve been taken off to jail at Franks Landing, shot at while bringing supplies into Wounded Knee and again I ask, “What does make a person an Indian? Is it a certain amount of blood, a belief or an acceptance by other Indians?”

Shannon Point, Chehalis Band

 

 

 

AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN GOVERNMENT

 

“…. the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs has decided to recover some of its political authority through a process of Indian Government. Self determination has to be our goal in our quest to recover the lands, energy, resources and political authority that it has entrusted to the White political institution. We are saying for the past 100 years we gave you, the White government, the responsibility to manage our lands, energy, resources and our political authority. You have mismanaged that trust and responsibility. Now we are taking it back into our hands and we will manage our own resources through our Indian political institutions. This is better known by both Indians and White people as Land Claims or Aboriginal Rights.”

George Manuel, President, UBCIC

 

“I think the discussion around Indian Government, what it really means, has got a lot of people acting on preserving their culture and doing something about the language, seeing the land again the way it was meant to be, how important the land is for the continuation of our culture.”

Phillip Paul, Tsartlip Band

 

“Striving for this Indian Government, this Indian way of life… one thing was brought quite clear to mind… that it is not solely the leaders that will make this possible. It was stressed quite often that each individual at the reservation level, the community level, each one has a contribution and encourage participation by all in this pursuit. So the gap, I think, is closing in that time lapse from the Indian way back and the Indian now. The youth are going to the elders and finding the ways and means of establishing Indian Government.”

Chief Victor Adolph, Fountain Band

 

“The discipline and the laws that go on are the things that we are looking at… Indian Government doesn’t just come about by good words… I apply those principles as really tough. When we’re talking about Indian Governments we have to recognize what they were initially. I think this building of Indian strength can happen…”

Phillip Paul, Tsartlip Band

 

“When we’re talking about Indian Government we’re talking about Indian power. With this power we could control our own affairs, develop our resources, give us the independence we want. With the authority of Indian Government we can educate our children that would guarantee that they learn our language, history and culture. We have to emphasize very strongly our Indianness. We must bring back the proper place of our Elders.

Bring back our Indian music, art, poetry. Our language is very important. What we mainly want is the power to run our own lives without the control by the governments of Canada with the system of Indian Governments.”

Chief Bob Manuel, Neskainlith Band

 

“When we talk about Band management, we have to look at it in terms of Indian Government.”

Chief Wayne Christian, Spallumcheen Band

 

Establishing Band by-laws:

– The St. Mary’s Band passed a by-law to deal with the trespassing of railway operations   on the reserve.

– The Lytton band has passed a by-law to regulate the use of recreation and off-highway   vehicles on reserve land.

– The Cape Mudge Band has a by-law to allow taxing on the reserve.

– The Gitlakdamix Band has made a by-law to control licensing of and protection from     domesticated animals on its land.

– The Songhees Band has a by-law to govern mobile home parks or sub-divisions on its      land.

– The Mowachaht Band passed a pollution by-law to protect the health of its residents.      The by-law regulates pollution levels allowable by the Tahis Company, situated             near the reserve. It also regulates noise levels, disposal of waste by residents,   leasers and industries other than the Tahsis Company.

– The Squamish Band has a by-law to provide for the preservation, protection and management of fish on its reserve. The Nicolas, Bella Coola and Lillooet Bands           have passed similar by-laws.

 

Darrell Ned, Sumas Band

 

“We must control our lives and our destinies as people to our own system of Indian government. It is within this system of government that we must evolve an economic plan for decent standard of living for our people. Indian government will provide the system to allow Indian people to govern ourselves and is an expanded reserve system containing sufficient resources to meet the essential needs of our people. We will make our own laws under Indian Government, we will look after our own forests, our rivers. We will determine the conservation practices for wildlife and timber policies for our forests. We will plan the development of our community buildings and services. Because of our commitment to the land, we are the only people who can maintain and develop our resources for future generations.

Aboriginal Rights settlement would include a recognition of our Indian governments as a fourth level of government within Canada, within confederation. Indian Government. What it involves will be entirely different from anything that now exists. As we grow and develop this new kind of political autonomy, we will develop the structure of our government to meet our needs as Indian people.”

Chief Bob Manuel, Neskainlith Band

 

“We are the politics. We are the people. That’s why we are here.”

Pat John, Hope Band

 

“I’m very concerned that our province doesn’t recognize Aboriginal Rights. We want special fishing rights in our area. We want to process fish, sell fish. We want to export and market our products. We want to restrict sports fishing. We want to control pollution and regulations.”

(In the original, “we want to process fish, shell fish.”)

Chief Bill Roberts, Campbell River Band

 

“The Okanagan, South Central, Kootenay and Lillooet Tribal Councils have made the first attempt as Tribal Councils to really implement the concepts of Indian self-determination and self-government that we talk about. The study is an attempt to deal with the wide range of issues which relate to Indian Government. The Central Interior Tribal Councils are saying that we can do as good a job as, if not better than, the Department of Indian Affairs, in providing services to people for which Parliament approves monies.”

Saul Terry, Bridge River Band &

Vice-President of the Central Interior Tribal Councils

 

“The Aboriginal Rights Position Paper, adopted by the Eleventh General Assembly by all the member Bands of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, provides a base for the development and implementation of the policies and laws to regulate the Bands’ chosen responsibilities, so that they can truly function as governments, Indian Governments.”

Archie Pootlass, Bella Coola Band

Vice-President of the North Coast Regional District

 

“Indian Government is not a new idea or concept. It was the strength of Indian Government prior to contact that helped us survive for thousands of years. It was the gradual destruction of Indian Government through the colonial approach of divide and rule which weakened our Indian Governments. Today we are just now waking up to the realization that we never gave up our right to govern ourselves.”

Phillip Paul, Tsartlip Band

Vice President of the Southwest Regional Disctrict

 

“What we are talking about is making the Canadian Government responsible for guaranteeing our rights and to provide the same resources to Indians as they do to other governments.”

George Manuel, Naskainlith Band

President of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

 

PRESIDENT:                                     George Manuel, Neskainlith Band

 

VICE-PRESIDENTS:                        Philip Paul, Tsartlip Band

                                                Saul Terry, Bridge River Band

                                                Archie Pootlass, Bella Coola Band

                                                Dennis Patrick, Nazko Band

 

DISTRICT REPRESENTATI VES TO CHIEFS COUNCILS:

 

                                                Stanley Stump, Williams Lake District

                                                Frank Johnson, Bella Coola District

                                                Nicholas Prince, Lake District

                                                Victor Adolph, Lillooet/Lytton District

                                                Stan Napoleon, Fort St. John District

                                                John L. George, Fraser West District

                                                Bill Williams, Fraser East District

                                                William Roberts Sr., Kwawkewlth District

                                                Sam Baptiste, Okanagan Disttrict

                                                George Muldoe, Gitksan-Carrier District

                                                Tom Sampson, South Island District

                                                George Saddleman, Thompson/Nicola District

                                                Xavier Eugene, Kootenay District

 

 

UBCIC April, 1980

 

 

Transcriber’s note: The original document can be found at the UBCIC archive. The original transcription of quotes featured in “Our People Speak,” and the entire manuscript, was done by Rosalee Tizya. This transcription from the typed text was prepared by Kerry Coast, November 2009.

A Sitemap ToC

06 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by Kerry Coast in A Sitemap ToC

≈ Leave a comment

Archived Articles

– Consultation Standards in BC – or – The Trilogy of Despair   August 2009

– BC’s Got Time.   June 2010

– About the Airport    August 2008

BC treaty process

– BC Treaty Advocate Elected Chair of UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2012

Comprehensive Claims – Policy and Protest

– Comprehensive Claims – policy & protest

Government Commissions

Indian Claims Commission 1963 – Liberal election promise broken

– Confidential Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia, 1916

Gustafsen Lake Siege, 1995 (Ts’peten Defense, Secwepemc)

Gustafsen Lake 1995 standoff    Newspaper clippings and press releases 1995-2005

Indigenous Declarations

Nuxalk Nation Position 1995

Lil’wat BCR 1989: to dissolve imposed ‘Indian Act’ band council

Líl’wat Nation Declaration January 14, 1983

“ALL OUR RELATIONS” A DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN INDIGENOUS NATIONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Gitksan-Carrier (Wet’suwet’en) Declaration, 1977

Carrier Sekani Declaration, 1982

Cowichan Petition, 1909

Declaration of Secwepemc Sovereignty, 1983

Nishga Declaration 1980

Elders Position Okanagan Nation, 1981

– CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 1919

– British Columbia Indian Conference, Vancouver, 1916

– Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe, May 1911

– Memorial to Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior, 1911

– Memorial to Wilfred Laurier, 1910

– Declaration of the Tahltan Tribe, 1910 

– The Declaration of the Indian Chiefs in the Southern Interior of British Columbia, 1910

– Petition of the Chiefs of the Lower Fraser, 1874

Media: Letters and Articles

– Missionary to Editor of Victoria Standard (BC newspaper), 1874

On Reserve

– Chapter 5 of The Colonial Present: “On Reserve” 2013

Opinion

“Civil Courage Award” goes to would-be assassin of Sundancers – 2015

– The Power Has Too Much Media 2014

Reports

– Confidential Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia, 1916

The Colonial Present

– Bibliography 2013

UN Engagement

–  Lil’wat Roadblock 1990 -to- Lil’wat statement to UN 2015.

– UN report misses the mark on Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, Truth and Reconciliation Commission 2014

– UN Special Report on Indigenous Peoples in Canada 2014

Union of BC Indian Chiefs

George Manuel addressing the Union of BC Municipalities, 1977

“ALL OUR RELATIONS” A DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN INDIGENOUS NATIONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

– UBCIC Aboriginal Rights Position Paper, 1979

– A brief timeline of the life of: The Union of BC Indian Chiefs

BC Treaty Advocate Elected Chair of UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

06 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by Kerry Coast in BC treaty process

≈ 1 Comment

Grand Chief Edward John has spent the past 20 years in the BC treaty process, which produces extinguishment Agreements.

Originally posted to the Vancouver Media Co-op, June 10, 2012

The 11th Session of the top forum for Indigenous peoples in the world began with a lurch. The sixteen-member Forum elected, by acclamation, Grand Chief Edward John to be their Chair. The announcement was made during a preliminary meeting, May 6, 2012, at the start of a two week meeting in New York City. Hailing from Tl’azt’en (in northern BC), this Chief will be familiar to anyone who has followed the machinations of the BC treaty process over the last twenty years: John was the founding Chair of the First Nations Summit, an organization formed to “represent First Nations” involved with the BC Treaty Commission (BCTC).

Perhaps, in 1992, the election of a man affiliated with this Summit to Chair the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues – understood to be advancing the cause of self-determination, land rights, and everything else contained in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, would not be an obvious contradiction in terms. However, twenty years later, after the ratification of two extinguishment treaties in that process, this election must be a point of confusion.

When Nisga’a ratified an agreement with British Columbia and Canada in 2000, they released the Nisga’a claim to 100 per cent of their traditional territory in exchange for about 8 per cent of the land back, in Fee Simple Title and with BC holding the underlying title. No alarm bells were rung by Chief John. Every First Nation in BC was watching that process very closely, as they believed, rightly, that future negotiations in the BC treaty process would follow the Nisga’a template.

When, in 2007, Tsawwassen became the first Indigenous people to ratify a Final Agreement produced in the BC Treaty Commission, the text of that document stated:

Tsawwassen First Nation releases Canada, British Columbia and all other persons from all claims, demands, actions, or proceedings, of whatever kind, and whether known or unknown, that the Tsawwassen First Nation ever had, now has or may have in the future, relating to or arising from any act, or omission, before the effective date that may have affected or infringed any aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

This clause is also to be found in the Nisga’a Agreement. It is a surrender, rather than the basis of continuing nation-to-nation relations. Tsawwassen made these concessions for a settlement of less than 1 per cent of their traditional territory, held in Fee Simple. The total cash value of the deal was $33.6 million plus self-government funding of $2.9 million annually over the first five years of the treaty – according to government press releases.

Perhaps Chief John takes a leaf out of then-Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl’s book, who declared at the time, “Who am I to say if it’s a good deal or not?”

John is still the Chair of the First Nations Summit today.

Maa-nulth agreed to the same releases when it ratified a Final Agreement in this process later in 2007. Other identical provisions in all three Agreements include the release of Indian Status, including tax-free status; the “modification” (extinguishment) of their aboriginal rights to be only those rights exhaustively defined in the Agreements; the dissolution of the Indian Band; and the termination of Indian Reserve lands: “Fee Simple Lands are not ‘lands reserved for the Indians’ within the meaning of the Constitution Act, 1867, and are not ‘reserves’ as defined in the Indian Act.”

The role of the First Nations Summit in these “negotiations” is, in part, to give advice to the federal government for the allocation of treaty negotiating loans to First Nations for the purpose of developing and ratifying Final Agreements under the BC Treaty Commission. These negotiating allowances average a million dollars a year, and the 80 per cent which is a loan comes due the moment a First Nation leaves the process or begins implementation of their Final Agreement.

Staying at the table is an offer most First Nations cannot afford to refuse, especially for those who have been at it since 1993, but the only alternative is to ratify an Agreement and extinguish title. Treaty negotiating loans are not included in government audits of First Nations accounts – perhaps because such a loan would immediately place that community in third party remedial management.

Chief John has stayed with the process throughout and failed to take any meaningful action to indicate his disapproval of the situation, if he does indeed disapprove. He obviously hasn’t resigned in protest.

Self-determination, recently enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, goes out with ratification of these Agreements as well, replaced by what the governments, the Treaty Commission, and the First Nations Summit call “self-government” – powers which amount to little more than municipal business under the heavily qualified “Governance” chapters. The presence in each Final Agreement of identical chapters which circumscribe any exercise of self-determination betrays a theme, one which previous leaders dubbed “the BCTC Death Row.”

According to Chief Negotiator Robert Morales, Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group, in 2007, “there is one negotiation going on at 47 tables. These were to be government-to-government negotiations, but that’s not how it turned out.”

By 2006, the First Nations Unity Protocol Agreement included all but one of the treaty-going groups in the province, and had made clear the flaws in the process. Morales said, while Chair of the First Nations Summit Chief Negotiators’ table at the time, “The experience we’re having at the Tables and in meetings is that government comes to every table with the same language, with one approach, whether the Nation is small or large, urban or rural. We have realized that we can’t change those policies on our own, even at my table where 6,000 people are represented.”

Since Morales’ statements, letters, and FNUPA actions, which included blockading a Nanaimo ferry sailing with canoes, the HTG has been in abeyance from the negotiating table and entered a petition describing the exhaustion of domestic remedies within Canada to resolve the outstanding land title issue. That Petition was heard in Washington last year by the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and a result has not yet been announced.

At the Opening Ceremonies of the PFII 11th Session at UN Headquarters, Deputy Secretary–General of the United Nations Dr. Asha-Rose Migiro noted in her address, “…we don’t have to go far to see examples of Indigenous peoples facing discrimination, even extinguishment.”

As she spoke, Chief John was sitting in front of her.

On the second day of the meeting, an intervention by the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus delivered by Steven Newcomb claimed that “Negotiations such as in Canada under the Comprehensive Claims Policy… lead to the extinguishment of Indigenous peoples.”

The CCP is the basic platform of the BC negotiations, in direct contrast with the 19 Recommendations by the BC Task Force forming the terms of reference or guidelines for the process in 1992. Those guidelines attracted people to the process because they said, in sum, that the government would be open to all types of discussion and conclusions that would lead to real, workable treaties.

Several independent members of First Nations involved in the treaty process have taken their concerns to an urgent action committee of the United Nations’ Committee for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), in 2009. In reports on Canada’s human rights record regarding Indigenous peoples, the CERD has criticized the process, as in 2007, when they wrote:

While acknowledging the information that the “cede, release and surrender” approach to Aboriginal land titles has been abandoned by the State party (Canada) in favour of “modification” and “non-assertion” approaches, the Committee remains concerned about the lack of perceptible difference in results of these new approaches in comparison to the previous approach.

To date, only four Final Agreements have resulted from the negotiating process implemented by the BC Treaty Commission, one rejected in the community ratification vote, one awaiting federal approval, and two in implementation, but all of them leading to the extinguishment of title of the Indigenous nations concerned.

Aside from these, the negotiation process in BC remains stalled largely due to the evident desire of the governments to pursue policies of extinguishment of Indigenous sovereignty rights, and the equally evident desire of the BC Indigenous nations to resist this demand. But they cannot leave the process without triggering the maturation of the negotiating loan.

While Chief John and the Summit Executive exchange polite letters and press releases with Canadian government officials conducting studies on the BC treaty process, and welcoming “recommendations which outline how the federal government can accelerate treaty negotiations in BC” (First Nations Summit Press Release: May 4, 2012), the cost of remaining in the process grows – and the process remains one of municipalization of Indigenous nations which currently have the internationally recognized right to self-determination and demonstrable title to their territories.

Sliammon First Nation is about to go to a ratification vote this summer.

Jackie MukSamma Timothy, a Sliammon Hereditary Chief, wrote of the situation:

So called “Canada’s” ignorance of our existing and affirmed Title and Rights and the threat of limited financial support for non-participating Nations forced my people into entering the treaty process. And they keep us on the negotiation table, by threatening to demand all the negotiation funds back at once or to limit our financial support by the federal government accordingly. For my Nation it is impossible to pay the amount back or to forgo financial aid. Moreover, the longer the process takes the more power shifts to the benefit of so called “Canada” and “BC”, because in the end any agreement resulting in any kind of payment is better than none, given the fact that we have to pay the loans back. Loans that would not even be necessary without Canada’s wrong-doings and their ignorance of our existing Title and Rights.

The number of irregularities in the BC treaty process is staggering and climbing. It is not unusual for communities to fail to hold a vote annually in order to approve continued borrowing for negotiation funding, or to have votes against continuing the loans ignored, according to vocal Indigenous dissidents. Hereditary Chief Kakila, Tenas Lake, wrote in a letter to the BC Treaty Commission, 2007:

We are advised by the Honourable Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Jim Prentice that these twelve people (the IN-SHUCK-ch Treaty Society) have since 1993 borrowed $9,717,059.00 to engage in these negotiations. We remind that those are the debts of those people alone. In fact, on October 15, 1994, at a duly convened Samahquam General Assembly, for said purpose, the membership specifically voted, by majority, “no” to any proposed Loan Agreements emanating from the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

Most of the original nineteen recommendations of the British Columbia Task Force, which were agreed on by the three negotiating parties forming the BC treaty process, have long since been abandoned: for example, every Final Agreement produced has been taken to court by neighbouring nations for failure to resolve “overlap” claims. Most negotiations currently underway were initiated by a small minority of community members – over whom the rest of the people in the communities cannot regain control: court actions such asSpookw v.Gitxsan Treaty Society et al, 2011, and the recent blockade by members of the Gitxsan against the Gitxsan Treaty Society show how serious this flaw is. By insisting that the small, mostly isolated communities are “autonomous” in their dealings with the treaty process, the First Nations Summit has absolved itself of any responsibility for those First Nations which it claims to represent.

Both the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth Final Agreements were ratified in votes where “public relations crisis-management” firms were hired by the government to produce pro-treaty propaganda, and where treaty negotiating teams promoted only those prominent community members who endorsed the Final Agreement, and where immediate fiscal rewards for a “yes” vote were offered to community members.

Bertha Williams, a Tsawwassen Member, wrote in a letter to Rudolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, July 23, 2007:

I would like to reference some very key items that raise very serious question about the legitimacy of this vote. Under “Members Benefits” two cash incentives to voters are stated.“ In particular it states that “each elder over 60 will receive $15,000, shortly after ratification day” and “approximately $1,000 per member on Effective Date.” I feel that these cash incentive are a bribe to vote YES to the Final Agreement. These are the cash guarantees that are written right into the agreement and that are openly promoted, but I know that there are additional monies paid out just to get people to vote on this agreement. As already set out above, the vote will take place without meeting basic requirements for such a fundamental, constitutional vote.

People are not informed about the real content of the agreement they are voting on, but rather the provincial government is paying for the preparation of propaganda material that points to the few mainly cash incentives of the agreement, but fails to point out all the downfalls, such as the extinguishment of our Aboriginal Title to our territories, the loss of the tax exemption and the long-term loss of programs and services that will all result in the further impoverishment of our people.

Many feel that, as a lawyer whose organization gives advice on the allocation of negotiating loans, Chief John is and was aware of how the loan process itself would leave small and isolated communities trapped between descending into a deeper cycle of debt the longer they stuck to their negotiating claims – or acceding to the extinguishment terms offered by Canada, which can afford to wait the process out. That message has been clearly and repeatedly delivered to the Executive of the First Nations Summit by such groups as the First Nations Unity Protocol, as early as 2006.

But Chief John is considered respectable. Earlier this year he received a National Aboriginal Achievement Award, and he is on the Board of Cultural Survival, an international agency which claims to, “publicize Indigenous Peoples’ issues through our award-winning publications; mount letter-writing campaigns and other advocacy efforts to stop environmental destruction and abuses of Native Peoples’ rights; and we work on the ground in Indigenous communities, always at their invitation.”

Most of the Indigenous nations whose territories lie within the Canadian Province of British Columbia have no treaties with Canada. 

The recent appearance of Edward John on the Aboriginal People’s Television Network to state that he does not support extinguishment is not an adequate gesture, when read together with his continued involvement, as Chair of the First Nations Summit, in this well-documented extinguishment process.

The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues sends the world a mixed message in its choice of Chair, when considering its stated mandate. Perhaps the message will become very clear when the Permanent Forum reports its recommendations, which will be received by the UN Economic and Social Council to advise member states on Indigenous peoples’ rights the world over.

grand_chief_ed_john_center_chairing_the_11th_session_of_the_un_pfii_2012

UN report misses the mark on Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, Truth and Reconciliation Commission

04 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by Kerry Coast in UN Engagement

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Edward John, Indian Residential School, Indigenous participation, Indigenous Peoples, informed consent, reparation, UN Special Rapporteur, Wilton Littlechild

Published June 29, 2014, on Vancouver Media Co-op.

There was not “indigenous participation” in creating them.

In response to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples on the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, May, 2014

The first ever official visit of a UN observer on the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada reported briefly on “…the ongoing implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which was negotiated and agreed upon by former students, the churches that ran the schools, the Assembly of First Nations, other aboriginal organizations, and the Government of Canada.”

In the past four years, the Settlement Agreement has been meaningfully mischaracterized in United Nations forums on Indigenous Peoples. Extravagant statements by indigenous politicians produced in Canada have now found their way into this year’s extremely important report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Those statements have apparently curtailed adequate investigation by the international observer, and have certainly supplied misinformation.

Official UN documents produced by Grand Chief Edward John, Carrier, in his role as a member of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and presentations by Chief Wilton Littlechild, Ermineskin Cree, in his role as a member of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, threaten to lead history on a detour away from the mass grave of unremedied crimes which is the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, or IRSSA. Littlechild and John are themselves former students of Indian Residential Schools. John has been the Chair of the First Nations Summit, the aboriginal party to the BC Treaty Commission, for twenty years. Littlechild has been one of three Commissioners of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission since 2009.

It is time to review the facts of the 2006 Settlement between the churches who ran the Indian Residential Schools and victimized the Indigenous children, the government of Canada which paid for the schools and criminalized parents who tried to keep their children home and employed Royal Canadian Mounted Police to return runaway children to the schools, and the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations who signed it on behalf of former students without soliciting a mandate or their participation.

The circumstances surrounding the Assembly of First Nations’ decision to enter a negotiating process with the Canadian government deserves illumination. For instance, existing legal actions by individuals and groups of former students against Canada and the churches in 2005 were estimated at 100 years’ worth of trial. Victims of the schools who had won in court were being awarded damages approaching the million dollar mark. The judges in the existing cases, some 3,300 of them involving alleged serious abuse, gave judgment accepting the IRSSA contract in settlement of the actions, and stipulating in its Schedule n for the creation and the jurisdiction of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The indemnification objectives which were realized by Canada in the Settlement – that no former student who benefitted by the Agreement, or his family, could ever sue in connection to the Schools – were realized cheaply. The Settlement Agreement was foisted on the Survivors as an ultimatum: if too many people dropped out, 5,000 or more, no one would be paid at all and the two-year period between the Agreement in Principle and the deadline to opt out would simply be lost time for the cases that were already in progress. The Agreement then closed the door to court action against church or state by anyone who had lost their “language, culture and family life,” by asserting that the matter had been lawfully concluded by the government’s posting of public notices of its intention to do so and advertising the details. The advertising was delegated to the AFN and their categorical failure to communicate is documented below. The content of the Settlement was questionable, in particular the spectacular shortage of funding to meet the stated aims and benefits to Survivors of the schools and their families and future generations. The impacts of the lump-sum compensation payments to former students have been studied: the impacts were in many cases tragic.

The statement that this Settlement was “negotiated and agreed upon by former students” is wrong.

There is also nothing “ongoing” about the IRSSA, except its shadow. Federal funding for language and culture has dried up and blown away since former students accepted the Common Experience Payments and released Canada for “loss of language, culture and family life.” The small compensation received has been spent, and life is mostly back to the way it was except that there are many brand new trucks sitting, without insurance or gas, outside the dilapidated houses described in great detail by the Special Rapporteur in his report on Canada. Former students are entitled to a set number of clinical counselling sessions without charge, but access to traditional healing services is less certain.

The fact that Canada is still sacrificing the Indigenous Peoples and their lands to Canadian industry has not been remedied by the Settlement Agreement or the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was just extended for one year – but this fact today was inarguably made possible by the Indian Residential Schools century.

 

Manufacturing the false identity of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, and Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission

How is it possible that a report on the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, so careful and thorough in most other areas, could fail to remark on the inadequacies of the Settlement Agreement, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the resulting outstanding nature of the crimes of Indian Residential Schools?

The matter has been closed by people in high places; the paragraph about an “ongoing” program “which was negotiated and agreed upon by former students” is a poison which has already contaminated several streams of United Nations thought on this matter. That poison was administered by indigenous politicians from Canada.

Statements made in a study authored by Grand Chief Edward John for the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues describe the Settlement, for the first time anywhere in connection with discussion of the IRSSA, as “reparations.” This is an impossible demand on the definition ofreparations. Compensation was made to individuals who were alive in 2005, while the crime of Indian Residential Schools was carried out against whole peoples for a century.

In the study’s conclusions, it remarks that: “The commissions have also proposed measures to repair the harm inflicted on indigenous peoples and establish mechanisms to help them realize their human rights to the fullest.” That blanket statement regarding all the Truth Commissions reviewed in the study most certainly does not stretch to cover Canada’s Commission, and yet there it is.

An impromptu presentation on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, part of the IRSSA, was made by Chief Littlechild during the 2013 meeting of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Geneva. Littlechild was chairing the meeting and simply burst out with an unscheduled, hour-long power point one morning. He is also one of Canada’s TRC Commissioners. He showed slides to the indigenous delegates to the themed meeting on access to justice for indigenous peoples that had the appearance of an accountability report: “What the Commission has done so far to discharge its obligation;” “National Events;” “Research;” “Missing Children Project.”

In its placement at the start of a day of discussions on “access to justice” in the Human Rights Council Chambers in UN headquarters in Geneva, the presentation created the impression that Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was an example of access to justice – as one of the slides was titled. Canada could not have bought better credibility with money. Littlechild’s action of hijacking a UN meeting to glorify a state process was met with strained belief by the indigenous delegates. The presentation did not describe any moments of justice – just the activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, such as commemorative events and a report on how many children died in Residential Schools.

Wilton Littlechild chairing the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Geneva, July 2013.

Wilton Littlechild chairing the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Geneva, July 2013.

Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission has no power to subpoena perpetrators named during its collection of testimony from former students. The mandate specifies the Commission:

“shall not hold formal hearings, nor act as a public inquiry, nor conduct a formal legal process; shall not possess subpoena powers, and do not have powers to compel attendance or participation in any of its activities or events.”

“…shall perform their duties …in making their report and recommendations without making any findings or expressing any conclusion or recommendation, regarding the misconduct of any person, unless such findings or information has already been established through legal proceedings, by admission, or by public disclosure by the individual. Further, the Commission shall not make any reference in any of its activities or in its report or recommendations to the possible civil or criminal liability of any person or organization, unless such findings or information about the individual or institution has already been established through legal proceedings…”

Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not on a mission for justice. In a brief produced by Dr. Bruce Clark, a legal expert on the Indigenous situation in Canada: “This is not only an expensive fraud upon the public but a cruel imposition upon the victims, who are encouraged to air their innermost suffering in the mistaken belief that it will lead to closure. The commission itself recognizes its task is only, “to document the truth of survivors, their families, communities and anyone who has been personally affected by the Indian Residential Schools legacy.” The commission will look at symptoms but neither the cause nor the liability of the causer. It can not and will not investigate crimes by the government.”

If the natures of the Settlement and Commission are skewed now in international human rights circles, they are perhaps even less clear in Canada. In an example of the many mixed messages from Canadian media concerning the scope of the TRC, The Globe and Mailnewspaper reported on January 1, 2008:

Former students plan to allege criminal deaths took place at Indian residential schools when they appear before a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the RCMP has been told to be ready to investigate.

Commission chief Bob Watts said he has met three times with police in the past year to advise them on the accusations former students are preparing to make. His comments mark the first time a senior official has acknowledged allegations deadly crimes were committed at the schools and that many children were buried without their parents being notified.

Mr. Bob Watts said he has been told that incidents of children disappearing at the schools were “quite widespread,” but that there probably are few, if any, records.

“If a child didn’t come back home because of something that was criminal, for example, it’s probably not going to be in any records,” he said. “We’ve heard stories about children being so severely punished, for example, that they died. So the commissioners are going to have to sort through how they are going to tackle this.”

Mr. Watts said former students will also speak of deaths caused by criminal negligence, such as placing healthy children in dorms with those fighting infectious diseases such as tuberculosis.

An RCMP spokeswoman confirmed yesterday that police are “working very closely” with Mr. Watts but declined further comment until the commissioners are in place.

Mr. Watts said many of the accused will likely be dead. As a result, native elders are requesting the commission include some form of ceremonial activity to acknowledge any crimes that went unpunished.

Unfortunately, the 2014 UN report on the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada recommends an extension of the timeframe of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission – not an extension of its mandate to coincide with informing legal investigation of accused criminals.

Dr. Bruce Clark continued, “…It is specifically crimes or lesser wrongdoings “by a government” that such commissions, if genuine, exist to expose, as the precondition to reconciliation based upon truth.”

“Truth and reconciliation commissions in the Americas” was an agenda item for the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at their annual meeting in May, 2013, at UN Headquarters in New York City. It was then that the study co-authored by Grand Chief John was released. The Permanent Forum’s study relied on Chief Littlechild as an expert witness.[i]The report described compensation to individual former students under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement as “reparations.”

A dozen people signed up for the speakers’ list to make interventions on the agenda item, delivering a printed copy of their statements ahead of time. When it came time for that agenda item, the Chair announced that there would be no space for the item to be responded to. He eliminated the speakers’ list – but allowed three: Wilton Littlechild; Edward John; and Eduardo Gonazalez from the International Center for Transitional Justice, who assisted Canada in developing its Commission. Their statements were a pinion of praise for Canada’s Commission. Chiefs John and Littlechild repeated themselves on the points that Indian Residential School survivors were active in the development and signing of the Settlement Agreement, which formed the TRC; that those processes have announced a positive breakthrough in Canadian society; and that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is equivalent to justice in progress. They always remark or infer that Indigenous Peoples throughout Canada are very satisfied with the Commission’s work so far, and that it signals the end of a colonial epoch.

Delegates and even the translators at the PFII meeting noted how unusual it is for an agenda item to be denied intervention without notice, even after a speakers’ list has been populated and print copies provided for translators. One of the excluded interventions read,

The IRSSSA and TRC as launched by the Canadian government, however, was a process which sought to extinguish Indigenous Nations’ right to reparations without acknowledging the full dimension of the crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, forced assimilation) committed against them.  Instead it offered individual claimants compensation for personal injuries and abuse, establishing a ceiling limit for payments, and required a written “opt-out” procedure for those who spurned such paltry acknowledgements of the vastness of the damages visited not only upon themselves but upon their nations.  Many who accepted the compensation payments were not informed of their legal rights by the state-funded counsel which uniformly advised them to do so. [ii]

The Permanent Forum’s study gives this description of the Canadian Settlement Agreement and its mandate for the TRC:

The Commission grew out of a lengthy process of disputes and court-mediated negotiations that resulted in an extensive programme of reparations and a request for a formal apology from religious and State institutions that had acted in complicity in those abuses. In 2006, following extensive negotiations between the Government, churches and indigenous peoples, the Canadian Government approved the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which cost an estimated 2 billion dollars. The Agreement called for the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with a portion of the funds earmarked for reparation.

There were no “extensive negotiations between the Government, churches and indigenous peoples.” The statement is a lie with extreme implications, since the mark of an acceptable settlement of this type is the full and informed participation of Indigenous Peoples in creating it. By reporting that the Settlement Agreement met this criteria, Grand Chief John has single handedly elevated the Settlement and the Commission to a place it is not worthy of.

The study relied on statements made by Chief Littlechild, and Chief John named him as an expert witness when introducing the study during the Permanent Forum’s 12th Session, in 2013.

Chief Littlechild also made an intervention to the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples before he became a member of it, in 2010, but when he had just been named to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

“…this TRC was not created by the government.  Rather it was established as an independent body with a 5-year mandate through the efforts of residential school survivors themselves as part of the largest class action lawsuits in Canadian history.”[iii]

On the contrary. Professor Kathleen E. Mahoney, a non-native lawyer, was the Chief Negotiator for the Assembly of First Nations in achieving the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement. She was also “the primary architect of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and led the negotiations for the historic apology from the Canadian Parliament and from Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican,” according to her online biography.

Furthermore, in April of 2008, the Canadian federal public service civil list was amended to add the Commission and its entourage of lawyers, researchers and consultants to the federal payroll.

Lies and insinuation heaped on misrepresentation have formed international reputations for the Settlement and the Commission which bear no resemblance to the facts. Instead, those lies from the top of the world’s most influential organization have deafened an official visitor to the voices of the people who travelled hundreds of miles to tell him the truth while he was visiting Canada.

 

The shadows of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement:

in the shadow of the myth of former students’ participation in developing the Settlement Agreement and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission

It seems that when statements are made to the effect that former students were involved in negotiating the contents of the Settlement Agreement, they refer to former student Phil Fontaine, then Chief of the Assembly of First Nations which claimed leadership of what they called a “class action.” It is important to remember that the AFN is entirely subsidized by the government of Canada.

At a single AFN conference to discuss the Settlement in Winnipeg, in May of 2007, after it had been announced in its final form and approved by the government of Canada late in 2006, National Chief Phil Fontaine spent all his speaking time defending the Agreement without actually describing what it included. He was defending it to a lot of people who did not seem very impressed, and all expressed shock at the content – not a signal that any of them had participated in creating it or had heard from someone who did. Participants at that meeting included some of the most credible Indigenous leaders. The fact that none of them were involved in the negotiations of the Settlement is revealing. “This Settlement Agreement was not handed to us on a silver platter. We had to fight for every little bit that’s in the Agreement,” said Fontaine. But every part of the Settlement Agreement was the lowest common denominator of what Canada had already offered claimants in class action suits, and which those former students had rejected.[iv]

The AFN did produce a press release in response to frequently asked questions, dated November 23, 2005. It begins: “The AFN played a key and central in achieving the Agreement in Principle signed on November 20, 2005 to settle all Indian Residential School claims.” This sentence is copied directly from the press release; we are not sure what noun might be described by “key and central,” but the statement in unequivocal. It was not former students, but the AFN which was central to the Agreement.

This is confirmed in the opening of the next paragraph: “The biggest and most important victory the AFN was able to obtain for survivors in the Settlement Agreement is a new form of compensation for loss of language and culture and loss of family life through a lump sum payment or common experience payment (CEP) as it is called in the Agreement.” In this, the Assembly’s first press release on the subject of the Agreement in Principle for the Settlement Agreement, they do not mention “extensive negotiations between the Government, churches and indigenous peoples.” If those negotiations were a historical fact, the AFN would have mentioned it and recognized the people involved. But it is not a fact, it is a lie. The AFN was the key indigenous organization involved, they did not have a mandate to represent former students because former students do not vote in AFN assemblies – only Band Council Chiefs do, and Band Councils across Canada did not hold referendums seeking this mandate from their communities.

There are many more sources who attest to the absence of former students in creation of the Settlement and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which was mandated within it by the judges who turned their plaintiffs over to it. Bob Watts was the CEO of the AFN at the time of negotiations. He recalled the development of the Settlement this way, during his talk at the 2012 Vancouver Human Rights Lecture:

National Chief Fontaine put together a proposal to look at a negotiated settlement. With the Assembly of First Nations we entered the process with lawyers from class actions from across the country – some representing individual survivors, lawyers representing churches, government, other aboriginal organizations.

Note that “other aboriginal organizations” tend to defy specific description in such testimonies as this presentation by Watts. And that an “aboriginal organization” is not a people. The harms of Indian Residential Schools were done to peoples. Watts continued:

I remember one time we were in Calgary. We were having a break and I was outside talking with one of our Elders who was part of our team, I asked him, how do you think things are going in there? And he said, “did you ever see that movie about Nemo?” “Finding Nemo? Yeah.” “You remember the seagulls?” “Yeah, I remember.” “That’s what they’re doing in there: ‘mine, mine mine mine mine,’ all the time. That’s what’s going on in there. Where are the Residential School survivors? They need to be first and foremost in everybody’s mind or we’re not going to have a successful negotiation.”

So we made sure the National Chief knew about that and it actually changed the dynamic of the negotiations.

The Assembly of First Nations, through National Chief Phil Fontaine, ended up launching its own class action to ensure a seat at the table* and be able to speak to every significant issue.

*Emphasis added.

An interested observer of the process corroborates this report another way. Having just won in court against the church that ran the school where he was sexually abused, and won damages worth “seventeen times the average common experience payment, if the average payment is $30,000” under the Settlement Agreement, William Blackwater wrote several letters to the Canadian Minister of Indian Affairs concerning the Settlement, in 2009.

Some suggest that there are survivors at the tables, but if you observe them for a few moments you will see that these are also our political leaders; leaders with other agendas.  They are leaders with other motivations.  They are NOT the survivors that receive the chronic abuse.  They are not survivors that are facing the challenges of the legacy.  To them we say great, you have moved on, but some of us have not had that opportunity.  Please give us the same chance.  We know that you have had space at the table and we are asking the same opportunity: we face the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools legacy every day without power, money and resources.

I am frustrated and continue to be concerned that my leadership and our decision makers do not take seriously survivor concerns.  It is evident in the lack of involvement of survivors; it is evident in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Commissioner selection; it is evident in the implementation of the TRC; the implementation of the Independent Assessment Process, and the list goes on. [v]

Blackwater was for many years involved in the leadership of the Indian Residential Schools Survivors Society, a group based in British Columbia. He said in an interview with The St’át’imc Runner newspaper, in September 2007, “The AFN said they launched that suit on behalf of all survivors in Canada. When we went to the National Residential Schools Survivors Society national meeting in 2007, not one regional director was aware of a single survivor that had given their consent for Fontaine to act on their behalf in regard to the CEP package. None of us knew anything about it until after the fact.”

Bob Watts was also the AFN’s deputy at work with the government designing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He went on during his Vancouver lecture to give the only evidence of engagement with former students during the process of developing the Commission:

We were fortunate in terms of designing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of having help from other TRC’s, sister truth and reconciliation commissions from around the world. One of the really important things we learned from the International Center for Transitional Justice was that we needed to manifest the outcomes that we sought to achieve. So that became the watchword for all of our work.

When we did dialogues all across the country and met with survivors about what they wanted to see from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that was our watchword.”

What Watts is describing here is a sort of legalistic consultation process led by the AFN. Judging by the complaints of leaders among advocates for former students, that consultation was obviously extremely limited and occurred late in the development of the Commission. This is probably not what most people would expect to hear when they are being told Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was “led by Survivors,” as Chiefs John and Littlechild repeatedly say.

 

in the shadow of the absence of informed consent

The Assembly of First Nations made millions from Canada just in its fee for (not) delivering the communications requisite to properly carrying out the consultative and consensual criteria demanded by the Settlement Agreement and its opt-out condition. The Agreement was subject to an opt-out action: if more than 5,000 former students formally opted out of benefits under the Agreement, it would be nullified. Well-paid delegates of the AFN visited a few communities but left again without having imparted the real crux of the matters contained in the Settlement, according to participants. Friendship Centers across the country eventually used their own resources to hold information sessions and study the Agreement.

By the time the opt-out deadline had passed, former students’ confusion about the process was certainly clear to the Empowered Residential School Survivors. This group of volunteers, based in the Nlaka’pamux nation in the interior of British Columbia, created a DVD called “Prep for CEP.” The presentation was a collection of interviews with lawyers, accountants and clinical councilors who offered analysis of the process and anticipated matters that would arise for former students participating in it.

The National Residential Schools Survivors Society had, at the time of the AFN announcement of the Settlement process, a membership of some 8,000 former students from across Canada. Their Chair, Ted Quewezance, attended a three day meeting in Lytton, Nlaka’pamux, organized and funded by the Empowered Residential School Survivors volunteers in September of 2007:[vi]

What I want to talk about is this Agreement. Phil Fontaine says, “It’s not perfect,” and I agree with him. A lot of survivors think we should have gotten more.

There’s a lack of participation by Survivors in this Agreement. Many Survivors don’t know what’s going on. It was supposed to be for Survivors, but Survivors don’t have a say in this Agreement. We did three surveys, in Montreal, Ottawa and Edmonton. We have identified over 1,000 concerns and issues about this Agreement. We’re not trying to kill the Agreement, it’s too damn late. The implementation starts today – the train is leaving Ottawa, and the judges, the lawyers, the AFN, the politicians, they all have a seat on that train. But there’s no Survivors on that train.

The deadline for former students, or their orphans or widows, to remove themselves from inclusion in the Settlement by formal notice, to “opt-out,” was August 20, 2007. Although it is safe to say that the majority of former students had no way of knowing about the significance of this clause, particularly widows and orphans of former students, or informed advice on what they should do, 1,074 former students opted out.

The fact that over 600 people attended the informational event in Lytton, BC, shows a lot of interest in questions that were not being answered by the AFN through their well-funded mandate to communicate the details of the Settlement. With a membership of 500 former students, the Empowered Residential School Survivors developed the September 2007 conference to help former students understand the meaning of the Settlement. Co-Founder Fred Henry explained the need for their action:

“We felt that all the information wasn’t getting back to our people here. We went to the Winnipeg National Survivors’ Conference. The conference was the start of our journey to help other Survivors and bring home and share what we learned. A lot of communities did not even know what the package consisted of, the Common Experience Payment, the Individual Assessment Process, the Opt-In Opt-Out period; what it all meant.

I know there are people out there who felt we are interfering with their programs. But we are not. We are grassroots people helping grassroots people. We are not politically driven in any way. We are holding this gathering for you. We are seeking healing across our nations.”

People left to rely on the AFN’s bulletins did not understand the “alive in 2005” condition. Spouses of deceased former students did not know they should have their children formally withdraw from the Agreement or be bound by it, even when neither they nor their loved one had benefitted by it. Children of deceased former students anticipated compensation. Most survivors knew they would never be able to sue for damages once the Settlement Agreement was passed unless they had opted out – but most did not know that in order to collect damages for gross physical abuses under the Settlement’s Independent Assessment Process, they would have to testify, to call witnesses, and to endure similar trial procedures to the court process that had deterred them from pressing their cases in the first place. They were also not given a comparison estimate of the difference in value of an independent court award for the most serious abuses and an award under the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) stipulated by the Agreement. The difference was 80-95% less in the IAP than similar damages awarded through the courts.

 

in the shadow of the myth of “reparations”

By 2012, the National Residential Schools Survivors Society had grown to 32,000 members. That February, the Society made a call for a judicial review of implementation of the Settlement Agreement. “The settlement agreement is an out-of-court settlement that is to be monitored by the courts,” said chairman Ray Mason. “Yet each day we have survivors complaining about their treatment by a consortium of lawyers, the role of Canada, lost records, information not provided, adjudicators not respecting our culture or language. Why is the court not taking responsibility?”

“We, as survivors from every region across this country, are totally, totally frustrated,” declared Ted Quewezance, spokesperson for the Society, in the NRSSS press conference. “It’s really hard to reconcile when the perpetrators, the churches and government, are not even at our TRC events. I ask, how do we have reconciliation when the perpetrators are not in the room? Where is the Member of Parliament when these TRC events are going on? Where is the church? The intent of the TRC was to have seven national events and educate Canadians, and that is not happening. We would like to open a public dialogue with survivors, families and communities across the country on continuing acts of genocide perpetrated against our people.

In response to the NRSSS demand, a spokesperson for Canada gave her position that, “The IRSSA is a court-approved and court-monitored class-action settlement of all Indian residential school claims across Canada and does not include a requirement for an independent review.”[vii]

In April of 2014, as party to the Settlement Agreement, the Assembly of First Nations appeared in court to make the case that “survivors of Indian Residential Schools must be treated fairly and with dignity consistent with the spirit and terms of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.”  It seems that a high percentage of former students had been paying fees to lawyers and form-fillers in connection with their applications for compensation under the Settlement. A Manitoba Court decision this month, June 2014, determined that a large number of fee agreements invoiced to former students have been “illegal and unconscionable.”

The Independent Assessment Process was itself largely unconscionable.

Under the Settlement Agreement, adults who pursued their grievances of sexual assault while they were children in residential school were compensated according to a never before seen points-system model of assessment of harm. One rape, two rapes, 35 rapes; vaginal, oral, anal; one beating, five beatings, 60 beatings; all led to a sum of points which were then assessed at a uniform dollar value. The humiliation experienced by these adults at having to put forward their most painful personal losses, as if they could count them, in such hearings defies description. That is to say nothing of the revival of old wounds, the sense of injury, the sense of further victimization at agreeing to settle so low. Victims of sexual assault were compensated mainly in the order of 10% of settlements awarded in similar cases arrived at in individual suits against the schools as early as 1997.

The deadline for submissions under the IAP was September 19, 2012.

Victims of physical and mental abuse fared worse comparatively. Loss of income and loss of employability worked in favour of those who had lived all their lives after as alcoholics—and then quickly drank themselves to death after receiving their payments—but it worked against those individuals who did have the strength or unknown combination of support and luck to carry on. Two women who suffered the exact same abuses were awarded compensations varying by $50,000, the rationale given to the one who received a $16,000 pay-out for her complaint of several rapes being that she had managed to carry on a comparatively normal life: to hold down a job, raise a child and maintain a relationship.

Since the Settlement Agreement, funding to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation stopped in 2010. The Foundation was created in 1998, with a ten year mandate and initial funding of $350 million. Just before its untimely and tragic demise, not to be replaced, the Foundation released a study on the impacts of the lump-sum compensation to former students. Under the Common Experience Payment (CEP) aspect of the Settlement Agreement, former students were paid $10,000 for the first year they spent in an Indian Residential School, and $3,000 for each further year – the “10 + 3 formula.” This was an award for “loss of language, culture and family life.” The study’s findings included that “as of November 2009, Survivors had submitted 99,204 CEP applications. 74,701 payments were issued to Survivors, with the average payment being $20,529.” The deadline for CEP applications was September 19, 2011.

The report prepared for the Healing Foundation concluded the following based on intensive interviews in various locations across Canada:

Almost 20% of participants said that the CEP process and money were steps backward on their healing journeys. For these Survivors, the CEP process represented a very negative period in their lives and left them feeling worse off than before. They expressed bitterness and resentment toward an inadequate “10 plus 3” formula, anger toward eligibility criteria that deprived compensation to many living Survivors, and grief over the many Survivors who died before the Settlement Agreement was implemented.

About one-third of participants spoke about CEP and compensation from perspectives that took into account the intergenerational impacts of the residential school system. Survivors said the Common Experience Payment was not enough because the ongoing direct and indirect effects of the physical and sexual abuse that took place at residential schools cannot be compensated, and also that individual compensation is illogical in the sense that the residential school experience is not an individual phenomenon. It is a family and community experience that crosses generations.

The intergenerational issues most commonly raised related to family alienation which in turn resulted in a lack of parenting skills; however, participants also said that the CEP process led to increased openness between themselves and their children about the legacy of residential schools.[viii]

The study made reference to a dramatic increase in deaths within a year of the payments, but did not focus on the point. The study referred to suicides as individuals neared the time of an interview with government assessors of serious abuse in the Independent Assessment Process; death by overdose or intoxicated accident; and even murders, as events at the schools, long kept secret, began to come to light with victim testimonies in the Settlement-induced chaos.

Recently, the First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Culture Council of the province of British Columbia has become the First Peoples’ Culture Council.” Heritage and Language are no longer specified. An Indian Residential School Survivor from Ts’k’way’lacw, St’át’imc territory predicted the dénouement in a 2008 interview. Rick Alec is a Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program Counsellor in Pavillion.

They squeezed the language and culture component into that agreement.

What’s going to happen to the language programs we have on reserve now? I think it’s going to affect all the programs. It might not show right off the bat, but it will come down later.

Five years from now you’re going to ask for program funding for a language class, and they’re going to tell you that’s been dealt with in this settlement: compensation for loss of language and culture.

It’s a turning point for us as native people, where we are either going to move forward or not. You hear it all the time: ‘what’s wrong with us started with the residential schools.’ But after we take this money, there’s no one left to blame. All the responsibility will be with us.

 

A slide from Littlechild's power-point presentation to the EMRIP. His presentation never touched on the impacts of the schools to the peoples.

A slide from Littlechild’s power-point presentation to the EMRIP. His presentation never touched on the impacts of the schools to the peoples.

in the shadow of the myth of non-recurrence

When he goes on and on about truth and reconciliation at UN meetings in New York and Geneva, TRC Commissioner Chief Wilton Littlechild never mentions the modern day rate of apprehension of indigenous children and the placement of those children with non-native families. This is a kind of violent assimilation, actually fitting the description of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, which carries on in spite of the Prime Minister’s apology to former Indian Residential School students where he promised such a thing would never happen again. In his 2012[ix] address to the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, contemplating the creation of the Access to Justice for Indigenous Peoples study, Littlechild mentioned the Special Rapporteur on Reparations and Non-recurrence in the same paragraph as thanking the government of Canada for financing his conference.

Indigenous children are seized from their families by Ministries of Child and Family Welfare at a rate eight times that of the Canadian average. The British Columbia Advocate for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafonde, has written a stack of reports on the shocking fates of too many of these children once in state care. The Attorney General of Canada has also written damning reports of federal agencies charged with the care of apprehended indigenous children.

The formal education of Indigenous children is another relevant matter, when considering the impact of Indian Residential Schools. Today, indigenous children must attend public school in Canada, whether on or off-Reserve, where the curriculum is controlled by the state. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples’ 2014 report notes:

There are approximately 90 aboriginal languages spoken in Canada. Two-thirds of these languages are endangered, severely endangered or critically endangered, due in no small part to the intentional suppression of indigenous languages during the Indian residential school era. The same year the federal Government apologized for the residential school policy, 2008, it committed some CAN$220 million annually for the next five years to Canada’s “Linguistic Duality” program to promote English and French. By comparison, over the same period, the federal government spent under CAN$19 million annually to support indigenous language revitalization.

The report also summarizes indigenous objection to the unilateral federal First Nations Education Act:

Indigenous leaders have stated that their peoples have not been properly consulted about the bill and that their input had not been adequately incorporated into the drafting of the bill. The main concerns expressed by indigenous representatives include that (1) the imposition of provincial standards and service requirements in the bill will undermine or eliminate First Nation control of their children’s education; (2) the bill lacks a clear commitment to First Nations languages, cultures, and ways of teaching and learning; (3) the bill does not provide for stable, adequate, and equitable funding to indigenous schools; and (4) the bill will displace successful education programs already in place, an issue that was raised particularly in British Columbia.

Foster care is new IRS

in the shadow of “An Historic Non-apology”

Many former students found relief in the apology which Prime Minister Steven Harper delivered on June 11, 2008. There was finally recognition by the head of state that the violence which was done to them as children, their removal from their homes, was wrong.

Indigenous academics and lawyers found the formal statement bitter, however, and roundly criticized the government’s careful wording in place of something more honest.  Dr. Roland Chrisjohn and five others jointly released the lengthy statement “An Historic Non-apology, completely and utterly rejected” from which the following is excerpted:

We doubt that the Conservative party didn’t have a team of lawyers, rhetoricians, and spin doctors, if not writing the statement, at least agonizing over every phrase, every word, every revelation in the evolving document, considering in detail every implication and weighing each possible consequence. We had no trouble seeing through the Prime Minister’s tortured prose because we’re well aware of related issues that are no part of what the average Canadian is supposed to know and what government and church officials know all too well: the United Nations Genocide Convention and Canada’s role in it…

Bringing genocide to the table would take the churches, but more centrally the government of Canada, into the exhaustive examination of additional regions of its policies and programs with respect to indigenous peoples, regions that, up until now, it has successfully avoided (or at least, as it is now trying to do with residential school, managed to isolate from other policies). And, what is perhaps even more important, establishing that Canada’s policies toward indigenous peoples constitute an historic and ongoing genocide rules out Mr. Harper’s statement as an apology, since such would violate the second feature of a genuine apology; someone who is still doing it can’t be promising not to do it again.[x]

As for the suspected team of lawyers and spin doctors behind the public apology, if they weren’t there at that point they certainly were there when it came time to devise a system through which survivors of physical and sexual abuse would be compensated. Consider the following testimony. A junior employee with the Department of Indian Affairs was offered a job description one day, in connection with this scheme to minimize the damage. Her supervisor explained that if she took the new position, there would be an immediate promotion for her within the Department, followed by a second promotion within the year. The job description was not allowed out of the supervisor’s sight, much less out of the office; she was not allowed to make a copy. The lucky candidate, a sharp young woman fresh off the job of surveying and reporting on the state of native court services in Saskatchewan, chosen especially because she herself had Indian Status, had to read the job offer and return it immediately.

She had been hand-picked for the job of working in a team to find ways to minimize payments to Settlement claimants. Chantal Perrault left the Department then and sought out organizations that were actually attempting to advocate for indigenous peoples.[xi]

 

The report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, May, 2014

In spite of the untrue phrases written by others and copied into the Special Rapporteur’s report, some paragraphs will vindicate the victims of Indian Residential Schools, the Indigenous Peoples, better than the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission combined:

5. A particularly distressing part of the history of human rights violations was the residential school era (1874-1970s, with some schools operating until 1996), which destroyed their family and even their names. Thousands of indigenous children did not survive the experience and some of them are buried in unidentified graves. Generations of those who survived grew up estranged from their cultures and languages, with debilitating effects on the maintenance of their indigenous identity. This estrangement was heightened during the “sixties scoop” during which indigenous children were fostered and adopted into non-aboriginal homes, including outside of Canada. The residential school period continues to cast a long shadow of despair on indigenous communities, and many of the dire social and economic problems faced by aboriginal peoples are linked to that experience.

31. With respect to other issues affecting the well-being of indigenous peoples in Canada, among the results of the residential school and “sixties scoop” eras and associated cultural dislocation has been a lack of intergenerational transmission of child raising skills and high rates of substance abuse. Aboriginal children continue to be taken into the care of child services at a rate eight times higher than non-indigenous Canadians. Further, the Auditor General identified funding and service level disparities in child and family services for indigenous children compared to non-indigenous children, an issue highlighted by a formal complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations. In a positive development, in 2000 the Province of Manitoba and the Manitoba Métis Federation, which represents Métis rights and interests in the province, signed a memorandum of understanding for the delivery of community-based and culturally appropriate child and family services, which has demonstrated important successes.

88. The Government should ensure that the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is extended for as long as may be necessary for it to complete its work, and should consider establishing means of reconciliation and redress for survivors of all types of residential schools.

 

 

[i] Study on the links between indigenous rights, truth commissions and other truth-seeking mechanisms on the American continent (Etc.t9t20t3lt3) 28 May 2013

 

[ii] Intervention submitted by delegate of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities.

 

[iii] United Nations Human Rights Council 15th Session,  September 13 – October 1, 2010, Palais de Nations, Geneva   Intervention by Chief Wilton Littlechild, Commissioner, TRC of Canada, Agenda Item 5: report of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

 

[iv] The grass-roots organization “Empowered Residential School Survivors” drove from points in BC to the conference, video recorded it, and distributed copies in DVD format.

[v] Open letter to Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Chuck Strahl, February 16, 2009. “Re: TRC Protocol and Process”

[vi] Empowered Residential School Survivors, Information and Healing Gathering, Lytton, BC, September 19, 20, 21, 2007, “Healing Through Empowerment.”

 

[vii] Winnipeg Free Press – PRINT EDITION “Residential schools pact needs review: coalition – It’s not going to happen, federal government says” By: Alexandra Paul Posted: 02/3/2012

[viii] The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement’s Common Experience Payment and Healing: A Qualitative Study Exploring Impacts on Recipients. Prepared for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2010

[ix] Statement by International Chief Wilton Littlechild, Expert Member (WEOG Region) 6th Session of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (8th-l2th July 2013) Agenda Item 5: Study on the Access to Justice in the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples July 9th’, 2012

Good afternoon to all delegations. Our custom at the Expert Mechanism has been to hold an International Expert Seminar on the subject of our primary study each year, in order to receive the benefit of input from knowledge holders, academic thinkers and experts in the area. This year, we held the International Expert Seminar on Access to Justice for Indigenous Peoples, including Truth and Reconciliation Processes at Columbia University. We would like to thank the hosts and co-organizers, the Institute for the Study of Human Rights, the international Center for Transitional Justice and the Office of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. We were particularly pleased to hear from Mr. Pablo de Greiff, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence provide a keynote address. We would like to thank all the speakers of the International Expert Seminar, a few of whom are present here today. We would also like to thank the government of Canada for their financial support of this Seminar.

[x] An Historic Non-Apology, Completely and Utterly Not Accepted, By Dr. Roland Chrisjohn, Professor Andrea Bear Nicholas, Karen Stote, Professor James Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi), Tanya Wasacase, Pierre Loiselle, and Andrea O. Smith.

 

[xi] The Colonial Present, the rule of ignorance and the role of law in British Columbia, by Kerry Coast, Clarity Press, 2013.

UN Special Report on Indigenous Peoples in Canada

04 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by Kerry Coast in UN Engagement

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

aboriginal rights, aboriginal title, Canada, Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, Special Rapporteur, United Nations

Paragraph 99 – The Gretzky Clause is an Indigenous win

Published June 29, 2014 on Vancouver Media Co-op

The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has produced a review of the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada that seems to prescribe the diagnosis as the cure: death by bureaucracy. The documentary record is for the Human Rights Council, and it is as meticulous and specific as the Indian Act itself.

It might be just as limiting – save for two long sentences – paragraph 99. If Indigenous Peoples could “maximize” their benefit from revenues on “their lands,” as is recommended in the report’s final paragraph, Indigenous Peoples could pay their own way and make their own choices instead of having those choices legislated over top of them. They would not need the rest of this report.

In the meantime, some of the most significant crimes against humanity in the modern age have now been lifted out of the realms of colonial denial and set down in black international ink. The importance of this report is therefore unqualified: never before has an international observer summarized the gruesome history of Canadian imperialism in such unequivocal terms as the Special Rapporteur in his country report on Canada.

Professor James Anaya is a Regents Professor at the University of Arizona, lecturing on international law and indigenous peoples’ rights. He helped draft the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and has just completed his second and final term as Special Rapporteur at the same time as releasing the advance report on the Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

 

The Gretzky Clause

Professor Anaya recommended in paragraph #99, the very last words on the paper, “Resource development projects, where they occur, should be fully consistent with aboriginal and treaty rights, and should in no case be prejudicial to unsettled claims. The federal and provincial governments should strive to maximize the control of indigenous peoples themselves over extractive operations within their lands and the development of benefits derived therefrom.” That’s about the only thing Indigenous Peoples have been demanding of Canada, unsuccessfully, since Canada existed.

The age old question which Canada puzzles with in its Supreme Court is, “where is aboriginal land?” And the Court refuses to find any. Anaya did not recommend that Canada recognize aboriginal title, or get out a map and trace the old lines between the Indigenous nations of northernmost America and demand that those borders be respected or else double standards discrimination would be in effect, nor did he remark at all on the subject of what would be left of “Canada” if indigenous peoples were in control of their lands once again.

This is fairly plain talk for a lawyer though. Which square inch of Canada is not part of an unsettled claim? The Treaties are broken. The modern day negotiations are themselves a complete violation of human rights, requiring Indigenous parties to first surrender everything to the Crown in right of Canada before receiving various delegated and controlled powers in exchange. They are being negotiated by people put in power to represent the Indigenous side through systems of governance imposed by Canada. These problems were touched on in the report.

 

Negotiations and “land claims”

With a literal directness reputed of the “black letter lawyer,” his report states that “Over the past decades, Canada has taken determined action to address ongoing aspects of the history of misdealing and harm inflicted on aboriginal peoples in the country… Perhaps most significantly, it has legislation, policy and process in place to address historic grievances of indigenous peoples with respect to treaty and aboriginal rights. In this regard, Canada is an example to the world.” There are several notes to the fact that negotiations have been “mired” in difficulties. The statements are extremely political, and always extremely correct. Credit has been given for the appearance of attempting reconciliation, but it is taken away again by documented references to the failures of the process. The Rapporteur does not go so far as to say that the “mire” was by design, and that negotiations have clearly bought Canada the comparative peace of these past decades.

The negotiations programs are described as “…good practices, at least in their conception, such as Canada’s policy of negotiating modern treaties with aboriginal peoples and addressing their historic claims. A full exposition of these laws, policies and programmes is beyond the scope of this report.” Unfortunately, Canada’s policy of using Indigenous duress to accomplish surrender agreements with Indigenous communities is an exceptionally important example of the insidious perpetuation of the Canadian ultimatum: starve out or sell out. Ample information summarizing the slipknot effect of Canada’s “modern day treaty” making programmes were made available to the Special Rapporteur. He summarized that information: “In the comprehensive land claim processes, the Government minimizes or refuses to recognize aboriginal rights, often insisting on the extinguishment or non-assertion of aboriginal rights and title, and favours monetary compensation over the right to, or the return of, lands.”

One example that illuminates the carefully controlled core of modern “negotiations” was highlighted in the Special Rapporteur’s report. Regarding First Nations Education, a new act has emerged and shows the type of policy and procedure which Canada intends to legislate on all aboriginal peoples – if it’s not achieved through standardized, identical core provisions of self-government framework agreements and “land claims.” The First Nations Education Act was brought to the Special Rapporteur’s attention during his visit. The controversy over this Bill recently caused the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations to resign.

The Rapporteur summarized Indigenous objections: “(1) the imposition of provincial standards and service requirements in the bill will undermine or eliminate First Nation control of their children’s education; (2) the bill lacks a clear commitment to First Nations languages, cultures, and ways of teaching and learning; (3) the bill does not provide for stable, adequate, and equitable funding to indigenous schools; and (4) the bill will displace successful education programs already in place, an issue that was raised particularly in British Columbia.”

It is exactly these problems – imposition of foreign standards; displacement of traditional structures; lack of financial certainty; a design for degradation of the delegated powers over time – which characterize all the other plans Canada has for First Nations negotiating under the present day policies. These problems characterize the results of all modern agreements between Canada and Indigenous Peoples today, covering the further six areas of lands and resources, self governance, health, children and families, housing and infrastructure, and finance.

Background context, exhibits on Canada’s record

The background provided in this report succinctly and definitively puts on record some of the most criminal tragedies wreaked by the colonizer on the Indigenous nations. Since Canada is officially in denial of many of these facts, the report is a categorical achievement for history. It qualifies the Indian Residential Schools, “the explicit purpose of which was to destroy their family and community bonds, their languages, their cultures, and even their names.” Canada still pretends those results might have been accidental, even in its formal apology of 2008.

The report acknowledges “…patterns of devastating human rights violations, including the banning of expressions of indigenous culture and religious ceremonies; exclusion from voting, jury duty, and access to lawyers and Canadian courts for any grievances relating to land; the imposition, at times forcibly, of governance institutions; and policies of forced assimilation through the removal of children from indigenous communities and “enfranchisement” that stripped indigenous people of their aboriginal identity and membership.” The significance of this single sentence in an official report to the Human Rights Council has not even begun to be appreciated, as it will be relied on in future international actions against Canada, in the pursuit of remedying the current hostile occupation of Indigenous homelands.

As for the most important colonial legal structures of imperialism in the Canadas, it was forced upon King George in 1763 by the military might of Pontiac and his many allies’ refusal to accept British retractions of their original treaties and compacts. The report gives that its place in relation to negotiations: “…the related policy of the British Crown of seeking formal permission and treaty relationships with indigenous peoples before permitting settlement in their territories.” And that Royal Proclamation, made exactly one quarter of a millenia before the Special Rapporteur’s visit, remains a pillar of the Canadian constitution; albeit one that has collapsed under the relentless weight of settlers fleeing other nations around the world and insisting on their own superior rights in Canada.

The collapse of that legal statute is not analyzed as a rotten cornerstone of the state of Canada and an object requiring closer scrutiny in the application of the rule of law in the first world; it might have been. It is the foundational instrument within Canada’s own laws which requires the consummation of honourable treaties.

 

The statistics of the minority

The international report emphasizes the statistical face of pan-Indigenous dispossession as it appears in census areas such as homelessness, poverty, low life expectancy, suicide, poor health, lack of education, overcrowded and dilapidated housing. “Of the bottom 100 Canadian communities on the Community Wellbeing Index, 96 are First Nations, and only one First Nation community is in the top 100.” Compared to Canadians, Indigenous individuals are exponentially worse off in every way. “At every level of education, indigenous people overall continue to lag far behind the general population.” There are many more.

But the Special Rapporteur is asked to comment on the situation of Indigenous Peoples, not indigenous individuals as minorities within a state. Indigenous Peoples have suffered every crime described by the Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The report did not explicitly connect the impacts of Indigenous loss of life, loss of village sites, loss of power over community and national life and loss of control of lands and resources with the staggering present day economic sitution – the inability even to build adequate homes – except by implication in paragraph 99.

Worryingly, the summary statement suggests: “Indigenous peoples’ concerns merit higher priority at all levels and within all branches of Government, and across all departments.” This sounds like a proliferation of Indian Acts across the entire social, economic and cultural map. It is the general opinion, and most plausible legal situation, of Indigenous Peoples that their rights and remedies are not within the purview of the Canadian government or its departments – which have only ever contrived to suppress, co-opt and deny those concerns by every means available.

But when this statement is read together with the Gretzky Clause, paragraph 99, it now says: All branches of government should align themselves with ensuring the continuity and protection of aboriginal and treaty rights. All levels and departments should support Indigenous control of resources on Indigenous lands, especially extraction, and the benefits arising therefrom.

 

The Hazy Bering Land Bridge

There remains in the Special Reporter’s observations, conclusions, and recommendations, however, a missing link as dubious as the Bering Land Bridge. How can one file a report which begins with a summary of every crime of genocide, and ends with suggestions that the perpetrator be left in charge of remedying the situation? The report itself notes all manner of Canadian efforts to engage aboriginal peoples, and equally comments on indigenous representatives’ presentations to him on how unsatisfactory they are.

The reality is that every attempt at maximizing protection or use of “their lands” ends up in court, where “the adversarial approach leads to an abundance of pre-trial motions, which requires the indigenous claimants to prove nearly every fact, including their very existence as a people.”

Canada’s assumption of jurisdiction on unceded Indigenous land, as in British Columbia, or its most restrictive interpretations of treaty rights, are problems which merit third party, independent and impartial hearings. Canada cannot be the originator of a dispute and also the judge of its resolution. The Special Rapporteur never repeated this observation, made to him in person, in his report. It is in his mandate: Article 40 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights.

Instead: “Canada’s relationship with the indigenous peoples within its borders is governed by a well-developed legal framework a number of policy initiatives that in many respects are protective of indigenous peoples’ rights. But despite positive steps, daunting challenges remain. The numerous initiatives that have been taken at the federal and provincial/territorial levels to address the problems faced by indigenous peoples have been insufficient.”

Canada’s borders are in fact contested not to include many unceded, sovereign indigenous peoples and their lands in the first place, particularly in the west, and to this legal place the report does not proceed. Canada’s “well-developed legal framework” denies Indigenous Peoples’ own legal frameworks, and their jurisdictions on their homelands, and certainly has been well-developed to the point of the exclusion of the Canadian constitution where treaties are demanded before settlement is allowed. In fact, policy initiatives have entirely replaced legal instruments. And the objectives of those policies have not shifted by any measure since the 1857 Act for the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes – an assimilation and dispossession policy. Just last year a more sophisticated option of the legislative release and indemnification of Canada by the Indigenous took the form of Bill C-45 and was passed in Canada’s Parliament. Fragments of Indigenous nations under duress participate in fragments of the Act. Finally, to suggest that the problems faced by Indigenous Peoples occupied by Canada could be sufficiently addressed by the perpetrator of the problems, the federal and provincial governments, is to fundamentally ignore many testimonies brought before the Special Rapporteur during his extraordinarily brief visit to Canada – October 8-15th, 2013. Some of those testimonies were brought by traditional governments of Indigenous nations, some were submitted only in writing, and they laid bare the urgent need for third party assistance in the conflict between their nations and the assumptive party, Canada.

The report is perhaps constrained by the state-biased mandate of the United Nations, reporting on implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and it is in this way that the vulnerability of entrusting states with justice for Indigenous Peoples becomes obvious. The conflict at hand is between states and the Indigenous Peoples, and their lands, which states have assumed jurisdiction over. Or, “One of the most dramatic contradictions indigenous peoples in Canada face is that so many live in abysmal conditions on traditional territories that are full of valuable and plentiful natural resources. These resources are …targeted for extraction and development by non-indigenous interests.”

 

The report on the situation

There were many people and places that the UN delegation did not meet. Those who did manage to make meetings had less than one week’s notice of the time and location – and that was the work of Canada. Considering this, and the brevity of the visit, this first official report on the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada is of considerable scope and importance. If it is read.

The report is a good sweep of the situation:

“Parliament has jurisdiction over ‘Indians and lands reserved for Indians.’”

“First Nations communities that receive federal funding under the Indian Act regime, 70% of which have fewer than five hundred residents, typically have to produce over 100 or more reports a year to various federal agencies.”

“…indigenous leaders complain that the federal Government frequently uses a discourse of responsibility to Canadian taxpayers for the cost of First Nations treaty benefits, without a corresponding acknowledgment of the vast economic benefits that have accrued to non-indigenous Canadians as a result of the constitutional treaty relationships…”

“…the Government appears to view the overall interests of Canadians as adverse to aboriginal interests…”

The Special Rapporteur never mentions the astonishingly prolific, consistent and militant protest on the part of Indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast, for centuries, and that these demonstrations and resistance movements are singly the cause of any of Canada’s good work noted in this report. The political tones resonate to good will and politesse and there is little within the report which Canada could reasonably take exception to.

But, as James Anaya characterizes his own work when speaking in public, he tries not to focus on the instances of conflict but on signs of progress and possibilities which might lead to peace and justice.

“Partnership” is recommended between the Indigenous and Canada, and that “…it is necessary for Canada to arrive at a common understanding with indigenous peoples of objectives and goals that are based on full respect for their constitutional, treaty, and internationally-recognized rights.”  This is optimistic.

But Anaya’s visit to Canada has already had effect. During his statement at the end of his official visit last Fall, he made the straightforward recommendation that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission be given an extension to continue its work in connection to Indian Residential School legacies. An extension of one year had been granted by the time the draft report was released this May, while the report calls for an open-ended mandate.

Paragraph 99, however, is the ace. It is nothing short of Wayne Gretzky in 1988, getting the goal that won the Oilers the Stanley Cup. And the Supreme Court of Canada has lost its shut-out. Development should be consistent with aboriginal and treaty rights; control and benefits of development on Indigenous lands should belong to the Indigenous.

It’s an optimistic coincidence that the key recommendation to Canada is numbered the same as the greatest Canadian hockey player, whose jersey number was retired by the National Hockey League in his honour. And it’s an enlightening coincidence that such an important icon was playing a Mohawk game. It’s possibly a pragmatic non-coincidence on the part of the author of the report, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize this spring, to connect a source of national pride with a challenge worth meeting.

 

 

UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, S. James Anaya, at Musqueam during his official visit to Canada. October 10, 2013.

UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, S. James Anaya, at Musqueam during his official visit to Canada. October 10, 2013.

Consultation Standards in BC – or – The Trilogy of Despair

04 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by Kerry Coast in Archived Articles

≈ 1 Comment

August 2009

Recent court rulings in Halfway River, Taku River Tlingit, and Douglas have brought consultation standards spiraling down to a single unreturned phone-call.

Participating in consultations with government is a double-edged sword for Aboriginal peoples. We already know that the government and the courts find aboriginal laws of upholding the sustainability and sacredness of the land to be “unreasonable conditions.’ If they do not participate, or walk away, Aboriginal peoples are described as unreasonable – and if they do participate, they are stuck within a process that the government dominates.

Even when Bands or First Nations bring court cases following “negotiations” that disregard their input, their assertion of their own laws and duty to uphold them are unacceptable in BC courts.

Halfway River, 1999, gives us this.

Halfway River contested that logging had infringed their way of life to an unjustifiable extent. The Halfway case found the province free to infringe their Treaty 8. Halfway also concluded in an obligation on the part of Aboriginal peoples to participate in the consultation process, and not frustrate it with such “unreasonable” demands as those of sustainability, regardless of the foregone- conclusion nature of such BC-led procedures.

In Taku River Tlingit, 2005, the Taku River people were suing BC for going ahead with permitting a mining access road over their sacred mountain, right through the hunting grounds. Taku had participated extensively in consultation procedures and the environmental impact assessment. The government did not respect their position that the road had to be redirected, and permitted it as preceded the legal challenge. The court found that Taku had been adequately consulted and accommodated, since they had been part of the development process, and that their proper course of action was to continue in negotiations to mitigate the impact of the road at a site-by-site specific level. This was the first case to test the duty to consult and accommodate, it came down at the same time as Haida.

We have a final angle in Douglas, 2007. It was found that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had not only fulfilled their duty to consult, but also upheld their obligation to the aboriginal food fishing priority when they opened a sports fishery on Early Stuart sockeye in the Fraser, five years earlier.

The Department had faxed and telephoned a few invitations to meet on the subject to the Cheam Band prior to the openings. Cheam had not been able to participate in the processes on the schedule DFO offered.

Nevermind, the fact that DFO offered them meetings fulfilled their duty to consult and accommodate, ruled the judge. And since the Department has the privilege of managing the fishery, no notices of later management changes were necessary.

What this would seem to mean to BC is that: First Nations must participate in the consultation process; once they have been consulted, anything goes; and as little communication as an unanswered fax and a phone call can accomplish the consultation and justify the decisions made by government ministries. The “meaningful” part of this “consultation and accommodation” is that BC is the boss, anyway.

Are these the parameters of the “shared decision making” contemplated in BC’s proposal for Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation?

“I’ll see you in court!”

Confidential Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia, 1916

04 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by Kerry Coast in Government Commissions, Reports

≈ 1 Comment

Confidential

Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia

Under Order-in-Council dated the 10th day of June, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirteen.

* This document is housed at the Royal BC Archives in Victoria, BC.

(1)

Confidential

To Field Marshal

            His Royal Highness Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert,

                        Duke of Connaught and of Strathearn, K.G., K.T., K.P., etc., etc.

                                    Governor General and Commander in Chief of the Dominion of Canada

May it please Your Royal Highness:

            The Commissioners appointed by Letters Patent under the Agreement made on the 24th day of September 1912, by Your Royal Highness’s Special Commissioner and the then Premier of British Columbia in respect to Indian Reserves and Indian land requirements in that Province, had but shortly entered upon the performance of their duties when they found that matters extraneous to the Agreement would be brought before them, and that for the satisfactory settlement of the whole British Columbia Indian question it would be well to hear such representations as might be made therein, reporting the same with an expression of the opinions formed by the Commissioners consequent upon such representation and their visitations of Indian Reserves.

            Your Commissioners thereupon adopted and conveyed to Your Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs a Resolution upon the subject of such extraneous matters. The Resolution and the Order-in-Council defining the extent and nature of the action to be taken by the Commissioners in respect to such matters as follows:

            RESOLUTION OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON INDIAN AFFAIRS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA, ADOPTED 20TH MAY, 1913:

            “Moved by Mr Commissioner McKenna, seconded by Mr Commissioner Macdowall and ordered:

“Whereas the Commission is of opinion that its jurisdiction is confined to the scope of the agreement referred to therein;

AND WHEREAS it appears that many matters and questions extraneous to the agreement will be brought before the Commission;

AND WHEREAS serious dissatisfaction among the Indians is likely to be created if the Commission declines to consider and report upon such questions;

AND WHEREAS for the satisfactory disposal of such matters and questions it may be necessary to report upon conditions and make suggestions as to policy;

BE IT RESOLVED: That it be intimated to the Governments of the Dominion and the Province that if they so desire and instruct the Commission, the Board will be pleased to deal with all such questions and matters and report, submitting suggestions as to the action to be taken and the policy followed.”

            ORDER-IN-COUNCIL OF 10TH JUNE, 1913:

  1. C. 1401.

“Certified copy of a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Administrator on the 10th of June, 1913.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a memorandum, dated 31st day of May, 1913, from the Acting Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs, submitting a copy of a resolution passed by the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs in British Columbia, dated Tuesday, 20th May, 1913.

            “The Minister observes that it is clear that the agreement between the representatives of the Province of British Columbia and the Dominion does not contemplate an investigation and settlement of matters appertaining to general Indian policy in British Columbia. It is confined to matters affecting Indian lands which require adjustment between the parties.

            “The Minister is of the opinion that it would be inadvisable to burden the Commission with the investigation of all matters that might be brought to their attention by Indians, many of which would be of slight importance not affecting the relations of the two Governments. Unless great care were taken misconception might arise in the minds of the Indians as to the action of the Commission if authorized to make a general investigation; the Commission having power to deal finally with all matters mentioned in the agreement subject to the approval of the two Governments, but having only instructions to report and make suggestions as to other matters.

            “The Minister submits that the Commission would, however, during its sittings in different districts of the Province obtain valuable information as to Indian conditions and progress and would probably form distinct opinions on these points and on the future policy which should be adopted by the Dominion Government towards the Indians of British Columbia.

            “The Minister, therefore, recommends that the Commission be restricted in action to the terms of the agreement but that the Commission be informed that this Government would be prepared to receive a general report on the conditions of the Indians with suggestions as to the future policy and administration of Indian Affairs in the Province of British Columbia, the Indians being distinctly advised concerning the scope of the enquiry under the agreement and that the Commission will merely convey to the Government the views of the Indians respecting any matters extraneous to the agreement brought to their attention.

“The Committee concur in the foregoing and submit the same for approval.

            (Signed) Rodolphe Boudreau,

                        Clerk of the Privy Council.”

            In accordance with the directions contained in that order, Your Commissioners heard representations made by the Indians on many matters extraneous to the Agreement, questioned the Indians with the intent to secure, as far as possible, elucidation of their views, and in the examination of the Indian Agents sought to secure their opinions thereon. The views of the Indians and the opinions of the Agents are conveyed in the twenty-seven volumes of evidence transmitted with the Report of May 31st, 1916, on the work of the Commission within the scope of the Agreement, and insofar as such evidence bears on the social conditions of the Indians the same has been summarized in Schedule “C” in the sections of that Report dealing particularly with each Agency.

            And Your Commissioners now beg leave to submit in the form of a “general report”, as suggested in the said Order, the impressions formed as to Indian conditions and progress and future policy it might be desirable to follow for the further advancement of the Indians.

 

            CONDITIONS

            No one who has informed himself of the condition of the Indians a half a century ago cannot but be impressed by the very great advancement that has been made. In the earlier part of that period the advancement was solely due to the self-sacrificing labours of the missionaries. The work they began and so wonderfully extended and carried on was buttressed by the wise policy of the Dominion in the establishment of schools and the appointment of Indian Agents to help on the advancement and safeguard the interests of the Indians. It was some years after the Union that the Dominion’s Indian policy was effectually extended to British Columbia, but as the years have passed it has been broadened in its application and adopted to local circumstances insofar as the peculiar conditions consequent upon the land question admitted.

            With the removal of the difficulties to which that question gave rise, there is no reason to doubt that Your Royal Highness’s Government will be put in a position to pursue a still more progressive Indian policy in British Columbia.

            To that end Your Commissioners respectfully submit the following suggestions:

ADMINISTRATION

Size of Agencies

            Certain Agencies, for instance New Westminster, Kamloops, Lytton, Williams Lake, Stuart Lake and the Naas are too large for supervision by one Agentand might each be so divided as to give ample work for two; the Kamloops and Lytton Agencies might be advantageously divided into three Agencies.

Farming Instructors

            In certain districts adapted to extensive farming, Farming Instructors might with beneficial results be attached to Agencies, as in the Prairie Provinces.

Horticultural Instruction

In fruit growing districts there should be made for some years provision for more continuous instruction and more direct supervision of horticulture,

Land in Severalty

The time has arrived when action should be taken to give the individual Indian security of tenure. That would give an incentive to individual effort, and to the making of permanent homes, and would create a spirit of self reliance, that can never be expected from a system of common Band ownership where the Chief is the practical dictator as to what land a man may use or cultivate. From a system of holding land in severalty within the Band could be operated a plan which would gradually lead fit Indians to full citizenship, which should be the goal of an enlightened Indian policy.

Utilization of Waste Land

Much good land is kept from cultivation, or has lapsed into a wild state after years of cultivation, because the present holders under tribal customs are unable, through old age or extreme youth or from other reasons, to cultivate it; and under a system of allotment in severalty a similar condition, though not in like measure would occur, for allotment would have to be made with equitable regard to established individual or Indian family interest, on a per capita basis, and there would be allottees unable to make use of the land by their own efforts through physical inability or lack  of capital. To the casual observer unused cultivable land in Indian Reserves appears to be an evidence that the Indians are in possession of much more land than they require and that it should be thrown open for settlement by people who would make use of it. They are quite unaware of the cause of the condition that offends. That land should lie idle which could be profitably cultivated is detrimental to the common weal and a matter of regret. But it is unfair to the Indians that they should be blamed for a condition which in large measure they are unable to change.

There appear to be two means of remedy which might be operated together:

  • A system under which holdings of Indians unfit through youth or old age or physical inability from cultivating them could be leased to responsible white men. It may be objected that it is undesirable to have whites in such close contact with Indians as such a plan would necessitate. While that objection may have been well grounded in certain parts of Canada, it does not hold good in British Columbia. Under the policy of the Colony “the natives were invited and encouraged to mingle with and live amongst the white population.” That policy has rendered them in large degree immune from the dangers that might be feared from the suggested leasing system. There would be the benefit of neighbouring example to the Indian tillers of the soil; the Indian owners of leased land would derive a revenue that would, added to their slight and often precarious means of livelihood, ensure them a comfortable subsistence; and what would otherwise lie idle and run wild would be made profitable.
  • By providing a fund from which the Department, on the recommendation of the Indian Agent, might make advances to industrious and capable Indians able to farm more land than they have, or to fit school graduates unable to obtain sufficient land, for the purpose of purchasing the improvements, if any, and securing the rights to holdings of the Indians unable to make proper use of them.

Medical Attendance

There have been but few instances in which Indians have expressed satisfaction with the medical attendance, and very many cases in which complaint has been made. Improvement might be effected (a) by appointing salaried physicians to devote their whole time to rendering medical attention to Indians and acting as Health Officers where there are a sufficiently large number of Indians within a reasonable radius with facilities of transport, and (b) where Indians are isolated by providing that medical attendance should be on call and the physician paid fixed attendance and mileage rates.

Nursing

The suggestion by Indians that a selected number of girl graduates of Indian schools giving promise of proficiency should, year by year, be placed in hospitals for training as nurses, with a view to returning their professional services to their people, is one worthy of favourable consideration. Such services would be more acceptable to the Indians than if rendered by others and would go far to furnish what is now lacking and is almost impossible to properly provide for in the medical treatment and care of the sick on Reserves.

Salaries of Agents

While doubtful whether the question is one coming properly within the scope of this report, it is felt that the salaries of Indian Agents are not proportionate to the cost of living and not on a par with remuneration paid in other spheres for services entailing commensurate labour and responsibility.

Local Executive

Upon the question as to whether administration would be made more efficient if there was an executive head of the British Columbia branch of the Department of Indian Affairs, with authority, within defined limits, to set and authorize expenditures, the Commission is divided. Certain Commissioners hold that the administration of Indian Affairs in British Columbia would be facilitated and improved if the Agents dealt with the Department at Ottawa through a local executive who would have such powers as would enable him to act on matters of routine and emergency without reference to Ottawa. Others are not prepared to concur in that view, and also hold that the question does not come within the scope of the Commission’s instructions.

 

TIMBER

Almost all the Reserves fronting on the seven thousand miles of Coast line, are more or less timbered.

Many of these Reserves are covered with scrub or wood suitable only for fuel, with here and there some clumps of good cedar used by the Indians for making their canoes, but some of the Reserves, in the more sheltered waters, carry timber of valuable commercial quality.

It has also been noticed that much of the timber of commercial value is ripe and, from an economical standpoint, it would be wise to have such timber cut and sold before it goes to waste.

The reversionary interest of the Province in the Reserves, of course, stood in the way; but that being removed the way is clear for a policy providing for the cutting and selling of the timber, and the application of the proceeds to the development of the lands of the Indians. While it is desirable that every practicable facility should be afforded Indians to clear land for cultivation, it would be advisable to allow them to clear and burn timber only in cases where the timber is of no commercial value, either on account of quantity or situation.

There are three methods by which the commercial timber could be cut:

  • By giving logging permits to Indians when the amount of timber is small.
  • By employing the Indians to cut the timber under the supervision of a knowledgeable foreman, the Department providing the necessary logging engine and other accessories, the working Indians to be paid wages and the surplus to form a fund for land development.
  • To sell the standing timber at a specified price and with a specified time for removal.

Either the first or second method would appear to be the more desirable as they would lead to intelligent advancement in useful occupation.

AGRICULTURE

In some parts of the Province the Indians are engaged, in no small way, in farming and stock raising, providing not only what is required for their own consumption but a surplus for sale. This applies to the Okanagan, Kamloops, Williams Lake and Kootenay Agencies, as well as to parts of the Stuart Lake, Lytton, New Westminster and Cowichan Agencies.

In the first four names Agencies the Indians have, by their own exertions, developed into fairly good agriculturists with very little help either financially or by way of education, but rather by imitating white settlers, through employment on farms and otherwise. The time has now arrived when, in order to hold their own, some assistance in the way of advances to Indian farmers becomes necessary, just as it has been found necessary and has been provided for white farmers in this Province. While, perhaps, they have reached a stage where they can clear and cultivate the land to a certain degree of efficiency, measures should be taken for the attainment of greater efficiency and for the improvement of their stock by the provision of pure bred sires. In these Agencies agriculture is certain to be practically their principal occupation.

In the Stuart Lake Agency many of the Indians have, in recent years, taken to farming, and their efforts are indeed creditable. Stoney Creek and the newly established Euchinice Reserves are worthy of special mention, while in other Reserves they are doing well though on a less extensive scale.

This Agency affords a splendid opportunity for the establishment of an experimental farm in connection with an industrial school, there being very suitable land and with the Indians now realizing the importance of this industry as their permanent occupation they would doubtless avail themselves of every opportunity to qualify themselves for the work.

The Indians of Cowichan, New Westminster and Lytton Agencies, have a diversity of occupations, some being fishermen, while others are engaged in fruit growing, truck farming and, to a small extent, stock raising, according to their location and the climate and soil conditions.

Although in the Coast Agencies the Indians are mostly fishermen, there is a tendency to utilize the limited areas of cultivable land; but, as the Indians leave their Reserves at different seasons to engage in fishing, thus causing neglect of the land cultivated and seeded, very little is being accomplished. Arrangements might be made by which some, who are too old, or otherwise unfitted to engage in fishing could be induced to remain on the Reserves and cultivate enough land to provide vegetables, which now are purchased and brought in at considerable cost, or are to a large extent dispensed with.

Taking the Province as a whole, the best means of encouraging agricultural development would be through the employment of capable practical men as farm instructors who would be able to interest and direct the Indians in the best methods of clearing and cultivating land and, by studying local conditions, secure the introduction of suitable varieties of fruit, grain, vegetables and stock. However competent the Agents may be, their many and varied duties preclude them from giving that direct attention to agricultural matters which the advancement of the Indians in the industry demands.

Tools, machinery and seed might in many cases have to be provided to enable Indians who have so far given but little attention to agriculture to take full advantage of such instruction in farming; but whatever expense might be thus entailed would be more than compensated for by the encouragement in production which would result in ample provision for their own requirements and eventually in a surplus for the markets adjacent to their Reserves.

WATER RIGHTS

The importance of securing, under the Provincial law, all requisite water rights for Indians cannot be over stated. In the dry belt water is an essential of the land. Without it the land is practically useless. It is evident that in the past systematic care was not taken to secure water rights in connection with the law. It seems to have been taken for granted that the allotment of water by the Commissioners who set apart Reserves was sufficient, though there is grave doubt as to whether the Commissioners had such power. And, from the evidence of Indians and enquiries made, it appears that there are numerous records of water for Reserves not noted in the Schedule of Reserves, and of which it may be the Department has no official record. A good deal has been done of late to have Indian water rights established, and to compile accurate information as to their source, nature and extent. It would be well, however, to have a thorough checking up of the records, so as to make sure that every possible requisite right is recorded, and that the Indians are given priority where the same is establishable.

There are parts of the Province outside of what is strictly defined as the dry belt where water is in a measure required for successful farming, gardening and fruit growing, and, if in such localities water rights have not been secured for the Indians, steps should be taken to secure them.

And it must be remembered that where water is required for milling and other industrial purposes. Or for domestic use from streams flowing through reserves, the Indians’ right to the same must be secured under the law and recorded.

There are reserves in the dry belt where Indians have done remarkably well by their own efforts in bringing water on to the land. But there are many cases in which the providing for the proper utilization of available water is too large and too technical an undertaking for the Indians, even when monetarily assisted by the Department. The direction of an expert is essential. Indeed it would be well to have an Irrigation Engineer go over the Reserves in the dry belt with a view to gathering information for detailed plans and estimates for the utilization of the water recorded for each Reserve, so as to ensure the best possible use thereof and prevent the waste which is now in many places quite considerable. A comprehensive scheme of water utilization could thus be effected for all the Indian Reserves in that part of the Province, where without irrigation the land is of little or no use to the Indians; and when once properly put in operation the system could be easily maintained.

SURVEYS

A great deal of misunderstanding which has led to serious difficulty has arisen on account of the decay or removal of Indian Reserve posts; and lines have become overgrown and obliterated to such an extent that the Indians have inadvertently extended their improvements beyond the boundaries of certain Reserves to find later on that the lands thus improved were covered by timber concessions or had been otherwise alienated, while there are cases in which white men have unwittingly trespassed on Indian Reserves.  This has caused considerable friction between the Indians and their white neighbours. To prevent this there should be an examination of the corner posts of all reserves, and iron posts plainly marked should replace those destroyed or destroyable, and where boundary lines have been questioned by neighbours they should be retraced and clearly defined.

In cases in which the areas of Reserves have been diminished by erosion or other natural cause, or by the passing of unsurveyed roads therethrough, new surveys should be made so as to insure accurate record of acreage.

The area and location of new reserves constituted by the Commission are, in many instances, only approximate, and certain additional Reserves in unsettled districts have had to be allotted subject to location within extensive areas.

If the report of the Commission as to these Reserves is adopted they should be definitely located and surveyed as soon as possible after such adoption, so that, without evitable delay, they may be conveyed to the Dominion.

For many years Mr Ashdown H. Green has had charge of the surveys for the Indian Department, and is, without doubt, the best informed surveyor in the Province regarding Indian lands. He has a great amount of information which should be preserved for the future use of the Department; and in view of the extent of the survey work to be done it might be advisable to temporarily establish an Indian survey office at Victoria, with Mr Green at its head, empowered to select assistants with the requisite local knowledge, to secure the expeditious and economical completion of the surveying of the new Reserves, the replacing of posts, the re-defining of obliterated boundaries in connection with old Reserves, and the compiling of the information of which Mr Green is possessed. It will of course be understood that instructions to surveyors as to surveying new Reserves allotted by the Commission outside the Railway Belt must have the approval of the Surveyor-General of British Columbia, and in the case of new Reserves within the Railway Belt the approval of the Surveyor-General of Canada.

FISHERIES

Fishing and the policy in operation thereanent give very grave concern to the Indians. Many depend largely upon the fisheries as a principal means of livelihood; and with most fish is the chief article of diet, the fish being preserved by drying and smoking, and in few cases by salting, for the winter’s use.

At all meetings which the Commission held with Bands outside of the strictly agricultural and stock raising areas, expression was given to a sense of injustice consequent upon the operation of the fishery regulations as they bear directly upon the Indians.

Throughout the several districts of Northern British Columbia wherein fishing is a principal industry and Indians form a considerable proportion of the population, such Indians have strongly represented to the Commission that they at present suffer through discrimination against them, in that they are debarred from fishing under what are known as “independent” licenses. It has also been represented to the Commission, under oath, by some of these Northern British Columbia Indians that they are the owners of suitable boats and are in a position to provide requisite nets and gear to operate under such “independent” licenses if allowed. These Indians have also represented to the Commission that the refusal to them of “Independent” fishing licenses is not a consequence of the exercise of discretion by the local Fishery Officers, but is the outcome of the deliberate Fishery policy of the Dominion insofar as it affects the northern waters of British Columbia. Such “independent” licenses are issued to Indians of the Fraser River to their advantage and without any detriment to the public interest.

The Commission is unanimously of opinion that the Indians of Northern British Columbia are – but should not be – discriminated against in the issuance and use of these “independent” fishing licenses; and that there is no authority conferred by the law. Or intent therein expressed or suggested, for such class or racial discrimination. The Commission is of opinion that in the matter of “independent” fishing licenses, applications of Northern British Columbia Indians should (as are the applications therefor of white fishermen and of Indian fishermen on the Fraser River) be considered and dealt with upon their individual merits and not refused because of the applicant being an Indian, the Indians of British Columbia being British subjects and as such entitled to equal consideration with their fellow British subjects.

Attached Licenses

With respect to the allotment of “attached” fishing licenses, general and widespread dissatisfaction also exists among the Indians of Northern British Columbia, the preponderance of Indian testimony received by the Commission herein being to the effect that Japanese fishermen are given preference over Indian fishermen. “Attached” licenses are issued in blocks to the several salmon canneries, the number of such licenses allowed to each cannery being in proportion to its size and importance; the cannery in turn allots such licenses to fishermen engaged to fish with the cannery boats and gear, such fishermen being required to deliver their catch exclusively to the employing cannery. It appears to have been and to be the policy of the Dominion Department charged with the control of the fisheries to provide that canneries in the engagement of their fishermen under the attached licenses allotted to such canneries shall give preference to the Indian fishermen of the locality wherein such canneries operate. The evidence of the Indians is, however, directly and emphatically to the effect that a reverse policy is pursued by many of the cannerymen, the Japanese fishermen being favoured both in the allotment of the attached licenses and in the quality of the boats and gear issued to them. These Indians in their testimony declare that the alleged partiality of the management of canneries for Japanese fishermen is due to the fact that the Japanese are willing to and do operate on Sundays and during prescribed closed days of the fishing season, and that they resort to other illegal expedients in increasing the volume of their catch. The statement that Japanese fishermen are favoured on account of their greater dependability and continuity of servies is contradicted by Indian witnesses, and the declaration is made by them that the Indian is fully as competent, reliable and successful a fisherman as the Japanese.

The Commission is of opinion that a policy designed to secure preferential treatment of Indian fishermen in the allotment and operation of attached licenses having been adopted, the Fisheries Branch of the Naval Department (through its local officers) should see that the intention of the Department in this regard is fairly carried out, and that cannerymen refusing to engage Indian fishermen should be required to show reasonable cause for doing so.

Complete Exclusion of Indians

In the beginning of the salmon canning business in the North and for years thereafter only attached licenses were issued. Then independent licenses were introduced, and the policy was adopted of diminishing year by year the “attached” and increasing the number of “independent” until the attached licenses would cease and the canneries of the north, as those of the Fraser River, be made to depend upon the catch of independent fishermen for their supply of salmon. The Indians being debarred in the meantime from independent licenses will in a few years be completely cut off in the North from the salmon fishing industry.

Take as an instance Rivers Inlet. The Commission is advised that this season the licenses in operation, independent and attached, totaled seven hundred; of these three hundred were independent and four hundred attached, the latter being divided between Indians and Japanese and possibly some others. Last year two hundred and twenty independent licenses were issued, ad of the attached licenses the Indians received two hundred and fifty-eight. This year their share is much smaller by reason of the increase in independent licenses. The result is that many Indians were unable to secure this season any fishing licenses at Rivers Inlet. Indians from the West Coast and Kwawkewlth Agencies have fished in these waters for the canneries from the very inception of the industry, and they have come to depend upon their earnings as fish catchers for the canneries as their principal means of livelihood. The policy in operation makes dark their outlook. One cannot but marvel at the patience and forbearance they have displayed in the face of such unfair, inexcusable and most disheartening treatment. It is hard to believe that the policy has been deliberately entered upon; yet the evidence compels to that conclusion. It has no warrant in law. If it could be pleaded – and it cannot – that the early exclusion of Indians as fishermen in the northern waters was in the larger public interest, that would be no justification for the injury inflicted.

The Commission feels, however, that the Government of Canada cannot be aware that under one of its Departments a policy has been designed and is being enforced which will exclude the Indians of northern British Columbia from the salmon fishing industry; and that when the Government is seized of the unjust bearing of such policy upon His Majesty’s loyal Indian subjects – the very men the canneries had to depend upon for fish in the beginning of the industry – prompt and effective remedial measures will be taken.

Indian Fishery Plants

In 1875 Mr Walkem wrote: “No good reason exists why ‘Fisheries’ such as those established by our merchants on Fraser River for curing and exporting salmon and other merchantable fish, should not be erected in suitable places for the benefit of the Indians, and in time profitably controlled and conducted by themselves.”

That suggestion is still worthy of consideration. Indians who fish for commercial concerns have in evidence expressed the conviction that they are competent to engage independently in such industry. For instance, at the meeting with the Fort Rupert Band, Wallace Kwawkewlth stated that the Indians wanted the Government to help them “to make a cannery” for the Kwawkewlth people, “that,” he went on to say, “we may have something to fall back on when the time comes when we will lose our chance of work at the canneries.  We would like to can our own fish….. and also to can the calms that are on the beach…. And we would also like to have a place for cold storage in connection with the cannery,” the purpose of the cold storage being, as was explained, to enable them to deal in halibut and various kinds of fish, as well as to engage in the business of salmon and clam canning.

It may be urged by others that Indians are not sufficiently constant in effort to warrant the establishment of businesses that would have to depend for success on their unintermittent labours. That, however, has been disproved by the veteran missionary, the Reverend William Duncan who, with Indian fishermen and Indian labourers as shareholders, successfully carried on the business of salmon canning. A.E.Allan, a member of the Kincolith band, has successfully operated a small cannery, and his product has been awarded highest honours in open competition with the product of other canneries at the Provincial Exhibition held at New Westminster. And Indians at Skidegate, Queen Charlotte Islands, established of their own initiative and conducted with success a dog-fish oil factory. When the Commission visited Skidegate the operators had, it was stated, $1,500.00 in the bank to their credit.

Of course it would be necessary to have competent operative and financial management, and beginnings should only be made at places where experienced and dependable Indians are within reach, and then under agreement binding to regular work during the fishing season.

The fishing industry of British Columbia may be said to be still in its infancy. Large development may be looked for in the near future. To-day it is almost exclusively confined to salmon canning and the shipment of halibut in cold storage to Eastern American markets. There are many other directions in which the curing of fish for home and foreign markets are sure to be developed.

That the Indian, to whom the Pacific waters are as his fields to the farmer, should be put in a position to make, not alone a good living, but a profit therefrom is a matter of an importance beyond the Indian interest alone; it is of public interest, for in proportion to the prosperity of the Indian is his contribution to the common wealth.

The question is difficult and complicated. So was the question of turning into cattle raisers and farmers the buffalo hunters east of the mountains; and similar wise administrative effort might have commensurate beneficial results if applied to the problem of Indian fisheries in British Columbia,

Special Privileges

Throughout the printed “Schedule of Indian Reserves, 1913” will be noted references to the allowance and definition of special fishing privileges granted to Indians of British Columbia by former Indian Reserve Commissioners, both in the establishment and constitution of “fishing station” reserves and in the bestowal upon named tribes or bands of exceptional or even exclusive rights to fish in certain particularized waters.

The Commission would suggest that the acts of former Commissioners in the bestowal of such rights and privileges be reviewed to the end that an authoritative and formal decision be given as to whether they had power and authority to grant such rights and privileges. If such rights are found to have been legally granted, steps should be taken to protect them. In the event of its being decided that such Commissioners went beyond their powers in so doing, then it should be considered whether the acquiescence of the Government therein and the definition of such rights and privileges in the printed Schedule issued by the Department of Indian Affairs have not given the Indians a moral right, which they by official action and usage have been led to believe is a legal right, which now should, if possible be implemented, and if not possible in all or any case of implementation, compensated for in some form.

Streams in Reserves

The merit of the claim advanced by certain of the Indians as to their exclusive right to take fish in streams flowing through their Reserves should also, in the opinion of the Commission, be authoritatively determined; and if such right be adjudged to be properly and legally enjoyed by such Indians, steps should be taken to protect the same, nor should the Indians be permitted to be deprived thereof without their formal consent and due compensation.

Fishing Stations

With respect to small Reserves described and constituted as “fishing stations” and covering streams from which the Indians from earliest days have been accustomed to obtain their food fish supply, it has been in numerous instances declared in evidence by the interested Indians that the purpose and utility to them of these Reserves has been wholly or in large measure destroyed by the subsequent allowance of cannery seining licenses by which such “fishing stations” have been blanketed and rendered of no use to the Indians. It is even stated, in testimony taken by the Commission, that Reserve foreshore has been occupied in connection with the operation of cannery seines, without consent of or compensation to the Indian proprietors of such Reserves.

In the opinion of the Commission this question should be made the subject of careful inquiry so that the purpose for which the fishing stations were established may be preserved, and that no portion of an Indian Reserve be used or occupied in connection with the drawing of cannery seines without formal permission having first been obtained, with due compensation for the use of foreshore and Indian Reserve land.

Peddling Fish

During the course of its meetings with the Indians throughout British Columbia, it has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Commission that the drastic enforcement of the regulation prohibiting the sale of fish (except under fishing licenses as prescribed) not infrequently operates harshly upon the older Indians who depend upon fishing almost exclusively for their maintenance, and who count upon selling a few odd fish in order to procure flour, tea, sugar, clothing and other similar present day necessities of the Indian’s as well as of the white man’s existence.

The Commission would suggest in this connection that consideration might advantageously be given to the desirability of providing for an Indian hawker’s or peddler’s special permit, under which the holder might, in specified limited quantity, dispose of fish taken at any season, for domestic consumption exclusively, in order to provide for the permit-holder’s reasonable requirement of variation in food, and thus, doubtless, prevent his becoming a suppliant for Departmental aid.

HUNTING

Much dissatisfaction has been expressed by Indians over the Province with the game laws and the enforcement thereof. The Indians are entitled to special consideration. They are not destroyers of game, and in many parts, though in varying degrees, game is counted upon them as an important food supply. The question should not be incapable of adjustment; but it is thought that it is one that should be taken up directly by the Dominion Government with the Government of the Province, with a view to the removal of the cause of the Indians’ grievances.

TRAPPING

As settlement extends trapping gradually vanishes as a profitable business. There are, however, parts of the country in which it is still followed with profit and parts which are peculiarly and almost exclusively adapted to fur raising. But conservation must replace crude methods or the fur industry will soon cease to be of appreciable importance.

In 1875, the Hon. George H. Walkem, then Attorney General of the Province wrote:

“It is a notarious fact that valuable fur bearing animals – large and small – are wastefully and even wantonly destroyed at unseasonable periods of the year. “ He thought that the Indians should be taught to regard the localities productive of fur, but, generally speaking, unsuitable for agricultural purposes, “as fur-preserves, to avoid indiscriminate slaughter, to kill only at proper seasons of the year, and to carefully protect a source of wealth” which is “now gradually but too surely” being destroyed.

The Indian trapper had always regard for the preservation of animals whose pelts were merchantable fur. He was indeed the first fur-farmer. The beaver grounds of different family groups were, for instance, well recognized and care was taken to make them a continuous as well as an immediate means of profit. Fox dens too were protected. And the Indians who make fur trapping a principal occupation today have as keen an eye to their future as their forbears.

The danger to the fur industry today comes from casual white trappers who have no interest beyond the profits of the day. Indians have frequently made grievous complaint of the use of poison by such men. Breeding grounds, fox dens and beaver and muskrat houses are destroyed. Even the Indian trapper’s right to his traps as placed has been ignored, and in some cases his traps have been destroyed. The Department of Indian Affairs has no authority over trapping in the Province other than it may have on Indian Reserves, but it might be well to make direct representations to the Provincial authorities with a view to devising means to put a stop to such predatory proceedings.

In 1875 Mr Walkem suggested fur preserves. That is an idea yet worth considering. But the success which white men have met with in fur-farming in this Province, and more particularly in prince Edward Island, suggests that the introduction of fur-farming among Indians living in localities suitable to that industry and not much fitted for any other, is a subject deserving of serious consideration. The Indian’s instinctive knowledge of nature and his familiarity with the habits of wild animals, would seem to go far towards making him a successful fur-farmer. And it would appear as if the time is not far distant when, if fur is to remain a valuable product of British Columbia, the ancient methods of procuring it must in large measure give way to new.

EDUCATION

During Colonial days no particular provision was made by the Government for the education of Indian children. The first teachers were the missionaries who early saw that the education of the youth was a requisite of progress and permanency in the civilizing and christianizing of the natives. As early as 1861 a boarding-school for Indian children was established by the Oblate missionaries at St. Mary’s, near what is now Mission City, and in 1864 the Church Missionary Society established a school on the Naas. Instead of ignoring the work of the Churches the Dominion Government, through the Department of Indian Affairs, builded upon it; and today there are eight industrial boarding schools with an enrollment of 492 pupils, ten boarding-schools with an enrollment of 398, and 45 day schools with an enrollment of 1,367 pupils. The total enrollment at the schools out of an Indian population of about 25,000, is 2,257 and the average attendance 1,323.

The Commission has been impressed with the quality and extent of the work which is being done. Indian education was given a marked impetus under Mr Duncan C. Scott, as Superintendent of Indian Education, and, as Deputy Superintendent general, he is, within the measure of the means provided, continuing the work of modernizing the buildings and equipment, and developing and extending the system. It is in no fault-finding spirit, therefore, that the Commission offer the following suggestions:

  • That in farming districts more practical and scientific training be provided for the Indian pupils who are destined to make farming their occupation;
  • That in the schools, especially on the West Coast, where Indians must depend and must continue to depend almost exclusively upon fishing, some system should be devised of training the Indian boys as fishermen, lest, being long removed during residence at boarding-schools from the influence which at home would make fishermen of them, they grow up unfitted to continue the work of their fathers instead of being so trained as to improve upon the methods of their forbears;
  • That provision should be made for the thorough training in industrial arts of Indian youths who have not aptitude for, or will not in after life have opportunity of occupation as fishermen or farmers;
  • That, in as far as possible certificated teachers should be employed and the curriculum of the public schools of the Province followed, so that pupils of Indian schools could be prepared where desirable for the examinations, the passing of which are necessary to higher studies under the Provincial system;
  • That if the per capita system of Governmental aid to Indian boarding-schools is to be continued, the per capita grant should be kept proportionate to the cost of living, so that the educational work will not be crippled or disadvantageously interfered with through the effect upon the management of a financial stringency; and
  • That a system should be devised for establishing school graduates in the occupations for which they have been trained.

It may be added that, while the Commission is pleased with the present educational system and its promises of progress, there are members of the Commission inclined to the view that it would be better if the Government had the direct control and management of all Indian schools and was charged with the full cost of maintenance.

LIQUOR LAW

Frequently at meetings of the different Indian Bands the question of fines imposed on Indians under the clauses of the Indian Act relating to liquor have been discussed, and Mr George Jay, Police Magistrate for the City of Victoria, which includes the several Indian Reservations situate in Saanich, Esquimalt and Sooke Districts, has made the following statement and suggestion to the Commission :-

“Under the terms of the Indian Act, Sec. 137, an Indian who has in his possession any intoxicant is liable to a fine of not less than $25.00 and under Sec. 144 an Indian who is found in a state of intoxication is liable to a fine of not less than $5.00.

“In those cases in which an Indian is found in possession of an intoxicant it is usually confined to a bottle of whiskey or gin, and sometimes only a small flask.

“The penalty of $25.00 was fixed by Statute some years ago at a time when it was a practice amongst a certain class to supply large quantities of liquor to Indians in remote Reservations.

“With regard to fines for being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, it frequently happens that an Indian appears in the Police Court at the same time as white men charged with the same offence. The practice for many years here has been in the case of those other than Indians to impose a fine of $2.00 for a first offence and a slightly increased fine in the case of a second or subsequent offence, but with regard to the Indians a Magistrate has no alternative but to impose the minimum fine of $5.00, which must to the Indian appear to be a marked discrimination against him.

“I would respectfully recommend that the Indian Act be amended with regard to the penalties for these offences by allowing Magistrates wider discretion and by eliminating the provisions as to minimum fines, thus leaving it to the judgment of the Magistrate dealing with the offence to impose such fine as may in his opinion be proper, not exceeding, of course, the maximum fine provided in the Act.

“I may add that I have resided at Victoria for the past 45 years and have had much experience of the habits of the Indians of the southern portion of Vancouver Island and the Islands of the Gulf.”

Your Commission are of the opinion that, were these suggestions followed, it would tend to remove from the Indian the feeling that he is looked down on with contempt and his race deemed unworthy of being treated in a manner similar to other British subjects in His Majesty’s Dominion, and that the greater latitude allowed to Magistrates in their discretion, would have a tendency to elevate rather than debase the Indian.

INDIAN ACT

There seems to be a desire among the more intelligent of the Indians to understand the terms of the indain Act, and it appears to the Commission that, were copies of the Act furnished to such Indians, the result might be beneficial.

 

All of which is most respectfully submitted,

(signed)

N.W.White

Chairman

J A McKenna

Saumarez Carmichael(?)

J P Shaw

D H Macdowall

Commissioners,

Victoria, B.C., 30th June, 1916.

Missionary to Editor of Victoria Standard (BC newspaper), 1874

04 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by Kerry Coast in Media: letters and articles

≈ 1 Comment

A Letter

To the Editor of the Victoria Standard: –

Okanagan Mission, August 28th, 1874.  

 * The writer, CJ Grandidier, ran the Okanagan Mission as a priest and missionary.

Printed in “Papers Relating to the Indian Land Question in British Columbia,” 1875, Queen’s Printer

 

SIR, – In your issue of the 12th instant you have an article entitled “AN Indian War,” which has called my especial attention. In it you attribute with correctness the never ceasing strife between the white and the Indian on the American side to the iniquitous treatment inflicted upon the latter. Your reflections have forcibly drawn mine to our native tribes, and to their present dissatisfaction about their lands, which dissatisfaction has not abated, for the visit of Colonel Powell, Indian Commissioner, has not had all the results which were anticipated from it.

            At Kamloops the Shuswap Indians gathered to welcome him, expecting that their grievance would be redressed. They exposed to him their needs, their earnest and unanimous wish to have more land. By the improvements which they had already accomplished on their reservations, without help from anybody, by their sole efforts, and by census of their cattle, they showed him that theirs was no idle wish.

            The Commissioner was pleased with them and gave substantial proofs of his interest, for which they feel very grateful; but for the land question it was out of his power to settle it according to their wish.

            When the Dominion Government took charge of the Indian tribes of British Columbia it was proposed to adopt the same policy towards them as towards their brothers of the other Provinces, and grant each family a large quantity of land. To this proposition the Local Government objected, and would not grant more than twenty (20) acres. Is it just and expedient for the Government to grant the natives as small a portion of land as possible? None will think so.

            Before the settlement of this Province the natives were in possession of it. There was no one to restrain them in that possession. Their horses had wide pasture lands to feed upon. The whites came, took land, fenced it, and little by little hemmed the Indians in their small reservations. They leased the land that they did not buy and drove the cattle of the Indians from their own pasture land. Many of these reservations have been surveyed without their consent, and sometimes without having received notice of it, so that they could not expose their needs and their wishes. Their reservations have been repeatedly cut off smaller for the benefit of the whites, and the best and most useful part of them taken away till some tribes are corralled on a small piece of land, as at Canoe Creek or elsewhere, or even have not an inch of ground, as at Williams Lake. The natives have protested against those spoliations, from the beginning. They have complained bitterly of that treatment, but they have not obtained any redress.

            Is that treatment according to the dictates of Justice? Who will wonder at the dissatisfaction that has been growing amongst the Indians? The land was theirs and their forefathers before the whites came; that land has been wrenched from them in virtue of might, not right; not a cent has been given them to extinguish their title to the land. They have been left to struggle on the parcel of land allotted them without any encouragement, any help, any agricultural implements from any quarter, and, because they are forbearing and peacefully disposed, they are to be granted the minimum possible of land.

            I appeal to every impartial mind, is that treatment according to Justice? And are not the natives justified in now claiming their rights? Reverse the case, and place the whites in the place of the Indians, which white settler would bear with it? And it is not correct to say that no injustice has been done to the Indians in taking away their land because they did not cultivate it. For they were the owners of the land, and the title to a property is not rendered valueless because the property is left to decay. Our American neighbours have recognized that title, since they have passed a treaty with all the tribes whose land they come to occupy. Whether they fulfilled that treaty or not is not the question; but they recognize the Indian title to the land, although those lands were not in the same condition then as it was here when the whites came. Besides their lands were valuable to the Indians for hunting, and now the game is receding far away before the whites. It was valuable to them for their horses, and now their horses and cattle have no ground to feed upon, and would starve in some places were it not for the forbearance of some white settlers.

            In former times the Indians did not cultivate land; now, taught by the example of the whites, they see its value. They are not unwilling to let the whites have the greater and the best portion of it, but not the whole or nearly so. Children and owners of the soil, they want a sufficient share of it to get a living from it. They do not think that when a white man can pre-empt 320 acres and buy as much more, besides the facility of leasing more, that they are unreasonable in asking 80 acres of their own land per family; and in that they are supported by the example of the Dominion Government’s conduct towards the other Indians, if they claim that it is to use it. And already on their reservations, or most of them, they carry on farming as far as their limited means and knowledge permit it. Both will improve in time, as the already effected improvement is a convincing proof. They must not be judged according to what they have been in past times, but according to what they are, and promise to be, useful and industrious men. It is better for every settler to have the Indians fixed contentedly on farms than wandering discontentedly, and looking with anxious eyes on the fat of the land which they are not allowed to share.

            Then it is but just to deal fairly by them, and lay for their use reservations amply sufficient for their future wants. For the reservations which are to be laid over are to be permanent for many generations.

            But will not twenty acres be sufficient for each family? What is the purpose of the Government? To civilize and make useful men of them. The first step to do it is to reclaim them from their wandering life and attach them by bonds of interest to the soil.

            But if the Indian leaves off his ordinary pursuits of life he expects to find a better compensation in the new means adopted by him to earn the livelihood of his family and his own. Will he find it in a tract of twenty acres? Will those twenty acres be all good cultivated land easy of irrigation? Probably not. Supposing them however to be so, how can he get from them a comfortable living for his family?

            Actually, the Indian cannot live as he used to formerly; his contact with the whites has created for him new and imperious needs which must be satisfied, in the way of clothing and food. Besides his family he will have to find enough of food on his twenty acres to keep his horses and cattle. Having no natural meadows whereon to cut hay, he will have to sow grass on a large piece of his twenty acres, for already the Indian begins to raise cattle, and the census taken last Spring shows 436 heads of horned cattle and about 1,300 horses between seven tribes, and they are only beginning. What will it amount to in ten or twenty years if they have land enough to feed them? Having set aside the part for hay they will cultivate the cultivable balance of their twenty acres; after a few years that land being light soil will require manure, but where will the Indians find it? Where are they to keep their horses and cattle to save manure? How many heads can they keep on twenty acres summer and winter, after the needs of their families have been attended to? Then what can they do with their exhausted land, without means of fertilizing it, and without any more of it to sow, while the old piece is left to rest? If a white man can scarcely eke out a living with his 320 acres how can an Indian do it with 20? They will have twenty (20) acres while the present head of the family lives, but at his death, his sons dividing his inheritance, will have ten or even five acres for their lot. Are such prospects attractive enough to lead the Indians to leave off their wanderings and turn all their energies to cultivate the soil?

            Is it possible to believe that the Indians can, any more than anybody else, live with their families out of the produce of 20 acres, keep horses and cattle there and meet all expenses? Besides, a good part of the reservation, with a  few exceptions, in either over-flooded in summer, or parched for want of water which cannot be brought there, covered with timber, or strewn with rocks, as any visitor may convince himself.

            Out of 320 acres a man may pick out the best spot to cultivate and make a living; out of twenty acres it is impossible; which white family would like to try it? And still they have more means and knowledge at their command than the Indians.

            If the Government be sincere in its intentions of civilizing the Indians, let sufficient land be allotted to them; as it is at present it is either too much or far too little; too much if the Government does not want them to cultivate their farms and live from the produce, too little by far if it does.

            The question is too important for the welfare of the country to stop at half measures. But those who want to cultivate on a large scale can pre-empt land as any other man, after they have obtained a special authorization from the Governor. That permission may be refused, and would be if many applications were sent, for that special permission is required against Indian pre-emption, and it is not the Government policy to let Indians pre-empt. Besides, suppose the permission granted, how can an Indian who has nothing, no provisions, no money, no implements of agriculture, remain for ten months on his claim with his family? When he leaves he cannot engage a white man, another Indian cannot take his place, so that in his absence to procure food for his family his land may be jumped.

            Pre-emption is but a nominal right to the Indian for whom it was not intended, and whose condition does not allow him to fulfill the provisions of the law.

            The natives are now quite awake to the necessity of following the example of the whites. They look into the future with fear for themselves and their children if they do not do so; they want reasonable means for doing it, and consequently demand 80 acres of a farm for each head of a family, and extensive mountain pasture for their cattle, so as to allow them to increase their number every year and improve their own condition. This they have asked from the Indian Commissioner; they are anxious to obtain no money, nor any other compensation will they accept in its stead.

            The Indians of this country, as a people, are honest, peaceful, law-abiding, and well disposed towards the whites; none can complain that they have done him any harm. On the contrary, they are industrious and of great service to the whites. Let not their good qualities be turned against their interests, but be one reason the more to secure to them the means of becoming useful members of society. If they obtain the right which they claim, the good feeling that reigns between them and the whites shall be strengthened for ever. The settlers need not entertain any fear of them; we shall never see in our midst the heart-rending scenes which desolate so many homes among our neighbours; and the comparison which you draw to the advantage of our Government and of its just treatment of the natives will remain an undisputed truth.

            But if the Indians are persistently refused their demands, if they are deprived of their fathers’ land without any hope of redress from the proper authorities, their dissatisfactions will increase, meetings shall be held again, as it has been about their grievances, until they come to an understanding, the end of which I am afraid to foresee. We may have very serious disturbances, which it might be impossible to suppress except at the cost of human life and large expenditure of money, as our past experience has taught us with the Chilcotin Indians; and those were only a handful of men, whilst the present dissatisfaction pervades all the tribes living amongst the whites.

            I beg to apologize for the length of this communication, but the matter is too important for me to keep silent. If it is my duty to teach the Indian to keep the commandments of God, and obey the just laws of man, it is no less my obligation to spare no effort in order that justice be done to them, and that peace and security be preserved in my adopted country.

                                    Believe me to remain, etc.,

                                                (Signed)    C. J. Grandidier

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • June 2018
  • December 2017
  • July 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • January 2016
  • July 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • September 2014

Categories

  • A Sitemap ToC
  • Archived Articles
  • BC treaty process
  • Comprehensive Claims – Policy and Protest
  • Government Commissions
  • Gustafsen Lake Standoff 1995 – Ts'peten Defense, Secwepemc
  • Indian Residential School
  • Indigenous Declarations
  • Media: letters and articles
  • On Reserve
  • Opinion
  • Pictures
  • Reports
  • The Colonial Present
  • UN Engagement
  • Uncategorized
  • Union of BC Indian Chiefs

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • The West Wasn't Won
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The West Wasn't Won
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...