Cowichan Petition, 1909

Tags

Arthur O'Meara, Charles Tate, Cowichan, Cowichan Petition full text, Privy Council

Cowichan Petition

March, 1909

Missionaries Charles Tate and Arthur O’Meara draft the Cowichan Petition on behalf of the Quw’utsun’ and present it to colonial authorities in London. The ten-page petition asserts Quw’utsun’ possession and occupation of their land since “time immemorial” and invokes the 1763 Royal Proclamation as a guarantee that these lands, not having been surrendered to the Crown, remain reserved for the Quw’utsun’. In doing so, the Quw’utsun’ regard the “Proclamation of their great father, King George III as the Charter of their rights.”

– UBCIC, Stolen Lands, Broken Promises. Chapter 1: Dispossession and Resistance in British Columbia.

Full Text of the Cowichan Petition:

The King’s Most Excellent Majesty:

The Humble Petition of the Cowichan Tribe of Indians in the Province of British Columbia in the Dominion of Canada one of Your Majesty’s Dominions Beyond the Seas.

SHOWETH:

1. THAT from time immemorial the Cowichan Tribe of Indians have been the possessors and occupants of the territory including the Cowichan Valley containing a large area and situate within the Territorial limits of the said Province of British Columbia.
2. The Indian title to said territory was always recognized by Your Majesty’s predecessors. This Indian Title was expressly recognized and affirmed by the Proclamation issued by Your Majesty’s predecessor King George III on the 7^th of October, 1763. This proclamation ordained among other things as follows:

“And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest and the Security of Our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds; We do therefore, with the Advice of Our Privy Council, declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of Our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida, or West Florida, do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments, as described in their Commissions; as also, that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of Our other Colonies or Plantations in America, do presume, for the present, and until Our further Pleasure be known, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantick Ocean from the West and North-West, or upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any of them.

“And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under Our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the Use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three New Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West, as aforesaid; and We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of Our Displeasure, all Our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without Our especial Leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

“And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever, who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described, or upon any other Lands, which, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.

“And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in the purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of Our Interests, and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians.

“In order therefore to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and to the End that the Indians may be convinced of Our Justice, and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do, with the Advice of Our Privy Council, strictly enjoin and require, that no private Person do presume to make any Purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those Parts of Our Colonies where We have thought proper to allow Settlement; but that if, at any Time, any of the said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, that same shall be purchased only for Us, in Our Name, at some publick Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of Our Colonies respectively, within which they shall lie.”

The lands belonging to and claimed by the said Cowichan Tribe as aforesaid were never ceded to or purchased by the Crown nor was the Indian title otherwise extinguished. These lands were not within the limits of the territory at the date of the said proclamation namely, 7^th October, 1763, granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company.

The said lands were, therefore, within the terms of the said proclamation lands reserved for the said Indians.

The said Cowichan Tribe as well as all Indians in North America have always regarded the said Proclamation of their great father King George III as the Charter of their rights.

The proclamation was decided in the case of Campbell v. Hall, 1 Cowper 204, by Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice England, to have the effect and operation of a Statute of the Imperial Parliament.

Ever since the date of the said proclamation the Indians have continued to be the firm and faithful allies of the Crown and have rendered important military service especially in two wars, the war of the Revolution and that of 1812 and these services were expressly referred to in the judgment of Mr. Justice Strong in the St. Catharines Milling & Lumber Company v The Queen, 4 Cartwright page 137.

The title of the Indians is recognized in various Imperial Statutes relating to British Columbia before the Confederation of 1867 in which the lands in question are referred to as “Indian Territories.” This is also recognized by the fourteen Indian treaties made by Sir James Douglas as agent for the Hudson Bay Company which Treaties are set forth in the Sessional papers of British Columbia for 1876 at page 165 et seq. The same state of affairs is recognized in the correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and Sir James Douglas during the years 1858 to 1861. These are set forth in the said sessional papers at page 172 and following.

In a report made by the Indian Commissioners appointed by the Government of Canada dated 22^nd January, 1844, and made while the Indian affairs of Canada were still under the direction of the Imperial Government the Indian Commissioners say “The subsequent proclamation of His Majesty George III issued in 1763 furnished them (the Indians) with a fresh guarantee for the possession of their hunting grounds and the protection of the Crown. This document the Indians look upon as their Charter. They have preserved a copy of it to the present time and have referred to it on several occasions in their representations to the Government.”

“Since 1763 the Government adhering to the Royal Proclamation of that year have not considered themselves entitled to dispossess the Indians of their lands without entering into an agreement with them and rendering them some compensation. For a considerable time after the conquest of Canada the whole of the Western part of the upper province with the exception of a few military posts on the frontier and a great extent of the eastern part was in their occupation. As the settlement of the country advanced and the land was required for new occupants rendered their removal desirable the British Government made successive agreements with them for the surrender of portions of their lands.”

The Indian title and rights were also fully recognized by the Legislature of Vancouver Island as shown by the petition of the House of Assembly of Vancouver Island referred to in the Sessional Papers of British Columbia 1876 page 179 et seq. And in reply to the said petition the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his dispatch from Downing Street dated 19^th October, 1861, says “I am fully sensible of the great importance of purchasing without loss of time the native title to the soil of Vancouver Island.”

In his judgment in the St. Catharine’s Milling case, 4 Cart, 181 Mr. Justice Gwynne quotes from a report made in 1856 by Royal Commissioners appointed to investigate the Indian Land question as follows: – “By the proclamation of 1763 territorial rights akin to those asserted by Sovereign Princes are recognized as belonging to the Indians, that is to say, that none of their land can be alienated except by Treaty made publicly between the Crown and them.”

At the time of the union of British Columbia with the Dominion of Canada section 109 of the British North America Act 1867 was incorporated in the terms of the union and expressly reserves and protect(s) the Indian title to the said lands.

The rights of your Petitioners in respect of said lands therefore at Confederation remained and still continue to be under the “sovereignty, protection and dominion” of Your Majesty by virtue of the said Proclamation of 7^th October, 1763.

In the St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Company v The Queen, 14 Appeal Cases Pages 56 and 59 Lord Watson refers to the interest of the Indians in the land as a burden upon the estate of the Crown and an interest other than that of the Province in the same within the meaning of Section 109 of the British North America Act. It is contended therefore, that the Indian title to the said lands remains in full force and effect.

This Indian title was referred to in the address of Lord Dufferin Governor-General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia made on the 20^th day of September, 1876.

“From my first arrival in Canada I have been very much pre-occupied with the condition of the Indians population in the Province. You must remember that the Indian population are not represented in Parliament and consequently that the Governor-General is bound to watch over their welfare with special solicitude. Now we must all admit that the condition of the Indian question in British Columbia is not satisfactory. Most unfortunately as I think there has been an initial error, ever since Sir James Douglas quitted office in the Government of British Columbia neglecting to recognize what is known as the Indian title. In Canada this has always been done: no Government whether Provincial or central has failed to acknowledge that the original title to the land existed in the Indian tribes and communities that hunted or wandered over them. Before we touch an acre we make a treaty with the Chiefs representing the bands we are dealing with, and having agreed upon and paid our stipulated price often times arrived at after a great deal of haggling and difficulty we enter into possession but not until then do we consider that we are entitled to deal with an acre. The result has been that in Canada our Indians are contented well affected to the white men and amenable to the laws and Government.”

The title of your Petitioners has been wrongfully repudiated and ignored by the Government of the Province of British Columbia.

By the Thirteenth Article of the terms of admission of British Columbia into Confederation it is provided “that the charge of the Indians and the trusteeship and management of the lands reserved for their use and benefit shall be assumed by the Dominion Government and a policy as liberal as that hitherto pursued by the British Columbia Government should be continued by the Dominion Government after union” and it was further provided “to carry out such policy tracts of land of such extent as it has hitherto been the practice of the British Columbia Government to appropriate for that purpose shall from time to time be conveyed from the local to the Dominion Government in trust for the use and benefit of the Indians on application of the Dominion Government: and in case of disagreement between the two Governments respecting the quantity of such tracts of land to be so granted the matter shall be referred for the decision of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.”

The Dominion Government endeavoured to have such reserves set aside but did not succeed in so doing and such reserves have not up to the present time been conveyed by the Provincial Government to the Dominion Government.

In a Memorandum dated the 2^nd day of November, 1874, and approved by his Excellency the Governor-General on the 4^th of November, 1874, the Minister of the Interior says “The undersigned would respectfully recommend that the Government of the Dominion should make an earnest appeal to the Government of British Columbia if they value the peace and prosperity of their Province – if they desire that Canada as a whole should retain the high character she has earned for herself by her just and honourable treatment of the red men of the forest to reconsider in a spirit of wisdom and patriotism the land grievances of which the Indians of that Province complain apparently with good reason and take such measures as may be necessary promptly and effectually to redress them.”

Up to the present time this appeal has been unsuccessful.

In the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Indian affairs 31^st December, 1877, referring to British Columbia he says “The non-recognition in some instances by the Provincial Government of the title of the Indians to land occupied by them has for some time agitated the minds of the Indians of this province. Some of these lands have already been and others are being sold without reference to the Indian title thereto. Unless the equitable claims of the Indians in respect to the lands in question are recognized and met in a liberal spirit serious trouble may be the result.”

The memorandum of the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia dated the 26^th day of February, 1907, and approved by the Executive Council on the 28^th of February, 1907, (included in the papers and correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia) comprised in a return called for by the House of Commons on January 28^th, 1908, the British Columbia Government says that the Dominion Government holds no proprietary rights in the reserves and denied the power of the Dominion to deal even with the reserves. These propositions of the provincial Government were controverted by a report of the Committee of the Privy Council approved on the 19^th day of December, 1907, and the Dominion Government stating that it was ready to facilitate the Government of the Province of British Columbia in any steps it may be advised to test the question before the Courts. Subsequently by Order-in-Council dated the 8^th day of August, 1908, certain questions were submitted to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for hearing and consideration. These questions do not include the question of the Indian title but the frame of the question submitted substantially amounts to a repudiation of your petitioners’ title and rights.

On the argument of the said questions before the Supreme Court of British Columbia the Dominion Government took no part. Your petitioners are informed that counsel for the Attorney-General on the said argument repudiated your petitioners’ title and stated that the St. Catharines case leaves little room for argument. In your petitioners’ view the judgment in that case is not applicable because the territory thee in dispute was acquired by Great Britain from France and in the second place because there the Indian title to lands in question had been surrendered to the Dominion by treaty and in consideration of substantial money payments and other advantages satisfactory to the Indians.

Your petitioners have waited patiently for long years in the hope and expectation that their rights would be recognized and justice done to them by the Government of British Columbia but have at length exhausted all other constitutional means known to them.

Your petitioners as a last resort appeal across the Seas to Your Majesty the fountain of Justice fully assured that Your Majesty in exercise of your Sovereignty and Dominion will protect your petitioners in their extremity.

YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAY that steps be taken to protect the usufructuary right of your petitioners in all of the said lands, or, that in the alternative the whole question of the rights of the said Tribe be submitted to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for decision and determination.

AND YOUR PETITIONERS WILL EVER PRAY

March, 1909

British Seal of Agreement between the Crown and the Chiefs of the Interior of BC: “As Long As the Sun Shines and the Three Rivers Flow…” the British will keep the peace with the peoples of these lands. Note that the arms have since been reversed, to place the Union Jack on top of the sun and rivers.

Cheslatta Graveyard and the Kemano Dam

Tags

CHeslatta, Graveyard, Kemano

Declaration of Secwepemc Sovereignty, 1983

Tags

Secwepemc, Shuswap, Sovereignty

Secwepemc Chiefs and Representatives, collectively the only spokespersons for Secwepemc, declare that on this day, January 17, 1983, that we reaffirm our sovereignty over our traditional territory.

We follow the path of our Elders and our Forefathers in standing firm for our sovereignty over our territory so that the future generations of our children will also have what has been handed down to us by our Creator. Today through this Declaration we ensure that Secwepemc sovereignty over our territory comes from the past, to the present and forever on into the future.

We have governed, managed, controlled, developed, protected and defended our territory since time immemorial. We have never abandoned our territory or sold it. We have never conceded our sovereignty by agreement or by conquest to any other nation.

We declare our sovereignty over all our lands, waters, air and all their resources in the Interior of what is now known as British Columbia, the land generally speaking that lays between latitude 50degrees, 30 minutes and 53degrees north, from the Fraser River area to the Rocky Mountains.

We will work arm in arm with Secwepemc and other peoples who are willing to support our mandate which is to affirm our sovereignty over our traditional territory.

We, Secwepemc, will work towards self-reliance on the basis of co-operation.

We declare our support in the struggle for self-determination and independence of Indigenous and Third World Nations.

Indian Claims Commission 1963 – Liberal election promise broken

Tags

Comprehensive Claims Policy, Federal Liberals Comprehensive Claims Policy, Guy Favreau, Indian Claims Commission, Land claims, Trudeau

On August 15^th, 1963, the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, The Honourable Guy Favreau had this to say to the Third Annual Conference of the National Indian Advisory Council of Canada, in Winnipeg, in respect to the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission.

“I mentioned earlier that lack of confidence on the part of the Indians remains one of the serious problems affecting Indian administration.

In analyzing the deep causes for this distrust it soon became apparent that a rankling feeling of injustice among the Indians at the lack of action with regard to the adjudication and settlement of their long outstanding claims was one of the roots of this evil.

This understandable sense of grievance among the Indians had made it extremely difficult over the years to obtain the fruitful co-operation between them and the government, which is so necessary in every field of endeavor that may be undertaken to improve their condition.

Two parliamentary committees on the administration of Indian Affairs had recognized this fact and recommended that action be taken by the government to assess and settle all Indian claims and grievances in a just and equitable manner.

The Liberal party, before the last election, had included in its program the appointment of an independent body, with broad terms of reference, to review all matters pertaining to Indian Claims.

In its desire to see justice done, the Government wish that every legitimate Indian claim be given a fair hearing, without undue formality, and settlement made where justified.

Without prejudging the matter, as I am inclined to believe that no claim submitted to the commission should be open to defeat upon narrow or technical grounds.

It is proposed that the commission be authorized to hear all claims referred to it by the government, as well as such claims as may be made before it by Indian bands or other identifiable groups of Indians.”

* Note: this Commission was never struck up, never populated, never happened. Instead,  one Dr. Hawthorn and his research team at the University of British Columbia, commissioned by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to prepare an in-depth study of Indian administration in British Columbia, released their report in 1964 and 1965 and advocated assimilation of Indians by integration – as well as, later, the concept of “citizens plus.” In 1968, Pierre Trudeau became leader of the federal government and in 1969 he introduced the “White Paper Policy,” or “Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy.” That policy was simply to dissolve the Indian Act and erase any reference to Indian rights in Canada’s constitutional documents. This policy document was prevented from taking full effect by extreme opposition by every Indian organization from coast to coast to coast, and a few years later, the federal government instituted the Comprehensive Claims Policy instead: a process by which Indian communities agree to their own extinguishment in exchange for money. That policy is still in effect and underlines all negotiations between Canada and Indigenous Peoples, including the BC treaty process.

Observations on the promised Indian Claims Commission, 1963, on the election of the Federal Liberal Party:

B.C. Indian Lands Question

1. The North American Indian Brotherhood (NAIB) carried out a survey of the Interior Indians by holding meetings at the various Interior towns as to what the Indians wished to pursue at the Senate and Parliamentary Committee hearings on Indian Affairs in the late 1950’s.
2. It was unanimously agreed that the BC Indian Land question be pursued. At that time the Indian Land question had been completely abandoned and it was through the NAIB’s efforts after consultation with the Indians that it was revived.
3. Through persistence by the NAIB the Liberal party of Canada issued a pamphlet (before their election as a party governing Canada) stating that in 1963 the Liberals promised as follows:                                                                                       a) Liberal policy now is to appoint as soon as possible an Indian Claims Commission, an independent, unbiased unprejudiced body with broad terms of reference, to review all matters pertaining to this issue.                                                                   b)With the objective of achieving a fair and just settlement of all outstanding claims, it is Liberal policy that the Commission will include qualified authorities on British Constitutional law as it affects aboriginal hereditary and usufructory (sic) rights.   c) To assure the objectivity which Indians of Canada have the right to expect after years of procrastination, Commissioners may be appointed from other parts of the Commonwealth such as New Zealand, where achievements in this field are regarded as outstanding. It is Liberal policy that the Commission will be unbiased and independent.
4. Appointment of the Indian Claims Commission, as described, is based on the fundamental Liberal policy that Canada’s Native Indians must now achieve full equality without loss of aboriginal, hereditary and usufructory rights. Canada, at this time in our history and today’s war of ideologies, must erase the blot of second and third-class citizenship.
5. In 1963 when the Liberals were elected the NAIB sent delegates to the United Nations and to Parliament in Ottawa recommending the Commission be instituted as follows:

The delegates recommend a three-man commission comprised of the following individuals:                                                                                                              a) A Commission Chairman, selected by the Secretary General of the United Nations, or an appropriate body of the United Nations, such as the International Court of Justice. b) An international senior anthropologist, who understands the Indian manner of submitting evidence by having direct contact with Indian affairs and through working with natives personally.                                                                                             c) A Canadian legal authority trained in International law and British Constitutional Law.

1. The reason for an International Commission in that the commissioners would be trained in International Law is as follows:
2. The Commissioners would be trained along International lines rather than Canadian and would bring into their thinking International cases such as the Ghana and Nigerian decisions which gave those native people title to their lands as hereditary nations.
3. The Indian tribes in the United States and other countries have been treated in law as nations and Canadian Indians’ position in International Law should be the same.
4. If you go hat in hand to government asking for a negotiation as to settlement, Canada, if it does agree to settle, will say we offer you so much and that is it. There will be a position wherein Canada makes the decision and the Indians will have to take it or leave it.
5. If a Tribunal with International authorities decide, then world attention will be directed toward the tribunal and Canada will have to make an honourable settlement.
6. Canada has already agreed that the Indians have title to British Columbia, otherwise the Indians would not be receiving $100,000 per year by way of the BC Special in lieu of Treaty monies.
7. The difference is that at least theoretically the Indians in other parts of Canada agreed to their treaty money by having treaties signed by the Indians.
8. But BC Indians never signed treaties, except for small areas regarding the Indian Land question, although Canada sees fit to pay them $100,000 a year for title.
9. So that Canada admits the Indians have title to BC by paying them $100,000 per year which the Indians never agreed was enough, as they may have done by signing treaties in other parts of Canada.
10. It is therefore essential that the Liberals be held to their promise of 1963 that an independent, unbiased, unprejudiced body with broad terms of reference be appointed to review all matters pertaining to the BC Indian Land question.
11. This can only be done by appointment of persons trained in international affairs from outside Canada.
12. The Liberal promise of 1963 was adopted by the Federal Liberal Party under then Prime Minister Lester Pearson, and this is a contract, and should be continuously held forth as such, regardless of any position taken by Prime Minister Trudeau or other government officials. This was a contract made with full intent and cannot be broken.

In hand writing at the top of this typed, undated, unsigned document: “This was the position of the Liberals in 1963 and I still maintain that you can hold them to it. –H.C.”

Nishga Declaration 1980

Tags

Naas, Nisga'a, Nishga, Nishga Declaration 1980

Nishga Chief Gideon Minesque, c. 1915

The Nishga People is a distinct and unique society within the many faceted cultural mosaic that is Canada. The issue is whether the Nishga element within this mosaic will be allowed to face the ‘difficulties,’ will be allowed to become full participants contributing in a positive way to the well-being of the Naas Valley in particular and the country in general. The positive aspect of this participation, we feel, must be through self-determination, self-determination that is dependent on the shared and mutual responsibility of governments and Nishga People.

If Canadian Society and Nishga Society of which it is a part, is to be truly free, we as a distinct people and as citizens, must be allowed to face the difficulties and find the answers, answers that can only be found by determining our own social, economic and political participation in Canadian life. Governments, both Federal and Provincial, must be persuaded that Nishga self-determination is the path that will lead to a fuller and richer life for Nishga People and all Canadians.

We, as Nishgas, are living in a world where dynamic initiatives must be taken to achieve self-determination especially in respect to the natural resources of the Naas Valley, in order to control our own process of development within the larger Canadian society and to make decisions that affect our lives and the lives of our children. We realize that our struggle for self-determination will be a difficult one, but we refuse to believe that it is vain, if governments and the Nishga People agree to their mutual responsibility for that growth and development. Nishga self-determination of resource development within the Naas Valley is the economic base that will allow for self-determination of the other aspects of modern 20^th Century society that makes up this Canada of ours.

In 1969, Nishga Tribal Council agreed in principle with the “statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy,” in the face of strong opposition from other Native Peoples across the nation. That agreed principle was incorporated in the policy statement: “true equality presupposes that the Indian people have the right to full and equal participation in the cultural, social, economic and political life of Canada.” Such an agreement in principle, however, does not necessarily mean the acceptance of the steps to implement as suggested by the 1969 Policy Statement. Co-existent with the NTC agreement of the stated principle is also the NTC agreement with the Hawthorne Report, that “Indians should be regarded as Citizens Plus; in addition to the normal rights and duties of citizenship, Indians possess certain rights as charter members of the Canadian Community.”

Undergirding the whole of the above, is the demand that, as the inhabitants since time immemoriam of the Naas Valley, all plans for resource extraction and “development” must cease until aboriginal title is accepted by the Provincial Government. Also, we, the Nishga People, believe that both the Government of BC and the Government of Canada must be prepared to negotiate with the Nishgas on the basis that we, the Nishgas, are inseparable from our land; that it cannot be bought or sold in exchange for “extinguishing of title.”

Conclusion

What we seek is the right to survive as a People and a Culture. This, we believe, can only be accomplished through free, open-minded and just negotiations with the provincial and federal authorities, negotiations that are based on the understanding that self-determination is the ‘answer’ that government seeks to the ‘difficulties’ as they apply to the Nishga People.

Printed in “Citizens Plus – the Nishga people of the Naas River Valley in Northwestern British Columbia; Nishga Land is not for sale” Revised Edition, April, 1980. Published by the Nishga Tribal Council, New Aiyansh, BC, V0J 1A0, (604) 633 2215. Produced by Hugh McCullum, Project North, 154 Glenrose Ave., Toronto, Ontario, M4T 1K8, (416) 481 3574. 

Elders Position Okanagan Nation, 1981

Tags

Elders' Position, Okanagan

1. The Okanagan Nation is a sovereign nation. This originates from the Creator when he placed us on this island in our territory. We were given instructions under which our people have lived in health for nobody knows how many generations. Those instructions are explained in the teachings of Coyote. Our rights are contained in those teachings.
2. Those are still our rights. Our sovereignty is still the same. The only one who can change that is the one who made it so. That is our understanding of aboriginal title and aboriginal rights.
3. No other Nation in this world can give us what we already have. Our Nationhood and our sovereignty. When European Nations first encountered North America, there was an agreement signed by the King that obliged them to respect that. That agreement does not set out our sovereignty or our rights. All it does is establish the white peoples’ rights in the territories of the various Indian nations. We already have our rights. The white people need to define what they are doing in our country and how they will act toward our people. That is the basis of treaty-making. It defines white peoples’ rights that we will allow them to have.
4. When the white people came to our territory there was an effort by the Queen’s representatives to establish white people’s rights that we would allow them to have in our territory. Our people agreed to define for them their rights so there would be no war. The Shuswap and Okanagan jointly agreed to stand together on what they would agree to, as far as what white people’s rights were to be.
5. The agreement they reached was that white people could live in our territory as long as they in no way interfered with our people and the way our people lived. Four Chiefs representing the Okanagan and the Shuswap declared before the English Crown that we were a sovereign people and would always remain so within all of the practices handed down to us and that we would live in peace with the Crown’s children in certain campgrounds set out and marked by four corner posts. The other land which white people did not directly live on belongs to our people in all respects of how we practice our sovereignty. If anything was to be removed from the resources then they would have to buy that from us.
6. That is the declaration that we make now. We cannot change what has been put in place by our Creator under the instructions of our Great Chief Coyote. We can in no way compromise that by being included within the Constitution of Canada or any other Nation of the world. We have declared this position at the United Nations Non-governmental Organization Conference in Geneva on Aboriginal Rights in September of 1981 and have documented it fully.

We are committed to maintain that before all the other Nations of the world and will pursue to strategize with any other Indian Nation that is committed to the same position. What we need to do now is to make a re-definition of white people’s rights because they have not respected the agreements our people defined for them to live in our territory in the first place. WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE BY BEING INCLUDED IN THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION. We have to put them back in their place at whatever cost.

Reprinted from “Ka-Nata – a vision of social revolution’ magazine, Spring, 1982; ‘Voice of KANATA Anti-Imperialist Organizing Committee.”