union of british columbia indian chiefs aboriginal...

UNION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN CHIEF SABORIGINAL RIGHTS

LEGACY OF OUR FOREFATHERS110 Wast Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1L1 February 9, 1980

The reason we have Aboriginal Rights today is because our forefathers had the vision and wisdom not to com-

promise, because of our children yet unborn ; and that was us .

CONSTITUTION SHA M

The Federal Government threw their first Constitution party two week sago . The only people to suffer from the after effects were the Indian people.It was a big event . The national media were invited, many national India nleaders were invited and the rest of the country was there through their tele-vision screens . The purpose was to celebrate the Entrenchment of Aborigi-nal Rights in the proposed patriated Constitution . This was regarded as agreat victory by the Federal Government, and it was—for the Federa

l Government. For the Indian people it was a sham. It isn't the Indian people whodefine those Aboriginal Rights . This will be done by the Government wh ohas always tried to terminate them, and by the Courts who have certainl ynot always looked favourably at Aboriginal Rights .

The celebration was perhaps a bit premature . Government officials re -

fused to comment when asked if a party was planned to celebrate Indian in-volvement in the Amending Formula . Without this involvement, the Fe deraland Provincial Governments can wipe out our rights at any time . If there isone thing that the Federal and Provincial Governments agree upon in thiswhole constitutional scam, it is the final extinguishment of Aborigina lRights . Two days later it was announced there would be no India ninvolvement in the Amending Formula . Indian leaders cried "Foul . "

This was the final twist in a hundred year plan to terminate Aborigina lRights and assimilate us into their society . This has been obvious from gov-ernment policies from the time of confederation, to the 1969 White Paper ,to their successful termination of Indian rights in the James Bay Agreementof 1975 . What was a hit or miss policy is now a refined strategy, revealed i nwhat was the Confidential 1979, Review of Specific Claims Policy tha tstates :

• All negotiation will be with Indian groups who are prepared to accept ex -tinguishment of their rights .

• Aboriginal Rights are to be resolved through negotiations rather than lega laction because they could possibly rule in favour of Aboriginal Right s.

• A priority is to be given to extinguishing Aboriginal Rights when major re -source development is likely to occur (i .e . coal) .

• Indian organizations which are interested in accepting Provincial Program sand are co-operating with the Provincial Government to settle Aborigina lRights will be encouraged and supported, while those organizations wh osupported Aboriginal Rights will not .

• Existing political organizations who support Aboriginal Rights are to b eavoided in negotiating settlement . Tribal Council and Indian Bands are t obe alienated from such organizations in order to enhance the government' snegotiating position .The Regional DIA strategies of divide and conquer are thus exposed as a n

integral part of an overall strategy to do away with our Aboriginal Rights . Th eDirector General of B .C . has organized a Forum to implement federal govern-ment policy, and is ignoring those Bands, District Councils and organization swho want to strengthen Indian Government and Aboriginal Rights . Th eChairman of the Forum is the Director General himself . After years of tryin gto remove DIA from the Chair, we find it is back in the seat again . Triba lCouncils are established in isolation from each other and with conflictin gterritorial boundaries . Tribal Councils don't meet except under DIA sponsorship .

The DIA has hired Indian people from across the country to sell their In-dian Government Bill (proposed changes to the Indian Act) in spite of oppo-sition from Indian Nations . Tribal Councils, Bands, individuals and Pro-vincial Organizations are invited to open Government budget meetings ,there to fight over small sums allotted by the Government .

Tahltan TribeWe claim the sovereign right to al l

the country of our tribe—this countryof ours which we have held intactfrom the encroachments of othertribes, from time immemorial, at th ecost of our own blood . We have don ethis because our lives depended o nour country . To lose it meant w ewould lose our means of living, an dtherefore our lives .

We deny the B .C . governmenthas any title or right of ownership i nour country . We have never treate dwith them, nor given them any suc htitle .Signed at Telegraph Creek, B.C ., this eighteenth dayof October, Nineteen hundred and ten, b y

NANOK, Chief of the Tahltans.NASTULTA, alias Little Jackson .GEORGE ASSADZA, KENETI, alias Big

Jackson .and eighty other members of the tribe .

Cowichan Peopl e' From time immemorial the Cowicha nTribe of Indians have been the posses-sors and occupants of the territory including Cowichan Valley containing alarge area and situated within theTerritorial limits of the province o fB .C . The Indian title to the said terri-tory was always recognised by you rmajesty's predecessors .

. . . The lands belonging to and claime dby the said Cowichan Tribe werenever ceded to or purchased by theCrown nor was the Indian title other -wise extinguished. March, 1909 .

[GRAPHIC]Statement of the

Nishga Nation

From time immemorial the Nishg aNation or Tribe of Indians possessed ,occupied and used the territory gen-erally known as the Valley of the NaasRiver, the boundaries of which ar ewell defined .

The claims which we make in respec tof this territory are clear and simple .We lay claim to the rights of men . W eclaim to be aboriginal inhabitants o fthis country and to have rights assuch . We claim that our aboriginalrights have been guaranteed by Proc-lamation of King George Third an drecognized by Acts of the Parliamen tof Great Britain . We claim that hold-ing under the words of that Proclama-tion a tribal ownership of this terri-tory, we should be dealt with in accor-dance with its provision, and that n opart of our lands should be takenfrom us or in any way disposed o funtil the same has been purchased b ythe Crown .

[PHOTO] Nishga Land Committee, 1910.

The above statement was unanimously adopted at ameeting of the Nishga Nation or Tribe of Indian sheld at Kincolith on the 22nd day of January, 1913 .

Gitskan-CarrierSince time immemorial, we, the

Gitskan and Carrier People of Kit-wanga, Kitseguecla, Gitanmaax ,Sikadoak, Kispiox, Hagwilget andMoricetown, have exercised Sover-eignty over our land . We have usedand conserved the resources of ou rland with care and respect . We havegoverned ourselves . We have gov-erned the land, the waters, the fis hand the animals . This is written onour totem poles . It is recounted in ou rsongs and dances. It is present in ou rlanguage and in our spiritual beliefs .Our Sovereignty is our Culture.

Our Aboriginal Rights and Title t othis Land have never been extinguishe dby treaty or by any agreement withthe Crown . Gitskan and Carrier Sov-ereignty continue within these tribalareas .Kispiox, B.C .November 7, 1977 .

ENTRENCHMENT: THE LAST OF THE BEST DEAL SSince the first white man set foot on Indian territory, he has sought t o

control, by whatever means he can, all the elements of this land we cal lhome .

Whether by force or by negotiations, he has been constant in his method sand true to his goal of domination .

From John A . Macdonald to Pierre Trudeau, from beads and blankets t omillion dollar cash settlements, the non-Indian has always been willing t omake a deal for that which the Creator has given .

It is strange, though, that his best deal has been no deal at all : our landsand heritage in exchange for a very small part of the same lands, heritag eand pride .

JAMES BAY: PRESSURED TO SELLHe said to the Cree and Inuit of James Bay : give up your Aboriginal Titl e

to the lands and resources that you've traditionally owned, and in exchange ,we will give,you cash and the "exclusive use and enjoyment" of a small par tof that same traditional territory . This deal offered to the Cree and Inui t

was done under very great economic and political pressure . Even as the ne-gotiations took place, giant earthmovers were changing forever a land tha thad given life to generations of indigenous hunters and trappers .

"OUR BEST OFFER OR NOTHING "FEDS TELL COPE

Another example of a deal offered under extreme pressure and a "tak ethis or get nothing at all" philosophy, was the Agreement in Principl ebetween the Committee of Original Peoples Entitlement (COPE) and th eFederal Government .

This agreement was not one in recognition of Aboriginal Rights, bu toffered a cash settlement and small tracts of land as compensation for th eextinguishment of aboriginal title.

OUR FOREFATHERS REFUSED THISSAME DEAL

He has been able to compromise beliefs in our Aboriginal Rights by repeat -ing : accept this deal or get nothing . But this " nothing" can only be defined i nwhite men 's terms . You can' t put a dollar sign on human dignity and declar eit non-taxable and payable over the next ten years .

The latest and perhaps the last deal being offered our Indian Nations con -cern our Aboriginal Rights and the Constitution .

DIVIDE AND RULE THROUGHPROGRAMS:

Any deal the Federal Government has finalized with our Indian peopl ehas always been in the shadow of an imposed legislated settlement an dongoing resource exploitation . The federal government has been able t onegotiate on its own terms because it has been successful in alienating re-gional and local organizations and Band office support away from a stron gprovincial political organization . It has done this by offering cash deals i nthe form of programs : Indian Economic Development programs, housing ,health services, education and the very future of our children .

The federal government position has remained unchanged in the pas thundred years . It has constantly tried to buy out our Aboriginal Rights .

The same deal that we are offered today was offered toour forefathers acentury ago . It is through their wisdom, their refusal to compromise an dsell, that we can stand today to speak about Aboriginal Rights, and deman drecognition .

When we speak of Aboriginal Rights, we speak of basic rights to the land ,its resources, our own governments and self-determination . It is not an ab-stract concept but it's something that Indian Nations had before, and we wil lhave again .

When it comes to Aboriginal Rights, there can be no "best deals" . There i sbut one simple principle and all we ask is that recognition and respect b epaid that principle of Indian Aboriginal Rights .

OUR FOREFATHERSREFUSED TO

COMPROMISE. OURPOSITION HAS NOT

CHANGED .I have heard people say that you should take what you can get while yo u

can . I would sooner take nothing now and the Indian children in the futur ewill have something to fight for . If we sell out now, they will have nothing .We have no choice . It is the only alternative that we have—to demand th erecognition of our aboriginal rights .

Indian leaders in the past had the wisdom not to compromise . They stoo dtheir ground and refused to move . They wanted the recognition of Aborigina lRights . If the Indians of that time had surrendered their Aboriginal Rights, i fthey had compromised, there would be no Aboriginal Rights to talk about i nBritish Columbia today . Our forefathers had the foresight and wisdom to saythat we have children yet unborn that will be faced with this situation, they wil lhave no Aboriginal Rights when they are born . They were talking about us .Our position has not changed . As long as I am the leader of the UBCIC, ou rposition is not going to change from that of our forefathers . I do not want t obe responsible for selling the rights of our children yet unborn .

George Manuel, President, Union of B .C . Indian Chiefs .

[PHOTO]Lillooet TribeWe the underwritten chief's of th e

Lillooet tribe (being all the chiefs o fsaid tribe) declare as follows : —

We speak the truth, and we speakfor our whole tribe, numbering abou t1400 people at the present time .

We claim that we are the rightfulowners of our tribal territory, andeverything pertaining thereto . W ehave always lived on our country : a tno time have we ever deserted it, o rleft it to others . We have retained i tfrom the invasion of other tribes a tthe cost of our blood . Our ancestor swere in possession of our country cen-turies before the whites came .

We are aware the B .C . governmen tclaims our country, like all other Indi-an territories in B .C . ; but we deny thei rright to it . We never gave it or sold it t othem . They certainly never got the titl eto the country from us, neither b yagreement nor conquest, and non eother than us could have any right t ogive them title .

Spence, Bridge, B .C., May 10, 1911.JAMES NRAITESKEL, Chief Lillooet Band .JAMES STAGER, Chief Pemberton Band .PETER CHALAL, Chief Mission Band .JAMES JAMES, Chief Seaton Lake Band .JOHN JOIUSTGHEN, Chief Pasulko Band .DAVID EKSIEPALUS, Chief No. 2 Lillooe tCHARLES NEKAULA, Chief Nkempts Band .JAMES SMITH, Chief Tenas Lake Band .HARRY NKASUSA, Chief Samakwa Band .PAUL KOITELAMUGH, Chief Skookum Chuc kAUGUST AKSTONKAIL, Chief Port Dougla sJEAN BAPTISTE, Chief Cayuse Creek Band .DAVID SWINSTWAUGH, Chief Bridge Rive rTHOMAS BULL, Chief Slahoos Band .THOMAS JACK, Chief Anderson Lake Band .CHIEF FRANCOIS .THOMAS ADOLPH, for La Fountain Indians .

Alkali Lake Band sDeclaration of Independence

1975

From PEAVINE MOUNTAI Natop the mountain known as BorderMountain, Half of the SPRING-HOUSE HILLS, straight across t oChimney Lake to the Lac La HacheP .S .Y .U . and down that line to thesouth-east corner of T .P . 75 ; bac ktowards the Fraser River along theWilliams Lake P .S.Y .U . line ; andfrom the Fraser River Back along it sbed to the PEAVINE MOUNTAIN :Indian Reserve #6 (Wycotte Flats) andIndian reserve #16 .

These lands ate part of the tradi-tional territory of the Alkali Band o fthe Shuswap Nation . We have neversurrendered any of our lands, norhave we ever given up our aborigina lrights to the land, water, forests orany of the resources on or under th eland . Like our ancestors, we depen don this land for our living as well a sour children and grandchildren, eve nthose as yet unborn .

[PHOTO]Chief of Tribes, B.C. 1870

Declaration of theFirst Nations

We the original peoples of this landknow the Creator put us here.

The Creator gave us laws that gov-ern our relationships to live in har-mony with nature and mankind.

The laws of the Creator defined ou rrights and responsibilities.

The Creator gave us our spiritua lbeliefs, our languages, our culture,and a place on Mother Earth whichprovided us with all our needs . Wehave maintained our freedom, ourlanguages, and our traditions fromtime immemorial.

We continue to exercise the rightsandfulfill the responsibilities given t ous by the Creator for the lands upo nwhich we were placed.

The Creator has given us the righ tto govern ourselves and the right toself-determination .

The rights and responsibilities givento us by the Creator cannot be alteredor taken away by any other nation .December, 1980 in Ottawa .

Land Claims in B.C.1880 : start of our historical battle forour land claims . Individual tribes an dlocal groups start making representa-tions, petitions and start sending dele-gates to the provincial and Federalgovernments . Chiefs of the LowerFraser and South Vancouver Islan dprotest encroachment on Indian land .

1887: the Chiefs of Port Simpson an dthe Nass petition for return of thei rland and formal treaty guaranteeingtheir rights to those lands forever :

"What we don't like about this gov-ernment is their saying this : 'We wil lgive you so much land .' How can theygive it to us when it is our own land ."

1906 : Squamish delegation go toEngland with a petition .1909 : 20 tribes from southern B .C .send delegations to London .

1910 & 1911 : Declarations of title totribal territory and assertion tha tthese titles had never bee

n extinguished by: Shuswap, Tahltan, Okanagan ,Lillooet, Thompson, Sto :lo, Chilco-tin and Carrier Nations .

1913 : Privy Council replies that titlewill only be recognised when India nNations "surrender such title, receiv-ing from the Dominion benefits to begranted for extinguishment of title t ounsurrendered territories . "

This position hasn't changed .

1916: meeting on Mission reserveform the Allied Tribes of B .C . to pre-sent land claims directly to the Imper-ial Privy Council . Firmly refuse t oaccept settlement based on PC 751 ,1914 .

1919 : "Statement of Allied Tribes o fB .C . to the Government of B .C . " ,prepared by Peter Kelly, a Haida

Minister, and incorporating for thefirst time all claims for Indian Tribe sin the Province. This is also the firstdemand for action on related socia land economic issues .

1926: the Allied Tribes, throug hPeter Kelly, Andrew Paull, Chie fDavid Basil and Chief Chillihitza ,present land claim positions to Parlia-ment which sets up a Joint Committeeto hold hearings and make recom-mendations .

My forefathers and my own fathe rwere some of the leading chiefs o fBritish Columbia and they never relin -quished their titles, but now they ar edead, and I am their successor, an

d I still have the title; I did not give themto anybody, and now I come ove rhere in Ottawa so that the governmen tin Ottawa will give me power in m ytitles and my rights .

the Indians do not want to be en -

franchised ; they want to be as the yare. All the Indians want is to be jus tIndians, and not to be taken as whit epeople, and made to live like the whitepeople ; they want to be (he way thei rforefathers used to be, just plain Indi-ans . That is what my people want .They do not want to be enfranchised .Chief Johnny Chillihitza .

1927 : Joint Committee judges tha tland claims are not proven . It repeat sFederal government position : if Indi-ans surrender title, terminate positionon Aboriginal Rights, then the Parlia-ment will recognise and pay us forthem . The definition of AboriginalRights was to be decided by th eCourts . The Allied Tribes refuses toaccept such a judgment . The Join tCommittee also makes a recommen-dation, later to become law, that fundraising by Indian organizations forland claims become a criminal offense .