Monthly Archives: May 2025

Archive Quarterly ~ Spring 2025

24 Saturday May 2025

Posted by in Archive Quarterly

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

AQ Spring Edition Features:

Rejection of Funds, April 1975

At the 7th Annual General Assembly of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, all Indian Bands agreed to refuse federal transfer payments and program funding – rejecting government control.

The BC Association of Non-Status Indians joined them, “amalgamating the on- and off-reserve people and changing the political movement once and for all. The solution was the same for both of us: a just settlement of the Indian land question, and respect for our own governance.”

With quotes from media at the time, and comments from published interviews with Hereditary Kwagiulth Chief Hemaas, Bill Wilson and Grand Chief Saul Terry, St’at’imc; and Hereditary Wet’suwet’en Chief Ron George, unpublished 2018 interview.

Documentary resource: Nesika ~ The Voice of BC Indians, Volume 3, Issue 13, May 1975. Reporting on the Rejection of Funds and Militant May.

Nesika May 1975 rejection of fundsDownload

Bill C-31, 1985, and the first Reinstatement of Non-Status Indians

The federal objective “to keep lands reserved for Indians under the power of male Indians,” was one of the primary reasons for the first legislation respecting Indigenous Peoples, in 1869.

In order to achieve this, Canada defined who was, and who was not, a “Status Indian.” This Status, providing the right to live on-reserve and be a member of an Indian Band or First Nation, and pass Status to children, was increasingly denied to Native women.

With 40 legal actions against the government’s Registrar for wrongful misappropriation of entitlement, and a 1982 recommendation of the United Nations ICESCR treaty body, Canada removed some of the sexist restrictions to coincide with their new constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Documentary Resources: Bill C-31

Bill C-31 – Act to Amend Indian Act June 12 1985Download

First Ministers Conference on the Constitution, April 2, 1985

The Constitution Act, 1982, was passed for Canada with a British condition: the rights of Aboriginal Peoples, in Section 35, must be elaborated.

A formula to amend the Constitution was included in Section 37 of the Act: the country must hold First Ministers Conferences immediately, and specifically protect key aspects of the “existing rights” of Aboriginal Peoples in an amendment to the Constitution.

In 1985, Canada’s Prime Minister Brian Mulroney chaired the conference. He made an elaborate speech which, 40 years later, has still not been realized: “As a Canadian and as Prime Minister, I fully recognize and agree with the emphasis that the Aboriginal Peoples place on having their special rights inserted into the highest law of the land, protected–as we all want ours–from arbitrary legislative action.”

His statements were completely undermined by a report leaked ten days later.

Documentary Resources:

First Ministers Conference, Ottawa, April 2, 1985. Morning Session. Verbatim Transcript.

Including Statements of: Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, DAVID AHENAKEW (Chief, Assembly of First Nations), KEVIN DANIELS (Metis National Council), SAM SINCLAIR (President, Metis Association of Alberta), Louis (Smokey) BRUYERE (President, Native Council of Canada), MR. JOHN AMAGOALIK (Inuit Committee on National Issues)

1985 First Ministers Conference on Aboriginal Constitutional Matters – Indian self-government .April 2. transcript morning sessionDownload

First Ministers Conference, Ottawa, April 2, 1985. Afternoon Session. Verbatim Transcript.

Including Statements of: Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, GEORGE WATTS (Assembly of First Nations), HAROLD CARDINAL (Prairie Treaty Nations Alliance), CHIEF SOLOMON SANDERSON (Assembly of First Nations), HARRY W. DANIELS (Vice-President, Native Council of Canada), ZEBEEDEE NUNGAK (Inuit Committee on National Issues), M. SIOUI (chef de la Nation huronne Wondat de la Province de Quebec), JOHN CROSBIE (Canada), JIM SINCLAIR (Saskatchewan), ROLAND PENNER (Attorney-General, Manitoba), GEORGES ERASMUS (Northern Vice-Chief, Yukon and Northwest Territories, Assembly of First Nations), RICHARD HATFIELD (New Brunswick), JOHN AMAGOALIK (Inuit Committee on National Issues), BRIAN R.D. SMITH (Attorney General, British Columbia), JOE COURTEPATTE (President, Alberta Federation of Metis Settlement Associations, Metis National Council), FRED HOUSE (President, Louis Riel Metis Association, British Columbia), PETER LOUGHEED (Alberta), WILLIAM BENNETT (British Columbia)

1985 First Ministers Conference on Aboriginal Constitutional Matters – Indian self-government – April 2.afternoon sessionDownload

“The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s,” the draft Nielsen Report to Cabinet: April 12, 1985

A draft memorandum for Cabinet, produced by the Deputy Prime Minister, Erik Nielsen, was leaked to the press at the same time the federal government was making overtures to Aboriginal self-government in the First Ministers Conference and reinstating Non-Status Indians in Bill C-31.

The Nielsen Task Force Report draft for Cabinet was titled, “The Buffalo Jump of the 1980s.”

The Report recommended slashing financial support for Indigenous political organizations.

Anticipating tens of thousands of people regaining Indian Status with changes to the Indian Act under Bill C-31, the government’s “Buffalo Jump” plan also hinged on devolving fiduciary responsibilities for Native health care, education, and economic development to the Provinces.

At the same time, the near-final Sechelt Self-Government Agreement made an example of an Indian Band which agreed to extinguish their title and rights, accepting instead a municipal role with small lands, powers of taxation, and the ability to engage in business – which is not possible under the Indian Act.

For First Nations faced with the failing First Ministers Conference – where Premiers showed no intention to support Aboriginal self-government in the Constitution; and the impending cut to federal funding; the direction of the intended “Buffalo Jump” stampede became clear.

Documentary Resources:

“Buffalo Jump of the 1980s” – Nielsen Report – “Funding cuts drive FNs into compromising programs,” Ottawa Citizen, April 19, 1985; AFN press release, May 8, 1985.

“Buffalo Jump of the 1980s” – Nielsen Report – Funding cuts drive FNs into compromising programsDownload

The Nisga’a Final Agreement: A 25th Anniversary Retrospective

Excerpts from a negotiation that exceeded a century:

“You saw us laughing yesterday because you opened the book and told us the land was the Queen’s and not the Indians’. That is what we laughed at. No one ever does that, claiming property that belongs to other people. We nearly fainted when we heard that this land was claimed by the Queen. The land is like the money in our pockets, no one has a right to claim it.” Chief Am-Clamman of Kit-wil-luk shilts, 1887.

With statements from 1884-1889 collected by Reverends of the Methodist Missions,

Excerpts from the Northwest Coast Commission at Port Simpson and the Nass, 1887,

The 1913 petition of the Nisga’a to the British King,

The Allied Tribes statement, formed in alignment with the Nisga’a position,

The role of the White and Bob hunting case, Nanaimo, in the Calder title case,

The Calder title case, and federal land Claims policy announced in 1973, in response to it,

Synopses of events across BC and Canada from 1912 to 1997, in court and on the ground, as they affected the Nisga’a case,

Debates of the BC politicians as they explained the Nisga’a Final Agreement,

Excerpts from the 2000 treaty,

And the court cases – by BC politicians and Nisga’a people – that followed it.

Documentary Resources:

Letter from the Methodist Missionary Society to the Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs respecting British Columbia troubles, May 1889.

Including: Protest of Port Simpson Chiefs to Mr. O’Reilly; Statement of Skidegate Chiefs;  Affidavits of: John Ryan, Chief Paul Legaic, Louis Gosnell, Chief Alfred Doudoward, Charles Abbott, Chief Herbert Wallace, Richard Wilson, Chief David Mackay, Chief Arthur Calder, Charles Russ, George A. Gibson, Chief Scaban, Chief Ness-Pash, Chief Clay-Tsah, Chief Tat-Ca-Kaks, Job Calder; more.

Letter from Methodist Missionaries to Superintendent General 1888. With statements of Tsimpshean and Haida ChiefsDownload

Papers Relating To The Commission Appointed to Enquire into the Condition of the Indians of The North-West Coast, 1888, Government Printer at Victoria.

Including: Testimony of Chiefs George Kinsada, Adam Kishni, Moses, Albert Shakes, Samuel Seymour, Frederick Allen, Arthur Gurney, Nease Youse, Tallahaat, Sabassah, Hawillah, Job Calder (or Nouse), husband of Victoria, chiefess of the Naas Indians, Mountain, Matthew Naas, Charles Russ, Neis Puck, Kledach, David Mackay, Arthur Calder (son of Chieftainess Victoria), Hawillah, Am-Clamman, Paul Kledach (son of Chief Kledach), Paul Legaic, Richard Wilson, Alfred Doudoward. Charles Abbott, Gemmuc, Donald Bruce, Matthew Aucland, A. Leighton, and petitions and Letters;

And Statement of BC Premier William Smythe, 1887; Reserve Commissioner O’Reilly, Report and memos of Commissioners; etc.

1888 North coast commission into the condition of the Indians. Tsimpshean.Nishga Commissioners Planta and Cornwall for Dominion of Canada and Province of BCDownload

“Nisga’a Treaty – Final Agreement Act – Bill C-51 – Committee Stage”– notes and quotes from the Provincial Government’s debate televised on CPAC and recorded on the Government’s website, Hansard. January 18-20 1999.

Nisgaa debate CPAC Hansard BC Leg. 1998-99Download

Closing Statement: Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en Chiefs, 1990

At the end of 370 days of testimony, and at the end of the trial for title, Hereditary Chiefs made a statement to close the proceedings.

 “Three years have passed since we made our opening statements to this court; at that time you did not know who Delgamuukw and Gisdaywa were. We, the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en, must be compensated for loss of the Land’s present integrity and for the loss of economic rents. We ask that the court not only acknowledge our ownership and jurisdiction over the Land, but to restore it to a form adequate for Nature to heal in terms of restoration.”

AQ Spring 2025:

56 pages

8.5×11

ISBN: 978-1-7387902-9-6

Visit Archive Quarterly ~ journal of the west wasn’t won archive project, at Electromagnetic Print: books that resonate.

Closing Statement of the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en in Delgamuukw v. The Queen

14 Wednesday May 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

On May 14, 1990, the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en Plaintiffs in Delgamuukw v. The Queen made their closing statements at the end of their trial.

As reprinted in the United Native Nations 1990 book of their AGM presentations, they said:

     “We, the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en people, are in the court to state the truth of the ownership and jurisdiction we exercise over our territories.

     Three years have passed since we made our opening statements to this court at that time you did not know who Delgamuukw and Gisdaywa were. Now, this court knows I am Gisdaywa, a Wet’suwet’en Chief who has responsibility for the House of Kaiyexwaniits of the Gitdumden. I have explained how my House holds the Biiwenii Ben Territory and had the privilege of showing it to you. Long ago my ancestors encountered the spirit of that Land and accepted the responsibility to care for it. In return, the Land has fed the House Members and those whom the Chiefs permitted to harvest its resources. Those who have obeyed the laws of respect and balance have prospered there.

     I am Delgamuukw, the third since this trial started. I also have obligations to my House and the Territories of my House. You have heard oral histories of the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en that tell of the many groups that migrated into our Territories. Many stayed, contributing to our culture, acknowledging the authority of our chiefs and obeying our laws.

     Of all these groups, only the Europeans failed to recognize our ownership and jurisdiction. This court now has an opportunity to redress this situation.

     We, the Hereditary Chiefs, decided against wearing blankets and regalia in this courtroom because we believe that our authority would not be respected by the government lawyers. Under our law, disrespect for people and for their territory requires compensation.

     We, the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en, must be compensated for loss of the Land’s present integrity and for the loss of economic rents.

     We ask that the court, not only acknowledge our ownership and jurisdiction over the Land, but to restore it to a form adequate for Nature to heal in terms of restoration. We would like to see clearcuts and plantations returned to forests, contaminated rivers and lakes returned to their original pristine state, reservoirs of drowned forests returned to living lakes and life-sustaining flows to diverted rivers.

Skeena River Valley, Gitksan.

     We realize that the true financial value of this compensation for restoration would bankrupt both the federal and provincial governments. Compensation must remain an ongoing obligation of the federal and provincial governments “Until Our hearts are satisfied.”

The Gitxsan Chief, Delgamuukw, as he was in 1987, Albert Tait. The name and title had carried on and, by the time of the 1991 hearings, was owned by Earl Muldoe - one of the authors of this May 14 statement.

     However, this compensation should not be viewed by this court as an alternative to the acknowledgement of our ownership and jurisdiction of our Land. We do not want financial compensation without the recognition of our authority over our Territories.

     We are asking you to make declarations on Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en Aboriginal Title. We, the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en people, own our Lands.

     I will identify those areas where the powers of the province and the federal governments need to be restrained in order for us to exercise our responsibilities under Aboriginal Title.

     First, we the Chiefs must have our authority recognized in order to exercise our responsibility to protect the Land for the future, and to conserve resources. We must have the power to manage all human activity that bring change to the Land, Air or Water on all of our territories.

     Second, to enable each House to provide for its members and all those living in their Territory, the Chiefs must have control over the local economy by managing natural resource allocations within their Territories. This would include licensing, leasing, and permitting. As well, royalties and taxation payments from resource use on our Territories must be paid to us.

     It is not our intention to exert any powers over the non-Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en people living in our Territories. Fee-simple lands held by third parties as of October, 1984, would be exempt from this resource allocation.

     We see the pulling back of these central government powers as being the minimum required to restore not only individual self-reliance but also community self-reliance. We have presented you with ample evidence of the effects on our Land resulting from government resource management. We have also given evidence of the effect that centralized economic management and government welfare has had on our people. The governments’ system does not work. We, the Hereditary Chiefs, believe we can change the situation under our laws and practices through our authority.

     Our system of government is as powerful today and will be as powerful tomorrow, as it was one hundred or ten thousand years ago. You have heard both ancient and modern histories tell of

how our system has remained relevant through the evolving ecological, cultural and economic circumstances in which our people have found themselves. To say we disobey our laws and ignore our Chiefs’ authority because we change a piece of technology, or use our Land in a different way, is a desperate argument.

This case then is about learning from the past so we can repair the present and pass on a healthier Land to our grandchildren. It is not about retrieving frozen rights from a nineteenth century ice-box.

Our Aboriginal Title is found in common law and takes precedence over the provincial crown. We do not have to, and will not, surrender our Aboriginal Title in order to be recognized by the federal government. We are self-governing.

     However, we see a layering of responsibilities among the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en, the federal government, and the provincial government being resolved in an ongoing series of negotiations. Given the strong imperative for the, Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en, British Columbia and Canada have social and economic activities continue within our Territories, consensus on the necessary political and administrative framework must be found.

     We are asking this court to properly apply common law. We want a declaration of recognition and affirmation of our continued ownership and jurisdiction. We will not surrender or diminish our Title and rights. We do not request a “right” to use and occupy the Land, and we refuse extended Reserve Lands. We will decide what our future relationship will be with Canada and British Columbia on that basis.

     We ask nothing more than what should have occurred prior to Confederation, and prior to this province entering Confederation. We are here to right the wrongs that have been occurring for over one hundred years. This court has the power to recognize and affirm Gitksan and Wetsuwet’en ownership and jurisdiction.

Closing Statement of the Chiefs

By

Gisdaywa a.k.a. Alfred Joseph

Delgamuukw a.k.a. Earl Muldoe

Yagalahl a.k.a. Dora Wilson-Kenni

Maas Gaak a.k.a. Don Ryan

May 14, 1990

Delgamuukw – closing statement of the Chiefs May 14 1990Download