By BEN SWANKEY The Constitutional Amendment Bill introduced into parliament by the Trudeau government last June — a draft of a new constitution for Canada — has only one reference to the Native Peoples. Part I, Section 26 states: “Nothing in this Charter shall be held to abrogate, abridge, or derogate from any right or freedom not declared by it ‘that may have existed in Canada at the commencement of this Act, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any right or freedom that may have been acquired by any of the Native Peoples of Canada by virtue. of the oe Proclamation of October 7, 1 3 The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was an ambiguous document, the above sec- tion of the proposed new constitution for Canada is no less ambiguous and general. Not even the term “‘native peoples”’ is defined. Is this term limited to Cana- da’s 290,000 registered or “‘status’’ In- dians (those that are defined as Indians under the Indian Act) and the Inuit? What about the non-status Indians and the Metis, whose numbers are said to range as high as three quarters of a mill- ion? The Bill does not say. Section 26 says in effect that the nghts and freedoms of the native peoples, will not be less than they are now. That is little consolation for them. GUARANTEES MISSING What is completely missing from the Bill, and conspicuous by its absence, is any positive guarantees of the basic rights and freedoms that Canada’s one million Native peoples so desperately need and which they have been demand- ing with growing insistence. These rights and freedoms relate to self government, land, supervision over their own education, economic opportunities, health services, and generally control over their own destiny. The lack of such guarantees in the new constitution is, of course, no accident. It is calculated and deliberate. It re-affirms the suspicion that the Trudeau govern- ment has no intention of helping the Na- tive people achieve full equality in Cana- dian society. The Explanatory Document sent out by the government together with the draft of the new bill, answers its own rhetorical question ‘“‘Why has no special provision been made for Native rights?”’, with this off-hand and casual reply: “‘An elaboration of rights particular to the Na- tive peoples could, of course, be added to the Charter, if at the time of ongoing discussions between government and the Native peoples, agreement is reached that this should be done.” This reply doesn’t answer the question of why “‘rights particular to the Native peoples” were not included in the draft, it’s just another way of saying, ‘“We don’t consider them important, but if you ~ insist we will discuss this with you and if your proposals meet with our agreement, we will include them.” This approach is insulting. WHY GUARANTEES NECESSARY Why is it so important that a special section of the new constitution be de- voted to specific guarantees to Canada’s Native peoples? — = There are many good reasons. First is the fact that they are Canada’s original inhabitants. Second, they are a distinct peoples, different from all others who have come to these shores. Third, they were forcibly dispossessed of their land and their way of life de- stroyed. For generations a policy of genocide was practiced against them; their survival is no credit to any govern- ment of Canada. Fourth a great historic injustice cries out for rethedial action, a historic wrong must be righted. Canada cannot truly call itself a civilized nation as long as human rights are denied to one million of its PACIFIC TRIBUNE—SEPTEMBER 1, 1978—Page 4 ACTIVISTS ARE WELCOME THEIR Home / TO MAKE CANADA WHAT ABOUT CANADA'S NATIVE. PEOPLE. ees) RAY lis wy ell | ay = Hib Sil Trudeau constitution no bargain for — Canada’s Native people inhabitants. Thinking Canadians would do well to ponder these significant words _of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *“*A people that oppresses other peoples can- not itself be free.”’ A final reason why the constitution should spell out a separate charter of rights and freedoms for Canada’s Native peoples is that they are the worst off of any people in this country. And this brings us to the record of the Trudeau government. — THE TRUDEAU RECORD The fact is that in the 10 years that the Trudeau government has held office, no fundamental improvement in the condi- tion of Canada’s Native peoples has taken place. This despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars by the Department of Indian and Northern Af- fairs and other government departments, the millions spent in funding Native peoples’ organizations, the establish- ment of many joint committees between Native peoples organizations and the ‘government, and scores of briefs pre- sented by Native peoples outlining their needs and demands. The aboriginal rights and land claims of the Native peoples for the most part remain unresolved and are no nearer set- tlement than they were a decade ago. The James Bay settlement in Quebec gave the hydro power interests what they wanted but left the Indian and Inuit little better off than before. The settlement made this summer with the Committee — for Original Peoples’ Entitlement repre- senting 2500 Inuialuit (the Inuit of the Western Arctic) is an improvement over James Bay but is being used as a model to undermine the much broader and com- prehensive demands being made by the Dene people of the MacKenzie River Valley and the 13,000 remaining Inuit represented by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. The government has not developed any set of guidelines for a comprehensive settlement of aboriginal rights and land claims; instead it is delaying settlement as long as possible, settling them piece meal and endeavoring in each case to pressure or bribe-Native groups to whit- tle down their demands to make them acceptable to Ottawa. The health and life expectancy of the Native people is far below the Canadian average, their educational level is the lowest, their housing conditions are the worst, unemployment among them is the highest and their income is only a frac- tion of that of other Canadians. Native ‘peoples comprise an inordinately large percentage of our prison inmates. The Indian people have not forgotten the infamous White Paper that Indian Af- fairs minister Jean Chretien presented to parliament in 1969 which was aimed at _ solving” the Indian problem once and for all by turning Indian affairs over to the provinces, abolishing the reserves and eliminating them as distinct peoples. The angry and unanimous outcry of all Indian organizations against this plot caused the government to hastily with- draw it, but it has only been put ona back burner, to await other means and other opportunities for its implementation. Compelled by pressure to fund Native _ ., groups so that they could better organize their efforts and clarify their demands, the government is using this funding as a sophisticated and sometimes not so sub- tle method of undermining and watering down their demands, of involving Native — leaders in endless research and the pre- sentation of briefs, of limiting their .ac- . tivities to this acceptable type of action and heading off any militant struggle. Equally revealing of the other side of government policy, the iron heel, was the deportation of Leonard Peltier two years ago. Peltier, an American Indian Move- — ment activist from the U.S., sought polit- ical asylum in Canada from the genocidal policy of the FBI pursued against AIM leaders. He was arrested by the RCMP on the request of the FBI and extradited on the basis of framed up evidence by the FBI presented at an extradition hearing in Vancouver. Later he was convicted of — murder, again on framed up evidence -and sentenced to two life terms. Throughout the Canadian authorities acted as an arm of the FBI in assisting the suppression of Indian self defence movements. SPELL OUT RIGHTS What guarantees for Canada’s Native peoples should a new constitution spell out specifically? First, the historic injustice against the Native peoples must be fully recognized with a strong affirmation that it will be corrected. Secondly, the contribution of the Na- tive peoples to Canadian society and cul- ture must be recognized. - Third, their special status as distinct ~ peoples should. be noted. Fourth it should be acknowledged that because they are today at. the bottom of the social ladder, special and extraordi- nary measures are required to bring them — fully equality. Fifth their rights should be listed, in- cluding: ek “@ The right to ajust settlement of their aboriginal rights and land claims. __ e The right to local and regional self government including the right to control their own education. e The right to jobs and economic op- portunities. e The right to maintain and develop their own cultures. e The right to freedom from discrimi- nation. : e The right to representation in par- liamentary institutions. These are human rights that this gov- ernment at present is not prepared to grant; they are in direct contradiction to government policy. They will not be achieved by the submission of a brief to — Ottawa, no matter how learned, well-— researched or logical it may be. Time and experience have proven that Ottawa is not moved by logic or justice. It will require the mobilization of all the resources of the Native peoples, mass movements involving all members — of their communities, demonstrated in constructive militant action. Secondly it will require the backing and support of all the progressive forces in Canadian society, especially of the labor and socialist movements. T have no doubt that in the course of ‘ this struggle, growing sections of the Na- _ tive people, and particular its working class sector, will come to realize that in the Communist Party of Canada they © have their most reliable and realistic ally, and that it will require more than a few reforms under capitalism to bring about a fundamental change in their status — it will require a fundamental re- ‘organization of society — socialism. Ben Swankey is an author and lecturer who lives in British Columbia. His latest — books include: “Work and Wages” An ac- count of labor. leader Arthur Evan’s life and National Identity or Cultural Genocide: A reply to Ottawa's Indian Pol- icy. He was.a delegate at the International Conference on the Indigenous Peoples of - the Americas, held in. Geneva, in Sep- — tember 1977.