British Columbia By DONALDA VIAUD Delegates to the 18th annual general meeting of the National Action Commit- tee on the Status of Women (NAC) May 11-14 demanded full restoration of federal funding to women’s programs and the scrapping of Bill C-43, the Tory govern- -Ment’s move to recriminalize abortion. The conference took place at a very crucial time in the fight for women’s the majority of funds to women’s pro- grams and two weeks before the vote on the proposed new law on abortion, Bill C-43. The focus of these two events gave women at the conference the opportunity to rejoice over taking political action and winning at least a partial victory with the reinstatement of most of the funding to women’s programs chopped in the Febru- ary federal budget. But it is $400,000 short, delegates noted while expressing their determination to fight the last leg of the battle on the abortion law. The conference called on Prime Minis- ter Brian Mulroney and the cabinet to: 1. Continue the Women’s Program which includes operational funding to national and regional women’s organiza- tions. 2. Restore all government funding cut from the Women’s Program in 1989-90 and 1990-91 and direct the money to its original recipients. Several women’s pub- lications and programs are threatened due equality — days after the reinstating of to a $400,000 shortfall in this year’s fund- ing. 3. Increase funding of women’s groups, particularly groups representing multi- disadvantaged women. 4. Ensure that the restored funds not come at the expense of other equality seek- ing groups, such as First Nations and vis- ible minority groups, and that the government enter into discussions with those groups that have been affected by the cuts. 5. Drop all charges pending against pro- testers (arrested during occupations of Secretary of State offices last month). B.C. anti-poverty activist Jean Swanson received strong applause following an address on how the corporate agenda dis- enfranchises poor people, many of whom are women and children. Using only little bits of string as props, Swanson drew a graphic picture and presented an analysis praised by delegates. The conference broke and marched to Parliament Hill to join pro-choice protes- ters in the call for “tno new law” on abor- tion. Dr. Henry Morgentaler told the crowd that “‘Bill C-43 is an insult to every Canadian woman. ... I hope there is no MP, especially female MPs, who will vote on conscience for this law.” Newly-elected NAC president Judy Rebick told the rally: “It is fitting that in the wake of the strong and effective cross- country protests against budget cuts, we are marching in honour of women who 20 years ago chained themselves to Parlia- ment to protest the criminalization of abortion. We’re here to say we are not going back and we’re not giving up what we gained two years ago.” (Also elected for the 1990-91 term were: vice-presidents Jacqui MacDonald, Mar- ion Mathieson, Anne McGrath; secretary, Priscilla Settee; treasurer Janet Maher; members-at-large, Marguerite Anderson, Flora Fernandez, Judy Hughes and Donalda Viaud. The B.C. regional repre- sentatives are: Donna Cameron [South/ Central B.C.] and Carol Sabo [Northern B.C./Yukon)). Vancouver residents Marcy Cohen and Jackie Larkin also addressed the crowd, showing pictures and providing history of the caravan 20 years ago on Mother’s Day. Recognizing that NAC’s actions over the next year will take place in a climate where anti-feminism and misogyny are likely to be more explicit, there was a further call that NAC be engaged in a struggle for democracy, focused on three fronts or “priority campaigns:” violence against women; the future of woman’s employment; defending and extending Canada’s social support network. Internally the organization is consider- ing restructuring to enable maximum par- ticipation of women regionally and federally in the framework of a “Pan- Canadian” body. Perhaps the biggest contribution of some 30 delegates from B.C. to the annual Return funds, axe C-43, NAC tells govt meeting was a proposal on organization review. A statement of principles was adopted with details on implementation turned over to working committees for recommendation and decision at the next annual general meeting. It’s particularly energizing to see a group struggling with internal needs that is united and strong to fight external forces. I am putting the call out to you — the vote on Bill C-043 takes place at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29. Between new and then please do everything possible to register your opposition to this bill. Write or phone your MP, encourage others to do the same, join your community in demon- strations at Tory MPs’ offices. In the Lower Mainland come to the protest rally Friday, May 25, 5:30 p.m. at Kim Camp- bell’s office, 1755 West Broadway. As a newly-elected executive member I look forward to working with women in B.C. as a liaison. A strong collective of B.C. feminists exists — let’s build on this unity and strengthen our commitment to fight the corporate agenda and to winning equality. Contact NAC in B.C. through Donna Cameron (Central/South B.C.) at 164 Forest Brook Place, Penticton, B.C. V2A 7B9, phone 492-8193, or Donalda Viaud at 445 Rousseau St., New Westminster, V3L 3R4, phone 525-3036. Donalda Viaud is a Vancouver trade unionist and a newly elected executive member of NAC. _Gitksan-Wet’suweten conclude arguments in land claims trial The chiefs of the Gitksan and Wet’su- Wet’en people are going to be more assertive about rights in the northern territory that is their ancestral homeland, a Vancouver rally to mark the closing of a major land claims argument was told May 14. “You're going to see the chiefs asserting their sovereignty, you’re going to see people taking on different responsibilities in terms of social services (and) other programs.” hereditary chief Don Ryan, whose Native name is Maas Gaak, said. Flanked by dozens of hereditary chiefs representing many of the 83 houses of Gitk- san and Wet’suwet’en, Ryan and other speakers drove home the points made repeatedly during three years of sessions of the B.C. Supreme Court in Smithers and Vancouver. The chiefs and their lawyers wrapped up _ their arguments with a statement by the heads of the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en — Gisdaywa and Delgamuukw — that day. That statement declared: “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.” Lawyers for the provincial and federal governments began their final arguments that day in the historic case that is scheduled to end on June 30. It will be another six months to a year before the court renders its decision. The claim on 22,000 square miles of terri- tory which stretches from a point just north of Prince Rupert to well north of the Skeena River has been remarkable for its precedent- setting features. It is based on evidence by the Natives themselves; the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en say their land cannot be taken without their consent; and the case seek§ a comprehensive definition of aboriginal title within the Constitution Act. The case began May 7, 1987 in Smithers against the provincial government which has steadfastly cehiked to recognize the Natives’ Declaration of Ownership of the territory. Since then, the federal govern- ment, while acknowledging the declaration as a basis for negotiation, has joined the province as a co-defendant. Among the many bases for the Gitksan- Wet’suwet’en claim are these: that the cur- rent people are descendants of “hereditary Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en chiefs from time immemorial;” that they have owned and exercised jurisdiction over the clan territo- ries; that they have lived and managed resources within those territories. “laws expressly extinguishing the Gitk- san and Wet’suwet’en title to lands have never been passed by the provincial and federal governments. This means that all land title grants made by the province on Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en territories are illegal and invalid,” a media release states. The governments’ arguments include claims that aboriginal title has never existed in B.C., that any such title was extinguished by the colonial government before Confed- eration, and that the Natives have been assimilated into the ‘“‘dominant culture” by accepting European technology, religion and economy. Those contentions were strongly refuted in statements by hereditary chiefs and other Native spokespersons at the rally on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery. “Nobody is going to tread on my land, any longer. MacMillan Bloedel, the depart- ment of Indian Affairs, you government . bureaucrats in your ivory towers, in your executive suites, get this very clear: The time is over for you to be exploiting Indian peo- ple and their resources,” declared Hemas — Bill Wilson — B.C. vice-president of the United Native Nations. UNN president Ron George slammed the reserve system as “apartheid”, saying, “If you are a status Indian, with band membership, living off the reserve, you have te no rights according to the federal govern- ment. “That’s what I call an apartheid system.” At an earlier press conference on the courthouse steps, hereditary chief Yagalahl — Dora Wilson-Kenni — said government lawyers disputing the validity of the Natives’ clan system of government pushed their arguments to the point of being disrespect- ful. “We've been put on trial for our very existence. We’ve had to produce genealo- gies, to prove we exist,” she related. Native management of resources cur- rently exploited by large forest and mining corporations is key on the agenda of the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en, the chiefs told the court in their concluding statement. “We would like to see clearcuts and plan- tations 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,” they stated. The Natives seek financial compensation from both levels of government, but not at the expense of Gitksan-Wet’suwet’en author- ity over the territory and resources, the chiefs said. The chiefs first “must have our authority recognized in order to exercise our respon- sibility to protect the land for the future” and second, control over the local economy “by managing natural resource allocations within their territories,” the court was told. That involves royalties and taxation payments from resource use, but “fee- simple lands held by third parties (non- Natives) 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,” Gisdaywa — Alfred Joseph — and Del- gamuukw — Earl Muldoe — declared. TOP: Johnny David, 1 08, sounds cere- monial drum at rally May 14. BOTTOM: UNN vice-president Bill Wilson hits cor- porate, government exploitation. “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.” The chiefs contended that aboriginal title is found in common law and takes prece- dence over Crown authority. But they said negotiations — if the governments agree — would lead to “a layering of responsibilities among the Gitk- san and Wet’suwet’en, the federal govern- ment, and the provincial government.” Pacific Tribune, May 21, 1990 e 3