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