By PAUL OGRESKO
' hen the Dene
and the Metis
of the North
gather for
their annual
assemblies in
mid-July, the
decisions they
take may
have long and far-reaching effects on
Native people across Canada. Open for
debate at the two assemblies at Hay
River and Norman Wells, NWT, is
whether to accept a federal land claims
offer that could give the Dene and
Metis $500-million, delegated control
over 180,000 square kilometres, as well
as hunting, trapping and fishing rights
in a 1.2-million square kilometre terri-
tory.

But the federal offer has left Native
leaders divided and northern Native
communities concerned about what the
future holds. It has also highlighted the
differences between the Loucheux and
Metis of the Mackenzie River Delta
and the Hareskin and Metis of the cen-
tral Mackenzie who voted to accept the
federal offer, and the Dogrib, Slavey,
Cree, and Chipewayan of the Subarctic
and the Metis of the upper Mackenzie
who have rejected it.

At stake is not only what form
Native self-government will take in the
North, but also what type of North will
exist for future generations.

Several Native leaders are urging
acceptance of the federal deal, calling it
an acceptable compromise which, des-
pite some questionable areas, will make
Native self-government a reality. Oth-
ers, however, see it as a federal ultima-
tum, one which will give the Dene and
Metis little more than a municipal-style
of government while the real power
remains in the hands of the federal
government.

Cindy Gilday, a Slavey Indian acti-
vist from Fort Franklin, NWT, comes
from one of the communities which has
rejected the federal offer. Speaking with
the Tribune she expressed the concern
that exists within her community about
the offer and the ramifications it may
have for the Dene. She says the offer is
one in which, while giving a semblance
of self-government to Native people,
leaves the final say over Northern deci-
sions in the hahds of the government.
It is, Gilday warned, a bad offer which
raises more questions than it-answers.

The federal offer contains no gua-
rantee of Native self-government; in
fact the federal government retains veto
power over all decisions regarding land
and water use. What the deal does
offer is a cash settlement which would
be managed by Native-run corpora-
tions. The $300-million would be given
to the corporations over a period of
several years, beginning in 1990.

In the back-of-the-mind of many
northern Native people is the expe-
rience of Native people in Alaska. In
1971 the Inuit of Alaska reached a set-
tlement with the government of the
United States. In exchange for extin-
guishing land claims over a large area,
the Alaskan Inuit received a large cash
settlement, land, and a “share” of
resource development in the form of
Native corporations.

By 1986 the Native corporations
found themselves in financial difficulty.
Poor investments, low rates of return,
and decreasing prices for minerals
combined to decrease the income of the
corporations and put many of them
into debt. The money given in the
initial claims settlement was quickly
used up while the “Native” corpora-
tions became little more than subser-
vient branches of the transnationals.

Future of the
North at stake
as Tory land
claims offer
comes up for
July debate

All that remains for many of the
Alaskan Inuit is the land. According to
the settlement the land is protected
Inuit territory till 1990. Then it
becomes “saleable,” at which point
creditors can move in and claim the
land as collateral. The most vital part
of Native cultural survival — the
land — will pass into private hands.

There are conflicting interests com-
ing to the surface as a projected boom
in resource development in the Arctic
and Subarctic nears. The Inuvialuit of
the Mackenzie Delta, who signed a
land claim settlement with the federal
government in 1984, have set up the
Inuvialuit Development Corp., a
resource investment company. Its exec-
utives are welcoming increased transna-
tional oil company development in the
Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea,
arguing that the traditional culture of
the Inuit can be preserved while the
economic benefits of non-renewable
resource developments are reaped.

They discount any repetition of the
Alaskan experience.

The federal offer has sparked a high
level of debate within the Dene com-
munities. An informal federal deadline
of the first week in June for the accep-
tance of the deal came and went with
three of five Dene and Metis regions
voting to reject the offer. Indian Affairs
and Northern Development Minister
William McKnight has told the Native
leaders there will be no more federal
offers, and that the matter must be
settled before the next federal election.

Some Native leaders are arguing that
development will take place regardless
of whether land claims are resolved,
and that the federal offer, with all its
limitations, will at the least provide

Native people with some control over
the future. Others counter the argu-
ment by pointing out the deal falls far
short of laying the basis for real self-
government, and that a Tory victory in
the next federal election is not inevita-
ble. A new government, they argue,
will usher in a new climate for negotiat-
ing the Dene and Metis claim.

A settlement of the Dene and Metis
claim would no doubt be a boost to
Tory fortunes going into the federal
election. It will also remove a potential
obstacle to the perceived transnational
oil boom. An integral part of this
boom, fueled by an expected natural
gas shortage in the U.S. by the 1990s,
will be the construction of the Alaska
Highway Gas Pipeline running from
the northern Alaska coast to central
Alberta. From this pipeline gas will be
exported to the U.S. market.

But an acceptance of the federal
offer may also be opening the door to a
revival of the Mackenzie Valley Pipe-
line Project, just over a decade after the
Berger inquiry revealed the social and
environmental costs of such a mega-

Top: Inuit children. Bottom: Oil derrick in the Mackenzie Delta.

project. The transnational dream of a
direct pipe route to pump gas from the
Beaufort Sea down the Mackenzie Val-
ley to the lucrative U.S. market did not
die with the Berger report.

In his book Living Arctic Hugh
Brody documents how the demands of
the Dene have been a catalyst in uni-
ting Native people in their demands
across Canada. The Dene have been
responsive to their community, to tra-
dition, and to the wisdom of their
elders. Political decisions have relied,
not on the whims of any leader, but on
the participation of the
community — it is a time-consuming
process but one that has insured the
survival of the Dene people.

This summer the communities will
assemble again. The elders will voice
their opinions, while younger activists
such as Gilday will express their con-
cerns in this time-honoured form of
democracy.

This summer’s assemblies may be
part of an ancient law and custom but
the implications of the decisions taken
could not be more relevant to us all.

een SSS SSS

6 e Pacific Tribune, July 6, 1988