By BEN SWANKEY

The settlement of land claims is
today a major concern of Cana-
da’s native peoples. It has taken
on special urgency since the dis-
covery of huge deposits of oil and
natural gas in Canada’s north, a
land inhabited for centuries by na-
tive peoples. It has taken on
further urgency because of the
decision of the Canadian govern-

ment to allow U.S. oil and gas”

corporations to build a gas pipe-
line through the Yukon to trans-
mit Alaskan and Canadian gas to
U.S. markets, without first settl-
ing land claims as demanded by
the native inhabitants of the area.

Canada’s native peoples com-
prise three main groups.

The native Indians include
282,000 registered or status In-
dians, that is, Indians officially
recognized as such under the In-
dian Act, as well as an approxi-
mately equal number of non-
status Indians not recognized as
such by the federal government.
The status Indians belong to over
500 bands; about half of them live
on the 2,200 Indian reserves and
about half are Treaty Indians —
they belong to bands that at one
time signed treaties.

The Metis are people of mixed
white and Indian parentage
whose numbers are estimated at
between 400,000 and 600,000.

The Inuit number 19,000, about
15,000 of whom live in the
Northwest Territories.

The native peoples, therefore,
number approximately one mil-
lion, a little less than 5% of Cana-
da’s population of 23 million.

Native peoples live at the bot-
tom of Canada’s social and
economic ladder; they are the vic-
tims of a centuries-long policy of
racism; the majority are denied

even the most elementary human .

rights. ;

FOUR TYPES OF LAND CLAIMS

The land claims of the native
peoples fall into four main
categories — band claims, treaty
claims, scrip claims, and aborigi-
nal rights. Underlying all of them
is the claim that the right to land
derives from original occupancy,
that the native people must have a
major role in determining the use
of this land and its Tesources, and
that they must share in the bene-
fits of resource exploitation.

Band claims involve the loss of
reserve lands over the years in-
cluding loss of mineral resources,
timber, grazing lands, water, and
land expropriated for road, canal
or railway construction. The
beneficiaries of these losses were
usually private interests. In-
volved also in band claims is the
issue of government control over
the bands’ financial assets.

The practice of signing Indian
treaties was, in effect, a legal
facade to cover up forcible ex-
propriation. The Indians did not
know what they were signing in
most cases and were in no posi-
tion to bargain or negotiate. The
verbal and written promises
accompanying the treaties have
not been lived up to by the

‘government. The Indian people

want the terms of these treaties
re-negotiated, updated and inter-
preted in the light of today’s con-
ditions and today’s needs.

Scrip claims remain an active
issue for the Metis, especially in
the prairie provinces. They date
back to land grants called scrip
made to Metis at the time of both
the Red River Rebellion of 1869-
70 (with the grants incorporated in
the Manitoba Act of 1870) and the
grants made just prior to the Sas-
katchewan Rebellion of 1885. In
most cases there was a great dis-
parity between what was prom-
ised and what was given. The
Metis want the whole question of
scrip grants reviewed.

Aboriginal rights claims are
based on rights derived from oc-
cupancy and traditional use.
They stem from the basic fact that
the Indian and Inuit peoples are
the original inhabitants of this
country. Most of these claims
arise in areas where treaties were
not signed — the Yukon, North-
west Territories, British Colum-
bia, and areas of Quebec and the
Atlantic provinces. Involved also
are non-treaty Indian bands such
as the Iroquois and Sioux, and the
Metis.

GUIDELINES FOR LAND CLAIMS
SETTLEMENT

To agree that native land claims

should be settled with justice is

one thing. To do that in practice 1s

another. The question arises:

What criteria or guidelines can

~ and should be adopted to guaran-

tee that the land claims are settled
in the best interests of all
concerned?

‘A completely just settlement
cannot be expected as long as
corporate interests hold power in
Ottawa and the provinces: That
will have to await a socialist
Canada. Nevertheless it would be
helpful to draw up such a set of
guidelines now around which it is
possible to rally public support for
the land claims of the native
peoples and make the best gains
possible under the circumstances.

As a contribution to the discus-
sion on this vital question I would
like to suggest the following:

1. The government of Canada
must recognize in principle that

+ %

Infant mortality is eight times
the national average for Native
babies.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 14, 1977—Page 6

the native people have just land
claims, that these land claims
must be settled with justice and
that further delay is inexcusable.
What we have here is a long term
historic injustice that must be cor-
rected. The first step to correction
is to admit and recognize this
injustice.

2. Land claims should not be
settled piecemeal, by bargaining
and horsetrading over individual
claims. A set of guidelines should
be adopted to guide the settle-
ment of all claims and this set of
guidelines must be mutually ag-

-reed on and acceptable to all par-

ties concerned.

3. The settlements must be
such that they will contribute sub-
stantially to permanent resolution
of the inequalities and social in-
justices imposed on native
peoples. Cash settlements alone,
especially to individuals, will not
bring the desired results. The na-
tive peoples must be assisted to
establish a solid economic base to
overcome their poverty, to estab-
lish their own self-sustaining way
of life, to develop those indus-
tries, occupations and pursuits
they desire, and to share in the
resource development of the
lands they claim. Their housing,
health and educational needs

must be met. They, require the_

nght to self government on the
reserves and in the regions and
territories they occupy. They
should be assisted to maintain and
develop their own culture.

To bring them even to the state
of equality with other Canadians,
they require preferential,
citizen-plus treatment.

4. Indian treaties must be re-
viewed, updated, re-interpreted
in terms of today’s needs. Giving
a medicine chest to an Indian
band a hundred years ago, for
example, means full medicare to-
day. Compensation in whatever
form a century ago (whether.a
miserly $5 a year or whatever)
must be reconsidered in a form
that relates realistically to today’s
value of the lands seized and the
monetary needs of the people
making the claims for
compensation.

-5. Where reserve lands were
expropriated with or without
compensation (and where com-
pensation was paid it was always
at far below its real market value
at the time), the amount of com-
pensation should be renegotiated,
in the light of the value of the land
today and the requirements of the
band concerned to rebuild their
lives on a new basis.

6. The Metis claims for scrip
must be re-negotiated with the
aim of providing them with good,
arable land, sufficient to meet
their needs and provide a full life.

- 7. The settlement of aboriginal
land claims which include claims
to huge areas of land with rich
resources and inhabited also by
non-natives is more complicated.

A black spot in Canadian history;

Involved here is not only justice
to the original inhabitants but also
the national interest, the interests
of all the people of Canada. Such
claims, therefore, must be judged
with both these points in mind.

Let me give some examples to
illustrate the point:

JAMES BAY LAND CLAIMS

‘The 1974 James Bay land
claims settlement between the
government of Quebec and 6,500
Cree Indians and 4,200 Inuit to-
tally extinguished all their
hereditary rights and claims to
400,000 square miles of territory.
In return the native people re-
ceived a relatively small cash
settlement spread over 20 years,
ownership of 5,250 square miles,
a share of non-hydro: resource
development and certain other
concessions. The native peoples
got the short end of the stick in
that deal; it will not fundamentally
alter their way of life for the bet-
ter. The main beneficiaries will be
the U.S. interests who get James
Bay power. :

The March, 1976 claim of
Tapirisat (Inuit Brotherhood of
the Northwest Territories) is of a

different calibre. The Inuit laid

‘claim to 750,000 square miles of

Tundra land; agreed to cede.
500,000 square miles to Canada;
demanded the balance (250,000
square miles) as Inuit territory;
Inuit exclusive hunting rights to
the whole 750,000 square miles;
3% royalties on all mining and re-
source development in Canada’s
500,000 square miles with the
proceeds to be placed in an Inuit

Development Corporation to re-’

pair social damage and fund new
projects; the Inuit to play a
watch-dog role over all develop-
ment to. preserve their
environment.

Obviously the Inuit have
learned from the James Bay deal.
Their claim offers a more realistic
basis for a just settlement.

NWT INTO THREE AREAS

The Indian Brotherhood of the
Northwest Territories has pro-
posed that the Territories be di-
vided into three areas, one each
for the whites, the Inuit and the
Dene (the Indian people centered
in the valley of the MacKenzie
River.) Prime Minister Trudeau
dismissed this proposal with the
insulting and false charge that it

‘was racist, when the purpose of

the proposal was an effort to es-
tablish regions in which the native

In many prisons Nativ Peoples form the majority, they are constantly
harassed and sometimes brutalized by the police. ‘

idee cats

‘Nie ‘nomen

peoples could exercise self”
government. While one can dis"
agree with the claim that these]
peoples constitute nations (in the)
generally accepted scientific us¢,
of the term) one can hardly argue
with their demand for national
identity, self government and au-
tonomy, all of which should bé
negotiated. 4

The demand that no pipeline bé
built until the land claims of the”
native peoples are settled is on¢

that deserves full support. ‘fs

Once pipeline construction is
undertaken without a settlement
of land claims, all the bargaining ,
power of the native peoples 5—
lost. It’s like telling striking work-
ers to get back on the job with 2
contract to be negotiated later. —

The rich oil, gas and miner
resources of the north should bée—
developed if and when needed by
Canada, and in such a way thal
the environment is protected, the
way of life of native people pre
served, and native people share
resource development, and thé
development benefits Canada and
its people and not just serve the
profit-interests of multi-national
corporations.

Let me give another example of, | S

a different type of aboriginal
rights claim. Leaders of the Na
tive Brotherhood of B.C. havé
laid claim to exclusive’ fishing
rights off B.C.’s west coast. Thelf
leaders have also urged native In”
dian fishermen to leave the Utr
ited Fishermen and Allied Work-
ers Union and to accept thé
Brotherhood as.their bargaining
agent with the fishing companies:
The Brotherhood includes not
only fishermen who own s
boats or who work for wages, but
big. boat owners who employ
fishermen and who have the clas>
ideology of employers.

Natjve fishermen have dé
pended on fishing for untold cet”
turies for their livelihood. Bul
thousands of non-nativ®
fishermen (white, Japanese, et.
have also depended on fishins
since before the turn of the cel”
tury. To suddenly exclude them
would be unjust and unrealisti@
Non-native fishermen are not 10
blame for the state of the fishin®
industry, noris the UFAWU. Thé
‘main enemies of all fishermen, 0
tive and non-native, are the
fishing companies who exploit
them both and make huge profit
at their expense. 4

The Berger Report marked 3%
advance in its proposals fo!
settlement of land claims ™

pos os ste cvuMmeopse

OQUoUset xP @

te —
CHAOS SCDW BF eRPseR7097 08