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