Indian people protest

The “Statement of the Govern- ment of Canada on Indian Policy

1969” has raised quite a storm >

of protest among the Original People, as the Indians prefer to be called. And well it might! In a statement to the Globe and Mail on July 8, 1969, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was forced to ad- mit—‘‘There are those who say the government is trying to evade its responsibilities and abandon Indian people... . Some have gone so far as to say that integration is equivalent to cul- tural genocide.”

At the recent annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, “the civil liberties section heard several speakers describe the Government’s policy statement as a complete failure, an attempt to shelve its responsibilities un- der existing treaties, and a de- liberate attempt to deny the Indians their ancient rights.” (Globe & Mail, Sept. 3, 1969)

The “Statement” is a carefully prepared document, skilfully de- signed to create the impression that the only obstacle in the way of the Indians enjoying a rich, rewarding life is their failure ‘‘to become full members of Cana- dian society”; and the new gov- ernment policy is supposed to open the doors to this paradise. Of course the average Canadian

now enjoys a-material status far —

above all-but a handful of In- dians. The Statement creates the impression that it has been the separateness of the Indian people —separate legal status under the Indian Act and their stubborn resistance to adopt the ‘“Cana- dian way of life’—that has been responsible for their plight. If only they would become good Canadian citizens and pay taxes like the rest of us,.all would be well! This attitude calls to mind one Indian’s remark—“You white people must be crazy. You live all huddled together in polluted cities and work hard for fifty weeks a year so that you can go off for two weeks and live like we Indians do the year ’round.”

The central premises of the government policy deny the fun- damentals of the Indian’s situ- ation and thereby avoid coming up with any meaningful solutions to their plight. They were the original people on this continent. They have a basic right to any way of life they choose. The whites took their lands and owe substantial reparations. Treaties were entered into between the British government and some of the Indian bands, thereby recog- nizing their independent, sover- eign status. The British govern- ment turned over administration of these treaties to Canada, so the latter has no right to abro- gate them or unilaterally to deny the nationhood of the other par- ties to the treaties. These histor- ical facts cannot be ignored and past wrongs cannot be righted simply by smoothing the way to full Canadian citizenship. The Original People have a perfect right to participate in the econo-

mic benefits that flow from ex--

ploitation of all the resources of Canada; but no Canadian institu- tion (government or other) has the right to force them to become Canadian citizens in order to enjoy these economic benefits.

The six points of government policy listed in the “Statement” are as follows:

l. “Legislative and constitu-

tional bases of discrimination

must be removed.”

In the short term this means repeal of the Indian Act, which

certainly was the basis of dis- criminatory treatment of In- dians. In the long run, the “Statement” says it would mean removal of references in the BNA Act providing a legal distinction between In- dians and “other Canadians”. Caution is called for here. Re- peal of bad legislation is only part of the solution. The funda- mental differences in the status of Indians must be protected somehow, for they are not just ordinary Canadians. Besides having equality of opportunity to participate fully in the Can- adian way of life, there must be full recognition and protec- tion of their own culture and way of life. This calls for mas- sive economic assistance and a thorough revision of the edu- cational system for both In- dians and Whites . 2. “There must be positive rec- ognition by everyone of the unique contribution of Indian culture to Canadian society.” Sounds good; but the mass of rhetoric which follows pro- vides little more than lip ser- vice to the idea. 3. “Services must come through the same channels and from the same government agencies for all Canadians.” Why? The premise underly- ing this statement is that if the Indians do not have equal- ity, their services and treat- ment must be inferior. Why not superior, to make up some- what for present lacks and past neglect? If this necessi- tates special agencies to dis- pense special services, what is wrong about that? It is all too obvious that the government policy is designed to squeeze

Metis lawyer

protests all— white jury

The lawyer defending Freder- ick Moses McCallum, the young Metis charged with mass murder, has charged that the young Metis is being tried by an all-white jury.

J. H. Clyne Harradence of Prince Albert, Moses’ lawyer, States that Sheriff D. A. Deakes did not summons a single non- white person for jury duty. “This accused: person is entitled to be tried by his peers,’ Mr. Harra- dence said, “At least a few should be from the same race, religion or creed as the accused.”

In a quick reaction, and coun- ter-attack, Serge Kujama, Sas- katchewan’s chief public prose- cutor said that the main qualifi- cation for jury duty was reason- ableness. Justice Walter Tucker said that it would be “outrage- ous” to question jurors on their race or religion, and he hoped that it would never happen. The Sheriff said that jury choosing was done without any “thought as to race, creed or religion whatsoever.”

Counsellor Harradence has done us all a favor by raising this question. First, he has indicated the position that Metis and In- dians are capable of serving as jurors, and their non-selection is actually an example of racist discrimination. An all-white jury, full of racist prejudices can hard- ly qualify to the Saskatchewan chief prosecutor’s standard of “reasonableness.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 24, 1969—Page 8

‘unacceptable to

everyone living in Canada into the same mold. It is also in- tended to pass the problems to the provinces so the federal government can shrug off its responsibilities.

4. “Those who are furthest be- hind must be helped most.”

OK. But doesn’t this contra- dict the principle of No. 3 above? Concretely, the govern- ment does not get very far out on a limb on this one, simply stating the generality: “...as an interim measure, the Gov- ernment proposes to make sub- stantial additional funds avail- able for investment in the economic progress of the In- dian people.”

How much?

5. “Lawful obligations must be recognized.”

After noting that many In- dians “believe that lands have been taken from them in an improper manner, or without ‘adequate compensation, that their funds have been im- properly administered, that their treaty rights have been breached”, the “Statement” then proceeds to downgrade the significance of the treaties. The low point in this process is reached in a remark noting “the government of that so- ciety”. This effectively denies the national status of the In- dian parties to the treaties, which the fact of a treaty as such clearly recognized. The proposal is to appoint a Com- missioner who will inquire into and report on the claims aris- ing from treaties and will also classify ,the claims to be re- ferred to the courts or other quasi-judicial body. This means that. one party to the treaties sets up and controls the apparatus which judges its performance under the treaties!

6. “Control of Indian lands should be transferred to the Indian people.”

No quarrel with that in prin- ciple; but let us see how the “Statement” says it will work out in practice—

“Tt will take some years to complete the process of devolution.

“The Government believes that full ownership implies many things. . . . The Gov- ernment recognizes that it may not be acceptable to put all lands into the pro- vincial systems immediately and make them subject to taxes. When the Indian peo- ple see that the only way they can own and fully con- trol land is to accept tax- ation the way other Cana- dians do, they will make that decision.”

A proposed Indian Lands Act is contemplated to govern the transfer of reserve land titles. It will need careful scrutiny by the Indian people concerned.

‘In conclusion, the preparation of this “Statement” at this time shows that the government re- alizes it has.a problem on its hands, from which it wishes to escape. The solutions offered ap- pear to be quite inadequate and the Indians. Whites should have no hesitation in telling the government so too. For this is no way to right long standing wrongs and contribute towards friendly, mutually bene- ficial relations between the Orig- inal People and those who cam later.

—U.E. Research Bulletin

Uncle Sam taking | over from John Bull ||

By BERT WHYTE

The imperialists arranged that the door be left ajar so that Uncle Sam could enter and take over from ailing John Bull as he went out, said Vincent Teekah, MP, People’s Progressive Party of Guyana.

Teekah, a member of the PPP Executive Committee and Prin- cipal of the College of Marxism- Leninism in Guyana, was speak- ing at the international sym- posium in Alma-Ata which dis- cussed problems relating to Lenin’s teaching on national lib- eration revolutions, and the pres- ent stage in the social progress of developing countries.

In his speech Teekah made these points:

The winning of political in- dependence, liberation from de- pendence upon imperialism, com- prises the content of the first, initial stage of our national lib- eration revolution. The achieve- ment of economic independence is thus the content of the new, second stage of the revolution.

Through the system of neo- colonialism the imperialist pow- ers, especially the United States, are able to control the economy of Guyana and other developing countries and intensify the eco- nomic exploitation of these coun- tries. Although most of the Asian, African and Latin Ameri- can countries have won political independence, many of them re- main economically dependent upon the imperialist powers.

Then, there is the so-called economic “aid’’ which imperial- ism extends to Guyana. This “aid” is another means of im- perialist penetration. It has a definite purpose, that of imposing unequal economic agreements.

The ideologists of imperialism whitewash colonialism and pres- ent history in a beautiful light and camouflage the exploiting nature of imperialism’s relations with undeveloped countries. They speak glibly and un- ashamedly of imperialism’s entry into the continents of Asia, Af- rica and Latin America as a civilizing mission.

In Guyana the trade union leaders are taught not to meddle in politics. Workers are told to fight for bread-and-butter issues only. Of course, we know that the economic struggle alone can- not win for the working class complete emancipation.

Today in Guyana the uni- versity, high schools and the ministries of government are all infiltrated with CIA agents who pose as advisers and experts, and peace corps “workers”. Their purpose is to project Yankee cul- ture and the Yankee free enter- prise system and to attack the People’s Progressive Party and innocent working people...

WORLD MARXIST RE In the October issue Otegbeye, prominent pub figure in Nigeria, discuss the national question in con nection with the struggle the unity of his — Valuable backgroun rial to present events gerid,. Available from PR BOOKS, 487 Adelai W., Toronto 2B. Sing 35 cents. Yearly su $3.50.

Party is steadfastly resol omic

The Guyana government fr recently announced that ? lism tends to establish S00 ont via the cooperative move hence the name Cooperative i public. But this is a piece 0 5, lainy designed to deceive — innocent working people “hands |

Our Party, on the other © 4 | has always stated that the is positive road to socialism — 4 taking control of the commr | ing heights of the economy behalf of the working peOP’” 7. have always advocate fer of the factories, tans means of communication, insurance companies, imp?

ownership. We have | called for the nationalisation the basic means of Prerecisiv® and the setting up of 4 state sector in the economy: nd:

Social and economic 1m! : y | ence is achieved in pe gle between social forct™ 19

overcome the _ socio-e¢ and cultural problems ©

opment in Guyana. : ee

FREEDOM At last it’s clear to me What's meant by being” I've come to understand that sensation, Ee One of the most involved © intimate in all creatio™ | yi A Now, shall I tell you what ™ mean by being free? It means to be responsible, with discrimination — ; i t+] For all the tears and sighs losses in the world,

For faith and faithlessné truth and superstition i And so an obligation lies ; i on me, iJ A free bird now, no 8 chains or strings— To help all living being® Get free.

devel

$55 onds %

—Leonid Most" Neal | + ? As quoted in an essaY Basic Principles of Sov!¢ net |) erature” by Alexei mer es ko, in the collection ists | by a team of Soviet spe is deals with the most VW" sues in the modern aPP vel | tion of beauty. They — od} | such topics as the ide Le the hero in art, the Hl | | development of realis™ wae scope and limitations ~ jye] tion and innovation | arts, the beauty of nature oe its effect on the huma? 2 of acter, and labor as a 8° aesthetic feeling. the It also has material ‘ fet" international and nation? tures of Soviet culture att

n It is a book for the 8° ie reader with an interest’ of development and problé

modern culture. Available from pros

BOOKS, 487 Adelaide 5*

Toronto. $2.75.