1b0c4fe69f4e7de524ff8e6362475f31ed20ab94.pdf
- content
- PETITION AND BILL OF PARTICULARS ON THE POLITICAL STANDING OF INDIGENOUS TRIBES AND BANDS UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT IN THE FACE OF IMPENDING CANADIAN INDEPENDENCE TO His E x c e l l e n c y The S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l of the United Nations BY Indian Nations i n Canada Requesting urgent a c t i o n s by the United Nations S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l to prevent the imminent breaches of I n t e r - n a t i o n a l law and Human Rights being implemented by the Governments o f B r i t a i n and Canada a g a i n s t the Indigenous Peoples o f Canada. B I L L O F P A R T I C U L A R S 1. We are the o r i g i n a l Nations i n Canada. Our a n c e s t o r s l i v e d i n harmony with t h i s land before the a r r i v a l o f European s e t t l e r s . We have been g i v e n t h i s sacred b i r t h r i g h t by the C r e a t o r to l i v e i n harmony with the C r e a t o r on t h i s land through a l l our g e n e r a t i o n s . 2. When Great B r i t a i n wished to e s t a b l i s h a colony i n Indian t e r r i t o r y now know as Canada, she reached agree- ments w i t h the Indian Nations who claimed the land and resources as i t s o r i g i n a l i n h a b i t a n t s . These agreements were based upon the Sacred T r u s t of C i v i l i z a t i o n and were embodied i n the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the v a r i o u s T r e a t i e s w i t h separate Indian Nations d a t i n g from 1693 to 1956. The concluded o b l i g a t i o n s i n the agreements are as f o l l o w s : a) Our Sovereignty would always be respected by the Royal Majesty and her s u b j e c t s . b) The Royal Majesty would p r o t e c t our Indian Nations a g a i n s t harm from other European N a t i o n s . c) Our Indian t e r r i t o r i e s would be p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t settlement by the Royal Majesty's s u b j e c t s u n l e s s we consented to t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n of our l a n d through T r e a t y - 2 - d) I f our t i t l e was ceded i t would be through a f a i r and open process; once t i t l e was ceded the o b l i g a t i o n s would continue to bind the p a r t i e s f o r e v e r . A p o r t i o n of the Royal Proclamation s t a t e s : "And whereas i t i s j u s t and reasonable, and e s s e n t i a l to Our I n t e r e s t and the S e c u r i t y of our C o l o n i e s , t h a t the s e v e r a l Nations o r T r i b e s of Indians with whom we are connected, and who l i v e under Our P r o t e c t i o n should not be molested o r d i s t u r b e d i n the P o s s e s s i o n of such P a r t s of Our Dominions and T e r r i t o r i e s as, not having been ceded t o , or purchased by Us, are r e s e r v e d to them, or any of them as t h e i r hunting grounds. The T r e a t i e s and agreements entered' i n t o between the B r i t i s h Crown and the I n d i a n Nations are l e g a l l y b i n d i n g agreements with consequences i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l law. 3. The Government of Canada was e n t r u s t e d with the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Great B r i t a i n ' s o b l i g a t i o n s to the Indian Nations through S e c t i o n 91(24) o f the B.N.A. Act 1867, an Act of the Parliament of Great B r i t a i n . T h i s s e c t i o n s t a t e s t h a t the f e d e r a l government of Canada has j u r i s d i c t i o n over "Indians and Lands reserved f o r I n d i a n s " . 4. Canada has not f u l f i l l e d i t s t r u s t o b l i g a t i o n s to the I n d i a n Nations. Rather the Government of Canada has f o r years e x p r o p r i a t e d our land and resources, i l l e g a l l y s e t t l e d our l a n d and s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t r i e d to a s s i m i l a t e our people, undermining the a u t h o r i t y of our Indian Governments. Over 4 0% o f the land i n Canada i s Indian t e r r i t o r y which has never been ceded by the Indian Nations. T h i s land i s being i l l e g a l l y claimed and occupied by the Governments of Canada. Other examples of the i l l e g a l e x p r o p r i a t i o n o f land and resources i n c l u d e : a) L e g i s l a t i o n which reduces Reserve land without the consent of the I n d i a n s . b) L e g i s l a t i o n which allows p r o v i n c i a l governments to e x p r o p r i a t e , without compensation, and without our consent, up to 1/20 of r e s e r v e l a n d . - 3 - c) In the e a r l y 1920's l e g i s l a t i o n was passed outlawing our s p i r i t u a l p r a c t i c e s . Another law passed i n the same p e r i o d made i t i l l e g a l t o form an a s s o c i a t i o n to press l a n d c l a i m s . d) L e g i s l a t i o n c o n t i n u e s to e x i s t which e x p r o p r i a t e s o u r hunting and f i s h i n g r i g h t s . e) U n t i l 1960, Indians were not e n t i t l e d to vote i n f e d e r a l e l e c t i o n s i f we l i v e d on r e s e r v e s . f) Our s p i r i t u a l p r a c t i c e s s u b j e c t us to p r o s e c u t i o n under p r o v i n c i a l game laws. g) L e g i s l a t i o n compels Indian c h i l d r e n to attend r e s i d e n t i a l schools away from our communties and our c u l t u r e s . Not o n l y have the Indian Nations been faced with b l a t a n t l y i l l e g a l l e g i s l a t i o n , but the p e r s i s t e n t and i n s i d i o u s p o l i c y behind i t s l e g i s l a t i o n r e - v e a l s the f e d e r a l government's o b j e c t i v e t o e x t e r - minate the very i d e n t i t y o f the Indian Nations and i t s . p e o p l e . In 1969, t h e Prime M i n i s t e r o f t h i s Country s a i d : "While one of the t h i n g s the Indian Bands o f t e n r e f e r to a r e t h e i r A b o r i g i n a l Rights and i n our p o l i c y the way we propose i t , we say we don't r e c o g n i z e A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s . . . I t ' s i n c o n c e i v a b l e I t h i n k t h a t i n any g i v e n s o c i e t y one s e c t i o n o f the s o c i e t y have a T r e a t y with the other s e c t i o n o f the s o c i e t y . . . But I don't think t h a t we should encourage the Indians to f e e l t h a t t h e i r T r e a t i e s should l a s t f o r e v e r w i t h i n Canada..." He s a i d , with r e s p e c t t o the s t a t e d Indian request f o r a p r e s e r v a t i o n o f A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s : "And o u r answer -- i t may not be the r i g h t one and i t may not be the one which i s accepted...our answer i s no." In a Submission to the f e d e r a l Cabinet on Native Claims P o l i c y : Comprehensive Claims dated J u l y 29, 1979, s a i d : a) Indian t i t l e i s t o be extinguished f o r money and c e r t a i n concessions many o f which would be of a tem- porary nature. - 4 - b) Any c o n f i r m a t i o n o f Indian t i t l e i s e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d as a b a s i s f o r agreements. c) Any powers or a u t h o r i t y t r a n s f e r r e d to Indians a r e t o be c o n s i s t e n t with non-Indian p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , i . e . m u n i c i p a l - t y p e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s which can be t i e d l a t e r i n t o pro- v i n c i a l laws and i n s t i t u t i o n s . d) The concept o f Indian Governments, as a way o f c o n f i r m i n g Indian s p e c i a l s t a t u s , i s e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d . e) P r o v i n c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n n e g o t i a - t i n g claims s e ttl e men t s i s regarded as e s s e n t i a l (aside from any l e g a l requirements f o r t h i s ) because one important aim i s t o s h i f t j u r i s d i c - t i o n over Indians to the Provinces. 6, We have p e r s i s t e n t l y p r o t e s t e d a g a i n s t these laws and p o l i c i e s o f e x p r o p r i a t i o n . Our Indian Nations through- out the 19th and 20th C e n t u r i e s have p e t i t i o n e d both B r i t a i n and Canada t o stop these i l l e g a l i t i e s . When c h a l l e n g e d by the Indian Nations, the f e d e r a l government of Canada has s a i d our remedy i s with B r i t a i n . I n the I n t e r n a t i o n a l arena, as r e c e n t l y as 1979 a t Geneva, Canada s t a t e d to the Human Rights Sub-committee on R a c i a l D i s - c r i m i n a t i o n t h a t the primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the Indigenous People l a y w i t h B r i t a i n . Yet a t the same time Canada t r i e s to f o s t e r t h e myth that the Indian Nations and the d i s p o s i t i o n o f our r i g h t s and p r o p e r t y a r e w i t h i n the domestic domain o f Canada. Canada presumes to defend i t s a c t i o n s by a s s e r t i n g t h a t the s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the Indian Nations must be " d i s a l l o w e d " or l i m i t e d on grounds o f preventing "dismemberment of s t a t e s " . 7. Canada i s not a b l e t o hide behind e i t h e r o f these ruses to a v o i d I n t e r n a t i o n a l s c r u t i n y o f i t s treatment o f the I n d i a n Nations. In t h e C i t y o f Rotterdam, between November 24th and 30th, 1980, the Members of the Jury and other bodies of the F o u r t h R u s s e l l T r i b u n a l came together i n order to con- s i d e r a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s o f the r i g h t s of the Indians of America. In h e a r i n g s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s from Indian Nations i n Canada, the T r i b u n a l noted: - 5 - " I t may w e l l be t h a t the most severe p e r s e c u t i o n i n human h i s t o r y , l a s t i n g f o r almost f i v e hundred y e a r s , has been mounted a g a i n s t the N a t i v e Peoples of the Americas...During the hearings we have been impressed by the i n v i n c i b l e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the I n d i a n Nations who do not seek to impose t h e i r way of l i f e on o t h e r s but who, w i t h d i g n i t y , demand r e s p e c t f o r the r i g h t to t h e i r unique i d e n t i t y i n a p l u r a l i s t i c world." The T r i b u n a l made i t s d e c i s i o n on November 30, 1980, i n d i c t i n g the Government of Canada f o r breaches of I n t e r n a t i o n a l law and v i o l a t i o n s of the U n i v e r s a l D e c l a r a t i o n of Human R i g h t s to which Canada i s a s i g n a t o r y . The T r i b u n a l recommended the f o l l o w i n g : a) "The S t a t e s o f the Americas, i n any. d i s p u t e about the i n f r i n g e m e n t or v i o l a t i o n o f the autonomous and c u l t u r a l r i g h t s o f the I n d i a n peoples; to engage i n good f a i t h n e g o t i a t i o n to seek a p e a c e f u l s e t t l e m e n t of the d i s p u t e ; and to r e f r a i n from taking r e c o u r s e to any procedure, which i s not m u t a l l y agreed upon." b) " T r e a t i e s and Agreements made with Indigenous Nations o r groups s h a l l not be s u b j e c t to u n i l a t e r a l abro- g a t i o n . In no event may municipal law of any s t a t e serve as a defence to the f a i l u r e to adhere to and per- form the terms o f T r e a t i e s and Agreements made with Indigenous Nations or groups. Nor s h a l l any s t a t e r e f u s e to r e c o g n i z e and ad- here to T r e a t i e s or o t h e r Agreements due to change i n circumstances where the change c i r c u m s t a n c e s has been s u b s t a n t i a l l y caused by the s t a t e a s s e r t i n g t h a t such change has o c c u r r e d . (N.G.O. Conference on d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t Indigenous p o p u l a t i o n s , Geneva, 1977)." c) "American S t a t e s must immediately b r i n g a h a l t to the g r o s s and con- tinuous v i o l a t i o n s o f the r u l e s and p r i n c i p l e s r e c o g n i z e d under I n t e r - n a t i o n a l law. S t a t e s should implement measures to prevent f u r t h e r v i o l a t i o n s o f the b a s i c human r i g h t s and funda- mental freedoms of the I n d i a n Peoples. Those e x i s t i n g n a t i o n a l laws which f o r c e f u l l y a s s i m i l a t e Indigenous Peoples a g a i n s t t h e i r w i l l and v i o l a t e t h e i r b a s i c r i g h t s d e f i n e d by I n t e r - n a t i o n a l standards should be annulled." - 6 - 8 . The f e d e r a l government of Canada proposes to place before the B r i t i s h Parliament a Resolution f o r a J o i n t Address to Her Majesty the Queen requesting the p a t r i a t i o n of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Canada. This would be the f i n a l i z a t i o n o f Canada's independence. This would a l s o f i n a l i z e the f e d e r a l government's p o l i c y to terminate Indian s t a t u s and r e s e r v e l a n d . There i s no mention of the o b l i g a t i o n s owed to us i n the proposed R e s o l u t i o n . We are only mentioned i n S e c t i o n 24 o f the Charter which says that the Charter cannot be used to deny our e x i s t i n g Rights and Freedoms; but the government t e l l s us they do not accept t h a t we have A b o r i g i n a l Rights. The r i g h t s of our Indian Nations to to s u r v i v e c u l t u r a l l y , economically and p o l i t i c a l l y a r e not p r o t e c t e d by the proposed p a t r i a t i o n . In f a c t a f t e r p a t r i a t i o n the F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l governments would have the f u l l a u t h o r i t y to e l i m i n a t e the very o b l i g a t i o n s owed to us which made settlement i n Canada p o s s i b l e . S.15 o f the Charter adds to the problem by saying t h a t there i s e q u a l i t y between i n d i v i d u a l s but our c o l l e c t i v e r i g h t s as Nations are denied. Throughout the C o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n s , when our Indian Nations were r e f u s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n and i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act as proposed, the Canadian Government has r e v e a l e d i t s i n t e n t i o n of f o r c i n g the Indian Nations to p o l i t i c a l l y i n t e g r a t e i n t o Canada, a g a i n s t our w i l l , t o d e p r i v e us of our p o l i t i c a l i d e n t i t y , a g a i n s t our w i l l and to suppress the f a c t that our Indian Nations and our t e r r i t o r i e s c o n s t i t u t e d i s t i n c t p o l i t i c a l communities o u t s i d e the Canadian S t a t e . 9. The i s s u e of the Indian Nation's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the p a t r i a t i o n process came before the R u s s e l l T r i b u n a l i n November 1980. The J u r y found t h a t Canada has f a i l e d to i n v o l v e d the Indian Nations i n the c u r r e n t C o n s t i t u t i o n a l process. I t f u r t h e r concluded t h a t Indian r i g h t s have not been c o n s i d e r e d i n the proposed Canada Act 1980. The T r i b u n a l adopted the D e c l a r a t i o n presented by the Indian d e l e - g a t i o n which s t a t e d t h a t "Indian Peoples have the r i g h t to e x i s t as d i s t i n c t People of the world, the r i g h t to the p o s s e s s i o n of t h e i r own t e r r i t o r y , and the r i g h t t o s o v e r e i g n s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n " . - 7 - 10. I f Her Majesty the Queen and her government i n Great B r i t a i n p a t r i a t e the Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n under the terms proposed by the F e d e r a l Government of Canada Her Majesty the Queen and her government o f Great B r i t a i n w i l l be p a r t i c i p a t i n g with Canada i n breaches of T r e a t y , I n t e r n a t i o n a l law and breaches o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l convenants o f which both Canada and Great B r i t a i n are s i g n a t o r i e s . U n i t e d Nations members agree to r e s p e c t " s e l f - d e t e r m i n a - t i o n o f peoples". (U.N. C h a r t e r , A r t i c l e 1(2); G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970, Preamble). "(A)11 peoples have the r i g h t of s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n (and) to f r e e l y determine t h e i r p o l i t i c a l s t a t u s . " ( I n t e r n a t i o n a l Convenant on Economic, S o c i a l and C u t l u r a l Rights, A r t i c l e 1 ( 1 ) , and " (T)he w i l l o f the people s h a l l be the b a s i s of the a u t h o r i t y of government" i n a l l c o u n t r i e s . " ( U n i v e r s a l D e c l a r a t i o n of Human R i g h t s , A r t i c l e 21(3), U.N. Doc. A/118, 10 December 1948.) A people's "inadequacy of p o l i t i c a l , economic o r s o c i a l preparedness should never serve as a p r e t e x t f o r d e l a y i n g independence" o r the e x e r c i s e of s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n . ( D e c l a r a t i o n on the Granting o f Independence t o C o l o n i a l Countries and Peoples, A r t . 3 ) . As a "people", the Indian Nations o f Canada have a r i g h t to choose t h e i r own p o l i t i c a l d e s t i n y . P E T I T I O N 1. I n r e c o g n i t i o n of the f o r e g o i n g , the Indian Nations i n Canada seek and request the immediate i n t e r v e n t i o n of the U n i t e d Nations S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l on our b e h a l f to support and provide i n t e r n a t i o n a l s u p e r v i s i o n over a t r i - l a t e r a l meeting between r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from the Government of B r i t a i n , Government o f Canada, and the Indian Nations a t a n e u t r a l c i t y . The i n t e r c e s s i o n o f the U.N. S e c r e t a r y - General, i s u r g e n t l y requested to f a c i l i t a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s p e c i a l meeting, to f o r m a l l y r e s o l v e a l l outstanding d i s p u t e s between the p a r t i e s p r i o r to the c o n c l u s i o n of the process undertaken by Canada and B r i t a i n know as "Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l P a t r i a t i o n " . We s p e c i f i c a l l y urge the U.N. Secretary-General to undertake the f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s " 1. I n i t i a t e c o n t a c t with the Governments of Canada and B r i t a i n , u r g i n g t h e i r immediate - 8 - l a t e r a l n e g o t i a t i o n s on the p o l i t i c a l status of the I n d i a n Nations o f Canada, as w e l l as t h e i r Agreement to suspend c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p a t r i a t i o n processes u n t i l these n e g o t i a t i o n s are concluded to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of a l l p a r t i e s . 2. Gain Agreement between the p a r t i e s concerning the r o l e of the United Nations as an i n t e r n a t i o n a l presence to s u p e r v i s e the proceedings, once n e g o t i a t i o n s are convened. 3. Request and secure an o f f i c i a l of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Court of J u s t i c e to serve as o f f i c i a l a r b i t o r d u r i n g the l i f e of these' n e g o t i a t i o n s . 2. The proposed T r i - L a t e r a l N e g o t i a t i o n s of the P o l i t i c a l Status of Indigenous Peoples of Canada, convening under i n t e r n a t i o n a l s u p e r v i s i o n , must have an agenda which i n c l u d e s — b u t i s not l i m i t e d t o — t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1 . Review and d e f i n e the present r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a l l p a r t i e s involved i n the e x i s t i n g " t r i - l a t e r a l " r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n c l u d i n g the Indian Nations, the Canadian Government and the B r i t i s h Government. 2. Define i n d e t a i l the f u l l meaning and extent of the p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n between B r i t a i n and the Indian Nations i n Canada. 3. Define and agree i n d e t a i l on the f u l l area and boundaries of t e r r i t o r i e s occupied and/or owned by the Indian Nations of Canada. 4. Define i n d e t a i l the means by which e x i s t i n g and f u t u r e c o n f l i c t s may be r e s o l v e d between an Independent Canada and Indian N a t i o n s . 5. Define and determine the extent and amount of payments owed to Indian Nations of Canada by the Canadian Government f o r lands and n a t u r a l resources already con- f i s c a t e d or e x p r o p r i a t e d by the Canadian Government and/or i t s agents; and agree to the method and terms f o r payment. 6. Define the terms f o r p o l i t i c a l e x i s t - ence between the Indian Nations of Canada and the Canadian Government. 7. Define the e q u a l i z a t i o n payment plan between the Canadian Government and the Indian N a t i o n s . 8. Define_the a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l Indian c i t i z e n s h i p i n a d d i t i o n to t h e i r own n a t u r a l c i t i z e n s h i p . 9. Define and agree to the - 9 - to ensure t h a t each Indian Nation can e x e r c i s e the f u l l measure o f s e l f - government, w i t h i n the Canadian Con- f e d e r a t i o n . 10. Define the r o l e s and a u t h o r i t i e s of the various p a r t i e s i n matters r e l a t e d to f i s h i n g , w i l d l i f e , r e l i g i o u s land pro- t e c t i o n , water r e s o u r c e s management and c o n t r o l , use and development of m i n e r a l s , petroleum r e s o u r c e s , timber, and other n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . 11. Define the terms of a T r e a t y which w i l l c o d i f y the Agreements above, as w e l l as d e f i n e the measures necessary to s e t t l e the unresolved lands and other t e r r i t o r i a l c l a i m s . 1 2 . Agree upon the f o r m a t i o n of an I n t e r n a t i o n a l Indigenous T r u s t C o u n c i l w i t h i n the United Nations to oversee f u t u r e r e l a t i o n s between Indigenous Peoples and C o u n t r i e s with which they are a s s o c i a t e d . 3. Before the T r i - L a t e r a l Conference on the P o l i t i c a l Status of the Indian Nations i n Canada i n convened, we u r g e n t l y request t h a t : 1. Canada n o t i f y the I n d i a n Governments of her i n t e n t not to f i n a l i z e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p a t r i a t i o n proceedings u n t i l t h i s t r i - l a t e r a l conference has concluded. 2 . Canada n o t i f y the Indian Nations that she s h a l l not v i o l a t e the p o l i t i c a l and t e r r i t o r i a l i n t e g r i t y o f the Indigenous Peoples before, d u r i n g o r a f t e r the achievement of her independence from B r i t a i n . 3. Canada and B r i t a i n share e q u a l l y i n the c o s t to support the I n d i a n Govern- ment's r o l e as p a r t i e s to the above mentioned t r i - l a t e r a l n e g o t i a t i o n s . Such funds may be used f o r a l l necesary pur- poses determined by the I n d i a n governments to ensure equal p a r t i c i p a - t i o n i n the conference. 4. B r i t a i n o f f i c i a l l y n o t i f y the Indian Nations of her i n t e n t to f u l f i l her t r u s t r e s p o n s i b i l t i e s to them even as she seeks to promote the Canadian State's independence. DATED i n the C i t y o f Ottawa, December 1980. George/Manuel, P r e s i d e n t (5) INDIGENOUS PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF CANADA REPRESENTATIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS MISSIONS PURPOSE: To ensure that Indian Nations can choose how they w i l l relate to England or Canada. We are not asking f o r separation, we are asking to maintain legal and moral ties with England because we have never been a part of Canada. OBJECTIVES: 1. To postpone the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. (For the next s i x (6) months the patriation of the Canadian Constitution i s a continous state of emergency!) . 2. To establish the TRILATERAL CONFERENCE between the INDIAN NATIONS, GREAT BRITAIN and the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. MISSION GUIDELINES: 1. Describe the existing situation of the Indigenous Nations within Canada and why we are i n a state of emergency. 2. Encourage missions to transmit reports of meetings, particularly the B i l l of Particulars and Petition to their governments for study and possible courses of action. 3. Request Missions to support the Indigenous Nations of Canada i n post- poning patriation of the Canadian constitution until the Indigenous Nations concerns are mat and whatever transpires does not effect the Indigenous Nations status with Great Britain. 4. Request Missions to encourage the Secretary General to implement what i s request i n the B i l l of Particulars and Petition. 5. Request to send Indigenous Nations delegates to foreign Ministeries i n the future and open doors for further contact with foreign affairs i n each country. 6 C6) DECEMBER 8,1980 1. TANZANIA: Chief Executive Secretary Chama Cha Mapindiezi P.O. Box 50 Dodoma United Republic of Tanzania DELEGATION: Steven Kakfwi - Dene Nation Marie Wilson Elaine Thomas Jerry Jack Jean Brown TANZANIA: "Welcome to Tanzania" PRESENTATION: B i l l of Particulars and Petition. QUESTIONS: Ware you consulted an the Constitution i n 1867? Do you have specific lands or territories now? (ie: your own? Do you want special representatives/representation i n Parliament? Do you want more power within the control of Indigenous authorities? Do you want certain provisions/jurisdictions within individual provinces? How united are you people? What i s the reaction of the Ottawa government to your proposals? Do you have the text of the Constitutional proposal? Have you spoken to Britain? What do you really want? - to get r i d of the rest of the population? - get back a l l your land? - conglomerate a l l INDIGENOUS PEOPLES into one land to be exclusively yours? What do you want us to do? What do you want from negotiations? What do you hope to get out of maintaining ties with Britain? 7 (7) Hew many nations are you? Can you indentify what land you want? POLITICAL ANALYSIS/ADVICE: "You can't really think of self-determination (realistically) unless you have specific territory. Otherwise you can only talk about more fair, equitable, deomocratic participation." But that's your right so go after i t . You must decide what you really want: You need two lines of action: 1. Need better organization across Canada (National leadership to define p o l i t i c a l , economic and social rights.) 2. Can only get rights by confronting those who have taken away your rights. I t i s important to talk to Canadian and Provincial p o l i t i c a l parties, even more than governments because they are more honest. After soma discussion he said he knew we could do i t because setting up cur Provisional Government i s a good sign, i n that we are getting united and that the majority of our people are i n agreement. He then expalined how their country w i l l supoort our issue because of the way Canada i s discrimenating the Indigenous People of Canada i n the fight for land and rights. And stated we must set our goals and objectives before we can neg- otiate and put pressure on the government of Canada. CONDITIONAL COMMITTEES: 1. Further discussions with Indigenous delegations. 2. Tanzania w i l l use dipolmatic and "other" channels with Canada to l e t Canada knew this problem i s bigger than i t thought. 3. Tanzania w i l l use UN offices and f a c i l i t i e s to spread word. A l l these commitments are dependant on getting answers to soma of the above questions. Tanzania,is i n principle, i n support of helping a l l OPPRESSED people, but, has to know more specifically what this group wants. COMMITTIMENTS: 1. Will~pass-on a l l documents of government of the United Republic of Tanzania, and to the Revolutionary Party, and to 8 (8) President (and the Chairman) Nyrere to study and see i f there i s anything they can do. "We w i l l do everything we can i n our power to helping you people to obtain what you want." "We know you people can do i t . " 2. We w i l l correspond. 3. We w i l l keep i n touch with you, and with other interested parties. (Canada and Britain) REQUESTS: ' 1. Want extra copies of the Soloemn Declaration for President Nyrere. 2. Wants to know what other missions were contacted and what their reactions were, (to prpare diplomatic war " i f necessary". 3. Would like correspondance and further meetings. 4. Would like text of constitutional package. 2. INDIA DELEGATION: Chief Nathan Spinks Joe Basil Frank Rivers Rhoda Spinks PRESENTATION: We presented the B i l l of Particulars and basically maintained our position that we are separate from Canada and have always been and requested the mission to seek help to sponsor us i n the Committee of 24 and asked the mission to request their government that our submission be put on record. And strongly emphasized the Canadian government took a l l the Indigenous peoples and put them on reserves and are currently trying to take a l l our rights away ie; hunting and fishing and that basically Canada and England are meeting and saying that there should be more more Indians just Canadian Citizens. And told them we have gone to England and the Queen w i l l not meet with us. 9 (9) RESPONSE: The representative told us that we were pari: of Canada because we are voters of Canada. Howerver he said that i t has to go to the foreign ministry and w i l l follow thorugh i n transmitting information to the foreign mininstry and w i l l t l k to his people and see what they cand do to support our Petition and that i t w i l l be forwarded to Delhi, India. 3. AUSTRALIA: Their advice was that the Committee of 24 i s only supposed ho d?.al with decolonization and Indian people aren't i n a decolonization issue. However they are willing to forward us more information. The Committee of 24 only deals with the l i s t ' o f non-self governning territories. They w i l l forward our request to t h i r Austrailian government. They requested George Manuel's address and indicated that they would like to speake to chiefs and not underlings. They also stated that they would like to continue dialogue. (A more detailed report i s expected) 4. DENMARK: DELEGATION: Steve Kakfwi Ron George Chief Roger Jimmy L i z Adrian Chief Nathan Spinks PRESENTATION: B i l l of Particulars and Petition QUESTIONS: Have you talked to Britain? Yes for years. What i s the British reaction? In sort of a deilemma - colonist, either way. If Canada were to assume a l l ties, as they now exist with Britain without changing these, would that be enought? Would you be satisfied? We then explained the growing trend of transfer of responsibility from Ottawa to the provinces which i s a lack of good faith. Would constitutional package being proposed by Ottawa also include changing p o l i t i c a l status of the two northern territories with Canada? 10 (10) Do certain number of provinces (Majority, as an American state model) have to approve patriation process? No, just parliament, i e : the party i n power. For the proposed amending formula yes. What are your immediate plans? To continue lobby i n Ottawa, Britain, the UN & our provisional government. Has negotiating forum been set up to negotiate with the Federal Government and UK as you are hoping? (Trilateral talks) Yes, further explanation of Provisional Government. Is Canada going to wipe out/terminate the status of Indigeneous Nations? They wanted us to elaborate on why we believe Canada i s intent on carrying out policies that would be "dangerous" or a threat to the well being or existence of Nations. The B i l l of Particulars was explained well to the mission. COMMITTMENTS: They w i l l transmit documents t o Copenhagenand our capital. There was no specifications that this would be to the head of government. And NO indication of how long i t would be there. And NO, guarantees of anything, i n spite of optimism express by Indigeneous group because of the Home Rule Model i n Greenland. Greenland was given provincial status by the Danish Government. They said further delegations are welcome to appeal to Denmark again at any time. They said other Nordic countries w i l l think about i t too, probably within context of the Nordic conference. 5. CANADA DELEGATION: Marie Marule Chief Saul Terry The dialogue was a very cordial discussion. Presentation of B i l l of Particulars and empahsizing state of emergency did have a l i t l e impact. There was no indication of being against i t . I t was emphasized very strongly that the action Can ad has taken has international ramification to the Indigeneous peoples of Canada. [A more detailed report i s expected) (11) (11) 6. IRELAND: Representative: Don Donavue DELEGATION: Ron George Emory Gabriel Fay Nelson Trudy Williams PRESENTATION: Introduced B i l l of Particulars and explained the major points,such as seeking recognition from the UN of the sovereign Indian Nations of Canada. Canada has not upheld their obligations given them by their trusteeship of agreements signed between sovereign Indian Nations of Canada and England. When Mr. Donavue asked what significance this "constitution" had on B.C. we replied that the proposed charter would transfer the juris- diction of native Indian concerns to the provinces and we cited the example of how Joseph Trutch dealt with natives after confederation when the province was given jurisdiction of land encompassed by the borders of what i s now known as B.C. He questioned whether or not Canada was deliberately trying to shut Indians out of any dealings c especially the constitution . We cited how Prime Minister Trudeau, starting with the "White Paper Policy" and now this proposed charter, has been continually trying to shed his res- ponsibility of trusteeship and eliminate any hones and honourable dealings with the native Indian people. Our diplomatic efforts to date have met with no response or acknow- ledgement which has resulted i n our taking this route. He closed by saying that they have heard a "lot of talk of the Canadian constitution: and i t i s recognized as a problem, He said we must remember that we w i l l be talking to alot of people who do not know any- thing on this matter. He thanked us for coming and enlightening him on this issue and stated: "Tank you for coming. We are certain to take interest i n you, quite frankly, quite a l o t of interest, We'll be asking alot of questions about the Canada Constitution." 12 (12) 7. CUBA DELEGATION Marie Marule Frank Rivers Alex Jimmie Wallace Manyfingers We met with Alferedo Almeida, Councillor of Cuban Mission. We outlined our position briefly. He was sympathetic with our concerns and wanted to go directly into what steps have been taken i n the future. He advised us to make contact with the Ambassodor of Canada. He also advised us we make a submission to the Geneva Commission on Human Rights by February 1981. The President of the Commission and the Cuban-Ambassador i n Geneva w i l l be informed of the submission. We pointed out that the existing systems i n the UN do not adequately cover Indigeneous Peoples concerns nor our collective rights and that we are looking for alternatives. One of their cultural institutes i s having a session i n Cuba i n September 1981 and suggested we make representation and indicated that they w i l l contact us on further information. 8. SAUDI ARABIA A meeting was set up for 12 noon to 1p.m. on December 9. 1980, but the meeting did not materialize, we-^ent through two and half hours of... waiting i n the executive lounge. At 2:15, the Saudi Arabia mission was contacted but we were told by the woman responsible for making meeting arrangements that follow up i s necessary i n the future, either send them the B i l l of Particulars or meet with their Embassy i n Ottawa. REPORTS FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM, YUKOSLAVIA, CANADA, NORWAY, FINLAND, IRAN, TRINIDAD/TABAGO HAVE NOT YET BEEN SUBMITTED. WE ARE STILL EXPECTING THEM TO BE SUBMITTED TO COMPLETE THE REPORT. The following i s a l i s t of people who went on the bus to New York: 1. Chief Wayne Christian 2. Tina Marie Chrisian 3. Adam Christian 4. Chief Saul Terry 5. Mary Ann Terry 6. Nelson David Terry 7. Chief Nathan Spinks 8. Rhoda Spinks 9. Chief Alex Jimmie 10. Joan Jimmie 11. Chief Dave Quilt 12. Mathilda Quilt 13. Chief Roger Jimmie 14. L i l l i a n Jimmie 15. Jason Jimmie 16. Baby 17. Marguerite Slash (99) 18, Chief Niel P h i l l i p 19. Steven Kakfwi - Dene Nation 20. Marie Wilson 21. Ken Dennis 22. Jim Bob 23. Arnold Ritchie 24. Jean Brown 25. Elaine Thomas 26. Faye Nelson 27. Trudy Williams 28. Frank Rivers 29. Emory Gabriel 30. Liz Adrian 31. Lyn Terbasket 32. Joe Basil 33. Monica Howard 34. Murray Green 35. Liza Nelson 36. Irene Skin 37. Jerry Jack 38. Ran George 39. Celeste Basil 40. Steven Basil 41. L i l l i a n Basil Also part of the Delegation were: Albert Lightening Marie Marule Rudi Ryser Randy Scott Adam Soloway Wallace Manyfingers
Part of Petition to the United Nations