PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES · Public Policy Sources are published periodically throughout the year by The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The Fraser Institute is

PUBLIC POLICY

SOURCES

A FRASER INSTITUTE OCCASIONAL PAPER

Number 17

Understanding the Nisga’a Agreement and Looking at Alternativesby Stuart Adams

ContentsExecutive Summary ........................................................................................................... 3

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 5

12 Points about the Nisga’a Agreement and Althernatives ................................................... 8

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 32

References ....................................................................................................................... 33

About the Author ............................................................................................................. 37

Public Policy Sources are published periodically throughout the year by The Fraser Institute,Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

The Fraser Institute is an independent Canadian economic and social research and educational organ-ization. It has as its objective the redirection of public attention to the role of competitive markets inproviding for the well-being of Canadians. Where markets work, the Institute’s interest lies in trying todiscover prospects for improvement. Where markets do not work, its interest lies in finding the reasons.Where competitive markets have been replaced by government control, the interest of the Institute liesin documenting objectively the nature of the improvement or deterioration resulting from governmentintervention. The work of the Institute is assisted by an Editorial Advisory Board of internationallyrenowned economists. The Fraser Institute is a national, federally chartered non-profit organizationfinanced by the sale of its publications and the tax-deductible contributions of its members, founda-tions, and other supporters; it receives no government funding.

For information about membership in The Fraser Institute, please contact the Development Department via mail to: The Fraser Institute, 4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6J 3G7; via telephone: 604.688.0221 ext. 586; via fax: 604.688.8539; via e-mail: [email protected].

In Calgary, please contact us via telephone: 403.216.7175; via fax: 403.234.9010; via e-mail: [email protected].

In Toronto, please contact us via telephone: 416.363.6575; via fax: 416.601.7322.

To order additional copies of Public Policy Sources, any of our other publications, or a catalogue of the Institute’s publications, please contact the book sales coordinator via our toll-free order line: 1.800.665.3558, ext. 580; via telephone: 604.688.0221, ext. 580; via fax: 604.688.8539; via e-mail: [email protected].

For media enquiries, please contact Suzanne Walters, Director of Communications via telephone: 604.714.4582 or, from Toronto, 416.363.6575, ext. 582; via e-mail: [email protected]

To learn more about the Institute, please visit our web site at www.fraserinstitute.ca.

Copyright© 1999 The Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

The authors of this study have worked independently and opinions expressed by them are, therefore, their own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the members or trustees of The Fraser Institute.

Editing and design: Kristin McCahon and Lindsey Thomas MartinPrinted and bound in Canada. ISSN 1206–6257.

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 17

Executive Summary

This paper provides key information missingfrom the campaign of the Nisga’a, the govern-ment of British Columbia, and the federal gov-ernment promoting the Nisga’a agreement. Itfirst comments on this campaign and thenpresents the missing information under the fol-lowing 12 headings.

(1) The agreement will give the Nisga’a farmore land than most Canadian registeredNatives now have, and far more than hasbeen given in recent land-claim settlementsoutside British Columbia.

(2) Besides land, it will give the Nisga’a far morecash and other benefits per capita than havebeen given in other land claim settlements.

(3) It will entrench an historically unprecedent-ed, two-tier form of government with farmore power and responsibilities than thosenow given to bands and tribal councils.

(4) In addition to winning these gains, theNisga’a will continue to qualify for most ofthe special benefits available to registeredNatives but not to other Canadians. Theywill lose their tax-exempt status but this lossmay have little impact on those who live onNisga’a lands if they continue to have lowtaxable incomes and receive non-taxablebenefits.

(5) Even after they are fully phased in, Nisga’ataxes will never come close to meeting theincreased costs of their own governmentplus their share of the costs of the provincialand federal governments.

The Fraser Institute 3

(6) Proponents of the agreement say that condi-tions in reserve communities are poor andthe Nisga’a agreement offers a solution tosuch conditions, allowing the Nisga’a todevelop their own economy and becomeconsiderably more self-reliant. They provideno evidence for this, however, and there isreason to doubt it.

(7) Proponents of the agreement say thatWhites are guilty of “cultural genocide”against Native people; that Native peoplestill have their own unique cultural tradi-tions that they wish to recover and pre-serve; that, to do so, they need their ownexpanded homelands and governments, asprovided by the Nisga’a agreement. Theevidence and arguments supporting theseassertions are less than persuasive, so weshould be sceptical.

(8) There can be little doubt that it serves theinterests of Native politicians and bureau-crats (not to mention their consultants andlawyers) to fight for segregation and forlarge Native homelands with much expand-ed governments. But, before the rest of us,Native and otherwise, give any further sup-port to their objectives, we should assesscarefully where we are now and consideralternatives for the future.

(9) The majority of ordinary Native peoplehave already found alternatives for them-selves. They have been voting for greaterintegration into the mainstream of Canadi-an society with their hearts and minds andfeet.

Understanding the Nisga’a Agreement


(10) If approved, the Nisga’a agreement will havehuge ramifications right across Canada, ulti-mately costing Canadian taxpayers tens ofbillions of dollars in settlements and on-going support.

(11) In past treaty and land claim settlements,Native individuals were often offered choic-es, not just one take-it-or-leave-proposition.For example, they could choose betweenremaining registered Natives or opting outin exchange for compensation plus full citi-zenship, with all the rights and responsibili-ties that go with it and no special privileges.The agreement provides no such choices forNisga’a individuals.

Understanding the Nisga’a Agreement 4

(12) Finally, it may be time to make a practicaland realistic new deal with all the Nativepeople of Canada, favouring no Nativegroup over others, treating all equally, andoffering choices.

The discussion under heading 12 is perhaps themost important part of this paper since it suggestspossible ways out of the fix our governmentshave got us into with their inept handling of theNisga’a negotiations. It suggests that Nisga’a andother Natives be provided with at least three,equally attractive choices: 1) remain registeredmembers of their own bands, 2) become regis-tered Natives at large, or 3) opt out of registeredNative status in exchange for compensation.

The Fraser Institute


Introduction

From Tom Wolfe’s Radical Chic and Mau-mauingthe Flak Catchers in 1970 to Shelby Steele’s ADream Deferred: A Second Betrayal of Black Freedomin America in 1998,1 there is a growing body ofAmerican literature questioning White motivesfor approving measures ostensibly designed toimprove the lives of Blacks. Steele, who is Blackhimself, argues that Whites too often approvesuch measures not because they have sound rea-son to suppose they will work but because theyare anxious to assuage their own guilt and toappear virtuous. The result of this “redemptiveliberalism” and failure to apply rigorous stand-ards of assessment has been an array of programsthat benefit the leaders and employees of Black“grievance groups” but harm ordinary Blackswho are not on the payrolls of these groups.These programs encourage ordinary Blacks tothink they are less than capable of living up tostandards demanded of other Americans, so theybecome and remain dependent on financialassistance and other favours bestowed (some-times capriciously) by their own leaders and theredemption-seeking White majority.

Jim Sleeper, who has worked as a social activistand journalist in Black neighbourhoods in NewYork, argues that it is not just guilt and a desire toappear virtuous that motivate Whites: many dis-


1 Shelby Steele is a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at SLeadership.

2 “Letting Go of Race” (p. 4), an interview with Jim Sleeper atic.com/unbound/bookauth/sleepint.htm. Jim Sleeper is the debate over race-targetted programs in the United States, lotic.com/unbound/forum/ race.

3 “My Race Problem–And Ours” (The Atlantic Monthly, May Other readings: Peter Collier (ed.), The Race Card: White GuilThernstrom and Abigail M. Thernstrom, America in Black anSherry, Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in Ameand Resentment in America’s ‘Racial’ Crisis.

approve of materialism and other aspects ofmainstream American society and think of Blacksand Natives as the bearers not only of similar dis-approval but also of “redemptive social wisdom.”Though there may be some element of truth inthis, he says, “it damages and limits people moreoften than it ennobles them.”2

Randall Kennedy, a Black and a law professor atHarvard, rejects the notion of racial kinshipentirely “in order to avoid its burdens and to befree to claim ‘the unencumbered self.’ ”3 Havingrejected the notion of racial kinship, he rejectsthe idea of special programs based on race butsupports efforts to help young Blacks acquire thevalues, skills and education necessary for theirsuccess in American society.

You do not have to agree with everything Steele,Sleeper, Kennedy, and others of like mind say torecognize that they raise legitimate concerns.They add notes of caution to the continuing pub-lic debate that gives shape to government policyin a democracy.

I mention the American debate for two reasons.First, we Canadians have yet to have a similarlyhonest and lively debate about our motives andpolicies for addressing Native issues. Second, if


tanford University and a Director of the Center for New Black

vailable on The Atlantic Monthly’s web site at www.theatlan-author of Liberal Racism. For an excellent primer on the currentok elsewhere on The Atlantic Monthly’s site at www.theatlan-

1997). Randall Kennedy is the author of Race, Crime and Law.t, Black Resentment, and the Assault on Truth and Justice; Stephand White: One Nation Indivisible; Daniel A. Farber and Suzannarican Law; Orlando Patterson, The Ordeal of Integration: Progress


we were to have such a debate, we would findmany parallels with the American situation.

During a conversation a few years back, a NativeCanadian colleague and I came up with thephrase “noble savage racism” to refer to thesame phenomenon that Sleeper refers to as “lib-eral racism.” We had both observed that someWhites dearly wish to believe that Natives, ifuncorrupted by Whites, would be living in moreperfect societies—perhaps collectivist societieswhere everyone cooperated and shared the ben-efits equally or environmentally responsiblesocieties where every effort is made to live inharmony with nature. They do not know—orprefer to ignore the fact—that many Native soci-eties were more feudal (with hierarchiesdescending from rich and powerful chiefs downto poor and powerless slaves) than collectivistand did little in the way of teaching what manyCanadians today might consider egalitarian andenvironmental values.

They also do not know—or choose to ignore thefact—that more than a few Native Canadianswould prefer to think of themselves as individu-als, unencumbered by anyone’s notion of what itmeans to be Native. My Native colleague told methat she thought it unfair to put such an encum-brance on her own children and grandchildren,and so discourage them from making the samecareer and lifestyle choices open to other Canadi-ans. Pointing to another problem with such anencumbrance, a young Native artist once told methat, because he graduated from Emily Carr Col-lege of Art with the terrible feeling that less hadbeen demanded of him because he was Native,he registered at Ryerson Polytechnic. There hewas treated as any other student would be andhe graduated feeling confident and proud thathe had lived up to the standards required of all.


4 “Mau-mauing,” in Wolfe’s essay, means intimidating, by di5 “Nisga’a leader attacks opponents of new treaty,” The Vanco

The equivalent of radical chic in Canada today isautomatically favouring the Nisga’a agreement,while giving little serious thought to the rationalebehind it, its actual contents, its likely conse-quences, and alternatives that might be better.The equivalent of “mau-mauing”4 the flak catch-ers in Canada today is the campaign of the Nis-ga’a, the government of British Columbia, andthe federal government promoting the agree-ment. This campaign appeals, often in intimidat-ing ways, to people’s sense of guilt and desire todo (or appear to do) the right thing, while notgiving them the information they need to assessits true merits.

The British Columbia government’s advertise-ments, in particular, have not been designed toinform but to sell. They select and spin informa-tion, putting the agreement in the most flatter-ing light. They appeal to emotion (feeling badabout past wrongs and feeling good about mak-ing up for those wrongs) rather than reason(weighing the pros and cons of the agreementand looking at possible alternatives, with all thefacts at hand.)

Even more disturbing than the deceptive ads isthe effort to discredit anyone who would raise aquestion or a doubt. When he signed the draft inNew Aiyansh on August 4, 1998, Nisga’a ChiefJoe Gosnell fired a warning shot across the bowsof past and potential critics. He said, “Our detrac-tors do not understand or, practising a wilfulignorance, choose not to understand. Or worse,using carefully coded language, they are updat-ing a venomous attitude so familiar to the FirstNations of the world.”5 Since then, proponents ofthe agreement take every opportunity to remindus, the public, of the “third-world conditions” inNative communities and the “cultural genocide”that created those conditions. In effect, they tell


rect or implied threat of violence to body or character.uver Sun, August 5, 1998.


us that the problems are so terrible and non-Natives are so guilty of creating them that wemust accept, on faith, whatever solutions ourleaders propose. Those who, with the best ofintentions, would question the merits of thosesolutions are discouraged from voicing their con-cerns for fear of being branded racist and igno-rant. This hardly establishes an atmosphereconducive to civil debate.

Since the promotional campaign began, manycolleagues, friends, and acquaintances have toldme that they feel they are not being given theinformation they need to make up their ownminds about the Nisga’a agreement and theydeeply resent the efforts to shame or intimidatethem into uninformed compliance. Generallyintelligent and well-informed people, they espe-cially resent being told by federal and provincialministers that the agreement is too complicatedfor ordinary folks to understand. With them inmind, I began drafting this paper in August.

On October 28, 1998, I sent an earlier version ofit, with covering letters, to Prime Minister JeanChrétien and Premier Glen Clark plus copies to a


number of people I thought might be interested.One of these was Gordon Gibson, who frequent-ly comments on Native issues in his weekly col-umn in The Globe and Mail and is also SeniorFellow in Canadian Studies at the Fraser Insti-tute. On his recommendation, the Institute hasagreed to publish this slightly revised version asone of their occasional papers. The revisionsrespond to suggestions offered by readers of theearlier version. For those suggestions, I thankthem all but leave them nameless and blameless.

I have a lifetime of personal association withNative people and their communities plus 20years of experience working as a consultant onNative issues for Native groups and the govern-ment agencies and private corporations that dobusiness with them. This paper outlines somethings I believe all Canadians, Native and other-wise, should consider before making up theirminds about the Nisga’a agreement. It raises seri-ous concerns about the agreement and suggestsalternatives that could provide real choices forindividual Native Canadians. I hope readers willfind it a constructive contribution to the debate,one that helps them form their own views.



Table 1: Comparison of Per Capita Land Allotment to Be Provided under the Nisga’a Agreement and Allotments Now Provided to Registered Natives in Canada

Registered Membership Hectares of Land

Total On Reserve Average Per Member Per Member On Reserve

Nisga’a Agreement 5,230 1,992 38.1 100.0

Alberta 76,419 50,818 8.6 12.9

Saskatchewan 94,953 49,176 6.6 12.8

Ontario 138,518 70,434 5.1 10.1

CANADA 610,874 354,369 4.4 7.6

British Columbia 102,073 52,046 3.4 6.6

Mikisew Cree 1,700 ,870 3.0 5.9

Manitoba 94,113 60,694 2.3 3.7

Nisga’a Now 5,230 1,992 1.3 3.7

Atlantic Provinces 23,959 15,732 1.3 1.9

Quebec 58,640 41,487 1.2 1.7

Northwest Territories 13,998 10,240 1.0 1.3

Yukon 7,199 3,742 0.4 0.9

Note: 1996 population figures, except 1998 for Nisga’a

Sources: The data on population and gross Canadian hectares come from Basic Departmental Data 1997, an

annual Indian Affairs publication. The data on hectares per province and territory come from Schedule of

Indian Bands, Reserves and Settlements, an Indian Affairs publication issued in December 1990. It is only

slightly out of date, with 68,894 hectares having been added to the Canadian total.

12 points about the Nisga’a Agreement and alternatives

1 The agreement will give the Nisga’a far more land than most registered Natives now have, and far more than has been given in recent land-claim settlements outside British Columbia

In 1996, the combined area of all lands adminis-tered for registered Natives across Canada was2,751,342 hectares, approximately equivalent tothe size of Vancouver Island. The agreement willgive the Nisga’a 199,200 hectares, including the6,200 hectares of existing Nisga’a reserve.

Table 1 compares how much land the Nisga’awill get per capita with how much land regis-


tered Natives in various parts of Canada nowhave per capita. It shows that the Nisga’a will getalmost nine times the average now allocated toNative Canadians. Calculated on the basis ofmembers living on reserve, it works out to morethan 13 times the average. The Mikisew Cree ofnortheastern Alberta are shown because theyachieved a recent (1986) land claims settlementunder one of the Prairie treaties, Treaty Eight.



Proponents of the Nisga’a agreement point outthat the Prairie treaties provide for up to onesquare mile (259 hectares) of land per family offive or 51.8 hectares per individual. They fail tonote that, when the treaties were signed (1899 inthe case of Treaty 8), most Natives still had mixedsubsistence (hunting, fishing, trapping, andgathering) and fur-trading economies. Theyneeded a substantial amount of land to make ago of it. Also, Canada was sparsely populated,the Native population was much lower, andthere was abundant land for everyone. Reservelands under those treaties were not to be ownedoutright but only protected by the Crown forNative use. (The Nisga’a land will be owned out-right, communally by all the Nisga’a people.)

The implicit policy over the years has been oneencouraging transition to the mainstream Canadi-an economy. Often reserves were diminished asgovernments deemed that transition to be suffi-ciently advanced. In fact, Canadian governments


have periodically proposed phasing out reserva-tions, a policy followed by the American Govern-ment during several long periods of time. In anycase, the treaties only set guidelines for land-claimsettlements, leaving the actual settlements untillater. Under the Prairie treaties, the later settle-ments provided less land than the earlier ones.

In the settlement with the Mikisew Cree, thenegotiators agreed on a certain amount of landand a certain amount of cash in lieu of land. Thecash settlement ($36.2 million in today’s dollars)was seen to be more appropriate for these times,since the traditional subsistence and fur tradingeconomy had diminished in importance and themodern economy required capital to supportnew businesses. At the time of settlement in1986, there were about 1,400 Mikisew Cree, sothe settlement worked out to about 3.7 hectaresof land and $25,825 (in today’s dollars) in cashper capita, to be spent for various specified com-munity purposes.

2 Besides land, it will give the Nisga’a far more cash and other benefits per capita than have been given in other land claim settlements.

The agreement will provide the Nisga’a not only199,200 hectares of land, valued at $106.66 mil-lion dollars, but also cash and other benefitsworth from $375.54 to $382.54 million dollars.This works out to 38.1 hectares plus from $71,805to $73,143 in cash and other benefits per member.(The combined value of land, cash, and otherbenefits comes to from $92,199 to $93,537 per Nis-ga’a.) This is ten times as much land and almostthree times as much cash and other benefits asthe Mikisew Cree got in their 1986 settlement.

To get a truer picture of what these figures meanconsider that most people live as members ofhouseholds. A household can consist of a family,unrelated individuals, or some combination ofboth, all sharing the same dwelling. The 1991 cen-

sus found that the average Canadian family had3.1 persons and the average Canadian householdhad 2.7 persons. Native families and householdswere generally larger, with upwards of 3.4 personsper family and 3.8 per household. (The householdcounts tend to be higher than the family counts inNative communities.) Early results from the 1996census show that there were still about 2.7 personsper household in Canada, but almost 4.1 perhousehold in the four Nisga’a villages.

Assuming 3.4 persons per Nisga’a family, the Nis-ga’a agreement will provide about 125 hectares(worth $69,300) per family. It will also providefrom $244,100 to $248,700 in cash and other bene-fits per family. The total value of the Nisga’a pack-age will be from $313,400 to $318,000 per family.



While the above “per member” and “per family”figures are useful indications of the value of ben-efits, the agreement will not distribute the landand other benefits to individuals or families butwill give them to the Nisga’a Nation. They will beenjoyed mainly by those Nisga’a who choose tolive in the nation’s newly expanded territory. Asof August 1998, only 38 percent of the Nisga’awere living in the current Nisga’a villages. Unlessmany choose to move back to the Nass Valley, itmay be that less than 40 percent of the Nisga’apeople will gain much from the agreement.


(Indeed, the new Nisga’a constitution wouldseem to give those Nisga’a living in the territoryfar more representation in the Nisga’a legislaturethan those living outside of the territory and thusguarantee that those in the territory will receivefar more attention.)

The above figures show just the up-front value ofthe Nisga’a package. We have yet to consider theannual cost of transfers from the federal and pro-vincial governments to support the new Nisga’agovernment.

3 It will entrench an historically unprecedented, two-tier form of government with far more power and responsibilities than those now given to bands and tribal councils.

Since the early 1970s, many (not all) bands in Brit-ish Columbia have entered into voluntary associa-tions, generally called “tribal councils.” A tribalcouncil achieves economies of scale and moreclout by uniting several bands into a confederacy.In most cases, such confederacies are historicallyunprecedented. Before Europeans arrived in thispart of the world, there were sometimes loose con-federacies for war, trade, and other purposes butbands were largely independent and often sawclosely related neighbouring bands (with thesame language and cultural traditions) as rivals.

Bands and tribal councils have not generally hada great deal of power over, or responsibility for,members living off reserve. In fact, under the Indi-an Act, band members who permanently resideoff reserve are not permitted to vote in band elec-tions. In recent years, however, some bands andtribal councils have been forming urban locals.

The Nisga’a agreement will entrench this two-tier, extended structure so that it is no longer vol-untary but becomes a new form of governmentthat is not only regional and local but extends itsreach beyond territorial boundaries. There willbe the new Nisga’a Lisims Government at the topplus four village governments and three urbanlocals, in Greater Vancouver, Terrace, and PrinceRupert/Port Edward.

This new government structure will have powersand responsibilities that go considerably beyondthose now exercised by bands and tribal councils.For one thing, there will be the large new territo-ry to administer, and this will require resourcemanagement staff. For another, there will be aNisga’a justice system with its own laws, police,courts, and correction services, all requiring staffand facilities.



4 In addition to winning those gains, the Nisga’a will continue to qualify for most of the special benefits available to registered Natives but not to other Canadians. They will lose their tax-exempt status but this loss may have little impact on those who live on Nisga’a lands, if they continue to have low taxable incomes and receive non-taxable benefits.

The campaign of the BC Government to pro-mote the Nisga’a agreement makes a big point oftelling us that the Nisga’a will lose their tax-exempt status and that this is unprecedented inprevious treaty and land-claim settlements. Thecurrent exemption from sales tax will be phasedout over eight years and the exemption fromincome tax will be phased out over 12 years, “asthe Nisga’a develop their economy and becomemore self-reliant.”

The campaign does not tell us, however, that theNisga’a agreement specifies that “nothing in thisAgreement affects the ability of the Nisga’a . . . toparticipate or benefit from federal or provincialprograms for aboriginal people.” So the Nisga’awill continue to get most of the other benefitsprovided to registered Natives but not availableto most non-Native Canadians.

The greatest continuing benefit to individualNisga’a, in addition to provision of free commu-nal land, will be the provision of free or heavilysubsidized housing to families on reserve,regardless of their incomes, and of “social hous-ing” for some low-income Nisga’a living offreserve. Non-Native Canadians typically spendfrom 30 to 50 percent of their incomes on hous-ing. If they are poor enough to qualify for socialassistance, they get shelter allowances to helpthem rent housing at market prices but programsto provide new social housing to non-Nativepeople have been almost eliminated and there isnot nearly enough already in existence to meetthe demand. If you are a single mother on socialassistance living in a Canadian city, your best betfor getting into social housing is to demonstratethat you are a registered Native. That way you


may qualify for one of the social housing unitsthat the CMHC continues to fund for Native peo-ple but for few others. Nisga’a living on reserve,however, will continue to get free or heavily sub-sidized housing no matter what their incomes.

Other special Native benefits that will continueto be available to the Nisga’a include health, edu-cation, and business-development benefits.Beyond the basic care provided to other Canadi-ans by provincial Medicare programs, health careto registered Natives includes dental care, Phar-macare, and free emergency transportation ortransportation allowances between remote com-munities and medical facilities. Educational ben-efits include preferred admission (requiringlower academic qualifications) to post-secondaryinstitutions plus grants to cover tuition and roomand board. (As non-Native post-secondary stu-dents and their parents know, these are very sub-stantial benefits, indeed.) Business developmentbenefits include a range of special grants andloans to subsidize start-ups, equipment, andongoing operations.

These special benefits constitute a substantialsupplement to taxable cash income (see discus-sion under point 6, below) and reduce the incen-tive for earning as much income as mightotherwise be needed. The new Nisga’a govern-ment will not be a taxable entity. As long as itdelivers these benefits as parts of its normal serv-ices they will remain non-taxable.

There is no evidence to suggest that the newlyexpanded Nisga’a territory will provide suffi-cient new economic opportunities to substantial-ly increase the incomes of Nisga’a living in the



Nass Valley (see discussion under point 6,below). Incomes are likely to remain low, somany Nisga’a may have to pay little income taxeven after they lose their exemption.

In fact, the elimination of tax-exempt status mayhave greater impact on Nisga’a who choose notto live in the new Nisga’a territory. They general-


ly have higher cash incomes and currently cansometimes avoid paying taxes on that income ifthey work for a reserve-based organization. Cur-rently, they are also often able to take advantageof sales-tax exemptions by taking delivery ofmajor purchases on reservations belonging toother bands near the urban centres where theylive. They will lose these privileges.

5 Even after they are fully phased in, Nisga’a taxes will never come close to meeting the increased costs of their own government plus their share of the costs of the pro-vincial and federal governments.

The costs of programs to serve registered Nativesare already very high and they will get higher forthe Nisga’a and for other Natives if the agree-ment is approved and it sets a new standard towhich other Natives can aspire.

In fiscal year 1998/99, the estimated federal budg-et is $148 billion. Of this, $43.5 billion goes toservice the debt and $104.5 billion goes to pro-gram spending. Six percent or $6.323 billion dol-lars of the program spending goes to specialprograms serving Native Canadians. Thoughsome of this goes to serve non-registeredNatives, the bulk of it goes to serve registeredNatives, who compose 2.1 percent of Canada’stotal population. This works out to about $10,000per registered Native or $35,000 per registeredNative family, with much less going to servethose living off reserve and much more going toserve those living on a reserve.

Budget statements from Indian Affairs point outthat the federal government has primary respon-sibility for providing services to registeredNatives and that these include many of the serv-ices provided to other Canadians by their provin-cial, regional and local governments.

If you live in Vancouver and do a rough calcula-tion (from annual budget statements) of how

much all of your governments and public author-ities spend per Vancouver resident at all levelsfrom Foreign Affairs, through roads and hospi-tals, to local garbage pick-up, you will soon cometo a figure surpassing $8,000 and approaching$10,000. The result of such a calculation, however,cannot be fairly compared to estimates of govern-ment expenditures per registered Native on spe-cial Native programs. Registered Natives benefitnot just from federal expenditures on special pro-grams for themselves but also from many otherfederal, provincial, and municipal programs.Most services provided by the federal depart-ments of Agriculture, Canadian Heritage, Citizen-ship and Immigration, Environment, Finance,Fisheries and Oceans, Foreign Affairs, Justice,National Defence, and National Resources are forall Canadians, including registered Natives. Mostservices provided by the provincial ministries ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Food, Attorney Gener-al, Environment, Lands and Parks, Small BusinessTourism and Culture, Transportation and High-ways, and so on are for the benefit of all BritishColumbians, including registered Natives. It ishard to think of a regional or municipal govern-ment service (parks, streets, libraries, fire protec-tion, and so on) that does not provide benefitsequally to all residents, whether registered Nativeor not. (The 1996 census found 31,140 registeredand non-registered Natives in Vancouver.)



Presumably Nisga’a taxes would go to coversome of their share of these services plus some ofthe costs of their own government and of specialbenefits available to them as registered Natives.

How much does it generally cost, now, to sup-port band and tribal council governments andthe services they provide to on-reserve resi-dents? The British Columbia Government’s pro-motional pamphlet, Your Guide to the Nisga’aTreaty, says $26 million from the federal govern-ment and $3 million from the provincial govern-ment “are currently paid to the Nisga’a for theprovision of services, similar to other municipal-ities.” If this were true, it would be interesting tonote that the City of Vancouver’s budget for fis-cal 1998/99 provides for expenditures of $554million, or about $1,065 for each of its 520,000residents. The Nisga’a budget works out to$14,558 for each of the 1,992 now living in Nis-ga’a villages in the Nass Valley. Contrary towhat the pamphlet says, the Nisga’a budget cov-ers some items that would normally be federal orprovincial concerns, such as monies for socialservices, housing, education and health. Still, itis a lot of money.

Some band governments cost more. Last fall, anewspaper report told us that the 1996/97 budgetfor the Fort Albany Nation, northern Ontario,came to $19,428 for each of 900 residents onreserve. 6 The federal government recently told


6 “Reserve headed toward trusteeship,” Globe and Mail, Mond7 Effective April 1, 1999, the Northwest Territories will be divi

vut, will be 2,000 kilometres wide and 1,800 kilometres deep8 This information was relayed to the writer by Gordon Gibso

us that running the new government of Nuna-vut, which officially comes into being in April1999, will cost about $587 million in the first yearand that 90 percent of that sum will be providedby the federal government. Nunavut will beginwith a population of 25,000. Federal support willcome to around $21,000 per Nunavut resident.7

Without seeing any precise projections of thecosts of operating the new Nisga’a government,we might assume it will cost considerably morethan the $14,558 per on-reserve resident nowbeing spent by the Nisga’a bands and tribal coun-cil and could even approach the projected cost ofrunning the Nunavut government. In an inter-view, however, federal and provincial officialsindicated their belief that the additional cost ofrunning the new government will be covered byan additional $3 million in transfers.8 This sug-gests something in the order of $16,000 per resi-dent on Nisga’a lands.

It is not remotely conceivable that the Nisga’awill ever be paying sufficient taxes to support allof the services they will be getting from the fed-eral, provincial, and Nisga’a governments.Meanwhile, the agreement assures them thatthey will be guaranteed federal and provincialfunding sufficient to support the elaborate gov-erning system outlined in the agreement plusprovide them with the special benefits providedto other registered Natives in Canada.


ay, September 1, 1997.ded into two separate territories. The eastern territory, Nuna-. Eighty-four percent of its population will be Inuit.n, who interviewed the officials.


6 Proponents of the agreement say that conditions in reserve communities are poor and the Nisga’a agreement offers a solution to such conditions, allowing the Nis-ga’a to develop their own economy and become considerably more self reliant. They provide no evidence for this, however, and there is reason to doubt it.

Native and white politicians like to tell us thatNative people live in “third-world” conditions.This is far from the case. A recent report fromIndian Affairs (Measuring the Well-Being of FirstNation Peoples, October 1998) exaggerated thepoverty of Native Canadians by comparingapples with oranges, per-capita incomes ofNative Canadians with per-capita GDPs of Cana-da and other countries. But even this faulty com-parison (making the Native situation look worsethan it is) told us that, for income, off-reserveNatives rank on a par with number 28 of 173countries compared in a report from the UnitedNations.9 This puts them well within the ranks ofwhat the United Nations classifies as high-incomepeople. On-reserve Natives rank on a par withnumber 43, putting them near the top of themedium-income category. With 1990 per-capitaincomes of $9,905 and $6,542, off-reserve and on-reserve Natives were very much better off thanpeople in those 53 countries the United Nationsclassifies as low income. Those countries, wherethere truly are third-world conditions, had 1991per-capita GDPs ranging from $650 down to $370.

With average life expectancy of 72.2 years, off-reserve Natives were not far below the average of74.1 for those countries the United Nationsplaced in the high human-development catego-ry. With life expectancy of 67.6, on-reserveNatives ranked near the middle of countries theUnited Nations placed in the medium human-development category. Countries in the lowhuman-development category had average lifeexpectancies of 55. As for educational achieve-ment, the last of three human-developmentmeasures used by the United Nations, off-


9 United Nations Human Development Programme, Human De

reserve and on-reserve Natives ranked on a parwith countries number 30 and 53, placing themboth in the category of countries with high edu-cational achievement.

Table 2 compares oranges with oranges, although,as we shall see, it too underestimates the realincomes of on-reserve Natives, who receive manytax-free benefits not available to other Canadians.It shows average 1990 incomes of British Colum-bia adults 15 years and older, from the 1991 cen-sus, and helps us understand where Native BritishColumbians stand in relation to all British Colum-bians. (The median is that level at which half earnmore and half earn less.)

The key to this table is that it shows pre-tax cashincomes. Natives on reserve are exempt frompaying most taxes and also qualify for free landand free or subsidized housing, as well as specialhealth and education benefits. When you consid-er that most Canadians spend upwards of 20 per-cent of their incomes on taxes and upwards of 30percent on housing, you can see that these bene-fits constitute a substantial supplement to cashincome. If the Indian Affairs study discussedabove had taken the benefits into account, itwould have found that on-reserve Natives rankconsiderably higher on the United Nation’sincome and human-development scales.

The lower incomes of all Natives can be account-ed for largely by the fact that they have lowereducational attainment. In 1991, only 4.8 percentof British Columbia’s Native adults living offreserve and 0.8 percent of those on reserve haduniversity degrees, whereas 11.2 percent of all


velopment Report 1994. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.


British Columbian adults had degrees. At the oth-er end of the scale, 46.7 percent of British Colum-bia’s Native adults off reserve and 60.5 percent ofthose on reserve had less than high school gradu-ation, whereas only 34.0 percent of all BritishColumbian adults had so little education.

Another major factor accounting for low incomesof Natives on reserve is that many reserves areremote, far from the urban centres where mostjobs are concentrated. Contributing factors arethe benefits themselves. They reduce the need toearn higher incomes and reduce the incentivesfor educational attainment and relocation. Inother words, they encourage people to be chron-ically dependent on welfare.

There is abundant evidence that Native NorthAmericans who integrate into mainstream societyby improving their education and moving tourban centres are better off than those whoremain segregated on remote reserves. TheAmerican experience tells us that it does notmuch matter whether those reserves are small orvery large, as is the case with many reserves in thewestern States. In 1989, according to the USBureau of Statistics, the per-capita income of allNative Americans was US$8,328 but the per-capi-ta income of those on reserves was only US$4,478.

Table 2: Comparison of Pre-tax Incomes of Native Ad

All British

Columbians

Natives

Off Reserv

Average 1990 Income $24,250 $18,856

Average for Men $31,443 $23,916

Average for Women $17,761 $14,020

Median 1990 Income n/a $13,662

Median for Men $26,791 $19,419

Median for Women $13,756 $11,049

Sources: Statistics, Canada, 1991 Census Profiles, CD

tics, Canada, Profile of Canada’s Aboriginal Population

Statistics Canada, February 1995).


It is hard to see how the Nisga’a agreement willbe the most effective way of addressing the prob-lems of low income, low life expectancy (relatedto low self-esteem and its contribution to poorliving habits), and low education. It starts usdown the road long since taken in the UnitedStates, where large Native homelands have led tonothing better than we already have in Canadawith smaller reserves.

Natives are subject to the same economic forcesas everyone else. The long-term trend is awayfrom rural, resource-based economies andtowards urban, knowledge-based economies. Inmany Native communities, we have already seenthe old subsistence economy sink to near insig-nificance. People may still get up to one-third oftheir meat through hunting, fishing, and trap-ping but the costs of modern equipment (off-road vehicles, skidoos, boats with outboardmotors, guns, etc.), fuel, and ammunition oftenmake wild food more expensive than store-bought food, so these activities have becomelargely recreational or cultural phenomena. Thetrapping economy has also sunk to near insignif-icance, the net profit to Native trappers acrossCanada now amounting to a minuscule fractionwhen compared to, say, annual federal expendi-tures on Native programs.

ults and of All British Columbian Adults

As Percent

of All

Natives

On Reserve

As Percent

of All

76.2 $12,427 50.2

76.1 $14,342 45.6

78.9 $10,015 56.4

n/a $9,203 n/a

72.5 $10,170 38.0

80.3 $8,284 60.2

ROM (Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, 1993); Statis-

1991 census, Catalogue No. 94–325 (Ottawa, ON:

e

-

,



If there are economic studies showing that forest-ry, fishing, and other industries in the Nass Val-ley can be developed to a level sufficient to makethe Nisga’a self-reliant, then we should be told ofthese studies. Until we are told, we should besceptical of assertions that the Nisga’a agreement


10 Gwynne Dwyer, “Family History,” The Globe and Mail (AugBooks, 1994).

will help the Nisga’a escape the cycle of unem-ployment and dependency on governmenttransfers. So far as we know now, there is no evi-dence to support that assertion and much evi-dence to dispute it.

7 Proponents of the agreement say that Whites are guilty of “cultural genocide” against Native people; that Native people still have their own unique cultural tradi-tions that they wish to recover and preserve; that, to do so, they need their own expanded homelands and governments. The evidence and arguments supporting these assertions are less than persuasive, so we should be sceptical.

All human beings alive today are descendedfrom the same ancestors, the homo sapiens whoemerged from the evolutionary tree in Africaabout 200,000 years ago. About 100,000 years ago,homo sapiens began migrating out of Africa.Around 50,000 or 60,000 years ago, inside andoutside of Africa, they began developing lan-guages. Ten thousand years ago, there may havebeen from 10,000 to 20,000 small groups of homosapiens, each with its own language. Since then,the human story has been one of migration, con-quest, slavery, and amalgamation, as the con-quered and conquerors at first opposed and thenadjusted to, and blended with, each other, inter-breeding and exchanging vocabularies, ideas,and technologies. Now, there are only 50 lan-guages spoken by 95 percent of the world’shuman population, and only 10 languages spo-ken by half.10

The Native arrival in the Americas, between12,000 and 20,000 years ago, and the White arriv-al, 500 years ago, were both part of this longhuman story. For thousands of years after theyarrived, Natives moved about conquering eachother, taking slaves, intermarrying, and exchang-ing goods and ideas. Whites then joined this dra-

ma, fighting against each other, engagingNatives as their allies in those fights (e.g., theEnglish and Mohawk versus the French andHuron), fighting against Natives, and so on.There were episodes of brutal oppression—espe-cially well-documented since Whites arrivedwith their written language—but the Whiteswere by no means uniquely brutal as invadersand conquerors. In fact, they were all too typical-ly human and so prone to good, evil, and well-meant error.

People conquer with carrots as well as withsticks. In fact, seduction is usually easier andmore effective than oppression. Native trapperswere pleased when European traders arrivedwith desirable new goods and offered toexchange them for furs. There is considerableevidence that Natives were attracted to Christianteaching, too; see the evidence shown in Table 3.There is also considerable evidence that Nativepeople wanted the schooling and other help theyneeded to adapt to the changing world and takeadvantage of all the opportunities it had to offer.

Less positively, the seduction by the new alsocaused culture shock, with people doubting that


ust 22, 1998); Richard Leakey The Origin of Humankind (Basic


what they already had was sufficient and doubt-ing that their beliefs and traditions were the rightones. This sometimes led to feelings of beingdrawn between two worlds and not wholly partof either, with consequent low self esteem andassociated problems of drug and alcohol abuse,family violence and so on. After the CanadianBroadcasting Corporation brought television toCanada’s northern Native and Inuit communi-ties, for example, the people in those communi-ties were never again so content with their oldways. The fact that their existing economies couldnot provide them with all of the things they sawon television added to their unhappiness. In thisregard, northern Native and Inuit people are notso different from the rest of us, who often findourselves drawn between the old and the new. Itis also true, though, that once people get over the

Table 3: Home Languages and Religious Affiliationsans, Native Canadians and All Canadians (percentag

British Columbia

All Natives

Off Reserve

Home Language

English 88.7 98.7

French 0.4 0.2

Other 9.3 0.6

Aboriginal 0.5

More than One 1.8 0.5

Aboriginal + another 0.3

Total Aboriginal 0.8

Religion

Catholic 18.0 24.0

Protestant 44.0 37.0

Other 6.4 1.7

Aboriginal 0.8

No Religious Affiliation 30.1 37.5

Source: Statistics, Canada, Profile of Canada’s Aborigi

(Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, February 1995).


shock of the new it often becomes second natureto them. And they learn that they can admire,respect, and feel proud of their ancestors withouthaving to believe and live as they did.

Native people, like those of us who came (orwhose ancestors came) to this continent morerecently, have been subject to all of these histori-cal forces. The results are evident in Table 3,based on figures from the 1991 census.

Anthropologists often point to language as by farthe most important element of a particular cul-ture. A language carries with it a unique way ofmaking sense of the world around us. When a lan-guage is lost, much of a culture is lost. At the timeof first contact with Europeans, there were up to70 languages (many with several dialects) spoken

f Native British Columbians, All British Columbi-es)

s Canadians

Natives

On Reserve

All Natives

Off Reserve

Natives

On Reserve

90.1 67.5 80.5 53.9

0.0 23.0 12.5 1.3

6.3 7.7 5.3 38.5

6.1 5.2 38.4

3.8 1.8 1.7 6.4

3.6 0.6 3.3

9.7 5.8 41.7

53.0 45.0 44.0 51.0

38.0 36.0 35.0 38.0

3.3 5.5 1.4 2.8

3.0 0.7 2.4

14.6 12.4 19.3 8.1

al Population, 1991 census, Catalogue No. 94–325

o

n

n



in what is now Canada and more than 30 spokenin what is now British Columbia alone. The 1991census found only 14 Canadian aboriginal lan-guages regularly used by more than 100 people astheir home language and only 5 to 7 aboriginallanguages so used in British Columbia.11 Includ-ing regular home use, only 4.4 percent of BritishColumbian Natives living off reserve and only10.5 percent of those living on reported anyknowledge at all of an aboriginal language. In fact,it is rare in most of British Columbia’s Native com-munities to find more than a few people under theage of 60 who have a working knowledge of theiraboriginal language. Those older people with aworking knowledge will often tell you that muchof the vocabulary has been lost or replaced byEnglish words and that their own children andgrandchildren do not understand them whenthey speak the old language.

This loss of language is not, to any significantextent, a result of deliberate oppression.12 It is apart of the natural tendency towards integration.If there are few speakers of a language, it tends tobe lost when surrounded by another languagethat far more people speak. This is because the fewwant to be able to communicate with the many.

The fact that so few Natives reported an interestin aboriginal spiritual traditions will come as asurprise only to those who get their knowledge


11 The range is due to the fact that census publications lump and Kwagiulth) together and all in the Salishan family of la

12 Contrary to what some would have us believe, the evidencon obliterating aboriginal languages and traditions altogeththemselves and then to use them to draw people towards Ctexts into aboriginal languages, helping to invent ways of wit turns out, helping to preserve some knowledge of manynames and characters and events from aboriginal stories toaboriginal elements into depictions of biblical scenes and th

13 The ancestors of the Cree now living around James Bay andWhat they identify as their traditions, such as calling the creaadaptations of Christian ideas, adaptations encouraged by etle speech” with ringing phrases such as “as long as the rivexpressing their romantic notions about “noble savages” in

from reading newspapers and watching televi-sion, and not from first-hand experience withNative people in their own communities. In fact,what passes for aboriginal spiritual traditiontoday is often a manifestation of the recent,evolving, and varied pan-Indian culture that isspreading throughout North America. It borrowsmuch from the Christianity that aboriginal NorthAmericans have practised for the past one to fourcenturies, much from Hollywood ideas aboutNative people, and much from the popular psy-chology and “New Age” mysticism of our times.13

This new and evolving pan-Indian culture isspreading through the annual rounds of pow-wows popular across the central plains andbeyond, the centres treating Native alcohol anddrug abuse, the “cultural enrichment” programsin schools and prisons, and by many othermeans, including movies and television.

Those few Native Canadians who are truly anddeeply knowledgeable about the traditions oftheir own ancestors are often offended by thisnew pan-Indian culture. They see it as a threat tothe survival of at least some memory of old ways.It grates on many elders on British Columbia’swest coast, for example, to hear their grandchil-dren speak of sweet grass ceremonies, healing cir-cles, mother earth, Turtle Island, and all manner ofthings that come from eastern Canada and havenothing to do with their own spiritual traditions.


all in the Wakashan family of languages (including Nootkannguages together.e clearly shows that the missionaries usually were not intenter. Instead, they tried to learn those languages and traditionshristian beliefs and ways of living. They translated Christian

riting languages that had never been written before and so, as languages that are no longer much in use. They borrowed tell stories with Christian messages. They also incorporatede vestments of priests. west into Alberta have been Catholic for more than 350 years.tor “Manitou” and making offerings of tobacco, are often Creearly missionaries. A white man wrote the famous “Chief Seat-

ers shall run.” Since then, Hollywood scriptwriters have beenthe words they put into the mouths of Native characters.


In any case, much time spent with Native peoplein their own homes and communities will con-vince you that most Native Canadians, like mostother Canadians, do not devote a great deal oftime to practising or thinking about their ances-tors’ spiritual traditions. What often strikes mewhen I attend a potlatch ceremony is how manyarrive late and leave early and how many moredo not show up at all. Watching hockey on tele-vision, listening to Shania Twain’s CDs, or play-ing pool with buddies at the local pub are,apparently, far more appealing activities tomost. As for recent manifestations of pan-Indianculture, many Natives respond to them in muchthe same way many of the rest of us respond to“New Age” mysticism and pop psychology.They are as unlikely as anyone else to volunteerparticipation in a healing circle, an idea that hasevolved from the T-groups so popular in the late1960s and early 1970s.

The practice of old cultural traditions may bediminishing but many Native cultural leaders(who tend to be an set of people entirely differentfrom Native political leaders) have legitimateconcerns about preserving knowledge of the old


ways, doing Native interpretations of Native his-tories and cultures, and teaching their childrenand grandchildren to be proud of these things.They believe that people need to know and feelproud of their roots to have the self-esteem andconfidence necessary to survive and prosper intoday’s world.

The Nim’gis people of Alert Bay, British Colum-bia, have been famously successful at preserving,interpreting, and teaching their culture. They dothis even though their reserves are small. TheMakah people of Neah Bay, Washington, USA,on the other hand, have had a very large reserva-tion for many years. Until recently, they havehad little knowledge of their ancestors’ languageand cultural traditions. They are learning thesethings now with help from professional linguists,anthropologists, and historians and, especially,from their close cousins, the Nuu-chah-nulthpeople from the west coast of Vancouver Island.

That the Nisga’a need a large territory and theirown government to conserve what they mostvalue from their ancestors’ cultural traditions isfar from obvious.

8 There can be little doubt that it serves the interests of Native politicians and bureau-crats (not to mention their consultants and lawyers) to fight for segregation and for large Native homelands with much expanded governments. But, before the rest of us, Native and otherwise, give any further support to their objectives, we should assess carefully where we are now and consider alternatives for the future.

Since late last century, the Nisga’a and otherNative peoples of British Columbia have beenasking for treaty settlements comparable tothose Canada has long since reached withNatives in Alberta and further east. But, the sto-ry of how, through negotiations and law suits,the federal and provincial governments havecome to offer them far more than they haveoffered Natives in any previous treaty settle-ments really begins in 1969, when Shuswap

Chief George Manuel and other Native leadersreacted strongly against a federal White Paperproposing to phase out special status and specialprograms for Native Canadians.

Born in 1921, George Manuel had become Chiefof the Shuswap and President of the NativeBrotherhood of British Columbia, an organiza-tion representing the province’s aboriginal fish-ers. In 1969, he was an official with Indian Affairs.



According to a short biography distributed by theCenter for World Indigenous Studies, he recalledyears later that the White Paper demonstratedthat “Canada was dead set on wiping out Indiansonce and for all.” By that, he meant not that Can-ada was determined to exterminate Indians inthe flesh but that Canada was determined toassimilate them so that they were no longer trulyIndian. Such are the roots of today’s term “cultur-al genocide.”

He mounted a campaign against the WhitePaper’s proposals, travelling Canada and theworld organizing the leaders of indigenous peo-ples. Results included the founding of the Unionof BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) in 1969, Canada’sNational Indian Brotherhood in 1970, and theWorld Council of Indigenous Peoples in 1975.Each of those organizations elected Chief Manuelas its first president. UBCIC still exists as one oftwo umbrella organizations representing the bandcouncils and tribal councils of British Columbia.The other is the First Nations Summit, whichevolved from a breakaway group. The NationalIndian Brotherhood has evolved into the Assem-bly of First Nations. The World Council of Indige-nous Peoples continues to operate as such.

Concurrently, the American Indian Movementwas formed, partly to fight long-standing Ameri-can policy aimed at doing some of the samethings the Canadian White Paper proposed to do.From 1871 onwards, the American governmenthad tried, over several long periods, to phase outspecial status and special programs for NativeAmericans. The latest attempt was from 1953 to1970, now known as “the termination period.”The American government, under President Nix-on, changed course while the American IndianMovement was occupying Alcatraz Island (1969–


14 Beginning in 1951, most British Columbian Natives who livehome, attended those schools. The residential schools were rremote communities or from families deemed unfit by socia

1971) and the headquarters of the Bureau of Indi-an Affairs in Washington, DC (1972), and stagingits siege and exchanging gunfire with federalagents at Wounded Knee, North Dakota (1973).

Chief Manuel and the American Indian Move-ment were key influences on a new generation ofBritish Columbian Native leaders, who wereborn at the end of World War II, had often goneto regular public schools in British Columbia,and, often, had attended university as well.14 Forexample, after graduating from the University ofBritish Columbia, George Watts became managerof his own band, the Tseshaht and, in 1973,founded what is now known as the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. Later, he went on tobecome one of British Columbia’s—and one ofCanada’s—most influential Native leaders. Simi-lar stories could be told about Chief Joe Matthiasof the Squamish Nation, Chief Sophie Pierre ofSt. Mary’s Indian Band, former Council PresidentMiles Richardson of the Haida Nation, and aboutseveral others from that generation. They arepioneers and continuing leaders in the struggle,over the past 30 years, for recognition of Nativepeoples as “first nations” with continuing rightsto exist as such within Canada, each with its ownlarge territory and some considerable measure ofself-government.

If you listen to these leaders speak, you often findthat their words reflect much of the thinkingfound in the old speeches of Chief GeorgeManuel, in statements released by the WorldCouncil of Indigenous Peoples, and on the website of the closely related Center for World Indig-enous Studies.

On their web site (www.halcyon.com/FWDP/),the Center tells us that, by the last count, there


d close enough to regular public day-schools to commute frometained for another ten years, mostly for Native children froml workers.


are 191 of the entities that most of us callnations.15 It calls these entities “states” anddefines a “state” as “a territory built by conquestin which one culture, one set of ideals and one setof laws have been imposed by threat over diversenations by a civilian and military bureaucracy.States are ephemeral and originate and disap-pear with the stroke of a pen.” The Centerreserves the word “nation” for what it variouslycalls aboriginal, indigenous, or “Fourth World”nations. It defines a nation as “a self-identifyingpeople who share a common history, often a lan-guage, a common culture and a homeland. Anation is the most persistent and resistant organ-ization of people-culture-territory.” In short,large nation-states are bad; small indigenousnations are good.

By one of the Center’s estimates, there are from7,000 to 10,000 indigenous nations in the worldtoday. By another, there are from 5,000 to 6,000that “maintain a distinct political culture withinthe states which claim their territories.” TheCenter says that one-third of the world’s popula-tion belongs to these indigenous or Fourth Worldnations and, “[i]n all cases the Fourth Worldnation is engaged in a struggle to maintain orgain some degree of sovereignty over theirnational homeland.”

There are many of us who would wonder aboutall of this. Are they not talking about reversinghistory, going back towards the highly fragment-ed tribal world that existed long before peopleunited under empires and nations? What wouldbe the implications if all 5,000 to 10,000 indige-nous nations wanted what the Nisga’a may get?How could a country such as Ethiopia, with aper-capita GDP of less than US$400, possiblycope with such demands? Assuming that it istrue that one-third of the world’s populationwants to go in that direction, are the rest of us,


15 There are 185 members of the United Nations.

the two-thirds who have left or whose ancestorshave left our aboriginal homelands, obliged toindulge them? What does aboriginal mean, any-way? At which stops in their long migration outof Africa that started 100,000 years ago and intoAmerica that started 400 years ago, might myown ancestors have been considered aboriginal?

In addition to holding this dubious philosophy,most of British Columbia’s Native leaders lackexperience outside of government and haveworked in long and intimate relationships withfederal and provincial bureaucracies. They havehad much to do with the incredibly expensiveand inefficient bureaucratic maze that has beenbuilt over the past 30 years to administer pro-grams to Native Canadians.

In British Columbia, for example, there are some476 aboriginal organizations employing politi-cians, staff, consultants, and lawyers to administerprograms to Natives and advance the argumentsfor treaty and land-claim settlements, more pro-gram funding, and self-government. Theseinclude the 197 band councils and 33 tribal coun-cils, which serve the 55,492 registered Natives liv-ing on reserves. That works out to an average ofone band council for every 282 Natives living onreserve and one tribal council for every 1,682.

Another 246 provincial and local organizationsserve those registered Natives living on reserve,the 50,219 registered Natives living off reserveand, to a lesser extent, the 67,000 Metis and oth-er self-identified Natives who are not regis-tered. There are 39 health and human-servicesorganizations, 35 economic and resource-devel-opment groups, 31 educational groups, 24friendship centres, 19 arts and cultural groups,18 communications societies, 16 housing socie-ties, 16 legal services organizations, 16 Metisorganizations, 13 Native women’s organiza-



tions, 11 treatment centres for substance abus-ers, and eight umbrella groups.

All of these organizations are almost entirelydependent on government funding, whether itcomes directly from the federal and provincialgovernments, or indirectly through their constit-uent or sponsoring organizations. Including theband and tribal councils, it all works out to onegovernment-funded Native organization forevery 362 Native individuals in British Columbia,including those who are registered and thosewho are not.

Besides these 476 Native organizations, there aremany other agencies in British Columbiaemploying both Native and non-Native peopleto run special Native programs. These includethe federal and provincial departments thatadminister Native programs plus everythingfrom special counselling and cultural enrichmentprograms in schools to Native relations divisionsin Crown corporations that do business withbands and tribal councils.

Only 10.4 percent of federal spending on Nativeprograms goes directly to Native individuals inthe form of social assistance. Nineteen percentgoes to education (excluding costs of buildingschools) and 18 percent goes to health. Much offederal spending, including much of the spend-ing on education and health, goes to support thevast maze of politicians, bureaucrats, consultantsand lawyers.

Such is the proliferation of Native organizationswhich get funding from the federal govern-ment, and such is the lack of training and expe-rience among the staff of these organizationsthat it is no surprise that Canadian newspapers


16 “Reserve headed towards trusteeship,” The Globe and Mail, M17 “Expenses doubled natives’ salaries,” The Globe and Mail, Fri18 “The money pit: An Indian band’s story,” The Globe and Mai

frequently carry stories of financial mismanage-ment and shenanigans.

In September 1997, the Fort Albany First Nationof Ontario was in the spotlight. We learned thatthey had a budget of $17.5 million to serve 900members. The chief had collected $61,939 fortravel expenses, the other councillors and staffhad collected $177,589 for travel, and they hadbeen paying a lawyer $200 per hour (for a total of$239,237 in legal fees) to do everything fromwrite band council resolutions to defend againstwrongful dismissal suits.16

In September 1998, we learned that the threechiefs and 12 councillors of the Stoney Nation ofAlberta collected more than $1.4 million dollarsin tax-free salary and other income in the last fis-cal year, with the highest paid chief earning$167,988 tax free.17 The Stoney Nation had 3,300members living on reserve. In comparison, theCity of Grand Forks, British Columbia, has anestimated population of 3,800. The mayor is paid$15,000 per year, each councillor is paid $8,300per year, and they all pay taxes.

In October 1998, we learned about the SamsonCree Band, with 5,100 members living on reserve.In 1996, the band had revenues exceeding $97million, with $47 million from federal and pro-vincial transfers and $50 million from oil and gasholdings and investments. This worked out tomore than $19,000 per individual band member,yet 80 percent of the members were receivingsocial assistance. For the 1997/98 fiscal year,according to preliminary figures, the chief and 12councillors may have collected $1.9 million in sal-aries, fees and benefits, for an average of $146,000each, all of it tax free since they lived and workedon reserve.18


onday, September 1, 1997.day, September 4, 1997.l, Saturday, October 24, 1998.


In spring of 1998, when Reform MPs asked ques-tions about the accountability of the StoneyNation and other Canadian bands (28 percent ofwhich were in debt), Phil Fontaine, Grand Chiefof the Assembly of First Nations, was quoted assaying, “the attempt here is to discredit FirstNations and put into question their ability togovern themselves. And that’s racism. Pure andsimple.”19 Subsequently, newspapers reportedthat the Assembly of First Nations had agreed topay Phil Fontaine in excess of $170,000 this year,far more than the Prime Minister of Canada orany provincial premier or cabinet minister getspaid. The Assembly’s money comes directly andindirectly (through constituent organizations)from Canadian taxpayers.

Stories of financial mismanagement are notuncommon in the world of consultants who dowork with Native organizations. Managers ofthose organizations often say that the problem isthat there is too little in the way of properaccounting and audits required, too few spend-


19 “Reform, Fontaine square off over racism,” The Globe and Ma

ing guidelines, and too little training provided forpoliticians and staff. High salaries, high travelallowances, and other benefits to politicians andstaff are not unusual. In fact, travel budgets tendto be astronomical, such is the proliferation ofmeetings held by the multitude of Native organi-zations and the demand of many Native politi-cians and bureaucrats to travel in style, staying inthe better hotels and eating in the better restau-rants. The expenditure of very large sums of mon-ey on lawyers and instances of abuse of office andmisallocation of funds are not unusual either.

There are good reasons to stop and do a carefulassessment of how we are spending now andwhat results we are achieving, before committingourselves to going in the direction set by the Nis-ga’a agreement. After doing that, we would dowell to consider how much we are prepared tospend in the future and how we might bestspend that money to benefit ordinary Nativepeople. There are alternatives to the proposedNisga’a model that are worth looking at.

9 The majority of ordinary Native people have already found alternatives for them-selves. They have been voting for greater integration into the mainstream of Canadian society with their hearts and minds and feet.

Ordinary Native people, not their leaders, havebeen showing us effective alternatives for manyyears now. Regardless of the segregationist poli-cies favoured by the elected leaders of Nativesliving on reserve and, now, by non-Native lead-ers as well; despite the heated rhetoric about“cultural genocide” from would-be rulers ofsmall ethnically homogeneous nations, ordinaryNatives have been integrating themselves intomainstream Canadian society.

The 1996 census found that there were 1.1 mil-lion people (3.9 percent of all Canadians) who

had some Native ancestry. Of these, 27.5 percentdid not self-identify as Natives and another 19.1percent self-identified as Métis, indicating thatat least 46.6 percent of the 1.1 million were ofmixed ethnic origins. Though precise statisticsare not available, anyone very familiar withNative people will tell you that most have atleast some non-Native ancestry; this indicatesthat there is a high level of ethnic mixing. Evenmany registered Natives are less than halfNative and, since one can become a registeredNative through marriage, some are 100 percentnon-Native.


il, Thursday, April 9, 1998.


It is also true that people with Native origins typ-ically have ancestors from two or more ethnicgroups. It is the rare Nisga’a who does not havesome Gitksan, Haida, Tlingit, or Tsimshianancestry and it is the rare Dené who does nothave some Cree ancestry.

The ethnic mixing will continue. There is no com-parable statistic available for Canada but, accord-ing to a story recently published by the Globe andMail, 44 percent of American Indians marry non-Natives. They are part of the melting pot, like allother Americans.

Indian Affairs reports that there were 610,874registered Natives in 1996. Only 354,369, or 58percent, lived on reserves. In 1982, 71 percent ofall registered Natives lived on reserves. The per-centage has declined partly because of Bill C-31and the fact that many Métis and others living offreserve have qualified as Registered Indians.20

But the decline is also due to the fact that Nativepeople are following the universal trend andmoving away from small and remote communi-ties towards larger communities where there aremore opportunities.

If we look at both 1996 census data about allNatives and Indian Affairs’ data about registeredNatives, we come to the conclusion that no morethan one-third of all Canadians of Native ances-try now choose to live on reserves. The 1996 Cen-sus found 20 percent of Canada’s Nativepopulation concentrated in seven large cities:Winnipeg, 45,750 Natives; Edmonton, 32,825;Vancouver, 31,140; Saskatoon, 16,160; Toronto,16,100; Calgary, 15,200; and Regina, 13,605. Therewere only 39,690 Natives in the entire NorthwestTerritories, including about 21,000 Inuit peoplein the part soon to become Nunavut.


20 Bill C-31, passed by the federal parliament in 1985, restored “Rlost their status when they married non-Native men. It also

21 I have known, and know today, many aboriginal parents an

A similar pattern of Native migration to urbancentres prevails in the United States. The 1990Census in the United States found a total popula-tion of American Natives (including AmericanIndian, Eskimo and Aleut) of 2.2 million. Ofthese, 242,000, or 11 percent, lived in California;by far the greatest number were concentrated inthe area of Los Angeles. More than 90 percent ofthose living in California came from elsewhere.

When they talk about their hopes for their chil-dren, Native parents sound like other Canadianparents. They hope their children will get goodeducations and good jobs. Some hope their chil-dren will return to their hometowns or villagesafter getting their educations and establishingthemselves in careers. But even these say that ifhaving a better life means living elsewhere, thenthat is what they hope their children will do. Thechildren themselves dream of becoming scien-tists, teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, televisionnews anchors, artists, basketball players, androck stars. They dream of going to the citieswhere they suppose such dreams come true. It istoo often the case, unfortunately, that theirrecords of academic achievement indicate thattheir fondest dreams are unlikely to come true.21

As suggested in section 6, integration into themainstream of North American society, througheducation and migration to urban centres, givesNative people, like all other North Americans,financial advantages: those who move off reserveearn higher incomes than those who stay onreserve, whether the reserves are large or small.They fare better in other ways, too. Average lifeexpectancy is one of the best measures of physicaland emotional health. The higher life expectancyof Natives off reserves, as noted in section 6, con-firms what many studies tell us. They are less


egistered Indian” status to native women who had previouslyenabled the descendents of these women to apply for status.d have interviewed many others whom I know less well.


prone to the diseases, often related to stress andlife style, common amongst Natives on reserve.

Before pouring tens of billions of dollars into newefforts to encourage Natives to stay in remotecommunities, segregated from the rest of Cana-dian society, we might be wise to consider


22 The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is subsumed under sectionsion, the Supreme Court Justices mention both the proclamthey do not explain exactly why or how the proclamation s

whether some of that money might better bespent on new efforts to help Natives get bettereducations and relocate to centres where thereare good job opportunities. Does it not makesense to put more money into solutions we knowto work and less into solutions that have a longhistory of failure?

10 If approved, the Nisga’a agreement will have huge ramifications right across Canada, ultimately costing Canadian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in settlements and on-going support.

The Nisga’a agreement, if approved, will be alandmark victory in the struggle, begun in 1969,for recognition of Native peoples as “first nations”with continuing rights to exist as mini-nationswithin Canada, each with its own large territoryand some considerable measure of self-govern-ment but reliant on massive transfers from non-Native taxpayers.

The Supreme Court’s Delgamuukw decision of1997 said that three things establish the basis forNative claims in British Columbia: (1) section35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, (2) commonproperty law, which recognizes occupation asproof of possession, and (3) systems of Nativelaw that were in place before establishment ofBritish sovereignty.22 The Court also ruled thatoral histories must be accepted as evidence. Thismade it easier for Native people to argue thatthere were, in fact, particular Native laws thatdefined their sovereignty over a particular terri-tory before the British established sovereigntyand that they have, in fact, occupied or usedthose territories continuously to this day.

The Supreme Court’s decision only set down someground rules for negotiating or litigating claims. It

did not say that claims in British Columbia shouldresult in vastly more land and cash benefits thanhad been given to Natives east of the Rockies. Itdid not say that British Columbian Natives shouldbe given a new, complicated, and very expensivekind of self-government that will never be self-reli-ant but always dependent on massive subsidiesfrom non-Native taxpayers. In fact, it did not sayanything at all about a requirement for self-gov-ernment, although in the earlier (1996) Pamajwondecision they made it clear that, if there is any rightto self-government, it is highly constrained.

The Nisga’a agreement will be seen as a newstandard for treaties and land claims. Those whodo not already have treaties or who have notalready settled their claims under existing trea-ties, will aspire to achieve that standard. It is verylikely those who have already settled treaties andclaims will seek to reopen their settlements andbring them up to the new standard. It is quitepossible that the Delgamuukw decision, togetherwith the established legal doctrines of “fiduciaryduty” and “honour of the Crown,” will providethem with basis for doing so. We can be sure, atleast, that there will be no shortage of lawyersready to argue that this is so.


35 (1) of the Constitution Act of 1982. In coming to their deci-ation and section 35 (1) as bases for aboriginal title, although

hould apply to British Columbia and the Delgamuukw case.


If approved, the immediate costs of the Nisga’aagreement will be from $92,000 to $93,500 in land,cash, and other benefits for each of the 5,230 Nis-ga’a individuals. Once the new nation is estab-lished, the transfers to support it could approachor even surpass $16,000 per capita per year.

British Columbia’s Premier has referred to it as“the template” for agreements that will eventual-ly settle land claims across the province. BritishColumbia’s Leader of the Opposition has called it“the floor” and pointed out that it is in the natureof negotiations or court settlements that eachsupplicant tends to win a bit more than the sup-plicant before. In any case, if we multiply the$92,000 or $93,500 by the 105,711 registeredNatives in British Columbia as of August 1998,23

we come up with immediate costs of about $10billion for settling all claims in the province.

The actual costs could be much higher than that.Real estate in the Nass Valley is worth considera-bly less than real estate in the Lower Mainland,Okanagan, or Southern Vancouver Island. If abo-riginal groups from those areas go any distancein winning arguments that they deserve as muchland per capita as the Nisga’a were given, or elsecash equivalents, then the final costs for settlingall claims will be very much more than $10 bil-lion. Globe and Mail columnist Gordon Gibsonmay be right in guessing that the costs could bemore like $30 billion.

There can be no doubt that the struggle for moreaboriginal territory and self-government willextend beyond British Columbia to the rest ofCanada. Why should the Mikisew Cree or anyother bands in Alberta or further east be satisfiedwith their existing settlements when they seehow much the Nisga’a have won? It is almost cer-tain that, one by one, they will seek new settle-


23 This figure is from “BC Registered Indian Population by Rreport available from Indian and Northern Affairs, Vancouv

ments through negotiations or litigation. Theywill cite the Nisga’a agreement as a precedentand they will turn to the Supreme Court’s Delga-muukw decision for some of their arguments. Infact, the Mikisew Cree have already filed a newclaim asking for much more than they got in their1986 settlement and alleging that they were notproperly informed when that settlement wasreached.

A few decades from now, once all negotiationand litigation is ended, the costs of going in thedirection set by the Nisga’a agreement could beseveral tens of billions of dollars for settlements.The portion of federal program spending devot-ed to special programs for Native people couldalso escalate from 6 percent this fiscal year to 8percent, 10 percent, or more in future fiscal years.(Federal spending on Native programs has beenincreasing at an alarming rate, anyway. That partof federal Native program spending managed bythe Department of Indian and Northern Affairsincreased from $2.03 billion in fiscal year 1988/89to $4.50 billion in fiscal year 1998/99.)

Are those representing Canada and BritishColumbia in the courts and at the negotiatingtables thinking this far ahead? If so, what is theirthinking? Do they think it is right to give theNative people of British Columbia so much morethan Native people in the rest of Canada? Or dothey see the Nisga’a agreement as the beginningof a process that, eventually, will see all NativeCanadians treated equally? Do they think it isright to continue giving special housing, health,and other benefits even to high income Nativepeople, when such benefits are often not availa-ble even to the poorest non-Native Canadians?

Do they think Canada can afford to go in thedirection set by the Nisga’a agreement? Sup-


esidence Code for Month Ending August 1998,” a monthlyer.


posing Canada can afford it and agrees todevote so much to spending on Native people,have they considered other options for spend-ing before deciding that this is the best option?Have they considered, for example, that itmight be better to focus more on education and


development of opportunities to relocate andfind jobs in the urban areas where most eco-nomic growth takes place?

If they have thought about these things, theyshould tell us their thinking.

11 In past treaty and land claim settlements, Native individuals were often offered choices, not just one take-it-or-leave-proposition. For example, they could choose between remaining registered Natives or opting out in exchange for compensation plus full citizenship, with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it and no special privileges. The agreement provides no such choices for Nisga’a individuals.

It is common for Native leaders to point out that,before amendments to the Indian Act in 1951 and1960, many rights given to other Canadians weredenied to registered Natives. These included theright to attend provincial public schools and theright to vote in federal elections. What they donot mention is that, historically, in both Canadaand United States, the policy was to give peopleeither registered Native status, with its specialrights, or else full citizenship, with all the rightsand responsibilities that normally go with citi-zenship. They did not allow both at once, justone or the other.

A cry to arms during the American Revolutionhad been “no taxation without representation.”Implicit American and Canadian policy regard-ing Natives was “no representation without tax-ation,” hence no vote. In the case of Canadianprovinces, there was no right to attend provincialpublic schools without contributing to thoseschools through taxes. Only when the federalgovernment agreed to contribute on behalf ofregistered Native children did they allow theminto provincial schools.

When the Prairie treaties were signed in Canada,Natives were often given the choice of retainingtheir registered status, with treaty rights andrights to benefits provided under the Indian Act,

or else exchanging their registered status for fullcitizenship plus scrip to buy land. In fact, that isthe origin of many of the people known as Métis.They did not necessarily have less Native ances-try than people who chose to remain registeredNatives. They just chose to take the scrip andbecome full citizens.

The American government was more assertive interminating Native status. From 1887 to 1934,under the General Allotment (or Dawes) Act,they parcelled out land from old reservations,160 acres per family, to be held in trust for 25years and then given outright, to be held in feesimple. Their intent was to encourage transitiontowards full participation in mainstream Ameri-can society. Towards this end, they granted fullAmerican citizenship to Natives in 1924. TheDawes Act was withdrawn in 1934 when it wasfound that many Natives had disposed of theirland and were left in poverty. The Reorganiza-tion Act then called for establishment of bandgovernments. However, in 1953, the Americangovernment again resolved to terminate reservesand special Native status. They stayed on thiscourse until 1970, when American Indian Move-ment protests caused them to cease termination.

In addition, both the American and Canadiangovernments established rules to phase out



Native status as people became less Native inancestry. The Americans did it on a “blood” per-centage basis, resulting in terms like “half-blood”and “quarter-blood.” The Canadians did it on thebasis of the patrilineal system common inEurope. Women lost their registered status ifthey married men who were not registered. Thechildren of such unions had no right to regis-tered status either.

In 1951, the federal government began paying forattendance of Native children at British Colum-bia’s public schools. In most cases, those livingwithin easy commuting distance of these schoolsbegan attending them in grade one. Native chil-dren from remote communities continued toboard in the old church-run residential schools,sometimes taking their elementary classes atthose schools but usually travelling by bus topublic schools for junior and senior high school.In 1960, attendance at provincial public schoolsbecame federal policy for all Native children.

In 1960, too, changes to the Indian Act had theeffect of giving registered Natives both their spe-cial status (qualifying them for rights and bene-fits not available to other Canadians) plus fullrights of Canadian citizenship, but without thefull responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. Thatis, they could vote but they still did not have topay taxes. This change weakened the federalgovernment’s bargaining hand considerably. Itdenied them a significant carrot to offer in futurenegotiations with Native people.

In 1982, Bill C-31 also weakened the govern-ment’s ability to phase out Native status. It result-ed from protests, at the United Nations andelsewhere, that the patrilineal policy specified inthe Indian Act was unfairly biased against women.The Bill changed the Act and enabled womenwho had lost their status through marriage andthe children of such women to regain their status.It left it to band councils to decide who would be


admitted to membership. The result has been asubstantial increase in the number of registeredNatives since 1982, and an increase in that portionwho are half or less than half Native by ancestry.

Many have been applying for status under Bill C-31 because there is nothing to lose and a lot togain by becoming a registered Native. EvenMétis whose ancestors gave up their status forscrip have been applying for registered statusbecause of the benefits it provides. Gaining statusqualifies people for houses on reserves and, oncethey are living or working on reserves, exemp-tion from taxes. It also provides the specialhealth, education, and business developmentbenefits already noted.

The 1969 White Paper, “Statement of the Govern-ment of Canada on Indian Policy,” was the lastfederal attempt to phase out special status forNative people and make a bold new deal withthem. It followed a year of consultations withaboriginal people across Canada and concluded,“the separate legal status of Indians and the pol-icies which have flowed from it have kept theIndian people apart from and behind otherCanadians.” It criticized those Native people forwhom there is but one road, “the only road thathas existed since Confederation and before, theroad of different status, a road which has led to ablind alley of deprivation and frustration.”

In future, the White Paper said, Native peoplemust be “free to develop Indian cultures in anenvironment of legal, social and economic equal-ity with other Canadians.” It proposed that theIndian Act be repealed, that special federal pro-grams aimed at Native people be phased out,and that all services to Native people be deliv-ered under the same (mostly provincial) pro-grams and agencies that serve all otherCanadians. As a step towards “full social, eco-nomic and political participation in Canadianlife,” it proposed that a commission be estab-



lished to consult the Natives and recommendacceptable procedures for settling land claims. Aspart of any settlement, it proposed to transfertitle of lands to Native people so that these landswould no longer have special status as reserva-tions held in trust by the Crown, and would besubject to the same laws applying to landsowned by other Canadians. It also proposed tomake “substantial funds available for Indian eco-nomic development as an interim measure.”

The White Paper proposed new programs for“strengthening and developing an Indian identi-ty which preserves the good things of the pastand helps Indian people to prosper and thrive”and for promoting understanding by otherCanadians of Native culture and historical contri-butions to Canada.

The White Paper was an expression of funda-mental principles dear to then Prime MinisterPierre Trudeau. He was against ethnic national-ism, the identification of a people with a territo-ry, and for a multicultural Canada in whichmany different peoples co-habit in one territory,under one system of government and law. Hesaw need for a hierarchy of government and law,from the international, to the national (in thenation-state sense), to the provincial, to the local.But all of these levels of government and law, hebelieved, should recognize the individual humanbeing (not the ethnic group) as the essential unit.Each individual should be equal to each other,and each should be guaranteed large measures offreedom, including freedom to move about andpick and choose among ideas and lifestyles.

In an interview on CBC radio’s “This Morning”on 9 September 1998, Quebec writer Roch Carriersaid that there are two kinds of people, the nota-ries and the coureurs du bois. The notaries are fun-damentally conservative and want to stay wherethey and their ancestors were born, relate to theirown kind, and adhere to the beliefs and tradi-


tions of their ancestors. The coureurs du bois areeager to move about and experience new things.English writer Bruce Chatwin has said much thesame thing, only he likens those who want tostay in one place to Cain, the tiller of soil, andthose who want to experience movement toAbel, the shepherd.

Trudeau was a coureur du bois, an Abel, and sowere many Canadians in 1969. The very name ofExpo ’67, Terre des Hommes, had inspired many tothink of a world in which all of humanity mightlive as brothers and sisters under the sun andstars, free to go where they might. It came fromthe title of a book by Antoine de Saint Exupéryand expressed a humanist and internationalistview that was popular amongst people who hadlived through World II and who had seen thatextreme ethnic nationalism was largely responsi-ble for the horrors of that war. Canada’s ownpavilion at Expo ’67 was called Katamavik, an Inu-it word meaning a gathering place of all the peo-ple, and carried the message that people of alldifferent backgrounds should strive to under-stand and live in harmony with each other.

The view that people of different backgroundsshould be equal members of one society wasappealing to many Canadians then. In the case ofnon-Natives, they or their ancestors had migrat-ed from elsewhere sometime within the past 400years, often to escape the consequences of ethnic,religious, or class prejudice. Through interbreed-ing, they had produced offspring of mixed ethnicorigins and, often, people happy to considerthemselves simply Canadian, without any prefixannouncing those origins.

Canadians who sympathized with Trudeau’shumanist and internationalist view were oftenthe most enthusiastic sympathizers with themovements against segregation and apartheid inthe United States and South Africa. It embar-rassed them when American or South African



racists pointed to Canada’s long-standing Nativepolicy as evidence that Canadians, too, practisedracial segregation. To them, the White Paperseemed a move in the right direction, towards


24 “Nisga’a treaty to be signed today,” Globe and Mail, August 4

racial integration and equality. How ironic that,today, those who argue against special statusbased on race and against segregation are brand-ed racists and perpetrators of cultural genocide.

12 Finally, it may be time to make a practical and realistic new deal with all the Native people of Canada, favouring no Native group over others, treating all equally, and offering choices.

It is evident that, if given incentives or, even, ifleft to their own devices, many Native people optfor integration. With the Nisga’a agreement,however, the federal and provincial govern-ments are offering Natives nearly irresistibleincentives to opt for special status and segrega-tion. Who would say no to a package thatrequires them to give up little (except tax-exemptstatus) but gain much, unless there were a betteror equally attractive deal on offer?

By going this far along the road to negotiating anagreement with the Nisga’a people, the federaland provincial government have upped thestakes tremendously. Still, we know that at leastone Nisga’a has said he is afraid to speak outagainst the agreement for fear of being shunnedby his own people but that his real sentimentsare, “I want a cash settlement . . . I don’t see any-thing in this for me.”24

Before going ahead with the Nisga’a agreement,all of us, whether Native or not, should be think-ing about “what is in it” for individual Nisga’apeople and, if it is to become the model, what isin it for all Native Canadians. We should bethinking about treating all Natives equally butperhaps offering them choices, as in the past.

My suggestion is that the Nisga’a agreement beput on hold and that our governments committhemselves to a new course of action. It would

involve consulting ordinary Native people, notjust the elected leaders of on-reserve Natives andtheir consultants and lawyers, and developingalternatives that work best for all of them, notjust the privileged few.

Given the awkward situation our governmentshave got us into, the first step might be anannouncement committing them to finishingconsultations and producing alternatives withina year and promising all Native British Columbi-ans and, in the federal case, all Native Canadiansa generous new deal. The new deal might becalled a grand treaty, pertaining to all the Nativepeople of Canada. Following are some elementsthat might be included in a new deal.

Benefits of equal valueAll Native individuals (at least all registeredNatives and possibly others) would be givenbenefits of equal value, whether they choose tolive on band lands or off, whether they wish toretain their registered status or not.

Three ChoicesAll Native individuals would be offered threechoices:

(1) remain registered members of their ownbands, with rights to live on band lands andreceive all the other benefits that go withband membership;


, 1998.


(2) become registered Natives at large, withfreedom to live in urban centres or else-where but still with rights to receive benefitscomparable in value to those given thosewho live on band lands;

(3) opt out of registered Native status and receivea generous buy-out package at least equal invalue to what they would receive during theirlives if they retained registered status.

Choice 1Those opting for choice 1 would be assured thatevery band in Canada would be treated likeevery other band and given a combination ofland, cash, and other benefits that puts them allon a par per capita. They also would be assuredthat there would be consistent rules and guide-lines for the administration of band and tribalcouncil affairs, and consistent and well-enforced accounting and auditing proceduresthat prevent the kinds of abuses that are socommon today.

Choice 2Those opting for choice 2 would be assured thatthey would be given benefits that make livingelsewhere an equally attractive alternative to liv-ing on band lands. These might include subsi-dized housing, education, health, businessassistance, and other benefits that would helpthem become established and maintain a reason-able standard of living. These might be adminis-tered through regional trusts or corporations setup to provide services to registered Natives liv-ing off band lands. These regional bodies mightbe overseen by boards with majority member-ship elected or appointed by Native people butalso some membership appointed by federal andprovincial governments, to look out for theirinterests as primary providers of funding. Such aboard might also include members from businessand industry and major non-profit organiza-tions, appointed jointly by Native people and the


senior governments, to provide the benefit oftheir expert knowledge and experience.

Choice 3Those opting for choice 3 would give up theirregistered Native status and become equal to allother Canadian citizens. They would be offeredgenerous settlements for choosing this option,possibly including one-time cash amounts plusannuities for life. Once they had made thischoice, neither they nor their descendents(except possibly through marriage) would beallowed to go back to registered Native status.However, the annuities might be extended, indiminishing amounts, for a generation or two, tochildren and grandchildren. Those choosing thisoption might be required to go through a screen-ing and counselling process to ensure that theyare fully prepared and fully understand the con-sequences of their choice.

SwitchingThose opting for choice 1 or 2 would be able toswitch back and forth between those two choic-es, but with some restrictions. They would alsohave the option of making choice 3 at any timethey so chose or perhaps only periodically,according to some fixed rule or schedule.

New rules for Native statusThere would be a new set of rules, consistentacross Canada, for admitting people to registeredstatus if they were Native but not already regis-tered and for denying registered status to offspringwho cease to have sufficient Native ancestry. Giv-ing special status for people who happen to beNative is, by definition, a race-based or ethnicity-based practice. It is fair, then, to have rules denyingstatus to people who do not have a specifiedamount of Native ancestry. Denying status mightbe handled by offering final settlements (for exam-ple, annuities) to children who have a registeredNative parent but who, themselves, have less thana given percentage of Native ancestry.



Sunset clauseA further possibility would be some sort of sun-set clause connected to the third choice. Thissunset clause might entail something like a


mandatory move to choice 3, with a buy-out, forregistered Natives who have been living offreserves for very long periods of time, such as ageneration or two.

Conclusion

Our governments, by going as far as they havewith the Nisga’a negotiations, have alreadyheld out the promise of a generous new deal forNative Canadians that will cost tens of billionsof dollars. The problem with that new deal isthat it is more of the same, the sinking of much

money into a vast bureaucratic structure thatproduces only meagre benefits for individualNatives. Another kind of new deal might costless but offer much more in the way of tangiblebenefits to individuals.



References

Adams, Stuart. Fort Chipewyan Way of Life Study:Final Report. Vancouver: Stuart Adams andAssociates Planning Consultants Limited,June 1998.

Beavon, Daniel and Cooke, Martin. “Measuringthe Well-Being of First Nation Peoples.”Briefing paper on an ongoing study. Otta-wa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,October 1998.

Canada, British Columbia, Nisga’a Nation. Nis-ga’a Final Agreement. QP No. 940586. Ottawa:Queen’s Printer, August 1998.

Carrier, Roch. Radio interview on “This Morn-ing.” Toronto: CBC Radio, September 9, 1998.

Chatwin, Bruce. In Patagonia. London: PanBooks, 1979.

City of Vancouver. “1998 Operating Budget: Pre-liminary Estimates.” City of Vancouver, 1998(www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk).

Center for World Indigenous Studies. The Cent-er, closely associated with the World Coun-cil of Indigenous Peoples, has a web site(www.halcyon.com/FWDP) with pages out-lining its purposes, views and so on.

Collier, Peter, editor. The Race Card: White Guilt,Black Resentment, and the Assault on Truth andJustice. Rocklin, CA: Prima, March 1997.

Dickason, Olive Patricia. Canada’s First Nations: AHistory of Founding People’s from EarliestTimes. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart,1992.


Duff, Wilson. The Indian History of British Colum-bia, Vol. 1, The Impact of the White Man. Victo-ria, BC: British Columbia Museum, 1964.

Dwyer, Gwynne. “Family History,” The Globe andMail, August 22, 1998.

Edley Jr., Christoper, Nicholas Lemann, Glenn C.Loury, and Dinesh D’Souza. “Roundtable:Race in America,” Atlantic Unbound,(www.theatlantic.com/unbound/forum/race), November 13 and 26, 1997.

Farber, Daniel A., and Suzanna Sherry. BeyondAll Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth inAmerican Law. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1997.

Fisher, H.A.L. A History of Europe. Volumes I andII. (Originally published in 1935 by Eyre andSpottiswoode, London.) London: Collins,1973.

Fisher, Robin. Contact and Conflict: Indian-Europe-an Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890.Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaPress, 1977.

Flanagan, Tom. “The Last Immigrants: Aborigi-nal self-government will solve nothing. Join-ing Canada’s mainstream will,” The NextCity, 3, 4 (Summer), 1998.

King George III. Royal Proclamation. “Given at ourCourt at St. James the 7th Day of October1763, in the Third Year of Our Reign.” Copyfrom Toronto: Virtual Law Office, January15, 1996 (www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm).



The Globe and Mail“Expenses doubled natives’ salaries.” Sep-tember 4, 1997.“The money pit: an Indian band’s story.”October 24, 1998.“Nisga’a treaty to be signed today.” August4, 1998.“Reform, Fontaine square off over racism.”April 9, 1998.“Reserve headed toward trusteeship.” Sep-tember 1, 1997.

Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1998 Budgetand Long Range Information. Vancouver: Great-er Vancouver Regional District, April 1998.

Henderson, Bill. “A Brief Introduction to Aborig-inal Law in Canada.” Toronto: Virtual LawOffice, January 15, 1996 (www.bloor-street.com/ 200block/brinto.htm).

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Mik-isew Cree First Nation. “Agreementbetween Her Majesty the Queen and theCree Band of Fort Chipewyan,” A land claimagreement reached in 1986 and signed in1987. Edmonton, AB: Indian and NorthernAffairs Canada, 1987.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. BasicDepartmental Data 1997. Ottawa, ON: Indianand Northern Affairs Canada, 1997.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. “BC Regis-tered Indian Population by Residence Code,For Month Ending August 1998.” Vancou-ver, BC: Indian and Northern Affairs Cana-da, September 1998.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Schedule ofIndian Bands, Reserves and Settlements Includ-ing Membership and Population Location andArea in Hectares. Ottawa, ON: Indian andNorthern Affairs Canada, December 1990.


Kennedy, Randall. My Race Problem—AndYours. The Atlantic Monthly, May 1997.

Kennedy, Randall. Race, Crime and Law. Toronto,ON: Random, 1997.

Leakey, Richard. The Origin of Humankind. NewYork: BasicBooks, 1994.

Minister of Finance. Budget 1998. Ottawa, ON:Finance Canada, February 1998.

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Devel-opment. Indian and Northern Affairs and Cana-dian Polar Commission 1998-99 Estimates: AReport on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON:Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Febru-ary 1998.

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Devel-opment. Statement of Government of Canada onIndian Policy, 1969. Ottawa, ON: Indian andNorthern Affairs Canada, 1969.

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. A Guide to Aborigi-nal Organizations and Services in BritishColumbia, 1994/95. Victoria, BC: Ministry ofAboriginal Affairs, 1994.

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. “Historical Refer-ences.” Victoria, BC: Ministry of AboriginalAffairs, 1998 (www.aaf.gov.bc.ca/aaf/histo-ry.htm).

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. “Your Guide to theNisga’a Treaty.” Pamphlet delivered by mailto British Columbian householders. Victoria,BC: Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, August1998.

Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.Budget ’98 Reports. Victoria, BC: Ministry ofFinance and Corporate Relations, February1998.



Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Oxford History of theAmerican People. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Muckle, Robert J. The First Nations of BritishColumbia. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 1998.

Nabakov, Peter. Native American Testimony: AChronicle of Indian-White Relations from Proph-ecy to the Present, 1492–1992. New York: Pen-guin Books, 1992.

Nault, François, Jiagian Chen, M.V. George, andMary Jane Norris. Population Projections ofRegistered Indians, 1991–2015. Ottawa, ON:Statistics Canada, February 1993.

Paisano, Edna L. “The American Indian, Eskimo,and Aleut Population.” Washington, DC: USBureau of Statistics, Racial Statistics Branch,1995.

Patterson, Orlando. The Ordeal of Integration:Progress and Resentment in America’s “Racial”Crisis. Washington, DC: Civitas/Counter-point Press, November 1997.

Ray, Arthur J. I Have Lived Here since the WorldBegan. Toronto, ON: Lester Publishing andKey Porter, 1996.

Ryser, Rudolph C. “The Legacy of Grand ChiefGeorge Manuel.” Olympia, WA: Centre forWorld Indigenous Studies, 1995 (www.hal-cyon. com/FWDP/manuel.html).

Saint Exupéry, Antoine de. Wind, Sand and Stars.Translated from the French Terre des Hom-mes by Lewis Galantière. New York: Har-court, Brace and World, 1940.

Sleeper, Jim. Liberal Racism. New York: Viking,1997.


Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of AmericanIndian Ethnology. Anthropological Papers.Anthology of papers published periodically.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution,1938–Present.

Statistics Canada. 1991 Census Profiles. CD-ROM.Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, 1993.

Statistics Canada. “1996 Census: AboriginalData,” The Daily. Ottawa: Statistics Canada,January 13, 1998 (www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/980113.htm).

Statistics Canada. A National Overview, 96 Census.Catalogue No. 93-357-XPB. Ottawa, ON:Statistics Canada, April 1997.

Statistics Canada. Profile of Canada’s AboriginalPopulation, 91 Census. Catalogue No. 94-325.Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, February1995.

Steele, Shelby. A Dream Deferred: The SecondBetrayal of Black Freedom in America. NewYork: Harper Collins, October 1998.

Sturtevant, William C. (ed). Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians. Washington: SmithsonianInstitution, 1978–Present. (Updated periodi-cally, with completely new 1998 editionavailable soon. See, especially, Volume 4,History of Indian-White Relations.)

Supreme Court of Canada. Delgamuukw v. B.C.File No. 23799. Ottawa: Supreme Court ofCanada, June 16 and December 11, 1997.

Tennant, Paul. Aboriginal Peoples and Politics: TheIndian Land Question in British Columbia,1849–1989. Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Press, 1990.



Thernstrom, Stephan, and Abigail M. Thern-strom. America in Black and White: One NationIndivisible. New York: Simon & Shuster, Sep-tember 1997.

United Nations Human Development Pro-gramme. Human Development Report 1994.New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.


The Vancouver Sun. “Nisga’a leader attacks oppo-nents of new treaty.” August 5, 1998.

Wolfe, Tom. Radical Chic and Mau-mauing the FlakCatchers. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Gir-oux, 1970.



About the Author

Stuart Adams is a planning consultant and owner of Stuart Adams and Associates Planning Consult-ants Limited. He began his professional career as a city planner, first, for the City of Niagara Falls,Ontario, and next for the City of Vancouver, British Columbia. He then became a Senior Social Plannerfor Vancouver. Born and raised in Port Alberni, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, he has had closeassociations with Native people from early childhood. Since he established his consulting practice in1978, much of his work has been with Native groups and with the government agencies and Crownand private corporations that do business with them. This work has involved research into a broadrange of social, cultural, economic, and health issues; evaluating existing policies and programs thataddress those issues; and developing new policies and programs.

In the 1990s, Stuart Adams has been helping BC Hydro develop strategies for resolving grievances andimproving its relations with First Nations. On contract to BRC Imagination Arts, he recruited and co-ordinated Nim’gis and other Native participation in development of a Nim’gis theme show at Knott’sBerry Farm, duplicating the earlier success of a Nim’gis theme show, “Spirit Lodge,” that he helpeddevelop for the General Motors pavilion at Expo ’86. Recently, he completed a major study of theimpact of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam on the social and economic conditions of the Athabasca Chipewyan,Métis, and Mikisew Cree people of the Peace-Athabasca Delta.

Stuart Adams has a B.A. in Sociology from the University of British Columbia and an M.Sc. in Urbanand Regional Planning from the University of Toronto. He is a member of the Canadian Institute ofPlanners. His recent publications are Fort Chipewyan Way of Life Study: Final Report and Fort ChipewyanWay of Life Study: Summary Report (June 1998); Grand Forks and Christina Lake Housing Study (September1997); Williams Lake Homes and Neighbourhoods, Today and Tomorrow (January 1997).

The Fraser Institute 37 Understanding the Nisga’a Agreement

Documents

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES · Public Policy Sources are published periodically throughout the year by The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The Fraser Institute is