"The time is past when we should wait for governments to give us powers to exercise our rights. We should assert our rights now. Only when we have political control of our lands and resources will be safe from the whims of Ottawa politicians and bureaucrats," declared Noel Starblanket in his opening address to a capacity audience at the ninth annual general assembly of the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB).

Referring to the fickleness of the federal budget makers, Starblanket stated that the N.I.B. made a presentation last May to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs considering proposed budget cuts by the government. The pointed out that the Indians in Canada have the lowest income, poorest housing, worst health care, worst education, highest unemployment and highest incarceration rate as compared to other Canadians and "That it was unconscionable to introduce image building economic measures." at the expense of Indian people. Shortly afterward the government reversed its decision on earlier proposed budget cuts; however in August this latter decision was again reversed and now Indian Affairs is again to lose $20 million from its budget. "And you and I know what that means...more hardship for our communities," said Starblanket.

"Because the government is more than eager to exploit any divisions we have among us, it is so important to develop to a greater degree political discipline and unity in our Indian organizations" stressed Starblanket. Form this reason the theme chosen for this year's assembly was "Constitutional Rights for Indian People: Leadership, Unity, Representativity".

Starblanket referred to the National Indian Brotherhood/Cabinet decision as an excellent example of the need to develop "tighter political discipline in the ranks" if we seriously expect to assert our rights. When we make a collective political decision, we must be prepared to collectively accept the consequences. When we make a political threat, we must be prepared to deliver, otherwise we will have no creditability."

Speaking in regard to the Canadian government's latest attempt to ignore Canada's original people in its quest to create a new constitution, Starblanket stated that Bill C-60, the government's bill on constitutional change, made only an obligatory reference to "native" peoples and in doing so misrepresented the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Denouncing the federal indifference to native concerns, he said the N.I.B. will show up invited or not, at all future constitutional conference and BNA Act discussions between the federal government and the 10 provincial premiers. He also sought a mandate for the chiefs of Canada to visit the queen in London, possibly next spring, to ask her not to repatriate the British North America Act until guarantees are provided that forthcoming amendments to the constitution respect our treaty rights in full. This resolution was later passed unanimously by the 68 delegates to the assembly.

The rationale behind the proposal to visit the Queen, as developed by Clive Linklater, is that when the British Empire was dismantled in most countries, the authority to construct constitutional arrangements was handed back to the original people. Indian, Ceylon, Nigeria, Kenya, and Egypt are just a few examples. "In Canada this was not the case. The country was handed back to a group of white immigrants who ignored Indian nations in their constitutional arrangements," said Starblanket.

Starblanket pointed out the government's endeavours to extinguish our Aboriginal rights with their 1970 treaties such as COPE and James Bay Agreements and added "it is clear that if Indians are ever going to acquire Indian control of Indian land, we will have to assert those rights ourselves. And if takes confrontation to establish recognition of Indian rights, so be it."

Noel Starblanket, President of the N.I.B., gives his opening address to a capacity crowd of 68 delegates and approximately 350 observers at the ninth annual N.I.B. assembly in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Many of the delegates are opposed to having the government make the changes and then asking the Indians to react after the fact. Faulkner stated that the new act "would not be written in stone" and Indians would be invited to give their views to the Commons Indian Affairs committee as it travels across the country.

"Why revise the Indian Act when there will be no more Indians?" was the question raised by Chief Max Gros-Louis of Quebec, since Ottawa is following a policy of reducing Indian spe-

Hugh Faulkner, Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs, (left) addressed the final day's session of the ninth annual meeting of the N.I.B. in Fredericton. He faced considerable scepticism and outright opposition from the delegates and Noel Starblanket, re- elected president of the N.I.B. (right) when he outlined his plans for change in the Indian Act.

Sol Sanderson, First Vice-President of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians (FSI), informed Faulkner that he as one leader, will never ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Parliament permission to put in place the kind of Indian government that we as Indian people need. "We have that right It is guaranteed under treaty and aboriginal rights." He added that we must address the real issues of federal, provincial, and Indian jurisdiction.

Speaker after speaker indicated to the minister their disbelief of his assertion that the 1969 White Paper, recommending the eventual dismantling of the reserve system, had been banished from his department. That "ghost" haunts the daily lives of our people on reserves where current budgetary cuts are eradicating band council programs all across Canada.

Faulkner's response to the issue of Indian self-government is that he has grave doubts about Indian approaches to national sovereignty and reminded delegates that Prime Minister Trudeau is against formation of ethnic states within Canada. He added that the best approach is a progmatic system of Indian self-government under the Indian Act as revised by the government.

At a news conference, cut short of pressing engagements, he stated that the public mood was not as receptive to the legitimate rights of Indians as it was five years ago. Public support for Indian causes had been eroded because of the lengthy wrangling over land claims and fishing and hunting rights. After a statement such as this and with a federal election in the wind, it certainly appears that Faulkner priorizes the issue of public support above the rights of our people.

From all of the speakers, the most harsh criticism of the department came from George Erasmus, the Northwest Territories Dene leader.

"We don't want to only control our little communities. We are nations in this country. We want the rightful recognized rights of nations. It has not been the Indian Act that is our problem. It is the bureaucracy. Go let them find something else to do besides playing with the lives of Indian people," said Erasmus.

His Dene nation is currently demanding that Ottawa negotiate a deal in which his people would control and govern much of the Mackenzie River Valley.

However in Starblanket's opening address, he quoted Faulkner as saying that no native groups in the country would get a better deal than the one given COPE (Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement), which represents 2,500 Eskimos and persons of Eskimo ancestry. Under the COPE agreement, the people give up their aboriginal claim to 400,000 square kilometres along the Arctic coast and in the High Arctic Islands for $45 million, ownership of 95,830 square kilometres, and special rights pertaining to wildlife among other things. This land claims agreement is worth only 41 cents an acre to the people. This is six cents an acre less than the amount many American Indians received in the treaties of the 1870's, said Starblanket. The Cree and Inuit received 85 cents an acre in the James Bay Agreement. However, Starblanket added, neither deal was acceptable because they contradicted the Brotherhood's objective of developing Indian self-government and control of Indian land and resources.