No protection for First Nations culture

Page 5

Dear Editor:

Anyone who has picked up a newspaper in the past few years is aware of the calls for accountability in First Nations communities. Partly in response to these criticisms, the federal government introduced the First Nations Governance act (FNGA).

The act is intended to provide the tools to First Nations bands to develop codes for financial accountability, leadership and to reform sections of the 126-year-old Indian Act. I believe the act does address accountability, which is a good thing, but its sections introduced to reform the Indian Act concern me.

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) has done a great job at selling the act that addresses accountability; unfortunately, this means no one has taken a closer look.

I actually sat down and read the act from cover to cover. The act does not protect First Nations people, culture and languages and may lead to assimilation. There are some provisions that should make civil libertarians shudder.

Civil liberty groups should take a look at the section on the powers of the band enforcement officer. This individual doesn't need a warrant to enter into any place on the band's reserve, other than living quarters, to seize computers, copying equipment or any documents they deem necessary. The definition of living quarters is not provided. Is it just the bedroom or kitchen, or does it extend to a home office like the one I'm sitting in today?

There is a duty to anyone to assist the enforcement officer to help him/her carry out duties. Does that mean my Kokum who is babysitting the kids that day has to carry out my computer? What's happened to "unreasonable search and seizure" under the Charter?

Several provisions in the FNGA should be omitted or changed to protect First Nations culture and languages. Section 17(1)(c) allows for the council of the band to make laws for the preservation of the culture and language of the band. The section should be changed to read the preservation of the First Nation's culture and language of the band. This is the only section that references culture and languages.

Section 43 of the FNGA repeals sections of the Indian Act. Section 43 (4)(1) reads: "A reference to an Indian in any of the following provisions shall be deemed to include a reference to any person whose name is entered in a Band list and who is entitled to have it entered therein."

These references include rights and benefits for Indians under the Indian Act. Bill C-31 brought equality to Indian women, but also allowed bands to develop their own membership codes. Under these codes, non-Indians can become members of the band.

Section 43(4)(1) will now allow non-Indian band members to become Indians. It allows them to vote, to run for office and to decide what the culture and language of the band follows. What happens if the dominant language and culture of the band is no longer First Nations?

I am a descendent of Chief Okanese who signed Treaty 4 in 1874. He was the hereditary chief of the Okanese band. The band was established before treaty signing and the Indian Act. This band possessed its own laws and governance structures based on spiritual teachings. It should be said the band is a spiritual body.

The federal government, by introducing provisions without clear protection of First Nations culture, language and traditions, is clearing a path to assimilation. FNGA should address issues of accountability, but further review is necessary before other sections are included. It's ironic that Sheila Copps, federal minister for Culture, and Bernard Landry, premier of Quebec, were recently in Beirut arguing for protection from the United States culture under free trade agreements. First Nations people should be afforded the same protection from Canadian culture.

Connie Deiter

Regina