Time to sing a new song

Page 26

Robert Breaker, a former chief of the Siksika Nation and Director of the Centre for Aboriginal Leadership and Self-Government, part of the Banff Centre for for Management, spoke on Feb. 18 of the importance of singing a new song. First, however, he had his listeners do an exercise that showed how every-one has scotomas, or blind spots. He went on to explain how most people are conditioned to think one way and not consider the alternatives.

Breaker also described how conscious and subconscious habits, beliefs and attitudes can hold people back from reaching their goals. This is particularly relevant for Aboriginal people, he said.

"We have been trained to believe in systems that are not of our making . . . sometimes it's difficult to wrestle the Indian Act away from our leaders."

Breaker also described a scotoma of his own, saying that in the past he was less sympathetic to the arguments of Metis leaders.

"But look at how much they've achieved," he said.

Breaker's session was called Alternative Legislation to the Indian Act, and it was only one of several parts to the program called Establishing Aboriginal Governments within Canada, which was held Feb. 16 to 19. It was only one of a busy schedule of programs, running throughout most of the year.

Besides running programs at Banff Centre, the Centre for Aboriginal Leadership and Self-Government offers customized personal development programs to Aboriginal communities and organizations across the country.

Other spirited presenters for the February program came from across the country and beyond. Among them were Chief Lydia Huitsum, of the Cowichan tribe on Vancouver Island; Victor Tootoo, assistant deputy minister of Finance for the new jurisdiction of Nunavut, formerly part of the Northwest Territories; Randy Parenteau, chairman of the Settlement Council, Fishing Lake Metis Settlement, Alta.; and Dr. Sakej Youngblood Henderson, research director, Native Law Centre, University of Saskatchewan. Besides the presenters, there were 29 participants in the program, many of them Aboriginal leaders themselves. The participants did not just listen to stimulating presentations, however. They had been given case studies and were also working in small groups to create viable models of self-government, which they would present on the last day.

Introducing each of the presenters, as well as giving presentations himself and setting a friendly tone to the proceedings with his endless supply of humor and good will, was faculty leader Dr. Leroy Little Bear.

Little Bear sits on the Aboriginal Programs Council for the Aboriginal Leadership and Self-Government Centre, so he was one of those who, building on more than 20 years of Aboriginal programming at the Banff Centre, helped create the centre's recent self-government focus. Last, but certainly not least, Little Bear is the Director of the Native American Program for Harvard University.

It was Little Bear whose presentations laid the groundwork for the later sessions. First, using a Blackfoot model, he discussed how Aboriginal governments worked before Europeans came to North America. His second session introduced the idea of inherent right to self-government and described Canada's constitutional framework. He also demonstrated how differences are greater than just styles of government. Government, language and culture are all interconnected

The English language, said Little Bear, is noun or object-oriented, dichotomized (thinks in opposites) and concerned with results only, while Native languages deal more with process and action. The Native languages and, therefore, Native cultures, are more akin to climbing a mountain; there is more than one way to the top. These differences make it difficult for the two sides to agree; there is also a relationship between such differences and other Aboriginal issues, such as problems with the Canadian justice system.

Dr. Sakej Youngblood Henderson discussed the existing federal government policy or negotiating self-government agreements. This is laid out in a paper called Implementation of Inherent Right and Negotiation of Self-Government. Youngblood Henderson also showed how government thinking tends to limit the possibilities and control the agenda during negotiations, and this makes the process of finding viable structures difficult, since there is much diversity between Aboriginal communities and one size does not fit all.

Before she began her presentation on the British Columbia Treaty Process and Aboriginal Self-Government, Chief Lydia Huitsum of the Cowichan band, complimented both the organizers of the program and the participants. She felt their experiences during the few intense days of the program - the presentations, the group exercises, and the sharing - would be useful and important in their future efforts to work for their people. Huitsum, who has a law degree from the University of Victoria, as well as many other educational accomplishments, is experiencing the negotiation process first-hand because the Cowichan tribe is presently involved in it.

Key to Huitsum's description of her community's work towards self-government were the ideas of "snew'uy'ui" (the traditional law and how to live it) and "'nutsa maat" (with one mind). It is very important to their negotiators that they develop an agreement that is satisfactory for all and has a relationship with the traditional values of the people.

Cowichan is at the fourth level of the negotiation process and trying to formulate an Agreement-in-Principle. Huitsum admitted that she has a number of concerns about the self-government process, one of them being the expense; however, she is also hopeful.

"We're still further ahead even if it falls through, because we've gathered all that information," she said.

Like Huitsum's community, the Siksika Nation found the community-based self-government process expensive. In his presentation, Robert Breaker explained how after investing six years and approimately $4 million trying to make it work, Siksika was at a stalemate. The process was also causing a split in the leadership of the community.

This was the situation before Breaker came on the scene, so when he was elected chief in 1996, he and his administration did a detailed analysis of the various self-government options. This analysis helped the Siksika Nation see their situation more clearly. For instance, much time was spent bringing new people up to speed, because the government negotiators kept changing. In fact, it seemed clear that the federal government wanted not a nation-tonation agreement, but rather a simple alternative to the Indian Act.

For all these reasons, they finally chose to let the self-government process die on the table. People in the community felt that they were being pushed too fast to sign; "mindsets both inside and outside would have to change before the process could go forward," said Breaker. Leaders were also concerned about the precedent that might be set by rushing the agreement. They did not want to damage the chances of other nations.

The process was not wasted, however, said the Siksika's former chief.

Important community meetings were held, direction was given by Elders, and an understanding of the issues for their community was gained.

In fact, the nation would be willing to come back to the table when more community learning has taken place and if the government approaches the table honorably. In the meantime, however, the Siksika Nation has chosen to allign itself with the Treaty 7 bilateral process.

Victor Tootoo was able to describe a more positive experience. Tootoo first told how his people, the Inuit, "have come from the stone age to the computer age in one generation." He then described the Nunavut government structure. This model was very interesting for the program participants as they tried to come up with their own models.

Because the Nunavut experience appears to be a success story, Tootoo fielded many questios about how the agreement was reached. The information on Nunavut was also very timely, with the Nunavut elections held on Feb. 15, and the territory officially comes into existence on April 1.