Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
1998 Windspeaker September Headlines
 |
Nisga Final Agreement Surviving "No longer beggars in our own lands, we now go forward
with dignity, equipped with the confidence that we can make important
contributions - social, political and economic - to Canadian
society.
Photo Credit: Debora Lockyer |
Nisga'a deal will mean big changes
Final agreement debated across the country
Nisga'a celebrate final argeement
Court decision pleases Native leaders
AFN takes on mainstream press
"Pushers in white coats" root of drug problemsRumors of abuse, cover-up at clinics
One city at a time - Chester Knight and the Wind
Supreme Court gets it right- Editorial
Get back to the natural- Guest Column
The above is only a partial list of all the stories featured in the September, 1998 issue of Windspeaker. If you are not receiving your own copy of Windspeaker, then you have missed out on a great deal of news, information and humour.
Click here for Windspeaker subscription information.
Nisga'a deal
will mean big changes
By Debora Lockyer
Windspeaker Staff Writer
NEW AIYANSH, B.C.
The time for celebration is now over for the Nisga'a people who will attempt to put the emotion and sentimentality of the Aug. 4 initialing ceremony behind them and get down to the job of deciding whether approving the Nisga'a Final Agreement is a risk they are willing to take.
What the Nisga'a negotiating team is asking the people to do is leave the familiar behind and embark on a new path, one where the Indian Act no longer applies and the land is no longer held in trust for Nisga'a children and their children's children.
In return, the Nisga'a will receive $190 million in cash over a period of 15 years, plus about 2,000 sq. km of land in the Nass Valley over which they will eventually have a certain amount of control. Again, this land will become fee simple, meaning it can, if the Nisga'a government decides, be used as collateral or sold off in whole or in part to any person. The current reserve land will be converted to fee simple holdings.
Under the agreement, the Nisga'a will have control over health, education, social services, policing and the courts, but they will lose their tax-exempt status. Sales taxes will be collected from Nisga'a citizens after an eight-year transition period after the agreement is ratified. All other taxes will be collected after a 12-year transition period. The Nisga'a government may make laws to tax Nisga'a citizens in order to raise money for the Nisga'a Nation.
The agreement is
a full and final settlement of the Nisga'a land question - certainty
is the buzz word being used in government documents - which means,
that's it, no second thoughts. The agreement defines Nisga'a Section
35 rights under the Canadian Constitution. Under the agreement,
the Nisga'a "agree to release any Aboriginal rights, including
Aboriginal title, that are not set out in the treaty of which
are different in attributes or geographical extent from the Nisga'a
Section 35 rights set out in the treaty."
The Supreme Court Delgamuukw decision, whether it provides more or fewer rights for Aboriginal people in British Columbia, will have no bearing on the treaty, now or in the future.
It's a lot to digest. And for the next 90 days, the Nisga'a team will be holding information sessions in the four communities in the Nass Valley which will, if the agreement is passed, have their own local governments. The team will travel to the urban Nisga'a in Terrace, Vancouver and the Prince Rupert area to explain the intricacies of the agreement that's taken more than 20 years to pound out and garnered the Nisga'a only eight per cent of the land that was originally claimed.
Here are some more of the highlights:
· The Nisga'a will own all subsurface resources on Nisga'a land.
· The Nisga'a will own all forest resources on Nisga'a land.
· The Nisga'a will receive an annual allocation of salmon which will, on average, comprise of 26 per cent of the Canadian Nass River total allowable catch.
· The Nisga'a will receive $11.5 million from Canada and B.C. to participate in the general commercial fishing industry, but will not establish large-scale fish-processing facilities within eight years of the effective date of the treaty.
· The Nisga'a will be governed by a central government (the Nisga'a Lisims Government) and the four Nisga'a village governments.
· The Nisga'a will have the power to make laws required to carry out its responsibilities. This government may make laws governing Nisga'a citizenship; language and culture; property in Nisga'a land; public order, peace and safety; employment; traffic and transportation; the solemnization of marriages; child and family; social and health services; child custody, adoption and education.
· Federal and provincial laws (such as the Criminal Code) will continue to apply, as will the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
· The Nisga'a will continue to be Aboriginal people under the Constitution Act, 1982.
· The loans taken out to support the Nisga'a participation
in the treaty process will be repaid over 15 years.
By Paul Barnsley
Windspeaker Staff Writer
VANCOUVER
The Nisga'a Tribal Council is proud of the agreement it has hammered out with the provincial and federal governments and initialed in New Aiyansh on Aug. 4. It took several generations of Nisga'a leaders more than 100 years to finalize the agreement, and their pride in their determination and their accomplishment would seem warranted.
But many people in the province of British Columbia, and across the country, have serious doubts about the deal and everybody appears to be lining up to put their own position on the agreement on the table. In fact, a close look at the way the Nisga'a Final Agreement is being presented by the various parties who have chosen either to support it or to oppose it provides real insight into the art of public relations.
On one side you have the conservative non-Native factions within the province of British Columbia - the Reform Party, the province's Liberal opposition, the lobby groups for various resource industries - who are concerned the deal may upset the status quo and cost them their present, favored status within the provincial establishment.
On the other side you have the parties to the agreement - the federal, provincial and Nisga'a governments - who are doing all the right things to make the deal look attractive to the casual observer and, especially at this point in time, the Nisga'a people who must ratify the deal.
Then you have the factions within the Nisga'a and the non-Nisga'a Aboriginal population who oppose it.
National Chief Phil Fontaine was in Vancouver in mid-August and spoke out in favor of the agreement because, he said, it was good for the Nisga'a people. He refused to endorse the process for any other First Nation but the Nisga'a. Fontaine told this newspaper that the bottom line on any self government agreement is simply "a fair deal" and that each First Nation must be free to make its own agreement with the public governments.
The ratification vote by Nisga'a citizens is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 6 and 7. Some observers in British Columbia wonder what the national chief is doing supporting the deal before the Nisga'a people vote on it. They see his remarks as a subtle attempt to manipulate the vote in favor of the Nisga'a chiefs who belong to his organization.
Viola Thomas, recently re-elected to another two year term as leader of the United Native Nations of British Columbia, the group which represents the interests of off-reserve residents in the province, was one of the people who voiced this concern.
"No wonder Phil Fontaine is in favor of this," she said. "It's the same old Indian Act/AFN kind of arrangement. You could see it when they had their big ceremony. [Premier] Clark started by saying, 'Gentlemen . . .' [Indian Affairs Minister] Jane Stewart made one mention of the matriarchs in Nisga'a society and that was the last mention you heard of them. This is a form of self government that imitates municipal government. It's being portrayed as Nisga'a government but it's not. If it was, it would have involved the hereditary chiefs. It didn't."
Fontaine, to be fair to him, was spurred to comment on the Nisga'a agreement by the repeated claims of the deal's opponents in British Columbia that the deal is race-based and contrary to the Canadian ideals of democracy. That's an issue which affects more than just the Nisga'a deal and it's one that Fontaine must deal with as national chief.
"First Nations have inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights to govern themselves that are not race-based as some critics would have you believe," he said during a speech in Edmonton in August.
"The argument's being made regarding the Nisga'a treaty that it's race-based and that it's undemocratic because there are some non-Nisga'a people who live within the treaty territory, and the only way, it is argued, to correct this is to put the treaty to a referendum where the majority will decide whether the treaty is right, just and fair. The problem is, that is a one dimensional view of democracy where the majority always rules, where there is no room for minorities: Unfortunately, we've become a minority in our own land. True democracy provides for the dignity of humankind. And what the Nisga'a treaty is about is dignity and pride. It's about justice and fairness. And it's about the Nisga'a. The treaty belongs to the Nisga'a."
Fontaine threw the idea of race-based governance back into faces of the mainstream critics of the deal by suggesting that a government based on British parliamentary traditions which did nothing to take Indigenous values and customs into account was really race-based. He suggested that having the Nisga'a govern Nisga'a territory was equally as (or more) valid as having colonial governments or their successors governing colonies or former colonies. To deny the Nisga'a the same rights in their lands as Canadians demand in their own land would be truly discriminatory and undemocratic, he argued.
Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court of Canada echoed Fontaine's comments when it released its reference case findings on Quebec separation a few weeks later.
"The concern of our courts and governments to protect minorities has been prominent in recent years, particularly following the enactment of the Charter. Undoubtedly, one of the key considerations motivating the enactment of the Charter, and the process of constitutional judicial review that it entails, is the protection of minorities. However, it should not be forgotten that the protection of minority rights had a long history before the enactment of the Charter. Indeed, the protection of minority rights was clearly an essential consideration in the design of our constitutional structure even at the time of Confederation," Chief Justice Antonio Lamer wrote on behalf of the court.
"Although Canada's record of upholding the rights of minorities is not a spotless one, that goal is one towards which Canadians have been striving since Confederation, and the process has not been without successes. The principle of protecting minority rights continues to exercise influence in the operation and interpretation of our Constitution."
Strengthening the national chief's position, the court later added that simple majority rule is not enough to ensure democracy, that a constitution must express the ideals of a nation and that constitution should be protected from those who would change it to suit their short-term political goals.
And while national Aboriginal leaders fight conservative factions for the right to change Canadian society so that First Nations can make deals like the Nisga'a agreement, some Aboriginal people applaud that fight but add that they disapprove of the contents of the Nisga'a agreement. Several political groups in British Columbia and elsewhere oppose the deal because the Nisga'a consented to extinguish some of their Aboriginal rights. Those groups say a deal is necessary, but it shouldn't necessarily be this deal.
As well, the hereditary Nisga'a chiefs are using the British Columbia courts to try and stop the deal. Also in the courts are the Gitanyow people, neighbors of the Nisga'a who say their territory is wrongfully included in the Nisga'a lands.
Political opposition to the agreement from all quarters has
dominated the news in British Columbia all month. The Nisga'a
people who must approve the deal will have a lot to think about.
By Debora Lockyer
Windspeaker Staff Writer
NEW AIYANSH, B.C.
The Nisga'a people are as tenacious as the vegetation that persists through the craggy blanket of hardened lava that covers the land leading to their community of New Aiyansh.
It's been more than 100 years
since three Nisga'a chiefs, who paddled their canoes to Victoria
to discuss their people's claim to the lands of the Nass Valley,
were rebuffed on the steps of the parliament buildings by the
premier of the time. And it's been more than 20 years since the
provincial government thought better of that decision and welcomed
a new crop of Nisga'a back to the negotiation table.
The result of this tenacity is the first modern day treaty in British Columbia - the Nisga'a Final Agreement - initialed and celebrated on Aug. 4.
Drummers, dancers, dignitaries and a swarm of determined reporters were on hand to witness and record the initialing. Members of the four Nisga'a communities - Kincolith, Greenville, Canyon City and New Aiyansh - as well as urban Nisga'a from Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Terrace, attended the ceremony in full regalia.
Celebrations began quietly at 8:30 a.m. with Harry Moore leading his community in song, and reached fever pitch about three hours later as the treaty signatories were led to the stage.
While the gentle refrain of the Nisga'a peace song filled the room, the final agreement was initialed. And then, as the dignitaries held their agreements high over their heads, the jubilant people of the Nass Valley drummed, cheered, whistled, applauded and yelled their approval of the historic moment.
Signing on behalf of the Nisga'a
Nation was President Joesph Gosnell, Sr. who said the ceremony
was a triumph for the Nisga'a people and the people of British
Columbia and Canada.
"Today, we make history as we correct the mistakes of the past and send a signal of hope around the world. Today, let us talk about reconciliation and a new understanding between cultures. Today, we join Canada and British Columbia as free citizens, full and equal participants in the social, economic and political life of this country. That has been our dream for more than a century. Today, it becomes reality," Gosnell said to the crowd of more than 1,000 spectators squeezed into the New Aiyansh Culture and Recreation Centre.
Premier Glen Clark, signing on behalf the province, was greeted with a roar of approval when he addressed the crowd with a few words in the Nisga'a language.
"Aama sa tgun ahl Nisgaa ganhl British Columbia," he said. "This is a great day to be Nisga'a. This is a great day to be a British Columbian."
But Clark warned of the difficult days ahead as the agreement heads to the ratification stage for the Nisga'a people (some of whom believe the Nisga'a negotiating team did not get enough), the provincial legislature (some members of which believe the government gave up too much), and to the federal House of Commons where it will have to pass three readings before the agreement becomes a done deal.
"I said it before. We have waited a long time for this day. But none of us should be mistaken. We are going to have some difficult times ahead of us. We will have to confront the words and deeds of those who deny our history. Those who are blind to the injustice of the past and who reject 30 years of negotiation and compromise," Clark said.
Gosnell also commented on the dark cloud that still hangs over the agreement, the public debate that will soon rage.
"Our detractors do not understand, or, practising a willful ignorance, choose not to understand. Or worse, using carefully coded language, they are updating a venomous attitude so familiar to First Nations of the world. They are very wrong, in my view. By playing politics with the aspirations of Aboriginal people, they are blighting the promise of the Nisga'a treaty, not only for the Nisga'a, but for all Canadians," Gosnell said.
Indian Affairs Minister Jane
Stewart signed the agreement on behalf of Canada. She recognized
the contribution of Frank Calder who, in 1968, launched a lawsuit
seeking recognition of the Nisga'a's Aboriginal title in the Nass
Valley which Calder claimed had never been extinguished. The Calder
case, as it became known, was appealed to the Supreme Court which
was divided on the issue. The case was eventually thrown out on
a technicality, but was enough to persuade Canada to change its
policy on land claims and accept the Nisga'a claim for negotiation.
"Frank Calder is here today with us, and I want to pay special tribute to him and to all Nisga'a men and women who have worked so hard over the past 112 years to bring about this treaty of recognition and reconciliation. . . we never would have arrived at this hopeful moment without the countless acts of faith and courage displayed by Frank Calder and countless others," Stewart said.
The minister said the Nisga'a agreement demonstrated the judgment of the court case Delgamuukw in which Aboriginal title to land was recognized. She said the agreement showed that negotiation, not confrontation, was the best way to settle Aboriginal land claims in Canada.
"It reaffirms the value of seeking negotiated solutions on land and resource management issues, even if they demand time, hard work and compromise," Stewart said.
Gosnell also said negotiation was a superior way for nations to settle disputes.
"No longer beggars in our own lands, we now go forward with dignity, equipped with the confidence that we can make important contributions - social, political and economic - to Canadian society. The Nisga'a treaty proves, beyond all doubt, that negotiations, not lawsuits, not roadblocks, not violence, are the most effective, most honorable way to resolve Aboriginal issues in this country," Gosnell said.
Court decision pleases Native leaders
By Paul Barnsley
Windpseaker Staff Writer
OTTAWA
As the federal government and the Parti Québécois continue their sovereignty battle over the traditional territories of Mohawk, Algonquin, Cree, Montagnais, Mi'kmaq and other Indigenous peoples, new legal strength and protection has been added to the case for the sovereignty claims of the original inhabitants of what is now called Quebec.
Quebec First Nation leaders were watching the court decision closely, as were leaders across the country.
"This decision greatly delights us since it supports what we have always upheld, and that is that, as peoples, we have Aboriginal rights, Native rights and treaty rights which cannot be swept away by a backhand from the federal and provincial governments," said Quebec Regional Chief Ghislain Picard.
National Chief Phil Fontaine also lauded the elements of the decision.
"As part of this decision, the court recognizes the validity of our arguments in the whole issue of the rights of the First Nations," he said. "Now it is up to us to develop these arguments to ensure that our rights will be protected in the possible event of a possible Quebec separation."
The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision Aug. 20 on a reference case put to it two years ago by the federal government. The federal government wanted the top court in the land to answer a few sticky legal questions that rose out of the separatist movement in Quebec.
The government asked the court to answer three questions:
Question 1: Under the Constitution of Canada, can the government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Question 2: Does international law give the government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Question 3: In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?
A reference case is best described as a government asking a court: What would happen if . . ?
The decision rendered by the nine justices is a more than 80-page long display of high-level legal learning about international law, constitutional law, minority rights, and more. But it has no direct legal clout, except that it adds to the case law that lawyers can refer to in future arguments and allows the parties in a potential dispute to see what might be waiting for them down the road if they ever decide to go to court.
Quebec refused to officially participate in the court hearings, but an amicus curiae or "friend of the court" was appointed by the court to argue the separatist point of view. Andre Joli-Coeur, the Quebec City lawyer who performed that function, argued that the question of Quebec's right to declare independence from Canada was a political question and should not be decided by a court. The Supreme Court justices disagreed.
"They do not ask the Court to usurp any democratic decision that the people of Quebec may be called upon to make," Chief Justice Antonio Lamer wrote on behalf of the court. "The questions, as interpreted by the court, are strictly limited to aspects of the legal framework in which that democratic decision is to be taken."
Joli-Coeur argued that the Quebec provincial government is sovereign over its territory because it was elected by a majority of the popular vote. Therefore, he said, Canada has no say if Quebec decides to leave.
The court pondered that argument and decided that democracy is more than just the tyranny of the majority.
"The court in this reference is required to consider whether Quebec has a right to unilateral secession. Arguments in support of the existence of such a right were primarily based on the principle of democracy," the court wrote. "Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values. Since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economic, social, political and cultural) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favor of secession would put those relationships at risk. The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and, accordingly, secession of a province "under the Constitution" could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework."
Since the French majority in Quebec find themselves in the unique position of being a majority that constitutes a minority in the overall makeup of Canada, the court found it necessary to deal extensively with the rights of minority groups in a democracy. It was in this area where the most important steps for Aboriginal rights were made.
"Canadians have never accepted that ours is a system of simple majority rule. Our principle of democracy is richer. . . In this way, our belief in democracy may be harmonized with our belief in constitutionalism. Constitutional amendment often requires some form of substantial consensus precisely because the content of the underlying principles of our Constitution demand it. By requiring broad support in the form of an "enhanced majority" to achieve constitutional change, the Constitution ensures that minority interests must be addressed before proposed changes which would affect them may be enacted," the court wrote. "It might be objected, then, that constitutionalism is therefore incompatible with democratic government. This would be an erroneous view.
Constitutionalism facilitates- indeed, makes possible - a democratic political system by creating an orderly framework within which people may make political decisions. Viewed correctly, constitutionalism and the rule of law are not in conflict with democracy; rather, they are essential to it. Without that relationship, the political will upon which democratic decisions are taken would itself be undermined."
The court argued that a country's values are defined in its constitution and those values should not be lightly changed to suit the whims of the majority.
"Undoubtedly, one of the key considerations motivating the enactment of the Charter, and the process of constitutional judicial review that it entails, is the protection of minorities. However, it should not be forgotten that the protection of minority rights had a long history before the enactment of the Charter. Indeed, the protection of minority rights was clearly an essential consideration in the design of our constitutional structure even at the time of Confederation: Although Canada's record of upholding the rights of minorities is not a spotless one, that goal is one towards which Canadians have been striving since Confederation, and the process has not been without successes," Justice Lamer wrote.
The court decision then went on to the second question that dealt with international law rather than Canadian internal law.
"[A] right to secession only arises under the principle of self-determination of people at international law where "a people" is governed as part of a colonial empire; where "a people" is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation; and possibly where "a people" is denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development," the court wrote.
The answers to the first two questions made answering the third
question unnecessary, the justices decided.
By Paul Barnsley
Windspeaker Staff Writer
OTTAWA
Ever since Maurice Switzer took the helm of the Assembly of First Nations communications department, the national association of First Nations' chiefs has taken a much more aggressive approach in responding to the way the mainstream media cover First Nations issues.
A big part of that change in approach is a reflection of the new AFN communications boss' personality. Switzer spent more than 30 years in the newspaper business and, he said, despite his current position, he still considers himself a journalist. He's proud of his profession and hasn't got much time for poorly prepared reporters who ask inane questions. There's an aggressiveness in his approach that comes from not suffering fools gladly and from expecting a lot from his journalistic colleagues. That approach, combined with National Chief Phil Fontaine's strategy to confront reporters and media organizations when they fail to include the Aboriginal point of view in stories about Aboriginal issues, has led to several confrontations in recent months.
"The communications department, before, practised a more reactive form of media relations," he said. "We've been given the mandate by the national chief to speak out whenever we come across reporting in the mainstream media that is bigoted, biased, uneducated or all of the above."
Switzer and the national chief have taken on the Reform Party, the Calgary Herald, the Ottawa Citizen and, in a letter to the editor that was expected to be published in late August, Maclean's magazine.
The AFN response is typically blunt and direct. So direct, in fact, that Reform Party Indian Affairs critic, Mike Scott, threatened legal action when Switzer and Fontaine suggested some of his remarks displayed a certain intolerance towards Native people. Switzer told Windspeaker he's a bit sorry the threatened legal action didn't proceed.
"I wish it would have gone ahead," he said. "I think you could sell tickets to watch the Reform Party try to convince a judge that some of their views about Aboriginal people aren't a bit . . . curious."
The Reform Party and the AFN are political enemies. Reform promises, if elected, to do away with Aboriginal rights, something which threatens First Nations politicians directly. So it's no surprise that those two groups are at loggerheads. But Switzer has directed as much, if not more, of his energy at reporters, columnists, editors and publishers of major daily newspapers - people who aren't supposed to be politically aligned either for or against Aboriginal people. As the former publisher of the Winnipeg Free Press, Switzer knows how the game works. He knows that the people who work for newspapers aren't immune to the biases and prejudices one sees in Canadian society. He knows most prejudice is born of ignorance and isn't necessarily intentional or even conscious. By rooting prejudice out of the media, one can begin to fight it in the broader community, he said.
"Reporters need to be educated," he said. "Journalists would not have received any significant education about First Nations culture and history. I believe that you can either try to learn or you can be part of the ongoing ignorance. Indian people are seen to be on the margins of society - we're seen to be easy targets. What we're doing is showing that we're not going to be easy targets anymore."
The Alderville (Ontario) First Nation member who began his career as a reporter with the Belleville Intelligencer in 1965, knows all the excuses mainstream reporters offer for not providing informed, balanced, in-depth coverage of First Nations issues. Switzer concedes that chiefs and band councils frequently don't help themselves when it comes to dealing with the press.
"I know all the complaints," he said. "Reporters say they can't get access to information, they can't get comments because phone calls aren't returned. But, you know, it's cyclical. You get so used to being burnt that you don't get involved."
The nature of First Nations government institutions has contributed to the problem in a major way, Switzer said. Funding schemes for band councils have not included money for many of the functions performed by municipal governments - which perform a function similar in scale to band council governments. The AFN is now trying to find a way to improve the media relations skills of First Nations without spending much money.
"Even the smallest community out there in Alberta or anywhere in Canada, has somebody on staff doing PR," he said. "Our communities don't have that. We're working from here at ways to assist the regions. When we speak out, it sends a strong message. We're trying to show First Nations all across the country how these battles can be fought."
Chief Fontaine has urged the provincial press councils (only Saskatchewan doesn't have a council that will listen to, and decide on, claims that reporters or media outlets have behaved irresponsibly) to become "more pro-active in monitoring bias and unfair journalistic practices by the nation's 105 daily newspapers.
Bill Bachope, the executive director of the British Columbia press council, said, as far as he could recall, his council had never dealt with a complaint from an Aboriginal person or group. He said the concept of reporters spending more time learning about minority points of view is an interesting idea but he didn't feel any press council would be willing to tell any newspaper what it could or couldn't publish.
"We're going to help them," he said.
"It doesn't fall within the scope of a press council at all,"
he said. "We field complaints and deal with specific cases.
There's an element of mediation in what we do. We try to settle
complaints before they go to court, but to tell papers what they
can write or can't write, well, I think we'd get pretty short
shrift from any paper if we tried that."
Bachope said journalists believe it's better to make a mistake and then apologize than to go too far in the direction of censorship.
"It's a freedom of speech issue," he said, "and it's a pretty slippery slope that papers will resist strongly."
Switzer expected that answer. He knows there's no short-cut, that it will take time and a lot of work to educate the mainstream press and mainstream society. He knows most non-Native Canadians have an very limited understanding of Aboriginal people and their ways.
By Sabrina Whyatt
Windspeaker Staff Writer
OTTAWA
"Pushers in white coats."
That's how Deanna Greyeyes describes doctors and pharmacists who wrongfully prescribe drugs to patients.
She believes these people are the source of prescription drug abuse.
"This problem is being portrayed as just a First Nations problem, but it's not. There is only a small portion of First Nations people who abuse prescription drugs. The majority are innocent," said Greyeyes.
The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, has called for the establishment of a task force to address the issue.
Although Fontaine clearly stated the prescription drug abuse problem is not exclusive to First Nations peoples, Greyeyes still fears being stereotyped as "drug misusers and abusers."
"I'm not saying there isn't a problem. There are cases of abuse, but they are not only Aboriginal people. It's happening among the entire population."
After serving on a steering committee appointed by Health Canada in 1995, Greyeyes was one of eight members who spent six months researching the entire issue of drug abuse. The findings showed there was no evidence of First Nations people abusing prescription drugs at higher rates than the general population.
"We found patterns of abuse, but there was no more among Aboriginal people than everyone else."
Greyeyes said that during the group's deliberations, she and the one other Aboriginal member on the committee, were concerned the problem of drug abuse may be directed towards Aboriginal people.
"We were assured this wouldn't happen. We were assured the First Nations people wouldn't be viewed as drug abusers. But that's exactly what happened."
After reading several articles and listening to radio reports on the issue, Greyeyes said the media misled the public by indicating Aboriginal people were the majority of prescription drug misusers.
She is convinced the coverage has created some misunderstanding about First Nations people and may further cap the Non-Insured Health Benefit Program, which provides prescription drug benefits for First Nations people.
"I'm scared all this attention being put on a small portion of First Nations people who abuse prescription drugs is driving a wedge between the public and First Nations people," she said.
"Even though a vast majority of the people receiving benefits from the health program are innocent, if Health Canada doesn't speak out and correct the misleading information made by the media about First Nations people, this will affect everyone."
Reports have shown that Alberta and the Atlantic provinces have the highest percentage of prescription drug abuse in Canada.
Gwen Green, supervisor at the Lethbridge ADAAC office, said there are cases of prescription drug abuse in the clinic, both Native and non-Native.
She believes the issue becomes more complex among Native people, or anyone under health insurance coverage, because it is easier to obtain the drugs if they are affordable.
Green said she places a large portion of the blame on people in the medical field.
"The doctors are making money off each visit, the pharmacists are making money off each purchase and the patient is getting the medicine easily."
Green said these doctors are not taking the time and effort to properly help these patients, who are often just going through difficult periods in their lives. Instead, they are prescribing medications like Valium, tranquilizers and sleeping pills.
"The patients unknowingly are trapped into a pattern of misusing, which then leads to addiction and abusing."
Green said a task force would be a good idea to educate people and to find out which doctors are over-prescribing these drugs.
"It's a good idea to discuss these problems and bring them to the forefront. You have to treat the person, not just the drug addiction."
Allen DeLeary, director for AFN Health Secretariat, agreed there needs to be focus on the source of the problem, but said pharmacists and doctors are regulated on a provincial level making it almost impossible to police them from a federal level.
He added that Fontaine will meet with other officials and make recommendations for policies to be applied at regional levels.
"We still have no authority to make them comply with these policies."
DeLeary said there seems to be a "stigmatization of First Nations people."
He added that people are failing to lose sight of some of the work that's already being done to help correct this problem.
The AFN is collectively working with Health Canada and others
to develop a comprehensive information package on the proper use
of prescription drugs that is targeted at First Nations communities.
Rumors of abuse, cover-up at clinics
By Rob McKinley
Windspeaker Staff Writer
THE PAS, Man.
Ottawa is being urged to investigate the growing tales of horror from former patients regarding three tuberculosis sanitariums which were operating in Manitoba up until 30 years ago.
Activities at one particular facility, the Clearwater Lake Sanitarium near The Pas, are the main concern for the province's First Nation chiefs and New Democrat MLA Eric Robinson.
"Some stories the Elders report are that their people went there and never came back," said Robinson, a member of the Cross Lake First Nation and the provincial Indian Affairs critic.
He has already heard from numerous people who said their siblings were taken away in the 40s, 50s or 60s and just never came home.
As well as the suspicious disappearances, there have also been stories of abuse and neglect at the hands of nurses working at the facility.
Recently, he said, a burial site containing 15 bodies was unearthed a few miles from where the Clearwater Sanitarium stood. Many people think the bodies are those of people whose deaths were never reported by the sanitarium. If the bodies are those of former patients, he fears there may be more bodies out there.
"It's dozens for the time being, but there could be hundreds as far as I know," he said.
Arlene Gibson, the executive director of the Sanitarium Board of Manitoba said past history of the board and of the facilities has long since been filed away in the provincial archives, making any immediate answers difficult to come by.
She was certain, however, that the Clearwater Sanitarium had nothing to do with the bodies recently found.
"We didn't bury people. We had no burials. Someone took [the bodies] away," she said. "We certainly had no burial sites."
Since the early 1900s, when the Clearwater facility opened, she said, many people, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, were sent to the facility, and while medical treatments may have been primitive and many people did die from the disease, she was not aware of any direct complaints sent to the board in it's 60 years of operation.
A letter written in 1949 to an Indian Agent from the Clearwater area indicates, however, that there were problems at the sanitarium which may have been ignored by facility officials and never passed on to the board level.
"The Indians feel so bad about the management that they begin to believe that they are being brought to this place to die," wrote Chief Cornelius Bignell, then chief of the Le Pas Indian Band (now the Opaskwayak Cree Nation) in a letter to "Mr. E. Low, Indian Agent," on July 4, 1949.
The letter contained a list of seven concerns the band had received from the Clearwater patients. The issues included a need for more fresh air and time outside the facility, the use of excessive force when needles were administered and the higher than normal rates of death.
"Too many persons have died and are dying too fast in such a short time. Very few leave the San (sanitarium) alive," read the letter.
Gibson said she too would like to see the results of an inquiry into the role the sanitariums played. The inquiry could also identify who operated the tuberculosis facilities, as Gibson said she was not aware of who was in charge. She said the board worked at arm's length to the medical treatment of the disease.
Ask William Tagoona who was in charge and he'll tell you it was the staff, especially the nurses.
"They were the ultimate bosses. They could do anything with you whenever they wanted," said the 46-year-old former patient.
In the mid-1950s, Tagoona, who now lives in Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, was a patient at Clearwater. He stayed there for 18 months from the age of five. In that time, his life belonged to the nurses.
"You were a nothing they could play with. It was scary," he said.
For a year and a half, Tagoona said he was kept from his parents and never allowed outside the building. He stayed with other Native patients in the ward "and never really did anything."
Most of the children were afraid, he said, because if they stepped out of line, they were beaten with thick, leather belts.
He told of nights where the nurses would read bedtime stories and the children were told to keep their eyes on the nurse's face. If they looked away and were caught, "she'd take her belt off and hit you with it," he said.
The goodnight kiss was another strictly enforced duty. If a child turned his head away from the nurse, "then you'd get it again," said Tagoona, who now works for the CBC in northern Quebec.
One of the most vivid and scarring memories Tagoona grudgingly recalls took place during meal time. He said the macaroni he was to eat was something he had never tasted before and after tasting some, he threw up in his plate.
"The nurse got really angry and mixed up the macaroni and vomit and force fed it to me," he said.
Forty years later, Tagoona said he still cannot eat macaroni or spaghetti.
"Maybe Canadians would like to know the history of how the Native people were treated in the 1950s," he said, adding that it might show people that Native people aren't "just like that," but that "maybe they were made to be like that by the white people in the past."
Tagoona was also a residential school student after his time at the Clearwater Sanitarium. He looks back on his years at the Churchill residential school as good ones. He looks back to his 18 months at Clearwater with a lump in his throat.
"I remember many fond memories at residential school, but at Clearwater Lake, I don't even remember one fond memory," he said. "Maybe that's why residential school was so easy for me. [I was] already pretty tough by then."
The 26 chiefs represented in the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO) in northern Manitoba, recently passed a resolution calling for an immediate investigation into the Clearwater Lake Sanitarium operations, as well as two other facilities in southern Manitoba.
"We can no longer remain silent as we have too many health problems that may be related to the treatment our people received in these places," said Red Sucker Lake Chief Fred Harper.
MKO Grand Chief Francis Flett agreed.
"The rest of Canadian society must know what happened to our people, to learn about the pain and anguish we suffered at the hands of people who were charged with healing us," said Flett.
By Jackie Bissley
Windspeaker Contributor
VANCOUVER
From Saskatoon to Memphis to Vancouver seems like the long way around, but that's the route that Chester Knight and the Wind have had to travel in order to get to where they are today.
Sitting backstage at the Vancouver
Folk Festival, Chester Knight, who was nominated for a Juno Award
last year for his debut album Freedom, said it's unfortunate that
Canadian artists have to go south of the border before they're
recognized back home.
"We're based in Saskatoon so we're right in the middle between the East Coast and the West Coast, which means you have to spend more money and time in promotion," he explained during a break from performances.
"The way we got booked for these festivals up in Canada was by us going to a music trade show in Memphis, and it's funny, sometimes being a First Nations musician gives you an edge. There's this big conference room filled with non-First Nations people so when we walked in, everyone looked at us and wanted to know what we were doing there."
Knight, who works as a counselor at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College in Saskatoon, has been playing professionally for about four years, mainly at local events and small venues around home on weekends. Encouraged by family and friends, Knight starting raising money to cut the album Freedom; a solo project which was the compilation of 20 years of songwriting. Shortly after it's release, he formed the band that plays with him now which includes his older brother Vernon. Knight said it's been a hard road to get to where he is today but feels the experience has given him a good foundation in understanding the business of music making and what it takes to succeed.
With no real Native record label in existence, complete with artist representation (A&R), publicity and radio promotion departments, the singer-songwriter feels that First Nation businesses and tribal councils need to be more supportive of the arts.
"Ninety per cent of all the money we make goes right back into our record label and into promotion, and that's not enough money so we have to collaborate with other people and companies.
"Our communities need to invest and harvest young artists. The young people don't know that you have to take things into your own hands, you have to promote yourself. They see the Hollywood version that someone's going to come along and discover them, and that's not the reality of music. The reality is working hard, going out and playing, and the longer you're out here, the more known you get. It takes a lot of support and fortunately, I have support from my brothers, my family, my relatives. The musicians that were doing this 20 years ago really had a hard time. They're the ones who opened up the doors," he said.
With the feature film Smoke Signals released on the eve of the festival weekend, it's hard not to talk about what many are claiming as a major breakthrough for Native filmmakers. The relationship between music and visual image has long been recognized as a powerful force, and the expected success of the Smoke Signals soundtrack, which has been picked up by Sony Music for release this fall, may provide Native musicians a new creative avenue for expression.
Knight and his band were one of the artists, along with Keith Secola and Ulali, asked to appear at the recent Toronto benefit screening of the film and he said both the film and the evening's festivities were inspiring.
"I think as the population grows and we have more access to the music and film industries, the competition gets tougher so you get a higher quality of work - finer quality in films and music. The more First Nation musicians that are successful, the more confidence we have to go into that field. We need to take risks, and that only helps the Canadian music industry as a whole. We need to let the public see there's a thriving Native music scene."
Chester Knight and the Wind are hoping to start recording a new CD sometime this September and Knight feels optimistic about the future of Native contemporary music. He agrees with Sam the Record Man's prediction that the 'next wave of popular music will come from First Nations.'
"Native music has a spiritual element that has been developed over thousands and thousands of years. It comes through our music. We're not afraid to expose our souls in our music. People of the world are yearning for that spiritual aspect in their lives. They're not happy with material wealth," he said.
Chester Knight is determined to make his mark on the music scene, and if it takes one city at a time, and hundreds of miles in between, it's a journey he's willing to take more than once.
"We plan, we make goals, we strategize and we know they may not all work out but we won't give up, we keep on trying. And the weird part is, the most ridiculous plans are the ones that work." he added with a laugh.
[ Windspeaker Home Page | Top
of This Page | AMMSA Home Page
]
[ CFWE-FM | Alberta
Sweetgrass | Saskatchewan Sage
| Raven's Eye | Aboriginal
Media Services ]
[ Mission & History | AMMSA Marketing | Advertising
| Merchandise | Subscriptions
| Contest ]
Comments: e-mail: edwind@ammsa.com