Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
Top News - July - 2005
Volume 23 - Number 4
"Metis Nation" recognized as distinct group
Tri-lateral-Is this INAC code for downloading?
Ontario NDP leader wary of new approach
For better or for worse - Editorial
Addressing the threshold of elder-hood- Guest ColumnCheck out Ontario Birchbark
The entire contents of Windspeaker's July issue is available
online in the AMMSA Archives.
Access is restricted to online subscribers only.
CLICK HERE FOR ONLINE SUBSCRIPTION INFO.
"Metis Nation" recognized as distinct group
George Young, Windspeaker Writer, OttawaA deal that was six years in the making was struck on May 31 when representatives for the Metis National Council (MNC) and Canada became signatories to a framework agreement that lays the ground-work for future dealings between the parties.
In a nutshell, the agreement stresses negotiation rather than litigation for the recognition of Metis rights.
The Metis Nation Framework Agreement (MNFA) recognizes that the Metis Nation is formed of a group of people that emerged from west-central North America with their own language (Michif), culture, traditions and self-government structures. It also recognizes that this Metis Nation is represented by the Metis National Council and its governing members-the Metis Nation of Ontario, the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Metis Nation-Saskatchewan, the Metis Nation of Alberta, and the Metis Provincial Council of British Columbia.
"For the first time we have, in writing, the recognition of our nation," said MNC President Clement Chartier.
"I know it has been stated verbally by the prime minister a little over a year ago, but the federal bureaucracy was reluctant to embrace that ... now it has to be taken into account," he said.
(It is important to note that not all people who self-identify as Metis are members of the Metis Nation.)
Andy Scott, the federal interlocutor for Métis and non-Status Indians, said the MNFA renews the partnership between Canada and the Metis people.
"The Metis Nation Framework Agreement will act as an important foundational piece as we move forward on strengthening this relationship, as well as closing the gap between Metis people and other Canadians."
There is no new funding that results from this agreement, but Chartier believes it finally commits Canada to establishing an effective rights-based negotiation process.
The MNFA in itself does not recognize Aboriginal rights for Metis Nation members. Instead, it sets out the terms surrounding the discussion of Aboriginal rights, and the process for negotiation to move toward other agreements.
Windspeaker asked Chartier about the rights of Metis outside of the MNC. He said not all people of mixed ancestry are Metis or part of the historic Metis Nation. Chartier said organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations have to take a greater role in advocating for recognition of the rights of non-status people.
He said the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has a strong role to play in this issue as well.Tri-lateral-Is this INAC code for downloading?
Paul Barnsley, Windspeaker Staff Writer, OttawaIndian Affairs Minister Andy Scott trotted out his new approach to dealing with Aboriginal issues in a press conference with the Aboriginal media on June 1. The buzzword of the day seemed to sum it up-tri-lateral.
"When you're talking about education or housing or economic development or health care, the reality is we're going to have to move beyond a bilateral relationship [involving only First Nations and the federal government] to a trilateral relationship with the provinces and territorial governments. And that's what we're doing," Scott told reporters.
It was the day following the federal cabinet's policy retreat with Aboriginal leaders where political accords were signed that frame the approach going forward on self-government issues.
A lot of the new policy work that is slated to begin under the terms of those accords will involve, as the minister pointed out, areas of provincial jurisdiction. Up until now, the federal government has provided services-or paid the provinces and territories to provide those services-to First Nation communities. This is because Canada's Constitution gives the federal government the responsibility for "Indians and lands reserved for Indians."
But services provided on-reserve are caught up in a confusing mesh of bureaucratic processes that are complicated by jurisdictional wrangling between the different levels of government. One of the main subjects of discussion during the cabinet retreat was that of "getting the federal house in order," taking stock of all the programs and services and who provides them, who funds them and how the processes can be streamlined and efficiency increased.
Some turf wars with long histories will have to be addressed for that process to work, however.
"Historically, there have been genuine differences of opinion between provincial and federal governments around whose responsibility certain things are," Scott said.
"Part of the problem, when we talk about these kind of things, is that the provinces are fearful that we're trying to cause them to pay for things that we currently pay for," he later added.
Although no specific funding was announced during, or after, the policy retreat, Scott claimed the federal government is prepared to spend enough money to persuade the provinces to let their guard down a bit.
"We announced last fall $700 million in heath care and the provinces were appreciative of that. But we'll be seeing investment in other areas of activity that would normally be considered provincial, I'm sure. And I think that's a step of good faith on our part to say, 'No, we're not doing this as a matter of saving money; we're doing this because we want the socioeconomic gap between First Nation, Inuit and Métis Canadians and the rest of Canada to shrink.' We believe that will require specific investments and we also think that will require a much more integrated approach, on most of these subjects, with the provinces. In the past when we've had those kinds of conversations we've tended toward getting caught up in jurisdiction. I think it's unfortunate because I don't think it's the provinces or the feds that end up suffering when that happens. I think it's the community itself."
Native leaders have long claimed the federal government never misses an opportunity to shrug off its legal obligations to First Nations people by finding a way to force the provinces to pick up the cost of a program or service. In mainstream circles it's called downloading or offloading.
Aboriginal rights advocates say it's called breaching a fiduciary duty.
"It is increasingly clear that the federal government's strategy is one of subsuming treaties and inherent Indigenous rights-and the whole idea of Indigenous nationhood-into a pan-Aboriginalist framework constructed and operationalized within the confines of the Canadian Constitution and Supreme Court definitions of 'Aboriginal rights,'" said Mohawk academic Dr. Taiaiake Alfred.
Alfred bases his political philosophy on the Haudenosaunee (Iroquoian) concept of the Two Row Wampum that says Indigenous nations and the colonial newcomers sail side by side in their own canoes. The relationship is of one sovereign nation to another Traditional leaders have always refused to deal with provincial governments, saying their relationship is with the federal Crown only. Alfred says the present Assembly of First Nations approach is to become virtually indistinguishable from the colonial state and that risks the complete loss of Indigenous identity. He also says that elected band council chiefs represent a system that was imposed on Indigenous peoples by force and that the band council system is really an arm of the federal government. That means the government is negotiating with itself in this new process.
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine seems fully contented with the new trilateral approach. He has met with just about every provincial and territorial premier over the last two years and says the indications he's received is that "they're very interested in more collaborative, co-operative approaches with First Nations," he said.
Fontaine consistently states that Aboriginal and treaty rights are untouchable under his watch. But his critics say he is buying into the federal government's "needs based" approach rather than a "rights based" approach. They say that the considerable progress the national chief has achieved has been obtained by allowing the government to choose to provide services rather than admit it has a legal obligation to provide them.
Traditional leaders warn that once a provincial government has taken over control and responsibility for providing services any fiduciary obligation is extinguished since the treaties were negotiated with the federal Crown. Provinces, they say, can simply cut the services, claiming there is no legal obligation on their part to provide them. This way, they claim, the provincial government can claw back any gains made by leaders at the negotiating tables by cutting other funding.
Elected leaders say the hard line sovereigntist approach has led to more than a century of marginalization and suffering for their people and that a more pragmatic approach is required.
Ontario NDP leader wary of new approach
Windspeaker StaffHoward Hampton, leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party since 1996, represents the northern riding of Rainy River, a riding that includes more than 50 First Nations.
Hampton is raising serious concerns about the new tri-lateral approach trotted out by federal Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Andy Scott on June 1, the day after the federal cabinet's policy retreat with Aboriginal leaders.
Hampton pointed out that all the federal announcements following the policy retreat contained no budgets and no concrete action plan.
"The concern I would raise is that I see the framework for a lot of media spin and for a lot of meetings and a lot of discussion," he told Windspeaker. "I do not see an action plan and I do not see a budget to implement any kind of action plan. It seems to me, after all the discussion we've had, that's what we need to see now."
He said the Ontario government has recently cut the operating budget of the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat (ONAS) by 23 per cent. That cut means the end for a number of programs that have been useful for First Nation communities in the province. At the same time, the Liberal government led by Premier Dalton McGuinty has recently launched "Ontario's New Approach to Aboriginal Affairs." Hampton said the approaches by the provincial Liberals and the federal Liberals are similar in many respects.
"The new approach [in Ontario] is mostly all about discussion. It's not about action," he said. "I think what you see at the federal level with the Martin government, and now what you see at the provincial level with the McGuinty government, it's all about media spin, a public relations exercise. There is not an agenda for action. There is no timetable. There are no specific goals or objectives that have been set out with a timetable to accompany them, with a budget to go along with them. So I don't think much is going to change for Aboriginal people other than more endless dialogue and more repetitive press releases."
The federal trilateral approach is, as the traditional leaders warn, all about the federal government getting out from under its obligations, the NDP leader said.
"It is more downloading, but now it is clear and it's blatant. All you have to do is go to any First Nation in Ontario and look at the health services and look at the educational program. You can see that the federal government is under-funding things like health care on reserve and education for Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal students, notwithstanding that these are treaty rights," he said. "The under-funding is very serious. So the federal government, having done a bad job, is looking for ways and means to download its treaty responsibilities onto the provinces. I think that's what the trilateral exercise is all about."
And, as the traditional leaders have warned, once the province gets control of a program there's no guarantee that it won't be cut, he added. The Rainy River First Nation, located within Hampton's riding, signed a land claim agreement with the province earlier this year. But when the ONAS budget was cut, many of the gains made through that agreement evaporated.
"That's exactly how the chief of that First Nation sees it," Hampton said. "A land claim that's been there for 95 years is finally settled and in the next breath the minister responsible for Native Affairs says, 'That's it. Now we'll cut the Aboriginal economic partnership strategy and make a major cutback to the Aboriginal economic development strategy.' Almost in the same breath."
