Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
December - 2005 Kashechewan was not news
November - 2005 Getting it right
October - 2005 A reasonable voice
September - 2005 A bit of legal advice
August - 2005 You've been invited
July - 2005 For better or for worse
June - 2005 Nothing more scary than change
May - 2005 Corruption exposed
April - 2005 Transformative change?
March - 2005 Wrap it up
February - 2005 Sweetgrass ban is just plain wrong
January - 2005 Personal versus professional
2004 Editorials2003 Editorials
2000 Editorials
Kashechewan was not news
You will notice that the frenzy that was on display in the national mainstream media in late October and early November is not echoed in the pages of this publication.
Day after day, front-page stories in large circulation dailies were followed by "in depth reports" on the national television news packages: There's a problem with the drinking water on a remote Indian reserve in northern Ontario and the government isn't doing anything about it, we were breathlessly told over and over again. Gee, really?
That might have been news to the residents of the big southern Canadian cities, but believe us, it was not news to any Aboriginal person, especially those who have read Windspeaker over the last dozen or more years.
It was not news to Canada's own commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, Johanne Gélinas, who pointed out on Nov. 17 that Indian Affairs' own research revealed years ago that three-quarters of Indian reserves have concerns about water quality.
And no, this is not an "I told you so" message. What we're saying is simply that the mainstream media-not just the government-needs to do a much better job on Aboriginal issues.
The Kashechewan coverage underlines that point dramatically. That situation at Kash, as it has become affectionately known, was allowed to fester for years. Those who had observed the persistent misery on the reserve had stopped believing that any Canadian government would take action to deal with the Third World-like situation to bring it to a resolution. But once the media grabbed onto the story, things happened, and fast. It was a stirring reminder of the power of the press.
But when you have the power to do good deeds and you use that power selectively, what does that say about you? There's two ways of looking at this. Maybe the news organizations with the big budgets and the resources required to cover the stories in the remote communities of this vast land only occasionally stumble over something that our readership sees as obvious. If that's not true, then these news organizations have known all along what's there but only occasionally decide to do anything about it. The Canadian media look bad either way. Either they're hopelessly out of touch with the reality of day to day living for more than one million Canadians or they don't particularly care about those one million Canadians. Take your pick.
Dear news directors and executive editors: Don't you see that you are part of the problem? If you don't dig into the workings of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and other departments that play a role on reserves, the officials will continue to do the bureaucratic equivalent of sitting on the couch eating bonbons while people get sick and die.
As long as the mainstream press fiddles with other comparatively inconsequential matters, our taxpayer-fed bureaucrats will never have to take the career risk that comes with telling someone higher up the food chain that they need to spend money to address the fallout of generations of neglect on reserve.
If you snooze, Indians lose, media folks.
Take it from us, there are enough compelling stories to be told on the Indian Affairs beat to keep an entire news organization going full time.
Here's what we usually see in city after city as we travel the country. The local paper or electronic media outlet is represented by a junior reporter who is eager to pay his or her dues covering Indian Affairs and then graduate to a more prestigious (and easier) beat as quickly as possible. When that happens, the next new grad starts from scratch all over again. That, as much as anything, is what allows the government to get away with Kashechewan-type abuses for years and years and years.
It wouldn't take much to drastically improve the quality of coverage of Aboriginal issues in the mainstream media. Just a little more of what Justice Minister Irwin Cotler calls the seven "Rs."
Cotler said the under-representation of Indigenous people as lawyers or judges in the justice system and the over-representation of Indigenous people as defendants and convicts can be corrected through recognition, respect, redress, representation, responsiveness, reconciliation and relationships.
If government and media actually embraced that strategy, things would get better in a hurry.
November - 2005Getting it right
We read with great interest the leaked eight-page executive summary of the final report of the Assembly of First Nation (AFN) Renewal Commission, in which profound changes to the way the AFN functions are proposed. (see page 8.)The idea of who represents whom is identified in the report as a most pressing issue and rightly so. Given that the First Ministers' Meeting on Aboriginal issues, arguably one of the most important moments in the history of Crown-Indigenous relations, is fast approaching, the timing of that conclusion really makes us think.
The First Ministers' Meeting will take place at the end of this month at the Grand Okanagan Hotel over two days, commencing on Nov. 24. But before that, from Oct. 31 through to Nov. 2, the chiefs meet in Regina for a special assembly.
Hanging in the air will be the leaked renewal commission report and the idea of representation. That's not a new question for First Nations' people. Our readers are all aware of the historic Crown practice of seeking Indigenous agreement to terms favorable to itself from the legitimate Indigenous leaders and, if that failed, then going to the first person in the band who would sign on the dotted line.
With all due respect to the current leadership of the five national Aboriginal organizations-who have all been duly elected according to the rules of their respective organizations-we see it as the central issue that the legitimacy of Aboriginal political organizations is not yet unquestioned.
Colonialism destroyed or decimated the legitimate traditional Indigenous governments. What serves in their place right now is, at least partly, a government of Canada creation. Each of the five Aboriginal organizations that will be at the FMM has problems in that regard. For example, AFN sources frequently question the legitimacy of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, saying CAP simply declared itself to exist and then claimed to have a mandate from the people it purports to represent.
The AFN itself is acting like a national First Nation government, but its charter says it is merely the national voice of the true First Nation governments-the more than 600 band councils.
Given the chaos created by the colonial process and the imposition of the Indian Act, it's no surprise that there are questions and confusion about who should be the rightful spokesperson for all First Nation-and all Aboriginal-people.
Grassroots voting for national chief is one of the renewal commission's chief recommendations. Many First Nation political workers were aghast when they heard that-or at least confused.
If grassroots people vote for national chief, what role do the chiefs play, they wondered? Isn't the AFN the chiefs' organization?
The AFN's own hand-picked renewal commission believes that only by allowing grassroots people to vote for national chief can the national chief truly claim to have a connection to all First Nations people. How then can the current chiefs-only elected national chief claim to represent all First Nation citizens at the FMM?
We understand the concerns of the chiefs in the areas covered by treaties 1 to 11. They're saying their needs as treaty nations have been neglected as the AFN seeks to find common ground with the federal bureaucrats. People who have been ordered to find ways to close the gap in life chances and address the poverty of Aboriginal people by bringing about transformative change in how programs and services are managed.
AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine has proven to be a master at bringing First Nations and the government closer together and he has produced results on many very difficult files. But he has clearly not completely satisfied the treaty nations. We hear those nations will demand a seat at the table at the FMM.
We think, since Fontaine has proven so capable at bringing disparate groups together and finding ways to forge agreements, that he should welcome their representative to sit beside him.
The national chief himself has often said that protecting treaty rights is a sacred trust.
When dealing with federal and provincial governments that do not appear anxious to uphold the terms of the historic treaties, the national chief could use all the help he can get.
October - 2005A reasonable voice
For more than four years, the parties to the Nunavut agreement have been unable to finalize a contract that would allow Canada's historic achievement-the creation of Nunavut-to carry on for the next 10 years.
The government of Canada (represented at the table by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), the government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the corporation that oversees the regulatory bodies created by the Nunavut agreement, knew they needed help. They looked to one of the most experienced and most widely respected thinkers on Aboriginal law, rights, policy and processes in the country to find a way to get things back on track.
Thomas R. Berger, a member of the Order of Canada and a Queen's Counsel, has delivered his report. (See story on page 8). The question now is how welcome will his recommendations be in the halls of power in Ottawa.
In his report, Berger raised some fundamental issues that lurk in the background of all discussions of Indigenous rights in Canada. He took them on with no fear or favor.
He slammed the negotiators of the Nunavut land claim who put off facing up to-and solving-the most difficult issues by including meaninglessly vague language in agreements. Though they were able to put one in the "completed" file at the time, they only postponed the debate and passed the most difficult of tasks on to others. Berger called that particular spade a spade.
He questioned the very idea of passing legislation that creates a new territory and settles the land claims of the Inuit of the Eastern Arctic while placing all the rules governing funding and authorities in a separate, non-legislated contract. The legislation has the full protection of the Canadian Constitution; the separate contract does not.
To our way of thinking, that particular device is one of those bureaucratic tricks that ensures that the aims of the legislators can be frustrated by the non-elected officials who work behind the scenes and do not have to justify their actions to the voters every few years.
Mr. Berger was off in Europe celebrating his 50th wedding anniversary and was not available to deal with our questions about his report, but we get the sense he was not impressed with the way a lot of the processes have unfolded. Merely bringing attention to these matters should spark a long overdue public debate and analysis that we're pleased to begin here.
Perhaps the most important and controversial item in the report dealt with Berger's recommendation that Canada submit disputes to neutral, third party mediators.
First Nation leaders have been calling for this for generations. Canada has so far resisted the call and has continued to hold onto its favored position on the top perch of the confederation's power structure-Indigenous parties to agreements have never been full and equal partners.
Indigenous sovereigntists have often called for a body outside of the Canadian system that is neutral and non-aligned to referee disputes between the Indigenous people and the descendants of their colonizers. Canada has always resisted (and even ridiculed) the idea as one where they are being asked to surrender their sovereignty. Funny how surrendering Indigenous sovereignty has never been seen as quite so unthinkable in the Canadian system.
This reveals that Canadian government officials will take clearly indefensible positions in disputes if they think they will not to be called to account. Berger says no party should ever be able to act unreasonably, secure in the knowledge they will not be held accountable.
Berger's recommendation that bureaucrats not be allowed to invoke Parliament's prerogative during disputes over clauses in laws that Parliament has itself passed and signed off on, was an example of eminent common sense. Whether the former judge was acutely aware of exactly what he was proposing or not he has recommended that Canada quit playing games and introduce more than a little good faith bargaining to the process.
It's a well-established joke of sorts among those who study political science in Canada that in the United States the people hate the government but in Canada the government hates the people.
There's a heck of a lot of truth tied up in that succinct little axiom. We never had a revolution in this country. We never took up arms against the colonial masters and asserted the sovereignty of the common man as our American neighbor did beginning in 1776. It's still somehow seen as acceptable that non-elected mandarins can maneuver to thwart the intentions of Parliament, the place where those who are elected go to ply their trade.
September - 2005A bit of legal advice
Windspeaker Editorial
Chief John Martin of the Gesgapegiag First Nation, chair of the Mi'gmawei Mawiomi political alliance of Mi'kmaq communities in the Gaspé region of Quebec, was moved to write a letter to the editor of Windspeaker this month that was unfortunately a little too long to print in its entirety.
We say "unfortunately" because Chief Martin's essay was quite informative and, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the Bernard and Marshall cases, very timely and important.
He respectfully approaches the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada with a number of firm, but gentle reminders. He first gives the high court credit for its "leadership role in seeking justice for Aboriginal peoples in Canada" over the past 30 years.
"In many of its decisions it has proven to be far more informed and far more courageous than many of Canada's political leaders," he writes.
We believe he is correct. But, as Chief Martin also points out, there are two different worldviews at play here. We believe-as does the chief-that the Supreme Court has an obligation to fairly, impartially and dispassionately take both of those perspectives into account if true justice is to be attained.
We grant that this is a hugely difficult task for anyone; the job of stripping away the thick and murky veneer of ignorance, racism, self-serving lies and emotionally clouded self-deception that builds up over the decades and centuries and infects the history of a nation is monstrously difficult. Especially in what is all too frequently an "us versus them" environment where the descendants of the colonizers bring unconscious assumptions and biases to the table when they read (or write) the history of the interaction between their ancestors and the Indigenous peoples encountered back in the less enlightened times of the 18th century.
But who else can be trusted with this important task if not the people who have risen to the top of the legal system and have been appointed as justices on the highest court in the land.
It is not the role of the Supreme Court of Canada-the most learned, respected and accomplished jurists of their time-to perpetuate the mistakes of history.
As a Sagamaw (Mi'kmaq chief) Martin says he "amujpa gelusai" (has an obligation to speak, in the Mi'kmaq language).
What he has to say is simple, elegant and obvious to any Indigenous person living in the supposedly post-colonial world. The mainstream, Euro-centric view of history is severely tilted in favor of the relative newcomers to North America. It is not subjective, nor it is gospel. It was written by fallible men and women. No reasonable person would dispute that.
There are no Indigenous people on the Supreme Court of Canada and (though the National Post may prefer it that way) that means that the non-Indigenous jurists should bend over backwards to ensure that the Indigenous worldview gets proper consideration. If they don't, that's tyranny.
Unfortunately, we don't see the court doing that in the recent Maritime region logging decisions handed down in August. We see a court buying into the stereotypical images of naked, disorganized, nomadic savages, stereotypes that the bought-and-paid-for government expert witnesses sought to plant in their learned minds for political reasons.
As Martin points out so very gently and respectfully in his essay, the treaties reached between the British newcomers and the ancient, well-established and well-organized Mi'kmag societies in the early 1700s were peace and friendship treaties, not surrender treaties. They were agreements between sovereign nations. The British needed peace with the Mi'kmaq while they concentrated on their battles with the French. The fact that an unjust and oppressive couple of centuries of colonialism has all but erased the memory of that fact is no reason for the court to not seek the truth. That's the Mi'kmaq point of view. It was presented to the court and it was discounted, if not ignored.
If the Mi'kmaq were simply granted the consideration that their worldview is every bit as legitimate as that of the colonizers, we think the decision would have been different.
And we, along with Chief John Martin, respectfully urge the court to give it another try. Why not a Bernard and Marshall Two? It's happened before.
August - 2005You've been invited
Windspeaker Editorial
It looks like the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) wants grassroots First Nations citizens to attend a special assembly that will be held at an as yet undisclosed location at a date in November or December that has not yet been firmed up.
Phil Fontaine made this announcement during his closing remarks at the AFN annual general meeting in Yellowknife on July 7.
"We will convene a special gathering on [AFN] renewal. It's going to be a constituent assembly. We will call on all the chiefs in this country, together with our citizens, to join us in this special assembly to talk about our organization," he told the chiefs. "How to make our organization more effective, more inclusive, to make it a true national force for change, to make it even more effective than it's been. This is an important gathering. We hear at every one of our assemblies, as at this one, that we can do better, that we can be better organized. And we, in fact, can do better. We, in fact, can be better organized. This special assembly will be designed to make sure that this organization becomes as you want it-an organization that truly belongs to all of our people in all parts of the country."
This heralds a significant change in approach. It wasn't that long ago that former national chief Matthew Coon Come championed the concept of grassroots people voting for national chief only to be quickly jerked back into line by the Atlantic Policy Congress (APC), among others. We saw the letter the APC wrote to Coon Come and we remember the troubles the Atlantic chiefs rained down upon the reform-minded leader and how he backed off very quickly and with a timidity that suggested that this was a very dangerous political issue.
That looked like a sign that the 600-odd chiefs were jealously guarding their private little club.
We get at least a half dozen calls every week from grassroots citizens who feel they have no voice in their own communities, never mind at the AFN. We've heard from grassroots people who were, at first, very excited to learn that the AFN was meeting in the Northwest Territories, but were extremely disappointed that the charge for observers to get in the door was $50. The people who raised this issue with Windspeaker decided not to attend rather than spend the money. In fact, they said they simply didn't have the money.
Every once in a while a grassroots person with a complaint gets credentials and gets into an AFN meeting and causes a ruckus. Chiefs get criticized. The organization gets criticized. People get embarrassed. Security-which is present at every assembly-gets called and people get escorted out. We get the sense that $50 is part of a long-standing strategy to minimize that potential "problem."
But Fontaine is now willing to revive the whole grassroots voting issue. He predicted it will be a central recommendation in the report of the Renewal Commission, a group that travelled around the country collecting feedback and suggestions for AFN renewal and is now working on its report.
All we can say is that there's a lot of pressure on the commission to come up with something substantial in the fall. The AFN leadership has quite a juggling act to do. They must balance the fact that the AFN, as the national chief often says, is not a government, with the fact that it has become a very influential national clearinghouse for ideas and policy discussions.
Right now, Fontaine technically represents about 600 people-the chiefs. If all First Nations people had a role to play in selecting the national chief then that constituency would grow overnight to more than one million people. We suspect that would make a difference in how much clout the organization can wield.
Reforms are needed at all levels. The AFN is voluntarily undertaking reform at its level and that is a good thing. If it is not a cosmetic exercise designed to create the impression that positive change is being made, then the current national chief and executive will deserve our strongest commendations for making a start. Perhaps, if the renewal commission report is worth the $2 million it is costing, it will be the first step leading towards governance reform at the community level as well.
July - 2005For better or for worse
Windspeaker Editorial
The cat's definitely out of the bag now: things are transforming on the national Aboriginal political stage.
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine and Prime Minister Paul Martin, with Indian Affairs Minister Andy Scott close at hand, signed a deal May 31 and-especially in the case of Scott-uttered some words that should mean that things will change dramatically and permanently.
But the "no money yet, wait a little longer" part of the scenario is especially troubling to us and to many veteran observers of the parliamentary scene as well. Media shy, but very knowledgeable Ottawa sources tell us that the prime minister has shelled out close to $30 billion over the last few months to shore up support for his shaky minority government. With $30 billion already committed, we're told the government has no money left after keeping all the promises Martin made to mainstream governments and citizens. Our sources say that's why there was no cash on display after the cabinet retreat with Aboriginal leaders. That's also why residential school survivors were asked to wait another year (or two) before the government follows through on what is, at this point, only a promise of future monetary compensation.
The Indian Affairs minister hinted at-and in some cases outright promised-that significant new money will be "invested" in the many areas where First Nation, Métis and Inuit communities lag sorrowfully behind the Canadian mainstream. (Story on pages 10 and 11.) We'll see if any of that promised future funding will be based on demonstrable need (or better, on recognition of the rights-based entitlement) rather than on how little the government can get away with spending.
When Phil Fontaine gripes privately (as detailed in a memo penned by Quebec regional Vice-chief Ghislain Picard in our story on page 12), but says not a critical word when he and the people whose interests he's expected to represent are told to go wait a little longer, it looks bad.
In the frequently dishonest game of creating political optics, it's always wise to watch what folks are doing with one eye while keeping the other alert for prestidigitation. Too many times in this set of recent pronouncements, government officials used one word when another would have provided more clarity. Minister Scott said Aboriginal groups will now be considered "full partners" of the federal government in policy development. He didn't say "equal" partners and that, to our way of thinking, means simply that the federal government will continue to reserve the ultimate authority for itself-just as before.
As for promises that provincial/federal rivalries can be reined in and the jurisdictional ping pong game that has been used to frustrate First Nation, Métis and Inuit ambitions for all these years will finally come to an end, well, we'll believe it when we see it.
Ditto for the minister's claim that the federal agenda of extinguishment of Aboriginal and treaty rights is now a thing of the past. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been chewed up by lawyers and bureaucrats in Justice, Indian Affairs, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office over the years creating the landscape that exists today. We don't see how a decision reached by the Indian Affairs minister-who is not all that big a fish in the pond-can bring that to a screeching halt.
One note on accountability: since the comments of Minister Scott and the prime minister imply that the federal approach to Indian Affairs up until this point in history has been dead wrong and lamentable, shouldn't somebody apologize? And shouldn't the worst proponents of that approach, many of whom are still working within the federal bureaucracy, be rooted out and sent packing?
There's lots of them out there and the current wisdom is that they messed up large and cost the taxpayers billions and cost Indigenous people inestimable amounts of suffering along the way.
We think that's a crystal clear definition of failure and failure of that proportion in a position with a six-figure salary and an indexed pension would not be rewarded-or tolerated-anywhere else but in government.
Just asking.
June - 2005Nothing more scary than change
Windspeaker Editorial
To slightly twist a remark by Winston Churchill: Governments will always do the right thing, but not before exhausting all other alternatives.
Events in Ottawa and British Columbia this month made us think of that quote.
Confidential documents we obtained show that the B.C. government is starting to make the right noises about doing the right thing and dealing with the reality of Aboriginal rights and title in that province.
Of course, the courts helped enlighten the government enough to send it down this path. The provincial Liberal's record on First Nation issues shows us that bunch would never had made that leap if the courts, with the Haida case especially, and the Taku River and Delgamuukw cases as well, hadn't pushed them towards the cliff they had to jump off to land in exactly the place Native leaders kept telling them was the right place to be.
Now that voters have told them they needed a little more opposition in the legislature-by sharply reducing the size of their majority on May 17 in the provincial election-the Liberals may be a little easier to deal with with the NDP holding their feet to the fire.
We strongly disapproved of the referendum that Premier Gordon Campbell and his government conducted a few years back, and all the insincere talk of reconciliation at the time. We saw the Forest Range Agreements the Campbell government tried to pass off as consultation in as poor a light as the courts did when they slapped that process down this month as well.
And now, suddenly, the B.C. government and bureaucracy have had an epiphany. We'll believe it a year or two after we see it. Sorry, but history tells us we'd be fools to get too giddy about a few enlightened sounding words.
Maybe it is a great thing that the Summit, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and the B.C. AFN are working together and pressuring the government to come to terms on Aboriginal title and access to resources. But we always get nervous when First Nation leaders start acting and talking and looking like mainstream bureaucrats and/or politicians. Real nervous.
Can we maybe get something in writing that these leaders aren't going to just create jobs and wealth for themselves and their friends? And it would be nice to know that they aren't going to commit their people to something permanent without letting the people have a say first. You can't give somebody else's rights away-or at least you shouldn't be able to.
The Assembly of First Nations proposed accord on moving towards real self-government was cunningly constructed to close off all the loopholes that get employed to create false impressions that won't be noticed until it's far too late. You might want to get the people who worked on that agreement to take a look at anything the B.C. government bureaucracy comes up with on consultation and accomodation. Because, and we'll say it again for emphasis, history states quite clearly that First Nations people would be fools to trust any Canadian government official for even a nanosecond.
As for the purported deal for residential school compensation mentioned on Page 11 of this edition-read the above and repeat. The first government attempt to deal with this in 1998 was, as the national chief rather poetically put it, sort of like what the insurance company does when you try to file a claim. Former Indian Affairs minister Jane Stewart's "apology" was less than honest, intentionally designed to create a false impression of government generosity and good faith in the mind's of those who vote (and who don't read doublespeak documents in their spare time).
Once again the courts have forced the people in Ottawa to move towards doing the right thing and once again, they're doing it as a last resort.
So keep an eye on them and don't accept anything at face value. We'd love to just say, "Whoopie," but the feds haven't earned that kind of trust, not by a long shot and it will be one heck of a long time before they have.
If somebody resists doing the right thing until left with no choice whatsoever, DON'T TRUST THEM!
That only makes sense, right?
Comments?
TOP
May - 2005Corruption exposed
Windspeaker Editorial
The ugly face of corruption has been exposed to the country, thanks to the Gomery commission, the inquiry into the sponsorship program run, ostensibly, to raise the profile of Canada in Quebec after the succession referendum of the mid-1990s. Reputations and legacies may soon lie in tatters. There's nothing right or honorable about what we've been hearing and the idea that so many of the principle players in the scandal call or once called themselves "right honorable" now has a bitterly ironic taste to it.
Testimony comes out each day showing clearly that the old boys' club in Ottawa has a sense of contempt for the taxpayers, whose money and efforts make this country function, that would not be out of place in the Palace of Versailles at the time of Marie Antoinette.
People in high places in our federal government have a sense of entitlement that is quite reminiscent of the class system that flourished at that time. They think they're royalty-better than the people who pay the bills. They think they have a right to use other people's money and never be questioned or held to account for their spending. That much is quite clear from the Gomery testimony.
The only positive that comes out of all this is that mainstream Canadians are finally being forced to look at the condescending, self-serving, attitudes that dominate the corridors of power in Ottawa. And Canadians are finally being forced to face the fact that they are, and have been, paying the price for allowing "our betters" to run the country as they see fit, making deals that enrich their friends and leave the poor and the poorly connected out in the cold.
As former political philosopher Adlai Stevenson once said, "You get the government you deserve."
First Nations people have been complaining for generations about the heavy-handed, smugly elitist and patently undemocratic attitudes that shape how decisions are made at the centre of our federal government.
As much as we believe the Liberals need to pay a heavy price for the anti-democratic abuses perpetrated under their watch these last dozen years, we must state that this is not a Liberal problem.
This is a Canadian problem.
Remember Glen Kealey? He sat outside the Parliament building for years screeching at then Progressive Conservative prime minster Brian Mulroney. Kealey refused to play the Ottawa game and grease a few wheels to gain advantage. He succeeded in getting a justice of the peace to accept his private information alleging that he had been asked to kick back money in exchange for a government contract, but then the establishment closed ranks and Kealey was ruined. And the Liberals certainly had nothing to do with the levers of power in Ottawa at that time.
Can this deeply entrenched Canadian problem be solved? Considering that most of the positions of power in this country are filled by people who were appointed by or recommended by one of the many influential people whose name has come up in the inquiry or one of their friends, it would be easy to despair and say "no."
Throwing out one gang of crooks only opens the door for another gang if there is no serious effort at reform.
We mentioned Marie Antoinette earlier. She met her demise under the blade of the guillotine, punished for her indifference to the suffering of the common people. At that moment, the monarchy in France ended and a republic was born under the banner of equality, brotherhood and liberty. We aren't prepared to recommend a people's revolution just yet. But the people's interest and respect for the rule of law has to be reintroduced into the Canadian system and that means true equality must prevail.
There has to be a risk attached to political corruption if things are to change for the better. Vigorously prosecute those who have ventured beyond the boundaries laid out by the Criminal Code. Aggressively explore the boundaries of breach of trust legislation in order to punish severely those who have betrayed their public trust.
It's the only way faith can be restored.
No soft country club time for any convicted white-collar criminals, either. Why should the privileged escape the hells of maximum security that are suffered by the poor when they break the law? That will serve as a stern warning to those who seek to take their place in our political system, no matter what their political stripe.
April - 2005
Transformative change?Windspeaker Editorial
The grumbling is getting louder across the country. It started with the throne speech. It got louder and more noticeable after the federal budget was revealed last month. And it's gaining strength. We're hearing it from most corners of the country and we're pretty sure a lot of people in Ottawa are hearing it too.
Prime Minister Paul Martin raised expectations last April at the Canada/ Aboriginal roundtable. A year later and people are tired of holding their breath, waiting for the "transformative change" that the prime minister said was coming. Unless the transformative change that Martin was talking about meant that things were going to get worse.
Let's tally up:
After program review, the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada budget was cut by more than $200 million. Not a huge chunk in the world of federal departmental funding, we'll give you, but certainly not a step in a direction we'd call progressive.
And residential school survivors will tell you that they don't see things getting any better. Take one look at the money being chewed up by bureaucrats who seem to be under orders to waste more time and money and frustrate the Elders in their search for justice and closure.
And remember that $700 million that was promised to improve health conditions for First Nations during the first minister's meeting last fall? Not a penny has moved down the line and out of Ottawa yet, the Canadian Press reported on March 22.
And the chiefs tell us they're involved in battles on every front at the ground level: fights about health dollars, employment and training funds, education, membership. And now First Nation governments are the only governments in the Canadian constitutional family that are subject to garnishment.
That's a matter we've got to weigh in on. We question chiefs who run up big debts and then hide behind the Indian Act when the time comes to pay. That's corrupt and unethical and it damages the reputation of all chiefs who do pay their bills and follow through on their promises and obligations. We don't know how the case we reported on on page 8 will play out when the big brains get involved at the Supreme Court of Canada level. Maybe the decision is wrong legally; maybe it doesn't show a proper respect for the spirit and intent of the treaties; maybe the chiefs are right who say they have no choice but to run up deficits as they seek to provide basic services to their community members due to stingy government funding formulae.
But spending somebody else's money and then hiding behind the Indian Act is not the answer either. That much we're sure of.
There's lots of grumbling about the surprisingly quick passage of Bill C-20 through Parliament. The senators sure made the appropriate noises that indicated they would provide sober second thought to the bill that was whizzed through the Commons at warp speed. Then, suddenly it was law.
It's strange though that the only transformation that's occurred so far is a leftover from the Chretien era. Somewhere right now, former Indian Affairs minister Bob Nault is smiling. How comfortable are you with that thought?
Shortly after we go press, the chiefs will gather in Vancouver to go over the national chief's plan to work with the federal government and move towards First Nations self government. We're hearing a lot of the grumbling will surface there. Phil Fontaine is going to have to explain why we've all been running so hard all year just to end up in the same place. He staked his political reputation on working closely with the Paul Martin government and he's exposed right now.
There's a lot on the go over the next few months: a couple of special assemblies, the tabling of the AFN renewal report, a cabinet retreat, a first ministers' meeting on Aboriginal issues. If the national chief doesn't bring home something worthwhile at the end of that, he'd better start looking for another job.
And if the prime minister can't deliver something that resembles the vision he put in our heads with all that talk about transformation, he better get ready for serious troubles in Indian Country. You can't raise the hopes of marginalized people then fail to deliver and not expect some kind of repercussions. That's just the way it is.
March - 2005
Wrap it upWindspeaker Editorial
It's time to put an end to one of Canada's most shameful legacies. It's way past time; way, way past time.
And no we're not talking about the alternative dispute resolution process for Indian residential school compensation claims, although history will place that shameful boondoggle high up the list.
We're talking about the Indian residential school policy, the original crime, not the cover up.
In the first phase of the crime spree, children were beaten for speaking their own languages, for having their own culture, all in the name of the assimilation policy of the government. Innocent little kids were terrorized by the men and women of God. Some were left to the nonexistent mercy of pedophiles who found a comfortable, and easy place among them. The children were of a certain race, and to remove that race from the child, the government went to extreme lengths.
The residential school policy was evil, ignorant, and vile. It led to evil, vile and disgusting realities, the latest of which is this most recent phase of the crime spree-government's cynical act of pretending to balance the scales of justice while waiting for the witnesses to die off.
The residential school era was a shameful time in human history with effects that linger into the present moment. The multi-million dollar, premeditated campaign of government to first deny the abuses of those schools, and then refuse justice to the victims, has the potential to exceed the shamefulness of the earlier era.
The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) made that point in front of the standing committee on Aboriginal Affairs which heard testimony in February about the abuse of the victims seeking redress for past wrongs. We commend him, heartily, for it. He made the most important point in all of this and it must be underlined and emphasized: "After all, the very reason the schools were set up in the first place was to destroy our languages, culture and family ties.
Failure to compensate for these wrongs would effectively condone them."
The time for being polite is long past.
For Prime Minster Paul Martin to talk about transformative change and reconciliation while this heinous Alternative Dispute Resolution process unfolds on his watch is sheer hypocrisy. The Canadian Bar Association and other equally distinguished groups have warned him of the immorality of it all.
For Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan to parrot the party line in the face of so much evidence that a travesty of justice is occurring under her nose is appalling.
But the moral issue is only one aspect of this shameful situation. Has anyone in Ottawa bothered to ask how the Office of Indian Residential School Resolution Canada (OIRSRC) can justify spending so many millions in administration while expending so little on doing the job it was created to do, namely compensating victims of a state-run attempt at genocide?
The AFN has documented a case where a claimant received an offer of $800 to settle. The government paid $28,000 in administrative costs in arriving at that piddling amount. The AFN reports that on average the government is spending $7 for every dollar given in settlement in the lower end categories, and $3 for every dollar for the higher end settlements. That can only be described as corrupt.
"This kind of extreme waste, where millions of dollars end up into the pockets of everyone but those who deserve it most, is unconscionable. In terms of waste and human suffering, the gun registry and the sponsorship scandals pale by comparison to this boondoggle," Phil Fontaine told the standing committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
Yet the OIRSRC survived an expenditure review that has so far managed to find $11 billion in bureaucratic fat to trim. One is forced to wonder just how thorough or honest that process really is.
If the government does not take immediate action on this matter, we would urge the national chief and all national Aboriginal leaders to boycott the first ministers meeting scheduled for the fall.
To sit at the table with the same people who would continue to do this to the children who are now our Elders would be a betrayal of the worst kind. This is not a matter to be negotiated.
It's time for strong, decent and decisive action. Any leader who can't provide it should step aside.
February - 2005
Sweetgrass ban is just plain wrongWindspeaker Editorial
Alberta's ban on the burning of Sweetgrass in provincial correctional facilities (see page 9), based on the idea that the smoke poses a health and safety risk, was poorly thought out and will more than likely someday be overturned as a violation of the Constitution.
We hope that the Alberta government doesn't wait for the courts to force this issue.
Some accommodation for the religious practices of First Nation, Métis and Inuit people must be made, not only because accommodation is made for those who practice the religions of the relative newcomers to North America, but because it is a basic Canadian value. Not all Canadians are religious, but the vast majority of Canadians respect people's religious beliefs and their right to hold them, whether they agree with those beliefs or not.
To respect the religious beliefs of every group but Indigenous peoples is discrimination, plain and simple, whether it was intended or not.
Don't get us wrong. There are smokers on staff here who hate the fact that there are fewer and fewer places where they can enjoy a smoke in comfort. But, though they may grumble, deep down in their hearts they know that second-hand smoke creates health problems for others. People shouldn't have to breathe in noxious fumes to accommodate the comfort of smokers. And the smokers get that.
The comments by Guards' Union spokesman Mike Rennick could be seen-will be seen by some-as racism. It did seem callous when he said, "if [practicing your religion] is that important to you, brave the cold."
But, knowing the tradition of antagonism between guards and inmates, we're willing to attribute those comments to a strained relationship instead of to racial hatred. We played a two-week-long game of telephone tag with Mr. Rennick. We got the impression he was not running and not hiding. We just didn't connect. It happens.
But the bottom line is that Health Canada and a policy analyst with a science degree told us there is no research about the effects of Sweetgrass smoke. Health Canada would know, we believe. And all the research material available (and we looked at a lot) says that coumarin, the one potentially dangerous ingredient in Sweetgrass, is only harmful when ingested and even then only after it has gone through a chemical change that turns it into something else.
So it looks like the Guards' Union jumped the gun and made an assumption. We're even willing to concede it was an assumption made for a good and honorable cause, that of protecting the health of provincial employees and the inmate population.
For Mr. Rennick to state bluntly that Sweetgrass smoke is carcinogenic, when the people with PhD after their names who work for Health Canada say there is no data to support that, is evidence that a conclusion was jumped to without much thought. It's unfortunate that casting aside someone's freedom of religion could be done with so little research, but it's not too late to address that mistake and learn from it.
We're happy to see that the Official Opposition in Alberta is willing to look at the matter. But the bottom line is-and even the Liberals will tell you this is true-the Ralph Klein government doesn't really have to pay that much attention to them. King Ralph has a clear mandate and his party occupies most of the seats in the Alberta legislature. Premier Klein has said in the past that he is a friend to First Nations' people. This would be a great opportunity for him to prove it.
All people with spiritual beliefs should be free to practice them as long as their freedom doesn't harm others. And the people with the expertise say there is no evidence that burning Sweetgrass hurts anyone.
We call on the Alberta Union of Public Employees to review the evidence on the health threat posed by burning Sweetgrass. We do so because we're convinced that they will discover there is no evidence directly linking this form of coumarin to any threat to health.
With that threat out of the way, the government of Alberta can resume showing respect for the spiritual beliefs of Indigenous peoples. We think they should and right away.
January - 2005
Personal versus professionalWindspeaker Editorial
Indian Affairs Minister Andy Scott may have pitched Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine into the deep water in regards to Bill C-20, the financial institutions' legislation currently before the Senate for consideration.
Scott told the standing committee on Aboriginal affairs that he had a letter of support for C-20 from the national chief, who chiefs believe is bound by an AFN resolution not to speak in favor of the legislation.
It turned out Scott made a mistake. He didn't have a letter of support from Fontaine. What he had, he said in a letter to the standing committee to correct this error, was Fontaine's personal endorsement of the bill. "National Chief Fontaine has, however, both to me personally and on the public record, expressed his support for the initiative."
Fontaine told Windspeaker the minister was relying on the platform of his last election campaign and in comments made at a chiefs' assembly in Saskatoon where he spoke openly of supporting the hard work of those who wanted financial institutions. Then he told Windspeaker there wasn't actually a resolution on Bill C-20. That's a new bill. The resolution was on Bill C-23, a previous incarnation of the legislation. So, would that make it OK for the chief to give C-20 his thumbs up?
Where do the private views of elected representatives end and their public obligations begin? The question is always a difficult one for a politician. Just look at the discomfort of some in the House of Commons over the upcoming same sex marriage bill. Some of those fine people were sent to Ottawa on the Liberal promise that the impediment to same sex couples wanting to marry will be legislated away. But that professional obligation sticks in the craw of some who are personally opposed to same sex marriage.
Fontaine was publicly chastised by several chiefs at the annual December meeting of chiefs in Ottawa for pushing forward his personal views on C-20. Many questioned Fontaine on whether he's being successful at putting the chiefs' views ahead of his own.
But leave it to a politician to find an escape route to a difficult situation if one is needed. Let's consider this interesting change made to this most recent assembly of chiefs.
In December, the regularly scheduled confederacy of the Assembly of First Nations' chiefs was instead called a special assembly. Regular readers of Windspeaker may recall there has been a great deal of fuss made about voting rights at these meetings. In confederacies, the AFN charter says that each region in the country gets a set number of votes based on population. The AFN has, until very recently, been ignoring this part of its charter and allowing all the chiefs that attend confederacies to vote.
A year ago, British Columbia chiefs showed up in force at a December confederacy held in Ottawa and attempted to force the organization to follow the rules for voting as set out in the charter. The only thing that stopped that plan was a threat of legal action by chiefs (mostly from Ontario) who said not following the rules had become an established custom so they had every reason to expect all the chiefs had the right to vote. They got to vote at that confederacy but were put on notice that from that point on the charter rules stand.
So why change a regularly scheduled confederacy meeting into a special assembly? At a special assembly, all chiefs in attendance can vote. So, what if a new resolution on the financial institutions act had come to the floor of the assembly?
At a confederacy meeting, parties would have been prevented from stacking the deck and flooding the assembly floor with delegates in an attempt to push a resolution through. At a special assembly that strategy was suddenly available and may have been useful to pass a resolution in favor of Bill C-20.
Fontaine said the move to a special assembly was designed to allow all the chiefs to vote while maintaining the integrity of the charter until the AFN renewal committee has a chance to recommend changes to the charter to get rid of all the confusion about voting rights. He said it wasn't an attempt to ignore the chiefs' direction on C-23 and help to pass C-20, a piece of legislation that he personally supports. We'll have to take him at his word.
Comments?
TOP