Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
December - 2001 Good-bye 2001, hello 2002
November - 2001 The law's the law, Stock
November - 2001 A few suggestions to APTN
October - 2001 To our American neighbors
October - 2001 Media turns a blind eye
September - 2001 Referen-dumb in La-la landAugust- 2001 As low as it gets and beyond
July - 2001 Where are you chief?
June - 2001 Remember the people
May - 2001 Are you ready to be consulted?
April - 2001 This treaty is no more?
April - 2001 Accountability is always a good idea
April - 2001 Time to speak up, chief
March - 2001 'Get on board,' ministers warn
February - 2001 Time to think outside the box
January - 2001 Who's in charge at INAC
2000 Editorials 1999 Editorials
1998 Editorials
Another year has come and gone. We've met and interviewed many smart and powerful and wonderful people from all walks of life in and around Indian Country this year, and we've done our best bring them home and introduce them to our best friends-our many loyal readers-and we had a great time doing it.
As the holiday season approaches, it's time once again to relay our very best wishes for peace, happiness, success and prosperity to one and all. This year-given the painful memories we all carry after Sept. 11- it feels just a bit more important than usual that we tell you we wish you and your families all the best in the New Year. For those of you who celebrate Christmas, well, what else can we say? Merry Christmas and peace on earth.
Peace on earth. It's more than just something you read on greeting cards this time around, isn't it? May we all be safe from terror and free to enjoy life and all the wonders of creation for many years to come.
The new year looks quite promising on the political front, if our read on the national chief is any indication. For a guy who has been under fire from so many directions during the last 12 months or more, Matthew Coon Come seemed genuinely jolly when we spoke to him this month and, considering we put this issue to bed in late November, we don't think it was the Christmas spirit. He even joked with us about taking him to task for not making himself available to the Native press as often as we'd like. And he good-naturedly kidded us about the information our network of friendly sources have provided us with this year that have made it pretty hard to keep too many secrets for very long in Ottawa.
We suspect he was feeling so good because he knows some things we don't know. We get the feeling that there will be some unusually good news in the new year when the federal budget comes down.
There's still time for our many sources to help us ferret out just exactly what's coming in the next few months and we know we'll learn more at the AFN confederacy meeting in Ottawa. But we just wanted to pass on our suspicions that there's good news on the way.
Recently we've heard from many kind people who just called or wrote or emailed to say, "Keep up the good work!" That means more to us than you might appreciate. So to all of Windspeaker's readers, friends, sources, clients, . . . heck, even our competitors and those who don't like us much, happy holidays from everyone here at AMMSA-the Aboriginal Multi-Media Society-and all the best in the coming year.Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
November - 2001The law's the law, Stock
Canadian law has a new champion; at least a champion for the Canadian law that protects large multi-nationals from abuse from the federal government.
Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day threw on his satiny cloak of righteous indignation in October, and demanded to know why Health Minister Allan Rock would dare break the patent law of Canada by purchasing the generic (read cheaper) form of Cipro, the drug that fights the Athrax virus, from a company that does not hold the rights to make that drug.
Ah, if he were only so strident when the Liberals go about breaking other Canadian laws, like Sparrow, Delgamuukw, Gladstone, and Guerin.
The last time Canada's Comprehensive Claims Policy was updated was 1987, well before these Supreme Court of Canada decisions that defined aspects of Aboriginal rights. So for the last 15 years, the policy has not conformed to Canadian law. And we know its not because Canada can't update this policy, because it moved heaven and earth, and took only a few months, to update its statutes to address the Supreme Court if Canada decision on same sex relationships.
Remember Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, which was fast-tracked through the legislative process in February 2000? It changed 60 federal statutes, including the Indian Act (without consultation, by the way), to change language that did not allow for same-sex relationships to that of gender-neutral terms as required by the high court ruling. But when it comes to Aboriginal rights, the government drags its feet, plays dumb, or worse, thumbs its nose Canada's rule of law.
So where is Stockwell Day, that avenger of justice that whipped up such a lather in the House of Commons it forced Rock to give Bayer its million-pill deal? We guess some Canadian laws just aren't worth the effort.
Besides, what good could come of knocking some sense into the collective head of the ruling Liberals, forcing them to implement laws to negotiate fair and equitable settlements to Aboriginal rights concerns, when the plan is to break those same laws if the Alliance ever gets to power?
Lightweight Stock's grandstanding in the House last month was not about anything more principled than seeing if this blow will wobble the knees of the Chretien team, and give a little room to the Alliance to get inside and deliver a couple of body shots to a heavyweight that's not even winded from its lengthy stay in the political ring.
Sparrow, Delgamuukw, Gladstone, and Guerin aren't decisions that can be used as a roll of quarters in a glove that can beat the Liberals senseless, which is the only goal of the Canadian Alliance, let's face it.
Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
November - 2001
A few suggestions to APTN
The new world of journalism can be a frightening place for old school reporters, especially those who subscribe to the H.L. Mencken ideal of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.
In an era where corporate monopoly ownership of mass media has become the norm, increasingly, "the comfortable" are the press, print and broadcast combined in this new world called convergence, where cheaper is better and the bottom line dictates the services that are provided.
For those reporters who just want to get the story out no matter whose friends get their noses tweaked if they get caught crossing a line, there is an acid burning away at their stomach lining. They are watching the decay of their profession, where image is favored over substance, and smart and sophisticated is replaced by shiny and slick.
The battle has always been to protect the news from degenerating into entertainment, and never has there been a more alarming call to arms. Yes, more people watch game shows or sports or some other form of harmless diversion than ever read or watch the news, but the temptation to jazz up or dumb down the news just to widen its audience base must be fought.
It's a mistake to think of news as entertainment. News is a public service. It's costly and it's hard work, and it's harder still to be outside of the mainstream, shouting into a windstorm hoping your perspective will be heard. But it's necessary. It's an essential element that contributes monumentally to a free and democratic society.
With that said, it's important to take a look at the state of journalism in Indian Country. Simply put, there's too much bad about it to be doing much of a good in this community.
Band- or tribal council-owned publications are disguised as newspapers to distribute propaganda, where reporters could never dream of exposing any wrong-doing or questionable activities by the politicians who control them. Independent operators, where the real potential lies for providing well-researched, well-written articles from the Native perspective, have only committed to raking in ad revenue.
And now, the board of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network has directed its chief operating officer to get "more bang for the buck" from the news department. The CEO told the staff that there is one particular entertainment show being aired on APTN that has a modest budget and attracts a decent audience and that can generate a decent amount of advertising revenue, which makes it profitable. The news, the board reasons, should be able to match that. But that's not the nature of the news biz, not in the short-term at least.
APTN has the biggest budget of any Native news operation in Canada-probably in the world. The reporters see $2 million a year as barely adequate and, with the cost of television production, it probably is. But if every penny of that $2 million is spent on protecting the rights of Aboriginal people to know what is going on in their world, then it's money well spent.
|
The board should know that with a good news show comes prestige and respect, and that's just as good as money in the bank in the long run. So to get more bang for your buck, don't compromise on dignity and high ideals. If you decide to go with Entertainment Tonight instead of 60 Minutes or fifth estate, you'll pay a price.
We urge the board to be patient, to tolerate small losses in the short term, to keep improving the quality of the news programming and to maintain the commitment to first rate journalism. Your viewers deserve nothing less.
If you do, by and by, your news shows will start to make money and then they'll keep making money for a long, long time.
APTN has an extraordinary role to play in the field of news and current affairs in Indian Country. With commitment, you will become warriors for truth and justice, people of honor, who will improve the quality of the lives of Native people in Canada.
It's why you exist. It's why we exist.Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
October - 2001To our American neighbors
We've discovered this month how hard it is to come to work and do a job we love when our hearts have been broken.
The morning of Sept. 11, 2001 scarred all of us forever. We admire the courage and spirit the American people have shown as they carry on after such a devastating blow. Coping so valiantly with the almost unbearable grief and shock is an heroic act.
We have all been affected by the horrors visited on the victims and their families and not one of us wouldn't jump at the chance to undo the events that caused you so much sorrow, if only we could.
We think of the children who watched the shocking images on television that even we, as adults, found astoundingly horrifying-almost too much to comprehend and deal with. What must those children now be thinking? What fears must haunt their innermost thoughts? What must they think about the world around them?
How could anyone do that to an innocent child?
Don't tell us those children- or any of the people on those planes or in those buildings- had it coming. Nobody deserves that fate. Nobody.
We can't help but return to images of mind-destroying terror. That's a harm that was inflicted on all peoples in all parts of the world that day. Even those who might cheer the actions of the terrorists must think about what it would have been like to choose between burning to death or jumping out of an 80th floor window, what it must have been like to look out the window and see a 757 coming right at you, knowing you'll never see your loved ones again, what it must have been like to selflessly rush to the aid of others only to be crushed under tons of falling concrete and steel-and we hope they shudder and weep with the horror of it as we did. We hope it changes them forever as it has changed us.
If all mankind was to wake up and realize that such brutality is inhuman and devastating to all that makes us human, if we all suddenly realized that violence and hate are a scourge on our species and on our planet and that we'll never truly be civilized until we turn our backs on it forever, if that great good was to come to pass as a result of the attack on America, it might be worth it. For then, the dead would be martyrs to the cause of peace on earth, heroes for all the ages. But if we don't learn those lessons, they remain merely . . . victims.
Every soul alive that day was diminished by the destruction of the World Trade Center and that part of the Pentagon. We all paid a price.
It's one thing to hear about or read about the deaths of people far away. It's another to watch it unfold in your living room. Yes, we'll plead guilty to being less aggrieved about other victims in other places than we should have been. But that won't happen any more. We pledge that and we ask all people who love life to take that pledge with us. Every death due to violence and hate diminishes all of us. We must learn to love life, all life, and hope that in time the pain from the wounds of that horrible day will fade to manageable levels.
Punish the perpetrators, yes. Snuff out the hateful thing that terrorism is, by all means. But no more innocent victims. As everyone in New York City must now know, there's no such thing as "acceptable collateral damage."
Let's show we're better than the hate-mongers and terrorists. Please, in the name of humanity, no more innocent victims.Media turns a blind eye
Publisher's Statement
AMMSA Publications
The Sept. 5 edition of the Globe and Mail went far to define the history of the media's coverage of the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
On the top of page A14 (the editorial section) is the paper's assessment of the Ontario premier's actions related to the death of an unarmed Native protester, Dudley George, at the hands of the provincial police at Ipperwash Provincial Park six years ago (Pressure is Building for an Ipperwash Inquiry). On the bottom of the opposite page is columnist Jeffrey Simpson's assessment of Assembly of First Nations National Chief Matthew Coon Come's remarks at the United Nations anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa (It's Time to Put Down the Guilt Tool).
One page examines the killing of an unarmed Native man by an on-duty Canadian police officer, and Premier Mike Harris' efforts to stonewall any investigation of his role in that unfortunate action. The next page tells Canadians that the cries of institutional racism and charges that authorities stack the deck against marginalized minorities are over-blown.
The juxtaposition of those two pieces overflows with irony.
The death of Dudley George is, in fact, evidence that Native people are subject to the kind of treatment that non-Native people would never be asked to tolerate in Canada.
Canadians can walk a picket line or stage a peaceful protest without fear of being fired upon by police for exercising their right of free expression. Native people can not.
Canadians expect that the establishment should not be allowed to hide behind its closed ranks to protect the people who may be responsible for the police opening fire on unarmed citizens who pose no immediate threat. Native people can have no such expectation, because neither Ontario nor Canada is willing to call a public inquiry into the Dudley George killing.
Shortly after George was killed, Ontario civil servants stormed the legislature and were met with force by security guards. A couple of bruises and a sprain or two later, a full public inquiry was called into the actions of the Queen's Park security personnel. Native people across the country were amazed. Are a few bruised civil servants more important than a dead Indian? Canada's answer is yes.
And because Canadians seem content to go along with this inequity, it reveals an unpleasant truth: there is much more racism in Canadian society than Canadians are willing to admit.
Canada's preferred view of itself is as a progressive land free of racial inequality in the present day, a claim Jeffrey Simpson and so many others have been asserting since the festivities in Durban began.
Canada's image as a progressive, tolerant, liberal democracy is proved, is it not, because it funds groups such as the AFN, such as women's advocacy groups, poverty advocates, etc., to critique Canada's approach to these interests? This would be high moral ground, indeed, if Canada did not squeal with outrage when the critique offered is something that questions its sanctified self-image. Can Canada be all that it claims if it does not, even for one moment, consider the charge?
It is intellectually dishonest to challenge the fact that racism is a problem in this country. Only incredibly determined denial keeps that wolf from the door of the Canadian consciousness.
In Durban, Coon Come said the unspeakable, offending the sensibilities of a citizenry whose eyes aren't willing to see the mountain of evidence before them. Chief Coon Come, vilified in editorials in every paper in this country, has shown us that Canadians can't handle the truth. And Canada's media are not prepared to do their job and look at that as a very important news story.
Not convinced?
Last year the police in Saskatoon were charged with driving a Native man to the outskirts of town and abandoning him in minus 30 degree temperatures. While several Native women where holding a candlelight vigil for other Native men they believed died because of this practice, a female friend of the police officers on trial attacked the women with the worst kind of racist abuse. It was caught live on tape, shown on the evening news that day and then forgotten. No discussion of what was really going on there. No debate about what it said about Canada's relationship with Native people. What we did hear a lot about, however, was hockey goon Marty McSorley's attack on Donald Brashear. We watched it replayed over and over, ad nauseam, on Canada's news networks. But racism in Canada, caught on tape in all its ugliness? The silence was deafening. The difference, of course, is Canadians love their hockey.
Respectfully,
Bert Crowfoot
September - 2001Referen-dumb in La-la land
So, now that they have knocked off the NDP, the governing Liberal Party of British Columbia is going to hold a referendum on Native land claims and treaties and such.
As is always the case with referenda on hot-button political issues, the question will probably be at least as interesting as the results of the vote.
We think it's really interesting that the good people of our Western-most province feel the need to debate these issues. With all the indignant huffing that's going on across this country since Matthew Coon Come dared to suggest it just might be a sign of racism that one race of people occupies all the worst places in all the rankings of social and economic distress in Canada, we know the electorate is primed to provide a thoughtful, informed, dispassionate and fair decision.
We saw the results when Broadcast News conducted their own "call this 800 number for yes, this one for no" referendum on Aug. 27.
"Are Aboriginal people discriminated against in this country?" was the question.
A convincing 59 per cent said 'No.'
Well, that settles it. Someone should tell Premier Gordon Campbell he's off the hook. There's absolutely no need to go through the expense of a vote. A convincing majority of Canadians are convinced the problems are all in Native people's heads-and the majority rules, right?
And it's really great that the B.C. Liberals are going to ask their constituents if they should continue discussing whether they should keep the treaty talks going. How about that? A half-dozen Supreme Court of Canada decisions that have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the practices of colonial times violated even the laws of that era-an era when men of stature (political, church and academic leaders) decided that the majority of the world's human population wasn't really human because they had the wrong faith, skin color or level of industrialization-and B.C. still isn't sure if it should follow the rule of law.
Maybe B.C. should also have a vote on 'thou shalt not kill' or whether you really have to pay your mortgage or whether you should get cancer if you smoke or whether the law of gravity should be repealed.
It's a joke. And the funny thing is, it's starting to look like the Liberals know it but they can't back away without angering their supporters.
Since it looks like Campbell is going to go through with this, maybe Native leaders should follow the James Bay Crees example. The Crees earned the undying love of the federal Liberals in 1995 when they held their own referendum on Quebec separation and told the Parti Quebecois they could leave Canada if they wanted but northern Quebec was staying.
What kind of question could the Indigenous peoples of B.C. come up with for their vote?
Since it appears it's OK to resort to majority rule to justify unlawful behavior in B.C., here's a suggestion. Get every homeless, impoverished Native person in the province to move into Campbell's home and then they can vote to see who stays, they or him? And remember 50 per cent plus one settles it for all time.Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
August- 2001As low as it gets and beyond
When we heard that churches have actually been using a legal strategy at trial in residential school cases that is based on the idea that an Indian's life is worth less than a white person's life, well, what can you say about that?
How about: it's disgusting, it's un-Christian (although some of sexual predator Arthur Plint's victims would say the opposite), it's racist, it's inhuman, it's shameful.
We've sat and listened to the horror stories of many a school victim. We've watched them sob and choke out those memories, and it's changed each of us here forever. You can never wash that off, you know. It stays with you for a long, long time. We can only imagine what it's like for the victims. And then we hear something like this and all we can feel in this newsroom right at this moment is anger and outrage.
Tony Merchant, a man who can smell an opportunity to further his cause a mile away, we'll admit, has nonetheless rarely steered us wrong when we contact him for the latest developments in residential school litigation. He said the churches and the federal government- but mostly the churches, he emphasized- have used and are using this sickening strategy in several cases. All we can say is, for the love of God, take a closer look at what you're doing.
There's no biblical scholars on this publication's payroll but we all absorbed a little bit of the basics of Christian ethics in Sunday school or elsewhere and we're pretty sure that all souls have value to the Creator.
To say that a ruined Indian life deserves a lower rate of compensation because Indian life is worth less, to say that compensation for violent rape should be lessened for these people because the schools were such horrible places that the students forced to attend them had no hope of ever leading normal lives after they "graduated" anyway, goes beyond shameful, it's loathsome.
Where's the morality in that approach? How are you going to explain that one on Judgement Day?
Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
July - 2001
Where are you chief?The Indian Affairs minister gave us his word this month that we would get the answers to some tough questions about the costs involved in the governance act consultation process. That promise was made on a Friday, June 8. We received the answers late on June 13. Some of the numbers we asked for were disclosed; some weren't. But at least we spoke to the minister. All we can tell you about the national chief is that the mail box on his cell phone is full. Not a word all month long.
AFN staffers were on the phone often enough, bending our ear about some big doings about to unfold in Kenora at the Treaty 3 meetings. We were given a number to call up there to ensure we would cover that major development that was about to unfold up in Northern Ontario in the heart of Minister Bob Nault's own riding. We called the number. The man we'd been told to talk to by the national chief's own staff was out at lunch and would call back in 20 minutes or so.
Two days later, we're still waiting. When we called back, we discovered this cell phone's mailbox was also full. So we watched the newswire and called around a bit. But if the chiefs pulled off some major public relations coup in Northern Ontario, they managed to do a pretty good job of keeping it a secret.
Now, while we applaud the courage of our exciting new columnist Jeff Bear and admire his willingness to say what's on his mind, over here in the editorial department we like to keep our distance from people with such controversial opinions. We're telling you that because Mr. Bear wrote his own estimation of the national chief's performance this month and we don't want anyone to think we're jumping on that pile. All we're saying is, when it comes to access for the Native media as the AFN and INAC engage in a pitched battle over control of First Nations governance, the minister is mopping the floor with the national chief.
We could speculate that means something, that the minister is better prepared and working from a solid, effective plan and the national chief has neither of those things going for him, but we think it's too soon to tell.
The AFN is being squeezed financially because of its stand against the consultation process. We know that. The department has more than $10 million at its disposal to fight this war of words while the AFN is worried about making the payroll. Once again, the government is showing no signs of ensuring there's a fair fight or an even playing field. This is war and it would not be constructive for us, of all publications, to whack the national chief for not keeping up.
But we need to talk to you, national chief. We need to get answers from you, especially if we're getting answers from the minister. Otherwise our content becomes woefully one-sided and we certainly don't want that.Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
June - 2001Remember the people
This last month has seen an incredible amount of time, energy and money expended by the government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to spin the story regarding the governance process to reflect their differing individual points of view.
Each side has sacrificed all that time, energy and money (and, on occasion, the truth) to protect their own interests. What we've noticed most of all is that the people-who both sides say they're striving to serve-have either been left out of the equation or used in ways that tend to show that they aren't appreciated or respected as much as the politicians like to claim.
It started on the last day of April on the Siksika First Nation territory, 100 kilometres or so east of Calgary along the Trans-Canada Highway in southern Alberta. High school students were let out of class to sit in the school auditorium while Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault staged his media event to announce the consultations leading to the First Nations governance act would soon begin.
In the days leading up to that morning, the Department of Indian Affairs' communications machine was in high-gear, with staff making extravagant promises to the media that it would be "worth their while" to be there for this "major announcement."
All the national TV networks and representatives of most of the major national print organizations made the trip to Siksika. CBC's Newsworld covered it live. After the minister made his announcement, Newsworld abandoned ship, skipping the First Nations response to the Indian Affairs minister. A short and token press conference was then held for those reporters who still remained interested while the plethora of INAC suits fidgeted nervously and scowled. Mere minutes after it began, the press conference was over and the minister was spirited out of the building. The students, perfect fodder for the cameras and now no longer needed, shuffled back to class, probably wondering why they had been invited in the first place.
It was all too slick.
Flash forward to May 8 on the Squamish First Nation, an urban rez surrounded by the municipalities of North and West Vancouver, located almost directly beneath the northern extremity of the Lion's Gate Bridge connecting those cities with downtown Vancouver. An unusually high number of chiefs made the trip to the left coast for this Confederacy of Nations. They arrived ready to rally their fellow chiefs to take on the minister over the governance act. Strangely enough, the minister didn't make the trip west. AFN staff say he was invited but he told them he couldn't come to British Columbia because the provincial election campaign was in its final week and it wouldn't be seemly for a federal cabinet minister to be in the region. Clearly the chiefs didn't believe that one. One AFN wag asked, with his tongue in his cheek, what happens when there is an election in Ontario? Would the entire federal government move to Manitoba?
But, despite the lack of that invited guest and the money to pay for the chiefs' meeting, the Confederacy carried on. AFN sources say the organization hasn't received a penny from the federal government since April and money's getting tight. It costs about $500,000 to stage one of these gatherings, so the AFN is hoping the funding starts flowing again real soon.
On the first day, the chiefs knocked the governance act around a bit.
Chief Sophie Pierre of British Columbia's St. Mary's First Nation reflected the initial thinking of the chiefs. She said a blanket rejection of the Nault initiative would be a bad move. Several other chiefs agreed. It was on the second day that the move to reject the legislation and boycott the consultation process started to gain momentum.
Chief Pierre, by the way, said something that got us thinking:
"The government is using our own people against us . . . (er) each other," she said.
And there it was. It seemed she corrected herself when it appeared her words could be interpreted as the government using the people against the chiefs. That would be an admission that the people and the chiefs are two separate stakeholders in this struggle and that wouldn't have well served the AFN's "spin."
Throughout the three-day gathering, the chiefs showed they're not above using the same kind of PR tactics the government employed in Alberta.
In a glaring example, former chief Manny Jules said, with a straight face, that no criminal investigation involving a First Nation politician had ever led to a conviction. It could be that he hadn't heard of the Darlene Yellow Old Woman case where the former chief and health director of the Siksika Nation was found guilty, just a few weeks before the Confederacy, of two counts of breaching trust and accepting $323,333 in secret commissions or kickbacks.
Jules' point was, however, that the mainstream press displays a bias towards First Nations leaders, that 97 per cent of First Nations and First Nations organization pass stringent audits with flying colors, year after year. He's right. We know because he was quoting federal government statistics and we've seen that report. It's available, but it wasn't reported in the mainstream press.
There is a stereotype out there that First Nations chiefs are crooks and have carte blanche to pillage the public treasury. Nault is using that- consciously or not, to give him the benefit of the doubt-to drive his fight for the governance act. We say, and we dare anyone to prove otherwise, that First Nations leaders are no better or worse than other politicians in Canada. They're part of the Canadian system and they learned from the masters. For every story about a crooked chief, there's another about a senator or a premier or an MP or MLA or small-town council member (or a prime minister) to balance it out. But there's no doubt the press is rougher on the chiefs.
But so far, in the midst of this high-power, high-level, political struggle, we get the impression the chiefs' pronouncements on the governance act are mainly in support of keeping their own power, influence and prestige, while the government's agenda appears to be to keep the upper hand and control.
The people, meanwhile, want better living conditions, respect for their culture and their history, clean water, good education, health care and a chance to work and earn a good living and raise healthy, happy families. As far as we're concerned, those are the only things that really matter.
It's not our place to say whether the governance act initiative is good or bad, but we can insist that everyone with the power to do so put the people's interests first.
And we'll be watching so we can raise the alarm when that doesn't happen.Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
May - 2001Are you ready to be consulted?
Ready or not, it's coming to a First Nation near you. The minister of Indian Affairs is pushing hard to get the First Nations Governance Act into law by the autumn of 2002. Our coverage this month fills a lot of space, but it only scratches the surface of a tremendously complex issue.
Hundreds, maybe thousands, of questions abound. The AFN spring confederacy in Vancouver in May will be one place where many of those questions will be asked and maybe even answered. There's no doubt in our mind that the minister is going to run into several fundamental objections to the process.
Mr. Nault seems very comfortable with his authority as a minister of the Crown. He knows what he can and can't do. But, in our minds, he doesn't have the authority to deal with the most fundamental question behind this issue-First Nations chiefs demand the respect of a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal Crown. They see themselves as allies or partners of the Crown, not subjects. Nault wants to cram First Nations into a special place within the hierarchy of Canadian authority and our interpretation of his take on things is that the government of Canada will always occupy the top spot on that ladder.
Our sense is that Matthew Coon Come, the national chief, has his own problems with the minister's initiatives. The AFN can't reach the kind of consensus that Nault requires of them because, essentially, the AFN is an organization that represents many, many disparate Indigenous nations working within a foreign system. That's always been the band council system's biggest problem: whether they like it or not, band councils are parts of the federal system.
Coon Come would like to change that. He has lobbied at the international level for nation-states to recognize Indigenous nations as peoples. His words suggest his approach is similar to that of the traditional chiefs who, in many cases, were forced out of power by a federal government that sought to assimilate Native people by displacing their traditional forms of government and replacing them with arms of the Canadian system.
If Coon Come and the other chiefs are struggling to come to grips with Nault's various initiatives, they shouldn't shoulder all of the blame. The struggle shows they're being true to their people by not jumping enthusiastically into the Canadian canoe.
The minister is offering many positive and much-needed gains for Native people. But his criticisms of the troubles faced by the national chief as he tries to grapple with the complexities of the issue reflects a lack of understanding. The minister should show more respect. The damage that has been done over the years by the Crown is not insignificant.
If, as the minister suggests, the chiefs are dragging their feet in order to protect the status quo, the people will have a rare chance during the consultations to make them pay. But we believe it's only partly that.
The situation this initiative has put the chiefs in is a nasty one. They are responsible to all past, present and future generations to protect their people. Their task is onerous and they have a right to go slow and be cautious.
Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
April - 2001This treaty is no more?
We thought, we really, really thought, we could no longer be shocked by the often times farcical nature of the federal government's actions in Indian Country. But that was before we talked to some people involved in the on-going talks about long-term First Nation fishing deals in Atlantic Canada.
Picture this: a scene right out of that silliest of all silly movies, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Minister Herb Dhaliwal arrives in the Maritimes to announce he's searching for that holiest of holy grails, a fishing treaty with the First Nations affected by the Marshall decision. Chief Lawrence Paul responds in a pseudo-French accent: "Tell him we've already got one."
Our point, dear reader, is that Minister Dhaliwal is missing a very, very, very elementary point. The Atlantic First Nations people have a treaty right to fish! And it's a treaty right that comes, not from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but from a) the Supreme Court of Canada, and b) the Constitution of Canada, and most important, c) from their treaty.
Now, for those of you in Ottawa having a hard time following this, let's recap. Where do treaty rights come from? Say it with us. . . from treaties! Very good!
And the Atlantic Indigenous peoples have had this treaty since 1760. When was Canada born? That's right, 1867. And 1760 comes before 1867, doesn't it? So do those above-mentioned Indigenous peoples get their right to fish from Canada? No. So where in God's green Earth does Mr. Dhaliwal get the idea they need his permission to fish?
That's a legitimate question and a very important one. And a very serious question, too, because if the minister can't come up with an answer soon, then we're faced with the possibility of 34 Burnt Churches this year and that's not silly or funny at all. In all likelihood, it will be quite tragic because it's only through sheer luck that nobody was killed on the waters of the Miramichi last year.
Oh and by the way, how is the investigation into the actions of the DFO officers who ran over top of that Burnt Church fishing boat coming? Can we expect anything soon? At least Rodney King got a trial.
Once again we'll say that the Atlantic chiefs are being far more reasonable than anyone has any right to expect them to be. They're prepared to make deals that will ensure peace and stability on the waters and all they're asking is that Ottawa show some respect for their treaty.
Why is that too much to ask?Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
Accountability is always a good idea
We've seen the positions of the Canadian Alliance and the Assembly of First Nations this month as they scrap over accountability measures for First Nations.
Frankly, and we know this isn't going to be a popular sentiment, we think both sides are protesting a bit too much.
If Canadian Alliance members were up on their feet in the House of Commons every day whacking away at the government on issues that are crucial to First Nations people-things like why does it take a court decision to tell INAC and other government ministries they can't unilaterally decide to raid the Roseau River First Nation's trust funds, or why are Aboriginal rights nothing until a court gets around to saying they're something, or why are favorable court rulings on Aboriginal rights cases still nothing long after the high court says they're something-well, then we'd be more inclined to believe that the Alliance's Aboriginal Affairs platform isn't, as Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come put it, "bred by contempt, not by respect for our citizens and the law of the land."
Excuse us if we don't want to be lectured by the likes of Alliance MP Betty Hinton who distinguished herself by calling Chief Art Manuel a traitor because he went to the international scene in disgust after watching Canada and British Columbia completely ignore the Delgamuukw decision for more than two years. That low-brow comment excuses Ms. Hinton from the list of people we take seriously when it comes to discussions of Aboriginal issues. The longer Reed Elley, the Alliance's chief INAC critic, keeps her around as his deputy, the less chance there is that he or his party will have any credibility with anybody who actually wants to approach these issues with an open mind.
But we can't figure out why Matthew Coon Come reacted so angrily to the Alliance motion that public monies allocated to First Nations should be the subject of public scrutiny. If you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?
We've tried to get information out of band councils and we're here to say-even if it gives aid and comfort to the enemy-that band council accountability stinks.
We get almost daily complaints from First Nation members who say they're being screwed by their councils, and most times, we can't prove or disprove it. Reporters covering any town or city council can be more effective than the Native press because they get access to real information-and it's usually provided willingly.
Provincial legislatures and the federal legislature are a different story. The Freedom of Information Act is really a freedom from information act and the promise of whistle-blower protection for civil servants is almost a joke coming from the Liberals.
And the Cabinet, the Prime Minister's Office and the Board of Internal Economy-the places where the real decisions are made in this country-are still about as open and transparent as any banana republic dictator's private slush fund.
So, we welcome the chance to take a look at the First Nation books. We believe it will give us a chance to write factual stories that will shut up the people who, right now, can claim with immunity that First Nation governments are stealing the public's money.
And as for Mr. Coon Come's comment that First Nations get less than their share of public allocation and then get criticized for having their hands out, we believe that. He's said it before (more than two years ago) and we've looked into it and we've got a feeling he's right. But we couldn't do the story because chiefs and councils won't give us a look at their books so we can prove it.Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
Time to speak up, chief
National Chief Matthew Coon Come has become the darling of the mainstream conservative press with comments made at the Assembly of First Nations' health conference in Ottawa in February.
Editorials in both the big nationals have lauded the chief's "courage" for being a voice in the wilderness willing to say that the Native leadership across this land has a problem with alcohol. What has resulted from these "brave" comments though, has been nothing less than nasty. The mainstream has latched on to Coon Come's words like leaches to a warm body, because the comments work to further their agenda, which is to disparage Native leadership and, in the process, any of the work that is being in done in the negotiation of land claims, treaties, resource sharing, or any of the other important business of our nations.
'Canada's Natives drink too much. Just ask the chief. We can't leave important decisions to a leadership that is "corrupt, nepotistic and incompetent,'" using the words of the editorial writers at the National Post who seem to have taken Chief Coon Come's words as license to dispense their particular brand of venom without having to provide any proof.
It's open season on all leaders across the nation, with the chief's blessing, it seems, because what would be courageous is for Coon Come to say, 'Look it, Bub. Stop slagging my people and get off my side, because with friends like you, I sure as hell don't need enemies.'
But he hasn't done that, perhaps because he's enjoying basking in the warm glow of approval, without a care from which direction the sun is shining.
Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
'Get on board,' ministers warn
National Chief Matthew Coon Come reports the Atlantic chiefs are willing to reserve judgement on the recently announced treaty process in Atlantic Canada.
It was revealing, he said, that it took a year-and-a-half for the federal government to come up with a forum for discussing how to react when the Supreme Court says a policy is legally wrong -which is essentially what happened in the Marshall decision.
But even if creating this treaty process was the right thing to do (and we aren't sure of that) there has still been no recognition or explanation for the more than 200 years when Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people were excluded from the various commercial fisheries. They had to pay with their own scarce resources to take the fight through the Canadian court system just to have their treaty right affirmed.
You'd think, considering how poorly the government has treated the Atlantic Indigenous peoples that it would be a little sheepish about flexing the same muscle that backed up the exclusion to the resource that started the legal fight in the first place. But, alas, that's not the case.
Both the Indian Affairs minister and the Fisheries and Oceans minister made a point of saying that more enforcement action awaits Burnt Church and Indian Brook if they don't fall in line with the new process.
"There's not much more we can offer as a government and if people choose to implement their treaty rights unilaterally you will have the kinds of issues that confronted us last year," warned Nault.
"You know, we have a choice. My choice is to spend the money that I've been provided to provide access rather than spending money on enforcement," Dhaliwal chimed in.
We don't hear too much respect for "partners" in those remarks. Not much sign of an even, nation-to-nation playing field, either. Sounds more like Canada arbitrarily setting the rules from the top down-again.
Andrea Bear Nicholas, chair of the Native Studies department at St. Thomas University, has written a widely circulated essay that has one view of what's going on.
"It translates as a need to stay in charge, if only to preserve the status quo," she wrote. "Conservation is not the issue since lobsters are not endangered, nor were they endangered by the Burnt Church fishery. The fact is Burnt Church has its own conservation plan that DFO simply refuses to consider. The real issue is that Canada has been built on the appropriation of Aboriginal lands and resources, and it is not now prepared either to acknowledge this fact or share even a small portion of those lands and resources."
The government will actually spend an amount of money that has been rumored to be in the $500-million range so that Atlantic First Nations can take a $20 million share of a $400-to $500-million fishery.
If the treaty process ends up resembling the B.C. process, then what that money buys, it seems to us, is a chance for Ottawa to keep the upper hand.
Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
February - 2001Time to think outside the box
Since it appears we're never going to see an Aboriginal minister of Indian Affairs, maybe the best we'll ever get is a guy like Bob Nault. Not previously a hard-core Ottawa insider type, he's that most rare of politicians - a non-lawyer with a labor background from a northern riding that includes 51 First Nations. Our sources even tell us Mr. Nault got a lot of help in the last federal election from First Nations chiefs to get him re-elected.
We remember the faxes from his constituency office when Brian Mulroney was PM, when Nault was an Opposition backbencher. Nault was something of an Indian rights activist in those days.
Yet with all of those things in his favor, the best he can offer is more of the same old thing: no talk of sovereignty, but lots of talk about delegated authority with - surprise, surprise - the federal Cabinet at the very top of the pyramid delegating down.
Lest anyone say they've been blind-sided by the announcement of the proposed First Nations governance act, let us remind them that Gordon Shanks and Cal Hegge, a couple of high-ranking DIAND bureaucrats, media-toured the country almost a year ago predicting the minister was keen on the Indian Act overhaul. There was a story about it in Windspeaker. The only real news to come out of Nault's recent announcement is that the idea has now been moved to the front burner.
And that's too bad.
It would have been nice if there'd been an original idea introduced to the fray, instead of one recycled from two ministers ago. Heaven knows, a fresh idea is what is needed.
Bill Wilson and Sen. Len Marchand have new ideas. They're pragmatic, compromise-oriented ideas that look outside the box, as they say. Unfortunately, these new ideas will probably be ignored because they suggest a change in the balance of power-something Mr. Nault is not prepared to consider.
We can only hope that the Throne Speech (scheduled for Jan. 30, five days after this edition goes to press) contains some creative approaches to Aboriginal concerns. We're eagerly looking forward to hearing what Mr. Chretien will propose to make sure he can deliver on his post-election promise to target social problems in Native communities.
During a month when the U.S. State Department decided for the first time to recognize the concept of Indigenous peoples' right to self determination, Canada is serving up the same stale bread.
The U.S coup was achieved by National Chief Matthew Coon Come who persuaded out-going President Bill Clinton to sign an executive memorandum recognizing the Indigenous right. Maybe the national chief can work his magic on the minister when the two meet at the end of January to discuss the consultation process on the governance plan.
A sign that those who hold the levers of power in this country are prepared to bend just a little bit (as the U.S. did) could turn this process from a destined-to-fail, Irwin Indian Act reform, Part II, into something new and exciting. It will be interesting to see if Minister Nault soars or stalls with this initiative.Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP
January -2001
Who's in charge at INAC
An Indian Affairs minister who has been virtually invisible as far as the Native media goes since he was appointed 17 months ago, sat down for a "wide ranging interview" with the Canadian Press (CP) in mid-December to discuss what he sees as his new mandate to replace the Indian Act and change the way First Nations account for their financial actions.
In the weeks before that, Prime Minister Jean Chretien seemed to break the mold he established and maintained from his very first days in power of not commenting on Indian Affairs by saying he planned on addressing social justice issues in Indian Country. Political analysts say Chretien wants to tackle this issue to leave his mark on history, his legacy to rival his mentor Pierre Trudeau's repatriation of the Constitution or Brian Mulroney's NAFTA.
Pundits in Ottawa and elsewhere are speculating on who Minister Robert Nault's replacement will be when the prime minister announces his new cabinet when Parliament resumes on Jan. 29. Not on whether he'll be replaced, mind you, but on who his replacement will be.
National Chief Matthew Coon Come wrote to Chretien, not Nault, to say he's ready to get to work with the prime minister on fixing the problems that have led to the social injustices in Indian Country.
The CP interview was obviously an attempt to counter a Globe and Mail article where the reporter stated as narrative to the story that Nault was generally seen as having been ineffective in the portfolio. Nault seemed to be saying he's been saddled with the job of following through on former minister Jane Stewart's Gathering Strength initiative throughout the first 16 months of his tenure, but now that he's been re-elected, it will be his turn to call the tune.
We have to ask why the Indian Affairs minister turned to the mainstream press to make this announcement and to make his case that he should keep his job? In one way, it makes sense because Nault has frustrated reporters and editors at Native media outlets across the country with his lack of availability ever since he was appointed. Jane Stewart and Ron Irwin, his two most immediate predecessors, were immensely more accessible.
The day after he was appointed, his transition staff assured us that he was anxious to talk to Windspeaker. Months later, his permanent communications staff were surprised when we complained that we still hadn't heard from him. A year ago, at a Liberal Party fundraiser, Nault told a Windspeaker reporter that he would get in touch the next time he was in Alberta, perhaps even do a open line show on our affiliate radio station, CFWE.
Nothing ever materialized and we have to admit we now doubt the sincerity of every person we spoke to in the minister's office, including the minister.
So as much as we have a multitude of questions for Mr. Nault, we'd be satisfied with an answer to just two: Why will you talk to CP and other mainstream news organizations with their mainstream bias and not talk to the Native press? Are you afraid to deal with reporters who work the beat from a Native perspective?
Failure to answer them will be an answer in itself and a sign, we think, that it's time for you to return to the back benches.
Note: Context for this editorial is provided in an article in this edition of Windspeaker
Comments?
TOP