Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
December-96 If the door's locked, go in the window
November-96 Media ignores significant Aboriginal rights victory
October-96 We're the alternative
September-96 AFN's direction called into question
August-96 This message cuts both ways
July-96 Spoiling for a fight
June-96 Stage is set for summer standoffsMay-96 See no evil
April-96 The rule of the almighty buck
March-96 Congrats and concerns over the Nisga'a agreementFebruary-96 Striking while the iron is hot
December - 96
In Canadian Aboriginal politics, there has been one constant for a quarter of a century: Native leaders have been demanding a place at the constitutional table and the federal government has been denying it to them. At a meeting in Calgary last month, that recipe for frustration may have changed a bit.
The new ingredient is the provincial premiers. Over the same quarter century, the role of the premiers in Canadian politics has grown immensely. The growth in federal-provincial relations as the centre of power in this country has made an alliance with the provinces a useful tool for getting what you want. And that's exactly what Canada's Aboriginal leaders now have - an alliance with the provinces.
It shouldn't have to be this way. Most of Canada's Aboriginal people are the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government. One would have thought - naively, really - that the federal government would want Canada's Native people to be participants in the political process, but that's not the way it's been. The paternal hand on the Natives' shoulder has been there to firmly hold the Natives in their place.
Which is why there was a need for the alliance forged in Calgary last month. There is a commitment that the premiers and Aboriginal leaders will meet again before the next premiers conference. And there's a feeling that this may be the best way for Aboriginal representation in Canada's constitutional decision-making process. If it can't be written in by a Charlottetown agreement or the like, then to have it put in as much of Canada's law is, by common consent and practice, will be the best option.
Perhaps "getting in bed with the provinces isn't the best strategy for Canada's Native leaders," as Ron Irwin said, but there's a lot in Ralph Klein's response to that. He said, "I think that there are some political realities, even in Ottawa."
With the front door still firmly barred against Aboriginal participation
in government, the political realities determine that Native leaders climb
in through the window.
November - 96
It's surprising that the mainstream media has chosen to ignore George Adams' Supreme Court victory (see page 1), because at no time has Canada's top court ever unanimously declared the permanence of Aboriginal rights.
The oft mentioned Guerin and Sparrow decisions may have described tests for determining Aboriginal rights, but in both cases the court ruled against the Aboriginal participants. In the Adams case, however, Aboriginal people won.
So it is surprising that, while August's Van der Peet decision on Aboriginal fishing rights was worthy of headlines across Canada, there has been hardly a peep about the Adams case. There was a brief mention of it when one of Canada's lawyers tried to describe Mohawks as "immigrants to the colony of Quebec." The fact that this argument was resoundingly trounced by the Supreme Court was never reported.
The implications of the Van der Peet decision were debated on opinion pages from Toronto to Vancouver, as pundits attempted to understand and clarify Canada's obligations to its Aboriginal people. Of course, the gist of the debate was that Aboriginal rights in Canada had been both clarified and narrowed. But the Adams case loudly declares that Aboriginal rights are unanimously recognized by the Supreme Court, and that Canada cannot infringe on those rights.
It is a new day for Aboriginal people across Canada, and yet the mainstream media either have chosen to ignore this story or are unable to comprehend its significance. This information is vital to all of the people of Canada. The Adams decision will affect the relationship Canada has with Métis, Inuit and Indian people, and it should be reported as a story of significance.
Of course, George Adams isn't a million-dollar ball player spitting in an umpire's eye. George Adams is a Mohawk fisherman who stood up for his rights and won. His victory will forever impact Aboriginal relations in Canada.
You heard it hear first, folks.
October - 96
Robbery, assault, prostitution, drug trafficking, murder - it has all the makings of a Quinten Tarrantino movie and is fodder for television's cop shows. But this isn't entertainment. It's the reality of life on the streets for our children.
If you think this is a big-city problem, think again. It is the lifestyle choice of kids on reserves and those who live in Canada's quiet rural communities. It is a scourge that is making fear a burden that young people carry. It is a cancer that will invade your home and do damage to every family member.
Because, like it or not, each and every one of us is affected by the violence, the crime, the social disorder inherent in the street gang mentality. We are the victims.
We will pay for the treatment for those hooked on the drugs that the street gangs sell, for policing services to protect the property that the street gangs want to steal from us or destroy. We will pay for the medical services of those people who get in the way of gang members or to treat the injuries of a little girl beaten up by her john or pimp. We will pay and pay and pay, but in more ways than from the pocketbook.
We need to put our considerable energy into ensuring our children have good reason to reject the gangs.
We must lobby our leaders to protect the children with their policies; to provide for them when deciding their budgets; to make decisions with their futures in mind.
We must provide safe and loving environments for the children. Show them they are important, that their fears and concerns will be taken seriously, that their hopes and dreams and ideas are worth pursuing.
We have to be the ones our children turn to when they are troubled, weak
and lonely. We are their best alternative.
September - 96
Has Ovide Mercredi lost his mind?
Does he truly believe that by jumping on the sovereignty band wagon, he
will breathe life into the Assembly of First Nations, an organization that
continues to lose support and influence every day?
Does he really expect advice for this sovereignty endeavor from Quebec Premier
Lucien Bouchard, who time and time again has proven he is no friend to Indian
nations?
Or is this just one more attempt by a beleaguered leader to leave his mark
on Canadian history? If it is, it is a sorry attempt indeed.
Not only is "sovereignty" an ill-defined buzz word of the '90s,
it is a mirage offered up to the community by leaders who have nothing substantial
or practical to offer. Leaders who want to hide the fact that they have
no concrete plan or direction for the future.
Mercredi will not get away with tugging at the emotional heartstrings of
the people. He would be well-advised to make the best use of his last year
as national chief and devote himself to rebuilding the AFN, analyzing its
mandate, revisiting its reason for being and convincing Canada's Indian
nations to continue to support it.
Mercredi has an obligation, not only to the people, but to the next leader,
to leave the AFN in as good shape as he found it when he was first elected.
At this time, it is not the organization he inherited from George Erasmus
in 1992.
Mercredi has used his position at the helm of the AFN as a regular soap
box in the mainstream media. He's the most recognized Native leader in Canada,
at least to readers of the Globe and Mail and CBC listeners. He needs to
make use of some of that profile now to save the organization he has led
to the abyss.
It comes as no real surprise that Aboriginal people have not been invited
to participate in the First Ministers Conference June 20 and 21. Nor is
it a surprise that Assembly of First Nations Grand Chief Ovide Mercredi
wants a seat at the table there.
It is clear to us, at least, that First Nations people are not represented
in the political power structure at any level. There must be a place created
for them in the process, and it must be a significant one in terms both
of appearance and authority.
Both provincial and federal governments endlessly download or upload responsibilities
onto other levels of government, with First Nations as a pawn in the game.
There are, however, other Aboriginal people, and where they fit in is even
less clear. Metis, non-status and Inuit peoples are shuffled from pillar
to post by non-Aboriginal governments trying to find ways not to give them
service. At the same time, no Aboriginal voice is heard in the corridors
of power. Mercredi's message is clear and correct: That must change.
On the other hand . . .
The Assembly of First Nations does not represent Metis, non-status or Inuit
people. Indeed, the assembly's detractors will say that it doesn't represent
a majority of Canada's First Nations, either. Mercredi's message jumps from
the need for Aboriginal people to be heard, straight to an assumption that
he'll be the one to do the talking, without consideration of who he represents
or what his organization really is.
Is the AFN a government? And, if so, what, who and how does it govern?
Or is it a lobby group? And, if so, why should it have any more say than
any other lobby group representing a million or so people?
Mercredi shifts from side to side of that line, as it suits him. He and
the AFN need to decide what exactly they want to be, and then to become
it.
Out of this whole thing, it is clear to us that there needs to be significant,
real representation of Aboriginal people in the political decision-making
process, not as "observers" but as real participants. That's something
that the federal and provincial governments must address, and soon.
There's something romantic, something that appeals to us about the outsider.
We support the man who stands up against big government, big business, big
religion, for what's right.
Hollywood has made a basket full of underdog movies. We all hope against
hope for the underdog, especially when he's one of ours.
That does not mean, however, that any underdog, that any armed resistance
to the law, is legitimate. Some underdogs are just criminals.
The cause of the so-called "free-men" in Montana, for example,
is not legitimate. They do not identify one issue that is a long-standing
problem; they don't have the support of the local community. They simply
reject the authority of the U.S. federal government to say anything to them
(but they take the feds' money).
These are outsiders and losers. Arming themselves and pretending to be some
kind of outlaw folk heroes appeals to them. It makes them feel important.
Neither do the armed rebels at Waterhen have a legitimate cause. They have
contested - and lost - a number of band elections. They do not have the
support of the community, most of which ran away when they seized power.
When they claim to be poor, hard-done-by, discriminated against victims,
it's time for the community - a community that has had the strength to support
Oka and Wounded Knee - to stand up and say "NO."
Not every Native person behind a barricade has a legitimate reason to be
there. Some of them are simply criminals. They should be dealt with as such,
and they should be dealt with harshly.
And, while it's worthy to support a cause, we have to be careful of what
we support. Each cause must be judged on its own merits and, if possible,
away from the rosy glow of romanticism given to underdogs. Legitimate causes
are damaged by the illegitimate actions of others.
Really oppressed people don't need this kind of ally. Native people with
real problems must say strongly, clearly: "Get off our side!"
Summer approaches and anyone who is a student of Native current affairs
can hear the rumblings beginning to sound. It's going to be another long,
intense summer in Indian Country.
A phone call from a CBC news program to Windspeaker this last month got
us shaking our heads. CBC often picks Windspeaker's collective brain to
short-cut actually researching the issues most affecting Canada's Aboriginal
people.
"Is there going to be more action at Ipperwash?" a representative
of Canada's broadcasting giant asked.
"Has anything changed since last summer?" was our answer. "Has
there been any substantive progress made in resolving the outstanding issues
of the Kettle and Stoney Point First Nation? Has there been an inquiry into
why Dudley George had to die at the hands of a provincial police officer?
Has the political climate changed in any way that would make the people
change their methods of forcing Canada's hand?"
No. So the safe bet is that Aboriginal people are still frustrated at the
generations it's taken to get their issues dealt with and they are not willing
to wait any longer.
Why is Canada constantly shocked at the tactics Native people have had to
embrace in order to make their concerns a priority in this country? Canada's
governments get plenty of warning of the brewing problems, but they regularly
choose to ignore them.
A perfect case in point is the tension that grew in northern Ontario last
summer with the Chippewas of Nawash and the non-Native fishery. Native fishing
boats were sunk, people stabbed and nets vandalized. The Chippewas have
called for help in resolving things before the situation turns ugly. But
this is not warning enough for Canada's bureaucrats. The feds are choosing
to do nothing.
So CBC, here's a scoop. Pack your bags and book your hotel rooms. Owen Sound,
Ont., may be your next Ipperwash - or Penticton, B.C. - or Kahnawake, Que.
- or . . ..
Back a few years ago, some Canadian military personnel serving under
the maple leaf in Somalia beat an African kid so badly that he died. While
he was dying in Canadian hands, the teenager had to endure a steady stream
of racist insults and unspeakable indignities.
After a media storm of hurricane proportions, the Canadian military punished
the lowest ranking man, and ignored the involvement of the higher ups. The
resulting inquiry was a disgrace to a country that had been held internationally
in high regard.
The incident resulted in a zero-tolerance policy on racism. "Officially,"
that is.But just last fall, there they were again, white sheets and hoods
hidden under military camouflage.
Operation "Ex Lunatic Fringe" was a militia exercise at Camp Dundurn
in which the forces took on a Native stand-off. The Native people in the
scenario were pathetic caricatures, and the exercise succeeded in dehumanizing
Native people and undercutting initiatives to build cultural understanding
in the forces.
Paying lip service to tolerance is not enough any more. Internal inquiries
will not make the problems go away. If the Canadian Forces cannot regulate
themselves, then Canadian citizens must to it for them.
The Canadian Forces are there to protect all of us. It's time the leadership
was forced to make more than cosmetic changes. And was forced to face up
to the fact that Canadians don't want a bunch of racists "defending"
us.
Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. The almighty dollar rules. And
where there are enough dollars, there's quite literally nothing else that
matters. The ones that don't matter are Native people and the environment.
Take Voisey Bay (please). There, and at Lac de Gras in the Northwest Territories,
and in dozens of other places across the country, dollar signs glittering
in the eyes of politicians somehow manage to make the most strenuous objections
to a project fade away.
All of a sudden, there is a way to deal with the impacts upon an environment
that has sustained Native people for hundreds of years.
The impacts of heavy equipment, chemicals, thousands of workers, transportation
in, transportation out, etc., will be minimal. Native people will be displaced,
but that will be OK. The socioeconomic effects will be, overall, beneficial.
The environment, which takes years to recover from the building of a road,
will bounce back just fine.
And every company involved, good citizens of the world that they are, will
make sure that everything is hunky-dory at the end. It may seem like that
looking through the plate glass windows from the corporate headquarters
on the 46th floor in New York. It sure doesn't look that way from here.
And it sure doesn't look that way from a lot of other places where these
very same companies have been operating.
Look at Indonesian New Guinea, where the people and the country have been
raped, where the local politicians have been paid off, where local incomes
have gone up minimally, where the ability to supplement income with traditional
subsistence hunting has completely disappeared. Hey, it looks good from
the presidential palace in Djakarta, the capital.
If you think that's bad, there's a mine in Peru, owned by a multi-national,
that has no pollution controls. Absolutely none. Downwind for about 25 km,
no less, nothing grows. Where there was jungle dotted with small landholdings
before, there is rock and, well, more rock. The dirt's been washed away.
People lived in the area - Aboriginal people. They're gone. People still
live downstream - also Aboriginal people. The stuff that wiped out every
living thing upstream is in everything they eat, is in every mouthful of
water they drink. But from the presidential palace in Lima, well, the overall
socioeconomic effects are, of course, beneficial.
These same companies are operating in Canada. We have to ensure that they're
never allowed to operate that way in our country. For our sake, and for
the sake of our kids, and for the sake of our land.
Well, it's about time.
With the signing of the Nisga'a treaty agreement in British Columbia, Aboriginal
Canada has taken a step into the 21st century. After the millennium, we
will see a rush of such treaties, but congratulations are in order to the
Nisga'a now, who have been pushing for this agreement since the 19th century.
Congratulations are also in order for the other parties in the deal: the
governments of British Columbia and Canada. For though they came to the
table generations late, they have managed to weather political storms and
create a document that all three governments could sign. That is no mean
feat.
That's the big picture. The details are such that they cause us considerable
concern.
First of all, what must be remembered is that this is not a treaty. It is
the framework upon which a treaty may be built. Note the word "may."
B.C.'s premier, as well as the province's opportunistic opposition leaders,
have said that the agreement is still to pass through the court of public
opinion. In today's anti-Native climate, that's going to be a rocky road.
There are zealots on all sides sniping at this agreement. The treaty must
"move through the political process." What the agreement eventually
yields remains to be seen.
Looking at what we have here, not at what may be, also concerns us.
In many ways, the Nisga'a have gained the sovereignty over their land in
law that should always have been theirs in practice. In others, however,
they have made of their First Nation a municipality. A grand one, perhaps,
but a municipality, nevertheless.
In gaining the ability to tax people in their Nation, the Nisga'a have allowed
the provincial and federal governments the ability to tax Nisga'a citizens.
The First Nation now has the taxation powers of, say, a town.
In matters of the environment, wildlife protection, health and safety, and
criminal law, the Nisga'a agreement basically recognizes the existence of
"senior governments," as Vaughn Palmer put it in the Vancouver
Sun. Laws passed outside the Nisga'a territory will apply to Nisga'a citizens
or, as we now will see them, to Nisga'a residents.
On the other hand, the Nisga'a gain full power within their borders to deal
with matters of language and culture, employment, public works, transportation,
traffic regulation, land use and marriage, as well as powers of "consultation"
in other areas.
It took nearly 20 years at the table to get that much hammered out. It should
not be dismissed as no achievement at all, by anybody.
If the agreement, which also includes title to land and cash settlements,
works out well for the Nisga'a people, we're all in favor of it.
For them.
Our concerns, outlined above, are for the other 47 bands and councils in
B.C. who are at the treaty table, or approaching it.
Canada and B.C. will try to look at the major concessions by the Nisga'a
- tax status, primacy of Canadian law, lack of guaranteed access to their
essential commercial fishery - as ground taken. The next First Nation up
to bat will have to reclaim it, if they do not want to concede it off the
get-go.
It's always been tough to counter the phrase "Well, they didn't mind.
Why should you?" And we fear that other bands will hear that all too
often.
For now, congratulations to the Nisga'a.
And best of luck to other First Nation treaty negotiators. We fear you're
going to need it.
Rumored cuts to two federal programs involving addictions are having
an effect. Groups country-wide who work against dependency on alcohol, illegal
drugs and tobacco have banded together to work for maintaining federal funding
levels.
The programs that may be on the block when the budget comes down from Finance
minister Paul Martin's office are Canada's Drug Strategy, begun in 1987,
and the Tobacco Demand Reduction Strategy, begun in 1992. While federal
spokespeople have publicly proclaimed the "business as usual"
line, behind the scenes there have been major-league leaks, and all the
leaks are saying the same thing: the programs are in line for the financial
chop.
Instead of the usual wait-till-the-end-and-see strategy followed by others
who rely on public funding, these groups have responded by trying to nip
the cuts in the bud - call it a proactive reaction. So, instead of criticism
after the fact, they are giving Jean Chrétien's Liberals a chance
to avoid the after-the-fact flack.
Led by Maggie Hodgson of the Nechi Institute, a drug and alcohol education
centre in St. Albert, Alta., the self-styled National Coalition in Support
of Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Prevention has mounted an impressive campaign
to get their message across. At the end of January, there will have been
90,000 cards sent to the prime minister asking him to examine his priorities
carefully.
Native people see the problems in mainstream society regarding substance
abuse and addiction magnified in Native communities. At the end of the day,
we have to thank these activists for their efforts. The campaign has been
positive in its approach and a good example of democratic muscle flexing.
But it's not enough to say "Bravo" (although we're sure it will
be appreciated.) Make sure that you have signed and sent one of the cards
to the prime minister.
That, or a letter which tells him that cuts to these programs will seriously
impact Canada's Native communities in the long term. And tell him to take
this opportunity to make sure that doesn't come to pass.
| Windspeaker Home
Page | Top of
This Page | 1997 Editorials
|
| AMMSA Home Page |
[ CFWE-FM | Alberta
Sweetgrass | Saskatchewan Sage | Raven's
Eye | Aboriginal Media Services ]
[ Mission & History | AMMSA
Marketing | Advertising | Merchandise
| Subscriptions | Contest
]
Comments: e-mail: edwind@ammsa.com
