INTERVIEW: Bill McKnight

Page 10

Since Bill McKnight took over as minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, the former Labor minister has maintained as low a profile as he showed in that ministry.

McKnight spent the first month or so as minister being briefed on the issues that

he would have to face at DIA. With these briefings behind him he raised his profile only slightly, meeting with chiefs in Manitoba and visiting the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) annual meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland.

While McKnight didn't develop a high profile at labor, that is not altogether a bad indicator of his ministry, in a government where high profile was often found only in scandal.

According to labor officials., though the man keeps a low profile, he was a remarkably effective minister.

McKnight, though considered to be on the Tory right wing, has a reputation as a negotiator - that's the reasons he received the labor ministry. It would be logical to assume that also the reason he was given the DIA , with all the conferences and negotiations that have to be taken care of before next year's First Ministers Conference.

Also, though McKnight is seen as being on the Conservatives' right wing, he has developed a reputation as being very approachable and sympathetic to Native concerns. McKnight visits the bands in his consistency (Kindersley-Lloydminster in Saskatchewan) at least once each year and while a member of the Opposition usually attempted to help out when ever the bands requested assistance.

While minister of Labor, McKnight and the Native component of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation transferred from his department to DIA. This contrasts with the Nielsen "Buffalo Jump" report which suggested that CMHC take over DIA's housing program. Indeed, while in Cabinet McKnight is reported to have supported Crombie and DIA against Nielsen's hatchet wielding.

In his few comments since becoming minister of Indian and Northern affairs, McKnight has stressed conciliation between the feds, the provinces and Native peoples.

WINDSPEAKER: The Constitution being the most important issue facing Native people today, how do you view the Constitutions, self-government, and transfer of powers?

MCKNIGHT: Well, within the Constitution Act, 1982, there are two sections - 35, which says there are rights - they exist, and then under 37 it says that we are going to have meetings to define those rights and what does it mean in terms of self-government. It's there, it's recognized. I think the meetings are to define what that words is.

It's also something that can't be defined by the federal government because the provinces are partners in signing the Constitution act of 1982 and therefore must have to be part of the process. So whatever can be done from our side, with the Minister of Justice being the lead minister, we're attempting to plan for a productive meeting and it's been a bit difficult, there's been some concerns raised by the AFN of which I'm sure you're aware.

I haven't met Mr. Erasmus - I've met him, but I will be meeting him specifically on the FMC, I have no idea what day, but it's within the next week I would guess. So we're working towards a productive conference but the whole agenda is not able to be controlled by the federal government or the Minister of Justice.

WINDSPEAKER: One of the AFN's... ongoing concerns is the extend of self-government, the only particular (example) to date is fairly low level - the Sechelt agreement.

MCKNIGHT: You may say that it's low level, but it's certainly enthusiastically endorsed by the Indian government of the Sechelt band .. so that again was a decision by band government, to enter into that agreement. It appears to be what is satisfactory and doesn't jeopardize whatever else may follow from the prescribed FMC meetings or what may follow in the future through whatever form.

WINDSPEAKER: So we can continue up and down from there?

MCKNIGHT: I believe so. There are varying degrees of radiness by bands and tribal councils to enter into discussions, and within the resourcing we have to enter into those discussions which are going ahead.

WINDSPEAKER: It would appear that what AFN is looking for is the end of the trusteeship of the Department of Indian Affairs. How would the ministry look at that?

MCKNIGHT: I think that my predecessor has said that he would like to be the last Minister of Indian Affairs. There are certainly times that would have been acceptable to me, but the statement that I would make on top that would be that the trust relationship can only be removed at the wishes of the Indian people - Indian governments - and there are certainly varying degrees of acceptance, from certain areas who want total delivery from the department of all programs to varying degrees so the right of self-government in several forms being put forward. There's a movement, but any of those decisions have to be made in conjunction with the people who have responsibility by signing the Constitution Act of 1982 and that includes the provinces.

WINDSPEAKER: A concern of the Native peoples is sovereignty, in the constitutional sense - not being independent but being on a level with the provinces who can be overruled by the federal government in certain instances but are otherwise free of the interference of the other level. How would you view this?

MCKNIGHT: I've said that when we talk about the varying degrees of self-government from the example of Sechelt on up to that of being a sovereign nation equal to Canada, that last one I don't see as being something the signators to the Constitution Act of 1982 would accept.

WINDSPEAKER: I believe the point is not sovereignty as in sovereign and independent but sovereign as the provinces are at present sovereign, in that they cannot simply be dissolved by the federal government.

MCKNIGHT: When you put in the terms you are, that hasn't been put in the same terms to me. The top end is always asa sovereign nation dealing with another sovereign nation and I have said that I don't believe that is acceptable to the people of Canada, and from there on we'll l discuss everything down the line.

LUBICON LAND CLAIM

WINDSPEAKER: Getting to a specifically Alberta problem, the Lubicon band seems to have been floating in limbo for the last while. For a short time we got an advance on their problem and then it faded off into nowhere.

MCKNIGHT: No, we're not getting ahead. It's something that we're reviewing again, as to the resources, the person/years that have to be assigned to that to try and maintain a flow that doesn't inhibit the establishment of the C-31 people. It has to be done properly and it takes considerable time with most applications to just be sure that they are done properly. The other thing that we're working with, with the bands and with Indian governments is the establishment of membership codes, which I encourage all bands to participate in, and even if they don't participate and establish their membership code, after the '87 deadline they will be established by the department - the membership lists, not the codes - and even after that period of time, bands will have the right to establish their own membership codes and take control of their membership.

WINDSPEAKER: Another thing that was promised at the time of C-31's passing was additional resources, which many Native people took to include lands, to help ease assimilation of these people into the reserve.

MCKNIGHT: With the passage of C-31, there are additional resources put together for the establishment of membership codes, there are commitments made by the predeessor, and by the Government of Canada to housing, but there is nothing included in C-31 for additional lands that may accrue because of C-31. In the housing issue, the additional housing units will be issued to the band. That does not give the C-31 people a priority on that housing. What it does is, as they enter nd become recognized as members, give them a place on the priority list for housing. But they don't jump over existing families on the list.

LOST OIL REVENUES

WINDSPEAKER: There are a number of bands that were funding most of their programs on oil revenues. Realizing that the government is doing something to help the West generally, because it has been so hard hit by oil crunch, are there any programs to help bands adjust to the new situation?

MCKNIGHT: We are, within the department, addressing the concerns of those bands, the oil and gas bands, if you want to define it just as those - that isn't the total definition - to define on a band to band case what we can do. We are assessing and addressing on that band by band case, as they come forward. But, at this time there isn't anything in a policy decision that would reflect a change to all the oil and gas bands.

HUNTING, FISHING RIGHTS

WINDSPEAKER: In the case of hunting and fishing rights, Canada's Native peoples are being given a share of wildlife that they consider less than their due. Is there anything that the ministry will be doing about that?

MCKNIGHT: With the wildlife legislation, those changes (restricting the rights of Native hunters and fishermen) were made prior to 1982 and we are as a department, in Alberta and in other parts of Canada, involved with programs to support the industry of the Indian people. We have some cases, such as the Baker Lake case, that says that may be traditional gathering rights. But it isn't well defined, so at the present time we're working in support of the industry. In the British Columbia examples, some of them are

in court or going to court. We haven't been able, with provincial governments, to change anything that had been previously set by provincial government.

SUPPORT FOR TRAPPERS

WINDSPEAKER: In recent times, the Ontario and Toronto humane societies been seized by animal-rights activists, threatening the livelihood of Native hunters and t