Leaders confused over definition of self-government

Page 4

There's a nagging suspicion in Indian country that the men who are leading the crusade to Native self-government don't know what they're doing. And that does not simply apply to federal and provincial officials.

Many Native leaders are in the dark when it comes to defining, outlining and establishing self-government. Ovide Mercredi, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, has trouble defining it. Each of the 600-plus chiefs across Canada have their own definition and what is, and none of them are exactly alike.

There are, however, certain trends beginning to form. Many chiefs are happy with the idea of a municipal-style government. That's the version where the band owns a small amount of land, controls their own infrastructure services, taxes their own people, and relies on the federal government for large, yearly, lump sum transfer payments. Such bands essentially become city governments with little real political autonomy.

Some chiefs have gone to the exact opposite extreme, and are defining self-rule to mean international sovereignty. Their reserves would be huge areas of land, Indian-only lands, which would exist as separate countries within Canada. Such Nations would manage their own resources and would not pay any revenues to Ottawa.

There's no way the federal government would ever allow such a definition to be enacted. It would require them to give up vast tracts of land and resource wealth and create a nightmare bureaucracy. And such First Nations could not last very long in the international arena, anyway. The notion of several hundred autonomous Indian nations within Canada flies in the face of the international economic reality. That dream died with the birth of capitalism two centuries ago. As proof, just look at the dozens of African nations currently at the mercy of the World Bank.

Then there's the view by the moderate First Nations. They want their treaties adhered to and their Aboriginal rights, the right to exist on the land, guaranteed in the Constitution. Entrenching self-government in the Constitution is essential, they say, because it prevents anyone from undermining it in the courts.

In the moderate view, First Nation lands would be Indian land, but still land within Canada. Native governments would co-exist with Ottawa and the provinces, but their treaties would guarantee their land rights under law. And contrary to our history with the whites, Ottawa would still meet its fiduciary obligations in the form of health care, economic development and other transfer payments until such time as we no longer require them.

The moderate approach, however, assumes a lot. It assumes the provinces would be willing to deal with Indian governments controlling large amounts of resource wealth. It assumes Ottawa's willing to establish good treaties and then stick to them. It also assumes competent, fair and honorable First Nations governments.

It's a foregone conclusion that when it comes to Native self-government, Ottawa is in this for itself. Ron Irwin has admitted he doesn't know what the term means. It's reasonable to assume he won't give us everything we ask for.

But that does not mean we need to clutch desperately for whatever we can get. Ottawa's best interest is to divide and conquer. So it's up to our leaders to ensure our future by taking the sensible approach. And that will require them to avoid their typical every-nation-for-itself negotiation approach, form a united front and demand the same, sensible, workable, moderate model.