Native aspirations demand action

Page 6

Guest editorial

The outcome of the First Ministers Conference in Ottawa did not really come as any great surprise. The failure to arrive at an agreement which would see the entrenchment of Native self-government into the Constitution of Canada, had been anticipated and forecast by the media and in political circles for some time.

However, the failure to arrive at an agreement does not necessarily symbolize "gloom and doom." It does not mean the conference was a total failure.

Although the Native position was unable to secure a majority vote, it is not the end of the world. On the contrary. In fact, it may be just as well because any agreement seemed to only be possible if the Native delegates had compromised their original position and that would not have achieved the desired effect for some.

For example, the disgruntled (and rightly so) Prairie Treaty Nations Alliance and the Coalition of First Nations, who did not participate at the talks, are not now in a position where they can point the finger at the Native delegates who were representing Native interests and say, "you guys screwed up."

There has been no compromise and no watered-down version because there has not been any agreement. It is true that a compromise almost came about but almost is not good enough. We are concerned with facts and the one fact is that there was no agreement.

Where Native leaders will take the matter from here remains to be seen. They are now back to square one and must begin the process all over again. They must hit on a plan of attack. This means a return to the drawing boards to analyze their situation and then strategize and implement a new formula for success.

If nothing else, it is crucial that Native leaders do not allow the issue to die. As with anything else, it is the follow-up work which is important to the ultimate attainment of success.

The regular media has been partly to blame for the ignorance of the Canadian public on Native issues. Nor is the educational system above reproach, not to mention the individual need for Canadians at large to become aware.

So long as Native conditions and concerns are not addressed by the media, the public will remain blind on the issues. That bridge must be gapped and it is encumbent upon Native circles to press the media and anyone else they can, into executing its duties in a responsible fashion. The public must be informed, must understand.

To help open the eyes of the public may require a return to the radical politics of the 1960. Going public can be a very effective tool if used properly. To inform the public en masse is no easy task nor is it an impossible one.

Natives have used the media effectively in the past and can do so again. Their ability to articulate themselves was more than apparent at the conference. Now those abilities will have to be reapplied. Public support for Native issues will have to be sought but not by damning the government. Rather, an aware and informed society is central to garnering their support of the Native position.

Continued lobbying and education of the political powers will, likewise, be of importance. Each premier, justice minister and the MLAs, need to be tutored and won over, if they can be won over.

Should all else fail, there is the United Nations and the courts. These institutions of society have acted as arbitrators on Native issues before. There is a very good possibility that they will again and that could very well turn out to be a major embarrassment for Canada.

Meanwhile, it is no time to sit and sulk or to lick one's wounds. One must move forward with the times and heed the call of our children and the call of our future generations who cry out for justice to be done.