Proposed land act dangerous

Page 4

Natives across Canada are gearing up for yet another fight with Ottawa. This time, however, it may be for their very existence.

The federal government will make it possible for bands to manage their lands as they see fit. That authority includes the "power to grant any right or interest in chartered land."

That means band could rent out land, harvest some resources (not including oil and gas) and set up reserve-based industries without the permission of Indian Affairs.

It also means bands could take out mortgages on properties as a way of financing other business ventures. In Canada's current stagnant economy, generating revenues by opening up reserves to more business opportunities or mortgaging lands might seem like a good idea.

There are about seven bands across the country that think so. The chiefs from Westbank, Musqueam, Siksika and four other First Nations are pushing for the legislation, mostly on the grounds that it will allow them to finance surveys, housing ventures, environmental assessments and other land-related projects faster and easier. At the moment, First Nations must ask for permission from Indian Affairs before they can proceed with any land-related ventures. And when permission is received, many bands say that projects still take a long time because Indian Affairs drags its heels.

The Coalition Against First Nations Genocide formed in B.C. and Alberta is trying to get the word out that Ottawa might not really be considering the interests of Natives with this piece of legislation. It may instead be handing us the rope with which we will hang ourselves.

At first glance, the deal seems almost too good to be true. Bands don't have to opt in and if they do, the charters can be designed any way a First Nation sees fit - financial risk appears to be optional, too.

Even though the "optional" charter deal requires ratification by a majority of a First Nation's members before enactment, there's no guarantee that those members will be consulted. Maverick band chief and councils are not unheard of. Roseau River chief Lawrence Henry's arbitrary expulsion of the Manitoba reserve's tribal police is just one example that proves chiefs do not always do what band members want. There are many more.

And even if a First Nation collectively decides to go with a new land charter, there's still the dangers of mis-management. Chiefs and councils do not hold exclusive rights to business acumen. Despite criticism of Chief Harley Frank's almost $100,000 purchase of buffalos, the council members from the Blood Reserve spent $48,000 on five days of meetings in Calgary in the wake of the buffalo incident.

And there's no guarantee that poor business decisions won't result in disaster. Land charters that permit mortgages will not, for instance, be exempt from the threat of foreclosure should mortgage payments be missed. When similar land charter laws were passed in the United States years ago, bands rushed to mortgage their reservations as a way of raising capital. When the bank came to collect, many of those bands ended up homeless.

Bands with competent councils and reliable business markets could prosper from this legislation as long as the political and business climate remain unchanged. The chances of that, however, are slim. Councils come and go and markets fluctuate.

And while land self-management is a step that all First Nations must take sooner or later in the question for self-government, it's a step best not taken before self-government is a workable reality. In the absence of consistently strong, reliable leadership in the national Native community, land self-management is an invitation to disaster.