In Attawapiskat last December, Carolyn Bennett presents Chief Theresa Spence with donated winter clothing items collected at her St. Paul's constituency office in Toronto.
As I listened to the opening speeches at yesterday’s Crown-First Nations Gathering, it was clear that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo had a radically different view about the way forward. On how to move beyond the colonial and paternalistic Indian Act – the key barrier to the economic, human and social development of First Nations for the past 136 years – the imagery was evocative.
Prime Minister Harper called the Indian Act a tree with deep roots, and that “blowing up the stump would leave a big hole.” For Atleo, the Indian Act was like a boulder: “Like a rock that sits in the middle of the road, a boulder that locks the path of collaboration, remains the Indian Act – along with the age-old structures and policies that administer it and steadfastly resist change.”
The Prime Minister has never shared the sense of urgency of First Nations leaders who looked to the meeting for transformative change. With too many First Nations languishing under paternalistic legislation and policies that perpetuate poverty, illiteracy, sickness and lack of economic opportunities, the Prime Minister’s “incremental” approach simply isn’t appropriate. As Shawn Atleo has made his mantra, it’s time to smash the status quo.
The outcomes of yesterday’s meeting speak not only to a lack of urgency, but also a refusal on the part of the Prime Minister to tackle the interrelated problems confronting First Nations in a comprehensive way. The decision to establish working groups on issues that have already been studied to exhaustion by Parliamentary committees, independent panels and First Nations themselves, falls short of the mark.
What was missing from yesterday’s agenda spoke loudly too. Chiefs from all regions asked for resource revenue sharing to become an important component of a new relationship; the government refused. Many female chiefs told me that violence against Aboriginal women and girls – which has been marginalized in Parliament by Conservative MPs – needed far more attention. And from others, there were calls for sweeping reform of the government’s housing policy.
The government’s insistence on unilateral action over meaningful consultation and cooperation, the failure to discuss issues like resource sharing, violence against Aboriginal women and housing, and the refusal to put forward a meaningful process to replace the Indian Act, have dampened the hopes for a reset in the relationship between the Crown and First Nations.
I will be looking to the upcoming budget to see whether even the status quo is maintained. The government’s refusal to commit to protecting essential social transfers to First Nations is a worrying sign. With discriminatory underfunding in education, child welfare, healthcare and housing, now is the time for more investment in the potential of First Nations youth, not less.
Expectations for the Crown-First Nations Gathering were exceedingly low. After the Gathering, it is hard to see how much has changed.
- Carolyn Bennett
Aboriginal Affairs Critic
Joan Richard, while I feel the same stress over the plight of First Nations, I have different conclusions.
First, sure Harper may not have meant well, but I doubt he meant evil either, he may see the solutions as different. But also note that for the history of Canada, the LPC was in power more then the conservatives by a fair margin. None of the solutions tried so far have been to any real effect, the Indian act has not performed well. We need changes, but it is FN that should put forward a unified front with concrete changes, that parliament should have a free vote on, this is not a political issue that should be decided along party lines.
On education, FN often have an easier time getting post secondary education that the rest of us, and many small towns and settlements, not FN have an equally hard time with good basic education, all that you say applies to all of us not just one community. Sure remote areas have a hard time attracting good educators, and the numbers make it expensive for these areas. I often chose to live in remote areas, and my children did home schooling, it was available, I believe a better education, and although my children did not have the social contact all the time, they also did not have all the peer pressures and drug pushing either. They all fit well into society and never had a problem, so good schooling is available and one chooses the schooling that fits with where and how they live.
Some FN have noted the problems and created a new society that is independent, taxes its own and take care of its own. They also still fight for their territories and receive benefits, but they do not rely on them and expect them to supply all they want. FN have all the opportunities that all the rest of us have, they do not have to stay where they are, and they can keep their culture wherever they go, but some are shunned when they leave the reserves, and they are saddened by it. The new reserves keep their ambitious ones, build very successful businesses and communities and also meld the new world with the old one. The Indian act has made this difficult, but it is doable.
True, in all enterprises, some succeed and some fail, but usually when one fails, it is ones own money that is lost. With all government sponsored business set ups, if the persons doing the project has no risk involved then he quits more easily, and takes his income and walks away. I have seen 3 FN projects where the money was wasted, ill spent, and then the project shut down when no more money was forthcoming. I also know a couple of logging companies owned by individual FN persons who are doing well, competing in the open market, although sometimes they do get allotted timber supply that the rest of us must bid on, but that is the way it should be. One should also note that they do not have to pay income tax, HST, fuel tax, etc etc, so they do also have an advantage. The rest of us who pay tax, provide the roads and infrastructure that helps them in and out of business.
As for reserve communities wanting more money because of hardships on the reserves, where due, we should find solutions, not simple sending more money. After all if I was the leader of such a town and truly believed I was under funded, I would welcome an audit of my books, to justify my claims and to accelerate the funding I needed for my people. When they hide their numbers something is wrong, what is so secretive about the economics of my public business.
When I am unemployed, my roof is leaking and my basement full of sewage, I would fix my roof, if it was with plastic and chewing gum only, I would clean my basement with water I had to carry it 2 miles every day until I lived in a healthy home. I would fix my house before I owned a TV, internet, computers, and ???.
Many problems can be laid at the feet of poor management by our governments, and lack of action, but more can be laid at the feet of a people who may rightly say we thought we were promised all these things, but who do little to help themselves. I know one couple, a common example, who earn well in excess 100,000 and live in a native community, so pay no taxation anywhere to speak of, and yet their house need serious repair, and the await the band to fix it for them. They risk their children getting hurt on rotten deck boards, because we owe them.
The problems are way more complex then some more funding for education and homes. Some communities are just not viable by modern ways, they were viable living off the land, not owning new larger homes, new cars and trucks, snow machines and ATVs, TV, computer and internet. They do not need to change their culture, just where they practice it, if they want to live a modern life style. Mines must be owned and operated by FN. Mines now placate a few to create a few temporary jobs, and then walk away. But where they are no mines the communities have no sense of purpose any more, the old ways are forgotten and the new ones not adapted to, and the people will not leave. In the old ways, everyone had to work and had a job to do, in the new world there is no work to do, and nothing to be proud of, except for memories of the elders. They are not creating new memories to be proud of.
First Nations have to solve many of their own problems, like some have done very successfully, and many have to accept that what they want and what is possible do not coincide. We have to support that effort, but not by creating ever bigger slums with ever increasing poverty. We have to be accountable, but so do FN and their leaders.
What I noted during the one-day meeting, was the level of paternalism displayed by Harper. Sean Atleo stated that the Indian Act is an outdated concept but Harper condescendingly announced that he had no plans to get rid of it. That says to me that his meeting with the Chiefs was merely a photo op, a chance to show he cares (NOT), and that his mind was already made up before listening to Atleo and others. I thought it was supposed to be a sharing of ideas and plans to find solutions to this long-standing abomination, but instead, as usual, Harper has his own agenda. Our First Nations children should be our greatest resource and hope for our future. What they need is a chance for a good education, adequate housing, health care in order that they can reach their potential and become the valued contributors to our country. If we don’t address those issues now, Aboriginal youth will take another route and we will not lose only their contribution but their lives. Come on Liberal Party. Let’s make a promise to ensure that especially education is available to all children close to home so that they can become the leaders of their people. Self-government should be the goal and it can only come if they are given the respect, authority, responsibility and accountability for that privilege. If they make mistakes, they will be no different from any other government. Aboriginal people need education in order to be able to hold their leaders accountable and in order to break the chain of dependence. They did not choose this role and it may take as long to turn things around as it has taken to create the mess.
To me this article is poorly thought out, smells of poitical engineering, with not a real idea of the how and why of many native issues.
If it was any one reading this, would you have a tv, internet, cell phone, and not fix your roof to keep the mold out, and leave your basemnet full of sewage, when you did not even have a job. With no work I would haul water a mile of more to clean my basement.
If you were managing a business, and complained about not enough funding, would you refuse to have the people who fund you a chance to examine your books, insult or not, your people would come first, and if they do not why are you the manager of their money. Why are they keeping you.
Many natives think differently, they will not fix the house they live in, because the band, ie us, should fix it for them, they would prefer to live in filth and disease, the video showed us that much.
You left a comment
http://www.theglobeandmail.com…
This guy isn’t happy.
” First Nations with high-performing governance systems.”
What does this actually mean?
” Ottawa will provide multi-year funding, but only to reserve communities that meet proper standards of governance.
At his closing news conference, Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan said the model for the new arrangements will be an existing process under which some 55 First Nations have taken on full control of their own land management—after satisfying the federal government that they had sufficient administrative capacity.”
Are you so sure that this definition is as clear and lacking in attached idealogical strings as it appears to be?
Any chance you might do something in depth on this existing process JG? It sounds promising but i remain skeptical of this govts real endgame for FN’s ” proper” governance and even more so so why FNs that meet those standards can’t immediately opt out of the indian act.
Ms Bennett, i left this comment at Geddes’ blog over at macleans[ hope it's not too confusing]. Among other things it addresses the joint press release at the end of the Crown/FN’s conference. There was a proposal to offer full control of their land to FNs that meet the govt’s metric of proper governance. Could you address this?
As i said to Mr Geddes i’m not confident this will come without idealogical strings and conditions that may well amount to some attempt to sneak in a fee simple model not in FN’s best interests, or limit the scope of Aboriginal title short of self governance.
I’m afaid i have to say no govt, liberal or otherwise, has been willing to deal with the issue of the indian act honestly up to now, presumably due to pressure, from among others, provincial govts that do not like the idea of losing control and really sharing resource wealth as the treaties stimpulate, or acknowledging title that SCoC rulings have upheld with reference to section 35 of the constitution.
I’m glad to read in the clear and unambiguous tone of your post that you feel this needs to change. Canada should not merely honour the letter of the law but its spirit by entering into mutally beneficial patnership once again with the First peoples of this country.