| Participate or Perish! Published in WindSpeaker Canada's National Aboriginal News Source as First Nations Must Have a Presence in Parliament or Perish First Nations and the early French and English settlers are what John Ralston Saul refers to, in his book Reflections of a Siamese Twin, as the three pillars on which Canada was founded. Should any of these pillars fall, Canada, as we know it, is history. These pillars, to use a bad metaphorical mix, must stand alone; each must be able to carry its share of the weight of the nation for Canada to survive. The weakest of these three pillars at this point in our history, in my estimation, is the First Nations’. Unlike the English-Canadian and the French-Canadian pillars (more accurately, the Québec pillar), First Nations don’t have a solid political and bureaucratic structure dedicated to making and keeping them united and strong while protecting their stake in the Canadian Confederation. The bureaucratic entity that is suppose to look after First Nations' interest is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND, also referred to as Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or INAC.) DIAND or INAC, is a department that has long outlived its usefulness. It is widely perceived by aboriginals — and not without some justification (I was a consultant at Indian Affairs for more than five years) — as having its own agenda; an agenda that is contrary to First Nations' long-term interest. Even more important than a supporting and supportive bureaucracy is a strong aboriginal presence in the Canadian Parliament. This is the key to strengthening the First Nation pillar. Having no real voice in Parliament aboriginals must rely on the good-will of non-aboriginal Parliamentarians to make their voices heard, or plead their case behind closed doors in Parliamentary committees whose deliberations seldom get much coverage in the media. Every now and then a deal is reached behind these closed doors where aboriginals are again perceived as getting more than they deserve. The general population, having been left out of the debate, imputes the most outrageous motives when the government grants more power (usually imaginary) or more money (sometimes real) to First Nations. On May 31, 2005 for example, with great fanfare Prime Minister Paul Martin announced that leaders of five National Aboriginal Organizations had met for a Policy Retreat and that the “Assembly of First Nations (AFN), the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the Métis National Council (MNC), the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) and the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) had all signed joint accords with the Government of Canada that will ensure their direct involvement in Aboriginal policy development”. For people who believe that democracy demands that public policy and power sharing issues be discussed in a public forum like Parliament, this deal was perceived by many as just another special arrangement, arrived at in secret between the government and First Nations' organizations and pressure groups. The very next week, the Prime Minister announced that the same concessions granted First Nations in policy development would be extended to municipalities. For large cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver this new policy making role may actually translate into real influence. Large Canadian cities are more than adequately represented in Parliament. First Nations may get a say in policy making but they will continue to have to depend on the charitable works of others in and out Parliament to bargain in good faith on their behalf as good intentions are translated into laws. This can only lead to more unwelcome surprises and more misunderstandings that have the potential to escalate into violent confrontations. At the very least, it will cause further erosion of the trust and good-will that must exist between the three founding nations if the Canada that we know and love is to survive. In my discussions with aboriginals about their future, some said that being well armed (aboriginals don't have to register their firearms) was a better guarantee that First Nation would survive than having aboriginal Members of Parliament. The overwhelming majority, fortunately, are not of that opinion. First Nations can not stand alone. As nations they occupy a territory that is so disperse geographically that most of it could never be economically self-sufficient let alone adequately defended. If First Nations don’t insist on Parliamentary representation based on their numbers they will remain invisible to the ethnic/religious strategic and tactical alliances that will increasingly dominate the work of Parliament. Parliament is also, with the media, where that sense of “a shared history”, which is so important to the survival of a nation, is created. First Nations would be well advised to follow the lead of newcomers to Canada; to protect and promote your interest in a democracy you must participate. I realize that First Nations are constrained by the fact that, leaving their reserves means loosing many benefits guaranteed by treaties. Without these benefits — the fulfillment of written promises made to First Nations for the generous and mostly peaceful transfer of aboriginal lands without which Canada would never have seen the light of day — many aboriginals would be doomed to a pauper’s life on the street, therefore migrating en-masse to a specific areas of the country to achieve a critical voting majority is not realistic. In any event, they should not have to re-locate simply to establish a representative First Nation presence in Canada’s Parliament. Canada could follow the U.S. example. When the United States wanted to bolster black representation in Congress, it created federal electoral districts that contained a majority of black voters. Canada could create new constituencies grouping aboriginal communities by First Nations (bands), or by Tribal Councils or any other arrangements that would be acceptable to all and permit more than the token aboriginal to be elected to Parliament. Is the B.C. referendum of 2002 on Treaty Principles (what the B.C. Attorney General, Geoff Plant, called “a chance for ordinary British Columbians to have a say in the treaty process” and others called a chance to vote your bigotry and ignorance and a way for politicians to get around treaty obligations negotiated in good fate) a harbinger of things to come? If it is, First Nations may find many of the treaties and other paper guarantees worthless. Without a voice in Parliament, not only will they not be able to forestall such initiatives, they may not even be aware of such initiatives until it is too late. In the words of one of the statesman of a New Canada where all treaty obligation have been declared null and void, and native claims to exclusive rights over any territory denied: I feel a tremendous sadness for Canada’s first inhabitants; sadness for the tribes that are no longer with us; sadness because they lost their country, not once but twice; sadness that they now find themselves in a no-mans land, in disputed territories of the new alliances that don’t recognized their ancestral claims; sadness for the many that are being killed in scenes reminiscent of the hunting of the Beothuks; sadness for those who are slowly starving to death. To me, it would be like if my ancestral lands became the property of my enemy. I really feel for them, but they lost their country and it was not because of anything we did. They mostly did it to themselves with a little help from their friends. Tamil Singh, Interviews - My Brother's Keeper. What they did, they did to themselves, with a little help from their friends. They allowed themselves to believe that pieces of paper signed by long dead kings and queens, dead and living Prime Ministers, prominent politicians and high ranking government officials were sufficient protection of their long term interest instead of actively participating in the democracy on whose survival their own survival depended. Bernard Payeur, June 13, 2005
|
