CKNW Editorial
for October 31, 2000

Regular listeners will have noted that yesterday my regular from Nanaimo who is of the NDP persuasion was critical of the Alliance’s position on Nisga’a – a perfectly permissable point of view, of course, but perhaps a bit uninformed. As I understood his position he was critical of the Alliance for not representing Nisga’a and other natives and Metis in the House of Commons.

I’ve followed the Reform cum Alliance positions on this subject and think they are honest and defensible.

First off, it is impossible for anyone to represent any group of people in Ottawa or anywhere else, for that matter. Aboriginals, no more than Sikhs, Jews, Chinese and White Anglo-Saxon Anglicans, to mention a few groups, have terrific divisions of opinion within their own groups.

This has been one of the principal problems of all native negotiations, especially but not only Nisga’a. The two governments have decided that this is a white hat/black hat issue and that those who do not agree with Ottawa and Victoria wear the latter.

The Alliance and others have argued that it is wrong to entrench a third level of government and do so through a backdoor amendment to the Constitution. They have agreed enthusiastically with self government but along the lines of a municipal government – the Sechelt model. Others disagree but while both positions can’t be right, they can be and are both decent and honourable.

The Alliance and others argue that the Indian Act should be abolished and that every self governing native government be self sufficient. That doesn’t mean that no native will be entitled to welfare – as Canadians they are entitled to all benefits – nor does it mean that every band is expected to instantly become a flourishing economy. What it does mean is that the native government must be responsible and accountable to all its band members. This is not some political subterfuge to delay settling with natives – not at all. This is something band members across the country are demanding. Many band leaderships will not permit their books to be audited … in some bands only those chosen few get land allocations and financing for homes … or post secondary education help for their children.

It’s not surprising that this has happened when you look how the Indian Act has been administered. Indian Agents have almost always wanted to know with whom they’re dealing on reserves and the result was, in many cases, a hereditary oligarchy perpetuated by Indian Act policy. We are asked by governments not to concern ourselves with this because that patronizes natives. That simply isn’t so – I have done a number of shows with natives, especially women, who not only confirm the evils I’ve outline but have protested that if the government makes settlement deals and walks away the result will be gross unfairness to the rank and file. It’s no accident that so many of the off reserve Nisga’a didn’t vote on the referendum on the deal … they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they voted for it, they perpetuated the system in place. If they voted against it, there might not be a settlement.

There’s a reason why on the Charlottetown Accord Natives rejected aboriginal self-government. They saw this not as liberating but perpetuation of the status quo.

The last point is really a sub heading of the previous one. The Alliance has demanded that democratic governments be in place after settlements. This is more than just the trappings of democracy – it means again that actual control must rest with the rank and file.

Let’s take the complaints of a number of women involved with a large local band. They allege that referenda and elections are a foregone conclusion because control of band moneys rests in a few traditional hands and that elections are, in a very real sense, bought off by influence and subtle intimidation.

Let me pause here to observe that I make no charges here. I am not a native and have no experience in running a band government. I am simply expressing what a great many natives have told me … and views stated publicly on this show.

The alternative to the Alliance policy is, surely, to simply sign the deal, pay the money and hope that those with whom you’ve been dealing are genuine democrats who want to see political power spread evenly and economic power spread fairly. It is a great tragedy that there has been no debate on these issues. There has been no debate because native leadership has resisted it, naturally, and government negotiators didn’t want to deal with this thorny issue. That has been the BC NDP’s policy – that has been the Ottawa Liberal’s policy.

No one will pay a dearer price for this folly, down the road, than the natives whom this policy was intended to reward.