CKNW Editorial
for December 11, 2001

First off, an erratum … yesterday I said that the Liberals Indian referendum would cost $19 million … I was mistaken … it is projected at $9 million. My apologies.

It seems as if the federal government has noticed that it costs 7 billion per year to look after their reluctant wards, the native people of the country. Were that this was all that was involved … God only knows what the entire Indian industry costs when you bring in other ministries such as Health and count up the cost to natives for land claims which are now borrowed sums but which you can bet your sweet bippy will be picked up by taxpayers.

As I talk this morning I will deal in generalities. Please note well that there will be exceptions.

While the federal government is noticing things they could start noticing some basics.

First off, rare indeed is the Indian reserve that, of itself, can be a viable economic unit. Some, like Musqueam, were able to put their lands to use for homes and a golf course (although that’s a story for another day) but the vast majority of reserves simply are not big enough or well enough endowed to support the population. Some populations are too small as well.

Now, one would have thought that what I just said was self-evident but it isn’t. Governments have been blathering about how natives would stop getting grants, would be full taxpayers and stuff and nonsense like that. They won’t unless there is a sea change in attitude by the governments and Native leadership. This is the great conundrum facing aboriginal peoples elsewhere, especially in Australia and New Zealand.

Natives cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, have a lifestyle pre European arrival and at the same time participate fully in a prosperous 21^st century European society.

I hate the word assimilation – it evokes the wrong image, namely that there will be such an intermarrying take place that the aboriginal culture will vanish. I would not want that to happen. But there must be integration. There must be mobility for natives to move into the non native world. For that mobility there must be incentives, some of which must come from the government on a graduated basis. Much of it, however, must come from natives themselves and their leadership. If nothing else, moving off the reservation to work, live, and get educated should not constitute a disincentive. The native leadership should not treat those who wish to move away as apples, red on the outside, white on the inside.

When you think about it, this is a tall order, for those who don’t wish to branch out will resent those who have done so and succeeded. They will say, why should those people who didn’t stay with us and suffer be given privileges. This conundry=um must be faced and dealth with and that requires so much debate and decision making by natives, that they must get on with it. But here comes the third problem and perhaps the biggest obstacle to native peoples. Leadership.

Such self administration as has been, from to time, permitted by Ottawa over the years, has been that which made the Indian Agent’s job easier. It has led to the situation where native groups all across the country are claiming that the chiefs who say they speak for them, don't … that they are often oligarchies who by use of money and power have become oligarchies. Think about that for a moment -–if these rank and file are right, much if not all negotiating by government is being done with non representative leadership.

There is a reason Matthew Coon Come and other Native leaders don’t want Mr Nault, the federal minister, to listen to the rank and file. They accuse Mr Nault of going over their heads which is precisely what he is doing. They don’t like that because they’re not confident that, given free intervention by their rank and file, they would survive politically.

Nothing is more illustrative of this point than the Nisga’a treaty. A referendum was held amongst Nisga’a that was not only surprisingly, to us, close but was noteworthy for the number of abstentions. The governments and Nisga’a leadership don’t want the public to understand why, because the answer is very inconvenient – especially if it is extrapolated across the country.

The issue facing many Nisga’a was this – do we support this deal which perpetuates a system of governance which we reject or do we vote against it and risk getting no deal at all?

There is no getting away from it. The rank and file native must decide how he is going to be governed. The chiefs claim everyone wants to be governed in the traditional way which is a bit like saying that Canadians generally would like to be governed by the ways of Elizabeth I. But what makes us most suspicious about the chiefs position, apart from it being self serving as hell, is that if natives are happy with the status quo they will surely endorse it.

If there is one thing white society has been able to do it’s to throw up poets to sing the song of traditional native ways. The "noble savage" of the 18^th century is now the "Noble" citizen of a first nation who desperately wants to be governed in the traditional way which, by an amazing coincidence, just happens to be the way the chief and council would like it.

No one is talking about cramming a white man’s system down reluctant native throats. Democracy is not just a white man’s notion – it is part of the evolution of man generally.

The federal government is going to have to find a way to canvas native reserves across the country and come up with a government form that is satisfactory to most and containing within it the ability for change if it needs it.

It’s all ass backwards, of course. The things I’ve been talking about ought to have been attended to long ago; a condition precedent to negotiations and not left to be a horrific legacy.

There is a reason the Chiefs don’t like Mr Nault talking to the rank and file – they feel threatened. And that, itself, is sufficient reason for Mr Nault to continue down the road of consultation.