WILL SELF-GOVERNMENT HELP NATIVE COMMUNITIES? WILL IT STRENGTHEN CANADIAN SOCIETY?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In November of 1994, when I was accidentally exposed to the work of Marquise Dupéré, a then Canadian student in Aboriginal studies, I did not know that the journey will one day lead me to Canadian Studies with a special interest to Aboriginal Studies. It all started with Dupéré asking me if I was interested to translate some of her paper from English to French. In my opinion, Dupéré has shown a very frank and effective approach to comprehending Aboriginal culture when she asked her audience at the beginning of any seminars she held to not consider the unknown as peculiar or bizarre but as something that is just different to what surrounds a specific environment to which one is used to. Until this day, I am very thankful to Dupéré who had trusted my ability not only to interpret English language into French language but especially the ability (that I did not truly know I had) to comprehend Aboriginal realities.

In my mind, it was and it is very clear that the Aboriginal issues are universal, not that I take pride in these issues to be that way, as I wish colonization never happened anywhere on earth to Aboriginal peoples or to anyone for that matter; therefore it is important to look at the issues beyond the Canadian borders. I am however aware of the specificities of the issues that are between the Canadian system of government and the Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Nonetheless, in my mind, it is very clear that wherever colonization has occurred when there were already native peoples on the land, there is a secular issue between the colonization system in question and the native peoples of the land that had been colonized. Learning from others’ experience can be truly beneficial and rewarding than otherwise.

It is of uppermost importance to mention right at the outset of this paper that the primary approach is drawing from an oral tradition. This primary approach I refer to here and throughout this paper is described in Andriamanjato’s book Le Tsiny et le Tody dans la pensée malagasy. So far, my journey into exploring the world of Aboriginal peoples has been very exciting, eye opening and rewarding indeed from both personal and professional basis; and that is despite the joyful increase in workload of having to do readings, research, attend group discussions and write essays exactly 26 years after I left school and less than ten years from my own retirement.

Special acknowledgements to all individuals at the Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) Program of the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch (FNIHB) who have given me the courage to get myself head first into this going back to school journey. This was in 2002, to say the least, after a tumultuous trip to Madagascar.

A very special acknowledgement to Dr. Cooney, Dr. Wortman, Paul Glover and Chief Whiteduck of Maniwaki who contributed to this paper by providing me with an interview despite their busy schedules.

A very special thank you to professor Stephen Azzi and Sarah Kligman, his teacher assistant, who found the convincing way to make me finish this paper in time from just one e-mail.

Thanks a bucket also to all students in Sarah Kligman’s group discussion most of whom, I have to say, are my daughters’ age. They all have the decency of not making me feel like an old jack ass.

I should not forget to extend my appreciations to Craig Gaston, a friend of mine who passed away recently, who has gracefully accepted to give my paper a look from another pair of eyes. I have to admit this paper is written in my third language.

WILL SELF-GOVERNMENT HELP NATIVE COMMUNITIES? WILL IT STRENGTHEN CANADIAN SOCIETY??

When I chose the topic on Aboriginal issues my point was that perhaps from my own cultural background as Aboriginal people of Madagascar I am in a privileged position to capture the issues and essence of Aboriginal peoples of Canada that have been voiced but really not heard over the past too many centuries. Unfortunately, and I did not choose it to be that way, most of the material available to me and which allows me to sense before I even comprehend the Aboriginal issue in question are from unwritten sources. But let me make my point very clear here about this: although they are from unwritten sources, they remain valid in my perspectives as the only difference between my unwritten sources and those of the western academic ones I was educated with is the place where such material is kept: in my heart for the unwritten sources and in libraries for the western academic sources. I believe no one will shut off the subject and go to conclusion before even the discussion started. I am bringing as point of written reference if need be two published books that have compiled in Malagasy language tales and legends as well as proverbs, Anganon’ny Ntaolo [Tales and Legends from the Ancestors] and Ohabolana Malagasy [Malagasy Proverbs].

By and large I could not have found the answers required by the theme of this paper without a grasp of who is a native person, and what are the perspectives and realities from the Aboriginal communities. I have established for myself an understanding of the following elements during the course of the preparation of this paper: women’s perspectives, elders’ perspectives, youth perspectives, métis perspectives, northern perspectives, rural perspectives, urban perspectives, land claim, native rights, life before contact, native culture, self-government versus self-determination, and a whole lot of other subjects on Aboriginal peoples. I begun my quest for understanding of Aboriginal issues with the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 4 providing me with Aboriginal perspectives and realities in Canada. This report returned me with the following explanation: “[...] One of the keys to understanding the goals and aspirations of Aboriginal peoples in Canada is recognizing their diversity. Aboriginal people do not constitute a monolithic entity, speaking with one voice through one designated leader. The term is broad, embracing a variety of cultural traditions and social experience. [...]” (1).

Cumming and Mickenberg went in Native Rights in Canada beyond understanding Aboriginal peoples’ goals and aspirations and assert, “[...] Before it is possible to understand who is entitled to the benefit of specific native rights, one must have a basic understanding of the legal definition of native person [...]” (6). In this paper, I am using alternatively the terminology native and aboriginal with a preference to aboriginal. My preference is driven by the fact that one can be native of Ottawa without being an Aboriginal person while one may be an Aboriginal person and native of Ottawa at the same time. However, it is worth mentioning that I basically address the same entity when I am saying native community and aboriginal community throughout this paper. In terms of who is an Aboriginal person, I am using the definition that is irrespective of the distinctions made in the Indian Act. By native or aboriginal communities I mean the peoples and their descendants who have been in this country since time immemorial when the first European explorers came. That being said, the picture of Aboriginal life before and after contact is quite clear in my mind and Deloria Jr. helped me getting that picture even clearer in The Metaphysics of Modern Existence when he says “[...] A radical transformation of all human societies occurred when the European explorers discovered the Western Hemisphere. Suddenly the scope of planetary existence began to take shape, and the people of Western Europe spread over the globe exploring, colonizing, and finally exploiting the lands and peoples that had formerly lived in relative isolation. European languages replaced tribal languages in many lands, and first French and then English became the tongue of the civilized world, of diplomacy and trade, and finally of the accepted expressions of civilized values. [...]” (1).

Reading and listening about the perception of Aboriginal communities across Canada on self- government matters revealed to me that the federal government lays down all the rules governing the process of self-government through the department of Indian Affairs. This largely shared perception indicates there is actually very little room for input from the Aboriginal communities in the process. A vast majority of Aboriginal peoples in Canada think indeed an imposed approach is not acceptable, especially on an agenda such as self-government that is going to have a major impact on their ways of life. At the same time, some Aboriginal communities are going the self-government route even if they have very little faith in the process because, for them, it appears to be the only option to negotiate with the Canadian system of government. For lack of better alternatives, these Aboriginal communities attempt to accomplish their objectives through the controversial process. (Chief Whiteduck, 2002).

It is neither in the benefit of Aboriginal communities nor the Canadian society as a whole to entertain such a lack of better alternatives in the area of self-government. Boldt says in Surviving as Indians, The Challenge of Self-Government, a material written at the beginning of the 90’s “[...] Indians in Canada and Blacks in South Africa share debilitating malaise. Both peoples live in conditions of destitution. Both experience unconscionable rates of morbidity, infant mortality, and violent deaths. Both have been forced into a state of dependence by being denied the opportunity to provide for themselves. In short, the parallels between the two nations in respect of the consequences of oppression, racism, and injustice are equally real and substantial and virtually identical. [...] From the victims’ perspective, the effects of oppression, injustice, and racism are equally pernicious whether they result from tyranny by the minority, as in South Africa, or from tyranny of the majority, as in Canada. [...]” (8).

When looking at the whole Aboriginal issues in Canada nowadays, I can’t help but mentioning that for so many years, the other side, starting with the federal government, was actually listening to Aboriginal voices. Unfortunately these Aboriginal voices were rarely and properly heard. Until these days, these voices may be heard but not understood. The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Commission, Volume 2 gave the way to a new deal that has yet to be implemented in Canada to repair the wounds inflicted to Aboriginal communities over a very long period of time. The report tells us “[...] Aboriginal peoples have had great difficulty preserving a home in what has always been their country. Throughout our hearings, Aboriginal peoples told us about the past loss of their reserve or community lands and their inability to secure additional lands for a growing population. They also spoke eloquently about the difficulties they have experienced in participating in the resource economy; about the impact of what they see as uncontrolled development or environmental degradation of their traditional territories; and about the lack of recognition of their treaty and Aboriginal harvesting rights. [...] Land is absolutely fundamental to Aboriginal identity. We examine how land is reflected in the language, culture and spiritual values of all Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal concepts of territory, property and tenure, of resource management and ecological knowledge may differ profoundly from those of other Canadians, but they are no less entitled to respect. Unfortunately, those concepts have not been honoured in the past, and Aboriginal peoples have had great difficulty maintaining their lands and livelihoods in the face of massive encroachment. [...]” (424-425).

The objectives of the federal government are in sync with not only how self-government is perceived among Aboriginal communities but also with the recommendations from the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples as well when the Federal Policy Guide, Aboriginal Self-Government indicates clearly that “[...] significant change must be made to ensure Aboriginal peoples have greater control over their lives. The most just, reasonable and practical mechanism to achieve this is through negotiated agreements. [...]” (ii). This statement confirms that the federal government is ready to negotiate.

However, if aware of the Aboriginal communities’ perception on self-government, outsiders attempting to comprehend the process will be somehow confused while reading this federal government document saying that “[...] the development of this (self-government) policy has included a broad-based consultation process which involved representations from Aboriginal leadership at local, regional and national levels. Also included in these important discussions on this policy development were all provincial and territorial governments as well as other groups across the country. [...]” (ii). There is a big question mark that comes naturally to mind on the use of broad-based consultation process when one knows what the Aboriginal communities’ perception on self-government really is.

In making reference to how the relationship between non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal peoples is in need for structural changes, the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, Volume 2 mentions that “[...] Since early 1970s, a virtual claims industry has developed; federal claims policies continue to perpetuate procedures that are dilatory, adversarial and unsatisfactory to all concerned. [...] Federal policies have consistently ignored what should be the fundamental goal of a just settlement of Aboriginal claims, a goal expressed by Indian claims commissioner Lloyd Barber in 1973: In the final analysis it must be realized that the process of claims settlement involves not just the resolution of a simple contractual dispute, but rather the very lives and being of the people involved. Desire for settlement does not concern only the righting of past wrongs but as well the establishment of a reasonable basis for the future of a people. After all, much of our current difficulty stems from the rigidity and inflexibility of positions established ages ago. [...]” (556).

One of the lessons learned throughout the process of the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is the understanding that within the implementation of the structural changes in the relationship between non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal peoples, there needs to be an improving co-management regimes. (Dr. Wortman, 2002). The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 2 mentions in this regard “[...] Aboriginal peoples have been quite successful at bringing governments to the negotiating table in circumstances of political crisis. Governments and the public may be sending the wrong message – that direct, obstructive action produces positive results for Aboriginal communities. As interim measures, the ad hoc or crisis-based co-management regimes have created several important precedents. But they lack the certainty and staying power of regimes created by new treaties (comprehensive claims settlements). As soon as the precipitating crisis drops from the headlines, governments can lose interest or turn to more pressing matters, forgetting the obligations assumed in the agreement that ended the crisis. [...]” (675).

Clearly, many Aboriginal communities across Canada would like to be able to move forward with the concept of self-determination rather than self-government because the federal government dictates all the rules for self-government. In fact, many Aboriginal communities want to go far beyond what the federal government is proposing in their self-government policy document. These communities argue that all Aboriginal peoples have the right to develop themselves and to develop their economy using resources available on their traditional territory. They want to go far beyond the kind of government municipalities have in Canada. They are looking to some extent at very similar powers to what provinces have in Canada with very specific jurisdictions for themselves because self-government must mean first and foremost to Aboriginal communities being able to sustain themselves without government transfers. Of course, there is in Canada the equalization payment for have-not provinces that may also apply to Aboriginal self-government but basically self-government means to Aboriginal communities being able to develop resources on their traditional territory rather than relying on government transfers. In many cases, Aboriginal communities across Canada have never signed any treaty. Therefore, their interpretation of the situation is that they still have title to the land and the land issues would have to be resolved through negotiations specifically designed for non-treaty bands. In the process, the whole elements of self-government lays in how Aboriginal communities are going to administer their own affairs while they are going to develop their own laws, their own rules, within the Canadian context, of course, as Aboriginal communities have no intention of going over the legal and Constitutional borders. The Canadian Constitution and laws are then going to have jurisdiction on territories Aboriginal communities will agree upon through negotiations but due to the Constitution and the resources transfers to provinces, there is a problem in the land claim area. Therefore, there is a need to involve the province in question in the negotiation process for self-government in order for the process to be fully viable. Aboriginal communities feel that there is a need to deal with the land issues first and foremost and only then they are willing to talk about the issues as a whole on how they are going to govern themselves or administer programs and services when land issues are settled. (Chief Whiteduck, 2002). This is not only in reaction to but more importantly in rejection of the Federal Policy Guide, Aboriginal Self-Government that says “[...] The (federal) government does not propose to re-open the provisions of existing land claim agreements as part of any process to implement the inherent right of self-government. Existing land claim agreements [...] will continue to operate according to existing terms. Within this policy framework, the federal government would be prepared to negotiate self-government agreements with those Aboriginal groups who have settled their land claims, but do not already have self-government arrangements. [...]” (10).

Beneath the mere reaction to the Federal Policy Guide, Aboriginal Self-Government, I can sense the Aboriginal communities’ attempt, and rightfully so, to challenge basic non-native Canadians’ beliefs and concept of linear time with space that is basically according to Deloria Jr. in God is Red “[...] the land around us, its feel, and its richness. [...]” (Preface). In other words, it would not be possible to understand the pre-requisite to self-government aspect of native land claim issue without truly comprehending the (still alive) mythological and spiritual dimension of the relation of Aboriginal peoples with the land. Criticizing the linear time approach, Deloria Jr. argues in the same book “[...] They (Aboriginal peoples) were regarded as not having ownership of their lands, but as merely existing on them [...]” (275). In The Power of Myth, Campbell’s passionate stand for mythology allows non-natives to get a certain level of understanding of the mysterious relation that Aboriginal peoples have with the land when he says that “[...] Mythology is very fluid. Most of the myths are self-contradictory. You may even find four or five myths in a given culture, all giving different versions of the same mystery. Then theology comes along and says it has to be just this way. Mythology is poetry, and poetic language is very flexible. Religion turns poetry into prose. God is literally up there, and this is literally what he thinks, and this is the way you’ve got to behave to get into proper relationship with that god up there. [...]” (174).

Will the Canadian system of government realize that the vast majority of Aboriginal communities have no intention of conceding a victory to the federal government self- government policy over their own aspirations and rights to self-determination and over their land claims? Most definitely, Aboriginal communities see it the other way around: the federal government must not only recognize but first and foremost apply in practice the inherent right for Aboriginal communities to self-govern themselves that it recommends in its policy. Self- government as per Aboriginal perspectives will not be achieved for the disarray of the Canadian society as a whole until the federal government comes to the understanding that land claim is very important and legitimate not only for the material gain of Aboriginal peoples but first and foremost for the spiritual redemption of Aboriginal communities across Canada. To try to further explain the importance of the land for Aboriginal communities, I have borrowed Deloria Jr. question from The Metaphysics of Modern Existence: “[...] We wonder why it was so difficult for such self-evident truths to achieve universal acceptance. [...]” (5).

Furthermore, what Deloria Jr. says in Red Earth, White Lies supports this position of the Aboriginal communities across Canada at the outset of the new Millennium. He says, “[...] Government is simply the way we organize ourselves and move masses of people to behave in certain ways. Government we cannot do without, but we certainly do not have to continue to act as if it were only a way of moving masses of people and manipulating their beliefs and behaviour. [...] Every society needs educated people, but the primary responsibility of educated people is to bring wisdom back into the community and make it available to others so that the lives they are leading make sense. [...]” (16-17).

Viewed from both the current Canadian system of government and Aboriginal communities perspectives, the future of self-government seems to be lost in advance. More often than not, it appears also that the two perspectives are not conciliatory at all. Aboriginal communities feel that self-government cannot be contemplated until the land claim issues are dealt with. The land claim issues are more complex because some lands are more occupied than others depending on the geographic location. (Chief Whiteduck, 2002). On one side, how does a land claim get settled when Ottawa, the National Capital of Canada for instance, sits on the very Algonquin traditional territory where no treaty has ever been signed? However, in my opinion, something like that should not prevent the federal government to negotiate in good faith with Aboriginal communities about the land issue for the sake of advancing the self- government agenda.

It is common knowledge that Algonquin communities are non-treaty bands, which simply means that they have never surrendered their traditional territory. The idea is for the Algonquin communities not to continue to blame someone for what happened but, as Deloria Jr. describes it in The Metaphysics of Modern Existence, “[...] to discern from the continuous introduction of new elements of knowledge and experience a coherent interpretation of the scheme of things. [...]” (11). Chief Whiteduck confirmed during an interview that a lot of efforts have been put forward in that direction from the Algonquin communities. As far as they are concerned, the ball is in the federal government court. On the other side, the Federal Policy Guide, Self-Government stipulates “[...] the federal government is only prepared to negotiate self-government agreements with those aboriginal groups who have settled their land claims. [...]” (10). How can the self-government concept help Aboriginal communities if the two positions appear to be incompatible? From these two standpoints, the very concept of self- government that can strengthen the Canadian society is simply hopeless.

In Surviving as Indians, The Challenge of Self-Government, Boldt asks “[...] How do Canadians feel about the denial of justice and rights to Indians by their government and courts? [...]” (14). The answer is as perturbing as the question when one knows that “[...] many Canadians have a vague and abstract sense of goodwill towards Indians, but very few understand the political implications and the monetary cost of rendering justice in regard to Indian rights and claims. Few Canadians know the meaning of basic concepts such as aboriginal title, treaty rights, and Indian self-government. [...] Clearly, Canadian politicians are not persuaded by national surveys of uninformed public opinion that show support for justice to Indians. Quite to the contrary, politicians are convinced that Canadians are unwilling to make sacrifices to honour Indian rights and claims. [...]” (14-15).

Dr. Cooney, a Canadian citizen from Irish background acting as director general of the Non- Insured Health Benefits Program of Health Canada that delivers health care services to Aboriginal communities across Canada under the federal government fiduciary responsibility, was interviewed in preparation of this paper. When asked to look at the self-government issues from a health care program long-term perspective, he said “[...] Self-government is the only solution to reduce dependency and foster self-confidence and a will for Aboriginal communities to deliver their own health program for themselves. Historically, this has been demonstrated to work but it may take 1 to 2 generations. For example, Ireland received its independence in 1916. In 1922 (after the Irish Civil War), it had the worst economy in Western Europe. In 1997 (75 years later), it had the greatest year-over-year economic growth of all European countries (“the Irish Tiger”). This was achieved through independence from a dominant race and culture, though many economic errors, through focus on education, capacity building and through a drive to overcome obstacles placed by 500 years of British dominance. First Nations and Inuit can gradually work out of the current cycle of dependency, substance abuse and chronic poverty by slowly taking over their own control of programs and destiny. The manner in which this can be done has yet to be determined but the concept of transfer (1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th level) must not be lost. Issues such as economies of scale and risk management must be addressed in relation to the Non-Insured health Benefits Program [...]” (Dr. Cooney, 2002).

It is important to mention that even if the transfer to Aboriginal communities of the health care services provided under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program may depend on other self- government issues such as land claims and so on, it can still be achieved regardless of where the Aboriginal community of destination is at as far as self-government and land claim issues are concerned. Having said that, the specificity of Aboriginal communities comes into my mind also in the area of health services when I look at the historical development in this area. A national report on First Nations and Inuit Regional Health Surveys makes the following reference in this regard: “[...] Aboriginal people had their own forms of preventing illness or looking after or seeking to cure those who became ill. As with other functions such as education, health was not, by and large, carried out by highly differentiated roles and institutions. Rather, traditional medicines could be described as being comprised of sets of coherent beliefs and practices which were well integrated within Aboriginal societies and which served important social and religious as well as medical functions. [...]” (221). Nevertheless, and unlike the case of land claim issues, transfer of the health programs is possible because the final decision to transfer the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program is taken by Health Canada not by the department of Indian Affairs. So far, there is no indication that Health Canada is not proceeding with that even if its priorities have shifted in the past couple of years. In its final report, the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 3 was indeed positive about the transfer process, but with some qualifications: “[...] The research we commissioned and the briefs and submissions we received leave us singularly impressed with the extent to which health programs in communities increasingly reflect Aboriginal priorities. First Nation and Inuit authorities at the community and regional levels have responded creatively to a limited opportunity and have begun to transform health facilities and programs along the lines we envision. [...] Creativity in Aboriginal services is dampened, nevertheless, by policy and funding constraints imposed outside Aboriginal communities. [...]” (250-251).

A statement from Dr. Wortman, former director general of the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program, who was also interviewed in preparation of this paper, highlighted some issues that require consideration from both sides before the transfer of the program to Aboriginal communities. His statement indicates, “[...] The main issue is that the underlying cost drivers that cause the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program to grow at unsustainable rates are not controllable by either the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch of Health Canada or Aboriginal communities themselves. Without a sustainable funding model for the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program it is unreasonable to expect Aboriginal communities to assume the responsibility for the program. Also, there is the issue of loss of economy of scale. The Non- Insured Health Benefits Program invests heavily in measures that moderate the growth in cost. Even with these measures costs grow at unsustainable rates. If Aboriginal communities take over drug and dental programs, they will not be able to implement similar measures because of the cost and they will therefore lose the cost management benefit that these measures bring to the program. In addition, the electronic claims processing system runs at a very low cost per transaction. If Aboriginal communities revert back to less automated processing of claims the processing costs will increase significantly. [...]” (Dr. Wortman, 2002).

During an interview that took place in the early part of 2002 in preparation of this paper, Chief Whiteduck of the Maniwaki reserve, a good student - as he describes himself with a touch of irony - of the department of Indian Affairs, indicated that “[...] looking at the nine Algonquin bands in Quebec that are each at different stage of evolution because they are all located on different locations geographically, there are bands that are more developed economically speaking because they are situated beside a town or a small town. However, if a band is situated in an isolated area, the band evolves differently as the economy of the community is rather focused on a subsistent fishing, hunting and trapping type of economy. The communities in Maniwaki, for instance, are moving more and more toward a wage economy over the years because there is really no choice if these communities want to improve their way of life. So, the dependency on government transfer varies from one community to the other depending on where they are with their own evolution. But overall, all communities are seeking to have the right to self-determination, the right to be able to develop, the right to be able exploit the resources available on each traditional territory in order to build solid financial economic basis for themselves. From there, once a community has those resources, the governing structures will evolve around the community’s own evolution. There is a need to put in place firm governing structures because the Indian Act at this point governs most communities whereas few communities have gone forward to self-determination. [...]” (Chief Whiteduck, 2002).

The statements in the above paragraphs respectively extracted from the interview of Dr. Cooney, Dr. Wortman and Chief Whiteduck appear to be advocating for the same principle of evolution in time and sustainability. With respect to the recurring land claim issue, Chief Whiteduck thinks “[...] there is a need to bring Aboriginal communities together to the negotiation process because a lot of people are over sceptical about the existing policy in place. The federal government has to come up yet with a plain and concrete policy for the outstanding claims on land that should be used as the basis to negotiate self-government. One of the fundamental problems with the current federal government policy is that Aboriginal communities have to basically extinguish their Aboriginal title and the federal government wants to ensure Certainty according to Chief Whiteduck. “[...] Certainty in the Treaty means nothing more than the assurance to the Parties that they can rely on the Treaty as setting out all of the rights of the Nisga’a Nation that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the limitations to those rights, to which the Parties have agreed. [...]” (Online).

For Aboriginal communities, it is equivalent to having Canadian citizens give up their citizenship to get an agreement. Aboriginal communities are saying that they want to negotiate an arrangement where they know that no one else is going to live in their traditional territory. In other words, this is the Aboriginal basis for real self-government. Also, self-government under the existing regime of things where Aboriginal communities are waiting for transfers from the federal government or province; it is a subsidized welfare state as far as Aboriginal communities are concerned. To Aboriginal communities, self-government means being self- sufficient by sustaining themselves and their communities. Under the existing system or approach from the federal government, that is not what is going to happen. Aboriginal communities will just get subsidized welfare states. That is why it is very important for Aboriginal communities to resolve the land issues first and foremost. And only then, as both parties are going through that pre-requisite parallel, there is a need to start to negotiate a new governing structure under the self-determination principles that aim at Aboriginal prosperity as a Nation and communities. [...]” (Chief Whiteduck, 2002).

For lack of better solution, most Aboriginal communities are still governed under the Indian Act, which has its limitations and restrictions. This act has allowed for so many years according to Boldt in Surviving as Indians, The Challenge of Self-Government “[...] denial of aboriginal rights and interests in their ancestral lands on grounds that they were uncivilized was based on racism, yet the Canadian court continues to flatly reject Indian claims to proprietary title to their ancestral lands and it (the court) denies Indian claims to sovereignty. [...] It has allowed so much land to be taken from Indians that today the implications for Indians of this judicial practice have been staggering. [...] Even a minimal standard of enlightened justice would hold that the original occupants of this land should have at least enough land to enable them to feed themselves. [...]” (11).

Sarah Carter provides in the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 2 a self-evident explanation of “[...] why agriculture failed to provide reserve residents a living. [...] It was the Indians, not the government, which showed an early and sustained interest in establishing agriculture on the reserves. Although the government publicly proclaimed that its aim was to assist Indians to adopt agriculture, little was done to put this course into effect. In fact government policies acted to retard agriculture on the reserves. The Indians had to persuade government officials of the necessity and importance of agriculture. In treaty negotiations and later assemblies, they sought assurance that a living by agriculture would be provided to them, and they used every means at their disposal to persuade a reluctant government that they are allowed the means to farm. [...] In the decade after 1885, government policies made it virtually impossible for reserve agriculture to succeed because the farmers were prevented from using the technology required for agricultural activity in the West. The promotion of reserve land surrender after the turn of the century further precluded the hope that agriculture could form the basis of a stable economy on the reserves. [...]” (868).

In waiting for something better to happen, there is the Indian Act perspective, whereas band councils are merely federal boards administering programs on behalf of the federal government. He adds that is not what most Aboriginal communities want but at this point of time. If they are just an extension of the department of Indian Affairs and basically, band councils are doing the job for them in their communities. In a lot of cases now, band councils have gone a step further in a lot of situations and took initiatives and done things on their own. After years of being a mere extension of a system that maintains them in some sort of dependency, Aboriginal communities want the jurisdiction to develop their own rules, regulations and laws within their communities and traditional territory. Right now, they are limited by the by-law making powers of the Indian Act, which is very limitative. It does not go far enough as far as they are concerned. Even if they want to establish their own courts, for example, to enact justice, they cannot do it. They need special attorney power and even that, the department of Indian Affairs does not agree with using the argument from Section 105 or 107 of the Indian Act. If Aboriginal communities want to establish their own courts to have a better justice system independent of the existing justice system, it is very difficult to do so. However, the big issue under the existing regime of things is being able to generate revenue and complex issues like taxation for instance whereas Aboriginal communities have a reserve of so many acres of land and businesses on it. Aboriginal communities are still obligated to the same federal-provincial tax collection and remit these taxes. They are convinced there is a need for them to have full control of those issues. Under a real Aboriginal self-government arrangement, they would have full control of taxation. They would determine what law would govern taxation for example and for non-native purchasing goods and doing business in the communities, how are they going to generate revenue from these non-native individuals or businesses? Royalties from resources (forestry, mining and wildlife resources) when Aboriginal communities get a benefit, it has to go outside the communities because the communities’ land basis is not sufficient to support itself. Then, they need a much larger land basis. That is why the all issues come back to the importance of re-opening, negotiating and reaching an agreement that is satisfactory to all people dealing with the Aboriginal title of territory. That way, Aboriginal communities can expect revenue from such territory in the forestry, mining and wildlife areas aiming at sustainability because right now what they have is very limitative. They have a broad territory outside of the reserve but they absolutely need title to it. That all issue is not resolved. In their opinion, they need to resolve the land title issue, which they think, are part of the inherent Aboriginal rights.

Once that issue is resolved, they can put into place a real and sustainable self-government structure taking into consideration Aboriginal specificities. Cumming and Mickenberg are more than clear on the land claim issues when they say in Native Rights in Canada, “[...] Unhappily, the self-evident justness of the proposition that native people have a right to the soil upon which they have made their homes from time immemorial has been tremendously complicated by innumerable intervening events and theories. [...] Aboriginal rights are those rights, which native people retain as a result of their original possession of the soil. We have defined aboriginal rights as those property rights, which inure to native people by virtue of their occupation upon certain lands from time immemorial. [...]” (3).

In Surviving as Indians, The Challenge of Self-Government, first released at the beginning of the 90’s and reprinted since then, Boldt seems to be in agreement with the work that has been done by Cumming and Mickenberg on Native Rights in Canada back in the 70’s in addition to shedding some light on the understanding of the issue when he is asserting that “[...] Indians in Canada also have a strong humanitarian argument for their claim to peoplehood. Unlike the English and French, and other Canadian immigrant communities whose mother countries serve as a cultural preserve, Indians in Canada are the only repository of their cultures, and if they are not empowered to save their cultures they will disappear completely. [...]” (50-51). Continuing from Boldt’s standpoint in order to respond to the questions of this paper, I can say that Canada as a society will only be strengthened if Aboriginal communities are empowered to preserve their own cultures. On the other side of that line of reasoning, Aboriginal communities are showing clearly that even though each community is at different stage of evolution within the Canadian society and is in need of preserving the fundamental basis of their own culture and rights, the fact remains that they want basically to remain into the Canadian mainstream as a nation of peoples not as a minority group. (Chief Whiteduck, 2002).

Boldt provides a statement that allows an easy understanding of this position of the Aboriginal communities when he says in Surviving as Indians, The challenge of Self-Government, in opposition of what he describes as the Western-liberal-individualistic bias that “[...] their (the Aboriginal communities) cultural rights are not the sum of individual rights, that their right as people to self-determination is not addressed by implementation of individual rights, and that their survival and well-being as Indians in Canada cannot be achieved through individual rights. These issues can be adequately addressed only if Indians are recognized as peoples [...] The Canadian government, having decided that peoplehood status for Indians is not in the national interest, has committed itself to the duplicitous course of using its influence [...]” (51).

Depressed communities are facing attitudes from its own peoples that cannot be seen as reflective of Aboriginal traditions. In this regard, the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 2 describes the issue as follows: “[...] Aboriginal communities, for the most part, have been robbed of the capacity to trust in anyone or anything. Years of manipulation, broken promises, and out-right deception have produced a nation of individuals who hold very low tolerance for what they perceive to be risky ventures. Cynicism, sarcasm and scepticism are the hallmark qualities of both the leadership and grassroots membership of Aboriginal communities. This tendency to question the potential for success should be seen as a major impediment to growth in the business sector. [...]” (886).

As I have indicated in my research report, the all issue faced with self-government would be all but complete without talking about financial accountability. It begs the question: Financial accountability according to whose rules? Paul Glover, former director general of the Non- Insured Health Benefits Program, interviewed in preparation of this paper, believes that the federal government should only accompany Aboriginal communities to reach such a goal within their communities according to their realities, rules and not according to the Treasury Board rules. Solving these issues will definitely strengthen Canadian society. Why should the use of funds be executed according to what the Treasury Board wants and not according to what good use these funds may be serving from the true needs of Aboriginal communities? (Paul Glover, 2001). It is obvious that it is practically impossible for the Treasury Board to have a better grasp of Aboriginal realities than Aboriginal communities themselves. The use of funds available for self-government purposes will be transparent and useful if reflecting the true needs of the peoples the funds is meant for in the first place.

Transparency and accountability are only becoming an issue when Aboriginal communities are not confident that the way they want to use the money for will be truly understood by the federal government. In this regard, Dr. Wortman who I interviewed in preparation of this paper, provided me with a standpoint which, without contradicting Paul Glover’s point of view, seems to add another dimension to it: “[...] I believe there should be some flexibility in how Aboriginal communities determine their health priorities and how they allocate resources to deal with those priorities. However, there needs to be some kind of health framework within which federal funds are spent by Aboriginal communities under a self-government type of arrangement. It cannot be wide open with no focus on health and no accountability. [...]” (Dr. Wortman, 2002). The case of the reserve in Maniwaki is a good example of how far Aboriginal communities have gone in the federal government’s recommendations exposed in the Federal Policy Guide that “[...] Financial arrangements should be consistent with principles of sound public administration. [...]” (15). Furthermore, it must be emphasized that financial delinquency in the area of public funds set aside for Aboriginal communities cannot and should not be viewed as reflective of Aboriginal communities practice nor traditions.

Having gone through books, online documents and interviews as well as the first hand information I have the privilege to access on the subject of this paper through my position with Health Canada, I am compelled by hard facts to conclude that self-government can help Aboriginal communities and strengthen Canada as a country. However, I am also compelled by findings throughout my research to highlight that the self-government concept that can enable Aboriginal peoples to enter a sustainable and self-sufficient status in every aspect of their lives, therefore providing strength to the Canadian society, cannot be the one imposed upon Aboriginal communities. The self-government concept that can help Aboriginal peoples and strengthen the Canadian society is from the Aboriginal peoples for the Aboriginal peoples. The self-government concept that I am talking about here takes into account first and foremost the spiritual, historical, cultural and economical background of Aboriginal communities. I am also convinced that self-government will not go anywhere until the land claim, which is very important from the Aboriginal perspectives, is settled with Aboriginal communities across the country. And even if self-government can still be achieved without settling the land issue, it would not go as far as a band-aid solution that would peel off as soon as the all process is moving toward implementation. This approach would not strengthen at all the Canadian society in the sense that implementing such a venture would be a waste of public funds knowing in advance what the outcome would be.

I would say that the self-government Aboriginal communities are thirsty for starts with resolving the land claim issue and then goes the self-determination route rather than trying to convert Aboriginal communities as merely extensions of the federal government bureaucracy. Until such a time that the role of the federal and provincial government is shifted to be listening to the true aspirations of Aboriginal peoples, learning from that process and then facilitating the transition to self-government status as opposed to policing and implementing a vague concept of self-government after consulting with a limited range of advocacy organizations, which may not be representative of the Aboriginal communities across Canada, self-government will remain an non-accessible and an almost vain concept to everyone.

Having said that, I must mention that the Nisga’a Treaty stands very tall as a symbol of hope and reconciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. Joseph Gosnell, Sr. President of the Nisga’a Tribal Council says “[...] By reconciling the aboriginal rights of the Nisga’a Nation with the sovereignty of the Crown, the (Nisga’a) Treaty is intended to be a just and equitable settlement of the Nisga’a Land Question that spells out a new relationship based on mutual recognition and sharing. To the Nisga’a people, a treaty is a sacred instrument, the legal framework for a new society based on self-reliance and self-actualization. Fairly and honourably negotiated, the Treaty represents a major breakthrough for aboriginal self- determination — one of the most pressing issues in contemporary Canada and around the world. [...]” (Online).

In conclusion of this paper, I have extracted the following from a speech given by the minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in 1998 and released in the First Nations and Inuit Regional Health Survey – National Report 1999. The excerpt speaks for itself: “[...] Sadly, our history with respect to the treatment of Aboriginal people is not something in which we can take pride. Attitudes of racial and cultural superiority led to a suppression of Aboriginal culture and values. As a country, we are burdened by past actions that resulted in weakening the identity of Aboriginal peoples, suppressing their languages and cultures, and outlawing spiritual practices. We must recognize the impact of these actions on the once self-sustaining nations that were disaggregated, disrupted, limited or even destroyed by the dispossession of traditional territory, by the relocation of Aboriginal people, and by some provision of the Indian Act. We must acknowledge that the result of these actions was the erosion of the political, economic and social systems of Aboriginal peoples and nations [...]” (34-35).

I will wrap-up this paper by sharing the following meaningful and powerful symbol that I have borrowed from a well crafted website called The Native Trail: “[...] in the imagery of Aboriginal peoples, the turtle is associated with the great myths surrounding the creation of the earth. Slow moving but steady and tenacious, this animal has come to symbolize both wisdom and perseverance. These two qualities are shared by the First Nations and Inuit communities, and have contributed towards the survival of indigenous populations for thousands of years on the American continents. [...]” (Online).

Jean Razafindambo (2002)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FOREIGN AUTHORS AND MATERIAL:?

Andriamanjato, Richard. Le Tsiny et Le Tody dans la pensée malgache. Paris: éditions Presse Africaine, 1957.

Campbell, Joseph, with Bill Moyers. The Power of Myth. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1988.

Dahle, L., and John Sims. Anganon’ny Ntaolo. Tantara mampiseho ny fomban-

drazana sy ny finoana sasany nananany. [Tales and Legends from the Ancestors. Tales showing traditions and beliefs of the Ancestors] Ninth Edition. Antananarivo: Trano Printy Loterana [Lutheran Press], 1984.

Deloria, Jr., Vine, God is Red: A Native View of Religion. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1973.

Deloria, Jr., Vine. Red Earth, White Lies. Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific facts. New York: Fulcrum Publishers, 1997.

Deloria, Jr., Vine. The Metaphysics of Modern Existence. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.

Houlder, Rev., J. A., and M. H. Noyer. Ohabolana. [Malagasy Proverbs] Tananarive: Imprimerie Luthérienne [Lutheran Press], 1960.

CANADIAN AUTHORS AND MATERIAL:

Canada. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Volume 2. Restructuring the Relationshionship.

Part Two. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group – Publishing, 1996.

Canada. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Volume 4. Perspectives and Realities. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group – Publishing, 1996.

Canadian Assembly of First Nations (AFN) votes in Matthew Coon Come as the new Grand Chief. The Assembly of First Nations. 12 Jul. 2000. 9 Oct. 2001. <www.afn.ca/National%20Chief/canadian_assembly_of_first_natio.htm>.

Canada. Medical Services Branch. Non-Insured Health Benefits Program Annual Report 1996-1997. Ottawa: Program Analysis Division, 1997.

Canada. First Nations and Inuit Health Branch. Non-Insured Health Benefits Program Annual Report 1998-1999. Ottawa: Program Analysis Division, 1999.

Canada. First Nations and Inuit Health Branch. Non-Insured Health Benefits Program Annual Report 1999-2000. Ottawa: Program Analysis Division, 2000.

Cumming, A., Peter, and Neil H. Mickenberg. Native Rights in Canada. Second Edition. Toronto: The Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada in association with General Publishing Co. Limited, 1980.

Menno, Boldt. Surviving as Indians. The Challenge of Self-Government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

National Steering Committee. First Nations and Inuit Regional Health Survey – National Report 1999. St. Regis Quebec: First Nations and Inuit Regional Longitudinal Health Survey, 1999.

The Government of Canada’s Approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government. Indian and Northern

Affairs Canada. 3 May 2001. 11 Sep. 2001. <www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/sg/plcy_e.html>.

The Native Trail. Cleary Group. 2002. < https://www.nativetrail.com >.?