As many may now be aware, the Nisga'a Nation of British Columbia has moved to liberate its citizens from the shackles of enforced poverty (read: lack of property rights). Nisga'a citizens will have the opportunity now to voluntarily own small parcels of land in fee simple (about half acre plots, so mainly their home and yard).
The difference is they can put up their home as security as it is truly theirs. They can bring that to the bank and secure loans. They can lease their home for income. They can leverage their equity for investments. In other words, they can do the things that most Canadians take for granted.
I have written about this before, so I won't go in complete detail. I have posted this in a past blog post here.
What is most impressive is this is the first step along a journey. All the naysayers cannot say that all First Nations are in love with collective land ownership. This shows that if given a chance, a voice and an opportunity, First Nations opt for something better.
I think this land system will be studied closely. Other Indian bands will be able to see how a functioning First Nation fee simple system works. All of the land, even if it is lost to outsiders for some reason, will remain Nisga'a land and be subject to Nisga'a land. So, we will see what happens. It will be very interesting. I know I will watching and hope to conduct empirical analyses within the next few years about how it is working.
For now, I lift my glass in praise to this courageous indigenous community for taking this step. I wish them well!
Friday, November 20, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
War on First Nations??
I receive periodic policy updates from a First Nation individual named Russell Diabo. He publishes a regular update on recent news that pertain to Aboriginal peoples. I have also debated with Diabo on an APTN public affairs panel I am involved with. Diabo seems to advocate a hardcore sovereigntist position within indigenous discourse.
Just recently, I received an update from that worried me somewhat. It was a .pdf document containing presentation notes and it was entitled "Canada's War on First Nations."
Now those who have read this blog or my other writings know I have never tried to deny Canada's shameful history when it came to dealing with indigenous peoples. However, this kind of rhetoric attempts to bring some of the old struggles into the present and even the future. In other words, it wants to make this metaphorical war with the Canadian state the dominant paradigm of indigenous-newcomer relations.
I would have loved to have post it here, but apparently posting pdf documents is an issue on this blog format, so I will just invite you to Google (or your choice of search engine) "Canada's war on First Nations" + "Russell Diabo." I am sure something will come up eventually..
The problem is the choice of words. I find this strategy or way of thinking to be at best counter-productive and at worst, highly dangerous and inflammatory.
While saying First Nations should continue on land and treaty land entitlement claims that they believe they are entitled to, I think adopting a martial rhetoric prevents finding common ground.
Diabo assumes in his writing that because successive governments have not accepted a "third order of government" type way of viewing Aboriginal self-governent, they must be about co-opting and eventually secluding FNs into "ethnic municipalities" as it put it.
First of all, adopting this model of a new order of government is not the only way forward for First Nations. There are many First Nations who I'm sure in the end would not prefer this model. Some First Nations don't want to re-constitute themselves and join other communities to form contiguous nations. This is the reality out there.
The government opposes this because it is a fundamental paradigm shift and would change the way government works completely. More importantly, it would mean changes and complications in how money is collected and re-distributed.
I think this objection on their part is more about state survival logic, rather than a deep-seated prejudice against First Nations or a colonial-like desire to assimilate all First Nations. Diabo is also convinced this means "emptying of Section 35 rights."
In particular, he asserts that all modern treaty arrangements are about surrending Section 35 rights and giving into colonialism.
I think for these self-governing communities is not about giving in. These agreements allow them to maintain their governing structures and continue to live as Indians, while receiving funding to continue.
For them, it is a good bargain.
Why do some of these indigenous writers assume that negotiating or making deals with the government is capitulation? Weren't the historic treaties about engaging the state? Finally, and most controversially for some, why is there this eternal fear of becoming involved within the Canadian state? I mean, why is the "Two-wampum"model of governance the eternal default model for all First Nations, where one can never be both an Indian and a Canadian at the same time?? The Two Wampum model is one model among many and does not have to be the model for all.
In his paper, Diabo mentions the important role of indigenous youth. This is one area I agree with him. But, I worry that if youth read Diabo or other like-minded indigenous writers like Gerald Taiaiake Alfred, they will assume the only model available for First Nations is permanent antagonism. You stay on your side and I'll stay on mine. Already, this model falls apart given that indigenous communities are financially dependent on the colonial federal government.
I am not arguing that all First Nations should jump onto USS Canada and forget their grievances over legitimate policy areas. Engaging Canada must mean it is done on just terms. But, just terms does not mean that any engagement with Canada is somehow seen as treasonous, or an act of capitulation, or whatever. It is just logical to accept that we are all in this together and need to work together..
Just recently, I received an update from that worried me somewhat. It was a .pdf document containing presentation notes and it was entitled "Canada's War on First Nations."
Now those who have read this blog or my other writings know I have never tried to deny Canada's shameful history when it came to dealing with indigenous peoples. However, this kind of rhetoric attempts to bring some of the old struggles into the present and even the future. In other words, it wants to make this metaphorical war with the Canadian state the dominant paradigm of indigenous-newcomer relations.
I would have loved to have post it here, but apparently posting pdf documents is an issue on this blog format, so I will just invite you to Google (or your choice of search engine) "Canada's war on First Nations" + "Russell Diabo." I am sure something will come up eventually..
The problem is the choice of words. I find this strategy or way of thinking to be at best counter-productive and at worst, highly dangerous and inflammatory.
While saying First Nations should continue on land and treaty land entitlement claims that they believe they are entitled to, I think adopting a martial rhetoric prevents finding common ground.
Diabo assumes in his writing that because successive governments have not accepted a "third order of government" type way of viewing Aboriginal self-governent, they must be about co-opting and eventually secluding FNs into "ethnic municipalities" as it put it.
First of all, adopting this model of a new order of government is not the only way forward for First Nations. There are many First Nations who I'm sure in the end would not prefer this model. Some First Nations don't want to re-constitute themselves and join other communities to form contiguous nations. This is the reality out there.
The government opposes this because it is a fundamental paradigm shift and would change the way government works completely. More importantly, it would mean changes and complications in how money is collected and re-distributed.
I think this objection on their part is more about state survival logic, rather than a deep-seated prejudice against First Nations or a colonial-like desire to assimilate all First Nations. Diabo is also convinced this means "emptying of Section 35 rights."
In particular, he asserts that all modern treaty arrangements are about surrending Section 35 rights and giving into colonialism.
I think for these self-governing communities is not about giving in. These agreements allow them to maintain their governing structures and continue to live as Indians, while receiving funding to continue.
For them, it is a good bargain.
Why do some of these indigenous writers assume that negotiating or making deals with the government is capitulation? Weren't the historic treaties about engaging the state? Finally, and most controversially for some, why is there this eternal fear of becoming involved within the Canadian state? I mean, why is the "Two-wampum"model of governance the eternal default model for all First Nations, where one can never be both an Indian and a Canadian at the same time?? The Two Wampum model is one model among many and does not have to be the model for all.
In his paper, Diabo mentions the important role of indigenous youth. This is one area I agree with him. But, I worry that if youth read Diabo or other like-minded indigenous writers like Gerald Taiaiake Alfred, they will assume the only model available for First Nations is permanent antagonism. You stay on your side and I'll stay on mine. Already, this model falls apart given that indigenous communities are financially dependent on the colonial federal government.
I am not arguing that all First Nations should jump onto USS Canada and forget their grievances over legitimate policy areas. Engaging Canada must mean it is done on just terms. But, just terms does not mean that any engagement with Canada is somehow seen as treasonous, or an act of capitulation, or whatever. It is just logical to accept that we are all in this together and need to work together..
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Chief Clarence Louie
Recently, I spent a few days in Osoyoos, B.C. I was attending a conference on Aboriginal economic development, hosted by the Osoyoos Indian Band and the famous Chief Clarence Louie.
This was easily one of the best conferences I have attended.. ever... Believe me, I've attended many as both a reporter and as a policy analyst.
It was great mainly because I was blessed to hear Chief Louie speak. I have read his statements in the press and have seen him on video clips, but this is the first time up close.
The first thing that came through was his passionate concern and love for his people. It quickly became obvious to me that Chief Louie is not an ideologue or connected to any movement or anything like that. He is genuinely moved to place his community's improvement ahead of his own.
He is a very down-to-earth kind of guy. He also almost speaks in an accent as if he came off the street, if you know what I mean. He has little tolerance for BS and he gets straight to the point. He collects good sayings. During his speaking, he mentioned hearing different indigenous leaders and highlighted good, original things they have to say. He also humorously noted that he has collected dozens of speeches over the years and highlighted the commonalities between them. He said that he has dozens and dozens of speeches from chiefs that almost sound identifical. He says that many chiefs are great on promise and talk, but fail to deliver on many levels.
I was also honoured to hear National Chief Shawn Atleo, who I have a new found respect for.
I had heard him before, despite attending the recent AFN leadership vote (I missed the speeches).
Atleo impressed me with his dedication to put economic development on top of his agenda. Let's hope he lives up to it.
We also heard from Stephen Cornell, a professor from Arizona who is associated with the Harvard Project on Native American Economic Development. Cornell laid out several bands and tribes that were doing wonderful (will little resources in many cases). Cornell gave concrete examples of how to de-politicize band business from band politics. Too many band-led (tribal in many of his case as he studied mainly American examples) entreprises get politicized in the sense that enterprise managers, CEOs, etc. get their marching orders from chief and council, rather than independent boards of directors or their own business decisions. As a result, people get hired for political reasons, not for merit reasons. As a result, he said, the band business managers think their business becomes an employment centre for the community. In one case, a band business kept hiring to satisfy politics and the business payroll became too unmanageable.
These observations about band-politics relationships could easily be discussed in the context of band service delivery and administration. Too many of these areas receive marching orders from elected chief and council, which distorts their mission.
For example, I know of one housing director on a southern Alberta band who complained that as soon as he assumed his position, band members who had been promised housing during the election were demanding their housing allocations. As a result, young families and those truly in need of housing went without it because the chief had to pay back his supporters. Sometimes, my housing director friend said he refused, but the band member would just complain straight to the chief and certain councillors. As the director is responsible to chief, not ultimately in fact to an independent board of directors, he could not refuse for very long. His job and possible advancement was on the line.
We also heard from INAC officials who addressed the government's new federal framework for Aboriginal economic development. Although I support this re-orientation, I think it is sad to see government-led economic development. This has proven not to work. Bureaucrats are not good at picking winners and losers and are not good business managers.
I also think the new economic development framework is sidestepping the issue of private property on reserves. This is the big elephant in the room. One of the policy people said they will continue their program of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT guaranteeing loans against any losses on First Nation reserves. While this is good on some levels as it introduces the capital to the communities, it is not sustainable for our government to take on every loan on every reserve.
This will create more rent-seeking incentives to secure these loans than to improve conditions on reserves to make investment happen. Sometimes, I think government policy people are living on another planet and are not cognizant of the incentives/disincentives they create through their programs.
This shows me the Feds (even a Conservative government committed to free entreprise in theory) are afraid of opening up the private property debate on reserves. It's still all about government-backed mortgages and other loans. Government-directed economic development. No doubt, First Nations need assistance from Ottawa in economic development, but it should include the necessary tools for them to advance themselves. Individuals need the opportunity to own property that can be pledged against loans.. Individual band members need to liberated to build their own business, not just band-led initiatives.
Anyway, the forum was excellent overall. Besides the gorgeous landscape and the delicious wine (this is wine country, so I had to enjoy some liberal libations!), the Osoyoos people were terrific hosts. The Spirit Ridge Resort where we stayed was beautiful.
This is the start of a great debate in Canada.
This was easily one of the best conferences I have attended.. ever... Believe me, I've attended many as both a reporter and as a policy analyst.
It was great mainly because I was blessed to hear Chief Louie speak. I have read his statements in the press and have seen him on video clips, but this is the first time up close.
The first thing that came through was his passionate concern and love for his people. It quickly became obvious to me that Chief Louie is not an ideologue or connected to any movement or anything like that. He is genuinely moved to place his community's improvement ahead of his own.
He is a very down-to-earth kind of guy. He also almost speaks in an accent as if he came off the street, if you know what I mean. He has little tolerance for BS and he gets straight to the point. He collects good sayings. During his speaking, he mentioned hearing different indigenous leaders and highlighted good, original things they have to say. He also humorously noted that he has collected dozens of speeches over the years and highlighted the commonalities between them. He said that he has dozens and dozens of speeches from chiefs that almost sound identifical. He says that many chiefs are great on promise and talk, but fail to deliver on many levels.
I was also honoured to hear National Chief Shawn Atleo, who I have a new found respect for.
I had heard him before, despite attending the recent AFN leadership vote (I missed the speeches).
Atleo impressed me with his dedication to put economic development on top of his agenda. Let's hope he lives up to it.
We also heard from Stephen Cornell, a professor from Arizona who is associated with the Harvard Project on Native American Economic Development. Cornell laid out several bands and tribes that were doing wonderful (will little resources in many cases). Cornell gave concrete examples of how to de-politicize band business from band politics. Too many band-led (tribal in many of his case as he studied mainly American examples) entreprises get politicized in the sense that enterprise managers, CEOs, etc. get their marching orders from chief and council, rather than independent boards of directors or their own business decisions. As a result, people get hired for political reasons, not for merit reasons. As a result, he said, the band business managers think their business becomes an employment centre for the community. In one case, a band business kept hiring to satisfy politics and the business payroll became too unmanageable.
These observations about band-politics relationships could easily be discussed in the context of band service delivery and administration. Too many of these areas receive marching orders from elected chief and council, which distorts their mission.
For example, I know of one housing director on a southern Alberta band who complained that as soon as he assumed his position, band members who had been promised housing during the election were demanding their housing allocations. As a result, young families and those truly in need of housing went without it because the chief had to pay back his supporters. Sometimes, my housing director friend said he refused, but the band member would just complain straight to the chief and certain councillors. As the director is responsible to chief, not ultimately in fact to an independent board of directors, he could not refuse for very long. His job and possible advancement was on the line.
We also heard from INAC officials who addressed the government's new federal framework for Aboriginal economic development. Although I support this re-orientation, I think it is sad to see government-led economic development. This has proven not to work. Bureaucrats are not good at picking winners and losers and are not good business managers.
I also think the new economic development framework is sidestepping the issue of private property on reserves. This is the big elephant in the room. One of the policy people said they will continue their program of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT guaranteeing loans against any losses on First Nation reserves. While this is good on some levels as it introduces the capital to the communities, it is not sustainable for our government to take on every loan on every reserve.
This will create more rent-seeking incentives to secure these loans than to improve conditions on reserves to make investment happen. Sometimes, I think government policy people are living on another planet and are not cognizant of the incentives/disincentives they create through their programs.
This shows me the Feds (even a Conservative government committed to free entreprise in theory) are afraid of opening up the private property debate on reserves. It's still all about government-backed mortgages and other loans. Government-directed economic development. No doubt, First Nations need assistance from Ottawa in economic development, but it should include the necessary tools for them to advance themselves. Individuals need the opportunity to own property that can be pledged against loans.. Individual band members need to liberated to build their own business, not just band-led initiatives.
Anyway, the forum was excellent overall. Besides the gorgeous landscape and the delicious wine (this is wine country, so I had to enjoy some liberal libations!), the Osoyoos people were terrific hosts. The Spirit Ridge Resort where we stayed was beautiful.
This is the start of a great debate in Canada.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
New Aboriginal blog
It is always great to discover new blogs by Aboriginal people. Well, my good friend Jamie Wilson, director of education from Opaskwayak Cree Nation in northern Manitoba, has introduced a new blog callerd Intemperate North (good title!!) that looks at indigenous issues (although not exclusively) from a limited government perspective.
Here's the URL: http://www.intemperatenorth.com/
I have met Jamie and he is an articulate, passionate man with concern for indigenous people, the province of Manitoba and all of Canada.
Please becoming a follower of his blog is you are able.
First Nation people need different perspectives on issues. The same old ain't cutting it anymore. Jamie's commentary is a great start!
Here's the URL: http://www.intemperatenorth.com/
I have met Jamie and he is an articulate, passionate man with concern for indigenous people, the province of Manitoba and all of Canada.
Please becoming a follower of his blog is you are able.
First Nation people need different perspectives on issues. The same old ain't cutting it anymore. Jamie's commentary is a great start!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Is Canada colonial?
Hello all:
The latest controversy/scandal concerns comments Stephen Harper made regarding Canada as not being a colonial country.
I am divided on this. On the one hand, I think it is a tremendously unhelpful choice of words and I am surprised that HArper's speech writers could not foresee how this could be interpreted by First Nations people.
On the other hand, I think the words are being taken out of context and a look at history will reveal that Harper's comments make sense in context.
Canada itself is descended from a colony. New France was a colony, as was British North America. Up until the 1930s, we still made appeals to the British legislature to change our own laws and our constitution was only patriated in 1982.
First Nation people here controlled and placed under "wardship" similar to a colonial system. In that sense, it was an insensitive thing to deny that aspect.
However, when Harper uttered this remark he was referring to the world financial market. What he meant was Canada has never maintained an overseas empire like so many European powers and created a core-periphery relationship of stripping them of resources for the home country.
Of course, Canada's "Ward-colonial" relationship does continue under the Indian Act system. So, while I understand Harper's context, I think he should issue a more clear statement, acknowledging that indigenous peoples have been under this relationship.
This is the type of incident, unfortunately, that can undermine efforts on the part of the government to gain the trust and confidence of First Nations. This new Conservative Aboriginal Caucus is a good start, but PM Harper will need to clarify this statement and actually respond directly to it, not through a media spokesperson.
Canadians understand so little about their own history as it is; this does not help.
The other side is all the ideological hubbub surrounding "decolonization" exaggerates our colonial history, so there is that aspect too.
The latest controversy/scandal concerns comments Stephen Harper made regarding Canada as not being a colonial country.
I am divided on this. On the one hand, I think it is a tremendously unhelpful choice of words and I am surprised that HArper's speech writers could not foresee how this could be interpreted by First Nations people.
On the other hand, I think the words are being taken out of context and a look at history will reveal that Harper's comments make sense in context.
Canada itself is descended from a colony. New France was a colony, as was British North America. Up until the 1930s, we still made appeals to the British legislature to change our own laws and our constitution was only patriated in 1982.
First Nation people here controlled and placed under "wardship" similar to a colonial system. In that sense, it was an insensitive thing to deny that aspect.
However, when Harper uttered this remark he was referring to the world financial market. What he meant was Canada has never maintained an overseas empire like so many European powers and created a core-periphery relationship of stripping them of resources for the home country.
Of course, Canada's "Ward-colonial" relationship does continue under the Indian Act system. So, while I understand Harper's context, I think he should issue a more clear statement, acknowledging that indigenous peoples have been under this relationship.
This is the type of incident, unfortunately, that can undermine efforts on the part of the government to gain the trust and confidence of First Nations. This new Conservative Aboriginal Caucus is a good start, but PM Harper will need to clarify this statement and actually respond directly to it, not through a media spokesperson.
Canadians understand so little about their own history as it is; this does not help.
The other side is all the ideological hubbub surrounding "decolonization" exaggerates our colonial history, so there is that aspect too.
Monday, September 28, 2009
UN Declaration
Hi all:
I have just released a new column for the Frontier Centre about why I do not support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2946
To to be honest, my biggest complaint about the UN Declaration it is an easy diversion from important work that needs to be accomplished at home. During the negotiations over this document, indigenous leaders from all over Canada (and elsewhere) were taken away from Canada, shuttled around on flights and put in expensive hotels, to negotiated for a non-binding legal document that already overlaps with so many court judgments pertaining to Aboriginals in Canada already.
I also strongly oppose it because it provides, once again, illegitimate moral cover, for leaders to avoid band accountability issues in Canada.
This is all besides the legal and constitutional issues that the document presents.
Canada has constitutional protection for First Nations, thank you very much, they do not need a one-size-fits-all approach from Geneva, Switzerland or New York City.
I have just released a new column for the Frontier Centre about why I do not support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2946
To to be honest, my biggest complaint about the UN Declaration it is an easy diversion from important work that needs to be accomplished at home. During the negotiations over this document, indigenous leaders from all over Canada (and elsewhere) were taken away from Canada, shuttled around on flights and put in expensive hotels, to negotiated for a non-binding legal document that already overlaps with so many court judgments pertaining to Aboriginals in Canada already.
I also strongly oppose it because it provides, once again, illegitimate moral cover, for leaders to avoid band accountability issues in Canada.
This is all besides the legal and constitutional issues that the document presents.
Canada has constitutional protection for First Nations, thank you very much, they do not need a one-size-fits-all approach from Geneva, Switzerland or New York City.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Some good news in Indian Country.
Apparently, AFN national chief Shawn Atleo has stated that he will push for First Nation economic self-sufficiency, as he recognizes that political independence and economic independence are inescapably linked.
This is from a recent news story in the Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/afn-chief-vows-to-push-economic-self-sufficiency/article1290784/
This is encouraging news and I wish the best to Atleo in his plans to work towards FN self-sufficiency.
It's funny how I was called a right wing crank on APTN for suggesting this by First Nation journalist and co-panelist Trevor Greyeyes.
I have said that PM Stephen Harper could truly be a transformational leader in this area as Trudeau was with the Charter if he took this issue as his own and expended political capital.
The debate over ending the Indian Act and freeing up First Nation business activity should start now.
Apparently, AFN national chief Shawn Atleo has stated that he will push for First Nation economic self-sufficiency, as he recognizes that political independence and economic independence are inescapably linked.
This is from a recent news story in the Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/afn-chief-vows-to-push-economic-self-sufficiency/article1290784/
This is encouraging news and I wish the best to Atleo in his plans to work towards FN self-sufficiency.
It's funny how I was called a right wing crank on APTN for suggesting this by First Nation journalist and co-panelist Trevor Greyeyes.
I have said that PM Stephen Harper could truly be a transformational leader in this area as Trudeau was with the Charter if he took this issue as his own and expended political capital.
The debate over ending the Indian Act and freeing up First Nation business activity should start now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
