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.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
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.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The need for polling in First Nations
In my job as a policy analyst with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, I help distribute and conduct analysis on surveys for our Aboriginal Governance Index. We ask questions about all areas of band governance, economic development and service delivery. One thing we are looking into is gauging opinions on abstract questions. One area I want to explore are notions of individual rights and opinions about the limits on government. We could even ask band members how they feel about how regional grand chiefs or even the national chief of the AFN is selected.
One thing that has always bothered me are grand statements made by indigenous leaders and academics about how different First Nations are from everyone else. We need culture-specific programming for everything. Aboriginal philosophers assert that there is an "Aboriginal way of knowing" or Aboriginal epistemologies (study of knowledge).
I don't doubt that First Nations have different opinions and values than perhaps other Canadians. They have a different understanding of Canadian history; there is no doubt.
However, I am not as convinced that their commitment to individual rights, their basic beliefs about government, are as different as they are made out to be. I believe First Nations would also show support for individual property rights on-reserve, if given the opportunity to voice their opinions.
This is why I believe there need to be more polls done of on-reserve First Nation populations to discover these things. Let's settle some of these issues of whether Natives have different values once and for all.
One thing that has always bothered me are grand statements made by indigenous leaders and academics about how different First Nations are from everyone else. We need culture-specific programming for everything. Aboriginal philosophers assert that there is an "Aboriginal way of knowing" or Aboriginal epistemologies (study of knowledge).
I don't doubt that First Nations have different opinions and values than perhaps other Canadians. They have a different understanding of Canadian history; there is no doubt.
However, I am not as convinced that their commitment to individual rights, their basic beliefs about government, are as different as they are made out to be. I believe First Nations would also show support for individual property rights on-reserve, if given the opportunity to voice their opinions.
This is why I believe there need to be more polls done of on-reserve First Nation populations to discover these things. Let's settle some of these issues of whether Natives have different values once and for all.
Monday, August 17, 2009
APTN panel
Hello everyone:
Sorry for the delay in posting! I have been uber busy recently with different work and home-related issues.
I was on APTN tonight. This is actually the second time I have been on this national news show.
The show can be viewed here: http://www.aptn.ca/pages/news/index.php?wmv=monday/six
It is hosted by the talented Patrice Mousseau. Patrice is an excellent host/producer. She allows her panelists the freedom to explore different areas, yet manages to keep things under control!
Tonight, I was debating the relevancy of the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs.
The whole issue went off the handles when we discussed First Nation housing and I raised the issue of (cue ominous music) private ownership of homes and the condition of housing.
One panelist I argued with was journalist Trevor Greyeyes. For those in Manitoba, Greyeyes is a reputable First Nation reporter. He now freelances at the Drum/First Perspective (www.firstperspective.ca), my old stomping ground. The Drum is an Aboriginal newspaper that is committed to Aboriginal governance reform.
I was very disappointed that Greyeyes felt he had to be argumentative with every point I made. Greyeyes has written in support of accountability measures for bands, so I am surprised he felt he had to attack me because I work for the Frontier Centre being as we promote such measures. This is the evil "right wing" he was referring to in his commentary.
Anyways, I think it is accurate to mention that private ownership is a key component of any successful housing strategy. I mean urban Aboriginals have access to individual housing, so why should on-reserve First Nations be excluded from the benefits? There are MANY bands out there that are experimenting with private housing.
I wanted to ask Greyeyes whether or not he felt that if a First Nation person owned their own house they were somehow less indigenous than someone who did not.. I think this is the crux of the issue. Certain indigenous activists like Greyeyes have this pre-conceived, deterministic image of what an Indian is and has to include ideas of collective land ownership. There is no room for change in their view. I wonder what this means for urban Aboriginals who own their own home? What about the New Zealand Maori who do not live on reserves and live in cities? Are they not indigenous?
The bottom line for me is does a system work or not.. And if it does work, why can it not work for everybody? Why would the benefits of capitalism all of a sudden stop working for Indians? Because there is some magical force that makes indigenous people so much different than anybody else?
I like to compare it to technology. When one particular society comes up with a great new invention or new labour-saving technology, we do not obsess over where it came from, like we do with certain ideas. This whole "I can't support this because it is Western or Eurocentric and we are indigenous" argument is very unconvincing and silly. When we invent new technologies, we allow all humanity to benefit from it, regardless of their background or culture. The same can be said for conceptions of individual human rights or the free market.
Are they good ideas or not? If so, why are they applicable to some groups and not others. I am not arguing we should impose ideas on people, but I feel that the truth or utility of something can be verified empirically irrespective of its origins.
I argue that First Nations should embrace individual rights and capitalism because I believe fundamentally it will create the conditions to stop group oppression and in the case of capitalism, it will enlarge their material conditions which will allow them to prosper.
Please tell me why arguing for this is evil..
Sorry for the delay in posting! I have been uber busy recently with different work and home-related issues.
I was on APTN tonight. This is actually the second time I have been on this national news show.
The show can be viewed here: http://www.aptn.ca/pages/news/index.php?wmv=monday/six
It is hosted by the talented Patrice Mousseau. Patrice is an excellent host/producer. She allows her panelists the freedom to explore different areas, yet manages to keep things under control!
Tonight, I was debating the relevancy of the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs.
The whole issue went off the handles when we discussed First Nation housing and I raised the issue of (cue ominous music) private ownership of homes and the condition of housing.
One panelist I argued with was journalist Trevor Greyeyes. For those in Manitoba, Greyeyes is a reputable First Nation reporter. He now freelances at the Drum/First Perspective (www.firstperspective.ca), my old stomping ground. The Drum is an Aboriginal newspaper that is committed to Aboriginal governance reform.
I was very disappointed that Greyeyes felt he had to be argumentative with every point I made. Greyeyes has written in support of accountability measures for bands, so I am surprised he felt he had to attack me because I work for the Frontier Centre being as we promote such measures. This is the evil "right wing" he was referring to in his commentary.
Anyways, I think it is accurate to mention that private ownership is a key component of any successful housing strategy. I mean urban Aboriginals have access to individual housing, so why should on-reserve First Nations be excluded from the benefits? There are MANY bands out there that are experimenting with private housing.
I wanted to ask Greyeyes whether or not he felt that if a First Nation person owned their own house they were somehow less indigenous than someone who did not.. I think this is the crux of the issue. Certain indigenous activists like Greyeyes have this pre-conceived, deterministic image of what an Indian is and has to include ideas of collective land ownership. There is no room for change in their view. I wonder what this means for urban Aboriginals who own their own home? What about the New Zealand Maori who do not live on reserves and live in cities? Are they not indigenous?
The bottom line for me is does a system work or not.. And if it does work, why can it not work for everybody? Why would the benefits of capitalism all of a sudden stop working for Indians? Because there is some magical force that makes indigenous people so much different than anybody else?
I like to compare it to technology. When one particular society comes up with a great new invention or new labour-saving technology, we do not obsess over where it came from, like we do with certain ideas. This whole "I can't support this because it is Western or Eurocentric and we are indigenous" argument is very unconvincing and silly. When we invent new technologies, we allow all humanity to benefit from it, regardless of their background or culture. The same can be said for conceptions of individual human rights or the free market.
Are they good ideas or not? If so, why are they applicable to some groups and not others. I am not arguing we should impose ideas on people, but I feel that the truth or utility of something can be verified empirically irrespective of its origins.
I argue that First Nations should embrace individual rights and capitalism because I believe fundamentally it will create the conditions to stop group oppression and in the case of capitalism, it will enlarge their material conditions which will allow them to prosper.
Please tell me why arguing for this is evil..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)