More Canadian Repression/Genocide

["Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Roberta Jamieson, elected chief of Six Nations of the
Grand River,
Canada's most populous First Nation.

Roberta Jamieson, recently elected chief of Six Nations of
the Grand River
granted the following interview to Executive Editor Tim
Johnson on the Reserve in
Canada. Jamieson is emerging as a leading critic of the
First Nations Governance
Act, which would restructure relations between the national
government and
tribal self-rule.

ICT: To begin, what are your overall impressions of the
First Nations
Governance Act, and how would you characterize its meaning
and purpose at this time?

Jamieson: Well, I think the First Nations Governance Act is
really best
described as Indian Act II. It is yet another set of rules
for our communities,
imposed on our communities, developed in Ottawa. It's
something that's been dragged
out of the midst of colonialism, informed by the same
thinking that informed the
1884 Act for the Gradual Civilization of Indians. It's the
same thought
process, I'm sorry to say. It's colonialism pure and
simple. It may be dressed in
shiny new clothes. The minister talks about the need to
enhance accountability. He
talks about giving us the tools to enable us to better
govern ourselves. But
really when you look closely at the bill itself it is not
about the minister
getting out of the "Indian business." It is about the
minister taking greater
control. He is now going to be keeping a registry of laws
passed at the local level.
And we all know what a dismal failure the department has
made out of our
registration of our lands and our membership and now he
wants to keep the
registration of our laws? I mean where do you want me to
begin? There are many things
about this act, both from its starting point, its mindset,
and about the details
itself that are, frankly, offensive.

ICT: The Assembly of First Nations analysis describes the
First Nations
Governance Act as being about elections, accountability and
legal standing. How does
this line up with your own assessment?

Jamieson: Those are some of the contents for sure. I think
it's as remarkable
for what's in it, as for what's not in it. Some of the
things that are gross
omissions are any recognition of our rights in the
constitution. You know since
the time of treaties our people have been recognized as
nations and then with the
passage of the Indian Act there was much more of a colonial
approach. Then we
worked and worked -- and our ancestors worked -- through
the century and in '82
we were successful in getting our rights recognized in
Canada's modern
constitution. That was a major victory. And now the
minister would have us believe that
that didn't happen. That's why reaching back to the Indian
Act, pulling it
forward and tinkering with it as a blueprint for our
future, just doesn't cut it,
and shouldn't cut it with Canadians either. Because if our
constitutional rights
can be ignored, who's next? You know we've heard our people
referred to as the
"miner's canary." You know what that is. When the miners
take the canary down
the shaft, if it dies ... well don't go there. Well if our
rights can be
violated like that, all Canadians should be concerned for
their constitutional rights.

ICT: When you talk about this government-to-government
relationship, this
seemed to be lacking in this proposed legislation. We were
wondering why (as the Act
and the government's supporting literature suggest) there
need to be changes to
the legal status of First Nations as they are currently
proposing?

Jamieson: There doesn't. This minister pretends as though
he's going to give us
the right to sue and be sued. Frankly, any of the things
that he has in the
bill we do today, yesterday, on a daily basis here at Six
Nations. He's giving us
nothing new. The list of jurisdictions he puts out in the
bill is less than
that of a municipal government. We can now regulate noise?
We're supposed to be
delighted by this sort of thing? Public nuisance? He's
going to allow us to
prohibit intoxicants? I mean, really. This sort of stuff is
insulting.

ICT: We were wondering, in Canada, whatever happened to the
concept of
sovereign immunity? In the United States many of the Indian
nations guard their
sovereign government standing. So when we heard this notion
about suing or being sued,
where do the rights, powers and authorities of tribal
governments get
exercised? We were wondering where this proposed
legislation addresses that issue?

Jamieson: Well as I say it's a throwback to the days when
they tried to put us
into a box that they could control through federal
legislation. It was
offensive then in that it didn't recognize our sovereignty.
And so it's even worse now
because the constitution, we think in Section 35, when it
says we recognize and
affirm the treaty and aboriginal rights of Aboriginal
people in Canada, that,
de facto, included sovereignty. That included the right to
govern our own
people. And so now, more than ever, I think our case is a
stronger one in modern law.
That is why we must oppose this because to accept it is
really to take a giant
step backwards. And that's also why as we speak there are
lawyers in
Saskatchewan working on a legal case that will challenge
this act on three constitutional
grounds.

ICT: Which are?

Jamieson: Offending Section 35, the rights I've just
described (in the
constitution of Canada). Offending our collective rights as
protected under Section 25
of the Charter. And probably one of the most creative
challenges involves a
section that is called Section 35-1. Basically, the
argument goes like this. We
are the only peoples who were recognized as requiring First
Ministers'
conferences to deal with issues affecting our rights. That
means in the constitution the
Prime Minister was required to meet with our leadership and
premiers across the
country to talk about issues affecting our rights. And
this, we believe that
changes like this should attract the same attention, the
same requirement. The
other thing is there the Supreme Court decision, called
Sparrow, which basically
said that any time you're going to adversely impact the
rights, or attempt to
diminish the rights, the constitutional rights of
Aboriginal peoples in Canada,
you must meet a very high standard of consultation. And
this minister, who
spoke to at best, 10,000 people across Canada, many of whom
were his own employees
and or were repeat hits on the web site and call-ins on his
toll-free line (so
couldn't be verified). By anybody's standards this just
doesn't make the bare
minimum. It's less than three percent of our population.
Who would say that that
was adequate in Canada, in the United States, anywhere in
the world frankly?

ICT: The minister talks about particular "uncertainties" as
justifications for
proposed changes to the legal status of First Nations. In
the United States
most of these "uncertainties" are handled one-by-one rather
than by some sweeping
legislation because sovereignty exists in many different
areas - jurisdiction
over taxation, education, zoning. These are preferably
worked out through some
negotiating process on a government-to-government basis and
imposed unilateral
measures usually don't work. Does this continue a
paternalistic approach to
things?

Jamieson: The minister says he has to do this because he
can't wait 60 years
for the self-government agreements he'd like to negotiate
with everyone to be
negotiated. But the only one holding up sitting down at the
table and working out
a partnership plan to move forward is the minister. If you
look right across
the country any of our brothers and sisters of the
so-called treaty table or
negotiating processes that are in play nationally, the vast
majority of them are
going nowhere. That's because the minister and federal
officials have dug their
heels in and they are not prepared to move forward with
vision, or courage, or
conviction. And so I really think this act is about
diverting our attention away
from exercising our rights under the constitution. He want
to tie us up in
nit-picky rules for a couple of years when what we really
should be doing is
working to build and strengthen our communities. Frankly,
18 months ago we had a
historic speech from the throne in this country where the
government promised in
all of its priorities to address the real issues in the
communities, housing,
education, health, infrastructure, including clean water.
Well frankly that's what
I want to be working on too. That's what our people need.
That's not what this
act does.

ICT: The First Nations Governance Act seems to bottle up
First Nations, and
then move each of the First Nations toward self-government
agreements. A couple of
years ago we looked at some of these self-government
agreements, the ones that
are omitted from the First Nations Governance Act, namely
the Cree-Naskapi (of
Quebec), the Nisga'a Nation, the Sechelt Indian Band, and
the Yukon First
Nations. But didn't they all end up paying Canadian taxes
in those agreements?

Jamieson: They certainly do in Sechelt. They do in Nisga'a.
They do in Yukon.
I'm not so sure about the Cree. I'd have to look at it
again, but absolutely for
the majority paying taxes was a condition.

ICT: That's a major sovereign power and authority that any
government has. The
power and authority over its own taxation base.

Jamieson: Well hold on to your hat because this minister is
putting forward
what he calls a "suite" of legislation. And there are more
pieces coming. He is
going to create a national First Nations Tax Commission. He
is going to create a
financial authority body like a management board. All of
these things, again,
do not require federal legislation. We could each of us in
our own communities
exercise our authority, so what I think he is attempting to
do is define,
package, control and exclude, instead of looking for way to
include our nations in a
partnership with Canada. He is looking for a way of
controlling and focussing
our energy, without any resources I might add, to make all
this possible.

ICT: In the U.S. what they are finding is that the only
policy that has ever
worked is Indian sovereignty. This realization has come
about largely as a result
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, which really
was a federal
response to the exercise of sovereignty by Indian nations.
It was their way of
mitigating conflicts with states. Tribes are now taking
control of their own futures
and setting up whatever government institutions they need
to and then act. In
Canada we have this Indian Act and we also have a lot of
communities that are
very dependent on this transfer of funds from this federal
government. How in the
world can First Nations communities get out from underneath
this structure?

Jamieson: A big part of it is our own thinking. We have the
ability to act. We
have the historical foundation on which we can stand to
act. We have, I
believe, a sense of vision. We need the conviction to eat
our Wheaties and to take
those first courageous, bold steps forward. I think by
doing we will demonstrate
that we can do. One of the things I talked to the Chiefs
about in my speech in
Winnipeg, and in Ottawa, was about the need for us to say,
"not the government
must," but "we insist they." We have to start saying I
will. We are. We are
doing this. And there is a lot of fear out there I can tell
you.

ICT: What about the backlash?

Jamieson: Well I think the Canadian public all want to see
us dealt with fairly
and justly. And I think we've got a big education job on
our hands to let the
public know what we're about and why we're doing what we're
doing. But the
Indian Act is not the source of funds for our communities.
The Indian Act is not the
place that the resources come for our communities. Our
communities resources
are due to us because of the lands and resources we have
shared with others. And
when we start thinking and talking that way, and exercising
it in a respectful
way, in a constructive way, and empower ourselves as we did
in the '80s when we
got constitutional recognition that was an empowering
moment. Let's remember
the feelings of those days as we did when we defeated the
'69 White Paper policy.
I guess the only good news this week is that this bill has
gone to committee
after first reading, which is where the '69 White Paper
went and we killed it.
And it hasn't escaped most of us that Chretien, the now
Prime Minister, was the
then Indian Affairs minister, who authored the '69 White
Paper policy. And so
many of us are determined to repeat that lesson. But
frankly, we'd rather not be
doing that. We'd rather not be on the hill or in the
courts. We'd rather be
working hard at home.

ICT: Under the law-making powers section of the act, Powers
of Band Councils,
Section 16, Number 2, and in subsequent places as well,
First Nations are
enabled to make laws for certain purposes. However, at the
end of each of those
sections it says if there is any conflict with this act or
any other act of
parliament that the federal laws prevail. So are First
Nations governments
municipalities? What are you really?

Jamieson: It's containment. You notice that you can make
laws over wildlife,
but not fish. You know why? Because we have a hot fishing
rights issue going on
three coasts. So again, it's all about containment. You'll
see that one of the
most dangerous parts about the act that really hasn't been
commented on from
what I've seen yet, is that it leaves for later the
regulations to be made by
Orders in Council. So this is a framework piece and it's
been very skillfully
crafted to look like a motherhood, ie, who could object to
this, only those most
corrupt leaders who don't want to be accountable. And then
he reserves for the
implementation of it to be done under regulations by Order
in Council. Now
regulations are not unusual things. In this case I think it
is an extraordinary thing
because, again, they are dealing with our constitutional
rights. And
regulations can be passed by an Order in Council, which
simply means the Cabinet sitting
in a closed room by resolution, can make further rules and
standards for our
communities.

ICT: This is where the First Nations Governance Act refers
to Governor General?

Jamieson: It's called the Governor in Council by
regulation. And that just
means Cabinet sitting on its own can pass motions to impose
further things on our
people. And that's in that act. Also the minister retains
the right to review
election appeals. The minister is broadening his
opportunity to come in and
regulate financial affairs. I mean he's telling everybody
he's getting off our
backs. Oh no he's not.

ICT: It's interesting studying the history of Jean Chretien
in Native affairs.
Years ago when he was heading up the Department of Indian
Affairs he was
opposed to the border crossing rights of Native peoples. He
has quite a legacy in his
relations with First Nations.

Jamieson: Yeah, and it's extraordinary when you see he is
from a province,
Quebec, that when you see some of the most progressive
things happening nationally,
are being proposed by the provincial government of Quebec,
now working with the
Crees. So that is our reality. He's also involved in a
leadership battle. One
can only hope that will preoccupy everyone's time. We know
that the Queen is
coming in the fall. All these timing issues are coming into
play. One other thing
I want to mention to you that, again, is in the act and not
been commented on.
It's very clear in the act that we make rules only over the
reserves. There is
no discussion of any territory beyond that. Now, there's
another bill that was
introduced on the House in last week on the new [Indian]
claims process that is
setting up to settle outstanding land issues in Canada.
That process they are
pretending is independent. It isn't, and will resolve the
majority of claims in
Canada. The problem with it is it's a cash only deal.
Therefore, if you read
them together what they have firmly in mind is postage
stamp sizes of land for
the future. There is no ability through the new claims
process to get additional
land. It's unacceptable. And the top cash award is million,
from which you
deduct your lawyers costs and the negotiating costs. So
when you put this whole
picture together it's a very tragic one.

ICT: Some of these [First Nations] communities may end up
owing money.

Jamieson: That's right. Well Six Nations is in court of
course so I'm saying
that process [negotiation] is obviously not going to give
us what we need.

ICT: So that's their policy. No land returned at all under
these land claim
settlements?

Jamieson: It's not available under the claims tribunal
they're setting up. The
only way they'll consider it is if in the negotiations
you're able to negotiate
willing seller and willing buyer, and then only with the
less than million
they're giving you. The other thing is their budget for the
year is million, so if
you do the math that's ten claims a year. There's a
500-claim backlog existing
now. This is not progressive thinking but the public just
doesn't know about
it.

ICT: With respect to this current legislation [First
Nations Governance Act]
what is the response going to be?

Jamieson: On all fronts, opposition. You'll see us act
internationally. We're
talking about this across Canada now. I'm on a national
committee. In the
courts. On the hill. Lobbying. In the churches. In the
schools. Educating. I think,
increasingly, you'll see people talking about exercising
their rights. I think
you'll see '60s activism. I think you'll see radicalization
of many of our
peoples. It is putting into motion a process that will be
hard to turn around. And
it's actually a very troubling time on all sides I think.
Because you're also
seeing a rise in conservatism in this country out west in
Alliance [the political
party] country where it's "taxpayers rights" they're
talking about. So we're in
for tough times in this country I'm afraid, unless we have
a turnaround.

ICT: How would you characterize these band councils in
Canada, as "governments"
or "administrations?" How would you characterize them?

Jamieson: That's an interesting question. Well I can tell
you how I
characterize myself in this one [Six Nations]. I don't
pretend to be Hoyaneh, I'm not a
traditional chief. I am working from the position I have
taken on to develop in
this community a system of decision making we can all
support. As you may know
one of the undertakings that I gave as part of the
platform, on which I was
elected and which this council has accepted, is to create a
commission that will
develop a system of decision making that we all can
support.



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.