“Idle No More” First Nations campaign about entitlements vs responsibilities
While I don’t usually write about federal politics anymore, I could not ignore the current “Idle No More“ campaign by Canada’s Aboriginal peoples and what used to be the Occupy movement.
They are allegedly protesting against a Harper Government’s omnibus budget bill which, they say, will adversely affect First Nations treaties.
They are also protesting that the Harper Government is not consulting enough or doing enough — which is puzzling to most Canadians, particularly Conservatives, because they know the Harper Government has focused on this community more than most previous governments.
For example, on my list of accomplishments for the period 2006-2011, the Harper government:
Made a formal parliamentary apology (#5); Made Arctic Sovereignty a priority (#6); Brought in gender equality for Native women (#22); Signed the Indian Residential Agreement and set up a Reconciliation Commission (#33); Settled 800+ land claims agreements, more than any previous federal government (#39); Announced a Northern Regional Development Economic Agency (#43); and Completed the Nunavik Inuit Land Claim Agreement (#44).
Then, there is what the Harper Government allocates to Native issues, over and above the billions they usually spend. Check out this Budget 2012 page, for example. Some $707.7 million is invested in stimulus over three years for Northern communities. Another $691.8 million for First Nations Education, water infrastructure and for an urban Aboriginal strategy.
So, what is the real issue behind “Idle No More?” Is the problem Bill C-45, the Omnibus budget Bill that the Natives claim will adversely affect the way reserve lands are leased? Or, is the protesting against that Bill simply a distraction from Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.
Regarding C-45, Blake Richards, the MP for Wild Rose, says:”What it’s doing is, like the rest of our budget, it’s focusing on being able to create jobs and growth and prosperity for all Canadians and that includes our First Nations — these changes don’t alter treaty rights or any land claims processes at all. [Richards also said] It’s unfortunate they [Native leaders] didn’t take the opportunity to contact their member of parliament and let me know of their concerns.”
However, let’s take a closer look at C-27 which is, effectively, at the core of this post about responsibilities versus entitlements. At present, every Canadian government sends billions to reserves for every conceivable need.
Yet, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Aboriginal children, youth and adults currently living in squalor and third world conditions. Why? We don’t actually know because there doesn’t seem to be any systematic accounting of what the money is spent on, as there is with municipal governments.
Why might that lack of accountability be a problem? Well, for one thing, as this taxpayer.com site shows, there are questions that need to be answered. While I don’t want to tarnish all Aboriginal leaders with the same brush, taxpayer.com reports that in the 2008-09 year:
“50 reserve politicians were paid more than Prime Minister Harper; 160 reserve politicians were paid more than their respective premiers; over 600 received an income that is equivalent to over $100,000 off reserve; and one Atlantic Canada reserve politician was paid $978,468 tax-free (which is equal to about $1.8 million off reserve).”
So, while “Idle No More” talk about Bill C-45, the real source of Native anger – which I believe is accountability — goes under-reported.
The thing is, this distrust of the Canadian government and the aversion to change and accountability is not new. Back as far as 1969, none other than former PM and then Aboriginal Affairs Minister Jean Chretien saw what was happening to Native peoples and released a White Paper which, surprisingly proposed to:
“Eliminate Indian status;Dissolve the Department of Indian Affairs within five years; Abolish the Indian Act; Convert reserve land to private property that can be sold by the band or its members; Transfer responsibility for Indian affairs from the federal government to the province and integrate these services into those provided to other Canadian citizens; Provide funding for economic development; and Appoint a commissioner to address outstanding land claims and gradually terminate existing treaties.”
The reaction then, unfortunately, was as predictable as now. Aboriginal leaders across Canada were shocked and appalled that the ideas in the paper were not part of the consultation process preceding it and considered it just part of the fabric of oppression created by non-aboriginals.
So here we are again. Just as in the past, some of Canada’s journalists don’t seem to see that the issue is, actually, accountability and resistance to change. For example, the Toronto Star’s Jeff Dennis and Michael Harris both write about Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence and her hunger strike as though she has reason to draw attention to her band’s plight.
In fact, Harris goes so far as to suggest that the Harper government is responsible for hollow talk and half lies, saying: ”If you want to know why Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence is on a hunger strike, it is because official apologies from on high do not feed families, build houses, install water systems or educate kids. It is because some of the poorest bands in the country have concluded that Stephen Harper has to be put on the spot.”
Well, Mr Harris, you’re right, apologies don’t do any of those things. But the millions upon millions of dollars provided by the federal government and the millions provided by the De Beers diamond mine should.
The crux of the matter is that all public tax payer money has strings attached, always has and always will. Be it Bill C-45 or C-27, government officials and Cabinets make decisions that not everyone agrees with. That is the essence of democracy. Meaning, if Aboriginals don’t like something, they should not only consult with their own Chiefs, but their MPs as well.
So, while it may not be politically correct to say it, the “Idle No More” campaign needs to be about both First Nations entitlements and their corresponding responsibilities (i.e., accountability for how they spend the money allocated to them through the entitlements).
