A brand new ball game

Page 4

The Supreme Court verified on May 20 what anyone with even the most basic understanding of Canadian constitutional law already knew: bands that prevent members from voting in band elections because of where they live are discriminating against their own members and denying those members one of their most basic constitutional rights.

We often wonder about the political motivations of Indian Affairs but we've never questioned their intelligence. Indian Affairs, we believe, had to know the legal position they took in the Corbiere case was dead wrong. They had to know it was just a matter of time until the courts pointed out the error of the department's ways.

Explaining the reasons why Indian Affairs persisted are best left to people like Harry Daniels, Jim Sinclair, John Corbiere and others who are in the political trenches. They made their views clear in the story in this edition about the decision (see story).

The biggest question, of course, is: What's next?

If people who haven't been able to vote in the past suddenly start heading home at election time to cast their ballots, the chiefs and councillors know they won't be voting for the incumbents if they haven't been reaching out to the off-reserve membership. If the chiefs and councils want to keep their jobs, they'll soon see that they'd better do a bit of off-reserve campaigning. It won't necessarily mean knocking on doors far from home, but the next time an issue comes before council that will affect the off-reserve members, council will be more interested in representing those people.

We don't see how that can be a bad thing.

But many councillors remember how then-Indian Affairs minister David Crombie stood in his place in the House of Commons in 1985 and pledged that Bill C-31 would not put bands in a worse financial situation than they were already in. Many chiefs and councils feel that promise has been broken and they have no choice but to target all available funding to the on-reserve population. They blame the government for the split between ons and offs.

The answer appears to be simple: the federal government has to honor its agreements with all Aboriginal people in good faith. It'll be expensive but, as the court said on May 20, it's the right thing to do.