Chiefs concerned about "blurring of lines"

Page 9

Chiefs across the country believe that the unique position of First Nations in Canada is being threatened by the pan-Aboriginal approach being employed by federal officials. Metis issues and Inuit issues should not be poured into the same pot with the issues of First Nations people.

National Chief Phil Fontaine returned to that subject several times during the course of the Assembly of First Nations' three-day special assembly in December.

"The relationship between the federal government and First Nations has improved significantly, but we continue to run up against this approach that serves to undermine the unique position occupied by First Nations and that is the pan-Aboriginal approach, the Aboriginalization of our issues," he said. "We have distinct rights and we don't want to see any blurring of the lines by the federal government. There's been a serious attempt to undermine our position in that regard. So while we achieve success on this front, our best efforts are undermined by people who believe the most effective way of dealing with our issues is the pan-Aboriginal approach. Of course that's not true."

With the Supreme Court of Canada's Powley decision making the Aboriginal rights of Metis people more concrete, First Nation leaders are feeling somewhat threatened. The fact that Indian Affairs (INAC) Minister Andy Scott has become the first cabinet minister ever to be responsible for First Nations, Metis and Inuit issues all at the same time, has First Nation leaders seeing signs that the lines between First Nation rights and Aboriginal rights are blurring. Several chiefs said it looks like government processes are leaning toward creating economies of scale by ignoring distinctions among Aboriginal groups.

Chief Marjorie McRae of the Gitanmaax First Nation (British Columbia) told her fellow chiefs that the First Nation leadership collectively had "dropped the ball, politically" on this issue. She warned that federal officials would need constant reminders that First Nations issues and Metis issues are two very different matters.

"First Nations, we are pre-contact. We can't lose sight of that. That's what makes us so unique in Canada. We were the first people here," McRae told the chiefs. "By buying the government's changed terminology when they deal with us, they're putting us into a melting pot. We have to continuously reaffirm we want First Nations driven processes for health, for [human resource development]. INAC is for First Nations and now we see that the Metis are able to access our [economic development] dollars. Look at the situation in Labrador, for heaven's sakes, where the Metis are going to court to fight the Inuit for their land claim treaty that they've been negotiating for 30 years. That absolutely frightens me. Who owns the land? We as First Nations own the land. The Inuit in their territory own the land. And we've allowed the federal government to do this to us."

The Gitanmaax chief told the national chief that he must ensure the message is repeated at all points of contact with federal officials.

"We have to repeat it at all tables," she said. "We need First Nation driven processes. We can't deviate away from this because we are being disintegrated as First Nations people. Now you have the Metis claiming land in Labrador. Where did the Metis come from? They came after contact. We have to remember the history here. The legal obligation of the government is to First Nations because we're wards of the Crown."

Fontaine later complained that two of the five national Aboriginal organizations dealing with the federal government, the Congress of Aboriginal People and the Native Women's Association of Canada, should not be at the table because they are "not governments."

Later, in a one-on-one interview with Windspeaker, Fontaine was asked about what could be seen as anti-Metis comments by chiefs. He was asked if there might be a backlash against the government's attempt at blurring of lines that would pit different Aboriginal peoples against one another.

"The Metis would prefer, as we do, that there be clear lines. The difference between Metis and First Nations is that our rights are clearly defined as far as we're concerned. So we're not involved in a process of definition. Our issue is the implementation of these rights," he said.

Some bureaucrats believe that "a pan-Aboriginal approach will be more effective," he added. "And we have concern with that. We encounter it on almost a daily basis. Documents come out that say 'Aboriginal this, Aboriginal that.' And we have to keep reminding them that we represent First Nations. We're talking about First Nations' rights on and off reserve. Then they'll come back and say, 'It's just wording.' But it's more than just wording."