DIA man says self-gov't progress slow

Page 3

The Department of Indian Affairs (DIAND) assistant deputy minister admitted there's been "no great progress in Native self-government" at a lecture at the University of Lethbridge, Oct. 15.

R.J. Van Loon, assistant deputy minister for Native self-government, said that only two Native bands in Canada "have any real type of self-government". He was referring tot he Sechelt band in British Columbia and a Cree band in northern Quebec who are governing themselves.

Van Loon said Indian Affairs is aware that most Indian politicians are sharply critical of the Sechelt model because it's a major concession which will make the Indian reserve more prone to provincial jurisdiction and control.

He said Native politicians have always advocated that "they had an inherent right to self-government which already exists but that must be recognized by the federal government."

Prior to 1984, former Indian Affairs minister, David Crombie, initiated the self-government movement and was almost successful in reaching a consensus among the government and Native leaders.

"We were that close to an acceptable self-government but we missed in 1984. After that things went downhill at the subsequent first ministers' conferences," said Van Loon.

However, negotiations were at a stalemate because "Native self-government was not clearly defined," said Van Loon. The Indian Affairs then commissioned a lawyer Keith Penner, to travel Canadian Indian reserves to talk to Aboriginal people about what they wanted in self-government. "That (Penner Report) was the first formal acknowledgement of the Native self-government process," he said.

According to Van Loon Bill C-52 was proposed shortly after the Penner Report was released by the federal government "so that an umbrella legislation would be in place to broadly define the outer limits of Native self-government.

"But it (Bill C-52) wasn't a crushing success and it wasn't very popular with the Indian leadership. The boundaries were too restricted," said Van Loon.

Still problems existed in implementing a Native self-government model because both non-Native and Native politicians wrangled over how that process can be achieved.

Although Van Loon pointed out that the issue of Native self-government is still "a hot issue today" Indian Affairs is still working towards helping more Native bands assume more control of their tribes.

But he stressed "it would be illogical and stupid if the federal government says, here's what Native self-government is."

In order to commence negotiations with Indian bands who want self-government, Van Loon said they must meet two requirements. "First, they must have the support of their communities and that their proposed structure is within the Charter of Freedoms and Rights," he said.

Indian Affairs even provides funds to Native bands so that they can disseminate information and feedback on Native self-government.

Van Loon noted that when Indian bands enter into negotiations on self-government, they can't acquire new lands or monies but the process will not reduce treaty rights.

In the past few years, Indian Affairs has implemented such programs as Block Funds and Alternative financial arrangements so that bands can move towards self-government," said Van Loon. The arrangement allows bands to receive "a chunk of monies and plan and allocate these funds in whatever programs they want," said Van Loon.

However, Dr. Menno Boldt, a sociology professor at the U of L, responded to Van Loon's lecture by saying that "Native self-government is a very misleading term. Indians have always maintained that they always had the right to govern themselves."

He added, "The above alternatives by Indian Affairs are not useful and practical. They are still under the control of Indian Affairs and are not governing themselves."

"Van Loon was invited by the U of L School of Management as part of the distinguished speakers series.