Leadership accountability brings people together

Page 6

Indian Affairs Minister Ron Irwin was quoted in Windspeaker (April 1995) saying that he won't act unilaterally, but will involve Native Leaders from all across Canada: "I will ask them as I am asking you, to focus on the most archaic and objectionable provisions of the Indian Act."

I take this opportunity to accommodate the minster's suggestion for feedback concerning the archaic and objectionable provisions of the Indian Act which created an atrociously flawed system.

The current system inherited by band councils from Indian Affairs has no foundation whatsoever for positive change and progress in the community. This band-government system, regulated by the Indian Act, primarily requires a chief and council to be accountable to DIAND instead of the band membership. In practical terms, the bands have no

real leaders because the chief and councilors are, in a significant way, Indian Affairs employees. They (the band councils) basically carry out general clerical duties for Indian Affairs in addition to their role as administrators of government policy.

Furthermore, there is nothing in place that requires a band council to call a special band meeting where a detailed account of a complete annual audited financial statement is presented. Nor are there

enforceable conflict of interest rules for the elected leaders. In

fact, current band governments are the only governments in the country that have no conflict of interest rules for elected leaders.

What the current system does is place band leaders in a position where they can act as catalysts for impairing the basis for unity and development in the community. In other words, the way the system regulates leadership, the chief and council merely serve to create confusion and conflict in the community, instead of building a better

world for their people.

The elite leaders and councilors in general have shown little inclination to risk their incomes and have also been reluctant to give up the status and privileges they have gained from the existing colonial design of band government. This system has empowered the elite to create wealth and a government for themselves while the majority of band members continue to live in despair, destitution and powerlessness..

What is even more disturbing is that, in the event that the external

controls begin to lift as the dismantling of DIAND begins, the ruling

elite can ultimately become accountable only to themselves if the

grassroots continues to lack the capacity to institute checks and

balances in band affairs. There are now substantive indications that,

in the absence of traditional or contemporary controls over their

leaders, the grassroots people will be even more vulnerable to

manipulation under the rule of their own elite than they were under

Indian Affairs officials. DIAND was at least subject to routine

government restraints and checks, a watchful eye from treaty First

Nations leaders and public scrutiny. This many not have eliminated

incompetence, but at least it inhibited unchecked abuse.

What drove me to supplicate for changes publicly is there are just too

many innocent band members whose lives are being affected by a

deplorable system.

Stringent systems designed to regulate leadership accountability to

band members must be instituted before a council is accorded more

control and authority. Giving more control and authority to a council

and leaving leadership accountability to band members unregulated will

predictably lead to a more serious political, economic, social and

cultural catastrophe for the grassroots community.

The right to be governed by customary law, or tribal law, on matters

affecting the distinctiveness of Aboriginal cultures, is at least a

moral right enforceable through legislation. The Quebec Act of 1774 is

the best example of a similar right being respected. The French in

Canada retained their right to be governed by their traditional laws in

matters of property and civil rights. Therefore, thre is no reason why

a recognition act is not recognized and enacted involving customary laws

of First Nations. Suppression of First Nations laws with no apparent

reason beyond ignorance may be a denial of liberty and personal

security, as those rights are understood in a free and democratic

society.

A band constitution that aspires, protects and nurtures the community's

traditions and philosophies, including its cultural, social and economic

needs based on traditional custom, is a way to counterbalance the

destructive forces of the current system. A community

constitution-making process will allow band members to develop their own

expectations regarding the status, power and responsibilities of their

leaders, rather than to continue with a form of leadership that was

designed by colonial government to control treaty Indians.

Government is only one part of the equation. A band must have a

climate in which members can feel encouraged and motivated to work

together. Their skills and ingenuity should be effectively utilized,

pooling resources and energy, to ensure continued growth and stability.

It is a grave mistake to expect all treaty First Nations to speak in a

single voice, to pursue and embrace the same objectives to have one

vision for their future.

Furthermore, it is wrong to presume that one can establish a particular

type of program, deliver a service or enact one general statute which

will meet the needs of all First Nations people. Only they, through

their own communities, institutions and governments, can determine how

best to serve their own needs.

There are model communities out there. The bands that are doing well

are those that have taken the action to map out their own destinies and

chosen their desired form of band governments through a participatory

process within the community.