Mount Royal Forum: National Native leaders discuss FMC concerns

Page 5

CALGARY - "Aboriginal Rights and the Constitution" was the theme of a February 27 forum held at Mount Royal College in Calgary. The forum, designed to increase public awareness and understanding of the issues that are to be the subject of Native constitutional talks at the First Ministers' Conference (FMC) in Ottawa later this month, attracted approximately 150 people, many of whom were Natives.

Panel moderator, Dr. Bea Medicine, who is director of the Native Centre at the University of Calgary, called upon Chief John Snow from Morley to say the opening prayer before introducing the four panelists. Medicine described Aboriginal rights as "one of the most salient issues that confront Native people."

AFNs GOODLEAF

The first speaker, Arnold Goodleaf, is a Mohawk who serves as co-ordinator for the AFN. In reference to the constitutional talks, he said that "the main buzzword has become self-government," and one of the most frequent questions asked is, "what is self-government?"

Goodleaf explained four major points about the Constitution amendments on self-government which the AFN is seeking: (1) the explicit recognition of the inherent right of Aboriginal people to self government; (2) a constitutional commitment by governments to sit down with Aboriginal people and negotiate agreements to work out the details on how self-government is going to be implemented, to what extent it will be exercised and in what geographic area, what areas of jurisdiction the Aboriginal people will be able to exercise and what kind of interrelationship they are going to have with other governments; (3) providing constitutional protection for the agreements or the rights that are contained in the agreement that are negotiated; and (4) a non-abrogation clause which means that the rights Native people currently have and which are recognized and affirmed in section 35(1) would remain untouched by any of the agreements, arrangements or new Treaties. Goodleaf elaborated on the fourth point by stating that the clause seeks to make Aboriginal and existing rights "exploit" so no future government or judgment could turn around "the validity of the exercise of the right of self-government by a First Nation or an Aboriginal group." He also admitted that, while the right to self-government has been suppressed, that "does not mean it was taken away."

A united front, which he called an "Aboriginal wall," consists of four main Aboriginal groups which solidify the Native position. As well, some "new, innovative ideas" from Nova Scotia "give a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel," Goodleaf remarked. He concluded that if an amendment appears to threaten Native rights, the AFN cannot accept that amendment.

PTNA's CARDINAL

Speaking on behalf of the PTNA, Harold Cardinal alleged that the Constitutional talks have occurred in very closed circles, which results in an uninformed public. Many of the discussions, he said, are "held behind closed doors, in secret." In addition, Cardinal disapproved of governments leaders vying for media attention at the expense of Aborigines. "Perhaps," he told his audience, "if there weren't so many ladies and Christian people in this room, I might be more blunt in describing my reactions to that."

Two task forces commissioned to look at three items for constitutional action were implemented last year, said a perturbed Cardinal, to: (1) examine the removal of the word "existing" from the current Constitution and maybe in question period that deals with the implications of that term; (2) examine the possibility of developing a constitutional amendment to make governments adhere to the spirit and intent of the Treaties, and (3) develop a constitutional amendment to a proposal to a post-1987 process which would allow the Treaty people to enter into whatever discussions they felt appropriate with the federal government to have a Constitutional mechanism in place that would compel the governments to deal with theTreaty questions.

What Cardinal expressed his displeasure about was the manner in which the task force operated and for which he holds the federal government responsible, as well as the way in which they have mishandled their obligations to Indians.

On point one, said Cardinal, the government has now backed off from removing the word "existing."

Government has also tabled positions regarding any amendment respecting adherence to the spirit and intent of the Treaties. As for the post-1987 process, that too has been tabled because government feels "it is premature or they don't have enough time...to put in the time and effort that is required," commented Cardinal.

Another matter that irks Cardinal is the resistant attitude of government. They have been unwilling to accept the Indians' position that their rights are supreme, that they have an enforceable trust relationship with government, that the right to self-government is an inherent one and that the issues are not relative to constitutional amendment, but are a process and procedure. Furthermore, said the panelist, government argues that Treaty or special relationships were at the pleasure of the Crown, not the Indians. However, he continued, the Supreme court decision on self-government by the Musqueam Indians "has told them in very clear terms that they were flat-out wrong...there is no logic in their position."

MAA/MNC's SINCLAIR

For the Metis, "we have our foot in the door under section 35 and certainly we're going to stay in that door 'til the government recognizes our Aboriginal position and, hopefully, this time around, we'll get the entrenchment of a land base and self-determination." These were the words of MAA President Sam Sinclair, who also attempted to dispel the rumor that Natives are separatists.

The question of jurisdiction over the Metis is often raised, but Sinclair avers that "both governments are responsible" for the Metis. Of both governments, he suggests caution. In illustrating he importance of entrenchment, Sinclair used the province's treatment of Alberta's Metis settlements. Originally, they were 12 he said, but "four were struck off just by the stroke of a pencil. They can be good to you one day, allow you land, then take it away from you the next (day)." In closing, he noted that these are the kinds of things that need protection in the Constitution.

NCCs WABASCA

By the time Dorothy Wabasca's turn to speak rolled around, most of what she

had planned to say had already been said by the three previous panelists.

Wabasca did claim that it was not the people who divided themselves, but government. She expanded a bit on the regional and band differences of Natives saying they need to be acknowledge and respected just as we respect our diversities from one end of Canada to another."

People, she added, "are very wary of self-government." This is why awareness is important. "They think they're going to lose everything," she explained.

At the conclusion of the presentations, there was a brief coffee break which was followed by a question and answer period which went an hour beyond its allocated time frame. In general, most of the people expressed satisfaction and a positive reaction to the evening's speakers.