Moving away from Indian Act will pave way to self-determination

Page 3

Windspeaker Contributor Marlene Dolan interviewed Ovide Mercredi, Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, at the recent AFN assembly in Calgary.

In terms of self-government, what is the next step of the AFN?

I think the next step if getting our chiefs to begin moving away from the Indian act, because as long as the Indian Act is there, our advocacy for the way to self-determination will always have the potential to be undermined the bureaucrats who enforce the Indian Act. The biggest problem that we have in asserting self-determination is we have chiefs that are elected under a federal statute. There are very few communities that use the custom as opposed to the elective when electing the people. But even when they use that, it is a custom adopted under the Indian Act.

If the people continue to use the Indian Act in how they choose their leaders, it's going to hurt the right of self-determination. Because the right of self-determination is for the right to freely choose their political representatives as people, that's what sovereignty is. The people themselves, in the community, making their own decisions and the selection of their leaders, without having to adhere to the ideals of another group not even of that nation. Canada is dictating to the chiefs how they should be elected. We have to move away from that method of election to find our freedom, because if we don't, we aren't going to advance and we will always be stuck with this idea of legislation. Before we can make change and control our land we have to get white Parliament to make a new law to give us the power to change it, which is absurd and ridiculous, because if people have Aboriginal rights to land, they don't need the other people's permission to exercise their rights to the land.

The treaty nations, in particularly, who have long expressed the value of their treaties, are hurting their own cause continuing to rely on the Indian Act for the authority over land. What does the Indian Act say about the authority over Indian land? It says that they have none, that the land belongs to the Crown, not the Indian people. That is what we reserve for ourselves. If we reserve it for ourselves, it means it belongs to us under Aboriginal title. It's our land alone and it's up to us to decide what we are going to do with it. So why do we rush to Parliament to ask permission on how to deal with our land? Because we are colonized. We are so used to listening to the Indian Agents over the years and the educational system that we've gone through the last 30 years has indoctrinated us into believing that Parliament governs all people, including Indians.

Does the AFN recognize the Metis as part of the First Nations?

They recognize themselves as a new nation. In 1870 they were already an emerging identity, a separate identity in Canada. Historically, the Chiefs of 1870 recognized the Metis people as being distinct and the government related to the Metis people the same way. So we have worked with them as an organization, as having the right to represent their own people and having the right to call themselves a nation.

Who are we to interfere with their own identification? It's their rights as to how they want to self-identify. They are our brothers and our sisters. But it does not mean we all have to belong to the same organization. We can represent our respect peoples and still have relations with them. Historically, we have always had good relations with them. If you look at the treaties, the treaties themselves have recognized that basic principal that our people used to apply. It's very important to maintain a good relationship between tribes and our people.

Do you think the Indian Act is responsible for the division between the treaty (registered Indians) and those of mixed blood?

It's not the blood that determines who you are, it's the culture, the language and the way of life that determines who you are. It preserves your right to cal yourself distinct from other people, your differences from others. Color is just one of the differences, but it is not the determining factor in your ability to say you are a distinct person. The ability to call for land rights, Aboriginal rights and treaty rights stems from your history. So long as you can trace your ancestry to the original people, you are a member of that nation, whether they accept you or not.

When we talk about healing, we're talking about things like that. The ideal thing for Walter Twinn (Chief of the Sawridge band, which is challenging Bill C-31 in the Supreme Court) is to do some research, some understanding of his past, some knowledge of his history and his people's nation. Because if he really understands it, he will not stand in the way of people coming into this community who are entitled to be members virtue of their ancestry. Because he would have no grater claim that they have to belong to that nation. He would have an equal claim as they to belong to that nation and simply because he is now applying the Indian Act, that does not make it right. It makes it very wrong when we are at the same time arguing for the restoration of our human rights while we are denying the rights of our people away from their nation for purely economic reasons or for political reasons.

Has the defeat of Charlottetown Accord affected your leadership, i.e. the break-away Chiefs?

What I'm seeing right now is people after reflection, after the initial division of the Charlottetown Accord, converging, coming together. This assembly is about coming together. The chiefs here are not interested in breaking away from the assembly and there won't be any movement. There's not going to be any grand swell of movement, or a separation and division of body. It's not going to happen. Our people want unity.

Also they know enough about the AFN now to know that we are working for them. We are working for the interests of the First Nation and we are addressing all he rights, include treaty rights. Our people are more informed about the AFN than they were in the last few years. They are able to make their own judgments.

A political leader, nowadays, can't get away with making a decision for his people. His people will always question the decision he made. Even a simple decision like moving away from the AFN will raise some questions in the community. Some individual will wonder why the chief is doing this. That's the kind of public awareness that is now in our community. Our people want unity. For whatever reason some chiefs in Treaty 6 want to break from the AFN, I don't understand, it's not been explained to me.

The arguments are false arguments. For example, the argument that Chief Layman made on the radio show was that the AFN represents other groups. What does he mean the other groups? We represent First Nations; First Nations with treaties and First Nations who are in the process of making treaties and people who want treaties as well. The AFN has always been an organization that reflected the interests of the treaty people as well as the Aboriginal people who are in the process of negotiating treaty rights in British Columbia, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Quebec.

No one can successfully argue with me or to any of the chiefs in Canada that they are less Indian than Treaty 6 because they don't have a treaty. Our charter is respectful of the unregistered people. They decide if they belong or don't belong; they can come in as they please. Some of the chiefs in Treaty 6 say they don't belong. I'm not worried about that because, except for one time, they will come to the assembly and they will be welcome.

But the other argument that's been made against belonging to the AFN is that we don't address the treaty issue. That's a false argument, too, because everything we did through the Charlottetown Accord was to force the government of Canada to meet directly with the people with treaties, so the treaties could e implemented. We didn't go there to negotiate the definition of treaty rights. We've never done that and will never do that. It's important for us to get the federal government to agree to implementing the treaties and that was what the accord was all about. The federal government agreed to implement the treaties. There were chiefs who didn't want the provinces involved. The very thing that the chiefs are arguing about in Treaty 7 they got with the Charlottetown Accord.