OTTAWA REPORT

Page 2

So, you want to know what Ottawa has in mind when it comes to Native self-government, eh? Well, you've come to the right place because I've just finished reading three secret government documents that outline Ottawa's thinking on the matter and I'm ready to answer any questions you have.

What secret document are you talking about?

I'm glad you asked me. It seems that David Crombie prepared three Cabinet documents a year ago when he was the minister of Indian Affairs. His recommendations have since become the basis for Ottawa's policy on Native self-government.

Why haven't I heard about this before?

You have - sort of. Ottawa didn't make a big announcement at that time, but if you've listened to Bill McKnight lately, it's obvious that the Cabinet has approved most of David Crombie's recommendations. So, that's why when you read the documents they seem like old stuff.

Is there anything scandalous in them?

No. In fact, the one thing that stands out is the government's apparent sincerity and goodwill.

That should make the national Native organizations pretty happy, then, right?

Wrong. Some local and regional groups got a little to cheer about, but the national Native organizations got very little.

So just what is Ottawa's policy on Native self-government?

The feds call it a two-track approach. The first track involves self-government negotiations at the community level. The best example of that is the self-government legislation for the Sechelt Indian Band.

Okay, what's on track number two?

Well that track involves self-government talks at the constitutional level. It's more complicated and time-consuming process because it involves the federal and provincial governments and the national Native organizations.

What powers will Native people have under self-government?

Oh, the usual ones - education, health, public services - things like that. However, the documents also show that Ottawa is reluctant to give Native people the power to control resources, borrowing, buying and selling land, and taxation.

What about money? Is self-government going to mean more or less money for Native people?

The documents say that Native people cannot expect any more money just because they have self-government. They also say that government ministers should reassure Native people that present funding levels will be maintained.

I think I understand what Ottawa has approved, but why is it using this two-track approach?

Because the feds say they want to make progress on two fronts at once - at the community level and at the constitutional level. They especially want to use the community negotiations - like Sechelt - as a demonstration project at the First Ministers' Conference next year. Ottawa hopes to convince the provinces to get on the self-government bandwagon by showing them that there's nothing to be afraid of.

I get the feeling that Ottawa is very concerned about the public relations aspect of this issue.

You hit it right on the head with that one. The documents say the government learned its lesson in 1969 when it tried to turn Indian matters over to the provinces. In fact, the documents say "the 1969 White Paper...was a spectacular failure that poisoned relations between Indian people and the previous government for a decade and a half."

So what is the basis of the government's present policy?

Well, the documents say that "our self-government approach will be guided by principles which will strengthen our special relationship with Indians and Inuit peoples and yet will be implemented only on the basis of open, public consultations, particularly at the grassroots level."

Okay, what's the catch?

You're right. There's a few. For example, did you notice how the documents stress consultation at the "grassroots" level? That is Ottawa's way of saying it wants to sidestep the national organizations and deal primarily with local and regional groups.

The cabinet has also imposed some conditions. For example, Nativegroups wants to negotiate self-government will have to accept Canadian sovereignty. That probably means the end of any talk about a Native state-within-a-state.

Is there something about Native self-government that these documents don't mention?

Yes there is. They don't say a single word about the number one demand of every Native group. Indians, Metis and Inuit all say that Ottawa should recognize - in the Constitution of Canada - the God-given Native right to self-government. But the cabinet documents don't mention this -in any context - as being part of Ottawa's reason for negotiating self-government.

So why is Ottawa involved in the issue?

I thought you'd never ask. Ottawa is pushing self-government because, the documents say, it is "essential to real improvement in the socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal people." In other words, if Ottawa thought something else would work to improve Native living conditions, it would not be talking about self-government right now.

Well, you sure have cleared up this whole self-government issue for me. Thanks a lot.

Don't mention it. I'm always happy to help out.