Set an example- follow the rules

Page 5

It's a little ironic, and more than just a bit hypocritical, for the Northwest Territories vice-chief for the Assembly of First Nations to be pooh-poohing a thing like the AFN charter. (See Windspeaker's story on page 8 for details.) It is, after all, the rulebook for an organization that has kept Bill Erasmus and many of his colleagues gainfully employed and well fed for a great number of years.

Yes, the AFN charter is a quarter century old, and yes, it will probably be changed based on recommendations brought forward by the organization's renewal commission, but until that day comes the charter is not optional. And it's not something to be manipulated or ignored depending on its impediment to the agenda of the players involved.

We remember a day in August 1994 when Chief Erasmus disrupted a public appearance by Queen Elizabeth in Yellowknife to warn her that Canada was dragging her name through the mud with its treatment of Aboriginal peoples. He was taking advantage of a high profile public event to draw attention to what? To the often-repeated lament of First Nations' leaders that Canada doesn't follow its own set of rules-the Constitution, the treaties, its laws.

Fast forward a decade and hear Erasmus in Charlottetown decry getting caught up in the minute details of the AFN charter. Then hear him tell that small crowd of chiefs gathered there he is pushing the federal government to define-in detail-its obligations to First Nations in regards to the health provisions as set out in those troubling relics of history, the treaties. (See story page 12.) If this executive member of the AFN is to have credibility on any subject, surely he must see that consistency in the message he delivers is crucial.

Should Canada's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an essential tool in the protection of Aboriginal rights, be set aside because it is a document that will soon reach the ripe old age of 25? If the ideals set out in that statement of Canadian values become a challenge to live up to for some of this country's citizens, should we just ignore it, give it up? What of those "ancient" agreements that we have asked the Supreme Court of Canada to use to define Aboriginal rights, like in Marshall on the East Coast, for example; are they of no use to the people of today to provide the guide for our modern behavior?

Now some of you reading this will say there is no comparison between the AFN charter and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada, there is no comparison between the AFN charter and the treaties or a royal proclamation. But there is. All of these documents find their roots in a promise, a promise that states that until these rules are replaced by others negotiated by all sides, they are the agreed upon code by which we will govern our conduct.

No, these codes of conduct are not always convenient or expedient for all people at all times. Just ask the Canadian Taxpayers Association. That group believes that the tax-exempt provision negotiated on our behalf by our ancestors, one that is still written down in Canadian law, should not apply in this world today. 'Scrap it, post haste.' Just ask the rump of the former Canadian Alliance Party that still exerts its influence over the new Conservative Party of Canada. That group would have us assimilated and our rights as first peoples under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution extinguished to put the "Indian problem" to rest. 'Ignore that section; it's become a detail inconvenient to the majority.'

It would be unfair of us to allow the reader to believe that Vice-chief Erasmus is alone in his lackadaisical observance of the AFN charter. Erasmus was simply the one who opened his mouth and opened the door for this editorial. The simple truth of the matter is that all ideological and political sides within the organization are blameworthy.

It may be a Canadian tradition that the elites in this country don't think they have to follow the rules, ut it is not an Indian tradition. The AFN exists-and absorbs millions of dollars every year-because First Nations people have a different way of looking at the world. If First Nations leaders want to act like Canadian elites, they've joined the other side.

If Canada simply said 'Yeah, the rulebook states we have an obligation, but we're going to follow the AFN lead and just ignore inconvenient rules' Eramus and his cronies would howl. But if the AFN leaders think they can get away with that same kind of behavior, what makes them think they can insist others can't?