Sour grapes; lots of wrath

Page 5

This month, chiefs on both sides in the fight over such issues as Bill C-19, the fiscal institutions legislation, accused each other of sour grapes, of failing to accept the presence and legitimacy of the other's position and of failing to come to terms with political realities.

Each side accused the other of stubborn, single-minded, almost childish behavior. There's clearly a sharp divide on basic approaches among the chiefs of Canada.

We probably shouldn't be surprised. It's nothing new.

But it has become the central issue in First Nations politics and it needs to be addressed.

National Chief Phil Fontaine won the election, get over it, said one camp. Winning the election doesn't give him a blank cheque, said the other. If his mandate needs to be respected then so does ours, they added.

It's a knotty problem, no doubt about it. Especially when Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault leaves no doubt that First Nations are under intense pressure to integrate into the Canadian constitutional family.

Integrate. Assimilate. Their meanings are similar but there is a crucially subtle distinction between the terms. One can integrate into another system-in this case the First Nations government system integrating into the federal system-and remain more or less intact and true to the origins. To be assimilated is to be absorbed utterly. Forced assimilation is one of the central elements of cultural genocide. So says the United Nations and just about everybody else who has ever pondered such issues.

Integration is not assimilation, but it can come awfully close to the line, especially when you consider Canada's sordid past in dealing with Aboriginal issues.

The minister-and to some extent, the national chief because he used the word in his pre-budget submission called Getting Results-wants First Nations to integrate into the Canadian system.

Nault said it bluntly. The government of Canada will never pour millions of dollars (or billions if Fontaine's Getting Results agenda is to be given the gift of life) into a sovereigntist movement. They didn't do it in Quebec and they won't do it with First Nations.

The AFN will soon embark on a process to renew itself, so said the national chief. We'll believe it when we see it. There have been so many false starts over the years that have fallen by the wayside in recent memory.

Somebody from Fontaine's transition team will be given the job of holding consultation sessions all across the country, so Native people can bash away at how the AFN should shift shape.

Fontaine told Windspeaker that he will seek to include the traditional leaders in that process. Many traditional leaders are unabashedly sovereigntists. If that's what the people want then the AFN may as well give up all expectations of ever receiving another penny from a Canadian government except through the court or negotiation processes. A lot of well-paid Native politicians and technicians will have to tone down their financial expectations, in the short-term at least. Some would say that would be a true test of their commitment to First Nations people.

The fundamental question that needs to be resolved before any of this can be addressed is the one of sovereignty. Nault said First Nations can have jurisdiction in some areas that is superior to that of the federal government, but the feds will always be the senior partner.

That's what integration looks like. If Fontaine and his supporters want that, as it appears they do, it's time to come clean and say it.

Ask the question: Do we abandon sovereignty in favor of integration? Yes or no?

Nault's comments make it clear that any time anyone uses the phrase "in the modern context" it refers to integration, not sovereignty.

That may or may not be a good thing. But the First Nations people should be asked the question before one more step is taken in any direction.

Fontaine tried to push things through-some would say lead, oters dictate-and the opposition chifs were able to stop him, because under the AFN charter, it was wrong.

The national chief apologized.

"I fall in line. The national chief falls in line," he said. But if there's a line, who's at the head of it? Let's have a real, sincere dialogue on that issue and then try to move forward together.