Start planning now for future talks on self-government

Page 4

The federal government set aside the task of the century this past month as Indian affairs Minister Ron Irwin announced that Ottawa will begin to lay the foundations for Native self-government.

The announcement could be cast as the bureaucratic equivalent to the parting of the Red Sea. Although Irwin doesn't hold quite the same stature for most people as Moses, his beginning of discussions on Native self-government represents the removal of long-standing barriers between the First Nations and our collective future.

The announcement also represents the opening of a Pandora's Box. Ottawa's interpretation of self-government has often been defined along the same lines as municipal-style governments. But for most Indian bands, that's out of the question. No First Nation is going to be satisfied with the right to decide where stop signs go over something like the right to control resources and the future of its people. And that's what real self-government means - the right to control the future.

Some bands already exercise that right. The Sechelt in southern B.C. have the right to make their own laws, tax land users and control band membership. They also own their land. Self-government for the rest of Canada's 600 plus bands will require Ottawa to concede to at least that much - the creation of a patchwork quilt of Native-owned and controlled territories right across the country. Huge tracts of forests in northern Ontario and British Columbia will have to be handed over, as will oil resources in Alberta and fishing rights in the Maritimes.

And then there's Quebec. Aboriginal Affairs Minister Christos Sirros recently told the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that Quebec must recognize Native rights. But it's hard to believe that the province that mowed over the northern Crees to create the Great Whale Project would be willing to give anything to the First Nations without a lot of rending of flesh and gnashing of teeth, especially in the growing separatist climate.

And Ottawa will also be very careful when it deals with Quebec. With a strong Parti Quebecois presence in the House of Commons and a provincial election around the corner that could see the further growth of a huge separatist wave, the feds will do little to upset the French.

"Damn the Natives and full speed ahead" would likely be their philosophy if they have to choose between enforcing Native self-government or neutralizing Quebec's continuous efforts to rid itself of the rest of Canada.

And what of the First Nations - do we know what we want? We've been cursing Canada's white paternalistic governments since they first came along. They took our land and our culture. Protecting what little is left will require a deftly defined and carefully implemented form of self-government, one that even goes beyond simply controlling our land and our destiny, especially in the new NAFTA world order.

The first thing Ottawa needs to set out for itself is to define the amount of control it is willing to give up. The CBCs Prime Time News caught Irwin shortly after his press conference, struggling to define the term himself. Indian Affairs emphasizes the need to recognize diversity and flexibility as key considerations in sorting out the crisis. But they need to be a lot more specific. Treaty rights will have to be upheld, as will Aboriginal rights. We will have to secure substantial land bases and we will have to stop fighting in and amongst ourselves.

And most of all, we will have to be firm with Ottawa and Irwin and insist that we want their inherent rights to control our future recognized in international law, not just the constitution, so that when First Nations people say Native government, the feds don't think we're talking about placing stop signs.