There has to be a better way

Page 6

EDITORIAL

The troubled Peavine Metis Settlement is embroiled in a bitter controversy over a recent election. The dispute has divided the tiny settlement into two camps, pitching son against father, neighbor against neighbor, and family against family.

But the underlying problem is more than simple infighting between clans or mere squabbling over boundary lines. Something greater is at stake ? that of Native self-government.

Whenever a new nation comes into being, its founding fathers spend much time developing a methods of government. In the case of the United States, a declaration of Independence was outlined and a constitution followed. As with all fair and democratic governments, a series of checks and balances are put into place to ensure no one person or one section of society has more power than another. Thus in Canada we have the government and the opposition parties. It is the duty of the opposition to oversee and criticize the government.

In the United States, congress ? when not being overruled by Col. Oliver North, ensures the president does not overstep his position. And in both cases, hopefully, an objective media oversees all and reports to the people.

Although these systems are far from perfect, they are the best we have. And they work, at least most of the time.

However, in framing the legislation for our new Native "governments", these checks and balances have not been worked into the system. Very often Native governments, such as those on Metis settlements and on Indian reserves are forced to obey outdated and medieval legislation. A prime example of this is the Metis Betterment Act.

This feudal law, passed in the 1930s, makes little provision for true democratic elections. Even our local municipal governments, such as Edmonton city council provide for true democratic elections under the Local Authorities Act.

In the Metis Betterment Act, no such system of checks and balances is in place. The Act relies on a paternal and archaic law based on the Victorian mentality of "father knows best." Father, in this case, is the Alberta government. The minister is "advised" by council on membership, on electoral procedures and on the voters list and makes his decision based on this information.

It is easy in the Peavine case to try to point fingers at one of the two factions and complain that the system is being abused. However, on closer inspection it is obvious that both parties are victims. They are victims of an outdated archaic legislation which actively encourages infighting and dissent. And when rightfully disgruntled members complain that their constitutional rights to free and fair elections is being violated, the Alberta government which molded this dinosaur, replies with a "let them eat cake" attitude and stands back to let settlement members resolve the issue among themselves.

What government officials won't tell them is how the rights of people, who deserve true and fair government, can be assured. The only answer in this case is the Metis Betterment Act, which has no system of appeal and has a "father knows best" clause enabling the minister to make the last decision.

The new Metis Betterment Act, which would see new democratic policies and genuine legislation rather than democracy at the discretion of ministerial decisions, has been tabled by the Alberta government.

Depite the dire need for new legislation, many Metis settlement dwellers may wait a year, maybe two, before the legislation is passed into law. Meanwhile at Peavine the rift continues, the fighting continues and the abuse of what little system there is continues.