CANADA

Native groups’
unity thwarts

Tory gov't ploy

By PAUL OGRESKO

The federal government attemp-
ted to ram through its version of
Aboriginal self-government at the
constitutional talks on Aboriginal
rights, March 26-27 in Ottawa, but
ran into a solid wall of Native
unity. The two-day conference
capped five years of negotiations
intended to define the Aboriginal
right to self-government in the
Canadian constitution.

The four Aboriginal organiza-
tions at the conference, the Assem-
bly of First Nations (AFN)
representing 600 affiliated First
Nations, the Inuit Committee on
National Issues representing Can-
ada’s Inuit, the Metis National
Council representing Metis and the
Native Council of Canada which
represents “non-status” Indians,
had hoped for a round-table dis-
cussion open to the Canadian pub-
lic. The conference was aired live
on CBC-TV. The federal govern-
ment chose to arbitrarily move the
negotiations behind closed doors
on the second day of the confer-
ence.

The conference saw the western
provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta
and B.C., along with Newfound-

_land, dig in their heels to block any

amendment to the constitution.
An Ontario “compromise prop-
osal” presented at the start of the
two-day meet fell short of what
Native people were prepared to
accept. On day two, the federal
government tabled an even more
watered-down proposal and from
that moment on, according to the
Native leaders, it was obvious the
fix was in.

For the Aboriginal organiza-
tions the offers tabled by Ontario
and Ottawa were a step backward
from what now exists in section 35
of the constitution — the recogni-
tion Aboriginal right exists. Repeat-
edly during the conference Native
leaders slammed the two offers on
the basis they refused to recognize
“inherent right” and that they left
any implementation of self-govern-
Ment contingent on the approval
of both the federal and provincial
governments. Native leaders called
this “giving in one hand and taking
away with the other.”

‘“‘We wanted public debate to
ensure the Canadian people be-
came aware of the fact that even
though these politicians were talk-
ing about self-determination and
the right to control our destinies
— they were talking about it but
they weren’t putting it in writ-
ing.”’ Gordon Peters, leader of the
Chiefs of Ontario and executive
member of the Assembly of First
Nations told the Tribune.

Immediately following the pre-
Sentation of the federal proposal,
and before any discussion could
take place, Mulroney suddenly
announced the conference was
80ing behind closed doors.

“It was obviously pre-
arranged,” Peters charged.

Mulroney slammed the gave

down, wouldn’t let anyone speak.
He turned his back on the audi-
ence and he walked away.”’

In the past the federal govern-
ment has found many ways to
exploit the lack of unity among
the Indian, Métis and Inuit
people. If, by moving the confer-
ence into private session, Mul-
roney was hoping to exploit those
differences and pressure the
‘‘weakest’’ of the Aboriginal
groups into concessions he was to
be sadly disappointed. The so-
called ‘‘weak links’’ — the Métis
without a land base and the Na-
tive Council without ‘‘status’” —
held and while the media in
Canada called the conference a
‘‘failure’’ for the Aboriginal
people of Canada the unity at-

‘tained was, in the words of AFN

Chief Erasmus, historic.

‘‘We achieved something we
have never achieved before. An
Aboriginal unity that had never
existed.

‘“‘The ironic part of this whole
conference was that the expecta-
tions of the Aboriginal groups
were raised. The common
Aboriginal position strengthened
as the conference went on,”’ Pet-
ers said.

For the AFN it was clear from
the start the three western prov-
inces were not prepared to move
at all from the positions they held
at the 1985 constitutional meet-

ing. In fact the Ontario proposal,

which included a ‘‘commitment
to negotiate’? was considered
“too radical’’ for the three prov-
inces to accept. With the intransi-
gent positions of Alberta, Sask.,
B.C. and Newfoundland, the fed-
eral government, according to
Peters, played a ‘‘very meagre
role.”’

‘‘Mulroney had his opportunity
to do many things and above all he
had the chance to lay down a
forceful position with the hard-
line provinces. But he didn’t. The
final product was that he ended up
saying ‘I tried to do everything I
could do’, his ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ ap-
proach to everything. But in real-
ity Mulroney brought the whole
process down.”

During his closing remarks De-
vine of Saskatchewan charac-
terized ‘‘special rights’’ in the
constitution as being
‘undemocratic’? and something
that could not be enshrined with-.
out public referendums. It is an
argument Peters does not buy.

“I don’t see any government
going out and saying ‘before we
can do this we have to take a pub-
lic referendum’. If that was the
case we'd be having referendums
on whether or not day care get
privatized. We would be having
ublic referendums on free trade.

“The other aspect of this

ocracy business 1S — you
teak at hoe many votes Devine
got in Saskatchewan. He didn’t

even get the majority of the popu-.

al

(L to R) Georges Erasmus, National Chief, As-
sembly of First Nations; Conrad Sioui, Quebec
Regional Chief and Gordon Peters, Ontario Reg-

ional Chief, at a pre-conference rally in Ottawa.
The old paternalistic approach of the federal
government will no longer work.

lar vote — more people voted
against his party than for his party
— yet Devine is in control. What
does that tell you about the demo-
cratic system in this country?”

There is a feeling among the
Aboriginal organizations that the
federal government under-
estimated the ability of the Native
people to get together, to formu-
late positions, and to defend
them. ‘‘What the federal govern-
ment was afraid of,’ Peters ad-
ded, ‘‘was history. History is one
thing you cannot alter and they
are trying to alter history right
now. We may have lost a single
game of power but we are winning
the game of truth. Especially if the
opinion polls supporting Native
rights are any indication.”

The most recent opinion poll
available reveals that 77 per cent
of Canadians believe the Aborig-
inal people have the right to gov-
ern their own affairs. This con-
tradicted the closing statements
of both Devine of Saskatchewan
and Vander Zalm of B.C.

The Native leaders were
unanimous that the failure to
implement Aboriginal self-
government into the constitution
does not signify an end to the pro-
cess. Section 35 of the constitu-
tion — recognizing the existence
of special Aboriginal right — still
exists. The federal and Ontario
proposals, which would have
weakened section 35, were not

accepted by any of the Aboriginal

organizations.

The AFN, according to Peters,

is convinced there are ‘‘other-

avenues” open in the pursuit of
Aboriginal rights. The AFN feels
there is an irrevocable shift in the
balance of power — the momen-
tum is now with the Native
peoples. The new Aboriginal
unity has, Peter says, rendered
the old bureaucratic and pater-
nalistic approach of the federal
government impotent.

‘‘Times have changed. The old
attempts to divide us will no
longer work. There are other
ways for us besides the constitu-
tional process. The bottom line is
that the unity among Native
people will stand because we all
realize who the common enemy
is.

Constitution fails
Native peoples says CP

The failure of the First Ministers Conference
on Aboriginal Rights and the Constitution
shows how ineffective the Canadian Constitu-
tion is in coming to grips with basic democratic
and national issues, says the Communist Party.

The Party statement accuses the built-in ma-
jority requirement of being a roadblock to pro-
gressive change. “‘A constitutional set-up which
requires the consent of seven provinces with 50
per cent of the Canadian population to effect
changes as a block against change. This will be
the case regarding the national aspirations and
rights of the French Canadian people. It is pres-
ently the case with the demand for regional
self-government as an inherent right of the Na-
tive peoples, a demand supported by a majority
of Canadians as a recent poll showed.”

The Tory premiers of Newfoundland, Sas-
katchewan, Alberta and the Social Credit in
B.C. prevented agreement on the right of self-
government. But so did the federal government
which does not support a recognition of the
explicit Aboriginal right to self government and
pursued a policy directed at dividing the abori-
ginal people.

_ Ottawa and the provincial premiers ‘“showed
they act on behalf of those who control the
wealth of Canada, those monopoly interests
who want to own and control the natural re-
sources to be found in the areas where the abori-
ginal people live’’, says the party.

While the U.S. administration was not direct-
ly involved in the negotiations, it was there by
virtue of U.S. military and economic interests in
the Canadian North, the party said.

‘‘The failure of the Conference on Aboriginal
Rights does not mean that the issue will now
disappear. The just demand for recognition of
explicit entrenchment and aboriginal self-gov-
ernment will not go away. Nor will it be de-
nied’’, the press release says.

The Native peoples take the view that their
rights as aboriginal peoples have already been
affirmed in the Constitution, article 35:1, which
states: ‘The existing aboriginal and treaty rights
of the Aboriginal people of Canada are hereby
recognized and affirmed.”’

This means that the right to self-government
must be recognized as ‘‘inherent’’ — a free-
standing, enforceable right, says the party. “‘It
means that the aboriginal people — Indian, Inuit
and Metis have the right to their land without
which they will be unable to exist as a people
with their own language and culture. They must
also have access to the resources of these lands.

‘They must have the right to self-determina-
tion so as to enable them to make their own
decisions, develop their own lands and eco-
nomic potential, educate themselves and their
children, build their future within the frame-
work of a united Canada.”

By acting together around the common de-
mand for self government, the aboriginal people
multiplied their strength. The effort to divide
them failed. Now it is more important than ever
that they maintain their unity so as to press
ahead with their demands and seek for ways to
achieve them.

The Communist Party is calling for the forma-
tion of an all Canadian Coalition in support of
self-government. It could include all those
forces who support this objective: the CLC, the
Churches, the NDP, the Communist Party, and
other progressive organizations. In addition it
suggests forming similar coalitions in the prov-
inces particularly’ Newfoundland, Saskat-
chewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

‘‘Neither the federal nor provincial govern-
ments must be allowed to stand in the way of the
just and lawful rights of the Aboriginal peo-
ples,’ the party asserts.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, APRIL 8, 1987 e 5

ili