LEADERSHIP
The indigenous situation in Canada may be complex. But the road to improving our shared situation is not particularly complicated.
Go back to the first pages of this book. It is disingenuous to dwell on the differences of opinion between indigenous leaders, claiming that what is holding things up is how divided and fractious they are. This is an excuse for doing nothing. Now pause. Step back. Remove yourself from the standard mainstream language and arguments surrounding indigenous peoples. Take a cool, disinterested look at our history. Think of yourself as a representative sent in by the United Nations or an international court of justice. Place yourself differently in the whole debate.
For example, imagine that drinking water mysteriously begins poisoning people in Walkerton, Ontario. Such a catastrophe could not happen in Canada, in a well-run, middle-class democracy. But just for discussion’s sake, let’s go along with this fable.
People die. People are crippled for life. Officials deny responsibility. They do not act. They are so incompetent that not only do they cause the crisis, but through denial of the possible causes, they also prolong it and cause more deaths. Impossible. Or rather: Impossible!
All the same, let’s imagine what would happen next. Would the federal government, the Ontario government, the people of Canada say that this crisis was caused by dishonesty and drink? And therefore that the problem can’t be resolved as long as these governance problems remain, and, what’s more, as long as there is no unity of thought and policy in the town? Would we say, “First the people of Walkerton need to get their act together. We help those who help themselves. In fact, we’ll just leave them all to stew until they come up with a clear position stating what they want. Oh, and clean water seems very expensive. Whatever we do must not stretch existing government budgets. Of course we understand that children are dying. But budgets must be respected. And one more thing: all government actions – should we choose to help – will be subjected to the long-standing methodologies of two departments. It’s true that these methods have a long history of failure. But that’s the fault of the citizens who seem incapable of living up to departmental standards by following departmental methods.
“Since these experienced departments know so well what they’re doing, even though they usually fail, there’s no need for transparency in their actions. For the good of all citizens, the whole problem will be dealt with top down, with little or no consultation, as if Walkerton’s citizens were wards of the state. If they have poisonous water, they deserve to be treated as wards.
“Finally, any disagreement from the local community, in particular their leaders, will be taken as proof of recalcitrance and will immediately result in a battle to the death in the law courts. Federal and provincial lawyers will struggle mightily against Walkerton’s citizens in renal failure. And why? The authority of the state must be defended. And taxpayers’ money must be saved. Of course it must.”
Now relax. This is only a fable. It would never happen. And if the citizens of Walkerton were poisoned by their drinking water, even if it was the fault of their own officials and the result of cutbacks by a ruling provincial party that would later take these methods to Ottawa, our government would immediately act to fix the problem. They would ensure that everyone got clean water, whatever it cost; that health care at its best was available for those affected. As for any criminal activity or failure, it would be referred to the legal system. We wouldn’t let that get in the way of the well-being of citizens. The main issue would be health and clean water. That is a basic matter of the public good. As is housing; prevention of poverty, hunger, and suicide epidemics; education; social services; and a few other things. To fail to ensure clean drinking water would be a clear failure of Canadian civilization and therefore of Canadian leaders. We would lose all confidence in them.
Why, then, does federal inaction, and the lack of integrated strategies and federal funding, so often rely on the excuse that there are differences of opinion among Aboriginal leaders and they must get their act together before the government plays its part?
For a start, there has been remarkable continuity in the discourse of Aboriginal leaders for a hundred and fifty years. The central lines of argument have not varied. They have been explaining the same things about our relationship, about how we can live together, about what treaties mean. Read the 1910 letter of the B.C. chiefs to Wilfrid Laurier. I have included it in Other People’s Words at the end of the book. You will see that the intellectual line is perfectly consistent.
Mistahimaskwa “Big Bear” (1825–1888), Plains Cree, one of the great orators of nineenth-century Canada and a leading theoretician of First Nations rights. Destroyed by the events of 1885. © Library and Archives Canada, 3192491.
Of course along the way there have been serious differences of opinion among Aboriginal leaders, just as there are in the House of Commons or between federal and provincial governments. But that has not stopped us working out how to provide good education at all levels, clean water, good health care, road systems, community centres, sports facilities for the non-Aboriginal population. The Honour of the Crown is at stake. It is a matter of the public good. And we have funded all of this, whatever it costs. It is an invaluable investment in our civilization, in our citizenship.
So differences of opinion among Aboriginal leaders is not a valid excuse for the long-standing failures of the Canadian governments. I repeat: the central indigenous messages and demands have long been consistent and clear.
Indigenous leaders have tended not to seek an adversarial relationship. Over time they have sought how to blend their ways with those of the newcomers in order to produce systems that would work. However, through our imported obsession with adversarial approaches to the law and to power, we have forced them onto the legal winners-and-losers path in the twentieth century. The outcome nonetheless favours their consistency and clarity. The courts seem to agree with their point of view. This, in turn, means that we must all come to terms with the central role of the treaties, and for one simple reason: the creation of modern Canada is in good part the outcome of these treaty relationships.
There is an even more basic message in these court victories. They tell us that there is a large, highly sophisticated indigenous leadership. They have thought through their positions.
And they have thought them through with a far clearer and far more consistent sense of Canada’s historic commitments than our own governments have. Our governments have persisted in wasting our money by attempting to rewrite history – that is, by denying our treaty and other obligations.
The point is simple. We are living through yet another failure of leadership among our political and administrative leaders. And we are still not judging them and punishing them for their failure on this most important of issues.
On the Aboriginal side, the frustrations are reaching dangerous levels. More than a century has gone by. The same arguments continue. Our leaders either deny the situation or prevaricate or offer piecemeal, patronizing help. And with the Supreme Court’s Haida decision on the duty to consult, it is clear that our leaders should be sitting down in an open, transparent way to play their role in charting the road forward.
It does seem that the current prime minister is emotionally unable to engage in open, transparent conversations about these issues. He seems able to function only in private, highly controlled circumstances, followed by eerily controlled public fiats. Sometimes this works. But Canada is a messy confederation that can advance only by embracing its complexity and contradictions in an open and messy way.
Comforting though it may be, it is not enough to blame one leader. What I am describing on these pages is a broad and long-term failure of Canada’s leaders. All of them, of all sorts, over an extended period of time.
The indigenous people of Canada now have a large and powerful leadership overflowing with a naturally wide variety of strategies. The more the Canadian leaders refuse to engage, the more fractious the indigenous leaders will become. Why wouldn’t they? Why shouldn’t they? If positive outcomes are not made possible through open and full consultation by those who lead our governments, well then, anything can happen. And although our leaders will do everything they can to shift the blame, the responsibility will lie with the Government of Canada in all its political and administrative forms.
