Improve and Control ... How?

National Grand Chief Shawn Atleo is calling for a re-visit of the original relationship, as he puts it, between First Nations and Canada. The mutual admiration and respect that was in place when Canadian aboriginals first became aware that strangers had arrived on their shores with the intention of settling land that they had long considered theirs to share among themselves, is no longer in evidence.

That is most certainly a generous reading of the realities that bred hostility, confrontation, misery, isolation and death for many. For the settlers in some part and portion most certainly, but for the First Nations tribes without a doubt. History tells us so. And it was ever thus throughout human history, in fact. That one group of humans would pass into the territory held by another and claim possession through force of numbers, superior strategy, and arms.

Conquest and re-settlement followed by integration is an old story of human migration and re-establishment, where cultures intermingled and the resulting synthesis bred a resurgent and more biologically diverse population that usually thrived over many generations. This is not how modern history views the most palatable method by which territories may be engaged in cultural exchanges.

But Canada's First Nations now have a plan to return to what they claim to have been the original relationship. They insist on their right to self-determination. Which means they spurn total integration, since they value their antecedents and wish to honour their heritage, and to remain loyal to the ideals encompassed within the memory of that heritage as first Canadians.

The Indian Act is seen as a well-meaning, but failed, paternalistic effort at controlling First Nations. To continue to accept that the Act as it stands and all that flows from it will eventually succeed in turning around the anguished mess that is now recognized most First Nations communities represent, is futile; little tweaks and twists here and there to fine-tune have accomplished little.

So the alternative must be surrendering the Indian Act to history and the garbage heap of failure. And letting First Nations get on with the job of administering their own affairs with no interference from the Government of Canada. They will remain a bilateral nation-within-a-nation. Treaties will be re-opened, re-examined, and confirmed, and those not yet signed and agreed upon must be dealt with and completed.

Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations proposes, on behalf of Canada's First Nations, that fairness, equity and accountability must be the order of the day, resulting in a new fiscal relationship. Only this will stabilize the ongoing crises faced by First Nations communities.

"We can support First Nation governments by strengthening the core capacities of government, including public administration and dispute resolution. Our governments will be able to engage in strategic and comprehensive community planning."

He certainly has the bureaucratic language down pat, with all the assurances that trip readily off the tongue. The critical areas of Tribal council inadequacies in governance, the endemic corruption within them, the lack of idealism leading to fair and just inclusion of all tribal members, the propensity toward violence and gangs and illegal criminal offences, what of them?

If, with the assistance of federal agencies dedicated to safety and security, band councils are incapable of governing themselves, how will they manage with the withdrawal of 'government interference'? It seems the only thing that should remain intact is to forward funding.

With that funding the First Nations will aptly and economically and successfully fund housing, education, health care and employment.

This is like a juvenile approaching his parents to say that he would very much appreciate being independent of their ministrations and oversight. He is prepared to move out of the family home into a pad of his own, and to decide for himself how best to formulate a plan for his future. Please send money.

How is this startlingly different?

The Assembly of First Nations is supposed to be dedicated to the well-being of First Nations at present. What they have done for the most part is to ensure that First Nations remain resolute in refusing integration. In clasping the necessity to remain on Reserves. In being socially infantalized, dependent entirely on the whims of band councils distributing federal funding.

Reserve life: unemployment, squalid, inadequate housing with residents having no regard for their responsibilities in upkeep, abuse of alcohol and drugs, abandonment of children, resentment and bruising violence. Where is the honour in this? How does all of this reflect heritage and culture?

What manner of guarantees is the Assembly of First Nations prepared to give that they are capable of inspiring pride and commitment in First Nations communities, leading them to turn themselves around?