What ARE They Thinking?
Both Stageleft and I have a personal interest in Canadian Aboriginal affairs, and in government policy pertaining thereto. I like to keep track of what the different parties are saying about issues like Land Claims, self government, language and cultural support, and so on.
After a not very productive exchange with a conservative blogger last month, I became very curious about the Conservative party’s position on Aboriginal issues. Said blogger assured me solemnly that Mr. Harper’s position was fully supportive of self-government, and so on, but was unable (or unwilling) to list any specifics.
This did not reassure me. During the last campaign the CPoC position was vague in the extreme: it consisted (as far as I could tell) of three bullets on their website (two under “Health” and one under “Communities”), two of which ran directly counter to the principle of self-government. At that time I called a friend, the Conservative candidate for a riding in northern Canada, who told me frankly that there really wasn’t much of an Aboriginal platform. However, he pointed out, the noted Aboriginologist Tom Flanagan was a close friend of Stephen Harper and national campaign chair, and that Aboriginal issues would thus receive great attention.
That reassured me even less. Tom Flanagan is author of the 2000 book “First Nations? Second Thoughts,” in which he suggests that assimilation is the best policy for Canadian Aboriginal peoples. If this is the dude calling the shots on Aboriginal policy…that’s a bit like putting Ariel Sharon in charge of the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Beirut.
Well, it’s six months later. Inspired by my little chat in blogdom, I’ve been to the CPoC website…nothing. I called the constituency office of my (Conservative) MP and asked for any available briefing material on Aboriginal affairs, and was told by a very pleasant, clueless constituency officer (after I had clarified that I did NOT mean “Australian”) that she would get back to me. That was some time ago.
As you all prepare for the policy conference, do any of our conservative friends out there know what their Party is thinking these days?
The Conservatives are probably thinking the same thing as the Liberals: throw a few token bucks at the native population of Canada and hope they shut up until after the election.
I mean, isn’t this what the government of Canada’s been doing for the last 40 years?
“throw a few token bucks at the native population of Canada and hope they shut up until after the election.”
I think that’s a pretty good summary of the Liberal position. I believe the Conservative position is somewhat more innovative, in that it eliminates that first bit about throwing the token bucks, and moves efficiently to step two.
If memory serves, policy is to be decided at a convention in Feb. Anyways, here are some points from the CPC Policy Statement (the document is a basis for deliberations leading up to the convention) of 8 Sep 2004:
J) ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
57. Aboriginal Affairs Principles
The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada. To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government will ensure that the principles of the Charter will apply to aboriginal self-government.
The Conservative Party of Canada believes giving aboriginal government the power to raise their own revenues will reduce the cycle of dependency; and that the performance and accountability of aboriginal self-government is enhanced when those who receive services contribute to the cost of those services.
58. Treaty and Land Claim Implementation
i) The Conservative Party of Canada believes that implementing the spirit and intent of federal commitments made in treaties and land claim agreements is a solemn government duty. The Conservative Party of Canada will, as a top priority, ensure the speedy resolution of the disgraceful backlog of land claims
negotiations.
ii) To promote accountability for implementation measures, the Conservative Party of Canada supports annual reporting for treaties and land claim agreements consistent with recommendations in Chapter 9 of the November
2003 Auditor Generalâ??s Report.
59. Land Title
i) The Conservative Party of Canada supports the development of a property regime that would encourage lending for private housing and businesses. This will promote economic opportunity and individual freedom.
ii) A Conservative government, in conjunction with First Nations, would create a First Nations Land Ownership Act, which would transfer Reserve land title from the Federal Crown to willing First Nations.
60. Matrimonial Property
The Conservative Party of Canada supports, in conjunction with First Nations, the creation of a matrimonial property code to protect spouses and children in cases of marriage breakdown.
61. Educational Choice
The Conservative Party of Canada proposes where available and agreed to by all parties, including provincial authorities, to offer choice in schooling for First Nations.
Thanks, IrC. I can certainly see why they didn’t publicize that during the election campaign: and my question about the degree to which Tom Flanagan is setting the policy have now been answered.
Yikes.
Which parts inspire “Yikes”, and why?
I’m afraid to answer that question I’d have to explain the entire notion of self government and nation-to-nation relationships, then illustrate paragraph by paragraph how the CPoC position runs directly counter to the view of First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Suffice to say that this policy describes “self government” in terms somewhat akin to those proposed by the last liberal government: it is very much an assimiliationist vision. If you’re interested, you can find quite a bit of info at the AFN, MNC and ITK websites.
That answer suffices. I think the nations-within-a-nation path is a dead end, but I can understand why its adherents would object to the CPC policy direction.
In other words, you can understand how First Nations recognized by Canada AS nations might object to being assimilate by Canada? Yes, it’s fairly clear, isn’t it?
And yet that’s precisely what Mr. Flanagan, and presumably the Conservative Party, advocate.
Canada can either work as a strongly centralized melting pot; or, it can work as a strongly decentralized, non-assimilationist, multicultural confederation. The current attempt to compromise is inherently unstable.
Regardless which path is chosen, we need to discard the quaint relics and notions of colonialism which were useful to maintain peace while opening up resources for exploitation, but a poor basis on which to build a nation. What was good for Britain in the eighteenth century is not good for Canada in the twenty-first. Every other level of government in Canada has to be firmly subordinated to the federal government.
Out of those paragraphs (57-61), which (or portions thereof) “don’t work” for your vision?
I’m really sorry, IrC. I am trying to figure out what you really think from that jumble of cliche, and I can’t. There’s nothing about nation-to-nation status that suggests quaint colonialism.
My views are embodied in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and Implementation Contract, which are available on line at several locations (www.tunngavik.ca is one).
What exactly are yours?