Consider this response to my last column on aboriginal issues, which predicted that unless the federal government abandons the status quo, there will be big trouble in the land of peace, order and good government — and sooner rather than later:
“What you fail to grasp Michael is the widespread support Harper has amongst the white majority in Canada regarding the natives. The vast majority of Canadian whites are fed up with the natives. The natives may be fed up with us as well. However, that doesn’t matter, we have the population, the money and the guns.”
The population, the money and the guns? The brio with which my correspondents express their disagreements is always bracing — one of the dividends of publishing one’s views on a regular basis. But the author of the words quoted above might be surprised to know that, while we are at profound loggerheads in the end, I wouldn’t argue with much that he says.
How could I? The polling on how Canadians feel about aboriginals reveals a nation that, at best, is ambiguous and, at worst, is shockingly unsupportive of native issues. Canadians are more eager than they have ever been to give a full bear-hug of acceptance to a disparaging image of aboriginals and, I might add, a very positive one of themselves.
A recent Ipsos-Reid poll found that 81 per cent of Canadians were against more funding for aboriginals unless the monies were strictly audited; 66 per cent believed that natives already receive enough funding; and 60 per cent thought that aboriginals have brought their problems down on themselves.
This isn’t quite watermelons and banjos, but it’s close. Nor is the Ipsos-Reid poll an aberration.
A survey conducted by Nick Nanos back in January also found that nearly half of Canadians thought that aboriginals are already being treated fairly; 62.3 per cent were against blockades as a protest measure; and most thought that meetings between the aboriginal leadership and federal bigwigs were the best way of advancing native issues. That’s right, holding more meetings is the answer.
In other words, most of those polled had swallowed whole the Harper government’s portrayal of aboriginals: that they were all like the Chief Theresa Spence of the Deloitte & Touche audit — at the very least grossly incompetent, perhaps worse. The implication is that indigenous peoples are professional complainers, cultural charlatans and losers. It will be interesting to see how Chief Spence fares with the ultimate arbiters in these matters of reputation in the upcoming Attawapiskat election, her own voters.
As for Stephen Harper, the political intelligence is already in on his handling of the aboriginal file. Canadians liked it. The PM rose two percentage points in the polls after giving Chief Spence a disdainful cold shoulder, and then subjecting Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, to full and humiliating compliance with the federal government’s rules of engagement on this file.
Atleo has already learned that Stephen Harper is not a let’s-talk-about-it kind of guy — as evidenced by the unilateral appointment of a federal envoy on native issues and unilateral changes in this year’s contribution agreements with Canada’s 630 bands — after a promise of greater consultation.
But what may be the last nail in Atleo’s coffin as national chief is the recent federal budget. It’s not that there was nothing for indigenous peoples in Jim Flaherty’s mostly humbug financial blueprint for the country. There was a lot, including money for justice issues, infrastructure, policing, suicide prevention and education.
But the point is that there was almost nothing new — hardly an endorsement of the prime minister’s promise of a bold new commitment by Ottawa to Canada’s indigenous peoples. As seasoned observers of the federal government’s practice of talking big and acting small, the budget’s failure was not lost on the native community. The Manitoba chiefs called it a “status-quo” document that would do nothing but escalate poverty on the reserves, while not even meeting the basic needs of First Nations peoples.
Although it must have killed him to say so, there was nothing Atleo could do but agree. Try as he might to put positive spin on the government’s empty rhetoric, his bottom line was the same as the Manitoba chiefs: re-allocations of old money aside, the investment from Ottawa just wasn’t there.
But the dagger through the heart for Atleo was what was there — “workfare” for native youth, as it was quickly dubbed. Without any prior consultation with native leaders, the Harper government announced $241 million over five years for a native youth job training program.
It was both more and less than it seemed. Half of that money would be used to set up the program on reserves, leaving $120 million that could be accessed by the bands. But there was a proviso attached that was more paternalistic than curfews and canings.
Bands could only access the money if they made it mandatory for native youth on social assistance to participate in the program. No one on the native side of the issue was fooled. It was, as Grand Chief Derek Nepinak put it, a “racialized policy”. Opposition leader Thomas Mulcair backed up that view, pointing out it only applied to First Nations youth. Workfare seems an odd way to recognize a peoples’ self-determination — or to kick-start a broken relationship.
Making matters worse, reliable sources have told iPolitics that the justice department is reviewing R vs. Gladue, the landmark Supreme Court decision that changed the way native offenders are sentenced. In concert with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the decision in Gladue led to the Aboriginal Justice Initiative.
Under that initiative, the adverse cultural backgrounds of all aboriginal peoples — status, non-status, Inuit, Metis, on or off-reserve — had to be taken into account before handing out a jail term.
Whether the alternative was diversion programs, community partnerships or mediation, the decision was made that something had to be done about a justice system that was sending aboriginals to federal prison at a rate nine times that of non-aboriginal offenders.
Which brings me back to the fact expressed by one of my readers that Stephen Harper enjoys wide support for putting down the natives. True. But the last century is strewn with debacles like slavery and apartheid that enjoyed the support of the majority.
Besides, the Harper government’s native policy is only sustainable by means of deception. The biggest deception is the convenient neglect over the elephant in this particular room: there is a third level of government in Canada with constitutional protection that should be getting transfer payments, not handouts, which should be treated as an adult partner instead of a misbehaving teenager, which is instead being fundamentally gamed.
If you take a look at a treaty map of Canada, it might help explain why. Virtually the whole country is the subject of such claims. As the Justice Department advises government after government, the liability is just too high to settle the claims, so it is preferable to endlessly negotiate them, decade after decade, regardless of cost or failed outcomes.
For that reason, Aboriginal Affairs by itself is really the department of the status quo. Without the support of cabinet, the minister of Aboriginal Affairs is dangerous and unwelcome when reform-minded, and just another good guy around the table when he’s not rocking the boat. It is the difference between a Robert Nault and a Chuck Strahl.
What this centuries-old injustice requires is a visionary and a peacemaker. That is not an auspicious requirement in a country where the people running the show are pretty much unblessed in the Gandhi department.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca
Author: Michael Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment