Toxic Multiculturalism

[Oexmelin]

The current policies are the flipside of that, and not as obviously offensive - indeed have been designed I assume with the best of intentions - but they are rooted in a concept of 'top-down' social policy that has, in my opinion, not delivered good results.

I am sorry, I might have missed your answer, but could you give an example of what recent policies have not given good results ?

[Barrister]

The alternative is not a choice between 'positive' group rights (the current position) and 'negative' group liabilities (or forced assimilation - the old policy). There also exists the alternative of not engaging in legally discriminating between Canadian citizens in the first place, positive or negative, which has not been tried.

The benefit? Well, this policy appears to have been reasonably successful in other contexts: treating citizens without discrimination may be a bold step, but it accords well with Western constitutional traditions. So far, the departure from these traditions has always had unhappy results, and I think the burden on those supporting current First Nations policies is to demonstrate that in this case the departure has been justified.   

You set up a false dichotomy.  The pre-70s poplicy of assimilation was one where the end goal was to treat natives no differently than non-natives.  Native status would be abolished, and we would all be Canadians.

The problem with your suggestion is that it would have the effect of the majority taking away the existing (group) rights of the minority.  It has the added disadvantage of not being what First Nations people seem to want (and fair enough for Jacob to say I'm in a delicate position as a government official trying to say what native people want).  Indeed the first 'demand' of almost every native advocacy group is for 'Treaties to be honoured'.

I agree with Jacob - any changes in the status of native people in Canada needs to be done in consultation with the same native people.   Now you guys may not know but a case from Yukon on the meaning of 'consultation' is currently before the SCC - the First Nation in question appeared to say that a government obligation to consult gives a virtual veto to the FIrst Nation in question.  I would not agree with that assertion, but definitely - you can and should not change the status of native people without their input.  And the message I get from native people is that while they wish to change their status and place in Canada, they do not want tto simply have those ancient rights and treaties annulled.

[crazy canuck]

The current policies are the flipside of that, and not as obviously offensive - indeed have been designed I assume with the best of intentions - but they are rooted in a concept of 'top-down' social policy that has, in my opinion, not delivered good results.

I am sorry, I might have missed your answer, but could you give an example of what recent policies have not given good results ?

It is not one policy per se but the continuation of the Indian Act and all that flows from it.   If you want a explicit example, then take as just one such example the failure to allow Natives to control land and resources within reserves.  One of the main reasons for Native poverty is that while they live on reserve they do not own or control that land.  Until very recently all decisions regarding reserve land was delegated to the authority of the Federal Government.  One of the ramifications of that is that no Native living on reserve could obtain a loan secured by land (one of the main vehicle by which the rest of society obtains access to capital).  The policy is grounded in the paternalistic (and in some cases entirely accurate) view that the Federal government were better custodians (Trustees) then the elected band government.

Through more recent land use agreements access to Bands are now able to market their land and use it as security in business ventures and that has made a great deal of difference to the bands in the Vancouver area.


I could go on for quite some time but in short, it is not for nothing that leadership within the Native community have pushed to have the Indian Act abolished and replaced by a series of land use agreements which are not paternalistic but resemble municiple type powers.

[Oexmelin]

And I agree with all that, but I fail to see how what you describe is by essence recent, or how it was intended to break away from earlier policies, as per Malthus' reading.

[crazy canuck]

Now you guys may not know but a case from Yukon on the meaning of 'consultation' is currently before the SCC - the First Nation in question appeared to say that a government obligation to consult gives a virtual veto to the FIrst Nation in question.  I would not agree with that assertion, but definitely - you can and should not change the status of native people without their input.  And the message I get from native people is that while they wish to change their status and place in Canada, they do not want tto simply have those ancient rights and treaties annulled.

I dont know about that case but I can tell you it is one in a long line of such accommodation cases that stretches back a number of years.  I have been involved in a couple myself.

Saying that they dont want their ancient rights and treaties annulled is a bit of a meaningless statement since the biggest problem in the West is that there are no treaties and nobody is quite sure what their rights are nevermind their "ancient rights".

Also, I take issue with your stats from Nunavut which you then try to generalize across all native communities.  Nunavut is a very special case in that it is a large territory which has de facto been given over to local aboriginal government - since most voters in that territory are aboriginal.  You would expect to see different outcomes for communities that are able to make decisions for themselves.  As opposed to the sorry state of Natives living on Government controlled reserves.

What Natives are eventually going to have to come to grips with is do they want to continue to be wards of the State or do they want to go in the direction of the more progressive bands and create situations for themselves under which the Indian Act becomes irrelevant.

The sad truth is that very few will have the political will or ability to become independant.  So we are left with moral question.

[crazy canuck]

And I agree with all that, but I fail to see how what you describe is by essence recent, or how it was intended to break away from earlier policies, as per Malthus' reading.

Not sure I understand.  The Indian act has always been the problem.  First as the tool by which the Natives were to be assimilated and then the tool by which they were to be "saved".  The only thing that really changed was the stated reason for having the Act.

[Barrister]

It is not one policy per se but the continuation of the Indian Act and all that flows from it.   If you want a explicit example, then take as just one such example the failure to allow Natives to control land and resources within reserves.  One of the main reasons for Native poverty is that while they live on reserve they do not own or control that land.  Until very recently all decisions regarding reserve land was delegated to the authority of the Federal Government.  One of the ramifications of that is that no Native living on reserve could obtain a loan secured by land (one of the main vehicle by which the rest of society obtains access to capital).  The policy is grounded in the paternalistic (and in some cases entirely accurate) view that the Federal government were better custodians (Trustees) then the elected band government.

Through more recent land use agreements access to Bands are now able to market their land and use it as security in business ventures and that has made a great deal of difference to the bands in the Vancouver area.


I could go on for quite some time but in short, it is not for nothing that leadership within the Native community have pushed to have the Indian Act abolished and replaced by a series of land use agreements which are not paternalistic but resemble municiple type powers.

Almost all of the Yukon First Nations have signed Final Agreements which give them far more than "minicipal type powers".  In fact one of the confusing things up here is that First Nations have these broad powers, but they often show little interest in using them.  I sat though  a meeting in Carcross with a Territorial Court Judge and the chief of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation (CTFN) where they were asking us what they should do to integrate the band into the child and family welfare system.  I wanted to stand up and say 'they are your powers - why are you asking us government suits for permission?  Just do it!'

I agree that the issue of how land and housing has been dealt with is not (from my outsider's perspective) one that has been very positive or helpful.  But various ideas for reforming that system have been floated, and potential amendments to the Indian Act proposed - mostly to be shot down by Native leadership.  It is not due to the 'paternalistic Federal government' that First Nations can not mortgage their land - it is because most band councils do not wish to go down that road.

[crazy canuck]

Almost all of the Yukon First Nations have signed Final Agreements which give them far more than "minicipal type powers".  In fact one of the confusing things up here is that First Nations have these broad powers, but they often show little interest in using them.  I sat though  a meeting in Carcross with a Territorial Court Judge and the chief of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation (CTFN) where they were asking us what they should do to integrate the band into the child and family welfare system.  I wanted to stand up and say 'they are your powers - why are you asking us government suits for permission?  Just do it!'

That is the big fear with self government - that they wont do it well.  But in my view it is much better then the alternative of having the Federal government take it on under the Indian Act and also they cant be any worse then some of the municipal politicians I have seen.

It is not due to the 'paternalistic Federal government' that First Nations can not mortgage their land - it is because most band councils do not wish to go down that road.

BB, you are just wrong about this.  Providing some economic flexibility in land use for reserve land is a very recent phenomenon.  Frankly I am not overly critical of a lot of bands not wanting to do this until they understand exactly how those debts will be paid and what certainy there is regarding land use or put more directly until they determine what the highest and best use of the land is based on what the government will let them do with it.

[Barrister]

I dont know about that case but I can tell you it is one in a long line of such accommodation cases that stretches back a number of years.  I have been involved in a couple myself.

Saying that they dont want their ancient rights and treaties annulled is a bit of a meaningless statement since the biggest problem in the West is that there are no treaties and nobody is quite sure what their rights are nevermind their "ancient rights".

Also, I take issue with your stats from Nunavut which you then try to generalize across all native communities.  Nunavut is a very special case in that it is a large territory which has de facto been given over to local aboriginal government - since most voters in that territory are aboriginal.  You would expect to see different outcomes for communities that are able to make decisions for themselves.  As opposed to the sorry state of Natives living on Government controlled reserves.

What Natives are eventually going to have to come to grips with is do they want to continue to be wards of the State or do they want to go in the direction of the more progressive bands and create situations for themselves under which the Indian Act becomes irrelevant.

The sad truth is that very few will have the political will or ability to become independant.  So we are left with moral question.

As for the case:

http://www.canlii.org/en/yk/ykca/doc/2008/2008ykca13/2008ykca13.html

It was argued before the SCC in the fall.

I don't think Nunavut is a bad example at all, as it is a location where we have taken a new approach, and some modest dividends have shown themselves.

[Barrister]

So what do you call it when someone starts a troll thread, and it evolves into a meaningful discussion?

A reverse-hijacking?
A police action?

[crazy canuck]

I don't think Nunavut is a bad example at all, as it is a location where we have taken a new approach, and some modest dividends have shown themselves.

But you used it as an example to refute my statement that things are getting worse for natives under the Indian Act when it is really an example of how things can improve if we get rid of paternalistic systems.

[Barrister]

That is the big fear with self government - that they wont do it well.  But in my view it is much better then the alternative of having the Federal government take it on under the Indian Act and also they cant be any worse then some of the municipal politicians I have seen.

I agree.

BB, you are just wrong about this.  Providing some economic flexibility in land use for reserve land is a very recent phenomenon.  Frankly I am not overly critical of a lot of bands not wanting to do this until they understand exactly how those debts will be paid and what certainy there is regarding land use or put more directly until they determine what the highest and best use of the land is based on what the government will let them do with it.

I remember this being floated several times by federal politicians when talking about amending/replacing the Indian Act.  It was not well received.  I think that was within the last decade.

[crazy canuck]

So what do you call it when someone starts a troll thread, and it evolves into a meaningful discussion?

A reverse-hijacking?
A police action?

[Barrister]

I don't think Nunavut is a bad example at all, as it is a location where we have taken a new approach, and some modest dividends have shown themselves.

But you used it as an example to refute my statement that things are getting worse for natives under the Indian Act when it is really an example of how things can improve if we get rid of paternalistic systems.

Fair enough, but do you have an example of a reserve/community where things have demonstrably gotten worse in terms of overall 'results' over the last 20 years?  Looking at things such as alcoholism, crime, employment, health/lifespan, education rates?

I think your assessment that things are getting worse is wrong, and that instead things have been marginally improving.

[crazy canuck]

I remember this being floated several times by federal politicians when talking about amending/replacing the Indian Act.  It was not well received.  I think that was within the last decade.

You and I are recalling the same events.  The impetus came from the National Assembly of Indian Chiefs.  But it lost momentum pretty quickly.  Too many are reliant on the benefits the Act gives them no matter what the negative implications are.

At the time I thought it was a very shrewd move by the Native leadership.  With the Act gone they would have had a very strong hand at the bargaining table and in the Courts to require quick action on their land use issues.    There are still some successful negotations but I dont hold out much hope we will see many more.