[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

BB, did you get a chance to read the Mclean's article I linked earlier?

[Valmy]

But the story is interesting more than just talking about the potential mayor's of Canada's 7th largest city.  It becomes a discussion of what it means to be indigenous, and who gets to decide.  I just find it interesting.

To me it seems clear. If you want bonuses and advantages and goodies from your indigenous status (whatever those might be) then you need to be certified. If you just want to identify as indigenous then go right ahead, the Cherokees I am sure are delighted to have their latest self-proclaimed member.

Just like you might be the most skilled dentist in the world but if you don't get certified as a dentist you don't get to practice dentistry.

[Barrister]

BB, did you get a chance to read the Mclean's article I linked earlier?

Yes I did.  More of the same, good link.

To me it seems clear. If you want bonuses and advantages and goodies from your indigenous status (whatever those might be) then you need to be certified. If you just want to identify as indigenous then go right ahead, the Cherokees I am sure are delighted to have their latest self-proclaimed member.

Just like you might be the most skilled dentist in the world but if you don't get certified as a dentist you don't get to practice dentistry.

But some natives really reject the idea of the government telling them whether they are or aren't native.



So, as of yesterday all Alberta lawyers had to take an indigenous cultural awareness online course.  A local defence lawyer was on Twitter grumbling they were making him take the course - him being First Nations, and has even taught such courses.  He had the ability to apply for an exemption, but he hated the idea of having to "prove" his indigenousness to the Law Society, so he instead spent the several hours taking the course.

[Jacob]

Valmy, 90% of the issue is "who gets to certify, and how".

[crazy canuck]

But the story is interesting more than just talking about the potential mayor's of Canada's 7th largest city.  It becomes a discussion of what it means to be indigenous, and who gets to decide.  I just find it interesting.

To me it seems clear. If you want bonuses and advantages and goodies from your indigenous status (whatever those might be) then you need to be certified. If you just want to identify as indigenous then go right ahead, the Cherokees I am sure are delighted to have their latest self-proclaimed member.

I am not sure the Cherokees would be delighted to have a self-proclaimed member.  But I do know for sure that both the Federal government and many, if not all, indigenous communities in this province are definitely opposed to such a thing.

This issue isn't one of self identification, but, as Jacob says, whether an indigenous community can trump the Feds on the identification issue. 

[Valmy]

Valmy, 90% of the issue is "who gets to certify, and how".

Sounds like there already exists two viable entities that already do this. Either you are certified by the government or by an indigenous nation. What other certifying entity could there possibly be?

[Jacob]

Another fun one is governance.

Registered Indian Bands have to have elected leaders according to the Indian Act (IIRC). But at the same time, the First Nations also have other forms of governance - most frequently, I believe - Hereditary Chiefs; these are sometimes (often?) considered more legitimate by the Bands (or by some segment of the Bands). When and how do Hereditary Chiefs overrule Elected Chiefs and vice versa? Who gets to say whether someone is a Hereditary Chief or not (I think there's been some cases where that's been disputed)? How are those conflicts decided?

This can be fairly high stakes as there are resource allocation issues (housing and benefits, share in resource revenues) at stake, as well as whatever perceptions of nepotism, corruption, and just personality conflict.

At the same time, the Bands are jealously defending (and expanding where possible) their rights and sovereignty. There's a very long history of the Federal Government coming in and say "this is what's going to happen for your own good" that hasn't turned out that "good" by most measures.

So there are a whole lot of delicate nuances there, and while in broad strokes they are repeated across the country the individual circumstances vary from band to band.

... at least that's my understanding.

[Valmy]

I am not sure the Cherokees would be delighted to have a self-proclaimed member.  But I do know for sure that both the Federal government and many, if not all, indigenous communities in this province are definitely opposed to such a thing.

This issue isn't one of self identification, but, as Jacob says, whether an indigenous community can trump the Feds on the identification issue. 

I don't know if they should trump the feds, whatever that means, but I do think if you claim to be some such and such community and that community agrees then I think that should be good enough. But if the community doesn't claim you and then you pull out your Canadian government certified indigenous card or whatever that should also be good enough.

If you have neither of those things, well you can claim to be whomever you want but you are not getting that special whatever reserved for indigenous people.

That is how I see it. Now I guess I was going off some understanding that bands and nations and whatever do have some kind of formal government-ish organization that is empowered to certify its members, but as Jake points out that process might actually be incredibly chaotic. Now maybe the group you are a part of is not really that organized and is not in a position to certify anything. I guess in that case you would need a government certification I suppose. Otherwise anybody could just claim indigenous status, which is not theoretical but appears to be a legitimate problem.

[Barrister]

Another fun one is governance.

Registered Indian Bands have to have elected leaders according to the Indian Act (IIRC). But at the same time, the First Nations also have other forms of governance - most frequently, I believe - Hereditary Chiefs; these are sometimes (often?) considered more legitimate by the Bands (or by some segment of the Bands). When and how do Hereditary Chiefs overrule Elected Chiefs and vice versa? Who gets to say whether someone is a Hereditary Chief or not (I think there's been some cases where that's been disputed)? How are those conflicts decided?

This can be fairly high stakes as there are resource allocation issues (housing and benefits, share in resource revenues) at stake, as well as whatever perceptions of nepotism, corruption, and just personality conflict.

At the same time, the Bands are jealously defending (and expanding where possible) their rights and sovereignty. There's a very long history of the Federal Government coming in and say "this is what's going to happen for your own good" that hasn't turned out that "good" by most measures.

So there are a whole lot of delicate nuances there, and while in broad strokes they are repeated across the country the individual circumstances vary from band to band.

... at least that's my understanding.

Be careful taking the Wet'suwet'en example as being representative of most bands as a whole.  Just now when I google "hereditary chiefs" almost all the articles are taking about the Wet'suwet'en.

Many/most bands don't have these kinds of clan hereditary chiefs.  Between smallpox, residential schools and the like the clan system broke down.  I've never heard of hereditary chiefs in any Alberta bands - though I'm hardly an expert on all of them.

I gained a lot of insight about First Nations life from my friend Karen.  She worked as a Crown Witness Co-ordinator in the Yukon, and every couple months the two of us would make the five hour drive to Watson Lake from Whitehorse to do three days of circuit court - and so of course we'd talk alot.  Karen was a member of the Teslin T'lingit First Nation, and they did have a clan system and clan leaders.  Those hereditary chiefs (though she wouldn't have used that term) are incorporated and form a part of the overall band council.  [worth noting the T'lingit are an odd group as the larger T'lingit nation are from the Alaska panhandle, and the Teslin T'lingit are a group that moved inland relatively recently before colonization]

I also met with the Chief of Liard First Nation (part of the Kaska people) several times when I was prosecuting in that area.  Clan leaders / hereditary chiefs never came up, though I can't say they didn't exist.

I believe there are some bands that have an almost exclusively hereditary leadership.

But I've never heard of any situation like the wet'suwet'en one where elected leaders and hereditary leaders take such diametrically opposed positions.  Typically of course First Nations try to work on developing a consensus.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure the Cherokees would be delighted to have a self-proclaimed member.  But I do know for sure that both the Federal government and many, if not all, indigenous communities in this province are definitely opposed to such a thing.

This issue isn't one of self identification, but, as Jacob says, whether an indigenous community can trump the Feds on the identification issue. 

I don't know if they should trump the feds, whatever that means, but I do think if you claim to be some such and such community and that community agrees then I think that should be good enough. But if the community doesn't claim you and then you pull out your Canadian government certified indigenous card or whatever that should also be good enough.

You might not know, but I am telling you that is the major point of contention as between many Ingenious communities and the Feds at the moment.

To give some context, I know of a case where a gay indigenous man and his partner, who is white, had surrogate children.  One child was fathered by each of them.  Both children have status cards from the Feds.  Only the child fathered by the indigenous man is recognized as a member by the community.


@Jacob, the idea of hereditary chiefs having any authority based on that capacity alone is very controversial.

Edit:  @BB there is no question they exist in some cultures.  The controversial bit is what, if any, authority they might have.

[Valmy]

You might not know, but I am telling you that is the major point of contention as between many Ingenious communities and the Feds at the moment.

To give some context, I know of a case where a gay indigenous man and his partner, who is white, had surrogate children.  One child was fathered by each of them.  Both children have status cards from the Feds.  Only the child fathered by the indigenous man is recognized as a member by the community.


@Jacob, the idea of hereditary chiefs having any authority based on that capacity alone is very controversial.

Edit:  @BB there is no question they exist in some cultures.  The controversial bit is what, if any, authority they might have.

Yeah and I am saying that, without knowing precisely what the point of contention is, that either should be good enough. It sounds like some people would easily be certified by the Feds if they wanted to but find the process colonialist. Others may for whatever reason be unacceptable to the Feds but acceptable to their indigenous group, or the opposite. Either one, though, is a process. If I was running one of those universities that is the procedure I would recommend, at least knowing what I know now.

In the context of these universities I especially think this is relevant because at least one of them was from the United States and not Canada anyway. In her case she should have been required to produce some kind of certification from her group.

So how does the Canadian indigenous thing work and how does it benefit you in a way that not just being a certified member of a group doesn't? Why does it exist? Why aren't they just identical? I can think of a few like maybe one just doesn't want to be officially associated with a band or nation for whatever reason or was cast out of one for some reason. That would still leave that person indigenous. But I don't know.

[Jacob]

Sounds like there already exists two viable entities that already do this. Either you are certified by the government or by an indigenous nation. What other certifying entity could there possibly be?

I mean you're right - on the narrow issue of getting access to "the goodies" you need to be "certified" by either the government or a band. Self-identification is (no longer) sufficient. However, a good amount of the discourse on identity is not purely about getting access to "the goodies" (though the goodies colour the discourse in a number of ways I believe).

[crazy canuck]

So how does the Canadian indigenous thing work and how does it benefit you in a way that not just being a certified member of a group doesn't? Why does it exist? Why aren't they just identical? I can think of a few like maybe one just doesn't want to be officially associated with a band or nation for whatever reason or was cast out of one for some reason. That would still leave that person indigenous. But I don't know.

It is almost always the case that a particular community does not recognize the status which is recognized by the Feds, not the other way around. The person who has federal status still gets all the benefits of being federally certified.  But more and more, the real benefit is membership in the community because a number of communities are developing significant income streams and with that comes community based social welfare, medical and educational services; job opportunities; and other direct economic benefits that only go to people recognized as members of the community.

[Jacob]

Be careful taking the Wet'suwet'en example as being representative of most bands as a whole.  Just now when I google "hereditary chiefs" almost all the articles are taking about the Wet'suwet'en.

Did a course on this some years back, and from what I recall the tension between elders elected under the act and traditional non-elected elders showed up in more than on place. But maybe hereditary chiefs are only a Wet'suwet'en thing, that I don't know.

[crazy canuck]

Be careful taking the Wet'suwet'en example as being representative of most bands as a whole.  Just now when I google "hereditary chiefs" almost all the articles are taking about the Wet'suwet'en.

Did a course on this some years back, and from what I recall the tension between elders elected under the act and traditional non-elected elders showed up in more than on place. But maybe hereditary chiefs are only a Wet'suwet'en thing, that I don't know.

It is the only place I know of where unelected members claimed they had any authority over the elected members.

I thought the Feds should not have backed down on that rather dubious assertion.