AFN National Chief wants 2012 to represent a ‘critical mass for change for First Nations people’
Atleo wants 2012 to represent a ‘critical mass for change for First Nations people’
By CHRIS PLECASH | The Hill Times Jan. 09, 2012
AFN National Chief Atleo calls on PM to follow through on endorsement of UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
It’s been more than a year since the federal government endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but the ongoing and highly-publicized crisis in the northern Ontario reserve of Attawapiskat has made clear the need for greater action by the federal government in addressing the living standards of First Nations and aboriginal Canadians who are still poorly educated, whose health conditions are less than adequate, and whose unemployment rates are as high as 80 per cent in many communities.
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo says he’s hopeful that the federal government will follow through on its endorsement of the declaration at the Jan. 24 First Nations-Crown Gathering in Ottawa, where First Nations leaders will meet with Prime Minister Harper and Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, B.C.). Chief Atleo recently spoke with The Hill Times about the upcoming meeting and the future of Canada’s First Nations.
The Prime Minister’s been lauded for formally apologizing for the residential school system and this government has been praised for endorsing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. How have these improved the well being of Canada’s indigenous and what needs to happen now?
“The apology was a critical moment for myself as well. In my view it’s opened the space for reconciliation. My late grandmother was there with me in the House when we listened to the apology first hand. Her words to me were, ‘They’re just beginning to see us.’ She raised 18 kids and they all went to residential schools. That apology was about the fact that herself as a mother had children taken away from her.
“The endorsement of the declaration is so significant as the next step because it is a global indigenous consensus document. It says that states must work with First Nations. Canada is a successor state responsible for implementing the treaty relationship. This declaration says that by virtue of Canada becoming a country, it inherits the obligations to uphold the spirit and intent of those treaties. That’s not what has happened. In fact, the Indian Act was created and the residential schools were created. We’ve moved so far away from the original spirit and intent of it. The next step is to move towards implementing the declaration.
“The Prime Minister and I have talked about issues like education and the youth of our population, matching that up with an aging general population with labour market shortages on the horizon. We can bring these elements together at this moment and get on with implementing this declaration, which says that First Nations have the right to design an education system that works for them, that counters what the residential school system set out to do.
“These are important moments leading up to the January 24 First Nations-Crown gathering which the Prime Minister has now agreed to. We called for it just over a year ago. I’m hopeful this is a moment where we start from the talk of reconciliation into the action of implementing the work of reconciliation.”
What does action mean for an institution like Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and a document like the Indian Act?
“The Indian Act represents such a deeply-failed policy for over 100 years—we have broad consensus that this is the case—and the challenge has been how do we move beyond it? We’re calling for First Nations jurisdiction to be recognized and go beyond the Indian Act, back to the original treaty relationship where we’re jointly designing initiatives going forward.
“It’s not like we don’t have examples. We have the James Bay agreement between the Crees and the government of Quebec. That agreement has been around for more than 20 years. When they signed the agreement it didn’t mean the relationship was over. You don’t sign your names, go your separate ways, and everything works out. Like Canada, it’s a work in progress. They have control over their education and they’re developing their economy in a manner they agree on. They’re not alone. We have similar agreements in the Yukon and elsewhere. It really is about moving beyond the current policy framework.
“For a particular department, it’s also a call for a major change in the machinery of government. The idea of a First Nations auditor general is not a new concept. First Nations completely agree with all of the discussion around accountability, transparency and good government, but we’re hindered by an Indian Act that in my view shackles everybody including government and departments. We need to unshackle ourselves from that past and put into place new mechanisms.
“The Minister of Indian Affairs by legislation is required to inject him or herself into disputes in communities. That’s not empowerment. That’s the shadow of a colonial and paternalistic past that continues to repeat itself. Everyone agrees, including the federal government and the minister, that that doesn’t make sense either.
“We need an ombudsperson and new dispute resolution mechanisms. First Nations have been saying that our treaties and rights predate the establishment of this country. If Canada is a successor state, then we need to move to independent mechanisms like a treaty tribunal. Again, not a new concept. Such an instrument exists between the Maori and the New Zealand government. That’s a way for the parties to have a sense of fairness and equity about how treaty rights and title rights are being interpreted, and how it is that we can jointly design policies that work. If we arrive at solutions with negotiated land settlements, it creates clarity for economic development and for prosperity, thereby creating greater levels of certainty for investment in Canada and for First Nations.
“Everyone has this shared interest, but up until now it appears we haven’t dug deeply into these problems and together talked about what the solutions are. What I’m hoping for is that this January 24 meeting there could be a signal that we share a commitment to getting on with the work.”
What is your influence as national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and how can you turn things around for First Nations in Canada?
“My first obligation is to support and advocate for chiefs, for First Nations governments, and to support efforts to give effect to their treaty rights and aboriginal title rights. The notion that people would like to dismiss treaties is just not valid. The courts have argued that they’re just as valid today as the day they were entered into, so does the declaration.
Endorsing the declaration was an important first step to putting words into action. The next step is to return to doing the work, and it can only be done by working together. We’re prepared to work with Ottawa and not start from scratch.
“The pursuit of First Nations control over education has been a 30-year effort. In the early 70s we had a really dramatic rise in education success. There was 95 per cent failure rate at the time of the Hawthorn Report in 1964. In the early 70s we saw graduation rates rise to 49 per cent. That was a massive improvement. We’re going backwards because that huge push in the ’70s has not been matched. We have to recapture that momentum, put real structural shifts into place and catch up. I’m really worried about the kids in Grades 9 through 12. Those are the tender years where we want to make sure they understand there’s a reason to graduate. We need to support those education systems, which are not supported to the extent that they need to be, and then shoot for the 80 per cent graduation rates that the rest of the country has.
“This can’t be something that we leave for another generation. You do your shared analysis, you agree that you need to set out strategy and get to work. That has not happened. Sheila Fraser did 32 audits over 10 years—that covers two different governments of different political stripes—and she said we’re going backwards and things are getting worse. I’m hopeful that the Prime Minister, in having this upcoming meeting, will recognize that we’re not going to solve it all in one meeting, but that we’ve got to jointly commit to the hard work, to getting it going.”If this government is serious about turning the situation around for First Nations people, why did they scrap the Kelowna Accord?
“You’d have to talk to them about their reflections on the work in Kelowna. I think Kelowna was an important moment because it raised consciousness. What we need right now is an all-party consensus, because that’s part of the challenge we had coming out of 2005. It’s now important that we say no one individual, no one party created this. None of us created the Indian Act, nor opened the doors to the residential schools, but we’ve got this shared legacy that Canadians now know by virtue of social media. To have YouTube bringing images of Attawapiskat into the hearts and minds of Canadians, I think it’s shifted the notion that Canada is a caring, giving country.
“We need the First Nations-Crown gathering so that we can jointly hit the reset button and learn from all of these experiences, including Kelowna, the Royal Commission, Oka, and all of the reports that have been done. It’s not like we don’t know what needs to be done. We’re prepared to do it now, and we’re looking to the federal government to carry its share of the responsibility with us.”
People call the issues in Attawapiskat complex. Is it really that complicated? What, in a nutshell, is going wrong in that community?
“I think the term ‘complex’ is in some respects true, but as people we’re pretty good at digging in if something is complex. What I think we need to be gripped with is the challenging conversation about that complexity. That’s something I’ve never seen before—a public discourse that really looks into this. That would allow us the opportunity to move beyond the finger pointing and the blaming.
“There’s been a rapid movement to support people in despair, to support the kids. We’ve seen the images, it doesn’t take much to understand that there’s something really deeply wrong here. Nothing has really gripped the nation like these images from Attawapiskat, and they’re not alone. There might be upwards of 100 communities similar to Attawapiskat, and I’ve been to many of those communities.
“There are also complexities because of the Indian Act. There’s completely arbitrary decision making on the part of government about how resources will be dispersed, usually on a year-to-year basis. Find any other segment of the population where policy is made like that. This is about smashing the status quo. These are the same communities that experienced 150 years of the residential school.
“There are also stories of success. The Mi’kmaq, achieving over 80 per cent graduation rates, have actually blown away the status quo for First Nations, based in large part on local innovation, and dogged determination that they will do this for their kids. We see pockets of these outlier success stories. They’re accomplishing this not because of support, but in spite of the lack of support. Long term funding is not there. We need to allow ourselves the opportunity to dig into the complexity and to jointly design the solutions going forward. We’ve got 30 years of reports. In an area like education, where’s the complexity in that? We build on those reports.
“We have new data that we can bring to bear on infrastructure, housing, and health. Canada’s going to pursue a new Health Accord in 2014. First Nations fair far worse, so how are we going to pay for our health care system when our population is ageing? How are we going to pay for pensions when our population is retiring? I suggest we look to our young people. This is another level analysis that’s emerging. When we engage economists, we try to quantify this. In one generation. $400-billion in additional output to the Canadian economy and $115-billion in saved government expenditures. Those are really good reasons to tackle the so-called ‘complexity’ and not allow that to be something that causes our eyes to glaze over, and then fade to the background.
“We’ve got to bring the tough conversations and put it right in front of us and get on with it. I think that’s the moment that we’re heading to in 2012. So that’s my role, to facilitate the space for the work to happen between First Nations and our Crown partner, the federal government.”
You’re hopeful that this government is willing to work with First Nations, but are you confident that they’re willing to?
“I’m confident in both First Nations people and in Canadians. When we understand and move past the finger-pointing and blaming and get past the complexities, I’m confident that there’s a shared willingness and commitment to have real change occur. Canadians put in governments. They elect every single MP, including the Prime Minister and Cabinet, so I put my confidence in Canadians that this can end up being something that the government is encouraged to tackle.”