Do you think Sec. 32 of the Indian Act, which prohibits trade with FNs unless they have INAC's approval should be amended or taken out that that it would give FNs more control over their economic future?
Do you think there will come a day when all the Indian Act will be modified or scrapped altogether?
Ans. you 'd have to slowly phase it out. There's a lot of things in there that actually protect FNs people. Having to answer to INAC undermines our right to soverignty. There are other people who have under different opinion that are under third party management.
How far along are the discussions of amending the Indian Act. Anything brought to parliament?
Ans. you hear a lot about lands and resources by our FN leaders. But they do not speak to that section of the Act. Not criticizing the leaders, but it should be the first step.
Gull Bay person: I think there's been a lot of talk over the years about changing that act. Let's start eliminating that act. And let's implement the treaty, but the Federal leaders will say they do not have the mandate to do that. I don't think that is the case.
There is a section in the Canadian Human Rights act Sec. 67 that does not allow First Nations people to file complaints regarding their human rights pursuant to the Indian Act. The Indian Act is supposed to address the collective and essential needs of all First Nations people including access to water, health care, proper shelter and so on. They can not even file a complaint where their human rights are concerned.
Our communities are impoverished, we need control of our lands and resources to be able to realize a successful and fully functioning society. Sec. 32 came about as a result of fear that our people would be slaughtered like our brothers to the south in the United States were. Out of fear our communities/people signed on to the treaties. Shortly thereafter, our people in Treaty 3 got into farming and they became highly efficient and successful at it. Government saw that and instituted a law that non-Native people could no longer barter, trade or buy from First Nations people into their legislation. As a result the First Nation economy collapsed and it has never really recovered.
www.afn.ca/misc/COF_final.pdf
Is there no way that we can educate the public about situations like this?
John Cutfeet, what I see that has happened to that people. We are constantly being asked to fit into a foriegn entity. Oh by that way, we will legislate the extent of your every move. We are being asked to live by all these foreign rules and we were never given an opportunity to give input into it. I would like to see all the money that is being given to "FN's" going to all those large buildings in Ottawa and into the pockets of those expensive bureaucrats' pensions. Our leadership went to jail because they believed that they have a right to their resources. We have a mandate that was given to us by our creator - if our people really wanted to they could make a stand on their own. I think that is what we really need to look at: we shouldn't have to let someone that comes from a foreign country to dictate what we do. I also notice that when we look at the treaty - no one wants to discuss it. The treaty as written in the document is not what we agreed to share. I think it is time that minds change: we as a people have a right to take and use what is rightfully ours and that includes implementing ways to stimulate our economies. That's hard to do when you have someone who has never been to its a very infuriating and insulting situation when we look at it. I think that is changing. First Nation people are now finding their voice. Our people always believe we never gave up our rights and that was to share.
They are still our guests. You don't walk into someone's house and take off your muddy shoes and start ordering people around. It always seems like we are behind a glass looking in as they make decisions on our behalf and they throw us the leftovers.
You say "they" alot. Do you feel that you are not a part of the federal government.
It was a system that was built almost completely against us.
Past wrongs aside, do you feel that you are being represented by today's government?
I don't feel that they represent us. If they did we wouldn't have those education, health and other cutbacks.
John Cutfeet: as people who signed treaties with the crown we are forever fighting to have those treaties fulfilled. Everyday we are trying to deal with the cutbacks including education (which is mentioned in the treaty BTW), there are a lot of cutbacks that are happening. If you look at the full picture: if you look - the text that came back from our treaty "negotiations" are not even written there. And so you have a government that is benefitting from a treaty that is imbalanced.
Mike Miner: the average $45,000 Canadian and $27,000.
A concern that we have is that the government is critically underfunding our First Nations. Well, at the same time, our population's birth rate is incredible. In NAN territory we are projecting that our population will double in 20 years.
It would appear that the government has a strategy to take control of our lands. They underfund us (communities) purposely so that we end up moving outside our traditional lands so we can have access to basic needs including proper housing, education, health care and cost efficient goods and services like food and hydro. What happens as a result is that we lose the right to speak to and dictate what happens on our lands, the lands we left behind. When you look at it it looks like a strategy that is bent on extinguishing our Aboriginal and treaty rights.
when the Indian Act was fashioned in 1867, it was a very paternalistic society - women were not even given the right to vote. How women were treated in those days by that society was unbelievable: women weren't even deemed as persons. I think people would be horrified if they knew what is contained in today's Indian Act.
I think the further away that people are from the seat of power, the less they are able to form the legislation.
We are taking about economic development need self-determination at the person level. When you give the person the right to self determine than they have the right to lift themselves up and move up and go forward and contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. What pisses me off is they "government" frames this as an Indian issue. This is not an Indian Issue. If you spend 150 deconstructing a society, then you should spend an equal amount of time rebuilding what you have destroyed.
John Raulston Saul just wrote a book and when Europeans first came he described a fully realized society. And once 1867 hit then it become a dependency culture where lands were taken and treaties were struck. The Aboriginal view of the treaty is to care for the land, the non-native version is that of owning the land - its a contradiction. I hear people like John come in and talk about KI. It's interesting being 57 and learning about all these cultures. there's a Canadian history and an Aboriginal history and they evolved together.
There are Robinson Superior Treaty Aboriginal people were trading for hundreds and thousands of years. First Nations were extensively trading and engaging in commerce with each other. The governments refuse to recognize that.
A lot of our communities are trying to work within the established framework to move forward. However, the government lacks the political will to deal with outstanding land claims issues. Land claims have been stagnating. We filed ours and when we asked about it, they said they were looking at it.
Do you think that we could go back to a trade economy and how could we get the government to sign those.
We pretty much want to control our own lands and resources. We want to be able to market our own resources.
How do we get the government to settle outstanding land claims? We wanted to get support from the outside (general population) We achieved public sector and they say "Hey we are tired of hearing about this and we want you to fix it."
Yes, that works, to a certain extent. But I think the private sector has a little bit more say. If public pressure was really effective we would have seen a resolution to the issue at Kashechewan with the flooding and the jailhouse fires.
I dont' think the tools are available to be used. There are a lot of problems in terms of educating non-Native people on the issues. I think, once everyone understands, everyone can prosper. I think the first step is creating awareness and abolishing Sec. 32 and settling land claims.
I would love for my children to have a voice and for them to be able to participate in the economy in a meaningful way.
Aside from abolishing Sec. 32 I wish that they would settle land claims quickly that would allow First Nations to prosper and contribute more fully in the Canadian economy.
