Yup
The AFN needs fresh thinking
"Mr. Fontaine may have been a charmer and possessed modern media savvy. Still, these skills masked a same-old, same-old philosophy on aboriginal-Ottawa affairs.
He blocked every attempt to increase accountability and transparency in First Nations government. He frowned on the establishment of personal property rights on reserves that would have encouraged home ownership and business start-ups. He even helped convince federal opposition parties to block legislation giving on-reserve women full legal and human rights, arguing that such changes -- if they came at all -- had to come slowly, so as not to upset aboriginal traditions.
...unless the winner means to break the cycle of dependence both individual aboriginals and their bands have on federal handouts (nearly $8-billion a year divided among fewer than one million aboriginals), abandon collective ownership of reserve property, implement strict rules for on-reserve accounting and end cronyism and nepotism, then four or eight years from now, when the next national chief is elected, nothing tangible will have changed."
posted by Louise at 9:12 am
4 Comments:
"He blocked every attempt to increase accountability and transparency in First Nations government."
Not quite. He supported increased accountability; but he asked for a parallel plan on the part of government to enhance their own accountability, and especially to respond to the multiple failures of DIAND to adhere to the terms of Claims and treaties identified by the Auditor General of Canada, Price WaterhouseCoopers, Justice Thomas Berger, and dozens of other studies.
"He frowned on the establishment of personal property rights on reserves that would have encouraged home ownership and business start-ups."
Although this concept is much beloved of the Flanagans and Widdowsons, I've never heard a single First Nation ask for that right. Have you? It's certainly a terrific way to dissolve reserves and land bases, as Alaska learned.
"He convinced federal opposition parties to block legislation giving on-reserve women full legal and human rights, arguing that such changes -- if they came at all -- had to come slowly, so as not to upset aboriginal traditions."
Not quite. AFN and the National Aboriginal Women's Association both withdrew their support from this proposal when DIAND announced they had "consulted" both organizations, then presented legislation that ignored both organization's input. The proposed legislation would have superseded treaty and self government agreements, creating a precedent for a Federal override of literally any existing First Nation's laws. This, of course, is precisely the "strategic" approach to assimilation Tom Flanagan has been advocating for fifteen years.
Just thought I'd clear that up a bit.
Here's a few:
Property Rights: Nisga'a lead the way
"Approximately 140 First Nations have enacted bylaws under section 83 of the Indian Act. Currently, 113 First Nations are collecting property taxes, while several other First Nations have enacted business licensing, telephone company and financial administration bylaws. Annual revenues to First Nations from property taxation exceeded $49 million for 2005-2006. (*)
Manny Jules and the Kamloops Band.
Calvin Helin
and almost, pretty darn close Clarence Louie.
Get out of the way, Balb.
Here's that question again.
"I've never heard a single First Nation ask for that right."
You haven't identified a single First Nation that asked for that right. You've cited a draft approach that isn't getting very much support, and a couple of individuals.
You are aware of what happened in Alaska following the first round of North Slope Borough settlements, I assume?
Actually, that last comment of mine wasn't helpful. Let me expand.
There IS a business case to be made for the sale of Aboriginal lands by bands or title holders...but not a good one. In the case of the North
Slope Borough, lands were sold by municipal corporations, who then discovered that in selling their base they had gotten rid of their only long term asset.
There is a much better business case to be made for retaining title, negotiating rights to entry, access, transit, exploration, development, and so on. The band doesn't lose the asset: they control the rate and nature of development; and they can demand employment, training, a share of resource revenues, infrastructure improvements and so through Impact Development Agreements. Most important, they retain their land base in perpetuity.
Given Canada's history (right up to the present day, according to the Auditor General) on reneging on its treaty and claims obligations, it's difficult to see why First Nations would want to surrender title to the one indestructable asset they hold.
I know Calvin pretty well. We've worked on projects together, and I brought him in to participate in a couple of panels at the Land Claims Aboriginal Coalition conference earlier this year. HIs perspective is interesting, and valid, and should be heard. So far, however, most FNs think retention of the land base is a better strategy: they see giving it up as the first step on the way to assimilation. Which, of course, is Flanagan's stated goal.
Post a Comment
<< Home