As the federal government and First Nations leaders proclaimed their wish to reset the relationship between the Crown and aboriginals in Canada last week, there was predictable criticism about the lack of concrete action.
The five priorities agreed to, including declarations about removing barriers that hinder First Nations governance, are hardly a sign of the radical change many people want to see. Certainly, they’re not going to address the long-standing demand to scrap the Indian Act.
Instead, the meeting offers the promise of incremental change. That might be disappointing, but given past efforts at more significant reforms, last week’s resolutions were probably the most we could realistically expect.
In 2002, the former Liberal government failed in its attempt at reform through the first nations governance act.
Among other things, the act would have required bands to develop clear rules on how they spend their money. First Nations leaders fought back, saying the proposal went against the notion of self-government and involved little consultation with them.
There’s a difficult contradiction in the issue given that, on the one hand, First Nations leaders quite legitimately say the real problem is the lack of federal funding for basic services.
But while calling for more funding, they insist on the notion of self-government as a barrier to being more accountable and transparent to the federal government in how they handle those funds. The government, meanwhile, isn’t willing to hand over cash without accountability.
The result is inertia. That’s a big part of the reason why we see repeated meetings and events decrying the poor living conditions on reserves with few signs of real progress.
Given the conundrum, then, incremental change is probably the most realistic scenario. The goal should be achievable reforms that build trust and ultimately pave the way for a broader transformation.
Beyond last week’s priorities, it’s perhaps wise for the government and First Nations to choose one area — education is an obvious example — to make a serious effort at fixing the problems.
It’s clear that the government has to provide more money to bring reserve funding for education on par with other school systems. On the question of accountability, Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo has already shown openness to changes such as having a First Nations auditor general.
Having such a person initially assigned to the specific task of monitoring progress in educational standards and financial accountability would be a great way to build the trust necessary for more significant reforms.
The five priorities agreed to, including declarations about removing barriers that hinder First Nations governance, are hardly a sign of the radical change many people want to see. Certainly, they’re not going to address the long-standing demand to scrap the Indian Act.Instead, the meeting offers the promise of incremental change. That might be disappointing, but given past efforts at more significant reforms, last week’s resolutions were probably the most we could realistically expect.
In 2002, the former Liberal government failed in its attempt at reform through the first nations governance act.
Among other things, the act would have required bands to develop clear rules on how they spend their money. First Nations leaders fought back, saying the proposal went against the notion of self-government and involved little consultation with them.
There’s a difficult contradiction in the issue given that, on the one hand, First Nations leaders quite legitimately say the real problem is the lack of federal funding for basic services.
But while calling for more funding, they insist on the notion of self-government as a barrier to being more accountable and transparent to the federal government in how they handle those funds. The government, meanwhile, isn’t willing to hand over cash without accountability.
The result is inertia. That’s a big part of the reason why we see repeated meetings and events decrying the poor living conditions on reserves with few signs of real progress.
Given the conundrum, then, incremental change is probably the most realistic scenario. The goal should be achievable reforms that build trust and ultimately pave the way for a broader transformation.
Beyond last week’s priorities, it’s perhaps wise for the government and First Nations to choose one area — education is an obvious example — to make a serious effort at fixing the problems.
It’s clear that the government has to provide more money to bring reserve funding for education on par with other school systems. On the question of accountability, Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo has already shown openness to changes such as having a First Nations auditor general.
Having such a person initially assigned to the specific task of monitoring progress in educational standards and financial accountability would be a great way to build the trust necessary for more significant reforms.
