Aboriginal People Not Standing Still on Governance

by Rick Zerbe Cornelsen
Aboriginal Neighbours

Note: the examples below are repeated from the previous web page, but the article contains expanded reflection on the examples.

The introduction of the First Nations Governance Act supports the stereotype that without compulsory, prescriptive legislation Aboriginal communities will stand still on issues of good governance. However, consider the following:

• The Inuit of Labrador are drafting a Constitution. It will establish an Inuit Central Government and five Inuit Community Governments and determine their responsibilities and systems of accountability. The Central Government will make laws for Inuit in Labrador Inuit Lands on matters such as culture, language, education, health and social services. It will determine Inuit citizenship and whether to allow development projects on Inuit Lands to proceed or not.
• The Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en peoples are exercising their right to co-manage, together with their non-Aboriginal neighbours, lands in central British Columbia. In a landmark court case in 1997 they won recognition of the existence of Aboriginal title over lands not covered by treaties. They did so, in part, by presenting to the court their traditional systems of governance based on houses, clans, and hereditary chiefs. They demonstrated, with great courage and care, that each chief continues to carry distinct responsibilities linked to particular territories. Now, forestry and other companies are entering mutual agreements with representatives of that governance system.
• The Pimicikamak Cree Nation in Manitoba has re-constituted itself by passing the "First Written Law" and has enacted at least four other far-reaching laws. The laws cover themes such as citizenship, elections, a financial trust, and relations with the dominant economic force in their lands, Manitoba Hydro. The nation is governed by four councils: Women, Youth, Elders, and the Executive Council, the latter of which performs functions often associated with Indian Act Band Councils. Lawmaking and community management are subject to extensive community consultation processes. Much use is made of the local television station to inform community members about matters of governance.

These examples appear here only because they represent a few of many Aboriginal communities with which MCC has had contact.

Aboriginal communities pursue their goals by different means. Labrador Inuit are employing a lengthy (and flawed) land claim negotiation process. The Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en used the Supreme Court of Canada to demonstrate their rights. Pimicikamak are simply acting on their own out of a growing sense of their inherent right and ability, granted by the Creator, to do so. But in none of these situations are the powers of good governance granted by a state nor is the duty to provide good governance imposed by legislation. They are negotiated, demonstrated, and asserted, and they arise from within the Aboriginal community's own sense of identity. The resulting changes in governance have more hope of being constructive and lasting than any created by compulsory federal legislation.

There is no doubt that mismanagement and corruption exist in some Aboriginal governments. However, many councils have the thankless task of administering their community's poverty and building economies without access to local resources--all this in a context where pleasing Ottawa is often more important that being responsible to the community. In one First Nation, where financial management and accountability are known to be weak, the federal government is nevertheless pumping millions of new dollars into it because its leaders are willing to be compliant on issues unrelated to governance.

Meanwhile that same federal government squeezes independent-minded but more accountable regimes such as the one in Pimicikamak. Recently it withdrew funding for a national First Nations Governance Institute intended to promote the sharing of best practices among First Nations and to produce a new generation of quality Aboriginal leaders. Government, and all Canadians, ought to be cheering for Aboriginal communities and organizations that take initiative on governance issues--not trying to herd them into one-size-fits-all legislation.

Why is this of interest to the church? It is an enduring reality in Canada that Aboriginal peoples see themselves as members of distinct, functional societies that pre-dated the arrival of Christians. It is good news for those communities, in which the loss of collective and individual control has had such tragic results, that non-Aboriginal Christians might be willing to hear their cries for recognition.