Corruption in our Native Institute

Colonialism and Treaties

There is an unbelievable need in native communities, in particular those communities run by the Indian Act. Mainstream; has been fed with many stories of corruption in First Nation’s communities. They (native leaders in their communities) have, so it seems, always managed to steal money, they have accumulated huge bank accounts, and the way they operate is questionable. Many have expense accounts that can equal any big business. Natives must have done something; so what essentially has allowed them to be in this position of corruption?

As Europeans made their way west, it was imminent that they would have to deal with the Native people who lived in the west. So the idea was two-fold, get the church to work with the people, and to make treaties with them. Being the original inhabitants, has given them (native) rights no one else could possibly have, for instance the right to the land. The impetus (on part of the Europeans) then was to secure an advantage over these rights to the land and their first inhabitant rights. Though the treaties were not clearly understood, an attempt was made to take all the rights away. But the treaties were understood in a different way (by native people), they were about coming together as equals, about brotherhood and sharing. A small caveat: The thing with (some of) the treaties is that they we being negotiated with a controlling policy already in place (the Indian Act). (And this is our main issue of contention, from being treaty people to being colonized people)

After signing the treaties; that moreover basically stated that all rights of the native people were given up (surrendered), (“do hereby cede, release surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and her successors forever, all their rights titles and privileges whatsoever to the lands”)…Of course this is contested in that we never gave up our sovereignty in the treaties however the land was exchanged and handed over to the Dominion with the Governor General of Britain acting as a proxy: It is important to note that the Dominion was unable to go into treaties, or more specifically international treaties; they were not allowed to deal or go into a contract with other nations. And so it was Britain who signed the treaties and validated them. (Norman Ward, p.96)

But there was a mesh of powers at the time which included Parliament, the Provinces and the Governor General; and under the BNA Act (Sec. 91(24)) Indians then became the responsibility of the Province of Canada and this responsibility was carried out by a policy known as the Indian Act. The BNA Act moreover laid out the powers of the federal and provincial government; one power was over “Indians and lands reserved for Indians,” as assumed by the federal government and as clearly stated in the BNA Act.

The BNA or even the Canadian constitution had no clear means of amendment, which clearly reveals the type of government it touted-an underdeveloped structure of governance: The main reason being because Canada was under British law. This is where we can assert that part of government has to include the people (In terms of a democracy-which is rule by the people). People should always have the power to determine the type of government that they want.

So at this time it’s important to note that as the treaties were being signed, the Dominion was yet to establish itself as a legitimate power, this again is evident in the mesh of powers that existed at the time: There was of course a constant vying for power (the Dominion was always challenging the Governor General over its powers). And clearly the government was not very stable as the (numbered) treaties took place.

Why point this out? Because under all that, when it came to native people there were two entities who were actually dealing with native people: The British government, and the newly “subordinate government,” the Dominion. Native people were unaware of this circumstance; they thought it was just one people that they were dealing with, yet it was people who were actually vying for imminence.

To understand any circumstance, which involves people, it is important to look at the relations they are involved in.

And so the relationship that involved native people began with a Sovereign Nation, they (Britain) had nothing to prove but to have a good relationship with native people. In fact being a sovereign, they understood the powers that natives had, there was no discrepancy at this point. But when it came to the “subordinate government” they sought out more power and authority, thus at some point the issue of dealing with native people was passed from the British to the subordinate government. “In 1860, the responsibility for Indian affairs was transferred from the government of Great Britain to the Province of Canada.” (info located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Affairs_and_Northern_Development_Canada) It can said, the child wanted the responsibilities of a grown up, but we know it would not be long before they messed things up. Proverbs 20:21 says, “An inheritance gained hastily in the beginning will not be blessed in the end.”

The first interactions, as I alluded to, were quite different. “From the earliest times the policy of the British government was marked by an essential contrast. One of the first recorded instructions to British colonial governors, issued by Charles II in 1670, declares the justice that is to be shown to the Indians, and directs that persons be employed to learn their language and that their property be protected. After the enumeration of civil rights came the direction that the governor was to consider how the Indians might be best instructed and invited to the Christian religion. These words were merely the enunciation of a former policy, for earlier in the seventeenth century, lands had been ceded with due formalities and for definite considerations, and treaties and agreements had defined the civil relation of the aborigines and the ruler. It was the British policy to acknowledge the Indian title to his vast and idle domain, and to treat for it with much gravity, as if with a sovereign power. According to the doctrine of English law, the lands occupied by the Indians before the Conquest vested thereupon in the British crown; the Indians continuing to occupy under the crown by a sort of precarious title. That title may exist merely as policy, but it has actuated all the British dealings with the Indians ; and while it sprang in the seventeenth century from ideals of right and justice, it could be understood and interpreted in the nineteenth by the law lords of the crown in the following words : 'There has been all along vested in the Crown a substantial and paramount estate, underlying the Indian title, which became a plenum dominium whenever that title was surrendered or otherwise extinguished.' (found at: http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/HistoryofCanadianIndians-1763-1840.htm )

So all dealings with in particular native people, via the British Empire, had moreover a deep integrity that led the way; and this always seemed to be the case, as long as the British had a say, in Canadian affairs. So it’s important to point out that this relationship is ongoing; in moreover 1981 the special responsibility of the federal government toward Indians was stated by Lord Denning of the English Court of Appeal in 1981: “[T]he discussion in this case will strengthen (the Indians) hands so as to enable them to withstand any onslaught (by the Government of Canada). They will be able to say that their rights and freedoms have been guaranteed to them by the Crown….No parliament should do anything to lessen the worth of these guarantees. They should be honored by the Crown in respect of Canada “so long as the sun rises and the river flows”. That promise must never be broken.” (Imai, p.12)

But again it has not been just Britain that would be dealing with native people. The colony-the Dominion would take over the area of aboriginal relations in 1860, and that was furthered in 1867- in the BNA Act. So no longer was it one nation to another; but a nation that was overtaken with other goals and aspirations in mind. But that relationship was not completely abandoned, to moreover keep that air of legitimacy in place. For how could a nation in one breath sign treaties, nation to nation, and then is suddenly dominated and controlled as if a conquest occurred? But that is what happened; suddenly a colony rose and took precedence over a nation, hardly what you would call, the-honor-of-the-Crown! Clearly this was not a conquest but a transfer that actually took place.

But this domination had deep bureaucratic roots; the Indian Act went through different changes. “The Indian Act grew out of the province of Canada legislation entitled ‘An Act for the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes of Canada’ (1857).” To take complete control of everything….it should be noted the Indian Act is a colonial construct meant to carry out colonial objectives and all the benefits and rights in the Indian Act well “these are merely the benefits and rights of colonial wards.” (Bolt, p.279) But all that native people get is not just through the Indian Act. Murray Angus in his 1990 book states, that a portion of the money received by First Nations amounted to “25 per cent stemming largely from treaty and land claims obligations.” (Angus 26) For the most part the treaty relationship all but stopped as soon as it began. Mind you the treaties said that all our rights were surrendered (so it was tacitly taken to mean all our rights (though clearly untrue), even though it only meant land rights), and the 1867 BNA Act gave exclusive authority to legislate in respect to “Indian and lands reserved for Indians.” ~ Sec 91(24). As well as section 132, that delegated more authority to the Dominion.

Its worthy of repeating, the treaties were done as nation to nation, sovereigns. Yet the power of a colony could seemingly override all those rights. Sec 132 of the BNA act states, “The Parliament and Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the Obligations of Canada or any Province thereof, as Part of the British Empire, towards Foreign Countries, arising under treaties between the Empire and such foreign Countries.” Suddenly Canada could deal with international treaties, the international duties of the British Empire was delegated to a Province, (We have to ask can a nation’s authority be transferred to another level of government?). Yet and furthermore Canada would finally get their ability to enter international affairs in 1926, and that was just a formal statement. (Ward, 49) (So really international status wasn’t given to the Dominion until 60 years later) It’s one thing being a proxy and another to actually posses certain powers, as in this case where the Dominion was given powers over Sovereign Nations (sovereignty being de facto in the treaties).

If anything Section 132 of the BNA Act was just a delegation clause, to carry out the treaty obligations. You would think that it would be a high priority given that it was the treaties that made Canada. But rather than carry out their obligation foremost they (the new Canada) strove for building the nation. The treaties were overlooked. And the Indians were controlled via legislation (Indian Act), and put on reserves. Canada, not even a country, had if anything unusual powers, such as, powers to dominate a sovereign; if anything they were exercising “excessive” powers.

If you control people, you will never get the best out of them. They will turn on themselves, they will corrupt. People are meant to be free, not to be caught and controlled, but basically that has been the case for native people. Rather than be products of the treaties, natives were dominated, colonized if you will.

Canada has spent so many years building it-self up at the expense of subjecting native people. You would think to top off its growth (meaning today)…they (Canada) would now step up and go into an agreement with other nations. Has the time arrived? Do they now have to be more responsible themselves, when it comes to native people? Is this time for a new relationship, a time to put aside the colonial relationship?

But before we contemplate that, let us examine the Indian Act…..Oh, the Indian Act was meant to take control from native people, it was meant to strip them of any ability to look after them-selves. In fact as far as what the government wanted they wanted to have complete control. So they made the Indian Act into a system where the government had all powers, they (the government) made all decisions. No other people in Canada are so controlled in that manner.

But it wasn’t just about being a system of administration as it was to strip native people of everything; to moreover take away their rights given, and acknowledged, through the treaties and their right to the lands with which they agreed to (again through the treaties).

So they were alienated as well as stripped; they were controlled: And to top things off they were given this corrupt system (the Indian Act), with all the arbitrary powers that were set up in it. The leaders now had arbitrary rule handed to them. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely!”

It’s pretty obvious that people in this circumstance are going to be anything but a shining example of piety and righteousness. If there are people who have overcome, they have certainly beaten the odds!

We ask it over and over again, what went wrong (emayi-kamikahk)? What are we to do? Do we have to redo the treaties? How or what do we do to change things? And, what are our options?

Clearly we have had little to do with our circumstance; and for whatever reason, this is not seen as a problem…it is something that needs to be addressed. If Canada has shed its underdeveloped nationhood, than why not step up and change things? It does natives no good to see the past/history of why we are where we are. Seeing that we are contingent on other’s actions to remedy this life we live in. It will be important to see if we have capable and competent people who can step up to the task! It’s no wonder we don’t have more discontent, I guess the main reason is because we all live here together. It’s time to be an example to other cou8ntries! And it’s time to fix this relationship!

Ekosi!