Ottawa Watch

BY ALEXANDRA MACQUEEN

FOR THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE

 

Here it is again, the end of a year, and time to look back at what got accomplished and what didn't during 2002.

In January, Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources to discuss and answer questions on the federal budget. He was questioned by members of parliament about his department's plans for the current and coming fiscal years. One set of comments seems, in retrospect, to have set the tone for 2002. Winnipeg Centre MP Pat Martin, of the New Democratic Party, said "many of us were heartened to believe that this budgetary era would be the time when we finally address some of these long-standing [Aboriginal] issues.

Then the events of September 11 came along, and it would seem to us [that] we're going to pay for our new security measures on the back of the people who can least afford it-people living in third world conditions in Aboriginal communities who have been waiting patiently for all these long years to finally have their issues addressed."

In February, we noted that Minister Nault had been quiet in the House of Commons. We checked in on the status of Bill C-37, the proposed act to facilitate the implementation of claims settlements in Alberta and Saskatchewan. And Alliance Senator Gerry St. Germain introduced a private member's bill "declaring the Crown's recognition of self-government for the first nations of Canada." The draft bill is intended to provide an optional "escape hatch" from the Indian Act for First Nations.

In March, we reported on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs hearings on the Indian Act. The committee was "educating [themselves] so that we start from the same starting point if and when the Minister tables legislation on governance." Senator St. Germain's bill on First Nations' self-government hit the second reading stage in the Senate, and a private members' bill (introduced in December 2001) to recognize and exonerate Louis Riel also hit second reading. Bill S-35 would "honour Louis Riel as a Metis patriot and a Canadian hero, vacate his conviction for high treason and establish May 12 as Louis Riel Day."

In April, we looked in detail at what the witnesses before the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs were telling the committee members about the Indian Act. In particular, we looked at how Indian Affairs, the Assembly of First Nations and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples define the "Indian Act problem," what they say the solution is, and where the governance initiative fits.

Then it was May, and spring, and we were looking for signs of new growth in Ottawa. We examined the studies being undertaken by the House and Senate Standing Committees on Aboriginal issues on programming for Aboriginal children on and off reserve. Both the Senate committee and this House of Commons sub-committee have been carrying out long-term, detailed studies of the issues and circumstances facing Aboriginal children and youth throughout Canada.

At the half-year mark, we reported on the introduction of two pieces of draft legislation which are considered to be Prime Minister Jean Chretien's "legacy" initiatives on aboriginal issues. Bill C-60, a bill to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims, was introduced in the House of Commons on June 13, 2002. Bill C-61, the First Nations Governance Act, followed on June 14. Then the House broke for the summer recess.

July saw us reviewing the parliamentary reaction to Bill C-60, which would establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims. Looking forward, Richard Marceau, a Bloc Quebecois MP, said it would be "truly unfortunate if the government used its powers to prorogue the current session at some point during the fall and left First Nations out in the cold for long months by letting them down once again with broken promises and failed commitments. It would be ironic, to say the least, to hear once again the Governor General solemnly reaffirm the clear and true will of the government to promote the development of Aboriginal communities. These lofty words have been used too often without leading to any action."

By August, Minister Nault had announced the draft "Fiscal and Statistical Management Act" would be introduced in the House of Commons in the fall. And we also reported on an innovative proposal for ensuring the representation of First Nations communities within a single federal riding in the province of New Brunswick. Under the proposal by the electoral review commission in New Brunswick, all Indian reserves in the province, no matter what their location, would be grouped into the single electoral district of Miramichi.

In September, as predicted, the existing session of parliament was "prorogued," or formally brought to an end. The new session was launched on September 30 with a Speech from the Throne setting out governmental priorities and commitments. The prorogation of parliament wiped out the parliamentary slate for all unfinished business, including the proposed Specific Claims Resolution Act and the First Nations Governance Act.

October was taken up with reacting to the Throne Speech. The Governance Act and the Specific Claims Act were also reinstated.

Then it was November and what we heard about was the newly reformed House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and the parliamentary schedule for the claims bill and the Governance Act, as well as the anticipated First Nation Fiscal and Statistical Management Act. In early December, Bill C-19, the fiscal bill, was formally introduced in the House of Commons.
Put it all together and what do you have? On the surface, what you have seems to be slow parliamentary progress towards the entrenchment of a new set of standards and institutions, consistent with the Prime Minister's personal vision of his legacy. Much of this progress seems to involve covering the same ground repeatedly: introducing legislation in one session of parliament, only to have it die off and be reintroduced in the next session.

There is room for individual action, such as private member's bills on topics which are vitally important to individual members of parliament. And there is room for reflection, through deeper discussion and longer-term study, such as the House of Commons and Senate committee investigations of aboriginal youth issues.

But all of this also seems to be occurring in a larger context of "reasonableness" and timelessness. In May, when during a House subcommittee hearing on programming for Aboriginal youth, Alliance MP Larry Spencer (from the Regina area) commented to a witness that "you've spoken of everything from lifestyle choice -that is, use of alcohol and tobacco- to food availability. How do you suppose a government can get its hands around that massive kind of problem? It seems you're almost asking that these people be provided for in every way. It seems overwhelming...And if we looked at it that way, what could be done?"

The witness, Dr. Jeff Reading of the Canadian Institute of Health Research, responded that "this is not a problem that was created by Aboriginal people...It's an historic problem and a political problem and it's embedded in the political economy of how Canada became a nation state.

There was a very messy situation with residential schools, which was really failed forced assimilation of people, and we have a very messy cleanup job to do as a result of that failure...Turning around and blaming aboriginal communities for a problem and being a burden on the Canadian taxpayer is simply inappropriate." Dr. Reading added, "Canada could eliminate this problem rather rapidly, but we choose to tolerate the suffering."

How long will we - all of us - continue to be reasonable in the face of suffering? How long will we operate as if the time we have to do our "messy cleanup job" is infinite, and the job can be endlessly deferred? That is a different discussion than the one that takes place publicly (as reported in the House and Senate debates and journals) in the hallowed halls of parliament.

Instead, what we had was a year in which there was a lot of discussion, but maybe not a lot of discussion that made any difference. When we don't engage in a conversation that makes a difference, then we are, all of us, left (coincident with the Christmas season) waiting for a miracle.

Alexandra Macqueen is a communications and government relations consultant based in Toronto, Ontario. You can reach Alexandra by e-mail at OttawaWatch@whamco.net.