By James Wastasecoot

Canadians enjoy the benefits of a democratic political system that works for them. If Canadians are dissatisfied with their political leaders they can say so in the media. They can go to a public meeting and make their views known amongst their fellows. They can appear at any number of forums which exist for this purpose and share their views and present what they see as solutions to problems in society. What has made this possible has been a stable tradition of constitutional government over time in which the rights and freedoms of citizens and the limits of their governments are clearly laid out in a constitution and a charter. If they feel these rights are being infringed upon they have redress through a governance system that they've had a hand in shaping. They enjoy a framework of laws and institutions which they know they can count on to respect their rights and freedoms as citizens.

All governments and I'm sure most Canadians agree that indigenous peoples ought to enjoy these same rights and freedoms. And we do - in theory. Many Canadians believe that the same constitution that provides safeguards for them extends the same protection to us. In fact, aren't we "citizens plus?" Don't we have rights in addition to those enjoyed by other Canadians? Rights that are enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and section 25 of the Charter.

And so how is it, then, that I can sit in front of you today and say, "I don't have any rights as a citizen of my first nation government?"

Because as strange and as sad as this statement sounds, I'm afraid it is the very real truth of the experience and life that I've lived in my community over the past few years.

I publish small circulation newspapers that we distribute in our community. The business end of this activity is quite modest but we make a living and we're proud of the job that we do.

The job as we see it is simply, to inform our community of what is happening around and in our midst so that if folks feel moved to act on a problem or issue they may do so and in so doing keep our community healthy and safe for everyone.

A mainstream journalist interviewed me some years ago and wrote in his report that I sounded like an old fashioned newspaper man when I described our role in our community in exactly those words. The comment is very typical of the understanding, or the lack of understanding of Canadians have about the circumstances of indigenous peoples they refer to as First Nations. Canadians really don't know the reality that we live as citizens of our nations and citizens of our "governments." The reason I'm "old fashioned" to a reporter from the Winnipeg Fre Press is that he is able to take for granted, the institutional foundation, legitimacy and protection for his job in society that enables him to go out and gather news and publish it for all to read. Nobody questions his right to do this because the battle for a free and independent media in his community was won and entrenched as part of his society many years ago.

So he can gather news, that is often critical or "negative" as politicians of all stripes and colours are oft to complain about what we do, for all to read - virtually without fear of harm or other repercussion. Unfortunately we in the aboriginal media, don't enjoy the same acceptance, legitimacy and protection from the society and the system that we live and operate under.

In my world, to publish "news" is to risk your safety and freedom.

Let me share with you briefly some of what we're up against.

Last week, I received another notice of a potential lawsuit by a chief. This time it's Ron Evans, a sometime minister of the Anglican faith, in Norway House. Ron doesn't appreciate us giving voice to the grassroots of his community who have a lot of things to say about how he's running things at Norway House. Ron Evans says we defamed his reputation in the community by publishing the story. I can't help but feel though that what he's really saying to me and those voices we allowed to speak through our media is: "You better shut up, or else, I'll make things difficult for you."

The grand chief of Manitoba Dennis Whitebird served notice two years ago and said to me at a gathering: "You should just stop publishing newspapers. All you're doing is stirring up animosity against the leadership of this province." This from a man who graduated from the same university teacher education program that I did in the 70s.

And of course, I've gotten into a whole lot of trouble in my own community of Peguis where I decided a few years ago, I couldn't simply stand by while the chief abused and took advantage of his people. I will only briefly mention the plight of my friend Cyril Cameron who in the past few years, I've assisted in his efforts to access information about our community finances through the federal "Access to Information" law. Cyril filed his initial information in April of 2000. He asked for what we thought was pretty mundane documents such as the community audit. The main funding agreement stipulates that such documents are to be provided to "band members" and more. The Agreement states that the band is to develop an accountability system that includes a conflict of interest policy.

I mention too, that this is the province that the AMC entered into an agreement with the Dept of Indian Affairs in 1995 to "restore our jurisdiction and powers of self-government" to our governments and where, so far, approximately $34 million have been expended. Now you would think that with this significant investment of resources that might otherwise have gone to housing or social services in our communities, there would be good progress made in the development of governance and community constitutions, administration, accountability and other matters. I am sad to report to you that when I've requested this information from the AMC and my band office, I've been ignored or told to go away.

In my own community of Peguis in the year 2003, we still don't have an accountability system, a conflict of interest policy. We don't have a policy on access to information.
Getting back to Mr. Cameron, the Department of Indian Affairs administers requests for information regarding Indian matters under the Access Act. The department though adds its own veneer of rules to those which already apply to Canadians who are trying to access information under the law. If your band has control over its membership, the department says to the Indian: "We have discovered that your band has control over its membership.

Before we can proceed with your request, we need you to consent to our disclosing your identity to your band office so that they can confirm you're a band member who is entitled to receive the information you are requesting."

Armed with the Indian's consent, the department then writes a letter to the band council announcing that Mr. Cameron, wants this information and so "won't you please confirm that he is in fact a band member, so's we can give him the information." Of course, this provides a neat way for the Council to avoid providing information to the Indian requester. Simply by ignoring the Dept's request, the council can successfully obstruct a citizen's request for information. The department, by adding its own arbitrary rules to those already in the Access Act, in effect denies the right of information access that would normally accrue to Indians as Canadians.

In January of 2001, friends of Mr. Cameron learned from the department that Mr. Cameron had "cancelled" his request. Upon inquiring about this at his residence, Mr. Cameron insisted that he hadn't cancelled and immediately wrote to the Department denying that he had quit his request. Mr. Cameron, it turned out had indeed signed a piece of paper which may or may not have been a cancellation of his request. The paper was offered to him a day after he buried his father in law in Peguis in Dec. 2000. The chief showed up at his doorstep and offered help in the form of furniture for the grieving family. But first you "gotta sign this," he said, proffering a piece of paper that Mr. Cameron says he signed without reading.

I present a copy of this letter to you as evidence that this story is true. That the chief of my community really did stoop to chicanery to prevent information about the disastrous state of his community's financial health from getting out to the people of Peguis.

When Mr. Cameron fired off a letter denying that he cancelled his request to the departmental representative in Ottawa, in early 2001, and the Departmental representatives saw what the chief had done, the Departmental officer immediately sent Mr. Cameron all of the information he requested.

Concerned Citizens in Peguis published an open letter to the community disclosing that the community was near bankruptcy, that third-party management was imminent (which was subsequently confirmed), that while the council was recommending a deficit recovery plan which would repay the band's indebtedness to INAC of $27 million at the time by sacrificing the community's housing for 7 plus years, the band council adminstration salaries, travel budgets would continue to increase. In spite of this however, the people of Peguis re-elected the chief at the following election.

So, why is it - I hear you asking that a chief who has been exposed as at best a poor manager at best, and at worst, a corrupt leader and thug, who would stoop to bribery to keep his job, get re-elected year after year? Is Louis Stevenson really the statesman that he claims on his web site Peguis First Nation?

This phenomenon though is not really as unusual as it first appears. All over the world, where men occupy positions of power that are unrestrained and unchecked by the people and their rules, it is possible for a leader to retain power and hold onto it for a very long time. A short while ago, we saw one such leader claim that he not only got a 100 percent of the vote in the first free election in his country, but that 100 percent of the electorate turned out!
The conditions which make it possible for leaders to rise to power and then to consolidate power in one man retain it for a long time, even in the face of exposed corruption and graft, are at the root of the problems we see in our governance.

It can happen where a people are in transition from a traditional setting of governance to a contemporary setting where new structures and methods are demanded by our present circumstances that we didn't need in our traditional settings, where we relied largely on subsistence economies. It can happen where people are confused about the norms of society, about what is acceptable and not acceptable in the relationship between a citizen and his society and his government. It can happen where one man is handed $45 million by the government and left virtually alone without effective rules to determine the distribution of the money in his community. It invests him with power to disburse the money with impunity and in the process, to control who is rewarded and punished in the community. This is the reality of life as a first nation citizen in Canada.

Other publishers of aboriginal newspapers have felt the wrath of our community for doing what they do. Lynda Powless of the Turtle Island news at Six Nations is fighting a similar battle with her council who obstruct her efforts to inform her community. I've heard the same complaint from Will Nichols of Beesum Communications in Northern Quebec and Ken Deer of the Eastern Door in Akwesasne. They don't necessarily support the governance bill but I mention them today simply to underscore the point that the problems of governance are pervasive and can come from even our most educated leaders.

We haven't yet sorted these questions out but I'm confident we will in time. The thing is we don't want to wait another 20 or 30 years in the present situation while a perfect instrument for our governance is negotiated by our leaders. Maybe they can afford to wait.

The government funding that has flown to support such negotiations has been ample and generous by any standard and has primarily benefited those at the top - with very little in the way of results.

The people I speak for in my community don't want to wait another generation while our scarce resources are exploited and plundered by our chief and his little clique of supporters. The governance legislation allows us an acceleration that is badly needed in our governance development. I see it as a temporary solution while a more lasting solution is ironed out. But our leaders are opposed and say the legislation is colonialism. Well, what is the alternative? More negotiations on self-government that don't ever seem to go anywhere? That we can't even get access to? I should think the status quo is colonialism but a kind of colonialism that seems satisfactory to some who control our funding.

Matthew Coone Come said to you: "We have our own proven traditions of democracy and accountability." Well, where are they in my community? Where are they in Norway House, or Nelson House? Let's see them and allow us to talk about them.
Mathew also said to you:

"The term [good governance] is apparently intended to portray the attributes of "strong, accountable and sustainable governments and institutions" [2] and practices that are superior to mere "governance". What is evident from most of the discussion is that the theoretical basis for these concepts is not within the nature of the first nations, but rather in the socio-economic status of the post-colonial state and its administrative needs."
He says further: "So when it comes to indigenous nations, what is deemed "good governance" may bear little or no relationship to the worldview of the people being governed. Instead, it may only reflect the needs of the state to address social, economic or political needs of its own."

I disagree with the National Chief on this issue entirely. first nations communities of which I am most familiar the Ojibway and the Inninew or Cree certainly were familiar with the idea of "good governance" which simply conveyed the expectation of good leadership or doing what is right in decision making. Good governance is simply the idea that when one is honoured and selected to the position of leadership, one must act in the best interest of his community. If a leader didn't behave in a responsible way, he could be removed. I would venture to say we spring from a tradition steeped in democratic values.

The idea of good governance was not invented by or unique to the white man, or to present day circumstances of colonialism as Chief Coone Come suggests. It's inherent in all societies around the world. The National Chief though, must do to his utmost to remain circumspect in his role. We mustn't say anything that even hints of misconduct in the band office. Even the law of averages - that' there's bound to be some corruption in our governance systems - seems immune to our culture.

Why can't we be honest with one another on this subject and come up with our own solution?

We could have addressed the issue of "good governance" and corruption internally and come up with our solution. The grassroots people that I speak to appealed to grand chiefs for help to problems in their communities. But in all cases they were turned down. The grassroots had no other recourse but to turn to the white man for help and a solution. What we saw was one grand chief after another simply bury their head in the sand on this issue and refuse to talk to us. Our leadership failed us. Mathew Coone Come failed us.

Now, I know there's many good leaders out there who have the best interest of their community at heart as they go about doing a very difficult job. They know what's going on but are hesitant to step and actively promote a policy on good governance within our own community. They are elected by the chiefs after all.

I hope all those good chiefs out there will find the strength and resolve to put this matter right in our own community eventually. I hope some of them will stand up and say, "I don't agree with what is happening in that community and we should do something about it."Otherwise they too will be tainted by the few who are irresponsible and getting away with it.