John Reilly: Shut down the native industry and spend the money on natives

Tweet

Former judge, John Reilly wrote a book: Writing Bad Medicine: A Judge’s Struggle for Justice in a First Nations Community and he say’s if he had the power he would “Shut down the native industry and spend the money on natives”

It’s posted over at the National Post. The NP is not a paper I frequent and I have no idea how I originally found this story/comment but I did. I was drawn to the comment because I agreed with the broader statement John Reilly writes (people make big money off the misery of the First People) and in fact just finished ranting over at Non-Status Indian my views on the “Indian Industry” .

But.................I hate it when I learn that I disagree with everything else but that statement. And that sucks cause the statement itself is easy to hate along with and will easily draw attention but say something new or intelligent afterward or why say anything at all...unless its to make some quick cash.

It’s easy to develop policies when all you have to do is draw a straight line between A and B. My friend Balbulican is always reminding people of this over at StageLeft. It’s a little more complex if you want to design policies that work. Similarly, it’s easy to sell book and make a big profit if you write a book about misery, blame government, choose easy to spot villains, and then throw out new titles and new offices like new recipes created on some Chef TV show. It’s a formula designed to make profits otherwise publishers wouldn’t touch it. The reality is solutions are complex, take time, effort, work, patience, trust, and more hard work, and more effort than most people want to give.

The reality is that the former Judge John Reilly is still just sucking at the teat of misery and only too happy to make a profit while he pontificates from an “I know best” attitude.

His simplistic statement to “dissolve INAC and repeal the Indian Act” says it all for me. It was here I began to loose interest. I mean seriously don’t we all love to hate a government office? But when answering what he would do if he had the power he said would :

“...terminate funding to the Assembly of First Nations. In my view, the AFN is a chiefs club that looks after chiefs, many of whom just look after themselves and do very little for the poor and the children of their reserves.
Then I would enact a Canadian First Peoples Enhancement Act, to preserve and maintain the cultures of the descendants of Canada’s original inhabitants, to ensure their health and well-being and foster the independence and sustainability of their communities. I would create a Department of First Peoples Services. Non-natives and former employees of INAC should be ineligible for employment in this department. INAC was created for the assimilation of Canada’s First Peoples and the eventual elimination of their communities. That purpose lives on in the corporate memory of the department and must be changed.
I would spend the $7-billion on doctors and healthcare workers, addictions counsellors and healing lodges, teachers and improved schools, so that our First Peoples could become a healthy and happy part of Canadian society....”

It’s just such an easy target but really – what is or has John Reilly doing – on the ground to improve or make comfortable the lives of people around him. Sounds to me like he like many people worked hard, payed their bills, maybe raised children.....read newspapers, formed opinions voted in elections and now in his stately years can tell us what he has learned and how it should be done.

It’s ok for him but wrong for “non-Aboriginal employees former and present at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada” to make a living off misery (he was a lawyer first, then a judge in the system, and now writes a book) – WTF? I’m all for taking to task wasted time and effort but it’s simplistic and so talk radio to blame the bureaucrats (this time "non-Aborignal" bureaucrats like it's racial or something) and the Chiefs.

And his solution is to enact a “Canadian First Peoples Enhancement Act and a Department of First Peoples Services... so he can spend the $7-billion on doctors and healthcare workers, addictions counsellors and healing lodges, teachers and improved schools, so that our First Peoples could become a healthy and happy part of Canadian society....”

I’m the first to admit I believe in faeries and I love long tales but is anybody else shaking their heads in wonder?

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Native tribe will petition Ottawa to remove its Indian status

Tweet

Too exciting not to blog about! Bold and daring or short sighted with disastrous outcomes. I think this should open up the stodgy claims process. Imagine the confidence to say - "I don't need the "Indian Status" to know who I am." It's so true. They won't stop being Gitxsan but they will stop being "wards of the state."

I bet you Strahl is wondering - how can I make them give it up and retain control of the resources at the same time.


JUSTINE HUNTER

VICTORIA — From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Nov. 09, 2009 5:00AM EST Last updated on Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2009 4:03AM EST

A delegation of the Gitxsan people from northwest British Columbia is set to meet with Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl next month with a groundbreaking proposal: That the 13,000 members of their tribe be allowed to abandon their status as "Indians."

The group is willing to relinquish reserves, tax exemptions, Indian Act housing and financial supports in exchange for a share of resources. Unlike most contemporary efforts at treaty-making, it would also abandon the ambition of a separate level of government.

B.C.'s new minister of aboriginal affairs and reconciliation, George Abbott, has met twice with the Gitxsan treaty team and has put his senior negotiator on the file. Mr. Strahl agreed to the meeting after Mr. Abbott sent a letter to Ottawa last week urging him to take a look at the proposed governance model.

In an interview, Mr. Abbott said he has given his negotiators "a mandate to talk and explore." He said the proposal still has many hurdles, including the question of whether elected chiefs or hereditary chiefs can claim to speak for the Gitxsan people. The concept is far outside of the standard treaty model, and it presents a series of constitutional questions about the possibility of taking away, even with consent, the rights accorded to status Indians.

* Can you enfranchise a status Indian?
* Can the government recognize the authority of hereditary chiefs?
* Can you give them a share of resources beyond what's been offered in the past?

And the proposal is by no means universally endorsed by the Gitxsan people, having touched off a power struggle between the hereditary rulers who trace their authority back thousands of years, and the elected band officials who have earned their power through a system created by the Indian Act.

The first nation's treaty team, led by hereditary chiefs, proposes the Gitxsan would become regular, enfranchised Canadian citizens, governed by municipal, provincial and federal governments.

What would the Gitxsan get in exchange? The upfront price tag is some land ownership and cash, but the bigger prize lies down the road: The Gitxsan want a share of the resources that are taken from their 33,000-square-kilometre traditional territories, to be managed by their traditional system of clans and houses.

Read the Gitxsan Reconciliation Alternative Governance Model (pdf)

Download this file (.pdf)

Taiaiake Alfred, director of the University of Victoria's Indigenous Governance Program, said one aspect that is likely troubling Canada and B.C. is the notion of handing over any control to hereditary chiefs who are not governed by elections. "But it's a form of democracy that is participatory and direct. There is constant dialogue between the people of that community that generates consensus."

The step forward comes as the province's attempts to settle land claims over virtually all of its Crown lands seems deadlocked. As well, earlier this year, an effort led by Premier Gordon Campbell to enact Recognition and Reconciliation legislation collapsed.

"There are some elements to this that make it a very difficult discussion to conclude," Mr. Abbott said.

A key sticking point for the province is that the hereditary chiefs want some measure of control over their entire traditional territory. Most treaty settlements involve some small fraction - often 3 per cent - of a first nation's traditional lands. As well, Mr. Abbott said, the concept of "enfranchising" a status Indian creates a legal quagmire. "The Gitxsan collectively may say they want to be like everyone else. But whether, on an individual basis, their constitutionally entrenched rights around fishing and hunting can be terminated is questionable and needs to be explored."

The Gitxsan's chief negotiator, Elmer Derrick, said the proposal was initially rebuffed because the treaty negotiators for Ottawa and Victoria have tried to fit it into their standard treaty model. He is encouraged that there may be some political will now to see that this will result in better living conditions for his people who currently live in desperately poor conditions - and that it will cost Canadian taxpayers less.

"Every time we sit down with politicians at every level, I make a point of saying the Gitsxan don't want to be a burden on the Crown and we don't want the Crown to be a burden on us," said Chief Derrick, a hereditary chief of the Gitsegukla, one of seven communities of the Gitxsan nation.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS