By Henry Srebrnik, Saint John Telegraph-Journal
The annual general assembly of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) passed an emergency resolution on July 16 to protect treaty rights from threats posed by the Alberta separatist movement.
It states that no province has the legal authority to alter, reduce or extinguish treaty rights, or the constitutional relationship between First Nations and the Crown. Former national chief Matthew Coon Come declared that Quebec chiefs, who faced a provincial separation referendum in 1995, stand in solidarity with Alberta chiefs. “Their fight is our fight,” Coon Come declared. “Their struggle is our struggle.”
AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak also spoke out at the meeting against separatism. “They’re not taking any land with them,” she warned. “That’s going to stay right here with First Nations people. This is our country and we say what happens.”
In May, the federal government launched 30-day consultations with Indigenous peoples and others, on proposed regulatory changes surrounding approvals for major industrial projects. Legislation would be tabled following the consultation period. This provides an implicit virtual veto power to First Nations.
Nepinak took aim at the federal government’s desire to fast-track approvals for major projects, insisting that economic development cannot come at the expense of First Nations’ rights. “I think if any project is going to move forward anywhere in this country, speak to First Nations people.”
No matter how the Alberta referendum vote on independence goes on Oct. 19, Chief Kelsey Jacko of Cold Lake First Nations said communities will be ready to protect their treaties, which pre-date the creation of Alberta as a province. “We’re going to be fighting in court,” Jacko said.
This poses an interesting question. Indigenous treaty rights do predate the creation of Alberta. But in many cases, they also predate the formation of Canada. They are, as many point out, with “the Crown.” In other words, to the time when the lands north of the United States remained under the control of the British Empire.
But why, if Alberta – and for that matter Quebec – seceded from the Canadian federation, would Indigenous peoples feel threatened? Would those new countries, as successor states, not inherit the same treaties? Also, as we know, many consider Canada a settler-colonial enterprise guilty of genocide against First Nations. So why even take sides between “Albertans” and “Canadians,” who are equally guilty, in this conflict? Why protect a state responsible for such crimes?
On the face of it, one would think this doesn’t make sense. Clearly there’s more involved.
With the passing of the 1982 Canadian constitution, Indigenous rights are inherent and, in many cases, legally paramount. Since then, First Nations in this country have expanded their understanding of these, to the point where they are acquiring a form of “dual power” alongside and within the political system of Canada. It has become the case that major decisions, especially economic ones, cannot proceed without the approval of the native people involved.
There have been other examples of this around the world: Fiji, where ethnic Fijians controlled their own political organs in the Great Council of Chiefs, separate from the overall ones for all citizens, including themselves. This is becoming the case in New Zealand, where Maori in Aotearoa -- their pre-conquest name for the country -- are acquiring collective rights alongside the political rights of all others. In effect, they have dual political rights within two different political systems alongside each other. Other citizens are represented only by one.
Most Canadians seem to have forgotten that the Charlottetown Accord, which failed to gain acceptance in 1992, would have created an “Aboriginal right to self-government” enshrined in the Canadian constitution. It would have recognized Aboriginal governments as a third order of government, analogous to the federal government and the provinces and constitutionally autonomous from them.
The prior Meech Lake Accord also suffered defeat, in June 1990. Almost simultaneously, a major conflict known as the Oka Crisis erupted in Ontario. It was a standoff between Mohawk protestors, Quebec police, the RCMP, and the Canadian Army, that lasted 78 days. It was sparked by the proposal of development of a golf course on their Kanesatake lands, which included an Indigenous burial ground.
The dispute, which included two fatalities, was the first well-publicized violence between First Nations and provincial governments in the late 20th century. A political shot across the bow, it was traumatic in its effects -- a turning point for the Indigenous movement in Canada and a wake-up call for other Canadians.
The Canadian federation is now a multi-ethnic state, unlike in 1867, when it was created by “two founding nations, English and French,” in four provinces. (No other groups, including, notoriously, the many First Nations, were involved.) And in such entities, minority ethnic peoples have more say than in states based on ethnicity or religion.
The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires in the First World War resulted in the creation of nationalistic states, all of which proved difficult, and sometimes disastrous, for minorities. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia also created internal wars, and many remain ongoing.
Should Alberta or Quebec become homogeneous sovereign republics, they might even jettison the rights of Indigenous people in a new constitutional order. This is clearly what the AFN and other native groups fear.
