Mind shift or policy change?

There is a "complete native mind shift" about to take place in Canada. At least that's how Maclean's magazine put it in a Sept. 3, 2007, article titled An aboriginal 'glasnost'. Other media have followed suit and run stories recently on this new trend.

The shift is supposedly embodied in some of Canada's high-profile aboriginal leaders, one of whom is Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos band in B.C.'s Okanagan Valley. Louie is credited with turning a bankrupt on-reserve winery into a multi-million dollar business and then creating nine other successful businesses. In his and his community's case, the shift has been from a reliance on federal government funding to profitable business ventures.

This focus on economic development on reserves is nothing new. Many aboriginal bands operate successful businesses on and off reserve, although perhaps not on the scale of the Osoyoos band. Aboriginal-run casinos are just one example of this.

If anyone is shifting their thinking on this point, it's the federal Conservative government. The prime minister himself recently unveiled his government's strategy for making economic development a pillar of its aboriginal policy. Stephen Harper did not offer specifics, but reforms that would help, rather than hinder, economic development are a step in the right direction. The current reserve system seriously impedes the economic goals of aboriginal people. In the past, some bands were forced to go ahead with building resorts and casinos in outright opposition to provincial and federal restrictions.

Changes risk alienating non-status Indians

Chief Patrick Brazeau, the leader of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, is another prominent aboriginal person who has been cited as representing a new way of thinking. The congress is an organization that was originally founded to represent non-status aboriginal people. Non-status people are not legally recognized as Indians so have no treaty rights or access to reserve land. The mission of the congress, originally called the Native Council of Canada, was noble: to represent aboriginal people who were falling through the cracks and being ignored by chiefs, the federal government and national aboriginal organizations, which only provided services and support to status Indians.

The congress's legitimacy has always been in question because it is not directly supported by chiefs and band councils across Canada, and its membership numbers have never been very high. Recently, Brazeau has widened the population he claims the congress represents. He says his "constituents" now include all off-reserve aboriginal people. This expansion would take in almost one million people living in towns, cities and hamlets across Canada and include anyone living off reserve, regardless of whether they're Métis, Inuit or a status Indian. It's quite an ambitious claim, which muddies the congress's initial mandate. There is a risk that Brazeau's original constituents — non-status Indians — may get forgotten again amid this supposed sudden influx of off-reserve status Indians into the congress's fold.

Harper favouring congress over AFN

Despite its questionable legitimacy and phantom electorate, the congress and its leader have moved from the sidelines to become prominent political players. Harper chose the organization's annual general assembly last month to make his aboriginal policy announcements while turning down an invitation to meet with the Assembly of First Nations. On a national level, the federal government has typically met and negotiated with the AFN because it is supported by elected chiefs and councils from across Canada.

There are two main reasons why the Conservative government is shifting its focus from the AFN to the congress. The first is that the leader of the AFN, Phil Fontaine, is seen as a strong Liberal supporter, who apparently should be sidestepped if at all possible. The second is that Brazeau's 'new' way of thinking falls more in line with the overall Conservative approach to aboriginal policy.

Brazeau has been reported as saying that he would like the number of aboriginal bands reduced to 60 from the current 633. He wants to ditch the Indian Act and is advocating greater support and services for off-reserve aboriginal people as opposed to on-reserve Indians by funneling money away from reserves. Stephen Harper's most trusted advisor over the years, Tom Flanagan, wrote a comprehensive critique of aboriginal policy that called for very similar reforms. The gist of it was that rather than live on reserves, aboriginal people should be absorbed into the wider Canadian society.

Dismantling reserve system would displace many

The reality is that there is a definite, increasing migration of aboriginal people to urban centres, smack dab into the larger Canadian society. Services and supports are needed to assist them, as many who have made the move to cities and towns are encountering multiple barriers. But is it really necessary to attack the services for people living on reserve in order to assist off-reserve populations? Dismantling the reserve system would mean the forced displacement of hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Is this really fair?

What's more, Brazeau's 'new' ideas significantly impact on-reserve Indians, whom Brazeau does not represent. Naturally, many aboriginal leaders have taken offence with his stance. He's right when he says the Indian Act needs to be scrapped, but first there must be something viable to replace it. Any reforms would have to be the result of extensive and meaningful dialogue with aboriginal people, not just a unilateral endorsement of new government policy by the congress. If Brazeau's ideas had been put into practice a decade ago, there might not have been any Osoyoos band or Chief Louie.

Yes, shifts are definitely taking place, but not just in the minds of "Natives."