Spiritual Health Learning Community Center
Exploring Life's Horizons
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom, Duties of Care, Principles, Constitutions, and Justice
|
Constitutional Issues - Part Two
Election Reform
Another possible avenue for helping the electorate to gain more direct control over the political process that affects their lives concerns the way in which election campaigns are run and financed. More specifically, if one asks people what factors should weigh most heavily in determining the outcome of a truly democratic election process, more often than not, one will receive answers like: the issues; or the quality of the candidates.
By "issues", people usually are referring to the policy or program options being advocated by the various candidates. These options have different projected ramifications for the community (whether municipal, provincial, regional or national) and are construed as serving, or not serving, the interests of specific groups or some collection of such groups.
The answer of "the quality of the candidates" is fairly straightforward. It encompasses characteristics such as integrity, commitment, leadership abilities, intelligence, work ethic, humanity, and so on.
Neither of the aforementioned answers (i.e., issues, quality of the candidates) is about the ability to finance a campaign. Unfortunately, money, as it does in most things, has a way of confusing matters. Nonetheless, anyone who is truly interested in democracy, principles, or political fairness does not take kindly to the idea that elections can be won on the basis of the size of campaign expenditures rather than on the basis of the quality of issues or candidates.
Furthermore, there is a growing cynicism among many voters about the way campaign money plays an increasingly corrupting role in the electoral process. More and more, seemingly, campaigns are about who has the most money to spend on advertising campaigns. More and more, campaigns are about which candidate can be packaged most alluringly.
More and more, campaigns seem to be based on the tactics of illusion, deception, evasion and manipulation. Less and less, do campaigns seem to be directed to the needs, interests, concerns and problems of the electorate.
More and more, campaigns seem to be reduced to 30-second spots, photo opportunities and repetition of names or slogans. Less and less, are campaigns about an in-depth debating and discussion of issues.
More and more, campaigns are about individuals and parties winning elections. Less and less, are campaigns about ensuring that the community wins through the election of people and the promotion of issues that are most responsive to the needs and concerns of the electorate.
Of course, some politicians will argue that, with all due modesty, they are the best people to serve the interests of the electorate. Their arguments may or may not be true. In addition, such politicians will claim their approach to the issues is the one that is most conducive to the enhanced welfare of the community. Again, these claims may or may not be true.
Under the best circumstances, determining the worth of these arguments and claims is fraught with difficulties. The presence and expenditure of money in the campaign process muddies the political waters considerably. In fact, one cannot establish any substantial, meaningful, positive correlation between the size of campaign expenditure and the worth of candidates or the positions they support.
Consequently, one way of helping to eliminate such problems, and, thereby, assist the electorate to gain some control over the electoral process, rather than be its manipulated victims, is to require that all political contributions be directed to a general election fund which serves the interests of the community as a whole. This fund would be used to underwrite the cost of such things as: debates, non-promotional campaign expenses, as well as publicizing the philosophical positions of all the candidates on various topics, issues and problems.
In order to work toward eliminating the deleterious or distorting effect which the slickness of campaign advertising or packaging strategy may have on the electorate's perception of the quality of candidates or issues, all campaigns should be tied together. In other words, any campaign literature would have to include material on all the candidates, say, in a given riding.
Or, all candidates would have to be given equal exposure on radio and/or television, and they all would have to be given equal access to the peak listening/viewing times. No independent advertising would be permitted.
Moreover, no negative advertising would be allowed. Therefore, candidates' advertising could only be about promoting their own political/philosophical ideas, values, beliefs, hopes and policies. Campaign advertising could not denigrate or criticize other candidates' qualifications, directly or through innuendo.
In addition, remarks about another candidate's political position would have to be restricted to stating, in matter-of-fact terms, differences of perspective, emphasis and priorities. In doing this, one could not resort to scare tactics, vilification, ridicule or distortion. Furthermore, such remarks would have to be offered in a context (e.g., debates) that permitted one's political opponent(s) an opportunity to respond.
Canada, in general, has less difficulty with the problem of negative campaign advertising than does, say, the United States. However, this practice does arise in Canada from time to time, and it should be avoided. Let every candidate put his or her best foot forward, and let the people decide the matter solely on the basis of the talents and abilities of candidates, together with the political positions of the candidates on various topical issues.
There will be those who will maintain that placing the foregoing sorts of constraints on the campaign process is undemocratic because, for example, such constraints interfere with a person's right to contribute to whichever candidate that individual wishes. Moreover, such constraints interfere with an individual's capacity to give financial support to those issues in which one believes and to which one is committed.
However, democracy is best served when one can ensure that the wielding of power does not sway, corrupt, bias, distort or skew the electoral process. And, most assuredly, money tends to be used as a tool of power that serves the interests of those who have it by undermining the electoral process through skewing it in their favor while disadvantaging those who do not have the money necessary to make their own values and concerns known to the electorate.
If people are truly interested in serving the ends of a democratic process, then, let the political playing field be level so that everyone has an opportunity of putting forth his/her case to the people under equitable conditions in which the only things that matter are the quality of issues and candidates. Permit the electorate to have control over the election process rather than permitting them to be controlled by power groups, vested interests, or bankrolls and marketing strategies.
Quite frankly, if people feel they have to buy an election in order to win, they have very little faith in their own political position. In effect, they are saying that their ideas and/or candidates would not win in a fair, equitably run election.
In order to win, they are saying we must subvert or skew the election process. This may be politics in action, but it is not democracy in action.
There is another side to the proposal that would require campaign contributions to be given to a common election fund. When a poor person or an individual from a minority sees that one's contribution to the political process will not be lost, that one's contribution will not be swamped by a rich and powerful majority, and that one's dollars will help purchase a fair, equitable and just electoral process, then, such people will not only feel that they have more control over their political life, but, in actuality, they will have more power over their own lives.
One of the central principles of participatory, as opposed to representational, democracy is to provide people with more access to a real political power with which to control their own political destiny. A common campaign fund from which all candidates could draw and which could be used to promote a variety of political philosophies would provide access to real participatory power.
Consistent with the foregoing ideas would be a waiver on all nomination or filing fees. Frequently, these fees run into the thousands of dollars, and constitute a serious impediment to the poor and disadvantaged with respect to meaningful participation in the political process.
One can come up with other, fairer ways of placing manageable limits on the number of candidates, as well as protecting against frivolous campaigns, than by charging filing fees. For example, one could specify that in order to qualify as a candidate (i.e., one who is entitled to draw upon the general campaign fund for all 'official' candidates), one must receive the nomination, in one's constituency, of one of the five or six major parties in Canada, or one must be supported, through petition, by, say, 10% of the eligible voters in the riding in which one wishes to stand for election.
Sovereignty: A First Encounter
Let us examine yet another area involving the issue of personal autonomy as a basic expression of participatory democracy. Recently, the British Columbia Supreme Court handed down a decision which denied the land claims of a group of Native people.
The essence of the court's decision is that the Native land claims had no merit since such claims had all been extinguished during colonial times. This act of extinguishing was accomplished by those who were acting on behalf of the authority of the sovereign power of the King or Queen of England.
The apparent ethnocentric prejudices that are ingrained in certain aspects of Canadian society and which are reflected, unfortunately, in the judgement of the learned justices of the B.C. Supreme Court run so deeply that many people do not seem to have properly appreciated just how revealing the court's judgement is about the assumption underlying the world view of many Canadians concerning Native peoples.
Moreover, the court's judgement is not an isolated phenomenon. Other judges and governmental officials in other localities and times have made statements or rendered judgements which are similar to that of the British Columbia Supreme Court.
More specifically, the justices are saying, in effect, that one source of sovereignty has a perfect right to extinguish the sovereignty of another people, and, thereby, make any claim for autonomy, on the part of the latter people, null and void. Stated in another way, the justices seem to be saying that robbery, enslavement, displacement and cultural genocide are quite acceptable as long as these sorts of activities proceed in accordance with the dotting of legal is and the crossing of judicial is as stipulated by the justices' own self-serving sense of sovereignty. Thus is everything tied up in a nice, neat, solipsistic, legal tautology which never touches on anything except the imperialistic desires and whims of a people who would appropriate that which does not belong to them, as well as who would attempt to extinguish the sovereignty of a people that is not capable of being extinguished merely because some law is passed or edict is given.
The sovereignty of a people is not a function of law. It is an a priori given that has been recognized, appealed to, alluded to and invoked across thousands of years and in virtually every society about which there exists recorded knowledge.
In fact, the roots of this a priori principle are so fundamental and so pervasive to the human condition that no one has been able to mount a plausible, let alone convincing, argument that would justify the denial of such sovereignty in a way that would be acknowledged as a tenable philosophical position by most people. The central importance of this issue of sovereignty also is reflected in every kind of human rights document that has issued forth from the United Nations and its predecessor, the League of Nations.
Law is predicated on, and presupposes the existence of, such sovereignty. Law is derivative from sovereignty. Indeed, although one can conceive of sovereignty without law, one cannot conceive of law without presupposing the existence of a source of sovereignty to generate such law. Law does not generate itself.
One may use law to obscure and obfuscate the issue of sovereignty. One also may use law to generate delusions, illusions and distortions concerning the nature of sovereignty. Nevertheless, no one can use law to unilaterally extinguish such sovereignty. Such an act can never be justified, although people do attempt to rationalize it.
For example, when Britain was reveling in its imperialistic and colonialistic glory, it used might as an argument for its "right" to impose its will on other peoples. British officials, then, proceeded to dress up this act in an ethnocentric, self-serving clothing of a Divine destiny that shines Its favor on the civilized (i.e., British) world. Many other countries, including France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Russia and the United States, have rationalized similar actions in similar fashion.
Legitimate constraints and limits can be placed on the exercise of sovereignty only through mutual agreement. This sort of reciprocity is exhibited in the case of a social contract between an individual and the larger community in which both parties agree to restraining themselves in certain ways in order to preserve the autonomy and integrity of the other party to the agreement.
Each party has rights in such an agreement. Each party has duties of care with respect to the other party under the reciprocal character of the agreement.
However, the willingness of a person or people to accept constraints upon one's sovereignty should not be confused with the idea of extinguishing a people's sovereignty. The latter idea is a figment of the fevered imagination of those who would shamelessly, and with an inflated sense of self-importance, try to rationalize their attempts to deny, if not usurp, the sovereignty of another people.
Neither the Supreme Court of British Columbia, nor the court system of any province, nor the Supreme Court of Canada has any jurisdiction in the matter of the sovereignty of Native peoples. In and of itself, the sovereignty of the Native people is entirely extra-legal in character.
However, as indicated earlier, the trappings of legitimate legality arise in conjunction with the sovereignty of Native peoples only to the extent that, of their own free will and volition, Native peoples agree to enter into a social contract with the peoples of Canada. This contract gives expression to the sort of constraints on sovereignty which are deemed necessary in order to protect and, where possible, enhance the integrity, autonomy and access to real power of the respective parties.
Unfortunately, historically, the non-native peoples of Canada tend to have misconstrued and misunderstood the nature of their relationship with Native peoples. The former have been inclined to consider themselves the superior, "civilized", divinely favored party which has the right to impose their values, policies, programs and will on the Native peoples.
In short, most non-Native peoples of Canada believed they alone had sovereignty. For the most part, there has been a dearth of any semblance of mutuality and reciprocity which has characterized the intentions and attitudes of non-Native peoples in their dealings and interactions with Native peoples on the issue of sovereignty.
Canada took some 50 years to apologize to the Japanese Canadians for subjecting these citizens to all manner of indignities during and after the Second World War. Canada still has not apologized for the indignities that it heaped, over a much longer period of time than occurred with the Japanese, upon the Chinese immigrants to this country.
The plight of the Native people is further historical evidence of the disturbing penchant of all too many "mainstream", majoritarian Canadians, or their political representatives, to fail to come to grips with the whole issue of sovereignty. Unfortunately, the suffering of Native peoples has been far more long-standing than the cases of either the Japanese or the Chinese peoples.
All of these cases demonstrate that all too many "white" Canadians believe only their own sovereignty is of any value. All too many Canadians seem to believe that such sovereignty underwrites their right to deny, usurp or intrude upon the sovereignty of other peoples.
The resolution of the sovereignty problem of Native peoples is complicated immeasurably by the fact that money, natural resources and land have become inextricably caught up with the issue of sovereignty. On the one hand, vested interests-both public and private-stand to lose a considerable amount of power, property and money, both in the present as well as the future, if the full significance and ramifications of the sovereignty of Native peoples is finally acknowledged and acted upon. On the other hand, Native peoples cannot give full expression to their sovereignty as autonomous peoples unless they can exercise control over the land and resources that were taken from them.
In fact, for Native peoples, the land plays a central role in their spiritual traditions, since it is a sacred responsibility that has been entrusted to them. They are the trustees of the land over which they have authority and on which they live their lives. If they are denied the capacity to nurture their relationship with the land and to fulfil their spiritual responsibilities as trustees, then, they are being denied the opportunity to pursue a fundamental aspect of their religious tradition.
Giving all of Canada back to the Native peoples may be far too problematic and impractical at this late stage-not to mention being unfair to a lot of present day non-Native peoples. Nonetheless, non-Native Canadians are going to have to face up to the fact that there is, in principle, only one way to right the wrongs which have been perpetrated against the Native people. Some sort of package of land, autonomy and compensation is going to have to be extended to the Native peoples, and this is going to require substantial sacrifices on the part of both the Federal as well as the Provincial governments.
Presumably, Native peoples will be prepared, as they always have been, to enter into a form of social contract with the non-Native peoples of Canada in which reciprocity, mutuality and co-operation become the central shaping forces of that contractual process. This means that the Native peoples will have to assume certain kinds of restraints upon their sovereignty and, therefore, they will not get everything they would like or to which they, morally, may be quite entitled. However, there must be a reciprocity to this constraining process. The foregoing considerations also indicate that all non-Native Canadians are going to have constraints placed on their sovereignty as well with respect to the Native peoples, if we are to resolve the problem in as equitable a fashion as possible under a very complicated and messy set of circumstances.
This is likely not going to be a pain-free process on either side. Nevertheless, as long as the problems surrounding the sovereignty of Native peoples continues to fester, then, Canada will have lost its moral authority to speak out against intrusions upon the sovereignty of people which occurred in the past, are occurring now and, very likely, will continue to occur in the future. For Canadians to denounce the usurping or suppression of sovereignty in other places while standing neck deep in its own cess pool of usurpation and suppression, would be hypocritical in the extreme.
A Possible Solution
Before outlining our proposal, one or two points need to be stated clearly. First of all, we do not consider what follows to be necessarily either the best way, or the only way, of resolving the problems which plague the Native peoples issue. This issue is complex, and any solution will have ramifications for all Canadians. Indeed, many of the ramifications that ensue from any given attempt to resolve the problem likely will have unpalatable aspects for a variety of groups, communities, levels of government and individuals.
Consequently, proposed solutions for dealing with the attendant problems of Native peoples issues face the imposing challenge of having to be both maximally fruitful as well as minimally injurious with respect to a variety of interests and parties. As a result, any solution that is offered up likely will be criticized as being: either not sufficiently fruitful with respect to one group or another; or, not sufficiently free from injurious implications for one group or another.
There may be those, perhaps many, from within the Native peoples community who will find our proposed solution problematic, maybe even completely unacceptable. Undoubtedly, there will be people, perhaps many, from among the non-Native peoples of Canada who will consider our proposed solution as being 'unhelpful'. People from both sides of this issue will have these opinions because they will feel that our solution is asking them to give up something which is, to their understanding, rightfully theirs.
Generally speaking, tug-of-wars can have only one winner. One side or the other usually ends up being dragged in a direction in which it does not want to go. On the other hand, sometimes the rope on which the competing sides are tugging breaks under the strain, and nobody wins. Yet, everybody suffers from the ordeal.
The rope, of course, is a metaphor for Canada. More and more strain is being imposed on the fabric of that rope as people, especially in both the federal and provincial governments, become dug in with respect to their conceptual positions in relation to Native peoples issues.
Under such circumstances, I wanted to introduce the idea of a different kind of conflict resolution activity. In this approach, many people might be required to give up something, but, hopefully, everyone would gain something substantial in return that would more than compensate for that which had to be surrendered.
In any event, I believe the problems surrounding Native peoples issues are of fundamental importance to the moral, political, economic and spiritual health of Canada. Consequently, our proposed solution should be seen as an attempt to stimulate discussion in the direction of creative, win-win situations and away from the enervating tug-of-war which now seems to be taking place.
One possibility for resolving the sovereignty issue of Native and aboriginal peoples may revolve around the Yukon and Northwest Territories, together with some added incentives. More specifically, the government of Canada and the provinces could cede substantial portions of these territories to the Native and aboriginal peoples of Canada, along with, say, certain areas of the northern portions of a number of provinces extending from British Columbia to Ontario. Such ceding would be done in partial exchange for all outstanding land claims in the various provinces.
In addition, some sort of monetary compensation package should be added that will help the Native and aboriginal peoples to establish themselves in whatever way is most congruent with their conception of sovereignty. This compensation package could be used to construct, if desired, a communications network, television stations, an economic infrastructure, and educational systems-including higher education-all of which would be done according to the designs, values, policies, needs and aims of the Native and aboriginal peoples.
If the ceded land were given the status of provinces, then, one might consider foregoing the idea of monetary compensation arrangements. This possibility warrants careful thought since, by having provincial status, one would be entitled to certain lands of transfer payments on a continuous basis rather than a limited number of one-shot compensation packages.
The ceded areas should be selected with the ecology of Native and aboriginal peoples in mind. In other words, the lands should be rich with game, fish and resources that would enable Native peoples to sustain themselves in accordance with their spiritual values and close affinity with the environment. The ceded lands should not be marginal, nor should the designated areas be polluted.
Furthermore, the ceded lands should hold the potential for Native peoples to develop in whatever way suited them-as individuals and collectively. Moreover, the ceded land must have the potential for permitting Native and aboriginal peoples to be able to bequeath to later generations the prospects of an enhanced, and enhancible, quality of sovereignty.
The two territories, plus certain portions of the northern areas of a number of the provinces, seem to be well suited to satisfying a number of the stated needs of Native and aboriginal peoples. In addition-and, unfortunately, this is not a small consideration-the overall inconvenience to both Native peoples and non-Native peoples may be less if pursued in the foregoing fashion.
For example, if the above proposal were pursued, there will be Native peoples who will be faced with the prospect of having to move to a new land and having to start a new life. The fact that they would be going to their own land and not a reservation, and the fact that life in the new land would be rooted in principles of Native sovereignty, cannot hide the possibility the migrant Natives could encounter significant psychological, sociological and spiritual difficulties.
Some, but not necessarily all, of these difficulties may be alleviated, if not eliminated, by funds from the monetary compensation package that accompanied the land ceding aspect of the deal. Consequently, although there is the imposition of having to move, along with the inconvenience and difficulties this potentially entails, the value of what an individual receives in return with respect to sovereignty (and, thereby, the opportunity, finally, to gain autonomy over one's life in an environment that is conducive to one's values) may far outweigh the aforementioned inconveniences and difficulties.
There may be a further advantage for Native and aboriginal peoples if they were to accept the idea of one, large tract of land as part of a negotiated settlement, rather than pursuing a multiplicity of land claim disputes. More specifically, even if one were to suppose that Native peoples were successful with every one of their land claims (which is a highly questionable supposition), the result would leave Native peoples isolated from one another in a sort of archipelago of Native and aboriginal islands in a massive non-Native sea of land.
The geographical, economic, political and social constraints which would tend to impinge on Native and aboriginal peoples under such circumstances may not be in the long-term best interests of Native and aboriginal peoples. Such constraining influences would exert an extremely potent force that, in time, could undermine the sovereignty of Native and aboriginal peoples.
One also must give some reflection to the fact that not all Native peoples have outstanding land claims. Many Native peoples, especially in northern Ontario and Manitoba, live on reservations which will not be expanded.
Even if the courts were suddenly to decide in favor of Native peoples with respect to all outstanding land claims, many Native peoples would, so to speak, be left out in the cold as far as having an adequate land base through which to sustain themselves.
Furthermore, pursuant to Bill C-31, which changed certain aspects of the Indian Act, reservations have become increasingly burdened by the needs of those individuals who are returning to the reservation after being reinstated as so-called 'Status Indians'. Reservations simply cannot resolve the problems of housing, crowding, employment, and lack of community facilities that currently are facing many Native people.
Indeed, quite frankly, reservations were always intended as a tool to manage Native people in accordance with the needs of white political, economic and religious interests. Reservations were never intended as a means of sincerely addressing the essential needs of Native peoples as human beings.
Consequently, those Native peoples who stand to benefit if their land claims, eventually, are honored by the courts or government, have a duty of care with respect to those Native people who will not benefit from such land claim decisions. Sharing their reservations is not the answer, since everyone's standard of living gets lowered in the process.
On the other hand, one solution which may make long-term sense for all Native peoples is the one suggested earlier-namely, in exchange for all outstanding land claims, Native and aboriginal peoples would be given one tract of land with provincial status. This land area would cover portions of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and certain aspects of the northern parts of a number of provinces extending from British Columbia to Ontario.
Whether the ceded land is to be one province or several provinces could be determined through negotiations between Native peoples and the rest of Canada. I have suggested at least two provinces in an attempt to reflect, in a very small way, that Native peoples really encompass a diverse group of peoples. Therefore, some attempt should be made to provide for different venues of provincial opportunity in order to accommodate some of these differences among Native peoples.
The foregoing proposed solution offers the possibility of simultaneously satisfying the needs of self-autonomy and self-sufficiency for all Native and aboriginal peoples. Without this dual dynamic of self-autonomy and self-sufficiency, many, many Native people are doomed to a fate of endless poverty, degradation and dependency on others for their sustenance.
On the other hand, from the perspective of the provincial and federal governments, ceding the aforementioned land areas may be less conducive to the possibility of becoming entangled in the sort of complex legal/social problems where a spectrum of vested interests are at cross-purposes with one another. Said in another way, the above arrangement may least intrude upon, or interfere with, issues of sovereignty involving non-Native and non-aboriginal people.
To be sure, there will be some non-Natives who will be inconvenienced as a result of the proposed solution. Moreover, there undoubtedly will be economic interests which either will have to be terminated or run in accordance with the wishes of Native and aboriginal peoples. However, as is the case with some of the Native peoples who will be inconvenienced, some sort of monetary compensation may help assuage the inconvenience and difficulties suffered by non-Natives during the process of transition in which lands of sovereignty are generated for Native and aboriginal peoples.
The bottom line, for both Native and non-Native peoples, is the same if the solution outlined previously be followed. In other words, there will be difficulties and inconveniences on both sides of the ledger, but the resolution of the long-standing problems would bring benefits to all people concerned. Native and aboriginal peoples, finally, would have their sovereignty which has been usurped unjustly by the European immigrants to this country-an unseemly condition that has been perpetuated by subsequent generations of non-Native peoples. In addition, non-Native peoples could enjoy the fact that principles of real democracy, outlined previously, finally had won out over a set of values, prejudices and practices that, for far too long, have been corrupting and polluting the fabric of democratic institutions in Canada.
If Native and aboriginal peoples were given their own provincial sphere of responsibility through the land ceding proposal outlined earlier, they would need to be given certain guarantees that the land ceding arrangement was not just one more ploy by non-Native people to marginalize the needs and concerns of Native peoples. In other words, Native and aboriginal peoples need to know that they are not being moved to just one more reservation, albeit a much bigger one.
History clearly has shown that the promise of inviolability of the reservation-a promise which was to be honored and protected by non-Native peoples-has been broken many, many times. This goes on even today when, for example, public utility companies, logging and mining concerns, as well as paper mills run roughshod over the concerns and needs of Native and aboriginal peoples.
Whenever corporate and political interests have found it expedient and profitable to do so, Native peoples were pushed aside. Repeatedly, the lands of the latter have been stripped of resources, as well as polluted, through the insatiable appetite of a human greed that has respect for nothing except its own hunger and lust.
Moreover, Native peoples often have not been free even to run their own lives or practice their spiritual traditions. This is the case because they have been interfered with constantly by the Native Affairs Ministry and other levels of government. All of this violation of the sovereignty of Native and aboriginal peoples must stop.
In order to achieve this, I would offer several suggestions. First, the Ministry of Native Affairs, together with the concomitant Indian Act, must be dismantled.
This Ministry is a remnant of a colonialist mentality which is a completely inappropriate way of interacting with Native and aboriginal peoples. Furthermore, this Ministry is saturated with a paternalistic ethnocentrism, which is injurious to the integrity and sovereignty of Native peoples.
Secondly, the political arrangements instituted in the New Provinces (that are to be created through the land-ceding proposal) must always permit Native peoples to retain a majority position in those provinces. While some people may view such a restriction as being undemocratic when considered from the myopic perspective of majority rules, this proposal is perfectly in keeping with the principle of diversity of equality being given expression in this present document. In addition, this instance of asymmetry in the treatment of the political institutions of the Native peoples' Provinces will be counterbalanced by the kinds of Senate reforms that are being introduced in the section on Expanding the Scope of Participation.
Before leaving the issue of the sovereignty of Native and aboriginal peoples, a difficult question must be raised. Many, if not most, Native peoples speak in terms of having a custodial relationship with the land. This custodial status is not one of ownership. It is, rather, one of fulfilling the responsibilities of a sacred trust.
The sacred trust has, at the very least, two fundamental themes. One theme concerns the duty of care which the present generation of Native and aboriginal peoples owes to future generations.
A second theme indigenous to the sacred trust concerns the duty of care which is owed to the land itself, along with the forms of life, both animal and plant, that inhabit that land. From the perspective of Native and aboriginal peoples, all creation, whether 'living' or not, manifests spiritual properties. As such, all aspects of creation must be respected for the qualities of spirituality to which they give expression.
Given the foregoing, the question that must be asked is this: Do Native and aboriginal peoples suppose that they, and they alone, have been charged with such a sacred trust?
If the answer is yes, then, certain facets of the Native peoples' claims may be on very shaky spiritual and philosophical ground, so to speak, because of the exclusionary character of their sense of sacred trust. It would be exclusionary because it seems to deny the possibility that other people also may have been invested with the same sacred responsibility and concomitant duties of care, vis-a-vis the whole of creation, including the land.
If, on the other hand, the answer to the foregoing question is no, then, the nature of the problem becomes somewhat different. Under these circumstances, the emphasis must be on issues of sovereignty.
For, only through a properly secured sovereignty, will Native peoples truly be in a position to discharge their sacred trust in its fullest, most broadly applicable sense. In addition, through a properly secured sovereignty, Native peoples will have like-hearted and like-minded non-Native companions with them to work toward the realization of an overlapping set of objectives and values.
To speak in terms of land claims is problematic in a variety of ways. First of all, it risks succumbing to the mentality of ownership which is at the root of so many problems in our country, if not the world. The philosophy of ownership is, by and large, antagonistic to the qualities of sharing and generosity that are, now more than ever, very much needed in our country. The philosophy of ownership tends to lead to a smallness and meanness of spirit.
Indeed, the Prime Minister's recent announcement to establish a fast-tract program to settle, over the next four or five years, all land claims that are for less than a certain amount of money, appears to be a clever gambit. It seems to be built around the seductiveness of the philosophy of ownership. By offering the few an inducement of what amounts to land ownership, resolution of the real problem of sovereignty which plagues the many will remain elusive.
Secondly, the language of land claims has a tendency to narrow the focus of the underlying sacred trust. Instead of being extended to all of creation, it may become reduced to a particular, small parcel of land.
Of course, the moral and spiritual decay in the world has reached such proportions that fulfilling the sacred trust for even a small piece of land becomes a courageous struggle. However, the more essential, more fundamental struggle may be to work toward extending the duty of care to as wide an area as possible.
By proposing that Native and aboriginal peoples be given custody of certain lands in the north and that these lands have provincial status, I believe the Native peoples would be in a much stronger, more tenable position through which to fulfil the spiritual responsibilities that have been entrusted to them. Furthermore, with such provincial status, I believe Native and aboriginal peoples would be in a much better position to assist the rest of us to work towards redeeming the Canadian environment as a whole and, thereby, fulfil the sacred trust which many non-Natives also believe they have with respect to the land.
Canadian Identity
This principle of sovereignty, and its attendant problems, actually goes to the heart of who we are as Canadians. Being a Canadian is not about CBC, Via Rail, the National Film Board, the RCMP, the Maple Leaf Flag or any other symbol one cares to choose as that which helps bind us to one another and helps define our collective identity as Canadians rather than as something else.
All of these institutions and symbols have roles to play. Moreover, they have a value to Canadians that goes beyond the merely functional since they each, in their own way, introduce certain nuances, color and orientation into our collective identity. However, they are all peripheral factors as far as understanding who we are as Canadians.
From the very beginning of our history as a place and a people that eventually would become known, respectively, as Canada and Canadians, the issue that has brought us together and forged our identity has been the problem of sovereignty and our attempts to deal with the issues surrounding that problem. Whether we have been successful or we have failed, whether we have agreed or disagreed, whether we have co-operated with one another or thwarted one another, Canada and Canadians both have been built upon a unique history of engaging the issue of sovereignty through the many ways in which that issue has manifested itself over the years and from place to place. No one else in the universe has our history.
Whether we are talking about regions, provinces, municipalities, ministries, institutions or the federal government, we are talking about family, and we interact with the members of that family in a way that we don't interact with governments and people beyond our borders. The affection, pride or exasperation we feel toward one another has a political/cultural chemistry of its own that is not the same as the sort of chemistry that is generated by the affection, pride or exasperation one may feel toward other peoples.
The straw that stirs the political/cultural chemistry of Canada and Canadians is the problem of sovereignty. The history of: French Canada or the Maritimes; the West or the Northern Territories; the provinces or the federal government; Native peoples or immigrants - all revolve around the search for asserting or claiming or fighting for their sovereignty.
The story of Canada is a story of the attempts, failures and successes of a variety of peoples as they sought to enter into a social contract with other peoples. Such a social contract emphasized a reciprocity or mutuality of understanding and, therefore, a concomitant willingness to place constraints on their respective sovereignties in order to work out a system of rights, duties, freedoms and responsibilities which would enhance the quality of sovereignty of the parties involved in that social context.
The sense of betrayal that all peoples in Canada have experienced, at one time or another, can be traced directly to the perception, whether accurate or not, that there is an inequity in the relationship of reciprocity and mutuality that defines the social contract which links the sovereignty of one people with other people. Essentially, this means that when a people feel betrayed, they feel they have placed constraints on their own sovereignty as a people which either: (a) are not being reciprocated by others; or, (b) are not leading to a sufficient level of enhancement in the quality of that aspect of their sovereignty which is not under constraint.
|
|
|
Copyright © 2004 Interrogative Imperative Institute. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
