Ottawa watch (1999 federal government activities related to native people). Alexandra Macqueen.
First Perspective, December 1999 vol 9 no 1 p6 (English)

December can be a time of reckoning, when we prepare for a new year (and, in this case, a new century!) by reviewing our accomplishments over the last 12 months. This column, written in December, takes a look back at the issues discussed in "Ottawa Watch" in 1999 to help in this reckoning process. In January, we heard about a federal discussion paper dealing with child abuse in residential schools. The Law Reform Commission of Canada's report looked at the emotional, physical, cultural and spiritual abuse of children in several different types of institutions, including residential schools for Aboriginal children. Residential schools, in particular, were described by the Commission as "total institutions," in which "virtually every facet of the children's lives was determined by those in charge."

The Commission prepared a research paper focussing on the needs of survivors of residential schools, and concludes that "for all the elements of similarity with abuse in other types of institutions, Aboriginal children suffered in a unique and seriously damaging way in residential schools." This damage is compounded, the discussion paper continues, because "there has still been no comprehensive set of programs established by either governments or churches to redress the harm done."

In February, the big issue discussed was the new federal budget. Before the release of the budget, talk had been that former Indian Affairs Minister Jane Stewart was seeking as much as $600 million in new resources for Aboriginal programming. The Assembly of First Nation's National Chief, Phil Fontaine, suggested if the government didn't come through in the new budget with increased resources, First Nations would view this as a failure in the order of violating a treaty. When the budget was released, it became clear that fiscal conservatives had held sway in the federal cabinet. New spending on First Nation issues (primarily health concerns) totalled $190 million, which sounds like a lot until you realize it is spread over four years and must be divided between all First Nations and Inuit people across Canada.

February's column also looked at the progress of federal legislation affecting Aboriginal peoples, including Bill C-56, "an act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of !and, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba," and Bill C-49, the First Nation Land Management bill. The focus of March's column was the legislative progress of Bill C-49. By that time, the bill had been passed by the House of Commons and had been referred to the Senate for approval. In order to get the bill to this stage, the government set a limit on the amount of time the bill would be debated in the House of Commons at the "third reading" stage.

In April, the column provided updates on Bill C-49 (in the Senate) and Bill C-56 (in the House of Commons). May's column also looked at the issues being raised in the Senate about Bill C-49. At that point, Bill C-56 seemed stalled in the legislative process at the report stage. That is, the bill had been through first and second readings, referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for hearings, and the Committee had prepared a report back to the House.

However, the House had not heard the report.

In June, the column reported that Bill C-49 had passed through the House of Commons' approval process, at 11 p.m., on a Friday night. In order to get the bill through, the government again set a limit on the time available for debating the bill in the House. The House of Commons then adjourned for the summer with no further progress on Bill C-56.

A House of Commons on summer break allowed this column to take a long look, in July, at the Senate's Special Study on Aboriginal governance. In December 1998, the Senate had announced it would hold a year of hearings to deal with the "unfinished business" of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

This unfinished business, according to the Senate, involves "identifying practical means of achieving self-determination as nations and Aboriginal peoples within Canada." "The Senators want to know what "does governance mean to Aboriginal peoples?"

The results of the study, which is not yet complete, will be presented to the government of Canada. The chair of the committee, Inuit Senator Charlie Watt, says he is "very determined" to make substantial recommendations which include instructions to the federal government on how to implement them.

By August, a new Minister of Indian Affairs had been appointed. This column reviewed Minister Nault's reputation and public statements in the House of Commons as a government backbencher. It concluded that the new Minister of Indian Affairs is not a fan of the Indian Act, and he has some familiarity with the constraints imposed on First Nations by the Act. He is a supporter of First Nations leaders making decisions within their jurisdiction, which he views as "province-like" in scope, not as more narrowly municipal; and that, as a federal politician, he is uneasy about trying to "fix" problems in First Nation communities, preferring instead to let local issues be decided locally.

In September, we were waiting for the opening of a new session of Parliament, with a new Speech from the Throne to set the government's priorities. In the meantime, this column provided some background on the dispute at the Musqueam First Nation, in British Columbia, between the First Nation and non-Native leaseholders over lease rates charged by the First Nation.

The big news in October was the introduction of the bill to implement the Nisga'a claims settlement. The Liberal government immediately came under sustained attack over the bill from the Reform Party in the House of Commons' question period. By October 22, Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault had announced the federal government would once again invoke closure to limit the number of days the bill will be debated in parliament.

While public attention was focussed on the Nisga'a bill, the House of Commons snuck the Manitoba Claims Settlements Implementation Act (which used to be called Bill C-56, and is now called Bill C-14) back onto the parliamentary agenda. The bill was reintroduced into the parliamentary process at the same point it had reached last spring, before the new session of parliament was called.

And here it is December. As we go to press, the bill ratifying the Nisga'a !and claims settlement agreement has just been passed into law, despite an intense effort by the Reform Party to stop or at least slow its progress. The parliamentary focus on the Nisga'a bill has overshadowed any legislative progress on Bill C-14, which has yet to make it through third reading or be referred to the Senate for further study. The House of Commons has now entered its winter break, and sittings will not resume until February.

When we look back on the legislative and parliamentary events affecting First Nations and Aboriginal peoples in 1999, what can we conclude? First, progress on Aboriginal issues is slow. Too many of the issues raised throughout the past year--such as the need for "a comprehensive set of programs established by either governments or churches to redress the harm done" to Aboriginal children in residential schools--are not resolved.

Progress on parliamentary initiatives is particularly slow and chaotic. The House of Commons is divided, with the Reform Party opposing government initiatives as a matter of course. In order to get bills through, the government must now routinely rely on provisions limiting debate in the House of Commons.

Where are the solutions to these issues? The Senate's special study on Aboriginal governance may provide some clues. We'll follow that report, when it is released, along with other Ottawa-based initiatives, in this new year.