you're reading...

Aboriginal Alberta: Election thoughts

I said that I wanted to write about Aboriginal issues, and it’s increasingly urgent that we bring them to the table. We’re two weeks into the election, and it is becoming apparent that Aboriginal issues are not on the radar for most of the parties. Alberta has the third largest Aboriginal population in the country, and Edmonton has the second largest urban Aboriginal population in Canada. Far from being fringe issues, the matters that affect First Nations, Metis and Inuit people in our province touch each and every Albertan. In fact, Roger Epp has argued that “we are all Treaty people” (http://msupress.msu.edu/bookTemplate.php?bookID=3530), meaning that both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal citizens are part of a relationship and a series of legal promises and agreements that shaped how this province was settled at the turn of the century, and with that comes rights and responsibilities for all Albertans.

While Alberta can and must do a better job in addressing health, education, environmental and economic issues that affect Aboriginal Albertans, it does have some things to celebrate. Alberta has, in some ways, led the country in addressing Aboriginal issues: we were one of the only provinces to acknowledge Métis issues in the 1930s, which led to the creation of the Métis Settlements Act. When the Supreme Court’s Powley decision came down in 2003, Alberta was one of the first provinces to implement the Court’s ruling and acknowledge Métis hunting rights (which was subsequently reneged). Unfortunately, for every step forward we seem to take two steps back.

Part of the confusion regarding Aboriginal issues in the province lies partially in jurisdictional grey zones: while First Nations in the province have treaty relationships with the Crown, which include agreements regarding health care and education, among other things, the province is responsible for delivering these services. The tragic result of this jurisdictional bickering was laid bare in Manitoba when 5 year old Jordan Anderson died because the Federal and Provincial governments could not decide who should pay for his homecare ( http://www.fncaringsociety.com/jordans-principle). It is tempting for the province to claim that Aboriginal issues are solely a matter between the Federal government and First Nations communities to address, but the reality is that the province has duties to fulfill, and these should be reflected in the policies that each political party is advancing.

One of the most glaring issues that most parties are ignoring is the disproportionately large impact that oil and gas development in the northern part of the province has on both farmers and Aboriginal communities. These must be addressed as the province moves forward. Given that the province has a duty to consult on any resource or infrastructure activity that affects First Nations and Métis communities, one would hope the politicians vying for our votes understand how this shapes future resource extraction and infrastructure proposals in the province.

A quick glance at party platforms reveals that only the NDP have planks dedicated to Indigenous issues in the province. The Conservatives and the Wildrose Party websites mention Aboriginal issues in passing – mainly education (the PCs) and children’s services and gang activity (the Wildrose Party). The Liberals and Alberta Party have no clearly identifiable Aboriginal policy on their websites.

It is up to us, all of us, to pressure each party to clarify its stance on the significant breadth of issues that affect Aboriginal communities.


2 thoughts on “Aboriginal Alberta: Election thoughts

  1. Why do you think there is no grassroots provincial party focussed on Aboriginal issues? I’m considering whether to use or decline my Senate ballot, and it seems analagous… the people most frustrated by the system are so often the ones least likely to participate in it.

    Posted by Chris | April 23, 2012, 1:32 am
    • Chris,

      I think, mainly, that Aboriginal people represent such a broad variety of socio-economic and political realities that no one party would be able to address ‘Aboriginal’ issues. Also, I think that a lot of parties just figure, ‘why champion a small group’s concerns when we need to play to the majority to win votes?’. It would be difficult to reconcile the differences amongst different communities, nations and groups and effectively translate that into a pithy party platform: there are leaders who support oil and gas development, those who oppose it. There are leaders who want to move away from the Indian Act and develop their own Nation’s constitutions and those who want to maintain the status quo. There are those who are working for reinstatement of Status that was taken away from women in the past, and those who resent the emergence of new claims on limited Reserve resources. Also, the animosity that can sometimes emerge between First Nations and Metis interests would be difficult to reconcile at the Party level in the province (although this is played up/worsened by deliberate actions on behalf of the government). I’m being pretty blunt here. I mean, it would be amazing to start working together to push forward Aboriginal issues at the provincial and federal level, but I think the class differences and social/geographical differences (ie: rural-urban splits) that affect the reach of any political party would be just as challenging for an ‘Aboriginal’ political party as for a non-Aboriginal one.

      Posted by zotofoto | April 28, 2012, 9:53 am

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: