Barbara Yaffe: Lack of unity destroys aboriginal negotiating power

Canada’s aboriginals, whose leaders are gathering a second time this month to negotiate with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, would be wise to reassess their game plan.

Any good political strategist would advise the First Nations that their lack of success with government — contrasting starkly with a succession of stunning courtroom victories — is traceable to several factors.

Aboriginals need to find ways to start speaking with one representative voice.

They need to curtail protest tactics that alienate the broader community.

And, both as individuals and groups, aboriginals must become more judicious in their demands.

Really, how smart is it for Attawapiskat chief Theresa Spence to have persisted so long in her liquid diet, holding out for a meeting with the prime minister and governor general that will never happen?

Spence is gunning for defeat; treaties were entered into with the “Crown” but that’s a moot point. Today, Crown powers are vested in an elected government, and more practically the federal cabinet. Indeed the governor general takes his advice from the prime minister.

Likewise, a demand that government make a special point of consulting with aboriginals before enacting federal legislation, including bills touching on the environment, is never going to be met.

Government actions flow from an electoral mandate that accords discretionary latitude to craft federal laws for Canada.

Making impossible demands inevitably results in failure, ensuring a poor record for the negotiating entity involved.

As for tactics calling for disruption of traffic on highways and rail lines, why antagonize non-natives who, by and large, don’t feel directly responsible for aboriginal hardship?

On the contrary, many Canadians wonder to what use the $10 billion, which they contribute through taxes to annual federal aboriginal spending, has been put.

Better to seek out their support and empathy, to bolster their negotiating position with politicians sensitive to public opinion.

Also, blockades obviously disrupt the very activities that provide the cash for aboriginal benefits.

But perhaps the biggest hurdle First Nations lately have experienced relates to disunity.

Of course, any large group is likely to be disunited.

But the fact remains that to be effective, a negotiating representative has to be able to speak on behalf of the greatest possible numbers, with a single, strong voice.

At present, no such representative organization exists in the aboriginal community.

About half of aboriginals reside in cities. Those living on some 600 reserves are geographically scattered, making their needs incredibly disparate.

A dog’s breakfast of associations attempts to represent aboriginals, the largest of which are the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Metis National Council, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Native Women’s Association and the Assembly of First Nations.

Ottawa lists no fewer than 51 national aboriginal organizations on its Aboriginal Affairs website.

Nothing wrong with this — if, only if, an umbrella group existed to speak for the whole community.

Idle No More is a social media movement, newly inspiring activism among youth and women. But it has no representation in this month’s meetings with Harper.

While the Assembly of First Nations has taken a lead role in the talks, it’s plagued by disunity; some chiefs recently wanted to oust national chief Sean Atleo, others refused to attend a Jan. 11 negotiating session with the PM.

Moreover the Assembly is not democratically elected to represent all native people.

It represents the 633 mostly male chiefs (only 109 chiefs are female) who, every three years, vote for the national chief.

Lobby groups trying to influence government, these days, are canny and sophisticated. To extend their courtroom winning streak, aboriginals will need to get with the program.

byaffe@vancouversun.com