I say it plainly. I feel sorry for her. Not out of condescension, but because she accepted a role that no Indigenous person should ever have to carry alone. She has become, despite herself, the modern Indian agent. She has become the person who must defend a system designed to reduce our numbers. She has become the public voice of a law that does not serve the interests of our peoples, but those of the Government of Canada.
When Justin Trudeau came to power in 2015, many wondered why no Indigenous MP was appointed Minister of Indian Affairs. After serving as an MP myself, I understand better. Once inside government asa Minister, you spend your days trying to balance too many contradictory responsibilities. You must first support the prime minister and the government line. Then you must try to meet the expectations of your people. You carry your personal convictions, your dreams for future generations, your obligations to the ancestors. You try not to hurt anyone and you end up hurting yourself.
When I was in national caucus, I spoke out against the second generation cut off during a similar debate on the Indian Act under Bill S-3 in 2018. I was given ninety seconds to explain why this discrimination destroys our communities. Two ministers then stood up to contradict me and spoke for ten minutes. I remember their discomfort. I also remember my colleagues, who did not understand why two ministers would take such a hard line. Yet it was obvious. It was the government’s position. They knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that the government was protecting a system that keeps our peoples divided and reduces our number with every generation. They knew that by slowing these changes they were denying children the right to remain in their own community.
The Indian Act still serves the interests of the government. It structures the slow, administrative disappearance of First Nations. Sharon McIvor, an indefatigable activist, reminded everyone of this again this week. She argues that the Act is a document of extinction. If the rule remains, many communities will eventually have no registered members at all. Without status, we lose our rights, and our lands revert to the Crown.
In this context, Mandy Gull Masty defends a cautious position. She says she wants a different path. She notes that the tools needed to support communities are not defined. She reminds us that First Nations are not all the same. All of this is true. But it does not answer the essential question. Do we end discrimination now, or do we continue consultations that have lasted for generations.
I believe that if the minister is Cree, then she must be a warrior. She must raise her fist and be prepared to leave her position if the government refuses to recognize the fundamental rights of the children of our nations. When she leaves politics for good, it will not be her ministerial title that matters. It will be whether she can say that she accomplished something of value for those who will come after.
I say the same to MP Jaime Battiste. He too must listen to the spirits of his ancestors. Politics often convinces us to play the long game. But the long game in the Indian Act is simple. If we wait too long, there will be no one left to protect.
Today, the Senate is finally proposing to abolish the second generation cut off. The bill will then move to the House of Commons. For once, the path is clear. Pride or shame. Action or stagnation.
It is time for our representatives to have the courage to say that status must no longer be used as a tool of division. It must be the reflection of our living connection to our lands. The minister must act. MPs must act. And we must remind the government that our children are not negotiable.
When the sun rises, we offer our prayers,
The heart of the warrior is always ready,
Courage always ready,
Ready to meet the ancestors.
No comments:
Post a Comment