This is the second part of the interview held with Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come at theend of November. In it he looks at the future of the Cree language and culture,negotiations with the federal and provincial governments, and forestry.
The Nation: The Cree School Board just had a conference on Cree Language and Culture. Whatdo you think of the CSB’s Cree as a Language of Instruction Program overall?
Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: There’s room for improvement. The only way to maintain our language is if we introduce it in the schools but more importantly practice it at home. My deepest fear is when I hear a kindergarten teacher teaching the Cree language saying that half the kids who enroll in a particular school speak only English. That’s something to be concerned about.
The onus then falls on the parents to instruct and communicate to their kids in their own language, which is Cree. So by the time they arrive and go into our school systems, hopefully they would be able to improve their vocabulary, etc. The school can only do so much. Yes, we need to train our teachers to be more aware and adapt that work into more acceptable or interesting ways. Like using computers as a way of encouraging the students to learn their language. It cannot be taken for granted that our kids will speak the language.
I’m excited when I think about it because the conference improved awareness for all who attended. There was a misconception that our language was thriving. There is a possible danger of losing our language. So the biggest responsibility will fall on the younger parents and how they raise their kids.
As to the culture itself, well, you can never teach your whole culture in the classroom itself, but you can certainly adapt it. I think the school board has done a lot of work. In geography, they are putting Cree history in there. There’s the economics that’s adapted also. So you can see there’s a curriculum development and awareness of who we are, where we came from and how we fit into this whole society. In the textbooks we see them adapted and the MEQ (Ministre Education Quebec) has approved them. So in that sense people will be more aware of their own culture, their own history, geography and hopefully their own literature.
I think our biggest problem for the Cree language and culture is the lack of material. We have Cree language teachers who can produce the material. The problem is to print it and do it in Cree. Maybe you’ll be the first ones to do it. But right now every paper you see sitting on desks of the leadership and in our homes is in English or French. So you teach your kids abouta language and try to preserve it but you don’t see it at home. There’s no way you’re going to preserve it or encourage it.
In the end the onus, I think, will fall on the parents. Unfortunately we’ll probably end up blaming an entity we’ve created to promote and enhance our language.
Let’s head back to the land for another issue, forestry. I understand the Grand Council ofthe Crees is taking some steps to address the Cree concerns such as a court case.Could you expand on some of that strategy?
The Grand Council has finalized the seventh draft of the forestry case. This is not to say we haven’t filed anything on forestry. In the Coon Come court cases, there’s a section that deals with forestry. But the main court case, we’ll be doing a community tour in the week of the 12th, 13th and 14th of January to inform the trappers and communities of what’s in the court case.
The thing that needs to be understood and addressed is the fact that there are conflicting rights, one for the developers and one for the Crees who have the right to fish, hunt and trap. This is the harvesting right. You have to find a mechanism to reconcile those conflicting interests and rights of a developer and harvester.
To achieve that, what is the goal or the vision of the Crees on forestry? Is it to oppose totally forestry? Is it to go all out or is it that
we stand on the principle of sharing?
Sharing is sharing. It means you should receive something. So do the Crees want a sharein the wealth of the land? Ifthatisthecase then the strategy will be different as opposed toone where we oppose any type of development. That’s the thrust I think and only the Creescan answer that. But I think we will file a court case. We will pressure the governments tosit down with the Crees at the table to set out the rules of co-existence. The rules ofcompatibility between a way of life versus development. Also how can the Crees benefit andshare in the wealth of the land. Those issues can only be dealt with and achieved based onthe position that the Crees take.
The other governments will not sit down with you if you don’t take a hammer and hit themover the head. You will not get what you want if you don’t create a leverage.
Crees never received anything because some developer out of the goodness of their heartsgave it to them. They’ll never get anything like that. So I believe the Crees will have totake a strong stand and be able to file these court actions. Go all out and pressure thesegovernments. They have to have to deal with Crees. The Crees do not accept status quo. TheCrees want change in policies. The Crees want a change in the relationship between the CreeNation and the federal or provincial governments and the developers. We will seek andpressure the governments using the judicial process and even do a campaign to expresswhat is being done to our lands and how we are impacted. This in order to be able to get toa certain table where we can start talking turkey. And to get to that level it will requirestanding in unity and understanding this is our mission.
To achieve that goal this is what needs to be done right now. The court case and topressure the governments. To develop strategies, some that will not be acceptable to certainpeople, but we have to do it to put pressure on the governments. If people understand thatwe will have achieved a certainty as to our future.
Right now we have to continue creating uncertainty in regards as to the way developmenttakes place. Create uncertainty as to investment in Cree territory unless the Crees areinvolved. The Crees will push to be full participants and receive benefits from theextraction of natural resources. But they will not accept being dispossessed, being drivenof the land and only live in communities or reserves called Category I lands. This is ourland and we will benefit because our objective is to be self-governing and self-sufficient.We don’t want to rely on government handouts. We will set up our own national government,our own laws. We will use our traditions and customs and codify the way in whichdevelopment will take place. As a Nation, have taken that position. That we are Eeyou,we are a People. We are self-governing and we will fulfill that vision.
But we cannot do that right now with the present policies, with the present attitudes of the governments, with the present relationship that we have right now. We are going to change that because we are going to go all out. We are going to serve notice that we are going to achieve this not only to the government but also to the business community. We’ll go to the private sectors and tell them, look business as usual is unacceptable. This is where you want to go and this is what we are going to do. If we have to disrupt your business, so be it. But we are going to seek that vision. We are going to be self-governing. You can help us along or we can make life difficult.
You hear some of this at the national level. You’ve worked there and have been involvedwith national politics.
Yes, I’ve been there as one of the people at the main table with the premiers, at the Calgary Declaration. The Calgary Declaration, itself, I felt was an attempt by the premiers to find an accommodation with Quebec. My concern is when you find an accommodation with Quebec, it can diminish our Aboriginal and treaty rights. Our rights can be subject to Quebec’s unique status. I’m concerned with creating two classes of people, the First Nations, who are subjected to Quebec’s self-declared rights, and the other First Nations, who are under the federal regime. The Calgary Declaration itself certainly did not recognize Aboriginal government or institutions. It only recognized federal, provincial and territorial governments. So it started off with a flaw. The Calgary Declaration creates an imbalance. It’s a distortion of history.
Being involved in these negotiations we were trying to create a balance to recognize Aboriginal and treaty rights in a formal clause. We looked for something that would have recognition of First Nations. We succeeded in assuring that First Ministers’ conferences that involve amendments to the constitution will involve the full participation of Aboriginal peoples. That was our main achievement at that meeting.
The other achievement was the policy of off-loading all these programs to the provinces(which is a way for) the federal government to give up its fiduciary obligations over Aboriginals and their lands. We are afraid that will cause great harm to the Aboriginal peoples. The communities will just end up receiving welfare payments and all the monies will be grabbed by the provinces before it gets to the communities.
We succeeded in pushing for a process where Aboriginal leaders will be consulted on off-loading of federal programs. In the consultations across Canada, you and I know that Quebec has not participated in that. (Premier Lucien) Bouchard has avoided establishing any consultations with not only First Nations but also the people of Quebec.
Meanwhile the reality is there are consultations taking place across Canada. We will make sure we are part of those consultations. We were able to do that so we have a foot in the door.
On these national issues, a Cree on his trapline might feel, “What has this got to do with me?” I think that underlines the biggest problem of all. The policies underlying extinguishment. Powers being given to provinces. Where the provinces supposedly have jurisdiction over the land and natural resources.
If you want change in what I am talking about, you cannot just approach a mining or forestry company. These laws and policies bind them. I do not believe the laws are written in stone. Man made these laws, man can break these laws. The changes will not take place unless we pressure to make. I see this as a long-term thing. It might not be felt at the local level but if we did not do it we would be irresponsible. It would undermine all the work we have done so far.
The Memorandum of Understanding of 1995 was the beginning of the process of Cree negotiations with the provincial government. Now a new round of Cree-Quebec talks has started known as the “Bouchard Process.” Are you satisfied with the results of what we have been getting from Quebec, if we’ve been getting anything?
The results will determine what happens, once the proposals of the specific projects have been given to the cabinet. That is being prepared. Unfortunately, the Cree Nation itself and the communities are desperate. They want immediate things right away. But being on the other side, on the frontlines, there have been changes in government that make it very difficult. We have had change from Parizeau to Bouchard. We’ve had change from David Cliche to deputy minister Andre Magny. There was a change from Magny to Robert Sauve. The Crees meanwhile have been consistent. I’m still the Grand Chief, Chief Diamond is still the negotiator. Our positions haven’t changed.
But I think following the meeting with Bouchard in Waswanipi, we took them to task. We feel that if the government is sincere in dealing with First Nations, specifically the Crees, it has to show and deliver tangible results. I believe that’s very close. Before Christmas we should have at least an indication as to the status of the projects that have been submitted, of the regional issues we have identified. At the same time we have negotiations with the government of Quebec on policing, education, health, income security and the like. That’s what we agreed upon, that there would be parallel negotiations. We have to maintain them.
At the same time we’ve had discussions with the federal government. We have a main steeringbody composed of the chiefs, so you have to give it time. I think people are impatient butI still feel there will be something that will be forthcoming. I think some people will besurprised at what’s coming.
