FOLA on the current situation in Little Buffalo
FOLA (Friends of the Lubicon Alberta) was founded in 2006 to create awareness about the plight of the Lubicon Cree locally, nationally, and internationally as the Lubicon people struggle to have their land rights recognized by the governments of Canada and Alberta. We work with the Lubicon community as a whole. More information about FOLA and our mandate is available here.
FOLA first heard about the Lubicon “leadership dispute” in early May 2009, after the April 29 election did not go ahead as scheduled. We have not publicly addressed the leadership situation before now, hoping that it would be resolved internally. However, we are now witnessing INAC (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) exploit this situation. INAC’s actions have driven us to break our silence. From election reports to government correspondence we have posted relevant documents on our website, along with our comments (below), so that Lubicon supporters can see for themselves what is going on in Little Buffalo and so understand INAC’s latest actions in context.
Our support for the Lubicon Cree remains as strong as ever. Not only do the Lubicon continue to face the destruction of their traditional territory and the violation of their human rights, but now they also face the active disregard of their right to self-government. Your support is needed now more than ever.
Addressing the election issue (only because we have to):
The events of June 5 and June 25 have both been referred to as the 2009 Lubicon election. Here are links to the two election reports :June 5th and June 25 as well as a statement that explains aspects of the June 25th report. Please take a look at these links and decide for yourself which event you consider to be the Lubicon election.
Traditional Lubicon membership criteria and voter eligibility rules have been before the Government of Canada in writing since 1986 as part of Lubicon self government negotiations. When traditional Lubicon “membership criteria” and “voter eligibility rules” are mentioned, this is what is meant:
1) In order to be a Lubicon member you have to be related to other Lubicon people by blood and to Lubicon Territory by history. You cannot choose to be a member of another First Nation or Band under the Indian Act.
2) In order to be eligible to vote in a Lubicon election or General Meeting of Lubicon Members you must be at least 18 years of age and normally resident in Traditional Lubicon Territory.
Our consideration of both reports, as well as other eyewitness oral reports, media reports and copies of related correspondence, have led us to conclude that the June 5th election was the only event of the two that follows Lubicon election rules. Thus we recognize Steve Noskey as the elected Lubicon Chief, and as elected Councillors we recognize Larry Ominayak, Dwight Gladue, Michael Laboucan, Vance Laboucan, and Dwight Sawan. We dismiss any claim that any of those elected on June 5th are in some way not Lubicon. Such accusations do not match with genealogical records, the history of the Lubicon struggle, or the documented election results of previous years.
We take issue with the naming of the current situation in Little Buffalo as a “leadership dispute.” The events of June 25th- the choosing of “headmen,” the appointment of a “chief-for-life,” the control of a “elders’ tribunal,” the changing of voting rules – none of these fit with Lubicon election rules or with previous elections or broader traditional practices. Thus what happened on June 25th cannot be considered “the second election.” There was one election only. It took place on June 5th.
Also regarding the report of June 25th we must point out that neither the "Universal Commercial Code (UCC)", nor the striking use of a finger print in addition to a signature hold any authority or have any meaning in Lubicon culture, a detail that INAC seems to have overlooked in their attempt to characterize the June 25 event as a “custom election.”
(For illustration of the INAC line see the Edmonton Journal’s Dec. 4th article )
The concern: INAC is using the Lubicon “leadership dispute” to impose Third Party Management
INAC claims that it “will not interfere in the internal governance issues of the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation” ( Spencer Phillippo, Direction of First Nations Relations for Treaty 8, INAC, Jan 14 2010). Yet the way in which INAC will “not interfere” is to ignore Lubicon government and replace it with a Canadian government appointee. Not interfere? INAC is using the line “not interfere” to not only interfere, but to take over.
One of the major election issues was the concern expressed by the Lubicon band membership that the activities of the previous band administration had led to the violation of the Comprehensive Funding Agreement between INAC and the Lubicon. This is the agreement that provides funding for programs and services including housing, social assistance and education. When the Lubicon community found out about the financial mismanagement this spring they elected new leaders to solve the problems created by the previous administrators. INAC has ignored the outcome of this election.
Rather, INAC has tried to legitimize an attempt by the previous chief to hold on to power , so that INAC can than claim that they do not know who to deal with. The reason INAC is doing this is simple: with no chief and council to deal with, how can INAC work with Lubicon leadership to develop an adequate plan to remedy the situation and move forward? They cannot. INAC is thus legitimized in taking drastic steps to “rescue” the Lubicon people, and those drastic steps are to move in and take over via Third Party Management.
But there is an obvious flaw in the INAC argument. There is no leadership dispute. We know it. INAC knows it. If you have been paying attention to the events in Little Buffalo since June you will know it too. There are only two reasons why any of us are still talking about the situation in Little Buffalo as a “leadership dispute”: 1) respectful outsiders feel it is not their place to get involved and 2) INAC wants to take advantage of the situation.
To be clear, there was a period of about a month where there were troubling uncertainties about Lubicon leadership. This was the period between April 29 and May 29.
On April 29 ,the scheduled Lubicon election that takes place every five years under long standing Lubicon governance policies, did not go ahead due to last minute attempts by supporters of the previous chief to change the election rules in order to disqualify his opponents. The Chief Electoral Officer - a respected, well-known man appointed by the previous Chief himself to conduct the April 29th election, and acceptable to all of Lubicon society (and who had served as the Chief Electoral Officer in a previous Lubicon election) - refused to proceed with the election under the newly changed rules. His reason was that these changes had not been sanctioned by the majority of Lubicon members, as required by traditional Lubicon self-government procedures. Thus he did not run the April 29 election and it did not take place.
On May 29 the majority of Lubicon members met in a duly called Special General Meeting of Lubicon members to discuss the proposed new membership and voter eligibility rules and to reschedule the required election. Notice of the Special General Meeting was posted 20 days in advance as required by long standing Lubicon governance policies. This is the traditional Lubicon appeals procedure. A majority of Lubicon members eligible to vote at the May 29th Special General Meeting of Members reaffirmed traditional Lubicon membership criteria and voter eligibility rules and confirmed June 5th as the date for rescheduling the election. The election then took place on June 5. We have described the outcome above.
On Third Party Management
INAC has now cut off all funds and services from the Lubicon band. INAC claims that “the goal [of Third Party Management] is to return the funding and service delivery to the Nation in the shortest time period possible" (click here to see full letter , click here to see the Jan 4 response ). This is a ridiculous claim. The new Chief and Council were elected on June 5th to resolve the outstanding funding issues. That was eight months ago. Eight months! It is INAC that has repeatedly refused to meet with elected Lubicon representatives about how to put in place a remedial management plan to restore funding and deliver services.
INAC states that the government appointed Third Party Manager “will also need some help to develop the capacity at the Lubicon Nation and train administrative staff” (click here to see full letter, Phillipo to Chief Noskey; click here to see the Jan 21 response). What they are talking about here is training a small number of Lubicon people to work for their Third Party Manager in order to ensure Canadian government control of Lubicon affairs. After all, who does INAC propose to have these trained individuals work with when the Canadian government is not prepared to recognize leaders elected by the Lubicon people? The answer is obvious. One need only look to colonial history. The government is seeking to set up a puppet regime that does not challenge the Canadian government’s access to valuable Lubicon lands and resources.
The Bottom Line
INAC’s refusal to recognize elected Lubicon leadership is a direct violation of the Lubicon people's constitutional right to self-government and the management of their own affairs. INAC must stop pretending they do not know who the elected Chief and Council are. INAC must accept the results of the June 5th election, the election where the Lubicon people decided overwhelmingly who would represent them. Finally, INAC must, without further delay, meet with the elected Lubicon Chief and Council to decide how to move forward from here.
