Joseph Quesnel’s Article
“AFN-gate shows we need independent aboriginal media.” – First Perspective, March 22, 2011
This article implies that truth is compromised by protecting political loyalties to first nations organizations, therefore being biased to independent and objective to newspaper reporting. The issue in this article is more than the perceived relationship between the AFN National Chief and the former advisor to the prime minister. The issue should be how business and industries capitalize on first nations funding resources to access government funding to first nations is big business not only to first nations but to people who have influence and connections to the decision making process of government funding. The public is only aware that first nations receive billions of government funding. The public and reporters should be more aware how much funding really reaches the first nations people. The concern should be are those that benefit like political advisors, business and industry that provides second hand hand produscts and material. The classic example is is the housing industry where low grade material is shipped to first nations that are purchased with the intent of first grade material. This article only touches the negative appearance of the AFN national chiefs with former political advisor to the government. The report should also consider that there are hundreds of middlemen that benefit from first nations funding. there is no arguementof quesnel’s suggestion that reporting should be independent and objective, but it should also be suggested that newspaper of negative reporting sells. Also reporters have to make a living by selling their articles for business. First Perspective is to be commended by it’s attempt to report on first nations issues whether they are good or bad in a balanced way. To bring truth to any first nations issues more underlying background to the issues should be adequately researched to bring the real truth. There is always the spirit and intent of any issue.
This article is in response to Joseph Quesnel’s article January 22nd, 2009, “Free Aboriginal Education is Not a Treaty Entitlement”.
The title of this article is misleading because the Federal Government provides transfer payments to First Nations and the provinces. The word ‘free’ is misleading in two ways. Not only First Nations get this “free” money and there were no reserves at the time of treaty making.
At the time of treaty, the federal government did not have a policy on education. How can elementary and post secondary apply at Treaty discussions? Treaty was about land transfer that created obligation and responsibility to First Nations and government.
The responsibility of government, depending on the treaty, included the provision of implements. Seed, farm animals, annuities, as well as the education of aboriginal children based on the system of that day. Conversely, Aboriginal peoples responsibility were to move to reserve lands as agreed upon to farm not to take up arms against the crown.
Treaties are a two way process. Education funding has a legal status in contribution agreements. The word free money applies to all in Canada by virtue of transfer agreements.
Culture of entitlement applies to the provinces and municipalities as well. Treaty has a legal and constitutional protection, therefore to change post secondary education funding to the province will provide constitutional change.
Joseph Quesnel is obviously not informed of the legal rights to first nations especially in reference to education. He confuses policy rights over constitutional rights. This article only benefits to a conservative view and the mainstream public.
Joseph Quesnel says treaties “should not be liberally interpreted with historic revisionism to include entitlements never envisioned.” Quesnel should not write articles making his own personal interpretations of treaties envisioning it, ‘likely was intended to mean lower education’ on reserves. Treaties were meant to pursue whatever dream one might have. Look what non-aboriginal benefitted off treaties, billions of dollars off land and resources.
(Did we envision that non aboriginals would benefit from the treaties in this way, the evolution of it? It can be paralleled education. )
It could be argued that everyone in this weathly country should be entitled to “free” education. Countries such as Denmark, and the United Arab Empirates provide similar “free” education.
Emphasize that education is a treaty right and what this means for First Nations
Talk about the fact that education is the key overcoming the challenges that First Nations face and that investing in education is the most critical investment that governments can make in children and youth, provide training and education that leads to successful outcomes, economic and social development that will benefit all people.
Education should not been seen as an “entitlement” as Quesnal argues rather a right that is embedded in the provisions of Treaty.
Make appoint of the misunderstanding that bands receive large sums of dollars to fund post secondary when they are only able to fund a handful of students every year
Many communities can only fund a small portion of students that have met the criteria to be funded. The criteria usually funds A students so what happens with the B and C students?
Schools on reserve only receive one third the funding that provincial schools receive. Make a point of what this means for the lack of quality education per student
Also make a point of infrastructure for schools on reserve. In Manitoba there are 3 schools that have closed recently due to poor infrastructure and mold issues that are making students ill.
In Manitoba there are over 1000 students on a waiting list for post-secondary funding.
No comments:
Post a Comment