AFN’s C-53 Rationale: Implications of Political Overreach in Vermont

A commentary published in VTDigger on Jan. 11, 2023

A close reading of this Assembly of First Nations position statement about Bill C-53 makes it clear where the W8banaki organization (formerly the Grand Conseil de la Nation Waban-Aki Inc - founded in 1979 as a Tribal Council composed of the Abenaki bands of Odanak and Wôlinak) is taking its cues in devising an anti-VT-recognized Abenaki strategy.

“Bill C-53 must be withdrawn, and the Government of Canada must properly engage and consult with First Nations rights holders about the potential impacts this legislation will have on their inherent, Treaty, and section 35 Charter rights,” said AFN Interim National Chief Joanna Bernard (succeeded now by Cindy Woodhouse). “We need to develop a respectful First Nations-led process that ensures all impacts of this legislation are thoroughly considered.”

This position is outlined well inside the constructs of the [Canadian] Indian Act of 1867 - with its subsequent amendments and additions - that created the Federal-Aboriginal relationship system that gave eventually gave rise to the Assembly of First Nations in 1982. The significance of this standing within the Canadian Federal Indian Act is critical to contextualizing much of the current political maneuvers, and awareness of such appears to be lacking in much of the media coverage of the Abenakis Grand Counseil - Vermont state-recognized Abenaki bands. Instead, the platform offered by that enfranchised status is accepted at face value, without political, historical, and sociological backgrounding.

It is worth noting that the Indian Act is seen as deeply flawed by many observers, such as this quote from the Indigenous Foundations website at the University of British Columbia, stating “The Indian Act is a part of a long history of assimilation policies that intended to terminate the cultural, social, economic, and political distinctiveness of Aboriginal peoples by absorbing them into mainstream Canadian life and values.” Further, “the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) still faces challenges from some within the First Nations community. An ongoing problem is the perceived nature of the relationship between the AFN and the Canadian government, which some critics allege is too “cosy.” Working within the Candian government’s self-assumed system of “Indian” oversight and administration (and this is the case over the border in the USA, as well, with its own assertion of plenary powers), the AFN “…advocates for the establishment of mechanisms and processes with the Government of Canada and provinces/territories that respect the inherent and Treaty rights, title, and jurisdiction of First Nations.” (emphasis added). These definitions are self-referrent, and reify those constructs to the exclusion of other, very real lived realities, whether in Canada or the US.

To be federally recognized as an Indian either in Canada or the United States, an individual must be able to comply with very distinct standards of government regulation… The Indian Act in Canada, in this respect, is much more than a body of laws that for over a century have controlled every aspect of Indian life. As a regulatory regime, the Indian Act provides ways of understanding Native identity, organizing a conceptual framework that has shaped contemporary Native life in ways that are now so familiar as to almost seem “natural.” –Bonita Lawrence

AFN, and its Band Council members at W8banaki, Inc., understandably want to protect thier vested interests. In the case of Bill C-53, this takes the form of stating that “Bill C-53 includes broad sweeping recognition of the Métis inherent right to self-government. No such broad recognition of First Nations inherent rights to self-government or jurisdiction currently exists in legislation. On the contrary, First Nations are forced to prove they possess inherent rights to self-government and jurisdiction through costly and time-consuming legal processes. Bill C-53 will therefore create a preferential standard with respect how the inherent rights of Métis governments and First Nations are upheld and implemented.” That same self-interest is seen with the imagined loss of potential political benefit over the border in Vermont, due to the state’s recognition of descendant communities here. It should be made clear that this “divide-and-conquer” power-politics dynamic need not be the case. There is no animosity directed northward toward the individuals and communities in Quebec (or elsewhere, for that matter, since we are all subject to the diaspora of dys-connection). Rather, the need to move away from hierarchy and hegemony - and toward restoration and reconnection, especially with “All of Our Relations”, human and more-than-human - is more obvious than ever. This is not a zero-sum question, when it comes down to progressive rebuilding of historical lived relationships-in-place. These are patterns of behavior that need to change dramatically, and soon, for the well-being of all who are here, and those yet to come.

This aggressive gamesmanship is a national-scale internecine debate, being carried out through imposed Federal systems of domination in Canada (and concurrently in the US, under its own assumptions, frameworks, and concomitant enfranchisements) and the Abenakis First Nations Grand Council is reaching over the border with these actions, by extension. These motivations are readily understood as firmly entrenched in Canadian Federal policy with its adherents, and the disinformation campaign brought here is an attempt to insinuate to the VT public that the arguments apply beyond their reach, both legally and ethically. The logic is deeply flawed, but the lack of comprehension - due to an unsurprising lack of education - of colonized politics makes it appear rather believable. On this matter, Vermont has already begun to do better and should continue that learning journey of self-examination, and within the broader inter-national context, finding a way forward with understanding rather than doubling down on polemics.