On August 1, the Federal Court released its judicial review of the appointment of a Third Party Manager in Attawapiskat.
For those not familiar with the different kinds of cases that come before the various courts in Canada, a judicial review is precisely that -- a court is asked to review the legality of an action or decision made by legislative and executive branches. In essence, anyone should be able to ask, "Was the government right to do this?" and receive an answer from the courts. In this case, the court's answer was, "No."
How the issue was framed in public and what the court had to say
When Charlie Angus first blogged about Attawapiskat, the initial public reaction was horror that such conditions could exist in Canada.
That reaction quickly became swallowed up by a flood of accusations about Band mismanagement and culpability. Whether you wanted to or not, discussing Attawapiskat in public meant addressing those accusations.
There are a lot of ugly national myths about First Nations based on things like misunderstanding the scope of First Nations taxation, and Treaties, as well as a lack of understanding that colonialism is not a merely historical issue.
Spoiler alert: this Federal Court decision does not magically clear away all the confusion. However, it draws our attention to the way in which misunderstandings led to and exacerbated the crisis in Attawapiskat; misunderstandings not just in the public discourse but also in the minds of those making decisions as to how to respond to the Attawapiskat's needs.
At paragraph 77 of the decision, the Court says:
"The reasonableness of the choice of remedies [i.e. appointing a Third Party Manager] is conditioned by a reasonable and accurate appreciation of the facts and a consideration of the the reasonable alternatives available."
p. 78 "...the [Assistant Deputy Minister] misunderstood the nature of the problem...what was really an operational problem. While the [Attawapiskat First Nation] were having trouble addressing the housing crisis, what they lacked was not the ability to manage their finances...but the material means to do so."
The judgment speaks to the issue of financial management a number of times:
p.24,"Despite the [Prime Minister's] comments about management, the Respondent has not produced evidence of incorrect spending or mismanagement. In fact, the reference by the Prime Minister as to the $90 million could not have related exclusively to the funds made available for housing repair or reconstruction."
p.21, "At no point prior to the appointment of the [Third Party Manager] did department officials indicate there was any problem with Band management. The Band was already under a co-management regime and no issue of Band management or financial administration was raised."
Over and over again, the Federal Court states that financial mismanagement was not the issue, and never had been. The fact that the public dialogue about Attawapiskat was almost wholly concerned with allegations of such mismanagement, demonstrates just how intensely events can become hijacked by misunderstandings.
These misunderstandings did not exist only in the minds of the "average Canadian," but also in the mind of Prime Minister Harper when he made his statement about the $90 million, and in the minds of the local bureaucrats who were desperately trying to respond to the crisis. That much is extremely clear.
It is unlikely that this finding will receive as much national attention as the initial allegations of financial malfeasance, and so unfortunately, this kind of misunderstanding becomes reinforced in the public consciousness as an obvious truth. While this might feel like a "one step forward, two steps back" situation, for me, it merely highlights how important it is to keep chipping away at the lack of understanding between native and non-native in this country. Quite literally, lives depend on us doing so.
We should not underestimate the power of public opinion, nor of public discussions
p.2,"This judicial review confirms, if such confirmation were needed, that decisions made in the glare of publicity and amidst politically charged debate do not always lead to a reasonable resolution of the relevant issue."
p.26,"It would be inaccurate to suggest that officials were insensitive or uncaring about the situation at Attawapiskat...[t]he problem seems to have been a lack of understanding of the [Attawapiskat First Nation's] needs and an intention on the part of officials to be seen to be doing something."
The glare of publicity here is not the cause of the misunderstandings so explored by the Federal Court, just as Prime Minister Harper did not create the nation-wide clamour over supposed corruption in Attawapiskat. Both merely tapped into what already existed.
However this time, native peoples were able to also engage in that public dialogue on a less uneven footing. The Attawapiskat First Nation's webpage was a veritable treasure trove of information even before its financial records were suddenly the most Googled item for a few days. More importantly, the bulk of the conversation was happening between people, not between politicians.
I do think the Federal Court is suggesting that had the crisis not become so public and politically charged, the outcome may have been more satisfactory -- but I think that might be unduly optimistic. The crisis in Attawapiskat provided a wake-up call that actually reached the ears of the nation. Had it not become so public, I doubt we would have seen such a drastic shift in public opinion in favour of not accepting as self-evident that Attawapiskat was to blame for the housing situation.
I very much believe that out here, in the public, is where the most important gains can be made. We can't wait for more Royal Commissions or for widespread curricular reform, and we certainly can't wait for the Canadian government to lead the way. Instead, we should be bringing them along with us. Word by contested word until these misunderstandings are no longer threatening lives.
So let's do this. And maybe finally we can get past the wishing for, and into the planning and building stages.
A longer version of this article was published on the author's blog, âpihtawikosisân.
Thank you for reading this story…
More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.
rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.
So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.
And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.