The leaders of the Aboriginal peoples of Canadahave called on Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper to explain hisposition on the writings and statements of Tom Flanagan, Senior Advisorto the Conservative leader and National Campaign Chair for theConservative Party.

Métis National Council President Clément Chartier, Assembly of FirstNations National Chief Phil Fontaine, and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami President Jose Kusugak are all calling on the Conservative leader toprovide a clear answer as to whether or not he agrees with theantiquated, ill-informed, regressive and offensive writings of Flanagan in articles and books such as First Nations? Second Thoughts.

“The reality is that if Flanagan was making these kinds of statementsabout any other group in Canada — Jewish, Italians, French — he would notbe given a senior role in a major national party and would more likelybe exiled into the political wilderness,” said AFN National ChiefFontaine.

“So I stand today with my fellow leaders to ask theConservative Party leader two straightforward questions: Does theConservative leader support or disavow the writings and positions of TomFlanagan on Aboriginal peoples? And what role, if any, will Flanaganplay in the Conservative Party’s Aboriginal policy?These are legitimate questions and the answers will illuminate how theConservative Party plans to deal with our people and our issues.”

Flanagan has spoken against Canada’s Constitution as it relates toAboriginal peoples and rights and has argued that the best approach forAboriginal policy is full and outright assimilation. MNC PresidentChartier notes that Flanagan has focused considerable energy insultingthe Métis, calling them an “economically marginal, incohesive assortmentof heterogeneous groups,” and has written about strategies to “minimizethe damage caused by the thoughtless elevation of the Métis to thestatus of a distinct ‘aboriginal’ people.

“The fact that Mr. Flanagan is in a position of power to influence theConservative Party is of real concern to our people and should be to allCanadians,” said Chartier. “Flanagan’s position onAboriginal peoples is one of denial, assimilation and non-recognition ofour Constitutional rights. His positions are counter to many SupremeCourt of Canada decisions, including the landmark Powley decision whichaffirmedMétis have existing Aboriginal rights protected by section 35 of theConstitution Act, 1982. We are calling on Mr. Harper to denounce Mr.Flanagan’s insulting and outdated positions.”

Kusugak stated: “We are asking these questions because weare not going to pre-judge the Conservative leader, his party or hisplatform. The Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney didsome positive things for the Inuit such as initiating the RoyalCommission on Aboriginal Peoples, settling the Nunavut land claim andcreating the territory of Nunavut. We want to know if the newConservative Party will recognize the legal and constitutional rights ofAboriginal peoples, or will it take the narrow, assimilationist ‘meltingpot’ approach that Flanagan advocates?”

Some thoughts from Tom Flanagan’s book, First Nations? SecondThoughts. (June 2000)

  • European Civilization was several thousand years more advanced than theaboriginal cultures of North America, both in technology and socialorganization.
  • Sovereignty is an attribute of statehood, and aboriginal peoples inCanada had not arrived at the state level of political organizationprior to contact with Europeans.
  • Owing to this tremendous gap in civilization, the European colonizationof North America was inevitable and, if we accept the philosophicalanalysis of John Locke and Emer de Vattel, justifiable.
  • Current public policy… is flooding reserves with money, enticingpeople back, enticing people to stay and weakening their resolve toparticipate in Canadian society.
  • Aboriginal government is fraught with difficulties stemming from smallsize, an overly ambitious agenda, and dependence on transfer payments.
  • In practice, aboriginal government produces wasteful, destructive,familistic factionalism.
  • Perhaps the damage to Canada would be tolerable if it meant thataboriginal peoples would escape from the social pathologies in whichthey are mired to become prosperous, self-supporting citizens.
  • Prosperity and self-sufficiency in the modern economy require awillingness to integrate into the economy, which means, among otherthings, a willingness to move to where jobs and investment opportunitiesexist.
  • Contemporary judicial attempts to redefine aboriginal rights areproducing little but uncertainty. Recent Supreme Court of Canadadecisions define aboriginal title in a way that will make its useimpossible in a modern economy.
  • The treaties mean what they say. Their reinterpretation… has thepotential to be both expensive and mischievous for the economies of allprovinces in which treaties have been signed.