COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: The next person who signed up is Ray Barnhardt. Ray?
(Pause.)
MR. BARNHARDT: Good morning. Ray Barnhardt from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. I also serve as a public representative on the Education Task Force for this Commission, and yesterday sat through both the morning hearing on social, cultural, and health issues, and the afternoon sessions on education; and, after listening to much of the testimony and the very often-times emotional expressions of frustration and concern that people were bringing forward to the Commission in areas that -- for those of you who have been involved in these kinds of task forces, and commissions, and hearings over the years, have heard many times over and over. And it seems to me that we need to really push this time around to dig a little deeper than we typically do in searching for solutions to problems which seem to be perpetual, perennial, recycling of the same issues, with new players and new solutions put forward; but, in the long run, the same problems continue to resurface.
I think there are a number of elements
that go into this; reasons why we can't seem to come up with
solutions that have long-term results. One of that -- one
of those elements is what has been, and continues to be,
a factor, not only in Alaska but in other countries where
there is significant numbers of Native people, trying to
deal with a government structure that is largely non-Native;
and that is that there’s a major gap between the community
level and private-sector kind of initiative and concerns,
and the public-sector institutions that regulate, and govern,
and administer programs and services that impact those private-sector
concerns. So that it's like they're two different worlds
co-existing, but having fairly limited contact with one another,
except in the regulatory fashion.
And there are a number things I'd like to throw out as suggestions or ideas, based on opportunities that I've had to work with similar situations in other countries where there are indigenous people struggling to address this same kinds of concerns. And in some ways, moving ahead; in other cases, possibly lagging behind, where we are in Alaska.
And, specifically, there are initiatives that have taken place just within the last decade; and, in some cases, within the last year; and, in one case, right next door in Canada, that's taking place right now with an election coming up here on the October 26 that has to do with a major significant revamping of the Canadian Constitution to include, if you look at it, probably the most forward, far reaching effort to implement aboriginal self-government at a constitutional level. And it's not the first, nor will it be the last such initiative; but if you look at the processes that have led up to this initiative in Canada, as well as to the establishment of Home Rule in Greenland; the establishment of a Sami (ph.) Parliament in Norway, and I guess it's Sweden, and Finland; the establishment of a major shift of resources and authority in New Zealand to Mowery people under a policy called Devolution, where they eventually did away with the Department of Mowery Affairs and shifted all the responsibilities and resources that had been covered by that Ministry to Mowery Trust Boards, in effect, Native non-profit corporation in the Alaskan context.
Similarly, in Canada, the government, last year established a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Affairs, which has much the same charge as this Commission has to review and come up with recommendations as a three-year mandate; and they're in their second year now -- recommendations regarding all aspects of aboriginal affairs in Canada, and looking at a complete rewrite of the Indian Act, part of that being wrapped into this constitutional revision that is currently under consideration.
The constitutional revision over there is a product of a tug of war that's been going on between Quebec and the rest of Canada over Quebec's sovereignty -- or Quebec effort to achieve what they call a distinct society.
And the Native people have been able to use that opening to assert their own interests in a way that is now going to be, I think, in terms of indigenous people across the world -- other than possibly Greenland with the Home Rule Government -- is going to be the foremost example of Native self-government. The effect of that is to bring into the hands of Native people, control over public-sector institutions, regulatory regimes, government functions and services in ways that have heretofore not even been considered possible. And I think that we can expect, with some assurance, that similar kinds of pressures and considerations are going to drift across the border, probably sooner rather than later.
And what I would suggest is that this Commission convene a meeting, where you invite representatives from these other countries, who have been involved in the establishment of Home Rule in Greenland; the Sami (ph.) -- development of the Sami (ph.) Parliament; the Devolution Policy in Mowery terms. There are similar things going on with aborigines in Australia and the persons involved with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Affairs in Canada; and before final recommendations are made, have a meeting with them, and look at the range of possible institutional alternatives that might be available to address some of the issues that we keep skirting around, or playing around with the edges -- playing around the edges on.
And we'll always -- we'll continue to have these issues before Commissions like this until we have a stable representative set of institutions that can deal with these issues in a way that is much more responsive to Native concerns; and not spending most of the efforts and energy listening yesterday to the pleas, the very articulate expression of frustration and concern that Rachel Craig brought forward, for example, in the area of health and social services.
And having heard those in the -- over the 20 years I've been here, just repeatedly, just year after year, we're never going to resolve those problems until we get beyond the point of spending all of our time having to explain to someone else why it's a problem; and look for a solution outside the community, outside the hands of the people who are, themselves, res -- experiencing these problems. And that, to me, means going beyond the corporations and even tribal government, and creating eventually something along the lines of what's -- amounts in Canada to a third form of government they're going to be establishing; along with the federal and provincial governments, an aboriginal-government structure that transcends Canada.
And something of a comparable nature, sooner or later, is going to have to be considered in Alaska. And I think when Senator Stevens, a few minutes ago, was -- for the first time that I've heard him at least, expressing the need for some form of sovereignty and tribal authority in rural Alaska, that the doors may be opening in a way that this Commission could explore options that might not have been possible even a year or two ago. So I would encourage you as a starting point for that to make contact with some of these other countries; people -- the Native people in these other places, who are addressing the same issues that this Commission is attempting to address; and have, in some cases, made some headway that we could build on. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Barnhardt. Questions of Mr. Barnhardt?
COMMISSIONER SEBESTA: Just one. Do you have the contact people that we might approach? And, if you do, maybe you could leave a list of those people with the recorder.
MR. BARNHARDT: I can do that, and I can provide you some of the documents -- the draft constitutional revisions and things of that nature if there's any interest.
COMMISSIONER SEBESTA: Yeah, that would be very helpful, yeah.
MR. BARNHARDT: Sure.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: And this is a great suggestion. John?
MR. SHIVELY: Yeah, just a comment. I was in Vancouver last week; and, of course, since they vote on the constitution, I think, next week, it's the big topic of conversation; and the Vancouver paper -- no, I guess it was the Toronto paper ran a poll and they had sort of -- the constitution is very cons -- controversial; and, at this point, it's anybody's guess whether it's going to be adopted, somewhat because of the Quebec provisions and some changes in the Senate they're making.
But they did poll on the question of what
people thought about Native self-government provisions on
the constitution; and it was interesting that nationally
56 percent of the people they polled supported that pan-of
the constitution, although the further west you got -- in
other words, the closer to most of the Indians and Eskimos,
the less the support was; but it - - Ray’s right. It is going
to be interesting to -- assuming the constitution is adopted
-- to see how all that works.
MR. BARNHARDT: Right.
I think you're very right. I was in Canada the year that
this all came to a head on a sabbatical leave, working with
First Nations group out of British Columbia; and the shift
in public attitude that happened just over the period of
the nine months that was there was amazing. And it -- I
think
it's quite clear that the issues associated with aboriginal
self-government that are in the mandate are going to go
forward even if the constitutional provisions, which are
tied in
mostly to the Quebec issue, were voted down. I think there
is general enough support for that that it will not be
able to be turned back even if the rest of the constitutional
change isn't implemented. So having something like that
going
on next door, it seems to me, could be a -- the -- a basis
for exploring options here that might not otherwise be
considered reasonable.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Barnhardt. And if you would leave those names, and contacts, and papers, we'd, I'm sure, be glad to follow up with 'em. Thank you for your suggestion --
MR. BARNHARDT: Will do.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: -- and your testimony.
MR. BARNHARDT: Thank you.
(BACKUP TO TESTIMONY OF RAY BARNHARDT ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT #1)
This document was ocr scanned. We have made every
attempt to keep the online document the same as the original,
including the recorder's original misspellings or typos.
