I want to address two fallacies — that "white people have no right to interfere in First Nations business" and that First Nations leaders "should be allowed to learn from their own mistakes."

The following are quotations from Judge David Arnot’s "Statement of Treaty Issues: Treaties as a Bridge to the Future," Saskatoon: Treaty Commissioner for Saskatchewan, 1988:

"Certain words and phrases in the First Nations’ languages contain concepts of how First Nations would live together and build relations among themselves, and with others such as with the Crown and her subjects. In Cree these concepts include Askeew Pim Atchi howin (making a living off the land); Wah kooh toowin (laws of familial relationships and the respective duties and responsibilities); Meyo Weecheh towin (principles of good relations); and Wi Taski Win (living on the land in harmony).

"The concepts and principles of good relations expanded the circle to include family, community, and other First Nations, and beyond that to relations with the newcomers. These principles embodied the essential elements for constructing good relations.

"There were also well established spiritual traditions, which became an essential part of creating diplomatic and trade relations with the Europeans ... Both parties had committed themselves to a mutual life-giving relationship. The nature of the treaty relationship is familial as well. (p. 13)

"Brother to Brother Relations: Treaty First Nations saw the treaty arrangements as a partnership in which the two parties live together as brothers side by side. They emphasized that the treaties were made in an atmosphere of mutual respect, and that the parties made solemn commitments to live in peace and to help one another.

"They also stressed that the treaties began a relationship which requires that both parties benefit, that both parties are involved in decision-making, and that consultation occurs regularly to ensure that the relationship remains strong. (p. 41) “

"It (the federal government) recognizes that the treaties define fundamental aspects of the continuing relationship between Canada and Treaty First Nations and that they are important instruments guiding the way to a shared future for First Nations and other Canadians." (p. 63)

The above quotations are based upon elders’ interpretations of treaties and make it clear the intention of First Nations was to develop a close partnership with European settlers based upon mutual respect and assistance. From that perspective, the attitude of many federal and provincial officials today (including Indian Affairs, provincial politicians and some university administrators) that "First Nations need to be allowed to make their own mistakes and learn from them" is not in correspondence with the relationship intended above.

If one is part of a family, is it appropriate for parents or siblings to say "let her make her own mistakes and she can learn from them?" Of course not. Responsible families care for one another and seek to offer advice and protection when needed.

The relationship between governments and First Nations has gone from one extreme to the other since the 1970s. First Nations went from living under a dictatorial system in which they weren’t allowed to make any of their own decisions, to a situation today where government officials are hesitant to make any criticisms or try to intervene in any way to correct mistakes that First Nations’ officials make.

But what type of situation is created when one’s family or the authorities dismiss poor or malicious decisions by simply saying: "That’s okay that you made a mistake. We won’t say anything or do anything anyway. Hopefully you will learn from your mistakes." It should come as no surprise then that some First Nations’ leaders and organizations would begin to misuse government funding because they realize there will be little or no consequences.

It is essential that First Nations’ leaders be held accountable for their actions, including what has happened at the First Nations University of Canada. In light of the above elders’ interpretation, it is certainly not against the spirit of the treaties for mainstream society’s officials to become involved in giving advice on what the problems are and how they can be rectified. Everyone is in real trouble when First Nations’ leaders in positions of power, who are not experts in such matters, nonetheless think they can create a better university without input or advice from "outsiders." Much of the success experienced by the First Nations University (formerly Saskatchewan Indian Federated College) is simply because of a willingness to learn from "siblings" in the type of treaty relationship described above.

Blair Stonechild is head of Indigenous Studies at the First Nations University of Canada.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of CAUT.