Matthew Wildcat, an associate professor and director of Indigenous Governance in the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta, discusses the recent meeting between First Nations and government leaders, as well as the Indigenous turnout to Alberta’s referendum, with Alberta Primetime host Michael Higgins. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Michael Higgins: Let’s start with this massive roundtable, the first meeting of First Nations and Canada’s prime minister in two decades, and the first, I understand, in a century or more where the focus was specifically on First Nations issues. So was this productive? Was this performative? Matthew Wildcat: These are very difficult meetings to get really dynamic, constructive dialogues where a lot of things are changing. I think most of the work will happen behind closed doors. These things are probably important in a symbolic way. Something like this, it takes a bunch of work and time and effort. MH: How did Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s absence from the meeting land? MW: It’s really surprising because it doesn’t cost her a lot to go to these things and to be present. It also, though, puts her in a position where she has to then talk to the First Nation chiefs from Alberta, and she’s been really hesitant to do that. Obviously, the results of the referendum show there is a very deep divide between how First Nations people are thinking about politics in Alberta and non-Indigenous Albertans.The relationship probably is at a historic low point between First Nations and the province, and I wonder if it’s an indication that she doesn’t want to put herself in the line of fire for difficult questions. MH: Wab Kinew, Manitoba’s premier, raised the idea of abolishing the Indian Act. The prime minister says he shares the premier’s view. In French, he called it a racist law, and he appears motivated to move beyond it. Where do you see that conversation going? Is it about abolishing? Is it about reforming? What comes of this? MW: I think everyone would like to get rid of it – but, of course, for different reasons. And when people want to get rid of it for different reasons, it does lead to a stalemate, which I think is why the Indian Act tends to be so resilient. Part of that for First Nations, sometimes there is a reluctance to get rid of the Indian Act because previously, when the government tried to get rid of the Indian Act – and this the senior Trudeau government – getting rid of the Indian Act also meant abolishing status for First Nations people and getting rid of reserves, as well, and was in fact supposed to be the end goal of a policy of assimilation. So there’s some hesitancy around getting rid of the Indian Act because it does enshrine First Nations rights and status in many ways, and so it has to be replaced with something. What it gets replaced with is not so easy, and it has been actually replaced piecemeal in all of these different areas, oftentimes, to do with land rights and economic activity. Sometimes people also, for different self-government agreements and agreements around services like education and child welfare, have also eaten into the Indian Act. But in conclusion, it’s not an easy piece of legislation to just end tomorrow. MH: What is your big takeaway from the Indigenous vote in Alberta’s referendum? MW: The results were overwhelming. If we look at Métis settlements and on-reserve polling stations, right now the numbers we’re getting is around 95 per cent of Indigenous peoples in the province voted for Option 1 to remain in Canada. If you go and you do a deep dive on some First Nation reserves. The numbers are, in fact, overwhelming. So in southern Alberta, in the Cardston-Siksika riding, if you go look at Siksika and in Kainai, the vote … comes out to 98.5 per cent of voters wanting to remain in Canada. In fact, the Cardston-Siksika vote, if you remove the on-reserve polling stations, their numbers would have shown that a majority of people in that riding would have left if you just remove the on-reserve polling stations. MH: Is this about mobilizing votes? Is it anxiety? Even anger for having to go through this process? What do you see driving such significant numbers? MW: It’s a concern about the treaty relationship between First Nations and Canada. We signed those treaties with the British Crown and those were considered to be sacred agreements. And so there’s a deep anxiety about the possibility of Alberta leaving for the wellbeing of our nations and our communities. And I think that’s what really drove it. But also there was a real grassroots movement around this Indigenous Rock the Vote campaign to be able to get people out to the polls. I’m not sure if this enthusiasm will last to future provincial elections, but certainly it was a strong indication. MH: Is this good reason for political parties, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum, to sit up and take note? MW: In this instance, you have an overwhelming consensus from First Nations voting the same. We don’t know if that’s going to be the same in provincial elections. Also, though, it requires the urgency and motivation to get people out to vote. Obviously, I think the NDP are in a better position than the UCP in order to establish that relationship, but it would require a ton of effort and groundwork. And when you look at the numbers overall, these numbers are significant. But in a first-past-the-post system, where you get mixed in with the entire riding, it’s not clear that the First Nations vote could swing a bunch of ridings. And it would require an immense amount of effort to get people to all vote the same.
