Drawing on the observations she makes both in the region and in the city, Wendat ethnologist, author and speaker Isabelle Picard examines the issues that shape our world.
Few people know that before contact between Aboriginal people and Europeans, and even before the imposition of Indian Act which will change indigenous political systems around 1876, decision-making among several of these nations, including mine, was done by consensus.
There were of course clan chiefs (among us, the Wendat, there were eight clans, there are four remaining) who took care of the day-to-day affairs of the clans and also their representation within the various councils. However, all adult men could express their opinion during assemblies. On all the decisions to be made.
And women? The women, the clan mothers, were the ones who chose the leaders and who could remove them from their positions in the event of failure. In Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) societies, early writings mention strong women who also had the right to speak during councils. It could not have been otherwise with us.
Obviously, when decisions are made by consensus, the process is long. You must stand out, know how to present your ideas, be a good speaker and, above all, convince. You must also and above all know how to find compromises, an essential element for maintaining harmony and contact with the group.
Let’s face it, in such a form of freedom of expression, things could have turned into anarchism. However, this was not the case.
This freedom could not have been complete in a society which did not respect the elements which surrounded it, the others, the established societal codes. However, if there is one strength that emerges from all traditional indigenous values, it is, in my opinion, that of respect. Without it, everything would have collapsed. But it worked.
In this form of political system, consensus is even more democratic than democracy as we know it. We also recognize that the American Declaration of Independence was strongly inspired by the philosophy of the Enlightenment, itself inspired by the indigenous philosophies of the New World which are described as the sparks of this revolution. This influence was also felt in Canada and Quebec.
However, in 2024, what about this political heritage within our democratic institutions? Where is the power of the people, except in the ballot box once every four years or in the streets when things don’t go the way people want them to? I wonder.
We understand that consensus is almost impossible in our large societies. What is not, however, is taking the time it takes to do things well and to know how to listen to the population.
On Tuesday, Thomas Gerbet, journalist at Radio-Canada, told us that provincial officials were expressing their reluctance and unease about the political management of the Northvolt file, particularly in connection with the pressure they are under to avoid examination of the Office of public hearings on the environment (BAPE).
Remember that the BAPE was created in 1978 by the very first Minister of the Environment of Quebec, Marcel Léger, for whom the citizen had to be an “indispensable partner in the decision-making process concerning projects that could have an impact on its environment,” we read on the institution’s website. Mr. Léger was right. If there is one ministry that should be even more democratic than the others, it is that of the Environment. However, because we must not lose momentum in the battery sector, in particular, we now seem to forget our principles, wanting to move forward too quickly.
I tell you straight away, I wonder what this Ministry of the Environment is for these days. I only have to think of caribou or Northvolt to convince myself of this. That being said, what can the population do to express their disagreement and change things, if not through their own democratic institutions, precisely supposed to protect them? When we bypass these processes, these systems, there is, for me, a whole problem.
For several weeks, part of the population of an entire region, going from Dalhousie, in New Brunswick, to Gesgapegiag, in Quebec (English-speaking, French-speaking and Aboriginal people), has been trying as best they can to make themselves heard to stop a project open-air pozzolan mine (a volcanic rock) in Baie-des-Hérons, New Brunswick, just a few kilometers from Gaspésie. Petitions, rallies, demonstrations, representations to the municipal council, all to express themselves and stop the project.
The main issue? Health, of course. That of humans, animals, salmon and other fish, trees, plants… This is because in pozzolan, there is silica and it is recognized that silica reduced to fine particles floats in the air very long, causing significant respiratory issues and other health problems. This is without mentioning the pollution, social effects, etc. Yes, it’s happening in New Brunswick, but the consequences of mines are not delimited by borders. Where is Quebec in all this? I’m looking for him.
However, we vote for a government and a municipal council that should have our interests at heart.
Where do the promises of environmental protection go once the candidates are elected? Along a party line? In what we call economic development?
When the government does not respect the values of the group, as if it were thinking for itself, right away, now, and not for generations to come, we are witnessing the end of something that could have been really good, but which has been replaced with corners by what we could call… a democratic facade.
What do you think? Express your opinion