Year: 2010

This blog is somewhat related to my last one in that it involves another look at Conservative Party mentality and specifically that of Minister Duncan, Parliamentary Secretary Glover, and Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau. On Tuesday, September 21, 2010, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, held a press conference explaining that the current gap in educational and employment rates between First Nations and other Canadians is not only unfair, but could be addressed by proper funding in education. He argued that a more equitable level of education funding, if invested now, would lead to $179 billion in return to Canada in terms of Gross Domestic Product. Liberal and NDP leaders added that it was a matter of fundamental justice. Atleo later appeared on Parliament Hill as part of the national week of action of First Nations education. His call for reconciliation and proper investment in First Nations education was cheered on by various First Nation participants. He highlighted the atrocities of the residential school system and how education had been used as a tool of oppression. He called on Canada to help First Nations access education as a tool of freedom and empowerment. The core message is one that has even been echoed even by right-wing thinkers like Calvin Helin, Tom Flanagan, Allan Cairns and others: education is empowerment and would address a great many social issues in First Nations. So, then, what is the problem? Atleo has explained that the current funding cap on education, which causes great inequality between First Nations and other Canadians, is not only unjust but prevents First Nations from furthering our genius, intelligence and greatness. On the same day, Senator Brazeau responded with a “Senate of Canada” YouTube video from the Senate Chambers on Parliament Hill which some claim has portrayed First Nations as unaccountable and discriminatory. He further calls for a stop to all funding to First Nations and Aboriginal organizations until they can account or prove that they are achieving measurable outcomes. From his position of privilege in the Senate chamber, Brazeau argued that the current system favours “Aboriginal elites” and fosters a “sense of entitlement”. The response which followed was not surprising. First Nation leaders called Brazeau’s comments unfounded and insulting. The talk amongst some academics seemed to question whether his video criticizing First Nations was an appropriate function of the Senate. I personally question whether or not he has gone too far this time. The video he posted was highly critical of First Nations, although obviously carefully worded. It was shot from the Senate Chamber, which to my knowledge, is reserved for Senate business. Also, the video itself used the Senate namesake and symbol, and all copyright belongs to the Senate. While I am aware that there are a good number of Senators who work with Canadians and social groups to advocate for positive change to the environment, law, justice, and other social issues, I am not aware of any Senator who has used Senate resources to publically attack or criticize specific groups in society, like First Nations. I am not the only one who wondered whether this was appropriate. In a recent APTN article, APTN noted that Minister Duncan had “distanced” himself from Senator Brazeau and his remarks. APTN reported that Mnister Duncan said that Senator Brazeau’s call for a “freeze” on funding to First Nations and organizations does not represent the views of the Conservative Government. While this clarification on behalf of the Minister was well-received, it was unfortunately, very short-lived. As part of a political panel held on APTN News on Thursday, September 30, 2010, the Parliamentary Secretary Shelly Glover was asked about Senator Brazeau’s comments on accountability. She was very clear in her response that she was in agreement with Brazeau’s comments. Not only was she in agreement with Brazeau on First Nations accounting for INAC funds, but for “all funds” which come from the government as it is comprised of “tax payer” funds. She also stated that there were “some indications” that the Conservative government has to take steps to make sure accountability is achieved – the implication being that they are not. Her comments are reminiscent of those of the former Minister of INAC, Chuck Strahl, who often made comments which insinuated that First Nations were plagued with corruption and a lack of accountability. Of course, the implication in Glover’s remarks are that First Nations are not accountable. MP Todd Russell said Senator Brazeau’s comments were “outrageous” and explained that these comments only serve to paint all First Nations with the “same brush”. He further explained that Senator Brazeau was a “mouth piece” for the Conservatives and that Brazeau was not accountable for his own inappropriate actions and statements made against First Nations and individuals who appear as witnesses for the Senate committees. NDP MP Jean Crowder agreed and added that Senator Brazeau’s comments promoted a “stereotype” against First Nations which is not true, as the Auditor General herself has found that First Nations DO account for their funding. First Nations themselves, including the Assembly of First Nations have said they have no problem accounting for their funds and have called for even better mechanisms by which to do so. Crowder also highlighted the fact that when Brazeau left the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples it was investigated for its own serious accountability issues. CAP’s upcoming Annual General Meeting in November may well reveal even more issues left behind from Brazeau days. So, which is it? Do Senator Brazeau’s comments reflect the position of the Conservative government or not? If they do represent the conservative position, then the Duncan-Glover flip flop shows a serious lack of transparency on the part of the Conservatives and raises trust issues let alone a revelation of their true stripes. If they do not represent the conservative position, then the Conservatives better reign in their new Parliamentary Secretary. They can’t have it both ways. I guess we’ll have to wait and see…

I am writing this blog today not only because of my increasing concern with regards to the number of bills which are being pushed through the House and Senate without any consultation with First Nations, but also because of the folks pushing these bills. Specifically, I am talking about the Prime Minister’s newest crew of people at the highest levels who not only advise him about “Indian Affairs” but who also administer Indian Affairs. Previously, PM Harper had Tom Flanagan as his Chief of Staff (COS). Mr. Flanagan as we all know, has written several controversial books and articles related to First Nations which more or less advocate for their eventual assimilation. In his view, any concept of special constitutional rights for First Nations is unjustified. He views First Nations concepts of communal property as both “primitive” and communist”. Now he is advocating for the whole-sale privatization of reserve lands to free them up for sale. One might say – well he is not the COS anymore, so why should that matter? Great question.. It matters firstly because it demonstrates that the Conservative Party has allowed itself to be influenced more by its right-wing thinkers (think Reform Party) than those who think more broadly or with open minds. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it matters because PM Harper has now surrounded himself with right-wing thinkers and those who have publically spoken out against First Nations in ways which have been described as racist or demeaning. These same people are now administering Indian Affairs in Canada. As you all know, the new Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) is MP John Duncan. He comes from an enforcement-type background having worked on Pacific Fisheries issues in BC. As MP, Duncan was very vocal against First Nations being able to exercise their constitutionally protected Aboriginal right to fish. To his mind, the First Nations fishery amounted to nothing more than a “race-based” fishery that was illegal. While some might question whether one comment is enough to paint the whole picture, I would point out that Duncan was also very vocal against the Nisga’a Self-Government agreement as well. This isn’t a situation where Duncan made a comment in the heat of the moment that he regretted and for which he later apologized. Duncan has not, from what I have seen, indicated that he has had any significant change of heart with regard to First Nations. If there was any doubt about how he feels now that he is Minister of INAC, I would refer readers to recent media which quote Duncan as saying that his priority is to ensure that First Nations have the “same” opportunities as other Canadians – ignoring of course that their rights are not the “same” but are constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights which include their inherent right to be self-governing. If this were not enough, the new Parliamentary Secretary for INAC is Shelly Glover who also comes from an enforcement background. She worked for 19 years in the police force. Yet, she has been referred to as Canada’s version of Sarah Palin for her lack of capacity in terms of politics. For example, in an effort to distance herself from Tom Flanagan, she tried to claim that she had no idea who he actually was or if he was even Canadian. Even the interviewer laughed and found it as incredulous as the rest of us that she could be a conservative MP and not know that Tom Flanagan was PM Harper’s former COS. If she did know, her attempted deception was unsuccessful. If she didn’t know, the conservatives had better be concerned. But again, we cannot judge a politician on one major flub up. What else do we know? She claims to be a Metis person affiliated with a Metis organization, although I could not find any information about her actual participation in the Metis community or how recent her self-identification is/was. What I did find were many media articles which described her as a “hard-nosed” and tough police officer especially with Aboriginal gangs. She is also supportive of tougher criminal laws and supports more money for prisons. This of course should be of great concern to First Nations who are already over-represented in provincial jails, under-represented on jury pools, and have been subjected to racial profiling, discriminatory treatment by law enforcement, and deaths while in police custody. So, you might say that is only INAC and PM Harper has shown that he is a one-man band and so we should be more concerned about what the PM thinks than what his Ministers think. OK, so let’s look at PM Harper’s own Parliamentary Secretary, Pierre Poilievre. He has been described in the media as an “attack dog” and for using racist terminology in the House (that I will not repeat here) and refusing to apologize for it. However, he is most well-known for his comments made literally hours before the Residential Schools Apology where he made stereotypical comments against Aboriginal people saying they needed to learn the value of hard work more than they needed compensation and asked whether Canadians were “really getting value for all this money”. What does this mean for Aboriginal-Crown relations in Canada? From my perspective, these key figures in the Harper government have significant influence over laws and policies which relate to First Nations and even how they are portrayed in the media. These right-wing ideologies don’t change overnight and there has been no indication that any of these individuals have backed away from their strongly held views. This has resulted in a major shift back to paternalistic ways of dealing with First Nations which presents a significant challenge to First Nations who are still struggling to deal with the legacies left by former paternalistic policy days. But it is not just the current legislative initiatives that should cause us concern. It all started with the conservative rejection of the Kelowna Accord which was intended to address the very serious health, education and employment gaps between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians. It has continued with the paternalistic suite of legislation going through the House and Senate and is even evident here in Ontario. In Ontario, the federal government’s resistance to negotiating with First Nations and Ontario regarding the HST meant a protracted and tense situation that played more to the public than to the parties at hand. As well, INAC imposed an Indian Act election and government on the Algonquins of Barriere Lake despite them having legally opted out of the Indian Act election provisions long ago. What is on the horizon? I think we can expect that as Aboriginal women win court cases, like in McIvor’s case, Canada will reduce benefits so that their victories are empty. I also think that Flanagan’s original assimilatory plans will be implemented under the guise of “progress” like the current plans to privatize reserve lands and make them available for sale to non-Indians as well as Bill S-4 which would create new interests in reserve lands for non-Indians. Bill S-4 also reintroduces the concept of Indian agent under the new name of “Verifier” despite the near unanimous objections of First Nations and Aboriginal women alike. If First Nations let themselves be divided or wooed by promises of funding for various projects, we could see permanent large scale assimilation and loss of reserve lands. A famous TV psychologist once said – if someone is trying to tell you who they are and what they are all about – then listen. In this case, I would ask First Nations to listen to what the conservative party has said but also match that to what they have done. The conservative plan is still the assimilation of First Nations. The only difference being that they have learned from Flanagan’s mistakes and have obviously decided to implement their plans less overtly.

This blog provides another excerpt from my doctoral thesis that I am currently converting into a book for publication. This section deals with the second generation cut-off rule in the Indian Act, 1985 that was not specifically challenged by Sharon McIvor in her court case. To my mind, the descent provisions in the Act are essentially blood quantum formulas that perpetuate colonial, racist ideologies about what it meant to be a “real” Indian. Ongoing racist ideologies about the identities of Aboriginal peoples is the underlying problem with the Act and federal policies with regards to Aboriginal peoples. If we do not acknowledge and address that issue, equitable solutions will not be possible. The McIvor decision on appeal is a prime example of how embedded such racist ideology actually is in all levels of our society. Here is the excerpt: If we are ever to convince the courts to address this fundamental problem in federal policy, and even within their own jurisprudential logic and reasoning, we must name it for what it is – the current second generation cut-off rule in section 6(2) of the Indian Act,1985 is really a measurement of blood quantum or degree of descent. The fact that Canada has chosen to use milder words to categorize the rule as: “genealogical proximity”, “degree of Indian parentage”, “genealogical connection”, or “genealogical standard” does not escape the fact that this is an exercise in racism and forced assimilation. Canada has openly created, justified and vigorously defended an identification system for Aboriginal peoples based solely on blood quantum or degree of descent, which is clearly a modern day act of racism. The use of different wording does not cover up what Canada is doing – it is requiring that all status Indians be “real” Indians as viewed from Eurocentric ideologies around blood purity and race. Aside from being legally unjustifiable, it is morally repugnant and should be exposed for what it is: forced assimilation. Both blood quantum and assimilation has been denounced domestically and internationally and should no longer be a part of Canadian law or policy. In fact, Article 8 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) provides that no Indigenous peoples shall be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. Further, the State has a positive obligation to prevent the loss of such culture and identity. My goal in publishing this book is to raise awareness about the underlying problems and talk about the tough issues like why some Aboriginal people inadvertently advocate (through blood quantum) their own assimilation. Until we do this, Canadian courts will continue to define who we are based on colonial ideals of the “authentic Indian” which represents little more than fictional stereotypes. Obviously, this is a small excerpt from hundreds of pages which explain all of the above concepts and provide scholarly and legal support for my claims. That being said, there are always strong views on all sides and there will always be differences of opinion. I, personally, can never accept a biological determination of who we are – whether you call it status, membership or something else. Please feel free to send any comments to palmater@nonstatusindian.com

I am in the process of editing my doctoral thesis into a book that will be published either late this year or early next. The topic is Aboriginal citizenship and how we need to think about Aboriginal identity and belonging in a different way. Canada has legislated our individual (status) and communal (membership) identities for so long that many of us have internalized the colonial views about what it means to be an Indian. I am a Mi’kmaq woman and traditionally, my identity had nothing to do with status and everything to do with culture, language, practices, beliefs, customs, common ancestries, histories and territories. Today, unfortunately, for all practical purposes Canada controls status which largely controls band membership and therefore “recognized” identity. Some of us have forgotten what it means to be Mi’kmaq, Mohawk or Cree and instead concentrate on Canada’s Indian status, blood quantum, hair colour, or reserve residency as the only indicators of Aboriginal identity. Despite the fact that these racist criteria originated with colonial governments, and that they will eventually lead to our collective legal extinction, we are still struggling with high levels of internalization. My book tries to address these issues. Here is an excerpt from my doctorate which makes the point that Canada lacks the authority to legislate our extinction: Canada has the power under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 to legislate with regards to “Indians”. However, this does not give Canada a right to make rules for Aboriginal peoples which are harmful to them or that are inconsistent with Canada’s fiduciary duty towards them. The protections contained in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 equally act as a limit on federal and provincial governments with regards to Aboriginal and treaty rights. The Court in Sparrow explained that section 35 acts as a specific restraint on Canada’s power to legislate: “Federal legislative powers continue, including, of course, the right to legislate with respect to Indians pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. These powers must, however, now be read together with s. 35(1). In other words, federal power must be reconciled with federal duty and the best way to achieve that reconciliation is to demand the justification of any government regulation that infringes upon or denies aboriginal rights. Such scrutiny is in keeping with the liberal interpretive principle… and the concept of holding the Crown to a high standard of honourable dealing with respect to the aboriginal peoples of Canada…” (emphasis added) When the Aboriginal right to determine citizenship is considered in this light, it is obvious that restrictions on powers apply to all parties. Therefore, Canada lacks the power to ensure the extinction of Aboriginal peoples through its restrictive status and membership provisions in the Indian Act – despite its legislative powers in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This is an important fact that has been lost in many of the studies and debates over Bill C-3. Canada has assumed that its power to legislate with regards to Indians knows no bounds – but the SCC jurisprudence indicates otherwise. Many more edits to go before I finish my book – but I welcome comments on this excerpt from my doctorate in the meantime. Pam

The Senate is due to vote on Bill S-4 today (June 28). All indications say that it will pass despite nearly unanimous opposition to the Bill by First Nations and Aboriginal women’s groups, then it has to go through the same process in the House once Parliament reconvenes in the fall.

Hopefully, in the meantime, MPs will see the Bill for what it is: A Step Back in Time. Despite the fact that Prime Minister Harper has apologized for the assimilatory foundations upon which residential school policy was based, this draconian, paternalistic bill is being imposed on First Nations against their will and contrary to their constitutionally protected right to be self-determining.

While I have many issues with the Bill, one aspect of the bill is clear evidence that Canada has reverted back to its paternalistic control over Indians as though they were once again wards of the state who must be controlled and assimilated. The verification officer is akin to the Indian agents which were slowly removed from reserves in the 1960’s. Now they will be reinstituted to give Canada more control over Indians and their reserves for the benefit of the settler population.

Sections 8 to 16 inclusive of Bill S-4 deal with the verification process for adopting First Nations laws with regard to matrimonial real property on reserve (MRP). Before First Nations can enact their own MRP laws, they must be ratified through a community referendum process (25% of the eligible voters) and is “verified” by a verification officer that is appointed by an organization so designated by the Minister and the First Nation. The job of the verification officer is to ensure that the community referendum plan and process is suitable to the officer. At all stages of the First Nation law-making process, the verification officer can withhold his/her approval which would prevent the First Nation from completing the next stage of the process. Even once the law-making process has been completed, the verification officer must certify the “conduct” of the referendum process before the laws are deemed validly approved. The underlying assumption being that First Nations are not capable of respecting human rights – a stereotype denounced by even the Minister’s Special Representative in her report on MRP. The inclusion of a verification officer and certification process has been described by various witnesses who have presented on Bill S-4 as akin to reinstituting Indian agents. With regard to Indian agents and their control over Indians, John Borrows, a respected Indigenous scholar wrote an article which demonstrated through traditional story-telling that the federal government, in earlier times, consistently undermined First Nations liberties and freedoms by placing Indian agents in “supervisory roles” in their communities and that positive change has come about in First Nations by their continued resistance to these impositions. (J. Borrows, “Aboriginal Rights: Indian Agency and Taking What’s Not Yours” (2003) 22 Windsor Y.B. of Access to Just. 253) The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) explained that the superintendent general of Indian Affairs had a “vast array of powers to intervene in almost all areas of daily reserve life” and that the majority of those powers were granted to Indian agents. (RCAP, p.297) RCAP describes Indian agents as “all-powerful” because of their control over local, financial and judicial matters. Once again, Bill S-4 seeks to re-establish “supervisors” within First Nations. INAC would have us take comfort in the fact that s.9(2) requires that the verification officer be unbiased, but if we go by past experience – this is highly unlikely. While some Indian agents demonstrated integrity, RCAP explains that many others were: “petty despots who seemed to enjoy wielding enormous power over the remnants of once powerful Aboriginal nations” and that “the Indian affairs branch often seemed to attract persons particularly imbued with the zeal associated with the strict morality and social Darwinism exhibited by deputy superintendents general Hayter Reed and Duncan Campbell Scott.” (RCAP, p. 298) How can INAC expect that they would attract anyone other than a person who believes First Nations need to be supervised to prevent human rights violations? Noel Dyck characterized Indian agents as “agents of coercive tutelage”. (N. Dyck, “What is the Indian Problem: Tutelage and Resistance in Canadian Indian Administration (St. John’s: ISER, 1991). This was inevitable given Indian Affairs’ desire to preach the “gospel of self-help” to Indians living on reserve in the hopes that they would assimilate within a generation or two. (V. Satzewich, “Indian Agents and the ‘Indian Problem’ in Canada in 1946 (1997) 2 C.J.N.S. 227) An aggressive nation-building strategy, together with ongoing settlement requirements led Indian Affairs to focus on socially transforming Indian communities to fit its own values. Despite contemporary awareness about the injustice of the situation, Indian agents blamed Indians for their lot in life and justified their control over them: “Unless they accepted the proposition that Native peoples could not lead a descent life without the direction that they provided, tutelage agents were cast in a role which they would arbitrarily and self-consciously exercise power over other human beings for no good reason.” (Dyck, p.77) The same can be said with the verification officers in Bill S-4. INAC is trying to socially transform First Nations from collectives with communal property and rights, to individuals divorced from their communities in both law and ideology. What “good reason” could INAC, through its verification officers have to impose its authority on First Nations local family matters? The very reason why our rights were protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is to protect our distinct cultures for the benefit of our future generations. If our cultures are communal then who is Canada to try to individualize us and destroy our Nations? Prime Minister Harper stood before Canadians and apologized for the assimilatory foundations and attitudes of superiority upon which the residential schools policy was created. Specifically, he explained:”Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child”. Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country.” (INAC, Apology) If we are to take the Prime Minister at his word, then how could we enact a new law which would turn back the clock on Indian policy and reinstitute Indian Agents whose role it is to ensure that Indians behave as INAC believes they should – like the rest of Canadians. We already rejected the White Paper which tried to do the same thing. This Bill is Canada’s way of doing indirectly what it is legally prevented from doing directly. The vast majority of witnesses have testified strenuously against Bill S-4 and its two previous incarnations Bill C-8 and C-47. Yet, despite the Prime Minister’s apology for the institutions imposed by INAC that “gave rise to abuse or neglect and were inadequately controlled”, and that “There is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian Residential Schools system to ever prevail again”, Canada is pushing this new legislation, verification officers and the creation of a new institution on First Nations against their will. When will Canada listen to the nearly unanimous voices of First Nations and Aboriginal women who consistently tell Canada to stay out of their local affairs? Even Aboriginal women who advocated for MRP laws specifically stated this was to be done within the context of recognizing First Nation jurisdiction in this area. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples also provides that First Nations should have paramount jurisdiction over their own internal community affairs. Indian agents were a sad chapter in our history and were (thankfully) slowly removed from Indian reserves in the 1960’s. First Nations don’t need Indian agents reintroduced through the back door as verification officers. If Canada truly wants to support, healthy, vibrant, self-sufficient First Nations, then it should provide equitable funding for social programs like housing, education and child and family services, as well as specifically empower and support First Nations to enact their own laws with legislative recognition and sufficient funding. We have all stood together to reject this draconian and racist bill -now it is time for Canada to listen.

Bill S-4 relates to matrimonial real property on reserve after the breakup of a marriage or relationship. After a process of hearing from witnesses and deciding on potential amendments, the Senate will vote on the Bill today. Even if the Bill is passed, it must still go through the same process in the House. Given Parliament’s summer schedule, it likely won’t be addressed until the fall. That being said, there are numerous problems with Bill S-4. While some protections are important for those who divorce or no longer cohabitate, Bill S-4 represents backdoor assimilation – a key feature of the conservative government’s agenda, well-informed by Tom Flanagan and his right-wing ideas. One particular issue of concern is that of the recent amendments which would allow courts to “consider” First Nation collective interests in divorce cases. The legality of Bill S-4 in disposing of constitutionally protected land rights in reserves have not been fully canvassed. In my opinion, given that reserve lands are the same as Aboriginal title lands in terms of their inalienability and collective nature (as stated by the SCC), and given the fact that many of those reserves were created pursuant to treaties which are constututionally protected, there is no legal way that Bill S-4 can legally override that. As Canada knows very well, legislation cannot amend the Constitution Act, 1982- and this Bill proposes to do just that. Adding a clause that allows the courts to only “consider” the collective nature of reserve lands does not change that fact. Either Bill S-4 can amend the Constitution or it cannot. Either Bill S-4 can violate treaty protected reserve lands or it cannot. It is not up to a court, within the context of a family dispute to only “consider” those facts and issue a decision which contravenes the Constitution Act, the Indian Act or treaties. Canada argues that by adding provisions which allow the courts to “consider” First Nation land rights, that this somehow mitigates their legal and fiduciary obligations with regards to First Nation lands. Not only does this legislation not meet Canada’s fiduciary obligations, it increases requirements on First Nations to defend their land rights. This legislation will require First Nations to defend the title to their reserve lands over and over again after each and every marital or relationship breakdown. We are requiring that First Nations appear in thousands of court rooms to defend their treaty rights and constitutional rights at their own expense. Senator Brazeau made that point very clear when I appeared before the Senate – when First Nations said that had no capacity to develop their own laws but would challenge S-4 in court if it violated their land rights, Senator Brazeau told them they couldn’t defend their collective rights because they had no capacity. Unfortunately, I fear this will be the case. Thousands of divorce cases will go to court absent representation from First Nations who have no money for lawyers, travel expenses or research to justify why their treaty and constitutionally protected reserve lands should remain protected. There are no other constitutional rights that must be defended over and over again – but those of First Nations. Canadians have yet to accept that section 35 recognizes, affirms and protects Aboriginal and treaty rights – which includes land claims, modern treaties and self-government agreements. Canada has already stated that section 35 protects the inherent right of self-government – I can’t see anything more inherent to self-government than First Nations management of their own lands. Bill S-4 does not protect any of those rights, but insteads belittles them and reduces them to a mere “consideration” for judges who must decide how to dispose of reserve property. This is insulting to at best and illegal at worst. First Nations were forced unto reserves, they have lost the vast majority of their traditional territories and all they have left are their tiny reserves. Now we are telling First Nations that reserves are up for grabs and we can ignore constitutionally protected rights at will. This is reminiscent of the Royal Proclamation of 1767 and the days when we had to protect Indian lands from settlement. Imagine First Nations which are located next to major cities or who have high rates of outmarriage due to small populations – within literally 1 year some reserves could be occupied exclusively by non-Indians and the “temporary” nature of that possession does not change that fact. How can we ask First Nations who have the lowest socio-economic indicators to lose what little they have left? That Canada could advance such a position is a disgrace and it flies in the face of international common law and norms in relation to the need to provide GREATER protections for Indigenous lands not less. Once again, through the backdoor the Conservative government is trying to enforce its assimilatory agenda. The Conservatives know they can’t simply disband reserves, so they are trying to do so under the guise of protection of families or economic development (Bill C-24). One can’t help but take note that Flanagan was Harper’s former advisor and that Flanagan is not only behind C-24 but has advocated specifically for the privatization of reserve lands. Reserve lands are not for sale. They are not available for non-Indian settlement. Assimilation and land theft is supposed to be over – it is supposed to be a thing of the past that Canada has apologized for – unfortunately Bill S-4 ressurects those ideologies: – that Indian land should be abvailable to non-Indians; – that First Nations are incapable of resolving their own internal matters; – that First Nation culture is inferior to ours, such that they are more likely to violate human rights; – that First Nations are so juvenile and incompetent that they must be treated as wards and supervised while they consult with their communities on Bill S-4 and their actions watched closely and “verified” as acceptable. We should all be disgusted that this assimilatory attitude is not called for what it is: racist and draconian. Canada needs to leave First Nations alone with regards to their own internal affairs. If they make mistakes, they’ll fix them. If they violate human rights, the appropriate bodies will address that. We need to respect our Supreme Court of Canada cases, our treaties and our Constitution – First Nation constitutional rights are no less the Supreme Law of the Land, than other constitiutional rights like gender equality. Please send your views and concerns to your MPs over the summer months.

Re: article in Hamilton Spectator on June 10, 2010 re “Private property on reserves next frontier” Saturday, June 12, 2010 Dear editor; Your article which alleges that there is growing support for Aboriginal ownership is far from accurate. This is an initiative of Manny Jules from the Squamish band and has been incorporated into Bill C-24 First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act without ANY consultation with First Nations. Only he and a handful of other First Nations are in support of this idea. These are the same First Nations who have also advocated for other related legislative initiatives like the First Nations Land Management Act (FNLMA) and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA). Yet despite their claims, the VAST majority of First Nations have NOT signed on to their previous initiatives nor are the majority in support of dividing up reserves into fee simple lands. This is an assimilation plan by Tom Flanagan proposed in his new book “Beyond the Indian Act” that is no different than what he proposed in his previous book “First Nations? Second Thoughts”. His goal is to divide up reserves into fee simple and dispand First Nations. As his first book came across as too overtly racist, Flanagan has decided to advocate for assimilation through the back door and use an Indian as the spokesperson. Since Manny Jules thinks solely through the lens of economic development and has not considered the other aspects of what makes Aboriginal peoples distinct – their connection to the land which is and always has been communal in nature, he was the perfect candidate. Jules is willing to assimilate himself and his band members for the sake of making money as if economic development is the key to all First Nations issues. He completely ignores the importance of treaty implementation, resolution of land claims, and respect for the inherent right of First Nations to be self-determining. I do not believe that any Chief or Council would even have the authority to make such a deal. Jules and Flanagan also fail to point out that Aboriginal Nations could not parcel out their lands in fee simple legally, as this would be necessarily inconsistent with why Aboriginal lands are protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It would also be in direct conflict with the majority of treaties in Canada which are the benefit of our “heirs and heirs forever” which cannot be sacrificed for the financial benefit of only the present generation. How could the division of reserves into fee simple parcels to be sold to non-Indians for profit in any be said to respect our treaties? Please see the review I did of Flanagan’s new book called “Beyond the Indian Act”: http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ This plan is identical to that of the Dawes Act in the United States which saw the loss of massive swaths of land from tribal territories, that, despite a subsequent reverse in policy, have never been fully restored. Flanagan and Jules believe that this piece of legislation is different because it is voluntary. There were also voluntary Indian “Indian Hunters” who chased down Indian children who had escaped from residential schools and brought them back. The voluntary nature of the plan is no less insidious because they were able to co-opt Indians into doing it. They also casually refer to those First Nations that have Certificates of Possession (CPs) as though the transition from CP to fee simple would be as simple as registering the interest. They fail to mention that on some reserves CPs are in the hands of a few, and the vast majority of band members do not have CPs. How would that be an equitable division? What about those who live off-reserve (which we now know amounts to 50%)? What about the many generations of those yet unborn who have a right to their communal lands? To say that their bright idea has not been well thought out is an understatement. Jules constantly refers to the Nisga’a as the ultimate example of a First Nation that will be registering their individual interests in a provincial registration system. Yet, they fail to mention that the Nisga’a are cited by the majority of First Nations of how NOT to negotiate a self-government agreement. Jules also appeared before the Canadian Bar Association yesterday and spoke about how he wants to be a “free man” and a “horse man” and that the only way to do that was to get out of Indian Act, focus on economic development and ensure First Nations laws are consistent with federal and provincial laws. One chief’s response was that – “If Jules wants to be within the federal family, he can tear up his status card and move off reserve”, or as another chief said “He is free to divorce his community whenever he likes”. Even if Jules has the support of his community, he is free to try and negotiate a self-government agreement with Canada and do that. But in the meantime, he need not advocate the assimilation of the rest of the 630+ First Nations in Canada. Please remember that when you write articles about First Nations lands, you are talking about constitutionally protected rights. The Constitution Act, 1982 is the supreme law of the land – which binds all Canadians. To talk about deleting or amending constitutionally protected rights without a constitutional amendment is illegal and downplays the significance of those rights. Respectfully submitted; Pam