Warrior Life Studios

Tag: Aboriginal Peoples

Check your White Male Privilege Andrew Scheer

Still image from video of RCMP aiming gun at Wet’suwet’en people from Gidimten Camp Facebook.

Today, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer made the shocking statement that protestors and activists need to “check their privilege” and let people whose jobs depend on the railway systems get to work. In this case, it is Scheer who needs to check his own privilege. His comments appear to be racially motivated as the people occupying the rails in Ontario are very obviously Indigenous peoples. Scheer’s comments reflect worn out stereotypes about Indigenous peoples that are not worth repeating, but are not based on facts. These kinds of comments serve only to promote societal division and manufacture hatred towards a specific group – Indigenous peoples. Scheer’s white male privilege as a top 1% income earner (according to Statistics Canada) stand in stark contrast to the staggering socio-economic conditions of the majority of First Nations peoples in Canada. First Nations have the highest rates of poverty in the country, the lowest health indicators and the highest rates of suicide in the world. Far from “privilege”, their under-privilege is a direct result of the violent colonization of their territories and the continued oppression of their peoples.

In 2019, the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls found, as a matter of fact and law, that Canada is guilty of both historic and ongoing genocide. Both the Organization of American States and the United Nations expressed deep concern about this finding and officials have offered to assist Canada address this. So, far there has been no urgent action to address ongoing acts of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The rates of Indigenous over-incarceration continue to sky-rocket with Indigenous women (less than 2.5% of the population) making of 42% of those in federal prisons. Why? Aside from noting many areas of discrimination within the justice system, the Office of the Correctional Investigator expressed concern that federal corrections seems “impervious to change”.

Indigenous children represent half of all children in foster care, which even federal ministers called a “humanitarian crisis” – yet numbers continue to rise. The numbers of abused, exploited, disappeared and murdered Indigenous women also continue to rise, despite a National Inquiry drawing national attention to the crisis. Indigenous women and girls are the primary targets of human traffickers who are able to exploit them with relative impunity. It should come as no surprise to anyone at this point that some First Nations in Canada have the highest suicide rates in the world, even higher than post-conflict countries. Indigenous peoples make up 40-80% of homeless peoples in Canada depending on the region and we all know about the lack of access to clean drinking water that has plagued some First Nations for decades.

The United Nations has called on Canada many times to address its grave human rights violations against Indigenous peoples to no avail. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has made similar recommendations to Canada to end the human rights violations. The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous peoples James Anaya, wrote in his report on Canada that the relationship with Indigenous peoples was getting worse over time and that “It is difficult to reconcile Canada’s well-developed legal framework and general prosperity with the human rights problems faced by Indigenous peoples”. He went on to report that “The most jarring manifestation of those human rights problems is the distressing socioeconomic conditions of Indigenous peoples in a highly developed country.” Canada is wealthy because it stole the lands and resources of Indigenous peoples, carried out violent acts of genocide to reduce Indigenous populations and then constructed a complex set of laws, policies, practices, actions and omissions to oppress Indigenous peoples and clear the lands for settlement and extraction.

These actions of solidarity across the country are about more than pipelines – they are about the continued genocide of Indigenous peoples and the failure of Canada to abide by the rule of law in respecting their land rights and their right to say no to development. These solidarity actions with the Wet’suwet’en Nation are about bringing attention to the ways in which Canada criminalizes Indigenous peoples for peacefully living, asserting and defending our sovereignty over our lands. While politicians make flowery speeches about reconciliation and respecting our rights, when it comes to wanting our lands for development or extraction, they will send in heavily armed RCMP or military to take what they want. That is what these actions are about – the failure of federal and provincial governments to abide by the rule of law – all the laws in Canada, not just the ones that suit their political or economic needs.

Scheer’s ill-informed comments serve only to cause confusion and apprehension in the public, instead of offering thoughtful solutions that would bring everyone together. His words are shameful and thankfully, don’t represent those of most Canadians. Canadians continue to be our strongest allies in seeking justice for our peoples as lawyers, teachers, academics, social workers, labourers, unions and Canadians from all backgrounds continue to stand with Indigenous peoples at solidarity actions all over Canada. That’s what the treaty relationship is all about. We need to work together to find a way to harmonize all laws in Canada – Indigenous, Canadian and international laws – and restore social justice for all peoples. We must urgently end genocide against Indigenous peoples which includes the ongoing theft of our lands and resources. It also means telling the RCMP to stand down.

Reconciliation doesn’t manifest at the end of a sniper rifle.

February 15, 2020
Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Universities and Colleges

Reconciliation has become the buzz word of the decade ever since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada published their report on residential schools in Canada.* The TRC, headed by (then) Justice Murray Sinclair, heard from residential school survivors, families and native communities from all over Canada about their experiences in residential schools and their lives afterwards. These schools lasted for over 100 years, with the last one only closing in 1996.

Despite being called schools, residential schools were actually designed to separate native children from their parents, extended families and communities, for the express purposes of assimilating them into, what the TRC describes as “Euro-Christian society”. Thousands of children were starved, neglected, tortured, medically experimented on, mentally, physically and/or sexually abused or even murdered. Their experiences have had long-lasting, inter-generational impacts on many more thousands of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

The TRC offered 94 Calls to Action directed to the federal and provincial governments, churches, businesses, the media, the public at large and, specifically, universities and colleges. The report went well beyond just the 94 specific Calls to Action – it also talked about reconciliation with native peoples generally. However, as is the case with many Royal Commissions, Public Inquiries and other similar reports, many Canadians never read them. The failure to read the TRC report, didn’t stop people from taking the word “reconciliation” and literally applying it to everything they do that touches on native issues and calling it “reconciliation”. I think reconciliation has gone off track.

To my mind, the word reconciliation should have substantive meaning; not just in the residential school context, but in the entire relationship between native peoples and the Crown. Firstly, it should be about exposing the whole truth of the genocide committed in Canada beyond residential schools. The TRC concluded that what happened in Canada was cultural genocide, but more than that, it was also physical and biological genocide. Canada needs to come to terms with that. It needs to come to terms with genocide in all of its forms, both historic and ongoing.

Secondly, reconciliation is about Canada taking full responsibility for this genocide.There should be no diminishing the experiences of survivors; no making excuses; no trying to justify what happened; no using semantics to try to downplay the atrocities committed; and no denying any of the harms suffered by native peoples. In any discussion about reconciliation, we should be centering the voices of the survivors and not the perpetrators, just like the TRC did.

Lastly, we can never get to real reconciliation without Canada making a real apology – not a court ordered apology, or carefully worded political apology approved by Justice lawyers. I mean a real apology where Canada:

(a) accepts responsibility for all of its actions and consequences;

(b) promises never to do it again, and in fact, doesn’t do it again;

(c) makes full amends for ALL of the harms done – which may include compensation, but is not limited to compensation.

Canada, in general, seems think that a political apology, coupled with meager monetary compensation and some commemoration is enough to ask all of us to move forward. There is a real problem with moving forward when the whole truth has yet to be exposed. If moving forward means skipping over the rest of the truth and focusing on superficial acts, like renaming National Aboriginal Peoples’ Day to National Indigenous Peoples Day, then we are very far away from reconciliation.

It is also incredible that Canada could even fathom moving forward when it has failed to stop the harms from continuing. For example, while the last residential school closed in 1996, this was followed by the 60’s scoop forced adoptions of native children into white families all over the world. That was then followed by the crisis of of over-representation in foster care. There are more native children stolen from their parents, families and communities today, than at the height of residential schools. In fact, the crisis of over-representation in foster care has even been acknowledged as a “humanitarian crisis” by federal officials.

When I say Canada, I want to be clear that I am talking about federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments for sure; but also churches, Canadian citizens, mainstream media, corporations, businesses, universities and colleges. Every single person and institution in Canada has benefited from the genocide and dispossession committed against native peoples – either directly or indirectly. That makes lots of people uncomfortable to hear, but it is the reality. Most people have long thought that the so-called “plight” of native peoples was the responsibility of government alone – often willfully blind to their own roles.

Universities, colleges and training institutes in particular, have benefited directly from the dispossession of native peoples from their lands and sometimes benefited directly from Indian monies held in trust by the Crown. They have long excluded native peoples as faculty and administrators, while at the same time educating countless generations of Canadians and international students a sanitized version of both history and the present. Native voices and realities has been erased by universities for many decades. While it is very positive to see many universities and colleges embracing the TRC report and taking concrete steps to advance reconciliation, it has become very clear that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what reconciliation really means in a university context.

The TRC called on universities and colleges to undertake the following:

Call to Action #16 – Create Aboriginal language degrees and diploma programs;

Call to Action #24 – Medical and nursing schools to provide a mandatory course dealing with Aboriginal health issues, which includes skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism;

Call to Action #28 – Law schools to provide a mandatory course in Aboriginal people and the law with required skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism;

Call to Action #65 – Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and post-secondary institutions and educators establish a national research program with multi-year funding to advance understanding of reconciliation; and

Call to Action #86 – Journalism programs and media schools provide mandatory education for all students on the history of Aboriginal peoples.

However, it must be kept in mind that reconciliation goes well beyond those specific Calls to Action. Universities and colleges have a long way to go to address their role in the dispossession and oppression of native peoples – both historic and ongoing. However, I think this discussion needs to happen in reverse. Before I share some ideas about what universities should be doing to advance reconciliation, it may be more useful to look at some examples of what should NOT be considered reconciliation and why.

Not Reconciliation list:

(1) Apologize for university’s past contribution to oppression of native peoples;

(2) Give a land acknowledgement;

(3) Senior administration or professors attend a First Nation community or pow-wow;

(4) Hang native art on campus;

(5) Change street names or building names on campus;

(6) Partake in cultural sensitivity training or Aboriginal History 101;

(7) Watch documentaries like Colonization Road;

(8) Read Thomas King’s The Inconvenient Indian (I love this book);

(9) Send a First Nation or organization an email asking what you can do to help;

(10) Hire more native peoples to reflect our % of the population;

(11) Have an elder open and close your conferences;

(12) Nominate a native person for an award;

(13) Invite native faculty to sit on committees or Senate;

(14) Create an Aboriginal Advisory Committee on campus;

(15) Send a happy National Aboriginal Day tweet or Facebook post;

(16) Include First Nations in your research projects; and/or

(17) Invite native speakers into your classrooms.

There are many universities and colleges doing a number of the above items under the banner of reconciliation right now. Some may have even done some of these prior to the TRC report. However, I have seen a number of universities include some of these items in their reports on reconciliation. To my mind, none of these items fall under reconciliation. They are all important in different ways, and universities, should be doing these things, but they are not reconciliation.

Why not? Because most of the items on the above list should already be done in universities and colleges as a matter of law – as per federal and provincial human rights laws; employment laws; non-discrimination laws; equality laws; and campus commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion. Universities don’t get to pat themselves on the back for doing what they should have been doing all along under the law. Furthermore, some of the actions noted above should be happening as a matter of academic practice. If you teach about native issues, it should be a given that native voices and content are centered. It’s a matter of professional ethics and academic standards that faculty learn about the subjects they teach – or ought to be teaching.

The following represents a few things that universities should be doing under the banner of real reconciliation:

Real Reconciliation:

(1) Ensure that you hire native faculty and staff that reflects plus 20% extra hires to build institutional capacity; provide support for new hires; and to make amends for having excluded native peoples for all these years;

(2) There should be proportional (20%) native hires in ALL faculties and departments, especially politics, law, science, engineering, medicine and business (in addition to social work, midwifery & native studies);

(3) Do NOT ever hire just one native faculty member at a time. That is an incredibly unfair burden to that faculty member as everyone, even with the best of intentions, will want their advice, guidance, ideas and participation of that one faculty member on every committee, project and initiative;

(4) When you hire, you must develop workloads and expectations around the fact that many First Nation hires will have community-based expectations/obligations that should be accommodated.

It is their connection to their First Nations, their knowledge exchange and community-based work that often informs who they are, how they teach and what they teach.That unique knowledge and experience comes with commitments to their home communities which takes time and energy and should be accommodated and counted.

(5) Don’t stop at recruitment and hiring of native faculty and staff. Think about what your institution does to KEEP them there, i.e., professional supports, active mentorship, recognition, research dollars, promotions, pay levels, leadership opportunities, advanced training and skill development and flexible or alternative work arrangements. (6) Keep current commitments to native faculty and staff. For example, if you have a Chair in Traditional Native Medicine, make sure that Chair is made permanent, funded from core university dollars and not dependent on external funders (i.e., supported only if the funds are available). Making reconciliation initiatives dependent on the goodwill of corporate funders puts them all at risk given the fact that native peoples are largely discriminated against in the corporate world. Universities must engage in real sacrifices – of power and wealth – in order to engage in real reconciliation. That means the university itself must dedicate and protect the funds for reconciliation initiatives – includes faculty, staff, chairs, research and projects.

(7) Real reconciliation is about more than who teaches, it also requires that native peoples also be represented in the governance and senior administration of universities and colleges – as Presidents, Provosts, Chancellors and on boards of governors. They must be part of the decision-making mechanisms throughout the institution – including in the unions, committees and Senate, on all issues, but especially those that impact native peoples specifically.

(8) Native peoples need to be the ones deciding how targeted native research funding is distributed; who gets research chairs in native issues; and how academic success is measured – that means including the community-based work and advocacy that is an inherent part of the lived personal and professional realities of many native peoples.

(9) First Nations and Inuit communities need to have a direct line of input into university programs, curricula, research and governance that impact them and their students. It is not good enough to have one native faculty or several native staff members speak for diverse Nations. The relationship needs to include voices inside and outside the institution.

(10) Every university and college sits on native territory should reflect local native languages, cultures and symbols throughout the campus, in ways that are directed by native peoples (with a focus on local native communities) and respectful of their cultures. It is not good enough to have just one dedicated “native” area – like a statue, park bench or student centre. Our presence must be reflected throughout the campus(es).

(11) The benefit and privilege of a university education and research needs to be fully shared with local First Nations, with more focus on open access to information and publications and translation of research in accessible formats for community use.

(12) Universities need to think about education beyond tuition-paying students and include strategic partnerships and alliances with native communities to help fill research, policy and/or technical gaps that exist due to chronic under-funding and failure to implement treaties, by building these requirements into courses and research or special projects. (13) Universities could help make amends for past harms. Take for example, the crisis of disappearing native languages. Universities and colleges in partnership with native communities, elders and languages speakers, could help prevent native languages from extinction. Together, they could develop comprehensive k-12 education, as well as community-based native language instruction, to try to undo the devastating impacts of Canada’s assimilatory policies and the university’s roles in it.

(14) Universities need to ensure that their reconciliation plans are co-developed by native communities and experts – which may include faculty, but also those external to the university that are not at any risk of retaliation or ostracization. Without native peoples directing the path forward, universities risk of forging ahead with superficial plans, or replicating the status quo. (15) Universities must also focus on the recruitment, retention and support of native students towards academic success. This includes not only a welcoming atmosphere, various student supports like housing and grants, but also native faculty advisors, native courses, and special research projects and other opportunities. (16) Universities must take active measures against the growing trend of rushing to hire “self-identified” native peoples who are not native, not connected to community and have no lived experience as a native person. Universities are being flooded with those making false claims and universities commit further harms to actual native people by taking no action to prevent it from happening. When frauds take our places in universities as students, staff or faculty, our voices are once again erased and our identities over-shadowed by white ethnicity shoppers whose only claim to Indigeneity is ancestry.com or some distant relative from 400 years ago. At best, these frauds skew our numbers and taint our research, and at worst, they proactively work against real native peoples.

(17) Universities must find ways to prevent Deans from using the same old racist tactics, like using so-called “merit” versus “diversity” as a way to keep native people out of universities. This perception of merit is very biased and often used in racist ways to discriminate against native peoples. It has been used to keep women out of the boardroom and with lower salaries. It has also been used by non-native Deans to keep native peoples out of tenure-track positions. Even after the TRC report, I have still seen Deans revert to this racist form of excluding native peoples – as if their traditional Indigenous knowledges, their professional experiences, their community-based work are not valued the same as a non-native’s traditional educational background as “merit”.

There is a lot to do and it will require a fundamental shift in both thinking and practice. It will require real changes – a transfer of both power and wealth. This requires that universities make sacrifices to make space for native peoples – not simply Indigenize here and there. Universities can’t simply tweak their current structures and expect substantive results. Clearly there is a great deal that university can and should be doing. This blog is already too long to include a much longer list. I truly believe that some of this will happen in short term, and some of it will take a little longer. But without real native people at the helm – directing the path – it runs the risk of preserving the same status quo or worse. I believe that we are at a turning point. The TRC has helped jump start both conversation and action at the university and college level. We just need to ensure the way forward is co-developed by native peoples and communities, together with universities and colleges. We have a real opportunity to make lasting, impactful changes. Let’s move beyond the superficial and engage in real, transformative reconciliation now – which will mean doing things as they haven’t been done before. We’re ready academia – are you?

For those who prefer audio, here is a link to my Warrior Life podcast based on this blog: https://soundcloud.com/pampalmater/indigenous-reconciliation-in-university-and-colleges For those who want more information, here is a link to my Woodrow Lloyd Lecture on Reconciliation at the University of Regina in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89s3l2mYGWg&list=PLDnK0xT7aXRBut5qi5rlJrDQWpS-Pxu1v&index=2&t=3083s

*This blog is based on a much longer speech that I delivered in Halifax for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in 2018.

May 17, 2019
What You Need to Know About Sharon McIvor’s Major UN Victory on Indian Status

(Picture of Sharon McIvor and I at the United Nations in Geneva)

Sharon McIvor has won yet another landmark legal victory for First Nations women – this time at the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). On January 14, 2019, the UNHRC released their decision which found that Canada still discriminates against “Indian” women and their descendants in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Despite the fact that Sharon had already proven her discrimination case at trial and on appeal here in Canada, the federal government refused to eliminate all the remaining sex discrimination from the Act. This meant that Sharon and her descendants still have lesser or no Indian status as compared to her brother and his descendants – simply based on sex. Sharon was therefore forced to bring a human rights claim to the UNHRC under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UNHRC found Canada had violated Sharon’s human rights and directed Canada to provide an effective remedy for Sharon McIvor, her descendants, and others who have suffered the same discrimination.

It is important to note that Canada is bound by this decision. The ICCPR came into force for Canada on August 19, 1976 and Canada has agreed to be bound by the jurisdiction of the UNHRC to make decisions on matters coming before it. This means that Canada has chosen to be bound by the rights contained within this Covenant for the benefits of all those in Canada. In this case, the UNHRC found that Canada had violated Sharon’s human rights under articles 3 and 26, read in conjunction with article 27 of the ICCPR.

Article 3 guarantees the equal right of men and women to enjoy the rights contained in the ICCPR. Article 26 provides that all people are equal under the law and specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, birth or other status. These two articles were considered in conjunction with article 27 which provides that ethnic minorities within States shall not be denied their right to enjoy their culture in community with other members of their group. The UNHRC found that Canada had violated Sharon’s rights under all three articles and directed Canada to do make “full reparation” to Sharon, her descendants and others in her position. Canada was directed to:

(1)   Register all those like Sharon and her descendants, under section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act;

(2)   Take steps to clean up any residual discrimination within First Nation communities arising from sex discrimination in the Indian Act; and

(3)   Take any additional steps necessary to avoid similar violations in the future.

The federal government has been given a 180 days to inform the UNHRC about how it will implement this decision. The good news is that the federal government has the capacity to comply with the first part of the decision this month. The federal government already drafted amendments to the Indian Act’s registration provisions in Bill S-3 that would remove the remaining sex discrimination raised by Sharon McIvor’s case. The problem is that Parliament didn’t enact those provisions into force. While all the other amendments contained within Bill S-3 were brought into force in 2018, they purposely left our remedy for sex equality for “someday” – a hypothetical right that we can only hope is fulfilled someday. First Nations women deserve better than this.

While the Indian Act’s registration provisions have a long, complicated history, and the various amendments made over time, including Bills C-31, C-3 and the most recent S-3 have created a complex mess of criteria almost impossible to understand; the core issue is simple. Indian women who married non-Indians and their descendants have lesser or no status compared to Indian men who married non-Indians and their descendants. Sex discrimination in federal legislation, like the Indian Act, is against Canadian law as well as international human rights laws to which Canada has agreed to be bound. There is simply no legal justification for continuing to deny the basic right of sex equality to First Nation women and children. To do so makes the federal government an outlaw – both in Canada and internationally.

The question now is whether the self-professed “feminist” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government will abide by the UNHRC decision or continue to violate the core human rights of First Nations women and children. Reconciliation with First Nations demands immediate implementation of this decision, but the Liberal (and Conservative) record is very poor when it comes to respecting the human rights of First Nations women. They have the power to do it – but it always has been, and always will be, a matter of political will.

Sharon has sacrificed more than 33 years to this battle to protect the rights of First Nation women and our children. It is because of Sharon that I have a political voice as a First Nations woman. Implementing this decision will not only mean that my children will finally be able to be registered and included as members of my First Nation, but Sharon and I, and thousands of others like us, will finally be treated equally with our First Nation brothers.

Canada cannot claim to stand as a champion of human rights in the global context while continuing to deny First Nations women and children basic human rights. Reconciliation requires shedding the hypocritical rhetoric and taking action to do what is morally right and legally required.

The world is watching Canada. Here is our press conference calling on Canada to abide by UN decision and end sex discrimination: https://youtu.be/gy9evq7a6hg

Link to the UNHRC decision.

Link to CBC article about the case: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indian-act-sex-discrimination-un-committee-1.4982330

January 21, 2019
Maybe Oliver Needs a Job in Mining? Curing Conservative Dysfunction

Conservative Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver announced this week that amendments to Canada’s regulatory process are needed to speed up the approvals of mining and other extractive industry projects. Part of his justification for speeding up approvals is to transform “aboriginal communities’ which he considers to be “socially dysfunctional”. The cure for this alleged social dysfunction is to take even more oil, gas, minerals, and other resources from their territories at a much faster pace. http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Dysfunctional%2Baboriginals%2Bneed%2Bjobs%2BTory/6341582/story.html As Oliver’s heart bled for the poor Indians, he said it was his goal to “give” aboriginals some hope. His plan, in fact, is to “move them from despair to hope” by giving Indians jobs in the extractive industry. I have to agree with Chief Clifton from Gitga’at First Nation that the language was “insulting”. I would go further though and say that the language is also consistent with the Conservative’s assimilation plan. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/03/20/are-we-being-assimilated-promo/ Harper made it clear that the objective is to give “individuals” jobs and to keep the Indian Act right where it is and will even impose additional legislation on First Nations to further control our governments and territories. The “problem” as defined by the Conservatives is that we are not fully absorbed into the body politic yet. The problem will never be resolved until Indians are “equal” with Canadians – i.e., have jobs, pay taxes and their communal lands are “open for business” (i.e. resource extraction). I am always struck when the Conservatives are able to convince the public that the source of the serious housing, water and poverty crisis in First Nations is simply because we don’t have jobs. In one line, Oliver is able to discount hundreds of years of brutal colonization and the well-known inter-generational effects of both the historical and ongoing colonial laws and policies imposed on our peoples. The residential schools system was not an “education policy gone wrong” (Minister Duncan)… http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/10/27/residential-schools-saganashduncan-apologize/ …nor can Harper say (in truth) that Canada has “no history of colonialism”. http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/534215/prime-minister-harper-denies-colonialism-in-canada-at-g20 Canada has met every criteria for genocide against Indigenous peoples, the only issue is that Canada is not likely to be charged with the offence any time soon. This does not make it any less genocidal, nor is specific intent for physical destruction necessary. http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2011/11/unbelievable-undeniable-genocide-canada The laws, policies and political decisions that led to deaths in residential schools, forced sterilizations of Indigenous women, small pox on blankets, and gruesome scalping laws are some of the most destructive genocidal acts, but today we have children taken from our families at higher rates than residential schools, we have Starlight tours and deaths of our people in police custody, we have courts and judges who put our people in jail at higher rates than Canadians, we have hundreds of murdered and missing Indigenous women and the list goes on. Colonization hasn’t stopped, nor is the reason for homelessness in Attawapiskat, contaminated water in Kashechewan or child suicides in Pikangikum due to someone not having a job in the mining industry. But let’s talk social dysfunction for a minute. Here are some dysfunctional social conditions I have noted over the last few years: (1) Canada has one of the highest child poverty rates and when compared to 17 peer countries ranked at 13; http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/child-poverty.aspx (2) Children account for only 22% of the population, but represent 38% of food bank users; http://www.campaign2000.ca/whatsnew/releases/MediaReleaseRCNov24En.pdf (3) Homeless population in Canada is around 300,000 and 1.7 million struggle with housing affordability. 50% of Canadian population lives in fear of poverty and 49% believe they are 1 paycheck from being poverty stricken. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/06/26/shelter.html (4) The “measurable” health-related costs of violence against women in Canada is more than $1.5 billion a year! http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/women-femmes/violence-eng.php (5) Meanwhile, some municipal librarians are making 6 figure salaries. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2011/munic11a.html (6) Harper’s Conservatives were thrown out of Parliament for contempt. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/957379–committee-finds-harper-government-in-contempt (7) Conservatives are now implicated in robo-calls which may have impacted their re-election. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mps-summon-elections-watchdog-to-talk-robo-calls-on-same-day-as-budget/article2379807/ Before Canada starts pointing fingers about our Indigenous Nations being dysfunctional because we don’t run to give up our lands in exchange for a mining job, I think politicians better look in their own back yard and clean up their own dysfunction. At least there are historic and ongoing reasons for our poverty – we are managed against our wills by the Canadian government. If Canada can’t manage its own affairs without dysfunction, how can it presume to manage ours and not expect the same results? If there was ever a justification for First Nation jurisdiction over our own lives (aside from sovereignty, treaties, and our right to self-determination) this would be it! To say that First Nation poverty, cultural trauma, and the inter-generational effects of colonization would be cured by a job in mining is ludicrous. Even just framing the discussion this way presumes that the best First Nations can hope for is a job – as if we don’t own the lands they want to mine. These lands are ours and it is up to decide to whether we want own, operate or stop mining on our lands. This is the very essence of Indigenous land title and our right to free, informed and prior consent which is now internationally protected under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Oliver should resign as Minister of Natural Resources and get a job in mining – maybe that will cure his dysfunctional mouth.

March 24, 2012
Justice Minister Vic Toews’ Wilful Blindness to the Ongoing “Crisis” in Justice System

Please tell me that I am not the only one who is shocked by federal Justice Minister Vic Toews’ idiotic comments tonight on APTN News. Did he actually say that there is nothing wrong with our justice system and that our justice system does not discriminate? I can’t even think of a proper descriptor for his comments – ignorant, racist, wilfully blind, pitifully stupid, unprofessional, and irresponsible don’t seem to convey the depth to which his comments are offensive. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/11/28/the-justice-system-doesnt-discriminate-says-justice-minister-toews/ It is as if he has ignored every single justice report, inquiry, and Supreme Court of Canada judgement that has found, based on overwhelming research and evidence, that our justice system does in fact discriminate, especially against Indigenous peoples. However, we all know that as Minister of Justice he knows about all these reports – he has simply chosen to ignore them because it suits the Conservative party’s racist assimilatory policy towards Indigenous peoples. I hardly know where to start. The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) published in 1996 is one of the most comprehensive studies on the situation of Indigenous peoples in Canada. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071126051037/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/cg_e.html In the same year, they released a report entitled: Bridging the Cultural Divide: A Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada was released which highlighted the numerous problems with the justice system as it relates to Indigenous peoples. Both reports found the fact of over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system to be due in part to ongoing discrimination. Prior to that, in 1989, there was the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Prosecution which you will recall was brought about because of the wrongful imprisonment of Donald Marshall Jr simply because he was Mi’kmaq. http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/marshall_inquiry/_docs/Royal%20Commission%20on%20the%20Donald%20Marshall%20Jr%20Prosecution_findings.pdf The inquiry found: “The criminal justice system failed Donald Marshall Jr., at virtually every turn from his arrest and wrongful conviction for murder in 1971 up to, and even beyond, his acquittal by the Court of Appeal in 1983.” They further found that everyone involved, from the police, Marshall’s lawyers, the judges, prosecutors, and appeal judges all failed Marshall because he was “native”. Minister Toews would be shocked to learn that their actions “amounted to a defence of the criminal justice system at the expense of Donald Marshall Jr., in spite of overwhelming evidence that the system itself had failed.” Toews might also be gobsmacked to hear that this inquiry made recommendations to “reduce discrimination in the justice system”. There is also the Report of the Manitoba Justice Inquiry in 1999 which made significant findings in relation to the level of discrimination in the justice system as it relates to Indigenous peoples. http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volume.html They found that there are two primary reasons why Aboriginal peoples are over-represented in the criminal justice system, and both are the result of systemic and ongoing discrimination against Aboriginal peoples. First of all, they found that Aboriginal peoples are more likely to be confronted by the justice system, not because they are culturally pre-disposed to criminal activity, but because of the long history of “discrimination and social inequality that has impoverished Aboriginal people and consigned them to the margins of …society.” However, the Inquiry found that the more serious issue was the ongoing discrimination within the justice system that assumes all people are the same. A system which assumes equality exists “can’t help but discriminate against Aboriginal people”. Just in case there was any doubt about the fact of discrimination in the justice system (which Toews denies), the Inquiry further found that: “Discrimination against Aboriginal people has been a central policy of Canadian governments since Confederation” and “represents a monumental symbol of intolerance”. Aboriginal peoples have been, and continue to be victims of “the openly hostile bigot” and the victims of the systemic discrimination found in our justice system. For Minister Toews to say otherwise is an outright lie according to these legal inquiries, the Supreme Court of Canada and even the Office of the Correctional Investigator. This alone is cause for Minister Toews to submit his resignation because he obviously no longer represents the public interest if he can so openly deny the sickness within the justice system. Most of you will recall the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Gladue. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii679/1999canlii679.pdf The TOP COURT in our country found that in addition to Canada being “a world leader in putting people in prison”; the “serious problem of aboriginal overrepresentation in Canadian prisons is well-documented”, the “excessive imprisonment of aboriginal people is only the tip of the iceberg” because “Aboriginal people are overrepresented in virtually all aspects of the system.” The Supreme Court of Canada goes on to explain (so READ carefully Minister Toews), that “there is widespread BIAS against aboriginal people within Canada” such that “this widespread RACISM has translated into systemic DISCRIMINATION in the criminal justice system.” (emphasis added) They also highlight the fact that the drastic level of discrimination and overrepresentation should be considered “a CRISIS in the Canadian criminal justice system”. But, just in case numerous reports, inquiries and court cases from the top court in the land don’t convince you, what about the research and observations of a federal official like the Office of the Correctional Investigator who has been saying for over 15 years that the discrimination at every level of the justice system against Aboriginal peoples is a full-blown CRISIS. http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/index-eng.aspx I invite anyone to read any report from any year and you will note that report after report highlights the discrimination, the suffering of Aboriginal peoples by discriminatory laws and policies and the fact that the problem is getting WORSE not better. These reports call the situation: – “discriminatory” (2001); – a “continuing crisis and embarrassment” (2003); – it is a “grave” situation which prevents Aboriginal people from enjoying equality (2005); – the “inequitable results” stem directly from federal policies (2008); – the situation is getting much worse (2009); and – “inequitable outcomes” are the direct result of federal policies and practices (2010). What does this all mean in terms of numbers? Well, Aboriginal peoples are only 4% of the population, but in places like Manitoba Aboriginal men can make up 79% of the prison population. Aboriginal women fare even worse making up to 83% of all prison admissions. http://www.vcn.bc.ca/august10/politics/facts_stats.html However, the situation is getting much worse for Aboriginal women and are expected to have significant increases. In fact, over a 10 year period, the imprisonment of our Aboriginal women rose by 151%. http://elizabethfry.ca/wwdcms/uploads/Aboriginal%20Women.pdf This of course, ONLY reflects what is happening in criminal justice. This does not include all the overt discrimination faced by Aboriginal peoples in the justice system by way of: – murdered and missing Aboriginal women left to die without adequate police attention; – our people who are taken on Starlight tours and left to freeze to death; – our people who are shot to death, beaten to death or tazered unnecessarily; and – the use of CSIS, RCMP, military and now INAC to spy on our people – even those of us who have never committed a criminal act. No one in their right mind could stand before all Canadians and claim that our justice system is not broken and does not discriminate against anyone. Only a right-wing extremeist, drunk with “white privilege” and power would even have the nerve to say something like that and ignore all the evidence to contrary – including evidence that comes from the very justice system he defends. This controversy all comes about over his defence of Bill C-10 – a massive bill that would make numerous amendments to numerous acts – many of which will have devastating consequences on Canadians. It will make minimum prison sentences mandatory and will take away the discretion of judges to find alternatives to prison. It is widely opposed – by organizations like the Canadian Bar Association which represents lawyers in Canada. Their 100-page submission against the Bill highlights the speed at which this omnibus bill (one that makes many changes to many acts) is being considered, the lack of time for study and comment and the overall dangers of the bill. http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/PDF/11-45-eng.pdf The following link is to a radio interview where I first talked about Bill S-2 (matrimonial real property on reserve) and then Bill C-10 and how they both relate to the oppression and assimilation of Aboriginal peoples. http://www.radio4all.net/files/fro.macpho@gmail.com/4356-1-InterviewPamelaPalmaterEdited.mp3 I know I ask a great deal of my readers – to read such lengthy blogs, access numerous links and write e-mails to express our concerns regarding endless bills, policies and actions against our peoples. But, most of us have the education, access to internet and computers and ability to do this. Think of all those who can’t, but who will no doubt be the ones to suffer from this ongoing oppression and assimilation of our people. Please write to Minister Toews and tell him to get real, submit his resignation and NOT pass Bill C-10. libmem@parl.gov.ca bqmem@parl.gc.ca cpcmem@parl.gc.ca ndpmem@parl.gc.ca vic.toews@parl.gc.ca Thank you for all your support and for continuing the battle for real justice and equality. For rabble fans, see my blog on rabble.ca.

November 26, 2011
Ontario’s Invisible People – Where are Aboriginal Issues in the Ontario Election?

So in case you didn’t know, the Ontario provincial election is happening in 4 weeks on Thursday, October 6, 2011. There is lots of election activity happening in Ontario and lots of confusing political messages and attack ads on tv. Elections can be very confusing, especially to our younger population who may be voting for the first time. http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/ontario/ The contenders for the top spot of Premier are: (1) Progressive Conservative Party’s Tim Hudak; (2) New Democrat Party’s Andrea Horwath; (3) Green Party’s Mike Schreiner; and (4) Liberal Party’s Dalton McGuinty. McGuinty is the current incumbent (i.e., he is currently in the position of Premier and hoping to be re-elected). You are entitled to vote in this upcoming election if: (1) you are at least 18 years old, (2) a Canadian citizen, (3) you reside in an electoral district and (4) have not already voted. This means that for those Aboriginal people in Ontario who want to, you can vote in this election. http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/who-can-vote.aspx However, if you do vote, I STRONGLY suggest that you read the election platforms (i.e., promises made by politicians about what they will do if elected) of each party beforehand. It is not because I believe that most contenders will fulfill all their election promises, but if they are not making ANY promises in relation to key issues that concern you, then this should act as a major red flag. As a Mi’kmaw woman who now lives in Ontario, my primary concern is for the First Nations living in Ontario and how their views, concerns, needs, rights and interests will be addressed by each party. I don’t vote in elections, so I won’t be voting, but I participate in other ways, like helping to inform others about who and what they are voting for – if they do. It is for this reason that I have gone through all of the election platforms, including the Liberal Plan which was just released today. The first thing that struck me was that not a SINGLE plan mentioned Aboriginal peoples at all. There was no mention of First Nations, Métis, Inuit, or their rights, interests or needs. The solitary reference to Aboriginal peoples was in the Conservative’s tough on crime section of their platform where they made a reference to “illegal” activity on reserves. Tim Hudak and the Conservative Party of Ontario’s election platform is called the “Changebook” and can be found here: http://www.ontariopc.com/changebook/ Andrea Horwath and the NDP’s election platform is called “The Plan for Affordable Change” and can be found at this link: http://ontariondp.com/en/policy Mike Schreiner and the Green Party’s election platform is called: “It’s Time: A five point plan for Ontario’s future” and can be viewed here: http://www.gpo.ca/sites/gpo.ca/files/gpo_platform_2011.pdf Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party’s plan was just released today and is called: “Forward Together” and can be accessed at this link: http://www.ontarioliberal.ca/OurPlan/pdf/platform_english.pdf In all of the platforms, there are lots of nice pictures of happy white people riding bikes, taking strolls in the forest, holding hands, or working hard mining, farming, or assembling vehicles. All of the contenders for Premier themselves are all white people. There is not a single picture of a First Nation community, celebration or leader in all of these platforms. It is like we do not exist in Ontario. The province of Ontario has the LARGEST population of Aboriginal peoples of all the other provinces and territories. There are almost 300,000 Aboriginal people living in Ontario, which means that 21% of all Aboriginal people live in Ontario. Even more astounding is that 80% of the Aboriginal population living in Ontario lives OFF-RESERVE. There are also 133 First Nations within Ontario, making it the province with the second highest number of First Nations after British Columbia. http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/services/datasheets/aboriginal.asp So why have we become invisible to Ontarians? Is Pikangikum’s child suicide crisis not visible enough? http://netnewsledger.com/2011/09/01/pikangikum-first-nation-faces-suicide-epidemic/ Or what about Attawapiskat’s deplorable school conditions? http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec10/attawapiskat.asp Or how about the long, unresolved land claims in Six Nations? http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/ I am sure that most people remember the senseless murder of Dudley George at Ipperwash: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/report/vol_4/pdf/E_Vol_4_Full.pdf What about the First Nations that live in the Ring of Fire and their Aboriginal and treaty rights? http://www.northernontariobusiness.com/Industry-News/mining/First-Nation-pushes-back-against–Ring-of-Fire–mine,-rail-project-510.aspx I could literally go on and on about the numerous Aboriginal issues and concerns in Ontario, but that is not the purpose of this blog. My point is to highlight that our issues have been completely ignored in this election. The only party that took any notice of First Nations was the Conservative Party, but not in a good way. True to right-wing form, they only mention First Nations is in the crime section of their platform. (see page 33) There, the First Nation traditional tobacco growing, manufacturing, and trading activities are characterized as “illegal”, “criminal”, and “dangerous” because it is run by “organized crime that uses it to fund their drug and weapons trades”. The Conservatives racist attack on First Nations is bolstered by their view that “honest businesses who are robbed of revenue, and every Ontario family, as we lose at least $500 million each year in tax revenue.” We, as First Nations people are invisible when we are dying of starvation, our children kill themselves at alarming rates or our schools are condemned. However, if there is even the most remote chance that we might be able to benefit from using OUR land or OUR resources, then they crack down with all their police, military, and legislative might to ensure that we stay where we belong: living in extreme poverty on reserves out of the hearts and minds of “honest”, “hard-working” Canadians. Even the Liberal platform, which labels Dalton McGuinty as the “Education Premier” brags for pages about the education levels and achievements of Ontario residents. Sure, Ontario can boast about 85% graduation rates, 75% of students exceeding provincial testing standards, and how they have invested $4 billion in new classrooms, libraries, buildings and labs. I guess it would not look very good for the Liberals to talk about Aboriginal education statistics. They will fall back on the jurisdictional argument that Aboriginal people are federal jurisdiction. Well, in fact, as the province knows very well, the only Aboriginal group that is definitively federal jurisdiction is First Nations living on reserve. Given that 80% of Aboriginal live OFF-RESERVE, this means that Ontario has at least some role to play in ensuring that EVERYONE who lives in Ontario has access to all these wonderful educational benefits. None of these candidates deserve our vote, but they do deserve to called on their lack of honesty and failure to stand up for EVERYONE who lives in Ontario. Speak up and call them on it. I know I will!

September 5, 2011
Canada’s Genocide?: Death by Poverty in First Nations

I apologize to all my readers about not posting lately. There are so many issues that I want to deal with and that need more attention, like: the failure of BC to provide funding to Aboriginal women’s groups to be able to participate in the Pickton Inquiry; the Conservative government’s subversion of the specific lands claims process by offering take-it-or-leave-it offers; the expert First Nation panel which has been a fiasco from its troubled beginnings, or the Conservatives pattern of censoring information. All of these issues I have tweeted about, but are deserved of their own blogs. However, as one person I only have so much time to do more things than I could finish in a lifetime. Currently, I am working on a journal article that will be published this fall on the pre-mature deaths of First Nations caused by the crisis of poverty created and maintained by Canada. This article is taking me much longer to write than usual because of the subject matter. As I type the words on each page, my heart gets heavier and heavier until I cannot hold my feelings anymore and have to walk away from the paper. Sometimes, when I am referring to very specific examples, stories of specific communities and individuals, I can’t help but cry. I am not crying for me, but for our Indigenous brothers and sisters who are denied their very lives by all the discriminatory laws, policies, and barriers imposed on First Nations by Canada. Often times we hear these words so often from our leaders and various advocacy organizations that the public hears it only as rhetoric – an exaggeration of the actual situation in First Nations. Any publicity about a crisis in one of our communities is quickly downplayed by allegations of corruption or mis-spending in another. We are often blamed for the ill effects of colonization and systemic racism. Canada has perfected the ability to “defer, deflect and deny” the fact of First Nations dying by poverty. Creating these situations of life and death make “negotiations” about our Aboriginal and treaty rights and land claims much easier. We are so far from an equal bargaining position with Canada that any agreement arrived at today should be challenged as an imprudent bargain. This is what I am writing about in my article. This is the reason why I haven’t been able to post any blogs lately or update my website (which is in desperate need of an update). Here is an excerpt from my article that I am working on: However, it is not just the federal government’s own offices and agencies that have noted Canada’s lack of action on First Nation poverty and discrimination. The Ontario coroner’s report referred to earlier clearly linked the extreme poverty in Pikangikum First Nation to the high suicide rates among their children:

Pikangikum is an impoverished, isolated First Nations community where basic necessities of life are absent. Running water and indoor plumbing do not exist for most residents. Poverty, crowded substandard housing, gainful employment, food and water security are daily challenges. A lack of an integrated health care system, poor education by provincial standards and a largely absent community infrastructure are uniquely positioned against a backdrop of colonialism, racism, lack of implementation of self-determination and social exclusion. They all contribute to the troubled youth…[1]

What health care residents do receive is “fragmented, chaotic and uncoordinated” with “clear gaps in service”.[2] Their school burnt down in 2007 and has never been replaced despite empty promises by INAC to do so. The significant funding disparities that exist between First Nation and Canadian students means that the students who are the most disadvantaged and have the greatest needs, receive the least. A community of only 2400 people has 200 child welfare files open with 80 children in care. Due to the lack of housing and the high levels of overcrowding, these children are sent to foster homes far away from their communities. Should anyone be surprised by the fact that 16 children between the ages of 10-19 took their own lives between 2006 and 2008? Under the Criminal Code of Canada, section 318(2)(b) defines genocide as:

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.[3]

At what point does Canada’s denial of the problem equate with a de facto policy of genocide?

[1] Coroner report, at 93-94

[2] Ibid. at 95

[3] CCC section 318(2)(b)

As always, I welcome any comments or feedback you may have about any of my blogs. For the next little while however, there may be delays in my response so that I can finish this article.

July 27, 2011
Praying Darth Harper and his Death Star Pass Us By: Making Sense of Election Platforms

Over the last few weeks, many Canadians, Aboriginal people and media types have been discussing the upcoming federal election. People have been trying to analyse the platforms and see which one promises the most for Canada as a whole and for Aboriginal people specifically. I have also provided information in my previous blogs for those so inclined to vote. However, I think it is important to remember that in addition to comparing platforms, one must also compare actions. It is often said that there is no better way to predict future results than by considering past actions. This blog will be a combo of the two – a brief look at each platform as well as some highlights of past actions for each party. Given that there are literally dozens of federal election parties in Canada, I can only deal with so many in the short space of a blog. Also, seeing as the Green Party does not have any seats and the Bloc is only relevant to a certain percentage of Quebec’ers, I will only deal with the Liberal, NDP and Conservatives. LIBERAL ELECTION PLATFORM: http://cdn.liberal.ca/files/2011/04/liberal_platform.pdf (1) a partial removal of the funding cap on First Nation post-secondary education with an extra $200M in the first 2 years; (2) stable funding for First Nations University of Canada; (3) $5M per year (for 3 years) for a Metis scholarship; (4) $300M for k-12 education in year 2; (5) Will continue support for Aboriginal Headstart; (6) Will create a First Nation Auditor General; (7) Will have an inquiry into the number of Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women; and (8) “Retain lessons and spirit of Kelowna process”. The Liberal Party obviously sees the huge importance of education for Aboriginal peoples. Education is a priority for the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and naturally the Liberals have included an education package in their election promises. However, if you look at this more closely, you will see that they only plan to spend $100 million a year for two years on the grossly underfunded post-secondary education program. The AFN estimated that what is needed is well over $450 million right now. The Liberals will provide much needed funding in the k-12 education system but only $300 million in year two. I am not sure how effective a one-time influx of funding can be when construction projects, renovations, upgrades and hiring can and often does take several years to complete. Then what? What about operation and maintenance? These are some of the concerns First Nations have raised in regards to their schools. The other commitments are relatively minor in nature. The Liberals would provide stable funding for the First Nations University of Canada and Metis scholarships. With regard to Aboriginal Headstart, a critically important program for the development of very young pre-school-aged children, which is underfunded and in danger of collapse in many areas – they only promise continued support. That is simply not acceptable. They can’t say on the one hand that they want to respect the principles of Kelowna, while on the other hand allow critically important programs to continue to be inequitably and chronically underfunded. The Liberal platform is supposed to be about “families” – what about Aboriginal families? So aside from limited education funding, what do the Liberals offer? Very little I’m afraid. They will introduce a First Nations Auditor General that no one but the First Nation Tax Commission and Manny Jules wants. How will this improve the lives of grass roots Aboriginal people? Where is the commitment related to treaties, land claims, and First Nation governing jurisdiction? What about a serious commitment to poverty reduction? The Liberals also promise an inquiry into the issue of murdered and missing Aboriginal women, which to me is a very important commitment. I honestly believe that part of the problem is that the Conservatives quickly moved to silence NWAC when their advocacy efforts brought this serious issue to light. As soon as questions were asked about the lack of police action, funding was cut. I think there are still issues that need to be investigated and facts that need to be brought to light. I am disappointed however, that the Liberals did not offer continued funding for Sisters in Spirit in addition to an inquiry. It was the Liberal Party who introduced the 2% funding cap on First Nation funding to begin with – so they have at least a moral obligation to remove it. In fairness though, the Liberal Party was the one which participated in the negotiations that led up to the Kelowna Accord which would have seen billions of dollars in funding flow to First Nations for education, housing, water and other vital programs and services. The goal was actually to eliminate poverty in First Nations. The former Prime Minister Paul Martin made it his personal mission to continue to advocate for First Nations and the goals set out in the Kelowna Accord. I am more than a little disappointed then that they are now only promising a “partial” removal of the cap. Overall, the Liberals have a good start on the education part of their platform, but the rest is sorely lacking in any real substance. Many other key Aboriginal issues have simply not even been mentioned. So, then the question is how likely are they to fulfill their commitments if elected? Well, that is always a hard question, but if I look at some of their past actions, I am reasonably comfortable (65%) that they would follow through – after all, there is not a great deal promised in their platform. NDP ELECTION PLATFORM: http://xfer.ndp.ca/2011/2011-Platform/NDP-2011-Platform-En.pdf (1) Increase Canada Student Grants by $200 million, with focus on Aboriginal people and others; (2) Legislation to target poverty reduction in consultation with Aboriginal and other governments; (3) Recruit Aboriginal and other medical students; (4) Lower carbon future in partnership with Aboriginal governments and others; (5) New partnership with Aboriginal people on nation-nation basis; (6) End discrimination faced by Aboriginal people – access to capital, improve housing and drinking water, remove 2% funding cap and increase education budget by $1 billion a year over 4 years; (7) Federal response to violence against Aboriginal women and support funding their organizations; (8) Work with First Nations and provinces to add 2500 new police officers The NDP have also showed a priority for education in their Aboriginal platform, but at a much higher level than the Liberals. The NDP are promising to COMPLETELY remove the 2% funding cap and increase the education budget by $1 billion a year for 4 years. That is the kind of significant investment that is required to compensate for the decades of chronic underfunding, but also to offer Aboriginal peoples the same level of opportunities for the future as other Canadians. They seem to grasp the concept that the damage done to Aboriginal peoples took hundreds of years to do, so the solutions will neither be quick nor cheap. While some of their promises include Aboriginal people, they are not necessarily focused solely on them like the student grants, recruiting of medical students and working towards a lower carbon future. That being said, the rest of their platform is significant. The NDP promise to deal with First Nations on a nation to nation basis, and while details are not offered, I don’t see the other parties making similar commitments. Similarly, the NDP seem to recognize the severe level of discrimination faced by Aboriginal peoples generally and have promised specifically to: “build a new partnership on a nation-to-nation basis with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people across the country to restore a central element of social justice in Canada and reconcile the hopes of Aboriginal people with those of all Canadians. We will establish this new partnership by forging a new relationship with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, fostering economic opportunity and lasting prosperity, ending the discrimination still faced by Aboriginal people in Canada and supporting the process of healing the harms of the past injustices.” They hope to accomplish this by removing the 2% funding cap, adding billions for education, increasing access to capital, and improving housing and safe drinking water on reserve. They also commit to work with Aboriginal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as non-governmental organizations to table legislation that will create goals and targets for poverty reduction. Their commitment to prevent violence against Aboriginal women also includes a direct federal response and funding commitments to related organizations. Overall, I consider this platform to be the most comprehensive of the three. It certainly commits to action on education, water, infrastructure, violence against women and poverty reduction. These are all very important issues, however there was very little detail on what nation-to-nation relations might look like, how treaties would be factored into the relationship, whether First Nation jurisdiction would be more fully recognized and implemented or whether outstanding land claims would be finally resolved. These are also critically important issues for Aboriginal peoples. Now, the question of how likely they are to follow through on their election promises is a tough one because they have never been in power either as a majority or minority government. This leaves us with only their actions in opposition to use as a guide. That being said, I think we can also use some of their other actions as a loose guide to future possibilities. The NDP have generally been very supportive of First Nations issues, have sided with First Nations against paternalistic legislative initiatives and spent time in First Nation communities both inside and outside of election campaigns. At the very least, their candidates show up to debates and other Aboriginal forums. All that being said, I do have some concerns that they were willing to trade off Sharon McIvor’s equality rights for the joint process to “talk” about status issues, as requested by the National Aboriginal Organizations. I can say from personal experience that the NDP worked really hard with many of us to draft amendments to better address gender inequality than what was presented in Bill C-3. However, at the end of the day they seemed to side with the Conservatives when passing Bill C-3 which included a provision denying Aboriginal women and their children any right of compensation for the last 25 years of denying their equality rights. This looms large in my mind. At the end of the day, I can only say that I am more hopeful than confident (60%) that the NDP would live up to their election promises as I don’t have enough to go by yet. Their platform is the best of all three, but if they never become the governing party, what does voting for them actually mean? I simply can’t get away from my fear that voting for the NDP is like giving a vote to the Conservatives which is like hoping Darth Harper and the Death Star will simply pass us by. I have not seen any credible analysis that argues otherwise. CONSERVATIVE ELECTION PLATFORM: http://www.conservative.ca/media/ConservativePlatform2011_ENs.pdf (1) New investment in First Nation Land Management to promote development of their land; (2) Expand adult basic education in territories; (3) Environmental safety upgrades to fuel tanks; (4) Promote clean energy; (5) Commemoration of War of 1812 celebrating First Nation veterans and others; (6) Work with Aboriginal people and others to create National Conservation Plan; (7) New national park in Rouge Valley and will try to talk to Aboriginal people and others; (8) Hunting Advisory panel that will include some Aboriginal people; (9) Will continue to work cooperatively with Aboriginal people, by enacting accountability legislation publishing salaries of chiefs; So, at first glance this looks like a rather long list of election promises for Aboriginal peoples. Even when you read the platform itself, much of it reads as a list of what they claim to have already done for Aboriginal peoples, as opposed to what they will do. You’ll also notice that the majority of the promises they do make are not at all specific to Aboriginal peoples, but we are “lucky” enough to be included in their plans. For example, the Hunting Advisory Panel, Rouge Valley National Park, National Conservation Plan, and Commemoration of the War of 1812, are all separate commitments that may include Aboriginal participation, but these promises are not specifically for Aboriginal peoples. The one glaring omission from their platform (of which there are many) is a lack of focus on education. Despite the endless reports and studies highlighting education as one of the main solutions to poverty in First Nations – there is no commitment at all with regards to Aboriginal Headstart, k-12 schools, or post-secondary education. Almost as an aside, they commit to expand adult “basic education” in the north and THAT IS IT! It is like they have heard National Shief Shawn Atleo’s calls for education and have completely ignored them. So, strategically, is it better for the Conservatives to have educated or uneducated Aboriginal people? I wonder…. What they do promise is to complete environmental safety upgrades to fuel tanks in northern communities. However, for those of you who practice in this area, you might know that many argue that INAC is liable for these fuel tanks to begin with and that any servicing they might do is part of a risk-reduction plan for their own benefit and not that of the Aboriginal communities. Their “promotion” of clean energy will likely not translate into basic funding to address mold and asbestos in houses, or the lack of safe drinking water and sewage systems in First Nations. These are really empty promises. So, then what is left in the platform? They promise to invest not in First Nations communities, but in land management to encourage First Nations to develop their lands. The English equivalent of this promise is the introduction of legislation to privatize reserve lands and open them up to commercial development and settlers. In case anyone thinks this is a new initiative, it is not. Remember Tom Flanagan’s book “Beyond the Indian Act” advocating for the privatization of reserve lands? That was the one promoted by Manny Jules of the First Nation Tax Commission and allegedly supported by federal funds (my ATIP request will hopefully provide some answers to this). Their second promise is to enact accountability legislation to make chiefs’ salaries public. Holy innovation Batman – is it me or does this sound like the reintroduction of Kelly Block’s Bill C-575? I’m sorry if I missed this, but what First Nation asked for this legislation? So, then this is not really a promise for Aboriginal peoples, but more of a political statement reiterating the Conservative position that they know what is best for First Nations and they will enact whatever legislation they want to control the Aboriginal population as they see fit. This leads me to my analysis of how likely they are to follow through on their election promises. I am VERY confident (90%) that the Harper Conservatives will fulfill their election promises to Aboriginal people for two reasons: (1) there are no real promises in their election platform and (2) the two promises they do make do not involve any expenditure of funds, nor do they have anything to do with Aboriginal priorities. I am also quite confident that I can use their past actions to predict their future actions Given my past blogs, there is no point in repeating the many, many past actions of the Conservatives in relation to Aboriginal peoples, so I will just highlight a few. Harper has not lifted the 2% funding cap and has never indicated any intention to do so. Harper has also not been interested in consulting and accommodating Aboriginal and treaty, but instead settles for “engagement” if any discussion at all. While he apologized for residential schools, the assimilatory polices upon which they were based, and for the past views of cultural superiority, Harper introduced a whole suite of paternalistic legislation against the will of Aboriginal peoples. For example, there was Bill C-575 (chiefs salary legislation cleverly introduced by a private MP), Bill C-3 (legislation that did not remedy gender inequality in the Indian Act and excluded compensation for women), Bill S-4 (matrimonial real property on reserve that provided more rights for settlers on reserve lands than for Aboriginal women), and Bill S-11 (drinking water on First Nations that promised federal control and increased regulation and no funding). We can expect more of this should Darth Harper gain control of the rebel citizens with a minority government and even worse should he gain control of the Empire with a majority. Overall, the Harper Conservatives have not made any promises to Aboriginal people, do not participate in debates on Aboriginal issues and continue to treat First Nations like sub-humans while he and his elite Cabinet group plan for a complete take-over. They do all of this with the arrogance of knowing very few will stand up to them. We have to take some ownership over this and demand that our NAO’s, leaders and ourselves do better. We also have to keep in mind that the Harper Conservatives are a collection of right-wingers, fringe groups and even some red necks. Harper had as his advisor Tom Flanagan, the man who advocated for our assimilation, called us primitive communists and tried to explain our First Nation property rights by citing studies of chimpanzees in his book. “Collectively, chimps, especially adult males in small groups patrol the boundaries of their group territory and kill chimpanzees from other bands when they can achieve numerical advantage…. Individually, chimps also seek control over resources…” (emphasis added) Flanagan is like Brazeau in that he plays with words so that he can send his negative message about First Nations in a superficially “neutral” way. Is there any doubt that a Harper government is NOT good for our people? This is why, for those of you who vote, I ask that you consider your vote very carefully. Do you vote for the NDP because they have the best platform? Does voting for the NDP really risk a majority Harper government? I simply can’t say for sure. The Liberals are offering some education initiatives and little else, but at least they are not advocating our complete assimilation as do many of the right-wing Conservative party members and friends. So, then Liberal vote might not be that bad. If someone were to ask me how they should vote, I would say NDP on platform, but Liberal to defeat Harper. It really is a difficult situation especially since for Aboriginal people, we may be voting, but all we are doing is picking our next Indian agent. I know there are only a few days left to think about it, but as you consider it, here is a neat website that argues that to defeat the Death Star, perhaps what needs to be done is vote strategically versus the ususal best platform or favorite party wins. Something to think about anyway… http://catch22campaign.ca/ I guess its all about the end game. Do we want more body bags and slop buckets sent to First Nations instead of dealing with the real crisis of poverty under a Conservative government, or do we want a chance to get democracy back and put our people, communities, lands and treaties back in the forefront of our nation-building activities as Mohawks, Cree, Mi’kmaq, Ojibway and Maliseet peoples?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/first-nations-water-plight-needs-action-chiefs-120533874.html http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090916/flu_bodybags_090916/ If a Harper minority government can do this to their own people, imagine what they would do with a majority government? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsogv4Bw5kM&feature=share For those who Aboriginal people who don’t vote, thanks for standing up for our sovereignty – we need our next generation to be as committed and assertive about our nationhood as you are. I think we’d all be alot further along if we put our sovereignty first. For those who do vote, thanks for trying to make a change for our people and for engaging in the debate to see how we can best use the vote to effect that change. As always, I welcome your comments, suggestions and emails.

April 23, 2011