Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: Aboriginal rights

  • The Worst Thing That Could Happen is a First Nation Minister of AANDC

    Justin Trudeau will be sworn in as Prime Minister on November 4 and the question that seems to be dominating social media is whether or not he will appoint a First Nation person as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). Ever since contact, colonial officials sought out individual “Indians” to act on the Crown’s behalf in various contexts – as cultural and language interpreters, military scouts, and spies. In a modern context, Canadian officials have resorted to manipulating individual Chiefs to promote federal initiatives that they know run counter to our Aboriginal and treaty rights or will be met with mass resistance. This divide-and-conquer technique of pitting First Nations against First Nations has always been used to help the Crown deflect attention from the Crown’s culpability on any given issue. The worst thing that could happen for the promised nation to nation relationship is if Prime Minister Trudeau appointed a First Nation person as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC).

    Sometimes people misunderstand the role of Crown representatives. There is no doubt that diversity on cultural, gender, and regional fronts  helps the government be more representative of the public, better inform policy and decision-making, and make for a more productive and effective government. The research shows that this is true in both matters of government and business. However, outside of considerations of governance, Crown representatives are always Crown representatives. They are there to protect the interests of the Crown. They may have been elected by a specific constituency and can represent them politically or advocate on their behalf, but Cabinet Ministers are “Ministers of the Crown”. Therefore, even the Minister of AANDC is there to represent – first and foremost – the interests of the Crown – whether the person is First Nation or not.

    That said, it is true that the Supreme Court of Canada has added to the Crown’s obligations to First Nations in specific circumstances. Some of these special considerations include fiduciary obligations attached to the honour of the Crown, which gets expressed in a variety of ways from having to act in good faith, consulting with First Nations, and honouring commitments. However, it must be remembered that Members of Parliament owe their duty to “the system”, i.e., the Constitution, the rule of law, and all regulations imposed by Parliamentarians. Yet it is this “system” which has been found by numerous commissions, reports and investigations to be racist, exclusionary, and oppressive to First Nations. Thus, the very act of being a Cabinet Minister, therefore, sets him/her directly against First Nation interests. This is evident in the hundreds of court cases which name the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Canada against First Nations. In every single case, Canada litigates AGAINST First Nations. Changing the face of the Minister won’t change this fact nor does it change the racist system itself, which is the underlying problem. The Indian Act and thousands of federal laws, regulations and policies are still in place. It just looks less offensive – but putting a nicer face on it doesn’t make it any better and can actually cause more harm.

    If Trudeau is truly serious about a Nation to Nation relationship with First Nations, then he needs to come to the table in an honest way. Canada doesn’t need to portray its Cabinet Ministers to be anything other than what they are: they represent the Crown’s interests, not ours. Let’s have true nation to nation meetings with representatives of the Crown and move forward from there. It will be up to the First Nation side to how they wish to negotiate as Nations – either as larger Nations, i.e. Mi’kmaw Nation, Haudenosaunee, or Maliseet Nation; or whether they wish to represent their collective nation-based interests by way of region, treaty or otherwise. Let First Nations do the work of their Nations and Canada focus on how it will move forward in a more just way – beyond the lethal status quo.

    While we heard a great deal from the AFN about Nation to Nation relationships, their political actions betrayed them. Secret meetings between the National Chief and the Minister of AANDC do not equate to a nation to nation relationship. In fact, secret meetings, surprise announcements about deals with Canada, and a complete failure to call Canada out for its destructive, assimilatory agenda, was part of the AFN’s undoing. But it had to happen as it is the grassroots people who are the true governments of their Nations. The people simply took their power back and told their leaders that sovereignty starts with each Nation – not with a national political organization. Canada would never allow a political corporation to represent its interests in nation-based issues – why would we? Thanks to Idle No More movement, our grassroots people have empowered themselves to take a stand against all who threaten our sovereignties, jurisdictions, lands, cultures and identities. It doesn’t look like our people are willing to let things go back to the way they were. Trudeau will have to find a way to deal with this new reality if he expects to fully realize a nation to nation relationship.

    To appoint a First Nation Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will divide our Nations, and set us up to be for or against the “First Nations” Minister – a situation none of us want to be in. It will also act as a media distraction for more important issues, like murdered and missing Indigenous women or children in care. It will also unfairly make this Minister and this Minister alone, the target of all anger, criticism, and blame when things go wrong in the relationship. It would make Canadians lose sight that the fault is not in the Minister, but in the system and the entire Cabinet which keeps this unjust system in place.

    It’s time for the Crown to act honourably and come to the table in an honest and open way. Putting a First Nation Member of Parliament as Minister will not help us move back to nation to nation relations, but distract from that goal. Real change requires a radical departure from the old divide-and-conquer tactics of the past. In the end, Trudeau, his Cabinet, and the entire federal government must realize that the hard work that lies ahead to make amends for the harms done to First Nations; the committed effort needed to address this racist and oppressive system; and the sacrifices needed to restore justice in Canada is a burden that must be borne by Canada, and Canada alone. If we have learned anything from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is that First Nations have carried the burden of injustice for far too long and at too great a price.

     

  • My Brief for the Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations of Canada: Clarifications Related to Canada’s Testimony

    My Brief for the Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations of Canada: Clarifications Related to Canada’s Testimony

    Corporate Social Responsibility

    In the review, Canada stated that international treaties ratified by Canada are not binding law in Canada. Canada also stated that Canadian companies doing business abroad are expected to demonstrate Canadian values and follow applicable human rights laws. However, if the State does not consider ICCPR applicable law in Canada, then its corporate entities would have no reason to respect the human rights contained therein.  I would thus recommend that the Committee both clarify the UN’s position in this regard and recommend to Canada to specifically implement the ICCPR into domestic law.

    Gender Equality

    In the review Canada stated that it is committed to gender equality and claimed that women make 91% of what men make. In fact, the national wage gap in Canada is 18%, much higher than other countries. In some provinces like Ontario, that gap can reach 31%. The gap is significantly higher for Indigenous peoples at 30% compared to average Canadian, and in some areas of Canada, the gap is as high as 88%. 

    I would recommend that the Committee recommend that Canada undertake specific measures and develop specific targets and measures to address sex discrimination generally and the wage gap specifically.

    The Federal Court of Appeal in McIvor case confirmed gender discrimination, but Canada enacted Bill C-3 without consulting with First Nations, and which specifically denied any compensation for Indigenous women impacted. Indigenous women and descendants are the only group in Canada that has ever been denied compensation for a Charter right violation. 

    The Committee should also recommend that Canada negotiate a compensation package for all the Indigenous women and their descendants reinstated by Bill C-3 for loss of services (education, housing, health benefits, training). 

    Violence against Indigenous Women

    Canada stated that one measure to combat violence against Indigenous women are the 40 shelters on reserve. It should be noted that there are 633 reserves in Canada, which means there are shelters in less than 6% of on-reserve communities. Canada also portrayed the crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women as one of crime, when domestic and UN reports have confirmed the root causes are in Canada’s discriminatory laws and policies, the culture of violence against Indigenous women, and the chronic and discriminatory underfunding of essential human services, like food, water, housing, education and health. 

    I would recommend that the Committee support the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, IACHR and CEDAW to develop a national action plan to address the socio-economic conditions which result in the disproportionate vulnerability to violence in partnership with Indigenous communities and Indigenous women’s organizations and commit to a national inquiry.

    Indigenous Children in Care

    Canada submitted that it does not know what factors are at play to explain the gross over-representation of Indigenous children in state care. 50% of all children in care in Canada are Indigenous, despite being only 4% of the population and represent 90% of children in care in provinces like Manitoba. Canada’s own studies have shown that the root causes are poverty, the chronic underfunding of child and family services for First Nations on reserve, inter-generational trauma from residential schools and state discrimination. 

    I would recommend that the Committee recommend that Canada fund Indigenous Child and Family Services at levels no less than provincial levels, with extra funding to address the backlog and volume of cases and for additional Indigenous staff, training, and infrastructure for CFS services on reserve with a focus of keeping children in their families, communities and cultures.

    Indian Act Sex Discrimination

    Canada stated in its response to the List of Issues at para.125 that: “the Indian registration provisions in the current Indian Act do not discriminate against women”. When questioned by Committee about unresolved sex discrimination in the Act, it responded that Bill C-3 was “a step forward” and “no one sees it as anywhere near being concluded”, but that Canada prefers an “incremental approach”. This is not a good faith application of either domestic or international law obligations in relation to gender equality. Practically, this means Canada prefers to defend lengthy and costly law suits which take upwards of 25 years to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no justifiable reason for Indigenous women and their descendants to wait 139 years for the Act to be slowly amended to eliminate gender discrimination. 

    Indigenous women and their descendants are already impoverished and without Indian status, miss out on health benefits, post-secondary education, and other social programs critical to their health, safety, and well-being; which we already know makes them vulnerable to violence. Canada also stated that they have a “Special Rapporteur” that is currently “consulting” with First Nations on how to clean up the Indian Act discrimination. This is simply not true – and if it has done so, they have not informed anyone. 

    I would recommend that the Committee recommend to Canada that it amend the Indian Act to eliminate all sex discrimination in the Indian Act’s registration provisions and it could start by immediately by amending the registration provisions as follows:

    (a)    remove the 1951 cut-off and ensure that all direct descendants on the female Aboriginal line, born prior to April 17, 1985, are accorded the same 6(1) status as the descendants on the male line;

    (b)   ensure that no one born prior to April 17, 1985 who is entitled to status is consigned to s. 6(2) status;

    (c)    ensure that entitlement to 6(1) status is extended to the female child of the status man and non-status woman who were unmarried; and

    (d) all administrative barriers are removed so that unmarried status Indian women are able to transmit their Indian status to their children, even if the father is unstated.

    Police Misconduct

    In responding to various concerns raised in Committee related to sex discrimination, violence against Indigenous women, and police misconduct, Canada failed to mention the major class action suit filed against the RCMP by female staff and officers for sex discrimination. It failed to mention the Human Rights Watch report which documented instances of RCMP sexually and physically assaulted Indigenous girls. It also did not mention the Donald Marshall Inquiry, Manitoba Justice Inquiry or Ipperwash Inquiry which all found that racism against Indigenous peoples in Canada’s police forces is a major problem that has yet to be addressed. 

    I would recommend that the Committee recommend that Canada develop a more robust and transparent oversight mechanism for all police forces that is completely independent from both political and police interference which a specific focus on and Indigenous ombudsperson for Indigenous peoples.

    UNDRIP

    In the review, Canada did not orally respond to the question in committee about whether Canada has changed domestic law and policy to align with its endorsement of UNDRIP. In Canada’s Statement of Support it states: (1) it is an aspirational document (2) it’s not legally binding in Canada (3) it does not reflect customary international law (4) it does not change Canadian law. When former Minister of Indian Affairs John Duncan was questioned on the impact of UNDRIP, he responded that Canada has its “own agenda” and as a result does not “anticipate any significant change”. Canada’s endorsement of UNDRIP is not done in good faith or with intention to have any practical effect. 

    I would thus recommend that the Committee recommend to Canada that Canada implement the UNDRIP in good faith.

    Indigenous Languages

    In the review, Canada stated that the reason for Indigenous language loss included migration and the media. The real cause of language loss stems from Canada’s assimilatory laws and policies, like residential schools, which tortured, abused and shamed children for speaking their languages. Indigenous languages were literally beaten out of many generations of Indigenous children. Canada admitted this in its residential school apology: “The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language.”

    Immediately after this apology, Canada cut funding to Indigenous languages further exacerbating the problem. Canada’s legal and economic promotion and support of English and French has not been extended to the same degree for Indigenous languages and they have no data to show that their minimal efforts in this regard have increased language use. In fact, Canada’s $5 million/year language budget amounts to less than $5 per Indigenous person in Canada annually. It is simply impossible to save languages at this token level. 

    I would recommend that the Committee supports the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Report and recommend that Canada provide immediate and significant funding to First Nations on par with funding that supports English and French languages, to ensure immersion and adult programs in every First Nation in Canada.

    Submitted by Dr. Pamela D. Palmater, Mi’kmaw Nation, sponsored by Franciscans International, on July 9, 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland.

     Note:

                                  (Some of the NGOs in Geneva Switzerland)

    After hearing a great deal of misinformation and non-answers from Canada during the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s review of Canada’s obligations under ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights); some of the NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) that attended asked if we could submit clarifications to the committee before they conclude their review. We were given permission to do so, and some of us submitted briefs which were to be no longer than one page. My original submission contains footnotes and links to sources not provided here.

    Some of the other NGO’s (like FAFIA and Amnesty International), made clarifications and recommendations related to various issues, some of which included:

    – addressing homelessness as part of the right to life;

    – insufficient review and oversight of security and law enforcement under Bill C-51; 

    – the need to support unanimous recommendations by all international human rights bodies recommending a national inquiry and action plan on murdered and missing Indigenous women; 

    – need to Canada to respect laws related to free, informed and prior consent of Indigenous peoples for land use, including extractive industries;

    –  removal of sex discrimination from the Indian Act registration provisions; and 

    – clarifications around the skewed RCMP statistics which try to paint a discriminatory picture of Indigenous peoples.

    Canada was given 48 hours to submit written material to supplement their oral testimony. The Committee’s conclusions are due July 23, 2015.

  • Conservative’s Fear Budget 2015: Canada’s Future Not High on Harper’s Radar

    One need only skim through the Conservative government’s budget to see that this massive 528 page propaganda piece is Prime Minister Harper’s last big election pitch – support Harper or the terrorists will get you. The political messaging goes even further and seems to suggest that the safety and security of Canadians in all facets of life are at risk and the only way to save themselves is support to support Harper’s Cons.

    This is a do or die budget – literally, according to Harper. Menacing words like: threat, evil, terror, danger, harm, hurt, pain, suffering, risks/threats to safety appear 231 times in the budget plan. By comparison, the word “peace” only appears 3 times, and words like: Charter rights, constitutional rights, anti-poverty, equality, climate change, women’s rights, Aboriginal rights, treaty rights, Aboriginal title, self-government, or murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls do not appear at all. The word “sovereignty” only appears in a stark military context. There is no value placed in human rights freedoms, civil liberties, equality or Aboriginal rights. The climate does not seem to be on their “radar” any more than the thousands of murdered and missing Indigenous women. This is a true fear monger’s budget.

    I don’t recall even hearing the words “First Nation” or “Aboriginal” in the budget speech – it’s like we don’t exist. Despite there being major multiple, over-lapping crises in many First Nations – like a lack of housing, water and sanitation, education, health care, flooding, children in care, and murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls – this budget completely ignores these life and death realities. Harper has sent another very clear signal that the lives of First Nation men, women and children mean less than various frivolities like Ottawa’s tulips or Canada Day celebrations.

    The majority of the funds promised in the budget are just old announcements and much of the other funding announced is not actually “new” money, but either ongoing funding or re-purposed. Many of the funding amounts are promised “over five years” and therefore only flows if you vote for Harper. Take for example the $33M Harper promised to conduct labour market surveys in First Nations – more than $22M of that money will be re-purposed from already allocated federal funding. In other words, another program will suffer with less money so Harper can survey Indians. Other funding announced will be minuscule in its impact. The $2M a year in mental health services for First Nations equates to a little more than $3k per First Nation or less than $1 per person in many First Nations.

    Most of what appears to be big money will never find its way to actual First Nation communities. The $34M and $80M a year over 5 years for “consultations” will go to the Environmental Assessment Agency and National Energy Board – not First Nations. The federal government and its agencies are already well-funded and well-armed with Justice lawyers, policy analysts, technicians, researchers and administrative support to assist them in consultations – but First Nations have none of that. This budget makes consultations on major projects worse for First Nations.

    The $12M in funds over 3 years to Indspire does not equal new funds, but represents an ongoing prior investment and does not go to First Nations at all. It represents a drop in the bucket of what is needed to provide real support to First Nations in post-secondary institutions. There are approximately 22,000 Aboriginal students in post-secondary institutions and declining every year due to lack of funding. The Auditor General estimated that about 9,500 or more are on waiting lists to be funded for university. This $4M a year for Indspire amounts to $180 per current student, or if it was intended for those on the waiting list – only $420 per student. This minimal investment has no potential to address the current underfunding or the education attainment gap. It wouldn’t even be enough to buy text books.

    Last year, Harper and former National Chief Atleo made a surprise joint announcement that the federal government would increase First Nation education funding by $1.9B – which turns out was not all new funding and most of it was not for First Nations, but for a new, additional bureaucracy to get First Nation schools in line with provincial curriculum. It was also conditional on agreeing to legislation allowing INAC to have greater control over First Nation education. The First Nation reaction was swift and led to Atleo’s resignation and a failure by Harper to provide any of the funding promised. Harper’s budget is a sign that his plan continues to be to starve us into submission.

    The current educational deficit in First Nations is well over $6B and thus a $200M undefined investment does not address that deficit, let alone provide the much needed funding to catch up. $200M over 5 years is only $40M a year or a little more than $63k per First Nation – not even enough to hire one reading resource teacher. Keeping in mind however, that even this funding is conditional on modelling First Nation schools after provincial systems. This minimal investment should be compared to the $200M investment being made in Canada Day celebrations. Just like the budget for tulips in Ottawa instead of protections for murdered and missing Indigenous women – First Nations are clearly Harper’s very last priority.

    It should be no surprise that education was not a major investment by Harper either at the k-12 level or the post-secondary level. His focus is on skilled labour force for his resource projects. Aboriginal Labour Market Programming is set to receive $248.5M over 5 years to increase the skilled labour in Aboriginal communities. Harper has made no secret that he wants to employ as many Aboriginal people as possible in oil, pipelines, Ring of Fire, uranium, and mining industries to justify his aggressive resource and energy development plans (think hydro, nuclear, and tar sands).

    It’s hardly worth even mentioning the $30M over 5 years to permit 25 more First Nations into the First Nation Land Management Act regime as this amounts to $6M a year or $240k for only 25 select First Nations. No funding was allotted to address the billions in outstanding treaty, resource and land claims, or support for self-government agreements (for those who want them). There was nothing to address governance or crisis social issues like murdered and missing women or kids in care – despite major reports from the United Nations finding Canada to have committed “grave violations” of our human rights.

    Parties and parades is Harper’s priority along with pandas and hockey. He has not only cheated First Nations, but has cheated Canadians by selling GM shares and dipping into the reserves – in both senses of the word – to fake a balanced budget. This can’t even be called a status quo budget or play it safe budget. By failing to address significant gaps in socio-economic conditions of First Nations, he and Minister Valcourt set up a budget that violates their own mandate to improve the economic and social well-being of Canadians. By refusing to address any of the crises, the lives of our men, women and children are at risk.

    The real danger doesn’t come from terrorists, but from Harper’s destruction of the environment, his failure to address climate change, his failure to address education and health care, and his wilful neglect of First Nation lives and well-being. Perhaps is he spent less money criminalizing those who are protecting the lands, waters and people in Canada, he would have enough money to invest in our collective futures.

    This Fear Budget 2015 shows that Canadians and First Nations alike have something to fear alright – and it’s Canada’s biggest terrorist: PM Harper. He represents the biggest threat to our collective well-being and future generations that Canada has ever seen.

    If ever there was a time for treaty partners to come together – it is now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrd4848Q064

  • Myth of the Crooked Indians: C-27 First Nations Financial Transparency Act

    Can you think of any Prime Minister, President or World Leader that would withhold food, water, or health care as a bullying tactic to force its citizens into compliance with a new government law, policy or scheme? Can you ever imagine this happening in Canada? I don’t think most of us could. Yet, this is exactly what is happening with Harper’s implementation of the illegal C-27. Minister Valcourt has threatened to cut off funds for food, water and health care if First Nations do not get in line and abide by this new legislation – despite the fact that it was imposed without legal consultation and is now being legally challenged. How many First Nations children will have to die for Harper to sit down and work this out with First Nations? Bill C-27 (formerly C-575) First Nation Financial Transparency Act (FNFTA) is the classic deflection tactic by Harper’s Conservatives to distract Canadians from the extreme poverty in many First Nations and Canada’s role in maintaining those conditions. The solution to chronic underfunding of essential human services like water, food, and housing lay not in more legislation, but in addressing the problem: the underfunding. Presenting accountability legislation as the solution implies that First Nations are the cause of their own poverty – a racist stereotype Harper’s Cons use quite frequently to divide community members from their leaders and Canadians from First Nations.

    This racist stereotype is recycled again and again when Harper is pressed to account for the fourth world conditions in some First Nations. The response always seem to be: “Well, we gave them x million dollars, where did all the money go”? What Harper never tells Canadians is that in giving First Nations x million dollars, that he has given them half of what is needed to provide the specific program or service. Without all the facts, this propaganda serves to distance Canadians from First Nations.

    In the last couple of years, Harper has been hit hard in the media about Canada’s persistent failure to address the basic needs of First Nations. The following high-profile poverty-related crises in First Nations meant that Harper needed some instant damage control and distraction – which he got with C-27:

    – Cindy Blackstock’s discrimination case for inequitable child and family service funding to First    Nations kids in care;

     – Numerous housing, water and suicide crises and states of emergency in individual First Nations; – Auditor General’s numerous findings related to inequitable funding in housing, water and education; – RCMP’s report about over-representation of murdered and missing Indigenous women; and – United Nation’s finding that Canada’s human rights violations leads to “abysmal” poverty in First Nations despite Canada’s enormous wealth;

    The Cons also use third parties, like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, to advance their racist propaganda and deflect from the real issues. How many times have we heard the phrase “millionaire chiefs” or “exhorbitant salaries”? Yet there has never been a millionaire Chief in the history of Indian Act Chiefs. Canada has failed to show where any Chief ever received a million dollar salary from federal funding.

    But let’s pretend all 633 Chiefs in Canada got million dollar salaries (which they do not). That would mean $633 million dollars a year in salary to Chiefs. The annual budget for First Nation programs and services is approximately $10 billion.  It would be pretty hard to argue that 6% of the budget going to give all Chiefs a million dollar salary would be the actual cause of First Nation poverty.

    We simply can’t have this conversation around accountability without the facts. The facts are this: the average Canadian salary is $46,000/year. The average elected First Nation leaders’ salary is $36,000/year. Yet, there are numerous municipal librarians making $100,000 a year to manage books, while First Nation leaders must manage human lives.

    http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/accountability/5_-_the_straight_goods_on_first_nation_salaries.pdf

    But why are we even talking about salaries when we should be talking about funding First Nation food, water and housing? That’s because of C-27 FNFTA and all the media hype around an alleged lack of transparency in First Nations. There are critical problems with this legislation which make it both unconstitutional and illegal: (1) it was done without legal consultation, accommodation and consent of First Nations and (2) it’s a direct interference with inherent First Nation jurisdiction;  and (3) it violates their internationally-protected First Nation right to be self-determining.

     http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-11.66.pdf

    FNFTA states that its purpose is to “enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations” – which presumes, of course, that this is lacking. The Act itself provides that:

    – financial statements must be audited yearly;

    – it must include a schedule of salaries and expenses of Chiefs and Councillors;

    – Canada can publish the information on the Internet; and

    – Copies of the audits must be provided by First Nations to their band members.

    These may seem like harmless provisions, except when you realize that First Nations already have to submit audited financial statements every year, or their funding can be cut off. First Nations band members have always had the right to obtain copies of their First Nation audits – either directly from the First Nation or from Indian Affairs.

    What’s not obvious in this Act or its associated rhetoric, is that First Nations are the most accountable governments on the entire planet! The Auditor General has made very disturbing findings about the level to which First Nations must report on their federal funding – a “burdensome” 60,000 reports a year! That’s over 95+ reports per First Nation every year or one report every 3 days. The Auditor General even found that many of these reports are not even read by federal bureaucrats. So what’s the problem?

    http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201106_04_e_35372.html#hd5j

    Enacting FNFTA seems more like an exercise in smearing First Nation leaders, than addressing any real glaring omission in accountability. And, with the Harper government, there is always a hidden gem. While he is turning community members against their leaders and distracting Canadians from the real issue of underfunding, here is what Harper is REALLY doing in this Act:

    – reporting of any salary, income or expenses of Chiefs and Councillors made in the PERSONAL capacity;

    – First Nations must make their audits accessible to the PUBLIC on the Internet for at least 10 years;

    – refusal by a First Nation to comply with any of these provisions means Canada can CUT FUNDING.

    So let’s look at each of these provisions more closely.

    Personal Income:

    Imagine if any political leaders in Canada had to report their personal wealth in addition to the salary of their public office. Prime Minister Harper is the 6th highest paid political leader in the world with a salary of approximately $300k/year. Harper not only makes 7 times what the average Canadian makes, but makes far more than other world leaders with much larger populations and economies.

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/stephen-harper-6th-highest-paid-world-leader-study-134621685.html

    But let’s forget about his salary for a minute. What is Prime Ministers and federal politicians had to publicly disclose their PERSONAL wealth? Then we are no longer talking about over-paid Prime Ministers, we are talking about million dollar Prime Ministers. Stephen Harper’s personal wealth has been estimated at $5M. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin is in the hundreds of millions. Why the double standard?  Why did so many federal MPs refuse to disclose their own expenses? I agree there is an issue of accountability in Canada, but it’s with the federal government, and not First Nations.

    Public Access:

    The other issue is about accountability and to whom? This act makes First Nations accountable to the Minister first, the Canadian public second, and lastly to their band members. This Act does nothing to improve accountability of leaders generally to their membership. In fact, band members will not get any information that they were not entitled to previously. What is new is that the Canadian public has a NEW right to access that information. One has to wonder why that is the case. Canadians don’t participate in First Nation governments, they don’t vote for the leaders, and they certainly don’t pay for their programs and services – despite that persistent myth.

    There is no reason for Canadians to have access to this information – especially any information related to First Nation PERSONAL financial information. Some lawyers have even argued that this Act creates not only a double and higher standard on First Nations than on Canadian politicians; but also violates their legal privacy rights. There is simply no need for this piece of the legislation.

    Cutting Funding:

    Here is the real issue. Harper’s bully government has been meticulous in designing heavy-handed, paternalistic legislation with extreme-force compliance mechanisms built in and FNFTA is no exception. If First Nation do not or cannot comply, they can have all of their funding cut. We are not talking about funding for Ottawa-type expenditures like summer tulips, Canada Day fireworks, or international trips – we are talking essential human services like food, water, heat and housing. As temperatures reach -40 degrees in the north right now, this could be disastrous.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/first-nations-to-resist-complying-with-financial-transparency-act-1.2849517?cmp=rss

    Many Idle No More grassroots citizens, Indigenous lawyers, academics, activists and leaders have come out against this legislation – not because any of us are against the general principle of open, accountable and transparent governments, but because Canada has no right to interfere in the governance of our Nations for any reason. We have never surrendered our sovereignty or right to govern ourselves. In 1997, Canada even recognized as a matter of policy, that our right to be self-governing is constitutionally protected.

    I know there have been some bad individual leaders during our time.  I know that some individual communities struggle with internal leadership issues. But that’s not all our communities.

    I also know that we have all suffered many generations of colonization, inter-generational trauma from residential schools, and the impossible choices forced upon our leaders in managing extreme poverty.

    We have so many problems because of the systemic racism, assimilatory government policies, chronic underfunding, failure to implement our treaty and Aboriginal rights; lack of access and control over our lands and resources; and federally-imposed laws which tell us how to govern.

    One bad leader does not justify calling in the colonizer to further control our communities. Our Nations thrived here since time immemorial and our Nations will continue for many more millennia. We can survive and heal from colonization, just as we can get past any one bad leader. We simply can’t let Harper’s racist propaganda divide us. He wants community members to invite him in to control their communities – but once he’s in, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get him back out.

    Say no to FNFTA and stand with those First Nations who are resisting its illegal imposition on our communities.

    http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/10/bill-c-575-first-nations-financial.html

    #rise   #idlenomore   #warriorup   #sovereignty   #No2FNFTA

  • Dramatic Contradictions: 2014 Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples

    The United Nations Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada James Anaya released his advanced, unedited report on “The Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada”. The Rapporteur based his report on research, various sources, a visit to Canada in October 7-15, 2013, meetings with federal and provincial government officials, and meetings, visits with and submissions from Indigenous peoples.  

    http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/docs/countries/2014-report-canada-a-hrc-27-52-add-2-en-auversion.pdf

    There is a disturbing underlying theme in the report – one which speaks of “dramatic contradictions”:

    (1)   The continued “abysmal” social conditions in First Nations in the context of increasing wealth and prosperity in Canada; and

    (2)   The numerous laws and protections for First Nation rights versus the many human rights violations committed against First Nations.

    Anaya noted that while some First Nations have risen up against these injustices with the Idle No More movement, others are starting to give up attempts to resolve their claims. Anaya concluded that the relationship between Canada and First Nations has become much worse since the last visit to Canada in 2003. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is during Prime Minister Harper’s term.

    Abysmal Social Conditions in First Nations

    Anaya’s most serious concerns relate to the “striking” statistics related to the poverty in many First Nations. Of the bottom 100 communities in Canada – 96 are First Nations. “The most jarring manifestation of these human rights problems in the distressing socio-economic conditions of indigenous peoples in a highly developed country.” 

    http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057

    He found that there has been no improvement in the gap between First Nations and Canadians in terms of housing, health care, education, welfare and social services. Given the significant needs of First Nations, Anaya had expected that the cost of social services would have been higher and was shocked to find that it was lower. He cited Canada’s own Auditor General who pointed out that the failure to address poverty on reserve is due to the lack of appropriate funding from the federal government.

    This led Anaya to conclude: “One of the most dramatic contradictions indigenous peoples in Canada face is that so many live in abysmal conditions on traditional territories that are full of valuable and plentiful natural resources.”

    Canada’s Immense Wealth and Prosperity

    It’s not like there isn’t enough money to go around. Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world because of the lands and resources which belong to Indigenous peoples. The mining industry alone brought in $44 billion in 2013.

    http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/node/15983

    That figure doesn’t include the hundreds of billions in other natural resources that come straight from Indigenous lands. Anaya noted that while governments and private interests are the ones that profit from resources on Indigenous lands, it’s the Indigenous peoples who suffer all the negative consequences in health, economy and culture that comes with the resulting environmental degradation.

    This situation is not just an unfortunate, but inevitable consequence of western “progress” – it’s a calculated policy choice to impoverish First Nations for the benefit of others. Anaya notes that Canada’s consistent failure to consult with First Nations, take unilateral actions against their rights and portray them in negative light to the public is an “affront” to Canada-First Nation relations. Anaya explains that the federal public discourse on First Nation rights is presented as a burden to tax-payers instead of educating Canadians about the “vast economic benefit” they receive from First Nations. Harper’s continued negative comments against First Nations risks “social peace”.

    First Nations could be completely self-sufficient economically if they controlled only a fraction of their lands and resources. Yet, in pursuit of maximized profit, Canada continues to ignore the legal rights and interests of First Nations. Canada (both federal and provincial governments) maintain their legal and physical blockades against First Nations to prevent them from accessing and benefitting from their own lands and resources. Anaya notes that despite the fact that treaties are constitutionally protected and allows Canadians to enjoy immense wealth, 30% of Justice Canada litigation is fighting treaties. Canada uses all of it power – its laws, policies and programs to maintain First Nations in poverty, while partnering with private interests to maximize government and corporate profits.

    Legal Protections vs. Violations

    Part of the dramatic contradiction which is so striking to outside observers. As noted by Anaya: “It is difficult to reconcile Canada’s well-developed legal framework and general prosperity with the human rights problems faced by indigenous peoples in Canada that have reached crisis proportions in many respects.” Canada presents a façade of human rights but commits numerous violations against Indigenous peoples – with apparent impunity. Although Anaya did not do a complete accounting of which laws and violations, he noted several human rights violations that have received “insufficient” attention by governments including the well-being gap, housing crisis, murdered and missing women, over-representation in Justice system, gender discrimination in Indian status, and lack of education to name a few.

    *Legal Protection

    Human Rights Violation

    Constitution Act – s.35 – Inherent Right to be Self-Governing

     

     

    Indian Act’s Ministerial control over every aspect of First Nations’ lives

     

    Legislative suite which protects Ministerial control – Water, elections, education, matrimonial real property, transparency acts

     

    Must extinguish rights to negotiate self-government agreements/claims

    Constitution Act – s.35 – protect Aboriginal and treaty rights

     

    Duty to consult and accommodate

     

    Free, informed and prior consent

    Federal and provincial governments (with court’s approval) allow agriculture, forestry, mining, hydroelectric power, general economic development, protection of environment or endangered species, building of infrastructure and settlement of foreign populations to trump constitutionally protected rights

    Charter of Rights and Freedoms  – s.15 Equality rights & non-discrimination

     

    Canadian Human Rights Act – non-discrimination

     

    Various provincial human rights acts – non-discrimination

    Indian Act’s discriminatory treatment of Indian women and descendants

     

    Failure to address disproportionate number of murdered and missing Indigenous women

     

    Over-representation of Indigenous peoples in jail & Indigenous children in state custody

     

    Discriminatory/less funding for child welfare

     

    Discriminatory/less funding for education

     

    Unsafe or no drinking water

    Criminal Code – s.319 hate speech

    Media, teachers, writers, MPs, Ministers, RCMP, provincial police forces, PM make racist and discriminatory remarks and portrayals of First Nations

    Criminal  Code – s.271 sexual assault

     

    s.267 assault with weapon or causing bodily harm

     

    s.279 unlawful confinement

     

    s.215 failure to provide necessaries of life

    RCMP and provincial police taking Indigenous men on “Starlight” tours

     

    RCMP,  provincial police and/or judges sexually assaulting and raping Indigenous women and girls

     

    Deaths while in child welfare – state care

    *This table represents my own observations of laws vs. rights violations in Canada.

    Conclusions and Recommendations:

    Anaya concluded that Canada could address these human rights violations if it wanted to do so. Let’s hope Canadian officials take a good hard look at Anaya’s observations and recommendations and take the necessary action to end these human rights violations against Indigenous peoples. A highlight of some of Anaya’s key recommendations:

    – Sufficient funding for education, health, and child welfare; – Focus on Indigenous-run social and judicial services;

    – Urgent, increased funding to address the housing crisis;

    – Enhance education, funding and consult on any proposed legislation;

    – Comprehensive, nation-wide inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls;

    – Consent for all laws impacting Indigenous peoples;

    – Address gender discrimination in the Indian Act;

     – No resource development without free, informed and prior consent of Indigenous peoples; and

     – Maximize Indigenous control and benefit from any extractive operations on Indigenous lands.

     

    “Indigenous peoples concerns merit higher priority at all levels and within all branches of Governments, and across all departments.”

  • Willing Partner or Jail?: Budget 2014 and the Elimination of First Nation Treaty Rights, Resources and Trade

    Harper has released the Conservative government’s federal budget for 2014 and one might think we were transported back in time to 1814. Promises of federally-controlled schools for Indians and trained, cheap labour for the extractive industry are the highlights of this budget. Instead of providing funds to address the socio-economic crises that exist on many First Nations, or implementing Aboriginal, treaty and inherent rights, Harper has offered more beads and trinkets – except these beads are more like bombs. Harper is poised to eliminate our rights in the name of national security. http://actionplan.gc.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/budget2014-eng.pdf A closer inspection of the budget “promises” reveals very real threats to First Nations treaty rights, natural resources and their right to trade. All of this for the alleged “benefit of Canadians”, but it won’t be Canadians who benefit – it will be large corporate enterprises which hoard their profits. In the US alone, corporations are sitting on trillions in cash – not benefiting anyone but their CEOs. Harper’s economic plan doesn’t just hurt First Nations – it also hurts Canadians. http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/corporations-hoard-cash-while-americans-go-without-job-5508 In a strategically-designed media event, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Shawn Atleo together with Prime Minister Harper and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) Minister Bernard Valcourt announced that legislation to totally revamp education in First Nations would be imposed by Canada after all – despite the resistance by the majority of Chiefs and First Nations citizens in Canada. http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2014/02/first-nation-control-of-first-nation.html Amidst much secrecy and blue-dot identification systems to exclude “bad Indians”, Atleo and Harper ran roughshod over the treaty right to education. Despite Atleo’s words that AFN is not a treaty organization and that he cannot negotiate treaty rights – he has done just that. Harper, with the help of Atleo, is trying to lure First Nations into trading their treaty right to education for a legislated program – subject to government whims and budgets. http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/14-02-14_nc_bulletin_fn_education_announcement_and_budget_2014_fe.pdf Their joint announcement on First Nation Control of First Nation Education Act as the “answer” to the education crisis in First Nations is an illusion. Despite the build-up and announcement day fanfare, there was nothing substantive put on the table for First Nation education this year except more paternalistic federal legislation. It must be remembered that this legislation is an old promise that has been announced and re-announced many times over in major Conservative speeches. The rest of Atleo-Harper’s announcement amounted to a promise of future monies which are supposed to flow AFTER Harper’s term of office. Kelowna has shown us how empty “future monies” are to First Nations. http://www.oktlaw.com/blog/behind-the-numbers-harper39s-new-funding-of-the-first-nations-education-act/ Not only is this elusive, top-secret, federally-controlled legislation nothing new – but it is also being used as the primary trinket in other sections of the budget. For example, under the Education section, First Nations are promised First Nation education legislation. Under Jobs, they are promised First Nation education legislation. Under Skills Training, they are promised First Nation education legislation. So, once again First Nations really don’t get anything out the federal budget 2014 despite the fact that it’s our lands and resources that subsidize the many other budgetary promises. The Conservative Budget 2014 reveals that the only promises we can take to bank are those which reinforce the federal blockade against First Nation treaties, resources and trading rights. Make no mistake, Harper’s veiled threats in his Speech from the Throne are also being implemented in his Budget 2014. Harper, with the help of “willing partners” like Atleo, are asking First Nations to voluntarily give up their rights in exchange for money. The problem here is that this is like asking a single mom living on social assistance if she wants food for her children. Of course she needs food for her children, but that doesn’t mean she should be bullied into giving up her rights. Many of our communities are under duress to accept these take-it or leave-it offers. With no money to fight in court and no courts where we can get an unbiased decision, this leaves very few options for First Nations to protect their rights. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2013/10/conservative-throne-speech-2013-more.html There is incredible economic pressure put on First Nations to assimilate, integrate and otherwise surrender their rights. The budget indicates that Conservatives will provide $166 million over two years to help strengthen First Nation fishing enterprises, which sounds promising – until you read further. The money is allocated for the Atlantic and Pacific commercial fisheries – however, the funds are to be used to “integrate First Nation fishing enterprises into existing commercial fisheries”. First Nations have Aboriginal, treaty, and inherent rights to trade in fish – these rights are constitutionally and internationally protected. Canadians do NOT have a constitutional right to fish and trade in fish. What he is saying is that millions will be put into forcing First Nations to give up their rights or give up their means of subsistence. This is not voluntary – it’s coercive. We should not be surprised given that this comes from a government whose members have advocated against what they call “race-based” fishing rights. http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3642 This underlying threat against First Nations rights appears throughout the budget and especially in relation to natural resources. The Harper government promises to “ensure” the extraction of natural resources and, as promised in his Throne from the Speech, he will “protect” these resources by beefing up protective infrastructure around them – including roads, bridges, and the means to protect this infrastructure. This is why you see billions invested in “energy infrastructure development” as well as money for law enforcement. Similarly, our Indigenous right to trade is also being attacked despite the many thousands of years of trading activities amongst our Indigenous Nations. For centuries, we have defended and protected our territories and trading routes. While the colonial governments erected barriers to the free flow of trade between Indigenous Nations – like the Canada-US border, the Jay Treaty promised that we would not be molested in our traditional travel and trade activities. Similarly, nation-based territories span multiple provincial borders and our sovereignty, rights and laws have never been superseded by provincial laws. Our trading and business activities have long been a part of our traditional economies – but Harper wants absolute control over our economies. Self-sufficient Nations don’t mix with Harper’s ideal of assimilated Indians and surrendered resources. Harper is now trying to force us give up our trading and business activities and surrender it to the federal and provincial governments under the guise of law and order. Canada has had a long history of criminalizing our traditional activities like hunting, fishing, and even travelling off-reserve to engage in trade. This continues today where the majority of court cases defending our Aboriginal and treaty rights are within the context of criminal or regulatory offences. In Budget 2014, Harper is pre-empting our rights and making some of our trade and business illegal. He is targeting online casinos and making them subject to terrorism legislation – knowing that outside of the provinces, it’s only First Nations that are venturing into online casinos. Similarly, he is taking one of our most lucrative traditional activities – the growing, manufacture and trade in tobacco – and eliminating First Nations trade as an “anti-terrorism” and “anti-contraband” measure. The only exceptions, if any, will be through tightly-controlled federal or provincial restrictions. Harper’s federal blockade preventing us from accessing our own resources is getting stronger – chipping away at our future self-sufficiency. So, just to be clear – Budget 2014 promises that if we agree to give up our Aboriginal, treaty and inherent rights to the $650 billion dollars (over the next 10 years) in natural resources that we own, Harper will give us some skills training for some low-level labour jobs with the extractive industry. That is why so many “employers” were present at the Atleo-Harper education announcement. As Harper continues to cut funding to First Nations and blockade them from their own resources, he hopes to make First Nations reliant on large corporations for hand-outs. Harper may feign innocence and claim that he is not forcing us to do anything and that all of these promises are for “willing partners” – but the definition of willing is without duress. Yet in Harper’s world, willing partners are those who want to eat, drink clean water, have an education and want to stay out of jail. Willing partner or jail… willing partner or jail… willing partner or jail. What would you choose? First Nations are already over-incarcerated and we know where this Budget 2014 path is heading. If we don’t act soon, it won’t just be First Nations who fill the shiny new prisons – Canadians are also lose the rest of their democratic rights and freedoms. How much more will Canadians take – from CSEC spying on all our cell communications in airports, CSIS and RCMP using terrorism to spy on social workers and teachers, to changes to the elections act to ensure we can never get rid of the Conservatives. We all need fresh air, clean water and farmable lands to live – Canadian or First Nation. We can’t eat gold or nuclear waste. It’s time we got real about Harper’s intentions and helped First Nations defend their rights. This could be Canadians’ last best chance to protect their own children from a life sentence in one of Harper’s jails for the crime of subsistence and protecting our lands and waters.

  • To Vote or Not to Vote – A Question of Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples

    The issue of whether or not to vote in the fast-approaching federal election has been a hot topic in the last few weeks. There are Indigenous peoples on both sides of the argument and sometimes the debate can get pretty heated. Taking into account the vibrant diversity within our Indigenous Nations, a wide variety of opinions is to be expected. One thing is for certain, we all seem to want better for our  families, communities and Nations – the only difference is how we go about achieving it. Ways of Thinking: I am one of those academics, lawyers, volunteers, activists, mothers, and bloggers that likes to think about these issues on multiple levels – from legal, political, social, historical, philosophical and practical mindsets. This way of thinking and considering issues comes from my Indigeneity – my Mi’kmaq way of seeing, contemplating and navigating this world. I have often had problems giving legal opinions that did not include a consideration of political and social considerations, or looking at a policy issue without looking deeper at the philosophical ideology from which it stems. I have often found that part of the problem in considering issues which impact our peoples is that the decision-makers look at it from a one-dimensional viewpoint. So, addressing chronic poverty in First Nations is seen as a matter of economics – it costs too much up front to deal with, ignoring that investments now have far bigger pay-offs later. On top of that kind of limited thinking, federal and provincial politicians are still saddled with their very ethnocentric, westernized ways of seeing the world and our place within it. The overall goal of assimilation and paternalism seems to cut across political parties and be a common theme in federal and provincial policies and laws relating to our people. So, how does all of this relate to voting? I think the underlying ideology from which you consider the issue affects the factors that are considered relevant in deciding whether or not to vote. I am also trying to say that I appreciate all opinions and ideas and learn a great deal from the diverse Indigenous world views shared with me on a regular basis. Since this might be a little too “heavy” for some readers and out of consideration for my younger followers who might “unfollow” me if I get too boring, I’ll get straight to the issue – I am against voting in federal and provincial elections. However, I am not against Aboriginal people exercising their right to vote. How are these two positions compatible? Let me try to explain… The Right to Vote: Aboriginal peoples have the right to vote in Canada. Canada considers Aboriginal peoples in Canada to be Canadian citizens and as such have a right to vote. “Indians” achieved the right to vote in 1960 when those anachronistic provisions of Canadian laws were repealed. Given that the Canadian system, with all of its laws, policies and governing structures were imposed on Aboriginal people against their will, I think having the right to vote is the LEAST Canada can do. So, given Canada’s assumption of sovereignty in our territories, I clearly believe that Aboriginal people should have the right to vote – I am just not advocating that they do. Some of you might be saying “How does that make any sense”? Like I said, since Canada imposed their systems on us, then the option of being a citizen with a right to vote is the least that Canada can do for Aboriginal peoples. Some feel that we are “dual citizens” – i.e., citizens of our Indigenous Nations and (for some) citizens of Canada. Therefore, there is an argument to be made that those who vote do not prejudice their real citizenship in their Nations because of this duality. While there is some merit to this argument, I think the issue of sovereignty is a bit more complex. We must keep in mind that the right to vote is directly associated with being a Canadian citizen. Being a Canadian citizen has been historically tied to having to give up one’s Indigeneity, language, culture, laws, governance, ways of being and adopt Canadian ways of life. Canada has a long history of promoting its perceived cultural superiority that this ideology found its way into Canadian laws, policies and decision-making. The Indian Act used to require that anyone who wanted to vote had to give up their Indian status and that of their wife and children. This meant forgoing all connections to the land and dispensing with Treaty rights. Even today, government laws and policies are all geared toward assimilation and extinguishment – not the protection of Indigenous Nations. It is no suprise then that the centuries old association of being Canadian (and the right to vote) with the loss of our identity, culture and rights is one that looms large in many of our minds and why many refuse to vote. Dual Citizenship: Let’s assume for argument sake that we are technically dual citizens – citizens of both Canada and our own Indigenous Nation. Just because we have it doesn’t mean we should use it – especially if it won’t give us what we want. Does having a couple of Aboriginal MPs help strengthen our sovereignty or Nation-building efforts? Does it fundamentally shift the relationship between our treaty partners? Does it fulfill and enrich our sense of being Mi’kmaq, Mohawk, Cree or Maliseet? I would argue it does not. It gives us (if we are “successful” in the vote) Aboriginal MPs. What does that do? We had Elijah Harper, who thankfully stopped Meech Lake, but those laws have since been changed. We could not do that again. The colonizers quickly learn from their mistakes and change laws,jury pools or even election ridings to suit their own interests – never ours. That is why we see so few of us on juries and why we are on the receiving end of the cruel justice. What we would end up with even if we did get a few more Aboriginal MPs, is more people who would be forced to tow the party line. I no more want an Aboriginal Minister of Indian Affairs imposing the Indian Act on me and my family than I would a non-Aboriginal one. Nor am I comforted by having an Aboriginal Fisheries officer arrest my family for fishing or prosecuting my family for hunting. In my eyes, that is far worse than when a non-Aboriginal person oppresses our people because we have an inherent obligation to stand up for our people – something for which our ancestors felt was worth giving up their lives – if necessary. I am also concerned about the equality of the “duality” of citizenship – is there a point where the more dominant form of citizenship, i.e., the “Canadian” one, overcomes our traditional citizenship? By voting as Canadians, while our Indigenous rights, cultures, languages and lands slip away, is there some point where the Flanagans and Harpers of the world pronounce that we are finally assimilated? If we don’t act to recognize, assert, protect and act on our sovereignty and indigeneity – NO ONE ELSE WILL. No one act of sovereignty will make a difference – it is our collective mindset, teachings and actions that will bring about the change we want. Not voting is one of many, many actions we need to take to assert our sovereignty Sovereignty: In simple terms, sovereignty means that our Indigenous Nations (Mi’kmaq, Cree, Maliseet, etc) have the right to be self-determining and free from interference or control by another Nation – like Canada not just because they were “here first” – although this is a pretty compelling argument even in Western legal traditions. It is far more than our occupation of this land since time immemorial, it is, as the Supreme Court of Canada put it: “In my view, the doctrine of aboriginal rights exists, and is recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1), because of one simple fact: when Europeans arrived in North America, aboriginal peoples were already here, living in communities on the land, and participating in distinctive cultures, as they had done for centuries.  It is this fact, and this fact above all others, which separates aboriginal peoples from all other minority groups in Canadian society and which mandates their special legal, and now constitutional, status.” (emphasis added) http://scc.lexum.org/en/1996/1996scr2-507/1996scr2-507.html We were (and are) sovereign peoples with our own lands, histories and cultures, but also our own laws, trading systems and networks and governing systems. None of this was replaced or nullified on Canada’s assumption of sovereignty. This is one of the reasons why our inherent right to be self-determining has been protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html Sovereignty can never be given – it is something that is asserted and that may or may not then be recognized by others. Anyone who asks Canada to recognize our sovereignty is not acting sovereign. When communities and Nations take a stand and act on their sovereignty by fishing, hunting, enacting our own laws, living by our own cultures and traditions, pr by preserving and promoting our languages – that is real sovereignty. Kahnawake knows what it is like to act on their sovereignty – so does Esgenoopetitj, Six Nations and many others. It Makes No Sense to Vote: So, if that is the case and we are sovereign Nations with our inherent right to be self-governing recognized as protected, then why would we vote in another sovereign Nation’s election process? If you look at it in reverse, would you want Canadians to vote in OUR elections and governing processes? Of course not – even saying it sounds ridiculous. I think we have suffered enough by Canadian control over our affairs, we don’t need any more micro-managers in our communities. If you look at it from a treaty perspective, we signed treaties as sovereign Nations, not as the wards or subjects of the Crown. If this were the case, there’d be no treaties as Nations never sign treaties except with other Nations. This is one of the very fundamental aspects of who we are as Nations that makes us different from those who have immigrated to Canada. We owe it to our treaty ancestors to live our sovereignty everyday so that our future generations enjoy the same freedom to be and live Indigenous. What are We Voting For? So, let’s say that none of this has even slightly given you pause for thought. When we do vote, what are we voting for? We are voting for political parties who have been responsible for: – physical and sexual abuse, deaths, cruelty and torture & loss of language and culture in residential schools; – wanting to completely eliminate “Indians” through scalping bounties, small pox blankets, White Paper, Indian Act, exclusion of our women and children from our communities through status; – chronic under-funding and caps on our essential social services like water, housing, health and education; -over-representation of our men and women in prisons, starlight tours, deaths in police custody; – hundreds and hundreds of murdered and missing Aboriginal women and girls and even more subjected to violence and sexual exploitation; and – the theft of our precious children during the 60’s scoop and now many more through Child Welfare Agencies. This is just to name a few. So, what then are we voting for when we vote for one party or another? We are voting for more of the same but hoping for something different. What we are voting for is who will be our next Indian agent. We are voting for the next Minister of Indian Affairs who will manage and control us through the Indian Act and keep us so pre-occupied with such extreme poverty than we are too sick, uneducated, depressed or dead to rise up and re-assert our sovereignty. Our expectations are managed so that we will chase the small hope that maybe this time will be different and maybe we will get a few hundred more dollars for a program or project. We deserve better than this and we are responsible to our Nations not to be complicit in this. Our Veterans: I have heard many raise the issue of our Aboriginal war veterans in this debate. I have a great deal of respect for those who fought to protect their territories as they have done since time immemorial. As individuals, I am sure they all had their own reasons for enlisting in WWI and WWII and other wars. That being said, I don’t like when people make the over-generalisation that our veterans were fighting for the right to vote. That may be true of some war vets, but not all. Indians did not get the right to vote until 1960 – decades after WWI and II. My father was a WWII war veteran who came back home disabled, with no land or compensation and no educational opportunities. He did not fight in Canada’s war for the right to vote in Canada’s governing system, he fought as an ally of Britain with whom our Nation, the Mi’kmaq Nation, had signed various treaties. In our treaties, we agreed to be allies and protect our territories. It was his hope that by living up to his obligations under the treaties, the Crown would live up to its obligations. There are many war veterans who felt the same way. Political Engagement vs. Apathy?: Nothing makes me more upset than when I hear others categorize our First Nations who refuse to vote in federal or provincial elections as being apathetic or uninterested in political engagement. The majority of us may not vote in federal or provincial elections, but did you ever look at our participation rates for elections, land, treaty and other votes in our Nations? The participation rates are unbelievably high and put Canadian voter participation rates to absolute shame. Our people are engaged at the grass roots level as activists, volunteers and professionals and care very much about our governing systems – both traditional and band governance. The issue is NOT voter apathy or political disengagement, it is about who we feel will best advocate for tour Nations and communities and (with exceptions) right now it is our own leaders (traditional and band) that give us that best hope – not Canadian politicians. The AFN has said that of the 308 federal election ridings, less than 60 could be impacted by Aboriginal peoples. That presumes, of course, exceptionally high voter participation and also presumes that once elected, their favoured MPs will be able to make the fundamental changes required to address our long outstanding issues. I think those are unrealistic expectations if we go by:  past practice, the empty election platforms; and the arrogant lack of attention to Aboriginal issues by most of the parties. That’s just my opinion. I honestly enjoy engaging in the debate and hearing the opinions and arguments of others that maybe I have not yet considered. I am encouraged that so many of us care about our sovereignty enough to talk about how important it is – even if we differ on which path we should take to get there. Here are some recent radio interviews I have done on the subject:

    http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1889793175

    http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Radio/The_Current/1450068094/ID=1899783289

    All this being said, I have heard and considered all the arguments for why we should vote and they are very good arguments. I also see the strategy in voting not “for” someone, but to rise up against a dictatorial regime. So, voting then becomes less of a civic engagement exercise in Canadian governance and more of a strategic political tactic to guard against further intrusion into our Nations. These are all good points. Thank you all for sharing and let’s keep talking.