Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: Aboriginal

  • Daniels v. Canada – We are all “aborigines”

    The Daniels decision hasn’t been out for 24 hours yet and already there is mass confusion about what it does and does not say. Despite the buzz in mainstream and social media, it does NOT make Metis and non-status Indians “Indians” under the Indian Act. The case also does NOT give Metis and non-status Indians any “rights”. This wasn’t a case about hunting or fishing. So, for all the emails, Facebook messages and inquiries I have received from people asking if I can help them become registered (status) Indians or whether they can get free education now – this case does not do that. While the case itself was an important one, the actual decision imported more problems than it resolved.

    It was a case designed specifically to answer the question about whether Metis and non-status Indians are included in the definition of the term “Indian” in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867 (also referred to as British North America Act). The Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) answer was “yes”.

    Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act 1867 set out the jurisdictional powers of the federal and provincial governments. Jurisdiction means an authority or power over a certain area. Generally, it does NOT create a legal obligation to act or legislate in that specific area. These individual areas of jurisdiction are referred to as “heads of power”. For example, the federal government has jurisdiction over things like criminal law, divorce law, banking and the military. The provinces have powers over hospitals, charities and taverns. The head of power at issue in this case is section 91(24) Indians and lands reserved for the Indians.

    It should be remembered that this is NOT the first SCC case on what the term “Indian” includes under section 91(24). In 1939, the federal government and province of Quebec sought clarification from the court as to whether the term “Eskimo” now referred to as “Inuit” was included in the term “Indian”. In that case, the court used historical documents to demonstrate that while the Inuit were unique, they were considered to one of many “tribes” of Indians. As a result, the Inuit are considered “Indians” for the purposes of section 91(24) federal jurisdiction. This did NOT mean that all Inuit were registered as Indians under the Indian Act. In fact, section 4(1) of the Indian Act specifically states:

    4(1) A reference in this Act to an Indian does not include any person of the race of aborigines commonly referred to as Inuit.

    The term “aborigine” is not defined in the Indian Act, but commonly refers to an indigenous person of a particular territory or country –the original inhabitants. The question now is whether Canada will make Metis and non-status Indians a new group of “aborigines” to be specifically excluded from the Indian Act, like the Inuit.

    Just because Metis and non-status Indians have been recognized as “Indians” for the purposes of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867, this does not mean that they will ever be included in the Indian Act or registered as Indians. Nor does it mean they will get a house on reserve, be considered treaty beneficiaries, or access any other legal entitlement. Inuit do not live on reserves nor are they considered First Nations. It is unlikely that the federal government will put Metis on reserves either.

     

    Remember, it is not the Indian Act that sets out rules and regulations around “benefits” or “rights”. Whether or not Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) grants a benefit or decides to recognize a legal right is a matter of policy – i.e., a government decision made at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) usually in consultation with Justice Canada, Treasury Board, the Prime Minister’s Officer and/or various other interested departments like Fisheries and Oceans (if related to fishing right for example).

    Despite the fact that many of our rights are LEGAL rights protected by Indigenous laws, treaties and agreements, as well as domestic and international laws – most often the government lumps all “Indian” issues into generic policies that may not reflect the extent of our legal rights at all. In fact, Canada’s most common legal argument is that any “benefit” provided to Indians is out of the good will of the government (a matter of policy) and not out of any legal obligation. This is what the SCC referred to as “noblesse oblige” where the government mistakenly thinks that Indigenous rights are a matter of charity or generosity versus legal obligation.

    What this case will do is break through the jurisdictional “limbo” to which Metis and non-status Indians have been relegated and force both federal and provincial governments to include Metis and non-status Indians in their consultation activities. While the court did not grant 2 of the 3 requested declarations, it DID confirm that governments have a fiduciary duty towards Metis and non-status Indians (duty to act in their best interests), AND that they must negotiate with them and consult with them on decisions impacting their rights.

    That is the most neutral thing that I can say about this decision. In EVERY other way, this decision is one of the worst messes to come out of the SCC. While it may sort out who is an Indian, it does nothing to address the problems faced by Indians in accessing various federal programs and services. Remember, Jordan River Anderson was a registered Indian child, under federal jurisdiction, yet the province and federal government BOTH refused to pay for his health services and he died in hospital never seeing his home. Magically becoming an Indian doesn’t resolve the ongoing federal-provincial dispute over coverage for individuals living OFF reserve, let alone those normally resident on reserve.

    On the Indigenous rights front – inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights – this case is damaging.

    To my mind, the Daniels decision is less about reconciliation and more about erasure of Indigenous sovereignty and identity. It takes John Ralston Saul’s idea of “we are all Metis people” together with the newest Canadian slogan “we are all treaty  people” and opens the floodgates to every person in Canada claiming a long lost Indian ancestor and asserting their identity and control over our lands and rights. It has the potential to effectively eliminate any real sovereignty or jurisdiction Indigenous Nations have over our own citizens and territories. It does not bolster Metis claims, but instead confuses them. It does not address the discrimination faced by actual non-status Indians, but paints them with the Metis “mixed people” brush. The very unique and specific circumstances of non-status Indians are completely over-looked in this decision.

    We have gone from sovereign Indigenous Nations – to one generic group of Indians – to distinctions-based groups (Indian, Inuit and Metis) – and now back to Indians – all for the express purpose of reducing us to an “interest group” of “Aboriginal people”. This is not good for anyone. Certainly, no one asked us what we thought. Once again, National Aboriginal Organizations are at the helm – directing the pirate ship to ensure they get their cut of program funds for their organizations. Their win is big – they’ll likely get increased funding to set up new negotiating tables. For the Indigenous Nations on the ground – a new burden has been placed on us – proving that the thousands of newly-minted, self-identified “Indians” do NOT speak for us and do NOT have a say over our lands. For those who have been wrongly excluded by government laws policy (like Indigenous women and their children) – their new challenge will be to distinguish themselves from the floodgate of false claims to come – a burden not rightly borne by those who have already suffered so long at the hands of government discrimination.

     

    This decision, taken together with Trudeau’s White Paper 2.0 (the nice version), means we have many battles ahead. Please read this decision critically – don’t partake in the celebrations just yet.

     

    http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15858/index.do

  • The Federal Election 2011 – What Does it Mean for Us?

    In case you have not already heard, Canadians are in federal election mode. How did Canada get to the place where it will have its fourth federal election in only 7 years?  It is because the Conservative government fell on March 27, 2011, after a non-confidence vote against them won by156-145 votes. The reason why a motion of non-confidence was brought forward in the first place was because the Speaker of the House, Peter Milliken, found both the Conservative government and one of its Ministers to be in contempt of Parliament for withholding information and misleading the Parliament. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/parties-set-for-4th-federal-election-in-7-years/article1954357/ Specifically, the Speaker made two key rulings about the Conservative government’s behaviour which is no surprise to the rest of us, given their highly questionable actions throughout their time as minority government. The first ruling dealt with Bev Oda, the Minister for International Cooperation who failed to disclose her role in the decision to cut funding to Kairos. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/Parliament+waits+Speakers+rulings+Conservatives/4411388/story.html He held that Oda breached her Parliamentary privilege – i.e. she is accused of lying about the decision. First she said that her bureaucrats had denied the funding, then it came to light that they had in fact approved it, but an unknown “someone” had scribbled “not” on the document, then she says she ordered the person to insert the word. It is all very convoluted and confusing, but the moral of the story is – she was not honest with Parliament. The second ruling was against the Conservative government generally. This involved the allegation that the Conservatives were not being honest about the actual costs of its tough on crime legislation and plans to build prisons, its purchase of fighter jets and corporate tax breaks. Despite requests for the actual costing information, the Conservatives refused to disclose them. Therefore, the Speaker ruled that the opposition could continue its investigation of the Conservatives before committee because: “There is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with and this is a serious matter that goes to the House’s undoubted role in holding the government to account.” http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/951327–conservatives-ruled-in-contempt-of-parliament They government fell because they were never about the people and were only in it for themselves. They also fell because they are dishonest – which is the biggest crime as far as Canadian citizens are concerned.

    Even our counterparts internationally have commented that Canada is losing its sense of democracy, and very few Canadians seem to be upset about it. One particular article from Australia argues that Canadians are sitting back watching democracy be eroded, while people in other countries are willing to die for their freedoms. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/canada-watches-its-democracy-erode/story-e6frg6ux-1226030310248 Some commentators are even arguing that Harper should not even be allowed to run in this election because his government was found in contempt of Parliament and was thrown out by a vote of non-confidence. Makes me wonder if Oda will be campaigning along with the rest of the rejected Conservatives? http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1980 Is it just me, or does anyone else see the utter hypocrisy of the Conservatives? Remember how Senator Brazeau implied that First Nations leaders are all corrupt, that First Nations were hubs of illegal activity and another conservative MP introduced Bill C-575 asking for accountability? That is rich given that the conservatives have been found in contempt and thrown out of Parliament.

    Or how about Harper who says one thing (never appoint people to Senate without elections) and does another to suit his own political needs (appoint people like Brazeau to Senate). http://www.peterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1347743 Or how about when they take a court of appeal case like McIvor, and draft limited and discriminatory legislation to respond to it, but when the federal court of appeal finds against the conservatives (for the in and out scheme), they dismiss it as an “administrative dispute”. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/former-tory-mps-speak-out-against-conservative-in-and-out-scheme-117368283.html?path=/canada/breakingnews&id=117368283&sortBy=rank It is almost like Harper and his Conservatives don’t live in reality – like they actually believe that “government” is really just made up of the few who sit in Cabinet. Let’s just pretend that none of this non-confidence stuff matters. Let’s look at the Conservative’s “honesty” record to date: (1) Former Minister of International Affairs, Maxime Bernier, resigns over “scandal” related to his leaving security-sensitive documents at his girlfriend’s house – a woman with former connections to the “biker underworld”; http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Specials/20080527/bernier_history_080527/ (2) Former Minister of State for the Status of Women, Helena Guergis, resigned and her file referred to the RCMP after concerns related to her husband Rahim Jaffer using her office to peddle influence with the government. You will recall her husband had been charged with drunk driving and cocaine possession, while Guergis herself was accused of being belligerent to airline staff and using her staffers to flood editorials. http://www.thestar.com/article/792861 (3) MP Pierre Poilievre criticizes the residential school settlement as not being “value for money” on the same day that Harper makes the apology in Parliament. http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/06/11/pierre-poilievre-shows-his-empathy-for-residential-school-survivors/ (4) I don’t even have to list all the vile words said by Senator Brazeau; https://pampalmater.com/2011/02/brazeaus-tiresome-campaign-against.html (5) Conservatives try to distance themselves from another scandal involving Access to Information and removed Sebastien Togneri from affiliation with their party: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1235796.html (6) Minister of INAC John Duncan was against “race-based” Aboriginal fishing rights and recently made stereotypical remarks against First Nations saying it was “easy” for them to be “aggressively contrary”; https://pampalmater.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html (7) Conservatives said MPs who “cross the floor” should not be allowed to join other parties, but then made David Emerson, a former liberal who crossed the floor, the Minister of Trade: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20060206/emerson_defection_060206/ (8) Don’t forget the conservatives prorogued Parliament twice to avoid dealing with critical issues like the Afghanistan detainee affair; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation-a-travesty-yet-clever/article1415391/ (9) Then there is the Bruce Carson story, broke by APTN News, which revealed that this “Tory operative”, together with his former-escort girlfriend, lobbied on behalf of a water filtration company to get contracts in First Nations with poor drinking water. He is accused of breaching rules about political staffers lobbying so soon after employment; http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/03/23/season-finale-carson/ (10) The Chuck Cadman affair involved the allegation of bribery by the Conservatives to secure  a vote that was settled out of court, but not in the eyes of the public: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/308224 (11) NWAC’s Sisters in Spirit disaster where funding was cut for the program despite its international success: http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/11/sisters-spirit-program-used-feds-squeeze-native-womens-association-canada (12) There is also Bill C-3, Bill S-4, Bill S-11, Bill C-575 that all went forward without any legal consultation with First Nations, which of course does not include the “expert” education panel announced that came from INAC and not First Nations. Or how about the “revolutionary” Specific Claims tribunal that has not heard a single case in 3 years?? It’s all fun and games until you get booted from Parliment!

    I could go on, but this list is sickening enough. What is more concerning to me is how little reaction any of this gets from the public and from our own National Aboriginal Organizations (NAOs). Regardless of whether you believe the Canadian government is your government, the fact of the matter is that they currently assert their jurisdiction over our peoples. Do we really need this kind of corruption and scandal to be “managing” our affairs? I would hope not. This is where our NAO’s need to be providing their “constituents” with information about what is happening, not just in our communities, but on the national scene as well. They are “National” Aboriginal organizations after all, and it is there job to keep us informed. Looking at the websites today, I don’t see a single mention that there is even a federal election underway. Nor do I see any public letters to the parties telling them what our important issues are or what their party positions are in that regard. I personally, would like to see what the AFN’s views are on the events of late, or NWAC’s list of priorities for the next Prime Minister. I don’t expect much from CAP, who, having literally fallen off the face of the earth, recently posted public support for the Conservative budget – trying to prop up an unethical government that provided almost nothing for Aboriginal peoples – the poorest in our society. What do the NAO’s think about the Liberal’s education promise of 1 billion dollars for non-Aboriginal people to go to school?? Is that not a bit insulting given our socio-economic statistics which show us as far behind non-Aboriginal people? Where are the promises to address housing, water, child welfare, education, food subsidies for the north, land claims, treaties etc etc?? Do none of the NAO’s have a position on any of these issues? What about providing us with a list of all the Aboriginal people across Canada running in the election so that we can support them? What about organizing ways to help Aboriginal people get out and vote if they want to? I know many of us do not vote for very good reasons that I discussed in my last blog, but we have to support those who do. https://pampalmater.com/2011/03/what-does-fall-of-darth-harper-and.html The federal election will be held on Monday, May 2, 2011 and Elections Canada 2011 has all the information you need regarding voting: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=41ge&document=index&lang=e I have always had little faith in the Canadian election process because our numbers are so small as to make very little difference, and for the fact that even if we do elect Aboriginal MPs, they have to tow the party line – which rarely benefits us. However, I have been hearing from lots of my readers and their arguments about why we should vote, and they are very persuasive. I am very close to being convinced. The majority of people I have heard from are not conservative, liberal, NDP, Bloc or otherwise politically affiliated. They are concerned Indigenous peoples who would rather vote for anyone, than see Harper get back in for all the reasons I listed above. I am concerned enough about the evils of the Conservative autocracy that I am now thinking that every single vote will count to make sure they are not re-elected. Regardless of whether we get our own MPs or whether we ever participate in politics federally, the concern is more related to avoiding Harper’s re-election or worst-case scenario, a majority government – which for Indigenous peoples would be the final nail in the coffin. By saying this I am not submitting to the assumed sovereignty of Canada – I have never waivered from the fact that I believe our Indigenous Nations have the only legal sovereignty on this territory. However, I am not against using a wide variety of tools to stop the colonizers in their tracks on a “without prejudice” basis. At this point, if we don’t act to bar Harper from re-election we can only expect more of the same and none of that benefits us.

    Please keep sending me your comments and e-mails. I am an open-minded person and always ready to be convinced I should be considering a different point of view. *(None of these pictures are my own, I found them all courtesy of “Google Images”)

  • What does the Fall of “Darth Harper” and the Galactic-Canadian Empire Mean for First Nations?

    Finally, the Conservative government has been toppled by their own lies, deceit, and cover-ups. But what took so long? Did it really have to get this bad and go on for this long for the opposition parties to feel secure enough to topple the government? Where have all their values gone that they would let their citizens suffer for this long? At the top of the Conservative target list were First Nations – was no political party ready to topple the Conservative government on our behalf? If not, then what does the fall of “Darth Harper” and his twisted Galactic-Canadian Empire mean for us as First Nations? http://www.fewings.ca/web/polcan/050530DarthHarper.html For those of you who don’t already read the blogs from “Galloping Beaver”, I would highly recommend that you start. They are often insightful, critical, and sometimes even humorous. Their most recent blog was a video of Stephen Harper being compared to the evil Sith Lord, otherwise known as Senator Palpatine from Star Wars. http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2011/03/darth-harper.html While the video is humorous, it is also scary, given that Stephen Harper ruled very much like a dictator while praising the virtues of freedom and liberty. Here is another one along the same lines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMtLkTQTn80 He will no doubt be known as one of the most dictatorial leaders in Canadian history. I have also been critical of Harper’s contempt for democracy and have spoken against his autocratic-type rule: https://pampalmater.com/2011/03/country-of-harper-are-we-moving-towards.html Now, the whole world knows that Harper’s style of rule led to the defeat of his own “empire”. The Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee found Harper’s Conservative government to be in contempt of Parliament for refusing to disclose the real costs of “big ticket” items like the stealth combat jets, the corporate tax cuts and the infamous law and order plans to build and staff more jails. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/957379–committee-finds-harper-government-in-contempt The report which was released on Monday, March 21, 2011 held that: “the government’s failure to produce documents constitute a contempt of Parliament” and that “this failure impedes the House in the performance of its functions.” The Conservatives demonstrated a serious lack of honesty that could have seriously hurt many Canadians. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/committee-finds-tories-in-contempt-for-stonewalling-on-crime-bill-costs/article1949891/ Based on this report, a vote of non-confidence was held and Harper lost. The vote was brought by the Liberals and supported by both the NDP and the Bloc. The next step in the process was for Harper to speak to the Governor General and ask him to dissolve Parliament, which he did. This means that Canadians will have an election on May 2, 2011. http://futurepocket.com/2011/03/26/canadian-government-loses-no-confidence-vote-parliament-dissolved/ This should be no surprise to anyone who owns a television, as we have now seen all the attack ads start. I am quite sure that for the next 6 weeks, we will all be exposed to very little campaigning and a whole lot of attacking. I can also predict that there will be no ads which speak to the third world conditions of First Nations in this country, or the lack of action on our land claims and treaties. I also doubt they will run their elections on removing the 2% funding cap in First Nations or designing legislation to officially recognize our sovereignty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CAyoHa17HE What does all of this mean for First Nations in this country? That is a good question. A leading Indigenous academic scholar, Taiaiake Alfred, argues that there is nothing to be gained by First Nations voting in federal elections. In his view, voting in their elections is akin to accepting their assumed sovereignty over our Nations. http://taiaiake.posterous.com/47421296 There are other Indigenous scholars, like John Borrows in “Landed Citizenship: Narratives of Aboriginal Political Participation”, who argue that we should not only put significant efforts into rebuilding our Nations, but that we should also participate in federal and provincial government processes as a means of extending our influence. While I can see the merit in both arguments, I can’t help feel that at this point in time, with the current power structures and laws we now have in Canada, that our influence in Canadian politics is negligible at best and harmful at worst. None of the federal parties have our best interests at heart. At the end of the day, our interests are just another commodity that can be bartered away for a bigger piece of another pie. Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act was a prime example of the vulnerable nature of our rights. Indian women and their descendants are still – to this day – treated blatantly unequally as compared to Indian men and their descendants in Canadian law. Yet, despite Sharon McIvor winning in both levels of court, our right to equality was bartered away by national Aboriginal organizations and federal political parties for an undefined “joint process” with no clear mandate, structure, authority or funding. This left Sharon McIvor staring in disbelief before the Senate when near unanimous opposition to the bill in the House, became a trade item for a joint process in the Senate. Perhaps I am just feeling defeated? Maybe, but when I look at the process for Bill S-4 Matrimonial Real Property, Bill S-11 First Nations Safe Drinking Water, Bill C-575 First Nations Accountability and so on, a theme emerges – non-First Nations peoples and governments are designing laws and policies for our Nations based on their own priorities, not ours. In fact, there was not even any legal consultation and accommodation of our “interests” in those bills. Were it not for the dissolution of Parliament, we may well have been stuck with many new laws that would detrimentally impact our communities and Nations. Could voting in federal or provincial elections change any of this? No. We simply do not have the numbers to make a change. Sure, in some ridings, if all Aboriginal people voted, we could add a few more MPs, but these additional folks would not change the make-up of the party itself. My father once told me that politics is about making deals and trade-offs. MPs are often required to vote with the will of their party, not based on what is just. If something like our basic equality rights are up for auction, then I don’t want to be any part of that. However, I do support those rare few who participate in the Canadian process who also stay true to their Indigenous values and teachings and don’t allow others to bully them into siding with the majority vote on issues. These individuals are not the mouth-pieces of government trashing their own people, nor are they the Aboriginal faces needed to promote a new government policy that will hurt First Nations. These individuals are the rare few who stand out on committees and in the media highlighting the need to respect inherent First Nation jurisdiction. That being said, I think we have a far better shot at making real change by healing our communities with our cultures and languages, rebuilding our Nations, securing our lands and resources, and asserting our sovereignty instead of asking others to recognize it. We have to start from a position of power which means our focus should be on our Nations first – and we have a lot of work to do there. I think that our inherent sovereignty is our real power and that we need to step up our game in that department. No one is going to “give” us our sovereignty – that is something we have to believe in and do ourselves. We have to protect our jurisdiction over our people, lands, governments, and laws – or it will continue to be eroded under the guise of “reconciliation”. We also have to make sure that this next government knows we mean business – our sovereignty is not for sale, politically or otherwise. Our sovereignty is the very core of who we are as Indigenous peoples and our ancestors were willing to die to protect it. I think we have an obligation to honour their sacrifices… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ul4KmHlzMc

  • Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity and Belonging

    Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity and Belonging

    OK, so here is my shameless self-promotion – please buy my book and help me become a National Best Seller!! I would love to hear all your feedback on the ideas and issues covered in the book as well as ideas for my next book!!! You can buy my book directly from the publisher at http://www.purichpublishing.com/ or you can buy it from places like Chapters: http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Beyond-Blood-Rethinking-Indigenous-Identity-Pamela-D-Palmater/9781895830606-item.html?ikwid=beyond+blood&ikwsec=Home

    Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity

    Dr. Pamela D. Palmater

    • What impact does status have on band membership codes?

    • What limits, if any, should be placed on the right to  determine citizenship?

    • Legal, political, and cultural factors affecting Indigenous identity and belonging

    • Interim proposed solutions to discrimination against Non-Status Indians

    “For hundreds of years, we have struggled to survive amid a patrilineal system of government. We will not continue to allow government policy to manage our affairs, decide who is Aboriginal or not based on blood quantum …” – Chief Candice Paul, St. Mary’s First Nation

    Author Pamela Palmater argues that the Indian Act’s registration provisions (status) will lead to the extinguishment of First Nations as legal and constitutional entities. The current status criteria contain descent-based rules akin to blood quantum that are particularly discriminatory against women and their descendants.

    Beginning with an historic overview of legislative enactments defining Indian status and their impact on First Nations, the author examines contemporary court rulings dealing with Aboriginal rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to Indigenous identity. She also examines various band membership codes to determine how they affect Indigenous identity, and how their reliance on status criteria perpetuates discrimination. She offers suggestions for a better way of determining Indigenous identity and citizenship and argues that First Nations themselves must determine their citizenship based on ties to the community, not blood or status.

    Dr. Palmater teaches politics at Ryerson University and holds a JSD in law from Dalhousie University. She was denied Indian status as a Mi’kmaq because her grandmother married a non-Indian.

    “It is time that the Indian Act was revised, section by section, in full consultation with First Nations so that we can keep the sections which benefit our communities and finally eliminate those sections which threaten our very existence. Dr. Palmater’s book raises these very important issues …” – Chief Lawrence Paul, Millbrook First Nation

    “This work is an important discourse that looks at a judicial anomaly which continues to perplex the integrity of the Canadian legal system, and illustrates the glaring contradictions of an ever-weakening Honour of the Crown.” – Chief Isadore Day, Serpent River First Nation

    $35.00, 280 pages, index, paper, 6 x 9, spring 2011                                ISBN 978-1895830-606

    Purich Publishing Ltd.                                                              P: 306-373-5311

    PO Box 23032 RPO Market Mall                                             F: 306-373-5315

    Saskatoon SK S7J 5H3                                                   E: purich@sasktel.net

                        

    Visit www.purichpublishing.com or ask at your local book retailer

  • “No Natives” Allowed: How Canada Breeds Racism and Fear

    On the one hand, I cannot believe that we as Indigenous peoples are still subjected to such overt racism on a such a frequent basis. On the other hand, I am not surprised, given that this kind of anti-First Nation sentiment is still out there in more hidden forms also known as systemic racism. I guess the best way to describe my feelings is that I sometimes feel overwhelmed that these perverse ideologies don’t just come from a few wackos, but comes from all elements in society – individuals, business, professionals, academics, politicians, and government.

    I received this picture from people on Facebook today who wanted to bring this issue to the attention of the public and the police. This picture is allegedly of a restaurant in Lakefield, Ontario. It was reported in the Toronto Sun that the police are investigating this as a hate crime. Here is the link to that story: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/16/17638211.html If this incident actually happened (and everyone is innocent until proven guilty), it is a symptom of how Indigenous peoples are portrayed generally in our society – in schools, the media and by federal and provincial governments. Even if this one turns out to all a big misunderstanding, there used to be many similar signs like this, just for Aboriginal people:

    I am less surprised by this kind of overt racism from members of small communities, when I hear famous people, like Kevin O’Leary (who appears on Dragon’s Den and CBC News’ Lang & O”Leary show). You will recall, that Kevin O’Leary called his co-host an “Indian giver” and when she rebuked him for such barbaric language, he repeated the phrase and defended his use of it. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/950584–cbc-ombud-slams-o-leary-s-offensive-on-air-comment This comment was made on Canada’s CBC News during prime time when a large number of Canadians would be watching. It happened LAST October 2010 and not a word of apology was issued by O’Leary or CBC. It wasn’t until 5 months later and AFTER the CBC Ombudsperson had publicly released their decision that the comment was wrong and so was CBC for not immediately addressing it – that we heard any mention of an apology. Specifically, the Ombudsperson stated: “In this instance, the preferred course would have been for O’Leary not only to privately recognize the fault of his ways but to publicly express remorse, either that night or the next night or soon after. But if he wasn’t going to publicly apologize, the program could have done something further to make amends. Its obligation goes beyond the complainant to the viewers in order to uphold the broader reputation of the program and CBC itself.” http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/pdf/2011-03-02-Jamieson.pdf This is obviously the point I am getting at about the effect such comments have, especially when left for many months to fester. The problem is that Indigenous peoples are getting it from all sides and by not acting to address these issues, it’s no wonder society thinks this is acceptable. Scripted apologies forced by legal decisions, litigation or threat of job loss are hardly sincere or even effective at undoing the damage caused. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/pundit+censured+offensive+exchange/4399119/story.html You will recall on the very same day that Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a public apology on behalf of all Canadians for the physical, sexual, and other abuses committed in residential schools, his conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre, had the nerve to question the compensation being given to survivors and asked whether it was “value for money”. I still feel nauseated when I read his comments. As if there is any monetary amount that could ever compensate for sexual abuse like rape, physical abuse like beatings, neglect that resulted in many deaths and the loss of culture, language and hope. http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/06/11/pierre-poilievre-shows-his-empathy-for-residential-school-survivors/ Keep in mind, Canada has compensated Japanese families for ripping them from their homes and putting them in camps during the war. The Chinese were also compensated for the head tax that was imposed on them to prevent them from immigrating to Canada. While the Supreme Court of Canada has specifically said that discrimination is not “a race to the bottom” (i.e. who is more discriminated against), they have said that often times Aboriginal peoples are dually disadvantaged on mulitple levels not necessarily experienced by other groups. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii687/1999canlii687.pdf Indigenous peoples suffered in residential schools for their entire childhoods and many others suffer the deadly inter-generational effects for communities all over the country which could take generations to address. How could the residential school compensation be less “value for money” than another group’s? Somehow, conservatives and others find a way to insert doubt and blame into the conversation when it is about Indigenous peoples. We all know about Senator Patrick Brazeau who uses the Senate chambers, resources, and logo to film carefully worded videos meant to portray First Nations as lazy and corrupt. In fact, on my previous blogs, I have highlighted his negative, stereotypes of First Nations and how in one show he even accused First Nations as hubs of “illegal activity”. This all coming from an individual who claims to be First Nations – imagine the powerful effect this would have on the views and opinions of non-Aboriginal peoples. That brings us to Minister of Indian Affairs, John Duncan. As you know from my previous blogs, I am no fan of Minister Duncan given his past racist comments about Indigenous peoples and their rights. https://pampalmater.com/2010/09/indian-agents-are-back-pm-new-indian.html Duncan was very much opposed to Aboriginal and treaty rights to fish, ignored their constitutional protection, and characterized them as “race-based”. http://www.mediaindigena.com/rickharp/issues-and-politics/indian-affairs-minister-john-duncan-menacing-or-muzzled More recently, however, Minister Duncan appeared before the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples regarding Bill S-11, the bill dealing with safe drinking water on First Nations. Senators have commented that all witnesses, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike, including water experts and legal experts all agree that this Act is so bad that even amendments could not save it. On March 8, 2011, Minister Duncan, expressing his frustration, commented that:

    “This committee has been receiving a very one-sided view on the way things are going.  We’ve actually been working very collaboratively especially with the Treaty 6, 7 and 8 group from Alberta….  You’re correct in concluding that everyone does not have the same view.  But I think this committee has managed to somehow capture a prevalence of negative views.  Sometimes that’s what happens.  It’s easier  in First Nation politics to be aggressively  contrary to something than it is to be supportive.  And that’s an observation that I will make and stand behind and it’s something I hope we can change”

    How could we as Indigenous peoples NOT be, at the very least, “agressively contrary” to the sexual abuse in residential schools, the outlawing of our cultures, the legislated exclusion of our women and children from our Nations, the removal of thousands of our children to child welfare agencies, the early deaths of our people from extreme poverty, the theft of our traditional lands and resources,  and the political and legal destruction of our laws, governments and communities? In other countries, this can and has resulted in revolutions. While I can’t say for sure what was going on in his head, it certainly appears to me that Minister Duncan gave his comment some thought before he said it as he followed up his comment with confirmation that he will stand behind it. This is not dissimilar to Kevin O”Leary standing beside his racist remarks, or Tom Flanagan standing beside his comments. I have always been told to believe people when they tell you who they really are – so I am listening. Aside from showing a pre-disposition to having racist views about Indigenous peoples, Minister Duncan’s negative stereotyping of First Nations does little to suggest his views have evolved over time. Looking at it from society’s point of view, if the Minister of Indian Affairs, who is supposed to be an advocate and champion for Aboriginal peoples in Canada has such hostile, negative views about Aboriginal peoples, why would we expect society to be any better? It is almost as if Minister Duncan is sickened to even have to work on this portfolio – which begs the question – why the heck does he?

    Sadly, comments by our top law enforcement agencies about Indigenous peoples do not fair any better. Official documents in the Canadian Military have characterized Mohawks as insurgents or terrorists. This not only false and offensive, it also serves to spread fear and distrust amongst non-Indigenous society. My children’s own friends ask questions about whether we are “terrorists”.

    http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/military-apologizing-to-mohawks/16ahlo0dq

    The damage has been done. No carefully worded apology will be able to undo the damage to Indigenous peoples and especially the Mohawk in this case. Canadians are more likely to see us as terrorists than the First Peoples of this country. If there was any doubt, just ask Christy Blatchford and TVO, who portrayed Mohawks in Six Nations as lawless and out of control: https://pampalmater.com/2011/01/update-tvo-agenda-botches-show-on.html

    Yet, despite the military’s indication in 2010 that they would be offering a very carefully worded apology, one remains to be given. Many months later and not a single word has been issued. It makes me wonder what kind of priority they made of the apology. Instead, there seems to be a universal default that these comments will be allowed to be said, defended, repeated, and given time to sink in before any superficial apology is offered. We deserve more than this anti-First Nation propaganda on our own homelands.  http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Military+apologize+Mohawk+Warriors/4015748/story.html

    Add to this the list of right-wing academics who promote the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples in various forms like Tom Flanagan, Dale Gibson, Frances Widdowson, and Alan Cairns, etc. This is reinforced by some teachers in schools which either don’t teach their students about Aboriginal peoples, do so in a minimal way or teach some of these same stereotypes. This is further reinforced by the various media outlets who make millions off portraying First Nations as lazy, crooked, criminals and movies or TV shows which promote an archetype of Indians that few today can live up to – the “good” version or the “bad” version.

    This is an old battle, one that we have been fighting since contact. While many in society would like to believe that old colonial ideologies about Indigenous peoples have long waned, the opposite is true. Just take a peek at some of the vile comments posted on online media stories about Indigenous peoples and you’ll see what I mean. Not only do Indigenous peoples face this battle on multiple fronts and on a daily basis, but they must also face the battle within themselves, Every day we face the battle to prove we are worthy as human beings. Too often this battle is lost and we lose our young people to suicide, violent deaths, and early deaths from diseases, malnutrition, and lack of housing caused by extreme poverty.

    I’d like to point out that the Criminal Code of Canada specifically prohibits hate crimes (section 319) which provides that public statements made against an identifiable group that incites violence against that group is a CRIME. Similarly, section 318 specifically probihits GENOCIDE – which is the killing of an identifiable group, or creating lufe conditions would bring about that group’s physical destruction. Sounds like an option, but the tricky part is you have to get the Attorney General to agree to bring these charges. So, back to the drawing board…while assimilation, racism, theft of our lands, resources and souls continues…

    Those of us who manage to wake up every day and win this internal battle (at least enough to keep trudging along), must then engage in the political and legal battle for our basic human rights and freedoms, to protect our cultures and identities for future generations, as well as the key issues like sovereignty, Aboriginal and treaty rights, land rights and so on. We have to know more than anyone else about our issues, we have to work harder than anyone else, and we have to find ways to do so politely and with smiles on our faces lest we be characterized as “agressively contrary” or “terrorists”. So the next time you hear someone say how easy First Nations have it; how they get everything for free; or how lazy they all are, why don’t you suggest they live with Indigenous peoples for a while and see what the “free & easy” life is really like? Or perhaps they’d like to discuss the subject with those of us who fight in this battle 24-7? It is time Canada accepted the fact that we will not be assimilated. Whether you call it “agressively contrary”, “insurgency” or “criminal” – we will continue to protect our cultures and identites for future generations. If only Canadians could leave their minds open long enough to see the incredible strength of our diverse peoples, the beauty of our rich cultures and traditions, the unique ties we have to our territories, or the incredible pride we have in our identities – then they would see why we refuse to give it up.

  • Mohawk Tobacco Trade – Standing up for Our Sovereignty

    The days of only looking at issues that impact our local communities (bands) are long over if we expect to protect our cultures, identities and Nations for future generations. The issue of our sovereignty as Indigenous Nations (Mohawk, Mi’kmaq, Maliseet, etc) must be looked at in the bigger context. I am the first to admit that we have significant issues to address in our home communities and many of them are absolutely life and death issues related to poverty, addictions, housing, violence, and child welfare. It is critical that we ensure we have citizens dedicated to addressing these issues for the well-being of our families, communities and Nations. At the same time, we also have to dedicate some of our citizens to fighting the larger battle which is being waged against our identities, cultures, and sovereignty. In the days of my great grandfather and his grandfathers, Mi’kmaq people made sure they protected their women and children by having warriors posted at our our local settlements. However, knowing that our territory (known as Mi’kma’ki) was rich in resources and our traditional territory was vast (7 districts covering many provinces), we also ensured that all directions were protected from intrusion by other Nations. The idea being that you had to have all directions covered, even if one direction required more attention at any particular time. The same can be said about our current state of affairs. Our social issues have taken such priority, that in some ways we may have left ourselves vulnerable to attack from other directions. I don’t just mean within our own Nations either. If the sovereignty of the Mohawk is being challenged, that has a direct impact on the future of Mi’kmaq sovereignty and vice-versa. Similarly, every Indigenous Nation in this country has its own special resources that is uses to support its communities and whether it is tobacco, lobster, moose, seal or oil, we owe it to each other to not allow government or corporations to jeopardize what little we have left. We can’t think for a minute that the loss of lobster fishing for the Mi’kmaq will not have a significant impact for the Maliseet and their logging rights. We owe it to our Nations and our future generations to make sure that our political strategies have all the bases covered. It is for this reason that I write about the Mohawk Tobacco trade. The Aboriginal right of the Mohawk to engage in their centuries-old trading activities is being threatened by big business and provincial governments all of whom are desperate to get their hands on money which rightfully belongs to the Mohawk. Similarly, the self-determining rights of the Mohawk to exercise jurisdiction over their own political and business activities threatens their very sovereignty. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/01/15/smokes-seized-on-alberta-first-nation-had-federal-stamp-commission/ http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/02/02/tobacco-battle-flares-in-two-more-provinces/ As many of you know, many of the traditional Mohawk territories in what is now Ontario, Quebec and the USA have lands which are particularly suited to the growing of tobacco, which is why they have engaged in growing tobacco for many years. Their traditional use and trade of tobacco has evolved into a larger scale tobacco growing, manufacturing, sales and trade industry. Today, First Nations like Six Nations and Kahnawake are engaged in various elements of the tobacco trade. One of those companies, Rainbow Tobacco, is based on Mohawk territory in Kahnawake. They have had their shipments of tobacco to other First Nations seized by several provinces for failure to have provincial markings on their cigarettes, despite the fact that they did have federal markings. This only appears to be an issue since  non-Indigenous businesses started complaining. However, these groups try to sway public opinion by categorizing the Mohawk Tobacco Trade as “illegal” and “contraband”. By using this kind of language, it relegates Indigenous peoples to criminal status and detracts from any arguments they might make in their own defense. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/02/25/charges-against-rainbow-tobacco-band-politicians-looming-rcmp/ The following arguments have been made against the Mohawk tobacco trade: (1) It is illegal because there are no provincial stamps. In fact, there is no requirement that First Nation products have provincial approvals. The cigarettes had the proper federal stamps, and since jurisdiction (as between feds-provs) with regards to First Nations, their lands and property, vests in the FEDERAL government, the province would be ultra vires (outside the scope of their legislative authority) should they attempt to legislate in this regard. In case anyone needs a reminder, here is what the Indian Act, 1985 has to say about the matter: Section 87 – the interests of Indians and bands in reserve lands AND the personal property of Indians and band on a reserve are NOT subject to taxation; Section 89 – the real (land) or personal (movable) property of Indians and bands on a reserve (or deemed to be on a reserve) are NOT subject to: charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, SEIZURE, distress or executive in favour of ANY PERSON, other than an Indian or band; Section 91 – certain property can’t be traded by Indians like: grave poles, totem poles, rocks with paintings, but tobacco is NOT one of them; Section 93 – can’t remove certain materials from reserves like minerals, stone, timber etc without a permit, but tobacco is NOT one of them. The Mohawk tobacco is not illegal, not subject to provincial tax or jurisdiction and the province had no right to seize anything on any reserve. (2) Smoking is bad for you and causes too many health problems. There is no doubt that smoking is bad for you and does cause way too many health problems that can even result in one’s death. I don’t smoke and I don’t ever want my children to smoke either. My father smoked and he died of lung cancer. I would never want that for any family or community. However, the issue of whether or not to engage in smoking is not the matter in question. The issue is whether or not First Nations can grow, manufacture, sell and trade tobacco products on their traditional territories and/or between First Nation reserves. First Nations have no less of a right to make a living off the resources on their territories than all the settlers who made good use of our lands. In fact, First Nations have a constitutionally protected right to do so – this is something that non-Indigenous businesses can’t say. The double-standard inherent in this ideology is obvious. It is legal and publically acceptable for non-Indigenous businesses to manufacture and trade tobacco, but it is a moral sin when First Nations do it. This has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with the bottom-line: the provinces see it as a cash grab and corporations see it as losing “their” profits. (3) Tobacco can only be used by First Nations as it was used traditionally. This line of reasoning is not only racist, it is legally inaccurate. The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified on many occasions that Aboriginal peoples and their rights are NOT to be frozen in pre-contact times. The SCC has further clarified that Aboriginal rights are able to evolve over time into modern methods of exercising those rights. Telling First Nations they can only use tobacco as they did in pre-contact times would be like us telling lawyers they still have to wear white wigs in court or that you have to take the Mayflower boat on your next holiday to Cuba. (4) Most of the First Nation tobacco companies are owned by band members and not the band. Regardless of my own personal feelings about individual vs. band owned businesses, again this is not the issue at hand. Those are debates to be had between band members and their bands or citizens within Indigenous Nations. I am stunned however, by the hypocrisy of statements like this when they come from the same right-wing people who are advocating the privatization of reserve lands. You simply can’t have it both ways. (5) Indigenous peoples should compete in the market place on the same level as everyone else. People who advocate this line of reasoning are usually the non-Indigenous tobacco companies or retailers who blame their poor sales on Indigenous tobacco trade as opposed to the decline in tobacco usage in Canada. What they forget is that the “market place” is fueled by the lands and resources, and the spin off taxes and businesses, which rightfully belong to First Nations. How is it that settlers could steal our lands and resources, use them to make a profit, and then when First Nations get into the market place with what little resources they have left, all hell breaks loose? They also forget that the provisions of the Indian Act noted above are legal rights afforded to First Nations. Their Aboriginal and treaty rights are also constitutionally protected. The issue is not whether the settler society likes that Aboriginal and treaty rights are protected, the fact of the matter is that they are the supreme law of the land. (6) Indigenous peoples use the money from the tobacco trade to fund all sorts of illegal activities like drugs. This ludicrous, stereotype is advanced by people like conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau. If you view the following video, you’ll hear him make this racist stereotype against First Nations: http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/02/04/aptns-mp-panel-back-in-business-but-for-how-long/ There are always individuals who break the law in Canada. That does not mean Canadians are all crooks. Robert Pickton was a serial killer, does that mean all Caucasian people in Canada are serial killers? Of course not. Then why is it acceptable for Senators and others to advance such disgusting racist stereotypes against our people? We have to call them on it, and then get back to the real issue: we are sovereign nations and our sovereignty has been challenged here. While you may not personally like tobacco, that is not the issue. Mohawks engaged in their traditional tobacco trade are no more criminals than Mi’kmaq people fishing lobster. Yet, when the Mi’kmaq proved their treaty right to fish and sell lobster, the non-Indigenous fishers could not accept having to share what was never theirs to begin with. It resulted in government officials riding their boats over our people (literally) and calling us criminals and in the media said we were engaged in illegal fishing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsvG4KpFHOA If we do not stand up for our sovereignty at EVERY instance that it is challenged, including those times when we don’t like the issue, then we’ll have no defense when we want to exercise it for issues we do like, i.e., land and hunting. We  owe it to each other to get each other’s backs and to ensure that all our directions are covered. There is no negotiation when it comes to sovereignty. Our heroes were not well-paid lawyers or consultants – they had nothing and risked their lives for us. We have to prove to our future generations that we were worth the fight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ul4KmHlzMc

  • Rise of the Eastern Empire: Lavallee’s Plan to Dismantle the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

    This blog is about CAP’s demise and to ask whether anyone cares? I would love to hear from folks about this blog and CAP in general. I worried about using “Congress of Aboriginal Peoples” as the title to this blog because I assumed that most of you would be thinking “Who?”. Seriously though, some of you may be wondering what the heck has happened to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP). In my last blog, I wrote that they have essentially fallen off the face of the earth. https://pampalmater.com/2010/11/slow-painful-death-of-cap-can-it-be.html We (those who live off-reserve in Canada) do not ever hear from CAP or its President Betty-Ann Lavallee in the media, in the community, or anywhere else for that matter. On APTN’s InFocus (Jan.21, 2011 edition), the political panel talked about how irrelevant organizations like CAP are when they do not reach out to the people they claim to represent. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/01/24/january-21-2011/ Aside from CAP’s lack of engagement with the substantial Aboriginal population that lives off-reserve in Canada (50% of total Aboriginal population), CAP’s current President is taking the organization on a nosedive into oblivion and if those who care about the organization don’t do something soon, it could be gone forever. Many of you who have contacted me have indicated that it is your opinion that President Lavallee simply doesn’t have the skills or capacity to lead a national organization because as many have commented, she nearly tanked her own provincial organization in New Brunswick – the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC) and at the very least, made it politically irrelevant. http://www.nbapc.org/ I appreciate the feedback from grassroots folks and I can definitely relate. In fact, I used to be a member of the NBAPC and watched the organization grow over the last 40 years and have actually seen it when it was a strong political voice and engaged with the off-reserve community. Sadly, I have also seen it in the last 10-15 years slowly become less effective as a political voice, less engaged with the off-reserve Aboriginal people and become an elite club that would rather spend money on lawyers against their own membership than use those lawyers to defend our Aboriginal and treaty rights. Why has the NBAPC gone downhill after such a strong history? Many of you have commented that the reason is Lavallee’s poor leadership skills, her lack of knowledge on Aboriginal issues, her lack of connection to our First Nation communities, her lack of political experience, and some have even suggested that she has other, more sinister motives. While I respect everyone’s opinions, I always base my opinions on fact versus conjecture, but in this case, they proved to be one in the same. I personally can speak to a time when the mood of the community was to have a non-confidence vote and remove Lavallee as President of NBAPC, so instead of dealing with the issue, she skipped the Annual General Meeting (AGM). At subsequent meetings, she claimed that she could not be removed as President because she was an employee of NBAPC and not a political leader. Her lawyer started appearing at more and more meetings, which had the effect (for many) of effectively silencing them. If that does not say it all, I don’t know what does. Our people elect leaders to speak for them, not to be lead by lawyers, consultants, or staff. The situation had become so bad, many people simply stopped participating. I for one, resigned as a member so that I could exercise my voice without fear of retaliation. AGMs became more predicatible as Lavallee did not report on significant accomplishments she made for NBAPC each year, instead we got a copy of her calendar which said which days she was in the office and which days she was out sick. As members started to speak out, ask questions and demand more, Lavallee started to attend AGMs and board meetings with her lawyer. We knew then that there was no getting rid of her unless she left voluntarily. Then when Patrick Brazeau jumped ship to become a conservative Senator, Lavallee set her sights on CAP. As I explained in my last blog, many off-reserve folks thought that the only way to get rid of her in NB was to vote her in as President of CAP, because CAP’s Constitution and By-laws had a specific provision that would allow votes of non-confidence. http://www.abo-peoples.org/CAP/About/CAP_ByLaws_Constitution_2007.pdf As expected, Lavallee was voted in as President and CAP has been dying a slow death ever since. However, while I used to think it was a capacity issue: poor leadership skills and a lack of knowledge and experience – I was shocked to find out it was her plan all along. It is no accident that CAP is dying, in fact when Lavallee was President of the NBAPC AND the Vice-President of CAP, she called for CAP to be dismantled! It gets worse than this – not only did she want CAP to be dismantled, but she wanted the financial support to be funnelled back east to support her organization and that of those affiliated with the Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council (MAPC) an organization that represents the NBAPC, Native Council of Nova Scotia (NCNS) and the Native Council of PEI (NCPEI). http://www.ikanawtiket.ca/ How do I know this? Well, today I was sent a copy of a letter dated May 28, 2009 that was addressed to Fred Caron, ADM of the Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, and signed by Lavallee when she was President of NBAPC and Vice-President of CAP. It is not posted online anywhere, so I will reproduce the text below (all the grammar and spelling mistakes are from the letter itself): “As you know, for many years now we have discussed the idea of ways we could make the Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council more recognized as a real credible organization. In the East, we have run it so far as a formal group but now I think it is the right time to go further and officially recognize the important role it plays for Aboriginal people here in Eastern Canada. It is the right time to do this now when you consider the problems that CAP is facing now as a National organization. We seen the failure of OMAA in 2005 and also the addition of some affiliates in the West that are very questionable. We are very concerned that the new affiliates in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan still don’t get core funding and do not have real membership. This hurts the national organization in terms of credibility as well as reputation and it is not fair for the Eastern PTO’s. We should not have to suffer because these groups cannot get their organizations running effectively. Maybe the time has come to turn away from CAP and to regroup around the east where the affiliates are running very well and have real and successful operations. We have a long and successful history compared to those in the West and we play by the rules. I am worried that if we continue to be a part of a national organization with serious and many debt and governance problems that other PTOs have created we in the East will ultimately be severely affected.” Not only was Lavallee trying to tank CAP when she was one of its provincial affiliates, but according to the Board, she was also the Vice-President of CAP at the time. I wonder if Brazeau was aware he was being stabbed in the back? That letter alone should have prevented her from running for the position as President of CAP given her obvious bias towards tanking it. It should also be at the top of the list for bringing about an immediate vote of non-confidence. However, the issue that I am most concerned about regarding Lavallee, relates to the lack of voice by the grass roots people. They say that Lavallee NEVER consulted with her membership in NB about writing such a letter or taking such a position. Other members from other affiliates say they were never consulted by her keeping in mind she was the Vice-President at the time. To call for the end of the NBAPC’s national organization should have been an agenda item at an AGM, it not a special consultation meeting in and of itself. I would also venture to guess that this should have been an agenda item at CAP’s own board meeting. What also strikes me is the hypocrisy of the letter. As former Vice-President and board member of CAP, it was her job to support the other affiliates and to direct resources towards assisting the other affiliates in obtaining core funding so that they could build capacity. Currently, as the President of CAP, the buck stops with her. If her affiliates are struggling, it is her job as a leader to make assisting those affiliates her number one priority. Instead, Board members report that she takes trips to places like Bolivia or the Olympics instead of taking care of what appears to be urgent business at CAP. If CAP is failing, Lavallee need only point the finger at one person – herself, seeing as she is the President, Chief AND CEO of CAP. I am told by members of the Board, that at CAP’s recent governance training, the person who conducted the training was surprised that Lavallee was the President, Chief and CEO of CAP. They felt that this was highly unusual and apparently the discussion centred on the fact that it felt like a dictatorship. CAP has apparently mixed both the political side of the house with the administrative side which means that CAP mixes politics and business. I am also told that all employees must report to her and that politics often factors into daily administrative decisions. This might be one of the reasons why there are pending lawsuits against CAP – but I can’t say for sure as I don’t have copies of those lawsuits. I am further told by various Board members that the level of dysfunction within CAP has increased ten-fold as Lavallee has been the centre of much in-fighting among the board. I have copies of e-mails and letters from Lavallee and the NBAPC President Kim McKinley which are appear to be particularly targeted at certain affiliates. If you read the above letter, it is no surprise that Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan bear the brunt of Lavallee’s scorn. The hypocrisy continues at the financial level as well. At CAP’s last AGM it was reported to the members that CAP was in a major deficit of over $1.2 million dollars. Yet, no debt reduction strategy was presented to the AGM. Some board members of CAP estimate that CAP’s deficit may well be close to $2 million dollars at this point. Assuming for a minute that the deficit is “only” $1.2 million, then CAP has a great deal of work to do to get back on track. There is no way to tell for sure, as CAP’s website link to its “financial reports” does not contain any information: http://www.abo-peoples.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=35 How has CAP done this? Well, aside from Lavallee’s trips to Bolivia and the Olympics, the board reports that she also gave herself a salary increase. While she wanted a much bigger increase, she did come away with a significant raise. Similarly, at Christmas time, the Board indicates that she gave herself a nice bonus of $1000 dollars and gave staff members all $500. At the same time, I had former staff contacting me saying they were being laid off due to budgetary issues. Something doesn’t add up in CAP’s math? I am sure members of CAP’s affiliates will be left wondering how Lavallee could possibly justify her own base salary given her lack of productivity for CAP, let alone salary increases, trips, and bonuses when CAP is in such serious financial troubles. The Native Council of Canada used to mean something. It was part of the constitutional talks and intervened on many important matters for Aboriginal peoples living off reserve. Its name change to CAP has not brought with it a strong vision for uniting its affiliates across the country, nor has it engaged with the people who need it most – the off-reserve grass roots people. Instead, Lavallee has transported her dysfunctional, anti-CAP form of leadership from NB to Ottawa, and the grass roots people are paying the price. Based on the information that I have been receiving about its internal dysfunction, I can only guess that CAP is slowly imploding – but not due to a lack of capacity. In fact, some might argue that this sad situation is not fate, but is being actively promoted by its own President – Betty-Ann Lavallee. In December 2010, CAP sent a letter to the Indigenous Peoples Confederacy (CAP’s Manitoba affiliate) and said they were no longer in good standing with CAP. It appears as though CAP may be doing the same thing to Saskatchewan and one wonders if OACP is next? Some fear that Lavallee is well on the way to seeing her stated goal to fruition – the end of CAP and the rise of her Eastern Empire. Lavallee: “the time has come to turn away from CAP and to regroup around the East” I am not sure what the answer is, but surely it must involve the grass roots shaking the rotten apples from the tree and getting their organization back to where it used to be. I’d be happy to hear any feedback about the information in this blog or whether anyone cares about CAP anymore.

  • Neanderthal Politics: Shame on Conservatives for Trying to Disempower Indigenous Women AGAIN

    The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) has done an incredible job of both raising the profile of the issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women and maintaining that profile, both on a domestic and international level. This was work done by passionate, dedicated Indigenous women all over Canada on behalf of those without a voice. There are few in this country who do not know what the Sisters in Spirit (SIS) campaign is all about and even fewer who are not awed by the accomplishments of those who worked on it. NWAC has shown the families and communities of those murdered and missing Indigenous women that those women were (and in some cases still are) an integral part of our Indigenous peoples and Nations. Without our women, our communities and Nations can’t move forward on our collective goals of nation-building and cultural revitalization. NWAC has proved that despite all the assimilatory policies, discriminatory laws, and racist attitudes of police and governments who allowed this to happen to our women, that we, the women, can and will stand as warriors and defend ourselves. Yet, despite all of the hard work done by NWAC, their provincial and territorial affiliates, and others over the last five years, the Conservatives, in their usual take-no-prisoners style, thought they could “run roughshod” over NWAC and the Indigenous women they represent. The Conservatives, using their token female Minister Rona Ambrose, thought they could hide their treachery under the guise of a grand announcement that was allegedly promoted to help murdered and missing Indigenous women in Canada. However, as the details were slowly released to the public, we now know that this announcement had very little to do with murdered and missing Indigenous women and more to do with increasing police powers and capacity. Parliamentary Secretary Shelly Glover (the ex-cop) very clearly told the press that SIS is “finished” – that we should not “mix apples and oranges” and that we all must “turn a new page” and realize that this announcement related to a new program to which NWAC could “apply”. MP Rod Bruinooge (no longer head of the Conservative’s Aboriginal caucus) confirmed on APTN that this was in fact the case. Even if NWAC does apply for funds to this new program, it will be in competition with many others and there is no guarantee they will get a dime. Aside from that, NWAC would be forced to change its name to “Evidence to Action”, can no longer use the well-known name of Sisters in Spirit, can not do any advocacy work, and even worse, NWAC can no longer maintain a database on the ever increasing number of missing and murdered Indigenous women in Canada – which now amounts to 582. I for one am sickened by this decision of the Conservatives and even more so that the women MPs in the Conservative Party would allow this to happen. They all bear personal responsibility for this Neanderthal decision. The Conservative government might be able to be forgiven for a bad decision once in a while, but not when this decision is one of many which directly attacks the basic equality rights of Indigenous women. Bill C-3 will knowingly and purposefully deny equality to Indian women and their children and Bill S-4 will give them an enpty shell of a legislative promise – no accessible justice. The way in which the Conservatives tried to hide their actual intentions does little for reconciling the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples and only increases the level of mistrust. Despite all the hype around the Conservative announcement, we now know that the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code have NOTHING to do with murdered and missing Indigenous women, but instead increase police powers which I explained in my last blog does not bode well for our people. In case there was any doubt about what this means for our men and now even our women, I would refer you to the newly released report by Correctional Investigator for Canada, and federal ombudsman for prisons, Howard Sapers: “The disturbing reality of Aboriginal overrepresentation in Canadian correctional populations is well-known. Aboriginal people — First Nations, Métis and Inuit —comprise less than 4% of the Canadian population but account for 20% of the total federal prison population. On any given day, approximately 2,600 Aboriginal offenders are incarcerated in federal prisons.” He specifically went on to note that: “In the case of Aboriginal women offenders, the situation is even worse. Aboriginal women offenders comprise 33% of the total inmate population under federal jurisdiction. The Aboriginal women offender population has grown by almost 90% in the last ten years, and it is the fastest growing segment of the offender population. The Office’s work in this area of corrections continues to document the inequitable and differential outcomes for Aboriginal offenders resulting from federal correctional policies and practices.” People really have to think about that. It is not that Indigenous women are more “criminal” than non-Indigenous women, they are over-represented because of “federal correctional policies and practices”. We should be very concerned that our wrongly incarcerated Indigenous women as well. The Conservatives have not only failed to take any action on addressing these justice issues for Indigenous peoples generally, but they have taken giant steps backwards in addressing equality issues for Indigenous women – specifically those issues that put their very lives and freedom at risk. How could the Conservatives think that they could sell their $10 million dollar announcement as beneficial to Indigenous women? Well over half the funding will go to police and justice services which are government services that are already well funded. The police and justice systems themselves are the very reasons why some of these missing and murdered Indigenous women never had their cases taken seriously. They are the very reasons why some of our Indigenous women languish in jail longer than non-Indigenous women. Yet, the government is taking what little funding NWAC had to combat these grave injustices and giving it back to the government which is already well-funded and has significantly more capacity than NWAC. It wasn’t our well-funded police and justice services that did all the research and leg work to identify and raise the profile of missing and murdered Indigenous women – it was NWAC and the SIS initiative. It wasn’t the police and justice services that comforted the families and took action on their behalf – it was NWAC and SIS. Now the Conservatives want to take the glory for this work and unceremoniously fund and staff the police and justice services to take it from here. They want to be able to tell the world they addressed the problem – but once again this means taking control over our lives. Assuming Howard Sapers’ report is accurate, the very thought of police and justice services “taking it from here” should scare all Indigenous peoples, not just our women. It is certainly not like NWAC and SIS were politically motivated – what did they get for standing up for the lives of their women? There were no Senate seats to be had or huge contracts for those who marched in the streets for our women. It is almost like NWAC and SIS are being punished for giving police and justice services a black eye on the international stage. It is once again, Indigenous women who are taking matters into their own hands. All they were doing was standing up as the women warriors they are, to try to save the lives of our women. How very chauvinistic, presumptuous, and ethnocentric for the Conservatives to treat our women as helpless victims and ride in on their “white” horse to save the day. It was Indigenous women who brought this issue to light and did all the work – it should be Indigenous women who lead the way in developing and implementing the solutions. Liberal MP Todd Russell made a great point on APTN. He questioned the Conservatives for agreeing to a public inquiry when the salmon went missing from the Fraser River in BC, but don’t care enough about Indigenous women to have one for them. Given that Minister of INAC John Duncan has been vocal against what he refers to as a “race-based fishery” – or as we know it – the constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty right to fish – it is no surprise that the Conservatives would look to create links between declining fish stocks and Indigenous peoples and ignore the shameful link between police and justice neglect and murdered and missing Indigenous women. Is it really any surprise that Parliamentary Secretary Shelly Glover came off so harsh in the media forcefully stating that SIS was over and proudly reaffirmed that the bulk of the money would go to policing? Her experience has been largely limited to policing after all. But who is there looking out for Indigenous women? It certainly isn’t Shelly Glover. NWAC is, and should continue to be the lead on this issue – so long as they get back on track and stand up for themselves. The fact that President Jeanette Lavell of NWAC would endorse such a “deal” with the Conservatives knowing that it would essentially kill SIS is the biggest surprise of all. As you know, in my last blog on this topic I was highly critical of the fact that NWAC was losing sight of their ultimate mandate in exchange for a rotten deal from the Conservatives, which, since I wrote my last blog, appears far worse than first reported. I know that it is not NWAC who is killing SIS or legislating inequality for our women in Bill C-3 and S-4, but standing alongside the Conservatives while they do so is just as bad in my books. SIS has become THE symbol of justice and equality for our Indigenous women. NWAC used to stand for those principles as well. NWAC needs to take the risk we all take when we stand up for ourselves and get back to their fundamental mandate of equality for Indigenous women. NWAC has to trust that people will rally around a just cause and a true leader. When the fate of our women is in police hands, we have over-representation of our women in federal prisons at a rate even higher than that of our men, longer prison sentences, deaths in custody, starlight tours, and hundreds of murdered and missing Indigenous women. Yet, when the fate of our women is on our own hands, we have Sisters in Spirit, country-wide attention, international attention, support groups for the affected families, awareness campaigns, unity marches, and direct action. Why the hell should any of us want to “turn the page” on Sisters in Spirit and hand it over to the police and the Conservatives’ brand of Neanderthal politics to look out for us? Stand up for yourself NWAC and your warriors will stand beside you.

  • The Slow, Painful Death of CAP: Can it be Saved?

    THIS BLOG DOES NOT REPRESENT LEGAL ADVICE AND IS SOLELY MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) is a national Aboriginal organization that once claimed to represent the interests of status and non-status Indians living off-reserve in Canada. The current national President is Betty-Ann Lavallee who used to be the President of one of CAP’s affiliates – the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC). CAP has recently changed its website and in so doing, has changed the focus of who it claims to represent being “the interests of its provincial and territorial affiliate organizations”. The provincial and territorial affiliates of CAP located in the East receive core funding for their operations, whereas those in the west have struggled without much success in obtaining funding. CAP’s board of directors are comprised of the Presidents of each of the affiliate organizations – most of whom, including CAP, prefer to be referred to as “Chiefs” – ironic given their anti-Chief stance. CAP used to be known as the Native Council of Canada (NCC) and in its early years had incredibly dynamic, passionate leaders who advocated strongly on behalf of those Aboriginal peoples who were excluded from legal recognition and equal access to Aboriginal and treaty rights as well as programs and services. Incredible leaders like Viola Robinson, Tony Belcourt, Harry Daniels, Ron George, and Dwight Dorey went on to make other significant contributions to the plight of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. The NCC was there at the constitutional talks, they advocated for equality for Aboriginal women during the Bill C-31 era, and were on the front-lines organizing protests when governments were going to reduce housing for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. The NCC at the time also represented Metis peoples and their struggles for recognition and equality long before the Powley case and the creation of the Metis National Council (MNC). Some may find it hard to believe, but the NCC and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)(formerly NIB) used to work closely together on a wide variety of issues. Unfortunately, those days are long over. The NCC (now CAP) started its slow, downward descent when Patrick Brazeau (then Vice-President) assumed the position of President when former President, Dwight Dorey stepped down after 7 years in office. There was no election for the position of President by the members of the off-reserve – it was an automatic assumption of Presidency as per CAP’s Constitution and By-Laws. Brazeau served less than 3 years as the National President, but in that short time managed to nearly destroy CAP and its reputation. Some Board members of CAP have indicated that Brazeau served a limited purpose in that he at least raised the profile of CAP and should be commended for his aggressive media agenda. I disagree. Simply raising the media profile of an organization is not an accomplishment if the reasons for why the profile was raised are negative or serve to hurt others. Brazeau used CAP as his “launching pad” to obtain media attention for himself, not CAP; align himself politically with the Conservative Party; and eventually jump ship and land himself a conservative Senate seat all while trashing First Nations and their leaders. That might suit Brazeau’s interests, but what did CAP get out of the deal? If you listen to Board members and various media reports, what Brazeau left CAP with was controversy, destroyed relationships with other NAO’s, allegations of sexual harassment, a decreased budget, financial turmoil, and worst of all – a confused and discouraged membership. Brazeau, now Senator Brazeau, has been described in the media as a “loose cannon” and “self-promoting” for spewing negativity against First Nations communities and their leaders at every opportunity. Unfortunately for CAP, this still has repercussions for them given how he used his position at CAP to gain his initial media profile. But that is as far as my sympathy goes for CAP. Once Brazeau finally agreed to give up his Presidency at CAP (and not obtain both a CAP salary and Senate salary as the he had originally intended) CAP had every opportunity to distance itself from the self-serving Brazeau-legacy. It could have elected leadership which would bring CAP back to its roots and its core mandate to be THE political voice for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples and take the much-needed steps to repair its relationships with other NAO’s and more importantly, the grass roots people Brazeau left behind. That is not what happened. Wisely or unwisely, some voters in the Atlantic region reported difficulty getting the then President of NBAPC, Betty-Ann Lavallee, to do any work on behalf of its constituency and so decided that if they could not get rid of her constitutionally (as she always had her lawyer by her side), then voting her into CAP would at least get her out of NB. I can see the appeal of such an approach. The plan worked, except no one could foresee that no election would held at the NBAPC and that a staff member of the NBAPC would eventually acclaimed as President. This has left many NB members dazed and confused to say the least. But, that is all just the behind the scenes and media gossip. It will never be confirmed or denied and no explanations will ever be forthcoming as is the case in political controversies. In fairness, CAP should be judged on its record. In the short time that Betty-Ann Lavallee has been President of CAP, she has shown an eerily similar disposition to that of Brazeau, although much less informed. Lavallee has demonstrated that she will flip-flip CAP’s position on just about any issue to suit the conservative party line. All of this is done in the name of CAP but without consulting in a meaningful way with its own members (not Board) on issues that are important to them. By way of example, CAP prepared a submission to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)to put on the record its position on Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. CAP argued that INAC did not consult with Aboriginal peoples, that the Indian Act’s registration provisions were discriminatory, and that section 6(1) of the Act should be amended to include all those born pre-1985 to remedy the full extent of gender inequality in that provision. By the time it rolled around to CAP’s turn to present to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) on Bill C-3, CAP had changed its tune and was willing to support the bill. In case there was any doubt about CAP’s Brazeau-esque support of the Conservative Government, when CAP appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Bill S-4 Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve, Lavallee specifically endorsed the Conservative Party’s suite of legislation. In fact, if you read the transcripts of her submission on Bill S-4, it sounds more like a Conservative Party ad for their initiatives than any sustantive input on the bill. She cited the residential schools apology, Bill S-4, Bill C-3, and the right of Indians to vote as significant evidence of the Conservative Government’s commitment to “humanity” for Aboriginal peoples. If anyone was under any doubt about whether Lavallee’s CAP would abandon the Brazeau legacy or cuddle up to the Conservatives – Lavallee settled it that day. Furthermore, in stark contrast to Brazeau’s media blitz, Lavallee is almost never in the media on any issue. It is as though CAP has fallen off the face of the earth. CAP used to stand for equality and didn’t make deals that were harmful to its members. Now the CAP Presidency is used either as a political launching pad or just a job. Some might say that I am simply being critical of any NAO. To my mind, what I am most critical of is the holier-than-thou hypocrisy started by Brazeau and being carried forward by Lavallee. When Brazeau accepted his Senate seat, he announced to the public that he would be maintaining his position and salary at CAP as well as drawing a Senate salary. This seems to be a pretty hypocritical position for one who has so vocally criticized any First Nation Chief that only makes ONE 6 figure salary, let alone TWO. Brazeau criticizes First Nations for not respecting the rights of Aboriginal women, yet it was Brazeau who made headlines for having sexual harassment complaints and made disparaging remarks against all the Aboriginal women who offered testimony on Bill S-4. Lavallee has proven to be no different. It is reported that Brazeau left CAP in financial turmoil, with various federal departments claiming “financial irregularities” and large sums of money that were not accounted for in their financial reports. So, some could argue that he left CAP in a mess. That doesn’t prevent Lavallee from taking the bull by the horns and getting the situation under control. Yet, at CAP’s recent AGM, many AGM delegates and some Board of Directors reported that CAP showed a deficit of nearly 2 million dollars. Yet despite this fact, Lavallee allegedly requested a significant increase to her 6 figure salary at a board meeting preceding the AGM. While some board members were against a raise until the deficit was addressed, it is reported that she nevertheless ended up with a raise. Now I don’t know about other Aboriginal people living off-reserve, but aside from the obvious hypocrisy, what does this say about the usefulness of CAP? Am I getting any value for the tax dollars I use to pay Lavallee’s inflated salary? It would be one thing if CAP was in a deficit because it had accomplished a long list of things for Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve, but I fear my tax dollars are being used to fund her trips to Bolivia and her salary increase, as opposed to any tangible improvements for Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve. Where is the self-restraint or the self-sacrifice? How could a real leader inflate their own salary when she has not even secured core funding for her own western affiliates? If CAP is not already dead, it is surely in the process of a slow, painful death as years now pass without advancing the cause for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. Can CAP be saved? I think the better question is should it be saved? Is there anyone in Indian country ready and willing to support another NAO that appears to be more concerned about securing enough funding for consultants and staff to administer programs and services, than it does with making any substantive difference for Aboriginal people politically, legally, culturally or otherwise? I guess that call is for the grass roots people to make.

  • Funding for Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women: A Let Down by ALL Parties

    This blog is a very difficult one to write. While I will be dealing with a current political issue, it is about more than that. It does not give me any sense of pride or accomplishment to bring to light serious problems within our Indigenous Nations. I consider myself an advocate for Indigenous peoples and Nations in North America. Their struggles for cultural revitalization, strong identities, the healing and empowerment of our peoples, and our collective goal to re-assert our sovereignty are absolutely fundamental to our survival and success as Indigenous Nations. Part of this means recognizing where we are going wrong and having the courage to shift paths. In this battle that must be waged between our peoples and our colonizers (Canada and the provinces), there can no deal-making, settling, or backroom political deals for less than what is necessary to ensure the well-being of our peoples now AND into the future. There is no job, grant, contract, position, or level of public fame that is worth giving up our rights and responsibilities as Mi’kmaq, Cree, Mohawk or Maliseet peoples to our future generations. There was a time when we as Indigenous peoples knew this instinctively and wouldn’t give all the colonizer’s enticements a second thought. Today however, the bright spirits of our peoples have been dimmed by the dark cloud under which our generations have lived for a very long time. Multiple generations of our peoples have been living under colonial rule and suffering the losses of our lands, identities, traditions, values, and world-views, as well as our sense of responsibility to ourselves and each other. This has been compounded by the historical and current physical and emotional harms imposed by our colonizers. These actions are well-known and include assimilatory laws, policies, and state actions like residential schools, day schools, the Indian Act, discriminatory laws, the 60’s scoop, overrepresentation of Indigenous children in foster care and our men in prisons, deaths in police custody, starlight tours, racial profiling, and many other CURRENT state actions. Taiaiake Alfred, an Indigenous scholar and thinker speaks about the various stages of de-colonization in which we find ourselves in his book Wasase. This makes our collective recognition of systemic colonizing forces and assimilation much more difficult to counter, but not impossible. He stresses the fact that we MUST “move from the materialist orientation of our politics” and act to restore the “spiritual foundation” of our peoples that will restore our strength and unity. Alfred explains that the underlying problem today is that: “We are separated from the sources of our goodness and power: from each other, our cultures, and our lands.” Further, he argues that by “emulating white people” in order to gain acceptance and meet colonial ideas about success has not brought our peoples or our Nations peace, happiness, well-being, or any sense of the “good life” espoused by liberals. It is in this light that I have considered the issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women in Canada and the relevance of the funding announcement that has been made. Some have celebrated this announcement by the Status of Women Canada for $10 million dollars over two years, which in fact has now been made 3 times, by different politicians without a single dime being spent to date. Now that Canada has provided more specifics about where this funding will be allocated I am, quite frankly, shocked that NWAC would support such an announcement. NWAC was originally formed to advocate on behalf of Indigenous women in Canada with a specific mandate to “enhance, promote, and foster the social, economic, cultural and political well-being of First Nations and Metis women”. Equality was one of their main focuses. In fact, if you read their submission to Parliament on Bill C-3 (status) they indicated that this Bill needed to be amended to address the full extent of gender inequality in the Indian Act. Their submission regarding Bill S-4 (matrimonial real property) advocated for much more meaningful legislation that would provide real access to justice for Indigenous women. Even NWAC’s latest report on the murdered and and missing Indigenous women in Canada highlighted the fact that “Violence is perpetuated through apathy and indifference towards Aboriginal women, and stems from the ongoing impacts of colonialism in Canada.” Specifically, NWAC noted that the Indian Act “has created ongoing barriers to citizenship for Aboriginal women and their children”. Yet, despite an acknowledgement of the actual sources of the social problems currently experienced by Indigenous women, NWAC stood publicly in support of this $10 million dollar funding announcement which did more to fund police services than any root causes of violence against Indigenous women. According to those involved in the legislative process for Bills C-3 and S-4, NWAC has flip-flopped and now also supports those bills. While none of the print or TV media services have provided an exact breakdown of where the funding dollars will be distributed, it appears from what I have read that the majority of the funds will go to “law enforcement and the justice system”. This includes a new National Police Support Services Centre for Missing Persons, a national tip website, enhancement of the Canadian Police Information Centre, amendments to the Criminal Code (no doubt without consultation), and the development of a list of best practices for police. An undetermined amount of funds will go towards culturally appropriate victim services, awareness materials for schools, and community safety plans. The Parliamentary Secretary Shelly Glover (not surprisingly given her extensive police background) explained that the funds were meant to “address issues of crime and safety”. Even Minister for the Status of Women Canada, Rona Ambrose repeatedly characterized Indigenous women as “victims” and their communities as “unsafe” during her press statement. The Conservative government’s solution to that situation is increased criminal laws and expanded powers for police. As with all issues currently facing Indigenous peoples, the state reduces them to one of criminalization. Whether it is equality for Indigenous women, the treaty right to fish in Mi’kmaq territory, protecting land claims in Caledonia, or standing guard for the sacred resting places of our ancestors in Oka – Indigenous peoples are characterized as criminals, forced to spend a disproportionate amount of time and money in the courts, and are constantly portrayed in the media as welfare-dependent deviants that pose safety and financial concerns for Canadians. This funding announcement amounts to little more than the promotion of our Indigenous peoples and Nations as criminals and by providing funds to police for services – as if this will bring the problem under control. Indigenous peoples are already over-represented in prisons and I don’t know how many more can fit into our current prison system – but then again – the Conservatives want to spend millions building new prisons, so that may help silence the rest of us. Some readers will find this blog harsh and may even suggest that my comments are naive or out of touch with reality. Some will even say that in politics, some deal is better than no deal. I can assure you all, I am far from naive and I can see enough “reality” to know that what awaits Indigenous peoples and their Nations on the other side of this colonial fog is never-ending compromise and eventual assimilation. Some will say that something better than nothing – but why? Why is something better than nothing and how do you define “something” and “nothing”? If “something” is defined as funding for a staff position at a national organization for one year, a research project that will end in another report, or school materials that will promote a negative view of Indigenous peoples, then how is “something” better than “nothing”? This is especially true if “nothing” is defined as our dignity, our pride, and respect for both our rights and responsibilities to both our ancestors and future generations? To my mind, what it means to be Mi’kmaq or Mohawk has been defined as nothing, worthless, criminal, and even pagan for far too long. Out of our “nothing” has come brave battles to protect our lands, treaties to protect our rights, and the survival of our peoples against all odds. Our “nothing” has spawned generations of passionate volunteers and advocates who work day in and day out to effect change for our peoples. Our “nothing” has resulted in the Oka stand-off that was televised all over the world and was a source of extreme pride and revitalization for Indigenous identities in North America. I would rather have lots of that “nothing” to share with my children than all the “somethings” that would lead to their eventual assimilation. Our children are not committing suicide, becoming involved in gangs, and relying on drugs and alcohol to drown their pains because they are concerned about whether they will get a management job at Irving Oil, a labourer job at the Tar Sands, or a seat in the Senate. These children are lost because they have no sense of who they are, their vibrant history, their special languages, their unique cultures and worldviews or how important their roles are to restoring the power of their Nations. They have no idea how incredibility special they are as Indigenous peoples. Our children have seen enough sell-outs in their time. They need mentors, visionaries, and real leaders to stand up for them and help guide them along so they can lead the way for our future generations. Our ancestors made incredible sacrifices so that we could get through this long, dark period. They foresaw that the seventh generation would lead their Nations out of colonization and revitalize our systems of government, laws, practices and beliefes in ways which have meaning in modern times. We have a responsibility to stand on our traditional values and principles and stop trading our children’s future for trinkets. NWAC is not the only national Aboriginal organization to have lost sight of what was envisioned in the 1960’s and 70’s for these organizations. While NWAC’s actions in bringing this issue to the forefront are commendable and indeed necessary, their follow-up actions don’t match their words. It is of no value for NWAC to opposed BIll C-3 for lack of equality and then accept it later on. Similarly, there is no amount of funding that will affect real change in violence against Indigenous women if it is all directed towards policing and not at the root causes of this inequality (like those noted in NWAC’s report). Our collective reaction to and rejection of the 1969 White Paper which called for our assimilation once and and for all is a testament to the real collective action of which we are all capable. Criminilizing our Indigenous men will never bring about equality for our Indigenous women. Shame on Canada for continuing to criminalize our peoples and on NWAC for settling for it.