Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: AFN election

  • Assembly of First Nations election a battle for sovereignty

    *This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on July 18, 2018.

    The Assembly of First Nations will hold its election for national chief on July 25 in Vancouver. Only the chiefs of the 634-plus First Nations are eligible to vote but most chiefs’ assemblies see less than half of those attend, and of those, many are proxies and not actual chiefs.

    While elections for prime minister, premier and even mayors attract nightly political commentary, analysis and predictions in the months and weeks prior to their elections, there is generally very little commentary about the AFN election outside of Indigenous media like APTN, Windspeaker or smaller Indigenous political blogs. Yet, what is at stake in this election for First Nations should be of great concern to Canadians.

    This election feels more like a boiling point – a critical juncture spurred by the growing discontent of the AFN that was apparent in the last three AFN elections for National Chief. The outcome of this election could change everything for the better or the worse and Canadians will be impacted either way.

    The colonial reality of First Nations impoverished through the dispossession of lands and resources, together with an aggressive and unrelenting assimilation policy, forces leaders to make hard decisions in order to provide relief for their people. Their own local elections depend on whether houses are built on reserve to relieve the crisis-level over-crowding and homelessness or whether there is access to safe drinking water and food to keep their children out of foster care.

    The focus of local First Nation elections is often based on life and death issues – a far cry from federal or provincial elections which tend to focus on the best interests of the middle class, tax relief or international trade. The AFN is well aware of this dynamic in First Nations and uses the fear of losing critically needed social programs and services as a means to garner support for federal policies – which in turn equate to more money for the AFN itself. While everyone is aware of this dynamic, the need to provide for First Nation citizens is often paramount.

    Historically, First Nation leaders addressed their concerns privately, but the AFN’s drastic departure from its original purpose as an advocacy organization risks the very rights of First Nations, thus requiring the very public pushback we have seen in recent years.

    What is happening both before our eyes and behind closed doors is an epic battle to protect First Nation sovereignty, lands and cultures. It is a battle that seeks to frame reconciliation as more than the beads and trinkets offered by the Trudeau government and one which aligns more with First Nation constitutional and international rights.

    This election will be a contest between those who accept the federal government’s legislative framework agenda in exchange for relatively minor (but desperately-needed) funding increases to programs and services versus those who reject it, and demand the return of some of their lands, a share in their natural resources, and the protection of their sovereignty and jurisdiction. Either path will result in significant consequences for First Nations. But make no mistake – there will be government retaliation if the election choice is real reconciliation.

    Sadly, this is not a battle of their own making. Most of the divisions amongst First Nations have been created and maintained by federal bureaucrats, who have maintained their vise-like grip on the so-called “Indian agenda”. Even the first few attempts at national political organizing among First Nations after WWI and WWII were defeated by government interference.

    While the National Indian Brotherhood started out strong in defense of core First Nation rights and title, more recent years as the re-named Assembly of First Nations have seen a drastic decline in advocacy and a corresponding increase in the support of federal agendas. While most of the federal pressure occurs behind the scenes, the previous Conservative government wielded social program funding and federal legislative power as a weapon to bludgeon any attempt to advocate for First Nation rights. Former Prime Minister Harper’s government enacted a historic amount of legislation against the will of First Nations and even threatened to cut funding for “rogue chiefs” who dared challenge their legislative agenda of increased federal control over First Nations.

    While Trudeau was elected on a promise to repeal all of Harper’s legislation, he hasn’t done so – nor will he ever. He has his own legislative agenda designed to build upon Harper’s increased legislative control of First Nation governments by also limiting the scope and content of First Nation constitutional rights and powers once-and-for-all.

    The Trudeau government seeks to define and limit the scope of First Nation rights and powers under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 in federal legislation under the guise of reconciliation. Therein lies the Trojan Horse of Trudeau’s brand of reconciliation. Trudeau’s reconciliation, while flowery and tearful, will result in the legal assimilation of First Nations into the body politic. Something his father, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, tried to do with the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy designed to get rid of Indian status, reserves and treaty rights.

    Real reconciliation – which is about addressing the wrongs of both the past and the present – requires the transfer of lands and resources back to First Nations, the sharing of the wealth made in First Nation territories and the full recognition of First Nation sovereignty and jurisdiction (the right to be self-determining). However, most Chiefs are acutely aware that although this is the path that most honours our ancestors and coincides with our rights; it is also the path with the most severe consquences. The path of retaliatory reconciliation has always attracted the full force of Canadian law enforcement and military power.

    When the Mi’kmaw Nation at Listuguj tried to manage their own fishery in the 1980’s, they were brutally beaten and arrested by the Surete du Quebec (SQ) police. When the Mohawks of Kanesetake tried to protect their traditional territory and burial grounds from a golf course in 1990, the SQ, RCMP and military laid siege to their territory for months.

    In 1995, an unarmed land defender named Dudley George was killed by Ontario police for protecting his reserve lands at Ipperwash. In the same year, the RCMP launched the largest attack on ever on a civilian population at Gustafsen Lake – all to prevent a small group of sun dancers from performing their ceremonies on so-called Crown lands.

    Even once the Mi’kmaw Nation at Esgenoopetitj (Burnt Church) had proven their treaty right to fish at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999, the RCMP and DFO used brutal force to stop the Mi’kmaw from fishing. Hundreds of RCMP SWAT forces were called out to suppress the peaceful resistance of the Mi’kmaw Nation at Elsipogtog to hydro-fracking on traditional lands.

    Sadly, Canada’s vision of reconciliation only works if First Nations don’t assert their rights. First Nations are more than welcome to enjoy their pow-wows, re-name streets in their languages or hang their art in public spaces, as acts of multi-culturalism. But when it comes to asserting inherent, treaty or constitutional Aboriginal rights and land title – that is where Trudeau’s vision of reconciliation breaks down. One need only look at the arrests related to protests against the Trudeau/Kinder Morgan Pipeline to know where real reconciliation is headed.

    Canadians should be very concerned about the actions of their governments towards reconciliation and what this AFN election means for the safety and well-being of Indigenous peoples moving forward. Afterall, as beneficiaries of the treaties, Canadians have a role to play in addressing historic and ongoing wrongs.

    There is no way to sugar coat what is at stake in this AFN election. A vote for Perry Bellegarde is a vote down the rabbit hole of assimilation that looks eerily like a pipeline. A vote for real reconciliation means First Nations will have to brace for retaliatory impact – but this is the only path that will protect our rights from voluntary erasure.

    Full disclosure: I was the runner-up candidate in the AFN election 2012 to the former incumbent National Chief Shawn Atleo.

    * The link to the original article published in The Lawyer’s Daily:

    https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/6951/assembly-of-first-nations-election-a-battle-for-sovereignty-pamela-palmater?category=columnists

    Postscript:

    I would like to refer you all to two very good articles written by Indigenous commentators on the AFN election. Both Niigaan and Doug are excellent writers and have a great deal of insight into First Nation political issues.

    (1) “National chief election matters” written by Niigaan Sinclair for the Winnipeg Free Press on July 7, 2018:

    https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/national-chief-election-matters-487557421.html

    (2) “Changes needed to AFN structure” written by Doug Cuthand for the Saskatoon StarPhoenix on July 14, 2018:

    https://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/cuthand-changes-needed-to-afn-structure Please also see my related videos on my Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI3-Vc01InQ&t=5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur6FO3Ce8ww&t=12s

    Here is my related Youtube video that provides some basic analysis of the federal legislative framework: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Z3579b20c&t=2s

  • Right-Wing Post: The Fight for Integrity in the Media

    I am writing today to set the record straight about the most recent edition of the Right-Wing Post. John Ivison of the National Post called me this week and asked for an interview. He needed it urgently to fill meet his timeline for this past Saturday, July 14. While I was on the road and meeting with Chiefs, I agreed to take half an hour to assist him with his story. Apparently, that was an exercise in futility since he did not print a word I said. The story he wrote is entitled: “The fight for the soul of the AFN” and can be found at this link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/14/john-ivison-the-fight-for-the-soul-of-the-afn/ You’ll notice that the first paragraph is an indication of his lack of knowledge about what actually transpired before, during and after what was called the “Crown-First Nation Gathering” (CFNG). First of all, the meeting was promised for many years and did not transpire until the crisis in Attawapiskat First Nation captured the media’s attention and stayed in the media. The ONLY reason why Harper stayed at the meeting was due to the unrelenting criticism that he would only stay for the speech – not because of any pressure by National Chief Atleo – in fact, everyone but Atleo criticized Harper for his planned early exit. Secondly, there was no “new” money given to First Nations for anything. In fact, after the CFNG, many Aboriginal organizations received funding cuts so severe, some had to close their doors. These funding cuts included cuts to the AFN. Any money that has been identified for emergencies like Attawapiskat or water has been taken from other programs and services for First Nations. The former Auditor General clearly highlighted in her reports how Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has a habit of reporting one thing and doing another. Harper has long stated there will be no new money for First Nations – only “efficiencies”. Getting back to Ivison’s article, I spent a great deal of time explaining to him my concerns, their origins and why I am running. Although I can’t speak for what is going on in his head, he obviously did not like or understand my answers as he chose to take quotes from my old blogs to make his story sound more dramatic. To back up his right-wing slant on the story, he used the Frontier Centre for Public Policy – a right-wing think tank that can be counted on to support just about anything Harper. The right-wing contingency in Canada has openly supported Atleo – from Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau to many of the extremely right-wing media outlets like the Sun. My issue has never been whether they support Atleo, to each his own. My concern has always been their refusal to use facts in their “news” reporting and for their opinions. Anyone can have random opinions about anything, but when these commentators refuse to base it on facts, then it is hardly be considered analysis worthy of reading. These guys are very clever, they can find ways to belittle or minimize individuals without saying it directly. Notice how they constantly refer to Atleo as having a Masters degree, but never refer to my 4 university degrees or address me as “Dr” instead of “Miss”? They refuse to capitalize the word “aboriginal” as if we are somehow less than other groups like “French” or “German”. The fact that they even use the word “aboriginal” refuses to acknowledge my nationality as “Mi’kmaw” which is found in all of my websites, brochures and how I actually defined myself during our interview. Even the quote he assigns to me is Ivison’s quote – he is the one who asked me about the “extremely cordial” relations between Atleo and Harper where I explained that my issue is NOT with having a good relationship. In fact, I support respectful and mutually beneficial relations with Ottawa – but he never quoted my actual words. I specifically said that the idea is not to settle for just any relationship with Canada – but that I wanted one that was based on respect. This means Harper has to put some good faith on the table. Ivison went on to challenge me saying how could I speak about respect for Canada when I refer to Harper as the devil. I told him that he needed to read my entire set of blogs to understand what I am referring to – Harper’s aggressive assimilatory agenda towards First Nations and his blatant disregard for democracy and fundamental rights and freedoms valued by Canadians. I am not the only one who feels this way – at this point I believe most Canadians can see what is happening, especially since the two undemocratic omnibus bills: Bill C-10 and Bill C-38, show how Harper has replaced the voices of Canadians with his own agenda in a very dictatorial manner. In addition, I never called Atleo a “devil”. That is categorically false. The conversation was strictly related to Harper’s assimilatory agenda. Atleo may be leading the AFN in the wrong direction in my opinion, but I have said all along this is not about Atleo as a person. I have met him several times and he seems to be very nice. I think most people who have met him consider him to be an extremely nice guy. After all, he is working at the AFN to better the lives of First Nations. It is not his personality that concerns me, it’s his making deals with Harper without a corresponding mandate from the chiefs to do so, that concerns me. But this isn’t just my analysis. Chief Wallace Fox of Onion Lake First Nation in Saskatchewan wrote a letter to Atleo on July 10, 2012 specifically telling Atleo that “there is no place for you to have your own agenda” and he went on to cite “countless examples of AFN acting without any authority from the Chiefs”. Chief Fox was very specific that this was not a personal issue, but instead highlighted the “danger” of he AFN “collaborating” with Harper to push the 1969 White Paper assimilation policy. Chief Fox is not the only one who feels this way. Many chiefs across the country can see the writing on the wall. These are the facts of what is happening here and Ivison ignored all of those to print a propaganda piece for Atleo. If you read Ivison’s entire piece you will understand exactly what the rest of us are talking about. Ivison quotes Atleo as describing himself as the head of the AFN engaged in “nation to nation” relations with Canada. This is precisely the problem – AFN is NOT a Nation, it’s not a treaty holder or land owner, nor is it not a national government. Atleo cannot engage in Nation to Nation relations – only we as Indigenous Nations can do that. Only Treaty 1, Treaty 6, or Mi’kmaq, Maliseet or Anishinabek, etc can speak for their Nations. This is the fundamental issue here that Ivison and all the right-wing media ignores. Ivison also failed to quote our conversation related to funding. He tried to get me to admit that my whole solution is more tax-payer’s money. I explained to him that all the wealth in this country is made from First Nations lands and resources. Every single government, business or industry is 100% reliant on the ongoing theft of our lands and resources. It is a fundamental mischaracterization to say that band funding comes from tax-payers. If tax-payers have an issue with paying taxes – that is between them and their governments – we did not create capitalist forms of government. Our issue is that this country’s wealth is 100% reliant on our land and resources. When we demand a small fraction of that wealth back, we are accused of being dependent. The only government dependent here are the federal and provincial governments who could not sustain themselves without out our lands and resources. We, as First Nations, fund every single program, service, benefit, and government in this country NOT the other way around. I also explained that at a bare minimum, First Nation government transfer payments, should at least be on par with provincial governments. Right now we are chronically underfunded and the extreme poverty is the result. This does not include the additional rights we have in relation to our lands and resources from our treaties and constitutional protections. When I spoke to Ivison I explained all of this in great detail – but he obviously didn’t like what he heard as he printed his own version. I also gave him my ideas about how our governments can sustain themselves, but he felt no need to share any of that. Instead he boils it all down to gender and quotes an unnamed AFN watcher saying that chiefs will never vote for a woman. At each step the right-wing faction in Canada insult our chiefs. We have more female Chiefs and band councillors in Canada than the federal parliament has female MPs. If only reporters stuck to the facts, then we would not have all this negative stereotypes dominating the media. Our chiefs are smart, many are deeply spiritual and most are in this to better the lives of our people. I believe in the collective wisdom of our people – they decided to who to put in as Chief, they decide the traditional or hereditary leaders and when the chiefs vote they will decide who will have their back for the next three years. This race was never about gender – it has always been about inspiring hope in our people and laying out a vision for the next three years. For me, this means being brave enough to stand up and admit when we are off track so we can turn this ship back around. The right-wing media will do their best to maintain the status quo – because everyone else benefits from it but us. But we have the ability to see past their propaganda and lack of facts – we can do this. We have a momentum going now to get things back on track and we will set things right. We just have to stay focused on our sovereignty, our lands and treaties and our people and we can’t go wrong. The choice at this election is not radical versus moderate or male versus female – the choice is status quo or taking a chance on fundamental change. The status quo is killing our people, I don’t think we have much to lose by taking a chance on turning things around.