Tag: assimilation

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

July 18, 2018
Lynn Gehl v. Canada: Unstated Paternity and Indian Status

Lynn Gehl v. Canada: Unstated Paternity and Indian Status

Dr. Lynn Gehl is a First Nations woman who is grounded in the traditional Indigenous knowledge of her Algonquin Anishinaabe culture and tradition. Gehl’s family originates from the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan (formerly Golden Lake Band) in Ontario. Yet, despite her connection to her culture, her Algonquin upbringing, and her ancestral ties to her First Nation, Gehl is denied legal recognition as an “Indian” by the federal government.

But just like Mary Two-Axe Early, Jeanette Corbiere-Lavell, Yvonne Bédard, Sandra Lovelace and Sharon McIvor before her, Gehl is not taking no for an answer. After more than twenty years of applications, protests and appeals, Gehl is headed to court.

Mary, Jeannette, Yvonne, Sandra, Sharon

(lynngehl.com and Google Images)

Mary Two-Axe was a well-known advocate who challenged Canada’s discriminatory Indian Act which took Indian status away from Indian women if they married a non-Indian. Jeanette-Corbiere Lavell and Yvonne Bédard took Canada all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge these marrying-out provisions and lost. This gave Sandra Lovelace the opportunity to go straight to the United Nations and argue her case and win. The United Nations decided that Canada cannot enact legislation that denies Indian women and their children the right to enjoy their culture together with their communities. However, the Bill C-31 amendments, while reinstating some Indian women, still discriminated against many others. Sharon McIvor dedicated 25 years to the court system to challenge this residual discrimination. She also won, but the court left it up to Canada to amend the Act. This resulted in Bill C-3, which remedied some of the discrimination for Indian women, but added more discriminatory provisions to the Act, which forced McIvor to take her case to the United Nations as well. While we wait for the decision in that case, Lynn Gehl has put in over 20 years trying to seek justice for Indian women and their children in terms of unstated paternity.

Today (Monday, October 20^th) Gehl and her legal counsel, Christa Big Canoe from Aboriginal Legal Services Toronto, will appear before the Ontario Superior Court to argue that the Indian Act rules around who is an “Indian” are discriminatory on the basis of race, marital status and/or gender. The Indian Act, and the means by which the federal government applies the act to Indian children whose fathers are unknown, results in them receiving a lesser form of Indian status, or no status at all. Gehl’s case focuses on what is known as unknown or unstated paternity – Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s (AANDC) policy to automatically presume that an unknown or unstated father is a non-Indian – even if the father is, in fact, an Indian. Unstated or unknown paternity manifests in a variety of ways. For example, AANDC will unilaterally determine that the father is non-Indian if:

–          an Indian mother does not know the name of the father;

–          the father refuses to acknowledge paternity of the child;

–          the father refuses to sign the birth certificate and/or Indian registration form;

–      the mother does not have the money to complete and file all vital statistics forms; there may be difficulty meeting time-lines for remote First Nations women who must fly into hospitals to have children;

–          the underage mothers may have privacy concerns related to paternity in smaller communities; and/or

–          an Indian mother refuses to name the father (due to incest, rape, domestic violence).

AANDC is not legally required to process applications with the presumption that an unstated father is a non-Indian. This is a clear policy choice made by AANDC to reduce the number of Indians over time. Prior to 1985, there was a legal presumption of Indian paternity for unwed mothers – there was no mad dash to try to scam the system and register non-entitled children. Thus, there is no reason why AANDC cannot presume Indian paternity in the absence of documentation. At the end of the day, the child is born to, will live with and be raised by his/her Indian mother, family and community. However, such a policy does not correspond to Canada’s ultimate objective regarding Indians. AANDC’s policy objective has always been “the final solution of the Indian problem” i.e., to ensure “there is not a single Indian in Canada”. In fact, Canada is the last remaining country to determine who is an Indigenous person based on racial characteristics (descent through male blood). It is a racist formulation based on outdated views about biological characteristics of “races” and debunk sciences like eugenics and phrenology which sought to eliminate “undesirable” human populations.AANDC is the federal government department which created the rules to determine who can be registered as an Indian (status). Indian status confers not only program benefits like education and health care, but also determines who can be a band member; live on the reserve; vote or run for office in a First Nation; and often who is and is not a treaty beneficiary. Just like Canadian citizenship determines whether or not a Canadian can access education and health services from their province, Indian status determines eligibility on the federal side. So, its not that Indians get anything “more” from status in terms of programs, its just the source of the benefits.AANDC has done an incredible job of misinforming Canadians about the impacts of registering Indians. They often make comments about “floodgates” (i.e. everyone will become an Indian) and “costs” (this will be burden on taxpayers). The truth is, in terms of registrations, it would not have a significant impact.. While the Bill C-31 population projections (Indian women being reinstated to Indian status) ranged from 20-40% increase, the projected increases for unstated paternity are relatively small – approximately 2%. This does not substantiate the fear-mongering around population increases. Similarly, if the only concern here is money – there is no increased burden on taxpayers. For every person that is registered as an Indian they will get less money for education, health care, housing, food, water, and less child and family services. Status Indians are the most impoverished people in Canada. Plus, its the wealth from Indigenous lands and resources that pay for our programs and services and also subsidizes the programs and services of Canadians – not the other way around. Therefore, there is no financial argument to made against affording equality to Indian women and their children.This federal policy purposefully, systematically and disproportionately impacts Indigenous women who are most often the primary caregivers of their children and statistically more likely to live in poverty. This is especially true of young, teenage Indigenous mothers – 80% of whom were found to live in households making less than $15,000 a year. These mothers, often lone parents, depend on the federal programs and services associated with Indian status to care for their children.

Gehl is relying on section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees equal benefit of the law without discrimination based. While section 6 of Act may on its face, appear to apply equally to Indian men and women, in reality, AANDC interprets and implements it in a gender-biased manner, which has a substantial and disproportionate impact on Indian women and their children whose paternity is unknown. The fact that AANDC interprets the Act so as to prejudice the descendants of unwed Indian women discriminates against them on the basis of marital status as well.

Section 6 is a modern manifestation of historical discriminatory views of Indian women based on race, gender and marital status that should have been repealed decades ago.

Gehl, who has five continuous generations of Indian lineage on her paternal side, will argue that she should be registered as an Indian. She will also seek a declaration from the court that Section 6 of the Indian Act:

(1)   Discriminates against applicants born out of wedlock;

(2)   Discriminates against applicants who do not know their paternity; and

(3)   Be applied so as not to disadvantage the descendants of individuals whose paternity is unknown.

Other recommendations for change from Indigenous women have included:

–           Amend the Act to permit registration based on one parent’s registration;

–           AANDC should discontinue its discriminatory interpretation and implementation of the registration provisions;

–           AANDC should specifically eliminate the unstated paternity policy;

–           Remove administrative and financial barriers to timely and accurate birth registrations;

–           Provide legal and social protections to young mothers to protect their rights to privacy, personal safety and registration of their children.

Gehl, like Sandra Lovelace and Sharon McIvor have spent decades in the courts fighting for their right to belong. It’s time Canada afforded equality to all people – including Indigenous women. Selection of sources on Unstated Paternity:

Lynn Gehl personal website

http://www.lynngehl.com/

P. Palmater, Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2011).

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/beyond-blood-rethinking-indigenous-identity/9781895830606-item.html?ikwid=beyond+blood&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0

M. Mann, Indian Registration: Unrecognized and Unstated Paternity (2013)

http://apr.thompsonbooks.com/vols/APR_Vol_5Ch6.pdf

M. Mann, Disproportionate and Unjustifiable: Teen First Nations Mothers and Unstated Paternity Policy (2013)

http://apr.thompsonbooks.com/vols/APR_Vol_9Ch12.pdf

L. Gehl, Indian Rights for Indian Babies: Canada’s “Unstated Paternity Policy” (2013)

http://journals.sfu.ca/fpcfr/index.php/FPCFR/article/view/187

National Aboriginal Women’s Association, Aboriginal Women and Unstated Paternity (2007)

http://www.laa.gov.nl.ca/laa/naws/pdf/nwac-paternity.pdf

S. Clatworthy, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Factors Contributing to Unstated Paternity (2003)

http://www.canadiancrc.com/PDFs/Unstated_Paternity_First_Nations-Canada_Birth_Registrations_en.pdf

October 20, 2014
Eyes Wide Shut: Chasing Section 35 and Ignoring the War

Ok, so it’s been four months since the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) election for National Chief and the honeymoon period is officially over. I simply can’t stay silent any longer about where we are and where we are headed as First Nations. If we don’t take action now, even if that means speaking out and risking unity, then it is our First Nations citizens on the ground who will be the ones who continue to suffer from our political inaction. Harper’s aggressive actions since the election more than proves Harper’s real agenda – to once and for all eliminate the “Indian problem” – and it’s do or die time for us. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/09/harpers-indigenous-manifesto-erasing.html With respect, I take serious issue with any claim that there was “momentum” between Harper and First Nations prior to the Crown-First Nation Gathering (CFNG) that has suddenly withered since the AFN election. There was no momentum on any key issue of importance to grassroots First Nations peoples or First Nation leaders. Every single action Harper is pursuing against us right now, he started well over a year ago. It seems incredulous that NC Atleo would all of sudden decry the flurry of federal legislation being imposed on our First Nations when the majority of these bills were introduced into the House or Senate prior to either the CFNG or the AFN election. Don’t forget, mention of some of these pieces of legislation were made at the CFNG in Harper’s speech – I didn’t hear Atleo say anything about it then. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/11/15/pol-cp-first-nations-atleo-harper-letter.html Similarly, with the substantial funding cuts to First Nation political organizations and those being implemented now at the individual First Nation level – we KNEW that this was Harper’s plan. This was not a shock to the AFN. The problem was never lack of knowledge, instead it was a complete failure to have a strategic action plan in place. That is not to say AFN could have single-handedly reversed those funding cuts, but for weeks since their announcement they had weak to no response. It is only now that there seems to be some outcry from the National Chief. But outcry or not, where is the plan? http://metronews.ca/news/canada/434784/atleo-pitches-plan-to-move-beyond-indian-act/ This is where things get progressively worse – Atleo’s new “plan” would have us locked into decades-long self-government negotiating processes which would indebt our First Nations by millions of dollars and trap us there, lest we want to be put into third party management for failure to pay. What about the First Nations citizens on the ground? Where is the plan for the current housing and water crisis? Our people need to have at least the basic necessities of life – where are their voices and priorities reflected? True, some First Nations are doing fairly well on some fronts, but we cannot ignore the multiple over-lapping crises right before our eyes. Many of our people are suffering from homelessness, over-crowding, lack of water, sanitation, food insecurity, the theft of their children by child and family services at alarming rates, many murdered and missing Indigenous women and the over-imprisonment of our men, women and youth. How much worse does it have to get before we shift our focus back to our peoples? http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/10/indigenous-nations-urgent-situation.html Has AFN even thought about what a section 35 agenda would mean? First of all, it is focused on Canadian law and interpreted by Canadian judges. It should be no surprise then that the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) cases have followed a very specific pattern: (1) They always specifically or indirectly protect Canada’s sovereignty; (2) They arbitrarily make up new sui generis (unique) law to ensure our rights can squeeze into Canadian law versus any recognition of our own laws; (3) The cases transform First Nations from sovereign Nations and governments to cultural entities frozen in pre-contact times that must be reconciled with Canadian sovereignty; (4) Whenever a principal or finding goes in our favour, it will inevitably be limited, redefined and reduced to an almost unusable right in subsequent cases. Take for example, the Indian priority in Sparrow which came second only after conservation. In Delgamuuwk, our priority sank to last after every other possible priority including: agriculture, forestry, mining, hydroelectric power, environment, infrastructure and settlement. (5) The section itself requires the extensive, costly litigation of our rights on a right by right, species by species and First Nation by First Nation basis. Many of these cases take decades to resolve and even once they hit the SCC, it is not uncommon for them to send the case back to trial. Even then, we are the only group subjected to re-hearings like in Marshall II which substantially altered the original court win. So, what is it about section 35 that offers an alternative to the current situation? Do they not realize that First Nations are the only entities with real sovereignty here? Canada knows this and is desperately buying up the rest of our lands through claims and securing its own sovereignty agreement by agreement. Canada is slowly piecing together their ownership and sovereignty, and some of us are allowing them to do that. I am not saying that they have offered any alternatives, but we don’t have to accept what they thrown down. In order to speed up the process Canada will introduce the First Nation Property Ownership Act so we can surrender the last of our lands. What about any of this is a plan forward? Atleo’s “plan” also calls for a National First Nations Auditor – seriously? That is nothing more than trying to please the government’s obsession with trying to make all First Nations look corrupt.Try selling that as a solution to a northern Ontario First Nation whose school is falling apart; or a flooded Manitoba First Nation whose residents have been displaced for many months; or a Saskatchewan First Nation whose water is contaminated. Who cares about another national First Nation entity which will benefit the CEO, its few employees and serve a relatively minor number of First Nations. Think of the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Statistical Institute, and all those other “national” organizations located in British Columbia. We don’t need a First Nation bureaucracy on top of the massive Indian Affairs bureaucracy we have now. We are not one nation of people – we are many Nations with our own sovereignty(s). We have laws and governance systems which makes us strong Nations. We need to act on that strength, in different ways, in different territories, and according to our own laws and priorities. If we can’t stay focused on living and acting on our sovereignty everyday, then we’ll be easily led down the colonizer’s path of chasing “equality”, “section 35”, and other government carrots – while missing the war going on around us. Make no mistake, our peoples are the casualties in this war and things are growing steadily worse on all socio-economic fronts. The status quo is killing our people and has been for quite some time. The problem is that Harper has changed the status quo and things are about to get much worse. http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057 Unbelievably, the AFN only now appears to be realizing that Harper’s full-blitz attack on First Nations has some “potential for harmful impacts”. This means that nationally, we are way behind in this war. The AFN has had many opportunities to take a stand over the last few years and has failed to do so each time. That is not to say that individual regions or First Nations have not been raising the alarm bells – in fact, some had to very publicly withdraw from Atleo-Harper education plan in order to preserve their treaty and inherent rights. There are also thousands of First Nation community members who want to see their leaders lead and are willing to stand behind their Nations – but they need to be inspired to action. There can be no more delays – we need action. Our peoples deserve better than our fear, hesitancy and wilful blindness to their suffering. We cannot chase Canada’s section 35 illusion with eyes wide shut. Harper is presenting us with a false choice: Indian Act or assimilation and some of us have fallen into the trap of letting him define our options. We need to take stock of where we have been, the situation we created by allowing this to happen, own it, and move forward. None of us as individuals have all the answers – but we are lucky, we still have the strength of our collective Nations to stand beside us. Let’s do this for our peoples and our Nations. “When it comes to confronting our imperial realities some of us want to reform colonial law and policy, to dull that monster’s teeth so that we can’t be ripped apart so easily.” “Some of us believe in reconciliation, forgetting that the monster has a genocidal appetite, a taste for our blood and would sooner tear us apart than lick our hands.” “I think that the only thing that has changed since our ancestors first declared war on the invaders is that some of us have lost heart against history and against those that would submit to it.” “I am with the warriors who want to beat the beast into bloody submission and teach it to behave.” (Excerpt from: Taiaiake Alfred, Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005).

November 18, 2012

National Chief Manny Jules: Shared Priorities, Self-Sufficiency & Other Policy Myths

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada’s (INAC’s) recent round of cuts to national Aboriginal organizations, regional First Nation organizations and tribal councils are very telling about the policy direction in which we are headed. This policy direction is most definitely backwards in time – say 50 to 100 years or so. Canada has come nearly full circle in its treatment of Indigenous peoples. Canada went from (1) creating a mythic “race” of Indians to be divided, controlled and assimilated, (2) to recognizing (at least somewhat) that First Nations are diverse, have the inherent right to be self-determining (although limited) and that Aboriginal and treaty rights must be addressed (even though we didn’t agree on how), (3) back to treating all “Indians” as one big problem that needs to be eliminated. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/09/harpers-indigenous-manifesto-erasing.html The two major policy objectives of this Harper government have been clear from the very beginning – it is about getting rid of Indians once and for all and turning Canada into one massive extractive industry. Harper is trying to position himself as a world power and he needs our land and resource treasury to do that. If there is one thing you can guarantee about power-mongers is that social justice, the rule of law and consideration for future generations is not consistent with world domination. Harper may have some competition if Mitt Romney is elected as President in the United States, but that is another disaster for another day. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/08/pinky-and-brain-comeback-mitt-romneys.html INAC has always used a system of financial rewards and punishments to try to force First Nations into certain policy directions. This is not an easy task. It requires a colossal bureaucracy at INAC to control First Nations, manage their expectations and steer them in the direction which suits the Minister of the day. When you take a Nation’s land, resources and citizens away, then use all the profits to sustain your ever increasing bureaucracy and other pet projects (militaries, submarines and fighter jets) then that Nation is essentially held at ransom. Most, if not all First Nations have at least some citizens who need to eat, access clean water, and have safe, warm housing. If you hold access to those basic human needs over the heads of leadership, their practical choices become quite limited. http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057 By keeping First Nations chronically under-funded for all essential human services, they will always be subject, at least in some way, to undue pressure by INAC’s bureaucracy. In some cases, the extent of the poverty is so severe that the situation goes from one of undue duress to what some have called “extortion” (obtaining money or property from someone through coercion, commonly practiced by organized crime). If you bring people to the brink of starvation, disease and hopelessness in order to get their agreement to give up their rights, how is this not at least undue duress? http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Housing+still+major+issue+First+Nations/7139121/story.html Harper’s plan is very clear – eliminating all history, obligations and mention of First Nations from Canada. His former advisor, Tom Flanagan, has tried for years to sell the idea of reinvigorating attempts to assimilate Indians and get rid of reserves, treaty rights and any form of distinct identity. The very racist, derogatory language and ideologies used to try to promote assimilation prevented a much wider audience from listening. Now, with the “new” more fringe right-wing Conservatives in power, they have adapted their tactics. People like Flanagan and Harper use First Nations people to sell their wares now. From Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau who acts as Harper’s mouth piece tearing apart First Nations at every chance he gets, to Manny Jules, head of the First Nation Tax Commission who now promotes the destuction of reserves and the biggest assimilation policy plan created in recent years: the nationalizing of First Nations. http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ One need only look at INAC’s recent announcement to see exactly where they get their authority to cut funding to First Nation organizations, the ideology they are using, what their ultimate objective is, and who is benefitting (aka leading the charge). First off, INAC is focusing on what they call “self-sufficiency” which means First Nations that are self-funded. This is ironic, given that all Canadians are funded off the wealth and profits that come from our lands and resources. Were it not for our gas, oil, minerals, fishery, forestry, rivers, trade routes and lands, Canadians would not have such a high standard or living nor would government have the funds to pay for health, education and other services for Canadians. Taxpayers don’t pay our way, we pay THEIR way and we are kept in starvation mode for it. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1346805886381/1346805926370 So, we know that their ultimate objective it to eventually cut all funding to First Nations and their political organizations and Canada will do this in a dramatic, albeit staged approach. No surprise here, we knew this was coming. The AFN has been woefully inactive on this front hoping the issue would simply go away. Well, it hasn’t and it’s here and we have to face it. INAC’s ideology is also telling – they want to treat all First Nations the same. Regardless of what region, treaty area, territory or Nation we are from, INAC will fund everyone the same. INAC is back using the concept of treating us all as one mythic race of Indians and what is good for one is good for all. We all know that northern communities are not in the same position as those in the south. The poverty levels vary across the country as do the housing crisis, flooding crisis, suicide crisis, water crisis, food insecurity crisis, and education, advocacy, and governance capacities. Mohawks have different laws, rules, cultures, languages and trade systems than do Mi’kmaq, Cree or Anishinabek. Some of us have treaties and others do not. There never was one race of “Indians” and to treat us like that in terms of funding ties our identities to federal laws, policies, recognition systems for one reason only – assimilation. In other words, they legislate who we are, who gets to be us and when we no longer exist. The funding cuts will just help this process along. Provinces and territories ought to take notice as well. Look at how Canada purports to change the constitutional jurisdictional relationship in section 91(24) from “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” to “only Indians that live on a reserve”. For many communities, this will cut funding even more severely than can be seen in the announcement. First Nations will be assessed based solely on their on-reserve populations, which for many is about half their population. In other cases, some have 80% of their populations off-reserve, but are still responsible for them in a variety of ways. This is also no surprise as Canada has been trying to figure out how to deal with the inevitable court cases which find Indian status (registration) rules to be discriminatory. Their idea to reduce financial obligations is to slowly and quietly transition to an on-reserve population funding model versus a total band membership model. In the announcement, INAC explains that future funding will be based on “our shared priorities”. In case you are wondering where they got their shared priorities one need only refer back to the Crown-First Nations Gathering (CFNG) and the AFN-INAC Joint Action Plan which came out as a result. Harper was very clear in his speech that he would be getting rid of “incentives” (aka funding) and promoting “individuals” (aka breaking up reserves). The whole speech was designed to promote “integration” (aka assimilation). Harper said he would impose a suite of legislation and he is keeping his promises. There should be no shock about what is happening – the only issue is how we deal with it. In this case, the AFN opted to sign a Joint Action Plan, without the consent of the different regions in Canada to do exactly what Harper outlined. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012_02_01_archive.html This is why INAC now says that they will limit funding to “shared priorities”. Let’s compare Harper’s Speech at the CFNG with the AFN-INAC Joint Action Plan and INAC’s Shared Funding Priorities:

CFNG Gathering Speech	INAC-AFN Joint Action Plan	Shared Funding Priorities
Treaty relationship	Meaningful dialogue on treaties	Consultation on resource development projects (omnibus bill to remove consultation, funding cuts to advisory services)
Change rules in education	National education panel to discuss legislation	Education (education legislation, funding cuts to organizations and for proposal-based program funding)
Change FN accountability	Accountability of FN governments	Governance (accountability legislation, elections legislation, funding cuts to governments, political organizations, advisory services)
Focus on economic development	Unlocking economic potential	Land management (reserve privatization legislation, funding cuts for advisory services, community plans)

Obviously, this is a very brief overview of several detailed documents and is meant in a very general way. Any policy or legal analysis of these documents would be much more sophisticated than can be reasonably presented in a blog (my blogs are already too long). All this to say, that INAC wants First Nations to “seek out new funding sources”. Easy for INAC to say because they have already taken 99.8% of our lands, most of our resources, and many of our people. What would these new funding sources look like? Well, one can imagine corporations like Enbridge and other pipelines, oil and gas companies, hydro companies, mining companies, nuclear or waste disposal companies and others would be a perfect fit.

Canada privatizes our reserves + First Nations need to provide food, water and housing to their citizens = sale of our remaining lands to Enbridge et al.

Just in case First Nations are unsure about how to proceed, they will no longer have funding for organizations to provide advisory services in the areas of economic development, financial management, community planning or governance. But that’s ok, because there is a new National Chief in town, and his name is Manny Jules. Manny Jules and his national organizations will solve all Indian problems – you will have your choice of: (1) Taxes (a) First Nation Tax Commission (Manny Jules) imposing tax regimes on your reserve or (b) Reserve lands becoming provincial lands subject to provincial taxation; (2) Finances (a) First Nations Financial Management Board (Harold Calla) manage your community’s finances or (b) Third party management by any number of high-priced financial consultants (except your own); (3) Economic Development (a) Aboriginal Economic Development Board (Clarence Louis) will advise INAC on how best to develop your reserve lands or (b) INAC will unilaterally unlock your lands and then develop them for you; (4) Reserve Lands (a) First Nations Land Title Institute (Manny’s proposed idea) will take over your reserve lands or (b) Find alternate funding to support your First Nation when INAC cuts all funds; (5) Governance (a) Allow your First Nations to be subsumed under one National Aboriginal Organization or (b) Have all of your political, advisory and governance funding cut by INAC. These are the choices being presented to First Nations by Canada: assimilate or stay on the rez. It is a false choice of course, because there are so many more meaningful options which come from our traditional ways of governing, learning, trading, sustaining, and relating. The hardest choice of all will be deciding to do things differently, doing things our way, and making the necessary short-term sacrifices to ensure the long-term future for our children. This is a sign of things to come – they will cut funding to First Nations even more. They will amend the constitution, they will breach and even try to extinguish our rights and they will do their best to assimilate us. We all own this – we all have a responsibility to make the changes we need. If we don’t care enough about our families, communities and Nations to at least try – no one else will. No one says it will be easy, in fact, I can guarantee it will be hard. We have a lot of work to do to gain back the faith and loyalty of our citizens and conversely, our citizens have work to do in supporting their Nations. We have a lot of issues to deal with internally, but that is our conversation to have amongst ourselves. The frustration of grass roots peoples with their leaders and organizations is very real and must be addressed. The frustration of leaders with Canada and the over-whelming task of trying to solve all the problems alone is also very real. The issue which faces us is not a battle between traditional leaders and Indian Act leaders, between men and women, or between on and off-reserve. The colonizers have done a good job of dividing us, confusing us and aligning us along their own ideologies about class, status, and individualism. If we could forgive ourselves for being colonized and for struggling with decolonization and healing, then the space would open up to work on this problem. We can let Canada’s plan unfold or there is a place where our peoples can meet in the middle, start over, face the problems honestly and openly, and start the healing journey towards changing our communities for the better.

September 10, 2012

Land Wars 2: Attack of the Fringe

The right-wing fringe are in full-swing these days. From He-who-shall-not-be-named’s racist, hateful tirades about First Nations on TV to the fringe right’s fav policy institutes’ lowly insults and name-calling of First Nation academics and activists on Twitter – they are working hard to spread their venom to a vulnerable public. I say vulnerable, because a large segment of the Canadian public is uneducated about Indigenous issues. This means they are open to be persuaded by the well-funded, flashy right-wing propaganda that has infected much of the mainstream print and TV media. What has got all the fringe right-wingers all a-buzz recently? It is the Harper government’s plans to divide up reserve lands into individual parcels of land (fee simple). The idea comes from Tom Flanagan’s book: Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights. http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ As I wrote in my last blog, the act is to be called the First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA) and has the potential to destroy First Nation communities, but is being promoted as the answer to our woes. http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/08/flanagan-national-petroleum-ownership.html The person behind the idea, Tom Flanagan, who was also an advisor to PM Stephen Harper, now uses Manny Jules (head of First Nation Tax Commission) to do most of the public promotion of FNPOA. Why? Because Manny Jules is a First Nations man, who is the former chief of Kamloops First Nation and the idea is that it will be easier to sell assimilation to First Nations if a First Nations person does it. http://fntc.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=7 The idea itself is not new. It’s the same idea Flanagan promoted in his book First Nations? Second Thoughts, except in his first book, his overt racist depiction of First Nations didn’t gain his ideas the support he had hoped. He has not given up on his idea to assimilate First Nations, he is just less overt about it now. In his mind, resistance to assimilation is futile. http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/the-man-behind-stephen-harper-tom-flanagan/ His idea is copied from Hernando de Soto who has travelled the world trying to convince Indigenous peoples that endless riches can be found in giving up their communal lands in exchange for individual fee simple holdings. It appears from all the research to date that these communities are far worse off after they have divided up their communal lands. So, naturally, this sounds like a great plan for Harper. In fact, some reports have shown that increasing the level of westernized legal concepts of property rights in communities with extreme poverty, “can actually lead to greater exploitation”. Other reports note that the impact of De Soto’s idea ranges from ineffectual to very “harmful”. But, we have to get real about what this idea is all about. The plan is not to create super wealthy, powerful Indigenous communities – it is for the maximized economic benefit of the political and corporate power-brokers all over the world. The very objective of this plan is to open up Indigenous communal lands for mortgaging, credit, loans, liens, seizures, taxation and for economic development in the form of mining and pipelines. This “unlocking” benefits banks, investment companies, the extractive industry and government – not Indigenous peoples. A few low-end labour jobs and a couple of education scholarships are the new beads and trinkets of today, especially when you consider that the corporate industry takes home trillions all over the world. This proposed bill (FNPOA), like the many others being drafted, introduced and debated without First Nations’ review or approval, is the core part of this assimilation plan. It will disperse First Nation communities faster than a police riot squad hose can disperse environmental protesters. Similar legislation has devastated Indigenous land holdings in the United States, some of them irrevocably. Canada’s magic key (also known as the land claims negotiating policy) is that once Indigenous lands transfer to “third parties” for any reason, they are gone forever. You will hear a great deal of media on this subject. The right-wing fringe literally drools at the thought of finally assimilating Indigenous peoples once and for all – more money, land and control for those who already have more than they need. They can’t wait to impose their pipelines across any territories they wish. Instead of informed, educated, fact-based discussions, they have and will likely continue to engage in their usual name-calling, smearing, belittling and taunting of Indigenous academics, community members, leaders and activists. We must keep in mind those Conservative right-wing fringe groups are the 1% mega-rich of settler societies who can buy and control just about anything – newspapers, TV stations, research, conferences, policy institutes, think tanks, economic institutions and politicians. They have large think tanks and private strategy meetings to discuss and implement their own plans. The closer we get to the truth about their activities, the more frantic and desperate will be their attacks. They will cowardly threaten, defame, ridicule and misinform – and it will be relentless. On our side, we have our communities – who, for all the hardships, difficulties, tragedies and poverty, still have our identities, cultures, languages, beliefs, spiritualities, practices, traditions, laws, economies and governments. We are so much stronger than those who wish to assimilate us. Even in our suffering we find the strength to hold on to who we are, we defend our sovereignty, treaties, lands, waters and skies and we refuse to give up. Our Indigenous Nations have thrived here since time immemorial and we will thrive again. Our ancestors left us everything we need to guide us and protect our future generations. We can do this. Don’t get distracted by the noise and drama of the right-wing fringe groups who seek to profit on our suffering. Many of them only do so because their media ratings (i.e. salaries) and “online hit count makes it worthwhile”. We have to focus on the issues before us, work together, help build each others’ knowledge and capacity and empower one another. We all have skills we can use to help better our families, communities and Nations. Make no mistake, this bill is a modern form of land war that will be waged on our Nations. I for one, will do everything in my power to stop this legislation. I will keep researching, publishing, speaking about it, answering questions and dispelling myths. I am often criticized for the volunteer work I do for First Nations. One prominent BC chief once said publicly that that “you get what you pay for with volunteers – they are worthless”. I hold the opposite view. I have a strong Mi’kmaw identity and attachment to my culture and Mi’kmaw Nation. I am blessed with a supportive extended family and strong, healthy children. I worked hard as a single mom to earn an education (four university degrees) and was lucky enough to find a good paying job. I am grateful to the Creator for my warm house (on traditional Indigenous territories) and access to healthy food and clean water. Coming from a situation where I lived on welfare with my two babies in a flooded, mouldy Aboriginal house which made my babies very sick – I appreciate what we have now. None of this makes me any more or less Mi’kmaw, but it does highlight my responsibility to do the most that I can do for our peoples. I have certain blessings that put me in a position where I am obligated, according to Mi’kmaw ways of being, to give back and help build up the Mi’kmaw Nation and other Indigenous Nations and peoples in Canada. So I will continue my volunteer work – regardless of the threats, slander or attacks from the fringe who just can’t comprehend our Indigenous collective loyalties to one another and our lands, waters and skies.

August 25, 2012
Flanagan National Petroleum Ownership Act: Stop Big Oil Land Grab

By now most of you have heard about the Harper government’s intention to introduce legislation that will turn reserve lands into individual holdings called fee simple. The legislation has been referred to as the First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA). Some media outlets have referred to it as “privatization” but what the legislation would really do is turn the collective ownership of reserve lands into small pieces of land owned by individuals who could then sell it to non-First Nations peoples, land-holding companies, and corporations, like Enbridge for example. The idea is not a new one. Hernando de Soto has been trying to sell the same idea to Indigenous populations all over the world. The evidence seems to show that the Indigenous peoples are far worse off for it. Prior to de Soto’s destructive world tour, the Indigenous Nations in the United States suffered the sting of fee simple legislation in the Dawes Act. Once the lands were given to individuals, the lands were subject to state laws. The same would happen in Canada where the lands would be subject to provincial instead of federal law. The primary purpose of the Dawe’s Act was to assimilate Indigenous peoples in the USA by breaking up their Indigenous governments. The legislation allowed the government to divide up communal lands into small parcels to be held by individuals. It has been described by historians as: “the culmination of American attempts to destroy tribes and their governments and to open Indian lands to settlement by non-Indians and to development by railroads” (Oklahoma Historical Society). In the Canadian context, similar legislation will open up “Indian lands” for big oil, gas and mineral extraction. I have referred to FNPOA as the Flanagan National Petroleum Ownership Act for two reasons: (1) the name of the Act (FNPOA) comes from the book Tom Flanagan co-wrote (with Andre LeDressay and Chris Alcantara): “Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights” and (2) the Act will do more to open up reserve lands to oil, gas and mining companies than it will bring prosperity to First Nations. For those who don’t know, Tom Flanagan is a right-wing anti-First Nation academic who has written about and spoken out against First Nations in a very overtly racist and derogatory fashion, and often lacks a sound factual or academically-sound research basis. Flanagan’s book was fully endorsed by Manny Jules, a First Nation man and former chief of Kamloops Indian Band and is now the head of the First Nation Tax Commission (FNTC). The FNTC, contrary to its name, is actually a federal organization, whose chief commissioner is appointed by Canada’s Governorin-Council and reports to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). http://appointments.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=FNN&type-typ=1&lang=eng Aside from a salary of over $200,000, it is also notable that in the recent round of Conservative cuts to Aboriginal organizations, Jules’ FNTC was protected from substantial cuts. The political and financial links between the FNTC and the federal government’s intended legislation become apparent when one reads Flanagan’s book in its entirety. Here is an excerpt from my published review of the book: “In fact, the book concludes by affirming that ‘there is little doubt that this proposal is a continuation of the First Nations–led initiatives of the 1990’s’ … And, if First Nations require any assistance in catching up to the modern world, the book suggests that they use the services of Le Dressay’s Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics. (Located in Jules’s home community of Kamloops, this centre was created out of a First Nations Tax Commission project he chaired.) It should come as no surprise that one of the keys to success of the authors’ proposal for the First Nations Property Ownership Act will be to create additional centralized institutions, to take over the new jurisdiction it also creates.” http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ The media will no doubt be publishing many editorials, opinions and commentaries on this issue in the coming weeks until the bill is introduced in Parliament. Many of these articles, especially those from the right-wing fringe will leave out a great deal of context, perpetuate the same myths that Manny Jules and Tom Flanagan do and will settle for the catchy headlines instead of help inform the public about the serious issues involved. Here are some of the questions asked of me by the media and my answers in very brief form (more detailed answers will be provided in my forthcoming publication): (1) First Nations hate the Indian Act, why would they object to Harper amending or repealing the Act? The abolishment of the Indian Act was the central feature of the 1969 White Paper – the federal policy that would assimilate “Indians” once and for all. It is up to First Nations to decide when and how they want to amend or repeal the Indian Act – Canada has done enough damage under the guise of “what is good for the Indians”. Harper specifically promised at the co-called Crown-First Nation Gathering that: “To be sure, our Government has no grand scheme to repeal or to unilaterally re-write the Indian Act”. This legislation would be a significant and unilateral amendment to the Indian Act. (2) But First Nations can’t access mortgages or start businesses without owning land in fee simple? That is simply not true. Individual band members have been working with their First Nations and the major banks to obtain mortgages to build homes on reserve for many years. Many band members and bands have also been able to receive loans from banks to start businesses without leveraging their homes. One must also remember that owning a home doesn’t mean you can open a business on your land – there are zoning and other laws on reserve as there would be in any neighborhood. (3) But Canadians get to own land in fee simple? Canadians have the option to own land in fee simple only if they are wealthy enough to buy land or qualify for a mortgage. Thousands of First Nations people also own land in fee simple all over the country. Some First Nations people also hold land via Certificate of Possession on reserve which is very similar to fee simple, except that it can’t be sold to non-First Nations people. (4) But if First Nations could own land in fee simple, wouldn’t that cure the housing crisis? This ability to own land in fee simple has not cured homelessness in Canada and in fact, it is on the rise. The ability to hold reserve lands in fee simple would not qualify any individual for a mortgage. Part of getting a mortgage is being able to get insurance – who would insure a mold-infested, abestos-contaminated home without running water or sanitation services? This sounds like more of a cure for the economy and mortgage lenders than it does for First Nations. (5) But commentators have said this would cure First Nation poverty? The origins of the current crisis of poverty in First Nations are in the theft of our lands and resources, the genocide committed against our people, the federal strangulation of our governments and the refusal to properly recognize and provide space for our treaty, Aboriginal, and inherent rights and laws. Fee simple has nothing to do with it. There is absolutely no evidence that fee simple ownership has cured poverty. In fact, the studies have shown that the chronic underfunding of essential social services by the federal government is the primary cause of the current levels of poverty in First Nations. http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/view/35220 (6) But Manny Jules and 8 other First Nations want this legislation? With all due respect, Manny Jules heads a federal government organization – he is not a First Nation leader or community spokesperson. If there are a handful of First Nations who truly want to divide their reserves into individual parcels of fee simple lands, they can do so via current processes under the Indian Act or self-government negotiations for example. There is no way that 8 First Nations should set national law or policy for 633 First Nations. Treaty implementation and the resolution of land claims are far more critical to First Nation well-being. http://www.bctreaty.net/unfinishedbusiness/pdf-documents/BC-Treaty-Commission-PricewaterhouseCoopers-Report.pdf (7) But isn’t the legislation optional? What’s the harm? With INAC, even optional laws and policies are never truly optional. Once the government decides it wants First Nations to behave in a certain way, they use a series of financial and political incentives and punishments to ensure First Nations act as the government deems appropriate. With THIS Harper government, the focus would be more on punishments and they would be severe for failing to conform. For example, First Nations could voluntarily enter into Act XYZ or fail to receive funding associated with that program or service. Plus, the element of volunteerism does not apply in a situation of duress. Is it truly optional to sell one’s land if one is already impoverished and suffering from a lack the basic necessities of life? Even Manny Jules admitted that one of the challenges of this bill is that all reserve land could be lost: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2189503699/ Jules wants First Nations people to prove to banks that they are “worthy” of owning a home. WOW! (8) What are your other concerns related to FNPOA? – Canada does not have the legal authority to pass such a bill in violation of both Aboriginal and treaty rights, the Royal Proclamation, and UNDRIP; – they haven’t thought about the legal, political, social or cultural implications of such a law (for example – exactly who would get the fee simple parcels of land?); – Canada has not learned from history – the Dawes Act devastated First Nations in the USA – why would it be better here; – this is Harper’s political agenda to once and for all assimilate Indians and turn reserve lands into provincial land holdings and jurisdiction; – this bill would also help Harper end-run the duty to consult and accommodate re oil, gas and mining on our lands, undermine our leadership and empower corporations like Enbridge to lay their pipes wherever they want; – turning reserves into fee simple parcels registered in provincial land registries under provincial law would enable easier expropriation of our lands for big oil and gas companies like Enbridge; – FNPOA, together with other bills in process: Bill C-428 impacting by-laws, estates & education, Bill S-6 re elections, Bill S-2 re matrimonial real property, Bill C-27 re First Nation accountability, Bill S-8 re First Nation water, and the First Nation Education Act to come essentially change the entire legal and political landscape for First Nations – unilaterally and against our collective will. First Nations have the right to free, informed and prior consent to any laws, policies, decisions or actions that impact our lands and resources. This means that if we don’t want Enbridge or any other extractive industry on our lands – that is our decision to make. Our people will not allow big oil to use FNPOA as a land grab to circumvent our rights. There is simply nothing good about this bill and much to be lost from it. People need to stop coming up with ideas about how to “fix” us as we always end up worse off for it. Canadians are not required to understand or even support our inherent, treaty, domestic and international rights – they just have to accept that this is the law, not unlike any of the laws they cherish. Canada needs to stop trying to assimilate us and instead focus on fulfilling its legal and treaty obligations instead of trying to find ways around them. I think we have suffered enough – let us go about the hard job of healing and rebuilding our Nations and enjoy our fair share of what is ours. Additional resources: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2173712911/ http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2189503699/ http://soundcloud.com/el-chaos/pamela-palmater-reserve-vs-fee-simple-land

August 8, 2012
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.

July 15, 2012
Low Blows, Threats and Sideswipes – Nothing Can Silence Grassroots First Nations

Welal’in, Woliwon, Nia:wen, Chi Miigwetch, and thank you to all the First Nations people who took the time to write me letters, call me, come visit me in person, or who sent e-mails, Tweets and/or commented on my blog posts, news articles and media. I know how crazy politics makes people feel; how confusing the many conflicting reports, positions and media stories can be; and how hopeless it might feel when you think no one hears your voice. I lived my whole life as an Indigenous women, a Mi’kmaw, on the outside. I was denied my Indian status for 40 years because of the gender of my grandmother. I was denied band membership for 40 years because my band didn’t want to include my family, or families like us. I was denied a voice at the local, regional, provincial, and national First Nation political levels. I know, however, that this is a function of colonization and Canada’s control over our communities. Because of this exclusion, I was never able to take my Mi’kmaw identity or that of my children’s for granted. I was always at risk of losing it forever due to some new law, regulation or band rule that could exclude us for any number of reasons. I therefore followed the lead of my brothers and sisters and exercised my voice in whatever venue I could to stand up for our traditional Indigenous identities. This included off-reserve Aboriginal organizations, native friendship centres, Aboriginal women’s groups and First Nations organizations. In the past, I have been kicked out of First Nation political meetings for being too young, for being a woman, for being a non-status Indian, for living off-reserve, or for allegedly not knowing anything about politics. You name it and I have experienced it. I have been forced to sit at the back of the room (if allowed in at all) and have been called every name in the book. This was all because I was exercising my voice – something my father told me was critically important to the well-being of the Mi’kmaq and for all Indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, this used to really hurt me – a sort of hurt that I can’t even explain. It hurt my spirit but I could also feel it deep inside my chest, like a painful pressure that would not go away. It didn’t matter how many times my family explained that these people were just angry, disillusioned, hurting or bitter, every single rejection of my identity or my voice created a scar on my heart. I didn’t fully understand the concept of colonization at the time. What I found very confusing was that as I got more involved in Indigenous issues and exercised my voice in a variety of forums, provincial and federal government officials as well as lawyers would treat me the same way that some First Nations politicians did. I was told I could not attend meetings where we were negotiating fishing rights or employment programs for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples because I was too young, I was not really an Indian, I was not an elected official, I had no “expertise”, I had no education, I was not a lawyer and so on and so on. There were times when the words used around the table were so vicious, that it took everything in me not to cry. I used to think that crying would somehow disqualify me from any hope of ever having a real voice in the political, legal, cultural and social issues affecting the Mi’kmaw Nation. I thought that crying would prove that Indigenous women should not be around the table talking politics. I used to wonder if my family encouraged me to attend meetings, protests and all those hard negotiations when I was little just to help me develop a tough outer shell. Its hard to say now, but I will admit, that although I did not cry at the negotiating table, I was crying on the inside. It seemed like I was not man enough, old enough, educated enough or Indian enough for any of the players around the table. This might explain my ongoing obsession with politics, law and getting an education. I figured maybe they would all run out of reasons if I just addressed them all. At the time, I was still thinking that it was my many deficiencies that were at fault. I was raised to believe that my purpose in life was to live an honourable life as a Mi’kmaw and do everything in my power to protect that way of life for future generations. I don’t know any other way of being or thinking in this world. People can say I have no right to speak because I am an Indigenous woman but I will still speak. Some might say, my opinions don’t count because I am not a Chief, but I will still share them. Some might even say that there is no room in First Nations politics for critique, but I will still offer it. Regardless of how many low blows, threats or cowardly sideswipes people might take at me, I have no choice but to keep exercising my voice. How could I possibly back down when I am so fortunate as to have a warm house, clean running water, healthy food to eat and a good paying job? What excuse could I use to stop advocating on behalf of our grassroots people given that I am so lucky to have both a traditional education (Mi’kmaw teachings) and a formal one (university). Not all of our people are so lucky – many of them don’t even have enough hope to survive until tomorrow. I have seen the toll this takes on family members, friends and community members when all hope is lost – depression, addiction, violence, and even suicide. I don’t have the luxury of fading into the background because some Senator, MP, Chief or right-wing lunatic wants to threaten me into silence. What kind of warrior would I be if I did that? If my ancestors can survive scalping laws, residential schools and forced sterilizations, I can survive a little political heat. One of the benefits of my education is that I have also come to learn that we all suffer from being colonized and that some of us are not as far along the road to decolonizing. Every time someone tells me I am only a section 6(2) Indian and not a real Indian (like presumably a section 6(1)(a) Indian) – I know that is colonization talking. I know that those who exclude off-reserve members, discriminate against Indigenous women or prioritize individual wealth over communal well-being, often don’t realize how deeply embedded colonial thinking can be. Decolonization is so important in order to get the colonizer out of our heads once and for all and to build our resistance to Canada’s never-ending attempts to assimilate us legally, politically, culturally and spiritually. Take for example the fact that Canada always demands that we, as Indigenous peoples, speak with “one voice”. This is part of their racializing us into one generic category of “Indian”. The legal and political category of Indian ignores our very diverse Indigenous Nations, territories, knowledges, languages, cultures, beliefs and practices. We have lived on Turtle Island since time immemorial and never did we ever speak with one voice. We had strategic alliances between individuals Nations when it was mutually beneficial and at other times we went to war to defend our peoples and our territories. The Mohawks have their own voice, as do the Mi’kmaq, the Cree and many others. I haven’t studied or researched one Indigenous Nation yet that did not allow their citizens to be included in the decision-making process, to speak their minds, and have their voices heard and incorporated – all in different ways. Traditionally, some Indigenous Nations were so committed to the principle of exercising the voice of the people and respecting the different political visions and objectives that an entire community could separate into two, to allow both groups to pursue their own objectives, but still within the larger Nation. So when I hear our own people demanding that we all speak with one voice, I shiver at the thought of how we might unify ourselves into oblivion instead of protecting our inherent differences which make us who were are as Indigenous Nations. I know that it was Canada that imposed these discriminatory laws and concepts on us, excluded our women, changed our leadership to be top down and male-dominated, but we have a choice. We can open our eyes and make the changes we want for our peoples. It won’t be easy and the government backlash might even seem intolerable at times, but we have an obligation to give a voice back to our grassroots Indigenous peoples. Our ancestors did not give up their lives so that a few hundred Indigenous peoples could speak for the rest of us. Every single Indigenous person in every Indigenous Nation deserves to be heard. They are entitled to express their pain and frustration at slow progress and entitled to be critical about the current political relationship that is simply not working. They don’t need to have Phd’s, law degrees or be officially appointed as “critics” to do so. Grassroots Indigenous peoples hold all the power and yet their views and critiques are often ignored or downplayed. We expect them to be there when our leaders call for a day of action or to stop a pipeline or halt mining – but how often do leaders take the time to listen to them? What about all of our children trapped in the child welfare system, our men and women caught in the prison system or lost on streets in major cities? How many of our leaders have visited a homeless shelter for Native men and heard their stories of pain and their desires to make their communities better? Instead, our grassroots get to see some of their leaders from afar, addressing government officials or corporate Canada in fancy dinners or speaking events. Over time, I have noticed that many First Nations leaders have come to see the colonization project for the destructive force that it is, and some of those same chiefs that kicked me out of meetings when I was younger are now my good friends. I have also had the privilege of working with many, many First Nations communities and leaders on issues of critical importance to our peoples and have developed great working relationships. They have come to realize that we are on this journey together and all I am trying to do is help and be a part of the solution. Sadly, there remain some on the national political scene who have not moved on and still treat Indigenous women and grassroots peoples like our opinions don’t count. So, my best advice to those individuals who seek to deny me exercising my voice or would deny the voices of other grassroots Indigenous peoples, you can stop with all the insults, taunts, cowardly sideswipes and threats – because the power of the people is where it is at and the sooner you get on board, the faster we can get on with resisting Canada’s aggressive assimilatory attacks and re-asserting our sovereignty together.

April 3, 2012
Federal Budget 2012 – The Battle Lines Have Been Drawn

The Conservative budget was released today with most mainstream political commentators wiping their brows, saying “Phewf, we thought it would be much worse!” People like Kevin O’Leary were asking why the Conservative government didn’t go further to open up Canada for international investment. Others were relieved that only 19,200 federal public service jobs would be lost as opposed to the 60,000 that were predicted. Still others were wondering what the streamlined environmental review processes might mean. http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/toc-tdm-eng.html The area with which I am most concerned relates to what was and was not in the budget for Indigenous Peoples. I am not surprised by this budget, in fact, it is just about exactly what I predicted it would be. What I am surprised about is how the Assembly of First Nations’ National Chief Shawn Atleo could possibly think this was a good budget. http://www.afn.ca/index.php/en/news-media/latest-news/afn-national-chief-responds-to-federal-budget-calls-for-continued-work Atleo says: “The investments in education in today’s budget indicate that the voices of our youth are perhaps beginning to be heard…”. Well, let’s look what was and was not provided for First Nation education: For elementary and secondary education (k-12), approximately $1.5B in extra funding is needed this year to have an education system almost on par with the provinces. This budget only provided $100M for this year, most of which will go to early literacy (and not in our languages). For post-secondary education (PSE), we have an estimated need of half a billion dollars for this year as we have no less than 10,000 First Nation students on a waiting list to go to university. This budget appears to provide $0 for PSE. Atleo says that “First Nations will seize this momentum to move forward to real reform and reconciliation”. What momentum? According to the documents the AFN provided, over $6.7B is required this year to properly fund k-12 education and address the cumulative shortfall. The Cons provided only 4% of what is actually needed. I fail to see how this is momentum. The current cap on funding is at 2% – this is but a fraction more. Let’s put these numbers into proper perspective. INAC estimates that it will add approximately 45,000 people as status Indians as a result of the Bill C-3 amendment to the Indian Act. It has also estimated that upwards of 50,000 new status Indians will be added because of the new Qalipu band. This is a total of 95,000 new status Indians to be added to the 704,851 INAC’s website claims are currently registered. This is an increase in the registered population of approximately 14% through registration alone. Offering an additional 4% of what is actually needed for the current population for education is an insult, but considering the new population, it is no increase at all. Given that education is a treaty right, this amounts to an overt violation of First Nations treaties and very clear signal that there will be no future of increased, flexible, permanent funding set aside for First Nations education. The fact that no money was set aside for an increase in PSE is a further sign of things to come. The Cons have drawn their line in the sand and NC Atleo continues as if oblivious to the impending battle. I don’t see any “real reform and reconciliation” in a budget that offers $330M for water infrastructure over 2 years when the actual need is $6.578B. This amounts to approximately 5% of what is actually needed. If it cost your family $20,000 to install plumbing in your house to run water and have proper sanitation, what good would $1,000 do if you didn’t have the other $19,000? What kind of reform is that? Again, the Conservatives are laughing in the face of the current crisis of poverty in First Nations while NC Atleo praises them for “real reconciliation”. This year the whole world saw first hand what the crisis in First Nation housing looks like. The pictures from Attawapiskat First Nation showed people living in unheated sheds with no running water. The media frenzy which followed shamed Harper into having a Crown-First Nation Gathering that had been promised several times over his years in office, but which never came to fruition. It was Attawapiskat that brought about that “historic” meeting and not NC Atleo, despite claims otherwise. Yet, not a single cent was dedicated to address the crisis in First Nation housing. What about this lack of funding for housing speaks of reconciliation? The assimilation scheme of starving the Indians off the reserve is well entrenched in Conservative policy, yet Atleo sees this budget as making “important investments”. I can assure you that I am not seeing monsters where non exist. This assimilation plan for Indians is well-documented in government records and has always been considered by INAC as “the final solution”. The Cons are just more aggressive in speeding assimilation along. The budget document focuses on “integration” of Aboriginal peoples into Canadian society – as a labour source, as tax payers and as individual property owners. Even the constitutionally protected right of Indigenous peoples to be specifically consulted and accommodated on their Aboriginal and treaty rights is translated as consultation (no accommodation) that will be “integrated” into current regulatory processes. But let’s look at what is really happening. The Indian Act is staying in place, as confirmed at the CFNG and the current level of federal control over First Nations will not only be maintained, but will be dramatically increased with the suite of legislation it intends to impose on First Nations. This budget confirmed what we already heard in the CFNG: (1) Non-Indians will gain interests in reserve lands in the matrimonial real property legislation; (2) Cons will transfer all liability for water and sewer on reserve to First Nations without funding to address the increased standards; (3) First Nation education legislation will impose increased standards and force provincial partnerships while not providing additional funds; (4) Reserves will be opened up to privatization (ownership by individuals) to allow mass sales of reserve lands and facilitate extractive industry activities on our lands; and (5) Accountability legislation to impose standards on First Nations leaders not imposed on Members of Parliament. Again, I am really confused how any of this screams “reconciliation”. In fact, this entire suite of legislation violates our inherent rights to be self-determining and violates our constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights to govern our own affairs. It also threatens our communally-held traditional lands and current reserve land holdings. It will result in a dumping of liability and no funding to cope with a whole slew of additional regulations and standards that Canada itself can’t meet in First Nations now. In fairness, Atleo did say “First Nations must be at the table on any discussions that could affects our lands, our lives and our rights”. Or what? What is Atleo going to do? He certainly has represented ANY kind of threat to the Cons yet, nor has he publicly offered any real resistance to this run-away assimilation train. He also states that he will get clarity of what all this legislation means and ensure First Nations voices are “respected”. Really? Our voices have not been during his whole tenure – what makes now any different, except maybe that his election is coming up in July? The fact is, the AFN knows full well what these proposed pieces of legislation mean as they have already testified before the House and Senate on some of them. The focus should not be in ensuring our voice is “respected”, it should be in ensuring that our inherent right to be self-determining is respected, implemented and enforced. Our jurisdiction over our own communities is what needs to be recognized. We don’t need 5 more Indian Acts to prescribe how we will live our lives. I don’t want my voice to be accommodated in federal legislation – I don’t want the federal legislation. I honestly wish I could find some positive in what NC Atleo is doing on all our behalves, but I just can’t. It is not a personal thing, as I don’t know him as a person – most of us don’t and never will. I don’t get to vote in AFN elections, so this is not about voting. I have given the issue a great deal of thought and have spoken to a great many people that I trust about my dilemma in criticizing an organization that is set up to advocate on our behalf. It hurts me to do it, but after much contemplation and soul-searching, I feel like I have no choice. All we, as grassroots people, have to go by is what Atleo does or does not accomplish for us. The proof is in the outcome and this is not the outcome that will move our Nations forward in decolonizing, healing, rebuilding our languages and cultures and protecting our traditional territories for future generations. While Atleo cannot be blamed for the aggressive assimilation plan of the Cons (and I admit, he has a tough political landscape right now), he is to blame if he does not stand up and actively resist it. Our people are the ones who live in shacks – now is not the time to tell them their voices are “being heard”. Our people are dying pre-mature deaths – now is not the time to promote “reconciliation”. Our people see the impending battle – now is not the time to “seek clarity”. Our people need a leader – now is not the time to be a politician.

March 30, 2012
Maybe Oliver Needs a Job in Mining? Curing Conservative Dysfunction

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

March 24, 2012