After we all heard the National Chief (NC) of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Shawn Atleo give his speech at the Crown-First Nations Gathering (CFNG), it became readily apparent that the 2012 election campaign for the AFN NC had officially begun. Up to this point, Atleo had done little but sing the praises of the Harper Conservatives (Cons). It looked like Atleo and the AFN were following in the political footsteps of former President of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) Patrick Brazeau and hedging their bets that sucking up to the bully would yield better results than standing on our inherent rights. Two things about this “strategy” (if you can call it that): (1) it may have won Brazeau a cushy Senate seat (an immediate, individual gain), but it left the grass-roots off-reserve people with nothing but an indebted organization with a horrific reputation as being the mouth piece of the Cons with an anti-First Nation political slant (long-term, community pain); and (2) the organization itself never gained anything in terms of major budget increases, political concessions from the Cons; nor did it advance the rights and interests of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples in any measurable way. I would have thought, that after all the criticism launched by the AFN at CAP for being so critical towards First Nations peoples, that the AFN itself would never walk down that same political path. Yet, it appears that Atleo, in an attempt to distance himself from former NC Phil Fontaine and make his own mark, decided that selling our souls to the devil would help him do that. It is a naive political strategy that demonstrates Atleo’s inexperience in high-stakes politics. He decided to support the Cons as opposed to the Liberals & NDP and decided to follow Harper down his assimilation path instead of participating in concrete social action or stand in defense of our peoples and communities. Atleo with all his “education” made it his mission to support education – but in a way which ignored the concerns of the treaty chiefs and the many concerns of the grass-roots First Nations peoples. This led to a major rift in the AFN and left regional First Nation organizations with no choice but to publicly denounce Atleo’s process. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), the Chiefs of Ontario (COO), the Quebec First Nations and more recently the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) all stand against Atleo’s rogue politics. To understand the significance of this rift, one must understand how important unity has been for the AFN. The National Indian Brotherhood (NIB) (now AFN) and First Nation politics in general were galvanized in the 1970’s when First Nations all across the country were faced with the Liberal’s 1969 White Paper which would have abolished the Indian Act, reserves, treaty rights and Indians. The First Nations united in their opposition and defeated the most brazen attempt to assimilate our peoples into oblivion. Since then, the power of unity has defeated the Meech Lake Accord, the First Nations Governance Act, and has also brought attention to our unresolved land issues and discrimination in various Canadian laws. The power of this unity is not to be underestimated. Atleo, in a few short years has all but destroyed this unity and has, in essence, gone rogue. While Harper exercises fierce dictatorial control over his MPs and uses the politics of fear to control citizens, Atleo instead opts for a more Lone Ranger approach with similar results. Atleo is advancing his own agenda and according to many Chiefs, he is doing so without properly consulting them. This is a different claim than had Atleo been simply disagreeing with them. The political charge is that he is off making deals, cozying up to Harper, and agreeing to things like National Panels and CFNGs without consulting with the people he is supposed to represent. This sort of politics is not only ineffective (look at the growing rift), but it seems to me, to be in direct conflict with the AFN’s own Charter. http://www.afn.ca/index.php/en/about-afn/charter-of-the-assembly-of-first-nations Article 3(a) specifically states that the AFN is supposed to be in the business of “harmonising effective collective and co-operative measures”. Agreeing to a national panel on education without consulting with First Nations is not conducive to harmonizing or unifying First Nations on education. In case this is not clear enough, one need only refer to Article 21 (1) which specifically states that “The National Chief shall have no inherent political authority”. So, what power does the NC have? Any power he has is detailed in Article 21(2) “Any authority the National Chief may have shall derive exclusively and entirely from authority granted from time to time by the First Nations-in-Assembly”. It seems to me then, that Atleo agreeing to a national panel on education, and agreeing to a Joint Action Plan all before seeking the specific direction of the chiefs sounds like he has his own political agenda. The CFNG action plan read like the 1969 White Paper assimilation plan using modern words. Atleo has, in a few rogue steps, turned the Assembly of First Nations into the Assimilation of First Nations. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/02/war-and-peace-illusions-of-partnership.html If what a large number of chiefs are alleging is true, then Atleo has exceeded his political authority and it’s time for him to be removed as NC. Even if what they are alleging is not true, the future of First Nations in Canada depends on removing Atleo from office and re-focusing our political strategies and priorities away from one based on federal control and our ultimate assimilation. First Nations chiefs will have their chance to voice their concerns at the upcoming AFN AGM which will be held in Toronto this July 2012. Here is the timeline: – 10 weeks before the AGM, an electoral officer will be appointed. – 8 weeks before the AGM, the electoral officer will assume office. – 4 weeks before the election, the electoral officer must submit the names of the candidates for NC to all Chiefs; – 1 night before the election, he/she must arrange an All Candidates Forum for the AGM; – The election takes place on the 2nd day of the AGM starting at 9 am. Here are some of the rules relating to the election for NC: (1) Candidates must submit their nomination papers to the Electoral officer no earlier than 8 weeks prior to the election and no later than 5 weeks prior; (2) Each nomination form must be signed by at least 15 Chiefs and at least 8 of them must not be from the same province as the candidate; (3) In order to be eligible to be a candidate, you must be at least 18 years old, of First Nations ancestry and belong to a First Nation which is a member of the AFN. (4) Candidates can not spend more than $35,000 for election purposes and must submit a statement of expenses and names of contributors; NOTE – The Electoral officer can disqualify any candidate who does not participate in All Candidates Forum or does not file expenses; (5) Chiefs can send proxies to vote in their place; (6) Anyone who receives less than 15 votes is automatically eliminated; The winner must receive 60% of the vote and if he/she does not, then the candidate with the lowest vote is automatically eliminated and another vote takes place. Chiefs can go through many rounds of voting to obtain the 60% majority. So, what does all of this mean for the grass-roots community members? None of us get to vote in these elections. So, what are our options? I think the more we make ourselves aware of what the AFN is doing in our names, the better we will be able to put pressure on our own Chiefs on how to vote. For many years, in many First Nations, Chiefs have been deciding who he/she votes for as NC without ever consulting with the community. It is time for us to make a change and exercise our voices again. While it is painfully obvious that I do NOT support Atleo in the upcoming election, it is important to note that I do not and will not be publicly supporting any candidate that chooses to put their name forward. I think candidates need to stand on their own past records, their ability to lead and inspire our peoples, and the quality of their election platforms. In other words, I do not believe we should support candidates based on who endorses them. This becomes a popularity contest instead of one which is based on traditional leadership virtues. If we have learned anything from the Cons dictatorship-style politics, is that we do not want to mimic their politics. That being said, I am always happy to talk to any candidate who wants to know what I think about their platforms. I think the candidates would be well-advised to talk to lots of people, from a variety of backgrounds, about their platforms and start getting their direction from the people again. If a candidate wants to make AFN relevant, their platforms will have to speak to us – the grass-roots people – as much as they speak to the Chiefs. Free hint: Any platform that is written to speak to the Cons will be as useless as Atleo’s. There are lots of rumours going around about who might put their name forward at this year’s election, but we will all have to wait and see who is officially confirmed by the electoral officer. Doug Cuthand, a columnist for the Star Phoenix talks about a couple of these potential candidates: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Treaty+treaty+natives+must+work+together/6201621/story.html At the end of the day, it is all just rumour and possibility until the candidates sign on the dotted line and get their nominations from their 15 chiefs. As the candidates are announced, I will definitely keep track of their platforms and offer commentary on their strengths and weaknesses as they role out. I will also be trying to find out as much as I can about their past political experiences; their individual track records; their political stance and where they stand on specific issues that matter to me, my family, community and Nation. It is my belief that we as First Nations people should all have a vote as to who will be the AFN NC. However, even though I am not permitted to vote, I will still try to have an impact on the results. I think we all have the power to make this election different. That is not to say that I promote the AFN as “the” vehicle or voice of First Nations, as that inherent authority rests with each Indigenous Nation. However, I do believe that the NIB used to serve a very powerful political and advocacy role in highlighting First Nation issues, bringing international attention to bear, and advocating at the national political level. There is no doubt that AFN has fallen off track in a major way and I don’t blame individuals for thinking it is useless and even harmful. I think it is doing far more harm to us now than good. If it stays this way, I will continue to advocate against it. I think the AFN has the potential to be a useful organization once again but so long as it caters to the will of its funders, it will be no more and no less than what Brazeau was for CAP – the mouthpiece of the Cons. In other words, the AFN will continue to be the First Nation enforcer of the Cons assimilation policies. There are those who think they have political savvy that believe we need to make concessions to make stave off mass budget cuts or further control over our communities. In case they forgot, treaties were our concessions and the Cons are bringing budget cuts and more legislation to control our communities. This political “strategy” based on fear is no plan at all. Our people, our territories and our futures are not for sale and I am not willing to trade my inherent rights for ANY organization. AFN has a choice – it has to be relevant to First Nations or it will fade into oblivion like CAP did. In case any of the 600+ Chiefs can’t attend the AFN AGM and election, and they are looking for someone to be their voting proxy, try sending one of our million grass-roots folks.
Tag: assimilation
-
Authoring Our Own Demise? NAOs Must Stop Propping up Conservatives
I keep wondering, why is it that some of the national Aboriginal organizations (NAO’s) continue to look the other way when the Conservatives show their true colours? There is a saying that goes: when someone tells you who they really are, you should listen. So, if a guy tells you on a date he doesn’t want to settle down, you should not be surprised if after dating him for several months that he does not want to get married. Why then do our leaders pose for photo-ops shaking hands and smiling with the government that wants our assimilation? In Canada, the Crown has not only shown its true policy objectives through its legal and political actions, but it has made them very explicit in speeches, cabinet papers and written documents. Canada’s underlying objective in Indian policy is to “rid Canada of the Indian problem” and to free up land for settlement and development. Even the joint action plan between Canada and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) focuses on freeing up land to “benefit Canadians”. If anyone thinks that federal Indian policy has changed – one need only look at the second generation cut-off in the Indian Act’s registration provisions to realize time is ticking. To date, ndian law and policy has been based on the fact that Canada still sees the “Indian problem” as temporary and that, despite apologies to the contrary, it views First Nations as inferior and incapable of handling their own affairs. This is why Canada controls access to our own lands & resources, why it still has the Indian Act and why they control nation-building tools like education. The age-old solution to the Indian problem has always been assimilation – by whatever means. Historically that meant scalping laws, small pox-infected blankets, starvation, preventing hunting and fishing or leaving reserves, outlawing culture, residential schools, and today it means legislated extinction in the Indian Act registration provisions, trying to change reserve lands to fee simple to be sold to non-Indians and imprisoning our men and women at alarming rates. We often criticize PM Harper for visiting countries that violate human rights or for shaking the hands of war criminals. Yet, how many times in the last 5-10 years have we seen our national “Aboriginal” leaders pose for photos while smiling and shaking the hands of federal officials while our people starve to death, freeze to death, go murdered and missing, or be taken on Starlight tours and are over-incarcerated at rates as high as 100% of the inmate population. Seriously, our ancestors would be disgusted that we would shake the hands of the enemy that plots our demise. Not a single “Aboriginal” leader should ever shake the hand of Minister Duncan or PM Harper again until the suffering of our people at their hands is eliminated. Indian policy has not changed over time, although we may have seen some political dancing around the individual issues. Yet, none of us should be fooled or distracted by the dance. Canada’s progress on relations with First Nations has taken a draconian step backwards with the Conservatives (Cons) in power. Some might say I am biased, but seeing as I don’t belong to any political party in Canada, nor do I make a habit of voting, I think my views are less biased than most. I call it as I see it based on the Cons’ individual and collective actions, decisions, positions and submissions. The Conservatives have all but spelled it out – yet we refuse to see the writing on the wall. Why? Because it means we have to make hard decisions – take some significant risks and substantially turn the relationship on its head. When I talk about the signs, I start with the Cons’s appointment of John Duncan as Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC now AANDC). Duncan had a history of being vigorously opposed to what he called “race-based” fishing. He saw First Nations as a races that did not deserve to have their Aboriginal and treaty rights respected, despite their constitutional protection. So, the Cons made sure that they appointed someone who dislikes First Nations and denies their constitutionally protected rights. Should anyone be surprised that the Cons have as their “sessional” plan to finally eliminate all, what they call “special rights” for First Nations? Then of course there is the fact that Tom Flanagan, the guy famous for advocating for the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples, was Harper’s campaign manager and then his Chief of Staff. For anyone who has not read First Nations? Second Thoughts, Flanagan sees Aboriginal peoples as “primitive” and that “assimilation” has to happen. Imagine the influence he would have had over the PM or his staff regarding Aboriginal peoples. That might explain Harper’s comment on the international stage that there was “no history of colonization in Canada”. It might also explain why the Cons have funded research and activities into singling out individual First Nations to support their plan under the guise of economic development. Flanagan’s latest book: Beyond the Indian Act looking to turn reserves into individual plots of land to sell to non-Indians was supported by the First Nation Tax Commission. The information I received through ATIP provided hundreds of documents showing how much time and effort has gone into promoting the privatization and taxation of reserve lands. We would never have stood for that 100 years ago, but now they use “Aboriginal” faces to do the promoting. Then, there was MP Pierre Poilievre who, on the day of the residential schools apology, questioned whether the settlement was “value for money”. One might think he is just a lone radical, right-wing voice in the Conservative government were it not for Minister Duncan’s statement yesterday where he said that residential schools were NOT a form of cultural genocide – it was just negative to culture, not lethal. If that was not bad enough, the RCMP release their report wherein they investigated their role in residential schools and no surprise – relived themselves of any wrong-doing. Yet, somewhere this week or next – our national leaders will pose for another photo shaking the hands of those who advocate our assimilation. Wow. Really? Do the Conservatives think we are all stupid? Upwards of 40% of the children who entered residential schools never made it out alive. The express purpose of residential schools was expressed by superintendent of Indian Affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem… Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada.” Even when residential schools became too controversial, they switched over to what is now known as the 60’s scoop where children were taken from their parents, and instead of being put in residential schools, they were adopted out permanently in non-Indian families. Today there are more children in care than totaled residential schools and the 60″s scoop put together. To believe that Indian policy and assimilation is a thing of the past is to be blind to the current reality. To believe that it is not genocide ignores our own Criminal Code and the United Nations own definition of genocide. The Criminal code defines genocide as not just the murder of an identifiable group, but also includes the creating of conditions that lead to their physical destruction. The purposeful, chronic, well-known under-funding of First Nations has created the extreme conditions of poverty and, as the medical evidence has shown – the pre-mature deaths of our people. The United Nations includes the theft of children from an identifable group as also being genocide. Canada’s habit of defering issues to study, deflecting issues by blaming First Nations or denying issues like genocide are all strategic ways of allowing assimilation to continue. This brings me back to my point. Some of our NAOs are working with the Conservatives under the hopes of changing their minds. This reminds me of that saying again – if someone tells who they are, you should listen. If a man continually beats his wife, the wife can expect, with some certainty, that the man will beat her in the future, that the violence will likely get worse, and may even result in her death. Why should we expect anything other than what the Conservatives have promised? We are in an abusive relationship with Canada. If we don’t get out of this relationship now – it may be too late. Look at the Conservatives election platform – what was offered for Indigenous people except adult training in the north, the chance to sit on a hunting advisory panel (of mostly non-Indians) and to have input on a park in Rouge Hill. Who the heck asked for any of that stuff? The core issues of sovereignty and jursidiction, treaties, land claims and equitable funding were all off the list. What they were saying is really: “We, the Conservatives, are promising you nothing – absolutely nothing, but you better be our willing partners or maybe things will get worse”. Thus, some of the NAOs have stopped representing our interests, and have made decisions based on fear and organizational self-interest. This is really frustrating for me as a grass roots person. These organizations were all created to represent our interests politically and some of them have failed to do so by being co-opted by the endless funding dance where the Conservatives essentially say “play nice with us and we give you minor funding to keep your organization alive, but play against and lose your funding.” Ok, that is a reality that sucks as we could really use some coordination, research and representation at all levels. However, acquiescing to our own extinction – legal or otherwise, is hardly a viable alternative. No funding for any national organization is worth the continue deaths of our children from starvation or our legalized assimilation or loss of our treaties. If forced to choose, I’d choose our lands and people any day. We are all too mesmorized by the Canadian ideal – work, debt, mortgage, cars, more debt and prestige. I am not against someone working hard and providing for their family but not the outright ext=change of our future for a temporary job as a miner or a oil worker. Things like ec dev projects, consulting contracts & project funding are all short term gains that will result in long-term pains like the destruction or loss of lands, legislated assimilation, and provincial education and that is not in anyone’s best interest. Playing nice may win individuals Senate seats, Porsches or media fame, but it does little to protect our people – those who are suffering the most. Just because the Conservatives think it is ok for our PM to live in luxury and travel the world, while poverty and homelessness is rising in Canada, that does not mean that we as Indigenous governments should emulate that form of society. We cannot put the interests of NAOs over the future of our Nations. I think our NAOs need to watch the constitutional talks again. Watch some real leader in action – those who refused to settle for anything. How many times I have heard NAOs say – well something is better than nothing – no it’s not. Yet, time and again, some of us are shocked when we hear unbelievably racist comments come from the Minister of Indian Affairs or PM Harper. Why the shock? They have told us many, many times who they really are and how they really feel about our issues. Our wishing it wasn’t so won’t change that. What we can change is whether or not we continue to prop up the Conservatives and their ludicrous ideas, or whether we stand together against it. There are other Canadians out there who see the benefit of a more equitable and just society that lives in harmony with nature – we have allies both home and abroad. We have to stand up against our continued oppression and assimilation before the Cons have empowered every right-wing radical in their Cabinet and legislate away our rights – without any fear of retaliation from us. Our power has always been in our unity and our unity is what defeated the White Paper, what defeated the the First Nations Governance Act and many other assimilatory plans and policies. Nothing has changed in the Conservative government except how they are going about our assimilation. Instead of proposing massive and immediate assimilation, they now have a more insidious plan which accomplishes assimilation over a longer term through many different measures which appear neutral, but spell our demise. They also use our people as their spokespeople for assimilation under the guise of “progress” and they distract us with red herrings so we don’t see what is really happening. Stop wasting time and money posting news releases congratulating this federal bureaucrat or another and start highlighting the facts – put our situation front and centre. Perhaps one bill won’t result in our extinction, but if you look at the entirety of their plan – disappearing Indian status, non-natives occupying reserve lands, turning reserves into fee simple for sale, provincially controlled education, loss of funding for languages, non-existent land claim resolution and delayed self-government, you see a very clear pattern – one that has not changed since Duncan Campbell Scott, the White Paper or Flanagan. Their new goal, supported by their arrogant view that they’ll be in power for at least 8 years – is to eliminate special entitlements for First Nations. What are you going to do about it NAOs? If they wait long enough, there will be no Indians left to negotiate self-government, exercise treaty rights or live on reserves. Reserves will all be used for mineral development, Walmarts, or residences for non-Indians. When our children look back at how this all happened, we will see the smiling faces of our national leaders shaking hands with Canada, promoting these things as “good for us”. What our children will also see are organizations that used to exist until Canada accomplished what it intended to do and then finally cut off funding for those national organizations. In the words of Canada’s own demographic expert, we will “author our own demise”. So, instead of relying on the naive hope that the Conservatives will do something good for us if we play nice and act as “willing partners”, it’s time our national leaders grew a backbone and started representing us like our ancestors did – with a sense of realism, foresight, and self-sacrifice. Otherwise, every time one of us, like Sharon McIvor, wins a small victory in the ongoing battle against our assimilation, we will all lose when our national leaders make deals on her behalf and let the world know our rights are for sale. I see a great future for our children if we take action today to protect them. I know it is possible to save our languages and cultures if we refuse to submit to federal control. I see larger, stronger Nations if we make some short-term sacrifice. I also see more empowered leaders if they would start relying on their people – the grass roots citizens who have a great deal to offer. Leaders were never meant to go this alone, nor were our women, our children or our men. We can turn around the number of Indigenous kids in care, murdered and missing Indigenous women, over-incarcerated Indigenous men and grass roots Indigenous people who are disconnected from their communities and Nations. Canada through the Indian Act and its various Indian policies divided our Nations into small communities; divided our communities between on and off reserve, member and non-member; and divided our families into Indians and non-Indians. This is called divide and conquer and it is designed to make us think we are all alone in this struggle against oppression – when in fact we are all in this together. There is nothing wrong with us as Indigenous people. We are not genetically inferior. This is not about a great system that once used to work and is now broken. The system is working exactly how the colonizers designed it – to facilitate our assimilation. While the worst culprit is the Conservative Party today, all Canadian governments have had their hand in Indian policy at one time or another. We are strong as peoples and we are even stronger when we all work together. Every single one of us has a responsibility to stop the destruction of our people and our way of life. Our future is not for sale. Write to your NAO and let them know how you feel. It’s time they started taking their mandates from the people again. For rabble fans, please see my blog post at rabble.ca
-
Shiny New Beads and Trinkets: Old Assimilation Policies Repackaged
There has been a great deal of publicity lately related to all the great work the Conservatives are doing in relation to Aboriginal peoples. Some media outlets have called this a “historic shift” and even gone so far as to characterize the plan as a “sweeping overhaul of reserve life”. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-native-leaders-commit-to-sweeping-overhaul-of-reserve-life/article2053099/?service=mobile While there may be some useful tidbits in the plan, to call it historic or sweeping is misrepresenting what is actually taking place. One must keep in mind that this announcement coincided with the Auditor General’s damning report about Canada’s gross failure to address conditions of extreme poverty on reserve. In fact, according to Fraser, conditions have even become much worse. INAC has knowingly failed to address “inequities” in funding for post-secondary education, child and family services, housing and many other programs. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf Yet, all of this was overshadowed by a strategically-timed joint action plan – anything to take the public’s focus off of the stark reality. The fact that the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) took part in this duck and avoid maneuver leaves me questioning the AFN”s ability to effectively advocate on behalf of First Nations. Some have even questioned whether the AFN had any REAL input into the plan given how quickly it came out. Even if National Chief of AFN Shawn Atleo did have input, that begs the question as to why he would give his blessing to a plan that would leave out critical issues around funding, consultation, First Nation jurisdiction, treaty rights and land claims. All of these issues are significant to the grass roots people, yet nothing has been mentioned about any of them. Similarly, the planned First Nation – Crown Summit also excludes these critical issues – all with Atleo’s stamp of approval. Does any of this signal a significant shift by the Conservatives from their right-wing, pro-assimilation agenda? I would argue that all we are seeing are the same old deal – the exchange of shiny beads and trinkets for our acquiescence or agreement to forgo what makes us strong, independent Nations – our sovereignty, our land and our identity. What follows are some of the reasons why I believe this to be true: Early Indian Policy: Early Indian policy included various measures to control, divide and assimilate Indians to finally rid Canada of the “Indian problem”. These included: (1) Residential schools to remove culture, language and family and community ties from Indian children; (2) Indian Act provisions which removed Indian rights from Indian women; (3) Indian Act provisions which incorporated non-Indian women into communities; (4) Enfranchisement provisions which encouraged Indian men to give up their identities in exchange for education, employment and individual title to reserve lands; and (5) Indian Act provisions which prohibited lawyers from advocating for Indians in relation to their lands and treaties. (See: The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996) [RCAP] White Paper 1969: The plan argued that “Indian people must be persuaded” that this was the path to a better life: (1) Abolish the Indian Act; (2) End special recognition for First Nations; (3) Give them individual title to their lands (fee simple); (4) Funds for economic development; (5) Full integration into the cultural, social, political and economic life of Canada; and (6) Removal of constitutional responsibility of federal government for Indians. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/arp/ls/pubs/cp1969/cp1969-eng.pdf We all know how First Nations across the country reacted to this policy – they forcefully rejected it and re-asserted their special status in Canada and their land and treaty rights. Harold Cardinal wrote what came to be known as the Red Paper outlining the special rights of Indians in Canada. While Canada backed off of this policy, very little changed in regards to addressing First Nation poverty and the resolution of their Aboriginal and treaty rights, land claims and self-government. RCAP provides a detailed history of the development of Indian policy over time and the rights held by First Nations. Their overall recommendation was to move forward with the resolution of land claims, recognition and implementation of treaties and the negotiation of self-government agreements. Canada’s delayed, non-committal response “Gathering Strength” came to be known as “Gathering Dust” for the lack of action on Canada’s part. Then along comes Tom Flanagan, who, in his book “First Nations? Second Thoughts” argued that since First Nations were “primitive”, “wasteful” and “destructive” that they should not be entitled to self-governing rights, special tax exemptions or federal funding. In his view, First Nations need to “evolve” and become more like other Canadians. This was pretty much the same message that he provided in his second book: “Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights”. His plan involved the following: (1) “abandon” “primitive” “communist fantasies” about communal land; (2) implement a system of individual property rights (i.e., mortgage or sell to non-Indians); (2) repeal the Indian Act; (4) shut down the reserves; (3) encourage education and workforce participation; and (4) assimilate into the larger Canadian population. http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ This assimilation plan of Flanagan’s raised a great deal of controversy, but was not unique. Others, like Alan Cairns had also advocated for assimilation, albeit less overtly. Since then, many right-wingers have joined the call for the assimilation of First Nations including people like Frances Widdowson and Dale Gibson, to name a few. In fact, Gibson wrote a report entitled “A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy: Respect the Collective, Promote the Individual” which focuses on individual success and material wealth over communal interests. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=12783 Not surprising then, that Tom Flanagan became an advisor to Stephen Harper or that the Conservatives are now putting into place the gradual, assimilatory plan which focuses on individual wealth which has been advocated by folks like Flanagan and Gibson. Has anything changed since the early years of Indian policy-making? Does what the Conservatives propose now amount to a significant departure from the assimilatory agenda of the 1969 White Paper? I would argue that it does not. The following overview of the Conservative agenda seems only to confirm my original assessment: 2011 Conservative Election Platform: (1) Expand adult education in the north (no funding for k-12 or university); (2) Increase accountability of First Nations through legislation (no funding or recognition of jurisdiction); (3) Avoided dealing with reserve infrastructure like water and housing (but agreed to fix fuel tanks); (4) Avoided dealing with Aboriginal and treaty rights (but First Nations can sit on hunting advisory panel); (5) Avoided dealing with land claims (but will promote development of reserve lands through legislation). http://www.conservative.ca/media/ConservativePlatform2011_ENs.pdf Conservative – AFN Joint Action Plan: (1) Education = Joint Process on k-12 education (expert panel that still has not produced any reports); (2) Focus on “success of individuals” through education; (2) Increase First Nation accountability and transparency; (3) Task force to promote economic development to benefit “all Canadians”; (4) Improve relations. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/m-a2011/cfnjap-eng.asp You will notice there are no funding commitments, measurables or key action words that commit to any specific action. It is important to note here that the AFN has publicly come out in support of this action plan. First Nation – Crown Summit: Then there is the promise of a First Nations-Crown Summit meeting that is supposed to take place this fall. I won’t hold my breath given that Harper has promised such a meeting with First Nation leaders twice in his five years as Prime Minister to no avail. What is being promised at this summit reads eerily like the election platform, joint action plan and other assimilatory policies of the past: (1) The agenda is “deliberately narrow” and will not revisit the substantive commitments in Kelowna; (2) The agenda includes education; (3) governance and (4) economic development. There is to be no discussion about treaties, land claims, self-government or the funding inequities in essential social services. http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/GB/20110603/CP02/306039861/-1/sag0806/plans-for-first-nations-summit-with-harper-finally-begin-to-solidify&template=cpArt So, if you go back and look at the fundamental aspects of assimilation – being educated, economic development and turning reserves into individual parcels of land, you will see that not much has changed from the 1800’s to the 1969 White Paper, to what is now being advanced. The fact that the Conservatives have a majority in the House and Senate means that will be able to rush through any law or policy they choose. Having the AFN on side only helps the Conservatives legitimize the process. All of this brings me back to my original concern that the AFN is now so far away from what it was originally intended to be when it was the National Indian Brotherhood, that I am left wondering whether it has the capacity to think beyond the organization’s own priorities related to funding and staffing, and advocate on behalf of First Nations and their citizens. It seems to me that far too many people are worrying about their own jobs and making deals than they are about taking the risks inherent in standing up for that which our ancestors died to protect – our sovereignty, lands and identities. It’s about time we called the Conservatives on their deplorable record and highlight the facts brought forward by their own auditor general – that chronic and inequitable funding has made conditions on First Nations worse. We need to stand behind our treaties, protect our territories from further encroachment and go back to focusing on the needs of our future generations instead of focusing on ourselves. Any future “joint” plans MUST engage First Nations as a third order of government and as true partners and reflect the fundamentals of the treaty relationship, First Nations jurisdiction and the integrity of our territories. Don’t be fooled by shiny new beads and trinkets – it is really the same old assimilation policy of control and division repackaged with new titles like “Joint Action Plans”, “Expert Panels” and “Joint Processes” – other words for “we are buying into our assimilation”.
-
To Vote or Not to Vote – A Question of Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples
The issue of whether or not to vote in the fast-approaching federal election has been a hot topic in the last few weeks. There are Indigenous peoples on both sides of the argument and sometimes the debate can get pretty heated. Taking into account the vibrant diversity within our Indigenous Nations, a wide variety of opinions is to be expected. One thing is for certain, we all seem to want better for our families, communities and Nations – the only difference is how we go about achieving it. Ways of Thinking: I am one of those academics, lawyers, volunteers, activists, mothers, and bloggers that likes to think about these issues on multiple levels – from legal, political, social, historical, philosophical and practical mindsets. This way of thinking and considering issues comes from my Indigeneity – my Mi’kmaq way of seeing, contemplating and navigating this world. I have often had problems giving legal opinions that did not include a consideration of political and social considerations, or looking at a policy issue without looking deeper at the philosophical ideology from which it stems. I have often found that part of the problem in considering issues which impact our peoples is that the decision-makers look at it from a one-dimensional viewpoint. So, addressing chronic poverty in First Nations is seen as a matter of economics – it costs too much up front to deal with, ignoring that investments now have far bigger pay-offs later. On top of that kind of limited thinking, federal and provincial politicians are still saddled with their very ethnocentric, westernized ways of seeing the world and our place within it. The overall goal of assimilation and paternalism seems to cut across political parties and be a common theme in federal and provincial policies and laws relating to our people. So, how does all of this relate to voting? I think the underlying ideology from which you consider the issue affects the factors that are considered relevant in deciding whether or not to vote. I am also trying to say that I appreciate all opinions and ideas and learn a great deal from the diverse Indigenous world views shared with me on a regular basis. Since this might be a little too “heavy” for some readers and out of consideration for my younger followers who might “unfollow” me if I get too boring, I’ll get straight to the issue – I am against voting in federal and provincial elections. However, I am not against Aboriginal people exercising their right to vote. How are these two positions compatible? Let me try to explain… The Right to Vote: Aboriginal peoples have the right to vote in Canada. Canada considers Aboriginal peoples in Canada to be Canadian citizens and as such have a right to vote. “Indians” achieved the right to vote in 1960 when those anachronistic provisions of Canadian laws were repealed. Given that the Canadian system, with all of its laws, policies and governing structures were imposed on Aboriginal people against their will, I think having the right to vote is the LEAST Canada can do. So, given Canada’s assumption of sovereignty in our territories, I clearly believe that Aboriginal people should have the right to vote – I am just not advocating that they do. Some of you might be saying “How does that make any sense”? Like I said, since Canada imposed their systems on us, then the option of being a citizen with a right to vote is the least that Canada can do for Aboriginal peoples. Some feel that we are “dual citizens” – i.e., citizens of our Indigenous Nations and (for some) citizens of Canada. Therefore, there is an argument to be made that those who vote do not prejudice their real citizenship in their Nations because of this duality. While there is some merit to this argument, I think the issue of sovereignty is a bit more complex. We must keep in mind that the right to vote is directly associated with being a Canadian citizen. Being a Canadian citizen has been historically tied to having to give up one’s Indigeneity, language, culture, laws, governance, ways of being and adopt Canadian ways of life. Canada has a long history of promoting its perceived cultural superiority that this ideology found its way into Canadian laws, policies and decision-making. The Indian Act used to require that anyone who wanted to vote had to give up their Indian status and that of their wife and children. This meant forgoing all connections to the land and dispensing with Treaty rights. Even today, government laws and policies are all geared toward assimilation and extinguishment – not the protection of Indigenous Nations. It is no suprise then that the centuries old association of being Canadian (and the right to vote) with the loss of our identity, culture and rights is one that looms large in many of our minds and why many refuse to vote. Dual Citizenship: Let’s assume for argument sake that we are technically dual citizens – citizens of both Canada and our own Indigenous Nation. Just because we have it doesn’t mean we should use it – especially if it won’t give us what we want. Does having a couple of Aboriginal MPs help strengthen our sovereignty or Nation-building efforts? Does it fundamentally shift the relationship between our treaty partners? Does it fulfill and enrich our sense of being Mi’kmaq, Mohawk, Cree or Maliseet? I would argue it does not. It gives us (if we are “successful” in the vote) Aboriginal MPs. What does that do? We had Elijah Harper, who thankfully stopped Meech Lake, but those laws have since been changed. We could not do that again. The colonizers quickly learn from their mistakes and change laws,jury pools or even election ridings to suit their own interests – never ours. That is why we see so few of us on juries and why we are on the receiving end of the cruel justice. What we would end up with even if we did get a few more Aboriginal MPs, is more people who would be forced to tow the party line. I no more want an Aboriginal Minister of Indian Affairs imposing the Indian Act on me and my family than I would a non-Aboriginal one. Nor am I comforted by having an Aboriginal Fisheries officer arrest my family for fishing or prosecuting my family for hunting. In my eyes, that is far worse than when a non-Aboriginal person oppresses our people because we have an inherent obligation to stand up for our people – something for which our ancestors felt was worth giving up their lives – if necessary. I am also concerned about the equality of the “duality” of citizenship – is there a point where the more dominant form of citizenship, i.e., the “Canadian” one, overcomes our traditional citizenship? By voting as Canadians, while our Indigenous rights, cultures, languages and lands slip away, is there some point where the Flanagans and Harpers of the world pronounce that we are finally assimilated? If we don’t act to recognize, assert, protect and act on our sovereignty and indigeneity – NO ONE ELSE WILL. No one act of sovereignty will make a difference – it is our collective mindset, teachings and actions that will bring about the change we want. Not voting is one of many, many actions we need to take to assert our sovereignty Sovereignty: In simple terms, sovereignty means that our Indigenous Nations (Mi’kmaq, Cree, Maliseet, etc) have the right to be self-determining and free from interference or control by another Nation – like Canada not just because they were “here first” – although this is a pretty compelling argument even in Western legal traditions. It is far more than our occupation of this land since time immemorial, it is, as the Supreme Court of Canada put it: “In my view, the doctrine of aboriginal rights exists, and is recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1), because of one simple fact: when Europeans arrived in North America, aboriginal peoples were already here, living in communities on the land, and participating in distinctive cultures, as they had done for centuries. It is this fact, and this fact above all others, which separates aboriginal peoples from all other minority groups in Canadian society and which mandates their special legal, and now constitutional, status.” (emphasis added) http://scc.lexum.org/en/1996/1996scr2-507/1996scr2-507.html We were (and are) sovereign peoples with our own lands, histories and cultures, but also our own laws, trading systems and networks and governing systems. None of this was replaced or nullified on Canada’s assumption of sovereignty. This is one of the reasons why our inherent right to be self-determining has been protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html Sovereignty can never be given – it is something that is asserted and that may or may not then be recognized by others. Anyone who asks Canada to recognize our sovereignty is not acting sovereign. When communities and Nations take a stand and act on their sovereignty by fishing, hunting, enacting our own laws, living by our own cultures and traditions, pr by preserving and promoting our languages – that is real sovereignty. Kahnawake knows what it is like to act on their sovereignty – so does Esgenoopetitj, Six Nations and many others. It Makes No Sense to Vote: So, if that is the case and we are sovereign Nations with our inherent right to be self-governing recognized as protected, then why would we vote in another sovereign Nation’s election process? If you look at it in reverse, would you want Canadians to vote in OUR elections and governing processes? Of course not – even saying it sounds ridiculous. I think we have suffered enough by Canadian control over our affairs, we don’t need any more micro-managers in our communities. If you look at it from a treaty perspective, we signed treaties as sovereign Nations, not as the wards or subjects of the Crown. If this were the case, there’d be no treaties as Nations never sign treaties except with other Nations. This is one of the very fundamental aspects of who we are as Nations that makes us different from those who have immigrated to Canada. We owe it to our treaty ancestors to live our sovereignty everyday so that our future generations enjoy the same freedom to be and live Indigenous. What are We Voting For? So, let’s say that none of this has even slightly given you pause for thought. When we do vote, what are we voting for? We are voting for political parties who have been responsible for: – physical and sexual abuse, deaths, cruelty and torture & loss of language and culture in residential schools; – wanting to completely eliminate “Indians” through scalping bounties, small pox blankets, White Paper, Indian Act, exclusion of our women and children from our communities through status; – chronic under-funding and caps on our essential social services like water, housing, health and education; -over-representation of our men and women in prisons, starlight tours, deaths in police custody; – hundreds and hundreds of murdered and missing Aboriginal women and girls and even more subjected to violence and sexual exploitation; and – the theft of our precious children during the 60’s scoop and now many more through Child Welfare Agencies. This is just to name a few. So, what then are we voting for when we vote for one party or another? We are voting for more of the same but hoping for something different. What we are voting for is who will be our next Indian agent. We are voting for the next Minister of Indian Affairs who will manage and control us through the Indian Act and keep us so pre-occupied with such extreme poverty than we are too sick, uneducated, depressed or dead to rise up and re-assert our sovereignty. Our expectations are managed so that we will chase the small hope that maybe this time will be different and maybe we will get a few hundred more dollars for a program or project. We deserve better than this and we are responsible to our Nations not to be complicit in this. Our Veterans: I have heard many raise the issue of our Aboriginal war veterans in this debate. I have a great deal of respect for those who fought to protect their territories as they have done since time immemorial. As individuals, I am sure they all had their own reasons for enlisting in WWI and WWII and other wars. That being said, I don’t like when people make the over-generalisation that our veterans were fighting for the right to vote. That may be true of some war vets, but not all. Indians did not get the right to vote until 1960 – decades after WWI and II. My father was a WWII war veteran who came back home disabled, with no land or compensation and no educational opportunities. He did not fight in Canada’s war for the right to vote in Canada’s governing system, he fought as an ally of Britain with whom our Nation, the Mi’kmaq Nation, had signed various treaties. In our treaties, we agreed to be allies and protect our territories. It was his hope that by living up to his obligations under the treaties, the Crown would live up to its obligations. There are many war veterans who felt the same way. Political Engagement vs. Apathy?: Nothing makes me more upset than when I hear others categorize our First Nations who refuse to vote in federal or provincial elections as being apathetic or uninterested in political engagement. The majority of us may not vote in federal or provincial elections, but did you ever look at our participation rates for elections, land, treaty and other votes in our Nations? The participation rates are unbelievably high and put Canadian voter participation rates to absolute shame. Our people are engaged at the grass roots level as activists, volunteers and professionals and care very much about our governing systems – both traditional and band governance. The issue is NOT voter apathy or political disengagement, it is about who we feel will best advocate for tour Nations and communities and (with exceptions) right now it is our own leaders (traditional and band) that give us that best hope – not Canadian politicians. The AFN has said that of the 308 federal election ridings, less than 60 could be impacted by Aboriginal peoples. That presumes, of course, exceptionally high voter participation and also presumes that once elected, their favoured MPs will be able to make the fundamental changes required to address our long outstanding issues. I think those are unrealistic expectations if we go by: past practice, the empty election platforms; and the arrogant lack of attention to Aboriginal issues by most of the parties. That’s just my opinion. I honestly enjoy engaging in the debate and hearing the opinions and arguments of others that maybe I have not yet considered. I am encouraged that so many of us care about our sovereignty enough to talk about how important it is – even if we differ on which path we should take to get there. Here are some recent radio interviews I have done on the subject:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1889793175
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Radio/The_Current/1450068094/ID=1899783289
All this being said, I have heard and considered all the arguments for why we should vote and they are very good arguments. I also see the strategy in voting not “for” someone, but to rise up against a dictatorial regime. So, voting then becomes less of a civic engagement exercise in Canadian governance and more of a strategic political tactic to guard against further intrusion into our Nations. These are all good points. Thank you all for sharing and let’s keep talking.
-
Conservatives’ Election Platform for Aboriginal Peoples is “Assimilatory”
With all this talk of a possible federal election, I was wondering how long it would take for the three major national parties (Liberals, NDP and Conservatives) to start talking about their platforms in relation to Aboriginal peoples. Thanks to APTN National News, we got to hear a preview of their platforms last night. For anyone who missed the APTN panel, please go to the following link and watch it before you read my commentary: http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/02/04/aptns-mp-panel-back-in-business-but-for-how-long/ For those who don’t have video capabilities, I will briefly review the discussion. Appearing in this broadcast was Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau, NDP MP and Aboriginal Affairs critic Jean Crowder, and Liberal MP and Aboriginal Affairs critic Todd Russell. The purpose of this panel was to discuss the possible federal election, whether the parties had a platform on Aboriginal issues and what their views were on First Nations tobacco industry and sovereignty. Here is an overview of what they had to say: (1) WILL THERE BE AN ELECTION? Russell – He was concerned with direction that the Conservatives are taking, i.e. billions in tax cuts to wealthy corporations and little for families and First Nations education. While they will try to work cooperatively, if the Conservatives don’t change direction, they will vote against the budget. Crowder – The issue is whether Harper will work with minority parties to make Parliament work for Canadians and substantial work needs to be done for Aboriginal communities. Brazeau – This Conservative government does not want an election and Canadians don’t want an election. Canadians want them to focus on the economy and creating jobs and training opportunities for Aboriginal people to “hold” jobs. (2) WHAT ABORIGINAL ISSUES ARE MOST IMPORTANT? Russell – Liberals have already spoken about their vision for Aboriginal policy going forward: (1) they would remove the 2% funding cap on post-secondary education, (2) substantial investments in Aboriginal education and k-12 system, (3) national response to murdered and missing Aboriginal women, and a (4) commitment to endorse UNDRIP which has happened. He also stresses that there must be a rebuilding of trust between government and Aboriginal peoples and criticized the Conservative government for their plans to get rid of communal property ownership on reserves and for their overall “assimilationist” approach to Aboriginal issues. Aboriginal peoples are not the same – they have legally protected rights. Crowder – When NDP develops platform on Aboriginal issues, they work with their Aboriginal Commission which is made up of Aboriginal peoples and they are working on running Aboriginal candidates in the next election. The larger issues are Nation to Nation status, inherent rights, treaties and other issues like education, health care and water. Brazeau – “There may be a disconnect” between the Conservative government and Aboriginal peoples in “some cases” but “the relationship is getting better”. The Liberals are just fear-mongering. Brazeau said he heard 5 years ago about the Conservative plans to take away First Nation rights and promote assimilation. He refers to their record: (1) residential schools apology, (2) funding for murdered and missing Aboriginal women and (3) UNDRIP. However, their focus is Aboriginal education and economic development. (3) HOW DO THE PARTIES VIEW THE TOBACCO TRADE BETWEEN SOVEREIGN FIRST NATIONS? Brazeau – The topic of “illegal tobacco” needs to be addressed. “Many of the tobacco shops on reserves” “are being used for other illegal drugs” and other “illegal things that are happening”. We have to start treating Aboriginal people equally with other manufacturers and store owners who sell tobacco”. Perhaps we need to start to “tax” them and their is a “role for the federal government in this”. Crowder – (1) There is a public health issue with the availability of cheap tobacco. (2) You have to control the supply of the raw product to control the manufacturing and (3) There are solutions like a First Nation tobacco tax imposed by First Nations and that goes back to First Nations. Russell – Aboriginal communities and the public have identified issues of health and economics. There are also issues of sovereignty, jurisdiction and treaty rights. We need to have these discussions around a negotiating table. So what we have seen in this panel on the part of the Conservatives is really more of the same. Brazeau accused Russell of fear-mongering when Russell said that the Conservatives were using an assimilatory agenda to make Aboriginal people the same as other Canadians and ignore their legally protected rights. Yet, Brazeau could not help himself when he later said that the Conservative goal was to treat First Nations the same as other Canadians. While the Conservatives try to dance around their ultimate agenda so that their assimilatory views do not look so overt, the fact of the matter is that this is exactly what they are attempting in their Aboriginal policy. You can look at any of their activities over the last few years and see the common thread of trying to making Aboriginal “the same” as everyone else and an almost complete rejection of their legally and constitutionally protected rights. For example: (1) Bill C-3 did not remedy gender inequality which leads to loss of status. In fact, Canada defended the second-generation cut-off rule despite the fact that it guarantees the legal extinction of First Nations. (2) Bill S-4 does not provide real access to justice for Aboriginal peoples living on reserve after a marital break-up, but it does guarantee land rights to non-Indians of reserve lands for the first time in history. (3) Bill C-575 does not address the severe poverty of First Nations that lead to their early deaths. It creates more reporting requirements for First Nations who already report more than any other entity in Canada. (4) There have been numerous studies, reports, commissions and inquiries that prove that Aboriginal men and women are incarcerated at a disproportionately higher rate than non-Aboriginal peoples and sometimes the cause is pure racism. Yet, the Conservative response is to spend millions building new prisons and hiring new corrections officers so they can house the increasing numbers which will effectively remove any remaining Aboriginal people (who are not assimilated through the Indian Act) out of society. (5) When the Native Womens’ Association of Canada identified an alarming number of murdered and missing Aboriginal women in Canada, the Conservatives cut the funding and poured millions into policing to help “all Canadians”. (6) When the Corrections Ombudsperson identified discrimination against Aboriginal offenders; the former auditor general Sheila Fraser identified inequality in funding critical services like child and family services and education, when the Ministerial representative for INAC noted that matrimonial real property legislation required consultation, when the UN identified numerous unresolved issues in Canada with regard to Aboriginal peoples, the response is always the same – there is no response. (7) Now it is reported that Canada is providing funds in one form or another to people like Tom Flanagan and Manny Jules to promote the privatization of reserve lands. No land = no community = assimilation. I could go on and on, but my blogs cover alot of this stuff. Brazeau focused on education and jobs – assimilating Aboriginal people into Canadian society, and no recognition of their special legal, constitutional and cultural status. It is the Flanagan-Cairns-Helin-Gibson-Widdowson-Canadian Tax Payers plan: Step 1 – underfund essential services so that First Nations off reserves, Step 2 – educate them in the Canadian system and put them in “regular” jobs and debt, Step 3 – entice individuals with financial incentives not tied to their community and villify their leaders, Step 4 – bleed off Indian women and their descendants through the Indian status provisions, and Step 5 – innocently promote individualism under the guise of equality. I am not saying that jobs or education are bad. In fact, I am a huge promoter of education so that we can build capacity to help heal our communities and rebuild our Nations. Having jobs and income to finance these projects are also essential. But I don’t agree with the requirement that we abandon our cultures, languages, identities, histories, legal rights, lands, communities, governments, laws, or treaties. The Conservatives hope to entice us down the path of assimilation “voluntarily” – but we have another choice. We can be Indigenous and educated. We can be Indigenous and own our own businesses. We can be Indigenous and have relations with Canadians. We do not need to give up our identities, communities and Nations to be entitled to demand fair treatment and respect of our rights. I have never been a voter myself, nor do I belong to any political party, but in recent years I have started to think that we need to take action on multiple fronts. I am still thinking about it, but the Conservatives are getting scarier as each year passes and their arrogance and paternalism on Aboriginal issues becomes more and more apparent. MP Todd Russell spoke of jurisdiction, treaty rights, and negotiation. MP Jean Crowder spoke of inherent rights, treaties and Nation to Nation relations. Brazeau preached about federal taxation of “illegal” First Nation business, the disconnected relation they have with Aboriginal peoples, and the need to treat Aboriginal peoples the same as other Canadians. Could the message be any clearer?