Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: First Nations

  • Praying Darth Harper and his Death Star Pass Us By: Making Sense of Election Platforms

    Over the last few weeks, many Canadians, Aboriginal people and media types have been discussing the upcoming federal election. People have been trying to analyse the platforms and see which one promises the most for Canada as a whole and for Aboriginal people specifically. I have also provided information in my previous blogs for those so inclined to vote. However, I think it is important to remember that in addition to comparing platforms, one must also compare actions. It is often said that there is no better way to predict future results than by considering past actions. This blog will be a combo of the two – a brief look at each platform as well as some highlights of past actions for each party. Given that there are literally dozens of federal election parties in Canada, I can only deal with so many in the short space of a blog. Also, seeing as the Green Party does not have any seats and the Bloc is only relevant to a certain percentage of Quebec’ers, I will only deal with the Liberal, NDP and Conservatives. LIBERAL ELECTION PLATFORM: http://cdn.liberal.ca/files/2011/04/liberal_platform.pdf (1)  a partial removal of the funding cap on First Nation post-secondary education with an extra $200M in the first 2 years; (2) stable funding for First Nations University of Canada; (3) $5M  per year (for 3 years) for a Metis scholarship; (4) $300M for k-12 education in year 2; (5) Will continue support for Aboriginal Headstart; (6) Will create a First Nation Auditor General; (7) Will have an inquiry into the number of Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women; and (8) “Retain lessons and spirit of Kelowna process”. The Liberal Party obviously sees the huge importance of education for Aboriginal peoples. Education is a priority for the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and naturally the Liberals have included an education package in their election promises. However, if you look at this more closely, you will see that they only plan to spend $100 million a year for two years on the grossly underfunded post-secondary education program. The AFN estimated that what is needed is well over $450 million right now. The Liberals will provide much needed funding in the k-12 education system but only $300 million in year two. I am not sure how effective a one-time influx of funding can be when construction projects, renovations, upgrades and hiring can and often does take several years to complete. Then what? What about operation and maintenance? These are some of the concerns First Nations have raised in regards to their schools. The other commitments are relatively minor in nature. The Liberals would provide stable funding for the First Nations University of Canada and Metis scholarships. With regard to Aboriginal Headstart, a critically important program for the development of very young pre-school-aged children, which is underfunded and in danger of collapse in many areas – they only promise continued support. That is simply not acceptable. They can’t say on the one hand that they want to respect the principles of Kelowna, while on the other hand allow critically important programs to continue to be inequitably and chronically underfunded. The Liberal platform is supposed to be about “families” – what about Aboriginal families? So aside from limited education funding, what do the Liberals offer? Very little I’m afraid. They will introduce a First Nations Auditor General that no one but the First Nation Tax Commission and Manny Jules wants. How will this improve the lives of grass roots Aboriginal people? Where is the commitment related to treaties, land claims, and First Nation governing jurisdiction? What about a serious commitment to poverty reduction? The Liberals also promise an inquiry into the issue of murdered and missing Aboriginal women, which to me is a very important commitment. I honestly believe that part of the problem is that the Conservatives quickly moved to silence NWAC when their advocacy efforts brought this serious issue to light. As soon as questions were asked about the lack of police action, funding was cut. I think there are still issues that need to be investigated and facts that need to be brought to light. I am disappointed however, that the Liberals did not offer continued funding for Sisters in Spirit in addition to an inquiry. It was the Liberal Party who introduced the 2% funding cap on First Nation funding to begin with – so they have at least a moral obligation to remove it. In fairness though, the Liberal Party was the one which participated in the negotiations that led up to the Kelowna Accord which would have seen billions of dollars in funding flow to First Nations for education, housing, water and other vital programs and services. The goal was actually to eliminate poverty in First Nations. The former Prime Minister Paul Martin made it his personal mission to continue to advocate for First Nations and the goals set out in the Kelowna Accord. I am more than a little disappointed then that they are now only promising a “partial” removal of the cap. Overall, the Liberals have a good start on the education part of their platform, but the rest is sorely lacking in any real substance. Many other key Aboriginal issues have simply not even been mentioned. So, then the question is how likely are they to fulfill their commitments if elected? Well, that is always a hard question, but if I look at some of their past actions, I am reasonably comfortable (65%) that they would follow through – after all, there is not a great deal promised in their platform. NDP ELECTION PLATFORM: http://xfer.ndp.ca/2011/2011-Platform/NDP-2011-Platform-En.pdf (1)  Increase Canada Student Grants by $200 million, with focus on Aboriginal people and others; (2) Legislation to target poverty reduction in consultation with Aboriginal and other governments; (3) Recruit Aboriginal and other medical students; (4) Lower carbon future in partnership with Aboriginal governments and others; (5) New partnership with Aboriginal people on nation-nation basis; (6) End discrimination faced by Aboriginal people – access to capital, improve housing and drinking water, remove 2% funding cap and increase education budget by $1 billion a year over 4 years; (7) Federal response to violence against Aboriginal women and support funding their organizations; (8) Work with First Nations and provinces to add 2500 new police officers The NDP have also showed a priority for education in their Aboriginal platform, but at a much higher level than the Liberals. The NDP are promising to COMPLETELY remove the 2% funding cap and increase the education budget by $1 billion a year for 4 years. That is the kind of significant investment that is required to compensate for the decades of chronic underfunding, but also to offer Aboriginal peoples the same level of opportunities for the future as other Canadians. They seem to grasp the concept that the damage done to Aboriginal peoples took hundreds of years to do, so the solutions will neither be quick nor cheap. While some of their promises include Aboriginal people, they are not necessarily focused solely on them like the student grants, recruiting of medical students and working towards a lower carbon future. That being said, the rest of their platform is significant. The NDP promise to deal with First Nations on a nation to nation basis, and while details are not offered, I don’t see the other parties making similar commitments. Similarly, the NDP seem to recognize the severe level of discrimination faced by Aboriginal peoples generally and have promised specifically to: “build a new partnership on a nation-to-nation basis with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people across the country to restore a central element of social justice in Canada and reconcile the hopes of Aboriginal people with those of all Canadians. We will establish this new partnership by forging a new relationship with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, fostering economic opportunity and lasting prosperity, ending the discrimination still faced by Aboriginal people in Canada and supporting the process of healing the harms of the past injustices.” They hope to accomplish this by removing the 2% funding cap, adding billions for education, increasing access to capital, and improving housing and safe drinking water on reserve. They also commit to work with Aboriginal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as non-governmental organizations to table legislation that will create goals and targets for poverty reduction. Their commitment to prevent violence against Aboriginal women also includes a direct federal response and funding commitments to related organizations. Overall, I consider this platform to be the most comprehensive of the three. It certainly commits to action on education, water, infrastructure, violence against women and poverty reduction. These are all very important issues, however there was very little detail on what nation-to-nation relations might look like, how treaties would be factored into the relationship, whether First Nation jurisdiction would be more fully recognized and implemented or whether outstanding land claims would be finally resolved. These are also critically important issues for Aboriginal peoples. Now, the question of how likely they are to follow through on their election promises is a tough one because they have never been in power either as a majority or minority government. This leaves us with only their actions in opposition to use as a guide. That being said, I think we can also use some of their other actions as a loose guide to future possibilities. The NDP have generally been very supportive of First Nations issues, have sided with First Nations against paternalistic legislative initiatives and spent time in First Nation communities both inside and outside of election campaigns. At the very least, their candidates show up to debates and other Aboriginal forums. All that being said, I do have some concerns that they were willing to trade off Sharon McIvor’s equality rights for the joint process to “talk” about status issues, as requested by the National Aboriginal Organizations. I can say from personal experience that the NDP worked really hard with many of us to draft amendments to better address gender inequality than what was presented in Bill C-3. However, at the end of the day they seemed to side with the Conservatives when passing Bill C-3 which included a provision denying Aboriginal women and their children any right of compensation for the last 25 years of denying their equality rights. This looms large in my mind. At the end of the day, I can only say that I am more hopeful than confident (60%) that the NDP would live up to their election promises as I don’t have enough to go by yet. Their platform is the best of all three, but if they never become the governing party, what does voting for them actually mean? I simply can’t get away from my fear that voting for the NDP is like giving a vote to the Conservatives which is like hoping Darth Harper and the Death Star will simply pass us by. I have not seen any credible analysis that argues otherwise. CONSERVATIVE ELECTION PLATFORM: http://www.conservative.ca/media/ConservativePlatform2011_ENs.pdf (1) New investment in First Nation Land Management to promote development of their land; (2) Expand adult basic education in territories; (3) Environmental safety upgrades to fuel tanks; (4) Promote clean energy; (5) Commemoration of War of 1812 celebrating First Nation veterans and others; (6) Work with Aboriginal people and others to create National Conservation Plan; (7) New national park in Rouge Valley and will try to talk to Aboriginal people and others; (8) Hunting Advisory panel that will include some Aboriginal people; (9) Will continue to work cooperatively with Aboriginal people, by enacting accountability legislation publishing salaries of chiefs; So, at first glance this looks like a rather long list of election promises for Aboriginal peoples. Even when you read the platform itself, much of it reads as a list of what they claim to have already done for Aboriginal peoples, as opposed to what they will do. You’ll also notice that the majority of the promises they do make are not at all specific to Aboriginal peoples, but we are “lucky” enough to be included in their plans. For example, the Hunting Advisory Panel, Rouge Valley National Park, National Conservation Plan, and Commemoration of the War of 1812, are all separate commitments that may include Aboriginal participation, but these promises are not specifically for Aboriginal peoples. The one glaring omission from their platform (of which there are many) is a lack of focus on education. Despite the endless reports and studies highlighting education as one of the main solutions to poverty in First Nations – there is no commitment at all with regards to Aboriginal Headstart, k-12 schools, or post-secondary education. Almost as an aside, they commit to expand adult “basic education” in the north and THAT IS IT! It is like they have heard National Shief Shawn Atleo’s calls for education and have completely ignored them. So, strategically, is it better for the Conservatives to have educated or uneducated Aboriginal people? I wonder…. What they do promise is to complete environmental safety upgrades to fuel tanks in northern communities. However, for those of you who practice in this area, you might know that many argue that INAC is liable for these fuel tanks to begin with and that any servicing they might do is part of a risk-reduction plan for their own benefit and not that of the Aboriginal communities. Their “promotion” of clean energy will likely not translate into basic funding to address mold and asbestos in houses, or the lack of safe drinking water and sewage systems in First Nations. These are really empty promises. So, then what is left in the platform? They promise to invest not in First Nations communities, but in land management to encourage First Nations to develop their lands. The English equivalent of this promise is the introduction of legislation to privatize reserve lands and open them up to commercial development and settlers. In case anyone thinks this is a new initiative, it is not. Remember Tom Flanagan’s book “Beyond the Indian Act” advocating for the privatization of reserve lands? That was the one promoted by Manny Jules of the First Nation Tax Commission and allegedly supported by federal funds (my ATIP request will hopefully provide some answers to this). Their second promise is to enact accountability legislation to make chiefs’ salaries public. Holy innovation Batman – is it me or does this sound like the reintroduction of Kelly Block’s Bill C-575? I’m sorry if I missed this, but what First Nation asked for this legislation? So, then this is not really a promise for Aboriginal peoples, but more of a political statement reiterating the Conservative position that they know what is best for First Nations and they will enact whatever legislation they want to control the Aboriginal population as they see fit. This leads me to my analysis of how likely they are to follow through on their election promises. I am VERY confident (90%) that the Harper Conservatives will fulfill their election promises to Aboriginal people for two reasons: (1) there are no real promises in their election platform and (2) the two promises they do make do not involve any expenditure of funds, nor do they have anything to do with Aboriginal priorities. I am also quite confident that I can use their past actions to predict their future actions Given my past blogs, there is no point in repeating the many, many past actions of the Conservatives in relation to Aboriginal peoples, so I will just highlight a few. Harper has not lifted the 2% funding cap and has never indicated any intention to do so. Harper has also not been interested in consulting and accommodating Aboriginal and treaty, but instead settles for “engagement” if any discussion at all. While he apologized for residential schools, the assimilatory polices upon which they were based, and for the past views of cultural superiority, Harper introduced a whole suite of paternalistic legislation against the will of Aboriginal peoples. For example, there was Bill C-575 (chiefs salary legislation cleverly introduced by a private MP), Bill C-3 (legislation that did not remedy gender inequality in the Indian Act and excluded compensation for women), Bill S-4 (matrimonial real property on reserve that provided more rights for settlers on reserve lands than for Aboriginal women), and Bill S-11 (drinking water on First Nations that promised federal control and increased regulation and no funding). We can expect more of this should Darth Harper gain control of the rebel citizens with a minority government and even worse should he gain control of the Empire with a majority. Overall, the Harper Conservatives have not made any promises to Aboriginal people, do not participate in debates on Aboriginal issues and continue to treat First Nations like sub-humans while he and his elite Cabinet group plan for a complete take-over. They do all of this with the arrogance of knowing very few will stand up to them. We have to take some ownership over this and demand that our NAO’s, leaders and ourselves do better. We also have to keep in mind that the Harper Conservatives are a collection of right-wingers, fringe groups and even some red necks. Harper had as his advisor Tom Flanagan, the man who advocated for our assimilation, called us primitive communists and tried to explain our First Nation property rights by citing studies of chimpanzees in his book. “Collectively, chimps, especially adult males in small groups patrol the boundaries of their group territory and kill chimpanzees from other bands when they can achieve numerical advantage…. Individually, chimps also seek control over resources…” (emphasis added) Flanagan is like Brazeau in that he plays with words so that he can send his negative message about First Nations in a superficially “neutral” way. Is there any doubt that a Harper government is NOT good for our people? This is why, for those of you who vote, I ask that you consider your vote very carefully. Do you vote for the NDP because they have the best platform? Does voting for the NDP really risk a majority Harper government? I simply can’t say for sure. The Liberals are offering some education initiatives and little else, but at least they are not advocating our complete assimilation as do many of the right-wing Conservative party members and friends. So, then  Liberal vote might not be that bad. If someone were to ask me how they should vote, I would say NDP on platform, but Liberal to defeat Harper. It really is a difficult situation especially since for Aboriginal people, we may be voting, but all we are doing is picking our next Indian agent. I know there are only a few days left to think about it, but as you consider it, here is a neat website that argues that to defeat the Death Star, perhaps what needs to be done is vote strategically versus the ususal best platform or favorite party wins. Something to think about anyway… http://catch22campaign.ca/ I guess its all about the end game. Do we want more body bags and slop buckets sent to First Nations instead of dealing with the real crisis of poverty under a Conservative government, or do we want a chance to get democracy back and put our people, communities, lands and treaties back in the forefront of our nation-building activities as Mohawks, Cree, Mi’kmaq, Ojibway and Maliseet peoples?

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/first-nations-water-plight-needs-action-chiefs-120533874.html http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090916/flu_bodybags_090916/ If a Harper minority government can do this to their own people, imagine what they would do with a majority government? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsogv4Bw5kM&feature=share For those who Aboriginal people who don’t vote, thanks for standing up for our sovereignty – we need our next generation to be as committed and assertive about our nationhood as you are. I think we’d all be alot further along if we put our sovereignty first. For those who do vote, thanks for trying to make a change for our people and for engaging in the debate to see how we can best use the vote to effect that change. As always, I welcome your comments, suggestions and emails.

  • Comparison of Federal Parties Platforms on Aboriginal Policy

    Below you will find my chart of some of the election issues that are important to me and my family. What I did was compare what was important to us against the election platforms of the major federal parties. The first three issues are fundamental to First Nation-Crown relations and the most important to me. After that, the issues I listed are in no particular order, but are all important. If you are wondering why there are so many blank spaces in my chart -so am I. I have reviewed all the election platforms on all the parties websites and it is SLIM PICKENS when it comes to real meaningful promises or commitments for Aboriginal peoples. I wonder if the parties think that because Harper was so bad with Aboriginal issues that we are so desperate as to accept any promise, no matter how small? BLOC – The word “Aboriginal” only appears once in the Bloc’s platform and simply says they will deal with First Nations on a Nation-to-Nation basis.  http://www.blocquebecois.org/dossiers/campagne-2011/documents/EnoncePolitique-Anglais.pdf NDP – The NDP’s platform outline on their website lacks any details yet and there is no mention of Aboriginal issues – more to come I am sure. http://www.ndp.ca/platform FIRST PEOPLES – Even the First Peoples National Party has next to nothing on their website except for a call to abolish Senate and replace it with elected Aboriginal people and to ensure all schools and universities teach Native Studies courses. http://www.fpnpoc.ca/cgi-bin/news1.cgi?search_for=1301720468&action=’search’ GREEN – The Green Party commits to add $800M a year to federal funding for education, housing, and water. They also promise to have Canada implement UNDRIP as well as Kelowna. http://greenparty.ca/files/attachments/vision_green_april_2011.pdf PC – The Conservatives do far more boasting than offering any real substantial commitments to Aboriginal peoples. It ends up being more assimilation with a side order of paternalism with their tiresome focus on chief’s salaries. http://www.conservative.ca/media/ConservativePlatform2011_ENs.pdf LIBERAL – Then there is the Liberal Party, who has produced a detailed platform which does mention Aboriginal peoples. The Liberal promises are as follows: (1) a partial removal of the funding cap on First Nation post-secondary education with an extra $200M in the first 2 years; (2) stable funding for First Nations University of Canada; (3) $5M  per year (for 3 years) for a Metis scholarship; (4) $300M for k-12 education in year 2; (5) Will continue support for Aboriginal Headstart; (6) Will create a First Nation Auditor General; (7) Will have an inquiry into the number of Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women; and (8) “Retain lessons and spirit of Kelowna process”. http://cdn.liberal.ca/files/2011/04/liberal_platform.pdf So, as the weeks go on and the parties speak more about their platforms and release more details, if they make any promises for Aboriginal peoples, I will add them to my chart. In the meantime, this chart should stand as a glaring reminder of how little attention our issues have received so far and to demand more from these parties. What is being promised so far leaves something to be desired. Perhaps if any of the parties are reading my blog, they might want to consider either including or beefing up their sections on Aboriginal peoples. We are the First Peoples of this land and our rights are constitutionally enshrined. We have treaties signed between Nations that have yet to be recognized and implemented. We also have a crisis in First Nation poverty caused by colonial policies of land and resource theft, denial of basic rights and freedoms and an active policy of assimilation. Until those issues are addressed, a few election promises won’t make much of a difference in the everyday lives of Indigenous peoples.

    Issue

    Liberals

    Conservatives

    NDP

    Bloc

    Green

    FPNP

    Nation-Nation Relations

    Honour FN vets in War 1812 commem.

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

     Remove Senate, elect Abs

    Treaty Recog & Implementation

    Priority funds to enhance fish stocks, greater FN role, Land & treaty tribunal, respect douglas treaty

    Address Land Claims

    Invest in FN land management

    Eco-tourism for FNs, extend protect area, honour intent of land claims agrees, no extinguish

    Remove 2% Funding Cap

    Partial, $200M/2 yr

    Yes plus capital $ for business

    Implement Kelowna

    “lessons & spirit”

    Yes, restore $5.1B in funds

    “fight poverty”

    Increase PSE Funding

    FNUC stable $,

    $5M Metis scholarship

    Adult education in north, skills training in north

    Yes, $1B per yr for 4 years, grants for Ab students

    Yes *$800M/yr

    Increase k-12 Funding

    $300M in yr 2

    Yes

    *$800M, promote culture & language

    No,Native courses

    Proper Funds for Housing

    safety upgrades to fuel tanks in north

    Yes

    Yes

    *$800M

    Proper Funds for Water

    promote clean technologies

    Yes

    Yes

    *$800M

    Child & Family Equal Funds

    Reduce toxin exposure

    Make all Laws s.35 Compliant

    work in collab w FN re national conservation strategy, hunting advisory panel, respect economic groups

    Respect s.35, but no commercial seal hunt, no whale hunt

    Ab Headstart

    Will “support”

    Make all laws s.15 Compliant

    recruit more Ab doctors

    task force re Abs in justice system

    Fund FN police, fire & EMS

    No, but FN AG

     Murdered & Missing Ab Wom. Inquiry

    yes

    federal response to violence, funds for Ab women orgs

    FNs Lead Any Legislative Changes re FNs

    accountability legislation re chiefs salaries

    phase out Indian Act

    Implement UNDRIP

    Yes

    Consult & Accommodate!!!

    Consult with Abs in poverty legislation, lower carbon

    (c) Pamela D. Palmater

    I welcome all comments and feedback on this chart as it gets filled out – well, at least I hope it gets filled out. For anyone who is interested, the following link provides details on all the Aboriginal people running as candidates in the federal election for the various parties: http://www.mediaindigena.com/tim-fontaine/issues-and-politics/an-aboriginal-who%e2%80%99s-who-of-canadas-2011-federal-election

  • Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity and Belonging

    Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity and Belonging

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

    Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity

    Dr. Pamela D. Palmater

    • What impact does status have on band membership codes?

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

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

    • Interim proposed solutions to discrimination against Non-Status Indians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Purich Publishing Ltd.                                                              P: 306-373-5311

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

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

                        

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

  • Mohawk Tobacco Trade – Standing up for Our Sovereignty

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

  • Jordan’s Principle and Standing Up for Those Who Can’t

    Ok, I have to get back to dealing with the real issues. I can’t waste any more time on the Senator. I feel confident that our First Nations leaders on and off reserve will ensure that no one speaks on our behalf who hasn’t been chosen to do so by our people. Also, I have a huge family who always supports me but doesn’t hesitate to remind me to stay focused. They clearly don’t want me to stoop to his level and give him any more fame than he already has. There are far too many important issues that need to be addressed and I love my family for keeping me on the right path. So, back to it… Recently, I attended a conference full of amazing Indigenous women leaders in Newfoundland. Just being a part of their event was a humbling experience for me. Attending gatherings of strong Indigenous women like this always reminds me of how little I know and how much I have to learn. Although I had travelled to Newfoundland feeling under the weather and a little stressed out from my recent workload, when I arrived in that room, I could literally feel the energy of these women surrounding me. I was awed by their dedication to their community despite their personal struggles; their supportive words to one another, despite their own lack of support from others; and their warmth and welcoming to me as a non-Islander, despite their personal histories of trauma and loss. They reminded me that despite our differences, we have to keep our eye on the ball, so to speak, and focus on our communities. There are a good number of people who need our help right now and they don’t have the same capacity as we do to advocate on their own behalf. So, when one of the ladies asked me what Jordan’s principle was, I agreed to blog about it so that we’d all know what it was and how we can all put pressure on federal and provincial governments to finally implement it. Jordan River Anderson was a small boy who was a member of the Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba. He was born with some serious health issues and required extensive hospital care. When he was two years old, his doctors determined that he was well enough to go home so long as his house was properly outfitted for his needs and he had care specific to his needs. It was at this point that the federal and provincial government re-engaged in their decades old debate over who should pay for the health costs associated with caring for little Jordan. Canada argued that health care was provincial jurisdiction and the province argued that status Indians living on reserve were federal jurisdiction. Because neither government would agree to pay for Jordan’s health care costs to live at home with his family, this little boy was forced to stay in the hospital for the next two and half years until he passed away. His family never got to take him home. For anyone who does not understand what exactly the jurisdictional issue is, here is a mini-overview. Our Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the specific areas of power that the federal and provincial governments will have in Canada. Basically, what this means is that each government has complete power or jurisdiction within their specific areas. These specific areas of jurisdiction are set out in section 91 (for the federal government) and section 92 (for the provincial governments). This means that no government can interfere in the jurisdiction of another. Here is a link to the Constitution Act, 1867: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html So, how does this all apply to Jordan’s principle? Well, under section 91(24) the federal government has jurisdiction (sometimes referred to as responsibility) over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians”. This is one of the reasons why Canada deals directly with First Nations. On the other hand, the provinces have jurisdiction over health of residents in the province by virtue of section 92(7). So, the jurisdictional dispute arises when Canada argues that it should not pay for the health costs of status Indians because health is the responsibility of the province and the province argues that it should not pay for the health costs of status Indians that live on reserve because that is federal jurisdiction. The federal and provincial governments have been locked in this stalemate for decades on health and other similar issues which negatively impacts vital services to First Nations. So, back to Jordan’s principle. Jordan’s family explains that had Jordan been a non-Indian living in downtown Winnipeg, the provincial government would have paid for his health care costs. They feel that the only reason why their son was left to die in the hospital was because he was an Indian. Whether or not this is the case (and it certainly appears to be so), the fact that the family feels this way mandates that we consider their situation carefully. In fact, many politicians did consider the issue carefully and were so horrified by this state of affairs for status Indians living on reserve that NDP MP Jean Crowder made a motion in the House of Commons to adopt what she called “Jordan’s Principle” which is a “child first” principle that would require that no First Nations child ever be denied health or other vital social services again. The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society explains that the principle “calls on the government of first contact to pay for services for the child and then seek reimbursement later so the child does not get tragically caught in the middle of government red tape. Jordan’s Principle applies to ALL government services and must be adopted, and fully implemented by the Government of Canada and all provinces and territories.” This is the link to their website which provides a great deal more information about the issue: http://www.fncfcs.com/jordans-principle On December 12, 2007, by Private Member’s Motion 296 NDP MP Jean Crowder received unanimous support for the following principle: “in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately adopt a child-first principle, based on Jordan’s Principle, to resolve jurisdictional disputes involving the care of First Nations children”. This means that NDP, Liberal AND Conservative MPs all supported the principle. Over three years have passed since the adoption of this principle and the federal and provincial governments have been slow to actually implement it. Both the Liberals and NDP have been calling on the federal government to implement the principle, but the conservatives continue to stall. The Assembly of First Nations as well as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and others have also called on the federal and provincial governments to implement the principle. Recently, National Chief of the AFN, Shawn Atleo had this to say: “First Nation children are too often denied health services and other services available to other children in Canada… Jordan’s Principle reminds us that no child should be denied health or medical services because of jurisdictional disputes between federal and provincial/territorial governments. It has now been six years since the tragic death of Jordan Anderson, and we continue to call on all governments to work with First Nations to ensure the full and proper implementation of Jordan’s Principle, including support for the Declaration on Action for the Implementation of Jordan’s Principle as put forth by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. We can all agree that every child deserves respect, care and equitable treatment and First Nations children must not be treated differently.” See the following link for more information from the Assembly of First Nations (AFN): http://www.afn.ca/index.php/en/news-media/latest-news/assembly-of-first-nations-supports-manitoba-chiefs-declaration-for-the-impl Similarly, while some provinces have taken steps to implement the principle, some have not. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) explains on their website that: “The federal government is at various stages of discussion on Jordan’s Principle with the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Newfoundland and British Columbia.” So, in other words, the majority of governments in Canada have not yet implemented Jordan’s Principle. This link will take you to INAC’s website: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/s-d2009/bk000000451-eng.asp The issue have received a good deal of media attention lately, but sadly, very little action on the federal government’s part. What follows are some links to recent media stories on the issue: Chiefs draw attention to lack of action on Jordan’s Principle: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Chiefs-draw-attention-to-lack-of-action-on-Jordans-Principle-115138379.html Jordan’s Principle, governments’ paralysis http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/177/4/321 What follows here are links to several videos which focused on Jordan’s Principle: Jordan’s Bill: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/top-picks/jordans-principle/#clip411887 APTN’s In Focus – Jordan’s Principle (click video on upper right hand side) http://aptn.ca/pages/news/category/infocus/ The most recent news coverage of this issue was on APTN National News during their weekly political panel with federal MPs and Senators. This video highlights the very problem that Jordan’s principle was meant to address – arguing over jurisdiction: http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/02/11/aptns-political-panel-on-jordans-principle/ For those who can’t access the video, here is a brief overview of the panel: Interviewed in this panel was conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau and NDP MP Jean Crowder. Crowder explained that despite the fact that the principle was passed unanimously in the House of Commons by all political parties, the conservative government has failed to take a leadership role in implementing it. While Manitoba has implemented the principle, it has done so in a narrow way. Saskatchewan only has an interim agreement which is also narrow. British Columbia (BC) does not have an agreement yet and has criticized the conservative government for taking far too narrow an approach to implementation. Crowder raised some very key points: (1) First Nations children do NOT receive the same standard of health care as Canadians; (2) First Nations parents are forced to surrender their children to provincial foster care if they can’t access the health funds they need; and (3) This situation is a violation of their basic human rights. Brazeau’s response was that although these are sad stories, this amounts to a jurisdictional issue and that health care is “provincial jurisdiction”. Crowder explained that in fact, Jordan’s families and other families at Norway House Cree Nation live ON reserve and are “clearly” federal jurisdiction. But more importantly, Jordan’s principle says to put the children first and fight about the money later. When asked why Canada can’t foot the bill and work out the details later, Brazeau completely dodges the issue and claims that there is partisan politics being played here. He goes on to say that while they want to put the needs of the child first, that health care is provincial jurisdiction. Then in a bizarre twist, Brazeau cautioned all Canadians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, to not “become victims of our own health care system”. I am not sure anyone quite knows what Brazeau was talking about, but Crowder clarified that there is no partisan politics involved here because ALL political parties unanimously supported Jordan’s principle in the House of Commons, including the conservatives. Crowder’s main point was that if there was political will on the part of the federal and provincial governments to actually put children before politics, then none of them would be having the discussion. I think she makes a good point given the fact that the motion was passed back in 2007. Brazeau turned the discussion back to jurisdiction and said that Crowder should be directing her concerns back to the provinces and not the federal government. I almost could not believe what I was hearing. It is as if Brazeau has no understanding of what Jordan’s principle says or means. The whole purpose of the principle was to avoid the argument over who has jurisdiction and make it a priority to provide health care to First Nations children. Crowder was asked why the provinces seem to be narrowing down the scope of Jordan’s principle from one that includes all services to one which only covers health care. She explained that in BC, it is the federal government that has narrowed the principle to include only those children with complex medical needs. Similarly, First Nations in Manitoba are not happy with how the federal government has narrowed the definition. If you watch the video a couple of times, like I did, I couldn’t help but get the feeling there were two separate conversations happening: one by Crowder that focused on implementing Jordan’s principle, and one by Brazeau which defaulted to the old jurisdictional arguments that this principle was meant to address. At the end of the day, we all have a responsibility to stand up for those children who can’t stand up for themselves. Parents with sick children are so focused on caring for their children that we cannot expect them to shoulder this burden alone. Whether or not you have kids, the caring and protection of our children is vital to not only the health of those children, but the health and well-being of their families, communities and Nations. I would ask that all my readers write to all the MPs and demand that they put their money where there mouth is and MAKE CHILDREN FIRST!!! You don’t have to write a long letter, it can be as as simple as an email asking that all governments implement Jordan’s principle right away. Here are the e-mail addresses: To contact Liberal MPs – LIBMEM@parl.gc.ca To contact Bloc MPs – BQMEM@parl.gc.ca To contact Conservative MPs – CPCMEM@parl.gc.ca To contact NDP MPs – NDPMEM@parl.gc.ca Please take five minutes and send an e-mail to the federal government and tell them we have waited long enough for health care for our children. Then, if you have another five minutes, write to your provincial or territorial MP as well. Thank you!

  • 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?

  • UPDATE – TVO's The Agenda Botches Show on Caledonia

    Please be advised – this personal opinion blog is not for the feint of heart. The opinions I express on my website, blog, Tweets and FB updates are my own and my right to express my personal opinion is one of our most valued rights and freedoms in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I have explained on previous blogs, my personal opinion does NOT constitute legal advice nor should it be relied on as such. Generally, I like watching TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paiken. I find it far more engaging than the regular media and the host is willing to ask the hard questions. While they are definitely no APTN, the shows on Indigenous issues that I have seen and/or participated in, have been fairly balanced in covering Indigenous perspectives. Their producer, Mark Brosens is generally good about researching the issues and seeking different perspectives. Last night’s show on the situation in Caledonia however, was a striking failure in responsible journalism and a huge disappointment to many viewers. I am not a journalist, nor do I profess any expertise in the area. My knowledge comes from what I have learned, studied and observed. As a lawyer, professor and author, I do have a good idea about what makes good writing and how to cover an issue responsibly. That is not to say that each article must be a research study into all causes and effects, but a minimal context must be laid out for readers. I think I am as capable as anyone in assessing the quality or lack thereof of various issues covered in the media. Last night’s episode of The Agenda not only fell into the trap of considering an issue in a one-sided way, they blamed potential invitees to the show for TVO’s own lack of organization and planning. Steve Paiken, the host, explained last night that the show was envisioned as a round table on the issue of Caledonia that was supposed to have someone from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), someone from Ontario’s Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (OMMA), Blatchford herself, someone from Six Nations and maybe others (presumably subject matter experts like a lawyer or academic who works on these issues). Instead of saying, we screwed up and didn’t get the show together on time, Paiken publicly blamed the invitees and portrayed them as if they didn’t want to debate Blatchford. This of course played into Blatchford’s overinflated ego who quickly agreed. Paiken made it seem as if no one would face Blatchford and I can attest to the fact that this is simply not the case. Contrary to popular belief, many of us Indigenous lawyers, academics, politicians and community members work for a living and have schedules which do not lend well to last-minute arrangements. In a producer’s blog written by Mark Brosens, he explained that he tried to contact the OPP and OMMA who turned down his invitation. I could have predicted that one given all of the legal implications, court cases, and outstanding land claims in Caledonia. Rightly or wrongly, I think there was slim to no chance of getting provincial representatives to speak about Caledonia. That did not, however, prohibit Brosens from contacting experts in political science to come and speak about the policy and political issues from a provincial stand point or from getting an expert in policing issues. Brosens also mentions that he tried to get people from Six Nations to participate in the show but was unsuccessful. He says he tried to get the Chiefs of Ontario to come on the show, but admits (as an aside) that he did not give them much notice. Then the issue which I can speak to personally, is that he says that he tried academics but they ALL “either agreed with Blatchford, or were unavailable, or were camera shy”. That is simply not true. Brosens contacted me as an “expert” in the area and to get my insight on the book and the subject generally. While he did not ask, I specifically offered that if he needed anyone at the last minute to appear on the show, I would do so, as I felt very passionately that TVO should deal with the subject in balanced way. The overall theme of Brosen’s blog was that people were unwilling to go up against Blatchford which is simply not accurate. This is not about Blatchford. It is clearly a production issue. TVO tried to pull this show together at the last minute, they failed to do so, but instead of doing something else, they went ahead with the show anyway and blamed the invited participants for the lack of quality in the show. That is simply not the kind of integrity we expect from TVO. What I found most distasteful about the show was that Paiken turned TVO’s failure into a sensational question which portrayed Blatchford as some kind of expert on Caledonia whom everyone fears. Compounding what was already a poorly produced segment, was that Paiken was overly conciliatory to Blatchford and did not ask any real hard questions of her. He allowed her to portray or imply that Six Nations and Mohawks were terrorists and did not call her on the gross analogy to the terrorist acts of 9-11. While one might like to blame the alarmist tone of the show on their SOLE guest Blatchford, TVO was unfortunately, an equal participant. First of all, the segment was framed as one on “lawlessness” which is sensationalism as its best as well as inaccurate. The fact that TVO paired the Caledonia segment with one on policing and the recent death of a police officer also lent a certain frame to the subject. They couldn’t have set up the segment any worse than had Blatchford done it herself. After improperly introducing the subject of Caledonia and Six Nations as “Grand River of Six Nations”, TVO let Blatchford set the context to the dispute. She did not start with the granting of the Haldimand Tract to the Six Nations, but started with the date of the occupation. As if one day, a bunch of bored Mohawks just got together and decided to protest for fun and from there “its as if the devil threw a party and invited all his friends”. I thought the days of comparing Indigenous people to pagans and heathens were over? Is it really a critical part of understanding the Caledonia situation to repeat degrading quotes about unresolved land claims? Aside from the inherent problems with her book, which I will save for a future blog, the things Blatchford said on the show were, in my personal opinion, inaccurate, alarmist and racist. When I use the term racist, I don’t do so lightly, nor do I use the term as an emotional reaction to something I don’t like. I do so based on what I have read, heard, seen and considered on the issue. There are endless media sources calling her a racist. She has also publicly had to deny being a racist which shows many smarter people than I have made the same conclusion. With regards to the show, her more problematic comments went largely unchallenged by Paiken and include: (1) she says she is not an expert on the subject (which begs the question of how informed her book is or even why she was on the show); (2) that it was an “illegal” protest (but no discussion of the general right to assembly, constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, Aboriginal title rights, land claims, etc); (3) the issue was not a land claim and that it was simply a matter of Chief Montour wanting more compensation (which ignores the long history and details of the claim); (4) it should all be blamed on one “entrepreneurial Mohawk” named Joseph Brant who sold the land for his own benefit (again ignoring all the legal and historical records); (5) Calls those who were trying to mediate and negotiate the matter “BS negotiators”; (really? was she on the inside at the negotiations to make that kind of assessment?); (6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence)*; and (7) Accused traditional band members of Six Nations of going around intimidating other band members to support the protest (more unsubstantiated claims or perhaps I missed all the convictions of traditional band members in the media???). Paiken, (ironically given TVO’s one-dimensional take on the issue) asked Blatchford why she only dealt with one side of the issue. In defending herself, she characterized Caledonia as “ground zero” after comparing her book Helpless to the work she did at ground zero in New York with the terrorist attack on the twin towers. She explained that when she wrote about ground zero in New York, she didn’t write about the perspective of the terrorists and their claims, so why would she do that here in Caledonia? Some viewers who contacted me after the show felt that this was a form of inciting hatred. Like the Flanagan’s, Gibson’s, and Widdowson’s of the world, we often overlook their right-wing rantings as those of ignorant people who were never taught any better. Perhaps this is what Paiken thought when he sat quietly and accepted Blatchford’s terrorist analogy of the Caledonia situation without calling her on it. However, inviting the public to view First Nations as terrorists on their own lands risks relegating them back to their former colonial-imposed status as “non-humans” deserved of whatever indignities committed against them by the far-from-Helpless majority population who simply want all their land and resources. While there is no changing the views of committed right-wingers like Blatchford, TVO has a responsibility to the public to do their shows with integrity or don’t do them at all. This blog may mean that I never get invited to TVO’s The Agenda again (which would be unfortunate as I like the show and the people) but I would not be true to myself if I did not call TVO on their disaster. Everyone makes mistakes, but it is how you address those mistakes that count. The true test of integrity is whether one is honest about their role in the mistake and owns up to it. TVO – you have some owning up to do. * UPDATE – Shortly after posting this blog, I received an e-mail from Gary McHale threatening to sue me for defamation and demanded an apology. The e-mail is reproduced below and you will notice that he does not deny anything I wrote in my blog: “It has come to my attention that you have decided to defame me on your website. You have posted the following: (6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact that he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence) I hope you can prove that I ‘deliberately’ (interesting that you know my motives) ‘instigate violence’. I have six weeks to serve you legal notice but I would hope you would post an apology instead of continuing to violate the law – as a lawyer/professor I would think you would respect the law more. Gary McHale” (garymchale@mountaincable.net) As this is a personal opinion blog and I have never done litigation, I can’t offer the public any advice on the law with regards to either bringing or defending defamation claims. What I can do is share some of the information that is readily available on the internet. For legal advice, I suggest you contact a lawyer if you have any questions. Defamation of character has been defined as the written (libel) or oral (slander) damaging of one’s “good reputation”. Some of you may be thinking – good reputation??? There are several ways in which such a claim may be defended, but one of those defences is referred to as “Fair Comment”. I found the following definition online: “Citizens are entitled to make fair comment on matters of public interest without fear of defamation claims. A good example of this is a letter to the editor on a matter of public concern. The author of the remarks may even go so far as to PRESUME MOTIVES on the part of the person who’s actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice.” (emphasis added) (Duhaime Law) My honestly-held, personal belief, and opinion about which I wrote this blog is based on countless books, articles, media, and internet sources, some of which I will highlight here for your interest: (1) “What does Canada, Ontario or whoever the fools were who hired Gary McHale to INSTIGATE violence think of his colossal failure?” (emphasis added) (frostyamerindian); (2) “McHale WANTED violence… He brought in skinheads, KKK and other professional instigators and mercenaries from both Canada and the U.S.” (emphasis added)(frostyamerindian); (3) “former politician, David Peterson… called McHale and his gang a ‘bunch of wackos’.” (Mohawk Nation News); (4) Gary McHale is “NOT from Caledonia” (emphasis added). (Ryan Paul); (5) Vigilante militia group set up by “an associate of anti-native sovereignty activist Gary McHale” and “Neo-Nazi groups have long participated in McHale’s various protests“. (peaceculture.org); (6) “Gary McHale … claims FN and 6 Nations are terrorists.” (rabble.ca); (7) OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino explained that: “I want every avenue explored by which we can now bring McHale into court seeking a court order to prevent him from continuing his agenda of INCITING PEOPLE TO VIOLENCE in Caledonia.” (emphasis added) (CBC news); (8) OPP Commissioner Fantino further stated: “We should be able to prove to court that McHale’s forays into Caledonia have been PLANNED and executed for PURPOSES of breaching the peace which today also resulted in VIOLENCE. We can’t allow this vicious cycle to continue…”. (emphasis added) (CBC news). Regarding his “reputation”, McHale posts many negative comments about himself on his own website and could hardly claim he has any remaining reputation that could possibly be tarnished by my blog. I would post examples, but I prefer to keep my blogs profanity-free out of respect for the younger folks who read my blogs and cite them in their school work. 🙂 My father always told me that only narcissists think that the whole world revolves around them and that most “protests” are simply desperate attempts to get attention. I have had rare occassion to consider his specific advice, but can see now what he meant. This of course presents the dilemma of whether to respond and give the narcisist his desperately-desired attention or not respond and risk the public believing the hateful misinformation. I still wrestle with this dilemma. Despite this brief update meant to address some petty non-sense, I would ask that readers please focus on the original message of my blog being about TVO and how they might learn from their mistake with this show and perhaps make an effort to do better the next time.

  • NEWSFLASH – Bill T-666 to Deal with Exorbitant Municipal Salaries

    NEWSFLASH from P.A.M. News: Today, our official news correspondent for the Official Opposition of the Third Order of Government (OOTOG), Pamela Palmater, has brought to light the extreme abuses being made of First Nation taxpayers and land-holders money. Palmater’s informative, yet disturbing report calls into question whether Canadian peoples who sit in positions on municipalities across Canada are accountable for the taxes and income they receive from our traditional lands. As readers know, the lands in Canada are the traditional territories of the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island. Our Nations have lived here since time immemorial with their own cultures, languages, practices, traditions and customs. Just as important, our Nations had their own governments, laws, dispute resolution mechanisms, systems of trade and treaty-making with other Indigenous Nations. We were then and remain now, the ultimate governing authority of our territories often referred to as Turtle Island. The peoples who immigrated here from what we believe to be the Lost City of Atlantis and its surrounding land masses, are now referred to as Canadian peoples. They are more commonly known as Atlanteans, although many take offence to that terminology. Given that they had just lost their city which sank into the sea, our Nations decided to assist them for a short time until they were well enough to find new homelands. Many of them wanted to stay, so some of us signed treaties with these uncultured, violent, and greedy peoples so that they would not one day become extinct from their poor sailing, planning, governance, and other ineptitudes. For some time now, they have been making claims that they own our lands and the resources on our traditional territories. At the same time, they refuse to accept any responsibility for the protection of these lands and seek only to exhaust of the resources for their own selfish ends. In order to build capacity in their divided and warring communities, they also created many schools in which they would teach their own children; one of which being the infamous Sun-burned Neck Thought School (SNTS). They refused to adopt our Indigenous languages and teachings and instead sought to preserve their dying ways. At SNTS, their students are taught the backward ways of their primitive thinkers who believe in class systems where some of their people are better than others, homelessness where the sick, poor, elderly, and mentally ill must fend for themselves, individual wealth where individuals looks out for themselves and not the community, and male-dominated systems of governance where women and children are treated like the cattle they brought with them on their ships. As odd as we all thought these ways of living were, we allowed them to engage in their “traditional” ways for fear they might start sending us blankets filled with small pox in the mail or other terrorist-like activity. Indeed, controlling them has been very difficult. We have had to be very passive so as not to send them into a rage where they might send in their radicals known as the police, armies and tactical squads. We have seen how angry they can get. Well, today, after reading the latest financial report from their peoples government led by Steven Hypocriseese, it has become evident that the Third Order of Government must take action. I refer readers to the report they call the “Public Sector Salary Disclosure” which can be found at this website: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2010/munic10a.html Here readers will note the extreme abuses to which their peoples have been making of our hard-earned taxes, lands and natural resources. For example, in the municipality of Hamilton, Ontario, their Director of Entertainment makes a salary of $259,113.77!! This is absolutely outrageous! It is dangerously close to the salary of their leader Steven Hypocriseese who makes around $300,000. The manager of Hamilton makes nearly $200,000. Yet, the rate of homelessness in Hamilton is increasing. In 2006, the small municipality of Hamilton had nearly 3000 people stay in homeless shelters and for extended periods of time. Here is a link to their report: http://intraspec.ca/OnAnyGivenNight2007.pdf This is an absolute outrage and these incidents are not isolated. From the looks of the report, the abuse is wide-spread and confirms what we have been saying all along. The Canadian peoples’ sense of entitlement and claims of special powers has spread to their other communities as well. In Brampton, the city manager makes $254,000 as does the manager in Burlington. Other positions like librarians, mechanics and directors of litter also make well over $100,000. Yet, how many of their children still read books? How many of their children struggle with reading? How much effort did librarians make to inspire their children to read? How many books were purchased? Were these books of value? There is absolutely no accountability or transparency in these positions. Why have they not brought their librarians before the Third Order of Government to account? These librarians have now become renegades in their own communities. They make thousands of dollars in salaries, work in warm, comfortable surroundings, have more than enough to eat and clothes to wear, while homelessness in Turtle Island is on the rise. How could they possibily justify such exorbitant salaries while their own people live in such abject poverty without food, clothes or a warm safe place to sleep at night? These peoples are obviously not spending our money where and how they should. How could these so-called leaders justify paying themselves salaries in excess if $100,000 which in Indigenous equality dollars equates to well over $1,000,000 when you include the decades of privilege and control, education and employability, business and political connections, and the use of our lands and resources on a tax-free basis. We will no longer stand for this. The Third Order of Government will bring this situation under control as we promised. I will be introducing Bill T-666 which will ensure that steps are taken to get the Canadian peoples spending of our taxes and resources from our lands under control. We will start by implementing third party management of their funds which they will pay for out of their own budgets. We will cap funding on all their essential services like schools, child welfare and missing and murdered female Canadian peoples. Then we will force them to publish the addresses of these librarians and litter directors , how many people are in their families, whether their family members benefited from their exorbitant salaries, how many books they purchased, and whether they spent money on travel instead of reading to children. This will be done for every municipal position across Turtle Island! I urge all citizens of the Third Order of Government to support this bill. I strongly encourage even those from the Canadian peoples communities to support this bill. It is time these Canadian peoples pulled up their socks, started going to regular Indigenous schools like everyone else and got over the loss of their Lost City of Atlantis. I mean, it is called the Lost City of Atlantis for a reason – it is lost – forever. GET OVER IT!! We, the Third Order of Government simply cannot afford to keep giving them all of our taxes and natural resources. If we cannot get support for this bill, our only alternative will be to relocate these peoples to another continent where they will be better able to support themselves on their own lands. Please write to your local municipal librarian, mechanic or director of litter and demand better for their peoples.

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

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

  • Racism on a native reserve? Try Racism in Our Media!

    I am always torn whenever I read low quality, uninformed, and unresearched editorials, commentaries, and/or special columns written in print media that promote negative stereotypes about First Nations. My first instinct is to write a reply, but that would become a full-time job in and of itself. Then I wonder whether giving any attention to such blatant racism is helping or hurting the goal of helping to educate the public. Amongst my peers, there seems to be a difference of opinion on that issue. However, at the end of the day, given that so many Canadians obtain their “information” about Aboriginal peoples from the media, I as an educator, simply cannot sit by while media outlets, like the National Post, misinform readers and malign First Nations. Yet, despite my attempts to address the misinformation, I still have a serious issue of exposure. Similar to gossip rags like the National Enquirer, the National Post has a loyal following that includes those of the right-wing persuasion. My responses to such articles, on the other hand, only reach those who happen to read my blog. None of my comments to the National Post have ever been published, nor those sent to other newspapers to whom I have written – so what is the result of my efforts? Some individuals get the benefit of another perspective. An incredibly bright professor once told me that images shape our aspirations. So, if all Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people see in the media are negative stories about First Nations and uninformed print media which spreads negative stereotypes about First Nations, then our children – yours and mine – continue to see First Nations as inferior. A vision that is no better than the racist views of colonial days supposedly long-past. It is absolutely ludicrous for a newspaper to take a story about an ISOLATED incident of ALLEGED racism on ONE First Nation of the 633 First Nations in Canada, and somehow use that as proof positive that ALL Chiefs of ALL First Nations are not accountable and prefer instead to “do things behind closed doors”. This is categorically false and perpetuates the very kind of “hate” about which this National Post article critiques. The Assembly of First Nations itself has long called for and made requests of Canada to meet and talk about ways to modernize First Nation accountability measures. More than that, the Auditor General (AG) Sheila Fraser has reported on more than one occasion that First Nations ARE accountable for the funds they receive from the federal government. In fact, all First Nations submit audited financial statements to Canada and according to the AG, First Nations fill out so many reports about their funding that it averages out to one report every three days. Nothing in First Nations related to federal funding happens behind closed doors. In fact, most learned commentators have noted that of all the groups in Canada – political, religious, cultural or otherwise – that First Nations’ activities are so closely monitored that they often feel as though their whole lives are “under a microscope”. Yet despite the plethora of research, reports, studies, commissions, and considerations of First Nations issues, none of them have ever shown that all First Nations leaders are corrupt or that First Nations are more likely to abuse their residents than Canadian governments. Yet, we continue to be bombarded by uninformed and unsubstantiated allegations against First Nations in the media that serve only to misinform the public and malign First Nations. Rarely are Aboriginal commentators asked to submit their own views and most issues are not covered in any balanced manner that would give the public enough information to make up their own mind. For example, the National Post printed a comment in today’s newspaper entitled: “Racism on a native reserve”. Here are just a few of the unsubstantiated or incorrect items presented: (1) “Canadian taxpayers pay close to $10-billion a year to finance on-reserve programming for natives.” In fact, almost HALF of that amount goes to Indian and Northern Affairs and/or other government departments to support their bureaucracy and ever-inflating salaries. The taxes used to pay for some of the First Nation programs come from taxes submitted by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. Furthermore, the privileged position of non-Aboriginal Canadians in relation to First Nations is the DIRECT result of them benefitting directly or indirectly from the theft of First Nations’ lands and resources by their ancestors. (2) “Whenever it is proposed that we IMPOSE some accountability…the AFN… complains that its members are being mistreated.” (emphasis added) In fact, the national Chief Shawn Atleo was interviewed by APTN last night wherein he reinforced the fact that the AFN and First Nations ALL believe in accountability to their citizens and that they have called for discussions with Canada on how to improve those accountability measures. What he did not agree with was the “imposition” of laws by Canada on First Nations without so much as even consulting with them first (as is required by law). (3) “…even in 2010, natives are still waiting to enjoy the full protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” In fact, Aboriginal peoples have ALWAYS the full benefit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms like all Canadians since 1982. What some Aboriginal peoples did not have was access to the complaint process under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but this was remedied in 2008. Now complaints relating to the Indian Act can be brought against Canada and in a little over 6 months, they can bring complaints against individual bands. Bands simply wanted an opportunity to amend their laws to make sure they were compliant with both human rights and their traditional laws. But it is not even these obvious pieces of misinformation that is the worst part. It is the fact that one solitary example of alleged racism on one reserve could be used to say that all Chiefs and First Nations are corrupt and that their only goal is to “circle the wagons in defence of their cash and powers”. This is little more than a discriminatory remark meant to stir up racist images about Aboriginal peoples so as to deflect readers from the real issues. That kind of blatant racism should not be tolerated, nor should it be published by our national media. This kind of comment does nothing to add to the debate nor does it inspire collegiality amongst citizens or offer mutually beneficial solutions. The vast majority of First Nations Chiefs are tireless, hard-working, passionate leaders who carry the weight of every single community member on their shoulders. Many Chiefs don’t make a great salary, but regardless of the pay they go far above and beyond their role as a political leader. They often find themselves mediating marital disputes, helping students find text books, volunteer as cooks, firefighters, pow wow emcees, hunters, fishers, babysitters, chauffeurs, and mentors. While managing social conflict within their communities, they must also negotiate with federal, provincial and municipal governments, manage the same programs as provinces, stay on top of developing laws, and monitor private activities within their territories. Many of the Chiefs I know literally work 20 hours a day and carry the weight of community ills as their own personal failings. Chiefs are trashed in the media as often as we hear the weather forecast. They are vilified and disrespected by federal and provincial governments and their triumphs are overlooked by the media in exchange for scandal and hardship. I would suggest that the National Post and any other “mightier-than-thou” media outlet try walking in the shoes of First Nation leaders for a day. Instead of berating them and spreading hatred against First Nations, they need to finally recognize that section 35 of our Constitution Act, 1982 is there for a reason and just as Canadians are not going anywhere, nor are First Nations. Despite the assimilatory goals of the past, First Nations have survived and are here to stay. The supreme law of the land (Constitution Act, 1982) and the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes the special place of First Nations in this country and the democratic obligation we all have to ensure their continued existence. Reconciliation is a two-way street – we can’t expect to move forward as a country if we respect all our laws except those that relate to First Nations. We have an obligation to respect our First Nations as we would each other and racist stereotypes have no place in that relationship. It seems ironic that on the one hand, the National Post comment advocates for greater human rights for First Nations, and then on the other hand, uses racist comments and stereotypes to demean them. I would suggest that the National Post and others like it should reconsider their roles in educating the public about important issues related to First Nations and better represent the public which it serves – including First Nations. Here are some tips for moving forward: (1) Hire some Aboriginal reporters, columnists, and commentators who are knowledgeable about the issues; (2)Hire some Aboriginal people in management at your paper/station who are knowledgeable about the issues; (3)Include more Aboriginal people on your advisory committees who are knowledgeable about the issues; (4)Make a concerted effort to offer more balanced and informed perspectives which are based on fact, not sensationalism. Try practising what you preach. For more information about these issues, please read my previous blogs.