Well, the witch hunt has officially begun. If conservatives scream loud enough and persistently enough that all First Nations Chiefs are corrupt, then eventually people will start to believe that. Add to this the right-wing voices of academics like Flanagan, Gibson, Widdowson, and Helin; organizations like the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and Canadian Taxpayers Federation; and the strategic media use of isolated examples, and the anti-First Nation movement is reborn complete with its own Aboriginal spokesperson – Senator Brazeau. Now, the focus on alleged corruption and lack of accountability of First Nations which Bill C-575 is meant to combat, helps to deflect the real issue – Canada’s shameful neglect and inequitable funding of basic social programs for First Nations like child and family services, post-secondary education, housing, and water. It also helps focus attention away from the other paternalistic legislative reforms which are being advanced against the will of First Nations on the basis that Canada knows what is best for them. Perhaps more importantly, this proposed bill turns the attention away from our federal politicians and away from the issue of MPs not wanting to divulge THEIR OWN expenses to the Auditor General. If that is not the ultimate in hypocrisy, I don’t what is! You will recall that the Auditor General Sheila Fraser (AG) informed Parliament that she wanted to review the detailed expenses of federal MPs. After taking nearly 10 months to consider the matter, their answer was categorically “NO!” The only option left to the AG was to take them to court which she indicated she was not willing to do. If you search the Internet and read through back issues of various newspapers you will hear endless excuses from these MPs about why they should not divulge their expenses – including that their expenses are audited by an outside firm. If you take this issue and apply it to a First Nations context, First Nations ALSO have their federal funding audited by firms and report all of this information to INAC in great detail. The issue is not whether or not MPs and First Nations “account” for their money, it is whether the details of this information should be made “public”. Despite the fact that a deal was subsequently reached between the AG and MPs which would allow the AG to do “spot checks” on MP expenses, the National Post reported that her audit would NOT look at the spending of individual MP offices, nor would any report name the names of MPs who had problematic expenses. This is a far cry from an audit of each and every MP’s set of expenses being made public. How then could any MP, liberal, conservative or otherwise, demand that the expenses of each and every Chief and band councillor be made public? Thanks to the questionable conduct of conservative senator Brazeau, even some First Nations community members are starting to believe the conservative hype about unaccountable First Nations, absent any hard facts. On what other issue would we ever ask Canadians and politicians to support legislation to address a stereotype? What is next? If I allege that all Indians are drunks, will Senator Brazeau create a YouTube video from the Senate asking that First Nations be banned from liquor stores? While conservatives can easily sell a bill with the unassailable message of accountability, the real message is much more insidious: it asks Canadians to conclude, without any proof, that First Nations are not accountable for funding they receive from the federal government and that the ONLY way to address this is for the conservative government to ride in on its “white” horse and save the Indians. Meanwhile, the government can preach about values that it does not respect itself. Of the times that former Minister of INAC intimated that First Nation elections were fraught with corruption, we never saw any reports or research to back that up. Senator Brazeau’s YouTube video implies that First Nations are not financially accountable, but he does not offer any credible proof of this. Even the Frontier Centre for Public Policy made incredible claims this week about the depth of First Nations corruption without referring to a single study, report, or statistical analysis. What evidence is out there? You could try reading the reports of the AG where she explained that First Nations experience the extreme version of accountability with regards to federal funds and in fact account so much and so often that they submit reports on their funds no less than once every three days. If there are any problems with these reports, First Nations run the risk of being subjected to co-management or third party regimes imposed on their communities to manage their funds. The conservative government has incurred billions of dollars of debt – where is its third party manager? If you read those AG reports and watch some of the AG’s presentations to the House or Senate, you will hear her describe how she has attempted to have INAC address its own problems and lack of progress on social programs and services. She has asked repeatedly that INAC make improvements and commented that INAC has made little or no improvement. She even cited the cap on the funding of First Nation programs and the outdated, problematic funding formulas for funding such programs as child and family services. As we all know, the latter issue is now before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It is Canada that has dropped the ball here on its own obligations. Trying to deflect attention onto First Nations represents both a promotion of a negative stereotype against First Nations and a hypocritical position given MPs’ refusal to do what they are asking of First Nations. Furthermore, the proposed Bill C-575 asks that First Nations NOT receive the benefit of various information and privacy protections under ATIP legislation to which other governments are entitled. Another inequity advanced under an apparently closely held democratic value. I challenge all Canadians to look behind the hype and get the facts; to look beyond the headlines and see the real message; and to think twice before they impose legislation on First Nations which represent values they don’t require of their own governments.
Tag: First Nations
-
Now First Nations are Soviets and Primitive Communists?
I am writing this blog today because I have had enough of the right wing misinformation campaign against First Nations in Canada. It isn’t enough that First Nations had to endure colonial control, theft of their lands and resources, broken treaty promises, loss of their languages and spirits in residential schools, and the ongoing impact of the Indian Act for the last few hundred or so years, but now they are being shamed, harassed and bullied into abandoning what First Nations have managed to save for their future generations. First Nations identities, cultures, and lands are under attack once again from the newly revitalized right wingers (thanks to PM Harper and his conservative party) who think that the only “true” Canadians are those that look, walk, talk, and think alike. This is despite the fact that First Nations have never imposed such rules on Canadians. First Nations are not asking for anything other than for Canadians to live up to their constitutional promises. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is the Supreme law of the land. No federal or provincial government has the authority to enact laws and policies outside those legal boundaries by which Canadians have agreed to live. Section 35 recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. In case there was any doubt, in 1996 Canada publicly recognized that Aboriginal peoples have the “inherent right” to self-government and that this right was protected in s.35. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/ldc/ccl/pubs/sg/sg-eng.asp The inherent right to be self-governing does not mean that First Nations MUST govern themselves according to western laws, ideologies, and governance structures. That would defeat the whole purpose of being self-governing according to one’s OWN laws, customs, and practices. Even the Supreme Court of Canada in Van der Peet recognized that: In my view, the doctrine of aboriginal rights exists, and is recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1), because of one simple fact: when Europeans arrived in North America, aboriginal peoples were already here, living in communities on the land, and participating in distinctive cultures, as they had done for centuries. It is this fact, and this fact above all others, which separates aboriginal peoples from all other minority groups in Canadian society and which mandates their special legal, and now constitutional, status. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1996/1996canlii216/1996canlii216.html Additionally, PM Harper stood before and on behalf of ALL Canadians and apologized to First Nations for the assimilatory attitudes upon which policies like residential schools were based. Specifically, PM Harper explained that: Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions, and cultures and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed some sought, as was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child”. Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/rqpi/apo/index-eng.asp This apology is in line with other pronouncements from the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)regarding the purpose of protecting the rights of Aboriginal peoples in the Constitution Act, 1982. Specifically, the SCC held in Powley that the purpose of section 35 was to protect to recognize and enhance Aboriginal peoples “survival as distinctive communities.” Distinctive refers to the unique laws, cultures, traditions, practices and beliefs of Aboriginal Nations. The SCC explained that the “purpose and the promise of s. 35 is to protect practices that were historically important features of these distinctive communities” so that they can preserve their cultures for future generations. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc43/2003scc43.html So, if the supreme law of the land, our country’s highest court, and even the Prime Minister recognizes the need to protect Aboriginal laws, customs, practices, beliefs, traditions, and cultures, how is it that the right wingers in society cannot wrap their minds around that concept? Today, I read a comment in the National Post which referred to First Nations concepts of communal property as “Soviet-style native property rules”. Never mind that the “Soviet Union” doesn’t even exist anymore, but the comparison shows the ignorance of the commentator. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/03/national-post-editorial-board-enough-soviet-style-native-property-rules/ The commentator alleges that Canadians who live on reserve are “denied the ability to own real property”. In fact, any Aboriginal person may own property off-reserve in fee simple. On reserve, they can hold property in a Certificate of Possession (CPs) which is similar to fee simple, except that it can’t be sold to non-Indians. This form of property ownership respects the communal nature of land ownership in First Nations. The communal nature of land holding in First Nations has long been recognized by laws, courts, and our constitution as an integral part of First Nations laws, rules and practices related to their lands. The commentator also alleges that Aboriginal people “cannot hold true title to their homes” nor can they “mortgage a property to raise capital”. In fact, Aboriginal people can hold CPs to their homes and even obtain a mortgage through various programs at CMHC and INAC. The link below provides details about how the process works: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/ab/onre/onre_008.cfm The commentator also claims that Aboriginal peoples cannot develop their “land as they see fit”. This may or may not be true, depending on the zoning and other land use codes that may or may not in place in any particular First Nation. It is interesting to note however, that most Canadians cannot develop their land as they see fit due to zoning and other municipal land use by-laws. This comment reflects an obvious lack of knowledge around the subject. More troubling is the allegation that Aboriginal peoples “can lose their homes without recourse, whenever it happens to be convenient for band council to give their property to a new occupant”. This is categorically false. Various provisions of the Indian Act lay out how land is to be allotted, how CPs can be issued, and the process under which land can be expropriated. Canadian and provincial laws allow lands of Canadians to be expropriated in special circumstances, but never without compensation. The rules are similar on a reserve. Of course, the rules may well be different for self-governing First Nations and/or those under the First Nations Land Management Act. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/I/I-5.pdf The commentator uses the example of Kahnawake where the band council enacted residency by-laws prohibiting non-members from residing on their reserve. When asked about the legality of such a by-law, the former Minister of Indian Affairs, Chuck Strahl claimed it was “legal” and even “constitutional” despite the fact that in order for a by-law to be legal it must be submitted to INAC for approval – which according to INAC was never done. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2542877 I agree completely with the commentator that such a law, which evicts non-Indian spouses of legitimate band members from their homes, is racist. It divides children from their parents, and families from their communities. Instead of protecting their Nation, they are actually speeding up their own assimilation. I myself, have written a blog about the injustice of this situation. http://nonstatusindian.blogspot.com/2010/02/mohawks-or-canadas-disappearing-indians.html That being said, Kahnawake does not represent all 633 First Nations in Canada. Just as the serial killer Robert Pickton does not represent the values of all Canadians, nor does Kahnawake represent the majority of First Nations values. Finally, the commentator praises Tom Flanagan’s new book: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights” as the answer to the situation of communal property rights. As Tom Flanagan describes First Nations as “primitive communists”, it is easy to see where this commentator divined his inspiration to write about “Soviet” First Nations. Flanagan’s plan is to turn reserves into fee simple, maximize land values, and open up reserves to be sold to non-Indians. In my opinion, this does not recognize constitutionally protected land rights and simply represents a right wing desire to see Aboriginal peoples assimilated once and for all. I have written a book review which summarizes the plan and highlights significant issues with it. It is called “Opportunity or Temptation” and you can find it on the Literary Review of Canada website under back issues in April 2010. Such a plan far from recognizes the “distinct” First Nations’ traditions, practices, laws, and customs in relation to Aboriginal lands, but in fact represents an intolerance for such difference. It demands that Aboriginal people be more like “westerners” and embrace capitalism and concepts of individual wealth over the welfare of family, community and Nation. Aboriginal peoples are not asking Canadians to adopt First Nations laws and concepts, just to respect their right to have their own ideals. A basic tennet of liberal democracies like Canada, is that of tolerance and respect for difference. Forcing First Nations to adopt Canadian ideals is actually very undemocratic. It is quite hypocritical for Canadians to defend their Charter and Constitutional rights so vehemently, except when it comes to the constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples. It is time these right wingers thought more about what a true democracy means and start walking the walk before they go around telling other people to be more Canadian.