Tag: Harper

Defer, Deflect, Deny, Destroy: Harper’s First Nation Education Act

*(My apologies for the length of this blog – it’s too critical of an issue to cover lightly)

Since the federal government first assumed control over First Nation education, First Nations have suffered poor educational outcomes. During the residential school era, federal control over First Nation education meant a very real chance of starvation, torture, abuse, medical experimentation, beatings and death for the students. Upwards of 40% of the children who entered residential schools never made it out alive and others were permanently scarred.

Prime Minister Harper apologized for the residential school policy, but has not taken a single step to address the disastrous results which stemmed from it like lost culture, language, identity, traditional Indigenous knowledges, belief systems, values, customs and practices. No sooner was the weak apology offered when Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre condemned it as a waste of money. The Harper government soon followed the apology by cutting funding to Indigenous languages which confirmed the lack of sincerity in the apology.

Even a child knows that an apology is more than words; it requires an acknowledgement of the harm done, acceptance of responsibility for that harm, a promise not to do it again and actions to try to make amends for the harm done. Harper has not offered a true apology nor taken real actions to address the significant harms done. A litigation settlement for personal injuries, rapes and molestations that happened in those schools does not address the assimilatory harms.

If Harper was sincere about the wrongfulness of Canada’s long-standing assimilation policy, it would not continue to have assimilation as its number one policy objective with regards to First Nations. If there was a true interest in righting wrongs in First Nation education, Harper need only read the many reports, publications, studies and statistics in relation to First Nation education which have clearly outlined the problems and the solutions. Yet, Harper has implemented his standard modus operandi in relation to First Nations issues: deny, deflect, defer and destroy.

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057

Even when faced with contrary evidence, Harper’s government has consistently denied that there is a problem with funding or federal control over First Nation education. Instead they issue press releases and make public statements about how much they fund First Nation education and focus on isolated First Nations which have recently built schools. The Office of the Correctional Investigator, The Auditor General, Special Ministerial Representatives, United Nations investigators and numerous experts have raised the alarm on the serious nature of federal control over First Nation education. Some of the conclusions include the following:

–        Indian Affairs has failed to implement recommendations “most important to lives and well-being of First Nations” (Auditor General 2011);

–        73% of all water, 65% waste water systems in FNs are high risk – INAC so behind in infrastructure funding, will take $4.7 billion just to fix current systems (Neegan 2011);

–        The “inequitable and differential outcomes for Aboriginal offenders” are the direct result of “federal correctional policies and practices” (Correctional Investigator 2010);

–        “current funding practices do not lead to equitable funding among Aboriginal and First Nation communities” (OAG 2008);

–        funding inequities results in inability for First Nations to provide adequate child welfare services (Auditor General 2008);

–        “inequitable access to services for First Nations…contributing factors to the over-representation of Aboriginal children in child welfare system” (INAC 2004);

–        Funding formula created by INAC does not ensure equitable access to education & gap widening (Auditor General 2004);

–        INAC failed to give Parliament real picture on FN housing – said increased housing stock overall, but found an actual decline of 30% (Auditor General 2003).

When the evidence is too overwhelming and the media will not let the issue drop, then the Harper Conservatives deflect responsibility and try to either change the subject or shift the blame to First Nations themselves by making allegations against First Nation leaders as corrupt or mismanaging funds. This pattern has been too consistent and one need only look at the housing crisis in Attawapiskat, the corresponding allegation of mismanagement and the court case which cleared Chief Spence’s name to see this m.o. in action.

Sometimes, like in the case of First Nation education, the public criticism is so intense that deflection will not work and then Harper usually defers the issue to be studied. In the case of First Nation education, many successive federal governments have followed the same pattern of deferring the issue to study and the result is numerous studies. The problem for Harper is that all these studies continue to say the exact same thing: the problem is federal control and chronic underfunding of First Nation education. It should be no surprise that the studies were nearly unanimous in their solutions for poor First Nation education outcomes: First Nation control and appropriate funding. It’s not rocket science Harper.

http://www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/sites/default/files/files/OCOFOV%20Education%20Report%202012.pdf

When faced with an issue that simply won’t go away, and the usual deny, deflect and defer tactics won’t work; Harper usually reverts back to federal policy objective of assimilating Indians: destroying the “problem” all together. In an aggressive full blitz attack, Harper has introduced a complex legislative agenda which will have essentially the same effect as the White Paper 1969 would have: destroy Indians, reserves, treaties and any programs and services associated with them. With regards to education, Harper will introduce the First Nation Education Act, national legislation designed to trick First Nations into voluntarily giving up their treaty right to education in exchange for a federally-controlled legislative program.

What are the implications of this legislation? The draft legislation has not yet been shared with the public, so I can’t comment on the specifics, but based on INAC’s Blueprint for Legislation document shared with First Nations, one can clearly see that First Nation concerns were valid:

(1) Indian agent-type federal controls, inspections and approvals will be tight;

(2) The potential option of local First Nation control is limited and conditional;

(3) There will be no guaranteed funding as funding will still be policy-based; and

(4) Although promoted as optional legislation, the legislation proposes to set out a process for legal recognition and authorization to run schools.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ-EDU/STAGING/texte-text/fN-Education_blueprint-ebauche_1373053903701_eng.pdf

One need only look at the current suite of legislation to see where this legislation is headed.

Other serious concerns related to this legislation include the fact that there were no consultations which respect Canada’s legal obligation to obtain the free, informed and prior consent of First Nations required under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Instead, engagement sessions were held in urban areas across the country and largely skipped the 615+ First Nation communities. This legislation is paternalistic, unilaterally drafted and meant to be a one-size fits all approach to deflecting the real issue: federal control and chronic under-funding. The majority of First Nations did NOT ask for legislation and in fact passed numerous resolutions at the national, regional and provincial levels specifically opposing this legislation.

One cannot forget that for many First Nations, First Nation education is a treaty right and those treaties are protected in both domestic and international law. Treaties are forever and are now protected in section 35 and cannot be unilaterally amended. This, together with the fact that this legislation also proposes to off-load (at least in part) First Nation education to the provinces makes this legislation unconstitutional. Canada is forgetting that when it supported UNDRIP, that article 14 states that First Nations have a right to establish and control their own education systems and Canada has an obligation to ensure that First Nation children have access.

The failure to address First Nation education outcomes doesn’t even make economic sense. The 2% cap placed on funding has only made a bad situation worse. Yet, the studies show that were Canada to eliminate the gap between Canadian and First Nation education outcomes, this would yield $179 billion on GDP back to Canada. Why then would Canada continue to pay $100,000 a year to wrongfully imprison First Nations peoples, when a 4 year university education only costs $60,000 and we know the social and economic benefits of a good education? Canadians enjoy good education systems funded in large part from the wealth obtained from Indigenous lands and resources. It’s time to share the wealth as envisioned in the treaties.

Every time Canada comes up with an idea on how to “fix” the “Indian problem” our people are oppressed, assimilated or lose our lives. Canada has failed miserably in their First Nation education policies. It’s long past time to step aside and allow First Nations peoples to heal from the inter-generational devastation caused by federal controls and fully support First Nation-controlled education systems. The treaties promised to fund these systems so that First Nations would prosper equally with our treaty partners. It’s time the treaties were honoured and all parties to the treaties enjoyed the benefits.

Forget more paternalistic federal legislation and honour the treaties.

October 8, 2013
October 7th Day of Action, The Royal Proclamation and Idle No More: Wading Through the Hype

Today is a day which will challenge Indigenous peoples and Canadians in the ongoing and very uncomfortable decolonization process. Will people celebrate Oct.7, 2013 as the 250th year since the issuance of The Royal Proclamation of 1763? Or will Canadians and Indigenous peoples see beyond the government hype and propaganda that comes with celebrating the War of 1812 or the Royal Proclamation? Will most Canadians even know what the Royal Proclamation is or that it is a constitutionally-protected document? What is it that Idle No More activists all over the country are calling for – a celebration of the Royal Proclamation or something else? http://www.idlenomore.ca/idlenomore_global_day_of_action_oct7proclaim In summary, the Royal Proclamation was issued in 1763 by King George III after the British Crown acquired lands claimed by the French in North America. It was intended to encourage settlement of North America by the British, even over lands formerly claimed as French. It was also intended to transition Indigenous peoples from French allegiances to British sovereignty. It further purported to establish reserved lands for Indigenous peoples in which they could to hunt and fish. Yet, these “protected” lands were still to be made available for settlement, so long as it was done according to the rules set out in the Proclamation. While some argue that the Proclamation recognized Nationhood status of Indigenous peoples; partially protected Indigenous lands; and partially recognized Indigenous land rights; there are others who point out that Indigenous peoples were already living as strong, independent sovereign Nations prior to contact and did not need a British edict to declare partial recognition of land rights. The very essence of sovereignty is that it is lived, asserted, protected and defended every day – it cannot be granted or gifted by another sovereign. If there was any question about whether we should be celebrating the Royal Proclamation, one need only refer to how the federal Minister of Indian Affairs Bernard Valcourt has been re-writing history. http://news.morningstar.com/all/canada-news-wire/20131007C7734/statement-by-the-honourable-bernard-valcourt-on-the-250th-anniversary-of-the-royal-proclamation-of-1763.aspx Valcourt’s statement suggests that the Royal Proclamation was the beginning of the treaty process in Canada – which is false. The Mi’kmaw, Maliseet and Passmaquoddy were negotiating treaties in 1726, 1752, and 1760 etc. There is nothing about the Royal Proclamation that indicates that it is a mutually-agreed upon document signed by Indigenous Nations and Britain. Even Valcourt acknowledges that it was a unilaterally-imposed document where Britain purported to set out how the relationship would work with Indigenous Nations – with no input from Indigenous Nations. It is in fact, just a pronouncement that Britain violated more times than it followed. Valcourt is also wrong when he states that it was the Royal Proclamation that led to the inclusion of section 35 in the Constitution Act, 1982. To the contrary, it was the efforts of Indigenous activists to try to find ways to protect our inherent rights. Sadly, section 35 turned out to be as much protection as the Royal Proclamation where Canada breaches it more than honours it. Section 35 has turned out to be a an empty shell of a constitutional promise which is used by Canada to deny First Nation rights under the guise of “consultation”. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is clear that the legal standard is “free, informed and prior consent” – not just a watered-down duty to talk and impose whatever laws or policies that suits government agendas. So why then would we either celebrate the Royal Proclamation or base any of our resistance activities around it? Our resistance comes from our responsibility as Indigenous peoples to live, assert and defend our sovereignty and to protect the lands and waters we rely on to sustain our Nations and future generations. We should focus our symbols, inspiration, actions and rallying cries around our brave ancestors, their heroic efforts to protect our rights and the incredible inner strength of our peoples to resist and survive – despite everything that was done to us by the colonizers. There are no more powerful people than ours. To have survived scalpings, biological warfare (smallpox blankets), forced sterilizations of our women, deaths and torture in residential schools, the theft of tens of thousands of our babies from our families, the over-imprisonment of our men and women, the hundreds of murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women, and the pre-mature deaths of our peoples from contaminated water, lack of food, over-crowded housing and poor health – is a testament to our strength. Our culture and identity has the power to sustain us in difficult times and in my opinion, this is the core around which we should rise up and defend our lands, waters and peoples. The sooner we stop orienting ourselves around the laws, policies and media releases of the Canadian government, the stronger we will be in our resistance. Canada requires our participation in their processes to validate their ongoing oppression of our people – we can choose to withdraw and demand better. Harper should not assume that because there are no flashy media events happening every day that First Nations are not acting. Every social movement goes through phases and whether you call it Idle No More, Indigenous Nationhood Movement, or general resistance, Indigenous peoples are making plans, strategizing, asserting and defending their sovereignty. Those actions are sometimes hard to see amongst the sea of political media releases, government propaganda, commentator rhetoric and co-opted organizations. That being said, we still have true leaders, wise elders, strong grassroots peoples and our ancestors who are walking with us. Despite all the challenges, this movement will just continue to grow, expose the uncomfortable truths and force the fundamental change that is needed to keep the status quo from killing our people. http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057 Canadians will benefit from this process of decolonization too because the most valuable resources in the future will be farmable land and drinkable water and First Nations are on the front lines protecting them. Canadians have the power to help First Nations make life better for all of us – it’s as easy and making the choice.

October 7, 2013
Facts verus Rhetoric: Response to INAC’s Misinformation About Bill S-2

This letter is in direct response to the letter submitted by Jason McDonald, Director of Communications for Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) Bernard Valcourt to the Montreal Gazette on August 7, 2013. INAC has gone to great lengths to spread misinformation about the intentions, interpretations and potential impacts of Bill S-2 Family Homes of Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. It is interesting to note the Minister had his communications person write this letter, versus a Justice Canada lawyer.

Despite the near unanimous rejection of previous versions of this bill and Harper’s infamous promise to First Nations at the Crown First Nations Gathering not to unilaterally amend the Indian Act; the Harper government has spared no expense in its propaganda campaign to gain support for this unconstitutional bill. What follows is my response to INAC’s misinformation about the bill. I have testified before Senate as a legal expert on a previous version of this bill, but was specifically prevented by Conservative members from testifying on the new version. I have also published other blogs on this bill. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/11/bill-s-2-family-homes-on-reserve-and.html http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2011/09/bill-s-2-family-homes-on-reserves.html

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/06/bill-s-4-step-back-in-time.html http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/06/bill-s-4-backdoor-assimilation-and-land.html http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/06/bill-s-4-empty-shell-of-legislative.html

INAC: The bill “extends to people living on reserve the same basic rights and protections that individuals living off reserve enjoy regarding the family home”

This is not true. Indigenous Nations are sovereign Nations with their own laws, rules, policies, governments, and justice systems. Their status as sovereign Nations are recognized in the fact of treaty making, as only sovereign Nations can enter into treaties with one another – citizens of a state do not have that right.

Their legal right to govern themselves is also protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 as an inherent right (pre-existing to Canada as a state and not granted or given through law). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as well as other international laws also protect the right of First Nations to be self-determining.

First Nations have exclusive jurisdiction to determine their own laws, rules and procedures in relation to any marital or property issues on their traditional, treaty or reserve lands. When INAC claims they are extending the same basic rights to those living on reserve, what they mean is that they are illegally imposing provincial laws on reserve contrary to section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and contrary to various treaties and international laws. This legislation will also require the consent of the provinces and companion legislation to bring it into effect.

Even the description of a house on reserve as the family home is misleading. On many reserves, homes are occupied by upwards of 25 people including husband, wife, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. Certificates of Possession (like fee simple deeds) can be in the name of hundreds of people. Many First Nation families do not exist as the western notion of nuclear family with mom, dad and 2.5 children. Any disposition of what is deemed a family home could have devastating effects on large extended families and especially elders. First Nations have not asked for this bill.

INAC: Bill S-2 does not change the fact that only registered Indians can hold a Certificate of Possession on reserve, but non-First Nations people can possess the home for a temporary period of time.

This statement is misleading about the real implications of the bill. The Indian Act prevents anyone who is NOT an Indian from even temporarily possessing land on a reserve – which includes permanent structures on the land, like a house. Section 20(1) of the Indian Act specifies:

20 (1) No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve unless, with the approval of the Minister, possession of the land has been allotted to him by the council of the band.”

What INAC is trying to do is unilaterally amend the Indian Act in an illegal way – in violation of domestic and international law. Section 2 of the Indian Act specifies that reserve lands are reserved for the exclusive use and benefit of the band (First Nation) for which they were set aside. These lands are not for anyone else’s use.

Further, many treaties set up reserve lands for the exclusive use and benefit of Indians – not non-Indians. These treaties are now constitutionally and internationally protected and cannot be unilaterally amended. This country would not exist but for the treaties which agreed to share the land – now they are constitutionally protected and cannot be violated if Canada wishes to remain a democratic country. Harper can’t pick and choose which constitutional provisions he likes – Canada is either democratically governed with a constitution or it is a lawless dictatorship.

INAC does not have the power or authority to enact legislative provisions, such as this, that would be in direct conflict with its own constitution and other laws. INAC is also not being truthful when it claims that the Act only allows temporary possession by non-Indians. In fact, non-Indians can gain up to a life interest in lands and homes on reserve. This is far from temporary and combined with other proposed legislative amendments, this could translate into permanent possession.

INAC: The courts need this legislation to facilitate emergency protection orders to remove a violent partner from the home.

This is not true. INAC has focused on this legislation as being intended to protect First Nations women from violence, which it implies is rampant on every reserve. Government representatives have presented a false choice between First Nations women being tossed from their homes in the middle of the night or protecting self-government for First Nations. Yet, INAC has offered no statistical, research-based or other evidence to prove that women losing their homes on reserve is a rampant or common occurrence.

In direct contrast to their testimony, INAC has confirmed that the majority of CPs are held by women, not men. Additionally, when First Nations women living in shelters were interviewed about this legislation, the women emphasized the fact that their interests are not separate from their First Nation community – and that none of them wanted their community’s Aboriginal or treaty rights violated such as this legislation does.

This line of reasoning being promoted by INAC amounts to spreading racist, hateful stereotypes about First Nations for political purposes. INAC wants support to do indirectly, what Canada is not legally permitted to do directly – take the remaining amount of lands held by First Nations and transfer them to Canadians, corporations and governments.

If this legislation was about protecting First Nation women, they would have built more homes on reserve, funded new shelters, increased funding for preventative services and increased funding for access to legal services for these women. Instead they have created a new legal regime that the majority of First Nation women will never be able to access.

What is also extremely concerning about this provision is that it purports to empower courts to issue protection orders (possession of home to spouse) as against the alleged abuser in the absence of a charge or conviction. It also empowers the court to make possession orders for homes and lands on reserve – which are communal First Nation property – without any notice to the First Nation or any of the family members impacted by the order, like elders. This provision violates the basic human rights and freedoms of First Nations and further denies individuals any administrative fairness and justice.

INAC: The ratification process outlined in the bill is done according to First Nation practices and is to ensure the collective interests are protected.

Again, this is not true. The ratification process as outlined in the bill is a paternalistic control mechanism to ensure First Nations comply with INAC objectives – it is not consistent with First Nation customs, traditions, practices or laws. Some First Nations already have their own laws in this regard, but INAC refuses to recognize these laws, and instead demands that First Nations engage in an Indian Affairs-designed and controlled process. If the concern was truly that laws are needed in this area, then INAC would recognize those First Nation laws.

Similarly, this legislation is not designed to respect collective interests to homes and lands on reserve, but is intended to further carve out individual interests and create new legal interests for non-Indians. According to INAC, reserve lands represent less than 0.2% of all the lands First Nations used to control. For INAC to want to divide up and steal the rest of those lands is unconscionable, let alone illegal. The spirit and intent of our nation to nation treaties was to share the wealth, not usurp it all for one treaty partner and leave the other impoverished and living on hand-outs.

First Nations have exclusive jurisdiction over their own laws and enforcement mechanisms and do not need INAC approval or supervision to deal with these issues. This provision is a gross violation of the constitutionally and internationally protected right to be self-governing.

INAC: INAC has consulted extensively with First Nations on this issue.

This is not true. In fact, INAC’s own Special Ministerial Representative on Matrimonial Law on Reserve who interviewed First Nations individuals, communities and organizations all over Canada, concluded that none of the information packages or meetings to date amounted to legal consultation as required under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. INAC representatives themselves told attendees at several meetings that various discussions were not intended as consultation. Further, several meetings held with national organizations does not constitute legal consultations with the First Nation communities who actually hold the Aboriginal and treaty rights impacted.

Consultation is supposed to be a mutually negotiated, designed and funded process which ensures impacted First Nations communities (in this case, all 615) are fully informed about the legislation and its intended impacts as well as take measures to accommodate their concerns and obtain their consent. This simply did not occur. The Supreme Court of Canada has stressed repeatedly that Canada is legally obligated to consult, accommodate and in many cases, obtain the consent of First Nations prior to taking any action or decision that has the potential to impact constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights. UNDRIP further requires that Canada must obtain the free, informed and prior consent of First Nations before impacting their rights.

This has not happened and in fact, each version of this bill has been nearly unanimously rejected by First Nations men, women and communities all over Canada.

INAC: Canada is further supporting First Nations by creating a national Centre of Excellence to help First Nations implement these laws.

This new Centre was not requested by First Nations. If INAC wanted to support First Nations they would not have made substantial funding cuts to all the National, regional and provincial First Nation organizations that already assist First Nations with law development and implementation. Finally, law development is costly in any government, and INAC is expecting First Nations to develop and implement these laws without any funding support.

INAC is clearly not genuinely concerned about empowering First Nations governments, but is instead reverting back to nation-wide, one-size-fits-all paternalistic control. We all know what happens when INAC has control – we have deaths and torture in residential schools, lack of clean water and safe sanitation systems on reserve, housing crises, lack of education, suicide epidemics and other conditions of forced impoverishment. It’s time INAC got out of the business of controlling First Nations and let them govern themselves – they couldn’t do any worse than the atrocities already committed by Canada on our people. Please contact your MP and oppose this legislation.

August 14, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 10, 2012

Harper’s Indigenous Manifesto: Erasing Indigenous Peoples from Canada
Early Indian policy was designed to accomplish two main policy objectives: (1) acquire Indigenous lands and resources, and (2) reduce financial responsibility to Indigenous peoples. The primary way in which these two objectives were to be achieved was through the physical, legal, social and spiritual elimination of Indigenous peoples. I say “elimination” because that is the word which best describes government intentions. Most people today use the term “assimilation” but to my mind, this word is much too soft to describe the design and impact of government policies on Indigenous peoples in Canada. To some readers, the term “elimination” may seem a little harsh, somewhat of an exaggeration, or perhaps rhetoric blown out of proportion which forgets the good intentions governments, churches and traders had for Indigenous peoples. I beg to differ – not because I fall into any externally imposed category of left-wing, liberal, radical or “nutbar”. I beg to differ because the facts – the brutal, uncomfortable facts tell us a much different story. My biggest concern is not that the colonization project devastated Indigenous peoples, because the historical record clearly shows it did; it is that the colonization and devastation of Indigenous peoples continues, albeit couched in softer terminology. Today, the few history books that have been amended to include mention of Indigenous peoples speak of the tragic loss of Indigenous cultures over time. They speak of this “loss” as a romantic part of our history where the strong, noble Indian chief on his horse looks across the horizon and realizes that the ways of his people are fading away with the coming of European trains, traders and technologies. This sort of representation may even invoke feelings of melancholy in Canadians who long for the simplicity of the old days. But it belies the truth about Canada and its direct and intentional “obliteration” of Indigenous peoples, cultures and territories. If the term “elimination” does not make some readers uncomfortable, surely the term “obliteration” will. The purposeful destruction of a people implies the kind of ill-intent, even malice upon which a country like Canada could surely never have been built? Terms like those imply that perhaps what happened to Indigenous peoples was not simply “progress”, “civilization” or a “good policy gone wrong” – no, this falls in the realm of a word that usually upsets the majority of readers: genocide. Many people do not understand the legal definition of genocide, nor are they aware of how genocide is considered internationally. Many are of the misunderstanding that genocide is the mass murder of millions of people all in one shot – something akin to the holocaust. In fact, genocide is defined in the United Nations Convention on Genocide as follows: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
That is the definition. In Canada and the United States, settler governments have committed genocide against Indigenous peoples, not under just one category, but under every single category noted above. We all know it, but the reality stands in such stark contrast to the mythology created by government about what Canada stands for, that many people resort to denial. Indigenous peoples who have raised the subject have been referred to as “nutbars”, “whackos”, “conspiracy theorists”, “radicals” and “terrorists”. The issue of genocide is radical – not because it is not true, but because it stands so far outside the realm of humanity and human rights that the tendency is to save the term for only the most obvious, horrific, well-known instances of genocide committed in places far away from Canada. http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2011/11/unbelievable-undeniable-genocide-canada The term genocide is usually saved for instances where the victims are considered to be humans – and Indigenous peoples have long been characterized as non-humans for centuries. Aside from the historical depictions of Indigenous peoples as “savages”, “heathens” or “pagans”, they have also been treated by governments as “dangerous and sub-human”. The myth of Indigenous peoples being sub-human allowed governments to steal Indigenous lands under the legal fiction of “terra nullius” (lands belonging to no one). They knew better of course, but it allowed them to justify not only the theft of lands from Indigenous peoples, but the brutal acts of genocide which were committed upon them. The fact that early governments sent small-pox infested blankets to Indigenous communities knowing it would nearly wipe them all out, is a historical fact. These were not the actions of a few bad apples, or something that happened in the stone age. This has been acknowledged as modern “biological warfare” by publications in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The scalping laws in Nova Scotia were deliberate acts of murder which decimated the Mi’kmaw Nation population by almost 80%. The forced surgical sterilization of Indigenous women against their will, and often without their knowledge or consent, destroyed Indigenous peoples in a very physical way. The government and church-run residential schools knowingly created conditions that led to the mass deaths of the Indigenous children who attended – upwards of 40% never made it out alive. Incredibly, not only did government officials know that Indigenous children were dying and even “acknowledged” the high rates of deaths and their causes, but this was part of the overall objective: “But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian problem.” (SI Indian Affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott) Why do I bring all this uncomfortableness up in my blog? Why am I asking readers to face the brutal reality that is Canada? It is because genocidal acts against Indigenous peoples continue to this day, hidden in government policies which purport to be in the best interests of Indigenous peoples. It is because every government (Libs and Cons) has had a hand in continuing the situation, but mostly because this Harper government has ramped up efforts to eliminate Indigenous peoples. In my opinion, the Harper Indigenous Manifesto is about erasing Indigenous peoples from Canada socially, culturally, legally and physically. What used to be forced sterilizations to prevent child births and control Indigenous populations is now pre-mature deaths from the extreme poverty directly linked to chronic, purposeful under-funding, over-prescription of addictive drugs, and lack of housing, water and sanitation. What used to be residential schools became the 60’s scoop and is now child and family services removing our children from our communities at alarming rates. What used to be European/western education forced on our children through residential schools, is now the provincial school systems, which for the most part, teach the same western ideologies, histories, sciences and politics to our children and specifically exclude our traditional Indigenous knowledges, languages and cultures. What used to be scalping laws, are now starlight tours, murdered and missing Indigenous women by the hundreds, and quelling land claims with brute military and police force. What used to be laws against Indigenous peoples leaving their reserves are now laws which take away rights when one leaves the reserve (taxes, governance, jurisdiction, trade, identity). What used to be laws against Indigenous peoples gathering in one place is now CSIS, RCMP, DND and INAC putting us on terrorist watch lists, monitoring our movements, and over-incarcerating our men, women and youth at increasing rates. What used to be laws against Indigenous peoples hiring lawyers to advocate on their behalf, are now devasting funding cuts to local, regional and provincial First Nation political organizations. All coming at a time when Harper wants chaos, confusion, and lack of political capacity to ensure there is little resistance to his comprehensive Indian Act-based legislative agenda. He hopes to strike fear and confusion in chiefs so that they don’t know whether to stay quiet and hope it doesn’t get worse, or take action. Either way, funding cuts will be imposed on local First Nations as well. This is not about whether regional political organizations are doing a good job or not – this is about Harper fulfilling the original intentions of Indian policy (1) accessing Indigenous lands and resources and (2) reducing financial obligations to Indigenous peoples. He just happens to see striking at political organizations as the best way to isolate individual First Nations, already overwhelmed with issues, so they are easier to bully into submission. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) either does not have the capacity or inclination to take these issues on. Regardless of the reasons, it is clear that local community members are going to be looking to their local First Nation governments to take action. In the same vein, First Nation leaders will be looking for assistance from their treaty, regional and provincial organizations. The days of waiting for the AFN to do something are over. If these funding cuts are ok, so will be the ones that come to individual First Nations, then will come the eventual constitutional changes, the accelerated extinguishment of Aboriginal and treaty rights, and the division and sale of the rest of our lands. If Canadians think that this does not concern them – they should think again. As your “Canada” slowly becomes a dictatorship led by a rogue Prime Minister who is obsessed with power, Canadian laws, rules, and regulations are breached with impunity. Everything from elections, ethics, budgets, and legislation are manipulated without regard for the rule of law. The damage done by these renegade Conservatives is already so severe that analysts feel it will take years to undo the harm. In standing beside Indigenous peoples to oppose these destructive policies, Canadians would be living up to the spirit and intent of the treaties and, in so doing, protecting their own futures. Economic reports have already shown that the costs of maintaining Indigenous peoples in poverty is higher than the solutions. Those same studies show that the costs of delaying the resolution of land claims and treaty implemention for example, are higher than if those claims were resolved equitably. Even the most basic math shows that it costs more to keep an Indigenous person in a federal prison for one year ($100,000) than it does to pay for a 4-year university degree ($60,000). If you think for a minute that once Harper is done erasing Indigenous peoples, that he won’t come after women, children, the impoverished, the remaining pristine environmental areas, water basins and sanctuaries all in the name of wealth and power, think again. There is no room for justice, diversity or freedom in a dictator’s view of the world. We are all compelled to act. Our reasons do not have to be the same. I can be a Mi’kmaw citizen and someone else can be a Canadian citizen, but still have a mutual interest in protecting the environment. Whether someone votes in federal and provincial elections, or like me, does not vote in elections – we all still share the desire to protect our waterways. One can be Maliseet and someone else French, but still feel it important protect our cultures for future generations. I have no intention of letting Harper erase me, my family, my home community or Mi’kmaw Nation. Let’s put our heads together about a plan of action. Extra sources: http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057 http://www.oba.org/en/pdf/sec_news_sept11_c3_palm.pdf http://lawandstyle.ca/opinion_first_nations_fiasco/ http://fusemagazine.org/2012/07/35-3_palmate
September 9, 2012
Right-Wing Post: The Fight for Integrity in the Media

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

July 15, 2012
War and Peace: Illusions of Partnership at Conservative-First Nations Gathering

War and Peace – those were the two symbols that kept popping into my mind as I watched the Canada-First Nations Gathering in Ottawa on January 24, 2012. My father always told me to pay careful attention to my surroundings and that even the smallest of signs could be an indication of the real threat behind someone’s words or actions. He was always curious about people, how their minds worked and how their actions often betrayed their real intentions. He felt it was important for me to always keep that in the back of my mind. So, when I watched what was called the “Crown-First Nation Gathering” but was really a meeting between Harper, a few Conservative Cabinet Ministers, and too many bureaucrats on one side, and a very limited number of First Nation Chiefs on the other – I knew my father was right. Liberal and NDP MPs were not allowed to attend, but instead had to sit in the media room where I was watching the events. Thus, unless someone has anointed Prime Minister Harper King of Canada, this was far from a “Crown” First Nation gathering – but instead was a Conservative meeting with the AFN and selected Chiefs. True to my father’s advice, I decided that I would pay attention to all aspects of this “gathering”. The first thing is how the meeting came about. The promise of this meeting had been made several times by the Harper Conservatives as part of their election campaigns. This promised meeting was not born of any interest in building partnerships between the Crown and First Nations, but was born instead of political aspirations, self-interest and self-promotion. Even once Harper was elected, many years went by and no meeting. It was not until the horrific conditions in Attawapiskat were highlighted by the media and Harper could not easily deflect the attention that the Conservatives were shamed into finally setting a date for his “election promise” meeting. The other thing I noticed was that this meeting was called in a rush. It was announced at the height of the Attawapiskat media frenzy and to the shock of most First Nations leaders and communities. This goes to show how little consultation or partnership is really at the base of the current “relationship” between First Nations and Canada. It also shows how little consultation there is between AFN and First Nations. Yet, despite how many surprises the Conservatives pull out of their… hats, they seem to be fairly certain that National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Shawn Atleo will support them. They must be very certain of Atleo’s unconditional support, because the way in which the gathering unfolded really showed how little consideration the Conservatives have for First Nations. The whole event was entirely controlled by the Conservatives, in terms of the rushed date, the very restricted agenda, the attendees, location, speakers, and timing. More than that, the entire meeting was steeped in symbolism, none of which reflected our peoples, Nations and histories, but was representative of the dictatorial and confrontational stance of the Conservatives vis-a-vis our Nations. The meeting was held on Conservative territory – the John Diefenbaker building – on Sussex Drive in Ottawa. Diefenbaker was a Conservative Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963. He is credited with repealing the laws that prevented “Indians” from voting in elections. He did little to address the poverty or blatant discrimination against First Nations, the atrocities being committed in residential schools, or the denial of treaty and land rights. His contribution was self-serving – expanding what he obviously hoped would be a supportive new electorate. The meeting itself was very tightly controlled by the Conservatives where changes were made to the agenda, the attendee list, location and other logistics on nearly a daily basis leading up to the meeting. At one point, the media reported that any Chief who wanted to attend could do so, and we heard registration numbers of up to 400 Chiefs. Then it was confirmed that the Prime Minister would only stay for the opening ceremonies and gift exchange but would not attend the actual meeting. This resulted in a huge backlash by most Chiefs, First Nations members and commentators, with the notable exception of Atleo and the AFN who sung Harper’s praises throughout. While the media was engaged in that debate, the Conservatives were still changing the agenda, the speakers, and were secretive about the location. First Nations leaders didn’t know whether to attend or not. This shifted the focus away from the purpose of the meeting to whether or not Harper would even attend. The Conservatives also asked the AFN to tell the regional First Nation organizations to cut down the number of chiefs they’d send to the gathering. This of course was more than just insulting to First Nations, many of whom had made travel arrangements when the meeting was called. So from “any Chief who can travel to Ottawa” to well under 200 of the possible 634 Chiefs were “allowed” to attend – the who meeting was mired in confusion and with little input from First Nations. None of this organizational nightmare would compare to the very overt symbolism embedded in the actual ceremonies. The gathering was held in a government building, with a limited number of chiefs, separated from their real strength – their people, under the guard of many RCMP, undercover security and what looked like snipers on top of the building. It is very notable that one of our most respected elders in the procession was immediately followed by an RCMP officer. Similarly, after our elder gave a prayer, this was immediately followed up by an RCMP singing Oh Canada. This is symbolic of the very real control of our populations by Canada’s police, RCMP and military. Our relationship has been and continues to based on control over our communities by Canada in often harsh and deadly ways. The fact that the Prime Minister was speaking of trust and relationship-building while we were surrounded by RCMP and snipers was more than a little ironic, but is in fact a testimony to the insincerity of Canada in moving forward in peace. Those RCMP and snipers, whether dressed in uniform red or sniper black, represent all the over-representation of our people in their prisons, the star light tours, deaths in custody, brutal beatings, the deaths of our children in residential schools brought back there by RCMP, the ignorance by RCMP of our murdered and missing women; and the heavy-handed repression of our protests to protect our lands. The symbolism in this meeting reflected our lived realities – but not in a good way. I found it particularly interesting that the very symbolic gift exchange at the gathering showed First Nations presenting Canada with a wampum belt of peace, while Canada presented First Nations with a reproduction of a painting depicting the War of 1812. We extend our hand in peace and Canada asserts its dominance with a picture of war, death and military domination. A war which was at its most basic, a battle between foreigners over our territories resulted in the loss of lives of many thousands of First Nations peoples living on both sides of the imaginary border between what is now Canada and the USA. This picture represents the loss of land, the division of our Nations which straddle the border, the brutal control of European powers and the many treaty promises which would be broken afterwards. Throughout history, First Nations have always been the ones to extend their hands in peace and sharing. From feeding and sheltering the first explorers during our harsh winters, to showing early settlers how to survive our harsh winters, our people were generous, empathetic but also politically strategic. It is much easier to negotiate treaties with groups you have befriended – at least that was the case with treaties as between Indigenous Nations. This is why we continue to extend a hand in peace by offering the wampum belt. Yet, despite how many times we extend our hand in peace, Canada strikes with an act of war. This exchange of a wampum belt for a picture of war is symbolic of our lived realities. In case any of you think I may have taken my father’s advice too seriously and am reading way too much into the symbolism of the event, one need only read the speeches of PM Harper and NC Atleo and then compare that to the Joint Action Plan issued by Canada and the AFN to see what I mean. Harper’s speech took many shots across the bow of our canoes which were not returned when Atleo gave his speech. Harper talked about getting rid of our “incentives” (aka benefits) and promoting “individuals” (aka breaking up communities). Instead of returning fire, Atleo gave a speech written for his upcoming election in July 2012, ignoring Harper’s speech and using appealing words like “treaty rights” and “inherent rights”. Harper spoke of keeping the Indian Act and Atleo spoke of getting rid of it. Harper focused on a legislative agenda of more imposed legislation related to water, education, matrimonial real property and reserve privatization, while Atleo focused on how to appeal to his voters. Each with their own agenda, neither focused on the grass roots First Nations peoples. There was no mention of the need for an emergency plan to deal with the crisis of poverty caused by the chronic underfunding in First Nations like Attawapiskat, Pikangikum and Kashechewan, by either Harper or Atleo. The two missed the whole reason why the meeting was called to begin with – a major misstep for Atleo. As some commentators immediately jumped on the content of Atleo’s speech as hitting all the right notes and being just what was needed, I waited for the Joint Action Plan. Words can be inspiring, but also deceiving. As important as symbolism may be, the grass roots people need REAL commitment and action on their behalf. Sadly, we would all be disappointed when we read the Joint Action Plan. The plan read like a play book based on Harper’s speech. The assimilation plan of the 1969 White Paper which is also reflected in Flanagan’s two books, is now being promoted under the guise of “individual opportunity”. What is worse, is that Atleo signed on to this plan fulfilling Flanagan’s and Conservative visions of “voluntary” assimilation. All you need to be able to read between the lines is to understand their use of codewords like “individual opportunity (destroy communities)”, “solution to Canada’s labour woes” (we are their labour pool)”, “unlocking the potential of First Nation lands (transfer to non-Indians)” and “maximizing benefits for all Canadians (Canada gets rich off our remaining lands and resource). Try reading the two speeches again, and see if you don’t see how similar this is to Flanagan’s, Manny’s or the Conservative’s assimilation plans. This “Joint Plan” is the beginning of the end if we let it happen. Clearly, the AFN has crossed the line and no longer works on our behalf. Atleo now belongs in the same category as Brazeau. I wish I knew how and why the AFN fell so far so fast, but what matters is what we do as grass roots people to make sure our leaders take action. Some people have told them me that I should also look at all the political coincidences at play here. One member told me Minister Duncan was married to a relative of Atleo’s who came from the same community of Ahousat. Another reminded me about the APTN report that highlighted Atleo’s alleged involvement in the Bruce Carson scandal (think First Nation water crisis and lucrative contracts). I don’t know about all of that, but what I do know is that not only does Atleo need to go, but all those at the top at AFN who support this plan also need to go. We need a shake up at the AFN if they ever hope to save themselves as a national organization that is relevant to grass roots First Nations. The AFN has even lost the confidence of a growing number of First Nations Chiefs and regional organizations and these cracks will continue to grow unless they replace Atleo in July. We can’t just replace Atleo with another self-interested, right-leaning political wanna-be – we need someone who will inspire the grass roots people and reunite our leaders against the biggest threat to our sovereignty in many years – the Harper majority government. This gathering was not about partnership, it was about our voluntary assimilation. Once we let that happen, there is no going back. Once our lands are turned over the 3rd parties, we’ll never get them back – just ask the First Nations in the US. Once we allow non-Indians to occupy our homes on reserve, we’ll never get them back. If we allow Canada to transfer liability for water and sewer to us without any funding, we’ll never undo that law. If we give up our power now in exchange for Senate seats, organizational funding and photo ops, there is no negotiating it back. The time for niceties, politicking, and shaking hands is over. Our people are being jailed, beaten, murdered and missing, getting less education, food, water and housing, and dying pre-mature deaths – it’s time to do something about it.

February 4, 2012
Atleo – Bureaucrat Summit: How Bad Does it Have to Get?

There is no question that every government since pre and post-confederation has had a hand in the theft of our Indigenous lands and resources, the control of our citizens and the division of our Nations. Governments now make very public apologies, but still maintain our communities in poverty. There was a small sign of change with the Kelowna Accord, but the Conservatives blew that out of the water once they came to power. There would be no investment in food, water, education or housing for First Nations – not on an assimilationist, radical Conservative watch. However, there is always the pesky media and public to worry about, so after Prime Minister Stephen Harper tore up the Kelowna Accord, he had to save face publicly by making one of his infamous empty promises. Harper promised that instead of $10 billion dollars to address the crisis of poverty in our First Nations, we’d get a First Nation-Crown Summit. I was very skeptical about this “deal” for 2 reasons: (1) it was unilaterally imposed to save face and (2) it didn’t seem like a fair deal to me. This meeting that was promised by Harper and his Conservative government three times, always failed to come to fruition. During this time, and in Harper’s own backyard, we saw the people of Kashechewan First Nation evacuated from their community because they were all sick from the contaminated water due to the chronic underfunding of infrastructure on reserve. We also read the disturbing findings of the Coroner’s Death Report about the epidemic of child suicide at Pikangikum First Nation. If that wasn’t bad enough, Attawapiskat First Nation called a state of emergency for the third time because people had no homes and were living in sheds. Given that the media kept its attention on Attawapiskat for more than 24 hours, Harper was publicly embarrassed. Add to this his ineffective Minister of Indian Affairs, John Duncan who could not help but spew stereotypical and inflammatory remarks about First Nations and Harper was once again forced to do something. This was a very difficult position for him because he has no intention of doing anything for First Nations – so he relied on his post-Kelowna disaster promise: a First Nation-Crown Summit. However, meetings never come together very well when one has no intention of really doing anything at the meeting and you don’t want to meet in the first place. But, it was a meeting none-the-less and it accomplished the task of taking most of the media’s attention away from Attawapiskat and focusing it on the now “historic” meeting between Harper and First Nations. Yet, this historic meeting was not to be as historic as the First Ministers Meetings with First Nations because the provinces would not be in attendance and now, Harper is bailing out as well. The First Nations-Crown Summit agenda that was originally posted on the Assembly of First Nations website showed a day which was mostly taken up with ceremony and political speeches. The minimal time actually dedicated to the meeting with Harper and First Nations was to be top secret and not televised or streamed live on the web for grass roots First Nations or the public to see. There was also to be a complete media black-out as no media were allowed to watch or participate in the meeting. A few strategic locations in Canada were to be set up with cameras so that Chiefs could watch the event, but those locations are also top secret – at least to the media anyway. So, if that were not bad enough, now we have word that Harper won’t even stay long at his own meeting. Harper will not even attend the actual meeting itself – if you can believe that. No, Harper is too busy with his international “jet-setting” to attend a “historic” meeting with First Nations to address issues like Attawapiskat. Instead, National Chief of the AFN Shawn Atleo and 400 Chiefs get to meet with a couple of Cabinet Ministers and a whole lot of federal bureaucrats. So, what will be Atleo’s response? He is after all, the National Chief and the one who must set an example for everyone else. He has not only First Nation Chiefs watching him, but all the grassroots people who live or die by what he does and does not do. We look to our leaders, in all forms, to stand up for us, advocate on our behalf and make sure our voices are heard. Alot is riding on his response to this latest slap in the face by Harper. How will the AFN respond? For those of you concerned about previous comments I have made about Shawn Atleo’s weak leadership, please let me assure you that these comments are not about him as a person. I don’t know him personally. I have met him a few times, and he seems nice enough. My issue is with his job as a leader and as a First Nations person, I am entitled to expect strong leadership from someone who holds such a powerful position. When I critique his politics, it is not lateral violence against him as a person, but instead a call to act responsibly for our people. I always say images shape aspirations. If we see our parents treat us with love and compassion, we are likely to treat others that way. If we see Indigenous professors and University Presidents, then we are more likely to think of those jobs as possible for ourselves. If we see strong Indigenous women leaders, we model the way for our youth to know that they can work for their people regardless of gender. In the same vein, when Atleo acts, he is indirectly telling our First Nation children, youth and young adults what is possible. So, if Atleo sees the Prime Minister: – tear up Kelowna Accord; – watches as Harper refuses to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; – Denies that colonialism ever happened in Canada; – makes amendments to the Indian Act that continue both gender discrimination AND legislative extinction; – blames Attawapiskat for their own suffering and refuses to vist the First Nation; – Does not act when conditions in Pikangikum get so bad that nine year old children commit suicide; – Allows his Minister of Indian Affairs to deny that residential schools were acts of genocide; and – watches Harper duck out of the First Nation-Summit; then does nothing about it – then the message he sends to First Nations children living without water, food or a warm home is that we are not worth standing up for. All the murdered and missing Indigenous women in this country are not worth standing up for. All the Chiefs that have been ignored, insulted, stood up, stone-walled, and belittled are not worth standing up for. After all, if Atleo does not think we are worth standing up for, why would anyone else thing we are worth it? Children will see that their suffering takes a back seat to the risk that by standing up for us like a real leader, Atleo might lose some funding for the AFN. Perhaps the Conservative government might not attend their AGMs for a year or two. Or Harper might even refuse to meet with Atleo for a while. We all know that this is a serious risk. We saw the Native Women’s Association of Canada lose its Sisters in Spirit funding when they brought international attention to Missing and Murdered Indigenous women in Canada. We saw the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society lose their funding when they filed a discrimination complaint against Canada for chronically under-funding child and family services putting our children at risk. But our Indigenous leaders take risks. Our warriors put their lives on the line for our territories and our people. Our ancestors gave up their lives to protect us. We still have our pride, our cultures and our communities because of them. The least Atleo can do is take a risk and finally say enough is enough. – tell Harper that we will not settle for scraps anymore. This First Nation-Crown Summit has now been reduced to an Atleo-Bureaucrat summit where most of the time will be taken in fluffy, empty speeches to make Harper look good, some gift giving and ceremony and then Harper leaves before anyone has a chance to talk about the hard issues. If Atleo would stand for this on behalf of all the Chiefs, this makes me wonder – how bad does it have to get? What would it take for Atleo to say enough? His lack of action and bizarre defense of Harper makes me wonder if Atleo is the new Brazeau? No progress has been made, yet Atleo is always defending the Conservatives. That may have got Brazeau a Senate seat, but it didn’t improve the lives of First Nations people. I guess I’ll get my answer when Atleo responds to this latest development. If he defends Harper’s no-show at the upcoming meeting – I guess there is nothing more I can say about it. We’ll see on the news tonight or tomorrow if he stands up for us or supports Harper. Here’s naively hoping….

January 20, 2012
UPDATED – Harper Hypocrisy: Media Blackout on First Nation – Harper Summit

I am compelled to write this blog before the upcoming meeting between the “Harper Government” (i.e. Harper and a few Cabinet members) and a small contingency of First Nation Chiefs (approximately 100). It has been reported that no provincial premiers will be in attendance, nor will any grass roots Indigenous peoples will invited. I realize that the meeting has not yet happened and may be imprudent to try to guess what will and won’t happen, but the way this meeting is shaping up deserves some consideration. I can understand a meeting being restricted in size in order to address important issues. What makes no sense to me is that the media is severely restricted about what they can and can’t broadcast or attend. The media is allowed to record and broadcast the opening ceremonies, the opening speeches and the scrum (series of questions) afterwards. All the real business in the plenary sessions will be part of a media black-out – no one in the media can see what happens inside. None of this is necessary in an age where web-casting, pod-casting and live-streaming is available on the Internet as well as television broadcasts. This is not only offensive to me as a grass roots Indigenous person, but also seems to me to be the ultimate in Harper hypocrisy. The Harper government has vilified our leaders in the media as being corrupt and not accountable, has tried to impose legislation on them to make them more “open” and “transparent” and even made open, transparent and accountable governments part of the agenda for this meeting. Yet, it is Harper, not First Nations leaders, who is implementing the media black-out for the actual plenary meetings – thereby preventing openness, transparency and accountability. Every time an elected Chief even attempts to make what he/she does open and transparent, Canada, through Indian Affairs, reminds him/her that they are only accountable to Indian Affairs via the Indian Act, and not to their people. How can Harper accuse First Nations of NOT being open when an important meeting like this one will be off-limits to the community members served by those Chiefs? These are the very ways in which Canada sets up our leaders to fail their people every time. How can any grass roots person have an opportunity to judge for themselves what their leaders do on important issues if they are banned from seeing it for themselves? This is an insult to grass roots members and even to the many Chiefs who are not able to attend the meeting. Notice how Harper is dividing Chiefs into elite groups with “access” and those without, and also dividing communities into those with power (Chiefs) and those without (grass roots). Something like this should be open for all to see if they choose. It is not uncommon for some government meetings to be closed to the cameras or the public. One must keep in mind, this is not a confidential Cabinet discussion about an upcoming budget, it is not a meeting to negotiate foreign trade strategy, nor does it involve litigation or even high-stakes negotiations. This is a high-level political meeting more for show than for decision-making. In fact, this meeting has no mandate to do anything at all but talk about what Harper decided was important: education, economic development and accountability. So far, Harper has told the media that First Nations should temper their expectations – that nothing should be expected out of this meeting. But we all know what the real issue is. This meeting would NEVER have even come to fruition, and certainly not on January 24th, 2012, had the politically embarrassing situation in Attawapiskat not hit the headlines in the media and stayed in the media for so long. Harper had promised such a meeting several times before and it never came about. So, we see that this is a meeting not one of choice, but of perceived political necessity – i.e., to save face. Having a meeting for the purposes of saving face politically and to appear as though Harper is taking concrete action on Indigenous issues neither starts the meeting with the right intentions, nor can it be expected to result in any sort of commitment for Indigenous peoples. However, given that the meeting is about saving face, Harper could never allow the public or the international community to see him called out by First Nation leaders about his assimilatory legislative agenda, his purposeful chronic underfunding of essential social services or his complete rejection of Aboriginal and treaty rights. This is the real reason why the meeting is not slated to be broadcast. So, Harper demands transparency on the part of First Nations, but then does not allow to be transparent. He demands openness on the part of Chiefs, but then closes the doors on an important meeting involving the health and well-being of all Indigenous peoples. He demands accountability, but only works with “willing partners” – i.e., those who will support the Conservative agenda. This meeting represents everything that is wrong with Harper – he is a dictator and assimilationist who would enjoy nothing more than to have Indigenous people dance for him, give him gifts in hopes of gaining his favour – an exercise in futility. UPDATE: I have learned that organizations like the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) will be providing a live feed of the three plenary sessions at the Saskatoon Inn so that their community members can watch the proceedings. http://www.fsin.com/index.php/communiques/713-fsin-executive-communique-january-13-2012.html I also understand from the Assembly of First Nations website that they are trying to be inclusive to the Chiefs who cannot attend by setting up certain locations where non-attending Chiefs can view all three plenary sessions. It also looks like the AFN is trying to set up a second Ottawa location (I assume not at the venue) where officials can watch the proceedings. http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/crown/nc-bulletin_december.pdf I will continue to contact organizations and see if anyone is providing a live-stream feed on the Internet where all grass roots Indigenous peoples can watch what is happening any of the three plenary sessions. It now makes even less sense to me that the media is not allowed in the plenary sessions or that they cannot broadcast the plenary sessions when clearly First Nation organizations are permitted to do so in select locations. I applaud those First Nation organizations like FSIN who will be doing their best to ensure people can see the events, but I am sure they are limited by funding and technology to be able to set up viewing stations on every First Nation in the province. This is something that should be streamed online or at least televised by the Government of Canada, or at least something the media is permitted to do. My biggest concern is that he will propose the following “deals” with “willing partners”. These deals won’t be spelled out in the Summit – but instead key words and phrases will be used to signal where he and his officials are headed. The true extent of the deals will be spelled out in future one on one meetings – how Indian Affairs usually does its business. (1) Education Harper will commit to find “efficiencies” in current funding envelopes (aka no new funding) to fund a First Nation education system as defined by him. This will mean that funding will flow through a national school board system, or similar method that mimics provincial systems or in some way that removes jurisdiction and decision-making away from local First Nations. This will pit individuals versus communities; lump diverse Indigenous Nations like Cree, Mi’kmaq and Mohawk as a generic Indians (again); and ultimately promote the same assimilatory education agenda that is so prevalent in many (not all) provincial school systems. The idea here is to make sure First Nations communities are not in control and that they don’t get to hire education coordinators or provide things like child care for single mothers trying to go to school. The efficiencies found in eliminating local control and related educational services will be used to promote a school board or boards stacked with Conservative supporters and those “willing partners” willing to take power away from First Nation governments and create new forms of power among Conservative Aboriginal elite. (2) Economic Development There is no surprise here either. The language that Harper has been using around this item is very clear as to the end results – “unlocking” the economies of First Nations for the “benefit of all Canadians”. Clearly this relates to continued use of our traditional lands and natural resources for their own government and corporate benefit. Think: oil sands, mining, timber, fishing and international exports and ignore Aboriginal rights, treaty rights, inherent rights, international human and Indigenous rights and so forth. But key words have been used here: “unlocking” is the language used by the most infamous assimilationist, Tom Flanagan, in his newest book: Beyond The Indian Act. It is the same language being used by Manny Jules, head of First Nation Tax Commission, who agrees with Flanagan’s plan to break up reserves into individual pieces of land that can be sold to non-Indians. We only hold less than 0.2% of all land in Canada as reserve lands, yet the 99.8% of our traditional lands will continue to be exploited for the “benefit of all Canadians”. This 99.8% of our lands are not enough for those with a capitalist persuasion. They now want to “unlock” what little we have left and squeeze every ounce of cash out of our reserve lands that they can with no thought for our well-being or future generations. So, any commitments or efficiencies found in other funding envelopes might be used to offer economic development incentives with the condition that support is found for the upcoming First Nation Property Ownership Act or that quick and cheap agreements can be made to forgo land claims. Other legislative initiatives like the matrimonial real property legislation which will open up reserve lands to non-Indians may also fall under this category. (3) First Nation Accountability We all know what this is about. Harper wants his legislation to pass forcing First Nations to publish their salaries. But that is just what we see on the surface, what he is really after and what we will likely never see or hear are the hidden changes to funding agreements, reporting requirements and reporting of business activities that will likely be more invasive, despite the Auditor General’s criticism in this area. I can also see extreme pressure being placed on First Nations to accept the water bill proposed in the last session of Parliament (S-11) where Harper will be able to transfer all costs and liability for water systems onto already underfunded First Nations. There will be no extra money provided for this purpose of course, but the efficiencies found in off-loading the responsibility may be used to provide up-front training and minimal infrastructure investments that will fall apart will lack of stable funding for upkeep and maintenance. It will be stressed that accountability = doing what Harper wants – versus what is best for their communities will be the condition for all future funding. Things like emergency housing or water services will likely be contingent on third party managers or co-managers imposed quietly. This meeting and those that we will never hear about will focus on getting control over the Indian problem. The Indian problem will be resolved in one of two ways: (1) our continued colonization through empowering those Aboriginal people who have internalized colonization and now turn on us, or (2) legislating those Indigenous people who resist colonization and assimilation out of existence – keeping them in constant litigation, medicating them, vilifying them as “radicals”, splitting up families, dividing women from their communities, and over-incarcerating us. If anyone thinks I am being pessimistic – you are welcome to your opinion. However, the writing is clearly on the wall and anyone who expects otherwise will be disappointed. Now, I might stand to be corrected. Harper could make any sort of announcement where I would happily concede the error of my predictions. Harper might announce at this meeting that he will reduce First Nation Poverty in 5-10 years: http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/01/12/harper-once-pledged-to-reduce-aboriginal-poverty-in-5-to-10-years/ Oh, wait, he already did that. Ok, Harper might announce that he will speed up land claims with a “revolutionary” new Specific Claims Tribunal: http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/05/16/four-years-later-harpers-promised-tribunal-still-mired-in-bureaucracy/ Darn, he did that too, with similar non-results. Sadly, 2, 4 even 6 years later, Harper’s old promises still have not come to fruition. I think if he makes any new promises at this meeting – First Nations might be well-advised to wait and see what concrete actions are actually taken, and not jump too quickly for that “willing partners” name tag. I fully admit that all of this is my best guess based on all my research, education, and experience, but that is all us grass roots people will have, since the actual meeting is off-limits to the majority of us who are affected by their decisions – unless of course we find an organization that is permitted and willing to live-stream the event online for all of us. I will keep looking…

January 18, 2012
Secret Agent Harper: Conservative Spy Games in Indian Country

Ok, I have to admit that had anyone told me that the Conservative government’s first order of business would be to pay half a million dollars to hire private detectives to spy on First Nations, I might have viewed them with some level of skepticism. After all, I am not naive enough to think that the Conservatives are not doing things we don’t know about, however, what is being reported sounds more like the plot for a conspiracy theory movie than reality in a liberal democratic country like Canada. Yet, it appears to be true. The Conservatives put a contract out for tender to hire private detectives to investigate First Nation band elections and will pay up to $500,000. http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Federal+government+hire+private+eyes+investigate+native+elections/4876903/story.html My mind is still spinning. Honestly, I thought their last contract for tender to make Metis people CSA approved was a little on the paternalistic, controlling side, but this goes to the very core of the relationship between First Nations and the Crown. Canada is still treating First Nations as though they are enemies of the state – forgetting of course that this is OUR land and that we have agreed to share the land on the basis of our treaties. Nothing in our treaties provided for Canada to divide, control and assimilate us and they certainly do not provide for espionage in our own communities. The Conservatives have made their move – they are challenging our inherent right to be self-determining and may even hire First Nations people to be the ones to engage in these activities. After all, so many of our people are living so far below the poverty line that Canada ranks well below not only developed countries but even some developing ones. Canada’s own Auditor General has criticized Canada for failing to address First Nation poverty. http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Fraser+parting+challenge/4866304/story.html Therefore, it would not be much of a shock for Canada to be able to find someone hungry enough to take one of these contracts. But have you noticed that any time the Conservatives get bad press for their abysmal failure with regard to First Nations, that all of sudden there is news about alleged corruption in First Nations? Time and time again, the Conservatives try to duck and avoid accountability for their lack of action by vilifying our people and turning Canadians against us. We are supposed to be rebuilding our relationship in a the post-apology era. Remember how Harper apologized on behalf of all Canadians for the assimilatory attitudes and ideology of cultural superiority towards First Nations? Canada continue to fail to live up to the honour of the crown and its fiduciary duty towards First Nations under the guise of empty apologies. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/rqpi/apo/index-eng.asp We even get labelled as “insurgents” and “terrorists” if any of our impoverished conditions make it to the media. https://pampalmater.com/2011/05/from-savages-to-terrorists-justifying.html First Nations crisis in water becomes news, so we see allegations of lack of accountability in First Nations. Canada withdraws funding for Sisters in Spirit – more allegations of over-spending in First Nations. Now, Canada’s failure to address inequality in funding for First Nations is made public by their own Auditor General and surprise – we see a contract to hire PI’s (aka spies) to infiltrate our communities and look out for corruption in our elections. How hypocritical given the fact that the Conservatives were BOOTED from Parliament for lying – failing to be open, honest and accountable to the people. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/26/c_13798642.htm Now, if they continue to act this way would it be acceptable for First Nations to infiltrate the federal bureaucracy and spy on them to see if they are acting corrupt? I dare say we would be jailed faster than we already are – and that is saying alot given that all of our people – men, women and youth are over-represented in jail as it is. It should be noted that this is NOT because we are more likely to be corrupt or criminal, but is in part a symptom not only of extreme poverty but also of ongoing discrimination in the entire justice system. http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20052006info-eng.aspx It is bad enough that the Conservatives want to invade our private space online and “correct” our “misinformed” thoughts and conversations, but to seriously pay people to infiltrate our communities without our knowledge and consent to monitor our potential to engage in election corruption is taking their role too far. I can only assume that this contract is meant for some of Harper’s retired police officers who ran in the election and lost – seeing as all the Senate seats were given away to conservative losers already. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/18/scott-stinson-on-the-cabinet-i-was-a-sucker-for-believing-in-harper&s=Opinion You would never know that INAC was in a collaborative process with the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs (APCFNC) and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) on electoral reforms under the Indian Act. I doubt very much they were apprised of this spy-for-hire contract. Time and again, the Conservatives criticize First Nations for being “overly aggressive” when dealing with the government, while at the same time stabs them in the back every single time First Nations do work with them. https://pampalmater.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html Our ancestors taught us to be proud of our identity and culture and to protect our communities. If we don’t stand up for ourselves now, what are we telling our children who will be watching and learning. If the suicide of our children is not enough to make us take notice, I am not sure what is. I don’t know about any of my readers, but the thought of Conservative spies crawling around any of the communities I love and cherish totally creeps me out. I think it is about time that ALL of our leaders stood up and said enough – regardless of where their national or regional organisations sit on the issue. If they wait for the women in our communities to do it – we will – but they might not like it when the power shifts permanently in our direction. UPDATE: No sooner did I post this blog, than the following article was posted which claims that documents from ATIP (Access to Information and Privacy) reveal that the Conservatives started their spying campaign against First Nations as soon as they came into power: http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/first-nations-under-surveillance/7434 I have not seen the actual documents, so I can speak to the veracity of this report – except to say, I may check my phone for bugs tonight…

June 2, 2011