Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: jurisdiction

  • First Nations and the Business of Cannabis

    First Nations and the Business of Cannabis

    This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Sept.25, 2019 -(see link below)

    Justin Trudeau’s 2015 election platform promise to immediately legalize marijuana if elected spurred a frenzy of activity behind the scenes. There were police officers, politicians and other former leaders, previously against the sale of the drug, making plans for their own cannabis boutiques. The very same people that had previously outlawed, arrested and jailed people for growing, possessing and/or selling cannabis would now have the unfair insider advantage about where to sell and to whom.

    In the chaotic positioning that played out behind the scenes by those “in the know,” very little attention was given to the full legal implications of Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act.

    The failure to properly engage First Nations about the legalization of cannabis was not only irresponsible policy making but was also a lost political opportunity to work on a nation to nation basis with First Nations — one of Trudeau’s other campaign promises. Trudeau, who had also pledged to respect Aboriginal and treaty rights and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), failed to sit down with First Nations and come up with a comprehensive cannabis legalization plan that would not only address legalization (manufacture and sale), but also the thousands of Indigenous peoples in jail or with criminal records for cannabis offences.

    Further, in neglecting Canada’s legal obligation to enact laws which are consistent with the Aboriginal rights contained in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it missed the chance to harmonize federal, provincial and First Nations jurisdictions and laws in relation to cannabis. This void has created the potential for not only legal conflict, but for political and social tensions at the local level.

    Take for example, the situation in Ontario. Premier Doug Ford’s Conservative government has decided to proceed to license cannabis sales by way of a lottery. Only a small number of licences are targeted for First Nations distributors on reserve and none for First Nations peoples and businesses located off reserve. In every way, Ontario’s cannabis lottery scheme offends Aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as First Nations’ inherent sovereignty and jurisdiction over their own lands, peoples and businesses.

    Ontario’s plan presumes that provincial jurisdiction trumps First Nation jurisdiction — which is not the case. Both the 1997 Inherent Right Policy which confirmed that s. 35 includes and protects the right of First Nations to be self-determining, and Trudeau’s commitment to respect First Nation governance rights should have resulted in much more comprehensive legislation. UNDRIP, which is the standard by which United Nations treaty bodies will hold Canada to account, protects the Indigenous right of self-determination which includes governance, lawmaking and enforcement, as well as the management of Indigenous economies within their traditional territories (i.e. not limited to the reserves).

    These unresolved spheres of jurisdiction between First Nations and the provinces have already created confusion on the ground with some First Nations enacting their own laws, some ignoring provincial laws and others choosing to allow or ban cannabis on reserve as a governance decision.

    In still other First Nations, without any First Nation law in place, and according to the long-held legal and political position that provincial laws should not apply on reserve, many individuals have started their own cannabis businesses. This is putting a strain on some First Nations who felt not only excluded from cannabis policy development, but were not resourced to develop laws, policies and enforcement frameworks about First Nation-owned businesses versus individual businesses.

    Much of the First Nation critique also included concerns about the lack of time and resources to develop health and safety plans for each First Nation. While there are some exceptions, in general, much of this legal, economic and social co-ordination remains outstanding.

    What is worse is that Trudeau’s failure to work collaboratively with federal, provincial and First Nations jurisdictions created a political gap in which non-government entities, like the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), could step in and start stirring the pot.

    More than a year after the passing of the Cannabis Act, the AFN held a Cannabis Summit to talk about the implications of cannabis legalization. Their summit targeted federal and provincial government representatives and agencies, as well as First Nations. It was no surprise then that Day One of the summit saw the chief commissioner of the so-called First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC) on the agenda trying to persuade First Nations to submit to federal tax regimes for cannabis.

    The FNTC is a Crown agency, fully governed and staffed under federal laws and regulations. The inclusion of the word “First Nation” in the title is really misleading. The goal of the federal government, through the FNTC, has always been to get First Nations to tax themselves and give up their reserve lands and turn the lands into individual fee simple parcels (i.e. provincial jurisdiction).

    This brings us full circle back to the legal and political confusion at the local level which, on the one hand, is clearly the result of Trudeau’s failure to harmonize all legal systems and jurisdictions in Canada, but also the fault of the AFN.

    The AFN waited nearly four years to have this summit — which appears conveniently timed so as not to make any waves for the Trudeau government before the legislation was passed. We saw very little public advocacy for First Nation governments to be part of the policy development around legalization and thus, in the eyes of many, the AFN failed its job as an advocacy organization. The result? The AFN shares responsibility for this legal void as well as the thousands of First Nations peoples who are languishing in jail, on parole and subject to conditions and/or unemployable due to past cannabis offences which have not been pardoned or fully expunged from their records.

    Once again, First Nations peoples at the local level pay the price and receive few of the benefits. Far from delivering on his promise to fully legalize cannabis, Trudeau controlled and commodified the cannabis trade which seemed to benefit insider entrepreneurs and left the full decriminalization of cannabis for another day. In the end, there were no political waves from the AFN with regards to federal legalization.

    On the positive side, more and more First Nations leaders have engaged with their citizens and are in the process of enacting or have already enacted their own rules and regulations related to cannabis. Many have realized that they are on their own in terms of defending their jurisdiction to govern their own economies. They are in fact the rights holders and waiting around for the AFN to encourage Trudeau to harmonize laws is clearly not on the agenda. As with every other right ever proven by First Nations and reaffirmed in court decisions, the right to govern the cannabis business will have to be lived, asserted and defended by First Nations on the ground.

    This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Sept.25, 2019: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/15506/first-nations-and-the-business-of-cannabis-pamela-palmater?spotlight

  • Eyes Wide Shut: Chasing Section 35 and Ignoring the War

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

  • Bill S-2 – Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Rights or Interests Act

    Harper’s Conservatives have given the signal that they may, once again, refocus their legislative eye on Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (otherwise known as the MRP bill). To this end, the parties have been preparing to study the bill and hear from witnesses on possible amendments.

     Most of Canada’s legislative initiatives go largely unexplained to grassroots Indigenous peoples – community members and leaders alike. This Harper government, in particular, has done everything it can to mislead, misinform, distract, confuse and outright lie to First Nations about its intentions with regards to the Indian Act. More so, they have done very little to explain the implications of bills to those who will be impacted – First Nations community members.

     Most will recall Prime Minister Harper’s infamous words at the so-called Crown-First Nation Gathering this past January: “To be sure, our Government has no grand scheme to unilaterally repeal or to unilaterally amend the Indian Act.”

     Yet, here is the extensive list of government bills currently before Parliament which will unilaterally repeal or fundamentally alter the Indian Act in significant ways:

              Bill C-428 Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act

              Bill C-27 First Nations Financial Transparency Act

              Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve & Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

              Bill S-6  First Nations Elections Act

              Bill S-8  Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act             Bill S-207  An Act to Amend the Interpretation Act  

    This does not include any of the omnibus or other bills which impact First Nations. There are two others bills expected to be introduced in the New Year as well:

               First Nation Property Ownership Act

              First Nation Education Act

    It would be almost impossible for First Nation community members to know what these bills are really about simply by reading the titles of the bills. The Conservative Party is very good at using titles for their bills which betray what the bill actually does. Bill S-2 is a prime example of a bill that is being promoted as one which will protect Indigenous women from domestic violence and “give” them equal rights upon marriage or relationship breakdown. This bill does neither of those things.

      It would make this blog far too long to review all of the sections, but communities should be aware of several problematic areas. The Preamble (which is just an introduction and does not contain any law) does give an important indication of the two theoretical underpinnings of the bill:   (1)   The bill has an individual-rights/interest focus versus an Indigenous communal, holistic approach; The bill focuses on the best interests of the individual child as opposed to the collective, inter-connected interests of the entire family (including the child), extended family, community and Nation. It is this very approach that led to residential schools, 60’s scoop and the current over-representation of our Indigenous children in the care of child welfare.

    (2)   The bill views First Nations peoples as “cultures” versus to governments with their own jurisdictions or Nations with their own sovereignty.

     The bill focuses everyone’s attention on the particular culture of the First Nation – which is to be “considered” by a judge in a marital dispute over property. However, there is no deference for First Nation legal or governance jurisdiction over property disputes over their own territories. This is very similar language to Supreme Court of Canada cases which have essentially frozen Aboriginal rights in “pre-contact” times and only protect those rights which the court considers “integral” enough. In this case, non-Indigenous people will be judge and jury over what our culture is, which parts of it are important, and whether it is relevant to property issues on reserve.

     The general focus of the bill is to enact provincial-like rules with regard to the divison of marital property on reserve after the break-up of a marriage or common-law relationship. This essentially means that each spouse is entitled to half – the house, land, etc. However, these provincial-like rules are not optional – they are mandatory. While the act considers them to be interim rules, the fact is no funds have been allotted for governance, law-making or enforcement and thus for many First Nations, they will remain permament. The bill also contains the following provisions:

     

    –          They apply to all First Nations until they enact laws pursuant to the bill;

    –          Non-Indians will be able to gain rights (exclusive occupation, life interest, etc) to the home and contiguous land on reserve;

    –          A judge can make a ruling that violence has occurred and bar that person from the house, without the alleged offender being charged or convicted;

    –          First Nations are not entitled to notice for emergency protection orders which give possession to a house and land to non-Indians;

    –          Certificates of Possession can be forcibly transferred from one First Nation spouse to another; and

    –          A person who is not member/Indian, can apply to have order enforced as though he/she was member/Indian.

    Without getting into too much technicality, this bill either conflicts with or violates various Canadian laws:

     

    (1)   Bill S-2 conflicts with the Indian Act – The Indian Act reserves land for the exclusive use and benefit of Indians and make it an offense for non-Indians to trespass on reserve, yet Bill S-2 creates new rights for non-Indians on reserve;

    (2)   Bill S-2 is outside is outside Canada’s legislative authority in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 – This is because Canada is purporting to legislate with regard to the property and civil rights non-Indians which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Thus, provincial legislation will also be required to make the bill effective.

    (3)   Bill S-2 violates section 35 treaty rights in the Constitution Act, 1982 – This is because many reserves were set up via treaties, which are now protected in section 35. These treaties are for the benefit of Indians – not non-Indians.

    (4)   Bill S-2 violates section 35 Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act, 1982 – This is because the inherent right of First Nations to be self-governing over their own peoples and lands is recognized by Canada as protected in section 35. Yet with this bill, Canada purports to control internal matters even more than they do now.

     

    (5)   Bill S-2 represents a breach of Canada’s honour, its fiduciary obligations and its legal duty to consult and accommodate. Bill S-2 was drafted without First Nation input, there were no legal consultations, and the bill will result in more federal control, not less.

    (6)   Bill S-2 violates many articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) – including:

     

    Art.3 – the right to be self-determining;

    Art. 4 – the right to be self-governing over our own internal affairs;

    Art. 19 – the right of free, informed and prior consent before ANY legislative measures that affects us; and

    Art. 37 – the right to recognition and enforcement of our treaties.

    Some of the other key concerns that have been raised by witnesses who have testified previously include the lack of access to justice as all remedies must be access through courts, no funding is provided for accessing legal services, and many communities don’t have local access to courts. The issue of housing on marital breakdown is further complicated by Canada’s refusal to address the housing crisis or provide adequate funding for shelters.

     

    There are many other issues not outlined here in order to keep this blog simple. However, I will be publishing a more detailed analysis of both direct and indirect impacts of this bill.

     My recommendations (in part):

     (1) The Status of Women committee who will be studying the bill should reject the bill in its entirety. The entire bill conflicts with both Indigenous laws and Canadian law and cannot be saved.

     (2) Canada should respect its own policy position that First Nations have a right to be self-governing which is constitutionally protected within section 35. This would correspond with the right to be self-determining as per Article 3 of UNDRIP.

  • What does the Fall of “Darth Harper” and the Galactic-Canadian Empire Mean for First Nations?

    Finally, the Conservative government has been toppled by their own lies, deceit, and cover-ups. But what took so long? Did it really have to get this bad and go on for this long for the opposition parties to feel secure enough to topple the government? Where have all their values gone that they would let their citizens suffer for this long? At the top of the Conservative target list were First Nations – was no political party ready to topple the Conservative government on our behalf? If not, then what does the fall of “Darth Harper” and his twisted Galactic-Canadian Empire mean for us as First Nations? http://www.fewings.ca/web/polcan/050530DarthHarper.html For those of you who don’t already read the blogs from “Galloping Beaver”, I would highly recommend that you start. They are often insightful, critical, and sometimes even humorous. Their most recent blog was a video of Stephen Harper being compared to the evil Sith Lord, otherwise known as Senator Palpatine from Star Wars. http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2011/03/darth-harper.html While the video is humorous, it is also scary, given that Stephen Harper ruled very much like a dictator while praising the virtues of freedom and liberty. Here is another one along the same lines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMtLkTQTn80 He will no doubt be known as one of the most dictatorial leaders in Canadian history. I have also been critical of Harper’s contempt for democracy and have spoken against his autocratic-type rule: https://pampalmater.com/2011/03/country-of-harper-are-we-moving-towards.html Now, the whole world knows that Harper’s style of rule led to the defeat of his own “empire”. The Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee found Harper’s Conservative government to be in contempt of Parliament for refusing to disclose the real costs of “big ticket” items like the stealth combat jets, the corporate tax cuts and the infamous law and order plans to build and staff more jails. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/957379–committee-finds-harper-government-in-contempt The report which was released on Monday, March 21, 2011 held that: “the government’s failure to produce documents constitute a contempt of Parliament” and that “this failure impedes the House in the performance of its functions.” The Conservatives demonstrated a serious lack of honesty that could have seriously hurt many Canadians. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/committee-finds-tories-in-contempt-for-stonewalling-on-crime-bill-costs/article1949891/ Based on this report, a vote of non-confidence was held and Harper lost. The vote was brought by the Liberals and supported by both the NDP and the Bloc. The next step in the process was for Harper to speak to the Governor General and ask him to dissolve Parliament, which he did. This means that Canadians will have an election on May 2, 2011. http://futurepocket.com/2011/03/26/canadian-government-loses-no-confidence-vote-parliament-dissolved/ This should be no surprise to anyone who owns a television, as we have now seen all the attack ads start. I am quite sure that for the next 6 weeks, we will all be exposed to very little campaigning and a whole lot of attacking. I can also predict that there will be no ads which speak to the third world conditions of First Nations in this country, or the lack of action on our land claims and treaties. I also doubt they will run their elections on removing the 2% funding cap in First Nations or designing legislation to officially recognize our sovereignty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CAyoHa17HE What does all of this mean for First Nations in this country? That is a good question. A leading Indigenous academic scholar, Taiaiake Alfred, argues that there is nothing to be gained by First Nations voting in federal elections. In his view, voting in their elections is akin to accepting their assumed sovereignty over our Nations. http://taiaiake.posterous.com/47421296 There are other Indigenous scholars, like John Borrows in “Landed Citizenship: Narratives of Aboriginal Political Participation”, who argue that we should not only put significant efforts into rebuilding our Nations, but that we should also participate in federal and provincial government processes as a means of extending our influence. While I can see the merit in both arguments, I can’t help feel that at this point in time, with the current power structures and laws we now have in Canada, that our influence in Canadian politics is negligible at best and harmful at worst. None of the federal parties have our best interests at heart. At the end of the day, our interests are just another commodity that can be bartered away for a bigger piece of another pie. Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act was a prime example of the vulnerable nature of our rights. Indian women and their descendants are still – to this day – treated blatantly unequally as compared to Indian men and their descendants in Canadian law. Yet, despite Sharon McIvor winning in both levels of court, our right to equality was bartered away by national Aboriginal organizations and federal political parties for an undefined “joint process” with no clear mandate, structure, authority or funding. This left Sharon McIvor staring in disbelief before the Senate when near unanimous opposition to the bill in the House, became a trade item for a joint process in the Senate. Perhaps I am just feeling defeated? Maybe, but when I look at the process for Bill S-4 Matrimonial Real Property, Bill S-11 First Nations Safe Drinking Water, Bill C-575 First Nations Accountability and so on, a theme emerges – non-First Nations peoples and governments are designing laws and policies for our Nations based on their own priorities, not ours. In fact, there was not even any legal consultation and accommodation of our “interests” in those bills. Were it not for the dissolution of Parliament, we may well have been stuck with many new laws that would detrimentally impact our communities and Nations. Could voting in federal or provincial elections change any of this? No. We simply do not have the numbers to make a change. Sure, in some ridings, if all Aboriginal people voted, we could add a few more MPs, but these additional folks would not change the make-up of the party itself. My father once told me that politics is about making deals and trade-offs. MPs are often required to vote with the will of their party, not based on what is just. If something like our basic equality rights are up for auction, then I don’t want to be any part of that. However, I do support those rare few who participate in the Canadian process who also stay true to their Indigenous values and teachings and don’t allow others to bully them into siding with the majority vote on issues. These individuals are not the mouth-pieces of government trashing their own people, nor are they the Aboriginal faces needed to promote a new government policy that will hurt First Nations. These individuals are the rare few who stand out on committees and in the media highlighting the need to respect inherent First Nation jurisdiction. That being said, I think we have a far better shot at making real change by healing our communities with our cultures and languages, rebuilding our Nations, securing our lands and resources, and asserting our sovereignty instead of asking others to recognize it. We have to start from a position of power which means our focus should be on our Nations first – and we have a lot of work to do there. I think that our inherent sovereignty is our real power and that we need to step up our game in that department. No one is going to “give” us our sovereignty – that is something we have to believe in and do ourselves. We have to protect our jurisdiction over our people, lands, governments, and laws – or it will continue to be eroded under the guise of “reconciliation”. We also have to make sure that this next government knows we mean business – our sovereignty is not for sale, politically or otherwise. Our sovereignty is the very core of who we are as Indigenous peoples and our ancestors were willing to die to protect it. I think we have an obligation to honour their sacrifices… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ul4KmHlzMc

  • The Country of Harper: Are We Moving Towards an Autocracy?

    I am absolutely stunned by what has been happening in politics lately. Canada used to pride itself in being a democracy, but in recent years under the Conservative government, we have moved further and further away from a real democracy that represents the voice of the people, and have moved closer and closer to an autocracy. An autocracy is a form of government where one person possesses unlimited power. Leaders who are autocrats are sometimes referred to as dictators or tyrants. Some of you who are political scientists or armchair critics might be thinking that Canada is not really an autocracy because we have a Constitution (which is the supreme law of the land), an independent judiciary and free elections. That is absolutely true. Technically, Canada is set up as a democracy – rule by the people. However, what is happening in practice differs a great deal from how things are SUPPOSED to work. Some key events have made me question where we are headed. My fear is that we may be repeating history under the guise of politics. Don’t forget, some of the worst of tyrants and dictators started out as something else – passionate leaders for a cause which they believed to be “good”. Just to be absolutely clear – I am not a member of any political party – Liberal, Conservative, or NDP. Nor am I a member of any other federal party of which, you might be surprised to know, there are quite a few: http://www.altstuff.com/federal.htm So this isn’t an election smear campaign, promo ad for the liberals, or pro-NDP blog. This blog represents my thoughts on what is happening based on all my knowledge, experience, education and most of all, my common sense. It is my personal opinion, and I am entitled by law to exercise my freedom of expression and share my personal views with the world. This freedom, as with other rights, are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html  2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. As integral as these ideals are to our democratic society, under the Harper regime (or whatever it is), these rights are slowly but surely being eroded. I have to worry now, whether my personal views and opinions are safe from unreasonable and arbitrary interference, when I hear reports that the government has contracted private companies to monitor our Facebook postings and other social media sites: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20100523/government-online-forums-100523/ Seriously? I knew there were some looney-toons sending me messages, but this is too much. Who is Canada to invade our social spaces, where we enjoy the freedom to discuss what we want, and add what THEY view to be the CORRECT information in our discussions? What about politics is correct – or is there only one way of thinking now? This sounds eerily close to other countries which do not allow dissent or who control social media communication. Is this where Canada is headed? You may have also heard the latest about Prime Minister Harper changing the name of our Canadian Government to the “Harper Government”. I thought it was a joke at first, but no, this is serious: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/grit-ads-blast-harper-government-rebrand-20110304-142800-929.html How could a democracy, which is truly governed by the people, have the name of the people’s government changed to reflect a single leader’s name without consulting with the people? Canada is not the sum total of Stephen Harper (thank goodness), so how on earth could he be so egotistical to think Canadians would agree to this? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/tories-rebrand-govt-canada-harper-govt-expert-says-20110303-125237-072.html Our government is supposed to represent all of its people – not a single leader. Nothing good can come from boiling down our government to one person – we have seen what happens when individual leaders think they are all powerful. I can understand the layman’s use of that kind of terminology, as the media does it all the time. However, they do so as a short-cut to saying what the Conservatives, in general, are doing as opposed to saying Canada is Harper. In the United States of America, the media often refers to the Obama administration, but you NEVER hear the government refer to itself as the United States of Obama. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-accused-of-shaping-language-for-political-ends/article1929548/ What makes this all the more suspicious is that they did this all in great secrecy. We might not even know this change has happened but for a bureaucrat “inadvertently” bringing the news to light. This is very characteristic of how the “Harper” government works. When the “Harper” government tried to defend itself by saying that Chretien used to do the same thing, lifelong politicians quickly pointed out that this was not the case. “Mr. Chretien . . . had way too much respect for our public institutions to cheapen them the way Harper has and he didn’t have the political megalomania the way Harper has to ensure his likeness or name was stamped on everything the government does.” In fact, many long-time politicians have pointed out that this name change even violates the Federal Identity Program Policy: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12314&section=text One of the objectives of this policy is to help “project the Government of Canada as a coherent, unified administration“. This can’t be the case if a name is chosen which reflects only one person and is obviously partisan in nature. The policy goes on to state that “the “Canada” wordmark are applied wherever an activity of the federal government is to be made known in Canada and abroad“. This includes communications with other states. Similarly, the Communication Policy of the Government of Canada is designed to “Ensure that institutions of the Government of Canada are visible, accessible and accountable to the public they serve” and that key messages represent our diversity. There is nothing diverse about changing our government’s name to “Harper Government”. All this does is send the message that Canada is a one-man show: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/sipubs/comm/cph-fspc01-eng.asp#_Toc141192549 To put it simply, Canada is not now, nor has it ever been represented by one single autocrat, tyrant, or dictator, nor should it be in the future. Who is Harper to be so egotistical and ethnocentric to think that a white man could stand before the world and say that HE is Canada. How quickly he has forgotten the First Peoples of this Country and that our identity and rights are protected in the Supreme Law of Canada – the Constitution Act, 1982. I don’t see Harper’s name ANYWHERE in the Constitution. Perhaps we should change the name to the Aboriginal Peoples Government – maybe that would end Canada’s paternalistic hold over our communities and “re-brand” Canada in a more realistic way. After all, this is our territory. I think that every person who reads this blog should file an official complaint with the Treasury Board of Canada who is responsible for overseeing these rules and policies. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbs-sct/cmn/contact-eng.asp Then, take another 5 minutes and e-mail all MPs at the following addresses: To contact Liberal MPs – LIBMEM@parl.gc.ca To contact Bloc MPs – BQMEM@parl.gc.ca To contact Conservative MPs – CPCMEM@parl.gc.ca To contact NDP MPs – NDPMEM@parl.gc.ca I welcome any comments and feedback at palmater@indigenousnationhood.com

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

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