Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: legislation

  • Bill C-92’s Indigenous Child Welfare Act: More Pan-Indigenous Legislation that Risks Continuing the Status Quo

    Bill C-92’s Indigenous Child Welfare Act: More Pan-Indigenous Legislation that Risks Continuing the Status Quo

    Bill C-92 An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families has been heralded as a “historic turning point”, an “important first step”, a “major milestone” and other similarly over-used and under-impressive political phrases to describe yet another top-down initiative from the federal government. While the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde (AFN) claimed that this legislation was “co-drafted” by the AFN and the federal government, that was not the case. In fact, Dr. Cindy Blackstock confirmed that First Nations did not co-draft the legislation and First Nations were not even permitted to see the second draft before it was tabled. This should be no surprise as Justice Canada does not co-draft legislation with anyone other than the French and English legislative drafters at Justice Canada – this is their long-standing practice. Bill C-92 content is glaring evidence that First Nation experts in child welfare did not hold the pen on this bill.

    There are many problems with this bill, but the main problem is it does not deliver any of what was promised by the federal government. Prime Minister Trudeau’s Liberal government promised to address the “humanitarian crisis” through federal legislation that fully recognized First Nation jurisdiction in relation to child welfare; that would provide statutory funding; and would eliminate the over-representation of First Nation children in care. If this bill is not substantially amended before it is passed, it will not accomplish any of those important goals. Ultimately, it will be our children and our families on the ground – in our communities – that will pay the biggest price. The fact that the AFN is promoting this bill so strenuously, without regard for the numerous and serious concerns raised by First Nation leaders, lawyers, academics and child welfare experts, shows how disconnected they are to the crisis at hand.

    Despite the many issues raised by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and others, the AFN supports this bill as do the Metis National Council (MNC) and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK). While I also have numerous, detailed concerns with the wording, structure and content of this bill, they are too many to include in this blog. What follows is a general overview of my concerns from a First Nation perspective. 

    Pan-Indigenous Legislation

    First of all, pan-Indian legislation has always been difficult to work with because of the differences between the 50-60 traditional Indigenous Nations in Canada that are now separated into 634+/- individual First Nations (Indian bands), across various provinces and within different treaty areas (some without treaties). However, pan-First Nation legislation, with opt-in clauses and flexible provisions to deal with legal, political and cultural variances, would be far superior to what is offered in this bill. Bill C-92 purports to cram First Nations, Inuit and Metis into one act that offers the same legislative options to all three groups – despite their vastly different histories, socio-economic conditions and rights.

    There are vast differences between the legal rights and specific needs of First Nations, Inuit and the Metis. For example, the Metis have much better socio-economic conditions than First Nations and Inuit. Geographic differences between the Inuit and First Nations and Metis, also require solutions tailored to their unique situation. Failure to do so can create inequalities between the groups.

    Substantive Inequality

    This bill also misses the mark in its purported goal to support Nation-to-Nation (First Nations), government-to-government (Metis) and Inuit-Crown relations by treating us all the same. Here’s the problem – when Canada treats all three groups formally the same, it prejudices the rights, needs and interests of those with more acute conditions. In other words, by treating all three groups as formally equally, those with the most acute needs will be treated substantively unequal. While disadvantage should never be about a “race to the bottom”, formal equality will embed discrimination into the very structure of this legislation and will operate to disadvantage First Nations in particular. First Nations are larger in population, have higher rates of child apprehensions and higher rates of underlying poverty, caused by the kinds of land dispossession and breach of treaty rights not experienced by Metis (with some exceptions).

    That is not to say that the Metis should not have their own framework- that is for them to decide what works best for them with the needs of their own constituency. First Nation, Metis and Inuit options should not be limited to the same generic legislative framework, from the same budget line, which assumes the same socio-economic needs, legal rights and interests. This pan-Indigenous template is not in line with the federal government’s promised “distinctions-based” approach and serves to embed substantive inequality into the act.

    First Nation Jurisdiction

    First Nation jurisdiction should be the heart of this bill. At best, what is offered is a delegated authority under federal jurisdiction, which is conditional on agreement with the provinces. At worst, this bill increases federal Ministerial control, while leaving provincial laws, policies and practices virtually in tact. Bill C-92 creates new powers for an unnamed federal Minister to carry out the provisions of the legislation, make regulations, possibly collect data and provide a report to Parliament after five years. What is missing is the original purpose of the bill: to recognize First Nation jurisdiction. While it purports to recognize First Nation jurisdiction, it does so with several substantive conditions. First Nation jurisdiction and laws in relation to child welfare appear to be directly or indirectly subject to the following limits:

    –          Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

    –          Canadian Human Rights Act;

    –          Section 35 Constitution Act, 1982 jurisprudence and limits in relation to constitutionally protected rights;

    –          “Inherent right to self-government” which indirectly incorporates the impoverished definition of self-determination outlined in the Inherent Right Policy;

    –          Constitution Act, 1867, section 92 provincial jurisdiction, i.e. provincial laws are the minimum standard;

    –          Successful negotiation of a tri-lateral coordination agreement between the First Nation, province and federal government (or proof they made good faith effort to negotiate);

    –          Pre-existing definitions of “best interests of the child” from legal precedents;

    –          Sections 10-15 of Bill C-92, which outlines specific limitations in relation to the best interests of the child, parental representation, notice of apprehensions, preventative care as the priority, and no apprehensions due to poverty.

    If a First Nation manages to ensure their laws meet all of these conditions, then they could be recognized as a “federal law”, but not a law in their own right – based on First Nation jurisdiction. It seems very clear that what is being offered is a delegated authority under federal jurisdiction, which is also limited by the constitutional division of powers. Nothing in this bill binds a provincial government or requires them to even come to the table – let alone contribute any funding. Some First Nations may be okay with exercising their powers this way in order to address the urgent crisis, but the federal government should just be honest about it and stop trying to package it as First Nation jurisdiction.

    There is also no specific recognition for pre-existing First Nation laws – oral or written – except in the case of self-government agreements, and these laws would only be paramount to the extent of any conflict with Bill C-92. What of First Nations that choose not to make agreements with the province? What if a First Nation chooses to negotiate only with the federal government? There are far more questions than answers in this bill – all of which need to be addressed in order to avoid legal chaos and uncertainty around jurisdiction.

    Funding & Socio-Economic Conditions

    My last major concern about this bill is the failure to include clear, directive language that would provide a statutory guarantee for annual funding, that is based on equal access to holistic, wrap- around social programs and services, that take into account specific needs, population increases, inflation, geographic location, and actual costs. Without this statutory guarantee, any recognition or First Nation jurisdiction is entirely hollow. Substantial funds are required for the development and enforcement of First Nation laws, policies and regulations in relation to child and family services; staffing and training; infrastructure; legal and technical research and advisory services; data collection and analysis; and monitoring, compliance, reporting and enforcement. The core issue has always been the long-standing chronic and discriminatory under-funding of social services for First Nations, like food, water, housing, health and education. This racist under-funding is what created the crisis and serves to maintain. Legislation is not needed to end discriminatory funding, but if legislation is to be enacted, a firm commitment for funding needs to be included.

    It is noteworthy that there is no mention of First Nation Aboriginal rights or treaty rights in relation to the funding that attaches to child welfare. While it may be politically expedient to create an act that is neutral on “rights” for all parties, this must be in exchange for a substantive, enforceable legal funding commitment. Long gone are the days where First Nations can reasonably or responsibly rely on the word of Ministers to hope that they fulfill their political promises. Ministers change, governments change and the law changes – which is why, if there is to be legislation, that it include a statutory guarantee of funding.  Without it, this legislation is empty of any real intention or ability to end the status quo – a price that will continue to be paid by our children and their children. First Nation cannot afford to lose any more children to a racist and sexually violent system that decreases their life chances and limits their ability to enjoy life with their families, communities, and Nations. The increasing foster care rates, incarceration rates and murdered and missing rates compel us to act urgently and with purpose.

    All that is required is for Parliament to sit down with First Nation child welfare experts and make the required amendments. Without substantive amendments, this bill may end up causing more harm than good and inject legal chaos into an already broken system and risk the lives of more of our children. Canada has apologized for the trauma caused by residential schools, while at the same time admitting that child welfare has continued the trauma. Canada has stated that this is a humanitarian crisis and as such is legally and morally bound to do better. 

    It’s time to sit at the table and urgently work this out for the sake of the children. Video of my recent testimony to Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples pre-study on C-92: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkcl0iF0Yic To listen to my 3-part extended interview with Dr. Cindy Blackstock on my podcast show: Warrior Life, here is the link: https://soundcloud.com/pampalmater/cindy-blackstock-on-justice-and-equality-for-first-nation-children If you prefer video instead of podcast, you can listen and watch on my YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5LvH3LY_20&t=2s

  • Nation to Nation Relations Need Repeal of Paternalistic Laws

    (Originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on April 17, 2017)

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau swept the Liberals into power on Oct.19, 2015, with the support of Indigenous peoples who voted in record numbers. Trudeau’s election platform consisted of core promises made to the Chiefs in Assembly on July 7, 2015, which would include the review and repeal of legislation unilaterally imposed on First Nations by former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Trudeau confirmed his government’s commitment at a subsequent meeting of the Chiefs of Assembly on Dec. 8, 2015.

    This was a significant commitment for First Nations since the unilateral imposition of these laws by the Harper government had inspired the largest social movement in Canada’s history: Idle No More. Indigenous peoples took to the streets for nearly a year protesting Bill C-45, an omnibus bill that would remove protections for various waterways; Bill C-27 First Nations Financial Transparency Act; Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve; Bill S-6 First Nation Elections; Bill S-8 Safe Drinking Water; and Bill C-428 Indian Act Abolishment. All of these bills involved some form of increased government control, something First Nations were not willing to accept. In addition to protests, First Nations decided to tackle these unconstitutional laws head on in the courts.

    Mikisew Cree Nation won their initial case in Federal Court challenging Harper’s failure to consult on two omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45; and Onion Lake Cree Nation won their federal court battle against Bill C-27.

    While Idle No More activities on the ground eventually subsided, First Nation discontent with federally imposed legislation continued to grow throughout Harper’s mandate. There was significant opposition and protests against Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, which targeted the political activities of Indigenous peoples.

    The situation came to a head when Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Shawn Atleo publicly supported Harper’s Bill C-33 First Nation Control of First Nations Education Act without informing or consulting First Nations. The resulting widespread cries for Atleo’s removal led to his resignation and put a serious strain on an already fragile relationship between First Nations and the federal government. Trudeau’s election promises offered a welcome path forward.

    However, Trudeau’s first budget was a major disappointment not only for failing to address the many overlapping crises in First Nation social conditions, but also for completely ignoring his promises to repeal Harper’s legislation. The resulting First Nation criticism is likely what led to this year’s announcement that Trudeau’s government has created a ministerial working group to review all laws and policies related to indigenous peoples. The working group consists of the ministers for Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Fisheries, Justice, Health, Families and Natural Resources and will be chaired by Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

    On its face, the announcement appears to be an indication of the Trudeau government moving in the right direction in the promised nation to nation relationship. However, we do not have either a specific budget for this work or a terms of reference that specifies who will be engaged in the review, the time frame for completion, or the ultimate objectives.

    The worst thing that could happen is yet another government committee struck to review its own laws, with its own legal interpretations of what does and does not violate the Constitution, cementing it firmly in its own colonial and paternalistic mindset.

    Most will recall that Trudeau’s father, former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, struck out big time with his 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy calling for the elimination of Indian status, reserves and treaty rights. This ministerial review committee risks the same fate without First Nation leaders and experts at the table. Another core concern is that the scope of this review has been enlarged so much that this committee could spend years reviewing hundreds of laws and policies instead of repealing the handful that Trudeau promised to repeal.

    Therein lies the other problem with Trudeau’s legal review committee — it is based on a nation to nation relationship that begins and ends with the AFN. This comprehensive legal and policy review must be done in partnership with the actual Aboriginal and treaty rights holders themselves; i.e., First Nations and treaty signatories, not the AFN. This is a critical first step before Trudeau’s vision of “a complete renewal of Canada’s nation to nation relationship with indigenous peoples” can be realized. It will require Trudeau’s working group to negotiate the terms of reference with representatives of the rights holders on a nation basis, like the Mi’kmaw Nation, or on a treaty basis, like engaging with all First Nations in Treaty 4, for example. It is possible for regional and other representative organizations to participate, so long as it is the rights holders themselves who mandate them to engage in this process.

    To date, Trudeau has not asked how our nations want to be represented or engaged in this legislative review. First Nations in Canada are not the mythical race of “Indians” created by the Indian Act. They do not have one culture, one language or one set of laws. First Nations are part of larger Indigenous nations with laws, governments, histories and politics as varied as those found in the United Nations.

    If Trudeau is serious about transforming the relationship with indigenous peoples, he will have to abandon the colonial requirement that all First Nations speak with one voice. Canadians don’t speak with one voice, nor do the provinces and territories. To expect more of First Nations is an adherence to racist stereotypes of the past which have no place in a multinational, democratic Canada that is truly committed to reconciliation, reparation and renewal. The terms of reference will be the real indication as to whether Trudeau is serious about a renewed relationship. https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/2889/nation-to-nation-relations-need-repeal-of-paternalistic-laws-pamela-palmater

    See also my recent video explaining Trudeau’s proposed federal legislative framework and its potential impact on First Nation rights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Z3579b20c&t=2s

  • 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.

  • 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).