Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: NAO

  • The Federal Election 2011 – What Does it Mean for Us?

    In case you have not already heard, Canadians are in federal election mode. How did Canada get to the place where it will have its fourth federal election in only 7 years?  It is because the Conservative government fell on March 27, 2011, after a non-confidence vote against them won by156-145 votes. The reason why a motion of non-confidence was brought forward in the first place was because the Speaker of the House, Peter Milliken, found both the Conservative government and one of its Ministers to be in contempt of Parliament for withholding information and misleading the Parliament. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/parties-set-for-4th-federal-election-in-7-years/article1954357/ Specifically, the Speaker made two key rulings about the Conservative government’s behaviour which is no surprise to the rest of us, given their highly questionable actions throughout their time as minority government. The first ruling dealt with Bev Oda, the Minister for International Cooperation who failed to disclose her role in the decision to cut funding to Kairos. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/Parliament+waits+Speakers+rulings+Conservatives/4411388/story.html He held that Oda breached her Parliamentary privilege – i.e. she is accused of lying about the decision. First she said that her bureaucrats had denied the funding, then it came to light that they had in fact approved it, but an unknown “someone” had scribbled “not” on the document, then she says she ordered the person to insert the word. It is all very convoluted and confusing, but the moral of the story is – she was not honest with Parliament. The second ruling was against the Conservative government generally. This involved the allegation that the Conservatives were not being honest about the actual costs of its tough on crime legislation and plans to build prisons, its purchase of fighter jets and corporate tax breaks. Despite requests for the actual costing information, the Conservatives refused to disclose them. Therefore, the Speaker ruled that the opposition could continue its investigation of the Conservatives before committee because: “There is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with and this is a serious matter that goes to the House’s undoubted role in holding the government to account.” http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/951327–conservatives-ruled-in-contempt-of-parliament They government fell because they were never about the people and were only in it for themselves. They also fell because they are dishonest – which is the biggest crime as far as Canadian citizens are concerned.

    Even our counterparts internationally have commented that Canada is losing its sense of democracy, and very few Canadians seem to be upset about it. One particular article from Australia argues that Canadians are sitting back watching democracy be eroded, while people in other countries are willing to die for their freedoms. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/canada-watches-its-democracy-erode/story-e6frg6ux-1226030310248 Some commentators are even arguing that Harper should not even be allowed to run in this election because his government was found in contempt of Parliament and was thrown out by a vote of non-confidence. Makes me wonder if Oda will be campaigning along with the rest of the rejected Conservatives? http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1980 Is it just me, or does anyone else see the utter hypocrisy of the Conservatives? Remember how Senator Brazeau implied that First Nations leaders are all corrupt, that First Nations were hubs of illegal activity and another conservative MP introduced Bill C-575 asking for accountability? That is rich given that the conservatives have been found in contempt and thrown out of Parliament.

    Or how about Harper who says one thing (never appoint people to Senate without elections) and does another to suit his own political needs (appoint people like Brazeau to Senate). http://www.peterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1347743 Or how about when they take a court of appeal case like McIvor, and draft limited and discriminatory legislation to respond to it, but when the federal court of appeal finds against the conservatives (for the in and out scheme), they dismiss it as an “administrative dispute”. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/former-tory-mps-speak-out-against-conservative-in-and-out-scheme-117368283.html?path=/canada/breakingnews&id=117368283&sortBy=rank It is almost like Harper and his Conservatives don’t live in reality – like they actually believe that “government” is really just made up of the few who sit in Cabinet. Let’s just pretend that none of this non-confidence stuff matters. Let’s look at the Conservative’s “honesty” record to date: (1) Former Minister of International Affairs, Maxime Bernier, resigns over “scandal” related to his leaving security-sensitive documents at his girlfriend’s house – a woman with former connections to the “biker underworld”; http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Specials/20080527/bernier_history_080527/ (2) Former Minister of State for the Status of Women, Helena Guergis, resigned and her file referred to the RCMP after concerns related to her husband Rahim Jaffer using her office to peddle influence with the government. You will recall her husband had been charged with drunk driving and cocaine possession, while Guergis herself was accused of being belligerent to airline staff and using her staffers to flood editorials. http://www.thestar.com/article/792861 (3) MP Pierre Poilievre criticizes the residential school settlement as not being “value for money” on the same day that Harper makes the apology in Parliament. http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/06/11/pierre-poilievre-shows-his-empathy-for-residential-school-survivors/ (4) I don’t even have to list all the vile words said by Senator Brazeau; https://pampalmater.com/2011/02/brazeaus-tiresome-campaign-against.html (5) Conservatives try to distance themselves from another scandal involving Access to Information and removed Sebastien Togneri from affiliation with their party: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1235796.html (6) Minister of INAC John Duncan was against “race-based” Aboriginal fishing rights and recently made stereotypical remarks against First Nations saying it was “easy” for them to be “aggressively contrary”; https://pampalmater.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html (7) Conservatives said MPs who “cross the floor” should not be allowed to join other parties, but then made David Emerson, a former liberal who crossed the floor, the Minister of Trade: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20060206/emerson_defection_060206/ (8) Don’t forget the conservatives prorogued Parliament twice to avoid dealing with critical issues like the Afghanistan detainee affair; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation-a-travesty-yet-clever/article1415391/ (9) Then there is the Bruce Carson story, broke by APTN News, which revealed that this “Tory operative”, together with his former-escort girlfriend, lobbied on behalf of a water filtration company to get contracts in First Nations with poor drinking water. He is accused of breaching rules about political staffers lobbying so soon after employment; http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/03/23/season-finale-carson/ (10) The Chuck Cadman affair involved the allegation of bribery by the Conservatives to secure  a vote that was settled out of court, but not in the eyes of the public: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/308224 (11) NWAC’s Sisters in Spirit disaster where funding was cut for the program despite its international success: http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/11/sisters-spirit-program-used-feds-squeeze-native-womens-association-canada (12) There is also Bill C-3, Bill S-4, Bill S-11, Bill C-575 that all went forward without any legal consultation with First Nations, which of course does not include the “expert” education panel announced that came from INAC and not First Nations. Or how about the “revolutionary” Specific Claims tribunal that has not heard a single case in 3 years?? It’s all fun and games until you get booted from Parliment!

    I could go on, but this list is sickening enough. What is more concerning to me is how little reaction any of this gets from the public and from our own National Aboriginal Organizations (NAOs). Regardless of whether you believe the Canadian government is your government, the fact of the matter is that they currently assert their jurisdiction over our peoples. Do we really need this kind of corruption and scandal to be “managing” our affairs? I would hope not. This is where our NAO’s need to be providing their “constituents” with information about what is happening, not just in our communities, but on the national scene as well. They are “National” Aboriginal organizations after all, and it is there job to keep us informed. Looking at the websites today, I don’t see a single mention that there is even a federal election underway. Nor do I see any public letters to the parties telling them what our important issues are or what their party positions are in that regard. I personally, would like to see what the AFN’s views are on the events of late, or NWAC’s list of priorities for the next Prime Minister. I don’t expect much from CAP, who, having literally fallen off the face of the earth, recently posted public support for the Conservative budget – trying to prop up an unethical government that provided almost nothing for Aboriginal peoples – the poorest in our society. What do the NAO’s think about the Liberal’s education promise of 1 billion dollars for non-Aboriginal people to go to school?? Is that not a bit insulting given our socio-economic statistics which show us as far behind non-Aboriginal people? Where are the promises to address housing, water, child welfare, education, food subsidies for the north, land claims, treaties etc etc?? Do none of the NAO’s have a position on any of these issues? What about providing us with a list of all the Aboriginal people across Canada running in the election so that we can support them? What about organizing ways to help Aboriginal people get out and vote if they want to? I know many of us do not vote for very good reasons that I discussed in my last blog, but we have to support those who do. https://pampalmater.com/2011/03/what-does-fall-of-darth-harper-and.html The federal election will be held on Monday, May 2, 2011 and Elections Canada 2011 has all the information you need regarding voting: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=41ge&document=index&lang=e I have always had little faith in the Canadian election process because our numbers are so small as to make very little difference, and for the fact that even if we do elect Aboriginal MPs, they have to tow the party line – which rarely benefits us. However, I have been hearing from lots of my readers and their arguments about why we should vote, and they are very persuasive. I am very close to being convinced. The majority of people I have heard from are not conservative, liberal, NDP, Bloc or otherwise politically affiliated. They are concerned Indigenous peoples who would rather vote for anyone, than see Harper get back in for all the reasons I listed above. I am concerned enough about the evils of the Conservative autocracy that I am now thinking that every single vote will count to make sure they are not re-elected. Regardless of whether we get our own MPs or whether we ever participate in politics federally, the concern is more related to avoiding Harper’s re-election or worst-case scenario, a majority government – which for Indigenous peoples would be the final nail in the coffin. By saying this I am not submitting to the assumed sovereignty of Canada – I have never waivered from the fact that I believe our Indigenous Nations have the only legal sovereignty on this territory. However, I am not against using a wide variety of tools to stop the colonizers in their tracks on a “without prejudice” basis. At this point, if we don’t act to bar Harper from re-election we can only expect more of the same and none of that benefits us.

    Please keep sending me your comments and e-mails. I am an open-minded person and always ready to be convinced I should be considering a different point of view. *(None of these pictures are my own, I found them all courtesy of “Google Images”)

  • The Slow, Painful Death of CAP: Can it be Saved?

    THIS BLOG DOES NOT REPRESENT LEGAL ADVICE AND IS SOLELY MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) is a national Aboriginal organization that once claimed to represent the interests of status and non-status Indians living off-reserve in Canada. The current national President is Betty-Ann Lavallee who used to be the President of one of CAP’s affiliates – the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC). CAP has recently changed its website and in so doing, has changed the focus of who it claims to represent being “the interests of its provincial and territorial affiliate organizations”. The provincial and territorial affiliates of CAP located in the East receive core funding for their operations, whereas those in the west have struggled without much success in obtaining funding. CAP’s board of directors are comprised of the Presidents of each of the affiliate organizations – most of whom, including CAP, prefer to be referred to as “Chiefs” – ironic given their anti-Chief stance. CAP used to be known as the Native Council of Canada (NCC) and in its early years had incredibly dynamic, passionate leaders who advocated strongly on behalf of those Aboriginal peoples who were excluded from legal recognition and equal access to Aboriginal and treaty rights as well as programs and services. Incredible leaders like Viola Robinson, Tony Belcourt, Harry Daniels, Ron George, and Dwight Dorey went on to make other significant contributions to the plight of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. The NCC was there at the constitutional talks, they advocated for equality for Aboriginal women during the Bill C-31 era, and were on the front-lines organizing protests when governments were going to reduce housing for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. The NCC at the time also represented Metis peoples and their struggles for recognition and equality long before the Powley case and the creation of the Metis National Council (MNC). Some may find it hard to believe, but the NCC and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)(formerly NIB) used to work closely together on a wide variety of issues. Unfortunately, those days are long over. The NCC (now CAP) started its slow, downward descent when Patrick Brazeau (then Vice-President) assumed the position of President when former President, Dwight Dorey stepped down after 7 years in office. There was no election for the position of President by the members of the off-reserve – it was an automatic assumption of Presidency as per CAP’s Constitution and By-Laws. Brazeau served less than 3 years as the National President, but in that short time managed to nearly destroy CAP and its reputation. Some Board members of CAP have indicated that Brazeau served a limited purpose in that he at least raised the profile of CAP and should be commended for his aggressive media agenda. I disagree. Simply raising the media profile of an organization is not an accomplishment if the reasons for why the profile was raised are negative or serve to hurt others. Brazeau used CAP as his “launching pad” to obtain media attention for himself, not CAP; align himself politically with the Conservative Party; and eventually jump ship and land himself a conservative Senate seat all while trashing First Nations and their leaders. That might suit Brazeau’s interests, but what did CAP get out of the deal? If you listen to Board members and various media reports, what Brazeau left CAP with was controversy, destroyed relationships with other NAO’s, allegations of sexual harassment, a decreased budget, financial turmoil, and worst of all – a confused and discouraged membership. Brazeau, now Senator Brazeau, has been described in the media as a “loose cannon” and “self-promoting” for spewing negativity against First Nations communities and their leaders at every opportunity. Unfortunately for CAP, this still has repercussions for them given how he used his position at CAP to gain his initial media profile. But that is as far as my sympathy goes for CAP. Once Brazeau finally agreed to give up his Presidency at CAP (and not obtain both a CAP salary and Senate salary as the he had originally intended) CAP had every opportunity to distance itself from the self-serving Brazeau-legacy. It could have elected leadership which would bring CAP back to its roots and its core mandate to be THE political voice for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples and take the much-needed steps to repair its relationships with other NAO’s and more importantly, the grass roots people Brazeau left behind. That is not what happened. Wisely or unwisely, some voters in the Atlantic region reported difficulty getting the then President of NBAPC, Betty-Ann Lavallee, to do any work on behalf of its constituency and so decided that if they could not get rid of her constitutionally (as she always had her lawyer by her side), then voting her into CAP would at least get her out of NB. I can see the appeal of such an approach. The plan worked, except no one could foresee that no election would held at the NBAPC and that a staff member of the NBAPC would eventually acclaimed as President. This has left many NB members dazed and confused to say the least. But, that is all just the behind the scenes and media gossip. It will never be confirmed or denied and no explanations will ever be forthcoming as is the case in political controversies. In fairness, CAP should be judged on its record. In the short time that Betty-Ann Lavallee has been President of CAP, she has shown an eerily similar disposition to that of Brazeau, although much less informed. Lavallee has demonstrated that she will flip-flip CAP’s position on just about any issue to suit the conservative party line. All of this is done in the name of CAP but without consulting in a meaningful way with its own members (not Board) on issues that are important to them. By way of example, CAP prepared a submission to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)to put on the record its position on Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. CAP argued that INAC did not consult with Aboriginal peoples, that the Indian Act’s registration provisions were discriminatory, and that section 6(1) of the Act should be amended to include all those born pre-1985 to remedy the full extent of gender inequality in that provision. By the time it rolled around to CAP’s turn to present to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) on Bill C-3, CAP had changed its tune and was willing to support the bill. In case there was any doubt about CAP’s Brazeau-esque support of the Conservative Government, when CAP appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Bill S-4 Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve, Lavallee specifically endorsed the Conservative Party’s suite of legislation. In fact, if you read the transcripts of her submission on Bill S-4, it sounds more like a Conservative Party ad for their initiatives than any sustantive input on the bill. She cited the residential schools apology, Bill S-4, Bill C-3, and the right of Indians to vote as significant evidence of the Conservative Government’s commitment to “humanity” for Aboriginal peoples. If anyone was under any doubt about whether Lavallee’s CAP would abandon the Brazeau legacy or cuddle up to the Conservatives – Lavallee settled it that day. Furthermore, in stark contrast to Brazeau’s media blitz, Lavallee is almost never in the media on any issue. It is as though CAP has fallen off the face of the earth. CAP used to stand for equality and didn’t make deals that were harmful to its members. Now the CAP Presidency is used either as a political launching pad or just a job. Some might say that I am simply being critical of any NAO. To my mind, what I am most critical of is the holier-than-thou hypocrisy started by Brazeau and being carried forward by Lavallee. When Brazeau accepted his Senate seat, he announced to the public that he would be maintaining his position and salary at CAP as well as drawing a Senate salary. This seems to be a pretty hypocritical position for one who has so vocally criticized any First Nation Chief that only makes ONE 6 figure salary, let alone TWO. Brazeau criticizes First Nations for not respecting the rights of Aboriginal women, yet it was Brazeau who made headlines for having sexual harassment complaints and made disparaging remarks against all the Aboriginal women who offered testimony on Bill S-4. Lavallee has proven to be no different. It is reported that Brazeau left CAP in financial turmoil, with various federal departments claiming “financial irregularities” and large sums of money that were not accounted for in their financial reports. So, some could argue that he left CAP in a mess. That doesn’t prevent Lavallee from taking the bull by the horns and getting the situation under control. Yet, at CAP’s recent AGM, many AGM delegates and some Board of Directors reported that CAP showed a deficit of nearly 2 million dollars. Yet despite this fact, Lavallee allegedly requested a significant increase to her 6 figure salary at a board meeting preceding the AGM. While some board members were against a raise until the deficit was addressed, it is reported that she nevertheless ended up with a raise. Now I don’t know about other Aboriginal people living off-reserve, but aside from the obvious hypocrisy, what does this say about the usefulness of CAP? Am I getting any value for the tax dollars I use to pay Lavallee’s inflated salary? It would be one thing if CAP was in a deficit because it had accomplished a long list of things for Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve, but I fear my tax dollars are being used to fund her trips to Bolivia and her salary increase, as opposed to any tangible improvements for Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve. Where is the self-restraint or the self-sacrifice? How could a real leader inflate their own salary when she has not even secured core funding for her own western affiliates? If CAP is not already dead, it is surely in the process of a slow, painful death as years now pass without advancing the cause for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. Can CAP be saved? I think the better question is should it be saved? Is there anyone in Indian country ready and willing to support another NAO that appears to be more concerned about securing enough funding for consultants and staff to administer programs and services, than it does with making any substantive difference for Aboriginal people politically, legally, culturally or otherwise? I guess that call is for the grass roots people to make.