Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: Tom Flanagan

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

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

    CFNG Gathering Speech

    INAC-AFN Joint Action Plan

    Shared Funding Priorities

    Treaty relationship

    Meaningful dialogue on treaties

    Consultation on resource development projects (omnibus bill to remove consultation, funding cuts to advisory services)

    Change rules in education

    National education panel to discuss legislation

    Education (education legislation, funding cuts to organizations and for proposal-based program funding)

    Change FN accountability

    Accountability of FN governments

    Governance (accountability legislation, elections legislation, funding cuts to governments, political organizations, advisory services)

    Focus on economic development

    Unlocking economic potential

    Land management (reserve privatization legislation, funding cuts for advisory services, community plans)

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

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

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

  • Land Wars 2: Attack of the Fringe

    The right-wing fringe are in full-swing these days. From He-who-shall-not-be-named’s racist, hateful tirades about First Nations on TV to the fringe right’s fav policy institutes’ lowly insults and name-calling of First Nation academics and activists on Twitter – they are working hard to spread their venom to a vulnerable public. I say vulnerable, because a large segment of the Canadian public is uneducated about Indigenous issues. This means they are open to be persuaded by the well-funded, flashy right-wing propaganda that has infected much of the mainstream print and TV media. What has got all the fringe right-wingers all a-buzz recently? It is the Harper government’s plans to divide up reserve lands into individual parcels of land (fee simple). The idea comes from Tom Flanagan’s book: Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights. http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ As I wrote in my last blog, the act is to be called the First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA) and has the potential to destroy First Nation communities, but is being promoted as the answer to our woes. http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/08/flanagan-national-petroleum-ownership.html The person behind the idea, Tom Flanagan, who was also an advisor to PM Stephen Harper, now uses Manny Jules (head of First Nation Tax Commission) to do most of the public promotion of FNPOA. Why? Because Manny Jules is a First Nations man, who is the former chief of Kamloops First Nation and the idea is that it will be easier to sell assimilation to First Nations if a First Nations person does it. http://fntc.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=7 The idea itself is not new. It’s the same idea Flanagan promoted in his book First Nations? Second Thoughts, except in his first book, his overt racist depiction of First Nations didn’t gain his ideas the support he had hoped. He has not given up on his idea to assimilate First Nations, he is just less overt about it now. In his mind, resistance to assimilation is futile. http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/the-man-behind-stephen-harper-tom-flanagan/ His idea is copied from Hernando de Soto who has travelled the world trying to convince Indigenous peoples that endless riches can be found in giving up their communal lands in exchange for individual fee simple holdings. It appears from all the research to date that these communities are far worse off after they have divided up their communal lands. So, naturally, this sounds like a great plan for Harper. In fact, some reports have shown that increasing the level of westernized legal concepts of property rights in communities with extreme poverty, “can actually lead to greater exploitation”. Other reports note that the impact of De Soto’s idea ranges from ineffectual to very “harmful”. But, we have to get real about what this idea is all about. The plan is not to create super wealthy, powerful Indigenous communities – it is for the maximized economic benefit of the political and corporate power-brokers all over the world. The very objective of this plan is to open up Indigenous communal lands for mortgaging, credit, loans, liens, seizures, taxation and for economic development in the form of mining and pipelines. This “unlocking” benefits banks, investment companies, the extractive industry and government – not Indigenous peoples. A few low-end labour jobs and a couple of education scholarships are the new beads and trinkets of today, especially when you consider that the corporate industry takes home trillions all over the world. This proposed bill (FNPOA), like the many others being drafted, introduced and debated without First Nations’ review or approval, is the core part of this assimilation plan. It will disperse First Nation communities faster than a police riot squad hose can disperse environmental protesters. Similar legislation has devastated Indigenous land holdings in the United States, some of them irrevocably. Canada’s magic key (also known as the land claims negotiating policy) is that once Indigenous lands transfer to “third parties” for any reason, they are gone forever. You will hear a great deal of media on this subject. The right-wing fringe literally drools at the thought of finally assimilating Indigenous peoples once and for all – more money, land and control for those who already have more than they need. They can’t wait to impose their pipelines across any territories they wish. Instead of informed, educated, fact-based discussions, they have and will likely continue to engage in their usual name-calling, smearing, belittling and taunting of Indigenous academics, community members, leaders and activists. We must keep in mind those Conservative right-wing fringe groups are the 1% mega-rich of settler societies who can buy and control just about anything – newspapers, TV stations, research, conferences, policy institutes, think tanks, economic institutions and politicians. They have large think tanks and private strategy meetings to discuss and implement their own plans. The closer we get to the truth about their activities, the more frantic and desperate will be their attacks. They will cowardly threaten, defame, ridicule and misinform – and it will be relentless. On our side, we have our communities – who, for all the hardships, difficulties, tragedies and poverty, still have our identities, cultures, languages, beliefs, spiritualities, practices, traditions, laws, economies and governments. We are so much stronger than those who wish to assimilate us. Even in our suffering we find the strength to hold on to who we are, we defend our sovereignty, treaties, lands, waters and skies and we refuse to give up. Our Indigenous Nations have thrived here since time immemorial and we will thrive again. Our ancestors left us everything we need to guide us and protect our future generations. We can do this. Don’t get distracted by the noise and drama of the right-wing fringe groups who seek to profit on our suffering. Many of them only do so because their media ratings (i.e. salaries) and “online hit count makes it worthwhile”. We have to focus on the issues before us, work together, help build each others’ knowledge and capacity and empower one another. We all have skills we can use to help better our families, communities and Nations. Make no mistake, this bill is a modern form of land war that will be waged on our Nations. I for one, will do everything in my power to stop this legislation. I will keep researching, publishing, speaking about it, answering questions and dispelling myths. I am often criticized for the volunteer work I do for First Nations. One prominent BC chief once said publicly that that “you get what you pay for with volunteers – they are worthless”. I hold the opposite view. I have a strong Mi’kmaw identity and attachment to my culture and Mi’kmaw Nation. I am blessed with a supportive extended family and strong, healthy children. I worked hard as a single mom to earn an education (four university degrees) and was lucky enough to find a good paying job. I am grateful to the Creator for my warm house (on traditional Indigenous territories) and access to healthy food and clean water. Coming from a situation where I lived on welfare with my two babies in a flooded, mouldy Aboriginal house which made my babies very sick – I appreciate what we have now. None of this makes me any more or less Mi’kmaw, but it does highlight my responsibility to do the most that I can do for our peoples. I have certain blessings that put me in a position where I am obligated, according to Mi’kmaw ways of being, to give back and help build up the Mi’kmaw Nation and other Indigenous Nations and peoples in Canada. So I will continue my volunteer work – regardless of the threats, slander or attacks from the fringe who just can’t comprehend our Indigenous collective loyalties to one another and our lands, waters and skies.

  • Flanagan National Petroleum Ownership Act: Stop Big Oil Land Grab

    By now most of you have heard about the Harper government’s intention to introduce legislation that will turn reserve lands into individual holdings called fee simple. The legislation has been referred to as the First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA). Some media outlets have referred to it as “privatization” but what the legislation would really do is turn the collective ownership of reserve lands into small pieces of land owned by individuals who could then sell it to non-First Nations peoples, land-holding companies, and corporations, like Enbridge for example. The idea is not a new one. Hernando de Soto has been trying to sell the same idea to Indigenous populations all over the world. The evidence seems to show that the Indigenous peoples are far worse off for it. Prior to de Soto’s destructive world tour, the Indigenous Nations in the United States suffered the sting of fee simple legislation in the Dawes Act. Once the lands were given to individuals, the lands were subject to state laws. The same would happen in Canada where the lands would be subject to provincial instead of federal law. The primary purpose of the Dawe’s Act was to assimilate Indigenous peoples in the USA by breaking up their Indigenous governments. The legislation allowed the government to divide up communal lands into small parcels to be held by individuals. It has been described by historians as: “the culmination of American attempts to destroy tribes and their governments and to open Indian lands to settlement by non-Indians and to development by railroads” (Oklahoma Historical Society). In the Canadian context, similar legislation will open up “Indian lands” for big oil, gas and mineral extraction. I have referred to FNPOA as the Flanagan National Petroleum Ownership Act for two reasons: (1) the name of the Act (FNPOA) comes from the book Tom Flanagan co-wrote (with Andre LeDressay and Chris Alcantara): “Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights” and (2) the Act will do more to open up reserve lands to oil, gas and mining companies than it will bring prosperity to First Nations. For those who don’t know, Tom Flanagan is a right-wing anti-First Nation academic who has written about and spoken out against First Nations in a very overtly racist and derogatory fashion, and often lacks a sound factual or academically-sound research basis. Flanagan’s book was fully endorsed by Manny Jules, a First Nation man and former chief of Kamloops Indian Band and is now the head of the First Nation Tax Commission (FNTC). The FNTC, contrary to its name, is actually a federal organization, whose chief commissioner is appointed by Canada’s Governorin-Council and reports to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). http://appointments.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=FNN&type-typ=1&lang=eng Aside from a salary of over $200,000, it is also notable that in the recent round of Conservative cuts to Aboriginal organizations, Jules’ FNTC was protected from substantial cuts. The political and financial links between the FNTC and the federal government’s intended legislation become apparent when one reads Flanagan’s book in its entirety. Here is an excerpt from my published review of the book: “In fact, the book concludes by affirming that ‘there is little doubt that this proposal is a continuation of the First Nations–led initiatives of the 1990’s’ … And, if First Nations require any assistance in catching up to the modern world, the book suggests that they use the services of Le Dressay’s Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics. (Located in Jules’s home community of Kamloops, this centre was created out of a First Nations Tax Commission project he chaired.) It should come as no surprise that one of the keys to success of the authors’ proposal for the First Nations Property Ownership Act will be to create additional centralized institutions, to take over the new jurisdiction it also creates.” http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ The media will no doubt be publishing many editorials, opinions and commentaries on this issue in the coming weeks until the bill is introduced in Parliament. Many of these articles, especially those from the right-wing fringe will leave out a great deal of context, perpetuate the same myths that Manny Jules and Tom Flanagan do and will settle for the catchy headlines instead of help inform the public about the serious issues involved. Here are some of the questions asked of me by the media and my answers in very brief form (more detailed answers will be provided in my forthcoming publication): (1) First Nations hate the Indian Act, why would they object to Harper amending or repealing the Act? The abolishment of the Indian Act was the central feature of the 1969 White Paper – the federal policy that would assimilate “Indians” once and for all. It is up to First Nations to decide when and how they want to amend or repeal the Indian Act – Canada has done enough damage under the guise of “what is good for the Indians”. Harper specifically promised at the co-called Crown-First Nation Gathering that: “To be sure, our Government has no grand scheme to repeal or to unilaterally re-write the Indian Act”. This legislation would be a significant and unilateral amendment to the Indian Act. (2) But First Nations can’t access mortgages or start businesses without owning land in fee simple? That is simply not true. Individual band members have been working with their First Nations and the major banks to obtain mortgages to build homes on reserve for many years. Many band members and bands have also been able to receive loans from banks to start businesses without leveraging their homes. One must also remember that owning a home doesn’t mean you can open a business on your land – there are zoning and other laws on reserve as there would be in any neighborhood. (3) But Canadians get to own land in fee simple? Canadians have the option to own land in fee simple only if they are wealthy enough to buy land or qualify for a mortgage. Thousands of First Nations people also own land in fee simple all over the country. Some First Nations people also hold land via Certificate of Possession on reserve which is very similar to fee simple, except that it can’t be sold to non-First Nations people. (4) But if First Nations could own land in fee simple, wouldn’t that cure the housing crisis? This ability to own land in fee simple has not cured homelessness in Canada and in fact, it is on the rise. The ability to hold reserve lands in fee simple would not qualify any individual for a mortgage. Part of getting a mortgage is being able to get insurance – who would insure a mold-infested, abestos-contaminated home without running water or sanitation services? This sounds like more of a cure for the economy and mortgage lenders than it does for First Nations. (5) But commentators have said this would cure First Nation poverty? The origins of the current crisis of poverty in First Nations are in the theft of our lands and resources, the genocide committed against our people, the federal strangulation of our governments and the refusal to properly recognize and provide space for our treaty, Aboriginal, and inherent rights and laws. Fee simple has nothing to do with it. There is absolutely no evidence that fee simple ownership has cured poverty. In fact, the studies have shown that the chronic underfunding of essential social services by the federal government is the primary cause of the current levels of poverty in First Nations. http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/view/35220 (6) But Manny Jules and 8 other First Nations want this legislation? With all due respect, Manny Jules heads a federal government organization – he is not a First Nation leader or community spokesperson. If there are a handful of First Nations who truly want to divide their reserves into individual parcels of fee simple lands, they can do so via current processes under the Indian Act or self-government negotiations for example. There is no way that 8 First Nations should set national law or policy for 633 First Nations. Treaty implementation and the resolution of land claims are far more critical to First Nation well-being. http://www.bctreaty.net/unfinishedbusiness/pdf-documents/BC-Treaty-Commission-PricewaterhouseCoopers-Report.pdf (7) But isn’t the legislation optional? What’s the harm? With INAC, even optional laws and policies are never truly optional. Once the government decides it wants First Nations to behave in a certain way, they use a series of financial and political incentives and punishments to ensure First Nations act as the government deems appropriate. With THIS Harper government, the focus would be more on punishments and they would be severe for failing to conform. For example, First Nations could voluntarily enter into Act XYZ or fail to receive funding associated with that program or service. Plus, the element of volunteerism does not apply in a situation of duress. Is it truly optional to sell one’s land if one is already impoverished and suffering from a lack the basic necessities of life? Even Manny Jules admitted that one of the challenges of this bill is that all reserve land could be lost: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2189503699/ Jules wants First Nations people to prove to banks that they are “worthy” of owning a home. WOW! (8) What are your other concerns related to FNPOA? – Canada does not have the legal authority to pass such a bill in violation of both Aboriginal and treaty rights, the Royal Proclamation, and UNDRIP; – they haven’t thought about the legal, political, social or cultural implications of such a law (for example – exactly who would get the fee simple parcels of land?); – Canada has not learned from history – the Dawes Act devastated First Nations in the USA – why would it be better here; – this is Harper’s political agenda to once and for all assimilate Indians and turn reserve lands into provincial land holdings and jurisdiction; – this bill would also help Harper end-run the duty to consult and accommodate re oil, gas and mining on our lands, undermine our leadership and empower corporations like Enbridge to lay their pipes wherever they want; – turning reserves into fee simple parcels registered in provincial land registries under provincial law would enable easier expropriation of our lands for big oil and gas companies like Enbridge; – FNPOA, together with other bills in process: Bill C-428 impacting by-laws, estates & education, Bill S-6 re elections, Bill S-2 re matrimonial real property, Bill C-27 re First Nation accountability, Bill S-8 re First Nation water, and the First Nation Education Act to come essentially change the entire legal and political landscape for First Nations – unilaterally and against our collective will. First Nations have the right to free, informed and prior consent to any laws, policies, decisions or actions that impact our lands and resources. This means that if we don’t want Enbridge or any other extractive industry on our lands – that is our decision to make. Our people will not allow big oil to use FNPOA as a land grab to circumvent our rights. There is simply nothing good about this bill and much to be lost from it. People need to stop coming up with ideas about how to “fix” us as we always end up worse off for it. Canadians are not required to understand or even support our inherent, treaty, domestic and international rights – they just have to accept that this is the law, not unlike any of the laws they cherish. Canada needs to stop trying to assimilate us and instead focus on fulfilling its legal and treaty obligations instead of trying to find ways around them. I think we have suffered enough – let us go about the hard job of healing and rebuilding our Nations and enjoy our fair share of what is ours. Additional resources: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2173712911/ http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2189503699/ http://soundcloud.com/el-chaos/pamela-palmater-reserve-vs-fee-simple-land

  • Shiny New Beads and Trinkets: Old Assimilation Policies Repackaged

    There has been a great deal of publicity lately related to all the great work the Conservatives are doing in relation to Aboriginal peoples. Some media outlets have called this a “historic shift” and even gone so far as to characterize the plan as a “sweeping overhaul of reserve life”. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-native-leaders-commit-to-sweeping-overhaul-of-reserve-life/article2053099/?service=mobile While there may be some useful tidbits in the plan, to call it historic or sweeping is misrepresenting what is actually taking place. One must keep in mind that this announcement coincided with the Auditor General’s damning report about Canada’s gross failure to address conditions of extreme poverty on reserve. In fact, according to Fraser, conditions have even become much worse. INAC has knowingly failed to address “inequities” in funding for post-secondary education, child and family services, housing and many other programs. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf Yet, all of this was overshadowed by a strategically-timed joint action plan – anything to take the public’s focus off of the stark reality. The fact that the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) took part in this duck and avoid maneuver leaves me questioning the AFN”s ability to effectively advocate on behalf of First Nations. Some have even questioned whether the AFN had any REAL input into the plan given how quickly it came out. Even if National Chief of AFN Shawn Atleo did have input, that begs the question as to why he would give his blessing to a plan that would leave out critical issues around funding, consultation, First Nation jurisdiction, treaty rights and land claims. All of these issues are significant to the grass roots people, yet nothing has been mentioned about any of them. Similarly, the planned First Nation – Crown Summit also excludes these critical issues – all with Atleo’s stamp of approval. Does any of this signal a significant shift by the Conservatives from their right-wing, pro-assimilation agenda? I would argue that all we are seeing are the same old deal – the exchange of shiny beads and trinkets for our acquiescence or agreement to forgo what makes us strong, independent Nations – our sovereignty, our land and our identity. What follows are some of the reasons why I believe this to be true: Early Indian Policy: Early Indian policy included various measures to control, divide and assimilate Indians to finally rid Canada of the “Indian problem”.  These included: (1) Residential schools to remove culture, language and family and community ties from Indian children; (2) Indian Act provisions which removed Indian rights from Indian women; (3) Indian Act provisions which incorporated non-Indian women into communities; (4) Enfranchisement provisions which encouraged Indian men to give up their identities in exchange for education, employment and individual title to reserve lands; and (5) Indian Act provisions which prohibited lawyers from advocating for Indians in relation to their lands and treaties. (See: The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996) [RCAP] White Paper 1969: The plan argued that “Indian people must be persuaded” that this was the path to a better life: (1) Abolish the Indian Act; (2) End special recognition for First Nations; (3) Give them individual title to their lands (fee simple); (4) Funds for economic development; (5) Full integration into the cultural, social, political and economic life of Canada; and (6) Removal of constitutional responsibility of federal government for Indians. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/arp/ls/pubs/cp1969/cp1969-eng.pdf We all know how First Nations across the country reacted to this policy – they forcefully rejected it and re-asserted their special status in Canada and their land and treaty rights. Harold Cardinal wrote what came to be known as the Red Paper outlining the special rights of Indians in Canada. While Canada backed off of this policy, very little changed in regards to addressing First Nation poverty and the resolution of their Aboriginal and treaty rights, land claims and self-government. RCAP provides a detailed history of the development of Indian policy over time and the rights held by First Nations. Their overall recommendation was to move forward with the resolution of land claims, recognition and implementation of treaties and the negotiation of self-government agreements. Canada’s delayed, non-committal response “Gathering Strength” came to be known as “Gathering Dust” for the lack of action on Canada’s part. Then along comes Tom Flanagan, who, in his book “First Nations? Second Thoughts” argued that since First Nations were “primitive”, “wasteful” and “destructive” that they should not be entitled to self-governing rights, special tax exemptions or federal funding. In his view, First Nations need to “evolve” and become more like other Canadians. This was pretty much the same message that he provided in his second book: “Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights”. His plan involved the following: (1) “abandon” “primitive” “communist fantasies” about communal land; (2) implement a system of individual property rights (i.e., mortgage or sell to non-Indians); (2) repeal the Indian Act; (4) shut down the reserves; (3) encourage education and workforce participation; and (4) assimilate into the larger Canadian population. http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ This assimilation plan of Flanagan’s raised a great deal of controversy, but was not unique. Others, like Alan Cairns had also advocated for assimilation, albeit less overtly. Since then, many right-wingers have joined the call for the assimilation of First Nations including people like Frances Widdowson and Dale Gibson, to name a few. In fact, Gibson wrote a report entitled “A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy: Respect the Collective, Promote the Individual” which focuses on individual success and material wealth over communal interests. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=12783 Not surprising then, that Tom Flanagan became an advisor to Stephen Harper or that the Conservatives are now putting into place the gradual, assimilatory plan which focuses on individual wealth which has been advocated by folks like Flanagan and Gibson. Has anything changed since the early years of Indian policy-making? Does what the Conservatives propose now amount to a significant departure from the assimilatory agenda of the 1969 White Paper? I would argue that it does not. The following overview of the Conservative agenda seems only to confirm my original assessment: 2011 Conservative Election Platform: (1) Expand adult education in the north (no funding for k-12 or university); (2) Increase accountability of First Nations through legislation (no funding or recognition of jurisdiction); (3) Avoided dealing with reserve infrastructure like water and housing (but agreed to fix fuel tanks); (4) Avoided dealing with Aboriginal and treaty rights (but First Nations can sit on hunting advisory panel); (5) Avoided dealing with land claims (but will promote development of reserve lands through legislation). http://www.conservative.ca/media/ConservativePlatform2011_ENs.pdf Conservative – AFN Joint Action Plan: (1) Education = Joint Process on k-12 education (expert panel that still has not produced any reports); (2) Focus on “success of individuals” through education; (2) Increase First Nation accountability and transparency; (3) Task force to promote economic development to benefit “all Canadians”; (4) Improve relations. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/m-a2011/cfnjap-eng.asp You will notice there are no funding commitments, measurables or key action words that commit to any specific action. It is important to note here that the AFN has publicly come out in support of this action plan. First Nation – Crown Summit: Then there is the promise of a First Nations-Crown Summit meeting that is supposed to take place this fall. I won’t hold my breath given that Harper has promised such a meeting with First Nation leaders twice in his five years as Prime Minister to no avail. What is being promised at this summit reads eerily like the election platform, joint action plan and other assimilatory policies of the past: (1) The agenda is “deliberately narrow” and will not revisit the substantive commitments in Kelowna; (2) The agenda includes education; (3) governance and (4) economic development. There is to be no discussion about treaties, land claims, self-government or the funding inequities in essential social services. http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/GB/20110603/CP02/306039861/-1/sag0806/plans-for-first-nations-summit-with-harper-finally-begin-to-solidify&template=cpArt So, if you go back and look at the fundamental aspects of assimilation – being educated, economic development and turning reserves into individual parcels of land, you will see that not much has changed from the 1800’s to the 1969 White Paper, to what is now being advanced. The fact that the Conservatives have a majority in the House and Senate means that will be able to rush through any law or policy they choose. Having the AFN on side only helps the Conservatives legitimize the process. All of this brings me back to my original concern that the AFN is now so far away from what it was originally intended to be when it was the National Indian Brotherhood, that I am left wondering whether it has the capacity to think beyond the organization’s own priorities related to funding and staffing, and advocate on behalf of First Nations and their citizens. It seems to me that far too many people are worrying about their own jobs and making deals than they are about taking the risks inherent in standing up for that which our ancestors died to protect – our sovereignty, lands and identities. It’s about time we called the Conservatives on their deplorable record and highlight the facts brought forward by their own auditor general – that chronic and inequitable funding has made conditions on First Nations worse. We need to stand behind our treaties, protect our territories from further encroachment and go back to focusing on the needs of our future generations instead of focusing on ourselves. Any future “joint” plans MUST engage First Nations as a third order of government and as true partners and reflect the fundamentals of the treaty relationship, First Nations jurisdiction and the integrity of our territories. Don’t be fooled by shiny new beads and trinkets – it is really the same old assimilation policy of control and division repackaged with new titles like “Joint Action Plans”, “Expert Panels” and “Joint Processes” – other words for “we are buying into our assimilation”.

  • Now First Nations are Soviets and Primitive Communists?

    I am writing this blog today because I have had enough of the right wing misinformation campaign against First Nations in Canada. It isn’t enough that First Nations had to endure colonial control, theft of their lands and resources, broken treaty promises, loss of their languages and spirits in residential schools, and the ongoing impact of the Indian Act for the last few hundred or so years, but now they are being shamed, harassed and bullied into abandoning what First Nations have managed to save for their future generations. First Nations identities, cultures, and lands are under attack once again from the newly revitalized right wingers (thanks to PM Harper and his conservative party) who think that the only “true” Canadians are those that look, walk, talk, and think alike. This is despite the fact that First Nations have never imposed such rules on Canadians. First Nations are not asking for anything other than for Canadians to live up to their constitutional promises. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is the Supreme law of the land. No federal or provincial government has the authority to enact laws and policies outside those legal boundaries by which Canadians have agreed to live. Section 35 recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. In case there was any doubt, in 1996 Canada publicly recognized that Aboriginal peoples have the “inherent right” to self-government and that this right was protected in s.35. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/ldc/ccl/pubs/sg/sg-eng.asp The inherent right to be self-governing does not mean that First Nations MUST govern themselves according to western laws, ideologies, and governance structures. That would defeat the whole purpose of being self-governing according to one’s OWN laws, customs, and practices. Even the Supreme Court of Canada in Van der Peet recognized that: In my view, the doctrine of aboriginal rights exists, and is recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1), because of one simple fact: when Europeans arrived in North America, aboriginal peoples were already here, living in communities on the land, and participating in distinctive cultures, as they had done for centuries. It is this fact, and this fact above all others, which separates aboriginal peoples from all other minority groups in Canadian society and which mandates their special legal, and now constitutional, status. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1996/1996canlii216/1996canlii216.html Additionally, PM Harper stood before and on behalf of ALL Canadians and apologized to First Nations for the assimilatory attitudes upon which policies like residential schools were based. Specifically, PM Harper explained that: Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions, and cultures and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed some sought, as was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child”. Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/rqpi/apo/index-eng.asp This apology is in line with other pronouncements from the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)regarding the purpose of protecting the rights of Aboriginal peoples in the Constitution Act, 1982. Specifically, the SCC held in Powley that the purpose of section 35 was to protect to recognize and enhance Aboriginal peoples “survival as distinctive communities.” Distinctive refers to the unique laws, cultures, traditions, practices and beliefs of Aboriginal Nations. The SCC explained that the “purpose and the promise of s. 35 is to protect practices that were historically important features of these distinctive communities” so that they can preserve their cultures for future generations. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc43/2003scc43.html So, if the supreme law of the land, our country’s highest court, and even the Prime Minister recognizes the need to protect Aboriginal laws, customs, practices, beliefs, traditions, and cultures, how is it that the right wingers in society cannot wrap their minds around that concept? Today, I read a comment in the National Post which referred to First Nations concepts of communal property as “Soviet-style native property rules”. Never mind that the “Soviet Union” doesn’t even exist anymore, but the comparison shows the ignorance of the commentator. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/03/national-post-editorial-board-enough-soviet-style-native-property-rules/ The commentator alleges that Canadians who live on reserve are “denied the ability to own real property”. In fact, any Aboriginal person may own property off-reserve in fee simple. On reserve, they can hold property in a Certificate of Possession (CPs) which is similar to fee simple, except that it can’t be sold to non-Indians. This form of property ownership respects the communal nature of land ownership in First Nations. The communal nature of land holding in First Nations has long been recognized by laws, courts, and our constitution as an integral part of First Nations laws, rules and practices related to their lands. The commentator also alleges that Aboriginal people “cannot hold true title to their homes” nor can they “mortgage a property to raise capital”. In fact, Aboriginal people can hold CPs to their homes and even obtain a mortgage through various programs at CMHC and INAC. The link below provides details about how the process works: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/ab/onre/onre_008.cfm The commentator also claims that Aboriginal peoples cannot develop their “land as they see fit”. This may or may not be true, depending on the zoning and other land use codes that may or may not in place in any particular First Nation. It is interesting to note however, that most Canadians cannot develop their land as they see fit due to zoning and other municipal land use by-laws. This comment reflects an obvious lack of knowledge around the subject. More troubling is the allegation that Aboriginal peoples “can lose their homes without recourse, whenever it happens to be convenient for band council to give their property to a new occupant”. This is categorically false. Various provisions of the Indian Act lay out how land is to be allotted, how CPs can be issued, and the process under which land can be expropriated. Canadian and provincial laws allow lands of Canadians to be expropriated in special circumstances, but never without compensation. The rules are similar on a reserve. Of course, the rules may well be different for self-governing First Nations and/or those under the First Nations Land Management Act. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/I/I-5.pdf The commentator uses the example of Kahnawake where the band council enacted residency by-laws prohibiting non-members from residing on their reserve. When asked about the legality of such a by-law, the former Minister of Indian Affairs, Chuck Strahl claimed it was “legal” and even “constitutional” despite the fact that in order for a by-law to be legal it must be submitted to INAC for approval – which according to INAC was never done. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2542877 I agree completely with the commentator that such a law, which evicts non-Indian spouses of legitimate band members from their homes, is racist. It divides children from their parents, and families from their communities. Instead of protecting their Nation, they are actually speeding up their own assimilation. I myself, have written a blog about the injustice of this situation. http://nonstatusindian.blogspot.com/2010/02/mohawks-or-canadas-disappearing-indians.html That being said, Kahnawake does not represent all 633 First Nations in Canada. Just as the serial killer Robert Pickton does not represent the values of all Canadians, nor does Kahnawake represent the majority of First Nations values. Finally, the commentator praises Tom Flanagan’s new book: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights” as the answer to the situation of communal property rights. As Tom Flanagan describes First Nations as “primitive communists”, it is easy to see where this commentator divined his inspiration to write about “Soviet” First Nations. Flanagan’s plan is to turn reserves into fee simple, maximize land values, and open up reserves to be sold to non-Indians. In my opinion, this does not recognize constitutionally protected land rights and simply represents a right wing desire to see Aboriginal peoples assimilated once and for all. I have written a book review which summarizes the plan and highlights significant issues with it. It is called “Opportunity or Temptation” and you can find it on the Literary Review of Canada website under back issues in April 2010. Such a plan far from recognizes the “distinct” First Nations’ traditions, practices, laws, and customs in relation to Aboriginal lands, but in fact represents an intolerance for such difference. It demands that Aboriginal people be more like “westerners” and embrace capitalism and concepts of individual wealth over the welfare of family, community and Nation. Aboriginal peoples are not asking Canadians to adopt First Nations laws and concepts, just to respect their right to have their own ideals. A basic tennet of liberal democracies like Canada, is that of tolerance and respect for difference. Forcing First Nations to adopt Canadian ideals is actually very undemocratic. It is quite hypocritical for Canadians to defend their Charter and Constitutional rights so vehemently, except when it comes to the constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples. It is time these right wingers thought more about what a true democracy means and start walking the walk before they go around telling other people to be more Canadian.