Warrior Life Studios

Tag: treaties

Canadians are not racist? Indigenous Invisibility versus the Convenience of Racist Indifference – UPDATED

This week, former Prime Minister Paul Martin, told the media that the failure to address the many overlapping crises faced by Indigenous peoples is not a problem with Canadians – Canadians are not racist. The problem is with Indigenous peoples – we are invisible. Martin further alleges that Canadians are “a generous people” that will “rise to the occasion” to support others in need – if they are aware of the issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/canadians-not-racist-but-aboriginal-issue-invisible-to-many-says-paul-martin-1.3579731

In my opinion, not only do we have a very deep and long-standing race problem in some segments of Canadian society, but this racism has also infected every level, branch and institution of the municipal, provincial, territorial and federal governments. This race problem is not new. It is in fact, one of the primary root causes of the challenges faced by Indigenous peoples today. Canadians are well aware of both the racism issue and the many over-lapping crises in First Nations.

Racism in Canada is Real

The racism experienced by Indigenous peoples in Canada is not just a matter of insult or offence. While there are no shortage of racist, hateful comments made about us as individuals, communities and Nations – the racism we face is lethal. It doesn’t just hurt our feelings – it leads to our pre-mature deaths in a large variety of ways. Scalping bounties led to the deaths on thousands of Mi’kmaw people. There was a higher death rate for Indigenous kids in residential schools than for soldiers in WWII. Thousands of Indigenous peoples are murdered or are disappeared. We have higher rates of disease and injury. And deaths while in the custody of hospitals, foster parents and police show how prevalent racism against Indigenous peoples is in Canada.

http://crsp.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/crsp/article/view/35220/32057

This isn’t just my opinion. The Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Prosecution in 1989 found that he was wrongfully prosecuted and failed by everyone in the justice system because he was native. 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples spoke about racism against Indigenous women. The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in Manitoba in 1999 admitted the justice system fails Indigenous peoples on a “massive scale”. The 2007 Ipperwash report confirmed that racism in the Ontario Provincial Police was widespread. And there have been many other reports which all speak to the deep-seated racism within Canada and its institutions.

We’ve known for a very long time that stories in the media about Indigenous peoples draws a high number of racist and hateful comments from all segments of society including teachers, professors, authors, professionals and politicians. In November of 2015, the General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News Canada issued a statement explaining why CBC will no longer allow comments on stories about Indigenous peoples. The reason for this is that Indigenous-related stories brought out “higher-than-average” comments which were not only hateful but also racist.

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2015/11/uncivil-dialogue-commenting-and-stories-about-indigenous-people.html

MacLean’s magazine even went so far as to say that Canada’s race problem is far worse than America’s and part of what makes it so bad is that Canadians keep denying they are racist.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/out-of-sight-out-of-mind-2/

In case you require something a little more official, the Ontario Human Rights Commission confirms that Canada has “a legacy of racism – particularly towards Aboriginal persons”.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/racial-discrimination-brochure

The fact that Canada is so systemically and overtly racist is one of the reasons why Canada has so many laws against racism and hate speech, including federal and provincial human rights acts, the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is a signatory to numerous international human rights instruments. There would be no need for these protections if there were no issues around racism in Canada.

Invisibility versus Racist Indifference

Let’s just address this fiction before it becomes the new Liberal mantra. Neither Indigenous peoples, nor the many over-lapping crises we face are invisible. While 50% of Indigenous people live in remote reserves, about 50% live in or near urban centres. One can’t walk down the street in Winnipeg or Saskatoon without seeing Indigenous people. In terms of the challenges we face, First Nations like Attawapiskat have put our higher rates of suicide, poverty, homelessness in the forefront and is a prime example of Canada’s racist and differential responses to First Nation crises versus Canadian crises (Walkerton, Halifax, Fort McMurray).

Trudeau’s uneven response to Fort McMurray and Attawapiskat shows tale of two cities

Indigenous activists like Cindy Blackstock have ensured that Canadians are well aware of the over-representation of First Nations kids in foster care. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concluded that the reason for the chronic underfunding and disproportionate number of kids in foster care was because they were native. The problem of racism in Canada means that a tribunal actually had to direct Canada to stop its discriminatory treatment of Indigenous kids – and we are all still waiting for Canada to abide by this decision.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/canada-discriminates-against-children-on-reserves-tribunal-rules-1.3419480

The Native Women’s Association of Canada led the way with public education and advocacy to focus the country’s attention on the thousands of murdered and missing Indigenous women. Even Canada’s own Attorney General and Office of the Correctional Investigator rang the alarm on Canada’s discriminatory treatment of Indigenous peoples which led to under-funded education systems and prisons over-represented with Indigenous peoples. We are far from invisible, but don’t take their words for it – the numbers speak for themselves.

In 2010, a study by Environics showed that 60% of Canadians are either somewhat or very familiar with Indigenous issues. This is nothing new. In fact, over the last two decades, at least half of Canadians were familiar with Indigenous issues. The majority of Canadians also believe that the challenges faced by Indigenous peoples are the result of the attitudes of non-Indigenous people and government policies. Since 1993, Canadians have ranked addressing the living conditions on reserve as one of the top priorities. There is absolutely no doubt that Canadians and their politicians know about the issues.

Focus Canada 2010: Public opinion research on the record Serving the public interest

Idle No More, the largest social movement in Canada’s history, brought the issues of social conditions and unresolved treaties and land claims to the front of the media, government and world’s attention and held it there for nearly a year. But Indigenous peoples didn’t just capture the media headlines in 2012. There have been regular flash points over the last few decades that garnered a great deal of media attention including Listuguj, Oka, Gustafsen Lake, Ipperwash, Burnt Church, Elsipogtog, Caledonia and others. There are few in Canada who could claim that Indigenous peoples are invisible. They may not want to acknowledge the lethal results of this kind of racism, but they are aware it exists. After the Truth and Reconciliation Report, few can deny the racist underpinnings of Canada’s genocidal policies against Indigenous peoples.

So, no, racism is not a figment of our imaginations. The many tombstones from Indigenous peoples killed at the hands of priests, doctors, foster parents, police and bureaucrats prove otherwise. And, no, Indigenous peoples are not invisible. There isn’t a newspaper, news channel or magazine that hasn’t had pictures of dirty water, run down homes, or deceased Indigenous women as their lead story at some point. And finally, no, most Canadians are not unaware of our dire circumstances. It’s the racist segments of society that make a conscious choice to turn a blind eye to our suffering while running to the aid of their non-Indigenous neighbor.

There are many authors, media commentators and people in society who deny the racist views held by the countless individuals and institutions who have stolen, sterilized, experimented on, scalped, beaten, raped, murdered, and dispossessed Indigenous peoples of their identities, cultures, children, lands, resources and independence. In my opinion, denying the racism which instigates the high level of violence and suffering in First Nations, is itself an act of racism. It is far too convenient to be willfully blind or indifferent to the lethal impacts of racism on Indigenous peoples. Apologies are easy, as are empty diversity policies, and promises for a new relationship. The hard work is in making amends for the damage done and which continues to be done to Indigenous peoples by people and governments which still have racist ideologies and intentions.

Canada was built on the dispossession, oppression and genocide of Indigenous peoples. Addressing racism now means far more than apologies, photo-ops and fancy words – it means the return of our lands and resources, the recognition of our jurisdiction, and the full implementation of our rights. This means land, wealth, and power changes hands – it means an uncomfortable recognition that Canada benefits from our continued oppression. Justice will require some discomfort. If it isn’t uncomfortable, it isn’t justice.

This isn’t a multi-cultural issue or one of diversity – we are not asking for “equality”, we are demanding justice. If we are going to move forward, we can’t hide behind the convenience of the status quo. We have to be brave enough to shine a light on the problem and work together to address is. Indigenous peoples have many allies in Canadian society – not everyone is racist. Unfortunately, many still hold racist views which threaten our lives.

I think we can all do better than pretend the problem of racism against Indigenous peoples doesn’t exist. While the new theme may be reconciliation, reconciliation is not a process in an of itself – it starts first with the truth. If Canada cannot admit it has a racism problem, then we can never take steps to address it. Let’s continue the conversation in an open and honest way. Racism does exist in Canada. UPDATE: These comments that Mr. Martin said upset me. I’ve had to think about why they upset me so much, because it’s not like I haven’t heard them made many times from many different people. I don’t react to the vast majority of these comments. I know these comments originate from people who are in different places and in different contexts. I believe most people are good people at heart. Most of us love our families and communities and we want to see a brighter future for everyone. So, in fairness to Mr. Martin, perhaps in making those comments, he meant to show faith in Canadian citizens that once they know about Indigenous struggles they will act. His recent interviews seem to suggest that since leaving office, he wants to advocate on their behalf. He recently denounced former Prime Minister Chretien’s comments who suggested that First Nations should leave reserves; he has advocated for improved First Nation education and set up a foundation for that purpose; and he consistently called the chronic underfunding of First Nations social programs discriminatory. My blog was less about him – as a person – and more about the comments in general. I also know that we are in the business of social justice to gain support for our cause. I have been advised by lots of people who have heard me speak that I should tone down my words, be careful not to come on too strong, and to focus on encouraging allies and not make enemies. As a Mi’kmaw person, I am honour-bound to live up to the treaty commitments of my ancestors who promised to live in peace with the settlers. My Dad fought in WWII alongside Canadians to ensure our treaty commitments were kept. He did his despite everything that has been done to us. So, I understand the importance of maintaining allies. I have strong opinions and I share them not to hurt anyone, but to advocate as strenuously as possible for our people, because our lives depend on it. I feel a grave sense of urgency to not lose another generation of babies. I don’t want to see our languages die. I don’t want our lands to become so contaminated we can’t use them for our ceremonies. I have to be honest and say the truth as I see it. I’ve been in ceremonies where elders told me I have no choice but to speak the truth – regardless of the backlash. I have to be honest. Sugar-coating the situation only makes it worse. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable and sometimes its painful – but its from the truth that we can come up with solutions. Reconciliation requires we go through this painful part to finally heal and make amends. It’s 2016 – there is no good reason to hold onto racist ideologies that allow the discrimination, violence, dispossession and oppression of our people to continue. It’s very frustrating to see our kids be forced into foster care, imprisoned, beaten by police, commit suicide or go murdered and missing every day. Every single day while governments ponder their budgets, edit speaking points and delay justice, another Indigenous man, woman or child suffers. what that politicians meet in wood-paneled offices with expensive meals while they talk about measured justice, first steps and plans for the future, our people still die. People I love still die. This is why I speak and write the way I do. To us, the issues are urgent. We can’t ever get our people back once we have lost them. We have to act now. While the easy answer might be to blame a rogue cop, a psycho serial killer or the KKK, the reality is that there are large segments of Canadian society in positions of power that hold extremely racist views about Indigenous peoples. Harper’s last decade of power is a prime example of how rampant racism is and the impacts it has on First Nations. Racism is not an anomaly. Its not an exception. It’s not about one bad apple – its widespread and it’s killing my people. Most of my friends and colleagues that work, study or volunteer in social justice causes hate answering the phone late at night. We know that it means another Indigenous person has committed suicide, died, been arrested or had their children taken from them. We all dread these calls. Because even though the government may have shifted a priority or the media has left, we are always left with the lived realities of not just inter-generational trauma, but modern-day racist laws, policies and decisions which affect our lives. I think this is why I reacted so strongly to Mr. Martin’s comments. Not because I think he is a racist or that all Canadians are racist. Mr. Martin has helped many individual First Nation people access education funds, he has supported them find employment, he has advocated strenuously in recent years for government to step up and act. On a personal level, he was supportive of my work at Ryerson University and even the work of many of us in the Idle No More movement. I think more people in positions of power should stand up and demand justice alongside our grassroots Canadians and Indigenous Nations. I truly believe we cannot have reconciliation until we can be brave enough to hear the dark truth, challenge one another on our opinions and be critical of what isn’t working. This shouldn’t be taken personally, but social conflict is a necessary part of growth, change and improvement. I apologize to anyone who thought I was saying that ALL Canadians are racist. I know that we have many good allies. In fact, Idle No More helped bring us all together. There has never been so much good will and cooperation between non-government organizations and community groups with Indigenous peoples. We have united to work jointly on child-welfare, anti-poverty, housing and homelessness, climate change and the environment, and human rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee said last year that they never saw such a united force. I would like to believe that our collective efforts at social justice will make the changes we want to see in Canada. I am sorry that this process won’t be easy, it won’t be speedy, and we won’t always feel like we are on the same side. I hope in the end, you understand why it’s necessary.

May 13, 2016
BIll C-51 My responses to questions from Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence (April 27, 2015)

First Question: Senator Mitchell: My next question would probably go to Ms. Palmater and Mr. Bennett. The bill originally had “unlawful advocacy,” and I believe that’s been taken out. But I also believe that it still leaves a gap, and that is to say that you can do something unlawful that is perfectly non-terrorist. In fact, the gap really is absolutely, perfectly acceptable civil disobedience within a democratic society, which is a hallmark of a democratic society, provided that you’re prepared to take the consequences within the rule of law for having done that. Could you comment on that? Ms. Palmater: I’m glad you asked that question. It’s a really good one. The fact that they are intending — it hasn’t been passed yet, I understand — to take out the “unlawful” part does not address the whole other range of activities contemplating the disruption of the economy, for example, where a First Nation makes a very targeted strategy in partnership with others to make sure a pipeline doesn’t go through by legal means, by civil disobedient means, by the exercise of their international rights — all of those things that might not fall under protest, might not fall under dissent, because often times “protest” is very narrowly defined. There’s a problem with wording, and Justice Canada lawyers will know this very well. It’s poor wording. It doesn’t encapsulate all the ways in which we are already criminalized. Look at the number of people who are already over-imprisoned, who are charged, who are arrested, who are assaulted, and Bill C-51 hasn’t even passed yet. My submission to the house was very specific about those things, not just the extent of the surveillance, but look at the number of people who are considered criminals for what they do now. Minister Valcourt has already said that we are threats to national security, and DND has considered that our activities in advocating for our rights are a level of insurgency, so this is before Bill C-51 even passes. Unless there is very specific language specifically addressing the activities of First Nations, we will be captured under this. Senator Mitchell: The implications of the treaty struck me some years ago when somebody said that a treaty means nobody was defeated. It was an agreement nation to nation not to fight anymore. It’s a powerful concept. Second Question: Senator Jaffer: I have questions for each of you, and I’ll start with Ms. Palmater. We’re all aware of Ms. Blackstock’s — I would go so far as to call it harassment. Even without this bill, what has it been like for you and your organization when it comes to issues you’re working on? What challenges do you already face? Ms. Palmater: That’s a really good question and it was the subject of my submission to the house. What we’re talking about, without anything in this bill being passed yet, we’re already overrepresented in prison. Even though the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue said you have to stop imprisoning First Nations people, we’re being imprisoned more, not less. When the Supreme Court of Canada in Marshall said we had a recognized treaty right to fish and sell it, DFO and the RCMP came in, rammed our boats, beat us with clubs, maced us, arrested us and put us in jail. I only have to talk about Listuguj. Especially in Quebec, it’s been highly problematic. They’ve invaded Listuguj twice. In Oka, Ipperwash, an unarmed land defender was murdered. Gustafsen Lake, one of the largest attacks by the RCMP on a civilian population; Esgenoopetitj. You’ve got Elsipogtog, Caledonia. It goes on and on in terms of the way the military has been used against First Nations people. And the justice system itself, we’re more likely to be arrested, imprisoned and those kinds of things. Senator Jaffer: I’m going to have to stop you there because I have two more questions. Third Question: Senator Dagenais: Ms. Palmater, correct me if I am wrong; you referred to the infamous Oka crisis of the 1990s, or something like that. We are not at all talking about the same situation. There was a sort of guerilla conflict between your community and the town of Oka regarding a golf course. We need to be careful. I was a police officer with the Sûreté du Québec. I was there when the Sûreté du Québec intervened. Let us remember that a police officer died in the process, because we were trying to protect your community as much as the town of Oka. I would ask you to be careful. The Sûreté du Québec was present for a year in Akwesasne to maintain order and protect the community, because there were people from the Mohawk community who were in the drug trade and had killed each other. I hope you have all of the details of that matter. You have to be careful when you accuse police officers of abusing their powers. I was there, and I saw it with my own eyes. [English] Ms. Palmater: Every single commission that has ever been done in this country, every single study, every single United Nations report on Canada’s activities towards indigenous peoples, have all confirmed as fact — not accusation, but fact — the blatant, overt and systemic racism and disproportionate application of the law in a negative way against First Nations people. You can read any of those reports, any time, and they will confirm that. Saying that there are some Mohawks who run drugs is like saying all Canadians are serial killers, just because some Canadians have been serial killers. What that does is propagate more racism against First Nations people, as if we’re all criminals in addition to terrorists, and that’s not acceptable. [Translation] Senator Dagenais: I do not want to have a debate with you. At the time, police officers from the Sûreté du Québec were asked to protect your communities. The Sûreté du Québec was there, because you did not have a police force to protect you anymore. You know, the United Nations are another matter, but sometimes they should come see how things are on the ground. [English] The Chair: Colleagues, we are at the end of the time for the panel. (Taken from official transcript). Videos of my responses to the three questions above can be found at the following links: Question 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5XPVC6v5IY Question 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZGOgEgZokI Question 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3H4k1apVks

May 12, 2015
Bill C-51 – My Testimony to Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence (April 27, 2015)

Dr. Palmater. Pamela D. Palmater, Associate Professor and Chair in Indigenous Governance, Ryerson University, as an individual: Thank you. My name is Pam Palmater. I come from the sovereign nation of the Mi’kmaw in the East. I would first like to acknowledge the traditional territory on which we are sitting, that of the Algonquin Nation, which is one of the many sovereign nations with which Canada is allied and committed to maintaining peace in this territory. It is the only reason why we get to sit here today. These treaties and other agreements are constitutionally protected and form part of the foundation of Canada practically, politically, militarily and legally. Bill C-51 goes to the heart of this relationship. Canada has already predetermined, through its ministers and others, that First Nations are “insurgents” and “national threats to security.” This is one of the reasons why I’m bringing testimony today. In addition to the submissions I made in the house, which I’ve attached as appendices to what I’m going to be saying today, I’m going to focus on the nature of these treaties and exactly what’s at stake with Bill C-51. These treaties were not just about mutual respect, respecting our right to govern ourselves and our own laws. They were also about mutual benefit, but most importantly and for this committee today, they were about mutual protection. These treaties were about military alliances and legal obligations to protect one another and defend these territories. The two central tenets of the majority of these treaties was that there would be peace in this territory, defending our lands, protecting First Nations and settlers, and that we had a military and political alliance against all other aggressors. That’s not a responsibility held unilaterally by Canada. It’s a constitutionally protected joint responsibility and it is violated by this bill. First Nations have fought in Canada’s wars because of these treaties. First Nations have helped protect this territory and our borders from other nations because of these treaties. National defence, public safety and national security have been, first and foremost, a responsibility of First Nations in this territory since time immemorial and that has never ceased. The treaties confirm this. Specific treaty provisions like the Treaty of 1752 with the Mi’kmaw Nation was specifically about the duty to protect one another, military alliance, and the Crown was to provide ammunition to the Mi’kmaw on an annual basis to this end. The Treaty of Niagara was the same thing: military alliance, mutual protection and the provision of ammunition. Treaty No. 6 for the Cree was all about peace in this territory, military alliance, and $1,500 a year would be spent on ammunition to provide the First Nations for the defence of these territories. We’re not just talking about hunting and fishing with treaties; we’re talking about military alliances. We agreed, nation to nation, that this territory would be a peaceful one. We agreed to keep each other safe, and despite the many aggressions by Canada against our people, we have kept the peace. Despite scalping laws, rape, torture and murder in residential schools, forced sterilizations, we have kept the peace. Canada has turned the national police — the RCMP — and the army against First Nations. We have kept the peace. There are no greater allies that Canada can have in the war on terror than First Nations in this country. First Nations have shown that they will hurt themselves before Canadian citizens. We are not the enemy, yet Minister Valcourt has publicly stated that our leaders are threats to national security. The Department of National Defence has called us insurgents and has a manual on how to deal with our dangerous activity. This bill is too broad. It violates our basic human rights, Aboriginal and treaty rights and civil liberties. The Supreme Court of Canada said in Nolet that no valid legislative objective, even one of public safety, can sanitize Charter violations. And this bill contemplates Charter violations before we even know what the alleged crime is. There are no stronger allies to Canada than First Nations, and we’ve given our lives to prove that. Yet Canada, with this bill, has failed to consult with us on our core Aboriginal treaty and inherent right to jointly manage national defence. To that end, I have several recommendations in addition to my previous submission. One, the bill is fatally flawed and must go back to the drawing board for proper consultation with First Nations. Two, there must be an independent body to report on the extensive level of surveillance against First Nations in this country and our treatment as terrorists as opposed to treaty partners. Three, there must be a First Nations special advocate or an amicus of the court to make sure that Aboriginal treaty and Charter rights are upheld during secret court processes for warrant applications and wiretaps. Four, there must be a joint national study on racism and discrimination in the justice system that has been identified by previous commissions — the royal commission, Donald Marshall commission, Ipperwash inquiry and the Manitoba justice commission — that deals with the infection of racism in the entire justice system that can and will impact Bill C-51 should it be passed. Five, the ministries of public safety and national defence must include a like First Nation body to ensure joint decision making and consultation on all matters of public safety, emergency preparedness and national defence. The First Nation representative should be appointed by themselves, and a First Nation representative should be included on any oversight body in relation to intelligence services. Specifically to the next draft of Bill C-51, there needs to be a preamble which acknowledges the treaties and First Nations’ sovereignty and specifically acknowledges our joint constitutionally protected mandate of national defence in this country, provisions which detail decision making and reporting with First Nations on all of the issues covered in Bill C-51, very specific clarifications that anti-terror does not mean anti-First Nation and anti-First Nation governance and activities. There must be an assurance that no information about individuals or First Nation communities be given to third parties, the private sector or foreign governments any more from this point forward; specify that sharing of information relates to anti-terror only and not this unknowable, mystical generic threat to national security. Those departments specified for sharing information must have specific exclusions: Indian Affairs, Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, the environmental agency, NRCan and CRA must all be excluded from information sharing, as those are the ones primarily involved with First Nations. All offences must be specified. There can be no general offence of anything that can’t possibly be known. There must be specific attention to curtailing any sweeping electronic surveillance. Any new laws must contain a mental fault element. And there must be a maximum use and reference to current laws versus duplicating or expanding unknowable laws. Thank you. (Taken from official transcript – April 27, 2015). Video of the presentation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aYeNdJdWRo

May 12, 2015
#IMPEACH ATLEO – Response to AFN’s “Analysis” Of Its Own Education Deal With Harper

The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Shawn Atleo made a “historic” deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on First Nation education. What makes this deal so historic? Well, it’s the deal that no First Nation asked for and its one that Atleo had no power to make. It’s historic because not only will Atleo go down in history as the worst National Chief, but he has taken the AFN down with him. For the most part, many Regional Chiefs sat by and watched him do it. Now, the AFN thinks that by analyzing its own deal, this will help make the bitter taste of assimilation wash down more easily. They are wrong.

It is important to understand that Atleo has absolutely no independent political power as National Chief. The AFN’s Charter is very specific about this. So, all of his deal-making with Canada is outside the legal scope of this authority. The Prime Minister, who is not a signatory to the treaties between First Nations and Her Majesty, is also acting outside the legal scope of his power. Harper has no power to unilaterally amend treaties or violate constitutionally-protected treaty rights. Yet, this political duo is taking matters into their own hands and changing the rules in education and treaty rights – just like they both promised at the Crown-First Nation Gathering.

The opposition to this deal is not new – it has been significant and consistent throughout the last few years. Three provinces of First Nations pulled out of the National Panel on Education – Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario – as a strong message to Atleo that he did NOT have the mandate to make a deal on First Nation education. Atleo did not listen. He forged ahead despite the growing opposition. The Chiefs in Assembly passed numerous resolutions AGAINST Atleo making any deals on First Nation education and specifically against education legislation. Atleo hung on tightly to Harper and forged ahead despite growing calls for his impeachment.

Then came the “deal” – the promise of adequate funding, First Nation control, and legislation that would recognize our Aboriginal and treaty rights to education. From the moment Atleo-Harper held their joint press conference, First Nations knew we were in trouble. Atleo sang songs about how he was saving our children from the status quo while Harper countered every point Atleo made – although with great tact. When Atleo realized that Harper wasn’t singing the same song, Atleo send a strongly worded letter asking whether or not any of the promises Atleo made to First Nations were in fact going to be kept by Harper. The answer was no. Instead of throwing away his pride, admitting to his colossal mistake and standing with First Nations against Harper’s assimilation agenda, Atleo stood by Harper.

What followed was political propaganda from Harper, Minister Valcourt and Atleo meant to save the deal from being challenged in the public arena. AFN’s open letters, statements, clarifications, and press releases were desperate acts of damage control. It was too late – Chief Gilbert Whiteduck filed a judicial review against Canada about the proposed legislation. First Nations spoke honestly and critically in the media about the damage this proposed Act would do. Lawyers, academics, analysts and political commentators all seem to come to the same conclusion: the Act did not reflect First Nations control or protect treaty rights, and even the funding was an illusion.

The proof is in the act – Bill C-33 which was supposed to be called First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act actually reads:

An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other acts

The Act establishes a “framework” and that framework is to “enable” First Nations control over elementary and secondary schools. But what does this mean exactly? First Nations have been very specific that they want recognition of their exclusive jurisdiction and control over all aspects of education in First Nations. The Summary portion of the Act provides more clarity:

This enactment provides for the control by First Nations of their elementary and secondary education systems. It establishes a framework to enable First Nations to exercise that control by administering schools situated on their reserves, by delegating the power to administer schools to a First Nation Education Authority or by entering into a tuition or administration agreement. (emphasis added)

First of all, any “control” by First Nations is limited only to elementary and secondary education. In addition, that control is limited to the administration of on reserve schools only. That administrative control is further limited to a power to delegate – i.e. that control MUST be exercised by giving up all control to First Nation Education Authorities – a new level of bureaucracy.

In simple terms, Canada is retaining all of its control over First Nation education – this is clear throughout the Act. At best, this Act outlines a complex process for how Canada will DEVOLVE limited ADMINISTRATIVE control over some, not all, education to First Nation organizations (not First Nations themselves). In case there was any doubt, the Summary goes on to explain that it is Canada that will set out the roles and responsibilities of First Nation educators and will create a National Organization, in addition to this Education Authorities as yet another layer of control over First Nations education.

This cumbersome new bureaucratic system will not be adequately funded, and the majority of the funds will be eaten up by this bureaucracy. The only people that will benefit are those waiting in the wings to gain favour from the Harper government and be appointed to one of these new boards. While newly appointed bureaucrats suck up the already inadequate funding that should be going to First Nations to operate their schools, a new financial burden is being placed them – the requirement to provide education to non-First Nation people.

One doesn’t even have to read the actual provisions contained inside the Act to know that this is not in the best interests of First Nations. Yet, Atleo continues to vehemently defend the deal he made with Harper. Atleo’s most recent “analysis” of the Act is a sign that the AFN stopped working for First Nations and is more concerned about gaining favour with Harper to the detriment of our children and future generations.

The analysis is not really an analysis so much as it is AFN’s spin on their colossal failure. A simple, plain language analysis could have been done in relatively few pages. However, their analysis does not even start until the 4^th page of their document. The first three pages simply outline history – what we already know. What’s worse is that when the analysis does start, it begs us to read into the Act what isn’t there – legal recognition, implementation, enforcement and funding of First Nations controlled education systems according to First Nation laws, rights and priorities.

Highlights of AFN’s Analysis:

“Principle” of First Nation Control:

AFN uses the same weasel words that Justice Canada and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) uses. Instead of a direct recognition of First Nation jurisdiction over all education systems, AFN and AANDC say that First Nation education should be “designed” based on a “guiding principle” of First Nation control. The design of First Nation education is being done by AANDC through this Act, and the guiding principles of First Nation control are not law – they are fluffy statements used to give the illusion of control without actually recognizes a legal right.

“Reference” to language and culture:

AFN argues that a mere reference to language and culture is significant, but fails to highlight how this is limited by the actual provisions within the Act that make provincial standards the norm and English and French the standard languages of instruction.

K-12 Education is part of life-long learning:

AFN highlights that this is an important statement in the preamble of the Act, yet ignores the fact that this Act is specifically limited to K-12 education. In an analysis, we would expect AFN to highlight the substantive promises, not the fluff. This Act does not state that First Nations have jurisdiction over every level of education, thus the lifelong learning statement is just more fluff.

Protecting the Treaty Right to Education:

AFN claims that the preamble which states that Canada protects Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 should give comfort that this Act respects treaty rights. All the preamble actually says is that Canada protects treaty rights in section 35. It does not say this Act protects treaty rights. These weasel words are meant to distract our people and give them false comfort.

AFN asks us to believe that the non-derogation clause contained within the Act is further protection of our Aboriginal or treaty right to education. Yet, that is not what the clause says. The clause speaks to the non-derogation (to take away from) or abrogation (to end or cancel) of Aboriginal and treaty rights generally. There is no positive protection of the treaty right to education, no specific mention of the treaties which protect education being exempt from the Act, and no acknowledgment of Canada’s legal obligations to recognize and implement the treaty right to education. Instead, this Act purports to legislate that treaty right without our consent. The very act of introducing this Bill without the free, informed and prior consent of First Nations, violates the treaty right and/or Aboriginal to education. Further, the failure to fully fund education in First Nations violates the treaty provisions, which in turn violates the constitution. AFN should be advocating and defending our rights – plain and simple.

Access to Education:

Instead of focusing on the necessary funding to ensure that First Nations can provide robust education (of their own design) to First Nations, this part of the Act is not focused on First Nations at all. This section speaks to forcing First Nations to provide education (as outlined by AANDC) to non-First Nation residents. This is an added burden and could impede the ability to direct their education system as per Indigenous values and traditions.

AANDC, as part of its assimilation agenda, is trying to transition the rights-based obligations of Canada to First Nations, to a discretionary one of programs and services to generic residents. This is the transition from First Nations to provincial municipalities. This is not the first Act to do this. Look at the Matrimonial Real Property Act which purports to give non-Indians property rights on reserve in contravention of treaties and the Indian Act itself. This will also create an administrative and financial burden on First Nations. The fact that AFN would not highlight this and defend First Nation rights shows they are no more than an arm of the federal government facilitating the assimilation agenda.

Joint Council of Education Professionals:

Again, this is another provision that First Nations did not ask for, but is a mandatory aspect of this Act. The very fact that this Council is created and governed by federal legislation speaks to the lack of independence. Either way, whether federally-controlled or jointly AFN-Harper controlled – this is not the vision of First Nations regarding jurisdiction over education. If the funding component was addressed, First Nations would be able to build their own capacity with whatever “expert” assistance they determine to be relevant.

Instead, this Act, like the Matrimonial Property Act, gives the illusion of control and independence, while mandating Centres of Excellence, National Joint Council, controlled by the federal government to oversee federal legislation. None of this speaks to First Nation control. All of AFN’s hopes with regards to this Joint Council are based on “anticipated” roles, not actual roles contained in the legislation.

Even after all of this, AFN still expects First Nations to follow blindly down this legislative path in “anticipation” of good results. The way I see it, once Canada lives up to its current legal and treaty obligations, I might be more inclined to have some faith in their intentions to live up to the hopes of AFN in this legislation. Until then, we owe our future generations a little more than pie in the sky false hopes.

First Nation Languages:

Nice try AFN, but the legislation is clear. The language of instruction in schools is French and English. There is no way you can interpret the law as written in any other manner. The First Nation “is to”, i.e. must offer French or English. They “may” “in addition” offer First Nation languages. This is an optional, permissible action, in addition to regular instruction. Given that First Nations are also being forced to adopt provincial standards and curriculum, there’ll be little room for English-French as core instruction to provincial standards, as well as First Nation immersion. The two are incompatible.

I don’t want the courts left to interpret our rights. We have domestic and international legal rights to speak our own languages and educate our children in our own languages and on our own standards. This is also an inherent right based on our sovereignty and jurisdiction over education. If Canada had intended that First Nations would be “allowed” to educate their children in First Nation languages in immersion, they would have written it that way. Justice Canada’s legislative drafters are skilled in writing the intentions of the instructing Minister. There was no mistake here.

First Nation Governance?

First Nation Education Authorities are the heart of this Act. It is intended that First Nation “control” is exercised through First Nation Authorities. These authorities are defined by Canada. They are agents of AANDC. Similarly, AANDC defines who is to be hired by these authorities, including Directors and Principles, and prescribes their roles. AANDC takes it a step further and includes a school inspector – modern day Indian agent to oversee and “verify” compliance with the Act. This Act goes even further and gives the power to AANDC to require that the First Nation Authority hire a Special Advisor, and can even appoint a third-party educator known as a “temporary administrator” against the will of the First Nation.

In comparison to the current Indian Act, this act gives AANDC much more detailed and expansive powers over First Nation education. The Act makes it mandatory for the Director, principal and staff of a First Nation school to comply with the third-party educator. Given the horrific outcomes of federally-run residential schools, First Nations have a right to fear such invasive control over their education systems – far more intrusive than now. The difference between residential schools and modern-day federally-controlled schools under this Act is that the federal government was liable for the damages they caused in residential schools. In this Act, they absolve themselves of any and all liability for any harm done to First Nations.

Other Issues with the Act:

The funding is inadequate and will be eaten up by new federal and regional education bureaucracies;

The Act limits First Nation “control” to on reserve schools and excludes First Nation control over their students within their territories but off reserve;

The Act mandates the provision of already-stretched education services to non-First Nations;

The Act mandates parents to register and force attendance of their children – not unlike residential schools, which could result in increased abductions of First Nation children by Child and Family Service agencies into already swollen foster care;

The functions and powers of the National Joint Council are unlimited and could be substantially expanded under the yet-to-be-written regulations;

There is no requirement that the regulations be approved by or jointly drafted by First Nations – Canada retains all the power to enact any regulation regarding this Act;

The provisions around the Joint Council membership seem to be more about saving the AFN as an organization, than of representing the views and choices of First Nations – although not defined in the Act, the regulations will determine who is the representative organization;

A First Nation is not permitted to charge tuition fees to any of its attendees (I’m thinking specifically non-First Nation attendees) which precludes the design of special schools or funding options for schools;

The Act prescribes who can and cannot act as a Director or Principal, which in very small communities could severely limit whether local people could apply for these jobs;

Methods of calculation for funding purposes have skewed comparators in “similarly-sized provincial” schools given that the treaty right is not comparable with those who do not have similarly-protected constitutional rights, histories, experiences, socio-economic conditions, governance capacity or catch-up to do from harms in residential schools;

Finally, the height of an undemocratic, irresponsible, unaccountable government:

Canada reserves all these powers to direct First Nation education, but will not allow itself to be held accountable if it causes harm – by insulating itself from liability.

This isn’t what First Nations meant by recognition of First Nations jurisdiction over their own education systems, nor does it recognize and implement the treaty right to education. The AFN’s continued defense of Atleo-Harper’s education deal. At any time the regional chiefs of the AFN could have stopped Atleo by impeaching him; they could have resigned in protest; they could have spoken up loud and clear.

While it’s true that some regional chiefs were ostracized and excluded from information and decision-making, staying silent about what is happening does not protect the people. I am a strong believer in unity, but not at the expense of unifying ourselves out of existence. Our ancestors were kind, respectful people who guarded their protocols to ensure good working relationships with other Nations. But our ancestors were also warriors and knew when to stand up and protect their people from harm.

Atleo’s three-piece suits, photo-ops, club speeches, international travel, and fancy dinners with Harper and his Ministers are an insult to the First Nations women who go murdered and missing, to our kids who die in foster care, to the children without hope who die of suicide; and the many people who die pre-mature deaths from purposeful, chronic federal underfunding.

The problem and the solution have been identified in hundreds of reports. Recognition of First Nation jurisdiction and adequate funding could change lives of First Nations and Canadians as we know it. Even the economic analysis says we’d all live much richer, fuller lives – First Nation and Canadian – if we invested in First Nation education. You don’t need legislation or any more studies to do this – it’s a simple choice by Canada. Not all pressing problems have such simple solutions, but it’s the solution itself – funding – that Canada has taken great pains to avoid.

It’s time to stop shaking hands with those who are trying to eliminate us and start defending the rights of our people.

Related blogs:

http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2014/03/first-nations-controlled-first-nations.html

http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2014/02/harpers-cons-and-fnea-would-you-want.html

http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2014/02/first-nation-control-of-first-nation.html

April 29, 2014
Willing Partner or Jail?: Budget 2014 and the Elimination of First Nation Treaty Rights, Resources and Trade

Harper has released the Conservative government’s federal budget for 2014 and one might think we were transported back in time to 1814. Promises of federally-controlled schools for Indians and trained, cheap labour for the extractive industry are the highlights of this budget. Instead of providing funds to address the socio-economic crises that exist on many First Nations, or implementing Aboriginal, treaty and inherent rights, Harper has offered more beads and trinkets – except these beads are more like bombs. Harper is poised to eliminate our rights in the name of national security. http://actionplan.gc.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/budget2014-eng.pdf A closer inspection of the budget “promises” reveals very real threats to First Nations treaty rights, natural resources and their right to trade. All of this for the alleged “benefit of Canadians”, but it won’t be Canadians who benefit – it will be large corporate enterprises which hoard their profits. In the US alone, corporations are sitting on trillions in cash – not benefiting anyone but their CEOs. Harper’s economic plan doesn’t just hurt First Nations – it also hurts Canadians. http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/corporations-hoard-cash-while-americans-go-without-job-5508 In a strategically-designed media event, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Shawn Atleo together with Prime Minister Harper and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) Minister Bernard Valcourt announced that legislation to totally revamp education in First Nations would be imposed by Canada after all – despite the resistance by the majority of Chiefs and First Nations citizens in Canada. http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2014/02/first-nation-control-of-first-nation.html Amidst much secrecy and blue-dot identification systems to exclude “bad Indians”, Atleo and Harper ran roughshod over the treaty right to education. Despite Atleo’s words that AFN is not a treaty organization and that he cannot negotiate treaty rights – he has done just that. Harper, with the help of Atleo, is trying to lure First Nations into trading their treaty right to education for a legislated program – subject to government whims and budgets. http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/14-02-14_nc_bulletin_fn_education_announcement_and_budget_2014_fe.pdf Their joint announcement on First Nation Control of First Nation Education Act as the “answer” to the education crisis in First Nations is an illusion. Despite the build-up and announcement day fanfare, there was nothing substantive put on the table for First Nation education this year except more paternalistic federal legislation. It must be remembered that this legislation is an old promise that has been announced and re-announced many times over in major Conservative speeches. The rest of Atleo-Harper’s announcement amounted to a promise of future monies which are supposed to flow AFTER Harper’s term of office. Kelowna has shown us how empty “future monies” are to First Nations. http://www.oktlaw.com/blog/behind-the-numbers-harper39s-new-funding-of-the-first-nations-education-act/ Not only is this elusive, top-secret, federally-controlled legislation nothing new – but it is also being used as the primary trinket in other sections of the budget. For example, under the Education section, First Nations are promised First Nation education legislation. Under Jobs, they are promised First Nation education legislation. Under Skills Training, they are promised First Nation education legislation. So, once again First Nations really don’t get anything out the federal budget 2014 despite the fact that it’s our lands and resources that subsidize the many other budgetary promises. The Conservative Budget 2014 reveals that the only promises we can take to bank are those which reinforce the federal blockade against First Nation treaties, resources and trading rights. Make no mistake, Harper’s veiled threats in his Speech from the Throne are also being implemented in his Budget 2014. Harper, with the help of “willing partners” like Atleo, are asking First Nations to voluntarily give up their rights in exchange for money. The problem here is that this is like asking a single mom living on social assistance if she wants food for her children. Of course she needs food for her children, but that doesn’t mean she should be bullied into giving up her rights. Many of our communities are under duress to accept these take-it or leave-it offers. With no money to fight in court and no courts where we can get an unbiased decision, this leaves very few options for First Nations to protect their rights. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2013/10/conservative-throne-speech-2013-more.html There is incredible economic pressure put on First Nations to assimilate, integrate and otherwise surrender their rights. The budget indicates that Conservatives will provide $166 million over two years to help strengthen First Nation fishing enterprises, which sounds promising – until you read further. The money is allocated for the Atlantic and Pacific commercial fisheries – however, the funds are to be used to “integrate First Nation fishing enterprises into existing commercial fisheries”. First Nations have Aboriginal, treaty, and inherent rights to trade in fish – these rights are constitutionally and internationally protected. Canadians do NOT have a constitutional right to fish and trade in fish. What he is saying is that millions will be put into forcing First Nations to give up their rights or give up their means of subsistence. This is not voluntary – it’s coercive. We should not be surprised given that this comes from a government whose members have advocated against what they call “race-based” fishing rights. http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3642 This underlying threat against First Nations rights appears throughout the budget and especially in relation to natural resources. The Harper government promises to “ensure” the extraction of natural resources and, as promised in his Throne from the Speech, he will “protect” these resources by beefing up protective infrastructure around them – including roads, bridges, and the means to protect this infrastructure. This is why you see billions invested in “energy infrastructure development” as well as money for law enforcement. Similarly, our Indigenous right to trade is also being attacked despite the many thousands of years of trading activities amongst our Indigenous Nations. For centuries, we have defended and protected our territories and trading routes. While the colonial governments erected barriers to the free flow of trade between Indigenous Nations – like the Canada-US border, the Jay Treaty promised that we would not be molested in our traditional travel and trade activities. Similarly, nation-based territories span multiple provincial borders and our sovereignty, rights and laws have never been superseded by provincial laws. Our trading and business activities have long been a part of our traditional economies – but Harper wants absolute control over our economies. Self-sufficient Nations don’t mix with Harper’s ideal of assimilated Indians and surrendered resources. Harper is now trying to force us give up our trading and business activities and surrender it to the federal and provincial governments under the guise of law and order. Canada has had a long history of criminalizing our traditional activities like hunting, fishing, and even travelling off-reserve to engage in trade. This continues today where the majority of court cases defending our Aboriginal and treaty rights are within the context of criminal or regulatory offences. In Budget 2014, Harper is pre-empting our rights and making some of our trade and business illegal. He is targeting online casinos and making them subject to terrorism legislation – knowing that outside of the provinces, it’s only First Nations that are venturing into online casinos. Similarly, he is taking one of our most lucrative traditional activities – the growing, manufacture and trade in tobacco – and eliminating First Nations trade as an “anti-terrorism” and “anti-contraband” measure. The only exceptions, if any, will be through tightly-controlled federal or provincial restrictions. Harper’s federal blockade preventing us from accessing our own resources is getting stronger – chipping away at our future self-sufficiency. So, just to be clear – Budget 2014 promises that if we agree to give up our Aboriginal, treaty and inherent rights to the $650 billion dollars (over the next 10 years) in natural resources that we own, Harper will give us some skills training for some low-level labour jobs with the extractive industry. That is why so many “employers” were present at the Atleo-Harper education announcement. As Harper continues to cut funding to First Nations and blockade them from their own resources, he hopes to make First Nations reliant on large corporations for hand-outs. Harper may feign innocence and claim that he is not forcing us to do anything and that all of these promises are for “willing partners” – but the definition of willing is without duress. Yet in Harper’s world, willing partners are those who want to eat, drink clean water, have an education and want to stay out of jail. Willing partner or jail… willing partner or jail… willing partner or jail. What would you choose? First Nations are already over-incarcerated and we know where this Budget 2014 path is heading. If we don’t act soon, it won’t just be First Nations who fill the shiny new prisons – Canadians are also lose the rest of their democratic rights and freedoms. How much more will Canadians take – from CSEC spying on all our cell communications in airports, CSIS and RCMP using terrorism to spy on social workers and teachers, to changes to the elections act to ensure we can never get rid of the Conservatives. We all need fresh air, clean water and farmable lands to live – Canadian or First Nation. We can’t eat gold or nuclear waste. It’s time we got real about Harper’s intentions and helped First Nations defend their rights. This could be Canadians’ last best chance to protect their own children from a life sentence in one of Harper’s jails for the crime of subsistence and protecting our lands and waters.

February 17, 2014
Defer, Deflect, Deny, Destroy: Harper’s First Nation Education Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forget more paternalistic federal legislation and honour the treaties.

October 8, 2013
First Nations Sign Agreement with Federal and Provincial Governments in NB to Negotiate Self-Government

It was reported earlier this week that 10 out of 15 First Nations in NB signed an agreement with the federal and provincial governments to negotiate self-government. It was then subsequently reported that all 15 First Nations in NB have signed on. However, after speaking with several First Nations, I understand that only 10 First Nations signed, and only one was Maliseet. I don’t have an original signed copy, but I have been provided with the text by one of the First Nations. Many people have been emailing me and asking for a copy of the agreement which I have copied below. Please always refer to the original as the official document: MI’GMAG, WOLASTOQIYIK, NEW BRUNSWICK and CANADA UMBRELLA AGREEMENT -among- THE MI’GMAG AND WOLASTOQIYIK PEOPLES IN NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the Chiefs of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations in New Brunswick (“the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick”) -and- THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the Minister Responsible for the Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”) -and- THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (“Canada”) Collectively referred to as “the Parties”: RECITALS: WHEREAS The Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik Peoples assert that they have used and occupied their Traditional Lands since time immemorial in accordance with principles of stewardship and responsibility given to them by the Creator; and The Parties wish to renew and strengthen their government-to-government-togovernment relationship; and The Parties are dedicated to the principles of good faith, openness, mutual honour and respect; and The Parties are committed to formal tripartite discussions in order to address outstanding issues among the Parties; and The Parties recognize that the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick have not enjoyed the same standard of living as other New Brunswickers; and The Parties have a shared desire to work in partnership with the shared goal of improving the quality of life outcomes of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; and Page 2 of 7 The Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik Peoples and the British Crown entered into sacred Treaties. Those Treaties established a relationship based on peace and friendship; and The Parties intend to negotiate and implement agreements on Aboriginal and Treaty rights, including the right to self-government. THEREFORE THE PARTIES HAVE REACHED THE FOLLOWING UNDERSTANDINGS: OBJECTIVE OF THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT 1) This Umbrella Agreement is designed to guide tripartite discussions with the aim of concluding a Framework Agreement on inter-governmental relationships and Aboriginal and Treaty rights and the self-government of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick. 2) The Parties have targeted December 31, 2012 as the date by which they wish to have negotiated a Framework Agreement. PROCESS 3) The Parties shall establish a Coordinating Committee comprised of representatives appointed by each of the Parties to oversee the work undertaken under this Umbrella Agreement. In particular, the Coordinating Committee shall: a) Identify the subject-matters that are to be addressed under a Framework Agreement, such as, but not limited to: i. Lands and Resources; ii. Governance and Jurisdiction; iii. Economy Development and Sustainability; iv. Health; v. Education; and vi. Social and Cultural Development; b) Negotiate a tripartite agreement on consultation; c) Identify whether a sub-committee for any agreed to subject-matter should be established; d) Develop terms of reference and strategic work plans for itself and any proposed sub-committee; e) Propose interim agreements on issues of concern to the Parties and develop methods for their implementation; f) Coordinate, monitor and evaluate progress made on the work undertaken under this Umbrella Agreement; g) Ensure that its representatives report on an ongoing basis, and at least quarterly, to their respective principals on work progress; and Page 3 of 7 h) Ensure that annual budgets, work plans and any reporting requirements related to funding agreements are completed and processed in a timely manner. 4) Upon consideration of an annual work plan and the funding resources available, Canada and New Brunswick will cost-share funding under this Umbrella Agreement. STATUS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT 5) Except for sections 5 to 14, this Umbrella Agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to this Umbrella Agreement do not create any legal obligations which are binding on the Parties unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties. 6) This Umbrella Agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to this Umbrella Agreement shall: a) be on a “without prejudice” basis with respect to the legal rights or positions of the Parties, including the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; b) be deemed not to create, define, alter or affect the legal rights or positions of the Parties, including the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; c) not be construed to be, or deemed to be, consultation for the purpose of justification by Canada or New Brunswick for the infringement of any Aboriginal or Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; and d) not preclude any other discussion or initiative between: i. the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick, or individual Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations and New Brunswick, or ii. the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick, or individual Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations and Canada on matters of mutual concern. 7) Except for the purpose of enforcing sections 5 to 14 or unless otherwise agreed in writing the Parties undertake not to tender or seek admission of this Umbrella Agreement or the content of meetings, discussions, negotiations, documents generated or positions taken in or during the process contemplated hereunder as evidence in a court of law or before any administrative or regulatory tribunal or board. This undertaking shall survive the termination of this Umbrella Agreement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties. 8) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Umbrella Agreement, any Party may refer to publicly and may lead evidence regarding the Parties, date of operation, existence and purpose of this Umbrella Agreement and the frequency of and participants in meetings held pursuant to its operation before a court, regulatory tribunal, board or similar body. Page 4 of 7 9) This Umbrella Agreement shall come into force and effect on the date of its signatures by Canada, New Brunswick, and the First Nations’ Chiefs in New Brunswick provided: a) A majority of the First Nation Chiefs in New Brunswick execute this Umbrella Agreement; and b) The Chiefs who execute this Umbrella Agreement are leaders of those First Nations whose members constitute at least fifty per cent plus one person (50% + 1) of the federally registered Indian population in New Brunswick. 10) Any New Brunswick Mi’gmag or Wolastoqiyik First Nation, as represented by its respective Chief, may upon three months written notice to all the Parties, hereto join, withdraw, or rejoin this Umbrella Agreement. 11) If one or more of the Mi’gmag or Wolastoqiyik First Nation(s), as represented by the respective Chief(s), decides to withdraw from this Umbrella Agreement pursuant to section 10, this Umbrella Agreement shall not automatically terminate. 12) If, at any time, the First Nation Parties to this Umbrella Agreement fall below the majority of Chiefs or the majority consists of Chiefs representing less than fifty per cent plus one person (50% + 1) of the federally registered Indian population in New Brunswick, the Parties will consider whether to terminate this Umbrella Agreement. 13) Notwithstanding section 12, Canada or New Brunswick may withdraw or rejoin this Umbrella Agreement upon three months written notice to all the Parties. 14) Notwithstanding sections 10 to 13, the agreements, understandings, undertakings and commitments set out in sections 5 to 9 all continue in effect unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing. Page 5 of 7 Signed at _______________, New Brunswick, the _______day of ___________, 2011. Representing the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick I am told that the last two pages are just the signature pages. A special thank you to my friends, family and colleagues in NB First Nation who help keep me informed on what is happening back home. It is hard being so far from home, but you all make it easier. Hope this helps. Please e-mail if you have any more questions.

September 14, 2011
Secret Agent Harper: Conservative Spy Games in Indian Country

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

June 2, 2011
To Vote or Not to Vote – A Question of Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples

The issue of whether or not to vote in the fast-approaching federal election has been a hot topic in the last few weeks. There are Indigenous peoples on both sides of the argument and sometimes the debate can get pretty heated. Taking into account the vibrant diversity within our Indigenous Nations, a wide variety of opinions is to be expected. One thing is for certain, we all seem to want better for our families, communities and Nations – the only difference is how we go about achieving it. Ways of Thinking: I am one of those academics, lawyers, volunteers, activists, mothers, and bloggers that likes to think about these issues on multiple levels – from legal, political, social, historical, philosophical and practical mindsets. This way of thinking and considering issues comes from my Indigeneity – my Mi’kmaq way of seeing, contemplating and navigating this world. I have often had problems giving legal opinions that did not include a consideration of political and social considerations, or looking at a policy issue without looking deeper at the philosophical ideology from which it stems. I have often found that part of the problem in considering issues which impact our peoples is that the decision-makers look at it from a one-dimensional viewpoint. So, addressing chronic poverty in First Nations is seen as a matter of economics – it costs too much up front to deal with, ignoring that investments now have far bigger pay-offs later. On top of that kind of limited thinking, federal and provincial politicians are still saddled with their very ethnocentric, westernized ways of seeing the world and our place within it. The overall goal of assimilation and paternalism seems to cut across political parties and be a common theme in federal and provincial policies and laws relating to our people. So, how does all of this relate to voting? I think the underlying ideology from which you consider the issue affects the factors that are considered relevant in deciding whether or not to vote. I am also trying to say that I appreciate all opinions and ideas and learn a great deal from the diverse Indigenous world views shared with me on a regular basis. Since this might be a little too “heavy” for some readers and out of consideration for my younger followers who might “unfollow” me if I get too boring, I’ll get straight to the issue – I am against voting in federal and provincial elections. However, I am not against Aboriginal people exercising their right to vote. How are these two positions compatible? Let me try to explain… The Right to Vote: Aboriginal peoples have the right to vote in Canada. Canada considers Aboriginal peoples in Canada to be Canadian citizens and as such have a right to vote. “Indians” achieved the right to vote in 1960 when those anachronistic provisions of Canadian laws were repealed. Given that the Canadian system, with all of its laws, policies and governing structures were imposed on Aboriginal people against their will, I think having the right to vote is the LEAST Canada can do. So, given Canada’s assumption of sovereignty in our territories, I clearly believe that Aboriginal people should have the right to vote – I am just not advocating that they do. Some of you might be saying “How does that make any sense”? Like I said, since Canada imposed their systems on us, then the option of being a citizen with a right to vote is the least that Canada can do for Aboriginal peoples. Some feel that we are “dual citizens” – i.e., citizens of our Indigenous Nations and (for some) citizens of Canada. Therefore, there is an argument to be made that those who vote do not prejudice their real citizenship in their Nations because of this duality. While there is some merit to this argument, I think the issue of sovereignty is a bit more complex. We must keep in mind that the right to vote is directly associated with being a Canadian citizen. Being a Canadian citizen has been historically tied to having to give up one’s Indigeneity, language, culture, laws, governance, ways of being and adopt Canadian ways of life. Canada has a long history of promoting its perceived cultural superiority that this ideology found its way into Canadian laws, policies and decision-making. The Indian Act used to require that anyone who wanted to vote had to give up their Indian status and that of their wife and children. This meant forgoing all connections to the land and dispensing with Treaty rights. Even today, government laws and policies are all geared toward assimilation and extinguishment – not the protection of Indigenous Nations. It is no suprise then that the centuries old association of being Canadian (and the right to vote) with the loss of our identity, culture and rights is one that looms large in many of our minds and why many refuse to vote. Dual Citizenship: Let’s assume for argument sake that we are technically dual citizens – citizens of both Canada and our own Indigenous Nation. Just because we have it doesn’t mean we should use it – especially if it won’t give us what we want. Does having a couple of Aboriginal MPs help strengthen our sovereignty or Nation-building efforts? Does it fundamentally shift the relationship between our treaty partners? Does it fulfill and enrich our sense of being Mi’kmaq, Mohawk, Cree or Maliseet? I would argue it does not. It gives us (if we are “successful” in the vote) Aboriginal MPs. What does that do? We had Elijah Harper, who thankfully stopped Meech Lake, but those laws have since been changed. We could not do that again. The colonizers quickly learn from their mistakes and change laws,jury pools or even election ridings to suit their own interests – never ours. That is why we see so few of us on juries and why we are on the receiving end of the cruel justice. What we would end up with even if we did get a few more Aboriginal MPs, is more people who would be forced to tow the party line. I no more want an Aboriginal Minister of Indian Affairs imposing the Indian Act on me and my family than I would a non-Aboriginal one. Nor am I comforted by having an Aboriginal Fisheries officer arrest my family for fishing or prosecuting my family for hunting. In my eyes, that is far worse than when a non-Aboriginal person oppresses our people because we have an inherent obligation to stand up for our people – something for which our ancestors felt was worth giving up their lives – if necessary. I am also concerned about the equality of the “duality” of citizenship – is there a point where the more dominant form of citizenship, i.e., the “Canadian” one, overcomes our traditional citizenship? By voting as Canadians, while our Indigenous rights, cultures, languages and lands slip away, is there some point where the Flanagans and Harpers of the world pronounce that we are finally assimilated? If we don’t act to recognize, assert, protect and act on our sovereignty and indigeneity – NO ONE ELSE WILL. No one act of sovereignty will make a difference – it is our collective mindset, teachings and actions that will bring about the change we want. Not voting is one of many, many actions we need to take to assert our sovereignty Sovereignty: In simple terms, sovereignty means that our Indigenous Nations (Mi’kmaq, Cree, Maliseet, etc) have the right to be self-determining and free from interference or control by another Nation – like Canada not just because they were “here first” – although this is a pretty compelling argument even in Western legal traditions. It is far more than our occupation of this land since time immemorial, it is, as the Supreme Court of Canada put it: “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.” (emphasis added) http://scc.lexum.org/en/1996/1996scr2-507/1996scr2-507.html We were (and are) sovereign peoples with our own lands, histories and cultures, but also our own laws, trading systems and networks and governing systems. None of this was replaced or nullified on Canada’s assumption of sovereignty. This is one of the reasons why our inherent right to be self-determining has been protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html Sovereignty can never be given – it is something that is asserted and that may or may not then be recognized by others. Anyone who asks Canada to recognize our sovereignty is not acting sovereign. When communities and Nations take a stand and act on their sovereignty by fishing, hunting, enacting our own laws, living by our own cultures and traditions, pr by preserving and promoting our languages – that is real sovereignty. Kahnawake knows what it is like to act on their sovereignty – so does Esgenoopetitj, Six Nations and many others. It Makes No Sense to Vote: So, if that is the case and we are sovereign Nations with our inherent right to be self-governing recognized as protected, then why would we vote in another sovereign Nation’s election process? If you look at it in reverse, would you want Canadians to vote in OUR elections and governing processes? Of course not – even saying it sounds ridiculous. I think we have suffered enough by Canadian control over our affairs, we don’t need any more micro-managers in our communities. If you look at it from a treaty perspective, we signed treaties as sovereign Nations, not as the wards or subjects of the Crown. If this were the case, there’d be no treaties as Nations never sign treaties except with other Nations. This is one of the very fundamental aspects of who we are as Nations that makes us different from those who have immigrated to Canada. We owe it to our treaty ancestors to live our sovereignty everyday so that our future generations enjoy the same freedom to be and live Indigenous. What are We Voting For? So, let’s say that none of this has even slightly given you pause for thought. When we do vote, what are we voting for? We are voting for political parties who have been responsible for: – physical and sexual abuse, deaths, cruelty and torture & loss of language and culture in residential schools; – wanting to completely eliminate “Indians” through scalping bounties, small pox blankets, White Paper, Indian Act, exclusion of our women and children from our communities through status; – chronic under-funding and caps on our essential social services like water, housing, health and education; -over-representation of our men and women in prisons, starlight tours, deaths in police custody; – hundreds and hundreds of murdered and missing Aboriginal women and girls and even more subjected to violence and sexual exploitation; and – the theft of our precious children during the 60’s scoop and now many more through Child Welfare Agencies. This is just to name a few. So, what then are we voting for when we vote for one party or another? We are voting for more of the same but hoping for something different. What we are voting for is who will be our next Indian agent. We are voting for the next Minister of Indian Affairs who will manage and control us through the Indian Act and keep us so pre-occupied with such extreme poverty than we are too sick, uneducated, depressed or dead to rise up and re-assert our sovereignty. Our expectations are managed so that we will chase the small hope that maybe this time will be different and maybe we will get a few hundred more dollars for a program or project. We deserve better than this and we are responsible to our Nations not to be complicit in this. Our Veterans: I have heard many raise the issue of our Aboriginal war veterans in this debate. I have a great deal of respect for those who fought to protect their territories as they have done since time immemorial. As individuals, I am sure they all had their own reasons for enlisting in WWI and WWII and other wars. That being said, I don’t like when people make the over-generalisation that our veterans were fighting for the right to vote. That may be true of some war vets, but not all. Indians did not get the right to vote until 1960 – decades after WWI and II. My father was a WWII war veteran who came back home disabled, with no land or compensation and no educational opportunities. He did not fight in Canada’s war for the right to vote in Canada’s governing system, he fought as an ally of Britain with whom our Nation, the Mi’kmaq Nation, had signed various treaties. In our treaties, we agreed to be allies and protect our territories. It was his hope that by living up to his obligations under the treaties, the Crown would live up to its obligations. There are many war veterans who felt the same way. Political Engagement vs. Apathy?: Nothing makes me more upset than when I hear others categorize our First Nations who refuse to vote in federal or provincial elections as being apathetic or uninterested in political engagement. The majority of us may not vote in federal or provincial elections, but did you ever look at our participation rates for elections, land, treaty and other votes in our Nations? The participation rates are unbelievably high and put Canadian voter participation rates to absolute shame. Our people are engaged at the grass roots level as activists, volunteers and professionals and care very much about our governing systems – both traditional and band governance. The issue is NOT voter apathy or political disengagement, it is about who we feel will best advocate for tour Nations and communities and (with exceptions) right now it is our own leaders (traditional and band) that give us that best hope – not Canadian politicians. The AFN has said that of the 308 federal election ridings, less than 60 could be impacted by Aboriginal peoples. That presumes, of course, exceptionally high voter participation and also presumes that once elected, their favoured MPs will be able to make the fundamental changes required to address our long outstanding issues. I think those are unrealistic expectations if we go by: past practice, the empty election platforms; and the arrogant lack of attention to Aboriginal issues by most of the parties. That’s just my opinion. I honestly enjoy engaging in the debate and hearing the opinions and arguments of others that maybe I have not yet considered. I am encouraged that so many of us care about our sovereignty enough to talk about how important it is – even if we differ on which path we should take to get there. Here are some recent radio interviews I have done on the subject:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1889793175

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Radio/The_Current/1450068094/ID=1899783289

All this being said, I have heard and considered all the arguments for why we should vote and they are very good arguments. I also see the strategy in voting not “for” someone, but to rise up against a dictatorial regime. So, voting then becomes less of a civic engagement exercise in Canadian governance and more of a strategic political tactic to guard against further intrusion into our Nations. These are all good points. Thank you all for sharing and let’s keep talking.

April 27, 2011