INAC's "Expert" Panel on First Nation Education - Big Bucks, Zero Results

Back in December of 2009,  Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) (as it then was) announced that it would be putting together an "expert" panel on First Nations education and that the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) would have some say over the mandate of the panel and the appointment of its members. The members of the panel were expected to be announced in early 2011 with a view to having a report in mid-2011.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2010/12/09/govt-afn-launch-panel-to-study-education/

Up until this announcement, I had seen no call for proposals from INAC and no call from the AFN for educators to put their names forward for consideration. Then, on February 20, 2011 out of the blue, we see a notice posted on the MERX website that three individuals had already been chosen for the panel and were to be paid $200,000 EACH plus hst for a three month contract that was due to end July 31, 2011.

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=214289&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&hcode=gltUDmepFZnIFIhHGp3Jiw%3D%3D

The contract was awarded without tender because INAC felt that no one else other than the three people chosen would be as "uniquely qualified" to conduct a national panel on First Nation education. The three chosen were:

(1) David Hughes, CEO of Pathways to Education Canada, who was chosen to be the Chair of the panel,

(2) George Lafonde, former Vice-Chief of Saskatoon Tribal Council; and

(3) Caroline Krause, who described the present post-secondary funding system for First Nations as "corrupt" and thus offered her "unequivocal support" for Calvin Helin's report "Free to Learn" which advocated for giving education funds directly to students and skip bands altogether. It is no surprise then, how she came to be regarded as an "expert" or chosen for this panel.

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/FreeToLearn.pdf

This "blue ribbon" panel was to study the issue of First Nation education (once again) and come up with substantive recommendations. Their contracted mandate included the following:

(1) They will be responsible to conduct face-to-face and online engagement activities across Canada to hear from First Nation leaders, parents, students, elders, teachers, provinces, and others with an interest and a view on how to enhance the education system and outcomes of First Nation learners at the elementary and secondary levels.

(2) This will entail organizing and leading eight regional roundtables across Canada and one national roundtable and having key meetings with other stakeholders.

(3) Based on work, the Panel will provide a summary following each roundtable, a progress report to the Minister of INAC and to the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations mid-way through the process, and they will submit a final panel report with recommendations by July 31, 2011.

The report was to be tabled at the AFN's national assembly in July which is to be held in Moncton, NB this year. This panel received instant criticism from Chiefs all over the country but national Chief Shawn Atleo asked Chiefs to work with this panel despite their concerns.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/03/03/blue-ribbon-education-panel-quietly-unveiled-draws-immediate-fire/

Despite ongoing concerns expressed by many Chiefs, the AFN stood by the Conservatives and encouraged chiefs to participate. Some chiefs were so upset with AFN that they wanted to meet without AFN present.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/04/07/chief-wants-quebec-fn-gathering-without-afn/

Once can hardly blame their feelings given the lack of action on education - which has been a crisis issue since the 1950's, if not earlier. Yet, we are already at June 23, 2011 and from what I understand, there has not been a single community meeting or engagement session held to discuss any of the important issues around First Nation education.

This makes me wonder whether it is even possible for this expert panel to have a report by July 31, 2011 and if so, how such a rushed report would be worth the paper it is written on? Perhaps $200,000 per person was not enough financial incentive to have them conduct any of the work? This money will no doubt be added the the billions already spent on the bureacracy that "manages" First Nations.

Then, last night on APTN National News, it was reported that David Hughes, the Chair of the expert panel had resigned. There was no information reported about whether he had been paid any of the $200,000 under the contract, whether and to what extent he had done any of the work or when he had resigned. Again, no announcement was made by either the AFN or INAC (now ANAC). Ironic that the very government who set up a panel that will make recommendations on how First Nations need to be more accountable with education funding is not very transparent or accountable with its own funds.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/

What should have been considered an embarrassing fiasco for both INAC and the AFN was turned into a National Aboriginal Day "announcement" that an expert panel on First Nations education was "set to begin". In fact, it was reported that the panel might start as early as "this week". Downplaying the resignation of the former Chair David Hughes, it was quietly noted that the new Chair is now Scott Haldane, the President of the YMCA. Atleo explained that the goal was to have a report sometime "this calendar year" and was promising real "action".

Is it just me, or are we all being presented with smoke and mirrors instead of seeing any real accountability by INAC or the AFN? It boggles my mind that the AFN would continue to prop up the Conservatives when clearly they are not taking any action on our critical issues. In fact, APTN reported that INAC was NOT committing to any action on education and Minister Duncan said INAC was not prepared to simply "write a blank cheque" to address funding inequities.

I think it is time for the Conservatives to practice what they preach and start showing us some accountability. I also think its time for our real leaders to step up and start calling INAC on their sustained lack of action.

Here are some of the questions I want answered:

(1) Was any money paid out under the original MERX contract that was due to be completed on July 31, 2011? If so, how much?

(2) Has a new contract and/or extension of the old contract been made with the current panelists? If so, what are the terms and how much is it for?

(3) If there is a new contract and/or an extension of the old one, why would we enter into yet another contract and/or an extension of the current contract when the original objectives of the first contract were not completed?

(4) What is the real reason why the former chair of the panel resigned? Who choose this Chair and why?

(5) Did the AFN really have any say in the decision to create a panel, the madate of the panel and the membership? Really? Did Atleo choose another non-First Nations person as the chair?

Finally, why is the AFN keeping us in the dark about this critical issue for our people and propping up the Conservatives instead of holding them to account? First Nation leaders are staring to speak up, grass roots citizens are expressing their concerns - is anyone listening?

This situation is starting to look eerily familiar to the CAP-Brazeau affair. While that may have won Brazeau a Senate seat, it did little for the grass roots Aboriginal people who most needed someone to stand up for them.

Trying to cover up a fiasco on First Nation education on National Aboriginal Day has to be one of the most insulting things INAC or the AFN could do to First Nations. I think we deserve a little better than that. At least the Auditor General thought so......

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf

How many more studies do we need to be certain that there is an issue in First Nation education? How many more Auditor General's have to confirm INAC funding inequities before funding is increased?

How much more of this will we allow to happen before the real leaders step forward?

Shiny New Beads and Trinkets: Old Assimilation Policies Repackaged

There has been a great deal of publicity lately related to all the great work the Conservatives are doing in relation to Aboriginal peoples. Some media outlets have called this a "historic shift" and even gone so far as to characterize the plan as a "sweeping overhaul of reserve life".

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-native-leaders-commit-to-sweeping-overhaul-of-reserve-life/article2053099/?service=mobile

While there may be some useful tidbits in the plan, to call it historic or sweeping is misrepresenting what is actually taking place. One must keep in mind that this announcement coincided with the Auditor General's damning report about Canada's gross failure to address conditions of extreme poverty on reserve. In fact, according to Fraser, conditions have even become much worse. INAC has knowingly failed to address "inequities" in funding for post-secondary education, child and family services, housing and many other programs.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf

Yet, all of this was overshadowed by a strategically-timed joint action plan - anything to take the public's focus off of the stark reality. The fact that the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) took part in this duck and avoid maneuver leaves me questioning the AFN"s ability to effectively advocate on behalf of First Nations. Some have even questioned whether the AFN had any REAL input into the plan given how quickly it came out.

Even if National Chief of AFN Shawn Atleo did have input, that begs the question as to why he would give his blessing to a plan that would leave out critical issues around funding, consultation, First Nation jurisdiction, treaty rights and land claims. All of these issues are significant to the grass roots people, yet nothing has been mentioned about any of them. Similarly, the planned First Nation - Crown Summit also excludes these critical issues - all with Atleo's stamp of approval.

Does any of this signal a significant shift by the Conservatives from their right-wing, pro-assimilation agenda? I would argue that all we are seeing are the same old deal - the exchange of shiny beads and trinkets for our acquiescence or agreement to forgo what makes us strong, independent Nations - our sovereignty, our land and our identity. What follows are some of the reasons why I believe this to be true:

Early Indian Policy:

Early Indian policy included various measures to control, divide and assimilate Indians to finally rid Canada of the "Indian problem".  These included:

(1) Residential schools to remove culture, language and family and community ties from Indian children;
(2) Indian Act provisions which removed Indian rights from Indian women;
(3) Indian Act provisions which incorporated non-Indian women into communities;
(4) Enfranchisement provisions which encouraged Indian men to give up their identities in exchange for education, employment and individual title to reserve lands; and
(5) Indian Act provisions which prohibited lawyers from advocating for Indians in relation to their lands and treaties.

(See: The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996) [RCAP]

White Paper 1969:

The plan argued that "Indian people must be persuaded" that this was the path to a better life:

(1) Abolish the Indian Act;
(2) End special recognition for First Nations;
(3) Give them individual title to their lands (fee simple);
(4) Funds for economic development;
(5) Full integration into the cultural, social, political and economic life of Canada; and
(6) Removal of constitutional responsibility of federal government for Indians.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/arp/ls/pubs/cp1969/cp1969-eng.pdf

We all know how First Nations across the country reacted to this policy - they forcefully rejected it and re-asserted their special status in Canada and their land and treaty rights. Harold Cardinal wrote what came to be known as the Red Paper outlining the special rights of Indians in Canada. While Canada backed off of this policy, very little changed in regards to addressing First Nation poverty and the resolution of their Aboriginal and treaty rights, land claims and self-government.

RCAP provides a detailed history of the development of Indian policy over time and the rights held by First Nations. Their overall recommendation was to move forward with the resolution of land claims, recognition and implementation of treaties and the negotiation of self-government agreements. Canada's delayed, non-committal response "Gathering Strength" came to be known as "Gathering Dust" for the lack of action on Canada's part.

Then along comes Tom Flanagan, who, in his book "First Nations? Second Thoughts" argued that since First Nations were "primitive", "wasteful" and "destructive" that they should not be entitled to self-governing rights, special tax exemptions or federal funding. In his view, First Nations need to "evolve" and become more like other Canadians. This was pretty much the same message that he provided in his second book: "Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights".

His plan involved the following:

(1) "abandon" "primitive" "communist fantasies" about communal land;
(2) implement a system of individual property rights (i.e., mortgage or sell to non-Indians);
(2) repeal the Indian Act;
(4) shut down the reserves;
(3) encourage education and workforce participation; and
(4) assimilate into the larger Canadian population.

http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/

This assimilation plan of Flanagan's raised a great deal of controversy, but was not unique. Others, like Alan Cairns had also advocated for assimilation, albeit less overtly. Since then, many right-wingers have joined the call for the assimilation of First Nations including people like Frances Widdowson and Dale Gibson, to name a few. In fact, Gibson wrote a report entitled "A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy: Respect the Collective, Promote the Individual" which focuses on individual success and material wealth over communal interests.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=12783

Not surprising then, that Tom Flanagan became an advisor to Stephen Harper or that the Conservatives are now putting into place the gradual, assimilatory plan which focuses on individual wealth which has been advocated by folks like Flanagan and Gibson.

Has anything changed since the early years of Indian policy-making? Does what the Conservatives propose now amount to a significant departure from the assimilatory agenda of the 1969 White Paper? I would argue that it does not. The following overview of the Conservative agenda seems only to confirm my original assessment:

2011 Conservative Election Platform:

(1) Expand adult education in the north (no funding for k-12 or university);
(2) Increase accountability of First Nations through legislation (no funding or recognition of jurisdiction);
(3) Avoided dealing with reserve infrastructure like water and housing (but agreed to fix fuel tanks);
(4) Avoided dealing with Aboriginal and treaty rights (but First Nations can sit on hunting advisory panel);
(5) Avoided dealing with land claims (but will promote development of reserve lands through legislation).

http://www.conservative.ca/media/ConservativePlatform2011_ENs.pdf

Conservative - AFN Joint Action Plan:

(1) Education = Joint Process on k-12 education (expert panel that still has not produced any reports);
(2) Focus on "success of individuals" through education;
(2) Increase First Nation accountability and transparency;
(3) Task force to promote economic development to benefit "all Canadians";
(4) Improve relations.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/m-a2011/cfnjap-eng.asp

You will notice there are no funding commitments, measurables or key action words that commit to any specific action. It is important to note here that the AFN has publicly come out in support of this action plan.

First Nation - Crown Summit:

Then there is the promise of a First Nations-Crown Summit meeting that is supposed to take place this fall. I won't hold my breath given that Harper has promised such a meeting with First Nation leaders twice in his five years as Prime Minister to no avail.

What is being promised at this summit reads eerily like the election platform, joint action plan and other assimilatory policies of the past:

(1) The agenda is "deliberately narrow" and will not revisit the substantive commitments in Kelowna;
(2) The agenda includes education;
(3) governance and
(4) economic development.

There is to be no discussion about treaties, land claims, self-government or the funding inequities in essential social services.

http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/GB/20110603/CP02/306039861/-1/sag0806/plans-for-first-nations-summit-with-harper-finally-begin-to-solidify&template=cpArt

So, if you go back and look at the fundamental aspects of assimilation - being educated, economic development and turning reserves into individual parcels of land, you will see that not much has changed from the 1800's to the 1969 White Paper, to what is now being advanced. The fact that the Conservatives have a majority in the House and Senate means that will be able to rush through any law or policy they choose. Having the AFN on side only helps the Conservatives legitimize the process.

All of this brings me back to my original concern that the AFN is now so far away from what it was originally intended to be when it was the National Indian Brotherhood, that I am left wondering whether it has the capacity to think beyond the organization's own priorities related to funding and staffing, and advocate on behalf of First Nations and their citizens.

It seems to me that far too many people are worrying about their own jobs and making deals than they are about taking the risks inherent in standing up for that which our ancestors died to protect - our sovereignty, lands and identities.

It's about time we called the Conservatives on their deplorable record and highlight the facts brought forward by their own auditor general - that chronic and inequitable funding has made conditions on First Nations worse. We need to stand behind our treaties, protect our territories from further encroachment and go back to focusing on the needs of our future generations instead of focusing on ourselves. Any future "joint" plans MUST engage First Nations as a third order of government and as true partners and reflect the fundamentals of the treaty relationship, First Nations jurisdiction and the integrity of our territories.

Don't be fooled by shiny new beads and trinkets - it is really the same old assimilation policy of control and division repackaged with new titles like "Joint Action Plans", "Expert Panels" and "Joint Processes" - other words for "we are buying into our assimilation".

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.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.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.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.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...

From Savages to Terrorists: Justifying Genocide of First Nations

I am moved to write this blog because a couple of my readers/listeners/followers have contacted me about comments I made a while back on Facebook where I was critical of the US using the codename "Geronimo" in the assassination of Bin Laden. I was critical about First Nations being publicly characterized as terrorists and some members of the public thought I was over-exaggerating the situation. In my view, this is a direct association between the world's most notorious terrorist and an Indigenous hero. In their views, no one had really compared Indigenous peoples to terrorists and my alleged exaggeration would only cause more harm than good.

I respect the fact that these individuals shared their viewpoints as it is only through this discussion and debate that these issues can be resolved. However, in this instance, the facts do not support their allegation. In fact, there is more than enough evidence which demonstrates a far-reaching pattern of racism and public vilifying of Indigenous peoples in Canada and even the United States.

The terminology, description, and context used by government officials, politicians, academics, and others to describe Indigenous peoples is little more than propaganda used to justify the ongoing genocide in our Nations. Public outcries against Indigenous gangs, criminals, corrupt leaders and "terrorists" do not serve to improve relations between our peoples or undo the harms inflicted by the settler society, but instead act as a distraction from the crisis in First Nations poverty and the ongoing theft of our lands and resources and denial of our sovereignty.

The characterization of our peoples as terrorists reinforces the notion of us vs. them and helps provide excuses for society to walk by our homeless, jail our youth, remove our children, murder our women, disempower and vilify our men, and support governments which provide funds for other countries while our communities lack drinking water, sewage, food, fire protection and schools - the basic necessities of life. Sadly, some of our own even partake in promoting the negative stereotypes against our people.

As a lawyer, I fully realize that despite the fact that this is just a blog - which has no real rules, my readers will expect links to articles, documents, and reports which back up my argument. For those of you who doubt that First Nations have ever been called terrorists, I refer you to the following selected examples. Of course, these are only a few examples as there are far too many to include here and after a while it hurts my heart to read too much of this.

(1) Tom Flanagan

As you all likely know, Tom Flanagan is no fan of First Nations and in fact has strenuously advocated for their assimilation for years saying that "it has to happen". His books, First Nations? Second Thoughts and Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights have portrayed First Nations as "primitive", "communists", and "corrupt" and have also set their complex traditional property issues within the context of studies of "chimpanzees".

Here is the link to the book review I did of Beyond the Indian Act:

http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/

Flanagan, who is a political scientist who has focused on western political issues and First Nations, is now apparently a "security" expert and has authored a paper for the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute in 2009  entitled "Resource Industries and Security Issues in Northern Alberta".

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Resource%20Industries%20and%20Security%20Issues%20in%20Northern%20Alberta.pdf

In this paper, Flanagan argues that due to the "rapid expansion of natural-resource industries in northern Alberta, accompanied by growing environmentalist and aboriginal-rights movements" that "violent resistance to industrial development" is very possible from specific individuals like "saboteurs", "eco-terrorists" and "First Nations". While Flanagan explains that his paper could not deal with "Islamic terrorists" the focus of his paper was primarily on "security threats". Some of the examples he used were the "Lubicon Cree", the "Woodland Cree", and "warrior societies" like the "Mohawks in Ontario and Quebec".

Flanagan creates fear in his argument that an "apocalyptic scenario" of "nightmare" proportions would arise if Indigenous warrior societies and eco-terrorists joined forces:

"A nightmare scenario from the standpoint of resource industries in northern Alberta would be a linkage between warrior societies and eco-terrorists. Members of warrior societies would brandish firearms and take public possession of geographical sites, while eco-terrorists would operate clandestinely, firebombing targets over a wide range of territory. The two processes could energize each other, leading in the extreme case to loss of life and a shutdown of industry over a wide area. But this apocalyptic scenario is unlikely to happen because the members of warrior societies and environmental activists are different types of people with different objectives. It would be difficult for them to maintain coordinated action for very long."

But, then again, this is just his "expert" opinion. Does it really matter? I think most educated people would see Flanagan's unsupported claims for what they are. However, one can't ignore his political influence - having been Prime Minister Harper's right hand man or his influence on an uneducated public.

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/the-man-behind-stephen-harper-tom-flanagan/

Sadly, his books, presentations and backroom influence will likely continue to promote the view of Indigenous peoples as terrorists for the sole purpose of justifying assimilatory state actions and laws.

(2) Christy Blatchford

Some of you may know Christie Blatchford, the "journalist" who wrote the book: Helpless in Caledonia: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy and How the Law Failed Us All about the situation in Caledonia. Her book portrays the Six Nations land claims as an unimportant issue as compared to what she calls the "lawlessness" in Caledonia.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/01/update-tvo-agenda-botches-show-on.html

She also appeared on TVO's The Agenda to speak about her book and compared her coverage of the protests at Caledonia to the terrorist activities at "ground zero" in New York.

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779932&ts=2011-01-14

Just the fact that she held her book signing in Caledonia and brought "protection" with her perpetuated the stereotypical view that Indigenous peoples are inherently dangerous thugs and terrorists ready to strike at a moment's notice. She got even more publicity for herself by bringing police to her book signing at a local university.

http://www.totalwomanshow.com/News/Local/article/827023

(3) Canadian Military

Then there is the Canadian military who have listed Mohawks as a threat to national security alongside terrorists like "communists", "anarchists", "Hezbollah", "Tamils", "Mexican Indians", and "Northern Ireland's paramilitary groups". They specifically noted that: "The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies".

The manual defines an "insurgency" as "a manifestation of war and that "The military's counter-insurgency actions "seeks not only to defeat the insurgents themselves, but the root causes of, and support for, the insurgency".

The manual itself can be accessed at this link:

http://ceasefireinsider.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/counter-insurgency-operations-manual.pdf

The military said in 2010 that they would apologize to the Mohawks, but no apology has been forthcoming:

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/military-apologizing-to-mohawks/16ahlo0dq
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Military+apologize+Mohawk+Warriors/4015748/story.html

However, the Canadian military is not alone in its depiction of Indigenous peoples as terrorists. APTN was provided with copies of US State Department cables from Wikileaks where the US described "Indigenous terrorist groups" in Canada. APTN explains: "The cables, sent from the US embassy in Ottawa, and entitled Security Environmental Profile Response for Mission Canada, appear to be part of regular updates on the situation in the country."

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/04/30/u-s-considers-native-canadian-groups-as-possible-terror-threats-embassy-cables/

(4) RCMP

We also know that the anti-terrorism unit of the RCMP has been over-zealous in its monitoring of Indigenous peoples. If the RCMP did not consider Indigenous peoples to be terrorists, its anti-terrorism unit would not be actively monitoring Indigenous peoples. The unit has been known to use excessive force on Indigenous peoples alleged to be involved in "Native Issues":

http://www.turtleisland.org/news/wcw1.pdf

In addition, in a confidential report written by the RCMP's criminal intelligence unit, they argue that our Indigenous youth are a threat to to civil society alleging that "street gangs and violent activity" will continue to increase and that "organized crime" is especially a part of Mohawk communities. I received this information from an ATIP request in 2008.

However, the RCMP did recognize that the Aboriginal populations are "marginalised", have a "diminishing quality of life", that the crimes committed by Aboriginal peoples are symptoms of "poverty" and "will only get worse" unless such poverty is addressed. They also highlight the Indian Act's role in their destitution: "Many Aboriginal people find themselves limited in education and employment opportunities because of the social order created by the Indian Act".

So, if we know the causes of these situations, why doesn't Canada go to war against poverty in our communities - instead of against us? Instead, the military, RCMP and sister enforcement agencies like DFO (Fisheries and Oceans) have intervened time and again to deny our rights at Kahnesatake, Burnt Church, Gustefsen Lake, Ipperwash,  and other Indigenous territories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsvG4KpFHOA

First Nations are not the Terrorists:

Historically, First Nations were viewed as "primitive" and "savages". Even today, academics like Flanagan continue to promote that view of us.  It is no longer acceptable to call us savages, so the new word is terrorist - a word used to justify a whole series of unjustified enforcement and military actions against our people. As far as the military is concerned, they are at "war" with us.

Far worse, is the justification it gives Canadians to ignore the crisis of poverty in our communities and the ongoing discrimination faced by our people - men who are over-incarcerated, children who are removed from their families at epidemic proportions, or women who are murdered at alarming rates. It should be kept in mind that the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits acts of genocide which is defined not only as the direct killing of an identifiable group of people, but the creating of conditions that lead to their early deaths.

In fact, if one were to tally the casualties of war, I think we would see that we are the ones who have suffered and continue to suffer. The fact that our struggles to survive and preserve our lands, resources, cultures, languages and histories for our future generations are considered as acts of "war", "insurgency" or "terrorism" is more than mere discrimination - it is propaganda designed to justify the continued assimilation and genocide of our people.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/aaron_huey.html

Here is an excerpt from a memorial posted on Daniel Paul's website related Native Americans:

"Today I remember:

The thousands of Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole & Chickasaw People who suffered untold agony during the forced removal from their homelands in the 1830's. Innocent men, women and little children perished in concentration camps or froze and starved to death on the Trail Where They Cried.  

The 90 women and children who died in the Bear River Massacre in southeastern Idaho. 

The 200 Cheyenne men, women and children who were slain at Sand Creek in eastern Colorado by the US Cavalry led by Col John Chivington, a Methodist minister who ordered his men to "Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice." 

The 200 murdered Blackfeet women and children who died at Maries River in northern Montana and the other 140 People who were left to freeze to death in the January cold.

The 103 Cheyenne women and children who were butchered on the Washita River in western Oklahoma. 

The 200 to 300 Sioux who were slaughtered under a flag of truce at Wounded Knee, South Dakota.

The 500 Sauk and Fox Indians led by Black Hawk who were massacred by militia forces while trying to negotiate a surrender. 

The Yuki's and other tribes of Indians in California whose populations declined from 11,000 to less than 1000 because white men wanted the land to search for gold. Organized Indian hunts were held on Sundays and our People were killed for sport.

The little children who were kidnapped from their homes and forced to attend BIA schools. Many of them died alone and lie in unmarked graves.

From the small pox, measles, typhoid, cholera, diphtheria, TB, and VD epidemics brought to us by the white invaders to the continued genocide still being waged against us, we know about terrorism. 
And I remember."

We can never truly address the problem until Canada admits that it has one. Sadly, Prime Minister Harper's statement that there was no colonisation in Canada does not give me much hope.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/derrick/2009/09/harper-denial-g20-canada-has-no-history-colonialism

Geronimo was a hero, not a terrorist. Many of our leaders who fought to protect our lands and our Nations and who signed treaties were also heros - not terrorists. How quickly the settlers forget that it was they who invaded our territories and killed our people.

Many have asked about the solution. I don't think there is one solutions. A complex mix of tactics are required. While we fight Canada on the political and legal front, we must also ensure we protect what we have left.

It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to love and protect our people - regardless of how our actions are labelled. We are not the terrorists.

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.

Praying Darth Harper and his Death Star Pass Us By: Making Sense of Election Platforms

Over the last few weeks, many Canadians, Aboriginal people and media types have been discussing the upcoming federal election. People have been trying to analyse the platforms and see which one promises the most for Canada as a whole and for Aboriginal people specifically. I have also provided information in my previous blogs for those so inclined to vote. However, I think it is important to remember that in addition to comparing platforms, one must also compare actions.

It is often said that there is no better way to predict future results than by considering past actions. This blog will be a combo of the two - a brief look at each platform as well as some highlights of past actions for each party. Given that there are literally dozens of federal election parties in Canada, I can only deal with so many in the short space of a blog. Also, seeing as the Green Party does not have any seats and the Bloc is only relevant to a certain percentage of Quebec'ers, I will only deal with the Liberal, NDP and Conservatives.

LIBERAL ELECTION PLATFORM:

http://cdn.liberal.ca/files/2011/04/liberal_platform.pdf

(1)  a partial removal of the funding cap on First Nation post-secondary education with an extra $200M in the first 2 years;

(2) stable funding for First Nations University of Canada;

(3) $5M  per year (for 3 years) for a Metis scholarship;

(4) $300M for k-12 education in year 2;

(5) Will continue support for Aboriginal Headstart;

(6) Will create a First Nation Auditor General;

(7) Will have an inquiry into the number of Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women; and

(8) "Retain lessons and spirit of Kelowna process".

The Liberal Party obviously sees the huge importance of education for Aboriginal peoples. Education is a priority for the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and naturally the Liberals have included an education package in their election promises. However, if you look at this more closely, you will see that they only plan to spend $100 million a year for two years on the grossly underfunded post-secondary education program. The AFN estimated that what is needed is well over $450 million right now.

The Liberals will provide much needed funding in the k-12 education system but only $300 million in year two. I am not sure how effective a one-time influx of funding can be when construction projects, renovations, upgrades and hiring can and often does take several years to complete. Then what? What about operation and maintenance? These are some of the concerns First Nations have raised in regards to their schools.

The other commitments are relatively minor in nature. The Liberals would provide stable funding for the First Nations University of Canada and Metis scholarships. With regard to Aboriginal Headstart, a critically important program for the development of very young pre-school-aged children, which is underfunded and in danger of collapse in many areas - they only promise continued support. That is simply not acceptable. They can't say on the one hand that they want to respect the principles of Kelowna, while on the other hand allow critically important programs to continue to be inequitably and chronically underfunded. The Liberal platform is supposed to be about "families" - what about Aboriginal families?

So aside from limited education funding, what do the Liberals offer? Very little I'm afraid. They will introduce a First Nations Auditor General that no one but the First Nation Tax Commission and Manny Jules wants. How will this improve the lives of grass roots Aboriginal people? Where is the commitment related to treaties, land claims, and First Nation governing jurisdiction? What about a serious commitment to poverty reduction?

The Liberals also promise an inquiry into the issue of murdered and missing Aboriginal women, which to me is a very important commitment. I honestly believe that part of the problem is that the Conservatives quickly moved to silence NWAC when their advocacy efforts brought this serious issue to light. As soon as questions were asked about the lack of police action, funding was cut. I think there are still issues that need to be investigated and facts that need to be brought to light. I am disappointed however, that the Liberals did not offer continued funding for Sisters in Spirit in addition to an inquiry.

It was the Liberal Party who introduced the 2% funding cap on First Nation funding to begin with - so they have at least a moral obligation to remove it. In fairness though, the Liberal Party was the one which participated in the negotiations that led up to the Kelowna Accord which would have seen billions of dollars in funding flow to First Nations for education, housing, water and other vital programs and services. The goal was actually to eliminate poverty in First Nations. The former Prime Minister Paul Martin made it his personal mission to continue to advocate for First Nations and the goals set out in the Kelowna Accord. I am more than a little disappointed then that they are now only promising a "partial" removal of the cap.

Overall, the Liberals have a good start on the education part of their platform, but the rest is sorely lacking in any real substance. Many other key Aboriginal issues have simply not even been mentioned. So, then the question is how likely are they to fulfill their commitments if elected? Well, that is always a hard question, but if I look at some of their past actions, I am reasonably comfortable (65%) that they would follow through - after all, there is not a great deal promised in their platform.

NDP ELECTION PLATFORM:

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2011/2011-Platform/NDP-2011-Platform-En.pdf

(1)  Increase Canada Student Grants by $200 million, with focus on Aboriginal people and others;

(2) Legislation to target poverty reduction in consultation with Aboriginal and other governments;

(3) Recruit Aboriginal and other medical students;

(4) Lower carbon future in partnership with Aboriginal governments and others;

(5) New partnership with Aboriginal people on nation-nation basis;

(6) End discrimination faced by Aboriginal people - access to capital, improve housing and drinking water, remove 2% funding cap and increase education budget by $1 billion a year over 4 years;

(7) Federal response to violence against Aboriginal women and support funding their organizations;

(8) Work with First Nations and provinces to add 2500 new police officers

The NDP have also showed a priority for education in their Aboriginal platform, but at a much higher level than the Liberals. The NDP are promising to COMPLETELY remove the 2% funding cap and increase the education budget by $1 billion a year for 4 years. That is the kind of significant investment that is required to compensate for the decades of chronic underfunding, but also to offer Aboriginal peoples the same level of opportunities for the future as other Canadians. They seem to grasp the concept that the damage done to Aboriginal peoples took hundreds of years to do, so the solutions will neither be quick nor cheap.

While some of their promises include Aboriginal people, they are not necessarily focused solely on them like the student grants, recruiting of medical students and working towards a lower carbon future. That being said, the rest of their platform is significant. The NDP promise to deal with First Nations on a nation to nation basis, and while details are not offered, I don't see the other parties making similar commitments.

Similarly, the NDP seem to recognize the severe level of discrimination faced by Aboriginal peoples generally and have promised specifically to:

"build a new partnership on a nation-to-nation basis with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people across the country to restore a central element of social justice in Canada and reconcile the hopes of Aboriginal people with those of all Canadians.

We will establish this new partnership by forging a new relationship with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, fostering economic opportunity and lasting prosperity, ending the discrimination still faced by Aboriginal people in Canada and supporting the process of healing the harms of the past injustices."

They hope to accomplish this by removing the 2% funding cap, adding billions for education, increasing access to capital, and improving housing and safe drinking water on reserve. They also commit to work with Aboriginal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as non-governmental organizations to table legislation that will create goals and targets for poverty reduction. Their commitment to prevent violence against Aboriginal women also includes a direct federal response and funding commitments to related organizations.

Overall, I consider this platform to be the most comprehensive of the three. It certainly commits to action on education, water, infrastructure, violence against women and poverty reduction. These are all very important issues, however there was very little detail on what nation-to-nation relations might look like, how treaties would be factored into the relationship, whether First Nation jurisdiction would be more fully recognized and implemented or whether outstanding land claims would be finally resolved. These are also critically important issues for Aboriginal peoples.

Now, the question of how likely they are to follow through on their election promises is a tough one because they have never been in power either as a majority or minority government. This leaves us with only their actions in opposition to use as a guide. That being said, I think we can also use some of their other actions as a loose guide to future possibilities. The NDP have generally been very supportive of First Nations issues, have sided with First Nations against paternalistic legislative initiatives and spent time in First Nation communities both inside and outside of election campaigns. At the very least, their candidates show up to debates and other Aboriginal forums.

All that being said, I do have some concerns that they were willing to trade off Sharon McIvor's equality rights for the joint process to "talk" about status issues, as requested by the National Aboriginal Organizations. I can say from personal experience that the NDP worked really hard with many of us to draft amendments to better address gender inequality than what was presented in Bill C-3. However, at the end of the day they seemed to side with the Conservatives when passing Bill C-3 which included a provision denying Aboriginal women and their children any right of compensation for the last 25 years of denying their equality rights. This looms large in my mind.

At the end of the day, I can only say that I am more hopeful than confident (60%) that the NDP would live up to their election promises as I don't have enough to go by yet. Their platform is the best of all three, but if they never become the governing party, what does voting for them actually mean? I simply can't get away from my fear that voting for the NDP is like giving a vote to the Conservatives which is like hoping Darth Harper and the Death Star will simply pass us by. I have not seen any credible analysis that argues otherwise.

CONSERVATIVE ELECTION PLATFORM:

http://www.conservative.ca/media/ConservativePlatform2011_ENs.pdf

(1) New investment in First Nation Land Management to promote development of their land;

(2) Expand adult basic education in territories;

(3) Environmental safety upgrades to fuel tanks;

(4) Promote clean energy;

(5) Commemoration of War of 1812 celebrating First Nation veterans and others;

(6) Work with Aboriginal people and others to create National Conservation Plan;

(7) New national park in Rouge Valley and will try to talk to Aboriginal people and others;

(8) Hunting Advisory panel that will include some Aboriginal people;

(9) Will continue to work cooperatively with Aboriginal people, by enacting accountability legislation publishing salaries of chiefs;

So, at first glance this looks like a rather long list of election promises for Aboriginal peoples. Even when you read the platform itself, much of it reads as a list of what they claim to have already done for Aboriginal peoples, as opposed to what they will do. You'll also notice that the majority of the promises they do make are not at all specific to Aboriginal peoples, but we are "lucky" enough to be included in their plans. For example, the Hunting Advisory Panel, Rouge Valley National Park, National Conservation Plan, and Commemoration of the War of 1812, are all separate commitments that may include Aboriginal participation, but these promises are not specifically for Aboriginal peoples.

The one glaring omission from their platform (of which there are many) is a lack of focus on education. Despite the endless reports and studies highlighting education as one of the main solutions to poverty in First Nations - there is no commitment at all with regards to Aboriginal Headstart, k-12 schools, or post-secondary education. Almost as an aside, they commit to expand adult "basic education" in the north and THAT IS IT! It is like they have heard National Shief Shawn Atleo's calls for education and have completely ignored them. So, strategically, is it better for the Conservatives to have educated or uneducated Aboriginal people? I wonder....

What they do promise is to complete environmental safety upgrades to fuel tanks in northern communities. However, for those of you who practice in this area, you might know that many argue that INAC is liable for these fuel tanks to begin with and that any servicing they might do is part of a risk-reduction plan for their own benefit and not that of the Aboriginal communities. Their "promotion" of clean energy will likely not translate into basic funding to address mold and asbestos in houses, or the lack of safe drinking water and sewage systems in First Nations. These are really empty promises.

So, then what is left in the platform? They promise to invest not in First Nations communities, but in land management to encourage First Nations to develop their lands. The English equivalent of this promise is the introduction of legislation to privatize reserve lands and open them up to commercial development and settlers. In case anyone thinks this is a new initiative, it is not. Remember Tom Flanagan's book "Beyond the Indian Act" advocating for the privatization of reserve lands? That was the one promoted by Manny Jules of the First Nation Tax Commission and allegedly supported by federal funds (my ATIP request will hopefully provide some answers to this).

Their second promise is to enact accountability legislation to make chiefs' salaries public. Holy innovation Batman - is it me or does this sound like the reintroduction of Kelly Block's Bill C-575? I'm sorry if I missed this, but what First Nation asked for this legislation? So, then this is not really a promise for Aboriginal peoples, but more of a political statement reiterating the Conservative position that they know what is best for First Nations and they will enact whatever legislation they want to control the Aboriginal population as they see fit.

This leads me to my analysis of how likely they are to follow through on their election promises. I am VERY confident (90%) that the Harper Conservatives will fulfill their election promises to Aboriginal people for two reasons: (1) there are no real promises in their election platform and (2) the two promises they do make do not involve any expenditure of funds, nor do they have anything to do with Aboriginal priorities. I am also quite confident that I can use their past actions to predict their future actions

Given my past blogs, there is no point in repeating the many, many past actions of the Conservatives in relation to Aboriginal peoples, so I will just highlight a few. Harper has not lifted the 2% funding cap and has never indicated any intention to do so. Harper has also not been interested in consulting and accommodating Aboriginal and treaty, but instead settles for "engagement" if any discussion at all. While he apologized for residential schools, the assimilatory polices upon which they were based, and for the past views of cultural superiority, Harper introduced a whole suite of paternalistic legislation against the will of Aboriginal peoples.

For example, there was Bill C-575 (chiefs salary legislation cleverly introduced by a private MP), Bill C-3 (legislation that did not remedy gender inequality in the Indian Act and excluded compensation for women), Bill S-4 (matrimonial real property on reserve that provided more rights for settlers on reserve lands than for Aboriginal women), and Bill S-11 (drinking water on First Nations that promised federal control and increased regulation and no funding). We can expect more of this should Darth Harper gain control of the rebel citizens with a minority government and even worse should he gain control of the Empire with a majority.

Overall, the Harper Conservatives have not made any promises to Aboriginal people, do not participate in debates on Aboriginal issues and continue to treat First Nations like sub-humans while he and his elite Cabinet group plan for a complete take-over. They do all of this with the arrogance of knowing very few will stand up to them. We have to take some ownership over this and demand that our NAO's, leaders and ourselves do better.

We also have to keep in mind that the Harper Conservatives are a collection of right-wingers, fringe groups and even some red necks. Harper had as his advisor Tom Flanagan, the man who advocated for our assimilation, called us primitive communists and tried to explain our First Nation property rights by citing studies of chimpanzees in his book.

"Collectively, chimps, especially adult males in small groups patrol the boundaries of their group territory and kill chimpanzees from other bands when they can achieve numerical advantage.... Individually, chimps also seek control over resources..." (emphasis added)

Flanagan is like Brazeau in that he plays with words so that he can send his negative message about First Nations in a superficially "neutral" way. Is there any doubt that a Harper government is NOT good for our people?

This is why, for those of you who vote, I ask that you consider your vote very carefully. Do you vote for the NDP because they have the best platform? Does voting for the NDP really risk a majority Harper government? I simply can't say for sure. The Liberals are offering some education initiatives and little else, but at least they are not advocating our complete assimilation as do many of the right-wing Conservative party members and friends. So, then  Liberal vote might not be that bad. If someone were to ask me how they should vote, I would say NDP on platform, but Liberal to defeat Harper. It really is a difficult situation especially since for Aboriginal people, we may be voting, but all we are doing is picking our next Indian agent.

I know there are only a few days left to think about it, but as you consider it, here is a neat website that argues that to defeat the Death Star, perhaps what needs to be done is vote strategically versus the ususal best platform or favorite party wins. Something to think about anyway...

http://catch22campaign.ca/

I guess its all about the end game. Do we want more body bags and slop buckets sent to First Nations instead of dealing with the real crisis of poverty under a Conservative government, or do we want a chance to get democracy back and put our people, communities, lands and treaties back in the forefront of our nation-building activities as Mohawks, Cree, Mi'kmaq, Ojibway and Maliseet peoples?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/first-nations-water-plight-needs-action-chiefs-120533874.html

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090916/flu_bodybags_090916/

If a Harper minority government can do this to their own people, imagine what they would do with a majority government?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsogv4Bw5kM&feature=share

For those who Aboriginal people who don't vote, thanks for standing up for our sovereignty - we need our next generation to be as committed and assertive about our nationhood as you are. I think we'd all be alot further along if we put our sovereignty first. For those who do vote, thanks for trying to make a change for our people and for engaging in the debate to see how we can best use the vote to effect that change. As always, I welcome your comments, suggestions and emails.

Bullies Really Are Cowards: Harper's Conservatives Hide from Citizens

Is it just me or do I see a pattern here? I mean, there was no end of criticism for the Harper autocracy BEFORE he was booted from Parliament, but now that he is trying to win an election and asking Canadians to give him a majority government, I am shocked at how little attention he is giving to Canadian citizens. More than that, it is almost ridiculous how he and his party literally run  in the other direction when faced with the prospect of having to meet with or talk to Canadian citizens.

Their collective fear of debate and their muzzling of conservative candidates leads one to conclude that it is better to muzzle a red-neck than risk what they might say in public. I guess that is part of the problem in having a party of crooks, red-necks and bullies.

Let's just look at the English leadership debate, if you can call it that. Harper was his usual robotic self, with his frozen half smile, and eerily calm, non-passionate demeanor. He refused to engage in any debate and instead repeated his mantra - the economy is good - bickering is bad - Quebec is scary - please give us a majority. I mean, I have never seen anything more empty in my life. What does any of that offer Canadians or First Nations? He had about as much passion as a piece of deadwood.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/leaders-debate/#

Even if I could possibly look past that non-debate, then there would still be all the lies, deceit, and scandals that has mired Harper and his elite Cabinet group. My other blog detailed just a few of those which included the Helena Geurgis, Bev Oda, Pierre Poilievre, John Duncan, and others like Patrick Brazeau:

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/04/federal-election-2011-what-does-it-mean.html

Most recently, the Bruce Carson scandal (which APTN broke) reveals more disturbing details every day.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/03/16/harper-asks-rcmp-to-former-advisor/

While Harper made an attempt to distance himself from Carson, his young escort girlfriend and the mounds of money that would have been made off the backs of impoverished First Nations, Harper was far closer to the pair than he wanted to admit:

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/04/12/harper-met-bruce-carsons-former-escort-lover-at-24-sussex-party/

Even one of Harper's Cabinet Ministers hired the former-escort over other allegedly more qualified individuals:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-mp-hired-niece-of-carsons-girlfriend-in-2008/article1990590/

The Harper's Conservatives trying to call for accountability in First Nations while his own party engages in all sorts of seedy dealings is the height of hypocrisy:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/murray-dobbin/2011/04/john-duncan-another-conservative-hypocrite

Then there are all those groups and organizations that have been on Harper's hit list (speaking metaphorically). Rabble.ca provided some information about who was targeted during the Harper autocratic regime:

http://www.rabble.ca/news/2011/04/stephen-harpers-firing-range-list-87-organizations-and-people-attacked-five-years

Even if you were lucky enough not to be on this list, you have to keep in mind that First Nations have always been on their list and Harper's conservatives were likely the most paternalistic, racist and dominating government that First Nations have had to deal with in recent years.

Harper is known in the media and amongst many in society as a bully. He controls his Cabinet, muzzles his MPs, restricts access to the media, has tight controls on public information and does not engage with Canadian citizens except under the tightest of conditions. For those who think I might be exaggerating (not mentioning any names Brazeau....) I offer you the following Harper-Conservative actions during their election campaign.

(1) Conservative red-necks only care about "very ethnic" people when it comes to election time and will do anything to get it:

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Very+ethnic+ridings+targeted+Kenney+orders/4389711/story.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/974251--conservative-candidate-asks-for-ethnic-costumes-for-harper-photo-op?bn=1

(2) Harper and Conservatives control the media during election with 5 question limit:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/stephen-harpers-five-question-limit/article1985570/

(3) Harper's Conservatives try to silence students by trying to stop student voting and were over-ruled by Elections Canada:

http://www.therecord.com/news/elections/article/517489--elections-canada-rules-votes-stand-from-u-of-g-special-ballot

(4) Conservative candidates are no-shows at election debates in First Nations:

http://www.firstperspective.ca/news/1929-amc-hosts-all-candidates-forum-conservative-party-declines-invitation.html

(5) Conservative candidates are no-shows in non-Aboriginal election debate platforms as well:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/18/cv-election-tory-candidates.html?ref=rss

(6) Even if you live in the quiet, unassuming local of Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, Harper and his conservatives still hide from Canadian citizens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_H6HMplHv8&feature=share

(7) And don't forget, in a Harper world, colonization of First Nations in Canada never really happened:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/communityofinterest/archive/2009/09/28/really-harper-canada-has-no-history-of-colonialism.aspx

I guess that old saying is true - bullies really are cowards. Harper can bully citizens when in power, but when not in power, he hides from the people he found so easy to screw over before his government was booted from power. I wonder if that means that the rest of the saying is true - and that all we have to do is stand up to Harper and the bully will take his marbles and go home?

But all is not doom and gloom. There is a brighter side to all of this - this incredibly, unbelievable conservative anti-democratic non-sense is great fodder Rick Mercer. His rants are great:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc-C8aZXz4Y&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzoCtoGtd64&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwtbUGaMmd8&NR=1

It also makes it easier for people to create really entertaining websites like Shit Harper Did:

http://shitharperdid.ca.nyud.net/

Then, there is my absolute favorite where a REAL journalist totally schooled Conservative MP John Baird and called him out on his party's anti-democratic tendencies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL76A5jUq1k

Seriously, do NOT (compliments of Bev Oda) waste a vote on the Conservatives. We'll end up with a Borg invasion where democratic resistance will be futile...