"No Natives" Allowed: How Canada Breeds Racism and Fear

On the one hand, I cannot believe that we as Indigenous peoples are still subjected to such overt racism on a such a frequent basis. On the other hand, I am not surprised, given that this kind of anti-First Nation sentiment is still out there in more hidden forms also known as systemic racism. I guess the best way to describe my feelings is that I sometimes feel overwhelmed that these perverse ideologies don't just come from a few wackos, but comes from all elements in society - individuals, business, professionals, academics, politicians, and government.

I received this picture from people on Facebook today who wanted to bring this issue to the attention of the public and the police. This picture is allegedly of a restaurant in Lakefield, Ontario. It was reported in the Toronto Sun that the police are investigating this as a hate crime. Here is the link to that story:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/16/17638211.html

If this incident actually happened (and everyone is innocent until proven guilty), it is a symptom of how Indigenous peoples are portrayed generally in our society - in schools, the media and by federal and provincial governments. Even if this one turns out to all a big misunderstanding, there used to be many similar signs like this, just for Aboriginal people:

I am less surprised by this kind of overt racism from members of small communities, when I hear famous people, like Kevin O'Leary (who appears on Dragon's Den and CBC News' Lang & O"Leary show). You will recall, that Kevin O'Leary called his co-host an "Indian giver" and when she rebuked him for such barbaric language, he repeated the phrase and defended his use of it.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/950584--cbc-ombud-slams-o-leary-s-offensive-on-air-comment

This comment was made on Canada's CBC News during prime time when a large number of Canadians would be watching. It happened LAST October 2010 and not a word of apology was issued by O'Leary or CBC. It wasn't until 5 months later and AFTER the CBC Ombudsperson had publicly released their decision that the comment was wrong and so was CBC for not immediately addressing it - that we heard any mention of an apology.

Specifically, the Ombudsperson stated:

"In this instance, the preferred course would have been for O’Leary not only to privately recognize the fault of his ways but to publicly express remorse, either that night or the next night or soon after. But if he wasn’t going to publicly apologize, the program could have done something further to make amends. Its obligation goes beyond the complainant to the viewers in order to uphold the broader reputation of the program and CBC itself."

http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/pdf/2011-03-02-Jamieson.pdf

This is obviously the point I am getting at about the effect such comments have, especially when left for many months to fester. The problem is that Indigenous peoples are getting it from all sides and by not acting to address these issues, it's no wonder society thinks this is acceptable. Scripted apologies forced by legal decisions, litigation or threat of job loss are hardly sincere or even effective at undoing the damage caused.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/pundit+censured+offensive+exchange/4399119/story.html

You will recall on the very same day that Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a public apology on behalf of all Canadians for the physical, sexual, and other abuses committed in residential schools, his conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre, had the nerve to question the compensation being given to survivors and asked whether it was "value for money". I still feel nauseated when I read his comments. As if there is any monetary amount that could ever compensate for sexual abuse like rape, physical abuse like beatings, neglect that resulted in many deaths and the loss of culture, language and hope.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/06/11/pierre-poilievre-shows-his-empathy-for-residential-school-survivors/

Keep in mind, Canada has compensated Japanese families for ripping them from their homes and putting them in camps during the war. The Chinese were also compensated for the head tax that was imposed on them to prevent them from immigrating to Canada. While the Supreme Court of Canada has specifically said that discrimination is not "a race to the bottom" (i.e. who is more discriminated against), they have said that often times Aboriginal peoples are dually disadvantaged on mulitple levels not necessarily experienced by other groups.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii687/1999canlii687.pdf

Indigenous peoples suffered in residential schools for their entire childhoods and many others suffer the deadly inter-generational effects for communities all over the country which could take generations to address. How could the residential school compensation be less "value for money" than another group's? Somehow, conservatives and others find a way to insert doubt and blame into the conversation when it is about Indigenous peoples.

We all know about Senator Patrick Brazeau who uses the Senate chambers, resources, and logo to film carefully worded videos meant to portray First Nations as lazy and corrupt. In fact, on my previous blogs, I have highlighted his negative, stereotypes of First Nations and how in one show he even accused First Nations as hubs of "illegal activity". This all coming from an individual who claims to be First Nations - imagine the powerful effect this would have on the views and opinions of non-Aboriginal peoples.

That brings us to Minister of Indian Affairs, John Duncan. As you know from my previous blogs, I am no fan of Minister Duncan given his past racist comments about Indigenous peoples and their rights.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2010/09/indian-agents-are-back-pm-new-indian.html

Duncan was very much opposed to Aboriginal and treaty rights to fish, ignored their constitutional protection, and characterized them as "race-based".

http://www.mediaindigena.com/rickharp/issues-and-politics/indian-affairs-minister-john-duncan-menacing-or-muzzled

More recently, however, Minister Duncan appeared before the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples regarding Bill S-11, the bill dealing with safe drinking water on First Nations. Senators have commented that all witnesses, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike, including water experts and legal experts all agree that this Act is so bad that even amendments could not save it.

On March 8, 2011, Minister Duncan, expressing his frustration, commented that:

“This committee has been receiving a very one-sided view on the way things are going.  We’ve actually been working very collaboratively especially with the Treaty 6, 7 and 8 group from Alberta....  You’re correct in concluding that everyone does not have the same view.  But I think this committee has managed to somehow capture a prevalence of negative views.  Sometimes that’s what happens.  It’s easier  in First Nation politics to be aggressively  contrary to something than it is to be supportive.  And that’s an observation that I will make and stand behind and it’s something I hope we can change”

How could we as Indigenous peoples NOT be, at the very least, "agressively contrary" to the sexual abuse in residential schools, the outlawing of our cultures, the legislated exclusion of our women and children from our Nations, the removal of thousands of our children to child welfare agencies, the early deaths of our people from extreme poverty, the theft of our traditional lands and resources,  and the political and legal destruction of our laws, governments and communities? In other countries, this can and has resulted in revolutions.

While I can't say for sure what was going on in his head, it certainly appears to me that Minister Duncan gave his comment some thought before he said it as he followed up his comment with confirmation that he will stand behind it. This is not dissimilar to Kevin O"Leary standing beside his racist remarks, or Tom Flanagan standing beside his comments. I have always been told to believe people when they tell you who they really are - so I am listening.

Aside from showing a pre-disposition to having racist views about Indigenous peoples, Minister Duncan's negative stereotyping of First Nations does little to suggest his views have evolved over time. Looking at it from society's point of view, if the Minister of Indian Affairs, who is supposed to be an advocate and champion for Aboriginal peoples in Canada has such hostile, negative views about Aboriginal peoples, why would we expect society to be any better? It is almost as if Minister Duncan is sickened to even have to work on this portfolio - which begs the question - why the heck does he?

Sadly, comments by our top law enforcement agencies about Indigenous peoples do not fair any better. Official documents in the Canadian Military have characterized Mohawks as insurgents or terrorists. This not only false and offensive, it also serves to spread fear and distrust amongst non-Indigenous society. My children's own friends ask questions about whether we are "terrorists".

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/military-apologizing-to-mohawks/16ahlo0dq

The damage has been done. No carefully worded apology will be able to undo the damage to Indigenous peoples and especially the Mohawk in this case. Canadians are more likely to see us as terrorists than the First Peoples of this country. If there was any doubt, just ask Christy Blatchford and TVO, who portrayed Mohawks in Six Nations as lawless and out of control:

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

Yet, despite the military's indication in 2010 that they would be offering a very carefully worded apology, one remains to be given. Many months later and not a single word has been issued. It makes me wonder what kind of priority they made of the apology. Instead, there seems to be a universal default that these comments will be allowed to be said, defended, repeated, and given time to sink in before any superficial apology is offered. We deserve more than this anti-First Nation propaganda on our own homelands.

 http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Military+apologize+Mohawk+Warriors/4015748/story.html

Add to this the list of right-wing academics who promote the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples in various forms like Tom Flanagan, Dale Gibson, Frances Widdowson, and Alan Cairns, etc. This is reinforced by some teachers in schools which either don't teach their students about Aboriginal peoples, do so in a minimal way or teach some of these same stereotypes. This is further reinforced by the various media outlets who make millions off portraying First Nations as lazy, crooked, criminals and movies or TV shows which promote an archetype of Indians that few today can live up to - the "good" version or the "bad" version.

This is an old battle, one that we have been fighting since contact. While many in society would like to believe that old colonial ideologies about Indigenous peoples have long waned, the opposite is true. Just take a peek at some of the vile comments posted on online media stories about Indigenous peoples and you'll see what I mean. Not only do Indigenous peoples face this battle on multiple fronts and on a daily basis, but they must also face the battle within themselves, Every day we face the battle to prove we are worthy as human beings. Too often this battle is lost and we lose our young people to suicide, violent deaths, and early deaths from diseases, malnutrition, and lack of housing caused by extreme poverty.

I'd like to point out that the Criminal Code of Canada specifically prohibits hate crimes (section 319) which provides that public statements made against an identifiable group that incites violence against that group is a CRIME. Similarly, section 318 specifically probihits GENOCIDE - which is the killing of an identifiable group, or creating lufe conditions would bring about that group's physical destruction. Sounds like an option, but the tricky part is you have to get the Attorney General to agree to bring these charges. So, back to the drawing board...while assimilation, racism, theft of our lands, resources and souls continues...

Those of us who manage to wake up every day and win this internal battle (at least enough to keep trudging along), must then engage in the political and legal battle for our basic human rights and freedoms, to protect our cultures and identities for future generations, as well as the key issues like sovereignty, Aboriginal and treaty rights, land rights and so on. We have to know more than anyone else about our issues, we have to work harder than anyone else, and we have to find ways to do so politely and with smiles on our faces lest we be characterized as "agressively contrary" or "terrorists".

So the next time you hear someone say how easy First Nations have it; how they get everything for free; or how lazy they all are, why don't you suggest they live with Indigenous peoples for a while and see what the "free & easy" life is really like? Or perhaps they'd like to discuss the subject with those of us who fight in this battle 24-7?

It is time Canada accepted the fact that we will not be assimilated. Whether you call it "agressively contrary", "insurgency" or "criminal" - we will continue to protect our cultures and identites for future generations. If only Canadians could leave their minds open long enough to see the incredible strength of our diverse peoples, the beauty of our rich cultures and traditions, the unique ties we have to our territories, or the incredible pride we have in our identities - then they would see why we refuse to give it up.

The Country of Harper: Are We Moving Towards an Autocracy?

I am absolutely stunned by what has been happening in politics lately. Canada used to pride itself in being a democracy, but in recent years under the Conservative government, we have moved further and further away from a real democracy that represents the voice of the people, and have moved closer and closer to an autocracy. An autocracy is a form of government where one person possesses unlimited power. Leaders who are autocrats are sometimes referred to as dictators or tyrants.

Some of you who are political scientists or armchair critics might be thinking that Canada is not really an autocracy because we have a Constitution (which is the supreme law of the land), an independent judiciary and free elections. That is absolutely true. Technically, Canada is set up as a democracy - rule by the people. However, what is happening in practice differs a great deal from how things are SUPPOSED to work. Some key events have made me question where we are headed. My fear is that we may be repeating history under the guise of politics. Don't forget, some of the worst of tyrants and dictators started out as something else - passionate leaders for a cause which they believed to be "good".

Just to be absolutely clear - I am not a member of any political party - Liberal, Conservative, or NDP. Nor am I a member of any other federal party of which, you might be surprised to know, there are quite a few:

http://www.altstuff.com/federal.htm

So this isn't an election smear campaign, promo ad for the liberals, or pro-NDP blog. This blog represents my thoughts on what is happening based on all my knowledge, experience, education and most of all, my common sense. It is my personal opinion, and I am entitled by law to exercise my freedom of expression and share my personal views with the world. This freedom, as with other rights, are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html

 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

As integral as these ideals are to our democratic society, under the Harper regime (or whatever it is), these rights are slowly but surely being eroded. I have to worry now, whether my personal views and opinions are safe from unreasonable and arbitrary interference, when I hear reports that the government has contracted private companies to monitor our Facebook postings and other social media sites:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20100523/government-online-forums-100523/

Seriously? I knew there were some looney-toons sending me messages, but this is too much. Who is Canada to invade our social spaces, where we enjoy the freedom to discuss what we want, and add what THEY view to be the CORRECT information in our discussions? What about politics is correct - or is there only one way of thinking now? This sounds eerily close to other countries which do not allow dissent or who control social media communication. Is this where Canada is headed?

You may have also heard the latest about Prime Minister Harper changing the name of our Canadian Government to the "Harper Government". I thought it was a joke at first, but no, this is serious:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/grit-ads-blast-harper-government-rebrand-20110304-142800-929.html

How could a democracy, which is truly governed by the people, have the name of the people's government changed to reflect a single leader's name without consulting with the people? Canada is not the sum total of Stephen Harper (thank goodness), so how on earth could he be so egotistical to think Canadians would agree to this?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/tories-rebrand-govt-canada-harper-govt-expert-says-20110303-125237-072.html

Our government is supposed to represent all of its people - not a single leader. Nothing good can come from boiling down our government to one person - we have seen what happens when individual leaders think they are all powerful. I can understand the layman's use of that kind of terminology, as the media does it all the time. However, they do so as a short-cut to saying what the Conservatives, in general, are doing as opposed to saying Canada is Harper. In the United States of America, the media often refers to the Obama administration, but you NEVER hear the government refer to itself as the United States of Obama.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-accused-of-shaping-language-for-political-ends/article1929548/

What makes this all the more suspicious is that they did this all in great secrecy. We might not even know this change has happened but for a bureaucrat "inadvertently" bringing the news to light. This is very characteristic of how the "Harper" government works. When the "Harper" government tried to defend itself by saying that Chretien used to do the same thing, lifelong politicians quickly pointed out that this was not the case.

"Mr. Chretien . . . had way too much respect for our public institutions to cheapen them the way Harper has and he didn't have the political megalomania the way Harper has to ensure his likeness or name was stamped on everything the government does."

In fact, many long-time politicians have pointed out that this name change even violates the Federal Identity Program Policy:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12314&section=text

One of the objectives of this policy is to help "project the Government of Canada as a coherent, unified administration". This can't be the case if a name is chosen which reflects only one person and is obviously partisan in nature. The policy goes on to state that "the "Canada" wordmark are applied wherever an activity of the federal government is to be made known in Canada and abroad". This includes communications with other states.

Similarly, the Communication Policy of the Government of Canada is designed to "Ensure that institutions of the Government of Canada are visible, accessible and accountable to the public they serve" and that key messages represent our diversity. There is nothing diverse about changing our government's name to "Harper Government". All this does is send the message that Canada is a one-man show:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/sipubs/comm/cph-fspc01-eng.asp#_Toc141192549

To put it simply, Canada is not now, nor has it ever been represented by one single autocrat, tyrant, or dictator, nor should it be in the future. Who is Harper to be so egotistical and ethnocentric to think that a white man could stand before the world and say that HE is Canada. How quickly he has forgotten the First Peoples of this Country and that our identity and rights are protected in the Supreme Law of Canada - the Constitution Act, 1982. I don't see Harper's name ANYWHERE in the Constitution.

Perhaps we should change the name to the Aboriginal Peoples Government - maybe that would end Canada's paternalistic hold over our communities and "re-brand" Canada in a more realistic way. After all, this is our territory. I think that every person who reads this blog should file an official complaint with the Treasury Board of Canada who is responsible for overseeing these rules and policies.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbs-sct/cmn/contact-eng.asp

Then, take another 5 minutes and e-mail all MPs at the following addresses:

To contact Liberal MPs - LIBMEM@parl.gc.ca

To contact Bloc MPs - BQMEM@parl.gc.ca

To contact Conservative MPs - CPCMEM@parl.gc.ca

To contact NDP MPs - NDPMEM@parl.gc.ca

I welcome any comments and feedback at palmater@indigenousnationhood.com

An Update on Bill C-3 - January 19 2011 - What's Next?

Dear Readers; after checking my blog stats, I can see that traffic has been heavy on my previous Bill C-3 blogs, especially the one that reads as an update. I will try to oblige, but please forgive any annoying repetition.

March 11, 2010 - First Reading (that's where the Minister or someone like that introduces the bill into the House).

March 26, 2010 - Second Reading

March 29, 2010 - Debates

April 1, 2010 - Studied by Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON)

April 13,15,20,22,27, 2010 - Meetings of AAON re Bill C-3 where they heard from witnesses sharing their concerns about the bill.

April 29, 2010 - AAON submitted and debated their report which included a variety of amendments they had adopted to ensure that the bill remedied all gender inequity instead of just a minor part of it.

May 25, 2010 - AAON continued debate of report.

Parliament then recessed for the summer.

October 26, 2010 - Report Stage - Report was debated again. Three motions were voted on and passed:

(1) Motion #1 dealt with minor amendments to the wording related to how INAC would report on the effects of the bill once it has been implemented;

(2) Motion #2 would restore the previous section 9 which had been deleted at AAON. This section provided Canada with an insulation from financial liability for claims which would come from women and children who had been wrongly excluded from the Act.

(3) Motion #3 essentially was to approve the bill as amended by the previous two motions.

All three motions were approved which meant that Bill C-3 (as amended)would go forward for Third reading and debates.

Nov.22, 2010 - Third Reading and debates

The bill was therefore passed as amended. Once it passed in the House, it literally sped through the process in the Senate being introduced on Nov.23, 2010 and passed Dec.9, 2010.

Dec.15, 2010 - Bill C-3 receives Royal Assent.

Jan.21. 2011 - The law officially comes into force and applications will be available at that time.

All this legislative information can be found at the following link:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=6949&List=stat
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has now posted new information about those who think they might qualify for status and the new process it will use to handle applications for status. Their link can be found here:

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/index-eng.asp

INAC provides three basic criteria that gives potential applicants a sense of whether or not they will be entitled under the new amendment:

(1) Did you grandmother lose Indian status because she married a non-Indian?

(2) Is one of your parents registered or entitled to be registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act? and

(3) Were you (the applicant) or one of your siblings born after Sept.4, 1951?

If you can answer yes to all of these questions, then it is very likely (although INAC does not guarantee) that you will qualify for status. So, some of you might be thinking that you meet this criteria and want to know what to do next? INAC has provided contact information so you can ask them questions directly:

INAC Public Enquiries Contact Centre
Email: InfoPubs@ainc-inac.gc.ca
Phone: (toll-free) 1-800-567-9604
Fax: 1-866-817-3977
TTY: (toll-free) 1-866-553-0554

I have called them several times and they answer the phone quickly and the people who are working the telephone lines had up to date information and were very helpful. They did explain to me that although I have already applied for status, there will be NEW application forms with NEW requirements. Canada will make the forms available at the following locations:

Online: January 31, 2011
By mail: Call 1-800-567-9604 to request an application package.
In person: At any INAC Regional office or call 1-800-567-9604.

The kind of status card that Bill C-3 registrants will receive (if eligible) is a Secure Certificate of Indian Status (SCIS) card. It does not change the type of benefits, but does require additional documentation from applicants not requested of non-Bill C-3 applicants. The following list is what INAC has indicated will be required:

- Original birth certificate (listing parents names) (often referred to as "long-form")

- Two passport style photographs

- Original piece of valid identification (i.e. - driver's licence, passport, government issued ID)

- Guarantor Declaration for SCIS

And if applicable:

- Legal change of name document or marriage certificate

- Custody Court Order

- Statutory Declaration Form(s).

Please also keep in mind that INAC is changing the application for Bill C-3 applicants to a "mail-in" process only. That means the original documents they require MUST be mailed in to INAC and you will HOPEFULLY receive them back within a month or so.

I don't know about any of you, but I don't feel comfortable mailing INAC my Driver's License (as a local police officer told me it is against the law to drive without it on your person). Similarly, the thought of my passport (at March break time) being held up at INAC for weeks maybe months is not overly user friendly or considerate.

INAC has also provided some time lines for processing applications. They are as follows:

Act comes into force and applications posted online = January 31, 2011

Letter confirming entitlement (assuming all docs provided with applic) = no time specified

Issuance of SCIS card number = 10-12 weeks after receipt of Letter of entitlement

Entire Process from start (application) to finish (receipt of status card) = 4-6 months

The ability to access benefits will start before you receive your card as your Letter of entitlement will provide a number you can use to access health and other benefits.

Also of interest:

(1) Sharon McIvor has filed a claim with the United Nations to have her gender discrimination case heard by the Human Rights Tribunal; and

(2) Merchant Law has filed a class action here in Canada in an attempt to get compensation for all those who will now be registered as per Bill C-3 for lost education benefits, lost taxes, health benefits etc. You will recall that the Bill prohibits any compensation.

Let me know if this is the kind of update you were looking for from my blog.

Pam

Bill C-3: Senate Considerations More About Blood "Purity" and "Benefits" than Equality

This blog will serve as an update as to the current status of Bill C-3 - Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. It will also serve to highlight the disturbing considerations that are being made by Senators and the Minister of INAC in passing this bill.

Here is the quick and dirty of the Bill's treatment to date:

(1) Bill C-3 passed first and second reading in the House;

(2) It was studied by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) where numerous Aboriginal witnesses testified that it did not address all gender discrimination or even that found in McIvor's case;

(3) I appeared as a witness and gave oral and written testimony against the Bill;

(4) The AAON voted on amendments to make the Bill more inclusive (at this point the Liberals, NDP and Bloc were all supporting the Aboriginal witnesses);

(5) These amendments were ruled out of scope;

(6) The House passed a new amendment to include back in the bill, section 9 which tries to insulate Canada from liability;

(7) The bill passed through the House (the Liberals, NDP and Bloc all flip-flopped and sided with conservatives);

(8) The bill was sent to Senate for consideration and passed first and second reading quickly;

(9) It was sent to Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights to study;

(10) Only two days were set aside to hear a small list of witnesses (Nov.29, Dec.6);

(11) I was invited by Senate to appear as witness and then disinvited at the last minute;

(12) The bill passed through the clause by clause quickly.

So that is where the Bill stands now. It will pass through both report stage and third reading fairly quickly as the conservatives are the majority in the Senate and we have seen what they will do when they like or dislike a bill. This bill will then have to receive Royal Assent and the Order in Council process takes about 6 weeks or so. Therefore, I fully expect that this Bill will become law before the court imposed deadline in January of 2011.

So that is the technical stuff. I have written previous blogs about my concerns about this bill, but I will summarize the main issues here:

(1) The new section 6(1)(c.1) will create a new form of discrimination between those with children and those without. Under this section, the only people entitled to section 6(1)(c.1) status are those currently registered under section 6(2) who have non-status Indian children. Anyone with status children or no children will not get the gender remedy.

(2) This bill does not address all gender inequality in the Indian Act. Canada argues it only addressed the inequality between double mother clause reinstatees and section 12(1)(b) reinstatees in the McIvor appeal case. Unfortunately, it does not even do that. The descendants of Indian men will still have better status than the descendants of Indian women.

(3) Canada has chosen to try to insulate itself from liability for the gender discrimination it imposed on the descendants of Indian women in section 9 of the bill. Indian women and their descendants will be the only group in Canada who have been discriminated against and for whom Canada refuses to allow them a Charter remedy.

There are many, many other concerns I have about the Bill, but anyone can read my past blogs to find out more. As you may have gathered from other blogs I have written on Aboriginal political issues, I am concerned about our National Aboriginal Organizations (NAO's) like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) actions on this issue. These NAO's all claim to represent some segment of the Aboriginal population in Canada, but their recent flip-flops should be cause for great concern by us grass roots folks. Even the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) a non-political organization has weighed in.

First of all, the Senate only had two half-days of hearings and only heard from a handful of witnesses, most of whom were political in nature, compared to the AAON who had 6 days of hearings and heard from numerous witnesses with various expertise on the subject matter. Several witnesses, including myself were officially invited to appear before the Senate on Bill C-3 but were later disinvited at the last possible moment.

You will remember that in the House, all of the Aboriginal witnesses were unanimous in their opposition to Bill C-3 as it was written - yes, including CAP. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc all agreed that the Bill did NOT fully address either the gender discrimination found in McIvor or the larger gender discrimination issues. They all supported the amendment of this Bill to finally address gender discrimination once and for all. However, since Parliament recessed for the summer, CAP, NWAC, Native Women of Quebec and others all flip-flopped on their original positions and decided that "something was better than nothing" and supported the bill.

When we all got back to business in the fall, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP all flip-flopped and said they would now support the bill out of concern for those who wanted to be registered as soon as possible. Keep in mind also that INAC has been saying all along that the NAO's would ONLY receive funding for the joint process to discuss the other registration and band membership issues IF Bill C-3 passed. This means no money if the NAO's did not play ball.

The NAO's are not what they used to be - although they were all born out of the Indian political struggles of the early 1900's which culminated in the 1970's in response to the White Paper, their leadership of late has been described as "co-opted". Back then, the NAO's stood for what was just and not what was "just" in the best interests of the organizations they headed. Now, their concerns over funding to staff their organizations far outweighs any remaining concerns for what is best for our people.

It should be no surprise then that on Monday, Dec.6, 2010:

(1) the CAP did not even appear as a witness on Bill C-3 in Senate;

(2) the AFN testified that "the bill, with or without amendments must proceed";

(3) the NAFC's main concern was to ask for money to train their staff and to be compensated for answering questions to their clients;

(4) the NWAC said registering those under Bill C-3 would be acceptable to "our chiefs, our communities and our families";

Despite vigorous questioning from Senator Sandra Lovelace (the woman who took Canada to the UN on this issue and won) about the real issues at stake for Aboriginal peoples: full gender equality, the right to decide who we are, and compensation for discrimination, NONE of the NAO's would back down from their support of the bill. This made Senator Patrick Brazeau's job much easier.

INAC Minister John Duncan's testimony on Nov.29, 2010 seems confirm what is happening here:

"the department has invited and received proposals from national Aboriginal organizations in preparation for the possible launch of a separate exploratory process on these broader issues. This will move forward if Bill C-3 is passed."

"With five different national Aboriginal organizations ... the department will provide the appropriate funding for the process."

"the national Aboriginal organizations will be running the process."

Sharon McIvor's testimony pointed out what is really happening here - we are being offered a joint process without any mandate or commitment for future changes in exchange for NOT addressing the full issue of gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Specifically she said:

"what is being offered in exchange for the non-recognition of our basic human and equality rights... An exploratory process, so others - many of who will not be affected directly - have a say in whether our basic human and equality rights are recognized. To my mind, it is totally bizarre."

She also pointed out the disrespect of Justice Canada (DOJ) and INAC in dealing with her case. They keep referring to Sharon's "hypothetical brother" to do comparisons on charts, but in actual fact her brothers are real, living human beings with families of their own. It was all because of Sharon's quest to seek equality for Indian women and their descendants that her brothers even got registered and when they did, they all got better status than Sharon. How is that for irony?

She also pointed out the very disturbing position our NAO's have put us Indian women in - that we must fight this battle alone. Sharon explained the current situation very well:

"The Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, other groups, will get huge chunks of money. We women on the ground have done all of the groundwork. I can tell you I have done all of the work to get here. The Assembly of First Nations did not help me, and for the most part the Native Women's Association of Canada did not help me, and CAPP did not help me. I brought it this far, and now they have all jumped on board and they said, okay, whatever little piece of legislation you want to put through because of the time frame, we agree with that. You can go ahead and do it, but give us the money. I am outraged, as you can tell. I am outraged about what has been going on."

She went on to explain that many, many descendants of Indian women will be missed in Bill C-3 including: anyone born pre-1951, and the illegitimate daughters of Indian men, children of status women who have unstated paternity. There are many more who will be missed.

Gwen Brodsky who presented after Sharon made the point that gender equality in Canada is NOT something that should only be brought about incrementally - i.e. through small amendments gradually over time. It is a basic human right that requires immediate implementation. It has been over 150 years of legislated gender inequality for Indian women - how much longer should they wait? It cost Sharon over $250,000 and no one was there to help her. Discrimination is not a matter for debate or consultation - it simply needs to be remedied even if people want to continue discrimination.

Despite all of this, it was more than apparent that racist and sexist stereotypes and ideologies are what ruled the ultimate decision to pass this Bill. Here are a few examples of the questions and considerations made during these meetings:

(1) Senator Kochar to Sharon McIvor:

"How far do you think your status can go?"

"Senator Brazeau is my mentor when it comes to Indian Affairs, although I am more pure Indian than he is."

"If pure Indian marries a non-Indian... how far do you think you can take the status?"

"Nevermind about gender equality."

(2) Senator Brazeau to Gwen Brodsky:

"I think it is important to distinguish between a wish list... and the specific decision"

(3) Minister Duncan to Senator Brazeau:

"we probably would not be having any of this discussion if it were not for the fact that status confers certain benefits"

"There has not been as much debate and discourse of this area of the Indian Act as there should be."

Seriously?? Has INAC not read all the studies, research, articles, theses, books and reports on the subject? What an irresponsible thing to say - but it serves to justify funding NAO's to do more repetitive research.

Canada denies that financial considerations are a main issue in their control of status when they appeared before the courts in McIvor, yet their own motivations are admittedly financial. Even the evidence at court showed that Canada's interest in having a limited "1/4 blood" rule was primarily for financial reasons.

Why is it that when men are registered under the Act, they are considered the true Indians, but when women want to be registered they are characterized as gold diggers? We are not in this for money - we are in this for our equality and the rights of our children and grandchildren.

If anyone should be questioned about their financial interest, it is not Indian women and their excluded descendants who must fight these legal battles on their own and at their own cost. I think the grass roots people ought to be asking their NAO's what the hell they think they are doing with the future of our children and grandchildren? No study, staff position or research project is worth the exclusion of even a single child from their birthright and community.

I have been told that politics is about compromise and maybe I should give these NAO's a break. If that is the case, then perhaps these NAO's should get out of the business of politics and get back to the business of advocating for our people and standing up for what is just.

Bill C-3 is a discriminatory piece of legislation that appeals to Canada's desire to limit how much they have to share our resources with us; appeals to co-opted NAO's who see dollar signs in the joint process; and appeals to those colonized Aboriginal peoples who care more about their own individual interests than that of their communities, Nations, and most importantly, the futures of their children's children seven generations into the future.

Shame on Canada and shame on AFN, NWAC, CAP, NAFC for buying in. I can only hope that the UN addresses Sharon McIvor's long-standing fight for our rights.

NEWSFLASH - Bill T-666 to Deal with Exorbitant Municipal Salaries

NEWSFLASH from P.A.M. News:

Today, our official news correspondent for the Official Opposition of the Third Order of Government (OOTOG), Pamela Palmater, has brought to light the extreme abuses being made of First Nation taxpayers and land-holders money. Palmater's informative, yet disturbing report calls into question whether Canadian peoples who sit in positions on municipalities across Canada are accountable for the taxes and income they receive from our traditional lands.

As readers know, the lands in Canada are the traditional territories of the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island. Our Nations have lived here since time immemorial with their own cultures, languages, practices, traditions and customs. Just as important, our Nations had their own governments, laws, dispute resolution mechanisms, systems of trade and treaty-making with other Indigenous Nations. We were then and remain now, the ultimate governing authority of our territories often referred to as Turtle Island.

The peoples who immigrated here from what we believe to be the Lost City of Atlantis and its surrounding land masses, are now referred to as Canadian peoples. They are more commonly known as Atlanteans, although many take offence to that terminology. Given that they had just lost their city which sank into the sea, our Nations decided to assist them for a short time until they were well enough to find new homelands. Many of them wanted to stay, so some of us signed treaties with these uncultured, violent, and greedy peoples so that they would not one day become extinct from their poor sailing, planning, governance, and other ineptitudes.

For some time now, they have been making claims that they own our lands and the resources on our traditional territories. At the same time, they refuse to accept any responsibility for the protection of these lands and seek only to exhaust of the resources for their own selfish ends. In order to build capacity in their divided and warring communities, they also created many schools in which they would teach their own children; one of which being the infamous Sun-burned Neck Thought School (SNTS). They refused to adopt our Indigenous languages and teachings and instead sought to preserve their dying ways.

At SNTS, their students are taught the backward ways of their primitive thinkers who believe in class systems where some of their people are better than others, homelessness where the sick, poor, elderly, and mentally ill must fend for themselves, individual wealth where individuals looks out for themselves and not the community, and male-dominated systems of governance where women and children are treated like the cattle they brought with them on their ships.

As odd as we all thought these ways of living were, we allowed them to engage in their "traditional" ways for fear they might start sending us blankets filled with small pox in the mail or other terrorist-like activity. Indeed, controlling them has been very difficult. We have had to be very passive so as not to send them into a rage where they might send in their radicals known as the police, armies and tactical squads. We have seen how angry they can get.

Well, today, after reading the latest financial report from their peoples government led by Steven Hypocriseese, it has become evident that the Third Order of Government must take action. I refer readers to the report they call the "Public Sector Salary Disclosure" which can be found at this website:

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2010/munic10a.html

Here readers will note the extreme abuses to which their peoples have been making of our hard-earned taxes, lands and natural resources. For example, in the municipality of Hamilton, Ontario, their Director of Entertainment makes a salary of $259,113.77!! This is absolutely outrageous! It is dangerously close to the salary of their leader Steven Hypocriseese who makes around $300,000. The manager of Hamilton makes nearly $200,000. Yet, the rate of homelessness in Hamilton is increasing. In 2006, the small municipality of Hamilton had nearly 3000 people stay in homeless shelters and for extended periods of time. Here is a link to their report:

http://intraspec.ca/OnAnyGivenNight2007.pdf

This is an absolute outrage and these incidents are not isolated. From the looks of the report, the abuse is wide-spread and confirms what we have been saying all along. The Canadian peoples' sense of entitlement and claims of special powers has spread to their other communities as well. In Brampton, the city manager makes $254,000 as does the manager in Burlington. Other positions like librarians, mechanics and directors of litter also make well over $100,000. Yet, how many of their children still read books? How many of their children struggle with reading? How much effort did librarians make to inspire their children to read? How many books were purchased? Were these books of value?

There is absolutely no accountability or transparency in these positions. Why have they not brought their librarians before the Third Order of Government to account? These librarians have now become renegades in their own communities. They make thousands of dollars in salaries, work in warm, comfortable surroundings, have more than enough to eat and clothes to wear, while homelessness in Turtle Island is on the rise. How could they possibily justify such exorbitant salaries while their own people live in such abject poverty without food, clothes or a warm safe place to sleep at night?

These peoples are obviously not spending our money where and how they should. How could these so-called leaders justify paying themselves salaries in excess if $100,000 which in Indigenous equality dollars equates to well over $1,000,000 when you include the decades of privilege and control, education and employability, business and political connections, and the use of our lands and resources on a tax-free basis. We will no longer stand for this. The Third Order of Government will bring this situation under control as we promised.

I will be introducing Bill T-666 which will ensure that steps are taken to get the Canadian peoples spending of our taxes and resources from our lands under control. We will start by implementing third party management of their funds which they will pay for out of their own budgets. We will cap funding on all their essential services like schools, child welfare and missing and murdered female Canadian peoples. Then we will force them to publish the addresses of these librarians and litter directors , how many people are in their families, whether their family members benefited from their exorbitant salaries, how many books they purchased, and whether they spent money on travel instead of reading to children. This will be done for every municipal position across Turtle Island!

I urge all citizens of the Third Order of Government to support this bill. I strongly encourage even those from the Canadian peoples communities to support this bill. It is time these Canadian peoples pulled up their socks, started going to regular Indigenous schools like everyone else and got over the loss of their Lost City of Atlantis. I mean, it is called the Lost City of Atlantis for a reason - it is lost - forever. GET OVER IT!! We, the Third Order of Government simply cannot afford to keep giving them all of our taxes and natural resources. If we cannot get support for this bill, our only alternative will be to relocate these peoples to another continent where they will be better able to support themselves on their own lands.

Please write to your local municipal librarian, mechanic or director of litter and demand better for their peoples.

The Silent War - Government Control of Indigenous Identity

This blog represents excerpts from the talk that I gave last week on the issue of Indigenous Identity. I realize, however, that many of Indigenous peoples can't access public lectures, conferences, and other similar forums for information and debate. I therefore decided to include this information in my blog, knowing that there are still many of us who do not have access to computers or the Internet.

Canada's cutting off the water supply at Constance Lake First Nation so that the community has barely enough to drink but not bathe, despite Canada's "endorsement" of UNDRIP, is but one example of how many of us are forced to manage our extreme poverty and do not have computers, Ipads or TVs. Thus, many do not have the ability to access the kinds of information found on the Internet which many of us get to take for granted - like blogs.

So, here are some excerpts from my discussion about Indigenous identity:

I wear my Indigenous identity proudly, but have to carry on my back the other identities imposed by government through law and policy. I am forced therefore, to explain my Indigeneity as being comprised of two separate but conflicting sides which are constantly at "war".

The first is my identity as experienced by me internally – within my own heart as an individual and communally with my family, extended family, community and Nation. The second is my "lived experience of Indigenous identity" - i.e. my identity as experienced externally - through relations with both Canadian society and the state.

My own identity has shaped by the histories, stories, lessons, and practices passed on to me by my large extended family. This has shaped my worldview, values, and aspirations – it is essentially what some might refer to as my cultural identity. My experience of identity on the other hand, has been shaped entirely by others – by school mates, teachers, employers, friends, neighbors, historians, judges, politicians and governments.

While my own Indigenous identity is strong and has survived the test of time, it is scarred and bruised by my lived experience of identity and the ongoing attack on my identity through government law and policy designed to assimilate Indigenous peoples into the body politic.

So who am I? I am a Mi'kmaq woman. That is my identity, recognizing however that Indigenous identity is a relationship – a two-way street between myself and my nation. What I mean by this is that my nation cannot exist unless its citizens, like me, both recognize it AND support it. Similarly, I can assert my Mi'kmaq identity but it requires my nation to both recognize AND support me as a citizen.

This mutually dependent relationship has been the way of the Mi’kmaq Nation and its citizens since time immemorial. Yet, this relationship is also where Canada has chosen to erect barriers in order to divide, conquer, and destabilize us, with the ultimate goal of reducing our numbers until we are assimilated.

My identity as a MI’KMAQ WOMAN has been in constant conflict with these barriers. My identity as a Mi'kmaq woman means that I am a Teacher who is responsible to pass on our history, language, culture, and laws. I am a Warrior who is responsible to protect our nations, territories, trees, animals, and citizens. I am a Caregiver who is responsible to care for my children, mothers, grandmothers, and aunties. I am also responsible to be a Leader in my own life - to stand up for what is just regardless of the consequences. I am responsible to be a Living Example - to live our values for our young ones to see so that they know how to live in balance. We are not to live in wealth that destroys the earth nor in poverty that destroys our spirit.

Some have discounted our Indigenous values and traditions as being ancient and irrelevant in modern times. In my opinion, these traditional values are more important today than ever before. I believe they are what will inspire our people to action, stand up against the current injustices and reclaim our spirit and identities.

However, despite my own identity as Mi'kmaq, I have been labeled as “ABORIGINAL" by others. This is a legal and social construct of the Canadian state which lumps my Mi’kmaq identity in with the generic terms of Indians, Inuit and Metis as if we were all just one race of people with the same cultures and world views.

Taiaike Alfred, in his book Wasase, explains that "aboriginalism" amounts to little more than "racialized violence and economic oppression meant to bring about a silent surrender" of who we are as Indigenous peoples. I have resisted surrender – but the battle seems to be never-ending and I fear that most Canadians are not even aware of what is at stake for us. They see our identity only in terms of unfair entitlements and special treatment.

Yet, my identity is primarily about my responsibilities and relations with my Nation and my connections with our traditional territory of MI’KMAKI. Mi’kmaki represents the seven distinct districts of Mi’kmaq territory including NB, NS, PEI, NFLD, parts of Quebec and Maine. With the exception of the last two years, I have spent my entire life living within my traditional territory and those lands are an essential part of my identity. My heart aches if I am far from home for too long as I know that my responsibilities to my territory does not diminish when I live elsewhere.

However, the Crown has put limits on my ability to fully enjoy my Mi’kmaq identity through the imposition of provincial boundaries and policies that restrict my rights on a provincial basis. I am considered a NB MI’KMAQ and therefore not entitled to hunt or fish in NS; enjoy my treaty rights in PEI; or have a say in what happens in Mi’kmaq territory in NFLD. Even within NB, the provincial government has drawn an arbitrary line called the Ganong Line telling my Nation and the Maliseet Nation whose territory is whose. These barriers are all externally imposed and designed to divide our Nation.

Within Mi’kmaki, my home community (or band) is EEL RIVER BAR FIRST NATION located in northern NB. Yet this is not even the location of our true community. It is the location to which my original community was relocated, as the lands on which they had originally occupied for their more permanent settlements were considered too valuable to be occupied by Indians. However, my family has now lived at Eel River Bar for many generations and therefore we have strong connections to that specific part of our territory as well.

Yet, despite my own identity as a Mi'kmaq woman and the essential role that my connections to the land play in that identity, INAC (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) has determined that I am a NON-BAND MEMBER and therefore not entitled to live in my home community or have a say in its governance or future. Unfortunately for many Indigenous peoples, our own communities have now taken over Canada's role and exclude our own people on the same basis.

I have learned how to survive in this war against my identity and live my Mi'kmaq identity despite the fact that I am a non-band member. I proudly assert that I am an ON-TERRITORY MI’KMAQ citizen. After all, I have always lived on my traditional Mi’kmaq territory and have acted always in protection of it.

This is an important part of my identity and is really inseparable from it. Even now that I live in Toronto, I still have a strong connection to Mi’kmaki and maintain those connections. This is not easy to do when I am legally excluded from my community, but is necessary to ensure that identity for my children.

As I explained earlier, there is consistent conflict between my personal identity and my lived experience of identity. I may feel like I am an on-traditional territory Mi'kmaq, but am still dismissed as an OFF-RESERVE INDIAN or URBAN ABORIGINAL. Non-Indigenous writers like Tom Flanagan, Alan Cairns and others try to persuade Canadians that because I don’t live on reserve, that this somehow makes me less of a Mi’kmaq person. To them, the movement of Indigenous peoples off-reserve is as inevitable as their corresponding loss of identity which is prophecized.

Yet, there were never any reserves for the many thousands of years that we have existed as Mi’kmaq peoples. Reserves are an artificial creation and imposition of the government which were meant to control us and dispossess us of our traditional territories. The goal was to open up our lands for settlement. Why would I ever define myself in a way which legitimizes Canada’s theft of our lands? What kind of message would that be to my children?

All of that lived experience of Indigenous identity which has been imposed from those outside my Nation ignores the fact that my identity also comes from the many great Mi’kmaq people who have made up our Nation, like my GREAT GRANDFATHER LOUIS JEROME. He is said to be one of the last traditional Chiefs of my home community and dedicated his life to travelling throughout Mi’kmaki to maintain relations amongst the seven districts.

His daughter, my GRANDMOTHER MARGARET JEROME was a well-known healer of our community and had extensive knowledge of the traditional uses of plants and herbs in healing our people. She was so good at what she did that even non-Indigenous doctors asked for assistance in times of disease. Her son, my father, FRANK PALMATER quit school in grade three to care for his large family and then fought in the WWII to protect our territories. To him, the treaties we made with Britain were worth fighting to protect.

Yet external determinations of my identity by the Canadian state ignore those connections. To INAC, because my grandmother married a non-Indian, she was no longer considered an Indian and therefore, not entitled to be a band member – nor were her children or grandchildren. Canadian laws turned my grandmother from a Mi’kmaq to an Indian to a non-status Indian and then back to Indian again in 1985.

They are now referred to as BILL C-31’ers - those who got their Indian status restored in 1985 when the United Nations found Canadian laws discriminatory. My relations are considered lesser Indians than other Indians and often discriminated against because of their Bill C-31 status. As a result, this has meant no membership in our home community, no residency rights, or ability to participate in our government.

All of these external laws create divisions, inequities and injustices that focus our attention on our externally imposed identities. Canada has successfully diverted our attention from our real identities. We are so busy trying to combat discrimination in Canadian laws that some of us have forgotten that that we must put as much energy, if not more, into protecting our Mi’kmaq identities.

Growing up, I did not link my Mi’kmaq identity to my registration status under the Act. My family thankfully protected me from that hurt for as long as they could. I often identified myself as a TREATY INDIAN because the Mi’kmaq signed numerous peace and friendship treaties with the Crown. My family made sure I knew those treaties very well.

These treaties, like those signed in 1725, 1726, 1752, etc, protect many of our Indigenous rights to hunt and fish for example, but are not the source of those rights. I therefore grew up knowing that our hunting, fishing, and gathering activities in which my large extended family participated were an essential part of who we were as Mi'kmaq peoples.

Yet, the assertion of myself as a Treaty Indian is often met by a swift denial from federal and provincial governments. It is their position that I am nothing more than a NON-STATUS INDIAN. Since they only recognize status Indians as having treaty rights, governments tell me I don’t have a right to call myself Treaty Indian.

Why do they call me a non-status Indian? Because there is a preference in the Indian Act for those who descend from the male line versus a female line. Had my grandmother been a grandfather, I would be registered under the Indian Act as an Indian (i.e. have status) as would my children. The changes that were made in 1985 in Bill C-31 did not fully remedy this legislated form of gender discrimination.

Again Canada has directed our attention away from my status as a treaty descendant to one of non-status as an Indian. For every identity I assert in this battle, Canada has created another one to counter it.

So, some say, well that’s OK Pam, soon under Bill C-3 you will be a STATUS INDIAN.
In fact, I will be a section 6(2) status Indian, which is the lesser form of status.
That status cannot be transmitted to my children. Even if my home community of Eel River Bar First Nation "allows" me to become a band member, my children will be excluded. Why? It's not because Canada will exclude them from band membership under the Indian Act - Eel River Bar now controls its own membership and does the excluding for Canada.

Layered on top of that lesser type of status will be the fact that it results from Bill C-3, I will be known as a BILL C-3’er, which is just as bad, if not worse, as being known as a Bill C-31’er. I will be considered a “new” Indian which discounts my lifelong identity and contributions as a Mi’kmaq woman and citizen.

Furthermore, Indigenous women and their children impacted by Bill C-3 will NOT get to make claims for lost treaty, land claim, or other benefits despite the court finding of gender discrimination. Some of us have experienced the same kinds of loss of language, culture, and identity as those is residential schools, but because those affected are primarily Indigenous women and their children, they are treated as less worthy of being compensated for severe breaches of their Charter equality rights.

So, again some might argue that government control over our identities only impacts my Indigeneity and there are many other aspects of my identity on which I could focus. After all, I am the MOTHER of two of the most amazing Mi’kmaq men - Yet even that identity is challenged by the state.

Remember the 60’s scoop? Just as residential schools were being shut down all over the country, during the 1960-80’s, child welfare agencies were empowered to literally scoop up thousands of Indigenous children from their homes and place them in foster homes or permanently adopted them out without the knowledge or consent of the parents. Over 11,000 status Indian children were scooped and that number obviously does not account for all those children never registered as status Indians.

These children denied their identities, languages, cultures, families, communities & Nations. Many Canadians misunderstand that period in our history to be over, which is the reason why it is labeled as the 60's scoop - something that happened in the past. Yet Indigenous children NOW make up 60% of all children in care despite the fact that they are less than 4% of the population. We have HIGHER levels of our children in care now than in the 1960s!!!

Canada and the provinces have continued with their policies of assimilation by TAKING OUR CHILDREN from us. Bill C-3 might not be directly physically removing our children, but will legally, socially, and politically remove them from us. Under Bill C-3, MY CHILDREN will be denied their status and thus their band membership, Mi’kmaq citizenship; and treaty rights. On some First Nations, no band membership means you can’t live on reserve and will be evicted. In that way, my children and many others could be prevented from physically being with their family.

It is like Canada is taking away my right to parent my children and raise them as Mi’kmaq. This is not because they are any less Mi’kmaq than any status Indian person, but is solely because Canada has never shifted its position of assimilation.
Canada is saying that they are not Mi’kmaq, but instead Canadian citizens who must adopt a different culture, identity, world view and even potentially a different place to live.

Canada is ensuring that those children who are not stolen from us by Child Welfare agencies will still be removed from us by the Indian Act. This kind of law and policy which targets our children is one of the greatest threats to our future.

Some of the more superficial persuasion might tell me to ignore all that and focus on my career and professional identity as a lawyer, but even my professional identities are challenged and belittled by state actors and society simply because of my Indigeneity.

As an Indigenous person, my being a lawyer means that I am automatically part of Flanagan’s ABORIGINAL ELITE who are assumed to have never suffered the poverty and discrimination of “real” Indians but take advantage of all their benefits and affirmative action programs.

Similarly, as a lifelong VOLUNTEER AND ACTIVIST, I have dedicated a great deal of my life to advancing our cause and helping to build capacity within our communities. However, in the Flanagan, Widdowson, Gibson, Tax Payer’s Federation and National Post world, I am part of the ABORIGINAL INDUSTRY that is allegedly “sucking First Nations dry”.

With all of these battles, I can see how so many Indigenous peoples become confused about their identities, their relations with their communities and Nations, and with Canada generally. It feels like I have been engaged in this SILENT WAR MY ENTIRE LIFE which began so early that I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t in it.

Something as essential to our individual and collective well-being as identity should not be part of the spoils of war. Liberal democracies pride themselves on fostering conditions that allow individuals to live the good life – the life we choose for ourselves. Why then can’t Indigenous peoples choose their own lives?

Indigenous peoples have suffered enough with the loss of lands, natural resources, and water ways. They have survived wars against them, relocations, residential schools, the 60’s scoop, overrepresentation in jails, wrongful deaths, murdered and missing Indigenous women, and a whole host of assimilatory laws and policies. Attacking their identities hits us at our core.

What is the solution? There are far too many complexities to get into in this blog, which is already too long, but certainly our Indigenous identities must be clearly and completely within our own hands – no more legislative control over who we are. We will likely still have internal struggles to de-colonize ourselves and rid of the divisions within our Nations, but they will be our struggles and we can work it out.

In the meantime, legislation like the Indian Act simply cannot endorse gender or other forms of discrimination. Any initial cost that there might be to Canada will be far outweighed by the costs saved down the road. Poor health, violence, and suicide that results from people without an identity – people without hope or purpose - cost Canadians far more than healthy, secure communities.

I aspire to be a contributing citizen of a strong, vibrant, inclusive Mi’kmaq Nation, which is self-determining and encourages participatory governance over our land and resources, international and inter-tribal relations, and economies that are based on our traditional values and principles that have evolved to address modern situations. That’s my aspiration for myself and my children so that my grandchildren and great grandchildren will never have to serve in this war against our identities and can instead focus on re-building the spirits and relations of our Nations.

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

THIS BLOG DOES NOT REPRESENT LEGAL ADVICE AND IS SOLELY MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) is a national Aboriginal organization that once claimed to represent the interests of status and non-status Indians living off-reserve in Canada. The current national President is Betty-Ann Lavallee who used to be the President of one of CAP's affiliates - the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC).

CAP has recently changed its website and in so doing, has changed the focus of who it claims to represent being "the interests of its provincial and territorial affiliate organizations". The provincial and territorial affiliates of CAP located in the East receive core funding for their operations, whereas those in the west have struggled without much success in obtaining funding. CAP's board of directors are comprised of the Presidents of each of the affiliate organizations - most of whom, including CAP, prefer to be referred to as "Chiefs" - ironic given their anti-Chief stance.

CAP used to be known as the Native Council of Canada (NCC) and in its early years had incredibly dynamic, passionate leaders who advocated strongly on behalf of those Aboriginal peoples who were excluded from legal recognition and equal access to Aboriginal and treaty rights as well as programs and services. Incredible leaders like Viola Robinson, Tony Belcourt, Harry Daniels, Ron George, and Dwight Dorey went on to make other significant contributions to the plight of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples.

The NCC was there at the constitutional talks, they advocated for equality for Aboriginal women during the Bill C-31 era, and were on the front-lines organizing protests when governments were going to reduce housing for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. The NCC at the time also represented Metis peoples and their struggles for recognition and equality long before the Powley case and the creation of the Metis National Council (MNC). Some may find it hard to believe, but the NCC and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)(formerly NIB) used to work closely together on a wide variety of issues.

Unfortunately, those days are long over. The NCC (now CAP) started its slow, downward descent when Patrick Brazeau (then Vice-President) assumed the position of President when former President, Dwight Dorey stepped down after 7 years in office. There was no election for the position of President by the members of the off-reserve - it was an automatic assumption of Presidency as per CAP's Constitution and By-Laws. Brazeau served less than 3 years as the National President, but in that short time managed to nearly destroy CAP and its reputation.

Some Board members of CAP have indicated that Brazeau served a limited purpose in that he at least raised the profile of CAP and should be commended for his aggressive media agenda. I disagree. Simply raising the media profile of an organization is not an accomplishment if the reasons for why the profile was raised are negative or serve to hurt others. Brazeau used CAP as his "launching pad" to obtain media attention for himself, not CAP; align himself politically with the Conservative Party; and eventually jump ship and land himself a conservative Senate seat all while trashing First Nations and their leaders. That might suit Brazeau's interests, but what did CAP get out of the deal?

If you listen to Board members and various media reports, what Brazeau left CAP with was controversy, destroyed relationships with other NAO's, allegations of sexual harassment, a decreased budget, financial turmoil, and worst of all - a confused and discouraged membership. Brazeau, now Senator Brazeau, has been described in the media as a "loose cannon" and "self-promoting" for spewing negativity against First Nations communities and their leaders at every opportunity. Unfortunately for CAP, this still has repercussions for them given how he used his position at CAP to gain his initial media profile.

But that is as far as my sympathy goes for CAP. Once Brazeau finally agreed to give up his Presidency at CAP (and not obtain both a CAP salary and Senate salary as the he had originally intended) CAP had every opportunity to distance itself from the self-serving Brazeau-legacy. It could have elected leadership which would bring CAP back to its roots and its core mandate to be THE political voice for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples and take the much-needed steps to repair its relationships with other NAO's and more importantly, the grass roots people Brazeau left behind.

That is not what happened. Wisely or unwisely, some voters in the Atlantic region reported difficulty getting the then President of NBAPC, Betty-Ann Lavallee, to do any work on behalf of its constituency and so decided that if they could not get rid of her constitutionally (as she always had her lawyer by her side), then voting her into CAP would at least get her out of NB. I can see the appeal of such an approach. The plan worked, except no one could foresee that no election would held at the NBAPC and that a staff member of the NBAPC would eventually acclaimed as President. This has left many NB members dazed and confused to say the least.

But, that is all just the behind the scenes and media gossip. It will never be confirmed or denied and no explanations will ever be forthcoming as is the case in political controversies. In fairness, CAP should be judged on its record. In the short time that Betty-Ann Lavallee has been President of CAP, she has shown an eerily similar disposition to that of Brazeau, although much less informed. Lavallee has demonstrated that she will flip-flip CAP's position on just about any issue to suit the conservative party line. All of this is done in the name of CAP but without consulting in a meaningful way with its own members (not Board) on issues that are important to them.

By way of example, CAP prepared a submission to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)to put on the record its position on Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. CAP argued that INAC did not consult with Aboriginal peoples, that the Indian Act's registration provisions were discriminatory, and that section 6(1) of the Act should be amended to include all those born pre-1985 to remedy the full extent of gender inequality in that provision. By the time it rolled around to CAP's turn to present to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) on Bill C-3, CAP had changed its tune and was willing to support the bill.

In case there was any doubt about CAP's Brazeau-esque support of the Conservative Government, when CAP appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Bill S-4 Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve, Lavallee specifically endorsed the Conservative Party's suite of legislation. In fact, if you read the transcripts of her submission on Bill S-4, it sounds more like a Conservative Party ad for their initiatives than any sustantive input on the bill. She cited the residential schools apology, Bill S-4, Bill C-3, and the right of Indians to vote as significant evidence of the Conservative Government's commitment to "humanity" for Aboriginal peoples. If anyone was under any doubt about whether Lavallee's CAP would abandon the Brazeau legacy or cuddle up to the Conservatives - Lavallee settled it that day.

Furthermore, in stark contrast to Brazeau's media blitz, Lavallee is almost never in the media on any issue. It is as though CAP has fallen off the face of the earth. CAP used to stand for equality and didn't make deals that were harmful to its members. Now the CAP Presidency is used either as a political launching pad or just a job. Some might say that I am simply being critical of any NAO. To my mind, what I am most critical of is the holier-than-thou hypocrisy started by Brazeau and being carried forward by Lavallee.

When Brazeau accepted his Senate seat, he announced to the public that he would be maintaining his position and salary at CAP as well as drawing a Senate salary. This seems to be a pretty hypocritical position for one who has so vocally criticized any First Nation Chief that only makes ONE 6 figure salary, let alone TWO. Brazeau criticizes First Nations for not respecting the rights of Aboriginal women, yet it was Brazeau who made headlines for having sexual harassment complaints and made disparaging remarks against all the Aboriginal women who offered testimony on Bill S-4. Lavallee has proven to be no different.

It is reported that Brazeau left CAP in financial turmoil, with various federal departments claiming "financial irregularities" and large sums of money that were not accounted for in their financial reports. So, some could argue that he left CAP in a mess. That doesn't prevent Lavallee from taking the bull by the horns and getting the situation under control. Yet, at CAP's recent AGM, many AGM delegates and some Board of Directors reported that CAP showed a deficit of nearly 2 million dollars. Yet despite this fact, Lavallee allegedly requested a significant increase to her 6 figure salary at a board meeting preceding the AGM. While some board members were against a raise until the deficit was addressed, it is reported that she nevertheless ended up with a raise.

Now I don't know about other Aboriginal people living off-reserve, but aside from the obvious hypocrisy, what does this say about the usefulness of CAP? Am I getting any value for the tax dollars I use to pay Lavallee's inflated salary? It would be one thing if CAP was in a deficit because it had accomplished a long list of things for Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve, but I fear my tax dollars are being used to fund her trips to Bolivia and her salary increase, as opposed to any tangible improvements for Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve. Where is the self-restraint or the self-sacrifice? How could a real leader inflate their own salary when she has not even secured core funding for her own western affiliates?

If CAP is not already dead, it is surely in the process of a slow, painful death as years now pass without advancing the cause for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. Can CAP be saved? I think the better question is should it be saved? Is there anyone in Indian country ready and willing to support another NAO that appears to be more concerned about securing enough funding for consultants and staff to administer programs and services, than it does with making any substantive difference for Aboriginal people politically, legally, culturally or otherwise?

I guess that call is for the grass roots people to make.

Funding for Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women: A Let Down by ALL Parties

This blog is a very difficult one to write. While I will be dealing with a current political issue, it is about more than that. It does not give me any sense of pride or accomplishment to bring to light serious problems within our Indigenous Nations. I consider myself an advocate for Indigenous peoples and Nations in North America. Their struggles for cultural revitalization, strong identities, the healing and empowerment of our peoples, and our collective goal to re-assert our sovereignty are absolutely fundamental to our survival and success as Indigenous Nations. Part of this means recognizing where we are going wrong and having the courage to shift paths.

In this battle that must be waged between our peoples and our colonizers (Canada and the provinces), there can no deal-making, settling, or backroom political deals for less than what is necessary to ensure the well-being of our peoples now AND into the future. There is no job, grant, contract, position, or level of public fame that is worth giving up our rights and responsibilities as Mi'kmaq, Cree, Mohawk or Maliseet peoples to our future generations. There was a time when we as Indigenous peoples knew this instinctively and wouldn't give all the colonizer's enticements a second thought.

Today however, the bright spirits of our peoples have been dimmed by the dark cloud under which our generations have lived for a very long time. Multiple generations of our peoples have been living under colonial rule and suffering the losses of our lands, identities, traditions, values, and world-views, as well as our sense of responsibility to ourselves and each other. This has been compounded by the historical and current physical and emotional harms imposed by our colonizers. These actions are well-known and include assimilatory laws, policies, and state actions like residential schools, day schools, the Indian Act, discriminatory laws, the 60's scoop, overrepresentation of Indigenous children in foster care and our men in prisons, deaths in police custody, starlight tours, racial profiling, and many other CURRENT state actions.

Taiaiake Alfred, an Indigenous scholar and thinker speaks about the various stages of de-colonization in which we find ourselves in his book Wasase. This makes our collective recognition of systemic colonizing forces and assimilation much more difficult to counter, but not impossible. He stresses the fact that we MUST "move from the materialist orientation of our politics" and act to restore the "spiritual foundation" of our peoples that will restore our strength and unity.

Alfred explains that the underlying problem today is that: "We are separated from the sources of our goodness and power: from each other, our cultures, and our lands." Further, he argues that by "emulating white people" in order to gain acceptance and meet colonial ideas about success has not brought our peoples or our Nations peace, happiness, well-being, or any sense of the "good life" espoused by liberals.

It is in this light that I have considered the issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women in Canada and the relevance of the funding announcement that has been made. Some have celebrated this announcement by the Status of Women Canada for $10 million dollars over two years, which in fact has now been made 3 times, by different politicians without a single dime being spent to date. Now that Canada has provided more specifics about where this funding will be allocated I am, quite frankly, shocked that NWAC would support such an announcement.

NWAC was originally formed to advocate on behalf of Indigenous women in Canada with a specific mandate to "enhance, promote, and foster the social, economic, cultural and political well-being of First Nations and Metis women". Equality was one of their main focuses. In fact, if you read their submission to Parliament on Bill C-3 (status) they indicated that this Bill needed to be amended to address the full extent of gender inequality in the Indian Act. Their submission regarding Bill S-4 (matrimonial real property) advocated for much more meaningful legislation that would provide real access to justice for Indigenous women.

Even NWAC's latest report on the murdered and and missing Indigenous women in Canada highlighted the fact that "Violence is perpetuated through apathy and indifference towards Aboriginal women, and stems from the ongoing impacts of colonialism in Canada." Specifically, NWAC noted that the Indian Act "has created ongoing barriers to citizenship for Aboriginal women and their children". Yet, despite an acknowledgement of the actual sources of the social problems currently experienced by Indigenous women, NWAC stood publicly in support of this $10 million dollar funding announcement which did more to fund police services than any root causes of violence against Indigenous women. According to those involved in the legislative process for Bills C-3 and S-4, NWAC has flip-flopped and now also supports those bills.

While none of the print or TV media services have provided an exact breakdown of where the funding dollars will be distributed, it appears from what I have read that the majority of the funds will go to "law enforcement and the justice system". This includes a new National Police Support Services Centre for Missing Persons, a national tip website, enhancement of the Canadian Police Information Centre, amendments to the Criminal Code (no doubt without consultation), and the development of a list of best practices for police. An undetermined amount of funds will go towards culturally appropriate victim services, awareness materials for schools, and community safety plans.

The Parliamentary Secretary Shelly Glover (not surprisingly given her extensive police background) explained that the funds were meant to "address issues of crime and safety". Even Minister for the Status of Women Canada, Rona Ambrose repeatedly characterized Indigenous women as "victims" and their communities as "unsafe" during her press statement. The Conservative government's solution to that situation is increased criminal laws and expanded powers for police.

As with all issues currently facing Indigenous peoples, the state reduces them to one of criminalization. Whether it is equality for Indigenous women, the treaty right to fish in Mi'kmaq territory, protecting land claims in Caledonia, or standing guard for the sacred resting places of our ancestors in Oka - Indigenous peoples are characterized as criminals, forced to spend a disproportionate amount of time and money in the courts, and are constantly portrayed in the media as welfare-dependent deviants that pose safety and financial concerns for Canadians.

This funding announcement amounts to little more than the promotion of our Indigenous peoples and Nations as criminals and by providing funds to police for services - as if this will bring the problem under control. Indigenous peoples are already over-represented in prisons and I don't know how many more can fit into our current prison system - but then again - the Conservatives want to spend millions building new prisons, so that may help silence the rest of us.

Some readers will find this blog harsh and may even suggest that my comments are naive or out of touch with reality. Some will even say that in politics, some deal is better than no deal. I can assure you all, I am far from naive and I can see enough "reality" to know that what awaits Indigenous peoples and their Nations on the other side of this colonial fog is never-ending compromise and eventual assimilation.

Some will say that something better than nothing - but why? Why is something better than nothing and how do you define "something" and "nothing"? If "something" is defined as funding for a staff position at a national organization for one year, a research project that will end in another report, or school materials that will promote a negative view of Indigenous peoples, then how is "something" better than "nothing"? This is especially true if "nothing" is defined as our dignity, our pride, and respect for both our rights and responsibilities to both our ancestors and future generations?

To my mind, what it means to be Mi'kmaq or Mohawk has been defined as nothing, worthless, criminal, and even pagan for far too long. Out of our "nothing" has come brave battles to protect our lands, treaties to protect our rights, and the survival of our peoples against all odds. Our "nothing" has spawned generations of passionate volunteers and advocates who work day in and day out to effect change for our peoples. Our "nothing" has resulted in the Oka stand-off that was televised all over the world and was a source of extreme pride and revitalization for Indigenous identities in North America.

I would rather have lots of that "nothing" to share with my children than all the "somethings" that would lead to their eventual assimilation. Our children are not committing suicide, becoming involved in gangs, and relying on drugs and alcohol to drown their pains because they are concerned about whether they will get a management job at Irving Oil, a labourer job at the Tar Sands, or a seat in the Senate. These children are lost because they have no sense of who they are, their vibrant history, their special languages, their unique cultures and worldviews or how important their roles are to restoring the power of their Nations. They have no idea how incredibility special they are as Indigenous peoples.

Our children have seen enough sell-outs in their time. They need mentors, visionaries, and real leaders to stand up for them and help guide them along so they can lead the way for our future generations. Our ancestors made incredible sacrifices so that we could get through this long, dark period. They foresaw that the seventh generation would lead their Nations out of colonization and revitalize our systems of government, laws, practices and beliefes in ways which have meaning in modern times. We have a responsibility to stand on our traditional values and principles and stop trading our children's future for trinkets.

NWAC is not the only national Aboriginal organization to have lost sight of what was envisioned in the 1960's and 70's for these organizations. While NWAC's actions in bringing this issue to the forefront are commendable and indeed necessary, their follow-up actions don't match their words. It is of no value for NWAC to opposed BIll C-3 for lack of equality and then accept it later on. Similarly, there is no amount of funding that will affect real change in violence against Indigenous women if it is all directed towards policing and not at the root causes of this inequality (like those noted in NWAC's report).

Our collective reaction to and rejection of the 1969 White Paper which called for our assimilation once and and for all is a testament to the real collective action of which we are all capable. Criminilizing our Indigenous men will never bring about equality for our Indigenous women. Shame on Canada for continuing to criminalize our peoples and on NWAC for settling for it.