On Wednesday, September 28, 2011. Minister John Duncan introduced Bill S-2 An Act Respecting Family Homes Situated on First Nation Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights in or to Structures and Lands Situated on Those Reserves in the Senate where it had its First Reading. The short name for this proposed legislation is Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. The full text can be found at this link:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/411/Government/S-2/S-2_1/S-2_1.PDF
As some of you may recall, this is the fourth attempt at passing federal legislation that would address what Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) is referring to as a 'legislative gap' in relation to how property gets divided upon the break up of a common law relationship or marriage. The previous bills, Bill C-8, Bill C-47 and Bill S-4 all died on the order paper, but not before Aboriginal organizations, First Nations, Indigenous women, and other groups like family law lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association all unanimously testified against the bills.
Now, with a majority government, the Harper Conservatives plan to ram this legislation through Parliament against our will. INAC has again introduced this legislation without engaging in formal legal consultations with those First Nations whose constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty rights may be negatively impacted. Given that this is national legislation that will apply to ALL First Nations and given that reserve lands are protected in the Indian Act, the Constitution Act, 1982, and various Treaties, land claims and self-government agreements, there is no doubt that this legislation requires formal legal consultation as envisioned in the Guerin, Delgamuukw, Haida, Taku and Mikisew decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The majority of my concerns in relation to this legislation were explained in earlier blogs in relation to the previous Bill S-4 by the same name. My previous blogs were entitled:
Bill S-4: An Empty Shell of a Legislative Promise
http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2010/06/bill-s-4-empty-shell-of-legislative.html
Bill S-4: Backdoor Assimilation and Land Grab
http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2010/06/bill-s-4-backdoor-assimilation-and-land.html
Bill S-4: A Step Back in Time
http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2010/06/bill-s-4-step-back-in-time.html
Letter to editor of Globe & Mail re Bill S-4
http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2010/07/letter-to-editor-of-globe-mail-re-bill.html
In these previous blogs, I explained the history, the development of the bill, my main concerns with it and my recommendations to amend it. These are the same concerns I brought forward when I testified as an independent expert witness before the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights on June 7, 2010 in relation to Bill S-4. I am not sure if I will be called again to testify in relation to this 'new' bill, but I hope so. The following is a link to my official submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights in relation to Bill S-4:
http://www.nonstatusindian.com/docs/Presentation2SenateCommittee-HumanRights.pdf
I have read through the new bill in its entirety and while some amendments have been made, the core essence has remained and will have a significant impact not only on the nature and legal status of reserve lands generally, but specifically in relation to who can hold, occupy, use and benefit from reserve lands. Given that most First Nations have medium to high rates of out-marriage (marriages to non-Indians), the exclusive 'benefit' of reserve lands to which Indians are entitled could be significantly reduced, if not completely eliminated in some First Nations.
If there is any right of First Nations men, women, and children that demands full and informed consultation, accommodation and consent, is that of their constitutionally and now internationally protected rights in their own reserve lands. The current lack of consultation is criminal and any attempt to pass this legislation will not only breach our treaties, land claims, and self-government agreements, but will create an additional significant and substantial harm to Indigenous women who have only asked for justice - not a loss of their collective Aboriginal rights.
If Tom Flanagan's and Manny Jules' plan to privatize reserves does not eliminate our reserves, this bill surely will. Stand up, make your voice heard and protect what little land we have left for our future generations!
For all you rabble fans, this blog and others can also be viewed on rabble.ca under blogs! http://rabble.ca/blogs
Friday, September 30, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
First Nations Sign Agreement with Federal and Provincial Governments in NB to Negotiate Self-Government
It was reported earlier this week that 10 out of 15 First Nations in NB signed an agreement with the federal and provincial governments to negotiate self-government. It was then subsequently reported that all 15 First Nations in NB have signed on. However, after speaking with several First Nations, I understand that only 10 First Nations signed, and only one was Maliseet.
I don't have an original signed copy, but I have been provided with the text by one of the First Nations. Many people have been emailing me and asking for a copy of the agreement which I have copied below. Please always refer to the original as the official document:
MI’GMAG, WOLASTOQIYIK, NEW BRUNSWICK and CANADA UMBRELLA AGREEMENT
-among-
THE MI’GMAG AND WOLASTOQIYIK PEOPLES IN NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the Chiefs of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations in New Brunswick (“the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick”)
-and-
THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the Minister Responsible for the Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”)
-and-
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (“Canada”)
Collectively referred to as “the Parties”:
RECITALS:
WHEREAS
The Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik Peoples assert that they have used and occupied their Traditional Lands since time immemorial in accordance with principles of stewardship and responsibility given to them by the Creator; and
The Parties wish to renew and strengthen their government-to-government-togovernment relationship; and
The Parties are dedicated to the principles of good faith, openness, mutual honour and respect; and
The Parties are committed to formal tripartite discussions in order to address outstanding issues among the Parties; and
The Parties recognize that the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick have not enjoyed the same standard of living as other New Brunswickers; and
The Parties have a shared desire to work in partnership with the shared goal of improving the quality of life outcomes of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; and
Page 2 of 7
The Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik Peoples and the British Crown entered into sacred Treaties. Those Treaties established a relationship based on peace and friendship; and The Parties intend to negotiate and implement agreements on Aboriginal and Treaty rights, including the right to self-government.
THEREFORE THE PARTIES HAVE REACHED THE FOLLOWING UNDERSTANDINGS:
OBJECTIVE OF THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT
1) This Umbrella Agreement is designed to guide tripartite discussions with the aim of concluding a Framework Agreement on inter-governmental relationships and Aboriginal and Treaty rights and the self-government of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick.
2) The Parties have targeted December 31, 2012 as the date by which they wish to have negotiated a Framework Agreement.
PROCESS
3) The Parties shall establish a Coordinating Committee comprised of representatives appointed by each of the Parties to oversee the work undertaken under this Umbrella Agreement. In particular, the Coordinating Committee shall:
a) Identify the subject-matters that are to be addressed under a Framework Agreement, such as, but not limited to:
i. Lands and Resources;
ii. Governance and Jurisdiction;
iii. Economy Development and Sustainability;
iv. Health;
v. Education; and
vi. Social and Cultural Development;
b) Negotiate a tripartite agreement on consultation;
c) Identify whether a sub-committee for any agreed to subject-matter should be established;
d) Develop terms of reference and strategic work plans for itself and any proposed sub-committee;
e) Propose interim agreements on issues of concern to the Parties and develop methods for their implementation;
f) Coordinate, monitor and evaluate progress made on the work undertaken under this Umbrella Agreement;
g) Ensure that its representatives report on an ongoing basis, and at least quarterly, to their respective principals on work progress; and
Page 3 of 7
h) Ensure that annual budgets, work plans and any reporting requirements related to funding agreements are completed and processed in a timely manner.
4) Upon consideration of an annual work plan and the funding resources available, Canada and New Brunswick will cost-share funding under this Umbrella Agreement.
STATUS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT
5) Except for sections 5 to 14, this Umbrella Agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to this Umbrella Agreement do not create any legal obligations which are binding on the Parties unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties.
6) This Umbrella Agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to this Umbrella Agreement shall:
a) be on a “without prejudice” basis with respect to the legal rights or positions of the Parties, including the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick;
b) be deemed not to create, define, alter or affect the legal rights or positions of the Parties, including the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick;
c) not be construed to be, or deemed to be, consultation for the purpose of justification by Canada or New Brunswick for the infringement of any Aboriginal or Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; and
d) not preclude any other discussion or initiative between:
i. the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick, or individual Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations and New Brunswick, or
ii. the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick, or individual Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations and Canada on matters of mutual concern.
7) Except for the purpose of enforcing sections 5 to 14 or unless otherwise agreed in writing the Parties undertake not to tender or seek admission of this Umbrella Agreement or the content of meetings, discussions, negotiations, documents generated or positions taken in or during the process contemplated hereunder as evidence in a court of law or before any administrative or regulatory tribunal or board. This undertaking shall survive the termination of this Umbrella Agreement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties.
8)
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Umbrella Agreement, any Party may refer to publicly and may lead evidence regarding the Parties, date of operation, existence and purpose of this Umbrella Agreement and the frequency of and participants in meetings held pursuant to its operation before a court, regulatory tribunal, board or similar body.
Page 4 of 7
9) This Umbrella Agreement shall come into force and effect on the date of its signatures by Canada, New Brunswick, and the First Nations’ Chiefs in New Brunswick provided:
a) A majority of the First Nation Chiefs in New Brunswick execute this Umbrella Agreement; and
b) The Chiefs who execute this Umbrella Agreement are leaders of those First Nations whose members constitute at least fifty per cent plus one person (50% + 1) of the federally registered Indian population in New Brunswick.
10) Any New Brunswick Mi’gmag or Wolastoqiyik First Nation, as represented by its respective Chief, may upon three months written notice to all the Parties, hereto join, withdraw, or rejoin this Umbrella Agreement.
11) If one or more of the Mi’gmag or Wolastoqiyik First Nation(s), as represented by the respective Chief(s), decides to withdraw from this Umbrella Agreement pursuant to section 10, this Umbrella Agreement shall not automatically terminate.
12) If, at any time, the First Nation Parties to this Umbrella Agreement fall below the majority of Chiefs or the majority consists of Chiefs representing less than fifty per cent plus one person (50% + 1) of the federally registered Indian population in New Brunswick, the Parties will consider whether to terminate this Umbrella Agreement.
13) Notwithstanding section 12, Canada or New Brunswick may withdraw or rejoin this Umbrella Agreement upon three months written notice to all the Parties.
14) Notwithstanding sections 10 to 13, the agreements, understandings, undertakings and commitments set out in sections 5 to 9 all continue in effect unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing.
Page 5 of 7
Signed at _______________, New Brunswick, the _______day of ___________, 2011.
Representing the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick
I am told that the last two pages are just the signature pages. A special thank you to my friends, family and colleagues in NB First Nation who help keep me informed on what is happening back home. It is hard being so far from home, but you all make it easier.
Hope this helps. Please e-mail if you have any more questions.
I don't have an original signed copy, but I have been provided with the text by one of the First Nations. Many people have been emailing me and asking for a copy of the agreement which I have copied below. Please always refer to the original as the official document:
MI’GMAG, WOLASTOQIYIK, NEW BRUNSWICK and CANADA UMBRELLA AGREEMENT
-among-
THE MI’GMAG AND WOLASTOQIYIK PEOPLES IN NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the Chiefs of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations in New Brunswick (“the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick”)
-and-
THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the Minister Responsible for the Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”)
-and-
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (“Canada”)
Collectively referred to as “the Parties”:
RECITALS:
WHEREAS
The Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik Peoples assert that they have used and occupied their Traditional Lands since time immemorial in accordance with principles of stewardship and responsibility given to them by the Creator; and
The Parties wish to renew and strengthen their government-to-government-togovernment relationship; and
The Parties are dedicated to the principles of good faith, openness, mutual honour and respect; and
The Parties are committed to formal tripartite discussions in order to address outstanding issues among the Parties; and
The Parties recognize that the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick have not enjoyed the same standard of living as other New Brunswickers; and
The Parties have a shared desire to work in partnership with the shared goal of improving the quality of life outcomes of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; and
Page 2 of 7
The Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik Peoples and the British Crown entered into sacred Treaties. Those Treaties established a relationship based on peace and friendship; and The Parties intend to negotiate and implement agreements on Aboriginal and Treaty rights, including the right to self-government.
THEREFORE THE PARTIES HAVE REACHED THE FOLLOWING UNDERSTANDINGS:
OBJECTIVE OF THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT
1) This Umbrella Agreement is designed to guide tripartite discussions with the aim of concluding a Framework Agreement on inter-governmental relationships and Aboriginal and Treaty rights and the self-government of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick.
2) The Parties have targeted December 31, 2012 as the date by which they wish to have negotiated a Framework Agreement.
PROCESS
3) The Parties shall establish a Coordinating Committee comprised of representatives appointed by each of the Parties to oversee the work undertaken under this Umbrella Agreement. In particular, the Coordinating Committee shall:
a) Identify the subject-matters that are to be addressed under a Framework Agreement, such as, but not limited to:
i. Lands and Resources;
ii. Governance and Jurisdiction;
iii. Economy Development and Sustainability;
iv. Health;
v. Education; and
vi. Social and Cultural Development;
b) Negotiate a tripartite agreement on consultation;
c) Identify whether a sub-committee for any agreed to subject-matter should be established;
d) Develop terms of reference and strategic work plans for itself and any proposed sub-committee;
e) Propose interim agreements on issues of concern to the Parties and develop methods for their implementation;
f) Coordinate, monitor and evaluate progress made on the work undertaken under this Umbrella Agreement;
g) Ensure that its representatives report on an ongoing basis, and at least quarterly, to their respective principals on work progress; and
Page 3 of 7
h) Ensure that annual budgets, work plans and any reporting requirements related to funding agreements are completed and processed in a timely manner.
4) Upon consideration of an annual work plan and the funding resources available, Canada and New Brunswick will cost-share funding under this Umbrella Agreement.
STATUS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT
5) Except for sections 5 to 14, this Umbrella Agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to this Umbrella Agreement do not create any legal obligations which are binding on the Parties unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties.
6) This Umbrella Agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to this Umbrella Agreement shall:
a) be on a “without prejudice” basis with respect to the legal rights or positions of the Parties, including the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick;
b) be deemed not to create, define, alter or affect the legal rights or positions of the Parties, including the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick;
c) not be construed to be, or deemed to be, consultation for the purpose of justification by Canada or New Brunswick for the infringement of any Aboriginal or Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; and
d) not preclude any other discussion or initiative between:
i. the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick, or individual Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations and New Brunswick, or
ii. the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick, or individual Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations and Canada on matters of mutual concern.
7) Except for the purpose of enforcing sections 5 to 14 or unless otherwise agreed in writing the Parties undertake not to tender or seek admission of this Umbrella Agreement or the content of meetings, discussions, negotiations, documents generated or positions taken in or during the process contemplated hereunder as evidence in a court of law or before any administrative or regulatory tribunal or board. This undertaking shall survive the termination of this Umbrella Agreement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties.
8)
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Umbrella Agreement, any Party may refer to publicly and may lead evidence regarding the Parties, date of operation, existence and purpose of this Umbrella Agreement and the frequency of and participants in meetings held pursuant to its operation before a court, regulatory tribunal, board or similar body.Page 4 of 7
9) This Umbrella Agreement shall come into force and effect on the date of its signatures by Canada, New Brunswick, and the First Nations’ Chiefs in New Brunswick provided:
a) A majority of the First Nation Chiefs in New Brunswick execute this Umbrella Agreement; and
b) The Chiefs who execute this Umbrella Agreement are leaders of those First Nations whose members constitute at least fifty per cent plus one person (50% + 1) of the federally registered Indian population in New Brunswick.
10) Any New Brunswick Mi’gmag or Wolastoqiyik First Nation, as represented by its respective Chief, may upon three months written notice to all the Parties, hereto join, withdraw, or rejoin this Umbrella Agreement.
11) If one or more of the Mi’gmag or Wolastoqiyik First Nation(s), as represented by the respective Chief(s), decides to withdraw from this Umbrella Agreement pursuant to section 10, this Umbrella Agreement shall not automatically terminate.
12) If, at any time, the First Nation Parties to this Umbrella Agreement fall below the majority of Chiefs or the majority consists of Chiefs representing less than fifty per cent plus one person (50% + 1) of the federally registered Indian population in New Brunswick, the Parties will consider whether to terminate this Umbrella Agreement.
13) Notwithstanding section 12, Canada or New Brunswick may withdraw or rejoin this Umbrella Agreement upon three months written notice to all the Parties.
14) Notwithstanding sections 10 to 13, the agreements, understandings, undertakings and commitments set out in sections 5 to 9 all continue in effect unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing.
Page 5 of 7
Signed at _______________, New Brunswick, the _______day of ___________, 2011.
Representing the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick
I am told that the last two pages are just the signature pages. A special thank you to my friends, family and colleagues in NB First Nation who help keep me informed on what is happening back home. It is hard being so far from home, but you all make it easier.
Hope this helps. Please e-mail if you have any more questions.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Ontario's Invisible People - Where are Aboriginal Issues in the Ontario Election?
So in case you didn't know, the Ontario provincial election is happening in 4 weeks on Thursday, October 6, 2011. There is lots of election activity happening in Ontario and lots of confusing political messages and attack ads on tv. Elections can be very confusing, especially to our younger population who may be voting for the first time.
http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/ontario/
The contenders for the top spot of Premier are: (1) Progressive Conservative Party's Tim Hudak; (2) New Democrat Party's Andrea Horwath; (3) Green Party's Mike Schreiner; and (4) Liberal Party's Dalton McGuinty. McGuinty is the current incumbent (i.e., he is currently in the position of Premier and hoping to be re-elected).
You are entitled to vote in this upcoming election if: (1) you are at least 18 years old, (2) a Canadian citizen, (3) you reside in an electoral district and (4) have not already voted. This means that for those Aboriginal people in Ontario who want to, you can vote in this election.
http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/who-can-vote.aspx
However, if you do vote, I STRONGLY suggest that you read the election platforms (i.e., promises made by politicians about what they will do if elected) of each party beforehand. It is not because I believe that most contenders will fulfill all their election promises, but if they are not making ANY promises in relation to key issues that concern you, then this should act as a major red flag.
As a Mi'kmaw woman who now lives in Ontario, my primary concern is for the First Nations living in Ontario and how their views, concerns, needs, rights and interests will be addressed by each party. I don't vote in elections, so I won't be voting, but I participate in other ways, like helping to inform others about who and what they are voting for - if they do.
It is for this reason that I have gone through all of the election platforms, including the Liberal Plan which was just released today. The first thing that struck me was that not a SINGLE plan mentioned Aboriginal peoples at all. There was no mention of First Nations, Métis, Inuit, or their rights, interests or needs. The solitary reference to Aboriginal peoples was in the Conservative's tough on crime section of their platform where they made a reference to "illegal" activity on reserves.
Tim Hudak and the Conservative Party of Ontario's election platform is called the "Changebook" and can be found here:
http://www.ontariopc.com/changebook/
Andrea Horwath and the NDP's election platform is called "The Plan for Affordable Change" and can be found at this link:
http://ontariondp.com/en/policy
Mike Schreiner and the Green Party's election platform is called: "It's Time: A five point plan for Ontario's future" and can be viewed here:
http://www.gpo.ca/sites/gpo.ca/files/gpo_platform_2011.pdf
Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party's plan was just released today and is called: "Forward Together" and can be accessed at this link:
http://www.ontarioliberal.ca/OurPlan/pdf/platform_english.pdf
In all of the platforms, there are lots of nice pictures of happy white people riding bikes, taking strolls in the forest, holding hands, or working hard mining, farming, or assembling vehicles. All of the contenders for Premier themselves are all white people. There is not a single picture of a First Nation community, celebration or leader in all of these platforms. It is like we do not exist in Ontario.
The province of Ontario has the LARGEST population of Aboriginal peoples of all the other provinces and territories. There are almost 300,000 Aboriginal people living in Ontario, which means that 21% of all Aboriginal people live in Ontario. Even more astounding is that 80% of the Aboriginal population living in Ontario lives OFF-RESERVE. There are also 133 First Nations within Ontario, making it the province with the second highest number of First Nations after British Columbia.
http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/services/datasheets/aboriginal.asp
So why have we become invisible to Ontarians? Is Pikangikum's child suicide crisis not visible enough?
http://netnewsledger.com/2011/09/01/pikangikum-first-nation-faces-suicide-epidemic/
Or what about Attawapiskat's deplorable school conditions?
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec10/attawapiskat.asp
Or how about the long, unresolved land claims in Six Nations?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/
I am sure that most people remember the senseless murder of Dudley George at Ipperwash:
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/report/vol_4/pdf/E_Vol_4_Full.pdf
What about the First Nations that live in the Ring of Fire and their Aboriginal and treaty rights?
http://www.northernontariobusiness.com/Industry-News/mining/First-Nation-pushes-back-against--Ring-of-Fire--mine,-rail-project-510.aspx
I could literally go on and on about the numerous Aboriginal issues and concerns in Ontario, but that is not the purpose of this blog. My point is to highlight that our issues have been completely ignored in this election. The only party that took any notice of First Nations was the Conservative Party, but not in a good way. True to right-wing form, they only mention First Nations is in the crime section of their platform. (see page 33)
There, the First Nation traditional tobacco growing, manufacturing, and trading activities are characterized as "illegal", "criminal", and "dangerous" because it is run by "organized crime that uses it to fund their drug and weapons trades". The Conservatives racist attack on First Nations is bolstered by their view that "honest businesses who are robbed of revenue, and every Ontario family, as we lose at least $500 million each year in tax revenue."
We, as First Nations people are invisible when we are dying of starvation, our children kill themselves at alarming rates or our schools are condemned. However, if there is even the most remote chance that we might be able to benefit from using OUR land or OUR resources, then they crack down with all their police, military, and legislative might to ensure that we stay where we belong: living in extreme poverty on reserves out of the hearts and minds of "honest", "hard-working" Canadians.
Even the Liberal platform, which labels Dalton McGuinty as the "Education Premier" brags for pages about the education levels and achievements of Ontario residents. Sure, Ontario can boast about 85% graduation rates, 75% of students exceeding provincial testing standards, and how they have invested $4 billion in new classrooms, libraries, buildings and labs.
I guess it would not look very good for the Liberals to talk about Aboriginal education statistics. They will fall back on the jurisdictional argument that Aboriginal people are federal jurisdiction. Well, in fact, as the province knows very well, the only Aboriginal group that is definitively federal jurisdiction is First Nations living on reserve. Given that 80% of Aboriginal live OFF-RESERVE, this means that Ontario has at least some role to play in ensuring that EVERYONE who lives in Ontario has access to all these wonderful educational benefits.
None of these candidates deserve our vote, but they do deserve to called on their lack of honesty and failure to stand up for EVERYONE who lives in Ontario. Speak up and call them on it.
I know I will!
http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/ontario/
The contenders for the top spot of Premier are: (1) Progressive Conservative Party's Tim Hudak; (2) New Democrat Party's Andrea Horwath; (3) Green Party's Mike Schreiner; and (4) Liberal Party's Dalton McGuinty. McGuinty is the current incumbent (i.e., he is currently in the position of Premier and hoping to be re-elected).
You are entitled to vote in this upcoming election if: (1) you are at least 18 years old, (2) a Canadian citizen, (3) you reside in an electoral district and (4) have not already voted. This means that for those Aboriginal people in Ontario who want to, you can vote in this election.
http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/who-can-vote.aspx
However, if you do vote, I STRONGLY suggest that you read the election platforms (i.e., promises made by politicians about what they will do if elected) of each party beforehand. It is not because I believe that most contenders will fulfill all their election promises, but if they are not making ANY promises in relation to key issues that concern you, then this should act as a major red flag.
As a Mi'kmaw woman who now lives in Ontario, my primary concern is for the First Nations living in Ontario and how their views, concerns, needs, rights and interests will be addressed by each party. I don't vote in elections, so I won't be voting, but I participate in other ways, like helping to inform others about who and what they are voting for - if they do.
It is for this reason that I have gone through all of the election platforms, including the Liberal Plan which was just released today. The first thing that struck me was that not a SINGLE plan mentioned Aboriginal peoples at all. There was no mention of First Nations, Métis, Inuit, or their rights, interests or needs. The solitary reference to Aboriginal peoples was in the Conservative's tough on crime section of their platform where they made a reference to "illegal" activity on reserves.
Tim Hudak and the Conservative Party of Ontario's election platform is called the "Changebook" and can be found here:
http://www.ontariopc.com/changebook/
Andrea Horwath and the NDP's election platform is called "The Plan for Affordable Change" and can be found at this link:
http://ontariondp.com/en/policy
Mike Schreiner and the Green Party's election platform is called: "It's Time: A five point plan for Ontario's future" and can be viewed here:
http://www.gpo.ca/sites/gpo.ca/files/gpo_platform_2011.pdf
Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party's plan was just released today and is called: "Forward Together" and can be accessed at this link:
http://www.ontarioliberal.ca/OurPlan/pdf/platform_english.pdf
In all of the platforms, there are lots of nice pictures of happy white people riding bikes, taking strolls in the forest, holding hands, or working hard mining, farming, or assembling vehicles. All of the contenders for Premier themselves are all white people. There is not a single picture of a First Nation community, celebration or leader in all of these platforms. It is like we do not exist in Ontario.
The province of Ontario has the LARGEST population of Aboriginal peoples of all the other provinces and territories. There are almost 300,000 Aboriginal people living in Ontario, which means that 21% of all Aboriginal people live in Ontario. Even more astounding is that 80% of the Aboriginal population living in Ontario lives OFF-RESERVE. There are also 133 First Nations within Ontario, making it the province with the second highest number of First Nations after British Columbia.
http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/services/datasheets/aboriginal.asp
So why have we become invisible to Ontarians? Is Pikangikum's child suicide crisis not visible enough?
http://netnewsledger.com/2011/09/01/pikangikum-first-nation-faces-suicide-epidemic/
Or what about Attawapiskat's deplorable school conditions?
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec10/attawapiskat.asp
Or how about the long, unresolved land claims in Six Nations?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/
I am sure that most people remember the senseless murder of Dudley George at Ipperwash:
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/report/vol_4/pdf/E_Vol_4_Full.pdf
What about the First Nations that live in the Ring of Fire and their Aboriginal and treaty rights?
http://www.northernontariobusiness.com/Industry-News/mining/First-Nation-pushes-back-against--Ring-of-Fire--mine,-rail-project-510.aspx
I could literally go on and on about the numerous Aboriginal issues and concerns in Ontario, but that is not the purpose of this blog. My point is to highlight that our issues have been completely ignored in this election. The only party that took any notice of First Nations was the Conservative Party, but not in a good way. True to right-wing form, they only mention First Nations is in the crime section of their platform. (see page 33)
There, the First Nation traditional tobacco growing, manufacturing, and trading activities are characterized as "illegal", "criminal", and "dangerous" because it is run by "organized crime that uses it to fund their drug and weapons trades". The Conservatives racist attack on First Nations is bolstered by their view that "honest businesses who are robbed of revenue, and every Ontario family, as we lose at least $500 million each year in tax revenue."
We, as First Nations people are invisible when we are dying of starvation, our children kill themselves at alarming rates or our schools are condemned. However, if there is even the most remote chance that we might be able to benefit from using OUR land or OUR resources, then they crack down with all their police, military, and legislative might to ensure that we stay where we belong: living in extreme poverty on reserves out of the hearts and minds of "honest", "hard-working" Canadians.
Even the Liberal platform, which labels Dalton McGuinty as the "Education Premier" brags for pages about the education levels and achievements of Ontario residents. Sure, Ontario can boast about 85% graduation rates, 75% of students exceeding provincial testing standards, and how they have invested $4 billion in new classrooms, libraries, buildings and labs.
I guess it would not look very good for the Liberals to talk about Aboriginal education statistics. They will fall back on the jurisdictional argument that Aboriginal people are federal jurisdiction. Well, in fact, as the province knows very well, the only Aboriginal group that is definitively federal jurisdiction is First Nations living on reserve. Given that 80% of Aboriginal live OFF-RESERVE, this means that Ontario has at least some role to play in ensuring that EVERYONE who lives in Ontario has access to all these wonderful educational benefits.
None of these candidates deserve our vote, but they do deserve to called on their lack of honesty and failure to stand up for EVERYONE who lives in Ontario. Speak up and call them on it.
I know I will!
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Canada's Genocide?: Death by Poverty in First Nations
I apologize to all my readers about not posting lately. There are so many issues that I want to deal with and that need more attention, like: the failure of BC to provide funding to Aboriginal women's groups to be able to participate in the Pickton Inquiry; the Conservative government's subversion of the specific lands claims process by offering take-it-or-leave-it offers; the expert First Nation panel which has been a fiasco from its troubled beginnings, or the Conservatives pattern of censoring information. All of these issues I have tweeted about, but are deserved of their own blogs.
However, as one person I only have so much time to do more things than I could finish in a lifetime. Currently, I am working on a journal article that will be published this fall on the pre-mature deaths of First Nations caused by the crisis of poverty created and maintained by Canada. This article is taking me much longer to write than usual because of the subject matter.
As I type the words on each page, my heart gets heavier and heavier until I cannot hold my feelings anymore and have to walk away from the paper. Sometimes, when I am referring to very specific examples, stories of specific communities and individuals, I can't help but cry. I am not crying for me, but for our Indigenous brothers and sisters who are denied their very lives by all the discriminatory laws, policies, and barriers imposed on First Nations by Canada.
Often times we hear these words so often from our leaders and various advocacy organizations that the public hears it only as rhetoric - an exaggeration of the actual situation in First Nations. Any publicity about a crisis in one of our communities is quickly downplayed by allegations of corruption or mis-spending in another. We are often blamed for the ill effects of colonization and systemic racism.
Canada has perfected the ability to "defer, deflect and deny" the fact of First Nations dying by poverty. Creating these situations of life and death make "negotiations" about our Aboriginal and treaty rights and land claims much easier. We are so far from an equal bargaining position with Canada that any agreement arrived at today should be challenged as an imprudent bargain.
This is what I am writing about in my article. This is the reason why I haven't been able to post any blogs lately or update my website (which is in desperate need of an update). Here is an excerpt from my article that I am working on:
However, it is not just the federal government’s own offices and agencies that have noted Canada’s lack of action on First Nation poverty and discrimination. The Ontario coroner’s report referred to earlier clearly linked the extreme poverty in Pikangikum First Nation to the high suicide rates among their children:
What health care residents do receive is “fragmented, chaotic and uncoordinated” with “clear gaps in service”.[2] Their school burnt down in 2007 and has never been replaced despite empty promises by INAC to do so. The significant funding disparities that exist between First Nation and Canadian students means that the students who are the most disadvantaged and have the greatest needs, receive the least. A community of only 2400 people has 200 child welfare files open with 80 children in care. Due to the lack of housing and the high levels of overcrowding, these children are sent to foster homes far away from their communities. Should anyone be surprised by the fact that 16 children between the ages of 10-19 took their own lives between 2006 and 2008? Under the Criminal Code of Canada, section 318(2)(b) defines genocide as:
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.[3]
At what point does Canada’s denial of the problem equate with a de facto policy of genocide?
As always, I welcome any comments or feedback you may have about any of my blogs. For the next little while however, there may be delays in my response so that I can finish this article.
However, as one person I only have so much time to do more things than I could finish in a lifetime. Currently, I am working on a journal article that will be published this fall on the pre-mature deaths of First Nations caused by the crisis of poverty created and maintained by Canada. This article is taking me much longer to write than usual because of the subject matter.
As I type the words on each page, my heart gets heavier and heavier until I cannot hold my feelings anymore and have to walk away from the paper. Sometimes, when I am referring to very specific examples, stories of specific communities and individuals, I can't help but cry. I am not crying for me, but for our Indigenous brothers and sisters who are denied their very lives by all the discriminatory laws, policies, and barriers imposed on First Nations by Canada.
Often times we hear these words so often from our leaders and various advocacy organizations that the public hears it only as rhetoric - an exaggeration of the actual situation in First Nations. Any publicity about a crisis in one of our communities is quickly downplayed by allegations of corruption or mis-spending in another. We are often blamed for the ill effects of colonization and systemic racism.
Canada has perfected the ability to "defer, deflect and deny" the fact of First Nations dying by poverty. Creating these situations of life and death make "negotiations" about our Aboriginal and treaty rights and land claims much easier. We are so far from an equal bargaining position with Canada that any agreement arrived at today should be challenged as an imprudent bargain.
This is what I am writing about in my article. This is the reason why I haven't been able to post any blogs lately or update my website (which is in desperate need of an update). Here is an excerpt from my article that I am working on:
However, it is not just the federal government’s own offices and agencies that have noted Canada’s lack of action on First Nation poverty and discrimination. The Ontario coroner’s report referred to earlier clearly linked the extreme poverty in Pikangikum First Nation to the high suicide rates among their children:
Pikangikum is an impoverished, isolated First Nations community where basic necessities of life are absent. Running water and indoor plumbing do not exist for most residents. Poverty, crowded substandard housing, gainful employment, food and water security are daily challenges. A lack of an integrated health care system, poor education by provincial standards and a largely absent community infrastructure are uniquely positioned against a backdrop of colonialism, racism, lack of implementation of self-determination and social exclusion. They all contribute to the troubled youth...[1]
What health care residents do receive is “fragmented, chaotic and uncoordinated” with “clear gaps in service”.[2] Their school burnt down in 2007 and has never been replaced despite empty promises by INAC to do so. The significant funding disparities that exist between First Nation and Canadian students means that the students who are the most disadvantaged and have the greatest needs, receive the least. A community of only 2400 people has 200 child welfare files open with 80 children in care. Due to the lack of housing and the high levels of overcrowding, these children are sent to foster homes far away from their communities. Should anyone be surprised by the fact that 16 children between the ages of 10-19 took their own lives between 2006 and 2008? Under the Criminal Code of Canada, section 318(2)(b) defines genocide as:
(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
As always, I welcome any comments or feedback you may have about any of my blogs. For the next little while however, there may be delays in my response so that I can finish this article.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Eskan Racism - Bottled and Sourced in Canada for Over 500 Years
With the warming of the days that comes with summer and the positive effect a little vacation and relaxation has on many of us, I had hoped that the red necks would be able to take some time off as well. Yet, this latest advertisement for Eska Water is another testament to the fact that racism in Canada is an ongoing problem that doesn't just surface when there is tension or disagreement - but is, in fact, so embedded in some parts of the population that they themselves don't even recognize it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfNDFdZVDE8
Some of you may think that I am being too harsh and that none of the folks as Eaux Vives Canada Inc ever "intended" for anyone to take offence.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/canada/native-group-wants-racist-water-ad-pulled-58789.html
Some of you might also feel that if any of us don't like the ad, we should simply refrain from watching it. Alternatively, it has been suggested that anyone who is offended by the ad should take solice in the fact that the ad was intended to be "funny" and not meant to represent any particular group.
Eaux Vives Canada has explained that they had no indication that anything in the ad might cause a problem - nothing to make them "suspect" an issue. In fact, Eaux Vives conducted a focus group of the local population and received "all positive feedback". They admit, however, that there may not have been any First Nations people included in that sample.
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article2089081.html
Eaux Vives Canada Inc is responsible for approving such an ad, so this reflects very poorly on their company, including those in the senior-most positions who make the decisions. However, one should also shine the spotlight on the ad's creators - KBS & P which stands for Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal and Partners.
http://www.kbsp.com/
They are owned by MDC Partners Inc. A company that specializes in marketing.
http://www.mdc-partners.com/#/agency/mdc_partners/2/about
You'll notice that KBS & P's bigger clients include Coke, Levis, North Face and Victoria's Secret. They work in the big leagues, so to speak, and either know better or should have known better. Further, for anyone who does any kind of advertising - be it print, television or online media - they all know or should know, the laws relating to discrimination, racism, hate crimes and limitations on free speech.
Its not like these companies do not have access to legal advisors, community relations experts and senior management-types to appropriately review and approve public ads. Afterall, these ads don't just sell products, they reflect on the character or lack thereof of the company and it's leaders.
That is why when the company's spokesperson, Gilles Corriveau said to the media that the company had "no intention to hurt people", he made the company look even worse. Anyone who studies anti-discrimination law knows that it is NOT the intention that counts - but the effect that it has on the person or groups offended. But more than that, big companies like Eska Water, KBS & P or MDC Partners cannot plead ignorance when they ALL have the resources, capacity and experience to know better.
I might also ad that there are no shortage of people that work in the area of human rights, anti-discrimination, anti-racism, and First Nations issues. Any number of people, groups, organizations or universities could have been consulted to provide input on any number of ads that has the potential to impact certain groups in society.
Let's pretend no such experts or advisors exist, is there any excuse for not googling the issue of racism in the media and making sure that your company is adequately aware of the issue? I googled the issue just now and tons of sources came up. Even the first source that popped up would have made the company think twice - had they taken the time to read it:
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/crawford/jamesc.html
The issue, sadly, is much deeper than that. The company itself indicated that it may have failed to include First Nations people in their focus sample, which amounts to more than a mere oversight - some might even call it incompetent.
There is no doubt that the company was trying to portray an Indigenous group, whether or not it was a fictional one. In so doing, they used stereotypes about what Indigenous people look and act like - neither of which were presented with accuracy, thoughtfulness or dignity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSggKIAShbM
Indigenous people in Canada and indeed all over the world must fight the colonially-imposed requirement to be "authentic" or "pure" Indians. The stereotype includes the requirement to live and behave as this did at some arbitrary and distant point in pre-contact times. Real Indians wear feathers, paint their bodies and carry around spears, arrows and other weapons. Real Indians are primitive and fierce and seek only to make war with non-Indians. These stereotypes are not just promoted in the media, but are also promoted by right-wing academics and governments.
http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html
In the Eaux Vives Eska water ad, we see the age-old stereotype of purity. The mixing of orange juice with water is portrayed as being an offence to maintaining the purity of the water. Colonial governments have been obsessed with defining Indigenous peoples in terms of "purity" both legally and politically. Even Canada, through the Indian Act and other laws and policies, tries to exclude from legal recognition any Indigenous person who is not a "pure" Indian - i.e., someone who is mixed Indian and non-Indian (water and orange juice).
http://www.vueweekly.com/front/story/blood_challenge/
This means that the public at large is constantly bombarded by these types messages and no consistent education about Indigenous realities in Canada. Even the omission of positive images of Indigenous peoples in the media serves to reinforce negative stereotypes. How often do you see an Indigenous woman consulted as a legal or political expert on the news, in the papers or in advertisements of any kind? What about Indigenous men as business analysts, foreign affairs experts or champions of human rights? We are led to believe that Aboriginal women are all victims of violence and Aboriginal men all corrupt leaders or criminals.
It is simply not enough to say, if you don't like the commercial don't watch it. Even if we could be with out children and youth 24-hours a day, the fact is they will eventually be exposed to these sorts of ads. However, what is worse is that Canadians will be exposed to these kinds of ads and thus these old stereotypes will continue to be reinforced and played out in relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada.
Consider the situation where racist jokes are told to co-workers but not the Indigenous person in an office. This still has the effect of creating a hostile work environment for the Indigenous person. I would argue that ads like Eska Water helps create a hostile country for Indigenous peoples where we are seen as the savage terrorists as opposed to the First Peoples.
http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-savages-to-terrorists-justifying.html
We as Indigenous people already know, that none of these stereotypes reflect our wonderfully diverse and rich realities, ways of being and relations. We do indeed have many social issues created and perpetuated by colonial governments, like the inequities in funding for essential services, Canada's failure to live up to treaty and self-government obligations, the theft of our lands and the failure to share our resources with us - like water. Over 50% of First Nations in Canada have unsafe drinking water according to the Auditor General.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf
The very least Eaux Vives Canada should have done was issue an IMMEDIATE apology. The hiring of a public relations firm shows more concern for minimizing loss of profit than for the humanity of others. They don't need a meeting with First Nations leaders to know that the right thing to do is to pull the ad.
What an insult for Eaux Vives Canada to make such a mockery of Indigenous peoples and profit from OUR water sources while First Nations are denied access to this and other basic necessities of life. This water ad serves, ironically, to highlight the problem in ideology (racist ad) and in practice (lack of clean water for First Nations).
Racism has been ongoing in Canada for over 500 years since contact. It is time to acknowledge the problem and work towards addressing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfNDFdZVDE8
Some of you may think that I am being too harsh and that none of the folks as Eaux Vives Canada Inc ever "intended" for anyone to take offence.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/canada/native-group-wants-racist-water-ad-pulled-58789.html
Some of you might also feel that if any of us don't like the ad, we should simply refrain from watching it. Alternatively, it has been suggested that anyone who is offended by the ad should take solice in the fact that the ad was intended to be "funny" and not meant to represent any particular group.
Eaux Vives Canada has explained that they had no indication that anything in the ad might cause a problem - nothing to make them "suspect" an issue. In fact, Eaux Vives conducted a focus group of the local population and received "all positive feedback". They admit, however, that there may not have been any First Nations people included in that sample.
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article2089081.html
Eaux Vives Canada Inc is responsible for approving such an ad, so this reflects very poorly on their company, including those in the senior-most positions who make the decisions. However, one should also shine the spotlight on the ad's creators - KBS & P which stands for Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal and Partners.
http://www.kbsp.com/
They are owned by MDC Partners Inc. A company that specializes in marketing.
http://www.mdc-partners.com/#/agency/mdc_partners/2/about
You'll notice that KBS & P's bigger clients include Coke, Levis, North Face and Victoria's Secret. They work in the big leagues, so to speak, and either know better or should have known better. Further, for anyone who does any kind of advertising - be it print, television or online media - they all know or should know, the laws relating to discrimination, racism, hate crimes and limitations on free speech.
Its not like these companies do not have access to legal advisors, community relations experts and senior management-types to appropriately review and approve public ads. Afterall, these ads don't just sell products, they reflect on the character or lack thereof of the company and it's leaders.
That is why when the company's spokesperson, Gilles Corriveau said to the media that the company had "no intention to hurt people", he made the company look even worse. Anyone who studies anti-discrimination law knows that it is NOT the intention that counts - but the effect that it has on the person or groups offended. But more than that, big companies like Eska Water, KBS & P or MDC Partners cannot plead ignorance when they ALL have the resources, capacity and experience to know better.
I might also ad that there are no shortage of people that work in the area of human rights, anti-discrimination, anti-racism, and First Nations issues. Any number of people, groups, organizations or universities could have been consulted to provide input on any number of ads that has the potential to impact certain groups in society.
Let's pretend no such experts or advisors exist, is there any excuse for not googling the issue of racism in the media and making sure that your company is adequately aware of the issue? I googled the issue just now and tons of sources came up. Even the first source that popped up would have made the company think twice - had they taken the time to read it:
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/crawford/jamesc.html
The issue, sadly, is much deeper than that. The company itself indicated that it may have failed to include First Nations people in their focus sample, which amounts to more than a mere oversight - some might even call it incompetent.
There is no doubt that the company was trying to portray an Indigenous group, whether or not it was a fictional one. In so doing, they used stereotypes about what Indigenous people look and act like - neither of which were presented with accuracy, thoughtfulness or dignity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSggKIAShbM
Indigenous people in Canada and indeed all over the world must fight the colonially-imposed requirement to be "authentic" or "pure" Indians. The stereotype includes the requirement to live and behave as this did at some arbitrary and distant point in pre-contact times. Real Indians wear feathers, paint their bodies and carry around spears, arrows and other weapons. Real Indians are primitive and fierce and seek only to make war with non-Indians. These stereotypes are not just promoted in the media, but are also promoted by right-wing academics and governments.
http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html
In the Eaux Vives Eska water ad, we see the age-old stereotype of purity. The mixing of orange juice with water is portrayed as being an offence to maintaining the purity of the water. Colonial governments have been obsessed with defining Indigenous peoples in terms of "purity" both legally and politically. Even Canada, through the Indian Act and other laws and policies, tries to exclude from legal recognition any Indigenous person who is not a "pure" Indian - i.e., someone who is mixed Indian and non-Indian (water and orange juice).
http://www.vueweekly.com/front/story/blood_challenge/
This means that the public at large is constantly bombarded by these types messages and no consistent education about Indigenous realities in Canada. Even the omission of positive images of Indigenous peoples in the media serves to reinforce negative stereotypes. How often do you see an Indigenous woman consulted as a legal or political expert on the news, in the papers or in advertisements of any kind? What about Indigenous men as business analysts, foreign affairs experts or champions of human rights? We are led to believe that Aboriginal women are all victims of violence and Aboriginal men all corrupt leaders or criminals.
It is simply not enough to say, if you don't like the commercial don't watch it. Even if we could be with out children and youth 24-hours a day, the fact is they will eventually be exposed to these sorts of ads. However, what is worse is that Canadians will be exposed to these kinds of ads and thus these old stereotypes will continue to be reinforced and played out in relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada.
Consider the situation where racist jokes are told to co-workers but not the Indigenous person in an office. This still has the effect of creating a hostile work environment for the Indigenous person. I would argue that ads like Eska Water helps create a hostile country for Indigenous peoples where we are seen as the savage terrorists as opposed to the First Peoples.
http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-savages-to-terrorists-justifying.html
We as Indigenous people already know, that none of these stereotypes reflect our wonderfully diverse and rich realities, ways of being and relations. We do indeed have many social issues created and perpetuated by colonial governments, like the inequities in funding for essential services, Canada's failure to live up to treaty and self-government obligations, the theft of our lands and the failure to share our resources with us - like water. Over 50% of First Nations in Canada have unsafe drinking water according to the Auditor General.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf
The very least Eaux Vives Canada should have done was issue an IMMEDIATE apology. The hiring of a public relations firm shows more concern for minimizing loss of profit than for the humanity of others. They don't need a meeting with First Nations leaders to know that the right thing to do is to pull the ad.
What an insult for Eaux Vives Canada to make such a mockery of Indigenous peoples and profit from OUR water sources while First Nations are denied access to this and other basic necessities of life. This water ad serves, ironically, to highlight the problem in ideology (racist ad) and in practice (lack of clean water for First Nations).
Racism has been ongoing in Canada for over 500 years since contact. It is time to acknowledge the problem and work towards addressing it.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
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?
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?
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
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".
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)