Manitoba's Epic Failure: Manitoba and Mining Companies Work Together to Deny First Nation Rights

Dr. Pamela Palmater, Chair in Indigenous Governance

And

Chief Arlen Dumas, Mathias Colomb Cree Nation

In Bruce Owen’s article in the Winnipeg Free Press “Chiefs agree to work on revenue sharing” dated Aug. 23, 2013, Manitoba’s Energy and Mines Minister Dave Chomiak announced that seven First Nation Chiefs had agreed to work with the province and mining companies on revenue sharing in the form of jobs and economic opportunities related to mining. Chomiak was also quoted as saying that the mining companies are onside with sharing revenue from mines with First Nations. However, in dismissing Red Sucker Lake First Nation’s actions to evict Mega Precious Metals from their territories, he failed to present the whole picture to Manitobans.

Manitoba is one of the only provinces that does not have a First Nation consultation policy, despite the Supreme Court of Canada saying since the 1990’s that the provinces have a legal duty to consult, accommodate and obtain the consent of First Nations for activities on their reserve, treaty and traditional lands. Despite their reference to a “draft” policy, First Nations have been left out of decisions in relation to natural resources on their lands. This has been a long-standing grievance with First Nations whose inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights are constitutionally-protected. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which Canada supported, also guarantees protections for First Nations lands and resources and reaffirms that states require First Nation consent.

While Chomiak’s quotes make it seem like Red Sucker Lake is the only First Nation opposed to illegal mining in their territory; that could not be further from the truth. Mathias Colomb Cree Nation has also taken steps to protect their traditional, treaty and reserve lands from Hudbay Minerals - a Canadian mining giant currently in court for alleged abuses of Indigenous peoples against mining in Guatemala. Hudbay was issued Stop Work Orders and eviction notices after failing to talk to Mathias Colomb Cree Nation.

These two communities are not alone in their efforts. On April 26, 2013, a protest was held outside of the Mines Branch in Winnipeg where approximately fifteen to twenty Chiefs, supported by Idle No More and other grassroots community members, were in attendance. Nine Chiefs, including Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Grand Chief Derek Nepinak, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Grand Chief David Harper and Southern Chiefs Organization Grand Chief Murray Clearsky, as well as Chiefs from Manto Sipi, Red Sucker Lake, Mathias Colomb Cree Nation, Wasagamack, Buffalo Point, and Garden Hill First Nations, issued a press release expressing very specific concerns against Manitoba’s illegal licenses and permits.

The Minister also failed to share that the mining companies are not onside with sharing the wealth from First Nations lands and resources. Hudbay Minerals has never provided any of the wealth to Mathias Colomb Cree Nation and its mining operations have negatively impacted the health of the plants, animals and waters in their territory. Similarly, Mega Precious Metals has not indicated a willingness to share the wealth from its mine on Red Sucker Lake territory. It is due to this consistent refusal by the province of Manitoba to comply with constitutionally-imposed legal obligations to First Nations, and the mining companies reliance on illegal licenses and permits, that First Nations in Manitoba are rising up to defend their rights. Even the United Nations report on mining on Indigenous lands deems licenses issued this way as “tainted” and not legal.

For Minister Chomiak to say that the mining companies are onside is perhaps the most outrageous claim in the article. In actual fact, both Hudbay and Mega Precious instituted heavy-handed measures against Mathias Colomb Cree Nation and Red Sucker Lake First Nations when they went out on their traditional lands and engaged in their peaceful traditional activities. The RCMP were called in, litigation was filed against the Chiefs and community members and injunctions were obtained to keep these First Nations off their own lands (and in the case of MCCN, an injunction was also obtained against Pam Palmater, an activist with Idle No More).

Just because seven Chiefs out of 63 want to meet with the province and mining companies, does not mean the majority of First Nations are onside with either Manitoba’s illegal licenses or mining companies who knowingly profiting from illegally-issued licenses and permits. To make this assumption would also ignore all the resolutions and motions passed from First Nations and First Nation organizations. For example, Swampy Cree Tribal Council passed a motion this year stating:

“Swampy Cree Tribal Council will not recognize any mining table, committee or working group or panel of experts set up by the Province of Manitoba or any decisions or recommendation they may make in relation to our lands and resources.”

Similarly, the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee resolved this year that:

“We hereby direct the federal and provincial government to honour and abide by our Moratorium not to use permits, licenses and any other dispositions or actions that may impact our Respective Treaty, Traditional territories and Ancestral lands”

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and other First Nation organizations have passed similar resolutions supporting First Nations in their efforts to protect their sovereignty, land and resources. But this issue just isn’t about First Nations - First Nations are trying to protect all Manitobans from the province’s illegal activities, like allowing Hudbay to develop a mine in a provincial park.

 

It’s time Manitoba recognized the sovereignty and ownership of First Nations over their own lands and resources and started finding ways to work together to share the wealth and protect the lands as envisioned by the treaties.

 

 

Harper Solicits Research to Blame First Nations for Murdered, Missing and Traded Indigenous Women

Canada's shameful colonial history as it relates to Indigenous peoples and women specifically is not well known by the public at large. The most horrific of Canada's abuses against Indigenous peoples are not taught in schools. Even public discussion around issues like genocide have been censored by successive federal governments, and most notably by Harper's Conservatives. Recently, the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights refused to use the term "genocide" to describe Canada's laws, policies and actions towards Indigenous peoples which led to millions of deaths. The reason?: because that term was not acceptable to the federal government and the museum is after all, a Crown corporation.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2013/07/human-rights-museum-or-harper.html

Aside from the fact that this museum will be used as a propaganda tool for Canada vis-à-vis the international community, Harper's Conservatives are also paying for targeted research to back up their propaganda as it relates to murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women. This is not the first time that Harper has paid for counter information and propaganda material as it relates to Indigenous peoples, and it likely won't be the last. However, this instance of soliciting targeted research to help the government blame Indigenous peoples for their own victimization and oppression is particularly reprehensible given the massive loss of life involved over time.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2011/06/secret-agent-harper-conservative-spy.html

The issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women was made very public by the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) several years ago through their dedicated research, community engagement and advocacy efforts. Even the United Nations took notice and starting commenting on Canada's obligation to address this serious issue. Yet, in typical Harper-Conservative style, once the issue became a hot topic in the media, they cut critical funding to NWAC's Sisters in Spirit program which was the heart of their research and advocacy into murdered and missing Indigenous women.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/11/neanderthal-politics-shame-on.html

To further complicate the matter, any attempts for a national inquiry into the issue has been thwarted by the federal government, despite support for such an inquiry by the provinces and territories. One need only look at the fiasco of the Pickton Inquiry in British Columbia to understand how little governments in Canada value the lives of Indigenous women, their families and communities. The inquiry was headed by Wally Oppal, the same man who previously denied the claims of Indigenous women who were forcibly sterilized against their knowledge and consent. The inquiry seemed more interested in insulating the RCMP from investigation and prosecution than it was about hearing the stories of Indigenous women.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2011/10/murdered-missing-and-still-excluded-indigenous-women-fight-eq

Now, the Canadian public has to deal with a new chapter to this story - the sale of Indigenous women into the sex trades. The CBC recently reported that current research shows that Indigenous women, girls and babies in Canada were taken onto US ships to be sold into the sex trade. While this is not new information for Indigenous peoples, it is something that Canada has refused to recognize in the past. The research also shows that Indigenous women are brought onto these boats never to be seen from again.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/story/2013/08/21/tby-first-nations-women-human-trafficking-ships-united-states.html

The issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women has now expanded to murdered, missing and traded women. One might have expected a reaction from both the Canadian government and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). Yet, the day after the story hit the news, the AFN was tweeting about local competitions and the federal government was essentially silent. I say essentially, because while all of this was taking place, the federal government put together a Request for Proposals on MERX (#275751) to solicit research to blame the families and communities of Indigenous women for being sold into the sex trade.

https://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=275751&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=2&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=Y&hcode=%2f6A6jdkNJoHoufgILSp4Xg%3d%3d

Instead of making a call for true academic research into the actual causes and conditions around Indigenous women, girls and babies being sold into the sex trade, the federal government solicited research to prove:

(1) the involvement of family members in their victimization;

(2) the level to which domestic violence is linked to the sale of Indigenous women into the sex trade; and

(3) even where they are investigating gang involvement, it is within the context of family involvement of the trade of Indigenous women.

The parameters of the research excludes looking into federal and/or provincial laws and policies towards Indigenous peoples; funding mechanisms which prejudice them and maintain them in the very poverty the research identifies; and negative societal attitudes formed due to government positions vis-à-vis Indigenous women like:

- rapes and abuse in residential schools;
- forced sterilizations;
- the theft of thousands of Indigenous children into foster care;
- the over-representation of Indigenous women in jails;
- and the many generations of Indigenous women losing their Indian status and membership and being kicked off reserves by federal law.

The research also leaves out a critical aspect of this research which is federal and provincial enforcement laws, policies and actions or lack thereof in regards to the reports of murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women, girls and babies. The epic failure of police to follow up on reports and do proper investigations related to these issues have led some experts to conclude that this could have prevented and addressed murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women. Of even greater concern are the allegations that have surfaced in the media in relation to RCMP members sexually assaulting Indigenous women and girls.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/02/12/bc-human-rights-watch-abuse-report.html

This MERX Request for Proposals is offensive and should be retracted and re-issued in a more academically-sound manner which looks to get at the full truth, versus a federally-approved pre-determined outcome.

It's time Canada opened up the books, and shed light on the real atrocities in this country so that we can all move forward and address them.

Facts verus Rhetoric: Response to INAC's Misinformation About Bill S-2

This letter is in direct response to the letter submitted by Jason McDonald, Director of Communications for Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) Bernard Valcourt to the Montreal Gazette on August 7, 2013. INAC has gone to great lengths to spread misinformation about the intentions, interpretations and potential impacts of Bill S-2 Family Homes of Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. It is interesting to note the Minister had his communications person write this letter, versus a Justice Canada lawyer.

 

Despite the near unanimous rejection of previous versions of this bill and Harper’s infamous promise to First Nations at the Crown First Nations Gathering not to unilaterally amend the Indian Act; the Harper government has spared no expense in its propaganda campaign to gain support for this unconstitutional bill.

What follows is my response to INAC’s misinformation about the bill. I have testified before Senate as a legal expert on a previous version of this bill, but was specifically prevented by Conservative members from testifying on the new version. I have also published other blogs on this bill.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/11/bill-s-2-family-homes-on-reserve-and.html

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2011/09/bill-s-2-family-homes-on-reserves.html

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/06/bill-s-4-step-back-in-time.html

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/06/bill-s-4-backdoor-assimilation-and-land.html

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/06/bill-s-4-empty-shell-of-legislative.html
 

INAC: The bill “extends to people living on reserve the same basic rights and protections that individuals living off reserve enjoy regarding the family home”

This is not true. Indigenous Nations are sovereign Nations with their own laws, rules, policies, governments, and justice systems. Their status as sovereign Nations are recognized in the fact of treaty making, as only sovereign Nations can enter into treaties with one another – citizens of a state do not have that right.

 

Their legal right to govern themselves is also protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 as an inherent right (pre-existing to Canada as a state and not granted or given through law). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as well as other international laws also protect the right of First Nations to be self-determining.

First Nations have exclusive jurisdiction to determine their own laws, rules and procedures in relation to any marital or property issues on their traditional, treaty or reserve lands. When INAC claims they are extending the same basic rights to those living on reserve, what they mean is that they are illegally imposing provincial laws on reserve contrary to section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and contrary to various treaties and international laws. This legislation will also require the consent of the provinces and companion legislation to bring it into effect.

Even the description of a house on reserve as the family home is misleading. On many reserves, homes are occupied by upwards of 25 people including husband, wife, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. Certificates of Possession (like fee simple deeds) can be in the name of hundreds of people. Many First Nation families do not exist as the western notion of nuclear family with mom, dad and 2.5 children. Any disposition of what is deemed a family home could have devastating effects on large extended families and especially elders.

First Nations have not asked for this bill.

INAC: Bill S-2 does not change the fact that only registered Indians can hold a Certificate of Possession on reserve, but non-First Nations people can possess the home for a temporary period of time.

This statement is misleading about the real implications of the bill. The Indian Act prevents anyone who is NOT an Indian from even temporarily possessing land on a reserve - which includes permanent structures on the land, like a house. Section 20(1) of the Indian Actspecifies:

 20 (1) No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve unless, with the approval of the Minister, possession of the land has been allotted to him by the council of the band.”

What INAC is trying to do is unilaterally amend the Indian Act in an illegal way – in violation of domestic and international law. Section 2 of the Indian Actspecifies that reserve lands are reserved for the exclusive use and benefit of the band (First Nation) for which they were set aside. These lands are not for anyone else’s use.

Further, many treaties set up reserve lands for the exclusive use and benefit of Indians – not non-Indians. These treaties are now constitutionally and internationally protected and cannot be unilaterally amended. This country would not exist but for the treaties which agreed to share the land – now they are constitutionally protected and cannot be violated if Canada wishes to remain a democratic country. Harper can’t pick and choose which constitutional provisions he likes – Canada is either democratically governed with a constitution or it is a lawless dictatorship.

INAC does not have the power or authority to enact legislative provisions, such as this, that would be in direct conflict with its own constitution and other laws. INAC is also not being truthful when it claims that the Act only allows temporary possession by non-Indians. In fact, non-Indians can gain up to a life interest in lands and homes on reserve. This is far from temporary and combined with other proposed legislative amendments, this could translate into permanent possession.

INAC: The courts need this legislation to facilitate emergency protection orders to remove a violent partner from the home.

This is not true. INAC has focused on this legislation as being intended to protect First Nations women from violence, which it implies is rampant on every reserve. Government representatives have presented a false choice between First Nations women being tossed from their homes in the middle of the night or protecting self-government for First Nations. Yet, INAC has offered no statistical, research-based or other evidence to prove that women losing their homes on reserve is a rampant or common occurrence.

In direct contrast to their testimony, INAC has confirmed that the majority of CPs are held by women, not men. Additionally, when First Nations women living in shelters were interviewed about this legislation, the women emphasized the fact that their interests are not separate from their First Nation community – and that none of them wanted their community’s Aboriginal or treaty rights violated such as this legislation does.

This line of reasoning being promoted by INAC amounts to spreading racist, hateful stereotypes about First Nations for political purposes. INAC wants support to do indirectly, what Canada is not legally permitted to do directly – take the remaining amount of lands held by First Nations and transfer them to Canadians, corporations and governments.

 

If this legislation was about protecting First Nation women, they would have built more homes on reserve, funded new shelters, increased funding for preventative services and increased funding for access to legal services for these women. Instead they have created  a new legal regime that the majority of First Nation women will never be able to access.

What is also extremely concerning about this provision is that it purports to empower courts to issue protection orders (possession of home to spouse) as against the alleged abuser in the absence of a charge or conviction. It also empowers the court to make possession orders for homes and lands on reserve – which are communal First Nation property – without any notice to the First Nation or any of the family members impacted by the order, like elders. This provision violates the basic human rights and freedoms of First Nations and further denies individuals any administrative fairness and justice.

INAC: The ratification process outlined in the bill is done according to First Nation practices and is to ensure the collective interests are protected.

Again, this is not true. The ratification process as outlined in the bill is a paternalistic control mechanism to ensure First Nations comply with INAC objectives – it is not consistent with First Nation customs, traditions, practices or laws. Some First Nations already have their own laws in this regard, but INAC refuses to recognize these laws, and instead demands that First Nations engage in an Indian Affairs-designed and controlled process. If the concern was truly that laws are needed in this area, then INAC would recognize those First Nation laws.

Similarly, this legislation is not designed to respect collective interests to homes and lands on reserve, but is intended to further carve out individual interests and create new legal interests for non-Indians. According to INAC, reserve lands represent less than 0.2% of all the lands First Nations used to control. For INAC to want to divide up and steal the rest of those lands is unconscionable, let alone illegal. The spirit and intent of our nation to nation treaties was to share the wealth, not usurp it all for one treaty partner and leave the other impoverished and living on hand-outs.

First Nations have exclusive jurisdiction over their own laws and enforcement mechanisms and do not need INAC approval or supervision to deal with these issues. This provision is a gross violation of the constitutionally and internationally protected right to be self-governing.

INAC: INAC has consulted extensively with First Nations on this issue.

This is not true. In fact, INAC’s own Special Ministerial Representative on Matrimonial Law on Reserve who interviewed First Nations individuals, communities and organizations all over Canada, concluded that none of the information packages or meetings to date amounted to legal consultation as required under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. INAC representatives themselves told attendees at several meetings that various discussions were not intended as consultation.  Further, several meetings held with national organizations does not constitute legal consultations with the First Nation communities who actually hold the Aboriginal and treaty rights impacted.

Consultation is supposed to be a mutually negotiated, designed and funded process which ensures impacted First Nations communities (in this case, all 615) are fully informed about the legislation and its intended impacts as well as take measures to accommodate their concerns and obtain their consent. This simply did not occur. The Supreme Court of Canada has stressed repeatedly that Canada is legally obligated to consult, accommodate and in many cases, obtain the consent of First Nations prior to taking any action or decision that has the potential to impact constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights. UNDRIP further requires that Canada must obtain the free, informed and prior consent of First Nations before impacting their rights.

This has not happened and in fact, each version of this bill has been nearly unanimously rejected by First Nations men, women and communities all over Canada.

INAC: Canada is further supporting First Nations by creating a national Centre of Excellence to help First Nations implement these laws.

This new Centre was not requested by First Nations. If INAC wanted to support First Nations they would not have made substantial funding cuts to all the National, regional and provincial First Nation organizations that already assist First Nations with law development and implementation. Finally, law development is costly in any government, and INAC is expecting First Nations to develop and implement these laws without any funding support.

INAC is clearly not genuinely concerned about empowering First Nations governments, but is instead reverting back to nation-wide, one-size-fits-all paternalistic control. We all know what happens when INAC has control – we have deaths and torture in residential schools, lack of clean water and safe sanitation systems on reserve, housing crises, lack of education, suicide epidemics and other conditions of forced impoverishment. It’s time INAC got out of the business of controlling First Nations and let them govern themselves – they couldn’t do any worse than the atrocities already committed by Canada on our people.

Please contact your MP and oppose this legislation.

Human Rights Museum or Harper Propaganda Show?: Genocide in Canada Denied

Canada has a dark history - one which begins long before Confederation in 1867. The state of Canada, which was previously a British colony, was only made possible by the theft of Indigenous lands and resources, and the genocide of Indigenous peoples. While some government officials will admit that some of their laws and policies may have resulted in assimilation, you will never hear any of them speak of their elimination policies which resulted in genocide.

What is the difference between assimilation and elimination? Assimilation is when one group (usually the colonizing settler government) tries to force another group (Indigenous peoples) to abandon their culture, language, values, traditions, practices and beliefs for those of the colonizer. Policies like residential schools, resulted in the disruption and loss of Indigenous language and culture. This can and has resulted in inter-generational trauma in many Indigenous families, communities and Nations.

Elimination policies are much more direct. The scalping bounties issued in the Atlantic region for the scalps of Mi'kmaw men, women and children were meant to physically eliminate Mi'kmaw peoples. The distribution of smallpox blankets to Indigenous peoples were meant to physically eliminate Indigenous peoples through the ourposeful spread of a deadly disease. Similarly, the forced sterilization of Indigenous women in Canada without their knowledge and consent was also meant to eliminate any future population of Indigenous peoples. These are what have been called elimination policies.

Some will debate whether the residential school policy was a policy of assimilation or elimination, but I argue that it was both. The physical abuse for practicing one's culture is a form of forced assimilation; whereas the starvation, torture and medical experiments conducted on the children which resulted in upwards of 40% of the children dying, is elimination.

Whether it is assimilation or elimination, all of the acts fit under the definition of genocide as noted in the UN Convention Against Genocide.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

If you look at any of the criteria, Canada has committed acts under each which can be defined as genocide. The colonizing governments have:

(a) purposely killed Indigenous peoples (smallpox blankets, residential schools, scalping bounties, starlight tours);

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/18/residential-schools-student-deaths.html

(b) have caused serious bodily harm (residential school torture, deaths and beatings in police custody, medical experiments in residential schools and in First Nation communities);

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hungry-aboriginal-kids-adults-were-subject-of-nutritional-experiments-paper/article13246564/

(c) deliberately inflicted conditions meant to bring about death and illness (chronic under-funding of essential human needs like water, sanitation, housing, and food);

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

(d) prevented births (forced sterilization of Indigenous women);

http://www.naho.ca/documents/naho/english/publications/DP_womens_health.pdf

(e) transferred children our of Indigenous communities (residential schools, massive 60's scoop where kids taken and adopted into non-Indigenous families,  current policy of child apprehensions);

http://www.originscanada.org/the-stolen-generation/

Thus, if the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights will not use the term genocide to describe what Canada has done to Indigenous peoples in Canada, then its own credibility will be called into question. A few staff members at the museum do not have the right decide how history will be presented. The grisly facts about Canada's treatment of Indigenous peoples is something that must be recognized and accepted if there is any hope of moving forward in a good way or at least in a way which does not repeat the atrocities of the past.

One does not have to look too far to find the real reason why the museum will not use the word genocide - it is Crown corporation, i.e., an arm of the government. The museum staff are quoted as saying: "as a Crown corporation, it's important the museum's terminology align with that of the federal government".This Harper government's modus operandi is to control information, silence opposition and present propaganda instead of open, accountable fact-based reports.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/cmhr-rejects-genocide-for-native-policies-217061321.html

While the museum appears to be relying on the fact that Canada has refused to acknowledge that its policies against Indigenous peoples were genocide, they should also note that those governments and politicians who have committed genocide in other parts of the world never admitted their illegal activity either. Canada will never admit wrong-doing unless and until it is brought to justice. Even Canada's watered-down residential schools apology was quickly followed by a denial that any cultural genocide took place.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/10/27/residential-schools-saganashduncan-apologize/

There is little point in even opening this museum if its only purpose is to act as a propaganda machine for the federal government. We can expect little more than government-approved pictures, displays, and histories if even the terminology are going to be censored. Why waste all that money, when one could simply log on to the Harper government website and read the propaganda directly?

The continued denial of genocide in Canada, against the weight of much academic research and evidence, shows that Canada (the government) has no real interest in moving forward in a respectful relationship with Indigenous peoples. In fact, all of Harper's actions to date indicate a desire to go back in time and resurrect old assimilation policies. Perhaps this is the real reason why Harper does not want the museum to educate Canadians about the truth?

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2012/09/harpers-manifesto-erasing-canadas-indigenous-communities

What is the Idle No More Movement ... Really?

I have been honoured by the request of the Idle No More Founders to be one of their organizers and spokespersons. Working within this movement was a natural extension of the work we already do in First Nations with leaders and citizens. In the last few weeks, many of the media's questions related to how the movement started, what do we want and where it might be headed. I have done my best as one of the spokespeople to answer these questions based on the views shared with me by some of those in the movement.

Al Jazeera Panel on Idle No More:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2013/01/20131282718188634.html

CBC's Power and Politics:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2322717557/

CTV News

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=836122&playlistId=1.1095861&binId=1.810401

My article in Ottawa Citizen explaining the movement:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Idle+More/7753967/story.html

Tonight, I'd like to try to answer those questions as an individual. Thus what follows represents my own opinions, analysis, views and aspirations about the Idle No More movement.

The Idle No More movement is part of a larger Indigenous movement that has been in the making for several years now. Indigenous activists all over the country have been monitoring the political and legal scene in Canada at both the federal and provincial levels and making a concerted effort to help inform First Nation community members and leaders about any potential threats. We noted a clear assimilation agenda that emerged within the Conservative government and we started planning on how we could address that if Prime Minister Harper insisted on putting his plan into action.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2012/09/harpers-manifesto-erasing-canadas-indigenous-communities

We of course worked very hard to try all the usual channels to address our growing concerns, which included lobbying, letter-writing, testifying before Senate and Parliament, endless meetings with MPs, Senators, Ministers and others - all to no avail. The Harper government was not interested in talking to us, let alone consulting or getting our consent. Harper decided instead to use the Assembly of First Nations as his primary vehicle to call all the shots. Harper's government set the agenda, they drafted the joint action plans and they alone decided what was and was not on the table. In other words, Harper managed to bully his assimilation plan onto the First Nation agenda with hardly a squeak of opposition at the political level.

http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/02/war-and-peace-illusions-of-partnership.html

At the co-called Crown-First Nation Gathering (CFNG) last January 2012, Harper promised First Nations his government would not unilaterally amend or repeal the Indian Act. After the CFNG, he broke that promise and proceeded with an aggressive legislative agenda that will include upwards of 14 bills that will devastate our First Nations in various ways. It is the White Paper 2012 with a twist - instead of it being a policy, like the 1969 White Paper, which wanted to assimilate Indians, Harper's plan will be law. This is the spark that ignited the Idle No More movement into action.

We always knew action would be required at some point, but the legislation posed an imminent threat and required immediate mobilization. That is how a movement was born. In the early days, some were calling the Idle No More movement, some calling it an Indigenous rights movements, but we all agreed that we needed to immediately oppose Harper's assimilatory legislative agenda. So many of the early activities included teach-ins which helped explain the legislation's potential impacts on First Nations and more importantly, what we could do to oppose it. Early protests started out as opposing the massive omnibus Bill C-45, but later came to include the whole suite.

First Nations Fiasco - First Nation legislation will create social and legal mess:

http://lawandstyle.ca/opinion_first_nations_fiasco/

When Legislators Make Bad Law: Bill C-3's Assault on Democracy:

http://www.oba.org/en/pdf/sec_news_sept11_c3_palm.pdf

Presentation on Legislation (Part 1)

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

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBt8yqth1n0

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ku8vVELYs

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okLmloA70zk

The Idle No More movement, initially started by women, is a peoples’ movement that empowers Indigenous peoples to stand up for their Nations, lands, treaties and sovereignty. This movement is unique because it is purposefully distanced from political and corporate influence. There is no elected leader, no paid Executive Director, and no bureaucracy or hierarchy which determines what any person or First Nation can and can't do. There are no colonial-based lines imposed on who joins the movement and thus issues around on & off-reserve, status and non-status, treaty and non-treaty, man or woman, elder or youth, chief or citizen does not come into play. This movement is inclusive of all our peoples.

To my mind, the true governing power of our Indigenous Nations has always been exercised through the voice of our peoples. The leaders were traditionally more like spokespeople which represented to views and decisions of the people. In this way, the Idle No More movement, led by grassroots peoples connects very closely to our Indigenous traditional values.  But it is not a movement where the people stand alone, their elders, elected leaders and traditional leaders stand with them. This movement is not in competition with any First Nation political organization or elected leaders. This movement is focused on the critical issues before us, not power-struggles, political games or competing for government funding. Everyone so far has donated their time, money, energy and skills to making this work despite the inevitable critiques, push-back and misinformation.

Yet, what makes this peoples' movement so unique, is also what makes it so difficult for many Canadians and the media to understand. Generally speaking, people understand that each government, group or organization has a leader, a clearly defined hierarchy and rules about who can say and do what. This movement on the other hand, is very organic in nature and first and foremost respects the sovereignty of individual Indigenous peoples and their Nations to participate how and when they choose, if at all. This will mean that some First Nations leaders will choose not to participate, but some of their members will. It could mean one First Nation community organizes teach-ins whereas First Nations peoples living in urban areas will get together and organize flash mob round dances.

Think of the many ways in which this movement has already developed. We had teach-ins at Louis Bull, Saddle Lake and other First Nations. We have posted information, publications and videos online for all to access. We have engaged the media to help educate the public about why this impacts them as well. The Chiefs organized a protest during the AFN assembly to oppose the legislation (including Bill C-45). Chief Spence is on a hunger strike standing up for all First Nations and the treaty relationship which Canada has forgotten. Kids in schools have held Idle No More Rallies and there have been marches, protests and temporary traffic and railways slow downs. The core unifying theme to all of it has been that they are peaceful activities meant to help educate Canadians about how this is in all our interests.

We do have structure, we are organized, we work very closely with one another across the country to strategize and we are growing. We have worked with active First Nation leaders on the ground since the very beginning and many of us continue to do so. Our allies increase every day as more and more organizations are joining the movement. Now we have widespread international support which also grows everyday. Pretty soon you will see more and more prominent figures stand up to put pressure on Canada to come to the table in a real, meaningful way.

 

http://idlenomore1.blogspot.ca/

To me, Idle No More is a responsibility - a responsibility to live up to the sacrifices of our ancestors, to the duty we have as guardians of the earth, and to the expectations that our children and grandchildren have of us to protect them. Every single one of us has that responsibility, though, at any given time, we all have different capacities, skills and opportunities in which to fulfill it. Regardless of our situation, I believe that we all carry that responsibility from the very moment the Creator blesses us with our first breath until our last.

This responsibility means that it is not good enough to work hard, get an education, find a job, and provide for one's family. These are important things, and our ancestors did their best to ensure that we would have a prosperous future. Many even negotiated these provisions in some of our treaties. But, it is not good enough for us to simply be comfortable, at least not as long as we have brothers, sisters and community members who live without food, water or housing. Right now, many of our Indigenous peoples are facing multiple, overlapping crises that require emergency attention. The very grassroots people standing on the front lines of this movement are there because they are the ones without clean water, housing or sanitation and the politicians have done little to address this.

Stretched Beyond Human Limits: Death by Poverty in First Nations:

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

This movement is set apart from any other before it. Unlike the Occupy movement, this movement involves peoples with a shared histories, experiences, goals and aspirations. We as Indigenous peoples are all related, we all care about each other's futures and we share the same responsibility to protect our rights, cultures and identities for our seventh generation. This movement also has a special spiritual significance in that this was prophesied - that the seventh generation would rise and restore the strength of our Nations, bring balance and see that justice was restored to our peoples.

This movement is also unique in that it includes Canadians as our allies. Just as the early days of contact when the settlers needed our help to survive the harsh winter months, and seek out a new life here, Canadians once again need our help. They need our help to stop Harper's destructive environmental agenda. First Nations represent Canadians last best hope at stopping Harper from unfettered mass destruction of our shared lands, waters, plants and animals in the name of resource development for export to foreign countries like China. Why? Because only First Nations have constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights which mandate Canada to obtain the consent of First Nations prior to acting. These rights are also protected at the international level with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

When First Nations organize in Idle No More to oppose this legislation, they do so to protect all of our interests - First Nation and Canadian alike. The most precious resources in the near future will be farmable lands and drinkable water. If there is no clean water, this impacts everyone. We are standing up not only to protect our lands and waters, but we are also standing up to restore justice for First Nations and democracy for Canadians. We can work together to defeat this threat to Canada and find a way to share the lands and resources as the treaties envisioned.

When asked what do we want, that question can be answered in two parts:

(1) In the short term, Canada must withdraw the suite of legislation impacting First Nations, amend those omnibus bills which threaten our lands and waters, and restore the funding that was cut to our First Nation advocacy organizations and communities;

(2) In the long term, Canada must set up a Nation to Nation process whereby First Nations and Canada can address many of the long outstanding issues related to the implementation of treaties and sharing the lands and resources.

Ultimately, we want to be free - free to govern ourselves as we choose; free to enjoy our identities, cultures, languages and traditions - i.e., to live the good life as we see fit. This means Canada must respect our sovereignty and get out of the business of managing our lives. Given that Canada has worked hard to put us in the situation we are in, Harper will have to come to table with some good faith and offer some solutions to address the current crisis facing many of our communities in relation to the basic essentials of life - water, sanitation, housing, and education. If Harper can do no more than appear at a meeting on January 24th as requested by the AFN, our most vulnerable citizens will not see justice.

What Idle No More means to me is the coming together of Indigenous peoples from all over Turtle Island to work together to restore pride in our peoples, to stand up for our rights and live up to those responsibilities we have to one another and Mother Earth.

It is inspiring hope, when many had lost hope that anyone would ever stand on their behalf.

It has inspired pride in who we are as Indigenous peoples because our peoples and the ways of our peoples are beautiful and something to be cherished and defended.

It has inspired leadership in those who thought they had nothing left to offer their Nations.

It has inspired a reconnection of youth to elders, citizens to leaders and men to stand beside their women.

It has inspired the most oppressed peoples to stand up and exercise their voices.

We are alive again and the spirits of our ancestors are walking with us on this journey.

I believe in the power of our peoples - we can do this!

Eyes Wide Shut: Chasing Section 35 and Ignoring the War

Ok, so it's been four months since the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) election for National Chief and the honeymoon period is officially over. I simply can't stay silent any longer about where we are and where we are headed as First Nations. If we don't take action now, even if that means speaking out and risking unity, then it is our First Nations citizens on the ground who will be the ones who continue to suffer from our political inaction. Harper's aggressive actions since the election more than proves Harper's real agenda - to once and for all eliminate the "Indian problem" - and it's do or die time for us.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/09/harpers-indigenous-manifesto-erasing.html

With respect, I take serious issue with any claim that there was "momentum" between Harper and First Nations prior to the Crown-First Nation Gathering (CFNG) that has suddenly withered since the AFN election. There was no momentum on any key issue of importance to grassroots First Nations peoples or First Nation leaders. Every single action Harper is pursuing against us right now, he started well over a year ago. It seems incredulous that NC Atleo would all of sudden decry the flurry of federal legislation being imposed on our First Nations when the majority of these bills were introduced into the House or Senate prior to either the CFNG or the AFN election. Don't forget, mention of some of these pieces of legislation were made at the CFNG in Harper's speech - I didn't hear Atleo say anything about it then.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/11/15/pol-cp-first-nations-atleo-harper-letter.html

Similarly, with the substantial funding cuts to First Nation political organizations and those being implemented now at the individual First Nation level - we KNEW that this was Harper's plan. This was not a shock to the AFN. The problem was never lack of knowledge, instead it was a complete failure to have a strategic action plan in place. That is not to say AFN could have single-handedly reversed those funding cuts, but for weeks since their announcement they had weak to no response. It is only now that there seems to be some outcry from the National Chief. But outcry or not, where is the plan?

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/434784/atleo-pitches-plan-to-move-beyond-indian-act/

This is where things get progressively worse - Atleo's new "plan" would have us locked into decades-long self-government negotiating processes which would indebt our First Nations by millions of dollars and trap us there, lest we want to be put into third party management for failure to pay. What about the First Nations citizens on the ground? Where is the plan for the current housing and water crisis? Our people need to have at least the basic necessities of life - where are their voices and priorities reflected? True, some First Nations are doing fairly well on some fronts, but we cannot ignore the multiple over-lapping crises right before our eyes. Many of our people are suffering from homelessness, over-crowding, lack of water, sanitation, food insecurity, the theft of their children by child and family services at alarming rates, many murdered and missing Indigenous women and the over-imprisonment of our men, women and youth. How much worse does it have to get before we shift our focus back to our peoples?

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/10/indigenous-nations-urgent-situation.html

Has AFN even thought about what a section 35 agenda would mean? First of all, it is focused on Canadian law and interpreted by Canadian judges. It should be no surprise then that the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) cases have followed a very specific pattern:

(1) They always specifically or indirectly protect Canada's sovereignty;

(2) They arbitrarily make up new sui generis (unique) law to ensure our rights can squeeze into Canadian law versus any recognition of our own laws;

(3) The cases transform First Nations from sovereign Nations and governments to cultural entities frozen in pre-contact times that must be reconciled with Canadian sovereignty;

(4) Whenever a principal or finding goes in our favour, it will inevitably be limited, redefined and reduced to an almost unusable right in subsequent cases. Take for example, the Indian priority in Sparrow which came second only after conservation. In Delgamuuwk, our priority sank to last after every other possible priority including: agriculture, forestry, mining, hydroelectric power, environment, infrastructure and settlement.

(5) The section itself requires the extensive, costly litigation of our rights on a right by right, species by species and First Nation by First Nation basis. Many of these cases take decades to resolve and even once they hit the SCC, it is not uncommon for them to send the case back to trial. Even then, we are the only group subjected to re-hearings like in Marshall II which substantially altered the original court win.

So, what is it about section 35 that offers an alternative to the current situation? Do they not realize that First Nations are the only entities with real sovereignty here? Canada knows this and is desperately buying up the rest of our lands through claims and securing its own sovereignty agreement by agreement. Canada is slowly piecing together their ownership and sovereignty, and some of us are allowing them to do that. I am not saying that they have offered any alternatives, but we don't have to accept what they thrown down. In order to speed up the process Canada will introduce the First Nation Property Ownership Act so we can surrender the last of our lands. What about any of this is a plan forward?

Atleo's "plan" also calls for a National First Nations Auditor - seriously? That is nothing more than trying to please the government's obsession with trying to make all First Nations look corrupt.Try selling that as a solution to a northern Ontario First Nation whose school is falling apart; or a flooded Manitoba First Nation whose residents have been displaced for many months; or a Saskatchewan First Nation whose water is contaminated. Who cares about another national First Nation entity which will benefit the CEO, its few employees and serve a relatively minor number of First Nations. Think of the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Statistical Institute, and all those other "national" organizations located in British Columbia. We don't need a First Nation bureaucracy on top of the massive Indian Affairs bureaucracy we have now.

We are not one nation of people - we are many Nations with our own sovereignty(s). We have laws and governance systems which makes us strong Nations. We need to act on that strength, in different ways, in different territories, and according to our own laws and priorities. If we can't stay focused on living and acting on our sovereignty everyday, then we'll be easily led down the colonizer's path of chasing "equality", "section 35", and other government carrots - while missing the war going on around us. Make no mistake, our peoples are the casualties in this war and things are growing steadily worse on all socio-economic fronts. The status quo is killing our people and has been for quite some time. The problem is that Harper has changed the status quo and things are about to get much worse.

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

Unbelievably, the AFN only now appears to be realizing that Harper's full-blitz attack on First Nations has some "potential for harmful impacts". This means that nationally, we are way behind in this war. The AFN has had many opportunities to take a stand over the last few years and has failed to do so each time. That is not to say that individual regions or First Nations have not been raising the alarm bells - in fact, some had to very publicly withdraw from Atleo-Harper education plan in order to preserve their treaty and inherent rights. There are also thousands of First Nation community members who want to see their leaders lead and are willing to stand behind their Nations - but they need to be inspired to action.

There can be no more delays - we need action. Our peoples deserve better than our fear, hesitancy and wilful blindness to their suffering. We cannot chase Canada's section 35 illusion with eyes wide shut. Harper is presenting us with a false choice: Indian Act or assimilation and some of us have fallen into the trap of letting him define our options. We need to take stock of where we have been, the situation we created by allowing this to happen, own it, and move forward. None of us as individuals have all the answers - but we are lucky, we still have the strength of our collective Nations to stand beside us.

Let's do this for our peoples and our Nations.

 "When it comes to confronting our imperial realities some of us want to reform colonial law and policy, to dull that monster's teeth so that we can't be ripped apart so easily."

"Some of us believe in reconciliation, forgetting that the monster has a genocidal appetite, a taste for our blood and would sooner tear us apart than lick our hands."

"I think that the only thing that has changed since our ancestors first declared war on the invaders is that some of us have lost heart against history and against those that would submit to it."

"I am with the warriors who want to beat the beast into bloody submission and teach it to behave."

(Excerpt from: Taiaiake Alfred, Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005).

Bill S-2 - Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Rights or Interests Act

Harper's Conservatives have given the signal that they may, once again, refocus their legislative eye on Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (otherwise known as the MRP bill). To this end, the parties have been preparing to study the bill and hear from witnesses on possible amendments.

 Most of Canada's legislative initiatives go largely unexplained to grassroots Indigenous peoples - community members and leaders alike. This Harper government, in particular, has done everything it can to mislead, misinform, distract, confuse and outright lie to First Nations about its intentions with regards to the Indian Act. More so, they have done very little to explain the implications of bills to those who will be impacted - First Nations community members.

 Most will recall Prime Minister Harper's infamous words at the so-called Crown-First Nation Gathering this past January: "To be sure, our Government has no grand scheme to unilaterally repeal or to unilaterally amend the Indian Act."

 Yet, here is the extensive list of government bills currently before Parliament which will unilaterally repeal or fundamentally alter the Indian Act in significant ways:

          Bill C-428 Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act

          Bill C-27 First Nations Financial Transparency Act

          Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve & Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

          Bill S-6  First Nations Elections Act

          Bill S-8  Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act
 
          Bill S-207  An Act to Amend the Interpretation Act
 

This does not include any of the omnibus or other bills which impact First Nations. There are two others bills expected to be introduced in the New Year as well:

           First Nation Property Ownership Act

          First Nation Education Act

It would be almost impossible for First Nation community members to know what these bills are really about simply by reading the titles of the bills. The Conservative Party is very good at using titles for their bills which betray what the bill actually does. Bill S-2 is a prime example of a bill that is being promoted as one which will protect Indigenous women from domestic violence and “give” them equal rights upon marriage or relationship breakdown. This bill does neither of those things.

 
It would make this blog far too long to review all of the sections, but communities should be aware of several problematic areas. The Preamble (which is just an introduction and does not contain any law) does give an important indication of the two theoretical underpinnings of the bill:
 
(1)   The bill has an individual-rights/interest focus versus an Indigenous communal, holistic approach;

The bill focuses on the best interests of the individual child as opposed to the collective, inter-connected interests of the entire family (including the child), extended family, community and Nation. It is this very approach that led to residential schools, 60’s scoop and the current over-representation of our Indigenous children in the care of child welfare.

(2)   The bill views First Nations peoples as “cultures” versus to governments with their own jurisdictions or Nations with their own sovereignty.

 The bill focuses everyone’s attention on the particular culture of the First Nation – which is to be “considered” by a judge in a marital dispute over property. However, there is no deference for First Nation legal or governance jurisdiction over property disputes over their own territories. This is very similar language to Supreme Court of Canada cases which have essentially frozen Aboriginal rights in “pre-contact” times and only protect those rights which the court considers “integral” enough. In this case, non-Indigenous people will be judge and jury over what our culture is, which parts of it are important, and whether it is relevant to property issues on reserve.

 The general focus of the bill is to enact provincial-like rules with regard to the divison of marital property on reserve after the break-up of a marriage or common-law relationship. This essentially means that each spouse is entitled to half - the house, land, etc. However, these provincial-like rules are not optional - they are mandatory. While the act considers them to be interim rules, the fact is no funds have been allotted for governance, law-making or enforcement and thus for many First Nations, they will remain permament.

The bill also contains the following provisions:

 

-          They apply to all First Nations until they enact laws pursuant to the bill;

-          Non-Indians will be able to gain rights (exclusive occupation, life interest, etc) to the home and contiguous land on reserve;

-          A judge can make a ruling that violence has occurred and bar that person from the house, without the alleged offender being charged or convicted;

-          First Nations are not entitled to notice for emergency protection orders which give possession to a house and land to non-Indians;

-          Certificates of Possession can be forcibly transferred from one First Nation spouse to another; and

-          A person who is not member/Indian, can apply to have order enforced as though he/she was member/Indian.

Without getting into too much technicality, this bill either conflicts with or violates various Canadian laws:

 

(1)   Bill S-2 conflicts with the Indian Act – The Indian Act reserves land for the exclusive use and benefit of Indians and make it an offense for non-Indians to trespass on reserve, yet Bill S-2 creates new rights for non-Indians on reserve;

(2)   Bill S-2 is outside is outside Canada’s legislative authority in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 – This is because Canada is purporting to legislate with regard to the property and civil rights non-Indians which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Thus, provincial legislation will also be required to make the bill effective.

(3)   Bill S-2 violates section 35 treaty rights in the Constitution Act, 1982 – This is because many reserves were set up via treaties, which are now protected in section 35. These treaties are for the benefit of Indians – not non-Indians.

(4)   Bill S-2 violates section 35 Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act, 1982 – This is because the inherent right of First Nations to be self-governing over their own peoples and lands is recognized by Canada as protected in section 35. Yet with this bill, Canada purports to control internal matters even more than they do now.

 

(5)   Bill S-2 represents a breach of Canada’s honour, its fiduciary obligations and its legal duty to consult and accommodate. Bill S-2 was drafted without First Nation input, there were no legal consultations, and the bill will result in more federal control, not less.

(6)   Bill S-2 violates many articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) – including:

 

Art.3 - the right to be self-determining;

Art. 4 – the right to be self-governing over our own internal affairs;

Art. 19 – the right of free, informed and prior consent before ANY legislative measures that affects us; and

Art. 37 – the right to recognition and enforcement of our treaties.

Some of the other key concerns that have been raised by witnesses who have testified previously include the lack of access to justice as all remedies must be access through courts, no funding is provided for accessing legal services, and many communities don’t have local access to courts. The issue of housing on marital breakdown is further complicated by Canada’s refusal to address the housing crisis or provide adequate funding for shelters.

 

There are many other issues not outlined here in order to keep this blog simple. However, I will be publishing a more detailed analysis of both direct and indirect impacts of this bill.

 My recommendations (in part):

 (1) The Status of Women committee who will be studying the bill should reject the bill in its entirety. The entire bill conflicts with both Indigenous laws and Canadian law and cannot be saved.

 (2) Canada should respect its own policy position that First Nations have a right to be self-governing which is constitutionally protected within section 35. This would correspond with the right to be self-determining as per Article 3 of UNDRIP.