Non-Status Indians

Gentle Reminder to Switch to My New Name: Indigenous Nationhood

2011-03-05T18:32:00.000-08:00

Dear Readers;

I can see that some of you have already migrated over to my new sites. This is great cause while you can still access both sites for now, they will eventually be merged into one and any followers who have not tagged the new sites, may lose their links. For those of you who may have missed my original message, please see below:

Please be advised that the names of my social media sites will be changing. This blog will now be "Indigenous Nationhood" as will my website. In the interim, you will still be able to acess the old addresses. However, no new blogs will be posted on Non-Status Indian. Any "followers" should also add their names to the new blog to avoid any missed links in future posts.

Please link to the following addresses:

Blog = http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/

Web = http://www.indigenousnationhood.com/

Facebook = Indigenous Nationhood

Twitter = Pam_Palmater

LinkedIn = Dr. Pam Palmater

E-mail = palmater@indigenousnationhood.com

Thanks so much and I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. This is a permanent name change and will be the only one. I will leave the old sites operating for the next few months until followers have a chance to change their links.

Pam

Frequently Asked Questions About Bill C-3 (Simplified)

2011-02-03T14:38:00.000-08:00

Hi all, I hope you are all in the process of changing your links over from my Non-Status Indian sites to my Indigenous Nationhood sites. My Facebook, Blogger and website have all been changed to Indigenous Nationhood. I will leave my old blogger and website links up for a few months to allow people to find the new sites, but please switch over so that you don't miss any future posts. My Twitter and LinkedIn profiles are the same.

New blog site: http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/

New website: http://www.indigenousnationhood.com/

New facebook name: Indigenous Nationhood

Same Twitter: Pam_Palmater

Same LinkedIn: Dr. Pam Palmater

New e-mail = palmater@indigenousnationhood.com
I hope you have all read my last blog post where I updated everyone with what is happening with Bill C-3. Since I still continue to get a large number of e-mails and questions related to what the application process and who qualifies, I decided to post another this blog will point you to the exact links which answer your questions. Please feel free to e-mail me if there is anything else I have not covered.

I apologize to my readers if this information seems at all repetitive or you were hoping for a blog on another topic. I have been receiving so many e-mails and calls for information and complaints from Aboriginal people all over the country saying that they don't know what is happening and their local organization or community has not provided any information.

One would think that organizations like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) or any of their provincial affiliates, like the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC) and others would be in their communities informing people about next steps. Sadly, this does not appear to be happening and people are left on their own trying to figure out this amazingly confusing, complex, legal process.

(1) DID BILL C-3 COME INTO FORCE?

Yes, the bill is now in force and the Indian Act has been amended accordingly. You can see a copy of the amendments that will be added to the Indian Act at this link:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/I-5/AmendmentsNotInForce

(2) WHO QUALIFIES FOR STATUS?

Here are the three criterion that INAC has indicated will determine whether or not you qualify for status under the new Bill:

(i) Did your grandmother lose her Indian status as a result of marrying a non-Indian?
(ii) Is one of your parents registered, or entitled to be registered, under sub-section 6(2) of the Indian Act?

(iii) Were you, or one of your siblings, born on or after September 4, 1951?

If you have answered yes to all of these questions, there is a good chance that you might qualify for status. These criteria can be found on INAC's website here:

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

(3) ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS?

Even if you meet all of the criteria noted above, you might still be excluded from status. Please take note of the very important qualification that INAC has recently posted on their website:

"If the applicant's grandparents were not married to each other before April 17, 1985 and the parent of the applicant was born after April 17, 1985, the 2011 Indian Act amendments may not entitle the applicant to registration."

This information can be found at the following link:

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83114-eng.asp

(4) I ALREADY APPLIED BEFORE BILL C-3 BECAME LAW - SHOULD I REAPPLY?

I had the very same question. I applied for my status before the McIvor case was decided and before Bill C-3 became law. I called INAC's toll-free information line (1-800-567-9604) and asked the very same question.

They informed me that INAC already has a process in place to deal with those who already applied. They advised me NOT to reapply as this might delay the processing of my application. They further advised that INAC would contact me about what the next steps are for my application to be considered.

They said that while I am waiting for INAC to contact me, that I could be getting all the extra required documents in order to submit. This includes the guarantor form, driver's license and passport photos.

The following link provides detailed information about the registration process and the various ways in which you can contact INAC and ask questions:

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

(5) WHAT IS REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR STATUS UNDER BILL C-3?

Here is the link that provides you with detailed information about what you need to submit with your application:

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

In simple terms; here is the checklist of things you need to apply:

(1) The application form (for applicants 16 years and older);

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83114-eng.pdf

(2) The guarantor form (a lawyer, doctor, social worker, chief etc) who can confirm your identity (notarized by lawyer):

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83120-eng.pdf

(3) OR the statutory declaration form to list two references (in case you don't have a guarantor) (notarized by lawyer):

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83119-eng.pdf

(4) Two identical passport photos taken within the last 12 months (signed by guarantor or lawyer)

(5) Copy of both sides of your driver's license (or passport, etc) (signed by guarantor or lawyer);

(6) Original long form birth certificate (shows parents names);

Here is the link which provides the more detailed list of exactly what you need and which highlights other requirements:

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

There are many different situations which might require different or alternative documents and/or information. This simplified list is just to give you an idea of what is required. PLEASE refer to INAC's website for precise information related to your own specific situation. Also remember that this blog is just trying to simplify the information and should never be relied on as legal advice.

INAC asks that all the applications and documents be mailed (although I recommend that they be couriered so that you have a record) to INAC directly:

INAC Application Processing Unit
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
GD Stn Main
Winnipeg MB R3C 0M2

If you have any questions, please contact INAC directly as they would have the official information that relates to your specific individual situation.

Hope this helps.

Blog Name has changed from Non-Status Indian to Indigenous Nationhood

2011-01-26T06:37:00.000-08:00

Dear readers;

Please be advised that the names of my social media sites will be changing. This blog will now be "Indigenous Nationhood" as will my website. In the interim, you will still be able to acess the old addresses. However, no new blogs will be posted on Non-Status Indian. Any "followers" should also add their names to the new blog to avoid any missed links in future posts.

Please link to the following addresses:

Blog = http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/

Web = http://www.indigenousnationhood.com/

Facebook = Indigenous Nationhood

Twitter = Pam_Palmater

LinkedIn = Dr. Pam Palmater

E-mail = palmater@indigenousnationhood.com

Thanks so much and I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. This is a permanent name change and will be the only one. I will leave the old sites operating for the next few months until followers have a chance to change their links.

Pam

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

2011-01-19T07:07:00.000-08:00

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

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

March 26, 2010 - Second Reading

March 29, 2010 - Debates

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

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

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

May 25, 2010 - AAON continued debate of report.

Parliament then recessed for the summer.

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

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

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

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

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

Nov.22, 2010 - Third Reading and debates

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

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

Feb. 2011 - The law will come into force on or after April 5, 2010 by a date to be set by the Governor in Council. When I called INAC yesterday they said that the coming into force would be delayed and not completed until the end of January or February 2011.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online: (Once the Act comes into force) (so likely January or February 2011)
By mail: Call 1-800-567-9604 to request an application package.
In person: At any INAC Regional office or call 1-800-567-9604.

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

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

- Two passport style photographs

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

- Guarantor Declaration for SCIS

And if applicable:

- Legal change of name document or marriage certificate

- Custody Court Order

- Statutory Declaration Form(s).

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

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

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

Act comes into force and applications posted online = 1 month

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

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

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

So, if the Act comes into Force in February 2011, you apply the next day with all your documents, and INAC confirms you are entitled, you could receive your status card as early as June and as late as August 2011.

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

Also of interest:

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

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

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

Pam

UPDATE - TVO's The Agenda Botches Show on Caledonia

2011-01-14T06:42:00.000-08:00

Please be advised - this personal opinion blog is not for the feint of heart. The opinions I express on my website, blog, Tweets and FB updates are my own and my right to express my personal opinion is one of our most valued rights and freedoms in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I have explained on previous blogs, my personal opinion does NOT constitute legal advice nor should it be relied on as such.

Generally, I like watching TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paiken. I find it far more engaging than the regular media and the host is willing to ask the hard questions. While they are definitely no APTN, the shows on Indigenous issues that I have seen and/or participated in, have been fairly balanced in covering Indigenous perspectives. Their producer, Mark Brosens is generally good about researching the issues and seeking different perspectives. Last night's show on the situation in Caledonia however, was a striking failure in responsible journalism and a huge disappointment to many viewers.

I am not a journalist, nor do I profess any expertise in the area. My knowledge comes from what I have learned, studied and observed. As a lawyer, professor and author, I do have a good idea about what makes good writing and how to cover an issue responsibly. That is not to say that each article must be a research study into all causes and effects, but a minimal context must be laid out for readers. I think I am as capable as anyone in assessing the quality or lack thereof of various issues covered in the media.

Last night's episode of The Agenda not only fell into the trap of considering an issue in a one-sided way, they blamed potential invitees to the show for TVO's own lack of organization and planning. Steve Paiken, the host, explained last night that the show was envisioned as a round table on the issue of Caledonia that was supposed to have someone from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), someone from Ontario's Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (OMMA), Blatchford herself, someone from Six Nations and maybe others (presumably subject matter experts like a lawyer or academic who works on these issues).

Instead of saying, we screwed up and didn't get the show together on time, Paiken publicly blamed the invitees and portrayed them as if they didn't want to debate Blatchford. This of course played into Blatchford's overinflated ego who quickly agreed. Paiken made it seem as if no one would face Blatchford and I can attest to the fact that this is simply not the case. Contrary to popular belief, many of us Indigenous lawyers, academics, politicians and community members work for a living and have schedules which do not lend well to last-minute arrangements.

In a producer's blog written by Mark Brosens, he explained that he tried to contact the OPP and OMMA who turned down his invitation. I could have predicted that one given all of the legal implications, court cases, and outstanding land claims in Caledonia. Rightly or wrongly, I think there was slim to no chance of getting provincial representatives to speak about Caledonia. That did not, however, prohibit Brosens from contacting experts in political science to come and speak about the policy and political issues from a provincial stand point or from getting an expert in policing issues.

Brosens also mentions that he tried to get people from Six Nations to participate in the show but was unsuccessful. He says he tried to get the Chiefs of Ontario to come on the show, but admits (as an aside) that he did not give them much notice. Then the issue which I can speak to personally, is that he says that he tried academics but they ALL "either agreed with Blatchford, or were unavailable, or were camera shy". That is simply not true. Brosens contacted me as an "expert" in the area and to get my insight on the book and the subject generally. While he did not ask, I specifically offered that if he needed anyone at the last minute to appear on the show, I would do so, as I felt very passionately that TVO should deal with the subject in balanced way.

The overall theme of Brosen's blog was that people were unwilling to go up against Blatchford which is simply not accurate. This is not about Blatchford. It is clearly a production issue. TVO tried to pull this show together at the last minute, they failed to do so, but instead of doing something else, they went ahead with the show anyway and blamed the invited participants for the lack of quality in the show. That is simply not the kind of integrity we expect from TVO.

What I found most distasteful about the show was that Paiken turned TVO's failure into a sensational question which portrayed Blatchford as some kind of expert on Caledonia whom everyone fears. Compounding what was already a poorly produced segment, was that Paiken was overly conciliatory to Blatchford and did not ask any real hard questions of her. He allowed her to portray or imply that Six Nations and Mohawks were terrorists and did not call her on the gross analogy to the terrorist acts of 9-11.

While one might like to blame the alarmist tone of the show on their SOLE guest Blatchford, TVO was unfortunately, an equal participant. First of all, the segment was framed as one on "lawlessness" which is sensationalism as its best as well as inaccurate. The fact that TVO paired the Caledonia segment with one on policing and the recent death of a police officer also lent a certain frame to the subject. They couldn't have set up the segment any worse than had Blatchford done it herself.

After improperly introducing the subject of Caledonia and Six Nations as "Grand River of Six Nations", TVO let Blatchford set the context to the dispute. She did not start with the granting of the Haldimand Tract to the Six Nations, but started with the date of the occupation. As if one day, a bunch of bored Mohawks just got together and decided to protest for fun and from there "its as if the devil threw a party and invited all his friends". I thought the days of comparing Indigenous people to pagans and heathens were over? Is it really a critical part of understanding the Caledonia situation to repeat degrading quotes about unresolved land claims?

Aside from the inherent problems with her book, which I will save for a future blog, the things Blatchford said on the show were, in my personal opinion, inaccurate, alarmist and racist. When I use the term racist, I don't do so lightly, nor do I use the term as an emotional reaction to something I don't like. I do so based on what I have read, heard, seen and considered on the issue. There are endless media sources calling her a racist. She has also publicly had to deny being a racist which shows many smarter people than I have made the same conclusion.

With regards to the show, her more problematic comments went largely unchallenged by Paiken and include:

(1) she says she is not an expert on the subject (which begs the question of how informed her book is or even why she was on the show);

(2) that it was an "illegal" protest (but no discussion of the general right to assembly, constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, Aboriginal title rights, land claims, etc);

(3) the issue was not a land claim and that it was simply a matter of Chief Montour wanting more compensation (which ignores the long history and details of the claim);

(4) it should all be blamed on one "entrepreneurial Mohawk" named Joseph Brant who sold the land for his own benefit (again ignoring all the legal and historical records);

(5) Calls those who were trying to mediate and negotiate the matter "BS negotiators"; (really? was she on the inside at the negotiations to make that kind of assessment?);

(6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence)*;
and

(7) Accused traditional band members of Six Nations of going around intimidating other band members to support the protest (more unsubstantiated claims or perhaps I missed all the convictions of traditional band members in the media???).

Paiken, (ironically given TVO's one-dimensional take on the issue) asked Blatchford why she only dealt with one side of the issue. In defending herself, she characterized Caledonia as "ground zero" after comparing her book Helpless to the work she did at ground zero in New York with the terrorist attack on the twin towers. She explained that when she wrote about ground zero in New York, she didn't write about the perspective of the terrorists and their claims, so why would she do that here in Caledonia? Some viewers who contacted me after the show felt that this was a form of inciting hatred.

Like the Flanagan's, Gibson's, and Widdowson's of the world, we often overlook their right-wing rantings as those of ignorant people who were never taught any better. Perhaps this is what Paiken thought when he sat quietly and accepted Blatchford's terrorist analogy of the Caledonia situation without calling her on it. However, inviting the public to view First Nations as terrorists on their own lands risks relegating them back to their former colonial-imposed status as "non-humans" deserved of whatever indignities committed against them by the far-from-Helpless majority population who simply want all their land and resources. While there is no changing the views of committed right-wingers like Blatchford, TVO has a responsibility to the public to do their shows with integrity or don't do them at all.

This blog may mean that I never get invited to TVO's The Agenda again (which would be unfortunate as I like the show and the people) but I would not be true to myself if I did not call TVO on their disaster. Everyone makes mistakes, but it is how you address those mistakes that count. The true test of integrity is whether one is honest about their role in the mistake and owns up to it. TVO - you have some owning up to do.

* UPDATE - Shortly after posting this blog, I received an e-mail from Gary McHale threatening to sue me for defamation and demanded an apology. The e-mail is reproduced below and you will notice that he does not deny anything I wrote in my blog:

"It has come to my attention that you have decided to defame me on your website. You have posted the following:
(6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact that he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence)
I hope you can prove that I 'deliberately' (interesting that you know my motives) 'instigate violence'.
I have six weeks to serve you legal notice but I would hope you would post an apology instead of continuing to violate the law - as a lawyer/professor I would think you would respect the law more.
Gary McHale" (garymchale@mountaincable.net)

As this is a personal opinion blog and I have never done litigation, I can't offer the public any advice on the law with regards to either bringing or defending defamation claims. What I can do is share some of the information that is readily available on the internet. For legal advice, I suggest you contact a lawyer if you have any questions.

Defamation of character has been defined as the written (libel) or oral (slander) damaging of one's "good reputation". Some of you may be thinking - good reputation??? There are several ways in which such a claim may be defended, but one of those defences is referred to as "Fair Comment". I found the following definition online:

"Citizens are entitled to make fair comment on matters of public interest without fear of defamation claims. A good example of this is a letter to the editor on a matter of public concern. The author of the remarks may even go so far as to PRESUME MOTIVES on the part of the person who's actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice." (emphasis added) (Duhaime Law)

My honestly-held, personal belief, and opinion about which I wrote this blog is based on countless books, articles, media, and internet sources, some of which I will highlight here for your interest:

(1) "What does Canada, Ontario or whoever the fools were who hired Gary McHale to INSTIGATE violence think of his colossal failure?" (emphasis added) (frostyamerindian);

(2) "McHale WANTED violence... He brought in skinheads, KKK and other professional instigators and mercenaries from both Canada and the U.S." (emphasis added)(frostyamerindian);

(3) "former politician, David Peterson... called McHale and his gang a 'bunch of wackos'." (Mohawk Nation News);

(4) Gary McHale is "NOT from Caledonia" (emphasis added). (Ryan Paul);

(5) Vigilante militia group set up by "an associate of anti-native sovereignty activist Gary McHale" and "Neo-Nazi groups have long participated in McHale's various protests". (peaceculture.org);

(6) "Gary McHale ... claims FN and 6 Nations are terrorists." (rabble.ca);

(7) OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino explained that: "I want every avenue explored by which we can now bring McHale into court seeking a court order to prevent him from continuing his agenda of INCITING PEOPLE TO VIOLENCE in Caledonia." (emphasis added) (CBC news);

(8) OPP Commissioner Fantino further stated: "We should be able to prove to court that McHale's forays into Caledonia have been PLANNED and executed for PURPOSES of breaching the peace which today also resulted in VIOLENCE. We can't allow this vicious cycle to continue...". (emphasis added) (CBC news).

Regarding his "reputation", McHale posts many negative comments about himself on his own website and could hardly claim he has any remaining reputation that could possibly be tarnished by my blog. I would post examples, but I prefer to keep my blogs profanity-free out of respect for the younger folks who read my blogs and cite them in their school work. :)

My father always told me that only narcissists think that the whole world revolves around them and that most "protests" are simply desperate attempts to get attention. I have had rare occassion to consider his specific advice, but can see now what he meant. This of course presents the dilemma of whether to respond and give the narcisist his desperately-desired attention or not respond and risk the public believing the hateful misinformation. I still wrestle with this dilemma.

Despite this brief update meant to address some petty non-sense, I would ask that readers please focus on the original message of my blog being about TVO and how they might learn from their mistake with this show and perhaps make an effort to do better the next time.

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

2010-12-07T06:52:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

(5) These amendments were ruled out of scope;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Senator Kochar to Sharon McIvor:

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

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

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

"Nevermind about gender equality."

(2) Senator Brazeau to Gwen Brodsky:

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

(3) Minister Duncan to Senator Brazeau:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Canadian Tax Payers Federation's Chief-Bashing Campaign

2010-11-27T07:32:00.000-08:00

Ok, so my last blog was a slight departure from my usual serious commentary, but I needed the humour to help insulate my soul from all the negativity. While it was intended as a spoof of the issue, I also wanted readers to see the issue from our perspective. My spoof may have sounded ridiculous, but that reflects the insanity of the situation, not the blog.

Since the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) and others have released various media statements accusing Chiefs of being paid exorbitant salaries while their people suffer in misery, I have been fielding questions from students, the public, media, and others to answer for this alleged injustice. In answering these questions from mostly non-Indigenous people, I have heard endless stereotypes about Indigenous peoples, faced pent-up anger about "special" rights and been asked to accept ludicrous solutions like "doing away with s.35" of the Constitution Act, relocating all reserve residents to the cities, and told that since these alleged injustices to our people happened so long ago, to simply "get over it".

I consider myself a strong Indigenous woman who has won life's lottery - I have good health, two healthy, happy children, a large supportive family and my Mi'kmaq culture. I have never taken for granted the power of being able to fall back to a safe place where my brothers and sisters will guide me, support me, and offer a sympathetic ear during hard or stressful times. None of us are rich, but it has never been money that we needed from one another - it has always been the advice, guidance, support, and unconditional love. Not everyone is so fortunate to be in this circumstance.

Many Indigenous peoples were taken away from their families in residential schools, the 60's scoop or even the current child welfare system. Many others are subjected to racial profiling by the police, and subsequently arrested, detained and imprisoned at a higher rate than non-Indigenous peoples. Still other Indigenous peoples, like our women, are murdered or missing at an alarming rate or subjected to high rates of family violence. Others live in homes without water, sanitation, power or homes which are contaminated with mold and asbestos. They have all been subjected to colonial laws and policies which desperately seek our assimilation.

Despite these similarities and differences, we have some very important factors in common - our Indigenous cultures and identities and the fact that every insult, racist stereotype, neglected community or suicide of one of our own children destroys a piece of our soul. The public telling me that all our leaders are corrupt, hurts me no less than it does one of those accused leaders. Having to defend our people against uninformed members of the public, wears on me just as much as it wears on Maliseet, Cree or Mohawk peoples.

This is the reason why I wrote my last blog as a spoof. Humour is what keeps my family moving forward in this battle that we inherited from the colonizers. If we could not make fun of ourselves and laugh at our troubles, we could not repair our souls. It is never meant to make light of the situation, but to force us to remember that we have an obligation to our children to be optimistic, to be hopeful, and help inspire our people to action. This is a lot to ask of our people, many of whom are forced to manage the kind of poverty seen in third world countries, but our future depends on their hope. Humour has traditionally been our way of moving forward.

But our ability to cope and resist are constantly challenged by Canada's assimilatory laws, policies and actions. We are forever dealing with broken treaty promises, empty apologies, conditional rights, two-faced politicians, and those who wish to keep us in our position of poverty and submission. This crisis in our communities could have been addressed decades ago. There have been endless research projects, studies, surveys, reports, and commissions identifying both our issues and the solutions.

The solutions that have been suggested by Royal Commissions, Justice Inquiries, court cases and expert reports have largely been ignored. Solutions like post-secondary education which the greatest economists advise would be a solution that would require a relatively small investment now to obtain great returns in the future for our country, are also ignored. Suggestions that we strengthen the use of our culture, traditions and languages in our communities, schools, and institutions are placed low on the priority list. The obvious funding inequities for essential social services like child welfare, water, and housing are ignored in favour of public misinformation campaigns which vilify our leaders. We know what needs to be done to address this crisis in our communities, but the political will by Canada to do it is what is lacking.

This means that for the sake of our people, we have no choice but to address these right-ring fringe groups who constantly help the government detract public attention from the real issues. So, in order to prevent this blogs from turning into a book (as I could write alot about this issue), here is a brief list of points to keep in mind when reading ANYTHING that comes from the CTF and various TV, radio and print media, regarding their allegations of "exorbitant" chiefs' salaries:
(1) Confirm the accuracy and type of information that is being offered as "truth". If you look at the information posted online at CTF, the information is related to chief and council - not chiefs. Therefore all the conclusions drawn about chiefs is not necessarily accurate. The same can be said of the print media which contains a great deal of inaccurate and sensationalized reports.

(2) The information they do post is the "taxable equivalent" which means it is not their ACTUAL pay, but a figure inflated by CTF to make the situation look far worse than it actually is. As readers may or may not know, ALL status Indians who live and work on reserve are entitled to not have to pay income tax.

This is not a special or extra benefit given to Chief and Council. This is a legislative right which stems from the fact that Canada stole the rest of our lands and agreed that we should not be taxed on what little lands we have left. So what the CTF and others are doing is comparing apples and oranges. It would be no different than if they added another column and said that Chiefs in Atlantic Canada have more fish than the PM. Well, I hope so - after all they have constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty right to fish.

The real issue for CTF and others is that status Indians have the right to tax free income in certain circumstances and they are using Chiefs as their bulls eye to keep debating the issue. They have never accepted that status Indians have this benefit or section 35 benefits and this is the real issue - not their actual salaries. Even so-called academics like Tom Flanagan are still belly-aching over these constitutionally protected rights.

(3) The comparison of chief and council salaries with that of the Prime Minister (PM) is hypocrisy at its worst. When the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) said that our people should be treated as a third order of government, Canada rejected this. When our leaders demand to negotiate with the PM, we are told that First Nations are no more than mere municipalities. Our leaders are forced to meet with clerks, assistants and low level bureaucrats. Yet, when they want to find a way to exaggerate a situation to make Indigenous peoples look bad, First Nations are suddenly on par with the PM??

This is an insane comparison which lacks any kind of empirical credibility and solely reflects political spin. The PM is a unique position that can hardly be compared with most positions, let alone that of First Nations. The PM's job guarantees certain benefits not offered First Nations leaders like: long-term disability in the event of serious illness, a pension, business and political connections which are priceless, and long after a PM is finished, he will have no end of paid speaking engagements, consulting contracts and business offers. A point which is often left out is that the PM is supported by literally thousands of well-paid bureaucrats who do all the real work.

Chiefs and councillors on the other hand, have no long-term disability protections, despite the fact that they have higher incidences of diabetes, heart attack, stroke, TB, and other serious illnesses. They have no pensions to support them once they are out of office. They would not have business and political connections which would ensure their financial well-being post-office. Equally as important is that the chiefs are not surrounded by thousands or even hundreds of well-paid bureaucrats, with the skills, training, education and expertise needed to do all the actual work needed to support a community. Justice Canada alone is the largest law firm in this country - there is simply no competing with that.

(4) It is impossible to do any kind of credible comparison between colonized Indigenous peoples and the colonizers. There is a massive power imbalance and laws which both create the current situation and policies which promote it. Any comparison is misleading at best. However, if one were to make a comparison between chiefs and councillors and municipalities, one would find that standards are being imposed on First Nations that are not imposed on municipalities.

For example, if one refers to the salaries of employees, managers, directors and leaders of municipalities, you will find a surprising number of those who make more than $100,000 some of which have a portion of their salary which is tax-free. Yet, many of the municipalities have hundreds if not thousands of homeless people, people living in shelters and increasing numbers of families and children who rely on food banks.

How could a librarian be paid $100,000 when their own community members do not have enough to eat? Those librarians are not even leaders. One Entertainment manager makes over $250,000. How could a municipality prioritize entertainment over a safe place for their residents to sleep at night? Should a director of entertainment make almost as much as the PM when residents are dying in the cold?

(5) The double standards which are placed on our people must be identified for what they are - right-wing reactions to our constitutionally protected rights which they reject and can't accept. There is no way for us to win in their perverse logic. We are rejected as welfare dependent bums who use up all tax-payers hard-earned taxes, yet when any of us make a living we are demonized as an industry of elite, overpaid, corrupt individuals who suck our communities dry of funds while we leave the rest behind to suffer.

Not all of us are like the rare few who sell their souls for a Senate seat or fame. In our tradition, people like that would have been labelled a traitor and lost his/her citizenship and no longer been considered part of the community. The problem is not that there are people like this, its that we don't deal with them as we should according to our cultural laws and values. THe majority of us don't fall into this category and we should not let a few bad apples lead to stereoptypes about all of us.

The fact of the matter is, there should be no double standards. If no leader should be paid a salary higher than its poorest resident, then let that apply to ALL leaders in Canada including the PM.

(6) This public misinformation campaign is nothing more than a strategic ploy engaged to do two very important and dangerous things: (a) to deflect attention away from the current crisis in our communities which was created and extended by Canada and (b) to divide our people and communities irrevocably. Recent reports show that community members are already up in arms and battling amongst each other and their leaders over this issue. This is in addition to the Indian Act which has divided our people into on and off-reserve, status and non-status, band member and non-band member, and men and women. Now, Bills C-3 (Status) and S-4 (MRP) will further widen the divide as those of us who are colonized fight for individual wealth and sacrifice their communities in the process.

We have to rise above this. We have to better inform ourselves against this right-wing misinformation campaign. We have to make our families, communities and Nations our priority over everything else they tempt us with - including money and power. It does not cost a cent to stay united, nor does it require thousands of dollars for us to assert our sovereignty in meaningful and powerful ways. These right wing groups, academics and governments do NOT have our best interest at heart. They all desperately want our assimilation. Why on earth would we accept what they say at face value and help them speed up the process? We can collectively deal with the issues in our communities - we don't need wealth, greed, and fame to do it. We have everything we ever needed in our own cultures - we just need to have faith in it again.

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

2010-11-26T08:13:00.000-08:00

NEWSFLASH from P.A.M. News:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://intraspec.ca/OnAnyGivenNight2007.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Silent War - Government Control of Indigenous Identity

2010-11-21T08:06:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Illusion of Justice in Canada - The Conservatives Conditional Support of UNDRIP

2010-11-13T09:22:00.001-08:00

I was having a hard time deciding between several important issues that I wanted to write about in my blog this week. I was really struggling between the injustices against our Indigenous peoples noted in Howard Saper's Corrections report, the fact that Sharon McIvor is forced to take the plight of Indigenous women to the United Nations or Canada's hollow endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). All of these issues are important and deserve far more critical attention than they are getting.

That is when I realized that these issues are part of a shameful pattern on the part of the Conservatives. The Conservatives have created an illusion that they are addressing justice issues faced by Indigenous peoples here in Canada by promoting their pretend platform on human rights and equality. Some readers might think this is an overly critical assessment of what seems to be a very progressive agenda - but I would ask those readers to look beyond the media hype and dig deeper to what is ACTUALLY being promised and what is not.

I have to start with UNDRIP because Canada's alleged "endorsement" of it is the biggest illusion of all. As we all know, Canada was one of 4 states that refused to sign UNDRIP along with the USA, Australia and New Zealand. These are some of the countries with the largest Indigenous populations who suffered greatly under the colonial laws, rules, and policies implemented by these States. Their collective refusal to endorse UNDRIP sent a strong message to Indigenous peoples that their colonial rule would continue for some time to come.

Australia subsequently changed its mind and decided afterwards to issue a conditional Statement of Support for UNDRIP and New Zealand soon followed suit. That left Canada and the United States on the hot seat, so to speak, and their failure to endorse UNDRIP a major political impediment to Indigenous-Crown relations. Therefore, the Conservative government made a commitment in its speech from the throne in the spring of 2010 to endorse UNDRIP:

"A growing number of states have given QUALIFIED RECOGNITION to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws."(emphasis added)

It is now November 2010 and we are only just getting the alleged "endorsement" now. I say "alleged" because words mean everything in the world of politics. We know from our collective experiences with treaty making and implementation, that the Crown does not always act honourably in its dealings with Indigenous peoples. In a letter from T. Bannister to the Council of Trade and Plantations, one European colonist wrote about the shameful ways in which treaties were being "negotiated" with Indigenous peoples:

"Their quarrels and wars were not for ambition, empire or bloodthirstiness but to defend their property and bounds...

Their injuries have been very great, as divesting them of their land by force or fraud, first making them drunk and then to sign what they knew not what...

Ad to this our inhumanity to them ... We vilify them with all manner of names, and opprious language, cheat abuse and beat them, sometimes to the loss of limbs, pelt them with stones and set dogs upon them ... too often an Article of Peace has run in one sense in English and quite contrary in Indian, by the Governor’s express order...".

I would like to think that Canada has moved past some of its double-dealings of the past, but this limited endorsement of UNDRIP by the Conservatives proves otherwise. From one side of their face they promise to make changes to address our issues and from the other side, they rally public support against us and find creative political spin to keep from acting on their promises. Canada did not truly, in letter and spirit, endorse UNDRIP - they issued a "Statement of Support" that does not change Indigenous rights (or lack thereof) in Canada. This is not my own personal opinion that I am espousing; I am taking this straight from the horse's mouth. What follows is a summary of Canada's "Statement of Support":

(1)"The Declaration is as ASPIRATIONAL document..." (the definition of "aspirational" is a "cherished desire"; something for which one "wishes")

(2)"the Declaration is a NON-LEGALLY BINDING document that does not reflect customary international law NOR CHANGE Canadian laws" (emphasis added)

(3)"Canada placed on record its concerns with various provisions of the Declaration, including provisions dealing with lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of Indigenous peoples, States and third parties. THESE CONCERNS ARE WELL KNOWN AND REMAIN." (emphasis added)

(4) "We are now confident that CANADA CAN INTERPRET THE PRINCIPLES expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework." (emphasis added)

Those are the highlights of what Canada ACTUALLY signed. These are the limits under which it "supports" UNDRIP - i.e., so long as it has NO legal affect in Canada. For those who might think that I am somehow misinterpreting what Canada means by their conditional support, INAC's own press release again clarified that:

(1) "the Declaration is not legally binding" and

(2) they are only endorsing it as "an aspirational document" and NOT as a legally binding document.

For those who have any further questions about what this all means, INAC also provides a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions". In answer to the question of whether a State which originally voted against UNDRIP can change its mind, INAC very clearly says "There is no official way for a State to change its position on a declaration". All it can subsequently do is issue a Statement of Support. Canada knew this when it originally voted against UNDRIP. In answer to the question of what UNDRIP means: "The UNDRIP is a non-legally binding aspirational document". I am not sure how much clearer they could have made their position.

So, at the end of the day, all Canada has done is publicly support the cherished wish list of Indigenous peoples but that wish list will not have any legal application or effect in Canada. Regardless of this striking fact, one might argue that Canada could still make significant and substantive changes to its relationship with Indigenous peoples and take transformational action to address serious social, economic, political, cultural and legal issues impacting on the well-being of Indigenous peoples, the majority of which it caused through its colonial laws and policies.

Sure....Canada "could" do that - the question is will it? Well, let's see what Minister of INAC John Duncan had to say:

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2010/11/12/canada-finally-backs-un-indigenous-declaration/

You will note in the above interview with APTN, that Minister Duncan re-affirms that UNDRIP is an "aspirational" document only that has NO legal application in Canada. Furthermore, on whether Canada's endorsement of UNDRIP will bring about significant changes for Indigenous peoples in Canada, Minister Duncan responds that Canada has its "own agenda" and as a result does not "anticipate any significant change".

So, once again I am still asking myself what the heck is everyone so excited about? Why on earth would the Assembly of First Nations celebrate this announcement? Why would First Nations leaders appear in the media and praise Canada for making such a significant commitment to the rights of Indigenous peoples? Did anyone take the time to actually read what the Statement said or what INAC said its alleged "endorsement" means?

Here is a brief overview of the state of Indigenous peoples in Canada right now:

(1) Indigenous peoples have the lowest socio-economic conditions of all groups in Canada - meaning the lowest education and employment rates coupled with the highest disease, poverty and violence rates;

(2) Funding for essential social services like post-secondary education, drinking water infrastructure, and child welfare are all so grossly underfunded and unequal when compared to non-Indigenous funding, that even Canada's Auditor General has criticized Canada for its lack of action in addressing it;

(3) Indigenous women in Canada do not enjoy even BASIC equality rights that are enjoyed by non-Indigenous women and now Sharon McIvor is being forced, after 25 years of litigation and struggle, to seek redress at the United Nations for Canada's lack of action;

(4) Hundreds of land claims remain unresolved despite Canada's promise years ago to bring about "revolutionary" change to the ways in which claims were handled; and

(5) Our people are homeless on their own traditional territories, our women are murdered and missing at alarming rates, our children are taken from our families and communities at rates as high or higher than during the 60's scoop, our men and women are incarcerated at a higher rate that non-Indigenous people, and racism is still prevalent within our justice system and leads to deaths while in custody, starlight tours, and utter neglect.

If Minister Duncan is right and Canada will not make any significant changes to how it deals with Indigenous issues and will simply continue to advance its own agenda, then what good does their conditional support of UNDRIP do for us? Why would our political leaders be so quick to praise Canada for agreeing to do literally nothing on our behalf?

At this rate, our reserves will be turned into private property and sold to big business by the Flanagan-Jules plan; those remaining reserves will all be occupied by non-Indians through Bill S-4 MRP laws; and if anyone remains after that, they will all be legislated out of extinction by Bill C-3's discriminatory status provisions.

The Conservative's conditional support of UNDRIP creates an illusion of justice in Canada - it is our choice whether we stand beside them and accept it. If our leaders won't stand up for us then it is time that the people told their leaders to step aside and let our people stand up for themselves.

Neanderthal Politics: Shame on Conservatives for Trying to Disempower Indigenous Women AGAIN

2010-11-06T09:22:00.000-07:00

The Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) has done an incredible job of both raising the profile of the issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women and maintaining that profile, both on a domestic and international level. This was work done by passionate, dedicated Indigenous women all over Canada on behalf of those without a voice. There are few in this country who do not know what the Sisters in Spirit (SIS) campaign is all about and even fewer who are not awed by the accomplishments of those who worked on it.

NWAC has shown the families and communities of those murdered and missing Indigenous women that those women were (and in some cases still are) an integral part of our Indigenous peoples and Nations. Without our women, our communities and Nations can't move forward on our collective goals of nation-building and cultural revitalization. NWAC has proved that despite all the assimilatory policies, discriminatory laws, and racist attitudes of police and governments who allowed this to happen to our women, that we, the women, can and will stand as warriors and defend ourselves.

Yet, despite all of the hard work done by NWAC, their provincial and territorial affiliates, and others over the last five years, the Conservatives, in their usual take-no-prisoners style, thought they could "run roughshod" over NWAC and the Indigenous women they represent. The Conservatives, using their token female Minister Rona Ambrose, thought they could hide their treachery under the guise of a grand announcement that was allegedly promoted to help murdered and missing Indigenous women in Canada. However, as the details were slowly released to the public, we now know that this announcement had very little to do with murdered and missing Indigenous women and more to do with increasing police powers and capacity.

Parliamentary Secretary Shelly Glover (the ex-cop) very clearly told the press that SIS is "finished" - that we should not "mix apples and oranges" and that we all must "turn a new page" and realize that this announcement related to a new program to which NWAC could "apply". MP Rod Bruinooge (no longer head of the Conservative's Aboriginal caucus) confirmed on APTN that this was in fact the case. Even if NWAC does apply for funds to this new program, it will be in competition with many others and there is no guarantee they will get a dime. Aside from that, NWAC would be forced to change its name to "Evidence to Action", can no longer use the well-known name of Sisters in Spirit, can not do any advocacy work, and even worse, NWAC can no longer maintain a database on the ever increasing number of missing and murdered Indigenous women in Canada - which now amounts to 582.

I for one am sickened by this decision of the Conservatives and even more so that the women MPs in the Conservative Party would allow this to happen. They all bear personal responsibility for this Neanderthal decision. The Conservative government might be able to be forgiven for a bad decision once in a while, but not when this decision is one of many which directly attacks the basic equality rights of Indigenous women. Bill C-3 will knowingly and purposefully deny equality to Indian women and their children and Bill S-4 will give them an enpty shell of a legislative promise - no accessible justice.

The way in which the Conservatives tried to hide their actual intentions does little for reconciling the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples and only increases the level of mistrust. Despite all the hype around the Conservative announcement, we now know that the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code have NOTHING to do with murdered and missing Indigenous women, but instead increase police powers which I explained in my last blog does not bode well for our people. In case there was any doubt about what this means for our men and now even our women, I would refer you to the newly released report by Correctional Investigator for Canada, and federal ombudsman for prisons, Howard Sapers:

"The disturbing reality of Aboriginal overrepresentation in Canadian correctional
populations is well-known. Aboriginal people — First Nations, Métis and Inuit —comprise less than 4% of the Canadian population but account for 20% of the total federal prison population. On any given day, approximately 2,600 Aboriginal offenders are incarcerated in federal prisons."

He specifically went on to note that:

"In the case of Aboriginal women offenders, the situation is even worse. Aboriginal women offenders comprise 33% of the total inmate population under federal jurisdiction. The Aboriginal women offender population has grown by almost 90% in the last ten years, and it is the fastest growing segment of the offender population. The Office’s work in this area of corrections continues to document the inequitable and differential outcomes for Aboriginal offenders resulting from federal correctional policies and practices."

People really have to think about that. It is not that Indigenous women are more "criminal" than non-Indigenous women, they are over-represented because of "federal correctional policies and practices". We should be very concerned that our wrongly incarcerated Indigenous women as well. The Conservatives have not only failed to take any action on addressing these justice issues for Indigenous peoples generally, but they have taken giant steps backwards in addressing equality issues for Indigenous women - specifically those issues that put their very lives and freedom at risk.

How could the Conservatives think that they could sell their $10 million dollar announcement as beneficial to Indigenous women? Well over half the funding will go to police and justice services which are government services that are already well funded. The police and justice systems themselves are the very reasons why some of these missing and murdered Indigenous women never had their cases taken seriously. They are the very reasons why some of our Indigenous women languish in jail longer than non-Indigenous women. Yet, the government is taking what little funding NWAC had to combat these grave injustices and giving it back to the government which is already well-funded and has significantly more capacity than NWAC.

It wasn't our well-funded police and justice services that did all the research and leg work to identify and raise the profile of missing and murdered Indigenous women - it was NWAC and the SIS initiative. It wasn't the police and justice services that comforted the families and took action on their behalf - it was NWAC and SIS. Now the Conservatives want to take the glory for this work and unceremoniously fund and staff the police and justice services to take it from here. They want to be able to tell the world they addressed the problem - but once again this means taking control over our lives. Assuming Howard Sapers' report is accurate, the very thought of police and justice services "taking it from here" should scare all Indigenous peoples, not just our women.

It is certainly not like NWAC and SIS were politically motivated - what did they get for standing up for the lives of their women? There were no Senate seats to be had or huge contracts for those who marched in the streets for our women. It is almost like NWAC and SIS are being punished for giving police and justice services a black eye on the international stage. It is once again, Indigenous women who are taking matters into their own hands.

All they were doing was standing up as the women warriors they are, to try to save the lives of our women. How very chauvinistic, presumptuous, and ethnocentric for the Conservatives to treat our women as helpless victims and ride in on their "white" horse to save the day. It was Indigenous women who brought this issue to light and did all the work - it should be Indigenous women who lead the way in developing and implementing the solutions.

Liberal MP Todd Russell made a great point on APTN. He questioned the Conservatives for agreeing to a public inquiry when the salmon went missing from the Fraser River in BC, but don't care enough about Indigenous women to have one for them. Given that Minister of INAC John Duncan has been vocal against what he refers to as a "race-based fishery" - or as we know it - the constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty right to fish - it is no surprise that the Conservatives would look to create links between declining fish stocks and Indigenous peoples and ignore the shameful link between police and justice neglect and murdered and missing Indigenous women.

Is it really any surprise that Parliamentary Secretary Shelly Glover came off so harsh in the media forcefully stating that SIS was over and proudly reaffirmed that the bulk of the money would go to policing? Her experience has been largely limited to policing after all. But who is there looking out for Indigenous women? It certainly isn't Shelly Glover. NWAC is, and should continue to be the lead on this issue - so long as they get back on track and stand up for themselves.

The fact that President Jeanette Lavell of NWAC would endorse such a "deal" with the Conservatives knowing that it would essentially kill SIS is the biggest surprise of all. As you know, in my last blog on this topic I was highly critical of the fact that NWAC was losing sight of their ultimate mandate in exchange for a rotten deal from the Conservatives, which, since I wrote my last blog, appears far worse than first reported.

I know that it is not NWAC who is killing SIS or legislating inequality for our women in Bill C-3 and S-4, but standing alongside the Conservatives while they do so is just as bad in my books. SIS has become THE symbol of justice and equality for our Indigenous women. NWAC used to stand for those principles as well. NWAC needs to take the risk we all take when we stand up for ourselves and get back to their fundamental mandate of equality for Indigenous women. NWAC has to trust that people will rally around a just cause and a true leader.

When the fate of our women is in police hands, we have over-representation of our women in federal prisons at a rate even higher than that of our men, longer prison sentences, deaths in custody, starlight tours, and hundreds of murdered and missing Indigenous women. Yet, when the fate of our women is on our own hands, we have Sisters in Spirit, country-wide attention, international attention, support groups for the affected families, awareness campaigns, unity marches, and direct action.

Why the hell should any of us want to "turn the page" on Sisters in Spirit and hand it over to the police and the Conservatives' brand of Neanderthal politics to look out for us?

Stand up for yourself NWAC and your warriors will stand beside you.

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

2010-11-02T09:42:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010-10-30T08:25:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Update to Bill C-3 - October 28, 2010

2010-10-27T09:52:00.000-07:00

I have noticed over the last several weeks that there have been a large number of hits on one of my earlier blogs entitled "Updated - Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act". I was wondering why so many people were reading that post all of a sudden and then I realized that it is likely because readers are looking for an actual update.

Anyone who wants to read about any of this can go online to the "Parliament of Canada" website and click on "Government Bills", then "C-3", then "Legislative Summary" which will provide a good overview of the bill. To the right hand side, if you click on "Status of the bill" it will provide all of these dates that I am giving you. By clicking on "Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development" you can see when the committee met and obtain the minutes of the meeting as well as the transcripts of what was said.

For those of you who'd prefer a brief overview, here it is:

The bill had its First Reading in the House on March 11, 2010. This was followed by the debates about the bill and the second reading on March 26 and 29, 2010. The bill was then sent to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) where they heard from a wide variety of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal witnesses who gave evidence before AAON on their concerns about the bill. These meetings were held on April 1,13,15,20,22 and 27, 2010.

On April 29, 2010 the AAON submitted their report which included a variety of amendments they had adopted to ensure that the bill remedied all gender inequity instead of just a minor part of it. This report was presented and debated in the House on April 29 and May 25, 2010 before Parliament recessed for the summer. Parliament has since resumed, but had other bills they considered more important to address before getting back to this one.

On October 26, 2010 the report was debated again in the House and three motions, which had been introduced on May 25, 2010 were voted on. In one of my earlier e-mails I had explained what these motions were:

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

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

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

All three motions were approved. This means that the bill will go forward for Third reading and debates as amended. Assuming this bill passes third reading (and it will), then the bill will go to the Senate and go through the same process all over again. There are a good number of people who hope that the bill will not be rushed through the readings and that, at a minimum, the Aboriginal Affairs Committee or the Human Rights Committee will study the bill before voting on it.

Keep in mind that Canada sought and obtained an extension from the BC Court of Appeal to enact Bill C-3. Canada now has until January 2011 to make these changes. In all likelihood, the Senate will be under considerable pressure to pass the law prior to this deadline. Given that the majority of Senators are Conservatives, I fully expect that no matter what I or anyone else says, this bill will be passed. The writing is clearly on the wall and we helped put it there.

That is all the official stuff, here is my take:

I fully expect that the bill will pass third reading at the House because the amendments passed so easily. The parties that originally opposed the restrictive version of the bill (Liberals, NDP, and Bloc) have flip-flopped and now support the bill. The Bloc indicated that "sleeping on these issues helps" and that over the summer Aboriginal women's groups in Quebec decided that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

The Bloc and in fairness, the NDP and Liberals, have decided to ignore all of the legitimate legal, social, cultural, and economic concerns which were presented before it at Committee and change its vote to support the bill because Aboriginal women in Quebec don't want to take the chance of never being registered. Aboriginal women and their children have been excluded from recognition, been cut off from their communities and essential programs and services for so long that they are desperate to be registered. In any other forum, this would considered undue duress.

None of these groups want Bill C-3 - but Canada is playing hard ball and has implied that if they don't take this "deal" they won't get any deal. I can understand how difficult that situation is for those who stand to be impacted. If one thinks only on an individual level, then yes, some deal is better than no deal especially when we are already at the lowest end of socio-economic indicators and Canada is not negotiating in good faith, but its sharp dealings are ruling the situation.

However, we cannot forget that the very reason why we are even in this situation is because of the "deal" that was crafted in 1985 where only Indian women would get section 6(1) status and not their children. People were thinking on an individual and immediate gratification level. This is the very reason why Sharon McIvor spent the last 25 years of her life, time, energy and resources to try to undo what has now been laws for decades.

I am one of those individuals who stands to gain by the current Bill C-3. I will be registered as a section 6(2) Indian. Great. The House recently approved the no liability clause, so that means the 16 years I went to university will not be paid, nor will my treaty benefits, land claim benefits, health benefits, or other benefits reserved for "Indians" like certain tax advantages. But all of that is just money when it comes right down to it.

What I can't get back is my right to have lived on the reserve all my life (if I had wanted to), the right to learn my own Mi'kmaq language from my community's elders, and the right to be a band member and belong somewhere. As important as these things are to my identity, my overall well-being, and my right to live the "good life", these factors are all focused on me. Again, that is only if I think about myself. As a Mi'kmaq woman, it is my responsibility to think about more than just myself, but in fact think about my two children, Mitchell and Jeremy, as well as my large extended family, my future generations, my community and Nation.

I do not have the right as an individual to settle for a deal that benefits me and not my children. What good is status and band membership if I cannot transmit that to my children, so that they can transmit it to theirs? All of our rights as Mi'kmaq are communal rights and meant to exercised in ways that protect and promote our culture and way of life. While status has not been part of our culture since time immemorial, it is now the legal and political key to accessing it.

With all due respect for any native organization, they do not have the right to make deals after the fact, and behind closed doors that impact the future of our children. Sharon McIvor testified that there can be no "deal" on gender equality for Indian women - you either have it or you don't. We would not even be having this conversation if the situation was about non-Indian women. In fact, one of Bill C-31's main objectives was to protect the entitlements that non-Indian women received when they married an Indian man. In Canada's opinion, it would be unjust to take benefits way from those who enjoyed them.

However, Canada had no problem taking away these exact same benefits from Indian women despite the fact that they enjoyed them their entire lives. Even now, Canada has rationalized that their discriminatory treatment of Indian women and their children is NOT deserved of compensation. So the question is less about whether we have gender equity and more about whether we believe in Indian gender equity -which clearly, as a country we do not.

We are so caught up in getting whatever we can for ourselves, that we have forgotten that as warriors, we have an obligation to stand up for what is right and just, regardless of the consequences. Our ancestors made significant sacrifices for us, and we were not even born yet. They all could have taken the easy way out and settled for what would be good for them at the time. Thank goodness for us they thought farther ahead and more selflessly than that.

Taiaiake Alfred, an Indigenous scholar, who thinks far beyond his young years, has managed to come out on the other side of this ongoing colonization process and can see the future that we will create if we don't make sacrifices now for the future. In his book "Wasase", he writes: "Pushing the colonial tyrant to his limits takes both strong words and courageous blows against his coercion". He poses the question of how we get ourselves out of this cycle of asserting our rights on the one hand, and then being co-opted by money, benefits and power on the other hand?

I would like to think that I am on my way to decolonizing myself and will be able to consider these issues at the level of Taiaiake Alfred at some point in the future. In the meantime, I know enough to realize that it's time we walked the talk - we either put up and shut up now or we finally stand up for what we know is right in our hearts. I am not saying that fostering an Indian Act identity is what is most meaningful to our peoples, but not standing up for the equality of our Mohawk, Mi'kmaq and Maliseet women and children is beyond neglectful of our responsibilities and will only sink us further into assimilation by our own doing.

So, as far as I am concerned regarding Bill C-3: NO DEAL. I will not sell the rights of my children, my family or my Nation for my own immediate needs.

Racism on a native reserve? Try Racism in Our Media!

2010-10-09T09:59:00.001-07:00

I am always torn whenever I read low quality, uninformed, and unresearched editorials, commentaries, and/or special columns written in print media that promote negative stereotypes about First Nations. My first instinct is to write a reply, but that would become a full-time job in and of itself. Then I wonder whether giving any attention to such blatant racism is helping or hurting the goal of helping to educate the public. Amongst my peers, there seems to be a difference of opinion on that issue.

However, at the end of the day, given that so many Canadians obtain their "information" about Aboriginal peoples from the media, I as an educator, simply cannot sit by while media outlets, like the National Post, misinform readers and malign First Nations. Yet, despite my attempts to address the misinformation, I still have a serious issue of exposure. Similar to gossip rags like the National Enquirer, the National Post has a loyal following that includes those of the right-wing persuasion.

My responses to such articles, on the other hand, only reach those who happen to read my blog. None of my comments to the National Post have ever been published, nor those sent to other newspapers to whom I have written - so what is the result of my efforts? Some individuals get the benefit of another perspective.

An incredibly bright professor once told me that images shape our aspirations. So, if all Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people see in the media are negative stories about First Nations and uninformed print media which spreads negative stereotypes about First Nations, then our children - yours and mine - continue to see First Nations as inferior. A vision that is no better than the racist views of colonial days supposedly long-past.

It is absolutely ludicrous for a newspaper to take a story about an ISOLATED incident of ALLEGED racism on ONE First Nation of the 633 First Nations in Canada, and somehow use that as proof positive that ALL Chiefs of ALL First Nations are not accountable and prefer instead to "do things behind closed doors". This is categorically false and perpetuates the very kind of "hate" about which this National Post article critiques.

The Assembly of First Nations itself has long called for and made requests of Canada to meet and talk about ways to modernize First Nation accountability measures. More than that, the Auditor General (AG) Sheila Fraser has reported on more than one occasion that First Nations ARE accountable for the funds they receive from the federal government. In fact, all First Nations submit audited financial statements to Canada and according to the AG, First Nations fill out so many reports about their funding that it averages out to one report every three days.

Nothing in First Nations related to federal funding happens behind closed doors. In fact, most learned commentators have noted that of all the groups in Canada - political, religious, cultural or otherwise - that First Nations' activities are so closely monitored that they often feel as though their whole lives are "under a microscope". Yet despite the plethora of research, reports, studies, commissions, and considerations of First Nations issues, none of them have ever shown that all First Nations leaders are corrupt or that First Nations are more likely to abuse their residents than Canadian governments.

Yet, we continue to be bombarded by uninformed and unsubstantiated allegations against First Nations in the media that serve only to misinform the public and malign First Nations. Rarely are Aboriginal commentators asked to submit their own views and most issues are not covered in any balanced manner that would give the public enough information to make up their own mind. For example, the National Post printed a comment in today's newspaper entitled: "Racism on a native reserve". Here are just a few of the unsubstantiated or incorrect items presented:

(1) "Canadian taxpayers pay close to $10-billion a year to finance on-reserve programming for natives."

In fact, almost HALF of that amount goes to Indian and Northern Affairs and/or other government departments to support their bureaucracy and ever-inflating salaries. The taxes used to pay for some of the First Nation programs come from taxes submitted by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. Furthermore, the privileged position of non-Aboriginal Canadians in relation to First Nations is the DIRECT result of them benefitting directly or indirectly from the theft of First Nations' lands and resources by their ancestors.

(2) "Whenever it is proposed that we IMPOSE some accountability...the AFN... complains that its members are being mistreated." (emphasis added)

In fact, the national Chief Shawn Atleo was interviewed by APTN last night wherein he reinforced the fact that the AFN and First Nations ALL believe in accountability to their citizens and that they have called for discussions with Canada on how to improve those accountability measures. What he did not agree with was the "imposition" of laws by Canada on First Nations without so much as even consulting with them first (as is required by law).

(3) "...even in 2010, natives are still waiting to enjoy the full protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

In fact, Aboriginal peoples have ALWAYS the full benefit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms like all Canadians since 1982. What some Aboriginal peoples did not have was access to the complaint process under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but this was remedied in 2008. Now complaints relating to the Indian Act can be brought against Canada and in a little over 6 months, they can bring complaints against individual bands. Bands simply wanted an opportunity to amend their laws to make sure they were compliant with both human rights and their traditional laws.

But it is not even these obvious pieces of misinformation that is the worst part. It is the fact that one solitary example of alleged racism on one reserve could be used to say that all Chiefs and First Nations are corrupt and that their only goal is to "circle the wagons in defence of their cash and powers". This is little more than a discriminatory remark meant to stir up racist images about Aboriginal peoples so as to deflect readers from the real issues. That kind of blatant racism should not be tolerated, nor should it be published by our national media. This kind of comment does nothing to add to the debate nor does it inspire collegiality amongst citizens or offer mutually beneficial solutions.

The vast majority of First Nations Chiefs are tireless, hard-working, passionate leaders who carry the weight of every single community member on their shoulders. Many Chiefs don't make a great salary, but regardless of the pay they go far above and beyond their role as a political leader. They often find themselves mediating marital disputes, helping students find text books, volunteer as cooks, firefighters, pow wow emcees, hunters, fishers, babysitters, chauffeurs, and mentors.

While managing social conflict within their communities, they must also negotiate with federal, provincial and municipal governments, manage the same programs as provinces, stay on top of developing laws, and monitor private activities within their territories. Many of the Chiefs I know literally work 20 hours a day and carry the weight of community ills as their own personal failings. Chiefs are trashed in the media as often as we hear the weather forecast. They are vilified and disrespected by federal and provincial governments and their triumphs are overlooked by the media in exchange for scandal and hardship.

I would suggest that the National Post and any other "mightier-than-thou" media outlet try walking in the shoes of First Nation leaders for a day. Instead of berating them and spreading hatred against First Nations, they need to finally recognize that section 35 of our Constitution Act, 1982 is there for a reason and just as Canadians are not going anywhere, nor are First Nations. Despite the assimilatory goals of the past, First Nations have survived and are here to stay.

The supreme law of the land (Constitution Act, 1982) and the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes the special place of First Nations in this country and the democratic obligation we all have to ensure their continued existence. Reconciliation is a two-way street - we can't expect to move forward as a country if we respect all our laws except those that relate to First Nations. We have an obligation to respect our First Nations as we would each other and racist stereotypes have no place in that relationship. It seems ironic that on the one hand, the National Post comment advocates for greater human rights for First Nations, and then on the other hand, uses racist comments and stereotypes to demean them.

I would suggest that the National Post and others like it should reconsider their roles in educating the public about important issues related to First Nations and better represent the public which it serves - including First Nations. Here are some tips for moving forward:

(1) Hire some Aboriginal reporters, columnists, and commentators who are knowledgeable about the issues;

(2)Hire some Aboriginal people in management at your paper/station who are knowledgeable about the issues;

(3)Include more Aboriginal people on your advisory committees who are knowledgeable about the issues;

(4)Make a concerted effort to offer more balanced and informed perspectives which are based on fact, not sensationalism. Try practising what you preach.

For more information about these issues, please read my previous blogs.

Bill C-575 - First Nations Financial Transparency Act - or is it the - All Chiefs Are Crooked Act? (updated)

2010-10-06T09:49:00.000-07:00

Well, the witch hunt has officially begun. If conservatives scream loud enough and persistently enough that all First Nations Chiefs are corrupt, then eventually people will start to believe that. Add to this the right-wing voices of academics like Flanagan, Gibson, Widdowson, and Helin; organizations like the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and Canadian Taxpayers Federation; and the strategic media use of isolated examples, and the anti-First Nation movement is reborn complete with its own Aboriginal spokesperson - Senator Brazeau.

Now, the focus on alleged corruption and lack of accountability of First Nations which Bill C-575 is meant to combat, helps to deflect the real issue - Canada's shameful neglect and inequitable funding of basic social programs for First Nations like child and family services, post-secondary education, housing, and water. It also helps focus attention away from the other paternalistic legislative reforms which are being advanced against the will of First Nations on the basis that Canada knows what is best for them.

Perhaps more importantly, this proposed bill turns the attention away from our federal politicians and away from the issue of MPs not wanting to divulge THEIR OWN expenses to the Auditor General. If that is not the ultimate in hypocrisy, I don't what is! You will recall that the Auditor General Sheila Fraser (AG) informed Parliament that she wanted to review the detailed expenses of federal MPs. After taking nearly 10 months to consider the matter, their answer was categorically "NO!" The only option left to the AG was to take them to court which she indicated she was not willing to do.

If you search the Internet and read through back issues of various newspapers you will hear endless excuses from these MPs about why they should not divulge their expenses - including that their expenses are audited by an outside firm. If you take this issue and apply it to a First Nations context, First Nations ALSO have their federal funding audited by firms and report all of this information to INAC in great detail. The issue is not whether or not MPs and First Nations "account" for their money, it is whether the details of this information should be made "public".

Despite the fact that a deal was subsequently reached between the AG and MPs which would allow the AG to do "spot checks" on MP expenses, the National Post reported that her audit would NOT look at the spending of individual MP offices, nor would any report name the names of MPs who had problematic expenses. This is a far cry from an audit of each and every MP's set of expenses being made public. How then could any MP, liberal, conservative or otherwise, demand that the expenses of each and every Chief and band councillor be made public?

Thanks to the questionable conduct of conservative senator Brazeau, even some First Nations community members are starting to believe the conservative hype about unaccountable First Nations, absent any hard facts. On what other issue would we ever ask Canadians and politicians to support legislation to address a stereotype? What is next? If I allege that all Indians are drunks, will Senator Brazeau create a YouTube video from the Senate asking that First Nations be banned from liquor stores?

While conservatives can easily sell a bill with the unassailable message of accountability, the real message is much more insidious: it asks Canadians to conclude, without any proof, that First Nations are not accountable for funding they receive from the federal government and that the ONLY way to address this is for the conservative government to ride in on its "white" horse and save the Indians. Meanwhile, the government can preach about values that it does not respect itself.

Of the times that former Minister of INAC intimated that First Nation elections were fraught with corruption, we never saw any reports or research to back that up. Senator Brazeau's YouTube video implies that First Nations are not financially accountable, but he does not offer any credible proof of this. Even the Frontier Centre for Public Policy made incredible claims this week about the depth of First Nations corruption without referring to a single study, report, or statistical analysis.

What evidence is out there? You could try reading the reports of the AG where she explained that First Nations experience the extreme version of accountability with regards to federal funds and in fact account so much and so often that they submit reports on their funds no less than once every three days. If there are any problems with these reports, First Nations run the risk of being subjected to co-management or third party regimes imposed on their communities to manage their funds. The conservative government has incurred billions of dollars of debt - where is its third party manager?

If you read those AG reports and watch some of the AG's presentations to the House or Senate, you will hear her describe how she has attempted to have INAC address its own problems and lack of progress on social programs and services. She has asked repeatedly that INAC make improvements and commented that INAC has made little or no improvement. She even cited the cap on the funding of First Nation programs and the outdated, problematic funding formulas for funding such programs as child and family services. As we all know, the latter issue is now before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

It is Canada that has dropped the ball here on its own obligations. Trying to deflect attention onto First Nations represents both a promotion of a negative stereotype against First Nations and a hypocritical position given MPs' refusal to do what they are asking of First Nations. Furthermore, the proposed Bill C-575 asks that First Nations NOT receive the benefit of various information and privacy protections under ATIP legislation to which other governments are entitled. Another inequity advanced under an apparently closely held democratic value.

I challenge all Canadians to look behind the hype and get the facts; to look beyond the headlines and see the real message; and to think twice before they impose legislation on First Nations which represent values they don't require of their own governments.

Conservative Flip Flop or True Stripes?

2010-10-01T09:11:00.000-07:00

This blog is somewhat related to my last one in that it involves another look at Conservative Party mentality and specifically that of Minister Duncan, Parliamentary Secretary Glover, and Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau.

On Tuesday, September 21, 2010, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, held a press conference explaining that the current gap in educational and employment rates between First Nations and other Canadians is not only unfair, but could be addressed by proper funding in education. He argued that a more equitable level of education funding, if invested now, would lead to $179 billion in return to Canada in terms of Gross Domestic Product. Liberal and NDP leaders added that it was a matter of fundamental justice.

Atleo later appeared on Parliament Hill as part of the national week of action of First Nations education. His call for reconciliation and proper investment in First Nations education was cheered on by various First Nation participants. He highlighted the atrocities of the residential school system and how education had been used as a tool of oppression. He called on Canada to help First Nations access education as a tool of freedom and empowerment.

The core message is one that has even been echoed even by right-wing thinkers like Calvin Helin, Tom Flanagan, Allan Cairns and others: education is empowerment and would address a great many social issues in First Nations. So, then, what is the problem? Atleo has explained that the current funding cap on education, which causes great inequality between First Nations and other Canadians, is not only unjust but prevents First Nations from furthering our genius, intelligence and greatness.

On the same day, Senator Brazeau responded with a "Senate of Canada" YouTube video from the Senate Chambers on Parliament Hill which some claim has portrayed First Nations as unaccountable and discriminatory. He further calls for a stop to all funding to First Nations and Aboriginal organizations until they can account or prove that they are achieving measurable outcomes. From his position of privilege in the Senate chamber, Brazeau argued that the current system favours "Aboriginal elites" and fosters a "sense of entitlement".

The response which followed was not surprising. First Nation leaders called Brazeau's comments unfounded and insulting. The talk amongst some academics seemed to question whether his video criticizing First Nations was an appropriate function of the Senate. I personally question whether or not he has gone too far this time. The video he posted was highly critical of First Nations, although obviously carefully worded. It was shot from the Senate Chamber, which to my knowledge, is reserved for Senate business. Also, the video itself used the Senate namesake and symbol, and all copyright belongs to the Senate.

While I am aware that there are a good number of Senators who work with Canadians and social groups to advocate for positive change to the environment, law, justice, and other social issues, I am not aware of any Senator who has used Senate resources to publically attack or criticize specific groups in society, like First Nations. I am not the only one who wondered whether this was appropriate. In a recent APTN article, APTN noted that Minister Duncan had "distanced" himself from Senator Brazeau and his remarks. APTN reported that Mnister Duncan said that Senator Brazeau's call for a "freeze" on funding to First Nations and organizations does not represent the views of the Conservative Government.

While this clarification on behalf of the Minister was well-received, it was unfortunately, very short-lived. As part of a political panel held on APTN News on Thursday, September 30, 2010, the Parliamentary Secretary Shelly Glover was asked about Senator Brazeau's comments on accountability. She was very clear in her response that she was in agreement with Brazeau's comments.

Not only was she in agreement with Brazeau on First Nations accounting for INAC funds, but for "all funds" which come from the government as it is comprised of "tax payer" funds. She also stated that there were "some indications" that the Conservative government has to take steps to make sure accountability is achieved - the implication being that they are not. Her comments are reminiscent of those of the former Minister of INAC, Chuck Strahl, who often made comments which insinuated that First Nations were plagued with corruption and a lack of accountability.

Of course, the implication in Glover's remarks are that First Nations are not accountable. MP Todd Russell said Senator Brazeau's comments were "outrageous" and explained that these comments only serve to paint all First Nations with the "same brush". He further explained that Senator Brazeau was a "mouth piece" for the Conservatives and that Brazeau was not accountable for his own inappropriate actions and statements made against First Nations and individuals who appear as witnesses for the Senate committees.

NDP MP Jean Crowder agreed and added that Senator Brazeau's comments promoted a "stereotype" against First Nations which is not true, as the Auditor General herself has found that First Nations DO account for their funding. First Nations themselves, including the Assembly of First Nations have said they have no problem accounting for their funds and have called for even better mechanisms by which to do so. Crowder also highlighted the fact that when Brazeau left the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples it was investigated for its own serious accountability issues. CAP's upcoming Annual General Meeting in November may well reveal even more issues left behind from Brazeau days.

So, which is it? Do Senator Brazeau's comments reflect the position of the Conservative government or not? If they do represent the conservative position, then the Duncan-Glover flip flop shows a serious lack of transparency on the part of the Conservatives and raises trust issues let alone a revelation of their true stripes. If they do not represent the conservative position, then the Conservatives better reign in their new Parliamentary Secretary. They can't have it both ways.

I guess we'll have to wait and see...

Indian Agents are Back - PM's New Indian Affairs Crew

2010-09-26T06:53:00.000-07:00

I am writing this blog today not only because of my increasing concern with regards to the number of bills which are being pushed through the House and Senate without any consultation with First Nations, but also because of the folks pushing these bills. Specifically, I am talking about the Prime Minister's newest crew of people at the highest levels who not only advise him about "Indian Affairs" but who also administer Indian Affairs.

Previously, PM Harper had Tom Flanagan as his Chief of Staff (COS). Mr. Flanagan as we all know, has written several controversial books and articles related to First Nations which more or less advocate for their eventual assimilation. In his view, any concept of special constitutional rights for First Nations is unjustified. He views First Nations concepts of communal property as both "primitive" and communist". Now he is advocating for the whole-sale privatization of reserve lands to free them up for sale. One might say - well he is not the COS anymore, so why should that matter?

Great question.. It matters firstly because it demonstrates that the Conservative Party has allowed itself to be influenced more by its right-wing thinkers (think Reform Party) than those who think more broadly or with open minds. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it matters because PM Harper has now surrounded himself with right-wing thinkers and those who have publically spoken out against First Nations in ways which have been described as racist or demeaning. These same people are now administering Indian Affairs in Canada.

As you all know, the new Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) is MP John Duncan. He comes from an enforcement-type background having worked on Pacific Fisheries issues in BC. As MP, Duncan was very vocal against First Nations being able to exercise their constitutionally protected Aboriginal right to fish. To his mind, the First Nations fishery amounted to nothing more than a “race-based” fishery that was illegal.

While some might question whether one comment is enough to paint the whole picture, I would point out that Duncan was also very vocal against the Nisga’a Self-Government agreement as well. This isn’t a situation where Duncan made a comment in the heat of the moment that he regretted and for which he later apologized. Duncan has not, from what I have seen, indicated that he has had any significant change of heart with regard to First Nations. If there was any doubt about how he feels now that he is Minister of INAC, I would refer readers to recent media which quote Duncan as saying that his priority is to ensure that First Nations have the “same” opportunities as other Canadians – ignoring of course that their rights are not the “same” but are constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights which include their inherent right to be self-governing.

If this were not enough, the new Parliamentary Secretary for INAC is Shelly Glover who also comes from an enforcement background. She worked for 19 years in the police force. Yet, she has been referred to as Canada’s version of Sarah Palin for her lack of capacity in terms of politics. For example, in an effort to distance herself from Tom Flanagan, she tried to claim that she had no idea who he actually was or if he was even Canadian. Even the interviewer laughed and found it as incredulous as the rest of us that she could be a conservative MP and not know that Tom Flanagan was PM Harper’s former COS. If she did know, her attempted deception was unsuccessful. If she didn’t know, the conservatives had better be concerned.

But again, we cannot judge a politician on one major flub up. What else do we know? She claims to be a Metis person affiliated with a Metis organization, although I could not find any information about her actual participation in the Metis community or how recent her self-identification is/was. What I did find were many media articles which described her as a “hard-nosed” and tough police officer especially with Aboriginal gangs. She is also supportive of tougher criminal laws and supports more money for prisons. This of course should be of great concern to First Nations who are already over-represented in provincial jails, under-represented on jury pools, and have been subjected to racial profiling, discriminatory treatment by law enforcement, and deaths while in police custody.

So, you might say that is only INAC and PM Harper has shown that he is a one-man band and so we should be more concerned about what the PM thinks than what his Ministers think. OK, so let’s look at PM Harper’s own Parliamentary Secretary, Pierre Poilievre. He has been described in the media as an “attack dog” and for using racist terminology in the House (that I will not repeat here) and refusing to apologize for it. However, he is most well-known for his comments made literally hours before the Residential Schools Apology where he made stereotypical comments against Aboriginal people saying they needed to learn the value of hard work more than they needed compensation and asked whether Canadians were “really getting value for all this money”.

What does this mean for Aboriginal-Crown relations in Canada? From my perspective, these key figures in the Harper government have significant influence over laws and policies which relate to First Nations and even how they are portrayed in the media. These right-wing ideologies don’t change overnight and there has been no indication that any of these individuals have backed away from their strongly held views. This has resulted in a major shift back to paternalistic ways of dealing with First Nations which presents a significant challenge to First Nations who are still struggling to deal with the legacies left by former paternalistic policy days.

But it is not just the current legislative initiatives that should cause us concern. It all started with the conservative rejection of the Kelowna Accord which was intended to address the very serious health, education and employment gaps between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians. It has continued with the paternalistic suite of legislation going through the House and Senate and is even evident here in Ontario. In Ontario, the federal government’s resistance to negotiating with First Nations and Ontario regarding the HST meant a protracted and tense situation that played more to the public than to the parties at hand. As well, INAC imposed an Indian Act election and government on the Algonquins of Barriere Lake despite them having legally opted out of the Indian Act election provisions long ago.

What is on the horizon? I think we can expect that as Aboriginal women win court cases, like in McIvor’s case, Canada will reduce benefits so that their victories are empty. I also think that Flanagan’s original assimilatory plans will be implemented under the guise of “progress” like the current plans to privatize reserve lands and make them available for sale to non-Indians as well as Bill S-4 which would create new interests in reserve lands for non-Indians. Bill S-4 also reintroduces the concept of Indian agent under the new name of “Verifier” despite the near unanimous objections of First Nations and Aboriginal women alike.

If First Nations let themselves be divided or wooed by promises of funding for various projects, we could see permanent large scale assimilation and loss of reserve lands. A famous TV psychologist once said – if someone is trying to tell you who they are and what they are all about – then listen. In this case, I would ask First Nations to listen to what the conservative party has said but also match that to what they have done.

The conservative plan is still the assimilation of First Nations. The only difference being that they have learned from Flanagan’s mistakes and have obviously decided to implement their plans less overtly.

Now First Nations are Soviets and Primitive Communists?

2010-09-04T13:45:00.000-07:00

I am writing this blog today because I have had enough of the right wing misinformation campaign against First Nations in Canada. It isn't enough that First Nations had to endure colonial control, theft of their lands and resources, broken treaty promises, loss of their languages and spirits in residential schools, and the ongoing impact of the Indian Act for the last few hundred or so years, but now they are being shamed, harassed and bullied into abandoning what First Nations have managed to save for their future generations.

First Nations identities, cultures, and lands are under attack once again from the newly revitalized right wingers (thanks to PM Harper and his conservative party) who think that the only "true" Canadians are those that look, walk, talk, and think alike. This is despite the fact that First Nations have never imposed such rules on Canadians. First Nations are not asking for anything other than for Canadians to live up to their constitutional promises.

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

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is the Supreme law of the land. No federal or provincial government has the authority to enact laws and policies outside those legal boundaries by which Canadians have agreed to live. Section 35 recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. In case there was any doubt, in 1996 Canada publicly recognized that Aboriginal peoples have the "inherent right" to self-government and that this right was protected in s.35.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/ldc/ccl/pubs/sg/sg-eng.asp

The inherent right to be self-governing does not mean that First Nations MUST govern themselves according to western laws, ideologies, and governance structures. That would defeat the whole purpose of being self-governing according to one's OWN laws, customs, and practices. Even the Supreme Court of Canada in Van der Peet recognized that:

In my view, the doctrine of aboriginal rights exists, and is recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1), because of one simple fact: when Europeans arrived in North America, aboriginal peoples were already here, living in communities on the land, and participating in distinctive cultures, as they had done for centuries. It is this fact, and this fact above all others, which separates aboriginal peoples from all other minority groups in Canadian society and which mandates their special legal, and now constitutional, status.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1996/1996canlii216/1996canlii216.html

Additionally, PM Harper stood before and on behalf of ALL Canadians and apologized to First Nations for the assimilatory attitudes upon which policies like residential schools were based. Specifically, PM Harper explained that:

Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions, and cultures and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed some sought, as was infamously said, "to kill the Indian in the child". Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/rqpi/apo/index-eng.asp

This apology is in line with other pronouncements from the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)regarding the purpose of protecting the rights of Aboriginal peoples in the Constitution Act, 1982. Specifically, the SCC held in Powley that the purpose of section 35 was to protect to recognize and enhance Aboriginal peoples "survival as distinctive communities." Distinctive refers to the unique laws, cultures, traditions, practices and beliefs of Aboriginal Nations. The SCC explained that the "purpose and the promise of s. 35 is to protect practices that were historically important features of these distinctive communities" so that they can preserve their cultures for future generations.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc43/2003scc43.html

So, if the supreme law of the land, our country's highest court, and even the Prime Minister recognizes the need to protect Aboriginal laws, customs, practices, beliefs, traditions, and cultures, how is it that the right wingers in society cannot wrap their minds around that concept?

Today, I read a comment in the National Post which referred to First Nations concepts of communal property as "Soviet-style native property rules". Never mind that the "Soviet Union" doesn't even exist anymore, but the comparison shows the ignorance of the commentator.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/03/national-post-editorial-board-enough-soviet-style-native-property-rules/

The commentator alleges that Canadians who live on reserve are "denied the ability to own real property". In fact, any Aboriginal person may own property off-reserve in fee simple. On reserve, they can hold property in a Certificate of Possession (CPs) which is similar to fee simple, except that it can't be sold to non-Indians. This form of property ownership respects the communal nature of land ownership in First Nations. The communal nature of land holding in First Nations has long been recognized by laws, courts, and our constitution as an integral
part of First Nations laws, rules and practices related to their lands.

The commentator also alleges that Aboriginal people "cannot hold true title to their homes" nor can they "mortgage a property to raise capital". In fact, Aboriginal people can hold CPs to their homes and even obtain a mortgage through various programs at CMHC and INAC. The link below provides details about how the process works:

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/ab/onre/onre_008.cfm

The commentator also claims that Aboriginal peoples cannot develop their "land as they see fit". This may or may not be true, depending on the zoning and other land use codes that may or may not in place in any particular First Nation. It is interesting to note however, that most Canadians cannot develop their land as they see fit due to zoning and other municipal land use by-laws. This comment reflects an obvious lack of knowledge around the subject.

More troubling is the allegation that Aboriginal peoples "can lose their homes without recourse, whenever it happens to be convenient for band council to give their property to a new occupant". This is categorically false. Various provisions of the Indian Act lay out how land is to be allotted, how CPs can be issued, and the process under which land can be expropriated. Canadian and provincial laws allow lands of Canadians to be expropriated in special circumstances, but never without compensation. The rules are similar on a reserve. Of course, the rules may well be different for self-governing First Nations and/or those under the First Nations Land Management Act.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/I/I-5.pdf

The commentator uses the example of Kahnawake where the band council enacted residency by-laws prohibiting non-members from residing on their reserve. When asked about the legality of such a by-law, the former Minister of Indian Affairs, Chuck Strahl claimed it was "legal" and even "constitutional" despite the fact that in order for a by-law to be legal it must be submitted to INAC for approval - which according to INAC was never done.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2542877

I agree completely with the commentator that such a law, which evicts non-Indian spouses of legitimate band members from their homes, is racist. It divides children from their parents, and families from their communities. Instead of protecting their Nation, they are actually speeding up their own assimilation. I myself, have written a blog about the injustice of this situation.

http://nonstatusindian.blogspot.com/2010/02/mohawks-or-canadas-disappearing-indians.html

That being said, Kahnawake does not represent all 633 First Nations in Canada. Just as the serial killer Robert Pickton does not represent the values of all Canadians, nor does Kahnawake represent the majority of First Nations values.

Finally, the commentator praises Tom Flanagan's new book: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights" as the answer to the situation of communal property rights. As Tom Flanagan describes First Nations as "primitive communists", it is easy to see where this commentator divined his inspiration to write about "Soviet" First Nations.

Flanagan's plan is to turn reserves into fee simple, maximize land values, and open up reserves to be sold to non-Indians. In my opinion, this does not recognize constitutionally protected land rights and simply represents a right wing desire to see Aboriginal peoples assimilated once and for all. I have written a book review which summarizes the plan and highlights significant issues with it. It is called "Opportunity or Temptation" and you can find it on the Literary Review of Canada website under back issues in April 2010.

Such a plan far from recognizes the "distinct" First Nations' traditions, practices, laws, and customs in relation to Aboriginal lands, but in fact represents an intolerance for such difference. It demands that Aboriginal people be more like "westerners" and embrace capitalism and concepts of individual wealth over the welfare of family, community and Nation. Aboriginal peoples are not asking Canadians to adopt First Nations laws and concepts, just to respect their right to have their own ideals.

A basic tennet of liberal democracies like Canada, is that of tolerance and respect for difference. Forcing First Nations to adopt Canadian ideals is actually very undemocratic. It is quite hypocritical for Canadians to defend their Charter and Constitutional rights so vehemently, except when it comes to the constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples. It is time these right wingers thought more about what a true democracy means and start walking the walk before they go around telling other people to be more Canadian.

Canada's Blood Quantum Formula for Assimilation

2010-08-20T06:51:00.000-07:00

This blog provides another excerpt from my doctoral thesis that I am currently converting into a book for publication. This section deals with the second generation cut-off rule in the Indian Act, 1985 that was not specifically challenged by Sharon McIvor in her court case. To my mind, the descent provisions in the Act are essentially blood quantum formulas that perpetuate colonial, racist ideologies about what it meant to be a "real" Indian.

Ongoing racist ideologies about the identities of Aboriginal peoples is the underlying problem with the Act and federal policies with regards to Aboriginal peoples. If we do not acknowledge and address that issue, equitable solutions will not be possible. The McIvor decision on appeal is a prime example of how embedded such racist ideology actually is in all levels of our society.

Here is the excerpt:

If we are ever to convince the courts to address this fundamental problem in federal policy, and even within their own jurisprudential logic and reasoning, we must name it for what it is - the current second generation cut-off rule in section 6(2) of the Indian Act,1985 is really a measurement of blood quantum or degree of descent.

The fact that Canada has chosen to use milder words to categorize the rule as: "genealogical proximity", "degree of Indian parentage", "genealogical connection", or "genealogical standard" does not escape the fact that this is an exercise in racism and forced assimilation.

Canada has openly created, justified and vigorously defended an identification system for Aboriginal peoples based solely on blood quantum or degree of descent, which is clearly a modern day act of racism.

The use of different wording does not cover up what Canada is doing - it is requiring that all status Indians be "real" Indians as viewed from Eurocentric ideologies around blood purity and race.

Aside from being legally unjustifiable, it is morally repugnant and should be exposed for what it is: forced assimilation.

Both blood quantum and assimilation has been denounced domestically and internationally and should no longer be a part of Canadian law or policy.

In fact, Article 8 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) provides that no Indigenous peoples shall be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. Further, the State has a positive obligation to prevent the loss of such culture and identity.

My goal in publishing this book is to raise awareness about the underlying problems and talk about the tough issues like why some Aboriginal people inadvertently advocate (through blood quantum) their own assimilation. Until we do this, Canadian courts will continue to define who we are based on colonial ideals of the "authentic Indian" which represents little more than fictional stereotypes.

Obviously, this is a small excerpt from hundreds of pages which explain all of the above concepts and provide scholarly and legal support for my claims. That being said, there are always strong views on all sides and there will always be differences of opinion. I, personally, can never accept a biological determination of who we are - whether you call it status, membership or something else.

Please feel free to send any comments to palmater@nonstatusindian.com

Canada Lacks Authority to Legislate Extinction of Indians

2010-07-28T09:52:00.000-07:00

I am in the process of editing my doctoral thesis into a book that will be published either late this year or early next. The topic is Aboriginal citizenship and how we need to think about Aboriginal identity and belonging in a different way. Canada has legislated our individual (status) and communal (membership) identities for so long that many of us have internalized the colonial views about what it means to be an Indian.

I am a Mi'kmaq woman and traditionally, my identity had nothing to do with status and everything to do with culture, language, practices, beliefs, customs, common ancestries, histories and territories. Today, unfortunately, for all practical purposes Canada controls status which largely controls band membership and therefore "recognized" identity.

Some of us have forgotten what it means to be Mi'kmaq, Mohawk or Cree and instead concentrate on Canada's Indian status, blood quantum, hair colour, or reserve residency as the only indicators of Aboriginal identity. Despite the fact that these racist criteria originated with colonial governments, and that they will eventually lead to our collective legal extinction, we are still struggling with high levels of internalization.

My book tries to address these issues. Here is an excerpt from my doctorate which makes the point that Canada lacks the authority to legislate our extinction:

Canada has the power under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 to legislate with regards to "Indians". However, this does not give Canada a right to make rules for Aboriginal peoples which are harmful to them or that are inconsistent with Canada’s fiduciary duty towards them.

The protections contained in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 equally act as a limit on federal and provincial governments with regards to Aboriginal and treaty rights. The Court in Sparrow explained that section 35 acts as a specific restraint on Canada’s power to legislate:

"Federal legislative powers continue, including, of course, the right to legislate with respect to Indians pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. These powers must, however, now be read together with s. 35(1). In other words, federal power must be reconciled with federal duty and the best way to achieve that reconciliation is to demand the justification of any government regulation that infringes upon or denies aboriginal rights. Such scrutiny is in keeping with the liberal interpretive principle... and the concept of holding the Crown to a high standard of honourable dealing with respect to the aboriginal peoples of Canada..." (emphasis added)

When the Aboriginal right to determine citizenship is considered in this light, it is obvious that restrictions on powers apply to all parties. Therefore, Canada lacks the power to ensure the extinction of Aboriginal peoples through its restrictive status and membership provisions in the Indian Act - despite its legislative powers in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

This is an important fact that has been lost in many of the studies and debates over Bill C-3. Canada has assumed that its power to legislate with regards to Indians knows no bounds - but the SCC jurisprudence indicates otherwise.

Many more edits to go before I finish my book - but I welcome comments on this excerpt from my doctorate in the meantime.

Pam

Letter to editor of Globe & Mail re Bill S-4

2010-07-09T09:56:00.000-07:00

Dear editor;

My name is Pam Palmater and I am a Mi'kmaq lawyer originally from New Brunswick and am now the Chair of Ryerson University's Centre for Indigenous Governance. I was called as an expert witness on several bills, including Bill S-4 - Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (otherwise referred to as MRP legislation). Please find attached a copy of my official submission to the Senate in this regard. However, I would also refer you to the transcript of Senate proceedings as this contains additional vital information about the Bill and its potential impacts.

The reason for my letter to you today is because Mr. Curry, in his article dated July 6, 2010 and entitled "Senate approves bill to help abused, divorced aboriginal women", presented factually inaccurate information which serves only to perpetuate misleading information about the real issues and negative stereotypes about Aboriginal peoples.

For example, while the sub-headline may create drama around the vote to support/reject the bill, the fact is 32 Senators voted against it, not two, and they voted this way primarily because of the nearly unanimous voices of the Aboriginal leaders, women and organization that appeared before the Senate on Bill S-4. Those 32 Senators who voted against this bill did so based on very informed and detailed presentations from well-respected groups like the Canadian Bar Association who warned that this Bill would create new rights for non-Indians in reserve land and that consultation was required before the bill proceeded.

Even more shameful is the fact that there is very little reference to what Aboriginal peoples' views were - and an embarrassing lack of reference to the views presented by Aboriginal women themselves. Before the Senate there was nearly unanimous opposition to this Bill by Aboriginal women like myself, Native Women's Association of Canada, Quebec Native Women, Women Chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations and others. The common theme amongst the Aboriginal women was that change is definitely needed, but no Aboriginal women were willing to give up their individual and communal Aboriginal, treaty, land and governance rights in exchange for federal control over matrimonial property.

What gets forgotten is that a violation of the right to self-government of a First Nation is also a violation against that First Nation's women. Aboriginal women are struggling to protect their rights and identities for their future generations which can't be achieved if Canada resorts back to paternalistic control over their personal lives and re-institutes Indian agents through "verifiers". Even worse is the fact that this bill won't help Aboriginal women but will open up reserve lands to non-Indians in violation of countless treaties, the Royal Proclamation, the Indian Act itself and the Constitution Act, 1982. This aspect of the Bill is, in essence, illegal. It purports to unilaterally change constitutionally protected rights without amending the constitution. Canada cannot, by amendment of the Indian Act, amend the Constitution. First Nations lands are protected for the SOLE use of First Nations and changing this fact without consultation with First Nations has been referred to by various academics as an abuse of power.

Mr. Curry also refers to the fact that Bill S-4 is the third time around for MRP legislation but fails to highlight that the reason it failed the last two times was because there was no consultation with First Nations. Consultation is not a mere nicity that the government can choose to ignore at will. In addition to the honour of the Crown and its various fiduciary obligations towards Aboriginal peoples, Canada has a LEGAL obligation to fully inform, consult with and accommodate the legitimate concerns of First Nations whose Aboriginal, treaty and/or land rights may be impacted by government decisions, actions, policy or legislation. I need only refer to the numerous Supreme Court of Canada decisions like Haida, Taku, Mikisew Cree, Delgamuukw, Guerin, Sparrow, Van der Peet Trilogy, Sappier and Gray which support this fact.

The fact of the matter is that Canada "engaged" with Aboriginal political organizations at a very general level but it did not consult with First Nations specifically about Bill S-4. Even Canada's own Ministerial representative concluded that consultations had NOT taken place and that any solution must include consultation.

Whenever a well-read newspaper such as the Globe and Mail leaves out critical information that would permit readers to have access to at least the basic information to come to their own conclusions about issues like Bill S-4, it detracts from its usefulness and risks becoming a one-sided advocacy piece. Readers deserve more and so do the subjects that you treat. Aboriginal peoples are regularly portrayed negatively in the media because that serves the interests of right-wing thinkers who believe everyone should subscribe to their limited views about what it means to be a Canadian.

So, the fact the Mr. Curry could write about Bill S-4 and not even mention the fact that this Bill will affect First Nation jurisdiction over their own lands or that it does not recognize and implement their right to be self-governing - both rights of which are protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is irresponsible. In 1996 Canada recognized that the inherent right of self-government was protected in section 35 of the The Constitution Act, 1982 and that issues like membership and family law was the sole jurisdiction of First Nations. The Constitution Act, 1982 is the Supreme Law of Canada and Canada can't choose to honour it only when it is convenient. We just celebrated Canada Day on July 1 - perhaps we also need a day to celebrate our Constitution and remind Canadians that First Nations and their rights are just as an integral part of our Constitution as are our highly valued Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition to these glaring omissions, I would also like to draw your attention to several factual inaccuracies:

(1) Mr. Curry claims that this bill is designed to help "abused, divorced aboriginal women". The conservative senators specifically clarified at the hearings that this bill was not targeted at abused Aboriginal women. I refer you to the transcript for more details. Similarly, even if it was, it should be noted that all legal experts who presented testified that this bill does not offer real remedies for Aboriginal women as there is no funding to access lawyers or courts and there is no funding to help create local remedies that are accepted by the community.

(2) Mr. Curry claims that Aboriginal women's only options are to "plead their case to the local band council". He obviously did not follow the hearings or peruse the transcripts which highlighted the First Nations who have already designed their own MRP laws or have traditional or informal rules which take care of MRP issues. I refer specifically to Anishanabek Nation, Six Nations, Akwesasne and others who, under this bill, will have their own MRP laws rejected. While MRP laws are necessary in many First Nation communities, what is needed is capacity building and funding to support First Nations to work with their communities to come up with their own laws and local dispute resolution mechanisms - we already know from residential schools how things turn out when Canada imposes its own views on Aboriginal peoples.

(3) Citing Senator LeBreton does not help Mr. Curry's article either. Mr. Curry cites her as saying that she is "mystified" that Aboriginal Women Senators Dyck and Lovelace would oppose the bill. With all due respect, she could only come to that conclusion if she ignored nearly every single submission and testimony that was made before the Senate hearings on Bill S-4. Senator Lovelace and Dyck are well-respected Aboriginal women who have been a part of the struggle to have the voices of First Nations and Aboriginal women in particular heard. What those two Senators did was actually listen to what Aboriginal women and First Nations said and brought those views and concerns forward. This is what is expected of those who represent the people - Senators blindly support whatever their political party advocates without listening to the people are undemocratic.

LeBreton didn't even listen to what her own conservative senators said at the hearing. She claims the legislation is geared towards "preventing cases of repeated abuse" yet her own conservative members specifically stated that it was not. When she did refer to testimony she discounted what the AFN had said on the basis that most First Nations leaders are male. Again, I would refer you to the testimony of the Aboriginal women, experts and organizations that were also against this bill. I would refer you to the report of the Ministerial Representative on MRP who highlighted the fact that there are more Aboriginal women chiefs of First Nations in Canada, than there are women in the House of Commons. My elders always use to tell me that before one could criticize another, they should be sure that they have their own teepee in order.

So, instead of trying to twist the issue to one of Aboriginal women versus Aboriginal men or individual rights versus communal rights, I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Curry look at the real issue: how Canada continues to develop policies and laws which control, divide and assimilate Aboriginal peoples despite their legally and constitutionally protected rights. If Canada was truly concerned about gender equality, it would work with Aboriginal women to amend Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act to once and for all make status equal between Aboriginal men and women. Canada can't have it both ways - it either wants true gender equality for Aboriginal women in all laws and policies or it doesn't. If it does, then it has to listen to Aboriginal women about Bill S-4 and the need for consultation. If it doesn't, then we'll see more of the legislation that the conservatives have tried to cram through the House and Senate - Bill S-4, Bill C-3, Bill C-24, and Bill S-11.

Respectfully;

Pam

Bill S-4 - Step Back In Time

2010-06-18T05:11:00.000-07:00

The Senate is due to vote on Bill S-4 today (June 28). All indications say that it will pass despite nearly unanimous opposition to the Bill by First Nations and Aboriginal women's groups, then it has to go through the same process in the House once Parliament reconvenes in the fall.

Hopefully, in the meantime, MPs will see the Bill for what it is: A Step Back in Time. Despite the fact that Prime Minister Harper has apologized for the assimilatory foundations upon which residential school policy was based, this draconian, paternalistic bill is being imposed on First Nations against their will and contrary to their constitutionally protected right to be self-determining.

While I have many issues with the Bill, one aspect of the bill is clear evidence that Canada has reverted back to its paternalistic control over Indians as though they were once again wards of the state who must be controlled and assimilated. The verification officer is akin to the Indian agents which were slowly removed from reserves in the 1960's. Now they will be reinstituted to give Canada more control over Indians and their reserves for the benefit of the settler population.

Sections 8 to 16 inclusive of Bill S-4 deal with the verification process for adopting First Nations laws with regard to matrimonial real property on reserve (MRP). Before First Nations can enact their own MRP laws, they must be ratified through a community referendum process (25% of the eligible voters) and is "verified" by a verification officer that is appointed by an organization so designated by the Minister and the First Nation.

The job of the verification officer is to ensure that the community referendum plan and process is suitable to the officer. At all stages of the First Nation law-making process, the verification officer can withhold his/her approval which would prevent the First Nation from completing the next stage of the process. Even once the law-making process has been completed, the verification officer must certify the "conduct" of the referendum process before the laws are deemed validly approved.

The underlying assumption being that First Nations are not capable of respecting human rights - a stereotype denounced by even the Minister's Special Representative in her report on MRP. The inclusion of a verification officer and certification process has been described by various witnesses who have presented on Bill S-4 as akin to reinstituting Indian agents.

With regard to Indian agents and their control over Indians, John Borrows, a respected Indigenous scholar wrote an article which demonstrated through traditional story-telling that the federal government, in earlier times, consistently undermined First Nations liberties and freedoms by placing Indian agents in "supervisory roles" in their communities and that positive change has come about in First Nations by their continued resistance to these impositions. (J. Borrows, "Aboriginal Rights: Indian Agency and Taking What's Not Yours" (2003) 22 Windsor Y.B. of Access to Just. 253)

The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) explained that the superintendent general of Indian Affairs had a "vast array of powers to intervene in almost all areas of daily reserve life" and that the majority of those powers were granted to Indian agents. (RCAP, p.297) RCAP describes Indian agents as "all-powerful" because of their control over local, financial and judicial matters.

Once again, Bill S-4 seeks to re-establish "supervisors" within First Nations. INAC would have us take comfort in the fact that s.9(2) requires that the verification officer be unbiased, but if we go by past experience - this is highly unlikely. While some Indian agents demonstrated integrity, RCAP explains that many others were: "petty despots who seemed to enjoy wielding enormous power over the remnants of once powerful Aboriginal nations" and that "the Indian affairs branch often seemed to attract persons particularly imbued with the zeal associated with the strict morality and social Darwinism exhibited by deputy superintendents general Hayter Reed and Duncan Campbell Scott." (RCAP, p. 298)

How can INAC expect that they would attract anyone other than a person who believes First Nations need to be supervised to prevent human rights violations? Noel Dyck characterized Indian agents as "agents of coercive tutelage". (N. Dyck, "What is the Indian Problem: Tutelage and Resistance in Canadian Indian Administration (St. John's: ISER, 1991). This was inevitable given Indian Affairs' desire to preach the "gospel of self-help" to Indians living on reserve in the hopes that they would assimilate within a generation or two. (V. Satzewich, "Indian Agents and the 'Indian Problem' in Canada in 1946 (1997) 2 C.J.N.S. 227)

An aggressive nation-building strategy, together with ongoing settlement requirements led Indian Affairs to focus on socially transforming Indian communities to fit its own values. Despite contemporary awareness about the injustice of the situation, Indian agents blamed Indians for their lot in life and justified their control over them: "Unless they accepted the proposition that Native peoples could not lead a descent life without the direction that they provided, tutelage agents were cast in a role which they would arbitrarily and self-consciously exercise power over other human beings for no good reason." (Dyck, p.77)

The same can be said with the verification officers in Bill S-4. INAC is trying to socially transform First Nations from collectives with communal property and rights, to individuals divorced from their communities in both law and ideology. What "good reason" could INAC, through its verification officers have to impose its authority on First Nations local family matters? The very reason why our rights were protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is to protect our distinct cultures for the benefit of our future generations. If our cultures are communal then who is Canada to try to individualize us and destroy our Nations?

Prime Minister Harper stood before Canadians and apologized for the assimilatory foundations and attitudes of superiority upon which the residential schools policy was created. Specifically, he explained:"Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, "to kill the Indian in the child". Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country." (INAC, Apology)

If we are to take the Prime Minister at his word, then how could we enact a new law which would turn back the clock on Indian policy and reinstitute Indian Agents whose role it is to ensure that Indians behave as INAC believes they should - like the rest of Canadians. We already rejected the White Paper which tried to do the same thing. This Bill is Canada's way of doing indirectly what it is legally prevented from doing directly.

The vast majority of witnesses have testified strenuously against Bill S-4 and its two previous incarnations Bill C-8 and C-47. Yet, despite the Prime Minister's apology for the institutions imposed by INAC that "gave rise to abuse or neglect and were inadequately controlled", and that "There is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian Residential Schools system to ever prevail again", Canada is pushing this new legislation, verification officers and the creation of a new institution on First Nations against their will.

When will Canada listen to the nearly unanimous voices of First Nations and Aboriginal women who consistently tell Canada to stay out of their local affairs? Even Aboriginal women who advocated for MRP laws specifically stated this was to be done within the context of recognizing First Nation jurisdiction in this area. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples also provides that First Nations should have paramount jurisdiction over their own internal community affairs.

Indian agents were a sad chapter in our history and were (thankfully) slowly removed from Indian reserves in the 1960's. First Nations don't need Indian agents reintroduced through the back door as verification officers. If Canada truly wants to support, healthy, vibrant, self-sufficient First Nations, then it should provide equitable funding for social programs like housing, education and child and family services, as well as specifically empower and support First Nations to enact their own laws with legislative recognition and sufficient funding.

We have all stood together to reject this draconian and racist bill -now it is time for Canada to listen.

Bill S-4 - Backdoor Assimilation and Land Grab

2010-06-18T04:53:00.000-07:00

Bill S-4 relates to matrimonial real property on reserve after the breakup of a marriage or relationship. After a process of hearing from witnesses and deciding on potential amendments, the Senate will vote on the Bill today. Even if the Bill is passed, it must still go through the same process in the House. Given Parliament's summer schedule, it likely won't be addressed until the fall.

That being said, there are numerous problems with Bill S-4. While some protections are important for those who divorce or no longer cohabitate, Bill S-4 represents backdoor assimilation - a key feature of the conservative government's agenda, well-informed by Tom Flanagan and his right-wing ideas. One particular issue of concern is that of the recent amendments which would allow courts to "consider" First Nation collective interests in divorce cases.

The legality of Bill S-4 in disposing of constitutionally protected land rights in reserves have not been fully canvassed. In my opinion, given that reserve lands are the same as Aboriginal title lands in terms of their inalienability and collective nature (as stated by the SCC), and given the fact that many of those reserves were created pursuant to treaties which are constututionally protected, there is no legal way that Bill S-4 can legally override that.

As Canada knows very well, legislation cannot amend the Constitution Act, 1982- and this Bill proposes to do just that. Adding a clause that allows the courts to only "consider" the collective nature of reserve lands does not change that fact. Either Bill S-4 can amend the Constitution or it cannot. Either Bill S-4 can violate treaty protected reserve lands or it cannot. It is not up to a court, within the context of a family dispute to only "consider" those facts and issue a decision which contravenes the Constitution Act, the Indian Act or treaties.

Canada argues that by adding provisions which allow the courts to "consider" First Nation land rights, that this somehow mitigates their legal and fiduciary obligations with regards to First Nation lands. Not only does this legislation not meet Canada's fiduciary obligations, it increases requirements on First Nations to defend their land rights. This legislation will require First Nations to defend the title to their reserve lands over and over again after each and every marital or relationship breakdown. We are requiring that First Nations appear in thousands of court rooms to defend their treaty rights and constitutional rights at their own expense.

Senator Brazeau made that point very clear when I appeared before the Senate - when First Nations said that had no capacity to develop their own laws but would challenge S-4 in court if it violated their land rights, Senator Brazeau told them they couldn't defend their collective rights because they had no capacity. Unfortunately, I fear this will be the case. Thousands of divorce cases will go to court absent representation from First Nations who have no money for lawyers, travel expenses or research to justify why their treaty and constitutionally protected reserve lands should remain protected.

There are no other constitutional rights that must be defended over and over again - but those of First Nations. Canadians have yet to accept that section 35 recognizes, affirms and protects Aboriginal and treaty rights - which includes land claims, modern treaties and self-government agreements. Canada has already stated that section 35 protects the inherent right of self-government - I can't see anything more inherent to self-government than First Nations management of their own lands.

Bill S-4 does not protect any of those rights, but insteads belittles them and reduces them to a mere "consideration" for judges who must decide how to dispose of reserve property. This is insulting to at best and illegal at worst. First Nations were forced unto reserves, they have lost the vast majority of their traditional territories and all they have left are their tiny reserves. Now we are telling First Nations that reserves are up for grabs and we can ignore constitutionally protected rights at will. This is reminiscent of the Royal Proclamation of 1767 and the days when we had to protect Indian lands from settlement.

Imagine First Nations which are located next to major cities or who have high rates of outmarriage due to small populations - within literally 1 year some reserves could be occupied exclusively by non-Indians and the "temporary" nature of that possession does not change that fact. How can we ask First Nations who have the lowest socio-economic indicators to lose what little they have left? That Canada could advance such a position is a disgrace and it flies in the face of international common law and norms in relation to the need to provide GREATER protections for Indigenous lands not less.

Once again, through the backdoor the Conservative government is trying to enforce its assimilatory agenda. The Conservatives know they can't simply disband reserves, so they are trying to do so under the guise of protection of families or economic development (Bill C-24). One can't help but take note that Flanagan was Harper's former advisor and that Flanagan is not only behind C-24 but has advocated specifically for the privatization of reserve lands.

Reserve lands are not for sale. They are not available for non-Indian settlement. Assimilation and land theft is supposed to be over - it is supposed to be a thing of the past that Canada has apologized for - unfortunately Bill S-4 ressurects those ideologies:

- that Indian land should be abvailable to non-Indians;
- that First Nations are incapable of resolving their own internal matters;
- that First Nation culture is inferior to ours, such that they are more likely to violate human rights;
- that First Nations are so juvenile and incompetent that they must be treated as wards and supervised while they consult with their communities on Bill S-4 and their actions watched closely and "verified" as acceptable.

We should all be disgusted that this assimilatory attitude is not called for what it is: racist and draconian. Canada needs to leave First Nations alone with regards to their own internal affairs. If they make mistakes, they'll fix them. If they violate human rights, the appropriate bodies will address that. We need to respect our Supreme Court of Canada cases, our treaties and our Constitution - First Nation constitutional rights are no less the Supreme Law of the Land, than other constitiutional rights like gender equality.

Please send your views and concerns to your MPs over the summer months.

Letter to the editor re Manny's Mission to Disband Reserves

2010-06-12T10:22:00.000-07:00

Re: article in Hamilton Spectator on June 10, 2010 re "Private property on reserves next frontier"

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Dear editor;

Your article which alleges that there is growing support for Aboriginal ownership is far from accurate. This is an initiative of Manny Jules from the Squamish band and has been incorporated into Bill C-24 First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act without ANY consultation with First Nations.

Only he and a handful of other First Nations are in support of this idea. These are the same First Nations who have also advocated for other related legislative initiatives like the First Nations Land Management Act (FNLMA) and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA). Yet despite their claims, the VAST majority of First Nations have NOT signed on to their previous initiatives nor are the majority in support of dividing up reserves into fee simple lands.

This is an assimilation plan by Tom Flanagan proposed in his new book "Beyond the Indian Act" that is no different than what he proposed in his previous book "First Nations? Second Thoughts". His goal is to divide up reserves into fee simple and dispand First Nations. As his first book came across as too overtly racist, Flanagan has decided to advocate for assimilation through the back door and use an Indian as the spokesperson.

Since Manny Jules thinks solely through the lens of economic development and has not considered the other aspects of what makes Aboriginal peoples distinct - their connection to the land which is and always has been communal in nature, he was the perfect candidate. Jules is willing to assimilate himself and his band members for the sake of making money as if economic development is the key to all First Nations issues. He completely ignores the importance of treaty implementation, resolution of land claims, and respect for the inherent right of First Nations to be self-determining.

I do not believe that any Chief or Council would even have the authority to make such a deal. Jules and Flanagan also fail to point out that Aboriginal Nations could not parcel out their lands in fee simple legally, as this would be necessarily inconsistent with why Aboriginal lands are protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It would also be in direct conflict with the majority of treaties in Canada which are the benefit of our "heirs and heirs forever" which cannot be sacrificed for the financial benefit of only the present generation. How could the division of reserves into fee simple parcels to be sold to non-Indians for profit in any be said to respect our treaties?

Please see the review I did of Flanagan's new book called "Beyond the Indian Act": http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/

This plan is identical to that of the Dawes Act in the United States which saw the loss of massive swaths of land from tribal territories, that, despite a subsequent reverse in policy, have never been fully restored. Flanagan and Jules believe that this piece of legislation is different because it is voluntary. There were also voluntary Indian "Indian Hunters" who chased down Indian children who had escaped from residential schools and brought them back. The voluntary nature of the plan is no less insidious because they were able to co-opt Indians into doing it.

They also casually refer to those First Nations that have Certificates of Possession (CPs) as though the transition from CP to fee simple would be as simple as registering the interest. They fail to mention that on some reserves CPs are in the hands of a few, and the vast majority of band members do not have CPs. How would that be an equitable division? What about those who live off-reserve (which we now know amounts to 50%)? What about the many generations of those yet unborn who have a right to their communal lands?

To say that their bright idea has not been well thought out is an understatement. Jules constantly refers to the Nisga'a as the ultimate example of a First Nation that will be registering their individual interests in a provincial registration system. Yet, they fail to mention that the Nisga'a are cited by the majority of First Nations of how NOT to negotiate a self-government agreement.

Jules also appeared before the Canadian Bar Association yesterday and spoke about how he wants to be a "free man" and a "horse man" and that the only way to do that was to get out of Indian Act, focus on economic development and ensure First Nations laws are consistent with federal and provincial laws.

One chief's response was that - "If Jules wants to be within the federal family, he can tear up his status card and move off reserve", or as another chief said "He is free to divorce his community whenever he likes". Even if Jules has the support of his community, he is free to try and negotiate a self-government agreement with Canada and do that. But in the meantime, he need not advocate the assimilation of the rest of the 630+ First Nations in Canada.

Please remember that when you write articles about First Nations lands, you are talking about constitutionally protected rights. The Constitution Act, 1982 is the supreme law of the land - which binds all Canadians. To talk about deleting or amending constitutionally protected rights without a constitutional amendment is illegal and downplays the significance of those rights.

Respectfully submitted;

Pam

Bill S-4 - An Empty Shell of a Legislative Promise

2010-06-08T09:19:00.000-07:00

Bill S-4 is 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. The short title is: Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. The bill was introduced in the Senate in March 2010 and had its first reading on March 31, 2010. Its second reading was May 5, 2010 and it is currently before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for study.

This is the third time that this bill has been introduced. Its other two incarnations, were Bill C-8 and Bill C-47 both of which were opposed by Aboriginal peoples and both of which did not become law. Canada is now trying to pass what is referred to as MRP legislation (laws which deal with how to address property of the marriage after marriage breakdown) without consulting with First Nations and Aboriginal peoples impacted by the bill.

Yesterday, I appeared as a witness before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights to present my views about the Bill. Below are the recommendations that I made to the Committee:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

(1) Bill S-4 should be withdrawn until consultations have been completed.

I wrote a 700 page doctoral thesis on the status provisions of the Indian Act, yet despite my familiarity with registration, it took me a great deal of time to fully understand and assess the actual legislative implications of Bill C-3. Bill C-3 is only 8 pages long and contains only 10 amendments that primarily deal with one main section of the Indian Act.

Bill S-4 on the other hand, is 45 pages in length and contains 60 new legislative provisions that interact with numerous complex provisions of the Indian Act dealing with reserve lands. These provisions involve a complex interplay between property, family, Aboriginal, constitutional, human rights and administrative law. How can the Minister expect the majority of First Nations to understand the bill let alone agree to it - if he has not consulted with them?

Canada cannot enact a bill which is not legally sound and claim that this will fill the current legislative gap. Had Canada consulted years ago, we would not be looking at the third incarnation of legislation - we'd have addressed the issue already.

If the bill is not withdrawn, then the following substantive amendments should be made:

(2) The bill must include a section in the preamble that specifically acknowledges First Nation jurisdiction over property and civil rights (including MRP) within their reserves and that this jurisdiction stems from their inherent right of self-government which is recognized and protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

(3) Specific reference must be made in the preamble to the inalienability of reserve lands as well as the fact that reserve lands are protected for the exclusive use and benefit of First Nations.

The Minister says on the one hand that Bill S-4 will clearly not "affect the title to the lands or change the status of collective reserve lands", but on the other hand he admits that there are provisions that will "touch" on those rights. Despite the Minister's conflicting assurances regarding reserve land protections, Bill S-4 will not only create new interests in reserve lands, but it will also create new entitlements for non-Indians to those lands.

(4) A "for greater certainty" clause should be added which specifically clarifies that First Nations have the power to enact MRP and related laws and related dispute resolution mechanisms under relevant sections of the Indian Act.

In the alternative, a clause could be added to specifically empower First Nations in this regard. For the Minister to say that Canada or the courts can't recognize First Nations jurisdiction to enact their MRP laws on reserve is to say that Canada has no legislative authority under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, that the Constitution Act, 1982 is not the supreme law of the land, and that all decisions of the SCC have no legal application here in Canada. That position is simply unsupportable.

(5) With regard to laws enacted by First Nations, there must be a specific provision which provides that in the event of a conflict between federal, provincial or First Nations laws in this area, First Nations laws will be paramount.

Rushing Bill S-4 through the Senate as if First Nations are inherently discriminatory and regularly violating human rights is based on negative stereotypes not supported by the evidence. As the Ministerial representative concluded: "First Nations are just as responsible, accountable and transparent as other governments in Canada." They should therefore be provided the opportunity to enact their own laws and dispute resolution processes with regard to MRP.

(6) Sections which refer to mandatory referendum or ratification processes must be deleted and replaced with a section that allows First Nations to establish their own law-making and dispute resolution mechanisms.

This section might also include specific reference to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution Act, 1982, and First Nations customary law.

(7) There must be a specific clause in the bill which contains a non-derogation clause so as to specifically protect Aboriginal and treaty rights as well as rights contained in land claims and modern agreements.

Similar clauses appear in section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the CHRA.

(8) There must be a specific and complete exemption from the application of Bill S-4 for those First Nations who have already developed their own laws in relation to MRP or for those who subsequently do so.

The Minister characterized Bill S-4 as the "perfect resolution". Respectfully, he could only come to such a conclusion if he ignored the input given by his own MRP representative, the views of nearly 1000 Aboriginal women chiefs and councillors, the NWAC, the majority of First Nations witnesses who opposed the bill and the CHRC and the CBA who all raised serious questions about it.

(9) Similar to the repeal of section 67 of the CHRA, there must be a minimum of a three-year transitional period for First Nations to provide them with a fair opportunity to review the new bill and develop their own MRP laws and dispute resolution processes.

It has taken Canada over 100 years to get around to considering MRP rules for the Indian Act - First Nations deserve at least a three year transition period to develop their own laws before any type of transitional legislation is imposed on their communities. There is a clear precedent with equally important rights in the CHRA and no reason why that can't be incorporated here.

The choice is not between homelessness for Aboriginal women or supporting self-government. We can make the choice to have both as supporting self-government is supporting Aboriginal women . Furthermore, Aboriginal women have suggested self-government as a solution to this issue.

(10) Any section of Bill S-4 which creates a new interest in land for non-Indians should be deleted entirely.

Temporary possession of reserve lands in an emergency situation for periods of 90-180 is one thing, but possession of reserve lands by non-Indians for a period greater than one year should be determined as per First Nation laws in this area.

First Nations collective rights to their land is not something that should be taken lightly as they are protected by the Indian Act, section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 and numerous treaties. The SCC in Sparrow, Delgamuuwk, Haida, Taku, and Mikisew Cree to name a few have held over and over again that Canada has a legal obligation to consult with First Nations. Therefore, Canada lacks the requisite authority to unilaterally change the essential characteristic of reserve lands through Bill S-4 and it certainly can't do so without formal legal consultations with First Nations.

(11) Any section which refers to or incorporates the use of a verifier and/or ratification process administered by Canada, should be deleted entirely.

Canada's record on human rights in relation to Aboriginal peoples is far from clean. One need only refer to Lavell, Lovelace, Corbiere, and McIvor cases or the current NCFS discrimination complaint currently before the CHRC to see that Canada has not addressed its own human rights violations. What gives Canada the right to supervise First Nations government over MRP?

(12) A "for greater certainty" clause should be included which clarifies the fact that no provision contained in Bill S-4 overrides or in any way alters the protections contained in section 89 of the Indian Act with regards to reserve lands and property.

The implications of Bill S-4 have not been fully examined in light of section 89 and other provisions of the Indian Act, Aboriginal and treaty rights, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or the Crown's fiduciary and consultation duties. This alone makes Bill S-4 fatally flawed and should be withdrawn.

(13) The sections relating to valuations should be amended to take into consideration the unique nature of the interest being valued.

A home which is band owned, and has no windows, no running or clean water, and is full of mold and abestos, will not appeal to a bank to provide a loan to a band member who is on social assistance to enable them to pay their ex-spouse half the "value" of the home.

(14) The definitions related to spouse must be amended to reflect a longer period of cohabitation than one year given the nature of reserve lands.
Some of my more general recommendations include:

(15) Funding should be provided to First Nations to both participate in Bill S-4 consultations and to enact their own MRP laws and dispute resolution mechanisms.

First Nations did not receive funding to help develop band membership codes after Bill C-31 in 1985 and as a result, the majority of First Nations do not have their own codes. Similarly, no money way provided to First Nations to review their by-laws and other codes for compliance with the CHRA after the repeal of section 67. Not surprisingly, most First Nations have not amended their laws or prepared for potential human rights claims despite the looming June 2011 deadline.

This situation is repeating itself with Bill S-4 - no funding has been committed to First Nations to develop their own MRP laws. It should come as no surprise then if First Nations do not enact their own MRP codes and that the "transitional" or "interim" rules in Bill S-4 become the status quo. This can't be said to respect their s.35 right to self-government.

(16) Bill C-3 must be amended to fully address gender inequality which is a major barrier to the descendants of Indian women and their descendants being able to access reserve residency and Bill S-4 in the first place.

The Minister testified that Aboriginal women are the most vulnerable group in Canada and that they need "immediate protection", yet he refuses to amend Bill C-3 to finally remedy gender inequality in the Indian Act with regard to status. Failure to address Bill C-3 will render Bill S-4 useless to thousands of Indian women and their descendants.

(17) Canada should withdraw all bills currently in the Senate and the House unless and until such time as it has properly consulted with First Nations and those impacted.

For a full copy of my submission, go to my website under MRP which is in the Current Issues section: www.nonstatusindian.com.

Bill C-3 - Not a Catastrophe if it Does not Pass

2010-05-29T07:36:00.000-07:00

In my previous blog on Bill C-3, I argued that we should not agree to pass the bill as it currently reads. I made this argument despite the fact that I, personally, stand to gain from Bill C-3. In my opinion, the more important issue is whether our children, siblings, cousins and future community members will benefit and not whether a select few have their immediate needs met.

As First Nations peoples, we have always made decisions based on what is best for our future generations and not what we need in the present or what has worked in the past. We can not simply preach the values we represent as First Nations - we have to put those values into action. This will mean that we have to make sacrifices in the present, to ensure that our children are protected in the future. This is asking no more and no less than what our ancestors did for us by protecting our lands through war, treaties and self-sacrifice.

Also in my last blog on Bill C-3, I highlighted some of the misconceptions about the bill being promoted by the conservative government through INAC. Their inaccurate claims about the consequences of not passing Bill C-3 amount to fear-mongering. They appear to be relying on the notion that Aboriginal people will be so scared that if this bill doesn't pass that they will never get status; assuming that they are willing to sacrifice the rights of their children for their own immediate needs.

In my opinion, INAC has grossly miscalculated the degree to which Aboriginal people have become more experienced, educated, and strategic about what they are willing to sacrifice and what they won't. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs (AAON) heard from numerous witnesses all over the country: from national, regional and local organisations, as well as individual experts and non-Aboriginal professional societies. With near unanimity, the witnesses said that the bill, as it is currently written, does not address gender discrimination, nor does it even address the limited situation in McIvor.

To make my point about the misinformation that INAC is using to get this bill passed, I informed readers that INAC was arguing in the House that by not passing the bill, there would be a legislative void where thousands of people in BC would not be registered. I highlighted the fact that even if there were a legislative void for people in BC for a short time, say several months while we amended or reintroduced a new act, the temporary situation would not be as bad as it is portrayed by INAC.

As part of my blog, I challenged readers to contact INAC and ask for the actual numbers of registrants in BC each year. I wanted them to compare, for themselves, those who would not be registered if Bill C-3 did not pass, versus the claims of INAC of thousands of people. Subsequently, LEAF, the Women's Education Action Fund, issued an informative e-mail to members of Parliament on this very topic.

The following are some highlights from LEAF's communication:

(1) If the Indian Act is not amended by July deadline, the government can simply ask for an extension from the court.

(2) Even if section 6(1)(a) and (c) do lapse in July, it will ONLY affect those who would be entitled under sections 6(1)(a) and (c) who live in British Columbia.

(3) If the effect of McIvor was national (which it isn't), the temporary delay in registration would only affect less than 1.7% of registrations under section 6(1)(a) and only 0.4% of registrations under section 6(1)(c). This means that those who might be affected in BC are all less than 1%.

(4) The vast majority of registrations nationally are 42% under section 6(2) and 56% under section 6(1)(f).

Therefore, the actual number of people that might possibility have to wait several additional months for registration amount to less than a few hundred in BC, and no one else in the rest of Canada would be affected. This makes the case for a small temporary sacrifice for the benefit of greater permanent benefits for larger numbers of people, all the more compelling.

Furthermore, I think this statistical information should have been provided to First Nations, witnesses, MPs and Standing Committee members at the start of this process. Not only has Canada failed to consult with Aboriginal peoples on this issue, but even their engagement process was inherently flawed by covering up this kind of vital information.

Please write your MP or all MPs and ask them NOT to pass Bill C-3 as it is currently written. They must make substantive changes or reintroduce a proper bill that addresses gender discrimination once and for all. We can sacrifice our immediate needs for a few more months for the benefit of our children - our ancestors did no less for us!

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

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

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

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

Please protect our present and future generations from gender discrimination and exclusion - do not support Bill C-3!

Vote-Buying in Burnt Church a Cultural Tradition?

2010-05-27T15:49:00.001-07:00

I know that this blog may be a little off-topic from my usual discussions, but this issue is too important to let slide. A very senior person in Aboriginal politics has made an absolutely insane statement about my Mi'kmaq Nation, our governance practices and our traditions. The record now has to be set straight so that the public does not think Mi'kmaq people are all crooks.

Burnt Church First Nation (also known as Esgenoopetitj) is one of several Mi'kmaq communities in New Brunswick. My home community is Eel River Bar First Nation is only a few hours north of Burnt Church. The Chief of Burnt Church is Wilber Dedham and his term in office has not been without significant controversy.

Earlier this year, a member of Burnt Church filed a complaint with the RCMP alleging that council members participated in vote buying during the election. APTN reported that initially the RCMP refused to investigate the complaint because it did not want to ruin relations with Burnt Church. As some may recall, Burnt Church was the First Nation whose members were run over by DFO boats while they fished for lobster.

Given the large amount of publicity over the matter, the RCMP later changed their minds and decided that they would conduct an investigation afterall. APTN reported that the primary evidence were affidavits signed by several community members detailing how council members offered cash in exchange for votes.

Since that time however, new evidence has appeared on the internet and various media outlets (including APTN) which allegedly shows a council member giving electors cash in exchange for votes. Those being video-taped apparently did not know they were being taped and the name of the person who set up the hidden camera has not yet been released.

Given that the RCMP are investigating this matter, I could have left the issue at that. It is a terrible thing to have allegedly happen in one of our own communities, but I had assumed that the RCMP would ensure that we had all the facts before casting judgment. I think those accused have the right to be considered innoncent of the charges unless and until they are proven guilty. If they are found guilty, those involved should resign or be removed from office.

However, much to the surprise of most Aboriginal people across Canada, AFN Regional Chief Roger Augustine participated in an interview with APTN News last night and actually defended the alleged vote-buying actions in Burnt Church. Not only did he seem to think it happened, but he stated that this is actually part of our tradition as Mi'kmaq people.

Furthermore, he said that we should not look at this like vote-buying, but instead see it as a matter of gift-giving to people who are supporting the candidate - it is a way of saying thank you. He also made the claim that older members would not come out and vote otherwise, and appeared to imply that this is a common occurrence.

First of all, traditionally we as Mi'kmaq people did not have elections. The election system and Chief and Council governance structure was imposed on our people by Canada through the Indian Act. Unless and until Burnt Church negotiates and concludes its own self-government agreement, or it enacts its own custom election code, then the Indian Act and its regulations govern band governance and elections.

Section 78(1) of the Indian Act states that chief and council hold office for two years. The exception to this being those bands who have their own custom election codes, and the last time I checked, Burnt Church was under the Indian Act.

Section 78(1)(b) (iii) permits the Minister to remove a Chief or council member from office if, in connnection with an election, they are guilty of "accepting a bribe, dishonesty or malfeasance". Malfeasance means misconduct or wrongoing, especially by a public official.

I don't think there can be any doubt that paying a person money in exchange for a vote is malfeasance. While I have not had time to do much research on the matter, there is also the possibility that the Criminal Code of Canada and/or the Elections Act may have rules against vote-buying as well.

Therefore, the Indian Act, and not tradition, governs Indian Act elections like those held in Burnt Church. Even if it didn't, Mi'kmaq people did not traditionally vote for their leaders and therefore the claim that vote-buying or "giving gifts of money" for votes is unfounded. I invite anyone who has researched the history of Mi'kmaq people to show me research which confirms that it is our tradition to both hold elections and to buy votes.

For Mr. Augustine to make such claims is irresponsible. It is an embarassment to the organization he represents, the Assembly of First Nations, and to the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet First Nations of the Atlantic Region that he represents. Mr. Augustine should not have said anything about the matter at all as it is being investigated by the RCMP.

I think what Mr. Augustine said on public TV does more harm for First Nations in this country who have enough unfounded allegations to defend, than does an isolated incident of vote-buying.

Mr. Augustine should resign from his position as AFN Regional Vice Chief and if he does not, the National Chief Shawn Atleo should fire him - no different than Canada firing one of its Ministers for misconduct. Mr. Augustine should also apologize for making the unfounded claim that it is part of Mi'kmaq tradition to buy votes.

I do hope that the RCMP investigate the matter in Burnt Church and if individuals are found guilty, that they resign. That way, the community can move forward to ensure these things don't happen again.

Bill C-3 Debates of May 25, 2010

2010-05-26T07:44:00.000-07:00

This blog is a summary of my initial reaction to the debates on Bill C-3 that took place in the House on Tuesday, May 25, 2010. It is quite clear to me that there is a huge divide between the unanimous voices of Aboriginal peoples on this issue and that of the government. Even the opposition parties have noted the rare unanimity of opinion on this issue. What follows are some of the main items that Canada is using to try to justify passing this Bill:

(1) The Members of Parliament (MPs) must pass Bill C-3 as there is a strict court-imposed deadline of July 1, 2010.

As has already been pointed out by numerous witnesses and the government itself, the court of appeal had already indicated a willingness to grant a longer deadline to amend the Act as it noted the complexity of the Act.

If Canada did seek an extension, they would still be well within the norm of 12-24 months given by the Supreme Court of Canada for amendments.

(2) The government did extensive "consultations" with the National Aboriginal Organizations and others on Bill C-3.

There was in fact NO consultations. There was only, what Canada referred to as "engagement" sessions. In fact, when INAC officials did their presentation to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Annual General Meeting in 2009, they were asked directly if this amounted to consultation. The emphatic answer from INAC officials was "No".

Moreover, there was no money provided to First Nations or Aboriginal groups to "consult" on Bill C-3 with their members; there was no full disclosure of key information and documents; nor was there an assessment of the pros and cons of Bill C-3 provided.

The government's "engagement process" was simply telling a few select Aboriginal groups what would happen and the government did not address the legitimate concerns presented by those groups or the individuals, like myself or Sharon McIvor who also put our concerns in writing.

Had these few meetings been legitimate consultations as outlined in Supre Court of Canada cases like Haida, Taku and Mikisew Cree, the government would have been legally obligated to consult (not engage) with all First Nations and groups impacted by the Bill, and accommodate (not ignore) their legitimate concerns.

If you read CAP's submission during the engagement process (on their website), they highlight the fact that this engagement process was not consultation. The Assembly of First Nations took a similar position.

(3) 45, 000 people will not get to be registered if we dont pass this Bill.

The government itself claims that it cannot do any costing on this Bill because it cannot determine how many people will actually apply for and be granted status. If it can't do that, then it can't use 45,000 as the number of people who won't get status if the bill doesn't pass. The government can't have it both ways - either it's 45,000 and cost that out, or its not.

The issue is not even that these individuals won't be registered; it is that there will be a small delay in their registration until the discrimination issue is properly addressed in a more thought-out amendment. I doubt that any potential registrant would mind a delay of several months if they knew that their brothers, sisters, cousins and children will finally be included in registration.

I, personally, stand to gain from Bill C-3 by being registered as a section 6(2) Indian for the first time. However, I am not about to make a deal with the devil for my own registration at the cost of my children's registration. I only want to be registered when my children can be as well.

Gender discrimination is not resolved if only some people get a benefit - one can't even say that gender discrimination is partially resolved - there is no such thing. Gender discrimination is either eliminated or it is not.

(4) If we dont pass the Bill, 2,000 to 3,000 people will not be registered in British Columbia this year.

First of all, I would challenge this number. I invite any individual to e-mail INAC and ask them for a list of how many people are registered in BC each year over the last 5 years. Then I would ask them to break those registrations down into which section each person was registered under. I think you will see that the vast majority of people are now registered under sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2), both sections of which are NOT affected by the McIvor appeal case.

So, even if Canada could not get a court extension, which they should be trying to do now; a delay of several months to a year would impact only a few hundred registrations and only for a short time and only in BC. Everywhere else in Canada would not be affected by this delay.

I think the minor delay for a few hundred people in BC to ensure Bill C-3 finally eliminates gender discrimination, is a reasonable balance between the immediate needs of those few hundred individuals and the equality rights for thousands of Indian women and their descendants all across the country who suffer from continued exclusion.

(5) It is absolutely necessary to re-include section 9 in Bill C-3 so that Indian women are not fooled into thinking they have a legal right to be compensated for their exclusion from registration based on their gender.

Does that sound right to anyone? I mean even writing it felt ridiculous. Canada has to setp up to the plate and register the descendants of Indian women and finally compensate them for what they have lost. The harms they suffered are equal to those who attended residential schools (aside from the physical aspect) and based on the same assimilatory policies for which Canada has already apologized.

Another argument they raised in debate is that section 9 is necessary to protect First Nations. If the government is legitimately concerned about First Nations liability, they could amend section 9 to only protect First Nations liability and only for status issues.

We all know that this is about protecting Canada from liability for wilful discrimination which continues. By having that provision the government will be able to delay addressing the rest of gender discrimination as long as they deem necessary knowing that they are not liable for the harms suffered by Indian women and their descendants.

(6) We should pass Bill C-3 as-is because the joint process will take care of the other issues.

Where is the commitment for funding for any First Nation or their representative groups to participate in such a joint process? Has anyone received a penny?

Where is a terms of reference for this joint process? Who will direct this process and will it have measurable deliverables?

Where is a committment to deal with specific issues like unstated paternity and illegitimate siblings? Where is the commitment to deal with band membership?

There is no commitment on any of these essential points, just like there was no real commitment with the repeal of section 67 of the CHRA, despite promises to the contrary.

This joint process was meant to be a carrot to get agreement by budget-strapped National Aboriginal organizations who are at the mercy of their funder (the government) to pass an otherwise unacceptable bill.

This bill does not address McIvor even in the narrowest terms because Double Mother Clause descendants still have better status than the descendants of Indian women who married out. It is as plain and simple as that.

Bill C-3 does not address gender discrimination because it cannot be addressed in part. If the elimination of gender discrimination would mean that 100,000 people would be registered, then a bill which would register 20,000, 30,000 or 45,000 people, does not address gender discrimination.

We all see through this "charade", as so aptly put by MP Todd Russell, and we need to support Indian women and their equality rights by voting against the bill.

In the end, I think the majority of Aboriginal peoples and their organizations would gladly accept a delay in addressing registration if it meant we addressed gender discrimination in full.

Canada now must live up to its fiduciary and other legal duties and obligations towards Aboriginal peoples and act in a way that lives up to the honour of the Crown. My children and I are counting on Canada to finally eliminate gender discrimination against Indian women and their descendants. I am willing to hold off on obtaining my own status to ensure this happens for my children.

Copy of Letter sent to Minister of INAC asking Canada to Amend Bill C-3

2010-05-21T10:37:00.000-07:00

Dear Minister Strahl;

RE: Bill C-3

I understand that next week the House will start debate at the report stage of Bill C-3. Please accept this letter as my official request for you to make meaningful amendments to the bill in order to finally end gender discrimination.

Barring substantive amendments, I would ask that you withdraw Bill C-3 as currently drafted and re-introduce a bill that better reflects the values and principles of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our Constitution, and our country as a whole. If you cannot withdraw the Bill for some procedural reason, then I ask that your government vote against it and start over.

Had your government been open to considering reasonable amendments to the Bill in order to address gender discrimination, we, those affected by gender discrimination, would not be put in the position of having to find solutions to the legislative mess created by Canada. The duty always seems to be placed back on the excluded to find ways to make inclusion financially, politically and legally acceptable. This is an unfair burden on Indian women and their descendants who are already disadvantaged from their exclusion.

Indian women and their descendants had no power over which to protect themselves against the assimilationist goals of Canada in 1867, 1951, 1985 or 2010. Furthermore, despite being asked to appear as witnesses and provide more than ample proof that the Indian Act still discriminates against Indian women and their descendants before the Standing Committee, Canada has proceeded as though our unanimous voices do not count in this process. This makes a mockery of the entire process.

The honour of the Crown requires that Canada do more than participate in a superficial "engagement" process which does not consider and take into account our voices, our legitimate concerns and interests and our overall legal rights. By denying our voices, you violate the most basic tenet of the very democracy that Canada holds out as the basis of their nation.

It is time that Canada stopped treating us like wards and started to hear and act on our voices. It is long past the time to stop treating us like museum oddities that are slowly disappearing with time. It is time to stop treating us as though we are only a "race" of people that only deserve a voice if we meet complex, biological calculations of Indian blood. It is time to stop treating us as though we are frozen in time and that anyone who does not wear feathers, obtain a moderate livelihood from hunting or live on a reserve are not entitled to call themselves "Indians".

We did not go away when you took our lands, controlled our resources, outlawed our customs, dishonored our treaties, sent us to residential schools, enfranchised our women and children, or bullied us into poverty. We are here to stay, regardless of the political backlash we may endure from standing up for our rights. Why not put action behind your words and start a new relationship with Aboriginal peoples?

We have a duty to our ancestors who suffered at the hands of settlers and colonial governments to protect our rights, to protect those rights for our future generations seven generations into the future. Supporting yet another amendment to the Indian Act which will not only NOT address the minimal discrimination found in the McIvor appeal case as between double mother clause and section 12(1)(b) reinstatees, but will create new forms of discrimination is irresponsible, unjust and shameful.

Some may pose the question as to whether some amendment is better than no amendment. I would highlight the long, hard struggle of Sharon McIvor over the last 25 years after the last amendment to the Indian Act. Bill C-31 may have granted limited entitlements to limited numbers of people back then, but it created new forms of discrimination at a time when we all knew better and when our Charter asked us to do better. I do not believe that sacrificing the rights of large numbers of individuals for the immediate gratification of a few is a fair trade. Canada has the power to enact an OIC which treats us like Indians while amendments are made to the Act. Canada did it for the Innu and can easily do it for Indian women and their descendants - it's a matter of choice.

Canada has an opportunity to finally show some good faith, to act on both its honour and its legal duties and obligations to take the unanimous voices heard before the Standing Committee on Bill C-3, and make an amendment that finally addresses all gender discrimination in the Indian Act. This is not to say that the Indian Act is the ultimate solution. In fact, most consider other alternatives like First Nation citizenship to be the longer term solution. However, we cannot in good faith allow the Act to continue to discriminate against Indian women and their descendants while we take the next 20-30-20-100 years to work out self-government arrangements.

I ask your government and all the opposition parties to either agree to make substantive amendments to Bill C-3 as it currently reads, or if that is not possible, withdraw the bill, or if that is not possible then vote against it and start over with an amendment that finally grants Indian women and their descendants real substantive equality.

I trust you will consider my comments and concerns and implement my recommendations as noted above. Merci beaucoup de votre consideration.

Sincerely;

(original signed and faxed)

Dr. Pamela D. Palmater, and on behalf of my children and our heirs and heirs forever.

CC: Todd Russell, MP (on behalf of Liberals)
Jean Crowder, MP (on behalf of NDP)
Marc Lemay, MP (on behalf of BQ)

Current Status of Bill C-3

2010-05-12T06:10:00.000-07:00

Bill C-3 - An An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs)(Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act).

This Bill was introduced in the House on March 11, 2010. Debates at second reading were on March 26 & 29, 2010. The Bill was then studied at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) from April 1st-29th, 2010.

During Committee, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Justice Canada and Aboriginal groups and individuals gave evidence about Bill C-3 and how it would or would not address gender inequality under the registration provisions of the Indian Act in response to the McIvor case.

Most of the witnesses recommended amendments to the Bill as drafted. The Committee was struck by the unanimity of the witnesses on the point that Bill C-3 as originally drafted not only does not remedy gender inequality within the Indian Act, it does not even address the McIvor case. Therefore, the Committee made several amendments to Bill C-3 in order to more fully address gender inequality for Indian women and their descendants.

The Committee submitted their report to the House with a revised version of Bill C-3 that contained the amendments. As a result, the Conservatives made a motion asking the Speaker of the House to rule the amendments out of order. Submissions were made by the parties on this point in the House arguing that the Speaker should not rule these amendments out of order.

Howver, on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, the Speaker of the House ruled the amendments relating to status and the title of the Bill out of order and ordered that the Bill be reprinted. The amendments that remain within the Bill is the removal of section 9 (the clause which granted Canada and the Bands immunity from claims) and the new section advanced by the Bloc which requires INAC to provide a report in two years.

The next stage is the official report stage. This cannot happen until at least the week of May 24 because the House has a break next week. At the report stage, the House can consider the Bill as it is reprinted.

They also have a chance to make further amendments to the Bill. However, it is not possible to reintroduce the same amendments that were ruled out of order. Similarly, even if different amendments are suggested, it is still possible for the Conservatives to ask the Speaker of the House to rule them out of order.

It therefore extremely important that the opposition parties work together to select strategic amendments that will address gender inequality within the Indian Act, but ensure that what they advance is not so large as to run the risk of being considered out of scope. I am hopeful that the parties will continue to work with Aboriginal groups and individuals to achieve this goal.

Once the Third Reading has been completed, the Bill, including any additional amendments, will go to the Senate to start the process all over again from the Senate side of the House.

Several of the submissions made by the witnesses can be found on AFN's website. I have also included various submissions on my website - http://www.nonstatusindian.com/ under Current Issues and Bill C-3.

Excerpts of My Presentation to the Standing Committee on Bill C-3

2010-04-19T12:58:00.000-07:00

What follows is an excerpt from my presentation that I will be delivering to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs which is studying a draft of Bill C-3 - Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. Once I make the presentation, I will post my entire presentation online on my website: www.nonstatusindian.com.

Part of the problem with Bill C-3 is how to respect gender equality in practice and not just the law. Delayed equality is not full equality. Canada fought the McIvor case for over 20 years and now proposes a minimal amendment that would require another person like Sharon McIvor to spend another 25 years to seek gender equality on essentially the same facts. An undefined joint process that does not have a specific mandate, clear objectives or identified funding for wide-spread participation does not provide any real comfort that gender discrimination, or any discrimination, will be addressed any time soon.

This situation is coupled with the fact that no additional funding has been identified for bands based on their increased membership numbers. This could result in bands feeling that they do not have sufficient resources to accommodate all their members and may amend or create band membership codes which specifically exclude those affected by Bill C-3. Canada often blames Aboriginal peoples for not being of one mind on these issues.

How quickly Canada forgets that this registration system was not only imposed upon us, but we were never consulted about what we wanted and the decision-making power rests solely with Canada. Aboriginal peoples have been living under the dark cloud of the Indian Act for over 130 years. How could Canada expect any result other than exactly what the Indian Act was designed to do - ensure that we were dependent, divided, and without our beliefs guide us. It's time for Canada to right its wrongs. To do other than address all the gender (and other) discrimination could mean additional and significant delays in justice for Aboriginal women and children with regard to:

(i) equal access to status and band membership;
(ii) equal access to citizenship in self-government agreements;
(iii) equal access to beneficiary status under treaties (historic and modern);
(iv) equal access to beneficiary status under land claim agreements (specific and comprehensive);
(v) an equal political voice in their communities (as electors and/or nominees for chief and council); and
(vi) equal access to programs and services from Canada in relation to health, education, economic development, and tax supports;
(vii) equal access to band programs and services like education & training, headstart, on- reserve schooling, housing, and tax supports; and
(viii) equal access to elders, mentors, leaders, community members, land bases, cultural traditions, customs and practices, cultural events, and language training, etc.

Respecting our Constitution, Charter, CHRA, and international human rights instruments and norms means we no longer have the option to exclude Indian women and their descendants from their birth right on the basis of political compromise, administrative inconvenience, opposition to human rights or added costs. Canada has previously exercised its legislative jurisdiction to amend the Act much more broadly than the litigation required and there is no reason it can't do so again. Let's try to get it right this time - my children are counting on you to uphold Canada's commitment to gender equality and human rights both in the letter and in spirit.

Here are my recommendations with regards to Bill C-3:

(1) I believe that Canada should withdraw the Bill and redraft more appropriate legislation that deals with gender discrimination, in conjunction with Sharon McIvor and other Aboriginal technical experts from the AFN, NWAC, and CAP.

If this could not be done, then I would recommend the following:

(2) Make an amendment to section 2 of Bill C-3, by adding the words "or was born prior to April 17, 1985 and was a direct descendant of such a person" to section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act, 1985;

(3) Delete sections 3 and 4 of Bill C-3 and any references to a new section 6(1)(c.1) of the Indian Act;

(4) A new section should be added before or after sections 7 and 8 of Bill C-3 that provide protections for Bill C-3 individuals with regards to band membership, especially for those born pre-1985;

(5) Section 9 of Bill C-3 should be deleted in its entirety or amended to provide limited protection for bands and only in relation to status;

(6) Adequate funding be provided to First Nations for band-delivered programs and services based on their increased membership numbers (if any) and funding to enable all bands to draft membership codes, to review their current band membership codes and make the necessary amendments to incorporate gender equality;

(7) Canada, in partnership with AFN, NWAC, CAP, Aboriginal communities and individuals negotiate a process by which to compensate those affected by Bill C-3 (or some other form of the Bill) in the fairest, quickest manner possible;

(8) Additional legislation be drafted in partnership with AFN, NWAC, CAP, Aboriginal communities and individuals to proactively address the remaining aspects of gender discrimination in the Indian Act; and

(9) That Canada, in partnership with AFN, NWAC, CAP, Aboriginal communities and individuals negotiate the mandate, terms of reference, funding structures and deliverable objectives of the joint consultation process that will lead to further amendments dealing with the larger discrimination and jurisdiction issues under the Indian Act in the short term, and negotiate a similar process to engage in longer term solutions like modern treaties, self-government agreements and so forth.

Obviously my presentation contained a great deal more detail about what the actual problems were with Bill C-3, but this lets everyone know what I'm thinking in terms of go-forward solutions. Keep an eye on my website for my entire presentation which will be posted later on this week.

Bill C-3 Creates More Discrimination than it Remedies

2010-03-25T07:35:00.000-07:00

As with all my blogs, the contents are my own personal views and should never be taken as legal advice.

In my last blog, I provided some of my concerns with regards to Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act which was introduced on March 11, 2010. The purpose of this blog will be to review Bill C-3 in much more detail. However, readers should be aware that this Bill is not yet law and must go through several more stages before it even has a chance at being law.

First it is introduced in the House of Commons and given its first reading, which is really just a presentation of the Bill - like what Minister Strahl did with Bill C-3. It must then go through a second reading (where the principle of the Bill is debated) and then referred to committee for study. It is at this stage that the committee will hear witnesses and comments about each section of the Bill. The next stage is the report stage where amendments can be made and then this is followed by the third and final reading. If the Bill is passed by the House of Commons then it is sent to Senate where the process is repeated. Assuming that it passes through the Senate, then the Governor General can give the Bill "Royal Assent" and will become law on the day of assent unless the Bill says otherwise.

There is still some time before this Bill becomes law, so it is very important that we all submit our comments and views about it to our Members of Parliament (MPs), Senators, Minister Strahl, our Aboriginal representative organizations, Liberal Aboriginal Affairs Critic, Todd Russell, and any other group or organization that you feel will bring the message forward on your behalf. I have already sent my letter to Minister Strahl and this blog will provide a brief overview of some of my comments/concerns.

First of all, my providing comments to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) does not equate with acceptance or agreement with Bill C-3 or its amendments. It is my opinion that Canada does NOT have the jurisdiction to determine our identities - legally, culturally, politically or otherwise. However, I realize that practically speaking, the Indian Act will be amended whether I agree or not and I would rather have my input into those changes than not. That being said, I do not condone such a limited amendment as that presented in Bill C-3 which clearly does NOT address all of the blatant gender discrimination in the status provisions of the Indian Act. This problem is only transported into the band membership rules as a result.

In numerous discussions with other lawyers and community members, I have identified at least three very specific problems with the proposed amendments:

(1) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) contains awkward, confusing wording that creates a great deal
of uncertainty and ambiguity about what this section is meant to accomplish;

(2) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) contains new, additional criteria that is discriminatory, illogical, counter to how status is normally transmitted, and completely unnecessary in order to effect a proper gender equity remedy; and

(3) Section 9 contains an overly broad, offensive and unjust insulation from liability for Canada and the bands, for Canada's role in creating and perpetuating gender discrimination against Indian women who married out and their descendants.

I will deal with each of the above concerns separately and summarize my recommendations at the end.

(1) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) specifically provides as follows:

(iii) was born on or after the day on which the marriage referred to in subparagraph (i) occurred and, unless the person's parents married each other prior to April 17, 1985, was born prior to that date, and...

This section is awkwardly worded and as such creates a great deal of uncertainty about its potential application. What was Canada's intention with this section? Where did this wording come from?

I would recommend that section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) be amended for greater clarity with an explanatory note that very clearly specifies what it is meant to accomplish and how.

(2) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) provides as follows:

(iv) had or adopted a child, on or after September 4, 1951, with a person who was not entitled to be registered on the day on which the child was born or adopted;

This section has the effect of creating a new way to determine entitlement to registration and, as a result, creates a new form of discrimination as between the siblings of the Indian women who married out. What this additional criterion does is determine entitlement to registration based on the status or lack thereof of the applicant's children. Status has always been determined based on the entitlement of one's parents, i.e. parents transmit their status to their children - not vice versa.

This is both illogical and discriminatory. It is illogical because it does not reflect either the trial court's or the Court of Appeal's decision in McIvor. It is discriminatory because it creates new, inequitable distinctions between the sibling children of Indian women who married out. The problem can be seen in the following way:

(1) If the children of Indian women who married out have Non-Status Indian children (or disentitled children), their children can only be registered under section 6(2) and cannot share in the same identity as their parent; will not be able to transmit status to their children in their own right; and will be excluded from membership in bands that exclude section 6(2) Indians or their equivalent.

Despite the fact that the section 6(2) parent will become a section 6(1)(c.1) Indian and therefore have a higher chance of becoming a band member, they suffer in the sense that they can't pass on equal identity and rights to their children and therefore their children have a higher chance of not being accepted in their community.

(2) On the other hand, if the section 6(2) parent had status Indian children, then these section 6(1) Indian children have a higher chance of becoming band members than their section 6(2) parent who will remain as a section 6(2) Indian.

In this way, the section 6(2) Indian parent will personally suffer for having had status Indian children, because they will not receive the Bill C-3 gender equity remedy solely because their children are status Indians.

The descendants of Indian women who married out seem to be punished time and again for not being able to manage the Indian Act's entitlement formula that is really designed to disentitle people. This is beyond unjust - it violates our inherent right to our Aboriginal identities and to be self-determining in our own individual and collective lives.

Canada is once again interfering with the most private and intimate part of our lives - how and when and with whom we decide to have relations - in order to limit and/or reduce the status Indian population.

Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) ignores the gender discrimination imposed on the children of Indian women who married out and suggests that this discrimination skipped a generation and fell solely on the grandchildren and, as a result, only the grandchildren are entitled to a remedy.

What could possibly be the purpose of this section, but to limit as much as possible, the number of status Indians who will be entitled to band membership and to limit the overall number of Indians in the future?

I would recommend that section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) be deleted in its entirety. It is not necessary to achieve gender equity as a result of the McIvor case.

(3) Section 9 provides as follows:

9. For greater certainty, no person or body has a right to claim or receive any compensation, damages or indemnity from Her Majesty in right of Canada, any employee or agent of Her Majesty, or a council of a band for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the exercise of theirpowers or the performance of their duties, only because

(a) a person was not registered, or did not have their name entered in a Band List, immediately before the day on which this Act comes into force; and

(b) one of the person's parents is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(c.1) of the Indian Act, as enacted by subsection 2(3).

This section is an insult to Indian women and their descendants all over this country. Not only was Canada forced to make amendments to address gender inequality after fighting against the McIvor case for over 20 years; and not only has Canada proposed a very minimalist amendment; now Canada wants to ensure that it does not have to compensate the victims of gender discrimination?

When Bill C-31 was amended to reinstate Indian women who had married out, Canada denied compensation to Indian women who married out on the basis that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not in effect pre-85 and it argued that it could not be held liable for laws that were not in effect at the time.

However, the Charter has been in force for many decades since 1985 and Canada cannot now say they can't be held liable for discriminatory actions that took place well after the Charter was in force. To do otherwise is to perpetuate the very negative stereotypes against Indian women that McIvor (and others) fought against - that they are less worthy, less Aboriginal, and less able to transmit their Aboriginality to their children simply by virtue of being Aboriginal women.

Furthermore, findings of discrimination are based on effect, not on intention, and those victims that have suffered due to this discrimination deserve to be compensated - no less so that the victims of residential schools.

Prime Minister Harper acknowledged that the assimilatory foundation upon which the residential school policy was designed was wrong; he apologized to the victims on behalf of all Canadians; and ensured that the victims were compensated. Aside from the physical aspect of residential schools, Indian status has had the same harmful effects on Indians and especially Indian women, as residential schools. By discriminating against Indian women and their descendants, they have suffered separation from their communities, family divisions, loss of identity, culture, language and dignity. Furthermore, their continued lack of access to federal programs and services have greatly affect their quality of life and their overall chances in life.

By denying compensation to Indian women and their descendants for the same types of harms as were suffered in residential schools, Canada sends the message that Aboriginal women are somehow not deserved of redress or compensation for the harms suffered from gender discrimination created by Canada under the Indian Act.

If there was any doubt as to the continued discrimination against Indian women, even in this amendment meant to address gender inequity, one need only refer to the privileged and protected positions of status of Indian men and their non-Indian wives and descendants. Throughout this process, non-Indians have been and continue to be protected under the Indian Act simply because of their association with Indian men.

Non-Indian women who married Indian men gained status and benefits and non-Indian children were adopted and gained status. Not only did these non-Indians gain status, they were entitled to all the benefits, rights and interests that go with that status, including band membership, reserve residency, voting and running in band elections and a share of treaty and land claim benefits. The preservation of their status is guaranteed at every turn, where Indian women and their descendants must continually fight for it.

Yet, non-status Indian children who are Aboriginal by birth, identity and culture, were excluded on the basis of gender discrimination which was known by Canada to be discriminatory and which has since been found to be discriminatory. Even with this minimalistic and highly problematic Bill C-3, there still won't be gender equality between Indian men and women.

The majority of parents struggling with poor socio-economic conditions in Aboriginal communities are single Indian mothers. The majority of off-reserve Aboriginal people suffering from poor socio-economic conditions are the descendants of Indian women who married out. Canada has publically stated that access to educational opportunities is the key to improving life for Aboriginal peoples. How many Indian women and their descendants could have gone to university to make a better life for themselves, their children, their families and communities had they been registered?

I would recommend that section 9 either be deleted in its entirety or amended to provide limited protections for the bands and only in relation to the determination of status.

Summary of Recommendations:

(1) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) should be amended for greater clarity with an explanatory note as to what it is meant to accomplish;

(2) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) should be deleted in its entirety; and

(3) Section 9 should either be deleted in its entirety, or amended to provide limited protection for the bands in regards to status only.

I hope that you will all consider my comments and offer your own feedback to our elected leaders so that gender discrimination is not perpetuated, but is finally addressed.

UPDATED - Bill C-3 - Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

2010-03-12T11:45:00.000-08:00

Sharon McIvor went to court to challenge the gender discrimination in section 6 of the Indian Act, 1985. Registration under the Indian Act provides greater entitlements to Indian men who married out (married a non-Indian) and their descendants as compared with Indian women who married out.

McIvor won both at trial and on appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear any further appeal. While the trial court would have offered a broader remedy, the court of appeal limited the scope of the discrimination and therefore made comments which suggested to Canada that it might get away with a minimalist amendment. (For further information on the McIvor case, see my previous blog entry).

As a result of these legal proceedings, Canada embarked upon a very short "engagement" process. It chose not to consult with Aboriginal peoples about the need to amend the Indian Act and instead presented Aboriginal groups with their proposed amendment. Prior to the amendments being released, most understood that the proposed amendment would grant section 6(1) status to the children of Indian women who married out (they are currently section 6(2) Indians) and grant for the first time, section 6(2) status to the grandchildren. However, it now appears that this is NOT the case.

On Thursday, March 12, 2010 Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC) Chuck Strahl introduced Bill C-3 An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs) into the House of Commons. This Bill will have to go through both Parliament and the Senate in order to become law.

With regard to the grandchildren of Indian women who married out, the Bill seems to be on track with what Canada proposed during the engagement sessions held in 2009. INAC has published a document to explain how the legislative amendments are intended to apply to individuals who are the grandchildren of Indian women who married out. Canada explains that if an individual can answer the following three questions, they are encouraged to apply for registration:

(1) Did your grandmother lose her Indian status as a result of marrying a non-Indian?

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

(3) Were you born on or after September 4, 1951?

The problem comes when the children (not grandchildren) of Indian women who married out ask themselves whether they qualify for a change in Indian status from section 6(2) to section 6(1)? The short answer is YES - if they had disentitled kids (non-status Indian kids) and NO - if they never had any kids or had kids with another registered Indian therefore making their children "entitled".

Although not highlighted in their publication which explains how the new amendments might affect individuals, in one of their explanation documents, INAC provides the following check list to determine which section 6(2) Indians will be entitled to registration under the proposed section 6(1)(c.1):

(1) Did your mother lose status for marrying an Indian man?
(2)Is your father a non-Indian?
(3) Were you born AFTER your mom lost status but BEFORE 1985 (unless your parents married each other prior to 1985)?
(4)Did you have a child with a non-Indian on or after September 4, 1951?

Number 3 is somewhat complex and confusing and seems to be an awkward attempt to prevent the possibility that any of the descendants of Indian women might have enhanced status. However, number 4 creates a whole new division amongst section 6(2) Indians - (1) those who had "disentitled" (non-status) kids and those without kids, and (2) those with disentitled kids and those with status Indian kids.

For the first time in the Indian Act's history, one's specific entitlement to Indian status will depend in part on whether one has children, and more specifically whether one has non-status Indian children. Status has always been determined based on one's parents. This new section would now put the focus on the status of one's children. This is absolutely ridiculous and completely unnecessary in order to acheive the goal of addressing the inequity between the decendants of Indian women versus Indian men.

This Bill is supposed to address gender inequity and not create more inequity and division between siblings and families. This is a significant matter that must be addressed before the Bill is passed.

At the same time that Canada announced the Bill, they also indicated that there would be a joint process developed in conjunction with Aboriginal organizations, First Nations groups and individuals to try to address the broader issues around registration, band membership, treaties and other cultural issues.

But some non-Aboriginal people are asking the question: why should Canadians care about this legislation? This is actually a good question that needs to be addressed.

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood before Parliament and apologized to the survivors of the residential school system, he did so on behalf of all Canadians. While there has been a great deal of debate about the adequacy of the apology and an obvious lack of corresponding action, the fact remains that an apology was made.

PM Harper apologized for the assimilatory foundation upon which the residential school policy was based. The goal of assimilation was based on the idea that European culture was superior to Aboriginal cultures. In addition to the physical and sexual abuse experienced by Aboriginal peoples in residential schools, they also suffered from divided families and communities, and a loss of language, culture and identity that has resulted in significant social ills within Aboriginal communities both on and off-reserve.

What Canadians have to remember is that the Indian Act and its predecessor legislation is based on the very same assimilatory foundation as the residential school policy and it has caused the very same division of families and communities, and loss of language, culture and identity. The Indian Act went even further to incorporate a male-preference for registration, membership, residency, voting rights, and access to Aboriginal and treaty rights as well as various programs and services.

Canada essentially incorporated an idea into the Act that gave the message to communities that Aboriginal women were less worthy and less capable of passing on Aboriginal identity and culture. This has had an incredibly damaging affect on both Aboriginal women and their communities.

Yet, Canada, as a Nation, does not stand for racism or sexism. Canada publically holds itself out to the international community as being a modern, democratic country which values human rights, gender equality and multi-culturalism. If this is indeed representative of Canadian values as a whole, then Canadians ought to care very deeply whether laws affecting Aboriginal peoples also represent a respect for human rights, gender equality and respect for Aboriginal culture.

The Indian Act's registration provisions were based on outdated, assimilatory goals and include a formula that ensures the eventual legislative extinction of Aboriginal peoples. Canada must take action to amend the Act in a meaningful, significant way that reflects our core values as Canadians, at least until something else replaces the Act. The current proposed amendment does not do this.

By not amending the registration provisions in any significant way, we are allowing assimilation to continue. This lack of action not only violates basic human rights related to gender and identity, it also violates section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which represents not only the highest law of the land, but a significant promise to Aboriginal peoples to protect their culture and identity for future generations.

Canada accepts tens of thousands of new immigrants to this country every year, who draw upon Canada's financial and other resources, yet Canada fought tooth and nail against Sharon McIvor for over 20 years to avoid having to register the descendents of Indian women. That does not represent a commitment to gender equity for Aboriginal peoples - it represents more of the assimilatory attitudes upon which this Act was originally based.

We wouldn't accept the reopening of residential schools - therefore Canadians should not stand for the continued assimilation of Aboriginal peoples through the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

One can only hope that the joint process announced by Canada will address these urgent issues.

McIvor is Just the Start - The Indian Act is Full of Discrimination

2010-02-22T14:20:00.000-08:00

So by now, everyone has heard of the McIvor case and knows that the registration provisions of the Indian Act, otherwise referred to as "status", will be amended as a result. The question remains: what are we going to do about the discrimination that won't be addressed by those amendments?

For anyone who hasn't heard of Sharon McIvor v. Canada - a brief overview of the case is necessary. Sharon McIvor is a status Indian and member of the Lower Nicola Band in British Columbia. However, she wasn't always a status Indian. For most of her life, she was a non-status Indian because she traced her ancestry through her maternal side. Had she been able to trace her ancestry through her paternal side, status would not have been a question.

In 1985 when Bill C-31 was passed and the Indian Act was amended, McIvor applied for status. When her application for status was denied by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), she immediately appealed the decision to the Registrar at INAC. She later filed a claim in court alleging gender discrimination in section 6 of the Indian Act. While INAC had reconsidered her application and gave her status under section 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act, her son Jacob was only entitled to section 6(2) status and her grandchildren were not entitled at all.

It was for the sake of her grandchildren that she pursued the claim in court despite the fact that she was already registered. She argued that her inability to transmit Indian status to her grandchildren, while Indian men in her position could do so, amounted to gender discrimination. More importantly, she argued that registration as an Indian impacts both individual identity and communal membership and therefore stands for more than just access to programs and services.

At trial, the court agreed with McIvor and found that section 6 of the Act discriminated between the descendants of female Indians versus male Indians born before 1985 and thus violated section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The court crafted a complex remedy to fix the discrimination which might have been somewhat difficult to apply and would have left band membership unaffected. So, the matter was appealed.

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia agreed with the trial court that section 6 of the Act discriminated on the basis of sex (gender) contrary to section 15 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal found that the remedy at trial was too broad and seemed to limit the extent of the discrimination as between those affected by the double mother clause (children whose mother and paternal grandmother were non-Indians by birth) and Indian women who married out (married non-Indian men). The subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was rejected.

Canada then embarked upon an "engagement" process - accepting submissions or comments from Aboriginal peoples and organizations, but not officially consulting with Aboriginal peoples. The process was also very rushed - from August to November 2009. Canada's reason for proceeding this way was due to the need to have legislation drafted before April 1, 2010. However, by proroguing Parliament, Canada's excuse that it needed to rush is somewhat questionable.

Canada offered two amendment options to Aboriginal peoples for consideration:

Specifically, the amendment concept under consideration would provide Indian registration under s. 6(2) of the Indian Act to any grandchild of a woman:

(a) who lost status due to marrying a non-Indian; and

(b) whose children born of that marriage had the grandchild with a non-Indian after September 4, 1951 (when the "double mother" rule was first included in the Indian Act).

To accomplish this, section 6(1) of the Indian Act would be amended to include any person in the situation of the "child" mentioned in (b) above.

A more narrow amendment concept, which the Government does not propose to pursue, would limit its application to situations where the woman's child (the subsequent parent of the grandchild with a non- Indian) was born before 1985.

In either case, the band membership provisions of the Indian Act would also be amended to include these registrants. McIvor has commented that these proposed amendments do not address the gender discrimination raised in her case. For example, the grandchildren of Indian women who married out will only be entitled to registration as an Indian under section 6(2). Yet, the grandchildren of Indian men who married out are registered under section 6(1).

What are we, as Aboriginal people going to do about the blatant gender discrimination that remains in the Act? Perhaps we need to think about pursuing the McIvor case in the international human rights forum. I don't think we have enough time to wait for multiple cases to each work their way through domestic courts as McIvor's case alone took over 24 years. Canada has too much a vested interest in our lands and resources to amend the Act in any meaningful way.

How many more generations of Aboriginal peoples will be denied their individual identities and be excluded from their communities because of Canada's discriminatory Indian Act if we wait another 10, 20, 50 years? How many more generations, like mine and my childrens' will miss out on desperately needed education assistance, medical benefits and the opportunity to contribute to the capacity and development of our communities?

McIvor's case only dealt with one small group of Aboriginal people who are discriminated against. There are numerous ways in which the registration provisions of the Act discriminate against Aboriginal peoples:

(1) Gender discrimination - An individual traces their Aboriginal ancestry through their maternal line (mother, grandmother, greatgrandmother) instead of through the paternal line (father, grandfather, greatgrandfather);

* Although the amendments to the Act in response to McIvor will address some of these people, it will not address of those affected by this kind of gender discrimination.

(2) Arbitrary cut-off date - The date on which a person was born means that some pre-1985 babies have status, but those born post-1985 may not;

(3) Illegitimate siblings - Brothers and sisters from the same family may or may not have status based on whether their parent was male or female and whether the child was male or female and born out of wedlock;

(4) Unstated paternity - If an unwed Indian woman does not name the father of her child, there is a legal presumption that the father did not have status - this results in the child having lesser or no status;

(5) Métis scrip takers - Aboriginal peoples who took scrip are not eligible for status regardless of their actual cultural identities as Indians versus Métis;

(6) Second generation cut-off - Indians may be refused status because one of their parents do not have status - this equates to a blood quantum requirement that discriminates against those children of mixed marriages;

(7) Non-Aboriginal preference - (a) Non-Aboriginal women who gained status through marriage are allowed to keep their status and pass on better status to their children than Aboriginal women and their children; (b) Adoptions - Non-Aboriginal children who are adopted into Indian families can have better status than Aboriginal children born of Indian parent(s).

As can be seen by the above, there are numerous discrimination issues that need to be addressed in the Act.

It is time for Canada to pull itself out of the dark ages, and put some action behind its apology. When Canada apologized for residential schools and the assimilatory attitudes upon which that policy was based - it seemed to forget that the Indian Act's status provisions were designed to assimilate Aboriginal peoples into the dominant society and continues to do so.

Canada does not have the right or authority to determine the individual or communal identities of Aboriginal peoples. Canada's authority under section 91(24) may give it the legislative jurisdiction to manage the relationship with "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians" but that does not confer a right to determine our identities. This is a right that is inherent to the right of Aboriginal peoples to be self-determining. Canada has negatively impacted our identities for generations - it's time we were able to heal and re-assert our own identities.

No where in out treaties did it say that there was a cut-off date for determining Aboriginality nor was registration even contemplated when our treaties were signed. It is time to assert our authority in this area. True Nations do not let other Nations tell them how to determine their own citizenship. Our treaties were negotiated by our ancestors for the benefit of our "heirs and heirs forever". It is time for Canada to undo the harm it has caused.

I believe that a whole-scale review of the Indian Act is necessary to bring all provisions of the Act in line with the Charter, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Constitution Act and all international human rights covenants to which Canada is bound. Obviously, amendments to the Indian Act would be an interim solution until such time as modern treaty, land claim and/or self-government agreements have been negotiated. The only question is whether Canada is willing to put action behind its apology and whether Aboriginal people are ready to protect their future generations?

Mohawks or Canada's Disappearing Indians?

2010-02-11T15:36:00.000-08:00

The subject of racial purity is such a large one that it would be impossible to do it any justice in a simple blog. Similarly, the idea of using blood quantum to determine an individual's identity and right to belong to their community is so complex that all I can expect to accomplish with this blog is provide food for thought. However, for those who are interested, I am currently editing my book on this subject in the hopes of publishing it sometime in 2010.

Over the last few weeks, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal media have picked up a story that strikes at the heart of what it means to be an Aboriginal person in Canada. Are Mohawks, Mi'kmaq, Cayuga, Cree and Maliseet the biological result of nothing more than a simple formula to determine one's blood purity - or does being Mohawk have more to do with common histories, ancestors, and territories or the sharing of common languages, customs, traditions and cultures? The Mohawk Indian Band Council in Kahnawake, through its Indian Act chief, Mike Delisle, have once again communicated the message that they are a blood club.

However, before I deal with the core issues, a little context is necessary. Kahnawake, unlike the majority of bands in Canada, post their membership rules on their website for all to see. Most bands who have their own membership codes do not post their codes publically and sometimes refuse to provide copies to their own band members and/or potential band members. By way of anecdote, I have been sending letters to my own band for several years attempting to obtain both a copy of their membership code and an application form so that my children and I can apply. My phone calls and letters continue to go unanswered. I share this experience with a great number of band members and potential band members who attempt to seek information from their communities to no avail. I have to give credit to Kahnawake for making their membership code public and easily accessible to their members and potential members alike.

According to the Indian Act, 1985, band membership is generally given to status Indians who are associated with a specific band upon their application to have their name entered on the band list. This list is maintained by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). However, pursuant to section 10 of the Act, bands are permitted to enact their own membership codes and maintain their own band lists, so long as they have a community vote and the majority votes in favour of the code. Their initial code must be submitted to INAC for approval, but once that is done there is no further requirement for bands to submit updated or amended codes. It took me many years of dealing with INAC's Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) process, but I was finally provided with all the band membership codes in Canada. Having read every single one, I can tell you that blood quantum is not a common criteria.

Getting back to the issue at hand, there have been numerous headlines about Kahnawake's decision to evict non-Mohawks. The key issue appears to be that Kahnawake has a rule that no non-Mohawks can live on their reserve. Yet, Mohawks are still marrying out, having common law relationships with non-Mohawks and having children with non-Mohawks. As a result, Kahnawake has delivered notices to a group of non-Mohawks advising them that they are to be evicted. Some of the headlines I have seen recently include:

"If you marry out, you move out"

"Why Mohawks evict non-Natives"

"Racism on the reserve"

"Kahnawake non-Mohawk eviction deadline looms"

"Mohawk Chief denies ethnic cleansing"

"Natives only please"

"Not Native, then leave reserve Mohawks say"

So, is it non-Mohawks who must leave the reserve, or non-Natives? If the answer is non-Mohawks, then what is a non-Mohawk? If it's non-Native, how does the inclusion of other non-Mohawk Aboriginal peoples (like Mi'kmaq) further Kahnawake's goal of Mohawk identity preservation?

One would assume that a non-Mohawk is a non-Aboriginal person. Many of the reports noted above appear to indicate this is the case. However, if this residency rule is applied "evenly", then it might also apply to Mohawks who don't meet the blood quantum requirement for band membership. But what about Aboriginal people who are not Mohawks? What happens if a Mohawk woman lives with a Mi'kmaq man?

Mi'kmaq people are not Mohawks. They have very different cultures, languages, customs, traditions and territories. Yet, it is my understanding that Mi'kmaq people who are married to Mohawks can apply to transfer their band membership from their Mi'kmaq band to the Kahnawake band. This is the same for any band member across the country. If this is the case, then what Kahnawake is really protecting is a generic "Indian" identity and not a Mohawk one after all.

More than that, the majority of Indian bands in Canada do not explicitly use blood quantum to determine membership. But they do use the Indian Act rules, which since 1985 include a second-generation cut-off rule which amounts to a blood quantum rule of 25% or 1/4 blood. It is quite foreseeable then, that an Aboriginal person who is a band member of some other reserve could transfer their membership to Kahnawake and become a "Mohawk" band member. This would mean that non-Mohawk Aboriginal people of less than 50% blood quantum could become "Mohawk" and have the right to live on Kahnawake, but actual Mohawk people with less than 50% blood quantum would be refused membership and possibly residency. Even worse, Mohawk band members who live with non-Mohawks could be forced to leave the reserve.

Setting aside the interests of non-Aboriginal people for one minute, Kahnawake's residency rules do little to advance Mohawk culture, and instead create situations of pain, heart-ache, division, exclusion, break-up of families, and loss of cultural connection. Not only is the rule an offence to the dignity of Mohawks who have non-Aboriginal partners, it is counter to their own Mohawk history, traditions and customs. The reserve could end up being comprised of "Mohawk" band members who are not Mohawk at all, while actual Mohawks must live off reserve.

In much of the research that I have read about Mohawk people, and especially that of Kahnawake, sources seem to indicate that Mohawks were traditionally very inclusive in terms of citizenship and as a result, have a high degree of mixed ancestries in their community. Gerald Alfred wrote about the identity struggles in Kahnawake in his book "Heeding the Voices of our Ancestors":

Kahnawake as a community had traditionally been extremely receptive to the integration of outsiders. Mission records from the early period of the community’s history confirm that Mohawks at Kahnawake had continued the practice of adopting and assimilating captives, resulting in a diverse racial mixture within the Mohawk community. Even into the modern era, Kahnawake Mohawks accepted many non-Native people through marriage and among those residents who came to enjoy community membership and later formal recognition of this membership through inclusion as status Indians when the Indian Act system was implemented in Kahnawake during the 20th century. (p.163)

Alfred explains that the community assimilated the racist ideas of the Indian Act in terms of what it meant to be an Indian - i.e. a Mohawk , and blended European notions of "race" with their desire to protect their cultural identity. As a result, some members of Kahnawake actually believe that blood quantum is the only way to protect their culture, despite the fact that this concept was completely alien to their traditional ways of viewing their identity and citizenship. Alfred concludes that part of the problem is that the community had not acknowledged the deep extent to which community members have internalized Indian Act ways of thinking and therefore do not realize that instead of rejecting the Indian Act, they are actually perpetuating it!

How can a community expect to protect its culture if they can so easily turn their backs on their own children and grandchildren? In my opinion, some (not all) community members and leaders have been under the dark cloud of colonialism for so long, that it is hard for them to see their identity through any other eye, than that of the federal government - who, as we all know, designed the Indian Act and its policies with a view to assimilating Aboriginal peoples based on racist conceptions of blood purity. Colonial policies were designed to divide communities and families and impose a generic "Indian" identity on all Aboriginal peoples with a legislated formula designed to ensure their eventual disappearance.

How ironic is it then, that the leaders in Kahnawake would adopt policies which accomplish the exact same thing? Kahnawake currently operates under the Indian Band Council governance system set forth under the Indian Act; it limits their territories with which they form an identity to the reserves that were created by Indian Affairs; they label their citizens as "band members" pursuant to the Indian Act, and they assert that the only real Mohawks are those with 50% Mohawk blood or more. In actual fact, Kahnawake's rules speed up the assimilation process much faster than even the Indian Act rules!

No wonder the Chief is worried that the federal government will walk on to their reserve one day and say "You're not Indians anymore". Using blood as the sole indicator of identity guarantees this eventuality. We are Nations within a Nation and our people will continue to live, love and interact with other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Nations. Intermarriage is a human right and fact of life. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge the damage done to our Aboriginal identities by Canada and the Indian Act; recognize how much of this racist thinking has been internalized to our ways of thinking about ourselves; and take steps to protect our real identities for the well-being of our present generations, for the benefit of our future generations, and to honour the identities of our ancestors.

Aboriginal Peoples in NB not Consulted on Proposed Sale of NB Power to Québec

2010-02-04T08:52:00.000-08:00

The Premier of New Brunswick (NB) announced in 2009 that NB had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Hydro-Québec that would involve the transfer/sale of NB Power and/or its assets to Québec (or part thereof). Premier Shawn Graham explained that this is necessary for all New Brunswickers: "By entering into this agreement, New Brunswick is securing access to affordable, clean hydroelectricity, which will make the province's economy more competitive and provide a cleaner environment for future generations of New Brunswickers." The obvious question being: do New Brunswickers feel the same way?

It is the province's goal to enter into a legal, binding agreement with Hydro-Québec by March 31, 2010. I fail to see how the Premier could possibly finalize an agreement with Hydro-Québec by March 31, 2010, if he also plans on informing Aboriginal communities about how this deal might impact their Aboriginal and treaty rights, including their land claims and also engaging in proper consultations with them. It is not as if he hasn't been given due notice that there are unresolved land claims in New Brunswick. Both on and off-reserve Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples have informed NB about their land claims and that they expect to be consulted on decisions made by NB that could impact those claims and their Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Firstly, NB signed a bilateral agreement with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet Chiefs that had as its goal (in part) to: "facilitate communication and consultation between First Nations Leaders and their constituents and between the Province and its citizens" on a wide variety of issues. The very first item listed for discussion and consultation is "Land and Resources". Given the reaction of the NB Chiefs in the recent media reports, it does not appear as if NB has lived up to its part of the deal.

Secondly, the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples (NBAPC) which represents Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people living off-reserve in NB was not included in the above-mentioned bilateral agreement. However, that does not absolve NB of its legal obligations to inform the off-reserve Aboriginal peoples represented by the NBAPC of the implications of this proposed deal, consult with them and accommodate their interests and concerns. As this was not done, Frank Palmater, a Director of the NBAPC sent a letter to the Premier in November 2009 reminding him of their outstanding land claim and NB's legal obligation to consult with them before any decisions are made with regard to NB Power and its assets. It reads in part:

" As you know, the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy Peoples in New Brunswick have never surrendered or ceded their traditional territories. They did not sign treaties which gave up rights to their lands, nor have they since settled a comprehensive land claim ceding their Aboriginal and treaty rights to their land in exchange for anything. In fact, as you also know, the NBAPC and other Aboriginal groups have received funding in the past to complete land claims research with a view to submitting a formal claim. All that was missing was the province of New Brunswick’s commitment to negotiate.

I refer you to the book, Our Land: The Maritimes: The Basis of the Indian Claim in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, edited by former President of the NBAPC, Gary Gould and his collaborator, Allan Semple. The book publically asserted both a historical and legal basis of Aboriginal title in New Brunswick. The NBAPC has also advocated on behalf of its members with regards to their claims to Aboriginal title in New Brunswick. The fact that the province of New Brunswick has ignored our claims does not mean that we have not made those claims and maintain them.

As you are aware, there are numerous legal cases that have been heard at the Supreme Court of Canada relating to fiduciary duty, the honour of the Crown and the duty to consult and accommodate with regards to Aboriginal peoples and their interests. ...This duty to consult and accommodate applies regardless of whether our Aboriginal title right has been confirmed in court of law. The duty is triggered when the province of New Brunswick has “real or constructive knowledge” of the “potential existence” of the Aboriginal right or title claimed.

Therefore, the province of New Brunswick must not only act honourably in all of its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, which includes the NBAPC, it must also consider both their historical and future relationship with Aboriginal peoples. This relationship has as its base, our treaties and our traditional lands upon which we currently share with the province. ...

Practically speaking, this means that our Aboriginal title to our traditional territories in New Brunswick act as a “burden” to the province’s title and, as such, it cannot be sold, traded and/or otherwise dealt with unless and until our underlying Aboriginal title claims have been addressed. In other words, you do not have the right to even consider the sale of NB Power and/or its assets to another province because NB Power and its assets sit on lands which are claimed by the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples in New Brunswick and the sale, trade or loan of NB Power and/or its assets can and will have a negative impact on our land claim once it is finally addressed. Moreover, it is also our understanding that there are various specific land claims relating to NB Power and/or its assets that have yet to be addressed. ...

Therefore, this letter will:

(1) Re-assert our long-standing claim to Aboriginal title in the lands traditionally used and/or occupied by the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy in New Brunswick, a right which is protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

(2) Remind the Province of New Brunswick of its legal and moral obligations to act honourably and in good faith and to both consult with us and accommodate our interests with regards to the proposed sale of NB Power and/or its assets; and

(3) Request that the Province of New Brunswick meet with us immediately to establish a process to finally address our long-outstanding Aboriginal title claim as well as our treaty and other rights in New Brunswick, before considering the sale of NB Power and/or its assets."

The Premier promptly responded to this letter on December 7, 2009 by indicating that no binding agreement had yet been signed and that NB, would in fact, be meeting with the NBAPC on this issue within the "next few months". When the NBAPC failed to hear from the Premier, Frank Palmater sent another letter reminding him of the looming deadline and the province's legal obligations to consult. Now, the Chiefs of New Brunswick are also pointing out the lack of consultation.

For the benefit of all New Brunswickers: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, the Premier ought to slow down this run-away train and avoid a complete disaster (legally and politically) and take time to:

(1) properly inform communities about the specific implications of this proposed deal;

(2) consult in an appropriate manner; and

(3) accommodate the interests, rights and concerns raised during consultations.

Our land and resources are worth at least the time it takes to have this discussion.

What is Aboriginal Identity?

2010-01-22T08:31:00.000-08:00

That is both an easy question and a tough one all at the same time. It is an easy question because identity is generally about self-identification - i.e., you are who you say you are. It is also a tough question because one's identity can also be reinforced or damaged by whether one's identity is also legally and/or politically recognized. That is to say, if one identifies as Mi'kmaq, but the Mi'kmaq Nation does not recognize that person, this makes the continued assertion of one's identity more difficult. Similarly, the Indian Act's status provisions have been imposed on Aboriginal peoples for so long that even some Aboriginal people question an individual's Aboriginal identity "credentials", if they don't hold a status card.

Yet, it is important to remember that legal recognition as a status Indian has absolutely nothing to do with Aboriginal culture, heritage, traditions, customs, or practices. It is an administrative tool used by Canada to determine who can have access to their programs and services. It was originally designed to eliminate the "Indian problem" and ensure the eventual assimilation of all Indians. But, if status was only about programs and services, it would not be as significant as it actually is. Because status as an Indian also determines, for the majority of bands in Canada, who can be a member of a band and therefore who can live on reserves; access band programs and services and sometimes cultural activities, then status carries more weight than the government is willing to acknowledge. It is for this reason, that status has such significance in determining Aboriginal identity.

In my opinion, Aboriginal identity should be first and foremost about self-identification. There can be no greater sign of loyalty and pride in one's Aboriginal Nation than to publicly proclaim to the world one's identity as Mohawk, Cayuga, Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and so on. There are a great many people who never give a thought to their identity or who take their identity for granted because it is not threatened in any way. Part of rebuilding our Aboriginal Nations is to rebuild pride in who we are and that includes celebrating those who embrace their Aboriginal identities.
We should also be mindful of the fact that not everyone has the same basis for asserting their Aboriginal identity.

For example, some Aboriginal people who live on reserve are secure in their identity as Aboriginal peoples because they live on the same land as their large extended families and friends who share a common history and culture. These on-reserve Aboriginal may not know how to speak their traditional language, participate in their traditional practices and customs or even know much about their common history. Their connection to their reserve land can be enough for some to be secure in their identity.

There are other Aboriginal people who do not live on a reserve, but who live on their traditional territories. They may also hunt and fish and know a great deal about the history of their vast territories. Their connection to their traditional territory is not limited by reserve boundaries and can be passed on to their families and others who also live on their traditional territories. That connection to their traditional lands that were shared with their ancestors can be all it takes to secure their Aboriginal identities.

There are still other Aboriginal people who, for school, work or otherwise no longer live on a reserve or on their traditional territories. But they may know their culture, can speak their traditional language, partake in traditional practices and ceremonies and honour traditional values. That cultural connection gives supports their identity security despite being off a land-base. They may also contribute to their community through employment or advocacy activities for example. This sense of loyalty and pride in who they are and their community may also add to their identity.

Aboriginal children who were taken away from their parents at a young age and adopted out of the family and even out of their communities may have no ties to their community. They may not know their birth parents, their culture, treaties, land, language or traditions. But they know where they came from and may be determined to learn more and re-establish a connection with their community. They may only have a familial connection to their identity, but for them that might be enough to sustain their identity as an Aboriginal person until they can learn more.

Who is to say that any one of these individuals is "more" Aboriginal than the next? Why can't identification as a Mohawk, Cayuga, Mi'kmaq or Maliseet include any combination of the factors noted above? I would think that given our Nations' need to rebuild, that welcoming all those who are proud to publicly assert their identity and proclaim some degree of loyalty for their Nation is a great deal more valuable than what is offered by those who take their identity and their community for granted. Instead of reducing Aboriginal communities to clubs based on blood quantum or status; we should allow the possibility that our communities are something more than races waiting for inevitable extinction.

If that is the case, and we, as communities of Aboriginal peoples assert our Nationhood and even our right to be self-determining or sovereign nations, don't we also require legal and political recognition as such? If we deny legal and political recognition to our own citizens because they do not fulfill blood quantum levels or they don't have status cards, how can we expect Canada or any other country to see our people as the Nations? Not only does exclusion of our rightful citizens speed up our own legal extinction, we will be excluding the very citizenship base which has shown pride and loyalty in our Nations.

We need proud, loyal, passionate citizens to dedicate their time and energy toward rebuilding our Nations and maintaining our collective identities for our future generations. If we rely on those who take their identity for granted, we create an uncertain future for our children. Perhaps we need to think more objectively about what it means to identify as an Aboriginal person and not be so quick to exclude our own. We may be excluding our future leaders.

From Frustration to Hope - Balancing Traditional Aboriginal Values with Pressing Social Needs

2010-01-20T06:32:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, January 19, 2010, I attended a breakfast event at the Toronto Board of Trade (BOT). The purpose of the event was to hear Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo speak about how we can partner to improve First Nation economies. The event was hosted by the BOT and emceed by Clint Davis, the President and CEO of the Canadian Centre for Aboriginal Business (CCAB). Clint Davis is from Nunatsiavut (Newfoundland and Labrador) and Chief Atleo is from Ahousaht (British Columbia).

Chief Atleo gave a moving speech that one would not expect given the topic of Aboriginal business. He referred to the many life lessons he received from his family growing up and especially those of his late grandmother. Listening to Chief Atleo make the connections between the traditions, teachings and current issues faced by First Nations, reinforced in my mind the need for Aboriginal communities to not be so quick to abandon traditional values, ethics and lessons for the lure of economic development and quick settlements.

Economic development is important for most, if not all Aboriginal communities, but its importance cannot be seen in isolation from other goals which are important to Aboriginal peoples like: climate change, conservation, protection of traditional territories, community healing and wellness, education, maintaining the integrity of families, the education and security of our children, self-determination, and respect for our treaty relationships, for example. If a singular focus is made on economic development, then there would be no issue with the environmental destruction that comes with oil sand projects, hydro dams, gas lines, and diamond mining because the local Aboriginal people would be employed and this generation might enjoy some financial benefits.

However, given that economic development is only part of a bigger picture for self-determining Aboriginal Nations which are healthy, vibrant and thriving, a proper balance must be made. In my opinion, Chief Atleo is not only aware of these other issues, but he ensures to include those in his priorities which are reflected in his speeches. It is his ability to turn a negative into a positive or to tackle politically sticky issues and offer hope for the future that he makes him a unique leader. When Chief Atleo spoke at the BOT, he didn't focus solely on economic development, he explained that concern and action on the crisis of climate change is also necessary. Similarly, he argued that while education was used in the past to disempower and assimilate our people, we can now use education to empower our people, relearn our languages and traditions, and build capacity within our communities to revitalize our Nations.

In so doing, Chief Atleo was also cognizant of the other pressing social issues that we have to address related to housing, health, treaties, land, murdered and missing women and so on. Overlaid on top of all this are the hurtful divisions which we: both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples alike, have inherited. He told the audience that none of us enacted the Indian Act, but we are left with very real divisions like Status and Non-Status Indians and on and off-reserve people. He acknowledged that these divisions were imposed upon us and that we have to find a way to address these inequities as we move forward. At the same time, he also said that some of things we consider divisions, could actually be considered strengths. For example, having Aboriginal people living, working and succeeding both on and off-reserve can be a significant strength for Aboriginal communities and we should be looking for ways to work together on that basis.

I was at the United Nations headquarters in New York last week at an Indigenous Experts meeting of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The topic was how state development impacts indigenous identity and culture, what the key issues are and how to resolve some of them. Indigenous peoples from around the world were generally of the mind that economic development can proceed so long as we remember that it is not our sole focus: i.e., increasing our salaries or our bank accounts for this generation can never be more important than protecting our wildlife, our rivers and water sources, and the integrity of of the land within our territories. Chief Atleo appears to be in sync with international indigenous objectives as he balances our social needs (economic development, relations with Canada) with our core values as Aboriginal peoples (protecting the land and natural resources).

Perhaps by refocusing on the traditional values that made us Mi'kmaq, Cree, Nuu-chah-nulth, or Mohawk Nations, and aligning our priorities with rebuilding and revitalizing those Nations, we will have respected what our ancestors fought so hard to protect and leave a strong legacy for our future generations that they will be proud to carry forward. I think Chief Atleo offers just that kind of hope for all Aboriginal peoples - on and off-reserve, and status and non-status alike - and I, for one, will be watching his progress in the coming months/years.

What is a Non-Status Indian?

2010-01-06T09:15:00.001-08:00

What is a Non-Status Indian? People ask me this question nearly everyday. Some people think Non-Status Indians are really just Métis people - those with mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry. Others think that a Non-Status Indian is any person who is not registered under the Indian Act as an "Indian" - i.e. they are not Aboriginal people. I have even had government officials query whether we can ever know what a Non-Status Indian is as there is no legislative definition for them.

For many years, some Aboriginal political organisations that represent Aboriginal peoples living off-reserve also represented Métis peoples. For example, the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC) used to be called the New Brunswick Association of Métis and Non-Status Indians. Although the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) now has responsibility for Status Indians, Non-Status and Métis people, it wasn't always that way. The Minister of INAC used to be responsible for status Indians and there was a Federal Interlocutor who was specifically responsible for Métis and Non-Status Indians. The terms Métis and Non-Status Indian have been used together for so long that there is understandable confusion about the two.

In the most simplest terms - Métis people are those people who have descended from Métis groups across the country. These Métis groups were originally born from unions between Aboriginal peoples (Cree, Ojibway etc) and non-Aboriginal peoples and went on to identify not with their Aboriginal ancestors, nor did they identify with their non-Aboriginal ancestors. Métis peoples saw themselves as distinct from both groups and went on to develop their own practices, customs, traditions, languages and so forth. It is a common misunderstanding to refer to someone with mixed Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal ancestry as Métis, at least without knowing more.

What about Non-Status Indians? Are they not Aboriginal people with mixed ancestries? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Many Non-Status Indians have no more of a mixed ancestral heritage than do status Indians. So, then what is a Non-Status Indian? INAC's website defines the term Non-Status Indian as follows:

"...commonly refers to people who identify themselves as Indians but who are not entitled to registration on the Indian Registrar pursuant to the Indian Act."

The University of Saskatchewan's Online Encyclopedia defines Non-Status Indians as follows:

"People who are identified as Non-Status Indians in Canada are individuals who are not considered as Registered Indians because either they or their ancestors were refused or lost their Indian status through the mechanisms of the Indian Act, and who do not identify as being Métis. The mechanism by which people lost their status was “enfranchisement.” The most common method of enfranchisement was through intermarriage, whereby a Status Indian woman marrying a non-Indian man lost her Indian status—as did her children; this law existed until the Indian Act was amended in 1985. Other ways in which individuals could be enfranchised was by obtaining the federal right to vote (until 1960), feeing simple title to land, or receiving a university degree (until 1951). "

Professor and lawyer, Joseph Magnet had this to say about Non-Status Indians in his article "Who are the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada?":

"The consistent narrowing of the definition of ‘Indian’ in various amendments to the Indian Act created a large population of Aboriginal people without Indian status, or the rights and entitlements that attach to it – the non-status Indians... The population of non-status Indians is larger than is discerned by considering the legal exceptions in the various Indian Acts, however. It also includes people of Aboriginal ancestry and culture who were never entitled to register in 1876, as well as Aboriginal people entitled to register who chose not to submit themselves to the Department’s control....The non-status population includes the historical Indians and their descendants."

While all of these definitions are accurate, it may be simpler to say that Non-Status Indians are those people who identify as Indian (i.e. Mohawk, Mi'kmaq, Cree, Maliseet, etc) but who by choice or legislative exclusion are not registered under the Indian Act as Indians (i.e. they do not have "status"). For many, the term Non-Status Indian is not so much an identity, but a state of being. For example, I am a Mi'kmaq person and have always identified as such. My larger extended family is Mi'kmaq and we have worked our whole lives towards improving the lives of Mi'kmaq and other Aboriginal peoples who live off-reserve and who are treated differently because they lack a residence on reserve and/or because they do not have status under the Indian Act. I was raised to know the community from which my family originated, the traditions and practices of my Nation as well as the people who share the same Mi'kmaq history.

While I identify as Mi'kmaq, I am also aware that due to gender discrimination in the Indian Act, I am not currently entitled to be a registered (status) Indian, despite the fact that my father was a status Indian and band member at Eel River Bar First Nation in New Brunswick. Therefore, I am a non-status Indian, i.e. a Mi'kmaq who is not registered under the Indian Act. That is my state of being as so decided by a government official at INAC. Some people have asked why I would continue to refer to myself or my situation with such a negative label as Non-Status Indian. My only answer is this: so long as there is a discriminatory federal process that tells me I am a Non-Status Indian, then I have an obligation to use the term, educate people about the term and work towards finally getting rid of the need to even have the term.

Other terms such as First Nations or off-reserve Aboriginal peoples may include both status and Non-Status Indians. However, the saying "out of sight - out of mind" applies especially to this situation. In my opinion, generic terms tend to hide the fact that Non-Status Indians exist and this creates a lack of awareness about their issues. Non-Status Indians are being discriminated against on the basis of their gender, birth/blood status, and/or marital/family status. Some are denied band membership simply because they do not have status. Many do not qualify for federal programs and services because they lack status. Some are even denied the right to call themselves Cree, Mi'kmaq or Mohawk because some Aboriginal communities have come to associate their identities with federal recognition - i.e. status. These issues affect the quality of life of thousands of us across the country. We need to acknowledge the problem and find solutions.

There are Non-Status Indians who live on and off-reserve, who do and don't have band membership, who are and are not welcome in their home communities and those who associate with off-reserve political groups and those who don't. One cannot easily generalize when it comes to Non-Status Indians, but certain demographic facts should be highlighted: Aboriginal women and their children are disproportionately affected by the discrimination of the Indian Act's status provisions and comprise a higher number of Non-Status Indians. Non-Status Indians also suffer from the same poor socio-economic conditions as their status Indian brothers and sisters. Most live off-reserve and receive little assistance from federal and provincial governments or their own Aboriginal communities.

It is time that all Aboriginal people started talking about this situation and included Non-Status Indians of all backgrounds in the discussion. That includes ensuring that Non-Status Indians are at the table when treaties, land claims, self-government and other issues of importance are discussed. As with most issues involving Aboriginal peoples, identity is a complex political, social, historical. cultural and legal issue that requires a deeper conversation amongst ourselves. First and foremost however, it requires a rejection of Canada's presumed jurisdiction over our identity and the discriminatory tools it has used to label and divide us (status). There can be no right more inherent or more integral to one's culture than the right of Aboriginal Nations to be self-defining.

Hopefully, this has helped to answer the questions you have all e-mailed me recently about Non-Status Indians. There is a great deal more information out there regarding Non-Status Indians and I encourage you all to look for it and come up with your own thoughts and ideas about the issues we face and join the discussion. For those who are interested, you can get more information on my website at http://www.nonstatusindian.com/. You can also follow me on Facebook under the name Non Statusindian or on Twitter as Pam_Palmater. At any time, please feel free to e-mail me at palmater@nonstatusindian.com

Pam

Aboriginal Citizenship or Membership in Bands?

2009-12-14T06:29:00.000-08:00

There are many Aboriginal leaders and community members from all over Canada who are fighting on our behalf to protect our culture and identity for the future. There is never just one person dedicating their time, effort and "free" time to these issues. It is impossible to list them all in one blog. However, there are always those who stand out above the rest because of their selfless dedication to their people. This blog will highlight one of those people who are working hard to make changes to how we define ourselves for the benefit of our future generations.

Chief William K. Montour, Six Nations of the Grand River Territory in Ontario.

Chief Montour is an inspiration to those who truly know him. He has decades of experience working on behalf of his people both inside and outside of the Canadian government and the Six Nations government. It wasn't Chief Montour that enacted the Indian Act and he certainly did not impose the assimilatory rules, regulations, and policies which have divided Nations and imported anger and distrust into our communities. He no more believes in Indian Act administration than I do. But he also seems to be aware of the present legal realities and has taken up those challenges with a view to making positive changes for the future.

At the AFN AGM which was recently held in Ottawa on December 9-11th, 2009, the assembly had to address a resolution to regarding Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's (INAC's) plan to amend the registration provisions of the Indian Act in a very minimalistic way, that will not address all of the gender discrimination raised in the McIvor case. The debate centered around membership and how it could be impacted by this legislation and disintegrated into a debate about how "band resources" would be at risk if additional members were added to the band lists. It was at this point that Chief Montour addressed the entire assembly and said that he was "confused". He asked them whether the discussion was one of citizenship or one of registration. He explained that by continually pursuing issues of registration, we are involving ourselves in our own assimilation.

He told the assembly that leaving our future to the legislators ensured that we would have no future. He referred to the AFN commissioned-study in 1992 which found that the registration system provides for decreasing numbers of Indians and that his own community of Six Nations which is over 26,000 members strong, would not have any registered or status Indians within 100 years. Under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government has jurisdiction with regards to Indians and lands reserved for Indians. All reserve lands are therefore held by the federal crown for the use and benefit of Indian bands. In order for a band to hold land, there must be band members. Chief Montour then highlighted what I would refer to as the "5 steps to extinction":

(1) In order for a person to be a band member, they must be a status Indian.
(2) If there are no status Indians left in 100 years, then there are no band members.
(3) No band members means no band.
(4) No band means no legal entity left to hold reserve land.
(5) Crown lands without any legally recognized title holders escheats (reverts) back to the Crown.

In Chief Montour's words: "It's the biggest land grab of the century!" He went on to say that we all thought that residential schools were bad because they took away our language and culture. "This is worse: it takes away our identity." Chief Montour told the assembly that he is a Mohawk from the Mohawk Nation and he is proud to be Mohawk. He also explained that no one has the right to tell him that his grandchild is not Mohawk. He then concluded by asking the assembly whether they were working towards citizenship in their Nations or membership codes in their bands.

There is no doubt that gender discrimination or any kind of discrimination within the Indian Act has to be addressed in the interim. However, if we do not also have a bigger plan for our Aboriginal Nations in relation to citizenship; if we do not start acting as the Nations we are; and if we don't start asserting our jurisdiction with regards to citizenship (with or without the cooperation of Canada), then we are already well down the path towards legislated extinction and all the oil royalties in the world will not be able to save our future generations.

As Chief Montour said: "The choice is yours."

Please see my website at www.nonstatusindian.com and follow me on Twitter.
I can be contacted via e-mail at palmater@nonstatusindian.com

Amendments to the Indian Act's Registration (Status) Provisions

2009-12-07T13:35:00.000-08:00

The federal government appears to be pursuing a course of amendments to the Indian Act's registration (status) provisions that will not address all of the gender discrimination raised by Sharon McIvor in her court case (McIvor v. Canada). It would seem that the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC, the honourable Chuck Strahl, is relying on the court of appeal's obiter to significantly reduce the amount of gender discrimination it will fix.

The problem is that this minimalist amendment which is being contemplated will have the same effect as the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act (also referred to as Bill C-31). Bill C-31 was supposed to bring the Indian Act into compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and its section 15 equality provision. As INAC did not address all of the gender discrimination in the Bill C-31 amendments, McIvor and others had no choice but to try to address the residual (remaining) gender discrimination in court. Despite both the trial and appeal court agreeing that there is still gender discrimination in the registration provisions of the Indian Act; INAC plans only to address a limited portion of that discrimination.

What is even more troubling about this situation is that INAC specifically decided NOT to conssult with Aboriginal peoples on this issue. To my mind, there can be no more important issue to Aboriginal peoples that the right to determine their own individual, communal and National identities. The Indian Act's past and current registration formulas are restrictive and meant to eventually eliminate all status Indians and their communities in the future. I include communities because the majority of First Nations determine membership based on the Indian Act's registration provisions.

It is my opinion that Canada does not have the right to determine our legal, social, cultural or political identities and certainly does not have a right to limit our numbers or create a situation whereby we can all be legally extinct within several generations (for some communities). So, we as individuals and communities must not silently acquiesce to this situation. I agree that once a government has it in its mind to legislate in a certain manner, that it is very difficult to change their minds. However, it is not impossible and we as grass roots Aboriginal peoples have the power to stand up for ourselves in our own right and in partnership with our communities, organizations and Nations.

When Mohawk lands were threatended in Quebec, the warriors showed up to defend them. When the Mi'kmaq treaty right to fish was threatended in New Brunswick, the warriors showed up to defend that right. Yet, when the future of our identities and communities are themselves at risk - where are the warriors? Our Aboriginal women and children are being unfairly excluded from their legal identities and their right to belong to their Nations. Where are the warriors to defend these women? One would not be entitled to call themselves a warrior in the past if they could not protect the women and children of their communities.

Some of our leaders sometimes raise concerns about the lack of land and resources of their communities. They somehow associate this lack of wealth with an inability to include Aboriginal women and children as band members. Monetary gain may be attached to land and natural resources, and not to our women and children, but who we are as Mi'kmaq, Mohawk and Maliseet peoples is not based on how much money we have as individuals or communities. The many ways in which we are Cree or Ojibway have absolutely nothing to do with money. An Anishnabek's identity and belonging in one's community is a fact which is determined long before one know's if they can access programs and services or live on a reserve.

What some Aboriginal leaders are missing is that limiting the "pot" to a select few members does not address their lack of capacity in governance, their lack of access to lands and natural resources or their lack of power generally within Canada. A Nation is built, in part, upon its strength in numbers and the loyalty it receives from its citizens. Slowly reducing the number of members a band has is no different than the slow extinction of status Indians. Aboriginal Nations cannot improve their capacity and power within Canada without a solid citizenship base. All limited numbers does is ensure that this generation has access to bigger per capita pay-outs and quicker access to housing on reserve.

Not everyone wants to live on a reserve - in fact, many Aboriginal peoples live off-reserve BUT in their traditional territories. Not everyone wants their identities recognized for the per capita pay-outs - some people want to protect their identities, those of their children and their heirs and heirs forver, because protecting their identities mean protecting the integrity of the Aboriginal communities from which they descend. There is a very simple math - an Aboriginal community can't exist without its citizens and restrictive status or band membership codes means that Aboriginal peoples will continue to lose power and capacity instead of rebuild their once very powerful Nations.

While there may be roadblocks to rebuilding our Nations and healing our people, it is up to us to take action and protect ourselves and our future generations. Despite the constitutional promise to Aboriginal peoples to protect our cultures and identities for future generations, I wouldn't rely on Canada to keep its promise - would you? Take action - start talking - get your community or organization involved - our future generations are depending on it!