John Reilly: Shut down the native industry and spend the money on natives

Tweet

Former judge, John Reilly wrote a book: Writing Bad Medicine: A Judge’s Struggle for Justice in a First Nations Community and he say’s if he had the power he would “Shut down the native industry and spend the money on natives”

It’s posted over at the National Post. The NP is not a paper I frequent and I have no idea how I originally found this story/comment but I did. I was drawn to the comment because I agreed with the broader statement John Reilly writes (people make big money off the misery of the First People) and in fact just finished ranting over at Non-Status Indian my views on the “Indian Industry” .

But.................I hate it when I learn that I disagree with everything else but that statement. And that sucks cause the statement itself is easy to hate along with and will easily draw attention but say something new or intelligent afterward or why say anything at all...unless its to make some quick cash.

It’s easy to develop policies when all you have to do is draw a straight line between A and B. My friend Balbulican is always reminding people of this over at StageLeft. It’s a little more complex if you want to design policies that work. Similarly, it’s easy to sell book and make a big profit if you write a book about misery, blame government, choose easy to spot villains, and then throw out new titles and new offices like new recipes created on some Chef TV show. It’s a formula designed to make profits otherwise publishers wouldn’t touch it. The reality is solutions are complex, take time, effort, work, patience, trust, and more hard work, and more effort than most people want to give.

The reality is that the former Judge John Reilly is still just sucking at the teat of misery and only too happy to make a profit while he pontificates from an “I know best” attitude.

His simplistic statement to “dissolve INAC and repeal the Indian Act” says it all for me. It was here I began to loose interest. I mean seriously don’t we all love to hate a government office? But when answering what he would do if he had the power he said would :

“...terminate funding to the Assembly of First Nations. In my view, the AFN is a chiefs club that looks after chiefs, many of whom just look after themselves and do very little for the poor and the children of their reserves.
Then I would enact a Canadian First Peoples Enhancement Act, to preserve and maintain the cultures of the descendants of Canada’s original inhabitants, to ensure their health and well-being and foster the independence and sustainability of their communities. I would create a Department of First Peoples Services. Non-natives and former employees of INAC should be ineligible for employment in this department. INAC was created for the assimilation of Canada’s First Peoples and the eventual elimination of their communities. That purpose lives on in the corporate memory of the department and must be changed.
I would spend the $7-billion on doctors and healthcare workers, addictions counsellors and healing lodges, teachers and improved schools, so that our First Peoples could become a healthy and happy part of Canadian society....”

It’s just such an easy target but really – what is or has John Reilly doing – on the ground to improve or make comfortable the lives of people around him. Sounds to me like he like many people worked hard, payed their bills, maybe raised children.....read newspapers, formed opinions voted in elections and now in his stately years can tell us what he has learned and how it should be done.

It’s ok for him but wrong for “non-Aboriginal employees former and present at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada” to make a living off misery (he was a lawyer first, then a judge in the system, and now writes a book) – WTF? I’m all for taking to task wasted time and effort but it’s simplistic and so talk radio to blame the bureaucrats (this time "non-Aborignal" bureaucrats like it's racial or something) and the Chiefs.

And his solution is to enact a “Canadian First Peoples Enhancement Act and a Department of First Peoples Services... so he can spend the $7-billion on doctors and healthcare workers, addictions counsellors and healing lodges, teachers and improved schools, so that our First Peoples could become a healthy and happy part of Canadian society....”

I’m the first to admit I believe in faeries and I love long tales but is anybody else shaking their heads in wonder?

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

AFN Special Chiefs Assembly Part I

Tweet

I waited to post about the Special Chiefs Assembly (and btw – I have no idea what made this one ‘special’) that was held last week because I wanted to digest all that I heard. (That’s my excuse anyway). In truth I had a lot to think about but in the end I wonder about the cost vs results and if we don’t bother then what do we do instead? I wasn’t alone – I heard a lot of Chiefs ask the same question over the course of the three-day event.

Ten-years after attending my last full December confederacy meeting (at least that’s what they used to be called but I guess times have changed) I decided to attend and just listen. I wasn’t without the want of direction and guidance myself and so really wanted to listen, share, learn and just maybe strengthen my own personal journey.

My first obstacle was the inability to really participate as anything other than an observer – And that’s all that my $150.00 allowed me to do. If the AFN truly want to engage the voices of their urban citizens, as they stated many times in their assembly, then they must try harder. Policy forums were offered (topics decided on by the AFN) but only Chiefs and community/regional organizations were allowed to speak.

I’m going to focus this blog entry on those policy forums that occurred the day before the actual assembly and was actually free for participants.

I chose to participate in the forum on Citizenship and looked forward to a discussion about nation building – constitutional discussions and law making authorities that would provide our nations with the tools to create citizenship laws but it was a discussion on the recent McIvor decision - which is more about band membership rules under the INAC registry. A Chief from 6 nations stood up and gave his wife’s 24 year-old paper on what section 6 1 (a) and 6 2 (b) meant. And that was a shame because the previous three presenters had more updated, and brought a great deal more clarity to the issue – Chiefs get the floor whenever and for however long they want. Further had the Chief been present from the beginning (instead of walking in and taking over) he might have known that. Most disappointing was that his arrogance interrupted what WAS an interesting discussion on the issue of Citizenship laws and collective rights vs individual rights. I wished the moderator or facilitator had brought the discussion back but it appeared they really wanted to hear support for their McIvor court case and therefore appreciated the interruption.

It was a Chief from Manitoba who brought forward the argument that historically Indigenous Nations of Turtle Island developed citizenship laws and values to protect and improve the interests of the nation of the collective good. He questioned the value however, if an individual like McIvor under Canadian law can challenge through the Canadian court system and win under the rights of the individual. Under the Charter of Human Rights – individual rights trump collective. I’m not a lawyer and wish I knew more but on the surface I would say he is correct. I wanted to discuss this more but.....the big puffy winded Chief from Six Nations wanted to talk about his and his wife’s 24 year-old dedication to the plight of the Indian Woman and her identity....(yes I am rolling my eyes)

I totally ignored a forum of great interest to me Children – because the discussion was only about the Human Rights challenge the AFN and the First Nation Child and Family Caring Society launched (without consultation). I simply want to know why we want to give more effort, resources, and authority to policies that are based on provincial laws and that have done nothing but irreparable harm to our children and families? The AFN has a one-tract mind and despite asking for clarity on the issue “will the number of Aboriginal children being apprehended by Child Welfare Agencies decrease with the additional 22% funding they are requesting?” They push forward because they don’t want to try anything else. It’s easier to make people angry and fight for something right? It’s a lot tougher to actually fix social issues. The answer to the question btw is no – the numbers will not stabilize or decrease but nobody wants to talk about it or admit to it.

So why are we not talking about a better system – a system that would reflect the needs, capacities and values from our Nations? Imagine a system that wrapped a family in care...a system that understood that removing a child will not fix outcomes in our communities.

My friends in Alberta did it.....The Alberta Chiefs had the balls to challenge the Federal and Provincial governments AND their child welfare agencies. The Alberta Chiefs tore up the “delegated authorities” and forced the Province to take on the delivery – and full responsibility to deliver the child welfare program on reserve. The province FREAKED! They don’t want the authority, responsibility, and liabilities that go with delivering a program “on a reserve”. So they negotiated and what do they have now? A Band designate model. The band (as close as they can get to the “nation” status) is the designate authority. This is important because it recognises that the authority over their children’s welfare is not delegated to them through a policy anymore. It is recognized that the band (as a collective) IS the authority. It’s the first step towards an autonomous system – lots still to be done but how freaking exciting is that. But again no forum to discuss potential models just the forum to fight for more money for old programs.

I think I know why the government plays the games it does with us – and maybe why nothing changes year after year - because we allow individuals with their own agendas to speak for the collective. (UPDATED)I'll bet the strongest motivation not to change anything is money. Who stands to make money off children placed in care? And please don't try to tell me money is not the issue - it's always the issue. We just get played everytime and follow the red herring rather than set our own trails. (end updated section)

The AFN (they say because of its funding structure) can only implement work that is approved by the federal government – They parallel government programs even though they are not a program delivery organization. We listen and agree we are underfunded and we get angry because our frustrations are close to the surface. It’s very easy to prey on what people don’t have and make them angry to fight for the injustice. Government knows that it’s cheaper in the long wrong to pay the 22% than it is to provide real tangible results in nation controlled programs. They’ll let us get good and angry for a few years – settle with us and then walk away knowing they got off lucky – and us...we were again suckered into tinkering with a bad policy rather than a concentrated effort to improve conditions for our families.

Innovation and great ideas are out there – the AFN must find away to tap into them.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Post responding to Dirk Buchholz's most excellent observations

Tweet

A gentleman going by the name of Dirk Buchholz left a very good comment under our post "Shawn Atleo new National Chief." He asks: "Can any real progress really be expected when AFN is funded and wholly accountable to the settler government rather than to indigenous peoples, the very peoples it claims to represent?" and more. These are smart questions worthy of more attention than he would get if this was left under comments, and some intelligent debate. So I have reprinted his comment below as a post. (For Bad-Anon who likes to troll here, plz note I said "intelligent".) Dirk's comment reprinted below. I have weighed in, my thoughts and opinions follow.

Dirk Buchholz said:
I was wondering if you could explain to me what the actual role of AFN is and how it can claim to represent indigenous peoples. Does not the very existence of AFN lend a kind of legitimacy to the Indian Act? Can any real progress really be expected when AFN is funded and wholly accountable to the settler government rather than to indigenous peoples, the very peoples it claims to represent? Is not government funding of F.N org's just another tool of assimilation, i.e the acceptance of gov funding tends to subvert, de-radicalize grassroots activism ?

I am a bit of a history buff, so I think the issue of government funding for national First Nations organizations needs to be looked at first.

History

It was a real struggle to organize a national organization during the early part of the 1900s. This was the period where oppression of First Nations people really began. The new Canadian government as well as First Nations had looked to what was happened south of the border and neither wanted to pursue wars to deal with the land issue. On the part of the Canadian government, they could see that the US had spent more money fighting Indian wars in 6 months that they had in their entire coiffeurs. First Nations saw the weapons that were being brought in and had lost their advantage in numbers, first due to death by disease, then after the early 1900s to waves of immigration under the effective recruitment campaigns of Minister Clifford Sifton after 1902. First Nations never felt they got enough in the treaties (certainly the land bases in the US are much more generous) and Canada felt they had given too much - housing, the medicine chest, and other items that are still debated today. It's important to note that not all First Nations signed treaties which led to early land claims in Ontario Quebec and BC. These would be put on temporarily on hold for 40 years or so due to oppressive new clauses of the Indian Act.

Between 1900 and 1950 some of the most oppressive measures were passed under the Indian Act. These included: making it illegal for Indians in the west to leave the reserve without a pass issued by their Indian agent; making it illegal for Indians to gather for political purposes, it was illegal for lawyers to represent First Nations on land claims, Indian farmers could not sell their goods with out express permission from an Indian agent (this was passed to stop Indian competing with white farmers who were being recruited to settle the west, and resulted in ruining several good reserve economies) ; residential schools, bans on traditional dances and spiritual practices, and a host of others. Apart from the political obstacles, there were language barriers, a lack of communications infrastructure like telephones, and Indian Affairs refused to provide mailing addresses from one community to another.

In the same period you had a number of First Nations going off to fight in WW1 and WW2. Many came back saying they had been treated as equals while in the war and found it unacceptable that they returned to be treated as wards of the state. Many of these veterans led early movements to forge a national movement. They had support from other veterans and some Christian faith groups (which is very interesting considering what was happening in residential schools in the same period). First Nations leaders broke the law and attended political gatherings. The RCMP arrested a number. Some polic it should be noted were very reluctant to do so, as many felt this was an oppression of human rights, law or not.

Frederick Oliver Loft of Six Nations a WW1 veteran was key in uniting Ontario and Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Regional leaders like John Tootoosis appeared. Loft was able to garner much public sympathy and was a constant thorn in the government's side. Loft was forced to absent himself from the political movement for a number of years when his wife fell ill. When he returned, the recession had hit and he could not raise monies to take Canada to court over land claims, which was his goal. The Canadian government intercepted letters outlining his plans to do so. As this was illegal they threatened him with prison. Loft was in his 70s by this time and backed down.

Jules Sioui, a Huron appeared as the next leader. He was radical, outspoken and considered by many in at Indian Affairs to be politically dangerous. In the early 1940s he organized a political meeting in Ottawa. At the same time Fred Kelly and Andy Paull had united BC, while some infrastructure on the prairies remained from Loft's earlier movement. A number of these leaders met in Ottawa. Apparently it was quite the scene with multiple translators posted around the room. Up until this point all movements had been funding by First Nations people in communities.

Andy Paull eventually took over the national movement. The government decided to meet with them and address some grievances which resulted in the relaxation of some of the harsher rules under the Indian Act in 1951.

After this the federal government organized a series of yearly consultations with representatives from each region. It was here that Andy Paul first suggested that the leaders receive pay form the government for their work. The government refused saying that if leaders were paid by government they would probably no longer be trusted by their people. The government did pick up the tab for travel for the meetings.

As First Nations leaders were getting together regularly but not making much progress on promoting changes after 1951, they took advantage of the meetings to discuss forming a new political organization. The first was the Native Council of Canada. This dissipated because it was essentially a body of leaders meeting with no popular support. Despite some good efforts, communications infrastructure was not good and the majority of grassroots folks and local leaders had no idea they existed. There was also some squabbling between on-reserve and off reserve. In 1968, the federal government offered some small core funding for a First Nations organization, but said they would only fund Status Indians as they were not constitutionally responsible for non-status and Métis. This led to a split that formed the National Indian Brotherhood (Later the AFN) for status Indians, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), and later, in the 1980s when the constitution was being patriated a split between CAP and a newly formed Métis National Council (MNC). Today all of these groups are funded by the government. It's worth noting that what prevented the NIB/AFN from becoming another head without a body was the 1969 white paper. The White paper backfired so badly on government that a rush of government, academic and other researchers moved in to study First Nations, and the government upped funding to these groups. It improved communications and allowed a stable political infrastructure to grow for the first time.

The questions, and some initial thoughts/opinions

Q: I was wondering if you could explain to me what the actual role of AFN is and how it can claim to represent indigenous peoples.

Opinion: AFN represents only First Nations - not Métis or Inuit. It is supposed to represent all First Nations but is very weak on representing off-reserve, non-status and some would argue women although they have improved on this last point over the last ten years. The National Chief and the AFN office get constant input from chiefs through assemblies, chiefs committees on various topics. When it works well, the chiefs raise an issue through a resolution. The AFN then does all the research and legal work on the issue to try and find a solution. This is developed into a business case and reported back to chiefs. If there is agreement the AFN moves forward working with government on the option supported by chiefs through presenting the business case to government.

However multiple things can go wrong in this process. Chiefs may not agree - take for example the Kelowna accord. Chiefs in Quebec did not support it. Or the federal government may not share the same priorities or may just be - as the current government is - difficult to deal with.

Q: Can any real progress really be expected when AFN is funded and wholly accountable to the settler government rather than to indigenous peoples, the very peoples it claims to represent?

Opinion: Well the AFN is definitely accountable to chiefs. They hear about it when they are perceived as being too close to government, it causes splits and chief threaten to pull out from the AFN. The Mohawks did so during the Kelowna debates and I am not sure if they have participated since, although they were sending observers to meetings for a while.

Certainly some progress was made on residential schools. This seems to have been made by not only presenting a solid business case showing that it was cheaper to solve the problem rather than to let it fester in the courts (especially when the government looked like it would lose and wind up paying more anyway in addition to legal fees.) This appears to have been done by uniting with numerous other lobby groups to force the government's hand.

However, it must always be on the minds of leaders that funding can get cut at anytime. I think this is why you have such a PR war over accountability, lately. IF the feds can paint the AFN as a backwards old boys club standing in the way of progress while sucking funds off the public into a black hole, then they will have support for cutting it off. I do believe the AFN is in more than 1 million dollars debt this year - that was reported on their books at the AGA. Why they are in such debt was not explained as the meeting was cut short. Whether it was because - as former National Chief Phil Fontaine hinted in his goodbye speech - that the feds are cutting funds to impede the work the AFN is doing, or whether it is because they have been irresponsible with money, is uncertain. However if it was entirely the latter I expect we'd see the feds denouncing hate AFN publicly. A closer look at the books is needed. They should be up on the AFN website somewhere and I'll post a link if I can find it.

So would the AFN be better off funded by FN? I think so. There seems to be money to do so. The large sum of moula donated by AMC to the Canadian Human Rights Museum may have been better spent shoring up a more independent AFN, in my opinion.

Q: Is not government funding of F.N org's just another tool of assimilation, i.e the acceptance of gov funding tends to subvert, de-radicalize grassroots activism ?

Opinion: Yes. I think so. I think it is definitely an attempt to co-op. I think the worst example of what can happen was displayed by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) over the last few years where their leader just aped everything the conservatives said. It got some dollars for the organization – for example their Powley and governance research, but ultimately their leader benefited the most by securing a Senate appointment. While something this dissapointing has not yet happened at the AFN, it could, although I imagine chiefs would just pull out and stop supporting the AFN if it did. It is more likley that government would just cut funding as it did in 2002 when the AFN refused to support the First Nations Government Act, the First Nations Statistical Management Act, and an early version of the Specific Claims Act.

I really hope that Wideye weighs in because she knows a lot more about the AFN than I do, having followed Indian politics longer. I would love to hear what she thinks. I think it’s fair to say we often disagree but I always respect her opinions, they are very insightful. I also know we got more than 2000 hits a day while elections were going on. I hope some of those folks will weigh in as well. Certainly this has been a hot topic of debate in Indian country for years.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Shawn Atleo new National Chief

Tweet

So....I had to run out on some real life errands (damn)And while gone we learn that Shawn beat out Perry (again) and finally...finally Perry conceded defeat and we have a new National Chief. Congratulations National Chief Atleo, well done team. I knew it could be done. Just took a little longer than I originally thought.

Later addition:

Sorry, back from more real life work-stuff. Not that what happened in Calgary wasn't real but for me....this other "real" stuff pays the bills.

I also want to congratulate Perry Bellgard and his team. Endurance is everything his team worked hard and stood by him. I know he and many of the people that helped keep Perry nipping at Atleo's heels will be a huge asset to the AFN family. The numbers I think, indicate that the Chiefs also believe both would be an asset to advance economic participation and reduce poverty numbers.

I look forward to hear how the two, Atleo and Bellegarde do come together. If the elections are any indicator, they'd make a formidable team.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Perry gone to far?

Tweet

Hmmm...so after I posted I got a note that when the electoral officer made the announcement there were boos in the audience. Because there is no more electronic ballots the manual system must be used and that takes longer to count. In my opinion the boos mean that the Chiefs just told Perry - you must know when to quit and you've gone to far. I think he just lost. But I'm just a blogger so can guess whatever I like.

I think there would have been far greater respect if he had conceded or worked an agreement out with Atleo...they are so close in numbers. A lesson had to be learned here and Perry has not matured enough to see it.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Eighth Ballot or what?

Tweet

Well...One of my gem stones on the floor watched Perry consult with his team...they asked if he would concede and he was adamant NO! He must be hoping to wake more Chiefs up....or bribe more with better coffee? So...we are in for an eighth ballot - but that's Perry for you. But is this a good quality, and what about Atleo?....tenacious or just a bulldog with a strong jaw and not much else...all I know is something must give.

(update)
Perry just announced he would not concede but would let the Chiefs decide. How noble.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

word on the floor from seventh ballot

Tweet

Lots of noise and it appears the Chiefs in the hall are demanding a resolution of some kind...People have started to yell "speech" from the crowd. Tempers must be strained after a night of negotiations, strategies, and no doubt some begging to the Creator for strength to stay awake! The electoral officer asked the floor if there was consensus but there were shouts of NO!....But wait....cheering from one corner of the room....stand by.....

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Seventh Ballot results

Tweet

Ok so I am back from the dog walk (actually a people walk but he humours me)coffee cup has replaced the wine glass and we are off to the races....

The candidates just entred the room lots of cheering for Atleo while Bellegardes smile appears forced. (Good to know how they look after no sleep eh?)

Electoral officer takes the stage and the results are:

Atleo 259 or 53.5
Bellegarde 225 or 46.5

Votes cast: 484
# required to make 60%: 291

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

6th Ballot!!

Tweet

Yes I fell asleep but it looks like nobody else did in Calgary. They are in the sixth ballot and the crowds have entered back into the main room....Shawn's crowd is loud....but no telling what that means...jacked up on caffeine maybe? Despite the all night tension and tied ballots I hear fun can be had! There was a rounding rendition of Dayo, the crowd performed the 'wave' and I heard a coffee scalper got $10 for her java! AND...the security guards protested the long hours and left. (obviously they don't know you're supposed to use a barricade in a protest and not leave! Geeesh!)


But can you believe you believe a tie in the fifth would take them to the SIXTH ballot. I honestly don't remember when that happened before...trying to find out if it has.

498 ballots cast 0 destroyed

Atleo 256
Bellegarde 242

Voted needed for 60% is 299

Now we wait to seat if Bellegarde is a gentleman and withdraws of forces a seventh ballot...I say he withdraws...bu this is Perry and nothing polite about him or politics.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

So in between ballot commentary

Tweet

There was a brief meeting between Perry and Shawn behind closed doors. Both men emerged smiling and determined. They were expected to make a deal that the winner would take all on the next ballot, but upon emerging they swore no deal was made. If there is a deal they are keeping it close to their chest. The AFN executive met trying to figure out what to do if the vote keeps going without result, but no solution seems possible. They are tied to the AFN charter and thier lawyers can find no resolution.

We await ballot number 6. ....12 more minutes.

The coffee shop downstairs stayed open all night. Nevertheless I've seen 2 or 3 chiefs konked out on couches and chairs around the centre. It's anyone's guess.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

HOLY LIZARDS!!

Tweet

Shawn Atleo 276 to Perry Bellegarde 274. Five hundred-forty-eight ballots cast none rejected. Another ballot.................wish I was there! Perry picked up 112 votes to Atleo's 38! Atleo hanging on to his lead but by fingernails. Can Perry's team capitalize on Atleo's apparent lethargy?

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Wait some more.....

Tweet

So results for second ballot will be in at 7:00 pm EST....better hope there is a clear winner if you are following this blog cause that’s my bedtime. After that, if I am awake expect wine to influence the writing.

So I hear that Atleo’s team is looking tired – if that’s the case they should quit the race now! It’s SECOND BALLOT! Maybe Bellgard is the better person – a person at the helm of AFN would require stamina yes?

I’ve heard the Nation’s of the West Coast abhor confrontation but that’s a misnomer....if Atleo caves from exhaustion or pressure it’s more likely because he hasn’t got a strategy. And that’s just sad.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

First Ballot discussion

Tweet

First Ballot Discussion
Beaucage pulled out and is supporting Bellgard! (desperate pitch!)

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

While we wait.....

Tweet

Well, first ballot will be announced in 15 minutes 1:00 Calgary time. I’m excited....
I read an article over at the G&M, “Race to replace AFN Chief far from over”, by Katherine O’Neill that misrepresented the number of elected chiefs from BC at the AFN AGM. She writes “ Mr. Atleo could also be helped out by the contest's voting system, since 202 of the 639 chiefs allowed to cast ballots for the new leader hail from British Columbia. The province with the next largest block of voters is Ontario, with 134 eligible chiefs”. I credit Ms O’Neill for at least looking at the INAC web site for numbers....but 202 represents the number of reserves....there are only eighty-some elected Chiefs in BC. It just happens that each First Nation community may have several allotments of reserve lands totally separate from each other. (some on sides of cliffs so uninhabitable even goats have a hard time clinging to the slopes!) When the early government placed the First Nations on their assigned lands....(so much sq ft per family but more complicated and not followed through on anyway but you get my drift I hope)...they “parceled” it out so one community might have several reserves.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

How shall we reconcile? Anniversary of residential school Apology

Tweet

So in Ottawa the AFN will shake hands with church and government leaders to celebrate a National Day of Reconciliation on the anniversary of the June 11th Apology to residential school survivors. A big show, with not much progress to report in the First Nations government relationship. To me, much more significant is the grassroots type people - union folk, people of faith, students, moms, dads, kids, First Nations and non-native who are going to show up and connect because they truly want a better relationship. What does that new reconciled relationship look like to you? What would have to happen to show that First Nations and Canadians have reconciled?

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Patrick Brazeau has become the most unaccountable aboriginal leader in Canada today.

Tweet

Patrick Brazeau claims he is standing up for the rights of elders, single moms (yes I note the irony) and children in a letter to National Post. In reality Patrick Brazeau is the most unaccountable aboriginal leader in Canada today. He is standing up for a Bill that has practically no support in Indian Country. At least when he led the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, a small lobby group, he had to face criticism from those who elected him and worked with him. Now that he has an appointed position, he's accountable to no one. Or so he thinks. He's sure as hell going to be held accountable to First Nations his people here at Crazy Bitches R Us.

In blue, quotes from Patrick Brazeau's letter, (which I have also reprinted in full, if you scroll down below) in black my comments.

#1 Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is denying the government the right to make systematic reform. No Patrick. The AFN is standing up for the right of legitimately elected FN governments to make reform. Women like me, have a right to tell our democratically elected chiefs how we want to be governed. I don't get a vote for the Minister of Indian Affairs. The Minister did at least deign to consult us, but then he completely ignored every word we said and decided to force this Bill on us instead. By supporting this breach of process Patrick, you are as unaccountable as the Minister is. Shame on you.

#2 "the AFN receives substantial funding from the government. It is unfortunate that it chooses to use these investments to fund continued criticism of government efforts." The AFN has to take direction from the people, or we won't support them. That is why they exist. And yes, sometimes that means dishing out some well-deserved criticism. At least they don't spend their funding on kissing-ass for a senate seat.

#3 The government's apology for residential schools ...."may be considered by some as having provided First Nations leadership a right to veto the government's legislative endeavours." Wrong again Brazman. The fact that we live in a democracy (well not you, you're appointed not elected, but the rest of us) and not a totalitarian society gives us that right.

#4 The repeal of section 67 that gave "...same degree of human rights protection that all other Canadians enjoy through the Canadian Human Rights Act were met with resistance from the chiefs" A) FN already had human rights protections under the Constitution. This only opened the Human Rights Commission as an alternative venue to the courts.(But I'm sure I don't have to explain the Human Rights Commission to you Patrick.)Finally the chiefs' didn't oppose it, they just wanted it amended to include an impact analysis, an assessment of the existing capacity to deal with complaints and a 2 year adjustment period.(Much like the provinces had when the concept was first introduced.)Once those amendments were made they supported the change.

#5 "when our government introduced the Federal Accountability Act....The AFN sought to exempt itself from the bill's measures" What the AFN did, in fact, was ask for an independent First Nations Auditor General and Ombudsman which would have created a two-way accountability. The conservatives weren't interested in two way accountability. Reading the recent Parliamentary Budget Office Report on First Nations Schools may provide a hint why.

#6 The so-called Kelowna Accord promised plenty of resources and was essentially a "get out of jail free" card ... I seem to remember CAP being very involved in Kelowna negotiations, in fact CAP lobbied parties to commit to Kelowna during the 2006 election (All the links showing CAP's previous stance were removed from the CAP website, but you can still get at it with google.) CAP began to oppose Kelowna only after the conservatives got elected, and CAP became their mouth piece. Patrick, do you really believe your own people are so foolish that we wouldn't notice that you have been reading conservative speaking notes instead of representing our interests? You should be listening to your people, not letting the government use you against us to advance an agenda that could hurt us. Again, shame on you.

#7 "Our government pays attention to are those of the families, the elders, the single mothers..." Actually they don't. I haven't heard any one in Indian Country - except you - support this Bill, Patrick. And just to be clear, it does not have the support of FN women.

Here is Patrick's full letter.

Aboriginals deserve better
Re: Tories Make Conservative Progress, John Ivison, May 28.

Mr. Ivison cuts to the heart of the matter when he suggests that in its opposition to progressive measures such as matrimonial property rights legislation, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is denying the government the right to make systematic reform in areas where measures for improvement are long overdue.

As the representative organization that speaks for the chiefs of the 633 First Nations reserves, the AFN receives substantial funding from the government. It is unfortunate that it chooses to use these investments to fund continued criticism of government efforts rather than to apply itself to act as a catalyst for change in its communities.

Mr. Ivison makes a very insightful observation when he suggests that our government's rendering of its sincere apology to the aboriginal community for the tragedy of Indian residential schools may be considered by some as having provided First Nations leadership a right to veto the government's legislative endeavours.

Sadly, an overtly negative posture by the AFN in the face of progressive change is a familiar occurrence. Legislative efforts last year to bring to First Nations the same degree of human rights protection that all other Canadians enjoy through the Canadian Human Rights Act were met with resistance from the chiefs.

Similarly, in 2006, when our government introduced the Federal Accountability Act, we sought to have First Nations subject to its provisions. This would have been another incremental step toward improving transparency at the community level. The AFN sought to exempt itself from the bill's measures. It mobilized opposition parties and the measures were removed from the bill.

Yet, such resistance seems to evaporate when money is discussed without encumbering conditions of accountability. The so-called Kelowna Accord promised plenty of resources and was essentially a "get out of jail free" card that lifted any need for regular periodic indications of measurable change-- to the obvious delight of the AFN.

When it comes to aboriginal affairs, the only special interests our government pays attention to are those of the families, the elders, the single mothers and the children who must face the myriad changes before them daily.

Incremental change is indeed occurring. Canada's aboriginal community deserves it, and we will stay the course for the sake of First Nations, Metis and Inuit families everywhere.

Senator Patrick Brazeau, Ottawa.

Now here is an article that speaks to our elected leaders.
Proposed legislation is flawed: critics

By Kerry Benjoe, The Leader-PostMay 28, 2009

The federal government is moving forward with the Family Homes On Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act despite opposition from First Nations groups and leaders.

The legislation, also known as Bill C-8, consists of federal rules governing matrimonial real property combined with a mechanism for First Nations to develop their own real property laws. Presently, those living on reserve are governed by the Indian Act and when a marriage breaks down provincial or territorial laws relating to matrimonial property rights do not apply on reserves.

On Monday an attempt to quash the bill failed.

"It will continue to be debated at second reading and once the motion for a second reading is adopted the bill will be referred to the standing committee on aboriginal affairs and northern development," said Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) spokeswoman Patricia Valladao.

Beverley Jacobs, president of the Native Woman's Association of Canada (NWAC), said her organization believes Bill C-8 is flawed.

"It's a piece of legislation that has been unilaterally drafted by (INAC). It doesn't take into account a lot of things," said Jacobs. "They're touting that it's benefiting aboriginal women and children but it's not."

She believes the new legislation is lacking in many ways. Jacobs said before such a bill can be introduced other on-reserve issues need to be addressed such as housing, justice and violence.

She added that NWAC has always supported the need to introduce legislation for on-reserve matrimonial property rights.

"But we've always said aboriginal women's voices have to be included in the creation of that legislation," said Jacobs. "We thought that this was occurring in this process, however that didn't happen."

Perry Bellegarde, candidate for the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), agrees with AFN and NWAC in regards to Bill C-8. According to an AFN news release on the Bill C-8, the new legislation will do nothing to solve the problems associated with matrimonial real property.

"As First Nations people, as First Nations governments, we have to start occupying the field and exert our own laws and jurisdictions on our territories and communities and we have to start developing our own legislation," said Bellegarde. "We're concerned as First Nations people about First Nations women's issues and the plight of marital breakup and the plight of our youth and everyone else in our communities."

Bellegarde believes First Nations need to become more proactive because if they don't then the federal government will continue to make unilateral decisions that will affect all First Nations.

© Copyright (c) The Regina Leader-Post

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Say WHAT? Brazeau is working with the AFN

Tweet

Hell just froze over.

I was reading First Perspective and tripped across an editorial by every one's favourite Senator, Patrick Brazeau. Apparently the Senate plans to do a trip across Canada to collect opinions on the Indian Act.

Non-First Nations folk may not be aware of it, but every 4-5 years some bored politician in Ottawa decides to tinker with the Indian Act. It's cool for the politician and their flunkie bureaucrats, because they get to travel across Canada on the tax payers dime. First Nations however are sick of it. Politicians have spent millions upon millions of dollars on such consultations, which go nowhere. In the end we as First Nations people pay the price for their folly, from the press, from the Minister of Indian Affairs and his critics. Tell me if you've heard this before: "Ottawa just spend 10 billion dollars on First Nations. Where did the money go? Damn these First Nations people are so unaccountable." Plus, really, First Nations people are working hard toward self-government and are tired of being federal make-work projects. All of this was explained politely and academically to the feds in the 4000 or so pages that make up the 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Yet they persist.

So I rolled my eyes and scanned down the article, and what did I see?

Brazeau writes:Working in cooperation with the Assembly of First Nations, members of the committee will undertake regional visits in Manitoba, Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan.

working with the AFN? On Indian Act consultations?
Holy jumping beavers. I never saw that one coming.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Is it real? Is it a new relationship? Or just the old game of minority politics?

Tweet

Bill C-8 a.k.a the Matrimonial Real Property Bill may get killed on Monday.

This post is NOT about merits of the Bill; it is NOT about the issue of Matrimonial Real Property either. Finally, this post is also NOT about whether Bill C-8 should live or die. (For background on the MRP issue and Bill C-8, see CBC, National Post, The Regina Leader Post, )

Instead this post is about last Thursday's House of Commons debate surrounding C-8.

To make a very complex issue as simplistic as possible, the Assembly of First Nations(AFN), the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) and other First Nations groups say:

1. Sure, First Nations were consulted (insofar as they were asked their opinions on how to solve the MRP problem) but their recommendations were promptly ignored.
   
2. The government drafted legislation First Nations don't like and, worse, Bill C-8 won't even solve the problem.
   
3. Bill C-8 should not go to committee where it can be debated and amended. It can't be fixed. It should be scrapped. First Nations want a do-over.

So on Thursday the Liberals proposed a hoist motion that would effectively kill the Bill. The conservatives want it to go ahead. The NDP and the BQ don't like Bill C-8, but said it should go to committee. A vote is coming up on Monday.

What I found spell-binding were the arguments surrounding the hoist motion. There was an interesting debate that touched on last year's apology to residential school survivors, reconciliation, democracy and self government vs colonialism.

The full debate is online, but I posted a few highlights below.

What do we make of this? If the Liberals win the next election, will they still be the champions of a new relationship and self-government? Or will the roles curiously reverse (as they have in the past) with the Liberals in power forgetting their words and the Conservatives our champions once in opposition?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.):
The government's approach is one size fits all. It has not worked in the past and it will not work in the present or in the future. Canada learned that lesson the hard way through the residential schools experience.To first nations people, this hearkens back to the days of the Indian agent, when they had an overseer, someone who would say what was right or what was wrong, what was appropriate or inappropriate in first nations communities. It flies in the face of the inherent right to self-government and the nation to nation relationship. It is a colonialist approach, an assimilationist approach, a paternalistic approach, and believe me, I use those words deliberately......

Madam Speaker, we can only look at what the consequences have been of a colonialist, paternalistic, assimilationist approach: poverty and health outcomes. There is not one outcome where aboriginal people are ahead of the rest of the Canadian population. They have substandard housing, high unemployment, high suicide rates and a massive number of children in care. Some estimate it to be 27,000 people in care with first nations and non-first nations agencies......

This is what the imposed approach, the colonialist, assimilationist approach has done. On June 11 of last year, there was an apology. The apology was supposed to mean something: a way of doing business differently and a way of approaching our relationship with aboriginal people differently.

A better approach would be to work productively and transparently with first nations; work with first nations governments to develop their own laws and the administrative support for their operation; work with first nations governments and citizens on the full spectrum of approaches, legislative and non-legislative, to family law. Where federal legislation is required, first nations should be brought to the table to help in the drafting of a bill that can obtain a much broader consensus. The government should engage in that intensive consultation that is required.
-------------------------

Mr. John Duncan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):

As we know, there are 630 bands in Canada. So we need to be concerned about that. Somebody has to take leadership, and the government is taking that leadership....

We keep hearing that there was no meaningful consultation. There was $1.7 million provided to the Assembly of First Nations regarding consultation on this issue. There was $1.7 million provided to the Native Women's Association of Canada for further consultation on this issue. There were moneys provided to other aboriginal organizations for consultations on this issue. There were consultations in more than 100 jurisdictions across Canada on the need for this type of legislation.


...There is no area where the federal government has a bigger responsibility than to take leadership in these areas. If we do not take that leadership, it would be an abdication of our responsibility. I really do not know who else can provide a nationally organized effort in this regard. It is our constitutional responsibility.....
-------------------------

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):
...The whole question that is being discussed is not one that can be subject to an easy formula. When he says, for example, that this is as a result of the government's determination to do something on behalf of the most vulnerable, it is the phrase “on behalf of” about which we have to think through its implications....

Everyone in the House has to understand that if we are to take government-to-government relationships seriously, and I feel this very strongly as a member of Parliament, it means that I do not have a right to pass legislation that applies to first nations people and to first nations reserves unless that legislation has the full support of the people on whose behalf it is being proposed.

We have to abandon the kind of paternalism that unfortunately underlies this legislation. It simply is not possible at this time in our history for us to take this kind of approach. I know it is difficult. I know it is frustrating. I know it is costly. The parliamentary secretary has spent some time focusing on how much money was involved in consulting with the first nations people.

....However well meaning the bill may be and however much the government may believe that it has found the answer to a problem, the simple fact of the matter is that this legislation does not meet the fundamental test, that it has the active support and approval of the people who are being affected by this legislation....

Be that as it may, it seems to me that we do have a responsibility as members of the House. We do have a responsibility to take self-government seriously. If we are to apologize for past errors, it is not enough to apologize for the mistakes that have been made in the past and then to say that despite that, we will still go ahead and pass legislation because we know better.

I sincerely believe that if we are to take self-government seriously, that means not simply that we consult and say, “Thanks very much for your point of view, but we will go ahead and do this anyway”, but it means that we have to respond in a different way. We believe on this side of the House, in the Liberal Party, very strongly that measures such as these can only be taken if they have the full support and approval of those who are responsible, in leadership positions, in the first nations and aboriginal communities.
-------------

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

The pope sucks, his so-called apology sucks and Catholics should be ashamed

Tweet

Thank you for reminding me Pope, in case I needed reminding, why I am no longer a Catholic. I was never really much of a Catholic after Confirmation. That was the same year we discovered a priest in our church, St. Maurice, had molested a number of alter boys. My parents watched in horror as more and more victims came forward. Our church sermon that week told us we should not speak of, or pay anymore attention to the issue. My parents never returned to church.

Our church refused to take responsibility, much as the Pope has. Whispering regrets to 5 people in a closed door meeting is not an apology. National Chief Phil Fontaine should not have gone to Rome knowing that this is what would take place.

I am also horrified that the Inuit and Metis leaders, Mary Simon and David Chartrand, were shut out of the room. It makes me think that the Pope knows very little about our peoples. It is irritating to see his Metis and Inuit excluded form his non-apology.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS