Showing posts with label Assembly of First Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assembly of First Nations. Show all posts

Friday, December 16, 2011

Is there a precedent for an Attawpiskat win in court?

A few people have asked us if a First Nation has ever successfully used the courts to kick out a Third Party Manager before. The answer is yes.

In 2001 a First Nation in Ontario, the Pikangikum First Nation, asked for a judicial review after Indian Affairs refused to provide funding to the community unless it’s chief and council surrendered control to a Third Party Manager. It took two years, but in December 2002 a federal court ruled that Indian Affairs acted improperly when they assigned an outside financial manager for Pikangikum.

In that case Pikangikium had submitted audits which had passed for the two previous years. Justice O'Keefe called Nault's decision requiring Pikangikum to enter into a co-management agreement, "patently unreasonable." He overturned the Department’s decision to install a Third Party manager saying that the Department did not follow its own directives which say they must give notice - written or oral reasons - describing the difficulty or default before imposing co-management, and therefore did not allow for meaningful discussion.

The scenarios sound similar. We'll see how the arguments play out in court.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

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

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

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in, critics say

I accused the Assembly of First Nations of loosing it's voice for children to the mandate of the lobbyist for First Nation child welfare agencies but it was pointed out to me that the AFN never had a voice for "children." It's true I suppose because the AFN is given money to support program work that the Federal Government funds.


I think the AFN should establish a Chiefs Committee for children and a portfolio dedicated to the Indigenous child. I think if there was better – or any coordinate of research, programs and priorities to better inform themselves would be a start. Leaders need to get a better grip on whose manipulating what and why if alternate solutions are to be found. In my humble crazy view the best interest of the Indigenous child is not a worry or a concern – just a funding opportunity.



Ward hates the National Post and most of the time so do I - but every now and again they will publish a story worthy of note. This story published in June 09 by Kevin Libin describes the general child welfare system. I reprint it here to emphasise how far out of whack this system is. If it's poorly run in huge urban centres with access to supports and services and a bevy of social workers (with bunches of letters after their names to choose from) - how would the system compare in a remote setting?


I've copied and brought forward two paragraphs of note: - They're still just walking into our homes and removing the children just like in the sixties scoop. Nothing has changed but they're funded better.




"legislators grant workers astounding licence: a social work graduate, fresh from college, can enter a home without warrant; apprehend children without due process; and commandeer police officers to enforce his or her efforts. A caseworker can order children dressed, fed, medicated, and educated any way they consider appropriate. Parents who do not submit risk losing custody, even visitation of their kids. Or have them taken away permanently."

"Whether we wanted it or not, knew it or not, over time, the work of child-welfare organizations has become "parenting by the state and the imposition of their value system on other people," says Marty McKay, a clinical psychologist who has worked on abuse cases in the U.S and Canada. Provincial agencies have the power to intervene when children are considered "at risk" of abuse or neglect - even if none has actually occurred. Or, where spousal abuse happens, but kids are untouched. And what they do with the children they take can sometimes be worse than what they suffered at home."

Kevin Libin, National Post Published: Friday, June 12, 2009


They are charged with the most essential of duties: protecting vulnerable children from abuse and neglect. They will intervene in the lives of roughly 200,000 Canadian children this year.


For most of us, they are generally unseen, save for occasional mentions in news reports, when they rescue children from misery. Or, as sometimes happens, deliver it.
Canada's child-welfare agencies, says University of Manitoba social work professor Brad McKenzie, have among the broadest intervention powers in the Western world.
Caseworkers come armed with vaster powers than any police officer investigating crime. It is an immense authority easily abused, without vigilant restraint.
It is time, critics say, they were reined in.


"The social worker system, as it applies to children, is out of control, seriously out of control," says Katherine McNeil, a children's advocate who has worked with families in Nova Scotia and B.C. "And nobody's doing anything about it."


Child-welfare agencies step in when kids are homeless, exploited, hungry or abused. They do not stop there. As the highly publicized neo-Nazi case in Winnipeg demonstrates, they might seize children from parents for teaching racist views, or for "emotional neglect." They have taken newborns from parents considered insufficiently intelligent; from religious families believing the Bible commands them to discipline kids with a rod. They order homeschooling parents to enroll children in public school, deeming them inadequately socialized.


"They violate all kinds of privacy and rights," says Chris Klicka, senior counsel for the Home School Defense League, which represents Canadian and American parents.
Whether we wanted it or not, knew it or not, over time, the work of child-welfare organizations has become "parenting by the state and the imposition of their value system on other people," says Marty McKay, a clinical psychologist who has worked on abuse cases in the U.S and Canada. Provincial agencies have the power to intervene when children are considered "at risk" of abuse or neglect - even if none has actually occurred. Or, where spousal abuse happens, but kids are untouched. And what they do with the children they take can sometimes be worse than what they suffered at home.

***

When journalist J.J. Kelso founded Canada's first Children's Aid Society in 1891, it was from revulsion at what he had witnessed working in Toronto's slums: the filthy, homeless urchins begging on the street, the school-aged girls whored out by parents for whiskey money; children needing "rescue," Kelso exhorted, "from the environments of vice, cruelty or mendicancy."


Courts could imprison parents for cruelty, but not revoke custody. Backed by the 1893 Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to and Better Protection of Children, the society had unique authority to directly interfere in affairs of parents and children: Anyone under 14 found begging, receiving alms, out late, homeless, orphaned, imprisoned, thieving, or associating with thieves, drunkards or vagrants, would be appropriated by the province.


Since then, as child-welfare agencies multiplied across Canada, their authority expanded, too.


One Calgary mother said her kids were recently pulled from class and questioned by a caseworker after she kept them home from school for a week, fearing they might be exposed to Swine Flu. When the mother protested, the worker threatened to seize all six children in her house, including two toddlers.


"All because I was overtly concerned about my children's health," says an incredulous Ms. K, who, as is the case with all investigations, cannot be identified. Nor can she ever know who lodged the complaint against her.


The worker later visited the house. There, Ms. K reports (and witnesses confirm), when she further protested the interference - at one point calling police - the agent hollered at her, physically accosted her, and threatened to report her for abuse, of which, the caseworker later relented, there was no evidence.


The secrecy that envelops these cases makes it nearly impossible to fully investigate Ms. K's remarkable claims: caseworkers do not permit "clients," as they're called, to record meetings, and agencies cannot comment on any case. But the account doesn't shock those who work closely with the authorities.


"I'm certainly not surprised, and hear over and over again of workers ... threatening [parents] with apprehension. They'll never admit it in court, of course, but I hear it all the time," says Bradley Spier, a Calgary family lawyer. "Most of the time they're above board. ... They all have an attitude, but they'll do their investigation and, if they can't substantiate it, they're generally pretty honest about that, and won't take any action. But until then, they're god-like creatures, for lack of a better word. Or they think they are."


***


The government's role in protecting vulnerable children treads an impossibly fine line. Without anonymous complaints, and the power to interview and apprehend, some children would undoubtedly suffer terribly. Accordingly, legislators grant workers astounding licence: a social work graduate, fresh from college, can enter a home without warrant; apprehend children without due process; and commandeer police officers to enforce his or her efforts. A caseworker can order children dressed, fed, medicated, and educated any way they consider appropriate. Parents who do not submit risk losing custody, even visitation of their kids. Or have them taken away permanently.


It is an authority that is sometimes severely misused. When that happens, Ms. McKay says, families can be traumatized in a perversion of the very system designed to prevent abuse.


The anonymous process, for example, invites bogus tips - commonly from divorcing parents, for instance, since agencies can unilaterally alter custody arrangements. Most complaints prove "unsubstantiated": 55% according to the most recent Health Canada study.


"Children's Aid, even when they don't start an investigation [themselves], they can be manipulated by people," says Ms. McKay.


Prof. McKenzie says child-welfare agencies typically do good work under difficult circumstances. Overstretched caseworkers, with general training, can be unequipped to specialize in interventions and the complexities each case brings. What some, middle-class agents might consider neglect, for example, is often a matter of poverty, not necessarily cruelty.


And some child-welfare workers also exploit their tremendous clout to behave unethically, prejudicially or illegally.


"Some of them get a real power complex because they have a bachelor of social work, or a masters, and they suddenly have this power [to] apprehend," says Ms. McKay. "They throw their weight around." She sees in some workers a "police mentality." It may be a coincidence, but in the largest English-speaking provinces, Alberta, B.C. and Ontario (Quebec data are incomplete), the number of children taken into care by provincial agencies between 1993 and 2001, rose a remarkable 97%, 63% and 72% respectively.


Prof. McKenzie is encouraged by a nascent trend in Canadian agencies away from historic, heavier-handed investigative and apprehension focus, and toward working more co-operatively with families to improve home conditions.


Studies show that under the current system, he says, "generally we find that the majority of children that are served [by welfare agencies] do well" - meaning they thrive at school, seem generally well-adjusted, are free from abuse and neglect. About 15% to 20%, he says, do not.


That is not a trifling number. But the stories behind it - let alone the validity of the initial apprehensions - can prove impenetrable. Cases are shrouded in silence, media blocked from reporting details, or questioning workers, in the legitimate name of protecting children involved (even in the high-profile Winnipeg neo-Nazi case, most details were concealed). But such limits thwart public scrutiny into an arm of government as capable of error as any other, yet, in determining how much or even whether families stay together, working with some of the highest stakes imaginable.


Last year, Ontario MPP Andrea Horwath tabled a private member's bill to make Children's Aid Societies answerable to the provincial ombudsman, something Ontario's Children and Youth Services has repeatedly resisted (ombudsmen in some other provinces, such as Alberta, have that authority). Ontario's CAS typically refuses to share files with its Child Advocate; in his annual report released earlier this year - which found 90 children in provincial care died in 2008 - Irwin Elman called it "almost impossible" to get information necessary to investigate potential agency wrongdoing. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled parents could not sue child-welfare agencies; provinces, it ruled, owed no "duty of care" to families. The lack of oversight, says Ms. McNeil, creates departments accountable only to themselves.


And there are numerous instances of caseworkers acting improperly. Two years ago, a Nova Scotia judge ruled that workers intervening in a divorce custody dispute were so biased against the mother, and in favour of the father - who lived with a woman previously the subject of interventions for violence and neglect - that they took "intentional and deliberate" steps to "mislead the court" by concealing evidence against him. A few years earlier, the CAS of Prescott and Russell, near Ottawa, and one worker, were convicted of contempt of court for refusing to return a two-year-old boy to his parents, defying a judge's instructions to do so. Agents insisted they were acting in the boy's "best interests." In 2001, two judges in Simcoe, Ont., criticized the CAS there for "arbitrary use of government power" and unreasonableness "verging on blind obstinacy" in fighting to keep children from being adopted by certain foster parents. Several parents interviewed for this story claim to have faced false accusations and bullying from caseworkers harbouring apparent agendas.


A report this year from Saskatchewan's Children's Advocate, Marvin Bernstein, found children suffering serious, ongoing abuse and neglect in the care of the province amidst a "culture of non-compliance with policy" among social services staff.
Even when acting with utmost professionalism, whether agents are able to provide children a better, safer environment than where they came from is not certain.
Mr. Bernstein's report found staff knowingly placing children with histories of committing sexual abuse into crowded foster homes where they preyed on other kids, without alerting foster parents to the problem (one reported that a caseworker assured her "a certain amount of sexual abuse is to be expected in a foster home").


A quarter of children were placed in overcrowded homes, he found, as staff routinely used "manipulative methods" to "trick" foster parents into taking more kids than they were approved for. Two Saskatchewan caseworkers were suspended in February after being discovered shuffling children between foster homes to hide overcrowding conditions from investigators.


"Children's Aid has no business placing into care a child that they can foresee is going to come out worse the other end than when they went in," Ms. McKay says. "If that's the best they can do, just leave them."


Two teens charged in connection with the recent double murder near Edmonton were in care of a ministry-licensed group home - a place neighbours say they warned the government for years was poorly monitored. In March, a 15-month-old baby in care of Alberta's Children and Youth Services suffered critical head injuries in a foster home; in the past four years, two Alberta children have been killed by foster parents. A 2008 report found Alberta caseworkers regularly placing kids in unsafe conditions, including abusive situations.


Last year, seven-year-old Katelynn Sampson was killed in Toronto in care of a foster parent with a record of violent crimes, and in Vancouver, police discovered minors in provincial care working as prostitutes. In 2002, Jeffrey Baldwin was abused and neglected to death by a couple with a known history of child abuse but were nonetheless granted custody of the five-year-old by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto. A 2006 CBC investigation uncovered Ontario caseworkers drugging a seven-year-old Ontario boy into a stupor with massive doses of psychotropic medications, which a psychiatrist would later find had "no actual treatment value," except making him more compliant in his group home. While in his drugged state, he was sexually abused by fellow residents.


Those who believe in the good intentions of child-welfare agencies argue they lack the resources to deal properly with each case; with some workers handling more than 30 clients simultaneously, it is impossible to act perfectly. One problem, believes Ms. McKay, is caseworkers spread too thin, drifting far from the original vision of the state's role in family matters: protecting kids from verifiable and authentic abuse, cruelty and neglect.


"They need to go back to the basics," she says. "Do the children look well-nourished? Do they have bruises on them? Are they molested? Is the house crawling with cockroaches? If not, they're not being abused or neglected."


But with powerful, generally unaccountable agencies, dependent on justifying their place in a world far improved from the cruelties of J.J. Kelso's Victorian Toronto, the need to intervene in more cases, for more reasons, may make such discipline difficult. "I would love to just demolish the system and start from scratch again," she says. "Because it's gone very far awry here."

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Thursday, December 3, 2009

You do NOT want to miss this !

Not a big George Strom, fan however I am DEFINATELY tuning in to see this one. Rumour has it that the newly elected National Chief Shawn Atleo will not only appear on the show, but it seems the producer found out th new NC knows how to break dance. Hilarity ensues. It is set to air Monday on CBC's The Hour. Now, Phil Fontaine never did that!

Too early to tell how Atleo will do as a National Chief, but no one can deny the man is cool.

He'll also be on One By One with Peter Mansbridge on Saturday/repeats on Sunday. Exciting but kinda pales next Stroumboulopoulos.

Hey Wideye - you were looking for something to blog about I believe?

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Thursday, November 19, 2009

B.C. First Nation approves private property rights

I do not see this as progressive. And it may be a first inside Canada but not a first with Indigenous people. The Eskimo in Alaska also had the option to own and sell - and they did sell when times were tough and the familied needed cash to feed their kids. Now they are still hungry but they have no land....hmmmmmmmmm.

B.C. First Nation approves private property rights



A northwestern B.C. First Nation has approved a revolutionary land reform deal, making it the first in Canada to approve private property rights.

After years of discussion and debate, the Nisga'a Lisims government has quietly passed the Nisga'a Landholding Transition Act.

The move means that sometime next year Nisga'a citizens will have the chance to own their own homes on what used to be collectively owned native land in B.C.'s Nass river Valley, north of Terrace.

They will also be able to mortgage their property or transfer, bequeath, lease, or sell it to anyone they choose, aboriginal or non-aboriginal. The system will be voluntary and all private land will remain subject to Nisga'a laws.
Unprecedented and historic move

Kevin McKay, the chair of the Nisga'a Lisims government, called the move historic.

"What we're doing is unprecedented in Canada … because we are blazing a new trail here," he said. "It's a very proud moment for the Nisga'a nation. … It's something we've always aspired … to re-empower ourselves to do exactly what we're doing right now.

"It is a very positive step forward for us. In our journey so far, we've come to realize what we're doing is unprecedented in Canada."

McKay also believes the changes will spur economic development in the area.

The Nisga'a were the first B.C. band to sign a modern treaty with the provincial and Canadian governments in 1998. The controversial deal gave the Nisga'a 1,930 square kilometres of land in the lower Nass Valley, self-government powers akin to municipal governments and $190 million in cash.

In 2008, the Nisga'a started to pay GST and PST, as well as taxes on fuel and tobacco as part of the historic treaty. The Nisga'a were exempt from paying sales tax for a transitional period of eight years after the treaty's signing.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Strange bedfellows

Former National Chief Phil Fontaine and Senator Partick Brazeau, together? I hope someone with a cell phone took video.


YK Dene Chief skeptical about mining rare earth metals

- An exploration company is renaming a deposit southeast of Yellowknife today, in a traditional ceremony with the Dene First Nations.

But the proposed mining project may be too close for comfort for some.

Yellowknives Dene Chief, Ed Sangris, says the rare earth metal deposit at Thor Lake is close to traditional hunting and ancestral burial grounds.

He says although Avalon Rare Metals, Inc. has been consulting the First Nations about the drilling operation, the Dene still have to decide whether mining that close to home is worth the economic benefits.

“You gotta find the balance… do we do away with traditional culture… or do we keep our traditions?”

The deposit at Thor Lake is being renamed as Nechalacho, which Sangris says, in the Dene language means “the wind is always blowing”.

The company is flying the former Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, along with Canadian Senator Patrick Brazeau and the NWT Premier to the renaming ceremony southeast of Yellowknife. Sangris adds he’s not sure what Fontaine is doing on the company’s board of directors.

“I don’t know what they’re trying to pull. Maybe they’re just trying to garner First Nations support behind the project, you know, get someone in there, like Phil Fontaine, to convince us, ‘yeah, it’s okay’, but we have to make our own decision.”

Sangris says he plans to discuss the mining project with the Dene membership, while Avalon is conducting a pre-feasibility study at the Nechalacho site, expected to be finished by early 2010.

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Thursday, June 11, 2009

H1N1&First Nations no doctor, no nurses, but emergency hand sanitizer to arrive shortly

Three communities are now impacted: Garden Hill, St. Theresa Point, and South Indian Lake. A fourth First Nation, Grassy Narrows has seen a spike in flu, but H1N1 has not been confirmed. So durng this health emergency CP discovered that Health Canada may actually shut down nursing stations serving some remote Manitoba communities. Meanwhile health officials say it may take more than a week to get a doctor to Garden Hill, where the community still has not received masks, gloves or antivirals, but fortunately health officials have plans to send hand sanitizer. (I am not joking. story) The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the virus a pandemic (level 6) and expressed concern about the vulnerability of First Nations. It is also uncertain if there could be a second more virulent wave of H1N1in the fall. While WHO expressed concern, Canada's Minister of Health played down the disaster that is unfolding. (story) This exchange in the House of Commons yesterday.


Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the spread of H1N1 influenza in Manitoba's aboriginal communities has caused great concern to the World Health Organization. It is considering calling the outbreak a full-blown pandemic. The province of Manitoba offered the federal government help 13 times since May 4 to plan for a possible pandemic in aboriginal communities. Manitoba understands the issue; the World Health Organization understands the issue; only the Conservatives do not understand the issue. Why has there been such a delay in response?

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have been in regular contact with my colleague, Minister Oswald, from Manitoba in regard to H1N1. In fact, we have been planning for this pandemic since 2006. Our government invested $1 billion to increase our preparedness to respond to public health threats such as a pandemic, which includes first nations communities. I will continue to work with the Public Health Agency, Indian and Northern Affairs, and aboriginal organizations to ensure a co-ordinated approach. As well, Health Canada has provided additional nurses to the community and--


Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, mothers have lost their babies, and children have received inadequate care. The federal government was not prepared for this outbreak in aboriginal communities. Conditions in these communities continue to deteriorate. Homes are overcrowded. Communities do not have running water. The virus continues to spread. Experts warn that the worst may be yet to come. What concrete plan does the government have to prepare all aboriginal communities for a possible pandemic?


Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since April of this year we have been acting on our pandemic plan, which includes first nations communities. We have remained vigilant on this issue. We are in regular contact with the WHO, my counterparts in the international community, as we deal with this situation. I will continue to work with my colleague in Manitoba as we deal with this situation, as well as the aboriginal leaders of those communities.

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization is about to announce H1N1 as a full-blown pandemic, and it has singled out its impact on Canada's aboriginal people. Everyone remembers what happened when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. This is Canada's New Orleans. Why is there a disproportionate impact on first nations? It is because of a lack of resources, a lack of planning, and fundamentally the third world living conditions that aboriginal people face. When will the government call an emergency summit with aboriginal leaders, provinces and territories to put together a response?


Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as an aboriginal person, I find that line of questioning insulting.
H1N1 is not an illness that applies only to aboriginal people. It does not see race. It does not see class. It does not see boundaries. We need to respond accordingly, and we have. We have a pandemic plan. We are implementing it.



Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to come and visit St. Theresa Point and talk to the people who are currently dealing with this crisis. The government has failed to deal decisively with this surge in flu cases. Chief McDougall of St. Theresa Point has called for a field hospital to deal with the situation that is so bad. If we can do this in war zones, why can we not do it on the front lines of a coming pandemic? When is the federal government going to deal with the fundamental root cause of this, which is the third-world living conditions that first nations in Canada face? When will the government wake up to the severity of what is happening?

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the pandemic plan that was established for this country in 2006 applies to every single Canadian. We are implementing that plan in partnership with the health care service providers of provinces and territories.I will continue to work with my colleagues in Manitoba as we deal with the situation, and we will continue to monitor and remain vigilant as we deal with the situation in Manitoba.

Other posts on this topic:
June 6: If it isn't racism, what is it?
June 5: Feds slow to respond to First Nation pandemic planning: Manitoba
June 4: Another update H1N1
June 3:More on H1N1 at St. Theresa Point First Nation
June 2: Please follow this story. Please write to your MP

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Friday, June 5, 2009

Feds slow to respond to First Nation pandemic planning: Manitoba

http://www.canada.com/Health/Feds+slow+respond+First+Nation+pandemic+planning+Manitoba/1663408/story.html

Feds slow to respond to First Nation pandemic planning: Manitoba

By Mia Rabson, Winnipeg Free PressJune 4, 2009
The Manitoba government had offered Ottawa help with pandemic planning on First Nations 13 times since May 4 but was turned down every time until Wednesday — the day it was revealed that 12 residents of a remote northern reserve had been hospitalized with flu symptoms.

Health Minister Theresa Oswald made the revelation Thursday as she expressed frustration at the federal government's response to the H1N1 flu outbreak when it comes to First Nations like St. Theresa Point, saying the province has been prevented from doing more because it doesn't have jurisdiction.

On Thursday, Ottawa asked for additional help with supplies and the province sent masks and antiviral medication to St. Theresa Point, about 500 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg. Oswald said the province had offered to provide antiviral medications for reserves repeatedly in the last month.

"It's the federal government's job to ask us if they need some (antivirals), and that's, of course, part of what we've been asking them 13 times," she said.

She said the province's stockpile includes enough of the medication for First Nations.

Meanwhile, St. Theresa Point Chief David McDougall pleaded for understanding and tolerance for his swine-flu afflicted community on Thursday, saying that residents have been met with fear and paranoia.

So far just two confirmed cases of swine flu from remote, fly-in community located 500 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg.

However, there are 21 people from the reserve in hospital in Winnipeg and hundreds more in the community itself have registered with the nursing station as suffering from respiratory symptoms.

"Those are all pending confirmation if they are in fact infected by this (swine flu) virus," the chief said at a news conference.

He said members of his community were recently asked to leave at least one hotel over fears they could be sick.

"Just to be in the same room with me is not a death sentence for anybody," McDougall said, adding later: "As far as I'm concerned, there's no panic right now."


McDougall stressed there have been more confirmed cases in Winnipeg than in St. Theresa Point, a community of 3,200 people


McDougall said two of his own nieces are in critical condition at St. Boniface hospital in Winnipeg.


"There have been some frightening moments throughout the course of their treatment," he said.


He has said his community lacks the infrastructure to deal with a full-scale outbreak, and that a potential pandemic could spread quickly, since residents live in overcrowded homes.


Manitoba's health minister said Wednesday that province was asked to help find housing for family members coming to Winnipeg with sick loved ones because they were having difficulty finding hotel rooms.


Meanwhile, at least 100 students at a Regina elementary school are likely infected with the swine flu virus, said a top physician with the local health region.


One student from Massey School tested positive for the virus Thursday, but 150 students are out sick and most of those are expected to have the illness, according to Dr. Maurice Hennink, deputy medical health officer for the Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region.


"It's circulating in our community," he said. "We expect some more tests to come back positive."


Hennink said many of those infected might not take the test, meaning the 153 confirmed cases in the province do not provide a full picture.


The Manitoba government, federal health officials and First Nations leaders have met weekly since the swine flu outbreak began a month ago, to work on pandemic planning on First Nations.


In 2005, the Public Health Agency of Canada's report on pandemic planning outlined a number of outstanding issues related to preparing for an outbreak on reserves, including a lack of formal agreements dividing responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments for responding to health emergencies and the lack of pandemic plans on First Nations. The report also said there needed to be a clear protocol for ensuring the provinces' antiviral stockpiles were accounting for First Nations, and how First Nations could access the drugs when they were needed.


A spokeswoman for Health Canada said the department and Manitoba are close to an agreement on how to deal with pandemics on reserves. However, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq did not respond to the concern Oswald raised.

© Copyright (c) Winnipeg Free Press

Other posts on this topic:
June 10: No Doctors, No Nurses, but emergency hand sanitizer is on its way
June 6: If it isn't racism, what is it?http://crazybitchesrus.blogspot.com/2009/06/please-follow-this-story-please-write.html
June 5: Feds slow to respond to First Nation pandemic planning: Manitoba
June 4: Another update H1N1
June 3:More on H1N1 at St. Theresa Point First Nation
June 2: Please follow this story. Please write to your MP

PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

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


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

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Say WHAT? Brazeau is working with the AFN

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

Thursday, May 21, 2009

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



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

 
Personal Business Directory - BTS Local