The Monarchy Debate in Canada: An Indigenous Perspective

              On the weekend of January 13-15, 2012, Liberal party members met in Ottawa to discuss, debate, and put forth various ideas on policies, rebuilding, and electoral strategy. One such policy that was put forth was Policy Resolution 114. This policy sought to enhance a ‘Canadian’ identity and severe ties with the British Monarchy. As an Indigenous person, who also studies Canadian/Indigenous state relations and Constitutional forms that have, and currently, exists in Canada, I was extremely concerned by this motion. I would soon find out that I was not the only one concerned – in fact the entire Aboriginal Peoples Commission executive, which is a wing to the Liberal Party, was concerned with the lack of consultation, via the Youth wing which had presented it, or the consideration of possible consequences by such a motion of abolishing the monarchy.

            While many people were arguing over about tradition and modernity, or archaic methods and Canadian identity; the APC was trying to have delegates and Canadians come to an understanding about the unique Indigenous perspective on this debate. When the APC did try to explain, they had various people, Liberal delegates as well as general Canadians, tell them they were wrong, didn’t know what they were talking about, and that they didn’t understand treaty rights. I found this interesting as those telling them they were wrong traditionally had no background, academically or legally, on Indigenous issues, Indigenous rights, and Indigenous/Canadian state relations. In fact, when a couple of lawyers, who had no specific expertise or focus on the Indigenous aspects I mentioned, continued to be listened to over the APC – in fact, even individuals who weren’t lawyers seemed to be assumed as knowing more. This was very concerning because an important perspective on this debate was being, and continues to be ignored. However I will say that many Liberal delegates, Members of Parliament, and general Canadians did understand the APC’s point.

The APC opposed it based on what their job is – to understand the Indigenous aspect, to put forth the concerns and be the best possible representatives of the Indigenous voice to the party. Fortunately Policy Resolution 114 failed, however Indigenous delegates and the APC continue to be told how ‘disappointed’ individuals were with them for speaking out against this policy. So, after a recent transaction with an individual, who again told the APC that they were wrong, I had to respond with facts and some history. Below you can see the issue that exists with the idea of abolishing the Monarchy from an Indigenous perspective. The views expressed are my personal ones and done so from my personal research.

Pre-Federation of the British North American Colonies:

Prior to 1867 it was the Indigenous Nations relationship with the British Crown that existed. In other words, treaties, meetings, and discussions occurred between one Indigenous nation and that of the British Empire. Usually this was done through a Crown representative because the Crown obviously was not able to attend majority of the time, just like when a Prime Minister sends representatives in his/her place due to scheduling conflicts or time constraints. The fact is the relationship with Britain, although not perfect was far better, and still is, than with its Canadian representatives. This can be viewed especially as governing structures of the settlers began to be formulated here in present day Canada. Thus as representatives of the colonies gained more 'power' and only had to report to Britain, many reports were done that did not necessarily contain the proper and factual information. In fact from the late 1700s, and on, settlers carried this out on behalf of the British. Many settlers, due to the debates that had gone on in Europe, about whether Indigenous people were persons, had rights, as well as having territory, allowed for them to take advantage of the split view point (in fact Indigenous people in Canada were not deemed persons until 1997).

1867-1960s:

However, upon the federation of the original 4 colonies of Canada in 1867, the BNA Act expressed that Canada would respect the treaty rights that had been formulated directly through the British Crown and continue as the Crown's representative in future treaties with the Indigenous nations. Unfortunately, it then became the ‘responsible’ government of Canada who then imposed the Indian Act, outlawed Indigenous rights, and items such as the ability to seek legal counsel. This led to the completely ‘silencing’ of the Indigenous nations and was done so to evade the treaty rights, jurisdiction, and lands that belonged to them – all in order for the Dominion of Canada to expand west and northward. Indian Agents sold of treatied Indigenous land to which they had no right to do so. Shockingly, there is evidence that the Federal government of Canada knew this was occurring but continued to allow it to – and even would have the British assuming it was being done properly and legally.

Furthermore, the decision to further residential schools with federal funding came directly from the government of Canada - which used the fact, as a reason for Britain to support it, that it would civilize and make Indigenous people model citizens. Yet, because of our rights to territory and the fact the Indigenous nations had never been asked to federate or been in discussion to federate, this respect and 'citizenry' was false. However, the reports to Britain would be based off of Canadian government documents. As time went on Canada, as it gained some more independence on some matters, continued to isolate Indigenous people, force assimilate and tell us who we belonged to, and who was allowed to be an Indigenous person, which is still done to this day. Many court cases done through the Canadian jurisprudence have shown heavy biases to Canada's favour. This impact would lead some Indigenous grievances to be taken all the way to the JCPC in Britain. Usually, this action was favourable towards Indigenous rights.

The White Paper and the Constitution Act (1982):

In the 1960s Pierre Trudeau began moving Canada towards a more multicultural state and believed that a modern Canada required a liberalist (and by liberalist I do not mean Liberal Party of Canada as the two are not the same) notion of equal rights. This included a modern and patriated constitution and a charter of rights. This understanding also led to the 1969 White Paper, in which Canada decided that they were going to single handedly abolish Indigenous rights, void treaties and Indigenous reservations. In other words, the plan was to simply annex the Indigenous nations into the Canadian state. This caused a huge uproar and showed the lack of understanding between Canada and the Indigenous Nations, a mentality that is very pronounced with the current federal government. However, Trudeau and many parts of Canada would get their wish in 1982 with the Constitution Act.

In this Act, Section 35 expresses Canada must recognize and abide by ‘existing’ treaty rights. Consequently, there have been many problems with this. For instance, Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982) and Section 25 of the Charter of Rights were to not originally exist. The Canadian government originally did not want them at the time and it was a ruling by the British government, vis-a-vis the Crown, that Canada must implement something relating to Indigenous rights. This occurred because Indigenous Chiefs went to London England to push for the Constitution to not be patriated or at least for some form of protection. Thus, in fact, these sections now existed thanks to our British Friends – vis-a-vis the Crown. It is also my understanding very few Indigenous organizations supported the wording of Section 35 or Section 25 as it was not constructed through consensus and discussion with the Indigenous Nations.

The Reality of Today and the Impact of Sections 35 and 25:

Since 1982 there has been very little comfort and evidence that section 35 of the Constitution Act, and Section 25 of the Charter of Rights, has done great work to protect the Indigenous nations. This is because the wording of both sections had little to no input from Indigenous people. Additionally, the term 'existing' is consistently debated and often contentious. There have been many court cases where the term ‘existing,’ within Section 35, has been used to infringe upon treaty rights of the Indigenous people. For instance, if the court system rules against a treaty right it is then applied across Canada to all treaty Indigenous nations and people. However if it goes in favour of treaty rights, it is only in favour of those Indigenous communities within that specific treaty area that was being debated and discussed in the court.

            Currently a lot of items that should be deemed treaty rights are still heavily ignored. Thus, I must pose the question that if Section 35 of the Constitution Act and Section 25 of the Charter of Rights is protecting Indigenous rights perfectly, why has Canada failed to acknowledge existing treaty rights? Why do many of the Indigenous people continue to face substandard living conditions, do not have the right to their governance structures, resource sharing agreements, and so on? I would assume if those who are a part of the various Indigenous Nations, a) call this into question, B) have historically known about how decrepit the relationship with Canada has been, c) Knowledge that it is the British Crown that has done quite well in being a voice for and beside the Indigenous nations, then why would they go along with the idea that Canada would be better to work with? It has yet t be proven that Canada has effectively built a proper relationship that is needed with the Indigenous nations for such a possibility as that of Canada becoming a republic.

Case Example: The Jay Treaty:

For one final thought, I suggest people look up the Jay Treaty. This was a treaty that Britain signed with the newly formed United States government in the late 1790s. In section III, it recognized and acknowledged that Indigenous people had existing right to cross the colonial and American border without being harassed by either settler state’s border security. Upon Canada’s federation in 1867, it would refuse to recognize this treaty, even though the U.S continues to recognize this section of the Jay Treaty. In the 1950s a case came forth by a member of the Haudenshuane community of Awkwasasne, which is located within territory deemed to be that of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and New York state. Due to the individual being charged a duty fee for bringing something ‘into Canada’ he took it to the courts. He argued, via the Jay Treaty, that he has a right to do so without facing fees or punishment.

The Canadian court ruled that because Canada was not a signatory of the Jay Treaty it did not have to abide by it. This was not the only case of its kind relating to the Jay Treaty. For instance, two more cases came forth post 1982. Yet the courts ruled in favour of the previous ruling, stating Canada did not sign the treaty AND thus does not need to abide by it. Thus one must ask, if this occurred even with Section 35 of the Constitution Act and Section 25 of the Charter of Rights: How can the courts then deny the existing treaty rights outlined under the Jay Treaty? This is especially questionable when the BNA Act would have recognized it since it was an original treaty and Canada was supposed to acknowledge all previous treaties. This then must lead to the question of: if a future narrow-minded governments comes into power seeking to destroy the treaties, could they not use Canada's new found republic state as a way to do so? For instance, what if they argued a similar statement of “we never signed those treaties,” and therefore Canada does not have to acknowledge them?

 This is worrisome because if they want to be technical, 'Canada did not sign the pre-confederation treaties – such as the Jay Treaty. Furthermore the numbered treaties were signed by Canada in the name of the British Crown. Does that mean a narrow-minded government can then claim, based on precedent from previous court rulings stating that if Canada did not sign it, they do not have to abide by it? Even further, there would be concern that ALL treaties, including modern ones since they are also done on behalf of the Crown, could be voided. This is especially troublesome when majority of Canadians do not understand the Indigenous/Canadian relationship and majority of Canadians do not look at treaties and treaty rights in a favourable mindset or attitude.

Conclusion:

After reviewing this tad bit of Canadian/Indigenous state relations, alongside the place of the Monarchy, I must ask: Why would there be a willingness via the Indigenous nations to trust a Canadian republic? Where has the poof been that the Canadian state, its courts, and citizens, will not try and debunk them and their rights when Canada currently practices many of these tactics now?

Thus, I must kindly express that it is the pro-republic point of view that has been wrong and not based their ‘Indigenous rights component’ on facts, historical examples and the reality of the relationship. Thus, it is those within the APC who a) Come from these Indigenous communities; b) Grow up learning about the history of what has occurred and continues to occur, c) Have worked and studied in these areas, d) Consult with Lawyers and academics who focus on Indigenous aspects to these areas of the Constitution, Charter, and various other fields, who were, in fact, correct in our understanding of our rights and arguments against Policy Resolution 114.

On a personal note, I will continue to stand up and defend the rights of my community and the rights of our future generations, such as my nephews and niece: whom will inherit the current strains and issues Indigenous citizens face because Canada has not shown a willingness to move forward and work alongside us as was, and still is, expected via the treaties that were signed with the Crown. It was Paul Martin who made gains on this and unfortunately, since his defeat in January 2006, the old mentality has returned via the current governing party. It is because of Martin and his commitment to the rights of the Indigenous nations that I became a Liberal and will continue to work within and outside of the party. There is a need to help Canadians move back towards an understanding, proper and healthy relationship. Abolishing the Monarchy is not the step forward - it is in fact a regression away from understanding the inherent and proper treaty relationship.

NOTE: If one wants my sources from my information please notify me and I would gladly submit them - since this is my personal blog I did not opt to post my work cited with this article.

Gays Can Donate Their Organs? News To Me!

                Earlier this week an announcement was made by the Ontario Minister of Health, Deb Matthews, that an online registry for Organ Donation was commencing. This can be viewed as good news for the future of organ and tissue donation here in Canada. Until recently if an individual wanted to donate their organs and tissue they had to sign up/mail in their registration. This prevented many from trying to sign up to donate their organs. The new system will allow people to simply deal with it online  - making it accessible to more people. This I welcome.
                However, I have some reservations about this new system that has been brought forth. Questions arise for me about people who do not have access to the net, don’t know how to use it, and of course about gay men who, in 2007, were removed from the organ donation list due to changes by Health Canada.  I, and many other gay males, remember this – with many of my friends, straight or gay alike, taking part in protests against this discriminative policy. Thus when this announcement was made I did express on my Facebook and my twitter account about how I would gladly donate my organs – if only I was allowed. However, based on my sexual orientation I am prevented from fully donating my useful organs to someone, after I die, who in turn will most likely also die. I also pointed out flaws with an online registry. Unfortunately I have very little faith in people signing up on their own, which means I wonder how much of an increase the online registry will create. Why not have simply implemented an ‘Opt-Out” Organ Donation Policy?

                Thanks to my dear friend, Janie Fisher, I learned a lot about this idea of opt-out organ donation. The idea expresses that all citizens are already considered organ donators – unless they are disqualified due to medial issues and/or have agreed to ‘opt-out.’ Many developed countries already practice this idea and it is something that Canada, and Ontario, should look into – especially since there is a massive discrepancy in the amount of organ donators compared to those needing organs. It is a sad situation when most of ours are imported from the U.S or bought on the black market – not to mention citizens going to other countries to get them.

                In fact my friend Janie Fisher  proposed a policy to the Ontario Young Liberals back in 2007 which past many of the checkpoints it had to for being suggested to the Liberal Party of Ontario. Although debate over the policy was vocal and contentious at the OYL Summer Fling in Thunder Bay of that year, it still passed. Thus the policy was to go forward to the Party and be considered. However, this policy dropped off the face of the earth – not because of Janie but because of internal aspects within the OYL and the impact of ‘youth politics’ in this province – in my personal opinion. The end result was the policy disappeared and was never introduced to the OLP policy convention in 2008/2009 like it was supposed to be – well not her policy anyways.

                Thus the option was there and was not acknowledged – so I called people on it and the aspect of gays being able to donate. This issue of gay organ donation was even discussed at the Liberal Party of Canada’s Biennial Convention in Vancouver, 2009 – where one member pointed out quite well that he “would rather have a gay heart then no heart” if he needed a transplant.

                The issue of gays donating organs, for me, also relates to the inability for a gay male to donate his blood.  I also find this very discriminative because my blood should be as valuable to saving a life as any other citizen who can. I am very vocal that ALL blood should be screened and allowed to be used if it is cleared of disease, virus, or irregularities – whether one has same sex relations or not. The same goes for organs and I expressed this. On Wednesday I got a rebuttle to my twitter status and my Facebook link via individuals working for Minister Matthews. It was expressed to me that no matter what ones sexual orientation is, they can donate their organs. However, upon looking into it further one can see a fine line about this. It is true a gay male can donate their organs, what was not mentioned is that they need to have not had sex with another male for 5 years, similar to the rule about a gay person donating blood.

                On top of this, health officials can quiz a gay person’s family members about the gay individual trying to donate their organs. Furthermore, the new policy makes it seem like Health officials can tell who is gay and who is not.  For me, this is all ever-so frustrating.

                Thus I must state that although I applaud the online-registry, it does not go far enough and nor does it end discriminative practices that prevent a section of our population who could help people live with their blood and organs… so again I ask the Health Minister to please push Ontario into the 21st century of organ and blood donation – by making sure all people are screened – thus allowing the maximum potential of donations to be made – whether or not that individual has had sex with a man in the last 5 years or not. If I am wrong then please show me how I am with fact. Please express with a press release that Health officials should not be turning away a gay individual who wants to help. And lastly, be bold and look into opt-out organ donation policy rather then opt-in: only someone who has witnessed the flaws in this by sharing a bedroom with someone needing a kidney, or having someone in their family needing a new heart, can give you an idea of what it is like to watch someone die or miss a chance to be saved because people are too lazy to sign up, click the url, or because people are prevented based on their sexual orientation – or perhaps, that is just me…

Please Find Attached Some Articles that Relate to this Entry: One of which is Former Ontario Health Minister condemning the changes to organ donation.

George Smitherman Article:
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=872565

Another Example:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/01/07/organ-transplant.html

The 2011 Canadian Federal Election ... What the %^&$?!!!

              Today is June 1st, 2011, marking almost a full month since Canadians went to the polls. For some there was jubilation as our Conservative Party finally won that coveted majority. For some, there  was reason to celebrate a historic breakthrough for the NDP, not just in Quebec but across Canada – forming official opposition. For all of us who consider ourselves federalists, we were overjoyed with the destruction of the Bloc Quebecois, however I am sure many Conservatives and Liberals wished it had benefited their party rather then the NDP. For others, like myself, it was a blow to the stomach – knocking the wind out of us and replacing it with dread, disbelief, and devastation.
               The Canadian election of 2011 saw many firsts, one being my party of choice, the Liberal Party of Canada, being reduced to its lowest seat count, and popular vote, in its history – to a mere 34 seats, and obtaining 3rd party status. Many great people, in my personal point of view, lost their seats that night while many friends, who worked as parliamentary assistants to these MPs, lost their jobs as well. In my own riding of Peterborough, our candidate came in 3rd – the first time for the Liberal Candidate in the history of this riding. As I watched the coverage of election night and witnessed Liberal MPs who I admired fall to the ‘orange wave’ and the ‘blue iron curtain’ I felt my heart sink. Liberals such as Todd Russell, Mike Savage, Marlene Jennings, Anthony Rota, Rob Oliphant, Martha Hall-Findley, Gerrard Kennedy, Ken Dryden, Glen Pearson, Anita Neville, Ujjal Dosanjh, and Larry Bagnell lost their seats that night – MPs who worked tirelessly to protect Canadians and the unique differences we all have. I had so many thoughts going through my mind; How and why could/did this happen?  What will become of the Liberal Party of Canada, What will happen to my First Nation community, what will occur to my treaty rights, and/or will I even be allowed to still marry?

                These questions kept with me for that first week after the election – leading me to avoid discussing what occurred that May 2nd with people in my community, on my blog, Facebook, twitter, etc.  The reason I secluded myself was because I did not know what to think, nor did I have the logical answers to why it may have happened.

Why did this Happen?


                There are various answers to this question. My personal view will be based on my education in Politics which allowed for me to look further behind the scenes and notice different strategies that were oblivious to the average voter. The fact is the 2011 election results were exactly what Harper had been working towards since he emerged as the new Leader of the then Canadian Alliance. Harper knew he had to bring the C.A and PCs back together if they ever wanted a right leaning government to take control of Canada again. Once the merger happened he began to tweak the new Conservative Party of Canada to one that would bring back former PC voters while also cozying, as close as possible, to the right of centre. This was going to be done to snatch away centre and right of centre voters from the Liberals. The fact the Sponsorship Scandal occurred while he began to implement this plan helped it occur far more quickly.

                Harper also began to push the NDP to do the exact same on the left side of the Canadian political spectrum in hopes of snatching away other centre and centre-left voters from the Liberals. This in turn would suffocate the Liberal Party of Canada – a party traditionally in the centre of Canadian politics, where most voters usually stand in political systems. It was in 2011 that the NDP actually opted to try this idea and began looking for, what they termed, the ‘Layton Liberals.’ These Layton Liberals were left of centre Liberals who the NDP could sway to their side. While this was occurring the two, traditional, front runner parties continued to attack and focus their energies on one another. Both, especially the Liberals, tried to completely ignore the NDP – expressing the NDP have no chance in hell of ever forming government.

                There was problem with this logic in my personal point of view, and I expressed this to many party members and MPs – Canadians like the underdog in politics – specifically ones the other parties may bully. Layton was made to look like the geeky kid no-one would allow to play tag with during recess time. This was very apparent in the televised debates, which is when most Canadians begin to solidify their support and listen more intently to the media. While Layton went for the throats of all party leaders, Ignatieff ignored him. This was very problematic because the NDP strategy was specifically to lure away Liberal voters. No one thought it would work, but Ignatieff’s unwillingness to fight back against Layton was fatal. Instead of rebutting accusations by Layton, Iggy simply ignored him. Can we really blame him? How many of us as general Canadians who somewhat follow politics, actually ever took the NDP seriously until now?

                This new found love and choice in the NDP can mainly be attributed to the decision be Quebecers to elect ‘something new.’ Layton did very well in fighting back against Duceppe, allowing Quebecers to consider other options to that of the BQ. After the debates the NDP support in Quebec began to increase. As it increased, and began to move forward at a fast pace, Canadians across Canada began to react. The dramatic and quick surge of NDP support in Quebec allowed to a major blip in national polls. General Canadians did not realize this was being attributed specifically to the NDP’s soaring support in Quebec. Thus, many other Canadians in BC and Atlantic Canada began to sway to them as well. There was even a small up tick in the Prairies as well. However, it was not until the last week of the election that this new found love for the NDP began to impact Ontario.  Media began to discuss about the possibility of a Conservative minority with an NDP opposition … perhaps even an NDP government with the Liberals supporting them.

                These media reports were exactly what Harper was waiting for. With the Orange wave rolling across Canada, Harper began to plead with traditional Liberals to abandon their party and ‘lend their votes’ to stop ‘the socialists’ from ruining the country. Guess what? Many did just that. In the last two days of the election traditional centre and right of centre Liberals fled to the Conservatives to prevent an NDP win. This led to many traditional, and ‘stronghold,’ seats to fall to the NDP and the Conservatives. The Liberals, to put it bluntly, were squeezed by two sides while being picked clean. Thus May 2nd ushered in a Harper Majority with a Layton opposition. People were shocked by this, but if more of us paid attention, and voted, many more would realize this was all strategic and chosen as a path for us. Politics is definitely a sport and strategy game – Harper played it well.

What Does this all Mean?


                Since May 2nd many commentators and general Canadians have expressed disbelief in what happened that night. Many now wonder what will happen in Canadian politics. Will the Conservatives move more to the right? Will the NDP be able to form government next time? Will the NDP and Liberals now consider a merger? To answer all three questions I would have to say No. Harper has worked hard to move the Conservatives from completely right winged to a party that is ‘considered right of centre.’ Right now he, as a good political strategist, that if he was to usher in a more right winged party he will likely fail to win in 2015. However, I do believe Harper’s long term goal is to mold Canadians into a more right-winged political ideology – but understanding this has to be done slowly in order to prevent any surprises for Canadians. It will also be done this way to make Canadians believe that it is them who are making the decisions to change.

                As for the NDP forming the next government, I would have to say it is highly unlikely at this moment. The reason I say this comes from numerous facts. First, Canadians traditionally love their incumbents (People who are already the Prime Minister, or their Member of Parliament). Incumbency ahs a major effect on how we vote and our choice only changes if the party they represent, or their leader, becomes unbearable to the general populace, such as Mulroney, or if the party the represented did something very stupid, such as the Liberals with the Sponsorship Scandal. Thus this will benefit Harper who is consistently looked at as strong, smart, and most ‘Prime Ministerial.’ The other thing working against the NDP at this moment is that over 50% of their new MP’s were not expected to win. I would suggest that at least 25% of their new MPs were also only added to the ballots in certain ridings to be a ‘filler’ (someone who lends their name to be a Candidate in a riding that their party has very little chance of winning). This would be the case for many Quebec NDP candidates, who ended up winning their seats – including many who don’t even live in their ridings, did not campaign in their no represented boundaries, or who are still University students. Questions are arising over whether some may even share NDP values per say, with some new NDP MPs having links to Communism, and/or separatist movements in Quebec. All I can say is it will be an interesting four years in analyzing and watching how Layton handles his new found power, which he was craving even back before he became Leader of the NDP.

                As for this idea of the Liberals and the NDP merging I again will have to state a big No. Although there might be some discussion about this, there are problems that arise with it.  First of all, The Liberal Party has a similar history and formation in democratic values to that of the Conservatives. It also believes in a capitalist system, like the Conservatives with Keynesian aspects and social responsibility (which the NDP support). However, the NDP has their founding in Socialist ideals, which still survives with much of its traditional base and long-sitting MPs). This is a major division that exists with the Liberals and NDP, preventing much ability to merge. With the NDP now having more power then the Liberals, there is little chance they would give up these founding ideologies – forcing the Liberals to revoke much of what they stand for. This would be unacceptable to many in the party. Thus if it was done, most traditional Liberals – from discussions I have had with them, would switch allegiance to the Conservatives. Thus, even with a merger the likelihood that all Liberal supporters would keep their memberships to this new party and actively support it is unlikely.

               The end result would lead to many Conservative governments with a, once and a while, NDP government in between. This is quite noticeable in the U.S where Republican governments consistently outnumber their Democratic rivals. To me, this would be concerning for those of us who believe in social responsibility and progressive policies for social issues. I don’t know any Liberals who do not believe in these policies, but few are willing to support socialist tendencies.

In Conclusion:


                After a month of analyzing, following the news, and coming to terms with what happened May 2nd I finally decided to discuss it. I worry what will occur to Canada over the next four years and how it will impact me, an individual who had to grow up on the welfare system for a time, who was born into a single parent family, grew up on a reserve, is currently a student, is multi-racial, gay, and a Liberal. It took me some time to figure out what I planned to do next with my political affiliations. My decision right now is to help in the rebuilding of the Liberal Party. I plan to stay involved while we begin to reach out to Canadians, upgrade, and reformulate ourselves to the 21st century. It will be a long and grueling task but must be done. It is time to return to the grassroots of the party (all of which I will discuss in a future post). So much work needs to be done and I am willing to be there to help do it. One thing is for sure, the Liberal Party of Canada must move away from ‘band aid’ solutions, petty internal rivalries and focus on rebuilding. If we do not, we face assimilation and disappearing from Canadian politics.

Andre Forbes - EX-LIBERAL Candidate for Manicougan

In early April, news broke, via the New Democrat Party (NDP), that a Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) Candidate had racist links in his past as well as quotes of racial slurs. This Candidate’s name was Andre Forbes, who was seeking to represent Manicougan. The NDP had shown proof that the Liberal Candidate had ties to the formation of a White Supremist Group as well as direct quotes of him referring to First Nations people as ‘Featherheads.’ I was not impressed whatsoever when I, along with my fellow executive members of the LPC’s Aboriginal Peoples Commission, learned of this. I posted news articles of it on my facebook, on my twitter account, and did emails like crazy calling for this person’s removal. In fact, majority of us on the APC, by majority I mean those who responded quickly on the subject, called for his removal.

            To our elation, the LPC had removed this person, it its strongest ability, from being a candidate for the LPC. We received word of this as we were all emailing the Party’s main office to do something about it – low and behold Michael Ignatieff, LPC party leader, was already doing so. I believe he did what was the proper thing to do – he made sure the claims were true before removing the individual. I say this because in times of elections, all parties like to pull dirt up that may not be completely factual – thus their priority must be to examine the truth behind the claim.  Ignatieff and the LPC did this and once the NDP claim was confirmed, denounced it and removed him.

            Ignatieff himself said, when approached about it by journalists while in Quebec campaigning, that “the reported remarks of this candidate are utterly unacceptable…they do not reflect Liberal values” (APTN National News).

            Thus Forbes’ name was quickly removed from the LPC list of Candidates and he was told he no longer could run as a Liberal Candidate. The problem that has arisen now is that some claim he is still a Liberal Candidate. This is entirely untrue. The fact is that this situation came about after all candidate names had been given to Elections Canada – effectively locking them in as a Candidate. This also brought forth Ballots being printed with the names and their ‘party affiliation’ on it. Thus, when the remarks about Forbes were released all the LPC could do was remove the Individual as an endorsed Candidate by the party – which IT EFFECTIVELY DID. However, because Elections Canada had already input Forbes’ name, he will still be on the ballot with the word Liberal next to him. This cannot be changed and is the exact same thing that has occurred to other Candidates – such as the Conservative Toronto-Centre Candidate who the party removed support for (he was still on the ballot as the CPC Candidate), or the Green Party Candidate who made rape comments on facebook (he will still be on the ballot as the Candidate) – whether or not these individuals choose to continue to run in the election or not.

            The problem here comes down to the unwillingness of Elections Canada to remove the names etc. As well as the unwillingness of the Candidate to not run at all. Forbes, in the end, has a personal choice in whether he will continue to run or not – and as far as I know he said he would – AS AN INDEPENDENT. Thus he is no longer an endorsed candidate of the Liberal Party of Canada – if he had been, I would have torn up my membership and resigned from the National Executive of the Party – My Community comes before my Political Membership – always will and will never change!

Another problem is the fact that the LPC is divided by region – in other words the National executive is made up of sub-regional executives, such as Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, etc. Thus, many candidates put forth also relate to the specific regional organization and its possible strength – and it is no secret that the Federal Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec) are not that developed compared to their counterparts in the east coast and Ontario. I in no way am justifying the actions of Forbes but simply try to remind people that miscalculations happen and sometimes people who are screened make it in unfortunately – humans have the ability to make mistakes; the question becomes whether or not those in charge deal with it, or not, once they find out, which the LPC and Ignatieff did.

            In conclusion I would like to congratulate Ignatieff for dealing with this quickly – to have already been dealing with it before the Aboriginal wing of the party could jump on it was mind boggling for me – usually doesn’t happen in Canadian politics, lol. Ignatieff took action and removed support for Forbes once the information was deemed to be correct, The fact is the LPC is offering some strong commitments that relate to Indigenous Education and Health, which is a good step forward (I will talk further about this in another post). However, I would like to remind the NDP that they ‘are calling the kettle black’ as they had their own people who have done similar thing – Bev Desjarnais, for an example (Past M.P of Churchill). The NDP never acted on her comments, it wasn’t until she came out against Same-Sex marriage that they kicked her out of the party. Furthermore, the CPC has consistently ignored calls for some of their MP’s to resign or gfive an apology for racial remarks about indigenous people. Chuck Strahl and John Duncan have both been known to make racist remarks about Indigenous people in the past, and yet Harper made them both act as the Indian Affairs Minister! Furthermore, Pierre Poilievre, after the government issued the historic apology for Residential School abuses – June of 2008, told media that “native people need to learn the value of hard work more than they need compensation” (CTV.ca). Although he did actually issue an apology, it he did not say he felt he was wrong about what he stated – and has continued to serve as Stephen Harper’s right hand mean in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Perhaps one day all parties will act like Ignatieff did on this and, instead of dancing around it, take swift action – I am happy to live in the world of optimism on this, if all of us begin to speak out and ‘rise up.’

The 2011 Canadian Federal Election

As many of you know an election was called in Canada on March 26^th, 2011. This occurred after the current federal Conservative Government, under Stephen Harper’s watch, lost the confidence of the majority of House of Commons members (aka: The opposition M.P’s). Since the launch of the election much speculation has occurred over why it was occurring.

Power-Hungry Liberals?

Some people have claimed it is because the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) is power hungry. My question is, If the LPC was so power hungry then why would they have not waited until polls showed they had a better chance at winning more than their current seat count. In fact, polls are showing they may either make a net gain of 2, stay the same, or drop lower than the amount of seats they had going into the election. This reasoning should show a clear signal that this is not way the election was called.

I would like to point out that out of the 5 major party leaders (Stephen Harper, Micheal Ignatieff, Jack Layton,  Elizabeth May, and Gilles Duceppe – only Ignatieff and May have credible proof that they have yet to cause an election based on polls indicating their seat count, and power, would rise. Harper, Layton, and Duceppe forced an election in 2004 – with claims that they lost support in the Government due to the Gomery Inquiry. This inquiry dealt with the sponsorship scandal that brought an end to 13 years of Liberal control in the HOC. However, what few people focus on is the fact that public opinion shifted with increased support for the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) and the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP). There was also heavy movement in Quebec to the Bloc Quebecois (BQ).  In fact, the NDP, within a week, saw the possibility of a net gain from 19 seats to that of almost 40! This was a very interesting thing for the NDP as they had not seen support or gains like this since the 1980s. It was the NDP who had propped up the Martin Liberal government of 2004-2006 – due to like mindedness on policy issues, compared to that of the CPC.

Martin made significant contributions in his 18month-2years as Prime Minister (PM) with movement on African Aid, Environmental Legislation – specifically within the framework of the Kyoto Accord, the finalization of a historical document on a National Child Care Plan, and another historical document, which took 18 months to finalize, known as the Kelowna Accord. This accord would have seen an injection of 5.5 billion dollars into FN issues relating to Education, Health, and Infrastructure. This Accord would have sought to bring FN’s to the same standards of education access, health care access, and infrastructure standards that Canadians had. However, all of the above accords/legislation was slaughter after the January election results, with the CPC forming a minority government, the LPC becoming official opposition, and the NDP seeing historic gains in seat count (still less than their biggest count in the 80s). In my personal and humble opinion, these accords and legislation would have done much to help Canadians – but the parties put their greed, popular vote, and potential seats above this. I say this more specifically about the NDP, who had supported Kyoto, Kelowna, and the National Child Care Strategy – all of which have been destroyed.

Furthermore, in 2008 Harper broke his own election laws by calling an early election. The CPC government had implemented legislation expressing that Canadian elections were to be held every 4 years, unless, in the case of a minority government, the opposition parties force an election. In the early days of September 2008, polls were showing strong gains for the CPC. Harper, out of nowhere, then declared that he could not work in the House of Commons with the opposition parties because they would not work with him. However, from 2006-2008, the opposition parties had been working with them. In fact the LPC, under Dion, had purposely avoided votes in favour or against CPC legislation in order to prevent confidence issues – which the CPC kept teasing them with. There was no reason for the 2008 election, except that Harper seen that he would gain seats – almost securing a majority, which he would have had he not screwed up on arts funding, which made Quebec very mad. In the end, the Harper government increased its seat count to within 11 seats from a majority, while the Liberals saw a historical defeat (second worse in its history), and the NDP also made modest gains.

In 2009, the Liberals obtained a new Leader – Michael Ignatieff, who is the newest federal party leader out of all 5. The above items show that the NDP and BQ both took advantage of 2006 polls to move for an election, while the CPC took advantage of the same in both 2006 and 2008. The Liberals have not forcibly caused an election, out of greed, since 2000 – when Chretien noticed he had a chance to secure a larger majority – thus a stronger mandate. The 2004 election, that Martin called, was a must because he was a new leader of the LPC and had to take his case to the Canadian people. The 2006, and 2008 election were forcibly done to gain seats – by the CPC< NDP, and BQ, with 2008 solely being due to the CPC. 2011, is different I agree – however there is more reason for why it has occurred.

A Tale of Canadian Democracy, Our Loss of it, and the Canadian People’s Lack of Caring:

            By the time the opposition parties, under the LPC, NDP, and BQ, brought about a confidence motion which saw the defeat of the Conservative government, many items had occurred that should anger Canadian citizens. However, so few care to pay attention anymore that people only noticed an election happened not to long after the Budget had been released.

            The fact is THIS ELECTION WAS NOT based on the Federal Budget for the 2011/2012 year. THE ELECTION OCCURRED DUE TO CONTEMPT CHARGES. Throughout February and March, allegations had begun to surface that led to serious questions of where the CPC stood on items such as Canada’s Democracy. One such item related to the Canadian government’s investment of over $30billion+ for fighter jets. For me, the problem was not so much the idea of purchasing jets (as I am very pro-military) but more of why were we buying jets, at such an expensive cost, when we had just retrofitted our current jets to last until 2017/2018. Why not use this 30billion on other military things, like our navy, to help with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), to upgrade Military infrastructure and technology, etc. Furthermore, the HOC began to realize that the original costs put forth on this, was far higher than the government claimed – with even an American Bureaucrat pointing out that the Canadian government’s estimate was way off, and far lower, then it ought to be. The costs didn’t even include items such as the fighter’s engines!!!

This is similar to the issue of the justice legislation that the CPC had been pushing. Again, I am quite right winged when it comes to justice, yet it was found out that the costs the CPC had put forth to the HOC had been lied about. The fact was the CPC knowingly skewed the costs in order to make it seem cheaper than it would be. This led to questions of ethics and whether or not the government was in contempt. This could only be decided by the Speaker of the House (Mr. Milliken – an MP for the riding of Kingston-and-the-Islands). At the same time it was discovered the federal government had denied funding to a group called Kairos. The unique situation about this was that the funding had clearly been approved, but someone had written into the document, which had originally been typed, the words not, in front of funded. The opposition brought this up in the HOC and the Minister responsible, Bev Oda, claimed not to know who did this. It was eventually realized that it was herself who had added the words ‘not.’ Thus, Ms. Oda had lied to the House of Commons, leading to another reason to look at whether the government was in contempt.

These things occurred after various other immorally acceptable occurrences. Twice the CPC, under Harper, prorogued parliament. One time it was claimed that it dealt with preventing an ‘undemocratic’ coalition (which I will write about later). In December of 2009, Harper pushed for prorogation again – simply with claims to benefit the Vancouver Olympics, as well as for He and other important CPC Ministers could attend. However, right when he called for Prorogation was also during the Christmas intermission. When they were to return at the end of January, items regarding proof that the CPC knew of torture in Afghanistan were to come forward. This was a major contributor to the enforcement of the prorogation. Prorogation is legal in Canada, but usually requires the majority will of the HOC. However, due to Harper’s minority government status – he clearly did not have the will of the majority. Thus his enforcement of proroguing parliament, with the help of the Governor General, was viewed as undemocratic because it went against the will of the majority of the HOC representatives. Let us remember that in our democratic style we elect people to represent us, and trust them in their judgments – thus majority of Canadians elected non-CPC members.

These situations also go along with referring to the Government of Canada, as the Harper government, lying to the International world about its History with the Indigenous population, firing people who have spoken out against the CPC or tried to warn them about stuff (Such as the head of Elections Canada, the Nuclear Safety Watchdog, the head of the Census, etc). It is because of all this that the Opposition had had enough. It was because the Speaker of the House (who is elected by the members of the HOC – thus the CPCs, LPCs, BQs, and NDPs did have a hand in who was made Speaker) found our government, and the Canadian Prime Minister in CONTEMPT. In other words, the Canadian government, and the Prime Minister, was found to have purposely lied and misled the official opposition parties, bureaucrats, and the Canadian people. This is the FIRST time in not only the history of Canada but also the British Commonwealth that this has occurred.

Case Scenario:

Let us look at this in the sense of a business. If your business partner had told you that finances were fine, but they had secretly distorted it so you would approve of it, and you eventually found out this was the case – what would you do? Would you go along with the lie and support your corrupted business partner while they make yourself and your business out to be a bunch of asses, or would you fire that individual? Or would you continue to support someone in your business who purposely keeps people quiet who might show you problems – who might warn you that there is some structural problems with the building your business is in. And yet that person is kept silenced or let go because it might undermined productivity a bit, even though in the end the building could collapse and hurt many of your employees. Again, would you go along with it … knowing full well that your co-worker, who could be your significant other, or a family member, faces utmost danger – and most likely death because her cubicle is in that area that will collapse? I would assume most of us would act, and do so quite angrily. Yet we don’t when our government lies to us.

Conclusion:

It is these reasons that the opposition parties brought forth an election. It is because of the CPC’s lack of proper accountability and reliance on the general Canadian’s apathy and lack of knowledge on how their own government works, that they continued to do this. How could any party or person who knows all this fully endorse a party that lies and thwarts democratic process? How many of you understood this is the case? How many of you care? More Canadians need to wake up and smell the foul – stop complaining and become involved with their state’s politics – or we have no right to democracy – let those who care about it have it, or perhaps we can just trade places with those stuck in autocratic, monarchal, dictatorship states.

The Push for 'Democratic Reform' in the Middle East: My Rant

(Originally Posted on my Facebook on March 1,2011)

Over the last two (2) months the world has seen much protest and democratic movement for reform in the way of governing within the Middle East. With the toppling of tightly controlled regimes, by dictators, in Tunisia and Egypt, movements have developed, and spread, to Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and Oman (to name a few). The developed world cheers as these changes occur, knowing full well that, for the most part, the citizens of these nations must push for these changes themselves. All the west can do is call for these regimes to remove themselves from control, or condemn the brutal attack that the ‘leaders’ of these nations do to their own people – such as in Libya.
                I too congratulate the people of these states in pushing for change and democratic reform – an increase in the voice of the people, in my mind, is always a good thing – but they must also remember to be careful of the tyranny of the majority, which we in the west, who come from minorities, have learned as our democracies developed.
                However, while Canada, Australia, and other colonial established states approve and support these changes in governance, and majority of its citizens, there are people within their own ‘borders’ who continue to be denied this idea of democracy. Yes, I am talking about, in Canada specifically, First Nations people and their elected officials. While many in Canada push for the idea of democratic reform and human rights – specifically first generation (civil and political rights) in places like China (Tibet), Iran, various African countries, and other middle-eastern countries – First Nations people continue to have their ability to have democratic representation within their own Chief and Councils is thwarted by the state of Canada and its government – more specifically Indian Affairs and it’s Minister.

A History not Taught:

                A vast majority of Indigenous cultures that share treaties with the British Crown, which is represented by the Canadian government, had various forms of ‘consensus’ governments that were done so in a ‘democratic’ sense. For example, although majority of Canadians learn that there were hereditary Chiefs who controlled their people like despots, the truth is that they were held accountable by various people. The Huadenshaune, who had Chiefs, had clan mothers who always had a final decision in what their Chief decided – or, like Cabinet Ministers in Canada, offered suggestions to their Chief. Furthermore, meetings were held with their tribe members to come to a consensus on decision making. On top of this, the clan mother’s had the right to remove a Chief from their position if they believed they were not doing an effective job – not to mention they also could decide that the next in line to become Chief, due to hereditary ideals, was not sufficient, or efficient, enough to be the leader. This entire process, like a vast majority of other Indigenous groups, allowed male and female members, no matter their possible hierarchal status, to be involved in the decision making – far before the Canadian state allowed this for non-white Christian males.
                For Indigenous governments, this changed as British Subjects, and then the Canadian state, began to gain prominence and more control in what is now North America, and Canada. With the enactment of the Indian Act in the 1870s, the Canadian state began to exert control, more fully, on First Nations governance. As time passed, their systems of government were forced to ‘westernize.’ Disenfranchising the female members of the tribes, and in some cases thus stripping the total governance ideals of many of them – such as the Huadenshaune. Furthermore, the Indian Act allowed complete control of First Nations governances by the Canadian government, despite legal binding treaties that expressed they, and the British Crown, would not intervene in their governing forms. Eventually the Canadian state controlled all aspects of First Nations government, despite no agreement by First Nations to allow them to do so – it was completely imposed. This control included complete decision making in the distribution of finances, jobs, as well as who was elected in the positions of the Chief and its councillors.
                To this day, the results for Chiefs and Councillors that are elected in First Nation territory are finalized by Indian Affairs. Thus, the Indian Affairs ministry has the ability to deny the results of an election if they so choose – which they have done many times in the past when the results showed someone winning who was more traditional and who would challenge the Canadian state. On top of this, the Chief and Councils can be considered like vassal states due to the strings, majority of the time, being pulled by Indian Affairs, and the Canadian government. All decisions that are made are finalized and approved or disapproved by this bureaucracy – whether a majority in a First Nations community agrees or disagrees with a decision.
                On top of this, Indian Affairs continues to deny the ability of First Nations communities to decide if they would prefer to return to a traditional form of consensus governments, how long a term is for Chief and Council, and what forms of recall and accountability that those who elect them can use. This is a major problem as it affects the accountability of First Nations governments. For the few that are corrupt, as long as Indian Affairs does not notice the siphoning of band money into the pockets of their Chief, it can continue on – especially if they have good relations with the government. This is a common occurrence, even when members of the community may know of this, and speak out against it, for years before a media outlet picks up on it. This then spirals into a stereotype of First Nations governments being corrupt and undemocratic – yet Canada, Canadians, and the media outlets do not realize that one of their own Bureaucracy allows this to occur.

The Sad Truth:

                This situation still exists today – in 2011. First Nations people continue to be denied the ability to hold their elected officials accountable, what form of democracy they would like to see enacted, what decisions will be made for them and how it will be done, and to have their voices properly heard. In a democratic world where people can speak out about a government, and in Canada where citizens of a city, province, and government, have the ability to some form of recall on their elected officials, why does Canada continue to deny the same ability to First Nations people? Why are First Nations peoples access to a ‘democratic form of government’ – a form that the west not only adopted from the Greek and Roman ideal of government, but also the Haudenshaune form;  that’s right, American democracy and the idea of universality are First Nation ideas and forms of governing – denied?
                Thus, in a time where we as global citizens, as humans, see change being pushed in Muslim Nations, with Canada and countries like it endorsing this and cheering it on, I believe it is time to allow First Nations people the same right to democracy. It is time to allow First Nations the right to self-government, a right to self-determination, a right to accountability of their elected officials, and a right to their own forms of democracy.
                I find it extremely hypocritical to support and praise movements for inclusion and democracy in the world but continue to deny it to those within a state’s own ‘perceived’ borders. All Canadian Federal Parties should reach out to First Nations people and re-entrench their civil and political rights - rights that are considered a cornerstone in Western society and governance.

Canada's Dark History: Why First Nations Will Never Forget and the Need for Canadians to Understand

(Originally Posted on my Facebook on June 10, 2010)

Below is a chronology of events relating to what some may term genocidal and assimilationist policies used by the Canadian, Provincial, and pre-confederation governments in dealing with, as Duncan Campbell-Scott stated, "the Indian Problem." This chronology only looks into a small aspect of a disturbing history and if you look closely you will see that some of these actions continued well into the 1980s. This is why many of us fight for accountability for the Canadian government and will most likely never stop. It is also just part of the reason why I am involved with politics and education as I want healing and an optimistic path for all of us ... this can only be done with understanding the past in hopes to prevent it from occurring again or continuing....

(Note: Although the wording can be deemed in a biased and angry manner the information is still accurate. Please take the anger with a grain of salt and remember why it exists in the first place ... only we can bring forth a more positive future and relationship.. a relationship back to the two-row wampum belt philosophy) - (The tagging was also done randomly... and geographically ;))

____________________________________________________________________________________

1857: The Gradual Civilization Act is passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada, permanently disenfranchising all Indian and Metis peoples, and placing them in a separate, inferior legal category than citizens.

1874: The Indian Act is passed in Canada’s Parliament, incorporating the inferior social status of native people into its language and provisions. Aboriginals are henceforth imprisoned on reserve lands and are legal wards of the state.

1884: Legislation is passed in Ottawa creating a system of state-funded, church administered Indian Residential Schools.

1905: Over one hundred residential schools are in existence across Canada, 60% of them run by the Roman Catholics.

1907: Dr. Peter Bryce, Medical Inspector for the Department of Indian Affairs, tours the residential schools of western Canada and British Columbia and writes a scathing report on the "criminal" health conditions there. Bryce reports that native children are being deliberately infected with diseases like tuberculosis, and are left to die untreated, as a regular practice. He cites an average death rate of 40% in the residential schools.

November 15, 1907: Bryce’s report is quoted in The Ottawa Citizen’s headline.

1908-1909: Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, suppresses Bryce’s report and conducts a smear and cover-up campaign regarding its findings. Bryce is expelled from the civil service.

November, 1910: A joint agreement between the federal government and the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist churches establishes the structure of Indian Residential Schools and the contractual obligations of churches running them. Duncan Campbell Scott refers to the policy of the government as that of seeking a “final solution to the Indian Problem”.

May, 1919: Despite an escalating death rate of Indian children in residential schools from tuberculosis - in some cases as high as 75% - Duncan Campbell Scott abolishes the post of Medical Inspector for Indian residential schools. Within two years, deaths due to tuberculosis have tripled in residential schools.

1920: Federal legislation makes it mandatory for every Indian child to be sent to residential schools upon reaching seven years of age.

1928: Sexual Sterilization Act is passed in Alberta, allowing any inmate of a native residential school to be sterilized upon the approval of the school Principal. At least 3,500 Indian women are sterilized under this law.

1933: An identical Sexual Sterilization Act is passed in British Columbia. Two major sterilization centres are established by The United Church of Canada on the west coast, in Bella Bella and Nanaimo, in which thousands of native men and women are sterilized by missionary doctors until the 1980’s.

1933: Residential school Principals are made the legal guardians of all native students, under the oversight of the federal Department of Mines and Resources. Every native parent is forced by law to surrender legal custody of their children to the Principal - a church employee - or face imprisonment.

1938: Attempt by the federal government to close all residential schools and incorporate Indian children into public schools is defeated by pressure brought by Catholic and Protestant church leaders.

1946: Project Paperclip - a CIA program utilizing ex-Nazi researchers in medical, biological warfare and mind control experiments - uses native children from Canadian residential schools as involuntary test subjects, under agreements with the Catholic, Anglican and United churches. These illegal tests continue until the 1970’s.

http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assignments/experiment/paperclip.html


1948 - 1969: Offshoot programs of Project Paperclip are established in United Church and government hospitals in Nanaimo, Brannen Lake, Sardis, Bella Bella, Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia; in Red Deer and Ponoka, Alberta; and at the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital in Thunder Bay, Ontario. All of these programs use native children abducted from reserves, foster homes, and residential schools, with the full knowledge of church, police and Indian Affairs officials.

1969: Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chretien tables his White Paper in Parliament, which reaffirms the "assimilationist" policy of the past century that denies sovereignty and equal status to native nations. As a token gesture, Chretien assigns a limited control over Indian education to local, state-funded band councils. Many residential schools are phased out altogether or simply taken over by band councils.

1984: The last Indian residential school is closed, in northern British Columbia.

1990: State-funded leaders of the Assembly of First Nations discuss “abuses” in residential schools for the first time publicly.

1994-95: Eyewitnesses to murders at the United Church’s Alberni residential school speak out publicly, from the pulpit of Reverend Kevin Annett in Port Alberni. Annett is summarily fired without cause within a month, and is expelled from United Church ministry without due process during 1996.

February, 1996: The first class action lawsuit of Alberni residential school survivors is brought against the United Church of Canada and the federal government. The church responds with a counter-suit and an attempted “gag order” on Kevin Annett, which fails.

1996-7: Further evidence of murder, sterilisations and other atrocities at coastal residential schools are documented by Kevin Annett and native activists in public forums in Vancouver. The number of lawsuits brought against the churches and government by residential school survivors climbs to over 5,000 across Canada........and it continues (check canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org)

2005/2006 - The court case regarding live-in residential schools for Canada, excluding Newfoundland and Labrador, reaches an agreement. The government of Canada issues an apology in June which is quickly questions be racial comments made be a rookie MP.

2009 - September - Stephen Harper announces that "Canada has no history of colonialism." (Note: To Stephen Harper - Explain the previous points!)