Throughout part
1 and part 2 of this write-up I had looked to shed light on the relationship
between the NDP and Indigenous peoples via policy, voting, and mindset. As was
quite noticeable in part 1, the NDP had no difference in their mindset from
that of the other Canadian political parties – that is until after the 1969
White Paper had been introduced (a paper which mimicked an NDP policy from
1963). In part 2, the NDP was struck by internal division from members and
sitting parliamentarians, as well as provincial NDP wings, on how best to
handle patriation of the Constitution and the accords of the late 1980s and
early 1990s. But what of the NDP from 1993 and up to the present date? This is
an important question to consider and will be done in this 3rd, and
final, write-up on the NDP and Indigenous nations.
I will state now as I always state:
The Liberal Party of Canada has made many mistakes, even into the 1990s – I
acknowledge this and I don’t hide it or defend it. However, I argue that no
party – whether in forming government, as opposition, or as a third party, can
be saved from guilt of past policies and legislation that has been implemented.
Unfortunately this is just met with more partisan mantra by my ‘orange’ friends
to the left. So, after many attacks on not just me and my choice of party, but
also my family and the mindset I, and those Indigenous people who vote Liberal,
are helping to assimilate ourselves, I decided to do some research. This
research is specifically on the NDP and the hypocrisy it espouses when it
attacks another party for policy that is decades old, such as the White Paper.
I do want to
acknowledge now, this may be a long post to follow –but one of importance due
to the sheer amount of research done to shed some truth to the NDP/Indigenous
relationship.
The 1990s & early 2000s: The Changing
of the Guard and a ‘Golden Age’ on Indigenous Rights
With the federal election of 1993,
the NDP saw not only a new leader at its helm but almost its destruction as it
was reduced to 9 seats in the House of Commons. The new NDP Leader, although
being from the Yukon, lost support amongst Indigenous people due to the NDP
standing on the Charlottetown Accord. This led to many high-profiled NDPers at
provincial levels to leave that party and join the Liberals federal – one being
Elijah Harper who helped quash the Meech Lake Accord and campaigned against the
Charlottetown Accord.
Currently, I have had a difficult
time finding platform points from the NDP on Indigenous issues in the 1993
election platform that they would have ran on. There is belief that the unified
support of the Charlottetown Accord by the NDP had led to many Indigenous
people moving to the Liberals in 1993, including potential candidates. Throughout
the time of McLaughlin. Being the MP for the Yukon, it is quite interesting
that this would occur and that no substantive policy existed in the NDP
Platform of 1993 to show support to Indigenous people.
With the many cuts being made by the
Chretien Liberals after their win in 1993, support did sway back to the NDP. By
the 1997 election the NDP had again obtained a new leader, Alexa McDonough from
Nova Scotia. Additionally, discontent with Liberal cuts to areas such as
employment insurance, healthcare, and Indigenous funds should have led to an
increase in voter support from various groups. This was very noticeable in
Atlantic Canada. But what of the Indigenous Population? What did the NDP
promise to do in the 1997 election campaign?
Upon reviewing much of the 1997 NDP
election platform it is suprising to see little to no acknowledgement of
promises and acknowledgement of Indigenous nations and rights. In fact, the
1997 election campaign was fought specifically over the issues of the Canadian
economy and employment from the NDP side. It was clear the issues of the
majority took precedent in this election. The Indigenous population again was
left out from the NDP. Again, I will express that the NDP still had within the
party that it was important to consult and work with Indigenous people – yet it
offered no substantive policy at a time that would have been a perfect time to
‘cash in’ on the possible Indigenous vote. But, other then the Yukon, Winnipeg
North-Centre, Winnipeg Centre, Churchill, and Churchill River, the other 16
seats the NDP won that year head very little ability to be impacted by the
Indigenous vote. Additionally, it is not fully clear how Indigenous people
voted in these ridings because the information seems to be non-existent.
Traditionally, Indigenous turn out
in urban areas could be less, as his been mentioned in more recent articles and
thus it can be argued that the urban ridings listed above may have been
impacted by employment and cuts to services then Indigenous people angry at the
Liberals. Again, Indigenous policy was not at the forefront for the NDP in 1997
either. The same can be argued, and seen when dealing with the 2000 election
under McDonough as leader of the NDP. No policy was really introduced nor were
many solutions considered.
I will give credit to the NDP for
speaking up against various pieces of policy that would impact Indigenous
people during this decade, and the early 2000s. The NDP had developed a good
method for keeping the HOC in check when relating to Indigenous people. In most
cases, the bills they had to speak out against would not be passed – such as
Bill C-7. Thus the NDP support for Indigenous rights was becoming apparent, but
specifically when attacking the governing party of the time. From minutes
recorded on various Bills that impacted Indigenous people the NDP did nothing
more then to point out the flaws, the need for consultation, but lacked
suggestions to move forward. During this time it was apparent via the media and
correspondence between the NDP and Indigenous organization that they were
listening and expressing what they were hearing to the HOC – but not possible
solutions per se.
The Rise of Jack Layton:
By January of 2003 the NDP had
obtained another new leader, one of whom most of us recall more readily then
his predecessors: Jack Layton. Layton
came from a political family, with his father serving in Brian Mulroney’s
Caucus within the HOC in the 1980s and early 1990s. Layton espoused what one
would expect for an NDP leader – one who was to the left, social
responsibility, and one who was supposed to understand Indigenous issues and
their rights.
In fact, the platform for the NDP in
2004 actually had a section reflecting Indigenous people, like the Liberal
Party had done. They were committed to respecting treaties and working with
Indigenous people to resolve land claims (including with the provinces). They advocated for clean water for first nations
communities, for Indigenous communities to administer their own health care
programs, work with the communities to foster economic growth, and so on.
Majority of this reflected Health Care and governance. Similar aspects were put
forth by Paul Martin in the Liberal camp, who had also adapted his
understanding and viewpoints on Indigenous nations, rights and Jurisdictions.
Thus, the Liberals at this time also had some strong points that it put forth.
In turn a minority Liberal government was sent to the HOC with also the only
true Indigenous representation within the HOC. In fact, in the 2004 election it
was not clear that the NDP had even put forth any Indigenous candidates – even
in ridings with high Indigenous representation. Why? I do not know – only the
NDP would.
Despite the push and change in the
platform from past platforms, the NDP still were not making breakthroughs at
this time. Instead, they continued to hurl past actions of the Liberals upon
the Liberals, forgetting about their own history of similar policy and
Eurocentric mentality.
The Kelowna Accord and the 2006 Federal
Election:
Between 2004 and 2006 the Liberals
and NDP had found common ground and had agreed to work together, given a few
demands by the NDP that the Liberals agreed to. This had been done in the
Minority governments of Trudeau, Pearson, as well as Mackenzie-King. During
this time Paul Martin, also used his new found opinions on Indigenous people to
start moving forward – the first time, in my opinion, a Canadian political
Prime Minister and Leader had shown true action and truth to his words. Martin,
in the late 1990s, had, as he told the APC Executive in January 2011, had a
change in mindset via a discussion between him and LPC MP Jane Stewart. He then
began an educated movement for himself to learn and open his mind about
Indigenous people, to which he had done and was still doing upon taking the
Liberal leadership in 2003.
This was reflected in his ability to
encourage support and representation from the Indigenous population as
candidates, as voters, and when drafting policy. The best example of such a
policy was the Kelowna Accord. The Accord sought to help support Indigenous
nations to come to par with their Canadian counterparts on issues such as
Healthcare, Education, Infrastructure, Clean Water, and so on . Almost all of
these items, as I listed, were in the NDP platform for 2004 – excluding
education and infrastructure which the Liberals added on their own. Paul
Martin, at this time, also was one of the first leaders to have direct
involvement of Indigenous people in his inner circle, with one of his policy
advisors being Indigenous himself.
The Kelowna Accord was agreed to by
not only the federal government of Canada, but the provincial governments, as
well as almost all Indigenous leaders – A first time in Canadian history. It
was applauded by the Indigenous side and considered a major breakthrough and
stepping stone forward for Indigenous/Canadian relations, despite the long list
of past mistakes from within Canada and its political parties. Even the NDP
supported the Accord, but that was to change as the Gomery Inquiry released its
preliminary draft and polls showed an increase in support for NDP – albeit not
a substantial amount.
One must remember though, Layton
came in to take over a party that was stuck with 14 seats prior to the 2004
election. Even after the 2004 election, the seat count only increased to 19.
Polls were showing that Layton believed there was an opportunity to be in
striking distance of what the NDP achieved in 1988 – a seat count in the mid
40s. Originally the NDP and Liberals
also had an agreement that Martin would call an election in February –once the
full inquiry was released. But with the polls, statistics, and so on showing
possible advantages the NDP expressed that the Liberals must abide by a key
health care plank of theirs. This was unprecedented due to the original
agreement of support over other concessions given for the budget in 2005 to
secure the support of the NDP. Thus, the NDP, under Layton, joined the
Conservatives and Bloc in a motion of non-confidence and leading to the general
election of 2006.
Many of us recalled what happened in
that election. The Conservatives would win a minority and in doing so they
killed the Kelowna Accord. Not only did they destroy Kelowna, but they also
killed the National Childcare plane that Martin had etched out, as well as the
Kyoto Accord. For many of us this was not a surprise as we, especially on the
Indigenous side, knew where the Conservatives stood on Indigenous items. Again,
this election only saw Indigenous candidates under the Liberal banner. In the
House of Commons, the Liberals had Gary Maresty, Tina Keeper, Nancy
Karetak-Lindell, and Todd Russell. The NDP did not have any Indigenous
candidates, that were known of, again – even in Nunavut where they ran a
non-Indigenous person. One would assume that you would try and run someone who
is connected with the majority population of a riding, like you see the parties
do in urban centres.
The NDP did see their seat count
increase to 29, which also included the riding of Northwest Arctic. This riding
was originally held by the first Indigenous female to be elected to the House
of Commons – Ethel Blondin-Andrew. The NDP would replace her with a
non-Indigenous male who now represented a riding with a Indigenous population
over the 50% mark. I understand that all is fair in the war of elections but I
did find this shocking since the NDP consistently argued that they advocated
for Women, representation of women in the House of Commons, Indigenous rights,
the rights of children, national child care, and environmental protection. Even
the current Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May, chastised Layton and the NDP for
a clear push on an election to obtain more votes and seats – rather then based
on seeing good policy and legislation passed that worked for the masses and
many groups the NDP considered important to them.
Thus began the re-emergence of a
dark period for Indigenous/Canadian relations and even even more ignorant and
colonial minded one since the 1960s and 1970s, I would argue. Who do I hold at
fault for this? Both the CPC for being ignorant on this and the NDP for
becoming electorally greedy. I don’t care if other parties do it, or that it is
the name of the game – the truth is I strongly view the NDP as selling their
morals in November of 2005 – all in order to obtain 10 more seats. But again,
this was in 2005/2006. I shouldn’t be like the NDPers who consistently attack
me for the White Paper, which again I must point out was like their 1963 Indian
Policy Paper and that they initially supported the White Paper on the day it
was introduced. Or the lack of proper consultation or proper consideration for
Indigenous views in the 1980s and early 1990s like that of the NDP, as
previously shown.
But alas, when you question the NDP
about their support in destroying the Kelowna Accord, despite their
contradictory mention of it in their 2006 election platform, the replies I get
are “that opinion is obsolete and not important,” according to NDP MP Linda
Duncan (see blog post on this), or that Martin would never have allowed it to
pass. I guess people say what they need to in order to make up for their
mistakes – and the Liberals have been no different in this when reflecting the
past. However, perhaps I am being too partisan and that after 2006 there was
more sign of NDP wanting to truly work with Indigenous people … unfortunately
there are some examples that will show that partisanship was more important
then the plights of the Indigenous nations and the continued attack of the
Harper Conservatives.
The Matrimonial Real Property Debate of
May 2009:
As the political process and
increased control of the Conservatives occurred from the 2008 federal election,
the push to bring back pieces of legislation that the CPC had been trying to
enforce since 2007 was noticeable. The best example I know of that should be
assessed from the election of a CPC government in 2006 to almost the 2011
election, would be that of the Matrimonial Real Property Act – a bill with no
proper consultation, many loop holes and possible disastrous outcomes if
passed. During this time I was working for a political organization, of which
had sent representatives to meet and speak with members of each party on this
bill – in hopes of convincing a change of mind on the policy. It was clear the
CPC would not, abiding by party line. The Bloc said they would support the CPC
and ignored the repress from Chiefs in the Ontario area – mainly due to the
fact they were not ‘from Quebec’ most likely. The NDP came out heavily in
support of the Indigenous push to ‘kill’ this controversial and misguided bill.
The Liberals, did not know where to stand.
Eventually, after months of work
from my position as well as my internal involvement, the Liberals, with the
help of Todd Russell who was an Indigenous MP, chose to do what they could to
‘kill’ the bill. The Liberals chose to do this on May 14th, 2009.
The used the support of the majority of Indigenous peoples as well as
Indigenous governances and organizations for why this bill needs to be redone.
However, in a surprise move, after Russell was attacked by Duncan, Brunooge
(From the Conservative side) and Lamay (from the BQ), the NDP stood up and did
a 180. Denise Savoy, the NDP critic for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development at this time, stood up and expressed that the bill must be allowed
to continue to second reading and be discussed in committee – rather than its
destruction. It was shocking to see, in 2009, the NDP stray away from what
Indigenous people wanted and instead was now supporting the ability to further
colonial legislation. This was even more horrific to me due to their continued
attack on the Liberals for its past experience with colonial policy, including
the First Nations Governance Act of 2002, under Chretien, as well as financial
caps in the mid 1990s. How could this be and why would they do such a thing one
may ask. They must have had a good reason others would say. The answer: They
didn’t want to let the Liberals look good.
The NDP opted to, instead of showing
commitment to its own policy initiatives under Layton as leader, forego what it
agreed to do with Indigenous people and allowed partisanship to overshadow the
chance to collectively work together and ‘kill’ this legislation. Why
was this not reported better in the media and elsewhere? I do not know – but it
is a travesty that the NDP have never been held accountable to. When I push the
NDP on this bill, silence falls rather than an answer.
In the 2011 election the NDP
platform seems to try and make up for their actions with generic commitments –
the same commitments the Liberals had agreed to implement during the period
between 2004 and 2006, in the 2006 election, as well as during the 2008 and
2011 election themselves. They also clearly specify the establishment of a new
partnership with the Indigenous nations yet one must wonder why they would want
to do this when they had many opportunities to help foster this in 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 with the Liberals. I don’t have an answer to this –
only hypothesis that I am sure the NDP supporters would retort back with
something the Liberals did in the 1990s and back.
Conclusion of
Part 3:
Although the NDP had started to make
some more vocal stances during the late 1990s, the disarray of the party in the
early and mid 1990s seems to show the inability for them to do so during that
time. I will happily express that they did try in the late 1990s – even into the
early 2000s. However, by November 2005 the importance of Indigenous rights,
jurisdiction, and progress was pushed aside for additional votes and seats. At
a time when no such thing had been achieved before or after it, the Kelowna
Accord was a breakthrough in its own. Today, problems are worse and the NDP
partisans I meet consistently point out policies of the past that the Liberals
had brought forth.
To this I must now saw, with close
to 20 pages of research written about, they should check their own history as a
party, whether in the name of the NDP or its predecessors, and acknlowedge
their own Eurocentric, colonial, and misunderstood opinions on Indigenous
people and their rights. They must also stand accountable for their decision to
put 10 seats ahead of a heavily negotiated and consulted policy such as the
Kelowna Accord. They must also stand up and explain their actions in situations
like that of the Matrimonial Real Property bill in May of 2009. And my biggest
reminder to them: Those in Glass Houses, Should be Wary of Casting Stones.
It can be argued that a new era has
been sparked since the 2011 election – with changes in Canada’s political make
up and the change in leadership that the NDP has had and the Liberals will
have. Both now have Indigenous wings to their parties, with the Liberals
establishing the Aboriginal Peoples’ Commission in 1990 and the NDP in 2008.
But to claim this would require a review of their newly minted Leader Thomas Muclair,
the standpoints of some of their NDP MPs from Quebec – who put Quebec
Nationalism before that of Indigenous nations, as well as their stances on
items such as the place of the Monarchy in Canada, which is an instrumental to
the Crown/First Nations treaties and relationship. This, in other words, is a
new topic that will have to be looked into in another post – especially since
the NDP, under Muclair, plan to use the Indigenous vote to win the next
government. But what happens when you mix anti-monarchists, a socialist
factions within the NDP, Quebec Nationalists, as well as Indigenous rights? A
powder keg where some will give way to what may be considered ‘more important
issues.’
Sources: (Again, these sources are not properly work cited but simply added to this blog entry in order to show where my research, opinions, and points come from)
Kieth Archer and Alan Whitehorn, Political Activists: The NDP in Convention (Toronto: Oxford
University Press, 1997)
Russell Barsh and James Youngblood Henderson, “Aboriginal
Rights, Treaty Rights, and Human Rights: Indian Tribes and Constitutional
Renewal,” Journal of Canadian Studies
17.2 (1982)
Laurie Barron, Walking
in Indian Moccasins: The Native Policies of Tommy Douglas and the CCF
(Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997)
David C. Hawkes ed., Aboriginal
Peoples and Government Responsibility: Exploring Federal and Provincial Roles
(Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1991)
House of Commons, Issue No. 40. Special Committee on Indian
Self-Government, 20 October 1983
House of Commons, Minutes, 23 October 1980
Joseph Levitt, Fighting
Back for Jobs and Justice: Ed Broadbent in Parliament (Ottawa: LLA
Publishing, 1996) 30
Roy Romonow, “Aboriginal Rights in the Constitutional
Process,” in The Quest for Justice:
Aboriginal Peoples and Aboriginal Rights, eds. Menno Boldt and J. Anthony Long (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1985)
Special Joint Committee, op.cit., 5 January 1981
Frank Tester, Paule McNicoll, and Jessie Forsyth, “ With an
Ear to the Ground: The CCF/NDP and Aboriginal Policy in Canada, 1926-1993, in Journal of Canadian Studies, 34.1 (1999)
Mary Ellen Turpel, “Aboriginal Peoples’ Struggle for
Fundamental Political Change,” The
Charloettetown Accord, the Referendum and the Future of Canada, eds.
Kenneth McRoberts and Patrick Monahan (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1993)
Sources for Second
Section 1993 - present
House of Commons, Minutes, 4 June 1993
Frank Tester, Paule McNicoll, and Jessie Forsyth, “ With an
Ear to the Ground: The CCF/NDP and Aboriginal Policy in Canada, 1926-1993, in Journal of Canadian Studies, 34.1 (1999)
No comments:
Post a Comment