On July 7th
both Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau delivered a speech at the Assembly of
First Nations’ (AFN) Annual General Assembly (AGA) in Montreal. In both
speeches, the leaders outlined how they and their parties would approach a
future with Indigenous peoples. Now, some of you will claim I am bias because
of my long-standing support of the Liberal Party (despite the fact that I have
on many occasions called out my own party on mistakes it has made – with the
most recent being Bill C-51, despite my post in support specifically of
Indigenous Liberal candidates).
Thus, in
reviewing and watching both speeches from Mulcair and Trudeau I would argue
Trudeau did the best: speaking of nation-to-nation relations, the need to
re-establish and revamp the relationship to one that is positive, outlining in
fuller details what the Liberals would do in government; committing to continue
an open dialogue with our nations whether he is Prime Minister, Leader of
Official Opposition, or neither. To be more specific, here are some reasons I
felt Trudeau was 1) More Respectful; and 2) Offering More Specifics (I suggest
looking into the video of the speech – which can be found with the AFN or the
Liberal Party of Canada’s website):
1.
Trudeau
was on-time and started his speech on time – Mulcair did not;
2.
Trudeau
was the only one to recognize the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee
Confederacy (specifically the Mohawk) – Mulcair did not;
3.
Acknowledged
the Indigenous wing of the Liberals, the Aboriginal Peoples Commission – Mulcair
did not recognize the NDP’s,
4.
Kept
specifying the ‘nation-to-nation’ relations – Mulcair focused on ‘a new
relationship,’
5.
Acknowledged
the mistake of C-51 in relation to Indigenous peoples, promising to rescind the
parts that impact us – stating: “Indigenous peoples standing up for
their rights are not terrorists,”
6.
Using
the term ‘Indigenous peoples’ rather than “Canada’s Indigenous peoples, etc,
7.
Acknowledged
the failure of all past provincial and federal governments in treating
Indigenous peoples and nations respectfully – including Liberal governments - Muclair has not in relation to NDP and its previous names when in the HOC or forming Provincial Governments;
8.
Went
into further detail about how the Liberals will renew the nation-to-nation
relationships as well as fairness and equality for Indigenous peoples;
9.
My
one criticism: No time left for questions to be answered and asked openly
‘on-air' - instead they were done one-on-one with attendees as he walked around the place the AGA was held
Mulcair,
although talking about establishing a new era of relations did not offer much
specific or in detail. Furthermore Mulcair arrived late to his speech and also
did not acknowledge the traditional territory that he was on whilst addressing
the AFN AGA. To make matters worse, his answering of questions was generic,
with little insight, and on one occasion getting defensive with one person when
he got their name wrong.
Despite the
positive and negatives highlighted above, I would argue that speeches from any
federal political party at the AFN occurred for the first time in its history
that July 7th – in my mind highlighting that both do see and realize
the impact the ‘Indigenous vote’ could have. Both Trudeau and Mulcair
highlighted this by reaching out to the delegates at the AFN AGA, agreeing on
the need for more proper funding of items from education to infrastructure, as
well as the need for an Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women
(MMIW). I also do appreciate that both leaders, in their own wording, talked
about ways to move forward in hand with our nations – Trudeau speaking of nation-to-nation
relations and Mulcair about a ‘new era of relations.’ However, and this is
where I become critical, how does Mulcair’s new era of relations look when you
compare it to his and the NDP’s standing on the Sherbrooke Declaration – the NDP
declaration that allows Quebec to separate from Canada and formulate its own
modern-state despite the sovereign integrity and recognition of the Indigenous
nations whose land (which is inherently still Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Wendate,
Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe, Nehiyaw, and Innu) Quebec is built upon?
Mulcair’s ‘New Relationship’ vs.
“Quebec’s Rights to Separate:”
Following
Mulcair and Trudeau’s speeches, I began to wonder more fully what Mulcair’s
‘era of new relations’ really reflected because of his party’s stance on
Quebec’s ability to separate. Mulciar on many occasions has stood steadfast in
supporting the Sherbrooke Declaration.
The Sherbrooke Declaration was the
NDP’s response to the Clarity Act,
with the NDP’s declaration agreeing that for Quebec to separate a simple
majority was all that was needed. Neither the Clarity Act nor the Sherbrooke
Declaration reflected or included notions of Indigenous sovereignties and
nationhoods. In other words, when it came to Quebec’s separation, the
recognition of Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Wendate, Anishinaabe, Haudenosaune, Nehiyaw,
and Innu territory was left to the peripheries of the debate around Quebec’s
right to separate.
Yet, as the NDP
continued to grow in strength and as they continue to court the Indigenous
vote, despite their delays in support of Idle No More, Chief Theresa Spence as
well as Thomas Muclair’s lack of apology for endorsing Harper’s working
relationship with our nations, the NDP’s stance around Quebec’s right to
separate with land that is inherently Indigenous continues to be ignored and
they continue to ignore questions regarding it. They refuse to answer questions
I, and others send – instead playing partisan politics and calling mine, and
other peoples questions as Liberal fuelled (despite the fact that many I know
asking these questions are not supporters of any federal party).
I have witnessed
questions sent to Nikki Ashton, Romeo Saganesh, and other high-profile NDP MPs
– with them utilizing Conservative methods to attack back and demean the person
asking the questions. Questions as simple as: How can you build a new era of
relations with Indigenous peoples while your party would allow Quebec to
separate with land that is Indigenous; How do Quebecers have such a right to
separate with stolen Indigenous land; Etc. The NDP, as they have traditionally
done over their actions, deflect and attack rather then offer answers (thats all I would like to see - answers to quell my fears as an Indigenous person).
Fast-forward to
the last seven days and the NDP candidate in Papineau: Beatrice Zako. At the
end of last week it came to fruition that Zako had supported a separatist party
in the past before turning to the NDP. Mulcair and the NDP’s response was
complete support for Zako who had come to realize that Quebec is best served in
the NDP. However, since then it also came to fruition that Zako compared Quebec
to a colonized Africa. Again, Zako compared Quebec to a colonized entity and,
although she resigned as of today the NDP did nothing to reprimand her or
remove her. Instead they expressed support for her.
Thus, again I
ask: How does such mentality truly reflect a new era of relations between
Canada and Indigenous nations under the NDP who had a candidate (one they supported and defended) who refers to Quebec as a colonized entity – completely
ignoring the reality of the Indigenous nations. Such comments and defence of
such comments would be like defending the Dutch of South Africa to that of
English control while forgetting about the Africans who have called those lands
home for millennia.
Thus, again –
how does such mentality and such staunch support of such ignorance truly
represent a new era of relations with our nations? Add this to Muclair’s past
comments about willingness to sell Quebec’s water for a profit (despite
Indigenous rights); his party’s stance and flip flop in 2009 on the MRP
legislation, as well as his continued lack of apology for endorsing Harper’s
working relationship with our nations (January 2013), and his current tour in Ontario defending Quebec's right to separate and you truly have to
wonder: How?
Thus, to all of
you reading this I ask you, and beg you all, to do more research. The NDP is
not as picturesque as you may think when it comes to Indigenous peoples and our
nationhoods. They have many of the same issues the other federal parties
reflect and, unfortunately, they have spiralled into typical rhetoric on
Indigenous peoples. Thus, I ask you all to do research and truly understand
that the Quebec separation situation is tantamount to how they will work with
us – as an afterthought to the needs and wants of the provinces and second to
Quebec’s distinctness.
Unless, the NDP
and its MPs are ready to actually answer the questions being asked instead of
playing ‘political-roundabout’ and ‘political chess.’
For Additional
History on the NDP Please See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/19/mulcair-jumps-election-st_n_7828274.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/17/beatrice-zako-ndp_n_7821834.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/19/beatrice-zako-resigns-ndp_n_7829292.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
No comments:
Post a Comment