(Part 1) Those Who Live in Glass Houses Should be Wary of Casting Stones: The NDP & Indigenous Relations (Part 1: 1880s – 1978):

          The last month has been a rocky one – a consistent sight every decade of the deplorable state and relationship between Canada and the Indigenous Nations who the state shares this territory with. As my involvement has increased for the protection of my rights, the rights of my family, community, the Anishinaabeg Nation and all Indigenous Nations, I of course find myself being ‘attacked’ throughout social media by those who are attached to other Canadian political parties.

            If many did not yet know, I am a Liberal by the Canadian political standards (a Moderate one who is very big on the rule and respect of law, fiscally conservative, and so on. My view of Indigenous rights, nationhood, and jurisdiction is one viewed not through a leftwing lens but one through a ‘rule of law’ lens. After all, treaties are legally binding and thus law to be followed right? (But this is another write-up for another day). My point today is to counter some of the heavily partisan criticisms I get shot at me over twitter and facebook by, specifically, the NDPers who are so steadfastly seeing orange that they don’t see anything else.

            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 NDP before it was the NDP:

Prior to the formation of the New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1961, there existed the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). Before the CCF, there were the Labours and the Progressives. It is here I want to start first. As early as the late 1800s, the existence of Labour Members of Canada’s Parliament existed. These MPs, which I cannot find much in regards to voting records or additional information, were individuals who clearly were there at times of consistent pushes for Indigenous assimilation and destruction of their places as their own nations in their home territories on Turtle Island. The only example that is telling of their own mentality was the vote on the Old Age Pensions Act in 1927. The legislation, after being reviewed, had a section added to it that stated anyone who was “an Indian as defined by the Indian Act” ineligible. The recorded proceedings of the HOC suggests that this exclusion was of little concern to the Labour members of Canada’s House of Commons.

The same can be said about the Progressives who came to exist in the 1920s and early 1930s. The Progressives were connected to the United Farmers Parties that were in existence throughout the Prairies and Ontario. They too had MPs during this time, a time that saw removal of Legal representation for Indigenous people, more assimilationist policies, the time of Duncan Campbell-Scott, and so on. Again, little can be brought forth to how these Progressives voted or stood when it came to Indigenous people. However, their affiliation with the United Farmers Parties of the various provinces could shed light.

During this time, there was considerable representation from the United Farmers Parties in various provincial legislatures, especially as the governing party. It was also during this time that there were various restrictions that continued to be upheld on Indigenous people. First Nations people living in the prairie provinces required permits from Indian Agents to sell any of their produce. This would later turn into the need for written permission to even leave a reserve for any reason. With this being specific to the prairie Provinces one must wonder why the United Farmers Parties allowed this if they were so ‘progressive.’ An answer could be that the provinces had no jurisdiction over Indigenous people and that only the federal government could change that. This leads to a further question of why the Progressive Members of Parliament (MPs) stood by, and, at times, supported the Liberals of Mackenzie-King in imposing additional policy? I point this out because of the consistent NDP attack on the Liberals being solely responsible for all policy that they put forth – even though no current Liberal MP was even of voting age, let alone born, at this time.

This was almost 100 years ago you may say to yourself. I would agree, and acknowledge this is true and thus move ahead to the formation of the CCF, which occurred in 1932 with the formation first occurring as a Provincial party in Saskatchewan.

The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation: A Lack of Understanding of Indigenous Nations:

With the birth of the CCF in the early 1930s there is little proof that the mindset of the NDP of the 1990s was born then. In fact, through various academic sources, such as writings by Laurie Barron and James Pitsula, I was able to examine the early inklings of CCF understanding towards Indigenous people. This understanding, of course, was born with the formation of government by the CCF in Saskatchewan around 1944. At this time, the CCF wanted the Indigenous people of Saskatchewan to have the same advantages that all Canadians had – this included the delivery of these advantages in the same way as all Canadians. This was considered achievable only by the transfer of jurisdiction of Indigenous people to the provinces, accompanied by funds in order to implement such schemes of assimilation.

            In other words, the CCF thought the only way for Indigenous people to move forward was to be assimilated into the provinces and be under provincial duty as all Canadian subjects tend to be when related to provincial jurisdiction – which the CCF would enact while government. As Pitsula concluded, an “examination of Saskatchewan policy reveals congruity with the basic principles of the 1969 White Paper” . Wait a minute, you may say – does this mean the CCF believed in White Paperesque policy? Yes would be the answer and the fact is it would be their stance right up to the formation of the NDP. Additionally, with the founding of the CCF, their policy document titled “Social Planning for Canada,” which heavily would influence CCF policy, made no mentioned of Indigenous people, their rights, or recognition. In other words, this new party had no opinion or policy on Indigenous people.

           

            This viewpoint was not just in the CCF’s provincial wings but also noticeable in the CCF federal party. In the late 1940s the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons commenced hearings on revisions to the Indian Act in 1946. This provided CCF members of the House with an opportunity to address Indigenous issues. The federal wing, influenced by its provincial counterpart in Saskatchewan, heavily pushed the ideals of integration for Indigenous peoples. This was considered only achievable through education. The revisions to the Indian Act were first introduced in 1950, with support from the CCF. The revisions were met with stiff opposition from Indigenous peoples themselves. It would then be withdrawn and reviewed – returning in 1951.

            It was during Bill 267’s reintroduction to the HOC that the CCF vocally expressed where they stood. CCF MP William Bryce expressed “I think education is the crux of the question. Indian children should be educated in the same manner as white children, so that they will look at things the same way that we do.” The CCF leader at this time, MJ Coldwell, further emphasized the CCF position on these revisions by stating “I hope that in the administration of the new act, every attempt will be made to … enable [Indians] to make a contribution to the cultural life of our country and which will gradually bring about integration of the Indian population.” Paternalism reared its head when the CCF MP Joe Noseworth added “If we are aiming to educate these people, to teach them to assume responsibility, we must give them some responsibility and not place these matters entirely in the hands of the minister or the governor in council.” This comments clearly show that paternalism and eurocentric ideals were alive and well in the CFF. I  could rattle on with additional quotes from CCF members in regards to their support for integration and ‘educating Indigenous children the same way as white children,' but I would like to fast forward to the 1960s now and bring attention to the current leftist-party in Canada: The New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP).

The Birth of the NDP and the Eventual Rise of ‘Understanding’ … Or Was It?

            By the early 1960s there was discussion of a unification of the ‘left side’ of the Canadian political spectrum. This would lead to the birth of the NDP by its first official Convention in July/August 1961 (With its first official member – Walter Pitman - being elected in a by-election, in my home riding of Peterborough, in 1960). Throughout the 1960s, with former Saskatchewan Premier Tommy Douglas as its leader, there was little attention given to Indigenous issues and/or rights. For instance, at its first Convention in 1961 there was virtually no attention in the policy document in relation to Indigenous peoples. By its next Convention in 1963, this would change.

            At the NDP’s 1963 convention the party and its delegates passed policy and constitutional provisions that would clarify and introduce an NDP view on Indigenous people.  This policy paper that the NDP would pass advocated “the repeal of the Indian Act and the elimination of all government activities which place Indian people in separate groups; introducing self-government to reserves; the transfer of responsibility for Indian Affairs to provincial governments [and] launching an aggressive program for educational integration …” Additionally, cautionary language accompanied most of the commitments. The repeal of the Indian Act was to take place at a pace commensurate with the needs and desires of Indian people, and the transfer of responsibility to the provinces was to take place providing such transfers accords with the desires of the Indigenous peoples. Other then this policy, the NDP would have nothing to say or add on Indigenous rights, recognition, or policy until the introduction of the White Paper in 1969.

            As already stated, the White Paper was brought forth by the Liberal government  of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The astonishing thing when you compare the 1969 White Paper to that of the NDP’s 1963 ‘Indian Policy Paper’ is that they are pretty much identical. Both papers pushed for assimilation and integration into the Canadian state with all services coming through the provinces as is done for Canadians. One would think the NDP would have been happy to see their idea being implemented by the government of the day would you not? However, today the White Paper is consistently used against the Liberal Party of Canada by the NDP and others on the left. But wait, how could this be when the NDP had suggested the same actions in 1963. They must have changed their opinion prior to 1969 then you may think. The answer: not at all.

            When the White Paper was introduced in 1969, the NDP applauded it. Responding to the Bill The NDP Indian Affairs Critic, Howard, stood up and stated”

“The Honourable Member and I had the opportunity in 1959, 1960,

and 1961 of participating in the joint Senate and House of Commons

Committee on Indian Affairs … the report of which committee contained

the same ideas and concepts that the Minister has now outlined. Even

though it has taken some period of time to get a Cabinet Minister to agree

with those concepts, it is still welcomed.”

By the next day, it became apparent that Indigenous leaders and Indigenous people – specifically First Nations, were heavily opposed to the White Paper. Had the NDP done their own consultation in the 1960s, they would have found this out during their own policy developments of 1963. However, they had not done any form of consultation or meaningful assessment at that time. With the increasing opposition of Indigenous leaders the NDP position on the White Paper now had grown quiet and frosty. This did not stop some NDP from showing a paternalistic viewpoint, as in any party at the time. The NDP MP for Winnipeg North, David Orlikow, stated

“I hope to see the day when the Indian Affairs branch as we

have known it, and more sadly the Indians have known it, will disappear.

But none of these things can take place unless and until the Indian people 

themselves want them to take place and are prepared to give their

co-operation and support”

This mentality is no different then other politicians of the time who, at points of due stress over the topic have uttered "what do you want from us" and "why cant you just integrate," etc. However, due to demand from Indigenous voices the NDP did a 180 degree change on its viewpoint and turned against the White Paperesque policies. This was a good thing, however one must acknowledge the fact it wasn't until after the White Paper was introduced that they started to think more when relating to Indigenous policy - per se.

Conclusion of Part 1:

            I will give credit to the NDP for learning some of the lessons on Indigenous rights, nations, and jurisdiction the day after the White Paper was introduced in 1969. However, it must be acknowledged that by 1971 the Liberals began to also distance themselves from the White Paper – permanently shelving it in 1973 following the legal ruling of the Calder Decision.

With this review I must express that when pulling up the nasty history of a political party: Those who live in glass houses, should be wary of casting stones. The standpoint of the NDP on assimilationist policy for Indigenous people had changed after the White Paper event – with the Liberals dragging their feet at first. However, did the NDP truly come to the ‘light-bulb moment’ on Indigenous people post-1969? The Answer again, as was the case for the Liberals, is not entirely and will be further detailed in Part two of this write-up – The Constitutional Crises: 1979-1992.

Sources For Part 1: (As this is a blog I did not directly cite or list specifics other then the source of my Information):

Kieth Archer and Alan Whitehorn, Political Activists: The NDP in Convention (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1997)

Laurie Barron, Walking in Indian Moccasins: The Native Policies of Tommy Douglas and the CCF (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997)

J. Brennen, ed., Building the Co-operative Commonwealth (Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, 1984)

The Federal Programme of the New Democratic Party, Adopted by its Founding Convention, Ottawa, 31 July – 4 August 1961.

The Federal Programme of the New Democratic Party, Adopted by its Founding Convention, Ottawa, 31 July – 4 August 1961, and by its Second Federal Convention, Regina, 6-9 August 1963

Gad Horowitz, Canadian Labour in Politics (Toronto: Univeristy of Toronto Press, 1968)

House of Commons, Minutes, 27 February 1951

House of Commons, Minutes, 2 April 1951

House of Commons, Minutes, 15 May 1951

House of Commons, Minutes, 6 March 1969

David C. Hawkes ed., Aboriginal Peoples and Government Responsibility: Exploring Federal and Provincial Roles (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1991)

D. Laycock, Populism and Democratic Thought in the Canadian Prairies 1910 – 1945 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990).

James M. Pitsula, “The Saskatchewan CCF Government and Treaty Indians, 1944-1964,” Canadian Historical Review LXXV. 1 (1994): 21-52)

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)

Sally Weaver, Making Canadian Indian Policy: The Hidden Agenda 1968-1970 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981)

Canada: Its Time to #IdleNoMore

            The last two weeks have been interesting in ‘Indian Country’ and I have been mostly silent due to my own commitments. However, this now is changing as I can no longer show commitments to items without first protecting my own rights, the rights of my family, community, the Anishinaabeg Nation and many other Indigenous Nations. The developments over the last two weeks has been troublesome – developments that some of us knew were coming. Last week the federal government of Canada, headed by Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party of Canada, put forth Bill C-45, which is considered an Omnibus Bill.

            Many had problems with this bill, particularly First Nations, as there were various sections that look to be implemented that would have direct impact on them, their rights, their jurisdiction, and their existence. This was the final proverbial ‘legislative slap in the face’ that has now led to the increasing protesting, action, and vocal ability of those who are apart of the many Indigenous nations across the Northern section of Turtle Island (in fact solidarity and support is now extending throughout Turtle Island). The fact is, the sections that impact Indigenous people in C-45 (specifically First Nations), are not the first onslaught, or the second, from the Conservative government. Thus, there are many pieces of Canadian legislation that are being forced upon Indigenous people via the Canadian House of Commons – without any proper and dutiful consultation.

Current legislation being imposed include:

·      Bill S-8 (First Nations Safe Drinking Water)

·      Bill S-2 (Matrimonial Interest or Rights Act)

·      Bill C-48 (First Nations Taxation Act)

·      Private Members Motion Bill C-428

·      Bill C-27 (First Nations Accountability Act)

·      Bill S-207 (Interpretation Act)

·      Bill S-6 (First Nations Elections Act)

·      Bill S-212 (Self-Government and Examining Non Derogation

·      First Nations Education Act

·      First Nations Property Ownership Act

I will warn those who are reading this – do not be fooled by the way the titles sound. They are not as probable and proper as one would think. The fact is all of these pieces of legislation strengthen the Canadian colonial hold on Indigenous nations and its peoples and moves forward the degradation of their recognition through 1969 White Paperesque formulations.

            This Canadian government has continued to move on policy based off of selected individuals who are denounced, for the vast majority of the time/part, by those who these policies impact. Individuals such as Tom Flanagan, Manny Jules, and Members of Parliament such as Rob Clarke are just a few. Clarke is pushing a bill that will abolish the Indian Act without proper consultation and proof that the treaties that Canada has unilaterally pushed under it would be protected when the dismantling occurs. Kelly Block, another Conservative MP from Saskatchewan, is imposing ‘transparency legislation’ on First Nations – yet doesn’t seem to support the same when it comes to her own government and items such as F-35s, etc. The Matrimonial Real Property Bill has been turned into a ‘womens’ rights issue’ when the reality is the bill will do more harm to Indigenous women then help them due to the problems and loopholes in the bill – especially when some communities already have their own matrimonial real property laws that work effectively and properly.

One final Bill to discuss is the Private Property Bill that is coming forth with Bill C-45. This bill, it is argued, allows for First Nations people to be able to have the ‘right’ to have better valued land in order to properly obtain mortgages to build houses, to allow banks to take the property if they do not pay their loans, or to sell the land. This is a heavy and offensive attack on Indigenous lands that are to be reserved for them based on treaties. There was no consultation for this piece of legislation and it is unilaterally being imposed. Do the claims of what would be done truly hold up and benefit Indigenous people? No. What bank is going to give a loan to a single parent with 4 children who is on social assistance? What if it was two parents; still no. For most First Nations people their income and credit will automatically prevent them from such a thing. For many, the selling of land is their only possibility to obtain some form of financial gain since the Indian Act continues to impose restrictions on economic development in First Nations communities – thus making many in the northern regions dependent on Canadian funds.

            The truth is this policy will be far more detrimental to our well being as Indigenous people and as partners alongside Canada. Is there proof this is the case? I suggest you look up the United States’ Dawes Act. This was the exact same policy, more or less, and it has led to a far worse situation for the Indigenous nations that now share territory with the United States. Again, I echo: Far worse.

            After six years, and the stagnation of the period prior to the 2000s, Indigenous people are starting to rise up and it is these items that led to anger and action. Our elected Chiefs, whether through the Band system or not, had tried to bring attention to this on December 4^th – only to be man handled by House of Commons security. These elected officials, who represented the people these pieces of legislation would impact, were denied the right to be there to speak for their citizens. Outrage from the Indigenous world ensued.

This would give birth to the #IdleNoMore campaign that is now apparent on various forms of social media. I would like to say thank you to all of those, like Tanya Kappo, Autumn Eagle Speaker, Chrystal Sinclair, and Cherish Clarke, who spear headed movements in their areas.  I also thank all of those who are keeping this movement going on and it reminds me why I do what I do now and why it is important to be involved. No matter the consequences that could occur for me - protecting the rights of my family, the future generations of my family, my community, and all Indigenous nations, that Canada must remember it shares this territory with, is too important to let fall to the wayside!

            While many of us push back through the forms of protest, blogging, social media, and so on – we have allies coming to our side. One such ally that has not been given any credit is the Member of Parliament for St. Paul’s – Carolyn Bennett. As the Liberal Party of Canada’s Critic for Aboriginal and Northern Affairs she has been instrumental in pushing the government on its colonial mentality (even after they tried to accuse her of being ‘racist’ for doing so to individuals like CPC MP Leonna Aglukkaq and Rob Clarke). Just recently, Dr. Bennett rose in the Canadian House of Commons and told all Members of Parliament that the Indigenous people were justified in their actions and that, in a more proper and civil speech, that it is time for realignment, a proper and working relationship, and to wake up to the realities. I for one thank her.

            On top of this you have individual people now on a hunger strike to bring attention to Indigenous treaty rights. Attawapiskat’s Chief, Theresa Spence, is the best-known individual who is involved with this cause. How can Canada and its citizens simply stand by and not realize that the problems that exist are real and not simply just the fault of Indigenous people and their ‘vassal state’ governments? Well, the longer they continue to be oblivious the worse it will get – The level of the Oka Crisis in 1990, the Gustafson Lake Standoff, and the Ipperwash Standoff is being reached and soon will be passed. Where will we all stand when it gets to this because of a Canadian government that is controlled by people who have their heads stuck up their own specific ideological butts?

            In a time when Canadians are focused on employment, how much they deserve to be paid or not be paid, International concerns like Syria, Israel and Palestine, as well as pipelines, guns, and leadership campaigns – Indigenous people struggle for adequate food, water, housing, incomes, and recognition. While Canadians prepare for the holidays, Indigenous people are now protesting, being vocal, blockading, and going on hunger strikes. The Canadian government tries to ignore this and stifles the inherent and legally binding rights of the Indigenous people. But are we surprised, the CPC Prim Minister has stated “Canada has no history of colonialism.” So what is one to do in relation to the increasing turmoil that is impacting Indigenous people and leading to their vocal opposition?

            I for one will be there in full support – for the sake of and survival of the rights that belong to my 11 and 7 year old nephews; my 7 year old and 1.5 year old nieces; for my family as my mother ages and requires more healthcare, assistance, and medication; the right for my sister to consider a university degree with the proper funding she is supposed to be guaranteed. I also stand for these things for all Indigenous people.

            I will not go away – nor will the vast majority of others who are being persecuted (and even possibly punished, for standing up for their rights as citizens of their Indigenous nation). I may consider myself a Canadian citizen – but I also consider myself an Anishinaabeg citizen and if Canada makes me choose – then so be it.

@ChadCowie

Suggestions:

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/12/11/the-tweet-that-sparked-a-movement/

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/12/11/whitehorse-rallies-at-conservative-mps-office/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/chelsea-vowel/idle-no-more-first-nations_b_2279415.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/12/11/ottawa-releases-first-nations-education-plan-after-idlenomore-protests-sweep-country/

http://carolynbennett.liberal.ca/blog/qp-outrage-nations-leaders-country-justified/ 

Linda Duncan: Exactly How is the Argument “Thin?”

             Back in mid April there was an interesting ‘discussion’ that had  with Linda Duncan, the NDP MP for Edmonton-Strathcona, via twitter. In Mid-April it was becoming more apparent on how much funding was being cut by the CPC government and Linda Duncan opted to comment that she “Demand[s] Harper stop cuts to our most vulnerable communities.” This was followed by another post by Duncan which stated “Harper strikes another low blow to aboriginal peoples cutting longstanding health programs including for women.” I found this interesting because of the hypocrisy this represented. Before I continue I will acknowledge that Linda Duncan was not an MP when this happened but I always call into question when any parliamentarian blindly follows their party’s mantra without thinking how they themselves helped impact the end result.

The Kelowna Accord: What it Meant to Others and Myself:

During my political development I began to slide towards the Liberals due to Paul Martin and the Kelowna Accord, which was to help bring Indigenous nations up to the same level as Canadians on Infrastructure, housing, education, and health care. This was a document that took 18 months of negotiation and became the first policy in relation to Indigenous people where you had a federal government of Canada, all Provincial governments, and almost all Indigenous Chiefs agree. In other words, the Kelowna Accord was supported by Indigenous Chiefs, and it could be argued, by a majority of Indigenous people. This Accord symbolized a new relationship that was forming with a Canadian leader who began showing an understanding and a need to work with us rather than over us. It was an exciting time – especially for someone like myself, who looks at myself as being a duel citizen of the Anishinaabeg Nation and Canadian state.

The 2006 Federal Election:

            The Kelowna Accord was, of course, formulated, during the minority government years of Martin and thus relied on NDP support to keep the government alive. In late 2005 some interesting things began to develop. This development was of course the release of some of the information on the Gomery Inquiry, which led to the Liberals slipping in the polls and the NDP and CPC gaining. It just so happened that when polls showed the NDP gaining and potentially doubling their seat count, the opted to no longer support the Martin government. The problem with this was that some important items were now at risk, Including the Kelowna Accord (Current Green Party MP also discusses how this was the blow that destroyed Canada’s environmental standing and support of the Kyoto Accord via her book Losing Confidence).

            At this time I truly did lean between the NDP and Liberals as Both parties were far more willing to work with us, as Indigenous people, and also move Canada, and Canadians, forward compared to the CPC. The NDP stood for Indigenous rights, respecting treaties, equality for everyone, and much more. However, with their decision to pull support they opted, in my personal point of view, to sacrifice all of those for an extra dozen seats at the time. Many NDPers get mad at me when I state this and try to express that the Liberals did it on purpose to keep them afloat and that it was this reasoning that the Kelowna Accord was introduced in October/November of 2005. I also have some who tell me that Martin never planned to allow it to be passed, which is completely absurd – I suggest meeting the man and also looking at what he does post-politics today.

            However, we all know what was to happen. The Martin government fell, the Tories formed a Minority government in January 2006 and the NDP got their handful of extra seats. This was followed by the destruction of the Kelowna Accord, funding for various things in relation to Indigenous people, and legislation forced upon us – leading Canada away from a progressive relationship with the Indigenous nations and returning to a pre-1990 standard. In fact, it could be argued that it returned to a ‘1969 White Paper’ standard.

            Since 2006, funding has been cut, education has grown weaker, health continues to get worse, and infrastructure continues to be a problem. Due to my entire family still living on-reserve, and the great friends and kin I also have on reserves in other parts of Canada, I take this not only at a shock value standard but a personal one. Why? Because I can relate to the articles that come forth about horrible conditions. I can relate to the questions of how is it this bad. Lastly, I can relate to the frustration of watching it all be done due to the lack of understanding of Canadians and politicians of the blue and orange strip trying to cover up their hands in making it worse.

            So yes, as we see I hold the NDP accountable to this not only because of what they did in 2005 but because of many other things they have done since then, such as with the MRP Bill that the CPC can now forcibly push on us since gaining a majority.

Forward: Linda Duncan and My Twitter Conversation:

            Due to this outlook I will admit that I have a tendency to launch into a response to NDP MPs who comment on these conditions but don’t acknowledge that they put seats and votes before lives (in my personal point of view). Thus after Duncan commenting on this in mid-may I tweeted back to her “If only Kelowna Accord had been passed. Too bad an election was called = #CPC govt that killed it in 06. Thanks #NDP #canpoli.” I will admit it was a political jab to an extent, but also full of sheer frustration at how the NDP try to play the “pro-Indigenous” card without acknowledging their mistake (I also do this to the Liberals so no, I am not being biased and partisan).

Eventually Duncan replied to me, but I will admit I did not read it for a good couple of weeks due to my schedule and other items that were occurring for me at the time. When I did read it, I was a bit floored at what her response was. Duncan had replied “@ChadCowie that argument is wearing thin. What did they do for almost 13 years of majority power?” I couldn’t believe the response because the main argument I put forth in my original response was “If only the Kelowna Accord had been passed.”

It was probably a good thing I had not witnessed her response for a bit because I was a bit more composed when I replied. Clearly from her comment she didn’t understand a few things in my personal opinion. I thus tweeted back “@LindaDUncanMP Martin & Chretien = 2 different leaders. Kelowna was 2005, not 1993-2003. #NDP has done squat.” In Canadian politics the leader does have a lot of impact and thus I find the argument about the Liberals holding power from 1993-2006 to be problematic as there were two different leaders, with Martin trying to rectify many promises that had been made pre-2003 and making new ones post-2003. Many of which were on the verge to becoming a reality in 2005/2006.

My last response to Duncan was “Also, last I checked the well being of fellow #Indigenous ppl was not a “thin” argument #distasteful #shame #canpoli.” I stand by this comment because when it comes to Indigenous items I am not partisan on this. My idealism would like to see a complete change of every Canadian political party’s understanding in order to re-align the Canadian/Indigenous relationship. It seems like it has become an uphill battle in Canadian politics since Martin stepped down and left the political light. But, he is proof it can be done and the understanding and knowledge comes from working with and listening to the Indigenous people when it relates to them.

Thus Duncan, it is not a thin argument. When you have many Indigenous people still looking to the Kelowna Accord and feeling betrayed that it didn’t become a law then there was obviously a bad decision made in not letting it be passed. I will always call people out on this because I grew up in it and I watch many others grow up in it. While people play politics in Ottawa and express their sadness for the situations, yet do nothing, then I find that a problem. If the NDP are so committed to the well being of Indigenous people then why have they not moved to have a similar piece of legislation come forth in the entire 6 years that they have been increasing their seat count? To me, no matter what, even if I am a Liberal, I will never back down to any party, or cater to them, when it comes to trying to bring forth education and understanding on how best to work with the Indigenous nations. I will never allow it to be considered a ‘thin argument’ when it comes to the well being of people who continue to face much adversity and who deal with it on a daily basis. Therefore Linda Duncan, it is your comment that was thin and distasteful. I am still awaiting your response Ms. Duncan.

Note: The conversation I had copied and pasted onto a word document just in case it was to disappear on twitter – Interestingly, I went to find it again today and cannot locate it anymore)

http://lindaduncanmp.ca/

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/elections/elections2006

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/reference/elections/election2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006
(Note: I do not condone using wikipedia for insight/citations - however upon checking to make sure the opinion polls were correct It seems to be ok to use this one and I opted to because of the amount of polls it shows from 2004-the election results in January 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/undoing-kelowna.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+should+revisit+2006+Kelowna+Accord+says+Martin/6036480/story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/06/paul-martin-attawapiskat-kelowna-accord_n_1131493.html

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0604-e.htm

http://www.kelowna.com/2009/10/28/near-anniversary-of-kelowna-accord-former-national-chief-phil-fontaine-spoke-about-a-country-divided/

http://www.itk.ca/media-release/kelowna-accord-one-year-later

http://www.turtleisland.org/news/kelownaaccord.html

Canada's 2012/2013 Federal Budget

             I had been following the twitter posts, Facebook updates, and media reports as earnestly as possible today because of the little tidbits of information I was able to receive from them. This made me very keen to hurry up and finish my heavy day of school work/volunteer activities in order to more properly analyse the Conservative Government’s first majority budget. There were, I will admit, some things I agreed with and some that make me shake my head. Items I agreed with were things such as abolishing the penny and upping the retirement age from 65 to 67. I am mixed on the public service area and thus see some benefits to what they are suggesting and some that are not beneficial.

With that, I turn to my area of expertise and an area I have already had a couple of texts, Facebook messages, and in-person questions sent to/asked of me. As many of us remember, there was a ‘historic’ Crown/First Nations Gathering recently that the Harper Conservatives touted would be a major step forward.  National Chief Shawn Atleo pressed him on items of concern, such as education. The only thing that has turned out to be historic about that day, and the discussion, is that Harper stayed the full day. What was not historic was that Harper did something else – he didn’t listen to those who live in the situations we hear about in the media, those who grow up in them and those who have family in them.

            I say this because after reviewing the important parts of the budget in relation to Indigenous people, there is not much to be proud of. For instance, the post-secondary funding is staying capped at 2%. At a time when provinces and universities are also having to make cuts and roll back funding, as well as increase fees, I wonder where the commitment is to higher education.  Perhaps it is in the $100 million, over three years, to be given for literacy programs as well as other support and services for Aboriginal schools and students. Or, perhaps it is in the $175 million, over three years to help build and renovate schools on reserves? Unfortunately, this is not the case and in fact the budget does little to move us and our communities further towards getting up to par with our Canadian brothers and sisters.

            The government is making cuts to the tune of almost $253 million to Aboriginal Affairs, over 3 years, which instead of transferring those monies into things like infrastructure, health, and education in the communities, it is putting it back towards the deficit that, in my personal view the current government contributed to. But wait, $253 million is lower than $275million you say? I know it is shocking and thus I am sure you are wondering why I say it is not helpful? Since we are already heavily underfunded and treated like children who don’t know how to look over our own piggy bank, I still say if that today was $428 million, and with it all going to things that needed to be done rather than paying for a bureaucrat to look over us, it would have a better end result. However, this is not happening, so I will also point out that $175 million for renovating schools is actually less then what was originally agreed to. Originally, $165 million was promised over 2 years, during the budget of 2011/2012, but something has led the government to a change of heart. In reality, we have lost funding. Not to mention, that some communities, such as those in Ontario, did not partake in the discussions and education panel to find out about schooling, school infrastructure, and other issues related to this. So the commitment may be of little importance to the wide range of issues that exists.

            But besides that, this does not address key issues of housing, food security, infrastructure, water issues, sexual abuse, and so on. Furthermore, there is no discussion or funding for Métis people or Inuit people. However, I will be honest I know little of how federal policy affects Inuit due to their unique relationship with Canada. But don’t worry Canada – Harper has said they will look at a policy to tighten education and standards for on reserve schools. This includes accountability and other scenarios. However, the Harper government didn’t fully explain how this will be achieved when the schools on reserve will still be underfunded, teachers and other support staff will still make less money and thus have to deal with losing teachers to higher paying positions in the towns and cities of Canada. So I ask... where is the support? Where is the progress? Where is the ‘listening and working with us’ rather than over us? It is kind of funny when this comes out and we see cuts in funding, impositions of what will need to be done and how they will enforce a mandatory system on them for education. All without properly consulting the Indigenous nations.

            All of this then makes me think of the Kelowna Accord and the promises that were hashed out in it – promises that were made in agreement with Chiefs, Premiers, Territorial leaders, and the Government of Canada.  Kelowna was an agreement that looked to deal with the issues of infrastructure, health, education, and other items. An agreement that could have been easily supported with some of the funds garnered from the 2% of the GST the Harper government cut in 2006. Yet a Conservative’s favorite line, and to an extent also some NDPers I know, is that the deal would never have been done and that the deal was unrealistic and ‘written on the back of a napkin.’

            To them, all I have to say is the outline in the 2012/2013 budget not only looks like it has been, itself, written on a napkin but one that has been used, thrown in the garbage and then reused.  Most of the treaties that exist in Canada call for negotiations, recognition, and respect. I see none of that in here. Thus, I see no change in the near future while this government continues to ignore us. I will remind people that the last time this was done federally there was an altercation that many refer to as ‘Burnt Church.’ Prior to that there was the infamous ‘Oka standoff’ and a quote by then AFN Chief George Erasmus on what lay ahead for Canadian/Indigenous relations if things did not change:

“Canada, if you do not deal with this generation of leaders and seek

peaceful solutions, then we cannot promise that you are going to like

 the kind of violent political action that we can just about guarantee

 the next generation is going to bring to you.” (1988)

Well Prime Minister Harper, I will just give you a heads up. The generation Mr. Erasmus spoke of is the one who is taking over the political reigns in our territories and becoming more politically militant today. And at a time when you introduce budgets like this, ignore us, and force policies such as the Matrimonial Real Property law, and the possible ‘private land bill’ on us... you definitely seem eager for the powder keg to blow. It is times like this that makes me wonder what if Kelowna had not been destroyed and what if Paul Martin returned to federal politics. Unfortunately on both, and the hopes of progress forward with the current CPC government, I can only dream.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-trim-aboriginal-affairs-budget-but-find-cash-to-boost-education/article2386067/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/29/scott-stinson-breaking-down-canadas-2012-budget-into-bite-size-pieces/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/29/budget-2012-was-good-news-for-canadas-oil-sands-but-environmentalist-say-it-comes-at-their-expense/

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/home-accueil-eng.html

What’s In a Name? The Answer: Colonization/Reclamation

              The past couple of weeks have led to myself becoming more immersed in the Anishinaabe side of my heritage. An important and what I deem influential, individual left our world and began a journey to the spirit world. With him, went a man who I have come to respect and admire for the work on reclaiming and teaching Anishinaabe ways to not only members of my own community, but also Anishinaabe people throughout the nation’s traditional territory.

                The concern over loss was carried over into my participation at this week’s Health Policy Forum, which is being held by the Chiefs of Ontario. This ‘loss’ progressed to a view of the passing of our elders and with it the loss of traditional teachings and the language. This stuck out for me, I am not quite sure why.

                One way this was triggered was by how I still have not been developing my ability to more fully learn my other language (Anishinaabe) and why so many communities have begun using language as a reclaiming tool. This then made me think of the story of my own community and the name by which we go by: Hiawatha First Nation. You see, originally the name of my community, in English, is the ‘Mississaugas of Rice Lake.” The name ‘Hiawatha,’ which was electively chosen eventually, was done so because of a visit by a Prince of Wales, whom very much adored the poem Hiawatha. He had visited my community and also found it to be a beautiful place and considered it to be a special place within his heart and thus suggested we switch our name.

                Fast forward to the current time and I will now explain the concern this can have. You see, the name Hiawatha belongs to that of the Huadenshaune. Hiawatha was an important figure in the Haudenshaune confederacy, which had occurred far before European colonization. Thus my community, an Anishinaabe community, now holds the name of a Haudenshaune figure and thus expresses the Haudenshaune language. This is of concern to me as, when we cut through the cloudy layer of misrepresentation we see colonialism in full force. It is a symbol of the assumption that all Indigenous people are the same, that our language and our original names are of unimportance, and contributes to a key aspect of assimilation - the loss of one’s own language. In western political theory there is a belief that in order to be considered unique and sovereign you must have territorial claims that encompass centuries if not millennium, a distinct set of cultural practices, as well as a distinct language – you remove one or more of these and it contributes to the claim that distinction does not exist.

               This is of concern and I am happy to see a move by many Indigenous nations to begin reusing their traditional language and names of places – including their community name. My own community has our traditional name posted on signs, yet we continue to be ‘legally’ viewed as Hiawatha First Nation. I myself, over the last two years, have begun to revert back to referring to my community's traditional name as where I am from, whether in writing or speaking – but my status card says Hiawatha First Nation.

                Thinking of all this led me to the following question: What is keeping my community from switching everything back over to our original name? Is it because my community is not ready or is it possibly because many in my community still know very little of our Anishinaabe language? Is it because there is more ‘short haired’ minded people then ‘long haired’ minded people? Is it because of financial consquences? I do not know what the answer is and is why I post the question (although I do not think it is a short haired vs. long haired since I do qualify myself as a short haired and I am clearly advocating for this change).

                In conclusion, I would like to express to my wonderful community that perhaps it is time we revert back to the Anishinaabe nation’s language? I would very much like to see it not only on our signs but on our documents and acknowledged by the provincial government of Ontario and the Federal government of Canada. It is time for us to reclaim ourselves as ‘Mississaugas of Rice Lake’ – it is our time to proudly state we are from the Anishinaabe community of MANOMINIIKING!!! Why? Because RENAMING IS RECLAIMING!

(NOTE: I have no issue with 'bilingualism' - I welcome english translations on the name and future changes that I hope to see redone in the Anishinaabe tongue - this post is also to bring forth discussion on the topic)