The New Democratic Party's Hypocrisy on Indigenous Peoples: A Not So Shiny Past, or Present

In light of recent actions since January 2013, I thought it would be interesting to give some insight to the historic darkness that exists within the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada. I decided to do some research. This research is specifically on the NDP and the hypocrisy it espouses when it attacks another party for policies that are decades old. (Pay close attention to their actions over the last 10 years)

            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, official opposition, or as a third party, can be free from guilt of past policies and legislation that has been implemented.

Therefore, Did You Know that:

1920s & 1930s: 

Originally known as ‘Labour’ , they helped approve the ‘Old Age Pensions Act’ of 1927. The legislation that stated “an Indian defined by the Indian Act is ineligibly,” and was not considered of any importance to the Labour members when they voted in favour of the legislation.

·      During this time both the Labour and Progressive factions existed and did little in stopping, or showing opposition, to the removal of legal representation for Indigenous peoples, the policies of Duncan Campbell-Scott, or the consistent removal of Indigenous children from their homes, families, and communities.

1940s & 1950s:

·      The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) government of Saskatchewan (and this is important as the NDP always tout their breakthrough in Saskatchewan through the CCF) implemented policies that pushed for the Indigenous peoples to be under provincial jurisdiction (which explicitly goes against the nation-to-nation relationship).

·      The CCF would enact policy that infringed on Indigenous jurisdiction and nation-to-nation relationships.  Pitsula stated in an article, an “examination of Saskatchewan policy reveals congruity with the basic principles of the 1969 White Paper.”

·      In 1946, at the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons, hearings on revisions to the Indian Act, the CCF pushed for integration of Indigenous peoples. They believed that such integration was only achievable through education. These suggested changes by the CCF were introduced in 1950 and obtained the support of the CCF in passing these amendments. Interestingly, Indigenous peoples expressed heavy opposition to these changes but were ignored.

·      In 1951, CCF MP William Bryce expresses “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.”

·      CCF Leader MJ Coldwell: “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.”

·      CCF MP Joe Noseworth stated: “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.”

1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s:

·      New Democratic Party comes into existence via the CCF in 1961.

·      At the first NDP convention of 1961, there was no discussion, attention, or policy documents in relation to Indigenous peoples.

·      In 1963, at the NDP’s second annual convention, the NDP adopted a policy paper that advocated “the repeal[ing] 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 from Indian Affairs to provincial governments [and] launching an aggressive program for educational integration.” – In other words, “White Paper,” NDP Style.

·      Upon the introduction of the White Paper, 1969, the NDP originally endorsed and applauded it. NDP Indian Affairs Critic 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.”

·      Although the NDP, and the Liberals, would rescind their support of the White Paper of 1969, 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.”

·      During discussion on Constitutional Amendments and Indigenous Rights, the Provincial NDP of Saskatchewan stated that Indigenous peoples “were best left to the realm of politics and dealt with by people, as represented by their provincial and federal politicians.”

·      During the constitutional discussions in the early 1980s, Ed Broadbent, leader of the NDP at the time, admitted that a ‘split’ over the unilateral patriation of the Constitution had more to do with an increased dislike of Trudeau in the prairie provinces, where the NDP held a majority of their seats and thus feared losing them by supporting the unilateral patriation, rather than with the failure to define Indigenous rights and proper consultation with the Indigenous nations.

·      While Indigenous peoples protested the Canadian government’s actions, as well as the lack of support from the opposition parties, Roy Romonow, a future NDP Premier of Saskatchewan, reiterated, with agreement, a comment by Saskatchewan NDP Attorney General and Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan” “the Indians’ antagonistic conduct before the joint parliamentary committee was being re-enacted in a public battle in London.” (In other words, they disagreed with the Indigenous peoples petitioning the British government to hold Canada accountable to the treaty agreements.”

·      During the Meech Lake Accord discussion and approval process in the provinces, the BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba NDP, as official opposition, voted in favour of the Accord – despite the heavy opposition of the Indigenous nations and peoples. It would be Elijah Harper who would defy the provincial NDP in Manitoba, and prevent it from final passing in the Manitoba Legislature.

1990s – Present:

·      In the 1993,1997, and 2000 elections little was presented by the NDP in their platform for Indigenous people. In fact, nothing existed in 1993.

·      In 2005, the NDP opted to put an increase in votes and obtaining an additional 8-10 seats over passing and implementing the Kelowna Accord (Which, for the first time in Canadian history, saw unified agreement between the Federal Government of Canada, the Provincial Governments, as well as Indigenous organizations and governments). The Accord was to help in bringing Indigenous peoples to the same level of funding for housing, infrastructure, health, and education – Indigenous people have fallen further behind since.

·      In 2005, the NDP opted to put an increase in votes and obtaining an additional 8-10 seats over the passing of a National Child Care Act and further implementation of the Kyoto Accord.

·      In inquiring to NPD MP Linda Duncan in 2012 about the NDP’s lack of assisting in the passing of the Kelowna Accord, her response was “that opinion is obsolete and not important.”

·      In 2009, the NDP opted to play politics rather then assist the Indigenous nations in protecting their jurisdiction rights – the LPC introduced a motion that would have effectively killed the MRP bill. The NDP, instead of supporting it opted to vote against it in order to prevent “the LPC from looking good.” (Muclair was an NDP MP by this time)

·      In regards to the NDP decision to protect the bill, NDP MP Denise Savoy expressed that the bill must be allowed to continued and be discussed in committee.

·      With the rise of the #IdleNoMore movement, the NDP were delayed in their involvement and support – in fact, NDP Leader Muclair would not show an endorsement of the movement, despite fellow NDP MPs Libby Davies and Paul Dewar doing so, until after The Liberal Caucus, via a letter from Dr. Carolyn Bennett, showed the LPC supporting the #IdleNoMore calls of action. Additionally, the Muclair endorsement came after further involvement/endorsements of LPC leadership candidates Justin Trudeau, Joyce Murray, Martha Hall-Findlay, etc.

·      Lastly, in January of 2013 Thomas Muclair, Leader of the NDP, endorsed Harper’s “Working Relationship” with the Indigenous peoples and has yet to retract such an endorsement, despite the consistent attack on the Indigenous nations and peoples since forming government in 2006

Sources:

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 Studies17.2 (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)

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)

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rep/off/dec3097&document=res_table11&lang=e

http://www.socialpolicy.ca/52100/m7/platformjobs.html

http://openparliament.ca/bills/37-2/C-7/?page=11

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=2&DocId=518409

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/election/federal/2004/platform/ndp.html

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=3895153#SOB-2768842

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NatNews-north/message/15414

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/pdf/ndp_platform-en-final-web.pdf

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rep/off/37g&document=table11&lang=e

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/resval/ovr_2004.asp?prov=&lang=e

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/resval/ovr_39ge.asp?prov=&lang=e

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/2008-election-campaign-political-party-platforms

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2011/2011-Platform/NDP-2011-Platform-En.pdf

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)

The Rosedale Club: A Symbol of Why Indigenous People Must Influence the Canadian Process

             Early Wednesday morning it was brought to my attention that an event was going to be held on April 18, 2013 – an event that would discuss Indigenous issues. Usually I would applaud such an event occurring, however, this ‘event’ turned out to be more of the same colonial mentality that has persisted in Canada since its inception, even prior to that in fact.

           It turns out that the Rosedale Club is a ‘club’ that brings ‘friends’ and others together to discuss Canadian issues and policy. One of the club's founders is none other then Zach Paikin, who writes a lot and ran, unsuccessfully, for the Liberal Party of Canada’s National Policy Chair in January 2012. This event was dubbed a Scotch and Cigars event where the men attending were expected to wear a jacket and tie or be deemed unfit to partake in the discussion. Additionally this event included speakers  – Former Premier (2002-2003), and former Ontario Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves & National Post Editor Jonathan Kay.

            As many of us, especially in ‘Indian Country,’ remember, Eves was in the Harris government, which botched the Ipperwash situation and led to the death of an unarmed Indigenous protester – Dudley George. Additionally, Jonathan Kay is known for his recent and rather one sided article “Native Dignity Will Come Only From Self-Sufficiency, Not Grand Gestures in Ottawa.” In other words, both speakers of this event come from a very one-sided and oblivious opinion.

            To make matters worse the event does not have an Indigenous speaker, or a speaker with an understanding of Indigenous history or issues, in attendance. The first question I had for such a ‘discussion’ group is why there were not varying viewpoints being represented. Reading the comments that were posted in the event’s facebook page, which has since disappeared, we quickly see concern and anger from Indigenous people about the event. Some expressed that it was another example of a bunch of ‘white guys’ sitting around making decisions.  Questions were asked for why Indigenous people were not included, especially since it dealt with them. One planned-attendee’s response was that this is a discussion about policy, not race and that she had spent the last five years travelling around the country and hearing from Indigenous people (albeit she admits not many). Another response was that it wasn’t a white peoples event, nor planned by white men. Although I agree that Zach and his buddies who formed the Rosedale Club are not of European descent specifically, there is still some issues that are noticeable (which I will get to in a bit).

            As some of my good friends, who happen to sit alongside me on the executive of the Indigenous wing of the LPC, learned about this via our VP Communications, we were struck with shock that someone of such education, access to literature, as well as people with an understanding of the topic area would be so oblivious. Many of us questioned the logic of the Rosedale Club. One of us actually got through by phone to Paikin. On the call he defended the right of the club to do such an event and that all were welcome to attend. Myself and another individual heavily criticized it on facebook, to which Paikin’s response was that we were welcome to attend. The problem with such action is it was done within 30 hours before the event. I am based in Winnipeg, another one of us is in Whitehorse, another near Saskatoon, and so on. In other words, those he had access to politically were left out of the loop until Indigenous people made it clear this was not ok – sounds a lot like this current government and many before it if you ask me. 

What Does This Mean?

            For some of you, you may wonder why this is a big deal. To me it is a shining example of just the problems Indigenous people and Canada face on Turtle Island. History has shown that for decades Non-Indigenous males have formed groups and policy to dictate to Indigenous people how best to progress, assimilate, or make themselves better – the best example of this would be the Constitution Negotiations in 1980-1982 and 1987-1990. Other examples riddle Canada's history and present day structure and mentality too. The problem, however, is that these were past generations. We are supposed to look at future generations as being more progressive, more educated, and more understanding. Yet, when it comes to Indigenous items it is far more slower – even when looking at teenagers and those who are in their early 20s. This is exactly what Paikin, his co-founders, and those attending, represent via this event.

            This is an event planned through a club that was formed by three privileged males who then invite a very one sided roster of individuals to speak on an issue that is more then just policy – a topic that includes legal rights, jurisdictional issues, culture, historical problems and Indigenous nationalism. Thus one must ask why such an event, being held in Toronto, would not extend an invite to Pam Palmater (An Indigenous Lawyer who teaches at Ryerson), Susan Hill (The Department Head of First Nations Studies at Western University), or Stan Beardy (The Regional Chief of Ontario). Why not extend an invite to non-Indigenous people like Carolyn Bennett (The LPC Aboriginal & Northern Affairs Critic) or Bob Rae (Former LPC Interim Leader) – or Indigenous people from the middle viewpoint: David Newhouse (Head of the Indigenous Studies Department at Trent University) or John Borrows (A well known Indigenous academic and lawyer in the field of Indigenous people). Unfortunately, traditional mindset prevailed and a group of people, headed by three privileged men, opted to have an event with its guest speakers being considered controversial on Indigenous items.

            To make it worse, if an individual who wanted to attend the event but would only wear traditional garb, or what is more commonly worn by those who practice their traditions, would they be denied? It is clear that this event has been reeking of a narrow minded understanding where it expects people to assimilate into what its founders believe is adequate – even when it relates to something that discusses more then policy.

            In conclusion, Zach Paikin, his buddies who helped form the Rosedale Club, and those who attended the event tonight, are not helping to make Canada a post-colonial state but are in fact continuing the perpetuation of dominance and ignorance when relating to Indigenous people. It is a shining example of why we as Indigenous people need to influence Canada’s political system. Influencing the political systems, provincially and federally can impact education curriculum, social policy, as well as reminding Canadians about what the Indigenous/Canadian relationship is truly to be: One of respect and understanding rather then one of perpetuating ignorance. This needs to be done before the youth of today and tomorrow continue along the tarnished path we are on today - the path of ignoring the Indigenous population when it relates to them and their belonging.

NOTE: I want to express that I am in favour of free speech. One-sided discussion in such a forum and on a group of people without them being able to counter is not free speech but rather limiting discussion and thought. Additionally I want to express that the Rosedale Club does not represent a political party or the mindset of the majority of a political party. I wish I could have included direct quotes from people in the page of the event to show the concern, and skepticism, that many Indigenous people expressed

Budget 2013 & Indigenous Finances: A Paternalistic Black Eye

            As many of you know, the Conservative Government, headed by Stephen Harper, introduced the budget for the 2013 fiscal year. In it will be more ‘belt tightening,’ attacks on the public sector, on provincial finances and ability, and, as usual since, an onslaught on the Indigenous people, more so On-Reserve, who Canadians share this land with.

            Before going into my critique of the negative sides of the budget as well as other financial aspects that have come to light, I will point out one thing that I was happy to see. In the 2013 budget there was a commitment of $10 million to Indspire (albeit over 2 years), an organization that helps offer funding, through bursaries, to various students from all Indigenous backgrounds. I am one such individual who has benefited from Indspire's bursaries while I climb the academic ladder. However, I do this because the lack of funding that is invested into our communities for post-secondary education, let alone elementary or secondary education. I will admit, this angers me – especially when the Kelowna Accord that had been drafted, over an 18 month period and agreed to by all involved, would have helped to rectify the education funding gap by now. However, we will never know if it would have done just that since the first CPC attack on Indigenous people was scrapping the Accord after their 2006 election win.

            When reviewing the budget and comments made by various politicians, First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples, it is apparent that the funding gap is not being tended to. In fact, there is little to no change in funding for K-12, mweaning on-reserve education and infrastructure will continue to worsen. Funding has been announced towards items such as entrepreneurial programs ($ 5 million specifically for Cape Breton University, which is in a region of the land with a very small Indigenous population compared to Northern Ontario, the Prairies, the Territories, or British Columbia – but that is pretty much it for any form of funding in a post-secondary sense. However, I would like to express that they have made a commitment that we can learn trades. I guess Indigenous people are only good enough for that, and not to have the choice to study science in University, Nursing in College, or Medicine, Law, and so on, at the levels they are pushing for trade skills.

            Don’t get me wrong - trades skills are important, but for a liberal democracy and a Prime Minister that supposedly believes in what it stands for, I would have believed that it was our right to choose what we seek for a future career with the funding guaranteed for Indigenous people via the agreements that exist. I guess Individuality is only ok if it follows what Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada wants. Additionally, no increase in funding is going into housing or water treatment centres, both of which have been heavily underfunded for over a decade and are an on-going problem for Indigenous communities.

            The most ignorant part of the budget is the section that allocates $241 million to a program that would force on-reserve youth, between the ages of 18 and 24, to take job training if they want to receive welfare payments. The various First Nation communities can only access this funding if they agree to impose these rules on the youth who would receive the welfare payments. Now, I would have little issue with the idea of training, or forms of workfare at that, but when it is forced on to one specific ethnic group, who has continuously vocalized the need for proper consultation, neem emtrenchedin the Canadian Constitution, and recognition of their inherent right to not be controlled as vassal states, then alarm bells sound off for me and chime colonialism and stereotyping. This program is a complete, abhorrent, and stereotypical imposition on a group of people who clearly need more then job training.

            As Dr. Carolyn Bennett pointed out, the point is to invest in K-12 and assist with education so such things do not have to occur. Additionally, it assumes that those who are First Nation and between 18 and 24 don’t know what it means to work or be trained. When I originally finished my Undergrad Degree in April of 2008, I fought hard to avoid the need of social assistance until it was financially impossible for me to ignore. I had applied to every type of job I could, from within my field of focus to MacDonalds and Tim Horton's. Unfortunately, my degree meant I was over qualified and thus could not obtain those customer service positions. I was fortunate that a week after I had apporached the Social Assistance Director in my community for support that I was offered a good job in my field. If this had happenned with this stereotypical program enacted, Id have felt ashamed, discriminated against, and treated like a lesser then the rest of the people my age who did not have to take such a lesson. This is especially true for me because I have an Honours Degree, had been working since I was 14, and had much training already. This part of the budget is an example of the massive problem that exists with the CPC and its views on Indigenous people, and especially youth. I do not need training, nor will many who this will be forced upon. What we need are proper jobs, proper economic abilities in our communities, the treaties properly respected, proper consideration about resource-sharing agreements, and a future federal Canadian government willing to work with us on a nation-to-nation level.

            To add insult to injury, the self professed Metis Member of Parliament for Saint Boniface, Shelly Glover stated “Folks do not want a welfare cheque, they want a job, they want to be able to have the skills to be employed in different jobs so they can support their families.” Dr. Carolyn Bennett, the Member of Parliament for St. Paul’s and the Liberal ANAC Critic, responded that the Indigenous people did not ask for workfare. Glover’s response was “You don’t listen.”

            I found it quite interesting that she stated that Bennett doesn’t listen when it has been very clear this government, and its Members – whether ‘Indigenous’ or not, have not been the ones listening. If Glover had, she would learn that she has little right or place to comment about being Aboriginal and what is best for on-reserve First Nations people – her supposed experience is with her Metis background, which is not First Nation. Additionally, had Glover been listening, she would know that the Kelowna Accord is wanted and a plausible answer to educational and economic issues in our communities. Additionally, Glover would have noticed that the various bills her party is forcing down the throats of ALL Indigenous people, and their version of ‘consultation’ is not welcomed. Perhaps its time for her to pay attention instead of just drinking the blue koolaide.

            To add even more lemon juice to the CPC wound inflicted upon Indigenous people, specifically First Nations, the government is now pushing  an additional clause to the Contribution Agreements for the 2013 fiscal year – one that requires the First Nations communities to agree to legislation and that they are prohibited from challenging the federal government in the courts. Various communities are reporting this in the Contribution Agreements and Dr. Bennett took the government to task on this in the House of Commons on March 19, 2013. The response given to her, by Parliamentary Secretary of ANAC, Member of Parliament for Kenora Greg Rickford, is that this was false and it was only an administrative change. However, if it is worded as many have shown it to be, there is reason to be cautious.

            The worst part is that many First Nations communities are already poverty stricken, under funded and in third world conditions that some are doing it in order to not allow their communities to dwindle to an even worse standard. I would say that this tactic is similar to attrition and embargoing in the various wars and conflicts that continue to occur, and have occurred, in present and past times. In other words, as reported by The Hill Times on March 25, 2013: “With a new fiscal year starting, that means as of April 1, some First Nations will have no funds because they did not sign the agreement.”

            Thus, as 2013 continues to get underway it has become clear that the Conservative government of Stephen Harper did not truly mean it would bring forth a new relationship with the Indigenous people, as promised in January of this year. Instead he has opted to continue down the road of the 1950s and 1960s mentality and continue to impose what is quite easily acknowledged and defined internationally, as forms of colonialism and prevention of self-determination. One can never be self-determined without properly having a seat at the table of decision making.

            As for the other political parties, it is easily noticeable that they have spoken out against this. Bob Rae, has spoken out against the 2013 budget and even specifies that the Liberals will not support the budget. Rae highlights the CPC’s lack of commitment to the Indigenous nations as part of the reason. Furthermore, Dr. Bennett has continually showed her strong allegiance to the Indigenous nations, as an ally and friend, in the uphill battle we are all still going through. Beenett also continues to be a strong voice of support for us in the House – whether she is Indigenous or not.

            Additionally, Thomas Muclair stated that “at a time when First Nations are holding out a hand for reconciliation, he’s giving them the back of his hand.” For once I agree with Muclair on his statement, but one must ask, consider, and remind Muclair that if he thought this way why did he endorse the Harper Conservative government’s efforts with First Nations in January 2013? Furthermore, why has he not rescinded this endorsement still? Lastly, what happened to the NDP support for Indigenous peoples gone since Muclair became the NDP leader? It has clearly become noticeable that the issues of the various Indigenous nations have fallen to the wayside of both parties.

            I am proud to say that the Liberals have stood with us through the attacks of the last 6 years and continue to do so by standing with us via IdleNoMore, Meeting and listening to our leaders, and meweting with our people - such as the Cree Youth who Harper recently ignored. Additionally, by Liberals voting against Budget 2013 – especially as they point to Indigenous peoples as one of the reasons for doing so, shows a strong sign of working with us (something that doesn’t seem to have been such an explicit cornerstone of any opposition or 3^rd party’s decision in voting against a Federal Budget).

Some Sources:

http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/blog/liberal-party-opposing-budget-2013/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUS9MlSJsRA&feature=youtu.be

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2013/03/21/harper-giving-first-nations-the-back-of-his-hand-by-linking-welfare-payments-to-job-training/

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/03/25/feds-‘blackmailing’-first-nations-into-signing-away-their-power-over-water/34088

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/01/13/thomas_mulcair_endorses_conservative_efforts_with_first_nations.html

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/budget2013-eng.pdf

Casting Stones & Colonial Mentality: Its the Sure Way to Make Things Better (Sarcasm Intended)

            Today is a day that I saw myself lose respect for many fellow inhabitants of turtle Island. My loss of respect is not towards Chief Spence at this moment (because I believe in obtaining more facts before casting a stone at this situation), but rather those who I believed would look at today’s ‘revelation’ with more of a critical eye and mindset rather then jumping on this Chief. I will admit I do not know how guilty or not guilty Chief Spence may be on this entire situation. But what I do know, as someone who has lived, breathed, and grew up in the colonial system of Indian Act and Aboriginal Affairs, is that there is more to this story.

            Today was the day that a ‘leaked’ audit hit the media networks, social media , and the airwaves – all painting a picture of a lack of ‘due diligence’ in the financing accountability of the Cree community of Attawapiskat. Although the report does not condemn Chief Spence per se, the right wing media outlets such as Sun News Media and the National Post were quick to jump on her and label her as the culprit who doesn’t get how to do her job. However, what most didn’t bother to report was the reality of the situation.

            As many have now pointed out, including Pam Palmater, Chief Spence has only been Chief since August of 2010. Thus, how is this individual responsible for the actions between 2005 to Mid-August of 2010? Palmater points out that during the period that Theresa Spence was Chief the lack of accountability was at its lowest.  In otherwords, due diligence was better then before she was Chief. Some may then point out her time as Deputy Chief from 2007 – 2010. Again, this does not necessarily mean anything. For those who know the internal systems of the imposed Band Council system work, which are pretty much the puppets to ANAC based on their design and who it is accountable to, they would know that this means squat. Most communities have a ‘Band Administrator’ or someone who handles the overall finances of the community. If it is done through Council usually one person handles the file. Although they may report it to the entire Chief and Council it does not mean they have done so properly. ANAC also allows this because as long as ANAC approves the budget, usually done via the Band Administrator or through the individual holding the Finance Portfolio.

            Additionally, because of this vast amount of control that ANAC has over the Band Councils and the budgets of each community, a bureaucracy that has far less turnover compared to their Indigenous counterparts, one must ask why it is not being lambasted as well? Furthermore, Why are the Indian Affairs Ministers, specifically 2006 and on, not being held in the same standards as Chief Spence is? Not only this, why are Ministers such as Peter McKay, Peter Peneshue, Tony Clement, and Dean Del Mastro not being held accountable for their improper book keeping in Election expenses? Why are they not holding Mike Duffy or Patrick Brazeau to account for there own mismanagement of funds? Oh that’s right, because individuals are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I guess this is only the case when you are a CPCer.

            But wait, its not just CPCers going for her throat anymore – general people are also doing so. What about various municipalities, such as Mississauga's Mayor, that have had questionable expenses and conflict of interests? What about Provincial governments and their elected officials of all colour stripes? What about the same tactics being used on Chief Spence that were used on Liberal MPs like Ralph Goodale and Scott Brison? I remember people expressing the need to seek out the entire story before jumping to the conclusion. Why is it so different when it comes to Indigenous governance or Indigenous people?

            This is exactly what some individuals have done. They have lumped Chief Spence into the category of being at fault for it all. Furthermore, many now link this to all Indigenous communities. Lastly, they link all of this to the IdleNoMore movement. Guilty by association, it’s a wonderful thing eh? Even though IdleNoMore was started at least, at minimum, a month in advance of Chief Spence’s stance. Or that IdleNoMore began by four Indigenous women out west. Or that the original rallies were done by people not linked to Chief Spence. What about the fact that the stance by Spence had nothing to do with the government already trying to drag her name through the dirt but about the rightful duty, relationship, and legal bindings of Canada’s relationship with the Indigenous Nations – Nation to Nation.

            Individuals who are perpetuating the ignorance forget this and continue to link both together somehow. I have heard why do they not back away from her? Well, that is an interesting question. When you are a part of a population that people have belittled, accused, and painted with the brushstroke of being to incompetent to control our own affairs, and we know that it is not always true – because media and government releases have always been good at misconstruing the reality, why would they abandon her before the full story is released or understood? Isnt that how it is supposed to be? Innocent until proven guilty? What about habeas corpus in this situation? All of the proof is not yet been presented. Additionally, why haven’t these same people done the exact same within their own partisan walls? Is it because they know, when relating to their political leanings, that media may not always be fair but rather can be biased?

            What about the other media releases that show the government of Canada is just as guilty for not giving us the proper tools to do things properly or for the amount of money that is actually spent in their hands via ANAC rather then what makes it to us. What about how much is spent to get the needed items for building, infrastructure, food, workers, and so on into a remote community (whether Indigenous or not)? For the National Post to label this community as a money pit is to claim the same for all none-southern communities.  Could we then call Alert, Labrador City, Atlin, Flin Flon, Beauvelle, Elliott Lake, and others a money pit too? (I hardly doubt it would be easily allowed to occur without being condemned). Additionally, it lacks critical analysis of the Indian Act and what it does to prevent Indigenous ability to enhance economic ability and stability.]

            Yet, somehow it turns to it all being only the fault of our Indigenous leaders, our members, and the people who allow it to continually occur, even though many of us are always fighting the good fight to bring awareness to how convoluted and ignorant this mindset is.  My favorite has been the comments from people expressing to us as Indigenous people what is wrong with our communities, how we need to man (or woman) up, how to fix our issues of poverty and suicide (that’s right – one individual actually specified why we have the issue of suicide and how to deal with it). Many of these people have never been to an actual reserve in the north (or any Indigenous community actually). Many of these people have pointed out to me, via emails, twitter and facebook messages, that they know little to nothing on this subject – yet they seem to know what is best for us.

Hmm, I seem to recall an entire history of colonization where outsiders told us what would be best for us (look how well it has worked out). We consistently meet with Canadians to tell them what needs to be done, what we want, the recognition needed, and the importance of law and understanding. But yet, it is never what they want to hear. So they keep on judging and casting stones before understanding the crap load of problems, scenarios, and histories, ethnicities, and treaties that exist in this situation. Instead, we get told how they think we should ‘fix’ it all. This leads to protests, anger, blockades, and then standoffs (sorry about the delays, we have only been waiting for justice over countless of generations and decades).

            On economics, I have been told to idolize and copy the work done by specific communities across Canada, such as the band Chief Louie governs. This is all nice to say but the reality is who in their right mind can expect people in different climates and regions to do something similar? This is like telling Manitoba or Quebec to begin fending for themselves and to learn how to build their economy off of oilsands revenue like Alberta did. Makes sense right? Especially when these provinces don’t have oil sands resources. Just like, a Dene community in the NWT cannot have a winery.

            Perhaps the continued and prolonged issues we are facing still today, as we did 100 years ago, has something to do with this lack of willingness to actually listen to the Indigenous side. Perhaps the problems are the continued belief that Indigenous nations have no rights, claims to their traditional territories and are apart of the Canadian state (even though Indigenous nations have never been asked to actually federate). Perhaps learning about the Indigenous nations and their distinct populations (and yes I pluralize this as there is more then 1 kind), their histories, treaties, and relationship to Canada (and the Crown) should be considered. And maybe, just maybe, you can stop casting stones at us – people who are already beaten into the ground and robbed of a language, culture, and understanding of one’s own history are easy to target. Many of those who grow up with this animosity are far more likely to consider a noose, overdose, poison, a razor blade, or a gun as an answer to remove themselves from the onslaught of ignorance that we deal with on a day to day basis from the moment of birth. Mainstream society calls this ignorance and bullying I do believe.

            As Indigenous people we have issues – long standing issues because of the histories we have been born from, the histories we have inherited, the problems we have inherited, as well as the ignorance and animosity that has been inherited by the other side of the treaty relationship. Perhaps it is time to stop telling us how to fix it and to start listening!

            Pierre Trudeau said during the constitutional discussions of the early 1980s “I just don’t know what you people want.” I still hear that question today from people. Perhaps its time to listen to what has been said for generations from our side and start learning, respecting, listening, and working with us. Assisting with the smoke screens and jumping to conclusions as I have seen from people today does nothing but demean both sides of the treaty relationship.

            But what do I know? I am just an ‘educated Indian’ who grew up in both societies, lives and breaths Indigenous and Canadian politics and thus all the issues that accompany it (like so many others who are consistently discredited)– I guess I know nothing right? Lets just keep bypassing the issues and not listening to the people all of this impacts, because it has worked out so nicely for Canada since its day as separate colonies (again, sarcasm).

What I do know for sure? I will not cast stones at this Chief Spence until I know the full story – it is the least I can do and what should be done by anyone who has witnessed this type of thing on to others.

Sources:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2323841717/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/01/05/first-nations-audits-infrastructure.html

http://sixthestate.net

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2013/01/ugly-truth-about-crown-first-nations-relationship#.UOs1vAN_Gd8.twitter

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

http://idlenomore.ca

http://zone.biblio.laurentian.ca/dspace/bitstream/10219/388/1/NSWJ-V7-art7-p163-180.pdf

http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/crecs/eng/documents/nat_aborig_youth_suicide.pdf

(Also look at Sheila Fraser’s (Past Auditor General) Report in relation to Indigenous/Government finances)

Scholars to Consider on Items relating to this:

Kiera Ladner

Pam Palmater

John Borrows

Sakej Youngblood Henderson

Peter Russell

Russell Lawrence Barsh