What Not to Do In Election 2015: Using Residential School Atrocities for Political Gain

Today marks day 25 of Canada's longest election since the 1870s. And, as many in the Canadian political world knew it would happen - this election may become the most vicious one on Canadian record.

However, today I am writing this post not based as a Liberal supporter - but rather as someone who is a descendent of those who survived the imprisonment, abuse, and despair of being forced into Canada's infamous residential school system; As someone who is a part of the big group of us who are generational survivors of the effects of Residential Schools and the continued/ongoing colonization of ourselves, families, communities, rights, and nations.

To begin - yes, I support Justin Trudeau - and for the most part I support the vast majority of the Liberal candidates that have put their names forward for Election 2015. I support them because of the many hours and amount of effort I and other good Indigenous peoples put into revamping the party and moving it forward on Indigenous/LPC relations, Indigenous/Canadian relations, as well as a developing and furthered understanding of Indigenous peoples, theories, knowledge, and ways of thinking.  However, this does not mean I would not chastised the Liberals for mistakes (I have been clear I do not support Bill C51 - and an important caveat I keep hope in is the fact that Trudeau at the AFN AGA this past July stated that there are issues with the legislation and that the Liberal Party would rescind the sections that impact us as Indigenous peoples. He then followed up this point with stating: "Indigenous peoples fighting for their rights are not terrorists." I also give kudos to him for not shying away from the criticism - for meeting with those angry at him and the party over the stance on C51 - He hasn't deflected, shied away from the discussion and animosity around it, nor has he avoided it.

This makes me feel comfortable with supporting the LPC still and highlights to me a willingness to deal with the political poison pills the Conservatives utilize to score political points and meeting with those who disagree with an LPC stance face-to-face. Unfortunately, my experience in asking for clarity and answers from the NDP and Thomas Mulcair have not witnessed similar standing.

Whether it has been clarity on the Sherbrooke Declaration and Quebec's right to separate and be a self-determining entity trumps Indigenous rights and nationhoods; To why they utilize provincial jurisdiction to avoid supporting all TRC recommendations; to ignoring calls on Mulcair to apologize for endorsing Harper's working relationship with our nations in January 2013; to avoiding debates; and so on - No answers have been received. Instead, I and others (many of whom aren't even partisan - are not Liberals and who won't even participate in the Canadian political system) are attacked by some of the NDP's hardcore partisans as being fascists, Harper-like, being jealous of the NDP doing well in the polls, or (in one case in my experience) for being racist towards those of European-Descent (despite the fact I clearly am a mixture of Anishinaabe and European background).

I had been dealing with this in an ok manner - I have continuously reposted and re-asked my questions (my ability to block people on twitter and Facebook has also saw a major increase in being utilized since August 2nd) and so on. However, the actions of one NDP hardliner today (alongside the NDP's subtle blame of the #UpForDebate2015 organization for why Mulcair didn't end up participating in a debate on Womens' Rights and Issues) was the lowest I have personally witnessed someone do in looking to score political points.

Enter Debate on Someone's Facebook Wall:

Today, while reviewing comments posted to someones wall (a blogger and active person in relation to Canada's Federal election, I noticed a specific post (not from the person who's wall it was posted to) being used to target an Indigenous person whom supports the Liberals. The post was a picture of Indigenous peoples with the quote: 

"The biggest genocide in human history didnt occur in Nazi German, but on American soil. 100 million Native Americans were slaughtered and lost their homeland. Historical Fact: Most of the people doing the slaughtering were Christians. Sorry if you can't handle the truth."

I dont disagree with this meme - it is truthful in my mind, but it was the following quote with its post that sparked the issue by poster Thomas Dowswell: "For Frank from Peggy Peterson, who is ok with my questions! So Frank, yes or no, did the Federal Liberal Party ever see suffering of First Nations kids while they were in power?" (This was followed by a back-and-forth between Thomas and Frank - Note: many of the words choices used in the discussion I do not condone).

First Question I am left with is: Who is Peggy Peterson - I don't have much information to offer on the individual other then the Thomas' claim the question comes from her first.

Where and who poised the question isn't of importance to me - rather who shared it and then who used it to try to paint only one political party as the sole creator of the continued colonization of Indigenous peoples and nations - while completely ignoring the reality: All of the political parties (Liberal, Conservative, NDP, and Bloc (and whatever previous names they went by) have had a hand in the colonial mentality that has dominated Canada, and in many cases, continues to dominate Canada's political, social, legal, and governing institutions - whether federally with the most seats, as opposition, or third party (lets remember - In Canada, the government is those who are sitting in the HOC); or provincially (whether governing, opposition or third party). This is especially true with Residential schools - all caveats of Canada's society had some part in it - including Liberals, PCs, NDP (and its predecessors such as the CCF, Progressives and Labour), and so on.

Do I honestly believe that those in the House of Commons new the torture, abuse, and murder that was occurring in the Residential Schools? Perhaps - but people in all the parties would know - whether provincial or federal; whether governing, opposition, or third party. Studies and visits most likely would have been done by party representatives throughout the 1900s, and including post-1960s. However, this does not mean some knew first hand what was actually occurring within them - this could be because of bureaucracy, deputy ministers - such as Duncan Campbell Scott - only relaying certain caveats of the Residential School situation to them, and so on. Again, this is all hypothetical - but to state and try to pinpoint the murder, abuse, molestation, and pain that was inflicted on Indigenous peoples as being only from one party is PURELY pespostorous. They all have a place in the guilt of Canada's colonial mentality and continued ignorance towards Indigenous understandings (such as Quebec's right to self determination and separation potentially over Indigenous nations and rights).

But, what was the most infuriating of all for me was the utilization of the murder of Indigenous peoples - the abuse, murder, slander, and attack on Indigenous peopels via the residential school system that for me equates a new form of low in this election campaign. And for that I say shame on you Thomas Dowswell. It made me absolutey livid - and thus I responded to his (and I guess Peggy Peterson's) comment to Frank (mind you my response was mainly to Thomas).

My Reply:

"Thomas - how dare you try and use the abuse my great grandfather and others who survived residential school to score political points - let alone the generational trauma my grandfather, aunts, uncles, mother; my cousins, myself, and my sister have suffered because of all of this. YOU ARE a part of the problem when understanding Indigenous contexts and the colonial history of Canada. You owe an apology for your sickening display. Absolutely disgusted with this. Your actions are extremely ignorant. The Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP have all made tremendous mistakes in the past - whether government, opposition or third party. They all had been complacent in some way. I am thankful, as an Anishinaabe Inini, that the Liberals have admitted to their past mistakes and been learning from them (such as, under Martin, rejecting the First Nations Governance Act, Bringing forth Kelowna, Bringing forth a plan for National Childcare and Kyoto being moved forward between 2004-2006 - all destroyed for the NDP wanting an additional 10 seats; For Officially rejecting the White Paper of 1969; For being the party to push for the national apology on residential schools (via Liberal MP Gary Majesty in 2008); For standing up for First Nations peoples and their rights against the Conservatives MRP legislation (which the NDP supported on second reading in order to not let the Liberals look good when they introduced a motion to effectively kill the legislation - a motion the NDP were supposed to support but didnt because they didnt get to introduce the motion). This doesn't even include actions of NDP/CCF governments provincially in Saskatchewan (which is where the push for provincialization of some of our jurisdictions as Indigenous peoples came from - the Saskatchewan CCF wanted control over Indigenous peoples in that province) or the NDP in Manitoba (who participated heavily in the post 1960s of removal of Indigenous Children from their families, homes, and communities - not to mention the flooding of Indigenous communities in 2011) and so on."

I will also add - Thomas's actions shows the inherent problem of colonial mentality and 'privilege' that sometimes consumes the left side of the political spectrum whilst many pretend to not recognize it or the western constructs within the idea of 'social justice.'

Moral of The Story:

Dont use the atrocities of the residential schools to try and make it seem like one party is better then another: AKA: Dont use Residential Schools as a way to score cheap points in this election - it is absolutely disgusting. The actions of this individual are that - the actions of this one hardlined-supporter (potentially two as two names are mentioned in the discussion). Thus I will give the NDP as a party the benefit that they know better as an organization and political entity to ever try and utilize it in such a way that Thomas Dowswell did.

I will also remind Thomas Dowswell that the NDP's past is just as guilty and riddled with colonial thought as the other parties:

-  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.”

In the meantime, I still hope the NDP will offer clarity on the following questions I have been asking (some for a few months - others for two years).

For More Info and sources: 

http://canadianpoliticalopinions.blogspot.ca/2013/07/the-new-democratic-partys-hypocrisy-on.html)

http://canadianpoliticalopinions.blogspot.ca/2015/07/thomas-mulcair-and-ndps-new.html

http://canadianpoliticalopinions.blogspot.ca/2015/02/dear-romeo-saganash.html

Thomas Mulcair and the NDP’s ‘New Relationship with Indigenous Peoples:

On July 7^th both Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau delivered a speech at the Assembly of First Nations’ (AFN) Annual General Assembly (AGA) in Montreal. In both speeches, the leaders outlined how they and their parties would approach a future with Indigenous peoples. Now, some of you will claim I am bias because of my long-standing support of the Liberal Party (despite the fact that I have on many occasions called out my own party on mistakes it has made – with the most recent being Bill C-51, despite my post in support specifically of Indigenous Liberal candidates).

Thus, in reviewing and watching both speeches from Mulcair and Trudeau I would argue Trudeau did the best: speaking of nation-to-nation relations, the need to re-establish and revamp the relationship to one that is positive, outlining in fuller details what the Liberals would do in government; committing to continue an open dialogue with our nations whether he is Prime Minister, Leader of Official Opposition, or neither. To be more specific, here are some reasons I felt Trudeau was 1) More Respectful; and 2) Offering More Specifics (I suggest looking into the video of the speech – which can be found with the AFN or the Liberal Party of Canada’s website):

1.     Trudeau was on-time and started his speech on time – Mulcair did not;

2.     Trudeau was the only one to recognize the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (specifically the Mohawk) – Mulcair did not;

3.     Acknowledged the Indigenous wing of the Liberals, the Aboriginal Peoples Commission – Mulcair did not recognize the NDP’s,

4.     Kept specifying the ‘nation-to-nation’ relations – Mulcair focused on ‘a new relationship,’

5.     Acknowledged the mistake of C-51 in relation to Indigenous peoples, promising to rescind the parts that impact us – stating: “Indigenous peoples standing up for their rights are not terrorists,”

6.     Using the term ‘Indigenous peoples’ rather than “Canada’s Indigenous peoples, etc,

7.     Acknowledged the failure of all past provincial and federal governments in treating Indigenous peoples and nations respectfully – including Liberal governments - Muclair has not in relation to NDP and its previous names when in the HOC or forming Provincial Governments;

8.     Went into further detail about how the Liberals will renew the nation-to-nation relationships as well as fairness and equality for Indigenous peoples;

9.     My one criticism: No time left for questions to be answered and asked openly ‘on-air' - instead they were done one-on-one with attendees as he walked around the place the AGA was held

Mulcair, although talking about establishing a new era of relations did not offer much specific or in detail. Furthermore Mulcair arrived late to his speech and also did not acknowledge the traditional territory that he was on whilst addressing the AFN AGA. To make matters worse, his answering of questions was generic, with little insight, and on one occasion getting defensive with one person when he got their name wrong.

Despite the positive and negatives highlighted above, I would argue that speeches from any federal political party at the AFN occurred for the first time in its history that July 7^th – in my mind highlighting that both do see and realize the impact the ‘Indigenous vote’ could have. Both Trudeau and Mulcair highlighted this by reaching out to the delegates at the AFN AGA, agreeing on the need for more proper funding of items from education to infrastructure, as well as the need for an Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW). I also do appreciate that both leaders, in their own wording, talked about ways to move forward in hand with our nations – Trudeau speaking of nation-to-nation relations and Mulcair about a ‘new era of relations.’ However, and this is where I become critical, how does Mulcair’s new era of relations look when you compare it to his and the NDP’s standing on the Sherbrooke Declaration – the NDP declaration that allows Quebec to separate from Canada and formulate its own modern-state despite the sovereign integrity and recognition of the Indigenous nations whose land (which is inherently still Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Wendate, Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe, Nehiyaw, and Innu) Quebec is built upon?

Mulcair’s ‘New Relationship’ vs. “Quebec’s Rights to Separate:”

Following Mulcair and Trudeau’s speeches, I began to wonder more fully what Mulcair’s ‘era of new relations’ really reflected because of his party’s stance on Quebec’s ability to separate. Mulciar on many occasions has stood steadfast in supporting the Sherbrooke Declaration. The Sherbrooke Declaration was the NDP’s response to the Clarity Act, with the NDP’s declaration agreeing that for Quebec to separate a simple majority was all that was needed. Neither the Clarity Act nor the Sherbrooke Declaration reflected or included notions of Indigenous sovereignties and nationhoods. In other words, when it came to Quebec’s separation, the recognition of Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Wendate, Anishinaabe, Haudenosaune, Nehiyaw, and Innu territory was left to the peripheries of the debate around Quebec’s right to separate.

Yet, as the NDP continued to grow in strength and as they continue to court the Indigenous vote, despite their delays in support of Idle No More, Chief Theresa Spence as well as Thomas Muclair’s lack of apology for endorsing Harper’s working relationship with our nations, the NDP’s stance around Quebec’s right to separate with land that is inherently Indigenous continues to be ignored and they continue to ignore questions regarding it. They refuse to answer questions I, and others send – instead playing partisan politics and calling mine, and other peoples questions as Liberal fuelled (despite the fact that many I know asking these questions are not supporters of any federal party).

I have witnessed questions sent to Nikki Ashton, Romeo Saganesh, and other high-profile NDP MPs – with them utilizing Conservative methods to attack back and demean the person asking the questions. Questions as simple as: How can you build a new era of relations with Indigenous peoples while your party would allow Quebec to separate with land that is Indigenous; How do Quebecers have such a right to separate with stolen Indigenous land; Etc. The NDP, as they have traditionally done over their actions, deflect and attack rather then offer answers (thats all I would like to see - answers to quell my fears as an Indigenous person).

Fast-forward to the last seven days and the NDP candidate in Papineau: Beatrice Zako. At the end of last week it came to fruition that Zako had supported a separatist party in the past before turning to the NDP. Mulcair and the NDP’s response was complete support for Zako who had come to realize that Quebec is best served in the NDP. However, since then it also came to fruition that Zako compared Quebec to a colonized Africa. Again, Zako compared Quebec to a colonized entity and, although she resigned as of today the NDP did nothing to reprimand her or remove her. Instead they expressed support for her.

Thus, again I ask: How does such mentality truly reflect a new era of relations between Canada and Indigenous nations under the NDP who had a candidate (one they supported and defended) who refers to Quebec as a colonized entity – completely ignoring the reality of the Indigenous nations. Such comments and defence of such comments would be like defending the Dutch of South Africa to that of English control while forgetting about the Africans who have called those lands home for millennia.

Thus, again – how does such mentality and such staunch support of such ignorance truly represent a new era of relations with our nations? Add this to Muclair’s past comments about willingness to sell Quebec’s water for a profit (despite Indigenous rights); his party’s stance and flip flop in 2009 on the MRP legislation, as well as his continued lack of apology for endorsing Harper’s working relationship with our nations (January 2013), and his current tour in Ontario defending Quebec's right to separate and you truly have to wonder: How?

Thus, to all of you reading this I ask you, and beg you all, to do more research. The NDP is not as picturesque as you may think when it comes to Indigenous peoples and our nationhoods. They have many of the same issues the other federal parties reflect and, unfortunately, they have spiralled into typical rhetoric on Indigenous peoples. Thus, I ask you all to do research and truly understand that the Quebec separation situation is tantamount to how they will work with us – as an afterthought to the needs and wants of the provinces and second to Quebec’s distinctness. 

Unless, the NDP and its MPs are ready to actually answer the questions being asked instead of playing ‘political-roundabout’ and ‘political chess.’

For Additional History on the NDP Please See:

http://canadianpoliticalopinions.blogspot.ca/2013/07/the-new-democratic-partys-hypocrisy-on.html

http://canadianpoliticalopinions.blogspot.ca/2015/02/dear-romeo-saganash.html

Also See:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/19/mulcair-jumps-election-st_n_7828274.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/17/beatrice-zako-ndp_n_7821834.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/19/beatrice-zako-resigns-ndp_n_7829292.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Dear Romeo Saganash....

RE: Bullying Fellow Indigenous Candidates

Unfortunately the last two days have witnessed some extreme pettiness from the NDP benches because of Bill C-51 (the legislation relating to stronger/stricter laws on potential terrorist threats). As many of us know there are flaws with this legislation and I completely agree with the fact there are flaws.

While the Liberals have expressed their intention to support Bill C-51, because of the extra security and safety it may add for the innocent on Turtle Island, Trudeau and the Liberals have admitted there are issues with it. In fact they offered amendments to C-51, although voted down by the Conservatives, and promised to still make amendments to the legislation after obtaining government (if they were to win the October 2015 election).

In response to this ‘controversy,’ Robert-Falcon Oullette, an Indigenous Liberal candidate for Winnipeg-Centre, stated:

“I strongly believe in protecting the right to protest, the freedom

of speech and association, and political activism. I will stand with

you and walk beside you in peaceful protest. If they come for you,

then they will come for me.”

Now, the NDP have opted to vote against Bill C-51, which is their right to do and may be reliant on their supporter base (albeit the NDP have been criticized from becoming extremely insular amongst some of the Caucus, Muclair and his specific inner-circle), but Muclair has expressed if he formed a government in October 2015 he would amend it and thus keep the legislation …

In other words, whether the NDP or Liberals formed a government in October 2015, both would amend Bill C-51 to reflect their views but not abolish it. In other words THEY WILL DO THE SAME BLOODY THING.

Yet, the NDP are now viciously attacking the Liberals for supporting the bill – even though the NDP also do not plan to abolish it if they formed a government. Confusing? Yes. Why? Because the same END RESULT will exist. Whether the NDP vote yes or no – or whether the Liberals vote yes or no.

Now, I don’t like the bill – but I wasn’t going to weigh in until NDP MP Romeo Saganash uttered these words:

“Indigenous Liberal Candidates endorse a threat against Aboriginal

rights by supporting Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s decision to back

the Harper government’s anti-terror bill through the House of

Commons.”

My eyes widened and my mind yelled “What the Hell!?!?!

Thus, according to Saganash, Liberal Indigenous candidates are impeding on Indigenous rights and sovereignty because they stand by the Liberal Party of Canada Leader, Justin Trudeau, on Bill C-51 – even though all but one are not sitting MPs. I think Saganash’s comments are problematic and here is why:

1.     If we go by Romeo Saganash’s logic, can Indigenous peoples thus state that he himself infringes on Indigenous rights and sovereignty, as an NDP, MP, for opting to run for the NDP following their decision to VOTE WITH THE CONSERVATIVES & BLOC QUEBECOIS on pushing the Matrimonial Real Property Bill into second reading in May 2009? (Todd Russell, then Liberal MP for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Critic for the LPC, moved to have the legislation effectively destroyed – the NDP opted to VOTE WITH THE CONSERVATIVES rather then follow the wishes of Indigenous peoples to have the bill voted down/destroyed). Thus Mr. Saganash, can we blame you for the NDP’s assault on Indigenous rights and Indigenous sovereignty?

2.     What about in January 2013 when Thomas Muclair endorsed Stephen Harper’s working relationship with Indigenous nations? Following the very controversial and timid meeting with some of the AFN Regional Chiefs and Band Council Chiefs – the FNCM Meeting, Muclair endorsed the working relationship … and since Harper is imposing private property, colonial rules, and other patriarchal structures on our nations, communities, and peoples – while also making it harder for Indigenous peoples to vote in Canada’s elections if they so choose. Thus, why has Muclair not rescinded his endorsement? Why has Muclair not apologized for his endorsement? Thus, by Mr. Saganash’s view, can we not blame him for Muclair’s ‘approval’ of Harper’s imposition on our rights and sovereignty as Indigenous peoples?

3.     What about the New Brunswick Provincial Election of 2014? Do we recall the protests and anger over fracking? What about the Comments by the NB NDP leader that referred to the protestors, mainly Mikmaq peoples, as terrorists? Yet, Muclair endorsed him and campaigned with him – pushing New Brunswickers to vote for a man who called Indigenous peoples terrorists…. For standing up for their treaty rights … for their sovereign rights. Thus, again, Mr. Saganash – are you complacent in this as an NDP Indigenous MP?

4.     Or what about the NDP’s stance on Quebec sovereignty and separation? The NDP believe Quebec has a right to separate by 50% plus 1 … In other words, the NDP is ok with Quebec separating if they achieve this level …. To separate …. With unceded/treatied Nehiyaw, Maliseet, Wendat, Mikmaw, Haudenosaune, and Anishinaabe land… Mr. Saganash – you are a Nehiyaw/Quebecer Member of Parliament …. Does this not seem like a slap in the face of Indigenous peoples and nations who Quebec shares territory with? Does this not undermine Indigenous treaty rights and sovereignty? And again, going by your logic towards LPC Indigenous candidates in relation to Bill C51, are you not at fault for this infringement and potential appropriation/degradation of Indigenous rights and nations?

In following your logic Mr. Saganash, yes – I can look at you as endorsing the infringement and degradation of Indigenous treaty rights and sovereignty because of you doing the same thing as LPC Indigenous candidates. In other words, your logic and attacks are heavily flawed and very hypocritical.

So, such a flawed logic made me wonder: What are the other possible reasons of such an uptick in bullying towards the Aboriginal Peoples’ Commission, and Liberal Indigenous Candidates, from Saganash, and even Nikki Ashton? Perhaps, if one looks at where LPC Indigenous candidates are, alongside the increased support the LPC has obtained and the loss of support for the NDP, we can see a clearer picture.

Example 1:

Quebec: Michele Audette, the former President of the Native Women’s Association of Canada, has the opportunity to upset the NDP in the riding she is seeking (Manicouagan). It would be an Indigenous candidate vs. an Indigenous candidate between the two parties, but there is strong potential … at the expense of the NDP. Lets also wonder, why was it the NDP could not bring Michele Audette (The Native Womens' Association of Canada's past-president and a major force in pushing for attention to Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls) into their fold?

Example 2:

Manitoba: Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Winnipeg Centre), Dan Vandal (Saint. Boniface-Saint Vital), and Rebecca Chartrand (Churchill). All three can not only upset incumbents, with two being NDP, but also eat heavily into their votes. Chartrand, a well respected individual in Cree territory and the riding of Churchill, amongst Indigenous peoples and community. Vandal, a Metis individual with great connections amongst the Indigenous and Non-Indigenous community in Winnipeg. And Ouellette, a Winnipeg Mayoral Candidate who made a massive dent in former NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis’ bid for Mayor and brought many Indigenous supporters to his side. How did the NDP not pick up any of these individuals to represent them for 2015?

Example 3:

Saskatchewan: Lawrence Joseph (Desenethe-Missinippi-Churchil River); Lisa Abbott (Saskatoon-West); Ray Fox (Battlefords-Lloydminster) and Marcel Isnana (Regina-Qu’Appelle). All four are well known in their communities. Abbott is a well-respected Lawyer, Fox a town councillor, and Joseph a respected leader AND former NDP candidate … all in ridings that the NDP, for the most part, did better then the Liberals and risk losing support. Isnana and Abbott in their ridings no longer make it a two-way race between the Conservatives and NDP; Joseph’s move to the LPC takes away the massive gains the NDP made in DMCR in 2011.

Example 4:

Alberta: Daniol Coles (Edmonton-Griesbach). A Metis individual who works as a Health & Benefits Consultant and has been working hard to not only represent Edmonton and Indigenous peoples but also Alberta. Another well respected individual who risks taking the NDP from second place in the area to third if he taps into the various populations in the riding. Thus, it doesn’t look good for the NDP in this situation either.

Example 5:

British Columbia: Louis De Jaeger (Chilliwack-Hope), Karley Scott (Central Okenagan-Similkameen-Nicola), and Jody Wilson-Raybould (Vancouver Granville). All three are respected and known in their communities. Perhaps, the most known is Wilson-Raybould, the head of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. Wilson-Raybould is a well-respected, honoured, and cherished leader amongst the Pacific Coast Nations. Has done much work as a lawyer and Indigenous leader for Indigenous peoples. Again, how can the NDP, if they ‘represent’ Indigenous peoples on such a ethic level, have not obtained her as their candidate in Vancouver-Granville? 

This discussion doesn’t even include Yvonne Jones, Phillipe Archenbault, as candidates, or other potential nominees under the Liberal Banner – which equals well above 50% of total Indigenous candidates between all four major parties). So, why were the NDP not able to obtain these candidates – why do the NDP seem to only have two Indigenous candidates at this time (Saganash and Genest-Jourdain)? Who knows.

Perhaps it has to do with the strong work of Indigenous women and men, as well as Non-Indigenous allies in the Party that brought them into considering a run as a Liberal candidate; perhaps the early endorsement and support on bringing forth action on #MMIWG; Nation-to-Nation relations; Outreach to the AFN and communities, supporting Idle No More far more quickly than the NDP, etc. OR, perhaps its because of the support the LPC has shown in the last few years and the fact that Justin Trudeau is listening to them – rather then ignoring them, as some claim Muclair to do – remember what happened to their Edmonton-Centre Candidate…. Just Saying. In other words Mr. Saganash, there is no need to cast stone's at your 'glass house,' you broke it on your own.

So Mr Saganash, you question the integrity of Indigenous Liberal candidates who stand by Justin Trudeau and you wonder why? Its called faith – faith that the Liberal leader will indeed bring changes to the laws if/when he becomes Prime Minister …. Just as you must with Muclair as he too would simply amend the laws rather then repel. So you, like the Liberal Indigenous candidates, adhere to faith in your leader. Your point, argument, and attacks are excessively hypocritical. Therefore, perhaps you and the NDP should focus on the NDP and Muclair's misgivings towards Indigenous rights and sovereignty before mudslinging. 

Dear Patricia Arquette: You are Right AND Wrong

As many know the Oscars were a big focal point this past Sunday, with many well-paid Actors and Actresses strolling down a red carpet, to partake in an awards ceremony for the creme-de-el-creme of the acting world. Additionally, as many of you know Patricia Arquette won her first Oscar last night because of her work and performance in "Boyhood." I congratulate her on her stellar performance in a movie of amazing talent. Additionally, I was enjoying her acceptance speech until this popped out of her mouth:

"It's time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women and all the gay people and all the people of color that we've all fought for to fight for us now." (Patricia Arquette, February 22 2015).

My mouth, on the other hand, dropped in astonishment that someone who claims to be of such humbleness, not to mention support for the disadvantaged, would say such a thing without fully comprehending the entire background on the situation - let alone the problems her comments create for Indigenous, 'coloured,' and 'LGBT' women & men.

Now, I am very much in favour of women deserving/having equal pay to that of men. I grew up learning women are stronger then men - this from a family where the moms, aunties, sisters, grandmothers, and female cousins were/are the strongest - The 'cornerstone' or 'rock' of the family. I grew up with a mother who served in the military, as a single parent, doing everything a man could do, but probably being shafted on equal pay because she was a woman BUT, as stats show, because she was also an UNWED INDIGENOUS women. Similar stories exist for many women of colour, Indigenous women, as well as bisexual, lesbian and transgender women.

In other words, Patricia Arquette's comment is extremely problematic - straight white women still trump 'people of colour,' Indigenous, LGBT (to name but a few human grouping caveats) women and men. 

To tell Indigenous peoples and 'People of Colour' that they have been fully stood up for when they, in most cases as research and stats show, are still far more disadvantaged then white straight women, and must therefore stand up for Women ... is a slap in the face and glossing over the fact that the issues of identity and ethnicity are not solved; acting as if women of colour, Indigenous women, and bisexual/lesbian/transgender women are considered equal to that of straight wealthy women goes against the research and statistics that have existed over the last 50 years.

Matter of Fact: The differences and division have not been solved - ethnic and identity differences, are arguably more divisive then women/men. Now, am I saying there is not a problem between men and women in various ethnicities or societies? No I am not saying that because I know there is a problem. But to act as if ethnicity/identity doesn't play into the factor and divides women themselves is a misnomer... Canadian stats show that when looking at social hierarchy on pay English Men outrank everyone, followed by French Men.... Then English Women and French Women; Next is Asian Men and then Asian Women.... at the bottom two 'seats:' Indigenous men rank second lowest and Indigenous women the lowest.

Thus let us remember: some of the most ardent first wave feminists only cared for upper-class white women to have the same rights as men.... Some second wave feminists choose to pretend that identity and ethnicity is a sub-issue to that of gender ... not to mention some take advantage of their privilege, such as Patricia Arquette, on stolen Indigenous territory ... In her fashion designer friend's (Rossetta Getty) gown - at an awards ceremony, for the best of the acting world here in North America ... you know, the lifestyle of the rich and the famous.

So yes, I as a a Indigenous/European Gay Male who has worked hard to get to where I am (who has come from a reservation, a single parent family who's mother served the Canadian military only to get early retirement and for my mom, sister, and I to live in very humble means while fighting racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) do stand proudly next to the many many women who have influenced me and demand their equality... and the equality of all women, no matter their ethnicity or identity. 

BUT I do not stand next to those badgering others who stand as a movie star, with a wealthy bank account, telling those who are still treated unfairly to stand up for equal pay when - while that actor enjoys the fruits of a high-paid acting career... on Indigenous land... that was also tilled by slaves, migrant workers, and those impacted by low-income wages (whether women or men or children). Allies are good, but perhaps if you 'talk the talk' you should completely 'walk the walk' (I have the same issue with Bono).

So Patricia Arquette - congrats on your oscar win .... and congrats for potentially pushing the equal rights movement for those of different ethnic and LGBT identities back a notch by utilizing your privileged position to assume, and tell your followers, that LGBT, people of Colour, and Indigenous people are equal now, despite the stats and research that shows you are, in fact, one of the reasons that accounts for the unequalness of Indigenous, LGBT, and coloured people - whether a man or a woman 

But I guess when you are entrenched in the lifestyle of the rich and the famous, it may be hard to notice that by the select few people of colour and the few LGBT people, and the extreme few Indigenous people, who were there alongside you at those oscars.