Tuesday, 26 March 2013

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 3rd party’s decision in voting against a Federal Budget).

Monday, 7 January 2013

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:









(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

Friday, 28 December 2012

(Part 3) Those Who Live in Glass Houses Should be Wary of Casting Stones: The NDP & Indigenous Relations (Part 3: 1993 – 2012):


           Throughout part 1 and part 2 of this write-up I had looked to shed light on the relationship between the NDP and Indigenous peoples via policy, voting, and mindset. As was quite noticeable in part 1, the NDP had no difference in their mindset from that of the other Canadian political parties – that is until after the 1969 White Paper had been introduced (a paper which mimicked an NDP policy from 1963). In part 2, the NDP was struck by internal division from members and sitting parliamentarians, as well as provincial NDP wings, on how best to handle patriation of the Constitution and the accords of the late 1980s and early 1990s. But what of the NDP from 1993 and up to the present date? This is an important question to consider and will be done in this 3rd, and final, write-up on the NDP and Indigenous nations.

            I will state now as I always state: The Liberal Party of Canada has made many mistakes, even into the 1990s – I acknowledge this and I don’t hide it or defend it. However, I argue that no party – whether in forming government, as opposition, or as a third party, can be saved from guilt of past policies and legislation that has been implemented. Unfortunately this is just met with more partisan mantra by my ‘orange’ friends to the left. So, after many attacks on not just me and my choice of party, but also my family and the mindset I, and those Indigenous people who vote Liberal, are helping to assimilate ourselves, I decided to do some research. This research is specifically on the NDP and the hypocrisy it espouses when it attacks another party for policy that is decades old, such as the White Paper.

I do want to acknowledge now, this may be a long post to follow –but one of importance due to the sheer amount of research done to shed some truth to the NDP/Indigenous relationship.

The 1990s & early 2000s: The Changing of the Guard and a ‘Golden Age’ on Indigenous Rights

            With the federal election of 1993, the NDP saw not only a new leader at its helm but almost its destruction as it was reduced to 9 seats in the House of Commons. The new NDP Leader, although being from the Yukon, lost support amongst Indigenous people due to the NDP standing on the Charlottetown Accord. This led to many high-profiled NDPers at provincial levels to leave that party and join the Liberals federal – one being Elijah Harper who helped quash the Meech Lake Accord and campaigned against the Charlottetown Accord.
           
            Currently, I have had a difficult time finding platform points from the NDP on Indigenous issues in the 1993 election platform that they would have ran on. There is belief that the unified support of the Charlottetown Accord by the NDP had led to many Indigenous people moving to the Liberals in 1993, including potential candidates. Throughout the time of McLaughlin. Being the MP for the Yukon, it is quite interesting that this would occur and that no substantive policy existed in the NDP Platform of 1993 to show support to Indigenous people.
           
            With the many cuts being made by the Chretien Liberals after their win in 1993, support did sway back to the NDP. By the 1997 election the NDP had again obtained a new leader, Alexa McDonough from Nova Scotia. Additionally, discontent with Liberal cuts to areas such as employment insurance, healthcare, and Indigenous funds should have led to an increase in voter support from various groups. This was very noticeable in Atlantic Canada. But what of the Indigenous Population? What did the NDP promise to do in the 1997 election campaign?

            Upon reviewing much of the 1997 NDP election platform it is suprising to see little to no acknowledgement of promises and acknowledgement of Indigenous nations and rights. In fact, the 1997 election campaign was fought specifically over the issues of the Canadian economy and employment from the NDP side. It was clear the issues of the majority took precedent in this election. The Indigenous population again was left out from the NDP. Again, I will express that the NDP still had within the party that it was important to consult and work with Indigenous people – yet it offered no substantive policy at a time that would have been a perfect time to ‘cash in’ on the possible Indigenous vote. But, other then the Yukon, Winnipeg North-Centre, Winnipeg Centre, Churchill, and Churchill River, the other 16 seats the NDP won that year head very little ability to be impacted by the Indigenous vote. Additionally, it is not fully clear how Indigenous people voted in these ridings because the information seems to be non-existent.

            Traditionally, Indigenous turn out in urban areas could be less, as his been mentioned in more recent articles and thus it can be argued that the urban ridings listed above may have been impacted by employment and cuts to services then Indigenous people angry at the Liberals. Again, Indigenous policy was not at the forefront for the NDP in 1997 either. The same can be argued, and seen when dealing with the 2000 election under McDonough as leader of the NDP. No policy was really introduced nor were many solutions considered.

            I will give credit to the NDP for speaking up against various pieces of policy that would impact Indigenous people during this decade, and the early 2000s. The NDP had developed a good method for keeping the HOC in check when relating to Indigenous people. In most cases, the bills they had to speak out against would not be passed – such as Bill C-7. Thus the NDP support for Indigenous rights was becoming apparent, but specifically when attacking the governing party of the time. From minutes recorded on various Bills that impacted Indigenous people the NDP did nothing more then to point out the flaws, the need for consultation, but lacked suggestions to move forward. During this time it was apparent via the media and correspondence between the NDP and Indigenous organization that they were listening and expressing what they were hearing to the HOC – but not possible solutions per se.

The Rise of Jack Layton:
            By January of 2003 the NDP had obtained another new leader, one of whom most of us recall more readily then his predecessors: Jack Layton. Layton  came from a political family, with his father serving in Brian Mulroney’s Caucus within the HOC in the 1980s and early 1990s. Layton espoused what one would expect for an NDP leader – one who was to the left, social responsibility, and one who was supposed to understand Indigenous issues and their rights.

            In fact, the platform for the NDP in 2004 actually had a section reflecting Indigenous people, like the Liberal Party had done. They were committed to respecting treaties and working with Indigenous people to resolve land claims (including with the provinces).  They advocated for clean water for first nations communities, for Indigenous communities to administer their own health care programs, work with the communities to foster economic growth, and so on. Majority of this reflected Health Care and governance. Similar aspects were put forth by Paul Martin in the Liberal camp, who had also adapted his understanding and viewpoints on Indigenous nations, rights and Jurisdictions. Thus, the Liberals at this time also had some strong points that it put forth. In turn a minority Liberal government was sent to the HOC with also the only true Indigenous representation within the HOC. In fact, in the 2004 election it was not clear that the NDP had even put forth any Indigenous candidates – even in ridings with high Indigenous representation. Why? I do not know – only the NDP would.

            Despite the push and change in the platform from past platforms, the NDP still were not making breakthroughs at this time. Instead, they continued to hurl past actions of the Liberals upon the Liberals, forgetting about their own history of similar policy and Eurocentric mentality.

The Kelowna Accord and the 2006 Federal Election:

            Between 2004 and 2006 the Liberals and NDP had found common ground and had agreed to work together, given a few demands by the NDP that the Liberals agreed to. This had been done in the Minority governments of Trudeau, Pearson, as well as Mackenzie-King. During this time Paul Martin, also used his new found opinions on Indigenous people to start moving forward – the first time, in my opinion, a Canadian political Prime Minister and Leader had shown true action and truth to his words. Martin, in the late 1990s, had, as he told the APC Executive in January 2011, had a change in mindset via a discussion between him and LPC MP Jane Stewart. He then began an educated movement for himself to learn and open his mind about Indigenous people, to which he had done and was still doing upon taking the Liberal leadership in 2003.

            This was reflected in his ability to encourage support and representation from the Indigenous population as candidates, as voters, and when drafting policy. The best example of such a policy was the Kelowna Accord. The Accord sought to help support Indigenous nations to come to par with their Canadian counterparts on issues such as Healthcare, Education, Infrastructure, Clean Water, and so on . Almost all of these items, as I listed, were in the NDP platform for 2004 – excluding education and infrastructure which the Liberals added on their own. Paul Martin, at this time, also was one of the first leaders to have direct involvement of Indigenous people in his inner circle, with one of his policy advisors being Indigenous himself.
            The Kelowna Accord was agreed to by not only the federal government of Canada, but the provincial governments, as well as almost all Indigenous leaders – A first time in Canadian history. It was applauded by the Indigenous side and considered a major breakthrough and stepping stone forward for Indigenous/Canadian relations, despite the long list of past mistakes from within Canada and its political parties. Even the NDP supported the Accord, but that was to change as the Gomery Inquiry released its preliminary draft and polls showed an increase in support for NDP – albeit not a substantial amount.

            One must remember though, Layton came in to take over a party that was stuck with 14 seats prior to the 2004 election. Even after the 2004 election, the seat count only increased to 19. Polls were showing that Layton believed there was an opportunity to be in striking distance of what the NDP achieved in 1988 – a seat count in the mid 40s.  Originally the NDP and Liberals also had an agreement that Martin would call an election in February –once the full inquiry was released. But with the polls, statistics, and so on showing possible advantages the NDP expressed that the Liberals must abide by a key health care plank of theirs. This was unprecedented due to the original agreement of support over other concessions given for the budget in 2005 to secure the support of the NDP. Thus, the NDP, under Layton, joined the Conservatives and Bloc in a motion of non-confidence and leading to the general election of 2006.

            Many of us recalled what happened in that election. The Conservatives would win a minority and in doing so they killed the Kelowna Accord. Not only did they destroy Kelowna, but they also killed the National Childcare plane that Martin had etched out, as well as the Kyoto Accord. For many of us this was not a surprise as we, especially on the Indigenous side, knew where the Conservatives stood on Indigenous items. Again, this election only saw Indigenous candidates under the Liberal banner. In the House of Commons, the Liberals had Gary Maresty, Tina Keeper, Nancy Karetak-Lindell, and Todd Russell. The NDP did not have any Indigenous candidates, that were known of, again – even in Nunavut where they ran a non-Indigenous person. One would assume that you would try and run someone who is connected with the majority population of a riding, like you see the parties do in urban centres.

            The NDP did see their seat count increase to 29, which also included the riding of Northwest Arctic. This riding was originally held by the first Indigenous female to be elected to the House of Commons – Ethel Blondin-Andrew. The NDP would replace her with a non-Indigenous male who now represented a riding with a Indigenous population over the 50% mark. I understand that all is fair in the war of elections but I did find this shocking since the NDP consistently argued that they advocated for Women, representation of women in the House of Commons, Indigenous rights, the rights of children, national child care, and environmental protection. Even the current Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May, chastised Layton and the NDP for a clear push on an election to obtain more votes and seats – rather then based on seeing good policy and legislation passed that worked for the masses and many groups the NDP considered important to them.

            Thus began the re-emergence of a dark period for Indigenous/Canadian relations and even even more ignorant and colonial minded one since the 1960s and 1970s, I would argue. Who do I hold at fault for this? Both the CPC for being ignorant on this and the NDP for becoming electorally greedy. I don’t care if other parties do it, or that it is the name of the game – the truth is I strongly view the NDP as selling their morals in November of 2005 – all in order to obtain 10 more seats. But again, this was in 2005/2006. I shouldn’t be like the NDPers who consistently attack me for the White Paper, which again I must point out was like their 1963 Indian Policy Paper and that they initially supported the White Paper on the day it was introduced. Or the lack of proper consultation or proper consideration for Indigenous views in the 1980s and early 1990s like that of the NDP, as previously shown.

            But alas, when you question the NDP about their support in destroying the Kelowna Accord, despite their contradictory mention of it in their 2006 election platform, the replies I get are “that opinion is obsolete and not important,” according to NDP MP Linda Duncan (see blog post on this), or that Martin would never have allowed it to pass. I guess people say what they need to in order to make up for their mistakes – and the Liberals have been no different in this when reflecting the past. However, perhaps I am being too partisan and that after 2006 there was more sign of NDP wanting to truly work with Indigenous people … unfortunately there are some examples that will show that partisanship was more important then the plights of the Indigenous nations and the continued attack of the Harper Conservatives.

The Matrimonial Real Property Debate of May 2009:

            As the political process and increased control of the Conservatives occurred from the 2008 federal election, the push to bring back pieces of legislation that the CPC had been trying to enforce since 2007 was noticeable. The best example I know of that should be assessed from the election of a CPC government in 2006 to almost the 2011 election, would be that of the Matrimonial Real Property Act – a bill with no proper consultation, many loop holes and possible disastrous outcomes if passed. During this time I was working for a political organization, of which had sent representatives to meet and speak with members of each party on this bill – in hopes of convincing a change of mind on the policy. It was clear the CPC would not, abiding by party line. The Bloc said they would support the CPC and ignored the repress from Chiefs in the Ontario area – mainly due to the fact they were not ‘from Quebec’ most likely. The NDP came out heavily in support of the Indigenous push to ‘kill’ this controversial and misguided bill. The Liberals, did not know where to stand.
            Eventually, after months of work from my position as well as my internal involvement, the Liberals, with the help of Todd Russell who was an Indigenous MP, chose to do what they could to ‘kill’ the bill. The Liberals chose to do this on May 14th, 2009. The used the support of the majority of Indigenous peoples as well as Indigenous governances and organizations for why this bill needs to be redone. However, in a surprise move, after Russell was attacked by Duncan, Brunooge (From the Conservative side) and Lamay (from the BQ), the NDP stood up and did a 180. Denise Savoy, the NDP critic for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development at this time, stood up and expressed that the bill must be allowed to continue to second reading and be discussed in committee – rather than its destruction. It was shocking to see, in 2009, the NDP stray away from what Indigenous people wanted and instead was now supporting the ability to further colonial legislation. This was even more horrific to me due to their continued attack on the Liberals for its past experience with colonial policy, including the First Nations Governance Act of 2002, under Chretien, as well as financial caps in the mid 1990s. How could this be and why would they do such a thing one may ask. They must have had a good reason others would say. The answer: They didn’t want to let the Liberals look good.

            The NDP opted to, instead of showing commitment to its own policy initiatives under Layton as leader, forego what it agreed to do with Indigenous people and allowed partisanship to overshadow the chance to collectively work together and ‘kill’ this legislation. Why was this not reported better in the media and elsewhere? I do not know – but it is a travesty that the NDP have never been held accountable to. When I push the NDP on this bill, silence falls rather than an answer.

            In the 2011 election the NDP platform seems to try and make up for their actions with generic commitments – the same commitments the Liberals had agreed to implement during the period between 2004 and 2006, in the 2006 election, as well as during the 2008 and 2011 election themselves. They also clearly specify the establishment of a new partnership with the Indigenous nations yet one must wonder why they would want to do this when they had many opportunities to help foster this in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 with the Liberals. I don’t have an answer to this – only hypothesis that I am sure the NDP supporters would retort back with something the Liberals did in the 1990s and back.

Conclusion of Part 3:

            Although the NDP had started to make some more vocal stances during the late 1990s, the disarray of the party in the early and mid 1990s seems to show the inability for them to do so during that time. I will happily express that they did try in the late 1990s – even into the early 2000s. However, by November 2005 the importance of Indigenous rights, jurisdiction, and progress was pushed aside for additional votes and seats. At a time when no such thing had been achieved before or after it, the Kelowna Accord was a breakthrough in its own. Today, problems are worse and the NDP partisans I meet consistently point out policies of the past that the Liberals had brought forth.

            To this I must now saw, with close to 20 pages of research written about, they should check their own history as a party, whether in the name of the NDP or its predecessors, and acknlowedge their own Eurocentric, colonial, and misunderstood opinions on Indigenous people and their rights. They must also stand accountable for their decision to put 10 seats ahead of a heavily negotiated and consulted policy such as the Kelowna Accord. They must also stand up and explain their actions in situations like that of the Matrimonial Real Property bill in May of 2009. And my biggest reminder to them: Those in Glass Houses, Should be Wary of Casting Stones.

            It can be argued that a new era has been sparked since the 2011 election – with changes in Canada’s political make up and the change in leadership that the NDP has had and the Liberals will have. Both now have Indigenous wings to their parties, with the Liberals establishing the Aboriginal Peoples’ Commission in 1990 and the NDP in 2008. But to claim this would require a review of their newly minted Leader Thomas Muclair, the standpoints of some of their NDP MPs from Quebec – who put Quebec Nationalism before that of Indigenous nations, as well as their stances on items such as the place of the Monarchy in Canada, which is an instrumental to the Crown/First Nations treaties and relationship. This, in other words, is a new topic that will have to be looked into in another post – especially since the NDP, under Muclair, plan to use the Indigenous vote to win the next government. But what happens when you mix anti-monarchists, a socialist factions within the NDP, Quebec Nationalists, as well as Indigenous rights? A powder keg where some will give way to what may be considered ‘more important issues.’

Sources: (Again, these sources are not properly work cited but simply added to this blog entry in order to show where my research, opinions, and points come from)

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

Russell Barsh and James Youngblood Henderson, “Aboriginal Rights, Treaty Rights, and Human Rights: Indian Tribes and Constitutional Renewal,” Journal of Canadian Studies 17.2 (1982)

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

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

House of Commons, Issue No. 40. Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, 20 October 1983

House of Commons, Minutes, 23 October 1980

Joseph Levitt, Fighting Back for Jobs and Justice: Ed Broadbent in Parliament (Ottawa: LLA Publishing, 1996) 30

Roy Romonow, “Aboriginal Rights in the Constitutional Process,” in The Quest for Justice: Aboriginal Peoples and Aboriginal Rights,  eds. Menno Boldt and J. Anthony Long (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985)

Special Joint Committee, op.cit., 5 January 1981

Frank Tester, Paule McNicoll, and Jessie Forsyth, “ With an Ear to the Ground: The CCF/NDP and Aboriginal Policy in Canada, 1926-1993, in Journal of Canadian Studies, 34.1 (1999)

Mary Ellen Turpel, “Aboriginal Peoples’ Struggle for Fundamental Political Change,” The Charloettetown Accord, the Referendum and the Future of Canada, eds. Kenneth McRoberts and Patrick Monahan (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993)

Sources for Second Section 1993 - present

House of Commons, Minutes, 4 June 1993

Frank Tester, Paule McNicoll, and Jessie Forsyth, “ With an Ear to the Ground: The CCF/NDP and Aboriginal Policy in Canada, 1926-1993, in Journal of Canadian Studies, 34.1 (1999)