Day of Action articles continue ... from rational thinkers to the racist and ignorant ...
From CBC's Online Legal Affairs ...
An Inconvenient Reality
MICHELLE MANN - June 29, 2007
A few Canadians in different parts of the country, and particularly in the Deseronto area of Ontario, have experienced some minor inconvenience on the aboriginal national day of action. Perhaps, with a stretch of the imagination, they will stop to contemplate the inconvenience of poverty, inadequate housing and access to clean water, and systemic discrimination, to name a few of the social ills many aboriginal people experience every day.
Many Canadians have never been on reserve, or visited northern Inuit communities or poor Métis living in urban areas. And yet, we think we know the answers, without knowing the history or understanding the context.
I practiced aboriginal law for many years, travelling to numerous reserves, yet the ignorance I encountered was overwhelmingly from non-aboriginal Canadians, particularly on the subject of treaties.
"What if you had entered into the most solemn contract, of the highest nature possible, giving up significant interests in exchange for others that were meant to protect your future generations. Wouldn't you seek to enforce that?" I would ask, only to be met with silence.
Not all treaty and land claims will be found legally legitimate, but the grievances underlying them en masse are legitimate, as are the claims for compensation and an official apology to residential schools survivors, for self-government and substantive equality with other Canadians.
Of course, law does not have the capacity to address the dire situation in which many Aboriginal Peoples survive rather than thrive. Aboriginal poverty cannot be disassociated from other factors, including health and unemployment, high dropout rates, family violence, overcrowded housing and poor living conditions, unsafe drinking water and the cost of quality food in remote communities.
And the list goes on.
Yet existing problems related to aboriginal poverty are only likely to increase in the future, if not adequately addressed in the present. Forty-six per cent of the First Nations population is below the age of 20, compared to 25 per cent for non-aboriginals, a phenomenon referred to as the aboriginal baby boom.
Nor are any of these issues new; rather, they are markedly old, having experienced neglect at the hands of governments of different political stripes over the years in the face of disinterest from most of the Canadian public.
More than ten years after the seminal Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) report, little change has been negotiated and implemented. The Conservative government recently killed the landmark Kelowna Accord reached among first ministers, largely considered to be the first meaningful response to RCAP.
Lately, federal Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice has been trying to fill the gap, promising that his government plans to "clear away historical injustices," one promised measure being the negotiation — with the Assembly of First Nations — of a long-awaited independent claims body. Earlier this month, the federal government promised to help clear a backlog of more than 800 land claims.
I worked with Jim Prentice back when he was a commissioner at the Indian Claims Commission and I, counsel. He knows his stuff and so long as he doesn't get shuffled, has the ability to make a difference, subject to the direction of his political masters.
This brings us full circle, back to the national day of action.
Peaceful protest is a reflection of a healthy democracy, an exercise in freedom of expression and citizen engagement, which I think this country could use more of. Often, it is the most disenfranchised who have the greatest cause for citizen engagement. Why protest when you've got it good?
Much has been made in the media of Shawn Brant and his followers, who set up blockades across a rail line and secondary highway about 200 kilometres east of Toronto, allegedly to get the public's attention.
That they did, particularly after initial reports that they had access to weapons.
Their actions go beyond peaceful protest to civil disobedience and, for what it's worth, breaking the law. Respect for the rule of law can of course be a hard sell to communities and peoples for whom law has predominantly been a tool of oppression.
Nonetheless, with media reports centred on Brant and the blockades, less substance eked out about the actual plight of Aboriginal Peoples or the vast number of aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians peacefully protesting across the country.
And it most likely irritated and annoyed rather than educated and enlightened.
Like it or not, at the level of national politics, Aboriginal Peoples need non-aboriginal people to understand and support their agenda. One Toronto woman interviewed for a news story said that Brant and his ilk were "hurting people who have absolutely nothing to do with their problem."
Yet non-aborignal Canadians have everything to do with "their problem." We vote or don't, speak out or not, and racism and discrimination originate somewhere.
We can choose to see it as "their problem" or our problem. I vote for the latter and still will when I catch my train home to Kingston a day late.
+++++++++
Harper and the Kelowna Accord - Why the PM should change course
LARRY ZOLF - June 28, 2007
There was Stephen Harper in a photo op on June 12, announcing a bill he says will clear the morass of outstanding native land claims across the country. With him on the podium in Ottawa was Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations.
Fontaine looked unhappy and out of place, perhaps dubious about the prime minister's interest in reducing the current backlog of more than 800 land claims. Fontaine knows Canada's natives are not exactly a core constituency for Harper, unlike the rural farmers' gun lobby.
Still, he praised Harper's proposal, which the prime minister called "a complete package of reforms that will revolutionize the claims-resolution process." The bill is to be voted on in the fall, after a summer's worth of consultations with native bands across the country.
But if Fontaine distrusts Harper's Tories, he has good reason and it can be summed up in three words: the Kelowna Accord.
The landmark deal, ratified by the provinces and the territories and signed by then prime minister Paul Martin in November 2005, was a $5.1-billion prescription to begin to cure the terrible living conditions – including polluted water and dilapidated housing – that have contributed to a plague of substance abuse and suicides on native reserves.
Harper and the Tories saw the accord as just another Liberal boondoggle, and voted unanimously against it while in opposition.
When the Tories presented their first budget after taking power in January 2006, they said they were committed to meeting the targets of the accord.
However, the budget allocated just $150 million in 2006-07 to address those needs, a far cry from $800 million mandated in the accord.
But that should come as no surprise. The ultra-conservative Reform Party of Canada, forerunners of the current Tories, always were suspicious of how native chiefs and the native establishment handled money coming from Ottawa.
Harper's mentor, Prof. Tom Flanagan of the University of Calgary, was the party's expert on native affairs. In several books, he claimed native chiefs tolerated fraud on reserves and were milking Canadian taxpayers for millions. He also called for an end to special status for natives on the reserves, and urged their integration into mainstream Canadian society – the so-called melting pot approach favoured in the United States.
These were views held by no other Canadian political party at that time.
When it comes to land disputes, such as the long-running occupation at Caledonia in Ontario, Harper shares none of the caution espoused by previous Liberal governments. For the prime minister, it's all about law and order.
Harper – like Flanagan, who remains on of his top advisers on native affairs – believes the native establishment – not poverty or the public at large – is to blame for problems afflicting the reserves.
And that's why the prime minister has effectively cancelled the accord, a decision endorsed by conservatives including Flanagan, former Ontario premier Mike Harris, Reform founder Preston Manning and the C.D. Howe Institute.
Harper's attitude is as politically damaging as it is shocking – the prime minister does not seem to realize the vast sympathy the Canadian public has for native claims. He only sees people complaining about too much money going to natives who, they say, should be standing on their own two feet.
But it's not too late to salvage the political situation.
Harper has carefully polished his image as warrior with his stance on Canada's role in the war in Afghanistan. If he tackles the native problem properly, he might also be seen as a man of peace.
By embracing Kelowna and its badly needed reforms – a move that would be popular in Quebec and English Canada alike –he would be seen as a true champion of native Canadians, likely putting an end to their bellicose threats and occupations.
As well, such a huge reversal on the prime minister's part would take the native community away from its traditional Liberal stance.
Harper has already taken a few steps in the right direction.
The June 12 announcement of proposed legislation to settle land claims disputes is a good beginning. And in Jim Prentice, the Alberta MP who served as Indian Affairs and Northern Development critic while in opposition, he has an excellent minister who understands the process and will help speed it up.
As well, Harper has the wisely distanced himself from the more extreme views espoused by his adviser, Flanagan.
But the politically astute move would be to move just a bit to the left and implement the Kelowna Accord. He should do it now.
++++++++++
Turning guilt into billions of dollars - Aboriginals must move from dependence to living in the 21st century
Randall Denley - July 01, 2007
I hope Canadians were paying attention during the aboriginal peoples' Day of Action Friday, because it's really time we did something to normalize the situation of our indigenous people. By normalize, I don't mean writing huge cheques or offering lifetime welfare to people who are willing to live on remote reserves. By normalize, I mean helping native Canadians to live in the 21st century like the rest of us.
Native leaders are always eager to pull the twin levers of unsettled land claims and aboriginal poverty to keep the non-native population feeling guilty, sympathetic and willing to ship billions of dollars a year to natives on reserves.
Clearly, it works. This year, the federal government will spend $7.4 billion on services for the 428,000 people on reserves. When has so much money been spent on so few people for so little result?
It's hardly surprising that some reserves have Third World conditions. Why would anyone expect to be able to live a normal life on a reserve hundreds of kilometres from the nearest town? A non-native person living in the bush wouldn't fare any better. Actually, he'd be worse off, because government wouldn't feel an obligation to support him.
The popular wisdom is that the reserves' poverty and poor living conditions are our problem to solve, not that of aboriginal people themselves. How many more years are we going to keep these people in a state of child-like dependency? Or maybe a better question, how many years will they continue to live in that state before they decide to take some control of their lives?
Nothing compels native people to stay on reserves, although one could certainly fault government for offering handouts and tax-free status as incentives to stay in these pathetic conditions.
For people on reserves that are successful and self-sustaining, and there are many, the decision to keep living there is a reasonable one and entirely theirs to make. One does have to note that if the reserve is sustained by a casino, it's not exactly the traditional native lifestyle, but that's not our problem.
The issue of land claims is the most vexatious. Again, we are supposed to feel guilty because we haven't written cheques quickly enough. And yet, how credible are these claims? Take as an example the Algonquin claim to ownership of pretty much all of Eastern Ontario, including Parliament Hill. It rests on the idea that the ancestors of today's Algonquins once roamed through this territory, although there was no concept of land ownership in the European sense.
A lawyer representing the Algonquins says a key point in their favour is that some Algonquins in the 19th century charged people for the use of the Ottawa River. Must mean they own it, no? Sure, in the same way that Robin Hood must have owned Sherwood Forest.
The Eastern Ontario Algonquins know there isn't much good Crown land left in this part of the province. They will be perfectly happy to compromise and accept cash. And who are these Algonquins seeking fairness and justice? They are a group of about 5,500 people. Perhaps 10,000 will ultimately be identified. To qualify, one can have as little as one-eighth Algonquin blood.
Toronto lawyer Bob Potts, who represents the "Algonquins," says any money they receive will help to "maintain their Algonquin-ness." One might debate how much Algonquin-ness a person with one native ancestor three generations back has.
These land claims have a basis in law, but we're paying to settle land ownership claims for people who didn't own land. If the key concept is taking aboriginal land without compensation, we should remember that the home territory of various bands fluctuated, depending on the aggressive tendencies of other Indian groups. When will we have a commission to investigate the inequity of the Iroquois taking land that once belonged to the Hurons and compensate the distant descendants of those Huron people?
Native leaders like to talk about poverty and injustice, but what they really want is money. Assembly of First Nations Grand Chief Phil Fontaine says native people were shut out in each of the last two federal budgets. Some shutout. The federal government spends $10.2 billion a year on native people. What he means is there weren't any new handouts on top of the ones already being dispensed.
If we cut down to the reality that underlies the myth of native oppression, we'd find that aboriginal people have exactly the same rights and opportunities as every other Canadian. If they don't take advantage of it, that's their problem.
Congratulations to the approximately 550,000 native people who live off reserve, just like ordinary people. They've realized it's the 21st century, not the 18th. Maybe they can spread the word.
Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com