harper denies history of colonialism in canada at g20

FIRST NATIONS STRATEGIC POLICY COUNSEL

Special points of interest:

Internal Federal

Document Reveals

Strategy Against Al-

gonquins of Barriere

Lake

AFN Election 2009,

Fontaine’s Gone but

What are Atleo’s

Challenges?

2010 Olympics are

Coming: Time to

Protest Unfair Land

Claims & Self-

Government Poli-

cies!

by Russell Diabo

It is not surprising to me that dur-ing a question and answer ses-sion with the international media at the end of the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, would state that there isn't "a history of colonialism" in Canada. Nor, does it surprise me that more opinion makers in Canada have-n't taken the Prime Minister to task for his fallacious utterance to the international media. In my view, this is all a reflection of the systemic racism that continues to exist towards First Nations within Canada and certainly within the

Conservative Party of Canada, which is really a make-over of the previous intolerant Reform Party.

Let's not forget Prime Minister Harper was one of the founding organizers and mem-bers of the Reform Party of Canada, along with his current Minister of Indian Af-fairs Chuck Strahl, and his current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs, John Duncan, and although they have learned how to mask their true feelings towards First Nations, tese individuals aren’t known as friends to First Na-tions.

True to form, when various First Nations leaders began to publicly challenge Harper's denial that Canada has "a history of colonialism", the PMO sent out a public state-ment to Aboriginal media stating that Harper's comment "was taken out of context", the PMO statement went on:

"The Prime Minister's comments at G20 were meant to differentiate Canada's banking, commercial and trade history with past global empires. The Prime Min-ister's apology in the House of Commons last year acknowledged the wrong-doings and racist policies of Canada's past. Today we are focused on working with Aboriginal partners to improving lives of Aboriginal Canadians."

Harper also sent his dutiful Minister of Indian Affairs, Chuck Strahl, goose stepping out to the media with his talking points to clarify the Prime Ministers comment to the G20. Chuck Strahl told APTN:

". . . in the sense that Canada has never had any colonial ambitions in Africa, Asia, around the World like some of the Old World countries did, is what he was refer-ring to certainly, but I think the apology he made a year ago on behalf of all Cana-dians speaks for itself. There is no doubt Canada has a racist history for how it

Harper Denies History of Colonialism in Canada at G20: Illustrates Conservative's Ignorant & Racist View of First Nations

Inside this issue:

FIRST NATIONS STRATEGIC BULLETIN

OCTOBER 2009 VOLUME 7, ISSUE 1

Feds Vs. Barriere Lake 6

AFN, Fontaine, Atleo 13

Land & Human Rights 18

Contact Us 20

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and South Korea’s Presi-dent, Lee Myung-bak shake hands at G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Sept. 25, 2009. (Photo by

REUTERS)

treated Aboriginal People and that was what was apologized for in the House."

The fact is, Canada is a result of the imperial ambitions of France and later Great Britain. Canada was a colony within the British empire, now England, until the passage of the Stat-ute of Westminister 1931, gave the Dominion of Canada legislative independence and the Patriation of Canada's constitution in 1982, gave Canada constitutional independence.

However, in the post-war era Canada historically has been called a "middle power", which basically means a "go-between" on an international multilateral basis. Canada has used its diplomacy and a role as a UN Peacekeeping Force as part of international foreign policy, usually between Europe and the USA on one side and other non-white countries (former colonies) on the other side.

Canada cannot escape its past, as the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia puts it:

"the poor nations are almost all former colonies of the developed nations; their econo-mies were built to serve the developed nations in a two-fold capacity: as sources of cheap raw materials and as highly populous markets for the absorption of the developed nations' manufactured output."

Canada as a former British colony and middle power, is now a host country for mining and other companies who are currently exploiting the natural resources and labour of Indige-nous Peoples in other poorer countries.

So Prime Minister Harper can hide behind the Residential School Apology all he wants, but Harper's actions, or lack or, and policies towards First Nations display his real inten-tions, which are to accelerate the assimilation and termination of First Nations rights and their legal and political status as "peoples" within international law.

Harper's Record on First Nations Issues Since the Harper Conservatives first formed the government in January 2006, up until now, they have made it clear that First Nations are not a priority for a federal government led by Stephen Harper. Moreover, the Conservative Electoral Platform of 2006, sets out policy initia-tives that are based upon the racist doctrines of assimilation and termination of First Nations.

The 2006 Harper Plan stated the following:

“A Conservative government will:

Accept the targets agreed upon at the re-cent Meeting of First Ministers and National Aboriginal Leaders, and work with first ministers and national aboriginal leaders on achieving these targets.”

What this means is that while a Conservative government will accept the gaps identified at the

‘Harper’s Denial’ continued from page 1


“the Conservative

Electoral Platform of

2006, sets out policy

initiatives that are based upon

the racist doctrines of assimilation

and termination of First Nations”

Editorial Cartoon by Ross Montour, Kahnawake, Mohawk Na-tion.

L to R: Paul Martin in transi-tion meeting with new Prime

Minister Stephen Harper, 2006.

First Ministers' Meeting in Kelowna on November 2005, between First Nations and other Canadians in disparities in levels of education, health, housing and employment, but a Conservative government will not increase federal spending as the proposed Kelowna Accord provided for. This has meant in practice that the Harper government has main-tained the 2% cap on First Nations programs that was instituted in 1995 by then Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin. The 2% cap on First Nations program spending has meant that federal funding doesn't keep up with the rate of inflation or the population increase that has occurred since 1995.

Support the development of individual property ownership on reserves, to encour-age lending for private housing and businesses.

What this means is that a Conservative government intends on promoting individual prop-erty rights to undermine the collective Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Na-tions to reserve lands, and to change the legal status and tenure of Indian lands so that In-dian lands can be used as collateral for loans, much like the Dawes Allotment Act did from the United States. The U.S. allotment system when it was implemented led to Indian Tribes losing over 100 million acres of Tribal Reservation lands. This will likely happen in Canada too if individuals can use their "Certificates of Possession" for loans over the ob-jections of the "bands". The idea—not a new one—is to eliminate Indian Reserves over time.

Let aboriginal parents choose the schooling they want for their children, with funding following the students.

What this means is that a Conservative government will fund reserve schools in the short term, but in the long term they will encourage off-reserve Indian migration to the cities by keeping a cap on program and capital funding for reserves, thereby limiting the building of new on-reserve schools. As reserve conditions worsen and Indians migrate off-reserve the federal government will argue that the off-reserve Indians are primarily a provincial responsibility, but the federal government will help with cash contributions directly to the provinces, thereby cutting First Nations largely out of the process.

Replace the Indian Act (and related legislation) with a modern legislative frame-work which provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What this means is that a Conservative government wants to off-load federal spending on "Indians and Indian lands" as much as possible, as well as, imposing national governance and administrative standards over First Nations, like the proposed "First Nations Govern-ance Act" was intended to do, but in practice the Harper government realizes the opposi-tion parties in the House of Commons likely wouldn't support a Conservative Bill to replace the "Indian Act" with a First Nations Governance Bill reflecting Conservative values. Harper will likely wait until he has a majority Conservatives government before he intro-duces a new “First Nations Governance Act”. However, notice the continued use of the term "aboriginal Canadians", this is federal code for First Nations assimilation into the "aboriginal melting plot". That is why the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs is also the "Federal Interlocutor for the Metis and Non-Status Indians".

Pursue settlement of all outstanding “comprehensive claims” within a clear framework that balances the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of Canada.

What this means is that a Conservative government will continue to use the Liberal's Com-prehensive Land Claims Policy and ignore the legal principles set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in recent case law such as, Delgamuukw, Haida, Taku, Mikisew. The result is that the Harper government continues to pursue unfair, unbalanced negotia-


“notice the continued use of the term "aboriginal Canadians", this is code for First Nations assimilation into the "aboriginal melting plot"

VOLUME 7, ISSUE 1

Remake of old poster, fea-turing Manny Jules, Chair,

First Nations Taxation Com-mission. Courtesy of

Mooseboy.

L to R: Phil Fontaine, Jim Prentice and Stephen

Harper announcing Specific Claims Tribunal. (June 17,

2007)

tions under Canada's one sided policy. Although the Harper government has gotten only two small groups in B.C. (Tsawwassen & Maa-nulth) to succumb to the federal Compre-hensive Claims Policy, the majority of First Nations across Canada who are affected by the policy are seeking changes to the policy and the negotiations under the policy.

Adopt measures to resolve the existing backlog of “specific” claims so as to pro-vide justice for aboriginal claimants, together with certainty for government, in-dustry, and non-aboriginal Canadians.

What this means is that a Conservative government will try and make it look like justice is being achieved for First Nations who have submitted specific claims by passing a law, but really the Harper government will delay implementation of the law as long as possible to delay resolving the "backlog" of specific claims" as long as possible..

Results From the Harper Plan After three years the Harper government says they have achieved the following results towards their 2006 "Plan":

Made the Residential Schools apology: Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered an historic apology for the treatment of students of Indian Residential Schools on the floor of the House of Commons on June 11, 2008.

After a year, there has been little action following up on the so-called "apology". Even the Truth and Reconcilation Commission is only now getting operational. Let's not forget the Residential School Settlement and Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) are the result of a deal with the previous federal Liberal government of Paul Martin, basi-cally an out of court settlement. A number of class action suits and the churches and federal government were stopped in exchange for the deal that former AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine brokered with the federal government. The Harper government had little choice but to proceed with the Fontaine-Martin deal. So let's not give Harper too much credit for the Residential Schools Settlement, the apology and the TRC.

Cleaned up Drinking Water: The Conservative Government invested $330 million to clean up the drinking water on reserves. In its first two years, the government successfully cut the number of communities with “high-risk” water systems in half.

The Conservative government like the Liberal government before it, tries to portray money spent on reserves for capital projects as "investments", that may be, but the federal government also has fiduciary and Treaty duties and responsibilities to First Nations to provide clean water to them. These are legal requirements, not discretionary spending.

Created the Specific Claims Tribunal: Working with Assembly of First Nations, the Conservatives created the Specific Claims Tribunal to help settle long-standing land claims disputes. This was something the Liberals had promised for many years, but never delivered.

The Conservative government may have passed the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, but the Harper government hasn't moved on making the "tribunal" operational, they have not ap-pointed the judges or staff necessary to implement the law. Moreover, the Harper govern-ment has deemed that specific claims valued at $150 million or more are out of the eligibil-ity requirements for the "Specific Claims Tribunal". This means the large specific claims are to be at the political consideration of the federal Cabinet.

Expanded Human Rights to Reserves: The Conservatives amended the Human Rights Act to ensure for the first time that aboriginals living on reserves have the same fundamental human rights protections under the Act that all other Canadi-



“the Harper government

hasn't moved on making the

"tribunal" operational,

they have not appointed the judges or staff

necessary to implement the

law”

L to R: National Chief Fontaine and Prime Minister Harper on occasion of Resi-dential School apology, June 11, 2008. (Photo courtesy of

PMO)

Federal Minister of Indian Affairs, Chuck Strahl making

a housing funding an-nouncement in Alberta,

March 26, 2009. (Photo cour-tesy of INAC)

ans have enjoyed for decades.

Introduced Matrimonial property rights: The Conservatives introduced legisla-tion to ensure matrimonial real property protection is available to individuals on reserves.

These two Conservative government "results" are part of the Harper government's strat-egy to undermine the collective Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations, by focusing on individual rights. The Harper government wants to pit individual "band mem-bers" against their "Chief and Council" by applying the Canadian Human Rights Act along with the provincial Matrimonial property laws on reserves so that pressure will build on "bands" and "band councils" to accept federal and provincial laws and standards on-reserve. The potential rise in human rights complaints about the methods and decisions regarding the delivery of programs and services could bog down "band administrations", even though First Nations are chronically underfunded for programs and capital projects. Moreover, community traditions and customs when incorporated into program and service delivery may be the subject of human rights complaints by reserve "residents" who are neither "Indians" or "band members", let alone disgruntled "band members". The idea is to get Indians fighting among themselves, while Canada off-loads their responsibilities.

Invested in Housing: The Conservatives invested $300 million in on-reserve hous-ing in the First Nations Market Housing Fund that gives First Nations a chance to own their own homes.

While the Harper government may want to brag that $300 million is a significant invest-ment in First Nations housing, we should remember that according to AFN the actual amount needed to address the existing backlog of 80,000 units in First Nation housing is more like an immediate amount of $1 billion for this fiscal year and $400 million a year af-ter that. Moreover, to access the $300 million housing dollars, one has to have a job, which doesn't exist for many unemployed First Nations peoples on-reserve. Where is the "social housing" that is needed? The Harper government isn't moving on this because they are hoping the lack of reserve housing will contribute to an off-reserve migration of Indians into the cities where the Indians will become a provincial problem.

As Prime Minister, Stephen Harper manages the executive branch of the federal govern-ment with a tight fist. Meaning federal policy is managed from the top down to the line Min-isters and their respective departments.

For the federal Department of Indian Affairs, this means that Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office are micro managing First Nations policy and announce-ments. The line Ministers like Indian Affairs Minister, Chuck Strahl, cannot make any announcements or policy changes without Prime Minister Harper's approval.

What this means for the new AFN National Chief, Shawn Atleo, is that he will have to deal with and try to convince Prime Minister Harper to change his ignorant views of First Na-tions, if First Nations are to see any progress on their issues while a Conservative govern-ment is in power in Ottawa.

In fact, AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo has requested a meeting with Prime Minister Harper to discuss Harper's G20 comment, among other issues and Prime Minister Harper has agreed to meet. What will transpire--if anything--out of this meeting, we will have to watch and see if there is any resulting improvement in AFN-Canada relations.

In the meantime, with a lack of consensus among the opposition parties around the need for a federal election, it looks like the Conservatives are around for while, so Harper won't be going anywhere soon. He still has time to put his foot in his mouth again when it comes to First Nations, while he implements his assimilation-termination policies and practices.

‘Harper’s Denial’ conclusion from page 4

“The Harper government isn't moving on this because they are hoping the lack of reserve housing will contribute to an off-reserve migration of Indians into the cities where the Indians will become a provincial problem”

VOLUME 7, ISSUE 1

Vancouver Lower Downtown Eastside. (Photo Courtesy of

Keetja Allard)

By Martin Lukacs

A document recently released under court-order reveals a former prominent diplomat officially advised Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl to undermine the elected leadership of the Algonquin community of Barriere Lake and quash their signed Trilateral agreement – a course of action then pursued by Strahl and the Department of Indian Affairs. The ad-vice revolves around the threat that the agreement’s implementation would pose to a key government policy controlling unsurrendered native lands.

The report to Strahl was prepared by Marc Perron, a representative for the Minister during an alternative dispute resolution process between the federal government and the small First Nation in the fall of 2007.

Before leaving retirement to take on special roles for Indian Affairs, Perron gained a repu-tation as a straight-talker during decades of service in high-level diplomatic positions with Foreign Affairs in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. His bluntness even landed him in trouble in the mid-1990s, when he was forced to resign as ambassador to Mexico after accusing the country’s government of widespread corruption. True to style, his report to Strahl is free of the bureaucratic obfuscation typical of Indian Affairs’ officials, and thus offers a highly revealing profile of their mentality and mode of operation towards Barriere Lake.

Despite the report’s variance with government pronouncements, the conclusions are not original but shaped and informed by extensive consultations with officials within Indian Affairs and the federal and provincial governments. Whether his report was actually fol-lowed by Indian Affairs or simply reinforced their existing plans, it is a vivid demonstration of the extreme and even illegal measures Indian Affairs is willing to consider to ensure that Indigenous communities do not strongly assert their rights.

Perron’s recommendations to the Minister amount to a full arsenal of tactics of subversion: banish the possibility that the federal government will respect the landmark Trilateral agreement they withdrew from in 2001; fine-tune the government’s comprehensive land claims policy used to extinguish native land rights, despite its violations of international and domestic law; sow internal divisions and foster opposition to the legitimate leadership within the community; cut off their professional consultation services; and strike a side deal with Quebec that ensures the provincial government doesn’t implement their part of the Trilateral agreement.

Perron was unable to maintain the confidence of Barriere Lake during the alternative dis-pute resolution, mainly because he refused to give fair hearing to the community’s con-cerns about the federal government’s decision to renege on the Trilateral agreement. The 1991 pact, signed between Barriere Lake and Canada and Quebec, was intended to give the community a decision-making role in the management of their traditional territories and benefits from extensive resource extraction [1]. Perron stepped down soon after, but not before submitting a series of recommendations in a report exclusively to Minister Strahl on December 20, 2007. This document was only released to lawyers acting on behalf of the Elder’s Council of Barriere Lake in the spring of 2009, under court-order.

Containing Barriere Lake’s Defiance In his report, Perron paints a picture of an irrational, suspicious and confrontational com-munity, defaming their decades of peaceful political campaigning as “blackmail tactics used over the years to obtain concessions or funding from one government or another.”

Framing his analysis, he describes Barriere Lake’s approach to negotiations over rights to their traditional territories:

The former chief clearly indicated that the ABL [Algonquins of Barriere Lake] had

Top Diplomat’s report to Minister laid out strategy for government subversion of Algonquin community


“Before leaving retirement to

take on special roles for Indian Affairs, Perron

gained a reputation as a straight-talker

during decades of service in

high-level diplomatic

positions with Foreign Affairs

in Africa, the Middle East and

Latin America”

Marc Perron, DIA Special Representative to ABL and career federal bureaucrat.

(Photo courtesy of CBC)

no interest in comprehensive claims. They hoped to maintain Federal responsibil ity (and their obligations) and to obtain rights and co-management on the territory (including royalties)…

A question we could ask: why bother negotiating a land claims agreement when we can obtain benefits (at least partially) through a partial accord like a trilateral agreement? Other First Nations would be justified in questioning this matter. And it’s the current overall comprehensive lands claims and self-government negotiations which could be questioned. [emphasis mine]

Indian Affairs, in their public pronouncements and media messaging, have always stuck to a set script: they pulled out of the Trilateral agreement because it cost too much money and had not produced tangible results. Perron reveals the real reason: Barriere Lake’s suc-cess in forging a viable alternative to Comprehensive Lands Claims negotiations, offering a model for other First Nations to follow, could jeopardize the government’s agenda.

Such open defiance of one of the pillars of Canadian government policy would be reason enough to warrant active subversion of the community. In negotiating the Trilateral agree-ment, Barriere Lake's precise intent was to avoid the Comprehensive Land Claims process, the Canadian government’s modern-day land grab. It is an imposed, one-size-fits-all nego-tiating process for First Nations who have never signed away their title in historical trea-ties. A pre-condition for entering the process is that the First Nation surrender their rights to their traditional territories; they are then allowed to negotiate the terms of surrender, receiving small parcels of their land, some access to natural resources, and small mone-tary sums. Several bodies at the United Nations have regularly condemned this policy of “extinguishment,” which violates international law and also illegally ignores rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada, such as the historic 1997 decision of Delgamuukw that recog-nized the existence of the Aboriginal title of First Nations. But the Canadian and provincial governments have poured billions into the process to secure agreements known as mod-ern-day treaties, extinguishing Indigenous rights to traditional territories and securing legal “certainty” for government and corporate investment and economic development.

While the successful implementation of the Trilateral agreement wouldn’t single-handedly upend the Comprehensive Claims process, Perron notes accurately that it could initiate a domino effect among other First Nations negotiating over their unsurrendered Title. The stakes are highest in British Columbia, where most lands are not covered by treaty. This passage reveals that Perron and Indian Affairs are keenly aware that if other First Nations believed it were possible to break the negotiating mould pressed on them, the cost for the federal and provincial governments – in political control and money – would be steep.

Knowing they couldn’t change the Comprehensive Claims policy on their own, the Barriere Lake Algonquins negotiated a kind of interim (in Perron’s words, “partial”) agreement that would allow them to make gains in economic self-sufficiency and control over their lands while forestalling the government’s drive for the extinguishment of their land rights. The Trilateral amounts to a consultation and accommodation plan that grants them a decision-making role over their traditional territories, requiring federal and provincial recognition of an area of resource co-management over 10,000 square kilometers and a share of the revenue from the extensive resource extraction on their lands. Hydro, forestry, recrea-tional hunting and tourism take out $100 million annually, while the community has never received a cent. Complimentary agreements signed with the federal and provincial gov-ernment would also entail expansion of their reserve, connection to the hydro-grid with a transition fund to help community members pay for the added hydro expenses (though the reserve sits on a reservoir that flooded their land decades ago, it is still off the hydro-grid), and infrastructure developments in the community, which lacks a high-school, community centre, and suffers massive housing shortages.

‘Perron Report’ continued from page 6

“While the successful implementation of the Trilateral agreement wouldn’t single-handedly upend the Comprehensive Claims process, Perron notes accurately that it could initiate a domino effect among other First Nations negotiating over their unsurrendered Title. The stakes are highest in British Columbia, where most lands are not covered by treaty”

VOLUME 7, ISSUE 1

Quashing the “Mythical treaty” But within the report’s same page, Perron derides the belief that the Trilateral even amounts to an “agreement,” denies the existence of the benefits he has just described, and recommends quashing the agreement in no uncertain terms:

This agreement does not constitute a treaty or an accord other than a partial finan cial agreement. INAC did well by withdrawing from this program which provided meager tangible results for the community…

I RECOMMEND that, under no circumstances, should INAC accept a reinvolve ment in the trilateral agreement but more importantly, that at no time should they agree to a specific reference, in a financial agreement, to this mythical “treaty” which essentially served to feed the illusions of the population and comfort its pro moters in their ideology.

The leadership of the ABL and their councilors will continue to want to breathe life into this unbelievable illusion. It’s their basic right. What I state here is that under no circumstances should INAC or any other Federal instances contribute to per petuate this utopia.

The “illusions” of Barriere Lake’s leadership, however, are in line with the conclusions reached by respected Quebec Superior Court Judge Rejean Paul, the only jurist to offer a legal opinion about the Trilateral in a political arena. Judge Paul mediated between the Quebec government, logging companies and Barriere Lake in 1992, when Quebec was allowing the companies to ignore their consultation obligations under the Trilateral agree-ment. In his mediation report, Judge Paul concluded that the Trilateral, if tested in court, might be accorded the status of a “treaty,” and at the very least was a “solemn agreement” binding on the signatory parties. On top of that, when the Canadian government signed the agreement they recognized their “fiduciary obligations,” the legally enforceable duty to act in the best interests of First Nations. Despite written pledges from a former Indian Af-fairs’ Minister to continue the funding because of delays caused by the provincial and fed-eral governments, Minister Robert Nault unilaterally pulled out of the agreement in 2001, leaving the government’s fiduciary obligations to Barriere Lake unfulfilled. But the passion with which Perron dismisses the notion that the Trilateral agreement is a binding agree-ment may of course have more to do with political expediency than questions of legality. It is a striking admission of the government’s desire to prevent the viability of any agreement that breaks free from their negotiating dictates, and allows a First Nation to regain some control over their traditional territory and benefits from their own wealth without extin-guishing their land rights.

Instead of promoting respect for a binding agreement, Perron proposes re-jigging the Comprehensive Claims policy to secure the federal government’s objective of extinguish-ment:

I RECOMMEND, in the long term, that INAC’s policy on access to comprehensive land claims and self-government for the Algonquins be reviewed.

In the 80’s, many Algonquin communities expressed their desire to be involved in a comprehensive claim. Three communities, Barriere Lake, Timiskaming and Wolf Lake opposed such a process….

Several Algonquin spokespersons have long since been ready to undertake negotiations and expressed much frustration for being kept out of the loop since a small group of ideologists and doctrinarians prefer confrontation to dialogue, the- ory to development.

It is time, it seems, for the department to relax its regulations and provide, for



“Instead of promoting

respect for a binding

agreement, Perron

proposes re-jigging the

Comprehensive Claims policy to

secure the federal

government’s objective of

extinguishment”

ABL Trilateral Agreement Territory and 7 Traditional

Management Areas (TMA’s)

Cover of 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy.

those communities who wish, the opportunity to get involved in a process that will allow them to attain, for some of them, their full potential. There already exists examples where these regulations have been adapted, specifically involving the Innu. We could hope that results and successes in other communities would inspire the same for the ABL.

Because Aboriginal title is held at the Nation rather than band level, Indian Affairs has pre-ferred to negotiate comprehensive claims with entire Nations of native communities. But Barriere Lake’s “small group of ideologists,” holding fast to principles of basic justice and domestic and international law, are clearly an obstacle. They’ve prevented other Algon-quin communities from reaching their “full potential” – that is, abandoning their rights. In situations like these, where the government has been unable to secure everyone’s partici-pation, just as in their negotiations with the Dene and Innu Nations, they’ve opted for the more selective approach advised by Perron. This allows them to pick off First Nations, community by community, securing the extinguishment of title by those means.

Carrots and Sticks: Undermining the Customary Council Apart from retooling the Comprehensive Claims policy, Perron proposes short-changing the community with some investments in social programs and services and minor infra-structure development, as an alternative to fulfilling their obligations under the Trilateral agreement:

I RECOMMEND that we invest in the individual, in education and training programs for teens and adults, young mothers (caretakers), disease prevention, the fight against drugs and safety and assistance for the Elders. There are some ex- cellent programs that are well targeted which must be expanded.

He also recommends the expansion of their reserve, connection to the Hydro-Grid (but without the transition assistance fund), and the construction of housing and a new school.

Having laid out an acceptable investment plan to Indian Affairs, Perron focuses his analysis on Barriere Lake’s traditional leadership, which has maintained a strong negotiating posi-tion since signing the Trilateral agreement almost twenty years ago, refusing to accept anything less than its full implementation:

…my analysis of the past twenty years shows, without a doubt, that the community leadership is at the heart of the problems. I conclude that there is little or no possibility of remedying the situation unless there is a complete change in leadership. Such a change must come from within the community and not from govern- mental agencies or institutions.

With the necessity of a leadership change in mind, Perron lays out a plan to use the above investment projects as a ploy to undermine Barriere Lake’s Chief and Council and their determined negotiating stance:

The worthwhile projects must be presented to the population so that they have the opportunity to appreciate them without the presence of the consultants who are like distorted mirrors and undermine the real development of the community. Of course, the projects cannot be carried out without the Band Council’s approval but repeated refusals of reasonable projects could eventually bring about the necessary changes by the community itself. There is no other way. The changes must come from within the community. Certain individuals to whom I spoke to advised me to recommend guardianship or trusteeship of the community. I don’t believe that this is possible and it would only perpetuate the condescension of the ABL who have already suffered enough from the ideology that contributes to their iso- lation and introversion. [emphasis Perron’s]


“With the necessity of a leadership change in mind, Perron lays out a plan to use . . . investment projects as a ploy to undermine Barriere Lake’s Chief and Council and their determined negotiating stance”

VOLUME 7, ISSUE 1

ABL Chief Jean Maurice Matchewan being arrested

by SQ at a logging blockade in October 1989.

Perron is advising that the government foster community opposition to the Council by ex-tracting refusals for “reasonable projects” -– that is, projects that fall well short of the signed undertakings and legal obligations of the federal government as part of the Trilat-eral agreement. Knowing the leadership will reject these projects, the government will be able to stoke community frustration with the lack of any development and thus build enough internal pressure to bring about “necessary changes” – a cowed Chief and Council willing to relent on the Trilateral’s implementation, or a new leadership content to focus on minor community investments. Perron’s idea about “guardianship” or “trusteeship” far exceeds the statutory powers of the federal government, but it offers a taste of the extreme and arbitrary powers he believes Indian Affairs is willing to exercise.

Indian Affairs seems to have acted on much of Perron’s advice. In March 2008, Indian Af-fairs decided to oust Barriere Lake’s Customary Chief and Council, recognizing individuals from a minority faction who claimed to follow the community’s customary leadership selec-tion process. As another secret government document revealed, Indian Affairs recognized that this scenario offered “improved collaboration of the new council with INAC,” a “new council less dogmatized," and a "new environment more favourable to the development of the community" – language that clearly echoes Perron’s analysis and prescriptions [2]. Since the ousting, the government-backed Chief’s activities have practically matched the program of action advocated by Perron: a focus on increased government programs and services and housing repairs, while leaving the Trilateral agreement to flounder.

To further undermine the leadership, Perron recommends that the government “terminate the funding for consultation services and be firm and coherent in relationship with present leadership.” Consultation services allow Barriere Lake’s leadership to receive professional advice about government policies, and are offered by the Algonquin Nation Secretariat, a Tribal Council representing Barriere Lake along with Timiskaming and Wolf Lake. Simply cutting the funding for consultation services would have been blatantly illegal. But this ob-jective was partially achieved by other means. In April 2008, the government-backed Chief pulled out of the Algonquin Nation Secretariat, which gave Indian Affairs the oppor-tunity to drastically cut their funding, effectively rolling back consultation services.

This has occurred just as the six other Algonquin communities represented by the Algon-quin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council (AANTC) are preparing to negotiate under the Comprehensive Land Claims process. At the same time, the Atikamekw Nation now want to discuss the territorial overlap they have with Barriere Lake with the two Algonquin Tribal Councils, though not with Barriere Lake, allowing Indian Affairs to bypass the community’s legitimate leadership entirely.

Hand in Hand with the Province: Sabotaging the Agreements Perron’s recommended strategy for subverting Barriere Lake is completed by his sugges-tions for federal collaboration with the provincial government:

I also RECOMMEND that a high level consultation process between INAC and the Quebec Native Affairs be organized as soon as possible. To be discussed at the meeting would be not only the current situation in Rapid Lake, but a medium and long term strategy in regards to the ABL.

Indian Affairs seems again to have followed Perron’s advice. As access-to-information re-quests revealed, Indian Affairs conducted a meeting with officials from Quebec Native Af-fairs (Secrétariat aux affaires autochtone) and the Quebec police (Surete du Quebec) in late February, 2008, though the subjects discussed remain unknown. When Barriere Lake community members refused to accept the legitimacy of the Indian Affairs-backed Chief after his recognition in early March 2008, and blockaded the reserve’s access road to pre-vent his entry into the community, the provincial government sent riot squads and police officers to forcibly impose his authority on the reserve.



“When Barriere Lake community

members refused to accept the

legitimacy of the Indian Affairs-backed Chief

after his recognition in

early March 2008, and blockaded

the reserve’s access road to

prevent his entry into the

community, the provincial

government sent riot squads and

police officers to forcibly impose his authority on

the reserve”

Casey Ratt had to be es-corted onto Rapid Lake Re-

serve by the SQ because the people knew there had been no leadership change based upon customs. (March 2008)

SQ Riot Squad attacks ABL protest against the

illegal Ratt Group & breach of Agreements,

November 2008.

During the policing operation in Barriere Lake, Indian Affairs conducted daily conference calls with the Ministry of Public Security and Quebec Native Affairs. The provincial govern-ment was later willing to spend $200,000 to forcefully break up two peaceful blockades set up by community members on the highway outside their reserve in the fall of 2008, and to assign extra police officers to monitor Barriere Lake.

The provincial government’s willingness to do the police work for the federal government can probably be explained by their unwillingness to implement their part of the Trilateral agreement and a complimentary Bilateral agreement they signed in 1998. But Perron’s analysis indicates that the federal government feared Quebec’s compliance, and had rea-son to actively deter it:

The Provincial government must soon respond to the recommendations (7) jointly presented in June 2006 by Mr. Ciaccia, special government representative and Mr. Lincoln, the representative for the ABL. Submitted in 2006, the government still has not responded on its content. A few recommendations pose serious problems to the Federal authorities:

· Concerns regarding the trilateral agreement

· Recognizing a main territory for the Algonquins

· Acknowledging overlapping with other communities

· Expansion of the reserve becomes a land base. [emphasis mine]

Since 2006, Quebec has stalled on implementing the recommendations issued by the above representatives – those of major concern being the recognition of co-management rights to 10,000 square kilometres and $1.5 million a year in resource-revenue sharing. Such requirements pose a threat to the federal government’s ambition to complete com-prehensive land claims agreements, as previously discussed. In addition, Quebec should be slated within the framework of the Trilateral agreement to oversee the community’s connection to the hydro-grid, along with the creation of a transition fund, the expansion of the reserve, and housing construction --– developments that would all require federal co-operation in their implementation, because of overlapping jurisdictions and responsibili-ties. Perron highlights Indian Affairs’ fear that if Quebec discovered the political will to comply with the agreement, it might demand that the federal government cooperate in the implementation of their own side of the deal. Perron’s next recommendations suggest a tactic to avert this possibility:

Other recommendations will require INAC’s cooperation and support. In fact, housing programs already exist within INAC but must be carried out through future programs which, for the Federal’s part, should not be part of the trilateral agreement or new MOMI. To avoid confusion, I RECOMMEND a high level consultation process to arrive at a mutually acceptable strategy and, if possible, establish a Federal-Provincial working group charged with the expansion of the reserve, bringing in electricity and building homes, according to the responsibilities of each government. It’s only after this stage that the leadership and community should be consulted.[emphasis Perrons’s]

Perron is advocating that the federal government initiate a high level consultation process with the province not to jointly implement the signed agreements, but to steer the province away from its obligations so as to “avoid confusion” – that is, to keep the federal govern-ment’s hands clean of the Trilateral agreement. A “mutually acceptable strategy” would be based on reserve expansion and infrastructure investments explicitly outside the frame-work of the Trilateral agreement. Once it has succeeded in this regard, Perron recom-mends the governments deign to consult with the community, casting contempt on the idea that Barriere Lake is an equal partner in an agreement with the two levels of government.


“Perron is advocating that the federal government initiate a high level consultation process with the province not to jointly implement the signed agreements, but to steer the province away from its obligations so as to “avoid confusion” – that is, to keep the federal government’s hands clean of the Trilateral agreement”

VOLUME 7, ISSUE 1

Prime Minister Harper and Quebec Premier Charest routinely collaborate on

Aboriginal policy.

It is unclear whether such a secret high-level consultation process was actually initiated after Perron issued his recommendations, but the federal and provincial government’s actions over the last two years certainly seem to confirm as much. Quebec has continued to refuse to implement the Trilateral and Bilateral agreement, and has intimately cooperated with Indian Affairs in criminalizing community members in a transparent attempt to cripple their ability to assert pressure on the governments.

No matter to what degree Perron’s recommendations were actually formally adopted by the federal government, his report is a chilling indication of the lengths to which Indian Affairs will go to crush a native community fighting for their basic rights.

Notes

[1] Perron received his mandate to enter into discussions with Barriere Lake after com-munity members caused the government some embarrassment by camping out in large numbers on Parliament Hill in the summer of 2007, the day before the National Aboriginal Day of Action and a few days before Canada Day celebrations. At the time, Barriere Lake had launched a legal challenge of Indian Affairs’ 2006 decision to strip the community of control over their financial affairs, handing them over to an outside consultant who had ignored the community’s input and mismanaged their funds. This third-party management system had been imposed on the community on the basis of a deficit that Barriere Lake’s lawyers argued would be non-existent if the federal government had simply honoured and implemented a series of agree-ments signed over the last two decades.

[2] The Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs Michael Wernick met with community repre-sentatives outside the parliament, agreeing to suspend the court case and enter into a process with a special ministerial representative, who would issue recommenda-tions for government action.

From the start of discussions, however, it was clear Marc Perron intended to serve the gov-ernment’s agenda. Then the community discovered that Perron was also negotiating a Comprehensive Claim with the Attikamek Nation in northern Quebec, on behalf of the fed-eral government. This raised obvious concerns about conflict-of-interest: the Attikamek have claimed territory that overlaps with Barriere Lake’s documented areas of historical land-use, and Barriere Lake has always refused to enter the process that Perron was nego-tiating under with the Attikamek.

[2] Martin Lukacs, “Minister's Memo Exposes Motives for Removing Algonquin Chief,” Do-minion Paper, March 27, 2009 http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/2560

‘Perron Report’ conclusion from page 11


“No matter to what degree

Perron’s recommendations

were actually formally adopted

by the federal government, his

report is a chilling indication of the lengths to which

Indian Affairs will go to crush a

native community fighting for their

basic rights”

L to R: ABL Customary Chief & Council—Councillor Joey Decoursay, Councillor Eugene Nottaway, Chief Jean Maurice Matchewan, Councillor Benjamin Nottaway, Councillor, David Wawatie.

Quebec sends SQ Riot Squad instead of negotiators

to deal with ABL.

SQ deploy tear gas at ABL blockade of Highway 117.

By Russell Diabo

It has been 12 years since Ovide Mercredi was National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine campaigned in 1997 against Ovide's record by claiming Ovide was too abrasive, too focused on protests in the streets. Fontaine's slogan was he wanted to come to Ottawa to head up AFN by "building bridges" instead of burning them. Fontaine was implying he would bring a more conciliatory approach in dealings with the federal government than Mercredi had done during his tenure as National Chief.

Phil Fontaine's 1997 message resonated with many of the Chiefs across Canada who were more concerned about accessing federal funding for programs and services than protect-ing the Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of First Nations, which has become com-monly known in First Nations parlance as a "rights-based" agenda.

In 1997, while Ovide Mercredi ran for a third term as National Chief, the race was really between Phil Fontaine and Wendy Grant-John, from the B.C. region. Fontaine couldn`t get the 60% of the vote until he made a deal with Wendy Grant-John to concede. Fontaine`s deal with Grant-John was that he would support the B.C. Treaty Process, despite making an earlier deal with the B.C. southern Interior First Nations not to support the B.C. Treaty Process. So Fontaine made a double deal in B.C. to win.

Fontaine's Legacy of Failure & Compromise From 1997-2000, Phil Fontaine had his first term as AFN National Chief. During this period Fontaine began his approach as a collaborator with the federal government, AFN-INAC Joint Committee`s were set up to look at various aspects of implementing the Indian Act; AFN agreed with the Federal Statement of Reconciliation on Residential Schools, as well as, the federal response to the final report and recommendations of the Royal Com-mission on Aboriginal Peoples', called "Gathering Strength". Despite the fact that the federal "Gathering Strength" policy really ignored most of the RCAP findings and recom-mendations.

In 2000, Phil Fontaine lost the AFN election largely because his support from the B.C. Chiefs affiliated with the "First Nations Summit" shifted their support from Fontaine over to Matthew Coon Come from the Quebec region. The B.C. "Summit" Chiefs switched their backing from Fontaine to Coon Come because Fontaine was supporting the work of the AFN Delgamuukw Implementation Strategic Committee (DISC), which had a man-date to take the federal government to court if the federal government didn`t change its Comprehensive Claims Policy to conform to the Supreme Court of Canada`s 1997 Del-gamuukw decision.

The Chiefs who were negotiating “modern treaties” under the B.C. Treaty Commission were concerned that the AFN-DISC process would derail their negotiations with the federal government and cut oof their funding. The Chiefs in "Modern Treaty" negotiations wanted the AFN committee shut down.

When Matthew Coon Come became AFN National Chief in 2000, one of the first actions he took was to attend a First Nations Summit meeting in B.C. and he effectively shut down the AFN-DISC process. After all, Matthew Coon Come came from a community that signed the first “modern treaty” in Canada, the "James Bay Agreement" so he had an affinity for the political position of those First Nations who are negotiating under the federal Comprehen-sive Claims Policy.

From 2000 until 2003, Matthew Coon Come was AFN National Chief, but during his tenure as National Chief Coon Come was often criticised by Chiefs for not showing up to meetings where he was invited. In response to a largely absentee National Chief, the Chiefs-in-Assembly established an AFN National Implementation Committee to fight the "suite of legislation" that Jean Chretien was trying to pass as part of his legacy agenda. This in-

AFN Election, Fontaine's Mess, Atleo's Challenges: Can a New National Chief Change a Dysfunctional AFN?

“In 2000, Phil Fontaine lost the AFN election largely because his support from the B.C. Chiefs affiliated with the "First Nations Summit" shifted their support from Fontaine over to Matthew Coon Come from the Quebec region”

VOLUME 7, ISSUE 1

Ovide Mercredi, AFN National Chief

1991-1997, was considered too

assertive by Phil Fontaine.

Matthew Coon Come, AFN National

Chief 2000-2003.

cluded the despised "First Nations Government Act".

In 2003, Phil Fontaine was back as National Chief, he had been campaigning with Chiefs across Canada since his loss in 2000, so Fontaine won the AFN election beating out Roberta Jamieson from the Ontario region.

From 2003 until 2009, Phil Fontaine used his two additional terms as National Chief to refine his collaborative approach with the federal government to the point where it appeared the AFN National Office was merely a branch office of the federal government.

Fontaine has a history of being a collaborator in federally funded and federally controlled processes until the federal government decides it isn`t politically necessary to fund the process any further and then dumps the process by cutting off funding leaving Fontaine and the First Nations involved or AFN at a dead end on First Nations issues.

Fontaine`s legacy of failed initiatives include:

The Manitoba Framework Agreement Initiative on Dismantling of Indian Affairs - 1994;

The “Gathering Strength” AFN-INAC Process - 1997; The AFN-INAC Joint Initiative on Lands & Trusts Services - 2000;The Aboriginal-

Canada Roundtable Process - 2005; The First Nations-Federal Crown Political Accord - 2005; The Kelowna Accord - 2006;

One aspect of Fontaine`s legacy, where he did arguably achieve some success for First Nations was the AFN-Canada deal to get the majority of residential school survivors to drop their various class action suits and accept the Residential Schools Settlement, which included a formal apology from the Prime Minister and the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to hear the evidence directly from the residential school survivors about their experiences as students. Although the deal was with a federal Liberal government, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper followed through. No doubt because the alternative of facing a number of class action suits and the potential liabilities convinced the Harper government that accepting the Liberal deal was cheaper and thus better.

As a diversion from his failure to have First Nations rights addressed by the federal and provincial governments, AFN National Chief, Phil Fontaine, dragged AFN into the interna-tional campaign called "make poverty history" and called for a "National Day of Action", which amounted to a national day of picnics and inaction. The large indifference directed towards the AFN "National Day of Action" by many First Nations and First Nation activists who didn't participate in any "activities" was because many viewed Fontaine as a front man for the Crown governments and corporate Canada.

Instead of addressing the causes of First Nations poverty, Fontaine focused on the symp-toms of First Nations poverty and used the poverty of First Nations to cloak his real inter-ests, which were to court finance and corporate Canada, acting on the assumption that First Nations want corporations on their territories exploiting First Nation lands and resources at any costs. To this end, AFN National Chief Fontaine as part of his "coalition building" strat-egy entered into a number of agreements with various corporations and/or corporate in-terest groups with the result always being the undermining or compromise of the Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of First Nations.

The more prominent examples are:

The MOU between AFN-Four Host First Nations for the 2010 Olympics, 2007. The MOU between AFN-Royal Bank of Canada, 2007. The MOU between AFN-Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC),

2008. The MOU between AFN-Forest Product Association of Canada (FPAC), 2008.

‘Atleo Challenge’ continued from page 13


“Phil Fontaine used his two

additional terms as

National Chief to refine his

collaborative approach with

the federal government to

the point where it

appeared the AFN National

Office was merely a

branch office of the federal

government”

Phil Fontaine, AFN Na-tional Chief, 1997-2000

and 2003-2009.

Fontaine & Harper, June 11, 2008, Residential School Apology. (Photo PMO)

The MOU between AFN-Mining Association of Canada (MAC), 2009.

Now that Phil Fontaine has left the office of AFN National Chief, what many suspected about him being a sycophant for monied and corporate interests seems to be true. The Royal Bank of Canada, a big promoter of the 2010 Olympics and a big investor in the Tar Sands Project, has hired Phil Fontaine as an advisor. In addition , Fontaine has been ap-pointed to the Board of Directors for two mining companies, Plutonic Power Corporation and Avalon Rare Minerals Inc., both of these mining companies have mining interests subject to First Nations rights in Canada and elsewhere.

Phil Fontaine decided not to run for another term as National Chief, perhaps because he had his post-AFN career already set up with the Royal Bank and the mining industry. In any Case, Fontaine's departure set the stage for the 2009 AFN Election for National Chief.

2009 AFN Election Although Phil Fontaine didn't run for AFN National Chief this time around, from my obser-vations he did try to influence the outcome of the 2009 election for AFN National Chief.

As the mainstream media reported the 2009 AFN election became a 24 hour marathon of voting, what the mainstream media couldn't follow very well were the behind the scene First Nation politics.

Reportedly, before the AFN election in Calgary took place, Fontaine's "machinery" (made up of Fontaine's political supporters, advisors and staff) was offered to AFN candidate from Ontario, John Beaucage, but Beaucage refused, because what happened in Calgary showed that Fontaine's "machinery" was active in sidelining Beaucage's bid for AFN office by orchestrating what quickly became an anybody but Atleo campaign.

From some accounts, there was reportedly a deal between AFN Candidates John Beau-cage, Perry Bellegarde, Terry Nelson and Bill Wilson, that whoever had the lowest number of votes after the first ballot among the four candidates, the other three AFN candi-dates would support the fourth candidate to take on Shawn Atleo.

If there was a deal between Beaucage, Bellegarde, Nelson and Wilson, after first ballot it became clear John Beaucage was double-crossed by Terry Nelson and Bill Wilson. Be-cause Bill Wilson was removed from the ballot for failing to get the requisite 15 votes set out in AFN's election rules under the AFN Charter. This meant Terry Nelson had the lowest number of votes after first ballot and was removed from the ballot too.

By some accounts, after the first ballot results were announced John Beaucage learned that Terry Nelson and Bill Wilson had already contacted Perry Bellegarde by cell phone and told him they were throwing their support to him. Once Beaucage learned of this move he knew he had little choice but to concede and throw his support to Perry Bellegarde as well.

So after first ballot in front of the Assembly, Wilson, Nelson and Beaucage announced their support for Bellegarde. After that it became a close race between Perry Bellegarde and Shawn Atleo, or as some have described it, between the historic treaty groups and the non-treaty groups. However, this was not the case Bellegarde had some non-treaty group sup-port and Atleo had some historic treaty group support. In fact, Atleo's nominator was from Treaty Six in Alberta.

It took 8 ballots with voting continuing through-out the night into the next morning, before Perry Bellegarde would concede that Shawn Atleo had won the AFN election for National Chief.

Some accounts of the AFN election and my own observations during the voting process helped to clarify for me that some of Fontaine's "machinery" was made up of "old guard" AFN politicians such as Phil Fontaine himself, from the NWT region, Georges and Bill Erasmus, and from the B.C. region, Ed John, Herb "Satsan" George and Bill Wilson and all the people associated with these individuals.


“Phil Fontaine decided not to run for another term as National Chief, perhaps because he had his post-AFN career already set up with the Royal Bank and the mining industry. In any Case, Fontaine's departure set the stage for the 2009 AFN Election for National Chief”

VOLUME 7, ISSUE 1

Map of Canada.

It was interesting to watch Ed John, Herb George and Bill Wilson vigorously campaigning against Shawn Atleo, since most of the B.C. region supported Shawn, except for the vote these three influenced.

One surprise, was the number of votes Terry Nelson received in the first ballot (57). These were probably Manitoba Chiefs working with Phil Fontaine, because reportedly all of Manitoba was behind Bellegarde, except for the block of votes that former National Chief Ovide Mercredi, now Chief of his community, garnered for Shawn Atelo.

By some accounts, Shawn Atleo's support came mainly from the regions of B.C., Quebec and the Atlantic, although there may have been about 20-30 Ontario Chiefs and a few from the prairies who voted for Atleo as well. Perry Bellegarde's support was heavily from treaty areas of the country.

By all accounts it was an historic AFN election, never before did an election go through that many ballots. But it isn't surprising when one thinks of the six years Fontaine was in office and the support he developed around him. Even though he didn't run again, Phil Fontaine his supporters, advisors and some staff clearly tried to keep control of the AFN National Office and who would become the next National Chief, but the "old guard" of AFN lost. Once the vote became a marathon, Bellegarde kept up with Atleo and was even ahead on the fifth ballot, but after that Bellegarde started hemmoraging votes and fell further and further behind until by the eighth ballot it was clear he couldn't recover.

After the AFN election, First Nation leaders from Saskatchewan were calling for a reform of the AFN election process, critical of the number of votes the B.C. region has, Lawrence Joseph, Chief of the Federal of Saskatchewan Indian Nations was quoted as saying, "Two hundred little First Nations can elect one chief -- that has to be looked at". Perry Belle-garde echoed Chief Joseph's sentiments.

Despite how the Bellegarde supporters feel after the last AFN election, the fact is the B.C. region with 203 of the 613 eligible votes for National Chief has determined who most of the AFN National Chiefs have been, particularly since the AFN Charter requires the winning National Chief candidate to attain 60% of the vote. This is the reason that some Chiefs from outside of the B.C. region are now proposing the threshold for an AFN election should be reduced to 50% plus 1.

It should be noted that although the B.C. region has dominated the AFN voting system since the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB) became the Assembly of First Nations in 1982, there hasn't been an AFN National Leader from the B.C. region since George Manuel was President of the NIB from 1970 until 1976.

Atleo's Challenges Shawn Atelo campaigned on a platform consisting of the following "Four Pillars":

1) First Nations Families and Communities: AFN will work with and support First Nations to ensure respect for, well-being of, and opportunity for, First Nations youth, families and communities. Through education and skills training, we have an opportunity to overcome the attempts of the residential school system to destroy our culture and language by dividing our communities and families. This is our time to use education as our tool to retain and maintain the strength of First Nations lan-guages, history, teachings and values while facilitating better understanding be-tween First Nations and the rest of Canadian society. This will support the rebuild-ing of families and communities and promote First Nations participation in strong and sustainable economies locally and nationally. This is our time to empower our fast growing youth population in ways that will ensure a future of opportunity, suc-cess and prosperity. The voices of our youth must be heard, understood and in-cluded.

2) Treaties, Title and Rights: AFN will approach all rights-based discussions and efforts grounded by the full understanding that First Nations have inherent jurisdic-



“It was interesting to

watch Ed John, Herb George

and Bill Wilson vigorously

campaigning against Shawn

Atleo, since most of the B.C.

region supported

Shawn, except for the vote these three influenced”

Ed John First Nations Sum-mit, Task Group Member. Campaigned against At-

leo’s AFN candidacy.

Herb “Satsan” George, Chairman, National First

Nations Governance Centre. Campaigned against Atleo’s

AFN candidacy.

tion as indigenous peoples of this land. In a focused and inclusive manner, the AFN will support First Nations to implement our sacred treaties and our constitutionally protected title and rights using clear standards, such as those set out as a minimum in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is our time to take steps to implement First Nations inherent rights and jurisdiction by support-ing traditional governance, achieving acceptable consultation and accommodation standards and securing resource revenues sharing.

3) Economy and Environment: AFN will support First Nations in pursuing a vision of sustainable economic self-sufficiency achieved by ensuring investments in stable community infrastructure and effective business partnerships. By being active par-ticipants in economic development, we can better ensure First Nations economies thrive, creating wealth and jobs and supporting our people to have an active role in shaping the national economy. It is our time to take a leadership role as indigenous peoples to balance development opportunities and conservation of the earth through environmental protection and green development.

4) Nation Building, First Nation Governments: AFN will be truly an "Assembly of Nations" providing political advocacy, support and coordination for First Nations to unite with collective strength to rebuild our nations. AFN will support First Nations, as the rightful holders of title, rights and as signatories to treaties, to engage with governments and serve their citizens wherever they may reside, based on the full recognition of the autonomy, diversity and interdependence of First Nations. AFN will advocate for full recognition of First Nations’ jurisdiction and sustainable trans-fer agreements based on real costs across all policy areas such as education, health prevention and treatment, children and families, justice and others that support and build our government and service capacity. It is our time to build our nations by unifying our voice and taking the necessary steps toward the full and final displace-ment of the Indian Act.

Atleo's "Four Pillars" platform, looks good, but as I understand it, Atelo has inherited a significant deficit left over from Fontaine's tenure as National Chief. Atleo also has had to re-organize the AFN National Office to support the "political advocacy, support and coordi-nation" for First Nations.

Aside from the administrative, organizational side of redirecting AFN from the Fontaine legacy, Atleo has to address the concerns of First Nations from the different regions of Can-ada, which are represented by various Regional Vice-Chiefs on the AFN Executive Com-mittee and the Special Assemblies of Chiefs, the next one is scheduled for December 8-10, 2009, in Ottawa.

At the December 2009, AFN Special Assembly, National Chief Atleo will be expected to report on his deficit recovery and reorganization efforts, as well as, his plan of action for dealing with the Crown governments, particularly the Harper government, which so far has been able to sideline First Nations issues.

So, aside from keeping Perry Bellegarde and his supporters on-side, National Chief Atleo's biggest challenge is trying to press Prime Minister Harper to change his approach towards First Nations. A task he won't be able to do without the help of the Chiefs and the citizens of First Nations.

Fontaine had years to try his collaborator approach and in the end all it achieved was a job for him on Bay street to promote the 2010 Olympics and mining investments.

Let's see if AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo can motivate and inspire the Chiefs and the people to help implement Atleo's "Four Pillars" agenda and bring some positive change to the situation of First Nations across Canada. A good start would be to press Prime Minister Harper to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

‘Atleo Challenge’ conclusion from page 16

“So, aside from keeping Perry Bellegarde and his supporters on-side, National Chief Atleo's biggest challenge is trying to press Prime Minister Harper to change his approach towards First Nations. A task he won't be able to do without the help of the Chiefs and the citizens of First Nations”

VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1

L to R: Shawn Atleo and Perry Bellegarde, just before 7th ballot, 4:30 A.M. (Photo

courtesy of Art Manuel)

L to R: Chuck Strahl, Min. of Indian Affairs, Leona Agluk-kaq, Min. of Health, Shawn Atleo, AFN National Chief

during press conference on H1N1. (Photo by John Major/

CP)

By Arthur Manuel, Spokesperson, Indigenous Network On Economies & Trade

We have reached a very critical time in our struggle for our Land and Human Rights as In-digenous Peoples. The Canadian government knows this and has been doing everything in their power to trick us into extinguishing our Aboriginal Title through negotiations under the existing Comprehensive Land Claims Policy. Canada’s courts have been the alter-native to negotiations and we had measured success through the courts. Our establish-ment Indigenous organizations have been stuck with the existing federal Comprehensive Land Claims and Self-government Policies.

As Indigenous Peoples we need to think about what to do now. INAC Minister Chuck Strahl told the British Columbia Treaty Commission (BCTC), Common Table, that the federal government will not change the existing Comprehensive Land Claims and Self-government Policies. The Common Table was a group of BCTC Negotiating Tables who came together to raise concerns regarding consistent obstacles they all reached in negoti-ating land claims agreements in BC. The federal government has ignored all objections from groups who do not negotiate, groups who are inactive in their negotiations and active negotiators and will not review their land and self-government policies.

It is important for Indigenous Peoples to realize that we are all under the federal Compre-hensive Land Claims and Self-government Policies. We must realize that any land claims and self-government agreement will be determined by these policies. Right now this will mean that the best deal you can get is the Nisga’a, Tsawwassen or Maa-nulth Final Agreements. You will need to extinguish your Aboriginal Title according to what the government puts on the table under the Comprehensive Land Claims and Self-government Policies. You will have to give up your tax-exemption and take your land in fee simple and agree to be under provincial control.

There needs to be a fundamental change in Canada’s Land Claims and Self-government Policies. These policies need to address the direct link between Aboriginal Title and our human rights as Indigenous Peoples. Canada must abandon their existing policy of extin-guishment and assimilation and adopt a plan of recognition and co-existence. This dra-matic change must be forced on the federal government by direct action from Indigenous Peoples and our supporters. We get a lot of support for taking direct action. We just need faith and courage to stand up for our rights.

The 1980 Constitution Express secured section 35(1) in the Canadian Constitution 1982. We need similar collective action to get Aboriginal Title recognized on the ground. A lot has changed since then, like, the Delgamuukw case judicially recognized Aboriginal Title in 1997. The WTO and NAFTA recognized that Canada’s policy not to recognize Aboriginal Title was a subsidy to Canada’s resource industries. The British Columbia gov-ernment needs to report Aboriginal Title as a contingent liability in their Annual Balance Sheet. The United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peo-ples despite the fact that Canada voted against the Declaration.

Our real problem is that the federal and provincial governments do not want to recognize Aboriginal Title because it ousts their jurisdiction over our Aboriginal Title territory. They want to continue to mutually exclusively make all decisions regarding our land. Every-thing comes from the natural wealth of our land. We need to unite, not around our weakest positions in negotiations but the strongest defenders of our land. In British Columbia par-ticipating under the BCTC over the last 16 years has only produced the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth Final Agreements plus the rebuked Common Table Report and the rejected BC Recognition and Reconciliation Act.

The proposed BC Recognition and Reconciliation Act that was originally praised by the BC First Nation Leadership Council was rejected by the BC All Chiefs Assembly in August 2009. The reason the All Chief Assembly rejected the proposed Recognition Act

Land and Human Rights


“You will need to extinguish your Aboriginal Title

according to what the

government puts on the table

under the Comprehensive

Land Claims and Self-government

Policies. You will have to give up

your tax-exemption and

take your land in fee simple and

agree to be under provincial

control”

Arthur Manuel, Spokesper-son, INET, at the AFN 30th Annual General Assembly.

(Photo by R. Diabo)

was because it did not recognize Aboriginal Title. All the Recognition Act recognized was that Crown Title also existed where Aboriginal Title existed. It would have been nothing more than a Bill of Sale for the BC government and the Chiefs and People saw through it and rejected provincial legislation re-soundly.

The term “recognition” was treated by the province just like “self-government” was mis-treated by the federal government. I remember my late father George Manuel really struggled to develop the term “self-government” when he was president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. But after the federal government came up with their “self-government” policy he rejected the term “self-government”, because weasel word doc-tors of DIA totally undermined what self-government meant from my father’s perspective.

The province kind of got me in the same boat because I have been fighting for “recognition” of Aboriginal Title. But I too was forced to fight against “recognition” under the Recognition and Reconciliation Act because it did not recognize Aboriginal Title. I know this can be really confusing because fighting for “recognition” sometimes requires us to fight against words that favour the status quo at our expense. Any definition or term must be decided by us and not the federal and provincial governments.

Indigenous Peoples must realize that these circumstances require us to have strong leader-ship and not weak leadership. We need to assert our Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and not demand money for more programs and services. We need a fundamental change from the existing Aboriginal Land Policies and a National Treaty Policy. We need to take action before the 2010 Winter Olympics against Canada’s Human Rights Record. Our lack of opportunity, our impoverishment is directly related to the fact that Canada does not recog-nize our Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. Recognition of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights is a fundamental aspect of our Human Rights as Indigenous Peoples.

We cannot support the 2010 Winter Olympics unless Canada adopts and implements the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. First Nations that have agreed to allow the 2010 Winter Olympic Torch through their territory should really seri-ously reconsider that in view of how Canada is playing sport with our Human Rights as In-digenous Peoples. Canada will be using any endorsements by First Nations at the interna-

tional level to justify why Canada’s Indige-nous Peoples still support them despite the fact they voted against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We need to be strong. The 2010 Winter Olympics and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a direct link that connects Canada’s Human Record at the international level. Canada will not change their mind unless we insist through BCR’s, not supporting the Torch Relay and Direct Action. We must stand up for change. We cannot let Prime Minister Harper play political hockey with our Human Rights.

‘Land/Human Rights’ conclusion from page 18

“I remember my late father George Manuel really struggled to develop the term “self-government” when he was president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. But after the federal government came up with their “self-government” policy he rejected the term “self-government”, because weasel word doctors of DIA totally undermined what self-government meant from my father’s perspective”

VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1

George Manuel, Past Presi-dent of UBCIC, NIB and

WCIP.

First Nations Strategic Policy Counsel

Orillia, Ontario

Phone: (613) 296-0110

E-mail: [email protected]

The First Nations Strategic Policy Counsel is a collec-tion of individuals who are practitioners in either First Nations policy or law. We are not a formal organiza-tion, just a network of concerned individuals.

This publication is a volunteer non-profit effort and is part of a series. Please don’t take it for granted that everyone has the information in this newsletter, see that it is as widely distributed as you can, and encour-age those that receive it to also distribute it.

Feedback is welcome. Let us know what you think of the Bulletin—Russell Diabo, Publisher and Editor, First Nations Strategic Bulletin.

BULLETIN OF THE FIRST NATIONS STRATEGIC POLICY COUNSEL

General Callout for Organizing Committees for the first annual Indigenous Sovereignty Week

Defenders of the Land, a cross-Canada network of First Nations in land struggle, fighting for Indigenous rights, is issuing a call to like-minded Indigenous people and groups in communities and cities, as well as non-Native supporters, to cooperate in organizing a cross-Canada week of educational events on Indigenous Rights and Indigenous struggles, from October 25-31, 2009.

We have in mind that this work will reach different audiences: Indigenous people living in communities, urban Indigenous people, and non-Indigenous people living in cities and towns. Events may take place on campuses, in community centres, in schools, or other locations.

The purpose of this week is to build local relationships between groups and individuals, disseminate ideas of Indigenism, and generally, contribute to building a cross-Canada movement for Indigenous rights, self-determination, and justice that is led by Indigenous communities but with a broad base of informed support.

There will be a range of events, including speaking events, cultural or arts events, and ceremony where appropriate. Speak-ers will include activists and leaders of struggles, elders, Indigenous intellectuals, and supporters.

If you are interested in organizing an Indigenous Sovereignty Week in your area

If you are interested in organizing educational events in your community during this week, please contact us by email at [email protected]. We will establish a list to cooperate on developing and organizing this event. Communities can plan their own programs according to their needs and capacities--the purpose of a joint organizing list is to share re-sources and coordinate speakers' itineraries for example. You can find out more about Defenders of the Land at our website.

NOTICE: Indigenous Sovereignty Week

Advancing the Right of First Nations to Information

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/first_nations_strategic_bulletin/index.html

harper denies history of colonialism in canada at g20

Documents