Native Currents: Episode 123

On this week's show, Glenn looks at the internal turmoil of the Indigenous Peoples Assembly of Canada (formerly the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples), which may lead to the ousting of National Chief Dwight Dorey. 

Native Currents: Episode 122

Jarret Leaman: Indigenous professionals balance success and authenticity

On this week's show, Steve and Glenn chat with Jarret Leaman, former executive director of the Aboriginal Professional Association of Canada, about the challenges of achieving professional success and maintaining authenticity as an Indigenous and Two-Spirited man.

Native Currents: Episode 121

Research ethics in the #Reconciliation era

This week, Steve and Glenn chat with Julie Bull, who is of Inuit descent (NunatuKavut) from Labrador and a scholar in the ethics and governance of research involving Indigenous peoples, which is exploding in the "Reconciliation" era.

Native Currents: Episode 120

Tattrie: "To know Cornwallis is to see no hero."

Edward Cornwallis is known by most people in Nova Scotia as the founder of Halifax. But for Mi'kmaq people, he is a figure of violence and genocide. Among other things, Cornwallis issued a scalping proclamation and offered a bounty for every Mi'kmaq scalp delivered. Glenn Wheeler talks to freelance journalist and historian Jon Tattrie about Cornwallis and the campaign to have his name removed from buildings and other public assets.

Native Currents Episode 119

On this week's episode we put our regular co-host, Steven Vanloffeld in the hot seat as he discusses why he is seeking to become Chief of his home community - Saugeen First Nation. We discuss the challenges and the opportunities from a local and national perspective.

Native Currents: Episode 118

On this week's show, Kinder Morgan pipeline play latest test of Trudeau's commitment to respect Indigenous rights, and Native Currents co-host runs for chief of Saugeen First Nation.

For Mi’kmaq people, Edward J. Cornwallis is like the Confederate flag

After a heated debate, Halifax city council has opted to maintain avowed racist Edward J. Cornwallis in various positions of glorified prominence. 

Anyone who has spent time in Halifax knows how much stuff there is in the Nova Scotia capital named after the governor and military officer who “founded” Halifax in 1749 – a street, an armed forces base, a school (until recently), and a park in which is located a majestic statute of himself.

But the man so honoured was no friend of the Mi’kmaq people. In fact, he was a proponent of the genocide of the original inhabitants, notably in the form of a bounty for the scalps of Mi’kmaq people.

Jon Tattrie, author of Cornwallis: The Violent Birth of Halifax, told CBC that the aim of Cornwallis was the genocide of the Mi’kmaq people, and that his letters speak of rape and murder as legitimate weapons of war.

For all that, Halifax city council voted 8-7 this month against appointing experts to evaluate the use of Cornwallis in public names.

Predictably, the opponents of such a move argued that it would be tantamount to rewriting history. If we started with him, where would it end? “He is the founder of this municipality, we can’t escape that,” one city councilor said.

This kind of argument is sadly familiar to other attempts to correct misinformation about the past – “you can’t rewrite history.”

That’s what African-Americans heard when they tried to have the Confederate flag removed from state legislatures in the U.S. South. It’s our history, whether you like it or not.

But who is it who is “rewriting” history? Those who argue for keeping Cornwallis on public buildings and streets are in effect maintaining a version of history in which the crimes of the past are obscured in the glorification of the present.

It is not the rewriting of history that we seek. It is the recovery of the truth of our past, and all of the crime, violence and brutality that went down.

The right to be cold

It’s not every day at the staid Law Society of Upper Canada @LawSocietyLSUC that you see the lighting of the kudlik, the traditional #Inuit lamp made of soapstone and typically powered with whale oil or blubber.

In Inuit tradition, the kudlik provided light for the tent or igloo and heat for cooking.

Last evening at the Law Society, it opened a presentation on the right to be cold by Nobel Peace Prize nominee Sheila Watt-Cloutier.

Watt-Cloutier, who was born in Northern Quebec, is among other things a former international chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council representing Inuit from Canada, Greenland, Alaska and Russia.

As an Inuit activist (and author of a recent memoir), Watt-Cloutier has drawn attention to the impact of climate change on the North and its peoples. Climate change, she told the Law Society, is not only an environmental story but a human rights one also.

Many people in the south know more about the polar bear than the Inuit and their attention is often focused on “protecting the furry animal,” she told the audience of lawyers, law students and members of the public.

The right to be cold is key to the ability of the Inuit to maintain a way of life. “We are the people of the ice. We don’t just survive it. We thrive in it. We love where we live. It’s home and there’s a warmth there that connects us to each other.”

The skills learned on the ice are key to building character, she explained – dealing with stressful situations, developing judgment and wisdom and controlling the impulse to act precipitously.

There has been much attention on the high suicide rate in the north, Watt-Cloutier noted, but issues tend to be considered in silos, without their interconnectedness being drawn out.

To some extent, she suggested, suicide is an impulsive act, and the skills learned as a hunter can help someone deal with that the destructive urge to act impulsively.

Ultimately, all of humanity has a stake in the fate of the Inuit. Nobody is more on the frontlines of climate change than the Inuit hunter, she said. “The hunters are the sentinels for our planet.”

Withdraw invite to Pope until Church pays reconciliation tab

Pope Francis is considering an invitation “from the First Nations” to visit Canada, according to media reports.

That invite should be withdrawn until the Church stops trying to skip out on $25 million it owes residential school survivors.

The money was contained in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which, among other things, established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The reconciliation process was an alternative to the avalanche of lawsuits filed by survivors.

The thinking was that healing would more likely come through apology and education than through litigation. The $25 million in question (separate and apart from money already paid by the Church under the settlement agreement) was “part of the Church’s process of reconciliation with survivors,” as the Globe and Mail wrote this week, quoting Jim Prentice, a justice minister for the Harper Conservatives, who inked the deal.

The Church entities were to implement a “best efforts” fundraising campaign to raise the cash. But they only came up with $3.7 million of the total after a half-hearted effort that skipped individual parishioners in favour of already cash-strapped Catholic dioceses.

Now, after a federal lawyer inadvertently suggested in legal communications that they wouldn’t have to pay the remainder, the Church says no more money will be forthcoming.

This is a serious setback in an already difficult healing process.

For survivors, no amount of money can undo the harm that was done to them as vulnerable children forcibly removed from their families and all that they knew. But the Church's brazen attempt to evade its moral obligations rips the scab off the wound. It’s a painful reminder that there is still a distance to go in the reconciliation process.

There are those who say the federal government should come up with the money the church refuses to pay. One of them is Phil Fontaine, former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations who first drew national attention to the residential schools issue.

Former chief Fontaine deserves much credit for having the courage to talk about his own abusive residential school experience and creating the public pressure that forced Canada to deal with this tragic part of its history.

Certainly, the survivors are entitled to the funds. But having the feds pick up the tab would be a last resort. If the Catholic Church does not make good on its financial obligation, its role in the reconciliation exercise will be forever tarnished. For its own credibility and integrity, the Church ought to come up with the money.

In the circumstances, this is no time for a papal visit for it would only add insult to the latest injury.

Native Currents: Episode 117

On this week's show, on the 140th anniversary of the introduction of the racist Indian Act, a suicide crisis in Attawapiskat and an emergency debate in the House of Commons, and what could be a game-changer from the Supreme Court of Canada, confirmation that Metis and non-status Indians are entitled to constitutional protection.

Indigenous interests take precedence over party membership

This is Glenn Wheeler, reaching out to you, our followers, regarding my membership in the Liberal Party of Canada and Ontario.

The following are my personal comments and do not necessarily reflect those of my co-host Steven Vanloffeld.

I have decided to resign my membership in the federal and provincial Liberal parties.

I do so not because of dissatisfaction with the actions of either Liberal government. I believe (as, I think, do most Indigenous people in Canada) that we now have the most supportive federal government in generations, perhaps ever. The government of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has also been an ally.

However, I have come to realize that my role as co-host of Native Currents makes Liberal Party membership awkward. Our objective with the podcast and our related activities is to take a critical look at the biggest issues of the day in Indian Country.

The interests of our peoples comes first. I am concerned that party membership might create the impression that I would play off our peoples’ interests with party interests.

I would not.

Moreover, if I concluded that it was in the best interest of our peoples to support another political party, I would.

Going forward, I will choose who to support – candidate and party -- on an ad hoc basis.

Rest assured that on Native Currents, I will call it as I see it, without any obligation to a political party.

Native Currents: Episode 116

On this week's show we look at the need for Elder services among the prison inmate population; the invitation to the Pope to visit First Nations and formally apologize for Residential School abuses; the push on attracting tourism dollars to First Nation communities; and the controversy over the Cleveland "Caucasians" t-shirt.

Native Currents: Episode 115

On this week's show, the tragic death of nine in Pikangikum First Nation house fire tragedy points to holes in much-hyped federal budget. Politicians of all stripes ignore need for more expansive urban Indigenous policy. And Indigenous icon Buffy Ste. Marie wins big at Junos.

CAP, the AFN, the Qalipu and Indigenous unity

Interesting feedback to our interview with National Chief Dwight Dorey of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, especially as it regards CAP’s relationship with its largest affiliate, the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation. 

The future of CAP (now rebranded the Indigenous Peoples Assembly of Canada) is of special interest to the Qalipu, at 24,000 members the largest First Nation in Canada. It is a “landless band” (one of five across the country), which means that it has no reserve land. 

Qalipu’s forerunner, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, long had a history with CAP. But the Qalipu was established as a band under the Indian Act in 2011. Lately, Qalipu members have been debating whether the AFN would be a better home than the problem-plagued CAP. 

As might be expected, Chief Dorey made the case for staying in CAP during his interview with Native Currents (in particular, the historical relationship and the off-reserve Qalipu situation). But he also said something that surprised us – there’s nothing stopping the Qalipu from being affiliated with both CAP and the AFN. 

Chief Dorey also said that he has reached out to AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde but, alas, there has been no call-back. Sad, but not surprising considering the difficult relationship between the two bodies. 

Would the AFN agree to include a First Nation that was also affiliated with CAP, or would it demand the Qalipu choose between the two? If the Qalipu could belong to both, perhaps it could be the bridge between the two solitudes. 

One thing is for certain – we need to find unity between the many factions in Indian Country. Channels of communication would be a good first step. Walking in two worlds – status and off-reserve – the Qalipu might be the medium the moment requires.

Native Currents: Episode 114

On this week's show, a candid one-on-one interview with Dwight Dorey, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Chief Dorey discusses the challenges facing CAP and barriers to working with national organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations.

Native Currents: Episode 113

On this weeks show Justice Murray Sinclair takes his Indigenous credibility to the Senate; Mohawks of Kanesatake draw battle lines around Energy East pipeline; and how will the Assembly of First Nations find consensus in divisions over resource development?

Memo to Minister Bennett: Keep the Promise

No one will be watching the release of next week’s federal budget more closely than First Nations. 

The Liberals made a number of promises to us in the election last October. The cornerstone commitment was to pump $2.6 billion into First Nations education. 

We responded. Indigenous people voted in numbers never before seen in history. Long suspicious of settler government (and for good reason), we chose to believe that elections could make a difference. 

The budget will be a test of that faith. 

Now, there will be those who will counsel political realism. Election campaigns are one thing, budget practicality another.

But the situation of First Nations is unique. Colonialism is a litany of broken promises. Failure of the government to live up to its election undertakings will be seen by Indigenous people through that lens. 

That’s why Indigenous affairs minister Carolyn Bennett’s bizarre show-and-tell last week about missing First Nations education funds was doubly disconcerting. 

A source told the Globe and Mail that the government “has discovered” that $1.25 billion was quietly taken from education funds by the Harper Tories in order to balance the budget just before the election campaign. The Liberals were counting on that money to fulfil its promise to add $2.6 billion to First Nations education funding. 

The story was almost certainly planted by the government to set the stage for Bennett’s announcement in the House of Commons the next day. 

Confirming the missing money, she stated vaguely that the government would “redouble its efforts” to improve on-reserve education, but pointedly refused to answer NDP questions about whether it will meet its $2.6-billion promise.

The story – coming as it does nearly half a year since the Liberals took office – has all the signs of prep for breaking a promise.

If that is the plan, the Liberals will pay a heavy political price for it. 

But, as they always do, First Nations students will pay an even bigger price by having to keep on attending substandard schools that are funded 30-percent less per pupil than off-reserve. 

Do the right thing, Minister Bennett. Keep your promise and close the gap.

Native Currents: Episode 112

On this week's show, Indigenous affairs minister bizarre cupboard-is-bare tale -- the prequel to breaking education funding promise? First Nations cry out for help in suicide crisis. And racist names of sports teams and mascots sparks litigation.

Expanding consent requirement makes veto irrelevant

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s junking of an election promise to give Indigenous peoples a veto over resource projects took some of the froth out of his fizzy relationship with us. 

But the focus on the V-word has distracted us from a C-word that may turn out to be more significant.

 “Consent” has been in the air lately since JT indicated that Canada would “implement” the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires us to give our “free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting our land or territories…” 

Regardless of whether Trudeau bails on the UNDRIP promise also, recent court decisions appear to have tentatively accepted some notion of a consent requirement over resource development. Indeed, the latest issue of publication for corporate lawyers says one such decision “is sending tremors through the resource sector.” 

In Tshlhqot’in, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the First Nation’s claim to 1,750 square kilometres of central BC. The court ruled that consent of the First Nation would be required for any project that would deprive future generations of the benefit of the land [para 86 at http://bit.ly/1GGZSJC . 

Of course, not all resource projects would meet that high threshold in which consent would be required. In less invasive projects, there would only be a duty to “consult.” 

However, there has been a trickledown effect from the decision, according to the article in Lexpert http://bit.ly/1GGZSJC , with “some provincial government officials...quietly making it clear to developers that they won’t get approvals for their projects unless they have a signed deal with the affected Aboriginal groups in place…” 

But one legal expert says that getting such consent may be in corporate best interests. Shin Imai says in a paper at http://bit.ly/1TqXIYg that many industry groups are already bringing a consent requirement into their internal guidelines. 

For example, the International Council on Mining and Metals “explicitly requires its member companies to ‘work to obtain the consent of indigenous communities for new projects (and changes to existing projects) that are located on lands that are traditionally owned by or under customary use of Indigenous peoples and are likely to have significant adverse impacts…” 

Council members are not just being nice guys, Imai suggests. “[C]osts of community conflict are significant and can result in serious impacts on companies, including suspensions and closures of projects.” 

Judicial and corporate recognition of the consent requirement may make the quest for veto less important. The different between the two, Imai says, is that veto suggests a unilateral right to nix a project without any justification or consideration whatsoever. 

Consent, on the other hand, is part of a deliberative process that includes an assessment of pros and cons and approval – or not – of the project in question. 

Indigenous peoples are desperate to escape the profound poverty bequeathed to them by colonization. No doubt, there will be many worthy resource development projects in which First Nations will be enthusiastic partners.

 But our lands are at the core of who we are as Indigenous peoples. Companies who ignore that essential truth do so at their peril.

Native Currents: Episode 111

On this week's show we look at the lack of preparation and disappointing outcomes between Aboriginal leaders and the Prime Minister at climate change meeting; the federal government's inaction following Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Ruling; and Manitoba NDP candidate, Wab Kinew, in hot water over past rap lyrics.