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.

Time to open the circle in Vancouver, not shut down conversation

The meeting between the federal cabinet and (some) Indigenous leaders today in Vancouver has turned toxic even before the call to order.

First, the feds opted to bar two of the five national Aboriginal organizations – the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women’s Association of Canada. CAP (whose members are mostly off-reserve and non-status) and NWAC don’t represent “nations”, the federal reasoning goes, and this is a “nation-to-nation” meeting on climate change before the feds meet the premiers later in the week.

But what was billed as a historic meeting between Canada and Indigenous peoples (the Assembly of First Nations, the Metis National Council and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami are on the attendee list) will be all of two hours.

The invitation list for a photo op is hardly worth the bad feelings, as one premier and the federal NDP leader have noted.

The political clumsiness regarding today’s meeting reflects a troubling pattern in federal-Aboriginal relations.

The AFN has the inside track in the early days of what many hope will be a new era in Crown-Indigenous relations. That is understandable, considering it is the representative of the more than 600 First Nations in Canada. National Chief Perry Bellegarde has done much to unify an often fractious outfit. Canada wants a cohesive and effective AFN as much as Bellegarde does because, otherwise, there will be no way to implement the federal government Indigenous agenda.

But what is that agenda?

Perhaps more importantly, what is the agenda of the AFN?

Less than a month ago, the AFN was running its own event in Vancouver, “the First Nations Forum on Energy,” seen by many as an effort to pave the way for megaprojects such as the Energy East pipeline, pushed aggressively by a desperate oil industry but bitterly opposed by many of the Indigenous peoples over whose lands it will pass.

But not all. Some of our people see this and other natural resource projects as the route out of centuries of Indigenous poverty and marginalization.

This is the profound issue facing Indigenous peoples right here, right now.

It’s a time when we need to hear all our many voices, to confront the conflicting points of view among us.

Excluding CAP and NWAC does not help us to begin that dialogue.

While CAP is in a weakened state after the reign of former National Chief Patrick Brazeau and a successor forced to exit early, it could if it took on the challenge provide a voice for First Nations people who live off-reserve, as more than half of us do.

Including NWAC is entirely in keeping with the central role of women in Indigenous societies and counters the marginalization that came with colonization.

Let’s open the circle, not close it before the conversation has even begun.