iThis week, the Harper Government engaged in a clever bit of propaganda against the leadership of Canada's First Nations. The First Nations Transparency Act authorizes/forces First Nations communities to release the salaries of their elected officials. This on the surface, is a good thing. Or at least it would have been useful and fair if in fact this information had been a secret to the First Nation communities, or if everyone in the country who received some sort of government handout/salary/benefit had their salaries posted as well and most importantly if the press disclosed the salaries in a fashion that accurately reported all of the facts. However In the case of the Transparency Act, none of those assumptions are true. Every resident of a First Nations has access to the salaries of their elected representatives; we don't post everyone's income (think of all of those companies that get tax deals or subsidies from the Canadian Government - how many of those executives have their salaries posted and discussed in the press?) and in this particular case the the press has, predictably, focused on the handful of Chiefs who appear to be over paid.
It is difficult to know if anyone was overpaid and if so by how much. For example travel expenses are not usually part of wages, at least they never have been in any place that I have worked but they appear to have been included in this report. Some of the income of the Chiefs combine their wages as elected leaders of their Tribal Councils and their income has Chief Economic Development Officer. In at least one case, the yearly income is extraordinarily high - but because of a one time pay out due to a bonus allocated as per the employment contract. (wouldn't it be nice to know what bonuses the CEOs of various companies that received tax benefits or other types of handouts from the Canadian government received )
However the most significant issue with the First Nations Transparency Act is the incredibly poor and perhaps even irresponsible response from the press ( for example Globe and Mail and CBC News) who have focused on the small number of elected leaders making perhaps unreasonably high salaries while not mentioning the thousands of elected officials who are being paid less than average Canadian. (in Ontario the average income for an elected official is $27,500 and in BC it is $26,000). An excellent source for the full story can be found @ The Straight Goods On First Nations Salaries from AFN.ca.
The reporting is a problem because it erroneously confirms the public's worst fears as to the incompetencies of First Nations people. It, by innuendo, perpetuates the myth as to the incapacity of Indigenous people to govern themselves. These same myths were around before confederation and allowed for treaties to be created that were both unjust and never honoured; and later "justified" the creation of the Residential schools (see Duncan Campbell Scott's quotes on "Indian People" or Nicolas Flood Davin's). The poor reporting is an issue because it will allow the government to assume greater control over the lives of the First Nation peoples because of this "proof" that those peoples are not capable of managing their own affairs. As long as the government can blame other people for the injustices, they will not be obligated to correct those same injustices.
Are there some individuals who are "ripping off" their communities? I would suspect so. Just as I suspect that there are many more who are engaged in tribal affairs because they are passionate about their people's welfare. As a matter of fact I suspect that the percentage of dishonest or greedy First Nation politicians as compared to the dedicated community leaders is virtually the same as in any community in Canada regardless of their race.
Why would we expect things to be different in First Nation communities than in our own? Why would we think that we should have the right to hold them to a higher standard then we ourselves have to follow?
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Thursday, July 31, 2014
On the Road Again 2014 Interim - Mr. Harper and the MIddle East
I usually try not to get into debates about the Middle East. At least twice in the past week I have avoided conversations that would have sucked me into that morass of politics, religion and human rights that has been so much part of the international landscape for literally my entire life. It is not that I don't have opinions about the right and wrong of Israel's and Hamas' positions in the current round of blame, sabre rattling, rockets and death - it is just that it seems so pointless to engage in an argument when no one cares what anyone thinks.
Israel is not going to listen to the world community. In spite of numerous UN sanctions and from most of the countries in the world a demand for a peaceful resolution, Israel's concern over its security will always be more important to them than anyone's opinion; the leadership of Hamas knows full well that its actions, including using high density population centers and refugee camps as sites for storing weapons etc and most recently creating tunnels into Israel are actions guaranteed to cause Israel to attack those centers.
Until someone can figure out a way to hit both of those entities over the head with a gigantic 2x4 - and keep on doing it until both parties agree to listen to reason, nothing is going to change. One side says it has the right to defend and expand its border, the other says it has the right to create/re-establish something that has been broken for far too long. The rest of us at best sit on the sidelines and do nothing, at worst some nations and individuals cheer them on.
When I noted above that most of the world's nations have demanded a peaceful solution - a singular exception to this is Canada. Our esteemed Prime Minister ( please forgive the sarcasm) has once again come out and while deploring the deaths in Gaza, has said that the fault is all Hamas; that as Israel is only defending itself, they are not really at fault. One, of course, could argue that Israel's continued expansion into the occupied territories could be a contributing factor but then people like Harper would feel free to accuse me of being anti-Semitic.
It is curious that when Russia's Putin makes a land grab in the Ukraine, Harper condemns him frequently and loudly but when Israel does it, they are just defending themselves.
For me the issue the issue is not that Harper has a few strong opinions that are different than me, it is that he, in expressing those strong opinions, has (as noted in a Globe and Mail opinion piece by Sergio Marchi) deviated from Canada's traditionally position. We are no longer perceived has a nation that is neutral; a nation who has a well reasoned, with a well thought out position; a nation which is capable of acting as an intermediary.
Canada is now on the sidelines of international politics, yelling, screaming, threatening - just like a bad parent at a pee wee hockey game and just as effective and just as disliked by the majority who are watching the game.
Israel is not going to listen to the world community. In spite of numerous UN sanctions and from most of the countries in the world a demand for a peaceful resolution, Israel's concern over its security will always be more important to them than anyone's opinion; the leadership of Hamas knows full well that its actions, including using high density population centers and refugee camps as sites for storing weapons etc and most recently creating tunnels into Israel are actions guaranteed to cause Israel to attack those centers.
Until someone can figure out a way to hit both of those entities over the head with a gigantic 2x4 - and keep on doing it until both parties agree to listen to reason, nothing is going to change. One side says it has the right to defend and expand its border, the other says it has the right to create/re-establish something that has been broken for far too long. The rest of us at best sit on the sidelines and do nothing, at worst some nations and individuals cheer them on.
When I noted above that most of the world's nations have demanded a peaceful solution - a singular exception to this is Canada. Our esteemed Prime Minister ( please forgive the sarcasm) has once again come out and while deploring the deaths in Gaza, has said that the fault is all Hamas; that as Israel is only defending itself, they are not really at fault. One, of course, could argue that Israel's continued expansion into the occupied territories could be a contributing factor but then people like Harper would feel free to accuse me of being anti-Semitic.
It is curious that when Russia's Putin makes a land grab in the Ukraine, Harper condemns him frequently and loudly but when Israel does it, they are just defending themselves.
For me the issue the issue is not that Harper has a few strong opinions that are different than me, it is that he, in expressing those strong opinions, has (as noted in a Globe and Mail opinion piece by Sergio Marchi) deviated from Canada's traditionally position. We are no longer perceived has a nation that is neutral; a nation who has a well reasoned, with a well thought out position; a nation which is capable of acting as an intermediary.
Canada is now on the sidelines of international politics, yelling, screaming, threatening - just like a bad parent at a pee wee hockey game and just as effective and just as disliked by the majority who are watching the game.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
On the Road Again 2014 Interium Land Claims
In the past few weeks there have been two significant decisions made by the Canadian Supreme Court as to the rights of First Nations communities to be in control of their ancestral territory. The claims on the surface present, at best, a mixed message as to what rights the Indigenous people of Canada have in terms of controlling the land's resources. At worst the court rulings have made it impossible for a significant percentage of the Canada's Aboriginal peoples to have any control over the resources.
The first court decision involved a community in BC ( Tsilhqot'in First Nation). The courts seem to have said that not only do government and/or big corporations have to "consult" with the communities before any resource extraction occurs but in fact will have to negotiate (in the true meaning of negotiation where the party who has title to the land controls what happens on the land) an agreement with the community.
The second court decision stated that the community (Grassy Narrows First Nation north of Kenora, Ontario) have no right to control the resources on their traditional lands; that the Province of Ontario has the right to award those resources to a company that wanted to extract them. While the First Nations community would be consulted with, they would have no control over the final decision. It should be remembered that the community of Grassy Narrows has been devastated by the forced relocation of their community 60-70 years ago and the leakage of mercury by a paper mill, into their water sources in the 1960s that caused wide spread health problems. They also had for a number of years maintained the longest standing blockade to protect their forest of any group in Canada.
The court rulings would appear to be almost diametrically opposite. Why? The difference appears to rest on whether or not there had been a treaty signed and what rights those treaties assigned to whom. In the case of the B.C. decision there had been no treaty signed and therefore the government is obliged to negotiate in good faith, recognizing that the other party has full rights and control over the resources on their territory. In the case of Grassy Narrows - there is a long standing treaty and the court has determined that it is still a valid contract.
In the case of Grassy Narrows it appears as if the courts perceived the treaty as a contract, and that the contract of 150-200 years ago was still valid. The fact that one signatory to the agreement has consistently failed to honour their commitments, that the Indigenous people who signed the original contract/treaty did not understand the concepts outlined in the contract (in what world would a contract be deemed legally when the interpreters were being paid by the company with the most to gain and where there was no one who could validate the interpretations?), or that the Indigenous people who signed the contract/treaty had in fact no legal or moral right to sign such a contract.
It is clearly a misunderstanding of all that is fair and just that a 200 year old contract that was unjust and unfair then and that has not been honoured since, has now been used to strip away all possibility that a community can finally re-assume some self determination and a measure of economic self sufficiency . While it is easy to applaud the court's decision to grant full control over the resources for a community in BC, it is equally as easy (unfortunately) to condemn their decision to do the exact opposite for the people of Grassy Narrows.
Sometimes the law is an ass.
The first court decision involved a community in BC ( Tsilhqot'in First Nation). The courts seem to have said that not only do government and/or big corporations have to "consult" with the communities before any resource extraction occurs but in fact will have to negotiate (in the true meaning of negotiation where the party who has title to the land controls what happens on the land) an agreement with the community.
The second court decision stated that the community (Grassy Narrows First Nation north of Kenora, Ontario) have no right to control the resources on their traditional lands; that the Province of Ontario has the right to award those resources to a company that wanted to extract them. While the First Nations community would be consulted with, they would have no control over the final decision. It should be remembered that the community of Grassy Narrows has been devastated by the forced relocation of their community 60-70 years ago and the leakage of mercury by a paper mill, into their water sources in the 1960s that caused wide spread health problems. They also had for a number of years maintained the longest standing blockade to protect their forest of any group in Canada.
The court rulings would appear to be almost diametrically opposite. Why? The difference appears to rest on whether or not there had been a treaty signed and what rights those treaties assigned to whom. In the case of the B.C. decision there had been no treaty signed and therefore the government is obliged to negotiate in good faith, recognizing that the other party has full rights and control over the resources on their territory. In the case of Grassy Narrows - there is a long standing treaty and the court has determined that it is still a valid contract.
In the case of Grassy Narrows it appears as if the courts perceived the treaty as a contract, and that the contract of 150-200 years ago was still valid. The fact that one signatory to the agreement has consistently failed to honour their commitments, that the Indigenous people who signed the original contract/treaty did not understand the concepts outlined in the contract (in what world would a contract be deemed legally when the interpreters were being paid by the company with the most to gain and where there was no one who could validate the interpretations?), or that the Indigenous people who signed the contract/treaty had in fact no legal or moral right to sign such a contract.
It is clearly a misunderstanding of all that is fair and just that a 200 year old contract that was unjust and unfair then and that has not been honoured since, has now been used to strip away all possibility that a community can finally re-assume some self determination and a measure of economic self sufficiency . While it is easy to applaud the court's decision to grant full control over the resources for a community in BC, it is equally as easy (unfortunately) to condemn their decision to do the exact opposite for the people of Grassy Narrows.
Sometimes the law is an ass.
On The Road Again #2014 interium Addictions
I am an addict. There, I have said it.
What little I know about addictions suggests that the first step in dealing with your addictions is to acknowledge that you have them. The problem is that like many other addicts, I like what I do. And like many other addicts I don't think my habits affect anyone but myself (and I don't really think that they are bad for me either).
The very first thing I do, before I get out of bed in the morning, is to get my first hit of the day. I do it again during breakfast. At regular intervals throughout the day I sneak a few minutes to do it again. It usually the last thing I do at night. Even now as I type these words, my fingers twitch in anticipation. However because of where I am right now- I can't indulge and it is driving me crazy.
I am a political news junkie. I have no one to blame but myself. I knew when I was younger that I could be easily tempted. I should have stopped it then. I can remember watching Diefenbaker's acceptance speech on TV when he became prime minister in 1957 and not being being terrible disappointed in missing the chance to watch a children's program; or watching for long, sometimes tedious hours various political party conventions as they elected a new leader. I can remember long before the invention of TV remote controls and cable television of trying to watch the various election night commentators on the three stations that we got ( the arial was attached to a long pole just outside the back door so that I could run outside, climb the first two rungs, twist the pole in the right direction a few inches to bring in the third station). I would chose to stay in rather than go out to a party when there was a news special on TV and I would stop watching a movie and switch stations to watch the CBC 10:00 news. And all the while, somewhere in the back of my brain, I was aware that this focus on politics was at best weird and unusual; at worst it might be something that would consume me and allow me to only socialize with an ever decreasing circle of friends who were similarly affected.
For much of my life, I was control of my "tendencies". I was living proof that one could have an almost all consuming habit and still have a normal life. I kept a job. I raised a family. I had all of the things normal guys had. And then came the internet, or more specifically along came my tablet connected to the internet. I can now get news feeds 24 hours a day - and I do. I have an app that connects me directly with CBC and the Globe and Mail. I also have an app that connects me to almost every major English newspaper/news source in the western world. I can and do read a single story from five or six different perspectives. This increased access can be exciting, challenging, overwhelming and frustrating. If there is a negative political story (can there be a positive political story?), I can now delve into the story in greater depth, chasing down minute details - all the while fueling both my habit and my rage at the incompetence of our politicians. When one only hears a bit of the news on TV, it just floats by in fifteen second sound bites; when one reads the news and can pursue in detail the background to that news, it is so easy to get lost in that story. All of this access just fuels my desire for more news which feeds my need to have increased access to news which feeds my desire to........... Oh is there no end to this habit/addiction? Will I spend my final days in a darken room facing multiple screens - searching for that last piece of data, that final part of the puzzle that will explain all to me? I surely hope not.
P.S. this has all come up because I am living without internet access (or any other news source) for a four or five days and I have lots of time to think and wonder about what is happening in the world. I love being on Salt Spring Island, but I must confess that when I leave in a few days, one of the reasons (albeit a very small reason) I will be glad to get back to Duncan is access to the internet.
What little I know about addictions suggests that the first step in dealing with your addictions is to acknowledge that you have them. The problem is that like many other addicts, I like what I do. And like many other addicts I don't think my habits affect anyone but myself (and I don't really think that they are bad for me either).
The very first thing I do, before I get out of bed in the morning, is to get my first hit of the day. I do it again during breakfast. At regular intervals throughout the day I sneak a few minutes to do it again. It usually the last thing I do at night. Even now as I type these words, my fingers twitch in anticipation. However because of where I am right now- I can't indulge and it is driving me crazy.
I am a political news junkie. I have no one to blame but myself. I knew when I was younger that I could be easily tempted. I should have stopped it then. I can remember watching Diefenbaker's acceptance speech on TV when he became prime minister in 1957 and not being being terrible disappointed in missing the chance to watch a children's program; or watching for long, sometimes tedious hours various political party conventions as they elected a new leader. I can remember long before the invention of TV remote controls and cable television of trying to watch the various election night commentators on the three stations that we got ( the arial was attached to a long pole just outside the back door so that I could run outside, climb the first two rungs, twist the pole in the right direction a few inches to bring in the third station). I would chose to stay in rather than go out to a party when there was a news special on TV and I would stop watching a movie and switch stations to watch the CBC 10:00 news. And all the while, somewhere in the back of my brain, I was aware that this focus on politics was at best weird and unusual; at worst it might be something that would consume me and allow me to only socialize with an ever decreasing circle of friends who were similarly affected.
For much of my life, I was control of my "tendencies". I was living proof that one could have an almost all consuming habit and still have a normal life. I kept a job. I raised a family. I had all of the things normal guys had. And then came the internet, or more specifically along came my tablet connected to the internet. I can now get news feeds 24 hours a day - and I do. I have an app that connects me directly with CBC and the Globe and Mail. I also have an app that connects me to almost every major English newspaper/news source in the western world. I can and do read a single story from five or six different perspectives. This increased access can be exciting, challenging, overwhelming and frustrating. If there is a negative political story (can there be a positive political story?), I can now delve into the story in greater depth, chasing down minute details - all the while fueling both my habit and my rage at the incompetence of our politicians. When one only hears a bit of the news on TV, it just floats by in fifteen second sound bites; when one reads the news and can pursue in detail the background to that news, it is so easy to get lost in that story. All of this access just fuels my desire for more news which feeds my need to have increased access to news which feeds my desire to........... Oh is there no end to this habit/addiction? Will I spend my final days in a darken room facing multiple screens - searching for that last piece of data, that final part of the puzzle that will explain all to me? I surely hope not.
P.S. this has all come up because I am living without internet access (or any other news source) for a four or five days and I have lots of time to think and wonder about what is happening in the world. I love being on Salt Spring Island, but I must confess that when I leave in a few days, one of the reasons (albeit a very small reason) I will be glad to get back to Duncan is access to the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)