I am interesting in discussing the various bills with folks and read your take on them.  Why they were proposed?  Who do they benefit? What are the logical consequences?

Inteeresting. That document was posted on our city web site last week. It has now been removed. Curious.

Hi Pinga,

Repsectfully, this confuses the matter.  Parliamentary debate is not necessarily limited to the halls of parliament (it is typically the rules followed during academic debates where the procedure in which there are three stages to the debate an opening, proof/rebuttal, and concluding remarks.)  I haven't noticed Parliament to follow this particular pattern in discussing any legislation.

Not knowing what is expected, or even called for makes this a difficult matter to discuss.

While the bill is large is there a limit to how big a bill can be?  Is one 450 pg bill better or worse than nine 50 page bills?  How would we determine that to be?

On the face of it I would say that this is legislation which which will most likely result in a negative impact.

This addresses an issue which is, I think, somewhat ambiguous with respect to our First Nations brothers and sisters.

Namely, are they citizens of Canada or are they citizens of a sovereign nation?  I respect that there is a serious difference of opinion with respect to this issue.  I think that it needs to be settled in order to move forward.

If First Nations are citizens then consultation should be no different than the consultation I get when the Federal Government introduces changes to legislation that directly impact upon me.  Such consultation is charitably described as minimal.  There may or may not be hearings open to the public and I may or may not be directly informed of when or where those hearings will be.  If the First Nations are considered citizens then they can only complain if they are getting less than other citizens.

If First Nations are sovereign nations then I would expect Canadian legislation to be in conformity with existing Treaties.  Consultation then would be much different and it would be up to the leadership of each nation to take responsibility for informing or consulting their respective constituencies.

I think that the issues of what is proper parliamentary debate (with respect to Parliament) is one that needs clarification.  So far nobody has alleged that the Omnibus bills are illegal.  I think most are agreed that they represent a less than ideal and somewhat dishonest way to pass legislation.

I note, somewhat cynically, that the most negative reaction to any Omnibus bill comes from the Opposition and fails to prevent the Opposition parties from using Omnibus legislation of their own when they become the governing party.  Making opposition to Omnibus bills disingenuous, hypocritical and a hallmark of all that is negative with respect ot political partisanship.

I also think that the issue of consultation needs to be set into the context of whether or not First Nations are sovereign entities or exist under the protection of the Federal Government (in the same way Provinces and municipalities exist under the protection of higher levels of Government).  Only when this matter is settled can the notion of consultation be determined and examined to see if it does or doesn't happen.  Even then there will still be room for discussion as to the quality of that consultation.

While the other issues raised in the various bills are worthy of discussion I find that without a coherent framework to approach the issues from there is little hope to find anything other than criticism and of that little will be constructive.

For example the legislation for Navigable waters has been changed.  What that does is reduce the number of officials that will be found on those bodies of water enforcing protections on a Federal Level.  I am not sure if it follows that suddenly those bodies of water will be absolutely bereft of officials with enforcement authority.  Provinces may already have a mandate to provide such policing and this may be an attempt to eliminate duplication of services.

I have no idea what the intent behind the legislation is so I have no idea whether or not the critique, as simple as it has been rendered here, is fair or not.

Grace and peace to you.

John

John, if you are a Canadian, you must know that you have treaty obligations and some responsibility to try to understand legislation affecting aboriginal peoples. You must also realise that native rights were not recognised in Canada until the 1982 Constitution, but that native groups were excluded from the constitutional process until the 1983-87 First Ministers Conferences on Aboriginal Rights? So why do you see problems now with expectations of consultation? What are you trying to say? 

I am going to read through the linked information later. I am posting now, mostly to sort of bookmark this thread for further reference. I am interested in the discussion that ensues.

My big concern with Omnibus legislation is what gets hidden in the pages of the bill. I do understand it can be a practical, streamlined way of doing business. The cynical side of me does not for a minute believe this is why these bills were presented in this format. There are many things hidden in them that if brought to light, would bring a fair amount of criticism. Of course, I can't think of an example right now....

I look forward to seeing how this discussion evolves and will look at the linked info later when I have time to read it properly.

The property ownership one is interesting to me.   If you have valuable land and then can sell it, you then can then move to a location whereby you can self-sustain. You are not tied to the land.  Culturally that is not necessarily desirable...and does not fit the understanding that we have of community land, but, I wonder how many people would grab it.   This ties into the  non-native marriage / land rights after divorce as well.

John, good point regarding who is responsible.  For example, the GRCA reviews water ways for the Grand River.  Odds are federal officials are not required in this area as GRCA has shown to be effective managers / restorers of the water protection.

Hi MikePaterson,

Mike, I do know that I have treaty obligations.  The legislation in play (The Indian Act) does not play as a treaty with a separate sovereign nation it plays as legislation binding the whole.

As such the consultation process will automatically differ and that is the key issue.

If what is being changed is how Canadian law impacts upon Canadians then consultation, as ineffective as it might be, has happened.  If what is being changed are treaty obligations then that is a discussion which needs to happen between sovereign nations.

Which is horrible if they are citizens of Canada.  Understandable if they are citizens of their own sovereign nation.  I don't believe that the Canadian Constitution enshrined the rights of Americans, Brits, Germans or South Africans.   

Which again, is horrible if they are citizens of Canada.  Understandable if they are citizens of their own sovereign nation.  We still don't allow United States Governors  a place at the table when First Ministers meet.

I am saying, that if they are Canadian citizens they should be entitled to all of the consultation that such legislation affords me.  Which as I said above is negligible almost to the point of being non-existent yet still exists.  If they are citizens of a sovereign nation apart from Canada then it is the responsibility of their own government to inform.

Consultation is tied to citizenship.  For example.  It wasn't Canada's responsibility to explain NAFTA to American or Mexican citizens.  It was Canada's responsibility to explain NAFTA to Canadians.  If Canadians have a problem with NAFTA they are best served by taking those complaints to the Federal Government which is supposed to protect the rights and interests of Canadians.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Pinga,  privatization of property is a BIG issue.

Geographically breaks up the Band;

Could interfere with traplines;

And opens a can of worms arounde governance, just to name a few of the issues.

It also would provide mortgages if you own property, handle the challenges around marriage breakdown, and allow for revenue.  Like someone selling the family farm it will be full of emotions, only across a larger group.  It will internalize those fights amongst the people of the land.  It will allow people or peoples to sell land x and buy land y to move to better area or to reap profits.  It is optional per organization.

If I read it right it has the potential to drastically affect reserve.

John: consultation is tied to treaties. You, like it or not, have treaty obligations and responsibilities as a Canadian. Or do you think it's fine for Canada to legislate in prejudicial ways against people it finds inconvenient, because it has the power to?

A nice state we'll end up with…

The other one that is simply elegant is the Safe Drinking Water. 

Following walkerton, it became clear that there needed to be oversight over water treatment by someone other than the municipality. The province of Ontario was chastised for their lack of care in the reports.

Reserves currently manage their own water, and would not have such oversight.

For if the First Nations peoples determine that this one is not valid then the federalists can say "see, we tried to do appropriate controls, you refused it".  It will protect governments from optics if / when a water related health crisis occurs due to poor water management by a local person.  

If allowed, then it will allow for standard controls to be put in place; however, it must come with the power required.

Historically and currently, the philosophical approach is that the land is shared, not owned. 

The pursuit of property and the accumulation of wealth is not necessarily ideal.

Capitalism is not desired by everyone, and in many ways is counter-intuitive to FN ways of being.

The unfortunate reality is that Bands need to earn money because they have to deal with non-Native society and governments.

Privitization of land with rights to sell would continually erode culture, governance and tradition...eventually becoming a city, an assimilated city.  It may take a few generations, but it will happen. 

John, Interesting. 

I have just read this article as I was curious how the "reporting" structure works.  Seems like there have been disagreements and lack of consensus for a century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canadian_Crown_and_Aboriginal_peoples

Hi MikePaterson,

Agreed consultation is tied to treaties.  The rights to consultation differ slightly than do the rights for consultation tied to legislation.

For example.  Canada intends to change the legal definition of Marriage.  I as a citizen have a right to provide input (consultation).  That is a citizen's right.  Whether or not the government makes it easy or even realistic for citizens to provide input is another issue.  Should Canada intend to enter into a North American satellite defense shield as a treaty I don't have the right to expect any government other than my own to consult me with respect to that treaty and all the minutia that may be involved.

If Canada is effecting legislation that impacts upon treaties then there should be consultation between the treaty parties.  This I suspect is probably the key issue.  Who represents the treaty parties.  Like it or not I'm stuck with the current Governmental Minister as my representative.

This is where things get a wee bit sticky.  If our First Nations brothers ans sisters are not citizens of a separate sovereign nation then consultation is as easy having a chat with the Honourable John Duncan who is the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and Northern Development.

Agreed and understood.

I don't think it is fine as in a good thing.  I do believe that it is the state of affairs for most governments.  It was acceptable for Ottawa to say to Newfoundlanders, "No more Cod" and there are Canadians who wish Ottawa would say to Newfoundlanders, "No more Seal."  

It is one thing for Ottawa to say to the Citizens of this nation, "this is the way things are" because at a later date, provided our memories aren't short the electorate has the potential to say to Ottawa, this is what we really think about that.

It would be something else for Ottawa to say to the citizens of another nation, "if you don't like it., lump it."

Not likely.  But then the present state of affairs is far from ideal and the blame train runs both ways on that one.

Grace and peace to you.

John

John: Most laws in New Zealand have a preamble to the effect that nothing in this legislation will be interpreted in ways that contravene the Treaty of Waitangi: the treaty signed by the representative of the British Crown and most but not all Maori chiefs.  It's not a perfect solution but it is an attempt to achieve justice and it does make some of Canada's attitides, policies and legislation look pretty odious by comparison.

There is a difference between regulating fisg catcxhes to sustain an industry and grabbing resources without consultation or just recompense.  The issues in relation to indigenous people in Canada have an essential moral component and, as this is still a democracy, I will argue that morality must over-ride the priorities of "the Economy"… in all cases. Unless that is the case, "the Economy" can never be held wrong or accountable, no matter how much it centralises power and wealth, while it impoverishes, disenfranchises and marginalises others.

We need to be able to look at an "Economy" and say "this isn't working properly" and fix it. That's a necessary political option. I see no need for poverty to be at the level it is in this country. I would say that it is, in any full analysis indefensible.

When Jesus said "the poor will always be with you," he wasn't saying that's how it should be. Every politician should, I maintain, do his or her utmost to prove Jesus wrong on that one.

Have you read the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People? Canada eventually became a signatory but it seems to have done little to give the Declaration's words meaning.

Hi MikePaterson,

I haven't noticed that Canada has the same preamble.  Which is why I think the question of citizenship becomes important.

Agreed.  And yet in Canada, at any rate, most moratoriums placed on the industry are rejected by First Nations fisheries.  For the average citizen this becomes problematic.  The same optics were very evident in Caledonia.  I don't think that the optics capture the complexity of all arrangements.  I know what it is like for families to be restricted from  their liveliehood or property based on race.

In all cases there would be equality.  When there is a perceived inequality problems are not long rising.

Agreed.

I have.

Regrettably UN legislation is only a matter of convenience for most nations.  Since the UN has no ability to enforce its own legislation it requires sovereign states with the ability to throw their weight around to not do just that.

Has there ever been a time that UN legislation was ever seen by every state as being more than just a good idea?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Canada most certainly does NOT have such a preamble which would, I'd assert, make consultation rather MORE requisite. The Government has been governing indigenous peoples, typically to their severe disadvantage, since 1840. That these people had NO rights until 1982 is one thing — to perpetuate the attitides underlying that injustice by asserting that there's no need yop consult with them because their continued existence throws up legalistic irregularities is just friggin evil.

As for fishing… did the indigenous peoples ever relinquish their rights to fisheries, or were they simply pushed aside and extinguished by their non-indigenous treaty partners? Excluded from livelihoods on account of race??? Race???Are you serious??? How about legitimate/illegitimate access in the first place?

A UN declaration isn't "legislation" — signing is a moral affirmation. Unless signatories show some sincerity (which you seem to be saying is irrelevant) they expose themselves to accusations of hypocrisy. Bully for Canadians.

As stated by the 1996 Canadian federal Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, aboriginal peoples in Canada are being “pushed... to the edge of economic, cultural and political extinction”. Notice the advised use of the word "pushed".

You seem John, to be "pushing", by speaking in the same disdainful, monocultural language that created and perpetuate the injustices. Deprivation is not some sort of legalic hiccup: it is the consequence of evil done.

Here's a salient statement:

“[There is] gross disparity between Aboriginal people and the majority of Canadians with respect to Covenant rights.

"There has been little or no progress in the alleviation of social and economic deprivation among Aboriginal people.

"In particular, the Committee is deeply concerned at the shortage of adequate housing, the endemic mass unemployment and the high rate of suicide, especially among youth in the Aboriginal communities. Another concern is the failure to provide safe and adequate drinking water to Aboriginal communities on reserves… almost a quarter of Aboriginal household dwellings require major repairs for lack of basic amenities.” 

— United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
Concluding Observations on Canada, December 1998

Should we reply that their citizenship is a bit complicated, so screw 'em? Even though it is the Governement of Canada and Canadians who created the complexities in the firtd place. If there's no malice in all of this, there is some enormously inept government, not to mention a deep moral chasm..

From where I am, the Harper government, which can not be described as a conservative government in its rush to destroy many aspects of Canada, is consistently working towards creating a Canada that fits the agenda of a Republican minority in the US.  He seems set on destroying or weakening every source of resistance to that agenda.

More and more, his apology given in the House of Commons is appearing to be extremely hypocritical.

Hi MikePaterson,

If that is how you are reading my posts Mike there is very little to be gained by my participating furnther.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Sorry, John. I thought you were talking about the current Government's attitudes, not your own… how did you read my comment?

If YOU think there's no evil involved in Canada's treatment of indigenous peoples, then we do have nothing in common. I have no hesitation in judging this and previous Governments' actions (and inactions), their excuses, their duplicity, their typical callous want of compassion, their approriative zeal and their promotion of misinformation.

The  difficulty with this thread is not the information provided.

Rather, there is too much information to address in one thread.

I do not have the time or energy to separate the various Bills into seperate threads for analysis and discussion.

If someone can do this, then I think we can can have some meaningful discussions.

Your comment pretty well sums up EVERYBODY's biggest problem with the "Omnibus" approach to legislation, and why there are protests: all sorts issues are entangled in an opaque, confusing document that makes deliberative debate near impossible. 

Yes, Mike.  Obfuscation and all kinds of informal fallacies at play.

On a personal note, I do have time to read through and analyse the Bills, but I have classes now and will not be online as much.... except for late evening/early morning.  It does not mean that I will not be paying attention, it  means that I will not post as much now that I am back in classes. 

I am suggesting that if someone could separate out each Bill/proposed Bill, then we could have some meaningful discourse about each; informative, challenging, and perhaps even spurring RL action. 

Hi MikePaterson,

The following is not directed at the current Government it is directed solely at me.

I don't believe I have addressed anything particularly native in a disdainful manner.  I have relayed that I do not think that the relationship of Aboriginals and the Federal Government is particularly clear and I do believe that lack of clarity to get in the way of some concerns.

I have not said what that relationship should be (though I hope whatever it is considered to be would be positive) and whatever that relationship is considered to be shapes how consultation should happen.

I don't believe I have spoken in a monocultural language as I have pointed out that the relationship between Aboriginals and the Federal Government is not even something that all Aboriginals have reached a consensus on.

I have not claimed that evil has not been done.  There is, as far as I am concerned, notthing that I have written which suggests that I don't think evil has been done.  As far as what you read in my posts with respect to tone I'm not taking responsibility for that.  I know what I have said and I know where it comes from.  

Grace and peace to you.

John