That seems reasonable to me.

Here's a feed from Ottawa…

It sounds reasonable to me also.

What the hell makes you think 1,300,000 First Nation people agree on this list? Does your upbringing in New Zealand make you an expert in Canadian First Nation affairs? I didn't think so.
I'm getting pretty sick of pompous windbags like you telling me what I want!

MIke didn't create this list, alta. It's a report of the list that the chiefs are going to Harper with. You may not like the list, but don't shoot the messenger. Go talk to the First Nations leadership.

(And if Mike would add the citation for where he got the list, that might be clearer.)

I do like your point though. Not every native supports Idle No More and maybe we need to hear from those natives who aren't supporting it as well as though who do.

Mendalla

What I don't get, by the way, is the insistence on the G-G's presence.There is simply no point in the chiefs negotiating with Johnson because he can't do anything other than be a middle man. The PM is the one with power here so his direct involvement should be enough.

Mendalla

The list was put together by AFN (Assembly of First Nations): it's what they took to the meeting.

A lot of chiefs opted out of the meeting but, among the people I know in Ontario, the split is not so much about what is sought but the impact of differences about what the meeting should have been and how it should have been constituted. The government loves these divide and rule moments. 

Expecting scores of cultures and hundreds of communities to arrive at unanimous decisions is stupid. Of course each has its own view. How many non-aboriginal Canadians back Harper? It was less than 40 percent the last time I looked.

But the AFN list does give non aboriginal Canadians some sense of the core issues and the media are not doing this. They are sensationalising the anger and frustration without explaining the reasons for it. These are issues that will not be resolved by fanning the anger.

I getting sick of the emotionalism and ignorance about these issues of the sort wonderfully exhibited by alta's knuckles-in-the-dust outburst.

the list is a start. But it's missing a core. Rebuilding (or inventing) a culture is no easy task - and it's not made easier by the wide dispersals created by our reserve system. The original cultures are gone. For the most part, they can't come back because the world they formed in no longer exists. And there never was a universal First Nations culture in the first place.

I certainly support the requests. But I don't see a solution in them. There has to be an economic base. There has to be opportunity. And that will take generations to build. The best we can hope for is that the requests create a basis for a solution.

Press coverage has been lazy, sloppy -and often misleading.

My (limited) understanding is that the Treaties, as originally drafted, are with the Crown. That's why the GG, as the Queen's representative, needs to be involved. The relationship is older than the current constitution.

I could be wrong though. Maybe someone else can shed light.

Offiicially they are with the Crown yes.  But the practical reality is that they are with the government acting on behalf of the Crown.

Graeme:

I think you'll find that there IS a coherent living culture today, It is not the ancient culture but has continued to adapt, adjust, assimilate and empower despite successive hard shocks from dominant cultures.

There are studies like 'Spirituality and attempted suicide among American Indians' (by Eva Marie Garroutte et al. at the Universities of Washington and Colorado and U.S. National Institutes of Health), for example, that have shown commitment to cultural spirituality is significantly associated with reduced levels of suicide: natives with with a high level of cultural spiritual orientation are less likely of attempt suicide that those with low level of cultural spiritual orientation (or non-Native s[irituality, including Christianity). This finding persisted after simultaneous adjustments for age, gender, education, alcohol and substance abuse and psychological distress. Other work credits traditional native healing approaches with successfully addressing behavioural issues around problems of crime, aggression, dependencies and recidivism.

There's a book from UBC — Healing Traditions: The Mental Health of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada — that outlines the emergence of culturally responsive approaches to services and health promotion. It covers stuff like the impacts of colonialism, sedentarization, and forced assimilation; the importance of land for indigenous identity and an ecocentric self; notions of space and place as part of the cultural matrix of identity and experience… and processes of healing and spirituality as sources of resilience.

This is academic stuff and it doesn't reach far into the social and political world — yet.

And there are many, many Native people who have achieved in the dominant culture despite the dominant culture. And there are many many Native people who credit their culture with enabling them to succeed. I'm peripherally involved with Douglas Cardinal's efforts to have the late William Commanda's magnificent vision implemented on Victoria Island in the Ottawa River. Douglas has had a hard and challenging personal and professional life but has designed some of Canda's most oustanding architecture.

Graeme, you say it will take "generations to build". I don't think anyone doubts that it will take generations to set things right, but that is going to take some deep shifts on the part of non aboriginal culture, not further religuishing of culture by Native and aboriginal peoples. It has taken generations to screw things up; so of course it will take generations to repair the damage. But it can be done; it must be done. And it is non-indigenous Canadains who have the power, the moral duty, the civil imperative to create a space and climate in which principles of justice, mutual respect and compassion are the norm. 

That is the a necessary work of all of us Canadaians, not just some. All of us.

And OUR formative Canadian culture is the one that has to find itself. It is failing. We have an economy not a culture, and it echoes with spiritual emptiness. We ALL need a bit of healing.

Oh, i fully agree with you.

For the best reporting I have seen on what's happening, go to rabble.ca, and hit its blogs. There's one by Karl Nerenberg (today).

I knew Karl slightly at CBC - his brother was my producer. Karl retired after a very distinguished news media career, and still works out of Ottawa where he spent many years covering the government. He has also had considerable experience among native peoples.

The blog is not only well-informed; it's also a blistering attack on commentaries by Christy Blatchford and Jeffrey Simpson. In general, reporting on Idle No More has been ignorant, lazy, sloppy, and even racist.

Karl's blog is a useful corrective.

One of the hardest things for us to grasp is that Canada is a very racist country. It always has been. We sometimes make the deep South look alarmingly liberal.

First the list makes sense.

But as the demands to meet with GG the demands show how complex the issues are, as some natives have put it is also an attack on the Chief of ANF- a power struggle.  This point does not mean the issues are not real. For they are urgent

This is why the parliament is the proper place to meet with, that is the government and the GG is only symbolic.  Yes, the crown signed the treadies but our form of government evolved so the crown is now parliament.  Yes, before some get upset, the GG is symbol of that but has evolved so does not make laws. only signs those which have passed pariiament

My question is there still a hint of being colonized in the demand to meet the GG?  While I don't trust Harper, the GG offered a nice out by holding a reception for the chiefs.  My hope is the government is held to their promises and the ANF leadership as I watched on CBC showed great leadership.

So who's Canada's Head of State, Pan? 

Why would it not be appropriate for the Head of State to be present when the issue on the table is the contitutional future of Canada. and the relationship between founding treaty partners?

In embarking on discussions of this sort, would not the presence of the Head of State help to establish a context of mutual respect and even a bit of gravitas. As a Canadian non-aboriginal, I can see a seemliness about the Head of State giving up an afternoon for national dignity's sake.

The discussion, the issues need to be moved to a higher plane than poliitical bickering and the same old Government oportunism. Sitting down with our present PM hardly seems like an invitation to a bit of soul-baring on a level field of play.

The signatories are a bit over the place and the numbered treaties are ALL post-Confederation: Treaties 1 & 2, 1870s? Treaty 9 (James Bay) goes back to, what, 1905 Treaty 11? 1921?

But these all link back to the Royal Proclamation by King George III in 1763 that established a basis of governance for the North American territories ceded by France to Britain in the Treaty of Paris.

Later Canada extended to indigenous peoples in ts later boundaries — outside the deded area  — the same sorts of rights  as those of set out in the old Royal Proclamation of 1763.

Canada's Constitution, 1982, includes something along the lines of a guarntee that nothing in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms will diminish the rights and freedoms of aboriginal peoples that are recognised by the Royal Proclamation. This included stuff like guarantees of security over their ancestral lands.

The ienduring reference to King George's statement in the Constitution Act, 1982, perpetuates the issue of what George meant… how his words should be intepreted and this is the loophole that needs to be closed. But a simple. straightforward wrapping up of it these days has implications for the survival of aboriginal communities and cultures and for the distribution of massive anounts of primary resource income.

I think the Governor General might have ventured outdoors to acknowledge that there might be a problem here.

Mike you raise good points, and some treadies are actually before confederantion.

Part of our problem is some us, both native and none, see the GG as symbolic and to arrive at land claims solutions etc are with the different level of govtmts.  Some are purely provincial and other aspects like the indian act are federal.

To change them means discussion with those who have the power to change the laws.  Governments federal and provinically.  The GG has no power other than symbolic.

Yes the 1982 words place the federal govtmnt as those whom must honor the past, not the GG.  It is called an evolution of power.  We do no service to hold ideas that actually have no political import in the process of dealing with our shameful past.

So the 1982 consitution places  on the present, the government, a covenant that was establised.  But it is actually the 1982 constitution that guarntees the rights of the natives.  It only traces a history and the guarntee is not what king george did but what we did in 1982.

It is important to know where the guarntee actually is within the rule of law and it is the 1982 consitution which calls Canada to honor the treatries.

One view is to have the GG there is to give power when none is there and it confuses the actual power structure that can solve the issues.  AS It as it was the PM and the chiefs of the AFN that should work on a solution,

For better worse we are left with the political process and as the internal fight with the chiefs show, it must be solved politically.

I quess in the end it is magical thinking to have the GG there, but that is a debating point.

If the discussion is to between peoples of different cultures who, let us talk hypothetically, respected eact other, would we not all be willing to bend a few protocols and a few procedural niceties to draw closer to each other and demonstrate goodwill? 

The legalism should not too rigidly contain a discussion of this sort, where values are the first real basis of discussion.

I know some people like to do it that way. The Haahi Weteriana o Aoteroa id the Methodist Church of New Zealand. It is bi-cultural. Sue, my wife, trained and entered ministry there. A part of the training was in Maori language and protocol and presbyters were expected to be considerate of and competent in both cultures, even though congregations were predominantly non-Maori.

It's not that hard to accommodate a bit of mutual open-ness and it seemed to vent a few potential blow-ups before they happened. 

Who represented the Head of State when the treaties were first signed?  I know the monarch was not there.  Was teh GG?   (Honestly I do not know and have not had a chance to look it up yet)

ANd I am not actually convinced that nation to nation status was the true intent of the original treaties (at least on the "white" side) nor am I convinced that it is in the best interest of First Nations folk today to be treated as a separate nation--not that being treated as Ethnic Canadians has done them a world of good either,  I am in agreement with John (in another thread) that the nature of the relationship (and also what is the best form of relationship) needsw to be determined if forward progress is to be made.

Here's a quote from Rabble.ca as suggested by graeme. Sorry I'm so pessimistic but I just see a number of tired old meetings ahead with nothing much accomplished, same old. ...same old....and the possibility of violence on top of it ....... Perhaps I'm just tired and confused having read and seen too much the past few days. I did have hopes. I still have hopes Theresa Spence will give up her hunger strike and I pray that no harm comes to her.

Karl Nerenberg blog :

It is worth remembering, however, that the catalyst for the current round of Aboriginal militancy did not emerge out of any set of "radical" First Nations' demands. The catalyst was the Harper government's own radical attacks on the environment and First Nations’ rights in the two budget omnibus Bills, C-38 and C-45.

Even former Progressive Conservative ministers expressed outrage over Harper's stealth gutting of the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38. The new weakened fisheries measures provide for the protection only of so-called "economically important" species and open the door to massive fish habitat destruction.

Very few independent observers can justify -- or even explain -- the scrapping of the venerable Navigable Waters Act, buried in the fine print of Bill C-45. Most rivers and lakes in First Nations country (and elsewhere) now lack basic protection from roads, shoreline alteration, bridges and dams, protection they had for more than a century.

Virtually eliminating the federal role in environmental review of mega-projects, as a result of a package of measures sifted into C-38, makes little sense to anyone who has followed the history of such projects in Canada.

Interestingly, at the conclusion of Friday's Government-First Nations meeting, Atleo and Quebec Cree Grand Chief Matthew Coon-Come both said they thought they heard the Prime Minister say he might consider pulling back on some of the two omnibus bills' more outrageous measures.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan threw cold water on those pious hopes.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2013/01/day-protests-and-...

Thanks Stardust. I'm not too optimistic either. Harper's fave strategy is to divide & conquer. The natural divisions will be exploited, and coupled with the ugly, rampant racism, all he has to do is stand back and watch the train wreck.
Yay

I realize for sure now that the legendary Canadian tolerance (forget acceptance or celebration) is a colossal myth.

There is so much rage, lack of basic education and ugliness, it could just as well be the deep south.
Oh Canada....

Ninjafaery.....!!!!...Yes, we're ugly.....there's no doubt about it.

Last week Spence responded re financial  allegations:

Spence said she has been the victim of false statements about her reserve’s handling on money. “It goes out of our reserve,” she said.

“For example, if there’s housing, we have to hire contractors, we have to order the materials from out of town and the shipment, we pay tax on that.

“We hire lawyers ... consultants — that’s where the money goes.

 http://www.therecord.com/news/canada/article/868050--first-nations-protest-descends-on-parliament-hill

Does anyone have thoughts about Frances Widdowson's book... "Aboriginal Industry to be Disrobed" ?  Its about the largely self-serving and self-perpetuating army of lawyers, bureaucrats, consultants, anthropologists and native band leaders who profit from native grievance, native dependency, and identity politics.

I haven't read it with the exception of excerpts on the net. Many people writing comments appear to agree with it.

It further appears that Chief Theresa Spence talks along the same lines herself as quoted above?

Edit : link not working

???

http://www.therecord.com/news/canada/article/868050--first-nations-prote...

There's what we need: anothher old white man who has come to this country to tell me I'm too ignorant to know what's best for me.  Thanks, Mike but we've been trying that for 500 years, and it doesn't work.

I don't presume to speak for all Indians (I'm non-status) but do you want to know what this Indian wants?  I want to be treated the same as everyone else.  No more; no less.

I want the Indian act repealed.  I want every piece of legislation that singles me out repealed.  Every sane intelligent person on the planet know that the foundation for a free and democratic society is that everyone is treated equally before the law.  If we all know this, why aren't we trying to practise it?  You just can't have legislation that treats some people differently because of race.  You can't.  

Graeme is right (God, I hate that phrase).  The original cultures are gone.  But that doesn't mean we can't remember them, and honour them.  There is a wonderfully vibrant and healthy Ukranian culture in Alberta and Saskatchewan.  It survives because there are people that want it to survive.  The same will happen to my Cree culture; it will survive because we want it too.  It won't be the same as it was 500 years ago.  Then again, no culture is the same today as it was 500 years ago.

Hi ninjafaery,

It is important for Canada as a nation not to fall into the temptation to lay this particular strategy, in this particular context at the feet of Stephen Harper.

If any other Prime Minister had been oppossed to this action then we'd likely have settled the outstanding issues and corrected flawed processes years ago.  That Canada didn't means that Harper isn't inventing anything new so much as improving (dubious connotation) upon the process Canada has already availed itself of.

As much as I am not a fan of Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party of Canada, they are merely a symptom of a larger disease and not the actual disease themselves.  Scapegoating the PM and the Conservative Party serves no purpose.  The Liberals before them and the Progressive Conservatives before them employed the same tactic wherever possible.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Actually, panentheism, the Crown is not Parliament. The Crown is a part of Parliament. Parliament is Commons, Senate and Queen.

The phrase "the Crown" really means the state. Treaty making power in our system rests with the Crown, not Parliament, which is why Parliament doesn't have to ratify treaties. In practical terms, the Crown is represented by the government, which governs because it has the confidence of Parliament to do so. But Parliament is not the government and it's not the Crown.

It's my opinion that the First Nations are engaging in self-defeating behaviour with this insistence on wanting to involve the Governor-General. These are smart people. They know how the Canadian government works. Their position on this is doing nothing to advance their cause. Boiled down to its essence, the only way to move forward is for the government to accept and respect the treaties we have with the First Nations, and for the First Nations to accept and respect how Canada is governed.

Thanks Steve, you are more precise than I was not being precise but trying to make the point that the crown is the goverment and it was right for the PM to meet with the leaders of AFN. 

I like you second point as well.  I think the call for the GG is a mistake and does not address the crucial issues that we must deal with.  There is a naivite in some of the UCC comments and as one in the tradion of christian realism and pragmatics I want us to work at solving these issues and naivite does not help.  The problem we face is those of us who support the natives cannot raise questions because we get jumped on.  Some of the support reminds me of Job's friends.

@revjohn. I agree that these issues have a history. What I was referring to (should have been clearer) is the passing of bill c45, and all the treachery buried within it, which Mr. Harper can lay claim to.
Both the bill & the treachery.

Actually the 'treachery' resulted from using laws that apply to all aboriginal people even though they are covered by different treaties. One or a few First Nations asked for the freedom to carefully use their land as part of a long-term economic strategy.  What might be good for them is not necessarily good for other Nations. A replacement of the Indian Act by pieces of legislation specific to each treaty and to those who have yet to sign treaties seems like a possible route to go.

As to the environmental law changes, that look like treachery to all Canadians, especially those not yet born.

good analysis

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/What+First+Nations+people+wan...

I think the government and people of Canada need to quit being paternalistic.

It is easy to say all are equals and full citizenship.

I think the Canadian people need educated in order to acknowledge that aboriginal peoples have a unique legal and constitutional position.

Then, and perhaps only then,  we can ask why the government does what they do and know the answer.
 

Ask yourself what is the actual result of saying the children have grown up or the wards have the right to self determination or do not need Federal stamps of approval or things not being at the Feds discretion?

I am not sure how fiduciary responsibility or duty moves from a place of trustee to peoples becoming wards of the crown who are required to have formal representation by federal authorities in all their dealings. (One past example was needing "approval" to enlist in the Armed Forces)

If do know that if I managed someone's affairs entrusted to me this way I would be in jail. From conflict of interest to theft to skimming.... I would be up on charges, plain and simple.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0009-e.htm
This is where an immigant was sent to learn about Canada. Maybe more Canadians and especially Canadian politicians should be asked to read it.

So, IMO we do not stamp approval on what other people want or assume we can ask and get an answer that speaks for all people in that group.

This is where IMO you listen. Not sure we know how.....

The Indian Act has needed to go for a long time. It's a product of 19th century paternalism which works on the assumption that the First Nations are like children who need to be taken care of and controlled by others. 

One of the problems has been getting any sort of consensus from the individual First Nations and the government as to what should replace it. Some want it amended; some want it repealed. There's no consensus. Well, I think actually there's a consensus from all parties that it's a bad piece of legislation, but no consensus on what to do with it.

Alta, your reflection on the Indian Act and policies is the same as my friend and co-worker who is status.  Basically, I am just agreeing with you that there are those who don't agree at all with teh direction.  It is why I do not presume to even to begin to understand the levels of complexity involved in this one.

******************************************

All:  , " Fundamentally transformed fiscal relationship guaranteeing fairness and sustainability and removing all arbitrary caps and burdens on the current inefficient, ineffective and unfair funding relationship for First Nation programs and services."

-- sorry, what does that mean.  What presumption is there that sustainability should be done based on what was there at the time of the treaty writing and if so, what version and what post-agreements are taken account..

  Crap, we can't guarantee sustainability with anyone, whether it be a autoworker in Ontario, a potash worker  in Sask or a fisherman in Newfoundland, so why would we presume that you can guarantee sustainability anywhere, and if you did, how would you write it up? 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Stephen+Maher+Difficult+days+ahead+g...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/First+Nations+view+Crown/7808567/story...

This is another view. The question is is this view in the interests of some or all?  Further how real or universal is this?

re the powers of the Governor-General - nobody knows what they are. There is a view held by most Canadian historians (and first expounded by a very forceful Canadian historian) that the Governor-General has no choice but to sign legislation.

This is based on a single incident in the late 1920s when the GG refused to agree to dissolve parliament when the prime minister asked him to. The GG's reason was that the government had not been defeated in the house. So he turned to opposition leader Arthur Meighen to form a government.. Meighen failed, so the GG had to grant a dissolution.Mackenzie King twisted it into an issue of Canadian freedom - and won. The theory is that this constituted a precedent forever..

I see no reason why that should be true The reality is that the GG is still free to sign or to deny - and I would love to see Harper's robo call party cope with that.

The GG can refuse and/or resign.

But Johnston won't do either. Harper likes to have trained dogs around him.

So, no super strength? Laser eyes? Flying?
When you started about GG's powers, I was really hoping for something more

I think that how, "The Indian Act needs to go" is heard depends upon who says it.

There is a difference when a person protected under that Act says it and when the people in the Act who are supposed to be doing the protecting say it.

Both may agree it is an obstacle and that be where agreement actually ends.

Saying it is outdated, paternalistic, etc... people can and do agree on.

What I hear, listening to non-aboriginals peoples, is "repeal" or "too firmly entrenched to repeal".
 

Listening to First Nation, Inuit and Metis peoples, what I hear is that they want a process in place to "replace' it  with something else... like a Treaty Recognition and Implementation Act.

Expecting aboriginal peoples to give up tax free status, education... and not get a piece of the pie regarding land and resources is well...

So, "Scrap it" or "Ditch it" and "Modernize it" are two vastly different things or can be.

If we think the Act only imposes restrictions not imposed on other communities and other people we miss that it also provides benefits not provided to all communities or all peoples.

This is why there is conflict between among people under the Act.

Many aboriginal people see repeal as a final act of assimiliation. They become just another Canadian in just another Canadian town.

So, we listen....

Unless we still want to be paternalistic and tell the kids how it will be or how it should be.....

i've been listening to CBC radio one and i finally got to hear from the alleged creator of the Idle No More 'movement' and got some perspective that it is, indeed, exactly like the OWS 'movement', made up of many different people with many different issues...

it was the brainchild of a young woman indian and then has been adopted by various Leaders and people around the country...

some of them i find to be quite militant

i chuckled when the young woman said that what is happening now with Chief Spence etc reminds her of what an elder told her that this is what happens when Leaders take over a movement :3

again, real democracy, real participation in our world, co-creating

i do hope that the tanks don't have to be called in against the terrorists, though; some people take their world too seriously and fly planes into buildings and poke out an eye...

Things have become more complicated.  There is now an internal power struggle within the leadership. The chief of the ANF is under attack.

This makes it hard for the rest of us.  We see the demands as reasonable and we must address the problems we have helped create.  Having said this, do we have to stand aside - not support the different sides nor Spence.  We can demand that the government deal honestly with the ANF and its leadership but is that is as far as we can go?

That is one of the problems. In dealing with First Nations we're not dealing with a monolith. We're dealing with First Nations - plural. They don't all have the same demands, expectations, goals, problems, etc. And there are First Nations people who see the Assembly of First Nations as having nothing to do with representing them. It's a hugely complicated situation.

Question for graeme - a serious one. I'd like his opinion as a historian. I hear your point about the powers of the Governor-General. However, as you say, most historians would say that the G-G basically has to sign legislation (and basically go along with the PM, as long as what the PM recommends is legal.) My impression is that most constitutional experts that I've read would tend to agree with that. So, my question is, when does the weight of expert opinion for many decades become an accepted precedent in a system of government where so much is based on precedent and convention? Serious question. I'm not arguing the point. I'd like your opinion as a historian.

Alta, you said:

[/quote]

There's what we need: anothher old white man who has come to this country to tell me I'm too ignorant to know what's best for me.  Thanks, Mike but we've been trying that for 500 years, and it doesn't work.

[/quote]

-------

All I was doing was reporting word for word the Assembly of First nations' list of the requests they put to the federal government because they weren't at that point being reported.

I think you'll find I'm about the only old white guy on thethread who's NOT telling you what's best for you . All I've given views about is the position and actions/inaction of non-aboriginal Canadians.

I just want to report that despite all the hootin' and hollorin' about Harper he is doing something! I understand the prov. gov't is needed at the Ottawa table when discussing treaties. Mc Ginty - sp- wasn't at the meeting  last Fri. altho' Spence had requested him.

Jan. 13/13

The Harper Government will invest $330.8 million over two years to sustain progress made to build and renovate water and wastewater infrastructure on reserve and to support the development of a long-term strategy to improve water quality in First Nation communities.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1358080285654/1358080429083

(January 11, 2013) –

The Harper Government announced today that eight more First Nations will sign onto the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management (FNLM), enabling them to begin a process to opt out of the 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act and assume greater control over their reserve land and resources.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1357912235317/1357912385110

Jan. 11/13

The agreed upon agenda items for the meeting focused on treaty implementation and economic development. To that end, the Prime Minister agreed to: A high-level dialogue on the treaty relationship and comprehensive claims. The Prime Minister agreed with the need to provide enhanced oversight from the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office on Aboriginal matters. And the Prime Minister agreed to debrief the members of his Cabinet and government on today's discussions and agreed to meet with AFN National Chief Atleo in the coming weeks to review next steps.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1357954807312/1357954929636

Note: Sorry, I'm unable to format paragraphs unless I click  edit.... which I do.

Alta, if you don't mind me asking, why are you considered a non status Indian? Is it something that bill C-3(2011) didn't address?

Pan, I think we can listen and learn.....before we demand anything.  In other words, how do I know that the person sitting down and communicating is not dealing fairly with the person/people around the table?  If I hear one voice of dissent, should I listen to it, how do I learn to understand the power plays in a culture or organization that I am not a part of.   (In my workplace, it is the same thing, I have to learn to understand that just because one person vehemently complains about something, I need to seek out others to find out if he represents the whole, or if by responding to his request I am actually doing more damage. I also need to speak with that person and understand the core challenge, ie is it a unique characteristic of their environment, are there related issues, is it just the person is really isolated/alone.

The first part of anything is to understand, and not just understanding locally, but understanding regionally.

so...I can assist someone with whatever network I have so that they can discuss on a more level path (ie, i can help someone get their message out, or I can help them get food on a walk if they are outside of their own network).

What I can't do is presume the voice is accurate or represents all....

Note about the provincial gov't being absent from the meeting...?...unless some did attend....?.....I don't know. In Spence's province the Ont. gov't is definitely involved in the De Beers mine issues.

I think I will be turned to "ashes and dust........" before we see any progress. So many threads....I'm not sure where to post!

According to a former professor of political science who has been watching Canada’s relations with First Nations for 50 years, there can be no change to the treaty relationship unless the provincial government is at the table during discussions between aboriginal leaders and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Now, with the discovery of billions of dollars in mineral wealth in the ground around James Bay — Treaty 9 territory, which was supposed to be “shared” by the three treaty partners — the stakes are high.

“The province does all the hydroelectric, all the mining leases, they do the environmental protection up there — all that stuff is Ontario and they’re not at the table. And, they’re getting away with it,” said Russell.

But, Premier Dalton McGuinty, who Spence has insisted should attend Friday’s meeting, says his focus is on education.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ring+Fire+brings+aboriginal+issues+for...

Edit : sorry, the link is not available.

For a long time, a Native woman lost her "indian" staus if she married someone without "Indian status". If she had a child with a non-status Native father, the child lost was not legally "Indian". 

It was a way of reducing the "Indian" population.

Now (according to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada):

The Indian Act defines eligibility for Indian Status (i.e. Registered Indians). The Indian Register is the official record identifying all Status Indians in Canada.

You are eligible for registration if:

You were entitled to registration prior to the changing of the Indian Act on April 17, 1985;

You lost your Indian Status as a result of your marriage to a non-Indian man (s. 12(1)(b)), including enfranchisement upon your marriage to a non-Indian man (s. 109(2));

Your mother and father's mother did not have status under the Indian Act, before their marriage and you lost your status at the age of 21 (s.12 (1)(a)(iv) – referred to commonly as the double-mother rule);

Your registration was successfully protested on the grounds that your father did not have status under the Indian Act, however your mother had status;

You lost your registration because you or your parents applied to give up registration and First Nation membership through the process known as "enfranchisement";

or
You are a child of persons listed in 1 to 5 above;
You may also be eligible for registration if only one of your parents is eligible to be registered under Section 6(1) of the Indian Act.

Great to have a government department tell you who and what you are.... saves a lot of anxiety and soul seraching.

Stardust while you are correct about the prov.  That is the second stage movement.  This a process question.

Pinga I agree with you point. However, what I was raising is, as steve points, when there are many voices at the table and you quickly identify with one ( or group) are we not actually making the situation worse.

I havw been reflecting on the church involvement and the rush to stand with Spence may actually be counter to what we desire, and in fact, make the situation worse.

I can pray for her, but I cannot go an be in solidarity with her.  I can lift up her concerns and the concerns of the wider native groups, but If I have a official position I cannot go and stand with her as if I am supporting her.  I can see that a fast ( which this is) is a good position, but I may also raise questions from an ethical point of view, that it should be over.

If there is a power struggle within AFN should we now stand back and let them work it our, rather than choosing sides. which I see happening in some church circles.  This is where  we absolulitize a position and it becomes moralistic rather than ethica.

Now when I raise these points some those I have been in solidarity with now accuse me of joining the evil empire. rather than understanding our role is ethical rather than absolute moralism.

Hi Panentheism,

I expect that is symptomatic of the various power struggles present in several First Nations Groups between the "Elected" councils and the "Traditional" councils.  It is very much an issue of who speaks for whom.

Respectfully it isn't like we are standing aside, it is like we have been pushed to the side.  The Canadian Government is somewhat powerless to negotiate with parties that will not be recognized by the people they claim to represent.  So until the internal turmoil within each Six Nation group is settled it is impossible to know who should rightly be sitting at the table.

Even if we push the Canadian Government to settle all outstanding land claims there will be movements within several First Nations Groups who reject anything that the "Elected" leadership has negotiated.  It would be similar to my wife and I wishing to buy your house and then the two of us bringing different offers to the table.  You wouldn't know which was the legitimate offer.

Maybe.  Still, even if the Feds were at the table and ready to pony up if we do not know who is supposed to be at the other side of the table negotiations will be difficult.  The Feds could, I suppose, state that they will only deal with "Elected" councils though I don't suspect that will wash in First Nations Groups where the "Traditional" council has formed a parallel government to the "Elected" council.

Acting in Good Faith can only promote the well-being of all treaty partners.  Leaking documents is not Good Faith practice, it is poisoning the well and it looks like it has had an impact.

Grace and peace to you.

John