In Response to “The Algonquin Claim, What's at stake, who's

involved” by TIM NAUMETZ, The Ottawa Citizen, Published: Sunday, July

08, 2007

Ahhhh! Discussing Aboriginal policy at the yacht club. No offence to

those at the yacht club but it is kinda like the “good old boys” at the
exclusive men’s gun club discussing women’s right to vote during the
suffrage movement in Canada. Remember the right to vote for women was not
“granted” in Canada until 1917 (except in Quebec, where it was postponed until 1940) ,
or sorta like sitting down between wire taps with FBI director J. Edgar
Hoover to discuss Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights movement of the
1960s.

Why? Because we are currently witnessing the beginning of a social

rights movement within Canada and lots of people in Ottawa are going
to be upset about that. The potential geographical region for most of
the intellectual and political power clash will happen here, along the
shores of the Ottawa River, around the nation’s capital city, and will
involve the Algonquin Land Claim negotiations.

A Black woman takes a seat on the bus. Innocent choir singers are burned to death in
their church. A civil rights leader is assassinated, or hung, an unarmed protester is shot to
death by police. New social movements appear sudden but they are the result of years of
accumulated oppression, frustration, and abuse. Seemingly overnight, a previously
unrecognized social problem becomes a topic of conversation discussed at the coffee
houses and the office water coolers, even the yacht club. The recognition of a social
justice movement usually begins with a highly publicized, shocking incident, referred to
as a “trigger event”, a flash point, followed by a non-violent action campaign that
includes large rallies and dramatic civil disobedience. As previously suppressed
information is released civil actions begin to happen in local communities around the
country and an event becomes a movement.

Social movements are collective actions in which the populace is alerted, educated, and
mobilized, over years and decades, to challenge the powerholders and the whole society
to redress social problems or grievances and restore critical social values. By involving
the populace directly in the political process, social movements also foster the concept of
government of, by, and for the people. The power of movements is directly proportional
to the forcefulness with which the grassroots exert their discontent and demand change.
The central issue of social movements, therefore, is the struggle between the movement
and the powerholders to win the hearts (sympathies), minds (public opinion), and active
support of the great majority of the populace, which ultimately holds the power to either
preserve the status quo or create change…. (http://www.activistmagazine.com

The people at the yacht club are talking because they sense the beginnings of a social
justice movement that could seriously affect their positions of power and privilege. The
very control of their access to the river could be affected!!!
Canadian Aboriginal resistance should be seen as a complex social justice movement far
more radical than the Black civil rights movement of the United States because it not
only involves the restructuring of government policy regarding a particular group but
challenges the status quo concerning the very rights to title of the land and access and
control of natural resources. It is about power. It is no wonder that such elaborate
strategies have been developed and implemented to preserve the current power structures.
Understood in its proper context the actual decolonisation of the Canadian Aboriginal
people is of monumental significance. It is imperative that it be critically examined and
responsibly monitored. It is equally important that the Aboriginal people affected be
adequately informed. Successful decolonisation should not be seen as a threat to the
broader Canadian people but actually as a tremendous asset because if handled
responsibly it preserves the rights of people to remain in control of their natural resources
for their own continued sustainability rather than be held hostage for their basic needs by
profiteering corporations and bureaucracies. In essence, true Aboriginal resistance is a
grassroots movement about resource distribution to ensure power remains with the
common people, regardless of race or ethnicity.

It should always be remembered that during times of social change those in positions of
power and privilege do not voluntarily give up that power, but instead struggle to
maintain the status quo. Those in positions of corporate and/or political power attempt to
maintain control by controlling the masses, the public, by controlling information and
policy. The chief means by which the powerholders maintain unjust policies and keep
them hidden from the public is by having a two-track system of “official” vs. “operative”
doctrines and policies. (These are Noam Chomsky's terms.) (Political Duplicity) Official
policies are fictitious policies which are given to the general public. They are explained in
high-sounding moral terms, such as democracy and freedom, or even “national interests”.

Operative policies, on the other hand, are the government's actual policies, carefully are
kept hidden from the general public because they would offend or violate widely held
Canadian values. One of Canada’s most cherished values are the “Rules of Law”. Most
ordinary Canadian citizens are a good bunch, and genuinely believe that Canada is doing
a fine job looking after its Aboriginal population. Unbiased exposure to the fraudulent
details of Canadian Aboriginal policy would upset most citizens because they would
recognize that Canadian Aboriginal policy is inconsistent with the law. Neither the
members at the yacht clubs, the lawyers of the Indian industry, the Indian Act band
leaders, the tribal councils or the federal bureaucrats want the general public to know the
facts. They work hard to suppress the truth and are rewarded for facilitating the fallacy.

They strive hard to ensure that the general public does not gain a comprehensive
understanding of the facts. The status quo is maintained until a dramatic trigger event.
The death of Dudley George and the resulting Ipperwash Inquiry are one such event,
drawing attention to Canada’s severely flawed Aboriginal policy, including land claim
negotiations.

The circumstances surrounding Dudley George’s death have drawn attention to several
important areas of concern. The Ipperwash Report affirms that Canadian Aboriginal
policy is often inconsistent with the law, and often criminalizes the actions of those
attempting to draw attention to those inconsistencies. Dudley George’s death also exposes
the corruption rampant amongst Aboriginal communities and the internalized oppression
imposed by the Aboriginal “elite”. Indian Act band leaders are paid to promote the
agendas of the powerholders rather than the rights of their people.
Dudley George has brought to the public radar the awareness that Aboriginal issues are
far more complex than we originally thought, and that there is now a deeply entrenched
internal collusion to oppress amongst the Aboriginal community.

“The desire to retain their positions of power and privilege has motivated some Indian
leaders to engage in a deception of their people. The deception is this: that by changing
the incumbents of the colonial institutional structures on the reserves from white to red
they will have achieved Indian government. Some leaders delude lower-class Indians and
perhaps themselves by alluding to vague plans for grafting some traditional customs and
practices onto the existing colonial structures. The effect is that many Indians assume
that, under Indian government they will be governed and live in accordance with
traditional philosophies and principles. ….. The ruling elites are understandably reluctant
to surrender the status and privileges they have gained, and they feel threatened by the
envy and hostility directed at their status, wealth, and power by the deprived members of
their communities. All of these factors create a strong self-interest in the ruling elite class
to strengthen their control over the existing colonial political and bureaucratic structures,
rather than reform them.” (Professor Mennon.Bolt).

We are now aware of the Aboriginal power elites.

Once a powerholder’s policy becomes exposed to the public scrutiny, drawing negative
media attention, the powerholders are then forced to switch to aggressive “crisis
management” strategies. They will employ various tactics in this campaign, including
public propaganda and scapegoating. There will a sudden saturation of the media with
interviews and articles promoting and defending the status quo and referring to the
political and social dissidents as radicals, stragglers, squatters, or splinter groups.

If public suspicion is still not calmed the powerholders will shift to a position of apparent
reconciliation by appearing to be involved in a resolution process through the
development of promises, new rhetoric, appointing studies and commissions, and
negotiations. While there may be the appearance of reform a close examination of policy
and power dynamics will expose no real practical change. If public concern still exists the
powerholders will then give the appearance of genuine change and will appear to make
minor changes through reforms, compromises, and cooptation of opponents. One of the
most sophisticated mechanisms for maintaining control and the status quo while
appearing to respect the public cry for change is the creation of a well-crafted opposition
facsimile.

This is an old trick in aboriginal land claim negotiations. The powerholders search out or
create Aboriginal leaders willing to agree to their terms at the expense of their own
people. Greedy heads of family hunting bands replaced the rightful heads of state in
Aboriginal communities in negotiations and we live with the legacy of the Indian Act
band.

It can be expected then that those most readily touted as “legitimate” within Canada’s
Aboriginal policy should be viewed with great critical suspicion. It should be assumed by
a thinking Canadian public then that those most promoted as being very reasonable, or
most agreeable, in negotiations can be assumed to be a well designed opposition
facsimile. Often, in Aboriginal communities in Canada at this time the most vocal
minority are those still politically independent and genuinely concerned about legal rights
or progressive social change.

Another tactic is to draw attention to some extremist group, lacking legitimacy even
amongst the traditional Aboriginal community, yet appearing confusingly similar to the
social activist initiators, in an attempt to further erode the public’s confidence in the
social movement and investigation and sabotage the genuine activist’s attempts.

Complex isn’t it?

The recent article published by Mr. Nuametz rests solely on quotes from those employed
to promote and maintain the status quo. Mr. Potts is the paid employee of an Indian Act
band and their collusionists, none of them making public their justifications to the claim
even amongst their own people. Mr. Aitken, as nice as he is, is a paid federal employee,
of the internationally criticized INAC, a bureaucrat with the ministry responsible for the
design and implementation of the notorious Indian Act and Canada’s infamous
Comprehensive Land Claim Negotiations Policy. He has a job to do, and it is not make
certain the Algonquins get the best deal possible. The United Nations Human
Rights Committee (HRC) following its review of Canada in December,
2005 states: “The Committee, while noting with interest Canada’s
undertakings towards the establishment of alternative policies to
extinguishment of inherent aboriginal rights in modern treaties,
remains concerned that these alternatives may in practice amount to
extinguishment of aboriginal rights.” The HRC recommended that
Canada “re-examine its policy and practices to ensure they do not result
in extinguishment of inherent aboriginal rights.” The policy is fraught
with political duplicity. The recent Ipperwash Report affirms “Land claims
are unfair and inefficient, largely ineffective, painfully slow and unfair”…They also lack
accountability and transparency.”

Jim Prentice is currently federal minister of Indian Affairs and a former head of the
Indian Claims Commission of Canada. A lawyer by trade, he is recognized by his peers as
an expert in land claims negotiations, but for who? Us?. Mr. Prentice travelled to South
Africa twice as an expert adviser on how to protect property rights, (powerholders), in
that country’s new constitution. He is also Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status
Indians which would seem a conflict of interest. He certainly doesn’t respond to non-
status Algonquin e-mails. Prentice opposed the Tli Cho land claim agreement, which he
says will make Canada ungovernable in 50 years. Prentice is also a strong supporter of
the proposed and controversial Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline. In 1999, then Auditor
General Denis Desautels warned that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
risked compounding existing poverty and despair on Native reserves by failing to account
for how money is being spent. The 1998 Auditor General Report states regarding
negotiations “We also noted that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada does not request an
overall assessment from the Department of Justice on the final settlement before it is
signed. We believe that such assessments are necessary to enhance the accountability of
the federal parties and to reduce the risk that unintended interpretations of the terms of
the agreements could be made”. The negotiations process is even found to be
questionable by the Department of Justice. Are these the type of negotiations that the
general public would consider fair and legitimate? Will Mr. Prentice’s promise to make
negotiations faster improve their quality?

Although modern land claims will be technically acknowledged as treaty rights under
Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which "recognizes and affirms" existing
aboriginal and treaty rights, they will be a different species of Section 35 right. The
benefit of having rights recognized under Section 35 is that Canadian Courts have read
Section 35 to protect Aboriginal peoples and their rights. At present, under Section 35,
courts interpret treaties so that 1) ambiguous expressions in treaties are resolved in favour
of the Indians; 2) treaty provisions are given a fair, liberal and large interpretation; 3) the
honour of the Crown is assumed when interpreting treaties. Courts assume that the Crown
intended to act honourably toward aboriginal peoples and with the best interests of the
aboriginal peoples in mind, while entering treaties; and 4) any suggestion of "sharp
dealing" (unfair bargaining) is not sanctioned. These principles of interpretation will be
removed from modern treaties and therefore the protective features of Section 35 will not
operate. Any common law rules with respect to aboriginal or treaty rights will be replaced
by the provisions of the Agreement and it is anticipated that the federal government will
use legislation in order to override the common law rules. (Certainty: Canada's Struggle to Extinguish
Aboriginal Title, UBCIC)

The net impact of the "certainty" provisions sought by Canada will be to create a double
standard with regard to title and interests in the land. Canada, the province, and third
parties have their rights and interests recognized and protected. These rights are not
defined or in any way limited by the Agreement. They are left flexible, able to adapt to
circumstance.The Indigenous group, on the other hand, have all of their rights reduced to
the written word of the Agreement. The are rigid, frozen, lifeless. These certainty
provisions are far more restrictive than any of the "extinguishment language" which has
been used in other modern land claims agreements to date. Music to the powerholders’
ears. Good news to corporate Canada. Good news to the yacht club. But will the
continuance of highly questionable policy and negotiations bring the lasting conditions
for social stability and prosperity desired by most Canadians? Absolutely not.
Canadian Aboriginal policy will only be improved when it is proven to
be consistent with the intent and spirit of the law.

The Algonquin land claim that Bob Potts, Brian Crane, Robin Aitken, Jim Prentice, Kirby
Whiteduck, and the other Algonquin Negotiation Representatives currently at the table
are so enthusiastically promoting completely abrogates and derogates my, and many
others, constitutionally protected rights. The rejection of the Kichesipirini Algonquin
First Nation’s land claim submission abrogates and derogates my constitutionally
protected rights. The continued rejection of the other marginalized groups at the table
who can prove legitimacy through the application of established legal requirements
abrogates and derogates their constitutionally protected rights. The creation of a “new”
Ottawa community after the legitimate group left the table because of refusal to submit to
the corruption abrogates and derogates their constitutionally protected rights. Why are
some on the outside of negotiations? Because they refuse to compromise. They are
hoping that the Canadian public will assist them in building a better future together as a
common people with common concerns.

So this is now a social justice movement. Social movements mobilize citizens and public
opinion to challenge powerholders and the whole society to adhere to universal values
and sensibilities and redress social problems. At their best, they create an empowered
citizenry, shifting the locus of social and political power from central elites and
institutions to new grassroots networks and groups.
(http://www.activistmagazine.com)
That is exactly what the Aboriginal population in Canada needs. Justice.
“After the "Delgamuuk" decision came down – tying the legal definition of Aboriginal
Title directly to a right to land, and declaring formal consultation with Aboriginal peoples
to be the minimum requirement of development on disputed land -- Canada began
scrambling to cover its suddenly exposed backside. The Canadian government now has a
huge team working feverishly to develop what Her Majesty's servants call "the
Aboriginal Doctrine". (Stewart Steinhauer, dominionpaper.ca)
Steinhauer goes on to explain “In 2000, indigenous legal scholar John Borrows
published, on the Law Commission of Canada's website, under the Treaty Forum section,
a paper titled "Questioning Canada's Title To Land". This paper carefully detailed how
Canada's Indian Act violates the Canadian Constitution, international law, and the
concept of "the rule of law". Borrows also demonstrated that the Canada state did not
have legal title to land, nor legal sovereignty within the borders of the territory known as
Canada…..
The bottom line? Calculate Turtle Island's, (North America), current market value and
GDP and you'll get the picture. There is something called the Great Game going on, the
international struggle for geopolitical control of the entire planet. Indigenous Peoples of
Turtle Island have been caught up in this game for over 500 years, most recently as
pawns called 'Indians' created by the Captains of Industry and the Great Statesmen who
claim the right to play the game.” (Stewart Steinhauer, dominionpaper.ca)
Mr. Bob Potts promisies, referring to the Algonquins currently at the table, in the
previous article that "We haven't advanced anything substantial, but a portion of the
settlement will be in money." We can be assured that left to the agenda and capacity of
this negotiations table and its strict adherence to the existing policy, including the
rejection and oppression of their own people, no one has to worry much about anything
substantial being advanced. Left to their own devices they might be able to haggle out the
norm, maybe a few jobs, a cultural centre, expanded reserve housing, some money……
…but certainly not justice.
As long as the powerholders maintain control of the negotiations and the process is not
aggressively challenged everyone at the yacht club and on Parliament Hill can relax. But
the rest of us should be really concerned about a government that while swinging around
the big accountability club against everyone else doesn’t seem to worry too much about
what is moral or right, and yet seems able to turn a blind eye regarding the aplication of
poor governance and lack of accountability regarding something as important as the
Algonquin land claim.

The current structure and process of the Algonquin land claim and their continued
exclusion of the Kichesipirini Algonquins is unconstitutional, so is therefore illegal.

While I appreciate the media attention finally being given to the issues I would hope for
more balanced coverage in the future.

Thank you,
Paula LaPierre
Principal sachem
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation
www.esnips.com/web/kichesipirini , algonquincitizen@hotmail.com