Congress of Aboriginal Peoples endorses Conservatives

[Canuck E Stan]

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples endorses Conservative Party Conservative Party will stand up for Aboriginals

OTTAWA - Conservative Indian and Northern Affairs Critic Jim Prentice today welcomed the support of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Congress National Chief Dwight Dorey and National Vice-Chief Patrick Brazeau today endorsed the party after meeting with Prentice to discuss the Conservative Party's policies on Aboriginal affairs. The Congress represents Aboriginal peoples living in urban, rural, and remote areas throughout Canada.

"After 12 years, the lives of Aboriginal peoples have not improved," Prentice said. "A Conservative government would do better, and we will work closely with groups such as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to achieve the goals outlined in the Kelowna agreement."

The party's election platform, Stand up for Canada, includes a plan which respects Aboriginal people and provides opportunities for them. A Conservative government will also work with groups to develop a northern vision to guide economic, social, and environmental progress in the region.

"The Conservative Party is the only party with a plan to help Aboriginal Canadians," said Mr. Dorey. "Their plans provide real choice and provide real opportunities, and I am encouraged by their policies."

"Stephen Harper has opened the door for the Congress and other groups to work together to improve the lives of Aboriginals," Mr. Brazeau said.

January 14, 2006 - How very ironic.

This has to be a surprise endorsement for the Conservatives and a kick in the butt for Martin.

[kimmy]

Up to about 2 days ago, the status of the Kelowna Accord was one of the negatives for the Conservative campaign. To address this, and get an endorsement from native groups for their plan on the issue, has to be a major coup for Harper and Prentice.

I confess complete and intentional ignorance of pretty much everything to do with native policy in Canada, so I'm not familiar with the issues Kinsella refers to.

The First Nations Governance Act: remember that? One of the best Ministers of Indian and Northern Affairs since Jean Chrétien - a tough, honest Northern Ontario boy named Bob Nault - brought in that Act. As someone who practices aboriginal law and loves it, I can tell you that Nault's Act provided for much-needed accountability and transparency at the band level. It was the right thing to do. The legislation was the product of a lot of bloody hard work by Nault and his officials, some of whom I have been privileged to know (and work with).

In one of his first acts in his disastrous reign as Prime Minister, Paul Martin killed that Act. That decision, like most of Martin's reign, was long on politics and short on policy. It was a disgrace.

And now this: the Congress - and the Harper Tories - have signaled that they want to see Nault's Act brought back. Amazing.

In case you are counting, this represents reason 1,265 why I am not worried about a Harper government: he's stealing good Liberal ideas and making them his own.

Somewhere, Bob Nault (and Jean Chrétien, perhaps) must be smiling. I know I am.

Is the First Nations Governance Act something we actually want back on the table?

Were the reasons it was killed political, as Kinsella claims, or were there other issues at work?

-k

[August1991]

I too am rather ignorant of the specific of aboriginal policies.

I believe that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents off-reserve Indians only. This may explain the endorsement.

[Canuck E Stan]

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

You are right about off-reserve aboriginals-from their site:

"Representing off reserve Indians and Metis people living in urban,rural and remote areas throughout Canada"

On December 14, 2005 CAP sent letters of enquiry to three major federal political parties asking them to respond to a series of questiosn on the position of their respective parties in relation to a range of Aboriginal issues. Those letters and the responses received are available via the links below.

The Liberals were the only party that didn't respond to the letter.

Somebody wasn't doing their homework at Liberal headquarters on this one.

[legamus]

aboriginal issues were my only hesitation to voting conservative. the canadian government (both parties) haven't dealt with aboriginal issues the way they know they should for a long time and they probably still won't, but i really do not think the conservative will be any worse then the liberals. i really hope some day the feds will bite the bullet and implement some of their own recommendations concerning first nations.

[mar]

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is, basically, a self proclaimed advocacy group not unlike the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. A lot of their prominence stems from governments at various times choosing to convey legitimacy on them by involving them in various processes. Some tribal leaders have criticized tham as having no legitimacy and feel governments have sometimes chosen to use them to claim support for policies not supported by the far more influential "Assembly of First Nations" the undisputed voice of First Nations peoples in Canada. The Assembly of First Nations has no official ties with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Basically the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is a political lobby group with undefined support. First Nations Canadians being as pragmatic as the rest of us, they are quite happy to accept any good that comes out of them.

All political parties responded to the only recognized power, the Assembly of First Nations, when they requested answers to 7 questions deemed key to First Nations voters.

[legamus]

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is, basically, a self proclaimed advocacy group not unlike the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. A lot of their prominence stems from governments at various times choosing to convey legitimacy on them by involving them in various processes. Some tribal leaders have criticized tham as having no legitimacy and feel governments have sometimes chosen to use them to claim support for policies not supported by the far more influential "Assembly of First Nations" the undisputed voice of First Nations peoples in Canada. The Assembly of First Nations has no official ties with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Basically the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is a political lobby group with undefined support. First Nations Canadians being as pragmatic as the rest of us, they are quite happy to accept any good that comes out of them.

All political parties responded to the only recognized power, the Assembly of First Nations, when they requested answers to 7 questions deemed key to First Nations voters.

interesting. i'd heard of CAP before but didn't know much about them. there's 5 national FN org's isn't there, with AFN being the most prominent?

[mar]

interesting. i'd heard of CAP before but didn't know much about them. there's 5 national FN org's isn't there, with AFN being the most prominent?

The AFN is not merely the most prominent it is the offical elected body.

The AFN passed a resolution in 2002 that stated among other things that:

"...the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or other “aboriginal organizations” are not viewed nor accepted by the vast majority of off reserve First Nations citizens as speaking on their behalf nor of protecting their interests..."

You can see the complete text here.

http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=1436

[Melanie_]

This isn't an area I'm well informed in, either, but I think we all probably should be. Today's Winnipeg Free Press has a front page story about Phil Fontaine, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, being concerned about Harper's agenda. Would he honour the Kelowna accord? Monte Solberg has said no; Steven Fletcher said they needed to renegotiate a legislative framework (I'm not sure what this means).

The other concern is regarding the compensation package negotiated for the victims of residential school abuse. The Conservatives have said they would honour it, with "slight adjustments", but haven't said what those would be. It took so long for an agreement to be reached, I wonder what kinds of adjustments haven't already been debated and discarded in reaching this point?

[mar]

This isn't an area I'm well informed in, either, but I think we all probably should be. Today's Winnipeg Free Press has a front page story about Phil Fontaine, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, being concerned about Harper's agenda. Would he honour the Kelowna accord? Monte Solberg has said no; Steven Fletcher said they needed to renegotiate a legislative framework (I'm not sure what this means).

The other concern is regarding the compensation package negotiated for the victims of residential school abuse. The Conservatives have said they would honour it, with "slight adjustments", but haven't said what those would be. It took so long for an agreement to be reached, I wonder what kinds of adjustments haven't already been debated and discarded in reaching this point?

yes.

One of the things that I find intensely insulting to the Canadian population is the Conservative belief that the majority of us really won't let Conservative policies on relatively small minorities like First Nations peoples or the GLT community influence our vote.

This calculation is expressed in Conservative statements regarding the the things you mention and in things like reopening same sex marriage in parliament.

In both cases they are counting on voters being too self absorbed to care if minority rights are assaulted. Or to put it more simply: "If I ain't gay or Mohawk, what do I care."

Certainly in my case it makes zero difference to my personal life if they reverse the SCC on same sex marriage as I don't plan to exercise that particular right. However, I DO believe our Charter is weakened and our commitment to equality compromised if we reverse the SCC so it IS a major factor for me.

[legamus]

interesting. i'd heard of CAP before but didn't know much about them. there's 5 national FN org's isn't there, with AFN being the most prominent?

The AFN is not merely the most prominent it is the offical elected body.

The AFN passed a resolution in 2002 that stated among other things that:

"...the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or other “aboriginal organizations” are not viewed nor accepted by the vast majority of off reserve First Nations citizens as speaking on their behalf nor of protecting their interests..."

You can see the complete text here.

http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=1436

still, there were 5 national groups represented at that kelowna conference before the election right?

"Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Metis National Council, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women’s Association of Canada."

apparently not all natives feel represented by AFN either.

"Individual First Nations leaders like Rolling River First Nation Chief Morris Shannacappo have pulled their support from the Assembly of First Nations to negotiate a deal on their behalf."

i'm not sure i have much of a point besides that AFN though the most visible and probably widely supported is not the only national group.

(the stuff i cut and pasted above is from http://www.firstperspective.ca/story_2005_12_6_first.php )

[geoffrey]

yes.

One of the things that I find intensely insulting to the Canadian population is the Conservative belief that the majority of us really won't let Conservative policies on relatively small minorities like First Nations peoples or the GLT community influence our vote.

This calculation is expressed in Conservative statements regarding the the things you mention and in things like reopening same sex marriage in parliament.

In both cases they are counting on voters being too self absorbed to care if minority rights are assaulted. Or to put it more simply: "If I ain't gay or Mohawk, what do I care."

Certainly in my case it makes zero difference to my personal life if they reverse the SCC on same sex marriage as I don't plan to exercise that particular right. However, I DO believe our Charter is weakened and our commitment to equality compromised if we reverse the SCC so it IS a major factor for me.

Oh give it up. Canadian values aren't swingers clubs and gay marriage and polygamy.

No where in the Charter are these rights protected explicitly either. If we start defending every little special interest right, we will run ourselves into some big trouble very quickly. Next it will be beastiality and necrophylia.

Where do you draw the line?

[mar]

apparently not all natives feel represented by AFN either.

"Individual First Nations leaders like Rolling River First Nation Chief Morris Shannacappo have pulled their support from the Assembly of First Nations to negotiate a deal on their behalf."

i'm not sure i have much of a point besides that AFN though the most visible and probably widely supported is not the only national group.

Oh I agree with you. Just like anyone else, members of First Nations have their infights, squabbles and power struggles.

My point is neither that the endorsement is worthless or significant, simply that it is the endorsement of one lobby group and should be noted as such, not trumpeted as "First Nations en masse support Conservatives" which I think all of us find pretty unlikely.

[legamus]

This isn't an area I'm well informed in, either, but I think we all probably should be. Today's Winnipeg Free Press has a front page story about Phil Fontaine, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, being concerned about Harper's agenda. Would he honour the Kelowna accord? Monte Solberg has said no; Steven Fletcher said they needed to renegotiate a legislative framework (I'm not sure what this means).

The other concern is regarding the compensation package negotiated for the victims of residential school abuse. The Conservatives have said they would honour it, with "slight adjustments", but haven't said what those would be. It took so long for an agreement to be reached, I wonder what kinds of adjustments haven't already been debated and discarded in reaching this point?

yes.

One of the things that I find intensely insulting to the Canadian population is the Conservative belief that the majority of us really won't let Conservative policies on relatively small minorities like First Nations peoples or the GLT community influence our vote.

This calculation is expressed in Conservative statements regarding the the things you mention and in things like reopening same sex marriage in parliament.

In both cases they are counting on voters being too self absorbed to care if minority rights are assaulted. Or to put it more simply: "If I ain't gay or Mohawk, what do I care."

Certainly in my case it makes zero difference to my personal life if they reverse the SCC on same sex marriage as I don't plan to exercise that particular right. However, I DO believe our Charter is weakened and our commitment to equality compromised if we reverse the SCC so it IS a major factor for me.

the aboriginal issue is important to me because i feel we have a historical responsibility to the first nations of this country. while the kelowna conference was great in giving much needed funds to natives it again failed to address self-government and land/treaty rights issues that as far as i know natives are pretty unified in saying that those are the key issues to developing a new relationship with the government of canada. something, incidentally, that government-run commissions have also been saying consistently most lately with RCAP in '96, but never implimenting.

[legamus]

yes you're right, mar. i got a bit confused with what i was trying to say, but good point. i think i was just kind of relieved some native group saying the cons were ok b/c a few days before i heard the last little bit of a newscast saying a conservative had said something that some tribal leaders out west were calling a declaration of war.

[geoffrey]

Maybe the aboriginals are sick of being treated so poorly by the Liberals. Remember it took 13 years for the Liberals to get to the Kelowna agreement...

As well, I don't know much about traditional aboriginal religion, or what most aboriginals practice now, but there is also the chance that they just don't like Liberal social "progress", much like many of the other minority groups in this country.

They are forced between picking a conservative government that will treat them no different then others (no better either mind you) and stand for their moral views... or a Liberal governemnt who'll throw money their way even though they are trampling over their moral views.

I'd hope that the minority groups in this country stand up for their moral views and not accept the bribe money and power the liberals are giving to them.

[mar]

Oh give it up. Canadian values aren't swingers clubs and gay marriage and polygamy.

No where in the Charter are these rights protected explicitly either. If we start defending every little special interest right, we will run ourselves into some big trouble very quickly. Next it will be beastiality and necrophylia.

Where do you draw the line?

Well in your two ridiculous examples, you draw the line at the criminal law.

You seem to have no grasp of the purpose of a charter of rights. The point is not that the Charter explicity protects swingers clubs, it is that if these clubs are not in violation of the law (e.g. by being prostitution, underage sex, etc.), there are no consitutional grounds to suppress their right to operate.

I doubt more than 1% (very generous estimate) of the population supports swingers clubs so they are an easy example but if you establish the precendent that rights can be stripped because we don't like them, you have threatened all of us.

So the Canadian value is equality.... that all citizens have equal rights and protections and that IS a Canadian value to be proud of.

To cherrypick rights that we don't like or that pertain to groups we feel are not important enough to protect reflects a complete lack of understanding of constitutional law.

A country's commitment to equality is not judged on how well it protects the rights of the majority, but how well it protects the right of equaity for all its citizens, even the unpopular ones.

[geoffrey]

A country's commitment to equality is not judged on how well it protects the rights of the majority, but how well it protects the right of equaity for all its citizens, even the unpopular ones.

So its either a commitment to democracy or equality. It seems more obviously lately that we really can't have both.

I understand what your saying, I really do. I just don't know if we can dismiss democracy based upon this? I also contend that swingers clubs and polygamy offer actual harm to society (if your defending these rights based on consequenialist thought).

Also remember that the first entrenched right in the Charter is:

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms... a) Freedom of Conscience and Religion" Scrapping the notwithstanding clause would have the Courts walking all over this. Martin himself said he'd use the clause to defend religious freedom.

I really don't want to hijack this thread though so lets get back on topic...

This is another area where the Liberals are completely out of sync with Canadians, and I'm sure thats why we are seeing the aboriginal support for the CPC growing. Minorities are ever more shifting their support to the Conservatives in general, this is just a sign of the times.

[Canuck E Stan]

Kinsella in his blog mentioned Robert Nault, Indian Affairs Minister back in2002, and his First Nations Governance Act. This was rejected by Marin

Kinsella

In one of his first acts in his disastrous reign as Prime Minister, Paul Martin killed that Act. That decision, like most of Martin's reign, was long on politics and short on policy. It was a disgrace.

And now this: the Congress - and the Harper Tories - have signaled that they want to see Nault's Act brought back

For those interested here's a CBC "In Depth" on the Act.

The First Nations Governance Act

[mar]

So its either a commitment to democracy or equality. It seems more obviously lately that we really can't have both.

I understand what your saying, I really do. I just don't know if we can dismiss democracy based upon this? I also contend that swingers clubs and polygamy offer actual harm to society (if your defending these rights based on consequenialist thought).

Also remember that the first entrenched right in the Charter is:

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms... a) Freedom of Conscience and Religion" Scrapping the notwithstanding clause would have the Courts walking all over this. Martin himself said he'd use the clause to defend religious freedom.

I really don't want to hijack this thread though so lets get back on topic...

This is another area where the Liberals are completely out of sync with Canadians, and I'm sure thats why we are seeing the aboriginal support for the CPC growing. Minorities are ever more shifting their support to the Conservatives in general, this is just a sign of the times.

At the risk of one more hi-jack, you seem to confuse consitutional democracy with mob rule. Under your definition, if 51% of Canadians decided it was a good idea to round up all gays and execute them, it would be ok with you if the RCMP set about doing it.

The entire premise of a constitutional democracy is that the constitution sets out the basic values and ideals of a nation. These ideals may not always be met, but they represent something we strive towards.

The U.S. consitution declared all men are created equal. Many of the men signing that document owned slaves and none of them thought women were equal. In the ensuing 200+ years the U.S. has fallen short of this ideal many times but they have also had periods where they advanced towards it and you could glimpse that promise.

If we are a nation then we have global national values like equality that we strive towards. Otherwise we're just a bunch of selfish bastards who happen to occupy the same geographical area.

[Hydraboss]

"\" So the Canadian value is equality.... that all citizens have equal rights and protections and that IS a Canadian value to be proud of. "/"

So mar, when do I get to be equal????

I don't speak French, so I can't work for the federal government.

I'm caucasion, so I don't fit into the quota for RCMP in Alberta.

I'm not First Nation, so me and my kids and their kids will have to pay GST and income tax for the rest of our lives.

I'm not a politican, so 1/3 of my income will never be tax free.

Again, when do I get to be equal? It's okay. I'll wait.

That same Charter protects the wants of the few against what is good for the many.

[mar]

"\" So the Canadian value is equality.... that all citizens have equal rights and protections and that IS a Canadian value to be proud of. "/"

So mar, when do I get to be equal????

I don't speak French, so I can't work for the federal government.

I'm caucasion, so I don't fit into the quota for RCMP in Alberta.

I'm not First Nation, so me and my kids and their kids will have to pay GST and income tax for the rest of our lives.

I'm not a politican, so 1/3 of my income will never be tax free.

Again, when do I get to be equal? It's okay. I'll wait.

That same Charter protects the wants of the few against what is good for the many.

You just in a bad mood or somethin? I mean you really, really don't strike me as a guy into that "angry white male' schtick.

I think you know I can discuss your assertions but I really don't think you're serious (cept for the politician one - first, let's kill all the lawyers).

[Hydraboss]

More irritated than angry and not a bad mood mar. It's just that the use of the word "equal" in this country is not equal. If it was, there would be a statute of limitations on "past crimes" committed by this government. Now, before anyone goes screaming "bigot" or the equivalent, understand that some of my very closest friends are native, and I hire tons of guys (and girls) and I couldn't care less if their skin was orange. But where is the equality in legislation? Was it when the SCC decided that Robin Sharpe had the same rights as my kids?

Maybe I am in a bad mood. I think I will just ghost the forum for a while before I offend everyone. Usually I tend to use a bit of humor to get my point across, but this is the one thing...........

Apologies

[mar]

More irritated than angry and not a bad mood mar. It's just that the use of the word "equal" in this country is not equal. If it was, there would be a statute of limitations on "past crimes" committed by this government. Now, before anyone goes screaming "bigot" or the equivalent, understand that some of my very closest friends are native, and I hire tons of guys (and girls) and I couldn't care less if their skin was orange. But where is the equality in legislation? Was it when the SCC decided that Robin Sharpe had the same rights as my kids?

Maybe I am in a bad mood. I think I will just ghost the forum for a while before I offend everyone. Usually I tend to use a bit of humor to get my point across, but this is the one thing...........

Apologies

naaaww. No apology necessary. I know you're a good guy.

I'm probably a bit testy myself, what with the danger of the sun not rising on January 24 and all

[mowich]

Am I missing something or is this thread intended to address aboriginal issues??????

Of course Phil Fontaine and the other band chiefs want to keep Martin and the libs in power. The very idea of having to be accountable for the BILLIONS of taxpayers dollars that are funneled directly into their hands scares the shit out of them. They are also for maintaining the status quo regarding the rights of women on reserves. As things stand now on many reserves it is the chief and his band of cronies who divvy up the funds leaving the majority of residents out in the cold, literally in some cases. I for one would like to see Aboriginal self-government, accountability for funding and the institution of the right for individual aboriginals to own property. Once these issues are taken care of Aboriginals can join the rest of us citizens in paying taxes to the various levels of government.