Jack Layton For Leader of the Opposition

...lined up against a Harper majority

Ever since Prime Minister Stephen Harper led the Conservative Party to power in 2006, one word has been considered scandalous if so much as uttered by a Conservative:

Majority.

This has, of course, been driven as much by Liberal panic-mongering as anything else. But now, with the 2011 federal election steadily slipping away from the Liberals, they're working as hard as they can to make a certain word scandalous if so much as uttered by the NDP:

Leader. As in, "of the Opposition".

Following what appeared to be stagnating numbers early in the campaign, the NDP surge -- particularly in Quebec -- has had tongues wagging across Canada.

Michael Ignatieff, for one, is not happy about it.

"Come on, folks, let's be serious," Ignatieff implored. "We've got to choose a government on the 2nd of May; we can't choose a bunch of Boy Scouts on this issue."

Which is actually rather ironic when you think about it: Ignatieff and his fellow opposition leaders essentially told the Canadian public that they toppled the Harper government because they weren't Boy Scouts.

According to Ignatieff, what matters is that Canadians vote for the Liberals in order to avoid returning Stephen Harper to power.

"If you vote for Mr Layton, you're going to get a Harper minority government." Ignatieff forecasted. "If you vote for Mr Duceppe, you're going to get a Harper minority government."

Which, again, is funny when you think about it. To most people, Quebeckers shouldn't vote for the Bloc Quebecois because they're separatists. To Ignatieff, it's because not Quebeckers voting for the Bloc is good for him.

It's the kind of sentiment that gives ample cause for doubt about whether or not Ignatieff is fit to continue as Leader of the Opposition.

But while Ignatieff's stock is fading, another opposition leader continues to gather momentum in the leadership department. And, no, it isn't Gilles Duceppe.

That leader is Jack Layton. Speaking recently on the campaign trail, Layton indicated sound juggment on a matter of intense importance to Canadians: the Constitution.

Layton indicated that he would be open to re-opening the Constitution in order to secure Quebec's assent to that document. And as opposed to Pierre Trudeau, who rammed the Constitution through while a separatist government was in power in Quebec, Layton wants to wait until "the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec" exist.

Needless to say, Layton is gambling. Canadians don't exactly look back on the last rounds of Constitutional wranglings -- the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords -- with fond memories.

Yet Layton is clearly well-attuned to the problems the state of Canada's Constitution -- with Quebec not a signatory to that document -- pose to the country.

"What we're saying is that at some point in the future the whole issue of the fact that Quebec hasn't signed on to our Constitution has got to be dealt with," Layton remarked. "But the first step is getting rid of the Stephen Harper government and putting in place a government that can actually work with not only the people of Quebec, but right across the country, and stop this division that we've been getting for far too long."

Quebec isn't the only waning hole in the country's Constitutional unity. Canada's First Nations have yet to achieve a satisfactory position within the British North America Act.

But if Layton is going to be involved in Constitutional negotiations, it's imperative that those negotiations take place under a Conservative government. If Layton is able to direct such constitutional discussions from the driver's seat, God only knows what kind of disaster will ensue.

One could rest assured that Layton would do everything he can to institutionalize some rather extreme leftist principles in the Constitution. The idea of Libby Davies with a pen at the Constitutional table should send a chill down the spines of any thinking Canadian. (Read: not the kind who vote for Davies.)

All this being said, the Constitution is a key issue for Canada, whether Canadians welcome it or not. Jack Layton's understanding of this is another key marker demonstrating that he's ready to sit in the Opposition's big chair.

Jack Layton would make an excellent Leader of the Opposition... opposing a Stephen Harper majority government.

Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 6

Continuing the Nexus series fact checking the claims made on the Shit Harper Did website, we once again delve into Aboriginal issues.

In one particular claim, the site seems to infer that Harper is insensitive to the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women:

The clear intent is to suggest that if Harper isn't funding Sisters in Spirit, he isn't concerned at all about missing or murdered Aboriginal Women.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in 2010 the Harper government devoted $10 million to address the issue of murdered and missing Aboriginal women. The funds were to be spent on the establishment of a missing persons' branch of the RCMP, as well as investments into fighting domestic violence in aboriginal communities.

As it pertains to Sisters in Spirit, it's actually a rather simple idea: criminal investigations are best pursued by the people with the authority to conduct such investigations. In Canada, police lead criminal investigations, not well-meaning but ill-equipped and ill-trained groups. End of story.

Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 5

In previous episodes of the Nexus fact check into the Shit Harper Did website, we uncovered dishonest claims about science funding, the G20 summit, and torture in Afghanistan. We've also explored some poorly-supported appeals to religious bigotry.

But in order to conduct the most recent ShitHarperDid fact check, we have to first set the table. To do that, we pay a visit to our old friend Audrey of Enormous Thriving Plants.

Joining a few other far-left bloggers in creeping the facebook page of Conservative Candidate Wally Daudrich, Audrey notes that he identifies Red Dawn as one of his favourite movies, the Tea Party as one of his interests, and Fox News as his favourite media outlet.

Yet there's greater hilarity afoot than simply the creeping of Daudrich's Facebook page. It has to do with a ShitHarperDid claim about water on aboriginal reserves:

Frankly, even one aboriginal community in Canada without safe drinking water is one too many. But the purpose of this claim is clearly to suggest that Harper has done nothing to fix this problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the government of Canada spent $735.6 million between 2008-10 dealing with this very problem. The results speak for themselves. While there were 49 First Nations communities under water advisories in March 2010 -- still 49 too many -- this number is down from 193 in 2006.

That's a 75% reduction in Aboriginal communities with high-risk drinking water systems since 2006. Which kind of makes one wonder about what the Liberal Party was doing during their 13 years in power.

Or what Niki Ashton, the NDP MP for Churchill has been doing. From Daudrich's Facebook page:

While the Harper government was budgeting funds to tackle the water problems in Garden Hill, Manitoba and elsewhere, NDP MPs like Niki Ahston were voting against the funding bills.

Facts like this don't even seem to phase the people behind the ShitHarperDid website. They promote the Liberal Party -- who allowed water safety in First Nations communities to deteriorate -- and the NDP -- whose MPs have voted against funding projects to fix the problem -- as better options than the Conservatives, who have made tremendous progress in fixing the problem.

It's just another lie the Harper haters tell.

Patrick Brazeau 2, Liberal Party 0

Justin Trudeau has nothing better to criticize Patrick Brazeau for than his Twitter avatar

It's no secret why Liberal MP Justin Trudeau has declined an opportunity to debate Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau about Aboriginal policy: Trudeau's too busy complaining about Brazeau's Twitter handle.

“How any Senator who chooses to, you know, an honourable Senator in a Canadian Parliament chose to further himself as TheBrazman perhaps lacks a little bit of gravitas one would expect from the house of sober second thought,” Trudeau complained.

In the end, Trudeau portrayed himself as a victim of his social netowrking success.

“I have a little over 60,000 followers and I try to interact with everyone who sends me Twitter notes but if every time I got to an argument with someone on Twitter I ended up debating I will spend all my time debating and not any time working her in the riding where I need to,” Trudeau insisted.

But perhaps there's another reason why Trudeau is reluctant to debate Brazeau on the topic: most of the Liberal Party's policies on Aboriginal issues entail undoing their own mistakes.

According to Trudeau, the Liberals are pledging $300 million for kindergarten-grade 12 education in Aboriginal communities, the elimination of the 2% funding cap on Aboriginal Education, and establishing a task force to deal with the issue of murdered and missing Aboriginal women.

Brazeau pointed out that it was the Liberal Party who imposed the 2% cap in the first place, and noted that the Tories have devoted $10 million to dealing with the murdered/missing women issue, including the establishment of a permanent RCMP missing persons division. There was also money made available to fight domestic violence in Aboriginal communities.

It's no wonder Justin Trudeau has nothing better to complain about than Patrick Brazeau's "Brazman" Twitter handle.

Patrick Brazeau 1, Liberal Party 0

Brazeau cajoles Ignatieff into rejecting voter subsidy for controversial candidate

Senator Patrick Brazeau's tenure in the Senate hasn't been without its share of controversy.

But since the 2011 election campaign got underway, Brazeau -- former National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and a Stephen Harper appointee -- has been like a house on fire.

Of course it isn't as if the Liberals haven't given him enough help. In the Liberal candidate for Manicouagan, the Liberals provided him with a convenient target to attack.

Forbes, of course, is the controversial candidate who described aboriginals as "featherheads". His candidacy has cast doubt not only on the Liberal Party's vetting of its candidates, but also on its ability to respond appropriately when it's uncovered that a candidate is unsuitable.

Forbes is staying in the election, and although he is billing himself as an independent, he'll appear on the ballot as a Liberal.

Which has presented the problem of the Liberal Party receiving per-vote subsidy cash from Forbes' campaign totals; funds Brazeau declared the Liberal Party should reject.

“The racist and hurtful comments by Mr Ignatieff’s candidate in Manicouagan set our society back and threaten to undo the progress we have made together,” Brazeau declared in a statement. “To think that Mr Ignatieff’s Liberal Party will now financially benefit from each vote received by Mr Forbes is an insult to all Canadians and taxpayers."

"This isn’t the vision of Canada that we believe in, and this is hardly the example of the Canada that we want our children to know and love,” Brazeau concluded.

Liberal spokesman Marc Roy declared that the Liberals would oblige Brazeau.

“Any vote subsidies that come in will be returned to Elections Canada,” explained Roy. “For Elections Canada procedures, we can’t remove him from the ballot. He is not running on the Liberal slate and is not endorsed.”

An even better move would be to take those funds and donate them to a charity assisting troubled Aboriginal youths. But so long as the Forbes subsidy isn't lacing the Liberal Party's coffers, that's the important thing.

So rack that up as a small -- but important -- victory for Patrick Brazeau.

Same Old, Same Old Bloc Quebecois

Racism just keeps bubbling to the surface

Try as they might, it seems that the Bloc Quebecois just can't keep that familiar theme hidden: the inherent racism of the Quebec separatist movement.

Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe was busy on the campaign trail yesterday doing damage control after a BQ MP suggested that voters in his riding would not vote for NDP candidate Romeo Saganash because he is Cree.

Yvon Levesque currently represents Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou, Quebec's largest riding, but it may be fair to wonder for how much longer.

While Levesque won the riding by nearly 10% of the vote in 2008, it may be fair to wonder how many votes he has driven to either Saganash, or to the local Conservative candidate (the Tories came second in 2008).

Levesque quickly jumped forward with an apology, but the damage may already be done. The last thing he needed to do was remind any aboriginal constituents about what the real attitude of the Bloc Quebecois is toward them.

“My words were totally inappropriate and I retract them,” Lévesque wrote. “I hope that my unfortunate declaration will not harm the important advances of aboriginal communities that the Bloc Québécois has fought for, for years."

But even in the context of his apology, many aboriginals should quickly realize that it's not quite fully genuine.

After all, it seems that whenever a key issue related to aboriginal affairs in this country comes up, the BQ votes against them. For example, in 2007 the Bloc voted with the Liberals and NDP to kill a Conservative party bill that would have made the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applicable in aboriginal communities.

Yvon Levesque was one of the MPs who opposed human rights in aboriginal communities, then actually had the temerity to applaud himself for it.

Unbelievable.

So it makes it a little more unbelievable that Levesque, who voted to keep aboriginals across Canada living under the thumb of Chiefs who are far-too-often entirely corrupt, would pretend to be an ally of aboriginal people.

For his own part, Gilles Duceppe won't remove Yvon levesque as a Bloc Quebecois candidate, even if he does send a stark reminder to all Canadians -- in Quebec and elsewhere -- about what that party is really all about.

It's clear that they're counting on Quebec voters to simply look the other way. Maybe this is a smart ploy. After all, they so often have.

James Cameron, Avatar and the Craziness of Globalization Studies

It must be wonderfully liberating to study in a field such as Globalization Studies, where ideologically-soothing rhetoric so often tends to supplant facts.

Globalization studies tends to boil nearly any problem down to two basic themes: capitalism and racism, typically with very few facts -- if any at all -- offered to support them.

A typical case is an essay being distributed by University of Lethbridge Globalization Studies professor -- and 9/11 truther-in-residence -- Dr Anthony J Hall.

In one such essay, entitled "Avatar Meets the Bowl With One Spoon", Hall suggests that the brutal treatment of the Na'vi in the film is comparable to the treatment of aboriginal communities in Alberta's Athabaska region.

Fortunately for Hall, his discipline seems like it doesn't require a discussion of the facts. If it did, Hall would have to admit that the pertinent facts don't support his argument.

Hall writes:

"Huge amounts of energy and fresh water are required to extract fossil fuels from the bogs of the arctic watershed. While the profits from this activity enliven the urban cultures of, for instance, Calgary, Houston, Dallas, and Beijing, the liabilities in terms of high rates of cancer and the loss of indigenous political economies are borne disproportionately by the Cree and Dene peoples of the region."

A statement like this is so rife with error and counter-factuality that it's hard to know where to begin.

First off, the economic activity derived from oil sands development development also benefits aboriginal communities in the Athabasca regions. They benefit not only from direct revenue from royalties collected from oilsands operations on their land, not only from related businesses operated by local First Nations, but also in terms of aboriginal employment.

Moreover, Hall ignores key portions of Alberta Health Service's report on Fort Chipewyan that notes that the communities' rates of cancer are actually within natural variation, and could simply appear elevated due to increased rates of detection.

Moreover, a key indicator of an environmental cause to elevated rates of cancer is not present in Fort Chipewyan -- notably, the lack of elevated cancer rates in children.

This merely deals with the factual/conceptual errors in Hall's essay. It isn't the only area in which it suffers.

It also suffers from the presence of a key logical fallacy: the false equivalency.

As Avatar unfolds, it becomes clear that the kinds of abuses perpetrated by the RDA mining company are possible because there seems to be no legally-recognized sovereignty over Pandora. No government holds any jurisdiction over it. It is, for the purposes of human legality, a lawless planet.

The situation in Alberta is not even remotely equivalent. Companies operating in the Athabasca region are subject to multiple levels of jurisdiction. They are subject to the jursidction of Canadian law, Albertan law, as well as the restrictions and requirements imposed by First Nations on whose land they operate.

This isn't to say that there aren't any issues related to legal jurisdiction anywhere in Alberta. The ongoing state of affairs regarding the Lubicon Cree, where oil development proceeded without a settlement of the treaty status of the group -- who have never signed a treaty with the government of Canada -- remains legally intolerable.

But this is not the situation in Fort McMurray, where local Cree and Dene populations have frequently asserted their jurisdictional rights, and have received the cooperation of the companies working on their land.

In short, the scenario in Avatar, with Na'vi being swept aside by overwhelming military power, and the scenario in Fort McMurray, wherein aboriginal communities have benefited from the cooperation of oilsands developers, are not nearly the same.

Dr Anthony J Hall is fortunate that he works in an academic field where rhetoric consistently out-muscles fact. His theories may be accepted by the remarkably-insular academic circles in which he travels, but it won't find traction in a more rigourous intellectual environment.

They Broke In to Alcatraz. Think About That.

John Trudell is an American aboriginal poet and artist whose eloquence was once described by the FBI as "dangerous".

Trudell was also well-renowned as an aboriginal activist.

In activism, one measures commitment by how far one is willing to go -- whether or not one is willing to do things that their opponents are not willing to do.

In 1969, Trudell led a group of aboriginal activists to occupy Alcatraz Island. Up until just six years previous, Alcatraz was a prison that was home to the United States' worst of the worst -- including Al Capone.

No one is known to have ever escaped from Alcatraz, and the United States still claims no one ever did -- although more than a few tried unsuccessfully.

When John Trudell went searching for an activist stunt to captivate the imagination of American aboriginals, he led a a group of aboriginals to occupy Alcatraz.

They broke into a prison that it was -- and still is -- believed no one could break out of.

There are few ways Trudell and his group could have demonstrated their dedication any more strongly.

More Evidence That Things Need to Change

 If there's anything that proponents of Canada's current approach to aboriginal affairs have to say about the notion of change, it's that they don't like it.

Yet an increasing number of thinkers have begun to urge a new approach to the issue -- and it's one that the proponents of the current approach will almost certainly despise.

Yet the clear evidence that changes are desperately needed continues to mount. Not only is there the spectre of lingering and grinding aboriginal poverty, but more and more aboriginal Canadians are moving off-reserve and into cities. It's only natural that they would do this, as that is where most of the opportunities for them seem to lay.

“The fastest growing population is the young aboriginal population and we need those young people to be educated and in the workforce,” says Calvin Helin. “Not for reasons of a moral imperative, but for the very prosperity and competitiveness of Canada as a nation.”

This isn't a bad thing or a good thing, unless one depends upon the views of any particular paradigm on aboriginal affairs. Those who would prefer to see strong on-reserve communities must be concerned about this development. Those who prefer to see aboriginals assimilate likely welcome it.

If those who wish to see strong on-reserve cultural communities wish to see those communities thrive they will need a way to provide opportunities to youths who decide to stay on-reserve. But the currently dominant model for aboriginal affairs in Canada -- simply pumping more and more funds into reserves -- has clearly failed to provide such opportunities.

A change is urgently needed.

A key may be found in Tom Flanagan's theories. According to Flanagan, the key to aleviating aboriginal poverty is to allow aboriginal bands to make use of the resources they already have.

"Canada's first nations are potentially wealthy landlords, with land reserves totalling nearly three million hectares," Flanagan recently wrote in the Globe and Mail. "Dozens of reserves are near major cities such as Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Montreal, as well as rapidly growing smaller towns such as Kamloops, Kelowna and Courtenay-Comox. This land base represents an economic asset that could make a major contribution to raising first nations' standard of living."

Flanagan notes that passing legislation allowing aboriginal bands to assume property rights over their land on a voluntary basis would repair key inadequacies in the current state of aboriginal property rights.

Flanagan also argues that it would settle the debate over the best course for aboriginal Canadians.

"The political left in Canada believes in aboriginal self-government, while the political right emphasizes the integration of native peoples into the mainstream," Flanagan writes. "In this case, left and right can come together: First nations will be able to get underlying title to their land, an important part of self-government; and they will also find it easier to adopt individual property rights for their landholdings, which will facilitate their participation in the Canadian economy."

This, of course, will not be a panacea for aboriginal poverty. Decades of government investment in fighting poverty will remain necessary, but at least the prospect of self-spurred economic development on Canadian aboriginal reserves will provide some light at the end of the tunnel.

In the meantime, there are some other key reforms that will be necessary.

The movement of aboriginal youths into cities has left many of them feeling unrepresented, according to a recent poll.

Off-reserve aboriginals are supposed to be represented by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Yet 40% of off-reserve aboriginals couldn't identify the organization as representing them.

Helin suggests that aboriginals don't recognize CAP as their representation because they get no opportunity to elect them.

“There’s a lot of resentment that there isn’t any representation, and I think that clearly came out in the study,” he says. “Once there is equal representation, and everybody has the chance to elect the national chief of the AFN, for example, people I think will have a much greater sense of ownership.”

Democratic reform is the other side of aboriginal self-government that aboriginal bands will need to address. Those who insist the hereditary nature of political leadership is an aboriginal tradition that must be preserved will need to recognize that this decision will ultimately be up to aboriginals, but should be up to all aboriginals -- not just their chiefs.

One thing is certain: the status quo on aboriginal affairs doesn't work, and there is no reason to expect that will change any time soon.

The evidence for the need for change is apparent: now all we need is for our political leaders -- both aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- to recognize it.

Don't Be So Bloody Sensitive

Liberals back FNUC out of "cultural sensitivity"

In an era in which being insufficiently sensitive to any number of things can result in a complaint to a human rights commission, a great many people are feeling pressure to twist themselves in the name of cultural sensitivity.

For the Liberal Party of Canada, the demands of cultural sensitivity also seem to include supporting the embattled First Nations University of Canada, which recently had its funding cut by the federal government and government of Saskatchewan.

At issue are numerous issues -- ranging from questions of academic freedom related to the search of computers (an arbitration board eventually found insufficient evidence for violation of academic freedom), governance issues related to the Board of Directors, and questions regarding financial mismanagement.

The FNUC board of governors recently offered a plan to solve some of the problems at the university, a plan of which Minister of Indian Affairs Chuck Strahl seems skeptical.

There are many good reasons to support an institution like FNUC.

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale insists that FNUC should be supported because many of its students allegedly wouldn't continue their education due to an alleged lack of cultural sensitivity.

That isn't a terribly compelling reason to support FNUC.

To begin with, many of Canada's universities have Native Studies departments where students at institutions like the FNUC could study in an environment every bit as culturally sensitive as FNUC.

But one can't help but wonder what kind of "cultural sensitivity" it is that Goodale believes the FNUC supplies. Many aboriginal leaders have expressed disagreement and even outrage at the views of Tom Flanagan, who is an outspoken critic of the current model of first nations governance.

The answer to such criticisms is not to insulate students from them. Rather, the proper way to answer such criticisms is to debate them -- an approach taken by the University of Manitoba when students and faculty objected to a speech by Flanagan at the institution.

On the other hand, to insulate aboriginal students from criticisms of their governance model does them a great disservice -- it doesn't lead them to confront any of the numerous shortcomings of that model (including an absolultely massive democratic deficit) so that they may one day fix them.

So, the lesson for Ralph Goodale and the Liberal Party should be: don't be so bloody sensitive.

Sensitivity has its time and place -- a university campus is rarely one of them.

Break the Cycle When They're Young

Vancouver a key piece of Canada's aboriginal puzzle

As the weather in most of Canada turns colder over the coming days and weeks, many homeless aboriginals will begin migrating west, to the BC coast.

They will share similar stories: the economic hardship of living on reservations, abysmal family conditions and substance abuse problems, and the strains of living under various other social ills.

Some living in Vancouver's Eastside may be tempted to view the influx of aboriginals as a problem. But for Canada there is actually an opportunity to be found among the social desolation these people have experienced.

Organizations like the Urban Native Youth Association deal with many of these issues first-hand. They're often the organizations these aboriginals turn to when the promise of newfound prosperity fails to materialize. “It’s the bright lights they talk about. But they come here and find out there’s not really many bright lights, or they’re not shining in our community,” explains UNYA executive director Lynda Gray. In Vancouver, aboriginals account for 30% of the city's homeless population. In the downtown Eastside, they account for 10% of the population, period.

The conditions there are symbolic of the suffering of aboriginals across Canada. Indeed, nearly every First Nation in Canada is represented among the downtown Eastside's population.

“It’s really a sign, a symptom of a larger problem of how native people exist within this community,” says Gray. “It’s the most blatant and obvious sign of damaged spirits.”

Canadians remain hopeful that the damaged spirits of Canada's aboriginals can be healed. But decades of ideologically-motivated aboriginal policies have failed to accomplish this important task.

As much as those who continue to push those discredited ideological policies may refuse to admit it, a change in approach is desperately needed. Vancouver's lower Eastside could serve as an invaluable policy laboratory.

Dissent to the discredited ideological coonsensus on the matter of aboriginal poverty and its accompanying ills tends to overwhelmingly favour breaking a perceived cycle of dependence by aboriginal people on government largesse.

As laudable a goal as this actually is, it cannot reasonably be accomplished until the task of abolishing the social ills that pervade amongst Canadian aboriginals -- both on- and off-reserve -- is well underway.

Dances With Dependency author Calvin Helin offers a solution that may surprise many of his critics -- healthy doses of community outreach. Moreover, Helin insists that this outreach needs to be focused on reaching children in order to break the spell that generations of dependency has cast over their culture.

“We need to be able to show kids that they have an opportunity to make their lives better and it can be something different from what they have experienced so far,” Helin insists. “Sometimes it may not be possible to reach the generation of their parents, so we need to get to the children ... In the Eastside there are a lot of kids who have both parents in jail or don’t get a meal in the morning, so we’ve got to reach them.”

Gray seems to agree with this particular sentiment, and notes that the promotion of aboriginal culture can help break these old cycles of dependence.

“I would say 90 to 99 per cent of aboriginals who are leading healthy, strong lives [are doing so] because they have a strong sense of self, primarily through culture,” Gray says.

Naturally, any outreach program should be rooted in Aboriginal culture, but there may be a need to reassess the current paradigms of the promotion of Aboriginal culture. Naturally, this assessment can really only be done by Aboriginals, and by Aboriginals alone.

But those who want to change the manner in which Aboriginal affairs policies are formulated need to understand that the best time to try to break these old cycles of dependency, by whatever means it is done, is when Aboriginals are young. It will continue to require a healthy government investment in Aboriginal education, health care, and poverty-fighting initiatives.

Breaking the cycle of government dependence -- actually not the same as convincing them to embrace "self-reliance", per se -- will be a long-term, not a short-term, project. And it will depend heavily on the success of poverty-fighting measures, which may depend upon successful policy experimentation in a real-life laboratory like Vancouver's downtown Eastside.

It wouldn't necessarily be a popular initiative -- treating human beings, particularly human beings as belleagured as Canada's aboriginal people, as if they were labrats (even in a benign policy experiment) rarely is.

But Canadians cannot afford to continue tolerating failed Aboriginal policy. The old way forward -- which has actually led us backward -- has failed. A new way forward is desperately needed.

Same Old Attitude = Same Old Problem

Old problems need new solutions -- politicians shouldn't be criticized for listening

When the Conservative party recently announced the formation of its Aboriginal Caucus -- led by MP Rod Bruinooge and also featuring MPs Leona Aglukkaq, Shelly Glover and Rob Clarke as well as Senators Patrick Brazeau and Gerry St Germain -- Canada's opposition parties found a convenient way of distracting people from the fact that the Tories can boast more aboriginals in their caucus than any other party.

They pointed to a speech delivered to the caucus by Calvin Helin and accused the caucus of heresy in regard to aboriginal affairs.

Helin is the author of Dances With Dependency. In the book he argues that the old system of political clientelism and paternalism has shoehorned Canada's First Nations into a position of poverty-perpetuating economic dependency. He also identifies a severe democratic deficit in many First Nations, as the leadership of organizations like the Assembly of First Nations and Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs are elected not by the citizens of First Nations, but rather by chiefs.

Helin argues that many of these chiefs are tending not to the needs and interests of their constituents, but rather to their own institutional interests, and he insists that they need to be changed.

Among the Conservative aboriginal caucus, Patrick Brazeau formerly served as the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Perhaps the most revelatory comments about the entire issue came from Liberal MP Anita Neville, who simply wrote off Helin's speech as "nonsense".

"I'd rather them hear from the [native] leadership and not someone who is critical of the leadership," Neville said.

Of course, if Helin were simply another white man perpetually looking down his nose at aboriginals -- a comment often made about Tom Flanagan, and sometimes not without merit -- that very much would be one thing. But Helin is a member of BC's Tsimshian First Nation. His father Barry is a hereditary chief of the Gitlaan tribe, and his mother Verna is a member of the royal House of 'Wiiseeks of the Ginaxangiik tribe.

In other words, Calvin Helin would actually stand to personally benefit from maintaining the current political structure of First Nations governance. When such an individual is calling for change, our federal politicians should listen.

That individuals like Neville would suggest that politicians should only listen to First Nations leaders and ignore their critics is not only extremely foolish, it's also tacitly undemocratic.

Opposition leaders sputter in outrage when the government appears to be ignoring dissent. To institutionally exclude dissenters from the debate is to do much worse than ignore them.

Rod Bruinooge, Patrick Brazeau and the rest of the Conservative Aboriginal Caucus are listening. Considering that decades of Liberal party-backed clientelist and paternalist aboriginal policies have left aboriginals mired in poverty, individuals like Neville could stand to listen, too -- or at the very least hold their tongues while others do.

The Strange Puzzle of Conservative Anti-Aboriginal Bias

Conservatives launch new Aboriginal Caucus

Reality dealt the notion of an anti-Aboriginal bias within the Conservative party a savage kick to the nads recently, as the party unveiled its Aboriginal Caucus.

The caucus is made up of four aboriginal MPs -- Rob Clarke, Rod Bruinooge, Leona Aglukkaq and Shelly Glover -- and Senators Gerry St Germain and Patrick Brazeau.

By contrast, the Liberal party has three aboriginal Senators and a single aboriginal MP. The NDP has a single aboriginal senator.

Yet with many people in Canada insisting that the Conservative party has an anti-aborginal bias -- as embodied by the comments and academic work of MP Pierre Poilevre and strategist Tom Flanagan -- the fact that the Conservative party has the largest aboriginal caucus out of any party in Canada. Yet that particular dilemma, as are so many in Canada, is purely political.

In reality, this matter seems to revolve almost entirely around a difference in opinion regarding to how aboriginal issues in Canada are best dealt with -- a difference in opinion cleaved by a massive ideological divide.

On one side of this ideological divide are entrenched political figures within aboriginal bands and organizations who relish the political clientelism that has been promoted by the Liberal party and NDP for decades. To these people -- and those who support them -- the very notion of transforming aboriginal politics is utterly offensive, even clientelism has proven to be an abject failure.

Thousands upon thousands of aboriginal people in Canada continue to live in poverty despite the billions of dollars spent trying to solve this problem.

When individuals such as Flanagan, Poilievre or Frances Widdowson dare speak out about this fact they are often accused of uttering "hurtful" remarks about aboriginal Canadians -- if not outright hate speech.

But the fact that the Conservative party has succeeded in not only admitting to Parliament, but in actually electing more aboriginal parliamentarians than their allegedly more "sympathetic" political counterparts should give pause to many Canadians when they stop to ponder which party is truly looking for answers to the problems that have plagued Canada's aboriginals for so many decades.

It certainly isn't the political parties who have benefited politically by pandering to organizations who sputter with outrage if the Prime Minister meets with the "wrong" aboriginal groups that don't support the old system of poverty-perpetuating clientelism.

That the Conservative party has the largest caucus of aboriginal representatives should give these people pause as well. It probably won't, but it should.

For Whom Might Fontaine Run?

Retiring Assembly of First Nations chief may run for Parliament

Phil Fontaine's retirement as the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations may be the precursor to a run for Parliament, CTV reports.

Apparently, the Liberal party has asked Fontaine to consider running for them in the next election.

Yet interestingly enough, it may be within the Conservative party that Fontaine may find the most productive home. Certainly, his most productive achievements as National Chief of the AFN were negotiated with Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

In 2005, Fontaine and then-Indian Affairs Minister negotiated the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, a settlement worth $1.9 billion to victims of the Residential School system and their families.

In 2007, Fontaine and Prentice again collaborated on a land claims plan that would allocate $250 million per annum over ten years to settle many outstanding claims. The plan also introduced a new independent tribunal to rule on these cases.

Last but certainly not least, Fontaine was present when Prime Minister Harper finally delivered the long-overdue apology for the abuses in Canadian Residential Schools.

This isn't to say that Fontaine's relationship with the Conservative government has been nothing but smooth sailing. Fontaine has noted that the cancellation of the Kelowna Accord was greatly disappointing to him.

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre also sparked a brush fire between the two with some ill-timed remarks last year -- although the outrage surrounding his comments was largely manufactured, and really reflected the dominance of political paternalism toward Aboriginals in the face of the need to reevaluate Canadian policies toward Aboriginal Affairs.

Within the Conservative party Fontaine could forge a potent partnership with Senator Patrick Brazeau -- whose tenure as a Senator has, to date, been productive if not untroubled -- in order to find new ways to help the government help meet the needs of Canadian aboriginals, both on- and off-reserve.

Of course this is all just speculation. While it remains unknown whether the Conservative party has made any attempts to recruit Fontaine -- although they will if they are wise -- it also remains to be seen whether or not Fontaine will run for office at all.

Loners, Losers and Canadian Multiculturalism

Speaking via ForaTv, former US President Bill Clinton explains how the adoption of the principle of majority rules in more and more countries around the world has a potential dark side -- the oppression of those who may not readily be considered part of that majority.

Clinton describes them bascially as "losers" and "loners", and says that the litmus test for any true democracy is whether or not a citizen has enough individual rights that they can potentially lose -- politically, economically, socially, culturally or otherwise -- and still be safe from oppression.

At its basest level, there does seem to be a key dilemma between majority rule and respect for the rights of minorities. As we see in many countries less enlightened than our own, in systems wherein majority rule is considered absolute minorities tend to not have many rights.

Multicultural societies should likely be considered less prone to this kind of absolutism. As Satya Das notes, because of the broad cultural variety of Canadian society Canadians have had to set aside our differences and respect the rights of groups that, if judged by a standard of ethnic -- as opposed to civil -- nationalism would themselves be minorities.

If Canadians continued to discriminate against groups such as Icelandic, Ukrainian or Irish Canadians there would be no shortage of people for those prone to such behaviour to discriminate against. What there would end up being a shortage of is Canadians among the so-called "majority".

This is one of the best reasons for Canadians who may not yet have come around to the idea of multiculturalism to acclimate themselves to it. Within the next thirty years caucasian Canadians will be a numeric minority in Canada. Those accustomed to enjoying a privileged position within Canada on account of being part of this so-called majority will find themselves in a rather uncomfortable position at that point.

But one also has to remember that there can also be a dark side to the group rights promoted by multiculturalism as well. As Benjamin Barber points out group rights -- particularly within minority groups -- can lead to a communitarian ethos in which minority groups demand absolute solidarity from its members, to the extent that members are forced to surrender individual rights in order to remain part of their community what eventually emerges is not a society that is more democratic, but in fact less.

Mixing the notions of majority rule with an overwhelmingly communitarian ethos leads to situations were people are not free, to the extent to which they are very literally enslaved by their communities.

Canada has, for the most part, passed the test of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Whether Canada has succeeded in protecting the majority from what Preston Manning termed "the tyranny of the minority" is another matter entirely.

Some would argue that legalizing same-sex marriage over what they deemed to be the opposition of the majority -- which was actually the agreement of a minority coupled with the comparable indifference of the majority of Canadians -- empowered same-sex couples at the expense of the majority of Canadians. Many Canadians -- including this author -- would disagree with them, but this case is nonetheless argued.

The case that individuals are subjected to the tyranny of community is much stronger. Consider the case of aboriginal women denied rights granted by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- and, through it, Canada's Constitution -- because political elites within the aboriginal community oppose it.

These are merely two examples in which Canadian democracy has either failed, or is argued to fail, to amply balance the rights of majorities and minorities, and communities and individuals.

Although Canada has performed this balancing act better than many other countries, it's certainly been far from perfect, and there are many improvements that could be made.

United They Stand

BC amalgamation plan will give aboriginals a stronger voice

In a province where dealing with aboriginal affairs has been notoriously difficult things are about to simplified significantly.

In 2002 the people of British Columbia approved the Gordon Campbell government's eight principles for treaty negotiation.

Those principles set the Campbell government's criteria for treaty negotiations. They stipulated the following:

-Private property rights should be respected, and that treaty settlements shouldn't involve the expropriation of property.
-Land use terms and licenses should be respected, and anyone whose commercial interests are disrupted should be compensated.
-The use of Crown land should be reserved for all British Columbians, including for hunting, fishing and recreation.
-Provincial parks should be reserved for the use of all British Columbians.
-Resource management and environmental protection standards shoulda apply province-wide.
-Aboriginal government should be modelled on local government. All powers delegated by the federal and provincial governments should apply.
-Harmonization of land use planning should be entrenched within treaties.
-Tax examptions for aboriginals should be phased out.

Even with the government's criteria for an agreement mandated by the citiens of BC negotiation of those treaties have proven very difficult. With more than 200 separate aboriginal groups in BC, reaching an agreement would prove nearly impossible.

A recent piece of legislation introduced by the government of BC would allow aboriginal groups to amalgamate, reducing the number of separate groups to a number as small as 25.

The legislation will also recognize the title rights of BC aboriginals as the original inhabitants of the province.

"We heard the B.C. minister of aboriginal relations and reconciliation say that it is up to the First Nations to determine what their political structure is going to be -- and it might well be 203 First Nations or it might be 30 or it might be 100. We just don't know how that's logically going to play out," said Chief Judith Sayers of the Hupacasath First Nation. "People have to ask questions because I don't want to be forced into working with First Nations that we might not get along with or it doesn't make a natural fit."

By amalgamating their groups not only will aboriginal treaty negotiations with the BC government go smoother, they will also have stronger, more unified voices to speak with.

That's why the Member of the First Nations Summit's decision to support the legislation put forth by BC Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Mike de Jong is so important.

It could even provide a better model for Aboriginal self-government for the rest of the country.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Chrystal Ocean - "Native Rights to be Entrenched in BC Law"

Challenging Dogma is Bad For Your Academic Health

Questioning efficacy of reserve system has political scientist in hot water

If there's any one rule that has come to predominate politics in Canada, it is this:

Don't ask questions about the state of Canada's aboriginal people. If you must ask questions, don't ask the wrong ones.

This at least seems to be the lesson to be learned from the recent experience of Frances Widdowson, whom many Canadian academics have been slowly stewing ever since a presentation she gave last year.

At the June 2008 meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association Widdowson cited Canada's Aboriginal Reserve system for encouraging unemployment and the social problems that come with it. She insisted that the best way to help Aboriginals is to assimilate them.

This naturally provoked a great deal of outrage from those present, including a man who allegedly asked her if she wanted to "take it outside".

After the presentation -- which according to reports seemingly may not have even been finished -- accusations of hate speech were levelled against Widdowson. There were also calls for McGill university press to be censured for printing Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: the Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation, Widowson's book on the subject.

Some have gone so far as to accuse Widdowson of peddling "master race fantasies".

It's even been suggested that views such as Widdowson's may discourage aboriginals from seeking careers in academia.

Widdowson isn't the only individual -- academic or otherwise -- facing difficulties for challenging an entrenched dogma in Canadian thought on aboriginal affairs.

Also in June of last year Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre questioned how well money spent on aboriginal reserves has actually served Canada's aboriginals.

"We spend 10 billion dollars -- 10 billion dollars -- in annual spending this year alone now, that is an exceptional amount of money, and that is on top of all the resource revenue that goes to reserves that sit on petroleum products or sit on uranium mines, other things where companies have to pay them royalties," Poilevre said. "And that's on top of all that money that they earn on their own reserves. That is an incredible amount of money."

"Some of us are starting to ask: 'Are we really getting value for all of this money, and is more money really going to solve the problem?'," Poilievre asked. "My view is that we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self reliance. That's the solution in the long run -- more money will not solve it."

Poilievre's insistence that aboriginals need to learn "independence and self reliance" was treated as offensive by a great many people. But for those who focused on that unfortunate choice of words, the real issue was entirely lost: namely, the endemic poverty that persists on Canadian aboriginal reserves.

Tom Flanagan has also stirred up a great deal of controversy with his own recommendations on aboriginal policy. In his book First Nations? Second Thoughts, Flanagan suggests that, among other things, aboriginals should be given property rights over reservation lands so that they may sell those lands or use them as collateral for bank loans.

The ultimate result of that would be transforming reservation lands from a trust handed down from generation to generation into properties no different from any other property.

In other words, assimilation by property.

Assimilation has formally been on the national agenda before. Assimilation was very much at the heart of the Residential School system, just as it was the very soul of Pierre Trudeau's "citizens plus" model for aboriginals.

Assimilation has been rejected by Canada's aboriginals at every turn, and naturally so. Anyone who believes in the right of aboriginal Canadians to self-determination cannot accept forced assimilation. Those who favour assimilation should understand why this is so.

But what is emerging in this particular debate isn't a battle between racism and tolerance, as many of those who favour the status quo in regards to aboriginal policy would insist. Rather, this is a battle between a call for pragmatism -- however ill-conceived -- and a dogma of liberal guilt.

Canadians can no longer ignore the fact that our aboriginal policies -- policies which reinforces the notion that aboriginal Canadians and non-aboriginal Canadians live separate lives -- have failed.

For $10 billion annually poverty on aboriginal reserves should be a thing of the past. Yet it isn't, and it may come down to questionable priorities.

Funding the fight against assimilation may be a losing battle. In one way or another it could be said that assimilation is inevitable, and that the only question remaining is whether this assimilation will be aboriginals assimilating within Canadian society or traditional aboriginal lifestyles assimilating within the modern world.

Yet should aboriginal cultures fade into history as many aboriginal leaders fear, there is no question that this would be an incredible loss.

Balancing the fight against poverty and the fight to preserve aboriginal culture is a difficult task. There's no reason why both can't be done, but it's clearly time for a paradigm shift in the approach to each. The status quo isn't working.

Many Canadians, sadly, are perfectly content with the aboriginal affairs status quo. The poverty on aboriginal reserves is something that many Canadians never see. Aboriginal reserves are, for many Canadians, something they never see. At most, perhaps they pass one on the highway on occasion and see it from a distance at best.

The outrage directed at Frances Widdowson is simply further evidence of how this insular relationship has fed the dogma that has come to dominate Canadian thinking on aboriginal affairs.

It may be an exaggeration to suggest that Widdowson's academic career is threatened by her thinking on the topic. Then again, it might not be. If her career truly is threatened by her antithetical thinking on aboriginal affairs, then she isn't alone.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Lee Harding - "Left Wing vs Aboriginal Status Quo"

Metis Bare Facts - "Hypocrisy in the World

Ahenakew Walks Free

A difference in venue can make all the difference in the world

In what will certainly wind up being an extremely controversial decision, David Ahenakew has been acquitted of inciting hatred against Jews.

In the trial, stemming from a 2002 speech and media interview given by Ahenakew, Justice Wilfred Tucker found that Ahenakew hadn't intended to incite hatred in his comments.

Reading the news coverage of the decision seems to indicate a will on Tucker's part to find Ahenakew not guilty.

In his ruling Tucker echoed Doug Christie's extremely curious reasoning, agreeing that Ahenakew couldn't have intended to promote hatred of Jews if he hadn't planned to speak about that topic.

"There was no consent to an interview about Jews or the question of whether they started the Second World War. That is not the subject that anyone would have foreseen," Christie reasoned. "He consented to an interview about the consent form that Natives were required to sign in order to get medical treatment. And that was the thing that got him and a lot of other Native people very upset and he expected to talk about that, and that's what the judge found."

Reportedly, Ahenakew tried to end the interview before he made the comments, but Star Phoenix reporter Betty Ann Adam insisting on asking him about his previous speech, in which he accused Jews of starting the second world war.

That's when Ahenakew uttered the infamous words.

"How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?" Ahenakew asked. "The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe."

"That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know," Ahenakew insisted. "Jews would have owned the God-damned world."

Christie's argument -- clearly accepted by Tucker -- regarding whether or not Ahenakew's comments were premeditated is complete and utter nonsense.

For one thing, Canadian criminal law doesn't require premeditation in order to prove intent. Second degree murder, for example, requires an intent to kill but not necessarily premeditation.

In other words, premeditation doesn't define intent.

It's hard to imagine that anyone who would describe another group of people as a "disease" doesn't intend for other people to view them with similar revulsion. The words really do speak for themselves.

But Ahenakew's acquittal also speaks for itself. It also speaks for the extremely tenuous nature of Canada's hate crime laws, and speaks to very different results attained in very different venues.

In a Human Rights Commission Ahenakew would have had no right to legal counsel and his complainants would have been subject to extremely lax rules of evidence. In a Human Rights Commission, Ahenakew would have very likely been convicted.

Of course, Tucker's decision shouldn't be confused for condonation of Ahanakew's remarks.

"The opinions distorted historical facts and general views expressed by the accused can only be viewed with revulsion and disgust by ordinary Canadians," Tucker announced. "That anyone would characterize the murder of millions of innocent human beings as 'getting rid of a disease,' or 'trying to clean up the world' is incomprehensible to decent people."

In contrast to rulings by Canada's various Human Rights Commissions, Ahenakew has walked away from this one without even having to apologize.

"I'm still the same guy that was born, that served the world, that served the army, that served the people. I'm still that same guy," Ahenakew said. "And I'm too damn old now to change anyways."

That's a far cry from the mandated apology and ban on commenting on Jews that could have been ordered by a Human Rights Commission.

Whether or not Ahenakew's acquittal is a setback for Canada's hate speech legislation is something that will remain to be seen, as those facing similar charges in future will almost certainly look to it as a precedent under which they, too, can be acquitted.

In the meantime what will almost certainly fall into greater question is whether or not these laws should be kept at all.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Zach Bell - "Jewish Thoughts On David Ahenakew"

Rob Harvie - "Saskatoon Provincial Court Finds Ahenakew 'Not Guilty' of Hate Crime And Probably Unintentionally Does the Right Thing"

Shmohawk - "revolting, disgusting and untrue"

Patrick Brazeau's $260,000 Question

Government asks Congress of Aboriginal Peoples for its money back

Ever since Patrick Brazeau's appointment to the Senate, questions have lingered over his handling of sexual harassment allegations during his time as the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Now, Brazeau will have to face another question about the CAP's operations during his time as National Chief.

In 2007, Health Canada began an audit of the CAP to determine what happened to $472,900 the government gave the organization in order to improve health care for off-reserve aboriginals. Of particular interest in the project was diabetes and early childhood development.

The CAP apparently dispursed more than a quarter of a million dollars without proper documentation, including the awarding of work without contracts, and unexplained expenditure of funds.

"The audit findings identified concerns with CAP's internal financial controls including approximately $260,000 of ineligible expenses in consulting fees, travel and meeting costs and per diems for CAP employees during 2005-06," a Health Canada spokesperson wrote in a news release.

A significant portion of the funds was even allegedly spent on board meetings for which no minutes were recorded.

The government has halted all funding to CAP until it submits a plan to repay Health Canada.

If the previous concerns about Brazeau's handling of sexual harassment weren't enough to cast serious doubts on Brazeau these recent developments have certainly done the job.

With the new concerns about possible corruption within the CAP this development raises, there's no tenable way that Stephen Harper can go ahead with Brazeau's appointment. The apparent misappropriation of government funds by the CAP has scandal written all over it.

One must also consider important questions about whether or not Stephen Harper knew about the audit -- as mentioned previously, initiated in 2007 -- before appointing Brazeau to the Senate. Examining any individual's dealings with government agencies would strike most Canadians as a reasonably routine part of any vetting process. And while Harper likely couldn't have predicted the outcome of this audit, the risk he likely took in making this appointment should have many Canadians wondering about his judgement.

Brazeau has some important questions about precisely what happened to the $260,000 in question. Until he does, Stephen Harper should suspend his appointment. Failing that, Brazeau himself should voluntarily step aside.

Patrick Brazeau's Choice

Amidst the innuendo, the Globe and Mail raises a point

As Patrick Brazeau prepares to formally take his seat in the Canadian Senate, a scandal is emerging that may cast a shadow over the entire affair.

Jade Harper, a former employee of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, has filed a grievance against Brazeau alleging that he allowed drinking and sexual exploitation to take place in the offices of the CAP.

"There was a lot of drinking at the office," Harper said. "Once I put my grievance in, I would get the dirty looks in the office. No one would talk to me. Patrick wouldn't ...They just totally shut the door on me completely."

Harper alleges that she was sexually exploited by a senior CAP employee. She had a "personal relationship" with that individual.

As if Harper's allegations weren't bad enough, Brazeau himself is facing a sexual harrassment complaint that dates to the same time as Harper's complaint.

The original complaint is currently before Canada's currently-embattled Human Rights Commission. The executive board of the CAP had investigated the allegations and acquitted Brazeau last year.

"It's basically case-closed," Brazeau insisted.

However, Walter Menard, the CAP executive board member from Manitoba, insists that the investigation was not transparent. Indeed, the Harper case represents the second time that the CAP had such allegations made against during that period of time, and the second occasion on which the CAP simply investigated itself.

Of course, such issues tend to be extremely contentious, and are rarely resolved to the satisfaction of the complainants unless the accused is found guilty. That the matter would find itself before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal as opposed to a court of law is also fairly troubling, considering the extremely dubious activities of some of Canada's Human Rights Commissions.

Considering the timeframe of the two complaints, there is no question that they should be investigated by an outside agency. However, the CHRC is absolutely not the place for such an investigation.

More interestingly, however, Brazeau wants to wants to remain the chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples even as he sits in the Senate.

As a spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation noted, that is definitely a serious no-no.

"At the end of the day, if the money's coming from taxpayers, it's double dipping of a kind," the spokesperson announced, referring to the $100,170 Brazeau recieves as the CAP Chief and the $130,400 salary he would recieve as a Senator. The CTF spokesperson also rightly raised the very real probability -- not mere possibility -- of a conflict of interest. "To actually be a member of the government that he's advocating to would strike me as inherently conflictual."

There's very little question that it would. As the Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Brazeau's first responsibility is to Canada's off-reserve aboriginal population. But as a Senator, his first responsibility is to the people of Canada as a whole.

While most Canadians like to believe that almost any issue that arises between Canada's aboriginals and the country as a whole can be worked out to the mutual satisfaction of each party, history has far too often taught us differently.

While Brazeau's voice within Parliament and within the government in particular is valuable to aboriginal Canadians, the truth of the matter is that he cannot reasonably be expected to live up to the obligations of each role. Especially when one considers the near inevitability of conflict between the two.

Brazeau needs to decide how he can best serve his country and his people. Then he needs to make his choice.

He cannot be both a Senator and the Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.