Trust. Integrity. Reputation. Top News - November - 2004 Volume 22 - Number 8 Despite Powley, Métis hunting limited by MNR Jamieson won't run for second term Who will be next? Feds breaking promises to children in care Justice Wright got it right - Editorial A person with schizophrenia speaks out - Guest Column Check out Ontario Birchbark The entire contents of Windspeaker's November issue is available online in the AMMSA Archives. Access is restricted to subscribers only. CLICK HERE FOR ONLINE SUBSCRIPTION INFO. Despite Powley, Métis hunting limited by MNR Paul Barnsley, Windspeaker Staff Writer, Toronto An angry Tony Belcourt, president of the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO), called a press conference Oct. 7 to respond to an announcement made the previous day by Ontario Minister of Natural Resources David Ramsay. Belcourt said the minister had broken a promise to the Métis people when he announced that an agreement to give Métis hunters the same rights as First Nation hunters was being limited to only the northern part of the province. The MNO president said that was a direct violation of the "historic agreement on the recognition of Métis harvesting rights, made by . . . Ramsay with the Métis Nation of Ontario on July 7." The agreement reached in July provided for a two-year interim period during which the MNR would recognize Métis harvesters carrying MNO harvester certificates who are in their traditional harvesting area throughout Ontario. Belcourt's organization agreed to issue no more than 1,250 harvesting certificates for the fall hunting season. In return, the MNR agreed to treat Métis people the same as First Nations people according to the province's interim enforcement policy. Months after the agreement was finalized Ramsay announced that only MNO harvesters north of Sudbury would be recognized. "Minister Ramsay needs to be reminded of his own statement. When asked if any future government could ever break the historic deal, he said: 'Nobody is going to reverse that. You don't take back peoples' rights,'" Belcourt said. When contacted by Windspeaker on Oct. 27, Belcourt was still angry. He said the same Ontario bureaucrats who fought so hard against the Powley case, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the Ontario and federal government in deciding that Métis people have Aboriginal rights, are now arbitrarily limiting the province's response to that court ruling. "But the minister's not off the hook," he added. "He's ultimately responsible." Belcourt said that the MNR fish and wildlife officers are working according to the terms of a previous protocol agreement dealing with Métis hunters where game and weapons are not seized if they're caught hunting without a provincial license and no charges are laid. "But they could be charged. There's no guarantee it couldn't happen and that's the problem," he said. "And in light of the fact that we have an agreement, that would be completely unjust." Belcourt noted that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty took credit on national television during the recently completed first ministers meetings on health for coming to an agreement with Métis hunters. But by later making a unilateral decision to limit the scope of the agreement, he said, the province has now broken the deal. "Our people had a deal with the province that they could exercise their traditional right to hunt for food anywhere in any of their traditional territories, not just some," he said. "There is no plausible excuse for what they've done. This is simply a reflection of an entrenched prejudice within the MNR against Métis people." The MNO president took issue with the timing of the announcement as well. "So they make their announcement just before the Thanksgiving weekend and even if some of our people decided to get hunting tags so they could harvest a moose, they can't get tags because it's too late. All the tags have already been handed out. It's an underhanded tactic designed to keep our people from exercising their hunting rights." So now, Métis people in Ontario who want to exercise the rights that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled they possess will have to return to court to fight the government's decision. Tony Belcourt has an ace up his sleeve in that battle. A recent landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling, known as the Okanagan Indian Band case, requires the Crown to pay for the legal costs of parties who are forced into expensive legal fights over constitutional matters by Crown decisions or actions. "It was a very important Supreme Court of Canada decision earlier this year that says that if the government doesn't believe the rights are there and they want to charge you, the government has to finance the court case," he said. By breaking agreements and forcing more expensive court action, the bureaucrats are running up costs that Ontario taxpayers will have to pay. Belcourt believes the government officials are taking advantage of the fact that the public doesn't understand the complex issues involved in Aboriginal rights cases and the fact that hunting issues don't resonate with the media or the general public in the heavily populated urban areas of the province. "They're taking advantage of the fact that the voters don't understand the issues or what they're doing. But sooner or later they're going to have think carefully about how they're using taxpayers' money and it's our money too," he said. "They're also taking advantage of the fact that people in the 905 area code around Toronto don't understand this and they know it's not a hot button issue with the Toronto Star." Officials told Belcourt that they had to execute the government's response in "a legally defensible manner." He rejects that as a rationalization for maintaining the status quo by giving into the demands of the influential recreational hunting and fishing lobby. "These are the guys who make the laws," he said. "They can do whatever it takes to make the agreement legally defensible. But they just want to continue excluding our people." Belcourt said the bureaucrats have also said they have to limit the catch in order to make sure that First Nation hunters have enough to meet their needs. "If that's the case, why did they issue 37,000 moose tags to recreational hunters, many of them from the United States?" he asked. In British Columbia, the province's ministry of water, lands and air protection's Web site carries this notice to Métis hunters: "A reminder that all Métis individuals intending to hunt in the upcoming season are required, under the Wildlife Act, to carry a valid hunting license and comply with all appropriate hunting regulations. The Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia (MPCBC) director of natural resources, Dean Trumbley, said the B.C. government did not consult with the Métis council before posting this notice. "MPCBC does not agree with this policy," he wrote in a letter addressed to all Métis citizens in the province. The MPCBC is continuing talks with the province and is urging Métis people to comply with provincial regulations until something can be worked out that takes Powley into account. Top Jamieson won't run for second term Paul Barnsley, Windspeaker Staff Writer, Six Nations of the Grand River Ont. Canada's most populous First Nation will have a new chief on Nov. 20. Chief Roberta Jamieson announced in early October she will not seek a second term as chief of Six Nations. The former Ontario ombudsman and the first Native woman in Canada to earn a law degree ran second to Phil Fontaine in the July 2003 campaign for national chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). Her announcement changes the local and national political landscape. Reached by phone on Oct. 20, the retiring chief said speculation that she was being forced out of office was not based in fact. "No, I decided that my job is done and that there are other leaders that are capable and talented and it's their time," she said. "I'm very proud of what we've done as a community. I'm very proud to have been the leader during this period, but it's time to step back." During her three years as chief, Jamieson fired several long-term band employees and challenged other prominent community members, compiling an extensive list of enemies. At the national level, her outspoken opposition to the First Nations governance act did not win her any friends in former Indian Affairs minister Robert Nault's office or among chiefs who favored that legislative agenda. She was also accused by the AFN's executive members of opposing Fontaine's agenda for personal political reasons. Jamieson and nine of her 12 council members even challenged local media, filing a libel action against the Six Nations weekly newspaper Turtle Island News and its publisher Lynda Powless. Jamieson admits she's taken on a lot of firmly entrenched empires within the Six Nations bureaucracy and earned the wrath of many prominent members of the community, but she insists she's not pulling the plug on her political career because she's not sure she can win. Jamieson says she's simply accomplished her goals as chief. "Three years ago there were serious challenges in this community. People were concerned about the lack of accountability and transparency at the council level. There had been one failed economic development project after another. Demands for forensic audits, council house being locked, the community was very concerned about the local government, basically," she said. "A lot of people asked me if I would step forward given my background in law and as ombudsman to put my name forward and stand for election as chief. And after staying out of politics quite deliberately for 25 or 30 years, I decided it was my responsibility to step forward and work with the community in addressing these problems and getting us on the right track and I think I've done my job." Jamieson says she's done her job at the national level as well. She and Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) President Stewart Phillip became the most visible and vocal proponents of the rights-based agenda when they organized an informal group of chiefs who called themselves the implementation committee. "There's two things I need to say about that. One is, Six Nations, while we played a leadership role, we're not alone. There is a strong view amongst chiefs nationally that there is a need to be pro-active on the rights agenda. That was very clear to me in the days of the implementation committee and when I was drafted to run at a national level, I ran because of the issues. I was not satisfied with the position taken by either of the other two candidates and I felt I had an obligation and responsibility to not only speak out but step forward and I did. I think I did my job there as well. I mean, I know who won but there are voices out there, there are chiefs who are increasingly becoming vocal. Much younger chiefs, many more women, many more so-called professionals getting involved." There is a clear attempt underway by some UBCIC members to replace Phillip with a less militant leader at an election scheduled at the end of October (past Windspeaker's production deadline) leaving the possibility that two fire-brands of the rights-based agenda will be missing from the next AFN confederacy to be held in Ottawa in December. Jamison said that many young, educated and capable chiefs are emerging on the political scene. "They're strong leaders and I have every confidence that they'll continue." Jamison insists she's not stepping back from the issues. "Just because I'm not running again as chief of Six Nations, it doesn't mean I'm going to fall off the face of the earth. I'm just taking on another role in my life," she said. And rumors are swirling across the country about the soon-to-be-former Six Nations chief's next position. "Yeah, I'm the governor general; I'm a senator; I'm a whole bunch of things," she said, laughing. "I have considered a number of options. I am about to make a decision. But out of the respect for the decision and the role I'm going to take up and the appropriate way of announcing it, I'm not going to confirm anything at this point." One rumor won't go away. Several well-placed sources say she's about to be named the successor to John Kim Bell at the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation. Windspeaker contacted NAAF board member Len Flett on Oct. 26. He would not comment on the selection process but he did say the number of candidates for the position is down to four and the board expects to make an announcement in late November. He would neither confirm nor deny whether Jamieson was one of the four finalists. Top Who will be next? Paul Barnsley, Windspeaker Staff Writer Councillor Dave General, who gained national notoriety when he accused National Chief Phil Fontaine of "grovelling" before then-Indian Affairs minister Andy Mitchell at this year's spring confederacy of the Assembly of First Nation, is seen as the heir apparent to Chief Roberta Jamieson in the top job on Six Nations of the Grand River territory in Ontario. While community sources say it's no secret that General will seek to attract Jamieson's core support, the departing chief chose not to publicly declare him her chosen successor. "I don't think that's my role," she said. "It's up to the people now to select the leadership. I am hopeful that the leadership that is selected will continue in the same direction. Fifty per cent more people than ever voted in the last election. The people felt very strongly and they came out and I'm hopeful that will continue." Two former chiefs will seek to keep General out of the chief's office. Steve Williams, president of Grand River Enterprises, the company that produces Sago cigarettes, and former Indian Affairs Atlantic regional director general Bill Montour. Local sources say there is some question Montour meets the requirement that a candidate must have resided on the territory for a year before an election. David "Peewee" Greene, Lewis Staats Jr. and Chad General round out the six-man race. Top Feds breaking promises to children in care Paul Barnsley, Windspeaker Staff Writer, Ottawa The announcement last month that as much as $1 billion in new money will be directed to improving the health outcomes of Aboriginal people doesn't impress Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. Blackstock knows the numbers on Aboriginal children in care and they're not good. And she says the department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has informed her that none of the recently announced money will make it into this area of concern. Windspeaker obtained a letter that Blackstock wrote Oct. 21 to Senator Landon Pearson, with copies sent to Prime Minister Paul Martin and Indian Affairs Minister Andy Scott. The senator is a well-respected advocate for children. In 1996, she was named advisor to the minister of Foreign Affairs on children's rights. In 1999, she was named personal representative of then-prime minister Jean Chrétien to the 2002 special session on children of the United Nations general assembly. The letter was blunt, laying out the bitter realities of the situation of children in care. "There are more First Nations children and youth in institutional care in Canada than there were at the height of residential school operations in the 1940s," Blackstock wrote, calling the situation critical. Aboriginal children represent 30 to 40 per cent of children in child welfare care but only five to six per cent of the child population in the country, she said. Figures supplied by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) itself indicate the number of status Indian children resident on reserve placed in child welfare care increased a staggering 71.5 per cent from 1995 to 2001. She quoted the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect which stated that Aboriginal children are twice as likely as their non-Aboriginal counterparts to be reported to child welfare authorities for neglect. "Unpacking the neglect definition further, researchers found that if conditions of poverty, inadequate housing and substance misuse were addressed there should be no over-representation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system," she wrote. Child welfare is normally a provincial responsibility but First Nation child welfare agencies are funded by INAC. But they must follow provincial rules. When the Assembly of First Nations and INAC conducted a joint national policy review of child welfare processes within INAC in 2000, it was discovered that First Nation agencies, on average, receive 22 per cent less funding per child than their mainstream, provincially-funded counterparts. As well as being asked to maintain provincial standards with but three-quarters of the funding, First Nation agencies are also being denied funding for services that are required by law, Blackstock told the senator. "Least disruptive measures," services that are provided to children at significant risk of maltreatment so that they can remain safely in their homes, are not funded at all by INAC, she added. These services are, however, provided in the mainstream agencies to help children remain in the care of their parents and out of foster care. "First Nations agencies report that the numbers of children in care could be reduced if adequate and sustained funding for least disruptive measures was provided by INAC," Blackstock wrote. The national policy review also showed that child welfare costs are increasing by more than six per cent per year but there has not been a cost of living increase in the INAC funding formula for First Nations child and family service agencies since 1995. The policy review contained 17 recommendations that would deal with these troubling statistics, but four years later those recommendations have not been acted upon. During a meeting with former Indian Affairs Minister Andy Mitchell, Blackstock was told the "government was balancing the needs of children in child welfare care with other pressing priorities for the department." "We acknowledge that the ministry does face a series of competing pressures; however, it is important to underscore that least disruptive measures are statutory and thus are not a discretionary expenditure for government," she told Pearson. "The failure to fund these services has not only resulted in an increase in the numbers of First Nations children in care, it has also meant that First Nations children on reserve do not receive equal treatment under child welfare laws." That's a violation of the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which both admonish against all forms of discrimination, she added. And despite the lower-than-mainstream funding levels and almost a decade of seeing inflation erode funding levels further, there have been cuts. The government has capped the amounts First Nation agencies are funded for legal costs. Mitchell claimed that funding exists for legal costs but Blackstock reminded him the $5,000 per year received by the Mi'kmaq child and family services agency-one of the largest of the 105 agencies in Canada-is only a fraction of the $500,000 a year required. During a phone interview, Blackstock was asked why these disturbing figures have not been reported before. "A lot of this information wasn't available until very recently. It's new and emerging information coming out. But the issues in regard to the funding have been longstanding. Agencies have been providing reports to the department about the inadequacy of the funding as well as the impacts of the inadequacy of the funding for a long period of time," Cindy Blackstockr eplied. She was asked if she saw it as reasonable to wonder why some portion of the recently announced $700 million for Aboriginal health shouldn't include some funding to fix the problems in the child welfare area. "I would have hoped so but I haven't seen anything about child welfare. In my view there should be a connection here," she replied. "The piece that the department doesn't seem to get is, number one, these are statutory services that are provided not to children who are at risk of maltreatment but who are experiencing some level of child maltreatment, who are amongst the most vulnerable kids in the country. Yet they're not receiving the services that would keep them safe in their homes, that are available to every other Canadian. We understand that some kids will need to go into foster care but it shouldn't be because they're not receiving services that are available to every other child." Two hundred million of the $700 million is set aside so that bureaucrats can solve jurisdictional squabbles and design ways to work together through different levels of government. That's a big chunk of money eaten up by government officials that will not help address the troubling shortfalls in child welfare. Blackstock said kids who are in danger should be a more pressing priority than bickering bureaucrats. "I'm not even convinced at this point that it's even on the agenda. Within the department, I've never heard any of the ministers make a statement about child welfare. INAC does not consider itself a children's ministry. And that's the type of profile I'm trying to put on it, to say, 'Yes, you still are a children's ministry and of all the promises you make you should be keeping the ones you make to children.'" Some decisions to direct money to First Nation agencies may be affected by the fact that a couple have had highly publicized problems dealing with financial accountability and political infighting. "We don't have a monopoly on that, you know. I'm against bad practices everywhere," she said. There have also been problems with some mainstream children's aid groups "but that doesn't mean you quash every provincial children's aid society," she added. "The other stereotype that's out there is that these kids are already getting all the perks. Look at this big $8 billion, etc. That's where we've really tried to put our research, to debunk that myth and show that not only are these kids receiving 22 per cent less federal services but they're not receiving any provincial child welfare services in most cases, no municipal services for quality of life like rec centres and libraries, which mean a lot to children," she said. And support services provided off reserve simply don't exist on reserve. "They don't get access to most of the voluntary sector resources, that provide food banks, parent support centres, camps for kids. It's funded to the tune of $90 billion a year and our research shows that First Nations kids on reserve receive almost none of that," she added. "You don't miss what you don't have. But when you start to think about just quality of life supports that people don't have on reserves, that we take for granted off reserve, it's really shocking. And it's no wonder, on the basis of that, that we have so many kids in care. I think if we did that to every Canadian kid the numbers of kids in care would skyrocket." Top