“The government continues to disregard valid concerns that are raised. There really are no options,” NDP MP Jean Crowder (Nanaimo-Cowichan, B.C.), her party’s aboriginal affairs critic, told The Hill Times. “When I talk to chiefs, they have a really hard time getting in to talk to the minister or any of the other ministers, aside from aboriginal affairs. They get stonewalled at every turn by the department. I don’t know what you expect from people when they have nowhere else to go to have an honest dialogue.”
The Assembly of First Nations was holding a special chiefs assembly in Gatineau, Que., last week when some chiefs decided to hold a protest just outside Centre Block on Parliament Hill’s steps.
Ryerson University professor Pamela Palmater, a Mi’kmaq lawyer from Eel River Bar First Nation in New Brunswick and who ran unsuccessfully for the AFN leadership, told The Hill Times that she and Chief Wallace Fox from Onion Lake First Nation in Saskatchewan were sitting at the assembly and watching people go through the agenda and delivering the same speeches at the Hilton Lac Leamy discussing how to improve First Nations communities when at the same time Parliamentarians were unilaterally making decisions that negatively affected them.
“So he and I were like, ‘We have got to do something about this. We have to show our people that we’re willing to take action on their behalf,’ so he and I started working with the different First Nations chiefs and then he made that statement to the AFN that we should go and protest on Parliament,” Prof. Palmater said. “That’s kind of how it evolved. That’s what we ended up doing.”
About 250 First Nations chiefs then went to Parliament and gathered on the front steps.
The chiefs were there to protest the changes to “resource development” under Bill C-45, the Second Budget Implementation Bill, because they said it “undermines” their rights and the government’s duty to consult. The budget bill also makes changes to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which affect First Nations’ treaty rights. For example, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Transport minister will be able to approve natural resource projects that affect 167 listed lakes, rivers and oceans, but will not have to consult with First Nations before doing so. The AFN said those changes “potentially compromise key aspects of the Crown-First Nation relationship and may serve to further create uncertainty.”
AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo delivered an unusually passionate speech on the Hill’s front steps calling on everyone to work together.
“There is a great struggle going on. We want this message heard by the people of Canada. Those who are gathering in this House behind us, it has been a struggle that’s been going on for a long time,” Mr. Atleo said. “We are here today to say that the great struggle continues. We will achieve justice for our people. We will achieve justice and see our rights implemented. And we want to express to this country that we are going to do this work together. … There is great suffering that is happening. We are gathered here because there is anger, and there is frustration and it is real. That which our people are faced with every single day is life and death. Together we can accomplish a greater day for our people.”
Later in the day, NDP MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ont.) invited a delegation of First Nations chiefs to the House of Commons.
They were demanding to be heard by the Conservative government.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver (Eglinton-Lawrence, Ont.) came out to speak with them. A squirmish ensued when the chiefs wanted to go into the House Chamber but security guards blocked them.
“It really shows just how bad the relationship is that the politicians won’t even talk to us about the legislation they’re passing. It’s not even that they won’t do the duty to consult, but they won’t even give us five minutes to hear what we have to say about it, they think they’re the sole arbiter of what is good for our lives,” Prof. Palmater said. “What kind of credentials do they have to sit in Parliament and draft eight more new pieces of legislation to improve our lives? Because, clearly, our lives aren’t improving. You look at the socio-economic statistics over the last 20 years, everything’s getting worse—housing, education, health, lifespan.”
Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, B.C.) told The Hill Times in an email that the government does in fact consult with First Nations.
“Our government respects its duty to consult with our First Nation partners. In fact, each year we conduct approximately 5,000 consultations with First Nations covering regulatory issues, environmental assessments, land disposals and treaty issues. We will continue to fulfill our duty to consult First Nations and to working in partnership with them to unlock their economic potential,” he said, noting that the budget committed more than $13-million toward consultations with aboriginal peoples.
But, almost a year after a First Nations-Crown gathering was held in Ottawa, nothing has changed despite platitudes about a “new relationship,” Ms. Crowder said.
“We should have actually had more detail about what ‘new relationship’ meant to the Prime Minister. I think people were optimistic that a new relationship would mean that you would reset, that you would come together as partners at the table, that legislation that was introduced would be developed in conjunction with First Nations, but nothing over this past year has demonstrated a new relationship. The only relationship is a worse relationship,” she said.
Prof. Palmater said this was just the beginning and that First Nations are organizing across the country to make their voices heard.
“There’s a large number of chiefs and of course tons of grassroots people that aren’t going to take any of this stuff sitting down, so we’re in the process of drafting our next steps,” she said.
Meanwhile, the opposition parties said a second squirmish on the floor of the House Chamber was an extension of the Conservatives’ unwillingness to work with any sort of opposition.
“It’s not just [Government House Leader] Peter Van Loan trying to physically intimidate our House leader, it’s just a variety of things that the Conservatives do which shows a disrespect for Parliament generally,” NDP MP Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster, B.C.) said last week. “Because of that, you see it reflected in legislation like these massive monster bills that destroy everything in their path. You see that in the actions of many ministers and their refusal to answer basic questions. Prime Minister Harper is well known as a control freak and what he can’t control, he diminishes or demeans. He can’t control opposition Parliamentarians so I think his perception of leadership is to diminish and demean those that were elected from ridings other than Conservative ridings and I think that’s reflected in how Conservatives act.”
After more than six hours of voting on 47 amendments to Bill C-45, the Second Budget Implementation Bill, all of which were defeated last Tuesday, NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C.) raised a point of order last Wednesday stating that some of the votes should not have counted because Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Oshawa, Ont.), who moved some of the motions, was not in his seat to vote on them. House Speaker Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask.) dismissed the motion. Shortly after, Mr. Van Loan (York-Simcoe, Ont.) walked over to Mr. Cullen’s desk wagging his finger. A kerfuffle ensued when NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, Que.) said something to Mr. Van Loan. NDP MP Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, Ont.) and Defence Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) quickly intervened to diffuse the situation and separate the two. While there was video of the incident, audio could not be heard.
Mr. Dewar said last Thursday that he could see Mr. Van Loan walking across the aisle aggressively so he got involved. “He was wagging his finger and continued to say some very aggressive things and threats and that was unprompted and unbecoming any member of the House, let alone a House leader and he continued to do that,” Mr. Dewar said. “I saw him coming across. I could see in his face that he was very upset and in a very aggressive kind of mode and so I’ve seen that before in men and I know it’s the best thing to do is to get people away from each other and that’s what I did.”
Mr. Dewar said that Mr. Mulcair told Mr. Van Loan, “Don’t threaten my House leader” and that it was “totally appropriate.”
In a point of order, Mr. Van Loan apologized for his behaviour. He said that he wanted to discuss the point of order with Mr. Cullen because while mistakes during voting happens, it was not the government’s fault but rather the deputy Speaker’s.
“I know that mistakes happen. The deputy Speaker is new and I am sure he is going to do a very good job, but I thought it was inappropriate for the New Democrats to raise a point of order relying on that mistake and somehow suggest it was the responsibility of the government. To do that was inappropriate,” Mr. Van Loan said in the House. “It put me in a very difficult position. I did not wish, in defending the government, to be critical of the deputy Speaker and I tried very delicately to dance around the point. … I acknowledge that I used an inappropriate word when I was discussing this matter with the opposition House leader. I should not have done that and I apologize for that. I would expect the opposition House leader to do the same and I hope that at this point we can move forward and get on with the important business that Canadians want us to do.”
Mr. Cullen said, however, that there is no need for him to apologize. “I was there. I was in the moment. [Mr. Mulcair] stood up and said, ‘You can’t do this here. This is not acceptable. You can’t talk to my House Leader that way.’ I don’t know why standing up to a bully requires an apology. The guy [Mr. Van Loan] was threatening me,” he said.
During Members’ Statements last Thursday, Conservative MP Ryan Leef (Yukon) rose to talk about Mr. Mulcair and was promptly cut off by Mr. Scheer.
Liberal Deputy Leader Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Sask.) said all this tension is a result of a “polarization” in Canadian politics.
“It was a pretty outrageous incident that I think indicates a very high level of bad blood and by definition these are the dangers that come from a bitterly polarized political situation,” he said. “For all of the protestations of good intent that we’ve heard from the House leadership on the Conservative and the NDP sides, it is certainly fragile and evaporates in an instant. It’s an insult to Parliament and an insult to the proper functioning of our democracy and it sets a very bad example.”
Mr. Goodale said it’s a “toxic” environment in the House.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich Gulf-Islands, B.C.) agreed, but said things won’t change unless the system does. She suggested that the hyper-partisanship is destroying Parliament and that MPs should sit randomly in the House instead of grouped by party.
“[Sitting in parties] ramps up a level of hostility and sort of a gladiatorial spirit that we’re going to take you guys down, whichever side is talking. I think it’s unfortunate,” she said, noting she also thinks if more women were elected to the House, decorum would be greatly improved.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Bea Vongdouangchanh
No comments:
Post a Comment