Daily Archives: April 16, 2016

Activism, climate science, Politics, solutions

My Advice to NDP: Look Before You Leap. Then Leap

Leave a comment

And don’t let Canada’s punditariat restrict or stifle your debate.

Filmmaker Avi Lewis
Filmmaker Avi Lewis, centre, has been a chief defender of the Leap Manifesto in the NDP. Photo by Joshua Berson.

By Crawford Kilian, reposted from TheTyee, Apr 14, 2016

To judge from the reaction of the Canadian punditariat, the New Democrats’ convention in Edmonton was a murder-suicide. Tom Mulcair was ousted (and immediately resurrected himself as interim leader), and the convention voted to discuss the Leap Manifesto — which everyone took to be political self-immolation.

Even the urbane Robin Sears, who’s an old New Democrat backroom guy, associated the Leapers with the party’s ancient struggles with Trotskyites and the Waffle movement. The Leapers, Sears said, were just the latest incarnation of the NDP’s “Birkenstock Left.” They posed a “fateful choice” for the NDP:

“It can once again indulge its tribal myths about public ownership and an Arctic nation kept affluent and warmed by thousands of acres of solar panels. Or it can pick up the baton that Jack Layton bequeathed to Thomas Mulcair, that of a serious national progressive party disciplined enough to be rewarded with power.

“If it chooses the Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, Socialist Caucus book of children’s political fairy tales, they will have decisively buried that dream, consigned its achievement to a distant future generation.”

Lawrence Martin harmonized with Sears like Simon with Garfunkel: “Under the leadership of Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair, it was moving into the mainstream. Now, with the rejection of Mr. Mulcair at the Edmonton convention and the rise of the Leapers, it is returning to the days of dogma — days when it didn’t even pretend to be a serious contender for the prize of governance.”

L. Ian MacDonald said the party had been “hijacked by the loony left.”

B.C.’s own Les Leyne quoted provincial NDP leader John Horgan: “We won’t be proceeding under any Leap Manifesto… under my leadership.”

And Tasha Kheiriddin of iPolitics speculated that the “hard-left” Leap Manifesto would win support from Quebec separatists, driving other Quebecers into the arms of the Trudeau Liberals in 2019.

Accept the status quo, or else

All such commentators operated from unspoken premises: they define the mainstream as acceptance of the status quo. Only a “mainstream” party or politician deserves respect, because only “mainstream” parties have a chance of winning power. And winning power is the only purpose of engaging in politics.

Without realizing it, our pundits have vindicated Noam Chomsky, who years ago observed:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

Ironically, Justin Trudeau owes his present power to the NDP’s careful paddling in the Tory-defined mainstream during the years when Stephen Harper was the status quo. Mulcair earned mainstream pundits’ praise by his Question Period interrogation of Harper over the Duffy scandal. That was a mainstream Opposition’s job. He made good TV drama, and the pundits loved him.

The pundits (and the NDP) meanwhile derided Trudeau for his feeble presence in Question Period, and his frequent absences. The third-party cutie-pie ignored them. He was off in the wilds of the grassroots, meeting people and rebuilding a Liberal organization that the mainstream pundits (and the NDP) had written off as the Blackberry of politics.

The revenge of Ulysses

In October 2015, the cutie-pie came back like Ulysses to Ithaca, to slaughter the enemies who’d taken over his palace and to take his place on his father’s throne. Like Ulysses, Trudeau is a classic ironic hero, the man who is far more than he seems to those locked into mainstream thinking.

The pundits, seeing how Trudeau slaughtered the Conservatives and New Democrats, have plunged into the new mainstream. For the foreseeable future, that mainstream will be what Trudeau defines it to be, and the pundits will run a lively Chomskyan debate within the limits Trudeau sets.

But even an ironic hero can’t solve all political problems. I’ve read the Leap Manifesto, and to me it’s about as radical and “hard left” as explaining to your 16-year-old why she should stop smoking right now, not after she’s finished her current carton plus the two stashed under her bed.

The manifesto is short, under 1,400 words. It says very little that we didn’t know in the 1960s and ’70s, when Greenpeace got going in Vancouver. Climate science in the past 20 years has only confirmed it, and we now contemplate a catastrophe in progress.

We Canadians contribute to that catastrophe with every barrel of oil and cubic foot of gas we ship. Whatever social services we fund out of our taxes on those exports, the exports will only make things worse. We can’t justify doing it just because it means jobs; gangster kids shoot at one another to preserve their jobs peddling crap that their customers are addicted to.

The Leap Manifesto is telling the kids that they can have a pretty good life without selling crap, but they’ll have to learn more than driving skills and marksmanship. To the kids, this is way outside the mainstream of acceptable thought, just as automobiles were ridiculous to makers of horse-drawn surreys with a fringe on the top.

If the authors and signers of the Leap Manifesto deserve criticism, it’s for not spelling out a clear program to create green jobs for oil patch workers, jobs that would bring them electric cars and homes warmed by solar panels. But that’s really the job of the political parties — at least the parties looking beyond 2019 to where their kids and grandchildren will spend the rest of their lives.

Those parties, whoever leads them, will need to ignore the pundits and their anxieties about staying in the mainstream and winning power.

No matter who defines the present mainstream, it will soon carry us over the falls and onto the rocks. This is indeed the time for a leap, and the longer we postpone it, the worse our chances of survival.

SOURCE

Activism, Cultural Genocide, genocide, Politics

Daniels v. Canada - We are all “aborigines”

Leave a comment

By Pam Palmater, reposted from Indigenous Nationhood, April 15, 2016

The Daniels decision hasn’t been out for 24 hours yet and already there is mass confusion about what it does and does not say. Despite the buzz in mainstream and social media, it does NOT make Metis and non-status Indians “Indians” under the Indian Act. The case also does NOT give Metis and non-status Indians any “rights”. This wasn’t a case about hunting or fishing. So, for all the emails, Facebook messages and inquiries I have received from people asking if I can help them become registered (status) Indians or whether they can get free education now – this case does not do that. While the case itself was an important one, the actual decision imported more problems than it resolved.

It was a case designed specifically to answer the question about whether Metis and non-status Indians are included in the definition of the term “Indian” in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867 (also referred to as British North America Act). The Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) answer was “yes”.

Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act 1867 set out the jurisdictional powers of the federal and provincial governments. Jurisdiction means an authority or power over a certain area. Generally, it does NOT create a legal obligation to act or legislate in that specific area. These individual areas of jurisdiction are referred to as “heads of power”. For example, the federal government has jurisdiction over things like criminal law, divorce law, banking and the military. The provinces have powers over hospitals, charities and taverns. The head of power at issue in this case is section 91(24) Indians and lands reserved for the Indians.

It should be remembered that this is NOT the first SCC case on what the term “Indian” includes under section 91(24). In 1939, the federal government and province of Quebec sought clarification from the court as to whether the term “Eskimo” now referred to as “Inuit” was included in the term “Indian”. In that case, the court used historical documents to demonstrate that while the Inuit were unique, they were considered to one of many “tribes” of Indians. As a result, the Inuit are considered “Indians” for the purposes of section 91(24) federal jurisdiction. This did NOT mean that all Inuit were registered as Indians under the Indian Act. In fact, section 4(1) of the Indian Act specifically states:

4(1) A reference in this Act to an Indian does not include any person of the race of aborigines commonly referred to as Inuit.

The term “aborigine” is not defined in the Indian Act, but commonly refers to an indigenous person of a particular territory or country –the original inhabitants. The question now is whether Canada will make Metis and non-status Indians a new group of “aborigines” to be specifically excluded from the Indian Act, like the Inuit.

Just because Metis and non-status Indians have been recognized as “Indians” for the purposes of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867, this does not mean that they will ever be included in the Indian Act or registered as Indians. Nor does it mean they will get a house on reserve, be considered treaty beneficiaries, or access any other legal entitlement. Inuit do not live on reserves nor are they considered First Nations. It is unlikely that the federal government will put Metis on reserves either.

Remember, it is not the Indian Act that sets out rules and regulations around “benefits” or “rights”. Whether or not Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) grants a benefit or decides to recognize a legal right is a matter of policy - i.e., a government decision made at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) usually in consultation with Justice Canada, Treasury Board, the Prime Minister’s Officer and/or various other interested departments like Fisheries and Oceans (if related to fishing right for example).

Despite the fact that many of our rights are LEGAL rights protected by Indigenous laws, treaties and agreements, as well as domestic and international laws – most often the government lumps all “Indian” issues into generic policies that may not reflect the extent of our legal rights at all. In fact, Canada’s most common legal argument is that any “benefit” provided to Indians is out of the good will of the government (a matter of policy) and not out of any legal obligation. This is what the SCC referred to as “noblesse oblige” where the government mistakenly thinks that Indigenous rights are a matter of charity or generosity versus legal obligation.

What this case will do is break through the jurisdictional “limbo” to which Metis and non-status Indians have been relegated and force both federal and provincial governments to include Metis and non-status Indians in their consultation activities. While the court did not grant 2 of the 3 requested declarations, it DID confirm that governments have a fiduciary duty towards Metis and non-status Indians (duty to act in their best interests), AND that they must negotiate with them and consult with them on decisions impacting their rights.

That is the most neutral thing that I can say about this decision. In EVERY other way, this decision is one of the worst messes to come out of the SCC. While it may sort out who is an Indian, it does nothing to address the problems faced by Indians in accessing various federal programs and services.

Jordan Anderson is seen in this 2003 image provided by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. Anderson, who was from the Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba, was born in 1999 with a complex genetic disorder that needed specialized care. He died in 2005 at the age of four. (Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs)

Remember, Jordan River Anderson was a registered Indian child, under federal jurisdiction, yet the province and federal government BOTH refused to pay for his health services and he died in hospital never seeing his home. Magically becoming an Indian doesn’t resolve the ongoing federal-provincial dispute over coverage for individuals living OFF reserve, let alone those normally resident on reserve.

On the Indigenous rights front – inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights - this case is damaging.

To my mind, the Daniels decision is less about reconciliation and more about erasure of Indigenous sovereignty and identity. It takes John Ralston Saul’s idea of “we are all Metis people” together with the newest Canadian slogan “we are all treaty people” and opens the floodgates to every person in Canada claiming a long lost Indian ancestor and asserting their identity and control over our lands and rights. It has the potential to effectively eliminate any real sovereignty or jurisdiction Indigenous Nations have over our own citizens and territories. It does not bolster Metis claims, but instead confuses them. It does not address the discrimination faced by actual non-status Indians, but paints them with the Metis “mixed people” brush. The very unique and specific circumstances of non-status Indians are completely over-looked in this decision.

We have gone from sovereign Indigenous Nations - to one generic group of Indians - to distinctions-based groups (Indian, Inuit and Metis) - and now back to Indians – all for the express purpose of reducing us to an “interest group” of “Aboriginal people”. This is not good for anyone. Certainly, no one asked us what we thought. Once again, National Aboriginal Organizations are at the helm – directing the pirate ship to ensure they get their cut of program funds for their organizations. Their win is big – they’ll likely get increased funding to set up new negotiating tables. For the Indigenous Nations on the ground – a new burden has been placed on us – proving that the thousands of newly-minted, self-identified “Indians” do NOT speak for us and do NOT have a say over our lands. For those who have been wrongly excluded by government laws policy (like Indigenous women and their children) – their new challenge will be to distinguish themselves from the floodgate of false claims to come – a burden not rightly borne by those who have already suffered so long at the hands of government discrimination.

This decision, taken together with Trudeau’s White Paper 2.0 (the nice version), means we have many battles ahead. Please read this decision critically - don’t partake in the celebrations just yet. SOURCE

innovation

Korean researchers develop most efficient solar cell to date

Leave a comment

 

Image via University of Oxford Press
by , reposted from Inhabit, of April 16, 2016

A Korean research team has achieved record level efficiency in solar cells, using a new formula for mixing perovskite structures. Perovskite is an inexpensive, abundant mineral, and the researchers have found ways to make it even more efficient for solar power applications. The new solar cells are measured at 17.9 percent efficiency, which could mean very big things for this clean alternative energy source.

Record_level_efficient_solar_cells2

Researchers at the Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology andSungkyunkwan University published their findings in the peer review journal Nature. Their new formula involves mixing ingredients just right, and after much experimentation, they believe they have finally settled on the ideal ratio to achieve maximum efficiency. The resulting material was developed specifically for the creation of a high-performance solar cell.

The cost of solar power technology has been steadily decreasing, but it’s still not as popular as proponents would like it to be. This boost in efficiency makes the alternative source of energy even more attractive, especially if it will be available at the same lower cost as existing solar panels.

Scientists have been working to improve the energy efficiency of silicon solar cells for many years, but have basically reached the limit of that material’s capability. This has spurred the research community to investigate other options, and led to using perovskite in solar cells starting in 2009. At that time, however, perovskite structures didn’t boost efficiency by leaps and bounds.

Related: New nanoparticle material could be a major breakthrough for concentrated solar power

The developers still have a lot of work to do before their formula can be applied to commercially-available solar cells. In an ironic twist, perovskite structures are actually water soluble, so there is a serious concern about the lifespan of solar panels using the material. After all, solar panels that cannot endure exposure to weather are pretty much useless. Strangely, perovskite also suffers a drop in efficiency when first exposed to sunlight as well. The research team continues to work on addressing these issues, though, in the hopes that their perovskite structure formula will someday lead to more efficient and affordable solar technology. SOURCE

climate science, Politics, Preventing Ecocide

Why the ruckus over the Leap Manifesto?

Leave a comment

Rather than fear the Leap Manifesto, it should be debated in every classroom, church basement, union hall and Tim Hortons.

Rachel Notley denounced the Leap Manifesto as "ill-informed."
Rachel Notley denounced the Leap Manifesto as “ill-informed.” JASON FRANSON / THE CANADIAN PRESS

By , reposted from TheStar, Apr 14, 2016

That silly Leap Manifesto — giving itself away right in the sub-title, which calls for “a Canada based on caring for the Earth and one another.” No wonder it provoked fury and outrage.

As my colleague Thomas Walkom pointed out earlier this week, reports of the manifesto’s scariness have been greatly exaggerated; its call for a transition from fossil fuels to green energy is solidly based in science and widely accepted.

So the ruckus over the document is the curious thing.

Now that we’ve sent Stephen Harper and his climate Neanderthals packing, we’re supposed to move on, confident that the planet is in safe hands under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, neither of whom have climate-denying skeletons jangling in their closets.

Amid this newfound contentment, the Leap Manifesto is a discordant prod, a reminder that the reassuring words of our new political leaders are undermined by their active promotion of more pipelines, which will lock us into fossil fuels for decades to come.

Notley, the darling of Canada’s progressives for single-handedly slaying a four-decade-old Conservative dynasty, was quick to denounce the manifesto as “ill-informed” after delegates at the NDP federal convention voted to debate it at the grassroots level for the next two years.

This led to a pile-on of media commentators outraged at the prospect of debate breaking out across the country.

Imagine the menace of citizens getting together to discuss what is to be done about climate change — which a 2003 Pentagon report described in cataclysmic terms, concluding it would lead to a future where “once again, warfare would define human life.”

Of course, Notley is in a tough spot. Alberta’s disastrous economic situation — for which she bears no responsibility — would be much better if past Alberta governments had imposed higher oil royalties and used the proceeds to diversify. Norway did that, and is comfortably surviving the oil price collapse astride a $1 trillion heritage fund.

The NDP premier is struggling to keep Alberta’s powerful oil lobby onside, offering up the promise that her credibility as a progressive could win them the “social license” they need for further oilsands development.

But this requires she take action on climate, or at least appear to.

Hence, her widely-touted Climate Leadership Plan demands tough reductions in greenhouse gas emissions — from some sectors. Against the oil industry, it wields a feather.

While other sectors must cut emissions, the oilsands — Canada’s fast-growing source of emissions — will be permitted to actually grow by 43 percent, notes Gordon Laxer, professor emeritus of political economy at the University of Alberta and author of After the Sands.

Trying to reduce emissions while allowing the oilsands to grow by 43 percent is like trying to reduce lung cancer while giving away cigarettes at Canada’s Wonderland.

If, for instance, Parliament were to pass the Climate Change Accountability Act (introduced by the late NDP leader Jack Layton and passed by the House of Commons during minority governments in 2008 and 2010), the continued growth of the oilsands at the pace Notley prescribes would present an enormous problem.

Under such a scenario, Laxer says, oilsands emissions would take up fully 84 percent of Canada’s total allowable emissions by 2050, leaving little room for Canadians still struggling to wean themselves off fossil fuels.

What’s needed is clearly more than the post-Neanderthal Canadian political world is offering. What’s needed is, as Bernie Sanders might say, a revolution.

That’s a daunting challenge, but not an impossible one — with resolute political leadership.

Let’s recall the unwavering campaign launched by then finance minister Paul Martin to reduce the federal deficit “come hell or high water!” In the name of appeasing disgruntled bondholders in New York, Martin took an axe to federal spending, resulting in thousands of Canadians losing their jobs and millions more suffering under “austerity.”

The transition off carbon could be less painful, since, with proper investment, a green technology future promises to be, in the words of NDP elder statesman Stephen Lewis, “the greatest job creation program on earth.”

So rather than fearing the Leap Manifesto, I say bring it on. It — or something like it — should be debated in every classroom, church basement, union hall and Tim Hortons.

It’s time we considered the possibility that saving the planet is as important as placating a bunch of New York bondholders.

SOURCE

Linda McQuaig is a journalist and author. Her column appears monthly.

 

Politics

What a landmark ruling means — and doesn’t — for Métis, non-status Indians

Leave a comment

No, thousands of Métis didn’t just become status Indians, says Métis educator Chelsea Vowel

David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Métis Federation, front right, and Will Goodon, minister of housing for the Manitoba Métis Federation, left, take part in a group photo prior to a decision at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on Thursday.
David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Métis Federation, front right, and Will Goodon, minister of housing for the Manitoba Métis Federation, left, take part in a group photo prior to a decision at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on Thursday. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

By Chelsea Vowel, reposted from CBCNews, Apr 16, 2016

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that tens of thousands of Métis and non-status Indians are now the responsibility of the federal government.

Immediately, questions swirled about exactly what this landmark decision actually means. Métis writer and educator Chelsea Vowel breaks it down and helps us make sense of the ruling.

Métis did not just become status Indians

The Daniels decision classifies non-status Indians and Métis as “Indians” under section 91(24) of the Constitution. This clarifies that both groups are a constitutional responsibility of the federal government and not the provinces.

  • Non-status Indians and Métis are still not governed by the Indian Act.
  • Non-status Indians and Métis did not just become “status Indians.”
  • The federal government will still attempt to limit its responsibility to status Indians living on reserve, which is where most of the (inadequate) federal funding goes.
  • Non-status Indians and Métis do not suddenly have the right to live on reserve (if they do not already have that right).
  • This decision does not ensure that non-status Indians and Métis will have new federal funding opportunities. That is going to have to be negotiated for, or fought with, the federal government.

The first thing people must understand about Canada in general is that the Constitution Act of 1867 divides up powers between the federal and provincial governments. Most folks learn this in high school but don’t necessarily remember it forever.

The provinces have power over things like the solemnization of marriage, property and civil rights in the province, setting up municipalities and so on. The federal government has power over things like the Armed Forces, banking, criminal law, etc.

Responsibility and funding for things like systems of education, health care, social services, provincial infrastructure— roads and water and waste management, for example — are generally a provincial power.

There is an important exception, though, in section 91 (24) of the Constitution, which is that the federal government is responsible for “Indians and Land Reserved for Indians.” The federal government must provide to “Indians” the services normally provided by the provinces (education, health care, social services).

So, you have provincial systems, which tend to be available to everyone living off-reserve, and you have federal systems, which are focused on reserve populations. There’s lots to say about how inadequate those federal systems are, but let’s move on.

The meaning of ‘Indian’

The federal government has a long history of trying to interpret section 91 (24) to mean they only have responsibility over Indians on Indian lands. The Supreme Court keeps insisting these are two separate things, Indians and Land Reserved for Indians.

‘Who is an Indian’ then becomes important, because if you are an Indian, the federal government, not the provinces, is responsible for you.- Chelsea Vowel

“Who is an Indian” then becomes important, because if you are an Indian, the federal government — not the provinces — is responsible for you.

The first group to clearly be “Indians” are those who come under the Indian Act, and are status Indians.

The second group to be defined as Indians under section 91(24) of the Constitution were Inuit in 1939. This obviously did not turn Inuit people into First Nations people, and Inuit people did not become Indians under the Indian Act. It was just about assigning responsibility; in this case the federal government, not the provinces, is responsible for Inuit people.

Non-status Indians are those who are not considered Indians under the Indian Act, but are still obviously Aboriginal Peoples. The Métis are another group of aboriginal people. For years and years, both groups have been tossed back and forth like a hot potato between the provinces and the federal government, each one saying things along the lines of “they’re your problem, not ours!” This has left non-status Indians and Métis in a sort of legal limbo.

I know that doesn’t answer all the questions out there. There is still a lot to be figured out after this decision. People are understandably confused, so I hope this helps a bit!

SOURCE

 

democracy, Politics

Métis Council, CAP may tussle on Daniels

Leave a comment
Métis National Council President Clement Chartier - file
Métis National Council President Clement Chartier - file

By Shari Narine, Windspeaker, reposted from AMMSA.com, on Apr 16, 2016

The only Métis body that enjoys a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal and provincial governments is the Métis National Council, and as such, in wake of the Daniels’ decision, it is the MNC that will be conducting negotiations with the other two levels of government on behalf of the Métis people, says MNC President Clement Chartier.

“We’ve made this point, and I believe we’ve won this point, with the provincial and federal governments that we’re not an NAO, national Aboriginal organization, we’re a government, and so on that basis we will be moving forward,” Chartier insisted.

“It matters not to us what they do. And there’s no balancing (jurisdictions) there.” ~ Métis National Council President Clement Chartier on Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

On Thursday April 14, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Métis and non-status Indians fall under federal jurisdiction and said both groups had the right to be consulted and to negotiate with the federal and provincial governments.

Chartier said the federal government has already proven they view the MNC as the voice of the Métis people pointing to the first ministers’ meeting on climate change and the environment in March, where the MNC was invited along with the Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

As far as Chartier is concerned, there is no jurisdictional issue with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which claims to represents off-reserve status and non-status Indians, Métis and southern Inuit Aboriginal peoples.

“(The government will) continue to have the advocacy bodies and organizations and (CAP will) continue to press for whatever rights it is that they’re pressing for, programs or services. It matters not to us what they do. And there’s no balancing (jurisdictions) there,” said Chartier.

CAP National Chief Dwight Dorey says his organization will play a role in negotiations.

“We will have to have some dialogue with the federal government to look at a process and through that process, we’ll start cataloguing what it means, what our priorities and interests (are) and what the government’s might be as well,” said Dorey.

Since Dorey took over as CAP national chief last September, he has been actively recruiting CAP affiliates in western Canada.

Presently CAP has affiliates in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, provinces which also have Métis Nation governments.

The Métis Nation of Saskatchewan has been embroiled in in-fighting for a number of years, which in 2014 resulted in the federal government suspending MN-S’s funding. Earlier this year the government brought in third-party management, which will remain in place until MN-S holds an election.

Alberta has a Métis Nation government as well as a Métis Settlement General Council. The MSGC was created by provincial legislation. Alberta is the only province with Métis settlements, with all eight located in the northern part of the province. The MSGC recently negotiated a consultation policy for resource development with the provincial government.

British Columbia has only a Métis Nation government.

CAP also has affiliates in Newfoundland-Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec. There are no Métis Nation governments in these provinces.

Jason Madden, legal counsel for MNC, anticipates representation could be divided from Ontario west, where MNC, along with the provincial Métis Nation governments, would represent the Métis people.

“I think that there’s non-status communities (that CAP) represents. It claims there are Métis communities east of Ontario that it represents. So I think those constituencies, that (CAP) may have, will fit in to those issues. And those communities are just as equally recognized as the well-known Métis communities that you see (referred to) in the (Daniels’) decision,” said Madden.

CAP and MNC differ on the definition of Métis. CAP views Métis people as those of “mixed Aboriginal ancestry,” while MNC uses the Powley definition, which sets three criteria: identify as a Métis person; be a member of a present-day Métis community; and, have ties to a historic Métis community.

In its Daniels’ ruling, the Supreme Court did not define Métis, except to say Métis were included in the term “Indian” in Sect. 91(24) of the Constitution, which provides the federal government with exclusive authority over Indians and lands reserved for Indians.

Madden says the Daniels’ ruling lets communities define themselves accurately and not in a way that will allow them to assert their rights.
“What this really says, is that’s not necessary. On a case by case basis, we can have these mixed ancestry communities and then we can decide, one, are they Métis, or two, are they non-status Indians. So they can be potentially recognized for what they really are as opposed to trying to reconfigure or structure themselves in a way that really doesn’t align with who they are,” he said.

For Métis to have rights as allocated in Sect. 35(1) of the Constitution, they must fit the Powley definition.

SOURCE

democracy, Politics

Supreme Court has no agenda, so Charter revisions are appropriate

Leave a comment

By Alex McCuaig, reposted from the Medicine Hat News, Apr 16, 2016

On the eve of the 34th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada has made two significant decisions regarding the constitutionality of legislation passed by the federal Conservatives.

On Friday, the country’s top court ruled that mandatory minimum sentencing for repeat offenders in drug offences and the denial of enhanced pre-trial custodial credit for accused denied bail were unconstitutional.

It’s fair to say these and other so-called tough on crime legislative measures didn’t meet the requirements outlined in one of this nation’s foundational documents which establishes the rights of Canadians.

The Charter can appear ethereal to the average Canadian who does — and should — expect those convicted of crimes be denounced and deterred from continuing such actions.

The Charter can appear to be a high-minded aspirational document with little substance to a victim of a home invasion who had a piece of rebar smashed over his head and rightfully has the expectation that the perpetrator be punished for his crime.

The application of the Charter can appear to be a contravention by judges over the legislative wishes of the elected members of government.

Despite these issues, the Charter is a list of fundamental principles to which Canadians decided in 1982 to live by and has real and meaningful practical applications which many take for granted.

As a foundational piece of legislation, it requires to be applied equally to every Canadian, whether they are exercising their rights by posting social media criticism or supportive of one thing or another or a shoplifter pinched on a theft rap.

It’s hard to find a law-enforcement member who has anything good to say about the Charter as they see it as placing limitations on what they can do.

Unless you desire to live in a police state — and there are many options if you do — law enforcement need limits and the motivations of those who don’t think they do should be questioned.

These recent Supreme Court decisions will likely once again stoke the flames of many who see this as another incursion by judges in overturning the wishes of Parliament.

Unless Canadians wish there to be unconstrained power placed in the hands of the government and that it should go unchecked, then by all means feel free to use the Charter as toilet paper — at least until the government passes a law that puts a camera in there as well.

And for those who believe Supreme Court justices are exercising a political agenda, since seven of them were appointed by former prime minister Stephen Harper, one by former PM Brian Mulroney and one by Paul Martin during his short tenure as PM, it’s hard to see exactly what agenda that is, aside from a conservative one.

The Charter may not be a perfect document but it can be amended — not easily but it can be changed though the same mechanisms unto which it was formed. That’s to say a large consensus of the provinces representing a majority of Canadians.

It’s futile to criticize a document, far less so for those who are responsible for changing it on behalf of those they are elected to represent. If change is needed, that’s where you start.

SOURCE