I am usually proud to wave the Maple Leaf, but not today.
Last night was the closing gala for the Viewfinders International Film Festival for Youth. I was fortunate to attend many of the films, which I've blogged about on my other site, as my son was one of the youth jurors who selected which films won awards.
Last night, we saw God Grew Tired of Us, a movie about the Lost Boys of Sudan and, more specifically, follows the lives of three who relocated to the U.S. over a four year period. Their adjustment to the west was, at times, comical, but mostly heart-wrenching.
The U.S. had a program that allowed 3,800 of these boys to relocate in the States. I was rather annoyed to learn that the program only covered their living expenses for three months and the boys had to repay the cost of their flights to the U.S.
I was annoyed, that is, until I discovered that my country has done even less than that.
Jacob Deng, a Lost Boy who has settled in Nova Scotia, spoke to us after the film and took a few questions. That was when I discovered that my own lovely country's contribution to helping young refugees is to select 50 per year to come to Canada. It's like picking grains of sand from the shore. The only other avenue to them, these people, who have already suffered beyond my ability to imagine, must apply through the regular immigration process. It is through this later process that Jacob came here.
One of the traits that Jacob, like many of the other Lost Boys, demonstrates is the desire to help those back home. Jacob has an organization and website you can go to if you'd like to help. Last year, donations allowed him to purchase goats for refugees who were able to return to their homeland. This year he is generating money to build a school.
Here is the link to his site: http://www.wadeng.org/
You can also check out: http://godgrewtiredofus.com/charities.html for other opportunities for action.
In addition to this, I believe that Canada must do more. It is incumbent upon all of us to write to the media and to government to pressure our government to do more for the many Lost Boys who are still (many years later) living in a refugee camp -- a camp that runs out of food every month, a camp that allows little hope of a future for these young men.
Won't you help?
Colleen
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Gun control
I am about to write something that I hope will be viewed as an attempt to get people talking about the need for gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre. It is my understanding that while this tragedy has spawned much discussion on the topic here in Canada, it hasn't received much play south of the border. In fact, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have voiced a position on this.
Here's how a similar incident was handled in the Land Down Under.
Did you know that in the 10.5 years since the 1996 incident that killed 35 people in Australia, there has not been a single mass murder? Do you know why? Because in days following that incident, all semi-automatic, rapid-fire weapons were completely banned in that country. The government bought back more than 600,000 of these weapons and destroyed them.
Here's what the law looks like as quoted from the British Journal of Criminology (BJC):
"After the 1996 mass killing of 35 people at the Port Arthur historical site, Australia enacted gun controls that are considered among the most stringent in the developed world. Briefly, the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which was ratified by Federal Parliament in 1996 and implemented across all States and Territories by the end of 1997, prohibited certain types of firearms, in particular semi-automatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump action shotguns. To facilitate the removal of these firearms, a government-funded ‘buy-back’ scheme was designed, whereby owners were compensated for handing in their firearms. Over 600,000 firearms were subsequently destroyed by police.
"The NFA also introduced strict requirements governing the possession of firearms, such as the necessity to have a proven or ‘genuine reason’ for firearm ownership (self defence was explicitly excluded), compulsory written safety tests and the stipulation that all privately owned firearms must be registered through a State-controlled firearms licensing body. Additional components such as safe storage of firearms when not in use and 28-day waiting periods for acquisitions of firearms were included in the reforms."
What has happened since the ban?
According to a a CBC report this morning, (Pediatricians weigh in on gun control: http://www.cbc.ca/informationmorningns/interviews.html) a study published in the December 2006 issue of the Journal of Accident Prevention has found that:
1) There has not been a single mass shooting since the incident in 1996. (There had been 11 such shootings in the previous 10 years.)
2) Suicides by firearm had decreased (from 385 to 168: BJC stats) and have not been replaced by other forms of suicide.
3) Homicide by firearms have also decreased (from 75 to 32: BJC stats) since 1996. Other forms of homicide have maintained rates of between 213 and 276 per year (BJC stats).
In the meantime, this is what the picture looks like in the U.S. according to Henry Champ, the CBC Newsworld's correspondent in Washington, D.C.
"In reporting from Blacksburg, Va., I have frequently been asked by CBC program hosts what effect this terrible shooting at Virgina Tech will have on the gun control debate in the U.S.
It's a good question, a sensible, obvious question given the horrific bloodshed that's taken place here. I sense though, some surprise and even disappointment with the answer: Not much.
Consider that since the Columbine High School shootings in 1999, not a single major gun control law has been passed by Congress. In fact, restrictions on certain weapons have actually been relaxed.
"In 2003, Congress passed a measure that prevents local enforcement agencies from consulting police in other states regarding firearms traces.
"Then in 2004, the assault weapons ban enacted by the Bill Clinton administration expired. That expiration included the ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, which allow as many as 33 cartridges to be loaded at a time to allow more rapid fire. The pistols used in Norris Hall had those high-capacity clips, which greatly increased Cho Seung-Hui's firepower.
"Finally in 2005, Congress passed legislation that prevented shooting victims or their families from instituting wrongful death lawsuits against gun makers."
This cannot be what the founding fathers had in mind when they included the Right to Bear Arms into the constitution. Even ignoring the argument that is made regarding the intent of this amendment, back then, they could never have imagined the fire power that would one day be available to us.
Something must be done to convince political leaders that NRA lobbyists do not speak for the American people. At least I hope this is the case.
If you still aren't convinced, consider this. Shortly after five Amish children were killed in their one-room schoolhouse in Pennsylvania a year ago, President George W. Bush convened a White House conference on school safety. Gun control and schools was not even on the agenda.
WTF?
Speak out. It's time to do something about this.
Colleen
Here's how a similar incident was handled in the Land Down Under.
Did you know that in the 10.5 years since the 1996 incident that killed 35 people in Australia, there has not been a single mass murder? Do you know why? Because in days following that incident, all semi-automatic, rapid-fire weapons were completely banned in that country. The government bought back more than 600,000 of these weapons and destroyed them.
Here's what the law looks like as quoted from the British Journal of Criminology (BJC):
"After the 1996 mass killing of 35 people at the Port Arthur historical site, Australia enacted gun controls that are considered among the most stringent in the developed world. Briefly, the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which was ratified by Federal Parliament in 1996 and implemented across all States and Territories by the end of 1997, prohibited certain types of firearms, in particular semi-automatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump action shotguns. To facilitate the removal of these firearms, a government-funded ‘buy-back’ scheme was designed, whereby owners were compensated for handing in their firearms. Over 600,000 firearms were subsequently destroyed by police.
"The NFA also introduced strict requirements governing the possession of firearms, such as the necessity to have a proven or ‘genuine reason’ for firearm ownership (self defence was explicitly excluded), compulsory written safety tests and the stipulation that all privately owned firearms must be registered through a State-controlled firearms licensing body. Additional components such as safe storage of firearms when not in use and 28-day waiting periods for acquisitions of firearms were included in the reforms."
What has happened since the ban?
According to a a CBC report this morning, (Pediatricians weigh in on gun control: http://www.cbc.ca/informationmorningns/interviews.html) a study published in the December 2006 issue of the Journal of Accident Prevention has found that:
1) There has not been a single mass shooting since the incident in 1996. (There had been 11 such shootings in the previous 10 years.)
2) Suicides by firearm had decreased (from 385 to 168: BJC stats) and have not been replaced by other forms of suicide.
3) Homicide by firearms have also decreased (from 75 to 32: BJC stats) since 1996. Other forms of homicide have maintained rates of between 213 and 276 per year (BJC stats).
In the meantime, this is what the picture looks like in the U.S. according to Henry Champ, the CBC Newsworld's correspondent in Washington, D.C.
"In reporting from Blacksburg, Va., I have frequently been asked by CBC program hosts what effect this terrible shooting at Virgina Tech will have on the gun control debate in the U.S.
It's a good question, a sensible, obvious question given the horrific bloodshed that's taken place here. I sense though, some surprise and even disappointment with the answer: Not much.
Consider that since the Columbine High School shootings in 1999, not a single major gun control law has been passed by Congress. In fact, restrictions on certain weapons have actually been relaxed.
"In 2003, Congress passed a measure that prevents local enforcement agencies from consulting police in other states regarding firearms traces.
"Then in 2004, the assault weapons ban enacted by the Bill Clinton administration expired. That expiration included the ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, which allow as many as 33 cartridges to be loaded at a time to allow more rapid fire. The pistols used in Norris Hall had those high-capacity clips, which greatly increased Cho Seung-Hui's firepower.
"Finally in 2005, Congress passed legislation that prevented shooting victims or their families from instituting wrongful death lawsuits against gun makers."
This cannot be what the founding fathers had in mind when they included the Right to Bear Arms into the constitution. Even ignoring the argument that is made regarding the intent of this amendment, back then, they could never have imagined the fire power that would one day be available to us.
Something must be done to convince political leaders that NRA lobbyists do not speak for the American people. At least I hope this is the case.
If you still aren't convinced, consider this. Shortly after five Amish children were killed in their one-room schoolhouse in Pennsylvania a year ago, President George W. Bush convened a White House conference on school safety. Gun control and schools was not even on the agenda.
WTF?
Speak out. It's time to do something about this.
Colleen
Sunday, April 1, 2007
The First Nations Summit Website
I am really excited to have discovered a really great website on the First Nations Treaty process in B.C. I have skimmed through it and am overwhelmed by the useful information posted there.
There is, for example, a fact sheet that gives key dates on treaty processes since the 1700s, a comprehensive page on a recent agreement to approve First Nations health, and upcoming events.
Everything is very well-organized. Whatever you are looking for can be found with information posted chronologically per topic.
I found it while searching for information on the recent failure of a treaty. While I research that, I thought you may be interested to know about this site.
Here's the link: http://www.fns.bc.ca/index.htm
Enjoy!
Colleen
There is, for example, a fact sheet that gives key dates on treaty processes since the 1700s, a comprehensive page on a recent agreement to approve First Nations health, and upcoming events.
Everything is very well-organized. Whatever you are looking for can be found with information posted chronologically per topic.
I found it while searching for information on the recent failure of a treaty. While I research that, I thought you may be interested to know about this site.
Here's the link: http://www.fns.bc.ca/index.htm
Enjoy!
Colleen
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Just answer the question
Given the topic of this week's blog, I was fortunate to catch a CBC interview with Jim Prentice, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, this morning.
I have six words.... you have got to be kidding!
The reporter asked the Minister if he agreed with Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney that life on reserves was shameful or some such thing. His response was to explain that he has spent more time on reservations than most non-Native people and went on to complain that he had inherited a mess from the previous government.
Really? How insightful. (Although I'd prefer to spell that inciteful.)
For someone with his background, you'd think he could do better.
I'm sure that he has inherited a mess. Imagine how badly he'd feel if he was living there. What an inheritance that would be.
The thing is that every government has inherited a whopping challenge. The reason for that is because each government does its best to ignore the issue.
I mean it's not really mainstream, is it? Not a heck of a lot of votes there.
But, here's the thing.
Let's pretend for a second, that aboriginal peoples wanted to sell their lands and that Europeans wanted to buy it. (I said, let's pretend... I didn't say it was going to be easy.)
Now, let's pretend that a negotiated deal was made to purchase the land... say like when you go to buy a car. You say, I'd like this one in red. The salesperson says great. That'll be $25,000. You say: Whoa! Too much. Would you take $19,900? And so on. Eventually, an agreed upon price is reached. You pay this amount and drive away in a new car.
So, let's say instead of cash, we pay for the land in agricultural equipment, livestock, domestic supplies and a promise to supply education, housing, and access to other land in perpetuity.
Papers are signed. Hands are shaken. A deal is struck.
The purchasers take the land. The retailers receive payment.
How difficult a concept is this?
Quit frigging around!
If successive governments would stop wasting taxpayers' money on fighting land claims and other agreements -- which they inevitably lose -- we could all live happily ever after.
Think of the millions upon millions of dollars spent fighting losing battles while people continue to live in poverty. Here, in Canada. Your neighbours are living in poverty with no hope of anything better.
And this has an impact on our reputation internationally.
Many Canadians took pride in being ranked as the best place in the world to live for most of the 1990s. The rankings (The Human Development Index) are published annually by the UN, and rates countries according to quality of life rather than just economic achievements. The criteria include life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income.
Did you know that 2000 was the last year that Canada ranked number one in the HDI? In 2001, Canada slipped to third place and in 2003, to eighth . In 2004, we recovered slightly and placed fourth.
Want to know why?
Let's have a look at findings in the U.N. report for 2004. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/07/15/UNlisting_040715.html)
Does this scare anyone aside from me? That Canada is being compared to South Africa and Guatemala in terms of how we treat our marginalized groups?
In April 2006, the UN issued a news release that warned Canada its ranking would drop to 48th if judged on the "economic and social well-being of its First Nations people."
“Economic, social and human indicators of well-being, quality of life and development are completely lower among aboriginal people than other Canadians,” said UN special investigator Rodolfo Stavenhagen , who also warns the housing, health and suicide situation is reaching crisis proportions.
Stavenhagen said the condition of aboriginal people in the country was : "the most pressing human rights issue facing Canada.”
I have six words.... you have got to be kidding!
The reporter asked the Minister if he agreed with Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney that life on reserves was shameful or some such thing. His response was to explain that he has spent more time on reservations than most non-Native people and went on to complain that he had inherited a mess from the previous government.
Really? How insightful. (Although I'd prefer to spell that inciteful.)
For someone with his background, you'd think he could do better.
I'm sure that he has inherited a mess. Imagine how badly he'd feel if he was living there. What an inheritance that would be.
The thing is that every government has inherited a whopping challenge. The reason for that is because each government does its best to ignore the issue.
I mean it's not really mainstream, is it? Not a heck of a lot of votes there.
But, here's the thing.
Let's pretend for a second, that aboriginal peoples wanted to sell their lands and that Europeans wanted to buy it. (I said, let's pretend... I didn't say it was going to be easy.)
Now, let's pretend that a negotiated deal was made to purchase the land... say like when you go to buy a car. You say, I'd like this one in red. The salesperson says great. That'll be $25,000. You say: Whoa! Too much. Would you take $19,900? And so on. Eventually, an agreed upon price is reached. You pay this amount and drive away in a new car.
So, let's say instead of cash, we pay for the land in agricultural equipment, livestock, domestic supplies and a promise to supply education, housing, and access to other land in perpetuity.
Papers are signed. Hands are shaken. A deal is struck.
The purchasers take the land. The retailers receive payment.
How difficult a concept is this?
Quit frigging around!
If successive governments would stop wasting taxpayers' money on fighting land claims and other agreements -- which they inevitably lose -- we could all live happily ever after.
Think of the millions upon millions of dollars spent fighting losing battles while people continue to live in poverty. Here, in Canada. Your neighbours are living in poverty with no hope of anything better.
And this has an impact on our reputation internationally.
Many Canadians took pride in being ranked as the best place in the world to live for most of the 1990s. The rankings (The Human Development Index) are published annually by the UN, and rates countries according to quality of life rather than just economic achievements. The criteria include life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income.
Did you know that 2000 was the last year that Canada ranked number one in the HDI? In 2001, Canada slipped to third place and in 2003, to eighth . In 2004, we recovered slightly and placed fourth.
Want to know why?
Let's have a look at findings in the U.N. report for 2004. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/07/15/UNlisting_040715.html)
"The paper also highlighted the creation of Nunavut as an example to follow. It applauded Canada for negotiating "self-governing territories."
"Canada did get a few black marks. The report criticized the country's 'inequalities in income, education and health' and said that it was detrimental to marginal groups. Canada was lumped in with in South Africa and Guatemala in this case."
Does this scare anyone aside from me? That Canada is being compared to South Africa and Guatemala in terms of how we treat our marginalized groups?
In April 2006, the UN issued a news release that warned Canada its ranking would drop to 48th if judged on the "economic and social well-being of its First Nations people."
“Poverty, infant mortality, unemployment, morbidity, suicide, criminal detention, children on welfare, women victims of abuse, child prostitution, are all much higher among aboriginal people than in any other sector of Canadian society,” said the report issued by the UN Human Rights Commission.
“Economic, social and human indicators of well-being, quality of life and development are completely lower among aboriginal people than other Canadians,” said UN special investigator Rodolfo Stavenhagen , who also warns the housing, health and suicide situation is reaching crisis proportions.
Stavenhagen said the condition of aboriginal people in the country was : "the most pressing human rights issue facing Canada.”
Among the problems highlighted in the report:
- Poverty affects 60 per cent of aboriginal children.
- The annual income of aboriginal people is “significantly lower” than other Canadians.
- Unemployment is very high among aboriginals.
- 20 per cent of aboriginal people have inadequate water and sewer systems.
- Aboriginals make up 4.4 per cent of the Canadian population but account for 17 per cent of the people in prison.
- Cases of tuberculosis are six times higher than the rest of Canada.
These are our people. Our neighbours. Our family.
Do you think we can stop whining about whose fault it is and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
Today?
Get involved. Visit the Assembly of First Nations website (link on right of page) and sign the petition against poverty. Write to Jim Prentice (address two postings down).
Let's get things going. Votes and voices count.
Colleen
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Draft letter for your consideration
NOTE: This letter refers to the previous post.
To make it easier for you to find time to post a letter to Mr. Prentice, I have cobbled together a few words for your consideration. Please feel free to copy and paste and make whatever changes you see fit.
Thank you for taking the time to do this one important thing...
Your name and address here
Date
The Honourable Jim Prentice
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H4
Dear Mr. Prentice:
I was disheartened this morning to learn that although Bill C-292 or the Kelowna Accord Implementation Act, was passed by a majority of votes in the House of Commons, it may not be implemented by your government.
As you are aware, the Kelowna Accord is an agreement to bridge the socio-economic divide between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. It was signed off by the prime minister, all provincial premiers, territorial leaders, leaders of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Metis National Council, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples – an extraordinary achievement in terms of federal-provincial-territorial and stakeholder cooperation.
Given the intent of the Accord and the depth of agreement reached, I ask that you and your government honour Bill C-292. While a private member’s bill cannot compel the government to allocate funding, there is a moral obligation to live up to the standards of democracy.
If Bill C-292 is not honoured, neither Canadians nor history books will remark kindly on your tenure as Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs.
I hope that your government reconsiders its position on the Accord and begins its implementation today.
Sincerely,
XXX
To make it easier for you to find time to post a letter to Mr. Prentice, I have cobbled together a few words for your consideration. Please feel free to copy and paste and make whatever changes you see fit.
Thank you for taking the time to do this one important thing...
Your name and address here
Date
The Honourable Jim Prentice
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H4
Dear Mr. Prentice:
I was disheartened this morning to learn that although Bill C-292 or the Kelowna Accord Implementation Act, was passed by a majority of votes in the House of Commons, it may not be implemented by your government.
As you are aware, the Kelowna Accord is an agreement to bridge the socio-economic divide between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. It was signed off by the prime minister, all provincial premiers, territorial leaders, leaders of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Metis National Council, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples – an extraordinary achievement in terms of federal-provincial-territorial and stakeholder cooperation.
Given the intent of the Accord and the depth of agreement reached, I ask that you and your government honour Bill C-292. While a private member’s bill cannot compel the government to allocate funding, there is a moral obligation to live up to the standards of democracy.
If Bill C-292 is not honoured, neither Canadians nor history books will remark kindly on your tenure as Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs.
I hope that your government reconsiders its position on the Accord and begins its implementation today.
Sincerely,
XXX
Kelowna Accords: Express yourself. No stamp needed.
Background and Issue
In 2005, when Paul Martin was Prime Minister of Canada, the Liberal government signed the Kelowna Accord with all provincial premiers, territorial leaders, leaders of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Metis National Council, the Native Womens’ Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. The Accord committed $1.5 billion over 10 years for aboriginal peoples to improve education, living standards and employment opportunities.
The Accord was created to bridge the social and economic gaps between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. It would also be the first time that, according the Mr. Martin, "all governments, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, are to hold themselves accountable to reporting publicly on progress." http://www.paulmartin.ca/speech-20061109-1.html
Then there was an election and the Conservatives came to power. In its May 2006 budget, the new government indicated that it was committed to meeting the targets of the Accords.
Paul Martin, introduced a private members bill in the House in June 2006 calling on the government to implement the agreements under the Accords. That Bill (Bill C-292 or the Kelowna Accord Implementation Act) passed yesterday.
Here's the glitch.
The current government has fallen out of love with the Accord.
Even if the Senate signs off on the Bill, the government doesn't have to implement it.
What the...?
"All three opposition parties voted in favour of the bill by Martin, MP for the Montreal riding of LaSalle-Émard. But the Conservatives were uniformly opposed and have indicated they will ignore the measure. A private member's bill cannot compel the government of the day to spend money," said the CBC morning report. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/21/replacement-workers.html
According to that news report, the current Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Jim Prentice, -- I know it's hard to keep track... this is one portfolio that has changed numerous times in the past two years, making it even more difficult for aboriginal peoples to make progress -- said that more money is not the answer.
So, let's have a look at the 2007 Federal budget announced last week to see what the government does plan to do for aboriginal peoples instead of implement the Accord.
2007 Federal Budget
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features/budget2007/index.html?gclid=CJ6Y1_amiIsCFQw7gQod8XyoEg
From the Budget Overview, I have pulled this paragraph:
[The Budget supports] "Aboriginal Canadians by taking action to provide training and job opportunities for Aboriginal Canadians, helping First Nations members own their own homes, improving the quality of drinking water and enhancing the Aboriginal Justice Strategy."
Hmmm. Okay, what does this mean and, since this is a budget, where is the commitment of money as is evident in each of the other commitments in the budget?
Here's the breakdown as in the full Budget document.
Aboriginal Labour Force Participation
Given the relative youth of the Aboriginal population, it is particularly important to take immediate measures to increase sustainable Aboriginal employment through the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership initiative, which will more than double in size in the next five years. More details on this initiative are provided in Chapter 5 [of the Budget.]**
** In Chapter 5, there are no measures outlined specifically for aboriginal peoples. Perhaps the notion is that, like all other Canadians, aboriginals too will be able to benefit from whatever measures are being put into place. It would be a transcendence of history, were this to be the case.
Aboriginal Justice Strategy
Canada’s New Government will expand the strategy in order to significantly increase the number of Aboriginal communities and people that have access to community justice programs. This will lead to a further reduction in crime and have positive impacts at the community level as Aboriginal communities take greater responsibility for the administration of justice. To do so, Budget 2007 dedicates $14.5 million over the next two years.
Housing in First Nations Communities
Innovative First Nations have already implemented plans to help people own their own property, and to earn rental income. To build on these successes, Canada’s New Government, in consultation with First Nations, will develop approaches to support the development of individual property ownership on reserve, encourage lending for private housing, and increase accountability, both institutional and personal. To this end, $300 million will be dedicated to the development of a housing market in First Nations communities.
First Nations Participation in Integrated Atlantic Commercial Fisheries
Budget 2007 provides $20 million over the next two years to ensure that First Nations in the Maritimes and in the Gaspé region of Quebec have the capability to more efficiently manage and maximize their existing access to the commercial fishery. This amount includes the reduction in licence revenues collected by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans following the transfer of licences to First Nations under the Marshall Response Initiative.
Specific Claims
The Government is committed to achieving fair and timely resolution of First Nations claims for compensation relating to unfulfilled lawful obligations. Currently, specific claims take years to deal with, causing frustration for First Nations communities, and too often result in uncertainties and conflict. In the coming year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians will work with First Nations leadership to move forward an action plan to accelerate the resolution of specific claims and will explore alternatives such as providing for independent adjudication of claims that cannot be settled by negotiations. Canada’s New Government is committed to ensuring that settled claims are paid promptly. $0????
Conclusion
It appears that despite statements to the contrary, the government does believe that more money is needed. The issue may be a simple disagreement on the amounts to be spent and on what.
C'mon people.
The Kelowna Accord was discussed and debated and agreed to by political leaders (governing and aboriginal.) I don't claim to know whether the Kelowna Accord will do what it intends -- to reduce the socio-economic divide between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. What I do know is that an agreement was reached with the participation of those affected and now we have a moral obligation to see that it is put into action.
Please express your support of the Kelowna Accord by spreading the word and by writing to:
The Honourable Jim Prentice
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H4
If mailed in Canada, you don't even need a stamp.
There is no direct e-mail address for the minister or for the communication department, so, if you'd prefer to e-mail, general inquiries will have to do. InfoPubs@ainc-inac.gc.ca
Colleen
In 2005, when Paul Martin was Prime Minister of Canada, the Liberal government signed the Kelowna Accord with all provincial premiers, territorial leaders, leaders of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Metis National Council, the Native Womens’ Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. The Accord committed $1.5 billion over 10 years for aboriginal peoples to improve education, living standards and employment opportunities.
The Accord was created to bridge the social and economic gaps between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. It would also be the first time that, according the Mr. Martin, "all governments, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, are to hold themselves accountable to reporting publicly on progress." http://www.paulmartin.ca/speech-20061109-1.html
Then there was an election and the Conservatives came to power. In its May 2006 budget, the new government indicated that it was committed to meeting the targets of the Accords.
Paul Martin, introduced a private members bill in the House in June 2006 calling on the government to implement the agreements under the Accords. That Bill (Bill C-292 or the Kelowna Accord Implementation Act) passed yesterday.
Here's the glitch.
The current government has fallen out of love with the Accord.
Even if the Senate signs off on the Bill, the government doesn't have to implement it.
What the...?
"All three opposition parties voted in favour of the bill by Martin, MP for the Montreal riding of LaSalle-Émard. But the Conservatives were uniformly opposed and have indicated they will ignore the measure. A private member's bill cannot compel the government of the day to spend money," said the CBC morning report. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/21/replacement-workers.html
According to that news report, the current Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Jim Prentice, -- I know it's hard to keep track... this is one portfolio that has changed numerous times in the past two years, making it even more difficult for aboriginal peoples to make progress -- said that more money is not the answer.
So, let's have a look at the 2007 Federal budget announced last week to see what the government does plan to do for aboriginal peoples instead of implement the Accord.
2007 Federal Budget
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features/budget2007/index.html?gclid=CJ6Y1_amiIsCFQw7gQod8XyoEg
From the Budget Overview, I have pulled this paragraph:
[The Budget supports] "Aboriginal Canadians by taking action to provide training and job opportunities for Aboriginal Canadians, helping First Nations members own their own homes, improving the quality of drinking water and enhancing the Aboriginal Justice Strategy."
Hmmm. Okay, what does this mean and, since this is a budget, where is the commitment of money as is evident in each of the other commitments in the budget?
Here's the breakdown as in the full Budget document.
Aboriginal Labour Force Participation
Given the relative youth of the Aboriginal population, it is particularly important to take immediate measures to increase sustainable Aboriginal employment through the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership initiative, which will more than double in size in the next five years. More details on this initiative are provided in Chapter 5 [of the Budget.]**
** In Chapter 5, there are no measures outlined specifically for aboriginal peoples. Perhaps the notion is that, like all other Canadians, aboriginals too will be able to benefit from whatever measures are being put into place. It would be a transcendence of history, were this to be the case.
Aboriginal Justice Strategy
Canada’s New Government will expand the strategy in order to significantly increase the number of Aboriginal communities and people that have access to community justice programs. This will lead to a further reduction in crime and have positive impacts at the community level as Aboriginal communities take greater responsibility for the administration of justice. To do so, Budget 2007 dedicates $14.5 million over the next two years.
Housing in First Nations Communities
Innovative First Nations have already implemented plans to help people own their own property, and to earn rental income. To build on these successes, Canada’s New Government, in consultation with First Nations, will develop approaches to support the development of individual property ownership on reserve, encourage lending for private housing, and increase accountability, both institutional and personal. To this end, $300 million will be dedicated to the development of a housing market in First Nations communities.
First Nations Participation in Integrated Atlantic Commercial Fisheries
Budget 2007 provides $20 million over the next two years to ensure that First Nations in the Maritimes and in the Gaspé region of Quebec have the capability to more efficiently manage and maximize their existing access to the commercial fishery. This amount includes the reduction in licence revenues collected by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans following the transfer of licences to First Nations under the Marshall Response Initiative.
Specific Claims
The Government is committed to achieving fair and timely resolution of First Nations claims for compensation relating to unfulfilled lawful obligations. Currently, specific claims take years to deal with, causing frustration for First Nations communities, and too often result in uncertainties and conflict. In the coming year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians will work with First Nations leadership to move forward an action plan to accelerate the resolution of specific claims and will explore alternatives such as providing for independent adjudication of claims that cannot be settled by negotiations. Canada’s New Government is committed to ensuring that settled claims are paid promptly. $0????
Conclusion
It appears that despite statements to the contrary, the government does believe that more money is needed. The issue may be a simple disagreement on the amounts to be spent and on what.
C'mon people.
The Kelowna Accord was discussed and debated and agreed to by political leaders (governing and aboriginal.) I don't claim to know whether the Kelowna Accord will do what it intends -- to reduce the socio-economic divide between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. What I do know is that an agreement was reached with the participation of those affected and now we have a moral obligation to see that it is put into action.
Please express your support of the Kelowna Accord by spreading the word and by writing to:
The Honourable Jim Prentice
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H4
If mailed in Canada, you don't even need a stamp.
There is no direct e-mail address for the minister or for the communication department, so, if you'd prefer to e-mail, general inquiries will have to do. InfoPubs@ainc-inac.gc.ca
Colleen
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Do something nice for someone
I'm not a YouTube afficionado, but was browsing there today -- avoiding work -- when I spotted this video challenge and thought I'd pass it along.
Watch this and do something nice for someone today...
http://youtube.com/video_response_view_all?v=PVY5IpSDUYE
Be part of the revolution!
Colleen
Watch this and do something nice for someone today...
http://youtube.com/video_response_view_all?v=PVY5IpSDUYE
Be part of the revolution!
Colleen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
