is an author, educator and activist who is committed to Indigenous peoples' dignity, freedom and nationhood.
Taiaiake was born in Montreal in 1964 and was raised on the Kahnawake Mohawk Territory. Except for service in the US Marine Corps during the 1980s, he lived in Kahnawake until 1996, when he moved to the west coast.
Educated at Concordia and Cornell, Taiaiake has lectured at universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England and Australia, and has served as an advisor on land and governance issues for his own and many other Indigenous governments and organizations. ...Read Entire Bio
Tetewarihwáthe'te [Kanienkeha] a Mohawk word meaning "Let's all make the matters brighter and more clear."
CKNW RADIO AM 980 (Vancouver, BC)
Re: The Liberals are back in the power position in Victoria. What does it mean for the controversial Recognition Act? Also, who is Shawn Atleo and why is he running for Chief of the National Assembly of First Nations?
http://www.cknw.com/other/audiovault.html
* Select Monday, June 1st, 2009, and the 11 am time slot.
dialog on
|
Purchase Publications
|
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:06 am
I listend to the “Bill Good Show” and I was disappointed that he did not stick around for his own show.
Anyway, I believe it was good to listen to Taiaiake talk about the other side of the Recognition Act, AFN (sellouts) matters, as well as Shawn Atleo’s chance of being elected as the next Grand Puppet.
I believe that anyone who endorses the proposed Recognition Act is a sell out because if anyone keeps up with the political struggles that indigenous people deal with, know that this new legislation is bullsh*t. Everyone time we get a deal from the provincal government we should be aware of what we are giving up before we sign or endorse the agreement. I believe Aboriginal Leadership Council are aware of these agreements, but only sign on to these agreements or proposed acts so they can benefit from it. One example of this is the Settlement Claims residential school survivors received from the federal government. This decision that was made on behalf of Indigenous people had little to no input from indigenous communities and even to this day many indigenous communities do not realize what they have given up because AFN and other Aboriginal political organizations refuse to go public about what we have given up for some loose change (money). Instead, Aboriginal Leaders continue to sell the idea of this settlement as a good deal and it is also part of reconciling the past wrong doings committed by the government (through policy) and churches (also through policy). Again, this agreement/settlement is Bullsh*t. If anyone knows how to read between the lines with these types of agreement/settlements than you know what I am talking about because it seems there are a few people within our communities who understand what is really going on with these settlements and agreements. With all this being said, keep doing what you are doing Taiaiake because we need more truth telling out there, not more BS.
Haawa (thank you). Iihlgeegaa (Always Ready) from the Haida Nation.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 am
Campbell’s plan panned by lawyers
‘Recognition act’ will water down native claims, group fears
By Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun
June 3, 2009
Premier Gordon Campbell’s controversial proposal to recognize aboriginal rights and title in provincial legislation has drawn more objections, this time from a group of prominent lawyers who’ve represented many B.C. first nations in court.
“Our legal opinion is that negative aspects of the current proposal outweigh the positive ones,” say Jack Woodward, Peter Grant, Greg McDade, Murray Browne and 10 other “litigators” who’ve fought (and won) many cases on behalf of natives.
“Based on available information,” says their 22-page commentary on the proposed recognition act, “this legislation will be difficult to support.”
The Liberals have yet to share a text of the legislation with the public. The lawyers based their opinion on the contents of a discussion paper produced by the government in consultation with senior native leaders.
When the paper was released earlier this year, business leaders, lawyers for the resource industries, and even some members of the B.C. Liberal caucus, objected that the government was going too far in recognizing aboriginal title.
In contrast, the 14 lawyers say the proposal does not go far enough.
The legislation would stop short of recognizing “exclusive” aboriginal title as set out in the Constitution and relevant decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. Rather it would incorporate “a watered-down form of aboriginal title,” that would be “non-exclusive” and overlap with Crown title, resource tenures and other forms of ownership.
The province has no power to reinterpret the Constitution or override the high court. Still, the lawyers worry that the recognition act could carry weight in the lower courts, particularly if first nations were to consent to the legislation.
“As litigators, we believe the right to go to court to ask for aboriginal title or to enforce consultation may become a very empty opportunity,” they fret. “We question whether a judge would be willing to make a declaration of aboriginal title of a different kind when the legislation already recognized a lesser form of it. This is a particularly strong concern if the legislation is endorsed by a broad coalition of first nations.”
They further challenged the accompanying proposal to recognize some 30 “indigenous nations” as the overarching structure for the more than 200 first nations that have already been recognized in B.C.
“It appears to be the objective of the province to reduce the number of first nations with which it will have to deal,” the lawyers’ commentary says. “The number of first nations is what it is. It can’t be adjusted to fit with the convenience of the B.C. government. It is not legally permissible for B.C. to wish away certain first nations because it would be easier to deal with a smaller number of larger groups.”
In fairness to the Liberals, the call for recognition of indigenous nations emerged from the native leadership. But it is no less contentious with many native bands for all that.
Even where the lawyers commended the province for agreeing in principle to share land use decisions and resource revenues, they said the proposal falls short. The decision-making will be less than equally shared, the resource revenues much less than what natives would be entitled to under “land owners’ property rights.”
In short, natives will be giving up what they already have — or stand a chance of winning in the courts — for legislation that could weaken their hand in litigation and consign future generations to a narrower definition of aboriginal rights.
“The issues raised in the [government proposal] are fundamental to first nations . . . . It is crucial that first nations ensure that adequate time for review of the draft legislation be provided before anything is tabled in the legislature, by which time it may be too late to make real changes.”
In that respect, they echoed the calls from other quarters for the Liberals to undertake public consultations on a draft version of the legislation before proceeding to a final text this year or next.
However, the lawyers also suggested a fallback position for the government. Shelve, for now, the time-consuming exercise of reconstituting 200 first nations into 30 indigenous nations. Scrub attempting to cobble together a provincial definition of aboriginal rights and title, when it is more properly the business of the courts to interpret the Constitution.
Replace all that “with a simple commitment to recognition from the province that would not require the agreement of first nations.” Then “focus on creating statutory direction to line ministries and statutory decision-makers to engage in shared decision-making and revenue sharing with first nations.”
Less ambitious to be sure, which is not likely to endear the notion to our vision-happy premier. But it might provide a more plausible meeting ground for those who fear the government is going too far and those who say it hasn’t gone far enough.