CHECK THIS OUT:

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/edmonton-griesbach-affordable-housing-canada-trudeau

RECONCILIATION MUST BE NO STRINGS LANDBACK AND SOVERIENTY!

“……“How long does a crime last? Somebody steals something from you, they should give it back. Unconditionally,…..” (stated) “…Chief Clarence Louie…”.

Significantly; “reconciliation” cannot have any substance without returning territory and control to all First Nation People in Canada, especially from “Crown” holdings.

Canadian crown loyalist glibly deny that King Charles (through his representatives the federal governor general and provincial Lieutenant governors), along with an unchanged British colonial Canadian jurisprudence, “own” all the so-called “crown land”. 

Crown loyalists who previously signed loyalty to queen Elizabeth 2^nd (as all Canadian leaders are still required to sign allegiance to king Chares) deftly engineered the Constitution Act of 1982 perpetuating, under the nose of all Canadians, a fiction that Canada is really independent and no longer under colonial crown influence.  

The truth is colonial treaties, as understood by historical First Nation leaders, was never a ceding of territory but a “sharing” of land between two sovereign nations. This is the only real and true historical reality going forward with Indigenous reconciliation!

Settler descendants in Canada generally view indigenous matters a problem and continue to support the government paternal role settling grievances and rights of indigenous descendants.

(John Ivison, The National Post Dec 04, 2023) writes“….True reconciliation cannot happen as long as Ottawa makes paternalistic decisions that keep First Nations poor for their own good.”

From the perspective of discerning Canadians, the present Canadian reconciliation directive is an elaborate assimilation process that incorporates First Nation communities into Canada’s politico-economic municipal system-----subservient to existing municipalities and touted by Canadian loyalists as self government.

A genuine Indigenous reconciliation must include decolonization with the removal of the British monarchy and the building of a new Canadian constitution with everyone at the table!

ABUSIVE RESPONSES WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED

WHY IDENTIFY AS INDIGENOUS WHEN WE HAVE ONLY ONE HISTORICAL ANCESTOR?

This question seems to be asked the most by some Canadians who antagonistically challenge the rights of a majority of people with native ancestry.

The answer is simple: Canada is multicultural and the constitution is supposed to protect the rights of citizens to identify as they wish without discrimination.

These antagonists justify their posture by faking support for people who have colonially recognized indigeneity and accusing their unrecognized cousins as "pretenders", "race shifters" and thieves of colonially perceived privilege. 

Antagonists, for their own unfounded reasons, might say, "Why should one indigenous ancestor be favoured over hundreds of other European ancestors?

This question is subtlety racist and politically inspired. Declaring ones indigenous identity is personal to each individual and lacks evidence of illegitimacy.

Identifying as indigenous involves emotional as well rational reasons. Pride in ones European heritage is rationally compromised for the following reasons:

·        Historical European settler attitudes were self righteous, arrogant and domineering in every way! A political majority of Canadian settler descendants have inherited and continue to justify their ancestral felonious invasion of North America.

·        our indigenous ancestors were mistreated as inferior by our European ancestors.

The most important reason for choosing indigenous self identify with just one ancestor is the reality that we live on the land belonging to our indigenous ancestors---not in Europe! 

If there are non-indigenous Canadians who identify as indigenous, our descendants should consider it an honor that a white settler descendant would choose to have an indigenous rather than a European bias.

Though Canada has benefited indigenous as well as non-indigenous citizens with limited social security and conciliatory policies; it still remains superior and coercive. 

Only when indigenous values are incorporated into government infrastructure will it truly deserve patriotism from all citizen.

 

IS NATIVE ANCESTRY ENOUGH FOR INHERENT SECTION 35 RIGHTS TODAY?

ANALYSIS

Significant court precedent that legally defines indigenous recognition in Canada to date:

1. Steve Powley and Roddy Charles Powley vs Canada (Interveners et al)  - on appeal from the court of appeal for Ontario. ( judgement - 2003)
2. Harry Daniels (et al) vs Canada (&interveners), (judgement - 2016)
3. Keith Boucher vs The Province of New Brunswick, (On appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: October 10, 2018),  (judgement - 2022)
4. The Province of New Brunswick vs Keith Boucher - Leave to appeal the lower court, Supreme Court of Canada ( judgement 2023)

JUDICIAL HISTORY:

The Powley brothers were charged with possession of an out-of-season moose carcass . The judge concluded that since the brothers were descendants of a community of people who were historically mixed, (those who were mixed European and First People before effective European control), they qualified for inherent section 35 rights passed down from their "Metis" community ancestors. From this precedent, the "Powley test" for Metis identity was legally established:  

1. identify as a Métis person;
2. be an accepted member of a present-day Métis community;
3. have ties to a historic Métis community.

https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100014413/1535468629182#:~:text=identify%20as%20a%20M%C3%A9tis%20person,to%20a%20historic%20M%C3%A9tis%20community

• Note that the Powley test was specifically intentioned for Metis Identity ONLY!

Thirteen years later in 2016, the Harry Daniels vs Canada Supreme Court decision, set the following precedent: 

• Metis and non-status Indians are "Indians" under the Canadian constitution. 
• Metis identity is not limited to the Powley decision such that Metis community cultural identities are distinctly different across Canada.
• Aside from cultural distinctions, Metis identity can also be defined as anyone with native ancestry. 

• Note: It is likely that government priority was with communities and individuals clearly eligible for section 35 rights. It seems that the Daniels decision was considered lacking specific clarity for section 35 rights of most Metis people.

In 2010, another out of season moose kill infraction occurred in New Brunswick. Keith Boucher, (who was non-status), identified himself as First Nation, and presented to the court his activity and relationship with a First Nation community as proof of inherent entitlement to hunt game out of season for food. His lawyers presented his case inadequately and in 2018 the judge decided that Boucher did not have sufficient evidence to justify indigenous hunting privileges. But in 2021, Boucher appealed his case sighting inadequate representation and entered into evidence crucially overlooked genealogical evidence, namely data that proved native ancestry. After reviewing all new and old evidence the judge concluded that Boucher passed the Powley test and was entitled to section 35 rights!

Significantly, the Powley test in the Boucher case was modified to add a First Nation origin as an accepted historical reference. The implication of this precedent is that an historic community can be any First Nation community in which an ancestor resided. This modification of the Powley test necessitates a change of the word "Metis" with the word "First Nation" thus allowing self identity as First Nation:

1. identify as a First Nation person;
2. be an accepted member of a present-day First Nation community;
3. have ties to a historic First Nation community.

Additionally, in 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the decision of the lower court by dismissing the appeal of the New Brunswick Boucher case!

CONCLUTION

Section 91(24) of the Canada Constitution Act, establishes that the federal government has exclusive authority over "Indians and land reserved for Indians". Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1882, defines Canada's indigenous people as Indian, Metis and Inuit. Section 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1882, recognizes inherent community rights of Indian, Metis and Inuit people to food harvesting and land. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom Section 2(d) guarantees our right to identify as indigenous and be a member of a community of our choice.

Significantly, the Powley test was modified in the Boucher case to justify Section 35 rights----fulfilling the Daniels vs Canada judgement recognizing indigenous rights of non-status Indians.

*****************************************************

Non-status Indians are now eligible for section 35 rights! Specifically, anyone who self identifies as First Nation, has an ancestor residing in an historical community or territory, and is an accepted member of a present day Indigenous community, qualifies for section 35 rights!

****************************************************

Note: You are welcome to discuss this analysis below! Aggressive, derogatory or demeaning  responses will not be published!

“RACE SHIFTING”, A MALICIOUS CULTURAL ACCUSATION

Since 2016, on a substantial government bursary, Darryl Leroux has made an academic career accusing cultural theft of those of his own people who dare to self identify as Metis. Like the official line of the Quebec provincial government he denies that Metis people ever existed in eastern Canada. Officially Quebec policy is that there are only one indigenous people living on reserves and registered by the federal government. Like many Quebecers, Leroux considers himself a “French Canadian white man” despite an admitted native ancestry.  So why is Quebec not generally acknowledging it’s special hybrid indigenous status?

    
Historical British colonial policy and discrimination from British settlers led to several centuries of identity adjustments. The outcome was, for many Quebec families, an overwhelming shame for having originated from European men and indigenous women. Social conscience unfortunately fed the idea that being identified as  “half breed” was far worse than being “French” or even being “Indian”.  Over the 18^th and 19^th centuries it’s people fiercely distanced themselves from their indigenous kin and  rebelled against British domination and assimilation.

    

It is preposterous to profess that the rise of  indigenous self identity today is a result of racial appropriation or racial theft. “Race shifting” is a woefully incorrect and derogatory description. One must consider the Canadian government’s multicultural policy, the constitution of Canada, the Human Rights Act as well as recent supreme court decisions as contributing  factors in the Metis identity issue. Also, finally, the pervading political climate: Namely, a government who officially recognizes cultural and identity differences but lack the courage to reconcile fairly with each and every indigenous descendant.

  

September 19, 2003, the Powley vs Canada supreme court decision cleared the way for a portion of Canada’s indigenous people to identify and claim their historical rights under the Constitution. For a time it was the go to test for Metis Identity. But on April 14, 2016, the Daniels  vs Canada supreme court decision finally rejected the premise that the Powley test was the only definition and that the term “Metis” can be defined as simply having native ancestry---from whom, the majority of  Quebecers originated! Despite the Daniels decision in 2016, the Powley test seems to have been hardwired in the minds of public authorities and very few, if any, are willing to acknowledge the Daniels decision.

Considering Canada’s recent about face from it’s earlier assimilation process, the eastern Metis in every province quickly woke up to the reality of an indigenous heritage that has long been supressed. The province of Quebec might be the closest result of Champlain’s dream of a new country of “mixed French people”; but centuries of determined resistance against “English” domination and assimilation evoked a strong sense of French legitimacy that buried all hope of an indigenous legacy.
     

Since the inception of the Canadian constitution, Canada prided itself on developing a fair and equitable country. The creation of the Canadian Human Rights Act guaranteed our right to identify and associate as we wish without prejudice or rebuke. Unfortunately, a weak political will has eroded this high ideal and biased academic opinion seems to have become the norm.

Canadians like Leroux are attempting to erase our right to identify as indigenous people, guaranteed by the supreme court of Canada. He is attempting to (a new word) "erace" or "racially rub out" our right to associate as we wish! 

   

As Canadian citizens, we are assured of a right to associate and identify individually as we wish, as set out by the Canadian Human Rights Act. When any person or institution interferes with or denies the rights of others under the Act, surely a reckoning is called for!