Canada

Keeping Indianson the Reserve

Canada, First Nations, Harper, Off-reserve, Voting Leave a comment

Today I read an article on the Globe and Mail called Harper Dismisses Radical Moves on Abortion and Gun Laws.

This post isn’t about abortion or gun laws it’s about this quote here: Canadians, he thinks, are comfortable with his government, even when they disagree with it, and he wants to reassure them he plans no radical moves.. “He” being Harper.

The fact that he believes that citizens of Canada don’t really care about the government and the decisions the governments make is pretty bold. A book I read called “Ill Fares The Land” by Tony Judt relates to Harper’s statement. Judt basically said in his book that “young people” don’t care (not verbatim). He mostly wrote about EU and the US, but I could agree that what he says in that book can be applied to Canada. Just ask any young Canadian today about the Gun law Harper put on the back burner again and how it’s supposed to make it easier to catch people who use guns to commit crime. Do you think they could answer? Or would they much rather answer a question about Bieber, Hilton or a Kardashian?

I do believe this can be changed. As an Aboriginal Canadian, I believe that Aboriginal Canadians can be the one to change this. How? Well, it’s plastered all over Stats-Can: Aboriginals are the fastest growing population, with the greater number of them being aged 18-27.

Even though I am a huge advocate/supporter to initiatives that support and motivate young Aboriginals, I am kind of a hypocrite when I write this post. I have never voted in my life (well since I turned 18–the “voting age” in Canada). I wanted to vote, except when I lived in the city closest to my reservation and I walked up to the polling station for the first time to vote I was told, “you have to go to the polling stations on your reservation.” I didn’t have a car, and couldn’t find a ride to the polling stations on my reservation. Did that mean that I had to change my address to my city address in order to vote off my reservation? Yup, it sure did. So that meant I had to change my identification to reflect my new address change (and that would mean I would lose some of my tax-exemption rights because when I present my tax-exemption card to some businesses they ask for my “proof of reserve address.” I have to prove to them the product is going to be used on reserve land.) Another form of racism? Maybe. Marginalization? Maybe. Or maybe it’s just another effort to keeping “Indians” on the “reserve”? Maybe.

Since moving to a Southwestern Ontario city, I have never voted since that time. I wonder how many more Aboriginals living off-reserve are in the same situation? If there are many, just think of the changes that can be made if Aboriginals knew that they could vote off-reserve without changing their address (just so they don’t lose some of their rights). Imagine if all Aboriginals who could vote, did vote, whether they live on or off-reserve. Just think of the changes that can be made then.

Do you think Harper would be thinking along the lines of, “Even if they disagreed, they wouldn’t care.” I think not.

Residential Schools(Miseducation)

Canada, First Nations, Miseducation, Residential Schools, School Leave a comment

The other day our professor asked in class: what are some push and pull factors for youth leaving school?

Some of my peers answered: Drugs, family.

Our professor replied: Those are pull factors.

I raised my hand and said: Knowing this as a First Nations student, some teachers have a certain view about First Nations’ issues and the way they present those issues may affect other First Nations students.

What I really wanted to say: A teacher at my high school told her class that Residential Schools were created to educate First Nation children, when in fact they were really created to assimilate First Nations into “mainstream” culture. That type of miseducation can marginalize what really happened and what continues to affect certain communities and families who had members enter the Residential school system. In turn, affecting the way First Nations students view the material being taught in school: just a bunch of nonsense.

Token Indian

Canada, Classroom, First Nations, Workplace Leave a comment

“I am so happy to have you on the team. As soon as I found out you were native, I just had to hire you!.”

These words, even though spoken more almost 10 years ago, have stuck with me since I heard them.

When I think back, I believe for someone to say, “As soon as I found out you were native, I just had to hire!” is highly inappropriate. It is inappropriate because it is unprofessional. Since that day I consistently ask myself whenever hired for a new job (or not hired for a job): were they looking at my skills or my ethnic background? One might say that employers only look at your skills and your abilities. No. It is not always like that. This is clear when some jobs hire people strictly for their appearance (the “hot” bartender) and even some for their background (how to improve your public image 101).

I know that I am a hard-worker. I know that I have many skills, and many of these skills have to do with not being “Indian” at all. Someone once said that I was overreacting and still am overreacting when I think back to what was said to me that day, and that I should use being “Indian” to my advantage. How does one use their ethnic background to their advantage? Is that even possible? Or should I be offended by that as well?

Just recently another First Nations student shared a story with me on how her professor pointed out to the rest of her class that the only three Native students didn’t get in “just because they were Native.” Who says that? Where is the professional tact in announcing that to the entire class?

In both of these instances, one might say, “Well, Natives certainly have it best.” No, we don’t have it best. Already as a minority or person of a different ethnic background, we already know that we are different. We don’t need a constant reminder of this, whether it be at work, in school, or just out on the playground (Who wants to play cowboys and Indians?).

If there is one thing that can be said about both of these situations it is that both persons in their position of power had a lack of respect, especially to the persons they were speaking to. To announce to someone that as soon as you found out someone was Native and they just HAD to hire you or that the only three native students didn’t get in “just because they were Native” is unprofessional.

Being “Indian” isn’t all what it is cracked up to be. We don’t get everything for free, we don’t have it better off than the rest of the Country, and we most certainly don’t have the same given respect as the rest in some of the places you expect everyone to be treated equally (no matter their ethnic background).

Hired Fired

Canada, Hiring, Recruitment, Unemployment Leave a comment

For the past year, I have spent hours pouring over many different job advertisements on many different job posting sites. One site I like in particular is Indeed.ca because of its ability to search for key words on all sites on the internet.

I am a full-time university student who completed a college diploma program with placement experience. I really enjoyed my placement. I really enjoyed my program. I just had a feeling I wasn’t going to have a job upon graduation (yes, some may say that the negative thinking might have contributed, maybe). Thus, I applied to university.

I have a lot of personal dreams. Three of these dreams include:

1) Graduating from university (whether it be now, or finding employment, working a few years then going back).

2) Owning my own business (I would love to work with Aboriginals and Businesses within Canada and perhaps become a negotiator one day).

3) On side of owning my own business, I would love to become a motivational speaker.

Yes, these dreams can be halted with a full-time job, but for the right job. I feel that I am not the only individual in Canada who wants to work at the “right” job. Read “Why Canada’s jobs market isn’t as strong as it appears” for a bit of an insight to why I say this. Nevertheless, searching for that “right” job can be difficult. What makes it more difficult is, whatever everyone says and agrees on, the economy.

I beg to differ. I don’t think the problem with finding jobs is with the economy. I believe it is with the recruitment/hiring processing.

There must be two points that must be noted before I continue with this blog they are:

1) I am not lazy. I am actually a very hard worker. I work best with little supervision (and of course, the right worker can and will work best with little supervision).

2) When I write about what I am about to write about, it must be noted that I looked for employment from all corners of the job-posting world: part-time dishwasher; full-time career (in the field I went to school for); and on-call work (mainly hospitality, aka “as-needed-basis”).

Let’s get started:
The first problem begins in the job description. Employers need to be upfront about what they are looking for and what they are willing to offer to the right person with the right skills and right amount of experience (it is true for careers that amount of pay follows experience). The more open and upfront an employer can be straight in the beginning, more than likely he/she will find a “perfect” match for the job to be filled. Basically, so nobody wastes anybody’s time.

The second problem, particularly for part-time job advertisements, is the term “flexibility.” Basically that is a nice way for an employer to say, “no students, no family, no other jobs.” Some employers have even gone to the length of saying “No Students.” Ouch.

The third problem is the listing of more jobs only to cover a certain amount of time, in other words contract work. This is a convenient way for an employer to hire someone they need for a specific job without hiring them full-time and without paying the individual an array of benefits. Yes, maternity leave is the one exception where this works out well for everyone involved. The new employee receives experience and probably a good reference. The returning employee receives their job once the contract is up. The employer, well, hopefully they are loyal enough to hire the original employee once their maternity leave is over (yes, people who have gone on maternity leave have not been hired back… this exists and it’s real, even in Canada). I feel that this type of contract work to be the least stressful. However, with the rise of contract work (as reported in Globe and Mail, Canada’s shifting job market), I feel that the idea of potentially not having a job when the contract is over may be rattling for any employee, which could possibly lead to more stress for the individual. This presents the question of: How come more contract jobs are appearing? Are there more people having babies? Or are more and more companies looking to hire people only for specific jobs for a specific amount of time at a specific pay with very little benefits? You pick.

The fourth problem is the competition. Not the competition between employers (unless you are a highly sought after individual, creme de la creme), but rather competition between potential employees. This usually happens in entry level jobs (you have to start somewhere right?) and it is usually experienced in the hospitality industry as well. If I can describe in the most outrageous way in order to describe what happens here is this: imagine John Doe looking for a hooker. Hooker A says she will do this for this amount nothing less. Hooker B says she will do this, this, and even THIS for the same amount as Hooker A or sometimes even less. Who do you think John Doe is going to pick? Not Hooker A. He definitely wants more “bang” for his buck. (There is an actual book that I remember reading about that talks about how this works in Canada and how the John Does are putting the girls at risk by asking more for less and consistently exercising this control over the girls with their money. One might say, the girls put themselves at risk, unfortunately, it never begins that way. I have since been searching for this book, because I would like to read what else is inside it.)

The fifth and final problem is the good old game of “come in for one shift and we will see how you do.” I have experienced this many times. Managers telling me, “we will call you as an on-needed basis.” When I follow up a week later to see if I ever will actually be called, no reply is ever heard from them again. This also goes hand and hand in offering free-services as a potential employee to demonstrate your skills with the hopes of being called first when they actually do the hiring. This is a bad idea all around. I highly recommend against it.

Maybe the problem is with me. If it is, I would really like someone to tell me what that problem is.

And maybe, the above is all because of the economy and its problems. However, as I said before, I don’t think it is. I think it has to do with the John Doe’s of the business world trying to get more “bang” for their buck. The one’s looking for the job are just left out there to roam the streets. Fighting to be part of creme de la creme, highly sought after.

Note: I know there are good, no wait, great employers out there (I am not bashing every one who pays someone to do work for them/under their name, don’t get me wrong). In fact, the best job I ever had was my first: a summer job working for the best boss I ever had. I washed dishes for two summers, along with doing a lot of inventory, but I certainly miss working for that individual today. I worked with little to no supervision, my creative input was valued, and I knew what had to get done and how it had to get done (cleaning dishes and inventory wasn’t the only thing I had to do; there was many opportunities for me to take initiative which I did most frequently). When an employer values his/her employee more than to do the job they hired them for, the employee will feel valued and be willing to do more than what is asked of them. I wish more employers were as open and honest as this person was/is.

Archaic

Canada, Freedom of Information, Legislation Leave a comment

The globe and mail posted an article relating to Canada’s Freedom of Information compared to other democratic countries. Click HERE to read the article.

In the article, it says that the reason Canada was near the bottom of the list was that its legislation is “ineffective and archaic”!

Is it safe to say that “we all knew that”? Or are some people still living behind brick walls insensitive to what goes on around them?

You pick.

Treaty Rights

Canada, FIduciary, First Nations, North Bay Nugget, Politics, Treaty Rights Leave a comment

A friend on my FB today shared a link relating to a personal diary of a government official, where he recorded personal accounts of treaty negotiations. Click here to read the article.

This article is the essence of what I have been trying to say to people around me relating to First Nations and the Canadian Government and their use of the term “fiduciary.” The part in the article that sticks out to me is, “ The government thinks it has the final say. These treaty diaries suggest otherwise.”

Sometimes when I read an article about the lack of government consultation with First Nations and their resources, sometimes I see the word “fiduciary.” This word is used in a sense that the government has a fiduciary relationship with the First Nations. First Nations leaders sometimes say: “But the government and the First Nations have a fiduciary relationship!”

A fiduciary relationship is one where it involves trust, one with a beneficiary and one with a trustee when looked up in a regular dictionary. However, last year, I did some further research into the term fiduciary and what outlines the power one has over another.

What I found: as a fiduciary, one can make decisions that they see best fit for the non-fiduciary. This meaning (in simplest way possible): if the government thinks it knows what is best for the First Nations, they can and will make that decision without their consent because they have the “power” based on that they think they know what is best and it is in the best interest for the fiduciary (because as a fiduciary they have a legal responsibility over the non-fiduciary). Simply put, and the way I see it, is that the government, as a fiduciary, will make decisions without First Nations’ consent. They will make these decisions because it is the government’s knowledge that they know what is best because they have an “interest” in First Nations. This interest is only for the benefit of the government and the rest of Canada (which sometimes fails to include the interest of First Nations).

This what I think that makes using this term quite difficult for First Nations.

Here are some questions I think of when I see this term and read about Canadian Government/First Nations dealings. Based on the basic dictionary definition: Who, in the relationship between government and First Nations, is the beneficiary and who is the trustee? Do we really trust one another? Also, if one is allowed to make a final decision without input from another because they feel that they are the ones that know what is best: how does one determine who knows what is best for one or the other? The case that this term was defined in will most likely continued to be referenced if and when Canadian Government/First Nations dealings land in court. Meaning, First Nations need to stop using this word in their defence. Hopefully, the discovery of this personal diary will be able to help assist First Nations in situations where Governments fail to consult or receive consent.

Nevertheless, terms like these that are used in the dealings with the Canadian Government and First Nations need to be changed, if First Nations really want to move forward. When First Nation leaders keep using this term and making reference to this term in their own defence, and having legal cases defining what a fiduciary really is, severely limits the First Nations rights and the items they agreed to during creation and signing of treaties.

Privatization

Canada, First Nations, Globe and Mail, Privatization, Self-Governing View all 2 comments

There are three problems I see with this idea of privatization of land for Aboriginals:
1. Prof. Moore says in her text (which I used in my studies last year) that Aboriginal Land Title and Claims are not registered on title. My point: Don’t add new rights to Aboriginals, just change present law! If we do not look at the underlying law affecting the ability to have recognizable Title and Claims registered on title, then nothing will change. Another example of just changing present law instead of adding new rights is this: I have been trying to find the law the my other professor mentioned in class that there is an old law that allows anyone to stake a claim on any land at any time (not verbatim, but in layman terms) just so long that they prove that there is a valuable mineral worth mining/digging for. One of the issues First Nations have is companies coming on to their land and mining/digging/using up natural resources to gain access to this mineral! Apparently, this law is really, really old and has been around since almost beginning of Canada. Oh, and there is a lot of legislation dealing with mining, so its a tough job!

2. The second problem is this: Who gets the interest in the land once someone defaults on their mortgage or loan? Is it just returned back to the bank? Then do the banks/mortgagees decide who takes over the loan or mortgage (which they do today with non-reserve land)? So, do Aboriginals then “lose” their land to the bank or mortgage company? Do Aboriginals “get the land back”? And is this default registered on title or is just dismissed like other Aboriginal claims/interests? These are the questions that need to be asked and issues presented when ideas like these are discussed! Strictly speaking to just what are the benefits fails to acknowledge the entire picture!

3. The third problem is that it’s not individuals that will be allowed to own the lands. It will be corporations! How crazy is that! That is even worse than non-FN individuals–we have corporations which are recognized as persons under the court of law…persons who have a lot more money, power, resources, etc. and also protected under anti-terrorism law in Canada.

In the end, majority of Canadians believe that Aboriginals can and would be better off with this legislation (ie-privatization might be better for First Nations)! Anyone can know this, just by simply viewing comments/posts on articles relating to First Nations. The racial comments. The stereotypical point of views. The over-generalizations. Yes, hurtful and ignorant, but they all agree with one thing: First Nations shouldn’t need government help or that Canadians shouldn’t be responsible for First Nations anymore.

What does this mean though when it comes to privatization of land? What does this mean for pushing forward self-governance? Do we just create another hierarchical organization to deal with each First Nation or one collectively working organization dealing with everyone as a nation (which is just plain bad)? Furthermore, how will privatization affect current law that remains unchanged? What does the term privatization actually entail and on what agreements (will they be non-binding and un-registerable)? All these terms and ideas sound really, really great but what do they really mean and what are the actual outcomes, not just the benefits, is what needs to be discussed!

Education? Really…

Canada, College, Education, Experts, Society, University, Wal-Mart Leave a comment

I am currently reading and doing some necessary catching up in some of my classes right now before the next semester starts. The last chapter I was required to read from one of my texts consists of a journal article entitled “Teaching Challenges in Higher Education” by Anton L. Allahar (this article led to the writing of this blog). Nevertheless, my catching up right now: not the most ideal position because I would much rather be relaxing. However, this past year has proven to be a very hard walk uphill for me. Not that I deserve a break, but I worked very hard.

This year I graduated from a law clerk program; co op endorsed. I chose to go to university because of the level of success I had in college. The two are completely different. In class size, class content, and expectations from you as a student.

First year at the university is not very ideal for anyone. There are large classrooms, possibly packed to the max. Sometimes classes use what is called a “clicker.” So as the number of students in a class goes up, I believe that the quality of classroom interaction has gone down. I think classroom interaction is essential to quality education. It creates debate, discussion, and allows other individuals to see what others can possibly be thinking or how others are even interpreting the data. I guess today the debate and discussion occurs online in message boards and interactive live chat rooms during lecture times.

I am also noticing that more and more people are choosing a higher education not just at an undergrad level but at a graduate/post graduate/PhD level. I am meeting more and more people who are interested in obtaining their masters or are currently in their masters level of education. This makes me wonder “What will be the value of my degree by the time I graduate?” Should I have even applied to this program and ensued in four years of university education, to only by the end of it realize that my undergraduate studies are worth next to nothing unless I earn a “masters”? Sometimes I debate on a daily basis with myself, was I wrong or right to not go into the work force?

Even with thinking about the work force, the quality of jobs out there for my generation has gone down. There are more and more contract jobs (what good is a job to only stress about if you might have it or not when your contract period ends) and only people being hired for certain time periods for certain tasks (not being hired long term, I think, is a growing trend). More businesses are only hiring people who are experts at one thing–just look at law firms today. In the past, lawyers could practically defend anyone or represent various cases in court. Now, you have to contact the right lawyer for the right situation. Whatever happened to being “general?” Is “general” too boring? Is “general,” not the right fit for society today? This trend of specialities and “experts” can be seen even in the most simplest settings: Wal-mart. If you go in any Wal-Mart today, and you need help finding something or have a question about something, you best hope that you get an employee that is in their appropriate section. If you just ask an employee passing by, the only answer you will get is “I’m sorry this isn’t my section, but I will page someone to come help you.” You may be left waiting forever for that person to come, and left wondering “how does the person coming know which person needs help in the section I am in now when there are several other people beside me?” More likely than not, your page goes unanswered.

The heavy reliance on people with specific knowledge is where our society is left divided. Education creates this difference. For some, quality education is only available to those who can afford it and only those who qualify (re: scholarships, grants). If education was made equal and available to everyone, what would be the outcome on that? If the level of education that is required by more and more jobs, continues to rise, will we all become scholars or experts? If not, then why are we even bothering with education at all?

What good is education when the it continues to divide society?

1/2 The Solution

Aboriginal, Aboriginals, Canada, Community, First Nations, Teamwork Leave a comment

Reading about Newton, I thought to myself: as Aboriginals, people who have experienced our culture from within and experienced multi-generational problems both directly and indirectly, we are the only ones that can help ourselves; we just need help in developing the right action plans.

I believe that, even though Aboriginals are still severely marginalized and some lack the resources to help themselves, communities across Canada are much better working together and for one another against forces preventing an Aboriginal identity rather than working as one community in comparison to another community.

I am not sure if that makes sense, but I believe in it. If the communities who are better off helped the ones that are worse off than most, the road to recovery would probably be more smoother and the struggle a lot less difficult.

Teamwork is key!

3rd World Canada

Aboriginal, Canada, Globe and Mail, Poverty, Third World Leave a comment

AN ARTICLE on 3rd world living conditions in Canada for Aboriginal Canadians!

This is appalling! What is even more crazy is the comments!

Education and Knowledge is power!

We need to continue to educate people in Canada and the rest of the world about the issues that Canada, a supposed “developed” and “better than the rest” country… If people from other cultures/countries saw how badly Aboriginals are treated in their HOMELAND, I wonder how many more would continue to come here?

Ignorant question. Probably.

The truth about Canada: many people came here from a different country that they like to call their homeland… Canadian Reservations are not an Canadian Aboriginal’s home!