“Nelson Leeson, Thomas Berger, Nellie Cournoyea, Jim Aldridge, Wayne Bergmann”

Just out of curiosity, were any of these folks….Indian? Why do they have European last names?

That question was not intended to elicit information. None of Jeff’s ever are. They’re just passive-aggressive snipes.

Ok, so can you explain why everyone on the reservations (that lived like filthy animals) I worked at had Indian last names? Guess who didn’t have Indian last names? The people that made the policy and legal decisions? Know why? Cause they were white or Metis. So, why is it that Indians will never be independent? Because they are completely reliant on the white man and always will be. Thanks for pointing this out(yet again) with your list of whities heading the conference, Balbulican!

It’s amazing how little the Minister and his staff value their credibility. And of course, we can generalise that to the entire government. They’re, quite frankly, out of their league. And it’ll be a sheer pleasure to watch them lurch clumsily from one issue to the next.

Ah, well…They’ll always have the GST to reduce 1 percentage point at a time. Even a grade-fiver couldn’t screw that up.

Recipe for disaster. Geez, I’ve been there before. The beta males all roll over to expose their bellies. While Big Daddy Harper marks the territory, the rest of the pack end up doing the real work.

Has Harper ever had real job in his life? This is a serious question. I can’t seem to find anything beyond the various courtier positions he’s held (present one included).

“…Must restrain urge to react to trolls…”

It’s simple, although it takes a bit of practice.

I usually tend to assume people who post here actually want to talk about stuff. But when it becomes clear that someone’s goal is simply to pick a fight by any means, I simply don’t read’em…just skip their droppings automatically. It becomes surprising easy in a very short time. Saves tremendous amounts of aggravation and any number of pixels.

“Has Harper ever had real job in his life? ”

I think he was a computer programmer for a little while. I believe that’s it. Funny, eh?

Hey, come to think of it, aren’t you guys white as well, Bulbulican and Stageleft? Interesting…..

Dodo?

Disprespect is merited.

What is the practical usefulness of your shiny new Canadian claims implementation policy? No offense, but this post is all jargon. It is one thing to say that the creation of this new policy required a great amount of cooperation, quite another to tell us all why it matters.

If, as I gather from your second bullet, it will enhance these groups’ capacity for advocacy, what then is the point of sliming Prentice as you have done throughout these threads?

You’re right, Tig. Unlike Jeff, Peter has substance, and occasionally lets it show.

Peter? Please listen. Your questions are very good ones, and they deserve a response. But if your question is just a prelude to more scornful fight picking, please don’t bother. Even Charlie Brown eventually stopped trying to kick Lucy’s football. As a courtesy, may I politely ask you to refrain from doing a Jeff while you’re here?

“What is the practical usefulness of your shiny new Canadian claims implementation policy?”

There isn’t a “policy”. As I said above, there are four principles, ten sub-principles, and a number of specific provisions. The next step will be to convince Harper that in order to “preserve the honour of the Crown” (the phrase used by the Auditor General in describing Canada’s failure to implement), to ensure that Canada’s “real and significant legal and Constitutional obligations” are met (Berger’s phrase), and that the “letter, spirit and intent of the Claims are followed” (PricewaterhouseCoopers assessment of Canada’s deficiencies in Nunavut implementation), an actual federal policy will be required. The previous government knew that, and were working towards a Policy with the Coalition. It remains to be seen whether the new government understands.

The “practical usefulness” of the work done at the conference is different to explain unless you’ve actually worked in this environment. But the phrase “First Nations” means exactly that: these are independent entities with their own Claims, self-government agreements, languages, cultures, institutions, economies, needs, goals. And Inuit are as distinct from “First Nations” as Tamils are from Japanese. Negotiating informed consensus among twenty or so major Claims holders represented by about four hundred delegates is not simple. Now that there is agreement on the underlying principles, work can be carried forward at the technical level with INAC.

The analogue in strategic planning would be the development of goals, then objectives, then strategies, then action steps. Very high level agreement among the highest level of decision makers is required for the goals: once that’s achieved, management can work out objectives, and technicians can establish strategies and action steps. But without that first step, it doesn’t work.

No offense, but this post is all jargon.

.
If by “jargon” you mean technical vocabulary used within a profession or circle, then you may be correct. My intention was to communicate to several of the readers of this site who are interested in and work with policy, law and Constitutional issues, often in the Aboriginal milieu: I realize that it may sound jargony to folks who don’t work in that environment.

If by “jargon” you’re trying to suggest that I am trying to obscure something with vague technical language, then you are mistaken. That is not my intent. Please ask for clarification about anything I’ve not made sufficiently clear.

It is one thing to say that the creation of this new policy required a great amount of cooperation, quite another to tell us all why it matters.

Canada has for some years had a policy on negotiating claims, established by Mr. Mulroney’s government. It has streamlined and accellerated the process considerably, cleared up an enormous backlog, and in general worked (in my opinion) rather well. Perfectly? No. We have a Criminal Code in Canada, but we still have crime. No policy works perfectly. But the Claims policy is pretty good.

The Claims Policy, however, essentially stops at the point where Parliament ratifies a Claim. There is an assumption that the rest should be easy: after all, when you sign a contract, it’s assumed that both parties simply discharge their obligations under the contract. That has not been the case, however.

Here’s one specific example, drawn from the discussions at the conference.

Most Claims have a provision relating to dispute resolution. If the two parties disagree on some aspect, or on their obligations, there are various things they can do. In Nunavut, for instance, the Claim establishes an Implementation Panel made up of Inuit, Territorial and Federal representatives empowered to review disputes and make recommendations to the Crown: if that fails, the Claim allows for the establishment of an arbitration panel.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Except that when serious and specific issues began to emerge with Canada’s non-compliance, the kind of problems described by the Auditor General, Canada (represented by INAC, under the Chretien Government) simply…stalled. They immobilized the Implementation Panel for nearly three years. They refused to allow unresolved issues to go to Arbitration. And there was no mechanism available to the other signatories except lengthy and very expensive court challenges. Money that should have been building houses or schools or health centres or capacity was spend trying to force Canada to do what Canada had already agreed to do in the Claim.

This stuff is not in dispute, Peter, although I am putting it all a little more baldly than it’s usually put. There have been at least five major evaluations of the Claim carried out (the most recent by PricewaterhouseCoopers, published just two weeks ago), and they have all reached the same conclusions.

That’s just one issue related to just one Claim: and in fact, one of the better Claims.

That’s why it “matters”. There is a policy that says “here’s how we’re committed to negotiating Claims”, and consequently the negotiation of Claims runs pretty smoothly. There is no policy that says “here’s how we’re committed to implementing what we’ve negotiated”, and consequently, in many cases, implementation of Claims has not worked.

If, as I gather from your second bullet, it will enhance these groups’ capacity for advocacy, what then is the point of sliming Prentice as you have done throughout these threads?

I don’t understand the connection you’re trying to draw between these two thoughts.

Yes, the conference and its followup will enhance these groups’ capacity for advocacy.

And yes, I have been very critical of Prentice in these threads. I have done so because he treated the Coalition and the Aboriginal leadership with contempt, and because I strongly suspect him of advancing an agenda of assimilation. I was equally critical of Jean Chretien for the same reason, and as you have seen, I have praised Brian Mulroney for his position on Land Claims because I think that he, more than most other Prime Ministers, got it - at least part of it.

Why do I do it? To inform anyone who cares about what their government is doing, to get useful input from other perspectives, to vent, to test my own thinking, maybe even to change someone’s mind out there.

I hope that answers your questions.

Wow, thanks for the answer.

The follow up is on a few different fronts.

At the political level, the leaders are going to seek a meeting with Harper. You know how that works, and the strategies required to get a meeting like that. Goal is late summer or fall.

At the Coalition level, the organizations will jointly be implementing a media awareness and advocacy strategy. Can’t say too much about that, but the bottom line is a coordinated national initiative with support beyond the immediate circle of comprehensive claims groups and a higher profile.

At the management/operational level, the INAC folks working on this file will be briefed on the Conference recommendations, and the Coalition working group will maintain the pressure at the Director/DG level to move the file forward incorporating the new input.

I’m having a hard time figuring Prentice out. On the one hand, his goal for legal/property rights for Aboriginal women sounds pretty good (unless I’m missing something?). But then he can’t be bothered to show up for this.

From a political perspective, who do they ask to carry the banner? The NDP are the obvious choice, except that many I know (yes, in Alberta, mucho progresso) close their ears, change the channel, do whatever as soon as Jack! opens his mouth. If they can cherrypick the MP that led the charge on Kashechewan, that would be good (assuming they can muzzle Jack! outside the House). The Liberals seem currently incapable of agreeing on what to order for lunch, so that’s not much of an option. And Prentice seems to have left the building.

Can they maybe recruit Ed Broadbent?