The Ripple Effect Newsletter
May 2010
This month we celebrate the beginning of our 26th year of Aboriginal Awareness Training. In 1984, for three years, I was the District Superintendent of Economic Development and Employment in Alberta with the Federal Department of Indian Affairs. It became apparent very quickly that if I was going to do something about economic development and employment for First Nations communities and their people then the private sector would have to become involved.
There were no businesses on reserves, unemployment on reserves was averaging 80%, social services recipients was 45% of the adult population and 30% of the working age population was unemployable. These folks didn't even qualify to be counted as unemployed.
The knowledge level and understanding of Aboriginal people by Canadians generally and particularly industry was basically nil. Even the departments employees hired to provide services to the First Nations people knew very little about the people they worked for. I developed a learning program to address this lack of information and knowledge and began the arduous journey of trying to instill a sense of empathy, compassion, understanding, dispelling myths and correcting misinformation within the department and outside the department.
Today my company continues to do the same thing. It is difficult to understand why the statistics are still the same on reserves now as they were 26 years ago. As a matter of fact many things are even worse now in many areas of concern, especially the suicide rates of First Nations and Inuit youth, children in custody, tuberculosis, diabetes and aids of epidemic proportions , unimaginable incarceration rates and increasing poverty rates. After three years of struggle trying to make a difference within the department I went outside the department (called a press conference) blew the whistle as they say and that very day was fired. The reason stated was that I had become unmanageable. Blowing the whistle in 1987 was synonymous with treason, after all I did breach the oath of secrecy. Upon reflection I would do the same thing again.
Over a thousand workshops later, over 60,000 enthusiastic participants, over 700 corporate and government clients, literally hundreds of speeches' , presentations, published articles, television and radio interviews I have come to the conclusion that all the effort has been a contributing factor in the betterment and well being of many aboriginal people all across Canada. We have made a positive difference and for that I am very proud and grateful.
The reason I can say that is because of the recognition, awards and accolades received, the aboriginal people telling me so and always teasing the hell out me for being so modest. Corporations and many other clients continue to use our services..many after 25 years of continual service. We will continue teaching, explaining and answering questions for as long as we are asked. Our company and personal objective for the next 25 years is the full reconciliation between 'US" and "THEM".
My special thanks and appreciation to the hundreds of subscribers to this newsletter, to the thousands who visit our website, for all your great questions, kind comments and continued client loyalty and to all those brave enough to download my country music CD called ALBERTA NATIVE SON from iTunes.
Most Sincerely,
Robert Laboucane
President, Ripple Effects Ltd.
Story 1
Examining the myths and realities of renewable fuels
Air Water Land - Energy's New Environment
By Paul Stastny
Times have changed since that old Beverly Hillbilly Jed Clampett “went shooting at some food and up through the ground come a bubblin’ crude.”
Finding oil today takes considerably more than a stray bullet. In fact, since the beginning of commercial oil production in Texas more than a century ago, the energy return on energy invested—commonly referred to as EROEI (pronounced E-Roy)—has plummeted.
Peter Tertzakian, an ARC Financial advisor and author, discusses EROEI ratios of various fuels, including alternative energies and biofuels, in his new book, The End of Energy Obesity.
In 1901, the famous Texas gusher, Spindletop, produced 100,000 barrels of oil a day. Today, the average oil well in Alberta produces just over a 100-plus barrels a day. Moreover, Spindletop’s EROEI ratio was an amazing 100:1. That is, it took the equivalent of only one barrel of oil to produce 100 barrels from the ground.
By the 1970s, the EROEI for oil had dropped to about 30:1, according to Tertzakain. Today, America’s conventional oil EROEI averages at about 22:1. Natural gas is about 21:1. And oilsands production fairs much worse.
A tremendous amount of energy is required to extract the bitumen, separate it from the sand, gravel and water, and upgrade it to a lighter quality that refineries can accept and process into various petroleum products. The EROEI just for the extraction portion is about 7:1. By the time it’s upgraded and refined into jet fuel, naphtha, or gasoline, the numbers drop to a mere 3:1.
In a world where you’re spending a barrel equivalent of energy—typically of relatively clean-burning natural gas—to get three barrels of synthetic oil, it’s easy to see why interest in biofuels has exploded. And that doesn’t even take into account the oft-heard concerns over greenhouse gas emissions with fossil fuels.
Yet Terzakian isn’t alone when he says alternative energy and biofuels will, at best, only make a marginal contribution to global energy demand in the foreseeable future because of the sheer scale of this total energy demand. Nonetheless, within this narrow wedge of the energy supply pie, some alternatives are better than others. The EROEIs of wind, for example, is an impressive 18:1. Some others:
* Geothermal is about 16:1.
* Sugarcane ethanol grown in tropical climates is about 8:1.
* Solar photovoltaics, about 7:1.
* Biodiesel, about 2:1.
* Corn ethanol, about 1:1.
As unimpressive an energy source as grain alcohol is, governments across North America continue to mandate biofuels usage in transportation fuels.
Bad policy
Biofuels came under fire during last year’s so-called world food shortage and crude oil price escalation. One side of the debate argued that biofuels were to blame because the United States is the world’s largest corn producer and exporter and more corn than ever before was being used for biofuels. Corn use for ethanol tripled from 2001 to 2006 and farmers were replacing seed crops with corn to fill ethanol demand and capture newfound profits. And yet the amount of corn required to produce ethanol for one large SUV fill up could feed a human being for an entire year.
“So is it unclear that ethanol production leads to higher food prices and even food shortages when crops fail in other parts of the world?” the critics asked.
Grains ethanol producers shoot back that almost all U.S. corn production is animal feed grade, not human grade—so competition between food and crops is not significant. Also, the protein and nutrients of corn still remain after the starch is converted to ethanol. The defenders of ethanol said it was the record high price of oil, on which modern agriculture depends, that spiked food prices. Not biofuels.
The world’s problems rarely come down to one cause. But since last year, numerous independent studies surfaced, including an unpublished Canadian federal government report, suggesting that corn and other grain-based biofuel production is simply bad policy.
“It’s an enchanting idea as presented in commercials on television, that we can grow our own fuel to displace our oil and gas dependence,” says William Rees, a University of British Columbia professor who focuses on global environmental trends and the ecological conditions for sustainable socio-economic development. “But it’s absurd. It’s enchanting on the surface because of the general ignorance of the Canadian public.”
What people overlook is the full scope of inputs required to make biofuels: mechanically planting, harvesting, separating and crushing, the need for fossil fuel-derived fertilizers and pesticides and energy-intensive distillation. “Triple distilled actually,” Rees says.
And many of the studies that condemn biofuels don’t even include the costs of land—some of the best land in North America—or factor in the environmental effects of converting land used for crops that don’t have a high requirement for nitrate fertilizers to corn, which does. As nitrates break down in the soil, nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas) is released. Also, as pasture land or unused farmland is brought into use for corn production more CO2 is released because plowing accelerates the rate of decomposition in the soil.
So if the economics of grain ethanol are so miserable, why are governments mandating biofuel usage?
Michael Moore, senior fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy at the University of Calgary, says biofuels legislation is led by our southern neighbour. Energy security and rural development policies are the drivers, with some environmental support because ethanol and biodiesel burn cleaner than their fossil fuel equivalents.
Moore says in the U.S. ethanol is subsidized at between US$0.70 and US$0.90 per gallon.
Ethanol producers can get a bit testy on the issue of subsidies, but they don’t dispute the fact that they receive them. They point out other industries that receive subsidies.
“Do you know how many subsidies and tax breaks there are for the oil industry?” points out Shirley Ball, executive director of the Ethanol Producers and Consumers in Montana.
“Why should the ethanol industry not be subsidized? In fact, the ethanol industry on various occasions has said, ‘We’d be happy to give up our subsidies if the oil and gas industry gives up theirs.’”
Biofuels outside the box
If Canada wants to strengthen its position as an energy leader while addressing climate change, it will need to create an economically viable biofuels sector, says David Layzell, executive director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy. But to do that, policymakers need to broaden the definition of a biofuel, particularly if we are to capture the environmental benefits of burning biofuels.
“The science is very clear,” Layzell says. “There are piles of studies in Europe, United States, and Canada that look at how we use our biological resources…. It’s very clear that we need to move away from using food for fuel and focus on solid biofuels replacing coal.”
Straw and wood have much higher energy content per hectare than grain. Straw and wood pellets, Layzell says, could be used in place of coal at existing power plants with minor modification. Also, wood and straw could be converted to a liquid fuel or synthetic natural gas.
“The technologies here are not fermentation, but thermochemical conversion to capture 50 to 60 per cent of the energy in straw or wood,” he says.
Integrating Canada’s prodigious straw and wood resources—including vast stretches of dead timber from mountain pine beetle–infested forests—into the fossil fuel sector would require the lowest level of subsidy and would have a significant positive climate change benefit, according to Layzell.
Some look to entrepreneurs to come up with ways to make biofuels more mainstream. Some have successful begun commercial operations.
Western Biodiesel Inc. in High River, Alta., for example, was started by three partners, one of who brewed his own biodiesel in a garage. Today the 14-million-litre-per year plant skirts the whole food for fuel debate by collecting tallow from local rendering plants. “The chemistry is more challenging but the economics are better,” says Dean Cockshutt, president and chief executive officer.
But restaurant grease and slaughterhouse renderings can only provide a sliver of any country’s fuel demands. The same holds for other innovative ideas such as converting methane from cow manure into clean biogas. What is missing is scale.
An abundant feed source for biofuels that promises better economics is cellulosic ethanol, a biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible parts of plants. The technology for this conversion isn’t ready yet but the Canadian federal government’s $500-million NextGen Biofuels Fund hopes to give it legs.
Story 2
Land Rights Resolution Update (Six Nations FN)
Since the reclamation of our Douglas Creek Estates lands, the national and international focus has been on the Six Nations and their land rights issues. During the actual occupation, people from many countries of the World actually visited the site and left their flags and well wishes with the people.
Since that time there have been attempts to solve the rights issues through negotiations. To date the lack of resolution of the land rights of the Six Nations has only created division and distrust of the people against both Councils within the community. At no other time in our history has there been a more compelling time for us to pull together in unity than now.
Many times people who are not from Six Nations have asked why we did not follow through with the lawsuit against Canada, when as one high profile lawyer said “you had Canada on the ropes”. We can look back and accuse, harangue and criticize but will these actions produce positive results? I don’t think so.
Canada is basically not ready to get into substantive discussions and negotiations to solve our land rights issues. Firstly, they do not have the research on neither Six Nations existing claims nor those claims that are still to be filed. Secondly, they do not have the financial resources needed to justly compensate for these legitimate land rights issues.
In 1983 and in 1991, we went before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and made presentations on Six Nations grievances concerning our lost land and our lost trust accounts. These presentations were based on Six Nations having specifically defined trusts created by the Crown evolving from the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and Great Britain’s October 25th 1784 Haldimand Proclamation establishing the Six Nations and lands under His Majesty’s protection. As well, the June 24, 1803 Order-in-Council investigated and acknowledged the trusts created by the Crown specifically for Six Nations with respect to their lands and annuities. It is clear that our relationship with Canada must be at a political level, not a bureaucratic level and any settlement must be perpetual and global in nature.
In 1991, the price for a global settlement at that time was estimated to be around $82 billion dollars. The actual figure was $82,202,759,831.04 billion dollars to resolve four unlawful expenditures of Six Nations Funds used to operate and run Canada’s infrastructure. MP Lise Bourgualt, (Argenteuil-Papineau, Quebec) was totally aghast at this figure and quickly stated that the figure was preposterous and that Canada could not possibly pay this amount. We countered by saying that we were not looking for settlements under the Canada Specific Claims Policy or the Comprehensive Claims
Policy, but based on the perpetual care and maintenance of our people through a global approach.
As the negotiations have evolved over the past three years, there appears to be a pattern as to how the federal negotiator is leading the negotiation table into a specific land claims process. First, the Table was looking at solving the Douglas Creek Estates through land returned to Six Nations. These lands included the Burtch Industrial farm, the Townsend lands and the South Cayuga Lands as promised by David Peterson, one of the former negotiators. This offer did not come to fruition.
In May 2007, the federal government offered $125 million for a package of claims and rights including Welland Canal, Grand River Navigation Company investment, Moulton Township (Block Five) and the Burtch Tract. Without receiving an explanation on how the sum was established, the negotiating team rejected this offer.
Next the federal negotiator guided the Table to one offer – the Welland Canal flooded lands between Cayuga and Dunnville. He made an offer of $26 million dollars to settle this particular land claim that was previously accepted as legitimate by Canada. The impasse came as a result of how Canada arrived at the $26.0 million dollar figure. Canada provided a five page document as to how they supposedly came up with $26.0 million and the HSN Negotiating team took this information to a University Economics professor to determine what a range of settlement could be considered. The professor determined that by Canada’s own methodology this land claim was worth anywhere between $500 million to $1.1 billion dollars. This information effectively killed any proposed settlement of the Welland Canal flooded lands.
The fourth attempt to reach some kind of successful negotiation from the federal negotiator’s point of view was to go to the Nathan Gage claim within the City of Brantford.
Therefore, one can determine that the federal negotiator really did not have a mandate to settle any Six Nations land rights, other than trying to get Six Nations to agree to a settlement under Canada’s Specific Claims Policy. In August of 2009 the Six Nations previously stated position was made formal through a written statement to Canada and Ontario. This position is that the only land rights settlement would be based on the original intent of the Haldimand Proclamation – the perpetual care and maintenance of the Six Nations people. In addition, settlement will include return of Six Nations land as parcels became available and the Six Nations money that was unaccounted for by successive British and Canadian governments is to be returned and added to the perpetual care payments.
At this point the Six Nations Elected Council determined that the Court challenge for Canada to account for lost revenues and lost lands needed to be re-activated. Canada was adamant that there could not be negotiations and litigation going on at the same time. This is not true as the Cree of Northern Quebec did the very same thing. In fact they were successful in having the Supreme Court award them $4.3 billion. Both Canada and the province of Quebec were instructed to pay this money to settle the Cree of Northern Quebec land rights. Six Nations is in the very same position regarding our land rights in the Haldimand Proclamation grant of 1784.
To accept money for a small parcel of land within the Haldimand Tract is not looking out for the 7th generation of our people. If money is accepted for a land claim settlement, Canada will expect that we would sign a certainty document that gives up all rights to ever come back to re-negotiate or correct any oversight of a settlement agreement by Canada. The Auditor-General of Canada stated in an appearance before the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, as follows;
“Certainly when we look at land and treaty negotiations, people seem to believe that success is when the land claim is signed. In reality, things are only beginning then. We found in many cases no implementation plans, no consideration of what costs are or who will do all this. There needs to be much more on the implementation and, as you say, the analysis of what the costs are of these commitments that are being made.” [The Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples – November 18, 2009]
Any nation in the world derives its wealth from its land. Therefore to sign away our land for some money that would probably be spent within a short period of time is stealing from our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and is the same as selling our greatest asset.
The provincial government is not off the hook in any settlement with Six Nations either. They realize considerable revenue from use of the Haldimand Tract lands through land transfer permits, gas taxes, provincial sale taxes etc. Their greatest take from the Haldimand Tract lands is the Brantford casino and the Racino in Elora. These collections are all without Ontario’s consideration of Six Nations getting a share of the proceeds from the use of our lands and honouring the treaty obligations for the ongoing care and maintenance envisioned by Joseph Brant when the Haldimand Proclamation lands were secured for us within our Beaver Hunting Grounds fulfilling promises for our fighting as Allies of Great Britain during the American Revolution of 1775.
Hopefully the negotiations can continue provided that Canada and Ontario give their representatives a real mandate to negotiate a land right and treaty agreement that encompasses perpetual care and maintenance as the first consideration and secondly return of any lands that become surplus and thirdly the return to Six Nations revenue account funds that were misappropriated by Crown Officials. On the Court Challenge, the Examination for Discovery will begin in February and is expected to take most of 2010 to complete.
William K. Montour
Six Nations Elected Chief
Story 3
Address of Mme Jeannette Corbiere Lavell President of The Native Women’s Association of Canada to The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
April 13, 2010
Traditional Greetings, Acknowledge Algonquin Nation
Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting the Native Women's Association of Canada to speak to this Committee on these matters, which are crucial to Aboriginal women, their children, their families and their communities.
The Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) is a nationally representative political organization comprised of ten Provincial and Territorial Member Associations (PTMAs) from across this country and is dedicated to improving the social, economic, health, and political well being of First Nations, Métis and Inuit women of Canada.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to speak with you here today regarding our perspective on Bill C-3: Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, which was tabled in the House of Commons on March 11, 2010.
The Indian Act has been used as a tool by the federal government to limit who is and who is not an Indian. This has had particularly devastating impacts on Indian women who were targeted for exclusion based on European values of the roles of women as well as the key roles that Indian women played in their communities.
Aboriginal women commanded the highest respect in their communities as the givers of life and were the keepers of the traditions, practices and customs of the nation. It was well understood by all, that women held a sacred status as they brought new life into the world.
I am going to spend a few minutes of my time here to discuss some of the key historical provisions of the Indian Act as they tell a story and offer insight as to what needs to be done, or perhaps, more aptly, what needs to be undone so that we can have the discussion and a better understanding of citizenship.
Status and membership, words that now denote the language of the Indian Act, are divisive and undermine our ability to discuss this issue in a language that would allow us to be more inclusive and broad based. Interestingly, in 1850, the definition of Indian was inclusive and included any person of Indian birth or blood, any person reputed to belong to a particular group of Indian and any person married to an Indian or adopted into an Indian family.
But it was only a few years later in 1869 that legislation came into effect that introduced the concept of an Indian woman losing her status and that of her children upon marriage to a non-Indian man. This limitation and loss of status, however, did not apply to Indian men.
The 1876 legislation maintained this provision and went even further and confirmed Indian male lineage and included in its definition of Indian, any woman, whether Indian or not, who was married to any male person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular band. Thus, a non-Indian woman was defined as an Indian through the male lineage.
In 1951 the legislation (in addition to creating an Indian registrar) maintained the male privileged provisions. In addition, the legislation introduced what is now referred to as "the double mother rule‟. This rule provided that if a child's mother and paternal grandmother did not have a right to Indian status, other than by virtue of having married an Indian man after September 1951, the child only had Indian status up to the age of 21.
In the 70's, I myself brought a case challenging the discriminatory legislative provisions of the Indian Act under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of Canada in 1973 were divided and ruled that the provision did not result in any inequality under the law with the reasoning that Indian women who married out were treated equally. It was as a result of situations like my own, and many other women like me, that the Native Women's Association of coalesced. Thirty five years later we are still dealing with the same issue.
In the early 80s Sandra Lovelace, an Indian woman who married out, was successful before the United Nations Human Rights Committee in securing a finding that Canada was in violation of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which protects the right to practice one's culture and language, in community with other members of a person‟s group.
Following the Charter in 1982, Bill C-31 was enacted in 1985, which did deal with some of the gender issues to the extent that it reinstated women who had lost status by marrying out and those who had lost status at 21 due to the double mother rule. But this legislation continued to discriminate against Indian women who married out as their children were registered as 6(2)s and it did not correct the previous discriminatory practices contained in the Act over time. In fact, it created a whole new scope of discrimination based on status and membership that continues to be felt today.
Although Bill C-31 was supposed to remove gender discrimination from the status provisions, after Bill C-31 there were some real differences between Bill C-31 Indian and other status Indians (s. 6(1) v. s. 6(2) distinctions). The children of the women who lost status could NOT pass on status to their own children if they intermarried with non-Indians. On the other hand, the children of status men who had married non-Indian women before 1985 could pass on status to their children.
There are a number of issues before the courts arising from the status provisions of the Indian Act. The McIvor case was but one of them. The McIvor case was decided by the Court of Appeal on very narrow grounds and the legislation that we are here to talk about today is to rectify that narrow aspect. Bill C-3 does that to a certain extent.
However, it does not rectify the broader outstanding gender issues encapsulated within the Indian Act. This is not to say, Bill C-3 is not needed. In fact, any relief from gender discrimination is much needed and welcomed. It is, however, also important to say that there is still much work needed to be done in remedying the male dominated, gender biased foundations steeped within the Act and its definitions. For instance, Bill C-3 cannot and does not address the Act's discriminatory provisions that prefer a male lineage.
For many people registration under the Indian Act also results in acceptance within the First Nations community. Since 1985, First Nations have had the opportunity to define their band membership within the parameters set Indian Act. Many First Nations are moving from the Indian Act terminology of band membership to the use of “citizenship” rather than “membership” at the individual level. In addition, First Nations moving out of the Indian Act regime through comprehensive self-government agreements often assume jurisdiction over their citizenship.
Bill C-3 consists of 10-clauses that seek to remedy a smaller aspect of the discriminatory circumstances of Ms. McIvor and her children and grandchildren. It re-enacts s. 6 (1)(a) and provides a new subsection s. 6(1)(c) to ensure eligible grandchildren of women who lost status as a result of marrying a non-status will become eligible for registration.
Although the Grandchildren born prior to 1985 of Indian men are or entitled to Indian status under 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act under Bill C-3, the grandchildren of an Indian woman born prior to 1985 will be registered as a 6(2).
Despite all of the legislative changes and with the new Bill C-3, the federal government has retained control under sections 6 and 7 of the Indian Act over the determination of Indian status for all First Nation peoples.
The Court of Appeal in McIvor missed its opportunity to provide a meaningful remedy to addressing the preference of following the male line. The main complaint of the McIvor case is that the Indian Act since 1876 said that only the Male could pass along Indian status; even if a woman did not marry out, and was full status herself, she could not pass status along to her children. Only if her child was “illegitimate” and nobody came along to demonstrate that the dad was non-Indian could she give her child her status.
The proposed amendments narrowly address the main issue in McIvor by introducing s. 6(1)(a) and a new subsection s. 6(1)(c).1 – INAC claims this will ensure eligible grandchildren of women who lost status will become eligible for registration.
Since 18691, the Federal government has unilaterally changed the definition of who is and who is not an Indian – all without the consent of the First Nations people. The Indian Act has created the discriminatory provisions and various classifications of who is or is not an Indian – these people who will be re-instated already belong to our communities – they are our aunties, daughters and mothers and grandmothers.
1 An Act for the gradual enfranchisement of Indians, the better management of Indian affairs, and to extend the provisions of the Act 31st Victoria, chapter 42, S.C. 1869, c. 6, 32-33 Vic., s. 6. Section 6 further provided that an Indian woman marrying an Indian man from another Tribe or band would cease belonging to her own band and become a member of her husband’s. The controversial concept of enfranchisement, referring to the voluntary or involuntary loss of status and developed as an assimilative tool, dates from 1857 legislation and was in place in various forms until its repeal in 1985.
Where Do We Go From Here:
Let's just say that due to the complexities of the status provisions in the past, that, it is difficult to ascertain all of the impacts, particularly since it is almost impossible to deconstruct the impacts from an historical perspective.
We do know the Indian Act is an archaic piece of legislation and that the current solution provided is very narrow – we are always reacting to the legislation and piece meal band aid solutions that have historically and are currently defining who we are as Peoples. At the end of the day we will have to say that once again it is clear that the Indian Act is ill equipped and a poor instrument to use to resolve these broader issues of citizenship.
We require a long term vision of proceeding in Crown/First Nation relationships that allows us to define who we are as First Nation citizens. Minister Strahl talked about an exploratory process to have these more complex discussions about status and membership and most of all how we can define who our own citizens are. We are Peoples who have the right to determine who we are – Canada has been defining this for us for way too long and we look forward to moving forward together to ensure the inclusion of women and our children as citizens of our First Nations.
