Wednesday, January 19, 2011

An Update on Bill C-3 - January 19 2011 - What's Next?

Dear Readers; after checking my blog stats, I can see that traffic has been heavy on my previous Bill C-3 blogs, especially the one that reads as an update. I will try to oblige, but please forgive any annoying repetition.

March 11, 2010 - First Reading (that's where the Minister or someone like that introduces the bill into the House).

March 26, 2010 - Second Reading

March 29, 2010 - Debates

April 1, 2010 - Studied by Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON)

April 13,15,20,22,27, 2010 - Meetings of AAON re Bill C-3 where they heard from witnesses sharing their concerns about the bill.

April 29, 2010 - AAON submitted and debated their report which included a variety of amendments they had adopted to ensure that the bill remedied all gender inequity instead of just a minor part of it.

May 25, 2010 - AAON continued debate of report.

Parliament then recessed for the summer.

October 26, 2010 - Report Stage - Report was debated again. Three motions were voted on and passed:

(1) Motion #1 dealt with minor amendments to the wording related to how INAC would report on the effects of the bill once it has been implemented;

(2) Motion #2 would restore the previous section 9 which had been deleted at AAON. This section provided Canada with an insulation from financial liability for claims which would come from women and children who had been wrongly excluded from the Act.

(3) Motion #3 essentially was to approve the bill as amended by the previous two motions.

All three motions were approved which meant that Bill C-3 (as amended)would go forward for Third reading and debates.

Nov.22, 2010 - Third Reading and debates

The bill was therefore passed as amended. Once it passed in the House, it literally sped through the process in the Senate being introduced on Nov.23, 2010 and passed Dec.9, 2010.

Dec.15, 2010 - Bill C-3 receives Royal Assent.

Jan.21. 2011 - The law officially comes into force and applications will be available at that time.

All this legislative information can be found at the following link:
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has now posted new information about those who think they might qualify for status and the new process it will use to handle applications for status. Their link can be found here:

INAC provides three basic criteria that gives potential applicants a sense of whether or not they will be entitled under the new amendment:

(1) Did you grandmother lose Indian status because she married a non-Indian?

(2) Is one of your parents registered or entitled to be registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act? and

(3) Were you (the applicant) or one of your siblings born after Sept.4, 1951?

If you can answer yes to all of these questions, then it is very likely (although INAC does not guarantee) that you will qualify for status. So, some of you might be thinking that you meet this criteria and want to know what to do next? INAC has provided contact information so you can ask them questions directly:

INAC Public Enquiries Contact Centre
Phone: (toll-free) 1-800-567-9604
Fax: 1-866-817-3977
TTY: (toll-free) 1-866-553-0554

I have called them several times and they answer the phone quickly and the people who are working the telephone lines had up to date information and were very helpful. They did explain to me that although I have already applied for status, there will be NEW application forms with NEW requirements. Canada will make the forms available at the following locations:

Online: January 31, 2011
By mail: Call 1-800-567-9604 to request an application package.
In person: At any INAC Regional office or call 1-800-567-9604.

The kind of status card that Bill C-3 registrants will receive (if eligible) is a Secure Certificate of Indian Status (SCIS) card. It does not change the type of benefits, but does require additional documentation from applicants not requested of non-Bill C-3 applicants. The following list is what INAC has indicated will be required:

- Original birth certificate (listing parents names) (often referred to as "long-form")

- Two passport style photographs

- Original piece of valid identification (i.e. - driver's licence, passport, government issued ID)

- Guarantor Declaration for SCIS

And if applicable:

- Legal change of name document or marriage certificate

- Custody Court Order

- Statutory Declaration Form(s).

Please also keep in mind that INAC is changing the application for Bill C-3 applicants to a "mail-in" process only. That means the original documents they require MUST be mailed in to INAC and you will HOPEFULLY receive them back within a month or so.

I don't know about any of you, but I don't feel comfortable mailing INAC my Driver's License (as a local police officer told me it is against the law to drive without it on your person). Similarly, the thought of my passport (at March break time) being held up at INAC for weeks maybe months is not overly user friendly or considerate.

INAC has also provided some time lines for processing applications. They are as follows:

Act comes into force and applications posted online = January 31, 2011

Letter confirming entitlement (assuming all docs provided with applic) = no time specified

Issuance of SCIS card number = 10-12 weeks after receipt of Letter of entitlement

Entire Process from start (application) to finish (receipt of status card) = 4-6 months

The ability to access benefits will start before you receive your card as your Letter of entitlement will provide a number you can use to access health and other benefits.

Also of interest:

(1) Sharon McIvor has filed a claim with the United Nations to have her gender discrimination case heard by the Human Rights Tribunal; and

(2) Merchant Law has filed a class action here in Canada in an attempt to get compensation for all those who will now be registered as per Bill C-3 for lost education benefits, lost taxes, health benefits etc. You will recall that the Bill prohibits any compensation.

Let me know if this is the kind of update you were looking for from my blog.


Friday, January 14, 2011

UPDATE - TVO's The Agenda Botches Show on Caledonia

Please be advised - this personal opinion blog is not for the feint of heart. The opinions I express on my website, blog, Tweets and FB updates are my own and my right to express my personal opinion is one of our most valued rights and freedoms in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I have explained on previous blogs, my personal opinion does NOT constitute legal advice nor should it be relied on as such.

Generally, I like watching TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paiken. I find it far more engaging than the regular media and the host is willing to ask the hard questions. While they are definitely no APTN, the shows on Indigenous issues that I have seen and/or participated in, have been fairly balanced in covering Indigenous perspectives. Their producer, Mark Brosens is generally good about researching the issues and seeking different perspectives. Last night's show on the situation in Caledonia however, was a striking failure in responsible journalism and a huge disappointment to many viewers.

I am not a journalist, nor do I profess any expertise in the area. My knowledge comes from what I have learned, studied and observed. As a lawyer, professor and author, I do have a good idea about what makes good writing and how to cover an issue responsibly. That is not to say that each article must be a research study into all causes and effects, but a minimal context must be laid out for readers. I think I am as capable as anyone in assessing the quality or lack thereof of various issues covered in the media.

Last night's episode of The Agenda not only fell into the trap of considering an issue in a one-sided way, they blamed potential invitees to the show for TVO's own lack of organization and planning. Steve Paiken, the host, explained last night that the show was envisioned as a round table on the issue of Caledonia that was supposed to have someone from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), someone from Ontario's Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (OMMA), Blatchford herself, someone from Six Nations and maybe others (presumably subject matter experts like a lawyer or academic who works on these issues).

Instead of saying, we screwed up and didn't get the show together on time, Paiken publicly blamed the invitees and portrayed them as if they didn't want to debate Blatchford. This of course played into Blatchford's overinflated ego who quickly agreed. Paiken made it seem as if no one would face Blatchford and I can attest to the fact that this is simply not the case. Contrary to popular belief, many of us Indigenous lawyers, academics, politicians and community members work for a living and have schedules which do not lend well to last-minute arrangements.

In a producer's blog written by Mark Brosens, he explained that he tried to contact the OPP and OMMA who turned down his invitation. I could have predicted that one given all of the legal implications, court cases, and outstanding land claims in Caledonia. Rightly or wrongly, I think there was slim to no chance of getting provincial representatives to speak about Caledonia. That did not, however, prohibit Brosens from contacting experts in political science to come and speak about the policy and political issues from a provincial stand point or from getting an expert in policing issues.

Brosens also mentions that he tried to get people from Six Nations to participate in the show but was unsuccessful. He says he tried to get the Chiefs of Ontario to come on the show, but admits (as an aside) that he did not give them much notice. Then the issue which I can speak to personally, is that he says that he tried academics but they ALL "either agreed with Blatchford, or were unavailable, or were camera shy". That is simply not true. Brosens contacted me as an "expert" in the area and to get my insight on the book and the subject generally. While he did not ask, I specifically offered that if he needed anyone at the last minute to appear on the show, I would do so, as I felt very passionately that TVO should deal with the subject in balanced way.

The overall theme of Brosen's blog was that people were unwilling to go up against Blatchford which is simply not accurate. This is not about Blatchford. It is clearly a production issue. TVO tried to pull this show together at the last minute, they failed to do so, but instead of doing something else, they went ahead with the show anyway and blamed the invited participants for the lack of quality in the show. That is simply not the kind of integrity we expect from TVO.

What I found most distasteful about the show was that Paiken turned TVO's failure into a sensational question which portrayed Blatchford as some kind of expert on Caledonia whom everyone fears. Compounding what was already a poorly produced segment, was that Paiken was overly conciliatory to Blatchford and did not ask any real hard questions of her. He allowed her to portray or imply that Six Nations and Mohawks were terrorists and did not call her on the gross analogy to the terrorist acts of 9-11.

While one might like to blame the alarmist tone of the show on their SOLE guest Blatchford, TVO was unfortunately, an equal participant. First of all, the segment was framed as one on "lawlessness" which is sensationalism as its best as well as inaccurate. The fact that TVO paired the Caledonia segment with one on policing and the recent death of a police officer also lent a certain frame to the subject. They couldn't have set up the segment any worse than had Blatchford done it herself.

After improperly introducing the subject of Caledonia and Six Nations as "Grand River of Six Nations", TVO let Blatchford set the context to the dispute. She did not start with the granting of the Haldimand Tract to the Six Nations, but started with the date of the occupation. As if one day, a bunch of bored Mohawks just got together and decided to protest for fun and from there "its as if the devil threw a party and invited all his friends". I thought the days of comparing Indigenous people to pagans and heathens were over? Is it really a critical part of understanding the Caledonia situation to repeat degrading quotes about unresolved land claims?

Aside from the inherent problems with her book, which I will save for a future blog, the things Blatchford said on the show were, in my personal opinion, inaccurate, alarmist and racist. When I use the term racist, I don't do so lightly, nor do I use the term as an emotional reaction to something I don't like. I do so based on what I have read, heard, seen and considered on the issue. There are endless media sources calling her a racist. She has also publicly had to deny being a racist which shows many smarter people than I have made the same conclusion.

With regards to the show, her more problematic comments went largely unchallenged by Paiken and include:

(1) she says she is not an expert on the subject (which begs the question of how informed her book is or even why she was on the show);

(2) that it was an "illegal" protest (but no discussion of the general right to assembly, constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, Aboriginal title rights, land claims, etc);

(3) the issue was not a land claim and that it was simply a matter of Chief Montour wanting more compensation (which ignores the long history and details of the claim);

(4) it should all be blamed on one "entrepreneurial Mohawk" named Joseph Brant who sold the land for his own benefit (again ignoring all the legal and historical records);

(5) Calls those who were trying to mediate and negotiate the matter "BS negotiators"; (really? was she on the inside at the negotiations to make that kind of assessment?);

(6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence)*;

(7) Accused traditional band members of Six Nations of going around intimidating other band members to support the protest (more unsubstantiated claims or perhaps I missed all the convictions of traditional band members in the media???).

Paiken, (ironically given TVO's one-dimensional take on the issue) asked Blatchford why she only dealt with one side of the issue. In defending herself, she characterized Caledonia as "ground zero" after comparing her book Helpless to the work she did at ground zero in New York with the terrorist attack on the twin towers. She explained that when she wrote about ground zero in New York, she didn't write about the perspective of the terrorists and their claims, so why would she do that here in Caledonia? Some viewers who contacted me after the show felt that this was a form of inciting hatred.

Like the Flanagan's, Gibson's, and Widdowson's of the world, we often overlook their right-wing rantings as those of ignorant people who were never taught any better. Perhaps this is what Paiken thought when he sat quietly and accepted Blatchford's terrorist analogy of the Caledonia situation without calling her on it. However, inviting the public to view First Nations as terrorists on their own lands risks relegating them back to their former colonial-imposed status as "non-humans" deserved of whatever indignities committed against them by the far-from-Helpless majority population who simply want all their land and resources. While there is no changing the views of committed right-wingers like Blatchford, TVO has a responsibility to the public to do their shows with integrity or don't do them at all.

This blog may mean that I never get invited to TVO's The Agenda again (which would be unfortunate as I like the show and the people) but I would not be true to myself if I did not call TVO on their disaster. Everyone makes mistakes, but it is how you address those mistakes that count. The true test of integrity is whether one is honest about their role in the mistake and owns up to it. TVO - you have some owning up to do.

* UPDATE - Shortly after posting this blog, I received an e-mail from Gary McHale threatening to sue me for defamation and demanded an apology. The e-mail is reproduced below and you will notice that he does not deny anything I wrote in my blog:

"It has come to my attention that you have decided to defame me on your website. You have posted the following:
(6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact that he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence)
I hope you can prove that I 'deliberately' (interesting that you know my motives) 'instigate violence'.
I have six weeks to serve you legal notice but I would hope you would post an apology instead of continuing to violate the law - as a lawyer/professor I would think you would respect the law more.
Gary McHale
" (

As this is a personal opinion blog and I have never done litigation, I can't offer the public any advice on the law with regards to either bringing or defending defamation claims. What I can do is share some of the information that is readily available on the internet. For legal advice, I suggest you contact a lawyer if you have any questions.

Defamation of character has been defined as the written (libel) or oral (slander) damaging of one's "good reputation". Some of you may be thinking - good reputation??? There are several ways in which such a claim may be defended, but one of those defences is referred to as "Fair Comment". I found the following definition online:

"Citizens are entitled to make fair comment on matters of public interest without fear of defamation claims. A good example of this is a letter to the editor on a matter of public concern. The author of the remarks may even go so far as to PRESUME MOTIVES on the part of the person who's actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice." (emphasis added) (Duhaime Law)

My honestly-held, personal belief, and opinion about which I wrote this blog is based on countless books, articles, media, and internet sources, some of which I will highlight here for your interest:

(1) "What does Canada, Ontario or whoever the fools were who hired Gary McHale to INSTIGATE violence think of his colossal failure?" (emphasis added) (frostyamerindian);

(2) "McHale WANTED violence... He brought in skinheads, KKK and other professional instigators and mercenaries from both Canada and the U.S." (emphasis added)(frostyamerindian);

(3) "former politician, David Peterson... called McHale and his gang a 'bunch of wackos'." (Mohawk Nation News);

(4) Gary McHale is "NOT from Caledonia" (emphasis added). (Ryan Paul);

(5) Vigilante militia group set up by "an associate of anti-native sovereignty activist Gary McHale" and "Neo-Nazi groups have long participated in McHale's various protests". (;

(6) "Gary McHale ... claims FN and 6 Nations are terrorists." (;

(7) OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino explained that: "I want every avenue explored by which we can now bring McHale into court seeking a court order to prevent him from continuing his agenda of INCITING PEOPLE TO VIOLENCE in Caledonia." (emphasis added) (CBC news);

(8) OPP Commissioner Fantino further stated: "We should be able to prove to court that McHale's forays into Caledonia have been PLANNED and executed for PURPOSES of breaching the peace which today also resulted in VIOLENCE. We can't allow this vicious cycle to continue...". (emphasis added) (CBC news).

Regarding his "reputation", McHale posts many negative comments about himself on his own website and could hardly claim he has any remaining reputation that could possibly be tarnished by my blog. I would post examples, but I prefer to keep my blogs profanity-free out of respect for the younger folks who read my blogs and cite them in their school work. :)

My father always told me that only narcissists think that the whole world revolves around them and that most "protests" are simply desperate attempts to get attention. I have had rare occassion to consider his specific advice, but can see now what he meant. This of course presents the dilemma of whether to respond and give the narcisist his desperately-desired attention or not respond and risk the public believing the hateful misinformation. I still wrestle with this dilemma.

Despite this brief update meant to address some petty non-sense, I would ask that readers please focus on the original message of my blog being about TVO and how they might learn from their mistake with this show and perhaps make an effort to do better the next time.