Act

Saturday April 16, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Saturday April 16, 2016 Landmark legal decision for CanadaÕs Metis, butÉ The Metis in Canada are generally considered to be a group descended from a mix of aboriginal prarie First Nation peoples and the Scottish, French, and other Caucasian fur traders of centuries past. In 1867 when Canada was formed and the new federal jurisdictions first laid out in the British North America Act, the Canadian federal government assumed responsibility for ÒIndiansÓ, including a financial responsibility while the Metis were simply not considered. Since then, and with the creation of the ÒIndian ActÓ in 1876 which consolidated many federal regulations concerned with CanadaÕs aboriginal populations, the Metis were again left out as they were still considered Ònon-IndianÓ and as such not federal responsibility. In 1999 prominent Metis leader Harry Daniels first began a legal challenge to have the Metis included as an aboriginal or ÒIndianÓ group in the eyes of the law. TodayÕs unanimous 9-0 rulling by the SCC says that the Metis and off-reserve Indians are included in the 1867 definition of the word ÒIndianÓ and as such are clearly and constitutionally, a federal responsibility. This ruling will affect more than 600,000 Metis and other aboriginals who live Òoff-reserveÓ. Both Chris Andersen (professor and interim Dean of the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta), and professor Larry Chartrand (LLM) of the University of Ottawa agree that the ruling does not automatically mean that the government will be financially responsible for what could amount to billions of dollars in support for Metis. They say what it actually means is that many other legal actions may now be begun between the two parties, (Metis/federal government) to determine such things as rights, benefits, land claims, and even who qualifies as ÒmetisÓ. Professor Andersen notes that other groups of mixed blood, not necessarily the tradi

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday April 16, 2016

Landmark legal decision for Canada’s Metis, but…

The Metis in Canada are generally considered to be a group descended from a mix of aboriginal prarie First Nation peoples and the Scottish, French, and other Caucasian fur traders of centuries past.

In 1867 when Canada was formed and the new federal jurisdictions first laid out in the British North America Act, the Canadian federal government assumed responsibility for “Indians”, including a financial responsibility while the Metis were simply not considered.

Since then, and with the creation of the “Indian Act” in 1876 which consolidated many federal regulations concerned with Canada’s aboriginal populations, the Metis were again left out as they were still considered “non-Indian” and as such not federal responsibility.

In 1999 prominent Metis leader Harry Daniels first began a legal challenge to have the Metis included as an aboriginal or “Indian” group in the eyes of the law.

Today’s unanimous 9-0 rulling by the SCC says that the Metis and off-reserve Indians are included in the 1867 definition of the word “Indian” and as such are clearly and constitutionally, a federal responsibility.

This ruling will affect more than 600,000 Metis and other aboriginals who live “off-reserve”.

Both Chris Andersen (professor and interim Dean of the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta), and professor Larry Chartrand (LLM) of the University of Ottawa agree that the ruling does not automatically mean that the government will be financially responsible for what could amount to billions of dollars in support for Metis.

They say what it actually means is that many other legal actions may now be begun between the two parties, (Metis/federal government) to determine such things as rights, benefits, land claims, and even who qualifies as “metis”. Professor Andersen notes that other groups of mixed blood, not necessarily the traditional and politically active Metis of the western prairies are also included in the SCC decision

What it also means however is that it now sets our a clearer first step for what likely will be the beginning of a long process of further legal actions, both individually and collectively for Metis and non-status “Indians” (First Nations) in this country. (Source: Radio Canada)

 

Thursday April 23, 2015

Thursday April 23, 2015Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday April 23, 2015

Federal Budget Offers ‘Crumbs’ For Transit Needs: Ontario Finance Minister

Ontario’s Liberals were quick to express disappointment Tuesday at the federal budget, saying the money Ottawa is promising for transit projects amounts to “crumbs” compared to the needs of Canada’s largest province.

“When it comes to transit, they’ve kind of missed the train, and they’re not even in the station,” Finance Minister Charles Sousa said shortly after his federal counterpart introduced the budget in the House of Commons.

The federal budget promises a new infrastructure fund that allocates $750 million over two years, followed by $1 billion a year “ongoing thereafter.”

“The amount that’s being brought forward, frankly, is only crumbs of what we need,” Sousa said.

The Liberal government has pledged to spend $130 billion on infrastructure over 10 years, $31 billion of which will go toward transit infrastructure.

The province has been calling on the federal Conservatives to match its infrastructure investment, but Ottawa’s election-year budget provides only a “small step in the right direction,” said Sousa.

The new fund doesn’t kick in until 2017-18 — the same year the provincial Liberals have promised to eliminate Ontario’s $10.9-billion deficit.

After the initial two years of the transit program the money will rise to $1 billion a year, “ongoing thereafter,” to help finance public-private partnerships, or P3s, to pay for projects and upgrades with a combination of public and private investment. (Source: Huffington Post)

Friday, February 20, 2015

Friday, February 20, 2015Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday, February 20, 2015

Elections Ontario finds ‘apparent contravention’ of Election Act by Liberals

Elections Ontario has found an “apparent contravention” of anti-bribery provisions in its Election Act probe of allegations two Liberal operatives offered a job to a former Grit candidate in the Sudbury byelection.

The case has been turned over to the Ministry of the Attorney General, which must now decide whether to refer the case to police, in what Elections Ontario chief Greg Essensa called “unprecedented circumstances.”

“This provision concerns bribery in connection with inducing a person to become, refrain from becoming, or withdrawing from being a candidate,” he added in a statement.

“No chief electoral officer of Ontario has ever conducted a regulatory investigation into allegations of bribery.”
Timeline: Sudbury byelection

The bombshell revelation fuelled opposition demands Premier Kathleen Wynne fire one of the people in question, her deputy chief of staff Pat Sorbara, and have Sudbury Liberal organizer Gerry Lougheed removed from the city’s police services board, which he chairs.

“Cut these two bad apples loose,” Progressive Conservative House Leader Steve Clark said in a raucous question period in the legislature.

“If you stand with these two, you’re going to fall with these two.”

Wynne defended Sorbara and said “we will let this process unfold.”

“We’ve all just received this information,” said Wynne, adding “this is just the next stage in Elections Ontario’s process.”

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath was aghast at the premier’s response and demanded the case be referred to an independent prosecutor.

“This is a shameful demonstration by a government that will simply not take responsibility for its actions,” she said, noting the OPP is also investigating the deleted emails in the government’s $1.1 billion gas plants scandal and questionable business practices at the ORNGE air ambulance service.

“The people of Ontario deserve better than this.”

Wynne has repeatedly maintained “there were no specific offers” of a job to Andrew Olivier in conversations he taped with Sorbara and Lougheed. (Source: Toronto Star)

Thursday March 1, 2007

March 1, 2007

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday March 1, 2007

Terror vote fails as Dion reins in Liberals

Two controversial measures in the federal Anti-Terrorism Act will disappear from the law books after a vote last night in the House of Commons that marked the first major political test for Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

In a vote of 159 to 124, the combined opposition defeated a Conservative minority government motion that would have renewed the extraordinary legal powers of authorities to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects.

The Liberal caucus was deeply divided on the issue as recently as last week. But by the time of last night’s vote, only one Liberal — Tom Wappell — abandoned Mr. Dion and voted with the Conservatives.

Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler abstained, and a dozen other Liberals were absent, some for health reasons.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Mr. Dion had to force his caucus into line, thus putting internal party politics ahead of national security.

Mr. Harper said the failure of the renewal motion is not the end of the matter, suggesting the government might introduce fresh legislation.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said “the government will get to work … to protect Canadians” by fashioning new tools to combat terrorism. He did not specify what the government intends to do.

Mr. Day once again hammered Mr. Dion for “this very distressing flip-flop.” The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois have long opposed the renewal. But the Liberals took most of the political heat from the Conservatives.

Sensing an opportunity to drive a wedge between Mr. Dion and some of his caucus members, Mr. Harper last week called the Liberal Leader “soft on terrorism.”

The Prime Minister’s tone did not change Tuesday. He said Mr. Dion “denigrates the police in this country.” The Liberal Leader, meanwhile, said he was taking a principled stand in defence of human rights. (Source: Globe & Mail) 

Commentary