Are First Nation Complaints All Part of a Commie Plot?

At the root of the Conservative movement on both sides of the border, is the fear of Communism.  In the U.S. they rallied around Joseph McCarthy, and Ronald Reagan became the poster boy for the anti-communist movement.

I read yesterday that Canada's First Nation chiefs are taking their case to the UN, and I think that's a good idea, because clearly the Harper government has overstepped their bounds.

The chiefs asked the UN to appoint a "special rapporteur" to examine whether the Harper government is dealing with the crisis in a way that meets its obligations under Canadian and international treaties concerning First Nations people.  The declaration, which also calls on the federal and provincial governments to respond to communities in dire need, was added to the meeting's agenda at the last minute as the controversy over Attawapiskat grows.

That story reminded me of something I had read several years ago about this party's views on Canada's Aboriginal people, and fortunately, I was able to find the piece again online.  It was written by Alex Roslin, a leading Canadian investigative journalist , and was first published in Windtalker, Volume 17, Issue 12, 2000.

Under the heading: New name, old attitudes - CRCAP, Roslin warns us of what would happen if the Alliance Party was ever able to form government.  And now that the Alliance Party has formed government, his predictions are coming true.

In 2000, the Reform Party underwent a name change, but kept all of their prejudices intact, justified in their mind, because of a commie threat.

So you thought the Cold War was over and communism was dead. Not according to Canada's great right hope, the Canadian Alliance. The new right-wing party believes the red menace is lurking in First Nations communities across the land, and promises to stamp it out.  The Canadian Alliance, which unites Reformers and [provincial] Conservatives [Mike Harris and Ralph Klein] and has set its sights on winning the next federal election, has a platform on Aboriginal issues that promises to bring relations with Native peoples to a boil ... The new party also has an interesting view on Aboriginal self-government: it should be eliminated because it is "communistic."

Jason Kenney who was handling Stockwell Day's leadership campaign, had suggested that Aboriginal self government, would be a breeding ground for Communism, and Diane Ablonczy said that

...the Canadian Alliance would invoke the notwithstanding clause - the device used by the Quebec government to sustain its unconstitutional French language law - to overrule court decisions affecting First Nations and any other issue the party doesn't like.  ... Also new in the Canadian Alliance platform is opposition to "race-based allocation of harvest rights to natural resources." This particular position brings the party into conflict with numerous recent Supreme Court decisions and international legal norms.

Even their own constitutional experts warned that the notwithstanding clause could not be used on Native issues.

When Stephen Harper headed up the Alliance he shared the same views, and in fact, during his 2004 election campaign (then under yet another name: The Conservative Party of Canada) he ran against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Constitutional experts have warned that the Conservative platform is so anti-charter it is a legal minefield. "A lot of this stuff raises serious constitutional issues." the University of Ottawa's Ed Ratushny told CanWest Global News Service. The experts have identified at least 12 positions that either, violate the charter, are ripe for serious court challenges or would require amendments to the Constitution.

If this government was never prepared to uphold our Constitution or our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, why would we expect them to honour legally binding treaties?

"They are saying they would just disregard treaties," said Jean LaRose, an AFN spokesman.  "They are just as extremist as before, but now they are trying to form a party that would stretch across Canada and form the government. That, for us, is very worrisome."  "Here is a party that wishes to place itself above the law and above the courts," said AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine in a statement. "I wonder if Canadians understand the implications of such a movement. It could override any legislation or court decision if it chose to, using nothing more than its own judgement."

Is that not what this government has been doing since stretching across Canada?  They have placed themselves above the law and if anyone disagrees with them, they simply use the law to tie things up in the courts until issues reach their best before date.

A federal court has just ruled that Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz "broke the law by not consulting with the Canadian Wheat Board or holding a farmer vote before moving to end the board's grain marketing monopoly.

"Had a meaningful consultative process been engaged to find a solution which meets the concerns of the majority, the present legal action might not have been necessary," Justice Douglas Campbell wrote in his decision. "... The minister will be held accountable for his disregard for the rule of law."

"Held accountable"?  Since when has this government ever been held accountable for anything? 

That idiot Peter Mackay is even thinking of suing Opposition members for suggesting that he was lying about his helicopter joy ride.

Of course, he'd have to sue Stephen Harper too, who gave a conflicting story to Mackay's, by saying he needed the helicopter because he was called back early from a fishing trip.

We elect MPs with the idea that they will either be part of the government, or part of the body elected to oppose the government, by trying to keep them honest.  What good are they if they can simply be sued by the government for challenging them?

And again ... this is what passes for democracy in Harperland.

I hope the UN will step in and make Harper step up, but I'm not counting on it.  He also campaigned against the United Nations.

"When it comes to issues of this country's vital security and national defence, you don't put that to the United Nations, which, quite frankly, is a coalition of everybody—the good, bad and ugly," (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, February 28, 2004)

Will he simply claim that the Aboriginal communities are a threat to our security?  I mean aren't they all Commies?

Attawapiskat Sheds Light on Canada's Ghetto System

There was a joke floating around several years ago, with an American and Canadian arguing the benefits of their respective countries.

The Canadian lashed out at the American "At least in Canada, we don't have ghettos", to which the American replied,  "I know. You call them "reserves""  Most of our cities do have ghettos, areas set aside for the poor, but the way in which many of our First Nations are forced to live, gives Canada no moral authority to criticize anyone.

I was sent a link to a story yesterday, a press release from 2005, after an agreement was reached between the community of Attawapiskat and De Beers Canada. (1)  There was a sense of camaraderie, as both sides were simply then waiting for the environmental assessment before the project could begin.  De Beers had held over 100 community meetings to sell the mines as a major boon to the economy of the region.

Former Attawapiskat Chief Mike Carpenter said , “De Beers Canada’s diamond mine is the first and only opportunity our community has ever had to break free of our soul-destroying poverty”

... among other issues, the mine sparked debate within the community regarding how to proceed given their longstanding interest in environmental protection and cultural preservation on one hand, and the economic benefits the mine could bring on the other (Inf. #2, 8). According to one informant, “the community was wary of the colonial history of De Beers and the mining industry`s track record with Aboriginal communities” (2)

This was to be a partnership, with the promise of prosperity for all.

So what went wrong?  Why four years later were the people of Attawapiskat forced to put up road blocks, and why two years after that, are we still seeing images of "soul-destroying poverty"?  According to residents, De Beers has not been honouring the Impact Benefit Agreement (3), and viewing the images we've seen the past week or so, it would be hard not to agree.

In Ezra Levant's rant, in which he blamed the "greedy" aboriginal community, he implied that at least one resident blamed the situation on their leaders, meaning that they agreed with the accusations of fund mismanagement.  However, when I read comments from the community, the anger with their leaders, is over the agreement to allow De Beers to set up shop in the first place.

Besides worsening poverty, the community is subjected to racial attacks, workplace inequality and environmental damage, as a result of the mining operation. (4)

De Beers claimed in 2005, that they were sensitive to the needs of the community, understanding that once the diamonds were gone, they would be too, so wanted to leave the area in a better condition than it was when they went in.  Instead they will be leaving Attawapiskat, not only poorer, but in turmoil.

But What of That Big Screen TV?

The right-wing noise machine has made much of the image of a big screen TV, a hockey rink with a Zamboni and a late model truck found in a ditch.  If we gave them all that money, why did they waste it on such frivolous things?

A big screen TV would not be out of place in the homes of De Beers executives.  In fact if we were watching a video of one of their estates and in the backyard there was an old rundown shack, we would question why with all their money they didn't have the eyesore removed.

The sight of that TV surrounded by such squalor, is actually a symbol of promises made and promises not kept.  There should have been a big TV in every home and no one in the community should be forced to live in poverty.

The Victor Mine is producing 600,000 carats of diamonds per year.  The provincial government receives an 11% levee and the federal government, 15% in corporate taxes.  All money coming from diamonds being extracted from land owned by the Attawapiskat people.

Maybe instead of sending in auditors to examine the books of the reserve, we should send the auditors to the government offices and De Beers.  Where is the adequate housing and largess, promised by this "partnership"?  They are not receiving "public" hand outs, but their share of tax revenues and corporate profit.

Blogger BC Blue, brought up NDP’s Ian Capstick's interview on Power and Politics.  Capstick speaks of visiting the reserve with Jack Layton, and being so moved that they sent sports equipment.  I have to admit that my first reaction was sports equipment?  Are you kidding me?

However, sometimes small gestures can make a huge difference.

I'm reminded of a story that I read several years ago in the Readers Digest.  It was from a Canadian Vet who had been in Holland during the Liberation.  He spoke of Dutch children who would often surround their camp, and how moved the Canadian soldiers were by the forlorn faces of these young people who had known nothing but war.

So the cook took what extra provisions they had and whipped up a batch donuts, and that snapshot in history, of those sticky smiling faces, left a lasting impression on the author of the story.  That cook couldn't change what had happened, but he offered a glimmer of hope, and sometimes that's all we can do. 

Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence kicked out the auditor sent by Harper, telling them that she just wasn't going to take it anymore.  I am so proud of her.

The Harper government only moves in when the corporate sector is in trouble.

When lumber giant Domtar, was facing blockades at Barriere Lake, Harper placed the reserve under Third Party Management, and replaced the elected chief with corporate friendly Casey Ratt.

When a doctor reported a high occurrence of a rare form of cancer at Fort Chipewa, downstream from the tar sands, the Harper government vilified the physican, and when he appeared at a Parliamentary committee with an environmentalist, Conservative Peter Braid, that bumbling idiot, went on the attack, attempting to discredit them both.

That's what passes for democracy in Harperland.

His recent attempted takeover of the affairs of Attawapiskat, is just more corporate protectionism, and we all need to stand with Chief Spence.  How much more can they be victimized?

Sources:

1. Attawapiskat gives thumbs up to mining project: The Victor diamond mine project passed its latest hurdle. Wawatay News, July 14, 2005: Volume 32 #14

2. Attawapiskat First Nation, Canadian Business Ethics Research Network,  2009

3. Attawapiskat members issue demands to DeBeers, Wawatay News, February 18, 2009
 
4. Attawapiskat unhappy over Victor Mine issues: Environmental, contract and discrimination concerns emerge, By: Nick Stewart, Northern Ontario Business, December 7, 2009

Even Canadian Bankers are Hoping that the "Occupy" Movement is a Success

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report yesterday, showing that Canada's income disparity is growing faster even than that of the U.S.  Low paying jobs and a diminishing middle class, are partly to blame, but also deregulation, that allowed the wealthy to become even wealthier, is a huge factor.

Jim Flaherty was on the defensive in the House yesterday, suggesting that his government has been creating good jobs, but all they created was a marketing strategy:  The Economic Action Plan.  They had no real economic plan, other than to move lobbyists and Goldman Sachs into their offices on Parliament Hill.

Do we really expect that lobbyists have our best interests at heart?  Or Goldman Sachs?

Do you know what Goldman Sachs employee Mark Carney did before being named to head up up the Bank of Canada?  He advised Russian oligarchs during the period of mass privatization, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

According to Wikipedia:

During the 1990s, once Boris Yeltsin took office, the oligarchs emerged as well-connected entrepreneurs who started from nearly nothing and got rich through participation in the market via connections to the corrupt, but democratically elected, government of Russia during the state's transition to a market-based economy.  The oligarchs became extremely unpopular with the Russian public, and are commonly thought to be the cause of much of the turmoil that plagued the country following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The Guardian described the oligarchs as "about as popular with your average Russian as a man idly burning bundles of £50s outside an orphanage".

Historian Daniel W. Michaels suggests that the Russian people were better off under Communism, as the word "corrupt" has replaced "authoritarian".  You would think that capitalists would want to make their system more palpable, in order for it to survive, but instead they have only exposed the ugliness.

Bankers on the side of the "Occupy" Movement?

In October, TD Bank CEO Ed Clark, spoke of the imminent threat to Canada's economy, citing several root causes. 

Consumer and employer confidence, demographic forces that are causing demands for government services to grow faster than revenues, and globalization that has produced massive increases in income around the world, but its benefits have been unevenly distributed.

Clark's speech combines the economic with the social, something that is missed under neoconservatism.  As Margaret Thatcher once said, "There is no such thing as society".  Neocons believe that if you allow the rich to get richer, the benefits will "trickle down", but that isn't happening.  It didn't work for George Bush and it won't work for Stephen Harper.

However, Clark presents another cause of our economic woes:  "divisive politics", and he urged business leaders and politicians to "stand against divisiveness and political extremes."

Even with a majority, Harper continues to play political games instead of focusing on the needs of Canadians, and engages in Nixonian politics, instead of governing.

During the 2006 election campaign the media asked Paul Martin how much he thinks about strategy.  He replied "seldom".  They asked Stephen Harper the same question, and he replied "24/7".  Nixon's response to the same question was 6 days out of 7, and that was after he won the election.  It's politics all the time, and the constant game playing is hurting everyone.

At a time when all elected officials should be putting their heads together to sort out this mess, the Conservatives prefer to go it alone, suggesting that only they can save us.

Only they can bail out our banks and then lie about it.

Only they can spend $18 million more on gazebos for Tony Clement's riding, than infrastructure in Attawapiskat.

Only they can expand our prisons when Canada's crime rate is the lowest in history.

Only they can buy planes without engines and contemplate the purchase of nuclear submarines, while Canadian citizens are suffering.

Only they can bloat their cabinet and enlarge their executive with Parliamentary secretaries, meaning fewer elected MPs working for anyone other than the Conservative Party of Canada.

Ed Clark also offers some advise to the Occupy movement:

Asked by the Toronto Star what he would tell the protesters, he said: "My main advice is stick to your guns. When people say, 'You don’t have a solution,' say, 'Of course we don't. If there was a solution, don't you think people would be doing it?' To ask the people who occupy Wall Street or Bay Street to have a full answer is absurd. They're doing their job which is to say, 'If you think this [system] is working for everyone, it's not.'"

Globalization isn't working. Neoconservatism isn't working. Partisan politics are not working. 

This government is failing us so we need to build on this "Occupy" movement.  We need more government revenue, not less, but instead of hitting workers, as Flaherty has done, we must go after corporations and our wealthiest citizens, demanding that they start paying their share.

We've propped them up long enough.

MacKay's Joy Ride Not a One Of, But Part of Conservative Culture of Entitlement

I love the above cartoon from the Montreal Gazette.  Brilliant.

Did he or didn't he?  Only the prime minister knows for sure.  Give me a break.  Do they honestly expect us to believe that this was the first and only time this government used our military as their own private airline?

It first came to our attention in 2006, when Harper and the boys used a military jet to fly to a hockey game.  Harper defended it by saying that he paid for his own tickets.  Gee, really?

By 2007, we learned that the hockey game was not the only recreational event charged to the taxpayers' credit card.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been flying in military jets to Conservative events and even a hockey game — despite having once railed against their use by the previous Liberal government.  Invoices obtained by the Canadian Press show Harper flew Challenger executive jets three times in 2006 — and the Conservatives only fully reimbursed the military for one of the flights, which are estimated to cost more than $2,000 per hour.

By 2009, the hourly rate skyrocketed and so did the abuse.

The Harper government says it is unable to provide the names of passengers who have flown on its fleet of Challenger executive jets since 2006 because it would take longer than a month-and-a-half to assemble the list.  The jets, operated by the Department of National Defence, have made more than 1,900 flights with the prime minister, the governor general, cabinet ministers or other senior officials aboard since the Conservatives formed the government. The aircraft logged 9,916 hours in the air over that period. (Tories silent on who flew on executive jets. Compiling list to take too much time, By Glen McGregor, The Ottawa Citizen, November 19, 2009)

DND was unable to provide the information because Harper refused to allow them to record the names of the people who were flying around at our expense. Far too easy to match them to donor names, I suspect.

However:  'DND did release figures that show that the average cost of feeding passengers has increased sharply since the Tories formed government."

Nothing is too good for the king and his entourage. 1900 joy rides by 2009, and we're worried about one helicopter trip?

Durban Climate Conference Tells Peter Kent to Stay Home. I Wish He Would Just go Away!

Lesley Hughes was a popular CBC radio host and respected journalist, who had always been an advocate for the less fortunate members of society. In 2008, she was urged to run for the Liberal Party of Canada, in the Winnipeg riding of Kildonan–St Paul, to challenge incumbent Joy Smith.

Smith was a cohort of Stockwell Day's,  a social conservative who handled his Manitoba campaign when he was running for the party leadership.  Since Kildonan–St Paul is a swing riding, the Conservatives feared that Lesley Hughes could unseat Ms. Smith.

Waiting until it was too late to register another candidate, Peter Kent and the B'Nai Brith, publicly accused Hughes of being anti-Semitic, because of an article she had written in 2002.

It was called Get the Truth, and was in response to the "friendly fire" deaths of 4 Canadian soldiers.  Hughes, like most Canadians, questioned our involvement in the Afghan war.

Kent pointed to one paragraph, as being an attack on Jews.

German Intelligence (BND) claims to have warned the U.S. last June, the Israeli Mossad and Russian Intelligence in August. Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3000 Americans working there were not so lucky.

She does not suggest that the Jewish people were behind the attack, only that German intelligence had warned of the attack, weeks before, and since it looked like nothing was being done in the U.S., Israel was not about to let their people be victimized, just in case the reports were true.  And she provides her source.

Yet, with the help of the media, she was painted as being anti-Semitic and one who believes in a "Jewish conspiracy".  The incident not only cost her the election, since Dion was forced to remove her name, but severely damaged her career.  (B'Nai Brith Canada tells Liberals to dump star candidate)

This was not the first time that they tried to discredit Progressive candidates.

As a former journalist, I was surprised that Kent would sink to this level, but then he was with Canwest Global, a step up from Fox News, though it depends on what you're stepping in.

Peter Kent would also make headlines for his involvement in trying to influence student elections at York University.

"The Conservative party has no authority at all for getting involved in student politics and neither does the York administration. We're an incorporated, independent body," charged Krisna Saravanamuttu, who was elected president of the York Federation of Students in the controversial vote. "Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foot soldiers are deliberately interfering with student elections to help candidates more friendly to their policies." (1)

Through a Freedom of Information request, the student federation obtained 50 pages of email exchanges in which assistants for the two politicians, who represent student-heavy ridings north of the campus, repeatedly questioned university executives about the results of a student council vote this spring.

The students were right that the Conservatives had no authority over their elections.

I can't look at Peter Kent without being angry, and the thought of him representing us at an international climate conference, makes my blood boil.

He was shown on the National, blaming the Liberals for signing onto Kyoto in the first place.  Their biggest blunder says Kent.  And to bring some "balance" into the story, the National interviewed environmental expert Jack Mintz.  Isn't he an economist?  But then they can't really interview an actual scientist, because Christian Paradis (2), also not a scientist, has them all bound and gagged. Suncor got to weigh in though, and guess what side they're on?

Mintz is using China as a scapegoat, but even they have a better policy than we do.

And where are the environmentalists in this story? Our climate policies are now being decided by an ex-journalist (Kent), a corporate lawyer (Paradis) and Suncor.

This reminds me of a joke I shared before, when another non-scientist (Bernhard Rust) was heading up the science ministry in 1930s Germany.  It was published in a 1933 Time Magazine story, entitled 'Science: Jews Without Jobs':

Two Germans were eyeing a burly lout in the Nazi uniform who was striding through a university hall. First man: "What is the policeman doing here?" Second man: "Sh, sh. That is the man selected to succeed Einstein."

I chuckle at the media suggesting that at Copenhagen we agreed to do what the U.S. does, despite the fact that Italy and Canada were the only G8 nations not invited to attend Obama's private meeting. The Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was back home after being attacked by a protester earlier in the week, and Harper should have just stayed home. (3)

We were also warned by Americans that we should fend for ourselves:

.... speaking before a House of Commons committee on the environment, three experts on the U.S. effort to pass a climate change bill suggested Canada might be better off working on its own legislation then working to link it to whatever legislation the U.S. passes.

Gotta' love the media though. If Harper says it, it must be true.

The Durban climate conference is now telling Peter Kent to stay home.  I agree that he shouldn't attend the conference, but why do we have to be stuck with him?

Sources:

1. Stop meddling, students tell Tories, By Louise Brown, Toronto Star, July 6, 2009

2. Ottawa’s media rules muzzling federal scientists, say observers, By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News, September 12, 2010

3. Obama makes last-ditch effort to save climate deal, By Allan Woods, Toronto Star, December 18, 2009

A Half a Century Later and We are Losing Half a Century

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

In researching the conservative movement on both sides of the border, one thing becomes clear.  In the U.S. they don't like to be referred to as Republican any more than Stephen Harper likes to be called a Tory.  They are CONSERVATIVE, and there is a difference.  The Republican Party is only the vehicle on their route to power.

Historian Richard Perlstein, writing of the 1960s conservative takeover of the GOP, says "A right-wing fringe took over the party from the ground up" while the Eastern establishment has been reduced to a "fringe looking on in bafflement". (Nixonland, 2003)

The picture above is definitely worth a thousand words.  Nelson Rockefeller, who should have beaten Barry Goldwater for the nomination in 1964, George Romney and of course Ronald Reagan.

Mitt looks a lot like his dad, and like his dad he could very well be obliterated by history.  George Romney was a moderate who opposed the Vietnam War and supported Civil Rights.  The conservatives had to crush him, and now feel the same way about his son. 
 
This is important for Canadians to understand, because Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada, were born of this movement. 

Ernest Manning* and his son Preston, planned to take over the PC Party in the 1960s, until Robert Stanfield, a Red Tory, won the leadership, and they knew they'd have to wait.  They wrote a book Political Realignment, that called for a definitive right-wing party to challenge a definitive left-wing party, and no soft centre.
 
It's not hard to see how we are being realigned, though I think Canadians may finally be balking as such an unnatural situation in a country that has always been somewhere in the middle.
 
Colin Brown, the man who created the National Citizens Coalition, initially to oppose public healthcare, read Political Realignment, contacted Ernest Manning and together they built the NCC into a voice for corporate interests.  Stephen Harper ran the NCC before running for the Alliance leadership (they kept his position open for four years in case it didn't work out).
 
Gerry Nicholls, Harper's VP when he headed up the organization, was fired for criticizing his former boss.  Not his wasteful spending, though he did publicly denounce it, but because he committed the mortal sin of suggesting that Stephen Harper was not "conservative" enough.  
 
If lynching was legal they would have strung him up.
 
Perlstein tells us that while American Conservatives were devoted to Barry Goldwater, they had their suspicions of Richard Nixon, who had also initially spoke out against the Vietnam War.  It wasn't until a young Nixon aid, spoke to his Conservative allies and assured them that Nixon was only trying to garner support from moderates, that they agreed to back him. 
 
That young aid?  Pat Buchanan.
 
Being devoutly anti-Communist and anti-Civil Rights, Ronald Reagan was never in doubt.  When he ran against incumbent Jerry Brown, as Governor of California, Brown tried to expose Reagan's extremism, that included his ties to the John Birch Society.
 
However, as one Reagan insider told the Brown team: "A Bircher isn't identifiable, but a negro is."  At least they had the "'right' colour" on their side.
 
The conservative movement, as well as the Religious Right, has always been about race, and they appear to be successfully wiping out the last 50 years of tolerance.   One Kentucky Church is even banning interracial marriage.  How long before others follow suit?
 
This week Ezra Levant responded to the Attawapiskat crisis with so many "white people" chants, I was waiting for his Freudian to slip, and he break into a "white power" shout.
 
Richard Nixon and Stephen Harper shared the political expertise of Arthur Finkelstein, but it was the Reagan/Harper guru, Paul Weyrich, who taught them the art of hatred.
 
Harper's decision to cut 31.5 million in funding to Ontario immigrant programs, and his new immigration policies, must have the late Weyrich looking up, cackling in the flames.
 
Footnotes:
 
*Suncor founder, the late J. Howard Pew, gave money to Manning, Reagan, Goldwater and Nixon.  His Pew Foundation now supports many right-wing causes.

Ezra Levant's Rant Has a Ring of Truth, But His Din is Deafening

One of my right-wing friends asked me to watch Ezra Levant's take on the Attawapiskat crisis, feeling, I suppose, that he presented a compelling argument.

Levant is right when he suggests that it is hypocritical for Charlie Angus to use the photos of the devastation against Stephen Harper.  Angus has been the MP in the riding for seven years.  Why have we not seen these photos before?

In fact, the NDP MPP, Gilles Bisson has served the area since 1990.

In fairness, though, how often does any MP or MPP share images of the horrendous living conditions that many of our aboriginal people are forced to live under?  This should not be "a scoop".

HOWEVER, the rest of the 11 1/2 minutes on the video, is just noise.

Noisy false accusations.  Noisy skewed figures.  Noise, noise, noise.

Right off the top, the Harper government does not give $34 million a year to the band.  According to Âpihtawikosisân, for the 2010/11 fiscal year, the federal government contributed only $17.6 million.  The rest of their budget (which they post online) comes from other sources.

The five year, $90 million figure used by Harper, includes a school that had to be torn down because it was built over toxic waste.

Levant tries to make this about "white guilt" and reverse bigotry, because we don't have faith in native people to take care of themselves.  But he ignores the fact they are not given the same allowance for education and healthcare, as non-native communities.  Everything has to come from these allotments.

An important fact that many commentators forget (or are unaware of) is that section 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867 gives the Federal Crown exclusive powers over "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians."  You see, for non-natives, the provinces are in charge of funding things like education, health-care, social services and so on.  For example, the Province of Ontario allocated $10,730 in education funding per non-native pupil in the 2010-2011 fiscal year. For most First Nations, particularly those on reserve, the federal government through INAC is responsible for providing funds for native education.

The federal payments are legal treaty commitments, not "hand outs" as implied.   If they spent it all on housing, how could they afford other basic Canadian rights, like the right to education and health services?

Levant also mentions the fact the De Beers has been generous to Attawapiskat, but they just don't appreciate it.  However, in order to mine in their backyard, De Beers had to sign an Impact Benefit Agreement, contractually obligating them to provide training and job opportunities, to the native community.  And the reason the Native workers don't return home to build a house is because as part of the Indian Act, they can't get a mortgage on a reserve.

This reduces them to children, depending on their father figures, Papa Harper and Papa De Beers, with no mention that Attawapiskat's "baby daddies" (???) are legally responsible for the things they provide.  How much profit is De Beers making from that mine, and the best they can do is send some old tin work shacks that they are no longer using???!!!  They should be ashamed, not congratulated.

Many of our aboriginal Canadians are living in Third World conditions, and this story only shone a light on Canada's shame.

It is rich that Harper is sending auditors to Attawapiskat, when he recently reduced funding to the Comptroller and Auditor General, whose jobs are to keep track of his spending.

Levant's rant was hate mongering.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Count how many times he screams "white people".  "White, white, white", as if it's a badge of honour and privilege.

Harper's base will eat it up.  Fortunately, Harper's base does not represent the views of the majority of Canadians.

And neither does Ezra Levant.