Patrick Brazeau, an Aboriginal (Algonquin from Maniwaki/Kitigan Zibi) and currently the youngest serving Canadian senator (he’s 36), was appointed in 2009 by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He has since become a controversial figure, sparked by his originally stated, but subsequently withdrawn, intention to serve in the Senate and also keep his position as National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP represents non-status and off-reserve aboriginals) and thus collecting two publicly-funded six-figure salaries; allegedly condoning heavy drinking during business hours; a sexual harrassment complaint; and the alleged misspending of CAP funds in the area of $260,000.
But mainly, he’s controversial because many Aboriginals consider him a Conservative Canadian wolf in Aboriginal clothing.
When he was appointed as a senator, he issued the following statement:
“In December 2008, I was honoured by my nomination to the Senate of Canada by the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. Such an appointment is a great privilege and affords me the considerable opportunity to continue my public service to Canada. . . .”
Continue his public service to Canada? If he was just getting off his stint as the National Chief of CAP, whose interests was he supposed to be advocating in that position? Perhaps some clarification is in order. He also stated that:
“My goal is and has always been to serve Canada’s Aboriginal peoples and my country to the best of my skills and abilities, in a manner that is accountable, responsible and transparent.”
Okay, well that’s certainly reassuring as he at least includes Aboriginal peoples along with “my country.” But if you peruse his Parliamentary web page, it only adds to the confusion as to where his true loyalties lie.
Above all, Patrick is a proud Canadian, a determined federalist and a staunch advocate for national unity across this country.
That begs the question: is it even possible to be a “determined federalist and a staunch advocate for national unity” while at the same time truly be able to represent aboriginal interests? It seems that a supporter of aboriginal interests would have great difficulty rationalizing the legitimacy of maintaining the federal system of government that has abysmally failed Aboriginal people since the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1867. Surely, as an Aboriginal leader he understands that s. 91(24) has been devastating for First Nations, that provinces should have no jurisdiction within reserves – regardless of s. 88 of the Indian Act, and that every political party in the history of Canada, including his vaunted Conservative part, has failed to treat First Nations with the respect they deserve.
However, his Parliamentary web page does have this genuinely promising statement:
Patrick is a vigorous advocate of accountability, responsibility and transparency in Aboriginal affairs. He is vocal proponent for the replacement of the Indian Act with more progressive legislation that aims to reconstitute true Indian Nations – such as the Mohawk, Cree, Algonquin and Ojibwa nations, to name but a few – and to reflect the tenets of modern-day governance.
This does sound great on the surface, but a cursory overview seems to pull back the curtain, revealing the man we should pay no attention to. Reconstituting true Indian Nations? Count me in! Replacement of the Indian Act? Sounds great, but hold on, this is already starting to get murky with many questions. Replace it with what? More Canadian legislation with little to no input from First Nations? No thanks. And what about his desire for legislation that “reflects the tenets of modern-day governance?” There’s many bands (like Barriere Lake, just a few miles up the road from his own Kitigan Zibi/Maniwaki) that have maintained their traditional forms of government for countless centuries and don’t want to change because Canada says they have to. Is Brazeau a vocal opponent of them because they don’t reflect the tenets of modern day governance? My Magic 8 Ball says, “it is decidedly so” because I couldn’t find anything to show that Brazeau has even lifted a finger to help the Algonquins of Barriere Lake in their long-standing struggle against INAC to keep their traditional form of governance.
Patrick believes that Canada’s Aboriginal affairs must be reformed in order to end the status quo which overwhelmingly supports a system of Indian Reserves where poverty and hopelessness remain pervasive.
This claim is difficult to parse because it’s so broad and limp. It’s a safe bet to say that virtually every Aboriginal agrees that the system must change. But does Brazeau mean a dismantling of the antiquated Indian Act system and replacing it with more Canadian infringement upon sovereign First Nations or does he mean a genuine, massive overhaul of the status quo? If the answer is door #2, then that would intrude upon his nearsighted view of Canadian federalism and staunch advocacy for national Canadian unity.
What First Nations need are people who can see beyond the limits of their own personal interests and are willing to sacrifice for it. Would a person like that be appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister? Not likely, methinks.
Since Brazeau is in a position to recommend to a majority government, and spearhead some genuine, substantial changes and improvements for First Nations , the $64,000 question is whether or not he will. He’s only in his late 30s and Canadian Senators are appointed until they’re 75 years old. That means Aboriginals will have in the Senate someone who, for the next thirty years, at least claims to be working for their best interests.
But if one were to follow his Facebook page, (he is the youngest Canadian Senator, after all) one would discover a litany of interesting, albeit disheartening views and opinions. Unfortunately, they are views and opinions that certainly don’t sound like they came from someone truly representing First Nation interests. Rather, they reveal the all too familiar voice of a run-of-the-mill, petty, party hack who’s knee deep in partisan bullshit, replete with lies, half-truths and exaggerations.
“Did you see all the Native people greet PM Harper on his way to the podium? If not, rewind your pvr’s!”
“Like I said before, the Conservatives promised and said they would do things and they delivered. No one can contest that fact.”
“The Liberal platform on Aboriginal peoples is………..how can I put it gently…………..PATHETIC!!!! Not surprised but the Liberal Party of Canada should be ashamed of the token language, empty and meaningless promises they continue to make.”
“[T]he current government DID NOT CREATE the Indian Act, the LIBERALS did.”
[T]he Liberals created the Indian Act and Conservatives ACT for Indians. The Conservative record since 2006 speaks for itself. Much more work to do and much more will come.
“RCAP came out in 1996. Who was the gvt in power? The Liberals until 2005. What did PM Harper do since? Res School apology, legislation for MRP, repeal of section 67, legislation for clean and safe drinking water, specific claims legislation to name a few. I can name much more but it answers why nothing was done between 1996-2005.”
“If Aboriginal leaders were more proactive, much more would be done.”
“[I]f Aboriginal people didn’t believe in owing the land, why were there so many wars amongst our people and why do we hear today from some Aboriginal people that “our land was stolen”. If it was stolen, it’s because someone believed they owned it right?”
“[W]e have an Indian Act that most of our leaders don’t want to get rid of. What does that say? If we did, most would be lining the streets to get rid of it but it’s not happening. Should FN people blame gvts for that?”
Turtle Talk 