First Nations Property Ownership Act: More Shenanigans

The First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA) is all about and eventually who owns the land. Is it the federal crown, provincial crown, First Nations or even private ownership to non first nations? This raises the questions, why is it being discussed – what are the underlying intentions? - Much of proposed acts, policies, and legislation today have a shared history behind them; usually a recycled bill or policy with the removal of existing Aboriginal rights to land through their own consent. The First Nation Land Management Act (FNLMA) is endorsed alongside with the FNPOA as a federally dictated governing tool, but when used separately, can be applied in the right circumstances to benefit a well located First Nation. The FNPOA is not the solution to poverty on reserves, rather a lack of resource sharing and lack of land claims being resolved are among the issues.                                                                                                 According to the AANDC website, the First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA) was introduced in a pre-budget presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on 15 September 2009, by Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission, proposed legislation which he referred to as the First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA). The FNPOA would allow First Nations to opt out from the reserve land system of the Indian Act; transfer title from the federal government to First Nations governments; and allow First Nations to move to a Torrens land title system. The proposed legislation has received preliminary support from some First Nations and First Nations organizations, and is being examined in partnership with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC).[1] Dr. Pam Palmater points out Jules pulls in a $200,000 federal organization salary spreading the message for the conservative government, and is not a credible source to warn of the dangers on the issue.[2] The question is whose best interest is Jules is speaking for, the federal government or First Nations. History tells us the federal government has always intended that reserve land will eventually return to private ownership, therefore leaving First Nations without a permanent and legal base for land.

The thesis statement of this essay is the proposed First Nations Property Ownership Act to privatize property on Canadian reserves, is a violation of Treaty, international law and domestic constitutional rights. The process is being endorsed as a means to ending poverty on reserves and closing the wide social economic gaps between Indians and the rest of Canada. First Nations assert that this act is not in their best interest but a political move to evade treaty obligations and rights. This process is laying the legal foundation to big projects that will then be proclaimed in the best national interest of Canada. The leading interest in one such project is the proposed pipeline through the BC interior to sell to an Asian market; “China is the highest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world”.[3]

Communal ownership of land can be made increasingly difficult in a legal and political system that promotes individual ownership above all else. The article The Logic of Aboriginal Rights by I. Duncan argues that sometimes group interests are best protected by assigning legal rights to individuals, such as when we protect the collective right of a group by assigning legal rights to individual members to engage in group-specific activities.[4] This is the type of thinking and belief set behind those promoting the direction of corporate and federal conservative government interests. Private ownership of land is not the issue for First Nations and their struggle with poverty. It is the lack in settlement of land claims, sharing of natural resources from their traditional lands, equal funding to First Nations which  are the major issues, not private land ownership. There have been examples, like the certificate of possession on reserve land that showed no benefit in the past as was proposed by the author.[5]

Different interests are endorsing and opposing the FNPOA. Support for the proposed act come from former First Nations Chief of Kamloops Indian Band, Manny Jules. Jules recently wrote the forward in the book, Beyond the Indian Act, written by one of Prime Minister Stephan Harper’s advisors; Tom Flanagan. As mentioned previously, Jules is the Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission The term tax is associated with the Appropriations Act where House of Commons have to approve a federal budget from year to year. This is the reason why, funding to reserves is not a treaty right but rather a policy. That’s why the general public, and even our own are accusing First Nations of using tax dollars all the time. All Canadians whether they are First Nations or non first nations benefit from tax dollars because of the transfer payments, equalization payments, and the nature that Canada is a federal state. Provinces benefit from the tax dollars, especially the have-not provinces like Manitoba, therefore all Manitobans benefit from the tax dollars. Joseph Quesnel, a conservative writer for the Winnipeg Sun is a classical apologetic for the Canadian government.

Quesnel article in the Winnipeg Sun, November 23, titled First Nation Land Ownership Isn’t A Cure All, is an example of not knowing the issue and poor research. First, Quesnel admits he was not at the conference in person that discussed the FNPOA, therefore his source is secondary information. Quesnel criticized Dr. Palmater position on the FNPOA. Palmater’s position provides a more accurate picture of how devastating the act will be to First Nations land and to the future. Land is the key interest of First Nations through spirituality and their special relationship to the land. According to First Nations and elders the land is not about money and profits but it is about sustainability of mother earth’s elements like water, air, environment, climate change, ect., - Quesnel questioned why Manny Jules was not invited to this conference to express his views. For First Nations, Many Jules is considered a government agent to do away with land rights. Quesnel himself fails to balance his argument in criticizing AMC. He does not mention financial incentives and options for communities behaving accommodatingly in following certain directions as dictated by the federal government. His statement “reserves are colonially imposed system of land tenure that impede economic development”;[6] fails to take several dynamics into consideration such as location, or First Nation entrepreneurs getting an education, training, then establishing good credit as alternatives. Lastly, he fails to recognize the collective ownership that a land base (reserve) provides to the people and the land.

Opposition to the Act comes from scholars such as Dr. Pam Palmater who are among those who believe a public opinion attitude overhaul is required. Many feel education is the answer for First Nations. This view seems to contradict the view of those interested at filling the holes needed in the low end labour and service sector across the country by the fastest growing demographic in Canada, who are the First Nations people. Further contradictory is that First Nations can already divide their land up if they want, through a section currently in the Indian act. Palmater states this most recent proposed Act is an attempt to speed up the land take over process.  

Palmater in particular spoke out against the FNPOA saying it the potential to destroy First Nation communities, this "unlocking" benefits banks, investment companies, the extractive industry and government - not Indigenous peoples. The very objective of this plan is to open up Indigenous communal lands for mortgaging, credit, loans, liens, seizures, taxation and for economic development in the form of mining and pipelines. She has answered questions surrounding economic development held by the general public who question if it’s true First Nations can't access mortgages or start businesses without owning land in fee simple by pointing out there are thousands of young people who graduate every year, build good credit and get loans to achieve their goals. She has been educating both First Nations Canadians that Canada does not have the legal authority to pass such a bill in violation of Aboriginal and treaty rights, the Royal Proclamation, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Further this bill would also help Harper end-run the duty to consult and accommodate regarding oil, gas and mining on our lands. While undermining First Nation leadership and empower corporations like Enbridge to lay their pipes wherever they want. In other words, turning reserves into fee simple parcels registered in provincial land registries under provincial law would enable easier expropriation of our lands.[7]

Dr. Peter Kulchyski said, in terms of resource development, the conquest isn’t over yet. Today the battle is fought in corporate boardrooms and courtrooms against 1000’s of lawyers. He spoke about two key terms Carl Marx used in theory: capital accumulation and primitive accumulation. From Carl Marx’s book, Capital, capital accumulation is economic growth under capitalism. Capital is looking for surplus value, which produces additional capital. Primitive accumulation precedes capitalist accumulation. This primitive accumulation plays in political economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal élite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of the logical original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. [8]  Kulchyski defined in particular, primitive accumulation as European practices during the 16^th and 17^th centuries as the process of separating people from their land, to create a workforce of wage workers.

Kulchyski said the intent of the FNPOA is to create land that can be bought and sold. He compared the FNPOA more to the Métis scrip’s in the early years of Manitoba than to the Dawes Act used in America. He asked us how many Métis communities exist today. – Not many, this is the goal; to separate First Nations people from their land. The federal government is providing incentives and options to enter the proposed legislation.[9]         

In Manitoba, Buffalo Point First Nation is billed as the model First Nation. Buffalo Point uses a governing structure that is compatible with, and promoted alongside the FNPOA. This is supported by an internal Indian Affairs study, The Top 65 First Nations in Canada to look at patterns among reserves in Canada that make reserves successful.[10] Buffalo Point First Nation is doing well financially, but there are always two sides to the argument. Let’s forget that that the chief is non aboriginal; that is not important as he was adopted into the Thunder family a long time ago[11]. The criticism is that the Chief and Council is rather the model First Nation for conflict of interest. Apparently the Thunders are shareholders of businesses and allegedly have a beautiful house on prime real estate that would be out of a current chief’s salary range. Recently Chief Thunder denied some of his own members of the band to vote with a reference to a land code that must be passed to ratify this FNLMA. There has been band member protest which leads to believe that membership are not behind this initiative.

Long Plains also made The Top 65 First Nations in Canada list and is doing a lot of positive things in the community. One such venture is using the FNLMA to their advantage by purchasing land that is off reserve to start business ventures in nearby Portage La Prairie. One other band, Opaskwayak Cree Nation (OCN) has also entered the FNLMA, but has taken a different route. Instead of purchasing land, they have turned land set aside for TLE and put it under the provincial authority that the FNLMA falls under. So the danger for both communities is that if they go broke, they both will lose the land and it will then be transferred to provincial status, the difference is that Long Plains will not lose land that falls under the protection of the Indian act. OCN however, will lose the land to banks. There has not been a straight answer either from the government or the proponents of this act how land designated under the FNLMA will determine the ownership and who will eventually be the rightful owners if the bands are using this as collateral for loans.

History is contrasted from Canada’s American counterparts in The Redefinition of American Indian Property Rights in American Indian Reservations by Stephan Cornell and Joseph P. Kalt who were part of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic.[12] The act raises questions as to just what was the thought processes behind land tenure held by both parties, how these viewpoints fit into the common law and political framework of Canadian government today. The Harvard Project is regarded by First Nations as a better measuring stick of the overall health of a community because self determination is deciding factor  than  by Canada`s Top 65 Bands in Canada list, who use internal documents and a general well being index as indicator.

Congressman Henry Dawes of Massachusetts landmark piece of legislation, the General Allotment Act (The Dawes Severalty Act) 1887, was designed to encourage the breakup of the tribes and promote the assimilation of Indians into American Society. It will be the major Indian policy until the 1930s. Dawes' goal was to create independent farmers out of Indians — give them land and the tools for citizenship.[13] The difficult job of healing and rebuilding a community is hard enough work, yet leadership still has to continue to deal with government officials continually trying to find ways around living up to the treaty process and obligations.[14] During a guest lecture from Dr. Peter Kulchyski, he clarified that the Dawes Act is different than the FNPOA because the choice is up to the First Nations themselves to enter into the FNPOA. Further he also said that the FNLMA is more on the side of governance, an attempt to change the system of governance to a one size fits all model; a new name to the same goals of the First Nations Governance Act.[15]

According to the AANDC website, The FNLMA, enacted in 1999, allows participating First Nations to opt out of the 34 land related sections of the Indian Act and manage their land, resources and environment under their own land codes. The FNLMA then places a First Nation under provincial jurisdiction.[16] Removing the Indian Act is the only legislation that protects Indian reserves from taxation or to be seized for default payments. The FNLMA will be limited because land is now under provincial interest and jurisdiction.  Most recently, Chief Clarence Louis of Osooyos Indian Band, B.C., and (another Top 65 reserve) sounded very unsure of legal status of the land if bills weren’t paid; if the land title would return to reserve status. His community also used the FNLMA and is widely promoted as Canada’s most successful First Nation. This proves rather that First Nations businesses can be just as and more successful than any business.

Finally the question of reserve ownership has always been an issue by the federal government and First Nations. It was always the intent of the federal government to assimilate and civilize First Nations into private ownership, adopt the European thinking of land ownership. First Nations always viewed reserve land as forever from generation to generation. Reserve land was set aside to represent that North America was once owned by First Nations therefore a piece of that land must represent that special relationship to the land by First Nations. Land ownership to many First Nations is not the issue to benefit and make a living and be good citizens of Canada.

In conclusion, poverty on reserves will not be addressed by individual ownership as proposed by the FNPOA. Poverty will only be addressed through proper education and training to First Nations, to address the outstanding land claims and to establish revenue sharing of natural resources from traditional lands. It is also important to understand that transfer payments whether by equalization or tax breaks is available to all Canadians, not just First Nations. Lastly First Nations are entitled to universal programs like education, health, and welfare; it is the lack of equal funding to deliver programs and services on reserves that lead to poverty of First Nations. On the First Nation’s side, it is also good governance including transparency and accountability that must be used to address poverty. Therefore the FNPOA will not address the crisis situations on reserves but rather will jeopardize the original treaties about land rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

1.      Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: First Nation Property Ownership Act. (www.aandc-aadnc.gc.ca)

2.      Additional resources accesses at:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2173712911/

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2189503699/

http://soundcloud.com/el-chaos/pamela-palmater-reserve-vs-fee-simple-land

 

Al Jazeera News

3.      Buffalo Point First Nation Website. (http://www.buffalopoint-firstnation.ca/)

4.      Christopher Alcantara. (2003)Individual Property Rights on Canadian Indian Reserves: The Historical Emergence of Certificates of Possession. Canadian Journal of Native Studies Vol 23(2) available at:  (http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/cjns/23.2/cjnsv23no2_pg391-424.pdf)

5.      Duncan, I. (2003). The Logic of Aboriginal Rights. Ethnicities, 3(3), 321-344.

6.      First Nation Property Ownership Initiative. (http://www.fnpo.ca/proposal.htm)

7.      Marx, Carl. Capital. New York: Modern Library, 1906.

8.      Pam Palmater. Indigenous Nationhood Blog. (http://nonstatusindian.blogspot.ca/)

9.      Quesnel, Joseph. "First Nation Land Ownership Isn’t A Cure All." Winnipeg Sun

10.  Robson, Mia ."Top First Nations' success to be studied." Winnipeg Free Press.

11.  Soto, Hernando de. The mystery of capital: why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

12.  The Dawes Act." NebraskaStudies.Org. (http://www.nebraskastudies.org) Kulchyski, Peter .Class lecture, Indigenous Peoples, Land and Natural Resources. University of Winnipeg.

13.  The Redefinition of American Indian Property Rights in American Indian Reservations:  Stephan Cornell and Joseph P. Kalt. Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. (www.hpaied.org)

---

[1]  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. "First Nation Property Ownership Act”. Available at: http://www.aandc-aadnc.gc.ca (accessed October 29, 2012).

[2]  Palmater, Pam. " National Chief Manny Jules: Shared Priorities, Self-Sufficiency & Other Policy Myths". Indigenous Nationhood. http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/ (accessed November 29, 2012).

[3] Al Jazeera. “News”. Television. ( accessed Nov 16, 2012).

[4] Duncan, I. "The Logic of Aboriginal Rights." Sage Publishing 3(3), (2003): 321-344.

[5] Alcantara, C. Individual Property Rights on Canadian Indian Reserves: The Historical Emergence of Certificates of Possession. (2003) Canadian Journal of Native Studies Vol 23(2) available at:  http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/cjns/23.2/cjnsv23no2_pg391-424.pdf ( accessed October 19, 2012).

 

[6] Quesnel, Joseph. "First Nation Land Ownership Isn’t A Cure All." Winnipeg Sun, November 23, 2012.

[7] Palmater, Pam. “Flanagan National Petroleum Ownership Act: Stop Big Oil Land Grab ". Indigenous Nationhood. http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/ (accessed November 29, 2012).

[8] Marx, Carl. “Chapter 26: The secret of primitive accumulation”. Capital. New York: Modern Library, 1906.

[9] Kulchyski, Peter . "Conflict and Resource Development." Class lecture, Indigenous Peoples, Land and Natural Resources from University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, November 26, 2012.

[10] Robson, Mia . "Top First Nations' success to be studied." Winnipeg Free Press, September 2, 2010.

[11] Buffalo Point First Nation Website. Accessed 2 October 2012 at: http://www.buffalopoint-firstnation.ca/

[12] Cornell, S and Kalt J.P.”The Redefinition of American Indian Property Rights in American Indian Reservations. Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.” Available at: http://www.hpaied.org ( accessed 9 October 2012)

[13] "The Dawes Act." NebraskaStudies.Org. http://www.nebraskastudies.org (accessed October 12, 2012).

[14] Palmater, Pam. “Flanagan National Petroleum Ownership Act: Stop Big Oil Land Grab ". Indigenous Nationhood. http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/ (accessed November 29, 2012).

[15] Kulchyski, Peter ."Conflict and Resource Development."Class lecture, Indigenous Peoples, Land and Natural Resources from University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, November 26, 2012.

[16] Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. "First Nation Land Management Act”. Available at: http://www.aandc-aadnc.gc.ca (accessed October 29, 2012).

People of the Genetically Engineered Corn

Genetically modified foods have entered the North America food chain. Not only is this a human rights violation; Indigenous people feel this is a cultural violation because foods like corn, tomatoes, and potatoes which they have grown for thousands of years, are now pushed onto to local farmers to be grown in Central and Southern American countries. Foods are bypassing informing consumers they are genetically engineered despite substantial reports on their harmful side effects. This is because labelling is optional. An article in CBC almost ten years ago estimated, “as many as 30,000 different products on grocery store shelves as ‘modified.’ That's largely because many processed foods contain soy. Half of North America's soy crop is genetically engineered”.[1] The basic problem is different ontologies held by Indigenous peoples and western interests. There are other companies, councils, and practices that have such interest in the success of genetically engineered crops – this jeopardizes the sustainability of future generations. Humans will need to recognize their place of the food chain – we are dependant.

When Europeans arrived they discovered that almost as many species of plants were cultivated here as were grown by all the agriculturists in Europe and Asia combined. The central Andes have the greatest ecological density in the world, within 200 kilometers; it is possible to find 80% of the zones of natural life that scholars have proposed for the world.[2] One very little known fact and cultural violation that gets little attention or credit is the contribution Indigenous peoples have made to the culinary revolution of the world. The Columbian Exchange transferred not only diseases and metals, but new world foods to the old world. Foods that are now culinary centerpieces in countries like Hungary (paprika), Italy (tomatoes), Ireland (potatoes), Thailand (peanuts and pineapples) and India (chili peppers) all were introduced through the Columbian Exchange. Additionally, sweet potatoes, vanilla, and maize are also now universal foods; tobacco was used as a currency in trade worldwide; the commercialization of rubber; the improved cultivation of old world crops in the new world are further direct results. New World plant Quinine has medicinal effects that combat malaria; it is standard view that Europe’s colonization of Africa, and the slave trade, wouldn’t have been possible without quinine.[3] Today, the beef, pork, and soy industries are a massive consumer of fresh water. Locally, a negative impact of the hog industry in Manitoba is the polluting of Lake Winnipeg in the Interlake region. On top of Manitoba Hydro’s controlling of water levels, (which is nullifies the role of marshes) the combination of capitalism and European livestock practices are killing the lakes. 

This fits into Dr. Kulchyski`s lecture and his position on resource development, the conquest is not over.[4] According to multinational company Monsanto Canada`s website, its head office here in Winnipeg and farms all across Manitoba and Canada are using Monsanto products. According to the book, Farmageddan: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology, (1997)  Monsanto social construct of biotechnology provides the ideological foundation on the basis of which genetic and pharmacological engineering can hold out hopes for salvation that social engineering and politics have abandoned. Monsanto takes their advertising on step further to align itself as the saviour of the world using the logo “food-health-hope” in an attempt to place itself alongside the holy trinity: father, son, and holy spirit or the tripartite principles of peace, order, and good governance. Monsanto defines biotechnology as the science of changing the genetic makeup of seeds that grow our foods to add new benefits (p.31). This is the same thinking that suggests infant formula can be supplemented in place of breast milk.

            Monsanto has been making friends in high places; one such ally is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA allows Monsanto to sell milk to the public without their knowledge, consent, or labelling. This milk has been treated with rbGH shortly after 1985 and the controversy that ensured, dairy industry reps and drug company executives met and agreed it would be helpful to have articles published in reputable journals explaining how sound all the science and approval processes have been  (p .42 -78).[5]  Health Canada is also in on the scheme which will be detailed in latter part of essay.

            The key that unlocks the door to the global market for Monsanto is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Where has Monsanto made inroads? - From the chapter, Genetic Pollution of Mayan Corn by Suzanne York, in the textbook Paradigm Wars, the author states Mexico has a 5000 year old gene pool which includes thousands of varieties and plant relatives specific to each region. This reflects agriculture genius, adapted to soil, climate pests, and other local conditions. People of Mexico are tied to land and food, believing they are made from corn. It came as shock but to little surprise when indigenous communities detected the genetically engineered (GE) corn shortly after the NAFTA was ratified a few years earlier.

The Bt gene is the believed to be the source of the contamination through interbreeding of local corn with Bt corn. The Bt corn designed to kill the corn root worm. In a 2002 testing, 35 percent of tested maize varieties had GE contamination. This poses a threat to the survival of the varieties of maize harvested in the global homeland over millennium. 35 to 40 percent of corn grown in the United States is genetically modified. Among the multiple problems is the government subsidized corn is cheaper than the non subsidized Mexican varieties. The Biosafety Law, also referred to as the “Monsanto Law”, was passed under the questionable authority of a newly formed Biosecurity Consultative Council which exempts companies from any liability for genetic pollution caused by their seeds.

The role NAFTA played was by demanding that Mexico break up the traditional communal land-ownership system for their participation in NAFTA. Mexico went from corn producer to importer. Ten thousand years of health benefits from maize for all humankind is up against the government representatives word that there is no evidence that GE corn is bad for you. Further yet, corporations can patent the seeds that Indigenous farmers have grown for generations, forcing them to then buy them back from them or starve altogether. These practices are not only destroying their lives and cultures, but threaten biodiversity and Indigenous farms with 1000’s of years of methods and knowledge.[6] Contamination through interbreeding is the biggest threat to the global food supply, and a human rights violation.

Food practices have changed more in the last 50 years than in the last 10,000. Just what are some of the effects of consuming genetically modified foods? According to French study released, “In rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto's genetically engineered corn or exposed to the company's popular Roundup herbicide, rats developed tumors and suffered severe organ damage”.[7] From the book, Genetic Roulette, rats fed Bt corn for 90 days had multiple health problems. They showed significant changes in their blood cells livers and kidneys which might indicate disease (p.26). Further rats fed GM FlavrSavr tomato for 28 days got bleeding stomachs, and several died (p.24). Scientists have criticized the creating of resistant seeds is counterproductive, there is no genetic uniformity in nature, there will be survivors. In three years, species will develop immunity.[8]

Ethics and practices like genetically engineering foods is also another cultural violation. The stark difference is opposing ontologies. The spiritual relationship that Indigenous people have to food and the land is explained thoroughly in the book, Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The Interbeing of Cosmology and Community, (1997). In the chapter, Andean Cosmovision and the Nurturing of Biodiversity by Julio Valladolid and Fredrique Apffel–Marglin, the concept of improved farming practices and sustainable development is put up against peasant farming methods harvested over centuries. PRATEC (Andean Project of Peasant Technologies) was founded in 1987 by researchers who spent their life working for the development projects and brought the green revolution to the countryside. All of native peasant background, the researchers devoted themselves to delivering this belief to help their people. They came to the slow realization that sustainable development was the problem.

After recognizing that sustainable development itself is the problem and a foreign import, the researchers started to decolonize themselves. The reason they quit their job was because they were becoming agents of the state. The world view of Andean Farmers and relationship to the ecosystem is far different than western practices. To the peasant farmers, the relationship has names indicating their ontology. The ayllu is a local group of related persons, and non humans the pachu. PRATEC stresses the importance of chakra, the peasant’s field.

Western anthropologist Enrique Mayer has criticized PRATECs work as something he finds to lack scientific credibility. This viewpoint which is shared by the larger society, ultimately failing to see other ontology’s and epistemologies that PRATEC strives to articulate. The problem is science is founded on a clear separation and opposition between humans and nature. Conversing with the wind, water rocks, ect. - is all viewed of a supernatural beliefs held in the westernized minds of the people. The material void is devoid of spirits or any metaphysical aspect.

Anthropologists, who base their beliefs in a narrow science based perspective, also have their own critics. Those opposed to the field of linear thinking science have argued that it is in fact impossible to separate the metaphysical. Even the quantum physicists, have established that the world is all interconnected, right to the anthropologist and the experimenter themselves. The term anthropocentrism is the assertion that only humans will matters, that the only actor is man. The phrase, ‘we were never modern, we just dreamed we were’, is expressed in the process of deluded ourselves to thinking we were creating an amnesia that our nonhuman companions were just inert objects. Over the course of establishing PRATEC, they rejoined their hearts and souls to their minds. Over the course of de-professionalizing themselves, they now walk through the chakras and learn from the peasants how to see and feel with Andean eyes and heart again (p. 639 – 670). [9]

These great projects are not isolated to South America; First Nation communities in the United States and Canada are also taking back food sovereignty.  According to Dr. Winona Laduke’s lecture on Food Sovereignty, factors need to be considered are different ontologies, for example the calendars. First Nations people have 13 months with 28 days, in sync with the moon rather than Roman Gods.[10]  Her project, White Earth Land Recovery Project, Onaway's basic practical objective is to provide seed grants to Native American organisations whose aim is to increase indigenes' self-esteem through self-sufficiency initiatives. This finds an ideal home with the Ojibway, Indian. White Earth Land Recovery Project which has connected the community, specifically the children with the land, the language, and history of their peoples growing practices. Native Harvest is a store and economic development spinoff, language revival is done on the land. Children learn the language on the land, working with food and planting seeds. This is a pathway to knowledge between children and elders, restoring communication methods.   "Our land is Mino-Aki (good land) whose biodiversity is essential to the health and spiritual well-being of our people”. White Earth Land recovery Project protects the biodiversity of food.[11]

This got me thinking it would be nice if we trained kids in Keeseekoowenin to a similar project, have it part of the school curriculum. I feel our community, while battling social ills, has the potential. My mom remembers her mom garden, it had everything – carrots, potatoes, rhubarb, and I remember snacking on rhubarb and sugar. I remember her picking chokecherries in Riding Mountain, saskatoon`s with my aunties.  In Keeseekoowenin, community elder and keeper of Medicine Eagle Woman Camp, Audrey Bone has said that, "medicines can come to you or someone through dreams or when spirits can talk to you." Audrey goes to 61A where she picks medicines and conducts ceremonies where she feels a great connection to our traditional roots. "The difference between western and modern medicine is that a lot of people are getting their traditional names now at the camp when there was a time when that never used to happen. Now people are bringing their kids to the camp to receive their names which will intern will help them in their life. A traditional name gives them a sense of who they are and how they are connected to the spirits. This is something we are bringing back slowly due to the colonial effects of residential school taken our traditional aspects away. It puts them on direction that they take could take in life." Audrey recalls learning about medicines from McKay Blackbird when she was a child.

I asked Audrey what she believed getting the traditional land (61A) back meant to Keeseekoowenin Band. She said, "gaining back way of life holistically, meaning physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. It’s beneficial to the way we eat, and for healing ourselves." Audrey operates a camp called Medicine Eagle Women’s camp in (61A) Clear Lake. Audrey says "we teach them medicines, share information and all sickness that are high in community, we have medicines for them.” Audrey also said that the park should be kept natural, and used in traditional way always so that future generations can enjoy the park as our ancestors once did. Our ancestors used to walk and pick berries and medicines at Clear Lake where they would also set up camp and hunt.[12] In Keeseekoowenin the relationship to the land is important, that relationship was disrupted in 1930. Keeseekoowenin was the last community to be forcibly removed from a national park in Manitoba. The relationship to the land is important, the [sahikan] lake has a spirit [manitouak], and it comes from the mountain, that’s why it is so clear - that relationship and understanding needs to be restored. Indigenous people worldwide share this view. We are disconnected from the production of food, and joy of eating. We are planting a time bomb in the bodies of children around the world. [13]

 The University of Winnipeg (U of W) has been instrumental to preserving and passing on knowledge. U of W Doctoral Professor and respected elder Tabasonakwut Kinew has repeatedly said we need to get these teaching down to pass on to next generation. The key to unlocking the knowledge is done through unlocking and learning the language.  What are alternatives? Tabasonakwut Kinew has encouraged practices and beliefs should be taught. He questioned who is going to do our marriages – what is the four day final journey? Suggested students write a letter to Lloyd Axeworthy to ask that courses be taught. It can teach land based practices such as plucking a goose, snaring rabbits, picking sweetgrass, making medicines. Teach a philosophical worldview, Nin(gitima)giz - I am pitiful/poor. This is not a defeatist attitude; tt is recognizing and respecting our human role at bottom of food chain. [14] Another option is to develop a food sovereignty project, like White Earth Land Recovery Project, works hand in hand with language revival.

Visiting professor at U of W, Dr. R.N. Pati gave a presentation on the Juang, the Forest Dwelling Tribe of Orissa near Kendujhar in east India focussing on their intellectual property, rights, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and their Indigenous rights to territories. He said Tribal peoples make up 8% of population in India, development focuses on customary rules that strive for peaceful co-existence. The principle of reciprocity governs the values of the tribal peoples. The principle of duality was explained that water represents male, earth represents female.  Another key concept is the principle of equilibrium. Ecology and human health are intertwined - Festivals respect the symmetry with environment; and the principle of reciprocity was repeatedly stressed.

 The Juang as people live, hunt and farm collectively - one clan. They also live on hill slopes, practices are slash and burn agriculture, shifting cultivation. Biodiversity conservation among Juang villages has objectives to conserve biodiversity in hill villages. Key concepts are [1] Sustainable use and [2] Equitable access to resources. The project objectives are the empowerment of Self Help Groups [SHGs] - they have a home herbal garden, manure preparation, and medicinal plants are cultivated. It is key to incorporate children in the school effort - they cultivate honey. Livelihood activities include raising goats, cattle, and pigs. In the local markets, there is pottery, they collect water from streams. The balance prevents haves and have not’s. Medicinal plants and aromic plants have protected habitats, water harvesting is very important. Buying and planting the selected plants on the four rented lands from different plants. They have workshops on entrepreneurship, providing information and training for the use of internet technology – in particular, the creation of website helps spread group’s message. Hair oil and massage oil are harvested and contributed to the preservation of biodiversity. However, communities receive no compensation for bio prospecting.[15]

So just what can consumers do today to inform themselves about avoiding genetically engineered foods and fight back? Besides avoiding McDonald’s french fries and seedless grapes, Greenpeace has put out a consumer’s guide. In the How to Avoid Genetically Engineered Food List: a Shopper’s Guide by Greenpeace, one company in particular stands out ignoring the wishes of consumers to label products containing genetically modified foods: Loblaws. In addition, Loblaws also owns No Name and Presidents Choice brands which make up more than 1100 retail stores operating and carrying unidentified genetically modified foods. The shopper’s guide serves as a starting point to check ingredient lists for foods made with soy, corn, canola, and cotton. These four crops account for nearly 100 of genetically engineered crops grown in North America. Many of today’s foods are made readily available to consumers here in Canada. Protestors gathered in front of Loblaws to protest against the soft regulations that make labelling genetically modified ingredients optional for companies, 95% of people who participated in survey want products labelled.[16]

The reason why this is not a bigger issue here in Canada is unclear, but optional labelling has played quite a role. At least 35 countries have adopted mandatory labelling for any product that has been genetically modified, animal feed containing GMOs will also have to be labelled. Canada has not; a free vote in Parliament Oct. 17, 2001, defeated a bill by Liberal MP Charles Caccia. His private member's bill, C-287, would have required mandatory labelling of genetically altered foods. Health Canada has taken the position that GM foods are just as safe as conventional foods. According to a 1999 Environics poll, 80 per cent of Canadians want GM foods to be labelled. Greenpeace Canada says that number is closer to 95 per cent.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says the industry faces huge losses if mandatory labelling is implemented. The fear is that consumers will see the labels as a warning and avoid these foods; labels will increase the price of foods produced and processed in Canada.[17] Optional labelling keeps the masses ignorant.

In conclusion, the basic problem is economics and politics are overriding good ethical morals that we seem to preach about in other forums, such as human rights, the charter of rights and other instruments of good governance. There is enough food in the world to feed people; it is the methods of distribution and all mighty dollar that influence actions however. What will be the effects 20 years from now of genetically modified food? The biggest issue for our children’s generation will be the foods they eat. It’s in everything, the condiments, soups, tomatoes and pasta sauces, salad dressings and cooking oils, snack foods, especially the potato and tortilla chips. The messing around of plants and animals is likely to share the same fate as Indigenous people did shortly after contact with Europeans. The effects diseases had on the Americas population, is the same thing is happening to the biodiversity of plant, food, and animal species now.

---

[1] "CBC News Indepth: Genetic Modification." CBC.ca - Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/ (accessed December 3, 2012).

[2] Grim, John. Indigenous traditions and ecology: the interbeing of cosmology and community. Cambridge, MA: Distributed by Harvard Press for the Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School, 2001. P. 640. (Accessed October 25^th, 2012).

[3] Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian. The Columbian Exchange: A History of Disease, Food, and Ideas. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Volume 24 number 2. Spring 2012. Pages 163-188. Accessed 10 November 2012 at: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/nunn/files/Nunn_Qian_JEP_2010.pdf

[4] Kulchyski, Peter. "Conflict and Resource Development." Class lecture, Indigenous Peoples, Land and Natural Resources from University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, November 26, 2012.

[5] Kneen, Brewster. Farmageddon: food and the culture of biotechnology. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers, 1999.

 

[6] Mander, Jerry, and Victoria Corpuz. Paradigm wars: indigenous peoples' resistance to globalization. New expanded ed. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books; 2006. P.145-152 (accessed October 12, 2012).

[7] French Study Finds Tumor and Organ Damage in Rats Fed Monsanto Corn. Accessed 9 November 2012 at: www.truth-out.org

[8] Smith, Jeffrey M. Genetic roulette: the documented health risks of genetically engineered foods. Fairfield, Iowa: Yes! Books, 2007.

 

[9] Grim, John. Indigenous traditions and ecology: the interbeing of cosmology and community. Cambridge, MA: Distributed by Harvard Press for the Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School, 2001. (Accessed October 25^th, 2012).

[10] Laduke, Winona. "2012 Dodge Lecture - Winona LaDuke - Food Sovereignty, Biopiracy, and the Future - YouTube." YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un1hx-n5Pcc (accessed October 25, 2012).

[11] Laduke, Winona. "White Earth Land Recovery Project." http://www.onaway.org/indig/ojibwe.htm (Accessed 28 October 2012).

 

[12] Bone, Audrey. Interview by author. Personal interview. Keeseekoowenin FN, Manitoba. April 10, 2009.

[13] Patel, Raj. “Conclusion”. Stuffed and starved: the hidden battle for the world food system. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Melville House Pub., 2008.

[14] Kinew, Tabasonakwut."Class lecture", Pathways to Indigenous Knowledge from University of Winnipeg. Winnipeg (accessed September10, 2012.

[15]Dr. R.N. Pati."Class lecture", International Indigenous Rights from University of Winnipeg. Winnipeg (accessed November, 2012.

[16] Greenpeace: Beware the Frankenfood. Accessed 10 November 2012 at: http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/environment/environmental-protection/greenpeace-always-bearing-witness/beware-of-frankenfood.html

[17] "CBC News Indepth: Genetic Modification." CBC.ca - Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/ (accessed December 3, 2012).