Year: 2019

Buy Native and Give Native All Year Long

(Treaty Truckhouse fundraiser [top left], Rez Famous Clothing [top right], Warrior Life Clothing [bottom left], Unist’ot’en fundraiser [bottom right])

If you are anything like me, I need multiple lists to keep myself organized this time of year. With the holidays speeding towards us faster than we can keep up, I need a list for tasks to complete at work before we break for the holidays; a grocery list to prepare for multiple family feasts; and, of course, the holiday gift-giving list. Without these lists, I would certainly be doomed to rely on my brain, which is already overloaded with the 2019 work I have to complete and the giant to-do list for 2020. I find lists extremely helpful, as they keep me from impulse shopping and overspending. I also have another list, which is my giving list – a list that reminds me to share my privilege with others. The one thing these lists all have in common is that they are all focused on buying native and giving native all year long.

Recently, Niigaan Sinclair, the award-winning Anishinabe columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press, wrote an article urging Manitobans and Canadians to buy Indigenous.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/buy-indigenous-this-holiday-season-565799362.html

He argues that it makes more sense to invest in Indigenous businesses that contribute to local economies, rather than the large US-owned box stores where billions of dollars flow to US corporate owners. This makes a great deal of sense. When you invest in First Nation businesses for example, you help First Nation economies, which in turn, help regional Canadian economies through their own spending and employment. Niigaan provided a list of various Indigenous businesses that offer everything from food, music and books; to clothing and jewellery. Who could ask for a better list of gift-giving options, than this list of Indigenous goods that are handmade and steeped in the rich cultures and traditions of local First Nations?

This past summer, Sarain Fox, an Anishinabe television host, actress, model and activist shared with the Globe and Mail how she assembles her wardrobe from Indigenous-made products.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/style/article-activist-sarain-fox-assembles-a-wardrobe-of-indigenous-made-products/

Sarain has always made lifting up others part of everything she does and giving a nod to her curated list of Indigenous artists and businesses is part of helping to promote them. She highlighted some of the Indigenous clothing, boots and purses she wears every day. Her goal is to celebrate Indigenous peoples every day – not just on holidays like Indigenous Peoples Day. A shout-out from someone with Sarain’s public profile helps promote Indigenous businesses and boost the Indigenous economy referenced by Niigaan. You can also find other curated lists of native owned businesses in Canada and the USA on websites like Beyond Buckskin:

http://www.beyondbuckskin.com/p/buy-native.html

I agree with them both. Buying native helps support local First Nation and Canadian economies and should be a focus all year round – not just during the holidays. I would also add that it is usually this time of year that we see public calls to support various groups and causes with donations. The holidays evoke in many people a moral obligation and desire to share their good fortune – big or small – with others to help address urgent individual needs and/or advance social justice more broadly. To my mind, this should never be about “charity” or holiday-based “good will”; but instead be about fulfilling our legal obligations to one another under the various treaties we signed to share the lands, resources and wealth. It is also about real reconciliation, which is about more than a celebration of native cultures, but also about individual responsibility to address past and ongoing injustices.

To this end, there are various native groups and organizations to which you could direct your giving this holiday and throughout the new year ahead. There are small organizations working hard to advocate for the basic human rights of First Nations children in foster care or the safety of Indigenous women and girls. Similarly, there are smaller, more informal groups in need of supplies and/or legal assistance as they occupy First Nation territories to protect the lands, waters, plants and animals from the devastating environmental destruction of the extractive industry. In protecting water sources, forests and ecosystems from contamination, First Nations warriors are protecting the health and well-being of both Indigenous peoples and Canadians. We all have treaty and other obligations to contribute in some way to the protection of Turtle Island for future generations – and giving to native causes can be part of that.

There are far too many native businesses and causes to note here, so what follows is a list of some of the ways that I buy native and give native all year round. While some of those on the Buy Native list are larger businesses, there are hundreds of individuals who sell their goods at pow wows and cultural events, as well as through social media outlets. I have purchased some of the best beaded earrings from artists who I spotted on Instagram. Similarly, while larger native organizations on the Give Native list are easier to find through their websites, don’t forget to scan your social media for smaller groups making call outs for urgently needed donations.

BUY NATIVE:

Online:

Cheekbone Beauty was founded by Jennifer Harper and is an Indigenous owned, cruelty free cosmetic company. They offer high quality cosmetics and donate part of their profits to help fund education for Indigenous peoples. Their Warrior Women line of lipsticks include shades named after native women warriors – like Sarain Fox, Cindy Blackstock and me! I bought their most recent holiday collection, which includes my shade of lipstick – true warm red!

https://cheekbonebeauty.ca/

She Native is an Indigenous owned company that offers leather handbags and clothing that share Indigenous teachings and positive messaging. I have bought their t-shirts and hoodies and just love them! I really appreciate the positive messaging and celebration of Indigenous women.

https://www.shenative.com/

Tammy Beauvais Designs is another company that is 100% Indigenous owned and Tammy can be seen selling purses, ribbon skirts and native designed clothing for men and women all over Canada. One of my favorite things about pow wows is racing to find her stall to buy something new. One of my favorites is a beautiful white bomber jacket with native-inspired flowers all over it.

https://tammybeauvais.com

Nishiin Designs is a business I just recently found through social media. They are an Indigenous company that offers Anishinabe designed purses, clothing and accessories. I saw one of their purses on Instagram, fell in love with it and insta-ordered it!

https://www.nishiin.ca/

Shop in Store:

Cedar Basket Gift Shop is located inside the Native Canadian Centre in downtown Toronto. They have a huge collection of artwork, crafts, household items, jewellery and moccasins handcrafted by Indigenous peoples. I especially love their baskets and beadwork. I have never been able to visit that store and leave without a gift for someone.

https://ncct.on.ca/gift-shop/

Teekca’s Aboriginal Boutique is a native-owned store at The Forks in Winnipeg that is well-known for its custom work. I had shirts and blazers specially tailored for my son who loves wearing his one-of-a-kind beaded suits to work.

http://www.teekcasboutique.ca/en/home

Rez Famous is a Mi’kmaw clothing company from back home in the Maritimes. I have their tees, hoodies, caps and everything I can get my hands on! You can find them at pow wows as well as on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/rezfamousbrand/

Warrior Life clothing is one of my own latest initiatives to help raise funds to keep my media completely independent. I use the proceeds to help pay for the costs of my Youtube channel, my Warrior Life podcast and my Indigenous Nationhood blog. It will also (hopefully) defray some of the costs for my second podcast set to be released in the new year.

https://teespring.com/stores/warrior-life-2

GIVE NATIVE:

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, headed by Dr. Cindy Blackstock, advocates strenuously for First Nations children, youth and families so they can grow up happy, healthy, safe and proud of who they are as First Nations. They brought a human rights complaint against Canada for historic and ongoing racial discrimination against First Nations children in foster care – and won. They continue their battle at the Tribunal and in the courts to force Canada to comply with the orders and finally end discrimination. There are so many ways you can help them: including “7 Free Ways to Help”; purchasing children’s educational books and calendars; and/or making donations.

https://fncaringsociety.com/welcome

Gitdimt’en Yintah Access is a group of First Nation peoples from the Wet’suwet’en Nation from Gitdimt’en clan who are governing their territory and protecting it from pipelines. They are true warriors who risk their safety and freedom by protecting lands and waters from the devastation of pipelines. They need our support in terms of supplies and donations for their legal fees. You can give one-time donations or ongoing monthly support.

https://www.yintahaccess.com/

Unist’ot’en Camp is another clan from the Wet’suwet’en Nation governing their territory to protect it from pipelines. You can support them through buying their merchandise, making a one time donation to their legal fund or offering monthly support for supplies for those protecting the lands and waters.

http://unistoten.camp/support-us/donate/

Treaty Truckhouse Legal Fund is a group of grassroots peoples including Mi’kmaw treaty rights holders, grandmothers and local allies who are standing united as water protectors of the Shubenacadie River in the Sipekne’katik District of Mi’kma’ki. They have been trying to protect the river for years and as a result need donations for legal expenses.

https://ca.gofundme.com/f/720lt7c

Tiny House Warriors is an initiative from the Secwepemc peoples whose mission is to: “stop the Trans Mountain pipeline from crossing unceded Secwepemc Territory.” The Secwepemc peoples are asserting their law and jurisdiction on their territory by building tiny houses all along the pipeline route in order to block access to this pipeline. Kanahus Manuel is one of the native women warriors who has placed her safety and freedom on the line to protect our collective futures. You can donate through their official Tiny House Warriors or Secwepemc Nation Youth Network Go Fund Me pages on their website.

http://tinyhousewarriors.com/

I hope you all have a safe and happy holiday with family and friends and I look forward to joining forces with you all in the New Year to advocate for justice on Turtle Island. PODCAST: Here is my extended Warrior Life podcast episode on this same issue: https://soundcloud.com/pampalmater/buy-native-give-native-all-year-long

December 11, 2019
Indigenous issues slowly disappear from election 2019

*This picture was taken by Michelle Girouard and the logo is from from The Lawyer’s Daily. This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Oct.15, 2019 (see link below).

The unofficial slogan for the 2015 Liberal election campaign was “there is no relationship more important to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples.” It was a mantra shared repeatedly by Justin Trudeau pre- and post-election and stood in stark contrast to former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s adversarial relationship with First Nations. In fact, it was Trudeau’s election promise to make Indigenous issues a political priority, together with his commitment to a nation-to-nation relationship grounded in respect for Indigenous rights, that helped his party win the Indigenous vote.

While not all Indigenous people voted for the Liberals, record numbers of them voted — largely to help the Liberals unseat the Conservatives. Fast forward to this election and Trudeau started his campaign with a speech that focused on the middle class and ignored Indigenous peoples entirely. Indigenous issues then seemed to slowly disappear.

In addition to not mentioning Indigenous peoples in his first campaign speech, Trudeau also didn’t show up for the first leaders’ debate hosted by Maclean’s and Citytv, which is, in essence also failing to show up on Indigenous issues. While the Maclean’s debate started out well, with strong interventions from Elizabeth May of the Green Party, the void left by Trudeau’s absence allowed the leader of the Conservatives, Andrew Scheer, to turn every question on Indigenous issues into a discussion on forcing approval of natural resource projects regardless of First Nation opposition. At one point, he spoke against Indigenous groups “holding hostage” resource projects — the same kind of aggressive stereotypes used by the former Harper government that paint First Nations as dangerous. While both May and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh called him on this disrespectful language, Trudeau was missing in action and not there to provide the kind of response Canadians expect of a leader who claimed to be committed to respectful nation-to-nation relations with Indigenous peoples.

Trudeau’s absence also allowed the candidates the extra time to turn questions about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the dire need for safe drinking water on reserves into a debate over Trudeau’s handling of the SNC Lavalin case. While the host, with the exception of one attempt at redirection, allowed the Indigenous issues segment to devolve into pipelines and SNC Lavalin, the candidates also used their precious time to take digs at Trudeau and neglected to focus on Indigenous issues.

Given that the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls concluded that Canada is guilty of both historic and ongoing race-based genocide against Indigenous peoples, which specifically targets Indigenous women and girls; it is unfathomable that this was not even a question by the moderator or debated by the candidates. Early on Indigenous families feared that the urgent action required to end genocide against Indigenous women and girls would be lost to talk of pipelines and elections. Sadly, and shamefully, this has become a reality.

The first leaders debate which included Trudeau, focused more on pipelines, climate change and taxes for the middle class than on Indigenous questions asked or the multiple, overlapping crises brought about by ongoing genocide which is literally killing Indigenous peoples. While this is in part the fault of the host for framing the first question around Scheer’s proposed pipeline corridor and inviting debate about pipelines instead of focusing on Indigenous priorities, the candidates also had a responsibility to refocus the debate.

Trudeau, May, and Singh have platforms with significant commitments on Indigenous issues, yet all failed to promote these commitments during the debate or force discussion on the bigger issues like murdered and missing Indigenous women; the crisis of Indigenous kids in foster care; the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in prison; or the extreme poverty on many reserves. Neither Maxime Bernier, leader of the Peoples Party of Canada, nor Bloc Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet made much of contribution to the debate on Indigenous issues at all.

At this stage, it doesn’t look like Indigenous issues will feature prominently in the rest of the campaign and are at risk of disappearing entirely from focus. This development is in no way benign or the natural ebb and flow of election campaigns. This appears to be a purposeful strategy to take focus away from the national inquiry’s finding of genocide in relation to murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls; the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) finding of willful and reckless racial discrimination against First Nations children; the many interventions of the United Nations treaty bodies about Canada’s grave human rights violations of Indigenous peoples; and the failure to address water issues on reserve.

Moreover, Trudeau’s long list of promises, like the promise to repeal former Prime Minister Harper’s legislative suite imposed on First Nations; the amendment of Bill C-51 (Anti-Terrorism Act) legislation to address its negative impacts on First Nations; the promise to review federal laws to ensure compliance with s. 35 of the Constitution Act (Aboriginal and treaty rights); and the promise to implement UNDRIP in an unqualified way, all remain unfulfilled.

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is not without fault here. They are a major barrier to the development of an actual nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations and have failed to strenuously demand accountability for the deaths of Indigenous peoples from Canada’s own laws, policies and practices. Instead, the AFN has been so busy praising the Trudeau government and encouraging First Nations to vote, that they too have failed to really push the candidates to prioritize Indigenous issues.

Instead, the AFN issued a laundry list of so-called priorities that focus on meetings, processes, dialogue and more paternalistic federal laws and policies. All of which translates into millions of dollars for the AFN, but little substantive change at the local First Nation level — the actual rights-bearing governments. Any party platform that grounds reconciliation in a relationship exclusively through the AFN condemns us all to the status quo.

Trudeau has deflected the growing national crises in First Nations thus allowing the Conservatives to downplay their political commitments, if any, to Indigenous peoples. When the two governing parties set the agenda in this way, it has a ripple effect. If the prime minister is no longer considering Indigenous issues a priority, what kind of message does that send to doctors, teachers and social workers? How bad has it become that both the Liberals and the Conservatives agree that appealing the CHRT decision is better than ending racial discrimination against First Nation children in care? If the AFN praises Trudeau in the face of broken promises, why would the public demand more?

While the Green Party and NDP have made significant commitments in their platforms to address many of these urgent issues, practically speaking, neither will likely form the next government. So, while their attempts to elevate the urgency of these issues are commendable, their ability to raise the bar past the very low bar set by the two so-called governing parties, is limited. The ripple effect will then be felt in the mainstream media coverage and the opinions of everyday Canadians. This reconciliation train is now headed in the opposite direction of what was intended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action or the National Inquiry’s Calls for Justice. How is it possible for Canada to be found guilty of genocide in June and then federal leaders focus their campaigns on middle class jobs and taxes in September? Indigenous peoples continue to die at alarming rates from Canada’s infrastructure of racist laws, policies and practices.

Reconciliation cannot be achieved if its lifespan is dictated by what carries political currency in each election. The leaders all have a legal and moral obligation — and historic opportunity — to do better. The question is whether Indigenous issues can be resurrected in a substantive and meaningful way before the election — but that doesn’t seem likely.

*This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on October 15, 2019 at this link: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/15967/indigenous-issues-slowly-disappear-from-election-2019-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

October 16, 2019
First Nations and the Business of Cannabis

This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Sept.25, 2019 -(see link below)

Justin Trudeau’s 2015 election platform promise to immediately legalize marijuana if elected spurred a frenzy of activity behind the scenes. There were police officers, politicians and other former leaders, previously against the sale of the drug, making plans for their own cannabis boutiques. The very same people that had previously outlawed, arrested and jailed people for growing, possessing and/or selling cannabis would now have the unfair insider advantage about where to sell and to whom.

In the chaotic positioning that played out behind the scenes by those “in the know,” very little attention was given to the full legal implications of Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act.

The failure to properly engage First Nations about the legalization of cannabis was not only irresponsible policy making but was also a lost political opportunity to work on a nation to nation basis with First Nations — one of Trudeau’s other campaign promises. Trudeau, who had also pledged to respect Aboriginal and treaty rights and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), failed to sit down with First Nations and come up with a comprehensive cannabis legalization plan that would not only address legalization (manufacture and sale), but also the thousands of Indigenous peoples in jail or with criminal records for cannabis offences.

Further, in neglecting Canada’s legal obligation to enact laws which are consistent with the Aboriginal rights contained in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it missed the chance to harmonize federal, provincial and First Nations jurisdictions and laws in relation to cannabis. This void has created the potential for not only legal conflict, but for political and social tensions at the local level.

Take for example, the situation in Ontario. Premier Doug Ford’s Conservative government has decided to proceed to license cannabis sales by way of a lottery. Only a small number of licences are targeted for First Nations distributors on reserve and none for First Nations peoples and businesses located off reserve. In every way, Ontario’s cannabis lottery scheme offends Aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as First Nations’ inherent sovereignty and jurisdiction over their own lands, peoples and businesses.

Ontario’s plan presumes that provincial jurisdiction trumps First Nation jurisdiction — which is not the case. Both the 1997 Inherent Right Policy which confirmed that s. 35 includes and protects the right of First Nations to be self-determining, and Trudeau’s commitment to respect First Nation governance rights should have resulted in much more comprehensive legislation. UNDRIP, which is the standard by which United Nations treaty bodies will hold Canada to account, protects the Indigenous right of self-determination which includes governance, lawmaking and enforcement, as well as the management of Indigenous economies within their traditional territories (i.e. not limited to the reserves).

These unresolved spheres of jurisdiction between First Nations and the provinces have already created confusion on the ground with some First Nations enacting their own laws, some ignoring provincial laws and others choosing to allow or ban cannabis on reserve as a governance decision.

In still other First Nations, without any First Nation law in place, and according to the long-held legal and political position that provincial laws should not apply on reserve, many individuals have started their own cannabis businesses. This is putting a strain on some First Nations who felt not only excluded from cannabis policy development, but were not resourced to develop laws, policies and enforcement frameworks about First Nation-owned businesses versus individual businesses.

Much of the First Nation critique also included concerns about the lack of time and resources to develop health and safety plans for each First Nation. While there are some exceptions, in general, much of this legal, economic and social co-ordination remains outstanding.

What is worse is that Trudeau’s failure to work collaboratively with federal, provincial and First Nations jurisdictions created a political gap in which non-government entities, like the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), could step in and start stirring the pot.

More than a year after the passing of the Cannabis Act, the AFN held a Cannabis Summit to talk about the implications of cannabis legalization. Their summit targeted federal and provincial government representatives and agencies, as well as First Nations. It was no surprise then that Day One of the summit saw the chief commissioner of the so-called First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC) on the agenda trying to persuade First Nations to submit to federal tax regimes for cannabis.

The FNTC is a Crown agency, fully governed and staffed under federal laws and regulations. The inclusion of the word “First Nation” in the title is really misleading. The goal of the federal government, through the FNTC, has always been to get First Nations to tax themselves and give up their reserve lands and turn the lands into individual fee simple parcels (i.e. provincial jurisdiction).

This brings us full circle back to the legal and political confusion at the local level which, on the one hand, is clearly the result of Trudeau’s failure to harmonize all legal systems and jurisdictions in Canada, but also the fault of the AFN.

The AFN waited nearly four years to have this summit — which appears conveniently timed so as not to make any waves for the Trudeau government before the legislation was passed. We saw very little public advocacy for First Nation governments to be part of the policy development around legalization and thus, in the eyes of many, the AFN failed its job as an advocacy organization. The result? The AFN shares responsibility for this legal void as well as the thousands of First Nations peoples who are languishing in jail, on parole and subject to conditions and/or unemployable due to past cannabis offences which have not been pardoned or fully expunged from their records.

Once again, First Nations peoples at the local level pay the price and receive few of the benefits. Far from delivering on his promise to fully legalize cannabis, Trudeau controlled and commodified the cannabis trade which seemed to benefit insider entrepreneurs and left the full decriminalization of cannabis for another day. In the end, there were no political waves from the AFN with regards to federal legalization.

On the positive side, more and more First Nations leaders have engaged with their citizens and are in the process of enacting or have already enacted their own rules and regulations related to cannabis. Many have realized that they are on their own in terms of defending their jurisdiction to govern their own economies. They are in fact the rights holders and waiting around for the AFN to encourage Trudeau to harmonize laws is clearly not on the agenda. As with every other right ever proven by First Nations and reaffirmed in court decisions, the right to govern the cannabis business will have to be lived, asserted and defended by First Nations on the ground.

This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Sept.25, 2019: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/15506/first-nations-and-the-business-of-cannabis-pamela-palmater?spotlight

September 27, 2019
Justice system still not protecting Indigenous women and girls

(Picture by Pam Palmater, Rally for Justice for Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls in Winnipeg)

This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on May, 28, 2019.

“Her life mattered. She was valued. She was important. She was loved.”

R. v. Barton [2019] S.C.J. No. 33.

Cindy Gladue was an Indigenous woman originally from Alberta, where she grew up with her four siblings and extended family. She was also the mother to three daughters and her family described her as both a loving mother and caring auntie. She had close friends and always dreamed about being the first in her family to go to university. Cindy Gladue loved and was loved. She did not deserve her violent death in 2011 nor the indignity done to her body after.

She is now one of the many thousands of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls in Canada — a growing crisis that represents grave human rights violations. The trial of the man who admittedly committed this act of violence against Cindy is an example of how defective Canada’s justice system is when it comes to Indigenous women victims and how negligent Canada has been in ensuring the basic human rights of Indigenous women and girls are met.

In this column, there will be no details about Cindy’s appearance, what she wore the night she was killed, where she was killed, whether she knew her killer, her level of education, her health status, or what she did for a living — because none of the facts is relevant to her death. Cindy is not to blame for her death. Cindy did not kill herself. Cindy did not engage in a dangerous knife fight or try to kill someone.

Regardless of which version of the story is accepted by the next trial judge — that she was killed by a male trucker who violently cut an 11-cm gash in her vagina, or that she died from a tear from his violent, but unarmed interaction with her — she still died as a result. According to the SCC quoting from evidence at trial, the trucker then tried to hide evidence, change the crime scene and lie about his involvement. His name doesn’t deserve to be said aloud, nor does he get to hide behind any of the racist or sexist excuses he used at trial to defend himself. None of the evidence referred to at trial or the SCC indicates that he should be believed. Cindy’s life story does not get to be narrated by the man who admits to committing this violence against her.

Sexualized violence against Indigenous women and girls in Canada has been allowed to continue in plain sight by government officials, police officers, lawyers and judges who have treated Indigenous women and girls as though they are less worthy of life. In fact, were it not for the lengthy and persistent advocacy of Indigenous women and their allies, Canadians would still be unaware of the crisis.

However, awareness of the crisis only gets us so far. The court proceedings which followed Cindy’s death show just how deeply engrained racism and sexism against Indigenous women still is in Canadian society, especially the justice system. In R. v. Barton [2019] S.C.J. No. 33, Justice Michael Moldaver, writing for the majority, allowed the accused’s appeal in part and sent the matter back to trial, but only on the charge of the unlawful act of manslaughter. The dissent would have dismissed the accused’s appeal entirely. Justices Rosalie Silberman Abella and Andromache Karakatsanis writing for the dissent (Chief Justice Richard Wagner concurring) agreed with the Alberta Court of Appeal that the matter be ordered back for retrial on both charges of first-degree murder and manslaughter.

The majority made some important points about the extent to which racism is still widespread in the justice system. At para.199, the majority explained: “Furthermore, this Court has acknowledged on several occasions the detrimental effects of widespread racism against Indigenous people within our criminal justice system. For example, in Williams, this Court recognized that Indigenous people are the target of hurtful biases, stereotypes, and assumptions, including stereotypes about credibility, worthiness, and criminal propensity, to name just a few. … In short, when it comes to truth and reconciliation from a criminal justice system perspective, much-needed work remains to be done.”

They went on to say that the criminal justice system and all of its participants must take reasonable steps to address these biases — especially against Indigenous women. To this end, they directed that, on a go forward basis, trial judges ought to provide express instruction to juries to counter the well-known prejudice against Indigenous women. While there is no set text, trial judges should instruct juries about Indigenous women and girls having been subjected to a long history of colonization and systemic racism and then dispel myths about Indigenous women and those who are exploited for sex. These stereotypes were outlined in para. 202:

– Are not entitled to legal protections;

– Not deserving of respect, humanity and dignity;

– Are sexual objects for male gratification;

– Are available for the taking and no consent needed;

– Assume any risks associated with “sex work”;

– Are less credible than other people.

The majority further stressed that, as a matter of respect, both the Crown and the defence counsel should have referred to her as Ms. Gladue instead of “Native girl” during the trial. These are important points and the SCC made many important clarifications in the case in relation to the many problems surrounding sexual assault cases.

However, there is a downside to the majority’s decision. Their logic and reasoning around the impact of racism and bias in this case did not follow through to their ultimate finding. The majority allowed the accused’s appeal in part, by limiting the charge for which the killer could be retried — manslaughter only. The dissent pointed out that racism doesn’t work that way and can’t be so easily compartmentalized. They explained that there was no “filter” on the victim’s prior sexual history and no warning by the judge to the jury to avoid making stereotypical assumptions about Indigenous women.

They also argued that this created an image of Cindy “that was unfair and would have permeated the whole trial and the jury’s deliberations on both murder and manslaughter” (para. 214). The dissent further emphasized, “He [trial judge] provided no specific instructions crafted to confront the operative social and racial biases potentially at work. This rendered the whole trial unfair” (para. 215).

While the dissent did go further than the majority, they too missed an important opportunity to speak to the indignity committed against Cindy’s body after her death when segments of her vagina were brought into court as an exhibit. Cindy was a life-giving mother of three girls. Her body and her life-giving parts had already suffered a gross violation which led to her death. There was no necessity — in an effort to prosecute her killer — to remove her life-giving parts and put them on display in a courtroom. They could have used the coroner’s testimony, animated illustrations of the extent of the cut or tear, and worst-case scenario, pictures. Putting her life-giving parts on display served to further dehumanize her before the judge and jury.

Even though the SCC made some important findings in this case, their caution that the justice system has a lot more work to do applies equally to them. We need more than the “important step forward” they commended themselves for — we need a wholescale change. That won’t happen if the highest court in the land cannot call out and end the kind of indignity committed against Cindy — which represents the many indignities committed against Indigenous women and girls since contact.

This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on May, 28, 2019 – link below:

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/12605/justice-system-still-not-protecting-indigenous-women-and-girls-pamela-palmater-?category=opinion

May 28, 2019
Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Universities and Colleges

Reconciliation has become the buzz word of the decade ever since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada published their report on residential schools in Canada.* The TRC, headed by (then) Justice Murray Sinclair, heard from residential school survivors, families and native communities from all over Canada about their experiences in residential schools and their lives afterwards. These schools lasted for over 100 years, with the last one only closing in 1996.

Despite being called schools, residential schools were actually designed to separate native children from their parents, extended families and communities, for the express purposes of assimilating them into, what the TRC describes as “Euro-Christian society”. Thousands of children were starved, neglected, tortured, medically experimented on, mentally, physically and/or sexually abused or even murdered. Their experiences have had long-lasting, inter-generational impacts on many more thousands of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

The TRC offered 94 Calls to Action directed to the federal and provincial governments, churches, businesses, the media, the public at large and, specifically, universities and colleges. The report went well beyond just the 94 specific Calls to Action – it also talked about reconciliation with native peoples generally. However, as is the case with many Royal Commissions, Public Inquiries and other similar reports, many Canadians never read them. The failure to read the TRC report, didn’t stop people from taking the word “reconciliation” and literally applying it to everything they do that touches on native issues and calling it “reconciliation”. I think reconciliation has gone off track.

To my mind, the word reconciliation should have substantive meaning; not just in the residential school context, but in the entire relationship between native peoples and the Crown. Firstly, it should be about exposing the whole truth of the genocide committed in Canada beyond residential schools. The TRC concluded that what happened in Canada was cultural genocide, but more than that, it was also physical and biological genocide. Canada needs to come to terms with that. It needs to come to terms with genocide in all of its forms, both historic and ongoing.

Secondly, reconciliation is about Canada taking full responsibility for this genocide.There should be no diminishing the experiences of survivors; no making excuses; no trying to justify what happened; no using semantics to try to downplay the atrocities committed; and no denying any of the harms suffered by native peoples. In any discussion about reconciliation, we should be centering the voices of the survivors and not the perpetrators, just like the TRC did.

Lastly, we can never get to real reconciliation without Canada making a real apology – not a court ordered apology, or carefully worded political apology approved by Justice lawyers. I mean a real apology where Canada:

(a) accepts responsibility for all of its actions and consequences;

(b) promises never to do it again, and in fact, doesn’t do it again;

(c) makes full amends for ALL of the harms done – which may include compensation, but is not limited to compensation.

Canada, in general, seems think that a political apology, coupled with meager monetary compensation and some commemoration is enough to ask all of us to move forward. There is a real problem with moving forward when the whole truth has yet to be exposed. If moving forward means skipping over the rest of the truth and focusing on superficial acts, like renaming National Aboriginal Peoples’ Day to National Indigenous Peoples Day, then we are very far away from reconciliation.

It is also incredible that Canada could even fathom moving forward when it has failed to stop the harms from continuing. For example, while the last residential school closed in 1996, this was followed by the 60’s scoop forced adoptions of native children into white families all over the world. That was then followed by the crisis of of over-representation in foster care. There are more native children stolen from their parents, families and communities today, than at the height of residential schools. In fact, the crisis of over-representation in foster care has even been acknowledged as a “humanitarian crisis” by federal officials.

When I say Canada, I want to be clear that I am talking about federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments for sure; but also churches, Canadian citizens, mainstream media, corporations, businesses, universities and colleges. Every single person and institution in Canada has benefited from the genocide and dispossession committed against native peoples – either directly or indirectly. That makes lots of people uncomfortable to hear, but it is the reality. Most people have long thought that the so-called “plight” of native peoples was the responsibility of government alone – often willfully blind to their own roles.

Universities, colleges and training institutes in particular, have benefited directly from the dispossession of native peoples from their lands and sometimes benefited directly from Indian monies held in trust by the Crown. They have long excluded native peoples as faculty and administrators, while at the same time educating countless generations of Canadians and international students a sanitized version of both history and the present. Native voices and realities has been erased by universities for many decades. While it is very positive to see many universities and colleges embracing the TRC report and taking concrete steps to advance reconciliation, it has become very clear that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what reconciliation really means in a university context.

The TRC called on universities and colleges to undertake the following:

Call to Action #16 – Create Aboriginal language degrees and diploma programs;

Call to Action #24 – Medical and nursing schools to provide a mandatory course dealing with Aboriginal health issues, which includes skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism;

Call to Action #28 – Law schools to provide a mandatory course in Aboriginal people and the law with required skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism;

Call to Action #65 – Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and post-secondary institutions and educators establish a national research program with multi-year funding to advance understanding of reconciliation; and

Call to Action #86 – Journalism programs and media schools provide mandatory education for all students on the history of Aboriginal peoples.

However, it must be kept in mind that reconciliation goes well beyond those specific Calls to Action. Universities and colleges have a long way to go to address their role in the dispossession and oppression of native peoples – both historic and ongoing. However, I think this discussion needs to happen in reverse. Before I share some ideas about what universities should be doing to advance reconciliation, it may be more useful to look at some examples of what should NOT be considered reconciliation and why.

Not Reconciliation list:

(1) Apologize for university’s past contribution to oppression of native peoples;

(2) Give a land acknowledgement;

(3) Senior administration or professors attend a First Nation community or pow-wow;

(4) Hang native art on campus;

(5) Change street names or building names on campus;

(6) Partake in cultural sensitivity training or Aboriginal History 101;

(7) Watch documentaries like Colonization Road;

(8) Read Thomas King’s The Inconvenient Indian (I love this book);

(9) Send a First Nation or organization an email asking what you can do to help;

(10) Hire more native peoples to reflect our % of the population;

(11) Have an elder open and close your conferences;

(12) Nominate a native person for an award;

(13) Invite native faculty to sit on committees or Senate;

(14) Create an Aboriginal Advisory Committee on campus;

(15) Send a happy National Aboriginal Day tweet or Facebook post;

(16) Include First Nations in your research projects; and/or

(17) Invite native speakers into your classrooms.

There are many universities and colleges doing a number of the above items under the banner of reconciliation right now. Some may have even done some of these prior to the TRC report. However, I have seen a number of universities include some of these items in their reports on reconciliation. To my mind, none of these items fall under reconciliation. They are all important in different ways, and universities, should be doing these things, but they are not reconciliation.

Why not? Because most of the items on the above list should already be done in universities and colleges as a matter of law – as per federal and provincial human rights laws; employment laws; non-discrimination laws; equality laws; and campus commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion. Universities don’t get to pat themselves on the back for doing what they should have been doing all along under the law. Furthermore, some of the actions noted above should be happening as a matter of academic practice. If you teach about native issues, it should be a given that native voices and content are centered. It’s a matter of professional ethics and academic standards that faculty learn about the subjects they teach – or ought to be teaching.

The following represents a few things that universities should be doing under the banner of real reconciliation:

Real Reconciliation:

(1) Ensure that you hire native faculty and staff that reflects plus 20% extra hires to build institutional capacity; provide support for new hires; and to make amends for having excluded native peoples for all these years;

(2) There should be proportional (20%) native hires in ALL faculties and departments, especially politics, law, science, engineering, medicine and business (in addition to social work, midwifery & native studies);

(3) Do NOT ever hire just one native faculty member at a time. That is an incredibly unfair burden to that faculty member as everyone, even with the best of intentions, will want their advice, guidance, ideas and participation of that one faculty member on every committee, project and initiative;

(4) When you hire, you must develop workloads and expectations around the fact that many First Nation hires will have community-based expectations/obligations that should be accommodated.

It is their connection to their First Nations, their knowledge exchange and community-based work that often informs who they are, how they teach and what they teach.That unique knowledge and experience comes with commitments to their home communities which takes time and energy and should be accommodated and counted.

(5) Don’t stop at recruitment and hiring of native faculty and staff. Think about what your institution does to KEEP them there, i.e., professional supports, active mentorship, recognition, research dollars, promotions, pay levels, leadership opportunities, advanced training and skill development and flexible or alternative work arrangements. (6) Keep current commitments to native faculty and staff. For example, if you have a Chair in Traditional Native Medicine, make sure that Chair is made permanent, funded from core university dollars and not dependent on external funders (i.e., supported only if the funds are available). Making reconciliation initiatives dependent on the goodwill of corporate funders puts them all at risk given the fact that native peoples are largely discriminated against in the corporate world. Universities must engage in real sacrifices – of power and wealth – in order to engage in real reconciliation. That means the university itself must dedicate and protect the funds for reconciliation initiatives – includes faculty, staff, chairs, research and projects.

(7) Real reconciliation is about more than who teaches, it also requires that native peoples also be represented in the governance and senior administration of universities and colleges – as Presidents, Provosts, Chancellors and on boards of governors. They must be part of the decision-making mechanisms throughout the institution – including in the unions, committees and Senate, on all issues, but especially those that impact native peoples specifically.

(8) Native peoples need to be the ones deciding how targeted native research funding is distributed; who gets research chairs in native issues; and how academic success is measured – that means including the community-based work and advocacy that is an inherent part of the lived personal and professional realities of many native peoples.

(9) First Nations and Inuit communities need to have a direct line of input into university programs, curricula, research and governance that impact them and their students. It is not good enough to have one native faculty or several native staff members speak for diverse Nations. The relationship needs to include voices inside and outside the institution.

(10) Every university and college sits on native territory should reflect local native languages, cultures and symbols throughout the campus, in ways that are directed by native peoples (with a focus on local native communities) and respectful of their cultures. It is not good enough to have just one dedicated “native” area – like a statue, park bench or student centre. Our presence must be reflected throughout the campus(es).

(11) The benefit and privilege of a university education and research needs to be fully shared with local First Nations, with more focus on open access to information and publications and translation of research in accessible formats for community use.

(12) Universities need to think about education beyond tuition-paying students and include strategic partnerships and alliances with native communities to help fill research, policy and/or technical gaps that exist due to chronic under-funding and failure to implement treaties, by building these requirements into courses and research or special projects. (13) Universities could help make amends for past harms. Take for example, the crisis of disappearing native languages. Universities and colleges in partnership with native communities, elders and languages speakers, could help prevent native languages from extinction. Together, they could develop comprehensive k-12 education, as well as community-based native language instruction, to try to undo the devastating impacts of Canada’s assimilatory policies and the university’s roles in it.

(14) Universities need to ensure that their reconciliation plans are co-developed by native communities and experts – which may include faculty, but also those external to the university that are not at any risk of retaliation or ostracization. Without native peoples directing the path forward, universities risk of forging ahead with superficial plans, or replicating the status quo. (15) Universities must also focus on the recruitment, retention and support of native students towards academic success. This includes not only a welcoming atmosphere, various student supports like housing and grants, but also native faculty advisors, native courses, and special research projects and other opportunities. (16) Universities must take active measures against the growing trend of rushing to hire “self-identified” native peoples who are not native, not connected to community and have no lived experience as a native person. Universities are being flooded with those making false claims and universities commit further harms to actual native people by taking no action to prevent it from happening. When frauds take our places in universities as students, staff or faculty, our voices are once again erased and our identities over-shadowed by white ethnicity shoppers whose only claim to Indigeneity is ancestry.com or some distant relative from 400 years ago. At best, these frauds skew our numbers and taint our research, and at worst, they proactively work against real native peoples.

(17) Universities must find ways to prevent Deans from using the same old racist tactics, like using so-called “merit” versus “diversity” as a way to keep native people out of universities. This perception of merit is very biased and often used in racist ways to discriminate against native peoples. It has been used to keep women out of the boardroom and with lower salaries. It has also been used by non-native Deans to keep native peoples out of tenure-track positions. Even after the TRC report, I have still seen Deans revert to this racist form of excluding native peoples – as if their traditional Indigenous knowledges, their professional experiences, their community-based work are not valued the same as a non-native’s traditional educational background as “merit”.

There is a lot to do and it will require a fundamental shift in both thinking and practice. It will require real changes – a transfer of both power and wealth. This requires that universities make sacrifices to make space for native peoples – not simply Indigenize here and there. Universities can’t simply tweak their current structures and expect substantive results. Clearly there is a great deal that university can and should be doing. This blog is already too long to include a much longer list. I truly believe that some of this will happen in short term, and some of it will take a little longer. But without real native people at the helm – directing the path – it runs the risk of preserving the same status quo or worse. I believe that we are at a turning point. The TRC has helped jump start both conversation and action at the university and college level. We just need to ensure the way forward is co-developed by native peoples and communities, together with universities and colleges. We have a real opportunity to make lasting, impactful changes. Let’s move beyond the superficial and engage in real, transformative reconciliation now – which will mean doing things as they haven’t been done before. We’re ready academia – are you?

For those who prefer audio, here is a link to my Warrior Life podcast based on this blog: https://soundcloud.com/pampalmater/indigenous-reconciliation-in-university-and-colleges For those who want more information, here is a link to my Woodrow Lloyd Lecture on Reconciliation at the University of Regina in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89s3l2mYGWg&list=PLDnK0xT7aXRBut5qi5rlJrDQWpS-Pxu1v&index=2&t=3083s

*This blog is based on a much longer speech that I delivered in Halifax for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in 2018.

May 17, 2019
Bill C-92’s Indigenous Child Welfare Act: More Pan-Indigenous Legislation that Risks Continuing the Status Quo

Bill C-92 An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families has been heralded as a “historic turning point”, an “important first step”, a “major milestone” and other similarly over-used and under-impressive political phrases to describe yet another top-down initiative from the federal government. While the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde (AFN) claimed that this legislation was “co-drafted” by the AFN and the federal government, that was not the case. In fact, Dr. Cindy Blackstock confirmed that First Nations did not co-draft the legislation and First Nations were not even permitted to see the second draft before it was tabled. This should be no surprise as Justice Canada does not co-draft legislation with anyone other than the French and English legislative drafters at Justice Canada – this is their long-standing practice. Bill C-92 content is glaring evidence that First Nation experts in child welfare did not hold the pen on this bill.

There are many problems with this bill, but the main problem is it does not deliver any of what was promised by the federal government. Prime Minister Trudeau’s Liberal government promised to address the “humanitarian crisis” through federal legislation that fully recognized First Nation jurisdiction in relation to child welfare; that would provide statutory funding; and would eliminate the over-representation of First Nation children in care. If this bill is not substantially amended before it is passed, it will not accomplish any of those important goals. Ultimately, it will be our children and our families on the ground – in our communities – that will pay the biggest price. The fact that the AFN is promoting this bill so strenuously, without regard for the numerous and serious concerns raised by First Nation leaders, lawyers, academics and child welfare experts, shows how disconnected they are to the crisis at hand.

Despite the many issues raised by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and others, the AFN supports this bill as do the Metis National Council (MNC) and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK). While I also have numerous, detailed concerns with the wording, structure and content of this bill, they are too many to include in this blog. What follows is a general overview of my concerns from a First Nation perspective.

Pan-Indigenous Legislation

First of all, pan-Indian legislation has always been difficult to work with because of the differences between the 50-60 traditional Indigenous Nations in Canada that are now separated into 634+/- individual First Nations (Indian bands), across various provinces and within different treaty areas (some without treaties). However, pan-First Nation legislation, with opt-in clauses and flexible provisions to deal with legal, political and cultural variances, would be far superior to what is offered in this bill. Bill C-92 purports to cram First Nations, Inuit and Metis into one act that offers the same legislative options to all three groups – despite their vastly different histories, socio-economic conditions and rights.

There are vast differences between the legal rights and specific needs of First Nations, Inuit and the Metis. For example, the Metis have much better socio-economic conditions than First Nations and Inuit. Geographic differences between the Inuit and First Nations and Metis, also require solutions tailored to their unique situation. Failure to do so can create inequalities between the groups.

Substantive Inequality

This bill also misses the mark in its purported goal to support Nation-to-Nation (First Nations), government-to-government (Metis) and Inuit-Crown relations by treating us all the same. Here’s the problem – when Canada treats all three groups formally the same, it prejudices the rights, needs and interests of those with more acute conditions. In other words, by treating all three groups as formally equally, those with the most acute needs will be treated substantively unequal. While disadvantage should never be about a “race to the bottom”, formal equality will embed discrimination into the very structure of this legislation and will operate to disadvantage First Nations in particular. First Nations are larger in population, have higher rates of child apprehensions and higher rates of underlying poverty, caused by the kinds of land dispossession and breach of treaty rights not experienced by Metis (with some exceptions).

That is not to say that the Metis should not have their own framework- that is for them to decide what works best for them with the needs of their own constituency. First Nation, Metis and Inuit options should not be limited to the same generic legislative framework, from the same budget line, which assumes the same socio-economic needs, legal rights and interests. This pan-Indigenous template is not in line with the federal government’s promised “distinctions-based” approach and serves to embed substantive inequality into the act.

First Nation Jurisdiction

First Nation jurisdiction should be the heart of this bill. At best, what is offered is a delegated authority under federal jurisdiction, which is conditional on agreement with the provinces. At worst, this bill increases federal Ministerial control, while leaving provincial laws, policies and practices virtually in tact. Bill C-92 creates new powers for an unnamed federal Minister to carry out the provisions of the legislation, make regulations, possibly collect data and provide a report to Parliament after five years. What is missing is the original purpose of the bill: to recognize First Nation jurisdiction. While it purports to recognize First Nation jurisdiction, it does so with several substantive conditions. First Nation jurisdiction and laws in relation to child welfare appear to be directly or indirectly subject to the following limits:

–          Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

–          Canadian Human Rights Act;

–          Section 35 Constitution Act, 1982 jurisprudence and limits in relation to constitutionally protected rights;

–          “Inherent right to self-government” which indirectly incorporates the impoverished definition of self-determination outlined in the Inherent Right Policy;

–          Constitution Act, 1867, section 92 provincial jurisdiction, i.e. provincial laws are the minimum standard;

–          Successful negotiation of a tri-lateral coordination agreement between the First Nation, province and federal government (or proof they made good faith effort to negotiate);

–          Pre-existing definitions of “best interests of the child” from legal precedents;

–          Sections 10-15 of Bill C-92, which outlines specific limitations in relation to the best interests of the child, parental representation, notice of apprehensions, preventative care as the priority, and no apprehensions due to poverty.

If a First Nation manages to ensure their laws meet all of these conditions, then they could be recognized as a “federal law”, but not a law in their own right – based on First Nation jurisdiction. It seems very clear that what is being offered is a delegated authority under federal jurisdiction, which is also limited by the constitutional division of powers. Nothing in this bill binds a provincial government or requires them to even come to the table – let alone contribute any funding. Some First Nations may be okay with exercising their powers this way in order to address the urgent crisis, but the federal government should just be honest about it and stop trying to package it as First Nation jurisdiction.

There is also no specific recognition for pre-existing First Nation laws – oral or written – except in the case of self-government agreements, and these laws would only be paramount to the extent of any conflict with Bill C-92. What of First Nations that choose not to make agreements with the province? What if a First Nation chooses to negotiate only with the federal government? There are far more questions than answers in this bill – all of which need to be addressed in order to avoid legal chaos and uncertainty around jurisdiction.

Funding & Socio-Economic Conditions

My last major concern about this bill is the failure to include clear, directive language that would provide a statutory guarantee for annual funding, that is based on equal access to holistic, wrap- around social programs and services, that take into account specific needs, population increases, inflation, geographic location, and actual costs. Without this statutory guarantee, any recognition or First Nation jurisdiction is entirely hollow. Substantial funds are required for the development and enforcement of First Nation laws, policies and regulations in relation to child and family services; staffing and training; infrastructure; legal and technical research and advisory services; data collection and analysis; and monitoring, compliance, reporting and enforcement. The core issue has always been the long-standing chronic and discriminatory under-funding of social services for First Nations, like food, water, housing, health and education. This racist under-funding is what created the crisis and serves to maintain. Legislation is not needed to end discriminatory funding, but if legislation is to be enacted, a firm commitment for funding needs to be included.

It is noteworthy that there is no mention of First Nation Aboriginal rights or treaty rights in relation to the funding that attaches to child welfare. While it may be politically expedient to create an act that is neutral on “rights” for all parties, this must be in exchange for a substantive, enforceable legal funding commitment. Long gone are the days where First Nations can reasonably or responsibly rely on the word of Ministers to hope that they fulfill their political promises. Ministers change, governments change and the law changes – which is why, if there is to be legislation, that it include a statutory guarantee of funding. Without it, this legislation is empty of any real intention or ability to end the status quo – a price that will continue to be paid by our children and their children. First Nation cannot afford to lose any more children to a racist and sexually violent system that decreases their life chances and limits their ability to enjoy life with their families, communities, and Nations. The increasing foster care rates, incarceration rates and murdered and missing rates compel us to act urgently and with purpose.

All that is required is for Parliament to sit down with First Nation child welfare experts and make the required amendments. Without substantive amendments, this bill may end up causing more harm than good and inject legal chaos into an already broken system and risk the lives of more of our children. Canada has apologized for the trauma caused by residential schools, while at the same time admitting that child welfare has continued the trauma. Canada has stated that this is a humanitarian crisis and as such is legally and morally bound to do better.

It’s time to sit at the table and urgently work this out for the sake of the children. Video of my recent testimony to Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples pre-study on C-92: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkcl0iF0Yic To listen to my 3-part extended interview with Dr. Cindy Blackstock on my podcast show: Warrior Life, here is the link: https://soundcloud.com/pampalmater/cindy-blackstock-on-justice-and-equality-for-first-nation-children If you prefer video instead of podcast, you can listen and watch on my YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5LvH3LY_20&t=2s

March 28, 2019
Federal Budget 2019: Indigenous Women and Children Left Behind – Again

As expected, the Assembly of First Nations was first out of the gate offering glowing praise for this Liberal government’s federal budget, followed shortly thereafter by the Metis National Council and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami – the three male-dominated national Aboriginal organizations. Their organizations have seen substantial increases in funding for their political organizations in recent years. Meanwhile, the Native Women’s Association of Canada – the only political organization representing Indigenous women at the national level – issued its own press release criticizing the government for failing Indigenous women. They accused the federal government of, once again, ignoring the pressing needs of Indigenous women and in so doing, not only hampering reconciliation but breaching their core human rights. NWAC is especially aggrieved about this lack of funding for Indigenous women and families, given the urgent need to address murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls.

The exclusion of Indigenous women and girls as a priority in this federal budget is a glaring example of the ongoing racism and sexism that is so deeply embedded in Canada’s laws, policies, practices and institutions – the very same racism and sexism the Liberal government claims to be against. When the federal government announced the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls in 2016, former Liberal Minister for the Status of Women, Patty Hadju, spoke of the urgent need to address the longstanding racism and sexism embedded in Canada’s institutions. Yet, this urgent policy objective is not reflected in any substantive way in federal budget 2019. In fact, there are no funds allocated for a comprehensive plan to address violence against women generally, and no funds for a targeted comprehensive of plan of action to address violence against Indigenous women and girls specifically. Indigenous and women’s organizations have called on Canada to take comprehensive action now to implement recommendations from the United Nations treaty bodies to reduce murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls before the national inquiry’s report is released.

http://fafia-afai.org/en/press-release-coalition-calls-for-urgent-action-to-stop-violence-against-indigenous-women-and-girls-%EF%BB%BF/

The National Inquiry’s report is due out in less than a month and there is no budget set aside to implement whatever recommendations come from that report either. The limited funds for commemoration seems not only inadequate, but also premature given that the crisis has not abated. Where is the urgent and sustained help for the many families deeply impacted by the abuse, exploitation, trafficking, disappearances and murders of thousands of Indigenous women and girls?

A particularly shocking exclusion from the budget is the lack funding for First Nations child and family services to address the crisis of First Nations children in foster care. Former Minister of Indigenous Services, Jane Philpott called the staggering statistics related to First Nation kids in care a “humanitarian crisis” – comparing it to the residential school system. She pledged to work with First Nations to address the critical need for funding to prevent apprehensions and address the root causes of over-representation, which include conditions of poverty. This glaring omission from the budget is confounding given the fact that Parliament had previously committed to targeted funding to accompany Bill C-92 An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families, which already been introduced in Parliament. Although the federal government promised significant funding to support Bill C-92 – there is no specified funding either in the bill or the budget. Not a single dollar has been allocated to support First Nations develop their own laws and institutions specific to child and family services, hire and train staff, as well as provide the much-needed wrap around social, educational and health services to families in need as advocated in the Spirit Bear Plan.

https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/Spirit%20Bear%20Plan%20%28EN%29.pdf

Dr. Cindy Blackstock, the head of the First Nation Child and Family Caring Society welcomed the additional funding for Jordan’s Principle, however explained that it does not go far enough and many children – like non-status Indian children are still excluded. Jordan’s Principle is a child-first principle which aims to ensure First Nation children can access all public services in a culturally-appropriate way, without any delays or hurdles because they are First Nations. The federal budget pledges $1.2 billion over three years. However, the flat funding does not take into account population growth over the funded years, or the rising cost of inflation. There are also no additional funds to address the thousands of First Nation children who will be newly entitled to Indian status as a result of Bill S-3 An Act to Amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) or from the revised unstated paternity policy in relation to registration. Both of these issues are the result of the federal government losing two court cases (Descheneaux and Gehl) on discrimination against First Nations women and children.

Yet, despite the legal obligation to provide funding, none has been identified in this budget. This limited funding is not an act of reconciliation. The federal has been dragged to this point – kicking and screaming – by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, with no less than five non-compliance orders for failing to end discrimination in funding of First Nation children in care. So, while the extra funding is welcome, it is not a “gift”.

A particularly disturbing omission is the lack of targeted funding for First Nation women and their descendants who would newly entitled to Indian status under Bill S-3. The bill has been in place for a year and will add thousands to the registration list, yet no new funds have been identified for education, health or housing for individuals or First Nations. This is despite the fact that the United Nations just agreed with Sharon McIvor that the Indian Act still discriminates against the descendants of First Nations women who married-out, and directed Canada to provide full reparation. This means registering them and providing much-needed social programs. Similarly, there is no targeted funding to address the increase in registration due to Lynn Gehl’s successful court case against Canada for it’s discriminatory unstated paternity policy. At every turn, First Nations women and children are forced to wait for justice and are denied their basic human rights and access to the same programs and services available to their fathers, brothers and uncles.

One of the most under-served categories of First Nations are those living off-reserve. Approximately 33% of First Nations live off-reserve in Canada, and a disproportionate number of families are headed by single Indigenous mothers. Metis and Inuit don’t live on reserves at all – therefore the majority of Indigenous peoples live off-reserve. The amount allocated in the budget is a mere $60 million over 5 years to help fund off-reserve organizations like native friendship centres. That is barely $10 million a year – nowhere near what is needed to address urgent housing, education, and health needs for more than 800,000 Indigenous peoples living off-reserve – let alone the growing homelessness crisis plaguing Indigenous peoples. Niigaan Sinclair reports in the Winnipeg Free Press that the chronic under-funding is made worse by the fact that federal bureaucrats and other consultants and contractors, suck up nearly 50% of all funding appropriated by Parliament for First Nations. With three departments now directly responsible for Indigenous and Northern Affairs, who is to say whether First Nations will see much of this funding at all, let alone Indigenous women and children.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/new-dollars-sure-but-same-political-game-507393892.html?fbclid=IwAR3jyFhBNuvatzHwVlW-JLWn28sw4MWAdhaGPfD2_strkkdgeiRGRJ0nQsU

While there are many other problems with federal budget 2019, the most glaring omission is the exclusion of Indigenous women and children. Back in 2016, the Liberal government promised a gender based analysis for future budgets. Yet, this budget lacks a gender-based, human rights-based and Indigenous rights-based analysis that focuses on not just policy objectives like reconciliation, but concrete domestic and international legal obligations. There is no mention of returning lands and resources back to First Nations, no mention of a financial plan in relation to treaty implementation or how the federal government will ensure Indigenous women’s voices are at the many negotiating tables they fund. This budget is a disgrace and does little to address any of the pressing Indigenous issues impacting Indigenous women and children like kids in care, murdered and missing Indigenous women, over-incarceration, homelessness, unequal access to Indian status, poverty and poor health outcomes. Trudeau makes good use of flowery speeches and tearful apologies to Indigenous peoples, but has left Indigenous women and children far behind – again.

Perhaps Prime Minister Trudeau should give some Indigenous women a call and figure out how to amend the budget so it better reflects the law in this country. At least, that’s what a feminist Prime Minister would do.

APTN Panel discussion on Federal Budget 2019 and what it means for Indigenous Peoples:

https://tinyurl.com/y689zmyh

March 21, 2019
Bill C-91 An Act Respecting Indigenous Languages: More Hollow Reconciliation

There is no doubt that pre- and post-confederation governments in what is now known as Canada have developed policies, enacted laws and regulations, and engaged in practices that have had as their primary objectives: (1) to acquire First Nation lands and resources and (2) to reduce financial obligations acquired through treaties and other agreements with First Nations. Their primary methods have been to eliminate and/or assimilate “Indians”. Elimination took the forms of small pox blankets, scalping bounties, murders, starvation rations, and forced sterilizations. Attempts at forced assimilation took place in the form residential schools, forced adoptions (60’s scoop), and the Indian Act which outlawed certain cultural practices and created a legislative extinction date for First Nations. The impact of these laws, policies and practices have been nothing short of genocidal. The specific impact to First Nations languages have been devastating. The majority of the 70 different First Nation languages are at risk of extinction. The federal government would have us all believe that have moved on from this so-called legacy of the past and have transitioned into a period of reconciliation. The former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized in Parliament for the harms of residential schools: Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child”. Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country. (PM Stephen Harper) Yet, following this apology, the Conservative government made staggering funding cuts to First Nations and First Nation organizations; and reduced the funds available for First Nation languages. Harper’s empty apology meant that the majority of First Nation languages would continue to be at risk of extinction. However, Harper’s decade of doom was followed by the welcome election promises of the current Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who promised to undo all the harms of the previous Harper government, including the repeal of legislation imposed on First Nations during Harper’s era. Trudeau also promised to implement all the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action and in particular, committed to legislate the formal recognition of Indigenous languages as an Aboriginal right and provide sufficient funding. Where he went wrong was in partnering with an Aboriginal organization – the Assembly of First Nations – to do this work, instead of working with the rights-holders: First Nations and their language experts. What has resulted is Bill C-91 An Act Respecting Indigenous Languages – legislation bountiful in flowery wording and empty on substantive rights. Not the best way to start off 2019 – the year of Indigenous Languages. Bill C-91 was introduced and had its first reading by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism Pablo Rodriguez, on February 5, 2019. The bill went to second reading on February 20, 2019 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the same day. Therein lies the first problem – that this bill is sponsored by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism and being studied by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. First Nation rights are not a matter of Canadian heritage or multi-culturalism. First Nations are not comparable to minorities or ethnic groups. First Nations are the original sovereign Nations of the territories on which Canada now sits with their nation-based laws, customs, practices, governments, economies, trading networks, and military alliances. Their status as sovereign Nations was undisputed and is the reason why treaties were signed. Nations only sign treaties with other Nations – not with subjects, citizens or cultural groups. First Nations were not then, nor are they now mere cultural groups. Trudeau had promised to work together with First Nations on a Nation-to-Nation basis in a way that recognizes First Nation rights and work in partnership, instead of the usual paternalistic, top-down approach. Yet, Bill C-91 is exactly that – top-down legislation drafted with the advice of the AFN, but not the First Nation rights-holders themselves. Worse than that, the bill is not a recognition of the official status of First Nation language rights or a guaranteed minimum level of funding. It reads more like a carefully worded, overly broad, vague set of theoretical aspirations than any legal commitment one could enforce. Even the Indigenous Languages Commissioner as set out in the bill is appointed by, paid by, and can be removed by, Canada; with powers limited to research and advocacy. This is a real missed opportunity for Trudeau who could have worked with First Nations language experts and designed legislation to truly protect First Nation languages and take real steps to undo the devastation done by federal laws and policies. Although there are many problems with the wording in every section of this bill, and there are many legal problems raised with said wording, I have five core concerns. First, there is no specific recognition of First Nation languages as official languages, nor is there a specific First Nation language right that is actually granted or recognized. The bill merely references rights “in relation to” Indigenous languages, but this could mean one’s personal right to speak a language versus the right to receive government services on one’s language, for example. Secondly, there is no specific recognition of First Nation jurisdiction or powers in relation to First Nation languages. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism retains all powers in relation to the bill and any future regulations. My third concern is that there is no specific or firm commitment in relation to funding. The bill provides that the Minister will “establish measures to facilitate the provision” of funding. However, establishing “measures” is not a direct commitment for a specific funding amount or a commitment to whom this funding will flow. This relates to my fourth concern, that the bill promotes a pan-Aboriginal approach that is not First Nation-specific and appears to put other broadly-defined “Indigenous groups” on the same level as First Nations. Under this bill, funds could flow to anyone who incorporated an organization and claimed to be Indigenous – despite their lack of status as actual rights-holders within a specific First Nation territory. Finally, this bill appears to utilize the same federally-controlled legislative framework concept for rights definition, limitation and scoping. Trudeau already had to back away from the federal rights recognition framework already rejected by numerous First Nations and First Nation organizations. Of particular concern is the federal government’s intention to establish a “framework” that is intended to define, limit and determine the scope of the language rights to be exercised, how and by whom, by way of negotiated agreements. While the AFN and the Metis National Council have come out in support of the bill, the Inuit Tapariit Kanatami have been very critical of it, explaining that they feel Canada acted in bad faith, that is not Inuit-specific, and does not protect Inuit language rights. “The absence of any Inuit-specific content suggests this bill is yet another legislative initiative developed behind closed doors by a colonial system and then imposed on Inuit.” (President Natan Obed) It is important to remember that legislation is not legally required for the federal government to provide services in Indigenous languages or to provide funding to First Nations for Indigenous languages. One should always be weary of a government bearing gifts in the form of legislation, as it usually comes with federal control, provisions which limit First Nation rights, and can ultimately be amended or repealed at the will of government. The TRC Calls to Action, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples all provide support for legal recognition and financial support for First Nation languages. That being said, for those First Nations who support federal legislation to enhance the political and legal commitment to First Nation languages, the key moving forward will be in the wording. To make this legislation more helpful than harmful, substantive amendments will be required. Given the speed at which Parliament is moving the study of this legislation, it is unlikely that the majority of First Nations, their representative organizations, and language experts will get their 10-minute opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on much-needed amendments. Perhaps once the bill reaches the Senate, they will embrace their role as the “sober second thought” of government and slow down the process enough to hear from First Nation experts and consider meaningful amendments – assuming there still is a Liberal government after the SNC-Lavalin scandal. * Image is official United Nations logo for the 2019 International Year of Indigenous Languages. **A more detailed analysis to follow.

February 28, 2019
Cannabis legalization ignores First Nations

*This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Jan.30, 2019. For decades, federal and provincial governments, through their local, regional and national police agencies and court systems, have arrested, charged and imprisoned thousands of First Nations people for engaging in the cannabis trade. Many had hoped that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s stated commitment to renewing the relationship with Indigenous peoples and his desire to legalize cannabis would help address many issues, one of which being the crisis-level over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples. Despite legalization of cannabis in 2018, Trudeau’s Liberal government has not yet seen fit to provide relief for Indigenous peoples languishing in prisons for cannabis-related offences. This is disappointing on two fronts: the first being that Trudeau has not kept his promises to Indigenous peoples; and second, that the first ever female Indigenous Justice minister didn’t take steps to get Indigenous peoples out of prison. We know that the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples is a real crisis — one that continues to grow without abatement. Despite being only five per cent of the population in Canada, they represent more than 27 per cent of those in federal prisons. Indigenous women make up a staggering 43 per cent and Indigenous youth are now over 46 per cent of admissions to youth corrections. Yet, even these statistics don’t show the whole picture. The provincial incarceration rates, especially in the Prairies, are astounding. Provincial prisons can be as high as 80 per cent Indigenous peoples and for Indigenous girls in Saskatchewan, that rate is an unbelievable 98 per cent. We also know that more than half of all drug offences in 2016 were cannabis-related (58 per cent) and the majority of the charges were for possession. To say that we have a real incarceration crisis is an understatement, but the limited cannabis legalization scheme, which does not substantively address over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples, is yet another broken promise. While a handful of First Nation businesses have been specifically “permitted” to engage in this new trade, the majority are under a very real risk of legal sanctions — both as individuals and as First Nations — who assert their jurisdiction in this area. It is a cruel colonial irony that the very same people who have been imprisoned for their role in the cannabis trade — First Nations peoples — are now largely prohibited from engaging in the trade without permission from provincial governments. Neither the federal nor provincial governments engaged in nation-to-nation dialogue with First Nations over how to best bring federal, provincial and First Nation laws into harmony in relation to cannabis. Despite the many calls from First Nations for collaboration, First Nations were left out of the legislative drafting process and any good faith attempt to provide a trilateral, good faith path forward. In May 2018, prior to the legalization of cannabis, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal peoples released a report on Bill C-45 An Act Respecting Cannabis and to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and Other Acts, which noted a real lack of “meaningful consultation” with Indigenous peoples and recommended that legalization be delayed for one year. The Standing Senate Committee recommended that Canada use the year to engage in negotiations with First Nations about tax collection and revenue sharing on reserves, recognition of the right of First Nations to enact their own legislation and funding for substance abuse and healing centres. They further recommended that no less than 20 per cent of all cannabis production licences be issued to First Nations. This would have provided sufficient time for First Nations to draft their own laws, rules and regulations and develop their own business policies and public safety protocols. While the Ministers of Health and Indigenous Services penned a letter to Senate claiming that their government “respects the jurisdiction of Indigenous communities”, Justice Canada officials previously clarified in Senate hearings that their position is that First Nations cannot enact by-laws in relation to cannabis on reserve and that provincial laws would apply. The federal government can’t have it both ways. Incredibly, Trudeau has missed yet another opportunity to engage with First Nations on a nation-to-nation basis and decided to forge ahead on cannabis legislation without properly engaging with First Nations or meaningfully considering their inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights to pass their own laws. Instead, the federal government assumes provincial jurisdiction setting the stage for the legislated exclusion of First Nations and conflict on the ground. This isn’t the first time the government of the day has blockaded First Nations from engaging in their own business and trade endeavours to support their communities. It wasn’t that long ago that the Conservative government under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper enacted Bill C-10 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco) to create the new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and prescribed minimum mandatory sentences for repeat offenders. It was very clear that the bill was intended to target First Nations and their long practice of growing, manufacturing and trading in tobacco despite their inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights to do so. The RCMP defined contraband tobacco as product that is primarily manufactured on First Nations reserves. This bill effectively acted as a legal blockade attempting to criminalize First Nations for engaging in their own traditional economies — an economy not even known to Europeans prior to contact. Settler governments have long engaged in the colonization of Turtle Island through the theft of First Nations lands and resources, but also through the appropriation of their lucrative trade practices, products and routes. The criminalization of the tobacco trade for First Nations went hand in hand with the transfer of control and benefit from tobacco to settler governments. It looks like Canada is doing the same thing to First Nations with regards to the cannabis trade. https://pampalmater.com/2018/04/canadas-criminalization-of-indigenous.html While it may or may not have been grown, manufactured and traded traditionally, there is no doubt that this is the modern evolution of the right to trade as outlined in so many Supreme Court of Canada cases like the Van der Peet trilogy and the Sappier and Gray cases. First Nations are not limited to economic practices of pre-contact times or be “frozen in time.” Yet, that is exactly what seems to be happening with the cannabis trade. In fact, it looks like those that are first in line to profit from this new legal trade are the very politicians and police officers that once fought so hard to imprison First Nations for trading in tobacco and now cannabis. Those previously engaged in tobacco and drug enforcement have an unfair advantage of knowing all the confidential intelligence on the drug trade and its key players, as well as where and when to sell product and to whom. On top of this, former cops have connections all over the country, and that alone is an incredible form of advantage and means of intimidating the so-called competition. This gross injustice is now compounded by the fact that only certain businesses will be granted licences and the majority of those licences do not include First Nations or their businesses. According to the federal government’s report to Senate, there are only 5 Indigenous producers out of the 105 in Canada — a far cry from the minimum 20 per cent recommended by Senate. As the most impoverished communities in Canada, First Nations have incredible social pressures on them to find ways to provide for their communities in a legally and politically hostile context. Federal and provincial governments have created legal blockades around most First Nation traditional economies like hunting, fishing and gathering. They have left First Nations with few alternatives. If Trudeau thinks that First Nations will simply shrug their shoulders and move along to a different economic opportunity, he is sadly mistaken. Many First Nations are invested in this trade and will defend their legal right to do so with or without provincial approval. The ability of the police to enforce federal or provincial laws in this regard will be highly suspect given their former colleagues’ involvement in the trade. Would the police be upholding the law or protecting the thin blue line’s new income stream? All of this pending conflict — and there will be conflict — could have been avoided had Trudeau practised what he promised and engaged with First Nations on a nation to nation basis and respected First Nation rights. It’s never too late to act, but with an election just around the corner — it is unlikely Trudeau will rock the boat for all those former cops and Liberal politicians who now stand to make millions from cannabis. *Link to the article as originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/9968/cannabis-legalization-ignores-first-nations-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

January 30, 2019
What You Need to Know About Sharon McIvor’s Major UN Victory on Indian Status

(Picture of Sharon McIvor and I at the United Nations in Geneva)

Sharon McIvor has won yet another landmark legal victory for First Nations women – this time at the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). On January 14, 2019, the UNHRC released their decision which found that Canada still discriminates against “Indian” women and their descendants in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Despite the fact that Sharon had already proven her discrimination case at trial and on appeal here in Canada, the federal government refused to eliminate all the remaining sex discrimination from the Act. This meant that Sharon and her descendants still have lesser or no Indian status as compared to her brother and his descendants – simply based on sex. Sharon was therefore forced to bring a human rights claim to the UNHRC under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UNHRC found Canada had violated Sharon’s human rights and directed Canada to provide an effective remedy for Sharon McIvor, her descendants, and others who have suffered the same discrimination.

It is important to note that Canada is bound by this decision. The ICCPR came into force for Canada on August 19, 1976 and Canada has agreed to be bound by the jurisdiction of the UNHRC to make decisions on matters coming before it. This means that Canada has chosen to be bound by the rights contained within this Covenant for the benefits of all those in Canada. In this case, the UNHRC found that Canada had violated Sharon’s human rights under articles 3 and 26, read in conjunction with article 27 of the ICCPR.

Article 3 guarantees the equal right of men and women to enjoy the rights contained in the ICCPR. Article 26 provides that all people are equal under the law and specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, birth or other status. These two articles were considered in conjunction with article 27 which provides that ethnic minorities within States shall not be denied their right to enjoy their culture in community with other members of their group. The UNHRC found that Canada had violated Sharon’s rights under all three articles and directed Canada to do make “full reparation” to Sharon, her descendants and others in her position. Canada was directed to:

(1)   Register all those like Sharon and her descendants, under section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act;

(2)   Take steps to clean up any residual discrimination within First Nation communities arising from sex discrimination in the Indian Act; and

(3)   Take any additional steps necessary to avoid similar violations in the future.

The federal government has been given a 180 days to inform the UNHRC about how it will implement this decision. The good news is that the federal government has the capacity to comply with the first part of the decision this month. The federal government already drafted amendments to the Indian Act’s registration provisions in Bill S-3 that would remove the remaining sex discrimination raised by Sharon McIvor’s case. The problem is that Parliament didn’t enact those provisions into force. While all the other amendments contained within Bill S-3 were brought into force in 2018, they purposely left our remedy for sex equality for “someday” – a hypothetical right that we can only hope is fulfilled someday. First Nations women deserve better than this.

While the Indian Act’s registration provisions have a long, complicated history, and the various amendments made over time, including Bills C-31, C-3 and the most recent S-3 have created a complex mess of criteria almost impossible to understand; the core issue is simple. Indian women who married non-Indians and their descendants have lesser or no status compared to Indian men who married non-Indians and their descendants. Sex discrimination in federal legislation, like the Indian Act, is against Canadian law as well as international human rights laws to which Canada has agreed to be bound. There is simply no legal justification for continuing to deny the basic right of sex equality to First Nation women and children. To do so makes the federal government an outlaw – both in Canada and internationally.

The question now is whether the self-professed “feminist” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government will abide by the UNHRC decision or continue to violate the core human rights of First Nations women and children. Reconciliation with First Nations demands immediate implementation of this decision, but the Liberal (and Conservative) record is very poor when it comes to respecting the human rights of First Nations women. They have the power to do it – but it always has been, and always will be, a matter of political will.

Sharon has sacrificed more than 33 years to this battle to protect the rights of First Nation women and our children. It is because of Sharon that I have a political voice as a First Nations woman. Implementing this decision will not only mean that my children will finally be able to be registered and included as members of my First Nation, but Sharon and I, and thousands of others like us, will finally be treated equally with our First Nation brothers.

Canada cannot claim to stand as a champion of human rights in the global context while continuing to deny First Nations women and children basic human rights. Reconciliation requires shedding the hypocritical rhetoric and taking action to do what is morally right and legally required.

The world is watching Canada. Here is our press conference calling on Canada to abide by UN decision and end sex discrimination: https://youtu.be/gy9evq7a6hg

Link to the UNHRC decision.

Link to CBC article about the case: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indian-act-sex-discrimination-un-committee-1.4982330

January 21, 2019