Warrior Life Studios

Tag: Aboriginal

Clearing the lands has always been at the heart of Canada’s Indian Policy

*Originally published in Globe & Mail Feb. 27, 2020

CANADA’S INDIAN POLICY HASN’T CHANGED MUCH

After the events of the past few weeks in Canada, one thing remains clear: Canada’s Indian policy hasn’t changed much since its inception. Indian policy has always had two objectives: to obtain Indian lands and resources and to reduce financial obligations to Indigenous peoples acquired through treaties or other means. Its primary methods were elimination or assimilation of Indian

Colonial governments had a long history of scalping bounties to kill specific groups of Indigenous peoples, using small pox blankets to increase death rates from disease and forced sterilizations to reduce the populations. Even Confederation did not dispense with the violent colonization of what would now become known as Canada. Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, told the House of Commons in 1882: “I have reason to believe that the agents as a whole … are doing all they can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense.” Canada was fully engaged in clearing the lands, by any means necessary.

https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/aps/index.php/aps/article/view/22225/pdf_22

RECONCILIATION: THE GOAL IS THE SAME

Now referred to as Indigenous reconciliation, the goal is still the same: to clear the lands of Indigenous peoples in order to bolster settlement and extraction of resources. This singular focus formed the basis of the violent colonization of Indigenous lands and peoples and, ultimately, is why Canada has been accused of genocide by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Canada’s complex set of laws, policies, practices, actions and omissions have created an infrastructure of violence toward Indigenous peoples and the continued dispossession of their lands.

This is at the heart of the devastating socio-economic conditions of many Indigenous peoples today, including multiple health crises such as diabetes, heart disease and strokes, lower life spans, higher rates of mental illness and some of the highest suicide rates in the world. These genocidal policies also serve to remove Indigenous peoples from their lands through high foster care rates, killings and disappearances of Indigenous women and girls and the skyrocketing incarceration rates.

Genocide in Canada

APOLOGIES VERSUS LAND BACK

Despite carefully worded apologies and promises of a better relationship, none of these conditions has changed and, in fact, most are getting worse. Add to this that First Nations have less than 0.02 per cent of all their lands left – mostly in tiny reserves controlled by the federal government. Political rhetoric about supporting Indigenous self-determination means very little when we are denied access to our lands and resources.

We need to be honest about what is going on. There never was any real intention of recognizing Indigenous land rights – whether under Indigenous laws, Section 35 aboriginal and treaty right protections in the Constitution Act, 1982, or by implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It has been painfully clear, at every flashpoint in Canada’s history, that it is willing to starve Indigenous peoples into submission or imprison them to access their lands.

This is at the heart of what is happening across Canada over the past few weeks. The Wet’suwet’en Nation, as represented by their traditional government, acting on Wet’suwet’en laws and decision-making protocols, have said no to pipelines on their traditional territory. While five of the six band councils within the Nation have allegedly agreed to the pipeline, their jurisdiction extends over their reserve lands. It is the hereditary leaders who have the legal jurisdiction over their traditional territory, to decide whether the pipeline can cross their pristine forests and rivers.

https://soundcloud.com/pampalmater/molly-wickham-on-gitdimten-yintah-access

CANADA BREACHS ITS OWN “RULE OF LAW”

The Supreme Court of Canada had already acknowledged in the Delgamuukw case that these were the proper representatives to bring a claim of aboriginal title. Eight of these leaders have said no to the pipeline. Despite this, the RCMP invaded their territory and forcibly removed them from their lands – counter to Wet’suwet’en law, Canadian law and international law. UNDRIP, which is now implemented in British Columbia, prevents the forced removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands. This flagrant breach of Canada’s own rule of law is why the peaceful solidarity actions started all over Canada.

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/mikmaw-treaty-rights-reconciliation-and-the-rule-of-law

This is also why these actions will continue. Every time law enforcement is sent in to the clear the lands of the “Indians” to make way for pipelines and extraction of resources, you will see more and more Indigenous nations and Canadian allies stand against this injustice.

The real issue has always been about the land. The way forward is recognition of our right to be self-determining over our own lands and resources.

Anything less is just the same old Indian policy that invites more uncertainty and social conflict. Canada can do better. It’s time to move past genocide and work toward respect for Indigenous land rights.

#LANDBACK

*This article originally appeared in The Globe and Mail on February 27, 2020 and updated on February 28, 2020 and can be found here:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-clearing-the-lands-has-always-been-at-the-heart-of-canadas-indian/

The blog version has been slightly edited for style and the addition of resources.

August 1, 2021
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
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
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
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
The Indigenous right to say no

(photo by Michelle Girouard)

This article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily on October 12, 2018.

The federal government recently announced that it will not appeal the court decision which quashed Canada’s approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Instead, Canada will engage with the 117 impacted First Nations in a consultation process led by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci.

If ever there was a sign that the government was going to force this pipeline expansion through the review process, this is it. After all, federal elections are just around the corner and Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has become the face of the Trans Mountain pipeline dispute and all the broken promises that it entails.

Being criticized from all sides — the provinces, industry, Canadians and Indigenous peoples, and now the Federal Court of Appeal — Trudeau decided to bring out the big guns: Iacobucci.

There is little doubt that he was engaged to lead this process to ensure that the technical aspects of consultations are met, thus insulating the government from an appeal of its decision. Even the most trusting person would be hard pressed to believe that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) would hear an appeal about Iacobucci’s consultation process let alone consider it in a truly neutral fashion.

Even if I am wrong about this, what kind of message does this send to First Nations who have been taking their cases to the SCC in the hopes of fair and impartial consideration for decades? Will they now wonder if their cases will be heard by justices who, after they retire will work with governments against their interests?

Remember that conflict of interest is not only the presence of an actual conflict, but also reflects the appearance of conflict. Justice Canada describes judicial independence as the “cornerstone of the Canadian judicial system” and refers to the clear separation of government and the courts. While some might argue he is no longer a sitting justice and may be perfectly legal and ethical according to the rules of ethics of the federal government and even law societies — it still doesn’t feel right. In law school, we learned that lawyers are duty bound to uphold the honour of the legal profession while at work and in our personal lives — even after retirement.

To my mind, Iacobucci carries with him the honour of Canada’s highest court in all his actions, even after retirement. While this may not be a legal ethic issue, it is certainly a moral one. With all due respect, joining the federal side of this pipeline dispute feels a lot like taking sides against First Nations. It feels like a betrayal.

This is a similar story of betrayal that many First Nations feel when the RCMP takes the side of government in every single conflict between government laws and Aboriginal rights. The mandate of the RCMP is to not only prevent crimes and maintain peace and order, but also enforce laws.

According to Canadian law, the Constitution is the highest law in the land. In theory, First Nations should be able to seek the assistance of the RCMP to protect their constitutional rights from being breached by governments or industry. Instead, the RCMP seems to always abide by the will of government and stop us from exercising our rights and/or provide physical protection and security for the extractive industry to allow them to breach our rights.

The government is using these national institutions, the RCMP and the courts, against us to force the expansion of this pipeline. The RCMP arrested land and water defenders in B.C. and now a former SCC justice will be used to insulate Trudeau’s future approval of the pipeline expansion.

Therein lies the real injustice of this process. Regardless of whether the new consultations are led by a former SCC justice or Trudeau himself, Canada has already decided that the pipeline will be built, before ever talking to any of the impacted First Nations, including those that have asserted Aboriginal title. This renders our constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights meaningless. What legal value is the federal government’s constitutional obligation to consult, accommodate and obtain the consent of First Nations before taking actions that would impact our rights and title, if “consent” is interpreted as the right to say yes but excludes the right to say no? It makes no logical sense to interpret the law in such a way, especially to a constitutionally protected right.

Imagine if consent was interpreted this way in both the ordinary and legal understanding of the word consent. When a school sends home a permission form seeking a parent’s consent to allow their child to take a field trip, if the parent does not give consent, the school cannot allow the child to participate. Similarly, if a patient refuses to give consent to an operation to have their hip replaced, then the doctor cannot perform the operation. The absence of consent means no — in other words, a veto that has real legal power and meaning. Imagine if consent was interpreted in this illogical and diminished manner for sexual relations as it is for Aboriginal rights. Imagine if sexual consent in law meant that a man could consult with the woman on whether she wanted sexual relations, and was even willing to accommodate (“where appropriate”) her wishes about how to have sexual relations, but she had no right to say no — no veto over whether or not sexual relations occurred? That is called sexual assault and it is a crime.

The greatest injustices that have ever been committed against First Nations in Canada have resulted from denying the sovereign right of our Nations to say no. The right to have a real veto over infecting our blankets with smallpox; from scalping our people; from stealing our children and raping, murdering and torturing them in residential schools; sterilizing our women and girls; from the forced adoptions of our children into white families during the Sixties Scoop; to the murders and disappearances of our women and girls; to forced human trafficking and now the destruction of our lands and waters for profit.

The right to say no is an inherent part of the legal concept of consent. To interpret this concept otherwise is racist, discriminatory and self-serving, not unlike the doctrines of discovery and terra nullius. Surely, even the SCC would not interpret their own decisions in such an impoverished manner. To do so would render s. 35 an empty shell of a constitutional promise.

No former SCC justice should take part in such an exercise as between Canada and First Nations. I think the honourable thing for the former justice to do would be to withdraw from the process. It might just help even the playing field in a game which is already skewed by a major imbalance of power.

The link to the original article published by The Lawyer’s Daily on October 12, 2018

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7537/the-indigenous-right-to-say-no-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

We should also be able to exercise our right to say no to Trudeau’s proposed legislative framework that will impact our rights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Z3579b20c&t=2s

October 12, 2018
It’s up to Indigenous, environmental groups to protect the public interest

This article is Part 2 of a 2-part series which was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 17, 2018. The link to Part 1 which was published Sept.11, 2018 is provided below.

Despite objections from some of the Indigenous groups about the consultation process, the Federal Court of Appeal (in Tsleil-Waututh Nation et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) 2018 FCA 153) held that Canada acted in good faith and that the consultation framework it used was appropriate.

This was a four-phase process which was to include (1) early engagement, (2) NEB hearing, (3) governor-in-council consideration and (4) regulatory authorization processes.

Where Canada fell down was in Phase III of the consultation process in that it did not meaningfully consider the concerns of the Indigenous groups or attempt to accommodate or mitigate those concerns. There was no substantive discussion about Indigenous rights and the FCA found that federal officials did little more than act as “note-takers”. The court agreed with the Indigenous groups that Canada’s notes, referred to as the Consultation Chronologies, “should be approached with caution” for failing to accurately present the facts.

When pressed by Indigenous groups for a response, federal officials merely repeated the line that they would deliver their concerns to the decision makers. When it finally did come time for a response, Canada informed the groups that it was bound by the recommendations of the NEB and that it was in effect, powerless to add any more conditions on the project. A surprising response given the fact that the FCA had already decided in the Gitxaala Nation case (Gitxaala Nation v. Canada 2016 FCA 187) that under the current legislative scheme, the only decision maker was in fact the governor-in-council and not the NEB.

The Department of Justice is the largest law firm in Canada, working exclusively on behalf of the federal government — it had no excuse for its “erroneous position.” The FCA held that the duty to consult is not met by the mere exchange or discussing of information. Consultation has to focus on constitutionally protected rights and in so doing Canada is obligated to “substantially address the concerns of the First Nation” (from Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) 2005 SCC 69. This coupled with the fact of Canada’s late disclosures, lack of responses, failure to provide more time and “closed-mindedness” frustrated the consultation process. It is Canada’s actions or lack thereof which is why the Federal Court of Appeal overturned its decision.

So, what now? Well, this is far from over. The FCA has ordered that the decision is quashed and the approval must go back to the governor-in-council for reconsideration. As part of that reconsideration, the GIC must refer the NEB’s recommendations back to the NEB. Canada must also redo its Phase III consultations and accommodations before the GIC can reconsider the approval for the pipeline expansion.

Of great concern is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s comments that Canada is considering the possibility of an appeal of this decision or legislation to force the pipeline project through.

Whether Canada chooses to abide by the decision or not, what we know for sure is that Canada will forge ahead with the pipeline despite the fact that the impact of a tanker spill on the southern resident killer whales would be “catastrophic” and “there were no direct mitigation measures that Trans Mountain could apply to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects from Project-related tankers”. Perhaps Tahlequah (the female southern resident killer whale who recently carried her deceased calf for 17 days) was mourning for all us.

However, there is a new complication to Canada’s pipeline plans. Six conservation groups, including the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Ecojustice, David Suzuki Foundation, Georgia Strait Alliance, Natural Resources Defence Council and the World Wildlife Fund have filed a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking an emergency order to protect the southern resident killer whales.

Indigenous peoples will also have to decide how to proceed to protect their lands, waters and the other life within their territories which depends on a healthy eco-system — including killer whales.

What we know for sure is that we cannot count on either federal or provincial governments to put the health of peoples, lands, waters, plants or animals ahead of the money to be made from the extractive industry. As the FCA held, the public interest and the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples are not in conflict. To the contrary, the violation of the “constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples cannot serve the public interest”.

Looks like it is up to Indigenous peoples and environmental allies to protect the public interest and our collective futures — including Tahlequah’s and the future of her pod.

This article is Part 2 of a 2-part series that was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 17, 2018.

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7326/it-s-up-to-indigenous-environmental-groups-to-protect-public-interest-pamela-palmater?category=opinion.

The link to Part 1 which was published Sept.11, 2018 is at this link:

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7294/killer-whales-trans-mountain-pipeline-and-the-public-interest-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

My Youtube video on this issue provides more detailed information about the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HQfOctnT7o

September 17, 2018
Killer Whales, Trans Mountain Pipeline and the Public Interest

This article is Part 1 of a 2 part series which was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 11, 2018. Part 2 will be published in a few days.

Tahlequah’s “tour of grief” which saw one of the female southern resident killer whales (referred to by scientists as J-35) carry her deceased calf for 17 days was an unprecedented show of grief for the death of her calf. It is also a sad reminder of the fact that these endangered whales have had no successful births for three years. Her visible mourning tore at the heartstrings of many Americans, Canadians and especially Indigenous peoples who know all too well the pain of losing their children. While it is not uncommon for a killer whale to hold her deceased calf for a few hours or a day, this show of extended grief was the first time observed by scientists.

Some wonder whether Tahlequah’s actions were not a call for help given that there are only 75 whales left and the proposed increase in tanker traffic from the Trans Mountain pipeline threatens to wipe them out for good. Indigenous Nations in Canada and several conservation groups filed applications against Canada’s decision to approve the pipeline in the hopes of saving these whales and all life in the surrounding eco-system.

On Aug. 30, 2018, Justice Eleanor Dawson delivered the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) quashing Canada’s approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion (Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) 2018 FCA 153). From the moment the decision was released, there was more shock and awe to go around than had the court pronounced that the earth was flat. While the controversy generated from that decision has been quite dramatic, the decision is far less apocalyptic than most might think.

Ultimately, this decision to quash the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion reflected principles espoused by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) for the last two decades. No new law was created — it was a case which reflected the current legal status quo.

This case — unlike the raging fires in British Columbia or the melting of the ice in the Arctic — is rather non-calamitous; unless of course you consider the fate of the southern resident killer whale or the health of the Indigenous lands and waters upon which this pipeline will wreak havoc. That is because despite the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the decision in this instance, it also set up the conditions for which the federal government can approve the pipeline in the future. So, while Prime Minister Trudeau moans about how “hurt” he is by the decision, and while the extractive industry goes into full panic mode, the only ones who need to be worried here are the Indigenous peoples and their conservation allies who will now face the full wrath of the oil industry and its federal and provincial cheerleaders.

Here’s how it all started: On Dec. 16, 2013 (under the Harper government) Trans Mountain submitted an application to the National Energy Board (NEB) for a certificate to allow the expansion project to proceed. After several years of review, on May 19, 2016, the NEB recommended to the governor-in-council that the pipeline expansion be approved. Six months later, on Nov. 29, 2016, the governor-in-council (cabinet) (under the Trudeau government) accepted the NEB’s recommendation and issued an order-in-council to that effect. The appeals of this decision were heard at the FCA in October of 2017 and the court issued its decision almost a year later in August 2018.

This case involves individual applications by five First Nation collectives, two of B.C.’s largest cities, and two conservation groups asking the Federal Court of Appeal to overturn Canada’s decision to approve the pipeline expansion. The respondents in the case were the Attorney General of Canada, the NEB and the Trans Mountain Pipeline company. The FCA consolidated the applications into one to be heard together.

While the applicants made various arguments challenging different aspects of the decision-making process, the FCA determined that the only “decision” that was under review was the decision of the governor-in-council to approve the expansion. That decision was challenged on two primary grounds (1) the NEB’s process and resulting report were flawed and (2) Canada did not fulfil its duty to consult with Indigenous peoples.

The primary reason why the FCA found that the NEB’s process was flawed was because it “unjustifiably defined the scope of the Project under review not to include Project-related tanker traffic”. Specifically, the NEB excluded the impact of increased marine traffic on the B.C. coast on the southern resident killer whales, which are an endangered species, was not properly considered within its assessment of the impacts of the project. This is despite the fact that they had already acknowledged that the increase in large tanker traffic “would contribute to the total cumulative effects on the Southern resident killer whales, and would further impede the recovery of that species” and that “Southern resident killer whales are an endangered species”.

They further acknowledged that: “… the operation of Project-related marine vessels is likely to result in significant adverse effects to the Southern resident killer whale, and that it is likely to result in significant adverse effects on Aboriginal cultural uses associated with these marine mammals”.

The FCA noted that Project-related tankers carry the risk of significant, if not catastrophic, adverse environmental and socio-economic effects should a spill occur”. Ultimately, the governor-in-council could not rely on such a deficient report in order to make its decision.

The other ground challenging the validity of the decision was the finding that Canada did not fulfil its duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples’ legitimate concerns about the impact of the pipeline on their territories and their constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights and title.

Specifically, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation asserted Aboriginal title to the land, water, air and marine resources. The Squamish Nation asserted Aboriginal title, Aboriginal rights, the right to be self-governing and the right to fish. The Coldwater Band asserted Aboriginal rights and title, as did the Sto:lo Collective, Upper Nicola Band and Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc — all within their respective territories. They had all engaged in Canada’s consultation processes despite the limited funding to participate, the brief timelines and the consistent failure of federal officials to respond to their concerns.

In the end, the facts clearly show it was the First Nations groups who were acting in good faith, despite Canada’s less than honorable actions.

This is the first of a two-part series.

This article is Part 1 of a 2 part series which was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 11, 2018. Part 2 will be published in a few days. The original link for Part 1 can be found here:

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7294/killer-whales-trans-mountain-pipeline-and-the-public-interest-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

You can also watch the CBC panel where we discussed the implications of this case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kutq9mleRTA&t=28s Here is the link to my Youtube video breaking down the decision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HQfOctnT7o

September 11, 2018
Justice for Our Stolen Children Camp – Thank you for Standing Up for our Children

The violent deaths of Colten Boushie in Saskatchewan and Tina Fontaine in Manitoba hit their families, communities and First Nations pretty hard. These were youths who had their whole lives ahead of them. The fact that deep-seated institutional and societal racism and violence against Indigenous peoples is what led to their deaths is a glaring injustice that we have seen happen many times over to our people. But the other glaring injustice is how institutional and societal racism and violence allows the killers of our people to walk free. The high level of impunity for lethal race-based violence against Indigenous peoples serves only to reinforce the racist idea that Indigenous lives don’t matter. Without intervention from federal, provincial and municipal governments, agencies and police forces, our people will continue to be at risk.

Canada’s failure to act on this crisis means that First Nations must continue to take action to stand against these injustices which are killing our people. At a time when our hearts were collectively breaking over the non-guilty verdicts in the Gerald Stanley murder trial of Colten Boushie and the Raymond Cormier murder trial of Tina Fontaine, First Nation members from Saskatchewan got together and created the Justice for Our Stolen Children Camp. On February 28, 2018, they raised a traditional teepee and lit a sacred fire in Treaty 4 territory at Wascana Park, just across from the Saskatchewan Legislative building. These grassroots community members used their most powerful tool to bring attention to this crisis – their voices and their traditions.

But the teepee and the sacred fire not only attracted media attention for our issues, but it also turned into something special. This camp became a gathering place for those who had lost children to violence, foster care and the justice system. Mothers, fathers, aunties and cousins with broken hearts came to the camp to share their stories, release their emotions and start their healing journeys. Far from creating any safety risk to the public, this camp offered hope, comfort, solidarity, a sense of collectiveness and empowerment. The longer the camp remained at Wascana Park, the more the media took notice and started to highlight the many injustices faced by First Nations. The core message from the camp was that we need justice specifically for Indigenous youth in the wake of the Stanley and Cormier not guilty verdicts; and justice for the many Indigenous children stolen from our communities by child welfare agencies, the justice system and societal violence.

For many months, it may have appeared to outsiders looking in, that they were alone and that their camp would eventually fade from attention. They occupied the area peacefully for four months, supported by donations from First Nations and allies. It wasn’t until the Province of Saskatchewan thought the camp would interfere with its planned location for its Canada Day beer gardens that they took legal action. On June 5, the camp was issued and eviction order and ten days later, the Regina Police Service began their eviction procedures by removing the tents. On June 17 the teepee was taken down and on June 18 six of the campers were arrested and removed from the area, though charges were never laid. Many of us watched with anger as the province carried out this heavy-handed action, trampling over the wounded hearts of those who have found some temporary peace at the camp – all for the sake of beer gardens.

But if there is one lesson from our elders that we have to remember, is that we can never give up hope. Our ancestors died protecting the rights of future generations not yet born. We inherited the obligation to face each barrier put in front of us by colonial powers, with the same commitment to overcoming it, as our ancestors had. So, on June 21 National Indigenous Peoples Day, when we saw videos of the campers returning to Wascana Park, re-erecting the teepee and joining together in a round dance, our collective hearts were lifted again – this time with a renewed sense of resistance and empowerment. On June 23^rd, a second teepee was erected and others joined in solidarity after that until there were many teepees side by side. People made donations of cash, food and water to support the campers and the healing continued. We owe so much to the spirit and determination of those who have stayed at the camp for long. Their commitment is why we are still talking about justice for our stolen children.

There is a real and growing crisis in Saskatchewan that demands an emergency, crisis-level joint response by federal, provincial and First Nation governments, experts and advocates. It doesn’t matter what the federal or provincial governments say they have done, what programs they have funded, or who they talk to at various discussion tables – what matters is that what they have done to date has not worked and the crisis continues to get worse. Therefore, a radical shift from the status quo is required to save the lives of our children. They don’t have a whole childhood to wait for the slow, drawn-out process of policy change. Our children are dying and the statistics present a dire picture for their life-chances if we don’t change this now.

Child Welfare

In Canada, Indigenous peoples make up 5% of the population and Indigenous youth make up 7% of the youth population. Nationally, Indigenous children make up 48% of all children in foster care – a number that is 3 times higher than during the height of residential schools. However, in Saskatchewan, an alarming more than 70% of children in provincial care are Indigenous and the numbers continue to increase. We know that less than half of those children will graduate from highschool and more likely to end up in youth corrections. The statistics also show that that Indigenous girls in foster care are 4 times more likely to be sexually abused; more likely to be targeted for human sex trafficking and are over-represented in murdered and missing Indigenous girls. The theft of our children into foster care does not just impact the children. Indigenous mothers who lose their children to foster care are more likely to die from heart disease and suicide.

Justice System – Prison

Canada has had the lowest crime rate since 1969 with a reduction of 34% since 1998. Yet Indigenous people make up more than 26% of those in federal prisons and Indigenous women make up 34%. Saskatchewan’s numbers are frightening. Over 76% of admissions to Saskatchewan prisons are Indigenous – the highest rates in Canada. Nationally, 41% of youth in corrections are Indigenous, with 51% being Indigenous girls. In Saskatchewan youth corrections, 92% are Indigenous boys and 98% are Indigenous girls. They have the highest youth incarceration rates in the entire country. More than 1/5 of Indigenous prisoners were in residential schools and 2/3 were in the child welfare system. It is important to remember that Indigenous peoples represent 1/3 of all suicides in prison and more than half of those who suffer in solitary confinement/segregation.

Violence – State & Societal

In 1996, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples noted that racism is rampant from police forces to the courts. Saskatchewan policing in particular has a long, violent history of racism against Indigenous peoples. In 2004, the Saskatchewan Commission on First Nations and Metis Peoples and Justice Reform found that racism in policing was a “major obstacle” in relations with First Nations. The well-known police practice of “Starlight Tours” where police detain and drive Indigenous men to the outskirts of town where they freeze to death doesn’t seem to have ended with the Neil Stonechild inquiry. Indigenous women are often targeted with sexualized violence – including from police. The Human Rights Watch report from 2017 documented instances of excessive use of force, abusive strip searches and other sexual harassment against Indigenous women. The statistics also show that Saskatchewan has the highest rate of police involved deaths (beatings, chokings, shootings) of Indigenous peoples (62.5%).

The RCMP report into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls showed that nationally Indigenous women and girls make up 16% of those murdered, but in Saskatchewan, that number jumps to 55%. Societal violence comes from the places most people do not suspect: priests, farmers, police, corrections, doctors, lawyers, judges, social workers, teachers, and foster parents. Very few of those who sexually violate or murder Indigenous women and girls are serial killers. The statistics also show they are less likely to be murdered by their spouse than Canadian women. The high level of impunity (non-conviction) for those perpetrators in society who continue to commit violence against Indigenous peoples is exacerbated by the many reports that document how police fail to protect Indigenous peoples or properly investigate their cases.

We have a real crisis in Saskatchewan. What has been done isn’t working. We need a new approach – one that is led by First Nations and their experts and advocates. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the campers at the Justice for Our Stolen Children Camp who have sacrificed their time and energy, and risked police arrest and jail, to keep the light on this crisis. We don’t want to lose any more of our children and we want to bring the rest of our children who are in foster care, corrections, trapped by human traffickers, or missing – back home. Bring our children home.

In memory of all those precious lives those and sadly, too many to name:

Neil Stonechild, Leo Lachance, William Kakakaway, Leonard Paul John, Colten Boushie

Nadine Machiskinic, Shelley Napope, Melanie Dawn Geddes, Amber Redman, Danita Bigeagle

Haven Dubois, Brandon-Bee Ironchild, Evander Lee Daniels

Please see my YouTube video that I have created in support of the Justice for Our Stolen Children Camp:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mYjduyt4Jw

August 23, 2018