Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: criminalization

  • My Brief for the Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations of Canada: Clarifications Related to Canada’s Testimony

    My Brief for the Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations of Canada: Clarifications Related to Canada’s Testimony

    Corporate Social Responsibility

    In the review, Canada stated that international treaties ratified by Canada are not binding law in Canada. Canada also stated that Canadian companies doing business abroad are expected to demonstrate Canadian values and follow applicable human rights laws. However, if the State does not consider ICCPR applicable law in Canada, then its corporate entities would have no reason to respect the human rights contained therein.  I would thus recommend that the Committee both clarify the UN’s position in this regard and recommend to Canada to specifically implement the ICCPR into domestic law.

    Gender Equality

    In the review Canada stated that it is committed to gender equality and claimed that women make 91% of what men make. In fact, the national wage gap in Canada is 18%, much higher than other countries. In some provinces like Ontario, that gap can reach 31%. The gap is significantly higher for Indigenous peoples at 30% compared to average Canadian, and in some areas of Canada, the gap is as high as 88%. 

    I would recommend that the Committee recommend that Canada undertake specific measures and develop specific targets and measures to address sex discrimination generally and the wage gap specifically.

    The Federal Court of Appeal in McIvor case confirmed gender discrimination, but Canada enacted Bill C-3 without consulting with First Nations, and which specifically denied any compensation for Indigenous women impacted. Indigenous women and descendants are the only group in Canada that has ever been denied compensation for a Charter right violation. 

    The Committee should also recommend that Canada negotiate a compensation package for all the Indigenous women and their descendants reinstated by Bill C-3 for loss of services (education, housing, health benefits, training). 

    Violence against Indigenous Women

    Canada stated that one measure to combat violence against Indigenous women are the 40 shelters on reserve. It should be noted that there are 633 reserves in Canada, which means there are shelters in less than 6% of on-reserve communities. Canada also portrayed the crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women as one of crime, when domestic and UN reports have confirmed the root causes are in Canada’s discriminatory laws and policies, the culture of violence against Indigenous women, and the chronic and discriminatory underfunding of essential human services, like food, water, housing, education and health. 

    I would recommend that the Committee support the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, IACHR and CEDAW to develop a national action plan to address the socio-economic conditions which result in the disproportionate vulnerability to violence in partnership with Indigenous communities and Indigenous women’s organizations and commit to a national inquiry.

    Indigenous Children in Care

    Canada submitted that it does not know what factors are at play to explain the gross over-representation of Indigenous children in state care. 50% of all children in care in Canada are Indigenous, despite being only 4% of the population and represent 90% of children in care in provinces like Manitoba. Canada’s own studies have shown that the root causes are poverty, the chronic underfunding of child and family services for First Nations on reserve, inter-generational trauma from residential schools and state discrimination. 

    I would recommend that the Committee recommend that Canada fund Indigenous Child and Family Services at levels no less than provincial levels, with extra funding to address the backlog and volume of cases and for additional Indigenous staff, training, and infrastructure for CFS services on reserve with a focus of keeping children in their families, communities and cultures.

    Indian Act Sex Discrimination

    Canada stated in its response to the List of Issues at para.125 that: “the Indian registration provisions in the current Indian Act do not discriminate against women”. When questioned by Committee about unresolved sex discrimination in the Act, it responded that Bill C-3 was “a step forward” and “no one sees it as anywhere near being concluded”, but that Canada prefers an “incremental approach”. This is not a good faith application of either domestic or international law obligations in relation to gender equality. Practically, this means Canada prefers to defend lengthy and costly law suits which take upwards of 25 years to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no justifiable reason for Indigenous women and their descendants to wait 139 years for the Act to be slowly amended to eliminate gender discrimination. 

    Indigenous women and their descendants are already impoverished and without Indian status, miss out on health benefits, post-secondary education, and other social programs critical to their health, safety, and well-being; which we already know makes them vulnerable to violence. Canada also stated that they have a “Special Rapporteur” that is currently “consulting” with First Nations on how to clean up the Indian Act discrimination. This is simply not true – and if it has done so, they have not informed anyone. 

    I would recommend that the Committee recommend to Canada that it amend the Indian Act to eliminate all sex discrimination in the Indian Act’s registration provisions and it could start by immediately by amending the registration provisions as follows:

    (a)    remove the 1951 cut-off and ensure that all direct descendants on the female Aboriginal line, born prior to April 17, 1985, are accorded the same 6(1) status as the descendants on the male line;

    (b)   ensure that no one born prior to April 17, 1985 who is entitled to status is consigned to s. 6(2) status;

    (c)    ensure that entitlement to 6(1) status is extended to the female child of the status man and non-status woman who were unmarried; and

    (d) all administrative barriers are removed so that unmarried status Indian women are able to transmit their Indian status to their children, even if the father is unstated.

    Police Misconduct

    In responding to various concerns raised in Committee related to sex discrimination, violence against Indigenous women, and police misconduct, Canada failed to mention the major class action suit filed against the RCMP by female staff and officers for sex discrimination. It failed to mention the Human Rights Watch report which documented instances of RCMP sexually and physically assaulted Indigenous girls. It also did not mention the Donald Marshall Inquiry, Manitoba Justice Inquiry or Ipperwash Inquiry which all found that racism against Indigenous peoples in Canada’s police forces is a major problem that has yet to be addressed. 

    I would recommend that the Committee recommend that Canada develop a more robust and transparent oversight mechanism for all police forces that is completely independent from both political and police interference which a specific focus on and Indigenous ombudsperson for Indigenous peoples.

    UNDRIP

    In the review, Canada did not orally respond to the question in committee about whether Canada has changed domestic law and policy to align with its endorsement of UNDRIP. In Canada’s Statement of Support it states: (1) it is an aspirational document (2) it’s not legally binding in Canada (3) it does not reflect customary international law (4) it does not change Canadian law. When former Minister of Indian Affairs John Duncan was questioned on the impact of UNDRIP, he responded that Canada has its “own agenda” and as a result does not “anticipate any significant change”. Canada’s endorsement of UNDRIP is not done in good faith or with intention to have any practical effect. 

    I would thus recommend that the Committee recommend to Canada that Canada implement the UNDRIP in good faith.

    Indigenous Languages

    In the review, Canada stated that the reason for Indigenous language loss included migration and the media. The real cause of language loss stems from Canada’s assimilatory laws and policies, like residential schools, which tortured, abused and shamed children for speaking their languages. Indigenous languages were literally beaten out of many generations of Indigenous children. Canada admitted this in its residential school apology: “The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language.”

    Immediately after this apology, Canada cut funding to Indigenous languages further exacerbating the problem. Canada’s legal and economic promotion and support of English and French has not been extended to the same degree for Indigenous languages and they have no data to show that their minimal efforts in this regard have increased language use. In fact, Canada’s $5 million/year language budget amounts to less than $5 per Indigenous person in Canada annually. It is simply impossible to save languages at this token level. 

    I would recommend that the Committee supports the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Report and recommend that Canada provide immediate and significant funding to First Nations on par with funding that supports English and French languages, to ensure immersion and adult programs in every First Nation in Canada.

    Submitted by Dr. Pamela D. Palmater, Mi’kmaw Nation, sponsored by Franciscans International, on July 9, 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland.

     Note:

                                  (Some of the NGOs in Geneva Switzerland)

    After hearing a great deal of misinformation and non-answers from Canada during the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s review of Canada’s obligations under ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights); some of the NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) that attended asked if we could submit clarifications to the committee before they conclude their review. We were given permission to do so, and some of us submitted briefs which were to be no longer than one page. My original submission contains footnotes and links to sources not provided here.

    Some of the other NGO’s (like FAFIA and Amnesty International), made clarifications and recommendations related to various issues, some of which included:

    – addressing homelessness as part of the right to life;

    – insufficient review and oversight of security and law enforcement under Bill C-51; 

    – the need to support unanimous recommendations by all international human rights bodies recommending a national inquiry and action plan on murdered and missing Indigenous women; 

    – need to Canada to respect laws related to free, informed and prior consent of Indigenous peoples for land use, including extractive industries;

    –  removal of sex discrimination from the Indian Act registration provisions; and 

    – clarifications around the skewed RCMP statistics which try to paint a discriminatory picture of Indigenous peoples.

    Canada was given 48 hours to submit written material to supplement their oral testimony. The Committee’s conclusions are due July 23, 2015.

  • My Submission to United Nations Human Rights Committee on Canada’s Human Rights Violations

    My Submission to United Nations Human Rights Committee on Canada’s Human Rights Violations

    Statement of Pamela Palmater

    to the

    114th Human Rights Committee Session:

    Formal Briefing on Canada

    (July 6, 2015 Geneva, Switzerland)

    Kwe, n’in teluisi Pam Palmater. I am from the sovereign Indigenous Nation of the Mi’kmaq in Mi’kma’ki, Canada. I am here as an impacted Indigenous individual thanks to the support of Franciscans International. Today I would like to testify to three urgent situations related to Canada’s obligations under the Covenant which are also raised in the joint submission presented by the NGO Mining Working Group in response to the List of Issues which I fully support:

    First, the criminalization of Indigenous peoples in Canada for our human rights advocacy and defense of our lands.

    Federal and provincial laws and regulations have criminalized Indigenous peoples’ traditional occupations and trade economies by making it illegal to hunt, fish, gather or use our natural resources within our traditional, treaty, title, trapping or reserve lands. Engaging in Indigenous rights advocacy or defense of the environment to protect the health of our lands, waters, plants, animals and people also results in our public vilification, beatings, arrests, imprisonment, and/or deaths.

    The incarceration rate for Indigenous peoples is 10 times higher than the national average. Since 2000, the Indigenous inmate population has increased by over 56% and in some prisons, represent as much as 65% of the inmate population. The Government’s own studies have consistently concluded that it is the result of racism in Canada’s justice system.

    The recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Act (C-51) threatens to treat peaceful Indigenous activists as potential terrorists. There are several examples in which Canada’s Ministers, military, and RCMP have already labelled First Nations as “insurgents”, “eco-terrorists” and “threats to national security.” Given this context, we feel that we will be targeted under this law if we continue our traditional practices.

    Second, the Committee ought to emphasize the growing crisis of poverty and discriminatory treatment of Indigenous peoples.

    Despite being less than 4% of the population, Indigenous children make up nearly 50% of all children in state care (90% in Manitoba). 73% of all water systems in First Nations are at high risk – for those that have running water. The majority of houses on reserve are in need of major repair and/or overcrowded (upwards of 25 people to a home). Indigenous peoples suffer higher rates of ill health, accidents, and injuries and have some of the highest suicide rates in the world. Indigenous women and girls are over-represented in those that are murdered or missing – 16% nationally, but as high as 55% in provinces like Saskatchewan. Indigenous peoples have lower rates of education and employment and live 7-20 years less than Canadians.

    As different UN mechanisms have consistently found, this crisis is particularly jarring in a wealthy and highly developed country like Canada – especially since the majority of the wealth comes from Indigenous lands.The situation is aggravated by the Government’s failure to protect Indigenous peoples’ rights, to remedy harms, and to properly fund Indigenous institutions.

    Third and finally, I emphasize Canada’s failure to consult with Indigenous peoples regarding legislation and actions impacting Indigenous lands and waters.

    Despite decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada directing Canada to consult, accommodate, and obtain the consent of Indigenous peoples, Canada has unilaterally limited debate and refused to consult with Indigenous peoples on legislation which impacts our inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights.

    Peaceful civil actions by Indigenous peoples to protect lands and waters from clear-cutting, mining, hydro-fracking or pipelines are met with heavy RCMP intervention. State law enforcement is used to protect state subsidized corporations to engage in the extraction of Indigenous lands, waters and resources without our consent, to our social and economic detriment, to the destruction of our lands and waters and in violation of our human rights.

    Together with the NGO Mining Working Group, I urge the Committee to consider the following recommendations for Canada:

    (1) Repeal Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism Act and all recent legislation unilaterally imposed on Indigenous peoples and start a comprehensive study and consultative process in partnership with Indigenous peoples;

    (2) Develop independent and more robust oversight, reporting, and redress mechanisms for Canada’s national security activities, law enforcement, and surveillance of Indigenous peoples and other environmental and human rights defenders;

    (3) Take all measures necessary to ensure that all domestic and international extractive activities by Canadian corporations comply with human rights obligations, including obtaining the free, informed and prior consent of Indigenous peoples;

    (4) Provide adequate funding to Indigenous peoples to address the multiple, over-lapping crises in education, health, housing, food, water, infrastructure, flooding;

    (5) Take emergency action to address structural discrimination especially the over-representation of Indigenous children in care; murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls; and the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples; and

    (6) Implement treaties, address outstanding claims of lands and resources; and develop a more equitable revenue sharing structure in partnership with Indigenous peoples.

    (    Note:        

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

           The Committee only allows 3 minutes to present. Therefore, all presenters had to pick only 2 or 3 core issues to discuss. I could not read the entirety of even this small submission, so I hit the highlights of the issue and read the recommendations. Sharon McIvor was there to make a submission on two issues: murdered and missing Indigenous women and sex discrimination against Indigenous women and their descendants in the Indian Act registration provisions. Art Manuel presented on self-determination and Canada’s failures in this regard. Amnesty International spoke on a variety of issues, one of which was Bill C-51 and recommending its repeal. f

  • My Response to Questions from Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-51

    *Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome and thank you to both of our witnesses this morning.  I want to start with Ms. Palmater. I’ve been in this business for more than 30 years as well. I’ve been called many names, too. All of our protests and challenges posed by aboriginal peoples in this country are always related to the economy of this country: resource development is, of course, an important aspect to all of that. The far-reaching proposed provisions in Bill C-51 are therefore somewhat a direct threat to section 35 rights. National Chief Bellegarde recommended that we scrap this bill. You say that this bill must be withdrawn because it’s not fixable. I happen to agree with that. For 150 years in the history of this country, governments have always been adversaries to aboriginal peoples in this country. We both know that. What we’ve always considered as rights issues have always been viewed or treated as police issues or law and order issues, on the other hand—by successive provincial, federal, and municipal governments, I might add. Will this proposed legislation make matters worse or better for indigenous peoples in this country, and why?  Dr. Pamela Palmater: Thank you for your question. It’s an important one because, as I stated, it doesn’t just impact indigenous peoples, it impacts the rest of Canada: environmentalists, unions, women’s groups, children’s advocates. We have to get real about what is the clear and present danger here. How many Canadians on Canadian soil have died from acts of terrorism? Compare that with how many thousands of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls there are. Where is the Bill C-51 to protect them? How many husbands have killed their wives? How many serial killers have we had? Yet we’re focusing on Bill C-51. The problem is this bill isn’t really about terrorism. If you do an analysis of this omnibus bill, the focus is, just as you’ve said, less about being anti-terrorism and more about protecting the status quo in terms of power relations and economic relations. This new national security law focuses on threats to sovereignty, territorial integrity, diplomatic relations—of all things—economic stability, critical infrastructure. All of these things are an essential part of the daily lives of Canadians and first nations. Passing this bill for any activity, any person, any purpose that threatens national security so defined as financial stability and territorial integrity, makes us all suspects. Canada won’t even have to pass this bill, the terrorists will have won. What is terrorism? Fundamentally it’s the denial of life, liberty, and security of the person. If Canada goes ahead and takes those rights away, terrorists just have to sit back, job done. We worked far too hard in our treaty negotiations. We worked far too hard in the development of the charter, and the Constitution, and all of the international laws that protect core, fundamental human rights, to allow that to happen because we want to protect some corporate economic interests. Mr. Romeo Saganash: Given that your access to information request has shown that you’ve already been surveilled for perfectly legal civic actions, is it reasonable to assume—let me put it that way—that if this law is passed, this legislation is passed, you could be viewed as a terrorist for the same lawful activities? Dr. Pamela Palmater: Bill C-51, as currently written, would capture everything under Idle No More. Imagine, Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Grand Council of the Crees offered a quote for my submission as well that said that had their activities been done today as opposed to back then, there wouldn’t be the negotiation of the the James Bay Agreement, they would all be in jail. The Idle No More movement, which was a historical coming together of first nations and Canadians peacefully dancing and singing and drumming, would now all be monitored—if it isn’t already, as the media has indicated that we are clearly monitored—and perhaps arbitrarily detained. All of these things are very frightening for this country. Keep in mind that the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples protects us, grants us, and recognizes under international customary law that we can act autonomously, that we can occupy our lands. Under the Department of National Defence’s manual, occupying our lands, advocating for autonomy, and advocating for political rights is described as “insurgency” alongside jihadists. It is no comfort that there is a proviso saying that lawful activity, lawful dissent, lawful protest, lawful art—whatever that is—won’t be captured by this bill, because the second we do a round dance in the street without a permit, it very quickly becomes unlawful. We have to remember that I already went over all of the very validly enacted laws that Canada has had that have ended up in the killing, murder, rape, violence, sterilization, and scalping of our people. Those were valid laws. The only way to protect ourselves was to act unlawfully in resistance. What we’re saying now is that the clear and present danger to first nations and Canadians is in the environmental destruction and the contamination of our water, and that we have a right to defend our life, liberty, and security to protect our future generations. Under this bill that will all be captured as a threat to national security and/or terrorism.  The Chair: Thank you very much. Your time is up, Mr. Saganash. … Hon. Diane Ablonczy: Okay, thank you very much. I just wanted to give Ms. Palmater time to put her legal training to work. And her activist knowledge and just to help us to understand how you feel that Section 2 Activities might impact you. The Chair: Ms. Palmater, we’ve already expired the time but I will certainly give you an opportunity to just briefly to respond to that if you wish. Dr. Pamela Palmater: Thank you for asking because as you probably know I was a lawyer for Justice Canada and worked on legislation and have taken training in legislative interpretation and regulatory drafting. Which is why I was quite shocked that this legislation ever made it here. The Justice Canada lawyers, that I know would never have said that this is any where near constitutional. The problems are that little list that you just read, is just a list. It’s just an example, some examples of what would be threats to national security. There is no limit on the threat to national security. That “any activity”, means any activity. My problem is under the Bill, who gets to decide? Clearly, it’s Canada and independent law enforcement officers. What’s happening here is there is an infinite number of offences that are created, it’s not knowable. And we have a right as citizens to basic tenet of law. We have a right as citizens to know the offence for which we’re being charged, to be able to predict it in the future. We know we aren’t allowed to steal things, so we don’t steal things, or we know there’s consequences. Under this Bill, it’s literally anything. And that’s a problem in law, basically, and it’s certainly doesn’t correspond, it would never survive a Constitutional or Charter challenge, and I think that the former Supreme Court Justices have been pretty specific about that. Thank you. The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Palmater, you are well over the time. Thank you very much. We will now go to Mr. Easter, please. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you to both witnesses for your presentation today. And also for both your efforts out there beyond your appearance at the community, one on policing and one of legitimate public dissent, that profiles issues. I think that both are important in a democracy. First starting with you Ms. Palmater. You’ve mentioned the need for special first nations advocate. And I’m making an assumption here, I expect that relates to the section in the Bill where CSIS can apply for a warrant to do certain things. I take from your comments you’re suggesting that if the Bill goes through, there needs to be an amendment in that area that would allow for special advocates, in this case, first nations, that would be able to, I guess, provide the other side of the argument, before a judge in terms of whether or not a warrant is granted. Am I correct in that? Do you want to expand on that a little bit?   Dr. Pamela Palmater: Sure, just to be clear, I’m saying there is no way to save this bill at all. Hon. Wayne Easter: I understand that. Dr. Pamela Palmater: My recommendations were how to address the problem right now. We have a crisis right now, first nations being targeted by police officers and the government at large. If this bill were to pass and they added this provision of a special first nations advocate for all of these core processes, that wouldn’t stop first nations from being targeted to begin with. That’s like trying to provide compensation to murdered indigenous women after they’ve already been murdered. It’s too little, too late. So I don’t think it would be effective to counter all of the rights violations that are  currently under Bill C-51. Hon. Wayne Easter: Coming back to the request. One of the problems with the current bill where CSIS goes to a judge, the Minister of Justice called this judicial oversight. It’s not. It’s traditional authority to allow CSIS to do certain things. There are some that feel you need the balance before that judge that makes that decision. That’s what I’m trying to target on. Would there be better balance if you had a special advocate with first nations expertise where CSIS was asking a judge for that warrant to do certain things? Dr. Pamela Palmater: I think it would be more balanced than the current unbalance that there is in the bill keeping in mind that this bill also turns the justice system on its head and how our constitution works. That in fact, judges are, their role is to uphold the constitution and charter rights and not to find ways to get around them. So really asking them to undo all of their training or how we govern ourselves, even with the first nation advocate isn’t going to really address the core problem. Hon. Wayne Easter: I hear what you’re saying. Thank you. *Taken from Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 – Evidence #57 – Unedited Transcript Copy provided by House of Commons Canada.

  • Transcript of my Testimony on Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism Act – March 24 2015

    Dr. Pamela Palmater (Chair in Indigenous Governance, Ryerson University, Department of Politics & Public Administration, As an Individual)*  Thank you for inviting me here today to speak. I want to first acknowledge that we’re on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation and that’s not just the polite acknowledgement. That’s the very reason why all of you get to sit here today. Were it not for the cooperation, generosity, kindness, and political alliances, Canada wouldn’t be what it is. Were it not for the peace treaties between our nations that are now constitutionally protected and form part of the foundational aspect of Canada, none of us would be sitting here today. I think that goes to the very heart of Bill C-51 and why I am opposed to it. Canada has placed Bill C-51 before indigenous peoples without any information, analysis, details on how it will impact our nations, any consultation, information or consent from our part. It is a gross violation of our nations to nation relationship. I don’t have time to go through all of the technical legal details and problems with this bill except to say that I echo all of the concerns that have already been brought and will be brought by the thousands of lawyers in this country, security experts, former prime ministers and former Supreme Court of Canada justices. My main concern is how this bill will impact me, my family and indigenous peoples all over Canada and our treaty partners, other Canadians.   Canada has a long history of criminalizing every aspect of indigenous identity. From the scalping bounties in 1949, which nearly wiped out my Mi’kmaq Nation, to the Indian Act, which has outlawed our culture, our right to educate our own children, and even excluded indigenous women from our communities. Every aspect of our identity has been criminalized, both historically and continues into present day. In every single instance, we’ve had to resist all of these laws, keeping in mind these were all validly enacted laws. It was legal to take Mi’kmaq scalps; it was legal to confine us to reserves; it was legal to deny us legal representation. All of these things were law in Canada. We had to be criminals as in, we had to break the law in order to preserve our lives, our physical security, and our identities. We are being faced with this very problem again with Bill C-51. Over the years, these laws have morphed into provincial and municipal regulations that deal with even our traditional means of providing subsistence—hunting, fishing, gathering have all been so criminalized for indigenous peoples that we end up skulking around in the forest just to be able to provide food for our families. Every single court case that has been won at the Supreme Court of Canada has been a battle between indigenous peoples trying to live their lives and exercise their rights and identities facing some kind of criminal or regulatory charge. In every single instance, we have been labelled as criminals, treated as criminals, and one need only look at the current prison population to understand that this is still the case; not just the case, but as Howard Sapers, from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, has indicated, a “national crisis and embarrassment.” And why? Not because we’re actually terrorists; not because we’re more culturally predisposed to being criminals, but as a direct result of Canada’s discriminatory laws and policies. There have been endless justice inquiries, which have pointed to the infection in our Canadian justice system of racism. The Donald Marshall wrongful prosecution inquiry, the Manitoba justice inquiry, the Ipperwash Inquiry, say that every aspect of our justice system, from the arresting officers, to the lawyers, to the judges, to the prison systems, overtly and systemically discriminate against indigenous peoples. That’s our current reality. Bill C-51 proposes to take that to the last and final step. All we have left now, as indigenous peoples are our thoughts. Our private thoughts will now be criminalized. It will now be possible to be considered a terrorist for storing alleged terrorist propaganda on our own personal computers. My declaration of sovereignty, and I’m going to say it before Bill C-51 passes, I’m part of the sovereign Mi’kmaq Nation. That kind of material on my computer could be considered terrorism, a threat to national security because it’s a threat to Canada’s sovereignty. Welcome to the new terrorist. My name is Pam Palmater. I’m a lawyer, I’m a professor, I’m a mom, and I’m a social justice activist. I’ve won numerous awards for my work in social justice, women’s equality, and children’s rights but depending on whose radicalized view you speak of I have also been called a radical, bad Indian, eco-terrorist, enemy of the people, top-five-to-fear Canadian, dangerous militant, and Waco extremist. My biggest concern isn’t how I’m presented in the media or by government officials, I’m stronger than that. My biggest concern concern is how this impacts me right now, the level of government surveillance for a law-abiding, peaceful, social justice activist, who’s never been arrested or convicted of any crime. In my ATIP to CSIS they explain that they have a right to prevent subversive and hostile activities against the Canadian state which is why they have a file on me. However they don’t offer me the courtesy of saying why I would be considered subversive or hostile, in fact everything I do couldn’t be more public.   In my ATIP to Indian Affairs they would not confirm that they monitor me. However they said they do conduct an analysis of me and my activities because I’m an active voice. That analysis comprised 750 pages of documents which tracked all of my whereabouts, what provinces I was travelling to, where I was speaking, and the dates and times. However they could not provide my security file because it was destroyed. When I attend gatherings, rallies, protests, or public and private events I often cannot make cell phone calls, send texts, or access my social media, my bank cards, or my credit cards. I can be at an Idle No More rally or protest and text my children but I cannot communicate with the very chief who has the same protest. This causes me great concern for my safety. How am I supposed to help ensure the comfort and safety of the people at rallies and myself if I can’t communicate with anyone…and I don’t have to remind this committee the staggering statistics and vulnerabilities of indigenous women in this country. I contacted the RCMP as well. They never responded to my ATIP, however individual RCMP officers at various events have confirmed that they were there to monitor me. At numerous protests I have been informed by RCMP and provincial police that I had to keep my protest peaceful. Sometimes they didn’t identify themselves. At speaking engagements the host first nation would demand that any undercover RCMP, or Ontario, or other police officers identify themselves and in many cases they did. What’s more concerning is the number of government officials that follow me around from speaking engagement to speaking engagement and often identify themselves when called upon to do so. Probably the most shocking is when I travel internationally in countries like Samoa, Peru, England, and Switzerland only to be informed by local authorities that Canadian officials are there to monitor me. That’s very frightening in a country where I have committed no crime, but to advocate peacefully on behalf of my people. In the Prairie provinces the RCMP are very active. They will often call ahead to the University of First Nations where I’m speaking and ask them to identify what my target will be or where I plan my protest. This isn’t just a problem for me. We’ve all heard about Cindy Blackstock and others. Skipping of course to what my recommendations are because I can see that I’m out of time. Bill C-51 must be withdrawn there is no way to fix it. There must be proper public information consultation, specific consultation for indigenous peoples, and a proper parliamentary study. Directing Justice Canada to rubber stamp the bill is compliant even if it has a 95% chance of being overturned in court is not democratic. We need an independent review body to report on the ongoing surveillance of indigenous peoples that will take complaints, do proper investigations, and offer redress. Finally, we’re in desperate need of a special first nation advocate to be appointed for any and all court processes in all provinces and territories whenever applications are made in secret for court warrants. This person would be an amicus, a friend of the court who would be independent and can speak to all of the various constitutional and indigenous rights at stake. This is absolutely essential especially if Bill C-51 is to be passed. The Chair: Fine thank you very much, Ms. Palmater. *Taken from: Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 – Evidence #57 – Unedited Transcript Copy provided by House of Commons Canada.