Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: discrimination

  • Canada Fails Again: First Nation Communities Without Clean Water

    Canada Fails Again: First Nation Communities Without Clean Water

    Unclean water in first nations communities

    AUDITOR GENERAL REPORT ON CLEAN WATER IN FIRST NATIONS

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had no problem finding $7 billion dollars to buy Trans Mountain oil pipelines – so, where’s the money to pay for clean water pipelines in Indigenous communities? It may be hard to believe, but many First Nations in Canada still lack access to clean drinking water.

    This week, the Auditor General for Canada (AG) released her report on whether Canada is providing enough support to ensure that First Nations have access to safe drinking water. The answer was a clear no. This is despite the Liberal government’s promise back in 2015 to eliminate all long-term drinking water advisories in First Nations by March 2021.

    The report entitled “Access to Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities” found that federal policies and funding amounts did not align with its promise to end all long-term drinking water advisories (DWA) on reserve. But the story doesn’t begin or end with DWAs – that is only the tip of the iceberg.
    Auditor General Report on Clean Water

    WHEN DID THE FIRST NATION WATER CRISIS START?

    This crisis has been a long time in the making. First Nations would not be struggling to protect and access clean water if our sovereign jurisdictions, laws, and governing powers over our traditional territories and resources were respected. Canada has created and maintained this First Nation water crisis after generations of colonization, genocide, land dispossession, and control of our water sources.

    And no, there is nothing in any of the treaties that explicitly stated the Crown could take all the water, control it, monetize it, and then deny access to clean water to First Nations. But that is exactly what has happened, despite the fact that the United Nations has recognized access to safe drinking water as a human right over a decade ago.

    Canada continues to act as an outlaw, breaking Indigenous laws, its own domestic laws, and international laws in relation to human rights. When it comes to the basic human rights of Indigenous peoples – including the right to access, govern and protect water sources – Canada literally ignores its so-called “rule of law”. The continued failure to provide clean drinking water to First Nations or other Indigenous communities like the Inuit, is a prime example of systemic racism.

    The Crown first steals Indigenous lands, resources, and waterways through fraud, deception, and countless breaches of its own laws, and then reserves unto itself jurisdiction in the Constitution Act 1867 over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians”. In other words, the federal government has assumed legal and financial responsibility for both water and water infrastructure on First Nations reserves. Canada’s willful neglect of its assumed obligations has left numerous First Nations communities without clean water.

    Dirty water in clear jar

    WHAT IS THE FIRST NATION WATER CRISIS?

    First Nations have been calling on the federal government to address the lack of access to clean water for decades. In 1995, Health Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) found that 25% of water systems on reserve posed health and safety risks. In 2001, INAC found “significant risks” to water quality and safety in 75% of water systems on reserve – a shocking number.

    A decade later in 2011, INAC reported to the AG that more than 50% of water systems still posed significant risks to community members. In 2014, it was 43% of water systems in trouble and in 2021, and that risk level hasn’t changed.

    At a press conference about the AG’s report, Indigenous Services (ISC) Minister Marc Miller said that while they had hoped to address all long-term drinking water advisories, they lost “a construction season” due to the pandemic. One construction season? If we only start the clock from 1995 forward, then they’ve lost 25 years of construction seasons.

    The AG pointed out that the delays by ISC were there long before the pandemic and referenced previous AG reports that have consistently raised concerns about the lack of clean drinking water in First Nations.

    And let’s not forget the numbers here. In addition to the 60 long-term DWAs that are left to be resolved – half of those have been in place for more than a decade. Imagine an entire decade in Fredericton, Toronto, Winnipeg or Saskatoon without clean drinking water, where there was only enough water to bathe once a week. That would NEVER be tolerated anywhere else for any other community, but those in First Nations. The situation would be treated as the urgent crisis that it is.

    Where’s Trudeau’s pipeline for water to First Nations?

    FEDERAL POLICIES FOR WATER ON RESERVE ARE DECADES OLD

    The federal government’s less than sincere commitment to urgently address the water crisis in First Nations is betrayed by the fact that their policies are decades old. The sad reality is that no one in the federal government has been concerned enough about the health, safety, and well-being of First Nations families, to treat the lack of access to safe drinking water as a crisis.

    In fact, over the years, AG reports found that the federal government couldn’t even be bothered to do annual inspections for all the water systems, despite their medium to high-risk. It’s as if the words “significant risks” to community members were merely notations in a report and not significant warnings for risks to health, safety and well-being of First Nations. 

    The Auditor General also noted that some of the federal government’s policies in relation to water systems on reserve are decades old and some were written in the 1960’s. She further noted that they have not amended their policy in relation to funding for the operations and maintenance of water systems on reserve for over 30 years.

    This means that the funding that the federal government provides to First Nations to maintain their water systems, does not take into account new technologies, the actual costs to maintain the systems and/or the risk-level and actual condition of the water systems. On top of that, they only provide up to 80% of the costs determined by this outdated policy, while at the same time paying First Nation water operators 30% less than the rest of Canada.

    Is there any wonder why the federal government is constantly chasing long-term drinking water advisories and never seems to catch up? The ever-changing number of First Nation communities without clean water should be considered a national emergency – something that can and should have been rectified by now.

    Think about it this way: if your roof has a leak and it would cost $10,000 to repair but you only “invest” $1,000, what happens? Well, your roof is not entirely fixed, so it continues to leak, causing more damage to the roof and the rest of the house. The next year, it will cost you $30,000 to fix the roof and the extra repairs for the house. Partial solutions to the water crisis serves to make the problem worse.

    This is the point the AG made: “If funding to operate and maintain water systems is insufficient, water systems may continue to deteriorate at a faster-than-expected rated.” This is exactly what has happened.

    First Nations Water Problems a Crisis of Canada’s Own Making

    THE NUMBERS SHELL GAME – HOW MANY FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITIES ARE WITHOUT WATER?

    It’s important to dig into the numbers to truly understand the full scope of this problem. The AG’s report was limited to only 1,050 “public water systems” in 600+ First Nations. This is because ISC’s water policies and funding formulas do not provide support for those who rely on wells or cisterns. Worse than that, their water policies do not support those First Nations without any running water, let alone clean water!

    And this isn’t a small number. More than one third of all households on reserve are in the category of wells and cisterns, or have no running water at all. So, the number of First Nation communities without access to clean water is a far bigger problem than it would first appear.

    It’s also important to look at how ISC has differentiated between short-term and long-term DWAs. The government seems to be congratulating itself for having “only” 60 long-term DWAs left, meanwhile over the same period, the AG confirmed that there were 1,281 short-term DWAs.

    More than 10% of those short-term DWAs were for periods of two months or more. But worse than that, the AG also found some First Nations had multiple short-term DWAs, that when added up, were more than a year in total cumulative length. But they don’t get counted in long-term DWAs, which effectively misrepresents the seriousness of short-term DWAs. Further, with long-term DWAs, they get counted as “lifted” or “resolved” if temporary measures are made to bring in water – even if the deficiencies in the water system have not been remediated.

    DWA numbers are clearly not the most transparent or effective way to measure whether or not the water crisis has been remedied. The more transparent measure would be whether each household on First Nation reserves and each daycare, school, healthcare centre, community building, and business, has consistently safe, reliable, clean drinking water and sanitation. These numbers could easily be recorded as an aggregate and disaggregated set of statistics.

    That’s the number that matters – how many First Nation households are without access to clean water – not how many DWAs you lifted one day, but were re-imposed the next. That’s a shell game that only serves to hide a much larger problem and certainly doesn’t respect the human right of First Nations to access clean water.

    CTV News: AG Reports Released

    LET’S TALK PIPELINES…

    Canada brags about having 84,000 kms of pipelines all over the country servicing the oil and gas industry. When confronted with losing the Trans Mountain oil pipeline, Trudeau managed to find $7 billion dollars in a hurry to buy it. So, where are the pipelines bringing clean water to First Nations Trudeau?

    There are mancamps full of thousands of mostly men flown into First Nation territories, in even in the remotest of places, that have access to healthcare, safe, mould-free housing, healthy food, and clean drinking water and sanitation. So, where is the healthcare, housing, food, and clean water for First Nations?

    Canada’s military brings millions of litres of fresh water to other countries in emergencies – so where’s the clean water for First Nations? Canada has spent more than $240 billion dollars on pandemic relief measures, but there isn’t enough money to ensure that no First Nation goes without access to clean water during a pandemic? This isn’t a matter of lack of resources, these are conscious policy choices being made to breach the rights of First Nations, with significant impacts to their physical and mental health and well-being.

    Minister Miller says they lost a construction season during the pandemic and that’s why they couldn’t address the water crisis. Yet, the construction season for oil and gas pipelines, the tar sands, mining projects and other extractive projects and infrastructure continued during the pandemic. But construction couldn’t proceed on water pipelines? These excuses are unacceptable.

    CTV Your Morning: First Nation Boil Water Advisories

    No one is buying the excuses made by Liberal politicians anymore. The reason all First Nation households don’t have access to clean water is widespread, longstanding, systemic form of racism and a denial of basic human rights.

    It is the same reason why there is a housing crisis on reserve; a humanitarian crisis of First Nations children in foster care; crisis-level incarceration rates of First Nations; and why there are thousands of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls in this country. Policy choices are being made by bureaucrats with full knowledge of the harms inflicted.

    HOW CAN CANADIANS HELP ADVOCATE FOR ACTION ON CLEAN WATER FOR FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES?

     Until we address the racism in Canada’s laws, policies, and practices, we’ll never end the ongoing breaches of human rights against First Nations or their current lack of access to clean water. There is no such thing as incremental equality or partial human rights. You either have them or you don’t. And clearly, First Nations have neither equality nor the protection of human rights.

    We need Canadians to stand up and say this isn’t right. We need Canadians to use their voices, their numbers, their powers and spheres of influence to demand better. Demand that the federal government bring every resource to bear to ensure safe, reliable, clean drinking water and sanitation to every single household on First Nation reserves. Not in two years, three years or after the next election – but this year. Next year’s reports need to count First Nation households without access to clean water and sanitation – not DWAs.

    You can send emails, letters and petitions to Ministers, MPs, Senators and even the Prime Minister. You can withhold political and public support for politicians and make it conditional on ending the crisis. You can use your research, social media or publicity skills to support First Nations educate the public. There is no end to what Canadians can do. Now that you know better, you can put that knowledge into action for justice.

    CONCLUSION

     Canada needs to treat this water crisis as the national emergency it is and work in partnership with First Nations to address the entirety of the crisis – not just long-term DWAs. Canada needs to treat this situation with the same priority, urgency and resources as if this was in their own backyards.

    We all know it would only take a week without access to clean water for any of these politicians to call in the army in their town or city if this happened to them. So, they need to stop with the excuses and simply get it done. And while they are at it, they should also return some of the lands, resources, and waterways they took – so this isn’t a problem in the future. 

    Access to clean water for all First Nations should never be considered a policy option.

    Pam Palmater Website

  • In Plain Sight: Widespread Racism in BC Healthcare

    In Plain Sight: Widespread Racism in BC Healthcare

    RACISM IN BC HEALTHCARE

    Imagine living in a country, where hospitals refused to treat you for a stroke, because the doctors and nurses assumed you were drunk? Imagine further, that the emergency room doctor refused to treat your young child for epilepsy, because they assumed she was on drugs? Well folks, that country is Canada.

    It doesn’t sound like the Canada you know. It doesn’t seem to reflect Canada’s world-renowned medical experts and hospitals. Nor does it seem to jive with Canada’s impressive array of human rights protections. Yet, if you are Indigenous in Canada, you can expect this kind of treatment and worse – even in Canada’s best hospitals in British Columbia (BC).

    Just before the holidays, a report was released which confirmed what most Indigenous peoples already knew – that racism against Indigenous peoples, especially First Nations peoples – is widespread in BC’s healthcare system.

    IN PLAIN SIGHT

    The report entitled – In Plain Sight: Addressing Indigenous-specific Racism and Discrimination in B.C. Health Care – was written by Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond who was the first, First Nations judge appointed to the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan; was the former Child and Youth Advocate in BC; and now the independent investigator for this report.

    She had been appointed by BC’s Minister of Health to conduct a review of racism against Indigenous peoples in BC’s healthcare system. Dr. Turpel-Lafond and her Indigenous-led team engaged in four months of investigations, which included:

    • talking to 9,000 people from BC;
    • reviewing 185,000 data sets including more than 900 studies; and
    • logging 600 cases via their 1-800 number and website.

    The report – which includes both its core findings and recommendations – contains numerous examples of Indigenous peoples given substandard medical treatment or no treatment at all in hospitals and healthcare facilities of all kinds. In some cases, individuals were treated so poorly, that they refused to go back for treatment and this was especially true for Indigenous women.

    In-Plain-Sight-Summary-Report.pdf

    FINDINGS

    There were 11 main findings divided into (a) the problem of Indigenous-specific racism and (b) the problem with current solutions – both of which provide significant insight into the lack of accountability for racism and the harm it causes Indigenous peoples in BC’s healthcare systems.

    Her main findings in relation to anti-Indigenous racism were as follows:

    1. Widespread Indigenous-specific stereotyping, racism and discrimination exist in the BC healthcare system;
    2. Racism limits access to medical treatment and negatively affects the health and wellness of Indigenous peoples in BC;
    3. Indigenous women and girls are disproportionately impacted by Indigenous-specific racism in the healthcare system;
    4. Current public health emergencies magnify racism and vulnerabilities, an disproportionately impact Indigenous peoples and
    5. Indigenous health care workers face racism and discrimination in their work environments.

    She also noted that talking about anti-Indigenous racism in healthcare can be very triggering for Indigenous peoples who have experienced the physical and mental harms associated with racist comments, substandard treatment or the denial of treatment. At the same time, she also stressed that the issue must be named, so that institutions can be held to account and the problems addressed.

    STEREOTYPES

    Dr. Turpel-Lafond shared the eight most common racist stereotypes held by BC healthcare workers about Indigenous peoples (primarily First Nations, and include that belief that they are:

    (1)   Less worthy of care;

    (2)   Drinkers/alchoholics;

    (3)   Drug-seekers;

    (4)   Bad parents;

    (5)   Frequent flyers – misuse health system;

    (6)   Irresponsible & wont do aftercare;

    (7)   Less capable; and

    (8)   Unfairly advantaged.

    RACISM CAUSES REAL HARM

    She also stressed that these racist stereotypes lead to real physical harm, mental harm and even death for Indigenous peoples, in the following ways:

    (1)   Unacceptable personal interactions – like racist comments;

    (2)   Long wait times/denial of service – more so than non-Indigenous patients;

    (3)   Lack of communication/shunning Indigenous patients;

    (4)   Not believing or minimizing health concerns – Indigenous peoples accused of faking;

    (5)   Inappropriate or no pain management – assuming patients are drug seeking;

    (6)   Rough treatment – like man-handling or physical harm;

    (7)   Medical mistakes & misdiagnosis – assuming patients drunk and not addressing underlying health issues; and

    (8)   Lack of respect for cultural protocols – intolerance of families or ceremonies.

    The significant harms experienced by Indigenous peoples on a regular basis are why the report’s recommendations on how to move forward to address anti-Indigenous racism in BC’s healthcare system are so important. At their core, the recommendations all work to confronting the legacy of colonialism in healthcare head on:

    “A basic awareness has grown that the current inequities and injustices faced by Indigenous peoples in Canada – such as those examined in this Review – are deeply rooted in an enduring legacy of colonialism, and that confronting that legacy requires substantive, transformative change.”

    MOVING FORWARD

    It is important that Canadians read this report and then push governments, hospitals, universities and all those working in the healthcare system, in any capacity to embrace their role in reconciliation and ensuring that the human rights of Indigenous peoples to healthcare are respected, protected and fully implemented. To do this, Dr. Turpel-Lafond believes that our collective path forward must be based on acknowledging and accepting three foundational principles:

    (1)   Racism in healthcare reflects a lack of respect for Indigenous rights to health;

    (2)   Racism in the healthcare system is integrated with racism in society; and

    (3)   While Indigenous voices must be centered in developing solutions, the responsibility to do this work rests with non-Indigenous people, communities, organizations and governments.

    Before anyone breathes a sigh of relief that this is only a BC issue – it isn’t.  Anti-Indigenous racism in healthcare is rampant in other provinces as well. It was only weeks ago, that Quebec came under fire when a video showed nurses saying racist and hateful comments to Joyce Echaquan before she died in the hospital. This was not an isolated incident but reflects a long-standing pattern of racism experience by Indigenous peoples in Quebec hospitals.

    Don’t forget the Brian Sinclair inquiry in Manitoba, which documented how the hospital staff ignored Brian – a double amputee confined to a wheel chair – for 34 hours until he subsequently died of a treatable urinary tract infection. And sadly, these are not exceptional cases. From the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1996 to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report in 2015 and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report in 2019 – racism in healthcare is a national crisis and has been for decades. 

    HEALTHCARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT

    Racism in healthcare is a matter of life and death for Indigenous peoples and forms part of the ongoing genocide that the National Inquiry talked about in their report.

    It was important for the BC government to undertake this investigation and accept the findings. Every other province and territory should follow suit and conduct a similar investigation. While it is important that BC’s Minister of Health Adrian Dix apologized and committed to take action –  it is yet to be seen whether they will take the action needed to hold themselves accountable, make the required changes and make reparations to Indigenous peoples. Given the many reports sitting on government shelves gathering dust – it is incumbent on Canadians to do their part to ensure governments are held to account.

    Healthcare is a basic human right and we are all served when we take steps to make sure that all peoples – including Indigenous peoples – can enjoy that right.

    Warrior Life Podcast Interview with Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond

     

    (Picture credit: Taken from the front over of the report In Plain Sight: Addressing Indigenous-specific Racism and Discrimination in BC Healthcare, 2020).

  • Maxime Bernier’s “Extreme Multiculturalism” Twitter Rants Sound More Like Sour Grapes

    Last week, Conservative Member of Parliament, Maxime Bernier posted a series of tweets on Twitter espousing his opposition to “extreme multiculturalism” and the “cult of diversity” in Canada. According to Bernier, diversity will “destroy” the cultural identity of Canada and worse, will result in “cultural balkanization” that leads to social conflict and even “violence”. These tweets were not the usual fair commentary offered by elected officials on matters of public policy. No – there was something a bit more frantic, even desperate about these tweets. These tweets sounded like the rantings of a wayward politician who, having failed in all of his political endeavours to date, couldn’t think of any other way to get attention but to ride the populist white supremacy wave.

    A combination of deep-seated racism and white superiority, together with Trump-like fear-mongering seems to be the current populist recipe for manufacturing hate and division for the purpose of political gain. It also seems to reward the instigators with gratuitous attention on social media.

    If we are to understand Bernier’s Sunday night tweet rant better, we have to understand that Bernier is a failed politician. He was a separatist from Quebec who voted in the 1995 referendum for Quebec to separate from Canada, but that vote and his efforts, failed. He was later successful in being elected a Conservative MP from Beauce, Quebec and was even appointed Foreign Affairs Minister under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. However, he was forced to resign in scandal when he left classified documents at his girlfriend’s place for nearly a month. After Harper’s Conservatives were devastated in the last election, giving Trudeau’s Liberals a majority government, Bernier ran for leadership of the Conservative party and lost to Andrew Scheer. Soon after, he released portions of a cry-all book about how he lost the leadership bid, but publication was halted. His own peers said this cry-all book was more about “sour grapes” from losing and his “vanity” and need for attention. Most recently, he was silently kicked from Scheer’s shadow cabinet.

    If ever there was a recipe for some hateful sour-grapes, this would be it. A failed separatist, Minister, leader, author and shadow cabinet member, Bernier clearly wants to make a name for himself in whatever way he can. We all know that Republican President Donald Trump’s sexist, racist, anti-immigrant fear-mongering seems to have appealed to the ultra right-wing and white supremacists in the USA. It also seemed to work for Conservative Ontario Premier Doug Ford, a “fiercely right-wing populist”, who won an election with a “take care of our own” attitude devoid of any substantive public policy – unless you include his buck-a-beer-for-all promise. It would seem that Bernier is once again suffering from sour grapes and has resorted to this hateful, racist rant against every other culture than his own people– the very people that seems to have rejected him. 

    It is not the fault of new immigrants that Bernier’s own party have rejected him over and over. Nor can his misery be tied to the legal right of people from diverse cultures to enjoy their traditions in Canada. This is an example of popular white supremacism – the idea that people of other racial, ethnic or cultural backgrounds are inherently dangerous and should not mix with “old stock Canadians” – i.e. “white” Canadians. The difference between the white nationalism/supremacy of the past is that those who espouse these views today tend to do so in a less direct way under the guise of public policy debate.

    But his hatefulness doesn’t focus only on new immigrants. Several days later, he was also first in line on Twitter to trash the Trudeau government’s intention to create a statutory “holiday” in remembrance of the atrocities committed in residential schools. Despite this being 1 of the 94 Call to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and represents the wishes of many of the survivors, Bernier accused called this “another sick characteristic of extreme PC [political correctness] and multiculturalism”. To my mind, the wishes of the survivors should be paramount on the issue of whether there is a national day of remembrance. Bernier went on to categorize the day of remembrance as a “cult of victimhood and obsession with past wrongs”. I wonder if he would also apply this logic to Remembrance Day on November 11th, or any of the war memorials that exist in Canada? Somehow, I don’t think so.

    The whole point of national days of remembrance and memorials is to ensure that Canadians never forget the atrocities that happened. The idea is to honour those we have lost and make sure history never repeats itself. It is a concept shared by most nations around the world. Germany for example has taken great steps to not only erase any Nazi symbols from their society, but also create memorials to remember the many lives lost. Here in Canada, we hope to have several national days of remembrance that include one for residential schools and memorials to lives lost, like murdered and missing Indigenous women. In recent months we have also been talking about how to deal with statues and other symbols of individuals who, despite being historic figures, were the perpetrators of a campaign of genocide against Indigenous peoples – like Sir John A. MacDonald. The TRC report confirmed that Canada engaged in all three types of genocide against Indigenous peoples – cultural, physical and biological. It is long past time that we talked about how to reflect history accurately and responsibly.

    Bernier’s Twitter rants about “extreme PC” couldn’t be further from the truth when it comes the ongoing legacy of injustice against Indigenous peoples in Canada. His Twitter tirades about immigrants who don’t share the same skin colour, religion or culture as him don’t reflect the laws of this country – Indigenous or Canadian. It’s highly ironic that Bernier would advocate against any more diverse immigrants while at the same time demand that Indigenous history be erased. I guess that is the privilege assumed by those whose ideas reflect and promote (directly or indirectly) white supremacy – as if anyone else is not only dangerous, but a threat to whiteness. While Bernier is only the most visible example of this kind of thinking, in fairness, he is not alone.

    Senator Lynn Beyak was booted from Conservative caucus after her racist postings about Indigenous peoples. Conservative MP Pierre Poillievre said racist remarks against residential school survivors on the same day as the apology. Former Conservative Indian Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt regularly made racist comments against First Nations, at one point calling First Nation treaty Chiefs “threats to national security”. With regard to Bernier’s most recent comments, Conservative party leader Andrew Scheer has failed to specifically condone them, nor has he removed Bernier from the party – which he should do. This is not much of a surprise given the fact that Scheer’s own campaign manager was the founding director for Rebel Media which promotes white nationalism. 

    In the end, the Conservative Party needs to be very clear with Canadians about their party and what it stands for today. Andrew Scheer and the party either stand wholly behind Bernier or they do not – there is no in between. Right now, Scheer seems to stand more behind Bernier than not. It’s Scheer’s move now.

    To watch my Youtube video on this issue and participate in the ongoing discussion, click here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKl3j1B6VK8&t=1s

  • 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

  • RCMP Report on Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women is Statistically Skewed

    In 2014, the RCMP released a report on their “National Operational Review” on the issue of “Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women” which amounted to 1181 women total – 164 missing and 1017 murdered.  The core conclusion of the report was that “Aboriginal women”* were over-represented in the numbers of murdered and missing. They cautioned readers that their report contained a certain amount of “error and imprecision” given the thirty year period of review, the human error of investigators, inconsistency of collection, and definitional issues.

    Let’s look at that caveat a little closer. The RCMP had to “limit” their file review to missing women who had been identified by RCMP on CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) as “non-white” female or “blank”. The category of “Aboriginal origin” was only recently added to CPIC and so could not possibly capture all Aboriginal persons. Similarly, the numbers do not include Aboriginal women who were mistakenly recorded as “white” or Aboriginal women who were reported missing but were never recorded. Given the high level of overt and systemic racism in policing as confirmed in the Donald Marshall Jr., Manitoba Justice, Ipperwash, and Pickton inquiries, the numbers of those missing never recorded could be extremely high.

    Now, let’s look at how the RCMP or other jurisdictions determine who is “Aboriginal”. The RCMP report notes that they used “perception-based assessment”. In other words, “how a police officer defines how an individual looks in terms of complexion and/or ancestry”. However, even this determination is not consistent across jurisdictions. Any number of jurisdictions use the following to identify persons:

                (1) official Aboriginal “status”;

                (2) officer discretion; and

                (3) self-identification.

    Based on the above, it would seem logical that the RCMP would miss identifying a large portion or even majority of Aboriginal persons. In the first methodology, I presume they meant to say “Indian status” or “Indian registration” because there is no formal or official “Aboriginal status”. I hope the RCMP know at least this much about the legislated identity of Indigenous peoples in Canada (hint: it’s in the Indian Act). For those that only use “Indian status”, that would exclude all the non-status Indians, Métis, and Inuit individuals in Canada. The most recent National Household Survey indicated that there were 1,400,685 Aboriginal people in Canada and only 637,660 of them were registered Indians. That leaves 763,025 individuals (more than half the Aboriginal population) excluded from possible identification as Aboriginal by RCMP standards.

    Even those who are identified based on their official Indian status, the RCMP fails to take into consideration the fact that there are well over 20,000 people with Indian status who do not descend from nor identify as “Indian” or “Aboriginal”. This is thanks again to the Indian Act which made non-Indian women and their non-Indian male and female children registered as Indians, despite their lack of Aboriginal ancestry or cultural connection. This equates to thousands of men with Indian status that are not in fact Aboriginal.

    With regards to the second methodology, the RCMP are identifying Aboriginal peoples based on a racist set of biological and/or physical characteristics which they unilaterally assign to Aboriginal people. In other words, “Aboriginal people” are treated as one race of people with certain pre-determined physical characteristics – like hair, eye or skin colour. They ignore the fact that Indigeneity is social, cultural, political, legal, territorial, and nation-based – not an identity based on race. This racist methodology would be as useless as trying to identify a Canadian citizen gone missing in the USA based on skin colour. Clearly, the RCMP would miss the vast majority of “Aboriginal people” using this kind of methodology.

    With regard to the third methodology of self-identification, the RCMP failed to indicate what percentage of jurisdictions actually rely on self-identification. This of course would not work in the context of a murdered or missing Aboriginal woman as she cannot self-identify. It might only work in the context of the woman’s family or friends choosing to identify her as Aboriginal. It is impossible to know how many people would voluntarily self-identify given the extent to which every level of the justice system is infected with overt and systemic racism as per the numerous justice inquiries. Many Aboriginal people have a justified fear of the RCMP stemming from residential school days, Starlight tours, and deaths in police custody – as well as provincial police forces for similar reasons.

    So, it is logical to conclude that the RCMP grossly under-counted the actual numbers of murdered and missing Aboriginal women in Canada. This conclusion is confirmed by the RCMP’s own admission that due to these methodological problems “a high number of Homicide survey reports where the identity of the victim (and/or accused) remained unknown“. This admission on their part is extremely important in understanding the racist dialogue which has recently unfolded at the Ministerial level.

    Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt has been very vocal in his refusal to conduct a national inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls. He has publicly stated that part of the problem is that First Nation men “have a lack of respect for women and girls on reserve”. Aside from the fact that he forgot Métis and Inuit people who don’t live on reserves, Valcourt went on to tell Treaty 6 Chiefs that 70% of the cases, Aboriginal women were killed by Aboriginal men. The RCMP refused to release the statistics on the alleged perpetrators as they claimed a commitment to “bias-free” policing. That commitment did not last long as they issued a letter several days later to Treaty 6 Grand Chief seeming to back up Minister Valcourt.

    The RCMP’s exact words to Treaty 6 Grand Chief Martial were as follows:

    “In considering the offender characteristics, a commonality unrelated to the ethnicity of the victim was the strong nexus to familial and spousal violence. Aboriginal females were killed by a spouse, family member or intimate relation in 62% of the cases; similarly, non-aboriginal females were killed by a spouse, family member or intimate relation in 74% of occurrences.”

    This statistic confirms that Canadian women are more often killed by their spouse or families than Aboriginal women. Yet, in the second paragraph of this letter, the RCMP explain that despite their bias-free policing policy and despite their confidentiality agreement with Statistics Canada, they would release the sensitive information relating to offenders anyway in order to back up Minister Valcourt’s claims that “70% of offenders were of Aboriginal origin”.

    Some commentators rushed to conclude that the RCMP statement does in fact support the Minister’s claims and (a) that this somehow reduces Canada’s culpability for both creating and refusing to deal with this crisis; and (b) that, in fact, 70% of offenders were Aboriginal. Neither of these conclusions are correct. The RCMP’s statistics, as noted above, are extremely skewed and unreliable when it comes to the identification of Aboriginal people – victims or offenders. It bears repeating that the RCMP’s own assessment of problems in its methodology led them to conclude:

    “a high number of Homicide survey reports where the identity of the victim (and/or accused) remained unknown“.

    This means that a high number of the accused in murder cases have an unknown identity. Therefore, the RCMP’s claim that 70% of the accused are Aboriginal is highly suspect at best and completely inaccurate at worst.

    There is also a problem with the assumption that because 64% of Aboriginal women are killed by their spouses or families, that those offenders were in fact “Aboriginal”. Aside from having to make the racist assumption that Aboriginal people only have relationships with other Aboriginal people, the statistics do not bear this out. If you look only at the case of First Nations people, the vast majority of First Nations have out-parenting rates (children with non-Aboriginal people) that are moderate to high. Specifically, 246 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 40-60%; 162 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 60-80%; and 49 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 80-100%. It is safe to say that no less than half of First Nations are in spousal or familial relationships with non-Aboriginal people. So, even if 64% of Aboriginal women are murdered by their spouses, it does not follow that those spouses are “Aboriginal”. Statistically, they are just as likely to be non-Aboriginal.

    One must also keep in mind that the RCMP did not include statistics on the number of RCMP and provincial police officers who have been accused of physically and sexually assaulting, murdering and/or causing to go missing, Aboriginal women in Canada. Despite a Human Rights Watch report which details accounts by young Aboriginal women and girls at the hands of the RCMP – the RCMP has refused to investigate its own members. We know at least one RCMP officer who lost 7 days pay for violating an Aboriginal women and one provincial court judge who plead guilty to physically and sexually assaulted Aboriginal girls as young as 12 years old.

    This shell game of numbers and statistics is meant to blame the victim and deflect attention away from Canada’s continued inaction to address this crisis which the United Nations has called a “grave violation” of our basic human rights. The crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls continues while Canada (through Valcourt) blames the victim and the RCMP fail to live up to their duty to serve and protect everyone in Canada.

    Shame on them both. Nothing in the RCMP numbers changes anything. Canada has a crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls regardless of who is doing the killing – and we need to address it.

    Don’t be fooled or distracted by Canada’s games. 

    We should all stay focused on pushing for both a national inquiry and for an emergency action plan to protect our women and girls and address the underlying root causes and inequities which make them vulnerable to begin with. * I use the term “Aboriginal” in this blog to reflect the terminology of the RCMP report only.

  • 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.

  • Laurie River Lodge Adventures: Watch Out for Animals and Indians?

    It is hard to believe that in 2014, there are still businesses who provide services to the public that have no problem profiting from the lands, resources and traditional knowledges of Indigenous peoples, but who, at the same time, spread racism and hatred against us. Laurie River Lodge, an outdoor adventure business located in northern Manitoba and owned by Brent and Erin Fleck, is one such company. Laurie River Lodge has a website which includes a link to a promotional brochure which explains what clients can expect when they purchase an adventure with their lodge. Their website is: http://www.laurieriverlodge.com/index.php And their brochure can be found under the Heading “Outpost Plan” at the following link: http://www.laurieriverlodge.com/downloads/2014/2014_trip_planning_guide.pdf On the same page that the Lodge warns its customers about animals, it provides a warning about its Cree Indian guides. The offending comments can be found on page 10, under the section entitled “Section 1-9 What You Can Expect From Us”:

    We take great care when hiring our staff; however the subject of Native Guides must be touched upon. We use Cree Indian guides from the town of Pukatawagon in northern Manitoba. They are wonderful people and fun to fish with however, like all Native North Americans, they have a basic intolerance for alcohol. Please do not give my guides alcohol under any circumstances. This is rarely a problem and by telling you in advance I hope to avoid it altogether.

    The Lodge is speaking about the band members of Mathias Colomb Cree Nation (MCCN) whose primary reserve is located in Pukatawagan in northern Manitoba. They apparently use MCCN band members as guides for their business. It is also noteworthy that this business uses the lands and resources contained within MCCN’s traditional, treaty and reserve lands as well as their trap-lines. Band members were so upset by these racist remarks that they contacted Chief Arlen Dumas and asked that he look into this and he responded immediately by sending out a letter to the Lodge owners. Chief Dumas explained that he was “appauled” to see that this business profits from his Nation’s lands, resources and people to ensure a profit for the owners, but at the same time promotes racist stereotypes against the very people they use to make a profit: Cree guides. Chief Dumas explains: Not only did you single out the band members from our reserve in Pukatawagan, but your brochure presented an ominous or threatening tone by stating and/or implying that: (1)  Our Cree people have a genetic and/or biological intolerance for alcohol due to their race; (2)  You warned the public against giving our members any alcohol due to this intolerance, one can only presume you meant that some sort of harm would come to the public; and (3)  That while rare, this “problem” does occur and the public needs to avoid it. None of the above statements or implications about our people are true. The comments are racist and negative stereotypes which only serve to promote or incite hatred against our people. There is no scientific basis for your claim that Cree people have an intolerance for alcohol, nor is there any basis for alleging that our Cree people would drink while working or that the pose a risk to the public. As a result of such discriminatory remarks, Chief Dumas demanded that the remarks be removed from the website; a public apology be offered to all Cree and First Nation people; personal letters of apology be sent to all their Cree employees; and that they make amends to MCCN.

    He concluded the letter by stating that if the Lodge owners refuse to address the issue, he would “have no choice but to take further steps to protect my band members from your racist, discriminatory incitement of hatred.”Chief Dumas is right to be upset about these public comments. It is not just a matter of taking offense to insulting words, this Lodge potentially faces a discrimination complaint, a civil suit and very bad publicity for their business. The Manitoba Human Rights Code (provincial law) provides that Manitobans recognize that “to protect this right it is necessary to restrict unreasonable discrimination against individuals, including discrimination based on stereotypes or generalizations about groups with whom they are or are thought to be associated, and to ensure that reasonable accommodation is made for those with special needs” and such discrimination is prohibited. The Criminal Code (federal law) under section 319 makes the public incitement of hatred against a particular group, like the Cree people a criminal offense. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (constitutional law) also provides that: 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”. Even international law protects people from racism and discrimination. If morals could not guide these business owners, certainly they have an obligation to follow the law. It is no wonder why discrimination against Indigenous peoples has not subsided, given openly racist attitudes like this. One would have thought the days of warning people against animals and Indians were over.

  • Harder Politics When No Skin in the Game: Time to Address Racism

    Is it just me, or is there something about this unusually hot summer that has scrambled the brains of business owners, community groups and politicians? It seems to me that in the last few weeks, I have received no end of e-mails and messages on social media from concerned Indigenous peoples from all over Canada. What is their concern? It’s the fact that in the year 2012, we STILL have Canadians who believe it is acceptable to profit from or completely ignore the blatant racism being perpetrated against Indigenous peoples. Eska Water: Perhaps it is just the heat because last year around this time, I wrote a blog about the discriminatory advertising being used by Eska Water. Their commercial for “pure” water included three men who were a mish-mash of stereotypes depicting Indigenous peoples. When confronted with the racist commercial, a spokesperson defended the company by saying “the depiction was a generic one of native people and not meant to represent any specific group”. What??? http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2011/07/eskan-racism-bottled-and-sourced-in.html The depiction was indeed a racist depiction of Indigenous peoples and they did in fact, mean to represent a specific group of people – Indigenous peoples. The fact that none of their non-Indigenous test group identified any problems and in fact offered positive comments about the ad, shows a much deeper problem. Racism against Indigenous peoples in Canada is so ingrained that some in society can’t even identify it when they see it. It is so ingrained in fact, that no one in the company thought to include any Indigenous peoples in the consumer test group. Recommendations: (1) Companies should include  a broad cross-section of society in consumer focus groups (this includes Indigenous peoples). (2) Companies should use the multitude of resources available related to human rights, diversity and inclusion to prevent harmful situations of racism and discrimination. Royal Canadian Legion: Less than two weeks ago, it was reported that the Royal Canada Legion in Cranbrook, BC had published a newsletter which included a racist joke about Indigenous peoples. This “joke” was not your usual combo of insulting stereotypes, this one had a hateful undertone which mocked the killing of Indigenous peoples with impunity. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/08/16/calgary-cranbrook-newsletter-pulled-joke.html The response was that the joke “only offended one person” and that it was meant to “get a laugh”. I can’t imagine a time when a racist joke would be funny, but in no stretch of the imagination is the murder of an Indigenous person funny. Many of our Indigenous peoples lost their lives fighting alongside Canadian soldiers in war. On average, 40% of Indigenous children who entered residential schools never came out alive. Starlight Tours have resulted in countless deaths of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples die pre-mature deaths everyday from conditions of extreme poverty caused by chronic underfunding of essential social services like food, water and housing. This is no joke. Simply removing the joke from the newsletter without a sincere apology and commitment to do better does little to educate their legion members about racism, discrimination and how it impacts all their members. I doubt it did much to make amends for the shock, insult and hurt most likely felt by the Indigenous members of the Legion, as well as other non-Indigenous Legion members who care deeply about the human rights of all members of society. Recommendations: (1) When an organization makes a mistake which hurts 1 person, 3 people or a 1000 people, own up to it, apologize, make amends, and take steps to ensure it doesn’t happen again. (2) Any organization can use this kind of situation as a learning opportunity to educate its members about discrimination, what it is, how it can occur, the harm it does and most importantly, how to prevent it altogether. Holy Chuck: Last week, I was again contacted by my social media contacts, this time about a restaurant in Toronto that allegedly used racist language in their burger menu. When I was sent a copy of the menu and read that one item was called the “Dirty Drunken Half Breed”, I honestly thought it was a bad joke (as in it wasn’t a real menu item). I went online and checked it out and it was indeed an actual menu item. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/08/28/toronto-restaurant-scalded-after-using-slur-for-burger-name/ I personally found it hard to believe that anyone in Canada would NOT know that this type of language is both racist and discriminatory. In my opinion, the response from the restaurant was equally offensive. Here are some excerpts from their Twitter response which went from apologetic to angry and defensive: “We at Holy Chuck r truly sorry to anyone who was offended by our burger TDDHB. It has been removed…” “I can see why people are offended. We’ll chng name” “Our menu at HC is meant to be entertaining & funny!” “Once again I am sorry but I’ve never heard of the Metis people!” “Totally blown out of proportion” “Enough’s enough! … there’s nothing more we can do” “I’m done tweeting & there’s nothing else to b said! I’m on Vacation & I plan on enjoying the rest of it! Beach and Pina colada’s await!” After reading this series of emails, would anyone consider Holy Chuck’s apology to be sincere? It sounds more to me like the apology was an attempt to shake off the issue so the owner could get back to his/her drinks. No sincere apology ever starts with the words “I’m sorry but…” – that is merely a means of deflecting responsibility. Discrimination is not about the alleged intent of the perpetrator, it is about actual impact on the person offended. It would have taken literally 2 seconds on the Internet to find numerous definitions for the word “half breed” had the business cared as much about its customers as it did its profits. Definitions of the word “half breed” include: a disparaging and offensive word for the offspring of parents of different racial origin, especially the offspring of an American Indian and a white person of European heritage; or an offensive word for a person of mixed racial descent, especially a person of Native American and white parentage. Adding the words “dirty” and “drunken” to the mix makes it even more offensive. Trying to deny responsibility by claiming ignorance to the existence of Metis people in Canada can hardly be said to be an apology, but rather acts as further insult. Recommendations: (1) Anyone operating a business that provides a service of any kind to the public must know who their serving – the population of Toronto is made up of many different groups, including First Nations, Metis and Inuit – take the time to learn about them. (2) Business owners can avoid acts of discrimination by making themselves aware of human rights laws in their particular province, as well as any potentially applicable federal human rights laws. Nepean Redskins: The most recent issue of discrimination that has been brought to my attention is one that still has not been resolved. Ian Campeau, otherwise known as Dee Jay NDN from the music group, A Tribe Called Red, has, for some time now, been trying to work amicably with the youth football team called Nepean Redskins to help them change their name. http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/08/27/nepean-redskins-name-sparks-war-of-words Instead, the responses from the local city councillor and the team has been anything but apologetic or helpful. The football club’s President has been silent on the issue, although he was quoted last year as saying that they “don’t use the name in a racist way”. The city councillor, Jan Harder, said that “there is nothing wrong with the name” and that the issue has “nothing to do with her”. What a bizarre series of statements to make. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Names+matter+Minor+football+organization+should+change/7152812/story.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter First of all, when I used 3 seconds to look up the meaning of the word “redskin”, this is what I found: – an offensive and disparaging word used to describe North American Indians; – offensive slang and disparaging term for Native American; – dated and offensive term for American Indian; – offensive term for Native Americans like “red man” and “injun”. I don’t think there is any doubt that the term is offensive. But the word has far more meaning that just being a racist insult. Colonizers used to scalp Indigenous peoples in Canada and the United States. In some areas of Canada, there were bounties on the scalps of Mi’kmaw men, women and children which decimated our Nation by up to 80%. The fact that American soldiers would sometimes skin an entire Indigenous person is horrific and a stark reminder of the genocide committed against Indigenous peoples in all its forms. How the Nepean Redskins team President, Stephen Dean, could say that the team does not use the name in a racist way makes absolutely no sense when the name itself is racist. There is no neutral use of the term “redskin”, unless you are talking about potatoes, and we all know that is not the case here. This shows an extremely deep level of ignorance. If we were to exchange any other racist name of another cultural group – there would be no question about the racist nature of it. The difference here is that its “just” Indigenous peoples we are offending, which appears to be very acceptable to some non-Indigenous people. The further offensive appropriation of Indigenous symbology and likeness for a non-Indigenous football team is also offensive. But the most telling comments came from city councillor Jan Harder who said there is nothing wrong with the name and the issue has nothing to do with her. We’ve already established that there is a lot wrong with the name. But Harder has hit on an important point: she has no skin in the game, so to speak, so what’s it to her? She is not Indigenous and she obviously knows or cares very little about the historical and ongoing discrimination against Indigenous peoples. As city councillor, she has worked on finances, land development, environment and hydro. Why on earth would she want to know anything about Indigenous peoples? Never mind that all of those issues impact the lives of Indigenous peoples in significant and often destructive ways. Over 13,000 Aboriginal people live in Ottawa – I am quite sure that some even live in Councillor Harder’s ward. Whether there is one Indigenous person who is offended or 1000, according to Canada’s laws, she is obligated to act on behalf of all people in her district, not just her and “anyone else I know” that looks, acts, and thinks like her. Personally, I would like to see Harder do her job and Dean stop hiding from the issue and deal with it. What else can Ian Campeau do? He has tried to deal with this amicably, he has offered to fundraise so that the team can transition to a new name and has contacted various people. By ignoring the issue, the team risks bad publicity, a human rights complaint, a boycott on their funders, and continued hurt amongst the Indigenous peoples in Ottawa and beyond. Recommendations: (1) The team could use this issue as an opportunity to get everyone in the community engaged and come up with a community-based strategy to transition from their current racist name to one that everyone can enjoy. (2) The team should read the following letter from Leanne Simpson, who expresses with great insight and gentle compassion, why the team ought to change its name. Seriously take the time to consider her words: http://leannesimpson.ca/2012/08/27/an-open-letter-to-the-nepean-redskins-the-national-capital-amateur-football-association/ Just in case you are not convinced, I invite the public to write, call or visit the councillor and team president to show them how much this impacts everyone who wants to live in a discrimination-free society. City Councillor Jan Harder Jan Harder Councilor, Ward 3 Barrhaven T – 613-580-2473  F – 613-580-2513 jan.harder@ottawa.ca President Stephen Dean Nepean Redskins 613-825-1903 sdean@rogers.com Ontario Human Rights Commission 180 Dundas Street West, Suite 900 Toronto, ON  M7A 2R9 416-597-4900 info@ohrc.on.ca Also, here is a new petition started by Ian Campeau to have the name changed: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/changetheredskinname/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=button *Full disclosure – I used to work at the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission as an investigator of human rights complaints.

  • Justice Minister Vic Toews’ Wilful Blindness to the Ongoing “Crisis” in Justice System

    Please tell me that I am not the only one who is shocked by federal Justice Minister Vic Toews’ idiotic comments tonight on APTN News. Did he actually say that there is nothing wrong with our justice system and that our justice system does not discriminate? I can’t even think of a proper descriptor for his comments – ignorant, racist, wilfully blind, pitifully stupid, unprofessional, and irresponsible don’t seem to convey the depth to which his comments are offensive. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/11/28/the-justice-system-doesnt-discriminate-says-justice-minister-toews/ It is as if he has ignored every single justice report, inquiry, and Supreme Court of Canada judgement that has found, based on overwhelming research and evidence, that our justice system does in fact discriminate, especially against Indigenous peoples. However, we all know that as Minister of Justice he knows about all these reports – he has simply chosen to ignore them because it suits the Conservative party’s racist assimilatory policy towards Indigenous peoples. I hardly know where to start. The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) published in 1996 is one of the most comprehensive studies on the situation of Indigenous peoples in Canada. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071126051037/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/cg_e.html In the same year, they released a report entitled: Bridging the Cultural Divide: A Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada was released which highlighted the numerous problems with the justice system as it relates to Indigenous peoples. Both reports found the fact of over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system to be due in part to ongoing discrimination. Prior to that, in 1989, there was the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Prosecution which you will recall was brought about because of the wrongful imprisonment of Donald Marshall Jr simply because he was Mi’kmaq. http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/marshall_inquiry/_docs/Royal%20Commission%20on%20the%20Donald%20Marshall%20Jr%20Prosecution_findings.pdf The inquiry found: “The criminal justice system failed Donald Marshall Jr., at virtually every turn from his arrest and wrongful conviction for murder in 1971 up to, and even beyond, his acquittal by the Court of Appeal in 1983.” They further found that everyone involved, from the police, Marshall’s lawyers, the judges, prosecutors, and appeal judges all failed Marshall because he was “native”. Minister Toews would be shocked to learn that their actions “amounted to a defence of the criminal justice system at the expense of Donald Marshall Jr., in spite of overwhelming evidence that the system itself had failed.” Toews might also be gobsmacked to hear that this inquiry made recommendations to “reduce discrimination in the justice system”. There is also the Report of the Manitoba Justice Inquiry in 1999 which made significant findings in relation to the level of discrimination in the justice system as it relates to Indigenous peoples. http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volume.html They found that there are two primary reasons why Aboriginal peoples are over-represented in the criminal justice system, and both are the result of systemic and ongoing discrimination against Aboriginal peoples. First of all, they found that Aboriginal peoples are more likely to be confronted by the justice system, not because they are culturally pre-disposed to criminal activity, but because of the long history of “discrimination and social inequality that has impoverished Aboriginal people and consigned them to the margins of …society.” However, the Inquiry found that the more serious issue was the ongoing discrimination within the justice system that assumes all people are the same. A system which assumes equality exists “can’t help but discriminate against Aboriginal people”. Just in case there was any doubt about the fact of discrimination in the justice system (which Toews denies), the Inquiry further found that: “Discrimination against Aboriginal people has been a central policy of Canadian governments since Confederation” and “represents a monumental symbol of intolerance”. Aboriginal peoples have been, and continue to be victims of “the openly hostile bigot” and the victims of the systemic discrimination found in our justice system. For Minister Toews to say otherwise is an outright lie according to these legal inquiries, the Supreme Court of Canada and even the Office of the Correctional Investigator. This alone is cause for Minister Toews to submit his resignation because he obviously no longer represents the public interest if he can so openly deny the sickness within the justice system. Most of you will recall the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Gladue. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii679/1999canlii679.pdf The TOP COURT in our country found that in addition to Canada being “a world leader in putting people in prison”;  the “serious problem of aboriginal overrepresentation in Canadian prisons is well-documented”, the “excessive imprisonment of aboriginal people is only the tip of the iceberg” because “Aboriginal people are overrepresented in virtually all aspects of the system.” The Supreme Court of Canada goes on to explain (so READ carefully Minister Toews), that “there is widespread BIAS against aboriginal people within Canada” such that “this widespread RACISM has translated into systemic DISCRIMINATION in the criminal justice system.” (emphasis added) They also highlight the fact that the drastic level of discrimination and overrepresentation should be considered “a CRISIS in the Canadian criminal justice system”. But, just in case numerous reports, inquiries and court cases from the top court in the land don’t convince you, what about the research and observations of a federal official like the Office of the Correctional Investigator who has been saying for over 15 years that the discrimination at every level of the justice system against Aboriginal peoples is a full-blown CRISIS. http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/index-eng.aspx I invite anyone to read any report from any year and you will note that report after report highlights the discrimination, the suffering of Aboriginal peoples by discriminatory laws and policies and the fact that the problem is getting WORSE not better. These reports call the situation: – “discriminatory” (2001); – a “continuing crisis and embarrassment” (2003); – it is a “grave” situation which prevents Aboriginal people from enjoying equality (2005); – the “inequitable results” stem directly from federal policies (2008); – the situation is getting much worse (2009); and – “inequitable outcomes” are the direct result of federal policies and practices (2010). What does this all mean in terms of numbers? Well, Aboriginal peoples are only 4% of the population, but in places like Manitoba Aboriginal men can make up 79% of the prison population. Aboriginal women fare even worse making up to 83% of all prison admissions. http://www.vcn.bc.ca/august10/politics/facts_stats.html However, the situation is getting much worse for Aboriginal women and are expected to have significant increases. In fact, over a 10 year period, the imprisonment of our Aboriginal women rose by 151%. http://elizabethfry.ca/wwdcms/uploads/Aboriginal%20Women.pdf This of course, ONLY reflects what is happening in criminal justice. This does not include all the overt discrimination faced by Aboriginal peoples in the justice system by way of: – murdered and missing Aboriginal women left to die without adequate police attention; – our people who are taken on Starlight tours and left to freeze to death; – our people who are shot to death, beaten to death or tazered unnecessarily; and – the use of CSIS, RCMP, military and now INAC to spy on our people – even those of us who have never committed a criminal act. No one in their right mind could stand before all Canadians and claim that our justice system is not broken and does not discriminate against anyone. Only a right-wing extremeist, drunk with “white privilege” and power would even have the nerve to say something like that and ignore all the evidence to contrary – including evidence that comes from the very justice system he defends. This controversy all comes about over his defence of Bill C-10 – a massive bill that would make numerous amendments to numerous acts – many of which will have devastating consequences on Canadians. It will make minimum prison sentences mandatory and will take away the discretion of judges to find alternatives to prison. It is widely opposed – by organizations like the Canadian Bar Association which represents lawyers in Canada. Their 100-page submission against the Bill highlights the speed at which this omnibus bill (one that makes many changes to many acts) is being considered, the lack of time for study and comment and the overall dangers of the bill. http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/PDF/11-45-eng.pdf The following link is to a radio interview where I first talked about Bill S-2 (matrimonial real property on reserve) and then Bill C-10 and how they both relate to the oppression and assimilation of Aboriginal peoples. http://www.radio4all.net/files/fro.macpho@gmail.com/4356-1-InterviewPamelaPalmaterEdited.mp3 I know I ask a great deal of my readers – to read such lengthy blogs, access numerous links and write e-mails to express our concerns regarding endless bills, policies and actions against our peoples. But, most of us have the education, access to internet and computers and ability to do this. Think of all those who can’t, but who will no doubt be the ones to suffer from this ongoing oppression and assimilation of our people. Please write to Minister Toews and tell him to get real, submit his resignation and NOT pass Bill C-10. libmem@parl.gov.ca bqmem@parl.gc.ca cpcmem@parl.gc.ca ndpmem@parl.gc.ca vic.toews@parl.gc.ca Thank you for all your support and for continuing the battle for real justice and equality. For rabble fans, see my blog on rabble.ca.

  • Murdered, Missing, and Still Excluded: Indigenous Women Fight for Equality

    If there is one thing that the Pickton Inquiry has proven to Canadians is that gender discrimination against Indigenous women is not only a present-day phenomenon, but that it is systemic at all levels of government. The unique problem for Indigenous women is that the gender discrimination they face when dealing with one group, like the police, is multiplied many times over top of the gender discrimination they face in all other aspects of their lives. These Indigenous women who were murdered at the hands of Robert Pikcton or who remain missing have never truly been treated as human beings worthy of care and protection. In many Indigenous Nations, their concept of citizenship or belonging was a relational concept that provided both rights and responsibilities on the parts of individuals and Nations. So, an Indigenous Nation required the recognition, loyalty and contributions of their people, and the people required the recognition, protection and contributions of their Nation. For many, there was no such thing as a person who was dispensable. We also know that in many Indigenous Nations, women were not only considered “equal” as human beings, but many societies were matriarchal. In some Nations, it was a council of women who decided who would be the next leader and that same council could remove a poor leader. For others, while the men may have tracked down and killed a moose for the community, it was the women who had to dress it and drag it back. There is not a single Indigenous Nation that I have ever studied where their women were not valued as life-givers and care-takers of their Nations. This is a far cry from the European laws, rules, policies and values imposed on our Indigenous Nations. I wish I could say that colonization was a thing of the past, an issue for which we should all just “get over”. Sadly, the reality is that Canada is still in the colonizing business – trying to assimilate Indians once and for all and our women have always been the primary targets. Today, our women face gender discrimination on all fronts, from all levels of government and society, and many have paid the ultimate price for being an Indigenous woman – they have lost their lives. When the colonial governments in Canada realized Indians were not dying off fast enough, they enacted provisions in the Indian Act to assimilate them faster. The first people to be tossed out were Indigenous women and their children. Jeanette Corbiere-Lavell (now President of the Native Women’s Association of Canada) took Canada to court to challenge this blatant discrimination, but our Supreme Court of Canada said there was never any intention that the equality provision in the Bill of Rights would effect legislation. Sandra Lovelace (now a Senator) was then forced to take Canada to the United Nation Human Rights forum to protect her equality rights and Canada was found in violation of international laws by preventing her from enjoying her culture with her community. Canada was supposed to get rid of ALL gender inequality in the Indian Act – but Bill C-31 not only did not remedy all gender inequality, but created new forms for Indigenous women and their children to suffer. Sharon McIvor then took the lead and sued Canada for continued gender discrimination in the Indian Act and won. However, Canada’s response was to amend the Indian Act in such a limited way that more people will be excluded than included. Moreover, Bill C-3 did not fully remedy gender inequality and once again created new forms of discrimination only applicable to Indigenous women. Adding insult to injury, the preferential treatment of non-Indian women remains in the Indian Act today. But this is not the only issue faced by Indigenous women. The proposed Bill S-2 (previously Bill S-4, Bill C-47 and Bill C-8) is supposed to provide equitable divisions of matrimonial assets upon divorce for Indians living on reserve. It is touted by the Conservatives as legislation that will also protect Indigenous women from violence. However, this Bill not only does NOT address violence against Indigenous women, but creates once again, an illusion of justice in that any rights must be accessed through Canadian courts and expensive lawyers – assuming any courts and lawyers are available in many remote communities. Bill S-2 also creates NEW rights for non-Indians to have life interests in reserve lands. Given the high rates of out-marriage in many communities, this could mean whole scale occupation of reserve lands by non-Indians. That is in addition to all the homes already occupied by non-Indian women who got to keep their privileged Indian status because Canada thought it would be too unfair to take it away from them once they had it. That kind of injustice is only suitable for Indigenous women. So, Indigenous women continue to fight for equality, which has turned into a fight for their identities, their right to be part of their communities and now their very lives. The fact that hundreds of Indigenous women could go missing for so long, over so many years, without anyone in power batting an eye, is a testament to the less than human status assigned to Indigenous women. The police, Crown lawyers, and federal and provincial politicians have created this situation. The least they can do is allow Indigenous women to finally exercise their voice in a safe forum with the same protection afforded to police – lawyers paid for by the Crown. As it stands now, any Indigenous woman who testifies must face a firing squad of no less than 13 lawyers who will interrogate these women at length. Just like all the “non-status”, “non-band member” and “off-reserve” Indian women who have been excluded at every turn, we now have a new negative descriptor – murdered or missing Indigenous women. Our women can be murdered or go missing in frighteningly high numbers without society caring enough to even wonder why. How much more inequality must Indigenous women endure before society at large will stand up and say enough? British Columbia needs to step up, stand up and give these women the same chance afforded the already too powerful police force. Anything less is a complete sham. For Rabble fans, see my blog posted at rabble.ca!