Tag: First Nations

Assembly of First Nations election a battle for sovereignty

*This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on July 18, 2018.

The Assembly of First Nations will hold its election for national chief on July 25 in Vancouver. Only the chiefs of the 634-plus First Nations are eligible to vote but most chiefs’ assemblies see less than half of those attend, and of those, many are proxies and not actual chiefs.

While elections for prime minister, premier and even mayors attract nightly political commentary, analysis and predictions in the months and weeks prior to their elections, there is generally very little commentary about the AFN election outside of Indigenous media like APTN, Windspeaker or smaller Indigenous political blogs. Yet, what is at stake in this election for First Nations should be of great concern to Canadians.

This election feels more like a boiling point – a critical juncture spurred by the growing discontent of the AFN that was apparent in the last three AFN elections for National Chief. The outcome of this election could change everything for the better or the worse and Canadians will be impacted either way.

The colonial reality of First Nations impoverished through the dispossession of lands and resources, together with an aggressive and unrelenting assimilation policy, forces leaders to make hard decisions in order to provide relief for their people. Their own local elections depend on whether houses are built on reserve to relieve the crisis-level over-crowding and homelessness or whether there is access to safe drinking water and food to keep their children out of foster care.

The focus of local First Nation elections is often based on life and death issues – a far cry from federal or provincial elections which tend to focus on the best interests of the middle class, tax relief or international trade. The AFN is well aware of this dynamic in First Nations and uses the fear of losing critically needed social programs and services as a means to garner support for federal policies – which in turn equate to more money for the AFN itself. While everyone is aware of this dynamic, the need to provide for First Nation citizens is often paramount.

Historically, First Nation leaders addressed their concerns privately, but the AFN’s drastic departure from its original purpose as an advocacy organization risks the very rights of First Nations, thus requiring the very public pushback we have seen in recent years.

What is happening both before our eyes and behind closed doors is an epic battle to protect First Nation sovereignty, lands and cultures. It is a battle that seeks to frame reconciliation as more than the beads and trinkets offered by the Trudeau government and one which aligns more with First Nation constitutional and international rights.

This election will be a contest between those who accept the federal government’s legislative framework agenda in exchange for relatively minor (but desperately-needed) funding increases to programs and services versus those who reject it, and demand the return of some of their lands, a share in their natural resources, and the protection of their sovereignty and jurisdiction. Either path will result in significant consequences for First Nations. But make no mistake – there will be government retaliation if the election choice is real reconciliation.

Sadly, this is not a battle of their own making. Most of the divisions amongst First Nations have been created and maintained by federal bureaucrats, who have maintained their vise-like grip on the so-called “Indian agenda”. Even the first few attempts at national political organizing among First Nations after WWI and WWII were defeated by government interference.

While the National Indian Brotherhood started out strong in defense of core First Nation rights and title, more recent years as the re-named Assembly of First Nations have seen a drastic decline in advocacy and a corresponding increase in the support of federal agendas. While most of the federal pressure occurs behind the scenes, the previous Conservative government wielded social program funding and federal legislative power as a weapon to bludgeon any attempt to advocate for First Nation rights. Former Prime Minister Harper’s government enacted a historic amount of legislation against the will of First Nations and even threatened to cut funding for “rogue chiefs” who dared challenge their legislative agenda of increased federal control over First Nations.

While Trudeau was elected on a promise to repeal all of Harper’s legislation, he hasn’t done so – nor will he ever. He has his own legislative agenda designed to build upon Harper’s increased legislative control of First Nation governments by also limiting the scope and content of First Nation constitutional rights and powers once-and-for-all.

The Trudeau government seeks to define and limit the scope of First Nation rights and powers under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 in federal legislation under the guise of reconciliation. Therein lies the Trojan Horse of Trudeau’s brand of reconciliation. Trudeau’s reconciliation, while flowery and tearful, will result in the legal assimilation of First Nations into the body politic. Something his father, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, tried to do with the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy designed to get rid of Indian status, reserves and treaty rights.

Real reconciliation – which is about addressing the wrongs of both the past and the present – requires the transfer of lands and resources back to First Nations, the sharing of the wealth made in First Nation territories and the full recognition of First Nation sovereignty and jurisdiction (the right to be self-determining). However, most Chiefs are acutely aware that although this is the path that most honours our ancestors and coincides with our rights; it is also the path with the most severe consquences. The path of retaliatory reconciliation has always attracted the full force of Canadian law enforcement and military power.

When the Mi’kmaw Nation at Listuguj tried to manage their own fishery in the 1980’s, they were brutally beaten and arrested by the Surete du Quebec (SQ) police. When the Mohawks of Kanesetake tried to protect their traditional territory and burial grounds from a golf course in 1990, the SQ, RCMP and military laid siege to their territory for months.

In 1995, an unarmed land defender named Dudley George was killed by Ontario police for protecting his reserve lands at Ipperwash. In the same year, the RCMP launched the largest attack on ever on a civilian population at Gustafsen Lake – all to prevent a small group of sun dancers from performing their ceremonies on so-called Crown lands.

Even once the Mi’kmaw Nation at Esgenoopetitj (Burnt Church) had proven their treaty right to fish at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999, the RCMP and DFO used brutal force to stop the Mi’kmaw from fishing. Hundreds of RCMP SWAT forces were called out to suppress the peaceful resistance of the Mi’kmaw Nation at Elsipogtog to hydro-fracking on traditional lands.

Sadly, Canada’s vision of reconciliation only works if First Nations don’t assert their rights. First Nations are more than welcome to enjoy their pow-wows, re-name streets in their languages or hang their art in public spaces, as acts of multi-culturalism. But when it comes to asserting inherent, treaty or constitutional Aboriginal rights and land title – that is where Trudeau’s vision of reconciliation breaks down. One need only look at the arrests related to protests against the Trudeau/Kinder Morgan Pipeline to know where real reconciliation is headed.

Canadians should be very concerned about the actions of their governments towards reconciliation and what this AFN election means for the safety and well-being of Indigenous peoples moving forward. Afterall, as beneficiaries of the treaties, Canadians have a role to play in addressing historic and ongoing wrongs.

There is no way to sugar coat what is at stake in this AFN election. A vote for Perry Bellegarde is a vote down the rabbit hole of assimilation that looks eerily like a pipeline. A vote for real reconciliation means First Nations will have to brace for retaliatory impact – but this is the only path that will protect our rights from voluntary erasure.

Full disclosure: I was the runner-up candidate in the AFN election 2012 to the former incumbent National Chief Shawn Atleo.

* The link to the original article published in The Lawyer’s Daily:

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/6951/assembly-of-first-nations-election-a-battle-for-sovereignty-pamela-palmater?category=columnists

Postscript:

I would like to refer you all to two very good articles written by Indigenous commentators on the AFN election. Both Niigaan and Doug are excellent writers and have a great deal of insight into First Nation political issues.

(1) “National chief election matters” written by Niigaan Sinclair for the Winnipeg Free Press on July 7, 2018:

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/national-chief-election-matters-487557421.html

(2) “Changes needed to AFN structure” written by Doug Cuthand for the Saskatoon StarPhoenix on July 14, 2018:

https://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/cuthand-changes-needed-to-afn-structure Please also see my related videos on my Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI3-Vc01InQ&t=5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur6FO3Ce8ww&t=12s

Here is my related Youtube video that provides some basic analysis of the federal legislative framework: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Z3579b20c&t=2s

July 18, 2018

Side-by-Side Comparison of NDP, Liberal & Conservative Platforms on First Nation Issues for Ontario Election 2018

PLATFORM PROMISES	NDP	LIBERAL	CONSERVATIVES
Gov’mt to Gov’mt Relationship	Yes, will sign accord, will work on stable revenue sources w First Nations (FNs)	Yes, already have an accord	L
Land transfers back to First Nations	L	? Will try to resolve land claims w FNs & Canada	L
Resource revenue sharing	Yes, will share revenue w FNs, will give ON’s mining taxes to FNs ($218M over 5yrs)	No? will continue to share “benefits of resource development” w FNs & Metis	L
Implement TRC Calls to Action	Yes, will start w action items under prov jurisdiction	Journey Together plan + $250M/3yrs (in progress)	L
Contribute to First Nation Health	Yes, will double ON investment to $209M/year in FN Health Action Plan, FNs will decide health funding priorities, ex. expanded suicide prevention, more doctor time on reserve, more health care workers, more FN midwives, increase FN role in frontline care	Yes, $80M over 4 yrs to expand child & youth mental health services for kids at risk, $220M over 3 years for improved access to healthcare, mental health, addiction, palliative care, Indigenous leadership in healthcare delivery	L
Address First Nation Hydro Costs	Yes, FN exempt from Hydro costs, FN ownership stake in Hydro	Reduce Hydro costs for remote communities by up to 50%	L
Safe Drinking Water	Will address water infrastructure on reserve, then bill Ottawa	L	L
Childcare on Reserve	L	Yes, $40M over 3 yrs for culturally relevant childcare on reserve, 4500 new spaces on reserve $290M to double childcare spaces on reserve, $70M over 2 yrs for off-reserve children & families	L
First Nation Education	L	L	L
Jordan’s Principle	No specific mention, but will pay for health services & infrastructure on reserve first, argue w feds later	L	L
First Nation Policing	Yes, will double ON investment in FNs to $30M, joint development of stand alone legislation	Opt into provincial policing framework & create FN Police Service Boards	L
MMIWG	Yes, will continue to support inquiry, provide family supports, increase resources to solve cold cases	Yes, long-term strategy to end violence against Indig women, Address human trafficking & support survivors*	L
Address problematic Far North Act	Yes, will replace it	L	L
Jobs & Training & Economic development	Yes, will prioritize FN training on & off-reserve, Partner w FNs to develop green energy, will work w FNs to develop minimum targets for FN procurement	Yes, $30M over 2 years for skills training, Expanded role for institutes	L
First Nations/Indigenous Institutes	Yes, $28M in Friendship Centre repairs, $91M over 6yrs to 28 Centres, $41M programming for children & youth	Yes, will support stronger role for Indigenous institutes, work with urban communities for off-reserve programs	L
First Nation Housing	L	Yes, will increase funds for Indigenous Supportive Housing Program	L
Indigenous Languages & Culture	L	Yes, will support Indigenous languages, Youth cultural camps, will support Indigenous culture	L
Social Assistance & Income Security	Yes, will work w FN Income Security Reform Working Group & Urban Indigenous Table to implement Roadmap for Change Report	Yes, will enhance access to culturally safe & responsive social assistance	L
North, Remote Communities	Will replace Far North Act, $1B to get Ring of Fire moving now, Collaborate w FNs to get infrastructure projects moving	Part of $1B commitment = year round access road to Ring of Fire, continue support Wataynikaney Power Grid project (16 remote FNs), gas price watchdog, invest more northern hospitals, schools, transportation, $500M/3yrs broadband, Increase access to mental health for Indigenous youth	L
First Nation Treaty Rights	Ensure treaty rights respected	L	L
First Nation Education	Curriculum will include Indigenous history, colonialism, residential schools, reconciliation	L	L
UNDRIP into provincial law	Implement all TRC Calls to Action – starting with those in provincial jurisdiction	L	L
Address Crisis in Foster Care	Yes, will work with FN leaders & experts to identify needs of FN kids, No more solitary confinement, Mediation not courts, Goal = 0 kids in care	L	L
Justice System	Ban policing carding, Police training in human rights & racism	Yes, will create bicultural justice centres, Culturally responsive supports in bail system, Improve FN repres on juries	L
Anti-Racism	Ban policing carding, Police training in human rights & racism	Data collection & analysis w partners, Increase diversity in gov’mt, boards, commissions, anti-racism education & training	L
Environment	Expand parks & create new ones in consultation w FNs, Will clean up Wabigoon Mercury, Fund mercury treatment centre, Additional $12M for retroactive payments for mercury disability	Support FNs to transition to non-fossil fuel energy to minimize impact, $85M Grassy Narrows remediation	L

*Please note: this chart is based exclusively on what is contained in the three platforms in terms of what they are promising going forward. It does not include external documents or statement, nor does it report on the past performances of any governments over time. It is merely a snapshot of what is being promised if you elect that party. Please send me a note if you see an error – this is accurate as of May 30, 2018. For a summary analysis of these platforms, please see my article in Lawyer’s Daily at: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/6628/the-first-nations-agenda-in-the-ontario-election-pamela-palmater?category=columnists Or, for those without access to Lawyer’s Daily, please find it on my blog here: https://pampalmater.com/2018/06/the-first-nationsagenda-in-ontario.html

June 4, 2018

The First Nations’ Agenda in the Ontario Election

*This article was originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on June 4, 2018 Prime Minister Trudeau and his Liberal Party have been taking a significant amount of heat for their collective failures to act on their substantive promises to First Nations — including, water, housing, education health and Aboriginal, treaty and land rights and title — as well as his approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline without First Nation free, prior and informed consent. Here in Ontario, many First Nations also have their focus on Election 2018 and what it might mean for their relationship with the Crown in right of the province of Ontario. In theory, it shouldn’t matter which party gets elected in Ontario assuming they follow the rule of law which includes respecting Indigenous laws, the right to be self-determining, inherent rights, Aboriginal rights and title, treaty rights and the right to free, prior and informed consent. However, we know from practice that federal and provincial governments breach Aboriginal rights more than they honour them — so in that respect, it really does matter which party is elected — at least to some degree. It is important for voters — First Nations and Ontarians alike — to be familiar with the actual platforms of each party and not just their catchy slogans. We need to know in what ways these candidates will move forward in a spirit of reconciliation with First Nations in concrete terms. To this end, only two of three major parties have grown-up platforms — the NDP and the Liberals. The Conservatives don’t have an actual platform — unless we include the 12 promises made on the landing page of Doug Ford’s website — none of which contain more than a few sentences or mention Indigenous issues. Of the three platforms, only the NDP and Liberals have commitments specific to First Nations. The NDP and Liberal platforms share similar promises to First Nations, including their general commitment to reconciliation and to maintaining a government-to-government relationship. They also both commit to maintain support for the national inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls as well as addressing racism in the justice system. Both also commit to cleaning up the mercury contamination at Grassy Narrows and to ensuring that the Ring of Fire is developed. Responsibility for First Nations health care has been the subject of much debate between the federal government’s section 91(24) jurisdiction in regards to “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” and the provincial government’s section 92(7) jurisdiction in relation to hospitals. This debate has largely left out First Nation jurisdiction and the treaty responsibility to provide health care — a responsibly which is shared by the Crown in Right of Canada and the province. However, unlike other provinces, both NDP and Liberal platforms in Ontario make significant funding commitments to fill federal underfunding in health care on reserve. There are key areas where the NDP and Liberal platforms differ. The NDP promises to work with First Nations to create stable revenue sources, including resource revenue sharing. One of those commitments is to transfer all taxes made from mining in Ontario to First Nations, which the NDP estimate to be about $218M over five years. The Liberal platform on the other hand does not specifically commit to share in resource revenues, but only agrees to share in the “benefits of resource development” which could literally mean anything, but most likely refers to the usual jobs and community projects. In a similar vein, the NDP also specifically commits to respect First Nation treaty rights— something the Liberal platform does not address. Neither party addresses Aboriginal title and treaty land issues, or the addition of much-needed lands to reserves, except the Liberals who agree to continue land claim negotiations trilaterally with First Nations and the federal government. One need only look at the long-standing Six Nations land claim for the Haldimand tract as an example of how ineffective these negotiations are as “solutions” to land claims. Another critical area where the NDP and Liberals differ is in how they plan to address the crisis over over-representation of First Nations children in the foster care system — something federal Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott called a “humanitarian crisis.” Yet despite the crisis, the federal government has delayed complying with the orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to end racial discrimination and properly fund First Nation child and family services. Therefore, it matters whether or not the province of Ontario will step in. The Liberals have not made any commitments to address this crisis, but the NDP has promised to work toward the goal of no First Nation children in care; to end the use of solitary confinement for children; and to work with First Nation leaders and experts to identify the needs of these children. Both the NDP and Liberals commit to making First Nations a priority in terms of skills training. Neither made mention of specific contributions to First Nation post-secondary education, though the Liberals currently provide some funding to First Nations to attend university as well as support Indigenous educational institutes. Both plan to support Indigenous institutes and programming for Indigenous children, youth and families living off-reserve. Only the Liberals have made a commitment to fund 4,500 new childcare spaces on reserve and $70M over two years for childcare spaces for off-reserve children and families. This is a significant commitment given the fact that most children on reserve live in poverty and their homes are mostly headed by single mothers who could use childcare support for education, training and employment. Ultimately, both the NDP and Liberals make significant commitments to First Nations. The Conservatives have made no commitments at all. In fact, the 12 bullets on Ford’s webpage tend to show more of an obsession with Kathleen Wynne and ending carbon taxes. So far, all we have to go by is Ford’s reported failure to respond to requests for his Indigenous platform; his alleged refusal to allow an Indigenous woman to one of his events; he and his family’s alleged involvement in the drug trade; his alleged need to hire actors at events as supporters; and his alleged purchase of bogus memberships to support Conservative candidates — let alone his Trump-like views on women’s reproductive rights and climate change. He is not likely to be a strong candidate for the First Nation vote. Finally, there was no firm commitment by any party to address First Nation land and resource ownership or specific treaty rights. Nor was there any firm commitment to implement and respect the right of First Nations to free, prior and informed consent before any provincial decisions, laws or actions are implemented that might impact First Nation rights and title. In the end, whoever is elected will face the same issues as Trudeau and will have to decide whether reconciliation includes the rule of law, including Indigenous law, treaty law and constitutional laws, or more empty promises. *Link to the article that originally appeared in Lawyer’s Daily on June 4, 2018 https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/6628/the-first-nations-agenda-in-the-ontario-election-pamela-palmater?category=columnists

June 4, 2018
Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls Fatally Flawed

(Originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on May 15, 2017)

It looks like those who advocated for the long-awaited national inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women and girls will be waiting a little while longer.

Despite the promise from Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that the national inquiry would be his first order of business, it has been 19 months since his election and the inquiry hasn’t held a single day of hearings. Although the commissioners held two soft launches in September 2016 and February 2017 promising to launch the hearings soon, the inquiry has not started, nor will they hear from the families until fall 2017.

Given that the commissioners were given exceptionally limited time to conduct the inquiry, the fact that they have already used up nine of the 26 months allocated to them is a major concern. At this point, the commissioners have very little to show for either the time used or the money spent to date — more than 10 per cent of its $53 million budget.

Given the lack of communication from the commissioners to date, we are all left wondering what is going on.

Equally concerning are reports that the federal government has been behind some of the delays by refusing to share its lists of potential witnesses with the commissioners or advance adequate funding to allow much-needed staffing to occur.

The long list of Indigenous families, leaders and advocates raising public concerns has been met with extended periods of silence. Recent cancellations of scheduled meetings of the inquiry have led to increased criticism by the same indigenous families and advocates who originally pushed so hard for the inquiry. There are even calls for the inquiry to be “reset” both in terms of the panel of commissioners and the inquiry format itself.

But, as problematic as all this administrative mess is — and it could very well unravel the inquiry — it is relatively minor in comparison to the fact that the inquiry, legally speaking, is fatally flawed.

Even if the federal government had ensured the inquiry started earlier in Trudeau’s term, and even if the commissioners had been able to quickly launch hearings, neither of these conditions could save the inquiry from its flawed Terms of Reference.

The Terms of Reference lack the two areas of inquiry that were most important to indigenous families, leaders and advocates: (1) a review of all the known police case files of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls and (2) a comprehensive review and investigation of police behaviour, specifically racism, abuse and sexualized violence of Indigenous women and girls by police forces. Yet, these two things are specifically exempted or protected from review in the terms, forcing witnesses who want to give evidence about these issues, to go back to the very same police forces that committed the flawed investigations of their missing or murdered loved ones, or the same police forces that failed to act on abuses by their officers.

There is no way to save this inquiry from such fatal flaws. The provinces and territories all passed orders-in-council to allow the inquiry to proceed in their jurisdictions based on the terms as drafted — in other words, based on these two exemptions. Yet this flies in the face of what Indigenous women, leaders and advocates have long requested and what the minister heard in the national engagement sessions leading up to the drafting of the terms.

Despite the Human Rights Watch report about police officers sexually abusing Indigenous women and girls in British Columbia with impunity; or the police officers in Val D’or, most of whom will not face charges for allegations of ongoing sexualized abuse of indigenous women and girls in Quebec; or the rampant sexualized violence and discrimination within the RCMP as evidenced by the class action by its female members — none of this will be open for examination.

At best, the commissioners might be able to look at systemic discrimination within policing policy — but nothing that gets to heart of why so many Indigenous women fear police, and why so many of their investigations, or lack thereof, have been challenged by the families. This poses a real risk that we will end up with an inquiry that is more damaging than helpful. We could end up with a report like that of commissioner Wally Oppal from the Pickton inquiry which hints at generalized police failures in investigations but doesn’t shine a light on the darker side of policing.

One of the worst outcomes would be a report that presents a general historical overview of colonization, a recap of the well-known socioeconomic problems plaguing First Nations or one that represents the voices of so few indigenous witnesses that it misses the root problems altogether.

The inquiry terms are already biased toward violence in general and best practices related to violence prevention and safety. This has already led many commentators to focus on domestic violence, which is part of the issue, but by no means the whole issue. Such an unstructured inquiry means we could end up with a report on the already well-documented research on domestic violence but have nothing about police violence for example.

Given that the terms also focus the inquiry on the “vulnerabilities” of Indigenous women and girls as opposed to failures of federal, provincial and municipal governments and service agencies to protect the human rights of Indigenous women and girls — the inquiry risks missing the whole point. The fatal flaws of the Terms of Reference are reason enough for a reset of the inquiry.

There is no shame in learning from the lessons of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s reset and making sure that the thousands of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, their families and communities get the inquiry they asked for and the justice they deserve.

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/3139/inquiry-into-murdered-and-missing-indigenous-women-and-girls-fatally-flawed-pamela-palmater?category=columnists

May 15, 2017
Nation to Nation Relations Need Repeal of Paternalistic Laws

(Originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on April 17, 2017)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau swept the Liberals into power on Oct.19, 2015, with the support of Indigenous peoples who voted in record numbers. Trudeau’s election platform consisted of core promises made to the Chiefs in Assembly on July 7, 2015, which would include the review and repeal of legislation unilaterally imposed on First Nations by former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Trudeau confirmed his government’s commitment at a subsequent meeting of the Chiefs of Assembly on Dec. 8, 2015.

This was a significant commitment for First Nations since the unilateral imposition of these laws by the Harper government had inspired the largest social movement in Canada’s history: Idle No More. Indigenous peoples took to the streets for nearly a year protesting Bill C-45, an omnibus bill that would remove protections for various waterways; Bill C-27 First Nations Financial Transparency Act; Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve; Bill S-6 First Nation Elections; Bill S-8 Safe Drinking Water; and Bill C-428 Indian Act Abolishment. All of these bills involved some form of increased government control, something First Nations were not willing to accept. In addition to protests, First Nations decided to tackle these unconstitutional laws head on in the courts.

Mikisew Cree Nation won their initial case in Federal Court challenging Harper’s failure to consult on two omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45; and Onion Lake Cree Nation won their federal court battle against Bill C-27.

While Idle No More activities on the ground eventually subsided, First Nation discontent with federally imposed legislation continued to grow throughout Harper’s mandate. There was significant opposition and protests against Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, which targeted the political activities of Indigenous peoples.

The situation came to a head when Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Shawn Atleo publicly supported Harper’s Bill C-33 First Nation Control of First Nations Education Act without informing or consulting First Nations. The resulting widespread cries for Atleo’s removal led to his resignation and put a serious strain on an already fragile relationship between First Nations and the federal government. Trudeau’s election promises offered a welcome path forward.

However, Trudeau’s first budget was a major disappointment not only for failing to address the many overlapping crises in First Nation social conditions, but also for completely ignoring his promises to repeal Harper’s legislation. The resulting First Nation criticism is likely what led to this year’s announcement that Trudeau’s government has created a ministerial working group to review all laws and policies related to indigenous peoples. The working group consists of the ministers for Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Fisheries, Justice, Health, Families and Natural Resources and will be chaired by Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

On its face, the announcement appears to be an indication of the Trudeau government moving in the right direction in the promised nation to nation relationship. However, we do not have either a specific budget for this work or a terms of reference that specifies who will be engaged in the review, the time frame for completion, or the ultimate objectives.

The worst thing that could happen is yet another government committee struck to review its own laws, with its own legal interpretations of what does and does not violate the Constitution, cementing it firmly in its own colonial and paternalistic mindset.

Most will recall that Trudeau’s father, former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, struck out big time with his 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy calling for the elimination of Indian status, reserves and treaty rights. This ministerial review committee risks the same fate without First Nation leaders and experts at the table. Another core concern is that the scope of this review has been enlarged so much that this committee could spend years reviewing hundreds of laws and policies instead of repealing the handful that Trudeau promised to repeal.

Therein lies the other problem with Trudeau’s legal review committee — it is based on a nation to nation relationship that begins and ends with the AFN. This comprehensive legal and policy review must be done in partnership with the actual Aboriginal and treaty rights holders themselves; i.e., First Nations and treaty signatories, not the AFN. This is a critical first step before Trudeau’s vision of “a complete renewal of Canada’s nation to nation relationship with indigenous peoples” can be realized. It will require Trudeau’s working group to negotiate the terms of reference with representatives of the rights holders on a nation basis, like the Mi’kmaw Nation, or on a treaty basis, like engaging with all First Nations in Treaty 4, for example. It is possible for regional and other representative organizations to participate, so long as it is the rights holders themselves who mandate them to engage in this process.

To date, Trudeau has not asked how our nations want to be represented or engaged in this legislative review. First Nations in Canada are not the mythical race of “Indians” created by the Indian Act. They do not have one culture, one language or one set of laws. First Nations are part of larger Indigenous nations with laws, governments, histories and politics as varied as those found in the United Nations.

If Trudeau is serious about transforming the relationship with indigenous peoples, he will have to abandon the colonial requirement that all First Nations speak with one voice. Canadians don’t speak with one voice, nor do the provinces and territories. To expect more of First Nations is an adherence to racist stereotypes of the past which have no place in a multinational, democratic Canada that is truly committed to reconciliation, reparation and renewal. The terms of reference will be the real indication as to whether Trudeau is serious about a renewed relationship. https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/2889/nation-to-nation-relations-need-repeal-of-paternalistic-laws-pamela-palmater

See also my recent video explaining Trudeau’s proposed federal legislative framework and its potential impact on First Nation rights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Z3579b20c&t=2s

May 15, 2017
New Government, Old Ways: Racism is STILL Killing Our People – Updated

“Millions promised for Indigenous kids is subsidizing mining companies, internal documents show”. This was the headline on March 2, 2017 which made me and many other people very angry. https://www.pressprogress.ca/millions_promised_for_indigenous_kids_is_subsidizing_mining_companies_internal_documents_show First of all, the Minister of Indigenous Affairs can’t be trusted to tell the truth and secondly, thousands of First Nation children end up in foster care because instead of providing adequate funding for First Nations kids, our money goes to subsidize the mining industry. This makes me absolutely furious as there is no excuse for this. Dr. Cindy Blackstock already filed and won a human rights claim against Canada at the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prove Canada’s discriminatory under-funding for First Nation kids in care. http://decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/chrt-tcdp/decisions/en/item/127700/index.do Then the tribunal actually had to direct Canada to comply with the order several times. Yet, instead of complying, Minister Bennett continues to claim they have, in fact, provided that funding. If I look angry when I speak about the injustice of this issue, it is because I am. http://www.pampalmater.com/child-welfare-unfair-for-first-nations/ Some people say: “Pam you are too angry” or “The AFN isn’t complaining, why should you?” Others say: “Pam, you have to admit that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made better promises on First Nation issues than former Prime Minister Harper” and still others say “But Minister Bennett is so nice?” They are all right. I am angry; National Chief Bellegarde looks exceptionally happy these days; Trudeau did make better promises than Harper; and having met Bennett on several occasion, I can say she seems to be a super nice person. Yet, I sometimes work in The Pas, Manitoba where Helen Betty Osbourne was kidnapped and raped, yet nothing has been done to stop the numbers of disappeared and murdered Indigenous women and girls. I am often woken up in the middle of the night with phone calls or texts about someone’s child having committed suicide or community members who have died in a fire or frozen to death outside. The most recent hand-written letter I received was from an Indigenous man residing in prison who was hurting deeply because his mother had been raped by an RCMP officer and nothing was ever done about it. The over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples in prison has been a crisis for decades, but continues to get worse. I receive calls from people who are trying their hardest to get to university, but there is no funding for them, so they give up. PM Trudeau promised $200M in extra funding for post-secondary education, yet that hasn’t happened yet. And an email I received this week was from a Rape Crisis shelter who asked me to keep advocating on behalf of Indigenous women and girls despite how hostile the environment. The national inquiry is almost a year into its two year term and it still hasn’t started yet, but our Indigenous women and girls continue to go missing and be murdered. So, I admit that I am angry and I look angry and I sound angry. The pre-mature deaths and suffering of my First Nations brothers and sisters is nothing short of a national crisis. The lack of housing, proper schools, adequate health care, education, and child and family supports; along with the lack of basics like food and clean water, have been called labelled as a “crisis” “grave” “discriminatory” and “inequitable” not just by First Nations and advocates, but also by former Prime Ministers, Supreme Court of Canada justices, the Auditor General for Canada, the Office of the Correctional Investigator, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the United Nations. So why has little been done to address the crisis? Despite all the promises from Trudeau, where is the action? Instead of action, we see daily doses of misinformation at best and lies at worst. Whatever you choose to call it, it’s not the truth and herein lies the problem with Canada’s new obsession with reconciliation. We can’t ever get to reconciliation, no matter how it’s defined, until we find a way to get to the truth and share it and take responsibility for it. Canada is killing our people with its deeply ingrained racism towards to First Nations. If a, affluent neighborhood in Montreal had contaminated water which was making everyone sick, federal and provincial resources would instantly be brought to bear to remedy the situation. If a cozy suburb of Toronto developed the world’s highest suicide rate, massive amounts of financial and human resources would be dedicated to remedying the crisis. If 50% of the Members of Parliament’s children were stolen from them and put into foster care due to lack of funding for child and family services, watch how fast they’d reallocate funds from Canada’s 150th to get their kids back. So, why then does the government not act to do this when it involves First Nations? Why does the response always follow the same racist pattern: (1) DENY the problem: This is when the government either says that there is no crisis or that it is not as bad as the media or First Nations are saying it is. Then comes the inevitable Access to Information request which shows that the government was either lying or misinforming and they have to admit there may be a problem. (2) DEFER the problem: This is when the government says they will study the issue, even if it has been studied exhaustively and well-documented in the research. This is when they will buy the media silence of National Aboriginal Organizations like the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) by offering them some sort of project-based funding to meet about the issue, set up tables, or do policy papers on the subject. (3) DEFLECT the problem: At this stage, the problem can’t be denied any longer, so the government will blame previous governments, blame First Nations themselves or make excuses as to why the problem can’t be dealt with right now, like budgetary limitations or that changes can’t be made overnight. The most common response at this stage is: “We can’t just throw money at the problem” because (a) First Nations leaders are corrupt (Harper) or (b) First Nations have no capacity to address the issue (Trudeau). The end result is that all of the problems get worse and our people die. The government response is usually a Tweet or speaking point for the media which says: “Our hearts go out to the community” or “We are sorry for your loss” and then everyone goes back to their offices to plan Canada’s 150th birthday. Every day that this government fails to take urgent action says that there is no relationship less important to Trudeau than the one with Indigenous peoples. The underlying message is that there is no life worth less in Canada, than the life of an Indigenous person. Until we accept that this is current government policy and force change, then it doesn’t matter which party is elected – new or old, racism will continue to kill our people. Quick Facts: Indigenous peoples are 4% of Canadian population; 10x more likely to die in a fire; 5-10x more likely to commit suicide; Some jails are 80-100% Indigenous; 50% of all kids in care are Indigenous; More likely to go murdered or missing; 120+ First Nations without clean water. #racismkills Update: And, as if on cue, one day after I wrote this blog, Minister Bennett wrote an op-ed saying more than money is needed to address discrimination against Indigenous children. Their standard pattern of denial, deferral and deflection is both appalling and predictable. The very method of discrimination (under-funding) is now denied as the solution to the discrimination by the very department that has been found guilty of discrimination for under-funding. If Minister Bennett doesn’t think funding is part of the problem, she needs to go back and read the court order. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/hon-carolyn-bennett/indigenous-children-discrimination_b_15131394.html Just in case anyone thought the Minister’s special representative on Child Welfare might be the solution, keep in mind, Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux is a failed liberal candidate who also has the same bias as Minister Bennett. She was quoted as saying the liberals “are not going to take money and throw it up in the air like confetti” promoting more racist stereotypes against First Nations. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/azraya-kokopenace-charlie-angus-1.3824868

March 3, 2017
National Inquiry or National Disgrace? Trudeau’s Next Step is Critical

Before being elected Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau told Canadians and First Nations that there was no more important relationship to him than the one with Indigenous peoples. To this end, he promised to engage with First Nations on a Nation-to-Nation basis where free, informed and prior consent means a veto. Once elected, he reiterated his promises:

(1)   Engage in a Nation-to-Nation relationship with First Nations;

(2)   Lift the 2% cap in First Nations education;

(3)   Review and repeal all the legislation former Prime Minister Harper imposed on First Nations without their consent;

(4)   Implement all 94 Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Report, which includes implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); and

(5)   Complete a national inquiry on murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/justin-trudeau-at-the-assembly-of-first-nations-36th-annual-general-assembly/

True to his word, Trudeau’s first order of business was to mandate Indian Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett, Justice Minister Jodi Wilson-Raybould and Status of Women Minister Patti Hajdu to develop an approach and mandate for an inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls to find justice for them. By mid-December 2015, the first engagement sessions were held with the families of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, Indigenous women and their representative organizations, Indigenous leaders, and human rights experts to determine the scope and process of the inquiry. While these meetings were ongoing, Canada accepted written submissions and also engaged in an online survey regarding the scope and process for the inquiry.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1448638260896/1448638282066

It is important to note that both the pre-inquiry engagement process and the inquiry itself were to be done within a new political context – one which focused on openness. Trudeau promised to “bring new leadership and a new tone to Ottawa” and “set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government”. In fact, he went so far as to say that “Government and its information should be open by default.” His reasoning for doing so was to ensure that Canadians can trust their government and that government remains focused on the people it is meant to serve. All of these promises come straight from the Ministerial mandate letters.

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/ministerial-mandate-letters

As promised, the government posted the dates and locations of meetings; posted overviews of each session online; and issued a summary report of what they had heard once the pre-inquiry sessions had ended in March 2015. Out of respect for what seemed to be a mostly positive process, most leaders and advocates held back their commentary in hopes that the next stage would soon follow.

In the months which followed, none of the mandated Ministers reported on what was happening with regard to the inquiry. Some of us were wondering when they would establish a table to begin jointly drafting the Terms of Reference based on the input from these sessions and begin the process of jointly choosing the commissioners for the inquiry. Such a table was never established. Instead, we only found out that the Terms of Reference were in fact being unilaterally drafted by federal and provincial governments when they were leaked to the press. Shortly thereafter, the names of the Commissioners were also leaked. This is when it became very clear that the government reverted to its old secretive ways and had no real intention of working on a Nation-to-Nation basis with First Nations. It was clear Trudeau’s commitment to openness, transparency and working in partnership with Indigenous peoples had ended.

http://aptn.ca/news/2016/07/20/leaked-document-appears-to-give-broad-powers-to-mmiw-national-inquiry/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/missing-murdered-indigenous-women-inquiry-unlikely-to-have-mandate-to-review-police-conduct/article31020957/

Despite Trudeau’s personal promise made at the Chiefs in Assembly that the “process by which it [inquiry] is established will be fully inclusive”, numerous requests to be a part of the drafting process, and be provided direct updates and briefings from the INAC Minister’s office, were either met with silence or commitments cancelled at the last minute. It was obvious that the government was playing politics with one of the most urgent issues ever to face Canada – the very lives of Indigenous women and girls. The renewed Nation-to-Nation relationship with Indigenous peoples was supposed to be based on “recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership”. Trudeau had mandated these and other Ministers to work to gain the trust of Indigenous peoples and Canadians by demonstrating “honesty and willingness to listen”. Clearly, these Ministers have lost their way in regards to the national inquiry.

Being completely excluded from the drafting of the Terms of Reference and choosing the Commissioners was bad enough, but to face the wall of silence and exclusion made things much worse. Some of the families started to lose faith; Indigenous leaders were forced to speak out; and some Indigenous and allied advocates were pushed to raise their concerns publicly, since the direct route had been cut off. To make matters worse, the content of the draft Terms of Reference that were shared by the media, was a real slap in the face to many of those who participated in the engagement sessions, who made written submissions and/or who have tried to work very hard with various Ministers’ offices. The Terms of Reference did not reflect what was recommended by various United Nations human rights bodies, human rights organizations, legal experts, Indigenous leaders, Indigenous women’s organizations, Indigenous experts, or by the families.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/families-feel-shut-out-after-draft-mandate-of-missing-murder-inquiry-leaked/article31071602/

Protesters accuse Manitoba government of stalling MMIW inquiry

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/terms-of-reference-mmiw-inquiry-lack-teeth-1.3689319

While there are many concerns with the draft Terms of Reference that were leaked by the media, the following is a brief overview of the main concerns as expressed by a variety of Indigenous women, families, leaders, experts and human rights allies:

(1)   Police: There is no specific mandate to investigate police conduct, specifically racism & sexualized violence within police forces towards Indigenous women & girls, their families and First Nations;

(2)   Evidence: There is no specific authorization for the inquiry to compel federal, provincial, and territorial documents, especially from police forces;

(3)   Human Rights: The inquiry is not structured within a human rights framework which is a major weakness given Canada’s failure to protect the domestic and international human rights of Indigenous women and girls has been cited as a root cause of the crisis;

(4)   Jurisdiction: There is no specific authority for the national inquiry to deal with matters that some provinces may feel are within their exclusive jurisdiction, like the critical issue of child and family services. Similarly, there is no explicit legal clarity around cross-jurisdictional sharing of information that will be required in the inquiry.

(5)   Participant supports: There is no specific provision to provide protection from police for witnesses who bring forward information about police abuse. There are also no specific supports for travel, legal counsel or language translation.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210228122859/http://www.amnesty.ca/news/statement-terms-reference-national-inquiry-missing-and-murdered-indigenous-women-and-girls

My primary concern is related to the lack of specificity around racialized and sexualized police violence committed upon Indigenous women and girls and how police racism and misogyny impacts their decisions to investigate murders and disappearances or not, and the quality of those investigations.

As it stands now, there is no specific mandate to investigate failures by police forces to investigate murdered & missing Indigenous women & girls including both solved and unsolved cases, misnamed cases (murders deemed accidents), failures to file reports, failures to protect Indigenous women & girls; police facilitation (direct or indirect) of child prostitution and human trafficking, and the treatment of families and First Nations by police.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Ontario-Policing-Gang-Rapes-Murders-and-Child-Porn–20160201-0008.html

This is made all the more problematic by the fact that the draft Terms of Reference specifically directs the Commissioners NOT to investigate anything that could interfere with ongoing investigations – which would include cold cases not touched for over 20 years. Even more shocking is that Commissioners are instructed to send Indigenous families back to the same police forces that abused them, mistreated them or discriminated against them in the first place. Offering “navigators” akin to native court workers to help families deal with police processes is no replacement for a fulsome investigation of police failures and abuses, or the elimination of discriminatory police processes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/mmiw-inquiry-police-steven-zhou-1.3690860

Even if one could argue that the current Terms of Reference does not need a specific mandate to review legislation, policies and oversight processes relating to policing and the justice system, the commissioners’ inability to compel police, their notes, or other police-held evidence under current laws and policies would make this implied power useless. These laws have resulted in a high impunity rate for police. If police officers who murdered unarmed racialized men in front of witnesses and on video can’t be compelled to cooperate with their own legislated Special Investigations Unit or share their notes and other evidence, what makes Trudeau think that some non-specific wording in the Terms of Reference will be able to do so? Canada is once again asking us to have faith in justice processes that protect police and harm Indigenous peoples. That is not what trust and partnership is about.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/abdirahman-abdi-siu-investigation-video-evidence-1.3700715

But Trudeau doesn’t have to take my word for it. Minister Bennett’s own report on the engagement sessions noted that not only should the inquiry be done in a human rights framework, but that the inquiry must address law enforcement – over and above systemic issues within the justice system. Families and experts from all over Canada said they want police accountability, independent reviews of cases, analysis of police racialized and sexualized conduct towards Indigenous women and girls, and the sexual exploitations of Indigenous women and girls.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1463677554486/1463677615622

Trudeau himself promised that the national inquiry would investigate “uncomfortable truths” and seek concrete actions related specifically to law enforcement. While the uncomfortable truth about police racism and sexualized violence, abuse and corruption has been in the public eye lately through media exposing the extensive nature of police abuses – Indigenous peoples have long known about this problem. We need this national inquiry to shine a light on this dark and uncomfortable truth for all to see, so we can put an end to it.

Prime Minister Trudeau, you made a promise to us. It’s up to you to force your Ministers to fulfill that promise. Convene a table this week so that Indigenous peoples can jointly draft the Terms of Reference and pick the Commissioners. Nothing less will live up to your Nation-to-Nation commitment. It’s never too late.

Additional resources:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Systemic-Sexism-in-Canada-Could-Derail-National-Inquiry-20160706-0021.html

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/How-Canada-Should-Investigate-Violence-Against-Indigenous-Women-20160307-0016.html

August 1, 2016
National Inquiry or National Disgrace? Trudeau’s Next Step is Critical

Before being elected Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau told Canadians and First Nations that there was no more important relationship to him than the one with Indigenous peoples. To this end, he promised to engage with First Nations on a Nation-to-Nation basis where free, informed and prior consent means a veto. Once elected, he reiterated his promises:

(1)   Engage in a Nation-to-Nation relationship with First Nations;

(2)   Lift the 2% cap in First Nations education;

(3)   Review and repeal all the legislation former Prime Minister Harper imposed on First Nations without their consent;

(4)   Implement all 94 Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Report, which includes implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); and

(5)   Complete a national inquiry on murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/justin-trudeau-at-the-assembly-of-first-nations-36th-annual-general-assembly/

True to his word, Trudeau’s first order of business was to mandate Indian Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett, Justice Minister Jodi Wilson-Raybould and Status of Women Minister Patti Hajdu to develop an approach and mandate for an inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls to find justice for them. By mid-December 2015, the first engagement sessions were held with the families of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, Indigenous women and their representative organizations, Indigenous leaders, and human rights experts to determine the scope and process of the inquiry. While these meetings were ongoing, Canada accepted written submissions and also engaged in an online survey regarding the scope and process for the inquiry.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1448638260896/1448638282066

It is important to note that both the pre-inquiry engagement process and the inquiry itself were to be done within a new political context – one which focused on openness. Trudeau promised to “bring new leadership and a new tone to Ottawa” and “set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government”. In fact, he went so far as to say that “Government and its information should be open by default.” His reasoning for doing so was to ensure that Canadians can trust their government and that government remains focused on the people it is meant to serve. All of these promises come straight from the Ministerial mandate letters.

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/ministerial-mandate-letters

As promised, the government posted the dates and locations of meetings; posted overviews of each session online; and issued a summary report of what they had heard once the pre-inquiry sessions had ended in March 2015. Out of respect for what seemed to be a mostly positive process, most leaders and advocates held back their commentary in hopes that the next stage would soon follow.

In the months which followed, none of the mandated Ministers reported on what was happening with regard to the inquiry. Some of us were wondering when they would establish a table to begin jointly drafting the Terms of Reference based on the input from these sessions and begin the process of jointly choosing the commissioners for the inquiry. Such a table was never established. Instead, we only found out that the Terms of Reference were in fact being unilaterally drafted by federal and provincial governments when they were leaked to the press. Shortly thereafter, the names of the Commissioners were also leaked. This is when it became very clear that the government reverted to its old secretive ways and had no real intention of working on a Nation-to-Nation basis with First Nations. It was clear Trudeau’s commitment to openness, transparency and working in partnership with Indigenous peoples had ended.

http://aptn.ca/news/2016/07/20/leaked-document-appears-to-give-broad-powers-to-mmiw-national-inquiry/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/missing-murdered-indigenous-women-inquiry-unlikely-to-have-mandate-to-review-police-conduct/article31020957/

Despite Trudeau’s personal promise made at the Chiefs in Assembly that the “process by which it [inquiry] is established will be fully inclusive”, numerous requests to be a part of the drafting process, and be provided direct updates and briefings from the INAC Minister’s office, were either met with silence or commitments cancelled at the last minute. It was obvious that the government was playing politics with one of the most urgent issues ever to face Canada – the very lives of Indigenous women and girls. The renewed Nation-to-Nation relationship with Indigenous peoples was supposed to be based on “recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership”. Trudeau had mandated these and other Ministers to work to gain the trust of Indigenous peoples and Canadians by demonstrating “honesty and willingness to listen”. Clearly, these Ministers have lost their way in regards to the national inquiry.

Being completely excluded from the drafting of the Terms of Reference and choosing the Commissioners was bad enough, but to face the wall of silence and exclusion made things much worse. Some of the families started to lose faith; Indigenous leaders were forced to speak out; and some Indigenous and allied advocates were pushed to raise their concerns publicly, since the direct route had been cut off. To make matters worse, the content of the draft Terms of Reference that were shared by the media, was a real slap in the face to many of those who participated in the engagement sessions, who made written submissions and/or who have tried to work very hard with various Ministers’ offices. The Terms of Reference did not reflect what was recommended by various United Nations human rights bodies, human rights organizations, legal experts, Indigenous leaders, Indigenous women’s organizations, Indigenous experts, or by the families.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/families-feel-shut-out-after-draft-mandate-of-missing-murder-inquiry-leaked/article31071602/

https://warriorpublications.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/protesters-accuse-manitoba-government-of-stalling-mmiw-inquiry/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/terms-of-reference-mmiw-inquiry-lack-teeth-1.3689319

While there are many concerns with the draft Terms of Reference that were leaked by the media, the following is a brief overview of the main concerns as expressed by a variety of Indigenous women, families, leaders, experts and human rights allies:

(1)   Police: There is no specific mandate to investigate police conduct, specifically racism & sexualized violence within police forces towards Indigenous women & girls, their families and First Nations;

(2)   Evidence: There is no specific authorization for the inquiry to compel federal, provincial, and territorial documents, especially from police forces;

(3)   Human Rights: The inquiry is not structured within a human rights framework which is a major weakness given Canada’s failure to protect the domestic and international human rights of Indigenous women and girls has been cited as a root cause of the crisis;

(4)   Jurisdiction: There is no specific authority for the national inquiry to deal with matters that some provinces may feel are within their exclusive jurisdiction, like the critical issue of child and family services. Similarly, there is no explicit legal clarity around cross-jurisdictional sharing of information that will be required in the inquiry.

(5)   Participant supports: There is no specific provision to provide protection from police for witnesses who bring forward information about police abuse. There are also no specific supports for travel, legal counsel or language translation.

http://www.amnesty.ca/news/statement-terms-reference-national-inquiry-missing-and-murdered-indigenous-women-and-girls

My primary concern is related to the lack of specificity around racialized and sexualized police violence committed upon Indigenous women and girls and how police racism and misogyny impacts their decisions to investigate murders and disappearances or not, and the quality of those investigations.

As it stands now, there is no specific mandate to investigate failures by police forces to investigate murdered & missing Indigenous women & girls including both solved and unsolved cases, misnamed cases (murders deemed accidents), failures to file reports, failures to protect Indigenous women & girls; police facilitation (direct or indirect) of child prostitution and human trafficking, and the treatment of families and First Nations by police.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Ontario-Policing-Gang-Rapes-Murders-and-Child-Porn–20160201-0008.html

This is made all the more problematic by the fact that the draft Terms of Reference specifically directs the Commissioners NOT to investigate anything that could interfere with ongoing investigations – which would include cold cases not touched for over 20 years. Even more shocking is that Commissioners are instructed to send Indigenous families back to the same police forces that abused them, mistreated them or discriminated against them in the first place. Offering “navigators” akin to native court workers to help families deal with police processes is no replacement for a fulsome investigation of police failures and abuses, or the elimination of discriminatory police processes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/mmiw-inquiry-police-steven-zhou-1.3690860

Even if one could argue that the current Terms of Reference does not need a specific mandate to review legislation, policies and oversight processes relating to policing and the justice system, the commissioners’ inability to compel police, their notes, or other police-held evidence under current laws and policies would make this implied power useless. These laws have resulted in a high impunity rate for police. If police officers who murdered unarmed racialized men in front of witnesses and on video can’t be compelled to cooperate with their own legislated Special Investigations Unit or share their notes and other evidence, what makes Trudeau think that some non-specific wording in the Terms of Reference will be able to do so? Canada is once again asking us to have faith in justice processes that protect police and harm Indigenous peoples. That is not what trust and partnership is about.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/abdirahman-abdi-siu-investigation-video-evidence-1.3700715

But Trudeau doesn’t have to take my word for it. Minister Bennett’s own report on the engagement sessions noted that not only should the inquiry be done in a human rights framework, but that the inquiry must address law enforcement – over and above systemic issues within the justice system. Families and experts from all over Canada said they want police accountability, independent reviews of cases, analysis of police racialized and sexualized conduct towards Indigenous women and girls, and the sexual exploitations of Indigenous women and girls.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1463677554486/1463677615622

Trudeau himself promised that the national inquiry would investigate “uncomfortable truths” and seek concrete actions related specifically to law enforcement. While the uncomfortable truth about police racism and sexualized violence, abuse and corruption has been in the public eye lately through media exposing the extensive nature of police abuses – Indigenous peoples have long known about this problem. We need this national inquiry to shine a light on this dark and uncomfortable truth for all to see, so we can put an end to it.

Prime Minister Trudeau, you made a promise to us. It’s up to you to force your Ministers to fulfill that promise. Convene a table this week so that Indigenous peoples can jointly draft the Terms of Reference and pick the Commissioners. Nothing less with live up to your Nation-to-Nation commitment. It’s never too late.

Additional resources:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Systemic-Sexism-in-Canada-Could-Derail-National-Inquiry-20160706-0021.html

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/How-Canada-Should-Investigate-Violence-Against-Indigenous-Women-20160307-0016.html

August 1, 2016
Canadians are not racist? Indigenous Invisibility versus the Convenience of Racist Indifference – UPDATED

This week, former Prime Minister Paul Martin, told the media that the failure to address the many overlapping crises faced by Indigenous peoples is not a problem with Canadians – Canadians are not racist. The problem is with Indigenous peoples – we are invisible. Martin further alleges that Canadians are “a generous people” that will “rise to the occasion” to support others in need – if they are aware of the issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/canadians-not-racist-but-aboriginal-issue-invisible-to-many-says-paul-martin-1.3579731

In my opinion, not only do we have a very deep and long-standing race problem in some segments of Canadian society, but this racism has also infected every level, branch and institution of the municipal, provincial, territorial and federal governments. This race problem is not new. It is in fact, one of the primary root causes of the challenges faced by Indigenous peoples today. Canadians are well aware of both the racism issue and the many over-lapping crises in First Nations.

Racism in Canada is Real

The racism experienced by Indigenous peoples in Canada is not just a matter of insult or offence. While there are no shortage of racist, hateful comments made about us as individuals, communities and Nations – the racism we face is lethal. It doesn’t just hurt our feelings – it leads to our pre-mature deaths in a large variety of ways. Scalping bounties led to the deaths on thousands of Mi’kmaw people. There was a higher death rate for Indigenous kids in residential schools than for soldiers in WWII. Thousands of Indigenous peoples are murdered or are disappeared. We have higher rates of disease and injury. And deaths while in the custody of hospitals, foster parents and police show how prevalent racism against Indigenous peoples is in Canada.

http://crsp.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/crsp/article/view/35220/32057

This isn’t just my opinion. The Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Prosecution in 1989 found that he was wrongfully prosecuted and failed by everyone in the justice system because he was native. 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples spoke about racism against Indigenous women. The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in Manitoba in 1999 admitted the justice system fails Indigenous peoples on a “massive scale”. The 2007 Ipperwash report confirmed that racism in the Ontario Provincial Police was widespread. And there have been many other reports which all speak to the deep-seated racism within Canada and its institutions.

We’ve known for a very long time that stories in the media about Indigenous peoples draws a high number of racist and hateful comments from all segments of society including teachers, professors, authors, professionals and politicians. In November of 2015, the General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News Canada issued a statement explaining why CBC will no longer allow comments on stories about Indigenous peoples. The reason for this is that Indigenous-related stories brought out “higher-than-average” comments which were not only hateful but also racist.

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2015/11/uncivil-dialogue-commenting-and-stories-about-indigenous-people.html

MacLean’s magazine even went so far as to say that Canada’s race problem is far worse than America’s and part of what makes it so bad is that Canadians keep denying they are racist.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/out-of-sight-out-of-mind-2/

In case you require something a little more official, the Ontario Human Rights Commission confirms that Canada has “a legacy of racism – particularly towards Aboriginal persons”.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/racial-discrimination-brochure

The fact that Canada is so systemically and overtly racist is one of the reasons why Canada has so many laws against racism and hate speech, including federal and provincial human rights acts, the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is a signatory to numerous international human rights instruments. There would be no need for these protections if there were no issues around racism in Canada.

Invisibility versus Racist Indifference

Let’s just address this fiction before it becomes the new Liberal mantra. Neither Indigenous peoples, nor the many over-lapping crises we face are invisible. While 50% of Indigenous people live in remote reserves, about 50% live in or near urban centres. One can’t walk down the street in Winnipeg or Saskatoon without seeing Indigenous people. In terms of the challenges we face, First Nations like Attawapiskat have put our higher rates of suicide, poverty, homelessness in the forefront and is a prime example of Canada’s racist and differential responses to First Nation crises versus Canadian crises (Walkerton, Halifax, Fort McMurray).

Trudeau’s uneven response to Fort McMurray and Attawapiskat shows tale of two cities

Indigenous activists like Cindy Blackstock have ensured that Canadians are well aware of the over-representation of First Nations kids in foster care. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concluded that the reason for the chronic underfunding and disproportionate number of kids in foster care was because they were native. The problem of racism in Canada means that a tribunal actually had to direct Canada to stop its discriminatory treatment of Indigenous kids – and we are all still waiting for Canada to abide by this decision.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/canada-discriminates-against-children-on-reserves-tribunal-rules-1.3419480

The Native Women’s Association of Canada led the way with public education and advocacy to focus the country’s attention on the thousands of murdered and missing Indigenous women. Even Canada’s own Attorney General and Office of the Correctional Investigator rang the alarm on Canada’s discriminatory treatment of Indigenous peoples which led to under-funded education systems and prisons over-represented with Indigenous peoples. We are far from invisible, but don’t take their words for it – the numbers speak for themselves.

In 2010, a study by Environics showed that 60% of Canadians are either somewhat or very familiar with Indigenous issues. This is nothing new. In fact, over the last two decades, at least half of Canadians were familiar with Indigenous issues. The majority of Canadians also believe that the challenges faced by Indigenous peoples are the result of the attitudes of non-Indigenous people and government policies. Since 1993, Canadians have ranked addressing the living conditions on reserve as one of the top priorities. There is absolutely no doubt that Canadians and their politicians know about the issues.

Focus Canada 2010: Public opinion research on the record Serving the public interest

Idle No More, the largest social movement in Canada’s history, brought the issues of social conditions and unresolved treaties and land claims to the front of the media, government and world’s attention and held it there for nearly a year. But Indigenous peoples didn’t just capture the media headlines in 2012. There have been regular flash points over the last few decades that garnered a great deal of media attention including Listuguj, Oka, Gustafsen Lake, Ipperwash, Burnt Church, Elsipogtog, Caledonia and others. There are few in Canada who could claim that Indigenous peoples are invisible. They may not want to acknowledge the lethal results of this kind of racism, but they are aware it exists. After the Truth and Reconciliation Report, few can deny the racist underpinnings of Canada’s genocidal policies against Indigenous peoples.

So, no, racism is not a figment of our imaginations. The many tombstones from Indigenous peoples killed at the hands of priests, doctors, foster parents, police and bureaucrats prove otherwise. And, no, Indigenous peoples are not invisible. There isn’t a newspaper, news channel or magazine that hasn’t had pictures of dirty water, run down homes, or deceased Indigenous women as their lead story at some point. And finally, no, most Canadians are not unaware of our dire circumstances. It’s the racist segments of society that make a conscious choice to turn a blind eye to our suffering while running to the aid of their non-Indigenous neighbor.

There are many authors, media commentators and people in society who deny the racist views held by the countless individuals and institutions who have stolen, sterilized, experimented on, scalped, beaten, raped, murdered, and dispossessed Indigenous peoples of their identities, cultures, children, lands, resources and independence. In my opinion, denying the racism which instigates the high level of violence and suffering in First Nations, is itself an act of racism. It is far too convenient to be willfully blind or indifferent to the lethal impacts of racism on Indigenous peoples. Apologies are easy, as are empty diversity policies, and promises for a new relationship. The hard work is in making amends for the damage done and which continues to be done to Indigenous peoples by people and governments which still have racist ideologies and intentions.

Canada was built on the dispossession, oppression and genocide of Indigenous peoples. Addressing racism now means far more than apologies, photo-ops and fancy words – it means the return of our lands and resources, the recognition of our jurisdiction, and the full implementation of our rights. This means land, wealth, and power changes hands – it means an uncomfortable recognition that Canada benefits from our continued oppression. Justice will require some discomfort. If it isn’t uncomfortable, it isn’t justice.

This isn’t a multi-cultural issue or one of diversity – we are not asking for “equality”, we are demanding justice. If we are going to move forward, we can’t hide behind the convenience of the status quo. We have to be brave enough to shine a light on the problem and work together to address is. Indigenous peoples have many allies in Canadian society – not everyone is racist. Unfortunately, many still hold racist views which threaten our lives.

I think we can all do better than pretend the problem of racism against Indigenous peoples doesn’t exist. While the new theme may be reconciliation, reconciliation is not a process in an of itself – it starts first with the truth. If Canada cannot admit it has a racism problem, then we can never take steps to address it. Let’s continue the conversation in an open and honest way. Racism does exist in Canada. UPDATE: These comments that Mr. Martin said upset me. I’ve had to think about why they upset me so much, because it’s not like I haven’t heard them made many times from many different people. I don’t react to the vast majority of these comments. I know these comments originate from people who are in different places and in different contexts. I believe most people are good people at heart. Most of us love our families and communities and we want to see a brighter future for everyone. So, in fairness to Mr. Martin, perhaps in making those comments, he meant to show faith in Canadian citizens that once they know about Indigenous struggles they will act. His recent interviews seem to suggest that since leaving office, he wants to advocate on their behalf. He recently denounced former Prime Minister Chretien’s comments who suggested that First Nations should leave reserves; he has advocated for improved First Nation education and set up a foundation for that purpose; and he consistently called the chronic underfunding of First Nations social programs discriminatory. My blog was less about him – as a person – and more about the comments in general. I also know that we are in the business of social justice to gain support for our cause. I have been advised by lots of people who have heard me speak that I should tone down my words, be careful not to come on too strong, and to focus on encouraging allies and not make enemies. As a Mi’kmaw person, I am honour-bound to live up to the treaty commitments of my ancestors who promised to live in peace with the settlers. My Dad fought in WWII alongside Canadians to ensure our treaty commitments were kept. He did his despite everything that has been done to us. So, I understand the importance of maintaining allies. I have strong opinions and I share them not to hurt anyone, but to advocate as strenuously as possible for our people, because our lives depend on it. I feel a grave sense of urgency to not lose another generation of babies. I don’t want to see our languages die. I don’t want our lands to become so contaminated we can’t use them for our ceremonies. I have to be honest and say the truth as I see it. I’ve been in ceremonies where elders told me I have no choice but to speak the truth – regardless of the backlash. I have to be honest. Sugar-coating the situation only makes it worse. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable and sometimes its painful – but its from the truth that we can come up with solutions. Reconciliation requires we go through this painful part to finally heal and make amends. It’s 2016 – there is no good reason to hold onto racist ideologies that allow the discrimination, violence, dispossession and oppression of our people to continue. It’s very frustrating to see our kids be forced into foster care, imprisoned, beaten by police, commit suicide or go murdered and missing every day. Every single day while governments ponder their budgets, edit speaking points and delay justice, another Indigenous man, woman or child suffers. what that politicians meet in wood-paneled offices with expensive meals while they talk about measured justice, first steps and plans for the future, our people still die. People I love still die. This is why I speak and write the way I do. To us, the issues are urgent. We can’t ever get our people back once we have lost them. We have to act now. While the easy answer might be to blame a rogue cop, a psycho serial killer or the KKK, the reality is that there are large segments of Canadian society in positions of power that hold extremely racist views about Indigenous peoples. Harper’s last decade of power is a prime example of how rampant racism is and the impacts it has on First Nations. Racism is not an anomaly. Its not an exception. It’s not about one bad apple – its widespread and it’s killing my people. Most of my friends and colleagues that work, study or volunteer in social justice causes hate answering the phone late at night. We know that it means another Indigenous person has committed suicide, died, been arrested or had their children taken from them. We all dread these calls. Because even though the government may have shifted a priority or the media has left, we are always left with the lived realities of not just inter-generational trauma, but modern-day racist laws, policies and decisions which affect our lives. I think this is why I reacted so strongly to Mr. Martin’s comments. Not because I think he is a racist or that all Canadians are racist. Mr. Martin has helped many individual First Nation people access education funds, he has supported them find employment, he has advocated strenuously in recent years for government to step up and act. On a personal level, he was supportive of my work at Ryerson University and even the work of many of us in the Idle No More movement. I think more people in positions of power should stand up and demand justice alongside our grassroots Canadians and Indigenous Nations. I truly believe we cannot have reconciliation until we can be brave enough to hear the dark truth, challenge one another on our opinions and be critical of what isn’t working. This shouldn’t be taken personally, but social conflict is a necessary part of growth, change and improvement. I apologize to anyone who thought I was saying that ALL Canadians are racist. I know that we have many good allies. In fact, Idle No More helped bring us all together. There has never been so much good will and cooperation between non-government organizations and community groups with Indigenous peoples. We have united to work jointly on child-welfare, anti-poverty, housing and homelessness, climate change and the environment, and human rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee said last year that they never saw such a united force. I would like to believe that our collective efforts at social justice will make the changes we want to see in Canada. I am sorry that this process won’t be easy, it won’t be speedy, and we won’t always feel like we are on the same side. I hope in the end, you understand why it’s necessary.

May 13, 2016
The Worst Thing That Could Happen is a First Nation Minister of AANDC

Justin Trudeau will be sworn in as Prime Minister on November 4 and the question that seems to be dominating social media is whether or not he will appoint a First Nation person as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). Ever since contact, colonial officials sought out individual “Indians” to act on the Crown’s behalf in various contexts – as cultural and language interpreters, military scouts, and spies. In a modern context, Canadian officials have resorted to manipulating individual Chiefs to promote federal initiatives that they know run counter to our Aboriginal and treaty rights or will be met with mass resistance. This divide-and-conquer technique of pitting First Nations against First Nations has always been used to help the Crown deflect attention from the Crown’s culpability on any given issue. The worst thing that could happen for the promised nation to nation relationship is if Prime Minister Trudeau appointed a First Nation person as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC).

Sometimes people misunderstand the role of Crown representatives. There is no doubt that diversity on cultural, gender, and regional fronts helps the government be more representative of the public, better inform policy and decision-making, and make for a more productive and effective government. The research shows that this is true in both matters of government and business. However, outside of considerations of governance, Crown representatives are always Crown representatives. They are there to protect the interests of the Crown. They may have been elected by a specific constituency and can represent them politically or advocate on their behalf, but Cabinet Ministers are “Ministers of the Crown”. Therefore, even the Minister of AANDC is there to represent – first and foremost – the interests of the Crown – whether the person is First Nation or not.

That said, it is true that the Supreme Court of Canada has added to the Crown’s obligations to First Nations in specific circumstances. Some of these special considerations include fiduciary obligations attached to the honour of the Crown, which gets expressed in a variety of ways from having to act in good faith, consulting with First Nations, and honouring commitments. However, it must be remembered that Members of Parliament owe their duty to “the system”, i.e., the Constitution, the rule of law, and all regulations imposed by Parliamentarians. Yet it is this “system” which has been found by numerous commissions, reports and investigations to be racist, exclusionary, and oppressive to First Nations. Thus, the very act of being a Cabinet Minister, therefore, sets him/her directly against First Nation interests. This is evident in the hundreds of court cases which name the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Canada against First Nations. In every single case, Canada litigates AGAINST First Nations. Changing the face of the Minister won’t change this fact nor does it change the racist system itself, which is the underlying problem. The Indian Act and thousands of federal laws, regulations and policies are still in place. It just looks less offensive – but putting a nicer face on it doesn’t make it any better and can actually cause more harm.

If Trudeau is truly serious about a Nation to Nation relationship with First Nations, then he needs to come to the table in an honest way. Canada doesn’t need to portray its Cabinet Ministers to be anything other than what they are: they represent the Crown’s interests, not ours. Let’s have true nation to nation meetings with representatives of the Crown and move forward from there. It will be up to the First Nation side to how they wish to negotiate as Nations – either as larger Nations, i.e. Mi’kmaw Nation, Haudenosaunee, or Maliseet Nation; or whether they wish to represent their collective nation-based interests by way of region, treaty or otherwise. Let First Nations do the work of their Nations and Canada focus on how it will move forward in a more just way – beyond the lethal status quo.

While we heard a great deal from the AFN about Nation to Nation relationships, their political actions betrayed them. Secret meetings between the National Chief and the Minister of AANDC do not equate to a nation to nation relationship. In fact, secret meetings, surprise announcements about deals with Canada, and a complete failure to call Canada out for its destructive, assimilatory agenda, was part of the AFN’s undoing. But it had to happen as it is the grassroots people who are the true governments of their Nations. The people simply took their power back and told their leaders that sovereignty starts with each Nation – not with a national political organization. Canada would never allow a political corporation to represent its interests in nation-based issues – why would we? Thanks to Idle No More movement, our grassroots people have empowered themselves to take a stand against all who threaten our sovereignties, jurisdictions, lands, cultures and identities. It doesn’t look like our people are willing to let things go back to the way they were. Trudeau will have to find a way to deal with this new reality if he expects to fully realize a nation to nation relationship.

To appoint a First Nation Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will divide our Nations, and set us up to be for or against the “First Nations” Minister – a situation none of us want to be in. It will also act as a media distraction for more important issues, like murdered and missing Indigenous women or children in care. It will also unfairly make this Minister and this Minister alone, the target of all anger, criticism, and blame when things go wrong in the relationship. It would make Canadians lose sight that the fault is not in the Minister, but in the system and the entire Cabinet which keeps this unjust system in place.

It’s time for the Crown to act honourably and come to the table in an honest and open way. Putting a First Nation Member of Parliament as Minister will not help us move back to nation to nation relations, but distract from that goal. Real change requires a radical departure from the old divide-and-conquer tactics of the past. In the end, Trudeau, his Cabinet, and the entire federal government must realize that the hard work that lies ahead to make amends for the harms done to First Nations; the committed effort needed to address this racist and oppressive system; and the sacrifices needed to restore justice in Canada is a burden that must be borne by Canada, and Canada alone. If we have learned anything from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is that First Nations have carried the burden of injustice for far too long and at too great a price.

November 4, 2015