When did the first nation water crisis start?

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

How many first nations communities are without water?

More than one third of all households on reserve are in the category of wells and cisterns, or have no running water at all. So, the number of First Nation communities without access to clean water is a far bigger problem than it would first appear.

Where are the pipelines bringing clean water to First Nations Trudeau?

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

How can Canadians help advocate for action on clean water for first nation communities?

We need Canadians to stand up and say this isn’t right. We need Canadians to use their voices, their numbers, their powers and spheres of influence to demand better. Demand that the federal government bring every resource to bear to ensure safe, reliable, clean drinking water and sanitation to every single household on First Nation reserves.

Tag: Genocide

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

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

CANADA’S INDIAN POLICY HASN’T CHANGED MUCH

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

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

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

RECONCILIATION: THE GOAL IS THE SAME

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

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

Genocide in Canada

APOLOGIES VERSUS LAND BACK

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

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

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

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

CANADA BREACHS ITS OWN “RULE OF LAW”

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

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

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

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

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

#LANDBACK

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

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

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

August 1, 2021
Canada Fails Again: First Nation Communities Without Clean Water

AUDITOR GENERAL REPORT ON CLEAN WATER IN FIRST NATIONS

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

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

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

WHEN DID THE FIRST NATION WATER CRISIS START?

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS THE FIRST NATION WATER CRISIS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

FEDERAL POLICIES FOR WATER ON RESERVE ARE DECADES OLD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CTV News: AG Reports Released

LET’S TALK PIPELINES…

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

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

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

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

CTV Your Morning: First Nation Boil Water Advisories

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Pam Palmater Website

March 1, 2021
Transitional Justice Plan Urgently Needed to End Genocide in Canada
Pam Palmater, Shelagh Day and Sharon McIvor testifying before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC – fall 2019

For decades, the families of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls and their communities; together with Indigenous women leaders and experts and allied human rights organizations, advocated for government action to end the crisis. Many families had called for a national inquiry, which was supported by various international human rights treaty bodies. After a tumultuous start and numerous set-backs, the National Inquiry concluded its work and released its final report at a ceremony on June 3, 2019, before hundreds of Indigenous family members, leaders and advocates. They found Canada guilty of both historic and ongoing genocide.

Throughout the National Inquiry’s proceedings, Minister of Indigenous Affairs Carolyn Bennett committed that Canada would not sit idly by while the inquiry proceeded. They committed to take action to end the violence, which was well documented in numerous reports. Yet, they failed to act. Since the release of the final report, very little, if any substantive action has been taken by PM Trudeau’s Liberal government to end genocide against Indigenous women and girls in Canada.

The abuse, exploitation, violence, disappearances and murders of Indigenous women and girls continues unabated and represents the largest human rights crisis ever facing Canada. The National Inquiry confronted this reality head on when it concluded that Canada is guilty of genocide that is both race-based and one that has specifically targeted Indigenous women. They found that:

While the Canadian genocide targets all Indigenous peoples, Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people are particularly targeted.

This finding was based on an independent legal analysis and the extensive evidence
gathered during the inquiry. They further explained:

Canada’s colonial history provides ample evidence of the existence of a genocidal policy – a manifest pattern of similar conduct which reflects an intention to destroy Indigenous peoples.

What resulted from this finding was a media blitz of commentators engaging in debates as to whether the inquiry went too far; whether they were using the word to strategically to get attention; or whether anything other than the Holocaust could ever amount to genocide. Very few of those commentators had specifically worked in, were educated in, or conducted research on genocide; nor were most of them lawyers. Yet, these emotional or political reactions to the finding is what led the discussion versus the very pressing need for governments to take urgent action.

Even the United Nations High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet expressed great concern and called on Canada to examine this finding. Similarly, Luis Almagro who heads the Organization of American States, expressed his concern that Canada was too slow to act on the national inquiry’s findings. Meanwhile, some commentators reacted by saying that the inquiry’s finding should be investigated. There is no utility in reinvestigating this finding. It is a legal finding based on fact and law. What was needed then and what is needed now is action to end the genocide.

None of this should come as a shock to government officials, Indigenous leaders, scholars and activists have long been calling Canada’s historic and ongoing treatment of Indigenous peoples genocide. Some have also highlighted the fact that sexualized genocide towards Indigenous women and girls has been an integral part of Canada’s violent colonization of Indigenous lands. While not a specific focus of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) investigation into residential schools, their final report also concluded that Canada’s actions towards Indigenous peoples amounted to cultural, physical and biological genocide: “part of a coherent policy to eliminate Aboriginal people as distinct peoples and to assimilate them into the Canadian mainstream against their will.”

The crime of genocide is a crime under international law that developed over time – even before the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted in 1948. A state need only be guilty of one of the five ways to commit genocide against a racial group like Indigenous peoples, which include:

(1) killing;

(2) physical/mental harm;

(3) conditions of life to bring about
destruction;

(4) preventing births; and

(5) the forced transfer of children.

Canada is guilty of all five.

The National inquiry, without excluding the possibility that individuals could be held liable for genocide in Canada, and duly noting that acts and omissions of provinces within Canada, draws a conclusion on the responsibility of Canada as a state for genocide under international law.

The inquiry also found that pre- and post-colonial settler governments have created, maintained and reinforced an infrastructure of violence towards Indigenous women and girls. This infrastructure of violence is a complex set of institutional laws, policies, practices, actions and omissions that treat Indigenous women as lesser human beings, who are sexualized, racialized and treated as disposable because of their sex and their race. This infrastructure remains firmly in place today manifesting in high rates of violence towards Indigenous women and girls.

This genocide has been empowered by colonial structures, evidenced notably by the Indian Act, the Sixties scoop, residential schools and breaches of human and Indigenous rights, leading directly to the current increased rates of violence death and suicide in Indigenous populations.

The National Inquiry considered the following as examples of genocide:
- Deaths of Indigenous women and girls in police custody;
- Failure to protect them from exploitation and trafficking;
- Failure to protect them from known killers;
- Taking their children and placing in foster care at high rates;
- Physical, mental and sexual abuse in state institutions (residential schools, hospitals, prisons, etc);
- Denial of Indian status and band membership;
- Forced and/or coerced sterilizations; and
- Purposeful chronic underfunding of essential
- human services like food, water, health, housing.
These modern day examples discussed in the inquiry’s report would be in addition to
earlier pre-meditated killings:
- small pox blankets,
- scalping bounties,
- mass murders of some native groups, like the Beothuk; and
- starvation policies and ethnic cleansing on the prairies.
When considering the testimonies of thousands of families, Indigenous women leaders, and advocates, as well as subject-matter experts, together with extensive legal, historical and social science research; the inquiry could come to no other conclusion but genocide.

Canada has displayed a continuous policy with shifting expressed motives but an ultimately steady intention, to destroy Indigenous peoples physically biologically and as social units.

All governments and state agencies are still active perpetrators and perpetuators of genocidal violence against Indigenous women and girls in Canada. Ending the genocide which is embedded in state institutions and society as a whole, will require immediate and urgent remedies that match the scope and character of these grave human rights violations – i.e. a comprehensive national action plan that is well-resourced and focusing on transitioning Canada out of genocide. That is no small feat. This will require external oversight but international human rights bodies or experts, with Indigenous women as core decision-makers.

Organizations like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) have access to experts in genocide – experts who have worked with other countries to transition out of genocide. It makes no sense to ask the perpetrator of genocide to be the one to design the plan and implement the plan to get out of genocide. Indigenous women and human rights experts must be the ones to lead this process, together with international genocide experts to design this plan. Canadian officials must then work directly with Indigenous women and their Indigenous governments to oversee a fully- resourced transitional justice plan that is national in scope, applies to all levels of government and related agencies, and focuses on:
1. ending ongoing genocide;
2. reparations for harms done; and
3. the prevention of future genocide.
This will require an Indigenous and human rights framework and gender-based analysis for all stages of the plan. While Canada promised the United Nations that it would come up with a national action plan by June 2020, few expect more than their standard action plan framework that tends to be overly general with no measurable outcomes. This is why several Indigenous women and human rights advocates attended the IACHR in the fall of 2019 to ask for international intervention and oversight. Canada’s response at the time was that they were too busy with the election. Then, they were too busy with holidays. June is several weeks away and in all likelihood, Indigenous women and girls will be left behind again.

Genocide is the worst crime and human rights violation that can be committed against a people. But you wouldn’t know it by looking at Canada’s lack of action on the crisis. Pipelines get more money and attention than Indigenous women and girls.

It’s truly time for more international intervention before thousands more lives are lost.

Video of IACHR session

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkQ4G5iEnAI&list=PLDnK0xT7aXRAGR7DszneZTPkBn0YJHfxB&index=11&t=292s

Here is my latest Youtube video talking about the need for a gendered covid-19 plan to take into account that Indigenous women and girls face not only the pandemic, but also ongoing genocide:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM6OBq1fo10
May 6, 2020
A Modern Treaty to Save Our Peoples and The Planet

Left to Right: Stephen Lewis, Pam Palmater, David Suzuki, photo by Ian Mauro Climate Tour 2019

This blog is an excerpt of the speech that I gave at the Climate Tour with David Suzuki and Stephen Lewis, on October 4, 2019 in Winnipeg, Manitoba at the University of Winnipeg on Treaty 1 territory. (Check against delivery).

Kwe n’in telusi Pam Palmater. It is an honour to be here on Indigenous territory covered by Treaty one. Thanks to the elder for opening & to UofW for hosting us. Oct.4th important day to remember lives lost due to murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls.

We have a hard truth to face. We are in the middle of two major crises: Canada is killing our people and the planet and we are here to stop it!

The first crisis is that the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls found that Canada has and continues to commit genocide against Indigenous peoples – specifically targeting Indigenous Women and Girls.

The second crisis is that Indigenous science and western science have both confirmed that we are headed for a massive climate disaster.

To say that we are in a crisis of epic proportions would be an understatement. We need to act now to end the genocide of Indigenous peoples & stop the ecocide of the earth. Because we know that the pain of Indigenous peoples is the same pain felt by the planet. And the pain of this planet is felt first and foremost by Indigenous peoples.

Settler governments in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and all over the world have colonized Indigenous territories with horrific acts of violence to peoples and the earth. The colonizing mentality pervades our governing systems and allows governments and corporations to treat people and the planet as resources to exploit – as though they were lifeless commodities. Extractive economies – now largely benefiting transnational corporations – have been authorized by governments land leave destruction in their wake.

We’ve seen tears from Indigenous mothers whose daughters have been murdered by the thousands. We’ve also seen the heartbreak of killer whale mothers mourning the losses of their offspring who can’t survive in an oil tanker dominated eco-systems.

And if we, as First Nations and Canadians, don’t act quickly – many more people, plants and animals will die. We no longer have the time to debate politics – the crisis in Canada is now a matter of life and death for all of us. It won’t be good enough in 50 years to look back and say we tried, we had the best intentions, or we gave it our best effort. We either do or die. And right now, Indigenous peoples are dying. Our planet is dying. But you all know this. We can no more deny the ecocide of climate change, than we can deny genocide of Indigenous peoples. The statistics, the research and the scientific evidence before our eyes is too overwhelming. Climate change is greatest threat to all life on earth – humans, plants and animals.

Who bears the disproportionate burden of environmental destruction, water contamination and more pipelines? Indigenous peoples do. That is because genocide and ecocide go hand in hand. This earth has suffered a great assault, in part because of massive human rights violations to its caretakers – Indigenous peoples. Similarly, Indigenous peoples have suffered a great genocide in part because of the violence committed against our lands, waters, and ecosystems on which we depend.

Our society’s economy has been constructed in a way which exploits ands abuses Indigenous women and the land with relative impunity. Well now, we all stand to pay the price of the impending climate disaster and corresponding the human disaster that will follow – all while large corporations reap the benefits.

In the end – we will all suffer – if there is no drinkable water, farmable land or pollinators.

What we need is a new treaty – a modern treaty that binds us all together – the people and the planet. A treaty that commits us to work together for the benefit of all Nations of peoples and living beings without discrimination, racism, sexism genocide or ecocide. A treaty that commits all people to heal our divisions so we can commit to protecting our collective futures.

We must remember that our collective futures includes the plants, animals, birds ,fish, and insect Nations. They too have as much right to live on this planet as we do and if we have any hope of surviving, we’ll need every bee hive, every coral reef and every killer whale pod to maintain our precious eco-systems.

This modern treaty can be a reality.

It doesn’t matter what we call it, whose idea it was, where it originated or whether we agree on all aspects of it. This new treaty is about combining social justice and earth justice together to pave the way to a better future for all. The dual crises facing us requires that we do everything in our collective power to save our planet.

This will require a societal revolution that goes beyond superficial changes and the glacial pace at which governments operate. It will require that we change everything and that will mean we need to get uncomfortable.

We don’t need everyone for a revolution to save the planet. We don’t have time to wait around until the genocide and climate change deniers are convinced. If we wait, it will be too late for us all.

Every single right we have ever gained – human rights, environmental protections or native rights – have been advanced by small numbers of people – sometimes only individuals pushing forward despite the odds. We can do this with all of you in this room. But we cant wait for all of you. We will forge ahead because we have to – its the only way to give Indigenous peoples and this planet a fighting chance.

Other people will join when they see our successes. There will always be genocide deniers & climate change deniers, but we have an obligation to forge ahead anyway. If the lands are toxic from tar sands, and the water polluted from mining, none of our children will survive – whether they are Canadian or Indigenous. That’s why we need to work together.

Together, we not only have the power to stop these abuses, but we can return Canada to its original treaty vision. Every single one of you has the power to stand up for what is right and save not only yourselves, but all those who can’t advocate on their own – for all of those whose voices that are not counted – the bees, the whales, the trees and the tiniest insects.

None of you can do it alone and we don’t expect you to – the original treaty vision for Canada was premised on us working together to benefit from and protect the lands and waters which sustain us. Our advantage and our strength is in our collectives.

Canada wouldn’t even exist without the treaty agreements between sovereign Indigenous Nations and the Crown. This original treaty vision was meant to protect the ecosystem on Turtle Island for as long as long as the grass grows, the rivers flow and sun shines.

We are faced with two global crises – genocide and ecocide.

We must use the spirit and intent of our original treaties to forge a new future Canadians – get out and vote in your system – use your numbers, your wealth, your influence and your privilege to force the change. But don’t stop there – the pressure must continue in full force post election in all forums – in Parliamentary and Senate Committees, in where you spend you money (or don’t), in the media, in the boardroom, in your advocacy and at the United Nations.

Indigenous peoples will always be there on front lines, but we cant do it alone – we need you and you need us. Our very lives depend on it.

We can protect the lands and waters and we can save lives. I believe in the power of the people to rise up and be the government of the people, by the people, for the people as it was intended. This generation was meant to lead our Nations back to balance. We were meant to protect this territory for our future generations. I believe in the power of our peoples to unite under a new treaty.

Let’s end genocide against Indigenous peoples and ecocide against our planet.

Lets work together for the radical changes we need to save our people and the planet.

Wel’al’iog.

March 9, 2020
Check your White Male Privilege Andrew Scheer

Still image from video of RCMP aiming gun at Wet’suwet’en people from Gidimten Camp Facebook.

Today, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer made the shocking statement that protestors and activists need to “check their privilege” and let people whose jobs depend on the railway systems get to work. In this case, it is Scheer who needs to check his own privilege. His comments appear to be racially motivated as the people occupying the rails in Ontario are very obviously Indigenous peoples. Scheer’s comments reflect worn out stereotypes about Indigenous peoples that are not worth repeating, but are not based on facts. These kinds of comments serve only to promote societal division and manufacture hatred towards a specific group – Indigenous peoples. Scheer’s white male privilege as a top 1% income earner (according to Statistics Canada) stand in stark contrast to the staggering socio-economic conditions of the majority of First Nations peoples in Canada. First Nations have the highest rates of poverty in the country, the lowest health indicators and the highest rates of suicide in the world. Far from “privilege”, their under-privilege is a direct result of the violent colonization of their territories and the continued oppression of their peoples.

In 2019, the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls found, as a matter of fact and law, that Canada is guilty of both historic and ongoing genocide. Both the Organization of American States and the United Nations expressed deep concern about this finding and officials have offered to assist Canada address this. So, far there has been no urgent action to address ongoing acts of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The rates of Indigenous over-incarceration continue to sky-rocket with Indigenous women (less than 2.5% of the population) making of 42% of those in federal prisons. Why? Aside from noting many areas of discrimination within the justice system, the Office of the Correctional Investigator expressed concern that federal corrections seems “impervious to change”.

Indigenous children represent half of all children in foster care, which even federal ministers called a “humanitarian crisis” – yet numbers continue to rise. The numbers of abused, exploited, disappeared and murdered Indigenous women also continue to rise, despite a National Inquiry drawing national attention to the crisis. Indigenous women and girls are the primary targets of human traffickers who are able to exploit them with relative impunity. It should come as no surprise to anyone at this point that some First Nations in Canada have the highest suicide rates in the world, even higher than post-conflict countries. Indigenous peoples make up 40-80% of homeless peoples in Canada depending on the region and we all know about the lack of access to clean drinking water that has plagued some First Nations for decades.

The United Nations has called on Canada many times to address its grave human rights violations against Indigenous peoples to no avail. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has made similar recommendations to Canada to end the human rights violations. The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous peoples James Anaya, wrote in his report on Canada that the relationship with Indigenous peoples was getting worse over time and that “It is difficult to reconcile Canada’s well-developed legal framework and general prosperity with the human rights problems faced by Indigenous peoples”. He went on to report that “The most jarring manifestation of those human rights problems is the distressing socioeconomic conditions of Indigenous peoples in a highly developed country.” Canada is wealthy because it stole the lands and resources of Indigenous peoples, carried out violent acts of genocide to reduce Indigenous populations and then constructed a complex set of laws, policies, practices, actions and omissions to oppress Indigenous peoples and clear the lands for settlement and extraction.

These actions of solidarity across the country are about more than pipelines – they are about the continued genocide of Indigenous peoples and the failure of Canada to abide by the rule of law in respecting their land rights and their right to say no to development. These solidarity actions with the Wet’suwet’en Nation are about bringing attention to the ways in which Canada criminalizes Indigenous peoples for peacefully living, asserting and defending our sovereignty over our lands. While politicians make flowery speeches about reconciliation and respecting our rights, when it comes to wanting our lands for development or extraction, they will send in heavily armed RCMP or military to take what they want. That is what these actions are about – the failure of federal and provincial governments to abide by the rule of law – all the laws in Canada, not just the ones that suit their political or economic needs.

Scheer’s ill-informed comments serve only to cause confusion and apprehension in the public, instead of offering thoughtful solutions that would bring everyone together. His words are shameful and thankfully, don’t represent those of most Canadians. Canadians continue to be our strongest allies in seeking justice for our peoples as lawyers, teachers, academics, social workers, labourers, unions and Canadians from all backgrounds continue to stand with Indigenous peoples at solidarity actions all over Canada. That’s what the treaty relationship is all about. We need to work together to find a way to harmonize all laws in Canada – Indigenous, Canadian and international laws – and restore social justice for all peoples. We must urgently end genocide against Indigenous peoples which includes the ongoing theft of our lands and resources. It also means telling the RCMP to stand down.

Reconciliation doesn’t manifest at the end of a sniper rifle.

February 15, 2020
RCMP Invasion of Wet’suwet’en Nation territory breaches Canada’s “rule of law”

RCMP invades Wet’suwet’en territory. Photo by Amber Bracken; Jan. 7, 2019

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau makes flowery public speeches about respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and reassures the international community that there is no relationship more important that the one with Indigenous peoples, Canada invaded sovereign Wet’suwet’en Nation territory. When questioned about this aggressive move at a Liberal fundraiser in Kamloops, British Columbia, he responded: “No, obviously, it’s not an ideal situation… But at the same time, we’re also a country of the rule of law.” Canada’s invasion of Wet’suwet’en territory through its national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), is an example of the blatant violation of the rule of law in favour of corporate interests. Canada has consistently failed to follow the rule of law when it comes to Indigenous peoples, and the violent arrests of the Wet’suwet’en people at the Gidimt’en checkpoint, set up in support of the Unist’ot’en homestead, is a glaring example of Canada’s lawlessness.

The people of Wet’suwet’en Nation, as represented by their traditional government, have long asserted their sovereign jurisdiction over their Nation’s lands which span about 22,000 square kilometres in northwest British Columbia. These lands have never been ceded, nor have their rights to use, manage, protect or govern these lands been extinguished in any way. The Nation has never signed any treaty or constitutional agreement that has specifically surrendered their sovereignty as a Nation. While there have been many federal and provincial laws that have interfered with First Nation laws in general, there has never been an explicit extinguishment of Wet’suwet’en laws and jurisdiction over their Nation’s sovereign territory. Their land rights are not only recognized in Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982, but they are also protected in numerous international treaties and declarations, like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In other words, there was no legal basis for Canada to invade their territory.

The Wet’suwet’en Nation is a governing Nation that has existed since time immemorial. They are made up of five clans: Gil_seyhu (Big Frog), Laksilyu (Small Frog), Gitdumden (Wolf/Bear), Laksamshu (Fireweed), and Tsayu (Beaver). The Wet’suwet’en are organized through a system of hereditary leaders and have a complex system of governance. While Canada did force the chief and council system on First Nations through the Indian Act, it was not successful in extinguishing or displacing the Nation’s traditional government. This is evidenced in the fact that when the Wet’suwet’en Nation decided to assert their land rights in Canada’s courts, they did so as a Nation, through their traditional government as represented by their hereditary leaders.

In Delgamuuwk v. British Columbia (1997), the Wet’suwet’en, together with the Gitksan, asserted title to their lands. While the issue was ordered back to trial, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) made significant findings about the nature of Aboriginal title being a right to the land itself. The SCC found that the land is held communally, by all members of the Aboriginal Nation for their “exclusive use and occupation,” and that this right to land was protected in “pre-existing systems of aboriginal law” and Canada’s common law, even before the protection of Aboriginal rights in section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act. No laws have since extinguished Wet’suwet’en rights with regards to their territory. Also significant is the fact that according to SCC jurisprudence, Aboriginal title contains an inherent limitation, in that title lands can’t be used in a way that is “irreconcilable” with the nature of the Nation’s attachment to those lands. The SCC explained it this way: “Implicit in the protection of historic patterns of occupation is a recognition of the importance of continuity of the relationship of an aboriginal community to its land over time.”

What can we take from this case? Well, according to Canadian law, we know that it is the “Aboriginal Nation,” in this instance the Wet’suwet’en Nation, that has the legal ownership of their traditional territories, not an individual band. So it matters little that some of the bands may have signed an agreement with the pipeline company, especially if they did so in relation to territory off the reserve and without the free, prior and informed consent of the people. We also know that the lands are not held by individuals, but by the whole Nation. Thus any decisions in relation to those lands rest with the Nation. We also know that the purpose of section 35 is to protect the many ways in which Aboriginal Nations enjoy their title lands and these Nations can’t use them in ways which are inconsistent with those uses. The SCC specifically stated that if Aboriginal title lands are used as hunting grounds, then the land can’t be used in a way that destroys its value – as in strip mining.

In the present case, not only were the Wet’suwet’en people using and occupying their lands, they were also protecting their lands from destruction by the Coastal GasLink pipeline slated to go through their territory. If Aboriginal Nations can’t risk destroying their title lands for extractive projects, certainly corporations should not be permitted to do so. It’s also clear that despite the media reports, this was never about a protest. This was always about occupying and protecting their lands – something they have the legal right to do. This is where the so-called “rule of law” comes into play. The rule of law is touted by Canada every time it actually wants to break the law; according to the United Security Council, rule of law means:

All persons, institutions and entities, public and private … are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.

It becomes very clear then, that Canada has a long history of breaching the rule of law when it comes to First Nations. In the Wet’suwet’en case, Canada has prioritized the extraction interests of a corporation over the constitutionally protected rights of a sovereign Aboriginal Nation. This is a clear violation of the law. The Wet’suwet’en right to occupy and protect their territory is an internationally recognized human rights norm, now reflected in UNDRIP. Article 8 provides the right of Indigenous peoples not to be subjected to the destruction of their culture – something that would naturally come from destruction of their lands and waters with a pipeline.

Article 10 provides that Indigenous peoples will not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories – as was done by the RCMP who arrested and removed Wet’suwet’en people from their own lands. Articles 25 and 26 specifically protect the rights of Indigenous peoples to own, use and control their traditional lands, waters, coastal seas and resources and further protects their rights to “uphold their responsibilities to their future generations in this regard.”

Not only has Canada committed to implement UNDRIP into law, it is legally bound by many other international human rights treaties that it has ratified. While UNDRIP may not yet be law in Canada, it represents the minimum international legal norms for recognizing the core human rights of Indigenous peoples – something that Canada’s rule of law requires. Canada has also issued a directive on how it should engage with Indigenous peoples on litigation relating to their rights, which Canada claims is based on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and respect for their legal rights. Former Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould made the bold claim that although she was just releasing this directive in January 2019, Canada has been using these rules for the last two years. It is important to note that this directive states that: “Aboriginal rights do not require a court declaration or an agreement in order to be recognized.” This is something the SCC has confirmed many times in its jurisprudence on the duty to consult, accommodate and get consent.

Yet, we know that Canada has not only failed to abide by its own litigation directive, but it has blatantly violated Wet’suwet’en laws, Canadian laws, international laws and its own purported commitment to the rule of law.

When Canada sent the RCMP into sovereign Wet’suwet’en Nation territory to destroy their check points and violently arrest and remove Wet’suwet’en people from their own lands, it became lawless – an outlaw state. It also violated its own litigation directive when the RCMP issued a statement saying that since there has been no court case declaring Aboriginal title, the RCMP were justified in their actions. In denying the Wet’suwet’en their constitutionally protected legal right to enjoy their title lands, Canada has prioritized the private, economic interests of a corporation – Coastal GasLink Pipeline – over the rule of law. As explained by the Wet’suwet’en:

The Unist’ot’en homestead is not a protest or demonstration. Our clan is occupying and using our traditional territory as it has for centuries…. Our homestead is a peaceful expression of our connection to our territory. It is also an example of the continuous use and occupation of our territory by our clan.

In this case, the laws of Canada were neither equally enforced, nor compliant with international human rights standards. Canada is not a country that follows the rule of law. Canada makes and breaks laws to suit its own economic and political interests, which run counter to those of Indigenous peoples. It is time to be honest about it, and call out Canada as an outlaw, and take action to support the Wet’suwet’en Nation, who have occupied their lands since time immemorial.

This article was originally published in Canadian Dimension Magazine on April 24, 2019:

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/rcmp-invasion-of-wetsuweten-nation-territory-breaches-canadas-rule-of-law

February 5, 2020
Overincarceration of Indigenous peoples nothing short of genocide

(Public domain image)

Canada’s colonial objectives have always been to clear the lands for settlement and development by whatever means necessary.

After signing peace treaties in the 1700s, clearing the lands meant laws offering bounties on the heads of Mi’kmaw men, women and children. In the 1800s, clearing the lands meant ethnic cleansing on the Prairies – laws, policies and practices that confined native peoples to reserves

and gave them insufficient rations to survive. In the 1900s, clearing the lands meant the theft of thousands of native children to be forced into residential schools where thousands died from abuse, torture and starvation. In the 2000s clearing the lands means the mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples in prisons paving the way for the extractive industry.

The overincarceration of Indigenous peoples in federal, provincial and territorial prisons in Canada today is nothing short of genocide.

On Jan. 21, 2020, Dr. Ivan Zinger, who heads the Office of the Correctional Investigator, issued an urgent statement about the rates of Indigenous peoples in federal prisons being at historic highs. While Indigenous peoples only make up five per cent of the Canadian population, they represent more than 30 per cent of those in federal prisons. Those statistics are even worse for Indigenous women who now make up 42 per cent of the prison population. A Statistics Canada report released in 2018 shows that almost half of all youth in corrections are Indigenous as well. This is all happening at a time when incarceration rates for the rest of Canada continue to decline. Why is this happening? Zinger states that federal corrections is “impervious to change” – a well-founded conclusion given the decades of commissions, inquiries and reports highlighting both racism in the justice system and the devastating impact it has on Indigenous peoples.

In 1989, Chief Justice Thomas Hickman issued the final report of the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution (Marshall Inquiry). Donald Marshall was a Mi’kmaw man from Nova Scotia who had been wrongly targeted by police and convicted of murder, spending 11 years in prison. The Marshall Inquiry found that the criminal justice system had failed Marshall “at virtually every turn” due “to the fact that Donald Marshall Jr., is a Native.” The report provided numerous recommendations to ensure more equitable treatment of native peoples in the future.

A decade later, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba released its report in relation to the

murder of Helen Betty Osborne whose assailants had not been brought to justice; and John Joseph Harper, an unarmed native politician shot dead by Winnipeg police. Murray Sinclair, co-commissioner for the justice inquiry and chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, made similar findings to the Marshall Inquiry: “[t]he justice system has failed Manitoba’s Aboriginal people on a massive scale.” His report also made numerous recommendations in relation to addressing racism and discrimination against Indigenous peoples in the justice system and beyond.

In 2004, the Saskatchewan Commission on First Nations and Metis Peoples and Justice Reform found that racism was a major issue in police forces in their dealings with native peoples. This came on the heels of the Commission of Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Death of Neil Stonechild, also in 2004. This was an inquiry that investigated “Starlight Tours,” the arbitrary detention of native peoples by police who are driven out of town to freeze to death at night. Both reports offered recommendations, but like the other reports, most were largely ignored.

In 2007 came the Ipperwash Inquiry in Ontario and most recently, in 2019 came the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls, which found Canada guilty of both historic and ongoing genocide. Racism in the justice system is a common theme in all of these reports and the Office of the Correctional Investigator has been raising the alarm for the overincarceration of Indigenous people for two decades.

The statistics clearly show a steady rise in Indigenous incarceration from 17.5 per cent in 2000 to 30 per cent in 2020. But these represent the national statistics and, like rates of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, and Indigenous children in foster care, the provincial rates can be double the national rates.

In Manitoba, more than 80 per cent of prisoners are Indigenous — the same province where 50 per cent of all women murdered and missing are Indigenous and 90 per cent of all children in foster care are Indigenous. In Saskatchewan, 76 per cent of prisoners were Indigenous, the same province which has more than 55 per cent of women murdered and missing as Indigenous and 85 per cent of children in foster care are Indigenous. We also know that more than two-thirds of Indigenous prisoners have been impacted by the foster care system. This is exactly the kind of colonial legacy that the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 and R. v. Ipeelee 2012 SCC 13 cases meant to address when they instructed judges to find alternatives to prison for Indigenous peoples. Is no one listening?

From the evidence, it is clear we have a direct pipeline from foster care to prison that seems to clear the way for pipelines on native territories. What the statistics don’t show is the history of thenRCMP and other police forces as an integral part of colonial settlement and development policies that have created this current crisis.

From the RCMP’s Project Sitka to its massive military-style operation on Wet’suwet’en territory right now, native lands continue to be cleared by Canada’s laws, policies, practices, actions and omissions. The overincarceration rates will continue to increase unless we address these genocidal policies once and for all.

While I agree with Zinger’s call for “bold and urgent action,” cultural programming and Indigenizing the prison will not get us there. We must confront racism against Indigenous peoples head on and prevent incarceration in the first place. This means addressing racism in federal and provincial laws and policies, as well as rampant racism in policing. In the meantime, we must begin the urgent process of decarceration for Indigenous women and children; Indigenous peoples with mental health issues; and Indigenous men languishing in prisons for little more than navigating poverty.

This article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily (www.thelawyersdaily.ca), part of LexisNexis Canada Inc on January 30, 2020. https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/17658

February 1, 2020
Indigenous issues slowly disappear from election 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 16, 2019
Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Universities and Colleges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Reconciliation list:

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

(2) Give a land acknowledgement;

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

(4) Hang native art on campus;

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

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

(7) Watch documentaries like Colonization Road;

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

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

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

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

(12) Nominate a native person for an award;

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

(14) Create an Aboriginal Advisory Committee on campus;

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

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

(17) Invite native speakers into your classrooms.

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

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

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

Real Reconciliation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 17, 2019
Maxime Bernier’s “Extreme Multiculturalism” Twitter Rants Sound More Like Sour Grapes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 21, 2018