Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: INAC

  • Federal Budget 2019: Indigenous Women and Children Left Behind – Again

    Federal Budget 2019: Indigenous Women and Children Left Behind – Again

    As expected, the Assembly of First Nations was first out of the gate offering glowing praise for this Liberal government’s federal budget, followed shortly thereafter by the Metis National Council and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami – the three male-dominated national Aboriginal organizations. Their organizations have seen substantial increases in funding for their political organizations in recent years. Meanwhile, the Native Women’s Association of Canada – the only political organization representing Indigenous women at the national level – issued its own press release criticizing the government for failing Indigenous women. They accused the federal government of, once again, ignoring the pressing needs of Indigenous women and in so doing, not only hampering reconciliation but breaching their core human rights. NWAC is especially aggrieved about this lack of funding for Indigenous women and families, given the urgent need to address murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls.

    The exclusion of Indigenous women and girls as a priority in this federal budget is a glaring example of the ongoing racism and sexism that is so deeply embedded in Canada’s laws, policies, practices and institutions – the very same racism and sexism the Liberal government claims to be against. When the federal government announced the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls in 2016, former Liberal Minister for the Status of Women, Patty Hadju, spoke of the urgent need to address the longstanding racism and sexism embedded in Canada’s institutions.  Yet, this urgent policy objective is not reflected in any substantive way in federal budget 2019. In fact, there are no funds allocated for a comprehensive plan to address violence against women generally, and no funds for a targeted comprehensive of plan of action to address violence against Indigenous women and girls specifically. Indigenous and women’s organizations have called on Canada to take comprehensive action now to implement recommendations from the United Nations treaty bodies to reduce murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls before the national inquiry’s report is released.

    http://fafia-afai.org/en/press-release-coalition-calls-for-urgent-action-to-stop-violence-against-indigenous-women-and-girls-%EF%BB%BF/

    The National Inquiry’s report is due out in less than a month and there is no budget set aside to implement whatever recommendations come from that report either. The limited funds for commemoration seems not only inadequate, but also premature given that the crisis has not abated. Where is the urgent and sustained help for the many families deeply impacted by the abuse, exploitation, trafficking, disappearances and murders of thousands of Indigenous women and girls?

    A particularly shocking exclusion from the budget is the lack funding for First Nations child and family services to address the crisis of First Nations children in foster care. Former Minister of Indigenous Services, Jane Philpott called the staggering statistics related to First Nation kids in care a “humanitarian crisis” – comparing it to the residential school system. She pledged to work with First Nations to address the critical need for funding to prevent apprehensions and address the root causes of over-representation, which include conditions of poverty. This glaring omission from the budget is confounding given the fact that Parliament had previously committed to targeted funding to accompany Bill C-92 An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families, which already been introduced in Parliament. Although the federal government promised significant funding to support Bill C-92 – there is no specified funding either in the bill or the budget. Not a single dollar has been allocated to support First Nations develop their own laws and institutions specific to child and family services, hire and train staff, as well as provide the much-needed wrap around social, educational and health services to families in need as advocated in the Spirit Bear Plan.

    https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/Spirit%20Bear%20Plan%20%28EN%29.pdf

    Dr. Cindy Blackstock, the head of the First Nation Child and Family Caring Society welcomed the additional funding for Jordan’s Principle, however explained that it does not go far enough and many children – like non-status Indian children are still excluded. Jordan’s Principle is a child-first principle which aims to ensure First Nation children can access all public services in a culturally-appropriate way, without any delays or hurdles because they are First Nations. The federal budget pledges $1.2 billion over three years. However, the flat funding does not take into account population growth over the funded years, or the rising cost of inflation. There are also no additional funds to address the thousands of First Nation children who will be newly entitled to Indian status as a result of Bill S-3 An Act to Amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) or from the revised unstated paternity policy in relation to registration. Both of these issues are the result of the federal government losing two court cases (Descheneaux and Gehl) on discrimination against First Nations women and children.

    Yet, despite the legal obligation to provide funding, none has been identified in this budget. This limited funding is not an act of reconciliation. The federal has been dragged to this point – kicking and screaming – by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, with no less than five non-compliance orders for failing to end discrimination in funding of First Nation children in care. So, while the extra funding is welcome, it is not a “gift”.

    A particularly disturbing omission is the lack of targeted funding for First Nation women and their descendants who would newly entitled to Indian status under Bill S-3. The bill has been in place for a year and will add thousands to the registration list, yet no new funds have been identified for education, health or housing for individuals or First Nations. This is despite the fact that the United Nations just agreed with Sharon McIvor that the Indian Act still discriminates against the descendants of First Nations women who married-out, and directed Canada to provide full reparation. This means registering them and providing much-needed social programs. Similarly, there is no targeted funding to address the increase in registration due to Lynn Gehl’s successful court case against Canada for it’s discriminatory unstated paternity policy. At every turn, First Nations women and children are forced to wait for justice and are denied their basic human rights and access to the same programs and services available to their fathers, brothers and uncles.

    One of the most under-served categories of First Nations are those living off-reserve. Approximately 33% of First Nations live off-reserve in Canada, and a disproportionate number of families are headed by single Indigenous mothers. Metis and Inuit don’t live on reserves at all – therefore the majority of Indigenous peoples live off-reserve. The amount allocated in the budget is a mere $60 million over 5 years to help fund off-reserve organizations like native friendship centres. That is barely $10 million a year – nowhere near what is needed to address urgent housing, education, and health needs for more than 800,000 Indigenous peoples living off-reserve – let alone the growing homelessness crisis plaguing Indigenous peoples. Niigaan Sinclair reports in the Winnipeg Free Press that the chronic under-funding is made worse by the fact that federal bureaucrats and other consultants and contractors, suck up nearly 50% of all funding appropriated by Parliament for First Nations. With three departments now directly responsible for Indigenous and Northern Affairs, who is to say whether First Nations will see much of this funding at all, let alone Indigenous women and children.

    https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/new-dollars-sure-but-same-political-game-507393892.html?fbclid=IwAR3jyFhBNuvatzHwVlW-JLWn28sw4MWAdhaGPfD2_strkkdgeiRGRJ0nQsU

    While there are many other problems with federal budget 2019, the most glaring omission is the exclusion of Indigenous women and children. Back in 2016, the Liberal government promised a gender based analysis for future budgets. Yet, this budget lacks a gender-based, human rights-based and Indigenous rights-based analysis that focuses on not just policy objectives like reconciliation, but concrete domestic and international legal obligations. There is no mention of returning lands and resources back to First Nations, no mention of a financial plan in relation to treaty implementation or how the federal government will ensure Indigenous women’s voices are at the many negotiating tables they fund. This budget is a disgrace and does little to address any of the pressing Indigenous issues impacting Indigenous women and children like kids in care, murdered and missing Indigenous women, over-incarceration, homelessness, unequal access to Indian status, poverty and poor health outcomes. Trudeau makes good use of flowery speeches and tearful apologies to Indigenous peoples,  but has left Indigenous women and children far behind – again.

    Perhaps Prime Minister Trudeau should give some Indigenous women a call and figure out how to amend the budget so it better reflects the law in this country. At least, that’s what a feminist Prime Minister would do.

    APTN Panel discussion on Federal Budget 2019 and what it means for Indigenous Peoples:

    https://tinyurl.com/y689zmyh

  • Daniels v. Canada – We are all “aborigines”

    The Daniels decision hasn’t been out for 24 hours yet and already there is mass confusion about what it does and does not say. Despite the buzz in mainstream and social media, it does NOT make Metis and non-status Indians “Indians” under the Indian Act. The case also does NOT give Metis and non-status Indians any “rights”. This wasn’t a case about hunting or fishing. So, for all the emails, Facebook messages and inquiries I have received from people asking if I can help them become registered (status) Indians or whether they can get free education now – this case does not do that. While the case itself was an important one, the actual decision imported more problems than it resolved.

    It was a case designed specifically to answer the question about whether Metis and non-status Indians are included in the definition of the term “Indian” in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867 (also referred to as British North America Act). The Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) answer was “yes”.

    Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act 1867 set out the jurisdictional powers of the federal and provincial governments. Jurisdiction means an authority or power over a certain area. Generally, it does NOT create a legal obligation to act or legislate in that specific area. These individual areas of jurisdiction are referred to as “heads of power”. For example, the federal government has jurisdiction over things like criminal law, divorce law, banking and the military. The provinces have powers over hospitals, charities and taverns. The head of power at issue in this case is section 91(24) Indians and lands reserved for the Indians.

    It should be remembered that this is NOT the first SCC case on what the term “Indian” includes under section 91(24). In 1939, the federal government and province of Quebec sought clarification from the court as to whether the term “Eskimo” now referred to as “Inuit” was included in the term “Indian”. In that case, the court used historical documents to demonstrate that while the Inuit were unique, they were considered to one of many “tribes” of Indians. As a result, the Inuit are considered “Indians” for the purposes of section 91(24) federal jurisdiction. This did NOT mean that all Inuit were registered as Indians under the Indian Act. In fact, section 4(1) of the Indian Act specifically states:

    4(1) A reference in this Act to an Indian does not include any person of the race of aborigines commonly referred to as Inuit.

    The term “aborigine” is not defined in the Indian Act, but commonly refers to an indigenous person of a particular territory or country –the original inhabitants. The question now is whether Canada will make Metis and non-status Indians a new group of “aborigines” to be specifically excluded from the Indian Act, like the Inuit.

    Just because Metis and non-status Indians have been recognized as “Indians” for the purposes of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867, this does not mean that they will ever be included in the Indian Act or registered as Indians. Nor does it mean they will get a house on reserve, be considered treaty beneficiaries, or access any other legal entitlement. Inuit do not live on reserves nor are they considered First Nations. It is unlikely that the federal government will put Metis on reserves either.

     

    Remember, it is not the Indian Act that sets out rules and regulations around “benefits” or “rights”. Whether or not Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) grants a benefit or decides to recognize a legal right is a matter of policy – i.e., a government decision made at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) usually in consultation with Justice Canada, Treasury Board, the Prime Minister’s Officer and/or various other interested departments like Fisheries and Oceans (if related to fishing right for example).

    Despite the fact that many of our rights are LEGAL rights protected by Indigenous laws, treaties and agreements, as well as domestic and international laws – most often the government lumps all “Indian” issues into generic policies that may not reflect the extent of our legal rights at all. In fact, Canada’s most common legal argument is that any “benefit” provided to Indians is out of the good will of the government (a matter of policy) and not out of any legal obligation. This is what the SCC referred to as “noblesse oblige” where the government mistakenly thinks that Indigenous rights are a matter of charity or generosity versus legal obligation.

    What this case will do is break through the jurisdictional “limbo” to which Metis and non-status Indians have been relegated and force both federal and provincial governments to include Metis and non-status Indians in their consultation activities. While the court did not grant 2 of the 3 requested declarations, it DID confirm that governments have a fiduciary duty towards Metis and non-status Indians (duty to act in their best interests), AND that they must negotiate with them and consult with them on decisions impacting their rights.

    That is the most neutral thing that I can say about this decision. In EVERY other way, this decision is one of the worst messes to come out of the SCC. While it may sort out who is an Indian, it does nothing to address the problems faced by Indians in accessing various federal programs and services. Remember, Jordan River Anderson was a registered Indian child, under federal jurisdiction, yet the province and federal government BOTH refused to pay for his health services and he died in hospital never seeing his home. Magically becoming an Indian doesn’t resolve the ongoing federal-provincial dispute over coverage for individuals living OFF reserve, let alone those normally resident on reserve.

    On the Indigenous rights front – inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights – this case is damaging.

    To my mind, the Daniels decision is less about reconciliation and more about erasure of Indigenous sovereignty and identity. It takes John Ralston Saul’s idea of “we are all Metis people” together with the newest Canadian slogan “we are all treaty  people” and opens the floodgates to every person in Canada claiming a long lost Indian ancestor and asserting their identity and control over our lands and rights. It has the potential to effectively eliminate any real sovereignty or jurisdiction Indigenous Nations have over our own citizens and territories. It does not bolster Metis claims, but instead confuses them. It does not address the discrimination faced by actual non-status Indians, but paints them with the Metis “mixed people” brush. The very unique and specific circumstances of non-status Indians are completely over-looked in this decision.

    We have gone from sovereign Indigenous Nations – to one generic group of Indians – to distinctions-based groups (Indian, Inuit and Metis) – and now back to Indians – all for the express purpose of reducing us to an “interest group” of “Aboriginal people”. This is not good for anyone. Certainly, no one asked us what we thought. Once again, National Aboriginal Organizations are at the helm – directing the pirate ship to ensure they get their cut of program funds for their organizations. Their win is big – they’ll likely get increased funding to set up new negotiating tables. For the Indigenous Nations on the ground – a new burden has been placed on us – proving that the thousands of newly-minted, self-identified “Indians” do NOT speak for us and do NOT have a say over our lands. For those who have been wrongly excluded by government laws policy (like Indigenous women and their children) – their new challenge will be to distinguish themselves from the floodgate of false claims to come – a burden not rightly borne by those who have already suffered so long at the hands of government discrimination.

     

    This decision, taken together with Trudeau’s White Paper 2.0 (the nice version), means we have many battles ahead. Please read this decision critically – don’t partake in the celebrations just yet.

     

    http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15858/index.do

  • Facts verus Rhetoric: Response to INAC’s Misinformation About Bill S-2

    This letter is in direct response to the letter submitted by Jason McDonald, Director of Communications for Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) Bernard Valcourt to the Montreal Gazette on August 7, 2013. INAC has gone to great lengths to spread misinformation about the intentions, interpretations and potential impacts of Bill S-2 Family Homes of Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. It is interesting to note the Minister had his communications person write this letter, versus a Justice Canada lawyer.

     

    Despite the near unanimous rejection of previous versions of this bill and Harper’s infamous promise to First Nations at the Crown First Nations Gathering not to unilaterally amend the Indian Act; the Harper government has spared no expense in its propaganda campaign to gain support for this unconstitutional bill. What follows is my response to INAC’s misinformation about the bill. I have testified before Senate as a legal expert on a previous version of this bill, but was specifically prevented by Conservative members from testifying on the new version. I have also published other blogs on this bill. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/11/bill-s-2-family-homes-on-reserve-and.html http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2011/09/bill-s-2-family-homes-on-reserves.html

    http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/06/bill-s-4-step-back-in-time.html http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/06/bill-s-4-backdoor-assimilation-and-land.html http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/06/bill-s-4-empty-shell-of-legislative.html  

    INAC: The bill “extends to people living on reserve the same basic rights and protections that individuals living off reserve enjoy regarding the family home”

    This is not true. Indigenous Nations are sovereign Nations with their own laws, rules, policies, governments, and justice systems. Their status as sovereign Nations are recognized in the fact of treaty making, as only sovereign Nations can enter into treaties with one another – citizens of a state do not have that right.

     

    Their legal right to govern themselves is also protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 as an inherent right (pre-existing to Canada as a state and not granted or given through law). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as well as other international laws also protect the right of First Nations to be self-determining.

    First Nations have exclusive jurisdiction to determine their own laws, rules and procedures in relation to any marital or property issues on their traditional, treaty or reserve lands. When INAC claims they are extending the same basic rights to those living on reserve, what they mean is that they are illegally imposing provincial laws on reserve contrary to section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and contrary to various treaties and international laws. This legislation will also require the consent of the provinces and companion legislation to bring it into effect.

    Even the description of a house on reserve as the family home is misleading. On many reserves, homes are occupied by upwards of 25 people including husband, wife, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. Certificates of Possession (like fee simple deeds) can be in the name of hundreds of people. Many First Nation families do not exist as the western notion of nuclear family with mom, dad and 2.5 children. Any disposition of what is deemed a family home could have devastating effects on large extended families and especially elders. First Nations have not asked for this bill.

    INAC: Bill S-2 does not change the fact that only registered Indians can hold a Certificate of Possession on reserve, but non-First Nations people can possess the home for a temporary period of time.

    This statement is misleading about the real implications of the bill. The Indian Act prevents anyone who is NOT an Indian from even temporarily possessing land on a reserve – which includes permanent structures on the land, like a house. Section 20(1) of the Indian Act specifies:

     20 (1) No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve unless, with the approval of the Minister, possession of the land has been allotted to him by the council of the band.”

    What INAC is trying to do is unilaterally amend the Indian Act in an illegal way – in violation of domestic and international law. Section 2 of the Indian Act specifies that reserve lands are reserved for the exclusive use and benefit of the band (First Nation) for which they were set aside. These lands are not for anyone else’s use.

    Further, many treaties set up reserve lands for the exclusive use and benefit of Indians – not non-Indians. These treaties are now constitutionally and internationally protected and cannot be unilaterally amended. This country would not exist but for the treaties which agreed to share the land – now they are constitutionally protected and cannot be violated if Canada wishes to remain a democratic country. Harper can’t pick and choose which constitutional provisions he likes – Canada is either democratically governed with a constitution or it is a lawless dictatorship.

    INAC does not have the power or authority to enact legislative provisions, such as this, that would be in direct conflict with its own constitution and other laws. INAC is also not being truthful when it claims that the Act only allows temporary possession by non-Indians. In fact, non-Indians can gain up to a life interest in lands and homes on reserve. This is far from temporary and combined with other proposed legislative amendments, this could translate into permanent possession.

    INAC: The courts need this legislation to facilitate emergency protection orders to remove a violent partner from the home.

    This is not true. INAC has focused on this legislation as being intended to protect First Nations women from violence, which it implies is rampant on every reserve. Government representatives have presented a false choice between First Nations women being tossed from their homes in the middle of the night or protecting self-government for First Nations. Yet, INAC has offered no statistical, research-based or other evidence to prove that women losing their homes on reserve is a rampant or common occurrence.

    In direct contrast to their testimony, INAC has confirmed that the majority of CPs are held by women, not men. Additionally, when First Nations women living in shelters were interviewed about this legislation, the women emphasized the fact that their interests are not separate from their First Nation community – and that none of them wanted their community’s Aboriginal or treaty rights violated such as this legislation does.

    This line of reasoning being promoted by INAC amounts to spreading racist, hateful stereotypes about First Nations for political purposes. INAC wants support to do indirectly, what Canada is not legally permitted to do directly – take the remaining amount of lands held by First Nations and transfer them to Canadians, corporations and governments.

     

    If this legislation was about protecting First Nation women, they would have built more homes on reserve, funded new shelters, increased funding for preventative services and increased funding for access to legal services for these women. Instead they have created  a new legal regime that the majority of First Nation women will never be able to access.

    What is also extremely concerning about this provision is that it purports to empower courts to issue protection orders (possession of home to spouse) as against the alleged abuser in the absence of a charge or conviction. It also empowers the court to make possession orders for homes and lands on reserve – which are communal First Nation property – without any notice to the First Nation or any of the family members impacted by the order, like elders. This provision violates the basic human rights and freedoms of First Nations and further denies individuals any administrative fairness and justice.

    INAC: The ratification process outlined in the bill is done according to First Nation practices and is to ensure the collective interests are protected.

    Again, this is not true. The ratification process as outlined in the bill is a paternalistic control mechanism to ensure First Nations comply with INAC objectives – it is not consistent with First Nation customs, traditions, practices or laws. Some First Nations already have their own laws in this regard, but INAC refuses to recognize these laws, and instead demands that First Nations engage in an Indian Affairs-designed and controlled process. If the concern was truly that laws are needed in this area, then INAC would recognize those First Nation laws.

    Similarly, this legislation is not designed to respect collective interests to homes and lands on reserve, but is intended to further carve out individual interests and create new legal interests for non-Indians. According to INAC, reserve lands represent less than 0.2% of all the lands First Nations used to control. For INAC to want to divide up and steal the rest of those lands is unconscionable, let alone illegal. The spirit and intent of our nation to nation treaties was to share the wealth, not usurp it all for one treaty partner and leave the other impoverished and living on hand-outs.

    First Nations have exclusive jurisdiction over their own laws and enforcement mechanisms and do not need INAC approval or supervision to deal with these issues. This provision is a gross violation of the constitutionally and internationally protected right to be self-governing.

    INAC: INAC has consulted extensively with First Nations on this issue.

    This is not true. In fact, INAC’s own Special Ministerial Representative on Matrimonial Law on Reserve who interviewed First Nations individuals, communities and organizations all over Canada, concluded that none of the information packages or meetings to date amounted to legal consultation as required under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. INAC representatives themselves told attendees at several meetings that various discussions were not intended as consultation.  Further, several meetings held with national organizations does not constitute legal consultations with the First Nation communities who actually hold the Aboriginal and treaty rights impacted.

    Consultation is supposed to be a mutually negotiated, designed and funded process which ensures impacted First Nations communities (in this case, all 615) are fully informed about the legislation and its intended impacts as well as take measures to accommodate their concerns and obtain their consent. This simply did not occur. The Supreme Court of Canada has stressed repeatedly that Canada is legally obligated to consult, accommodate and in many cases, obtain the consent of First Nations prior to taking any action or decision that has the potential to impact constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights. UNDRIP further requires that Canada must obtain the free, informed and prior consent of First Nations before impacting their rights.

    This has not happened and in fact, each version of this bill has been nearly unanimously rejected by First Nations men, women and communities all over Canada.

    INAC: Canada is further supporting First Nations by creating a national Centre of Excellence to help First Nations implement these laws.

    This new Centre was not requested by First Nations. If INAC wanted to support First Nations they would not have made substantial funding cuts to all the National, regional and provincial First Nation organizations that already assist First Nations with law development and implementation. Finally, law development is costly in any government, and INAC is expecting First Nations to develop and implement these laws without any funding support.

    INAC is clearly not genuinely concerned about empowering First Nations governments, but is instead reverting back to nation-wide, one-size-fits-all paternalistic control. We all know what happens when INAC has control – we have deaths and torture in residential schools, lack of clean water and safe sanitation systems on reserve, housing crises, lack of education, suicide epidemics and other conditions of forced impoverishment. It’s time INAC got out of the business of controlling First Nations and let them govern themselves – they couldn’t do any worse than the atrocities already committed by Canada on our people. Please contact your MP and oppose this legislation.

  • Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Whose the Smartest of them All? The Problem with Radicals, Insurgents, Terrorists, and Non-Thinkers

    Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who’s the smartest of them all? Well, according to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, the Conservatives are the smartest of them all – at least, they are the only ones who take “facts” into account when they think. This means that everyone else who does not think, act and support the Conservative right-wing agenda is relegated to that neanderthal group of non-thinkers who pose a national security risk. Sound familiar? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2012/01/09/pol-joe-oliver-radical-groups.html Well, I am not just talking about me and my alleged “subversive and hostile activities”. Nor am I talking about Cindy Blackstock and her evil pursuit to give First Nations children a chance at the good life. This time I am talking about all those pesky environmentalists, anti-poverty groups, churches, amnesty groups, human rights organizations, international organizations, students, academics, lawyers, animal protection groups, scientists, researchers, women’s right organizations, Canadian politicians and political groups, actors, actresses and singers, and philanthropists, as well as the most notorious radicals, insurgents, and terrorists in Canada – Indigenous peoples. https://pampalmater.com/2012/01/when-advocating-for-first-nations-is.html Somehow this gigantic, ideologically, culturally, socially, politically and legally diverse group form a “radical” group of people who, according to Conservative Minister Oliver: “don’t take into account the facts but are driven by an ideological imperative”. This imperative is to “block trade” and “undermine Canada’s economy”. This out of control group “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda”. Honestly, just the thought of someone trying to hijack our regulatory process sends a cold shiver down my spine. Imagine the level of sophistication, planning and education that allowed such a dangerous group to read and understand those millions of regulations. The sheer level of dedication to their terrorist plot to protect the environment, the health of the residents or Indigenous lands is astounding. Don’t let this insurgent group’s reliance on research data, scientific studies, academic publications, and internationally recognized reports fool you. They are not basing their ideology of sustainability and human rights on “facts” – they are, instead, blindly following a radical ideology which is intent on destroying Canadians – i.e., those that voted Conservative in the last election. “Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.” What next? Wind mills, solar power and bicycles? I think the answer is actually hidden in Minister Oliver’s comments – REAL Canadians support mining, logging and oil sands – regardless of the costs to people, land, water or the environment. Radicals support clean water, alternative energy and respecting Indigenous lands and resources. Thus, by stripping this rather large group of radicals of their citizenship (non-Canadians), intelligence (thinking without facts), or legitimate concerns (radical ideologies), they can be de-humanized, vilified, criminalized, and ultimately ignored. If you think I am being paranoid (that one’s for you CSIS), then ask any Indigenous person who has been labelled as “savage”, “pagan”, “heathen”, “uncivilized”, “communist”, “radical”, “insurgent”, “terrorist” threat to Canada. We are so dangerous in fact that it takes CSIS, special units of the RCMP, DND (military) AND Indian Affairs to keep an eye on our tiny little population. Stealing our land and resources, decimating our populations, outlawing our languages and cultures, keeping us in extreme poverty, stealing our children from us, throwing us in jails, and publicly vilifying us in the media is not enough to comfort those fact-based thinking Conservatives. If you ask me, the real radical terrorists are the “new” Conservative party. They are so far away from their old political ideologies that even some Conservatives are scared of this new party. However, given that many consider Harper to be akin to a dictator, these same old-school Conservatives fear doing anything but supporting this new radical party. It is plain to see that the right wing fanatics from the Reform Party invaded the Conservatives and have never ceded power. Once a dictator assumes power, the only way he can maintain it is through propaganda, misinformation, secrecy, fear and force. This is exactly what we see now. The new Conservative Party has shown that it is THEY who hold radical right-wing ideologies that they ram down the throats of the majority of Canadians. These ideologies are never based on fact, science or reality, but instead on their radical ideology that the ultimate goal is to achieve the most power and wealth it can. This is not my political rhetoric, as you will recall I don’t vote in federal or provincial elections as none of those parties represent our Indigenous Nations. What I am saying is fact – and in case you have any doubts, I invite you to consult the Parliament of Canada website and peruse the legislation that has already passed or is being proposed. It is highly focused on power (military, defense) and wealth (stopping unions, stealing reserve lands). http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/Home.aspx?language=E&Parl=41&Ses=1 If such a political party can proceed with oil sands despite the catastrophic environmental, human and animal impacts; if it can proceed with destructive extraction industries ignoring Indigenous rights; or pursue wealth and power while leaving children and families to live in poverty – then I ask who is the radical terrorist? Who is acting in a way to subvert the well-being of Canadian citizens and Indigenous peoples, lands and waters? Since when did sustainable development, sharing the wealth, respecting human rights and Indigenous rights become anti-Canadian? Moreover, since when did participating in a democratic process like testifying before a regulatory board about one’s concerns about a project become such a radical act? Is Minister Oliver saying we are no longer entitled to hold a different opinion? That sounds radically like a dictatorship to me. I think we ought to start monitoring his Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail accounts and see what kind of meetings and conferences he attends. I’m a little nervous about this one.

  • When Advocating for First Nations is Considered a National Security Risk

    When the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) reported that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) dedicated countless INAC staff and thousands of dollars to spying on Cindy Blackstock – I think most of us in Turtle Island gave our heads a shake. While it has been known for sometime that Canada spies on our our Indigenous leaders and community members who defend our lands, I don’t think most of us were aware that any First Nation advocate was a target. This is what shocked me the most – that Canada’s “national security” laws are so broad as to make someone like Cindy Blackstock an enemy of the state. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/11/14/federal-aboriginal-affairs-department-spying-on-advocate-for-first-nations-children/ If someone were to ask me who was the LEAST likely to be spied on by Canada, I would have said Cindy Blackstock because for anyone who knows Cindy or her work, they know she is a peaceful, law-abiding citizen with a big heart. Her only alleged “subversive” or “hostile” act against Canada is that peacefully advocates on behalf of the most vulnerable in our society: First Nations children. Cindy does not do her advocacy by riding in on combat helicopters or tanks – but instead runs the First Nation Child and Family Caring Society, donates her free time to spreading information and speak publicly about the realities faced by First Nations children, and is now running the HAVE A HEART campaign to raise money for First Nations children. http://www.fncfcs.com/have-a-heart (I know I include alot of links in my blogs, but please click on the above link and read about the HAVE A HEART campaign and do what you can to support her efforts.) The level to which Cindy was spied on by INAC is also quite surprising. For a department whose mandate it is to improve the lives of First Nations peoples, but claims to have no money for housing, water and basic necessities for First Nations – they sure spent a great deal of time attending Cindy’s events, spying on her personal Facebook page (not her public one), and reporting to both INAC and Justice Canada about her activities. They even violated her most private information by accessing her registration records and that of her family. Incredibly, INAC has been doing this for some time, so the costs must be astronomical. So, what was INAC’s response to all of this? Minister Duncan said there would be a probe into whether or not government officials broke privacy rules. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/11/17/aboriginal-affairs-minister-launches-probe-into-blackstock-spying-affair/ However, it is important to note that the “probe” will be headed by Duncan’s Deputy Minister. Once the public knew that the DM was one of the many INAC employees who were copied on the surveillance reports on Cindy, we knew any “probe” would be a complete sham. For a government that complains about lack of transparency and accountability by First Nations – here INAC is having one of their spies investigate whether they were improperly spying – can anyone guess what the outcome will be? This whole situation made me wonder about my own situation and whether my work qualifies me as “hostile” or “subversive”. My advocacy activities have always been peaceful and mostly consist of volunteer activities like sharing information through social media, speaking engagements, working with individuals and community members on a wide range of Indigenous legal, cultural, social and political issues, training sessions, publications, appearing before the House and Senate on legislation impacting our people and organizing pow wows. I still wondered whether this would garner the attention of the multi-layered, well-funded, spy industry within Canada. So, I made an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request to CSIS, INAC, RCMP and DND for any and all records, reports, security assessments, surveillance reports, etc that  they might have in relation to me and my work. To date, only CSIS has responded. In the CSIS letter of Dec.8, 2011, they refer to three different types of information: (1) Security Assessments/Advice; (2) CSIS Service Records; and (3) CSIS Investigational records. On the first set of information they provided me with some records of assessments done when I worked at INAC and Justice Canada, but refused to disclose other material, stating: “Portions of the material have been exempted from disclosure by virtue of section 15(1) (as it relates to the efforts of Canada towards detecting, preventing or suppressing subversive or hostile activities) of the Act.” For the second part, they confirmed they have no service records in relation to me (no surprise there) and for the third type of information they stated that they would “neither confirm nor deny that the records you requested exist.” However they did say that even if such records do exist, they would not release them to me anyway as part of their efforts in “detecting, preventing or suppressing subversive or hostile activities”. So, the moral of the story is that they have at least one type of file on me, and that they would not release the whole file so as to protect Canada from my alleged “subversive or hostile” activities. This to me is like being judged without knowing what I am accused of, and then being sentenced to ongoing spying on undisclosed activities for an undetermined amount of time so as to reduce the security risk to Canada in relation to my peaceful Indigenous advocacy activities. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/01/03/indigenous-prof-puzzled-by-csis-answer-to-information-request/ If Canada’s national security laws permit such broad surveillance of our activities – then my question is what First Nation activities are NOT considered a potential threat to Canada? I would like to know how much money across all federal departments are allocated to spying on First Nations people? I would also like to compare that to the costs to provide housing, water and basic necessities of life to First Nations in need. I am guessing that I would not be entitled to this information either. In my previous blogs, I wrote about INAC issuing contracts to people to spy on First Nation elections and Facebook users. More Than Empty Promises https://pampalmater.com/2011/10/more-than-empty-promises-canadas.html Secret Agent Harper https://pampalmater.com/2011/06/secret-agent-harper-conservative-spy.html From Savages to Terrorists https://pampalmater.com/2011_05_01_archive.html Then, The First Nations Strategic Bulletin (FNSB) which came out in December 2011 explained how after the Conservatives came to power, the RCMP created the Aboriginal Joint Intelligence Group (JIG)partnering with the ENERGY and PRIVATE SECTOR to spy on First Nations. First Nations like Six Nations, Tyendinaga and others were all targeted. The JIG was run by RCMP Criminal Intelligence Branch and the RCMP National Security Criminal Investigations (NSCI) which deal with: “threats to national security and criminal extremism or terrorism”. Most shockingly was that FNSB also reported that the RCMP shared their surveillance reports with private businesses and that private businesses shared information with the RCMP about First Nations. The irony of the situation is so outrageous. It was Canada and its Indian agents that were hostile and subversive to our peoples – not the other way around. It is we who have pre-mature deaths, worse health, less education, less employment and less access to land and resources. It is we who continue to suffer the inter-generational effects of their colonial laws and policies which STILL exist today. Can you get any more hostile that the over-apprehension of our children from our communities at 3 times the rate of residential schools? Or that some of federal prisons have 100% Indigenous inmates or that the Indian Act still provides for our legislative extinction dates? Yet, we are supposed to be appeased when representatives of Canada speak about moving forward, looking ahead,  and reconciliation. How can First Nations be expected to come to the table with any hope of making real progress when their treaty “partner” comes to the table alleging good faith but with no less than 4 federal departments spying on our people and treating us like we are terrorists on our own lands? But will any of these important issues make it to the agenda for the First Nations-Crown Summit in January? Of course not. In case you haven’t noticed, very little of the core issues are on the table for discussion and resolution. Instead the agenda consists of program areas like economic development, education and accountability – important issues, but all ones which could easily be addressed by directors and a commitment to equitable funding. Issues like self-determination, First Nation jurisdiction, equitable funding, fair share of the land and resources, recognition of our treaties and Indigenous rights are all OFF the agenda. So, I will wait to see what information about my files I get from the RCMP, DND and INAC, and will also wait and see if NC Atleo addresses any of these fundamental relationship issues with Canada. But in the meantime, my bet is on our grass roots people and the youth in turning this situation around and taking back control over our own lives.

  • Brave Leadership Spreads Hope: Attawapiskat Takes on the Ultimate Bully

    There have been countless blogs, reports, media stories and commentary on the crisis Attawapiskat First Nation located in northern Ontario on the James Bay. So many of these stories report on the current situation and few provide the historical context from which it all evolved. The purpose of this blog is simply to provide a little context and show how grass roots community members have the power to spread hope to all First Nations by their brave leadership. http://www.attawapiskat.org/ Attawapiskat is a First Nation community of approximately 2000 of its 3335 members live on reserve. This community is part of the larger Cree Nation and the current Chief is Theresa Spence. Attawapiskat is part of the Mushkegowuck Council (a tribal council representing eight Cree communities which is currently headed by Grand Chief Stan Louttit and represents about 10,000 First Nations people. http://www.mushkegowuk.ca/home_adm.html At the regional level, Attawapiskat is represented by the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (formerly known as Grand Council of Treaty 9). It is headed by Grand Chief Stan Beardy and represents over 45,000 First Nations people. This organization is affiliated with the Chiefs in Ontario which is the provincial co-ordinating body for the 134 First Nations in Ontario. http://www.nan.on.ca/article/about-us-3.asp All of the issues surrounding the current situation in Attawapiskat did not turn up over night, nor can Canada or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) legitimately claim that they had no idea what was happening in the community. The significant challenges faced by Attawapiskat can be traced back to the diesel spill in 1979 that was never remedied by INAC. (Although INAC purported to change its name to Aboriginal Affairs, the act still says Department of Indian Affairs). In 1979, the largest diesel spill in northern Ontario occurred from underground pipes which leaked under their reserve lands. INAC did not remediate this environmental hazard, but instead, INAC built a school for the community on these contaminated lands. The school itself ended up acting like a cap for the nearly 30,000 gallons of diesel just underneath the surface. The toxic diesel fumes made both teachers and students so ill that the school had to be closed. http://www.nationnews.ca/index.php?option=com_zine&view=article&id=476:attawapiskat-wins In 2000-2001, the band closed the school and also declared a state of emergency in order to get INAC to build a proper school on lands that were not contaminated. INAC refused and left children to attend school in cold, moldy, run-down portables. This is how the world came to know Shannen Koostachin – the brave little girl who would not give up on her dream of a safe, clean school for her community. Her campaign came to be known as Shannen’s Dream. http://www.fncfcs.com/shannensdream/ When NDP MP Charlie Angus was elected in 2004, he too joined the cause and advocated strenuously for Canada to act immediately and address the lack of a school in Attawapiskat. Despite all the efforts, promises made by former Ministers Nault, Scott and Prentice all went unfulfilled. This lead Shannen and her fellow community members to meet with then Minister Chuck Strahl to explain how important a school was for their community. It was this Minister, under the newly empowered dictatorial “Harper Government” (also known as Canada) that finally confirmed that NO new school would be built. http://www.midnorthmonitor.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3349031 Minister Strahl, being too busy to meet for long with Shannen, he said that he did not have any money for a school. This did not deter Shannen or her supporters. Despite her subsequent tragic passing, grass roots members at Attawapiskat, Cindy Blackstock of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society (FNCFCS), MP Charlie Angus and others have continued to lobby for a school. http://www.fncfcs.com/sites/default/files/docs/OurDreams-June2011.pdf In May 2011, after much domestic and international pressure and political embarrassment, INAC seemed to reconsider its position and issued its fourth promise to Attawapiskat to build the school. There was a great deal of public celebration over this victory, but it is now 8 months later and construction for the school has not been started. INAC claims it will break ground sometime in 2013, but time will tell. http://wawataynews.ca/archive/all/2011/5/30/attawapiskat-finally-gets-new-school_21503 The school has not been the only issuing plaguing Attawapiskat. In early 2005, the De Beers Mining company decided to dump their sewage sludge into Attawapiskat’s sewage pumping station. As a result, the system was overwhelmed and sewage backed up into community homes. A subsequent engineering report noted that Canada knew about the situation and did not take steps to address the immediate crisis or to remediate the environmental hazard. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/12/13/de-beers-decision-to-dump-sewage-into-attawapiskat-played-role-in-current-housing-crisis/ Because INAC refused to offer emergency aid to this community is crisis, the struggling First Nation was forced to evacuate its residents and pay the bill itself, thus resulting in a major debt. NDP Member of Parliament Charlie Angus explained that the band ran up a debt from flying people out of the community and putting them in hotels. Residents simply could not stay in homes full of raw sewage, and the First Nation was forced into a tough decision given INAC’s refusal to assist them. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/outsiders-flood-month-crisis-ridden-native-community-cries-175723785.html They declared a state of emergency in early 2009 to refocus attention on the nearly ten years without a school. At that time, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Chuck Strahl, was shocked by the declaration of the sate of emergency: “…they’ve issued this (state of emergency) and I’m not sure what it means or why it has been done.” The declaration was made not just because of the school, but also because of the water infrastructure needs and the major environmental and health issue associated with the De Beers sewage back-up in their community. http://media.knet.ca/node/6640 Strahl went on to express that there were no health issues, that he was aware of the situation on the ground and that “Every indication is it’s all good”. He went on to guarantee that INAC would ensure that everything would be fine: “I’m not sure what’s going on there, but we’ll work with them to make sure it’s all fine,” said Strahl. An interesting promise given the reaction by Minister Duncan and the “Harper Government” to Attawapiskat’s third declaration of emergency on October 28, 2011. http://digitaljournal.com/article/315974 At first, this declaration received the same amount of attention from INAC as the previous ones – no attention at all. Chief Theresa Spence, MP Charlie Angus and others were in the news nearly every day trying to bring attention to the worsening crisis in Attawapiskat. Now, given all the past disasters with diesel, sewage back-up, evacuations and no school, the community saw some of its members living in sheds and tents, and some houses were so over-crowded that they had up to 20 people living in one house. Yet for three weeks INAC did not act. It was not until the Canadian Red Cross stepped in and provided emergency services to the community that the “Harper Government” was shamed into responding. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/red-cross-to-aid-attawapiskat-in-housing-crisis/article2251378/ However, the response was not what anyone expected. Instead of empathy or compassion, the “Harper Government” came out swinging and accused the community of “mismanagement” of their federal funding.  Unlike the political reaction to any other community in Canada that has suffered a crisis like flooding or fire, the Conservatives turned their backs and decided to blame the victim for the many crises in their community. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/12/01/attawapiskat-thursday.html The reaction from Attawapiskat, other First Nations and thousands of Canadians was outrage that the Conservatives would turn a situation of human suffering into a political battle complete with a smear campaign against the community’s leadership for daring to show the world how disgustingly Canada treats its First Nations. The media swooped in and covered all the drama as usual focusing on the simplistic headlines pitting tragedy against alleged corruption – until something happened and people started asking different questions. We had all heard the old right-wing denials of injustice and their racist focus on the alleged corruption of all First Nation leaders, their ‘exhorbitant” salaries being the cause of poverty on reserves and the solutions being – be more Canadian by paying taxes, owning your own fee simple land and mortgaging your house. Yet, few had ever asked the relevant questions of how did we get here, why is there no action being taken to redress human suffering and how do we move forward. The fact that the media quickly shifted to these important questions may well have shaped the response.

    Dec.2, 2011 – APTN InFocus

    Part 1 http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/12/05/december-2nd-part-1/

    Part 2

    http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/12/05/december-2nd-part-2/

     Dec.3, 2011 – CTV’s Question Period

    http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctvs-question-period/dec-4/#clip579399 Dec.3, 2011 – Let’s Talk Native with John Kane  http://letstalknativepride.blogspot.com/

    Dec.4, 2011 – CBC Radio’s The Current

    Part 1 http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=2173731301 Part 2

    http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=2173734096

    Dec.8, 2011 – CTV’s Power Play with Don Martin

    http://watch.ctv.ca/news/power-play/dec-8/#clip582291

    Dec.11, 2011 – CPAC’s Goldhawk Live

    http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&hl=e&clipID=6364

     Dec.15, 2011 – CTV’s Canada AM

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CanadaAM/20111215/attawapiskat-housing-crisis-abuse-111215/

    I think however, that the biggest issue is the level to which the grass roots people in Attawapiskat said enough is enough and started to advocate on their own behalf is what made the difference. Our people have been suffering for so long and have been controlled and beaten down by ongoing colonial laws and policies that resistance has been difficult. How can one stand up for themselves if they have no home, food or water and the risk to standing up could mean retaliation from INAC or Harper?

    The children of Attawapiskat, led by Shannen Koostachin showed the world that the well-being of our people are worth the risks. They showed the true spirit of our Indigenous peoples and made their ancestors proud when the stood up for their people. They have inspired a generation that has learned what colonization is and are working hard at decolonizing themselves and their communities and strengthening the grass roots resistance to federal control and forced poverty. So too did Chief Theresa Spence who risked everything to continually highlight the injustices in her community. In most political realms, the squeaky wheel often gets the grease – but in a “Harper Government” which is all about control and domination – the squeaky wheel is more likely to be removed and replaced or thrown out. Judging Harper’s actions in Attawapiskat, it is obvious that they were punished for their advocacy efforts and vilified in Parliament and the media until a wiser Canadian public wanted to know more. The sustained efforts of Chief Theresa Spence and her councillors, the leaders before them, their community members and youth, have been nothing short of heroic. They stood in the face of criticism, unfounded allegations of mismanagement and the most racist and heartless political response ever to a crisis in Canada and stood firm on justice for their community. Canada’s response to impose further colonial controls on the community through a third party manager at $1300 a day to be paid from the band’s overwhelmed budget is yet another attack on the community in an effort to subdue them. While Canada has been critiqued, so has the Assembly of First Nations for their lack of advocacy for the most impoverished communities in Canada. Where was Shawn Atleo when Chief Spence was declaring her THIRD state of emergency? Why was he not screaming from the steps of Parliament to raise awareness and demand action? Atleo’s political strategy of “playing nice with the Conservatives” has only brought woe upon those First Nations who are most in need. He has set the stage for non-resistance which does not bode well with most First Nations. http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Harper+heading+trouble+native+issues/5876694/story.html But we all have hope and have been inspired by the efforts of Attawapiskat to refuse to give up – to refuse to believe that they are not entitled to justice and basic human rights. Strong grass roots youth like Shannen Koostachin and strong Indigenous women leaders like Chief Theresa Spence have shown the world that resistance is now at the heart of our identities as Indigenous peoples and that we – the grass roots – have the power to change our future. We do not have to wait for elected leaders to act on our behalf. True leaders step in when there is a void and take real steps to address it. Attawapiskat has done more to raise awareness about our issues than many leaders who are paid to do just that. But they took a risk in acting. There will always be risks associated with decolonizing and resisting federal control over our Nations. We could have our leaders discredited or removed, we could lose valuable funding or be publically vilified by Harper’s thugs. There are even risks associated with the inevitable change that comes with something other than the “status quo”. But these risks are worth taking on behalf of our communities who expect and deserve so much more than what they survive now – lack of housing, water, sewer, food, education, employment and for some, a lack of identity, culture, language, history, context and pride. This is not to say there are no good leaders – there are many and I have the privilege of working with some of them who also believe that things need to change. My main point is that the most vulnerable in our communities – Indigenous women and children – are also a source of strength and leadership for our people. Our grass roots Indigenous people know a better life is possible – one that honours the sacrifices of our ancestors and protects our culture, identity, land and resources for our future generations. Let Attawapiskat be an example of hope – one that proves that brave leaders, who are prepared to take risks can come from anyone, at anytime, under any conditions. Our people will rally around these kinds of leaders and collectively we have the power to change our futures and take back control over our Nations.

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

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

  • Canada’s Genocide?: Death by Poverty in First Nations

    I apologize to all my readers about not posting lately. There are so many issues that I want to deal with and that need more attention, like: the failure of BC to provide funding to Aboriginal women’s groups to be able to participate in the Pickton Inquiry; the Conservative government’s subversion of the specific lands claims process by offering take-it-or-leave-it offers; the expert First Nation panel which has been a fiasco from its troubled beginnings, or the Conservatives pattern of censoring information. All of these issues I have tweeted about, but are deserved of their own blogs. However, as one person I only have so much time to do more things than I could finish in a lifetime. Currently, I am working on a journal article that will be published this fall on the pre-mature deaths of First Nations caused by the crisis of poverty created and maintained by Canada. This article is taking me much longer to write than usual because of the subject matter. As I type the words on each page, my heart gets heavier and heavier until I cannot hold my feelings anymore and have to walk away from the paper. Sometimes, when I am referring to very specific examples, stories of specific communities and individuals, I can’t help but cry. I am not crying for me, but for our Indigenous brothers and sisters who are denied their very lives by all the discriminatory laws, policies, and barriers imposed on First Nations by Canada. Often times we hear these words so often from our leaders and various advocacy organizations that the public hears it only as rhetoric – an exaggeration of the actual situation in First Nations. Any publicity about a crisis in one of our communities is quickly downplayed by allegations of corruption or mis-spending in another. We are often blamed for the ill effects of colonization and systemic racism. Canada has perfected the ability to “defer, deflect and deny” the fact of First Nations dying by poverty. Creating these situations of life and death make “negotiations” about our Aboriginal and treaty rights and land claims much easier. We are so far from an equal bargaining position with Canada that any agreement arrived at today should be challenged as an imprudent bargain. This is what I am writing about in my article. This is the reason why I haven’t been able to post any blogs lately or update my website (which is in desperate need of an update). Here is an excerpt from my article that I am working on: However, it is not just the federal government’s own offices and agencies that have noted Canada’s lack of action on First Nation poverty and discrimination. The Ontario coroner’s report referred to earlier clearly linked the extreme poverty in Pikangikum First Nation to the high suicide rates among their children:

    Pikangikum is an impoverished, isolated First Nations community where basic necessities of life are absent. Running water and indoor plumbing do not exist for most residents. Poverty, crowded substandard housing, gainful employment, food and water security are daily challenges. A lack of an integrated health care system, poor education by provincial standards and a largely absent community infrastructure are uniquely positioned against a backdrop of colonialism, racism, lack of implementation of self-determination and social exclusion. They all contribute to the troubled youth…[1]

    What health care residents do receive is “fragmented, chaotic and uncoordinated” with “clear gaps in service”.[2] Their school burnt down in 2007 and has never been replaced despite empty promises by INAC to do so. The significant funding disparities that exist between First Nation and Canadian students means that the students who are the most disadvantaged and have the greatest needs, receive the least. A community of only 2400 people has 200 child welfare files open with 80 children in care. Due to the lack of housing and the high levels of overcrowding, these children are sent to foster homes far away from their communities. Should anyone be surprised by the fact that 16 children between the ages of 10-19 took their own lives between 2006 and 2008? Under the Criminal Code of Canada, section 318(2)(b) defines genocide as:

    (2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

     (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.[3]

     At what point does Canada’s denial of the problem equate with a de facto policy of genocide?

    [1] Coroner report, at 93-94

    [2] Ibid. at 95

    [3] CCC section 318(2)(b)

    As always, I welcome any comments or feedback you may have about any of my blogs. For the next little while however, there may be delays in my response so that I can finish this article.

  • INAC’s “Expert” Panel on First Nation Education – Big Bucks, Zero Results

    Back in December of 2009,  Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) (as it then was) announced that it would be putting together an “expert” panel on First Nations education and that the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) would have some say over the mandate of the panel and the appointment of its members. The members of the panel were expected to be announced in early 2011 with a view to having a report in mid-2011. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2010/12/09/govt-afn-launch-panel-to-study-education/ Up until this announcement, I had seen no call for proposals from INAC and no call from the AFN for educators to put their names forward for consideration. Then, on February 20, 2011 out of the blue, we see a notice posted on the MERX website that three individuals had already been chosen for the panel and were to be paid $200,000 EACH plus hst for a three month contract that was due to end July 31, 2011. http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=214289&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&hcode=gltUDmepFZnIFIhHGp3Jiw%3D%3D The contract was awarded without tender because INAC felt that no one else other than the three people chosen would be as “uniquely qualified” to conduct a national panel on First Nation education. The three chosen were: (1) David Hughes, CEO of Pathways to Education Canada, who was chosen to be the Chair of the panel, (2) George Lafonde, former Vice-Chief of Saskatoon Tribal Council; and (3) Caroline Krause, who described the present post-secondary funding system for First Nations as “corrupt” and thus offered her “unequivocal support” for Calvin Helin’s report “Free to Learn” which advocated for giving education funds directly to students and skip bands altogether. It is no surprise then, how she came to be regarded as an “expert” or chosen for this panel. http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/FreeToLearn.pdf This “blue ribbon” panel was to study the issue of First Nation education (once again) and come up with substantive recommendations. Their contracted mandate included the following: (1) They will be responsible to conduct face-to-face and online engagement activities across Canada to hear from First Nation leaders, parents, students, elders, teachers, provinces, and others with an interest and a view on how to enhance the education system and outcomes of First Nation learners at the elementary and secondary levels. (2) This will entail organizing and leading eight regional roundtables across Canada and one national roundtable and having key meetings with other stakeholders. (3) Based on work, the Panel will provide a summary following each roundtable, a progress report to the Minister of INAC and to the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations mid-way through the process, and they will submit a final panel report with recommendations by July 31, 2011. The report was to be tabled at the AFN’s national assembly in July which is to be held in Moncton, NB this year. This panel received instant criticism from Chiefs all over the country but national Chief Shawn Atleo asked Chiefs to work with this panel despite their concerns. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/03/03/blue-ribbon-education-panel-quietly-unveiled-draws-immediate-fire/ Despite ongoing concerns expressed by many Chiefs, the AFN stood by the Conservatives and encouraged chiefs to participate. Some chiefs were so upset with AFN that they wanted to meet without AFN present. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/04/07/chief-wants-quebec-fn-gathering-without-afn/ Once can hardly blame their feelings given the lack of action on education – which has been a crisis issue since the 1950’s, if not earlier. Yet, we are already at June 23, 2011 and from what I understand, there has not been a single community meeting or engagement session held to discuss any of the important issues around First Nation education. This makes me wonder whether it is even possible for this expert panel to have a report by July 31, 2011 and if so, how such a rushed report would be worth the paper it is written on? Perhaps $200,000 per person was not enough financial incentive to have them conduct any of the work? This money will no doubt be added the the billions already spent on the bureacracy that “manages” First Nations. Then, last night on APTN National News, it was reported that David Hughes, the Chair of the expert panel had resigned. There was no information reported about whether he had been paid any of the $200,000 under the contract, whether and to what extent he had done any of the work or when he had resigned. Again, no announcement was made by either the AFN or INAC (now ANAC). Ironic that the very government who set up a panel that will make recommendations on how First Nations need to be more accountable with education funding is not very transparent or accountable with its own funds. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/ What should have been considered an embarrassing fiasco for both INAC and the AFN was turned into a National Aboriginal Day “announcement” that an expert panel on First Nations education was “set to begin”. In fact, it was reported that the panel might start as early as “this week”. Downplaying the resignation of the former Chair David Hughes, it was quietly noted that the new Chair is now Scott Haldane, the President of the YMCA. Atleo explained that the goal was to have a report sometime “this calendar year” and was promising real “action”. Is it just me, or are we all being presented with smoke and mirrors instead of seeing any real accountability by INAC or the AFN? It boggles my mind that the AFN would continue to prop up the Conservatives when clearly they are not taking any action on our critical issues. In fact, APTN reported that INAC was NOT committing to any action on education and Minister Duncan said INAC was not prepared to simply “write a blank cheque” to address funding inequities. I think it is time for the Conservatives to practice what they preach and start showing us some accountability. I also think its time for our real leaders to step up and start calling INAC on their sustained lack of action. Here are some of the questions I want answered: (1) Was any money paid out under the original MERX contract that was due to be completed on July 31, 2011? If so, how much? (2) Has a new contract and/or extension of the old contract been made with the current panelists? If so, what are the terms and how much is it for? (3) If there is a new contract and/or an extension of the old one, why would we enter into yet another contract and/or an extension of the current contract when the original objectives of the first contract were not completed? (4) What is the real reason why the former chair of the panel resigned? Who choose this Chair and why? (5) Did the AFN really have any say in the decision to create a panel, the madate of the panel and the membership? Really? Did Atleo choose another non-First Nations person as the chair? Finally, why is the AFN keeping us in the dark about this critical issue for our people and propping up the Conservatives instead of holding them to account? First Nation leaders are staring to speak up, grass roots citizens are expressing their concerns – is anyone listening? This situation is starting to look eerily familiar to the CAP-Brazeau affair. While that may have won Brazeau a Senate seat, it did little for the grass roots Aboriginal people who most needed someone to stand up for them. Trying to cover up a fiasco on First Nation education on National Aboriginal Day has to be one of the most insulting things INAC or the AFN could do to First Nations. I think we deserve a little better than that. At least the Auditor General thought so…… http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf How many more studies do we need to be certain that there is an issue in First Nation education? How many more Auditor General’s have to confirm INAC funding inequities before funding is increased? How much more of this will we allow to happen before the real leaders step forward?

  • An Update on Bill C-3 – January 19 2011 – What's Next?

    Dear Readers; after checking my blog stats, I can see that traffic has been heavy on my previous Bill C-3 blogs, especially the one that reads as an update. I will try to oblige, but please forgive any annoying repetition. March 11, 2010 – First Reading (that’s where the Minister or someone like that introduces the bill into the House). March 26, 2010 – Second Reading March 29, 2010 – Debates April 1, 2010 – Studied by Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) April 13,15,20,22,27, 2010 – Meetings of AAON re Bill C-3 where they heard from witnesses sharing their concerns about the bill. April 29, 2010 – AAON submitted and debated their report which included a variety of amendments they had adopted to ensure that the bill remedied all gender inequity instead of just a minor part of it. May 25, 2010 – AAON continued debate of report. Parliament then recessed for the summer. October 26, 2010 – Report Stage – Report was debated again. Three motions were voted on and passed: (1) Motion #1 dealt with minor amendments to the wording related to how INAC would report on the effects of the bill once it has been implemented; (2) Motion #2 would restore the previous section 9 which had been deleted at AAON. This section provided Canada with an insulation from financial liability for claims which would come from women and children who had been wrongly excluded from the Act. (3) Motion #3 essentially was to approve the bill as amended by the previous two motions. All three motions were approved which meant that Bill C-3 (as amended)would go forward for Third reading and debates. Nov.22, 2010 – Third Reading and debates The bill was therefore passed as amended. Once it passed in the House, it literally sped through the process in the Senate being introduced on Nov.23, 2010 and passed Dec.9, 2010. Dec.15, 2010 – Bill C-3 receives Royal Assent. Jan.21. 2011 – The law officially comes into force and applications will be available at that time. All this legislative information can be found at the following link: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=6949&List=stat Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has now posted new information about those who think they might qualify for status and the new process it will use to handle applications for status. Their link can be found here: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/index-eng.asp INAC provides three basic criteria that gives potential applicants a sense of whether or not they will be entitled under the new amendment: (1) Did you grandmother lose Indian status because she married a non-Indian? (2) Is one of your parents registered or entitled to be registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act? and (3) Were you (the applicant) or one of your siblings born after Sept.4, 1951? If you can answer yes to all of these questions, then it is very likely (although INAC does not guarantee) that you will qualify for status. So, some of you might be thinking that you meet this criteria and want to know what to do next? INAC has provided contact information so you can ask them questions directly: INAC Public Enquiries Contact Centre Email: InfoPubs@ainc-inac.gc.ca Phone: (toll-free) 1-800-567-9604 Fax: 1-866-817-3977 TTY: (toll-free) 1-866-553-0554 I have called them several times and they answer the phone quickly and the people who are working the telephone lines had up to date information and were very helpful. They did explain to me that although I have already applied for status, there will be NEW application forms with NEW requirements. Canada will make the forms available at the following locations: Online: January 31, 2011 By mail: Call 1-800-567-9604 to request an application package. In person: At any INAC Regional office or call 1-800-567-9604. The kind of status card that Bill C-3 registrants will receive (if eligible) is a Secure Certificate of Indian Status (SCIS) card. It does not change the type of benefits, but does require additional documentation from applicants not requested of non-Bill C-3 applicants. The following list is what INAC has indicated will be required: – Original birth certificate (listing parents names) (often referred to as “long-form”) – Two passport style photographs – Original piece of valid identification (i.e. – driver’s licence, passport, government issued ID) – Guarantor Declaration for SCIS And if applicable: – Legal change of name document or marriage certificate – Custody Court Order – Statutory Declaration Form(s). Please also keep in mind that INAC is changing the application for Bill C-3 applicants to a “mail-in” process only. That means the original documents they require MUST be mailed in to INAC and you will HOPEFULLY receive them back within a month or so. I don’t know about any of you, but I don’t feel comfortable mailing INAC my Driver’s License (as a local police officer told me it is against the law to drive without it on your person). Similarly, the thought of my passport (at March break time) being held up at INAC for weeks maybe months is not overly user friendly or considerate. INAC has also provided some time lines for processing applications. They are as follows: Act comes into force and applications posted online = January 31, 2011 Letter confirming entitlement (assuming all docs provided with applic) = no time specified Issuance of SCIS card number = 10-12 weeks after receipt of Letter of entitlement Entire Process from start (application) to finish (receipt of status card) = 4-6 months The ability to access benefits will start before you receive your card as your Letter of entitlement will provide a number you can use to access health and other benefits. Also of interest: (1) Sharon McIvor has filed a claim with the United Nations to have her gender discrimination case heard by the Human Rights Tribunal; and (2) Merchant Law has filed a class action here in Canada in an attempt to get compensation for all those who will now be registered as per Bill C-3 for lost education benefits, lost taxes, health benefits etc. You will recall that the Bill prohibits any compensation. Let me know if this is the kind of update you were looking for from my blog. Pam