Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: Indian Act

  • 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.

  • Canada’s Shell Game on C-92 Funding

    Canada’s Shell Game on C-92 Funding

    C-92 An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families

    THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has once again proven that legislative initiatives tend to be effective deflections from their ongoing failures to address human rights abuses against Indigenous peoples. Bill C-92: An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families (2019) was heralded by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the federal government as the solution to the “humanitarian crisis” of First Nations children in foster care. The AFN in particular pushed hard for the legislation to pass in Parliament, despite widespread opposition and protests from First Nations from all over Canada. First Nations legal and child welfare experts also warned Parliament that C-92 did not align with Canada’s political promises and could in fact make things worse. They were right.

    NO STATUTORY GUARANTEE OF FUNDING

    There are many substantive problems with C-92, but the most obvious is that there is no statutory guarantee of funding for First Nations in the legislation. In other words, there is no judicial right that a First Nation could use in court to force federal compliance in relation to funding under the Act. This concern was raised and effectively ignored by the AFN in its push to have the bill pass into law — all while federal officials were assuring First Nations that funding would follow. As expected, funding did not follow and to make matters worse, it looks like the federal government used C-92 as an attempt to insulate itself from the orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT).

    The federal government has confirmed that it does not consider itself to be bound by CHRT orders to end racial discrimination in funding against First Nations children in foster care, once First Nations assume jurisdiction under C-92.

    “Since (Bill C-92) falls outside the scope of the CHRT orders, the CHRT orders will not apply to a First Nation that has assumed jurisdiction.”

    Federal officials further clarified that:

    “There is no funding stream for the long-term operationalization of an Indigenous governing body’s law once they begin exercising jurisdiction.”

    This confirmation comes from the federal government’s response to questions posed by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society in their ongoing litigation at the CHRT. Canada is effectively telling First Nations: Sure, you can assume jurisdiction over housing, education, health care and child and family services; but if you do, your funding will be cut or reduced. Oh, and by the way, you assume all the liability.

    https://fncaringsociety.com/publications/caring-society-submissions-re-non-compliance-motion-feb-3-2021

    The whole point of the CHRT’s original decision was for Canada to stop racially discriminating against First Nations children in foster care and their families. One of the primary reasons why First Nations children are apprehended and placed in foster care at such high rates is due to the purposeful, chronic and racially discriminatory underfunding of essential social services for First Nations — like child and family services. Ironically, one of the most striking pieces of evidence in the CHRT hearing came from the government’s own internal documents that confirmed that federal underfunding leads to higher rates of First Nation child apprehensions. Yet Canada continues to underfund child and family services and all services like housing, health care, education, water and mental health services like suicide prevention on reserve. It is no coincidence then, that First Nations have the worst socioeconomic conditions of all groups in Canada.

    TRANSFER OF FEDERAL LIABILITY

    This follows a similar pattern in federal legislative initiatives over the last few decades, where under the guise of addressing a breach of Indigenous rights, they instead use legislation to deflect from the matter and find ways to insulate itself from liability and/or transfer federal liability to First Nations. Bill C-3: Gender Equity in Indian Registration (2011) was supposed to end sex discrimination against First Nations women and their descendants in Indian registration. Instead it created new discrimination and in s. 9 insulated itself from any legal claims by those Canada had discriminated against for decades. Similarly, in Bill S-3: An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur general) (2017), Canada once again failed to address all forms of sex discrimination and via s. 10 purports to insulate itself from liability for the discrimination endured by First Nations women and their descendants.

    In enacting legislation, even in relation to First Nations, the federal government should always be assumed to be acting in the best interests of the Crown first, despite its fiduciary and other legal obligations to First Nations. C-3 and S-3 are just two legislative examples of explicit insulation of liability from Canada’s own wrongdoing. Another example is the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act (2013), which has done little to remedy ongoing the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation on all First Nation reserves but helped deflect media attention away from the crisis. Yet the legislation creates more problems than it solves including the creation of new ways to imprison First Nations members who breach the water laws; ensure federal laws are paramount over First Nation laws; and the inclusion of s. 11 which purports to limit liability for both the provincial and federal governments.

    “DRAW DOWN” JURISDICTION?

    In this context, it becomes apparent that First Nations who “draw down” jurisdiction under C-92 may be assuming significant financial and legal liability without corresponding legal protections and guaranteed, long-term needs and rights-based financial supports. Take a scenario where a First Nation band member is receiving federal support for health needs for their children under Jordan’s Principle and then the band assumes jurisdiction. What happens to the funding support for this First Nation band member and their children if — as the federal government has confirmed — they will not be bound by CHRT orders to provide funding to First Nations for critical programs like Jordan’s Principle (a child-first policy that is meant to ensure First Nations children have access to the same government services that other children do)? Does the member seek funding from the First Nation and if so, how will the First Nation provide this funding if the federal government ends Jordan’s Principle funding to First Nations under C-92?

    The AFN has a lot to answer for in its support of C-92 without ensuring the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations, and worse, for forging ahead when so many First Nations leaders and First Nation child welfare experts were against the legislation as it read. First Nations who have given notice or are contemplating giving notice that they want to “draw down” jurisdiction over child and family services under C-92 are likely shocked to hear these concerning revelations by the federal government. This is not something the government shared during review of the bill or has included in their information packages online.

    “TRUST US” MANTRA IS NOT ENOUGH

    Were it not for the ongoing legal actions by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society to hold the federal government to account to comply with CHRT orders, we might not know the gravity of the funding situation. Canada must now answer for this bad faith funding shell game to undermine the basic human rights of First Nations children. The “trust us” mantra is not enough when the issue is the ongoing genocide of First Nations. It is long past time for full transparency and to stop ducking its human rights obligations to First Nations children and families.

    This article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily on Feb. 8, 2021, part of LexisNexis Canada Inc. Some edits have been made for style and to include references.

  • What You Need to Know About Sharon McIvor’s Major UN Victory on Indian Status

    What You Need to Know About Sharon McIvor’s Major UN Victory on Indian Status

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

    Sharon McIvor has won yet another landmark legal victory for First Nations women – this time at the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). On January 14, 2019, the UNHRC released their decision which found that Canada still discriminates against “Indian” women and their descendants in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Despite the fact that Sharon had already proven her discrimination case at trial and on appeal here in Canada, the federal government refused to eliminate all the remaining sex discrimination from the Act. This meant that Sharon and her descendants still have lesser or no Indian status as compared to her brother and his descendants – simply based on sex. Sharon was therefore forced to bring a human rights claim to the UNHRC under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UNHRC found Canada had violated Sharon’s human rights and directed Canada to provide an effective remedy for Sharon McIvor, her descendants, and others who have suffered the same discrimination.

    It is important to note that Canada is bound by this decision. The ICCPR came into force for Canada on August 19, 1976 and Canada has agreed to be bound by the jurisdiction of the UNHRC to make decisions on matters coming before it. This means that Canada has chosen to be bound by the rights contained within this Covenant for the benefits of all those in Canada. In this case, the UNHRC found that Canada had violated Sharon’s human rights under articles 3 and 26, read in conjunction with article 27 of the ICCPR.

    Article 3 guarantees the equal right of men and women to enjoy the rights contained in the ICCPR. Article 26 provides that all people are equal under the law and specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, birth or other status. These two articles were considered in conjunction with article 27 which provides that ethnic minorities within States shall not be denied their right to enjoy their culture in community with other members of their group. The UNHRC found that Canada had violated Sharon’s rights under all three articles and directed Canada to do make “full reparation” to Sharon, her descendants and others in her position. Canada was directed to:

    (1)   Register all those like Sharon and her descendants, under section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act;

    (2)   Take steps to clean up any residual discrimination within First Nation communities arising from sex discrimination in the Indian Act; and

    (3)   Take any additional steps necessary to avoid similar violations in the future.

    The federal government has been given a 180 days to inform the UNHRC about how it will implement this decision. The good news is that the federal government has the capacity to comply with the first part of the decision this month. The federal government already drafted amendments to the Indian Act’s registration provisions in Bill S-3 that would remove the remaining sex discrimination raised by Sharon McIvor’s case. The problem is that Parliament didn’t enact those provisions into force. While all the other amendments contained within Bill S-3 were brought into force in 2018, they purposely left our remedy for sex equality for “someday” – a hypothetical right that we can only hope is fulfilled someday. First Nations women deserve better than this.

    While the Indian Act’s registration provisions have a long, complicated history, and the various amendments made over time, including Bills C-31, C-3 and the most recent S-3 have created a complex mess of criteria almost impossible to understand; the core issue is simple. Indian women who married non-Indians and their descendants have lesser or no status compared to Indian men who married non-Indians and their descendants. Sex discrimination in federal legislation, like the Indian Act, is against Canadian law as well as international human rights laws to which Canada has agreed to be bound. There is simply no legal justification for continuing to deny the basic right of sex equality to First Nation women and children. To do so makes the federal government an outlaw – both in Canada and internationally.

    The question now is whether the self-professed “feminist” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government will abide by the UNHRC decision or continue to violate the core human rights of First Nations women and children. Reconciliation with First Nations demands immediate implementation of this decision, but the Liberal (and Conservative) record is very poor when it comes to respecting the human rights of First Nations women. They have the power to do it – but it always has been, and always will be, a matter of political will.

    Sharon has sacrificed more than 33 years to this battle to protect the rights of First Nation women and our children. It is because of Sharon that I have a political voice as a First Nations woman. Implementing this decision will not only mean that my children will finally be able to be registered and included as members of my First Nation, but Sharon and I, and thousands of others like us, will finally be treated equally with our First Nation brothers.

    Canada cannot claim to stand as a champion of human rights in the global context while continuing to deny First Nations women and children basic human rights. Reconciliation requires shedding the hypocritical rhetoric and taking action to do what is morally right and legally required.

    The world is watching Canada. Here is our press conference calling on Canada to abide by UN decision and end sex discrimination: https://youtu.be/gy9evq7a6hg

    Link to the UNHRC decision.

    Link to CBC article about the case: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indian-act-sex-discrimination-un-committee-1.4982330

  • Why is Trudeau Government Opposing Charter Equality for Indigenous Women?

    (Originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on June 21, 2017 – edited)

    Shortly after Confederation, the federal government used its jurisdictional powers over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” in s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867, to enact the Indian Act, 1876 — making it nearly as old as “Canada” itself. For well over a hundred years, the Indian Act has included provisions intended to legislate Indians out of existence — a form of forced assimilation — that primarily targeted Indigenous women and their descendants for enfranchisement (loss of status as an “Indian” and removal from the reserve as a member). Although there have been many amendments to the act over the years, the federal government, through the Indian Registrar, retains exclusive authority over the legal criteria for determining who is an Indian. Unfortunately, self-declared feminist Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s elite feminist team of ministers is actively working against gender equality amendments for the Indian Act’s discriminatory registration provisions. Under previous versions of the act, Indian women who married out (married a man not registered as an Indian) lost their Indian status, as did her children. Indian men who married out kept their Indian status and their non-Indian wives and children gained Indian status as well. This created a deep inequality that has been carried forward through successive generations despite the many human rights protections enacted in Canada over the same time period. Many Indigenous women fought against these discriminatory provisions, including Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell and Yvonne Bedard, who lost their case at the Supreme Court of Canada in Lavell v. Canada (Attorney General) [1974] S.C.R. 1349. Sandra Lovelace (now Sen. Sandra Lovelace Nicholas) won her human rights claim against Canada at the United Nations Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981) requiring Canada to amend the Indian Act in 1985. However, the 1985 Bill C-31 amendments did not go far enough to remedy the ongoing gender inequality between Indian men and women and their descendants in the transmission of Indian status, so Sharon McIvor was forced to bring a s. 15 Charter challenge against Canada (The Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11). Her win on appeal McIvor v. Canada (Registrar, Indian and Northern Affairs) 2009 BCCA 153 forced Canada to amend the act once again in 2010 with the Bill C-3 amendments, but Canada’s reluctance to remedy all gender discrimination led to the current case underlying the 2017 Bill S-3 proposed amendments in Descheneaux v. Canada 2015 QCCS 3555. At issue in all of these cases was the federal government’s staunch refusal to once-and-for-all remedy all remaining vestiges of gender inequality between Indian men and women in the transmission of Indian status. What is unique about the proposed Bill S-3 An Act to Amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) is not so much the need to address the Descheneaux decision (which declared various discriminatory sections of the Indian Act inoperative); but the stark political differences between the Senate and the House on the fundamental question of whether Indigenous women and their descendants deserve gender equality under the Indian Act. After hearing the passionate testimonies of Indigenous women lawyers and experts, First Nation organizations and other legal witnesses; the Senate unanimously supported an amendment to Bill S-3 intended to grant the same status to Indian women and their descendants as that held by Indian men and their descendants, referred as the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment. The importance of gender equality for Indigenous women united Liberal, Conservative and independent senators alike. Minister Carolyn Bennett’s refusal to accept the amendment pitted the Senate against the House, whose Aboriginal Affairs Committee rejected the gender equality amendment and Parliament will likely vote to send the bill back to the Senate with a new title to respond to Descheneaux and not fully eliminate sex-based inequities. The fact that Indigenous women must continue to battle Canada for equality is shocking in 2017 given that the Charter’s section 15 guarantee of equality between men and women has constitutional status. The Charter’s well-established case law on substantive equality and Aboriginal rights leaves little doubt about Canada’s legal and constitutional obligation to remedy gender inequality for Indigenous women — but it is by no means the only legal protection against sex discrimination in Canada. Section 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race and gender. Section 35(4) of the Constitution Act, 1982 ensures that Aboriginal and treaty rights are guaranteed equally as between males and female persons. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, Oct. 2, 2007, A/RES/61/295 (UNDRIP), which Trudeau has specifically promised to implement into law in Canada, includes article 44 which ensures that all the rights and freedoms contained in UNDRIP are guaranteed equally to male and female Indigenous peoples. It must be remembered that cabinet ministers were directed by Trudeau to fulfil their mandates based on the principle that there is no relationship more important to Canada, than the one with Indigenous peoples. It was therefore refreshing to hear former Minister for the Status of Women Patti Hadju acknowledge the “long-standing, systemic discrimination that Indigenous women and girls experience in this country”; that “intersection of racism and sexism greatly increases the vulnerability of Indigenous women” and that the “racism brought on by colonization has had devastating impacts on Indigenous women’s power, their status, their role in their communities and their economic situations.” Yet, the current Minister for the Status of Women, Maryam Monsef, is silent on the issue of Bill S-3 and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Indigenous Affairs Minister Bennett continue to actively obstruct the Senate amendments to fully remedy gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Minister Bennett and Minister Raybould-Wilson are responsible for creating this standoff over equality in the Senate and House. No one wanted it to come to this, but here we are with the fundamental equality rights of Indigenous women in the balance. It is now up to the Senate of Canada to stand firm in its original stance defending both the Charter’s integrity and the equality rights of Indigenous women. The next steps may be hard and they may be political uncomfortable — but for Indigenous women, it is a matter of life and death. Discriminatory exclusion under the Indian Act is one of the root causes of murdered and missing Indigenous women — it’s up to the Senate now to stand with the Charter and defends gender equality. The link to the original article as published in Lawyer’s Daily can be found here: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/4019/why-is-trudeau-government-opposing-charter-equality-for-indigenous-women-pamela-palmater?category=columnists Please see my related video on my Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2p_ScohgJc&t=1167s

  • Bill S-3 Amendments to the Indian Act and the Never-Ending Battle for Equality for Indigenous Women

    The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs (INAN) is currently studying Bill S-3 An Act to Amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities). As its title suggests, this bill should eliminate the remaining gender discrimination contained within the Indian Act’s registration and membership provisions – but it does not. The Indian Act’s registration provisions are already a complex mess of rules intended to legislate Indians out of existence – and the government’s version of the bill does not make it any better. http://www.pampalmater.com/category/bill-s-3/

    However, the Senate heard from First Nations, Indigenous and women’s advocacy organizations, Indigenous women, and legal experts during their initial study of the bill and agreed with the consensus opinion that the government’s bill falls short of eliminating gender discrimination. They introduced an amendment that addresses the bulk of the remaining discrimination – only to find the government fighting them all the way.

    Bill S-3 is now being studied in the House and the government continues to defend their discriminatory version of the bill. We must continue to put pressure on Canada to address this long-standing injustice against Indigenous women and our children.

    What follows is a chronology that will help provide context for how we got here:

    1968 – Mary Two-Axe Early (Kahnawake), formed the Indian Rights for Indian Women to advocate for gender equality in the Indian Act. Mary had married a non-Indian, lost her status, and her band attempted to evict her as a result.

    Under older versions of the Indian Act, Indian women who married non-Indian men lost their status, as did their children. By contrast, Indian men who married non-Indian women kept their status and their non-Indian wives gained status – ensuring their children also had status.

    Mary’s advocacy help gain media attention on the issue and the concurrent Royal Commission on the Status of Women included recommendations to amend these discriminatory provisions.

    http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pco-bcp/commissions-ef/bird1970-eng/bird1970-eng.htm

    1973 – Jeanette Corbiere-Lavell (Wikwemikong) and Yvonne Bedard (Six Nations) lost their case at the Supreme Court of Canada which challenged the marrying out provisions of the Indian Act. The Court held that the Bill of Rights, which guaranteed equality before the law, couldn’t invalidate the Indian Act;

    https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5261/index.do

    1974 – Native Women’s Association of Canada was formed to advocate for the rights of Indigenous women including their exclusion from registration and band membership due to Indian Act’s discriminatory “marrying out” rules (loss of Indian status/registration when an Indian woman marries a non-Indian man);

    1981 – Sandra Lovelace (Tobique) [now Senator Sandra Lovelace-Nicholas] won her human rights complaint at the United Nations against the discriminatory Indian Act rules;

    http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/session36/6-24.htm

    1982 – Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau helps patriate the Constitution, enacting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which includes section 15, an equality rights guarantee;

    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

    1985 – Bill C-31 amends the Indian Act in response to the Lovelace case to restore Indian status and band membership to Indigenous women who lost it through marrying out, but the women were re-instated under section 6(1)(c), instead of full 6(1)(a) status and thus their entitlement to transmit status was more restricted than their Indian male counterparts. They could transmit status to their children [albeit only half status under section 6(2)] but not their grandchildren;

    Section 6(1) status means you can pass on status to your children regardless of who you marry/partner; section 6(2) status means you cannot pass on status on your own – you must parent with another status Indian or your children have no status.

    1985- 2010 – Sharon McIvor (Lower Nicola Indian band) challenges the ongoing (residual) gender discrimination in the Indian Act registration provisions and both trial and appeal level courts agree it is discrimination. The Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear an appeal.

    2010 – Bill C-3 amended the Indian Act in response to the McIvor case to remedy some aspects of gender discrimination, but leaves much of the discrimination unaddressed. This failed remedial legislation inspired more litigation.

    2010 – Sharon McIvor immediately files a human rights petition in 2010 to the United Nations Human Rights Committee because of Canada’s failure to remedy all gender discrimination in Indian registration.

    http://www.fafia-afai.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/6-McIvor-Petition-to-Human-Rights-Committee-2010.pdf

    2015 – Stephane Descheneaux, Susan Yantha and Tammy Yantha (Abenakis of Odanak) win their discrimination claim at the Quebec’s Superior Court against the Indian Act’s registration provisions that continue to discriminate between the descendants of Indian women and Indian men.

    https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs3555/2015qccs3555.html

    2016 – Bill S-3 is introduced in the Senate with the stated intention of “eliminating sex-based inequities” from the Indian Act. Consensus from the First Nations, Indigenous women, advocacy organizations and legal experts called as witnesses before the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (APPA) is that Bill S-3 does not eliminate all sex-based inequities.

    While Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and Justice Canada (DOJ) claim that the bill is Charter compliant (i.e., there is no more gender discrimination), the expert witnesses highlight that the core of the gender discrimination is not addressed by the bill.

    As a result, the Senate suspended consideration of the bill and instructed INAC to seek an extension from the court so it could draft a bill which did the job it claimed to be doing.

    April 2017 – Lynn Gehl wins her discrimination complaint against INAC on the issue of unknown/unstated paternity which forces INAC to come up with additional amendments to Bill S-3 to address this as well;

    http://www.oktlaw.com/dr-gehl-wins-appeal-in-indian-act-sex-discrimination-case/

    2017 – Study of Bill S-3 continues in the Senate and the same witnesses express the same concerns that INAC did not use the court extension to draft amendments to eliminate all gender discrimination in the Indian Act.

    One of the core areas of concern is the failure of the previous amendment (Bill C-3) to remedy gender discrimination for Indian women born prior to 1951 – an issue INAC referred to as “complex discrimination” best left for Phase 2 i.e., future discussions.

    Having little faith in the many Phase 2 promises from past amendments, Indigenous women asked the Senate to amend Bill S-3 to address all gender discrimination. To this end, Senator Marilou McPhedron tabled the suggested amendment, referred to as “6(1)(a) all the way” which would make entitlement to registration for those born prior to April 17, 1985 equal as between Indian men and Indian women and their descendants – including those born pre-1951.

    Letters of support for this amendment have poured into the Senate and Minister’s office by First Nations, First Nation organizations, women’s groups, individuals and families. Minister Bennett responds by fear-mongering saying that this amendment could entitle 2 million people and insists that the government cannot act without consulting First Nations. 

    Key myths and facts about Bill S-3:

    MYTH #1:

    Bill S-3 is Charter compliant and addresses all known gender discrimination.

    FACT:

    Every time the federal government claims the Indian Act is Charter compliant, it has been proven wrong in court. Furthermore, although their initial claim was that Bill S-3 addressed all known gender discrimination, Minister Bennett later admitted that “we are not doing the whole thing in terms of discrimination”.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senators-amend-legislation-aimed-at-removing-sexism-from-indian-act/article35110342/

    It should also be noted that the current Liberal Justice Minister Jodi Wilson-Raybould defends this bill, yet when she was the Regional Chief of the BC Assembly of First Nations she wrote a letter to government saying that pre-1951 cut-off date was discriminatory and should be removed. It was also the former Liberal government that introduced the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment during debate on Bill C-3 study. They agreed with removing all the discrimination then, but not now.

    MYTH #2:

    Minister Bennett claims millions of new Indians will be registered if this amendment passes.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senators-amend-legislation-aimed-at-removing-sexism-from-indian-act/article35110342/

    FACT:

    There are less than 900,000 registered Indians in Canada. Remedying gender discrimination for Indian women who married out pre-1985 and entitling descendants of women to status on the same footing as descendants of Indian men, could not possibly result in 2 million new registrants. Many will have passed away already, many will not apply and many already have status – they would only be getting a higher level of status,but not adding new numbers. Every time the Indian Act has been amended, INAC has grossly over-estimated the numbers to manufacture fear and dissent. Sadly, but predictably, the AFN is also engaged in fear-mongering along the same lines as INAC.

    No one cared about registration numbers when Indian men and white women were being registered – it only seems to be an issue now because its Indian women. 

    MYTH #3:

    All these new registrations will cost too much money.

    FACT:

    Canada adds 800,000 new Canadians every year from new births and new immigrants – all of whom are entitled to the full range of social programs and benefits at double or triple what is paid to First Nations for the same services. A one-time addition to the Indian register will not break the bank. More importantly, everyone is Canada is entitled to gender equality – regardless of any potential costs. Further, INAC already testified before Senate that they do not expect costs to increase for First Nations as the majority of new registrants will live off reserve.

    MYTH #4:

    Canada needs time to consult with First Nations about whether to amend the Indian Act to eliminate gender discrimination.

    FACT:

    The issue of gender discrimination in the Indian Act (and how to remedy it) is not a new issue. First Nations and Indigenous women’s organizations have been engaged with INAC for many decades on how to amend the Indian Act. Consultations, engagement sessions, information sessions and various discussion tables have been ongoing since before the 1985 amendments. Even if more than forty years of consultation had not already taken place, and it has, the government cannot legitimately consult on whether to continue to discriminate against Indigenous women. It has a constitutional and fiduciary duty not to discriminate. This government has no choice legally but to remedy the discrimination.

    MYTH #5:

    It is ok to leave the issue of gender discrimination for another day.

    FACT:

    Section 15 of the Charter of Rights guarantees equality between men and women.

    Section 35(4) of the Constitution Act, 1982 guarantees equality between Indigenous men and women with regards to Aboriginal and treaty rights.

    Section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the provision of federal programs and services on the basis of gender.

    Article 44 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples guarantees equality between Indigenous men and women for all the rights included in the Declaration but specifically with regards to belonging to one’s Indigenous Nation.

    Various international human rights bodies have long recommended that Canada once and for all eliminate gender discrimination in the Indian Act and even  noted that it is one of the root causes of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls.

    It is long past time that Canada finally amend the Indian Act and eliminate gender discrimination in Indian registration. They do not need more court cases, UN reports or a national inquiry to justify taking action.

    At this point, it’s simply a matter of political will.

    Please use the following link to a template letter to support these amendments.

    http://fafia-afai.org/en/send-a-letter-to-federal-ministers-encouraging-them-to-support-indigenous-womens-equality-and-the-61a-all-the-way-amendment/

  • 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

  • Lynn Gehl v. Canada: Unstated Paternity and Indian Status

    Lynn Gehl v. Canada: Unstated Paternity and Indian Status

    Dr. Lynn Gehl is a First Nations woman who is grounded in the traditional Indigenous knowledge of her Algonquin Anishinaabe culture and tradition. Gehl’s family originates from the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan (formerly Golden Lake Band) in Ontario. Yet, despite her connection to her culture, her Algonquin upbringing, and her ancestral ties to her First Nation, Gehl is denied legal recognition as an “Indian” by the federal government.

    But just like Mary Two-Axe Early, Jeanette Corbiere-Lavell, Yvonne Bédard, Sandra Lovelace and Sharon McIvor before her, Gehl is not taking no for an answer. After more than twenty years of applications, protests and appeals, Gehl is headed to court.

    Mary, Jeannette, Yvonne, Sandra, Sharon

    (lynngehl.com and Google Images)

    Mary Two-Axe was a well-known advocate who challenged Canada’s discriminatory Indian Act which took Indian status away from Indian women if they married a non-Indian. Jeanette-Corbiere Lavell and Yvonne Bédard took Canada all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge these marrying-out provisions and lost. This gave Sandra Lovelace the opportunity to go straight to the United Nations and argue her case and win. The United Nations decided that Canada cannot enact legislation that denies Indian women and their children the right to enjoy their culture together with their communities. However, the Bill C-31 amendments, while reinstating some Indian women, still discriminated against many others. Sharon McIvor dedicated 25 years to the court system to challenge this residual discrimination. She also won, but the court left it up to Canada to amend the Act. This resulted in Bill C-3, which remedied some of the discrimination for Indian women, but added more discriminatory provisions to the Act, which forced McIvor to take her case to the United Nations as well. While we wait for the decision in that case, Lynn Gehl has put in over 20 years trying to seek justice for Indian women and their children in terms of unstated paternity.

    Today (Monday, October 20th) Gehl and her legal counsel, Christa Big Canoe from Aboriginal Legal Services Toronto, will appear before the Ontario Superior Court to argue that the Indian Act rules around who is an “Indian” are discriminatory on the basis of race, marital status and/or gender. The Indian Act, and the means by which the federal government applies the act to Indian children whose fathers are unknown, results in them receiving a lesser form of Indian status, or no status at all.  Gehl’s case focuses on what is known as unknown or unstated paternity – Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s (AANDC) policy to automatically presume that an unknown or unstated father is a non-Indian – even if the father is, in fact, an Indian. Unstated or unknown paternity manifests in a variety of ways. For example, AANDC will unilaterally determine that the father is non-Indian if:

    –          an Indian mother does not know the name of the father;

    –          the father refuses to acknowledge paternity of the child;

    –          the father refuses to sign the birth certificate and/or  Indian registration form;

    –      the mother does not have the money to complete and file all vital statistics forms; there may be difficulty meeting time-lines for remote First Nations women who must fly into hospitals to have children;

    –          the underage mothers may have privacy concerns related to paternity in smaller communities; and/or

    –          an Indian mother refuses to name the father (due to incest, rape, domestic violence).

    AANDC is not legally required to process applications with the presumption that an unstated father is a non-Indian. This is a clear policy choice made by AANDC to reduce the number of Indians over time. Prior to 1985, there was a legal presumption of Indian paternity for unwed mothers – there was no mad dash to try to scam the system and register non-entitled children. Thus, there is no reason why AANDC cannot presume Indian paternity in the absence of documentation. At the end of the day, the child is born to, will live with and be raised by his/her Indian mother, family and community. However, such a policy does not correspond to Canada’s ultimate objective regarding Indians. AANDC’s policy objective has always been “the final solution of the Indian problem” i.e., to ensure “there is not a single Indian in Canada”. In fact, Canada is the last remaining country to determine who is an Indigenous person based on racial characteristics (descent through male blood). It is a racist formulation based on outdated views about biological characteristics of “races” and debunk sciences like eugenics and phrenology which sought to eliminate “undesirable” human populations.AANDC is the federal government department which created the rules to determine who can be registered as an Indian (status). Indian status confers not only program benefits like education and health care, but also determines who can be a band member; live on the reserve; vote or run for office in a First Nation; and often who is and is not a treaty beneficiary. Just like Canadian citizenship determines whether or not a Canadian can access education and health services from their province, Indian status determines eligibility on the federal side. So, its not that Indians get anything “more” from status in terms of programs, its just the source of the benefits.AANDC has done an incredible job of misinforming Canadians about the impacts of registering Indians. They often make comments about “floodgates” (i.e. everyone will become an Indian) and “costs” (this will be burden on taxpayers). The truth is, in terms of registrations, it would not have a significant impact.. While the Bill C-31 population projections (Indian women being reinstated to Indian status) ranged from 20-40% increase, the projected increases for unstated paternity are relatively small – approximately 2%. This does not substantiate the fear-mongering around population increases. Similarly, if the only concern here is money – there is no increased burden on taxpayers. For every person that is registered as an Indian they will get less money for education, health care, housing, food, water, and less child and family services. Status Indians are the most impoverished people in Canada. Plus, its the wealth from Indigenous lands and resources that pay for our programs and services and also subsidizes the programs and services of Canadians – not the other way around. Therefore, there is no financial argument to made against affording equality to Indian women and their children.This federal policy purposefully, systematically and disproportionately impacts Indigenous women who are most often the primary caregivers of their children and statistically more likely to live in poverty. This is especially true of young, teenage Indigenous mothers – 80% of whom were found to live in households making less than $15,000 a year. These mothers, often lone parents, depend on the federal programs and services associated with Indian status to care for their children.

    Gehl is relying on section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees equal benefit of the law without discrimination based. While section 6 of Act may on its face, appear to apply equally to Indian men and women, in reality, AANDC interprets and implements it in a gender-biased manner, which has a substantial and disproportionate impact on Indian women and their children whose paternity is unknown. The fact that AANDC interprets the Act so as to prejudice the descendants of unwed Indian women discriminates against them on the basis of marital status as well.

    Section 6 is a modern manifestation of historical discriminatory views of Indian women based on race, gender and marital status that should have been repealed decades ago.

    Gehl, who has five continuous generations of Indian lineage on her paternal side, will argue that she should be registered as an Indian. She will also seek a declaration from the court that Section 6 of the Indian Act:

    (1)   Discriminates against applicants born out of wedlock;

    (2)   Discriminates against applicants who do not know their paternity; and

    (3)   Be applied so as not to disadvantage the descendants of individuals whose paternity is unknown.

    Other recommendations for change from Indigenous women have included:

    –           Amend the Act to permit registration based on one parent’s registration;

    –           AANDC should discontinue its discriminatory interpretation and implementation of the registration provisions;

    –           AANDC should specifically eliminate the unstated paternity policy;

    –           Remove administrative and financial barriers to timely and accurate birth registrations;

    –           Provide legal and social protections to young mothers to protect their rights to privacy, personal safety and registration of their children.

    Gehl, like Sandra Lovelace and Sharon McIvor have spent decades in the courts fighting for their right to belong. It’s time Canada afforded equality to all people – including Indigenous women. Selection of sources on Unstated Paternity:

    Lynn Gehl personal website

    http://www.lynngehl.com/

    P. Palmater, Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2011).

    http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/beyond-blood-rethinking-indigenous-identity/9781895830606-item.html?ikwid=beyond+blood&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0

    M. Mann, Indian Registration: Unrecognized and Unstated Paternity (2013)

    http://apr.thompsonbooks.com/vols/APR_Vol_5Ch6.pdf

    M. Mann, Disproportionate and Unjustifiable: Teen First Nations Mothers and Unstated Paternity Policy (2013)

    http://apr.thompsonbooks.com/vols/APR_Vol_9Ch12.pdf

    L. Gehl, Indian Rights for Indian Babies: Canada’s “Unstated Paternity Policy” (2013)

    http://journals.sfu.ca/fpcfr/index.php/FPCFR/article/view/187

    National Aboriginal Women’s Association, Aboriginal Women and Unstated Paternity (2007)

    http://www.laa.gov.nl.ca/laa/naws/pdf/nwac-paternity.pdf

    S. Clatworthy, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Factors Contributing to Unstated Paternity (2003)

    http://www.canadiancrc.com/PDFs/Unstated_Paternity_First_Nations-Canada_Birth_Registrations_en.pdf

  • Eyes Wide Shut: Chasing Section 35 and Ignoring the War

    Ok, so it’s been four months since the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) election for National Chief and the honeymoon period is officially over. I simply can’t stay silent any longer about where we are and where we are headed as First Nations. If we don’t take action now, even if that means speaking out and risking unity, then it is our First Nations citizens on the ground who will be the ones who continue to suffer from our political inaction. Harper’s aggressive actions since the election more than proves Harper’s real agenda – to once and for all eliminate the “Indian problem” – and it’s do or die time for us. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/09/harpers-indigenous-manifesto-erasing.html With respect, I take serious issue with any claim that there was “momentum” between Harper and First Nations prior to the Crown-First Nation Gathering (CFNG) that has suddenly withered since the AFN election. There was no momentum on any key issue of importance to grassroots First Nations peoples or First Nation leaders. Every single action Harper is pursuing against us right now, he started well over a year ago. It seems incredulous that NC Atleo would all of sudden decry the flurry of federal legislation being imposed on our First Nations when the majority of these bills were introduced into the House or Senate prior to either the CFNG or the AFN election. Don’t forget, mention of some of these pieces of legislation were made at the CFNG in Harper’s speech – I didn’t hear Atleo say anything about it then. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/11/15/pol-cp-first-nations-atleo-harper-letter.html Similarly, with the substantial funding cuts to First Nation political organizations and those being implemented now at the individual First Nation level – we KNEW that this was Harper’s plan. This was not a shock to the AFN. The problem was never lack of knowledge, instead it was a complete failure to have a strategic action plan in place. That is not to say AFN could have single-handedly reversed those funding cuts, but for weeks since their announcement they had weak to no response. It is only now that there seems to be some outcry from the National Chief. But outcry or not, where is the plan? http://metronews.ca/news/canada/434784/atleo-pitches-plan-to-move-beyond-indian-act/ This is where things get progressively worse – Atleo’s new “plan” would have us locked into decades-long self-government negotiating processes which would indebt our First Nations by millions of dollars and trap us there, lest we want to be put into third party management for failure to pay. What about the First Nations citizens on the ground? Where is the plan for the current housing and water crisis? Our people need to have at least the basic necessities of life – where are their voices and priorities reflected? True, some First Nations are doing fairly well on some fronts, but we cannot ignore the multiple over-lapping crises right before our eyes. Many of our people are suffering from homelessness, over-crowding, lack of water, sanitation, food insecurity, the theft of their children by child and family services at alarming rates, many murdered and missing Indigenous women and the over-imprisonment of our men, women and youth. How much worse does it have to get before we shift our focus back to our peoples? http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/10/indigenous-nations-urgent-situation.html Has AFN even thought about what a section 35 agenda would mean? First of all, it is focused on Canadian law and interpreted by Canadian judges. It should be no surprise then that the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) cases have followed a very specific pattern: (1) They always specifically or indirectly protect Canada’s sovereignty; (2) They arbitrarily make up new sui generis (unique) law to ensure our rights can squeeze into Canadian law versus any recognition of our own laws; (3) The cases transform First Nations from sovereign Nations and governments to cultural entities frozen in pre-contact times that must be reconciled with Canadian sovereignty; (4) Whenever a principal or finding goes in our favour, it will inevitably be limited, redefined and reduced to an almost unusable right in subsequent cases. Take for example, the Indian priority in Sparrow which came second only after conservation. In Delgamuuwk, our priority sank to last after every other possible priority including: agriculture, forestry, mining, hydroelectric power, environment, infrastructure and settlement. (5) The section itself requires the extensive, costly litigation of our rights on a right by right, species by species and First Nation by First Nation basis. Many of these cases take decades to resolve and even once they hit the SCC, it is not uncommon for them to send the case back to trial. Even then, we are the only group subjected to re-hearings like in Marshall II which substantially altered the original court win. So, what is it about section 35 that offers an alternative to the current situation? Do they not realize that First Nations are the only entities with real sovereignty here? Canada knows this and is desperately buying up the rest of our lands through claims and securing its own sovereignty agreement by agreement. Canada is slowly piecing together their ownership and sovereignty, and some of us are allowing them to do that. I am not saying that they have offered any alternatives, but we don’t have to accept what they thrown down. In order to speed up the process Canada will introduce the First Nation Property Ownership Act so we can surrender the last of our lands. What about any of this is a plan forward? Atleo’s “plan” also calls for a National First Nations Auditor – seriously? That is nothing more than trying to please the government’s obsession with trying to make all First Nations look corrupt.Try selling that as a solution to a northern Ontario First Nation whose school is falling apart; or a flooded Manitoba First Nation whose residents have been displaced for many months; or a Saskatchewan First Nation whose water is contaminated. Who cares about another national First Nation entity which will benefit the CEO, its few employees and serve a relatively minor number of First Nations. Think of the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Statistical Institute, and all those other “national” organizations located in British Columbia. We don’t need a First Nation bureaucracy on top of the massive Indian Affairs bureaucracy we have now. We are not one nation of people – we are many Nations with our own sovereignty(s). We have laws and governance systems which makes us strong Nations. We need to act on that strength, in different ways, in different territories, and according to our own laws and priorities. If we can’t stay focused on living and acting on our sovereignty everyday, then we’ll be easily led down the colonizer’s path of chasing “equality”, “section 35”, and other government carrots – while missing the war going on around us. Make no mistake, our peoples are the casualties in this war and things are growing steadily worse on all socio-economic fronts. The status quo is killing our people and has been for quite some time. The problem is that Harper has changed the status quo and things are about to get much worse. http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057 Unbelievably, the AFN only now appears to be realizing that Harper’s full-blitz attack on First Nations has some “potential for harmful impacts”. This means that nationally, we are way behind in this war. The AFN has had many opportunities to take a stand over the last few years and has failed to do so each time. That is not to say that individual regions or First Nations have not been raising the alarm bells – in fact, some had to very publicly withdraw from Atleo-Harper education plan in order to preserve their treaty and inherent rights. There are also thousands of First Nation community members who want to see their leaders lead and are willing to stand behind their Nations – but they need to be inspired to action. There can be no more delays – we need action. Our peoples deserve better than our fear, hesitancy and wilful blindness to their suffering. We cannot chase Canada’s section 35 illusion with eyes wide shut. Harper is presenting us with a false choice: Indian Act or assimilation and some of us have fallen into the trap of letting him define our options. We need to take stock of where we have been, the situation we created by allowing this to happen, own it, and move forward. None of us as individuals have all the answers – but we are lucky, we still have the strength of our collective Nations to stand beside us. Let’s do this for our peoples and our Nations.  “When it comes to confronting our imperial realities some of us want to reform colonial law and policy, to dull that monster’s teeth so that we can’t be ripped apart so easily.” “Some of us believe in reconciliation, forgetting that the monster has a genocidal appetite, a taste for our blood and would sooner tear us apart than lick our hands.” “I think that the only thing that has changed since our ancestors first declared war on the invaders is that some of us have lost heart against history and against those that would submit to it.” “I am with the warriors who want to beat the beast into bloody submission and teach it to behave.” (Excerpt from: Taiaiake Alfred, Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005).

  • Flanagan National Petroleum Ownership Act: Stop Big Oil Land Grab

    By now most of you have heard about the Harper government’s intention to introduce legislation that will turn reserve lands into individual holdings called fee simple. The legislation has been referred to as the First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA). Some media outlets have referred to it as “privatization” but what the legislation would really do is turn the collective ownership of reserve lands into small pieces of land owned by individuals who could then sell it to non-First Nations peoples, land-holding companies, and corporations, like Enbridge for example. The idea is not a new one. Hernando de Soto has been trying to sell the same idea to Indigenous populations all over the world. The evidence seems to show that the Indigenous peoples are far worse off for it. Prior to de Soto’s destructive world tour, the Indigenous Nations in the United States suffered the sting of fee simple legislation in the Dawes Act. Once the lands were given to individuals, the lands were subject to state laws. The same would happen in Canada where the lands would be subject to provincial instead of federal law. The primary purpose of the Dawe’s Act was to assimilate Indigenous peoples in the USA by breaking up their Indigenous governments. The legislation allowed the government to divide up communal lands into small parcels to be held by individuals. It has been described by historians as: “the culmination of American attempts to destroy tribes and their governments and to open Indian lands to settlement by non-Indians and to development by railroads” (Oklahoma Historical Society). In the Canadian context, similar legislation will open up “Indian lands” for big oil, gas and mineral extraction. I have referred to FNPOA as the Flanagan National Petroleum Ownership Act for two reasons: (1) the name of the Act (FNPOA) comes from the book Tom Flanagan co-wrote (with Andre LeDressay and Chris Alcantara): “Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights” and (2) the Act will do more to open up reserve lands to oil, gas and mining companies than it will bring prosperity to First Nations. For those who don’t know, Tom Flanagan is a right-wing anti-First Nation academic who has written about and spoken out against First Nations in a very overtly racist and derogatory fashion, and often lacks a sound factual or academically-sound research basis. Flanagan’s book was fully endorsed by Manny Jules, a First Nation man and former chief of Kamloops Indian Band and is now the head of the First Nation Tax Commission (FNTC). The FNTC, contrary to its name, is actually a federal organization, whose chief commissioner is appointed by Canada’s Governorin-Council and reports to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). http://appointments.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=FNN&type-typ=1&lang=eng Aside from a salary of over $200,000, it is also notable that in the recent round of Conservative cuts to Aboriginal organizations, Jules’ FNTC was protected from substantial cuts. The political and financial links between the FNTC and the federal government’s intended legislation become apparent when one reads Flanagan’s book in its entirety. Here is an excerpt from my published review of the book: “In fact, the book concludes by affirming that ‘there is little doubt that this proposal is a continuation of the First Nations–led initiatives of the 1990’s’ … And, if First Nations require any assistance in catching up to the modern world, the book suggests that they use the services of Le Dressay’s Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics. (Located in Jules’s home community of Kamloops, this centre was created out of a First Nations Tax Commission project he chaired.) It should come as no surprise that one of the keys to success of the authors’ proposal for the First Nations Property Ownership Act will be to create additional centralized institutions, to take over the new jurisdiction it also creates.” http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ The media will no doubt be publishing many editorials, opinions and commentaries on this issue in the coming weeks until the bill is introduced in Parliament. Many of these articles, especially those from the right-wing fringe will leave out a great deal of context, perpetuate the same myths that Manny Jules and Tom Flanagan do and will settle for the catchy headlines instead of help inform the public about the serious issues involved. Here are some of the questions asked of me by the media and my answers in very brief form (more detailed answers will be provided in my forthcoming publication): (1) First Nations hate the Indian Act, why would they object to Harper amending or repealing the Act? The abolishment of the Indian Act was the central feature of the 1969 White Paper – the federal policy that would assimilate “Indians” once and for all. It is up to First Nations to decide when and how they want to amend or repeal the Indian Act – Canada has done enough damage under the guise of “what is good for the Indians”. Harper specifically promised at the co-called Crown-First Nation Gathering that: “To be sure, our Government has no grand scheme to repeal or to unilaterally re-write the Indian Act”. This legislation would be a significant and unilateral amendment to the Indian Act. (2) But First Nations can’t access mortgages or start businesses without owning land in fee simple? That is simply not true. Individual band members have been working with their First Nations and the major banks to obtain mortgages to build homes on reserve for many years. Many band members and bands have also been able to receive loans from banks to start businesses without leveraging their homes. One must also remember that owning a home doesn’t mean you can open a business on your land – there are zoning and other laws on reserve as there would be in any neighborhood. (3) But Canadians get to own land in fee simple? Canadians have the option to own land in fee simple only if they are wealthy enough to buy land or qualify for a mortgage. Thousands of First Nations people also own land in fee simple all over the country. Some First Nations people also hold land via Certificate of Possession on reserve which is very similar to fee simple, except that it can’t be sold to non-First Nations people. (4) But if First Nations could own land in fee simple, wouldn’t that cure the housing crisis? This ability to own land in fee simple has not cured homelessness in Canada and in fact, it is on the rise. The ability to hold reserve lands in fee simple would not qualify any individual for a mortgage. Part of getting a mortgage is being able to get insurance – who would insure a mold-infested, abestos-contaminated home without running water or sanitation services? This sounds like more of a cure for the economy and mortgage lenders than it does for First Nations. (5) But commentators have said this would cure First Nation poverty? The origins of the current crisis of poverty in First Nations are in the theft of our lands and resources, the genocide committed against our people, the federal strangulation of our governments and the refusal to properly recognize and provide space for our treaty, Aboriginal, and inherent rights and laws. Fee simple has nothing to do with it. There is absolutely no evidence that fee simple ownership has cured poverty. In fact, the studies have shown that the chronic underfunding of essential social services by the federal government is the primary cause of the current levels of poverty in First Nations. http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/view/35220 (6) But Manny Jules and 8 other First Nations want this legislation? With all due respect, Manny Jules heads a federal government organization – he is not a First Nation leader or community spokesperson. If there are a handful of First Nations who truly want to divide their reserves into individual parcels of fee simple lands, they can do so via current processes under the Indian Act or self-government negotiations for example. There is no way that 8 First Nations should set national law or policy for 633 First Nations. Treaty implementation and the resolution of land claims are far more critical to First Nation well-being. http://www.bctreaty.net/unfinishedbusiness/pdf-documents/BC-Treaty-Commission-PricewaterhouseCoopers-Report.pdf (7) But isn’t the legislation optional? What’s the harm? With INAC, even optional laws and policies are never truly optional. Once the government decides it wants First Nations to behave in a certain way, they use a series of financial and political incentives and punishments to ensure First Nations act as the government deems appropriate. With THIS Harper government, the focus would be more on punishments and they would be severe for failing to conform. For example, First Nations could voluntarily enter into Act XYZ or fail to receive funding associated with that program or service. Plus, the element of volunteerism does not apply in a situation of duress. Is it truly optional to sell one’s land if one is already impoverished and suffering from a lack the basic necessities of life? Even Manny Jules admitted that one of the challenges of this bill is that all reserve land could be lost: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2189503699/ Jules wants First Nations people to prove to banks that they are “worthy” of owning a home. WOW! (8) What are your other concerns related to FNPOA? – Canada does not have the legal authority to pass such a bill in violation of both Aboriginal and treaty rights, the Royal Proclamation, and UNDRIP; – they haven’t thought about the legal, political, social or cultural implications of such a law (for example – exactly who would get the fee simple parcels of land?); – Canada has not learned from history – the Dawes Act devastated First Nations in the USA – why would it be better here; – this is Harper’s political agenda to once and for all assimilate Indians and turn reserve lands into provincial land holdings and jurisdiction; – this bill would also help Harper end-run the duty to consult and accommodate re oil, gas and mining on our lands, undermine our leadership and empower corporations like Enbridge to lay their pipes wherever they want; – turning reserves into fee simple parcels registered in provincial land registries under provincial law would enable easier expropriation of our lands for big oil and gas companies like Enbridge; – FNPOA, together with other bills in process: Bill C-428 impacting by-laws, estates & education, Bill S-6 re elections, Bill S-2 re matrimonial real property, Bill C-27 re First Nation accountability, Bill S-8 re First Nation water, and the First Nation Education Act to come essentially change the entire legal and political landscape for First Nations – unilaterally and against our collective will. First Nations have the right to free, informed and prior consent to any laws, policies, decisions or actions that impact our lands and resources. This means that if we don’t want Enbridge or any other extractive industry on our lands – that is our decision to make. Our people will not allow big oil to use FNPOA as a land grab to circumvent our rights. There is simply nothing good about this bill and much to be lost from it. People need to stop coming up with ideas about how to “fix” us as we always end up worse off for it. Canadians are not required to understand or even support our inherent, treaty, domestic and international rights – they just have to accept that this is the law, not unlike any of the laws they cherish. Canada needs to stop trying to assimilate us and instead focus on fulfilling its legal and treaty obligations instead of trying to find ways around them. I think we have suffered enough – let us go about the hard job of healing and rebuilding our Nations and enjoy our fair share of what is ours. Additional resources: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2173712911/ http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2189503699/ http://soundcloud.com/el-chaos/pamela-palmater-reserve-vs-fee-simple-land

  • Authoring Our Own Demise? NAOs Must Stop Propping up Conservatives

    I keep wondering, why is it that some of the national Aboriginal organizations (NAO’s) continue to look the other way when the Conservatives show their true colours? There is a saying that goes: when someone tells you who they really are, you should listen. So, if a guy tells you on a date he doesn’t want to settle down, you should not be surprised if after dating him for several months that he does not want to get married. Why then do our leaders pose for photo-ops shaking hands and smiling with the government that wants our assimilation? In Canada, the Crown has not only shown its true policy objectives through its legal and political actions, but it has made them very explicit in speeches, cabinet papers and written documents. Canada’s underlying objective in Indian policy is to “rid Canada of the Indian problem” and to free up land for settlement and development. Even the joint action plan between Canada and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) focuses on freeing up land to “benefit Canadians”. If anyone thinks that federal Indian policy has changed – one need only look at the second generation cut-off in the Indian Act’s registration provisions to realize time is ticking. To date, ndian law and policy has been based on the fact that Canada still sees the “Indian problem” as temporary and that, despite apologies to the contrary, it views First Nations as inferior and incapable of handling their own affairs. This is why Canada controls access to our own lands & resources, why it still has the Indian Act and why they control nation-building tools like education. The age-old solution to the Indian problem has always been assimilation – by whatever means. Historically that meant scalping laws, small pox-infected blankets, starvation, preventing hunting and fishing or leaving reserves, outlawing culture, residential schools, and today it means legislated extinction in the Indian Act registration provisions, trying to change reserve lands to fee simple to be sold to non-Indians and imprisoning our men and women at alarming rates. We often criticize PM Harper for visiting countries that violate human rights or for shaking the hands of war criminals. Yet, how many times in the last 5-10 years have we seen our national “Aboriginal” leaders pose for photos while smiling and shaking the hands of federal officials while our people starve to death, freeze to death, go murdered and missing, or be taken on Starlight tours and are over-incarcerated at rates as high as 100% of the inmate population. Seriously, our ancestors would be disgusted that we would shake the hands of the enemy that plots our demise. Not a single “Aboriginal” leader should ever shake the hand of Minister Duncan or PM Harper again until the suffering of our people at their hands is eliminated. Indian policy has not changed over time, although we may have seen some political dancing around the individual issues. Yet, none of us should be fooled or distracted by the dance. Canada’s progress on relations with First Nations has taken a draconian step backwards with the Conservatives (Cons) in power. Some might say I am biased, but seeing as I don’t belong to any political party in Canada, nor do I make a habit of voting, I think my views are less biased than most. I call it as I see it based on the Cons’ individual and collective actions, decisions, positions and submissions. The Conservatives have all but spelled it out – yet we refuse to see the writing on the wall. Why? Because it means we have to make hard decisions – take some significant risks and substantially turn the relationship on its head. When I talk about the signs, I start with the Cons’s appointment of John Duncan as Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC now AANDC). Duncan had a history of being vigorously opposed to what he called “race-based” fishing. He saw First Nations as a races that did not deserve to have their Aboriginal and treaty rights respected, despite their constitutional protection. So, the Cons made sure that they appointed someone who dislikes First Nations and denies their constitutionally protected rights. Should anyone be surprised that the Cons have as their “sessional” plan to finally eliminate all, what they call “special rights” for First Nations? Then of course there is the fact that Tom Flanagan, the guy famous for advocating for the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples, was Harper’s campaign manager and then his Chief of Staff. For anyone who has not read First Nations? Second Thoughts, Flanagan sees Aboriginal peoples as “primitive” and that “assimilation” has to happen. Imagine the influence he would have had over the PM or his staff regarding Aboriginal peoples. That might explain Harper’s comment on the international stage that there was “no history of colonization in Canada”. It might also explain why the Cons have funded research and activities into singling out individual First Nations to support their plan under the guise of economic development. Flanagan’s latest book: Beyond the Indian Act looking to turn reserves into individual plots of land to sell to non-Indians was supported by the First Nation Tax Commission. The information I received through ATIP provided hundreds of documents showing how much time and effort has gone into promoting the privatization and taxation of reserve lands. We would never have stood for that 100 years ago, but now they use “Aboriginal” faces to do the promoting. Then, there was MP Pierre Poilievre who, on the day of the residential schools apology, questioned whether the settlement was “value for money”. One might think he is just a lone radical, right-wing voice in the Conservative government were it not for Minister Duncan’s statement yesterday where he said that residential schools were NOT a form of cultural genocide – it was just negative to culture, not lethal. If that was not bad enough, the RCMP release their report wherein they investigated their role in residential schools and no surprise – relived themselves of any wrong-doing. Yet, somewhere this week or next – our national leaders will pose for another photo shaking the hands of those who advocate our assimilation. Wow. Really? Do the Conservatives think we are all stupid? Upwards of 40% of the children who entered residential schools never made it out alive. The express purpose of residential schools was expressed by superintendent of Indian Affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem… Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada.” Even when residential schools became too controversial, they switched over to what is now known as the 60’s scoop where children were taken from their parents, and instead of being put in residential schools, they were adopted out permanently in non-Indian families. Today there are more children in care than totaled residential schools and the 60″s scoop put together. To believe that Indian policy and assimilation is a thing of the past is to be blind to the current reality. To believe that it is not genocide ignores our own Criminal Code and the United Nations own definition of genocide. The Criminal code defines genocide as not just the murder of an identifiable group, but also includes the creating of conditions that lead to their physical destruction. The purposeful, chronic, well-known under-funding of First Nations has created the extreme conditions of poverty and, as the medical evidence has shown – the pre-mature deaths of our people. The United Nations includes the theft of children from an identifable group as also being genocide. Canada’s habit of defering issues to study, deflecting issues by blaming First Nations or denying issues like genocide are all strategic ways of allowing assimilation to continue. This brings me back to my point. Some of our NAOs are working with the Conservatives under the hopes of changing their minds. This reminds me of that saying again – if someone tells who they are, you should listen. If a man continually beats his wife, the wife can expect, with some certainty, that the man will beat her in the future, that the violence will likely get worse, and may even result in her death. Why should we expect anything other than what the Conservatives have promised? We are in an abusive relationship with Canada. If we don’t get out of this relationship now – it may be too late. Look at the Conservatives election platform – what was offered for Indigenous people except adult training in the north, the chance to sit on a hunting advisory panel (of mostly non-Indians) and to have input on a park in Rouge Hill. Who the heck asked for any of that stuff? The core issues of sovereignty and jursidiction, treaties, land claims and equitable funding were all off the list. What they were saying is really: “We, the Conservatives, are promising you nothing – absolutely nothing, but you better be our willing partners or maybe things will get worse”. Thus, some of the NAOs have stopped representing our interests, and have made decisions based on fear and organizational self-interest. This is really frustrating for me as a grass roots person. These organizations were all created to represent our interests politically and some of them have failed to do so by being co-opted by the endless funding dance where the Conservatives essentially say “play nice with us and we give you minor funding to keep your organization alive, but play against and lose your funding.” Ok, that is a reality that sucks as we could really use some coordination, research and representation at all levels. However, acquiescing to our own extinction – legal or otherwise, is hardly a viable alternative. No funding for any national organization is worth the continue deaths of our children from starvation or our legalized assimilation or loss of our treaties. If forced to choose, I’d choose our lands and people any day. We are all too mesmorized by the Canadian ideal – work, debt, mortgage, cars, more debt and prestige. I am not against someone working hard and providing for their family but not the outright ext=change of our future for a temporary job as a miner or a oil worker. Things like ec dev projects, consulting contracts & project funding are all short term gains that will result in long-term pains like the destruction or loss of lands, legislated assimilation, and provincial education and that is not in anyone’s best interest. Playing nice may win individuals Senate seats, Porsches or media fame, but it does little to protect our people – those who are suffering the most. Just because the Conservatives think it is ok for our PM to live in luxury and travel the world, while poverty and homelessness is rising in Canada, that does not mean that we as Indigenous governments should emulate that form of society. We cannot put the interests of NAOs over the future of our Nations. I think our NAOs need to watch the constitutional talks again. Watch some real leader in action – those who refused to settle for anything. How many times I have heard NAOs say – well something is better than nothing – no it’s not. Yet, time and again, some of us are shocked when we hear unbelievably racist comments come from the Minister of Indian Affairs or PM Harper. Why the shock? They have told us many, many times who they really are and how they really feel about our issues. Our wishing it wasn’t so won’t change that. What we can change is whether or not we continue to prop up the Conservatives and their ludicrous ideas, or whether we stand together against it. There are other Canadians out there who see the benefit of a more equitable and just society that lives in harmony with nature – we have allies both home and abroad. We have to stand up against our continued oppression and assimilation before the Cons have empowered every right-wing radical in their Cabinet and legislate away our rights – without any fear of retaliation from us. Our power has always been in our unity and our unity is what defeated the White Paper, what defeated the the First Nations Governance Act and many other assimilatory plans and policies. Nothing has changed in the Conservative government except how they are going about our assimilation. Instead of proposing massive and immediate assimilation, they now have a more insidious plan which accomplishes assimilation over a longer term through many different measures which appear neutral, but spell our demise. They also use our people as their spokespeople for assimilation under the guise of “progress” and they distract us with red herrings so we don’t see what is really happening. Stop wasting time and money posting news releases congratulating this federal bureaucrat or another and start highlighting the facts – put our situation front and centre. Perhaps one bill won’t result in our extinction, but if you look at the entirety of their plan – disappearing Indian status, non-natives occupying reserve lands, turning reserves into fee simple for sale, provincially controlled education, loss of funding for languages, non-existent land claim resolution and delayed self-government, you see a very clear pattern – one that has not changed since Duncan Campbell Scott, the White Paper or Flanagan. Their new goal, supported by their arrogant view that they’ll be in power for at least 8 years – is to eliminate special entitlements for First Nations. What are you going to do about it NAOs? If they wait long enough, there will be no Indians left to negotiate self-government, exercise treaty rights or live on reserves. Reserves will all be used for mineral development, Walmarts, or residences for non-Indians. When our children look back at how this all happened, we will see the smiling faces of our national leaders shaking hands with Canada, promoting these things as “good for us”. What our children will also see are organizations that used to exist until Canada accomplished what it intended to do and then finally cut off funding for those national organizations. In the words of Canada’s own demographic expert, we will “author our own demise”. So, instead of relying on the naive hope that the Conservatives will do something good for us if we play nice and act as “willing partners”, it’s time our national leaders grew a backbone and started representing us like our ancestors did – with a sense of realism, foresight, and self-sacrifice. Otherwise, every time one of us, like Sharon McIvor, wins a small victory in the ongoing battle against our assimilation, we will all lose when our national leaders make deals on her behalf and let the world know our rights are for sale. I see a great future for our children if we take action today to protect them. I know it is possible to save our languages and cultures if we refuse to submit to federal control. I see larger, stronger Nations if we make some short-term sacrifice. I also see more empowered leaders if they would start relying on their people – the grass roots citizens who have a great deal to offer. Leaders were never meant to go this alone, nor were our women, our children or our men. We can turn around the number of Indigenous kids in care, murdered and missing Indigenous women, over-incarcerated Indigenous men and grass roots Indigenous people who are disconnected from their communities and Nations. Canada through the Indian Act and its various Indian policies divided our Nations into small communities; divided our communities between on and off reserve, member and non-member; and divided our families into Indians and non-Indians. This is called divide and conquer and it is designed to make us think we are all alone in this struggle against oppression – when in fact we are all in this together. There is nothing wrong with us as Indigenous people. We are not genetically inferior. This is not about a great system that once used to work and is now broken. The system is working exactly how the colonizers designed it – to facilitate our assimilation. While the worst culprit is the Conservative Party today, all Canadian governments have had their hand in Indian policy at one time or another. We are strong as peoples and we are even stronger when we all work together. Every single one of us has a responsibility to stop the destruction of our people and our way of life.  Our future is not for sale. Write to your NAO and let them know how you feel. It’s time they started taking their mandates from the people again. For rabble fans, please see my blog post at rabble.ca