Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: Indian

  • In Plain Sight: Widespread Racism in BC Healthcare

    In Plain Sight: Widespread Racism in BC Healthcare

    RACISM IN BC HEALTHCARE

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

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

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

    IN PLAIN SIGHT

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

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

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

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

    In-Plain-Sight-Summary-Report.pdf

    FINDINGS

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

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

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

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

    STEREOTYPES

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

    (1)   Less worthy of care;

    (2)   Drinkers/alchoholics;

    (3)   Drug-seekers;

    (4)   Bad parents;

    (5)   Frequent flyers – misuse health system;

    (6)   Irresponsible & wont do aftercare;

    (7)   Less capable; and

    (8)   Unfairly advantaged.

    RACISM CAUSES REAL HARM

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

    (1)   Unacceptable personal interactions – like racist comments;

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

    (3)   Lack of communication/shunning Indigenous patients;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MOVING FORWARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

    HEALTHCARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT

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

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

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

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

     

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

  • First Nations and the Business of Cannabis

    First Nations and the Business of Cannabis

    This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Sept.25, 2019 -(see link below)

    Justin Trudeau’s 2015 election platform promise to immediately legalize marijuana if elected spurred a frenzy of activity behind the scenes. There were police officers, politicians and other former leaders, previously against the sale of the drug, making plans for their own cannabis boutiques. The very same people that had previously outlawed, arrested and jailed people for growing, possessing and/or selling cannabis would now have the unfair insider advantage about where to sell and to whom.

    In the chaotic positioning that played out behind the scenes by those “in the know,” very little attention was given to the full legal implications of Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act.

    The failure to properly engage First Nations about the legalization of cannabis was not only irresponsible policy making but was also a lost political opportunity to work on a nation to nation basis with First Nations — one of Trudeau’s other campaign promises. Trudeau, who had also pledged to respect Aboriginal and treaty rights and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), failed to sit down with First Nations and come up with a comprehensive cannabis legalization plan that would not only address legalization (manufacture and sale), but also the thousands of Indigenous peoples in jail or with criminal records for cannabis offences.

    Further, in neglecting Canada’s legal obligation to enact laws which are consistent with the Aboriginal rights contained in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it missed the chance to harmonize federal, provincial and First Nations jurisdictions and laws in relation to cannabis. This void has created the potential for not only legal conflict, but for political and social tensions at the local level.

    Take for example, the situation in Ontario. Premier Doug Ford’s Conservative government has decided to proceed to license cannabis sales by way of a lottery. Only a small number of licences are targeted for First Nations distributors on reserve and none for First Nations peoples and businesses located off reserve. In every way, Ontario’s cannabis lottery scheme offends Aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as First Nations’ inherent sovereignty and jurisdiction over their own lands, peoples and businesses.

    Ontario’s plan presumes that provincial jurisdiction trumps First Nation jurisdiction — which is not the case. Both the 1997 Inherent Right Policy which confirmed that s. 35 includes and protects the right of First Nations to be self-determining, and Trudeau’s commitment to respect First Nation governance rights should have resulted in much more comprehensive legislation. UNDRIP, which is the standard by which United Nations treaty bodies will hold Canada to account, protects the Indigenous right of self-determination which includes governance, lawmaking and enforcement, as well as the management of Indigenous economies within their traditional territories (i.e. not limited to the reserves).

    These unresolved spheres of jurisdiction between First Nations and the provinces have already created confusion on the ground with some First Nations enacting their own laws, some ignoring provincial laws and others choosing to allow or ban cannabis on reserve as a governance decision.

    In still other First Nations, without any First Nation law in place, and according to the long-held legal and political position that provincial laws should not apply on reserve, many individuals have started their own cannabis businesses. This is putting a strain on some First Nations who felt not only excluded from cannabis policy development, but were not resourced to develop laws, policies and enforcement frameworks about First Nation-owned businesses versus individual businesses.

    Much of the First Nation critique also included concerns about the lack of time and resources to develop health and safety plans for each First Nation. While there are some exceptions, in general, much of this legal, economic and social co-ordination remains outstanding.

    What is worse is that Trudeau’s failure to work collaboratively with federal, provincial and First Nations jurisdictions created a political gap in which non-government entities, like the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), could step in and start stirring the pot.

    More than a year after the passing of the Cannabis Act, the AFN held a Cannabis Summit to talk about the implications of cannabis legalization. Their summit targeted federal and provincial government representatives and agencies, as well as First Nations. It was no surprise then that Day One of the summit saw the chief commissioner of the so-called First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC) on the agenda trying to persuade First Nations to submit to federal tax regimes for cannabis.

    The FNTC is a Crown agency, fully governed and staffed under federal laws and regulations. The inclusion of the word “First Nation” in the title is really misleading. The goal of the federal government, through the FNTC, has always been to get First Nations to tax themselves and give up their reserve lands and turn the lands into individual fee simple parcels (i.e. provincial jurisdiction).

    This brings us full circle back to the legal and political confusion at the local level which, on the one hand, is clearly the result of Trudeau’s failure to harmonize all legal systems and jurisdictions in Canada, but also the fault of the AFN.

    The AFN waited nearly four years to have this summit — which appears conveniently timed so as not to make any waves for the Trudeau government before the legislation was passed. We saw very little public advocacy for First Nation governments to be part of the policy development around legalization and thus, in the eyes of many, the AFN failed its job as an advocacy organization. The result? The AFN shares responsibility for this legal void as well as the thousands of First Nations peoples who are languishing in jail, on parole and subject to conditions and/or unemployable due to past cannabis offences which have not been pardoned or fully expunged from their records.

    Once again, First Nations peoples at the local level pay the price and receive few of the benefits. Far from delivering on his promise to fully legalize cannabis, Trudeau controlled and commodified the cannabis trade which seemed to benefit insider entrepreneurs and left the full decriminalization of cannabis for another day. In the end, there were no political waves from the AFN with regards to federal legalization.

    On the positive side, more and more First Nations leaders have engaged with their citizens and are in the process of enacting or have already enacted their own rules and regulations related to cannabis. Many have realized that they are on their own in terms of defending their jurisdiction to govern their own economies. They are in fact the rights holders and waiting around for the AFN to encourage Trudeau to harmonize laws is clearly not on the agenda. As with every other right ever proven by First Nations and reaffirmed in court decisions, the right to govern the cannabis business will have to be lived, asserted and defended by First Nations on the ground.

    This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Sept.25, 2019: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/15506/first-nations-and-the-business-of-cannabis-pamela-palmater?spotlight

  • Bill C-92’s Indigenous Child Welfare Act: More Pan-Indigenous Legislation that Risks Continuing the Status Quo

    Bill C-92’s Indigenous Child Welfare Act: More Pan-Indigenous Legislation that Risks Continuing the Status Quo

    Bill C-92 An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families has been heralded as a “historic turning point”, an “important first step”, a “major milestone” and other similarly over-used and under-impressive political phrases to describe yet another top-down initiative from the federal government. While the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde (AFN) claimed that this legislation was “co-drafted” by the AFN and the federal government, that was not the case. In fact, Dr. Cindy Blackstock confirmed that First Nations did not co-draft the legislation and First Nations were not even permitted to see the second draft before it was tabled. This should be no surprise as Justice Canada does not co-draft legislation with anyone other than the French and English legislative drafters at Justice Canada – this is their long-standing practice. Bill C-92 content is glaring evidence that First Nation experts in child welfare did not hold the pen on this bill.

    There are many problems with this bill, but the main problem is it does not deliver any of what was promised by the federal government. Prime Minister Trudeau’s Liberal government promised to address the “humanitarian crisis” through federal legislation that fully recognized First Nation jurisdiction in relation to child welfare; that would provide statutory funding; and would eliminate the over-representation of First Nation children in care. If this bill is not substantially amended before it is passed, it will not accomplish any of those important goals. Ultimately, it will be our children and our families on the ground – in our communities – that will pay the biggest price. The fact that the AFN is promoting this bill so strenuously, without regard for the numerous and serious concerns raised by First Nation leaders, lawyers, academics and child welfare experts, shows how disconnected they are to the crisis at hand.

    Despite the many issues raised by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and others, the AFN supports this bill as do the Metis National Council (MNC) and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK). While I also have numerous, detailed concerns with the wording, structure and content of this bill, they are too many to include in this blog. What follows is a general overview of my concerns from a First Nation perspective. 

    Pan-Indigenous Legislation

    First of all, pan-Indian legislation has always been difficult to work with because of the differences between the 50-60 traditional Indigenous Nations in Canada that are now separated into 634+/- individual First Nations (Indian bands), across various provinces and within different treaty areas (some without treaties). However, pan-First Nation legislation, with opt-in clauses and flexible provisions to deal with legal, political and cultural variances, would be far superior to what is offered in this bill. Bill C-92 purports to cram First Nations, Inuit and Metis into one act that offers the same legislative options to all three groups – despite their vastly different histories, socio-economic conditions and rights.

    There are vast differences between the legal rights and specific needs of First Nations, Inuit and the Metis. For example, the Metis have much better socio-economic conditions than First Nations and Inuit. Geographic differences between the Inuit and First Nations and Metis, also require solutions tailored to their unique situation. Failure to do so can create inequalities between the groups.

    Substantive Inequality

    This bill also misses the mark in its purported goal to support Nation-to-Nation (First Nations), government-to-government (Metis) and Inuit-Crown relations by treating us all the same. Here’s the problem – when Canada treats all three groups formally the same, it prejudices the rights, needs and interests of those with more acute conditions. In other words, by treating all three groups as formally equally, those with the most acute needs will be treated substantively unequal. While disadvantage should never be about a “race to the bottom”, formal equality will embed discrimination into the very structure of this legislation and will operate to disadvantage First Nations in particular. First Nations are larger in population, have higher rates of child apprehensions and higher rates of underlying poverty, caused by the kinds of land dispossession and breach of treaty rights not experienced by Metis (with some exceptions).

    That is not to say that the Metis should not have their own framework- that is for them to decide what works best for them with the needs of their own constituency. First Nation, Metis and Inuit options should not be limited to the same generic legislative framework, from the same budget line, which assumes the same socio-economic needs, legal rights and interests. This pan-Indigenous template is not in line with the federal government’s promised “distinctions-based” approach and serves to embed substantive inequality into the act.

    First Nation Jurisdiction

    First Nation jurisdiction should be the heart of this bill. At best, what is offered is a delegated authority under federal jurisdiction, which is conditional on agreement with the provinces. At worst, this bill increases federal Ministerial control, while leaving provincial laws, policies and practices virtually in tact. Bill C-92 creates new powers for an unnamed federal Minister to carry out the provisions of the legislation, make regulations, possibly collect data and provide a report to Parliament after five years. What is missing is the original purpose of the bill: to recognize First Nation jurisdiction. While it purports to recognize First Nation jurisdiction, it does so with several substantive conditions. First Nation jurisdiction and laws in relation to child welfare appear to be directly or indirectly subject to the following limits:

    –          Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

    –          Canadian Human Rights Act;

    –          Section 35 Constitution Act, 1982 jurisprudence and limits in relation to constitutionally protected rights;

    –          “Inherent right to self-government” which indirectly incorporates the impoverished definition of self-determination outlined in the Inherent Right Policy;

    –          Constitution Act, 1867, section 92 provincial jurisdiction, i.e. provincial laws are the minimum standard;

    –          Successful negotiation of a tri-lateral coordination agreement between the First Nation, province and federal government (or proof they made good faith effort to negotiate);

    –          Pre-existing definitions of “best interests of the child” from legal precedents;

    –          Sections 10-15 of Bill C-92, which outlines specific limitations in relation to the best interests of the child, parental representation, notice of apprehensions, preventative care as the priority, and no apprehensions due to poverty.

    If a First Nation manages to ensure their laws meet all of these conditions, then they could be recognized as a “federal law”, but not a law in their own right – based on First Nation jurisdiction. It seems very clear that what is being offered is a delegated authority under federal jurisdiction, which is also limited by the constitutional division of powers. Nothing in this bill binds a provincial government or requires them to even come to the table – let alone contribute any funding. Some First Nations may be okay with exercising their powers this way in order to address the urgent crisis, but the federal government should just be honest about it and stop trying to package it as First Nation jurisdiction.

    There is also no specific recognition for pre-existing First Nation laws – oral or written – except in the case of self-government agreements, and these laws would only be paramount to the extent of any conflict with Bill C-92. What of First Nations that choose not to make agreements with the province? What if a First Nation chooses to negotiate only with the federal government? There are far more questions than answers in this bill – all of which need to be addressed in order to avoid legal chaos and uncertainty around jurisdiction.

    Funding & Socio-Economic Conditions

    My last major concern about this bill is the failure to include clear, directive language that would provide a statutory guarantee for annual funding, that is based on equal access to holistic, wrap- around social programs and services, that take into account specific needs, population increases, inflation, geographic location, and actual costs. Without this statutory guarantee, any recognition or First Nation jurisdiction is entirely hollow. Substantial funds are required for the development and enforcement of First Nation laws, policies and regulations in relation to child and family services; staffing and training; infrastructure; legal and technical research and advisory services; data collection and analysis; and monitoring, compliance, reporting and enforcement. The core issue has always been the long-standing chronic and discriminatory under-funding of social services for First Nations, like food, water, housing, health and education. This racist under-funding is what created the crisis and serves to maintain. Legislation is not needed to end discriminatory funding, but if legislation is to be enacted, a firm commitment for funding needs to be included.

    It is noteworthy that there is no mention of First Nation Aboriginal rights or treaty rights in relation to the funding that attaches to child welfare. While it may be politically expedient to create an act that is neutral on “rights” for all parties, this must be in exchange for a substantive, enforceable legal funding commitment. Long gone are the days where First Nations can reasonably or responsibly rely on the word of Ministers to hope that they fulfill their political promises. Ministers change, governments change and the law changes – which is why, if there is to be legislation, that it include a statutory guarantee of funding.  Without it, this legislation is empty of any real intention or ability to end the status quo – a price that will continue to be paid by our children and their children. First Nation cannot afford to lose any more children to a racist and sexually violent system that decreases their life chances and limits their ability to enjoy life with their families, communities, and Nations. The increasing foster care rates, incarceration rates and murdered and missing rates compel us to act urgently and with purpose.

    All that is required is for Parliament to sit down with First Nation child welfare experts and make the required amendments. Without substantive amendments, this bill may end up causing more harm than good and inject legal chaos into an already broken system and risk the lives of more of our children. Canada has apologized for the trauma caused by residential schools, while at the same time admitting that child welfare has continued the trauma. Canada has stated that this is a humanitarian crisis and as such is legally and morally bound to do better. 

    It’s time to sit at the table and urgently work this out for the sake of the children. Video of my recent testimony to Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples pre-study on C-92: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkcl0iF0Yic To listen to my 3-part extended interview with Dr. Cindy Blackstock on my podcast show: Warrior Life, here is the link: https://soundcloud.com/pampalmater/cindy-blackstock-on-justice-and-equality-for-first-nation-children If you prefer video instead of podcast, you can listen and watch on my YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5LvH3LY_20&t=2s

  • It’s up to Indigenous, environmental groups to protect the public interest

    This article is Part 2 of a 2-part series which was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 17, 2018. The link to Part 1 which was published Sept.11, 2018 is provided below.

    Despite objections from some of the Indigenous groups about the consultation process, the Federal Court of Appeal (in Tsleil-Waututh Nation et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) 2018 FCA 153) held that Canada acted in good faith and that the consultation framework it used was appropriate.

    This was a four-phase process which was to include (1) early engagement, (2) NEB hearing, (3) governor-in-council consideration and (4) regulatory authorization processes.

    Where Canada fell down was in Phase III of the consultation process in that it did not meaningfully consider the concerns of the Indigenous groups or attempt to accommodate or mitigate those concerns. There was no substantive discussion about Indigenous rights and the FCA found that federal officials did little more than act as “note-takers”. The court agreed with the Indigenous groups that Canada’s notes, referred to as the Consultation Chronologies, “should be approached with caution” for failing to accurately present the facts.

    When pressed by Indigenous groups for a response, federal officials merely repeated the line that they would deliver their concerns to the decision makers. When it finally did come time for a response, Canada informed the groups that it was bound by the recommendations of the NEB and that it was in effect, powerless to add any more conditions on the project. A surprising response given the fact that the FCA had already decided in the Gitxaala Nation case (Gitxaala Nation v. Canada 2016 FCA 187) that under the current legislative scheme, the only decision maker was in fact the governor-in-council and not the NEB.

    The Department of Justice is the largest law firm in Canada, working exclusively on behalf of the federal government — it had no excuse for its “erroneous position.” The FCA held that the duty to consult is not met by the mere exchange or discussing of information. Consultation has to focus on constitutionally protected rights and in so doing Canada is obligated to “substantially address the concerns of the First Nation” (from Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) 2005 SCC 69. This coupled with the fact of Canada’s late disclosures, lack of responses, failure to provide more time and “closed-mindedness” frustrated the consultation process. It is Canada’s actions or lack thereof which is why the Federal Court of Appeal overturned its decision.

    So, what now? Well, this is far from over. The FCA has ordered that the decision is quashed and the approval must go back to the governor-in-council for reconsideration. As part of that reconsideration, the GIC must refer the NEB’s recommendations back to the NEB. Canada must also redo its Phase III consultations and accommodations before the GIC can reconsider the approval for the pipeline expansion.

    Of great concern is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s comments that Canada is considering the possibility of an appeal of this decision or legislation to force the pipeline project through.

    Whether Canada chooses to abide by the decision or not, what we know for sure is that Canada will forge ahead with the pipeline despite the fact that the impact of a tanker spill on the southern resident killer whales would be “catastrophic” and “there were no direct mitigation measures that Trans Mountain could apply to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects from Project-related tankers”. Perhaps Tahlequah (the female southern resident killer whale who recently carried her deceased calf for 17 days) was mourning for all us.

    However, there is a new complication to Canada’s pipeline plans. Six conservation groups, including the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Ecojustice, David Suzuki Foundation, Georgia Strait Alliance, Natural Resources Defence Council and the World Wildlife Fund have filed a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking an emergency order to protect the southern resident killer whales.

    Indigenous peoples will also have to decide how to proceed to protect their lands, waters and the other life within their territories which depends on a healthy eco-system — including killer whales.

    What we know for sure is that we cannot count on either federal or provincial governments to put the health of peoples, lands, waters, plants or animals ahead of the money to be made from the extractive industry. As the FCA held, the public interest and the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples are not in conflict. To the contrary, the violation of the “constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples cannot serve the public interest”.

    Looks like it is up to Indigenous peoples and environmental allies to protect the public interest and our collective futures — including Tahlequah’s and the future of her pod.

    This article is Part 2 of a 2-part series that was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 17, 2018.

    https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7326/it-s-up-to-indigenous-environmental-groups-to-protect-public-interest-pamela-palmater?category=opinion.

    The link to Part 1 which was published Sept.11, 2018 is at this link:

    https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7294/killer-whales-trans-mountain-pipeline-and-the-public-interest-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

    My Youtube video on this issue provides more detailed information about the case.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HQfOctnT7o

  • Killer Whales, Trans Mountain Pipeline and the Public Interest

                      This article is Part 1 of a 2 part series which was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 11, 2018. Part 2 will be published in a few days.

    Tahlequah’s “tour of grief” which saw one of the female southern resident killer whales (referred to by scientists as J-35) carry her deceased calf for 17 days was an unprecedented show of grief for the death of her calf. It is also a sad reminder of the fact that these endangered whales have had no successful births for three years. Her visible mourning tore at the heartstrings of many Americans, Canadians and especially Indigenous peoples who know all too well the pain of losing their children. While it is not uncommon for a killer whale to hold her deceased calf for a few hours or a day, this show of extended grief was the first time observed by scientists.

    Some wonder whether Tahlequah’s actions were not a call for help given that there are only 75 whales left and the proposed increase in tanker traffic from the Trans Mountain pipeline threatens to wipe them out for good. Indigenous Nations in Canada and several conservation groups filed applications against Canada’s decision to approve the pipeline in the hopes of saving these whales and all life in the surrounding eco-system.

    On Aug. 30, 2018, Justice Eleanor Dawson delivered the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) quashing Canada’s approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion (Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) 2018 FCA 153). From the moment the decision was released, there was more shock and awe to go around than had the court pronounced that the earth was flat. While the controversy generated from that decision has been quite dramatic, the decision is far less apocalyptic than most might think.

    Ultimately, this decision to quash the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion reflected principles espoused by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) for the last two decades. No new law was created — it was a case which reflected the current legal status quo.

    This case — unlike the raging fires in British Columbia or the melting of the ice in the Arctic — is rather non-calamitous; unless of course you consider the fate of the southern resident killer whale or the health of the Indigenous lands and waters upon which this pipeline will wreak havoc. That is because despite the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the decision in this instance, it also set up the conditions for which the federal government can approve the pipeline in the future. So, while Prime Minister Trudeau moans about how “hurt” he is by the decision, and while the extractive industry goes into full panic mode, the only ones who need to be worried here are the Indigenous peoples and their conservation allies who will now face the full wrath of the oil industry and its federal and provincial cheerleaders.

    Here’s how it all started: On Dec. 16, 2013 (under the Harper government) Trans Mountain submitted an application to the National Energy Board (NEB) for a certificate to allow the expansion project to proceed. After several years of review, on May 19, 2016, the NEB recommended to the governor-in-council that the pipeline expansion be approved. Six months later, on Nov. 29, 2016, the governor-in-council (cabinet) (under the Trudeau government) accepted the NEB’s recommendation and issued an order-in-council to that effect. The appeals of this decision were heard at the FCA in October of 2017 and the court issued its decision almost a year later in August 2018.

    This case involves individual applications by five First Nation collectives, two of B.C.’s largest cities, and two conservation groups asking the Federal Court of Appeal to overturn Canada’s decision to approve the pipeline expansion. The respondents in the case were the Attorney General of Canada, the NEB and the Trans Mountain Pipeline company. The FCA consolidated the applications into one to be heard together.

    While the applicants made various arguments challenging different aspects of the decision-making process, the FCA determined that the only “decision” that was under review was the decision of the governor-in-council to approve the expansion. That decision was challenged on two primary grounds (1) the NEB’s process and resulting report were flawed and (2) Canada did not fulfil its duty to consult with Indigenous peoples.

    The primary reason why the FCA found that the NEB’s process was flawed was because it “unjustifiably defined the scope of the Project under review not to include Project-related tanker traffic”. Specifically, the NEB excluded the impact of increased marine traffic on the B.C. coast on the southern resident killer whales, which are an endangered species, was not properly considered within its assessment of the impacts of the project. This is despite the fact that they had already acknowledged that the increase in large tanker traffic “would contribute to the total cumulative effects on the Southern resident killer whales, and would further impede the recovery of that species” and that “Southern resident killer whales are an endangered species”.

    They further acknowledged that: “… the operation of Project-related marine vessels is likely to result in significant adverse effects to the Southern resident killer whale, and that it is likely to result in significant adverse effects on Aboriginal cultural uses associated with these marine mammals”.

    The FCA noted that Project-related tankers carry the risk of significant, if not catastrophic, adverse environmental and socio-economic effects should a spill occur”. Ultimately, the governor-in-council could not rely on such a deficient report in order to make its decision.

    The other ground challenging the validity of the decision was the finding that Canada did not fulfil its duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples’ legitimate concerns about the impact of the pipeline on their territories and their constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights and title.

    Specifically, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation asserted Aboriginal title to the land, water, air and marine resources. The Squamish Nation asserted Aboriginal title, Aboriginal rights, the right to be self-governing and the right to fish. The Coldwater Band asserted Aboriginal rights and title, as did the Sto:lo Collective, Upper Nicola Band and Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc — all within their respective territories. They had all engaged in Canada’s consultation processes despite the limited funding to participate, the brief timelines and the consistent failure of federal officials to respond to their concerns.

    In the end, the facts clearly show it was the First Nations groups who were acting in good faith, despite Canada’s less than honorable actions.

    This is the first of a two-part series.

    This article is Part 1 of a 2 part series which was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 11, 2018. Part 2 will be published in a few days. The original link for Part 1 can be found here: 

    https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7294/killer-whales-trans-mountain-pipeline-and-the-public-interest-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

    You can also watch the CBC panel where we discussed the implications of this case:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kutq9mleRTA&t=28s Here is the link to my Youtube video breaking down the decision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HQfOctnT7o

  • Justice for Our Stolen Children Camp – Thank you for Standing Up for our Children

    The violent deaths of Colten Boushie in Saskatchewan and Tina Fontaine in Manitoba hit their families, communities and First Nations pretty hard. These were youths who had their whole lives ahead of them. The fact that deep-seated institutional and societal racism and violence against Indigenous peoples is what led to their deaths is a glaring injustice that we have seen happen many times over to our people. But the other glaring injustice is how institutional and societal racism and violence allows the killers of our people to walk free. The high level of impunity for lethal race-based violence against Indigenous peoples serves only to reinforce the racist idea that Indigenous lives don’t matter. Without intervention from federal, provincial and municipal governments, agencies and police forces, our people will continue to be at risk.

    Canada’s failure to act on this crisis means that First Nations must continue to take action to stand against these injustices which are killing our people. At a time when our hearts were collectively breaking over the non-guilty verdicts in the Gerald Stanley murder trial of Colten Boushie and the Raymond Cormier murder trial of Tina Fontaine, First Nation members from Saskatchewan got together and created the Justice for Our Stolen Children Camp. On February 28, 2018, they raised a traditional teepee and lit a sacred fire in Treaty 4 territory at Wascana Park, just across from the Saskatchewan Legislative building. These grassroots community members used their most powerful tool to bring attention to this crisis – their voices and their traditions.

    But the teepee and the sacred fire not only attracted media attention for our issues, but it also turned into something special. This camp became a gathering place for those who had lost children to violence, foster care and the justice system. Mothers, fathers, aunties and cousins with broken hearts came to the camp to share their stories, release their emotions and start their healing journeys. Far from creating any safety risk to the public, this camp offered hope, comfort, solidarity, a sense of collectiveness and empowerment. The longer the camp remained at Wascana Park, the more the media took notice and started to highlight the many injustices faced by First Nations. The core message from the camp was that we need justice specifically for Indigenous youth in the wake of the Stanley and Cormier not guilty verdicts; and justice for the many Indigenous children stolen from our communities by child welfare agencies, the justice system and societal violence.

    For many months, it may have appeared to outsiders looking in, that they were alone and that their camp would eventually fade from attention. They occupied the area peacefully for four months, supported by donations from First Nations and allies. It wasn’t until the Province of Saskatchewan thought the camp would interfere with its planned location for its Canada Day beer gardens that they took legal action. On June 5, the camp was issued and eviction order and ten days later, the Regina Police Service began their eviction procedures by removing the tents. On June 17 the teepee was taken down and on June 18 six of the campers were arrested and removed from the area, though charges were never laid. Many of us watched with anger as the province carried out this heavy-handed action, trampling over the wounded hearts of those who have found some temporary peace at the camp – all for the sake of beer gardens.

    But if there is one lesson from our elders that we have to remember, is that we can never give up hope. Our ancestors died protecting the rights of future generations not yet born. We inherited the obligation to face each barrier put in front of us by colonial powers, with the same commitment to overcoming it, as our ancestors had. So, on June 21 National Indigenous Peoples Day, when we saw videos of the campers returning to Wascana Park, re-erecting the teepee and joining together in a round dance, our collective hearts were lifted again – this time with a renewed sense of resistance and empowerment. On June 23rd, a second teepee was erected and others joined in solidarity after that until there were many teepees side by side. People made donations of cash, food and water to support the campers and the healing continued. We owe so much to the spirit and determination of those who have stayed at the camp for long. Their commitment is why we are still talking about justice for our stolen children.

    There is a real and growing crisis in Saskatchewan that demands an emergency, crisis-level joint response by federal, provincial and First Nation governments, experts and advocates. It doesn’t matter what the federal or provincial governments say they have done, what programs they have funded, or who they talk to at various discussion tables – what matters is that what they have done to date has not worked and the crisis continues to get worse. Therefore, a radical shift from the status quo is required to save the lives of our children. They don’t have a whole childhood to wait for the slow, drawn-out process of policy change. Our children are dying and the statistics present a dire picture for their life-chances if we don’t change this now.

    Child Welfare

    In Canada, Indigenous peoples make up 5% of the population and Indigenous youth make up 7% of the youth population. Nationally, Indigenous children make up 48% of all children in foster care – a number that is 3 times higher than during the height of residential schools. However, in Saskatchewan, an alarming more than 70% of children in provincial care are Indigenous and the numbers continue to increase. We know that less than half of those children will graduate from highschool and more likely to end up in youth corrections. The statistics also show that that Indigenous girls in foster care are 4 times more likely to be sexually abused; more likely to be targeted for human sex trafficking and are over-represented in murdered and missing Indigenous girls. The theft of our children into foster care does not just impact the children. Indigenous mothers who lose their children to foster care are more likely to die from heart disease and suicide.

    Justice System – Prison

    Canada has had the lowest crime rate since 1969 with a reduction of 34% since 1998. Yet Indigenous people make up more than 26% of those in federal prisons and Indigenous women make up 34%. Saskatchewan’s numbers are frightening. Over 76% of admissions to Saskatchewan prisons are Indigenous – the highest rates in Canada. Nationally, 41% of youth in corrections are Indigenous, with 51% being Indigenous girls. In Saskatchewan youth corrections, 92% are Indigenous boys and 98% are Indigenous girls. They have the highest youth incarceration rates in the entire country. More than 1/5 of Indigenous prisoners were in residential schools and 2/3 were in the child welfare system. It is important to remember that Indigenous peoples represent 1/3 of all suicides in prison and more than half of those who suffer in solitary confinement/segregation.

    Violence – State & Societal

    In 1996, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples noted that racism is rampant from police forces to the courts. Saskatchewan policing in particular has a long, violent history of racism against Indigenous peoples. In 2004, the Saskatchewan Commission on First Nations and Metis Peoples and Justice Reform found that racism in policing was a “major obstacle” in relations with First Nations. The well-known police practice of “Starlight Tours” where police detain and drive Indigenous men to the outskirts of town where they freeze to death doesn’t seem to have ended with the Neil Stonechild inquiry. Indigenous women are often targeted with sexualized violence – including from police. The Human Rights Watch report from 2017 documented instances of excessive use of force, abusive strip searches and other sexual harassment against Indigenous women. The statistics also show that Saskatchewan has the highest rate of police involved deaths (beatings, chokings, shootings) of Indigenous peoples (62.5%).

    The RCMP report into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls showed that nationally Indigenous women and girls make up 16% of those murdered, but in Saskatchewan, that number jumps to 55%. Societal violence comes from the places most people do not suspect: priests, farmers, police, corrections, doctors, lawyers, judges, social workers, teachers, and foster parents. Very few of those who sexually violate or murder Indigenous women and girls are serial killers. The statistics also show they are less likely to be murdered by their spouse than Canadian women. The high level of impunity (non-conviction) for those perpetrators in society who continue to commit violence against Indigenous peoples is exacerbated by the many reports that document how police fail to protect Indigenous peoples or properly investigate their cases.

    We have a real crisis in Saskatchewan. What has been done isn’t working. We need a new approach – one that is led by First Nations and their experts and advocates. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the campers at the Justice for Our Stolen Children Camp who have sacrificed their time and energy, and risked police arrest and jail, to keep the light on this crisis. We don’t want to lose any more of our children and we want to bring the rest of our children who are in foster care, corrections, trapped by human traffickers, or missing – back home. Bring our children home.

    In memory of all those precious lives those and sadly, too many to name:

    Neil Stonechild, Leo Lachance, William Kakakaway, Leonard Paul John, Colten Boushie

    Nadine Machiskinic, Shelley Napope, Melanie Dawn Geddes, Amber Redman, Danita Bigeagle

    Haven Dubois, Brandon-Bee Ironchild, Evander Lee Daniels

    Please see my YouTube video that I have created in support of the Justice for Our Stolen Children Camp:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mYjduyt4Jw

  • “No Natives” Allowed: How Canada Breeds Racism and Fear

    On the one hand, I cannot believe that we as Indigenous peoples are still subjected to such overt racism on a such a frequent basis. On the other hand, I am not surprised, given that this kind of anti-First Nation sentiment is still out there in more hidden forms also known as systemic racism. I guess the best way to describe my feelings is that I sometimes feel overwhelmed that these perverse ideologies don’t just come from a few wackos, but comes from all elements in society – individuals, business, professionals, academics, politicians, and government.

    I received this picture from people on Facebook today who wanted to bring this issue to the attention of the public and the police. This picture is allegedly of a restaurant in Lakefield, Ontario. It was reported in the Toronto Sun that the police are investigating this as a hate crime. Here is the link to that story: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/16/17638211.html If this incident actually happened (and everyone is innocent until proven guilty), it is a symptom of how Indigenous peoples are portrayed generally in our society – in schools, the media and by federal and provincial governments. Even if this one turns out to all a big misunderstanding, there used to be many similar signs like this, just for Aboriginal people:

    I am less surprised by this kind of overt racism from members of small communities, when I hear famous people, like Kevin O’Leary (who appears on Dragon’s Den and CBC News’ Lang & O”Leary show). You will recall, that Kevin O’Leary called his co-host an “Indian giver” and when she rebuked him for such barbaric language, he repeated the phrase and defended his use of it. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/950584–cbc-ombud-slams-o-leary-s-offensive-on-air-comment This comment was made on Canada’s CBC News during prime time when a large number of Canadians would be watching. It happened LAST October 2010 and not a word of apology was issued by O’Leary or CBC. It wasn’t until 5 months later and AFTER the CBC Ombudsperson had publicly released their decision that the comment was wrong and so was CBC for not immediately addressing it – that we heard any mention of an apology. Specifically, the Ombudsperson stated: “In this instance, the preferred course would have been for O’Leary not only to privately recognize the fault of his ways but to publicly express remorse, either that night or the next night or soon after. But if he wasn’t going to publicly apologize, the program could have done something further to make amends. Its obligation goes beyond the complainant to the viewers in order to uphold the broader reputation of the program and CBC itself.” http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/pdf/2011-03-02-Jamieson.pdf This is obviously the point I am getting at about the effect such comments have, especially when left for many months to fester. The problem is that Indigenous peoples are getting it from all sides and by not acting to address these issues, it’s no wonder society thinks this is acceptable. Scripted apologies forced by legal decisions, litigation or threat of job loss are hardly sincere or even effective at undoing the damage caused. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/pundit+censured+offensive+exchange/4399119/story.html You will recall on the very same day that Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a public apology on behalf of all Canadians for the physical, sexual, and other abuses committed in residential schools, his conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre, had the nerve to question the compensation being given to survivors and asked whether it was “value for money”. I still feel nauseated when I read his comments. As if there is any monetary amount that could ever compensate for sexual abuse like rape, physical abuse like beatings, neglect that resulted in many deaths and the loss of culture, language and hope. http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/06/11/pierre-poilievre-shows-his-empathy-for-residential-school-survivors/ Keep in mind, Canada has compensated Japanese families for ripping them from their homes and putting them in camps during the war. The Chinese were also compensated for the head tax that was imposed on them to prevent them from immigrating to Canada. While the Supreme Court of Canada has specifically said that discrimination is not “a race to the bottom” (i.e. who is more discriminated against), they have said that often times Aboriginal peoples are dually disadvantaged on mulitple levels not necessarily experienced by other groups. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii687/1999canlii687.pdf Indigenous peoples suffered in residential schools for their entire childhoods and many others suffer the deadly inter-generational effects for communities all over the country which could take generations to address. How could the residential school compensation be less “value for money” than another group’s? Somehow, conservatives and others find a way to insert doubt and blame into the conversation when it is about Indigenous peoples. We all know about Senator Patrick Brazeau who uses the Senate chambers, resources, and logo to film carefully worded videos meant to portray First Nations as lazy and corrupt. In fact, on my previous blogs, I have highlighted his negative, stereotypes of First Nations and how in one show he even accused First Nations as hubs of “illegal activity”. This all coming from an individual who claims to be First Nations – imagine the powerful effect this would have on the views and opinions of non-Aboriginal peoples. That brings us to Minister of Indian Affairs, John Duncan. As you know from my previous blogs, I am no fan of Minister Duncan given his past racist comments about Indigenous peoples and their rights. https://pampalmater.com/2010/09/indian-agents-are-back-pm-new-indian.html Duncan was very much opposed to Aboriginal and treaty rights to fish, ignored their constitutional protection, and characterized them as “race-based”. http://www.mediaindigena.com/rickharp/issues-and-politics/indian-affairs-minister-john-duncan-menacing-or-muzzled More recently, however, Minister Duncan appeared before the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples regarding Bill S-11, the bill dealing with safe drinking water on First Nations. Senators have commented that all witnesses, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike, including water experts and legal experts all agree that this Act is so bad that even amendments could not save it. On March 8, 2011, Minister Duncan, expressing his frustration, commented that:

    “This committee has been receiving a very one-sided view on the way things are going.  We’ve actually been working very collaboratively especially with the Treaty 6, 7 and 8 group from Alberta….  You’re correct in concluding that everyone does not have the same view.  But I think this committee has managed to somehow capture a prevalence of negative views.  Sometimes that’s what happens.  It’s easier  in First Nation politics to be aggressively  contrary to something than it is to be supportive.  And that’s an observation that I will make and stand behind and it’s something I hope we can change”

    How could we as Indigenous peoples NOT be, at the very least, “agressively contrary” to the sexual abuse in residential schools, the outlawing of our cultures, the legislated exclusion of our women and children from our Nations, the removal of thousands of our children to child welfare agencies, the early deaths of our people from extreme poverty, the theft of our traditional lands and resources,  and the political and legal destruction of our laws, governments and communities? In other countries, this can and has resulted in revolutions. While I can’t say for sure what was going on in his head, it certainly appears to me that Minister Duncan gave his comment some thought before he said it as he followed up his comment with confirmation that he will stand behind it. This is not dissimilar to Kevin O”Leary standing beside his racist remarks, or Tom Flanagan standing beside his comments. I have always been told to believe people when they tell you who they really are – so I am listening. Aside from showing a pre-disposition to having racist views about Indigenous peoples, Minister Duncan’s negative stereotyping of First Nations does little to suggest his views have evolved over time. Looking at it from society’s point of view, if the Minister of Indian Affairs, who is supposed to be an advocate and champion for Aboriginal peoples in Canada has such hostile, negative views about Aboriginal peoples, why would we expect society to be any better? It is almost as if Minister Duncan is sickened to even have to work on this portfolio – which begs the question – why the heck does he?

    Sadly, comments by our top law enforcement agencies about Indigenous peoples do not fair any better. Official documents in the Canadian Military have characterized Mohawks as insurgents or terrorists. This not only false and offensive, it also serves to spread fear and distrust amongst non-Indigenous society. My children’s own friends ask questions about whether we are “terrorists”.

    http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/military-apologizing-to-mohawks/16ahlo0dq

    The damage has been done. No carefully worded apology will be able to undo the damage to Indigenous peoples and especially the Mohawk in this case. Canadians are more likely to see us as terrorists than the First Peoples of this country. If there was any doubt, just ask Christy Blatchford and TVO, who portrayed Mohawks in Six Nations as lawless and out of control: https://pampalmater.com/2011/01/update-tvo-agenda-botches-show-on.html

    Yet, despite the military’s indication in 2010 that they would be offering a very carefully worded apology, one remains to be given. Many months later and not a single word has been issued. It makes me wonder what kind of priority they made of the apology. Instead, there seems to be a universal default that these comments will be allowed to be said, defended, repeated, and given time to sink in before any superficial apology is offered. We deserve more than this anti-First Nation propaganda on our own homelands.  http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Military+apologize+Mohawk+Warriors/4015748/story.html

    Add to this the list of right-wing academics who promote the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples in various forms like Tom Flanagan, Dale Gibson, Frances Widdowson, and Alan Cairns, etc. This is reinforced by some teachers in schools which either don’t teach their students about Aboriginal peoples, do so in a minimal way or teach some of these same stereotypes. This is further reinforced by the various media outlets who make millions off portraying First Nations as lazy, crooked, criminals and movies or TV shows which promote an archetype of Indians that few today can live up to – the “good” version or the “bad” version.

    This is an old battle, one that we have been fighting since contact. While many in society would like to believe that old colonial ideologies about Indigenous peoples have long waned, the opposite is true. Just take a peek at some of the vile comments posted on online media stories about Indigenous peoples and you’ll see what I mean. Not only do Indigenous peoples face this battle on multiple fronts and on a daily basis, but they must also face the battle within themselves, Every day we face the battle to prove we are worthy as human beings. Too often this battle is lost and we lose our young people to suicide, violent deaths, and early deaths from diseases, malnutrition, and lack of housing caused by extreme poverty.

    I’d like to point out that the Criminal Code of Canada specifically prohibits hate crimes (section 319) which provides that public statements made against an identifiable group that incites violence against that group is a CRIME. Similarly, section 318 specifically probihits GENOCIDE – which is the killing of an identifiable group, or creating lufe conditions would bring about that group’s physical destruction. Sounds like an option, but the tricky part is you have to get the Attorney General to agree to bring these charges. So, back to the drawing board…while assimilation, racism, theft of our lands, resources and souls continues…

    Those of us who manage to wake up every day and win this internal battle (at least enough to keep trudging along), must then engage in the political and legal battle for our basic human rights and freedoms, to protect our cultures and identities for future generations, as well as the key issues like sovereignty, Aboriginal and treaty rights, land rights and so on. We have to know more than anyone else about our issues, we have to work harder than anyone else, and we have to find ways to do so politely and with smiles on our faces lest we be characterized as “agressively contrary” or “terrorists”. So the next time you hear someone say how easy First Nations have it; how they get everything for free; or how lazy they all are, why don’t you suggest they live with Indigenous peoples for a while and see what the “free & easy” life is really like? Or perhaps they’d like to discuss the subject with those of us who fight in this battle 24-7? It is time Canada accepted the fact that we will not be assimilated. Whether you call it “agressively contrary”, “insurgency” or “criminal” – we will continue to protect our cultures and identites for future generations. If only Canadians could leave their minds open long enough to see the incredible strength of our diverse peoples, the beauty of our rich cultures and traditions, the unique ties we have to our territories, or the incredible pride we have in our identities – then they would see why we refuse to give it up.

  • The Country of Harper: Are We Moving Towards an Autocracy?

    I am absolutely stunned by what has been happening in politics lately. Canada used to pride itself in being a democracy, but in recent years under the Conservative government, we have moved further and further away from a real democracy that represents the voice of the people, and have moved closer and closer to an autocracy. An autocracy is a form of government where one person possesses unlimited power. Leaders who are autocrats are sometimes referred to as dictators or tyrants. Some of you who are political scientists or armchair critics might be thinking that Canada is not really an autocracy because we have a Constitution (which is the supreme law of the land), an independent judiciary and free elections. That is absolutely true. Technically, Canada is set up as a democracy – rule by the people. However, what is happening in practice differs a great deal from how things are SUPPOSED to work. Some key events have made me question where we are headed. My fear is that we may be repeating history under the guise of politics. Don’t forget, some of the worst of tyrants and dictators started out as something else – passionate leaders for a cause which they believed to be “good”. Just to be absolutely clear – I am not a member of any political party – Liberal, Conservative, or NDP. Nor am I a member of any other federal party of which, you might be surprised to know, there are quite a few: http://www.altstuff.com/federal.htm So this isn’t an election smear campaign, promo ad for the liberals, or pro-NDP blog. This blog represents my thoughts on what is happening based on all my knowledge, experience, education and most of all, my common sense. It is my personal opinion, and I am entitled by law to exercise my freedom of expression and share my personal views with the world. This freedom, as with other rights, are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html  2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. As integral as these ideals are to our democratic society, under the Harper regime (or whatever it is), these rights are slowly but surely being eroded. I have to worry now, whether my personal views and opinions are safe from unreasonable and arbitrary interference, when I hear reports that the government has contracted private companies to monitor our Facebook postings and other social media sites: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20100523/government-online-forums-100523/ Seriously? I knew there were some looney-toons sending me messages, but this is too much. Who is Canada to invade our social spaces, where we enjoy the freedom to discuss what we want, and add what THEY view to be the CORRECT information in our discussions? What about politics is correct – or is there only one way of thinking now? This sounds eerily close to other countries which do not allow dissent or who control social media communication. Is this where Canada is headed? You may have also heard the latest about Prime Minister Harper changing the name of our Canadian Government to the “Harper Government”. I thought it was a joke at first, but no, this is serious: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/grit-ads-blast-harper-government-rebrand-20110304-142800-929.html How could a democracy, which is truly governed by the people, have the name of the people’s government changed to reflect a single leader’s name without consulting with the people? Canada is not the sum total of Stephen Harper (thank goodness), so how on earth could he be so egotistical to think Canadians would agree to this? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/tories-rebrand-govt-canada-harper-govt-expert-says-20110303-125237-072.html Our government is supposed to represent all of its people – not a single leader. Nothing good can come from boiling down our government to one person – we have seen what happens when individual leaders think they are all powerful. I can understand the layman’s use of that kind of terminology, as the media does it all the time. However, they do so as a short-cut to saying what the Conservatives, in general, are doing as opposed to saying Canada is Harper. In the United States of America, the media often refers to the Obama administration, but you NEVER hear the government refer to itself as the United States of Obama. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-accused-of-shaping-language-for-political-ends/article1929548/ What makes this all the more suspicious is that they did this all in great secrecy. We might not even know this change has happened but for a bureaucrat “inadvertently” bringing the news to light. This is very characteristic of how the “Harper” government works. When the “Harper” government tried to defend itself by saying that Chretien used to do the same thing, lifelong politicians quickly pointed out that this was not the case. “Mr. Chretien . . . had way too much respect for our public institutions to cheapen them the way Harper has and he didn’t have the political megalomania the way Harper has to ensure his likeness or name was stamped on everything the government does.” In fact, many long-time politicians have pointed out that this name change even violates the Federal Identity Program Policy: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12314&section=text One of the objectives of this policy is to help “project the Government of Canada as a coherent, unified administration“. This can’t be the case if a name is chosen which reflects only one person and is obviously partisan in nature. The policy goes on to state that “the “Canada” wordmark are applied wherever an activity of the federal government is to be made known in Canada and abroad“. This includes communications with other states. Similarly, the Communication Policy of the Government of Canada is designed to “Ensure that institutions of the Government of Canada are visible, accessible and accountable to the public they serve” and that key messages represent our diversity. There is nothing diverse about changing our government’s name to “Harper Government”. All this does is send the message that Canada is a one-man show: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/sipubs/comm/cph-fspc01-eng.asp#_Toc141192549 To put it simply, Canada is not now, nor has it ever been represented by one single autocrat, tyrant, or dictator, nor should it be in the future. Who is Harper to be so egotistical and ethnocentric to think that a white man could stand before the world and say that HE is Canada. How quickly he has forgotten the First Peoples of this Country and that our identity and rights are protected in the Supreme Law of Canada – the Constitution Act, 1982. I don’t see Harper’s name ANYWHERE in the Constitution. Perhaps we should change the name to the Aboriginal Peoples Government – maybe that would end Canada’s paternalistic hold over our communities and “re-brand” Canada in a more realistic way. After all, this is our territory. I think that every person who reads this blog should file an official complaint with the Treasury Board of Canada who is responsible for overseeing these rules and policies. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbs-sct/cmn/contact-eng.asp Then, take another 5 minutes and e-mail all MPs at the following addresses: To contact Liberal MPs – LIBMEM@parl.gc.ca To contact Bloc MPs – BQMEM@parl.gc.ca To contact Conservative MPs – CPCMEM@parl.gc.ca To contact NDP MPs – NDPMEM@parl.gc.ca I welcome any comments and feedback at palmater@indigenousnationhood.com

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

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

  • Bill C-3: Senate Considerations More About Blood "Purity" and "Benefits" than Equality

    This blog will serve as an update as to the current status of Bill C-3 – Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. It will also serve to highlight the disturbing considerations that are being made by Senators and the Minister of INAC in passing this bill. Here is the quick and dirty of the Bill’s treatment to date: (1) Bill C-3 passed first and second reading in the House; (2) It was studied by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) where numerous Aboriginal witnesses testified that it did not address all gender discrimination or even that found in McIvor’s case; (3) I appeared as a witness and gave oral and written testimony against the Bill; (4) The AAON voted on amendments to make the Bill more inclusive (at this point the Liberals, NDP and Bloc were all supporting the Aboriginal witnesses); (5) These amendments were ruled out of scope; (6) The House passed a new amendment to include back in the bill, section 9 which tries to insulate Canada from liability; (7) The bill passed through the House (the Liberals, NDP and Bloc all flip-flopped and sided with conservatives); (8) The bill was sent to Senate for consideration and passed first and second reading quickly; (9) It was sent to Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights to study; (10) Only two days were set aside to hear a small list of witnesses (Nov.29, Dec.6); (11) I was invited by Senate to appear as witness and then disinvited at the last minute; (12) The bill passed through the clause by clause quickly. So that is where the Bill stands now. It will pass through both report stage and third reading fairly quickly as the conservatives are the majority in the Senate and we have seen what they will do when they like or dislike a bill. This bill will then have to receive Royal Assent and the Order in Council process takes about 6 weeks or so. Therefore, I fully expect that this Bill will become law before the court imposed deadline in January of 2011. So that is the technical stuff. I have written previous blogs about my concerns about this bill, but I will summarize the main issues here: (1) The new section 6(1)(c.1) will create a new form of discrimination between those with children and those without. Under this section, the only people entitled to section 6(1)(c.1) status are those currently registered under section 6(2) who have non-status Indian children. Anyone with status children or no children will not get the gender remedy. (2) This bill does not address all gender inequality in the Indian Act. Canada argues it only addressed the inequality between double mother clause reinstatees and section 12(1)(b) reinstatees in the McIvor appeal case. Unfortunately, it does not even do that. The descendants of Indian men will still have better status than the descendants of Indian women. (3) Canada has chosen to try to insulate itself from liability for the gender discrimination it imposed on the descendants of Indian women in section 9 of the bill. Indian women and their descendants will be the only group in Canada who have been discriminated against and for whom Canada refuses to allow them a Charter remedy. There are many, many other concerns I have about the Bill, but anyone can read my past blogs to find out more. As you may have gathered from other blogs I have written on Aboriginal political issues, I am concerned about our National Aboriginal Organizations (NAO’s) like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) actions on this issue. These NAO’s all claim to represent some segment of the Aboriginal population in Canada, but their recent flip-flops should be cause for great concern by us grass roots folks. Even the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) a non-political organization has weighed in. First of all, the Senate only had two half-days of hearings and only heard from a handful of witnesses, most of whom were political in nature, compared to the AAON who had 6 days of hearings and heard from numerous witnesses with various expertise on the subject matter. Several witnesses, including myself were officially invited to appear before the Senate on Bill C-3 but were later disinvited at the last possible moment. You will remember that in the House, all of the Aboriginal witnesses were unanimous in their opposition to Bill C-3 as it was written – yes, including CAP. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc all agreed that the Bill did NOT fully address either the gender discrimination found in McIvor or the larger gender discrimination issues. They all supported the amendment of this Bill to finally address gender discrimination once and for all. However, since Parliament recessed for the summer, CAP, NWAC, Native Women of Quebec and others all flip-flopped on their original positions and decided that “something was better than nothing” and supported the bill. When we all got back to business in the fall, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP all flip-flopped and said they would now support the bill out of concern for those who wanted to be registered as soon as possible. Keep in mind also that INAC has been saying all along that the NAO’s would ONLY receive funding for the joint process to discuss the other registration and band membership issues IF Bill C-3 passed. This means no money if the NAO’s did not play ball. The NAO’s are not what they used to be – although they were all born out of the Indian political struggles of the early 1900’s which culminated in the 1970’s in response to the White Paper, their leadership of late has been described as “co-opted”. Back then, the NAO’s stood for what was just and not what was “just” in the best interests of the organizations they headed. Now, their concerns over funding to staff their organizations far outweighs any remaining concerns for what is best for our people. It should be no surprise then that on Monday, Dec.6, 2010: (1) the CAP did not even appear as a witness on Bill C-3 in Senate; (2) the AFN testified that “the bill, with or without amendments must proceed“; (3) the NAFC’s main concern was to ask for money to train their staff and to be compensated for answering questions to their clients; (4) the NWAC said registering those under Bill C-3 would be acceptable to “our chiefs, our communities and our families“; Despite vigorous questioning from Senator Sandra Lovelace (the woman who took Canada to the UN on this issue and won) about the real issues at stake for Aboriginal peoples: full gender equality, the right to decide who we are, and compensation for discrimination, NONE of the NAO’s would back down from their support of the bill. This made Senator Patrick Brazeau’s job much easier. INAC Minister John Duncan’s testimony on Nov.29, 2010 seems confirm what is happening here: “the department has invited and received proposals from national Aboriginal organizations in preparation for the possible launch of a separate exploratory process on these broader issues. This will move forward if Bill C-3 is passed.” “With five different national Aboriginal organizations … the department will provide the appropriate funding for the process.” “the national Aboriginal organizations will be running the process.” Sharon McIvor’s testimony pointed out what is really happening here – we are being offered a joint process without any mandate or commitment for future changes in exchange for NOT addressing the full issue of gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Specifically she said: “what is being offered in exchange for the non-recognition of our basic human and equality rights… An exploratory process, so others – many of who will not be affected directly – have a say in whether our basic human and equality rights are recognized. To my mind, it is totally bizarre.” She also pointed out the disrespect of Justice Canada (DOJ) and INAC in dealing with her case. They keep referring to Sharon’s “hypothetical brother” to do comparisons on charts, but in actual fact her brothers are real, living human beings with families of their own. It was all because of Sharon’s quest to seek equality for Indian women and their descendants that her brothers even got registered and when they did, they all got better status than Sharon. How is that for irony? She also pointed out the very disturbing position our NAO’s have put us Indian women in – that we must fight this battle alone. Sharon explained the current situation very well: “The Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women’s Association of Canada, other groups, will get huge chunks of money. We women on the ground have done all of the groundwork. I can tell you I have done all of the work to get here. The Assembly of First Nations did not help me, and for the most part the Native Women’s Association of Canada did not help me, and CAPP did not help me. I brought it this far, and now they have all jumped on board and they said, okay, whatever little piece of legislation you want to put through because of the time frame, we agree with that. You can go ahead and do it, but give us the money. I am outraged, as you can tell. I am outraged about what has been going on.” She went on to explain that many, many descendants of Indian women will be missed in Bill C-3 including: anyone born pre-1951, and the illegitimate daughters of Indian men, children of status women who have unstated paternity. There are many more who will be missed. Gwen Brodsky who presented after Sharon made the point that gender equality in Canada is NOT something that should only be brought about incrementally – i.e. through small amendments gradually over time. It is a basic human right that requires immediate implementation. It has been over 150 years of legislated gender inequality for Indian women – how much longer should they wait? It cost Sharon over $250,000 and no one was there to help her. Discrimination is not a matter for debate or consultation – it simply needs to be remedied even if people want to continue discrimination. Despite all of this, it was more than apparent that racist and sexist stereotypes and ideologies are what ruled the ultimate decision to pass this Bill. Here are a few examples of the questions and considerations made during these meetings: (1) Senator Kochar to Sharon McIvor: “How far do you think your status can go?” “Senator Brazeau is my mentor when it comes to Indian Affairs, although I am more pure Indian than he is.” “If pure Indian marries a non-Indian… how far do you think you can take the status?” “Nevermind about gender equality.” (2) Senator Brazeau to Gwen Brodsky: “I think it is important to distinguish between a wish list… and the specific decision” (3) Minister Duncan to Senator Brazeau: “we probably would not be having any of this discussion if it were not for the fact that status confers certain benefits” “There has not been as much debate and discourse of this area of the Indian Act as there should be.” Seriously?? Has INAC not read all the studies, research, articles, theses, books and reports on the subject? What an irresponsible thing to say – but it serves to justify funding NAO’s to do more repetitive research. Canada denies that financial considerations are a main issue in their control of status when they appeared before the courts in McIvor, yet their own motivations are admittedly financial. Even the evidence at court showed that Canada’s interest in having a limited “1/4 blood” rule was primarily for financial reasons. Why is it that when men are registered under the Act, they are considered the true Indians, but when women want to be registered they are characterized as gold diggers? We are not in this for money – we are in this for our equality and the rights of our children and grandchildren. If anyone should be questioned about their financial interest, it is not Indian women and their excluded descendants who must fight these legal battles on their own and at their own cost. I think the grass roots people ought to be asking their NAO’s what the hell they think they are doing with the future of our children and grandchildren? No study, staff position or research project is worth the exclusion of even a single child from their birthright and community. I have been told that politics is about compromise and maybe I should give these NAO’s a break. If that is the case, then perhaps these NAO’s should get out of the business of politics and get back to the business of advocating for our people and standing up for what is just. Bill C-3 is a discriminatory piece of legislation that appeals to Canada’s desire to limit how much they have to share our resources with us; appeals to co-opted NAO’s who see dollar signs in the joint process; and appeals to those colonized Aboriginal peoples who care more about their own individual interests than that of their communities, Nations, and most importantly, the futures of their children’s children seven generations into the future. Shame on Canada and shame on AFN, NWAC, CAP, NAFC for buying in. I can only hope that the UN addresses Sharon McIvor’s long-standing fight for our rights.