Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: Native American

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

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

    CANADA’S INDIAN POLICY HASN’T CHANGED MUCH

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

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

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

    RECONCILIATION: THE GOAL IS THE SAME

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

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

    Genocide in Canada

    APOLOGIES VERSUS LAND BACK

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

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

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

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

    CANADA BREACHS ITS OWN “RULE OF LAW”

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

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

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

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

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

    #LANDBACK

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

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

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

  • 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).

  • Buy Native and Give Native All Year Long

    Buy Native and Give Native All Year Long

    (Treaty Truckhouse fundraiser [top left], Rez Famous Clothing [top right], Warrior Life Clothing [bottom left], Unist’ot’en fundraiser [bottom right])

    If you are anything like me, I need multiple lists to keep myself organized this time of year. With the holidays speeding towards us faster than we can keep up, I need a list for tasks to complete at work before we break for the holidays; a grocery list to prepare for multiple family feasts; and, of course, the holiday gift-giving list. Without these lists, I would certainly be doomed to rely on my brain, which is already overloaded with the 2019 work I have to complete and the giant to-do list for 2020. I find lists extremely helpful, as they keep me from impulse shopping and overspending. I also have another list, which is my giving list – a list that reminds me to share my privilege with others. The one thing these lists all have in common is that they are all focused on buying native and giving native all year long.

    Recently, Niigaan Sinclair, the award-winning Anishinabe columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press, wrote an article urging Manitobans and Canadians to buy Indigenous.

    https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/buy-indigenous-this-holiday-season-565799362.html

    He argues that it makes more sense to invest in Indigenous businesses that contribute to local economies, rather than the large US-owned box stores where billions of dollars flow to US corporate owners. This makes a great deal of sense. When you invest in First Nation businesses for example, you help First Nation economies, which in turn, help regional Canadian economies through their own spending and employment. Niigaan provided a list of various Indigenous businesses that offer everything from food, music and books; to clothing and jewellery. Who could ask for a better list of gift-giving options, than this list of Indigenous goods that are handmade and steeped in the rich cultures and traditions of local First Nations?

    This past summer, Sarain Fox, an Anishinabe television host, actress, model and activist shared with the Globe and Mail how she assembles her wardrobe from Indigenous-made products. 

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/style/article-activist-sarain-fox-assembles-a-wardrobe-of-indigenous-made-products/

    Sarain has always made lifting up others part of everything she does and giving a nod to her curated list of Indigenous artists and businesses is part of helping to promote them. She highlighted some of the Indigenous clothing, boots and purses she wears every day. Her goal is to celebrate Indigenous peoples every day – not just on holidays like Indigenous Peoples Day. A shout-out from someone with Sarain’s public profile helps promote Indigenous businesses and boost the Indigenous economy referenced by Niigaan. You can also find other curated lists of native owned businesses in Canada and the USA on websites like Beyond Buckskin:

    http://www.beyondbuckskin.com/p/buy-native.html

    I agree with them both. Buying native helps support local First Nation and Canadian economies and should be a focus all year round – not just during the holidays. I would also add that it is usually this time of year that we see public calls to support various groups and causes with donations. The holidays evoke in many people a moral obligation and desire to share their good fortune – big or small – with others to help address urgent individual needs and/or advance social justice more broadly. To my mind, this should never be about “charity” or holiday-based “good will”; but instead be about fulfilling our legal obligations to one another under the various treaties we signed to share the lands, resources and wealth. It is also about real reconciliation, which is about more than a celebration of native cultures, but also about individual responsibility to address past and ongoing injustices.

    To this end, there are various native groups and organizations to which you could direct your giving this holiday and throughout the new year ahead. There are small organizations working hard to advocate for the basic human rights of First Nations children in foster care or the safety of Indigenous women and girls. Similarly, there are smaller, more informal groups in need of supplies and/or legal assistance as they occupy First Nation territories to protect the lands, waters, plants and animals from the devastating environmental destruction of the extractive industry. In protecting water sources, forests and ecosystems from contamination, First Nations warriors are protecting the health and well-being of both Indigenous peoples and Canadians. We all have treaty and other obligations to contribute in some way to the protection of Turtle Island for future generations – and giving to native causes can be part of that.

    There are far too many native businesses and causes to note here, so what follows is a list of some of the ways that I buy native and give native all year round. While some of those on the Buy Native list are larger businesses, there are hundreds of individuals who sell their goods at pow wows and cultural events, as well as through social media outlets. I have purchased some of the best beaded earrings from artists who I spotted on Instagram. Similarly, while larger native organizations on the Give Native list are easier to find through their websites, don’t forget to scan your social media for smaller groups making call outs for urgently needed donations.

    BUY NATIVE:

    Online:

    Cheekbone Beauty was founded by Jennifer Harper and is an Indigenous owned, cruelty free cosmetic company. They offer high quality cosmetics and donate part of their profits to help fund education for Indigenous peoples. Their Warrior Women line of lipsticks include shades named after native women warriors – like Sarain Fox, Cindy Blackstock and me! I bought their most recent holiday collection, which includes my shade of lipstick – true warm red!

    https://cheekbonebeauty.ca/

    She Native is an Indigenous owned company that offers leather handbags and clothing that share Indigenous teachings and positive messaging. I have bought their t-shirts and hoodies and just love them! I really appreciate the positive messaging and celebration of Indigenous women.

    https://www.shenative.com/

    Tammy Beauvais Designs is another company that is 100% Indigenous owned and Tammy can be seen selling purses, ribbon skirts and native designed clothing for men and women all over Canada. One of my favorite things about pow wows is racing to find her stall to buy something new. One of my favorites is a beautiful white bomber jacket with native-inspired flowers all over it.

    https://tammybeauvais.com

    Nishiin Designs is a business I just recently found through social media. They are an Indigenous company that offers Anishinabe designed purses, clothing and accessories. I saw one of their purses on Instagram, fell in love with it and insta-ordered it!

    https://www.nishiin.ca/

    Shop in Store:

    Cedar Basket Gift Shop is located inside the Native Canadian Centre in downtown Toronto. They have a huge collection of artwork, crafts, household items, jewellery and moccasins handcrafted by Indigenous peoples. I especially love their baskets and beadwork. I have never been able to visit that store and leave without a gift for someone.

    https://ncct.on.ca/gift-shop/

    Teekca’s Aboriginal Boutique is a native-owned store at The Forks in Winnipeg that is well-known for its custom work. I had shirts and blazers specially tailored for my son who loves wearing his one-of-a-kind beaded suits to work.

    http://www.teekcasboutique.ca/en/home

    Rez Famous is a Mi’kmaw clothing company from back home in the Maritimes. I have their tees, hoodies, caps and everything I can get my hands on! You can find them at pow wows as well as on Facebook.

    https://www.facebook.com/rezfamousbrand/

    Warrior Life clothing is one of my own latest initiatives to help raise funds to keep my media completely independent. I use the proceeds to help pay for the costs of my Youtube channel, my Warrior Life podcast and my Indigenous Nationhood blog. It will also (hopefully) defray some of the costs for my second podcast set to be released in the new year.

    https://teespring.com/stores/warrior-life-2

    GIVE NATIVE:

    First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, headed by Dr. Cindy Blackstock, advocates strenuously for First Nations children, youth and families so they can grow up happy, healthy, safe and proud of who they are as First Nations. They brought a human rights complaint against Canada for historic and ongoing racial discrimination against First Nations children in foster care – and won. They continue their battle at the Tribunal and in the courts to force Canada to comply with the orders and finally end discrimination. There are so many ways you can help them: including “7 Free Ways to Help”; purchasing children’s educational books and calendars; and/or making donations.

    https://fncaringsociety.com/welcome

    Gitdimt’en Yintah Access is a group of First Nation peoples from the Wet’suwet’en Nation from Gitdimt’en clan who are governing their territory and protecting it from pipelines. They are true warriors who risk their safety and freedom by protecting lands and waters from the devastation of pipelines. They need our support in terms of supplies and donations for their legal fees. You can give one-time donations or ongoing monthly support.

    https://www.yintahaccess.com/

    Unist’ot’en Camp is another clan from the Wet’suwet’en Nation governing their territory to protect it from pipelines. You can support them through buying their merchandise, making a one time donation to their legal fund or offering monthly support for supplies for those protecting the lands and waters.

    http://unistoten.camp/support-us/donate/

    Treaty Truckhouse Legal Fund is a group of grassroots peoples including Mi’kmaw treaty rights holders, grandmothers and local allies who are standing united as water protectors of the Shubenacadie River in the Sipekne’katik District of Mi’kma’ki. They have been trying to protect the river for years and as a result need donations for legal expenses.

    https://ca.gofundme.com/f/720lt7c

    Tiny House Warriors is an initiative from the Secwepemc peoples whose mission is to: “stop the Trans Mountain pipeline from crossing unceded Secwepemc Territory.” The Secwepemc peoples are asserting their law and jurisdiction on their territory by building tiny houses all along the pipeline route in order to block access to this pipeline. Kanahus Manuel is one of the native women warriors who has placed her safety and freedom on the line to protect our collective futures. You can donate through their official Tiny House Warriors or Secwepemc Nation Youth Network Go Fund Me pages on their website.

    http://tinyhousewarriors.com/

    I hope you all have a safe and happy holiday with family and friends and I look forward to joining forces with you all in the New Year to advocate for justice on Turtle Island. PODCAST: Here is my extended Warrior Life podcast episode on this same issue: https://soundcloud.com/pampalmater/buy-native-give-native-all-year-long

  • 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

  • Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Universities and Colleges

    Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Universities and Colleges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not Reconciliation list:

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

    (2) Give a land acknowledgement;

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

    (4) Hang native art on campus;

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

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

    (7) Watch documentaries like Colonization Road;

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

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

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

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

    (12) Nominate a native person for an award;

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

    (14) Create an Aboriginal Advisory Committee on campus;

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

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

    (17) Invite native speakers into your classrooms.

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

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

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

    Real Reconciliation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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

  • True Test of Reconciliation: Respect the Indigenous Right to Say No

    True Test of Reconciliation: Respect the Indigenous Right to Say No

                                    (Image from Unistoten Camp) *This article was originally published in Canadian Dimension Magazine on May 15, 2018. Conflict is coming. There is no getting around that fact. Anyone who believes that reconciliation will be about blanket exercises, cultural awareness training, visiting a native exhibit at a museum or hanging native artwork in public office buildings doesn’t understand how we got here. Reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous peoples has never been about multiculturalism, diversity or inclusion. Reconciliation is not an affirmative-action program, nor is it about adding token Indigenous peoples to committees, advisory groups or board rooms. We cannot tokenize our way out of this mess that Canada created. Real reconciliation requires truth be exposed, justice be done to make amends and then Canada’s discriminatory laws, policies, practices and societal norms be reconciled with Indigenous rights, title, treaties, laws and jurisdiction. That process of truth, justice and reconciliation will be painful. It requires a radical change. Nothing less than the transfer of land, wealth and power to Indigenous peoples will set things right. The true test of reconciliation will be whether Canada respects the Indigenous right to say ‘no.’ Canadian courts have been issuing decisions about Aboriginal rights and title and treaty rights, sending the strong message to governments that they must obtain the consent of Indigenous peoples before taking actions or making decisions that will impact our lives. Governments have not listened. Canada’s failure to listen is one of the reasons why Indigenous peoples spent more than 25 years negotiating the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which guarantees the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent. Article 19 of UNDRIP provides: States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. Consent is a legal concept which can be defined as the voluntary acquiescence of one person to the proposal of another. In general, it is the right to say yes or no to something and/or put conditions on an agreement. Consent must be free from misrepresentations, deceptions, fraud or duress. This is a very basic right, but one which has been denied to Indigenous peoples since contact. Take for example, the actions of Indian agents and police, who used food rations to extort sex from Indigenous women and girls. In the context of being forced to live on reserves, not being allowed to leave the reserve and being dependent on food rations, what real choice would a young girl have? Similarly, when police officers or judges detain Indigenous women and girls, drive them to secluded locations and force them to perform sexual acts — there is no real consent when the threat of lethal force or arrest on false charges is ever-present. This is especially so given our knowledge of the number of assaults and deaths of our people in police custody. There was no consent when they stole our children and put them into residential schools, nor was there any consent when priests, nuns and others raped those children. There was no consent when doctors forcibly sterilized Indigenous women and girls — sometimes without their knowledge. Today, the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent has become the central issue in Canada’s reconciliation agenda. Justin Trudeau campaigned on the promise of implementing UNDRIP into law and respecting the right of Indigenous peoples to say no. When asked by APTN host Cheryl McKenzie whether no would mean no under his government, he responded “absolutely.” Another way of putting this is that Indigenous peoples could exercise their legal right to refuse to approve or authorize a project. This veto right stems from various sources, but primarily our inherent rights as Indigenous governments with our own laws and rules which govern our traditional territories. They may also come from specific Aboriginal rights, treaty rights and Aboriginal title. These rights are not only protected within our own Indigenous laws, but also section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982 and various international human rights laws, including UNDRIP. Yet, after Trudeau announced his latest idea to create a legislative framework to recognize Indigenous rights and avoid litigation, Justice Minister Raybould stated clearly that “consent doesn’t mean a veto” for Indigenous peoples. So, we are now back where we started. Canada has not yet reconciled its laws, policies or political positions to the fact that Indigenous peoples have the right to say no to development projects on our lands. This means that conflict will continue to grow over mining, forestry, hydraulic fracking and pipelines on Indigenous lands. The true test of reconciliation will inevitably play out on the ground, like it did in Oka, Ipperwash, Gustafsen Lake, Esgenoopetitj (Burnt Church) and Elsipogtog. Will Canada force the Kinder Morgan pipeline to go ahead against the will of British Columbia and First Nations? Will Canada isolate and exclude First Nations who do not subscribe to the extinguishment requirements of Canada’s land-claims process? What will happen to First Nations who stop provincial social workers and police officers from entering their reserves to steal more children into foster care? This will be the real test of our inherent right to say no. Canada will only truly give effect to reconciliation when Indigenous peoples have the right to say no — no to discriminatory government laws and policies; no to federal and provincial control over our Nations; no to racism from society, industry and government; no to sexualized violence, abuse and trafficking; no to theft of our children into foster care and the imprisonment of our peoples; no to the ongoing theft of our lands and resources; and no to the contamination and destruction of our lands, waters, plants, animals, birds and fish. The right to say no is the core of any future relationship with the Canadian state and its citizens. It’s a basic right — one which is grounded in our sovereignty as individuals and Nations to decide for ourselves the life we wish to live. Canada has made it clear we have no right to say no, only an obligation to say yes. First Nations leaders and citizens should not wait to see how this plays out in court – they should assert and defend their right to say no now. *This article was originally published in Canadian Dimension Magazine on May 15, 2018 at this link: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/true-test-of-reconciliation-respect-the-indigenous-right-to-say-no

  • 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