Tag: sovereignty

Assembly of First Nations election a battle for sovereignty

*This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on July 18, 2018.

The Assembly of First Nations will hold its election for national chief on July 25 in Vancouver. Only the chiefs of the 634-plus First Nations are eligible to vote but most chiefs’ assemblies see less than half of those attend, and of those, many are proxies and not actual chiefs.

While elections for prime minister, premier and even mayors attract nightly political commentary, analysis and predictions in the months and weeks prior to their elections, there is generally very little commentary about the AFN election outside of Indigenous media like APTN, Windspeaker or smaller Indigenous political blogs. Yet, what is at stake in this election for First Nations should be of great concern to Canadians.

This election feels more like a boiling point – a critical juncture spurred by the growing discontent of the AFN that was apparent in the last three AFN elections for National Chief. The outcome of this election could change everything for the better or the worse and Canadians will be impacted either way.

The colonial reality of First Nations impoverished through the dispossession of lands and resources, together with an aggressive and unrelenting assimilation policy, forces leaders to make hard decisions in order to provide relief for their people. Their own local elections depend on whether houses are built on reserve to relieve the crisis-level over-crowding and homelessness or whether there is access to safe drinking water and food to keep their children out of foster care.

The focus of local First Nation elections is often based on life and death issues – a far cry from federal or provincial elections which tend to focus on the best interests of the middle class, tax relief or international trade. The AFN is well aware of this dynamic in First Nations and uses the fear of losing critically needed social programs and services as a means to garner support for federal policies – which in turn equate to more money for the AFN itself. While everyone is aware of this dynamic, the need to provide for First Nation citizens is often paramount.

Historically, First Nation leaders addressed their concerns privately, but the AFN’s drastic departure from its original purpose as an advocacy organization risks the very rights of First Nations, thus requiring the very public pushback we have seen in recent years.

What is happening both before our eyes and behind closed doors is an epic battle to protect First Nation sovereignty, lands and cultures. It is a battle that seeks to frame reconciliation as more than the beads and trinkets offered by the Trudeau government and one which aligns more with First Nation constitutional and international rights.

This election will be a contest between those who accept the federal government’s legislative framework agenda in exchange for relatively minor (but desperately-needed) funding increases to programs and services versus those who reject it, and demand the return of some of their lands, a share in their natural resources, and the protection of their sovereignty and jurisdiction. Either path will result in significant consequences for First Nations. But make no mistake – there will be government retaliation if the election choice is real reconciliation.

Sadly, this is not a battle of their own making. Most of the divisions amongst First Nations have been created and maintained by federal bureaucrats, who have maintained their vise-like grip on the so-called “Indian agenda”. Even the first few attempts at national political organizing among First Nations after WWI and WWII were defeated by government interference.

While the National Indian Brotherhood started out strong in defense of core First Nation rights and title, more recent years as the re-named Assembly of First Nations have seen a drastic decline in advocacy and a corresponding increase in the support of federal agendas. While most of the federal pressure occurs behind the scenes, the previous Conservative government wielded social program funding and federal legislative power as a weapon to bludgeon any attempt to advocate for First Nation rights. Former Prime Minister Harper’s government enacted a historic amount of legislation against the will of First Nations and even threatened to cut funding for “rogue chiefs” who dared challenge their legislative agenda of increased federal control over First Nations.

While Trudeau was elected on a promise to repeal all of Harper’s legislation, he hasn’t done so – nor will he ever. He has his own legislative agenda designed to build upon Harper’s increased legislative control of First Nation governments by also limiting the scope and content of First Nation constitutional rights and powers once-and-for-all.

The Trudeau government seeks to define and limit the scope of First Nation rights and powers under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 in federal legislation under the guise of reconciliation. Therein lies the Trojan Horse of Trudeau’s brand of reconciliation. Trudeau’s reconciliation, while flowery and tearful, will result in the legal assimilation of First Nations into the body politic. Something his father, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, tried to do with the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy designed to get rid of Indian status, reserves and treaty rights.

Real reconciliation – which is about addressing the wrongs of both the past and the present – requires the transfer of lands and resources back to First Nations, the sharing of the wealth made in First Nation territories and the full recognition of First Nation sovereignty and jurisdiction (the right to be self-determining). However, most Chiefs are acutely aware that although this is the path that most honours our ancestors and coincides with our rights; it is also the path with the most severe consquences. The path of retaliatory reconciliation has always attracted the full force of Canadian law enforcement and military power.

When the Mi’kmaw Nation at Listuguj tried to manage their own fishery in the 1980’s, they were brutally beaten and arrested by the Surete du Quebec (SQ) police. When the Mohawks of Kanesetake tried to protect their traditional territory and burial grounds from a golf course in 1990, the SQ, RCMP and military laid siege to their territory for months.

In 1995, an unarmed land defender named Dudley George was killed by Ontario police for protecting his reserve lands at Ipperwash. In the same year, the RCMP launched the largest attack on ever on a civilian population at Gustafsen Lake – all to prevent a small group of sun dancers from performing their ceremonies on so-called Crown lands.

Even once the Mi’kmaw Nation at Esgenoopetitj (Burnt Church) had proven their treaty right to fish at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999, the RCMP and DFO used brutal force to stop the Mi’kmaw from fishing. Hundreds of RCMP SWAT forces were called out to suppress the peaceful resistance of the Mi’kmaw Nation at Elsipogtog to hydro-fracking on traditional lands.

Sadly, Canada’s vision of reconciliation only works if First Nations don’t assert their rights. First Nations are more than welcome to enjoy their pow-wows, re-name streets in their languages or hang their art in public spaces, as acts of multi-culturalism. But when it comes to asserting inherent, treaty or constitutional Aboriginal rights and land title – that is where Trudeau’s vision of reconciliation breaks down. One need only look at the arrests related to protests against the Trudeau/Kinder Morgan Pipeline to know where real reconciliation is headed.

Canadians should be very concerned about the actions of their governments towards reconciliation and what this AFN election means for the safety and well-being of Indigenous peoples moving forward. Afterall, as beneficiaries of the treaties, Canadians have a role to play in addressing historic and ongoing wrongs.

There is no way to sugar coat what is at stake in this AFN election. A vote for Perry Bellegarde is a vote down the rabbit hole of assimilation that looks eerily like a pipeline. A vote for real reconciliation means First Nations will have to brace for retaliatory impact – but this is the only path that will protect our rights from voluntary erasure.

Full disclosure: I was the runner-up candidate in the AFN election 2012 to the former incumbent National Chief Shawn Atleo.

* The link to the original article published in The Lawyer’s Daily:

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/6951/assembly-of-first-nations-election-a-battle-for-sovereignty-pamela-palmater?category=columnists

Postscript:

I would like to refer you all to two very good articles written by Indigenous commentators on the AFN election. Both Niigaan and Doug are excellent writers and have a great deal of insight into First Nation political issues.

(1) “National chief election matters” written by Niigaan Sinclair for the Winnipeg Free Press on July 7, 2018:

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/national-chief-election-matters-487557421.html

(2) “Changes needed to AFN structure” written by Doug Cuthand for the Saskatoon StarPhoenix on July 14, 2018:

https://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/cuthand-changes-needed-to-afn-structure Please also see my related videos on my Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI3-Vc01InQ&t=5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur6FO3Ce8ww&t=12s

Here is my related Youtube video that provides some basic analysis of the federal legislative framework: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Z3579b20c&t=2s

July 18, 2018

PM Trudeau’s Nation to Nation Relationship Disppeared with Empty Budget Promises

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau won the hearts of many Canadians by finally getting rid of Stephen Harper and his decade of oppression, violation of civil rights and vilification of First Nations. Most breathed a sigh of relief on October 20^th, 2015 when newly elected Trudeau talked about changing everything in Canada. He gave moving speeches about Canada’s shameful history with Indigenous peoples and committed to implementing all the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Trudeau promised to start this process by implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and respecting the right of First Nations to say no to development on their territories. Most significant were his promises to renew the nation to nation relationship between Canada and First Nations which would be guided by the spirit and intent of treaties and that respected constitutionally-protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, inherent rights and First Nation jurisdictions. Today’s budget saw these promises evaporate into thin air only to be replaced by an under-funded program and service agenda.

Today is a very difficult day for many Canadians. They are being asked to celebrate a budget which is being promoted as “historic” not just by Trudeau and the majority of journalists and commentators in main stream media, but even by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Perry Bellegarde. Canadians are faced with two major obstacles to understanding this budget: (1) trying to figure out which numbers are accurate and (2) assessing those numbers in their proper context. First, it’s important to note that Trudeau’s budget plays a shell game on the actual funding commitment during his 4 year (now 3.5 year) mandate. As we all know, monies promised for future mandates are not monies at all. This budget promised $8.4 billion to First Nations, but is in fact, less than $5.3 billion.

ITEM	BUDGET 2016	ACTUAL $ (within mandate)	BUDGET vs ACTUAL
TOTAL	$8.4B	$5.3B	-$3.10B
First Nation Education	$2.6B	$1.15B	-$1.45B
FN Infrastructure	$3.5B	$2.44B	-$1.06B
Other Programs	$1.1B	$706M	-$705M

So, in actual fact, Trudeau is only offering $5.3 billion in the next 3 budget years. The $2.6 billion he promised First Nations is really only $1.15B. He failed to deliver on his own election promise to First Nations. Now, he made sure to blame it on the Conservatives prior to the budget being released, but the failure is ultimately his. Still, without the proper context, many Canadians may think that billions of dollars is a lot of money. The chart below takes only a few examples and shows just how abysmally small this “historic” budget is in reality.

ITEM	NEED	BUDGET	NEED vs Budget
FN Housing on Reserve	$20B	$550M	-$19.45B
FN Water & sewer	$18B	$618M	-$15.4B
FN Education k-12	$20B	$1.15B	-$18.85B
Indigenous Languages	$8B	$5M	-$7.95B
National Inquiry MMIW	$100M	$40M	-$60M

Where did I come with the $20 billion for First Nation housing? Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)’s own internal report noted that the housing needs for the 63 First Nations in Manitoba would cost $2 billion. Since Manitoba First Nations represent only 10% of all First Nations, the national cost to address the housing crisis would be closer to $20 billion give or take a few dollars. In First Nation education, the 2% funding cap imposed by the former Liberal government created a cumulative deficit of over $20 billion. This means First Nations are more than $20 billion behind the starting line when it comes to infrastructure (schools), staff, training, materials, curriculum development, etc. That doesn’t include extra costs for post-secondary education which has created a waiting list of thousands of First Nation students. Yet, there was no budget line for post-secondary education – instead there was only a promise that Trudeau’s government would work with students, parents, educators and Indigenous groups to “explore” future options.

First Nation water and sewer should have been an easy budget line to address since there are already independent studies on what the actual costs are to address the crisis. The last report said it would cost almost $6 billion to fix the current water and sewer stock with an additional $2 billion for operation and maintenance needed over the next 4 years. Add to this a conservative estimate of $10 billion to add new water and sewer infrastructure that will be needed to service all the new houses needed in First Nations and you get a rough number of $18 billion. As anyone knows, the longer houses, water, sewer or any infrastructure system is left without maintenance and service, the worse it deteriorates, costing more to fix.

The commitment to protect and support Indigenous languages is one of the most shocking lines in this budget. The TRC report recommended substantial support to revive and protect Indigenous languages since they are only endangered because of Canada’s purposeful attempts to wipe out our languages in various assimilation policies including residential schools. I made a conservative estimate of the cost based on what is currently spent on protecting the French language in Canada – approximately $2.4 billion annually. Given that there are approximately 53 Indigenous languages spread out over 10 provinces and 3 territories, and given that the majority of these languages are in critical states nearing extinction, much more intervention would be needed up front to save them. Thus, $20 billion over 3 years would provide enough up front funding to create immersion programs on reserve, develop or expand curriculum, and hire and train staff. This is a massive undertaking which is no less important than protecting French language and is an essential part of real reconciliation.

It’s hard to believe that Trudeau would not at least ensure that the budget line for First Nation child and family services was consistent with the costs noted in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the child welfare case it lost. An increase of $200 million is needed annually just to get child welfare funding for First Nations children somewhere close to provincial levels of funding. Yet the budget shows a mere $71 million for next year and $99 the year after. These levels are nowhere near what are needed to address the crisis of First Nations children in foster care. In Manitoba alone, 90% of all kids in care are Indigenous with one baby taken away from its mother every day on average. Nationally, despite being on 4% of the population, Indigenous kids represent about half of all kids in care. Sadly, it looks like Cindy Blackstock’s fight for justice for our kids is not over.

Even the amount set aside for a national inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls pales in comparison to the costs of past inquiries. But we also have to realize that not all of the $5.3 billion is even going to go to First Nations. A large percentage is set to go to INAC, DFO, CMHC, NEB*, various political organizations and even former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. So once again, the bureaucracy will benefit first. Also, due to the length of this blog, it couldn’t include any analysis of the funding deficiencies for Indigenous peoples living off-reserve or the Inuit in the north – which would only compound the grossly under-funded budget presented. There are just too many budget items to go through in the space of one blog. However, there are some glaring omissions that have to be highlighted.

ITEM	BUDGET
Implement TRC Calls to Action	$0
Implement UNDRIP Provisions	$0
Negotiate Nation to Nation Relationship structure	$0
Implement Aboriginal & Treaty Rights	$0
Review and repeal all legislation enacted without consultation during Harper decade	$0

All of the above were unequivocal election promises that were re-affirmed after Trudeau’s successful election, in his speech to the Special Chiefs Assembly. He told APTN in one definitive word that First Nations’ right to veto a project on their land was absolute. His promise to change everything about the status quo that is currently killing our people was based on a renewed nation to nation relationship. Not only did he back away from supporting a First Nation’s right to say no to development, with this budget so too does the nation to nation relationship disappear. There are no real funds set aside to support this foundational promise and his words say it all.

Nowhere in the budget document does he refer to this “nation to nation” relationship, but instead refers to a renewed relationship with “Canada’s” Indigenous people aimed at “unifying Canada” and ensuring participation of Indigenous people in the economy. Throughout the document we have been downgraded from Nations to people, groups, communities and stakeholders. There is no mention of UNDRIP, TRC, or free informed and prior consent. There is no mention of the “sacred” constitutionally-protected Aboriginal and treaty rights in need of implementation. In fact, the nation to nation relationship based on free informed and prior consent turned into a “partnership” based on “consultation, and where appropriate, accommodation”. We are back to square one: letting courts determine the relationship. If you are the kind that is ok with endless “first steps” or “its a start” or believe “every dollar counts” or “something is better than nothing” or “we better take what we can get” – then I’m sure the budget works for you. However, I think our children deserve better than this. I think reconciliation envisions far more than this. If we don’t use our collective power as Indigenous Nations and allied Canadians to set this government back on track, we risk another lost decade and many more lost lives.

I think I can definitively say the honeymoon is over. Time to snap back to reality and stop being distracted by the shiny beads and trinkets contained in all the flowery speeches and smiling photo ops. The health of our planet and future generations depends on us taking our role as the real governing power seriously. We need to hold this government accountable for its commitments and hold ourselves accountable to act and speak honestly. This budget is crap and we all deserve better. *Note: INAC = Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada DFO = Department of Fisheries and Oceans CMHC = Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp NEB = National Energy Board

March 23, 2016

The Source of Our Power Has Always Been in our People – Not Voting in Federal Elections

Since Canada is now in full blown election mode, one issue that has been getting as much attention as the election itself is the question of whether or not First Nations should vote. Some advocates claim that if all “Aboriginal people” voted, they could influence as many as 50/338 ridings. Those against voting question those numbers but also challenge the claim that how we exercise our “power” is by voting. As for me, I choose not to vote and do not believe that we should rest our hope on a federal election any more than we should an Assembly of First Nations (AFN) election. The whole point of sovereignty is that Indigenous Nations must assert, live, and defend our sovereignty, jurisdiction, and right of self-determination – not vote for federal politicians to do that for us.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2011/04/to-vote-or-not-to-vote-question-of.html

I have had many lively debates with my family and friends about this issue and have heard a wide range of perspectives from Chiefs, elders, and community members all over Canada and the United States. There is certainly no consensus on the issue of voting in federal, provincial or state elections, nor should one expect there to be. As diverse, sovereign Nations, with distinct cultures, laws, values, governing systems, and traditions, we should expect as wide a variety of opinions as there would be at the United Nations on any given issue. I have never looked at the issue of voting as right or wrong – it’s just that we all have different views about how best to advocate for our people. I don’t think we should vote – others think we should. It’s not lateral violence, disrespect, or a radical boycott to believe firmly in sovereignty and choose to withdraw from oppressive Canadian processes.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-245-first-nations-voting-debate-spotting-lying-politicians-martin-short-on-robin-williams-and-more-1.3181885/first-nations-and-the-election-boycott-or-engage-1.3182006

I firmly believe that the vast majority of our people who vote in elections or run as Members of Parliament do so with the best of intentions. They want the best for our people and see voting as an opportunity to get rid of the worst government this country has ever seen, or as a chance to vote for someone who is promising change. I look at heroes like the former MP Elijiah Harper who stopped the Meech Lake Accord, or current MP Romeo Saganash who worked on a bill to make the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples l(UNDRIP) aw in Canada. Some of the most dedicated Indigenous activists whom I respect and admire also promote voting. This issue is not personal, nor should we allow it to be divisive. We owe it to each other to vehemently assert and defend strategic ways to advocate for our people – we just have different ideas about it.

I believe strongly in our sovereignty and right of self-determination as Indigenous Nations. The United Nations emphasizes that we not only have the right of self-determination, but that this includes the right to freely determine our political status. That means we choose how we want to relate to the Canadian state – as citizens, Nations or something else. It is internationally recognized law that citizens don’t sign treaties with their nation-states – treaties are reserved for Nation to Nation relations. Both the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (which is now constitutionally-protected) and the historical treaties recognize our status as Nations. When I think about how I want to be represented at the negotiation table with Canada, I would much rather engage in Nation to Nation negotiations than as a stakeholder, interest group, or ethnic minority Canadian citizen.

https://ricochet.media/en/534/first-nations-and-the-federal-election-an-exercise-in-self-termination

Being a Canadian citizen has historically meant giving up one’s Indigenous identity, culture, spirituality, traditions, customs, practices, connection to the land, community, and Nation. For a short period, this was a voluntary choice – but for the majority of history, this has been a choice made for us by often brutal means. Defending our lands in Mi’kmaw territory meant being scalped. Speaking our languages in residential schools meant beatings, starvation, and sometimes death. Giving life to new generations of our people meant forced sterilizations for our women or the theft of our children by the thousands into foster care. We were never advocating for citizenship and voting – we were advocating to protect our sovereignty, lands, and peoples. When my father fought in WWII, he did so as part of our treaty obligation to defend the lands and peoples – not to gain a vote in federal elections. Our treaties are with the Queen, not Harper.

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/aps/article/view/22225

Even once Canadian citizenship and voting rights were forced on us in the 1960’s, these rights did not afford us equal protection of Canadian law or justice. We have an ongoing crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women, over-representation of our people in prisons, the highest rate of children in care, and socio-economic indicators have declined over the last 25 years. Every federal and provincial government that has ever been in power has failed to address any of these urgent social issues, let alone recognize Aboriginal title or Aboriginal and treaty rights. Voting in the oppressor’s regime has, not surprisingly, failed to end oppression. Yet, those in power in Canada would have us believe that our power comes from voting for them – as if they represent our Nations.

http://www.theharperdecade.com/blog/2015/7/14/harpers-10-year-war-on-first-nations

This leads to a very important question about power. Where does our power as Indigenous Nations to make change come from? Is it federal recognition as “willing partners” or “good Indians”, Indian status cards, voter registration cards, or the election of an MP of your political choice? Surely if this was the source of our power, we really would have died off a long time ago – as was the original policy objective. But if I listen to all the elders, former activists, youth and leaders, I have to conclude that we never would have survived Canada’s elimination and assimilation policies if we did not have a firm commitment to our identities, cultures, and sovereignty as Nations. Even today, for those who vote – they are voting for which party will be our next Minister of Indian Affairs. The political players are really secondary considerations given the complex construct of laws and policies and economic structures that exist to deny us our basic human rights, let alone our Aboriginal and treaty rights.

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=899&Lang=en

Our greatest source of power has always been and always will be in our people. It is our collectives that have kept our Indigenous Nations strong, helped us survive these long dark winters under colonialism, and have offered the best hope of change for the future. The most exciting and transformative times in our recent history have not been tied to voting in federal elections, but were linked to our very public collective actions against Canadian processes. Take for example the nation-wide protests against the 1969 White Paper which set out to assimilate First Nations; the Constitution Express against the constitutional talks of the 1980’s which were set to exclude First Nations; and most recently with Idle No More against Harper’s suite of legislation intent on destroying the environment. The power of our people even inspired Canadians to work alongside us in solidarity to protect our lands and waters, and basic human rights. Unions, teachers, doctors, scientists, academics, lawyers, and other civil society groups have all joined forces to demand justice in Canada for all – including First Nations.

Canada’s last best hope at protecting our lands and waters for future generations rests with First Nations, not the other way around. First Nations voting in federal elections will not bring about the change we need. From the robo-call scandal, to changes in electoral rules to massive corporate infiltration of political parties – any concept of democracy in Canada is an illusion. Until the system is changed, voting in a corrupt system won’t bring about justice. That is why it is so important to this debate to focus on the facts – simply voting under a belief that it will solve these issues is not helpful. Some important clarifications:

(1) To say “If all Aboriginal people voted” is not possible or realistic. Not all Canadians vote, why would anyone assume all Indigenous people would?

(2) In Canada’s voting system you have to vote for an MP – you don’t actually vote for Prime Minister. This means, you would blindly vote for a political party, even if the MP him/herself was a crook. This has happened.

(3) Election laws have changed to make it harder to vote for First Nations.

(4) Electoral ridings have been changed for this election changing voter composition and number. Had the new ridings applied in last election, Conservatives would have gained 22 extra seats. Conservatives won the last election with 166 seats. For this election, they could lose 18 seats and still hold a majority government.

(5) There is no direct link between voting and the reduction in poor socio-economic outcomes for First Nations as claimed by National Chief Bellegarde. Harper’s Conservatives had some very prominent Indigenous MPs and a Senator who towed the assimilatory party line.

(6) Indigenous peoples are not apathetic. They have higher voter turn outs in their First Nation elections than Canadians do in their elections. Not voting in federal elections is not an issue of apathy or “lack of education” as National Chief Bellegarde claims.

(7) Justice for Indigenous peoples should never be tied to forcing our participation in Canadian political processes. Our Aboriginal and treaty rights are protected under international law and pre-exist Canadian laws and political parties.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-riding-boundary-changes-add-to-2015-election-intrigue-1.2888547

That being said, I agree that the “Stalinesque” Prime Minister Harper must go. The situation is so critical in Canada that if he is not removed now, he could continue to do irreparable harm to Canada – which is bad for all of us. I understand the urgent call for everyone who possibly can vote, to vote out Harper. I think we can all agree that getting rid of Harper is one of the most important things Canadians can do to save their democratic institutions. . Harper is, after all, enacting unconstitutional laws, selling natural resources to foreign countries, and committing grave injustices and human rights abuses in our territories. As treaty signatories, we committed to protecting settlers from harm. Some of us feel that we have an obligation to act – the only difference of opinion is what that action should look like.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/05/18/news/harper-worst-prime-minister-history

I would never tell someone not to vote, nor would I tell them not to run for a position as MP. I’m just saying that I won’t do that and if someone asked me what they should do, I would tell them that the best place to put all our energy is into our Nations. We should use all our education, skills, experience, knowledge, time, money and energy into advocating for our people, supporting our activists and leaders, healing our illnesses, rebuilding our communities, protecting our cultures and identities, defending the health of our lands and waters, and strengthening our Nations.

Some Indigenous peoples believe that voting is the best way to address Harper’s frightening dictatorial regime, while others believe that resisting and withdrawing from Canada’s oppressive processes and strengthening our Nations is a better focus for our energy. That debate won’t be settled any time soon, and that’s okay. I think most of us can agree that the power of our people working in solidarity together – Canadians and First Nations – can force the changes we need to turn this ship around and restore justice in Canada for the benefit of our current and future generations. My actions don’t include voting, but I stand in solidarity with First Nations and civil society groups who are calling on Canadians to vote out Harper and demand better of whatever political party succeeds.

August 8, 2015
BIll C-51 My responses to questions from Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence (April 27, 2015)

First Question: Senator Mitchell: My next question would probably go to Ms. Palmater and Mr. Bennett. The bill originally had “unlawful advocacy,” and I believe that’s been taken out. But I also believe that it still leaves a gap, and that is to say that you can do something unlawful that is perfectly non-terrorist. In fact, the gap really is absolutely, perfectly acceptable civil disobedience within a democratic society, which is a hallmark of a democratic society, provided that you’re prepared to take the consequences within the rule of law for having done that. Could you comment on that? Ms. Palmater: I’m glad you asked that question. It’s a really good one. The fact that they are intending — it hasn’t been passed yet, I understand — to take out the “unlawful” part does not address the whole other range of activities contemplating the disruption of the economy, for example, where a First Nation makes a very targeted strategy in partnership with others to make sure a pipeline doesn’t go through by legal means, by civil disobedient means, by the exercise of their international rights — all of those things that might not fall under protest, might not fall under dissent, because often times “protest” is very narrowly defined. There’s a problem with wording, and Justice Canada lawyers will know this very well. It’s poor wording. It doesn’t encapsulate all the ways in which we are already criminalized. Look at the number of people who are already over-imprisoned, who are charged, who are arrested, who are assaulted, and Bill C-51 hasn’t even passed yet. My submission to the house was very specific about those things, not just the extent of the surveillance, but look at the number of people who are considered criminals for what they do now. Minister Valcourt has already said that we are threats to national security, and DND has considered that our activities in advocating for our rights are a level of insurgency, so this is before Bill C-51 even passes. Unless there is very specific language specifically addressing the activities of First Nations, we will be captured under this. Senator Mitchell: The implications of the treaty struck me some years ago when somebody said that a treaty means nobody was defeated. It was an agreement nation to nation not to fight anymore. It’s a powerful concept. Second Question: Senator Jaffer: I have questions for each of you, and I’ll start with Ms. Palmater. We’re all aware of Ms. Blackstock’s — I would go so far as to call it harassment. Even without this bill, what has it been like for you and your organization when it comes to issues you’re working on? What challenges do you already face? Ms. Palmater: That’s a really good question and it was the subject of my submission to the house. What we’re talking about, without anything in this bill being passed yet, we’re already overrepresented in prison. Even though the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue said you have to stop imprisoning First Nations people, we’re being imprisoned more, not less. When the Supreme Court of Canada in Marshall said we had a recognized treaty right to fish and sell it, DFO and the RCMP came in, rammed our boats, beat us with clubs, maced us, arrested us and put us in jail. I only have to talk about Listuguj. Especially in Quebec, it’s been highly problematic. They’ve invaded Listuguj twice. In Oka, Ipperwash, an unarmed land defender was murdered. Gustafsen Lake, one of the largest attacks by the RCMP on a civilian population; Esgenoopetitj. You’ve got Elsipogtog, Caledonia. It goes on and on in terms of the way the military has been used against First Nations people. And the justice system itself, we’re more likely to be arrested, imprisoned and those kinds of things. Senator Jaffer: I’m going to have to stop you there because I have two more questions. Third Question: Senator Dagenais: Ms. Palmater, correct me if I am wrong; you referred to the infamous Oka crisis of the 1990s, or something like that. We are not at all talking about the same situation. There was a sort of guerilla conflict between your community and the town of Oka regarding a golf course. We need to be careful. I was a police officer with the Sûreté du Québec. I was there when the Sûreté du Québec intervened. Let us remember that a police officer died in the process, because we were trying to protect your community as much as the town of Oka. I would ask you to be careful. The Sûreté du Québec was present for a year in Akwesasne to maintain order and protect the community, because there were people from the Mohawk community who were in the drug trade and had killed each other. I hope you have all of the details of that matter. You have to be careful when you accuse police officers of abusing their powers. I was there, and I saw it with my own eyes. [English] Ms. Palmater: Every single commission that has ever been done in this country, every single study, every single United Nations report on Canada’s activities towards indigenous peoples, have all confirmed as fact — not accusation, but fact — the blatant, overt and systemic racism and disproportionate application of the law in a negative way against First Nations people. You can read any of those reports, any time, and they will confirm that. Saying that there are some Mohawks who run drugs is like saying all Canadians are serial killers, just because some Canadians have been serial killers. What that does is propagate more racism against First Nations people, as if we’re all criminals in addition to terrorists, and that’s not acceptable. [Translation] Senator Dagenais: I do not want to have a debate with you. At the time, police officers from the Sûreté du Québec were asked to protect your communities. The Sûreté du Québec was there, because you did not have a police force to protect you anymore. You know, the United Nations are another matter, but sometimes they should come see how things are on the ground. [English] The Chair: Colleagues, we are at the end of the time for the panel. (Taken from official transcript). Videos of my responses to the three questions above can be found at the following links: Question 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5XPVC6v5IY Question 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZGOgEgZokI Question 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3H4k1apVks

May 12, 2015
Bill C-51 – My Testimony to Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence (April 27, 2015)

Dr. Palmater. Pamela D. Palmater, Associate Professor and Chair in Indigenous Governance, Ryerson University, as an individual: Thank you. My name is Pam Palmater. I come from the sovereign nation of the Mi’kmaw in the East. I would first like to acknowledge the traditional territory on which we are sitting, that of the Algonquin Nation, which is one of the many sovereign nations with which Canada is allied and committed to maintaining peace in this territory. It is the only reason why we get to sit here today. These treaties and other agreements are constitutionally protected and form part of the foundation of Canada practically, politically, militarily and legally. Bill C-51 goes to the heart of this relationship. Canada has already predetermined, through its ministers and others, that First Nations are “insurgents” and “national threats to security.” This is one of the reasons why I’m bringing testimony today. In addition to the submissions I made in the house, which I’ve attached as appendices to what I’m going to be saying today, I’m going to focus on the nature of these treaties and exactly what’s at stake with Bill C-51. These treaties were not just about mutual respect, respecting our right to govern ourselves and our own laws. They were also about mutual benefit, but most importantly and for this committee today, they were about mutual protection. These treaties were about military alliances and legal obligations to protect one another and defend these territories. The two central tenets of the majority of these treaties was that there would be peace in this territory, defending our lands, protecting First Nations and settlers, and that we had a military and political alliance against all other aggressors. That’s not a responsibility held unilaterally by Canada. It’s a constitutionally protected joint responsibility and it is violated by this bill. First Nations have fought in Canada’s wars because of these treaties. First Nations have helped protect this territory and our borders from other nations because of these treaties. National defence, public safety and national security have been, first and foremost, a responsibility of First Nations in this territory since time immemorial and that has never ceased. The treaties confirm this. Specific treaty provisions like the Treaty of 1752 with the Mi’kmaw Nation was specifically about the duty to protect one another, military alliance, and the Crown was to provide ammunition to the Mi’kmaw on an annual basis to this end. The Treaty of Niagara was the same thing: military alliance, mutual protection and the provision of ammunition. Treaty No. 6 for the Cree was all about peace in this territory, military alliance, and $1,500 a year would be spent on ammunition to provide the First Nations for the defence of these territories. We’re not just talking about hunting and fishing with treaties; we’re talking about military alliances. We agreed, nation to nation, that this territory would be a peaceful one. We agreed to keep each other safe, and despite the many aggressions by Canada against our people, we have kept the peace. Despite scalping laws, rape, torture and murder in residential schools, forced sterilizations, we have kept the peace. Canada has turned the national police — the RCMP — and the army against First Nations. We have kept the peace. There are no greater allies that Canada can have in the war on terror than First Nations in this country. First Nations have shown that they will hurt themselves before Canadian citizens. We are not the enemy, yet Minister Valcourt has publicly stated that our leaders are threats to national security. The Department of National Defence has called us insurgents and has a manual on how to deal with our dangerous activity. This bill is too broad. It violates our basic human rights, Aboriginal and treaty rights and civil liberties. The Supreme Court of Canada said in Nolet that no valid legislative objective, even one of public safety, can sanitize Charter violations. And this bill contemplates Charter violations before we even know what the alleged crime is. There are no stronger allies to Canada than First Nations, and we’ve given our lives to prove that. Yet Canada, with this bill, has failed to consult with us on our core Aboriginal treaty and inherent right to jointly manage national defence. To that end, I have several recommendations in addition to my previous submission. One, the bill is fatally flawed and must go back to the drawing board for proper consultation with First Nations. Two, there must be an independent body to report on the extensive level of surveillance against First Nations in this country and our treatment as terrorists as opposed to treaty partners. Three, there must be a First Nations special advocate or an amicus of the court to make sure that Aboriginal treaty and Charter rights are upheld during secret court processes for warrant applications and wiretaps. Four, there must be a joint national study on racism and discrimination in the justice system that has been identified by previous commissions — the royal commission, Donald Marshall commission, Ipperwash inquiry and the Manitoba justice commission — that deals with the infection of racism in the entire justice system that can and will impact Bill C-51 should it be passed. Five, the ministries of public safety and national defence must include a like First Nation body to ensure joint decision making and consultation on all matters of public safety, emergency preparedness and national defence. The First Nation representative should be appointed by themselves, and a First Nation representative should be included on any oversight body in relation to intelligence services. Specifically to the next draft of Bill C-51, there needs to be a preamble which acknowledges the treaties and First Nations’ sovereignty and specifically acknowledges our joint constitutionally protected mandate of national defence in this country, provisions which detail decision making and reporting with First Nations on all of the issues covered in Bill C-51, very specific clarifications that anti-terror does not mean anti-First Nation and anti-First Nation governance and activities. There must be an assurance that no information about individuals or First Nation communities be given to third parties, the private sector or foreign governments any more from this point forward; specify that sharing of information relates to anti-terror only and not this unknowable, mystical generic threat to national security. Those departments specified for sharing information must have specific exclusions: Indian Affairs, Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, the environmental agency, NRCan and CRA must all be excluded from information sharing, as those are the ones primarily involved with First Nations. All offences must be specified. There can be no general offence of anything that can’t possibly be known. There must be specific attention to curtailing any sweeping electronic surveillance. Any new laws must contain a mental fault element. And there must be a maximum use and reference to current laws versus duplicating or expanding unknowable laws. Thank you. (Taken from official transcript – April 27, 2015). Video of the presentation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aYeNdJdWRo

May 12, 2015
My Response to Questions from Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-51

*Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome and thank you to both of our witnesses this morning. I want to start with Ms. Palmater. I’ve been in this business for more than 30 years as well. I’ve been called many names, too. All of our protests and challenges posed by aboriginal peoples in this country are always related to the economy of this country: resource development is, of course, an important aspect to all of that. The far-reaching proposed provisions in Bill C-51 are therefore somewhat a direct threat to section 35 rights. National Chief Bellegarde recommended that we scrap this bill. You say that this bill must be withdrawn because it’s not fixable. I happen to agree with that. For 150 years in the history of this country, governments have always been adversaries to aboriginal peoples in this country. We both know that. What we’ve always considered as rights issues have always been viewed or treated as police issues or law and order issues, on the other hand—by successive provincial, federal, and municipal governments, I might add. Will this proposed legislation make matters worse or better for indigenous peoples in this country, and why? Dr. Pamela Palmater: Thank you for your question. It’s an important one because, as I stated, it doesn’t just impact indigenous peoples, it impacts the rest of Canada: environmentalists, unions, women’s groups, children’s advocates. We have to get real about what is the clear and present danger here. How many Canadians on Canadian soil have died from acts of terrorism? Compare that with how many thousands of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls there are. Where is the Bill C-51 to protect them? How many husbands have killed their wives? How many serial killers have we had? Yet we’re focusing on Bill C-51. The problem is this bill isn’t really about terrorism. If you do an analysis of this omnibus bill, the focus is, just as you’ve said, less about being anti-terrorism and more about protecting the status quo in terms of power relations and economic relations. This new national security law focuses on threats to sovereignty, territorial integrity, diplomatic relations—of all things—economic stability, critical infrastructure. All of these things are an essential part of the daily lives of Canadians and first nations. Passing this bill for any activity, any person, any purpose that threatens national security so defined as financial stability and territorial integrity, makes us all suspects. Canada won’t even have to pass this bill, the terrorists will have won. What is terrorism? Fundamentally it’s the denial of life, liberty, and security of the person. If Canada goes ahead and takes those rights away, terrorists just have to sit back, job done. We worked far too hard in our treaty negotiations. We worked far too hard in the development of the charter, and the Constitution, and all of the international laws that protect core, fundamental human rights, to allow that to happen because we want to protect some corporate economic interests. Mr. Romeo Saganash: Given that your access to information request has shown that you’ve already been surveilled for perfectly legal civic actions, is it reasonable to assume—let me put it that way—that if this law is passed, this legislation is passed, you could be viewed as a terrorist for the same lawful activities? Dr. Pamela Palmater: Bill C-51, as currently written, would capture everything under Idle No More. Imagine, Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Grand Council of the Crees offered a quote for my submission as well that said that had their activities been done today as opposed to back then, there wouldn’t be the negotiation of the the James Bay Agreement, they would all be in jail. The Idle No More movement, which was a historical coming together of first nations and Canadians peacefully dancing and singing and drumming, would now all be monitored—if it isn’t already, as the media has indicated that we are clearly monitored—and perhaps arbitrarily detained. All of these things are very frightening for this country. Keep in mind that the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples protects us, grants us, and recognizes under international customary law that we can act autonomously, that we can occupy our lands. Under the Department of National Defence’s manual, occupying our lands, advocating for autonomy, and advocating for political rights is described as “insurgency” alongside jihadists. It is no comfort that there is a proviso saying that lawful activity, lawful dissent, lawful protest, lawful art—whatever that is—won’t be captured by this bill, because the second we do a round dance in the street without a permit, it very quickly becomes unlawful. We have to remember that I already went over all of the very validly enacted laws that Canada has had that have ended up in the killing, murder, rape, violence, sterilization, and scalping of our people. Those were valid laws. The only way to protect ourselves was to act unlawfully in resistance. What we’re saying now is that the clear and present danger to first nations and Canadians is in the environmental destruction and the contamination of our water, and that we have a right to defend our life, liberty, and security to protect our future generations. Under this bill that will all be captured as a threat to national security and/or terrorism. The Chair: Thank you very much. Your time is up, Mr. Saganash. … Hon. Diane Ablonczy: Okay, thank you very much. I just wanted to give Ms. Palmater time to put her legal training to work. And her activist knowledge and just to help us to understand how you feel that Section 2 Activities might impact you. The Chair: Ms. Palmater, we’ve already expired the time but I will certainly give you an opportunity to just briefly to respond to that if you wish. Dr. Pamela Palmater: Thank you for asking because as you probably know I was a lawyer for Justice Canada and worked on legislation and have taken training in legislative interpretation and regulatory drafting. Which is why I was quite shocked that this legislation ever made it here. The Justice Canada lawyers, that I know would never have said that this is any where near constitutional. The problems are that little list that you just read, is just a list. It’s just an example, some examples of what would be threats to national security. There is no limit on the threat to national security. That “any activity”, means any activity. My problem is under the Bill, who gets to decide? Clearly, it’s Canada and independent law enforcement officers. What’s happening here is there is an infinite number of offences that are created, it’s not knowable. And we have a right as citizens to basic tenet of law. We have a right as citizens to know the offence for which we’re being charged, to be able to predict it in the future. We know we aren’t allowed to steal things, so we don’t steal things, or we know there’s consequences. Under this Bill, it’s literally anything. And that’s a problem in law, basically, and it’s certainly doesn’t correspond, it would never survive a Constitutional or Charter challenge, and I think that the former Supreme Court Justices have been pretty specific about that. Thank you. The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Palmater, you are well over the time. Thank you very much. We will now go to Mr. Easter, please. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you to both witnesses for your presentation today. And also for both your efforts out there beyond your appearance at the community, one on policing and one of legitimate public dissent, that profiles issues. I think that both are important in a democracy. First starting with you Ms. Palmater. You’ve mentioned the need for special first nations advocate. And I’m making an assumption here, I expect that relates to the section in the Bill where CSIS can apply for a warrant to do certain things. I take from your comments you’re suggesting that if the Bill goes through, there needs to be an amendment in that area that would allow for special advocates, in this case, first nations, that would be able to, I guess, provide the other side of the argument, before a judge in terms of whether or not a warrant is granted. Am I correct in that? Do you want to expand on that a little bit? Dr. Pamela Palmater: Sure, just to be clear, I’m saying there is no way to save this bill at all. Hon. Wayne Easter: I understand that. Dr. Pamela Palmater: My recommendations were how to address the problem right now. We have a crisis right now, first nations being targeted by police officers and the government at large. If this bill were to pass and they added this provision of a special first nations advocate for all of these core processes, that wouldn’t stop first nations from being targeted to begin with. That’s like trying to provide compensation to murdered indigenous women after they’ve already been murdered. It’s too little, too late. So I don’t think it would be effective to counter all of the rights violations that are currently under Bill C-51. Hon. Wayne Easter: Coming back to the request. One of the problems with the current bill where CSIS goes to a judge, the Minister of Justice called this judicial oversight. It’s not. It’s traditional authority to allow CSIS to do certain things. There are some that feel you need the balance before that judge that makes that decision. That’s what I’m trying to target on. Would there be better balance if you had a special advocate with first nations expertise where CSIS was asking a judge for that warrant to do certain things? Dr. Pamela Palmater: I think it would be more balanced than the current unbalance that there is in the bill keeping in mind that this bill also turns the justice system on its head and how our constitution works. That in fact, judges are, their role is to uphold the constitution and charter rights and not to find ways to get around them. So really asking them to undo all of their training or how we govern ourselves, even with the first nation advocate isn’t going to really address the core problem. Hon. Wayne Easter: I hear what you’re saying. Thank you. *Taken from Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 – Evidence #57 – Unedited Transcript Copy provided by House of Commons Canada.

April 8, 2015
Transcript of my Testimony on Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism Act – March 24 2015

Dr. Pamela Palmater (Chair in Indigenous Governance, Ryerson University, Department of Politics & Public Administration, As an Individual)* Thank you for inviting me here today to speak. I want to first acknowledge that we’re on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation and that’s not just the polite acknowledgement. That’s the very reason why all of you get to sit here today. Were it not for the cooperation, generosity, kindness, and political alliances, Canada wouldn’t be what it is. Were it not for the peace treaties between our nations that are now constitutionally protected and form part of the foundational aspect of Canada, none of us would be sitting here today. I think that goes to the very heart of Bill C-51 and why I am opposed to it. Canada has placed Bill C-51 before indigenous peoples without any information, analysis, details on how it will impact our nations, any consultation, information or consent from our part. It is a gross violation of our nations to nation relationship. I don’t have time to go through all of the technical legal details and problems with this bill except to say that I echo all of the concerns that have already been brought and will be brought by the thousands of lawyers in this country, security experts, former prime ministers and former Supreme Court of Canada justices. My main concern is how this bill will impact me, my family and indigenous peoples all over Canada and our treaty partners, other Canadians. Canada has a long history of criminalizing every aspect of indigenous identity. From the scalping bounties in 1949, which nearly wiped out my Mi’kmaq Nation, to the Indian Act, which has outlawed our culture, our right to educate our own children, and even excluded indigenous women from our communities. Every aspect of our identity has been criminalized, both historically and continues into present day. In every single instance, we’ve had to resist all of these laws, keeping in mind these were all validly enacted laws. It was legal to take Mi’kmaq scalps; it was legal to confine us to reserves; it was legal to deny us legal representation. All of these things were law in Canada. We had to be criminals as in, we had to break the law in order to preserve our lives, our physical security, and our identities. We are being faced with this very problem again with Bill C-51. Over the years, these laws have morphed into provincial and municipal regulations that deal with even our traditional means of providing subsistence—hunting, fishing, gathering have all been so criminalized for indigenous peoples that we end up skulking around in the forest just to be able to provide food for our families. Every single court case that has been won at the Supreme Court of Canada has been a battle between indigenous peoples trying to live their lives and exercise their rights and identities facing some kind of criminal or regulatory charge. In every single instance, we have been labelled as criminals, treated as criminals, and one need only look at the current prison population to understand that this is still the case; not just the case, but as Howard Sapers, from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, has indicated, a “national crisis and embarrassment.” And why? Not because we’re actually terrorists; not because we’re more culturally predisposed to being criminals, but as a direct result of Canada’s discriminatory laws and policies. There have been endless justice inquiries, which have pointed to the infection in our Canadian justice system of racism. The Donald Marshall wrongful prosecution inquiry, the Manitoba justice inquiry, the Ipperwash Inquiry, say that every aspect of our justice system, from the arresting officers, to the lawyers, to the judges, to the prison systems, overtly and systemically discriminate against indigenous peoples. That’s our current reality. Bill C-51 proposes to take that to the last and final step. All we have left now, as indigenous peoples are our thoughts. Our private thoughts will now be criminalized. It will now be possible to be considered a terrorist for storing alleged terrorist propaganda on our own personal computers. My declaration of sovereignty, and I’m going to say it before Bill C-51 passes, I’m part of the sovereign Mi’kmaq Nation. That kind of material on my computer could be considered terrorism, a threat to national security because it’s a threat to Canada’s sovereignty. Welcome to the new terrorist. My name is Pam Palmater. I’m a lawyer, I’m a professor, I’m a mom, and I’m a social justice activist. I’ve won numerous awards for my work in social justice, women’s equality, and children’s rights but depending on whose radicalized view you speak of I have also been called a radical, bad Indian, eco-terrorist, enemy of the people, top-five-to-fear Canadian, dangerous militant, and Waco extremist. My biggest concern isn’t how I’m presented in the media or by government officials, I’m stronger than that. My biggest concern concern is how this impacts me right now, the level of government surveillance for a law-abiding, peaceful, social justice activist, who’s never been arrested or convicted of any crime. In my ATIP to CSIS they explain that they have a right to prevent subversive and hostile activities against the Canadian state which is why they have a file on me. However they don’t offer me the courtesy of saying why I would be considered subversive or hostile, in fact everything I do couldn’t be more public. In my ATIP to Indian Affairs they would not confirm that they monitor me. However they said they do conduct an analysis of me and my activities because I’m an active voice. That analysis comprised 750 pages of documents which tracked all of my whereabouts, what provinces I was travelling to, where I was speaking, and the dates and times. However they could not provide my security file because it was destroyed. When I attend gatherings, rallies, protests, or public and private events I often cannot make cell phone calls, send texts, or access my social media, my bank cards, or my credit cards. I can be at an Idle No More rally or protest and text my children but I cannot communicate with the very chief who has the same protest. This causes me great concern for my safety. How am I supposed to help ensure the comfort and safety of the people at rallies and myself if I can’t communicate with anyone…and I don’t have to remind this committee the staggering statistics and vulnerabilities of indigenous women in this country. I contacted the RCMP as well. They never responded to my ATIP, however individual RCMP officers at various events have confirmed that they were there to monitor me. At numerous protests I have been informed by RCMP and provincial police that I had to keep my protest peaceful. Sometimes they didn’t identify themselves. At speaking engagements the host first nation would demand that any undercover RCMP, or Ontario, or other police officers identify themselves and in many cases they did. What’s more concerning is the number of government officials that follow me around from speaking engagement to speaking engagement and often identify themselves when called upon to do so. Probably the most shocking is when I travel internationally in countries like Samoa, Peru, England, and Switzerland only to be informed by local authorities that Canadian officials are there to monitor me. That’s very frightening in a country where I have committed no crime, but to advocate peacefully on behalf of my people. In the Prairie provinces the RCMP are very active. They will often call ahead to the University of First Nations where I’m speaking and ask them to identify what my target will be or where I plan my protest. This isn’t just a problem for me. We’ve all heard about Cindy Blackstock and others. Skipping of course to what my recommendations are because I can see that I’m out of time. Bill C-51 must be withdrawn there is no way to fix it. There must be proper public information consultation, specific consultation for indigenous peoples, and a proper parliamentary study. Directing Justice Canada to rubber stamp the bill is compliant even if it has a 95% chance of being overturned in court is not democratic. We need an independent review body to report on the ongoing surveillance of indigenous peoples that will take complaints, do proper investigations, and offer redress. Finally, we’re in desperate need of a special first nation advocate to be appointed for any and all court processes in all provinces and territories whenever applications are made in secret for court warrants. This person would be an amicus, a friend of the court who would be independent and can speak to all of the various constitutional and indigenous rights at stake. This is absolutely essential especially if Bill C-51 is to be passed. The Chair: Fine thank you very much, Ms. Palmater. *Taken from: Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 – Evidence #57 – Unedited Transcript Copy provided by House of Commons Canada.

April 8, 2015
What is the Idle No More Movement … Really?

I have been honoured by the request of the Idle No More Founders to be one of their organizers and spokespersons. Working within this movement was a natural extension of the work we already do in First Nations with leaders and citizens. In the last few weeks, many of the media’s questions related to how the movement started, what do we want and where it might be headed. I have done my best as one of the spokespeople to answer these questions based on the views shared with me by some of those in the movement. Al Jazeera Panel on Idle No More: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2013/01/20131282718188634.html CBC’s Power and Politics: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2322717557/ CTV News http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=836122&playlistId=1.1095861&binId=1.810401 My article in Ottawa Citizen explaining the movement: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Idle+More/7753967/story.html Tonight, I’d like to try to answer those questions as an individual. Thus what follows represents my own opinions, analysis, views and aspirations about the Idle No More movement. The Idle No More movement is part of a larger Indigenous movement that has been in the making for several years now. Indigenous activists all over the country have been monitoring the political and legal scene in Canada at both the federal and provincial levels and making a concerted effort to help inform First Nation community members and leaders about any potential threats. We noted a clear assimilation agenda that emerged within the Conservative government and we started planning on how we could address that if Prime Minister Harper insisted on putting his plan into action. http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2012/09/harpers-manifesto-erasing-canadas-indigenous-communities We of course worked very hard to try all the usual channels to address our growing concerns, which included lobbying, letter-writing, testifying before Senate and Parliament, endless meetings with MPs, Senators, Ministers and others – all to no avail. The Harper government was not interested in talking to us, let alone consulting or getting our consent. Harper decided instead to use the Assembly of First Nations as his primary vehicle to call all the shots. Harper’s government set the agenda, they drafted the joint action plans and they alone decided what was and was not on the table. In other words, Harper managed to bully his assimilation plan onto the First Nation agenda with hardly a squeak of opposition at the political level. http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/02/war-and-peace-illusions-of-partnership.html At the co-called Crown-First Nation Gathering (CFNG) last January 2012, Harper promised First Nations his government would not unilaterally amend or repeal the Indian Act. After the CFNG, he broke that promise and proceeded with an aggressive legislative agenda that will include upwards of 14 bills that will devastate our First Nations in various ways. It is the White Paper 2012 with a twist – instead of it being a policy, like the 1969 White Paper, which wanted to assimilate Indians, Harper’s plan will be law. This is the spark that ignited the Idle No More movement into action. We always knew action would be required at some point, but the legislation posed an imminent threat and required immediate mobilization. That is how a movement was born. In the early days, some were calling the Idle No More movement, some calling it an Indigenous rights movements, but we all agreed that we needed to immediately oppose Harper’s assimilatory legislative agenda. So many of the early activities included teach-ins which helped explain the legislation’s potential impacts on First Nations and more importantly, what we could do to oppose it. Early protests started out as opposing the massive omnibus Bill C-45, but later came to include the whole suite. First Nations Fiasco – First Nation legislation will create social and legal mess: http://lawandstyle.ca/opinion_first_nations_fiasco/ When Legislators Make Bad Law: Bill C-3’s Assault on Democracy: http://www.oba.org/en/pdf/sec_news_sept11_c3_palm.pdf Presentation on Legislation (Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STatNSjcrvo Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBt8yqth1n0 Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ku8vVELYs Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okLmloA70zk The Idle No More movement, initially started by women, is a peoples’ movement that empowers Indigenous peoples to stand up for their Nations, lands, treaties and sovereignty. This movement is unique because it is purposefully distanced from political and corporate influence. There is no elected leader, no paid Executive Director, and no bureaucracy or hierarchy which determines what any person or First Nation can and can’t do. There are no colonial-based lines imposed on who joins the movement and thus issues around on & off-reserve, status and non-status, treaty and non-treaty, man or woman, elder or youth, chief or citizen does not come into play. This movement is inclusive of all our peoples.

To my mind, the true governing power of our Indigenous Nations has always been exercised through the voice of our peoples. The leaders were traditionally more like spokespeople which represented to views and decisions of the people. In this way, the Idle No More movement, led by grassroots peoples connects very closely to our Indigenous traditional values. But it is not a movement where the people stand alone, their elders, elected leaders and traditional leaders stand with them. This movement is not in competition with any First Nation political organization or elected leaders. This movement is focused on the critical issues before us, not power-struggles, political games or competing for government funding. Everyone so far has donated their time, money, energy and skills to making this work despite the inevitable critiques, push-back and misinformation. Yet, what makes this peoples’ movement so unique, is also what makes it so difficult for many Canadians and the media to understand. Generally speaking, people understand that each government, group or organization has a leader, a clearly defined hierarchy and rules about who can say and do what. This movement on the other hand, is very organic in nature and first and foremost respects the sovereignty of individual Indigenous peoples and their Nations to participate how and when they choose, if at all. This will mean that some First Nations leaders will choose not to participate, but some of their members will. It could mean one First Nation community organizes teach-ins whereas First Nations peoples living in urban areas will get together and organize flash mob round dances.

Think of the many ways in which this movement has already developed. We had teach-ins at Louis Bull, Saddle Lake and other First Nations. We have posted information, publications and videos online for all to access. We have engaged the media to help educate the public about why this impacts them as well. The Chiefs organized a protest during the AFN assembly to oppose the legislation (including Bill C-45). Chief Spence is on a hunger strike standing up for all First Nations and the treaty relationship which Canada has forgotten. Kids in schools have held Idle No More Rallies and there have been marches, protests and temporary traffic and railways slow downs. The core unifying theme to all of it has been that they are peaceful activities meant to help educate Canadians about how this is in all our interests. We do have structure, we are organized, we work very closely with one another across the country to strategize and we are growing. We have worked with active First Nation leaders on the ground since the very beginning and many of us continue to do so. Our allies increase every day as more and more organizations are joining the movement. Now we have widespread international support which also grows everyday. Pretty soon you will see more and more prominent figures stand up to put pressure on Canada to come to the table in a real, meaningful way.

http://idlenomore1.blogspot.ca/

To me, Idle No More is a responsibility – a responsibility to live up to the sacrifices of our ancestors, to the duty we have as guardians of the earth, and to the expectations that our children and grandchildren have of us to protect them. Every single one of us has that responsibility, though, at any given time, we all have different capacities, skills and opportunities in which to fulfill it. Regardless of our situation, I believe that we all carry that responsibility from the very moment the Creator blesses us with our first breath until our last. This responsibility means that it is not good enough to work hard, get an education, find a job, and provide for one’s family. These are important things, and our ancestors did their best to ensure that we would have a prosperous future. Many even negotiated these provisions in some of our treaties. But, it is not good enough for us to simply be comfortable, at least not as long as we have brothers, sisters and community members who live without food, water or housing. Right now, many of our Indigenous peoples are facing multiple, overlapping crises that require emergency attention. The very grassroots people standing on the front lines of this movement are there because they are the ones without clean water, housing or sanitation and the politicians have done little to address this. Stretched Beyond Human Limits: Death by Poverty in First Nations: http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057 This movement is set apart from any other before it. Unlike the Occupy movement, this movement involves peoples with a shared histories, experiences, goals and aspirations. We as Indigenous peoples are all related, we all care about each other’s futures and we share the same responsibility to protect our rights, cultures and identities for our seventh generation. This movement also has a special spiritual significance in that this was prophesied – that the seventh generation would rise and restore the strength of our Nations, bring balance and see that justice was restored to our peoples. This movement is also unique in that it includes Canadians as our allies. Just as the early days of contact when the settlers needed our help to survive the harsh winter months, and seek out a new life here, Canadians once again need our help. They need our help to stop Harper’s destructive environmental agenda. First Nations represent Canadians last best hope at stopping Harper from unfettered mass destruction of our shared lands, waters, plants and animals in the name of resource development for export to foreign countries like China. Why? Because only First Nations have constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights which mandate Canada to obtain the consent of First Nations prior to acting. These rights are also protected at the international level with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf When First Nations organize in Idle No More to oppose this legislation, they do so to protect all of our interests – First Nation and Canadian alike. The most precious resources in the near future will be farmable lands and drinkable water. If there is no clean water, this impacts everyone. We are standing up not only to protect our lands and waters, but we are also standing up to restore justice for First Nations and democracy for Canadians. We can work together to defeat this threat to Canada and find a way to share the lands and resources as the treaties envisioned. When asked what do we want, that question can be answered in two parts: (1) In the short term, Canada must withdraw the suite of legislation impacting First Nations, amend those omnibus bills which threaten our lands and waters, and restore the funding that was cut to our First Nation advocacy organizations and communities; (2) In the long term, Canada must set up a Nation to Nation process whereby First Nations and Canada can address many of the long outstanding issues related to the implementation of treaties and sharing the lands and resources. Ultimately, we want to be free – free to govern ourselves as we choose; free to enjoy our identities, cultures, languages and traditions – i.e., to live the good life as we see fit. This means Canada must respect our sovereignty and get out of the business of managing our lives. Given that Canada has worked hard to put us in the situation we are in, Harper will have to come to table with some good faith and offer some solutions to address the current crisis facing many of our communities in relation to the basic essentials of life – water, sanitation, housing, and education. If Harper can do no more than appear at a meeting on January 24th as requested by the AFN, our most vulnerable citizens will not see justice. What Idle No More means to me is the coming together of Indigenous peoples from all over Turtle Island to work together to restore pride in our peoples, to stand up for our rights and live up to those responsibilities we have to one another and Mother Earth. It is inspiring hope, when many had lost hope that anyone would ever stand on their behalf. It has inspired pride in who we are as Indigenous peoples because our peoples and the ways of our peoples are beautiful and something to be cherished and defended. It has inspired leadership in those who thought they had nothing left to offer their Nations. It has inspired a reconnection of youth to elders, citizens to leaders and men to stand beside their women. It has inspired the most oppressed peoples to stand up and exercise their voices. We are alive again and the spirits of our ancestors are walking with us on this journey. I believe in the power of our peoples – we can do this!

January 4, 2013
Eyes Wide Shut: Chasing Section 35 and Ignoring the War

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

November 18, 2012
Bill S-2 – Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Rights or Interests Act

Harper’s Conservatives have given the signal that they may, once again, refocus their legislative eye on Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (otherwise known as the MRP bill). To this end, the parties have been preparing to study the bill and hear from witnesses on possible amendments.

Most of Canada’s legislative initiatives go largely unexplained to grassroots Indigenous peoples – community members and leaders alike. This Harper government, in particular, has done everything it can to mislead, misinform, distract, confuse and outright lie to First Nations about its intentions with regards to the Indian Act. More so, they have done very little to explain the implications of bills to those who will be impacted – First Nations community members.

Most will recall Prime Minister Harper’s infamous words at the so-called Crown-First Nation Gathering this past January: “To be sure, our Government has no grand scheme to unilaterally repeal or to unilaterally amend the Indian Act.”

Yet, here is the extensive list of government bills currently before Parliament which will unilaterally repeal or fundamentally alter the Indian Act in significant ways:

          Bill C-428 Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act

          Bill C-27 First Nations Financial Transparency Act

          Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve & Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

          Bill S-6 First Nations Elections Act

          Bill S-8 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act           Bill S-207 An Act to Amend the Interpretation Act

This does not include any of the omnibus or other bills which impact First Nations. There are two others bills expected to be introduced in the New Year as well:

           First Nation Property Ownership Act

          First Nation Education Act

It would be almost impossible for First Nation community members to know what these bills are really about simply by reading the titles of the bills. The Conservative Party is very good at using titles for their bills which betray what the bill actually does. Bill S-2 is a prime example of a bill that is being promoted as one which will protect Indigenous women from domestic violence and “give” them equal rights upon marriage or relationship breakdown. This bill does neither of those things.

It would make this blog far too long to review all of the sections, but communities should be aware of several problematic areas. The Preamble (which is just an introduction and does not contain any law) does give an important indication of the two theoretical underpinnings of the bill: (1)   The bill has an individual-rights/interest focus versus an Indigenous communal, holistic approach; The bill focuses on the best interests of the individual child as opposed to the collective, inter-connected interests of the entire family (including the child), extended family, community and Nation. It is this very approach that led to residential schools, 60’s scoop and the current over-representation of our Indigenous children in the care of child welfare.

(2)   The bill views First Nations peoples as “cultures” versus to governments with their own jurisdictions or Nations with their own sovereignty.

The bill focuses everyone’s attention on the particular culture of the First Nation – which is to be “considered” by a judge in a marital dispute over property. However, there is no deference for First Nation legal or governance jurisdiction over property disputes over their own territories. This is very similar language to Supreme Court of Canada cases which have essentially frozen Aboriginal rights in “pre-contact” times and only protect those rights which the court considers “integral” enough. In this case, non-Indigenous people will be judge and jury over what our culture is, which parts of it are important, and whether it is relevant to property issues on reserve.

The general focus of the bill is to enact provincial-like rules with regard to the divison of marital property on reserve after the break-up of a marriage or common-law relationship. This essentially means that each spouse is entitled to half – the house, land, etc. However, these provincial-like rules are not optional – they are mandatory. While the act considers them to be interim rules, the fact is no funds have been allotted for governance, law-making or enforcement and thus for many First Nations, they will remain permament. The bill also contains the following provisions:

–          They apply to all First Nations until they enact laws pursuant to the bill;

–          Non-Indians will be able to gain rights (exclusive occupation, life interest, etc) to the home and contiguous land on reserve;

–          A judge can make a ruling that violence has occurred and bar that person from the house, without the alleged offender being charged or convicted;

–          First Nations are not entitled to notice for emergency protection orders which give possession to a house and land to non-Indians;

–          Certificates of Possession can be forcibly transferred from one First Nation spouse to another; and

–          A person who is not member/Indian, can apply to have order enforced as though he/she was member/Indian.

Without getting into too much technicality, this bill either conflicts with or violates various Canadian laws:

(1)   Bill S-2 conflicts with the Indian Act – The Indian Act reserves land for the exclusive use and benefit of Indians and make it an offense for non-Indians to trespass on reserve, yet Bill S-2 creates new rights for non-Indians on reserve;

(2)   Bill S-2 is outside is outside Canada’s legislative authority in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 – This is because Canada is purporting to legislate with regard to the property and civil rights non-Indians which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Thus, provincial legislation will also be required to make the bill effective.

(3)   Bill S-2 violates section 35 treaty rights in the Constitution Act, 1982 – This is because many reserves were set up via treaties, which are now protected in section 35. These treaties are for the benefit of Indians – not non-Indians.

(4)   Bill S-2 violates section 35 Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act, 1982 – This is because the inherent right of First Nations to be self-governing over their own peoples and lands is recognized by Canada as protected in section 35. Yet with this bill, Canada purports to control internal matters even more than they do now.

(5)   Bill S-2 represents a breach of Canada’s honour, its fiduciary obligations and its legal duty to consult and accommodate. Bill S-2 was drafted without First Nation input, there were no legal consultations, and the bill will result in more federal control, not less.

(6)   Bill S-2 violates many articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) – including:

Art.3 – the right to be self-determining;

Art. 4 – the right to be self-governing over our own internal affairs;

Art. 19 – the right of free, informed and prior consent before ANY legislative measures that affects us; and

Art. 37 – the right to recognition and enforcement of our treaties.

Some of the other key concerns that have been raised by witnesses who have testified previously include the lack of access to justice as all remedies must be access through courts, no funding is provided for accessing legal services, and many communities don’t have local access to courts. The issue of housing on marital breakdown is further complicated by Canada’s refusal to address the housing crisis or provide adequate funding for shelters.

There are many other issues not outlined here in order to keep this blog simple. However, I will be publishing a more detailed analysis of both direct and indirect impacts of this bill.

My recommendations (in part):

(1) The Status of Women committee who will be studying the bill should reject the bill in its entirety. The entire bill conflicts with both Indigenous laws and Canadian law and cannot be saved.

(2) Canada should respect its own policy position that First Nations have a right to be self-governing which is constitutionally protected within section 35. This would correspond with the right to be self-determining as per Article 3 of UNDRIP.

November 13, 2012