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

(picture from Google Images & Huffington Post)

 

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
 

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.

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

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

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.