Today, the United Nations Human Rights Committee released its Concluding Observations on Canada's sixth report in relation to Canada's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (advanced unedited version). While it commended recent legislation adopted by individual provinces in relation to human rights, there was no overall commendation for Canada. In fact, the majority of the report expressed numerous concerns about Canada's failures in relation to the basic human rights of Indigenous peoples.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee directed Canada to "widely disseminate" this report among judicial, legislative and administrative authorities, civil society, non-governmental organizations and the general public. It is not likely that Canada will do so, therefore, here is a summary of some of their concerns and key recommendations specific to Indigenous peoples:
GENDER EQUALITY
Concern: "persisting inequalities between women and men" including "high level of the pay gap" which is more pronounced for Indigenous women and the "underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in the public and private sectors";
Recommendations:
(a) guarantee equal pay for equal work, with special focus on Indigenous women;
(b) promote better representation of women in leadership;
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Concern: "continued high prevalence of domestic violence in the State party, in particular violence against women and girls, that mostly affects indigenous and minority women" as well as insufficiency of shelters and failure of police to investigate and prosecute;
Recommendations:
(a) make efforts to "firmly combat" domestic violence against women in all forms, especially Indigenous women;
(b) investigate all reported cases and follow through with prosecutions;
(c) increase shelters and support services;
MURDERED AND MISSING INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND GIRLS
Concern: "indigenous women and girls are disproportionately affected by life-threatening forms of violence, homicides and disappearances" and Canada's "failure to provide adequate and effective responses" and failure to provide information about their investigations, prosecutions and punishments of those responsible;
Recommendations:
(a) conduct a national inquiry on murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls in consultation with Indigenous women's organizations and families;
(b) review its legislation to prevent further murders and disappearances;
(c) investigate & prosecute offenders & provide reparations to victims;
(d) address the root causes of violence against Indigenous women and girls;
EXCESSIVE FORCE DURING PROTESTS AND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
Concern: "excessive use of force by law enforcement officers during mass arrests in the context of protests at federal and provincial levels, with particular reference to indigenous land-related protests" as well as concerns about "complaints not always promptly investigated and the lenient nature of sanctions imposed";
Recommendations:
(a) ensure all allegations of ill-treatment and excessive use of force by police investigated;
(b) need strong independent oversight bodies with adequate resources;
(c) those responsible are prosecuted and punished with appropriate penalties;
INDIGENOUS LANDS AND TITLES
Concern: "potential extinguishment of indigenous land rights and titles" and the number of years of unresolved land disputes places financial burden on Indigenous peoples and "Indigenous peoples are not always consulted" on legislation that impacts our lands and rights;
Recommendations:
(a) seek free informed and prior consent for legislation and actions that impacts our lands and rights;
(b) resolve land and resource disputes.
INDIAN ACT
Concern: "slow" pace at which Canada is removing gender discrimination in the Indian Act thereby preventing Indigenous women and their descendants from transmitting Indian status equally with men
Recommendation:
(a) remove all remaining discriminatory effects of Indian Act for Indigenous women and children so they enjoy rights of Indian status on equal footing with men;
OVERREPRESENTATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN JUSTICE SYSTEM
Concern: "disproportionately high rate of incarceration of indigenous people, including women, in federal and provincial prisons across Canada"
Recommendation:
(a) prevent excessive use of incarceration of Indigenous peoples;
(b) wherever possible use alternatives to detention (including serving sentences in communities);
SITUATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Concern: "risk of disappearances of indigenous languages", "lack of access to basic needs", lack of funding for child welfare, and not all students of residential schools have been given redress;
Recommendations:
(a) implement and reinforce programs to provide basic needs;
(b) programs to preserve Indigenous languages; and
(c) provide child and family services on reserve with sufficient funding;
(d) implement TRC recommendations;
Canada should be ashamed that it has such a poor record on protecting the basic human rights of Indigenous peoples - especially in relation to Indigenous women and children. It is a disgrace that Canada sits with other countries, like Mexico, for the continued murders and disappearances of Indigenous women and girls. Even after decades of litigation, Canada has still has not addressed Indian Act gender discrimination which excludes thousands of children of Indigenous women. Canada has no defense for its discriminatory under-funding of First Nations children in care which causes hardship for our most vulnerable. The extreme poverty, over-representation of our people in prison, dying languages, and Canada's continued failure to respect our Indigenous rights and title have all been noticed by the United Nations as violations of our basic human rights.
It is long past the time for Canada to address these long-standing human rights violations of Indigenous peoples - this is not the Canada anyone envisioned - including our mutual ancestors who signed peace and friendship treaties.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Sunday, July 12, 2015
My Brief for the Human Rights Committee's Concluding Observations of Canada: Clarifications Related to Canada's Testimony
Corporate Social Responsibility
In the review, Canada stated that international treaties ratified by Canada are not binding law in Canada. Canada also stated that Canadian companies doing business abroad are expected to demonstrate Canadian values and follow applicable human rights laws. However, if the State does not consider ICCPRapplicable law in Canada, then its corporate entities would have no reason to respect the human rights contained therein.
I would thus recommend that the Committee both clarify the UN’s position in this regard and recommend to Canada to specifically implement the ICCPR into domestic law.
I would thus recommend that the Committee both clarify the UN’s position in this regard and recommend to Canada to specifically implement the ICCPR into domestic law.
Gender Equality
In the review Canada stated that it is committed to gender equality and claimed that women make 91% of what men make. In fact, the national wage gap in Canada is 18%, much higher than other countries. In some provinces like Ontario, that gap can reach 31%. The gap is significantly higher for Indigenous peoples at 30% compared to average Canadian, and in some areas of Canada, the gap is as high as 88%.
I would recommend that the Committee recommend that Canada undertake specific measures and develop specific targets and measures to address sex discrimination generally and the wage gap specifically.
The Federal Court of Appeal in McIvor case confirmed gender discrimination, but Canada enacted Bill C-3 without consulting with First Nations, and which specifically denied any compensation for Indigenous women impacted. Indigenous women and descendants are the only group in Canada that has ever been denied compensation for a Charter right violation.
The Committee should also recommend that Canada negotiate a compensation package for all the Indigenous women and their descendants reinstated by Bill C-3 for loss of services (education, housing, health benefits, training).
Violence against Indigenous Women
Canada stated that one measure to combat violence against Indigenous women are the 40 shelters on reserve. It should be noted that there are 633 reserves in Canada, which means there are shelters in less than 6% of on-reserve communities. Canada also portrayed the crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women as one of crime, when domestic and UN reports have confirmed the root causes are in Canada’s discriminatory laws and policies, the culture of violence against Indigenous women, and the chronic and discriminatory underfunding of essential human services, like food, water, housing, education and health.
I would recommend that the Committee support the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, IACHR and CEDAW to develop a national action plan to address the socio-economic conditions which result in the disproportionate vulnerability to violence in partnership with Indigenous communities and Indigenous women’s organizations and commit to a national inquiry.
Indigenous Children in Care
Canada submitted that it does not know what factors are at play to explain the gross over-representation of Indigenous children in state care. 50% of all children in care in Canada are Indigenous, despite being only 4% of the population and represent 90% of children in care in provinces like Manitoba. Canada’s own studies have shown that the root causes are poverty, the chronic underfunding of child and family services for First Nations on reserve, inter-generational trauma from residential schools and state discrimination.
I would recommend that the Committee recommend that Canada fund Indigenous Child and Family Services at levels no less than provincial levels, with extra funding to address the backlog and volume of cases and for additional Indigenous staff, training, and infrastructure for CFS services on reserve with a focus of keeping children in their families, communities and cultures.
Indian Act Sex Discrimination
Canada stated in its response to the List of Issues at para.125 that: “the Indian registration provisions in the current Indian Act do not discriminate against women”. When questioned by Committee about unresolved sex discrimination in the Act, it responded that Bill C-3 was “a step forward” and “no one sees it as anywhere near being concluded”, but that Canada prefers an “incremental approach”. This is not a good faith application of either domestic or international law obligations in relation to gender equality. Practically, this means Canada prefers to defend lengthy and costly law suits which take upwards of 25 years to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no justifiable reason for Indigenous women and their descendants to wait 139 years for the Actto be slowly amended to eliminate gender discrimination.
Indigenous women and their descendants are already impoverished and without Indian status, miss out on health benefits, post-secondary education, and other social programs critical to their health, safety, and well-being; which we already know makes them vulnerable to violence. Canada also stated that they have a “Special Rapporteur” that is currently “consulting” with First Nations on how to clean up the Indian Act discrimination. This is simply not true – and if it has done so, they have not informed anyone.
I would recommend that the Committee recommend to Canada that it amend the Indian Act to eliminate all sex discrimination in the Indian Act’s registration provisions and it could start by immediately by amending the registration provisions as follows:
(a) remove the 1951 cut-off and ensure that all direct descendants on the female Aboriginal line, born prior to April 17, 1985, are accorded the same 6(1) status as the descendants on the male line;
(b) ensure that no one born prior to April 17, 1985 who is entitled to status is consigned to s. 6(2) status;
(c) ensure that entitlement to 6(1) status is extended to the female child of the status man and non-status woman who were unmarried; and
(d) all administrative barriers are removed so that unmarried status Indian women are able to transmit their Indian status to their children, even if the father is unstated.
Police Misconduct
In responding to various concerns raised in Committee related to sex discrimination, violence against Indigenous women, and police misconduct, Canada failed to mention the major class action suit filed against the RCMP by female staff and officers for sex discrimination. It failed to mention the Human Rights Watch report which documented instances of RCMP sexually and physically assaulted Indigenous girls. It also did not mention the Donald Marshall Inquiry, Manitoba Justice Inquiry or Ipperwash Inquiry which all found that racism against Indigenous peoples in Canada’s police forces is a major problem that has yet to be addressed.
I would recommend that the Committee recommend that Canada develop a more robust and transparent oversight mechanism for all police forces that is completely independent from both political and police interference which a specific focus on and Indigenous ombudsperson for Indigenous peoples.
UNDRIP
In the review, Canada did not orally respond to the question in committee about whether Canada has changed domestic law and policy to align with its endorsement of UNDRIP. In Canada’s Statement of Support it states: (1) it is an aspirational document (2) it’s not legally binding in Canada (3) it does not reflect customary international law (4) it does not change Canadian law. When former Minister of Indian Affairs John Duncan was questioned on the impact of UNDRIP, he responded that Canada has its "own agenda" and as a result does not "anticipate any significant change". Canada’s endorsement of UNDRIP is not done in good faith or with intention to have any practical effect.
I would thus recommend that the Committee recommend to Canada that Canada implement the UNDRIP in good faith.
Indigenous Languages
In the review, Canada stated that the reason for Indigenous language loss included migration and the media. The real cause of language loss stems from Canada’s assimilatory laws and policies, like residential schools, which tortured, abused and shamed children for speaking their languages. Indigenous languages were literally beaten out of many generations of Indigenous children. Canada admitted this in its residential school apology: “The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language.”
Immediately after this apology, Canada cut funding to Indigenous languages further exacerbating the problem. Canada’s legal and economic promotion and support of English and French has not been extended to the same degree for Indigenous languages and they have no data to show that their minimal efforts in this regard have increased language use. In fact, Canada’s $5 million/year language budget amounts to less than $5 per Indigenous person in Canada annually. It is simply impossible to save languages at this token level.
I would recommend that the Committee supports the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Report and recommend that Canada provide immediate and significant funding to First Nations on par with funding that supports English and French languages, to ensure immersion and adult programs in every First Nation in Canada.
Submitted by Dr. Pamela D. Palmater, Mi'kmaw Nation, sponsored by Franciscans International, on July 9, 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland.
Note:
(Some of the NGOs in Geneva Switzerland)
After hearing a great deal of misinformation and non-answers from Canada during the United Nations Human Rights Committee's review of Canada's obligations under ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights); some of the NGO's (non-governmental organizations) that attended asked if we could submit clarifications to the committee before they conclude their review. We were given permission to do so, and some of us submitted briefs which were to be no longer than one page. My original submission contains footnotes and links to sources not provided here.
Some of the other NGO's (like FAFIA and Amnesty International), made clarifications and recommendations related to various issues, some of which included:
- addressing homelessness as part of the right to life;
- insufficient review and oversight of security and law enforcement under Bill C-51;
- the need to support unanimous recommendations by all international human rights bodies recommending a national inquiry and action plan on murdered and missing Indigenous women;
- need to Canada to respect laws related to free, informed and prior consent of Indigenous peoples for land use, including extractive industries;
- removal of sex discrimination from the Indian Act registration provisions; and
- clarifications around the skewed RCMP statistics which try to paint a discriminatory picture of Indigenous peoples.
Canada was given 48 hours to submit written material to supplement their oral testimony. The Committee's conclusions are due July 23, 2015.
Monday, July 6, 2015
My Submission to United Nations Human Rights Committee on Canada's Human Rights Violations
Statement of Pamela Palmater
to the
114th Human Rights Committee Session:
Formal Briefing on Canada
(July 6, 2015 Geneva, Switzerland)
Kwe, n’in teluisi Pam Palmater. I am from the sovereign Indigenous Nation of the Mi’kmaq in Mi’kma’ki, Canada. I am here as an impacted Indigenous individual thanks to the support of Franciscans International. Today I would like to testify to three urgent situations related to Canada’s obligations under the Covenant which are also raised in the joint submission presented by the NGO Mining Working Group in response to the List of Issues which I fully support:
First, the criminalization of Indigenous peoples in Canada for our human rights advocacy and defense of our lands.
Federal and provincial laws and regulations have criminalized Indigenous peoples’ traditional occupations and trade economies by making it illegal to hunt, fish, gather or use our natural resources within our traditional, treaty, title, trapping or reserve lands. Engaging in Indigenous rights advocacy or defense of the environment to protect the health of our lands, waters, plants, animals and people also results in our public vilification, beatings, arrests, imprisonment, and/or deaths.
The incarceration rate for Indigenous peoples is 10 times higher than the national average. Since 2000, the Indigenous inmate population has increased by over 56% and in some prisons, represent as much as 65% of the inmate population. The Government’s own studies have consistently concluded that it is the result of racism in Canada’s justice system.
The recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Act (C-51) threatens to treat peaceful Indigenous activists as potential terrorists. There are several examples in which Canada’s Ministers, military, and RCMP have already labelled First Nations as “insurgents”, “eco-terrorists” and “threats to national security.” Given this context, we feel that we will be targeted under this law if we continue our traditional practices.
Second, the Committee ought to emphasize the growing crisis of poverty and discriminatory treatmentof Indigenous peoples.
Despite being less than 4% of the population, Indigenous children make up nearly 50% of all children in state care (90% in Manitoba). 73% of all water systems in First Nations are at high risk – for those that have running water. The majority of houses on reserve are in need of major repair and/or overcrowded (upwards of 25 people to a home). Indigenous peoples suffer higher rates of ill health, accidents, and injuries and have some of the highest suicide rates in the world. Indigenous women and girls are over-represented in those that are murdered or missing – 16% nationally, but as high as 55% in provinces like Saskatchewan. Indigenous peoples have lower rates of education and employment and live 7-20 years less than Canadians.
As different UN mechanisms have consistently found, this crisis is particularly jarring in a wealthy and highly developed country like Canada - especially since the majority of the wealth comes from Indigenous lands.The situation is aggravated by the Government’s failure to protect Indigenous peoples’ rights, to remedy harms, and to properly fund Indigenous institutions.
Third and finally, I emphasize Canada’s failure to consult with Indigenous peoples regarding legislation and actions impacting Indigenous lands and waters.
Despite decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada directing Canada to consult, accommodate, and obtain the consent of Indigenous peoples, Canada has unilaterally limited debate and refused to consult with Indigenous peoples on legislation which impacts our inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights.
Peaceful civil actions by Indigenous peoples to protect lands and waters from clear-cutting, mining, hydro-fracking or pipelines are met with heavy RCMP intervention. State law enforcement is used to protect state subsidized corporations to engage in the extraction of Indigenous lands, waters and resources without our consent, to our social and economic detriment, to the destruction of our lands and waters and in violation of our human rights.
Together with the NGO Mining Working Group, I urge the Committee to consider the following recommendations for Canada:
(1) Repeal Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism Act and all recent legislation unilaterally imposed on Indigenous peoples and start a comprehensive study and consultative process in partnership with Indigenous peoples;
(2) Develop independent and more robust oversight, reporting, and redress mechanismsfor Canada’s national security activities, law enforcement, and surveillance of Indigenous peoples and other environmental and human rights defenders;
(3) Take all measures necessary to ensure that all domestic and international extractive activities by Canadian corporations comply with human rights obligations, including obtaining the free, informed and prior consent of Indigenous peoples;
(4) Provide adequate funding to Indigenous peoples to address the multiple, over-lapping crises in education, health, housing, food, water, infrastructure, flooding;
(5) Take emergency action to address structural discrimination especially the over-representation of Indigenous children in care; murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls; and the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples; and
(6) Implement treaties, address outstanding claims of lands and resources; and develop a more equitable revenue sharing structure in partnership with Indigenous peoples.
( Note:
(Sharon McIvor and I at the United Nations in Geneva)
The Committee only allows 3 minutes to present. Therefore, all presenters had to pick only 2 or 3 core issues to discuss. I could not read the entirety of even this small submission, so I hit the highlights of the issue and read the recommendations. Sharon McIvor was there to make a submission on two issues: murdered and missing Indigenous women and sex discrimination against Indigenous women and their descendants in the Indian Act registration provisions. Art Manuel presented on self-determination and Canada's failures in this regard. Amnesty International spoke on a variety of issues, one of which was Bill C-51 and recommending its repeal.
f
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Genocide or Mass Murder - Canadian and Church Officials Must be Held to Account
What happened in residential schools was not “cultural genocide”. It wasn’t “language genocide”. And it wasn’t “almost genocide”. What happened in residential schools was genocide. Canadian officials targeted Indians for assimilation and elimination purely for economic and political reasons. Scalping bounties on certain Indigenous Nations are indicative of such a lethal mentality.
Selected Sources:
(1) Dr. Peter Bryce, "A Story of a National Crime: An Appeal for Justice to the Indians of Canada"
https://ia802705.us.archive.org/20/items/storyofnationalc00brycuoft/storyofnationalc00brycuoft_bw.pdf
(2) CBC News, "Truth and Reconciliation Commission: By the Numbers" http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/truth-and-reconciliation-commission-by-the-numbers-1.3096185
(3) The National Post, "Canada was ready to abandon 1948 accord if UN didn't remove 'cultural genocide' ban, records reveal"
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-threatened-to-abandon-1948-accord-if-un-didnt-remove-cultural-genocide-ban-records-reveal
(4) UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf
(11) CTV News, Federal appeal court gives OK on hearing First Nations Day-School Suit
Canada wasn’t killing Indians because of our cultures; it was killing Indians to get rid of the “Indian problem” as Indian Affairs officials kept referring to it. Commentators often refer to Duncan Campbell Scott’s quote regarding Indian policy in Canada as proof that the intention was assimilation and not elimination.
Scott was the deputy superintendent general for the Department of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932, who explained in 1920:
“I want to get rid of the Indian problem. […] Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question and no Indian Department”.
However, there is more to the story than this. In 1907, Dr. Peter Bryce, the Chief Medical Officer for the federal government, wrote a report on the conditions in residential schools that detailed the astounding number of deaths of Indian children in those schools.(1)
The government’s own lawyer also warned Canadian officials in 1907:
“Doing nothing to obviate the preventable causes of death, brings the Department within unpleasant nearness to the charge of manslaughter.”(2)
Yet, there was no shock and alarm at the time nor did anyone from Indian Affairs come up with an emergency action plan to protect Indigenous children whom Scott referred to as “inmates”.
Surprisingly, the deaths of Indigenous children appeared to be in line with the objective of the policy.
In 1910, Scott explained in a letter he wrote to one of his Indian Agents:
“Indian children… die at a much higher rate [in residential schools] than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards a final solution of our Indian problem”.
Residential schools were never a well-intended policy “gone wrong” as claimed by former Minister of Indian Affairs, John Duncan. They were death camps for nearly half of all the “inmates” who entered some of those schools. The tiny hand-cuffs and the electric chairs speak of horrors completely unrelated to “education”.
These children didn’t die from smallpox or some other series of unfortunate and unpreventable events in those schools. Many of these children were starved, tortured, beaten, raped, and murdered. Nutritional tests and medical experimentations were done on these children only to be denied to benefit of the very medicines created at the expense of their suffering. This sounds eerily familiar to horrors inflicted on other populations around the world.
Survivor stories of frequent rapes, forced abortions, and unmarked graves stand in stark contradiction to any notion of a benign education policy – especially once government, church and law enforcement officials became aware of what was happening. Why else did these schools have graveyards instead of playgrounds?
It is too easy for politicians to claim “cultural genocide” now, when they are well aware that cultural genocide was specifically left out of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.(3)
Much of the debate has focused on whether or not Canada “intended” to kill Indians. According to international legal experts, leaders can be held accountable if they knew or should have known about the actions and failed to prevent them. Direct evidence of intent is not necessary but can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. The few excerpts above prove that Canadian officials knew not only of the poor conditions in residential schools, but the large number of deaths that were occurring, and that they could be held accountable for “manslaughter”.
Genocide, by the UN definition, is said to include:
- “Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”(4)
Many have argued that the totality of Canada’s actions towards Indigenous peoples amounted to genocide. In other words, Canadian officials have been guilty of some or all of the above genocidal acts.
What is particularly striking is the genocidal act of deliberately creating the conditions of life meant to bring about the destruction of the group in whole or in part. The following acts have been found to be genocidal:
- “subjecting the group to a subsistence diet;
- systematic expulsion from homes;
- denial of right to medical services;
- creation of circumstances that would lead to a slow death, such as lack of proper housing, clothing and hygiene or excessive work or physical exertion; and
- rape.”(5)
Think of the historic and ongoing conditions of many First Nations who were prohibited from leaving the reserve by law and given only minimal rations; or the Inuit and First Nations who were forcibly relocated from their homelands. There is also a direct link between Canada’s purposeful chronic underfunding of essential human services for First Nations (housing, water, sanitation) and their pre-mature deaths. In residential schools, children were starved, denied medical care, and many suffered slow deaths.(6)
Genocide is the material destruction of a group – even if not all members of the group are destroyed. There is no set number of people that must be killed for the crime of genocide to occur. It does not need to mimic the worst holocaust to ne genocide. It must be a substantial part of the group. There is also no need for a government plan or policy to exist in order to find genocide. Even without a finding of genocide, the officials could still be charged with crimes against humanity or related crimes.(7)
Given the significant death tolls, it does not matter whether the courts have accepted the claim of genocide, whether lawyers agree with the claim, or whether communications specialists think it might be too harsh a term to present to the Canadian public. What happened in residential schools were criminal acts back then, just as they are now. All of the people who had the power to stop these deaths (RCMP, Indian Affairs and the churches), not only knew about the deaths - but refused to act. At the very least, that is criminal negligence causing death.(8)
We will never get to reconciliation unless we know the truth – all of it. So far, we have only scratched the surface.
Residential schools can’t be looked at in isolation. Indian policy included the forced sterilizations of Indigenous women and little girls. Forced sterilizations were never about our cultures – it was about eliminating our populations.(9)
We are not over-represented in prisons, in child and family services and as murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls because of our cultures.
We are targeted because we are Indians. Indigenous Nations stand in the way of unfettered land and water use, resource extraction and industrial development – i.e. complete environmental destruction in the name of corporate profit.
Justice Murray Sinclair and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) team have done the impossible – they succeeded in ensuring the voices of survivors were heard, that the atrocities committed in residential schools were documented, and that the truth be told. So far we have only seen the Executive Summary – the final report, which will be many thousands of pages long, will no doubt shed light on even more disturbing details.(10)
In addition to the incredible emotional and psychological toll this must have taken on Justice Sinclair and his team, they stood strong in the face of the most aggressive anti-First Nation government Canada has been in years. They, together with the survivors, are true heroes.
But we can’t expect the TRC to carry this burden alone. Nor is this story complete.
The TRC went as far as it could to address the issue of genocide in the face of various legal considerations and consistent political denial that these schools were anything other than well-intended educational institutes.
It’s on the rest of us to stand up for the truth and ensure Canadians know everything that happened in the schools covered in this report and the ones not yet exposed.
Canada tried in various ways to eliminate our cultures – through residential schools and outlawing our ceremonies and practices in the Indian Act. This is all true.
But Canada also created the conditions which led to our deaths by the thousands inside and outside residential schools. This is also true and this is genocide.
Once we can put the truth in the table, then we can talk about reconciliation. We need to act on the TRC recommendations related to truth-seeking: a national inquiry on murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, an investigation into the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in prison, and immediate action and reporting on the over-representation of Indigenous children in foster care.
The Indian day school class action has just been accepted by the courts and that will likely also reveal similar abuses suffered by Indian children in even more schools.(11)
We must focus on getting all the facts so we can finally see justice for Indigenous peoples and true reconciliation. A determination that Canada did not commit genocide does not put an end to the story. It’s only just the beginning and it’s not going to be as easy as saying sorry. Canadian and Church officials who committed such horrific crimes upon Indigenous peoples need to be brought to justice.
The mass murder or manslaughter of our people requires criminal prosecution – just like it would anywhere else in the world. Canada doesn't receive a "Get out of Jail free" card simply because it hid its atrocities so well. Real reconciliation requires justice.
(1) Dr. Peter Bryce, "A Story of a National Crime: An Appeal for Justice to the Indians of Canada"
https://ia802705.us.archive.org/20/items/storyofnationalc00brycuoft/storyofnationalc00brycuoft_bw.pdf
(2) CBC News, "Truth and Reconciliation Commission: By the Numbers" http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/truth-and-reconciliation-commission-by-the-numbers-1.3096185
(3) The National Post, "Canada was ready to abandon 1948 accord if UN didn't remove 'cultural genocide' ban, records reveal"
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-threatened-to-abandon-1948-accord-if-un-didnt-remove-cultural-genocide-ban-records-reveal
(4) UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf
(5) Module 6: Genocide (International Criminal Law Services, European Union) pg. 26 http://wcjp.unicri.it/deliverables/docs/Module_6_Genocide.pdf
(6) P. Palmater, Stretched Beyond Human Limits: Death by Poverty in First Nations
(7) Module 6: Genocide (see above)
(8) P. Palmater, Genocide, Indian Policy and Legislated Elimination of Indians in Canada
(9) Karen Stote, An Act of Genocide: Colonialism and the Sterilization of Aboriginal Women
(10) Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada
Tuesday, May 12, 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
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
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
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Conservative's Fear Budget 2015: Canada's Future Not High on Harper's Radar
One need only skim through the Conservative government's budget to see that this massive 528 page propaganda piece is Prime Minister Harper's last big election pitch - support Harper or the terrorists will get you. The political messaging goes even further and seems to suggest that the safety and security of Canadians in all facets of life are at risk and the only way to save themselves is support to support Harper's Cons.
This is a do or die budget - literally, according to Harper. Menacing words like: threat, evil, terror, danger, harm, hurt, pain, suffering, risks/threats to safety appear 231 times in the budget plan. By comparison, the word "peace" only appears 3 times, and words like: Charter rights, constitutional rights, anti-poverty, equality, climate change, women's rights, Aboriginal rights, treaty rights, Aboriginal title, self-government, or murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls do not appear at all. The word "sovereignty" only appears in a stark military context. There is no value placed in human rights freedoms, civil liberties, equality or Aboriginal rights. The climate does not seem to be on their "radar" any more than the thousands of murdered and missing Indigenous women. This is a true fear monger's budget.
I don't recall even hearing the words "First Nation" or "Aboriginal" in the budget speech - it's like we don't exist. Despite there being major multiple, over-lapping crises in many First Nations - like a lack of housing, water and sanitation, education, health care, flooding, children in care, and murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls - this budget completely ignores these life and death realities. Harper has sent another very clear signal that the lives of First Nation men, women and children mean less than various frivolities like Ottawa's tulips or Canada Day celebrations.
The majority of the funds promised in the budget are just old announcements and much of the other funding announced is not actually "new" money, but either ongoing funding or re-purposed. Many of the funding amounts are promised "over five years" and therefore only flows if you vote for Harper. Take for example the $33M Harper promised to conduct labour market surveys in First Nations - more than $22M of that money will be re-purposed from already allocated federal funding. In other words, another program will suffer with less money so Harper can survey Indians. Other funding announced will be minuscule in its impact. The $2M a year in mental health services for First Nations equates to a little more than $3k per First Nation or less than $1 per person in many First Nations.
Most of what appears to be big money will never find its way to actual First Nation communities. The $34M and $80M a year over 5 years for "consultations" will go to the Environmental Assessment Agency and National Energy Board - not First Nations. The federal government and its agencies are already well-funded and well-armed with Justice lawyers, policy analysts, technicians, researchers and administrative support to assist them in consultations - but First Nations have none of that. This budget makes consultations on major projects worse for First Nations.
The $12M in funds over 3 years to Indspire does not equal new funds, but represents an ongoing prior investment and does not go to First Nations at all. It represents a drop in the bucket of what is needed to provide real support to First Nations in post-secondary institutions. There are approximately 22,000 Aboriginal students in post-secondary institutions and declining every year due to lack of funding. The Auditor General estimated that about 9,500 or more are on waiting lists to be funded for university. This $4M a year for Indspire amounts to $180 per current student, or if it was intended for those on the waiting list - only $420 per student. This minimal investment has no potential to address the current underfunding or the education attainment gap. It wouldn't even be enough to buy text books.
Last year, Harper and former National Chief Atleo made a surprise joint announcement that the federal government would increase First Nation education funding by $1.9B - which turns out was not all new funding and most of it was not for First Nations, but for a new, additional bureaucracy to get First Nation schools in line with provincial curriculum. It was also conditional on agreeing to legislation allowing INAC to have greater control over First Nation education. The First Nation reaction was swift and led to Atleo's resignation and a failure by Harper to provide any of the funding promised. Harper's budget is a sign that his plan continues to be to starve us into submission.
The current educational deficit in First Nations is well over $6B and thus a $200M undefined investment does not address that deficit, let alone provide the much needed funding to catch up. $200M over 5 years is only $40M a year or a little more than $63k per First Nation - not even enough to hire one reading resource teacher. Keeping in mind however, that even this funding is conditional on modelling First Nation schools after provincial systems. This minimal investment should be compared to the $200M investment being made in Canada Day celebrations. Just like the budget for tulips in Ottawa instead of protections for murdered and missing Indigenous women - First Nations are clearly Harper's very last priority.
It should be no surprise that education was not a major investment by Harper either at the k-12 level or the post-secondary level. His focus is on skilled labour force for his resource projects. Aboriginal Labour Market Programming is set to receive $248.5M over 5 years to increase the skilled labour in Aboriginal communities. Harper has made no secret that he wants to employ as many Aboriginal people as possible in oil, pipelines, Ring of Fire, uranium, and mining industries to justify his aggressive resource and energy development plans (think hydro, nuclear, and tar sands).
It's hardly worth even mentioning the $30M over 5 years to permit 25 more First Nations into the First Nation Land Management Act regime as this amounts to $6M a year or $240k for only 25 select First Nations. No funding was allotted to address the billions in outstanding treaty, resource and land claims, or support for self-government agreements (for those who want them). There was nothing to address governance or crisis social issues like murdered and missing women or kids in care - despite major reports from the United Nations finding Canada to have committed "grave violations" of our human rights.
Parties and parades is Harper's priority along with pandas and hockey. He has not only cheated First Nations, but has cheated Canadians by selling GM shares and dipping into the reserves - in both senses of the word - to fake a balanced budget. This can't even be called a status quo budget or play it safe budget. By failing to address significant gaps in socio-economic conditions of First Nations, he and Minister Valcourt set up a budget that violates their own mandate to improve the economic and social well-being of Canadians. By refusing to address any of the crises, the lives of our men, women and children are at risk.
The real danger doesn't come from terrorists, but from Harper's destruction of the environment, his failure to address climate change, his failure to address education and health care, and his wilful neglect of First Nation lives and well-being. Perhaps is he spent less money criminalizing those who are protecting the lands, waters and people in Canada, he would have enough money to invest in our collective futures.
This Fear Budget 2015 shows that Canadians and First Nations alike have something to fear alright - and it's Canada's biggest terrorist: PM Harper. He represents the biggest threat to our collective well-being and future generations that Canada has ever seen.
If ever there was a time for treaty partners to come together - it is now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)