The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) has filed a federal class action lawsuit to seek damages and justice for the thousands of First Nations children and families that have been discriminated against by Canada’s child welfare system that incentivized the removal of First Nation children from their families and Nations.
“Year after year, generation after generation, Canada systemically discriminated against First Nations children and families simply because they were First Nations,” said AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde. “It did so by underfunding preventive care, perpetuating the historical disadvantage resulting from the residential schools. Canada breached its responsibility to our children and families, infringed on their Charter rights, and caused them real harm and suffering. We will always stand up for our children.”
The class action lawsuit filed by the AFN asserts, among other things, that Canada’s funding was discriminatory because the federal system created a perverse incentive to remove First Nations children from their families and Nations and put them in out-of-home care; it failed to account for different needs among First Nations in different locations; and funding for First Nations children on-reserve in the child welfare system is significantly less than children in the child welfare system off-reserve.
Manitoba Regional Chief Kevin Hart holds the child welfare portfolio within the AFN and said that the AFN has the experience and expertise in the area of First Nations child welfare, including its years of work at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on this issue, and is best placed to fight for a fair and just outcome for First Nations children and families.
“This AFN class action builds on our work and evidence at the Canadian Human Right Tribunal and challenges the federal government’s systemic discriminatory approach to child and family services and the denial of services to our children under Jordan’s Principle. The AFN class action is seeking compensation for all those harmed by the system, including those not covered in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s decision,” Regional Chief Kevin Hart said.
In January 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) found that the Government of Canada was systemically discriminating against First Nations children on-reserve and in the Yukon in its implementation of child and family services. On September 6, 2019 the CHRT ordered Canada to pay $40,000 in compensation to First Nations children and their families where a wrongful apprehension occurred or where there was a denial of services due to Canada’s lack of implementation of Jordan’s Principle. The work to implement the Tribunal’s ruling on compensation and child welfare reform will continue as a separate track from the class action.
The RCMP’s enforcement of the Coastal GasLink injunction against the Wet’suwet’en has ignited a national debate about the law and the rights of Indigenous people.
Unfortunately, misconceptions and conflicting information threaten to derail this important conversation. Below, we attempt to provide clear, straightforward answers to address some of these fundamental misunderstandings.
What about support for the project from the Wet’suwet’en elected Chiefs and Councils?
Media outlets across the country have repeatedly reported that First Nations along the pipeline route, including the Wet’suwet’en, have signed agreements in support of the project.
Underlying this statement are several key issues that require clarification.
First, the Wet’suwet’en, like many Indigenous groups in Canada, are governed by both a traditional governance system and elected Chiefs and Councils.
The Chief and Council system exists under the Indian Act, a piece of federal legislation. It was introduced by the federal government in the 19th century as part of Canada’s attempts to systematically oppress and displace Indigenous law and governance.
The Wet’suwet’en hereditary governance system predates colonization and continues to exist today. The Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs, not the Indian Act Chiefs and Councils, were the plaintiffs in the landmark Delgamuukw-Gisday’wayAboriginal title case. They provided the court with exhaustive and detailed evidence of the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan governance system and the legal authority of Hereditary Chiefs.
Unless otherwise authorized by the Indigenous Nation members, the authority of elected Chiefs and Councils is limited to the powers set out under the Indian Act. The Indian Act does not provide authority for a Chief and Council to make decisions about lands beyond the boundaries of the First Nation’s reserves.
By contrast, the Hereditary Chiefs are responsible under Wet’suwet’en law and governance for making decisions relating to their ancestral lands. It is these lands that the Hereditary Chiefs are seeking to protect from the impacts of the pipeline project, not Indian Act reserve lands.
Second, Indigenous peoples hold rights to lands in Canada which extend far beyond the boundaries of Indian Act reserves, including Aboriginal title and rights to the lands they used and occupied prior to the arrival of Europeans and the assertion of Crown sovereignty. Aboriginal title and rights are protected under the Constitution Act, 1982 – the highest law in Canada’s legal system.
Third, the fact that First Nations have signed agreements with Coastal GasLink does not, in itself, mean that its members support the project without qualification.
Across the country, Indian Act band councils are forced to make difficult choices about how to provide for their members – a situation which exists in large part due to the process of colonization, chronic underfunding for reserve infrastructure and refusal on the part of the Crown to meaningfully recognize Indigenous rights and jurisdiction.
The fact that elected Wet’suwet’en Chiefs and Councils have entered into benefit agreements with Coastal GasLink should not be taken as unconditional support for the project.
Finally, similar to how Canada functions as a confederation with separate provinces with their own authority, First Nation decisions on major projects are not simply a matter of majority rules.
The Quebec provincial government made it clear that it was opposed to and would not sanction the proposed Energy East pipeline. The federal government and other provincial governments respected Quebec’s right to make this decision. Similarly, First Nations often disagree about major projects. One cannot speak for another and the majority cannot simply overrule the minority or individual First Nations.
But aren’t the Indian Act Chiefs and Councils democratically elected?
Chiefs and Councils under the Indian Act may be elected, but they do not necessarily speak for the Nation as a whole.
Most Chiefs and Councils are elected by status ‘Indians’ whose names are on an Indian Act band list. The federal government decides who is entitled to be registered as a status Indian through the registration provisions of the Indian Act. The registration provisions are restrictive and have been subject to numerous legal challenges.
Some Indian Act bands have adopted custom election codes that allow non-status ‘Indians’ to vote. However, in general if an individual does not meet the criteria for ‘Indian’ status under the Indian Act, they will not be able to vote in band elections.
Critically, the fact that an Indigenous person is not registered under the Indian Act does not mean that they do not hold Aboriginal title and rights. Aboriginal title and rights are held collectively and are not restricted to status Indians registered under the Indian Act.
But what about the ‘rule of law’?
Land law in Canada is much more complicated and uncertain than most non-Indigenous Canadians appreciate.
When European colonizers arrived, numerous Indigenous Nations existed throughout the land we now call Canada. Each Indigenous Nation, including the Wet’suwet’en, had their own unique and specific set of land laws. Canadian courts continue to recognize that Indigenous laws form part of Canada’s legal system, including as a basis for Aboriginal title. The “rule of law” therefore includes both Canadian and Indigenous law.
Under international and British law at the time of colonization, unless Indigenous people were conquered or treaties were made with them, the Indigenous interest in their land was to be respected by the law of the European colonizing nation. The British Crown never conquered or made a treaty with the Wet’suwet’en.
In the early days of the colonization of what is now British Columbia, the British government was well aware that based on its own laws it was highly questionable that it had any right to occupy Indigenous lands or assign rights in those lands to individuals or companies.
Nonetheless, beginning in the 1860s the colony of British Columbia began passing its own land laws and giving out property interests in Indigenous land without any established legal right to do so.
The source of the Province’s authority over Indigenous lands remains unresolved in Canadian law today.
In 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada referred to the historical and current situation as British Columbia’s de facto control of Indigenous lands and resources.
In other words, the Supreme Court recognized that the Province’s authority to issue permits for Indigenous lands, including the type of permits issued for the Coastal GasLink pipeline, is not based on established legal authority. It is based on the fact that the Province has proceeded, for over 150 years, to make unilateral decisions about Indigenous lands.
Photo by Mike Graeme
The fact that the Province has acted since the 1860s as though it has full authority to decide how Indigenous peoples’ lands are used does not make doing so legal or just.
Isn’t this Crown Land?
Under Canadian law, the Crown, as represented by the various provincial governments, has what is referred to as the underlying interest in all land within provincial boundaries. This is based on the discredited and internationally repudiated ‘doctrine of discovery’. Courts in Canada have concluded that regardless of the doctrine of discovery having been rejected around the world, they are unable to question its legitimacy.
Importantly, even if one accepts that provincial governments hold the underlying interest in ‘Crown land’, that interest is subject to strict limits. It does not mean that the provincial governments have a legal right to occupy Indigenous lands or to grant rights to those lands to individuals or companies. Nor does it give provincial governments the right to sell Indigenous land, assign interests to people or companies or forcibly remove Indigenous people from their territories.
The right to benefit from the land, decide how the land should be used and exclude other people from entering on or using the land is separate from the Crown’s underlying interest in the land.
The right to benefit from the land and exclude others from using the land is part of what Canadian courts have described as Aboriginal title. Aboriginal title, including Wet’suwet’en Aboriginal title, takes precedence over the Crown’s underlying interest in the land.
While Canadian courts have held that provincial governments may be able to infringe Aboriginal title, the requirements to justify infringement are very onerous. The provincial government has not attempted to justify its infringement of Wet’suwet’en Aboriginal title.
But what about the Wet’suwet’en not having proven their Aboriginal title in court?
As with other Indigenous Nations, Wet’suwet’en Aboriginal title exists as a matter of law. It predates the colony of British Columbia and British Columbia’s entry into confederation in 1871.
Its existence was not created by section 35 of the Constitution Act, nor does it depend on recognition by Canadian courts.
Canadian courts can recognize Wet’suwet’en Aboriginal title, but they cannot create it. A court declaration of Aboriginal title would merely confirm its existence under Canadian law.
In the Delgamuukw-Gisday’way case, the courts heard extensive evidence about Wet’suwet’en title and rights. Ultimately, the Supreme Court refused to issue a declaration in favour of the Wet’suwet’en because of a technicality in the pleadings. The parties were left to either negotiate a resolution or begin a new trial.
Regardless of whether there is a court declaration, it is open to the Province to recognize and respect the existence of Wet’suwet’en title at any time.
Instead of recognizing the existence of Aboriginal title, the current provincial government continues to adhere to a policy of denial. This is the same policy endorsed by every provincial government since British Columbia became a part of Canada.
As long as it maintains this policy, the Province avoids the implications of having to recognize Wet’suwet’en title and fulfil its corresponding obligations under Canadian law.
Photo by Lauren Sortome
By its continued denial of Wet’suwet’en title, the Province avoids the hard work of reconciling its longstanding failure to respect Indigenous land rights with the continued existence and resurgence of Wet’suwet’en law and governance.
First Peoples Law Corporation is legal counsel for Unist’ot’en. The statements here are made on our own behalf and reflect our views on this issue, not those of our client.
Kate Gunn, lawyer, is an associate at First Peoples Law Corporation. Kate recently completed her Master’s of Law at the University of British Columbia. Her most recent academic essay, “Agreeing to Share: Treaty 3, History & the Courts,” was published in the UBC Law Review.
Bruce McIvor, lawyer and historian, is principal of First Peoples Law Corporation. He is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of British Columbia’s Allard School of Law where he teaches the constitutional law of Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Bruce is a proud Métis from the Red River in Manitoba. He holds a Ph.D. in Aboriginal and environmental history and is a Fulbright Scholar. A member of the bar in British Columbia and Ontario, Bruce is recognized nationally and internationally as a leading practitioner of Aboriginal law in Canada.
(Kanesatake, February 12th 2020) — The Iroquois Caucus today unequivocally condemned the actions taken against the Wet’suwet’en people by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the governments of British Columbia and Canada.
State sanctioned violence and use of force against First Nations appears to be the preferred go to solution whenever First Nations stand up to defend their lands and territories. This is not reconciliation and must stop.
The many statements made by the Prime Minister regarding the importance of a relationship with First Nations, and the recent adoption of the UNDRIP by the Provincial government, become no more than hollow rhetoric, considering the use of an armed force to subdue and remove peaceful protesters.
The Prime Minister is currently meeting with African Nations where Canada is being portrayed as a staunch defender of human rights in order to garner votes for a Canadian seat on the U.N. Security Council, yet the Canadian state continues to violate the rights of First Nations people.
We call on the federal and provincial governments to meet with the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs immediately and to address this issue in a manner that upholds the principle of reconciliation, the authority of Wet’suwet’en law, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the honor of the Crown.
DENVER, CO-– Today, indigenious leaders, local activists, and impacted community members turned out for the first round of public hearings in order to voice their concerns over the Trump administration’s proposal to gut core components of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA.) The successful law forces government agencies to consider environmental impacts and communities before executing projects. The law has protected communities nationwide, however in Colorado it is responsible for stopping drilling in the North Fork Valley, protected several National Forests from being clear-cut, as well as protecting the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument.
Despite considerable national attention to the issue, the Trump administration decided to only hold public hearings for the rollback proposal in two cities– both of which sold out in minutes. The hearings were held at inconvenient times for working people and the administration has shown no real indication that it will listen to those voices it actually heard.
“The White House completely underestimated the American people, “ said Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel of Earthjustice. “NEPA has been vital in protecting vulnerable communities and now the White House is trying to gut it so that industry can have another handout? Not on our watch. Today, attendees showed the Trump admin that attempting to silence them by limiting public hearings and rolling back critical laws is only fueling their fire.”
“The National Environmental Policy Act gave Coloradans one of their only tools forcing the government to consider safer alternatives, and consider the effects of massive new oil and gas development on air quality. If President Trump gets his way, industry and government may be able to sweep the damage they will cause under the rug.”, said Ean Thomas Tafoya, Greenlatinos and Colorado Latino Forum
Montreal, February 12, 2020 – On the occasion of the Special Commission on the Rights of Children and Youth Protection (Laurent Commission), the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador (AFNQL) and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission (FNQLHSSC) presented a joint brief aimed in particular at reaffirming the rights of First Nations to decide on the future and education of their children.
It must be said that the sad event at the origin of this Commission raised many concerns about the flaws in the Quebec youth protection system and the support measures provided to families. Unfortunately, for First Nations, this finding is not new. Since its creation, First Nations children and families have been continuously faced with the shortcomings of the Youth Protection Act (YPA), which is far too rigid and regressive while disregarding the cultural and socioeconomic differences of the nations. Through its blindness, this system is responsible for having taken a large number of children, temporarily or permanently, and placing them far away from their families and communities and profoundly disrupting the development of their identity.
“The YPA is not suitable for us, or at least how it is implemented in our communities; some of its elements are even discriminatory. This unsuitability is proven by the fact that our children are overrepresented in youth protection, up to eight times more than Quebec children. This is what happens when services and programs impact First Nations without being created by them or controlled by them. The time has come for our right to self-determination to be respected,” said Derek Montour, President of the Board of Directors of the FNQLHSSC.
“We are very determined to exercise our collective responsibility to see to the wellness of our children. The coming into force, on January 1, 2020, of An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (C-92) confirms the jurisdiction of our political authorities in matters of child and family services. Beyond the claims of other governments which risk becoming isolated in interminable jurisdictional disputes, we have the obligation to ensure the necessary conditions which will allow our own institutions, with the participation of our families, to decide on the future of our children,” added Ghislain Picard, Chief of the AFNQL.
In their brief, the two organizations made recommendations that affect Act C-92, Bill 31, which aims to authorize the communication of personal information concerning certain missing or deceased Aboriginal children to their families, and the YPA. Among other things, the AFNQL and the FNQLHSSC have reiterated their constitutional right to manage family support and youth protection services, according to Act C-92, and are asking the Government of Quebec to withdraw its dispute and negotiate coordination agreements in good faith with First Nations governments and Canada. With regard to the YPA, they are also calling for Indigenous children to be exempted from the application of the maximum periods of foster care and that the regulation on financial assistance to promote the adoption and tutorship of a child be amended. More generally, the two organizations recommend that Quebec implement measures that respond appropriately to the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the calls to action of the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Québec.
About the AFNQL The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador is a political organization that unites 43 First Nations Chiefs in Quebec and Labrador.
About the FNQLHSSC The First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission is a non- profit organization that supports First Nations in Quebec in achieving their objectives in terms of health, wellness, culture and self-determination.
Montréal, le 12 février 2020 – À l’occasion de la Commission spéciale sur les droits des enfants et la protection de la jeunesse (Commission Laurent), l’Assemblée des Premières Nations Québec-Labrador (APNQL) et la Commission de la santé et des services sociaux des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador (CSSSPNQL) ont présenté un mémoire conjoint visant notamment à réaffirmer le droit des Premières Nations de décider de l’avenir et de l’éducation de leurs enfants.
Il faut dire que le triste événement à l’origine de cette Commission a soulevé bien des inquiétudes quant aux failles du système de protection de la jeunesse québécois et des mesures de soutien offertes aux familles. Malheureusement, pour les Premières Nations, ce constat ne date pas d’hier. Depuis sa création, les familles et les enfants des Premières Nations sont continuellement confrontés aux lacunes de la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse (LPJ), beaucoup trop rigide, voire rétrograde, qui ne prend pas en compte les différences culturelles et socioéconomiques des nations. Par son aveuglement, ce système est responsable d’avoir retiré un grand nombre d’enfants, de façon temporaire ou permanente, loin de leur famille et de leur communauté, provoquant de profonds bouleversements dans leur développement identitaire.
« La LPJ n’est pas adaptée pour nous, du moins la façon dont elle est mise en œuvre dans nos communautés; certains de ses aspects sont même discriminatoires. La preuve : nos enfants sont surreprésentés en protection de la jeunesse, soit jusqu’à huit fois plus que les enfants québécois. C’est ce qui se produit quand des services et des programmes sont destinés aux Premières Nations, mais sans être créés ou contrôlés par elles. Il est grand temps que notre droit à l’autodétermination soit respecté », a indiqué Derek Montour, président du conseil d’administration de la CSSSPNQL.
« Il n’y a pas grand-chose qui puisse ralentir notre détermination d’exercer notre responsabilité collective de voir au mieux-être de nos enfants. L’entrée en vigueur, le 1er janvier 2020, de la Loi concernant les enfants, les jeunes et les familles des Premières Nations, des Inuits et des Métis (C-92) confirme la compétence de nos autorités politiques en matière de services à l’enfance et à la famille. Au-delà des prétentions des autres gouvernements qui risquent de s’isoler dans des conflits de compétence interminables, nous avons l’obligation d’assurer les conditions nécessaires qui permettront à nos propres
institutions, avec la participation de nos familles, de décider de l’avenir de nos enfants », a poursuivi Ghislain Picard, chef de l’APNQL.
Dans leur mémoire, les deux organisations ont émis des recommandations qui touchent autant la Loi C-92, le projet de loi no 31, dont le but est d’autoriser la communication de renseignements personnels concernant certains enfants autochtones disparus ou décédés à leur famille, ainsi que la LPJ. Entre autres, l’APNQL et la CSSSPNQL réitèrent leur droit constitutionnel de gérer les services de soutien aux familles et de protection de la jeunesse, selon la Loi C-92, et demandent au gouvernement du Québec de retirer sa contestation et de négocier de bonne foi avec les gouvernements des Premières Nations et le Canada des accords de coordination. En ce qui concerne la LPJ, il est réclamé que les enfants autochtones soient exemptés de l’application des durées maximales d’hébergement et que le règlement sur l’aide financière pour favoriser l’adoption et la tutelle d’un enfant soit modifié. De façon plus générale, les deux organisations recommandent que le Québec mette en œuvre des mesures répondant correctement aux appels à la justice de l’Enquête nationale sur les femmes et les filles autochtones disparues et assassinées et aux appels à l’action de la Commission d’enquête sur les relations entre les Autochtones et certains services publics au Québec.
À propos de l’APNQL L’Assemblée des Premières Nations Québec-Labrador est l’organisme politique qui regroupe 43 chefs des Premières Nations au Québec et au Labrador. À propos de la CSSSPNQL La Commission de la santé et des services sociaux des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador est un organisme à but non lucratif qui accompagne les Premières Nations au Québec dans l’atteinte de leurs objectifs en matière de santé, de mieux-être, de culture et d’autodétermination.
(Ottawa, ON) – Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Perry Bellegarde issued the following statement today on the situation in Wet’suwet’en Nation territory and actions by the RCMP in the area, including the kilometer 39 checkpoint:
“I am urging peace and I condemn any acts of violence in enforcing the injunction brought against the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and their supporters. The use of force against peaceful people is a violation of human rights and First Nations’ rights. The RCMP is sworn to uphold Canada’s law, but Canada must respect First Nations laws and Wet’suwet’en laws. Canada’s highest law – the Constitution – affirms in section 35 the inherent rights of First Nations and our right to self-determination.
We will never achieve reconciliation through force. If this is really about the ‘rule of law’ then governments should be honouring the rights and title of First Nations in their traditional territories. The only way to resolve this is open dialogue amongst all parties, including dialogue with and within the Wet’suwet’en Nation. Going forward, we need to work at implementing First Nations laws as equal to common law and civil law.
The AFN supports the governance and decision-making process of the Wet’suwet’en leaders. Canada and B.C. should do the same.”
The Assembly of First Nations is the national organization representing First Nation citizens in Canada. Follow AFN on Twitter @AFN_Comms, @AFN_Updates.
I spend a lot of time in small towns across Canada. Often, I go for lunch with my First Nation clients. With one of my clients I noticed that we always ate at the same local restaurant over and over again, despite there being what seemed to be several other perfectly good places to eat. When I finally suggested we try one of those restaurants for a change, the response from my clients jarred me out of my comfortable complacency: this is where we feel safe, they said.
The threat and reality of violence is at the core of Indigenous experiences with non-Indigenous Canada.
My clients live with the threat of violence their entire lives. Violence inflicted on them and their loved ones by non-Indigenous people.
From an early age they learn the cruel reality that being a visibly identifiable Indigenous person in Canada means they live with a heightened risk of being insulted, attacked and killed by non-Indigenous people.
From Colten Boushie to Tina Fontaine, to a grandfather and his granddaughter handcuffed outside a bank in downtown Vancouver, violence against Indigenous people is the Canadian reality.
It is a violence that extends beyond the personal. It has been an ever-present tool in the colonization and continuing oppression and displacement of Indigenous people in Canada.
From Indigenous perspectives, Canadian history is a horror show of violence. From Governor Cornwallis’ bounty on Mi’kmaq scalps, to military attacks on the fledgling Métis Nation, to Louis Riel hanged in Regina, to John A. Macdonad’s policy of starvation of the Plains Cree, to Poundmaker’s imprisonment, to the hanging of Tsilhqot’in Chiefs, to residential schools and the 60s scoop, the list goes on and on.
Importantly, Canadian state-sanctioned violence against Indigenous people is not simply a matter of history and easy apologies. It is a modern-day reality. Think back over the last 20 years: Oka, Gustafsen Lake, Ipperwash, Burnt Church, Elsipogtog, Unist’ot’en.
Yesterday my Wet’suwet’en clients in northern British Columbia again faced the reality of what it too often means to be an Indigenous person in Canada. While Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and their supporters seek to defend their land against a multinational pipeline company and a provincial government that appears to believe reconciliation occurs at the end of a gun, the RCMP again amassed an armed force in an attempt to overwhelm and subdue them.
In preparation for a similar military-style raid against my clients last year, the RCMP employed a strategy of ‘lethal overwatch’ and using as much violence as they deemed necessary to ‘sterilize the site’.
This time around the RCMP assured Canadians that the police officers tasked with dismantling Wet’suwet’en camps, handcuffing unarmed land protectors and marching them off to jail had first undergone cultural awareness training.
For many Indigenous people the very language of ‘peace, order and good government’ is infused with and inseparable from real, visceral, frightening experiences of violence.
On a blustery day in northern Ontario, over a hundred miles from the nearest road, I informed Anishinaabe clients that the provincial government was finally willing to sit down and explore avenues for them to exercise their inherent Indigenous ‘jurisdiction.’
The Elders politely smiled, turned away and spoke among themselves in Oji-Cree. After a few minutes, as often happens, I was told a story.
It was a story about being a child and wanting to visit cousins in the neighbouring community down river. Of traveling in an open boat, of rounding a bend in the river and seeing cousins handcuffed to poplar trees.
For my clients the word ‘jurisdiction’ didn’t connote fairness, justice and the rule of law. It conjured visions of the personifications of government and institutional authority, the priest, the RCMP officer, the Indian Agent—the people who handcuffed their cousins to poplar trees.
The threat and reality of violence extends beyond language—it has become part of the built environment that contains and defines our daily experiences.
I grew up in rural Manitoba on the fringes of the Peguis First Nation reserve. My mother held a wide variety of jobs. I thought she could do anything. I still do. One of her jobs was working in the beer parlour in the hotel in a nearby small-town.
Occasionally, after school I’d wait at the hotel until her shift ended. Hoping to get a few dollars to buy a serving of French fries in the adjoining diner, I’d grip the counter at the off-sales window, pull myself up and look into the beer parlour, straining to get my mom’s attention as she served draft beer and punched out change from the coin belt around her waist.
The room was dingy with a dirty carpet soaked in cheap beer. A low steel fence ran down the middle of the room, dividing it in two. I asked my mom, why is there a fence? Her answer brought many of my childhood experiences into focus: “It’s to separate the Indians from the white guys.” Any Indigenous person daring to sit on the wrong side of that fence risked a severe beating.
When I hear the word reconciliation I think of that fence. I think of how it represents Canada’s long history of segregating Indigenous people and perpetuating violence against them.
Violence towards Indigenous people, personal, institutional and state-sanctioned, is woven into the very fabric of Canadian life, both its history and its present. It is in the words we speak and the buildings and cities we inhabit. Canadian law sanctions it, politicians justify it, industry profits from it, the public turns a blind eye.
With yesterday’s RCMP raid on the Wet’suwet’en, violence has also become the hallmark of reconciliation.
Bruce McIvor, lawyer and historian, is principal of First Peoples Law Corporation.
Feb 6, Vancouver (BC) – Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs have filed an application for a Judicial Review of the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) decision to extend the environmental certificate for Coastal GasLink’s proposed fracked gas pipeline in Northwest BC for another five years.
The application challenges the BCEAO decision to extend permits despite over 50 instances of non-compliance by Coastal GasLink and a failure to incorporate the recent findings of the Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The inquiry found direct links between extractive industries, “man camps” and increased violence against Indigenous women.
Wet’suwet’en Dinï ze’ and Ts’akë ze’ (Hereditary Chiefs) stand united in pursuing this legal action. Canadian law recognizes Wet’suwet’en traditional governance, as the Supreme Court explicitly stated in the groundbreaking Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision and as reaffirmed in the Canfor v. Sam case.
“Coastal GasLink has repeatedly flouted the conditions that were spelled out in their previous certificate, and shown only contempt for our people. My cousins are listed among the Murdered and Missing Women and Girls (MMIWG), BC must not be allowed to bend the rules to facilitate operations that are a threat to the safety of Wet’suwet’en women,” stated Dinï ze’ Smogelgem, one of the Hereditary Chiefs of the Lakshamshu (Fireweed and Owl) Clan.
“This case is about questioning the integrity of the environmental assessment process. In recommending that CGL be granted a project extension of 5 years, the EAO failed in its legislated duty to properly consider the facts, abdicated its responsibility to interrogate newly identified potential harms of this project, and has made a decision that is unjustified and unjustifiable,” said Caily DiPuma of Woodward and Co., legal counsel for the Wet’suwet’en. “Public confidence in the administration of BC’s environmental assessment system requires that the EAO be held to account for its failings.”
This legal challenge comes at a time when Canadians at large are increasingly concerned about the growing epidemic of violence against Indigenous women. The final report of the National Inquiry into MMIWG urged immediate action to address Canada’s “race-based genocide of Indigenous peoples,” and found that “work camps, or ‘man camps,’ associated with the resource extraction industry are implicated in higher rates of violence against Indigenous women at the camps and in the neighbouring communities.”
The Wet’suwet’en people, under the governance of their hereditary chiefs, have never consented to the Coastal GasLink pipeline project. This legal action seeks to overturn the EAO’s decision to extend Coastal GasLink’s certificate due to an established pattern of non-compliance from the project proponent. The Dinï ze’ and Ts’akë ze’ continue to resist colonial and gendered violence against Wet’suwet’en people, and to protect Wet’suwet’en lands for future generations.
TORONTO – February 5, 2020 – The Saugeen Ojibway Nation, comprised of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, and whose territory (Saukiing Anishnaabekiing) encompasses the entire Saugeen (Bruce) Peninsula and extends southward to the Maitland River and eastward to the Nottawasaga River, have partnered with the Canadian Nuclear Isotope Council (CNIC) to advance reconciliation in a way that engages a First Nations community in securing critical infrastructure key to Canada’s economic and strategic strength in the isotope sector.
Today’s announcement reflects the CNIC’s commitment to safeguarding the continued availability of isotopes, ensuring its public policies are risk-informed and science-based, and support the highest levels of public health and safety,
“People in Canada and around the world rely on the continuous availability of medical isotopes. For more than 60 years, Canada has been a leader globally in the research, development and production of medical isotopes and radiopharmaceuticals,” said CNIC Chair James Scongack. “This has meant that Canada has been a global leader in the fight against cancer and keeping our hospitals clean and safe.
“This is a tremendously important partnership with the SON that will see us join forces in the fight against cancer worldwide as we advocate for continued Canadian innovation and leadership to work in developing new isotopes.”
“Many of our community members have been impacted by cancer in some way, and I believe that working with the CNIC on the next generation of life-saving isotopes in the SON Territory is an opportunity for us to have a positive impact on the people and families touched by cancer,” said Greg Nadjiwon, Chief of Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation.
“By leveraging this partnership with the CNIC, we can establish something of lasting and sustainable benefit for our communities and our people, while contributing broadly to Canada’s economy and our role as a global supplier of isotopes,” said Lester Anoquot, Chief of the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation.
Throughout 2019, the SON has been engaged in very productive conversations with the Government of Canada on the importance of Canada continuing its leadership role in the isotope sector as the public- policy priorities for government including reconciliation, Indigenous economic and community development, innovation and creating new highly-skilled jobs in Canada.
The SON also recently announced with Bruce Power an agreement to jointly market new isotopes in support of the global fight against cancer while also working together on creating new economic opportunities within the SON Territory by establishing new isotope infrastructure.
The agreement will leverage a project announced by Bruce Power in 2019 to produce Lutetium-177 – used to treat prostate cancer – with production starting in 2022 following regulatory and other approvals.
By working together on the Lutetium project, Bruce Power and SON will engage in identifying joint marketing opportunities while working with government to leverage this opportunity and create sustainable economic benefits. Most importantly, it would be a tool of reconciliation in a way that engages a First Nations community in securing critical infrastructure key to Canada’s economic and strategic strength in this area.
Looking ahead, the CNIC will remain focused on ensuring that Canada continues to be a world leader in the production of life-saving isotopes by bringing awareness and supporting long-term policies at the domestic and international levels that will save countless lives and support health-care innovation for decades to come.
