Category:

Huge win for Aboriginal people: title is theirs!

6/26/2014

In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has finally held, clearly, that the Tsilqot'in people have title to their traditional territory.

Exactly what 'aboriginal title' means has been a subject of controversy for decades. This decision will have enormous impact in B.C., where almost all of the land in the Province belongs to First Nations people, having never been ceded or treatied. In turn, that gives First Nations enormous power with resepct to resource development - including the Enbridge pipeline.

"For centuries the Tsilhqot’in Nation, a semi-nomadic grouping of six bands sharing common culture and history, have lived in a remote valley bounded by rivers and mountains in central British Columbia. It is one of hundreds of indigenous groups in B.C. with unresolved land claims. In 1983, B.C. granted a commercial logging licence on land considered by the Tsilhqot’in to be part of their traditional territory. The band objected and sought a declaration prohibiting commercial logging on the land. Talks with the province reached an impasse and the original land claim was amended to include a claim for Aboriginal title to the land at issue on behalf of all Tsilhqot’in people. The federal and provincial governments opposed the title claim." (from the judgement)

Some of the issues which this case settled:

1. A First Nation has title even if they were a nomadic nation and did not have defined settlements, as long as they regularly used the territory.

2. The proper way for the constitutionally-protected rights of aboriginal people to be reconciled with the rights of other Canadians is outlined. First Nations title gives that First Nation the exclusive right to decide how the land is to be sued and the right to benefit from those uses.

3. The Crown can negotiate with First Nations and get their consent.

4. If the Crown does not have consent, it may in some circumstances still go onto First Nations territory: but it must
a. Comply with its procedural duties
b. Justify any incursion into Aboriginal title lands by showing that there is a "pressing and substantial" government objective AND that the government is acting in a way that is consistent with its fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal title-holder.

The government must respect the Aboriginal title in both present and for future generations; and it must show that it is making the smallest possible incursion into the territory to achieve its goal (minimal impairment); and the benefits the government gets must not be outweighed by disadvantage to the First Nation.

5. If aboriginal title has not been established in an area of the province, then provincial laws of general application apply. So the government can issue licences under the Forestry Act, for example. But once aboriginal title is established the land no longer falls under the Forest Act as "crown land".

6. If the province wants to issue forestry licences on land belonging to First Nations, it must either get their consent, or be able to demonstrate that the licences are necessary to accomplish a "pressing and substantial" objective AND be able to show that the benefit to government is not outweighed by the detriment to the First Nation.

It will be in the context of pipelines in BC that this decision will have an enormous impact.

This case marks the beginning of a new relationship between settlers and First Nations people. Settlers must stand in alliance with First Nations people as the implications of this decision are worked out everywhere in BC and Canada.

0 Comments

Remember the Charter of Rights? Not so fast...

9/14/2013

0 Comments

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982, has become a cultural touchstone, guaranteeing that Canada is a place of freedom, respect, and equality.
Right?
Two events this week underscore the Charter's weaknesses. The first is an . underreported court case in Ontario, Tanudjaja v Canada. In that case, a coalition including B.C.'s Pivot Legal Services argued that the Charter imposed an obligation on the federal and provincial government to ensure that affordable, adquate and accessible housing is available for all Ontarians and Canadians. The coalition argued that section 7 of the Charter, a guarantee of of "life, liberty, or security of the person" imposed that obligation.
The case was thrown out as soon as it was filed, before any evidence was heard. The court said that the Charter imposes no positive obligation on governments to do anything. If the government gets into the affordable housing business, it must do so in compliance with the Charter which among other things guarantees equality. But the government has no obligation to get into the affordable housing business if it doesn't want to.
So your 'right' as a Canadian to "life...and security of the person" doesn't include the right to eat, or be sheltered.

The second event - this one all over the news - is Quebec's intention to introduce a "Charter of Values" which would prohibit the wearing of some religious symbols (all except Catholic crucifixes, in fact) if you work in the public sector - government, hospitals, educational institutions.

This law does contradicts the guarantee of 'freedom of religion' and the guarantee of 'freedom of expression' in both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec's own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Courts have consistently upheld the rights of religious minorities: for example in Multani, a affirming that Sikh boys could wear kirpans (a religious symbolic metal knife worn under clothing) to school; and in Amselem, permitting Jews to erect succah, a small ritual dwelling, on their balconies notwithstanding a rue of the luxury condo where they lived that prohibited balcony structures.

Queers have objected, unsuccessfully, that 'freedom of religion' should not be a licence to discriminate against queers just because they 'sincerely believe' that being queer is a sin. In Trinity Western, for example, queers lost an argument that the Christian College should be refused accreditation as a teacher's college because it required all students to sign a contract agreeing not to engage in sexual 'sins' including homosexuality.

So it seems obvious that Quebec's 'Charter of Values' would be thrown out because it contravenes the Charter of Rights. Because the Charter of Rights is part of the Constitution of the country any other law that conflicts with it can be declared null and void.

Right?

Not necessarily.

The Quebec government can throw in a 'notwithstanding' clause. Any government is permitted to enact a law which they know contradicts the Charter of Rights if they include a section that says the law is valid notwithstanding the Charter. If the 'notwithstanding' clause is included, the Quebec Charter of Values would be good for five years, after which it would have to be reenacted. Governments have to think twice about using the notwithstanding clause, because they know that every five years they will have to pay the political cost of enacting a Charter -violating law.

We queers must stand firmly with the religious minorities in Quebec, even though 'religious freedom' is often pitted against queer rights. Because what is at stake is our country's very soul. Unless we all recognize that conflicts among rights - religious freedom and queer rights, or any other conflict - must be settled by the courts, we will inevitably end up with the shameful spectacle of governments enacting legislation designed to hurt minorities just to get votes. And when that day comes, we will be among the minorities targeted for legislated bigotry.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is deeply flawed because it does not even pretend to address the worst inequalities among Canadians - the inequalities created and perpetuated by poverty. And the Charter is fragile: if ever it becomes politically acceptable to tack the 'notwithstanding' clause onto any piece of legislation which is currently in favour, all of our Charter rights will succomb.

But, as minorities of any kind - sexual, racial, religious, disabled, immigrant, women (though not a minority!) the Charter is all we've got.

0 Comments

Could it happen here?

4/19/2013

0 Comments

A lesbian phys ed teacher was fired after 19 years when the Catholic school board she worked for found out she was a lesbian.

The teacher worked in Columbus, Ohio. Her sexual orientation came to light after her mother's obituary mentioned her female partner. After a complaint from a parent who read the obituary, the diocese fired her, saying she had "violated the school's moral policy".

Could it happen in B.C.?

Shockingly, the answer is 'yes'. Though such treatment is discriminatory, the Catholic employer gets off the hook under a provision in the B.C. Human Rights Code which exempts non-profit groups who exist to serve people on the basis of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc (any ground protected under the Code) from complying with human rights laws.

That's how Rape Relief is able to exclude transsexual women. We are a non-profit, we are here to serve women, so we are free to discriminate if we want to, they argued. They won.

So too did the Catholic Church win in a 1983 decision in which they fired a school teacher (heterosexual) because she was living with a partner outside of marriage. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the provision of the Code gave them a licence to discriminate.

The provision of the Code was intended to prevent men from complaining that they can't get services from women's groups, or non native people from complaining that they can't get service from an aboriginal friendship centre, for example. But it is jaw-droppingly wrong that such organizations are entitled to discriminate among the population they exist to serve.

Under the law as it is written, a disability rights group could turn away someone with AIDS; a women's group could exclude women of colour...the list goes on.

0 Comments

Have a Partner? READ THIS! The law is changing...NOW

2/18/2013

1 Comment

Our communities are completely unaware of the fact that as of March 18, 2013, common law partners will be treated the same as married partners, if they break up. And that means: 50% of the family property and 50% of the family debt to each of you! Read on...you can choose to opt out if you want to...

Who Gets What When?

Division of Property on Breakup of a Marriage or Common Law Relationship under the Family Law Act

The Family Law Act comes into force in B.C. on March 18, 2013. This pamphlet talks about what your situation will be if you break up after March 18, 2013.

(If you broke up before March 18, 2013, the old law, the Family Relations Act, applies to your situation).

Who Does the Law Apply To?

The Family Law Act applies to all married couples; and it applies to unmarried couples who have lived together for two years or more. It applies to heterosexual couples, same sex couples, and couples with one or two trans members.

Who Does the Law Not Apply To?

Any couple can contract out of the Family Law Act. That means that the two of you can create your own agreement about how finances will work during your relationship, and how you will divide property if the relationship ends. So, reading through the rest of this pamphlet, bear in mind that if you don’t like the way the law would apply to your situation, you can create your own contract. Then the Family Law Act does not apply.

When Does the Law Kick In?

The law takes effect as soon as the two of you separate.

Who Gets What if We Break Up?

At the moment of separation, each spouse is entitled to a half interest in all “family property”, and is responsible for one half of “family debt”. It doesn’t matter who contributed what to the purchase of the property, or whose name the property or the debt is in.

So what counts as “family property” and “family debt”?

A thumbnail: what you owned, or what you owed, before you got together, is yours. But whatever property, and whatever debt, either of you acquired after you got together, is divided between you 50/50. Certain types of property are excluded.

Now for the details (and the devil is always in the details).

The way the Family Law Act sets it up, unless there is a specific exemption, family property is all real property (real estate) and personal property (money and things) owned by at least one spouse or in which at least one spouse has a beneficial interest on the date of separation. We’ll get to the exemptions in a minute.

The Family Law Act specifies some things which definitely are “family property”, including:

a share or an interest in a corporation;
an interest in a partnership, an association, an organization, a business or a venture;
property owing to a spouse:

as a refund, including an income tax refund, or
in return for the provision of a good or service;

money of a spouse in an account with a financial institution;
a spouse’s entitlement under an annuity, a pension, a retirement savings plan or an income plan;
property, (other than certain trust property), that a spouse disposes of after the relationship between the spouses began, but over which the spouse retains authority, to be exercised alone or with another person, to require its return or to direct its use or further disposition in any way;
the amount by which the value of excluded property has increased since the later of the date:
the relationship between the spouses began, or
the excluded property was acquired.

So what is NOT family property?

The Family Law Act sets out a list of what is not family property:

property acquired by a spouse before the relationship between the spouses began;
gifts or inheritances to a spouse;
a settlement or an award of damages to a spouse as compensation for injury or loss, unless the settlement or award represents compensation for:

loss to both spouses, or
lost income of a spouse;

money paid or payable under an insurance policy, other than a policy respecting property, except any portion that represents compensation for:

loss to both spouses, or
lost income of a spouse;

property referred to above that is held in trust for the benefit of a spouse;
property held in a discretionary trust:

to which the spouse did not contribute;
of which the spouse is a beneficiary; and
that is settled by a person other than the spouse;

property derived from property or the disposition of property referred to above.

Since property acquired before the relationship began belongs to that spouse, whereas the same property purchased by that spouse after the relationship began can be divided 50/50, it will be important – and sometimes difficult – to know when the relationship began and what the value of the property was at that time.

The onus is on you if you want to argue that a particular property is not a family property.

Some Examples, Please?

What about a business that I bought before the relationship, and operated as a sole proprietor during the relationship? The business was worth $100,000 when we married ten years ago. Now it is worth $150,000:

         Because you bought the business before the relationship began, the first          $100,000 is yours. But the $50,000 increase in value is a family property and will be divided 50/50. As the owning partner you would get $100,000 + $25,000 = $125,000; your spouse would get $25,000.

An investment I owned before we got together and have never used during the relationship:

        Not a family property. But if it earns income, the income is a family property and is divided 50/50.

Property one spouse bought and paid for during the relationship :

        Family Property

I’m a doctor. When we got together I had $38,000 in student loans. I racked up another $20,000 in student loans for the first two years we were married. Then I established a family practice, which is incorporated: the name of my company is Dr. Nolan Finefeather Ltd. I take a draw from the corporation which is the source of my income.

       Your professional corporation is a family property since you set it up after you got together.

You are responsible for the first $38,000 of the debt; but the balance is divided 50/50.

Property bought with equal contributions from both spouses, after getting together, but in the name of one partner:

        Family property

Property bought with unequal contributions – say 90/10 – and put in joint names after the relationship began:

       Family property

Disability insurance policy:

       Disability insurance from work may be a family property.

Property owned in both names:

        The important thing is not whose name it is in, but when it was purchased. If it was bought before the relationship began, then each owns the original value of their contribution; but the increase in value after the relationship began is divided 50/50.

Property one of us bought before we got together:

         Not family property; but any increase in value after you got together is family property.

I owned a cottage before we got together. It was worth $150,000 when I bought it, and $200,000 when the relationship started. I sold it for $300,000 two years after the relationship began, and bought another property for $300,000:

         The new cottage continues to be your separate property and is not subject to 50/50 division even though it was bought after the relationship began, because the property was bought in substitution for an excluded property.

Property one of us bought before we got together, sold, and bought another property:

Home we live in:

            There are no special rules for the family home.

            Who bought it? Before or after the relationship began? If before, it is excluded, but the increase in value will be shared.

                Note that it may not be possible to divide the family home if it is located on a First Nations reserve. Talk to a lawyer.

Family Debt

Here’s how the Family Law Act deals with debt:

                    Family debt includes all financial obligations incurred by a spouse:

                    (a) during the period beginning when the relationship between the                                 spouses begins and ending when the spouses separate, and

                     (b) after the date of separation, if incurred for the purpose of                            maintaining family property.

When you separate, each of you is responsible for one half of the family debt. And you continue to be responsible for one half of the debt (a mortgage for example) after separation, if the purpose of the debt is to maintain a family property.

So: take note! You can be held 50% responsible for debt – credit card debt, for example, - that you knew nothing about.

Can a Judge Make a Different Division than 50/50?

Yes, but only in very limited circumstances. Before a judge can intervene, the law says that it must be “significantly unfair” to divide it equally. This is a very strict test and we can expect that a court will not often divide family property other than 50/50.

If you ask the judge to make a different division than 50/50, the factors a judge can take into account in making that decision include:

how long you have been together;
the terms of any agreement you have made between you
a spouse’s contribution to the career or career potential of the other spouse;
whether family debt was incurred in the normal course of the relationship between the spouses;
if the amount of family debt exceeds the value of family property, the ability of each spouse to pay a share of the family debt;
whether a spouse, after the date of separation, caused a significant decrease or increase in the value of family property or family debt beyond market trends;
the fact that a spouse, other than a spouse acting in good faith:

substantially reduced the value of family property, or
disposed of, transferred or converted property that is or would have been family property, or exchanged property that is or would have been family property into another form, causing the other spouse’s interest in the property or family property to be defeated or adversely affected;

a tax liability that may be incurred by a spouse as a result of a transfer or sale of property or as a result of an order;
any other factor, other than the consideration referred to in subsection (3), that may lead to significant unfairness.

In addition to those factors, a court can also consider the extent to which the financial means and earning capacity of a spouse have been affected by the responsibilities and other circumstances of the relationship between the parties.

Even though the calculation of the 50/50 share is only on those properties which are family property, and not excluded property, a judge can order that excluded property be divided between the parties in some circumstances, for example where a family property or debt located outside B.C. cannot be divided; or if it would be unfair not to divide the excluded property given how long the couple was together and what contributions each of them made to the preservation, maintenance, improvement, operation or management of the excluded property.

The Take-Home Messages

1.         Opt Out

The Family Law Act is an “opt-out” regime.

If you don’t like the idea of having the property you acquire during the relationship being divided 50/50 when you break up, or you don’t like the idea of being responsible for 50% of the debt of someone whose spending habits are far different than yours, then…write an agreement.   You are allowed to create an agreement that says that you will NOT be bound by the rules in the Family Law Act, and you can specify exactly who will get what if you separate. If you have such an agreement, it takes precedence over the Family Law Act rules.

If you do not have such an agreement, you will have to take it as it lays under the Family Law Act, if you ever separate.

2.         Keep Records

If you break up, you may find yourself having to establish the value of a property you acquired before the relationship began, as of the date the relationship began. Don’t throw out any financial records, no matter how old (in fact, especially if they are old).

                                                          _______________

This article contains legal information. It is not legal advice. For advice about your specific situation, consult barbara findlay QC or another lawyer.

Current to March 18, 2013

© barbara findlay QC
635-1033 Davie Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 1M7
T 604 251-4356
F 604 251-4373
E bjf@barbarafindlay.com
W www.barbarafindlay.com
Feel free to reproduce this booklet provided that you credit the author, include this information block, and do not charge for it.

1 Comment

Harper Launches Major First National Termination Plan

12/20/2012

0 Comments

This was forwarded to my by my Wet'suwet'en sister, Theresa Tait-Day

Harper Launches Major First Nations Termination Plan http://intercontinentalcry.org/harper-launches-major-first-nations-termination-plan-as-negotiating-tables-legitimize-canadas-colonialism/

Harper Launches Major First Nations Termination Plan: As Negotiating Tables Legitimize Canada's Colonialism

By Russell Diabo Nov 9, 2012

On September 4th the Harper government clearly signaled its intention to:

1) Focus all its efforts to assimilate First Nations into the existing federal and provincial orders of government of Canada;

2) Terminate the constitutionally protected and internationally recognized Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations.

Termination in this context means the ending of First Nations pre-existing sovereign status through federal coercion of First Nations into Land Claims and Self-Government Final Agreements that convert First Nations into municipalities, their reserves into fee simple lands and extinguishment of their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.

To do this the Harper government announced three new policy measures:

A "results based" approach to negotiating Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements. This is an assessment process of 93 negotiation tables across Canada to determine who will and who won't agree to terminate Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights under the terms of Canada's Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies. For those tables who won't agree, negotiations will end as the federal government withdraws from the table and takes funding with them.

First Nation regional and national political organizations will have their core funding cut and capped. For regional First Nation political organizations the core funding will be capped at $500,000 annually. For some regional organizations this will result in a funding cut of $1 million or more annually. This will restrict the ability of Chiefs and Executives of Provincial Territorial organization's to organize and/or advocate for First Nations rights and interests.

First Nation Band and Tribal Council funding for advisory services will be eliminated over the next two years further crippling the ability of Chiefs and Councils and Tribal Council executives to analyze and assess the impacts of federal and provincial policies and legislation on Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

These three new policy measures are on top of the following unilateral federal legislation the Harper government is imposing over First Nations:

- Bill C-27: First Nations Financial Transparency Act

- Bill C-45: Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 [Omnibus Bill includes Indian Act amendments regarding voting on-reserve lands surrenders/designations]

- Bill S-2: Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

- Bill S-6: First Nations Elections Act

- Bill S-8: Safe Drinking Water for First Nations

- Bill C-428: Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act [Private Conservative MP's Bill, but supported by Harper government]

Then there are the Senate Public Bills:

- Bill S-207: An Act to amend the Interpretation Act (non derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights)

- Bill S-212: First Nations Self-Government Recognition Bill

The Harper government's Bills listed above are designed to undermine the collective rights of First Nations by focusing on individual rights. This is the "modern legislative framework" the Conservatives promised in 2006. The 2006 Conservative Platform promised to:

Replace the Indian Act (and related legislation) with a modern legislative framework which provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Of course "modern" in Conservative terms means assimilation of First Nations by termination of their collective rights and off-loading federal responsibilities onto the First Nations themselves and the provinces.

One Bill that hasn't been introduced into Parliament yet, but is still expected, is the First Nations' Private Ownership Act (FNPOA). This private property concept for Indian Reserveswhich has been peddled by the likes of Tom Flanagan and tax proponent and former Kamloops Chief Manny Julesis also a core plank of the Harper government's 2006 electoral platform.

The 2006 Conservative Aboriginal Platform promised that if elected a Harper government would:

Support the development of individual property ownership on reserves, to encourage lending for private housing and businesses.

The long-term goals set out in the Harper government's policy and legislative initiatives listed above are not new; they are at least as old as the Indian Act and were articulated in the federal 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, which set out a plan to terminate Indian rights as the time.

Previous Termination Plans: 1969 White Paper & Buffalo Jump of 1980's

The objectives of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy were to:

- Assimilate First Nations.

- Remove legislative recognition.

- Neutralize constitutional status.

- Impose taxation.

- Encourage provincial encroachment.

- Eliminate Reserve lands & extinguish Aboriginal Title.

- Economically underdevelop communities.

- Dismantle Treaties.

As First Nations galvanized across Canada to fight the Trudeau Liberal government's proposed 1969 termination policy the federal government was forced to consider a strategy on how to calm the Indian storm of protest.

In a memo dated April 1, 1970, David Munro, an Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs on Indian Consultation and Negotiations, advised his political masters Jean Chrétien and Pierre Trudeau, as follows:

. . . in our definition of objectives and goals, not only as they appear in formal documents, but also as stated or even implied in informal memoranda, draft planning papers, or causal conversation. We must stop talking about having the objective or goal of phasing out in five years. . . We can still believe with just as much strength and sincerity that the [White Paper] policies we propose are the right ones. . .

The final [White Paper] proposal, which is for the elimination of special status in legislation, must be relegated far into the future. . . my conclusion is that we need not change the [White Paper] policy content, but we should put varying degrees of emphasis on its several components and we should try to discuss it in terms of its components rather than as a whole. . . we should adopt somewhat different tactics in relation to [the White Paper] policy, but that we should not depart from its essential content. (Emphasis added)

In the early 1970's, the Trudeau Liberal government did back down publicly on implementing the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, but as we can see from Mr. Munro's advice the federal bureaucracy changed the timeline from five years to a long-term implementation of the 1969 White Paper objectives of assimilation/termination.

In the mid-1980's the Mulroney Conservative government resurrected the elements of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, through a Cabinet memo.

In 1985, a secret federal Cabinet submission was leaked to the media by a DIAND employee. The Report was nicknamed the "Buffalo Jump of the 1980's" by another federal official. The nickname referred to the effect of the recommendations in the secret Cabinet document, which if adopted, would lead Status Indians to a cultural death -- hence the metaphor.

The Buffalo Jump Report proposed a management approach for First Nations policy and programs, which had the following intent:

- Limiting & eventually terminating the federal trust obligations;

- Reducing federal expenditures for First Nations, under funding programs, and prohibiting deficit financing;

- Shifting responsibility and costs for First Nations services to provinces and "advanced bands" through co-management, tri-partite, and community self-government agreements;

- "Downsizing" of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) through a devolution of program administration to "advanced bands" and transfer of programs to other federal departments;

- Negotiating municipal community self-government agreements with First Nations which would result in the First Nation government giving up their Constitutional status as a sovereign government and becoming a municipality subject to provincial or territorial laws;

- Extinguishing aboriginal title and rights in exchange for fee simple title under provincial or territorial law while giving the province or territory underlying title to First Nations lands.

The Mulroney government's "Buffalo Jump" plan was temporarily derailed due the 1990 "Oka Crisis". Mulroney responded to the "Oka Crisis" with his "Four Pillars" of Native Policy:

- Accelerating the settlement of land claims;

- Improving the economic and social conditions on Reserves;

- Strengthening the relationships between Aboriginal Peoples and governments;

- Examining the concerns of Canada's Aboriginal Peoples in contemporary Canadian life.

In 1991, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney also announced the establishment of a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which began its work later that year; the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission to review Specific Claims; the establishment of a BC Task Force on Claims, which would form the basis for the BC Treaty Commission Process.

In 1992, Aboriginal organizations and the federal government agreed, as part of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, on amendments to the Constitution Act, 1982 that would have included recognition of the inherent right of self-government for Aboriginal people. For the first time, Aboriginal organizations had been full participants in the talks; however, the Accord was rejected in a national referendum.

With the failure of Canadian constitutional reform in 1992, for the last twenty years, the federal governmentwhether Liberal or Conservativehas continued to develop policies and legislation based upon the White Paper/Buffalo Jump objectives and many First Nations have regrettably agreed to compromise their constitutional/international rights by negotiating under Canada's termination policies.

Canada's Termination Policies Legitimized by Negotiation Tables

It has been thirty years since Aboriginal and Treaty rights have been "recognized and affirmed" in section 35 of Canada's constitution. Why hasn't the constitutional protection for First Nations' Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights been implemented on the ground?

One answer to this question is, following the failure of the First Ministers' Conferences on Aboriginal Matters in the 1980's, many First Nations agreed to compromise their section 35 Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights by entering into or negotiating Modern Treaties and/or Self-government Agreements under Canada's unilateral negotiation terms.

These Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements not only contribute to emptying out section 35 of Canada's constitution of any significant legal, political or economic meaning. Final settlement agreements are then used as precedents against other First Nations' who are negotiating.

Moreover, Canada's Land Claims and Self-Government policies are far below the international standards set out in the Articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Canada publicly endorsed the UNDRIP in November 2010, but obviously Canada's interpretation of the UNDRIP is different than that of most First Nations, considering their unilateral legislation and policy approach.

Canada's voted against UNDRIP on Sept. 13, 2007, stating that the UNDRIP was inconsistent with Canada's domestic policies, especially the Articles dealing with Indigenous Peoples' Self-Determination, Land Rights and Free, Prior Informed Consent.

Canada's position on UNDRIP now is that they can interpret it as they please, although the principles in UNDRIP form part of international not domestic law.

The federal strategy is to maintain the Indian Act (with amendments) as the main federal law to control and manage First Nations. The only way out of the Indian Act for First Nations is to negotiate an agreement under Canada's one-sided Land Claims and/or Self-Government policies. These Land Claims/Self-Government Agreements all require the termination of Indigenous rights for some land, cash and delegated jurisdiction under the existing federal and provincial orders of government.

Canada has deemed that it will not recognize the pre-existing sovereignty of First Nations or allow for a distinct First Nations order of government based upon section 35 of Canada's constitution.

Through blackmail, bribery or force, Canada is using the poverty of First Nations to obtain concessions from First Nations who want out of the Indian Act by way of Land Claims/Self- Government Agreements. All of these Agreements conform to Canada's interpretation of section 35 of Canada's constitution, which is to legally, politically and economically convert First Nations into what are essentially ethnic municipalities.

The first groups in Canada who have agreed to compromise their section 35 Inherent and Aboriginal rights through Modern Treaties have created an organization called the Land Claims Agreement Coalition. The Coalition Members are:

Council of Yukon First Nations (representing 9 land claim organizations in the Yukon)

Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)

Gwich'in Tribal Council

Inuvialuit Regional Corporation

Kwanlin Dun First Nation

Maa-nulth First Nations

Makivik Corporation

Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach

Nisga'a Nation

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

Nunatsiavut Government

Sahtu Secretariat Inc.

Tlicho Government

Tsawwassen First Nation

Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

The Land Claims Agreement Coalition Members came together because the federal government wasn't properly implementing any of their Modern Treaties. So the Coalition essentially became a lobby group to collectively pressure the federal government to respect their Modern Treaties. According to Members of the Coalition Modern Treaty implementation problems persist today.

The fact that Canada has already broken the Modern Treaties shouldn't inspire confidence for those First Nations who are already lined up at Canada's Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government negotiation tables.

According to the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs there are 93 Modern Treaty and/or Self-Government negotiation tables across Canada [http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1346782327802/1346782485058].

Those First Nations who are negotiating at these 93 tables are being used by the federal government (and the provinces/Territories) to legitimize its Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies, which are based upon extinguishment of Aboriginal Title and termination of Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

The First Nations who have been refusing to negotiate and are resisting the federal Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government negotiating policies are routinely ignored by the federal government and kept under control and managed through the Indian Act (with amendments).

Attempts by non-negotiating First Nations to reform the federal Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies aren't taken seriously by the federal government because there are so many First Nations who have already compromised their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights by agreeing to negotiate under the terms and funding conditions of these Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies.

For example, following the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision, which recognized that Aboriginal Title exists in Canada, the Assembly of First Nations tried to reform the Comprehensive Claims policy to be consistent with

0 Comments

Nepal's LBGTs get citizenship status as 3rd gender

5/24/2012

0 Comments

The Nepalese government, responding to pressure from the LBGT community and a court case last year, has announced that citizenship documents will now provide an option to identify as a third gender.
The change was greeted with alacrity in the Nepalese queer communities, according to an online article in IBN Live (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/nepals-gays-lesbians-get-citizenship-status/261025-2.html)
It is interesting that in Nepal, being lesbian gay or bisexual, or being transgendered, are treated together; in North America (except for some First Nations) we treat sexual orientation and gender identity as separate concepts.
And it is interesting that Nepalese queers have argued for another category, as opposed to arguing that gender markers should be removed altogether. In pending human rights cases we are arguing that passports (and any other identity document that includes a photo) should have no gender markers.

0 Comments

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal wrong to deny First Nations' human rights complaint

5/11/2012

0 Comments

The First Nations Caring Society, the Assembly of First Nations, and Amnesty International filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination by the federal government because the funding provided for child welfare services on reserve is much less than is provided by provinces for First Nations children living off reserve.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that there was no discrimination because there was no other group which received funding for child welfare services from the federal government, and therefore no one to compare the federal funding policies to, and therefore no discrimination! On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the complaint without even hearing evidence.
The Federal Court said that the Tribunal made a mistake in dismissing the application at that stage and sent the case back to be heard by a different panel of the tribunal. Stay tuned for the decision of that panel.
For the complete decision: Canadian Human Rights Commission v Canada
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=first+nations+caring+society&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/fct/doc/2012/2012fc445/2012fc445.html

0 Comments

Huge win for Aboriginal people: title is theirs!

Remember the Charter of Rights? Not so fast...

Could it happen here?

Have a Partner? READ THIS! The law is changing...NOW

Harper Launches Major First National Termination Plan

Nepal's LBGTs get citizenship status as 3rd gender

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal wrong to deny First Nations' human rights complaint

Archives

Categories