• About The West Wasn’t Won archive project
  • Archive Quarterly
  • Children
  • Fisheries
  • Land of the Peoples
  • Lawfare
  • Non-Status Era
  • Roadblocks and Restitution
    • Gustafsen Lake
    • Haida
    • Líl’wat
    • Nisga’a

The West Wasn't Won

~ Outlive the colonial world.

The West Wasn't Won

Monthly Archives: June 2023

Sentencing child abusers: where’s the Director of Services?

29 Thursday Jun 2023

Posted by Admin in Children, Commentary, editorial

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Aboriginal Peoples Family Accord, aboriginal title, Indigenous child welfare, Indigenous Peoples, Sovereignty

WARNING – this article refers to abuse of children

Two Indigenous people, a married couple, were sentenced on Friday June 23, the foster parents of young Indigenous siblings. They were charged with assault and manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in prison.

Our deepest condolences go to the children’s family, the perpetrators’ families, and the Sto:lo people in whose community these events – which are not unique – have unfolded.

That Sto:lo community is not alone, not in any part of this tragedy. The incomprehensible hurt and loss of innocent Indigenous children is part of a much larger, much older, ongoing and world-famous Canadian assault on Indigenous Peoples.

Another Indigenous mother presented her petition against British Columbia and Canada to an international arbiter, in 2007, for the senseless, routine, and indefensible apprehension of her children and their subsequent abuse in Ministry “care.”

Her case was admitted to the Inter-American Court in 2014: not only do Indigenous Peoples suffer for a lack of jurisdiction over their own children and families, but they suffer from the total denial of their title and rights over everything else – their land and jurisdiction – that would allow them to maintain their children and families according to their own traditions.

That is, losing children to the state is the direct result of the state’s denial of Indigenous Peoples’ land titles and the accompanying rights, wealth, national identity, authentic governance, and social and cultural structures.

The Lake Errock case in the news

The First Nations Leadership Council has called for the resignation of the Minister of Child and Family Development, Mitzie Dean, and the Premier of BC snapped back that the Ministry has his full support and confidence. The BC Greens Caucus has now backed them up on the demand for a resignation.

Are criminal charges pending against the Director of Child and Family Services of British Columbia? Children “in care” also died in 2020 and 2017 in BC. And 2015. And… the total lack of accountability or culpability in Indigenous child deaths “in care” is a signal from the colonial administration: they are only doing what they set out to do. This colony set out to supplant Indigenous Peoples, and the deaths of their children in mandated forcible removals is “just” a part of that mandate. It is no different from the “kill the Indian in the child” mandate established by the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. MacDonald, when he stated in 1910, “It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools [Indian Residential Schools], and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is being geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem.”

Sixteen months after this eleven year old boy was killed in Lake Errock, by the foster mother, the Ministry’s culpability in the abuse and death is clearly a contributing factor. Seven months had passed since any agent of the Ministry, any social worker, checked the foster home or the children’s well being when the fatal events happened at the end of February 2021. There was not even a virtual check in by phone or online communication.

The trial has revealed that brutality was ongoing in that home, including coercing other children resident there to participate in abusing the 8 and 10 year old sister and brother.

While mainstream media is tip-toeing around the legendary mortality rate in Canada’s Indigenous child apprehension programs, there are some basic facts that we should be reminded of.

Aboriginal delegated agencies for children and families

There is, in British Columbia, a perpetual cycle of tragedy, inquiry, recommendation, ad hoc Indigenous involvement, delegated control capped by BC MCFD mandates, funding cuts, mismanagement, denial… tragedy, inquiry, recommendations…

The fact that this cycle has continued unchecked since the 1980s is proof positive of a mandate among BC social workers to disrupt and endanger young Indigenous families. Apprehension of children from young Aboriginal families, according to a career social worker who would rather not be named, is the unwritten but understood objective.

Indigenous communities have fought valiantly for the power to help their own families without interference. Indigenous Chiefs have rallied to several major commitments to step into roles of youth care and family support over the last four decades.

What they get is delegated powers from a colonial Ministry, which is perpetually determined to undervalue the cost of these responsibilities, and to control mandates and delivery.

The Indigenous foster parents of the two Indigenous foster children in this case were living in an area, Lake Errock, which is served by Xyolhemelh, a delegated Aboriginal child and family services society.

Xyolhemeylh is the agency that was responsible for Alex Gervais. In 2015, Gervais, age 17, died by falling out of an Abbotsford hotel room window where he had been “temporarily” housed by the society for 49 days.

The event was the subject of a February 2017 report on the dysfunction of B.C.’s Aboriginal child welfare system.

A press statement from the BC General Employees Union in 2017 explained:

“The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) is responsible for providing funding for a significant portion of the services that delegated Aboriginal agencies like Xyolhemeylh provide. A recent agreement between MCFD and the agency has brought caseload funding on par with levels within the MCFD, providing some relief from a dire recruitment and retention crisis at Xyolhemeylh.

“However, because MCFD has itself been drastically under-resourced for decades, the increase still isn’t enough to provide care that is appropriate to Aboriginal children and youth. “Unfortunately, staffing resources equal to MCFD is no answer for Xyolhemeylh workers who are desperately trying to provide services in culturally appropriate ways to children whose families are scarred with multigenerational trauma, and the dire poverty that so often accompanies it,” said BCGEU President Stephanie Smith.”

The cycle

The report, “Skye’s Legacy: A Focus on Belonging,” was submitted by B.C. Representative for Children and Youth Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, explored the life of a youth named Skye, who died of an overdose on her 17th birthday in August 2017.

The report found that B.C.’s child welfare system left Skye without a sense of belonging, particularly as an Indigenous person, which contributed to her death. She was taken from her mother at age five and lived in fifteen different homes before her death twelve years later.

“Collaboration among ministry, Indigenous communities needed to assess living situations of kids in care: jury.” This headline refers to the death of a 17-year-old Cree teen in a group home in Abbotsford. The report recommended more family-based services for children in care and faster action when those children go missing.

Traevon Chalifoux-Desjarlais was found dead in a bedroom closet in September 2020, four days after he was first reported missing by a group home staffer.

The Timeline

2023, June 29 – The B.C. Green Caucus stands with the FNLC, calling for the resignation of Minister of Children and Family Development, Mitzi Dean, in light of the shocking and horrific systemic failures of the Ministry that have continued under their watch.

2023, June – First Nations Leadership Council calls for the resignation of the Minister of Child and Family Development, Mitzie Dean, over the 2021 death of a child in foster care in Lake Errock, after the trial and sentencing of the perpetrators. The children’s case was handled by a delegated aboriginal agency, which had not checked in for seven months when the child died.

2021, June – report by BC’s Children and Youth Advocate, “Skye’s Legacy: A Focus on Belonging,” explored the life of a youth named Skye, who died of an overdose on her 17th birthday in August 2017. The report found that B.C.’s child welfare system left Skye without a sense of belonging, particularly as an Indigenous person, which contributed to her death. She was taken from her mother at age five and lived in fifteen different homes before her death twelve years later.

2021, May – the unmarked graves of 215 children on the Kamloops Indian Residential School grounds are confirmed. This leads to examination of other Indian Residential School sites, and further confirmation of similar mass unmarked graves at every school inspected so far.

2020, September – Traevon Chalifoux-Desjarlais was found dead in a bedroom closet, four days after he was first reported missing by a group home staffer.

2020 – present: most First Nations have accepted the demise of the Aboriginal Peoples Family Accord, the Tsawwassen Accord, and the Indigenous Child at the Center Action Plan. Instead, they have implemented the recommendations of the 2015 Report of MCFD Special Advisor Grand Chief Ed John. The report called for a Social Worker on every Indian Reserve, and the January 2020 enabling legislation provided delegated agency, to fulfill the Ministry mandate, to each First Nation.

2020, January – Bill C-92, “The Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families” applies to Indigenous groups, communities or peoples, regardless of status or residence within Canada, who bear existing and inherent Aboriginal rights as per section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

It is designed to affirm the rights and jurisdiction of Indigenous Peoples in relation to child and family services, and to set out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children. The Act creates a set of National Standards that must apply when working with Indigenous children, youth and families, and provides for changes to jurisdiction when making decisions about Indigenous lives.

The Act contributes to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and provides an opportunity for Indigenous peoples to choose their own solutions for their children and families. Our children, our way.

2017, August – an Indigenous youth named Skye died of an overdose on her 17th birthday. She was taken from her mother at age five and lived in fifteen different homes before her death twelve years later.

2017 – A recent funding agreement between MCFD and the delegated aboriginal agencies brought caseload funding on par with levels within the MCFD.

2016 – APFA runs out of funding, dissolves.

2016 – 2014? – termination of regional delegated agencies – consultation and development program – follows from lack of support from individual communities for the regional, not community-based, process. Instead, most Bands sign on to deliver MCFD mandate themselves, following Ed John’s report recommending a social worker / agent on every reserve.

2016, November – Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification–From Root Causes To Root Solutions; A Report on Indigenous Child Welfare in British Columbia Final Report of Special Advisor Grand Chief Ed John. The report calls for a Social Worker on every Indian Reserve.

2016, March – The B.C. Teachers’ Federation calls for Stephanie Cadieux, Minister of Children and Family Development, to resign after Patricia “Indigo” Evoy was found dead in a Burnaby, B.C., apartment March 10. She is the third aboriginal youth, in as many years, to die while receiving help from the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development.   

2016, March – Patricia “Indigo” Evoy died while in Ministry “care.”

2015, December – Plecas Report part 1 released

2015, December

2015, December 22 – Sto:lo Tribal Council call for Bob Plecas and Ed John’s resignations, and reports to be shelved. They cite the misleading appearance of Indigenous representation with Ed John’s participation, which was not endorsed by Indigenous groups

2015, September – Grand Chief Edward John appointed Special Advisor on Indigenous Children in Care, “to engage First Nations and Aboriginal leaders in discussions to help the Province reduce the number of Aboriginal children in care; and, to engage with the federal government in meaningful work to enhance prevention and intervention work as well as address ‘root causes,’ as discussed in the report.” 6 month term

2015, September – NDP John Horgan calls for Minister of Children and Families Stephanie Cadieux to resign, following the death “in care” of Alex Gervais.

2015, September –  Alex Gervais, age 17, died by falling out of an Abbotsford hotel room window where he had been “temporarily” housed by the Aboriginal delegated authority the Xylohmelh Society for 49 days.

2015, July – “Aboriginal Children in Care” report to Canadian Premiers identified “core housing need” among 40% of single parent families living on-reserve, among other major iniquities: in 2012, 40% of Indigenous children live in poverty; 43% of women in federal prisons are Aboriginal.

2014, December – The Lil’wat petition is admitted to the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, which waived the requirement to prove exhaustion of the domestic remedy

2014, August – Canada’s Premiers directed provinces and territories to work together on solutions to reduce the number of Aboriginal children in child welfare systems. A report was provided to Premiers at the Council of the Federation (COF)

2013, November – report: When Talk Trumped Service: A Decade of Lost Opportunity for Aboriginal Children and Youth in B.C.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafonde, Representative for Children and Youth, BC

The report offered critical observations on how both Aboriginal organizations and BC’s Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) have failed to meet the needs of children through what she has stated is a system of “fractured accountability”.

2011 – Child and Family Wellness Accord

 Between leadership of the nine south island First Nations and urban Aboriginal community, known as the South Island Wellness Society, and the Province of B.C.

– to design and develop an Indigenous child services system for the care and protection of Aboriginal children, youth and families in the region.

-to restore, revitalize and strengthen the services in an effort to address the gaps and socio-economic barriers impacting the well-being of Aboriginal children and families

2011 – The Lil’wat petition to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights is accepted, the Edmonds petition, concerning the lack of Canadian jurisdiction to interfere in Lil’wat families living in Lil’wat territory

2010 – termination of APFA, end of funding for Child at the Center and Interim Child and Wellness Council

2008, July – Interim Child and Wellness Council established to gather further input for the Indigenous Child at the Centre Action Plan to ensure it reflects the knowledge of front line workers, youth, the community and leadership. The Council will then develop a workplan to advance and implement the Child at the Centre Action Plan.

2008, July – First Nations Leadership Council announces the Indigenous Child at the Centre Action Plan

2008, June – Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologizes for Indian Residential Schools

2008, April – VACFSS receives mandate from MCFD for “child protection,” meaning license to remove children from their homes and place them “in care”

2008, February –  Overview of the Child Critical Injury and Death Investigation and Review Process in British Columbia

Prepared by The Children’s Forum: – BC Coroners Service – Ministry of Children and Family Development – Ombudsman – Public Guardian and Trustee – Provincial Health Officer – Representative for Children and Youth

2008, January 25 –  the ‘Walking Together to Keep Indigenous Children at the Centre’ Declaration of Commitment among Indigenous Peoples “in” British Columbia

2008 Aboriginal Peoples Family Accord

A process of constituting regional delegated aboriginal agencies

2007, November 29 –   the ‘All Our Relations’ Declaration of the Sovereign Indigenous Nations of British Columbia

2007 – GOOD PRACTICE ACTION PLAN

Ministry of Child and Family Development, BC

“Aboriginal peoples exercising their rights to jurisdiction over their children’s well-being, through self-determination, have strong and healthy children, youth and families.”

2006 – the Assembly of First Nations settles a number of individual and class-action suits against the Canadian government for harms caused by Indian Residential Schools.

2006 – the creation of an independent advocacy and oversight body – the Representative for Children and Youth by Hughes Review

2006, April – Hughes Review released

2005 – Hughes Review commissioned

To review :

the system for reviewing child deaths, including how these reviews are addressed within the Ministry,

advocacy for children and youth;

and the monitoring of government’s performance in protecting and providing services for children and youth

2005 – Opposition BC party NDP call for review into the two Aboriginal child deaths; advocates for other youth call for supports to youth in care

2002, September – toddler Sherry Charlie died in a foster home she was placed in by MCFD / delegated USMA (Nuu-chah-nulth) child services

2002, September – 23-month-old Chassidy Whitford was killed by her father on the Lakahahmen reserve near Mission in 2002, in Xyolhemelh / Fraser Valley Aboriginal Child and Family Services care.

2002, June – Formation of the First Nations Leadership Council, under the Tsawwassen Accord between the province of BC, BC region Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit, and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs.

2000-2001 – Ed John, an Indigenous Chief of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, is made the Minister for Children and Family Services, BC

2001, December 14 – VACFSS and the province sign the Delegation Enabling Agreement (DEA). VACFSS can provide a full range of delegated Resource and Guardianship services. It also provides non-delegated services through Indigenous Family Preservation and Reunification Services.

2000 – First Nations child and family services, national policy review – report by DIA and AFN

2000 – the Nisga’a Final Agreement includes agency over Children and Families, and the Nisga’a Child and Family Services is an extension of the provincial Child and Family Services law.

1999 – VACFSS began negotiations with the Ministry to deliver delegated services under the BC Act. The VACFSS Guardianship Pilot Project began.

1998 – A Review of the Implementation of the Report of the Gove Inquiry into Child Protection

1996 – creation of the Children’s Commission to review child deaths and oversee the activities of the new ministry

1996 – a series of community consultations leads to VACFSS receiving Indigenous support to get “designation status” – providing advocacy to families and notifying First Nations when their children were removed from their member families in the Lower Mainland

1994 – Gove Commission announced following murder of Matthew Vaudreille

1994, May – creation of Child, Family and Community Service Act, and the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act

1992 – “Liberating our Children, Liberating our Nation” – legislation review report calls for Indigenous jurisdiction over Indigenous children

(Community Panel Child Protection Legislation Review, British Columbia Report of the Aboriginal Committee: Eva Jacobs, Kwakiutle Nation and Lavina White, Haida; Fred Storey, Project Manager; Loretta Adams, Researcher; Faye Poirier, Administrative Support)

1989 -The Nuu-chah-nulth Department of Family and Child Services (Usma) becomes the first Aboriginal agency in Canada to exercise full delegated authority for child welfare.

1988 – the off-reserve advocacy union, United Native Nations, work in family reunification, and volunteerism spreading to child care and protection, is formalized as the Mamele Benevolent Society to facilitate in-home support programs, advocacy for families with children seized by the BC Ministry. This organization becomes the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society in 1992.

1986 – Child Welfare Committee

1980 – Child, Family and Community Service Act BC

1980 – Spallumsheen bylaw; child protection is carried out by the Band

1980 – Indian Child Caravan took place over Thanksgiving weekend, October 9-13, 1980. The Caravan began in Prince George and picked up more people along its route. The group advanced to Williams Lake and Mount Currie, and merged with people from the Interior and Vancouver Island communities before culminating with a rally in Vancouver. And sit-in outside the Minister’s house

1972-73 On March 9, 1973, the National Indian Brotherhood appeared at the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Indian Affairs. Joe Clark, then a Member of Parliament from Alberta, moved that the Committee recommend to the House of Commons that the NIB’s

1972 Aboriginal Rights Position Paper be adopted as a description of aboriginal rights. It includes control of children and families.

1969 – Moccasin walk of a hundred miles, Indian Homemakers Association of BC,

raise funds for the British Columbia – wide Indigenous leadership gathering, which becomes the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, with a mandate to pursue the Indian Land Question.

1960s – “60’s scoop” indiscriminate and mass seizure of Indigenous children to state “care” and adoptions outside Canada. Follows delegation of social services from federal to provincial, and decriminalization of keeping children out of Indian Residential Schools

1920 – Indian Act amended to require Indigenous child attendance at Indian Residential Schools, on pain of imprisonment of the parents for non-compliance

BC’s first Superintendent of Neglected Children, 1919

1910 – Prime Minister John MacDonald: “It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools [Indian Residential Schools], and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is being geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem.”

  • end list *

Please find archival material at: ihraamorg.wordpress.com and check the archive in “Children” on this site.

chief-roger-adolph-statimc.-on-aboriginal-peoples-family-accord-sept.2008-2Download

“I guess you had more rights than we thought”

21 Wednesday Jun 2023

Posted by Admin in Commentary, editorial, Comprehensive Claims - Policy and Protest

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

aboriginal title, Calder, Comprehensive Claims Policy, Federal Liberals Comprehensive Claims Policy, Indian land, Land claims, NIshga case, Supreme Court of Canada, unceded, unextinguished, unsurrendered

Fifty years since Calder v. The Attorney General of British Columbia: how Canadian policies – and judges – adapted to delay and deny recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ land title

On January 31, 1973, Indigenous people’s unextinguished right to “possession” of their lands was recognized in a Canadian court for the first time.

Three Supreme Court of Canada judges reasoned that the Indigenous Nisga’a People had never lost to British Columbia their “possession of the land,” and had the continuing “rights to enjoy the fruits of” their land.     

In the case presented by the Nisga’a nation, with Frank Calder as the name plaintiff, the people established that their ancient rights to the soil had not, could not have been, diminished by any unilateral pronouncements or colonial legislative acts: the Nisga’a had never freely relinquished, sold, or made treaty to surrender them.

Supreme Court of Canada justices Hall, Spence, and Laskin wrote 50 of 72 pages in the Calder ruling, finding in favour of that position, as per the Canadian constitution.

The court ruling was split, however. Three judges ruled Nisga’a had no title and, if it ever did, the presence of a British colony nullified it. The seventh judge refused to decide, based on a procedural anomaly.

Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s reaction was to say, “I guess you had more rights than we thought, when we did the White Paper in ’69.” Unfortunately, the exact purpose of the federal government’s 1969 position and policy was to erase those rights which they were well aware had never been addressed.

Some politicians were more responsive. Because of the court finding in the Nass Valley case, the former prime minister John Diefenbaker immediately addressed the government, asking that the question of Aboriginal rights be referred to a full bench of nine Supreme Court of Canada judges “as this question can be settled once and for all.” The Justice Minister, Otto Lang, said he would consider the suggestion.

The judges were very responsive. In the past fifty years, the Canadian judiciary has defined that title down.

The politicians did not refer the question, they constructed a policy even more dangerous than their 1969 White Paper. The Comprehensive Claims Policy, a process of extinguishing Aboriginal title and rights by agreement, emerged in 1974 and is still the government’s bottom line. It predetermines the result of every engagement with Indigenous Peoples where land and jurisdiction are concerned: gains in Canadian titles to land, financial settlement, and limited forms of municipal self-governance are paid for by release of Aboriginal rights and indemnification of the governments – and “anyone else” – for past harm.

The agreements are invariably negotiated under duress: under the conditions of poverty and desperation imposed by another unconstitutional action, the Indian Act of 1876. Also, still in effect.

“Extinguishment with consent” remains Canada’s policy and enthusiastic practice to date. It has been heavily criticized by international treaty bodies for at least twenty years.

Government policy has been mirrored by the Canadian judiciary. In case after case, they defined “Aboriginal title” into something quite different.

Judge made law

In every Indigenous action that followed Calder, government lawyers began their argument by quoting Justice Gould of the BC Supreme Court, who made the original ruling of dismissal against the Nisga’a in 1969. Lawyers for the crown all began their prosecution of Indigenous land-defenders and rights-exercisers, or their defense against being sued for land and rights, by saying: if there was ever any right or title to extinguish, then any Aboriginal rights or titles were extinguished by denial, declarations, or legislation of the Imperial or provincial crowns.

But, since 1973 and the epic realization that if the Nisga’a had title, so did every other Indigenous Nation west of the Rockies, by the same logic, the Canadian judiciary began to define that title out of reach and out of all meaning.

Ignoring the clearly and passionately iterated expressions of the meaning of Indigenous titles, offered over the last century-and-a-half by Indigenous Peoples themselves, judges dismiss essential elements of those as “absurd;” they sift out definitions of Aboriginal rights which are not too inconvenient for the state; and the politicians pass legislation to mechanize pacification of the piecemeal rights arising from the litigation.

Judges confirmed that Aboriginal rights are sui generis: Aboriginal rights and titles are just not like other peoples’ rights and titles, in Canadian Pacific Ltd. V. Paul, 1988. They made lists of requirements about what Indigenous Peoples have to prove in order to convince courts they have rights, like exclusive and continuing and exclusive occupation, in Baker Lake v. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, 1980. That becomes quite hard to show, when communities were forcibly displaced and replaced by settlers.

In R. v. Adams, 1996, judges said Aboriginal title, being unlike other peoples’ titles, is actually a form of Aboriginal right. They defined what “the core of Indianness” means, in Dick v. The Queen, 1985.

They figured out that Aboriginal rights are only those activities which were in play in 1846, effectively freezing Aboriginal Peoples out of the right to develop and to have that development recognized as within their rights.

The judiciary then put themselves, and Canada, squarely in charge of elaborating on the constitution, where it concerns Indigenous Peoples, because that, Chief Justice Antonio Lamer explained in R. v. van der Peet, 1996, is what Section 35(1) is for. “Aboriginal rights are aimed at the reconciliation of the prior occupation of North America by distinctive aboriginal societies, with the assertion of Crown sovereignty over Canadian territory, by bridging aboriginal and non-aboriginal cultures.”

The reconciliation demanded by Section 35, apparently, is to be defined and determined by Canada unilaterally. And they don’t have to reconcile with Aboriginal cultures when they can justify infringing them.

After they decided Aboriginal rights remain behind 1846, judges subsequently ruled that any Aboriginal commercial activities should really be in line with 1846 revenues. Nuu-chah-nulth, 20011.

Shortly after Delgamuukw, 1997, and that first positive definition of Aboriginal title as something other than sui generis, or unknown, courts went into high gear. With Taku River Tlingit, Halfway River, Haida, and Douglas, courts instructed the government that the issue here was not so much about Aboriginal title as it was about accommodating that title by consulting with Aboriginal Peoples when there probably is title, and then sharing benefits from industries that extract revenue from those probably-title lands.

But Indigenous Peoples’ land titles are protected from just that kind of exploitation by Canada’s constitution. Judges have stepped in to “bridge” any inconsistencies.

In fact, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently explained that, “we will not be revisiting the Constitution.”

Canada and British Columbia have devoted tens of billions to its legal defense against the Indigenous title holders; its out-of-court negotiations, which were often coercive and always divisive for the Peoples; and its settlement awards for relinquishment of claims, which funds were always alarmingly small.

They have not, however, spent any money on positively identifying Indigenous title lands.

Widespread judicial refusal to respect international norms and treaties is exactly the criteria required for third parties, that is, other states, to bring Canada before the World Court. If they haven’t done so yet, maybe cheap Canadian exports of raw resources, subsidized by denial of Indigenous titles, is clouding their vision.

International attention

In 2009 and 2014, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) found two cases from British Columbia admissible on the basis that there is no domestic remedy to grievances between the Indigenous parties and the state of Canada. The Hulqiminum Treaty Group and the Lil’wat plaintiff in Edmonds were both found to have exhausted any chance of a fair hearing within Canada.

This is what happens when state policies preclude access to an impartial court, or when an entire state judiciary demonstrates a refusal to recognize rights defined in international treaties: international courts gain jurisdiction over the matter. What has not happened so far is Canadian participation in the IACHR proceeding. Both cases have stalled.

One of the first international Indigenous cases turns fifty next year. Sandra Lovelace, Maliseet from Tobique, took her case to the UN Human Rights Committee. They found that Canada was in breach of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1969, (ICCPR) in its use of the Indian Act to discriminate against Indigenous women. Lovelace’s case succeeded to the international arbiter because the Attorney General of Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs had just sued Jeanette Corbiere Lavell, to overturn a decision in her favour regarding the same issue – gender-based loss of Indian Status. The Supreme Court had found for the state: “The Canadian Bill of Rights does not affect the Crown’s legislative authority with regard to Indians.”

It can only be a question of other countries’ love for cheap timber, minerals, gas, and fish – subsidized by Canada’s political denial of Indigenous Peoples’ rights – that has stopped the land question from being prosecuted in a similar way to Lovelace. The same ICCPR states in Article 1:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Nuchatlaht 2023

In May of this year, BC Supreme Court Justice Myers ruled that the Nuchatlaht “may” have aboriginal title to some areas. His decision is regressive, almost contemptuous, and turned a valuable opportunity into a colossal waste of time and money. BC courts do not tend to find for Indigenous rights – the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) does that. 

What’s more: the media didn’t even show up for it. A single report by the Canadian Press was picked up by BC outlets, who used stock photos of previous Nuchatlaht appearances to accompany the brief, mis-quoted, disturbingly disinterested article.

This case is the first Aboriginal title case to follow Tsilhqot’in, 2014, where, on appeal from BC to the SCC, Aboriginal title lands were declared, ruled upon, and drawn on a map for the first time. A great deal more attention to detail was deserved to this follow-up case.

One of the details is the fact that Indigenous Peoples are still paying a King’s ransom in time and money to plead for their rights, and that is in itself a travesty of justice.

The elected politicians have not pursued justice – they have fought it in their own courts for a century – and instead tighten their policies. The electorate continue to make Canada an acid environment for Indigenous individuals, families, businesses, communities. Logging, mining, fishing, and every kind of industrial development has continued on the disputed lands at a pace normally associated with plunder in times of war.

Fifty years from now

“If the Indians win, there will be a cloud on all the land titles issued by the province.” So said Duncan Campbell Scott, Minister of the Interior and Superintendent of Indian Affairs, as part of the 1926 Judicial Committee on the Claims of the Allied Tribes.

The question was not “if” the Indians win: the question was “when” the Indians win. And there certainly is a cloud on all the land titles issued by British Columbia. That’s why the Province of British Columbia has a line item for “treaty making” in its annual financial audits: everybody knows BC does not have title, even Standard and Poor’s, and BC’s creditors need to see that uncertainty mitigated.

In Hawaii, non-native homeowners buy Title Insurance. The Hawaiians have been making their way through the courts, proving their title to acre by acre, and banks won’t give out a mortgage for a property without it being insured against the inevitable claims of the rightful owner.

Check out the infographic and forthcoming infobook on Electromagnetic Print

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • December 2025
  • October 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • February 2025
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • June 2023
  • June 2018
  • December 2017
  • July 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • July 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • September 2014

Categories

  • Archive Quarterly
  • BC treaty process
  • Children
  • Commentary, editorial
    • Uncategorized
  • Comprehensive Claims – Policy and Protest
    • aboriginal title
  • Government Commissions
  • Gustafsen Lake Standoff 1995 – Ts'peten Defense, Secwepemc
  • Haida title
  • Indian Residential School
  • Indigenous Declarations
  • Non-Status Indian Era
  • Reconciliation
  • Roadblock
  • UN Engagement
  • Union of BC Indian Chiefs

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • The West Wasn't Won
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The West Wasn't Won
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...