Canada needs a multijurisdictional emergency management team to help indigenous communities in crisis.

“Talk of a renewed relationship with First Nations and implementation of the TRC recommendations (which include dealing with social services) is clearly just talk, as zero funds were allocated to these promises.”

By Pam Palmater, reposted from Policy Options, Apr 13, 2016

In February 1992, six Innu children were killed in a house fire in Davis Inlet, Newfoundland and Labrador. One year later, in January 1993, six Innu children there were caught sniffing gasoline on camera, yelling that they wanted to die. This captured the media’s attention for several weeks until it eventually faded. By then, the media had shifted its focus to the results of an inquest stemming from a suicide crisis in Elsipogtog First Nation, a Mi’kmaw community in New Brunswick, which had seven suicides and 75 suicide attempts in 1992. A special report on suicide in First Nations communities was released by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1995.

The report found suicide rates for First Nations were three to four times the national average, and the socio-economic root causes included poverty, lack of housing, inadequate water and sewer services, families torn apart by residential schools and poor health care. The report recommended that the federal government implement a national strategy to address the crisis — but the plan was never implemented.

It was therefore no surprise when another house fire in Sheshatshiu, Newfoundland and Labrador killed two Innu adults and three children in November 2000. When reports of a subsequent suicide pact made by Innu children hit the media, the federal government sent 37 children out of the community for gasoline-sniffing treatment. The solution was thought to be relocation, and so the community was relocated in 2002. Yet in 2005 the suicide rates for the Innu youth were still 17 times those of the rest of the province. As always, the media and corresponding government attention fade away, and so the circle of crisis and neglect repeats itself generation after generation.

Fast-forward to April 2016, and Attawapiskat First Nation in Ontario declared a state of emergency after seeing 11 suicide attempts in one weekend — adding to the 100 suicide attempts made in the previous year alone. Attawapiskat is the same First Nation that declared a state of emergency in 2011 for its lack of housing.

So far, all levels of government and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) have reacted in the same noncommittal way. The Premier of Ontario has expressed “concern.” The Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs has promised to visit the First Nation “if invited.” The AFN expressed “gratitude” to both governments for their support. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau even tweeted about the situation, calling it “heartbreaking,” but promised “continued work” to improve living conditions for all indigenous people. Members of Parliament held an emergency debate on the situation this week.

Sadly, we’ve heard this all before.

After the Innu and Mi’kmaw crises in the 1990s, Eskasoni First Nation in Nova Scotia got media attention in 2009 for its suicide crisis, which saw four suicides of young people within a five-week period. Mathias Colomb Cree Nation in Manitoba made a plea to the federal government for help in 2009 when three children committed suicide. Its pleas went largely unanswered, so in 2013 it turned to the United Nations for help when its suicide rate increased to one every six weeks. Mackwacis, a First Nation in Alberta, hit the headlines when it suffered 40 suicides in 2013 alone. But they were not the only ones, as suicide was the number one cause of premature death for First Nations people in all of Alberta. The same year Neskantaga First Nation in Ontario declared a state of emergency after six suicides.

In 2016, Cross Lake First Nation in Manitoba and Keeseekoose, Cote and The Key First Nations in Saskatchewan all declared suicide crises.

There is one First Nation in Ontario that has been particularly devastated by multiple overlapping crises for decades. Pikangikum has a suicide rate that is 20 times the national rate in Canada. Over the last 20 years, it has had the highest suicide rate in the world, losing nearly 100 of its family members. It had declared a state of emergency in 2011, as 80 percent of Pikangikum homes had no sewers or running water, and the basic necessities of life were missing. As with the Mi’kmaw in New Brunswick and the Innu in Quebec, an inquest was also held in Pikangikum, looking into the 16 suicides of children between the ages of 10 and 19 from 2006 to 2008. The coroner’s report highlighted the lethal impact of racism, colonialism and a dark legacy from residential schools. It concluded that the situation “was not a story of capitulation to death, but rather, a story of stamina, endurance, tolerance, and resiliency stretched beyond human limits until finally, they simply could take no more.”

Canada can’t claim that it didn’t know there were widespread suicide crises in First Nations.

Canada can’t claim that it didn’t know there were widespread suicide crises in First Nations. There have been numerous justice inquiries, royal commissions, inquests, coroner’s reports, studies and research projects done on First Nations suicides. These reports have all identified the same kinds of root causes as the coroner’s report on Pikangikum. It is also important to highlight the fact that Canada bears responsibility for these crises through the theft of indigenous lands and resources, the failure to implement Aboriginal and treaty rights, and ongoing impacts of discriminatory laws and policies. Overt and systemic racism by state actors (police, teachers, health care providers, government officials) and society in general have led to high rates of violence against indigenous peoples and a loss of self-worth and hope for the future. The very same root causes of suicide are behind the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, the over-incarceration of indigenous people in prison and the overrepresentation of indigenous kids in foster care.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) report highlighted the intergenerational trauma caused by Canada’s Indian policy of assimilation and decades of racism, violence, discrimination and neglect. Canada’s policies were described as physical, biological and cultural genocide. Canada’s brutal history of violence against indigenous peoples has had a lasting impact on indigenous peoples. Indian policy was lethal and included scalping bounties on indigenous peoples; the forced sterilization of indigenous women; the rape, torture and murders of children in residential schools; and the many deaths in police custody. The fact that we have a crisis of thousands of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls in a country like Canada suggests that state-based racism, violence and neglect continue today.

Just as Canada knows the causes of First Nations suicides, these reports also contain thousands of recommendations on how to address the crisis in the short and long terms. These solutions focus on both emergency and longer-term plans designed and led by First Nations that contain crisis services and increased resources to address all the socio-economic issues set within a deliberate cultural framework and a framework that builds ongoing support for the self-determination of First Nations.

Yet the most significant barrier is lack of political will to take action. It is a conscious choice made by each successive government — federal, provincial and territorial — to turn a blind eye to the suffering and premature deaths of indigenous children.

What is urgently needed is the creation of an emergency management operation — a team including federal, provincial, territorial and First Nations governments and experts — to address the numerous crises in many First Nations. Canada needs to bring to bear all the time, resources and people required to bring clean water, sanitation, housing, food, health and social supports immediately. If Canada can use its massive wealth to help other countries, it can use this wealth to help First Nations — especially since all of Canada’s wealth comes from indigenous lands and resources.

Unfortunately, if Budget 2016 is any indication of the government’s will to act, we are in trouble. The budget does not address funding inequities in essential social services, nor does it provide nearly enough to address the lack of clean water, housing or suicide prevention programs. Talk of a renewed relationship with First Nations and implementation of the TRC recommendations (which include dealing with social services) is clearly just talk, as zero funds were allocated to these promises.

While some commentators, like former prime minister Jean Chrétien (author of the 1969 White Paper proposing elimination of reserves and treaty rights), suggest First Nations like Attawapiskat should simply move to escape the crisis, this is a self-interested suggestion. Relocations have always been about Canada trying to access indigenous lands and resources. Relocations have never benefited First Nations, because the problem has never been location.

When the Innu were relocated, all the problems followed them to the new community, including suicide attempts. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples detailed the devastating impact of past relocations on First Nations, noting that “the profound cultural loss triggered by relocation leads to stress and despair.” It said a community should be counselled to move only for “very good reasons and in exceptional circumstances;” it should be a completely voluntary decision and should be accompanied by a great deal of advance planning.

While there are many emergency actions that must be put in place in the short term to address the suicides, the longer-term solutions have to include the return of lands and resources, the recognition of indigenous autonomy and the respect and implementation of Aboriginal and treaty rights. Nothing less will save our children from premature deaths.

SOURCE

Why oil to tidewater argument for tar sands pipelines is bunk

By Andrea Harden-Donahue, reposted from Canadians, Apr 13, 2016

If you follow mainstream media and you haven’t heard ‘we need to get our oil to tidewater’ ad nauseum, something weird is up.

Be it Natural Resource Minister Carr, Prime Minister Trudeau, Premier Notley or pipeline and tar sands industries, it’s a drum beat that’s building in intensity.

Here’s the thing… it’s totally wrong.

I clearly have a strong opinion on Energy East. Some may be inclined to think this discounts the arguments below (I beg to differ by the way…).

To those who may be reading and of this opinion, I’m not the only one calling this bluff. In a recent iPolitics piece written by former top senior manager with one of Canada’s top energy companies, Ross Melot (who earlier argued the business case for Energy East is shaky at best), stated clearly

“…Premier Notley just became the latest Canadian politician to play games with pipelines. She’s telling Albertans a pipeline to tidewater can cure what ails the industry. It won’t — it can’t — because the problem a pipeline to tidewater was intended to address doesn’t exist anymore…. Money spent on a pipeline right now would be money wasted. But Notley can’t say that aloud — not while also delivering the bad news on her province’s finances.”

Tar sands woes aren’t due to lack of access to pipelines

The core premise of this argument is that lack of pipeline access to tidewater is forcing tar sands crude to be sold at discounted rates. With greater access and market diversity, will come higher prices for tar sands crude.

First of all, the price differential between tar sands crude (classified as Western Canadian Select WCS) and other key crude oil price benchmarks like West Texas Intermediate (WTI) has reduced significantly since 2013 (when you could legitimately make an economic case for getting oil to tidewater). In fact, Scotia Bank Energy Economist Rory Johnson projected that by 2017 there would be no price differential at all.

Several pipeline projects between Illinois, Cushing and the Gulf Coast came online in 2013/2014, relieving a regional transportation bottleneck, allowing tar sands crude to flow further to the U.S Gulf Coast.

The Gulf Coast refineries are the ultimate destination for tar sands crude. It is home to over 2 million barrels per day of oil refining capacity, much of it geared towards heavy oil.

Current pipelines actually give tar sands producers 500 million bpd of surplus capacity to the Gulf Coast, and U.S. Midwest, another important destination for heavy oil.

The price differential that exists is explained not by lack of access, but primarily by the quality and remote location of the tar sands. Bitumen is thick and heavy, requiring dilution for transporting by pipeline, creating more havoc when leaked in waterways, generating more carbon pollution when produced. It costs more to refine and and produces less valuable end products like gasoline (generally $2-3 per barrel of the price differential). And, simply put, Hardisty Alberta is far from major markets, so this adds to the costs of shipping tar sands crude.

Further, accessing Asian and European markets via Kinder Morgan or Energy East pipelines will do little to fetch more money. The cost of getting the crude there increases and they have less capacity to refine heavy crude. In fact, evidence suggests the money received for crude shipped to these markets will be less than what tar sands producers get with Gulf Coast and U.S. Midwest refiners.

So if lack of market access isn’t causing the tar sands current struggles, what is?

Alberta’s deficit, one that is causing serious struggles for workers and families across the province and this country (with many workers traveling to Alberta for high paying jobs) is first and foremost, a victim of the global oil price crash.

Heavy oil in the tar sands is more difficult to produce, and more expensive. And right now, it has a lot of competition. Returning to Melot’s article, he adds further critical context. “Alberta’s problem is twofold: Its oilsands have been buried by fracked American oil that is both higher-value and cheaper to produce…”

Undeniably, the U.S. is awash in cheaper fracked oil, the production of which is wreaking havoc on communities, waterways and our shared climate.

Melot also rightly argues that, longer-term, the tar sands will face marginalization in a ‘world committed to weaning itself off carbon.’

Energy East is proposed as 40 year infrastructure. If it is operational in 2020 as TransCanada aspires it be (I think this is overly ambitious, this means Canada will be producing and shipping 1.1 million barrels of oil at least until 2060. And we have pipelines with longer lives than 40 years already. In fact, the natural gas pipeline TransCanada wants to convert for Energy East is up to 40 years old in segments located in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (and TransCanada has the worst pipeline safety record in Canada – yikes!)

This is past the 2050 deadline the Paris agreement included as a goal for weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, which many climate scientists support. It runs in conflict with over 100 scientists in Canada who have publicly called on no further expansion of the tar sands.

Pursuing this kind of infrastructure locks Alberta and Canada into producing and shipping what will become stranded assets within the projected life time project. This not only puts our climate, communities and waterways at risk, it’s represents an economic risk too.

The truth is we can meet the deadline and de-carbonize by 2050. It’s not technology that stands in our way, but political will and the powerful fossil fuel lobby.

For some inspiration on the direction forward, check out this story about the Indigenous community of Little Buffalo located in the heart of the Peace River tar sands, launched a solar project installing 20.8kW to power their health centre.

Stay tuned for more on the direction forward in tomorrow’s blog on the Leap Manifesto and the many responses it is inspiring.

For more information on why the oil to tidewater argument doesn’t add up, please see this useful briefing (a key source for this blog) by Oil Change International, Environmental Defence and the NRDC.

SOURCE

Where the kids are: How indigenous children are over-represented in foster care

 

By MURAT YÜKSELIR AND EVAN ANNETT, reposted from the Globe and Mail, Apr 14, 2016

Aboriginal children make up a disproportionate number of kids in foster care, according to a new Statistics Canada report issued Wednesday that paints a complex picture of indigenous family life across the country.

In 2011, there were about 14,200 aboriginal children in foster care. Of those, fewer than half – about 44 per cent – lived with at least one foster parent who identified as aboriginal. Among provinces, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest percentage of aboriginal children paired with aboriginal parents – 70 per cent – while Alberta had the lowest – 29 per cent. Provinces with a higher proportion of aboriginal children overall also had more aboriginal kids in foster care.

Proportion of aboriginal and non-aboriginal children among children in foster care, provinces and territories, 2011
Region Aboriginal Non-aboriginal
NL 28 72
PE 0 100
NS 23.9 76.1
NB 28.8 71.2
QC 15.4 84.6
ON 25.5 74.5
MB 84.6 15.4
SK 87 13
AB 73.4 26.6
BC 56 44
YT 100 0
NT 93.8 6.3
NU 100 0

Reducing the number of aboriginal children in care wasa key plank of last year’s report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools, which identified the disruptive effect of colonialism, poverty and loss of culture on the makeup of indigenous families. Services and policies vary from province to province, and the TRC report recommended steps toward national standards for child-welfare legislation. Many First Nations have pressed Ottawa to give them control over their own services.

In January, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruledthat the federal government discriminated against First Nations children by underfunding welfare services on reserves, resulting in thousands of children being needlessly separated from their families. Ottawa decided not to appeal the ruling.

SOURCE

Supreme Court of Canada extends rights to Métis and non-status Indians

600,000 Métis and non-status Indians now ‘Indians’ under the law


The Canadian Press, reposted from CBCNews, Apr 14, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously ruled that Metis and non-status Indians are Indians under the Constitution.

The landmark, 9-0 ruling will have an impact on the relationship between the federal government and 600,000 Métis and off-reserve Indians across the country.

The high court was asked to rule on whether the federal government has the same responsibility to them as to status Indians and Inuit.

The court said that since it is already long-established in Canadian law that the federal government has a fiduciary duty to the country’s Aboriginal Peoples, there would be no practical utility in restating that in the ruling.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples went to court in 1999 to allege discrimination because they were not considered Indians under the Constitution.

Harry Daniels
In 1999, prominent Métis leader Harry Daniels started the landmark Métis and non-status Indian rights case that the Supreme Court ruled on this Thursday. Daniels died in 2004. (Métis Council of Prince Edward Island)

Justice Rosalie Abella, writing for the court, said the provincial and federal governments have both denied having legal authority over non-status Indians and Métis, leaving them in a “jurisdictional wasteland.”

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that tens of thousands of Métis and non-status Indians are the responsibility of the federal government, ending a 17 year court battle.

More to come

SOURCE


Middle-of-the-road Leap Manifesto hardly loony: Walkom

avi lewis and Naomi Klein
Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein. The Leap Manifesto, which first surfaced last fall, is neither radical nor uniquely left-wing. Its authors, including writer Naomi Klein (left) and filmmaker Avi Lewis (right), present it as a non-partisan document that aims to influence all Canadian political parties, writes Thomas Walkom. Aaron Vincent Elkaim,THE CANADIAN PRESS file photo

By Thomas Walcom, reposted from the Hamilton Spectator, Apr 13, 2016

For those following the travails of the New Democratic Party, the Leap Manifesto is topic of the day.

The short document, available online, can arouse fierce passions.

Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley has called its centrepiece recommendations naive and ill-informed.

Writing in the Toronto Star, former party official Robin Sears has dismissed it as the product of “loony leapers.”

In the media, it is usually described as radical. When delegates at the NDP’s Edmonton convention last weekend voted to debate the manifesto at the riding level, some fretted that the party was about to ride off into a quixotic dead end.

In fact, the Leap Manifesto, which first surfaced last fall, is neither radical nor uniquely left-wing.

Its authors, including filmmaker Avi Lewis and writer Naomi Klein, present it as a non-partisan document that aims to influence all Canadian political parties.

They note that the manifesto has been endorsed by the Greens. They praise Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for moving on some of its recommendations and criticize him for being slow on others.

While Lewis and Klein both have close links to the New Democrats (Avi’s father is former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis), neither has been active in the party.

Indeed, Avi Lewis didn’t join the NDP until he decided to go to Edmonton to try and sell his manifesto.

The document begins from the assumption that climate change poses a grave threat to the future of the world.

This might have been a radical position once. It is not now. Politicians, including those running Canada’s federal and provincial governments, accept it.

So do virtually all climate scientists.

In December, the world’s governments declared in Paris that unless fossil fuel emissions are reduced to zero by the latter half of this century, climate change will result in catastrophic damage — including flooding, famine and massive population displacement.

The authors of the Leap Manifesto agree. They argue that Canada’s carbon emissions can be reduced to zero by 2050.

How is this to be done? So far, Canada’s political leaders haven’t said. But the manifesto’s authors have some ideas. They take the perfectly logical position that if Canada is to do its bit, the country must stop spending billions on infrastructure designed to accommodate fossil fuel production.

In practical terms, that means no more oil and gas pipelines.

Is that radical? In Alberta, it certainly is. But other parts of the country are more amenable to anti-pipeline arguments.

Both the federal Liberal government and the federal NDP have been dodgy on whether they support an east-west oil pipeline — largely because such projects are unpopular in Ontario and Quebec.

Like Ottawa and virtually every provincial government, the manifesto calls for investment in clean energy projects. As Ontario has found with its windmill policy, this isn’t always a politically painless process. But except for the manifesto’s suggestion that — as in Germany and Denmark — such projects be community-controlled, it is hardly novel.

In fact, the Trudeau Liberals have already promised to undertake many of the manifesto’s recommendations. They have said they will implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; they have pledged to invest in public transit and green infrastructure.

Like the federal NDP, the manifesto calls for a national child-care program. Like the federal NDP (sometimes) and both U.S. Democratic presidential candidates, the manifesto opposes trade deals that limit government’s ability to regulate in the public interest.

Like former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, the authors favour imposing a financial transaction tax to help pay for all of this.

They also call for a carbon tax (like that levied by British Columbia’s right-of-centre government), higher taxes on the wealthy (like those imposed by the Trudeau Liberals) and higher corporate taxes (as suggested by the federal NDP).

Workers displaced by the move away from the carbon economy would be retrained.

In short, much of the Leap Manifesto is not particularly new. What the authors have done is stitch together, largely from current practice, a sketchy but relatively coherent plan for immediate action against climate change.

If the NDP chooses not to embrace some form of this plan, the Trudeau Liberals probably will.

Thomas Walkom’s national affairs column appears in Metroland newspapers.

SOURCE

The path to social purchasing

image1
The Buy Social program has been created to encourage social value purchasing across the community, private and public sectors, and to provide an external social enterprise certification program.

By Marissa Willcox, reposted from The Ubyssey, Apr 13, 2016

“A sociology degree, eh? What are you going to do with that?”

This is a question I’d heard one too many times in my five years studying at UBC. Whether it be from genuinely caring friends or family, or just the stranger you strike up a conversation with in a bar. The study of social inequality and social behaviour never seemed to connect me to a job title — of any kind.

I started questioning this thought. How can a person spend five years learning about how the social world works, but never be able to apply this knowledge to a career choice? Sure, there’s always research. But how was that going to change the immediate deteriorating and unequal job market? This disconnect is what led me to Buy Social Canada. A campaign aimed at creating a social-value marketplace by raising awareness and growing the local united body of social enterprises. So that feeling of insignificance and smallness, as an undergrad in a mass of 50,000 other students, didn’t seem so dramatic anymore. Maybe we weren’t all doomed? Maybe we could all start making changes to our society? Maybe I could use my education to start changing what I already knew about the social world? Maybe other students could, too.

The key word I keep mentioning here is “social.” I didn’t know what a “social enterprise” was until a few months ago. A social enterprise is a business that canmake profits, but that has a mandate to reinvest those profits back into society to fulfill a greater social need. This ranges from hiring people with barriers to employment, to the commitment of buying local produce. Bingo! I had found my niche. I paved the way into a job that let me stick it to those that said I couldn’t connect sociology to the working world. These people definitely didn’t know what a “social enterprise” was.

I paved the way into a job that let me stick it to those that said I couldn’t connect sociology to the working world.

After a few weeks of training and research, I found out that Vancouver is actually a major hub for social enterprise. It was relieving to find out that not all businesses cared about profit economy over social equality. If all enterprises had a mandate to reinvest part of their profits back into their own society, we would all be living much healthier and happier lives. A recent study even shows that in Vancouver, for every dollar spent to employ a Downtown Eastside resident, society benefits by $3.32.

In reality, even though social enterprises are amazing and operate solely to fix social problems, they compete with corporations and for-profit companies daily. This is where Buy Social Canada comes into play. With Buy Social’s Goal of creating a marketplace for social enterprises by certifying them under one united body, this was a good spot for me to be in.

Change happens in really small increments. Why buy a mug from Walmart (which supports an unethical supply chain) when you can fund a local social enterprise that makes the same products, but employs women from the Downtown Eastside? Boom! You bought a mug and you are already making a change in the lives of your local community members. Hence why I signed on to help coordinate the social media for the campaign and start getting the word out there.

The whole round circle of this campaign, of my studies and of my job came back to this idea — it’s really not that hard to “make a difference.” We can shift the inequalities in the local job market by simply funding social enterprises that hire people from the community with barriers to employment. So then, as students, it should be our responsibility to start making social changes and taking social impact seriously. We need to start advocating for businesses that have better social impact policies. We “arts students” have upwards of four years of expensive education to speak for it! Start making social purchases, get in contact and join the movement!

SOURCE


Marissa Willcox is Information and Services Coordinator for Buy Social Canada and a fifth-year UBC student.

Métis, off-reserve aboriginal peoples hopeful of Supreme Court’s decision on rights

Thursday’s ruling is expected to settle whether Métis, non-status Indians are entitled to the same programs, services and rights as First Nations and Inuit.

Dwight Dorey, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, said, "Hopefully (the Supreme Court ruling) is going to open doors for our people because we have been discriminated against for decades."
SUPPLIED PHOTO Dwight Dorey, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, said, “Hopefully (the Supreme Court ruling) is going to open doors for our people because we have been discriminated against for decades.”

By John Culter, The Canadian Press, reposted from TheStar, Apr 13, 2016

EDMONTON—Métis and non-status Indians will be watching a Supreme Court of Canada ruling Thursday on whether the federal government has the same responsibility to them as to status Indians and Inuit.

The decision will ultimately affect about 600,000 Métis and off-reserve Indians across Canada.

“People are asking what will it mean for us regardless of which way the decision goes,” Dwight Dorey, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, said Wednesday. “It is on the minds of a lot of people across the country.”

Dorey said the ruling should finally settle whether Métis and non-status Indians are entitled to the same programs, services and rights as First Nations and Inuit.

“Hopefully it is going to open doors for our people because we have been discriminated against for decades,” he said.

“The ball gets tossed back and forth between federal and provincial jurisdictions as to who holds the responsibility. This decision is hopefully going to clarify that.”

The congress represents non-status Indians and Métis. It joined with several individuals, including Métis leader Harry Daniels, in taking the federal government to court in 1999 to allege discrimination because they were not considered “Indians” under the Constitution and had been denied certain rights.

In 2013, the Federal Court recognized them as Indians, but refused to rule that the Crown had fiduciary duties and a duty to consult and negotiate with Métis and non-status Indians.

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld part of the decision when it ruled that Métis should remain Indians under the Constitution. But it said that extending that recognition to non-status Indians should be done on a case-by-case basis.

The congress and the federal government then appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

The Métis National Council is an intervenor.

Council lawyer Jason Madden said Métis have been excluded from programs that First Nations have access to, including non-insured health benefits and land claims.

He said the ruling is expected to make it clear whether Métis should be knocking on Ottawa’s door for services and programs or go to the provinces.

“The decision is going to be momentous for the next generation, because this ambiguity that Métis have lived with where they have fallen through the cracks will no longer happen,” he said from Toronto.

“If it lands with the federal government there is going to have to be a whole bunch of updating and reviewing of Canada’s existing exclusionary policies that will have real impacts on the day-to-day lives of Métis.”

Dorey cautioned that a favourable court ruling for the congress would have no immediate effect on the lives of Métis and non-status Indians.

He said there would have to be negotiations on what happens next as the ruling would also affect provinces and municipalities that currently provide services for Métis and Indians who live off reserves.

SOURCE


RELATED:

Supreme Court decision Thursday could complete legacy of Harry Daniels APTN

Pride and practicality behind Gabriel Daniels’ challenge for legal recognition The Star

Supreme Court to rule today on Metis, off-reserve aboriginal rights TimesColonist

Supreme Court to rule in landmark case on Métis, non-status Indian rights Globe and Mail