Search results

In April 2018, Canada's federal government announced that it had decided "to eliminate" the medical inadmissibility policy from our immigration regime.1 This was to bring our practices in line with contemporary Canadian values, and to engender consistency with the that Canada signed in 2007 and rati�� ed in 2010. The �������� requires equality for persons with disabilities, including taking actions to enable full and effective participation and inclusion in society.3 To achieve these obligations, states must adopt legislative or other measures that implement these rights, and must repeal or revise legislation or policies which are inconsistent with the ��������'s obligations.

Genetic research involving indigenous populations provokes many legal, ethical and cultural issues. Arguably, of these issues, two dominate the literature. The first is whether human genetic materials are or ought to be patentable, which is often argued against on the basis that such patents offend human dignity generally and are culturally offensive to many indigenous peoples. The second is whether researchers must obtain informed consent from representatives of indigenous groups as a whole before attempting to obtain consent for participation from individual members of that group. I argue that there is limited benefit in continuing to debate the patentability of human genetic material. I also argue that the debate on informed consent has to be understood as a manifestation of indigenous political and rights aspirations which researchers must consider and address. The through-line in this paper, therefore, is that by virtue of their research agendas, both commercial and academic scientists have become on-the-ground players in contests over indigenous people's claims of identity and rights. This paper uses the Human Genome Diversity Project, the HapMap Project and the Genographic Project as its case studies.

The Canadian government, and many Aboriginal communities, are committed to formally transferring varying aspects of governance responsibilities from federal hands to Aboriginal ones. These transfers take various forms, from creating Aboriginal political bodies with broad sets of governance powers, as was the case with the Nisga'a Treaty of 2000, to more partial transfers of specific powers or responsibilities, or types of responsibilities. One core transfer area is public health programming, for which there are specific and highly developed initiatives dating back to around 1989. Although it is expected that these initiatives will, overall, have very positive effects for improving the health of Aboriginal Canadians, there are many difficulties which are likely to emerge or be perpetuated under these transfers. There has been limited analysis of these difficulties to date. This paper first briefly describes the history of health transfer initiatives, and the policies which currently shape transfer agreements. After establishing this general platform, the paper then takes up the challenge of querying whether improvements to health status actually follow these forms of transferred control. The point of asking this question, as James Waldram, Ann Herring and Kue Young suggest, is not to undermine the efforts of Aboriginal communities to ameliorate their often poor living conditions, but to generate an analysis of how law, policy, and jurisdictional assignment impede or facilitate the success of such initiatives, and so gather insight into how to make improvement more likely. This paper considers some existing gaps or problems in Aboriginal public health which are likely to be perpetuated despite the transfer of control over some aspects of these problems, as well as some gaps related to health which may emerge in transfer communities. It then turns to identifying some aspects of health which are likely to improve in the coming years with increased Aboriginal control. The analysis in this paper is obviously a selective one: there are many other "gaps" which could have been included. As such, it is intended to contribute to the initiation of a broader conversation about the future of Aboriginal health under the health transfer process.

In this article I consider how judicial decision making characterizes Indigenous peoples' culture outside the context of determinations under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. I am concerned with how contemporary jurisprudence sometimes subjects Indigenous people to stereotyped tests of Aboriginality when they seek to exercise legislated rights. These common law tests of Aboriginality tend to turn on troubling oppositional logics, such as whether or not the Indigenous person engages in waged labour or commercial activities. These tests arose in historic legislation and policy that were premised on social evolutionary theory and were directed at determining whether an Indigenous person was to be deemed economically assimilated. Before such legislation and policies were repealed, however, the tests crossed into the common law and have since been read into legislation. As a result, the doctrine of precedent has reinforced and continually renewed this oppressive discourse to the present day. This article is, in essence, a call to critically engage and confront the assumptions that underlie our rubrics of analysis.

This paper considers why, from a policy and legal perspective, there is such a disparity between the water quality on First Nations reserves, and that experienced in the majority of other Canadian communities. This involves engaging with how jurisdictional allocations, governmental policies, statutory or policy-delegated mandates, and operational practices converge. In this discussion, two inter-related tensions emerge. The first is between Aboriginal aspirations to self-govern and community capacity to effectively engage in governance activities. The second is Canada's proper role and responsibilities in resolving the governance/capacity tension, and in resolving the water quality problems.

This submission highlights the key feminist inroad into the protection of refugee women fleeing persecution over the past twenty years — the moment in which Canadian state machinery formally engaged the fact that women may suffer social, political, or other forms of persecution because they are women. Drawing upon a myriad of sources, the submission illustrates the highly personal experiences that colour this engagement between feminism and the law, as well as the challenge of making women's experiences as women legally relevant and politically meaningful.

This paper considers why, from a policy and legal perspective, there is such a disparity between the water quality on First Nations reserves, and that experienced in the majority of other Canadian communities. This involves engaging with how jurisdictional allocations, governmental policies, statutory or policy-del-egated mandates, and operational practices con-verge. In this discussion, two inter-related tensions emerge. The first is between Aboriginal aspirations to self-govern and community capacity to effectively engage in governance activities. The second is Canada's proper role and responsibilities in resolving the governance/capacity tension, and in resolving the water quality problems. This paper ultimately concludes that the federal government has erred in failing to legislate standards, which has allowed A potentially responsible parties to avoid an enforceable obligation to act. In finding that a legislative regime is required, this paper considers and refutes the propositions that jurisdictional uncertainty or the pressing need for Aboriginal governments to develop capacity and take on fuller governance roles are barriers to creating the required protective regime. That is, this paper contemplates a legislative regime which accommodates and addresses these issues.