We use cookies on our website to improve the performance and content of the site. The cookies enable us to provide a more individual user experience and social media channels.
Cookie settings
We use cookies to ensure the basic functionalities of the website and to enhance your online experience. You can configure and accept the use of the cookies, and modify your consent options, at any time.
These cookies enable key functionality of the website and help to keep its users secured. They are automatically saved in the browser and cannot be disabled.
Type
Name
Service
Description
Cookie
_session_id
This website
Allows websites to remember user within a website when they move between web pages.
Cookie
decidim-consent
This website
Stores information about the cookies allowed by the user on this website.
Local storage
pwaInstallPromptSeen
This website
Stores status if the progressive web application (PWA) install notification has been already seen by the user.
These cookies allow the website to remember the choices you have made in the past on this website to provide a more personalized experience for the website users.
These cookies are used to measure and analyse the website audience to help improve the website.
These cookies collect information about how you use the website and they can be utilized to provide you more personalized marketing across the different websites you use.
Oooops! Your network is offline. This is a previously cached version of the page you're visiting, perhaps the content is not up to date.
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Shel Goldstein
What I've heard, yet never fully understood, is that Indigenous Peoples' Advisory Circle requested more time to develop something like a "vetting" procedure that IPAC would guide to qualify and recruit potential Candidates for the seats on Council.
I'll sum this up. The Indigenous Peoples Advisory Circle (IPAC) had some founding members, some of whom had put forward a motion to have 3 indigenous representatives on Federal Council, which was approved at the 2022 General Meeting and by an all member vote. At that time, IPAC wanted to develop a vetting procedure, which they did, but it was never officially adopted by Federal Council due to postponing the election a few times. Later on, some resigned from IPAC or were not invited to IPAC meetings... it's confusing. In any case, this changed the composition of IPAC and, as it stands, this "new" IPAC does NOT want indigenous representatives on Federal Council at all, even if that contradicts the GPC constitution. The core argument from this "new" IPAC is that including indigenous representatives on Federal Council would be colonial (indigenous members should not be part of colonial governance like Federal Council). Thus, Federal Council sided with this view and decided that there would be no election of indigenous representatives on Federal Council, even though respected indigenous members like Bruce Weaver, Krystal Brooks and Lorraine Rekmans think there should be indigenous representatives on Federal Council as per our Constitution.
As for most issues in the GPC, we may share the same values but our interpretations may differ on how to implement it. Needless to say, I think it's a good thing that ultimately GPC members at a General Meeting will have a say on this. Do we consider electing indigenous representatives on Federal Council to be colonial or not? Do we want to respect our constitution or ignore it? (And, rather than ignoring it, it should be amended then.)
Thank you for this summary. I joined GPC , knowing it was a colonlal construct. If we, indigenous people, aare going to have a vooice in politics then it has to be within a colonial frame. W IPAC can meet in circle and share leadership as it chooses but FC is bound by a constitution. IF SIPAC had wished to change , where are teh amendments? Would defeating my motion mean no action until 2026 and teh next AGM?
Loading comments ...