The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) (formerly the Native Council of Canada and briefly the Indigenous Peoples Assembly of Canada), founded in 1971, is a national Canadian aboriginal organization, that represents Aboriginal peoples (Non-Status and Status Indians, Métis, and Southern Inuit) who live off Indian reserves, in either urban or rural areas across Canada. As of 2011, more than 70% of Aboriginal people live off-reserve.Its head office is located in the capital, Ottawa, Ontario. The congress works with its affiliate organizations on issues that affect the Aboriginal peoples of Canada who live off-reserve. Affiliates of the congress have their own constitutions, with some being separately funded through the Métis and Non-Status Indian Relations Directorate of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. The Métis and Non-Status Indian Relations Directorate works primarily with Aboriginal political organizations who represent the interests of Métis and non-status Indians (MNSI) and other off-reserve Aboriginal organizations.The congress administers the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy (ASETS), which links training to labour market demand. ASETS is designed to help Aboriginal people who live off-reserve prepare for and find high-demand jobs.
Summary Drawing on historical constructions of Indigenous peoples, this paper analyses the continued impact of settler discourses of Indigenous families, parenting, and children on child welfare policy in Canada today. Findings In this work, two provincial children's Advocate reports on the deaths of Indigenous children in care, Tina Fontaine and Alex Gervais, are critically assessed in order to explore the processes through which these colonial constructions operate to create adverse outcomes for Indigenous people. Through this analysis, a number of contemporary colonial narratives are made visible, including the belief that Indigenous parents are inherently incapable of caring for their children, and the gendered construction of Indigenous men and boys as criminal and deviant and Indigenous girls as sexually exploitable. Application These findings suggest that greater critical reflection is needed when working with Indigenous peoples, including greater awareness of the ongoing impact of settler colonialism and the necessity of engaging in anti-colonial work.
It is widely accepted that the world is facing increasing risk of environmental emergency yet at the same time, there is also increasing vulnerability.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death among Indigenous peoples in Canada. As rates of CVD rise, the impacts among the growing population of Indigenous women will emerge as an important health issue. The objective of this scoping review was to advance the state of knowledge about cardiovascular health research in Indigenous women in Canada. Five databases and grey literature (non-peer reviewed works) were searched to identify all studies that reported on the prevalence, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, or interventions for CVD among adult Indigenous women in Canada, including First Nations, Métis, and Inuit. Searching identified 3194 potential articles; 61 of which were included. The most commonly researched topics were the prevalence of CVD, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Rates of CVD and associated mortality among Indigenous women appear to have surpassed those of their nonindigenous counterparts. Very little research has examined the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of CVD. Gaps in the research identified the need for sex-based analyses, comparison with nonindigenous women, comprehensive longitudinal data, assessment of diagnosis criteria, development and evaluation of cardiovascular health interventions, and a better understanding of the role of culture and traditions in the prevention and treatment of CVD among Indigenous women. Although comprehensive CVD data are lacking, rates of CVD among Indigenous women in Canada are rising and are nearing or surpassing those of nonindigenous women. This review serves as a call to action to seek further research on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of CVD among Indigenous women from across Canada.
The issue of induction of labour and risk of Caesarean section has been a topic of recent discussion, catalyzed by the publication of a new review paper in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.1.Mishanina E. Rogozinska E. Thatthi T. Uddin-Khan R. Khan K.S. et al.Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ. 2014; 186: 665-673Crossref PubMed Scopus (187) Google Scholar In response to an influx of queries regarding the CMAJ paper and its potential effect on SOG guidelines, the Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee has reviewed the SOGC Induction of Labour guidelines published in 20132.Leduc D. Biringer A. Lee L. Dy J. Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee, Society of Obsetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Induction of labour. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 296, September 2013.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013; 36: 248-252Google Scholar and concluded that no update or revision to the SOGC is required at this time. The committee emphasized that the CMAJ meta-analysis included no new information or studies that were not used in the 2013 SOGC guideline.It is also important to note that results from the CMAJ review paper report on an induction group encompassing all indications for induction of labour, with term labour defined as 37 to 42 weeks' gestation and measured outcomes limited to Caesarean section. The SOGC guideline recommends requiring an obstetrical or medical indication (e.g. premature rupture of membranes, hypertension, intrauterine growth restriction) for induction of labour before 41 weeks. This is consistent with guidelines published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.The data does confirm that induction of labour for specific indications is not associated with higher risk of Caesarean section and in some indications, such as post-term induction, it lowers the risk of Caesarean section. It is important to note that these study findings should not be generalized to any and all inductions of labour, especially when no indications exist; SOGC stands by its recommendation that induction of labour should be carried out only after careful discussion with women who have specific indications.The SOGC is aware of two clinical trials underway that are examining induction of labour versus expectant management.3.Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE). US National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD2014http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01990612?term=ARRIVE&rank=2Google Scholar, 4.Nottingham Clinical Trials UnitInduction of labour versus expectant management for women over 35 years of age. NCTU, Nothingham, GB2013http://www.35-39trial.orgGoogle Scholar The outcomes of these studies will be monitored by the Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee for potential change of practice implications.It is to be noted that, to ensure the best quality of care, the SOGC is currently developing a standard of practice under which evidence will be reviewed on a regular basis to decide whether all or part of a guideline should be updated based on new robust (Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care5.Woolf S.H. Battista R.N. Angerson G.M. Logan A.G. Eel W. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health CareNew grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.CMAJ. 2003; 169: 207-208PubMed Google Scholar level I) evidence. The issue of induction of labour and risk of Caesarean section has been a topic of recent discussion, catalyzed by the publication of a new review paper in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.1.Mishanina E. Rogozinska E. Thatthi T. Uddin-Khan R. Khan K.S. et al.Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ. 2014; 186: 665-673Crossref PubMed Scopus (187) Google Scholar In response to an influx of queries regarding the CMAJ paper and its potential effect on SOG guidelines, the Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee has reviewed the SOGC Induction of Labour guidelines published in 20132.Leduc D. Biringer A. Lee L. Dy J. Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee, Society of Obsetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Induction of labour. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 296, September 2013.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013; 36: 248-252Google Scholar and concluded that no update or revision to the SOGC is required at this time. The committee emphasized that the CMAJ meta-analysis included no new information or studies that were not used in the 2013 SOGC guideline. It is also important to note that results from the CMAJ review paper report on an induction group encompassing all indications for induction of labour, with term labour defined as 37 to 42 weeks' gestation and measured outcomes limited to Caesarean section. The SOGC guideline recommends requiring an obstetrical or medical indication (e.g. premature rupture of membranes, hypertension, intrauterine growth restriction) for induction of labour before 41 weeks. This is consistent with guidelines published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The data does confirm that induction of labour for specific indications is not associated with higher risk of Caesarean section and in some indications, such as post-term induction, it lowers the risk of Caesarean section. It is important to note that these study findings should not be generalized to any and all inductions of labour, especially when no indications exist; SOGC stands by its recommendation that induction of labour should be carried out only after careful discussion with women who have specific indications. The SOGC is aware of two clinical trials underway that are examining induction of labour versus expectant management.3.Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE). US National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD2014http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01990612?term=ARRIVE&rank=2Google Scholar, 4.Nottingham Clinical Trials UnitInduction of labour versus expectant management for women over 35 years of age. NCTU, Nothingham, GB2013http://www.35-39trial.orgGoogle Scholar The outcomes of these studies will be monitored by the Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee for potential change of practice implications. It is to be noted that, to ensure the best quality of care, the SOGC is currently developing a standard of practice under which evidence will be reviewed on a regular basis to decide whether all or part of a guideline should be updated based on new robust (Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care5.Woolf S.H. Battista R.N. Angerson G.M. Logan A.G. Eel W. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health CareNew grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.CMAJ. 2003; 169: 207-208PubMed Google Scholar level I) evidence.
