As has been widely reported, the National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls recently released its Final Report. It was accompanied by an explosive Supplementary Report that provides a legal argument (hereafter the "Genocide Argument" or "Argument") that in its dealings with its Indigenous peoples Canada is responsible under international law for genocide. Even more explosively, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has publicly stated that he accepts that genocide was committed, sparking inquiries from the United Nations and the Organization of American States.
A few observations:
1) the Genocide Argument is just that -- a legal argument. The Inquiry is not a court and it is not within its jurisdiction to make binding conclusions or findings of law. That said, the Prime Minister's acceptance of this argument undoubtedly gives some legal resonance to it as a matter of international law.
2) the Argument is presented as the view of the Inquiry itself, but in fact was drafted by very reputable and credible scholars and lawyers who are part of the Canadian Partnership for International Justice (CPIJ), an organization of which my co-author Joseph Rikhof and I are also members. It is not explicitly stated but should be understood that the Argument does not represent the views of the CPIJ nor any of its individual members.
3) the latter point is worth making, in no small part because some members of the Partnership have already expressed the view that the Argument is flawed and its conclusions incorrect. Joseph Rikhof's view to this effect can be found here. (Another opinion to this effect, by Canadian international lawyer Bruno Gelinas-Faucher, can be found here.) Probably the best piece of writing on the Argument yet has been done by CPIJ partner Professor Payam Akhvan, whose wide-ranging article highlights the analytical problems with the Argument but quite correctly notes the cultural currency of the word "genocide" outside its legal definition, as well as the pressing imperative that the Inquiry's conclusions need to be meaningfully addressed.
4) I agree with the views expressed by Joseph and Payam. Regrettably, in my view, the Inquiry's choice to launch this legal argument has predictably resulted in an intense discussion (in the media and among scholars) about whether the word itself is being used correctly/appropriately, and has distracted from the conclusions reached in the Inquiry's nearly 1200-page report, which lay out an appalling historical and ongoing pattern of discrimination against Indigenous women and girls which needs addressing. As Prof. Akhavan notes, "semantic debates should not get in the way of doing what is necessary to end violence against Indigenous women and girls."