Blog

Orange Shirt Day: “Every Child Matters”

Today we honor those who attended Residential Schools throughout Canada and we acknowledge the truth of their experiences by commemorating and raising awareness of the Orange Shirt day movement which is on September 30th every year. ¹

Learning about the legacy of the Residential schools, its survivors and the memory of those children who did not survive, it felt important to understand and learn about the origins of how the Orange Shirt movement began. On Sept 25th, 2020, ReconciliAction YEG attended a live facebook event where Phyllis Webstad (co-founder of the Orange Shirt Day movement) told her story and gave us a glimpse into a past that has shaped our present and will most certainly influence our future. ²

Phyllis Webstad is a 3rd generation residential school survivor.  Her parents and grandparents both endured 10 years each of the stark and brutal living conditions at the St. Joseph's Mission Indian Residential School, located 20 minutes past Williams Lake, B.C. Phyllis spent a year at St. Joseph’s Mission from  1973-74, long enough to understand what she called, “pee your pants terror” and why her granny who raised her, was not ever able to show love and affection. Phyllis’s own son years later would sadly attend Gordon Residential School in Punnichy, Saskatchewan before its closure in 1996. It was the last federally funded residential school to close,³  making it four generations who attended residential school in her family.

Figure 1 Gordon Residential School, Pinnichy, Saskatchewan, ca 1946 ACC MSCC/S7-P75-103/ photo credit https://www2.uregina.ca/education/saskindianresidentialschools/gordons-indian-residential-school/

The Canadian government had made it mandatory for every First Nations child between 7 and 16 years of age to attend residential schools in April of 1920.⁴

At 6 years old Phyllis was old enough to attend residential school. Her granny, in preparation of that departure, took her on a rare trip into town to buy a new shirt for her first day at the “Mission”. What caught her eye was a “shiny orange shirt”, it was bright and made her excited. She wore it proudly to attend the residential school that she described as both “intimidating and scary”. Once she arrived at the school any feelings of excitement in seeing her cousins quickly dissipated when her hair was cut and she was made to strip out of her clothes. It was especially hard giving up her orange shirt, yet she had no choice, her feelings did not matter sadly no one’s did, and the shirt was never given back. Donning communal clothing, all ties to her identity and culture were ripped away like a cruel joke.

“Felt like grownups were playing a cruel joke on them” - Phyllis Webstad

At the “Mission”, there was no hugging, no touching (at least not in a good way), no looking at each other and family members of the opposite gender were never allowed to speak to one another. Everyone would cry quietly every night. Phyllis said when siblings were especially lonely they would go to what they referred to as “the invisible line” outside and walk up and down far enough away from each other so no one would notice because that was the only way they could visit.

She also talked about how granny always distanced herself from children as they got older, (all 10 of her children had attended residential schools).She would show love and affection to babies, but as soon as they reached 5, she grew more distant. Granny had been preparing them all for an environment where they did not matter. It was a place where she knew none of them would matter and where the phrase, “Every child matters” originated.⁵

If reconciliation first begins with telling the truth, then the next most meaningful thing we can do is listen to the stories from survivors and remember those who did not survive, because every child deserves to be remembered and every child matters.

Today please consider wearing an orange shirt to show your support. Thank you for reading.

Until next time ReconciliAction YEG

A word from the President of the Indigenous Law Students Association, University of Alberta: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=354798429098801  

 

[1] Orange Shirt Society, “September 30” online: Orange Shirt Day </www.orangeshirtday.org/>. [Orange Shirt Society]

[2] Medicine Wheel Education, “Thank you to everyone who joined us live for the Orange Shirt Day online classroom….” (16 September 2020) posted on Medicine Wheel Education, online: Facebook: <www.facebook.com/medicinewheeleducation/videos/1317463278595862>.

[3] University of Regina, “Gordon’s Indian Residential School” online: Shattering the Silence <www2.uregina.ca/education/saskindianresidentialschools/gordons-indian-residential-school/>. 

[4]The Canadian Encyclopedia, “Residential Schools” online: Timeline  <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/timeline/residential-schools>.

[5] Orange Shirt Society, supra note 1, Phylis Story <www.orangeshirtday.org/phyllis-story.html>.

5 Years after TRC: A National Standard (Part 2)

(Image credit: Louise Brown, Toronto Star, "A study in First Nations 101" (June 20, 2006) online: canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Tor_Star_First_Nations_101_20JUN06.aspx)

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

Today’s post continues our assessment of TRC Call to Action #4, specifically in relation to the following requirements of the national standard for Indigenous child welfare: 

    ii. Require all child-welfare agencies and courts to take the residential school legacy into account in their decision making. 

    iii. Establish, as an important priority, a requirement that placements of Aboriginal children into temporary and permanent care be culturally                               appropriate. 

The Residential School Legacy

While the last Residential School officially closed its doors in 1996,^[1] the legacy lives on. The number of Indigenous children in government care currently triples the number of those in residential schools at the height of their operation.^[2] 

Canada’s systemic removal of Indigenous children from their families, culture and communities through the Residential School system has resulted in generations of shared trauma, abuse and disconnection from culture. The impact of the Residential School system underlies a significant amount of child protection involvement.^[3] Therefore, it is unrealistic for child welfare agencies and courts not to take the Residential School legacy into consideration when making decisions regarding Indigenous children. 

The preamble of The Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families^[4] recognizes TRC Call to Action #4 by recognizing the harm caused by Residential Schools. However, as noted in the Yellowhead Institute Paper, “an acknowledgment is not a commitment to do any particular thing.”^[5] A statutory requirement that child welfare agencies and courts consider the impact of Residential Schools is a governmental  commitment to healing that goes beyond the hollow recognition in the Act . 

Indian Child Welfare Act:^[6] The Gold Standard

The United States enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (CWFA) in 1978, in response to overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system. The CFWA is exemplary as it empowers Indigenous communities with inherent jurisdiction to resolve matters involving children in need of care.^[7] 

When determining the best course of action for an Indigenous child, the ICWA requires US courts to consider the following:

1. A genuine desire from the biological parents to place an Indigenous child in care.^[8]
2. Active efforts to keep the family together (e.g. rehabilitative programs) to be unsuccessful before any placement is ordered. ^[9]
3. A higher burden of proof to require placement/adoption.^[10]
4. A legislated order for placement to keep the child close to their family and community.^[11]

Placement of children in care

“...the significance of cultural background and heritage as opposed to bonding abates over time. The closer the bond that develops with the prospective adoptive parents the less important the racial element becomes.”^[12]

The above statement from the 1983 Supreme Court decision, Racine v Woods demonstrates the problematic thinking which led to the separation of generations of Indigenous families. In Woods, the Court ruled that it would be in the best interests of Leticia Racine, a seven-year-old girl, to stay with her non-Indigenous adoptive parents rather than with her Indigenous mother. 

Under the new legislation, Indigenous child placement is determined under a priority system with parents first, other family members, other community members, another Indigenous family, and finally, any other adult. However, there is a caveat--the priority system is only used to the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child.^[13] As jurisdiction is an area of ambiguity in the Act (see yesterday’s post for discussion), interpretation of BIOC in the context of Indigenous child welfare raises concerns.^[14] What standards will be used to determine BIOC? Can federal and provincial governments unilaterally override decisions about the best interests of Indigenous children? 

Quebec has challenged the Act on grounds of exclusive provincial jurisdiction over Indigenous child welfare matters.^[15] Other Canadian courts have begun to apply the principles of the Act. Generally, it appears that courts consider the federal nature of the Act as paramount to provincial legislation,^[16] However some courts have failed to consider the placement priority  in the Act if alternatives were not presented, perpetuating the removal of children from family and community.^[17] Although we are only eight months into the new legislation, some positive change seems to be coming from its application.

¹Union of Ontario Indians, An Overview of the Indian Residential School System, (2013) online (pdf):www.anishinabek.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/An-Overview-of-the-IRS-System-Booklet.pdf at 2.

²Yellowhead Institute, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Children, Youth and Families Does Bill C-92 Make the Grade? (March 21, 2019) online (pdf): yellowheadinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/does-bill-c-92-make-the-grade_-full-report.pdf at 5 [Yellowhead Institute Paper].

³Ardith Walkem, WRAPPING OUR WAYS AROUND THEM: Aboriginal Communities and the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) Guidebook, (ShchEma-mee.tkt Project (Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council): 2015), online (pdf): cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/wowat_bc_cfcsa_1.pdf at 8.

⁴An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, SC 2019, c 24, Preamble [The Act]. (“Whereas Parliament recognizes the legacy of residential schools and the harm, including intergenerational trauma, caused to Indigenous peoples by colonial policies and practices;”)

⁵Yellowhead Institute Paper, supra note 2 at 9.

⁶Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC §1901–1963 (1978) [ICWA].

⁷Sébastien Grammond, "Federal Legislation on Indigenous Child Welfare in Canada." Journal of Law and Social Policy 28:1. (2018): 132-151 at 141. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp/vol28/iss1/7

⁸Ibid.

⁹Ibid.

¹⁰Ibid.

¹¹Ibid at 142.

¹²Racine v Woods, [1983] 2 SCR 173, 187-88.

¹³The Act, supra note 4 at 16(1).

¹⁴Yellowhead Institute Paper, supra note 2 at 17-18.

¹⁵See Jon Goud, “Quebec’s Misguided Challenge to Federal Indigenous Child Welfare Law” (Jan 23, 2020) blog: blogs.dal.ca/dlj/2020/01/23/quebecs-misguided-challenge-to-federal-indigenous-child-welfare-law/. (This appeal has been criticized as one that will simply delay much needed change in the child welfare system).

¹⁶See British Columbia (Child, Family and Community Service) v. S.H., 2020 BCPC 82 and Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director) v K.C, 2020 ABPC 62.

¹⁷See Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society v. A.C., 2020 ONCJ 251 (See paras 127-28, where the Court takes note of the parents' limited connection to their Metis culture in determining that the children should stay with a Metis foster family). 

5 Years After TRC: A National Standard

(Image Credit: Debwe, led by Mushkiiki Nibi Kwe (Lindsey Lickers) with artists Leah Roberts, Maybella King Reynolds & Shaneixqui Brown.) 

 

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

 

TRC Call to Action #4 calls for federal legislation that establishes a national standard for Indigenous child welfare.  These national standards were to include provisions that; 

• Affirm the right of Indigenous governing bodies to manage their own child welfare; 
• Require the legacy of residential schools to be considered by decision-makers in courts and child welfare agencies, and 
• Establish a placement requirement that prioritizes culturally appropriate care.^[1] 

 

The Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children,Youth and Families (the Act, formerly Bill C-92) came into force in January 2020.^[2]  ReconciliAction YEG wrote about Bill C-92 both after it was first introduced, and after the Act came into force.^[3] We won’t reinvent the wheel with today & tomorrow’s post, but we want to specifically address how this legislation responds to the Call of the TRC. 

 

The Act directly acknowledges the TRC Call for a legislated national standard in the preamble, which on the surface, immediately addresses Call to Action #4. It states: 

 

Whereas the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action calls for the federal, provincial and Indigenous governments to work together with respect to the welfare of Indigenous children and calls for the enactment of federal legislation that establishes national standards for the welfare of Indigenous children.^[4]

 

Additionally, section 8(a) of the Act states that the purpose of the Act is to “affirm the inherent right of self-government, which includes jurisdiction in relation to child and family services”.^[5]

 

While this legislation is a huge step forward with its statutory recognition of Indigenous government’s inherent jurisdiction over child welfare, it has been problematic from its introduction. Cindy Blackstock, executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, called the legislation “a colonial Faustian bargain” in that it requires Indigenous groups to “accept the flawed bill in its current state or get nothing.”^[6]  These flaws include a total lack of statutorily allocated funding, over-reliance on the best interests of the child as interpreted by colonial courts, failure to fully recognize Indigenous jurisdiction, and no measures for accountability or data collection.^[7] The Yellowhead Institute published an in-depth assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of the final iteration of the Bill just after it was passed, but understanding the bargain referred to by Dr. Blackstock means understanding the two phases of the legislation.^[8]

 

Phase 1 of the Act is the National Standards.  This became effective immediately upon enactment, and sets a floor for how Indigenous child welfare must operate.^[9] Where the Act conflicts with provincial law, the Act takes precedent.^[10] This is a positive, because provincial child welfare standards vary from province to province, and the National standard will ensure that this minimum standard is consistent across Canada. 

 

Phase 2 of the Act is where Indigenous Laws can prevail over the National Standard, and the existing Provincial law. On its face, this sounds like a positive, but looking closer at the provisions acknowledging inherent jurisdiction, it appears more like inherent jurisdiction, if Canada says so.  Indigenous governing bodies can exercise jurisdiction either by giving notice of intent, or by making a request to enter into a coordination agreement with the relevant governments.^[11] Notice of intent to exercise jurisdiction allows the Indigenous governing body to handle child welfare matters according to provincial and federal law, but does not give force to Indigenous laws.^[12]  A coordination agreement would allow both jurisdiction and prevailing Indigenous law if reasonable efforts were made to reach an agreement within 12 months, and if the prevailing Indigenous law is not in conflict with the “best interests of the child”.^[13] 

 

Team ReconciliAction assigns a grade of C+ to the federally legislated national standard, and a grade of D to the Act’s affirmation of inherent jurisdiction. While a national standard for Indigenous child welfare has set a floor for the care of Indigenous children, the floor appears to be too low still without any allocated funding or accountability measures included as part of the standard. Additionally, an affirmation of the inherent jurisdiction that was never relinquished by Indigenous groups in the first place, merely amounts to lip service when colonial oversight is still imposed. 

Check back tomorrow for more on Call to Action #4, and tell us what you think of our assessment below!

 

Until next time, Team ReconciliAction YEG

¹  Truth and Reconcilliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission of Canada. (Ottawa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) at 320.

² An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, SC 2019, c 24 [The Act].

³ ReconciliAction YEG, “Systemic Barriers and Indigenous Children: Bill C-92”, (21 March 2019), online: University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog <https://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/faculty/2019/03/systemic-barriers-and-indigenous-children-bill-c-92.html>; ReconciliAction YEG, “An Overview of Bill C-92”, online: University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog <https://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/faculty/2020/01/an-overview-of-bill-c-92.html>.

⁴ The Act, supra note 2 [emphasis added].

⁵ Ibid, s 8.

⁶ Cindy Blackstock, “Opinion: Will Canada continue to fail Indigenous girls?”, The Globe and Mail (6 June 2019), online: <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-will-canada-continue-to-fail-indigenous-girls/>.

⁷ Naiomi Walqwan Metallic, Hadley Friedland & Sarah Morales, The Promise and Pitfalls of C-92:  An Act respecting First Nations,  Inuit, and Métis Children,  Youth and Families (Toronto, Ontario: Yellowhead Institute, 2019).

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ The Act, supra note 2, ss 4, 8(b).

¹⁰ Ibid, s 4.

¹¹ Ibid, s 20.

¹² Ibid, s 20(3).

¹³ Ibid, ss 10–15, 20(3), 21, 22, 23.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Legacy, Reconciliation, and the Doctrine of Discovery

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

 

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg took a judicial oath to join the United States Supreme Court in August of 1993, she brought to the highest court her life’s work; advancing the cause of equality under the law. For nearly three decades on the bench she practiced an unwavering commitment to the advancement of gender equality^[1] and human rights^[2] – her careful decisions and fiery dissents will guide generations of legal thinkers to come.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy has already been enshrined beyond the legal world as a feminist icon, trailblazer and champion of equality.

 

As it pertains to this blog, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy presents profound realities on reconciliation - that even those with the sharpest eye towards ‘equality under the law’ can fail to move past the historic legal frameworks that dehumanize Indigenous communities and invalidate their autonomy. There exists an uncomfortable premise that Justice Ginsburg’s body of work perpetuates - that true principles of reconciliation can lie beyond the imagination of even the most progressive decision makers in a colonial state.^[3]

 

The ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ was the lens through which European theocratic monarchies viewed the world as theirs for the taking, its modern origins forming in the 15^th century.^[4] It espoused that Non-Christians lacked the basic humanity to lay claim to land and exist as free and equal people. This allowed European entities to unilaterally ‘discover’ not only exclusive fee title to the land, but sovereign governmental rights over the Indigenous people ‘occupying’ such land.^[5] The Doctrine of Discovery first officially entered the American Supreme Court Jurisprudence in 1832, with the decision of Johnson v M’Intosh,^[6] - a decision based on ‘[…] self-serving, imperialist foundations,’^[7] ‘rife with glaringly apparent racist assumptions.’^[8]

 

Far from a historical remnant, the legal fiction of the Doctrine of Discovery was what Ruth Bader Ginsburg relied on, in part, in the United States Supreme Court 2005 decision Sherrill v Oneida Indian Nation of New York, a decision that overturned the Circuit Court and denied the Oneida Nation tribal immunity over their ancestorial and territorial lands.^[9] The Oneida Nation ancestorial land that had been purchased by the State without treaty or congressional consent, was later repurchased by the Nation through straightforward ‘modern’ mechanisms, on the real-estate market.

 

 In Sherrill, Justice Ginsburg reasoned that this land, initially vested to European powers through the Doctrine of Discovery,^[10] had simply been out of the Oneida’s control for too long, rendering sovereignty in this instance an ‘ancient’ and untenable concept.^[11]The decision in Sherrill provided the Doctrine of Discovery a dangerous injection of life. ^[12]

 

While we celebrate the momentous life and inspirational career of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we wish to pose the following questions leading into the weekend: 

What meaning can reconciliation be given when even the strongest advocates for human rights cannot see beyond racist and colonial frameworks? 

Can current legal frameworks function to truly recognize Indigenous Nations as equal and sovereign entities?

 

We look forward to continuing our reviews Monday. Until next time,

 

Team ReconciliAction YEG

¹United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007).

²Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. 682 (2014).

³ This is by no means an American phenomenon. Just as Pierre Elliot Trudeau championed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he also fathered the White Paper.

⁴Robert J Miller, "The Doctrine of Discovery in American Indian Law" (2005) 42:1 Idaho L Rev 1.The Doctrine’s origins can be traced to the Crusades and Christian claims to the ‘Holy Lands’ in 1096-1271.

⁵Ibid.

⁶Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)

⁷Kent McNeil, "The Doctrine of Discovery Reconsidered: Reflecting on Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies" (2016) 53:2 Osgoode Hall LJ 699.

⁸Ibid.

⁹City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005)

¹⁰Ibid, at 2 n 1.

¹¹Ibid at 2.

¹²See e.g. Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005), Bay Mills Indian Community v Snyder 372 F.Supp.3d 570 (2018).

Part 2: TRC Call To Action #3- Jordan's Principle

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

 

Yesterday on the blog, we introduced TRC Call to Action #3 regarding “Jordan’s Principle”. Today, we pick up where we left off and evaluate the federal government’s implementation of this Call to Action.

 

Imagine being a parent and having to choose between accessing health services for your child versus raising them in your care, in your home, in your community. This has been the reality for many First Nations parents in Canada.

 

A 2007 evaluation of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) program found an increase in the number of First Nations children in care.^[1] According to the report, a “likely” source of blame was the FNCFS program funding formula, because only “in-care options” (i.e. “foster care, group homes and institutional care”) were fully reimbursed.^[2] In other words, often the only way for First Nations children to receive health services was if the parents gave up their children to the Child Welfare System.^[3] Despite sources from 2000 to 2012 that identified the adverse effects of the funding model and proposed recommendations and options to reverse these effects, the government did not reform the budget or funding program.^[4] 

 

In a 2016 decision,^[5] the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the Tribunal) found that First Nations children and families living on reserve were denied equal child and family services, violating section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Tribunal also found that the federal government improperly applied a narrow definition of Jordan’s Principle in a way that was discriminatory on the grounds of race and national ethnic origin.^[6] In its decision, the Tribunal wrote, “the best interest of the child is a paramount principle [...] recognized in international and Canadian law. This principle is meant to guide and inform decisions that impact all children, including First Nations children.”^[7] As all other children in Canada were able to access education and health services from their provincial health care system without issue, the Tribunal ordered the federal government to “immediately implement the full meaning and scope of Jordan’s principle.”^[8] 

 

Has the government finally come through for First Nations children and families?

 

The Government of Canada is still fine tuning its application of Jordan’s Principle. Since 2018, additional tribunal and judicial rulings have attempted to cement eligibility rules for First Nations children and families.^[9] 

 

On July 17, 2020, the Tribunal asked the Government of Canada and other Parties to the litigation to consult together and report back to the Tribunal by October 19, 2020 on the following orders:^[10]

 

1. “[G]enerate potential eligibility criteria for First Nations children under Jordan’s Principle”,^[11] and 
2. “[E]stablish a mechanism to identify citizens and/or members of First Nations that is timely, effective and considers the implementation concerns raised by all parties. [...]The mechanism should also include provision for additional and sustainable funding to account for the children who will now be included under Jordan’s Principle.”^[12]

So, more work is still needed before Canada can be said to fully implement Jordan’s Principle. On a positive note, the federal government has made the following changes related to Jordan’s Principle:

1. The government approved more than 358,000 products, services and supports for First Nations children from July 2016 to August 31, 2019, including mental health supports, medical equipment, speech therapy, and educational supports. “This included a review of past denied requests under Jordan's Principle and reimbursements for expenses incurred by families since April 2007.”^[13]

2. “The systemic remedies previously ordered by the Tribunal are being fully implemented to ensure that First Nations children, families and communities have access to essential services and supports required,”^[14] and
3. “[Indigenous Services Canada] has nearly doubled the First Nations Child and Family services budget since 2016 from $676 million to $1.2 billion annually.”^[15]

It seems that Canada is finally on the right track in terms of fully implementing Jordan’s Principle despite lengthy delays and litigation. We give the Canada a “C” for TRC Call to Action #3 in anticipation of it fulfilling the Tribunal’s reporting requirements in October of this year.

Until next time, Team ReconciliAction YEG

¹First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al v Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), 2016 CHRT 2 at para 273.

²Ibid.

³Ibid at para 274.

⁴Ibid at para 304-305.

⁵Ibid at para 456.

⁶Ibid at para 481.

⁷Ibid at para 3.

⁸Ibid at 481.

⁹See e.g. First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al v Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), 2019 CHRT 7.

¹⁰First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al v Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada), 2020 CHRT 20 at paras 321-322.

¹¹Ibid at para 321.

¹²Ibid at para 321-322.

¹³Government of Canada, “The Government of Canada’s assessment of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's ruling on compensation”, online: <https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1569866874043/1569866891789>.

¹⁴Ibid.

¹⁵Ibid.

TRC Call to Action #3 - Jordan’s Principle

In 1999, little Cree boy Jordan River Anderson was born in Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba. He had multiple disabilities and complex medical needs which meant he would need to stay in a hospital. When he was 2 doctors said he could be moved to a special home that could accommodate his extensive needs. However, the federal and provincial governments couldn’t agree on who should pay for his home care costs, which meant Jordan would remain in a hospital for the remainder of his life which ended tragically at the age of 5.¹ Jordan was never able to go home, nor did he ever have the opportunity to be surrounded by family or community. This is a frustrating analogy to the residential school and Indian Hospital experiences many First Nations children endured.  Even at the turn of the new millennium, this was a sad reminder that Reconciliation has a very long way to go.

Following his death, in 2007 the Federal House of Commons² unanimously passed Motion-296 supporting and affirming that the government should immediately adopt a child-first principle: “Jordan’s Principle”, which intended to ensure no jurisdictional gaps or delays would ever happen again in providing First Nations children prompt access to required services, products, or supports they need. Furthermore, it would ensure that the first governmental body to be approached would be the one to pay for the child’s care, leaving jurisdictional disputes over responsibility of the costs to a later date.³

A child’s access to healthcare and quality of that care should not be up for debate, and has no business being a political dispute. Yet, unfortunately, that is what happens for many First Nations children who are either denied universal health care, endure unequal and delayed care, or are institutionalized in non-indigenous institutions away from family and community, all because governments have politicized their health and not honored their treaty obligations to health.⁴

The TRC Call to Action #3 states that Jordan’s Principle be fully implemented by all levels of government. By failing to promptly acknowledge inadequacies and implement comparable funding to Indigenous children without any delays, Canada discriminates against First Nations children. This on-going battle is a heavy hindrance to Reconciliation. Elder Elmer Courchene said it best on the Jordan River Anderson Documentary, The Messenger: "“Do justice, loving justice, caring justice, honest justice, respectful justice for our little ones. Simple.” ⁵ 

Due to hard fought battles, recent changes and implementations by different levels of governments in Canada have resulted in improved funding outcomes.  In November 2018, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by eleven First Nations and Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments. This trilateral agreement was the first of its kind.⁶ Since 2018, additional tribunal and judicial rulings have attempted to cement eligibility rules for First Nations children and families. This will be discussed more in detail on tomorrows blog.

Please read tomorrow’s blog entry to find out what final grade ReconciliAction YEG gives Canada for TRC Call to Action #3.

 

[1] https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/Jordan's%20Principle%20Information%20Sheet.pdf

[2]https://www.fnha.ca/what-we-do/maternal-child-and-family-health/jordans-principle/faqs

[3] Private Member’s Motion M-296, 1st Sess, 39th Parl, 2007 (tabled by Jean Crowder, Nanaimo-Cowichan NDP, unanimously passed by House of Commons, 12 December 2007). See Vandna Sinha & Anne Blumenthal, “From the House of Commons resolution to Pictou Landing Band Council and Maurina Beadle v. Canada:  An update on the implementation of Jordan’s Principle” (2014) 9:1 First People’s Review 80.

[4]https://www.cerp.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Fichiers_clients/Documents_deposes_a_la_Commission/P-772-31.pdf#:~:text=Jordan%E2%80%99s%20Principle%3A%20Reconciliation%20and%20the%20First%20Nations%20Child,process%20of%20truth%20and%20healing%2C%20leading%20toward%20recon-

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOT6snSDe4w

[6]https://rdnewsnow.com/2018/11/16/alberta-first-nations-sign-new-agreement-to-uphold-jordans-principle/

 

5 Years After TRC: Reducing Children in Care Part 2

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

(Image credit: APTN, “Child Welfare”, (2 November 2018), online: aptnnews.ca/topic/child-welfare/>) 

In today’s blog post, we evaluate whether the individual recommendations for reducing the number of Indigenous children, as set out in TRC Call to Action #1, have seen any progress to date. Five specific recommendations were made:

1. Monitoring and assessing neglect investigations.
2. Providing adequate resources to enable Aboriginal communities and child-welfare organizations to keep Aboriginal families together where it is safe to do so, and to keep children in culturally appropriate environments, regardless of where they reside.
3. Ensuring that social workers and others who conduct child-welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the history and impacts of residential schools.
4. Ensuring that social workers and others who conduct child-welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the potential for Aboriginal communities and families to provide more appropriate solutions to family healing.
5. Requiring that all child-welfare decision makers consider the impact of the residential school experience on children and their caregivers.^[1]

Neglect

The most common reported reason for maltreatment of Indigenous children to child protection agencies in Canada is neglect.^[2] Neglect is defined as “a caregiver’s failure or inability to provide a minimal standard of age-appropriate care”.^[3]However, in many Indigenous families, the root cause of neglect is often related to structural factors like poverty, inadequate housing and colonial factors such as residential schools and related trauma.^[4] Therefore it is important to monitor and assess child neglect investigations to understand the root causes of neglect and determine whether other services can be provided to prevent apprehension. 

At the 2018 Emergency Meeting on Indigenous child and family services, a need for monitoring and assessing neglect investigations was again recognized, for example, through an independent National Ombudsperson on Child Welfare or a national Indigenous child advocate.^[5] As of yet, those recommendations have not been implemented.

Resources to keep Indigenous families together

The separation of Indigenous families comes at a great cost. The discriminatory practices of the Government through the child welfare system has been recognized in the First Nations Family and Caring Society cases^[6], where the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) found that the Government willfully and recklessly discriminated against First Nations children and families.^[7] In 2019, the CHRT ordered Canada to pay the maximum possible award to victims of their discriminatory practices.^[8] However, the decision has been appealed by the Government for judicial review.^[9] The Government’s lack of accountability for their reckless and willful discrimination is disheartening. 

For further reading on the CHRT tribunal proceedings, see Cindy Blackstock’s article here. We will be taking a more in-depth look into the other changes to the child welfare system through Bill C-92 next week. Stay tuned!

Education of child-welfare decision makers

The relationship between Indigenous families and social workers is historically fraught. Social workers were involved in the apprehension of Indigenous children during the Sixties Scoop, Residential School system, and they continue to be front-line actors in the child welfare system.^[10] Therefore, it is of great importance for social workers to understand the historical legacy of destructive colonial structures and focus on the strength of Indigenous communities to heal.

Within 24 hours of the release of the TRC’s final report, the Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE) passed a motion recommending a mandatory course in Indigenous social work for all Canadian social work students.^[11] Further, the Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) responded to the TRC by prioritizing reconciliation in their 2016-2020 Strategic Plan.^[12] While these steps demonstrate some recognition of the need for education, more work needs to be done to ensure that the child welfare system actually supports Indigenous families rather than perpetuating trauma and familial separation.^[13]

The fifth specific recommendation for implementing TRC Call to Action #1 is a requirement for child welfare decision makers to consider the residential school experience. While it seems that consideration of the impact of residential schools on children and families is encouraged, no such requirement has been implemented.

¹Truth and Reconcilliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission of Canada. (Ottawa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) at 1.

²Marlyn Bennett for the National Collaborating Center for Aboriginal Health, “Understanding Neglect in First Nations Families” (2013), online (pdf): <ccnsa-nccah.ca/docs/health/FS-UnderstandingNeglect-Bennett-EN.pdf>.

³Ibid.

⁴Ibid.

⁵Celeste McKay, et al, “A report on children and families together: An Emergency Meeting on Indigenous child and family services” (January 25-26, 2018), online: <sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1531151888537/1531152018493> (see recommendation 20 and 42).

⁶First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), 2016 CHRT 2; First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada), 2018 CHRT 4; First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada), 2019 CHRT 39.

⁷See First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada), 2019 CHRT 39 at para 15.

⁸The maximum possible remedial award under the Canadian Human Rights Act is $20,000.

⁹First Nations Child and Family Services, “Canada's actions since the January 2016 CHRT decision” (July 6, 2020) online: <sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1500661556435/1533316366163>.

¹⁰Angel Compton-Osmond, “Aboriginal Community Social Work: Committing to Anti-Oppressive Practice” ( National Webinar, September 26, 2017), online (pdf): <casw-acts.ca/sites/casw-acts.ca/files/attachements/angel_compton-osmond_sep_26.pdf>.

¹¹CASWE, “CASWE-ACFTS Media Release 2015” (June 8, 2015), online (pdf): <caswe-acfts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Media-Release.June8_.2015.Student-Committee.pdf>.

¹²Canadian Association of Social Workers, “CASW Strategic Plan 2016-20”, online (pdf): <casw-acts.ca/sites/casw-acts.ca/files/attachements/casw_strategic_plan_2016-2020.pdf>.

¹³ See Angela Sterritt, “'I felt like I was betraying my own': Indigenous social workers open up about challenges”, CBC News (24 April 2019), online: <cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/indigenous-social-worker-speaks-out-1.5107655.>.

5 Years After TRC: Reducing Children in Care

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

 

Today we are looking at TRC Calls to Action #1 and #2.  Both of these Calls to Action call on governments to address the staggering number of Indigenous children in the child welfare system. The 2016 census showed that a shocking 52.2% of children in care were Indigenous.^[1] Why is this figure so shocking? Well, only 7.7% of children in Canada are Indigenous.^[2]  

(Image credit: Government of Canada; Indigenous Services Canada, “Reducing the number of Indigenous children in care”, (2 November 2018), online: <https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1541187352297/1541187392851>) 

 

Call to Action #1 calls for a commitment from governments to reduce Indigenous children in care through resourcing, monitoring and educating child welfare organizations, and requiring child-welfare investigators and decision makers to consider culturally appropriate environments and the effects of residential schools on children and caregivers. Call to Action #2 calls for annual published data on child welfare services and Indigenous children.^[3]

 

To evaluate Call to Action #1, Team ReconciliAction first needed to know if there has been a reduction of Indigenous children in care since 2015. However, the most recent federal data on the number of Indigenous children in care comes from the 2016 census. Due to the absence of annual published data, we have assigned a failing grade for Call to Action #2.  Finding out the number of Indigenous children in care would have been a simple task if Call to Action #2 had been adequately responded to.  Luckily for our readers, we law students are no strangers to research. 

 

News reports from June 2020 state that the proportion of Indigenous children in care in Saskatchewan hit an 11-year high for the number of children in care, with 86% of these children being Indigenous.^[4]  Following a similar upward trend, Alberta Human Services reported a 4% increase in Indigenous children in care in 2018, raising Alberta's figure to 70%.^[5]  Finally, between 2016 and 2018, BC saw an increase in the number of Indigenous children in care from 61% to 63%.^[6] 

 

The number of Indigenous children in care may be further impacted by recent published judicial interpretations of the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families since it's coming into force in January 2020. Several courts across the country have interpreted the new priority placement provision in the Act in a way that places or keeps the Indigenous child in foster care, by skipping over or deeming 'not applicable' placements that are legislated as ahead of foster homes in priority.^[7] We will discuss this Act in greater detail next week when we look at Call to Action #4.

 

Overall, Call to Action #1 cannot be assigned a passing grade for reducing the number of Indigenous children in care because the proportion of Indigenous children in care has not been reduced since the final report from the TRC was released in 2015. Perhaps tomorrow this grade can improve when we evaluate whether there has been progress on the individual means of reducing the number of Indigenous children in care as set out in TRC Call to Action #1. Stay tuned!

What do you think about progress on Calls to Action #1 & #2? Comment below. 

 

Until next time, Team ReconciliAction YEG

 

¹ Government of Canada; Indigenous Services Canada, “Reducing the number of Indigenous children in care”, (2 November 2018), online: <https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1541187352297/1541187392851>.

² Ibid

³Truth and Reconcilliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission of Canada. (Ottawa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) at 319.

⁴ Anna McMillan, “Number of children in Saskatchewan’s care hits 11-year high, with 86% identified as Indigenous”, online: Global News <https://globalnews.ca/news/7020525/indigenous-children-saskatchewans-care-11-year-high/>.

⁵ Human Services Alberta, Child Intervention Information and Statistics Summary (Alberta: Human Services Alberta, Child Intervention Division, 2018).

⁶ Government of British Columbia, “Children and Youth in Care”, (31 March 2018), online: <https://mcfd.gov.bc.ca/reporting/services/child-protection/permanency-for-children-and-youth/performance-indicators/children-in-care>.

⁷An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019 c 24 [The Act], s 16, When placing an Indigenous child, priority must be considered in order of, (a) with one of the child’s parents, (b) with another adult member of the child’s family,(c) with an adult who belongs to the same Indigenous group, community or people as the child, (d) with an adult who belongs to an Indigenous group, community or people other than the one to which the child belongs, or (e) with any other adult. Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director) v KC, 2020 ABPC 62 [AB Director v KC] at paras 30–31, Interpreted as inapplicable when family and Indigenous governing body have not put forth kinship or other placement options; British Columbia (Child, Family and Community Service) v SH, 2020 BCPC 82 [BCCFS v SH] Placement priority provision interpreted as not applicable when no other placement alternatives or evaluations have been provided to the court.

Meet the 2020/21 Team: Teresa Holmes

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

 

My name is Teresa Holmes and I am a Co-Lead and the final member of this year’s ReconciliAction YEG blog team. I am a third year law student at the University of Alberta and I want to use my role on this year’s blog team to shine a light on the persisting consequences of colonialism.

 

When I was a young girl growing up in Red Deer, Alberta, my grandfather received the honorific of United Empire Loyalist. This designation is given to descendants of Canada’s “first refugees”^[1] who have been alternatively referred to as the “first settlers, hard-working pioneers, principled defenders of the British Empire and constitution,[...] and members of an educated and cultured elite.”^[2] As a child growing up in central Alberta, I was proud of my family’s long, “loyal”, history as Canadians. It was not until I attended my first Indigenous history course in university that I realized the damage that early and contemporary Canadians have caused through various colonial systems of Indigenous cultural genocide. 

 

So why was I interested in joining this year’s Law and Social Media cohort to contribute to this blog? It is one small step towards my personal reconciliation with Indigenous people and my settler ancestry. As future lawyers, our role will be to advocate for our clients and champion their causes. This blog is an avenue for University of Alberta law students, like myself, to practice this skill and amplify Indigenous voices for our peers, professors, and the public. It is also a way for us to cast light on the legal issues that continue to hold back Indigenous people from true equality within this nation. Finally, it is an opportunity for our team members to learn and explore the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action and study what has worked, what hasn’t worked, and what hasn’t been addressed. I look forward to this unique opportunity to involve and interact with the public on contemporary Indigenous policies and issues.

 

Thank you for reading our introductory posts this week. We hope you return next week to read our evaluation of the TRC Calls to Action related to Child Welfare.

 

Until next time, Team ReconciliAction YEG

¹Norman Knowles, Inventing the Loyalists: The Ontario Loyalist Tradition and the Creation of Usable Pasts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997) at 17.

²Ibid at 14.

Meet the 2020/21 Team: Tyler Godard

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

I am very grateful to be along for the ride with this unique and talented team of writers as we take on a five-year overview of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee’s Calls to Action.^[1] I am a third-year law student who grew up in Calgary; my family background is of mixed-European heritage who settled predominately in Southern Ontario. 

Attending law school was a decision that I made in part by a desire to better understand reconciliation and the legal frameworks in which Treaty relations are based. When I was 19 years-old I first started living and working for a Cree community in Treaty 8 territory – during the years in which the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was active. This initial experience was my first crash-course in how colonial systems of education, justice and health blatantly fail and undermine communities - a gut-punch which began to redefine what my understanding of Canada is. 

In the years since, while working for and learning from communities and organizations across the country, I have sought to learn and to attribute meaning to ‘reconciliation’. As I currently see it, ‘reconciliation’ is a uniquely malleable word – it holds immense and beautiful meaning in some contexts, while being used to provide a feel-good substitution for damaging inaction in others. This is a central theme that I hope to delve into over the coming months. 

I am truly optimistic about the power that dialogue and discussion holds in actualizing the values that Canadians purport to hold, and I look forward to and welcome all feedback and discussion. I would like to thank the Co-Leads of this project for inviting me to write this year.

Until next time,

Tyler Godard

¹Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Ottawa, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015).

Meet the 2020/21 Team: Anita Cardinal-Stewart

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

My name is Anita Cardinal-Stewart and I am a nehiyaw iskwew (cree woman), 2nd year law student and this year I have the honor of not only being a member of the Law and Social Media class, but also as acting President of the Indigenous Law Students Association at the University of Alberta, Faculty of Law. I am proud member of Woodland Cree First Nations #474 which is situated on Treaty 8 territory and made up of four reserves in northern Alberta (Cadotte Lake, Simon Lake, Golden Lake, and Marten Lake). The Woodland Cree First Nation signed an Adhesion to Treaty No.8 on September 24, 1991 and is situated 85 kilometers northeast of the Town Peace River, Alberta, 500km NW of Edmonton, Alberta.¹

It is there my father moved us to after the Adhesion, and away from the Metis Settlement (East Prairie Settlement) that we had been living on since I was a young girl. East Prairie sadly never truly felt like home because we were not Metis but rather non-status “Indians”. It was only after Bill C-31², or a Bill to Amend the Indian Act, passed into law in April 1985 to bring the Indian Act into line with gender equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that our family could once again reclaim our status and move “home”,never forgetting how our Metis brothers and sisters had welcomed us.

Prior to law school, I was a Paralegal working in civil litigation, at a law firm where I had the privilege of working on files such as the Sixties Scoop, Newfoundland & Labrador Residential School claim settlement, Forced Sterilization (of which my mother is a Representative Plaintiff for) and many other historical sexual abuse claims. All which have been powerful motivations to enter into law school, albeit later in life than most as a mature student. I am a mother to three sons and doting kokum to 2 year old Niko. I want to continue to be a loud and active advocate for Indigenous Rights and youth initiatives, and as the Edmonton Program Leader for Level Justice and Circle Coordinator for Righting Relations I plan to use my time here to work vigorously to do so. In my spare time I am an ultra trail runner and most days you can find me training on the beautiful Edmonton river valley trails. 

Thank you for your time and I hope you continue to come along on this journey with us for the next 8 months. It was a pleasure. 

Until next time, Anita Cardinal-Stewart

Team ReconciliAction YEG

 

¹  Woodland Cree First Nation, “Home” (2015), online: Woodland Cree First Nation <“https://www.woodlandcree.net/>

² The Canadian Encyclopedia, “Bill C-31” (May 12, 2020), online: The Canadian Encyclopedia <https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/bill-c-31>

Meet the 2020/21 Team: Tamya Chowdhury

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

My name is Tamya Chowdhury, and I am a third year law student at the University of Alberta. I am very excited to be a member of the Law and Social Media class for the 2020-21 academic year, especially in light of our blog’s theme ‒ assessing the Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) Calls to Action, five years later.^[1] 

Prior to starting law school, I worked as a registered nurse in the neonatal intensive care unit. My experience in healthcare clearly demonstrated the inequities faced by Indigenous people and communities, through inadequate access to healthcare, increased involvement with the child welfare system, and systemic discrimination. Since beginning law school, I have learned more about the colonial roots of these inequities. It is impossible for Canadian society to address the current inequities without acknowledging and understanding their historic roots.

This summer, I read Bob Joseph’s book, 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act ^[2] . The book highlights the effects of the Indian Act and suggests means of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, namely through self-governance. After reading the book, I felt a renewed sense of optimism at the prospect of reconciliation, despite the numerous historic injustices faced by Indigenous peoples. This year, I look forward to exploring what progress has been made five years after the TRC Calls to Action and taking a critical look at where we have fallen short. 

Thank you for taking the time to read our blog! We hope you continue along with us over the next eight months as we delve into the TRC’s 94 Calls to Action. 

Until next time,

Tamya Chowdhury

¹Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Ottawa, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015).

²Bob Joseph, 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act (Port Coquitlam: Indigenous Relations Press, 2018).

Meet the 2020/21 Team: Sarah Kriekle

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

 

My name is Sarah Kriekle and I am a Co-Lead of this year’s ReconciliaAction YEG blog team along with Teresa Holmes. Throughout this week our posts will introduce our team and you will get to know Teresa and myself, along with Tamya Chowdhury, Anita Cardinal-Stewart, and Tyler Godard.  

 

I am a first-generation Albertan, first-generation law student, and the first in my family to attend post-secondary school.  Before law school, I worked in supply chain and planning for a manufacturing company while I completed my Bachelor of Commerce degree part time. Since starting law school I have developed a keen interest in Indigenous governance and legal orders, and am looking forward to incorporating the knowledge and skills I am learning now into my future practice. You can read a bit more about my law school experience here.

 

I live in Red Deer, Alberta, just north of the Red Deer River. This river used to be known as “Waskasoo Seepee” which translates to “Elk River” in Cree. Elk were originally misidentified as European red deer by early settlers, which is how the city and the river came to have its current name.^[1] The area of Red Deer in which I live later became part of Treaty 6 territory, the traditional lands of the Nahkawininiwak (Salteaux) & Nêhiyawak (Plains Cree), and a traditional gathering place for the Métis. 

 

My ancestry is a mix of Métis, Ukrainian, German, and Austrian. My family’s Canadian roots originated with the early French settlers and the Salteaux in the Red River area. They eventually migrated during the time of the Riel Rebellion to Lebret and Fort Qu’Appelle, SK, where they remained.  I have been lucky to find detailed stories about my family in various works by Métis historians Lawrence Barkwell and Dr. Heather Devine.  While learning about my ancestry, I have also uncovered more about my Ukrainian, German, and Austrian heritage. My maternal grandfather’s grandparents first came to Canada from Ukraine and settled in Manitoba, and my paternal great-grandparents came from Germany and Austria, and settled in Saskatchewan. 

 

To me, this blog represents an opportunity for me to dig deeper into the colonial fracturing of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit life, culture and legal orders, and the Calls to Action meant to begin Canada’s work repairing the damage.  I believe that we cannot reach a point of reconciliation without full acknowledgment of the harms created by colonialism, and ReconciliAction YEG provides an accessible platform to bring the discussion to a broad community. 

 

Our team welcomes and encourages any feedback or questions from our readers, and we are all looking forward to the upcoming year with the blog. Tune in to meet Tamya tomorrow!

Until next time, Sarah Kriekle

¹  Tyler Dixon, “Get Me Outdoors: Fort Normandeau”, (7 August 2017), online: Get Me Outdoors <http://getmeoutdoors.blogspot.com/2017/08/fort-normandeau.html>.

Team ReconciliAction stands with Black Lives Matter

 

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

 

For our final post this week, Team ReconciliAction wants to acknowledge the long-standing oppression and structural and systemic racism against Black people worldwide. The senseless murder of Ahmaud Arbery and the brutal police killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd earlier this year brought renewed international attention to racial profiling, systemic racism, and the disproportionate use of lethal force by police against Black people.  The fact is, racism is deeply rooted in Canadian policy and culture, and it is time for our country to face this reality head on.  

 

When this blog discusses systemic racism, it is usually in the context of the historic and contemporary systems that oppress Indigenous people.  Indigenous people have survived many systems that were, by design, genocidal. Despite rampant exposure to disease, disenfranchisement, banning of cultural practices, residential schools, the sixties scoop, chronic underfunding and inaccessible services, intergenerational trauma, and the current over-incarceration and overrepresentation in the justice and child welfare systems, Indigenous culture and community stand resilient as ever. However, Team ReconciliAction acknowledges that right now, it is the time to shine a light on the historical and contemporary injustices faced by Black people in Canada. 

 

In Canada, historical records  of Black slavery date back to 1629, with documented evidence of at least 3000 Black people enslaved.^[1]  In Alberta, Black people have been discriminated against since the earliest Black settlers arrived.  Amber Valley was a settlement of Black pioneers who immigrated to Canada after discriminatory policy in Oklahoma stripped them of land ownership.^[2]  Canada was initially marketed as a place more racially tolerant, but after around 1000 Black pioneers settled in the west, anti-black racism began to rear its vicious head. Capitalizing on legislation that provisioned for race-based immigration laws, Frank Oliver of Edmonton petitioned to have legislation enacted that banned Black immigrants from coming to Canada.^[3]  While this legislation was never enacted, other systemic barriers were put in place that eventually slowed Black immigration to Alberta. 

 

Today, the Black community makes up 3.4% of Canada’s total population, and yet a disproportionate 9% of all people killed by police in Canada are Black.^[4]  Not only are Black people more likely to face police violence, they also earn less on average than non-Black Canadians, are more likely to be unemployed or living in poverty, and are the minority group most subjected to hate crimes and speech.^[5] 

 

We talk about reconciliation in the context of Indigenous-settlor relations, but Canada’s racist and colonial history has caused deep and pervasive harm to the Black community.  Repairing this harm starts with recognizing it. 

 

University of Toronto Library has curated a reading list for those interested in self-education on anti-Black racism in Canada.  

 

You can also stream the film We are the Roots: Black Settlers and their Experiences of Discrimination on the Canadian Prairies for free at BaileyandSoda.com to learn more about the early settlers of Amber Valley in Alberta

 

We stand in solidarity with Black Lives Matter and other equity-seeking groups in their collective fights against police brutality and systemic inequality. We hope you continue to tune in over the coming year to get our take on Canada’s efforts to peel back the layers of colonial systems of oppression that pervade our modern society. 

 

The team will be back next week to introduce the writers that will bring you this year's content.  We look forward to your comments and feedback over the upcoming year.

 

Until next time, Team ReconciliAction YEG

 

 

¹ Leyland Cecco, “Canada urged to open its eyes to systemic racism in wake of police violence”, the Guardian (14 June 2020), online: <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/14/canada-systemic-racism-history>.

² “Alberta: Home, Home on the Plains - Settlement : Black Settlers”, online: <http://wayback.archive-it.org/2217/20101208164117/http://www.abheritage.ca/pasttopresent/en/settlement/black_settlers.html> See also; Dr Jenna Bailey, We are the Roots: Black Settlers and their Experiences of Discrimination on the Canadian Prairies (Bailey and Soda Films).

³ Immigration Act, SC 1910, c 27 [Immigration Act], s 38“The Governor in Council may, by proclamation or order whenever he deems it necessary or expedient, — (c) prohibit for a stated period, or permanently, the landing in Canada, or the landing at any specified port of entry in Canada, of immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada, or of immigrants of any specified class, occupation or character.”; Barrington Walker, ed, The African Canadian Legal Odyssey (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012) at 30, 45.

⁴ Inayat Singh, “Deadly Force”, CBC News (23 July 2020), online: <https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/fatalpoliceencounters>.

⁵ Graham Slaughter & Mahima Singh, “Five charts that show what systemic racism looks like in Canada”, CTVNews (4 June 2020), online: <https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/five-charts-that-show-what-systemic-racism-looks-like-in-canada-1.4970352>.

COVID-19 and First Nations communities

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

 

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization characterized the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak as a pandemic.^[1] The virus, which causes COVID-19, has upended life as we know it. Today we are approaching 6 months of social distancing, wearing face masks, hand sanitizing and staying home. We know that this has been more difficult for some than others. Immuno-compromised people, the elderly and those suffering from insecure housing have had their lives significantly limited or altered. Many people are temporarily unable to work due to insufficient childcare caused by school closures, and many still have become permanently unemployed. First Nations communities in Canada are faced with additional challenges compared to the general population when dealing with the pandemic. Structural inequities created by historic and contemporary colonialism mean fewer resources are available for these communities.

 

For instance, there are still 61 long term water advisories in place for First Nations communities in Canada. In addition, a chronic housing crisis leaves nearly one-quarter of people living in First Nations communities in overcrowded housing or in housing in dire need of repair.^[2] Following health guidelines is made difficult in communities having to buy or transport water and in homes where social distancing cannot be maintained due to a lack of space. Many communities are also experiencing widespread issues with access to adequate telecommunications infrastructure, healthcare, and even healthy and affordable food - all of which impact the ability to respond to a pandemic.^[3] In spite of the increased risk, however, First Nations communities are reporting lower rates of positive tests, and lower rates of fatality than the rest of Canada.^[4]

 

There is still much uncertainty with this virus as the world begins to slowly open up, and we want to acknowledge the common difficulty faced by society in making such major and immediate adjustments in response. We want to thank everyone for their efforts in helping to slow the spread, and we hope that everyone is being patient with both themselves and with others as we collectively figure out pandemic best practices.

 

Until next time, Team ReconciliAction YEG

 

¹“WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19”, (11 March 2020), online: <https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020>.

²Government of Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, “Ending long-term drinking water advisories”, (27 September 2017), online: <https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1506514143353/1533317130660>; Statistics Canada, The housing conditions of Aboriginal people in Canada: census of population, 2016, Census in Brief (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2017).

³Anne Levesque & Sophie Thériault, “Indigenous communities at increased risk during the coronavirus pandemic”, online: The Conversation <http://theconversation.com/indigenous-communities-at-increased-risk-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-142027>.

⁴Government of Canada; Indigenous Services Canada, “Coronavirus (COVID-19) and Indigenous communities”, (5 May 2020), online: <https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1581964230816/1581964277298>.

Welcome Back Series 2020: TRC 5 Years Later

Tansi Nîtôtemtik, 

 

Welcome back to ReconciliACTION YEG! 

 

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) defines reconciliation as “coming to terms with events of the past in a manner that overcomes conflict and establishes a respectful and healthy relationship among people, going forward” with a goal of “[...]establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in [Canada].”^[1] Over the last three decades, several reports have been published to address modern Indigenous issues and historic injustices committed against Indigenous people by colonial settlers. One example is the 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) which included 444 recommendations to correct the injustices caused by policies of domination and assimilation, but nearly 25 years later, little progress has been made toward a “renewed relationship” with Indigenous people.^[2]  

 

June 2020 marked 5 years since the TRC closing event where the commission presented 94 Calls to Action to further reconciliation between settler Canadians and Indigenous peoples. December of this year will mark 5 years since the complete report was released to the public. 

 

In commemoration of the 5th anniversary of this critical report, ReconciliACTION YEG will look at the TRC Calls to Action and evaluate the action taken over the past 5 years, if any.  Look forward to our assessment in addition to continued discussion about current events and engagement with local Indigenous scholars, legal professionals, and community members. 

 

Our first posts this year will be a bit different from prior years.  We know you are used to meeting the team right away and we plan to introduce ourselves next week. However, we felt it important to take this week to acknowledge the events of 2020 that have impacted our lives so significantly; namely the COVID-19 pandemic, nation-wide Indigenous land-back protests, and the anti-racism movement that surged with renewed momentum following the death of George Floyd in the United States.  More to come on this tomorrow.  For today, we are wishing all of our classmates and colleagues across Canada a great first day back in class!

 

Until next time, Team ReconciliAction YEG

 

¹Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Ottawa, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) at 6.

² Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Renewal: A Twenty-Year Commitment, vol 5 (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1996) at 1.