It is hard to believe that the school year is drawing to a close and that this is my last post on the blog. The past year has certainly been one that will stay in our memories forever. Although the coronavirus pandemic has been extremely difficult, it has also showcased the resilience and strength of so many.
As I reflect on this past year and what I’ve learned, a few thoughts come to mind. Firstly, if our evaluation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Calls to Action reflect where Canada is at with reconciliation, then we have made minimal progress. Some initiatives, like funding Indigenous infrastructure show small steps forward, but ultimately reconciliation simply hasn’t taken priority in Canada.
So, where do we go from here? Canada truly needs to “walk the walk”. There have been so many reports, committees and conferences discussing how Indigenous peoples continue to be discriminated against in economic policies, criminal justice and child welfare to name a few; but our institutions continue to respond with inaction. As noted by my colleague yesterday, when action is taken, the reasons are political rather than being grounded in a recognition of inherent rights.
Secondly, I find hope in the increasing recognition of Indigenous self-government. For so long, Indigenous peoples have been treated like a “problem” that needs to be solved. After years of ineffective and racist policies, there appears to be a slow move towards placing power back into the hands of Indigenous communities.
However, this is not without conflict. Questions like those raised in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2020 YKSC 22 demonstrate the complexity in applying multiple frameworks to determine individual rights. Further, without adequate resources, self-governed institutions are being set up to fail. We must capitalize on the opportunity to work in partnership with Indigenous communities and build robust frameworks that allow them to thrive.
Lastly, I am so grateful to have been a part of this project! Learning about a different Call to Action every week has taught me so much about reconciliation and working on this team has been nothing short of wonderful. Thank you for following along with us, and I truly hope you tune in next year!
(Artwork: "The Earth is My Governement" (2018) by Christi Belcourt)
Tawnshi kiya mataen,
Since the official acknowledgement of Métis as section 35 rights holder in the Constitution, there has been a rise in claims to Métis ancestry and nationhood. People find Indigenous ancestry in their family tree and declare “aha! I am Métis!” Métis identity frequently gets treated as though it arises through European and Indigenous mixed ancestry, which has led to self identified Métis Nations across Canada making claim to Métis identity. However, as Adam Gaudry pointedly notes, race mixing in other forms has rarely led to the formation of a distinct culture.[1] Thus, it is not mere mixed ancestry that formed the Métis, but something more.
Métis Identity
The Métis identity is linked to a unique and collective origin story, it is premised on a shared set of laws and governance that stem from the geographical resource availability, and the languages and norms present in the place where Métis communities first became established.[2] Gaudry points out that the development of the Métis as a distinct community, did not occur because of race mixing but rather was a choice made by historical Métis to build a community and develop laws and systems for that community.[3] This development was inherently prairie centered, dependant on large herds of buffalo and regional proximity with Cree speakers.
Of course, the Métis of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were painted by Canada as inferior, as traitors and extremist rebels. During this time the Métis suffered the loss of many great leaders, and forced displacement through Scrip. This is where Métis identity can get tricky.
Disrupted Connections
As the Métis dispersed, new communities were established in other locations. Other Métis became “hidden”, choosing to integrate into non-Métis communities or even deny their Métis identity. There are many Métis today who have been raised in communities under these same legal orders, and who have never lost touch with the collective set of experiences that initially made the Métis into a distinct people. But there are others who were lost. Stripped of their history and identity by colonial assimilation forces, bullied into hiding, victims of stolen culture. Where do the descendants of the assimilated fit in with Métis identity?
Contemporary Métis Nations are cognizant of the disruption in continuity of many Métis people and welcome reconnection of disconnected kin. This reconnection is more than just uncovering a genealogical link, it is a return to the Métis community. Identifying as Métis is reciprocal, and requires a person to be claimed by a community just as much as it requires a person to claim that they belong. Métis identity cannot exist without Métis citizenship, without belonging to a community that claims you.
Métis Colonialism
Today, we see multiple organizations across Canada claiming status as Métis Nations, but relying on early mixed race marriages rather than the intentional development of a distinct people as the basis for this claim. In particular, this has been a problem with “Eastern Métis” where Indigenous ancestry can certainly be found, but the distinctive legal orders and kinship structures are absent.
Intermarriage between Indigenous and European people occurred anywhere that there were both Indigenous and European people. The primary issue with “Eastern Métis” is that there is no evidence to support that these historical intermarriages led to those people self-identifying as a distinct culture.[4] Moreso, the term “Métis” was externally applied to these people by Europeans to denote the mixed ancestry or “half-breed” status. A more critical issue, is that “Eastern Métis” have made repeated attempts to claim rights under Section 35 of the Constitution to the detriment of the existing Indigenous Nations of those territories which, curiously, are the same communities these “Eastern Métis” claim to be a part of.[5]
Most recently, the question of whether the Métis have rights west of the Rocky Mountains arose, when the Métis Nation of British Columbia (separate from the BC Métis Federation) made claim to land and hunting rights on the same lands as the Secwepemc traditional territory. There is no dispute as to whether there are Métis people west of the Rocky Mountains, however, these Métis arrived in British Columbia as settlers, and have no claim to the territory there simply because they are an Indigenous people who live on that land.[6]
This type of infringement upon the rights of First Nations is inherently colonial in nature. Métis identity and the prosperity of the Métis as an Indigenous people cannot, as Stephen Mussell succinctly stated, come at the expense of First Nations.[7]
Supplemental Reading
Colonial claims to identity are a very large topic, that this post simply cannot cover in one of the final posts of the year. If you are interested in learning more about Métis origins and false claims to nationhood, we would encourage you to read Distorted Descent: White Claims to Indigenous Identity by Darryl Leroux
Stay tuned for our final substantive post tomorrow, before we each reflect on our year with ReconciliAction YEG
Until Next Time,
ReconciliAction YEG
-----
Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG:
[1] Adam Gaudry, “Métis Are a People, Not a Historical Process”, online: The Canadian Encyclopedia <http://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/Métis-are-a-people-not-a-historical-process>.
[4] Adam Gaudry & Darryl Leroux, “White Settler Revisionism and Making Métis Everywhere: The Evocation of Métissage in Quebec and Nova Scotia” (2017) 3:1 Critical Ethnic Studies 116, online: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/jcritethnstud.3.1.0116>.
[6] “Do Métis have Rights in British Columbia? Let our Métis People be heard in a Good Way”, (22 October 2020), online: Yellowhead Institute <https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2020/10/22/do-Métis-have-rights-in-british-columbia-let-our-Métis-people-be-heard-in-a-good-way/>.
December 2020 marked 5 years since the TRC final report was released with 94 Calls to Action for truth and reconciliation with Indigenous people. To commemorate this juncture, Team ReconciliAction set out to evaluate progress on each of the Calls to Action in the 5 years since their release.
It has been quite a year for our team. In addition to our ongoing report card, we attended the Indigenous Bar Association annual conference, the ILSA speaker series, the Kawaskimhon Moot, the Barton trial, Indigenous language engagement sessions, various faculty talks, we won a Clawbie and we attended protests, marches and vigils. And we shared all of it with you, our dear audience. We appreciate all of the engagement we've had this year on the blog and on our social media accounts, and we want to thank everyone who joined the conversation on reconciliation this year.
Today, we release our final report card, and the culmination of our work over the 2020/21 academic year. To those who have followed the progress, you have probably figured out that the report card on 5 year progress is bleak. The few bright spots in reconciliation progress have come at the organizational level, where institutions could quickly work to address the Calls specific to them. There has been little to no progress on more systemic change that requires governmental action, and in many cases we have actually seen a backslide. For example, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has ceased making his emphatic statements that Canada's relationship with Indigenous people is the most important relationship, and here in Alberta we are looking into curriculum changes that exclude education on the legacy of residential schools.
The takeaway from our report card is that Canada has much work to do, and likely needs to make significant increases to funding and efforts to correct some of these systemic issues in housing, healthcare, the justice system, child welfare and anti-racism. So what comes next? Will Canada stop fighting against Indigenous children? Will Justice Minister David Lametti acknowledge the importance of Indigenous language speakers in this country and allow the bilingual requirement for the SCC to include languages other than colonial ones? Will communities get clean drinking water? Will provincial governments denounce racism in education and healthcare? I mean, we hope so and each of us plans to continue the discussion beyond this blog.
We aren't saying goodbye yet, though. Stay tuned next week as we get some final thoughts off our chest, and the week after for our individual reflections on the year.
And now, for those of you who have not already scrolled ahead - The final grade:
Last week, the Canada Infrastructure Bank announced the launch of an Indigenous Community Infrastructure Initiative (ICII) aimed to reduce the infrastructure gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and accelerate investment in Indigenous communities. [1] Currently, it is estimated that this infrastructure gap is between $25 billion and $30 billion.[2]
While this news is certainly promising, especially considering the dire need for basic infrastructure like access to clean drinking water on so many reserves, (see this postand this post) let’s break down what this announcement means.
(Photo Credit: The Star Edmonton (Nov 13, 2016)- Samples of drinking water from North Caribou (Weagamow) Lake First Nation)
The Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) is a crown corporation whose purpose is to invest federal funding into different infrastructure projects that generate revenue, serve the public interest, and attract private capital.[3] This February, the CIB set a target to invest at least $1 billion in revenue-generating projects that benefit Indigenous peoples, and the recent funding announcement is a promising step towards this goal. [4]
Historically, Indigenous communities have faced challenges with getting capital needed to finance infrastructure projects due to a lack of funding for down payments. [5] In addition, once financing is secured, Indigenous communities and businesses experience fluctuating interest rates, long processing wait-times, unfavourable loan conditions, and complex funding requirements.[6]The result of these inequities is that Indigenous-led projects to create community infrastructure are often costly and difficult to execute.
The CIB has announced that the ICII will provide low-interest and long-term financing through loans of at least $5 million for up to 80% of total project capital cost. However, the funding will only be provided for revenue-generating products within the CIB priority sectors: green infrastructure, clean power, broadband, public transit and trade and transportation. [7]
For Indigenous sovereignty to truly be recognized, Indigenous communities must be given the opportunity to decide what infrastructure is needed and how to implement these projects. It remains to be seen what types of projects are given funding and whether the funding continues.
Taking a step back, a $1 billion dollar commitment towards the $25-$30 million dollar infrastructure gap is a drop in the bucket. However, the announcement of funding from the CIB to reach this goal is a step in the right direction.
7Canada’s Public Policy Forum, “Improving access to capital for Canada’s First Nation communities” (Ottawa: 2016) online (pdf): <ppforum.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/First-Nation_March-8.pdf> at 11.
Reconciliation is the responsibility of everyone who shares this land. While many of the TRC Calls to Action have focused on government action and funding, the corporate sector is responsible for a lot of land and resource development, employment and servicing in Canada. Indigenous people managed the land and resources for thousands of years through relationships of interdependence with the earth, animals and other people. More than a century of colonial development has stripped Indigenous people of access to their traditional lands and most economic development has created further inequities to the detriment of Indigenous communities. Now, as we face a climate crisis in addition to a wealth favoring patriarchal model of capitalism, we have to wonder if the corporate sector can work with Indigenous people and communities to make decisions that improve the current situation and allow for sustainable economic growth as well as the possibility of a future for humankind.
Call to Action #92 calls upon the corporate sector to:
commit to meaningful consultation and seek the free and informed consent of Indigenous peoples prior to any economic development projects;
ensure equitable access to jobs, education and training and ensure that Indigenous communities gain long-term sustainable benefits from economic development projects;
Educate management and staff on the legacy and history of Indigenous people, and on UNDRIP, treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, human rights and anti-racism. [1]
For part one of this call, the courts have already downloaded the procedural aspects of the duty to consult onto corporations, and has ensured that consultation involves meaningful two way communication and engagement.[2] However, it has been made clear that consent is not included in the scope of the duty to consult.[3] This means that economic development can proceed even when the affected Indigenous groups do not consent, for the benefit of the greater public (ie. Profit). The exclusion of consent from the duty to consult removes incentive to build strong, meaningful and reciprocal relationships with the true caretakers of the land.
To address parts two and three of this Call, the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business has started a certification program for Progressive Aboriginal Relations (PAR).[4] The level of certification is determined by a panel of Indigenous judges and is meant to signal to communities and vendors that a company is a good business partner, a great place to work, and is committed to prosperity in Indigenous communities. The program relies on independent 3rd party evaluation of four key drivers. Companies must demonstrate a clear and cascading commitment to Indigenous relations through their leadership actions, employment initiatives and recruiting activities, business development and relationship building with Indigenous businesses, and through their community engagement.[5]
Much like the growing demand on corporations to roll out green initiatives, there is growing demand for PAR certification as well. These types of corporate social responsibility indicators are appealing to vendors and could influence better relationship building even in the absence of required consent.
There is still much work to do in getting corporations to participate in reconciliation and be actively anti-racist. The PAR certification is a start, but the blockades and protests during the TransMountain and Coastal GasLink pipeline development in early 2020 are a clear indication of a missing element in corporate-Indigenous relations. Companies should collaborate with community leaders on environmental preservation and sustainability, and should work to include Indigenous voices in executive level decision making. The idea that destruction of vulnerable lands is in the greater public interest is short sighted and not only impacts Indigenous communities, but everyone alive today.
[1] Truth 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 306.
[2]Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73 [Haida]; Coldwater First Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 34 [TransMountain].
[3]TransMountain, supra note 2; William v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2019 BCCA 74 [William].
[4] “Progressive Aboriginal Relations (PAR)”, online: Candian Council for Aboriginal Busines <https://www.ccab.com/programs/progressive-aboriginal-relations-par/>.
Last week the release of the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) Final Report marked an important step in the reconciliation process. But before we get too far into the report findings, let's take a step back and talk about the function of the IAP.
Independent Assessment Process (IAP)
In 2007, the implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) began. IRSSA was the culmination of collaborative efforts from legal counsel for former students, legal counsel for the Churches, the Assembly of First Nations, other Indigenous organizations and the Government of Canada, with the ultimate goal of bringing “a fair and lasting resolution to the legacy of Indian Residential Schools.” [1]
One of the five main elements of IRSSA was an Independent Assessment Process (IAP) for claims of sexual or serious physical abuse. [2]
The IAP was set up as a non-adversarial process where victims shared their residential school experiences in private with neutral adjudicators. These adjudicators would then determine if the claim was allowed, and apply a predetermined formula to decide on compensation (as set out in the Settlement Agreement). [3]
Three categories of claims were allowed under the IAP, as follows:
Sexual and physical assaults, as particularized in the IAP, which were committed by an adult employee of the residential school or another adult who was lawfully on the premises.
Sexual or physical assaults, as particularized in the IAP, committed by one student against another at residential school, in which case staff knew or should have known about the abuse; or, in serious sexual abuse cases, where reasonable supervision standards were not in place.
Any other wrongful act or acts committed by an adult employee or another adult lawfully on the premises where the abuse caused serious psychological consequences for the claimant, as particularized in the IAP. [4]
Report findings
In total, the IAP received 38,257 applications. Of those applications, there were 26,693 hearings. 7,075 claims were not admitted, withdrawn or dismissed and the rest of the claims settled through negotiated settlements.[5]
The average IAP payment, including legal costs, was $111,265 and the costs of the Independent Assessment Process totaled approximately $4 billion.[6]
The Report noted that there were numerous challenges to the IAP, stemming from the remarkable amount of claims, unexpected procedural and substantive issues, and the different circumstances of individual residential school survivors. [7]
One particular issue identified was the misconduct of certain legal counsel during the course of the IAP. One particularly egregious example is a now disbarred Calgary-based lawyer whose firm represented more than 5,600 claimants--the largest caseload of any lawyer involved with the IAP. Rather than fulfilling his role as an advocate for the victims of residential school survivors ethically and respectfully, he mishandled their files and solicited clients using his connection to community organizations. [8]
Unfortunately, legal counsel repeatedly took advantage of residential school survivors during the IAP, including another now disbarred lawyer who misappropriated over one million dollars from the IAP claimants he represented.[9]
Feedback on the process was obtained from IAP claimants, and some voiced concerns about the compensation “grid” being overly restrictive, certain losses being very difficult to prove, the exclusion of certain residential schools, and being under compensated compared to what would be given in a court of law.[10]
Regarding the final outcomes, the claimants who were interviewed reported the following:
Only 60% were satisfied with the decision and the compensation provided;
Only 52% were satisfied with the timeliness of the IAP; and
69% of claimants were satisfied with the time it took to receive compensation: about four months following the decision. [11]
Although the IAP has concluded and the Final Report has been published, the work is far from over. Financial compensation cannot “buy” healing, and it is important to remember that many claims were either not accepted or were excluded from the restrictive criteria of the IAP. Canada still has a lot of work to do, and the repercussions of the residential school system continue to live on.
(Illustration by Luke Swinson via Waubgeshig Rice, “Letter to a Young Indigenous Journalist | The Walrus”, (31 August 2020), online: The Walrus <https://thewalrus.ca/terra-cognita-letter-to-a-young-indigenous-journalist/>)
Tansi Nîtôtemtik,
Today we will discuss the history of media bias in reporting on Indigenous issues and events, and evaluate Call to Action #86, which states:
We call upon Canadian journalism programs and media schools to require education for all students on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations[1]
In drafting this post, we had originally compiled some headlines to display the difference in media coverage on news involving Indigenous people and news involving non-Indigenous people. Ultimately, we decided that this approach was harmful and painful, and would only contribute to the problem that Call #86 hopes to address.
A media spin to grab attention or redirect the focus of a story is a common tactic, from the most obvious clickbait to more subtle exploitive or erasive coverage. Prior research has referred to this type of coverage as “shallows and rapids”.[2] ‘Shallows’ are when, under normal circumstances, the mainstream media essentially ignores any coverage of Indigenous issues.[3] ‘Rapids’ occur when the news hones in on either crisis or calamity, such as the classic portrayal of protesters as insurgents during land or rights disputes.[4]
Dominant media discourse on Indigenous issues and events is wholly colonized and perpetuates harmful stereotypes. A fabulous analysis of racism in Canadian media can be found in the book Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers by Mark Cronlund Anderson and Carmen L. Robertson, which chronicles Indigenous media coverage from the time of confederation up until 2009. An updated version of this book is slated for release this year.[5]
This harmful discourse has long been flagged as problematic and in addition to the TRC. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People and the Report on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls have also called for more balanced representation in media, and for decolonized coverage that avoids perpetuating stereotypes.[6]
So, how have journalism schools responded?
In 2017, J-Source sent a survey to 21 journalism programs at 19 universities across Canada, and received responses from 17 schools.[7] What they discovered is that schools want to teach Indigenous topics in a meaningful way that teaches students to engage and report on these topics sensitively and with accuracy. The results of this desire however, are tempered by available financial and staffing resources.[8] The TRC does not specify the format of required education called for in Call #86, and interpretation of the Call has varied across institutions. While UBC has included mandatory courses in its program even prior to the release of the TRC's final report. Other programs have chosen to develop elective courses and make them broadly available as with Ryerson’s online course on reporting in Indigenous communities.[9]
Additionally, Journalists for Human Rights developed the Indigenous Reporters Program in 2014. This program creates pathways for Indigenous people to pursue careers in journalism, and engages and trains non-Indigenous journalists on best practices for reporting Indigenous stories and including Indigenous voices in general reporting.[10]
Overall, it does appear that journalism programs across Canada have made at least some effort to incorporate Indigenous topics. However, unless these courses are made mandatory and full length/full credit, there is a risk that they will a) not be taken as seriously as other required learning, and b) that people can simply elect not to engage with this learning.
Team ReconciliAction recognizes the effort to respond to the bias in media at the educational level, however, elective courses will only engage those already interested in learning about Indigenous history and issues. To achieve the highest grade, this learning should be mandatory for anyone pursuing a career in media. As a result, we assign a grade of ‘B’ to Canadian journalism and media programs.
[1] Truth 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 296.
[2] Augie Fleras, The Media Gaze: Representations of Diversities in Canada (University of British Columbia Press, 2012) at 61–62.
[5] Mark Cronlund Anderson & Carmen L Robertson, Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers (Univ. of Manitoba Press, 2011); Shelby Lisk, “Rewriting journalism: How Canadian media reinforces Indigenous stereotypes”, (3 September 2020), online: TVO.org <https://www.tvo.org/article/rewriting-journalism-how-canadian-media-reinforces-indigenous-stereotypes>.
[6] Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Report, 2:614; TRC, supra note 1 at 296; The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (Quebec, 2019).
[7] Meagan Gillmore, “Long journey of reconciliation ahead at Canada’s journalism schools”, (20 April 2018), online: JSource <https://j-source.ca/article/long-journey-of-reconciliation/>.
Today Team ReconciliAction will continue our evaluation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action with two calls regarding sports and reconciliation. The first Call to Action we will be discussing is #88, as follows:
We call upon all levels of government to take action to ensure long-term Aboriginal athlete development and growth, and continued support for the North American Indigenous Games, including funding to host the games and for provincial and territorial team preparation and travel.
What are the North American Indigenous Games (NAIG)? NAIG is a multi-sport event and cultural celebration where Indigenous athletes from across North America aged 13-19 participate in self-determined sports and cultural activities. The games have been held intermittently since 1990, and the first NAIG was held in Edmonton, Alberta in 1990. [1] Unfortunately, the 2020 NAIG was postponed due to the COVID pandemic.
As per the NAIG, the vision of this event is to “improve the quality of life for Indigenous Peoples by supporting self-determined sports and cultural activities which encourage equal access to participation in the social / cultural / spiritual fabric of the community in which they reside and which respects Indigenous distinctiveness.” [2] The sports involved in NAIG range from badminton to wrestling, and typically host thousands of participants each time.
So, has the federal government prioritized funding for NAIG? In 2017, Toronto hosted the NAIG. 88 days prior to the games, the federal government announced its commitment to provide $18.9 million over five years, and ongoing funding of $5.5 million to support Indigenous youth through sport for every four years following those five years. [3] A central theme of the 2017 games was TRC Call to Action #88, with a focus on the role sport plays in reconciliation. [4] Based on these efforts, Team ReconciliAction is awarding an “A” grade to this Call to Action.
The next Call to Action up to bat (sports pun intended) is Call to Action #89, which is as follows:
We call upon the federal government to amend the Physical Activity and Sport Act to support reconciliation by ensuring that policies to promote physical activity as a fundamental element of health and well-being, reduce barriers to sports participation, increase the pursuit of excellence in sport, and build capacity in the Canadian sport system, are inclusive of Aboriginal peoples.
The Physical Activity and Sport Act is federal legislation that has five main objectives regarding physical activity and sport as follows:
to promote physical activity as a fundamental element of health and well-being;
to encourage all Canadians to improve their health by integrating physical activity into their daily lives; and
to assist in reducing barriers faced by all Canadians that prevent them from being active
to increase participation in the practice of sport and support the pursuit of excellence in sport; and
to build capacity in the Canadian sport system.[5]
While sport is already a part of many Indigenous cultures, barriers exist to Indigenous participation in sport/physical activity due to cost, cultural insensitivity, racism, distance, and lack of sport infrastructure in Indigenous communities. [6] Call to Action #89 recognizes these barriers and the need for action to address them.
The federal government reports that dialogue has begun with some stakeholders regarding Call to Action 89. [7] However, there is minimal progress made regarding this Call to Action despite its relative simplicity. As a result, we are assigning a grade of “D” to the progress made thus far. It’s time to see some action towards making sport and physical activity more inclusive for Indigenous peoples.
Thanks for reading. Let us know what you think of these grades in the comments below!
Continuing our commentary on ILSA’s 2021 speaker series, today we will discuss the presentation by Dr. Darcy Lindberg on Alberta Coal Policy, Water, and Plains Cree Law. This presentation explored some of the difficulty in aligning laws in a pluralist society. Since 1976, Alberta coal policy provided protections for major watersheds that were well aligned with Indigenous water law. However, this policy was recently rescinded to make way for new coal development. So what happens when colonial water laws are in opposition to Indigenous legal obligations to water?
(Dr. Darcy Lindberg, photo courtesy of University of Alberta Directory)
This was a fascinating presentation that explored the sources of Indigenous water law as well as the differing perspectives of land management. Dr. Lindberg shared a quote by Danika Littlechild which expressed concern that the abstract views of water in colonial law have “absolved the individual and the collective of our responsibilities to water.” To give perspective to the weight of the responsibility to water, Dr. Lindberg drew on the Cree language as a source for water law. In Cree, Nipiy means “water”. Nipiy shares it’s key sounds with the phrase Niya Pimatisiwin, which means “I am life”.
Dr. Lindberg’s presentation broke down technical and legal concepts to be accessible for an audience with varying levels of knowledge of Alberta coal policy and Indigenous environmental law. He detailed how various sources identify obligations to water, and discussed real-life examples of challenges in water protection including man-made Abraham Lake, the Smallboy Camp, and the legal personhood of the Magpie River.
If you would like to watch the hour-long presentation (and we highly recommend that you do), it will be posted on the ILSA website along with the other Speaker Series presentations from this week.
Were you at yesterday's session with Dr. Lindberg? Share your thoughts below!
“Me & my sisters were close to my mom, we told her everything, she was like our best friend. She was such a helpful person, she would cook sometimes & she loved baking. She always cooked grandma breakfast. My mom was really good at drawing & she liked writing too. It’s hard for me & my sisters growing up with out our mom here, we all miss her so much.” – Brandy (Cindy Gladue’s Daughter)[1]
We at Team ReconciliAction discussed sharing our perspective on the trial, defence strategies, and the traumatic evidence that told the story of the night Cindy Gladue was killed. Instead, we have decided to embrace the morsel of justice for Cindy that came on February 18, when a jury found Bradley Barton guilty of manslaughter for causing the injuries that Cindy Gladue died from.
There were some differences this time around during the trial. First, we think it important to note that most involved in the trial were more conscious of Cindy Gladue as a human being first and foremost.[2] This is in stark contrast to the dehumanizing language and evidence presented in the first trial and highlights a long overdue recognition of bias in the legal system. Importantly, Justice Hillier gave instruction about bias and stereotypes against Indigenous women and against sex workers at various points in the trial. These statements were taken seriously enough by at least one juror, who reported statements made by another juror that could demonstrate a bias against sex work.[3] Ultimately both of these jurors were dismissed from the jury to ensure that personal views about sex work would not taint the deliberations of the jury.[4]
Another major difference was that Barton’s internet search history, which contained searches for violent pornography similar to the type of activity that would cause injuries that killed Cindy Gladue, was allowed into evidence.[5] In the first trial, this evidence was found to be too prejudicial in comparison to any probative value.
Despite the effort to remain sensitive to Cindy’s humanity, the trial could not escape the graphic and violent details of her tragic death. Cindy’s loved ones, jurors, media, and other trial participants were subjected to horrific images and testimony and forced to relive the loss and trauma an entire decade later. A guilty verdict is a step toward justice for Cindy, but the damage has been done. Cindy was the victim of a violent act that killed her, and then was victimized again and again and again by a legal system that has never been designed to bring justice to Indigenous people, and to Indigenous victims of crime.
To date, Cindy is one of thousands of Indigenous women who have gone missing or been murdered in Canada.
The disappearances and killings of thousands of Indigenous women has been an epidemic in Canada since the earliest days of colonialism.
Thousands.
(Image Credit: Kairos Canada)
The grief of Cindy’s loved ones is intergenerational, and the sheer number of women lost is demonstrative of the value given to the lives of Indigenous women. These women are life givers, they are loved and they are needed. They are language speakers and knowledge keepers. They are mothers, and kokums and cousins and sisters and they are the most beloved of Aunties. And far too many of them are gone.
When we think of Justice for Cindy Gladue, we do not feel a guilty verdict amounts to justice. We do not yet know what consequence Bradley Barton will face for causing Cindy’s death, and we do not yet know if there will be an appeal. But we do know that no amount of legal proceedings will give Cindy back to her family and friends. And we know that as long as Indigenous women continue to be murdered and go missing at disproportionate rates, Indigenous women, including Cindy, do not have justice.
[1] Muriel Stanley Venne et al, OUR BREAKING POINT: Canada’s Violation of Rights in Life and Death (Edmonton, Alberta: Institute for The Advancement of Aboriginal Women, 2016) at 6.
[2] Kathleen Martens, “Lawyer for the family on hand to guard victim’s memory”, (2 February 2021), online: APTN News <https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/cindy-gladue/>.
[3] Jonny Wakefield, “Guilty verdict in Bradley Barton trial: Ontario trucker convicted of killing Cindy Gladue in Edmonton hotel room in 2011”, (20 February 2021), online: Edmonton Journal <https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/jury-decides-fate-of-man-facing-manslaughter-for-2011-death-of-cindy-gladue-at-edmonton-hotel>.
[6] Muriel Stanley Venne et al, supra note 1 at 26; This resource contains an 11 page non-comprehensive list of the names of missing and murdered Indigenous women .
Public memory is how we frame history and share knowledge of the past through generations. It is not merely history, because memories are subjective, personal and can take on or create meaning. History, though, is just factual and objective past events. Public memory has been the subject of the Mandela effect, which is an interesting phenomena where the collective memory is not aligned with factual history. Examples of this include public recollection of Nelson Mandela’s death in prison in the 1980s when he actually died in 2013; or remembering the children’s book series spelled as ‘Berenstein Bears’ instead of the correct Berenstain Bears.
Often, history is deliberately framed in a way that influences or selectively erases the public memory of that history. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech has been widely emphasized and recontextualized in a way that uncomplicates and de-radicalizes the complexity of the civil rights movement of the 60’s in the US.[1] Public memory leans on the non-violent protest methods advocated by MLK in a revisionist manner and regularly omits that non-violence did not mean inaction.[2] Rather, King advocated collective civil disobedience as a form of gaining the power needed to make real change. Likewise, public memory remembers Rosa Parks as the unassuming woman who refused to sit where she was told, when Parks could more accurately be described as a strong and seasoned freedom fighter who devoted much of her life to civil rights activism.[3]
“Public memory is important. It is especially important to recognize that the transmission of that collective memory from generation to generation of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis individuals, families, and communities was impaired by the actions of those who ran residential schools”[4]
This type of revisionist rhetoric is prevalent where colonial patriotism is a dominant cultural perspective. In Canada, generations of us were taught that Canada came into existence when European settlers migrated here and built undiscovered land into a nation. Of course, the history of this land extends well beyond its colonization. The original inhabitants of this land have a history dating back to time immemorial. This history includes events and places of great importance. It includes languages, ceremony, battle, treaties, famous people and famous places. This history also extends into the post-colonial era, including the birth and rise of the Metis/Michif people as a distinct nation, and the resulting moves by the colonial government to extinguish and disenfranchise the Metis. It includes First Nations and Inuit as targets for annihilation by colonizers who viewed themselves as superior. First through the deliberate segregation and starvation of Indigenous people, then through the abduction of Indigenous children placed in residential schools and who were lucky to survive at all, let alone with intact public memory of time immemorial.
Public memory is preserved through oral and archival history, public speeches, monuments, museums, and commemorative events. Until recently, public memory has been viciously skewed to the colonial perspective of history. Call to Action #79 aims to remedy this skewed public memory, by including other perspectives on the history of this land to develop a more fulsome and true to history version of the collective memory going forward.
Call #79 demands collaboration with Indigenous voices to develop a framework for heritage and commemoration which includes at minimum:
Amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its Secretariat.
Revising the policies, criteria, and practices of the National Program of Historical Commemoration to integrate Indigenous history, heritage values, and memory practices into Canada’s national heritage and history.
Developing and implementing a national heritage plan and strategy for commemorating residential school sites, the history and legacy of residential schools, and the contributions of Aboriginal peoples to Canada’s history.[5]
To date, the first leg of this call has been proposed via Bill 374, An Act to Amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act (Composition of the board). While this amendment has never come into force, the spirit of it was noted with the appointment of a First Nations, Inuk, and Metis member in July of 2018. The last activity on this bill was in 2018, and it appears to have died after that. Legislation guaranteeing this board composition is critical to ensuring the long term impact and inclusion of Indigenous voices.[6] The third leg has been delegated to Parks Canada, which did develop a framework for a national heritage plan that was backed by federal funding in 2019.[7]
The second leg is not yet completed. While the importance of commemoration and heritage recognition that integrates Indigenous values has been acknowledged, this has not been codified. Part of reconciliation may involve acceptance that commemoration activity may not align with the colonial heritage perspectives that focus on preservation. For example, while several former residential schools have been reclaimed as heritage sites, the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School was demolished in 2016 as part of a commemoration ceremony.[8]
In the end, Canada has not yet done enough to ensure the development of a more honest public memory, and we must assign a grade of ‘C-‘ on Call to Action #79.
[1] Matthew Houdek & Kendall R Phillips, “Public Memory” (2017) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, online: <https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-181>.
[2] April Reign, “For Martin Luther King Jr., Nonviolent Protest Never Meant ‘Wait and See’”, (12 January 2018), online: History Reads <https://www.history.com/news/for-martin-luther-king-jr-nonviolent-protest-never-meant-wait-and-see>.
[3] Jeanne Theoharis, “How history got the Rosa Parks story wrong”, Washington Post (1 December 2015), online: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/01/how-history-got-the-rosa-parks-story-wrong/>.
[4] Truth 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 268.
[7] Government of Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, “Commemoration”, (23 April 2018), online: <https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1524505403680/1557513866487>.
[8] CBC News, “The state of Canada’s former residential school buildings”, (26 September 2017), online: CBC News <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/multimedia/the-state-of-canada-s-former-residential-school-buildings-1.4307508>.
(Artwork by Grace Berrios, Colton Boushie Quote Card for Rise Up Media)
Tansi Nîtôtemtik,
February 9 was the anniversary of Gerald Stanley’s acquittal. For those who aren’t aware, Gerald Stanley was accused of killing Colten Boushie after Colten and some friends drove onto his rural Saskatchewan property. Gerald Stanley was not convicted of this killing, despite the fact that Colten was killed by a close range gunshot in front of his friends and the son of Gerald Stanley. Colten’s friends said they drove onto the property for help with a flat tire, and Gerald Stanley claimed that he approached the vehicle with his gun when he suspected the group of trying to steal an ATV, and the gun ‘hang fired’ into the back of Colten’s head.[1]
When reflecting on the news and social media reports of Colten’s death in 2016, it is striking to recall the vitriol of people who justified shooting and killing trespassers and who leaned on racism to support that justification. Comments like “the only mistake was leaving 3 witnesses” (made by a SK municipal councillor) were pervasive, and people seemed quick to point fingers at the four friends while supporting the actions of Gerald Stanley.[2] The RCMP and trial followed this pattern. The investigation focused heavily on the 4 young occupants of the vehicle, and Colten’s friends were even arrested along with Gerald Stanley.[3] Colten’s family members have stated that throughout the proceedings, it often felt like Colten was on trial and that Gerald Stanley was being treated as the victim.[4] In fact, media publications would refer to the trial as the “Colten Boushie trial”, when it was Gerald Stanley who was on trial.
There were other issues with the investigation and trial process. The investigator in such a major incident was an inexperienced junior officer.[5] The crime scene was left uncovered in the rain for two days and was not attended by any forensic expert.[6] Colten’s mother was informed of his death by the RCMP as they searched her home, weapons drawn. She was told to “get it together” and asked if she was drunk.[7] During jury selection peremptory challenges excluded any juror who appeared Indigenous, and the selected jurors were not asked about possible racial bias or pre-trial public influence impacting their ability to remain objective.[8] During the trial, the prior criminal records of the witnesses were discussed to discredit the victim and his friends.[9] The trial judge did not inform the jury about the requirements of self defence or defence of property, which Gerald Stanley was not formally pleading but was clearly relying on.[10]
In the end, Gerald Stanley was acquitted, and Colten’s loved ones are left seeking justice. The Saskatchewan crown prosecutors declined to appeal the acquittal stating there was no error in law, ending the proceedings that might have brought closure to Colten’s loved ones.
The verdict was controversially denounced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then Justice Minister Jody-Wilson Raybould and sparked an omnibus bill that abolished peremptory challenges.[11] This legacy is just one of the many Colten has inspired. Colten’s family used their grief to fuel incredible advocacy for the way Indigenous people are treated by the legal system. This advocacy has taken them all the way to the United Nations to seek justice for Colten.[12] Team ReconciliAction encourages our readers who have not yet seen the award-winning film nîpawistamâsowin: We Will Stand Up by Tasha Hubbard to watch this powerful telling of Colten’s story and the advocacy and work his family has done.[13]
(Image: Tasha Hubbard, nîpawistamâsowin: We Will Stand Up (2019).)
In the meantime, we ask our readers to consider the first time they heard about Colten and recall the context in which the story was presented. Was there any bias? Do you think the story might have been told differently if the farmer was Indigenous and the car full of youth were white? Do you think bias seeps into our legal system in a way that makes it a system of justice for only some of the people who come into contact with it? We talk a lot about the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the legal system, and the lack of representation in the legal profession, but what happens when an Indigenous person is the victim of a crime? How is our system set up to properly care for victims and their families?
For today, we will leave you with those questions to ponder.
[1] David Giles & Nathaniel Dove, “Calls grow for public inquiry into death of Colten Boushie, acquittal of Gerald Stanley”, (19 February 2020), online: Global News <https://globalnews.ca/news/6566640/public-inquiry-colten-boushie-gerald-stanley/>.
[2] Ian Austen, “A Murder Trial Stirs Emotions About Canada’s Relations With Indigenous Population”, The New York Times (9 February 2018), online: <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/world/canada/canada-saskatchewan-murder-indigenous.html>.
[4] Rachel Giese, “Why Has Colten Boushie’s Mother Had To Work So Hard Just To Prove Her Son’s Humanity?”, (20 February 2018), online: Chatelaine <https://www.chatelaine.com/opinion/colten-boushie-mother/>.
[5] Jason Warick, “The long list of problems Colten Boushie’s family says marred the case”, (13 February 2018), online: CBC News <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/colten-boushie-family-list-problems-gerald-stanley-case-1.4532214>.
[11] Kent Roach, “Gerald Stanley and Colten Boushie Case”, (10 February 2020), online: The Canadian Encyclopedia <https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/gerald-stanley-and-colten-boushie-case>.
[12] Tasha Hubbard, nîpawistamâsowin: We Will Stand Up (2019).
Public outcry has been swift and loud from First Nations, Albertans and the rest of Canada at the UCP government’s decision to rescind the coal policy protections that have been in place for the last 45 years. Alberta’s vulnerable southeastern slopes in the heart of southern Alberta's water supply are at great risk should international coal firms be given the green light to start mountaintop removal mining of the area’s metallurgical coal. If allowed, this decision would allow open-pit coal mining on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. [1] These areas have been flagged for decades as needing protections against mining because of the potentially devastating effects on the waterways, wildlife and disruption of backcountry recreations as well as infringements on First Nations’ inherent rights.
Apart from being invasive, mountaintop coal mining strips the soil, vegetation and rock from thousands of hectares of land that eventually see the dumping of the resulting waste into the valleys that reach the natural waterways, destroying and severely disrupting native wildlife. Research has identified these issues, which also include human health risks in addition to environmental risks. Open-pit coal mines are intensive water consumers and generate an incredible amount of toxic waste. The public outcry to these changes has been loud and united in its plea against rescinding the coal policy protections. [2]
Last week the Kainai-Blood Tribe added their voice to the outcry by announcing plans to launch a legal challenge against the Government of Alberta over its decision to unilaterally rescind the 1976 Coal Policy. [3] The Blood Tribe leadership, who had previously faced some backlash from its community members over the issue, had reached an agreement with mining giant Benga last November over its plans to mine in Grassy Mountain and Included in the agreement was a duty to consult with the tribe as mining goes ahead. However, it appears this mutual agreement with Benga over Grassy Mountain coal does not extend to other coal mining proposals now being considered by the Kenney government on the Eastern Slopes. Added to this the general members say they were not consulted at any point and intend to fight and keep up the pressure because each of these foreign owned mining companies has little to no regard for their inherent rights and connections to the land. [4]
Surprisingly, the UCP did a complete 180 and announced they would back down on coal mining and issuing any new leases in the Rockies amid powerful public protest against such action this past Monday. Although this development is considered a victory, it does not mean the fight against coal mining is over especially if the UCP was ready to remove the protection of land in place for over 44 years without consultation, or even a phone call. We suspect it is far from over given the history of this government[5]
Energy Minister Sonya Savage said at Monday’s press conference, "Albertans have spoken loud and clear and we have heard them,“. What the Government of Alberta heard is a collective voice condemning their attempts to disregard our concerns for the environment over dirty money, in an industry that is fast becoming obsolete in favour of more efficient and less invasive energy sources. [6]
Ok so Alberta has essentially said no new exploration leases on the so-called Category 2 lands (most environmentally sensitive areas), but companies with current exploration permits may continue their work. The reinstated policy effectively bans mines where exploration is taking place. This is a relief especially considering that there was little to no consultation with First Nations or ranchers in the area.[7] The local people don’t want the expansion of coal mining as much as the majority of Albertans and Canadians far and wide. “NO MORE COAL MINES.” This is a mantra that is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Until Next Time
Team ReconciliAction YEG
[1]Albertans for Coal Free Rockies, “Coal Mining Threat to the South Eastern Slopes of the Rockies” (3 Jul 2020) online: <ab4coalfreerockies.ca/learn-more/coal-mining-threat-to-the-south-eastern-slopes-of-the-rockies#:~:text=Coal%20Mining%20Threat%20to%20the%20South%20Eastern%20Slopes,door%20to%20intensive%20coal%20development%20in%20the%20region>.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Tom Kalinowski, “ Blood Tribe to launch legal challenge over Coal Policy” Medicine Hat News (2 Feb 2021) online:<medicinehatnews.com/news/southern-alberta-news/2021/02/02/blood-tribe-to-launch-legal-challenge-over-coal-policy/#:~:text=While%20opposed%20to%20coal%20mining%20in%20what%20were,in%20Category%204%20lands%20under%20the%20old%20definitions.>
Today we will evaluate TRC Call to Action #70, which (spoiler!) we are happy to report has made significant progress. Call to Action # 70 states:
We call upon the federal government to provide funding to the Canadian Association of Archivists to undertake, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, a national review of archival policies and best practices to:
Determine the level of compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations Joinet-Orentlicher Principles, as related to Aboriginal peoples’ inalienable right to know the truth about what happened and why, with regard to human rights violations committed against them in the residential schools.
Produce a report with recommendations for full implementation of these international mechanisms as a reconciliation framework for Canadian archives.[1]
In 2016, the newly formed Standing Committee on Canada’s Archives established the Truth and Reconciliation Task Force (TRC-TF) to undertake the response to Call to Action #70. The federal government provided funding support for this task force in 2018 through a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant. [2]
The TRC-TF released its report “A Reconciliation Framework for Canadian Archives” in summer 2020, after four years of conducting a review of archival policies and best practices in collaboration with Indigenous communities, heritage professionals and organizations across Canada.[3] This new framework is meant to be a collaborative living document, and includes principles and objectives, as well as strategies to work toward those objectives.
The release of this report and the ongoing nature of the task force charged with putting the strategies into practice make the response to this call one of the most thorough we have seen to date. This task force included Indigenous voices and views in the final report and clearly engaged in a very collaborative consultation process. The end result is a positive step toward facing the colonial legacy of Canada’s historical archives. You can read the full report here.
We are assigning a grade of ‘A’ for Call to Action #70. However, as much as we hate to temper a positive moment, it feels prudent to note that this call was not completed by Canada, but rather through the efforts of the TRC-TF (and specifically the grant writers behind the flow of funds, because we all know how laborious grant writing is!). Because of this, we thought the report card should clarify who gets this grade.
Stay tuned tomorrow as we dig into specific archival records pertaining to missing children and burials.
[1] Truth 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).
[2] Government of Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, “Museums and archives”, (23 April 2018), online: <https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1524504831027/1557513782811>.
[3] “A Reconciliation Framework for Canadian Archives”, (3 August 2020), online: Librarianship.ca <https://librarianship.ca/news/reconciliation-framework-archives/>.
Let us start today with a story. (Point first writing to be continued in another blog post…)
Once upon a time, during the colonization of what we now call Canada, nearly all settler schools were taught with a religious element. These schools were usually Protestant, and the Catholic immigrants as a minority lobbied for the right to receive a Catholic education out of concern that their religion would suffer if not protected. In 1867, this right was enshrined in the British North America Act, which would become Canada’s constitution.[1] As time went on, schools became increasingly non-secular and multi-cultural, but this enshrined right to Catholic education remained.
The intersect between law and dominant societal norms is an interesting place to navigate and requires a lens that is not tinted in the same shade of norm as a dominant society. Roman Catholicism now makes up the largest portion of religious people in Canada at nearly 40% of the population.[2] The next largest group is non-religious people who make up nearly 25% of Canada’s population.[3] The remaining population in Canada practice among other forms of Christianity, Islamic, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or other types of religion.[4]
But wait….
*record scratch**freeze frame*
(blogs not having sound effects is probably how TikTok happened)
This is from the 2011 census, which as we have discussed on this blog several times, did not include Indigenous data. We know that around 60% of Canada is not Catholic, and we know that Catholic education was enshrined in the Canadian constitution to protect Catholicism as a minority religion. This enshrined right appears to have been effective since Catholics are now the largest denominational group in Canada. A lot has happened since 1867 though, for instance, we have started to legally recognize women, Indigenous people, disabled, LGBTQ2S+ people as actual people with human rights equivalent to the typical Protestant white male from 1867 for whom the constitution was intended. Those pesky societal norms are still catching up to these changes, but perhaps we can look to Catholicism as the success story of what can happen when minority rights are protected?
Let us now arrive at the point. TRC Call to Action #64 calls on all levels of government that provide public funds to denominational schools to require such schools to provide an education on comparative religious studies, and specifically content covering Indigenous spiritual beliefs and practices developed in collaboration with Elders.[5]
Today, nine provinces have maintained an education model that continues to fund Catholic education separately from non-denominational education. Newfoundland and Labrador switched entirely to non-denominational public schooling after a 1997 referendum on the matter, and Quebec halted funding to denominational schools that same year.[6] The matter of using public funding for religious and private schools has been hotly debated for many years, but have any provinces required the religious schools they fund to teach comparative religion courses that include Indigenous teachings?
Not really.
Canada, the source of the originating enshrinement guaranteeing religious education, says they are not the lead on this Call to Action.[7] BC has stated that religious schools are required to follow the BC curriculum, but has not mandated a specific Indigenous comparative religion course.[8] In Ontario, where the funding of only Catholic education resulted in a lawsuit and condemnation by the United Nations, not much has been said about addressing comparative religious study.[9] Alberta, home of ReconciliAction YEG, recently leaked some embarrassing panel recommendations as discussed in yesterday’s blog post, that would effectively remove any education about residential schools and Indigenous learning from the Alberta curriculum for certain grades. This would suggest that Alberta is not concerned about responding to Call #64. We will spare you a list of every province, and provide our assessment – we assign the provinces and Canada a grade of F.
Let us know what you think about public funding for denominational schools, and whether they should be required to teach comparative religious studies.
[1]British North America Act, 1867, Department of Justice Government of Canada, 3 November 1999, 30-31 Vict, c 3 (UK) [British North America Act, 1867,], s 93.
[2] Statistics Canada, Immigration and ethnocultural diversity in Canada: National Household Survey, 2011, by Tina Choui, Catalogue no. 99-010-X2011001 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2013) at 21.
[5] Truth 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 331.
[6] Michael Coren, “Why Are We Still Paying for Catholic Schools?”, (6 January 2020), online: The Walrus <https://thewalrus.ca/why-are-we-still-paying-for-catholic-schools/>.
[7] Government of Canada, “Education for reconciliation”, (23 April 2018), online: <https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1524504501233/1557513602139>.
[8] British Columbia Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education Report on Actions Taken To Support Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action.
[9] CBC Radio, “It’s time to end public funding of Catholic schools”, (16 June 2017), online: CBC Radio <https://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/stop-funding-catholic-schools-restore-trust-in-the-neb-and-let-me-change-my-name-1.4162978/it-s-time-to-end-public-funding-of-catholic-schools-1.4163049>.
(Image credit: ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS in Maan Alhmidi, “Reconciliation delayed and anti-Indigenous racism rising: TRC commissioners | The Star”, The Toronto Star (15 December 2020), online: <https://www.thestar.com/politics/2020/12/15/reconciliation-delayed-and-anti-indigenous-racism-rising-trc-commissioners.html>.)
Tansi Nîtôtemtik,
Today our post is closely related to last Friday's post about National Council for Reconciliation Reporting. We will be discussing Calls to Action #53 and #54, which call for legislation that establishes the National Council in the first place, as well as a commitment to multi-year funding to adequately resource this Council to carry out its work.[1]
Call #53 additionally sets out several requisite responsibilities that would form the mandate of the committee. These include monitoring and reporting on reconciliation progress between Indigenous people and the crown, and progress across all levels and sectors in Canadian society.[2] This committee would also establish a multi-year action plan for reconciliation that would include policy development, education and resources, and promoting public discussion and initiatives related to reconciliation. [3]
Our readers may or may not be shocked to discover that this Council remains unestablished 5 years after these calls at this stage in our evaluations. A reading of Calls #53 through #56 shows that the intent was for this Council to be formed very quickly and begin an ongoing exchange of data and information with the government and the public.[4] As we noted last week, an Interim Board was formed to determine and propose the National Council's scope and funding needs. This committee produced its report in 2017 and concluded that data and adequate funding must exist for this Council to carry out any reporting function.[5] We will pause here to take in your absolute astonishment (Hey Alexa: Is there a font to show sarcasm?)
Of course, a lack of data has become a common theme in this year's evaluation of the TRC Calls to Action. Some data specific to Indigenous issues and reconciliation was collected in the 2016 census, particularly concerning incarceration and child welfare statistics.[6] However, limiting the data collection to census years will severely limit the progress that can come from evaluating and reporting on that data, which is why annual data is requested in Call to Action #55. As we enter a new census year, we should not be surprised if we learn that the issues in child welfare; the justice system; language and culture; and health that continue to plague Indigenous people have not improved. We should not be surprised if we perhaps learn that conditions have worsened in the five years since the TRC released its final report. The TRC Commissioners recently re-convened for the first time since the release of the final report. One of the specific grievances noted by Senator Murray Sinclair was the failure to even establish the National Council.[7]
(Metaphorical image of Call to Action #53 & 54: Adobe Stock Photos)
As far as a commitment to funding the National Council that has yet to be established, we are happy to say that funding was promised for the 2020-21 fiscal year to establish the National Council.[8] Unfortunately, we are forced to temper that happy news with the note that this funding was a one-time allocation and was nearly $900M less than what was recommended by the Interim Board.[9] Beyond this one time funding, no further funding has been allocated, and the government has deleted the statement from their official website promising a "commitment to acting quickly to implement the recommendations, including funding and resource commitments."[10] The Council that could be a driving force in propelling reconciliation work forward has formed a skin and is crusting over on one of the government backburners. It is a far cry from resembling the original recipe submitted by the TRC. For that reason, we have assigned a grade of F for Call to Action #53, and a grade of D- for Call to Action #54.
Stay tuned tomorrow, when we will further discuss church apologies and reconciliation.
[1] Truth 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 328.
[5] Government of Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, “National Council for Reconciliation”, (23 April 2018), online: <https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1524503926054/1557514163015>.
[6] Statistics Canada, Adult and youth correctional statistics in Canada, 2017/2018, by Jamil Malakieh, Catalogue no. 85-002-X (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2019); Statistics Canada, The housing conditions of Aboriginal people in Canada: census of population, 2016., Census in Brief (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2017); 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>.
[7] Maan Alhmidi, “Reconciliation delayed and anti-Indigenous racism rising: TRC commissioners | The Star”, The Toronto Star (15 December 2020), online: <https://www.thestar.com/politics/2020/12/15/reconciliation-delayed-and-anti-indigenous-racism-rising-trc-commissioners.html>.
We call upon leaders of the church parties to the Settlement Agreement and all other faiths, in collaboration with Indigenous spiritual leaders, Survivors, schools of theology, seminaries, and other religious training centres, to develop and teach curriculum for all student clergy, and all clergy and staff who work in Aboriginal communities, on the need to respect Indigenous spirituality in its own right, the history and legacy of residential schools and the roles of the church parties in that system, the history and legacy of religious conflict in Aboriginal families and communities, and the responsibility that churches have to mitigate such conflicts and prevent spiritual violence.
In plain simple terms Call to Action #60 is a call to train individuals in religious cultural safety, so that people of different faiths may understand each other better.[1] This Call to Action aims to ensure churches and those Christian groups that were involved in the residential school system make a conscious and organized effort to educate their organizations on the harms of what those schools did and take an active role in respecting Aboriginal communities and their members' individual rights to practice spirituality according to the teachings of their ancestors.
Canada is a religiously pluralistic country because of its diverse population. This requires Canadians to act with tolerance and respect, including learning about each other’s faiths and beliefs, and accepting that differences can coexist. These actions can minimize or eliminate the divisiveness, hostility and prejudice seen throughout Canadian history towards Indigenous beliefs and practices associated with their spirituality.[2]
It is worth noting that although Pope Benedict expressed his sorrow for those who suffered at the Residential Schools, the Catholic Church has yet to issue a formal apology. This is shameful when considering that the Catholic Church ran 70% of the forced Indian Residential Schooling in Canada.[3]
Acknowledgements and apologies are an important first step, yet without action, they are empty words and empty promises of reconciliation. The spiritual harm and abuse that First Nations, Metis, and Inuit experienced during the era of colonial expansion require extensive education to understand the spiritual relationship with the Creator and with the Land that Indigenous peoples have. This education should include actively unlearning harmful views that place Indigenous ceremonies and practices as sinful in the eyes of God as referred to in the Anglican Church’s “Apology for Spiritual Harm”. This apology was an excellent example of a church taking ownership.[4]
The arrogance of many churches resulted in grievous harm and the great loss of ceremonies and spiritual teachings that have sustained the First Peoples for generations upon generations. The intergenerational spiritual trauma created by the arrogance of many churches may begin to heal by furthering cultural education to church clergy, members, and leaders that identifies the importance of Aboriginal practices and ceremony.
Call to Action #60 is a very difficult recommendation to universally implement in Canada. It took Canada’s Supreme Court until 2017 with the Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia [5] case to issue a ruling on Indigenous religious freedom which in the end only ended up showing that the Supreme Court is unable to recognize its own colonial and culturally located position under the Charter.[6]
There is no clear way to make it mandatory for a church organization to develop a curriculum of cultural education that would not violate their s. 2(a) Charter rights. This provision of the Charter works against Aboriginal Peoples in two ways, as previously mentioned and because protection under it requires claimants “to frame their religion in terms that are recognizable to the legal culture of Canada without reference to the colonial foundations of that very legal system or the broader colonial context of Canada”.[7] Essentially indicating that Indigenous religious freedom, under s. 2(a), is currently an impossibility and poses a significant barrier.
From a policy perspective, this is a very difficult recommendation for the government to implement that would be effective, it would need to work with Indigenous communities and organizations cohesively to do so and make significant changes in government policy. Moving forward, it remains up to each religious group to play its own part in working towards reconciliation through cultural education and it will be interesting to see who takes this seriously. [8]
Today Team ReconciliAction will be evaluating Call to Action #57, which calls for professional development and training for public servants.
57. We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to provide education to public servants on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.[1]
Public servants are employees of the government. In reality, public servants carried out their government-mandated duties to facilitate residential schools and other historical injustices committed against Indigenous peoples. So, it is important for public servants to have an understanding of the historical implications of their role, and to receive training that instills sensitivity and respect for Indigenous peoples. Done properly, Call to Action #57 has the ability to “heighten our historical consciousness of colonialism, recognize the pain it inflicts, amend for its wrongs, and catalyze positive transformation.” [2]
So far, the Government of Canada has created an optional education program for employees in the Federal public service, titled the “Indigenous Learning Series” through the Canada School of Public Service.[3] The course is described as focusing on the “rights, perspectives, cultures, history and heritage of First Nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada and their relationship with the Crown.” [4]Other actions taken by the Federal government include:
The creation of online content through the online learning portal for government employees [5]
Launching three classroom courses for public servants;[6] and
Establishing a Circle of Elders and Elders in Residence initiative to support the development of education for public servants. [7]
(One example of a classroom course for public servants is the KAIROS blanket exercise which teaches participants about the Colonization of Turtle Island. Image credit, KAIROS.org https://www.kairosblanketexercise.org/2018/02/26/reflecting-on-the-blanket-exercise/)
On a provincial level, governments have responded to Call to Action #57 differently. In Alberta, a mandatory education program on Indigenous history and issues was approved for public servants in 2018 by then Premier Rachel Notley, which now exists as an introductory training program for public servants. [8] On a municipal level, only some cities have developed similar programs, including Winnipeg and Brandon, Manitoba. [9]
So far, the progress made on this Call to Action is promising. However, the momentum needs to continue, and these courses should be mandatory to ensure that all public servants get a uniform experience. All levels of government need to consider whether they have developed education programs in response to Call to Action #57, and if not, programs should be implemented. Due to the piecemeal approach taken so far, ReconciliAction is assigning a grade of B- on this Call to Action.
Thanks for reading! Let us know your thoughts on our evaluation in the comments below.
Until next time,
Team ReconciliAction YEG
1Canada, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Honouring the Truth and Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Winnipeg: The Commission, 2015.
2Mark Weiler (2017). Public servant schools in Canada: A concept for reconciliation. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 29(2), 1-20 at 4-5.
9Rights Watch Blog (Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Pro Bono Students Canada), “TRC Call to Action #57 slated to be implemented Spring 2018”, online: <rightswatch.ca/2018/02/02/trc-call-to-action-57-slated-to-be-implemented-spring-2018/>.
Yesterday morning some of our team attended the virtual event to honour Cindy Gladue, hosted by Stolen Sisters & Brothers Action Movement on Facebook live. The honour ceremony follows the start of the second trial of Bradley Barton, who is accused of causing the death of Ms. Gladue in 2011. The journey to find justice and truth for Ms. Gladue has been long and difficult. Nearly 10 years after her death, people gathered in person and online to remember Cindy, and to honour another Indigenous woman lost.
For a bit of background, please see our posts from 2017 and 2019 where we wrote about Cindy Gladue’s death and the subsequent legal proceedings. The original trial was problematic for a number of reasons, and Cindy was dehumanized by the language used to describe her and by the display of portions of her body in the courtroom. This caused tremendous additional pain for Cindy’s loved ones and for the entire Indigenous community.
Cindy was the victim here. Cindy was a whole woman who had a life and a family. Cindy was a sex worker. Cindy was Metis. Cindy was loved. But less value was assigned to Cindy’s life during the trial because of systemic racism against Indigenous women and prejudiced views on sex work and the sexual assault of sex workers. At the SCC, Justices Abella and Karakatsanis stated in their partial dissent that:
“Trial judges have an important role to play in instructing juries so that they can recognize and set aside racial and other biases, including those against Indigenous peoples and sex-trade workers. Not only did that not happen here, the opposite occurred: inflammatory terminology was frequent, and was gratuitously used without any corrective intervention by the trial judge”[1]
The new trial is expected to last 34 days, and we intend to provide regular updates on the proceedings. It is our expectation that those involved in the trial are aware of and will heed the SCC’s warning to avoid the systemic and prejudicial issues that plagued this trial the first time around. Our coverage of this trial is not intended to be journalism, but to provide information about this case in a way that is sensitive to the pain and trauma that Cindy’s friends and family, and the Indigenous community have already endured.
Please stay tuned for more updates on this trial as it progresses. We will resume looking at the TRC Calls to Action in tomorrow's post.
Today we dive back into our evaluation of the TRC Calls to Action with Call to Action #51, which states:
We call upon the Government of Canada, as an obligation of its fiduciary responsibility, to develop a policy of transparency by publishing legal opinions it develops and upon which it acts or intends to act, in regard to the scope and extent of Aboriginal and Treaty rights.[1]
In order to better evaluate this Call to Action, let’s first look at what is meant by the fiduciary responsibility of the Government of Canada towards Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
Historically, the Government of Canada (the Crown) has taken responsibility for the protection of Indigenous peoples and their rights, which stems from the fact that Indigenous peoples are the original inhabitants of Canada.[2] This special relationship has been recognized since the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and places obligations on the Crown to act in the best interests of Indigenous peoples and exercise their power with “loyalty and care.”[3] The fiduciary responsibility remains a central element of the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples.
Therefore, when it comes to the scope and extent of Aboriginal and Treaty rights, the Crown has an obligation to act in the best interests of Indigenous peoples. Call to Action #51 recognizes that to fulfill their fiduciary duty, transparency is required when the Crown makes decisions about Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Typically, these legal opinions would be considered confidential, but as central stakeholders, the Indigenous peoples being impacted by these decisions have a right to know the legal opinions that the Crown intends to act upon before reaching the court.[4]
(Photo credit: Queen’s University Journal, https://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2018-10-15/editorials/supreme-court-denies-indigenous-peoples-treaty-rights/)
Unfortunately, little progress has been made regarding Call to Action #51. The confidentiality associated with legal opinions can be voluntarily waived by the Crown, but it is not mandatory. The Department of Justice released Guidelines for Civil Litigation involving Indigenous Peoples, which prioritizes reconciliation and respect for the Aboriginal and Treaty rights, (which are also protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act) but there is no specific requirement for transparency in these guidelines.[5]
The need for a policy of transparency when it comes to constitutionally protected rights, especially where the Crown has a fiduciary duty to do so, is extremely important. The larger goal of Call to Action #51 is equity for Aboriginal people in the legal system, which will require transparency in legal proceedings. But this policy of transparency has not been adopted by our government. For this reason, we are assigning a failing grade.
Until next time,
Team ReconciliAction YEG
1Canada, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Honouring the Truth and Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Winnipeg: The Commission, 2015.
2Kent McNeil, “Fiduciary Obligations and Aboriginal Peoples." in The Law of Trusts: A Contextual Approach, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2008) at 908-909.
3Ibid at p.907-908; Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1995] 4 SCR 344 at para 38.
5Department of Justice Canada, “The Attorney General of Canada’s Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples” (2018) online (pdf):<www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/ijr-dja/dclip-dlcpa/litigation-litiges.pdf>.
Recent Comments