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:
We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with the national Aboriginal organizations, to revise the information kit for newcomers to Canada and its citizenship test to reflect a more inclusive history of the diverse Aboriginal peoples of Canada, including information about the Treaties and the history of residential schools.[1]
This Call to Action for the federal government calls for the inclusion of more information about Canada's treaties with indigenous peoples and the history of residential schools in the Canadian citizenship test to create an understanding of our history within new citizens and combat racism and discrimination.
Many immigrants are not aware or educated on the complex history of Indigenous People and the challenges they have faced (and still face) when first arriving in Canada. There is a lack of understanding of the years of colonization, policies, residential school system, systemic discrimination, and dispossession that has created devastating effects on Indigenous communities. As a result, many newcomers learn negative and damaging stereotypes about Aboriginal people.[2]
On December 10, 2019, on International Human Rights Day, the Environics Institute for Survey Research and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation released the Race Relations in Canada 2019 Survey. This study confirms the reality of racism in Canada and found that immigrants quickly picked up such negative stereotypes after immigrating to Canada.[3]
So, what do new immigrants learn about First Nations, Metis and Inuit? Upon reviewing the “Study Guide – Discover Canada – The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship”, we found the following. In the “Canada’s History” chapter, two small paragraphs show how woefully and sickeningly inadequate a history lesson on Aboriginal people in Canada is:
“The arrival of European traders, missionaries, soldiers and colonists changed the native way of life forever. Large numbers of Aboriginals died of European diseases to which they lacked immunity. However, Aboriginals and Europeans formed strong economic, religious and military bonds in the first 200 years of coexistence which laid the foundations of Canada.”[4]
In the Chapter “Who we are”, there is a tiny mention of treaties and one reference to Residential Schools that is almost casually mentioned:
”Aboriginal and treaty rights are in the Canadian Constitution. Territorial rights were first guaranteed through the Royal Proclamation of 1763 by King George III and established the basis for negotiating treaties with the newcomers— treaties that were not always fully respected. From the 1800s until the 1980s, the federal government placed many Aboriginal children in residential schools to educate and assimilate them into mainstream Canadian culture. The schools were poorly funded and inflicted hardship on the students; some were physically abused. Aboriginal languages and cultural practices were mostly prohibited. In 2008, Ottawa formally apologized to the former students.”[5]
It is hard to read such a gloss-over of the history and harms of the Residential School era that brought such suffering and intergenerational trauma to the original stewards of the land. Canada must do better in providing a deeper understanding to new immigrants if it truly wants to further reconciliation and help to fight negative stereotypes faced by Aboriginal people. Instead of simply indicating that treaties with Indigenous Canadians "were not always respected", let's talk about why these treaties were not respected and the issues created by not respecting them. That would be a step toward reconciliation and teaching new immigrants how they can be a part of the solution.
A promised overhaul of Canada's citizenship guide remained a work in progress back in May 2019. The government said it was revamping the 68-page Discover Canada document, last updated in 2012, to better reflect diversity and to include more "meaningful content" about the history and rights of Indigenous people and the residential school experience.[6]But when is this finally going to be done? Almost 2 years have passed since this proposed “revamping”. This delay is unacceptable.
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/>.
(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/>.
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!
Today marks the beginning of the University of Alberta Indigenous Law Students’ Association (ILSA) 2021 Speaker Series. This highly anticipated annual event brings together speakers from across the country on topics that engage important issues and provoke thoughtful discussion. This year’s topic is “Our Story: Indigenous Legal Responses to an Historic Year”, and will address current affairs concerning sovereignty, COVID-19, policing, pipelines, and self-governance from the perspective of Indigenous Canadians. There will be presentation everyday from March 1st-5th, from 12-1 pm.
Team ReconciliAction is excited to attend each of these presentations and will be writing posts on each presentation over the course of this week. The topics are as follows:
Monday, March 1, 2021: Indigenous Sovereignty in the 2020s
Speaker: Leroy Little Bear
Tuesday, March 2, 2021: COVID-19 and Indigenous Health
Panel with Dr. Danièle Behn Smith, Reagan Bartel, Bonnie Healy
Wednesday, March 3, 2021: Topic to be confirmed
Speaker: Darcy Lindberg, University of Alberta Faculty of Law
Thursday, March 4, 2021: Transmountain and the Duty to Consult
Speaker: Paul Seaman, Gowling WLG
Friday, March 5, 2021: Self-Governance of the Mi’qmaq Fishery
Speaker: Naiomi Metallic, Schulich School of Law
Despite the unique challenges of hosting a speaker series this year, ILSA has put together an exciting panel of speakers, and we can’t wait to attend this year’s event! Last year, the ILSA speakers series focused on Justice and Injustice for Indigenous Peoples within the Canadian Legal System and previous years have included a focus on child welfare (2019), Indigenous Law (2018) and several other topics. In fact, this is the 19th annual ILSA Speakers Series!
We hope you also tune in to this annual speaker series, as it is sure to spark some lively discussion and intriguing commentary. Click here for more information and for the Zoom link!
“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>.
We call upon the federal government to work with the churches and Aboriginal community leaders to inform the families of children who died at residential schools of the child’s burial location, and to respond to families’ wishes for appropriate commemoration ceremonies and markers, and reburial in home communities where requested.
The profound loss attached to the separation of children who attended residential schools and never came home is a source of endless grief for those they left behind. Not knowing where burial locations are, is a constant weight on First Nations communities across Canada. There can never be meaningful reconciliation until Canada fulfills this Call to Action and the government and churches work together with families to help provide closure or some measure of peace. Such that can be achieved by sacred commemoration ceremonies or markers and when possible, reburial in home communities.
What are the actual numbers of deceased children from the residential school system? Former Senator Murray Sinclair believed the number to be as high as 6000, yet there are only around 3000 confirmed deaths and just slightly less with an associated name. [1] To actively work to provide a recording of the real number and a pointed acknowledgement of all those who perished is the most humane thing to do. It is time to let the children come home, Canada.
The names of around 2800 indigenous children known to have died in Canada's residential school system were acknowledged on a 50-foot cloth on September 30th, 2019 unravelled during an emotional ceremony in Gatineau, QC. The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) listed every single one of these children on their website as well as the horrific conditions they endured. [2]If Senator Sinclair is correct, then this means over half of the names of deceased children are missing. Commemoration is an important step, but until all the children who perished are named, the future of reconciliation is at an impasse.
The institutions involved in running residential schools received payments from the federal government based on quarterly reports with a list of their resident “children”, in order to receive a per capita grant. So, when a student died or went missing no matter the circumstances, it was not the school's prerogative to disclose that information for fear of a loss of funding. This information could very well mean Senator Sinclair's estimate could be even higher. [3]
Burial locations become even more important when considering healing from the trauma of residential schools. It represents an acknowledgement of the lives of the deceased and reflects that those children mattered and are not forgotten by their families and that their lives can be honoured in sacred ceremonies that go beyond a government apology and tokenism. Providing the families with a proper burial or marker for the remains of their loved ones so that they can finally have the chance to mourn properly, be able to lay flowers on a headstone, cry and pray. These simple acts are not available to families until there is an actual grave to do so. Everyone, deserves that comfort, especially when children have passed.
This is a call that is still in progress. The government claims to have set aside money from the 2019 federal budget for commemoration, the student death register and an online cemetery register. The actual figure allocated is 33.8 million dollars over 3 years to maintain the National Student Death Register.[4] We await the results and initiatives that this funding can provide, and until then we are thankful for organizations likeRemembering the Children Society and the families who work tirelessly for the initiative in the reburial process.
[2] Kevin Maimann & Brennan Doherty, “Thousands of Indigenous children died in Canadian residential schools. Now we know some of their names” The Star Edmonton (30 September 2019) online: <www.thestar.com/edmonton/2019/09/30/thousands-of-indigenous-children-died-in-canadian-residential-schools-now-we-know-some-of-their-names.html>.(
(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/>.
i.Fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations Joinet-Orentlicher Peoples, as related to know the truth about what happened and why with regard to human rights violations committed against them in residential schools.
ii. Ensure that its record holdings related to residential schools are accessible to the public
iii. Commit more resources to its public education material and programming on residential schools.
Call to Action #69 calls for the Library and Archives of Canada (LAC) to make records on residential schools and the human rights violations which occurred because of these institutions. The goal of this Call to Action is to make this information more accessible to the public and challenge the ignorance of Canadians when it comes to the history of residential schools.[1]
One of the challenges that have arisen is educating the public on how archives can be used as a viable research tool to learn about Canadian history, including the Indian Residential School era. . In May 2012, LAC released a guide to the records of Indian and Inuit affairs program titled: The School Files Series, 1879 -1953. These fileshold records created by the federal government about the administration of residential schools from 1879 to 1953, about both residential and day schools. Additionally, the files include some records of the admission and discharge of students at residential schools, as well as information on the establishment of individual schools.The School Files Series has been digitized and is available through the Microform Digitization section of the LAC website found here:Guide for Residential Schools Research Now Available Online | Library and Archives Canada Blog (thediscoverblog.com)
There are many different types of records related to residential schools available from LAC. The government records in possession of LAC are likely to mention the names of students in documents including attendance and discharge forms, applications for admission, daily registers, records of death for pupils in residential schools, and Principal’s monthly reports to name a few.[2]The importance of these records can be seen in the speaking notes of Dr. Guy Berthiaume, a Librarian and Archivist of Canada presented to the International Council on Archives Conference in Seoul, Korea on September 6, 2016. He began by telling a true story about one of the darkest chapters in Canadian history, of incredible sadness and heartbreak, separation of families and loss.[3] He did this to show his peers that to forget was to abandon the truth and doing so would put us at risk of repeating history. He quoted the words of George Erasmus, the former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations:
“If the stories of our people are not accessible to the general public, it will be as if their experiences never occurred. And if their voices are rendered as museum pieces, it will be as if their experience is frozen in time.”
He went on to further quote one of his fellow archivists:
“At first, I was terribly aware of being a white woman, and I wondered how I would be perceived. But I quickly forgot about it. I realized that reconciliation is about all of us, understanding together what happened. As archivists, we seldom get the chance to see first-hand the impact of records on people’s lives. I realized that sometimes, the truth is not simply what is historically accurate.”[4]
The role of archivists is to uncover the truth about history, even if what we find sometimes, as in the case of Indigenous peoples, is dark and horrible. There is healing in sharing, and most importantly healing in the telling of stories that must never be forgotten. We must be witnesses, every last one of us.
“If museums are to achieve their goal of “interpreting the past, explaining the present, and thereby Illuminating choices for the future”, they must express accurately and in context the cultural heritage and spirit of the civilizations that they portray.” [1]
In 1988, the world watched as Calgary, Alberta hosted the winter Olympic games. As part of the Arts Festival accompanying the games, an exhibition titled “The Spirit Sings” was hosted at the Glenbow Museum. The exhibition featured over 650 pieces from Indigenous cultures across Canada. [2] Ironically, the corporate sponsor of the exhibition was Shell Oil, a company that the Lubicon Lake Cree band argued was responsible for the destruction of their lifestyle. As a result, the Lubicon band and others in their support boycotted the exhibit and joined in protest.[3]
(Protesters at the exhibit in 1988, Photo credit: Bill Lindsay, J. David Galway / The Chronicle Journal, January 13, 1988, taken from: https://www.rebeccabelmore.com/artifact-671b/)
Some artefacts featured in the exhibit were sacred items of great significance which some Indigenous peoples argued should not have been displayed to the public. For example, a false face mask belonging to the spiritual leaders of the Mohawk people was included in the exhibition. [4] In response, the Kahnawake Mohawk Band successfully filed an injunction to have the sacred mask (and other artefacts) removed. [5] However, an application to extend the injunction was unsuccessful, and the mask was later placed back on display. [6]
“The Spirit Sings” illuminated the inherent problems with putting Indigenous culture on display in museums without having any meaningful dialogue with the Indigenous groups to whom the artefacts belong. In response to the boycott and protests, a task force was assembled between the Canadian Museums Association (CMA) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), to begin a dialogue and publish a report of their findings. The Report, published in 1994, came to several conclusions regarding museum collections and the need to involve the First Peoples in their development.[7]
Twenty-one years later, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) reiterated the need for the CMA to undertake a review of museum policies with the collaboration of Indigenous peoples in Call to Action #67. This time, the TRC referenced the need for the recommendations of The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to be incorporated in the review, as follows:
We call upon the federal government to provide funding to the Canadian Museums Association to undertake, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, a national review of museum policies and best practices to determine the level of compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to make recommendations.[8]
In response, the CMA established a Reconciliation Council in 2018. The CMA refers to this council as “a cohesive and influential body of experts in Indigenous culture and museum practices, who are providing guidance and advice to address Call to Action #67.” [9] The CMA expects to publish a report on the Council’s findings in fall of 2021. As we have yet to see the report findings, but actions have been taken towards Call to Action #67, we are assigning a grade of C+ to this Call.
The second Call to Action that calls upon the CMA, along with the Canadian government, is Call to Action #68 as follows:
We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, and the Canadian Museums Association to mark the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation in 2017 by establishing a dedicated national funding program for commemoration projects on the theme of reconciliation.[10]
Unlike many other Calls to Action, #68 has a date for completion: Canada’s 150th ‘birthday,’ based on Confederation. According to the Government of Canada, $3.6 million was invested into five “signature projects that include a strong focus on Indigenous communities, including two that are specifically designed to promote reconciliation amongst Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada”.[11] However, CBC News points out that this fund (the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Fund) was created by the preceding federal government in May 2015 without collaboration with Indigenous peoples and without an exclusive goal of reconciliation.[12]
It is disappointing when even the most explicitly stated Calls to Action are given a half-hearted effort by the Government. For this reason, we are assigning a D- grade to the Government of Canada on Call to Action #68.
Thanks for reading. Let us know what you thought of this evaluation in the comments section below!
8Canada, 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, at 8. [TRC Calls to Action]
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>.
RE: Commitments to Maintain Education on Cultural Awareness and Issues Affecting Indigenous Peoples
We call upon the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada to maintain an annual commitment to Aboriginal education issues, including:
Developing and implementing Kindergarten to Grade Twelve curriculum and learning resources on Aboriginal peoples in Canadian history, and the history and legacy of residential schools.
Sharing information and best practices on teaching curriculum related to residential schools and Aboriginal history.
iii. Building student capacity for intercultural understanding, empathy, and mutual respect.
Identifying teacher-training needs relating to the above.
The Government of Canada is not the lead on this Call to Action, so it has been left up to the Council of Ministers of Education, Canadian Association of School Boards and the Provinces to make progress and create initiatives that will move this Call to Action forward.
In Alberta, and under the current UCP government, there has been a shameful regression in progress with Call to Action #63, particularly with the leak in late 2020 of proposed curriculum documents for Alberta students. Among other shocking setbacks, these documents showed removal of all references to residential schools and “equity”, deeming that stories surrounding residential schools would be too sad for younger students. This proposed change is contradictory when you realize these same children who would be learning about the enslavement of women and the assassination of Julius Caesar in ancient Rome, but not residential schools.
Alberta Education Minister Adriana LaGrange later stated that these changes were simply recommendations and that residential schools will continue to be taught in schools starting at a later grade.[1] This change would be a huge mistake because it would hinder the truth from being told, a truth that will allow younger generations to learn from the past.
News of the new curriculum received swift backlash on social media and the broader Indigenous community across the province and the rest of Canada condemning these changes. (You can read more of the draft curriculum here:New LearnAlberta)
The good news is that the proposed curriculum change is just a recommendation. LaGrange also has stated that working groups of subject-area experts including teachers will review the curriculum, with the elementary school curriculum being released to the public early this year. Our entire province is watching this development closely and many are prepared to fight the UCP moving forward with such backward policies.
Team ReconciliAction YEG will provide an update as soon as one is available. Learning about residential schools and developing cultural awareness of the true history of Canada is non-negotiable and is essential in combating the systemic racism and discrimination that is so prevalent in Canadian society. If reconciliation is the goal, education on the true history of Canada is a major component in achieving that goal.
The rest of the Canadian provinces are a work in progress. Each province has been asked to maintain a commitment to developing K-12 curriculum education opportunities for all students to further an understanding of Aboriginal peoples' Canadian history and identify appropriate teacher-training needs to address these issues.[2]
Since the release of the TRC 94 Calls to Action, the CMEC (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada) has increased its commitment to Indigenous awareness with its three-year strategic Education Plan (2019-2022). This plan focuses on four priority areas designed to provide a more coordinated, strategic approach for provincial and territorial ministers responsible for education to work together to improve Indigenous education outcomes for all learners.[3]The plan is available here. CMEC has also made strides in furthering its commitment by hosting various summits and symposiums since 2009 aimed at providing a forum for Indigenous educators and gathering non-Indigenous educators and researchers from across the country to improve indigenous education outcomes for all learners. This progress is very encouraging, but as seen in Alberta, there is a very long way to go. The pressure on the provinces cannot be let up for one moment, considering how easy it is to take significant steps backwards. Moving forward in Truth and Reconciliation must remain our focus as a nation.
(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]
Recent Comments