The “Truth and Reconciliation” Dead End

It was only a matter of time. The moment when the feel good, wishy washy proclamations and promises were going to bump up against the hard realities of Canada today.

Canada has a population of approximately 42 million, of which slightly more than 1.8 million are indigenous, or about five percent. The rest are either recent immigrants or descendants of Europeans and later Asians who started migrating to what is now called Canada in the sixteenth century. The indigenous societies they encountered were technologically much less advanced than those of the Europeans or Asians, some more so than others. Some, the tribes of the west coast, for example, were relatively sedentary with established villages and hierarchies, while others like the tribes of the prairies, existed in migrating, hunter/gatherer groups. None could withstand the encroachment of the Europeans.

This is the point where most people will pause to assure everyone they are deeply committed to reconciliation with aboriginal peoples, and profoundly regret the countless terrible things inflicted on them by the newer settlers and their descendants. I will not. All those mostly empty words do is reinforce the lazy narrative that everything aboriginal is good and everything else, bad. That most feel this reflects the coercive forces that have shaped this debate in Canada. Step even a little over that line and you’ll be accused of racism or, that newest of online charges, “denialism”.

What happened to aboriginal peoples in Canada replicated what has happened all over the world since time immemorial. Populations move. Borders shift. People get displaced or absorbed. Sometimes it is peaceful but usually there is conflict with the more advanced groupings dominating. I’m sure my Celtic ancestors were displaced multiple times as more powerful groups invaded and occupied the British Isles but it would be absurd for me to demand reparations now from the United Kingdom. And yet here we are in Canada. In fact, it’s certain indigenous people did not all arrive at one time, in one group. Given they eventually populated both South and North American continents from top to bottom, some obviously arrived much earlier than others and, if human history is any guide, the newcomers displaced the earlier settlers as they moved across the continents. So who amongst aboriginal North and South Americans was first and, if that could be determined, do they have superior claims to all others?

Under the disastrous leadership of Justin Trudeau Canada cast itself as somehow different from every other place on earth throughout human history, posing as more virtuous, more just, more feminist, and oh so sorry for the litany of supposed wrongs committed by our European settler forefathers and mothers against a seemingly endless list of offended or “harmed” people. It seemed a month didn’t go by when we weren’t apologizing to some group or other about something; that the Canadian flag was at half mast, and that the steady drumbeat of shame was beaten into us. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa. Churches were burned. Statues toppled. Streets and towns renamed. Charges of genocide, not just cultural by the way, were hurled at Canada from around the world as the the Canadian government hid its face in shame or worse, pled guilty. Not surprisingly, pretty soon the very idea of Canada, this remarkably successful country, was devalued, so much so that some preciously referred to it as “so called Canada” while others tried to rewrite the national anthem so it too would reflect our perfidy and shame. A hell of a way to build and unite a country.

In this environment it’s not surprising that the claims by indigenous Canadians should take first place as an original sin that marked the dark path that lay ahead. Canadian governments have been trying to address the role of indigenous people in a modern nation state since before Confederation. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems most of those efforts were misguided and certainly unsuccessful. That’s clear even without assigning dark motives to early Canadians. The modern context begins in 1982 when Pierre Trudeau’s government patriated the constitution from the United Kingdom and added the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The new constitution, at Section 25, affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights for indigenous Canadians including Metis. It also shelters those rights from diminishment through the Charter rights of other Canadians. The meaning of this clause was then left to the courts to determine. That was subsequently further constrained by Canada’s adoption of the “United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples”. So, bit by bit, Canadian Liberal and Conservative governments, as well as NDP provincial governments, entangled the country in a web of uncertainty and conflict, all the time engaging in magical thinking that somehow it would all work out.

On August 8 B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young issued a ruling in the claim by the Cowichan Nation that found it had established aboriginal title to more than 5.7 kilometers of land along the banks of the Fraser River in the city of Richmond, some of which is privately held either by businesses or homeowners. It found public and private titles to the land were “defective” and infringed on the Cowichan title. The ruling has triggered a tsunami of outrage against the judge, great anxiety for the current landowners, and appeals by the City of Richmond, the province of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, the local port authority and one other aboriginal group with a competing land claim. I don’t know whether the outrage and shock is genuine or political theatre because it’s been blindingly obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the competing claims that it was going to come to this somewhere. This follows the provincial government voluntarily ceding full control of Haida gwaii to the Haida despite there being privately owned lands on the archipelago. In both cases the native bands have offered assurances they will not interfere in the private holdings but, frankly, that’s only good until they change their minds. Even if they don’t, the possiblity significantly undermines the value of those properties.

None of this happened in a vacuum. The politicans, having set the table over the decades, then stood back as the courts did what they were expected to do: interpret, define and refine the ambiguities in the laws. I don’t fault the judge in the Cowichan ruling. She simply considered the evidence, the law and the precedents and then issued the inevitable outcome. If it hadn’t happened in Richmond it would certainly have happened elsewhere, and soon, given other cases before the courts in B.C.

So, as a result of colossal mismanagement by Canada’s political leaders we now live in an Alice in Wonderland world where two contradictory things are held to be somehow magically consistent. They are not. And many have been complicit. I don’t remember when it became compulsory for every public gathering to begin with an acknowledgement it was taking place on “unceded native land”. Or when many events were preceded by some kind of drum and/or smoke ceremony. Or when aboriginal offenders were given lighter sentences even if they were chronic and violent offenders. Or when every development proposal was subject to endless conflict over claims by indigenous groups that they had to consent before it could proceed. And on that issue we have yet another example of the ambiguous/magical thinking of our political leaders as they created the laws. Some, although fewer and fewer, are willing to stand up and say there is nothing in the constitution that requires consent by native groups before developments can proceed. But there is the need to consult and the courts have added layer upon layer to that process until many, perhaps most, indigenous Canadians believe they have the right of veto. And even when the courts find otherwise in a particular case some engage in acts of civil disobediance and sabotage to block or slow the process.

This is no way to run a country. Five percent of the population cannot trump the rights and interests of the other ninety five percent. I understand indigenous Canadians have not been able to fully partiticipate in the success of this country and I fully support initiatives that will help them do so in the future, initiatives such as ownership of resource projects or developments on their urban lands. But that is a far cry from pouring billions of dollars into a system that infantilizes and traps them. The simple fact is Canada needs to go back to square one on this issue and that may mean amending Section 25 of the constitution as well as repudiating some of the vacuous commitments previous federal, provincial and municipal governments have made. As the Cowichan ruling has shown, a tiger is awakening and it’s the vast majority of the Canadian public, and it will demand radical remedial action on how we all relate to indigenous Canadians. This could get very nasty. Let’s see if any of our politcal leaders have the cojones to lead.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that appears at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Ruffling a Few Feathers

On April 14 the Government of B.C. and the Haida Nation signed an agreement confirming Aboriginal title over all of Haida Gwaii. It grants title to the entire archipelago to the Haida Nation and creates a process and timeline for its implementation. This is one of several such processes the government is engaging in with native bands in B.C. that are outside the treaty negotiation process and that may result in ceding vast swaths of Crown land to the various native bands. The Premier and his ministers repeatedly claim the agreements will have no effect on non native land owners on those lands, although that remains to be seen. B.C. is somewhat unique, given its lack of treaties with native bands, but the steps it is taking may still have significant implications for other provinces.

This process is taking place at a time when Canadians are being inundated with claims their country is, and always has been, deeply racist and, in its past at least, genocidal. This is the culmination of two decades of indoctrination by those advocating for “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (“DEI”), backstopped by an anti-colonial/occupier narrative that divides Canadians into “victims” and “exploiters”, the victims being native Canadians who were here prior to European and modern Asian settlement, and “exploiters”, being all of us who are descended from the European and later Asian settlers. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the mythology that has grown up around residential schools in Canada. It has become the almost unchallenged dictum that the schools were created for the express and singular purpose of eradicating Canada’s native population, with the most outrageous claim being that the now empty schools are surrounded by mass graves of native children, each a kind of mini Auschwitz. And there is even support for laws that would criminalize questioning that dogma. George Orwell would have found this completely predictable. I’ve criticized this before and that isn’t the main purpose of this blog, except to note that these beliefs are a barrier to native Canadians becoming full, autonomous, independent, successful and participating members of Canadian society, and not just victims.

If the only criterion for determining who is a victim and who is an oppressor is who got here first then, to pursue that logic, we should delve deeper into the history of native peoples in Canada. I believe it’s a given they didn’t all just appear here at once, and there is historical and archeological evidence they came from Asia in waves, some on land and some by sea, over what was probably centuries. So, which now have first claim on this land? It’s almost certain some groups were displaced, absorbed or worse, while others moved further into the continent. In fact, given B.C.’s geographic location, it’s likely native groups in B.C. were some of the later arrivals.

The absurdity of using the “who got here first” criterion is illustrated further by looking at human settlement all across world. Much of it by today’s standards would be considered oppressive and wrong, fitting nicely into the settler/occupier narrative. That’s true in the British Isles, everything east of the Urals in Russia, not to mention the Caucuses, China, Australia, New Zealand, much of Africa and certainly Israel. And those are only the major examples. In fact, all of human history is about population movements, with new groups replacing or absorbing earlier populations. But it is only in the Anglo-sphere where modern societies are tying themselves in knots over it (I guess I should exclude Britain from that as, as far as I know, there is no current movement to return much of England to the ancient Celtic Britons). And, in the Anglo-sphere, Canada seems determined to lead the charge, to go where few if any other nations have gone before, and damn the consequences to the future of this nation.

So why does all this matter? Well, for starters, a country that comes to despise its history probably doesn’t have much of a future and, increasingly, that is where Canada is going. We are constantly inundated with propaganda telling us Canada was a bad idea, that the men who created it were monsters, that the modern state we have built is built on the bones and blood of the native Canadians who were here first. We’ve lost sight of the fact that in one hundred and fifty years Canadians have created a remarkable, prosperous, democratic and free country, one that has few equals in human history. Instead of celebrating that we are told to feel shame and to qualify Canada’s considerable achievements with a “but”.

I fully support measures that will help native Canadians become autonomous, strong, prosperous citizens of this country. But that can only happen if the rights and interests of the other ninety five percent of the population are also respected. And that is not happening. It’s not just that Canadian history is being devalued or that native Canadians are encouraged to play the victim card to avoid any responsibility for their position and actions, but there is now a systematic effort to rearrange the ownership of land in B.C. and Canada in a way that will significantly disadvantage the vast majority of the population.

Some years ago we began hearing “acknowledgements” at the beginning of meetings, speeches, concerts, gallery shows, in fact, in virtually any venue that was publicly funded and, laterally, any that wanted to be considered progressive. You know what they sound like: “We acknowledge that we are on the unceded land of the (insert whatever native group is relevant) and are grateful for…”. Then these same statements began appearing on the letterheads and other stationary of public and private entities, a kind of Scout badge for having completed the task signifying progressive, inclusive, woke. I have always found them irritating, at first because they seemed meaningless or, worse, were holding open possibilities to native communities that could never be realized, and then because they began to move from the zones of gesture to action. And that’s where the land settlements typified by the one for Haida Gwaii enter the picture.

Most Canadians look at these settlements, or proposed settlements, and shrug, generally feeling they are a good thing and, more importantly, have little if any real effect on them. After all, we keep hearing the assurances privately held land will not be affected. All that is being discussed is “Crown Land”, which is a sufficiently obscure term that most don’t give it much thought. They should. Approximately 94% of British Columbia’s landmass is Crown Land, land that is held by the province on behalf of all British Columbians. Native groups are claiming ownership of approximately 95% of all land in B.C., including that which is privately held. So, if indeed the politicians are right and privately held land is not in play, that pretty much accounts for all the Crown Land being available for just 5% of the population.

I understand that the settlement process is at least partially driven by court rulings compelling governments to move them forward. Putting aside for the moment the argument that courts have “made law” with some of their rulings, it remains true that court rulings in Canada rely on laws passed by Parliament and legislatures. Where necessary, those laws can be changed if they result in an obvious injustice or rulings that undermine the essence of what Canada is or should be. And it is probably time to seriously consider that option on the issue of native land claims.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that appears at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Where Did Canada Go?

My paternal grandparents immigrated to Canada at the end of the nineteenth century, one from Scotland, the other from Norway via the United States. They met in Edmonton and homesteaded on a quarter section of land provided by the federal government about a hundred miles southeast of that city. They spent their first winter in a one room shack created by my grandfather pulling two graineries together and covering the roof with sod. That’s the home my father and his twin sister came to after they were born in Edmonton.

They struggled, they persevered and they worked very, very hard. And in the end they prospered, at least by the standards of that time and place. Both their children went to university, a first in our family. They believed in Canada, fully embracing the ideas that shaped this nation, including that, with hard work and perseverance, the future would belong to it. They participated as active and full citizens of what was then The Dominion of Canada. And when duty called, their only son, my father, went off to war, fighting for freedom and the ideas that animated this new nation.

The Canada I was born into in 1949 was still bathing in the afterglow of its heroic participation in the Second World War. It was also a country on the verge. Most of the ties to imperial Britain had been severed and Canada faced the world as a modern, liberal democracy, one that, as the years passed, expanded on that idea , particularly with respect to human rights, civil society and freedom, both at home and in the world. We were taught to be proud of our place in the world, to understand we were a new kind of nation, one that was free of the tribal hatreds of Europe and yet separate from our avaricious and noisy American cousins.

The idea of multiculturalism was formally presented to us by the governments of Pierre Trudeau in the 1960’s and 70’s and, with remarkably little conflict, Canada’s demography began shifting away from British/French/Western European to something else, something that to an increasing degree reflected the second and third worlds. Although many said this experiment would not work, it did to a remarkable and historically unprecedented degree.

I am not ignoring the failures that existed in the emerging Canada, particularly its treatment of its native population and other, under-represented peoples. Nor am I saying there weren’t frictions and eruptions of racism, homophobia and other forms of prejudice. But, as a country, we always aspired to do better, to honour the hopes and plans of our founders and, by and large, we stayed on that track, looking forward with optimism.

But something has changed. At first it was imperceptible to people like me but then, slowly but surely, it intruded into our discourse and our sense of ourselves. Its earliest expression concerned Canada’s native population and its treatment of them. What began as a healthy acknowledgement of past failings and the belief we would do better in the future has metastasized into an endless litany of mea culpas with a stifling drive to devalue the contributions of the very people who created and built modern Canada. In fact, in many circles, it is now a given that Canada was founded and built by genocidal racists, something we should be deeply ashamed of. Statues of the Fathers of Confederation are vandalized and destroyed or, if not destroyed, removed by public officials not wanting to offend the tender sensibilities of complaining constituents. Street names are changed, as are names attached to universities, hospitals, galleries, museums and other public spaces, all in an attempt to erase the history of European and subsequent Asian immigration and its vast contribution to what, to this point, was one of the most successful nations in all of human history. And god help anyone who attempts to apply some context to past government policies and practices that are now reviled.

The native population of Canada is approximately 5% of the total population. I agree there are many failures in Canada’s past approach to this community and future policies should be informed by those experiences. But I do not agree that all discourse should be warped by the sense of victim-hood that is so intensely cultivated by today’s native Canadians and their enablers. The so called “inter-generational trauma” experienced by survivors of residential schools is only the most obvious “get out of jail free card” that resonates across the interactions between native and non native Canadians and, inevitably, builds resentment amongst non natives and passivity amongst natives. It’s a path that leads neither to reconciliation nor to a bright and optimistic future for all Canadians and it needs to be confronted.

Of course part of the challenge is that most elected leaders in Canada, starting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet, have so wholeheartedly embraced the mantra of shame about this country’s past that has poisoned most areas of Canadian society. It has only become clear to me recently that that idea has a much broader political ideology behind it, the ideology that views the world solely through the eyes of those who identify as, or with, the victims of colonialism or, to use the more de trop phrase of university podiums, victims of “settler/occupiers”. And lest you think this really doesn’t apply to Canada, listen carefully to the various native leaders and their supporters as they describe Canada as “Turtle Island” or as “so-called Canada”. In other words, not a legitimate country and, in their wildest of dreams, one that will someday be returned to its native inhabitants.

Given the size of Canada’s population and the fact that 95% of it is non native, the logistics of returning Canada to its pre-European inhabitants, even if that were desirable, are probably insurmountable except for the wildest fantasist, so we revert to a steady drum beat of shaming and demanding whatever the ransom du jour is. It’s not surprising that a negative reaction is growing, just as it is in many other western countries where some other version of this tale is unfolding. In fact, the rise of ugly populism in recent years is at least partly a reaction to the narrowing and cancelling of public discourse on a range of topics including the claims of people who believe they were disadvantaged by colonialism. That said, Canada seems unique in its self flagellation over real and imagined historical wrongs committed by its founders and earliest European settlers.

One especially troubling example of how warped Canadian society has become in response to the settler/occupier narrative is the reaction of large parts of Canadian society to the terrorist attack by Hamas on Israelis on October 7 and the consequent war in Gaza. Instead of placing much of the blame where it clearly belongs with the terrorist organization, Hamas, large segments of Canada’s population have hijacked the narrative by blaming Israel as they chant “from the river to the sea”, a not so coded call for the genocide of non Muslim Israeli citizens. Examples of antisemitism crop up seemingly every day. This would never have been tolerated in the Canada I grew up in and cherished and, yet, in the face of such outrages, our political leaders tip toe around, hoping not to offend Muslim Canadians, and implying, if not outright saying, Hamas’ actions are understandable, if regrettable. I understand there is now a much larger Muslim population in Canada than there was even a decade ago, mostly a result of mass immigration from Muslim countries and that has political consequences. It grieves me, who has supported immigration to Canada all my adult life and who lives in one of the most multi cultural neighbourhoods in the world, to have to say core Canadian values are at risk because of some of that immigration. As a gay man I remember vividly the image a year or so ago of Muslim mothers encouraging their children to stomp gleefully on Pride flags. We like to say there is no place for homophobia in Canada, just as there is no place for antisemitism, but, increasingly, the changing face of our population is putting the lie to those assertions.

I have no idea how we turn this Titanic around but I am sure it begins with recognizing the dangers before it is to late. If we don’t, the future will certainly not belong to Canada.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” prompt that will appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.