If I may, CR, I think this is one of the best pieces you’ve put out and that I’ve read in such a clear manner, the treatise on the history in particular. I think the proof is not in my paltry opinion, but in the discussion it has generated. Well done my friend!!
This was excellent. The history, the way it was laid out - so easy to follow the steps to where we are currently. It helped too that you included that some (perhaps many) communities still live under boil water advisories. I learned that one community was set up with a water system. The comment further was that it wasn’t maintained - as a blame and a shrug 🤷♀️ However, if the rest of the infrastructure is not in place to get said purified water into the community, then it’s precious funds wasted.
So much good info and suggestions in these comments. This is not an easy road to go down and many people are not willing to experience the numerous potholes and washouts so they avoid it. To their loss. To develop relationships with Indigenous Peoples, there needs to be respect and equal standing and for the most part, that has never been the case. Bottom line: if there's no relationships of equal standing, then there's going to be very little if any progress. Pretty simple.
It is something we need to address and have everyone benefit from resolving these issues in a meaningful manner. Trudeau paid lip service to their needs and jury still out on how Carney can work this into economic gains
and that's part of the problem; trying to figure it out in terms of economic gains. What is economic gain to an Indigenous Person vs what is economic gain to a Colonizer/Settler? Yes, it always seems to somehow come down to money which is never a good road to take in these issues.
Having autonomy to run their nation without being held back by Ottawa or at least function as an autonomous municipality or region not unlike some indigenous Nations in Quebec
The Canadian Crown has suggested a municipality model regularly, and it is rejected. It is even understood as being in violation of UNDRIP and Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution.
One of the problems is that settlers aren’t as familiar with their own governance systems, and thus say things which don’t mean what they think it means.
Canadians generally think that municipalities are responsible governments, meaning that they are entities responsible to citizens. Under the Canadian Crown, municipalities are provincial corporations and are really only elected bureaucracies. This is similar to Indian Act band councils which are also not responsible governments, but federal corporations of elected bureaucrats which are tasked with administering federal programs.
This confusion is partly by design, as Western systems generally want people to believe “If there is an election, then it must be a Democracy” and to never question undemocratic institutions which happen to have elections. As one example that isn’t domestic, the last Absolute Monarchy is the Vatican, and it has elections – and nobody should ever confuse the Vatican as being a democracy.
What the municipality model would really do is transfer Crown responsibility from the Federal Crown (which the British Crown claims is responsible for all pre-confederation as well as post-confederation treaties) to the Provincial Crowns -- which have generally been even more hostile to Indigenous national sovereignty.
The closest model that the Canadian Crown currently administers is territorial governments which are not subject to the Federal/Provincial jurisdiction in section 92 of Canada's Constitution, and can be more autonomous (if adequately set out in legislation).
Some of the frustration over spending is due to bureaucratic mismanagement by Indigenous Services Canada, and the symbolic gestures. This isn't the fault of Indigenous people. Indeed, they are hurt by this.
A perfect example of symbolic gestures not accomplishing anything was the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Committee. No doubt, it was a worthy cause. Yet, were any measures implemented that have made it safer for Indigenous women? Rather than studying the issue, they could have restored funding to remote bus services, or invested in community programs.
For too long, because the funds are controlled by Ottawa, it has been nore important to appear to be acting, rather than taking the comparatively small actions that actually improve native communities.
The USA may have beaten Canada in terms of mistreatment of Native Peoples. Handing out blankets contaminated with smallpox was one of the smaller atrocities that history texts fail to mention. (This is a white senior citizen with Irish heritage writing — my ancestors were very familiar with the cruelty perpetrated by resource-hungry invaders. (There was a time when “the sun never set on the British flag” — Brits made the French look friendly by comparison.)
Thank you for opening this topic in your reflective work.
1. I do think you skip over how easily we Canadians (and Americans) willingly give corporations billions with no benefit to ourselves. So, you must acknowledge that there is some racism going on here, especially when we see the rage strongest in MAGA-driven places like Alberta. I think when you mention First Nation corruption, you also need to share that Canadian corporations are also found to be corrupt ... (Loblaws etc) ... otherwise you fall into a racist trap....
2. Corporate and neoliberal agendas are also behind the rage in social media ... which I think needs to be stated explicitly whenever we bring up social media ... it is a truly distorted, unregulated and no longer trustworthy information space (and has been made to be that way).
3. There is a whole other aspect of the debate -- people who want to keep doing things the way we have always done (and which corporations want to continue) versus looking differently at resource use .. and perhaps First Nations have better answers. Look at fishing on the West Coast ... and logging everywhere. We have environmental disasters all over the country because of corporate resource management, and more young people think that we should involve First Nations in resource management with the idea that perhaps it will be less disastrous.
An alternate thought, moving a bit from European thinking about economic class.
Corporations are creatures of the government, and can only do what a government says they can do. To point at corporations and put blame there is regularly a way to deflect from systemic problems within the governments themselves.
I believe we shouldn't be asking whether corporations are corrupt, but whether the government institutions are corrupt -- or whether they were never intended to work as we have been propagandized to believe they do. We should be asking whether Canada is a democracy at all.
I believe to understand politics within all jurisdictions that the Canadian Crown has title claims against we need to recognize that there isn't a single origin story but many. What is happening in Alberta and Saskatchewan is an extremely reasonable outcome of the creation of those provincial crowns as part of the Dominion of Canada's expansion into northern and western regions.
The model we should be using to understand Canadian politics is empire, Where 1867 Canadia (Southern part of what was then called Ontario and Quebec -- plus NB and NS) -- with over 70% of the Canadian population being south of the 49'th parallel - being the dominant center, and the post-1867 territorial expansions being the subordinate periphery of that empire.
If we were living in 1880 some of your points would be valid ... but I think most of your comments are far removed from any sense of the realities of Canada today. If you, like some Albertans, think Canada is not democratic enough you are welcome to up and move to places like Russia or North Korea ... You would be following the footsteps of other Canadians (Mennonites) who also sought greener pastures with less societal engagement. And I would point out that King Charles himself would disagree with many of your points about Canadian history and Dominion - at least he would say that was all part of the past, and we are now living in a different (and better) future.
What do you believe changed in the structure and laws of the Dominion of Canada since the 1880's (or 1867, when the first of 11 British North American Acts were passed by the British Government to create the Dominion of Canada)?
Can you point to the actual changes in the Canadian Constitution or other laws?
Do you believe in the myth of progress, where time passing itself constitutes change? Since the actual policies haven't significantly changed, and the antique 1867 Constitution remains largely intact, then actual progress cannot be claimed to have been made.
I would like to be living in a better present and future, but that requires those whose ideas are stuck in the 1700's and 1800's to get past that outdated thinking (for instance, that the religious and other European doctrines grant the Dominion of Canada exclusive control over land/life within specific geographic regions).
I'm all for putting the past in the past, and that is why I believe people need to learn the reality of what the systems and institutions of Canada are, which is a throwback to the past.
Curious: Why would I as an individual move? I was born on this continent -- it is the institutions of Canada that were not born on this continent. It is the institutions of Canada that must be brought into the present and to finally conform to the laws of this land (including finally honouring treaties with domestic nations).
Those who wish to live under European governance institutions have many within Europe to choose from, so I don’t know why there needs to be Eurocentric governance institutions on this continent as well.
Curious: Why do you believe naturalizing to the laws of this land would represent "less societal engagement"? How much studying of Western vs Turtle Island worldviews have you done? Western worldviews are far more individualistic and encourage far less societal engagement than domestic (Indigenous to this continent) worldviews.
Curious: Why the mention of King Charles? Do you believe the "Canadian Crown" or "Ontario Crown" are persons? These are the names of institutions under our Constitutional Monarchy system -- this is the correct generic term to avoid confusion with ephemeral political party corporate brands or their corporate leadership.
Understanding the basics of how the Dominion of Canada institutions exist, including being Constitutional Monarchies and understanding about the federal and provincial crowns, is critical if one wants to be able to discuss a different (and better) future that is not perpetually anchored to a foreign past.
Uninformed settlers also don’t see the 100+ years of untrammelled resource extraction, unpaid royalties or unpaid destruction of First Nations’ lands, cultures and the multi-generational trauma inflicted by Residential Schools and subsequently, the colonial based child “welfare” system. The Indian Act calcified colonial institutions and the state robbery of FNs. It should be abolished. In order for Reconciliation to occur, it must include reparations for the incredible damage our colonial system has done and continues to do to FNMI peoples.
Isn’t it interesting that the form of government imposed on Reserves by the colonial Indian Act is so easily corruptible? It is modelled after our Canadian government institutions so corruption is part of the design.
Canadians who aren’t willing to feel “uncomfortable” about what actually happened to First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples would rather bury the truth than face it. That goes for our own institutions who have done very little to complete the 96 Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, completed a decade ago, or the Recommendations of the Commission on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. To be clear, Canada is guilty of genocide (as defined by the UNHRC) in relation to First Nations.
Another example of failure to follow the Rule of Law: The Canadian government is still to this day refusing to comply with the 1999 SCC decision that required the Feds to increase funding to the Child Health, Welfare and Education Services on reservations. That decision made on facts and evidence found the federal government to be grossly underfunding these services relative to provincial governments’ per capita funding of those services for non-indigenous children. And that was 25 years ago!
Unfortunately, there are too many people in Canada who seem to have latched onto the zero-sum mentality of the disgruntled wyt supremacists. And this virus is particularly virulent in Western Canada. It permits them to be proud of their ignorance and feel “hard done by” which is endlessly promoted by the CPC and PP as part of their rage bait propaganda. Equal rights and reparations for past wrongdoing does not take away from others’ rights- it is not pie! But the far right and their mouthpieces want the ignorant to believe otherwise. And thus, the bifurcation of this ongoing “debate”.
I would say that First Nations/indigenous groups are the only special interest/minority/ethnic group that I do feel deserves special consideration. They had contracts (treaties) which were not respected, and there was an intentional erasure of identity by the government for over a century. And as a Nation, is is shameful we have done this to them.
At the same time, I watched an episode of "the Breach" yesterday, and I found the indigenous representative outrageous, due to her own outrage that First Nations are expected to develop their local economies and that economic reconciliation isn't simply giving money but building economic capacity.
I think there does need to be a decision from the Nations - and I would be fine if it were treaty by treaty or band by band - about whether they are independent national entities which have given control of their foreign affairs the the Federal Government of Canada, or if they are Canadians. Just as decisions 100 years ago create impacts to today, the decisions we make today will have impacts in the future.
And I refuse to recognize that Canada lacks sovereignty over sweeping areas of land but at the same time is in perpetuity responsible for funding the welfare of the populations living there who in turn are given the full rights and privileges (including voting) of Canadians. I would be happy to see Bands and reserves given the same status as provinces, I absolutely respect the right to local government, and I again recognize that Canada in either case must play a roll in correcting historic abuse to this day. But if these are sovereign nations, then the treaties they hold do not amount to national funding of their healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure systems to a modern standard, and if they are to be responsible governments, they must also share responsibility in their advancement. And if they are indeed part of Canada, then at times the Federal government is going to engage in projects they may not agree with, just like anyone else faces.
I will point to https://cashback.yellowheadinstitute.org/ for the common misunderstandings around which nations are funding other nations, and which governments owe transfer payments.
“Six Nations of the Grand River understands that Canada does not have enough money to bring historic land issues to resolution under the existing land claims policies.“
Many domestic nations would prefer land to cash, given it is the Canadian Crowns that continue to block domestic nations from restoring their own economies.
----
I would like to explore why most Canadian loyalists "refuse to recognize that Canada lacks sovereignty over sweeping areas of land".
Are we talking about the Western Europe’s concept of Westphalian sovereignty, which draws lines around geography and grants governments exclusive control over everything (living or not) within those bright lines?
Given this continent isn't even part of Europe, why would we start there? Why assume exclusivity, rather than overlapping jurisdictions and requirements to keep dialog open as had been the norm on *this* continent for centuries?
Canada has several Westphalian neighbours: USA, Russia, France, and Denmark. It is treaties that define the Westphalian boundaries, and there was even a family feud between Canada and Denmark that was only concluded recently.
"terra nullius" continues: British North America ("Canada"), Denmark, Russia.
When we move beyond Eurocentrism, we recognize that sovereignty on this continent is very different and is based on a peoples (in the Greek genos sense) being sovereign with their own governments, and where land is stewarded rather than there being Eurocentric claims of exclusivity without responsibility.
I am not my body! Understanding genos (Greek) vs homo (Latin)
The treaties made with existing Nations on this continent weren’t Westphalian Nations, but nations as they should have been understood when newcomers came here (or at least some time since). The normal thing to do with migration is to naturalize to the laws of the land where you travelled to, something that Eurosupremacists have not yet done.
I am aware for many Canadians that the fact that we are talking about Western European Westphalian Nations (England, France, Spain, various Dutch) that everything feels “legitimate”, so I will use other government names that Canadians have been indoctrinated to not trust and to think of as "foreign".
If a Chinese person or company buys some land in Vancouver, does that land become part of China? There is a huge difference between fee-simple property rights and government title, and yet Canadians are generally confused by this distinction. Much of the land that the Dominion of Canada claims title to are only examples of fee-simple property rights and not a transfer of government title.
If the Russian Government that had claimed “dibs” on (more -- they did claim what is now claimed to be Alaska) parts of North America transfers its (really non-existent) title claims to Vancouver to China, does that land then legitimately become part of China? There are large portions of the land that the Dominion of Canada claims title to that are examples of these transfers of illegitimate claims, with this laundering of land claims not changing the basic illegitimacy of the claims.
If Buddhist and Taoist religious leadership decided that continents to the east over the Pacific Ocean belonged to existing Confucianism, Buddhist or Taoist governments, does that make the entirety of North America a part of China? The Doctrine of Discovery, where the Pope said that lands and all its lifeforms (including humans) not already governed by European Christian Monarchies can simply be “claimed”.
When the pushing of falsehoods of fee-simple and laundering of illegitimate title transfers fails, the Dominion government regularly falls back to the Doctrine of Discovery. This is also a series of governments that falsely claim to be secular, and yet rely on specific Christian religious doctrines for its weak land claims.
Canada is not a single thing, but a large set of unique land claims to a variety of regions with entirely different histories and treaties (or lack of treaties). What is true of one region does not apply to others. In the case of the Innuit Nunat it was simply a series of European and Eurocentric governments calling “dibs” amongst each other, without any further legitimacy.
All this to say, I don’t accept the Canadian Crown’s land claims and believe that the Dominion government is in a far weaker position than most Canadians are willing to admit. There is so much fixation on whether specific Canadian Provincial Crowns will separate (something that isn’t legally possible, and would require a violent revolution resourced by a foreign power), while not recognizing that international law is actually on the side of Indigenous nations who want to separate from provincial Crowns.
Why not immediately formally denounce the racist doctrine of discovery and terra nullius as justifications for settler presence?
I will be reading the first resource, it does look interesting, I don't deny historic injustice or inequalities today. I hope to see First Nations economically and socially elevated, as I said I am fully supportive of local government and even Provincial level jurisdiction within Canada for communities as they define themselves.
But to the rest, if you want to try and declare independence, best of luck, but don't expect to be voting in Canadian elections or beneficiaries of Canadian policy if you plan on turning the north into a new post colonial Africa of fragmented states. It is "Eurocentric" institutions on which modern material wealth has been built, and if you choose to reject these institutions, then you reject their outcomes as well. I do not see merit in your own drawing of lines that North America is different than Europe (and you clearly recognize half of this continent does exist under a Westphalian structure) and therefore not subject to such institutions.
What I am against is forming a system where the cake is had and eaten, and I live in a two tier society with an ethnic land owning class. Canada as it is now understood was founded by people escaping a very similar structure, and I see no possibility of reconciliation under a new feudalism, no matter how appressed those new lords are today, in the democratic nation I am a part of. You may flip this and argue that is exactly how indigenous peoples have been treated, and if so, I don't know how you could possibly expect the vast majority of Canadians to agree to be put in that position. Reconciliation must address historic wrongs, but it cannot be allowed to create future structural inequalities.
I'll also specifically say I don't acknowledge the 6 Nations as having claims that most First Nations may claim, themselves being refugees from the south who were resettled on land acquired the same way as that which makes up the legal basis for Canadian sovereignty.
"Reconciliation must address historic wrongs, but it cannot be allowed to create future structural inequalities."
Reconciliation must remove existing structural inequities (this isn't about something able to be located in the past, but ongoing in the present). The current set of systems and institutions are the source of the inequities. Equality and equity are different concepts, and equality is often used as code to justify forced assimilation.
Whether you realize it or not, what you were discussing was assimilation and not Truth or Reconciliation outside a purely Eurocentric lens. This is not a critique of you as an individual, as what you are doing is consistent with Western worldviews and the fixation on individualism.
What you wrote is essentially an all too common rejection of the existence of non-Western/European worldviews. In order to have Reconciliation on this continent (not Europe), there needs to be a movement away from Assimilation into Western/European worldviews being the primary goal of those loyal to the institutions of Canada.
I know this isn't easy work -- I offer myself as a settler of Scottish, Irish and French descent who lived most of my life firmly under Western worldviews and didn't understand the actual conflicts with what are often called First Nations (Or for that matter, any conflicts with any non-Western/European peoples).
Getting outside of the Western silo is part of the "Truth" part of "Truth and Reconciliation" , and most Canadians haven't even begun the Truth part of the process.
Note: I am aware of how any challenges of the institutions of the Dominion of Canada can generate emotions for those who have included those institutions into their personal identity.
I accept the existence of other world views, I reject that they undermine the legal structure of the nation. As I said repeatedly, I am happy to see current institutions changed to provide local and responsible government, I agree they are a source of ongoing inequality. Those changes cannot be used to imbue special rights along ethnic lines in a democracy. Demanding equal treatment under the law is not rejecting equitable treatment in supporting economic reconciliation any more than equalization payments allow Atlantic Canada special voting privilege or land control.
However, it is the privilege of those institutions that create the environment where First Nations believe they can have a reconciliation that does not involve some form if assimilation. Western/European world views are not, as you imply, restricted to Europe, but are the governing frameworks across the world, and most certainly the frameworks that have been adopted by fundamentally different societies (notably East Asia and parts of the middle east) who have seen material prosperity develop. There is no solution to the economic barriers faced by First Nations that does not involve their engagement with broader society.
If you reject these institutions, then you are rejecting the very mechanisms through which Canada interacts with the public and is able to act on Reconciliation. Reconciliation clearly cannot begin with the dissolution of the state, and it cannot end with a privileged class allowed to dictate to the democracy it is part of.
This reply appears to be starting from Dominion of Canada training (LLMs and humans have training data that build huge parts of their worldviews) that claim Canada was ever an example of a democracy. These institutions were created and continue to exist to enforce (from the Constitution to all local laws which conform to the Constitution) a specific set of Western European worldviews outside of Western Europe.
I did the thought experiment about whether "Canada" (a set of institutions, not a place or a group of people) was a democracy a few years ago, and I was even surprised by the conclusion.
(I am discussing the LLM stuff in other Substack threads that are visible via https://r.flora.ca/notes , if that is of interest.)
Canada having a privileged class, which this reply expressed concern about, is the status-quo of the institutions of Canada that we should be trying to move away from. Canada’s privileged class are those who are already indoctrinated by and loyal to Western European worldviews, especially those loyal to English/British and French worldviews (the most privileged of the privileged class that the institutions of Canada impose).
We should not be embracing that enforcement of a privileged class as if it is "natural" to have these foreign worldviews dominate this continent. It should never be those nationalities which have millennia of history on this continent which must assimilate to those foreign worldviews/laws/etc.
Assimilation isn't a new policy, but the core policy that defines the relationship these settler-colonial institutions have had with the pre-existing nationalities of this continent since these institutions were imposed in 1867. It is impossible to remedy "historical injustice" when the root of the injustice -- the assimilation policy -- has never changed. There may be specific *tools* that are no longer used (pass system for reservations to encourage “Enfranchisement”, forced attendance at residential schools, etc), but the specific tools aren't relevant compared to the ongoing policy that the tools were used for.
-----
Learning about the Haldimand Tract is an example of when the Canadian institutions disrespect Canadian law and allies. The Haudenosaunee declared war against Germany as an ally of the British, while Canada could only declare war once as these foreign institutions didn’t have foreign policy (and the ability to declare war) until the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
It is a distraction for settlers to (in violation of the two-row treaties) involve themselves in which Indigenous nations would be sharing land which should not be under the jurisdiction of any foreign Provincial Crown.
The Haldimand Tract should never have been considered part of Ontario, but this is a reminder of how dishonourable the institutions of Canada are when this is how Canada treats allies. It should sound familiar to how the extremely similar US governments treat treaty allies. So many Canadians have their “elbows up”, and yet don’t see how similar the USA’s claims to these northern regions are to Canadian claims.
You said, "Western/European world views are not, as you imply, restricted to Europe, but are the governing frameworks across the world, "
Please recognize that this is an example of White Supremacist ideologies. Me mentioning this isn't something for an individual to feel insulted by, as fixating on individuals rather than adequately analysing systems (including governance institutions) is itself part of the Western Worldviews that people on this continent are indoctrinated with.
I don't particularly appreciate your reframing my every reply highlighting certain quotes without context. I have been clear Canada has an existing privileged class, and I have been clear that needs to be corrected, not replaced. I have no disagreement that Indigenous nations should not fall under Provincial jurisdictions, and have repeatedly supported self government and legal recognition of reserve land as equivalent to a province under confederation.
Canada may not be perfect, but it is certainly a democracy, and an improvement is not granting specific ethnic groups rights above others. If you want to advocate against "White Supremist Ideologies", then certainly, I assume, in whatever non-assimilationist framework you are suggesting would allow anyone regardless of background to join a band or tribe and be an equal part in that nation? If not, I have no interest in your version of reconciliation, which is to turn over my home and hope I am treated kindly in a system I have no standing under, but I am assured will be far more fair.
The spending anger makes sense on the surface. But open.canada.ca records cite the AFN report: First Nations need $135 billion just to close the on-reserve housing gap by 2030. Federal funding barely budged for decades. That turns billions into band-aids instead of real fixes for water and homes. Ottawa built this catch-up game under the Indian Act.
We are a Nation of Nations, each one proud & each needing to cohabitate with the others:
- First Nations, Inuit peoples, and Métis
- Franco and Anglo colonists & immigrants
- Subsequent immigrant communities
And until more Canadians recognize that each of these groups have overlapping, complementary, and sometimes conflicting *legitimate* claims to being Canadian, we won’t be able to move further with the R part of TRC … nor will we be able to make peace with QC and AB separatists, nor will we have a coherent view of what it is that we mean to protect from sea to sea to sea.
Our elected officials chose to ignore the needs of First Nations for decades all while trying to wipe out their cultural identity. Canada must do better. We need First Nations at the table for everything! We must show First Nations that they are an equal part of this great land. Until we do, blaming anyone but ourselves for the plight of indigenous people, is wrong!
A friend from Germany believes that the only real Canadians are First Nations. I agree. From that perspective we have a very long way to go. That’s where restitution comes in. Until First Nations are on the same level of perception, understanding and community with the rest of us, restitution is incomplete. Just my opinion.
I think it's important to be collectively accountable for what our government does. If the Canadian public strongly supported responsible action and to stop the cultural genocide politicians would have been elected with those mandates. We, collectively, did not demand these things.
This is changing, but slowly and inconsistently. Over the last four decades or so, Canadian public opinion has moved from low awareness and paternalistic framing in the pre-Oka era, through event-driven spikes of concern in the 1990s and 2000s, to broadly supportive but somewhat softening sentiment today, with notable peaks around the 2015 TRC report and the 2021 residential school graves discovery.
Throughout this entire arc, one finding has remained stubbornly consistent: non-Indigenous Canadians persistently overestimate the progress being made toward reconciliation compared to how Indigenous peoples themselves assess it.
Those of us that benefit from the richness of Canada also share the responsibility to reconcile with how that richness was created and distributed. IMHO
My experience with Indigenous people came from my posting to CFB Gagetown in Oromocto NB. Oromocto First Nation borders the town, and in my years there, I met many of the people there and made some life long friends as well. This was pre 2000. I became well versed in the issues at that time, because I cared to listen. I wish more would open their minds and ears, and hear what First Nations has to say, because if we want to make a better nation for all, First Nations must be heard and paid attention to. We all want a healthy economy and a decent life, why so many Canadians fail to want that for First Nations boggles my mind. We are all Canadians!
I checked the House committee page. The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs brings First Nations leaders right to the table on land and health issues. Look it up at https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/INAN. The issue is many TRC calls to action remain unfinished. We get the meetings, but the full results take too long.
I was referring more to first ministers meetings, I really believe First Nations should be represented there and they should also have a liaison in Parliament, elected by First Nations, to give them representation.
Yes. This particular issue is something I feel strongly about and have mentioned it repeatedly. If we are going to say we are a nation build by 3, I don't understand why only 2 have a permanent seat at the grown ups table. I would like to see all 3 working together to make Canada better for us all. Our country deserves this collaboration and cooperation!
If I may, CR, I think this is one of the best pieces you’ve put out and that I’ve read in such a clear manner, the treatise on the history in particular. I think the proof is not in my paltry opinion, but in the discussion it has generated. Well done my friend!!
Thanks Patricia and please kindly share :)
Of course
This was excellent. The history, the way it was laid out - so easy to follow the steps to where we are currently. It helped too that you included that some (perhaps many) communities still live under boil water advisories. I learned that one community was set up with a water system. The comment further was that it wasn’t maintained - as a blame and a shrug 🤷♀️ However, if the rest of the infrastructure is not in place to get said purified water into the community, then it’s precious funds wasted.
So much good info and suggestions in these comments. This is not an easy road to go down and many people are not willing to experience the numerous potholes and washouts so they avoid it. To their loss. To develop relationships with Indigenous Peoples, there needs to be respect and equal standing and for the most part, that has never been the case. Bottom line: if there's no relationships of equal standing, then there's going to be very little if any progress. Pretty simple.
It is something we need to address and have everyone benefit from resolving these issues in a meaningful manner. Trudeau paid lip service to their needs and jury still out on how Carney can work this into economic gains
and that's part of the problem; trying to figure it out in terms of economic gains. What is economic gain to an Indigenous Person vs what is economic gain to a Colonizer/Settler? Yes, it always seems to somehow come down to money which is never a good road to take in these issues.
Having autonomy to run their nation without being held back by Ottawa or at least function as an autonomous municipality or region not unlike some indigenous Nations in Quebec
The Canadian Crown has suggested a municipality model regularly, and it is rejected. It is even understood as being in violation of UNDRIP and Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution.
One of the problems is that settlers aren’t as familiar with their own governance systems, and thus say things which don’t mean what they think it means.
Canadians generally think that municipalities are responsible governments, meaning that they are entities responsible to citizens. Under the Canadian Crown, municipalities are provincial corporations and are really only elected bureaucracies. This is similar to Indian Act band councils which are also not responsible governments, but federal corporations of elected bureaucrats which are tasked with administering federal programs.
This confusion is partly by design, as Western systems generally want people to believe “If there is an election, then it must be a Democracy” and to never question undemocratic institutions which happen to have elections. As one example that isn’t domestic, the last Absolute Monarchy is the Vatican, and it has elections – and nobody should ever confuse the Vatican as being a democracy.
What the municipality model would really do is transfer Crown responsibility from the Federal Crown (which the British Crown claims is responsible for all pre-confederation as well as post-confederation treaties) to the Provincial Crowns -- which have generally been even more hostile to Indigenous national sovereignty.
The closest model that the Canadian Crown currently administers is territorial governments which are not subject to the Federal/Provincial jurisdiction in section 92 of Canada's Constitution, and can be more autonomous (if adequately set out in legislation).
Some of the frustration over spending is due to bureaucratic mismanagement by Indigenous Services Canada, and the symbolic gestures. This isn't the fault of Indigenous people. Indeed, they are hurt by this.
A perfect example of symbolic gestures not accomplishing anything was the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Committee. No doubt, it was a worthy cause. Yet, were any measures implemented that have made it safer for Indigenous women? Rather than studying the issue, they could have restored funding to remote bus services, or invested in community programs.
For too long, because the funds are controlled by Ottawa, it has been nore important to appear to be acting, rather than taking the comparatively small actions that actually improve native communities.
It is by design and a culture of complacency where no one benefits except bureaucracy
The USA may have beaten Canada in terms of mistreatment of Native Peoples. Handing out blankets contaminated with smallpox was one of the smaller atrocities that history texts fail to mention. (This is a white senior citizen with Irish heritage writing — my ancestors were very familiar with the cruelty perpetrated by resource-hungry invaders. (There was a time when “the sun never set on the British flag” — Brits made the French look friendly by comparison.)
Thank you for opening this topic in your reflective work.
1. I do think you skip over how easily we Canadians (and Americans) willingly give corporations billions with no benefit to ourselves. So, you must acknowledge that there is some racism going on here, especially when we see the rage strongest in MAGA-driven places like Alberta. I think when you mention First Nation corruption, you also need to share that Canadian corporations are also found to be corrupt ... (Loblaws etc) ... otherwise you fall into a racist trap....
2. Corporate and neoliberal agendas are also behind the rage in social media ... which I think needs to be stated explicitly whenever we bring up social media ... it is a truly distorted, unregulated and no longer trustworthy information space (and has been made to be that way).
3. There is a whole other aspect of the debate -- people who want to keep doing things the way we have always done (and which corporations want to continue) versus looking differently at resource use .. and perhaps First Nations have better answers. Look at fishing on the West Coast ... and logging everywhere. We have environmental disasters all over the country because of corporate resource management, and more young people think that we should involve First Nations in resource management with the idea that perhaps it will be less disastrous.
YES!! Most especially more, LOTS MORE, inclusion of First Nations in planning and process!
An alternate thought, moving a bit from European thinking about economic class.
Corporations are creatures of the government, and can only do what a government says they can do. To point at corporations and put blame there is regularly a way to deflect from systemic problems within the governments themselves.
I believe we shouldn't be asking whether corporations are corrupt, but whether the government institutions are corrupt -- or whether they were never intended to work as we have been propagandized to believe they do. We should be asking whether Canada is a democracy at all.
https://r.flora.ca/p/canadian-democracy
I believe to understand politics within all jurisdictions that the Canadian Crown has title claims against we need to recognize that there isn't a single origin story but many. What is happening in Alberta and Saskatchewan is an extremely reasonable outcome of the creation of those provincial crowns as part of the Dominion of Canada's expansion into northern and western regions.
https://r.flora.ca/p/alberta
The model we should be using to understand Canadian politics is empire, Where 1867 Canadia (Southern part of what was then called Ontario and Quebec -- plus NB and NS) -- with over 70% of the Canadian population being south of the 49'th parallel - being the dominant center, and the post-1867 territorial expansions being the subordinate periphery of that empire.
If we were living in 1880 some of your points would be valid ... but I think most of your comments are far removed from any sense of the realities of Canada today. If you, like some Albertans, think Canada is not democratic enough you are welcome to up and move to places like Russia or North Korea ... You would be following the footsteps of other Canadians (Mennonites) who also sought greener pastures with less societal engagement. And I would point out that King Charles himself would disagree with many of your points about Canadian history and Dominion - at least he would say that was all part of the past, and we are now living in a different (and better) future.
What do you believe changed in the structure and laws of the Dominion of Canada since the 1880's (or 1867, when the first of 11 British North American Acts were passed by the British Government to create the Dominion of Canada)?
Can you point to the actual changes in the Canadian Constitution or other laws?
Do you believe in the myth of progress, where time passing itself constitutes change? Since the actual policies haven't significantly changed, and the antique 1867 Constitution remains largely intact, then actual progress cannot be claimed to have been made.
I would like to be living in a better present and future, but that requires those whose ideas are stuck in the 1700's and 1800's to get past that outdated thinking (for instance, that the religious and other European doctrines grant the Dominion of Canada exclusive control over land/life within specific geographic regions).
I'm all for putting the past in the past, and that is why I believe people need to learn the reality of what the systems and institutions of Canada are, which is a throwback to the past.
Curious: Why would I as an individual move? I was born on this continent -- it is the institutions of Canada that were not born on this continent. It is the institutions of Canada that must be brought into the present and to finally conform to the laws of this land (including finally honouring treaties with domestic nations).
https://r.flora.ca/p/hill-times-letter-canadian-government
Those who wish to live under European governance institutions have many within Europe to choose from, so I don’t know why there needs to be Eurocentric governance institutions on this continent as well.
Curious: Why do you believe naturalizing to the laws of this land would represent "less societal engagement"? How much studying of Western vs Turtle Island worldviews have you done? Western worldviews are far more individualistic and encourage far less societal engagement than domestic (Indigenous to this continent) worldviews.
Curious: Why the mention of King Charles? Do you believe the "Canadian Crown" or "Ontario Crown" are persons? These are the names of institutions under our Constitutional Monarchy system -- this is the correct generic term to avoid confusion with ephemeral political party corporate brands or their corporate leadership.
Understanding the basics of how the Dominion of Canada institutions exist, including being Constitutional Monarchies and understanding about the federal and provincial crowns, is critical if one wants to be able to discuss a different (and better) future that is not perpetually anchored to a foreign past.
They are making us divided and playing off against each other like in America
Uninformed settlers also don’t see the 100+ years of untrammelled resource extraction, unpaid royalties or unpaid destruction of First Nations’ lands, cultures and the multi-generational trauma inflicted by Residential Schools and subsequently, the colonial based child “welfare” system. The Indian Act calcified colonial institutions and the state robbery of FNs. It should be abolished. In order for Reconciliation to occur, it must include reparations for the incredible damage our colonial system has done and continues to do to FNMI peoples.
Isn’t it interesting that the form of government imposed on Reserves by the colonial Indian Act is so easily corruptible? It is modelled after our Canadian government institutions so corruption is part of the design.
Canadians who aren’t willing to feel “uncomfortable” about what actually happened to First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples would rather bury the truth than face it. That goes for our own institutions who have done very little to complete the 96 Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, completed a decade ago, or the Recommendations of the Commission on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. To be clear, Canada is guilty of genocide (as defined by the UNHRC) in relation to First Nations.
Another example of failure to follow the Rule of Law: The Canadian government is still to this day refusing to comply with the 1999 SCC decision that required the Feds to increase funding to the Child Health, Welfare and Education Services on reservations. That decision made on facts and evidence found the federal government to be grossly underfunding these services relative to provincial governments’ per capita funding of those services for non-indigenous children. And that was 25 years ago!
Unfortunately, there are too many people in Canada who seem to have latched onto the zero-sum mentality of the disgruntled wyt supremacists. And this virus is particularly virulent in Western Canada. It permits them to be proud of their ignorance and feel “hard done by” which is endlessly promoted by the CPC and PP as part of their rage bait propaganda. Equal rights and reparations for past wrongdoing does not take away from others’ rights- it is not pie! But the far right and their mouthpieces want the ignorant to believe otherwise. And thus, the bifurcation of this ongoing “debate”.
This is excellent! It hits all the points we need to address. My thanks!
Well said!
I would say that First Nations/indigenous groups are the only special interest/minority/ethnic group that I do feel deserves special consideration. They had contracts (treaties) which were not respected, and there was an intentional erasure of identity by the government for over a century. And as a Nation, is is shameful we have done this to them.
At the same time, I watched an episode of "the Breach" yesterday, and I found the indigenous representative outrageous, due to her own outrage that First Nations are expected to develop their local economies and that economic reconciliation isn't simply giving money but building economic capacity.
I think there does need to be a decision from the Nations - and I would be fine if it were treaty by treaty or band by band - about whether they are independent national entities which have given control of their foreign affairs the the Federal Government of Canada, or if they are Canadians. Just as decisions 100 years ago create impacts to today, the decisions we make today will have impacts in the future.
And I refuse to recognize that Canada lacks sovereignty over sweeping areas of land but at the same time is in perpetuity responsible for funding the welfare of the populations living there who in turn are given the full rights and privileges (including voting) of Canadians. I would be happy to see Bands and reserves given the same status as provinces, I absolutely respect the right to local government, and I again recognize that Canada in either case must play a roll in correcting historic abuse to this day. But if these are sovereign nations, then the treaties they hold do not amount to national funding of their healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure systems to a modern standard, and if they are to be responsible governments, they must also share responsibility in their advancement. And if they are indeed part of Canada, then at times the Federal government is going to engage in projects they may not agree with, just like anyone else faces.
I will point to https://cashback.yellowheadinstitute.org/ for the common misunderstandings around which nations are funding other nations, and which governments owe transfer payments.
A quick quote from https://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/ might put that conversation in the right context.
“Six Nations of the Grand River understands that Canada does not have enough money to bring historic land issues to resolution under the existing land claims policies.“
Many domestic nations would prefer land to cash, given it is the Canadian Crowns that continue to block domestic nations from restoring their own economies.
----
I would like to explore why most Canadian loyalists "refuse to recognize that Canada lacks sovereignty over sweeping areas of land".
Are we talking about the Western Europe’s concept of Westphalian sovereignty, which draws lines around geography and grants governments exclusive control over everything (living or not) within those bright lines?
Given this continent isn't even part of Europe, why would we start there? Why assume exclusivity, rather than overlapping jurisdictions and requirements to keep dialog open as had been the norm on *this* continent for centuries?
Canada has several Westphalian neighbours: USA, Russia, France, and Denmark. It is treaties that define the Westphalian boundaries, and there was even a family feud between Canada and Denmark that was only concluded recently.
"terra nullius" continues: British North America ("Canada"), Denmark, Russia.
https://r.flora.ca/p/terra-nullius-continues-british-north
When we move beyond Eurocentrism, we recognize that sovereignty on this continent is very different and is based on a peoples (in the Greek genos sense) being sovereign with their own governments, and where land is stewarded rather than there being Eurocentric claims of exclusivity without responsibility.
I am not my body! Understanding genos (Greek) vs homo (Latin)
https://r.flora.ca/p/i-am-not-my-body
The treaties made with existing Nations on this continent weren’t Westphalian Nations, but nations as they should have been understood when newcomers came here (or at least some time since). The normal thing to do with migration is to naturalize to the laws of the land where you travelled to, something that Eurosupremacists have not yet done.
What does being a Canadian mean to me?
https://r.flora.ca/p/canadian
—
I am aware for many Canadians that the fact that we are talking about Western European Westphalian Nations (England, France, Spain, various Dutch) that everything feels “legitimate”, so I will use other government names that Canadians have been indoctrinated to not trust and to think of as "foreign".
If a Chinese person or company buys some land in Vancouver, does that land become part of China? There is a huge difference between fee-simple property rights and government title, and yet Canadians are generally confused by this distinction. Much of the land that the Dominion of Canada claims title to are only examples of fee-simple property rights and not a transfer of government title.
If the Russian Government that had claimed “dibs” on (more -- they did claim what is now claimed to be Alaska) parts of North America transfers its (really non-existent) title claims to Vancouver to China, does that land then legitimately become part of China? There are large portions of the land that the Dominion of Canada claims title to that are examples of these transfers of illegitimate claims, with this laundering of land claims not changing the basic illegitimacy of the claims.
If Buddhist and Taoist religious leadership decided that continents to the east over the Pacific Ocean belonged to existing Confucianism, Buddhist or Taoist governments, does that make the entirety of North America a part of China? The Doctrine of Discovery, where the Pope said that lands and all its lifeforms (including humans) not already governed by European Christian Monarchies can simply be “claimed”.
When the pushing of falsehoods of fee-simple and laundering of illegitimate title transfers fails, the Dominion government regularly falls back to the Doctrine of Discovery. This is also a series of governments that falsely claim to be secular, and yet rely on specific Christian religious doctrines for its weak land claims.
Canada is not a single thing, but a large set of unique land claims to a variety of regions with entirely different histories and treaties (or lack of treaties). What is true of one region does not apply to others. In the case of the Innuit Nunat it was simply a series of European and Eurocentric governments calling “dibs” amongst each other, without any further legitimacy.
https://substack.com/@russellmcormond/note/c-204437738
----
All this to say, I don’t accept the Canadian Crown’s land claims and believe that the Dominion government is in a far weaker position than most Canadians are willing to admit. There is so much fixation on whether specific Canadian Provincial Crowns will separate (something that isn’t legally possible, and would require a violent revolution resourced by a foreign power), while not recognizing that international law is actually on the side of Indigenous nations who want to separate from provincial Crowns.
Why not immediately formally denounce the racist doctrine of discovery and terra nullius as justifications for settler presence?
https://r.flora.ca/p/why-not-immediately-formally-denounce
I will be reading the first resource, it does look interesting, I don't deny historic injustice or inequalities today. I hope to see First Nations economically and socially elevated, as I said I am fully supportive of local government and even Provincial level jurisdiction within Canada for communities as they define themselves.
But to the rest, if you want to try and declare independence, best of luck, but don't expect to be voting in Canadian elections or beneficiaries of Canadian policy if you plan on turning the north into a new post colonial Africa of fragmented states. It is "Eurocentric" institutions on which modern material wealth has been built, and if you choose to reject these institutions, then you reject their outcomes as well. I do not see merit in your own drawing of lines that North America is different than Europe (and you clearly recognize half of this continent does exist under a Westphalian structure) and therefore not subject to such institutions.
What I am against is forming a system where the cake is had and eaten, and I live in a two tier society with an ethnic land owning class. Canada as it is now understood was founded by people escaping a very similar structure, and I see no possibility of reconciliation under a new feudalism, no matter how appressed those new lords are today, in the democratic nation I am a part of. You may flip this and argue that is exactly how indigenous peoples have been treated, and if so, I don't know how you could possibly expect the vast majority of Canadians to agree to be put in that position. Reconciliation must address historic wrongs, but it cannot be allowed to create future structural inequalities.
I'll also specifically say I don't acknowledge the 6 Nations as having claims that most First Nations may claim, themselves being refugees from the south who were resettled on land acquired the same way as that which makes up the legal basis for Canadian sovereignty.
"Reconciliation must address historic wrongs, but it cannot be allowed to create future structural inequalities."
Reconciliation must remove existing structural inequities (this isn't about something able to be located in the past, but ongoing in the present). The current set of systems and institutions are the source of the inequities. Equality and equity are different concepts, and equality is often used as code to justify forced assimilation.
https://r.flora.ca/p/genocide-against-indigenous-peoples
Whether you realize it or not, what you were discussing was assimilation and not Truth or Reconciliation outside a purely Eurocentric lens. This is not a critique of you as an individual, as what you are doing is consistent with Western worldviews and the fixation on individualism.
What you wrote is essentially an all too common rejection of the existence of non-Western/European worldviews. In order to have Reconciliation on this continent (not Europe), there needs to be a movement away from Assimilation into Western/European worldviews being the primary goal of those loyal to the institutions of Canada.
I know this isn't easy work -- I offer myself as a settler of Scottish, Irish and French descent who lived most of my life firmly under Western worldviews and didn't understand the actual conflicts with what are often called First Nations (Or for that matter, any conflicts with any non-Western/European peoples).
Getting outside of the Western silo is part of the "Truth" part of "Truth and Reconciliation" , and most Canadians haven't even begun the Truth part of the process.
Note: I am aware of how any challenges of the institutions of the Dominion of Canada can generate emotions for those who have included those institutions into their personal identity.
https://r.flora.ca/p/observing-white-fagility
I accept the existence of other world views, I reject that they undermine the legal structure of the nation. As I said repeatedly, I am happy to see current institutions changed to provide local and responsible government, I agree they are a source of ongoing inequality. Those changes cannot be used to imbue special rights along ethnic lines in a democracy. Demanding equal treatment under the law is not rejecting equitable treatment in supporting economic reconciliation any more than equalization payments allow Atlantic Canada special voting privilege or land control.
However, it is the privilege of those institutions that create the environment where First Nations believe they can have a reconciliation that does not involve some form if assimilation. Western/European world views are not, as you imply, restricted to Europe, but are the governing frameworks across the world, and most certainly the frameworks that have been adopted by fundamentally different societies (notably East Asia and parts of the middle east) who have seen material prosperity develop. There is no solution to the economic barriers faced by First Nations that does not involve their engagement with broader society.
If you reject these institutions, then you are rejecting the very mechanisms through which Canada interacts with the public and is able to act on Reconciliation. Reconciliation clearly cannot begin with the dissolution of the state, and it cannot end with a privileged class allowed to dictate to the democracy it is part of.
This reply appears to be starting from Dominion of Canada training (LLMs and humans have training data that build huge parts of their worldviews) that claim Canada was ever an example of a democracy. These institutions were created and continue to exist to enforce (from the Constitution to all local laws which conform to the Constitution) a specific set of Western European worldviews outside of Western Europe.
I did the thought experiment about whether "Canada" (a set of institutions, not a place or a group of people) was a democracy a few years ago, and I was even surprised by the conclusion.
https://r.flora.ca/p/canadian-democracy
(I am discussing the LLM stuff in other Substack threads that are visible via https://r.flora.ca/notes , if that is of interest.)
Canada having a privileged class, which this reply expressed concern about, is the status-quo of the institutions of Canada that we should be trying to move away from. Canada’s privileged class are those who are already indoctrinated by and loyal to Western European worldviews, especially those loyal to English/British and French worldviews (the most privileged of the privileged class that the institutions of Canada impose).
https://r.flora.ca/p/i-dont-hate-white-people
We should not be embracing that enforcement of a privileged class as if it is "natural" to have these foreign worldviews dominate this continent. It should never be those nationalities which have millennia of history on this continent which must assimilate to those foreign worldviews/laws/etc.
Assimilation isn't a new policy, but the core policy that defines the relationship these settler-colonial institutions have had with the pre-existing nationalities of this continent since these institutions were imposed in 1867. It is impossible to remedy "historical injustice" when the root of the injustice -- the assimilation policy -- has never changed. There may be specific *tools* that are no longer used (pass system for reservations to encourage “Enfranchisement”, forced attendance at residential schools, etc), but the specific tools aren't relevant compared to the ongoing policy that the tools were used for.
-----
Learning about the Haldimand Tract is an example of when the Canadian institutions disrespect Canadian law and allies. The Haudenosaunee declared war against Germany as an ally of the British, while Canada could only declare war once as these foreign institutions didn’t have foreign policy (and the ability to declare war) until the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
It is a distraction for settlers to (in violation of the two-row treaties) involve themselves in which Indigenous nations would be sharing land which should not be under the jurisdiction of any foreign Provincial Crown.
The Haldimand Tract should never have been considered part of Ontario, but this is a reminder of how dishonourable the institutions of Canada are when this is how Canada treats allies. It should sound familiar to how the extremely similar US governments treat treaty allies. So many Canadians have their “elbows up”, and yet don’t see how similar the USA’s claims to these northern regions are to Canadian claims.
https://r.flora.ca/p/canada-greenland
----
You said, "Western/European world views are not, as you imply, restricted to Europe, but are the governing frameworks across the world, "
Please recognize that this is an example of White Supremacist ideologies. Me mentioning this isn't something for an individual to feel insulted by, as fixating on individuals rather than adequately analysing systems (including governance institutions) is itself part of the Western Worldviews that people on this continent are indoctrinated with.
https://r.flora.ca/p/self-identified-racism
I don't particularly appreciate your reframing my every reply highlighting certain quotes without context. I have been clear Canada has an existing privileged class, and I have been clear that needs to be corrected, not replaced. I have no disagreement that Indigenous nations should not fall under Provincial jurisdictions, and have repeatedly supported self government and legal recognition of reserve land as equivalent to a province under confederation.
Canada may not be perfect, but it is certainly a democracy, and an improvement is not granting specific ethnic groups rights above others. If you want to advocate against "White Supremist Ideologies", then certainly, I assume, in whatever non-assimilationist framework you are suggesting would allow anyone regardless of background to join a band or tribe and be an equal part in that nation? If not, I have no interest in your version of reconciliation, which is to turn over my home and hope I am treated kindly in a system I have no standing under, but I am assured will be far more fair.
We need to address and resolve major issues with our identity and indigenous part if we can ever improve
The spending anger makes sense on the surface. But open.canada.ca records cite the AFN report: First Nations need $135 billion just to close the on-reserve housing gap by 2030. Federal funding barely budged for decades. That turns billions into band-aids instead of real fixes for water and homes. Ottawa built this catch-up game under the Indian Act.
Bureaucracy enabled corruption and ongoing issues with the Indigenous Canadians
We are a Nation of Nations, each one proud & each needing to cohabitate with the others:
- First Nations, Inuit peoples, and Métis
- Franco and Anglo colonists & immigrants
- Subsequent immigrant communities
And until more Canadians recognize that each of these groups have overlapping, complementary, and sometimes conflicting *legitimate* claims to being Canadian, we won’t be able to move further with the R part of TRC … nor will we be able to make peace with QC and AB separatists, nor will we have a coherent view of what it is that we mean to protect from sea to sea to sea.
Our elected officials chose to ignore the needs of First Nations for decades all while trying to wipe out their cultural identity. Canada must do better. We need First Nations at the table for everything! We must show First Nations that they are an equal part of this great land. Until we do, blaming anyone but ourselves for the plight of indigenous people, is wrong!
A friend from Germany believes that the only real Canadians are First Nations. I agree. From that perspective we have a very long way to go. That’s where restitution comes in. Until First Nations are on the same level of perception, understanding and community with the rest of us, restitution is incomplete. Just my opinion.
I agree completely with your statement but not only for Canada but the US as well. We live on stolen land here in North America.
Oh SO true! Good reminder.
I think it's important to be collectively accountable for what our government does. If the Canadian public strongly supported responsible action and to stop the cultural genocide politicians would have been elected with those mandates. We, collectively, did not demand these things.
This is changing, but slowly and inconsistently. Over the last four decades or so, Canadian public opinion has moved from low awareness and paternalistic framing in the pre-Oka era, through event-driven spikes of concern in the 1990s and 2000s, to broadly supportive but somewhat softening sentiment today, with notable peaks around the 2015 TRC report and the 2021 residential school graves discovery.
Throughout this entire arc, one finding has remained stubbornly consistent: non-Indigenous Canadians persistently overestimate the progress being made toward reconciliation compared to how Indigenous peoples themselves assess it.
Those of us that benefit from the richness of Canada also share the responsibility to reconcile with how that richness was created and distributed. IMHO
My experience with Indigenous people came from my posting to CFB Gagetown in Oromocto NB. Oromocto First Nation borders the town, and in my years there, I met many of the people there and made some life long friends as well. This was pre 2000. I became well versed in the issues at that time, because I cared to listen. I wish more would open their minds and ears, and hear what First Nations has to say, because if we want to make a better nation for all, First Nations must be heard and paid attention to. We all want a healthy economy and a decent life, why so many Canadians fail to want that for First Nations boggles my mind. We are all Canadians!
Thinking perhaps it would be wonderful to recognise more “Wab Kinew’s.” I know they’re out there, but I think perhaps not seen or appreciated.
100%. I love Wab! Manitoba is very lucky to have him! He is so down to earth and I adore his humour! And he is always so happy! A really great man!
I checked the House committee page. The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs brings First Nations leaders right to the table on land and health issues. Look it up at https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/INAN. The issue is many TRC calls to action remain unfinished. We get the meetings, but the full results take too long.
I was referring more to first ministers meetings, I really believe First Nations should be represented there and they should also have a liaison in Parliament, elected by First Nations, to give them representation.
Yes they should but bureaucracy is the issue and excuse
Yes. This particular issue is something I feel strongly about and have mentioned it repeatedly. If we are going to say we are a nation build by 3, I don't understand why only 2 have a permanent seat at the grown ups table. I would like to see all 3 working together to make Canada better for us all. Our country deserves this collaboration and cooperation!