For indigenous reconciliation, words are not enough: Editorial

THESTAR.COM
Last December, within a month of taking office, Justin Trudeau became the first prime minister to attend the Special Chiefs Assembly, an annual meeting of the heads of the First Nations of Canada, since his father had last done so in the 1980s.

The younger Trudeau had campaigned on the promise of a “renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples,” a commitment he reiterated in his ministerial mandate letters. His appearance at the meeting was one of many symbols of reconciliation that marked the early days of his government.

But in two weeks’ time, when the prime minister again meets with the chiefs, will he be able to defend his record in good conscience?

In a meeting with the Star’s editorial board this week, Perry Bellegarde, grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, gave the Trudeau government a mixed review. “No question it’s better than the Conservatives,” he said, referring to the Harper government’s antagonistic approach to indigenous relations. “No one can deny that.”

The rhetoric of reconciliation itself has the potential to change the way many Canadians think about our history, a prerequisite for progress. And this new language was accompanied by big promises. The Liberals’ commitment in their first budget to spend $8.4 billion over the next five years to improve the lives of indigenous people was arguably more generous even than Paul Martin’s ill-fated Kelowna Accord.

But, as Bellegarde acknowledged, a troubling gap is emerging between Trudeau’s lofty talk and his government’s actions. Even in the budget, there was evidence of this. The investment, while big, is backloaded. A large portion of the money is to be rolled out in the year after the next election.

Perhaps no case better illustrates this disconnect between words and deeds than the government’s incoherent half-embrace of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP).

For six years under Harper, Canada was, to our shame, the only country to oppose the declaration. The announcement in May that the Trudeau government would endorse the document was an important signal that Ottawa was truly ready to join the rest of the world in recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples.

But in the weeks following, the symbol started to lose its lustre. The announcement was accompanied by few details on how the declaration, which is not legally binding, would be implemented, or on what timeline. And despite a Liberal campaign promise to harmonize the UNDRIP with Canadian law, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said in July that doing so was a “simplistic” and “unworkable” approach to the issues it seeks to address.

Raybould is no doubt right that harmonization would be extraordinarily complex and, indeed, might not be desirable in every case. But what meaning could the endorsement possibly have if the government has no intention at least to try, wherever possible, to adopt its tenets legislatively or, where not possible or ideal, to explain why not?

Moreover, in practice, the Trudeau government has continued to violate vital principles of the declaration.

Take, for instance, Article 8, which reads in part: “States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for any action which has the aim or effect of … forced assimilation or integration.”

The tragic case of the so-called Sixties Scoop clearly fits the bill. Over two decades starting in the 1960s, thousands of First Nations children were taken from their families, often without consent, and placed in non-indigenous care. As Canada phased out compulsory Indian residential schools, the Scoop was the next iteration of its longstanding policy of forced assimilation.

Yet despite the Trudeau government’s outspoken condemnation of residential schools, it has neither apologized for the Scoop nor compensated victims. Instead, it continues to fight a series of class-action lawsuits filed in recent years by survivors.

Or take Article 24 of the UN declaration, which reads in part: “Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right.”

Of course, there is no easy solution to the crisis of health, and in particular mental health, among First Nations people. The government can’t solve the stubborn tangle of contributing socio-economic problems in its first year or even over its current mandate. But Trudeau and his team have failed to take even the minimum action legally required to address parts of this emergency.

Earlier this month, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion calling on the government to abide by a legally binding, year-old Human Rights Tribunal ruling, and two subsequent compliance orders, that Ottawa must address the systematic discrimination against indigenous children on reserves. About 60 per cent of kids on reserve live in poverty, over three times the rate of the general population, yet the tribunal found they have consistently less access to needed services than other Canadians.

By supporting the motion, the government essentially – and rightly – admitted it had failed to fulfill its obligations to correct this injustice. The emergence of a youth suicide epidemic on northern reserves had not been enough to spur action, nor had unwavering pressure from indigenous child advocates; it took an opposition motion to force the government to agree to comply with the law.

Finally, the UNDRIP calls on the government to obtain “prior and informed consent” from indigenous groups before embarking on development or resource projects. This important dictate raises a host of thorny issues, which this government, like its predecessor, has so far seemed set on bulldozing rather than engaging with in good faith.

The Trudeau government’s apparent decision to continue Ottawa’s longstanding tradition of unilaterally imposing energy projects, as it has with the LNG natural gas initiative and the Site C dam, is particularly disappointing in the face of its promises of a new nation-to-nation relationship. “They went ahead and trampeled on inherent rights and treaty rights,” Bellegarde told us. “On certain things they’re failing.”

Trudeau’s meeting with the chiefs last year was an important symbol. His presence and his language promised a great deal. The upcoming assembly will undoubtedly be harder work. He will learn, if he hasn’t already, that in repairing any broken relationship, words are not enough.