Connect with us

Indigenous

Putting government mismanagement of Indigenous affairs in the rear-view mirror

Published

1 year ago

11 minute read

From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI)

By Ken Coates for Inside Policy

The failures of governance on Indigenous affairs represents an unhappy situation where the problem is, simultaneously, too much government and too little governance

In an era of a mounting number of interconnected complex and difficult problems, one feels sorry for the politicians and civil servants attempting to produce policies, programs, and funding that will make real and sustained progress. We are often confronted with the frightening realization that government, as it is currently structured and directed, is simply not up to the challenges of the 21st century. This is certainly the case with Indigenous affairs in Canada, where the federal government struggles to find the right path forward.

The socio-economic data is clear. Indigenous peoples lag well behind the non-Indigenous population on almost all measures: personal income, access to clean water, educational outcomes, rates of incarceration, health outcomes, opioid deaths, tuberculosis cases, overcrowded homes, and many others. Language loss is endemic, many communities struggle with intergenerational conflict, too many cultural traditions are at risk, and long-term systemic poverty continues to take its toll.

Most Canadians think that the government of Canada is doing a great deal – some people think too much – to address Indigenous challenges and opportunities. They point, as the government often does, to billions of dollars in annual expenditures, formal and public apologies, major court judgments in favour of Indigenous defendants, a seat at a growing number of political tables, and concessions on language, values, and priorities.

The juxtaposition of these two realities is troubling – despite the massive expenditures on Indigenous affairs there are continued and major shortcomings in First Nations, Métis, and Inuit outcomes and achievements. Frustration burns deep in many Indigenous communities, as it does among the general population. Canadians at large have heard the many apologies, hundreds of program announcements, billions in spending, and the near-constant uncertainty of legal processes, and they too are deeply concerned about the failure of decades of concerted government efforts to make things better.

Of course, there have been major achievements. While media coverage focuses on conflict and despair, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities have made substantial improvements, even with the current difficulties in mind. Post-secondary attendance remains strong, with continuing challenges with the high school to PSE transition. Indigenous entrepreneurship is a bright spot in the Canadian economy. Modern treaties and self-government agreements are changing how the government manages Indigenous policies, funding, and decision-making. And impact and benefit agreements have secured Indigenous communities an important place in resource and infrastructure development.

But frustrations with the government of Canada’s management of Indigenous affairs continues. Communities complain of long-delayed negotiations, difficulties with payments, the omnipresent influence of the Indian Act, files lingering on the desk of the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, the inability to get promised money out the door quickly and efficiently, the imposition of complicated accountability provisions, and many other problems. Even major settlements, like the $40 billion allocated to address shortcomings in child and family services, has been bogged down in unrewarding negotiations.

The failures of governance on Indigenous affairs represents an unhappy situation where the problem is, simultaneously, too much government and too little governance. Starting well before Confederation, paternalism became the hallmark of federal policy towards Indigenous peoples. Government officials believed that they knew best and managed Indigenous affairs with scant consideration of Indigenous ideas and goals – and often with a firm, manipulative hand. To the degree that Indigenous peoples escaped the dominance of Ottawa, it was largely due to the shortage of government workers and money, which meant that most northern peoples were left largely alone until the 1950s.

In the 1950s and 1960s, in a massive wave of self-justified paternalism, government intervention expanded rapidly. Indigenous peoples were required to live in government-established and run settlements, typically in government-built houses and under the control of a growing cadre of paternalistic Indian Agents. Residential and day school education became standard fare – as did acute language loss and the disruption of harvesting activity and traditional cultures. Welfare dependency, extremely rare before the mid-1950s, replaced harvesting and the mixed economy as the economic foundations of Indigenous life, with all of the controls and intrusions that attend any reliance on government cheques.

Well-meaning state officials inherited the paternalism of their predecessors, believing that government-designed and -run programs would provide Indigenous communities with pathways to the mainstream economy and the benefits of the dominant society. A few achievements stand out, but generally the effort did not work. Indigenous communities were transformed into frustrated supplicants, relying on a steady stream of applications and approval processes to provide what were typically short-term grants that would fund core community operations.

The arrangements prioritized federal budget-making and administration over Indigenous decision-making and community priority-setting. The budgets grew dramatically. Federal officials made countless announcements. The number of federal civil servants grew dramatically. And individual Indigenous people continued to suffer. Through decades in which state funding and programming continued to expand, the gap between Indigenous well-being and non-Indigenous social and economic conditions scarcely narrowed at all. What did grow dramatically was social dysfunction, self-harm, and family disarray.

It turned out that too much government “help” could be as bad as neglect and inattention to Indigenous needs. Ottawa continued to supply earnest and well-meant programs, but they were built with diminishing enthusiasm from Indigenous peoples. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities understood what the government of Canada did not: that community control was much more important and effective than Ottawa-centred policy-making. Much of the Indigenous effort since the 1970s has focused on righting the imbalance, establishing more self-government processes, expanding own-source revenues, and returning to Indigenous peoples the autonomy that had sustained them for centuries.

Indigenous peoples have their own agendas – and they have largely succeeded in changing the core foundations of Indigenous governance in Canada. Modern treaties have, for some people, eliminated some of the more pernicious aspects of the Indian Act and its associated bureaucracies. Self-governing First Nations are become more common and increasingly successful. The Inuit secured their own territory – Nunavut – and acquired considerable autonomy in Labrador and northern Quebec. Impact and benefit agreements and resource revenue sharing have given communities the funding they require to establish their own spending priorities. Duty-to-consult and accommodate provisions have given Indigenous communities a major role in determining the shape and nature of resource development. Major Supreme Court of Canada decisions continue to extend Indigenous authority.

This story of Indigenous re-empowerment has not yet fully unfolded, although the returns to date have been more than promising. Self-governing First Nations in the Canadian North and elsewhere have used their autonomy to very good effect. Communities near the oil sands in Alberta have used their involvement in resource extraction to create substantial autonomy for themselves. Near-urban and urban First Nations are supporting metropolitan redevelopment. Joint ventures and economic cooperation have become the norm rather than the exception. Struggles continue; generations of paternalism and government oversight are not overcome in a flash.

But the primary lesson is simple. State paternalism has been a force for disruption and manipulation of Indigenous communities. Re-empowerment, autonomy, and economic independence have demonstrated the potential to rebuild, enhance, and strengthen First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities. Decades of government mismanagement of Indigenous affairs must be put in the rear-view mirror. It is time for the re-empowerment of Indigenous communities to become the new normal.

Indigenous realities have changed dramatically, particularly related to Indigenous rights, expectations, capacity, financial settlements and community expectations.  Government administration and policy-making, as current constituted, is not sufficiently community-centric, properly funded, appropriately responsive or driven by Indigenous imperatives.  Despite generations of large-scale spending and many programs and announcements, basic conditions are far too often seriously substandard and real progress slow and unimpressive.  With Indigenous people and their governments in the forefront, Indigenous governance and support requires a dramatic rethinking and Indigenous empowerment in order to respond properly to the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.

Ken Coates is a Distinguished Fellow and Director of Indigenous Affairs at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a Professor of Indigenous Governance at Yukon University

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 12 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 13 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 13 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

False Claims, Real Consequences: The ICC Referrals That Damaged Canada’s Reputation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Nina Green

The University of Manitoba has not provided the name of a single Indian residential school student who went missing and whose parents did not know at the time what had happened to their child. Not one.

Why has Canada twice been referred to the International Criminal Court on the basis of false claims about Indian residential schools?

The answer is simple.

The ultimate cause is the University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial which falsely claims that it is a list of students who died on the premises of Indian residential schools and students who went missing from Indian residential schools. The University of Manitoba site tells users to:

Click on a region below to see a list of residential schools. Each residential school page contains a list of students who died or went missing at that school.

Those claims by the University of Manitoba are not true.

Firstly, the majority of the 4139 students currently on the University of Manitoba’s Student Memorial Register did not die on the premises of an Indian residential school. Most died elsewhere, as established by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report entitled Missing Children and Unmarked Burials, which is in Table 4. Location of residential school deaths, 1867–2000 on page 21 states that only 423 named students died on the premises of an Indian residential school over the course of 133 years, an average of 3 students a year.

Thus, the majority of students did not die on the premises of Indian residential schools. They died elsewhere – in public hospitals or of illness or accidents on their home reserves, accidents which included house fires, drownings, gunshot wounds, vehicle accidents, falling trees, being hit by trains, and other accidental deaths, as established in hundreds of provincial death certificates.

Secondly, none of the students on the University of Manitoba’s lists went missing from an Indian residential school. To date, the University of Manitoba has not provided the name of a single Indian residential school student who went missing and whose parents did not know at the time what had happened to their child. Not one. And far from being ‘missing’, in fact hundreds of provincial death certificates establish that the students were buried on their home reserves by their families and communities.

Based on the University of Manitoba’s misleading lists, the media and the federal government uncritically accepted the false claim by the Kamloops Band on 27 May 2021 that the Band had discovered ‘the remains of 215 children’. After three years, the Band downgraded that false claim on 18 May 2024 to the claim that it had merely discovered ‘215 anomalies’, which could be anything, and are almost certainly the remains of the 2000 linear feet of trenches of a septic field installed in 1924 to dispose of the school’s sewage.

The first referral to the International Criminal Court by a group of 22 lawyers

Only a few days after the Kamloops Band made its false claim, on 3 June 2021 a group of 22 lawyers sent a 14-page complaint to the ICC requesting the Prosecutor to initiate an investigation of a ‘mass grave’ of Indian residential school students which had been discovered at Kamloops. The claim by the 22 lawyers that a ‘mass grave’ had been discovered at Kamloops was, of course, false.

The International Criminal Court quickly declined jurisdiction in November 2021, and on 13 September 2022 Dr Chile Eboe-Osuji, former President and Judge of the International Criminal Court, informed Special Interlocutor Kimberly Murray and those present at her National Gathering in Edmonton of the reasons for doing so. As reported by Chief Derek Nepinak, Dr Eboe-Osuji stated unequivocally that:

There is no pathway to the International Criminal Court for the situation of the historical Indian residential school system in Canada.

Dr Eboe-Osuji’s presentation has never been made available on the Special Interlocutor’s website, and requests to both Kimberly Murray and Dr Eboe-Osuji for a copy of his presentation have gone unanswered.

The second referral to the International Criminal Court by Special Interlocutor Kimberly Murray

Undeterred by the ICC’s refusal to accept jurisdiction and the reasons offered by Dr Eboe-Osuji in his presentation to her 13 September 2022 National Gathering, Kimberly Murray pursued the issue based on the University of Manitoba’s lists falsely claiming that all the students on its lists died on the premises of specific Indian residential schools or went missing from those schools.

On 29 October 2024, Kimberly Murray delivered her final report to Minister of Justice Arif Virani. However, as she told the Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples on 27 November 2024, Kimberly Murray also sent her report to the International Criminal Court, requesting Canada’s prosecution by the Court.

How the ICC will react to Kimberly Murray’s referral of Canada for prosecution is as yet unknown.

Damage to Canada’s international reputation

Canada’s reputation has been irreparably damaged by these two referrals to the International Criminal Court based on the University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial which falsely claims that it is a list of students who died on the premises of specific residential schools or went missing from those specific schools.

It cannot be reiterated often enough:

(1) that most students whose names are on the University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial did not die on the premises of a residential school;

(2) that most students on the University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial died in public hospitals or of illness and accidents on their home reserves;

(3) that the University of Manitoba has never provided the name of a single student who ever went missing from an Indian residential school whose parents didn’t know what happened to their child; and

(4) that the majority of students whose names are on the University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial were buried by their families and communities on their home reserves. Over time, their families and communities have forgotten them, and through neglect of the grave markers, no longer know where in their reserve cemeteries they are buried.

The University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial has misled Canadians and has resulted in two referrals of Canada for prosecution by the International Criminal Court based on false claims about ‘mass graves’ and ‘missing’ and ‘disappeared’ Indian residential school students.

The federal government and the Catholic Church must demand that the University of Manitoba take down its false and misleading National Student Memorial.

Nina Green is an independent researcher who lives in British Columbia.

Continue Reading

Indigenous

Trudeau cabinet adviser says residential school grave skepticism is ‘hate’ speech

Published on December 12, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves Kimberly Murray believes there are mass graves despite unfounded claims of secret burials and deaths of Indigenous children.

An adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet said that even though there is skepticism toward unfounded claims of “deaths and secret burials” of Indigenous children at residential schools, deliberate deceptions of the graves should be considered “hate” speech.

The comments were made by independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves Kimberly Murray at a recent Senate Indigenous Peoples committee meeting. She said it is “one thing to say you don’t believe there are burials,” and it is “your opinion and you can have freedom of speech to say that.”

However, Murray then said that when a person says “there are no burials, that First Nations people or the Indians are lying because they want you to go burn down churches or they want to take away your cottages,” this is “inciting hate against Indigenous people.”

“That’s the type of speech we need to stop,” she added.

The reality is that Canada’s Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed it spent millions searching for “unmarked graves” at a now-closed residential school, but the search has turned up no human remains.

As reported by LifeSiteNews in August, Trudeau’s cabinet will expand a multimillion-dollar fund geared toward documenting thus far unfounded claims that hundreds of young children died and were clandestinely buried at now-closed residential schools, some of them run by the Catholic Church.

Murray, who said she thinks there are mass graves at residential schools, claimed that those fully denying graves exist are somehow inciting “hate speech” that she said is “not protected by the Charter and it is getting worse in the country.”

“We need to ensure survivors and communities are safe. We need to send a clear message to Canadians that it is not OK to incite this kind of hate,” she said.

“When the children died, government and church officials did not return the children home for burial …They were buried in cemeteries at the institutions, often in unmarked and mass graves which were sometimes dug by the other children.”

“The indigenous leadership has exploited an obviously false claim — pocketing a mountain of tax dollars, while our moribund mainstream media sits in silence,” the judge said.

Giesbrecht was vocal about criticizing the claims made by the legacy media and the Trudeau government that the Catholic Church is complicit in the deaths of thousands of Indigenous Canadians who attended government-mandated residential schools.

As a result of the claims, since the spring of 2021, 112 churches, most of them Catholic, many of them on indigenous lands that serve the local population, have been burned to the ground, vandalized, or defiled in Canada.

The church burnings started in 2021 after the mainstream media and the federal government ran with inflammatory and dubious claims that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran some of the now-closed residential schools.

Giesbrecht observed that the reality is that historical records “clearly show” that “the children who died of disease or accident while attending residential school were all given Christian burials, with their deaths properly recorded.”

Despite the attacks on Canadian churches, Leah Gazan, a backbencher MP from the New Democratic Party, brought forth a bill earlier this year that seeks to criminalize the denial of the unproven claim that the residential school system once operating in Canada was a “genocide.”

Canadian indigenous residential schools, run by the Catholic Church and other Christian groups, were set up by the federal government and were open from the late 19th century until 1996.

While there were indeed some Catholics who committed serious abuses against native children, the unproved “mass graves” narrative has led to widespread anti-Catholic sentiment since 2021.

Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) MP Jamil Jivani urged support from his political opponents for a bill that would give stiffer penalties to arsonists caught burning churches down, saying the recent rash of destruction is a “very serious issue” that is a direct “attack” on families as well as “religious freedom in Canada.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X