Prescript: There is a minor change, but this was originally posted to my Facebook page as an addition to sharing the article linked below. I wanted to follow up with a post-2021 Leaders’ Debate post, but I don’t want to use Facebook as my soapbox, that is not what I am on Facebook for, and that’s not why most people are on Facebook.
My mom has three things she said she refuses to talk about: Sex, Politics, and Religion. It reflects some of the biggest taboos of our western society. Today, I want to talk about politics. It’s something I’ve never been afraid of engaging with, but one thing that is intimidating is how much stuff there is to sift through. Based on the Indigenous Question in the 2019 Federal Leaders Debate, I see our federal politics as what we like to call in League of Legends: “A Clown Fiesta.” There is this notion that politics is about what is important to the nation, but that’s not true at all. Politics is what’s important to you.
Although my History teacher in high school wasn’t allowed to talk to us about politics because he was accused of “Liberal Indoctrination.” (Or something along those lines, that conversation was from closer to a decade ago now.)
In reading this article, I recalled recently rewatching the federal leaders’ debate from the last election. I really wanted to comb through the “Indigenous Question.”
Ultimately, the interesting thing was, only Elizabeth May said the word Settler at all during the debate. Specifically: “It is on us as Settler-Canadians to bring justice.“
None of the other leaders saw the Indigenous Question as a problem with justice or even just following through with previous commitments. Aside from Elizabeth May, for the federal leaders, the Indigenous Question wasn’t about solving Indigenous concerns, it was solving settler-concerns about Indigenous people. As efficiently as possible.
If you watch the whole debate, the Indigenous “question” is not a quest for a solution, it was a question to solve a problem. The full question presented by the moderator was: “Mr. Sheer, you’ve said that a Conservative government focuses on practical things in its relationship with Canada’s Indigenous people. As you pursue your promised energy corridor, how will you consult accommodate and gain the consent of Indigenous people? and what will you do when your plans come into conflict with Indigenous rights and interests?”
While to be fair, the question is centered on a topic that continues to divide Canada. The question of pipeline development and Indigenous consultation. Andrew Scheer (Conservative leader at the time) saw the question as addressing the barrier of Indigenous peoples as it relates to infrastructure and economic development (pipelines). Elizabeth May was given the rebuttal countered effectively with: “[Consultation] does not boil down to ‘we will consult with Indigenous people until we get them to agree with us.” Scheer insisted that some communities have given their “free, prior and informed consent” and that the projects must go ahead. Understanding Scheer comes from a conservative framework, his conception of given consent is majority rule.**
In Canada, we see that as First past the post. It came up in another tete-a-tete between Scheer and May much later in the debate: “I’m going to prove you wrong on that Ms. May. You just watch me on October 21st.” The context is the federal election battle was between the Liberal incumbent and the Conservative challenger. This or the reciprocal has been the trend of Canadian governance since confederation. The only deviant is Robert Borden, which was a member of the Unionist Party, a coalition of former Liberal and Conservative members of parliament.
But it’s not all Conservative Vs. Liberal. I mean, I do mention Elizabeth May, she’s a Green! Trudeau doesn’t have the total spotlight, despite being the incumbent. In the current calculus of federal politics, the fallacy of two-party politics, May’s success is a victory for Scheer, (so long as the Liberal government does not form a government with the Greens) because support for the Green party, means less support for the Liberals. But alas, there were not two, or three, but there were six “federal” leaders at the debate. Maxime Bernier(Peoples Party of Canada) and Yves-François Blanchett(Bloc Quebecois) boiled down their conception of the Indigenous question to asserting that Quebec is also a unique community within Canada and effectively asserted that Quebec’s position in Canada was equitable with Indigenous inherent rights.
For brevity, I want to lump both incumbent Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh into the same category for understanding Indigenous relations. Not because they share policy, but because their focus was concerning a shortcoming in Indigenous-government relations. Trudeau invoked the memory of the Harper(conservative) government and said that the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations supports the choices of his government, while Singh insisted that the Trudeau’s government has been taken to court, and lost as well as continues to take Indigenous people to court. Inadvertently, they acknowledge that our governments, Liberal or Conservative, have yet to work with Indigenous people holistically.
But then, are these Indigenous issues? Maybe in the most general sense as it relates to Canadian-Indigenous relations. But the problem remains: Canadians (through their leaders) view Indigenous people as an issue, to be dealt with, not people with inherent rights, and authority, that must be resolved before moving forward as a nation.
Only Elizabeth May offered some sort of framework moving forward:
“Natasha, Miigwetch, It is an extremely important question and Greens across the country are united in this. We will honour the UNDRIP, it must be brought into law in this country, and our existing web of laws and regulations which were properly described by the inquiry on MMIW is constituting structural violence, must be reviewed and brought up to the standards of UNDRIP. We must bring in the recommendations of the inquiry of MMIW and the calls to action of TRC. It’s not a short-term project. It is on us as settler Canadians to bring justice.”
Elizabeth May 2019 Federal Elections Debate – Answering a question from Natasha Beatty from Beausoleil First Nations. Full Transcripts of the 2019 debate are available from Macleans.
May doesn’t offer a clear detailed piece of legislation that addresses with legal authority the concerns of Indigenous peoples but until Canadian leaders come to the table with clear ideas about how they are committed to following through with commitments already laid out by the government, how are we going to expect them to see Indigenous people as anything more than a problem that must be circumvented?”
Indigenous people don’t have a voice at the table, and the people at the table are not addressing Indigenous concerns. Not only are Indigenous communities excluded from having a voice at the table, but [as of 2019] our leaders also are not at the point where they can even have a meaningful conversation about addressing Indigenous concerns in Canada.
** The subtext/context is: He insisted that a number of nations have already given consent, thus the project should move forward, ignoring that Indigenous nation’s sovereignty is independent of each nation. In Scheer’s opinion in that debate, the majority of Indigenous nations agree, then a dissenting nation is going against the majority of Indigenous people, thus in his mind, against the consent given by other Nations.
