Denying
responsibility is expected from this (federal Liberal) government. It has a
history of irresponsibility. Millions agree that lurching from one scandal to
another is not an indication of accountability, openness, prudence and
responsibility.
It is unacceptable that the government should take the position that it has the
right to command the teaching of Christian doctrine to anyone. That violates
common law precedence of separating church and state in effect for centuries
before the Charter.
The constitutional relationship between the federal government and Indigenous
people is unique and involves a consequential fiduciary responsibility.
The discovery of children's bodies on the grounds of the Kamloops Residential
School has led to hysterical and poorly considered commentary.
When the school opened in 1890, child mortality rates were very high. Charges
that the deaths of these children were deliberate (murders) are not credible or
substantiated.
That does not detract from oral records of malnutrition and abuse. The body of
evidence is too large and consistent to deny, and liability arises from that.
The disrespect of not maintaining records of deaths and notifying families is
not forgivable.
Even in the circumstances as upsetting as discovery of the grave site, follow
the money. Who stood to gain by suppressing records of the deaths? Who wrote
and cashed the cheques? That is where the documentation is.
The federal government had an obligation to check on its residential school
contractors. The existence of unmarked graves of school residents should not be
a surprise. Since the residential schools were not monitored, the federal
government is responsible for searching diligently to establish how bad the
problem is.
The contractors (operators) of the residential schools have a liability. They
contracted to culturally reprogram children. That did not include a license to
abuse their charges. The federal government has an inescapable constitutional
responsibility for indigenous people and their lands. That will drive the court
action.
Our standards and values were significantly different at the start of the 20th
century. In the early 1900s, women were still considered chattels and unable to
hold office or vote. Looking at history through 21st century lenses
affects what we think we see and understand.
Indigenous people and our governments are walking into a trap by considering
UNDRIP as a solution. That lets our government off the hook and does not solve
problems in indigenous relations.
The solution has to be made in Canada for Canadians, which includes Indigenous
people. UNDRIP is not compatible with our constitution or with existing
treaties. Is UNDRIP to replace treaties? UNDRIP cannot alter our constitution,
and risks us getting into a tangled mess of competing laws that will delay
reconciliation indefinitely.
John Feldsted ... is a political commentator, consultant, and strategist. He makes his home in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Comments
Post a Comment