Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for June 26, 2017

Host: Mike Finnerty

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Today, the Senate passed legislation to implement Budget 2017—a bill that will deliver on our plan for Canada's economy. We look forward to continuing to work constructively with the Senate and we thank them for their hard work.

MIKE FINNERTY: It was delayed and debated. Eventually it passed with flying colours—mostly red. The Senate approved the government's controversial budget bill with no amendments, despite objections from Liberal-appointed independents. In the end, they voted with the government. Now Conservative senators are calling them out for rolling over. So just how independent is the independent senator's group? That's first up. Then—it's a celebration for some and an affront to others.

SOUNDCLIP

I find it really insulting that Canadians are going to celebrate their 150, completely erasing and ignoring the thousands upon thousands of years of Indigenous experience on these lands.

MF: On Saturday, Canada marks the 150th anniversary of Confederation, but it's not a party for everyone. Indigenous people across the country say that for them the history being celebrated is one of abuse and nothing to be proud of. In half an hour, we're asking how they would like to see the last 150 years recognized and what they're doing to get the word out. I'm Mike Finnerty. Welcome to the summer edition of The Current.

How independent is the Senate under Justin Trudeau's rule?

Guests: John Paul Tasker, Leo Housakos, Marilou McPhedran

SOUNDCLIP

As of this morning, only elected members of the House of Commons will serve as members of the Liberal caucus. The 32 formerly Liberal senators are now independent of the National Liberal Caucus. They are no longer part of our parliamentary team. There are no more Liberal senators. Let me be perfectly clear—the only way to be a part of the Liberal caucus is to be put there by the people of Canada.

MF: Justin Trudeau surprising senators and the public back in January 2014 when he booted then-Liberal senators from his caucus. That was before he was elected prime minister and in the wake of the Senate expenses scandal involving Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and others. For a primer on the Senate's evolution under Justin Trudeau, we're joined by John Paul Tasker. He's a reporter with the CBC's parliamentary bureau who covers the Senate and he's in Ottawa today. John Paul, hello.

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Good morning, Mike.

MF: Why did the government run into resistance on the budget bill from the Senate?

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Well Mike, it's fair to say that initially there was opposition from nearly all sides of the red chamber with some parts of the Liberal government's budget. You'd have to probably go back to the Brian Mulroney era and the fight over GST for a reasonable comparison. There were two sticking points. One was the infrastructure bank and the other issue was a clause in the budget that hikes taxes on liquor each and every year with the rate of inflation without ongoing parliamentary approval.

MF: So like an automatic tax rise.

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Exactly.

MF: That would kick in without the parliament having to get the nod.

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Yeah. It would grow at the rate of inflation every year, so probably in the cost of living allowance and some senators said that was just simply untenable because they really thought it was necessary to have parliamentarians sign off each and every time there is a hike to taxes like this.

MF: Okay. And the prime minister then got involved. He said the unelected senators had no business rewriting the federal budget. What impact did that have?

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Well, that certainly rattled some chains, let me tell you. I spoke to a number of senators who were not happy with this from people from all sides, who were actually outraged with the remark. When the prime minister said you know hands off my budget, they said that was a poke in the eye because the Senate feels they absolutely have the right to touch money bills, they have the right to amend them. Sorry, they can't write money bills but they have the right to amend them and so when the prime minister essentially says you know, stick to your knitting, it lit a fire under some senators who said oh really? We can amend the budget. Just watch us. And they did. They struck out those yearly hikes to the alcohol taxes and they actually tried to split the budget bill and separate out the infrastructure bank. And as you said off the top, well, there were some you know passionate cries about an assault on parliamentary oversight of taxes. Ultimately all the liberals and independents, they relented and they reached a deal. They voted as a bloc. They passed the budget without amendment. But not without first sending their own clear message to the prime minister and that was: we have every right to amend—or defeat for that matter—any piece of government legislation and we might just do so in the future.

MF: And when you say that message was sent, they actually wrote out that message and sent it to him.

JOHN PAUL TASKER: They did. Yeah. They said let's be very clear here. We know our constitutional rights and you should too.

MF: Going back to 2014 in that clip we heard from then-Liberal leader but not Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, how big of a deal was it when he just up and announced that the Liberal senators were no longer Liberal senators?

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Well, I don't want to sound too dramatic but it actually was really momentous. It upended the whole political order that has defined this country for nearly 150 years and it really was the first step in a push to dismantle party politics in the Senate. The Senate is a place that's known for its relative independence compared to the House of Commons, but it was always a place very much to find bipartisanship. And it was a relatively hasty decision. This was something concocted in the party's back room in response to the Senate expenses scandal, the whole Mike Duffy affair. The Conservatives were in the thick of it. Stephen Harper had decided to simply ignore the red chamber. The NDP has always wanted to abolish the place. So the third leader, Justin Trudeau, he needed a plan of his own—something beyond the status quo because voters were calling for more. He needed something to show that he was ready to modernize the place and that's what he decided to do. He completely distanced himself from the Liberal senators. Let's not forget—these are men and women who have devoted most of their lives to building the party, raising money.

MF: Oh, for sure.

JOHN PAUL TASKER: He said the good times are over. You’re out.

MF: They don't stop becoming liberals though, do they? How does that work?

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Well, they’re not actually part of the National Party caucus. They might still have a liberal card but they're actually just essentially a rump of a party. They sit in the Senate. They uphold big L liberal values, but they owe no loyalty to the prime minister or his agenda. They’re essentially lone wolves.

MF: So how has the Senate changed and evolved since that momentous decision?

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Well, after he dumped them, dumped the liberal senators, he said he had a plan. This was not just a hasty decision. Let's think about this for a second. He came up with a diagnosis, if you will, to a perceived problem of legitimacy. And so when he came to power, he appointed an independent advisory board to help him make his Senate picks. He essentially outsourced the job. And you won't find any dyed-in-the-wool partisans on these lists that they've drawn up. There's no past party presence, no bagmen, no people who'd been knocking on doors. And so what they've done here is compile the list and Justin Trudeau has been very busy making appointments because Stephen Harper let the vacancies pile up. So 27 senators he's appointed in just 18 months, 11 more to come this summer.

MF: And how independent are they? Can we tell from the voting record for example?

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Yeah, there's no doubt they're very much aware of who has appointed them. When you look at the voting patterns, the independents appointed by Justin Trudeau have essentially toed the line. Ninety-five per cent of the time, they have voted with the government. Ninety-five per cent. That's compared to 78 per cent of the time for those who actually call themselves liberals. So you know those who are a bit skeptical of this whole independence thing point to those numbers and that's why the Conservative senators say independents are really just liberals in disguise.

MF: And John Paul, I mean at this point in his mandate, Stephen Harper had passed twice as many bills as the Justin Trudeau liberals. Does the Senate have much to do with that?

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Yeah, absolutely. Without question. And some might disagree with me, but let me just quickly laid out because these new appointments, they're really crème de la crème of Canadian society. They're people with a long list of accomplishments—Paralympians, business people, Indigenous leaders. They're not content to just simply sit back and watch things unfold. So they want to make their mark and how they decide to do that is by amending government legislation so they can put their own stamp on it. You know, make good legislation even better as they say. And to put that in real terms: Senators have amended 20 per cent of all government legislation so far that's passed through this parliament and that's compared to just five per cent in the Harper decade. So while it’s true they haven't voted any government bills down. They’ve all passed.

MF: But they are transforming legislation in some cases fairly significantly.

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Yeah. Five government bills.

MF: John Paul, thanks very much.

JOHN PAUL TASKER: Thank you, Mike.

MF: John Paul Tasker, who's a reporter with the CBC's parliamentary bureau. He was in Ottawa. With us to discuss the changing face of the Senate, Conservative Senator Leo Housakos. He is a former Senate speaker, currently the chair of the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. And he’s live in Montreal. Senator, hello. You recently said Conservative members of the Senate are the only ones who are truly independent. Now how does that work?

LEO HOUSAKOS: Well, it works on a couple of fronts. Number one, I think it's quite clear as we've seen from the voting patterns—and I think Mr. Tasker highlighted that quite appropriately—that we're the only ones that don't feel bound by a prime minister who has named us to those seats. And in practice, we've shown that if government legislation is found to be appropriate and something we can support based on our principles, we have done so in this parliament. And when we found legislation needs to be amended or needs to be upgraded, we have done what needs to be done as well. And unlike our colleagues that have been named by Prime Minister Trudeau, on a continuous basis have shown a propensity to support government legislation blindly.

MF: Okay. And how was that independence shown for your caucus on the budget bill we've been talking about?

LEO HOUSAKOS: Well again, that's a case where we felt on principle the government had crossed the line of putting in place an escalator tax on spirits we thought was completely abhorrent and goes against the fundamental principles of Parliament. Let's understand clearly—this is a tax that will escalate year after year after year without proper oversight by even the House of Commons. So taxation without representation we think is the most fundamental right that Canadians have. They have to have representation before there's taxation. And we had to speak I think very clearly on that. And let's be clear as well. A number of Trudeau-appointed senators found that unacceptable as well. They found the infrastructure bank part of the budget—the implementation and creation of the infrastructure bank— unacceptable. The vast majority of appeal against this bank came from independent Trudeau senators— so-called independent senators. But when push came to shove and we had an instance where I've never seen that in the eight years I've been in the Senate, right before a number of votes we had the government leader of the Liberal Party sitting at the bar of the Senate just before the vote, trying to intimidate and influence senators.

MF: At the bar in the Senate meaning they were kind of hovering there by the door.

LEO HOUSAKOS: She was literally right on the floor of the Senate, right behind the bar, right at the entrance minutes before a vote, talking to senators coming in. I have never seen that in the eight years that I've been in the Senate where we have seen ministers from the other side from the House of Commons trying to influence senators and obviously she succeeded.

MF: As senator, you say you’re independent or more independent than even the independents. But aren't you following cues from the conservative caucus in the house?

LEO HOUSAKOS: Not at all. We're conservatives and in the case of our caucus, we're transparent and we're crystal clear in terms of where our principles and values lie. In the case of these independent senators, we think they talk a good game but we think their values are very liberal values and we know and we've seen in practice that they will support equivocally this Trudeau agenda. So to masquerade around in this as an independent when you're anything but—and the proof is in the votes—because at the end of the day, rhetoric is all good. But when you get up and vote, it's crystal clear where they all stand. I also want to reiterate and highlight that the leader of the independents, the leader of the government, this current government, the government representative Peter Harder was the chair of the Trudeau transition team right after the election. So this is the biggest charade in terms of trying to make it look like there's some form of independence that I've ever seen.

MF: Last week when the prime minister intervened in your deliberations by saying unelected senators have no business rewriting the federal budget, what did you make of that?

LEO HOUSAKOS: Look, again, this is a prime minister that when he was in the opposition, he thought parliament was a wonderful thing. He kept getting up constantly and ripping [unintelligible] in indignation about how Stephen Harper was draconian and very heavy handed when he came to parliament and that he would allow parliament to do its job. And we've seen in the house and we've seen in the Senate that his MPs and his senators have voted unanimously and in uniform more than anybody else. So I think it's typical and quite honestly, it's not any different than any other prime minister because for 150 years, politicians when they're in opposition, they love parliament. They think you need oversight and you need senators to be doing their job and keeping the government in check. But as soon as they get into power, there is this tendency to see absolute power corrupt, absolutely. And then all of a sudden, parliament has a lesser importance in their view so now we have a case in point of a prime minister who will try to reform question period in the House side and now I believe his approach in the Senate is if anybody who's against his agenda and votes against his legislation, well, that person is partisan is somehow not independent. And if they vote for his agenda and for his government policies, well then, they’re independent and they’re somehow more—

MF: Senator Housakos, you say that but what we have seen and what John Paul was telling us just a moment ago is that these independent senators are putting forth a number of amendments way more than in the past under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, putting forth amendments and they're being accepted. And the way the Senate's working is changing.

LEO HOUSAKOS: Well, that's the myth of all myths. Number one, the vast majority of the amendments are coming forward from Liberal independent senators, not Trudeau-appointed senators as well as Conservative senators. So the amendments that are coming forward are not exclusive to the Trudeau appointees. But where the discrepancy in looking at that stat is in the following: under Stephen Harper and previous prime ministers, senators sat at national governing caucuses. We as conservatives sat on ministerial committees along with MPs, shoulder to shoulder. So when legislation was being built on the House of Commons side and legislation was about to be proposed by ministers, senators had a say in it. It's very unfortunate that the biggest crime that Justin Trudeau has perpetrated on the Senate and on his own appointed senators is that today, they don't sit in National Caucus where they would have a voice on behalf of their regions, behalf of their provinces at the beginning stages of legislation.

MF: Okay. Senator Housakos, I want to wrap it up there because I want to get the other voice from the independent senators. And thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it.

LEO HOUSAKOS: Thank you so much.

MF: Leo Housakos, who is a conservative senator and former Speaker of the Senate of Canada. He was in Montreal. Senator Marilou McPhedran is a lawyer and human rights advocate. She was named to the Senate last year by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and she is one of those of the Independent Senators Group. She's live in Winnipeg. Senator, hello.

MARILOU MCPHEDRAN: Hello.

MF: So how independent do you feel the Senate is and your grouping?

MARILOU MCPHEDRAN: I think there's a growing independence is probably a better way to describe it. I haven't really had the same experience that Senator Housakos just described to everybody. I'd like to use an example. One of the most recent things that happened on our very last day and that's Bill S-3 that deals with amending the Indian Act to eliminate discrimination against Indigenous women in registration and that is a very different example than the ones that Senator Housakos used. I also want to say briefly that on C-44, on the budget bill, there were excellent presentations by conservatives, by other senators, by independent liberals that the voting that I have seen is not rigidly along party lines at all. And that in the independent group, the group that I'm a member of where we now have the single largest number of senators being independents, not yet a majority, there is really no way of knowing when we go in for a vote, which way my colleagues in the Independent Senators Group are going to vote. So this idea that it's a facade or a sham—that just doesn't fit with my experience thus far.

MF: And yet at the end of the day, the independent senators voted with the government on that all- important budget bill, didn't they? I mean that's when opposition would really count, is when the final vote is taken.

MARILOU MCPHEDRAN: Yes, that is true. But I think it's also important that the kind of discussion, the research that goes on, the questioning before the vote was taken means that there was indeed sober second thought and that the budget which we need for our country to be operational and productive did pass in a timely way.

MF: So what does independence really mean then at the end of the day if you are voting with the government, even more so than the former Liberal senators?

MARILOU MCPHEDRAN: Well, I want to use Bill S-3 as an example again because we had C-44 and S-3 dealt with on the same day and they ended up being handled differently. That doesn't make one or the other wrong. It just means that there is a process that is particular to each piece of legislation. And the Indian Act discrimination bill, S-3, in fact what we decided as a group of Indigenous senators with allies, we were ready to yet again amend S-3. And the government representative made the decision not to put S-3 back on the agenda on the floor of the Senate, which means that in effect what's happened is as a result of the independence of senators deeply, deeply concerned about discrimination against Indigenous women, the government is going to have to handle this particular bill very differently than what they planned to do.

MF: You're in a prestigious position in the country and the fact that you're sitting in the red chamber is because you were named there by Justin Trudeau's government. What allegiance do you feel to him and to the Liberal government?

MARILOU MCPHEDRAN: Well, Justin Trudeau is the prime minister of this country and my sense of allegiance is to good governance in Canada. And the fact that I've made contributions to the Liberal Party as an example, it's an important part of investing in democracy. I also make contributions to the other political parties. Generally speaking, my support is geared to individuals that I think are bringing the kind of leadership and courage to being a politician in this country today.

MF: And so when it comes to true independents, what would you like to see the Senate look like in the future?

MARILOU MCPHEDRAN: Well, I don't really see the need any more for the dichotomy that has clearly governed the Senate for its entire existence up to this point. For example, I can't quite figure out why we would still be designating an official opposition. I think if the job of all of us as senators is to focus on what is in the best interest of our nation, to be much less partisan, to think in terms of the big picture, to pay particular attention to minorities whose voices are not necessarily heard, who don't have the lobby representatives, the people that need to be paid a lot of money to influence—that is much more our role and that means it should be independent across the board.

MF: We have to wrap it there. Thank you very much.

MARILOU MCPHEDRAN: Thank you.

MF: Senator Marilou McPhedran, independent senator from Winnipeg. CBC News is next. Then—celebrating confederation or renouncing colonialism? Canada's 150th anniversary five days away. Indigenous people see no reason to celebrate. This is The Current.

ENCORE: What does Canada 150 mean for Indigenous communities?

Guests: Lillian Howard, Christi Belcourt, Eric Ritskes

MF: I’m Mike Finnerty. You're listening to the summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MF: At a cost of half a billion dollars, Canada is ready to celebrate one massive birthday party. So dig out your red and white outfits. Maybe one of those little paper maple leaf flags.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Fireworks]

VOICE 1: Canada turns 150 and yes, there will be fireworks in Ottawa. Amazing fireworks.

VOICE 2: Happy Birthday Canada.

[Music]

VOICE 3: 150 years young.

VOICE 4: You don't turn 150 every year.

VOICE 5: 2017 is here—the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Let the celebrations begin. Canadians in every community across the country will join together to mark this important milestone. This is your moment. This is our moment. Let's all embrace this opportunity to celebrate the rich heritage and cultural diversity that makes Canada such a great place to live.

MF: Well, those festivities will peak on Saturday—Canada Day. Not everyone is celebrating. For Indigenous people, the territory known as Canada is much older than a century and a half and some of what makes up this nation's history—hardly a cause for fireworks. Anna Maria spoke to three guests about the upcoming 150th anniversary in March. Lillian Howard is from the Mowachaht-Muchalaht First Nation and the co-chair of the Vancouver Urban Aboriginal Peoples Advisory Committee. She was in Vancouver. Christi Belcourt is a Métis visual artist and one of the creators of the #Resist150 hashtag. She was in Espanola, Ontario. And Eric Ritskes is a PhD candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the editor of Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. He was in Toronto.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Lillian Howard, I want to start with you. You are co-chair of this committee that came up with a concept of Canada 150+ in Vancouver. What is that?

LILLIAN HOWARD: Canada 150+ is a term that we had come up with during one of our Urban Aboriginal Peoples Advisory Committee. We were asked what our thoughts were on participating in 150. And the committee strongly felt that we could not really participate in that, as it was, and we'd certainly get resistance from our Indigenous community in Vancouver. After a lengthy, lengthy discussion, the notion had been brought up about adding plus, Canada 150+. And after more discussion, we realized that we could participate in something like that because 150 reflects the colonial history of Canada and the historical trauma that Indigenous peoples face all over the country. And given that we're in the spirit of reconciliation here in Vancouver and following the TRC, Truth and Reconciliation call to action recommendations, we thought that maybe we could work with it if it was Canada 150+, meaning that the plus would represent the moving forward in the spirit of reconciliation, and telling a truth about the history of Canada. And the dark past or the dark secrets of Canada with respect to First Nations.

AMT: The challenging the idea that history did not begin with Confederation.

LILLIAN HOWARD: Exactly. For example, in my own community, archaeological digging they’re doing there. I participated in the dig that, as far as we went, that was 11,000 years.

AMT: Christi Belcourt, what were you thinking as you heard that montage calling on Canadians to celebrate 150 years of Canadian history?

CHRISTI BELCOURT: Well, I find it really insulting that there is, as Lillian just said, you know, 11,000, 15,000, 20,000 years of history in this continent and yet Canadians are going to celebrate their 150, completely erasing and ignoring the thousands upon thousands of years of Indigenous experience of knowing and being on these lands. So I find it very insulting. You know, you played a clip by Minister Joly at the beginning. And there's something that's funded through Canada 150 called the Red Couch project and she was filmed on that couch for a little two minute clip saying that Canada is made up of a social contract. And social contract is a philosophy that originates in Europe, which says that people will voluntarily come together to govern themselves and to be governed. Well, when did Indigenous people ever agree to be governed by Canada? When did Indigenous people ever agree to be part of this country that stole their lands? When did Indigenous people ever agree that their children would be taken at a rate into childcare higher than when the residential schools happened? I mean, there are so many things that we can point to where we never agreed to have our sovereignty erased or usurped for Canadian law.

AMT: Yeah. And so Christi, what do you think of the idea of Canada 150+? Does that address anything for you?

CHRISTI BELCOURT: I actually don't like Canada 150 at all. But I would leave it up to other people in their own regions and territories to decide what works best for them. I mean, obviously Lillian has beautiful projects that she's probably working on and as she said in the spirit of truth, as part of the reconciliation, that's going to be what works best for her so.

AMT: Okay. But you have your own projects. You're one of the creators of #Resist150. Tell us about that.

CHRISTI BELCOURT: We started a Twitter account Resistance 150. Tanya Kappo, Isaac Murdoch, Maria Campbell, and myself to highlight the history of resistance, resilience, rebellion, resurgence, and restoration. There's this massive movement that's really beautiful that's happening within Indigenous communities all over, mostly being led by young people who are desperate for their languages and desperate for a return and restoration of the things that were stolen. So we wanted to highlight all of these things that are happening. There's really amazing people in our communities doing wonderful things.

AMT: Lillian Howard, what are your thoughts on that idea—of challenging the celebration completely with Resist 150?

LILLIAN HOWARD: As Christi mentioned, I think it's entirely up to the first Indigenous peoples across the country. Even here in Vancouver, there will be some people who do not want to participate and we all have that individual choice. And we just happen to be people who thought that we could make use of that time to highlight the Indigenous culture and to address the Indigenous past, to tell the truth but also to celebrate our survival. And I think that's where we're coming from. And there will be resistance and we are a very diverse Indigenous community across the country, so we of course, some of us still have mixed feelings, but the idea is to celebrate our culture and celebrate our resistance.

AMT: Eric Ritskes, you are listening in and waiting patiently for me to come to you. You created your own Canada 150 logo but instead of saying Canada, it says Colonialism 150. Talk to me about that. Why?

ERIC RITSKES: I think one of the questions that when a celebration like Canada 150 comes up is what exactly are we celebrating? When Canada—we recognize that Canada was founded on and continues to be upheld by violence against Indigenous peoples, as well as against black people and other people of colour and that these colonial and racialized violence is something that's normalized and part of what Canada is. So despite the sort of lip service to reconciliation, even within the Canada 150 platform, many Indigenous folks have asked how can we reconcile with a state that is still harming us and still violating our rights as Indigenous nations and hasn't really taken significant steps to rectify that? So I think the Colonialism 150 logo that I created has resonated, because it presents a challenge to the celebration and reveals that while the past 150 years might be a cause for celebration for some folks, it has come at the cost of others. And that's quite a significant cost.

AMT: Okay. Let's go back 50 years. Montreal was hosting Expo 67, which included what was called an Indian Pavilion. I want you to listen to this CBC report from inside that pavilion.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Let's move, Ms. Robinson, into the final part of the pavilion. And here the perhaps note of unhappiness or the note of questioning comes into the Indians of Canada Pavilion, because we see here that everything isn't really entirely happy with the situation of the Indians in Canada. What is your point that you're trying to make in this section, Ms. Robinson?

VOICE 2: Well, here we definitely see the different values of both societies. The Indian child, when he first goes to school, he has to learn a new language, sometimes two. And quite often he has been forbidden to speak his own Indian language. In the schools, he doesn't learn anything about his history, his ancestors, or his traditions.

AMT: Okay. That is CBC reporter Bob McGregor being led through what they called the Indian Pavilion at Expo 67. Eric, what are you thinking as you listen to that?

ERIC RITSKES: I think it's quite striking to me that 50 years ago, we had a very similar discussion as we're having right now about Canada 150. A lot of Indigenous artists and activists mobilized a lot of critical energy to push back on Canada at Expo 67. When the Indian Pavilion was created, it really wasn't intended to be a critical space but a number of artists really mobilized in that space to create that kind of critical energy. Artists such as Norval Morrisseau, Alex Janvier and others were involved in that and really mobilized this critical energy for Anishinaabe poet Duke Redbird called “to use it as a fulcrum for creating a new relationship with Canada.” And here we are 50 years later, sort of looking at that and that really didn't materialize. And here we are with Indigenous artists like Kent Monkman, Christi Belcourt who's here, again, sort of pushing back and mobilizing this critical energy to again, speak back against this colonial narrative.

AMT: It's interesting huh? Andrew Tanahokate Delisle, Commissioner General of the Indians of Canada Pavilion from that time, told CBC archives that they went across the country and they asked different bands what they wanted to show at the pavilion. And the thing that kept coming up was their anger at the government at that time, as you point out. Lillian Howard, do you remember Expo 67?

LILLIAN HOWARD: Yes, I do.

AMT: And what did you think as you listened to that clip?

LILLIAN HOWARD: During that time, Indigenous peoples weren't really anywhere on the radars agreeing within government or within Canadian society. And I was one of the activists of the day. And I think for the most part, a majority of Indigenous people here in BC didn't participate. At that time, there was very little participation.

AMT: And it's interesting, Christi, at the end there, there was some acknowledgement of how Indigenous children were forbidden to speak their language in schools. Was there some beginning of understanding there that has, like, only kind of permeated the rest of society now? Like how do you see that conversation then and now?

CHRISTI BELCOURT: I find it really interesting listening back to those old tapes. There's something that I listened to recently which was George Erasmus’ interview with CBC back at the 125 celebration. And he very poignantly pointed out, he said that my generation—he was talking about himself—is the generation that Canada will see that will want to negotiate, that will want to sit down. But there are so many things that need to be dealt with that if Canada doesn't move on those things, then the next coming generations will not be so easily, you know, so easily peacefully. I think he said so peaceful. He said the young generation is going to be one that really looks for a reckoning of some of these things.

AMT: Let's listen to George Erasmus from that time.

SOUNDCLIP

What are we going to celebrate? Are we going to celebrate that it took until 1959 before we could vote in this country? Are we going to celebrate that it took until 1968 that we could vote in Québéc? What are we going to celebrate? I don't like what has happened over the last 500 years, 125 years. But what are we going to do about the next 500 years?

AMT: Okay. So 25 years later, Eric, what are you thinking?

ERIC RITSKES: Well, I mean, as Christi said, I think the challenge is that the younger generation is coming up and that they're a lot less willing to be pacified, a lot less willing to take the government at its word. And I think, I mean, it's a really deep challenging question: what does it mean to ask a settler colonial state that's founded on this violence, that continues to be upheld by this violence, that continues to exist on unceded Indigenous land to be less colonial or to be uncolonial? And so really I think the primary challenge here is Canada itself. I think it begins, you know, 25 years later we're thinking again, how do we move past first steps here? We've had 150 years of, you know, trying out first steps. And I think what we really need to see is a serious commitment to not only sort of reparations but also to supporting Indigenous resurgence of sovereignty apart from the Canadian state.

AMT: Okay. So what does that mean? Like, let's talk about that because obviously this goes beyond a day or even a year of celebrations of the Confederation.

ERIC RITSKES: Absolutely.

AMT: The 150. It's almost the symbolic marker for what you're talking about, right? So what tangible concrete things would you like to see begin to happen in this year that actually speak to, you know, a 10 year old, an Indigenous 10 year old 25 years from now, saying they finally got it.

ERIC RITSKES: Right. And I think that's a huge question. I mean, Trudeau—

AMT: I know, and I’m looking for a quick answer.

ERIC RITSKES: [laughs]

AMT: But you know what I’m trying to get at.

ERIC RITSKES: Absolutely. And I think Trudeau, I mean, took a lot of heat earlier in the year saying the Indigenous youth wanted canoe storage. And it obviously goes much deeper than that. So I think it begins both with sort of reparations, both monetary and returning land. It needs to be in the form of meaningful and significant change to Canada and also Canadians’ attitude towards Indigenous people. And if you want a nation-to-nation relationship based on treaties, which is something that this government has at least paid lip service to, then you have to actually recognize and support Indigenous nations that you're in a relationship with, rather than trying to dismantle and extinguish them. And I think this really isn't something novel that I'm putting forward. Indigenous peoples have been asserting their sovereignty, maintaining their cultural forms of knowledge and ways of being in opposition to a state that every turn has tried to exterminate them. So the big question really is for those of us who are non-Indigenous Canadians: when are we going to start listening to Indigenous peoples? And when are we going to start actively working to change the conditions of the relationship in significant and meaningful ways?

AMT: Okay. So Lillian Howard, what do you want to see? What do you want to see come out of the 150 discussion that can actually move the people of this country, Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, forward in a way that is more acceptable to you?

LILLIAN HOWARD: I think I want to give this notion or concept of Canada 150+ some context. The city of Vancouver has Urban Aboriginal Peoples Advisory Committee, which they appoint. And it was the Urban Aboriginal Peoples Advisory Committee and Reconciliation Canada that put together a resolution for Councillor Reimer to present to council that we have a year of reconciliation 2013 to 2014, and that we make Vancouver a city for reconciliation. That resolution was passed unanimously. And of course, there is follow up to that. So there was a proclamation read out to by our mayor in that year. And it was really to, the year of reconciliation was to begin a process of mending the past, sharing understanding, really working on meaningful change. And it was done through gatherings, dialogue, storytelling, workshops, cultural and programs.

AMT: And do you feel there has been some meaningful change since that point, Lillian?

LILLIAN HOWARD: In Vancouver, only speaking for Vancouver, certainly there has been. We did have the Reconciliation Week in 2013 with the RC, Reconciliation Canada Vancouver and Vancity. And it was an amazing event that took place at the TRC forum. It had like hundreds of First Nations giving testimony. We had the all nations gathering, which was included over 50 canoes being officially welcomed by the local First Nations. We had the reconciliation walk with 70,000 people participating. And following that event, we launched the discussion around the framework on how can we make Vancouver a city of reconciliation? So it's based on all those in the past two years of really hard work between the leadership of Vancity, Vancouver city council and staff at Reconciliation Canada and other organizations in telling the truth about what happened to our people. And also to okay, how can we move forward? How can we work together? And so we tell the truth, and there's some acknowledgement there. And it's a hard one, because one has to reconcile within. I'm a fourth generation residential school survivor and I was sexually abused at age of six and seven. So it took me a long, long time for me to go through that healing journey. And it's only during that week of the Reconciliation Week that I was able to with hundreds of other residential school survivors. I felt I was not alone and that there was hundreds of us that went through that, thousands of us.

AMT: Christi, what do you want to add to what Lillian is saying?

CHRISTI BELCOURT: Oh well, I appreciate what Lillian is saying very much and Eric. But what I would like to see for myself for Canada in the future, because as you said, it does go beyond just this year of celebration—is I actually want to see Crown lands returned. I want to see Crown lands returned into 100 per cent control by Indigenous people. I want to see our languages fully restored and thriving. And also I want to see the waters cleaned. I want to see the lands cleaned. I don't want to see tar sands expanded. I want to see climate change really addressed. And the whole country, Indigenous people as sovereign nations and Canadians, working towards green technology that will change, you know, that will help the planet. I mean, we're facing really critical times coming up and the young people are telling us that all the time that they want the language, they want land based experiences and a return to traditions and protocols. But they also want to have a future that they can look to where there is a clean environment for them and for their children and for all of our great-grandchildren to come. So these are the things that are really pressing, I think.

AMT: And Christi, do you see any benefit to the fact that Indigenous people are talking about this in the 150 year, so that non-Indigenous people will understand this at another level? Is there an opportunity that you see here at all in the Resist 150 that way?

CHRISTI BELCOURT: I think any time we can have a conversation about this it's important. And I think that there are conversations like this going on all across the country, which are really great. But I also see that there's an environmental movement for the waters and for the lands that's being led primarily by Indigenous people. There is a lot of resistance by the Canadian state to our resisting the pipelines and the other projects that are going on that are devastating our lands. And I think that as time goes on and as pollution and as the waters begin to become more and more poisoned, that Canadians are seeing the wisdom of Indigenous ways of being on the land and they're starting to join in with the movements. So I think that this is sort of the future of what we're looking at, is that we have to be aware that there is a sort of some confrontation coming over water. And that's going to be the next front that people are going to have to face all over the continent.

AMT: Now, we're almost out of time. Before I let you all go then, we'll go back to this, the 150 celebrations. We heard the stuff off the top. I wonder where you will be on July 1st? Eric.

ERIC RITSKES: [laughs] I'll probably be celebrating with Indigenous folks around the nation as they celebrate their resistance to Canada and 150 years of that.

AMT: Lillian Howard, where will you be?

LILLIAN HOWARD: I will be in Vancouver with hundreds of other people and Indigenous peoples and allies, or with my canoe family on the water. One or the other.

AMT: And Christi?

CHRISTI BELCOURT: I'm going to be in the bush. We're going to be building our Culture Camp Forever for youth and elders.

AMT: It's really important to hear all of you. Thank you so much.

ERIC RITSKES: Thank you.

LILLIAN HOWARD: Thank you.

MF: Anna Maria speaking to Lillian Howard in Vancouver. She's from the Mowachaht-Muchalaht First Nation and a co-chair of the Vancouver Urban Aboriginal Peoples Advisory Committee. Christi Belcourt, a Métis visual artist and one of the creators of the #Resist150 hashtag. She was in Espanola, Ontario. And Eric Ritskes is the editor of Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. He was in Toronto and they spoke on The Current in March. Later this week, we'll have a discussion with people who want to celebrate the 150^th and be sensitive to the concerns we heard today. So we'd love to hear from you on this actually. How are you planning to mark Canada’s 150th anniversary of the Confederation? Will it be a wholehearted celebration? Do you have mixed feelings? Are you conflicted? You can tweet us. We’re @thecurrentCBC, post on our Facebook page or e-mail us by clicking on contact. Just go to our website which is www.cbc.ca/thecurrent.

[Music: Ending theme]

MF: That's our program for today. Coming up next on CBC Radio One, it’s Love Me—a show about the messiness of human connection. And this week, two strangers who don't speak the same language fall in love through Google Translate. If you missed part of our show today or any day, you can catch up with the CBC Radio app. You can also listen live to your local CBC station right from your smartphone or tablet. I'm Mike Finnerty. Thanks for listening to the summer edition of The Current. We'll see you tomorrow.

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

June 26, 2017 full episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode