supreme court justice – The Concordian

What the disparity between the government’s promises of reconciliation and their actions means

It seems as though every time I tune into the news, there is a story of injustice involving Indigenous peoples in Canada.

From the original injustice of colonisation and residential schools to the increasing number of missing and murdered Indigenous women whose cases have only recently been looked into, there is a large gap of inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Not to mention the housing crisis, high rate of suicide and the gap in the quality of healthcare and education, according to The Globe and Mail. Through all of that turmoil, one word shines through and gives me hope that the Canadian government wants to take positive steps to correct these wrongs. The word is reconciliation.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines this term as “the restoration of friendly relations.” The federal government seems to want to restore friendly relations with all Indigenous people, but in my opinion, the Canadian government and people still have a long way to go to achieve true reconciliation.

On Nov. 2, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a Jumbo Glacier ski resort will be built on sacred land that belongs to the Ktunaxa Nation in British Columbia, according to The Globe and Mail. When asked about the situation, Kian Basso, a member of the Montagnais Nation, suggested: “The government should negotiate with the Ktunaxa Nation and try to figure out a way to meet in the middle.”

As an Indigenous person, he said he believes “it is only right that we respect the land and the people that were here before us. So I do not agree with the government taking this land because it does not belong to them, but I am not against the idea of building things on that land either. If they should build something, then it should be done with respect to the people living there and should be discussed between the two parties.” Basso’s statement refers to the lack of respect between Canada and Indigenous peoples—an issue that demands more discussion.

The Ktunaxa Nation has occupied the land in question for more than 10,000 years and use the land to worship their sacred grizzly bear spirit, according to CBC News. However, I believe it’s important to note that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms “protects the freedom to worship, but does not protect the spiritual focal point of worship.” This statement upsets me because it sets a double standard. I believe that if a church were to be torn down in order to build a ski resort, or any other luxury establishment, there would be public outrage. For the Ktunaxa Nation, their land is sacred to their culture and spiritual beliefs. I believe spirituality is equivalent to religion, so why are their beliefs not represented in the Canadian Charter?

Jill Goldberg, a specialist in Indigenous education, said, “When I heard the story, I thought, how is this even possible when we are in a time of improving relations?” She also pointed out the lack of representation in the Supreme Court. There is not one male or female Indigenous judge among the nine appointed judges. “If we want authentic reconciliation, we need to listen to them,” she added. “Let them lead the way, and let them participate. In short, true reconciliation cannot happen if we ignore those that are affected by the decisions.”

Realistically speaking, it isn’t surprising that the government places more importance on building entertainment establishments than respecting the wishes of a minority group. But when we see these stories emerge in the media, we should ask ourselves: when will Canada truly understand and take action against any and all types of injustice toward Indigenous peoples? When will we live in a country known for respecting not only the people inhabiting it, but their beliefs too? When will the value of words be strong enough to overcome any disparity between promises and actions?

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Canada’s Supreme Court Chief Justice discusses pivotal moments in Canada’s history

Canada’s first female Supreme Court Justice Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, was invited to speak at Concordia on March 16.

In commemoration of Canada’s 150th birthday, Concordia’s Workshops on Social Science Research (WSSR) organized the talk with McLachlin to discuss her five defining democratic moments in Canadian history. McLachlin, who is the longest-serving Chief Justice in Canadian history, addressed hundreds of students, professors and alumni at Grey Nuns.

“My first choice is, not surprisingly, the Confederation of Canada in 1867. The creation of the new dominion of Canada was the quintessential defining moment of the country,” McLachlin said. “These values established, from the beginning, Canada’s character, and a generation of people have expanded them.”

McLachlin identified three democratic values enshrined in the Canadian Constitution since its conception: democracy, federalism and respect for diversity and minorities.

She said the second defining moment in Canadian history was the decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council during the Persons Case. “This case established that, in Canada, all citizens are equal,” McLachlin said. Prior to the Persons Case in 1929, only men were considered persons. The 1929 Supreme Court case ruled that women could also hold public office, she explained.

“The decision is seminal because it enunciated two principles that I believe are central to our Canadian democracy. First, all people are equally entitled to participate in democratic government. Second, that Canadian Constitution enhances Canadian democracy, and [the Constitution is] a living tree capable of growth and expansion,” McLachlin said.

The third defining moment was the patriation of the Constitution and the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, McLachlin said.

“This moment signaled true independence for our country, and reaffirmed the principles of democracy, federalism and respect for minority rights inherent in the BNA Act in 1867, and constitutionalized individual and group rights for all Canadians,” she said.

“Thirty-five years later, I believe that most people would say that patriation of the Constitution was vital to our country’s democratic growth, and the Charter has stood the test of time,” McLachlin said. “The Charter has become part of the Canadian identity. Polls tell us that Canadians take pride in the Charter and see it as a fundamental defining element of Canadian democracy.”

The Chief Justice’s fourth defining moment was the recognition of the rights of Canada’s indigenous peoples.

“Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, for the first time, guaranteed the rights of Canada’s indigenous people,” she said. Section 35 provides constitutional protection to the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

“In the years that followed, court decisions fleshed out treaty rights and indigenous rights, through judicial practices, economic activity and cultural and religious practices.”

“The Supreme Court held that indigenous rights must be respected, in the pursuit of fair and just reconciliation between Canada’s aboriginal peoples and the descendants of Canadians who came later,” McLachlin said.

The fifth defining moment of Canadian democracy was the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada during the Quebec referendum in 1995. This decision was regarding if Quebec could unilaterally secede from Canada, under Canadian and international law.

According to McLachlin, the secession reference was a landmark case on whether states or provinces could unilaterally secede from a country. Countries around the world have looked at it as a reference case.

During the question and answer period, McLachlin said she would love to see more minorities in more government positions.

“Justices are chosen from the senior ranks of the practicing lawyers of the judiciary, but we have only seen large numbers of minority cultures coming into the judicial ranks in the last decades,” she said. “So I am confident that, as time passes, this deficiency will be remedied.”