Stefanson all talk, no action on reconciliation By: Dan Lett Posted: 7:00 PM CDT Wednesday, Apr. 12, 2023 Last Modified: 7:53 AM CDT Thursday, Apr. 13, 2023 Updates

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/04/2023 (879 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The word “reconciliation” can mean many things to many people, but one aspect of it is inescapable: it requires us all to change and make sacrifices. Unfortunately, that is a hard reality that seems to be lost on Canada’s first ministers.

In two separate instances this week, some premiers were presented with opportunities to demonstrate a genuine commitment to reconciliation. In each instance, they dropped the ball.

The first opportunity involved recent statements by federal Justice Minister David Lametti that he would, at the urging of the Assembly of First Nations, review the nearly century-old federal agreements that give Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba constitutional control over natural resources.

In two separate instances this week, some premiers were presented with opportunities to demonstrate a genuine commitment to reconciliation. In each instance, they dropped the ball.

The First Nation leaders made that request in the context of provincial legislation — the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act and the Saskatchewan First Act — which re-enforces provincial supremacy in all aspects of natural resource management.

The assembly noted neither province consulted with First Nations on laws that most definitely affect treaty rights in the area of resource development.

Lametti said he would consider the matter, but never committed to “rescinding” those agreements. Even so, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Manitoba Premier Heather Stefanson were moved to issue a joint statement condemning Lametti’s comments as “dangerous and divisive.”

Lost in the bluster from the three premiers is the fact that provincial authority over natural resources is not, in fact, supreme in all respects. First Nations have a legal and moral claim on natural resources, and the provinces have a legal obligation to consult with First Nations.

It means that when Smith, Moe and Stefanson started whining about how Lametti’s comments were an insult to the citizens of their provinces, they were clearly not talking about all of their citizens. With respect to the three premiers, many Indigenous people living in their provinces would like to see a change in how resources are managed.

Now, not all of these premiers are fans of reconciliation. While Moe and Stefanson have talked the reconciliation talk in the past, Smith disputes the concept. Remember, Smith once referred to Canadians who elected to forgo vaccination against COVID-19 as “the most discriminated against group” she had ever seen.

However, Stefanson and Moe have publicly pledged support for reconciliation. If they actually believed what they were saying, they really should have joined the discussion between Lametti and the assembly, rather than attempt to derail it.

Unfortunately, that is not the only instance this week where first ministers missed an opportunity to promote reconciliation.

This week as well, Manitoba Premier Heather Stefanson decided that Sept. 30, otherwise known as National Truth and Reconciliation Day or Orange Shirt Day, would not become a fully fledged statutory holiday. Ottawa designated it a stat for federally regulated workers, but in Manitoba, only non-essential government offices and K-12 schools are closed.

Stefanson would not say “never,” but indicated it would not happen for this September. Given the chance to act in support of reconciliation, she opted for the status quo.

Stefanson would not say “never,” but indicated it would not happen for this September. Given the chance to act in support of reconciliation, she opted for the status quo.

More maddening is the fact that Stefanson attempted to blame Indigenous leaders for her decision, claiming there was a “discrepancy over what Indigenous communities would like to see” in a new statutory holiday that requires more consultation.

Not surprisingly, Indigenous groups condemned those comments. Both the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, the lobby for northern First Nations, said Indigenous people are united on the need for a provincial holiday.

Stefanson did, after claiming Indigenous people didn’t really know what they wanted, acknowledge that Manitoba businesses were not fond of the idea of another statutory holiday. In that statement, we have the truth of the matter.

Confronted with two different constituencies, Stefanson put the interests of business ahead of Indigenous people. It confirms that as many times as she says she is committed to reconciliation, she really isn’t. At least, not if it requires anyone else to make a sacrifice.

Should the business community be consulted on, and have input into, the decision to create a new stat? Absolutely. At a time when inflation and interest rates are running hot, and the provincial minimum wage is being increased, adding a statutory holiday is no small matter.

But by electing to kick this can down the road, Stefanson is passing up an excellent opportunity to demonstrate more than verbal support for reconciliation. It also demonstrates that when presented with a difficult problem, Stefanson’s solution is to provide no solution.

Now that she’s all but dismissed the concept of an Orange Shirt Day stat, Stefanson has created a bit of a dilemma.

If past actions are any indication, you can bet Stefanson will issue a statement on Sept. 30 to commemorate National Truth and Reconciliation Day. Last year, in a news release, Stefanson called it a day to “commit to the ongoing process of reconciliation.”

She concluded her statement with this observation: “It is a day for truth-telling and reflection about the trauma faced by Indigenous people and their families, and to build a bridge to a healthier relationship.”

Heartfelt words, to be sure. However, in the months after uttering them, Stefanson appears to be ignoring an indisputable truth.

Nobody ever built a bridge with platitudes and pledges.

dan.lett@winnipegfreepress.com