This episode is both a celebration of Lynn Beyak's departure from the Canadian Senate and an education in the residential school system as well as the origin of the use of the term "reconciliation" within the context of Indigenous-Canadian relations. Anishinabe Elder, residential school survivor and Order of Canada Recipient, Garnet Angeconeb, discusses the impact lawyers and the courts have on Indigenous people and offers some insight into how we can all move away from trauma toward healing.
This episode discusses generally the abuses Indigenous children experienced at residential schools, trauma, healing and reconciliation from the Anishinabe perspective.
Published: January 31, 2021
Episode Summary:
This episode is both a celebration of Lynn Beyak's departure from the Canadian Senate and an education in the residential school system as well as the origin of the use of the term "reconciliation" within the context of Indigenous-Canadian relations. Anishinaabe Elder, residential school survivor and Order of Canada Recipient, Garnet Angeconeb, discusses the impact lawyers and the courts have on Indigenous people and offers some insight into how we can all move away from trauma toward healing.
This episode discusses generally the abuses Indigenous children experienced at residential schools, trauma, healing and reconciliation from the Anishinaabe perspective.
Myrna: I’m Myrna McCallum, Métis-Cree lawyer and passionate promoter of trauma-informed lawyering. Welcome to my new podcast, The Trauma-Informed Lawyer, brought to you in partnership with the Canadian Bar Association.
I believe that law schools and bar courses are missing a critical competency requirement in their curriculum: trauma-informed lawyering. Becoming a trauma-informed lawyer will, among other things, challenge you to critically reflect on your personal behaviors, beliefs, and biases; call on you to positively transform the way you approach advocacy; guide your practice to avoid doing further harm to others; and ask that you commit to remaining open to learn new and old knowledge you didn't know you needed before beginning your career. Your education starts right here, right now. This podcast comes to you from the traditional, unceded territories of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh [Squamish], səl̓ilwətaɁɬ [Tsleil-Waututh], and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm [Musqueam] people.
Welcome back to another episode of the Trauma-informed Lawyer podcast. Given the news recently about Senator Lynn Beyak no longer using the Senate and her role as a Canadian senator as a platform to perpetuate racist ideology about Indigenous people and the Indian residential school system in this country. I recently had a conversation with the wise and wonderful Garnet Angeconeb who is a wonderful Elder from Sioux Lookout, Ontario and he has spent a great deal of time, effort, energy, and I'm sure some tears confronting the racist rhetoric perpetuated by Lynn Beyak. So, given the fabulous news that she is no longer in the Senate, I thought we would celebrate by posting this interview early. It was supposed to be the first interview of season two, but it's going to be the second last episode of season one. I hope you take something really heartfelt and valuable away from my conversation today with Garnet.
Myrna: Hi, Garnet, good morning. Tell our listeners a little bit about who you are and what corner of Canada are you in?
Garnet: Hi Myrna, good to be with you today. My Anishinaabe name is a Shebagosh and I'm from the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Nation in central part of Canada, a place called northwestern Ontario—it’s called Sioux Lookout but I'm originally from Obishikokaang which is Lac Seul traditional territory which is not too far from here. So if you're wondering where Sioux Lookout is, it’s in. . .almost in the middle of Canada, we’re only about 2 hours away from Winnipeg, MB when you drive. And so, I'm a survivor and I greet you from the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe people of northwestern Ontario. Miigwetch.
Myrna: Thank you Garnet for taking time to talk with me. As I said a little bit earlier off the record, this podcast has listeners all over the world and I think a lot of folks who maybe exist outside of Canada, and maybe even some people who exist within Canada, don't know much about what that means when they hear Indigenous people say that they are a survivor. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about what that means in any historical and current context?
Garnet: Well first of all, this country had a. . .the government, the newcomers if you will, well over the last 200 years more or less by legislation and their policies, and rules, and laws have really suppressed, oppressed Indigenous peoples to the point where we were controlled. And in many ways, one of the things that comes to mind is the is the federal government's policy of assimilation. It really gave birth to the establishment of what they called “Indian residential schools” probably around 1850s — 1860s, and even before that, they had industrial schools where the intent was to assimilate the Indigenous peoples of what is now Canada into being regular citizens, if you will, to be part of the mainstream society of what was to become Canada, and that they were to make us into ordinary citizens of Canada by the newcomers’ policies, laws, and legislation where basically they took hundreds, if not thousands, of Anishinaabe children and institutionalized them in residential schools in the guise of education.
And what happened was they got various Christian denominations to implement the policy of assimilation, and they took well over 150,000 children over 100 years and institutionalized us in these Indian residential schools away from our families, our communities, our cultures, and in many ways, the intent was to educate us, I guess. . . that’s debatable. And so, when you take children away from their natural settings including family, the God given right to belong to a family was taken away at a very young age, in many cases around five or six years old, and you left your parents, you left your families, you left your communities, you left your people and you were institutionalized in these schools, residential schools and there could be anywhere from 200 to 300 kids that you lived with far away from home, mostly 10 months of the year, and there were over 100 of these institutions right across the country from the east coast to the west coast. When you think about it, there were a lot of schools within a time frame of over 100 years. The last one of these schools closed in 1996 and when you really think about it, that's not that long ago.
I mean, we're talking about contemporary history and many, many of these former students are still alive today. In these institutions, when you institutionalize children, there’s a heavy price that children have to pay even into their adulthood, and not only the children but as a collective, as a people, the Indian residential school system had all kinds of effects: psychological, mental, people who suffered from different forms of abuse, be it physical, sexual, spiritual and so on, and those effects linger on today and sadly are passed on intergenerationally.
Here we are today and one of the major effects that we deal with today is not only intergenerational, but we're dealing with historic trauma which is so much alive in our communities. And so, when you deal with these kinds of things, you're inevitably talking about social and health issues that still continue to affect our people, not to mention, you know, the legal system and so on. You know, the effects of residential schools and ongoing effects are horrendous and are still very much alive with so many of our people.
Myrna: Thank you for that context. I think it's important for people who haven't heard these stories are aware of this history. So as you know Garnet, I served for a number of years as an adjudicator in the Independent Assessment Process where I traveled across this country sitting as a decision maker, getting stories from survivors about their residential school experiences and then making decisions about compensation, and how much compensation they were entitled to, and through that process, I learned a number of things. I got to see how lawyers treat their clients, which in some cases was really quite shocking to see the treatment of claimants in these processes by their counsel. I spent a lot of time adjudicating in the Northwest Territories and I heard so many stories of how, like, in the early days when it was law to take. . .like, this country legalized the kidnapping of Indigenous kids. So they would come fly into these communities if they saw children on the beach or just children on the land, they just scooped them up, they didn't have to ask questions, get consent, they just take these kids, and then all of a sudden communities are left without children and of course a lot of horrific things are going to result from that, but one of the strategic things about these institutions, and maybe you could talk on this, is how lawmakers of the day constructed it so that these children that were taken to these schools were taken to schools hundreds and hundreds of miles away from their homes so that they couldn't walk home, they couldn't just hitchhike, they couldn't get a ride, it was almost impossible, and as a result, so many children died trying to walk home. I think that's an important thing for people to understand, and that back in the early days when parents went to try to rescue their children, they were arrested and punished in all kinds of ways.
In your community of Sioux Lookout Garnet, where was the closest residential school? Was it in that community or was it further away?
Garnet: The residential school I went to in Sioux Lookout was not in not in the municipalities, but it was about 10 miles away beside railway tracks, and so what you just described in terms of the separation of children from their families and their communities, they’re real. They happen. One of the things about residential schools is that we did not have a choice, it was the policy and the law of the government to take children away. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that section under the Indian Act still exists, I'm not sure it was ever repealed, so I think that it’s still in the book even though it's not practiced, maybe it's practiced in a different way today, but you know, the legislation against Indigenous people that was used against Indigenous people was so strong that people did not have any recourse. Your children were taken away, they were taken away, and you know, it left so many families disrupted and as I say, you know, being in the family is a God given right and how in the world can a legislature take that away? And that's what really happened.
You know, when you were asking me this question, I couldn't help but think about my mother. My mother who never went to residential school, her grandmother hid her in the bush when the Indian Agents were coming around collecting children from our communities, and she hid in the bush with her grandmother, and that’s how she escaped from going to residential schools, so she never did go. But one day, I asked my mother, “How does it feel when we leave, when we leave to go to residential school?”, and there was a long pause, long silence, and in Ojibwe she said, “******” , loosely translated it means, “we’re extremely depressed”, and so when you think about that coming from a mother who five of her six children were taken away 10 months of the year, and you multiply that by. . .I don't know how many in the community, and then in the region, and nationally, how that has affected so many families across Canada in terms of that separation. What really angers me today is that so-called “policy of assimilation” targeted children. It targeted children, it targeted innocent children who had no idea—I didn't have any idea what was happening when I left to residential school. I knew I was gonna go to school because my older brother had already gone there, but I did not really know what was ahead of me. What I thought was exciting at the time was not exciting whatsoever. It didn't take very long before I felt really frightened, scared. When I recall to this very day, when I first walked into the residential school, and listening to other children playing, and doing whatever, and meeting the principal, and my childcare worker, and my father saying, “This is Garnet”, and leaving me there, and that physical separation from my parents, I will never, ever forget. And to this day, that separation alone continues to haunt me, particularly now that I'm a father, I'm a grandfather, and when I see my grandchildren, and even saying goodbye sometimes I have these flashbacks and memories of that time I was separated from my family, and that continues to haunt me. And you know, some people say, “Get over it”, but you don't get over something like that in terms of the scars that the residential school left on so many— be it scars of psychological abuse, mental abuse, physical, sexual, spiritual, you name it, and the wounds are there, the scars are there and unless you've been through it, you can't just get over it, it's not that simple. The residential school, on so many people, is not a happy story.
Myrna: That is true and I just appreciate you being so open and sharing that story about your mom and I mean, I'm with you Garnet, I have three grandchildren now and when I leave them, I feel something really deep inside of me and I think you just hit the nail on the head. For me, it's also a trigger. I was left at residential school as well, but even before that, my mother left me a lot because she had a ton of problems; she had me at 16 and she lived a life of a lot of abuse, and when you live that life, you really don't know how to parent, and so she often left me in places where a lot of abuse was about to come my way, and I can still—even today at my age—still feel that desperate. . . I can't even put a word to it, but it's such a deep feeling of fear, of longing, of wanting my mother to come back to rescue me, feeling scared and all of those things. So yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head when you talked about how just saying goodbye to your grandchildren takes you back to that moment of separation. And I think you also said something so profound, and that is how the government and lawmakers really are the ultimate, and maybe the original exploiters of children—they went after children, and separated children, and caused children so much harm. And how do you do, like, how does anyone target children who are vulnerable, and powerless, and helpless, and that is exactly what the government did in establishing these schools and empowering Indian agents and the RCMP and others to abduct children from their homes and leaving parents powerless. I think that's probably one of the reasons why today, when you have residential school deniers like Senator Lynn Beyak, it is such a profound feeling of disrespect that has to come over so many people, including yourself.
Garnet: You know, I'll tell you a story. What I said just a few minutes ago was. . . when I talked about “get over it”, it's not that simple nor is it that easy, and what I said was, “Unless you've been there, lived through the trauma, lived it first-hand, I get really triggered and full of negative memories when I hear someone like Lynn Beyak talking about an issue she knows nothing about on a first-hand basis. I did meet with her face-to-face one time, in a sacred setting. The meeting didn't go anywhere.
Myrna: Garnet, maybe before we get into talking about Senator Beyak, for people who don't know who she is or what kind of hateful comments and rhetoric she espouses, can you just tell our listeners a little bit about who she is and what she's been doing?
Garnet: Lynn Beyak is a Senator, Senators are appointed to give second sober thought on legislation. She was appointed some years ago now and she actually is from not too far from where I live, about an hour’s drive away, she comes from Dryden, Ontario. And in March 2017, she made some really offensive comments about the good intent of residential schools. She had a lot of opinions about the good of residential schools and basically denied the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that happened here in Canada, but she really had a shallow understanding and appreciation of the history of residential schools, and so on. Not only that but on her government website, she posted a lot of what she called “letters of support” which were basically racist letters on her government website promoting that she was on the right track with her opinions about residential schools. And so when she did that, she really hurt a lot of people. You don't know how she traumatized people, how she victimized survivors, not only that but revictimized survivors. She continues to serve on the Senate even though there’s been a large movement to get her ousted out of the Senate, but we'll see what happens in this coming few months. And more recently, the leader of the Conservative party did similar things where he talked about the purpose of education behind residential schools. And again, unfounded, very shallow knowledge of residential schools, but what that kind of thing does is it really revictimizes survivors when they hear these kinds of things. More recently, when I heard the leader of the Conservative party talk about residential schools, he did about a month ago, I phoned my member of parliament and told my member of parliament the kind of impact those comments had on me and really described the abuse that I experienced in residential schools so that he could really understand the kind of revictimization these kinds of comments have on survivors and their families. And so again, it’s not as simple as that “get over it”.
Myrna: Thank you for reminding me about Erin O'Toole's comments again, like, that amounts to residential school denial and these folks don't, like, maybe they do get it, I don't know that when they say things like, “Oh, these residential schools were formed to educate, there were a few bad apples who ran the schools, but for the most part, the intention of it was pure and good”, and there's just so much crap that they espouse when they are promoting these concepts. I hear you when you say that it does so much harm. I was reading an article the other day on APTN news that was citing Senator Murray Sinclair, who you and I both know was the Commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Part of its role was to travel this country and educate Canadians on the harms that Indigenous people experienced by going to these schools, and to recommend what we can do as a country to make it right, and offered up all of these calls to action—things that we could act on right now—and Murray Sinclair said the other day in this APTN article that all of these residential school deniers are undermining reconciliation with all of their racist ideas and really setting us back. Do you have any thoughts about reconciliation? I don't know how you feel about it.
Garnet: For me that's a very heavy question and the reason why I say that is back in around 1990, I didn't always live a healthy lifestyle. I certainly had my issues with alcoholism for example, then I had my issues of being dysfunctional, you know, and yet being visible in the community and doing these good things but masking my pain and I didn't really live a healthy lifestyle. I was full of anger and it started to affect my family and so on. So in early 1990, I sort of woke up and said, “I'm going to start changing for the better”, and that's when a lot of things were happening, you know, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples as it's happening around the early 1990s, and a lot of people were starting to tell their stories about the residential school and how it affected them. In 1993 and even before that, we started—“we” meaning a number of survivors here— we started talking about how we should get together and maybe come out and disclose some very serious allegations against a dormitory supervisor who had sexually abused us in residential school. A number of us came forward and there was a police investigation and we went to court and so on. Meanwhile, that was a very difficult time for all of us, going back to 1990, early 1990s, the word “reconciliation” was not even on the radar screen. The word “healing” was just starting to come on the radar screen and around 1998, the federal government issued a Statement of Reconciliation and I used to wonder, what does that really mean, you know? I know what “reconcile” means but “reconciliation”, that statement of ”reconciliation”. It was that Jane Stewart who was then the Minister of Indian Affairs that issued the first statement in 1998 and for me that wasn't an acknowledgement by the government. What are we going to do about would remain to be seen, and that's when they started the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and so on, which was really good and it brought a healing movement together, particularly at the ground level, so I thought that was very positive. But at the same time, what was reconciliation? How do we, at that time, begin to reconcile when we weren't even healed? And that was so true of so many survivors, and as time went on, we got into the shaping of the of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement which had a compensation package in it with a common experience payment, it gave birth to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And so now, we have “reconciliation” as a term that's being used and it means so many things to so many people, different things to different people, that there is no one approach. All I know is that reconciliation, for many, is still a concept that's. . .a lot of (inaudible) aren't on there, we’re beginning to talk about it. And yes, it's good to have those discussions in the country in the political chambers of the land, whether that’s the House of Commons, and municipal chambers, provincial governments, including the churches, and others. It's good to talk about reconciliation and a new way of dealing with one another, and a new way of doing business, and a new way of relating to one another. But the thing is, I think when we talk about. . .when we use the term “reconciliation”, sometimes it's so easy to overlook who was it that brought that term into existence, and it was the survivors of residential schools. And in some ways, I still see that they’re still relegated to the back of the line sometimes, especially when we talk about healing, when we talk about some of the atrocities, of the pain and suffering that we as survivors have gone through, and then this country is talking reconciliation. It's good every once in a while to remind those in power where that term came from and why it came about. It’s so easy to say “reconciliation” in today's context whether we're talking marching ahead with new relations, you know, be it business, economic development, and so on and so forth, but today we're still struggling with issues that involve children and where is the reconciliation on that? Sixties scoop, the effects of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, it all goes back again to children. And so, when we talk reconciliation going back to 1990s, little did I know anyways that we would be talking and using the word “reconciliation”. It’s a good thing, but we can never forget where and why we’re talking that way.
Myrna: Thank you for that context. I didn't know that Garnet, so thank you for sharing that. You mentioned the settlement process—I could see how that process harmed a lot of people. I know this from having sat with survivors and done that hard work of taking them back to their childhoods, to places that they've maybe spent 50, 60, 70 years trying to forget, and I had to take them back there. As an Indigenous woman who also went to residential school, that process was really hard on me and it traumatized me in lots of ways, lots of ways that took me into very dark places and I almost didn't come out of it, and I almost didn't survive the practice of law, but I almost didn't survive period. It just got so dark for me and I want to ask you, Garnet, in your opinion, what role did lawyers play—lawyers who were representing claimants in that process, or even lawyers who are representing Canada—because I imagine for the survivor coming into those hearing rooms, that was really hard and traumatizing in and of itself. So did lawyers help alleviate some of that traumatic effect or did they add to it?
Garnet: One of the things about the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, it was created by lawyers, it was written by lawyers, basically for lawyers I think, and I don't really want to bash lawyers in the sense that I have lawyers in my own family and I respect the profession, but having said that, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement is such a legalistic document. It is driven by lawyers, it's driven by the courts, and in the same way the Indian residential school policy was driven by lawyers, by governments, there you have the beginning of imbalance. Where is the Anishinaabe input into that? So we’ve involved the national Aboriginal organisations in this process but it still, at the end of the day, is sanctioned by the courts of Canada, and that’s the first thing about the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. The other thing, right at the outset of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, when it first came into existence, when it was implemented after signing, $19 million went to lawyers. That’s a lot of money, and you could see right there and then that money was a drawing factor, a drawing card for so many. Unfortunately it didn't just include lawyers, it included others—consultants and so on—there was a lot of money there and it is in fact the largest class action lawsuit of its kind in Canada. And so as a survivor, for me it meant that the money that was set aside in 1998 for healing, which, that was the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement derailed the healing movement and all of a sudden, the discussion was on how much money can we get to compensate people? And I think, yes, compensation is important, but I also feel that it was also a drawing card for so many because we were talking millions of dollars here. The end result, and I saw this myself, was that it attracted some lawyers who were unethical and even some Law Societies, various Law Societies across the country became involved in disciplining lawyers as a result of some alleged mishandling of claims. And again, the effects of that, even though it wasn't directly related to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement verified that some lawyers were taken, by the Law Societies, to disciplinary processes —that in itself also sadly dragged some survivors into another legal arena, and again, a very painful retraumatization process, and in some cases it ended up nowhere except, again, survivors being retraumatized, and yet the healing that was supposed to take place didn't take place.
And so you know, here we are again with survivors that were reinjured, or retraumatized, or revictimized in need of healing again—not only them but their families. The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, as good as the intent was, it still was very traumatizing for many, even to relive and to open up the wounds, tell their stories of abuse and so on, that was really traumatic or traumatizing for so many. Let me tell you a story about a survivor who came to me and said, “Garnet, I went through a disclosure, I found my papers, I had to relive my experiences and tell my story again, and I went through the adjudication process and my claim got denied”, and he said , “What can I do about it?”, and I read his papers and it said he had 30 days in which to appeal the decision, and you know, that 30 days had come and gone—he had missed it by a year 'cause he didn’t wanna pay attention to it, and the survivor couldn't read and right, and so I told him to take it to his lawyer and he said, “I'm not gonna take it to my lawyer because my lawyer’s doing nothing about it, and my lawyer told me I missed the boat, and there's nothing”. I was really saddened by that, to see the revictimization of a process that was supposed to be about closure and instead it had the opposite effect. There are so many other similar stories like that, of the process and, mind you, there were some pretty good lawyers that got a lot for their clients, but at the same time, the overall, the whole process really was about a cash grab for so many that the survivors are relegated to the back, and continue to suffer in many ways, and there's no closure.
A case in northwestern Ontario; we have a lawyer here who knows how to play the game, meanwhile we have survivors who to bed every night not having any closure to the serious allegations that they filed and meanwhile, at the end of the day, it seems that the Law Society in this case sided with the lawyers. I go back to that. . .where is the reconciliation in that? A process that was supposed to be about healing and reconciliation, there is none. And so there's a lot there to look at and I often ask myself, because of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, am I that much farther ahead? Do I feel more empowered? Do I feel healed? Do I feel more in control of my life because of that? In some ways yes, but when I look at fellow survivors who fell through the crack, I had to say no. What was supposed to bring about closure had the opposite effect, and there are horrible stories of unfinished business under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement which will probably come to an end in the very near future—months away before the agreement sunsets forever. Meanwhile, the pain and suffering that it further caused to some survivors, that pain and suffering, sadly, they will take to the grave, and some have already gone there, you know? So where's the justice? Where is the healing? Never mind reconciliation.
Myrna: That's a good point. I was thinking, as you were sharing that, some stories that I heard through counsel who were representing claimants in this process, you know, after some hearings have been held, I’d hear these stories of destruction and harm, and sometimes I’d hear stories of healing but less often. And so healing and justice has come up in our conversation a few times and I'm curious, Garnet, about what you think was missing from this process aside from the voices, and the perspectives, and the needs, I guess, of the Anishinaabe and others who attended these schools, whether it's also the Cree, and the Squamish, and all the Indigenous people from across this land, of course their voices were missing and of course they were, as I listened to you and I think, “This process was created for lawyers, by lawyers”, that really did not center the needs and the healing of Indigenous people, it wasn't for them. I see that so clearly today, right now, through this conversation; what should it have been to achieve justice, to achieve healing, to truly achieve closure?
Garnet: When I think about my own experiences and so on, and when I talk about the pain and the suffering, it's just not about, “ feel sorry for me please”, it’s not about pointing the finger of blame, but the mess that we have to mop up after this legacy is horrendous. It's taxing. And I'm not sure if people will. . .general public, really, will ever that. I mean, today we still have Holocaust deniers, for example, today we see what's going on in the United States, but I think what needs to happen in this country now is to have our people come forward and really have a voice when we talk about what it is we’re talking about when we're talking about reconciliation, because one of the things is I did not really see the Indigenous voice in any of these processes that were being designed, whether it's a Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, or other agreements yet to come. But the Indigenous voice; it's coming, I can hear it, it is on the horizon but it's not here. We talk about UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People) for example, it’s coming but the Indigenous voice is something that we need to pay attention to more and more if we are to truly reconcile. And when I talk about the Indigenous voice, I'm not only talking about here in Canada, I'm talking globally. Indigenous people, Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous ways of thinking, worldview—that was never reflected. Where is it that's reflected in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement? It's not there. Had we used that 200 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess, and so today what is it that we can do? The Indigenous voice matters when we talk about the COVID-19 pandemic, Indigenous knowledge needs to be tapped into. When we talk about the environmental collapse of the globe, our environment, where is the Indigenous knowledge in that? I think we need to inject that into whatever it is that we think and do to address our collective issues that we face, and I think that has to be sincere, that has to be sincerely put into these discussions and into these discussions that we have, and I mean that in every way, in every way that we can begin to heal as a people, as a nation.
Myrna: I really appreciate you sharing your story and your perspective. I think we need to hear more perspectives. We need to hear more of the Indigenous voice.
Garnet: I remember some young kids visiting a courtroom and a young girl asked the judge—this is a class room, a class of kids going to see the court and they had a chance to ask questions to the judge—and the young girl said, “I wear a sash over my regalia, my dress and (inaudible), that red robe that you wear over your shoulder, what does that mean?”, and the judge basically said, “That's a good question”. And so you could see a world of difference here and one of the things that I always say is that sometimes, we tend to compare this system, that system, our ways, your ways. And one of the things I've always thought about is that Anishinaabe people, we live the natural way. We don't have to have documents, policies, laws written down. They’re there, we live them in a natural way, and so sometimes when—especially when it comes to legal issues—we tend to compare and that’s not good because we get misunderstanding from that when we tend to compare because the Anishinaabe way just is. Like, somebody said to me one day, “You know, we have the 10 commandments, you have the seven Grandfather teachings”, you can see already there, sometimes we don't understand each other because of that. A lot of the conflict I see today is because, in terms of when we talk about reconciliation, we talk about resolving our differences, resolving our conflicts in a way that creates more dispute. How do we talk to each other? We talk to each other through the press. We talk to each other through the court of law. And what’s the toll on that—not just financially, but what is it? I ask myself that question when it comes to the legal process of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, for example. Where was that Anishinaabe voice from the ground at that time? It was not there. And so, again, we’re no further ahead. I took a look at St. Anne's Residential School in Fort Albany and Jenny Lake Coast in Ontario, they’re still in the courts battling over records. That shouldn't be if we listened to each other, and it’s by listening to each other that we will be able to resolve conflict, we will be able to reach something meaningful, and somewhere in that haze is reconciliation, “reconciliation” meaning doing things just a little bit differently to reflect the Indigenous ways of doing things. There's people out there willing to do that.
In 1992 when the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples came to our area, we have one the commissioners there, Bertha Wilson, who was also retired from the Supreme Court, and we're making a pitch to her about going back to the traditional ways of resolving conflict in our own communities and maybe even blending the white man's way with the Indigenous way and coming up with something that is workable, because obviously the justice system driven by Canada and Ontario was not and is not working, and is there something that we can come together on and be able to blend the two processes together in a way that works? And she said to us, “Just do it, just do it”, and that was 1992 and in many ways that was, for me, when I think back about it now, she was already saying “reconciliation” and doing things differently for the better, as an example. And we need to pay attention to that. So what we need is to be able to come together and again, renew our relations by challenging each other in a way that is good for all; that's what reconciliation means to me.
Myrna: Whoa, Garnet, thank you that. Those are such profound insights and examples of how folks can achieve reconciliation because I hear it all the time from a lot of well-meaning people; how do we achieve reconciliation? How do we bring reconciliation into this space? How do we create it? And, you know, what I'm hearing you say is first off, just do it, just do it, and also center the Indigenous voice, hear from Indigenous people, hear their experiences and center that, and listen to each other. I love that, I love this, like, Indigenous approach to conflict resolution. You've given me so many ideas for more conversations I think that you and I might have to have. I really appreciate the time that you've taken, Garnet, to talk with me today and to demonstrate authentic vulnerability and truth, this is what is true. If people wonder, “What is the truth about the Indigenous experience in this country?”, I would say you spoke to that today and so thank you so much.
Garnet: Miigwetch. And thank you to all those listening as well, miigwetch.
Myrna: Well that was my conversation with Garnet Angeconeb. I hope you learned something about residential schools, reconciliation, why healing needs to become a conversation, and why the Indigenous voice needs to be centered in these conversations. If you have any feedback for me, you can find me on LinkedIn, of course. you can find me on Instagram @thetraumainformedlawyer you can also find me on Twitter @theTILPodcast. Until next time, take care everyone.