Bruce McIvor: What You Need to Know to Talk Reconciliation

Stuart Murray  0:00  
This podcast was recorded on the ancestral lands, on treaty one territory, the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Cree, Oji Cree, Dakota and the Dene peoples, and on the homeland of the Metis nation.

Amanda Logan (Voiceover)  0:20  
This is humans on rights, a podcast advocating for the education of human rights. Here's your host, Stuart Murray,

Stuart Murray  0:31  
when I first picked up the copy of my guest Bruce mciver's book entitled indigenous rights in one minute with a subtext, what you need to know to talk reconciliation, I was skeptical. How is it possible to explain centuries of law, dozens of treaties and fundamental constitutional rights in 60 seconds, and not in legal parlance, but in easy, everyday common language? Well after one minute or less, I went from skeptic to a believer. And while I still have a lot to learn, I am pleased to welcome the author of indigenous rights in one minute. Bruce McIver, Bruce, welcome to humans on rights. Thank you very much, Bruce. Just perhaps, if you don't mind, introduce yourself to the listeners, tell us a little bit about yourself, and of course, why it was important for you to write this book. 

Bruce McIvor  1:26  
I always tell people I'm a lawyer. By accident. I never intended to be a lawyer. Originally from Manitoba, raised a couple of hours north of Winnipeg, north of Fisher branch, for those that know Manitoba well, and went off to university. Gonna find something to do. I picked a lot of rocks when I was a kid on the family farm, and I thought maybe going to university would be a better thing to do. And that led me to do several history degrees. Then I decided, You know what, I don't really think I want to teach at the university long term, so I went back and I did a law degree. So that's how I turned into a lawyer. Tell people, though, that I prefer it when and I really feel that I've done something useful. When people say I really liked what you had to say. You didn't sound like a lawyer, and I'm that's exactly what I wanted, hopefully when I'm in court, I sound a little bit more like a lawyer. So that's just a bit about me. My family is one of those old Red River Metis family. So that's where my roots are. I live now in Vancouver. I've been here 30 years or more, and my wife and I have children here. My wife laughs, because when I say I'm going home, she knows. I mean, back to Manitoba. Right, right. How long do you need to live somewhere you're you're old, yeah, yeah, no, yeah. That's a bit more about where I come from. Yeah,

Stuart Murray  3:26  
Bruce, that's fantastic. And so a member of the mattitiba Metis Federation, yeah, yeah. And, and, I think it's, it's interesting, Bruce, you know, in my time, I've spent a bit of time with, you know, David Chartrand, who, of course, is well known for his background and what he's done. And I guess the question I just would be interested for before we get into your book is, when did it occur to you that it was important for you to really feel proud to be part of the Manitoba Metis Federation or the mattitiba METI community?

Bruce McIvor  4:00  
My first book stand off just a series of short essays. I have several in there where I talk about being from a Matty family, what that was like growing up when I was a child, and what it means around the law. The pieces in that book, I think that really work well are the ones where I talk about it from a personal perspective. I did get into trouble with my mom. Sometimes she's like, don't talk about that kind of shot. But So that's been a big part of me, like a lot of people with Metis backgrounds, not really something that was at the forefront growing up, that was something that came to me later, particularly based on just research and knowing more about. About my family history, but I think fundamentally it explained to me, to a large extent, that passion that I've always had, whether it was through doing my history degrees, or then becoming a lawyer advocating for indigenous people. I get called sometimes in the legal profession, I'm called with a cause lawyer, which the first time I got called that, I didn't realize that it was actually a derogatory thing. Yeah. Was like, yeah. Exactly me, yeah. I only do this, because I get the opportunity to represent indigenous people, right? If I didn't do that, I wouldn't be a lawyer. So it's very much part of my personality, and something that I think I can give back, right? That's useful?

Stuart Murray  5:58  
Yeah, yeah. Clearly and so I am going to hold up and flip through. I have got so many yellow tabs on this book, Bruce, that. But it's, it is so well written, and so obviously I don't have to promote this in the sense that it is out there, very, very widely available. We'll make all of this available again in our show notes, Bruce, but, but I just love the way that you sort of put it out, and how you you you basically each page has a question with an answer, and again, it's written in very common language. But just for the listeners, let's just kind of start. I kind of have four that I want to go into with you, because the first one. Of course, the question is, who is an Indian? And I, before I even say that, Bruce, you know, it's one of these things that I almost wanted to, you know, sort of say, use the kind of the term, the I word, because, you know, if we are, so you can weaponize words so quickly. And I know that you just want to be sensitive to it so. So when you ask the question, your book, you know, who is an Indian I thought that was a really interesting place for our conversation to start, because I think a lot of people don't really understand who that is. And so maybe from your perspective, when you when you thought about that, it's not the first question you asked, but first question I'm asking you is from your perspective. For the listeners, who is an Indian,

Bruce McIvor  7:29  
that's a good example, as I explain in the preface of the book, the terms I use are legal terms. Those are terms under Canadian law. They're not historical, and they're not used in certain context situations. But these are legal terms. If you read the Canadian Constitution, that's the word. You read the Indian Act, that's it. So I use those legal terms, and I explain that it's important that all Canadians know what this means, what this word means, and that's a good example of indigenous people being defined and categorized by the colonial state. You know, we shouldn't just turn our backs on that. This is not just part of Canadian history, it's part of current day Canada. These continue to exist, these categories, and they have really significant effect on individual indigenous people's lives. Do you fit within that legal category? Can you pass it on to your children or not? So my view was, I'm talking about the law. This is, these are the terms used in the law. Let's just deal with with it so people know it better when it comes up that particular section. Stuart, I think one of the things I do is I try to unpack all these different categories that one came out of an exercise I gave myself a couple of years ago over my morning coffee, I thought, Oh, I'm going to draw a Venn diagram. And if you're familiar, I'm sure all these overlapping circles, I'm going to draw a Venn diagram for indigenous identity under Canadian law, Stuart, I thought my head was going to explode. No wonder people have such a hard time. And this is something I think I know a little bit about. Yeah, you did, yes. So just if people. Will walk away with a better understanding of one. These aren't categories that indigenous people use themselves. These are categories have been imposed on indigenous people, and then how incredibly complicated they are, so I do my best to explain them so we can have a better conversation. Because if you don't know what these words mean, we're talking at cross purposes. Yeah,

Stuart Murray  10:33  
and I think you know, Bruce, just to come back to it, I mean, the the subtext of what your book is is what you need to know to talk reconciliation. So, you know, that's a really important way to get that definition out there, so at least people can try to wrap their head around it as complicated as it is, by the way, as you say, so just when you look at that, then Bruce and we will come to Section 35 because it's such a pivotal part of our Constitution. But you know, a lot of times people will say, Well, why do and you again, going to your book, Why do indigenous people have special rights? And I, because I always think that, you know, so often people, when you're trying to talk reconciliation, and you put the word special in, it, has the ability to say, are you talking elite? Are you talking what I thought we were all Canadians. So, you know, just from that perspective. So why do indigenous people have special rights?

Bruce McIvor  11:25  
Yeah, that's a great example that we need to identify the legal and historical basis for indigenous people having rights under Canadian law that non Indigenous people don't. They don't. People will get confused. Sometimes they think that the rights guaranteed under Section 35 or the Canadian Constitution are part of the Charter of Rights and freedom. They're not. They're separate, and they're there for a reason, and as I explain in the book, The reason is that when colonizing nations arrived, indigenous nations were already here on their land, not Crown land, we may call it Crown land now, but on their own land with their own laws over those lands. That's a fact, and that fact is recognized now in Canadian law, and so indigenous people that are descended from those nations, part of recognize that being part of those nations, they have special rights. They have rights unique to them that other Canadians do not have. And I explain in the book that that is something all Canadians should be terribly proud of. I get asked a lot, and I'm sure you've seen the last year the whole elbows thing with and Canadians taking pride in being Canadian. How many times you drive around you see people with a brand new Canadian flag waving from their door, and one of the things they're doing is they're staking out the difference they see between their country and our neighbors to the south, correct? Yeah. Well, if you're going to take pride in being Canadian, one of the things that makes Canada distinct different from our neighbors to the south is that these rights, these special rights for indigenous people, are enshrined and protected in the Canadian Constitution. If you're going to be proud of something that's uniquely Canadian, that's it, right?

Stuart Murray  13:59  
Let's stand up for that. Right? Yeah, no. Again, Bruce, again. You know, can't say how much I it meant to me just to read that paragraph in the question and, and I think you're, you take a great stance to talk about how we look at something from time to time. And when people say special rights, they meant, well, you know, does that mean they're going to the front of the line? They're special, and it's like, not at all. It's it makes us what we should stand up to say why we are Canadian and how we embrace these Yeah,

Bruce McIvor  14:33  
and if not, what happens? And indigenous people get this a lot, if you don't understand the reason for those rights protected under the Canadian Constitution, you fall into this liberal ideology of equality, and that's fine, like that is a part of Canadian law and a really important part. Part of Canadian law, but it doesn't. It shouldn't be used as a weapon to silence indigenous and that's what we often see, is that, wait a minute, you shouldn't be recognized for having any rights unique to indigenous people, because we're all equal. And what I try to explain is these two things can can be simultaneously alive and well, but the equality one shouldn't be used as a bludgeon to deny indigenous rights.

Stuart Murray  15:38  
And so Bruce one of the things that, of course, it is very pivotal on this is section 35 so let's take a couple of minutes to sort of talk about section 35 why it's important. Because through the book, and again, I always want to come back to this, that this is a book that will help people like me to what I need to know to talk reconciliation. So, so section 35 I mean, as opposed to just glazing over and sort of saying, Oh my God, here we go, talking about the Constitution with a lawyer, section 35 you know, it's pivotal to understand of so many examples you give in the book. So talk about the importance of section 35 and why it's important for people like me and others listening to say, here's why you need to understand the importance of section 35 to be able to talk reconciliation.

Bruce McIvor  16:32  
One of the one of the things I mentioned in the preface to the book is that I set myself to challenge to explain these things, not just in a short amount of time. I joke with people. It's written for a person like me that's got a short attention span, so I don't have a lot of time, right? So a short but also so that it's explained to non lawyers. I've always been of the big belief that if lawyers can't explain the law to non lawyers, it's their fault. It's not the people they're talking to. It's your fault. You should be able to explain this. It's not that complicated. And so with section 35 it's important that people recognize that, first of all, that we are a constitutional democracy. So the Constitution is up here, all these laws passed by whether it's a municipality, a province, the federal government, all those laws need to be in line with and comply with the Constitution, whether it's the charter or right. That's how our democracy works. We have a written constitution, and so it needs to be in line. One of the things since 1982 all those laws need to be in line with section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, which this was part of the so called repatriation. You and I are old enough steward to remember it right. We've got this constitution that recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights. That's kind of it, right, right, that's what it says. So recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal treaty rights. What that basically means is that if a law is passed, if a law is in place, and I'll give the example, because it's in the news a lot, the federal bill c5 building Canada Act, that law will Need to comply with Section 35 and a judge, if called on, will have to decide that section 35 doesn't create it's not the source of indigenous people's rights. It doesn't create those rights. I explain it. It's like a protective blanket. We were just talking, I think before we started that you can expect some cold weather in Manitoba, because we can sure you want a nice, warm, protective blanket or park or parka when you go outside. That's what section 35 does. It protects those rights, Aboriginal rights and treaty rights, from undue interference by whether it's provincial or federal government.

Stuart Murray  19:53  
So okay, Bruce, help me with this, because when I read it and I read it and I read it a couple of times, so here we are. 1982 we've got a constitution. Section 35 is part of it. The part that I thought was important is to say that nobody was given at that point. Indigenous people weren't given through section 35 they were basically, as you said at the very outset of this, they were here before us, so they had rights already. So Bruce, when section 35 was drafted, how much just use the term indigenous? Because that will sort of be First Nations Metis, you know, collectively, how much involvement would they have had in drafting section 35 there

Bruce McIvor  20:35  
was a big involvement with what would the exact wording be so there was definitely an indigenous contribution, not complete agreement, sure with what occurred the word this thing. There's a whole history there. All that snuck in late in the game, and it's a good example how you just add or change one word. But importantly, as you were saying, Stuart, these rights existed in Canadian law before 82 right? So we talk about being part of the common law. So they were there. What section 35 did was to say that now, going forward, provincial or federal government can't just pass a law extinguishing them. They can't go, God, they're gone, right? So they can't do that, so now they're recognized and the term so that's really important, because up until then, that was in certain situations, a possibility, and all laws need to conform with section 35 and that's where we've had the role of the courts now stepping in, trying to interpret, well, what does this mean? Then? Because it doesn't really say what these rights are, how you prove them. One of the things the courts have said is that no rights are absolute. There are no absolute rights, so maybe they can be infringed on, modified, extinguish. This is an important thing for Canadians to keep in mind. There is constitutional protection, but the protection is not absolute protection. In certain situations, government can interfere with them,

Stuart Murray  22:50  
and Bruce, in many ways, it comes down to the interpretation, like, who's interpreting? What does that mean? And and I just sort of put that again in always with this kind of, this notion that, you know, your book is really trying to move all of us towards understanding how we can talk about reconciliation, yeah.

Bruce McIvor  23:12  
So that's part of the book, as I explain the limits on section 35 rights because this, there's this misinformation out there all the time that, oh, well, okay, so these rights trump the rights of non Indigenous people or that there are somehow superior. That's not how the law works in Canada. Instead, courts interpret and courts have created tests that allow governments to still move forward, to a large extent, trying to recognize respect the rights, but at the same time saying they're not absolute, and there is room, in fact, from my perspective, I think, probably too much room for non Indigenous people to interfere with those rights. And one of the things I also explain is it's also important to keep in mind that these aren't the rights that indigenous people would recognize themselves under their own laws. So I explain in the book that there's a difference between Aboriginal rights. These are rights in Canadian law and indigenous people's own rights and laws. You know, those aren't the same thing, and we need to keep those categories separate and in mind, because when we're talking about Aboriginal rights Aboriginal law, we're really. Really talking about that conversation that the Canadian state has trying to reconcile with the fact that, yeah, these indigenous people were here before. By now, most people in Canada aren't indigenous. And how do we reconcile these two things?

Stuart Murray  25:23  
Yeah, and I find that, you know the conversation as we hear a lot of the first nations leaders talking about their right to self determination as they start to go down this path, and you know, they're operating within an environment, a legal, constitutional environment that may not necessarily align with how they see themselves, from self determination. Yeah,

Bruce McIvor  25:48  
that's always the challenge. It puts indigenous people in a very difficult situation, because the options offered to them, what the path forward probably doesn't align with their own teachings. Right? Being a sovereign people, that's not the path forward. We'll hear a lot, and my friend Bob Joseph has a new book out this year on self government, but self government is a Canadian policy under Canadian doesn't recognize the inherent sovereignty and jurisdiction of indigenous people. That's not what they're talking about myself government. So there's that tension all the time, and it puts indigenous people, including leaders, in a really difficult situation, because trying to find a positive way forward. But you're still inside this box, right? And it's not a box of your choosing, and you're forced to operate within that

Stuart Murray  26:57  
box. You know, Bruce, you mentioned c5 which is, you know, a big bill. It's talking, as you say, about, you know, building Canada, which, you know, I think it's just an interesting sort of time, because, you know, there's what's happening south of the border, and we're trying to becoming, you know, as you say, elbows up, and becoming more Canadian. Yet at the at some point, you know, the notion it's just, it's almost a black and white conversation about, we got to build this pipeline, and it has to go through a First Nations area, a reserve, whatever it may be. And the first thing is, but, but it's for the economic right of Canada. Strengthen the Canada nation, our economy. We must have this, and we need it. And, you know, I mean, there are some people that go, yeah. I mean, it's, you know, that makes sense to me. I mean, it's all about the economy, etc, but, but I, you know, I've tried to say in a simplistic way, and I'm not very successful at it, Bruce, but I say, How would you feel if somebody said they're coming right through your home, your your personal home with that, like at some point, do you not sort of stop and say we need to reflect if this is the right thing to do? Is there another way? It's not a yes or a no? We have to do it or we can't do it. We will achieve it. But how do we achieve it with both parties understanding that it's the right thing to do if we can even get there?

Bruce McIvor  28:19  
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that whole analogy steward is a really good one, and that's one that I use a lot to get people to think about it. What have you put yourself in this session, right? So it personalizes it. One of the things that I've talked about with this is that this argument that indigenous rights need to give way because of a threat from south of the border, that's not new. We've seen this scenario before, right? Both of us are from Manitoba. Manitoba wouldn't have been created as a province in 1870 except for the exact same scenario. That's how it came about. And to personalize it, I come from a long line of old men having children. So my grandfather was born in the Red River before Confederation. And so this happened to my grandfather. The land was taken and annexed by Canada. That happened to my family, and that's what and Metis resisted that, and that's what led to the creation of Manitoba. So this is very personal, and for a lot of indigenous people across the country, they've seen this, so that's important to keep in mind. And. And secondly, as I explain in the book, this argument around the public interest, the national interest, that's not new. I have a piece in my book, and I answer the question of, does the public interest Trump indigenous rights? And the answer, based on Canadian law, is no right. Courts have dealt with this before, yeah, after aboriginal and treaty rights were recognized and affirmed through section 35 of the Constitution in 1982 that was one of the first arguments that the provincial and federal governments brought to the courts. It's like, oh, well, that's all fine and good judge, but this is in the public interest, so it must give way. And the response from the Supreme Court, and it's been repeated recently, is that no, no, that's that's way too vague. What is that public interest? It's such a vague category, so that can't be the case. And these are constitutional protections. These are the highest protections available in Canadian law. They must mean something, yeah, and we should all respect that and not be so fast to toss out and disregard those promises.

Stuart Murray  31:45  
Yeah, but Bruce, you know, one of the challenges we as you say, this isn't the first time, and I agree with you, this is not the first time this has happened, but you look at the difference between what happens in the court of law and what happens in the court of public opinion. And you know, it's kind of almost a steamrolling conversation that can happen where, you know, you have politicians, you have governments of all stripes, you have business community leaders, you know, who are out there with a very loud voice talking about different things. And you know, First Nations don't necessarily have that platform to sort of stand and say, Well, look, let's go into the public and let's talk about this in the sense of, from an educated, from an intelligent, from a legal conversation. How is it that we have abilities for First Nations to stand and say, We need to be a part of this. And, and not just oh, we've kind of made the decision, but oh, we there's a box we didn't check here. We better get and say that we had a conversation. And, and then you look at it and say, you know how, how is that really nation building? Well,

Bruce McIvor  33:01  
that is really at the core of why I wrote the book, is to have a better national conversation around these questions. I know there will be people that will read my book and disagree. That's fine. Absolutely, I just want people to be better informed. You can still have your own opinion. But opinions can be opinions. It's not necessarily based on a correct view of the law or history. When you try to back them up and support old opinions and that you realize that, oh, that's just based on a lie or based on a misconception, then you can get to a better conversation. So the some of the best responses I get to my book is when I get people that aren't part of the daily conversation. They aren't politicians, they aren't indigenous people involved in this. They're just run of the mill people, and they pick up a copy, or they're gifted one, and they say to me, Wow, I didn't know. I've been told this my whole life, and this is wrong that and I hope what it does is it empowers people to play their own role in correcting that misinformation, whether it's with their friends, family Members, around the dining room table, around the water cooler, just like, Wait a minute. I don't think that's right. I read this book right. Not to be said this. Maybe we can all have a better conversation then. Yeah,

Stuart Murray  34:53  
and you know, Bruce, one of the things that that you know, just in my involvement, when I was at the Canadian Museum for Human. Rights. And you know, the issue of Idle No More that whole movement came forward. And you know, again, it's amazing how, when they try to bring attention to it by by doing something that they're, you know, allowed to do, they're allowed to protest peacefully. But you know, it's disruptive for some because it may close this road, or it may close something. And so, you know the notion they're trying to bring attention, and they're trying to find a way to bring attention to your point, I don't expect people to necessarily, who are angry and upset by this whole, I don't know more, to maybe sort of say, Oh, I've seen the light. I'm going to change the way I sort of view these in the future. But I simply say to people, if you have the interest, read a treaty document. It is it is not complicated. It is quite simple. And I think at the very bottom you're going to find something that everybody today is quite understanding of. There are signatories that means something, and they're signed by different parties, and so each party should have signing on to this treaty, should live up to what they signed on for. And so I just thought it was fascinating. And I don't you know my This podcast is not about sort of throwing shade at people, and I just don't gotta go there, Bruce, but I will just tell you that one of my person that I got to know very well at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, Willie little child who was on the board, and he talked about a conversation he had when he went to Ottawa to talk to, at that time, a governor general and said, You know, I'd like to have a conversation with you about these treaties. At which time, the Governor General said, Look, I don't do policy. I'm it's not what I do. And it was such at that point, an open kind of understanding that that the role of the Governor General, if it's to represent the queen or king, queen, at that time, you signed this through that, you mean you have a signatory responsibility. So I just, I use it as an illustration, Bruce, to sort of come back to your book to say why it's so important that people get a chance to read your book because it explains how we are where we're at today. And again, you may disagree, but disagree with a level of intelligence or understanding and an argument that you can put forward to say, here's why I disagree. Was something that Bruce wrote. But rather than just saying, No, I don't really understand it, I just tell him, I just it doesn't seem right to me, I disagree with

Bruce McIvor  37:31  
it, and have a better idea where indigenous people are coming from when they say the things they do. So that's a good example, one of the things I do in the book. Well, there's two there that I try to explain who the crown is. It's a very you know, but this is what it is when we're talking about Crown land or the crown doing something, what that means in Canadian law. And then I also explain who are the treaties with. So when you're talking about, you know, who are the treaties with, they were signed with, like you say, representative of the queen, Queen Victoria, or king or right? So who are they with? When non Indigenous people were reading about greedy First Nations this summer, scratching their heads when Prime Minister Carney invited King Charles to give the throne speech, because they were, wait a minute. We've been told now for years, like you were just saying, sir, oh, that's not what the Governor General's involved in, or you can't go talk to the king or queen. But yet, we've been told this on and on and on, and now, when you're feeling a bit of a threat from south of the border. What do you do? You wheel out there? You could, you you could. Then I think when people read that part of my book, hopefully they'll have a better appreciation for why a lot of treaty First Nations stop and go, Wait a minute. Aren't you being hypocritical? Something doesn't ring right so, and that will hopefully lead to a better conversation.

Stuart Murray  39:37  
Yeah, and Bruce, you know, one of the things that I again, I just been delighted to have the conversation with you. So thanks for taking this time. What you know, do you feel as a as a Canadian, somebody who's in study, studied indigenous law, somebody who's been passionate about it, you've written about it, you talk about it. You know, when you look at the 94 recommendations that came out of the Truth and Reconciliation, from just your perspective, Bruce, how do you think we as a country are progressing? And I'm not even looking at, I'm trying to give you a bit of a way to some benchmarks to say, do you think we've taken a step or two forward. Do you feel confidence saying that? You know just you live it, you you've litigated it. So how do you feel about that? Where are we at?

Bruce McIvor  40:30  
I think we're in a better place, but we're not in as good a place as a lot of Canadians might think. I think a lot of Canadians, they could, you could put them in the role of George Bush at the end of first Iraq war. Mission accomplished. That's not the situation. It's not the case. There's a lot of work to do, and a lot of the most important work is going to make a lot of Canadians really uncomfortable. The work that has been done that is a lot of non Indigenous people are accepting doesn't really affect them that directly, right? Like, Oh, okay, we can have it National Day for truth and reconciliation. Hey, I'll get a holiday. I'm like, it's not a holiday. You're getting it all wrong, yeah, but that's been a lot of the work so far. The difficult work makes a lot of non Indigenous people uncomfortable. I've

Stuart Murray  41:40  
heard that many times, and I would love for you to say, can you put, can you put a bit of a story around what doesn't being uncomfortable look like from your perspective?

Bruce McIvor  41:53  
Yeah, so there's a couple of things. I gave a talk at a church here in Vancouver a few years ago about the violence that's perpetuated against indigenous people. I have a few essays about this in my first book, stand off and how this is state sanctioned violence and individual violence that is perpetuated against indigenous people, and this is something we need to recognize and really stand up and do something about. And I had one of the people at the talk come up to me afterwards and basically say, oh, but Indians killed Indians before the white men showed up. Like, that's a perfect example. Because when you talk about this, a lot of people will fall back into the nationalistic tropes, right? Oh, well, Canada's better than the United States. You know, what are you complaining about? It could be a lot worse. We need to get past that. We need to recognize the truth and it's not. It doesn't fit with what a lot of Canadians were taught in school. I grew up in Manitoba. I remember at the end of every school day we still got up and saying, God, save the queen, like that was raised in right? So it makes people uncomfortable with their idea of what Canada is about and why they value being a Canadian citizen. So that's one thing. Second thing we've seen is that, and there's an example of this now, in B in BC, there was a recent decision about aboriginal title, and that aboriginal title can coexist and underlay someone's property interest in their own house, and that upset a lot of people. They and unfortunately, some Paul Paul politicians have been, you know, doing the whole dog whistle thing, right? But this really made people stand up. And made a lot of people really uncomfortable. Does this mean someone's going to come and take my home or my farm? And of course, the answer is no, no, it's not. But you do need to recognize this fact that that land that you think you own is based on a lie is and this is particularly the case in most of BC the government never had any right to give you a property, and just because it's been done for 150 years doesn't make it right. Right? And so can we accept that? Can we accept it that makes a lot of people really,

Stuart Murray  45:08  
really Yes, uncomfortable, yeah, I mean, and I appreciate that, and I reason I wanted to go back to that is that, you know, we get into sort of these performative conversations. And, you know, people talk about reconciliation, saying, Well, you know, I'm feeling better because, you know, we we give a land acknowledgement before our speeches or before our meetings, or whatever may be. And, you know, and I've had conversations with, you know, Marie st Claire's son, Negan, who I know quite well, and I we've got a wonderful relationship. I learned so much from him that to say that, you know, it seems to me, Bruce, that that giving the land acknowledgement before or whatever the event is, is the equivalent of when you get on an airplane and they start to give you the security here's the exits, and you can do this and how to put a, you know, your safety belt on, and everybody's looking at their phone or talking to somebody. I mean, nobody's paying attention, but you know, they're, you know, you can sort of check a box and say, Oh, we did a land acknowledgement. And, you know, you start to say, you know, maybe instead of doing a land acknowledgement, maybe we should talk about, not talk about, at least introduce one of the 94 recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Just introduce it. So people might say, Well, I didn't, wasn't aware of it, fair enough. And it's not to again, throw shade. It's about learning. It's about how can we advance the conversation? So, you know, I, I'm glad I kind of put you a bit on the spot there, on the uncomfortable thing, because I think people have to hear that.

Bruce McIvor  46:38  
Yeah, I'll need to send you one story. I've got these shirts I made up. On the back of the shirt, it says, If reconciliation is making you feel good, you're doing it wrong. Give those to my indigenous friends, and they laugh. They don't talk to I'm talking about there is the odd time I'll offer them to a government worker, but it was making me feel good. Yeah, yeah. So yeah. You know the point about the land acknowledgement, one of the things that I suggest to people, and I've suggested this to the congregation at my church is that you'll just stand up and do a land acknowledgement. Stand up and say, and this is what we are doing, or this is what we have done, like, what are you doing? That's what's important. It was one of the things that really upset me last year when the Vatican gave this supposed retraction of the doctrine of discovery, which it wasn't all. It failed on so many levels. One of the main things that failed on was they didn't say what they were going to do. Now, what are you doing? Are you doing something? And that's what I think we should all hold people to account for. What are you doing personally and what are your representatives doing? I tell non Indigenous people this all the time. If you want to do something, get on the phone to your politicians. Tell them you expect more. You expect more than just some kind of performative thing. You expect them. What have you done? Show me that, and if you've not done it, I'm going to be calling you back in six months.

Stuart Murray  48:37  
Right? What have you done? Right? Yeah, that's awesome. Bruce McIver, thank you so much for this conversation. I I was going to use the analogy as the times of sand slip through the hourglass, simply because that's on the front page of your of your book, which is beautifully written. Of course, I'm going to buy it and give it to to family members, because I do think that it's a it's a great read. But one thing I always try to do Bruce is when I sign off, just to say to my guest, because the experts and the advocates that I'm very fortunate to have on this show, I was asked the question, is there something you're hoping I might ask you that I haven't asked you.

Bruce McIvor  49:23  
I guess the only thing maybe you could still ask me about is that, why is it important for indigenous people to get involved in this and particularly as lawyers? Yeah, that's where I come from. So I speak to a lot of young Indigenous people thinking about a career, and I explained to them, you can be such an effective advocate for. In his people through the law. It can be a wonderful, wonderful career. It's challenging. Don't believe all the stuff you see on TV about that's not really what practicing life. Thank God, and you can do useful things. Give back to your community, and find a great group of fellow indigenous lawyers that you spend your time with, you develop careers with. I just think it's a fantastic profession, and you can be the kind of lawyer that you want to be, and that's a that's a great opportunity to do something useful,

Stuart Murray  50:50  
perfect, great way to end it. Bruce, thank you again for writing this book, and, of course, your other books you've written, but in this particular book that we talked about today, thank you so much for your time. Thank you what you for, what you do, and next time you happen to be in Manitoba, I would be thrilled and delighted if our paths crossed and have a coffee with you, but I appreciate your time.

Bruce McIvor  51:11  
Fantastic. Thank you very much.

Matt Cundill  51:13  
Thanks for listening to humans on rights. A transcript of this episode is available by clicking the link in the show notes of this episode, humans on rights is recorded and hosted by Stuart Murray, social media marketing by Buffy Davey, music by Doug Edmond. For more, go to human rights hub.ca.

Tara Sands 51:34  
Produced and distributed by the sound off media company.