Life in Canada

Museum celebrates horror of First Nations Struggles
I think there is something inherently perverse about the Canadian Museum for Human Rights
The project to define much of what happened to First Nations peoples after European contact as a genocide is, of course, much bigger than the museum. Last July, a potent shot was fired through an op-ed column in the Toronto Star. “It is time for Canadians to face the sad truth. Canada engaged in a deliberate policy of attempted genocide against First Nations people,” wrote Phil Fontaine, former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, along with two active leaders of the Jewish community, Bernie Farber and Dr. Michael Dan. Their case was based on the residential school system and the government’s unwillingness to prevent mass deaths from tuberculosis, as well as some recently come-to-light documentation on nutrition experiments in which residential school children were all but starved. These, wrote Dan, remind him of “Nazi medicine.” The authors consider it self-evident that Canada’s treatment of First Nations peoples should be deemed “genocide,” as defined by the United Nations in 1948. Dan says that as a physician, he takes a clinical approach: “The UN definition is there, so you look; something either fits the criteria or doesn’t. Many things that happened to Native people fit the criteria.”

While this position is shared by growing numbers in academia and media, it carries profound implications. Such a reassessment of Canada’s history is troubling to many, not least because it equates perpetrators such as the Nazis, Stalin and Ottoman Turks with our own Canadian government and its colonial predecessors — ourselves and our ancestors. Even our churches, by running the residential schools, committed evil while believing they were doing good.

In our world, genocide is absolutely the worst thing you can say about an action undertaken by individuals or groups. So atrocious, in fact, that many historic events that carry the characteristics of genocide struggle to — or fail to — get named as such. Behind all this is a substantial problem with the word itself. The horrific things that have happened to peoples throughout history went without a name until Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born lawyer who lost his whole family to the Holocaust, combined the Greek word genos, meaning “race or tribe,” and the Latin –cide, meaning “killing.” He coined the term “genocide” and declared that it occurs when your group is targeted, not because of what you have done, but because of who you are.

Though we normally think of genocide as exterminating a people en masse within a short timeframe (and those recognized by the Canadian government all fit this description), the UN definition is quite a bit broader. Killing groups incrementally or destroying their identity by deliberately demolishing their culture also qualifies as genocide (see sidebar). But ironically, formalizing genocide as a crime seemed to augment rather than solve problems. In 1948, after much lobbying and debate, the newly formed United Nations passed a resolution declaring genocide as something to be both prevented and punished. Many countries, however, resisted the treaty, including the United States, whose Senate took nearly four decades to ratify it. This was possibly because those who failed to prevent genocide were also at risk of punishment.

Another problem: which events would be allowed to claim the name? What happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Turks in 1915 was retroactively termed a genocide — though still much protested by Turkey. Meanwhile, whether the violent slaughter in Rwanda in 1994 was actually genocide or simply a horrible chaos continues to be disputed in some circles. One issue is that the term itself has been placed on such an elevated tier of evil that its use is both jealously guarded and jealously coveted — franchised out, if you will, to specific victims.

In her 2002 Pulitzer Prize-winning book A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, Harvard scholar Samantha Power (now U.S. ambassador to the UN) describes how for almost the entire 100 days it took the Rwandan catastrophe to play itself out, the UN Security Council and the various arms of the U.S. government were locked in a semantic debate about whether to use “the G-word.”

“Genocide” is a legal as well as a descriptive term. It is duelled over between activists on one side and scholars on the other. To academics, who strive to be rigorous about history, perpetrators’ levels of intent are important, as is the notion that no one genocide looks exactly the same as the next. William Schabas, a Canadian-born international law scholar at Middlesex University in the United Kingdom, told a CBC radio interviewer that the term carries “a special stigma that distorts the debate.”

This is a view shared by the first academic I approached for an interview, a historian who hastened to tell me the topic has become so politicized he didn’t wish to go on record. Like Schabas, he does not deny that awful things happened to Native peoples in Canada. But he argues that using the term “genocide” makes it difficult to look at the awful things with precision: conventional wisdom and political correctness take over. The resulting chill prevents historians from examining the implications of these events.

Applying the term “genocide” to what happened in North America goes back four decades to the 1973 book The Genocide Machine in Canada: The Pacification of the North, by Robert Davis and Mark Zannis. Other books came later: American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World (1993), by David E. Stannard; and Accounting for Genocide: Canada’s Bureaucratic Assault on Aboriginal People (2003), by Dean Neu and Richard Therrien.

Andrew Woolford, a professor of criminology at the University of Manitoba specializing in genocide studies, predicts the term’s use will continue to grow, particularly among Canadian academics. In 2004, he was the only Canadian scholar presenting at an international genocide conference; nine years later, there were seven papers on Canada. “There is a generational shift, where younger academics want to look at Canada through the critical genocide-studies lens,” he says. Still, he worries that people will fear being labelled denialists should they disagree with even a part of the thesis presented. “The role of scholarship should be to complicate rather than simplify things.”

On the positive side, Woolford argues that should the idea of a First Nations genocide become generally accepted, the results would be beneficial. “For the survivors, recognition is important. From a more general perspective, my angle is that thinking about ourselves as a nation born out of genocide gives us a point to reinvent ourselves, to think about how we can decolonize Canada and be different as a nation.”

In an interview, Dan, one of the Star editorial’s authors, suggests that using the term should be about healing. As a Jew, he says, he has spent a lot of time thinking about genocide. “In Canada, we have trouble processing the idea we are capable of it. It doesn’t go with our being peacekeepers, a nice country that is apologizing all the time. But in order to heal, we have to acknowledge that we did this.” Fontaine sees acceptance of genocide as closing a gaping circle. “Some people say it’s going to be just another money grab,” he allows. “Not so. It was never intended as something that would extract more money from the government. But there has to be a series of conversations with Canadians so together we can write the missing chapter in Canadian history, one that would have to include this notion of genocide.”

Something else about genocide is the thorny question of responsibility and guilt. As Hannah Arendt famously wrote of the Holocaust — an analysis quite possibly appropriate for the Aboriginal situation in Canada — yes, racist policy, though sometimes couched in the language of good intentions, bears a basic responsibility. But the majority of destructive actions are carried out by people (in Canada’s case, a lot of church people) simply doing their jobs, blind (sometimes wilfully) to the implications of their actions. This, as Arendt put it, is the banality of evil.

Former United Church moderator Very Rev. Stanley McKay says that the idea of a Native people’s genocide is difficult for our society. “We are completely caught up in the Canadian concept that somehow we were doing good; the church in particular had the interests of the First Nations in our minds and hearts when we did these things.” The first Aboriginal moderator of the United Church, now retired north of Winnipeg, McKay says that though it will encounter strong resistance, the project to identify some actions as genocide is important.

“Years ago, those of us who lived on reserves and went to residential schools experienced racism without having any idea what to do,” he says. “We had no idea we had rights to have things different.” When asked if the church has a role in the emerging discussion, he answers quickly, “Yes, a fundamental role. The credibility of the Christian community is on the line as this information becomes more widely available and people can no longer claim ignorance. The future of the church rests on its capacity to engage and develop right relations.”

Rev. James Scott, General Council’s officer for residential schools for the past 12 years, has observed the term “genocide” gain traction over time, with “more Aboriginal people now using the word.” Last fall, his staff flagged the importance of having a discussion about the use of the term within the church. “We need to move as a settler society to grapple with the breadth and depth of what harm we did,” he says. Still, he advises caution. “‘Genocide’ is a very incendiary word that sometimes might be a barrier [to] having people talk about important things that really happened. If you scare people away, they won’t want to hear the truth.”

Rev. Maggie McLeod, the United Church’s executive minister for the Aboriginal Ministries Circle, recalls the leaders of her home community using the terminology “cultural genocide” to describe “the historical reality of the destruction of culture and language.” But she says that such language, when used in other circles, “to my surprise and disappointment was considered to be carrying the impact a little too far.”

Says Scott, “There may be gradations of how blunt we can be, but those gradations need to move forward. We need to learn and help others understand the profound brokenness we created.”

Everybody struggles in this manner. In Winnipeg, museum staffers wrestle with what they see as their proper responsibility. “If the museum were to use the word ‘genocide,’ it would make a declaration it has no right to make,” museum spokesperson Maureen Fitzhenry told the Winnipeg Free Press. “We are not a court that adjudicates,” Clint Curle, head of stakeholder relations, tells me, “but a place to hold the conversation. We believe this is our proper and also welcome role. Education may be more effective than adjudication in helping Canadians grapple with the human rights issues in our past. That is also more in keeping with the museum’s capacity.”

What should Canadians feel? Should we be appalled by efforts to lump us in with history’s vilest regimes, or should we welcome a blunter interpretation of our national story? Is it important and necessary that we experience a greater shame than we already carry with regard to the history of Canada’s relations with First Nations peoples?

HALIFAX -- Nova Scotia's bridges are corroding and crumbling to the point where 391 of those inspected were listed as having serious damage including missing concrete, says a provincial database.

Chief highway engineer Bruce Fitzner says the decline of bridges has reached the point where the government might consider closing smaller crossings that aren't frequently used.

Using the freedom-of-information law, The Canadian Press obtained 3,021 inspection reports done on bridges in 2012, the last year where records are complete. It is sad that a law has to be used to get such critical information and shows that authorities just do no care about the public they serve.

An analysis of the data from those reports, shows 13 per cent of the bridges inspected were in poor or worse shape. The database is based on preliminary and advanced inspections of the bridges.

Bridges in poor condition were those that had advanced section loss, pieces of concrete falling off and structure that was worn away by water and sediment, the database says. Those considered in serious shape -- a worse ranking than poor -- had various forms of erosion and crumbling that affected primary structural components.

Fitzner said smaller bridges could be closed by the Transportation Department.

"We talk about the long-term deficit. It has to be addressed at some point or infrastructure comes out of service," he said in an interview.

"It's a huge challenge."

The percentage of bridges in poor or worse condition grew gradually from just under 11 per cent in 2010, while those listed in good or better shape fell from 54.6 per cent to 53.3 per cent over three years, the database says.

Just under half of the province's 4,310 bridges are more than 50 years old, Fitzner said.

He said the bridges remain safe, in part because when they are too deteriorated they are either closed or a new maximum weight is posted. Fifty-three bridges are on a five-year replacement or repair list, he added.

The database does not say how many bridges have been closed.

Fitzner said tight budgets mean many of those listed as poor or worse will have to wait for repairs as the province's salty air takes its toll.

"You start losing the metal to oxidation," he said. "If you have a very rigorous painting program you keep that section loss from happening, and in a lot of cases we aren't doing that as much as we should be doing it."

Partial results released for last year show that 3,950 bridge inspection reports were done, but 527 of those are incomplete, the database says. Of those that are complete, 344 were ranked poor or worse.

The problems detected affect all sorts of bridges, from those in tiny, out-of-the way areas to busy overpasses in Halifax.

The Prospect Road Overpass on the outskirts of the city was listed in serious condition. Damage to the bridge includes the loss of structure in its steel girders, the main horizontal supports.

Inspection reports in 2012 and 2013 for that overpass also say the bridge bearings, which are sandwiched between beams and the foundations, were deteriorating to the point where pieces had broken off.

The bridge is on schedule for repairs in four years, and there are quarterly inspections to ensure it doesn't deteriorate further.

Highway 7, located along the province's windy and scenic Eastern Shore, has a dozen bridges that were in poor or serious condition, the database says.

"Timber abutments are rotten," says an inspection report dated Aug. 14, 2012, on the Gaetz Brook Bridge, one of the bridges cited along that stretch of road. The Spry Bay Bridge, east of the Gaetz Brook Bridge, was found to have "severe widespread crushing of abutment and pier members" in an inspection report dated April 3, 2012.

"All of them are deteriorating at roughly the same rate and they're all coming up due for a major rehabilitation or replacement," Will Crocker, the province's chief bridge engineer, said in an interview.

On the Trans-Canada Highway between Halifax and Truro, an overpass at Nine Mile River is listed as having "heavy pitting and section loss on girders," with a note saying, "superstructure needs repairs."

Crocker said the Transportation Department will keep monitoring the bridges and, in some cases, the work will be timed to coincide with highway upgrades.

In some counties, inspectors occasionally add handwritten notes on the state of decline of the bridges, many of them small and on quiet roads.

"Bad shape," an inspector says about the Campbell Meadow Bridge in Kings County. "On the project list for last two or three years!"

In Cape Breton, the Crowdis Bridge over the Margaree River was closed due to its deteriorated condition. After pressure from community leaders who were worried about being cut off from emergency services, the Transportation Department agreed to replace it.

However, Fitzner said such agreements to fix one bridge could mean communities have to accept that other small bridges can't remain open.

"We ultimately need to look at the amount of infrastructure we have," he said. "At some point in the future does it make sense to have three or four crossings over a river if one or two of them would suffice?"

Fitzner said the province is also hoping that Ottawa's $14-billion infrastructure program -- the Building Canada Fund in last year's budget -- will add to budgets for roads and bridges.

In the meantime, he estimates the province is about $100 million a year short of what's needed to keep its highways and crossings in good condition.

"It's going to remain a challenge just because of the financial position of the province," he said.

Cancer and heart disease, the two leading causes of death in Canada, were responsible for just over one-half (51%) of the 238,617 deaths in 2008. I wonder why it takes so long to get these figures when they are automatically recorded by assigned authorities. Perhaps if they were issued earlier then public concern and even outrage might happen..? Yes in Canada.

For the first time, cancer was the leading cause of death in every province and territory. In 2007, it was the leading cause everywhere except Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories.

Heart disease was the second leading cause of death in every province and territory in 2008, except Nunavut where suicide ranked second.

Cancer accounted for 30% of all deaths in 2008, followed by heart disease (21%) and stroke (6%).

Ranked in order, the other seven leading causes of death were chronic lower respiratory diseases, accidents (unintentional injuries), diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, influenza and pneumonia, kidney disease and suicide.

These 10 leading causes accounted for 77% of all deaths in 2008, compared with 80% in 2000.

By age group, there were differences in the leading causes of death. Congenital abnormalities was the leading cause of death for infants under one year of age, accidents (unintentional injuries) for people aged 1 to 34, cancer for those aged 35 to 84 and heart disease for those aged 85 and over.

For young adults aged 15 to 24, the top three causes of death in order were accidents, suicide and homicide. Perhaps this is why the figures are 3 years behind.?

To control for the impact of population aging on death rates, comparisons over time are made using the "age-standardized mortality rate." This removes the impact of differences in the age structure of populations among areas and over time.

Between 2000 and 2008, age-standardized mortality rates were on a downward trend in general for all 10 leading causes of death. However, in 2008, age-standardized mortality rates for Alzheimer's disease increased 8% from 2007, as did the standardized rate for suicide, up 2%.

In 2008, 3,705 people committed suicide, up almost 3% from 2007. Of these, 2,777 were men, three times the total for women (928). Suicide was the second leading cause of death for men aged 15 to 44 and for women aged 15 to 24 and the third leading cause of death for women aged 25 to 44.

In 2008, 6,573 people died of Alzheimer's disease, up 11% from 2007. A total of 4,606 women died of Alzheimer's disease, more than twice the total for men (1,967).

We should help older immigrants learn English or French as soon as possible so they don't feel so isolated.

June is Seniors’ Month, a time to honour older Canadians – their knowledge, experience and the contributions they make every day to our country. But there’s one group of neglected seniors: those who arrive in Canada after the age 50. These immigrants are often family members sponsored to join children and grandchildren who’ve already settled in Canada. They too are important members of our society.

A research project led by Kenise Murphy Kilbride of Ryerson University found that, during the past 15 years, nearly two-thirds of immigrants 50 and over reported having no knowledge of either official language at their time of entry. Immigrants 65 and older, and female immigrants, are even less likely to speak English or French.

Without knowledge of English or French, older immigrants are at a disadvantage in the labour market. Moreover, they can’t expect any income support from Canada’s social programs. The Old Age Security payments that are made to almost everyone starting at 65 require 10 years of Canadian residency.

Those who meet the 10-year requirement receive only a partial pension of $130 a month. As a consequence, immigrants arriving before 55 receive only this modest payment, while those who are older when they arrive must wait 10 years to receive it.

Without the ability to speak English or French, and without Canadian income security payments, many of these seniors rely on their families. At the same time, families depend on their older relatives for child care, home care, cooking and cleaning and various other unpaid duties.

Some of the older immigrants are further isolated when they can’t even communicate with their grandchildren. This happens when immigrant seniors can’t speak English or French and their children or grandchildren have lost the first language.

Leaving these seniors and their families to fend for themselves is poor public policy. Governments need to take two important steps:

• Provide more aid for older immigrants to learn English or French immediately after arriving in Canada. There are many ways to tailor newcomer language instruction to the particular needs of older individuals, including specialized classes for seniors. For older adults, it’s essential that the language instructor also be fluent in their first language.

• Assist older immigrants who want to take up paid employment. In addition to improving their language skills, this requires recognition of non-Canadian educational credentials and work experience.

At present, many educational qualifications and much professional experience acquired abroad are not recognized in Canada. As a result, immigrants seeking employment find themselves in a Catch-22, because employers usually require Canadian qualifications and work experience.

Immigrants entering Canada after reaching 50 face particular challenges as returning to school for an extended period to upgrade credentials is a poor investment. It makes little sense, for example, for a 55-year-old to enter a three- or four-year college or university program.

Consequently, the expertise and skills of immigrant professionals who have qualifications acquired abroad and extensive experience in their fields can go to waste. Too often, immigrant seniors eke out a living by driving taxis or taking jobs at gas stations and grocery stores.

This is an inefficient allocation of human capital, especially when Canadian firms are clamouring for skilled workers who have familiarity with international markets.

To better use the skills of older immigrants, governments, educational institutions and professional groups should introduce more short-term courses designed to help those new to the country demonstrate they meet Canadian standards. The condition of a Canadian professional qualification could, in some cases, reasonably be met on successful completion of such courses.

In other cases, employers might want to be more flexible in their expectation of Canadian work experience and education. After all, it’s the decades of demonstrated ability of a potential worker that’s paramount, not the paper credentials.

For immigrant seniors, having greater access to fulfilling employment opportunities would alleviate financial difficulties and feelings of rejection and isolation. More access to jobs would also encourage immigrants to more quickly learn English or French. For the Canadian economy, tapping more deeply into a pool of knowledgeable and motivated workers would boost productivity.

Seniors’ Month is an opportunity to recognize those who have worked hard and continue to contribute to the prosperity we all enjoy today. And governments should make sure that immigrant seniors are not isolated and excluded as a result of language and employment barriers.

HALIFAX - Nova Scotia's regulatory agency opened hearings Monday into a large biomass fuel proposal that has environmentalists worried about the future of the province's forests and ratepayers uncertain about the cost of electricity.

Nova Scotia Power Inc. and Newpage Port Hawkesbury Corp. are asking the Utility and Review Board to approve a plan to burn 650,000 metric tonnes of wood a year to fire a steam generator at the Cape Breton paper mill. The project would take advantage of the unused capacity on Newpage's main boiler by adding a steam turbine generator and associated equipment.

In documents filed with the board, the proponents say the project would produce about 400 gigawatts of power — about three per cent of the province's total electricity needs — while meeting the mill's need for steam.

Robin McAdam, Nova Scotia Power's executive vice president of sustainability, said the project would help the company take a "large step" toward meeting renewable energy targets for 2013.

They would like a decision from the board by October.

"We need this project for 2013 compliance and it does put us on track toward that," he said as the hearing got underway. "We'd like to see this plant running by the end of December 2012."

The applicants say the $200-million project would create 150 new forestry jobs and help Newpage maintain 550 jobs at its mill.

The provincial government is demanding 25 per cent of Nova Scotia's energy supply come from renewable resources by 2015.

The utility says it has relied almost exclusively on wind generation to help it meet initial targets, but now it needs to look at biomass.

Consumer advocate Bill Mahody pressed utility officials during the hearing for clarity on the effects of a 40-year biomass supply contract on power rates.

"It is the ratepayers who bear this risk entirely in relation to the way this project is currently structured," said Mahody.

"Ratepayers want to know that the deal has been done with as much certainty and that the costs are as certain as they can be."

The plan is opposed by a coalition of environmentalists and woodlot owners who fear it will lead to an increase in clear cutting.

Jamie Simpson, a forester with the Ecology Action Centre, said he finds it hard to believe the harvest could be sustainable even though the proponents plan to use stem wood only, leaving trunks and branches to restore soil nutrients.

"There's undoubtedly a role for biomass energy in Nova Scotia but this proposed project is not the responsible route to take," he said in his opening remarks to the board.

"While we do not oppose the use of biomass per se, it is critical that Nova Scotia go down this path with a clear understanding of the impacts on our forest resources and greenhouse gas emissions."

The Ecology Action Centre's concerns about wood supply were echoed by Neal Livingston of the Margaree Environmental Association.

"Our concern is that this plant is too big for Cape Breton. ... We think that there will be as much as a 50 per cent increase in cutting on the island and eastern Nova Scotia," he told the board.

"NSPI and Newpage are essentially locking up the wood supply, which could be used for other things."

What a waste of money in Nova Scotia

It would seem that all persons who qualify and receive from Community Services, any type of financial support are not accountable for how they spend it..They can spend it just how they choose..thats RIGHT yes.??

1. Should there be some accountability in the Community Services Section for ensuring that generous allocated amounts of tax payers money issued purposely to aid a person in designated areas and thus help less fortunate people, is actually used for that purpose and no other purpose.
   
   The issue here is the accountability for ensuring needy targeted areas are actually reached and audited 'if say rent issued to a person to pay rent and is then used by that person for other purposes and not pay the rent what should happen?'.
   
   
2. .When a person is named as power of attorney (enduring) by a donor, and the person named is being treated for paranoid schizophrenia prior to taking on this role, should the ill person be allowed to take on the role of POA without proper supervision.
   
   When say using lawyers, and in my view this should be a free or at least tax deductable facility,for the signing a legal POA, should the donor be seen alone by the lawyer and privately without any recipient presence in order to not be influenced by a 'dependence situation' and should the recipient of the POA be questioned about their mental health. The donor or lawyer may not be aware or incapable of seeing these issues and trust the recipient. Once signed its sealed, and lets say incompetence of the donor happens at a later time, what recourse, apart from The Supreme Court, is there to have the POA stopped by family or friends of the incompetent donor. NONE
   
   The issue here is that in a co-dependence family situation that is all too common, the recipient of the POD who may be seen as a trusted capable friend or perhaps a son or daughter etc. may be themselves ill and by taking on this responsibility may in fact endanger their own and the donors life.