This past June, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) released its executive summary and recommendations. Since the release of the recommendations, members of the UVic Law community have embraced the recommendations. In a recent post on Slaw, Dean Jeremy Webber, writing on behalf of the Council of Canadian Law Deans, outlines what the recommendations mean for Canadian law schools and outlines some of the promising initiatives at UVic Law that can be built upon to meet the goals of the recommendations. Professors Gillian Calder and Rebecca Johnson also recently reflected on the TRC’s recommendations and what it means for legal education in Canada on the Canadian Lawyer blog.
You can read Dean Webber’s post here and Professors Calder and Johnson’s post here. UVic Law’s response to the TRC’s recommendations is also available online.
The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada is available online.
To learn more about the TRC, check out these items at UVic Libraries:
They came for the children: Canada, Aboriginal peoples, and residential schools / Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Online.
Truth and indignation: Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Indian Residential Schools / Ronald Niezen. Call Number: E96.5 N53 2013.
Unsettling the settler within: Indian residential schools, truth telling, and reconciliation in Canada / Paulette Regan. Call Number: E96.5 R44 2010.
Response, responsibility and renewal: Canada’s truth and reconciliation journey / edited for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation by Gregory Younging, Jonathan Dewar, Mike DeGagné. Online.
The Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission / Julian Walker. Online.
This year, as part of the Legal Process course at UVic, we took two days in January, (cancelled all other first year law classes) and brought the students back into their Legal Process groups to spend some concentrated time on the Truth & Reconciliation Commission’s “94 Calls to Action.”
What follows is first a description of what we did over the two days, and then some comments on how these materials could be adapted for use more generally.
THE TWO DAY PROGRAM – DESCRIBED
On the first morning (a 3 hour block), we had a panel of 6 speakers. The goal was, in an embodied way, to introduce our students to the history and context for the establishment of the TRC, including the history and legacy of Residential Schools. Here is the agenda for the day Agenda for Jan 20 – Day 1 panel (sorry…it will come up on its side, so you may have to rotate it to read it). In brief, we had:
a Welcome to the territories by Songhees Elder Butch Dick, Artist and Educator
Tla-o-qui-aht Elder Barney Williams Jr, member of the TRC Indian Residential School Survivor Committee
Karla Point, Hesquiaht First Nation and UVic Cultural Support Coordinator
UVic (law) Prof Rebecca Johnson, giving an overview of the legal history leading to the TRC and the 94 Calls to Action [See below for more on this]
Ry Moran, Director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation
Aimee Craft, Director of Research, National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation
UVic (visual anthropology) Prof Andrea Walsh, speaking about the process of repatriating children’s art from a provincial residential school
UVic Chancellor Shelagh Rogers, Honorary Witness to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
On the second morning (another 3 hour block), following a short debrief of the day before, the students worked in small groups on a set of exercises aimed at introducing them working collaboratively and individually with the 94 Calls, with the goal being, in part, developing fluency with the content (that is, just knowing what is IN the document). Here is a copy of the exercise handout.TRC 2016 assignment handout. Here is a copy of the instructor notes that were distributed to the teachers facilitating the small group work. Instructor notes for TRC session-jan19
COMMENTS ON SETTING UP A MANDATORY TWO DAY PROGRAM:
Because these two days were part of a mandatory course, attendance was expected for the two days (for students who were unable to make one session or there other, there was an alternative exercise). While this was mandatory, we did not want to create more work for either faculty or students: we wanted a space to do some work, but not in a way that would be overwhelming. Indeed, the focus was in large measure not on the entire history of residential schools, but on the 94 Calls to Action.
We did NOT ask them to read anything in advance, nor did we give them any additional readings about the TRC or its history. We presume that there will be much to do on this front over the course of the students’ education. At THIS point, we wanted to work exclusively with the 12 page document that is the TRC Calls to Action.
To set the context, there was some coordination with first year profs early in the year/term, so that all the students had already had a few lectures relating to issues emerging in the TRC Calls to Action [including a lecture in Criminal law on the Kikkik case, and Inuit relocations; a lecture in Constitutional law on the history of Govt/Indigenous relations leading up to the establishment of residential schools]
The first day panel was an intense experience, in a good way. We had struggled in advance over the question of whether or not to ask someone to come speak with us about their residential school experience. On the one hand was the worry that Indigenous folks are all too often asked to share in contexts that are very exacting (that is, I was not wanting to do more damage). On the other hand, people pointed out the real importance of having space made for those voices, and of letting others make the decisions. Certainly, Barney and Karla’s participation was a crucial part of the experience. As many students noted afterwards, it is one thing to have read about things. It is a very different experience to be physically present with someone who speaks to their experience. This was a super helpful piece of situating WHY the TRC Calls to Action matter so profoundly.
Part of the goal for the second day small group work was to enable them to meet up again with the groups with whom they had spent the first two weeks of law school. It was also designed to be more practical and hands on — to look concretely at the text of the 94 calls, and to have a chance to work with them collaboratively with others.
In addition to ‘attendance’/participation in the group work, the “assignment” was two small pieces of reflective (non-graded) writing: at the end of each of the two days, students were to submit a post to a blog (set up so that no one but the teacher would see their comments). They could put down anything they wanted in terms of responses/comments/thoughts/questions. The piece would show up as complete/incomplete based on simply the submission of text, and there were no marks for brilliance, nor content. The point was to create a space for reflective thinking, focus on the process of thinking, not on the substance of the thought.
COMMENTS ON ADAPTING THE EXERCISES TO A SMALLER CLASS CONTEXT
These materials were later adapted for use in the context of an upper year Criminal Law seminar course, using two class sessions.
The first class session was in the nature of a lecture/powerpoint, setting up the legal context that resulted in the TRC Calls to Action. Attached is the powerpoint, which people should feel free to use/modify/adapt, etc. [TRC powerpoint-for sharing] I have a longer draft narrative text which walks a person through the powerpoint. I also have an audio file from the talk for Legal Process. If you want a copy of either, email me at email@example.com. I am happy to pass them along. The point is to introduce students to the largest class-action in Canadian history (the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement – IRSSA), and to have them see the structure of the settlement agreement. This helps to make visible who is and who is not covered by the IRSSA.
For ‘homework’ after the first session, hand out copies of the TRC 94 Calls to Action (the document is only 12 pages long), and ask them to read it through, and highlight “The federal government” every time they see it mentioned. While the feds are not the only actors, they ARE a party to the Settlement Agreement (IRSSA). Thus, the highlighting helps to make visible the sections that speak to their particular obligations. Highlighting the document also helps the students see more clearly how many other parties are present in the document. The other reason to have them highlight is to help with the reading (having a task helps ground the reading, so that eyes don’t just slide over the text and out of focus).
The first exercise focuses on Recommendations 1-42. The goal in each case is not to have students ‘debate’ the recommendations, or consider IF they should be adopted (that would be OK too, but would be a different exercise than the one we used here), but is rather to spend the time trying to ask [in a very descriptive way] what a working group might do, if they were working for a government who was committed to acting on the Calls to Action. The goal is to imagine a space that is actively affirmative and committed to reconciliation.
It helps to divide students into 5 different groups (Justice, Education, Health, Language and Culture, Child Welfare), so each group is only focusing on a handful of recommendations. It also helps for them to have flip chart paper to work on [part of the goal is to also provide a chance for collaborative work and discussion], with plenty of coloured pens. Remind them as they map out strategies to also be including the section numbers. The goal is less for them to SOLVE problems, than to be able to describe the sections, and identify the kinds of verbs and parties involved. For the exercise, we asked them to imagine themselves as the federal government. But many recommendations are aimed at other parties, or are collaborative. So the goal was also for them to think about the mechanisms they would need to put in place to build relations with the other parties they are to be collaborating with. It was helpful (when touching base with the groups as they work) to keep reminding them to think about questions like “division of powers”, and “cooperative federalism”, and also about resources OTHER than money. If they work on flip charts, you can hang them up, so that they can move around to see what the other groups have come up with, which can help in identifying themes.
The second exercise (10 different possible questions to work on) was designed to focus on Recommendations 43-94. These questions again presume people in the community, and don’t require the student to imagine themselves as a lawyer. They can be providing information more generally based on their knowledge. The goal is to help an interested person locate sections that may be of interest, and to think about creative solutions. Here, try to focus them in on finding recommendations that might be drawn up even where they don’t require action (that is, consider that there are recommendations that might serve as inspiration for people wanting to take steps, rather than seeing them only as obligations to be met or avoided). This approach makes it easier for them to read the sections with a sense of who is invited in, and the kinds of actions of reconciliation that might be imagined.
The above was one way of introducing the 94 Calls to Action into an upper year crim law class. Given the breadth of the calls, it is hopefully clear that one might just as easily do this in the context of many other law school classes. Indeed, it is also possible to do this with high school or general community groups, adapting the materials both to the time available, and the particular interests of the group.