Nuanced. - 84. Marion Buller: Missing & Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls Inquiry

Episode Date: November 7, 2022

Marion Buller and Aaron Pete sit down to discuss the Caribou-Chilcotin Justice Inquiry, First Nations court, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The Honourable Marion Buller was appointed the first woman First Nations judge in British Columbia in 1994 and was appointed as chief commissioner for the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in 2016. Prior to being appointed to the Provincial Court bench, Judge Buller worked as a civil and criminal lawyer (1988 – 1994). Judge Buller Bennett served as both a director and president of Canada’s Indigenous Bar Association and has been a member of the B.C. Police Commission and the Law Court Education Society. She was the Commission Counsel for the Caribou-Chilcotin Justice Inquiry and published reports and articles dealing with Aboriginal rights and legal services for First Nations in BC. Judge Buller was instrumental in starting the First Nations Court of British Columbia in 2006.Judge Buller received her bachelor's degree in anthropology from the University of Victoria, and went on to study law there as well. Judge Buller is currently resident in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, where she sits on the Provincial Court Bench, but maintains band membership with the Mistawasis First Nation in Saskatchewan.In 2012, Judge Buller received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the UVic Faculty of Social Science.Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://aaronpete.substack.com/  Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/7RRAeumn0RQListen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7jl39CsCYhImbLevAF6aTe?si=dc4479f225ff440b  Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/bigger-than-me-podcast/id1517645921  Listen on Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS8xMDc3MjYyLnJzcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiA8JKF2tT0AhUPmp4KHR2rAPkQ9sEGegQIARACSend us a textThe "What's Going On?" PodcastThink casual, relatable discussions like you'd overhear in a barbershop....Listen on: Apple Podcasts   SpotifySupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

This episode is sponsored by the Real Estate Foundation of BC. REFBC is a philanthropic organization that supports sustainable, equitable, and socially just relationships with land and water. Learn more about the foundation's grants and initiatives at REFBC.com. I'm Marianne Buller. I'm a member of the Mista Wazasas Nehawak in Saskatch in Saskatchewan. I'm also, I hope I can get this all right, sister, sister-in-law, grandma, kookum, step-mom, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, sister-in-law, I don't want to leave anybody out, cousin, niece, auntie, great-ante, I think I got everybody, all my relations. Beautiful. Yes, and I've been fortunate to have a wonderful education.

I have been the first First Nations woman appointed as a judge to any court in British Columbia. I was a judge for 22 years in the provincial court. Then I went on to be the chief commissioner for the National Inquiry and to Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. I'm back practicing law part-time. So completing the circle. And in addition to my law practice, I'm the Chancellor of the University of Victoria. That's incredible. When did this become an interest of yours? When did you start to see that you

wanted to bring something of real value to the community? Because you've played a role in so many different ways. When did being involved in law, helping the community, when did that start to become a passion of yours? Well, when did law become a passion? Well, it wasn't until later on in life, to be honest with you. I did my undergraduate degree at the University of Victoria. in anthropology, graduated, worked for 10 years in a variety of jobs, and then got about as far as I could get without a postgraduate degree of some sort. And so I looked at a variety of options in MBA, and that was kind of a new program back then. I looked at becoming a charged accountant, a lot of different options. I was living in Victoria at the time, and I knew I could

get into law school, and I was kind of interested in it. So I applied to law school and was accepted. And I went in thinking I would do contracts and corporate law and go back to work for the company I had been working for as in House counsel. But in first year law, everybody has to take criminal law. And I had the most amazing professor, Dr. Keith Jobsen, and I don't know what he did. But he really lit a fire in me about finding justice and being in a courtroom and really, I almost hate to say it, loving the law. And so I decided I wasn't going to be a corporate lawyer after all and ended up in a courtroom for more than 25 years, actually, almost 30 years.

So I don't know, Erin, and this is a short answer. I don't know how it all came to be other than a professor who just well it was this one case that really got my backup uh the title of the case is christie in york and i think a lot of first year students study it and uh mr christie was a black man in montreal and one of the comments in in the um case was that he wasn't entirely black that he had uh taken on a lot of non-black or white characteristics or lifestyle. It really irritated me, that not entirely black. How could that happen?

And where is that coming from? So that's sort of, I think, the one case that was a turning point for me in criminal law. Interesting. Where did, were you well aware of the challenges facing indigenous communities prior to going to law school? Or was that something you were gaining exposure to? You talked a little bit about your community. How does your community sort of impact your worldview?

Well, back then, before law school, our family history was such that we didn't live on reserve and had, I would say, indirect contact with communities in Saskatchewan. And so I knew of what was happening. My father was involved in indigenous theater and indigenous businesses. And so I was very much aware. My paternal grandfather was in a very subtle way, very political. And so I knew about the issues. I knew about the white paper.

I knew about indigenous authors, indigenous performers who were in our kitchen from time to time. So very much aware of the small P and capital P politics of the moment. Right. And so when did you start to learn about the inequities in law school? Because you've been very involved in sort of helping address those issues. When did that become something you thought you could play a role in? Oh, I don't know.

I don't know if there was one thing. I think it was more of a gradual and slow, some people might say, progression. Because I knew that we weren't seeing my family as such. We weren't seen as equals by non-Indigenous people. I just knew that. It was something you just know. You feel? Yeah, you feel it and you know it.

And I just, I really am. motivated, I guess maybe it's the right word, by unfairness. That unfairness really makes me angry. It motivates me. It makes me want to make change. Interesting. So you started practicing, and at a certain point in time, I think it crosses most lawyers' minds of joining the judiciary, being able to try and hear both sides, trying to

enact fairness and justice, what was that process like for you to be interested in joining the bench and sharing your voice in that manner? Oh, becoming a judge, again, kind of, I won't say by accident, but not part of a larger plan that I had in mind. I was commissioned counsel for the Caribou Chilcotin Justice Inquiry, and the commissioner Tony Serich was a retired provincial court judge. And we worked quite closely together throughout the inquiry. And he just started in on me.

He said, you have to apply to be appointed to the bench. You would make a great judge. I want you to apply. And he nagged me to apply for an appointment. And as we were doing our work, we were working with other provincial court judges, even just in a passing way that they were coming through town. so they would stop in and visit and see the work that we were doing. And so many said, you must apply.

You must. We want you to apply. So I did. Not that I grew up wanting to be a judge. It's just I was nagged into submission, basically. I applied. I was interviewed and I was appointed. And I have no regrets.

I was a judge for 22 years. and other than maybe four or five days out of those 22 years, I got up in the morning and I looked forward to going to work. That's beautiful. Can you tell us a little bit about the Chilcotein Inquiry and what that experience was like and sort of what the findings were? Oh, the Caribou Chilcotein Justice Inquiry goes back to spanning about 19, oh, I'm having to draw my memory here,

about 1992 to 1994, roughly. And it was a provincial inquiry only, and we were required to inquire into the relationship between indigenous people and the justice system in the Caribou-Chilcotein area, British Columbia. And it was limited to the justice system, although we had to deal with issues like foster care, lack of treaties, the hanging of the Chilcote and Chiefs, for example.

We had to deal with a lot more than policing courts, legal profession. That's just how it turned out, and not surprisingly, either in hindsight. So it was to look at the relationship between the indigenous people and the justice system in that geographical area, British Columbia. And we held hearings. I looked it up in Williams Lake, out on the Chilcote and Plateau as well, going to Canem Lake, going up to Quinnell,

a variety of locations through that area, and it was stunning, beautiful area. And I think the major finding of the inquiry by Commissioner Serich could be summarized as being that because of history and because of current circumstances of inequities, of inequalities, and of racism, there is a very uneasy and distrustful relationship between indigenous people in that geographical area and the justice system. And also, not just one way, but also distrust and mistrust on the part of people in the justice system towards indigenous people and racism as well, of course. So it goes

both ways. And Commissioner Serich made several recommendations, again, aimed at only at the, unfortunately, only at the justiceism, but amongst other things to revisit the convictions and hangings of the Chilcotan chiefs, and there were several recommendations regarding those chiefs, but also for new relationships between the indigenous people in the area and the justice system. I think that's probably a good summary of the work that was done. The report of the inquiry is still available through the province of BC, and it's remarkable. Commissioner Serich was a great visionary.

Sorry, you just said the hanging of the chiefs. What do you mean when you say that? Oh, maybe it's putting it too nicely. An unfortunate part of British Columbia and Canadian history is that the Chilcote and chiefs led a, some say would, depending on whose side of the Descoo City, led a rebellion against settlement, although other people would say they were liamination. protectors. They were found guilty of a variety of offenses and hung in New Westminster and killed. So it's an important part of Canadian history and British Columbia history that only recently

has been taught and only recently has the provincial government apologized for the treatment of the chiefs. How long ago was that? Because that seems incomprehensible in today's kind of world. And so it's context is something that I think we struggle with nowadays. We don't seem to want to understand the kind of surrounding factors. How does something like that come about? How did it come about? Well, very briefly, and sort of from the 40,000 foot level, back then, Indians, as we were called then and still are, couldn't have lawyers defend them in court, couldn't have proceedings in their own. languages really were pushed through the system, a foreign system that they didn't understand

and didn't understand them. They were found guilty and hung for treason. Yeah, I know. That's a lot to take in. It is. And I really do encourage you to, and anyone else for that matter, to read about the war, they call it, the Chilcotein War. the outcomes, and, you know, it's not a part of our history that we necessarily want to admit to. What recommendations come out of something like that? Because with the discoveries of children being lost at Indian residential schools, I think conversations are important, education is important, but I get very concerned when people only learn the atrocities and the terrible things,

because then the stereotypes just continue. People's understanding of, oh, there's like a drunk person on the side of the road. It must be because of Indian resident. Like, that doesn't help them have more empathy. It just adds context to why they're flawed and imperfect and struggling. So how do you go about making recommendations? And is there any concern when you're helping develop these, that they could be misinterpreted, misused, misunderstood?

Well, how do you develop recommendations? and then misunderstandings. Oh, how many days do you have, and we'll talk about that? Well, first of all, recommendations have to be based on facts, findings of fact. And those findings of fact can be very difficult. It may require a finding that nobody wants to admit to, or we'll say, well, no, you can't make that finding, or we're not going to accept that finding of fact or of denial.

denial of the facts. And so that's the first obstacle when you're framing recommendations is to know that there will be definitely deniers or delayers or, you know, some combination of that type of audience. And there'll be other people who will say, well, of course, we always knew that. This isn't new to us. So you're looking at a wide audience there in terms of knowledge and willingness to accept the truth. And so crafting recommendations have, you know, going into that drafting, that there'll be some people who,

regardless of what you write, will not accept, will not believe, and will not do the work, or will not accept the recommendations. So you have to kind of know that going in. So the purpose of findings of fact, more often than not our education

of helping people understand the truth. Then the recommendations build on that. And it doesn't matter what the inquiry is about. The recommendations have to be based on the findings of fact. I know I'm repeating myself here. And they have to be framed in a way that the recommendations are specific enough that people will understand

the broad enough that they're not overly prescriptive. So you have to find that middle road. That's got to be difficult when you're talking about a tragedy like that. And when you're learning a dark part of BC's and Canada's history to not have that all on your shoulders and not just want to throw over the table. How do you, how did you manage that? Because as we'll talk about moving forward, you've seen some of Canada's darkest secrets. And I just, I don't know how you keep a level, calm mindset, like an ability to keep on track and not get kind of lost. How did you manage that during that time?

Well, I may be calm on the outside, but inside I was screaming. You know, part of that is your training as a judge is that you have to be mindful of the facts. You have to be alert to the nuances of legal arguments, the nuances of facts. that sort of thing. So there's that training as a judge where you're taking it all in. But this was before

you became a judge. So how did you navigate that? Well, it wasn't up to me. It was up to the commissioner, Tony Serich, who had that experience as the judge, I think 25 years or something like that. So the same sort of mindset of, I have to take this

all in. I have to make the findings of fact. What am I going to accept in the way of evidence? What am I going to reject? So there was that type of judicial analysis going on all the time. And for me, it was, I won't say easy. I had to marshal all the evidence, and that was difficult. But the buck stopped with him. So I was kind of off the hook there. Interesting. Do you think that we miss things when we bring that level of analysis? Like, I think inquiries like that that have a judicial element to them are so important. But

when you see what's going on in Ferry Creek, when you see people stopping vehicles in the middle of the road, I always try and believe that no matter what the protest is, people protesting is a statement that there is some sort of concern, regardless of whether you agree 100% with them or 1% with them. There's something they're trying to say, and it seems like right now our justice system is missing something, because these people clearly have a point, which is if we destroy these old growth forests, if we destroy these trees, it will take thousands of years for that to come back and that's not good and that's not part of the analysis for an injunction though and so sometimes it seems like our court system is operating almost separately from what we believe is moral what we believe is the common good what might be good for seven generations into the future sometimes it feels like that factual analysis almost removes the soul from the community and just looks at factual evidence was that ever a struggle for for you, or do you have really a strong confidence that this is the best place and this is the best outcome?

Oh, that's, you know, those are some really tough questions, Aaron. And let's sort of, I hate to use the expression, let's unpack it a little bit. You know, when we look at protests at Ferry Creek and elsewhere, when we look at the opioid crisis on the downtown east side, it doesn't matter what the issue is. It's always human-based. It's always about people. And I think it's easy for everyone to forget that

or to put it on the back burner. And by everyone, I mean everyone, that the media is now learning that it is about people and just look at the change of vocabulary in the media in maybe the last only three years we've gone from protesters to land protectors. You know, the media is doing a shift. They're beginning to understand the humanness.

It isn't about just trees, it's about trees and people and our people's relationship with the trees. So there's that. But the legal system, the Canadian legal system, is very much about people. It's very much about feelings. It's very much about hurt feelings. That's why people are there.

So it's not as cold and fact-driven and as objective, as a lot of people might say, I invite anybody to sit in a courtroom anywhere in British Columbia and see the emotion, the raw emotion that's played out every day in that courtroom. So I think sometimes what happens in a court is misrepresented or misunderstood or something. I can't really find the right word for it. But it is very human, and it isn't mechanical or as mechanical as people would say. And I think sometimes the wrong things end up in court.

I think there's some things that are better left to mediation, to alternate dispute resolution processes. So, you know, but that's a whole other area. So there are just some things that don't belong in court in other. words. I agree. Working as a native court worker, I've gotten to see the impact a judge can have. There's always one sentencing that stands out to me because there was this incredibly vulnerable sex worker who had been abused since a young child. And as a court worker, I developed this kind of pilot project called Gladoo Letters. What I saw was that it took a long time to get a

Gladu report written, and certain people won't be eligible because they're not risk of jail, but their surrounding circumstances should be deeply understood by the court. And I wrote up the Gladu letter, gave it to the judge, and we did like a 30-minute sentencing where he just basically talked to this person as a human being and said, I cannot believe you're here today. I can't believe all the things that you've been through, the abuse, the trauma, the fact that you're still alive today. We're incredibly lucky to have you in our courtroom today. And I really hope that you can put these things behind you and start to be a role model in your community because you're a bright young person who's experienced a lot of abuse. And that's not fair.

She started crying, like the client started crying. The judge started crying because I think for her, it was the first moment someone had acknowledged why she was there and understood her abuses and said it poignantly where she could hear like, it's okay. It reminded me a lot of, I'm going to forget the name of it, the Robin Williams movie, where he goes, it's not your fault. It's not your fault, and it's very difficult. It's Matt Damon. I'm forgetting the name of it. But it's a really good movie, and then he says it's not your fault, and it's very tough for the person to hear because there is so much trauma that we put in the background that we forget about. And so I got to see the impact a judge can have on a person and how deeply their words can matter, because

agree with it, disagree with it, for many people, the judge is the most intimidating person in the room. And I think that that's valuable because we need to hear from people that intimidate us sometimes. There's a movement within my law school community that was like, no, we should all just sit around at a table and talk. There's a benefit to that person being up on that pedestal in comparison to the client. There's a humility that they bring in that goes, I'm going to listen to this person because they don't they're daunting to me and they do look like they know more than me and they likely do and so that's to me an important difference the way we dress in court I think is valuable not for the people dressing correctly but for the clients to feel that this

is a professional place where they're going to experience a fair fair outcome and all of that kind of goes on in the background what are your thoughts on what judges do in our community because I don't know if everybody always understands. Obviously, we go, well, they make decisions. But it's so much more than that. Well, what do judges do in our community? Well, that's hard to answer succinctly because judges do a lot of different things in the community outside of the courtroom. Like, what happens in the courtroom.

Then there's what judges do outside of the courtroom. of all, judges are parents, their partners, their grandparents, their aunties and uncles, their soccer coaches, their piano teachers. You know, being a judge is just one hat, but it's an important hat that judges wear. And we're taught as judges not to talk about ourselves. So even an interview like this is very difficult for me. Aaron, because we're not supposed to be talking about ourselves. It's about the law.

It's about the facts, you know, that it's about our work. So this is, I find it difficult talking about myself and my personal life and also what judges do outside of the courtroom. But judges do a lot of work in terms of education, education conferences, keeping up on the law. I'll tell you, keeping up on the law is difficult. It's almost a full-time job in of itself, because the law is changing and growing daily. And, you know, keeping up on social issues, education about social issues, that's ongoing with all judges. And so there's a lot of work that happens outside of the courtroom. People say, well, you know, what a cushy job.

You show up, you come into court 9, 30, 10 o'clock, you have an hour and a half lunch, and then court's done at 4 o'clock. Well, no. That's, I wish. The day is much longer than that. And quite often into the night and weekends, writing decisions, reviewing documents, that sort of thing. So it's a time and a half job all the time. So there's that side of it. judges I think generally speaking very well informed about social and all sides of social issues that's been my experience so and I think I've had the well I know I've had the pleasure of working with people who are curious, caring and very intelligent and want to do a better job of being a judge I can say that with a great deal of confidence. But I just, you know, you mentioned about how people dress in court. Back when I was a student, I had the opportunity, well, an article student, actually,

to appear with a senior counsel in an American court because of some search warrants and some other things across the border. and I was appalled at what was going on in the courtroom. And this was something similar to our Supreme Court here in British Columbia. It was the summer. Okay, it was the summertime or May. And there were lawyers coming in in sandals and bare feet in Bermuda shorts. the man, a sport jacket and a shirt of some sort and no tie. And the judge would head up black gown on, and we were dressed as we would in a Canadian

court and conducted ourselves as if we were in a Canadian court. And the judge just gave all of the American lawyers, and the way, and the women, I won't even go there, gave them a stern talking to about here, you know, we're honored to have Canadian, two Canadian, well, he considered me a lawyer, two Canadian lawyers in our court and look at how they conduct ourselves and how respectful they are and how really get tired they are. Let that be a lesson to you about professionalism. And after we made the appearance and got the application heard in the court, the judge took us into the back hallway and said, thank you so much. So fast forward, maybe about 20 years, we had a joint conference with the

American Association of Judges and Canadian Association of Judges here in Vancouver. And the American judges had tours of our courts and would sit in on courts, and were genuinely favorably impressed with the professionalism of lawyers. and judges in our court and the demeanor and the solemnity of the court proceedings. So, I know we see a lot of American court scenes on TV and we're not like that. I hope we're never like that in Canada. Anyway, that's in this side. That actually leads into one question.

I already feel pretty confident on what your answer is going to be, but there are people who don't seem to understand the value of not having elections for judges. I'm sure you see them. They sometimes have stickers that says we're not hard enough on crime and that BC judges are the broken link or something like that. And I learned a lot about it in my undergrad about all the reasons. But what are your thoughts on why we don't elect judges? What is the value of just appointing judges in a more proper process? Oh, my goodness, I'm not often speechless, as you can tell.

But in talking to American judges about their process of election, not all judges are elected all the time. So there's some misunderstandings about appointment processes. But the ones who are elected, in the ones that I've spoken to, have said it's a very difficult process because, first of all, how do you maintain your judicial independence and yet get funding for your election campaign? And so that's a big area that they have to deal with in terms of transparency and money and public confidence in their neutrality and their impartiality when they have to raise

funds for their election or re-election, and then running on their record. I mean, judges that I've spoken to, American judges have said, you know, they're mindful of being re-elected or being elected based on their track record of wins and losses as the prosecutor, for example, or as defense counsel, and that it's always kind of like they're always looking over their shoulder about the decisions that they're making, either as a lawyer or as a judge. Whereas in Canada, and the Americans appreciate this, is that we guard our judicial independence very vigorously. And through the appointment process, some people say, oh, well, it should be a public appointment process, et cetera. So, well, I think, you know, there's

some merit to having the open interview, for example. But I'm glad in the 22 years I was a judge that I wasn't having to look over my shoulder wondering, you know, if I make this decision this way, will it mean that I don't get the funds I need for my re-election campaign? I mean, you just have to, it's just so unjudicial. Do you think our process could be improved at all the appointment process of judges, or do you think that it is an effective system? The system now that we have for judges, I think, is fairly effective.

Applicants have to meet certain requirements of number of years of practice, for example. And I'm talking about what happens in BC, not about the Supreme Court of Canada. But you have to practice. You have to be in good standing with your law society. which means, you know, no complaints. You have to be a good lawyer who understands a law. You have to have the support of a variety of people, not just your co-workers, but people who you've had cases against.

For example, other lawyers that you've worked against. Judges, you, of course, have to support your application. I'll say outsiders. So, for example, as an indigenous person applying, you may want to have support from indigenous organizations, individuals, other indigenous judges who know you. So I think that's a really good vetting process, for lack of better words.

And, of course, they always check references that you don't give. So there's that side of it. but in terms of the standards that have to be met I think there's work that needs to be done especially at the Supreme Court of Canada level about the language issue that you have to be somewhat fluent in French in order to be appointed

I think there have been some wonderful judges who have missed out on appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada because of that requirement I'm thinking that there should be requirements about training in indigenous laws, for example, or understanding of indigenous laws for judges all across Canada now. So, you know, we have to update the process, the requirements on paper.

I think they have to be reviewed. But I think the idea of who knows you, who knows your work, do you meet the high standards personally and professionally expected of a judge? because their personal expectations are very high as well. So I think that vetting process is very thorough, and I think it serves Canadians well. Interesting. I'm also interested to know where you think our justice system can be improved

because you were one of the voices behind First Nations Court and trying to make it a more equitable fair process. Can you talk about what you saw and how that kind of came about? Oh, First Nations Court, my favorite child, I suppose. Well, one of my favorite children, I better not have favorites here, but First Nations Court. How did that start? Well, it was a cold stormy day. I was in court in Port Quitlam doing bail hearings, and this man came before the court who was a repeat offender.

And serious offenses, break and enters, but mostly property type serious offenses. some drug offense convictions as well. And duty counsel really didn't give a lot of information about this man. And he was in his 40s, I think, at that point, 50s maybe. And I looked at his criminal record and, you know, there was just something that didn't feel right about this. And so I actually kind of ignored the lawyers in court after I'd heard from that and had a conversation with him.

I said, tell me about yourself. is there's something I'm missing here, or that we're all missing here. And please tell me more about yourself. And so after some gentle questioning, it came out that he was a residential school survivor, Inuit, mother, residential school survivor, youth court, youth detention, you name it, survivor. and graduated from foster care, from, I think they were called juvenile delinquent centers or jails at that point and graduated into the adult criminal justice system. But at times, there were these huge gaps in his convictions on his record where he was doing

really well. And then he would relapse into his drug of choice for a long time was cocaine. and then later became crystal meth. So I was trying to put all this. And what he started to tell me sounded like some people in my own family and their life experience, their life paths. And it came out that he was a residential school survivor, and it took him a long time to admit that.

And I looked at him and I said to, as a residential school survivor, you are to be celebrated as a survivor to have survived what you've survived in your life like the story you told and still being here and to have these years of where you've been sober, you've been clean,

you've been a hard worker, you've raised a family. I said, you're to be celebrated as an important part of Canadian history. Well, people in the court, he looked at me like I slapped them with a wet salmon. You know, like nobody had ever said that to him before. And the people in the courtroom, the lawyers, the court staff, the people in the public gallery looked at me like I had three heads.

Because this was long before, this was like maybe 2002. It was before even the work started to move by the T.R. see and before their work became so public. And I just said, I can't do this anymore. I can't treat you like a criminal or how the system expects me to treat you. We need to do a little bit more digging here about what the best options are for you. So he was in custody at the point and I said, what I'm going to ask you to do. is stay in custody a little bit longer because these reports that I'm going to order for

about you are going to be done faster if you're in custody rather than if I release you. Would you be willing to do that? And he was in a state of shock and he said, okay. And so we had several reports done, and very quickly, and this was before there was, before there was such a thing as the Gladu report, or formally called a Gladu report, brought him back into court, I think it was three days later, and ultimately he was released. But I closed the courtroom because of some of the things I read about what happened to him. And I said to him, okay, there's just us here, I think There's two lawyers, the court clerk, the sheriff, and myself. And I said, just forget about the other people in the courtroom.

She's just going to be the two of us talking. I said, tell me what happened. Do you agree with what I'm reading in these reports? Do you think we're headed in the right direction? And where do you want to end up? So, very long story short, because I said to, I don't want to do this anymore. I don't want to hurt people anymore. how are we going to do this?

And so ultimately he ended up being released, and he crafted his own bail. And he said, this, I know what I need, Judge, and this is what I need. And so an hour and a half later, we came up with a bail document that he crafted that ultimately led to a guilty plea in a sentence that he himself crafted. Now, did he go on to re-offend? Yes, but about five years later. Right. And it was a real education for me where I just said, I can't do this anymore.

I can't be unfair to indigenous people anymore. I've tinkered with the system as best I can and changed how I do work in the courtrooms that I work in. But we need to change the courtroom too. And that led to First Nations Court in 2006. and we had to do things differently. And it was the goal of the court, the goals of the court were and still are to strengthen and support healing.

Yeah, I just interviewed, it's a beautiful story, and I just interviewed John Boros from Yuvic, and he's just a brilliant man. But when he talked about, like, you live out the law, And it's something I think is probably one of the biggest misconceptions when you think about law is that law happens in that building and you're not living it out. But when you choose not to jaywalk, when you run a stop line, you're interacting with the law all the time. It's something I notice as a court worker, which is it's way easier to put the ball in the person's court and say, this is what the court, the crown, knows about you right now. They know that you have two domestic assault files and that you're struggling with alcohol.

What are we going to put on the other side for them to have a full context of who you are? That's up to you. Do you want to get letters from your family? Do you want to go to counseling? What is your plan look like? And I think so often when we're dealing with people's problems, we want to fix symptoms. But when you're dealing with someone with treatment or detox or something like that, they need a reason why they're not going to leave two weeks in.

Who is this for? Why are you doing this? Do you want to become a doctor or a nurse or a lawyer or what do you want to do in your life? And then detox fits in as one step in that process. But when we just go, we'll get you detox, then we'll think about your life. The thinking about where you want to go and how you would have a whole life seems to just fall into the back burner in my opinion, which is why putting it in their court is so valuable. Because people go, yeah, I've always dealt with my anger this way.

And I've never even thought about it. And so counseling can be a good tool and allowing them to choose that for themselves and saying, here's all the resources I have. You pick, you choose. It's not my plan. It's not my life. And that almost frees them from feeling like they're being bullied into it. Like I'm telling them what to do and that they need to check the court's boxes or my boxes or somebody else's boxes.

And that I think acts as a huge motivator for people to, take the reins back on their own life. Oh, absolutely. When you look at what some people call it, compliance with court orders, the ones that are imposed are the ones that are breached. The ones that the offender or the party or a client or one call them plays an active role in crafting, there's compliance and growth. I don't know how many times I've said.

I wish I could take a picture. of a client, a First Nations court client, on their first day in the court, and then on their last day in the court to see the difference. The transformations were amazing. Now, there were some people that didn't make it, and to that I say, we don't blame them. it's we didn't identify the trauma properly and we didn't work with the client in their healing properly it's our failure not theirs and that's i hope what still continues in first nations courts

throughout bc is that when there's a breach it's our fault because we're we didn't do our jobs. That's actually one of my favorite quotes from my executive director, Darrell Shackley, from the court workers, is that our job isn't to guarantee that the person never comes back, because that's not a fair goal to set on the person. It's to, if it's a month between their first court matter and their second, then let's make it two months, then let's make it four months, then let's make it eight months, let's make it like 16 months, and continue to increase the length of time where they're not involved in the system. because I think people feeling jaded is a huge challenge when I've seen other people in the court system go,

yeah, we tried to get them this whole plan and it didn't work. And then we put that on the person, like they're unhelpable, but it's very tough to disconnect yourself. Like when I see clients, when they have close relationships with people who are also in substance use, you can't ask them not to have those people as friends anymore, which means there's going to be temptations constantly. And I've had clients say, I don't want housing because if I can't take Tim with me, then I'm not leaving the streets. And it's like, well, fair enough. Like, we don't want to discourage you from being a caring, thoughtful person. But when you're in these relationships, you're more exposed and at risk of using.

So that's where we need spaces where they can both go have housing, not go abandon all the people who have supported you and kept you safe in the middle of the night and go live your own life. Like, those are healthy relationships, even though they might be flawed in many ways. and be counterintuitive to what we're used to, which is go let those other bad people out of your life, and then you can go thrive. And it's like, right, but they were there for them when they were afraid of being stabbed, or when there was a fight going on,

or all the things you don't see from 9 to 5, they were there supporting those people in, and we don't get to see the strength of those relationships. And relationships are everything. One of the differences about First Nations court and other courts, is that the clients, the offenders, we call them clients, have to come back for reviews of their healing plan on a regular basis. And there are a couple of reasons for that. First of all, to make sure that they're getting what they need in their healing plan, that they've

helped craft. So every so often, I had to pick up the phone in the courtroom and call a service provider and say, well, where is so-and-so on the list? Or what paperwork do you need to get so-and-so into this program? And by the way, I'm calling you from the courtroom, this is all on the record. So sometimes you have to chase after the service providers to make sure that the person, the client is getting what they need in a timely way and not falling through the cracks. So there's that side of it. But also to make sure that. The healing plan is still workable, and that's what we called sentences in First Nations Corps, is the healing plan, because that's the goal. We don't want band-aids anymore.

We want to heal the cause of the offending behavior, which is trauma. So, back to what we call reviews, critical to make sure that that healing plan is still working, that we're not setting a person up to breach, for example. And if someone's doing really well on their healing plan, well, let's reduce the number of times they have to check in with their probation officer, for example. Or let's reward them for good behavior as opposed to punishing them for bad behavior. And quite often bad behavior that's beyond their control. And so that's one of the key differences. But it created a bit of a problem, an wonderful problem to have, because at the end of the probation period or whatever the discharge

or whatever we were doing, a conditional sentence, we had a graduation ceremony. And the elders who play a very active role in the court blanket the individual to mark their graduation. Well, it got for a lot of offenders that we were their real life. lifeline. And I had to tell them, you know, you can come back any time you want. You don't have to get in trouble with the police in order to come back. Because a couple of people were doing that. And so, bless them. I learned then to tell people you can come back anytime, and they did. So we would have clients who had graduated, who would come back and they'd read the Riot Act to other

clients saying, well, I said that just like you did, and I knew it was a bunch of crap then, and it's a bunch of crap now. I mean, my goodness, the stuff that was going, and I just sit back and I'm okay, so that it became an ongoing healing process even after people had been, had graduated, or all graduates would come and they would drive clients to their probation office, that sort of thing. Or I've been to this great program, you should come too, and I'll come and pick you up. And so there was this mutual relationship building that was going and creating its own little community around this court in an urban setting so that people weren't getting quite so

lost in urban urban lifestyle. So there are a lot of spin-offs to First Nations Court that I never anticipated when I said, okay, we're just doing this. No committees. I'm not asking for permission in advance. I'm going to ask

for forgiveness after the fact. There were some consultations. I had some people that sat around the table with me and said, okay, let's do this. But, no, let's not committee this thing to death. We know it has to be done. We know why it has to be done. We know how it has to be done. Let's stop

dithering and just do it. That's beautiful. Do you think that that is, it seems like my favorite people within the criminal justice system, within most systems, are the people who just want change. They just want progress. They're willing to take a little bit of risk. They're willing to put their name on the line to see advancements. Do you think that that's that's sort of key to see that growth that when those committees get too big and when you get too much consultation with every level of government, that it just kind of gets lost and nothing comes to fruition? Well, exactly. You can committee something to death and nothing ever happens. And I think it just takes maybe courage or stubbornness of not too sure what to just say, we're just going to

do it. It may not be perfect from the get-go, but we're going to learn. We're going to adapt. We're going to make it better as we go along. But if we're striving for perfection from the very beginning, nothing's going to happen. One interesting, I like looking for the parallels in Western culture and indigenous culture. It's like one of the things that fascinates me the most. The idea of salmon ceremony and grace for Western culture, the parallels I just enjoy seeing. And one of them is elders to judges.

because within indigenous communities, elders are sort of the judge of the community, and it's more informal, but it's also very formal in the sense that all indigenous people are taught to look up to their elders and listen to their elders. What was that experience like to bring in people who are, I think, in a really interesting way, able to hold people accountable, but in a very gentle way? Well, in some respects, having elders in the courtroom made my work a lot easier. because they could say and did say what needed to be said. But in a kind way, in a good way, in a way that the client would accept.

Whereas if I had said or if another judge had said it, it would have been not so well received. It's maybe a good way of saying it. But, you know, elders bring a wealth of life experience with them. and the elders that we had and still have in the various First Nations courts understand the criminal justice system from a variety of perspectives. And so they're able to pass along their experience, their life experience, and their knowledge. And, you know, it's beautiful.

It's a beautiful process. And as a judge, you just sit back and say, let it happen, let it happen. And, you know, an elder can say, oh, you're for you. full of crap to an offender. And they'll go, yeah, I guess I am. A judge can say, you're full, well, maybe not you're full, using the words, you're full of crap. And they'll become defensive. So, you know, it helps the growth. It helps the strengthening and supporting of the individual and their healing as opposed to blaming. That's really interesting. How do you square that because within our legal system we always look at the people who got the best grades

who have the understand the law the best yet these people show up with no real formal legal training and provide very similar insights and I find that really fascinating because there's there's something we forget to admire about wisdom about sage advice it's just it's not a currency in our culture right now the currency is intelligence intellectual abilities the ability to formulate a sentence, a paragraph, say something perfectly. But just the idea that somebody can have a wealth of life experience and provide those insights, I think we just struggle to recognize that, to see that in other people, to be able to put that in its own category and say, maybe I'm not the most intellectual. Maybe I don't get the right answer on the math question. But I can

understand how to live a good life and how to inspire other people in a really healthy way. Well, you know, we live in a culture and not, and I'm talking about not just indigenous cultures because there's more than one indigenous culture, but I'm going to say like almost globally where we don't value old people enough and street smarts and wisdom, life lessons. I see that happening, you know, elders, even in some indigenous communities, elders aren't as revered as they used to be. I was just recently in Europe and I saw how old people are, well, like here in Canada, old people are warehoused. So I think, you know, it's a symptom of a larger problem that we're not valuing life experience, lived experiences as much as perhaps we used to and not valuing life experience and lived experience, as much as we should. And I think that's a larger issue.

and I think a lot, and I'm not being critical of anybody, but now our elders who have been through residential school are dealing with their own issues and some people now are just talking about their experiences in residential schools. Now old people, even my generation, are talking about what happened to them and how they survived and how they've gained resilience in their lives. So we're all learning to talk about lived experience in a new way as indigenous people.

So I don't know if I answer your question, but, you know, one of the things that judges are expected to bring with them is wisdom. And judges can learn a lot from elders. That's really interesting. And I agree with you that it feels like in my community, we have like an elder's home where elders are brought out and they share their knowledge. During National Truth and Reconciliation Day, we had people speak. And hearing people, there was one from my community, Chicky, and she attended Indian residential school and was abused. She lost her son. Sorry, her, I might get the genders wrong. She lost one of her children.

and the other one still alive today, and she apologized to everybody, to her child, that she was an alcoholic, that she did struggle with these things. And her talking about letting go of the hate was just, you don't expect it. There's something on social media, on these platforms that really loves anger. When the queen passed, there was many people I know who were almost relishing in it. And that's not healthy for us either. If you're excited that somebody's passed away, you're not your fullest self.

You're not your best self. Because no matter whether or not you agree with some of her actions, disagree, whether she was right on everything, she is a part of our history now. And she will be forever, whether you agree with her or not. And in some regards, like John Borough's talked about how their community brought the queen in his kin. And so there's different lived experiences about the relationship we have with her that are going to range within indigenous communities. And just the idea of not holding

onto that hate, I feel like we're all very afraid to do that because it almost seems like we're giving permission that it was okay or something. It's very difficult to draw the line of this did happen and it's horrible and should never be repeated and we need to understand what happens. but moving forward we cannot operate with a level of hate to all these different institutions and people and human beings how do you sort of navigate that because it seems so easy to hate and to be angry about the historical events

oh big question about hatred and anger one thing that I've felt all my life really in different capacities, but in different ways, but the tremendous anger that we, and pain, that we as indigenous people share. And it's understandable. I get why. And I'm not blaming anybody for being angry. We as indigenous people have a lot of very, very, good reasons to be angry and to hate and to be racist ourselves. We have a lot, you know, look at it on paper. We have a lot to justify this. And you know, Aaron, I'm really kind of stuck

on this, this anger, this pain trauma that seems to be flowing through all of us. And How to take that anger and make it, it's almost like, let's take that energy, that psychic energy that's expressing itself as anger, as hatred, as racism, as all those negative things. So let's take that psychic energy and let's turn it into something more positive. You know, it's, I can remember one hearing at the National Inquiry sitting there and thinking, How can we, as indigenous people, harness this negative energy and turn it into something positive that's going to be something that we can move forward in a good way, as sort of a vehicle for moving forward into a good way?

And I don't know. I still don't have that answer. And maybe it's going to take generations for the answer to become apparent, but it's like this river of pain and anger and hatred just flows through us and we've got to divert it into something positive. Yeah. You know, let's turn it into something positive. And I don't know. I don't know. The only community that I can compare it to is the black community in the U.S. in that many of the most inspirational people that I enjoy, there's this one rapper, Sean Anderson, who made the song bigger than me, where he realized he made all the money, he had gone like triple platinum

multiple times, very successful, and he felt empty inside. And it's because he wasn't lifting up the young people of the next generation and helping their voice develop and become more thoughtful. And within indigenous communities, it seems like we can get stuck on fighting over reserve land, forgetting that we have this whole area of land that is ours. And within my own community, the small p politics of, oh, that's their land and this is our land. And it's like, well, this was all our land. And you're forgetting that that's the argument and that we are all communally trying to take care of this for future generations. And that's where reserve land is bad in one regard. But beautiful in that the idea was give them a plot of land that they'll pass on

to future generations, which is very indigenous-esque, like to have land that's passed on for seven generations, that was the kind of cornerstone of the idea of not having communities have like, this is your plot and this is your plot. That sort of changed. And to me, it made the politics even worse. Like CP land is a huge challenge because then people go, well, this is my legal land. And then it's, they're fighting over to me peanuts and not thinking of the broader picture. And I think we just need to continue to elevate the voices of people who are trying to share the beauty. And there's one person I interviewed Carrie Lynn Victor, she always comes to mind because she's got a lot of the murals here in Chilliwack and they're incredibly beautiful and they're

profound and they have deep meanings and we just got to hear her speak and she's an excellent emcee and she makes music and she's sharing the best of our culture. And I think that that's where I hope we can get to is understanding the past but tying that in with who are the role models of today. Who is setting the example on how we can move forward without being angry and spiteful and vengeful and because that doesn't get us any farther either. It's like there was a quote where it's like that hate and that spite is the only poison where the person who feels it is the person who pays the consequence. Like the people you're angry at, they don't know. They don't care. They're not thinking about it. So I think that that's

hopefully where we can go moving forward. Yes. Well, I agree. I think one, One of the spin-offs of the National Inquiry Intimacy and Merit Indigenous Women and Girls is that we were able to spotlight or highlight some new, young, indigenous leaders across Canada who are able to walk in two worlds very well at the same time. and I just admire them so much. Artists who, be they visual artists, dance, music, who are finding strength and courage in their own art, in their own culture, and building on that, and the pride. You know, we've lost pride. Some people would say it's been beaten out of us.

But there's nothing wrong with being proud of who you are and what you stand for. And, you know, we've forgotten that. Can you tell us about how that inquiry came about and how did you get involved in that? Oh, the National Inquiry Into Missing a Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is a 40-year story, really, or 45, I guess, now. as long ago as 45 years ago activists and advocates were speaking out about our women and girls and two-spear people going missing or being murdered

and what a real issue this was becoming and it had to stop and their voices kind of fell on deaf ears but they were over time but they were they didn't give up And they said, we have to have an inquiry. I have to find out the reasons why this is happening, because these lives are too valuable to be lost.

Then fast forward about 35 years, and the TRC recommended that there be a national inquiry into the issue of missing and murder, indigenous women and girls. In the first round of Trudeau elections, it became an election promise that he would have a national inquiry. because the previous government led by Stephen Harper said, no, we don't need one. So it was the election promise that he carried, Trudeau carried through on.

And so it became actually the very first national inquiry ever held in Canada because not only were we a federal, a government of Canada inquiry, we were also a provincial and territorial inquiry. So we were 14 different inquiries all rolled into one. legally it was a nightmare but as you can imagine because we had terms of reference and orders and council in every province territory

and then federally and they made them all consistent for you right? Oh no, of course not so our terms of reference were quite lengthy but really we had boil it down to we had to inquire into all systemic causes of all types of violence

or we had to inquire into all types of of systemic causes of violence against indigenous women and girls. And we added two-spirit people onto that as well, make recommendations to end that systemic violence, and also to make recommendations regarding commemoration of our lost loved ones. So we started September 1st, 2016, and finished, well, we didn't finish, but our mandate ended on June 30th, 2019. We have a four-volume final report, an interim review. and education guide, and I am very proud of the work that we did do.

And it was hard. It was the most difficult work I've ever done on a professional and personal level, both, and on a public level as well. But I'm very proud of the work that we did do. When you consider in 30 months we did what has taken other similar but different bodies, five and six and ten years to do. I'm very proud of what we have done. We've had national attention as well as international attention to the work that we did do. And when I say we, I mean families and survivors because they made it all happen. How did it come about? Like what was the process

for you to get involved? Did they call you up and say, hey, we need your help on this? How did you have to apply? What was that sort of early process? I'm laughing because it was a really funny story. or I think it's a really funny story. Before the actual national inquiry started, there was a pre-inquiry national consultation. So the three ministers

at the time, Bennett Monceff and Wilson toured with staff, toured Canada, and said, what should this national inquiry look like? And so they heard from family members and survivors. They heard

from lawyers, from, oh, I don't know, government people, a variety, and crafted terms of reference. And these hearings or consultations were getting a fair amount of media airplay. So I was having lunch with some other judges during this time, and one of the judges said, well, what do you think about this? Because they knew I'd done that Caraboo Chal Code and Justice Inquiry is Commission Counsel. They're doing it all wrong. they should be doing A, B, and C.

Well, one of my colleagues was a good friend of a person in Ottawa, who's a fairly high ranking in the relevant bureaucracy for all of this. And this judge told the friend, one of my colleagues says, they're doing it all wrong. So my colleague said, my friend in Ottawa would like to know whether there could be a phone call between the two of you to discuss the things that are going wrong. I said, oh, sure.

So we had a phone call, and I said, well, you know, what I'm reading in the media is X, Y, and Z. And, no, don't go there for these reasons, and you should go this way. So, about... Did I tell us what that was? Oh, gee, I'm trying to remember. there were several issues about how it should be structured,

whether this should be done, like, the government, whether there should be, like, AFN, Assembly of First Nations should do their own little inquiry, whether Native Women's Association of Canada should do their own little inquiry. That was one of it. Whether they should open cold files, cold cases, and conduct investigations,

have their own sort of side investigation branch, whether they should be looking at men, including men in the inquiry as well. There were a variety of issues and then how it would be organized federally, provincially, territorially as well. I don't, to be honest with you, I don't remember all the details now

because I'm just that it's all wrong. So that led to, I don't know, weeks later, a phone call from Minister Bennett's aid say, would you be available to, we understand you have some opinions about this inquiry. Would you be willing to have a conversation with Minister Bennett when she's in town? And I think it was the following week. So we did have dinner together. And before I had dinner with her, I mapped out in a book, notebook, what the inquiry should look like. As it turned out on the day, I was supposed to get downtown to talk to her and have dinner with her.

Court ran late. I was running late. I left my notebook on my kitchen counter. But I said to her, Minister Bennett, these are things that have to happen to make this. I don't know if I use the word worthwhile, but productive. And a series of roundtables, a series of hearings, strong research team, because a lot of these issues have already been research. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, et cetera, et cetera.

And I actually drew it out on a dinner napkin for her. And I took a pen, and this is what it's the most look. Here, here you go. Here's your map for the, National Enquirer. So that's very interesting. I thought, well, that's the end of it. I wasn't looking for a job,

Aaron. I was really happy with what I was doing anyway. But I felt so strongly about the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. I didn't want this to go sideways. Why? Because the issue was so important. And I knew,

like, no one in my family, fortunately, had gone missing or been murdered, but I had friends who had friends and I had people who had appeared in front of me in court. I knew about the Picton inquiry. I knew... Can you say a little bit about that for people who might not know? Because that was a big moment.

Just to go sideways a bit, the Picton inquiry, well, that's not the proper name, but it was an inquiry into the policing that was done around the women who were killed by Picton. in the downtown east side and then how the police investigation failed those women

and their families and so I at the time we were I was working in the Port Coquitland Courthouse which was the closest courthouse to the Picton farm so we had applications for search warrants

coming in on a fairly regular basis so I had a pretty good idea of what was going on and from the judge's lounge area library really what it was. You could see the excavators digging at the Picton farm. So we had a pretty daily reminder. And then there was the preliminary inquiry into the Picton murder charges held in our court house. So it was pretty much a focal point for what was happening in the police investigations and charges and then court appearances for Picton.

There were allegations that women came forward and said, we think there's somebody taking our friends, and then the police basically responded, no, they probably just moved away. They're just partying. Yeah. Yeah, and really ignored the complaints and ignored hard evidence and then didn't talk to other police services about what they knew. And there was a breakdown in investigations, in police services, in prosecutions. It was just, it was a classic example of how indigenous women and girls are seen as being not important, of being dispensable, of being invisible, of not mattering.

It's one of my biggest struggles being a court worker is I'm fine withholding people responsible, as long as we do it with everybody. and my case point is always the 2008 housing crisis. There were people who impacted the value of our homes and we're still experiencing that today and nobody can name who they were or what they did or how they did it and somebody who steals a candy bar, it's so simple for the mind to go, that's wrong, stealing a $1.25, that impacts the business owner.

But when we can't do that with a large-scale crime, it's an inequitable system. Oh, not only in equitable, but I'm searching for the word. It just shows all that's wrong with our society in a very blatant, in your face way. So you sat down with a lady, shared kind of your thought. and then thought that was going to be the end of it. I thought that was the end of it. I'm happy to do this because I think it's an important issue.

It has to be done, right? And every so she said, well, you know, if I have a question or if one of my staff has a question, can we, you know, follow up? I said, oh, sure, I don't mind. And happy to help because this is really important. And it's only going to be done once, so it's got to be done right. And so I get questions every sort of draft terms. of reference, what do you think does this work?

And, oh, yeah, no, that doesn't work, or yes, that does work, and ship it all back to them and thinking really nothing of it. And it's still following, of course, what was happening in the news about the pre-enquiry consultations. And then I got this strange phone call from, I think it was Minister Bennett's aid again, saying, would you be available for a phone call with Minister Bennett, Minister Monstaff and Minister, well, the Attorney General at that point, Wilson. Jody Wilson, Raybalt.

Yeah, would you be willing to have a conversation with them to talk about how you see this rolling out? I said, oh, sure, why not? And so we set it up for before court. And so I, Minister Bennett just said, would you be, would you just explain to me to these other ministers what you've explained to me about where you see this going and so I did and I said you may agree you may not agree I don't know but you know this is where I see it rolling out now this conversation of course took a lot longer than the time that it was booked for and I was due to go into court into the remand court in Surrey which is the busiest court in

Canada so you've got to be on time and you got to show up you've got to be there and so the court carc's walking up and down the court going like this to me and so I said but I got three cabinet ministers on the phone because I got to go

how do you balance this and so I got to the point where I said to them look I have a courtroom waiting it's been nice talking to you I gotta go someone's nice talking to you too and anyway I thought

well that's interesting and so we ran literally down the hallway to the court walk-in and the first case called is a man charged with murder and then oh well okay we'll deal with that and next case he goes out another man's brought in murder again murder in the first degree in this case oh yeah okay fine we'll deal with this off your third case comes in a guy charged i think was manslaughter and murder second-degree murder oh yeah we'll deal with that And, you know, went through the motions, did all the legal things that had to happen. I said, I need to take a short break.

So we stand down in court for about three minutes. I walk out and take back home. I said, I think I just had a job interview. And then shortly thereafter, the people at the Privy Council made me the offer. And I really thought about it, Aaron. I knew it would be hard. I knew that it would be the hard, well, first of all, I knew I'd have to leave court. I'd have to retire for a variety of reasons I don't want to get into at this point,

but I knew I'd have to give up a job I really loved to a job I knew would be the hardest I'd ever faced in my life, but also the most valuable, maybe the most important, I don't know. And so after talking to family and talking to some elders and talking to myself, I took it on. Before you move forward, I'm curious. We tell people all the time to be happy. Do what makes you happy. I really think it's terrible advice because it has nothing to do with leaving a legacy,

with bettering something, with doing something that's hard but rewarding. Can you talk about that? What advice do you have for people who are taking the easy path, it seems? Staying on the course they know, staying with what's familiar. or yet how you put it, which was like, I knew this was going to be the hardest thing I ever do, but perhaps the most meaningful. It seems to so many counterintuitive.

Oh, well, you know, there are times in your life when you have to stay on a safe path for a variety of reasons. You know, you've got kids to raise, you've got obligations. There are times when you have to do that, and there are times when I've done that. But there are times when it's bigger than you. And that was the National Inquiry. I thought, I know this is going to be hard on so many levels,

but also maybe the most rewarding work I've ever done. I don't know yet. But this is too big. This is too important to say no to. What was the offer like to receive something like that? To be trusted with such a complex problem, such an overwhelming problem, it has to, at a certain point, be rewarding within your career to know that people have the confidence in the faith in you and not just schmucks,

but really high-level officials are within our government. Well, there were a lot of people who had no confidence in my ability to do it and called for my resignation and all sorts of other stuff. But I knew I could do it. And I knew that my experience with the Caribou-Chil-Cote and Justice inquiry, I knew my legal experience, I knew my experience as a judge in First Nations Court, I knew I could do it.

And I knew I had the grounding in my own culture, the grounding in my own community that I could do it. And so I knew it would be hard, but I knew I could do it. And, you know, it's kind of like at that point, you know, when you're learning to ride a bike and you take the training wheels off, you know, you know, it's going to be scary. You might fall, but you know you can do it. and you want to do it was like taking those training wheels off. Yeah. Yeah. How did you navigate a lot of people in their life have naysayers.

Somebody wants to write a book one day or do something in their family goes, what are you doing, Harry? You're not an author. Like, go back to your lane. It's so easy for those people, those voices, maybe they're your closest friends that doubt you, that don't have faith in you. How did you navigate blocking some of those voices off and not letting people who don't know use perspective, influence your decision?

Oh, Erin, I think as a judge, I had years of criticism. So criticism wasn't new to me, you know, and I think that had a lot to do with it. But I knew that people would, regardless of what I did, I knew that there would be people who would be critical. What was the process like? How did things get started? What was the impact that you had in terms of hearing some of the harrowing stories? can you put this into context for people who might not know about the highway of tears and events like that?

Well, how did it start? I'm laughing because I look back on it and I think, how the heck did we ever do it? The National Inquiry started in my garage. On September 1st, we had no offices, no staff, no computers, no cell phones, no nothing. We had paper with the terms of reference, and that was it. And so we had, at that point, we had 28 months to do our work, 28, I think we were there, 26 months to do our work. And we had nothing.

So we had to start with building offices, buildings, building the infrastructure. And that took a long time, it took nine months. That took a third of our mandate, just even to get up and running. And there were some people in government who said, you should be grateful and only took nine months. But that's a whole other argument. But we knew we had to have hearings. We wanted to collect the truths of the family members and survivors of violence.

We knew we had to hear from them. So how do you do that in a good way? How do you know or how can you craft a process that you know is going to hurt people, cause them to relive trauma in a way that's going to be good it was hard to do that and I have to say it was the three other commissioners

our staff our advisors who it wasn't a one person decision by any stretch of how are we going to craft this how are we going to base this in healing how are we going to do this in the best possible way, knowing we're going to hurt people in the process. That seems really heavy.

It was hard. It was really hard, Erin. And understanding what would work for family members who are stolo, for example, won't be the same as what's going to work for Creek people on the prairies or, you know it, in the north. So we had to do our work in ceremony, in local ceremony, respecting local practices. And we had to break rules as well. We had to break some legal rules about no cross-examination of family members and survivors, for example. You don't have to swear an oath on a Bible if you don't want to just share your truth with us.

But if you want to share or if you want to swear an oath on a Bible, you can't. No judgment. There would be a very intimate process, like what we're doing right now. If you want to share your truth with me in a private room, well, we have to record, but we'll put the cameras in the background. If that's going to work for you, we'll do it that way. But if you want to share your truth, your experience in public, with, the world, we'll do that too. We wanted to be trauma-informed as much as we could in all aspects of our work,

and that meant giving family members and survivors options, choice, empowering them, providing options for healing before, during, and after our hearings. You know, they're just some people for whom you can't do enough. but we tried we did our best what was some of the differences because the highway of tears

is I think when people think of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry they think of that can you elaborate a little bit on that and then we can go to some of the other events that happened in other regions yeah we had hearings up in

Smithers and I may be well I know in Vancouver we heard when we had hearings in Vancouver we heard about highways of tears as well. Because we told people, if you're not comfortable sharing your truth in your home community, you can come to another community so that you feel safe. So we heard a lot in different locations. And, you know, the highway of tears is unfortunately a really good example of the crisis

of missing and murdered because it's out of sight, out of mind. Those women have gone missing. They were murdered on deserted, not deserted, but lonely sections of road. Not, they weren't gunned, pardon me, they weren't gunned down at Maine and Hastings where everybody can see it. They went missing often in the bush where there's nobody for kilometers. there were requested police investigations complaints that were ignored by the police searches that family members conducted on their own at their own expense because the police would conduct searches so it was a microcosm of everything that could possibly go wrong

but out of sight women were murdered in their own homes behind closed doors they experienced violence behind closed doors so the public wasn't seeing this so the public even our own people weren't aware of the amount of violence the number of women who were going missing

the number of women who were murdered out of sight so out of mind so it was a real microcosm of the issues of out of sight out of mind and of course playing into all of this was intergenerational trauma from residential schools trauma created by the foster care system trauma created by the 60s scoop so it was just I hate to say a perfect example of everything that could go wrong on. Media, misreporting instances of murders and missing women and girls, for example. Where was the failure within the government? What actions? My understanding was that there was a failure of bus routes along the highway, so women were forced to try and hitchhike with people in order to get from one small rural community to another small rural community.

And I think it was the Ministry of Transportation went, well, they don't use it enough. And so it's a challenge I'm facing within my own community, which is like, we have lost people in our community because they have to commute along the Loheed Highway to get into hope. And so my thinking is we need a trail or a sidewalk that they can walk along that they're not in danger. And to mock them a little bit, one of the external people not a part of the ministry was like, well, that will be like, if we put in a sidewalk, that will be dangerous for vehicles and I was like but for sure somebody who gets hit by a truck is going to die somebody who bumps the sidewalk in a truck is probably going to be okay like we need to like and I called him out for that and it was just one of those moments where like are you not thinking about what you're saying like are you are you disconnected in some way to like real people's lives so what was that what was the challenge with the freeway with transportation what did you see from your perspective? Oh, we found a number of problems up there. One of them is the lack of, or was, I'm using present and past tense improperly. Lack of transportation, lack of safe transportation along the highway of tears.

Anywhere from Prince George to Prince Rupert, all along there, lacking safe transportation. Dead zones for cell phones. lack of lighting at intersections for example no taxi service oh gee there used to be in some places the telephones on the side of the emergency telephones on the side of the

road none weren't any so there were a number of shortcomings and what a lot of people don't understand is geography that it isn't a matter along the highway of tears it isn't just a matter of walking down the road to the next community it can be an hour's drive on a highway it can be an hour and a half drive on a good day in good weather conditions for example

to get to the next community so we're not talking about a walkable distance by any stretch of the imagination And that was something that came up, geography came up a lot wherever we went about the, just simply the challenges that geography in Canada creates because we're such a huge land mass that it isn't a simple bus ride. So that is one example, and I think they have put in the bus routes through there. Was that issue? Do you feel like that was properly addressed? I think it was a good beginning because some of the communities there have their own little bus services. That's helpful. But it's still, and I'm glad that they're doing it, and I'm not being critical, but it still doesn't address the issue that it's okay to target indigenous women and girls and two as people.

And target them for violence. for murder, for abductions, for rape, whatever the type of violence is, because he can. Because historically, you can legally get away with that. Nobody's going to complain. The police aren't going to do anything anyway. If the police do something, you may or may not be charged. And if you are charged, you'll probably get off anyway.

but if you're found guilty, you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Like, it's not addressing that mind frame, that violence against indigenous women and girls and to us people is okay. Where do we address that? It seems like part of society goes like, oh, of course we would. And then there seems like another camp that's completely like, no, we don't treat these people like human beings at a certain point. Like, we look at them like they're disposable, like they're not.

their lives aren't as valuable. Where does that problem arise? How do we think about the issue? Because it's so abstract when you say, people just don't care. But which people, where, and how do we get them to care? Well, it's all people. And how do we get them to care is through education, I think. So that's why our calls for justice from the National Inquiry included national and local campaigns about violence, anti-violence, anti-racism, anti-homo and transphobia campaigns,

education. We have to start in the schools to tell people, to tell students that violence of any sort against anybody is wrong, but especially against indigenous people. It's wrong. Because they're valuable human beings.

And, you know, one thing that we're, missing and I don't know why is that we've lost track of our common humanity that we're all human beings and we've lost that and so violence by some towards others is okay because they're not human we've lost that or one that the perpetrator is human but the victim isn't or somehow asked for it or something like the victim blaming so there's that. So how do we, how do we deal with that? Well, through education. It has to be through education. Yeah, one of my big struggles is trying to get women just predominantly experience more

daily negative activity and just having a partner. You see people try and look at her when she's going to grab like apples at the grocery store. And then it's like, what are we doing? We can't go shopping without you being a weirdo creep. Like, is that not an option? You start to realize that to me the lived experience is so different because even talking to our local MLA who's a female the day she gets elected all of a sudden all these comments about her being a female and what people want to do and it's just that doesn't happen to me ever I have hosted this podcast for three years nobody's ever sent me a message like that and so the disconnect I think men often have to the problems that women face is so vast, like the disconnect that we have living our daily lives,

we just don't think about it. And we don't, we don't interact with that. There's no fear of me having to walk to the store and having somebody yell out their truck at me. Like, that's just something that doesn't cross my mind. And so I think being more aware of that and reminding people that every person has a potential. And I don't know where we stop believing that at what age people stop saying that but when you're a kid it's all you hear about is your potential and then when you're 15 20 25 30 40 we just we stop saying that that you could be more than you are and if you were we would all benefit you think of your favorite restaurant you go to you think of your favorite business you go to your favorite store all of those people all of those businesses had to be started by

a person who put in a lot of work and time and effort how many indigenous businesses do we miss out on, how many bannock trucks, how many, like, food lines, how many clothing lines, how many artists do we miss out on? Because they didn't get to reach their full potential because they were murdered on the side of the road at 15, 20 years old. Like, putting it into perspective that they enrich our culture. Human beings can enrich our culture. And when they pass away prematurely, we all miss out. Like, you can make an argument on one level that every life matters. and that's an absolutely valid argument. But even on a selfish lens,

you can make the argument that they improve your culture. And when you're on DoorDash scrolling what you want for dinner, they can improve that experience for you if we just unlock their potential and get these barriers out of their way. Oh, absolutely. You know, in hearing the stories from family members about their lost loved ones, the loss is massive women who could have been,

and girls, who could have been teachers, nurses, grandmas, artists, seamstresses, you name it, really, gone, lost. Those opportunities

that humanity is lost. And somehow, well, I know how, it's through colonization, that loss isn't recognized. as being huge, a huge loss for all of us. Absolutely.

Were there different experiences from the highways of tears that were at a similar scale, at a similar challenge that people might not be aware of? I just, when I hear missing and murdered indigenous women and girls' inquiry, I think of the highway of tears, and that might be a misunderstanding. So are there other issues that arose from your guys' findings that we don't know about? Oh, heavens, how pervasive missing and murdered indigenous women and girls are across Canada. Again, because so much happens in the wilderness or so much happens behind closed doors that, you know, it's sort of out of sight. So when you hear about the number of missing and murdered in Winnipeg, it's mind-boggling.

The same thing in Saskatoon, Prince Albert, the road. the highway between Prince Albertans and Saskatoon, for example, or the road between Edmonton and Fort McMurray or going east in eastern Canada, the women who are trafficked on the freighters that go through the Great Lakes. I mean, it's just mind-boggling. When I started working with the National Enquiry, I thought I knew.

Not everything, that I knew a lot. But Aaron, the more we did our work, the more we found of missing and murdered all across Canada. In the north, the NWT, Nunava, Yukon, we heard from family members who came in and said, I want to talk about my auntie, say, for example. But then they'd start talking about their neighbor and their neighbor's cousin and others who had gone missing or had been murdered. So I know some people have to have a body count to understand the magnitude of a problem. And I know the RC&P has said, oh, back in 2016, about 1800, there are some people who said, no, it's maybe 3,000. well by the time we finished our work we were hearing numbers in excess of 4,000 who had been

murdered or had gone missing across Canada and I think with even the anecdotal stories we heard as as sides I think the number is even greater than that but again it's all but impossible to give pardon my language a body count because of so many women who have just simply gone missing and haven't been found. You know, if you're looking at a body count, you need boxes to put numbers in. And so where do you put that missing? Are they murdered or are they just partying

like we've heard so often? So it's huge. And because, as I've said repeatedly, it happens behind closed doors. It happens on a deserted roadway or in a hotel room behind closed door. we even as indigenous people don't know the magnitude of the problem yeah and that is hard to quantify like even when people get the number it means nothing because it's not like you like

imagine trying to meet all 4,000 of those people like that might help you put it into perspective imagine having an event and having 4,000 people there like it's hard for us to take any number greater than like 10 and really understand it in a meaningful way. So even with the number, it seems like 4,000 mothers, grandmothers, sisters. And it's like it's hard, imagine none of your family is there anymore. Like, it's hard for us to really connect with it in a meaningful way. Yet we want the number for what reason. Like it doesn't give us a greater understanding. It doesn't help us get to work. Nobody jumps up after goes, I got to get to work then, based on the number.

I know, and it's, whatever it is, it's too many. But I know some people have to have that sort of box of number to understand the magnitude and to pay attention and to understand that this is a real problem that we have, as a nation, have to deal with. What were the findings, what action is able to be taken from this?

And was that a challenge to even think about solutions that's such a heavy, like you're hearing somebody's story. And it's like sometimes when you're talking to your friend and you're talking about a problem and then they jump on to solutions, you go, I'm just, I'm not, I'm not there. I just want to vent. So what was that process like? Well, a lot of it, a lot of the findings of fact and recommendations that we call called projessists were pretty obvious. and not subtle at all. For example, Canada, as a nation, not implementing various international United Nations, human rights things

that Canada had signed onto, in fact, offending under documents that they had signed on to. So, you know, a lot of that was pretty much, was pretty easy to do. And then we had help from all of the people you know, the organizations, individuals who appeared before us. So we'd say, okay, well, what do you think? Well, what should we tell the government they need to do in order to make this better?

And so we had a lot of help. And a lot of themes became apparent as we were doing our work. You know, themes about no programs to us or for us, but now programs that we design by us and for and with us. You know, so that decolonization of institutions became very apparent. Well, let's put this with it. The colonization became very apparent.

And the need for decolonization in order to end the violence became very apparent. The finding of genocide was an inescapable conclusion because we heard about, of course, the residential schools, but we also heard about forced sterilizations of indigenous women and girls. We heard about forced relocation of people all through Northern Canada and elsewhere, for that matter. We heard about the destruction of culture, the destruction of language, the destruction of families and communities. We heard so much evidence regarding every aspect of the definition of genocide

that it was inescapable. We had to make that finding a fact of absolute genocide, not just cultural genocide that the TRC found, but real genocide on the part of governments, not just federal, but governments in Canada. and that that genocide, that campaign of genocide, was the cause of MMIWG2S in Canada. And so the recommendations just kind of fell like dominoes from what we had learned in our findings of fact. And also the recommendations that family members and survivors had told us we had to tell the government about the importance of on the land healing program.

of the importance of no barrier or low barrier shelters, for example. The importance of safe houses for women in the North where safe houses didn't exist. For bringing maternity services into the North rather than bringing women South to give birth, for example. the importance of safe transportation, getting rid of dead zones for a cell phone service. I mean, it goes on. We made 231 calls for justice, and people go, you know, I roll, I roll, 231.

But we broke them down into audience. So there are calls for justice for all governments, including indigenous governments. But there are also calls for justice for those in the resource extraction industries, for those in the hospitality industry because of human trafficking, for those in the media, those in the justice system, those who are educators, those who are in the child welfare system,

for all Canadians. So we broke them all down. So when people say 231 calls for justice, oh, it's too big, we can't deal with them. I say, well, wait a minute. What interests you? You know, what sort of work do you do? Where do you live?

Let's just, see, it's just not. We just didn't throw a 231 calls for justice into a big pot. No. We organize that. That makes sense. And I think it's really important because people do seem more interested than ever, I think, in finding solutions and being part of a better move forward. But it seems like the genocide part that,

terminology that caught airwaves. That caught people's attentions in a really big way. I've heard the arguments from people saying usually the colloquial understanding of genocide is that the government is going out and looking and that's what genocide is to people when they think of it, when they think of what happened in Nazi Germany. That's kind of their go-to. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the process to make that decision? Because I know that that did stand out to a lot of people. Yes, and we knew that our finding of genocide would be very controversial. So we have a supplementary report on the definition of genocide and, I won't say law, but all the work that flows from that. But the United Nations has a very specific definition of genocide, and it

includes governments forcing the sterilization of women. Well, we know that happened in Canada. That alone can be a finding of genocide, but we found more than that. Genocide can also include the forced relocation of people from their homes. Well, we know that happened in the north. There's more than enough proof to show the forced relocation of Inuit and Dene across Canada and people in the south as well. that alone can amount to genocide. But let's add on the forced sterilization,

the forced removal of children from their families. Well, we know about that from the residential schools. We know about that from the 60s scoop. We know about that from the current foster care system. That alone can be the finding of genocide. But let's add on. Forced sterilization, forced relocation, forced relocation, forced removal, the definition of genocide can also include

deliberate loss of culture. Well, we know that. We know that. It's well documented. So let's add it on to the other aspects of genocide. So I agree, you know, a lot of the controversy surrounding genocide was, well, you have to to line people up against the wall and shoot them. That's genocide. Well, no, no, no. Genocide is more than that. And that's what we have in Canada. And we have more than just one type of genocide,

one branch of genocide. We have a whole tree. But because so much of this happens behind, as I said, out of sight, out of mind, people don't want to accept that. But they will, and they're starting to. Because now we're using. the word genocide. We weren't using it before. Yeah. Was there any pushback from that?

Currently, our prime minister is constantly being accused of pushing on things. Was there any challenge getting that put in? Was that part of political decision that had to be made? Like, what was the kind of process? It was the commissioners and myself and our flip chart paper. I think we had some of our executive and elders, but it was really us. We can't not make this finding of fact. If we don't make the finding of genocide, then we're saying to all the family members and survivors and to all the researchers who have done the research, we don't believe you or you don't matter.

And we're not going to do that. So I won't say it was a no-brainer because there was a legal analysis to all of this, but it was an inescapable conclusion. And there was no hesitation in making that finding. It was just there. And you were given the intellectual freedom to make that conclusion. Oh, absolutely, because we were independent of government.

Just the other ones, it seems like there's sometimes, challenges like I've had Lee Harding on and he talked about wolf culling in bc and shooting wolves from helicopters but he said they formed four different committees all because the bc liberals wanted the conclusion that wolf culling was effective and that it was the best thing and when the committee said no this doesn't work they go okay well we'll scrap this committee and we'll bring together a different committee hopefully they'll come to the conclusion they want them to yeah well and that's where committees and inquiries public inquiries are different we were entirely independent of governments. We made our findings of fact, independent of politics.

There were indigenous governments and organizations who tried to influence us. And we just said, oh, back off. We're making our findings of fact. We're doing our work independent of everyone and everything. And you might not like the outcome, but we're not giving up our independence. That seems like a really difficult thing to have that kind of pressure. Were you satisfied with the outcome?

Did you feel that the outcome was what you were hoping for when you started? Was it surprising? What's the outcome what I expected? Pretty much, I'm not surprised at the outcome. I'm not surprised at our findings of fact. I'm not surprised at the work that we did

And I said earlier, I'm very proud of the work that we did do and how we did it. Am I satisfied with it? Not really, because we just skimmed the surface on so much. We skimmed the surface on human trafficking, which is way more of an issue than I ever thought. We skimmed the surface on women who are incarcerated. We skimmed the surface on the impact of resource extraction and man. camps on indigenous women and girls who has people's safety. So there are a lot of topics.

We just skim the surface on and, you know, we asked the government for more time. We asked for two to three more years. They gave us six months as an acknowledgement of losing our working time because of no infrastructure at the beginning. So the regret I have is that there were some really important areas that we just skimmed the surface of. That makes sense. How did you take care of yourself during that period? Because that's, first, a lot of stress just to lead a team and try and be the focal point for so many different moving parts. But then there's the heaviness of the topic and what's going on there.

How did you manage your mental health in that regard? Some people would say not well. but I knew going in it was going to be hard on so many different levels now as a judge we learned about dealing with vicarious trauma it's your trauma it's not mine and I'm not going to help you by taking on your trauma for you

so there was that practical aspect of the work but there was a heck of a lot more vicarious trauma that I had ever experienced in my whole life How did I, how did I deal with not only the travel, the, hearing the stories, dealing with our government partners and trying to get stuff done, a number of different ways. And I knew I had to do self-care going into this was there was a lot of travel. But I always came home on weekends just to get that grounding. And wherever we traveled, if I could connect with family,

members. I did that. I was very lucky to have a family member living in Ottawa. So whenever I was in Ottawa, I didn't have to stay in a hotel. I stayed with family. So there was that opportunity to stay grounded. I don't remember the Japanese word for it, but there's this term called forest bathing. I lived near the forest. So when I would come home on weekends, I would hike and I left as much of the bad stuff as I could in the forest. Also, the work that we did do, we did in ceremony, and that was tremendously helpful to me. Smudging, sacred fires, prayers, healing circles. That was all very helpful to me, and I needed that.

So it wasn't just one thing, but it was going in knowing I was. I needed a lot of help and not being afraid to ask for it. Yeah, I think that that's so important because when you work hard and you're trying to bring light to tough issues like that, it can be daunting. I imagine it can be lonely, but the work is meaningful, but it comes at a cost and trying to find those balances. Do you have any advice for other people, how they can try and manage that stress, that discomfort if they're taking on a lot? I think knowing that you're going to take on or that you are taking on a lot of negativity, a lot of vicarious trauma, whatever icky stuff, however you want to call it. And to say to myself, self, how I know I have this, I'm not going to deny it.

So how am I going to deal with this in a good way? Because it's just easy to say, oh, I'll deal with the. anger. I'll deal with the vicarious trauma some other time. I have to go and pick up the kids from daycare. Nope, because that trauma, that vicarious trauma is, you don't leave it. It's always with you until you deal with it in a good way. And so I think it's planning, well, I think it's first of all acknowledging that you have it. The next is planning, how am I going to do this in a good way, and being flexible and saying, okay, I may try some counseling and finding that the counseling isn't working.

Okay, well, let's find a different counselor. You know, so being somewhat flexible in your plan, in your own healing plan as well. How did governments respond to the findings? Do you feel like progress has been made since the release of the report and we're on the right track? Well, oddly enough, there's been tremendous programs, progress made in northern Canada.

Yukon, NWT, the ITK and Newit Tepirisat, Tammy, have all developed their own action plans that are community-based and they're actually implementing and creating change in a good way. I don't know about the federal government. I honestly don't understand

what the federal government's doing or not doing. for a variety of reasons, primarily because it's difficult to find out what they are doing. There's no one place to go to look or hasn't been in the past. In the south, it's been a real patchwork of some responses in some areas, but no responses in others. I don't know, is the short answer. Because on June 30 at 2019, I stopped being the chief commissioner. So nobody had to report to me what they were doing or not doing after the work was done. Do you think that was a mistake?

I don't know. The commissioners and I did talk about making a call for justice that we continue for a year, a term or a year or maybe two years or one of us continue for a year, just to kind of marshal the response. And then we thought, no, that would be not well received because it would be looking like we were feathering our own beds there. Sorry, what do you mean by? Oh, it's an old expression about, you know,

we were just looking for, you know, more work or, you know, we would be criticized, that recommendation would be criticized for self-promotion as opposed to. That's one of the most bizarre complaints I can think of, Because you want somebody who's able to go, here's the problem, and here's how things are rolling out so you can see and say, okay, this person is doing this over here, this person is doing this over here. They can pool their knowledge, share their understandings, share infrastructure, and you can be the liaison between the two to make sure they do collaborate. Well, exactly. And so we had calls for justice that required annual reporting to Parliament, which hasn't been happening. and it would be by the minister of whatever Indian Affairs is called now.

So it would be annual reporting by that minister to parliament. We called for the establishment of an indigenous human rights tribunal and ombudsperson. That hasn't happened because that role could be the person. The point person. We called for a variety of other actions. but nothing has happened in that respect to move on accountability and transparency. Yeah, that's the biggest fear and the biggest challenge, I would say, longstanding with indigenous people is we've had reports written.

We've got lots of reports. We've got lots of studies. We've got all the information. It's just where is action actually taking place? And I get a lot of hope when I see like what First Nations Health Authority is doing, because they're so unique in terms of their leadership. They're better at responding and connecting with individual communities. But we need more action after a report is written.

And that was the big complaint after all these reports were written, is like, how do we know that things will be different? Well, that's the problem on so many different levels. I know this sounds really critical. of indigenous governments. But our calls for justice were aimed at indigenous governments, too. And, you know, it's one thing to criticize

federal, provincial, and territorial governments. But we've got to look at ourselves. I agree. And what action has there been by indigenous governments? Where is that accountability happening? So, what's the example? especially the pot calling the kettle black. Come on.

F-S-I-N, AFN, N-WAC, ITK, A-FNBC, the tribal councils, the assemblies. What are you doing about the issue? You know, quite rightly, there was criticism of the... AFN annual meeting, I think it was three years ago, four, three, anyway, for the time that was set aside for pushing ahead on MMIWG issues, there were five chiefs. So come on AFN, why weren't more chiefs present for this presentation and this discussion? So let's hold our own selves accountable too.

How does, did you get to see a lot of that? I get to see now as a council member, but just seeing the lay of the land of indigenous politics, fighting over funding, fighting over resources, fighting over claim that you're closer to this minister or that minister. It seems like there's such infighting, in terms of just money, those people and those roles argue that that's kind of how the game set up is you have to fight over funding and that creates the squabbles, but to me, it's like, you want indigenous people to be all on the same page and we're so vastly not on the same page that that creates problems of its own

that we're not all just working collaboratively. We silo ourselves because this person took too much funding this time and we wanted to build this thing and they built it and now we're mad at them. We just seem to start to fight internally and I imagine at that level you were seeing a lot of the kind of indigenous politics rearing its ugly head? Oh, absolutely. Or trying to rear his head because, of course, we push to make it clear that we are independent. But what I did see, which I found very enlightening, first of all, so there's no pan-indigeneity. We're not the same across Canada.

and non-Indigenous governments and indigenous governments aren't fast to accept that or to understand it even, let alone accept it. And then the fighting over resources. I mean, that's colonization, isn't it? And so we have to start decolonizing ourselves while also expecting non-Indigenous people and structures to decolonize.

It's got to be a group effort here. It can't be one without the other. Would you say that that's decolonization, though? I read some, I did a paper on the history of the Kwokwakwakw coming down and killing indigenous girls and abducting them and bringing them back to their community. And that was happening pre-colonization. So that seems like, and owning slaves,

which I didn't know about, which kind of blew my mind. But that was happening pre-colonization. So that doesn't, is that a part of colonization? Well, no, what I'm talking about with respect to colonization is pitting indigenous people against themselves. What I'm saying is that did happen. Oh, yeah, it did. It happened on the prairies. It happened in the north. This wasn't a garden of Eden, you know, where everybody got along beautifully to use a biblical, if that's appropriate, biblical metaphor. No, there were some really ugly things going on between indigenous people on Turtle Island, as we say.

But what I'm talking about is, you know, this infighting, the fighting for resources of not getting past survival requires decolonization. That's caused by, that's deliberate colonization, process of colonization on the part of governments. And so, of course, as First Nations, as Métis settlements, as Inuit settlements,

we're fighting amongst ourselves to have resources, to have drinking water, to have housing that's safe, to have a safe and reliable food supply. And what better strategy? Keep them fighting within themselves so they're not fighting us, the colonizers, right? Or not fighting the settlers.

So I think, you know, and I have great faith in young leadership for them now to see, we're colonized and we've got to decolonize our thinking too by saying to government as an example you can't take our kids anymore we're taking care of our own children

not through delegated agency but by asserting our inherent jurisdiction over ourselves you know there has to be that mindset change that it's our responsibility not somebody else's who's going to make us fight over the money anyway you know we have to do it

ourselves and you have to give us the proper resources in order to do this. Not because, or not out of the goodness of your heart, but because of a human right that you are obligated by law to uphold. So it's not a gift that you're giving us out of the goodness of your heart. It's a right. It's our human right that you have to recognize and you have to uphold. And it's a shift in thinking for everybody. That's the big one is people thinking that indigenous communities get free money. When really it's like you're extracting natural resources out of our backyard and we get a cut of that so that we can maintain ourselves. And that is our stuff.

And be poor. Yeah. And be poor. Well, no, what you have, what you, meaning, all of us, indigenous and non-Indigenous, is that we have human rights that are being breached, are being ignored, that are being trampled on by the process of colonization, by genocide. And we've got to do a 180 in our thinking. Everybody does. That's beautiful. Where did you go from there?

What were your kind of initial plans when you were looking at stepping back from that role and kind of looking towards the future? Sure. Well, I knew after the inquiry I had to rest, and I did for about four to six months. I really, you know, reconnected with family, stayed home, didn't go to an airport, didn't get on a plane, and just kind of settled and processed what had happened. And then I went back to the practice of law. And what made you choose not to go back to the bench or to choose to practice law in a different way? Well, I'd retired from the bench. And, you know, I wanted to leave it as a good memory. Go out while you're on top, sort of thing. And I think a legal education is a very valuable gift that ought to be shared. And I thought there were still some things I needed to do.

And what were those things? Well, I knew that there were some potential clients who needed my help. I knew that there were some cases that I wanted to work on. I knew there was some young indigenous lawyers I wanted to mentor. So I knew there was still work for me to do, but just from a different perspective. What was it like to go back to you, Vic? Go back to your roots. I love it, Aaron.

I go back to campus and I turn into a 19-year-old, which is quite something, a 19-year-old who can't learn enough, fast enough. The energy is fabulous. And, you know, when I was a student at Uvec back in the 70s, I think there were six of us native students, as we were called then. And now it's just an entirely different university from an indigenous perspective. What was the role?

How do you fit in as a chancellor? Well, that's a good question. I'm still kind of finding my way. But technically, according to the University Act, the chancellor is the head of the university. But it's kind of like being the queen or the governor general. It's a ceremonial position, ceremonial head of the university. The president really runs the university. So what does it mean?

I have a seat on the board of governors, which runs the business side of the university. I have a seat on the Senate that runs the academic side of the university, and I get to give out degrees, which is fabulous. That convocation is wonderful. That's beautiful. How did that come about? And do you just visit there, or what do you hope to accomplish moving forward? Well, I was first contacted by a headhunter, and I said, if I have the opportunity to give back to the university in some way, the wonderful gifts that I received.

If I can do payback to the university in some way, I'm happy to do it. So it means I still live in the Lower Mainland, but I go over to Victoria a couple of times a month usually to go to Senate meetings, Board of Governors meetings, and then when we have convocation, which is the graduation ceremony, I go over for that and get to give up degrees,

which is great fun. And other things that come up, other ceremonial events that come up, with the help of people at the university, we've started an indigenous alumni network. We are working on implementation of DRIPA, the BC implementation of Andrip. We're looking at strengthening literacy, the work of indigenous people,

people on campus at the university. There are a number of things. But I went in saying DRIPA, implementation of DRIPA, alumni, literacy. That's a, that's so beautiful. Can you, you've lived such an amazing life so far. You've provided such insights and been involved in some pivotal moments in our country's history and helped enlighten people. Can you provide some advice for people? We talk about listening to our elders. we talk about listening to people who have far more lived experience than we do. Can you offer some wisdom, some advice for people moving forward in their life? Oh, boy.

Well, a couple of things. Creator puts everybody on earth for a purpose. Everybody has a purpose. Find your purpose. Secondly, don't be afraid. Have confidence in your service. yourself. You know, everybody is a beautiful person in their own way. So don't be afraid. I always say, never say never. But, you know, keep an open mind. If somebody had said to me

when I was 18 that I'd be sitting here having this conversation with you, Aaron, about what we've been talking about. I said, oh, yeah, right. You'd fall in him. your head on something. So, you know, a lot of it's just keep an open mind. Have confidence in yourself. Find your purpose. That is so beautiful. Thank you so much for driving all the way out here. This has been so humbling, so enlightening. I will definitely be going back and listening to this because there's so much to take away from your words and there's so much to learn. And so it's such a pleasure to be able to sit down with you and to find the time to hear such an incredible story. Well, thank you so much, Erin. It's been an absolute pleasure.