B.C. reports offer ‘road map' for repatriation of Indigenous historical items
The studies, developed in partnership between the First Peoples' Cultural Council and K'yuu Enterprise Corporation, call for changes including the creation of a centralized body to facilitate the work, a repatriation accreditation program for museums and other institutions, and 'substantial' funding and support from the provincial and federal government.
Gretchen Fox, an anthropologist and the council's acting heritage manager, said the growing interest in the moral and ethical requirement for repatriation shows resources are needed to set out steps that could be used in B.C. and in other provinces and territories.
'There was a need for a way forward, or a road map — what's involved in repatriation, what's the history of it,' she said.
Story continues below advertisement
'To have a really good understanding and documentation of what's been lost, where these ancestors and belongings are held today, and what kind of work specifically is involved in locating them.'
Researchers with the K'yuu Enterprise Corporation did a survey and found more than 2,500 B.C. First Nation human remains and upwards of 100,000 belongings are known to be held in 229 institutions — including museums and universities — around the world.
Fox said the survey had only a 50 per cent response rate.
'So, we know that the numbers are much higher, and those numbers are just for ancestors and belongings that are associated with B.C. First Nations,' she said.
2:11
Heiltsuk Nation celebrates 'powerful, emotional' return of historic chief's seat
The main report breaks down repatriation into a four-step process starting with planning and research, followed by repatriation itself and the long-term caretaking of the items or remains.
Story continues below advertisement
It says 60 per cent of B.C. First Nations surveyed have already spent more than $1 million on repatriation work to date.
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
'Since the Canadian government has yet to commit to dedicated repatriation legislation, policy and funding, many (B.C. First Nations) are reliant on grants and other mechanisms to support their repatriation work,' it says.
The report says when applying for grant programs that aren't dedicated to repatriation, nations are forced to focus on strict funding criteria and narrow timelines rather than their own needs.
In 2016, B.C. became the first province in Canada to offer a grant to help pay for repatriation. While the report calls that funding 'welcome,' it says the money has not kept pace with requests.
It says repatriation in Canada is 'severely underfunded.'
'For decades, B.C. First Nations have funded this work through piecemeal grants and heavy reliance on volunteer labour,' it says.
Fox said there are a range of costs, from paying personnel to the technology required to research where items are located or the cost to store them properly.
2:20
Totem's arrival on Nisga'a land reveals the full scope of the work ahead
A companion report offers what Fox calls a 'really high level' cost estimate.
Story continues below advertisement
It suggests that if all 204 B.C. First Nations were funded over five years to participate in repatriation at various stages it would cost an estimated $663 million.
Fox said the number is not a request for funding, but rather an attempt to test the model and 'show the monumental, significant, costs of this.'
The report says repatriation is also an economic and social driver with benefits like health and healing, jobs and community development.
'It has spiritual and cultural impacts of reconnecting with belongings and carrying out responsibilities to ancestors and It's so meaningful, even if it's engaged at a slower pace, or on a smaller scale,' Fox said.
She said having a First Nation-led centralized organizing body and programming to facilitate repatriation would be helpful to provide the opportunity to pool experience and resources.
'First Nations in B.C. are really leading the way in repatriation, and quite a few have quite a bit of expertise and experience around doing the work and also insights into the kinds of supports, whether it's legislation (or) policy,' she said.
Inviting museums and other holding institutions would also be beneficial, Fox said.
2:17
Sacred totem pole to return home to Bella Coola
In 2023, a totem pole that had been on display at the Royal B.C. Museum, was brought back to Bella Coola, located almost 1,000 kilometres northwest of Vancouver.
Story continues below advertisement
It was taken in 1913 and became part of the museum's collection.
Representatives of the Nuxalk Nation said at the time that they had been trying to get the totem and other artifacts back since 2019.
Also in 2023, a memorial totem pole belonging to members of the Nisga'a Nation was returned from the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh, where it has been for nearly a century.
Last year, the Heiltsuk Nation celebrated the return of a chief's seat that had been in the Royal BC Museum since 1911.
Fox said an accreditation program for institutions that hold First Nations' remains and belongings could teach about repatriation and the practices and protocols needed.
'There's not a lot of formal training for folks who are doing the work, so it makes sense for those who are experts to have an arena, to share that,' she said.
She said there is still work to be done, but over the last few decades more institutions are recognizing the 'moral and ethical imperative to make things right. That these belongings and ancestors were stolen or taken under duress from First Nations communities, and that the right thing to do is to facilitate their return.'
'At the same time, First Nations repatriation experts are training the next generations within their communities, and they're building relationships with institutions. And so we are seeing some significant movement and recognition that this is the right thing to do,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Lisa Sygutek: Canadians have the power to fight back against Big Tech
Recently, I was a panellist at the Canadian Association of Journalists conference in Calgary. The session was titled, 'Local Journalism in the Age of Cutbacks.' A great headline, sure, but that's not why I was there. I was there to talk about our $8-billion class-action lawsuit against digital advertising giants Google and Facebook. Article content Alongside Sotos LLP, I launched a national class-action lawsuit in 2022. I'm the representative plaintiff in a case filed in the Federal Court of Canada on behalf of all Canadian newspaper publishers, big and small, independent and chain owned. We allege that Google and Facebook have engaged in anti-competitive practices in digital advertising and siphoned billions in ad revenue from Canadian journalism. Article content Article content If we really want to talk about cutbacks, then let's talk about what's causing them. The bleed of advertising dollars away from Canadian newsrooms and straight into the pockets of two unregulated tech giants is the reason we are all hurting. We can't stop the drain without getting to the root of the problem. That's what this lawsuit is about. Article content Article content Our case is one of the first of its kind in the world. Countries like Australia, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have also picked up the cause, some with their own legal action, others with groundbreaking legislation forcing Big Tech to pay for journalism. Article content On that panel in Calgary, I listened to a lot of 'woe is me.' Stories of shrinking newsrooms. Struggles to retain talent. Frustrations over government ad policy. It was the same old tune. The media in this country has become far too comfortable living with a victim mentality. Well, I am nobody's victim. I'm a fighter. And it's time our industry remembered how to fight, too. What I didn't hear on that stage was resolve. What I didn't hear was fire. We've become so used to decline that we've forgotten how to push back and stand tall. Article content Article content We forgot that newspapers aren't just businesses. We're institutions. We are the watchdogs. The check and balance. The public record. And somewhere along the way, we let Silicon Valley billionaires convince us we didn't matter anymore. Article content Article content Well, I haven't forgotten. And I haven't given up.
National Observer
2 hours ago
- National Observer
Bill C-5 is not just bad policy, it's a constitutional mess
Prime Minister Carney's attempt to make good on his election promise to build one Canadian economy and get things built — Bill C-5 — has been written and rushed through Parliament at breakneck speed. And it shows. Aimed at streamlining interprovincial trade and fast-tracking major projects, Bill C-5 has been heavily criticized by Indigenous peoples, environmental groups and legal experts who warn it erodes foundational democratic principles and allows the government to circumvent environmental laws and run roughshod over Indigenous rights. Of particular concern is Part 2, the Building Canada Act. If passed, it would apply to projects that the federal cabinet designates as being in the 'national interest.' Designating the projects acts as their approval — in other words, projects will get the green light before they are reviewed. This approach flies in the face of over half a century of experience showing that governments make better decisions when they understand the consequences of those decisions ahead of time. The bill also consolidates regulatory power in the hands of one 'super minister' (likely to be Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc, who tabled the Bill along with Minister of Transport and Internal Trade Chrystia Freeland). While that minister must consult ministers responsible for various project aspects and effects, he or she can ignore their advice. The super minister will also not need to comply with environmental legal standards and can, instead, authorize harms that would be otherwise unacceptable under Canadian law, because the Bill 'deems' all authorization requirements to have been met. Effectively, Bill C-5 creates two classes of projects: regular projects which have to go through legal checks and balances, and 'national interest' projects to which the rules won't apply. Canada's legal system — indeed, our democracy — is premised on the principle that everyone is equal under the law. Bill C-5 undermines that principle, along with others. For example, our democratic system relies on three independent but interrelated branches of government — the legislative, executive and judiciary. While the executive branch (cabinet) may propose laws, Parliament is ultimately responsible for passing them, and the judiciary ensures the lawfulness of those laws and their implementation. Separating the powers among the three branches ensures that power is not unduly concentrated in any one body. Bill C-5 throws that principle under the bus. It gives the federal cabinet regulatory power to exempt projects from environmental laws (known as so-called 'Henry VIII' clauses). In Bill C-5, they effectively allow cabinet to amend laws by making regulations about when and to whom those laws apply. Under Prime Minister Mark Carney's plan to speed up development in the country's "national interest", projects will get the green light before they are reviewed, writes Anna Johnston As Supreme Court Justice Côté warned in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act reference case, Henry VIII clauses grant cabinet 'breathtaking' powers that may run afoul of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Notably, the Henry VIII provisions in Bill C-5 go far beyond what the clauses in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act do — under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, cabinet can only make regulations amending that Act, whereas under Bill C-5, cabinet can make regulations amending any federal environmental law. More concerningly, Bill C-5 effectively gives Henry VIII powers to the super minister. Whereas the cabinet would have to pass regulations saying that a law or laws don't apply to a project, the minister can simply ignore legal standards. Once cabinet orders a project of 'national interest' under the Act, it no longer needs to obtain the customary authorizations and permits. Instead, the super minister will issue a document with conditions that stands in for authorizations and permits. As noted above, the bill 'deems' that the document meets all requirements, under any enactment, that relate to the authorizations it replaces. This 'deeming' acts as legal doublespeak. For example, if a project affects an endangered species, normally the minister would have to be satisfied that it would not jeopardize the species' survival and recovery before agreeing to it. Bill C-5 will 'deem' that the project will not jeopardize the species, no matter its actual effects. These issues are concerning, not just from an environmental perspective, but also on constitutional and democracy grounds. Department of Justice guidance warns against the kind of 'deeming' provisions contained in Bill C-5, and the law invites lawsuits and protests. Indigenous rights-holders faced with the potential extinction of a species central to the exercise of their rights are unlikely to be satisfied by the explanation that Bill C-5 'deems' the species not to be harmed. Nor may the public be satisfied with having a handful of politicians declaring what is in the national interest solely on the basis of the self-interested claims of proponents. Yes, we need big, transformative investments in projects that benefit Canadians, projects like renewable energy, high-speed rail and an east-west electricity grid. We have proven tools for making efficient decisions about those projects in ways that are also rigorous, participatory and fair. Tools like independent review panels, which for decades have thoroughly assessed projects in under two years and led to better buy-in to decisions. Or regional assessments, like those for offshore wind in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, which will allow much more streamlined project reviews without compromising Indigenous engagement, public participation or science. Parliament passed Bill C-5 last Thursday. It sets a dangerous precedent for Canada, but the government can take measures to ensure that national interest projects are truly in the public interest, are carefully reviewed and have the consent of Indigenous peoples. As the recent report An Ounce of Prevention: How Strong Environmental Laws Contribute to a Prosperous and Resilient Canada shows, those outcomes are not a pipe dream. The environmental assessment of the Voisey's Bay nickel mine, conducted by a panel jointly appointed by Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation, took roughly two years and identified ways to ensure long-lasting benefits for communities. The mine still operates to this day. The Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories underwent a two-year-long assessment that identified a number of community concerns, as well as ways to address them. Like Voisey's Bay, the mine is still in operation. As these examples show, efficient, effective and fair decisions about major projects are possible. A stitch in time saves nine.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Montreal's move to biweekly trash pick up proving to be a slow process
MONTREAL – The garbage may be piling up and causing some disgruntlement on the sidewalks of a few Montreal streets, but municipal officials say it's all part of a plan to become a zero-waste city by the year 2030. And they say their plan is working. 'People are making progress in their thinking, realizing that when they participate in the recycling collection, the organic waste collection, that there is not much waste left,' Marie-Andrée Mauger said. As a member of the city's executive committee in charge of ecological transition in Mayor Valérie Plante's Projet Montréal party, Mauger is the point person overseeing a switch that has reduced the frequency of garbage collection in some neighbourhoods to a biweekly pickup. Three boroughs —St-Laurent, Verdun and Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve — have started implementing the plan, which is also a part of Plante's pledge to 'make Montreal the greenest city in North America.' But residents in Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve are not thrilled with the stench. Jonathan Haiun, a spokesman for Ligue 33, a community group in eastern Montreal that advocates for quality of life issues, said spacing out the collection hasn't had the desired effect since it was brought in late last year. 'The problem seems to be some people who just aren't composting or at least not doing it properly, and then a lot of the stuff that we do find in the garbage is just a mix of everything,' Haiun said. 'What we have been asking for since the beginning is that they go back to collecting garbage every week because we don't feel that that's actually an ecological measure.' According to most recent survey results conducted for the city and obtained by Ensemble Montreal, the opposition party at city hall, some 54 per cent of residents polled consider switching to trash pickup every two weeks 'unacceptable.' Meanwhile, other major Canadian cities have had biweekly pickup for years: Toronto since 2008, Halifax in 1999 and Vancouver in 2013. In each case, there were growing pains but all happened hand-in-hand with organic waste collection. Mauger said she expects once composting extends to 100 per cent of the city by the end of 2025, things will begin to shift. According to the Leger city survey, less than half of Montrealers use the so-called brown bin to dispose of organic waste and their knowledge of what goes in the bin has only risen by one per cent, to 41 per cent, since 2021. The survey results aren't surprising and transition rarely comes without complaint, said Karel Ménard, a Montreal environmentalist. 'I think it's a shared responsibility between the citizens, and the municipality, which has an obligation to have a clean and healthy city,' said Ménard, head of Front commun québécois pour une gestion écologique des déchets, an organization that promotes ecological waste management. 'Also, I would even say, the producers, because what we often see in the alleys are short-lived, disposable items, so there's also a problem of overconsumption.' Many municipalities in the Greater Montreal area and elsewhere in Quebec, have switched to biweekly pickup, if not every three weeks or monthly in some cases. But Greater Montreal is mainly suburbs with single-family homes, which isn't the case in the city's boroughs. 'There are 900,000 doors in Montreal, plus 40,000 businesses, industries, and institutions that have municipal collection,' Mauger said. 'We estimate that eighty per cent of the buildings in Montreal don't have their own driveway, so it's not really one size fits all.' The zero waste plan places an emphasis on reducing food waste, more composting and recycling. The city has also prohibited the use of single-use plastic items, like cups, utensils and straws. Opposition Coun. Stephanie Valenzuela of Ensemble Montréal said the polling results suggest Projet Montréal has a lot of work to do. 'The results really speak to the amount of energy and investment the city has been putting into informing residents on the goals that we're trying to achieve,' Valenzuela said. Valenzuela said the public reaction also contrasts with how the administration has portrayed itself as being innovative and avant-garde when it comes to the environment. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. 'We've seen that when it comes to their big promises, when it comes to the environment, they're actually missing the mark,' Valenzuela said. But Mauger is confident the city will be able to extend biweekly pickup to all 19 Montreal boroughs by 2029. 'What we see in this poll, it's also that three-quarters of the population are aware of the problem of sending too much waste to the landfill that's filling up at a very high pace,' Mauger said. 'And they want to do more to be part of the solution … so that's really promising too.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 2, 2025.
