AnimalsMagazine

“You can make change. You can do it. I did it!”

Meet the author of one of the most important laws in Canada: Ian Waddell – a man who dedicated his life to asking the better questions and then advocating for the answers inside and outside of government.

“You need good governance and with good governance, you can’t do things overnight. You’ve got to have pressure from the outside. And then you’ve got to go to your cabinet colleagues and say, ‘Hey, we have to do this and here’s how we do it’.”

Ian was an NDP MP, before becoming a cabinet minister in the BC government in the 1990s. He was also an author, a movie producer and a lawyer – a true renaissance man.

Like many of us, Ian didn’t know what he didn’t know until he had an opportunity to explore this land and meet its inhabitants – an experience he was granted by Thomas Berger who needed the help of young Ian.

“I was very lucky. I had a mentor, judge Thomas Berger. He was a great, great man. And he did this inquiry into this large construction project (the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline), and he looked at the environmental and social matters.”

The Berger Inquiry was monumental in Canadian history because it was the first time a major land-use decision actually worked to engage more broadly the issue’s stakeholders.

“We held hearings all through the Arctic, in small communities. And he sat there and he listened. No government official had ever listened to Aboriginal people before that. It was the beginning of a movement in Canada. We see it today with the Aboriginal rights movement for equality.”

And it was monumental for another reason. It allowed Ian to see issues through a different perspective – a perspective he sought to better understand through relationships.

“I was sitting, in about 1978, with an Aboriginal leader in northern BC, Chief Harry Chingee. And we were fishing. Big logging trucks started going by. They would log; they would look for oil and gas – and they were ignoring the Aboriginal people. I said, ‘Harry, stop the logging trucks! What’s going on?’ He said, ‘I can’t do that.’ ‘What do you mean you can’t do that?’ ‘Well, I don’t have any power’. I thought we’re going to get him some power.”

Of course, as is so often the case, making history is about being in the right place at the right time and that’s exactly where Ian found himself in 1982 – an opposition MP in Ottawa at a critical moment in the nation’s history.

“Pierre Trudeau, Justin’s father, was prime minister, and he got re-elected unexpectedly. And he promised Quebec a change (if he was elected). (Pierre Trudeau) brought in a Charter of Rights, but he didn’t put Aboriginal title in it; didn’t put women in it. (The NDP) had seats in western Canada and he needed our support. And we said, okay, we’ll make a deal: Stronger women’s rights, stronger charter, some rights for Saskatchewan and Alberta energy and Aboriginal rights. And that’s where I was involved because I’d seen it with the Berger Inquiry. I’d seen it in the Canadian north. I’ve seen the Aboriginal people. I’ve understood their love of the land.”

And that understanding – this opportunity – led Ian to help draft one of the most important sections of our constitution.

“So, we put a thing in the constitution, when we had this chance with Trudeau to make a deal for support, Section 35. And we described it generally: Aboriginal rights are hereby recognized and affirmed.”

Section 35 enshrines rights that deliver on an historical promise, as Ian explains.

“(It goes) way back to the Royal Proclamation of 1764, where King George had said, ‘No, you’ve got to recognize the Aboriginal people’. That was amazing that he really said that. So, that was always in the law and we enshrined it in the constitution.”

So, why do you need to understand Section 35?

“There is a duty to consult. It’s valid and it is the legal basis for Section 35 of the constitution. It’s a simple thing, but it’s revolutionary.”

In part for this reason:

“There’s been about 300 court decisions since (the constitution was made law). It’s been a bit of a rocky road, but I’ll tell you, those logging companies can’t just go through Chief Chingee’s reserve; they’ve got to talk to Chief Chingee first!”

That, of course, is the real-world, ever-evolving impact of Section 35. It has – or will – impact almost every facet of economic, social and environmental policy in our country.

For some, it doesn’t go far enough, fast enough. For others, it went too far, too fast. But in both cases, Ian says we’re missing the point: Section 35 was meant to kick-start a conversation that had been non-existent for far too long. Ian hoped Section 35 would lead to new understandings and new relationships that absolutely must be forged.

“Don’t talk past each other. We’re in a generation that tends to talk past each other and I think that’s a problem. You can’t walk away from this.”

Ian’s right. We can’t walk away from the work he helped start, no matter how messy it might become. Like determining whether Indigenous nations have – or should have – veto power over decision-making in Canada. It’s a question that is constantly tested before the courts, but since Ian helped write the law, we thought we’d ask for his thoughts on the matter.

“(Indigenous peoples) don’t have a veto. This is controversial. If you do the consultation properly and it’s in the national interest, I don’t think they do.”

It’s why – for this debate and almost every debate in our country – to make better decisions, Ian says, “You’ve got to know your history. Know a little bit about your history. Take a little bit of time know how your country’s formed, this constitutional stuff. We have a constitution. What is it? Listen to your history teacher!”

Again, Ian is right. We don’t learn our full history. We don’t know our history well enough. Which is why we all need to hear this:

“We’re still a fairly young country. We’re still defining ourselves. I think we’ve done some very good things in the world. You know, we’re the nation that started peacekeeping. We have a pretty good multicultural system. We have the rule of law. We have some pretty good things.

“We’ve got some problems. You know, the state of Aboriginal people in the country is one. Child poverty. You can name them, our dependence on the United States and China. We’ve got some problems. But by and large, we’re a pretty damn good country.”

Ian continues, “The issue between Aboriginal peoples and the rest of us is evolving. I’m very optimistic that it will work out in a good way. But there will be some rocky roads, you know, and you’ve seen it in terms of issues about pipelines and demonstrations and fights within communities, Aboriginal communities.”

That’s the thing, for all Ian accomplished, whether you agree with him or not – whether you think he went too far or not far enough – work remains to achieve meaningful truth and reconciliation in Canada.

To finish the job, Ian implores us to “be tolerant. And be joyous. You’re going to have a generation of young Aboriginal people that are going to make a huge difference. Maybe we’ll have an Aboriginal prime minister at some point.”

And he wants us to finish the job. At the end of our conversation, Ian added this wish:

“The Aboriginal rights amendment: I would like to see that finished before I pass away. I’d like to see that complete.”

Sadly, Ian wasn’t able see this dream realized. Not long after we interviewed him, Ian passed away at the age of 78.

He led a full life and, without question, left his imprint on Canada – shaped the future of our nation. But he had more to give.

We asked Ian, after our interview, who else had been knocking on his door to get a better understanding of the important, complex and misunderstood law he helped author.

His answer?

No one had. Not the prime minister, not a sitting provincial premier, no leading stakeholder. And now they’ll never learn from his insights.

But you can.

Lawyers will argue that hearing the intent of the lawmaker behind Section 35 is irrelevant – government transcripts and legal documents are all that’s needed in court. And that might be true if the only goal is to create legal settlements, but not if the goal is to create meaningful relationships between peoples.

The story behind the law? The role of relationship in the law’s creation? The law’s intent to foster relationships? How all of that might inform conversations moving forward?

That you can’t learn in a court case.

Ian Waddell wasn’t a friend, but we did have a history of both working together and sparring with one another over policy. And here’s the thing I can tell you about Ian:

Whether you agreed with him or not, he always cared about the person behind the ideas. He cared about people. He cared about nature. He cared about relationships between people, between people and nature.

For one, I think we need more leaders – in all fields – who don’t just care about the win, but care about building lasting relationships that can help forge lasting solutions.

That was Ian and that’s why I will miss him.

You didn’t know him, but I hope you get to know his legacy through Nature Labs. More than that, I hope you carry on his legacy – not his partisan one, his human one – and search out relationships. Relationships that can help you understand that disputes over land are about more than land. They’re about respect and voice. They’re about hurt and healing. They’re about thinking bigger and working together for better.

But mostly, I hope you heed the final words Ian offered us, offered you.

“It can be done. You can do it.”