In March 2021 Indigenous Climate Action released a report called, Decolonizing Climate Policies in Canada in which they analyzed two key Canadian Climate Policy documents: the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (PCF- 2016) and A Healthy Environment, A Healthy Economy (HEHE- December 2020).   Below is a high level overview of some of the key points.  Reading the entire report is highly recommended.

• The country we call Canada is on land that is owned by the colonial state of Canada.

• Indigenous peoples are viewed as stakeholders rather than Nations and their decision making authority is not recognized, and has even been deliberately disallowed.

• Democracy, as understood from a Western Perspective, is believed to be the superior approach to decision making and governance.  Democracy is meant to mean that everyone has equal say even if that isn't reality. 

• Indigenous leaders who have been elected through processes established by the colonial government are recognized and included differently (i.e. Band Councils, National Organizations such as Assembly of First Nations) then  those chosen through Indigenous peoples traditional forms of governance. 

• Consultation with Indigenous peoples is approached, not from the intent to integrate their knowledges to stop environmental destruction, but to adapt to it, and avoid law suits for failing to adequately consult.
  From the report: Federal climate policy appears stuck in a capitalist policy paradigm that is fundamentally incompatible with real climate action and respect for Indigenous Peoples and our rights. What we see in the inclusions of Indigenous Peoples in the PCF and the HEHE is that Indigenous Peoples are referred to as climate leaders and invited to participate in taking action on climate but only within the limits of an economic system created by others and imposed upon us and which was built at the expense of our lives, lands and cultures. 

• Government mistakes investment into inquiry (i.e. Royal Commission, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, MMIWG report, countless inquiries etc.) as synonymous with making change or taking action.  We do little to follow up on those recommendations and are quick to call for more information instead. 

• Government policy promotes carbon pricing and green based solutions as ways out of the climate crisis whereas the Indigenous Environmental Network described carbon pricing schemes as a "new form of colonialism" (2010).

• There is an insistence that economic growth (albeit "greener") is part of the solution to climate change.
  From the report: Capitalist economies have certain inherent characteristics, including the continuous need to expand in order to survive. This perpetual growth requires the increasing flows of raw material, natural resources, energy and labour (Whyte, 2017; Kohn & Reddy, 2017; Clark & York, 2005). Given that capitalism requires increasing use of energy to continually increase production, the use of fossil fuels — as an abundant form of cheap energy to drive the machines of production — has become locked in. According to Clark and York (2005), “Capital’s constant demand for energy necessitates the continual plundering of the Earth for new reserves of fossil fuel” (p. 409). The material demands of endlessly expanding economies have been outpacing the Earth’s ability to regenerate the raw materials needed and absorb the wastes being produced (Steffen et al., 2015). To tackle the climate crisis, our economic systems need to be transformed away from growth-driven capitalism (Clark & York, 2005; Klein, 2014).

• Climate Crisis is viewed as a technological issue to be solved with different approaches to resource extraction and energy generation.  

• Colonialism and capitalism, and the burning of fossil fuels, are not named as the causes of climate crisis, and no other models of civilization are even speculated upon, never mind discussed in spite of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) insisting a new paradigm must be employed.
  From the Report: The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report makes clear that stabilizing the climate will require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” and that an important part of this is “to negotiate societal values, well-being…and to determine what is desirable and fair, and to whom” (p. 22). More and more it is being acknowledged by scholars and activists alike that what is needed is a profound transformation in mainstream economic, political, and thought systems that are driving the ecological crises (Moore et al., 2014; Beddoe et al., 2009; IPCC, 2018). This will require radical shifts in mainstream values and beliefs, patterns of social behaviour and governance (Westley et al., 2011). This requires that we confront not just the symptoms but the root causes of crises we face and this includes unequal power relations (Temper, 2018; Gobby, 2020).
  From the Report: According to Ellis (2005), Simply stated...traditional knowledge threatens the stability of conventional power structures rooted in the Western industrial complex. The driving force behind this complex is growth and, consequently, industrial development…To empower traditional knowledge and its [Indigenous] holders on their own terms necessarily means to give voice to a system of understanding that may oppose capitalism.

• Policy is focused on adaptation instead of mitigation: If mitigation were to be the focus, the extractive industry would be heavily implicated, which the federal government doesn’t want to happen, therefore, a focus on adaptation is less threatening to the colonial capitalist status quo.
  From the report: Indigenous Peoples and our rights and knowledge are brought in superficially and in ways to ensure that these forms of knowledge cannot hinder the ongoing extractive economy that is the foundation of the Canadian colonial state. This may explain why Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge is being sought in lieu of consent and/or full partnership in a co-creation process of climate policy and plan making in Canada. It may also explain why Indigenous knowledge is sought for adaptation (addressing the impacts of climate change) but not mitigation related actions (stopping the causes of climate change).

• The "Resilience" Deflection: "Resilience” is a term often used in regard to Indigenous communities and other communities of Colour. “Resilience” suggests that the communities must be stronger, tougher and take on more responsibility for their survival in the face of ongoing settler colonial structures of oppression. This focus on resilience should be shifted to the corporate drivers of climate change and on corporations adapting their capitalist extractive and economic practices.

Stakeholders Instead of Nations

• We say we respect Indigenous sovereignty  (multiple times in the PCF and HEHE) but we do not relate to them on a government-to- government level, similar to how we would relate to the USA, China, or any other sovereign nation. Instead we treat them as stakeholders.

•  We do not share power (never mind abdicate power) with Indigenous leaders at the decision making tables, and we do not ensure their level of involvement reflects their status as sovereignty as Nations.  

• The appropriate Indigenous leaders are not involved in co-creating consultation processes, gathering input, making decisions based on Indigenous and Western Sciences, or writing policy.    

• We allowed provincial governments and industry to disallow their full involvement and demote them to stakeholders status.

• In contradiction to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we do not allow Indigenous peoples to decide, using their own processes, who they want at the decision making tables. Instead we tend to favor governments and organizations established by colonial processes (i.e. Band Councils and National Indigenous Organizations) thinking these are a valid substitute.
  From the report,  "The working group consultations that took place with AFN [Assembly of First Nations], ITK [Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami], and MNC [Metis Nation of Canada] were not consent-based. While AFN, ITK and MNC were given regular updates and were asked for input, there was no clarity on how their contributions would be incorporated. This process was not created through anything resembling consent of Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, there were no processes put in place to ensure that AFN, ITK and MNC were meaningfully gathering input about the PCF from the Indigenous Peoples they purportedly represent. This effectively allowed Canada to bypass Indigenous communities and Nations, misleading the public about the involvement of Indigenous Peoples in climate strategy and creating a facade of FPIC (Diabo, 2017). 

Fail to Acknowledge True Cause of Climate Crisis

• We fail to clearly acknowledge that colonialism (taking over land) and capitalism (ever growing through resource extraction) are working hand-in-hand, and have created the climate crisis.  Removal of Indigenous peoples from land and decision making is an integral component to this effort.
  From the report: Kyle Whyte, Potawatomi scholar, explains that “Colonialism often paved the way for the expansion of capitalism” (2017, p. 154). Inherent to capitalism is the “assimilation, depopulation, removal, and erasure of Indigenous Peoples; and the dispossession, expropriation, and territorial occupation of Indigenous resources, land, property, homes…all toward the end goal of profit” (Waldron, 2018, p. 41).
  From the report: Inextricably tied together, colonialism and capitalism have laid the groundwork for carbon-intensive economics, which is driving climate change (Whyte, 2017). and political power…. The tendency…for the powerful to keep coming out better off, and for exploitation of less-powerful people and of nature to accelerate, is the prime driver of climate change” (Perkins, 2019, p. 183; see also Klein, 2014; Douthwaite, 1993; Tokar & Gilbertson, 2020; Wu, 2018; Whyte, 2018) 

• Failing to name why Indigenous Nations continue to experience conditions that are disproportionate to the non-Indigenous populations (i.e. contaminated drinking water, fracking on their traditional territory, contamination due to mining, loss of access to forest because of forestry on their traditional land, decline, decimation and/or contamination of animals that are traditional food sources etc.), allows the illusion to continue that some force other than colonization and capitalism are responsible for this wide scale destruction. 

Carbon Off-Sets & Green Based Solutions (GBS)

• Indigenous Nations benefit little from Carbon Tax Redistribution: Carbon Tax collected through the Federal Backstop plan (for provinces who do not have their own) is mostly returned to households (90%). The remaining 10% goes into a category that is split between small and medium businesses (2/3 of the 10%) and the remaining 1/3 of 10% goes to municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals, and Indigenous communities (Forrest, 2018). So while our policies admit that climate change impacts are affecting Indigenous Peoples disproportionately, the way that the collected funds are re-distributed does little to correct this imbalance.

• The Rich Get Richer and Indigenous Rights are infringed upon again.
  From the Report: The commodification of forests is leading to benefits for wealthy, polluting countries and corporations - oil companies are actively lobbying in favor of the carbon markets - while eroding the ability of local communities and Indigenous Peoples to continue to sustain themselves in these ecosystems. Indigenous Peoples’ right to free, prior and informed consent is rarely upheld by conservation NGOs, aid organizations, carbon brokers, corporations and governments in the negotiation and implementation of carbon off-set schemes (Indigenous Environmental Network & Climate Justice Alliance, n.d.). Often they are not informed that their participation in this program allows companies to continue to violate Indigenous land rights elsewhere in the world, while continuing their carbon intensive operations.
  From the report: A 2020 article by Temper et al. reviewing thousands of cases of environmental conflicts around the world showed that clean energy climate solutions such as wind and hydro were disproportionately impacting vulnerable groups and driving human rights abuses and the violations of Indigenous rights. Many of these cases involve violent repression and even the assassination of those defending their lands and rights.
  From the report: Climate solutions must not replicate the kind of unjust relations and oppressions that the fossil fuel industry is notorious for.
  From the report: As Tom Goldtooth has argued Carbon trading, offsets and other market-based systems…turn the sacredness of our Mother Earth’s carbon-cycling capacity into property to be bought or sold in a global market…. Carbon trading will not contribute to achieving protection of the Earth’s climate. It is a false solution with many risks, including the dangers of entrenching and magnifying social inequalities and human rights abuses. From the Indigenous mindset, it is a violation of the sacred, plain and simple. (quoted in Dillon, 2015, n.p.) 

• Nature based Solutions (NBS) may be a new green-washed version of carbon offsets that allow big polluters off the hook, while incentivizing the purchase of lands that further promotes the company's wealth,  and negatively affects Indigenous Peoples through displacement, restriction to livelihood practices, and cultural impacts.
  From the report: Tamra Gilbertson of Indigenous Environmental Network explained to our research team, [Nature-based Solutions] are rapidly gaining traction across the globe. The premise allows polluting industries to finance soil or agriculture projects to ostensibly ‘compensate’ for their ongoing emissions. For example, corporations like Royal Dutch Shell have created an internal NBS unit investing $300 million into mostly purchasing lands for NBS. In this way, NBS constitutes a new land grab and if expanded for more fossil fuel offsets, perhaps a new cycle of primitive accumulation. In other words, an offset. The concept has been pushed by conservation NGOs and Oil Majors in the UN climate change arena, and is now expanding into national and subnational policy. (personal correspondence, 2021) (p.49)

• Wealth Begets Wealth if no distribution plan ensures a fairer distribution:
  From the report: A lack of policies and institutions to ensure that increased GDP is equitably distributed across society creates an endless cycle whereby “wealth begets more wealth Kyle Whyte, Potawatomi scholar states it simply, “Colonialism often paved the way for the expansion of capitalism” (2017). Inherent to capitalism is the “assimilation, depopulation, removal, and erasure of Indigenous Peoples; and the dispossession, expropriation, and territorial occupation of Indigenous resources, land, property, homes…all toward the end goal of profit” (Waldron, 2018, p. 41).

What is your group's level of understanding of historical and current colonization practices in Canada, the benefits for settlers, and the consequences for Indigenous peoples?

Learning opportunities:

1. CUC's Un-colonizing Focus Group Materials (email: reconciliation@cuc.ca)
2.  "Indigenous Canada", University of Alberta; Free Online Course
3. CUC's Truth Healing and Reconciliation Guides (email: reconciliation@cuc.ca)

• In what ways has your group shifted from being quantitatively based (what is right/wrong, good/bad, what we stand for/don't) to qualitatively (relationship) based (inter-being of all things, honoring sovereignty, re-distributing power, equity vs equality )?  What areas require more work?
• Has your group carefully examined its own culture as it relates to white supremacy characteristics?   What did you discover?
• To what degree does each person involved know about their personal settler history?  The settler history history of the area you're in?
• Has your group begun to learn whose territories you're on and make efforts to rectify ongoing injustices such as land you own and occupy without Indigenous consent, and without any benefit to them? See these films from "Land Back" for Indigenous perspectives
• In what ways do you view the land as separate from yourself, speak of it this way, and act as though this is true?
• In what ways do you ascribe to the colonial views of land ownership? How is that shaping what you see is possible in terms of conciliation, land, and climate justice?  See these films from "Land Back" for Indigenous perspectives
• In what ways do you speak as though the earth needs you to ensure her survival rather than you needing the earth to ensure your survival (think about slogans, talking points, commercials, etc.)?  Why is this an important distinction?
• Some feelings of urgency are likely due to the climate-related consequences we are experiencing because of our collective choices,  and some are likely an enduring characteristic of white supremacy culture.  Which is which?  How can you know the difference? To what degree does your group behave as though seeking the involvement and leadership of Indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge in your local movements is optional?
  As a reference: Imagine if we approached the inclusion of women and feminist views with the same infrequency and devotion as we do Indigenous peoples and views.  How would that feel?
• In what ways do you use the involvement of Indigenous people(s) as a "feather in your cap"?
• In what ways are you, or the movements you are involved in, creating space for Indigenous leadership at the decision-making tables during the design, consultation, writing, follow-up, and other stages of the initiative/policy/movement?  In what ways are you falling short?
• Has your group closely examined the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to ensure you know what actions you must follow to honor these rights?
• In what ways have you set your climate movement's culture, and then tried to get Indigenous peoples/nations/organizations to participate in what you think is important, in the way you think is best?
• To what degree is your movement expecting Indigenous peoples to do the extra work of educating you (their oppressors) and dealing with whatever backlash results?
• When an Indigenous person chooses to contribute to your learning, are you providing proper compensation for Indigenous knowledge and involvement or expecting them to participate for free?  What logic underlies a belief that they should participate for free?  
• How does your local movement demonstrate your understanding that colonialism, capitalism,  silencing Indigenous voices, and removal of Indigenous peoples from the land,  are inextricably linked and have created the climate crisis?  
• Within your movement is there an appropriate balance between un-colonizing your worldviews/cultures and building meaningful relationships with Indigenous peoples/nations and returning Land (decolonizing)? 
• When you support/promote carbon offset initiatives, green-based strategies, and environmental legislation how much research are you doing to ensure that Indigenous peoples were fully aware, involved in decision-making positions, giving full consent, and are not experiencing any loss of rights due to the new designation on their territory?
• How closely do the actions of your local climate justice initiative role model the way of interacting you want colonial governments to show in their relationship with Indigenous peoples and Nations?  What areas would you like to give attention to? 
• In what ways are you currently showing up in support of Indigenous-led movements related to whatever issues are important to them?

• Ask about the protocol for speaking to leaders, traditional teachers, and elders to determine what is customary regarding gifts and compensation.  This may be different between people and nations (for instance, do not assume all Indigenous people want to receive tobacco).  Who would they prefer to speak to from your group/organization?

• Take the time to learn about their history, customs, and worldviews, and to attend the events they offer that are open to the public before demanding they come specifically to your group. This shows an investment in relationships and a genuine desire to learn.

• If you ask an Indigenous person to speak, educate, or share knowledge:
  - pay them a professional wage for their time, preferably at the event.  In most cases, it would be highly inappropriate not to, as you are asking them to do the extra labour of educating their oppressors, which makes them vulnerable to verbal attacks and other abuses that are common when settlers are asked to change their perspectives.
  - invite them to share what is meaningful to them on the topic you've requested rather than having expectations of what they must share. Part of un-colonizing is challenging the notion that Indigenous peoples should show up for non-Indigenous peoples, in the ways that are convenient for them. When hosting, let the audience know that the presenter has your blessing to share what is on their heart and mind.

• Relationship building should be at a mutually enjoyable pace and not driven by a particular outcome needed by settler peoples.  This should be ongoing; not something that is started to meet a need of your group.  Think years, not weeks or months.   Think open-ended rather than goal-orientated. 

• Assume that the culture of your group ( how you speak, make decisions, divide roles, resolve conflict, provide leadership, etc.) will differ from the Indigenous people you want to interact with.  Avoid imposing your approach on them, as wonderful as you might think it is.  Take the time to learn how to interact respectfully according to their culture(s).

• If you mutually decide to work together on something, co-creating a third culture may be helpful to add clarity about how those involved will speak to each other, protocols, decision-making,  and resolving conflicts. This takes time to develop and would likely be a later part of relationship building. Be explicit and, if appropriate,  consider creating a covenant explaining how you will speak, listen, show respect, resolve conflict,  and treat each other.  State things positively (We will bring conflict issues to the person involved as soon as appropriate. If we need more help we will bring it to ______"). 

• Ensure that Indigenous participants representing an organization, group or Nation are free to choose who represents them at the table. Ensure that the bodies present are weighted in favour of Indigenous representatives to help balance power.

• If you mutually decide to work together, decide what you will co-create.  Be prepared that these decisions may involve consultation with their larger community/organization. 

• Aim to listen WAY more than you speak.  When you speak, try to use a calm pace and give space between each person's point to demonstrate that everyone is being listened to and their input properly considered before the next idea is brought forward.

• Be prepared to address issues of trust,  keeping in mind that there is really good reason for Indigenous peoples to be suspicious of settlers and our causes, as they are constantly approached by settlers to "engage in reconciliation" based on the settler people's worldviews, political agendas, research fascinations, economic pursuits, environmental urgencies, and religious ideologies. 

• Be open to receiving correction.  Be mindful that it might come in less direct ways or through people choosing not to participate.  If you receive correction, listen intently without interrupting, explaining, or defending.  It is a good sign if someone is willing to invest in you this way.

• In the white supremacy culture characteristics a sense of urgency is listed as a defining characteristic.  In your movement/initiative notice when a sense of urgency takes centre-stage in front of building relationships, in front of doing your un-colonizing work, in front of hearing about lived experiences, or carefully examining the repetitive patterns of colonial governments towards Indigenous governments. 

• Do not announce Indigenous involvement just because you're starting to build relationships with Indigenous peoples, Nations or organizations.  This is a sore spot as government, academia, and industry have been sneaky in calling any conversations or engagement with Indigenous people "consultation."  If you decide to work together on an initiative, be sure to follow whatever protocol they have for making that official.