The Children's Senator: Landon Pearson and a Lifetime of Advocacy 9780228004332

Citation preview

The Children’s Senator

The Children’s Senator Landon Pearson and a Lifetime of Advocacy

Edited by

VIrgInIa Caputo

McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Chicago

© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2020 ISBn 978-0-2280-0380-9 (cloth) ISBn 978-0-2280-0433-2 (epDF) ISBn 978-0-2280-0434-9 (epuB) Legal deposit fourth quarter 2020 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free

We acknowledge the support of the Canada Council for the Arts. Nous remercions le Conseil des arts du Canada de son soutien. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: The children’s senator : Landon Pearson and a lifetime of advocacy / edited by Virginia Caputo. Names: Caputo, Virginia, 1962– editor. Description: Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20200276999 | Canadiana (ebook) 20200277049 | ISBn 9780228003809 (hardcover) | ISBn 9780228004332 (pDF) | ISBn 9780228004349 (epuB) Subjects: LCSH: Pearson, Landon. | LCSH: Children’s rights. | LCSH: Women human rights workers – Canada – Biography. | LCSH: Human rights workers – Canada – Biography. | LCSH: Women legislators – Canada – Biography. | LCSH: Legislators – Canada – Biography. | LCgFt: Biographies. Classification: LCC HQ789 .C45 2020 | DDC 323.092–dc23

This book was designed and typeset by Peggy & Co. Design in 10.5/13 Sabon.

Contents

Figures and Table

vii

Foreword ix Landon Pearson Preface xi Virginia Caputo PART ONE: CONSIDERING PARTICIPATION AND RIGHTSRESPEC TING APPROACHES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

1

Introduction 3 “Curiosity, Creativity, Culture”: Landon Pearson’s Life and Work in Canadian Children’s Rights Advocacy Virginia Caputo

2

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation Gerison Lansdown

21

3

Travels with Landon: A Children’s Rights Journey Anne McGillivray

45

4

Is it genocide? The danger of saying “no” too quickly Cindy Blackstock

5

Language, Culture, and Early Childhood: Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation 80 Margo Greenwood

6

Policy and Punishment: The Struggle for Children’s Rights to Protection in Canada 98 Joan E. Durrant

7

Reflections, Opportunities, and Capacities: Being Bold and Creative 113 Natasha Blanchet-Cohen

74

vi

Contents PART T WO: REFLEC TIVE ESSAYS ON PARTNERSHIP, COLLABORATION, AND LEADERSHIP

8

The Power of Partnerships Judy Finlay

121

9

Earthquakes and Guinea Pigs: Spreading the Word about Children’s Rights with Landon 136 Kelly Stone

10

On Leadership, Intellect, and Kindness Melanie Adrian

11

Landon Pearson Cindy Blackstock

12

A Testament of the Great Impact of the Honourable Landon Pearson 151 Tara M. Collins

145

148

PART THREE: ON MENTORING

13

Sage Wisdom and Safe Harbours: A Life of Social Impact 161 Ben O’Bright

14

For Landon, Just Landon Ilana Lockwood

15

Creating Consciousness for a Better World Lucy Vorobej

16

(Re)Building a Sense of Identity: Landon’s Lessons in Trust, Love, and Mentorship 172 Lindsey Li

17

“Sometimes, all it takes is one person to make a difference”: Reflecting on the Importance and Impact of Quality Mentorship in Early Career Development” 176 Daniella Bendo Contributors Index

189

181

165 168

Figures and Table

FigureS 2.1 2.2 2.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7

Levels of participation 31 A social ecology of participation? 34 The conceptual framework of participation Landon Pearson in Sandy Lake First Nation, 2010. Photo credit: Sherry Prenevost, www.sherryprenevost photography.com. 122 Landon Pearson at Shaking the Movers, Ryerson University. Photo credit: Sherry Prenevost, www.sherryprenevost photography.com. 123 Landon Pearson Celebrates unCrC Twenty-Fifth Anniversary, Ryerson University. Photo credit: Sherry Prenevost sherryprenevostphotography.com. 125 Celebrating Landon’s birthday at Shaking the Movers, Ryerson University, 2017. Photo credit: Sherry Prenevost, www.sherryprenevostphotography.com. 128 Landon Pearson with Mamow Ki kenda ma win team at Nibinamik First Nation, 2009. Photo credit: Sherry Prenevost, www.sherryprenevostphotography.com. 129 Landon Pearson with Elder Pauline at Idle No More Rally at Ryerson University, 2014. Photo credit: Sherry Prenevost, www.sherryprenevostphotography.com. 131 Landon Pearson in Eabametoong First Nation, 2010. Photo credit: Sherry Prenevost, www.sherryprenevost photography.com. 134

viii

Figures and Table

17.1 Daniella Bendo, Gerison Lansdown, and Landon Pearson, Carleton University Convocation, Ottawa, June 2018. Photo courtesy of Carleton University/Mike Pinder. 178

taBLe 6.1 Percent of Parents who Mostly or Strongly Agreed that pDep Will Help Them Achieve Various Outcomes 105

Foreword

Our end is in our beginnings. The older I get the more convinced I am that this is true. We come into this world bearing gifts, each one of us a dynamo of possibilities. How all that human potential is realized, however, depends on several factors: our genes, the culture into which we are born, the nurturing care we receive in early childhood, and the opportunities we are given as we are growing up. Our genes determine the colour of our eyes and the variability of our temperaments, our culture determines which language we first speak and how we are seen by others, nurturing care makes us strong and capable, and opportunity opens up the wider world. Each life journey is unique; no one has ever made it before and no one will ever make it again, but it is up to us, each one of us, to make it matter, to make every child’s life matter. This is why I am so passionate about children’s rights, about all rights for all children. When children grow up in the culture of respect that is created when their rights are recognized and fulfilled, they will have the chance to flourish, to realize their gifts, to give back to us eventually even more than we have given them. Because, as the two young girls at the podium proclaimed on behalf of their generation at the un Special Session on Children in 2002 “We are not the problem; we are the solution.” I myself was blessed with sturdy genes, probably from my Scottish ancestors, and I grew up in emotional and economic security in a family that had a strong moral compass. My rights were respected without anyone thinking much about it, even my right to express myself although I didn’t always convince. Nevertheless, I was heard, and so I learned early that I could be trusted to solve my own problems. It is not that my life has always been easy. Moving around the world with young children is not without challenges and there have been setbacks,

x

Foreword

illnesses, and deaths along the way. But I never experienced the adverse childhood events that we now know to have such devastating lifelong effects. Violence against children in any form does not make them stronger. To the contrary, it wounds them and makes them vulnerable to a lifetime of misery. This is truly an offence against humanity and upholding children’s rights is the only answer. A little over a decade ago as I was approaching my eightieth year, I spent a few days with a good friend in an Indigenous community in Northern Ontario mourning the recent loss of my husband and one of my beloved daughters. Their shaman took me into his “shaking tent” and after listening to my sorrow he gave me a spirit name to console me. “Meme-no-biit” he called me in Oji Cree and said that it couldn’t be translated but was meant to evoke the image of a large bird floating peacefully on a tranquil lake in the twilight. I found it a comforting vision and, since then, as I come closer to the end of my life’s journey, I feel surprisingly calm. I have not lost my passion for children’s rights, not at all, but I have learned patience. Shifting cultural currents towards full respect for children and their rights remains a huge challenge. Then I remember that it was only in 1929, the year before I was born, that the Privy Council of the uK declared women “persons” so that they could serve in the Senate of Canada! Now, thanks to the work of all those who have contributed to this volume and with whom I have been privileged to share ideas and my dreams, I feel that change is really on the way. Hon. Landon Pearson, oC April 2020

Preface It all started with the birth of my first child, Hilary, and the recognition that she was a separate person, not my possession. Hon. Landon Pearson, o.C. 1

Landon Pearson, née Lucy Landon Carter Mackenzie, is one of Canada’s foremost children’s rights advocates, recognized for her championing work on behalf of children and young people. She was born in Toronto, Ontario on 16 November 1930 to an American visual artist and a Canadian accountant (and football player) of Scottish Irish descent. Her given names have come down from aunt to niece through several generations of Southern women but her mother, Alice Beirne Sawtelle, had numerous New England forbears as well. As the granddaughter of military officers who had fought on both sides of the American Civil War, Alice embodied the possibilities of reconciliation when the son of one married the daughter of the other. Alice grew up mostly in Washington  DC where her mother, widowed young, made a modest living painting portraits and teaching art. When Alice finished school, she studied art, first at the Corcoran School in Washington and then in New York at the Parsons School of Art and Design. She remained there for a number of years working as a decorative artist. A Canadian friend brought her to the Kawarthas for a holiday where she met her future husband, Hugh Alexander Mackenzie. After he had graduated from the Royal Military College and finished his training as a chartered accountant, they were married at the Little Church Around the Corner in New York City on 6 June 1925. Initially, they lived in Toronto but on the day of Landon’s birth, her father was appointed comptroller at John Labatt’s Brewery in London, Ontario, rising eventually to become the company’s general manager. From her memories of early childhood, Landon recalls her father would tell her that she was his good luck charm. Landon grew up in London where Labatt’s was able to flourish in spite of the Depression so she knew both financial and emotional

xii

Preface

security throughout her childhood. While both of her parents were busy, the one as an artist and the other as a businessman, they were attentive. Once her two older brothers left reluctantly for a boarding school where the headmaster was a Mackenzie relative, Landon had the run of the house and the fields beyond where her dog, Lady, made sure that she did not stray too far. Born curious and a quick learner, Landon was encouraged by her parents to become autonomous from a very early age and to use her own imagination rather than depend on the ideas of others. This imagination she would nurture through voracious reading and, as soon as she learned to sew, through the creation of a menagerie of invented animals that slowly took over her bed. Landon attended Miss Matthew’s School for Girls as soon as she was old enough for kindergarten where a thoughtful principal advanced her to the next grade each time Landon showed signs of boredom. As a result, she was only eleven when she aced the grade 8 provincial exams and was ready for high school. Concerned that she was too young to enter a large public high school, her parents sent her to King’s Hall, Compton in the Eastern Townships of Quebec. The school was run by Adelaide Gillard, a protégé of Landon’s Mackenzie grandfather, a professor of mathematics at the University of Toronto. Landon remembers her time at King’s Hall: As this was wartime, King’s Hall welcomed a number of students from England escaping the privations of a country under siege. One of them was my roommate and, in some ways, this was as close as I would ever come to the horrors of war, although I had rolled bandages with my fellow pupils in primary school, had bought war-saving stamps with my allowance and written patriotic poems and essays for a school paper. In those days, children were genuinely considered part of the war effort and, in consequence, felt valued.2 Landon spent three years at King’s Hall, deciding to return home in 1945 when the war was over. Throughout her childhood, her parents had always included her in decisions that affected her and had shown a willingness to listen to what she had to say. If she could make a good case, they would usually agree to accept her reasoning. This is what happened now with her return home from King’s Hall; besides, as Landon recollects, they liked the idea of having her at home. She returned to London to spend her remaining two years of high school at London South Collegiate Institute; Landon graduated from grade 13 with first class honours. Being respectfully listened to as a child and

Preface

xiii

enjoying the ongoing guidance of loving parents, who were authoritative rather than authoritarian, were such important building blocks for Landon’s emotional sturdiness in promoting good parenting and meaningful child participation. These became guiding principles for all her work over the years for, with, and on behalf of children. Upon graduating from high school, Landon’s first summer job before university was to work for the London Free Press where she wrote an occasional story and worked as a filing clerk; it gave her an opportunity to know the world of “working girls.” In the fall of 1947, she went on to undergraduate studies at Trinity College, University of Toronto, taking a degree in Philosophy and English. She lived at St Hilda’s, a women’s college associated with Trinity that had an ethos of high academic achievement for women. In her third year, Landon went on exchange to Smith College, a women’s liberal arts college in Northampton, Massachusetts, whose undergraduate programs continue to be open to women only to this day. At Smith, Landon met a diverse group of young people, some with very strong political views, who exposed her to new ideas and experiences. She joined the debating club at Smith and competed once at Yale University on the topic of women’s role in politics. Landon heard Eleanor Roosevelt speak at Smith and was enormously impressed by her perspective on human rights. Returning to Toronto after third year, Landon graduated in 1951 with a Bachelor of Arts degree, first class honours. Landon met her husband Geoffrey Pearson at Trinity. During her last year at university, he was at Oxford so they courted by correspondence. After graduation, she travelled to England to join him and they returned to London, Ontario in December 1951. On 26 December, the day after Geoffrey’s twenty-fourth birthday, they married and remained married for fifty-seven years. Geoffrey, the son of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and Maryon Pearson, followed his father into the Canadian Foreign Service. Beginning in 1952, Landon joined Geoffrey as a diplomatic spouse on many international postings during his tenure with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Their first posting was to Paris in 1953 where their first two children, Hilary and Katharine, were born. In May 1957, the family returned to Canada and a third child, Anne, was born. They stayed in Ottawa for only sixteen months before External Affairs returned Geoffrey to Paris on secondment to the political secretariat of nato in 1958. Their fourth child, Michael, was born there the following year. In addition to her responsibilities to look after her four children, Landon’s role as the spouse of a diplomat was to represent Canada abroad. This included hosting visiting Canadians as well as local officials and diplomats from other countries. It was part of Landon’s role to

xiv

Preface

facilitate relationship building by creating an atmosphere of collegiality and friendship where bonds of trust could be forged. Despite her busy schedule, Landon enrolled in language classes to improve her grasp of the French language and enjoyed all the riches of French culture. The family remained in Paris until Geoffrey’s next posting which was to Mexico City in July 1961 where they continued their very active diplomatic life. In 1964 they welcomed Patricia, their fifth child. The family moved back to Canada in 1964 while Lester B. Pearson was prime minister. The children, except for Patricia, went to local schools. Landon became actively involved in their education as well as other community activities. She and Geoffrey spent a great deal of time with her in-laws and Landon became particularly close to her fatherin-law, as her own father had just died. She was very much influenced by his ideas on social justice, among other things. The family left for their next posting in 1969. This time it was to India. Landon set up another home in New Delhi and, once again, undertook the responsibilities and expectations of a diplomatic spouse. Her five children attended the American International School and Landon became the Canadian representative on the school board. In addition to pursuing studies of Indian philosophy and religion, Landon also volunteered for an organization called Mobile Crèches for Working Mothers’ Children (MC). The organization celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2019. Landon was involved in the first crèche that began on a construction site where a peace park was being built on the Jumna River by migrant workers to honour Ghandi’s memorial. MC began when its founders saw that mothers, who were working on the site, brought their children there despite the hazards because they had nowhere else to leave them. The idea to build a crèche where mothers could safely leave their children while they worked sprang from this observation. When the workers moved onto the site where the new Canadian High Commission was being built, Landon organized other Canadian women living in New Delhi to volunteer in whatever way they could for the children. What was significant for Landon about the MC approach was that it was not based on charity but driven by the rights-respecting idea that every child has a right to a happy childhood no matter the circumstances of their lives. In fact, the first MC brochure released in 1970 is captioned “Every Child’s Birthright  – Nutrition, Education and a Happy Childhood.”3 Since the mid-1980s MC has expanded several times. It currently runs schools for older children, offers adult literacy programs, medical exams, immunization, nutritional support, and environmental hygiene to children and their families in Mumbai (Mumbai Mobile Crèches), Pune (Tara Mobile Crèches), and

Preface

xv

slum settlements in Delhi (Mobile Crèches). Landon’s involvement in MC was due to the fact that the program was developed and sustained by local people who determined the scope and manner of interaction with children in culturally appropriate ways. While the language of rights was not explicitly used  – the Convention on the Rights of the Child did not exist at the time  – the organization operated in a rights-respecting manner. Living in India proved to be a very powerful experience for Landon. Immersing herself in such a rich cultural context, she encountered children experiencing childhood in ways different from her own and her children’s experiences. In addition to the children whom she met through Mobile Crèches, Landon recalls vivid memories of excursions where she encountered young girls, for instance, digging for diamonds in piles of dirt while surrounded by men with guns. The girls were ordered to keep one hand behind their backs so as to prevent them from concealing any diamonds they might find. These scenes left an indelible impression on Landon. She understood from these experiences that no matter where children are born and no matter in what circumstances, they must be treated with dignity and respect. What she witnessed and understood from working with the MC children was the huge potential of each individual child to flourish as long as their basic human rights were met. She witnessed, firsthand, the connection between the burdens of poverty and children’s ability to thrive. These ideas and sentiments percolated as Landon prepared to return with her family to Canada in 1971. Upon returning to Canada, and after spending one year in Vancouver where Landon completed the first year of a master of arts degree while her husband took up the position of diplomat in residence at the University of British Columbia, the family moved back to Ottawa in 1972. Landon arranged to continue working towards her master’s degree in psychopedagogy at the University of Ottawa. There she met a fellow graduate student, Jane Legg, who was completing a master’s degree in counselling. Together, they would cofound Children Learning for Living (CLFL) in 1975, a prevention program in children’s mental health. The program operated for twenty-three years through the Ottawa Board of Education, lasting until 1998 when cuts forced the termination of the program despite its success. While she was involved with the CLFL program, Landon attended a lecture by Urie Bronfenbrenner at Carleton University that had a lasting impact on her thinking about child development. Bronfenbrenner, a Cornell University psychologist, had formulated an ecological theory of child development that emphasized the interplay between a child’s environment, social relationships, and

xvi

Preface

children’s agency. In a famous quote, Bronfenbrenner highlighted a critical factor in each child’s development: “in order to develop normally, a child needs the enduring, irrational involvement of one or more adults in care of and in joint activity with that child. In short, somebody has to be crazy about that kid.”4 These ideas about the importance for a child to have at least one adult who is steadfast in their love, support, and presence throughout their lives resonated with Landon’s personal experience. They also inform her views regarding children having a champion in their personal lives as well as in the public sphere. Landon would later go on to become that public champion for children as a member of the Senate of Canada. Throughout her eleven years in the Senate, as well as in her roles as adviser on children’s rights to the minister of Foreign Affairs and the personal representative of the prime minister to the Special Session on Children, Landon took every opportunity to promote her view of the importance of ensuring the direct participation of children in matters that affect their lives. At the end of the 1970s, Landon was nominated to represent the  Canadian Council of Churches on the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child (IYC). In 1979, she took up the role of vice-chair of the Canadian Commission and spent the year travelling with her colleagues across the country engaging with Canadians and ensuring that commissioners met with children and young people to hear their concerns. It was her first experience on a political scale and it was so successful that she garnered an international reputation for her work on the commission as a children’s rights advocate. Her role as editor of the commission’s report For Canada’s Children: National Agenda for Action was particularly important. Landon was involved in presenting the report to the prime minister and ensuring that it was sent to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health and Welfare for consideration. Shortly after delivering the report, she and her husband left for the Soviet Union where he served as Canadian Ambassador from 1980–83. Landon flew back to Canada to appear before the standing committee that eventually endorsed most of the Canadian commission’s recommendations including a focal point at the federal level for children. In the Soviet Union, Landon took every opportunity to observe and interact with children in this new cultural context in addition to fulfilling her role as the ambassador’s spouse. During this time, she gathered information and observations about Soviet childhood and noted her experiences in letters and documents that would eventually be developed into two publications: a book about childhood in the

Preface

xvii

Soviet era called Children of Glasnost (1990) and a second book of letters and correspondence with family members called Letters from Moscow (2004). Upon her return to Canada from Moscow in 1984, she became chair of the Canadian nongovernmental organization called the Canadian Council on Children and Youth (CCCY). During the decade following the IYC, Landon and her colleagues realized, along with colleagues at unICeF, that the 1959 un Declaration on the Rights of the Child was not adequate to address the issues and inequalities that had been brought to the attention of national IYC commissions around the world. The declaration was a valuable document but did not have the status of international law and thus lacked both a mechanism and structure to realize these rights. In response, the un formed a working group comprised of forty nations, including Canada, that after a decade of work transformed the declaration into an international convention. The CCCY took a deep interest in the evolving text of the draft of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Canada made two specific contributions: i) language regarding the rights of Indigenous children, and ii) inclusion of children’s right to play. The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the convention unanimously on 20 November 1989, and it rapidly became the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history, integrating civil and political rights with economic, social, and cultural rights so that rights could be understood contextually and relationally. With ratification, some countries built the CrC into domestic law and established children’s commissioners. Landon comments on the widespread ratification of the CrC in a postCold War era when the two sets of rights were kept distinct: “Now that there was no longer a political price to pay for linking the two sets of rights, children could be described as persons whose civil rights need economic, social and cultural support and whose growth into responsible citizenship requires opportunities to learn and to make choices.”5 At this time, Landon urged a number of nongovernmental organizations to begin thinking and strategizing for the upcoming World Summit on Children that was scheduled to take place at the United Nations headquarters in New York in September 1990. unICeF then took the lead to bring together several national and international ngos to draw up terms of reference for a coalition. In June 1990, they adopted the terms and invited Landon to chair the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children (CCrC). It was a difficult time for Landon personally as she was dealing with her own health challenges; nevertheless, she accepted the role to lead the coalition. One of the coalition members,

xviii

Preface

the National YMCa, offered to house the secretariat of the CCrC, including the documents collected by the now defunct CCCY, at their Ottawa headquarters. Landon served as CCrC’s chair until she was appointed to the Senate in September 1994.

to ConCLuDe Landon credits her time living in different countries and parenting her children in a variety of cultural contexts for assisting her in formulating and sustaining the key elements of her children’s rights advocacy approach: first, her steadfast belief that a rights-respecting and relational approach is essential for understanding children as capable and full members of society; second, that children need at least one adult whose love, support, and presence in their lives is continuous and consistent; and third, that children have a right to participate in decisions that affect them. Landon has also acknowledged how much she has learned from her own children and how these familial experiences have influenced her advocacy approach: Being a parent means enabling your children to become whoever they are. It requires a huge amount of thought and I don’t think there is enough emphasis on this. I am not talking about mothers staying at home or not staying at home. I am talking about the fact that human relationships generally, and human relationships between parent and child in particular, have to be thoughtful relationships.6 As the spouse of a diplomat, Landon honed the skills to facilitate relationships, open up lines of communication, and enable bonds to form between people who might not otherwise interact. Her ability to create and hold spaces for these interactions to unfold so that information and ideas might be shared collegially, and solutions formulated collectively, is evident in the various roles she has held throughout her career. In her current position as chair of the Landon Pearson Centre at Carleton University, she has created and annually hosts two important networks. One is a youth-led and youth-driven network called Shaking the Movers; the other is for academics, policymakers, advocates, and practitioners and is called the Child Rights Academic Network. Both of these networks continue to grow each year in size and in the quality of activities. For instance, Shaking the Movers began as a network for eight to eighteen-year-olds to come together to discuss articles and issues emerging from the Convention on the Rights of the

Preface

xix

Child. Recently, this network has expanded to include younger children, ages four to seven The Cran network meets annually to respond to the views and perspectives of young people who attend the Shaking the Movers meetings. To support the exchange of ideas and collaboration, Landon cofounded the Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights as a vehicle for Cran members and children’s rights scholars, as well as young people, to share their research and rights perspectives. The electronic journal includes a youth section that is devoted to young people’s creations through their writing and artistic expression. In addition to hosting and supporting these networks, Landon convenes symposia to mark important children’s rights anniversaries. In May 2019, for instance, she hosted a gathering to discuss the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child’s recommendations at a distance of forty years. She designed the event, called IYC+40, to offer representatives of the organizations on the 1979 commission, as well as a group of young people responding to the concerns of the 1979 young participants, to reconvene in 2019 and assess the progress and remaining challenges articulated in the commission’s report over the previous forty years. It is another instance of Landon’s generosity and thoughtful approach to bringing people together for fruitful discussion and debate and her contribution to holding adults accountable to children. In sum, Landon’s earliest experiences are infused with notions of respect for children and their rights and abilities to participate in matters that are meaningful for their lives. Her steadfast and lifelong beliefs stem from these early experiences that continue to fuel her certainty in the importance of children’s participation, her passion for a rights-respecting approach, and her incomparable ability to gather people with differing points of view to openly consider and collaborate on children’s rights issues in advocacy, policy, and practical situations in ways that are nothing short of remarkable. Virginia Caputo October 2019

xx

Preface

noteS 1 L. Pearson, personal communication, October 2019. 2 This account of Landon Pearson’s childhood is based on an interview with her that took place in September 2019. With thanks to Hilary Pearson for her thoughtful comments. 3 See https://www.mobilecreches.org/our-story. 4 Urie. Bronfenbrenner, ed., Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development (Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications 2005), 262. 5 Landon Pearson, “Seen and Heard: Children’s Rights as a Foreign Policy Concern,” O.D. Skelton Memorial Lecture, (Global Affairs Canada, 1997), 7. Available at https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/programs-programmes/ od_skelton/senatrice_landon_pearson_lecture-conference.aspx?lang=eng. 6 L. Pearson, personal communication, October 2019.

pa r t o n e Considering Participation and Rights-Respecting Approaches for Children and Young People

INTRODUC TION

“Curiosity, Creativity, Culture” Landon Pearson’s Life and Work in Canadian Children’s Rights Advocacy

VIrgInIa Caputo

Curiosity is a gift to be nourished. Landon Pearson, Ottawa, 25 June 20091

Curiosity, creativity, culture. Landon Pearson’s words from a conversation many years ago linger in my memory. They were offered in response to a question, one that she is often asked, about what keeps her motivated and moving forward with such tenacity and purpose. As I recall the responses she has offered to many over the years, the generosity and clarity of Landon’s words and ideas remain with me: Be curious about the world and your surroundings. Develop an educated imagination, one that sustains you over a lifetime and assists in understanding one’s place in a shared humanity. Be creative in responding to your surroundings and through this creativity, make spaces for others to participate and engage. Consider the context of actions, words, and behaviours through a cultural lens to better understand when, how, and for what purpose and effect, one intervenes in the lives of others. In our conversations over the years, Landon has added to her list of words beginning with the letter “c”: conviction, courage, connection, collaboration, and collegiality. On reflection, each one could be used to aptly describe her, as the contributions in this volume from her colleagues and students attest. They describe the way Landon engages in the world of advocacy and children’s rights with conviction and courage, and offer examples of the way she works collaboratively and collegially to bring people together around shared ideas and goals. Some contributors recall first meeting Landon. They describe how she commands a

4

Virginia Caputo

room with her quiet diplomacy, how she listens intently and later recalls details of a conversation, or how she disarms with her unassuming, personable manner. Through these recollections, what impresses is her ability to meet people “where they are” – whether heads of state or marginalized children living in impoverished conditions – and to listen and hear concerns, views, and perspectives no matter how different from her own. In her unique way, Landon is a leader and facilitator, a teacher and student, a listener and storyteller, and a lifelong learner who is both colleague and friend to many. As a children’s rights advocate and change maker, Landon’s efforts on behalf of children and young people over many decades have received a number of prestigious accolades.2 She is an Officer of the Order of Canada (2008) and a recipient of the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal in 2002 and Diamond Jubilee medal in 2012. In 2005, the organization 1000 Peace Women celebrated Landon through their initiative called 1000 Women for the Nobel Peace Prize; she has received six honorary doctorates (Carleton, York, Ryerson, University of Ottawa, University of Victoria, Wilfrid Laurier). She is also the recipient of Canada’s Volunteer Award (1990). While this recognition focuses on her individual work on behalf of children, Landon prefers to be part of a team working together with a practical purpose. Her advocacy reflects this collaborative approach in her effort to “nurture in adults a culture of respect for children and youth as fellow citizens and the willingness to hear what they have to say.” We celebrate her lifelong contribution to the development of children’s rights in Canada and her stellar commitment to advocacy work by marking her ninetieth year with this collection of articles, reflective essays, and student perspectives. Each one attests to her influence on those who share her passion for children’s rights. I am grateful for having had the privilege to work alongside Landon for the past nine years as the director of her Centre at Carleton University. Together we have hosted annual National Child Day, Day of the Girl, and spring networking gatherings; we have coordinated events to mark milestone anniversaries in the history of children’s rights including the twenty-fifth and thirtieth anniversaries of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the fortieth anniversary of the International Year of the Child, and the twentieth anniversary of the First World Congress on Commercial Sexual Exploitation. We have invited panels of experts to revisit recommendations made in important children’s rights reports such as the 2004 A Canada Fit for Children (2015), the 1979 report of the Canadian Commission of the International Year of the Child (2019), and the Plan of Action for Implementing the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children

Introduction

5

in the 1990s following the World Summit for Children held in 1990 (2020). At these gatherings, Landon asked participants who attended the original events  – including government representatives, national and international child and youth serving organizations, as well as those involved in writing the recommendations – to reflect on progress made and continuing challenges that remain for realizing children’s rights in a Canadian context. We have collaborated and interacted with colleagues from youth agencies, government, policy, advocacy, the ngo sector, academe, and young people on a number of rights-based projects, and have nurtured a vast network of academic colleagues who we host at an annual symposium at Carleton and publish the proceedings of the meeting. Each year we support rights-respecting child and youth workshops in regions across the country for young children (ages four to seven and ages eight to eighteen) through our Shaking the Movers network. In 2014, Landon and I proudly cofounded the Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights, the only Canadian open-access electronic journal dedicated to children’s rights; we release a new issue each year on 20 November, National Child Day. Apart from these events and activities, we engage throughout the academic year with students at undergraduate and graduate levels who wish to enhance and extend their knowledge of children’s rights and childhood issues in social, cultural, historical, legal, and political contexts. This volume honours Landon Pearson, her contributions to the development of children’s rights in Canada as well as her advocacy on behalf of children and young people. The volume highlights Landon’s focus on the key concept of participation and its wide-ranging influence in areas of policymaking and practice for issues including education, law, child protection, violence, and for Indigenous children. While these are not the only issues where her influence is felt, they are highlighted by some of the scholars working in these areas who have been inspired by Landon’s leadership. To this end, what follows is an account of Landon’s long and varied career in children’s rights and children’s rights advocacy that moves along a trajectory comprising diverse roles, contexts, and opportunities. In each situation, Landon creatively acts and advocates on behalf of, for, and with children and young people in Canada and elsewhere. Whether living for extended periods of time in a country as the spouse of a diplomat, appointed to a leadership role including as the “senator for children,” or as coinvestigator with an academic colleague on a research project, for instance, Landon has made use of each opportunity to expand her understanding of children’s and young people’s lives, to find ways to meaningfully intervene, or to hold a space to enable children’s and young people’s participation

6

Virginia Caputo

in order for them to convey to decision makers how to improve their circumstances in a rights-respecting manner. Strands of Landon’s professional career entangle with dimensions of her personal life to coalesce into a story of one of Canada’s premier children’s rights advocates. Interspersed along this trajectory are two themes that consistently appear and resonate over time and across contexts spanning advocacy and academe as well as legislative, bureaucratic, and applied environments. The first theme that emerges from Landon’s work and approach is her vibrant emphasis on the conceptual notion that children are persons with rights as fully participating members of society; the second theme is more experiential in nature, positing that every child needs a champion, one adult who is steadfast in their support of that young person, whether at a personal level or in the public sphere. These themes provide a frame for questions and concerns that have guided Landon’s career as an agent of change for children in contexts of politics, policy, academe, and practice. Some of the questions are philosophical in nature, including who is included in the concept of the human in human rights, for example, and how this conceptualization impacts the lives of children and young people in practical ways; other questions relate to process and the application of children’s rights with the overarching goal to enact change that nurtures a culture of respect for children’s rights as human rights and not merely as needs based on a charitable approach. Importantly, the questions relate to Landon’s vision of the architecture necessary to uphold children’s rights and to enable participation in decision-making processes. Throughout her career, she has worked toward setting up this architecture for realizing children’s rights including a suitable structure for sustained activity in the political sphere. That Landon has actively engaged with people in so many different sectors to build this architecture is one of the many elements of her story that makes it compelling. Another is her lifelong vision to employ a rights-respecting approach. These themes, questions, and concerns are a fitting departure point for this account of the life and work of Landon Pearson, a person who has had so much influence on the Canadian social and political landscape as it relates to children.

tHe Language oF CHILDren’S rIgHtS: FroM Seen but not Heard to botH Seen and Heard Landon’s view of children’s rights as human rights and the notion that children are persons with the right to participate in decisions and matters that affect their lives positions her along a continuum that links

Introduction

7

her with two children’s rights advocates who came before her. Eglantine Jebb, founder of the organization “Save the Children,” authored the first Declaration of Children’s Rights that was adopted by the League of Nations in 1924 to address the acute suffering of children during and after the First World War; Janusz Korczak, the Polish doctor who died in 1942 with the children from his orphanage in the Warsaw ghetto at Treblinka, encouraged the children in his care to exercise their participation rights by writing their own Charter of Rights in the 1930s. In their lifetimes, Jebb and Korczak championed children’s rights as human rights and worked to gain wider attention for these rights including through children’s own participation. Landon’s advocacy work echoes Jebb’s and Korczak’s concerns to promote understanding and respect for children’s rights and the view that children, in all of their diversity, are fully human rights holders whose voices and experiences matter. The atrocities perpetrated against children in the First and Second World Wars impacted Jebb’s and Korczak’s perspectives on human rights and subsequent children’s rights advocacy. Landon was a child when the Second World War began. Born in 1930, she grew up in London, Ontario as the youngest of three children and only daughter of Hugh and Alice Mackenzie. Landon recalls her growing awareness of the war and her rising interest in human rights as an adolescent, noting the founding of the United Nations after the war ended as well as the adoption of the first Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. In her address to the Children and Adolescents Pan American Forum in Lima, Peru in September 2009, Landon wrote, “you can imagine how deeply moved my friends and I were to learn that by adopting the un Declaration member states of the un, including every one represented in this room, committed themselves to the proposition that ‘recognition of the inherent dignity and equal and unalienable rights of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’” 3 In the same speech she went on to note that, “naturally I considered that the reference to the ‘human family’ in the Declaration included children and actually it wasn’t very long (in 1959 in fact) before a separate Declaration of Children’s Rights was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations.”4 An awareness of the language of rights and the idea of children as persons with human rights was present in Landon’s life at an early and formative time. Later in her life, in 1951, she married Geoffrey Pearson, the son of Lester B. Pearson who became the seventh president of the un General Assembly. L.B. Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for his work with the un to solve the Suez Canal Crisis and in 1963 he became prime minister of Canada. Landon speaks fondly of Mr  Pearson as

8

Virginia Caputo

she notes in her O.D. Skelton Memorial Lecture in March 1997: “and then there was my father-in-law. I both loved and admired him. The way he thought about human beings, his respect for human rights, his internationalism, his commitment to peace, the compassionate attitudes and honourable beliefs that motivated him  – all had a profound influence on me.”5 In this same speech, Landon also points out that despite Mr Pearson’s understanding of human rights, children as rights-holders never became an issue for Canadian foreign policy while he served as foreign minister. She writes that children at the time were caught in the “prism of the Cold War.” They were to be seen but not heard. Children remained on the periphery of the lives of adults in part because of the strength of the view at that time that children’s lives proceeded along a developmental trajectory towards adulthood. This view accords with developmental psychology models in the 1960s that envisioned children’s development progressing in stages toward full membership in adult society. Development discourses emphasizing stages of development prevailed in the scholarly literature for some time and continued to dominate commonly held views of children’s lives until the late 1980s/early 1990s when scholarly critiques began to question the view of development and the partially cultural child. These critiques led to the development of what was called the “new sociology of childhood” (James and Prout 1989). That children were to be seen but not heard was a public attitude that clashed with Landon’s own understanding of children’s lives and fuelled her interest in advocating on their behalf, especially for their civil and political rights through their participation in decision-making processes. This view strengthened as she moved with her family to live in different countries as the spouse of a diplomat where she encountered children living in a variety of political, economic, and sociocultural environments. These experiences augmented her understanding of the realities of children’s lives, the importance of establishing a language of children’s rights, and advocating for a view of children as fully human beings situated in relational and rights-based contexts with adults. By the late 1970s, Landon had lived in France, Mexico, and India with her husband and five children. One of the outcomes of these travel experiences was an understanding that children are “experts in their own lives.”6 She speaks of her growing awareness as a parent learning from her children that her role was to “listen and to find ways to empower them to make decisions for themselves.”7 The manner in which she describes this relationship with children foreshadows the approach she developed in her professional life. It is predicated on a model of power that is circular rather than hierarchical; that is,

Introduction

9

power circulates as relationships unfold in interactions, rather than a more typical understanding of power in adult–child relations that is constructed in a top-down fashion. Upon returning to Canada in 1971, Landon brought these experiences, ideas, and awareness to her advocacy work. By 1979, the year declared internationally as the Year of the Child, Landon was an active leader in the Canadian children’s rights advocacy community. She was asked to serve as the vice-chair of the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child offering her an important opportunity to infuse the commission’s work with a rightsbased perspective and to collaborate with a diverse group of people from various sectors. The commission included forty-five representatives from all levels of government, business, labour, child-serving organizations, religious and Indigenous groups, education, sport, media, and the arts. Landon’s leadership influenced the commission’s work in many ways, however her insistence on the inclusion of the perspectives and experiences of young people made a unique contribution. She maintained that it was essential for commissioners to hear from them. “After all, it was their year.”8 The commission created a national agenda to conclude the work they had completed during the Year of the Child. The commission’s final report, called For Canada’s Children: National Agenda for Action, includes recommendations to address many of the challenges facing Canadian children.9 The report identifies twelve areas of concern and offers recommendations in each area: the family; child care; economic issues as they affect children; life skills and education; international and intercultural understanding; “Native” children; play and recreation; nature and the environment; health; culture, television, and the media; and children and the law. The comprehensive agenda and recommendations are forward looking and remain relevant to this day, as they have not yet all been realized. They include creating a climate of support for families and children; supporting new parents including young and unmarried mothers and their children; providing quality and affordable child care and health care; ensuring a responsive income tax benefit system and child welfare system for children; engaging in poverty reduction; supporting schools and community centres by developing quality curricula; providing instruction in Indigenous languages for Indigenous children; supporting maternal, mental, and sexual health; enabling access for children to independent legal representation and skills training for lawyers working with children; examining section 43 of the Criminal Code that permits use of force against children, repealing the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and passing more rights-respecting young offender legislation. The commission

10

Virginia Caputo

also made a number of general recommendations including attending to the spiritual rights of children, facilitating research, supporting the ngo sector, and importantly, establishing a children’s commissioner at the federal level as well as configuring a structure to allow young people to have increased participation in the decision-making processes in all of the items on the national agenda. This final recommendation reflects Landon’s interest in establishing an architecture responsive to the implementation of children’s rights in Canada. In the decade that followed, Landon participated in activities surrounding the adoption (1989) and ratification (1991) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the World Summit for Children in 1990.10 She continued to lead the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children until 1994. She also returned to the former Soviet Union several times and wrote her observations of childhood and interactions with children there into a book called Children of Glasnost (1990).11 Landon’s efforts to raise the profile of the language of children’s rights as human rights in the public sphere and to press for children’s and young people’s participation and inclusion in decision-making processes weave throughout her professional career from the 1970s to the 1990s. One of the key pillars of her work is the notion of inclusive children’s participation; she insists on its value to policy and to those making decisions on children’s behalf as an invaluable source of information upon which adults could act to respond to challenges facing children in different circumstances. Throughout her career, Landon’s work has steadily built on the concepts of “participation” and “voice.” These concepts are central ideas in the academic field of the social study of childhood marking the ways visibility and audibility are deeply intertwined with issues of inequality. That is, the act of naming children’s rights makes them visible and “knowable.” Once they are visible, the work to hear the concerns of children living in diverse circumstances and to view children living full lives as members of society is much more attainable, especially in bringing children’s perspectives to the attention of adult decision makers. This language of children’s rights, that accords children the status of rights holders, adults as duty bearers, and highlights children’s agency as active participants in their own lives, brings children in all of their diversity fully into focus and attends to the broader and critical question of who is the human in human rights. Landon’s concern to employ an understanding of “human” in an expansive and inclusive way that attends to diverse contexts and circumstances weaves through all of her work with, for, and on behalf of children.

Introduction

11

CHaMpIonIng CHILDren’S rIgHtS Landon’s conviction that children need a champion, one adult who is steadfast in their support of a young person, whether at a personal level or in the public sphere, underscores her advocacy career. An important opportunity to demonstrate her own support for children and to champion and advocate on their behalf in matters of public and legislative affairs arose in 1994. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien summoned Landon to the Senate of Canada with the proviso that she would become the “senator for children.” She accepted the appointment but also insisted on acting as the “children’s senator,” a title that she felt acknowledged her work to both represent children’s interests in policy and legislation as well as to raise children’s own perspectives and views to decision makers. The Senate appointment moved her into a new role with a set of resources and connections that she was able to use to advance children’s rights in the political and legislative arenas. As a Liberal member of the Senate for eleven years, the party caucus system became one of the mechanisms she effectively employed to advance children’s rights. This system enabled her to interact directly with other politicians and with government. While a member of Senate, she also took the responsibility to sponsor every piece of legislation that directly affected children and ensured that it made its way through the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs as well as the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. As a member of the former committee, she was involved in making positive changes for youth in conflict with the law including changes to the criminal code with respect to the protection of children from sexual exploitation. She also ensured the use of a rights-based perspective in the Evidence Act with respect to children as witnesses. Further, as the cochair of the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee on Child Custody and Access, Landon assisted in the development of the committee’s 1998 report called For the Sake of the Children. Twenty-one years passed before the committee’s recommendations contained in the report were realized in changes to the Divorce Act; it gained Royal Assent in June 2019. Apart from pressing for these changes, Landon also insisted that language from the convention be included in the work of the committee, and she ensured that the committee heard from children themselves. To this end, two of the hearings that took place across the country were configured to include children’s participation. Given the emotional intensity of discussions and debates of issues related to divorce heard by the committee, it proved to be one of Landon’s most challenging roles.

12

Virginia Caputo

During her Senate years, Landon witnessed exciting progress in realizing children’s rights and noted a shift and growing awareness and understanding in her colleagues of the importance of a rights-respecting perspective. She reflects on this period of her career in an excerpt from an interview in 2014: During the years I was in the Senate, I was able to act as a catalyst. Having been officially designated as advisor on children’s rights to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (four of them, actually) I could promote the inclusion of children’s rights in the Liberal Government’s foreign policy statement as well as in at least one Speech from the Throne. I was also the co-chair of the sub-committee of the Liberal Party’s social policy caucus, aka the ‘children’s caucus.’ Among other achievements, we were able to persuade the government to extend parental leave, to augment the child tax benefit and commit to a national childcare policy, all areas of federal responsibility. At that time there was a Junior Minister for Children and Youth as well as, after the World Summit on Children, a Children’s Bureau in Health and Welfare. These were focal points for child and youth issues under both Conservative and Liberal administrations, but these have since vanished. There is no political actor currently responsible for children at the federal level.12 Catalyst. The word fittingly describes Landon’s ability to ignite interest, galvanize support, and agitate for change in the realm of children’s rights. Two years after her appointment to the Senate in 1996, another opportunity arose for Landon to act as a catalyst. Then Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy appointed her as his adviser on children’s rights. A year earlier, she had attended the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing as a member of the Parliamentary delegation where she participated in sessions to bring focus to the “girl child.” With Minister Axworthy, she co-led the Canadian delegation to the 1996 First World Congress Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSeC) in Stockholm, Sweden. Landon pressed for the inclusion of children on the delegation in order to enable them to be heard in high-level discussions. She welcomed Cherry Kingsley as a youth member on the Canadian delegation. As someone who had experienced CSeC, Cherry spoke to delegates at the congress and made a lasting and important impression when she participated in the Human Values panel discussion. Speaking as someone who had experienced sexual exploitation and involvement

Introduction

13

in the sex trade since the age of fourteen, Cherry challenged the panel participants on matters concerning adult-centric views of children and childhood and tokenistic understandings of children’s participation. She urged adult delegates to be accountable to children including changing the language used to address those who have been sexually exploited. The congress’ focus on commercial child sexual exploitation and the goals to identify child prostitution as child sexual abuse and to criminalize those who procure children for sex, among other foci, garnered substantial media and global attention. Following the congress, Minister Axworthy authorized Landon to establish a special committee in the Senate to follow up on the Stockholm World Congress. This work led to a summit in 1998 held in Victoria, British Columbia comprising sexually exploited youth from the Americas; Landon co-chaired the gathering with Cherry Kingsley. The summit, called Out from the Shadows, opened up an opportunity for young people to develop their own declaration and agenda for action and reinforced Cherry’s call for language change replacing the term “juvenile prostitutes” with “children exploited in the sex trade.” In 1999, Prime Minister Chrétien appointed Landon as his personal representative to the United Nations’ Special Session on Children and agreed that young people should be included on delegations and in preparatory meetings. Landon agitated for this inclusive process and was also instrumental in raising issues pertaining to Indigenous children that included insisting that governments treat them with dignity and respect. By the time of the session in 2002, 132 countries followed Canada’s example by including children on their delegations and calling for access to education, health care, and respect for Indigenous children’s cultural identity. The special session adopted an outcome document called A World Fit for Children. Following the special session, Landon coordinated Canada’s response to this document, producing the report called A Canada Fit for Children with the help of a youth advisory group in 2004. The report included a “Plan of Action for Canada” to prioritize children’s rights and to guide child and family-friendly policies.13 Landon’s advocacy work while in Senate unfolded during a decade beginning in 1994 that saw an emerging awareness of children’s rights in government policy and practice. However, after 2004, the federal government’s emphasis on children and youth began to wane. The recommendations made at the conclusion of the International Year of the Child in 1979, and again in Canada’s response to the Special Session on Children in 2004, to establish an office for a children’s commissioner at the federal level, did not materialize during Landon’s time in the

14

Virginia Caputo

Senate despite her steadfast belief that someone in government “with access to the levers of power has to speak for children.”14 As a piece of the architecture for realizing and sustaining children’s rights, Landon took on her final role during her last year in the Senate as the vice-chair of a committee to press for a federal children’s commissioner. The committee issued its interim report in November 2005 titled Who’s in Charge Here: Effective implementation of Canada’s international obligations with respect to the rights of children.15 After she left the Senate, the committee released its final report titled Children: The Silenced Citizens (2006). The report notes the following recommendation: The Committee recommends that Parliament establish a Children’s Commissioner to monitor implementation of the Convention and protection of children’s rights in Canada. The Commissioner should be an arm’s length independent institution, with a statutory duty to have regard to the Convention and to involve children in its operations. The Commissioner should be mandated to conduct ongoing reviews of federal legislation, services, and funding for programs affecting children and their rights; to report annually to Parliament with its assessment of the federal government’s implementation of the Convention; to undertake studies with respect to systemic issues affecting children; to conduct education campaigns; to dedicate a highly placed officer to the investigation and monitoring of the rights of Aboriginal children; and to act as a liaison with the Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates. Upon her retirement from Senate in 2005, Landon immediately established a children’s rights resource centre in her name at Carleton University to continue her children’s rights advocacy work and to provide a hub of support for colleagues and students of childhood and children’s rights.

tHe LanDon pearSon reSourCe Centre For tHe StuDY oF CHILDHooD anD CHILDren’S rIgHtS Launched on International Children’s Day, 2 June 2006, the centre at Carleton supports and initiates research, teaching, and collaborative activities in children’s rights, as well as the scholarly study of childhood. The centre houses Landon’s extensive library of resources amassed over her career that includes more than 14,000 documents organized according to the articles of the CrC; it is arguably the largest collection of

Introduction

15

children’s rights materials in one location in Canada.16 The centre offers access to these resources and disseminates knowledge about children’s rights on their website through newsletters, social media, a children’s rights magazine (produced annually with Families Canada), and the Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights.17 The journal is produced in-house and available through open access on the Carleton University website (https://journals.carleton.ca/cjcr/index.php/cjcr) as well as through a link on the centre’s website at Carleton. Two features of the centre mark it in unique ways. First, children’s and young people’s participation is a cornerstone of the design of all of the centre’s activities and initiatives. Second, the centre operates using a collaborative model that is both multisectoral and multidisciplinary. As in her past advocacy and senatorial roles, as the chair of the centre, Landon brings people together who work in different sectors to discuss and debate children’s rights in contemporary contexts and to consider ways to partner and bring research, policy, and practice together. She creates spaces and opportunities for children and youth to enable their civic and political participation, facilitates dialogues that shape public policy with respect to children and young people, and advocates on their behalf when matters arise. Two main networks facilitate this multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaboration. One network is primarily academic and called the Child Rights Academic Network (Cran), and the second network is youth-led and youth driven and is called Shaking the Movers (StM). Cran members meet once a year at Carleton to consider the views and perspectives captured in summary reports arising from the Shaking the Movers workshops that are held in various regions in Canada prior to Cran each year. At each of the workshops, StM participants consider an article or theme from the Convention on the Rights of the Child that is selected by the prior year’s StM participants. Since 2007, StM workshops have been organized around issues such as climate change, sexual exploitation, mental health, migration and movement, discrimination, education, disability, media, and the right to play, among others.18 Academics are invited to respond to young people’s concerns about these issues and to commit to finding ways to enact change in their respective activities using a rights-based perspective; StM participants attend Cran virtually to hear academic responses to their concerns. Landon engages her professional network to circulate reports arising from Cran and StM gatherings each year. What is invaluable about these networks is the opportunity they provide for interaction with peers and colleagues on matters concerning children’s rights that are inclusive and supportive. They begin from experiences articulated by children and young people who set the agenda for the

16

Virginia Caputo

adults attending the Cran meetings. As contributors to this volume attest, this process impacts in a variety of ways including generating novel and exciting research collaborations and publications and new directions for advocacy, practice, and policy making.

ConCLuDIng tHougHtS Landon Pearson’s personal and professional life models the rightsrespecting approach that has been at the heart of her advocacy efforts throughout her career spanning sixty-plus years. Practical changes and attitudinal shifts reflect her dedication to championing children’s rights issues at the public, political, and senatorial levels. Furthermore, Landon has directly impacted children by promoting the language of children’s rights and advocating on their behalf as rights holders and citizens with civil, political, and participation rights. Her respect for human rights, alongside her compassionate attitude towards children and young people living in a shared humanity, mark the immense contribution she has made to the development of children’s rights and children’s rights advocacy in Canada. This volume reflects the collaborative style and interdisciplinary nature of Landon’s work and influence. It encompasses scholarly articles as well as personal reflections from colleagues and former students who consider the ways their interaction with Landon has impacted their personal and professional views and activities in children’s rights. Given the centrality of the concept of participation to the work Landon has pursued throughout her career, whether in policy or practice, it is the thread that weaves through the first three chapters of the book. As an international children’s rights advocate, Gerison Lansdown explores the meaning of children’s participation noting Landon’s lifelong commitment to ensuring children’s and young people’s right to speak for themselves and to participate in decisions that affect their lives. Lansdown examines the implementation of article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child noting that this is “still a piecemeal experience globally, with inadequate sustained commitment in many countries to address the multiple barriers that impede comprehensive realization of the right of children to be heard.” Lansdown attributes this inconsistency to a lack of understanding of the concept of participation and points to the Shaking the Movers workshop series as a model for meaningful youth participation. Anne McGillivray’s chapter reflects on the concept of rights in historical and legal contexts before making connections with Landon Pearson’s work and her own. She recalls meeting and working with

Introduction

17

Landon during her time in the Senate noting her impressive leadership style and ambassadorial skills. As a member of Cran, McGillivray details the influence that participating in this network has had on her research and writing by presenting the articles and projects that resulted from her involvement with the network. Cindy Blackstock, whose own work centres on advocating on behalf of Indigenous children’s rights and children’s participation in reconciliation, offers readers an examination of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls released in June 2019. Blackstock explores the inquiry’s use and public reaction to the word “genocide” in the report, making a connection between language, power, visibility, and rights that takes a cue from Landon Pearson’s work. For Margo Greenwood, participation for Indigenous children is important for actualizing article 30 of the convention. Greenwood highlights what has been for Landon Pearson a lifelong issue of importance, namely early childhood education and care for Indigenous children. Greenwood examines the ways that quality education and care contribute to the revitalization of Indigenous knowledge, cultures, and languages. In addition to this concern with early childhood education and care, violence against children has been a focus of Landon Pearson’s advocacy efforts including her participation in the First World Congress in Stockholm, Sweden to end the commercial sexual exploitation of children. As a delegate to the 1995 Beijing conference, Pearson has been particularly concerned with violence in the lives of girls. Joan Durrant’s chapter expands on this element of Landon Pearson’s advocacy work to offer readers insights from her research on violence against children as an issue of policy, public health, and human rights. Durrant compares Canadian and Swedish policy environments, highlighting Sweden’s progress on enforcing a ban on the corporal punishment of children, one that is lacking in Canada. She provides details on her rights-based parenting program entitled “Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting” and its implementation in thirteen countries. Natasha Blanchet-Cohen’s chapter concludes the first section of the volume with an examination and reflection on another concept that is key to Landon Pearson’s advocacy approach, namely the important relationship between capacities and opportunities that are shaped by context and circumstances. Blanchet-Cohen offers her perspective on a relational understanding of rights and explores Landon Pearson’s influence in her own work to bring a rights-based approach to education for those working with children and youth.

18

Virginia Caputo

The second section of the volume offers reflections from colleagues on Landon’s influence on their work in children’s rights research, policy, and advocacy. Judy Finlay, Kelly Stone, Melanie Adrian, Cindy Blackstock, and Tara M. Collins highlight the inspirational ways Landon approaches questions regarding participation and engagement. They offer stories and anecdotes of research partnerships and collaborations with her, reflect on Landon’s leadership style and skills, and her international reputation that impacts children’s rights settings in Canada and abroad. This includes the ways she continues to creatively enable social change for and with children and young people. In the third and concluding section of the volume, some of the young people with whom Landon has worked and mentored during their university careers offer reflections and recollections of time spent with Landon and her influence on their own personal and professional trajectories. These reflections, from Ben O’ Bright, Ilana Lockwood, Lucy Vorobej, Lindsey Li, and Daniella Bendo, describe a mentor who is steadfast in her support of their work in children’s rights and someone who facilitates and engages them to find their own strengths and interests. The contributions in this section attest to the fact that Landon lives by the values that have guided her professional career; that is, to see young people as fully participating members of society with the right to be heard in matters that affect their lives. As a mentor, she holds a space for their active engagement and takes a keen interest in listening to their perspectives in a rights-respecting manner. What each of the student contributors in this section notes is that Landon models what it means to champion and how to offer support that is consistent, respectful, and enthusiastic. Landon inspires their own journeys to find a meaningful path that includes children’s rights in unique ways. We celebrate Landon Pearson’s lifelong commitment to children’s rights in The Children’s Senator and pay tribute to her outstanding leadership, advocacy, and collaborative engagement that will continue to inspire us for many years to come.

noteS 1 This quote is taken from a personal interview conducted with Landon Pearson in Ottawa in 2009. Unpublished. 2 For details of these and other awards and dates, please see Landon Pearson’s curriculum vitae under the “Biography” tab on the Landon Pearson Centre website available at https://carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre/landonpearsons-biography/.

Introduction

19

3 Speech to the Children and Adolescents Pan American Forum, Lima, Peru, September 2009. Unpublished. Personal correspondence with Landon Pearson. 4 Pan American Forum speech, 3. 5 The O.D Skelton Memorial Lecture of 1997 was held on 17 March in Winnipeg. Landon Pearson was adviser to the minister of foreign affairs on children’s rights at the time. “Seen and Heard: Children’s Rights as a Foreign Policy Concern,” O.D. Skelton Memorial Lecture (March 1997): 2. Available at: https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/programs-programmes/ od_skelton/senatrice_landon_pearson_lecture-conference.aspx?lang=eng. 6 L. Pearson, personal communication, September 2019. 7 Pan American Forum speech, 6. 8 L. Pearson, personal communication, September 2019. 9 Canada, Government of Canada, “For Canada’s Children: A National Agenda for Action.” Available on the Landon Pearson Centre homepage at Carleton University: https://carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre/ 10 Landon had been working with the Canadian Council on Children and Youth (CCCY) followed by the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children (CCrC), which she cofounded with others. As chair of the coalition, and vicechair of the Canadian Commission on the International Year of the Child, Landon became involved in the World Summit for Children in 1990. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney served as cochair of the World Summit. For more information on Landon Pearson’s involvement with the World Summit, see interview by Sarah Ham and Raven Griffin in the 2020 issue of the Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights available at https://ojs.library. carleton.ca/index.php/cjcr. 11 Landon Pearson, Children of Glasnost, (Lester & Orpen Dennys 1990). Landon published a second book, Letters from Moscow, (Newcastle, Ontario: Penumbra Press 2003), this one of her personal correspondence while living in Moscow where her husband had served as the Canadian ambassador to the Soviet Union. In 2010, in collaboration with Professor Judy Finlay, the former child advocate from Ontario with whom she had been working on Indigenous children’s issues for some time, she gathered stories of childhood from elders living in some of northern Ontario’s First Nations communities which resulted in a book entitled Tibacimowin: A Gathering of Stories, (Ottawa, Ont.: Provincial Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health at CHeo, 2010). Each of these publications, as well as the many articles she has written and speeches she has delivered, considers children’s lives in dynamic and relational contexts. 12 Mónica Ruiz-Casares, “Children’s Rights: Building from a Sense of Fairness: An Interview with Landon Pearson.” Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights, 1, no. 1, (2014): 11.

20

Virginia Caputo

13 Canada, Government of Canada. A Canada Fit for Children (2004). Available at http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/SD13-4-2004E.pdf. 14 Anne Makhoul, “Landon Pearson,” Caledon Institute of Social Policy. Real Leaders newsletter, 15, (Nov. 2005): 4. 15 Canada, Government of Canada. “Who’s in Charge Here? Effective Implementation of Canada’s International Obligations With Respect to the Rights of Children” (2005): 6. Available at http://publications.gc.ca/site/ eng/398014/publication.html. 16 The Landon Pearson Centre resource library materials can be searched through an electronic database hosted by Carleton University’s MacOdrum Library. The online portal is available at https://lprc.library.carleton.ca/. 17 The website for the Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights is https://www.carleton.ca/ landonpearsoncentre. 18 From 2007 to 2011, a national Shaking the Movers was held annually at Carleton University. In 2011, the workshop moved to Ryerson University in Toronto. Students in the School of Child and Youth Care organized and have led each of the workshops. In 2015 and 2016, StM workshops were organized in British Columbia through a collaboration between Simon Fraser University’s restorative justice program and Equitas; StM bilingual workshops have been hosted each year since 2015 in Fredericton through the Office of the Child Advocate for the Province of New Brunswick, Concordia University in Montreal (since 2016), and the University of Ottawa (since 2018). To include younger children between the ages of three and seven, the centre collaborated with early childhood experts to expand the StM model in 2019 with funding support from the Muttart Family Foundation. StM early childhood workshops were piloted in three regional locations: at Ryerson University in Toronto through the School of Early Childhood Studies; with the Pirurvik Preschool program in Pond Inlet, Nunavut; and at MacEwan University in Edmonton, Alberta through the Early Learning Programme. For more information, visit the Landon Pearson Centre website at https:// lprc.library.carleton.ca.

2

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation gerISon LanSDown

SettIng tHe Context Throughout her life, Landon Pearson has demonstrated a passionate commitment to the right of children to dignity, to respect, and to be heard and taken seriously. Indeed, in her many years as a senator representing the Canadian government, her dedicated and uncompromising determination to ensure the visibility of children and their right to speak for themselves, together with an insistence on the profound importance of their views, contributed to Canada’s status globally as a country with a principled approach to children’s rights as well as the wider humanitarian agenda. In many ways, she has led the way in forging a path towards challenging the cultural assumptions that have traditionally underpinned attitudes that assume adult wisdom and childhood frailty and ignorance. As we reach the thirtieth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Landon’s ninetieth birthday, therefore, it is apposite to reflect on the role that she has played in this arena in the context of the wider global developments with regard to children’s voices since 1989. It is unlikely that the working group involved in drafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child had any conception of the profound implications of article 12 when they decided to incorporate it into the text. The initial draft of the convention, produced by the Polish government in 1978, contained no reference to the child’s views.1 Subsequent drafts explored the importance of adding a provision affording children the right to be heard in relation to the determination of their best interests and with regard to specific decisions such as

22

Gerison Lansdown

medical treatment, choice of occupation, education, and recreation.2 Over the course of the next ten years of drafting, there was continued exploration over whether to include a provision affording children the right to be heard and, if so, its scope in terms of both age and mandate. Formulations were proposed variously linking the concept to the best interests, freedom of expression, protection, or limiting it to judicial proceedings. Interestingly, much of the energy driving these debates came from the US delegation, despite the subsequent refusal of the US, alone in the world, to ratify the convention. Ultimately, the current wording of article 12, as a stand-alone right and proposed by the delegation of Finland, was agreed to by the working group: 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. Through the adoption of this text, the convention embodied a principle that transforms the status of children from one of passive recipient of adult protection, control, and guidance to one of agency and participation. It has been argued that article 12 is the “lynchpin” of the convention because it “recognises the child as a full human being with integrity and personality and with the ability to participate fully in society.”3 It represents one of the fundamental values of the CrC and challenges states to reconsider prevailing attitudes towards children.4 Involvement of individuals in decisions that affect them and the opportunity to hold those in power accountable for their actions is central to human dignity. Participation contributes to the empowerment of children to believe in themselves, to build strength through collaboration, and to actively engage in the realisation of their rights. The right to be listened to and taken seriously promotes a sense of self-esteem and has the capacity to make a difference. This emerging self-confidence is further strengthened by understanding the reciprocal and collaborative nature of participation  – that it applies to all children and that a shared voice is more powerful and effective. Finally, through that collaboration, it becomes possible to have more

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation

23

influence, to advocate together for the realisation of rights and to hold those in power to account. And in turn, the experience of influencing and holding duty-bearers accountable reinforces a sense of efficacy, capacity, and self-confidence.5 In the thirty years since the final adoption of the convention, article 12 has been the focus of an extraordinary proliferation of global activity. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has emphasized its importance not only as a fundamental human right of children but also as a general principle to inform the implementation of all other rights. In other words, when introducing measures, for example, to promote the right to protection from violence, to education, or to the best possible health children must be listened to and their voices given due weight. Like Landon, professionals, academics, local activists, ngos, politicians, policy makers, and children have all sought to grapple with the radical and profound implications of this first-ever provision in international human rights law affording children the right to be heard and taken seriously. Children themselves have been supported to engage in advocacy, social and economic analysis, campaigning, research, peer education, community development, political dialogue, program design and development, and democratic participation in schools. Many adults, on their part, have invested energy in addressing the challenge of translating the principle into practice, through examining their own organizational relationships with children, working towards the development of models of participative programming, and exploring strategies for building accountability to children. In consequence, there is now a rich vein of experience from which to understand both the potential and the challenges to be faced in realizing the right of all children to participate on decisions that impact on their lives. Globally, this experience has produced a significant body of anecdotal evidence attesting to the implications of article 12.6 On the positive side, it is evident that children and young people have unique perspectives and expertise with which to shed light on both the challenges they face and the strategies for resolving them. Certainly, children consistently express the view that they do want greater control over the issues that affect them both at the individual and collective levels.7 Furthermore, when provided with the opportunity, necessary information, and support children can and do make a significant contribution to decisions affecting their lives. Their participation can enhance the quality of legislation, policy making, budgetary allocations, and service provision. With a unique body of knowledge about their lives, their needs, and concerns, together with ideas and views deriving from their direct experiences, they can contribute to more

24

Gerison Lansdown

effective, relevant, and sustainable decisions affecting their lives and the realization of their rights. Furthermore, having both the right and the space to be heard in safety empowers them to challenge violence, abuse, threat, injustice, or discrimination. In many societies, children lack avenues through which to report abuse and, in any case, fear that if they do, they will not be believed or will be further punished. This traditional silencing of children affords impunity to abusers.8 Adults can only act to protect children if they know what is happening in their lives; often, it is only children who can provide that information. Emerging evidence also indicates that implementation of article 12 can play a critical role in children’s development and enhance their capacity to take an active part in the construction of their own identity and sense of personal autonomy.9 Children, and the adults around them, consistently report that active engagement improves skills, confidence, and self-esteem. It strengthens capacities for civic engagement, tolerance, and respect for others. Societies require citizens with the understanding, skills, and commitment to promote accountability and good governance. The process of listening to children and taking them seriously enables children to develop those capacities – starting with negotiations over decision making within the family, through to resolving conflicts in school, contributing to policy developments at the local or national level, developing their own clubs, councils, and parliaments, or engaging in online activism. Children have a contribution to make to the communities in which they live. Their energies, skills, aspirations, creativity, and passion can be harnessed to strengthen democratic discourse, challenge injustice, build civil society, engage in peace building and nonviolent conflict resolution, and explore innovative solutions to intractable challenges. Finally, implementation of article 12 affords the opportunity to strengthen accountability: access to the courts, to complaints, and redress mechanisms as well as direct access to policy makers provide a vital avenue for ensuring that violations are challenged, rights are upheld, and elected officials held to account. Systematic implementation remains elusive, however. It is still a piecemeal experience globally, with inadequate sustained commitment in many countries to address the multiple barriers that impede comprehensive realization of the right of children to be heard. Resistance to article 12 exists in long-standing practices, cultures, and attitudes as well as through legal, political, and economic barriers.10 And while some difficulties are experienced by most children, certain groups face additional hurdles in getting their voices heard and those include younger children, girls, children with disabilities, working children or those out of school, children from Indigenous or minority communities, and

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation

25

poorer children. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has also expressed real concern that even where opportunities are provided for children to be heard, the quality of that experience can often be poor. It is imperative to begin to address that failure. One of the challenges has been the lack of consistency in understanding what is actually meant by “participation,” the commonly used shorthand for article 12. Without such clarity it is not possible to undertake systematic research or evaluation as to its long-term impact or on the most sustainable and effective approaches. There is now a sufficient body of experience and knowledge to be able to draw together a conceptual framework elaborating a shared understanding of the meaning of participation and accordingly, to be able to articulate its potential outcomes for children.11 This process serves as a critical precursor to the determination of what should be measured and how. Of course, as a fundamental human right, commitment to article 12 should not be contingent on arguments relating to its external impact. It must be respected in and of itself. However, monitoring implementation and measuring the associated outcomes is necessary. Without doing so, it is not possible to understand what is working and why, to focus advocacy effectively, to track progress over time, or to hold governments to account.

unpaCKIng tHe MeanIng oF CHILD partICIpatIon The Committee on the Rights of the Child has described “participation” as on-going processes which include information sharing and dialogue with children and adults, based on mutual respect and through which children can shape decisions affecting their lives.12 It needs to be understood not only through the lens of article 12 but also within the framework of the wider civil rights embodied in the CrC – the rights to freedom of expression, to association, to thought, conscience and religion, to privacy, and to information. The opportunity for children to exercise these rights can be seen as preconditions for the right to express views, have them taken seriously, and influence matters of concern to them. Article 13, freedom of expression, asserts the right to hold and express opinions and to seek and receive information through any media. As such, the obligation it imposes on governments is to refrain from interference in the expression of those views or in access to information while protecting the right of access to means of communication and public dialogue. The right to speak out without fear of retribution is integral to active participation. Similarly articles 14 and 15 respectively protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and

26

Gerison Lansdown

to freedom of assembly and association from interference or control by the state. Freedoms of expression and association require the creation of conditions in which children can form and express views and meet friends and form their own associations. Similarly, if children are to participate they need access to information about their rights, and the knowledge and skills in how to exercise them, in order to be able to exercise those rights. In some contexts, although not all, they may need to be assured of privacy and confidentiality, for example, if they wish to express views relating to abuse or to make a complaint of discrimination. Article 12 relies on the realization of these other rights but places additional obligations on states. It represents a new provision in international law, included in the CrC to address the fact that most children below the age of eighteen, unlike adults, do not have autonomy or independent rights of decision making. It is both more restrictive and more extensive than the civil rights described above. On the one hand, unlike the right to freedom of expression, its scope is restricted to matters affecting the child, albeit this has been interpreted very widely by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the international monitoring body.13 However, it goes further in imposing an obligation on states to introduce the legal framework and mechanisms necessary to facilitate opportunities to express views and thereby support the active involvement of the child in all actions affecting them and to give due weight to those views once expressed. It is this additional obligation that differentiates article 12 and constitutes the full meaning of participation. An additional and critical aspect of participation relates to the concept of evolving capacities of children. As children grow up, their skills base and sphere of engagement expand, and they gain the capacities to listen to others, gather information, express views, and negotiate increasingly complex decisions. This concept of “evolving capacities” is elaborated in article 5 of the CrC which requires that the duty and right of parents or caregivers to provide guidance and direction must be provided “in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child…in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.”14 In other words, it recognizes that a transfer of responsibility for decision making from responsible adults to children themselves must take place as children acquire increasing levels of competence and require less protection and guidance. The determination of children’s evolving capacities are in some circumstances defined in law as, for example, with ages of criminal responsibility, consent to medical treatment, or sexual consent, although there is wide variation between states as to where those ages are fixed. In many other areas, the

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation

27

judgment rests within the family, for example, on issues of children’s choice of friends, freedom to go out, or staying on at school. Article 5 is relevant to the concept of participation as the weight afforded to children’s views should necessarily increase in line with their evolving capacities. However, it goes further in recognizing the right to increasing levels of autonomous decision making. For example, in respect to health, article 12 would mandate that any child capable of forming a view is entitled to express their views in respect of a given treatment and to have them given due weight in accordance with age and maturity. However, article 5 indicates that once a child is competent to understand the nature and implications of that treatment, she or he is entitled to exercise an autonomous choice as to whether or not to give consent to it taking place. Within this context and drawing on the interpretations provided by the Committee on the Rights of the Child over the past thirty years through both their concluding observations and the general comment on article 12, it is possible to understand participation as follows: • It applies to all children within a given jurisdiction without discrimination on any grounds, although, of course, the nature of engagement with children will necessarily differ according to their age, ability, and context. • It is both a means to an end and an end in itself. In other words, it is a means through which other rights are realised as well as being, itself, a substantive right. • It applies to children both as individuals and as a constituency. • It extends to all matters affecting or of relevance to the child. • It demands that duty bearers, or those in positions of authority or power, give appropriate consideration to the views expressed by a child or group of children. • It is a right not an obligation. Children should never be compelled or coerced into expressing a view.

unDerStanDIng tHe praCtICe oF partICIpatIon Having elaborated what article 12 actually means, it is possible to identify the lessons learned about what is needed in practice to ensure that meaningful participation actually takes place. While it is neither possible nor desirable to seek to restrict a definition to any single model, the following elements can be understood as a useful guide to understanding the conditions necessary to ensure the realization of children’s participation rights.

28

Gerison Lansdown

Establishing the enabling environment for participation Few societies have traditionally created the opportunities for children to make a meaningful contribution in matters affecting their lives. A range of barriers can impede those opportunities. Action is needed both to recognize and acknowledge the existence of these barriers and to act to remove them in order to build enabling environments that respect, protect, and fulfill children’s right to participation. In so doing, sensitivity needs to be afforded to the significant differences in how those barriers impact children of different ages, as well as those who are more marginalized. Children encounter many social norms and prevailing cultural values that impede participation rights. Deep-seated hierarchies of power, at multiple levels within communities, can serve to exclude children from decision making. These hierarchies are justified in terms of, for example, childhood incapacity, protection, traditional gender role expectations, fear of disruption, and need for discipline. Intersectional and structural discriminations can further compound exclusion from participation, for example, for girls or children with disabilities. Younger children may experience greater limitations on their right to be heard. Investment in measures to engage with, challenge, and potentially transform these norms and to demonstrate the individual, familial, and societal benefits of greater democratic engagement with children will contribute to enhanced participation outcomes. Secondly, if the right of all children to be heard in all spheres of their lives is to be realized it needs to be underpinned by a legislative and policy environment to strengthen and guarantee that right. Establishing legal rights, incorporating them into policies, and providing the necessary budgetary support will contribute to the creation of an environment in which participation becomes institutionalized and culturally embedded for all children, rather than simply a series of short-term, one-off activities. Thirdly, it is not possible for children to exercise their participation rights if they are unaware either that they have those rights or how they can be used. Equally, unless and until professionals working with and for children understand the implications of those rights for their day-to-day practice and the institutions within which they work and begin to transform the cultures within those institutions, children will continue to be denied the right to be heard. This calls for the strengthening of human rights education in schools and education on human rights for adult professionals.15 In societies where children are not encouraged to

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation

29

question, speak out, express views, and make decisions, investment is needed to build their skills, confidence, and capacities to exercise their participation rights and to overcome the fear of so doing. This can only happen if adults are simultaneously provided with the comparable capacities to enable then to work with children in a participatory and inclusive manner, consistent with their human rights. Finally, recognition needs to be afforded to the imperative for children to be provided with meaningful opportunities for their opinions to be heard and to be able to influence decisions affecting them. It requires more than one-off consultations. It necessitates the institutionalizing of opportunities for individual children to be heard in, for example, schools, health care, child protection, work places, and judicial systems. It also requires support for the children to organize, identify issues of concern to them, and gain access to relevant policy makers. This might involve opportunities to undertake research, develop strategies for action, provide mutual support, and campaign and advocate for change both online and through more traditional routes. Essential features of meaningful participation Beyond these broad societal measures needed to build a legal and cultural environment to achieve the realization of article 12 for every child, focus is needed on the actual nature of specific participatory experiences and the features necessary to ensure their quality and effectiveness. The following four features are essential to the attainment of this goal.16 SPACE: In order to become increasingly active in influencing matters affecting them, children must be afforded the space and time to form and express views. In many societies, they are not traditionally encouraged to speak out nor to challenge adults. This applies both at the individual level, for example, with decisions relating to health care, as well as issues at the broader level such as access to services, legislation, or policies. Particular efforts are needed to overcome the barriers that are experienced by children from marginalized groups, for example girls, those with disabilities, children from minority ethnic, Indigenous, or poorer communities. VOICE: Children can express themselves through multiple different

media. For example, the digital environment affords significant opportunities through which children can speak out. It offers the potential for

30

Gerison Lansdown

them to network, reach out, and communicate widely with their peers as well as broader society. Appropriate and accessible information is an important prerequisite for the ability to speak out and express views and negotiate decisions. This needs to be provided in different forms according to the children concerned, for example in age-accessible and relevant languages, in sign language, braille, or other forms of augmented communication. Not all children will be able to express themselves easily. The onus is on supporting adults to find ways in which to enable children to communicate their views, concerns, or ideas. They may need to be able to raise issues confidentially or through different forms of expression, for example in writing or through artistic media. It is worth remembering that according to article 12 participation rights are based on the capacity to form a view and not on the ability to express a view in any particular way. AUDIENCE: Central to the right to participate is the importance of adults listening respectfully to what children have to say. They must have access to the relevant audience for the views being expressed, whether that is their parents, peers, a teacher, a doctor or judge, a local politician, key civil servants, or relevant media. For example, a school council must have access to the head teacher or school board if its role is to have any meaning. The right to express views and have them given due weight can only be realized if children’s views are heard by those people with the power and authority to act on those views. INFLUENCE: The right to participate does not imply that children’s

views must always be acted on. However, it does require that their views are given proper consideration and that any decision that is subsequently made should be reported back to them with an explanation of how and why it was made in the way that it was. Ideally this should apply in all settings. Furthermore, at all stages of this process, participation must comply with nine basic requirements for ethical and quality practice. Participation must be transparent and informative, voluntary, respectful, relevant, child friendly, inclusive, supported by training for adults, safe and sensitive to risk, and accountable. These requirements have been elaborated by the Committee on the Rights of the Child and need to be reflected clearly in all activity, initiatives, programs, and projects working directly with children.17

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation Figure 2.1

31

Levels of Participation

No participation or unethical participation

Consultative participation

Collaborative Participation

Adolescent-led Participation

In most societies, the majority of children have little or no opportunity to express their views

• adult initiated; • adult led and managed; • lacking possibility for children to control outcomes; • recognizing the added value that children’ perspective, knowledge and experience can contribute.

• adult initiated; • involving partnership with children; • enabling children to influence or challenge both process and outcome; • allowing for increasing levels of self-directed action by children over a period of time.

• the issues of concern being identified by children themselves; • adults serving as facilitators rather than leaders; • children controlling the process and the outcomes.

Different levels of participation Children can participate in activities, processes, and decision making at three broad levels: consultative, collaborative, or child-led.18 It is important not to perceive these levels in terms of a hierarchy of preference. Each level offers differing degrees of empowerment and influence, but they are all legitimate and appropriate in different contexts and can be rights respecting provided they comply with the features of space, voice, audience, and influence, and the nine basic requirements for quality. Without such compliance, participation runs the risk of being tokenistic, manipulative, or even coercive. Consultative participation takes place when adults seek children’s views in order to build knowledge and understanding of their lives and experience. It can be used to reach out to a wide range of children and tends to be the most commonly used approach to participation. Consultative participation does not allow for sharing or transferring decision-making responsibility to children themselves. However, it does recognize that they have knowledge, experience, and perspectives that need to inform adult decision making. Consultation is an appropriate means of enabling children to express views, for example in some family decision making, when undertaking research, or in planning processes, in developing legislation, policy, or services. For example, a new program initiative might consult with children before deciding a course of action. An ngo might undertake research with them to

32

Gerison Lansdown

get their views on how to design a campaign or to provide the basis of evidence of that campaign. Online surveys and outreach programs such as unICeF’s U-Report represent a consultative form of participation.19 Children can also be consulted on decisions affecting them in health care or in education or as witnesses in judicial or administrative proceedings. Consultation may be the most appropriate way of enabling children to contribute their perspectives within democratic systems where elected politicians are accountable to the whole population but wish to gather views from different constituencies. They tend to be one-off activities with no on-going commitment. However, it only constitutes meaningful participation if serious consideration is given to the views contributed by children and appropriate feedback is provided on how those views have been taken into account. Collaborative participation affords a greater degree of partnership between adults and children, with the opportunity for active engagement at any stage of a decision, initiative, project, or service. Collaborative participation might include involvement of children in designing and undertaking research, policy development, peer education, and counselling, participation in conferences or in representation on boards or committees. Collaborative participation provides opportunity for shared decision making with adults and for children to influence both the process and the outcomes in any given program. Individual decisions can also be collaborative, for example children sharing responsibility with their parents for a decision relating to medical treatment, where the child does not want to take a decision alone but is more comfortable with the support of parents. Child- or adolescent-led participation takes place where children are able to create the space and opportunity to initiate their own agendas. Generally, this level of participation enables the engagement of fewer children: as with adults, in any population, only a minority are likely to be motivated to become actively involved. However, with growing numbers of children active in the digital environment, online childor adolescent-led participation is increasing the scope and access for self-directed engagement. It affords greater empowerment and allows for a greater degree of influence, for example, through the establishment and management of their own organizations or identification of problems within their communities that they wish to address. It can be activated through social media, where the opportunity for more immediate or short-term activism can take place. It might involve policy analysis, advocacy, awareness raising, community action, peer representation, and education and use of and access to the media

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation

33

as well as online campaigns and networking. In general, the role of adults in adolescent-led participation is to act as facilitators to enable children to pursue their own objectives through provision of facilities, information, guidance, contacts, resources, and support. However, in the digital environment it is increasingly possible for children to organize and engage, both individually and collectively, without the same degree of adult support. The appropriate level of participation will be informed by the context. Consultative approaches facilitate the opportunity to reach out to a wider audience of children, while collaborative or adolescent-led approaches enable more qualitative work with groups of children. For example, if an objective is for a policy maker to reach out to or engage very large numbers of children to help inform a legal reform process or obtain feedback on the impact of a particular policy, consultative participation is an appropriate approach. Child-led initiatives will emerge when children themselves decide to come together to focus on an issue of concern whether through a local group or an online environment. Any particular initiative might move from one level to another at different points in its development. And a program might comprise activities that operate at each of the different levels. All three levels can apply to both individual and collective participation. However, while all three can be appropriate, it is important that consultation is not always used as the default model, simply because it is easier, without full consideration of the potential for a higher level of engagement of children. Social ecology of participation Children’s lives are impacted, both directly and indirectly, by factors throughout the social ecology – from the family and peers to school and the local community to local and national government through to the international sphere and the global environment. Accordingly, they are entitled to participate at all of these levels in order to try and influence and transform laws, policies, budgeting, service provision and design, cultures and norms, political priorities, and socioeconomic conditions that affect them, not only now but in the future. The opportunities for wider engagement are enhanced by the digital environment and use of social media that allow for the building of far greater networks, more responsively, more cheaply, and with diminished need for adult support. Children have been active participants in all of these spheres. In all areas of policy – child protection, education, health, media, water and

34 Figure 2.2

Gerison Lansdown A social ecology of participation? International community National government

Local community and local government Institutions – schools, hospitals, courts, workplaces Family

Peers

Adolescent

sanitation, HIV/aIDS, reproductive health, social protection, and climate change as well as budgeting – initiatives have been developed to engage adolescent perspectives and experiences. Innovative and wide-ranging approaches to participation have been adopted, including peer education, research, advocacy, community development, campaigning, and unCrC reporting. Children have been invited to speak at conferences at local, national, and international levels. Children’s parliaments, unions, clubs, and adolescent-led organizations have developed across many regions of the world, representing an expression of democracy and an opportunity to learn about and claim rights. Rights-respecting schools in which children have a meaningful role to play have been introduced in a number of countries.20 And the growing success of young people using social media through which to campaign and advocate, for example, on climate change is testimony to the power and potential of these spaces and young people’s capacities to exploit them to positive advantage.

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation

35

Measuring outcomes of participation With a shared understanding of the meaning of participation and what constitutes effective practice, it is possible to identify the four potential domains of outcomes for children’s participation, all of which are characterized by empowerment. These outcomes can be used to support the development of indicators against which to measure progress in the realization of children’s participation rights. They apply to children both as individuals and collectively across the social ecology and are selected on the basis that each one can indicate a wider set of positive changes or implications for children. They also reflect outcomes resulting from investment or outputs across the five measures needed to build an enabling environment. 1. Sense of self-worth/self-esteem/efficacy: self-confidence, opportunities to aspire to goals, growing motivation to speak out, ability to challenge rights violations, positive environments towards children, safety in speaking out, a sense of personal well-being (supported by changes in social norms, awareness raising, and capacity building) 2. Being taken seriously: self-respect, sense of influence, potential to make a difference, respect by adults towards children, opportunities to change one’s life, potential for justice and accountability (supported by legal and policy frameworks, changes in social norms, awareness raising and capacity building) 3. Making decisions: self-confidence, sense of growing autonomy, improved knowledge, sense of responsibility, adult confidence in children’s abilities (supported by changes in social norms, awareness raising and legal and policy frameworks) 4. Public participation: learning and knowledge, potential to influence laws, policies or programs, awareness of rights, collaboration, sense of efficacy (supported by creation of spaces, capacity building and legal and policy frameworks)

36

Gerison Lansdown

Figure 2.3

The conceptual framework of participation

policies & mechanisms Law,

Adolescent led

National government Courts

Community groups

Health centres ive rat

Media

Influence & empowerment Self-efficacy/self-worth Being taken seriously Making decisions Public/civic engagement

Co n

o lab

l Co

SPACE

Youth/ sports/ faith-/ issue-based clubs

su

Work-place

Arts

Social norms

Skills & capacities

VOICE

Local government

lta tiv e

AUDIENCE Family s

Schools

t

ie Aw a

ab

ll Co

re n

Peers

ess

of r

i g ht

Op

p

tu or

ni

s

Enabling environment for participation

Essential features of participation

Socio-ecologial spheres in which participation takes place

Outcomes of meaningful participation

e tiv ora Modes of adolescent participation

Drawing on this analysis of the meaning of participation, and the environment and conditions necessary to ensure its effective realization, and the desired outcomes, the conceptual framework for children’s participation can be characterized as shown in figure 2.3.21

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation

37

SHaKIng tHe MoVerS Using this framework, it is possible to explore the model, trajectory, and contribution to participation of the Shaking the Movers program, initiated by Landon Pearson and taking place over the past ten years. Shaking the Movers (StM) initially provided an opportunity for a group of children and young people to be introduced over the course of a weekend to the Convention on the Rights of the Child with particular reference to one of its rights. They discussed and shared their own experiences in relation to that right, the findings of which, including recommendations, were put together in a report. In turn, this report was presented to a meeting of academics and children’s rights advocates, known as the Children’s Rights Academic Network (Cran). Cran considered the findings with a view to identifying the potential research, policy, and advocacy implications. Since the initial StM, the event has taken place every year with a focus on a different right or rights-based issue, selected by the children and young people of the previous year’s event. The themes have included, among others, mental health, play and artistic expression, climate change, youth on the move, and sexual exploitation. Furthermore, it has expanded from one group of children each year to numerous StM events taking place right across Canada. Each StM workshop is run by a team of young students trained especially for the event by child-rights experts. As the potential of social media has grown, the children and young people are now able to follow the meeting of the academics online and respond accordingly. So how does StM fare in respect to the quality and scope of the opportunities it affords children in relation to article 12? Very clearly, StM affords children and young people an opportunity for participation in an environment that fully complies with the basic requirements for ethical and quality participation. Those invited to join are all provided with information about StM, its purpose, and format, ensuring that they are fully aware of the implications of the initiative. Young people themselves choose the rights to focus on, as one they are particularly interested in, and many of those taking part have been invited specifically because of its relevance to their lives. None of the children or young people has been pressured to join StM; it is an entirely voluntary activity. The environment provided is consistently respectful, inclusive, and child friendly. Every effort is made to ensure that the children and young people feel comfortable, valued, and able to contribute and that they are drawn from children and young people with a wide range of different experiences and from

38

Gerison Lansdown

different communities, including Indigenous young people, refugees and asylum seekers, immigrants, those with disabilities and from poorer families. Although to date the participants have tended to be older children, there is also now a specific commitment to organise an StM for very young children. This is an important development, as typically young children are excluded from participation opportunities and their unique perspectives and contributions consequently disregarded by policy makers. Finally, the young facilitators are properly trained and supported and have the requisite skills and knowledge to provide a meaningful experience for the children and young people, and to ensure that they feel safe and protected. StM also increasingly complies fully with the need to ensure opportunities for space, voice, audience, and influence. From the outset, the initiative afforded an important space for hearing children and young people’s concerns. It allows for them to express their voice through multiple and creative means – games, group work, role-plays, drawing, music, and poetry. The views expressed by the children and young people are comprehensively recorded. Detailed written reports are produced for each StM, together with, in many cases, a video of the event. These reports include an overview of the event and its activities, direct quotes from the young people, their recommendations, and their evaluation of the process. In terms of commitment to offering the young people an audience and influence, StM was initially slightly weaker. The reports were comprehensive and did justice to the issues raised by the young people and were subsequently shared with all the participants of Cran in advance of their meeting. Cran members then each made a specific response to the views and ideas raised in the reports and certainly gave serious consideration to the views expressed. However, until more recently, there was no opportunity for direct communication between the adult and young people’s groups. The young people were, therefore, unable to gain any feedback on how their views were listened to and with what impact. Now, however, with the increasing use of twitter, webcams, and other social media, the young people are able to observe and comment on the Cran meeting. In addition, at some of the StM events local policymakers and members of the community are invited to join the final session of the StM to hear the views and concerns of the children and young people and reflect on how to respond to them. In this way StM has been an evolving process, gradually enhancing the strength of its engagement with the young people and affording them increasing opportunities for influence. In its original format, StM would probably be described as a consultative form of participation: an arena for eliciting the children and

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation

39

young people’s views and experiences which could be fed back to the adults to determine how to respond to the findings. However, as it has progressed, it has increasingly moved towards a more collaborative model. This transformation can be evidenced in the developments described in the previous paragraph, the increasing role of videos of the StM sessions, and in the desire for the young people to be supported to remain in touch with each other and engage in continuing action in pursuit of their rights. In terms of the outcomes for the children and young people, they self report very positively. Many describe how the experience has enhanced their self-confidence, knowledge, and self-esteem. It also clearly serves to empower the participating children: “The biggest thing I learned … I have a voice.”(StM Ottawa, 2012) “Today was awesome, actually told my life story with nobody saying mm-hmm or mine is worse. I couldn’t help but cry, everybody was so supportive. I made other people cry too. I felt famous … a lot of people telling me to sign their stuff. Met some awesome people.” (StM Ottawa, 2012) “It was very good to know the rights to play and expressing yourself. I’ve met new people that were awesome. The Right to Play is new to me because I’ve never learned it before. The conference taught me things that people never told me about. Expressing yourself brings out the inner you. Having the right to play brings out what you could do that was already in you.” (StM Ottawa, 2013) StM participants also indicate that it has given them an enhanced sense that their views are worth listening to and that they are taken seriously: “It was really nice because we got to make a difference.” (StM, BC 2018) “What I learned was that there are people out there, who actually are in need of help, no matter what. They all need freedom, they all need an escape, they all need a path. I feel like today opened my eyes and it really showed me that I can be that person to guide them out of that trouble. Even through my course, Child and Youth Care, I can still do the same thing through it. No matter what, I learned something valuable, and that is to care about others more than caring about yourself.” (StM Ottawa, 2017)

40

Gerison Lansdown

Another recurring finding is that many of the participants highlight the impact that StM has had on their sense that they can take more responsibility for decisions in their own lives and make a difference. “I thought that this conference was a great opportunity to discuss the CrC and Children’s Rights with other youth. Since attending the conference I am more aware of the value of including youth in discussions about topics that affect them. This has helped me to better understand my role as Student Senator this year at my school.” (StM Toronto, 2017) “Throughout the entire weekend there was a strong sense that these young people were catalysts of change for themselves and future generations. The youth were very clear about the importance of bringing young people together to discuss issues that affect them and that are important to them. This can help foster a passion to advocate for change which can spread exponentially to other youth and adults.” (StM Ottawa, 2014) StM is an important initiative, for more than ten years providing a serious and meaningful opportunity for young people to learn about their rights and explore what needs to change in order for those rights to be more fully realised. The continuing commitment over such a long period and its sustained and evolving quality is testimony to Landon’s understanding of the importance of participation, the necessity for a quality and principled approach to its realisation, and a commitment to learn and adapt. It has provided a unique and significant model for others to follow. The progress over that period also reflects the growing understanding about how to achieve effective participation and, accordingly, has evolved systematically to reach out to more young people, to become more interactive, and to open up more possibilities for their engagement in advocacy and activism. This learning curve needs to continue: a number of important opportunities could be pursued to strengthen and build on the work to date. 1. Online youth advocacy platform: The participants could be approached to explore the option of building towards youth-led participation through the creation of a national online network with the potential for the different groups of children to link up with each other and create a forum for advocacy and change. This would certainly require some level of adult support and funding, but the enthusiasm expressed by the participants clearly highlights

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation

41

a hunger for continued engagement and the opportunity to achieve change in their communities. The digital environment does afford new and exciting potential for outreach. Such an initiative may need a focus on a particular issue of high concern to kick start it and provide the motivation, but that could be explored with the young people in due course. 2. Support for local initiatives: Much of the most effective activity with children and young people takes place within their own local communities. At all the StM sessions, they raise significant concerns and challenges relating to their daily lives at home. The impact of StM, therefore, could be further enhanced if the children and young people were supported in connecting with interested ngos and community organisations, campaigns, or policymakers who could work with them to engage more fully in taking action to address those concerns. 3. Evidence of sustained outcomes: The findings documented in the reports relate to the views expressed by the children and young people at the time of the StM itself. They do not, therefore, provide any meaningful indication of whether the experience translates into sustained impact once they return to their daily lives. There would be real value in follow-up monitoring to examine the longer term impact on their self esteem, sense of efficacy, their sense of being valued and respected by adults around them, and the ability to influence decisions affecting their lives. There is a dearth of such evidence, which would be of significant value in seeking funding and governmental support for future participation commitments. 4. STM and CRAN collaboration: The recent developments to involve the StM participants at the Cran meetings could be significantly strengthened as an integral and interactive dimension of Cran. Their engagement could also be utilised as an opportunity for building potential partnerships between Cran members in their follow-up work in the fields of advocacy, research, and policy analysis. The young people could contribute through links to wider networks of young people, as potential researchers, as advocates and campaigners, communications strategists, and spokespeople.

42

Gerison Lansdown

5. Training and capacity building: The methodology applied in running StM is now well established. It provides a high quality and well-grounded experience that could usefully be shared as a model for others to adopt and adapt. There would be value in producing a short online toolkit elaborating the core principles on which it is based and the processes involved, together with illustrative examples of the activities used and how to run them.

ConCLuSIon The concept of participation is now firmly embedded internationally as both a right and a necessity for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with Landon playing a significant role in contributing to that achievement. There is a growing consensus as to its meaning, approaches to implementation, and understanding of the conditions necessary for its realisation. However, the journey towards its fulfillment for all children is far from completed, including in Canada. Depressingly, few of the children and young people participating in StM, for example, had ever heard of the convention before taking part. Their responses to the issues they explored provide eloquent testimony not only to the scale of the rights abuses they experience but to the imperative of understanding and learning about those abuses from the young people themselves. They also demonstrate how passionately children and young people feel about the importance of being heard, being respected, being valued, and being included. Landon has fought assiduously over many years to make that a reality and will undoubtedly continue to do so. Now, thirty years after the adoption of the convention, let us hope that a growing number of advocates join her to move beyond words and paper commitments to empower children, in all areas of their lives, as individuals and collectively to be able to influence the actions and decisions that impact on their lives. Doing so is not only an obligation – it is a foundation of the international human rights commitments to which Canada is a signatory – but will also serve to enhance children’s self-esteem, confidence, and well-being, strengthen the realisation of their rights, and build future generations of children more aware of the value of democracy, social justice, respect for the rule of law, and the fundamental importance of human rights as the basis of just and stable societies.

Exploring the Meaning of Children’s Participation

43

noteS 1 Legislative History of the un Convention on the Rights of the Child, vol. 1, (New York and Geneva: oHCHr, 2007), 437. 2 Ibid., 440. 3 Michael Freeman, “Whither Children: Protection, Participation, Autonomy?” Manitoba Law Journal 22 (1994): 307–19. 4 Marta Santos Pais, “The Convention on the Rights of the Child,” in Manual on Human Rights Reporting, ed. oHCHr (Geneva: oHCHr, 1997), 426. 5 Gerison Lansdown, A Conceptual Framework for Measuring Adolescent Participation, (nY: unICeF, 2019). 6 See for example Claire O’Kane, Children and Young People as Citizens: Partners for Social Change (Bangkok: Save the Children South and Central Asia, 2003); Inter-Agency Working Group on Children’s Participation, Children as Active Citizens: A Policy and Programme Guide. Commitments and Obligations for Children’s Civil Rights and Civic Engagement in East Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok: Save the Children, 2008); Committee on the Rights of the Child, Day of General Discussion on the Right to Be Heard, (Geneva: oHCHr, 2006); Rights respecting schools, https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respectingschools/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/01/RRSA-Impact-Report-2016.pdf; Clare Feinstein and Claire O’Kane, Children’s and Adolescents’ Participation and Protection from Sexual Abuse and Exploitation, (Florence: unICeF Innocenti Research Centre, 2009); Anne Crowley, “Is Anyone Listening?” International Journal of Children’s Rights 23, 3 (2015): 602–21; Adolescent Participation in Latin America and the Caribbean, (Panama: unICeF, 2010). 7 See for example Shaking the Movers reports from the Landon Pearson Centre over the past decade. Landon Pearson Centre website at Carleton University, https://carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre/shaking-the-movers/ 8 un Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No.12, The Right of the Child to be Heard, CRC/C/GC/12 (Geneva: oHCHr, 2009), para. 68–88. 9 Dana Mitra, “Can Increasing Student Voice in Schools Lead to Gains in Youth Development?” The Teachers’ College Record 106, 4 (2004): 651. 10 A World Fit for Children, Resolution Adopted by the un General Assembly 2002, A/RES/S-27/2. 11 unICeF first elaborated this framework in Gerison Lansdown’s Conceptual Framework for Adolescent Participation (New York: unICeF, 2019). 12 un Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No.12, The Right of the Child to be Heard, CRC/C/GC/12 (Geneva: oHCHr, 2009), para. 3. 13 un Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No.12, The Right of the Child to be Heard, CRC/C/GC/12 (Geneva: oHCHr, 2009), para. 81. 14 Gerison Lansdown, The Evolving Capacities of the Child, (Florence: unICeF Innocenti Research Centre, 2005).

44

Gerison Lansdown

15 CrC General Comment No. 5 General Measures of Implementation, CRC/C/ GC/5, 2003. 16 Laura Lundy, “Voice is not Enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,” British Educational Research Journal 33 no. 6 (2007): 927–42. 17 un Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No.12, The Right of the Child to be Heard, CRC/C/GC/12 (Geneva: oHCHr, 2009), para. 133–4. 18 Gerison Lansdown and Claire O’Kane, A Toolkit for Monitoring and Evaluating Children’s Participation (London: Save the Children et al, 2014). 19 unICeF U-report is a platform for connecting young people around the world. Available at https://www.unicef.org/innovation/U-Report. 20 See for example, http://www.unicef.org.uk/Education/Rights-RespectingSchools-Award/. 21 Gerison Lansdown, A Conceptual Framework for Measuring Adolescent Participation, (New York: unICeF, 2019).

3

Travels with Landon A Children’s Rights Journey

anne MCgILLIVraY

Then, Mortals, join to hail great Nature’s plan, That fully gives to Babes those Rights it gives to Man. Thomas Spence, 1796 1

The rights of man have been discussed, till we are somewhat wearied with the discussion. To these have been opposed, as the next stage in the progress of illumination, and with more presumption that prudence, the rights of woman. It follows, according to the natural progression of human beings, that the next influx of that irradiation which our enlighteners are pouring in upon us, will illuminate the world with grave descants on the rights of youth, the rights of children, the rights of babies! Hannah More, 1799; 18022

At a time in Canadian history when children’s rights appear to have retreated to the back of the political agenda, I am particularly grateful to my academic colleagues for coming together to respond to what young people have to say … Building a culture of respect for children seems a never ending task, but it is up to all of us who care about young people to ensure in whatever way we can that it happens. Landon Pearson, 20093

46

Anne McGillivray

IntroDuCtIon Is rights talk passé? Have children’s rights claims lost their punch? Attaining the empire of reason, as the eminent jurist William Blackstone termed adulthood4 in Thomas Spence’s day, has long been thought a sufficient cure for the mental disorder that is childhood. The era that gave us universal human rights is, not by coincidence, an era of world wars, extreme social inequality, and the unending revelation  of the unhappy conditions of childhood. Rights, once the property of propertied men, are equated with respect, and respect is equated with status. Lack of status invites and excuses exploitation and abuse.5 Denying rights to children is a particularly dangerous choice, given their unique vulnerability and lack of political power. But children’s rights, weakly rooted in Canadian jurisprudence, have now “retreated to the back of the political agenda,” as the Honourable Landon Pearson has observed. It is for her that this essay is written. If rights discourse is passé for those who enjoy full rights, it remains the discourse of the dispossessed. Foremost among them are children. By definition, children are politically disabled. By nature, children are engaged in the richest, most consuming, most rapidly changing period of life, growing from near-helpless infancy to sexual maturity in little over a decade and to full maturity in just over two. The child in law had long been res like a house or a ship, an object of dispute, at best someone around whom “some care should be thrown.”6 To talk of rights for children except in the narrowest of legal circumstances – wardship, inheritance, maintenance  – was a contradiction in terms. Children were owned by the father and subject to his will, occupying a position between chattel and slave. Not until the 1839 Custody of Infants Act (“Talfourd’s Act”), the first of a series of statutory reforms to Romanbased family law, was the presumption of paternal custody weakened.7 It is now three decades since the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CrC 1989) came into effect, marking the fruition of two centuries of change in how we view rights and children. For all its frailties, the CrC is a powerful affirmation of the needs and aspirations of childhood. Thomas Spence and Hannah More, quoted above, wrote in the early dawn of the era of human rights. They nicely represent the polarity of the children’s rights discourse and I return to them below. I then turn to the influence of Landon Pearson and her Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights on my research – the Roman doctrines of paternal power and fiduciary duty, education rights, youth justice, mental health, climate change – and offer concluding observations.

Travels with Landon

47

rIgHtS anD poLarItIeS – tHoMaS SpenCe anD HannaH More The radical reformer Thomas Spence was the first to name children as rights bearers. His 1796 The Rights of Infants identifies rights to life, nurture, shelter, and protection, and the right of mothers to defend their children’s rights. Here, Woman confronts Aristocracy in an exchange that is passionate, logical, and surreal: anD pray what are the Rights of Infants? cry the haughty Aristocracy, sneering and tossing up their noses. Woman. Ask the she-bears, and every she-monster, and they will tell you what the rights of every species of young are. – They will tell you, in resolute language and actions too, that their rights extend to a full participation of the fruits of the earth. They will tell you, and vindicate it likewise by deeds, that mothers have a right, at the peril of all opposers, to provide from the elements the proper nourishments of their young. And seeing this, shall we be asked what the Rights of Infants are? As if they had no rights? As if they were excrescences and abortions of nature? As if they had not a right to the milk of our breasts? Nor we a right to any food to make milk of? As if they had not a right to good nursing, to cleanliness, to comfortable cloathing and lodging? Villains! Why do you ask that aggravating question? … Aristocracy (sneering). And is your sex also set up for pleaders of rights? Woman. Yes, Molochs! Our sex were defenders of rights from the beginning … You shall find that we not only know our rights, but have spirit to assert them, to the downfall of you and all tyrants.8 Spence was also the first to use the phrase “the rights of man,” chalking “Your steward and lawyers I defy/And live with all the rights of man” on a cave wall in 1780. The cave was occupied by a miner escaping an avaricious landlord.9 Spences’s contemporary, Thomas Paine, published his Rights of Man eleven years later, in 1791. Spence wrote for the children’s magazine The Lilliputian using his “new method of education” – a phonetic script – intended to “remove that rusticity and awkwardness which appears in the common people when talking to their superiors” and to “unloose the minds of children from the fetters of habit and custom.”10 This script was used in his The Grand Repository of the English Language (1775), the first “pronouncing

48

Anne McGillivray

dictionary.” Universal rights, universal education, and a guaranteed and equal income for every child, woman, and man derived from land ownership vested in “parochial communities”11  – these principles, Spence believed, would eliminate extremes of poverty and wealth, end social unrest, and create the democratic utopia explored in his Spensonia tales.12 For his pains (and his antiestablishment antics) he spent much of his life in prison on unproven charges of high treason and seditious libel. Like Aristocracy, the loyalist and evangelical tract-writer Hannah More had no use for children’s rights. More’s utopia was a Christian commonwealth organized by the “vertical ties of moralization and dependence” of the existing patriarchal hierarchy.13 Where Spence would erase poverty and class distinctions through literacy and economic reform, More provided “the ideological justification for the economic exploitation and formal political exclusion of the poor.” Her aim was not Spence’s social transformation but the promotion of moral virtue in the working poor. Her vision of universal literacy was a far cry from Spence’s path to liberation. “My plan for instructing the poor is very limited and strict. They learn weekdays such coarse works as may fit them for servants. I allow of no writing. My object has not been to teach dogmas and opinions, but to form the lower class to habits of industry and virtue.”14 More’s tract Village Politics (1792) by “Will Chip” was written to teach the poor to resist the sedition of Paine’s Rights of Man.15 Through dismissive puns and straw man setups, clever Jack shows young Tom what a dullard he is for admiring Paine. Tom admits, “I’m not so very unhappy as I had got to fancy.” More wrote the pamphlet at the Bishop of London’s behest “in an evil hour, against my will and my judgment, on one sick day … It is as vulgar as heart can wish; but it is only designed for the most vulgar class of readers.” Village Politics was countered by Spence’s The End of Oppression: Concerning the establishment of the rights of man (1795).16 On the title page is the couplet “Behold the grand, th’ heav’n like simple plan,/That soon will bring in use the Rights of Man.” If Paine’s rights theory was radical, Spence’s shattered the paradigm. His Young Man says, “I hear there is another rIgHtS oF Man by Spence that goes farther than Paine’s … it suffers no private property in land, but gives it all to the parishes.” The Old Man replies, “In doing so it does right, the earth was not made for individuals.” The success of Village Politics inspired More’s publishing venture the Cheap Repository for Moral and Religious Tracts. Between 1795 and 1978, the Cheap Repository sold more than two million tracts under 127 titles, nearly half written by More.17 Most begin with a poor

Travels with Landon

49

child, woman, or man faced with a moral dilemma who “responds well and is moderately rewarded or goes dramatically downhill and dies repenting.”18 As her tales taught their readers, the least thought, word, or deed is, always, under moral surveillance.19 More’s view of children is bleak. “Is it not a fundamental error to consider children as innocent beings, whose little weaknesses perhaps want some correction, rather than as beings who bring into the world a corrupt nature and evil disposition, which it should be the great aim of education to rectify?”20 While More’s righteous didacticism is long out of fashion, her colourful characters and skill in hiding the moral in the plot apparently engaged her readers.21 Because the elite who subsidized the Cheap Repository also bought up its tracts in volume lots, the actual number reaching their intended audience is unknown. What is known is that her real success “is less in their conversion of the poor than in their effective recruitment of the upper class to the role of moral arbiters of popular culture.”22 Although she died four years before Victoria took the throne, it is for this that More is known as the first Victorian.23 The role of moral arbiter More forged for the upper classes was a distinguishing feature of the Victorian social structure. Charitable works morphed into morality-based child-saving societies, which, by the close of the nineteenth century, were giving way to legislative initiatives for child welfare, protection, punishment, and education. These initiatives drew less from the efforts of More’s moral elite than from the new expertise of the psy sciences.24 There is no doubt that More’s jibe at the rights of men, women, youth, children, and babies, cited at the beginning of this essay, is aimed at Thomas Paine’ Rights of Man, Mary Wollstonecraft’s 1793 Rights of Women (which More pointedly refused to read), and Thomas Spence’s Rights of Infants.25 Spence is nearly forgotten. He should not be. The plight of children inspired charity, but he knew that charity is the opposite of rights. The target of his anger was Aristocracy, the classes supporting More. Their appropriation of common lands, from the Highland Clearances to the privatization of the commons, brought starvation and suffering. Children with their families were driven off the land into urban slums and the deadly mines and factories of the Industrial Revolution. Aristocracy has much to answer for. We have travelled far in the two centuries following Spence and More but still we have not heard the last of Aristocracy’s “aggravating question”: “What are the rights of children?” Who is Aristocracy now? Corporations are richer than nations and more powerful. Corporate elites hold half the private wealth of the world.26 Corporate advertising reaches deep into the psyches of children to exploit their loyalty, creativity, innocence, playtime, and money.

50

Anne McGillivray

Climate change, the ultimate threat to rights, is the result of the wealthdriven corporate–consumer alliance, a lopsided arrangement in which the holder of all the power and most of the rights is the corporation. The immensity of this new Aristocracy and the extent of its impact on children’s lives would beggar the imagination of even the highly imaginative Spence. Who are our visionaries now?

a pragMatIC VISIonarY – tHe Hon. LanDon pearSon Although the centuries following Spence and More saw significant achievements in improving the wellbeing of children, children’s status remained much the same. The concept of the child as rights-bearer, formally introduced in the 1924 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, remains at odds with popular and political views of children. The Spence–More tension remains visible in judicial reasoning, seen in the Canadian Supreme Court decisions discussed below. Two forces emerged to make the realization of children’s rights, if not an easier task then at least a less risible one than it was for Spence. The first is the CrC. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (uDHr) applies to every human being but children were not obvious beneficiaries. The 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, like its 1924 predecessor, covered only welfare rights. The CrC closed the gap. Enumerated rights include core rights – life, inviolability of the person, nurture, education, and medical care – but extend much further, into such social rights as association and culture and political rights including the right to be heard in all matters affecting the child. By shifting state thinking away from charity and paternalism toward rights and respect, it signalled the end of moral panic as the chief driver of reform and changed the paradigm of childhood. The second force consists of people with vision, knowledge, and access to power who have committed themselves to enriching the rights discourse by listening to children and advocating for the implementation of their rights. This is exemplified in Landon Pearson. “I’m probably more consistent in my passion than others,” she told Maclean’s magazine in 2014.27 “I started 60 years ago, and I’m still at it.” In March 1996, President Clinton fortified the US embargo on Cuban trade instituted in 1960 by signing the punitive and over-reaching Helms-Burton Act.28 In May 1996, Senator Pearson was named advisor on children’s rights to the minister of foreign affairs, briefing the minister on children in foreign policy and the impact of domestic policy on children in light of Canada’s international commitments.

Travels with Landon

51

That fall, she visited the University of Manitoba to address my law faculty on her work as “the children’s senator.” In late January 1997, Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy and Secretary of State Christine Steward flew to Cuba for a day of talks culminating in a fourteen-point human rights declaration.29 Cuba chose children’s rights as its first engagement under the declaration. Senator Jesse Helms, sponsor of the Helms-Burton Act which seeks to penalize non-US trade with Cuba, called the event “a ruse”30 and “another finger in the eye of the US.”31 During Winnipeg’s historic 1997 spring floods, Senator Pearson invited me to join the Canadian children’s rights delegation to Havana in May. The journey from dike building on the prairies to Cuba’s scented air presaged the learning curve ahead. There was no time to prepare. Cubans asked questions; Pearson pointed; you responded. Subjects ranged from bike helmets to sexual abuse laws to the Cuban death penalty – which respects children’s rights because it applies only to those over twenty-five – to Spanish literature. We visited children’s education, recreation, and training facilities, learning as much in these intervals as in the discussions. Cuban delegates were impressed less by our children’s rights achievements than by our open criticism of our government. Cuba is justly proud of its commitment to children. Their wellbeing was a goal of the revolution and an impetus of Castro’s near-disastrous association with the uSSr. Despite US export embargoes on food, medical necessities, and school supplies Cuba’s loyalty to children’s rights remains impressive.32 I also learned about Landon Pearson. To mark her receipt of the 2000 National Child Day Award, I was invited to write a letter of appreciation.33 While observing her management of our hastily-assembled Cuban delegation, I had the strange thought: “This is a dangerous woman.” Maybe it was the subtlety of her skills – ambassadorial skills that soothe, persuade and challenge without confrontation – dangerous skills, really, when you stop to think about it. But it was something more. Senator Pearson to me reflects a unity of desirable attainments – intelligence, maternity, an endurance and certainty that preclude negative attributions of ‘femaleness’ in the politics of gender, the forging of personal experience with career opportunity in the public good. This possibility, at least, is open to all women. But she has achieved what most women have not: the status, agency and power to determine means as well as choose ends. The end is one we share, the correction of injustices to children and the amelioration of the conditions of childhood.

52

Anne McGillivray

Her means to these ends are uniquely her own. “Senator Pearson, it seems to me, believes that the right and the good will prevail. The corollary is that there is no need to jeopardize things through haste, or go for the jugular or push for the quick solution. Small deliberate steps – her rights dialogues, her child-accessible web site, her Children on the Hill newsletter, her senatorial leadership in child law reforms – these mark out a sure and careful path. Those who have travelled with her have seen the genius of this approach.” I met Pearson again in 2005 in her capacity as deputy chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights on implementation of the CrC. I was asked to speak on the history of children’s rights.34 The final report Children: the Silenced Citizens calls on Canada to “begin to take its international human rights treaty obligations more seriously … keep its promises and work diligently towards effective implementation of that treaty at home.”35 The CrC seemed already forgotten: “consecutive federal governments have not kept the promises that were made upon ratification” and at “ground level, children’s rights are being pushed to the side … marginalized.” The report called on all levels of government “to comply with our legal obligations respecting children by improving institutions, public policy, and laws that affect them.36 The interim report Who’s In Charge Here? is dedicated “to Canada’s children, in the expectation that, if its recommendations are implemented, it can provide children with the means to have their voices heard as citizens in our society.” On its completion, Pearson retired from Senate.37 Her next steps were to establish a research centre for children’s rights and to design a venue in which children can freely speak, knowing that they will be heard.

SHaKIng tHe MoVerS anD tHe CHILDren’S rIgHtS aCaDeMIC networK “Shaking the Movers” (StM) is a key program of the Landon Pearson Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights. Initiated in 2007, it foregrounds the child as rights-bearer with the right to be listened to, understood, and answered.38 Children ranging in age and ethnicity come together in a semistructured, multiactive, and protective setting to explore a cluster of rights pertinent to a social issue affecting them. Response falls to the Children’s Rights Academic Network (Cran), as “movers” of the system. I have written seven papers for Cran, four of which inspired extensive research projects. In the following sections, I offer highlights of this research. At times I include information not found in the original publications.

Travels with Landon

53

STM III 2009 “Identity and Belonging” – the power of the father This workshop was a springboard into a deeper examination of the influence of the Roman law powers of the father (patria potestas) and the state (parens patriae) on the development of the common law.39 Despite extensive legislative reforms beginning in the early nineteeth century, traces remain. They are most evident in family law and youth justice, as recent Supreme Court cases show. Understanding the nature and origin of long-standing legal doctrine illuminates the lego-social space of the contemporary child. The father’s power under Roman and common law was the same magisterial power accruing to all masters whether of courts, ships, colonies, prisons, reformatories, asylums, schools, workshops, or families. Magisterial power generally confers three legal rights: custody (of another’s body), control (over another’s actions, choices, and beliefs), and corporal punishment (punishment by battery which, when inflicted by a master is not a criminal assault). It once conferred on some masters the power of capital punishment, abolished as a paternal power by late Roman edict. Canadian reforms over the course of the twentieth century abolished the use of corporal punishment in all magisterial relationships, with two exceptions – the teacher–child relationship and the parent–child relationship. In the first decade of the present millennium, the Supreme Court of Canada heard cases addressing all three aspects of paternal power – custody, control, and corporal punishment. Custody is considered in three cases addressing the fiduciary standard of care required of parents. A fiduciary must act loyally in the best interests of the beneficiary because an imbalance of power is inherent in all relationships of trust, a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in Norberg (1992). The imbalance is most extreme where the beneficiary is a child. Indeed, children with property were the original subjects of parens patriae in the early English courts, inspiring a lucrative trade in guardianships. Children in protective custody now are in the guardianship of the state. The issue for the court in K.L.B. (2003) was whether the state can be held liable when foster parents abuse children in their care. (Its companion case, G.(E.D.) (2003), raised similar issues for a school board which hired a janitor who sexually assaulted a little girl for two years; the board was found to have no liability.) The court ruled that the state is not liable for abuse by foster parents because “government does not supervise or interfere” in fostering relationships except to remove children (para. 23). This is problematic. The government – both as legal guardian of foster children and under the terms of foster care agreements – has a continuing right of control which “clearly entails a

54

Anne McGillivray

right of control over foster parents’ activities,” as Justice Arbour noted in dissent (para. 79). The court considered the fiduciary standard of care for parents “as an analogy” to the standard expected of government (para. 47). Acting in the best interests of the child “is a laudable goal” but it “is larger than the concerns of trust and loyalty central to fiduciary law” and too broad to be justiciable. Parental fiduciary duty “does not include a broad and unspecified duty to act in the child’s best interests.” Its “unique focus” is breach of trust (para. 48). Trust is broken by parents placing their interests before the child’s, as in economic or sexual exploitation of the child (para. 49). The fiduciary duty of parents, then, is not to harm the child. By reducing the “best interests” standard of care to which all fiduciaries are held, to merely “interests,” the court set a markedly lower standard for children. Parens patriae embraces all children, making the courts an arbiter of family affairs and the state a default parent (c.f. Wellesley, 1827). It is not confined by legislation, as the court acknowledged in E. (Re Eve) (1986). Best interests remains the judicial standard in determining custody and the fiduciary standard in all relationships of trust – except for parents. The decision also makes it extremely difficult for children to sue the state for mistreatment in care. In a later ruling, Reference re Broome (2010) concerning state liability for “historical” abuse in a private orphanage, the court noted that parens patriae “is not usually considered to be a power of the executive branch” (which includes oversight) and “no authority has been presented for the proposition that the parens patriae doctrine imposes a positive duty to seek out and address cases of potential child abuse” (para. 50). These cases shift state fiduciary duty and liability from the child’s guardian – the state – to the systems to which the state entrusts children. Control is addressed in A.C. (2009), a case on the right of emancipated children in state custody to make medical decisions. The Supreme Court earlier abolished the pater potestas (parental) right of custody in P.(D.) (1993) and made custody a right of the child, a bold move consistent with the CrC and affirmed in Syl Apps (2007). A.C., aged fourteen, was judicially declared a mature minor, emancipated from adult control in making her own medical decisions. When she refused blood transfusion as a treatment for Crohn’s disease, she was apprehended. As a child in care, she was subject to a statutory regime that sets sixteen as the age of consent. The Supreme Court decided that the statutory provision trumped her judicial emancipation because it was in her best interests. The decision is incoherent, as Justice Binnie wrote in dissent. “How can the court impose a ‘best interests of the child’ test when the judge accepts that the factual basis for it [legal incapacity] does

Travels with Landon

55

not exist”? (para. 208). The views of the child, emancipated or not, are treated “merely as inputs into the assessment” (para. 163). This creates an irrebuttable presumption of incapacity, which denies A.C.’s personal autonomy for no valid state purpose. Child protection statutes defend “the ‘best interests’ of children who cannot look after themselves” and lack capacity to make medical decisions (para. 222). But A.C. did have that capacity. “The Charter is not just about the freedom to make what most members of society would regard as the wise and correct choice. If that were the case, the Charter would be superfluous.” Corporal punishment is addressed in Canadian Foundation (2004), a constitutional challenge to the common law defence of correction, section 43 of the Criminal Code, originating in Roman law and codified with other common law defences to assault in 1898. The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law argued that section 43 offends the child’s Charter rights to security of the person under section 7, freedom from cruel or unusual punishment or treatment under section 12, and equality under the law under section 15 under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”). By ignoring the fact that corporal punishment means the infliction of intentionally painful and inherently degrading battery and has meant this since its inception 1600 years ago 40 the court could define it as educative touch. The law, the court wrote, “responds to the reality of [children’s] lives by addressing their need for safety and security” (para. 51). The court prohibited teachers from using assault “merely as corporal punishment” (para. 40) but upheld its use by parents. When compared to putting a child in a car seat and confined to the strictures invented by the court  – not over twelve, not under two, not on the head, not with an object, not in anger, not degrading, and so on  – corporal punishment is reasonable, in children’s interests, and therefore not discriminatory. To establish unlawful discrimination, courts apply a subjective test: from the perspective of a reasonable, fully informed X, does this law marginalise Xs? The court refused to use it because “applied to a child claimant, this test may well confront us with the fiction of the reasonable, fully apprised preschool-aged child” (para. 53). This is no fiction. Even three-year-olds know that hitting is wrong. The decision attracted the most vigorous dissenting opinions of any case I have read. I can find no academic articles in support. First-year law texts quoted from it as exemplary of the abandonment of legal reasoning. If, as the court earlier ruled, the primary duty of parents is to refrain from harming the child (M.(K.) 1992 and K.L.B. 2003) – a barely minimal standard of care – then how can a law justifying a known and proven cause of harm to children violate no right of the child?

56

Anne McGillivray

In neither A.C. (2009) nor Canadian Foundation (2004) did the court turn to s. 1 of the Charter, which requires the state to justify its infringement of rights on the basis of a series of tests. In A.C. and Canadian Foundation, no rights violations were found, in the first because “best interests” trumped rights and in the second because assault as redefined by the court violated no right. The court did not convincingly engage with children’s rights. As Justice Binnie reminded the court in A.C. (2009, para. 192), children’s rights under the Charter are the rights “given to everyone.” Where the Charter is silent, the CrC serves as an interpretive aid and tiebreaker. The courts are expected to apply the Charter to children’s cases as they would “to everyone,” justifying limits on rights using the reasoned, fact-based process merited by all rights claims and adverting to the CrC for clarification. The process in these cases was at best incomplete. Either children’s rights are not real rights or the rules are different. Pater potestas and the welfare approach continue to stalk children’s rights-claims in the courts.41 Parental rights, the modern equivalent of paternal rights, were read down and their proprietary rights in the child were abolished in earlier Supreme Court decisions (New Brunswick 1988 para. 4, Young (1993), P.(D) (1993), B.(R.) (1995) 318). If parents have rights over children, then children can have no rights. The child has “the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents” under article 7, so it is unsurprising that the first substantive article of the CrC, article 5, requires that states “respect the rights of parents when determining the scope of the child’s exercise of rights.” But three CrC articles refer to the rights and duties of parents, nineteen articles defer to parents, and parents are mentioned thirty-six times. Adverting heavily to parental rights in a children’s rights convention works only if parental rights are understood not as rights over children but as rights correlative to the child’s rights. Parental rights are adjectival to the parent’s fiduciary duty. The central duty of parents under the CrC is to enable and guide children’s exercise of rights. To do so, parents need certain legal rights. The correlative rights of a fiduciary mirror the rights of the one cared for. There is a parental right of touch for purposes of nurture and protection, for example, because children have the right to be nurtured and protected, but there is no parental right of touch as punitive assault because children have the right to live free of violence. The primary right is the child’s. Education rights, discussed below, is the anomaly here. We know, as do the courts, that parents are not perfect. Lowering the fiduciary standard of care for children as the Supreme Court did in K.L.B. (2003) does nothing to resolve the dilemma of imperfection, if there is one.

Travels with Landon

57

STM IV 2010 “Child Rights in Education” – sectarian schooling “Sectarian Schooling and the Child’s Right to Information” investigates the problem of rights violations by religious schools and communities that bar media use, ban outsiders, offer deeply inadequate curricula, and, as in Bountiful BC, subject of the Polygamy Reference Case (2011), hide child exploitation from institutional oversight. This Cran paper inspired a major research project on denominational schooling, rights, and regulation.42 The exaggerated respect given to religious rights compared with other rights is not just a US judicial trend. It affects Canadian courts, legislatures, and governments resulting, among other things, in the weak to nonexistent regulation and inspection of part-funded separate and home schools. The problem was constitutionally locked in during Canada’s formation. The “Manitoba Schools Question,” litigated in 1892 and 1895 in the Privy Council of the House of Lords, restored Catholic education privileges that were in place in Manitoba at the time of its confederation in 1870 and later withdrawn. The “sunny ways” compromise of 1896 responded to the Privy Council rulings by returning Catholic religious instruction to public schools and later funding separate Catholic schools. In the Bill 30 Reference (1987), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that funding Catholic schools, a Privy Council constitutional imperative, did not entail funding other denominational (sectarian) schools. The case was appealed to the un Human Rights Committee. The committee ruled in Ariel Hollis Waldman (1999) that the Supreme Court decision violates article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976; ICCpr), stating that “if a state party chooses to provide public funding to religious schools, it should make this funding available without discrimination … based on reasonable and objective criteria.” All schools of any religious denomination in Canada must be funded because Catholic schools must be funded. Waldman requires that the state set “reasonable and objective criteria” for all denominational schools, but Canadian criteria are sparse. Partfunded schools offer partial curricula. Nonfunded schools operate much as they please. Not funding nonconforming schools is no answer to the violation of children’s rights to education, information, association, freedom of thought, and protection, among others. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948; uDHr) gives parents “a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” This means that the use and control of a personal right belonging to the child – the right to be educated – are given to the parent. Further, it gives parents control over the exercise

58

Anne McGillivray

of a duty in fact belonging to the state. Canadian John Humphrey, Drafting Committee secretary and author of the first, crucial draft of the uDHr, saw the problem unfold. He wrote in his diary, “I have always been more concerned with the rights of children than with those of the parents.”43 Article 18.4 of the ICCpr follows the uDHr in requiring that states respect “the liberty of parents … to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” The CrC recognizes the child’s right to an education under article 28. Article 14.1 guarantees the child’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, and belief, but article 14.2 requires that states respect “the rights and duties of parents to give direction to the child” – although article 5 amply provides for parental direction – and article 14.3 states that the child’s “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law.” Further, article 29.2 accords religious leaders control over children’s education. In matters of education, then, children appear to have no right to their rights. Many denominational schools are registered as home schools or are otherwise off the regular school inspection radar. Education requirements for partial- and nonfunded schools are all but nonexistent. Corporations selling religious curricula are billion dollar businesses but their curricula are deeply inadequate in terms of the content required under CrC article 29. Home-schooling websites accessed during the research project offered legal defence services to parents, using wording suggestive of severe corporal punishment and neglect (“when social workers come knocking at your door”). Education administrators interviewed for this project expressed deep frustration over the lack of resources and political will to stand up for the children whose education rights are ignored. Bountiful BC is not alone in its violation of children’s rights. STM V 2011 “Youth Justice” Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJa) amendments enacted by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the theme of youth justice highly topical. The Cran paper “Accountable Children: Rights, Vulnerabilities and the Carceral Archipelago” references Foucault’s metaphor for a child’s progression from protective custody to the reformatory to the prison.44 Statistics cited in the 2009 BC child advocate’s report prove the aptness of the metaphor.45 Locking up children, like protective apprehension, must be a last resort. Roman and early common law set the age of criminal accountability at seven. Children under seven were presumed incapable of malice (doli

Travels with Landon

59

incapax). The criminal capacity of children between seven and puberty could be rebutted. Puberty was established in early common law by examining the child’s body for pubic hair and, later, by the test set for mental capacity (below). Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908) adopted by every province, the juvenile delinquent was to be treated “as a misdirected and misguided child.” The act set the age of accountability at seven but the age of full criminal capacity, set by the provinces, varied widely. The child’s body was again examined, this time for signs of disorder – eneuresis, nonintact hymen, venereal disease, bruises, parasites. The body was better heard than the child, who had no right to legal counsel or appeal. The federal Young Offenders Act (1984), valiant but doomed, gave children full legal rights and raised the age of accountability to twelve. In 2002, it was replaced by the tough-on-crime but better nuanced Youth Criminal Justice Act. Under the YCJa, a youth court may impose custodial sentences for violent offences. In C.D. (2005), a youth was convicted of arson. In C.D.K. (2005), a youth was convicted of dangerous driving. Neither case resulted in personal injury. Both youth received custodial sentences. The Supreme Court defined a violent offence for the purposes of the YCJa as one which actually causes or threatens bodily harm. The court cited CrC article 37(b) but relied on a “best interests” test which stressed diminished responsibility and developmental needs, hardly the stuff of rights. In D.B. (2008), the court explained that Canada has “a separate legal and sentencing regime for young people” because youth “have heightened vulnerability, less maturity and a reduced capacity for moral judgement” – again, not quite rights. Citing CrC article 40, the court ruled that the presumption of children’s diminished moral culpability is a principle of fundamental justice protected under s. 7 of the Charter. Four years after D.B. (2008), the Harper government Justice Minister Vic Toews enacted Bill C-10 (2012), which required that courts consider adult sentences in every youth case. This ignores the facts of child development, the realities of crime prevention, the effectiveness of alternative measures, and the presumption of reduced capacity established by D.B. (2008). The premise that harsh treatment reduces crime finds no support in academic literature or from anyone working with criminally involved youth. Youth are vulnerable to stigmatizing messages. Harsh measures bring anger and distrust, weakening respect for rights and law. For Indigenous children, apprehended by the state in numbers far exceeding the Canadian norm, the carceral archipelago is a grim reality. The bill was opposed by every expert consulting group in Canada on grounds of its uselessness and its violation of children’s rights.

60

Anne McGillivray

The death of Ashley Smith by self-strangulation while incarcerated and under watch was ruled a homicide at inquest. She was “not a victim,” said Justice Minister Vic Toews. The government refused to repatriate Omar Khadr, sent to Guantanamo Bay at age fifteen. He was not a child but a “convicted murderer” and “terrorist,” said Minister Toews. The minister’s 2006 proposal to reduce the age of criminal responsibility from twelve to ten found no support – Heather Perkins-McVey for the Canadian Bar Association said, “Does he want the death penalty for them, too?”46 – but these developments show the extent to which we tolerate discrimination against children. Given that the principle of lesser accountability for youth regardless of the offence committed is at least a thousand years old (and, unlike corporal punishment, does no harm to the child) and that juvenile offending is in steep decline, the conclusion that a Canadian government used children to score cheap political points is inescapable. Using children as scapegoats for social problems they neither cause nor control is an old standby of demagoguery and right-wing politics. Childhood has for too long been a touchstone of moral panic. STM VI 2012 “Mental Health” The children attending StM VI were worryingly familiar with mental disorder, refreshingly frank in talking about it, and mature and informed in their suggestions for destigmatizing difference and improving response. “Madness is childhood,” the title of my Cran paper, is taken from Foucault.47 While he means the infantilising of psychiatric inmates, the phrase captures the old view of childhood as mental disorder. Canada’s early criminal codes followed Roman and common law in classifying children with the mentally disordered, tested for legal capacity by their ability to appreciate the nature and quality of the act and to know that it was wrong.48 The rising influence of the psy sciences gave mental disorder a new visibility. The ordinary madness of childhood  – mood swings, boundary testing, adolescent angst – still masks detection. Children are evolved to be different from adults and so they are, for a very long time. “Human children are the most voracious learners planet Earth has ever seen, and they are that way because their brains are still rapidly developing after birth.”49 Compared with other species, we are born premature. Prematurity extends childhood and ensures that this time is spent “developing not inside the safety of the womb but outside in the wide, convoluted, and unpredictable world.” Nowhere are identity and conformity more urgently interrogated and boundaries

Travels with Landon

61

more stringently tested than in childhood. “What is normal?” asked a child at the StM VI session. “No one is normal, normal is a word that was made for the rest of us to try and reach unreachable standards and judge others on what they are or are not.” Yet the judgment of others matters intensely to children. As a species, we are intensely social. To fear abnormality is to fear alienation and rejection. Adolescence blurs the line between fears of being fat or ugly or uncool and the selfhatred and dysmorphism of clinical depression. Photos of self-inflicted injuries are posted on Facebook, suicide is provoked by online shaming, and exposure to media images of impossible beauty and unattainable possessions exacerbates insecurity. Social media are associated with a steep rise in children’s self-harm. Hospital admissions of adolescents who cut, burn, and bruise themselves increased up to five times across Canada in the past decade.50 “They’re presenting to emergency departments, hopeless.” Many meet no mental disorder criteria. “Instead, they seem to be suffering an existential crisis … ‘I’m empty, I don’t know who I am, I don’t know where I’m going.’” Emotional disorders among uK girls fourteen to nineteen have risen steeply, admissions for self harm have “massively” increased, and violence among boys has spiked.51 The child’s brain is “designed for a young person to be socialised and supported in their development by an older person” but child–adult contact time is displaced by time spent on social media. The primary socialising agent for children is now other children. Almost one in four Canadian children experience significant mental health issues.52 Half arise before age fourteen and most are detectable before age twenty-four. Most children with mental disorders receive no treatment. Canada’s high, sustained child suicide rate attracted the concern of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which asked Canada to strengthen early detection and intervention strategies and provide access to counselling and social work support in all schools.53 The media revolution in children’s lives is part of the corporatization of childhood, discussed below. The loss of myth, of stories with deep resonance for children, to corporate-sponsored drivel, the loss of time spent on creative play to social media, the loss of scary fairy-tales which let children experience secondhand the resolution of fears felt firsthand – all weaken children’s sense of self and ability to cope. Children’s rights are fully embodied. Their violation damages delicate neurological and physiological networks, slows intellectual, emotional and physical growth and functioning, and intensifies the impact of disorders arising from prior causes. Respecting children’s rights to be heard, to live free of violence and exploitation, and to

62

Anne McGillivray

be raised and educated in rights-respecting environments, is essential to mental health. Otherwise, the madness of childhood slides into madness. STM VI 2013 “The Right to Play” – past futures of children’s rights The right to play established by the CrC is unique to childhood. Whether play mimics adult work – dressing dolls, playing house, building boats, shooting arrows – or assists adult work or takes arcane forms in games and songs, artefacts survive which suggest play is as old as we are. Play is an example of what I have called a protoright. This inspired the question: what other rights of children have protoright equivalents? My Cran paper “Play: A Right Under Threat” was a forerunner to “The Long Awaited: Past Futures of Children’s Rights.”54 Here I consider imagined futures – utopias like Comenius’s Pansophia where children are more precious than gems, dystopias like Thomas More’s Utopia where childhood is grimly regimented and children are fungible; children’s imagined futures, utopic and dystopic; and H.G. Wells’s futurist fiction which inspired his Rights of Man (1940) which in turn informed the drafting of the uDHr. I explore protorights century by century. “If rights are not (just) products of covenants and courts but are rooted in respect and relationship, then children’s rights are visible before history began,” I suggest.55 “They may be traced in the social practices of other species, innate in human infants, prehistoric art and burial practices, folk tales with cross-cultural resonance, and tales and mythologies with deep cultural resonance. The trajectory of rights across history is a slowly widening arc embracing more children, encompassing more circumstances, conferring more rights, and becoming more deeply embedded in law, policy, and the polity.” “The Long Awaited” is both hope and warning. “Children are so much the vehicles of adult desire that utopias have consumed them. Children were massacred under Hitler to preserve the racial purity of other children and murdered by their parents to protect the transcendent vision of Jonestown … Utopian projects for the reconstruction of childhood failed miserably. They failed because they were not really about children and they failed for lack of imagination.”56 If rights arose long before formal declarations “out of a fundamental sense of fairness most keenly felt by children,” then it is by how we treat children now that we are judged in whatever future awaits.

Travels with Landon

63

STM VII, VIII 2014–15 “Child Exploitation” – consuming childhood “Consuming Childhood: Corporate Exploitation and Children’s Rights” draws on my work on the corporatization of childhood.57 It takes inspiration from the sheer immensity and virtual invisibility of the commercial exploitation of children and from Landon Pearson’s commitment to the child’s right to be heard in all matters affecting the child. If childhood is a dual state of being and transformation, then it is sustained by myth, those child-resonant stories which constitute the jurisprudence of childhood.58 The resources taken from children by corporate entities  – playtime and creativity, nutritious food, trillions of dollars, the delicate development of the sense of self – are replaced with ad-myth and dumbed-down child-safe innocence-guaranteed story snips swiped from copyright-free myth. A new new childhood is fast replacing the new childhood of the eighteenth century, which saw the centering of the child in portraiture and sentiment. The corporate child is consuming and brand loyal, governed not by the family or the state or the normalizing regimes of the psy sciences but by corporate self-interest. The exploitation of children’s trust, credulity, and creativity for economic gain is deeply offensive to children and their rights. Hearing children in the boardroom is, so far, not a go. There may be hope. StM and Cran are in part funded by the Muttart Foundation. At the 2017 Cran meeting, a foundation member told me he had given copies of “Consuming Childhood” to the board with the observation, “There are other ways of doing business.” STM X 2017 “Children’s Rights and Climate Change” – climate security No explicit right to climate security appears in the CrC or any other rights treaty, nor is it found in law. “The first difficulty is in identifying whether environment or climate change-related human rights even exist under international law  … A second obstacle is determining whether climate change violates human rights rather than simply undermining the realization of rights.”59 In 1979, the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child, chaired by Landon Pearson, issued its report. It is prescient. “In recognition of the environmental deterioration that has taken place since the Declaration of the Rights of the Child,” the commission called on Canada “to campaign for its inclusion by the United Nations” in what would become the CrC.60 But

64

Anne McGillivray

the closest the CrC comes is article 24 on environmental pollution and article 29 on teaching respect for the natural environment. Thirty years later, we learned that oil companies spent billions of dollars telling us that there is no global warming. Now Canada’s rate of warming is over twice that of the rest of the world, oceans are heating up, Australia is on fire, and the Arctic is melting. In her preface to StM X “Environment and Climate Change Through a Child Rights Lens,” Pearson writes, “Climate change may well be the greatest threat to children’s rights that currently exists  … we badly need the energy and creativity of children and youth and to channel that energy we first of all need to hear what they have to say.” Climate rights were not included in the CrC because “global warming was only beginning to be taken seriously … but it is quite clear that all the rights it does set out are impacted by what is now happening.”61 My Cran paper “The Child’s Right to Climate Security” begins with arch-climate-denier Donald Trump’s inaugural speech “American Carnage” which depicts the near-future uSa as a rusted out dystopia, preventable only by America-first deregulated corporations. The article it inspired, “Tales of the Apocalypse,” was written for the twenty-fifth anniversary edition of the International Journal of Children’s Rights, conceived in Jerusalem in December 1990 just weeks after the Temple Mount intifada, and in publication three years later. “Tales” begins: “All rights of children equate with one right – the right to a biosphere which sustains them. If the sins of the fathers were ever visited upon the children, its now.”62 It is an “outlier in the collection,” the editor writes, but in his introduction to the book which includes the essay, he notes that “without a biosphere, which sustains them, all the other rights we confer on children are of no value.” Even here, mine remains “one of the more controversial chapters.”63 Controversial or not, it is widely recognized that “There is not a single right whose enjoyment is not directly or indirectly affecting by climate change.”64 “Tales” surveys dystopian fiction and its newest subgenre, climate fiction. By fetishizing climate disaster, crisis becomes spectacle. Spectacle makes us spectators. Climate inaction has been explained by fear-fatigue, climate as hyperobject, pretraumatic stress disorder, and ecosickness. I pose the central question for children’s rights, the answer to which is, for now, no: do we have a legal duty to people who do not yet exist? Rights accrue with birth. How can law bridge the intergeneration gap separating us from those not yet conceived? Rights form webs of respect and reciprocity.65 For Emund Burke, Thomas Spence’s contemporary, the rights-web is a partnership between “those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be

Travels with Landon

65

born.”66 Modern equivalents  – intergenerational equity as fair trade; intergenerational climate equity grounded in the subtext of the CrC; hearing children, which vests in the hearer a duty of care to respect their right to a viable earth; the state’s duty to protect natural resources in the public trust, now being tested in Juliana 67 – seek to ground a moral duty in a legal duty to act. “Dating back to Roman law, [the public trust] doctrine stands as a pillar of ordered civilization to compel sovereign stewardship of crucial natural wealth. It characterizes the ecological endowment as a trust for present and future generations of citizens. Government … must act as a fiduciary.”68 Whether the public trust doctrine applies this broadly is moot. Roman law and judicial precedent do “not make the case for expanded application of the public trust doctrine.” Advocates must either “search for constitutional sources for the doctrine, or … make the case for judicial law making beyond the traditional judicial role of legal interpretation.”69 Moral duty plus the incipient end of the world should be enough. Moral duty “is easier to invoke,” Edward Cameron suggests.70 In this view, human rights are “a source for public and social recognition, agitation and appraisal” as well as “expressions of values and beliefs.” Human rights advocacy is authoritative, offering “moral and ethical arguments for action” and the opportunity “to shape analysis, process, instrument design and substantive outcomes for vulnerable populations.” Thomas Spence understood the commons as a shared stewardship of all land to the equal benefit of every human being. He named the right of infants to the nurture that flows through their mothers from the land itself. The land, writ large, is climate. We stand on the edge of the end of the world. Half of all species will be gone in our lifetime. Flooding, desertification, massive storms, and environmental poisoning now cause hunger and disease, wars, forced migration, slavery of all forms, sex trafficking, and, always, the severe disruption of daily life. The most deeply affected are children. A child immigrant explained at the StM climate session: “War of Syria is affected by climate change [which is causing] lack of food and habitat. What do you do if you see garbage on the ground? First you have to deal with the dead bodies on the ground.” The future will be much worse. The need for corporations and governments to hear children and respect their rights is urgent. Without action at this level, we have little hope of leaving children anything worth having. Why are we dragging our feet? Is money the problem? Corporate investors and shareholders pushed for an audit of the cost of climate change to business. For 215 of the world’s 500 biggest corporations in 2018, losses of $1 trillion in

66

Anne McGillivray

near-future climate-related events are projected, but 225 corporations anticipated $2.1 trillion in new business opportunities.71 “Taxing dirty industries, ensuring that capital pays at least as high a tax rate as those who work for a living, and closing tax loopholes would provide trillions of dollars to the government over the next 10 years, money that could be spent on fighting the climate emergency,” Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz observes.72 Just as WWII mobilization transformed US society from a rural agrarian economy to an urban manufacturing economy generating new wealth and new workers, so will “the innovative and green economy of the 21st century”. On 4 June 2019, after gamesmanship and delay by the respondent federal government, Juliana was at last heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.73 Viewed as an anomaly by lawyers and legal academics, the case was “made an outlier by the repetitive, emergency petitions filed to squash it.” This is a far-right strategy used to stall litigation on such issues as immigration, the Daca children, and the transgender military ban. Juliana is not alone. Hundreds of cases claiming the right to a secure climate have been launched in at least fifteen nations, most by children. Canada’s first case, a class action lawsuit against Canada on behalf of Quebecers thirty-five and under, was brought by Environnement Jeunesse on 6 June 2019. They argue that climate inaction deprives young people of the right to a healthy environment, violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security of the person, and equality. They seek a determination that Canada has failed to take steps to limit global warming to under 1.5°C, together with damages of $340 million ($100 each) to be used to fight climate change.74 Canada’s second case was launched in the BC courts by fifteen children and youth from across Canada on 25 October 2019. They argue that Canada has known for decades that climate change disproportionately harms children. By failing to control carbon emission, Canada infringed on children’s constitutional rights to equality and to life, liberty, and security of the person.75 From Somali youth delegate Marian Hussein Osman’s accusation of political stalling on the climate crisis in 201376 to the proliferation of child-led climate cases, to then sixteen-year-old Greta Thunberg’s Davos challenge, children across the world are taking the lead in saving the world. “Other adults keep saying, ‘We owe it to the young people to give them hope,’” Thunberg told Davos.77 “But we don’t want your hope. We don’t want you to be hopeful. We want you to panic and we want you to take action.” On 15 March 2019, some 1.4 million children in 112 nations walked out of school to demand action.78 Thunberg told Davos in 2020, “The world of finance has a responsibility to the planet, the

Travels with Landon

67

people and all other species living on it … But history has not shown the corporate world’s willingness to hold themselves accountable. So it falls on us, the children, to do that. We call upon the world’s leaders to stop investing in the fossil fuel economy that is at the very heart of this planetary crisis  … Today’s business as usual is turning into a crime against humanity.”79 As thirty-three global banks put $1.9tn into fossil fuels since the 2015 Paris Agreement, there can be no doubt, as Thunberg said, “Young people are being let down by older generations and those in power.” This is the child’s right to be heard exercised on an unprecedented world scale. It is the biggest children’s rights moment the world has seen. It is the smallest Who in Who-ville shouting into the elephant’s ear.80 When will the elephant hear?

ConCLuDIng reMarKS If Thunberg recalls the passionately logical Thomas Spence, then the conservative evangelical Hannah More is harbinger to the stolid rights- and climate-denier Donald Trump. Hearing children – if not in corporate boardrooms, then at Davos; if not in government offices and legislatures, then at their doors – is a step. Taking what children say seriously is another step. Children leading adults is strange for them and for us. As corporations, governments, nations, and citizens, we need to join them. There is a further step to be taken. To see rights not as rewards for autonomy but as markers of relationship erases perceived disjunction between children’s rights and adults’ rights and harmonizes fiduciary duties with the child’s developing powers. Rights no longer stand as emblems of autonomy. They become nodes in networks of relationships of trust. Independent of autonomy, they set the conditions in which autonomy can flourish. Children’s rights inspire new defenders, new alliances, and new approaches in every era. In the era spanning the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the 1979 International Year of the Child, the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and, less happily, the world’s awakening to the climate crisis, Landon Pearson has remained a steadfast, inventive, collaborative, and loving defender of children and their rights.

68

Anne McGillivray

CaSeS CIteD A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services) 2009 SCC 30 B.(R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315 Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76 D.B.S. v. S.R.G. ; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231 E. (Mrs.) v. Eve [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388 G.(E.D.) v. Hammer, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 459 Juliana v. United States. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 4 June 2019, judgment pending K.L.B. v. British Columbia, [2003] S.C.R. 403 M.(K.) v. M.(H.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. C. (G. C.), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1073 Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226 P.(D.) v. S.(C.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141 R. v. C.D., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 668, 2005 SCC 78 R. v. C.D.K., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 668, 2005 SCC 78 R. v. D.B., [2008] S.C.J. No. 25, 2008 SCC 25 Reference re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148 Reference re Broome v. Prince Edward Island, [2010] SCC 11 Reference re Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, [2011] BCSC 1588 Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83 Ariel Hollis Waldman v. Canada, ICCpr/C/67/D/694/1996, Human Rights Committee, 67th Session, 18 October to 5 November 1999 Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 Wellesley v. Duke of Beaufort, [1827] 38 er 236

noteS 1 Spence, Thomas, The Rights of Infants (London: T. Spence, 1796). 2 Hannah More, Strictures on the Modern System of Female Education With a View of the Principles and Conduct Prevalent among Women of Rank and Fortune. Third American edition, with considerable additions (Boston: J. Bumstead, 1802), 84. Emphasis in original. Fewer flourishes decorate this comment in the first edition (London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1799), vol. 1, 144. 3 Landon Pearson, “Children’s Rights.” Children’s Rights Academic Network 2nd Annual Meeting, Children’s Rights in Education. Carleton University, 21 November 2009, 3.

Travels with Landon

69

4 William Blackstone, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 1765–70. 5 Anne McGillivray, “Why Children Do Have Equal Rights: In Reply to Laura Purdy,” 2 International Journal of Children’s Rights (1994): 242–58. 6 Anne McGillivray, “Childhood in the Shadow of Parens Patriae” in Multiple Lenses, Multiple Images: Perspectives on the Child Across Time, Space and Discipline, eds. Hillel Goelman et al., (University of Toronto Press, 2004), 38–72, 41 and see StM III 2009, below. 7 Anne McGillivray, “Children’s Rights, Paternal Power and Fiduciary Duty: From Roman law to the Supreme Court of Canada,” International Journal of Children’s Rights 19 (2011): 21–54, 28. 8 Thomas Spence, “Infants”, n1. 9 Thomas Spence, “Sources,” Thomas Spence Society, last visited 30 January 2020. http://www.thomas-spence-society.co.uk/. 10 In his utopic The History of Crusonia, Spence also called for universal access to higher learning. “Sources,” n9. 11 Ibid. 12 Thomas Spence, Description of Spensonia. Constitution of Spensonia (London: n.p., 1795). In his The Story of Utopias (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1922) ch. 7, Lewis Mumford credits Spence with the inventing first utopia to apply democratic principles. 13 Susan Pedersen, “Hannah More Meets Simple Simon: Tracts, Chapbooks, and Popular Culture in Late Eighteenth-Century England,” Journal of British Studies 25 (1986): 84–113, 87. 14 Julia Saunders, “Putting the Reader Right: Reassessing Hannah More’s Cheap Repository Tracts,” Romanticism on the Net, “Romanticism and its Others” 16 (1999): para. 8, online. 15 Ibid., n14, para. 10. 16 Thomas Spence, The End of Oppression; or, a Quartern Loaf for Two-Pence … Concerning the Establishment of the Rights of Man (London: T. Spence, 1795). Spence titled later editions The Rights of Man. Malcolm Chase, “‘The Real Rights of Man’: Thomas Spence, Paine and Chartism,” Thomas Spence and his Legacy: Bicentennial Perspectives 13 (2016): para. 4 online. 17 Anne Stott, Hannah More: the First Victorian, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). 18 Pedersen, “Hannah More,” n13, 88. 19 Ibid., n13, 97. 20 More, Strictures, n2, 39. 21 More was an avowed and vocal antifeminist (Stott, “Victorian,” n17). 22 Pedersen, “Hannah More,” n13, 109. 23 Stott, “Victorian,” n17. 24 Anne McGillivray, “Parens Patriae,” n6.

70

Anne McGillivray

25 Spence and More were well aware of one another’s work. Edmond Downey, “Thomas Spence: Literary Networks and Connections,” Miranda 13 (2016): para. 21 online. 26 In 2018, the world’s richest 2,200 billionaires saw a 12 per cent increase in their wealth, the poorer half of the world saw an 11 per cent drop, and three US billionaires held more wealth than the poorer half of the country. Lauren Aratani, “Six People Who Prove Capitalism is Broken in America,” The Guardian Online, 2 May 2019. 27 Meagan Campbell, “‘I Got My First Regular Cheque at the Age of 64.’ Landon Pearson Became the Senator for Children,” Macleans, 29 June 2014. 28 Anthony Depalmajan, “A Top Canadian Visits Cuba, Nettling Washington,” New York Times, 23 January 1997. 29 Evan H. Potter, “Canada and Helms-Burton: Perils of Coalition-Building,” in Canada, the US and Cuba: Helms-Burton and its Aftermath, ed. Heather N. Nicol (Kingston on: Queen’s University Centre for International Relations, 1999), 77–92, at 84. 30 Depalmajan, “A Top Canadian,” n28. 31 Potter, “Canada and Helms-Burton” n29, 89. 32 Julian Borger, “Donald Trump to Announce New Restrictions on Cuba Trade and Travel,” The Guardian Online, 16 June 2017; Agencies, “Cuba Forced Into Rationing as US Sanctions and Venezuela Crisis Bite,” The Guardian Online, 11 May 2019. 33 Anne McGillivray, Pearson Cuba letter, 17 November 2000, on file with the author. 34 Anne McGillivray, “Report to the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights. The History of Children’s Rights with Regard to Canada’s Obligations Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” September 2005. 35 Canada. Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights. Children: the Silenced Citizens. Effective Implementation of Canada’s International Obligations with Respect to the Rights of Children. Final Report (Ottawa: The Committee, 2007) ix–x. 36 Ibid., n35. 37 Canada. Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights. Raynell Andreychuk, “Preface,” in Who’s in Charge Here? Effective Implementation of Canada’s Obligations in Regards to the Rights and Freedoms of Children: Interim Report (Ottawa: The Committee, 2006). 38 Cran reports are accessible at www.carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre under respective tabs. 39 McGillivray, “Children’s Rights,” n7; “Parens Patriae,” n6. 40 Anne McGillivray, “‘He’ll Learn it on His Body’: Disciplining Childhood in Canadian Law,” in Children’s Rights: Progress and Perspectives: Essays From the International Journal of Children’s Rights, ed. Michael Freeman (Leiden:

Travels with Landon

41 42

43

44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

53

71

Brill Nijhoff, 1997), 311–65; “Nowhere to Stand: Correction by Force in the Supreme Court of Canada,” in Children and the Law: Essays in Honour of Professor Nicholas Bala, ed. Sanjeev Anand (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011), 57–76; “Child Corporal Punishment: Violence, Rights and Law” (with Joan E. Durrant), in Cruel But Not Unusual: Violence in Canadian Families, eds. Ramona Alaggia and Cathy Vine (Waterloo on: Wilfred Laurier Press, 2012, 3rd ed. revised forthcoming 2020), 91–118; “Canada: The Rocky Road of Repeal” (with Cheryl Milne), in Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights, eds. Joan Durrant and Anne Smith (New York, nY: Routledge, 2011), 98–111. Anne McGillivray, “Children’s Rights,” n7, 50. The research draws on documents, including interviews, prepared for the hearing. The research is not published. “This is an essay on children’s rights,” my working notes state. “It is not an essay on the value of religious belief. It is an exploration of children’s rights in matters involving religion and education and an invitation to reconsider the boundaries of harm done to children in the manifestation of the beliefs of others.” A.J. Hobbins, On the Edge of Greatness: The Diaries of John Humphrey, First Director of the United Nations Human Rights Division (Montreal: McGill University Libraries, 1994), volume I, 81. Diary entry for 20 November 1948. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Pantheon, 1973). British Columbia. Representative for Children and Youth; Office of the Provincial Health Officer. Joint Special Report. Kids, Crime and Care – Health and Well-Being of Children in Care: Youth Justice Experiences and Outcomes, 23 February 2009. Executive Summary. “Take 10-year-olds to Court,” Ottawa Citizen, 15 August 2006, online. Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (New York: Vintage, 1988), 252. McGillivray, “Parens Patriae,” n6. Chip Walter, “Why Are We The Last Apes Standing?” Slate 20 January 2013, online. “Canadian Hospitals Stretched as Self-Harming Teens Seek Help,” CbC News 15 March 2014, online. Jamie Doward and Sam Hall, “Technology Cuts Children Off From Adults, Warns Expert,” The Guardian Online, 27 April 2019. Mental Health Commission of Canada School-Based Mental Health and Substance Abuse Consortium, School-Based Mental Health in Canada: A Final Report, September 2013, 1, online. un Committee on the Rights of the Child (CrC), un Committee on the Rights of the Child. Concluding Observations – Canada, 5 October 2012 (CRC/C/CAN/3–4).

72

Anne McGillivray

54 Anne McGillivray, “The Long Awaited: Past Futures of Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Children’s Rights 21 (2013): 209–32; Michael Freeman, ed., The Future of Children’s Rights (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015), 82–105. 55 McGillivray, “The Long Awaited” n54, 217. 56 Ibid., 227. 57 Anne McGillivray, “Corporate Interests versus Children’s Rights,” in Corporate Rights versus Children’s Interests (Green College, University of British Columbia, 19–20 October, 2012). Also see “Horton Hears a Twerp: Myth, Law and Children’s Rights in Horton Hears a Who!,” New York Law School Law Review 58 (2013–14): 597–629; “‘A Child’s Mind as a Blank Book’: Myth, Childhood and the Corporation,” in Law in Society: Reflections on Children, Family, Culture and Philosophy – Essays in Honour of Michael Freeman, eds. Alison Diduck et al (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2014); and “The Long Awaited” n54. 58 Anne McGillivray, “‘A State of Imperfect Transformation’: Law, Myth and the Feminine in Outside Over There, Labyrinth and Pan’s Labyrinth” in Law and Childhood Studies, ed. Michael Freeman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Desmond Manderson, “From Hunger to Love: Myths of the Source, Interpretation, and Constitution of Law in Children’s Literature,” Law and Literature 15 (2003): 87–141. 59 Edward Cameron, “Development, Climate Change and Human Rights: From the Margins to the Mainstream?” Washington: The World Bank, 2011. Social Development Working Papers 123, 3 online. 60 Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child. For Canada’s Children: National Agenda for Action. Report (Ottawa: The Commission, 1979) 84; Landon Pearson, “Introduction,” 9–10. 61 Landon Pearson, Preface, “Shaking the Movers X: Youth Rights and the Environment,” Landon Pearson Resource Centre, Carleton University, 2016. 62 Anne McGillivray, “Tales of the Apocalypse: The Child’s Right to a Secure Climate,” International Journal of Children’s Rights 25 (2017): 553–68. “The gods visit the sins of the fathers upon the children” is taken from Euripides (c.485–406 BC, Phrixus, Fragment 970). 63 Michael Freeman, ed., Children’s Rights: New Issues, New Themes, New Perspectives (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2018), 1 and 5 respectively. (Disclosure: Professor Freeman is a loved and respected friend, ally, and mentor and I serve on the journal’s board.) 64 Susana Sanz-Caballero, “Children’s Rights in a Changing Climate: A Perspective on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 13 (2013): 1–14, 1. 65 McGillivray, “Why Children Do Have Equal Rights”, n5.

Travels with Landon

73

66 Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France [1790] in Reflections on the French Revolution & Other Essays, Edmund Burke (London: J.M. Dent, 1910), 92. 67 Mary Christina Wood, Nature’s Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) p. xviii. 68 Cameron, “Development, Climate Change,” n59. 69 James L. Huffman, “Speaking of Inconvenient Truths: A history of the Public Trust Doctrine,” Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 18 (2007): 1–103, 103. 70 Cameron, “Development, Climate Change,” n59. 71 Brad Plumer, “Companies See Climate Change Hitting Their Bottom Lines in the Next 5 Years,” New York Times, 4 June 2019, online. 72 Joseph Stiglitz, “The Climate Crisis is Our Third World War. It Needs a Bold Response,” The Guardian Online, 4 June 2019. 73 Lee van der Voo, “Teen Activists Face US Government in Crucial Hearing Over Climate Trial,” The Guardian Online, 4 June 2019. 74 Canadian Press, “Young Quebecers Take Ottawa to Court in Class Action Over Climate Change,” 6 June 2019, online. 75 Rhianna Schmunk, “Young Canadians File Lawsuit Against Government Over Climate Change,” CbC News, 25 October 2019, online. 76 Delegate to the 2013 un Joint Framework on Children, Youth and Climate Change, Warsaw Plenary, qtd. in Elizabeth D. Gibbons, “Climate Change, Children’s Rights, and the Pursuit of Intergenerational Climate Justice,” Journal of Health and Human Rights 16 (2014): 19–31, 23. 77 Greta Thunberg, “‘Our House is on Fire’: Greta Thunberg, 16, Urges Leaders to Act on Climate” The Guardian Online, 25 January 2019. 78 Ilana Cohen and Jacob Heberle. “Youth Demand Climate Action in Global School Strike,” Harvard Political Review, 19 March 2019, online. 79 Greta Thunberg and other children, “At Davos We Will Tell World Leaders to Abandon the Fossil Fuel Economy,” The Guardian Online, 10 January 2020. 80 Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who! (New York: Random House, 1954) and see McGillivray, “Horton,” n57.

4

Is it genocide? The danger of saying “no” too quickly

CInDY BLaCKStoCK

On 3 June 2019 the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls1 released its final report documenting the disproportionate numbers of Indigenous women and girls who go missing and are murdered in Canada and proposing solutions to redress some of the causes. After a detailed review of Canada’s historical and contemporary colonial conduct, the inquiry concluded that it met the definition of genocide as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The rebukes by prominent Canadians familiar with genocide such as Roméo Dallaire and Irwin Cotler,2 academics,3 and mainstream media4 were quick and definitive and became even more pronounced when the Organization of American States offered to convene an expert panel to investigate the claim. The genocide deniers acknowledged the injustices and even horrors faced by First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples in Canada but relied on four primary arguments to buttress their claims: 1) in the absence of a clear proclamation of intent, it was not genocide; 2) the MMIwg on its own was not genocide; 3) citing genocide as mass deaths within a discrete period of time (such as the Holocaust or Rwandan genocide); and 4) citing the harmful effects such a proclamation could have on Canada’s reputation and its moral currency to critique “real” genocides around the world. I read their critiques with interest and then quickly started wondering what factual basis did they, as journalists and academics, rely on to base their denials? Rarely did they feel compelled to offer much evidence let alone refute the evidence that supported the basis for the MMIwg finding.

The danger of saying “no” too quickly

75

Even respected people like Roméo Dallaire did not seem to reflect deeply on the dangers of limiting the definition of genocide despite former US President Bill Clinton saying Rwanda was engaged in “acts of genocide” not “genocide” at the time that thousands of its citizens were being killed. He later apologized and acknowledged that the complicity of the international community forestalled the opportunity to prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents.5 Others seem to cling to the belief that only horrid acts backed by clear statements of intent are genocide; often offering up the Holocaust as an example of a “real” genocide. It made me wonder how many of them had read the works of Raoul Hilberg,6 a distinguished scholar of the Holocaust, who notes that he found no clear direction from Hitler for the mass killing of the Jews; rather, he oversaw the creation of a societal climate where the horrid “Final Solution” was an inevitable outcome. I wondered if the MMIwg genocide deniers reflected on the phrase of the Final Solution in their attempts to differentiate what happened to Indigenous peoples from the millions killed by the Nazis. In April of 1910, Duncan Campbell Scott, the top Canadian bureaucrat on the residential school file, wrote: It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habituating so closely in these [residential] schools, and that they die at much higher rates than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared toward the final solution of the Indian problem.7 The media, academics, and experts are often cast as the protectors of the truth and yet in the case of MMIwg they shed their professional instinct to defend the identity of what Canada is in their minds and to distance the nation from the clearly despicable acts taken in other parts of the world. I had seen this before. Most clearly in the 1980s when Canadian experts and media rightly pounced on the apartheid regime in South Africa, fertilizing the public with demands for the Canadian government to join the international community in repudiating and sanctioning the racist system of rule. Setting aside the fact that Canada was an early and dedicated supporter of apartheid, it was interesting to see the fervent enthusiasm of their protest and their corresponding silence on Canada’s Indian Act, residential schools, and the lackadaisical response to the death of Helen Betty Osborne8 and other missing and murdered Indigenous women.

76

Cindy Blackstock

Colonialism is emboldened by the certainty with which society’s knowledge keepers and shapers call out evildoers abroad while protecting the home front from any such allegations. They offer such opinions eagerly and often without rigour despite their training to investigate and analyze. They become the antidote to public reflection and engagement on what type of society Canada has been and what type of society Canada should be. In response to the quick denials on MMIwg, I launched a public learning series on social media called “is it genocide?” The series begins with a 2018 article on how the “great dying” of approximately 65 million Indigenous peoples in the Americas can now be linked to climate change as sustainable living cultures were replaced by resource extraction economies.9 It recounts John A. MacDonald’s deliberate use of starvation to subjugate the Indians to get access to their land to build railways and the use of medical experimentation on First Nations peoples, including children.10 And it goes on to chronicle Dr Peter Henderson Bryce, the chief medical health officer of the Indian Department, blowing the whistle on Canada’s refusal to save the lives of children who were dying in vast numbers unnecessarily in residential schools11 and Canada’s “glacial pace of change” to address the known inequalities in Indian education.12 In all, there are more than thirty such postings and these represent just a small snapshot of the historical records that raise serious questions about the integrity of MMIwg genocide deniers. The series can be viewed through the hashtag #IsItGenocide on Twitter. On a personal level, I have seen Canada’s contemporary relationship with First Nations children from the front benches and it is not pretty. In 2007, my employer, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, joined with the Assembly of First Nations to file a human rights complaint against the Canadian government alleging its inequitable funding of First Nations child and family services and failure to implement Jordan’s Principle to ensure nondiscrimination in other public services amounted to racial discrimination toward more than 165,000 First Nations children. The Canadian government fought the case hard, even though it had coauthored two reports in the prior decade documenting the inequalities and linking them to record levels of children being removed from their families and placed into alternate care. In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal13 substantiated the allegation and ordered Canada to immediately cease its discriminatory conduct. In one of the most telling paragraphs of the decision, the tribunal characterized Canada’s defense as “unreasonable, unconvincing and not supported by the preponderance of evidence in this case.”14 Canada publicly welcomed the report and yet chose not

The danger of saying “no” too quickly

77

to implement the tribunal’s order properly, resulting in the tribunal issuing seven noncompliance orders to spur the Canadian government to act. As it stands, more orders are possible. I need to emphasize that Canada “chose” not to act properly – it did not “fail” to act properly. The latter implies a lack of awareness that Canada cannot legitimately claim. One of the hallmarks of Canada’s relationship with First Nations children is choosing to not do better when they knew better. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the harms to First Nations children arising from Canada’s actions are not an accident; they are the logical outcomes of the Canadian government’s intentional decision making. Contemporary colonialism is bathed in the same savage and civilized dichotomy of its forefathers. It too often anoints governments as the unappreciated do-gooders who are working as hard as they can to take “important first steps” while acknowledging there is more work to do. First Nations, meanwhile, are often cast as complainers who either ask too much from the government or too little of themselves. This seems to sit well with most members of the public, who learned little to nothing about Canada’s history through its public education system and who are emboldened by media and academics with tacit historical literacy. Child rights advocates, social workers, and educators should avoid the reflex of distinguishing themselves from the colonial pattern. A clear-eyed view of these professions shows that they were more apt to be consciously engaged in the violation of Indigenous children’s rights than in upholding them. For example, social workers served on residential school committees and few children’s rights advocates made any substantial effort to challenge Canada’s discriminatory provision of services to First Nations children. When they did, it was within the envelope of what they judged to be acceptable levels of risk that did not imperil their own organizations or careers.15 Thanks to growing awareness due to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the MMIwg inquiry, and the integration of mandatory courses on Indigenous peoples into schools, the public is beginning to reject the over-simplified rationalization of the ongoing choice of various levels of the Canadian government to infringe upon the rights of Metis, Inuit, and First Nations peoples. However, as the controversy over the MMIwg report shows, the media and the rest of the country must become much more comfortable with uncomfortable truths before we can learn from them. So, when it comes to the MMIwg proclamation, read the report, become a curious student of Canadian history and the global history of genocide, and ask yourself again, “is it genocide?”

78

Cindy Blackstock

noteS 1 National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Commissioners’ Final Report, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, (2019) vol. 1(a) and vol. 1(b). Available at https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1a-1.pdf. 2 Evan Dyer, “What Does it Mean to Call Canada’s Treatment of Indigenous Women a ‘Genocide’?,” CbC News, 5 June 2019. Available at https://www. cbc.ca/news/politics/indigenous-missing-murdered-women-genocidetrudeau-1.5162541. 3 Hymie Rubenstein, “What Happened to Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Was Horrific – But it Wasn’t Genocide,” National Post, 15 June 2019. 4 Editorial, “The Report on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women was Searing and Important Marred Only by its Inaccurate Genocide Charge,” Globe and Mail, 5 June 2019. Available at https://www.theglobeandmail. com/opinion/article-the-mmiwg-report-was-searing-and-importantmarred-only-by-its; editorial, “We Need A New Word: Genocide Is Not It,” Toronto Star, 6 June 2019. Available at https://www.thestar.com/opinion/ editorials/2019/06/06/we-need-a-new-word-genocide-isnt-it.html; Rob Breakenridge, Opinion, “Use of the Word Genocide Undermines MMIwg Report” Global News, 8 June 2019. Available at https://globalnews.ca/ news/5366507/mmiwg-genocide-debate/. 5 Bill Clinton, “The Clinton Apology” (speech, Rwanda, 25 March 1998) Available at https://www.history.com/speeches/the-clinton-apology. 6 Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1985). 7 Duncan Campbell Scott, department of Indian affairs superintendent, “D.C. Scott letter to B.C. Indian Agent General Major McKay,” (DIa Archives rg 10 series, 1910). 8 Helen Betty Osborne was a high school student from the Norway House Cree First Nation in Manitoba. She was abducted and murdered in November 1971 by a group of four local non-Indigenous men. Her case became infamous for both its brutality and the rCMp’s mismanagement of the investigation. 9 Alexander Koch, Chris Brierley, Mark M. Maslin, and Simon L. Lewis, “Earth System Impacts of European Arrival and Great Dying in the Americas After 1492” Quaternary Science Reviews 207 (2019): 13–36. 10 James Daschuk, Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation and the Loss of Indigenous Life (Regina: University of Regina Press 2014).

The danger of saying “no” too quickly

79

11 Peter Henderson Bryce, “Report on the Indian Schools of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories,” (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1907); Peter Henderson Bryce, The Story of a National Crime: An Appeal For Justice to the Indians of Canada, (Ottawa: James, Hope & Sons, 1922); John Milloy, A National Crime (Winnipeg: University of Winnipeg Press, 1999). 12 R. Alex Sim, “The Education of Indians in Ontario: A Report of the Provincial Committee on Aims and Objectives of Education in the Schools of Ontario,” (North Gower, Ontario, 1967). Available at https:// fncaringsociety.com/publications/education-indians-ontario-reportprovincial-committee-aims-and-objectives-education. 13 First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v Attorney General of Canada, (2016 CHrt 2). Available at https://www.mandellpinder.com/first-nations-childand-family-caring-society-case-summary/. 14 FnCFCS v. Attorney General, (2016 CHrt 2): para 460. 15 Cindy Blackstock, “Wanted Moral Courage in Child Welfare,” First Peoples Child and Family Review, 6 no. 2 (2011): 36–47.

5

Language, Culture, and Early Childhood Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation

Margo greenwooD

The sun was high in the sky, dancing across the snow-covered landscape … diamonds in the raw came to my mind as the snow glistened brightly. The frozen pussy willow branch beat a rhythmic dance on the window pane. It was a cold day but the children’s faces reflected the beauty and joy they felt from full tummies, safe spaces and the love of their families. Imagine a world where all children experience beauty and joy, a world where children realize their rights as part of the human family … just imagine! For as long as I have known the Honourable Landon Pearson, she has led the charge for children’s rights in Canada. During her time serving in the Senate of Canada (1994–2005), she was known as the Children’s Senator for good reason. Politicians, community leaders, educators, foundations, advocacy groups, youth, children, and families have all lined up behind Landon in her pursuit of realizing the un Convention on the Rights of the Child (CrC) for all children and youth in Canada. One of my early experiences with Landon was in 1998 at a meeting in Victoria, BC that was focused on the sexual exploitation of youth. During this meeting, I watched Landon support the courageous young people who shared their stories so that the rest of us could learn vicariously through their experiences and in some small way come to understand their realities. We were there to contemplate interventions that would change their lives and the lives of youth in the future. Landon has that extraordinary gift that draws one out and makes us focus on the best of our being no matter how painful our pasts. She enshrouds others with a cloak of empathy and respect, especially children.

Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation

81

We met again in the summer of 2002. Senator Pearson was conducting national roundtables in preparation for Canada’s report to the United Nations, A Canada Fit for Children, the following year. It was nearly ten years before I met with Landon again at a talk she was giving at the University of Northern British Columbia entitled “Halfway There,” in 2012. Her presentation highlighted and discussed Canada’s ongoing work since the un report on Canada’s children ten years earlier. In the years that followed we continued to see one another through our shared interests and work for children, youth, and families. The Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights, founded in 2006, is a unique centre focused on engaging young people of all ages directly in conversations about how they experience their rights. The centre supports annual Shaking the Movers gatherings where some remarkable stories result when young people come together to explore and discuss the impact of a specific CrC article, of their choice, on their lives. From their collective conversations about the article, the young people articulate changes they would like to see. Those articulations are brought to a circle of academics and decision makers formally known as the Child Rights Academic Network (Cran). Landon invited me to join Cran in 2012. Listening to children and youth is something we need to do more. They are experienced. They are wise. They are deeply, deeply invested in making sincere and genuine change to make a better world. As adults, and especially as change agents in the lives of young people, it is our responsibility to listen to children and to genuinely consider their perspectives, priorities, and needs in our individual spheres of influence, whatever that might be. For me, this responsibility is to Indigenous children and youth. Landon’s individual and collective work has had a profound impact on the lives of all of Canada’s children and youth, including First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work with Landon and contribute to the important conversations she convenes. One of these conversations focused on the rights of Indigenous children in Canada, as discussed in the article reprinted below. Article 30 of the un Convention on the Rights of the Child articulates rights unique and specific to Indigenous children, adding another dimension to consider when implementing all rights within the CrC. Together with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (unDrIp) and the recommendations of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, these articles, conventions, and recommendations affirm the importance of

82

Margo Greenwood

Indigenous children’s rights, particularly with respect to their right to their Indigenous identity, language, culture, and land. In June, the 2008 Shaking the Movers gathering and follow-up Cran meeting focused on article 30 of the CrC. This meeting at the Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights allowed Indigenous children and youth to take their voices and to realize hope for a better future. This event was particularly meaningful for me given that my own work focuses on the health and well-being of Indigenous children, youth, and families. In many cases, this work uses a rights-based perspective to identify transformative actions that could result in renewed realities for Indigenous children, youth, and families. Our – that is, Landon’s and my – shared interests in children and families has been the pathway through which we have maintained a professional relationship and a deep and caring friendship. As our personal friendship has grown, my own learning has also reached new levels of clarity and understanding. This I know: Landon is deeply committed to the belief that every child deserves the foundation of a strong childhood and that children have the potential to create change in the world. I think about these ideas … I know that Canada’s early history of colonial policies and strategies struck at the heart of the social fabric of Indigenous communities. The removal of Indigenous children meant the destruction of generations of our families, an act that is still happening today in the child welfare system, even as we reconcile with the intergenerational harms of the Indian residential school system. However, I am committed to the belief that it is through our children, and the foundations we prepare for them, that we will once again reclaim our self-determination and rightful place on Turtle Island. The language of children’s rights that is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a powerful tool that can help us on our journey to self-determination and wellbeing. As my Moshum would say, “take the best of something and leave the rest behind.” Landon and her work most certainly represent the best of something.

Language, CuLture, anD earLY CHILDHooD: InDIgenouS CHILDren’S rIgHtS In a tIMe oF tranSForMatIon1 Introduction Article 30 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (unCrC) sets out the rights of Indigenous and minority children to learn about and practice their own culture, religion, and language

Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation

83

in countries where these practices are not shared by the majority of the population. The provisions of article 30 are particularly relevant in nations such as Canada that are built upon a history of colonization, where for generations Indigenous children have been dispossessed of their cultures, languages, territories, family, and community ties – all of the foundational elements of healthy and whole Indigenous identities. The colonization of the life-worlds of Indigenous children represents, in short, a primary mechanism through which nations have attempted to eliminate and assimilate the Indigenous populations within their borders, with devastating multigenerational consequences for surviving Indigenous peoples. It is not the intention of this article to recount the abuses of colonial power inflicted on Indigenous children throughout Canada’s history of colonization  – an ongoing process which is still impacting our children, the most vulnerable and valuable members of our nations. The abuses of colonization and the lasting repercussions for all members of our collectives have already been documented. Knowing that Indigenous peoples continue to face colonial legacies written across their territories, bodies, and lives with exceptional bravery and resilience rooted in Indigenous culture and knowledge, this article offers a hopeful view of the changing context in which we currently struggle for full realization of the rights of all Indigenous children. Although there is still far to go, there has perhaps never been more opportunity to realize the provisions of article 30 in Canada than there is at this moment in history. This article outlines in the first section below the agreements and commitments that mark a new climate of reconciliation, healing, and relationship building between the government of Canada and First Nation, Métis, and Inuit peoples. The second section highlights why it is so important to take advantage of this new context of reconciliation and relationship building in pushing for early childhood education and care that contributes to the revitalization of Indigenous knowledge, cultures, and languages. In this way, early childhood can be seen as a crucial site for reconciliation and cultural healing. The article closes by reflecting on some examples of early childhood programing that actualize the principles of article 30, arguing that these successful programs can be used as models for a renewed system of care for young children rooted in Indigenous values and supported by article 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

84

Margo Greenwood

1. Shifting ground, moving forward: Opportunities in an era of reconciliation One year after the release of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (trC) in 2015, former chair Senator Murray Sinclair was asked in a CBC interview what progress had been made on the commission’s recommendations. While acknowledging that change is a slow process and some movement has been made on some fronts, Sinclair replied, “to suggest that there has been progress would be to suggest that we have achieved change, but we’re just on the beginning edge of starting to change things.”2 Sinclair’s measured response matches the sentiments of many Indigenous observers and advocates in Canada who have been closely watching and waiting to see how the Liberal government and its current leader Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would follow up on campaign promises to build a new relationship with Indigenous peoples in Canada. Among other things, the Liberal party’s “Real Change” election platform included commitments to “a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous Peoples, based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership,”3 as well as closing the funding gap for First Nations education, providing new funding to help Indigenous communities promote and preserve their languages and cultures, following up on the recommendations of the trC, launching an inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and working with the Métis Nation to improve quality of life for Métis communities. Leaders of the Assembly of First Nations praised the Liberal government’s first budget in May 2016, which allocated $8.4 billion towards Indigenous peoples over five years, stating that it was a “significant step in closing the gap in the quality of life between First Nations peoples and Canadians and beginning the process of reconciliation … [and] would [begin] to address decades of underfunding and neglect.”4 Despite this, after just one year in office Trudeau’s Liberal government was given a failing grade on efforts to make good on its campaign promises to Indigenous peoples.5 While it’s tempting to throw our hands up in despair at another set of broken promises and disappointed expectations, there is another way to look at the situation – that is, to acknowledge that much, much more work needs to be done and to be heartened by the fact that there has never before in history been as much attention and public pressure on the Canadian government to take meaningful action to substantially improve the life chances and living conditions for Indigenous peoples in Canada as there is at

Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation

85

this moment. New conversations are emerging in public and private spheres that point to a cultural shift in mainstream Canadian society oriented toward increased awareness of the harms that have been done to Indigenous peoples and the need for meaningful action to redress these harms. One could mark the beginning of this shift with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (rCap), which concluded its work in 1996 after five years of investigation that focused on restoration of justice in relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. The commission, which was struck the year following the Oka Crisis in 1990, held 178 days of public hearings, visited ninety-six First Nation communities, consulted experts, commissioned research studies, and reviewed past inquiries and reports, ultimately presenting its findings in a document that analyzed “a relationship that has swung from partnership to domination, from mutual respect and co-operation to paternalism and attempted assimilation.”6 rCap’s central finding was that the policy of assimilation of Indigenous peoples – policies enacted by successive colonial governments in Canada that aimed to eliminate Indigenous peoples by absorbing them into mainstream Canadian society – were not only ethically and morally reprehensible, but they led to a multigenerational “legacy of brokenness” resulting from the removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands, suppression of their nationhood and systems of government, and stifling of their cultures and identities. Much of the damages were borne by Indigenous children subjected to the abuses of the Indian residential school system. In order to redress the harm suffered by Indigenous peoples subjected to assimilation policies, the rCap report recommended that new nation-to-nation relationships between Indigenous and nonIndigenous peoples in Canada be based on principles of recognition, respect, sharing, and responsibility and grounded in new treaties that recognized Aboriginal peoples as self-governing nations. The commission envisioned a “circle of well-being,” in which selfgovernment, economic self-reliance, partnerships of mutual respect with Canada, and healing would feed into one another, working towards the elimination of persistent inequities experienced by Indigenous individuals and communities in all facets of life. Although many of rCap’s recommendations seem as distant today as they did twenty years ago, rCap represents a watershed moment in the history of Canada’s colonial government and mainstream society  – a moment in which Indigenous voices were heard and, even if not heeded, became a part of the public record of a nation starting to reckon with its ongoing and deeply harmful legacies of colonization.

86

Margo Greenwood

The rCap process ushered in a series of related moments working incrementally towards renewed relationships in a context of reconciliation. In 2006, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IrSSa), Canada’s largest class action settlement to date, formally recognized the abuse of the Indian residential school system and set out government commitments to compensate for the suffering and support the healing of survivors. The IrSSa also called for a formal and public apology for the abuses and trauma inflicted on Aboriginal children in residential schools, which the federal government delivered in 2008. Also in 2008, the government formed the trC to document the experiences of residential school survivors and their families. The final report of the trC released in 2015 presented ninety-four “Calls to Action” divided into two categories: “legacy” actions (including child welfare, education, language and culture, health, and justice) aimed at redressing the harms resulting from the Indian residential school system, and “reconciliation” actions aimed at transforming the relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada.7 One of the top “reconciliation” actions of the trC recommended that Canada fully endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The unDrIp was adopted in 2007 with the full support of 144 countries, eleven abstentions, and four countries voting against (Canada, US, Australia, and New Zealand). The US, Australia, and New Zealand changed their vote in 2009 and Canada followed soon after in 2010 but with wording indicating that it viewed the declaration as “aspirational” and not legally binding.8 In 2016 the new federal government officially removed Canada’s objector status and fully endorsed the unDrIp, although it remains to be seen how the government of Canada will implement its new commitment to respecting the human rights of the Indigenous peoples living within its borders. Also in 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal released its ruling on a landmark case brought against the federal government by the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. The complaint filed in 2007 alleged that the government of Canada discriminates against First Nations children on reserve by providing less government child welfare funding than to other children in Canada.9 Despite concerted efforts on the part of the federal government to have the case dismissed on technical grounds, the tribunal found that the federal government does discriminate against on-reserve First Nations children by providing up to 38 per cent less funding than elsewhere in Canada.10 This landmark decision

Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation

87

calls for redesign of Canada’s child welfare system, increases to funding to support First Nations in developing and delivering their own child welfare, and recognition of the importance of culturally appropriate child welfare services. Although the federal government has been slow to respond to the tribunal’s orders, the ruling remains a significant source of pressure  – and all indications show that this pressure will not be released until the government has made meaningful progress in fulfilling its obligations.11 Granted, when one considers how little has changed in response to the commissions, inquiries, reports, and rulings described above, it sometimes seems like these herculean efforts have amounted to just the tiniest tip of an arrowhead – when what is needed is to pierce the heart of Canada’s internalized and institutionalized domination of Indigenous peoples. But the work of dismantling these dysfunctional, dominating relationships and building new ones based on mutual respect and equity will require a resurgence of responsibility-based Indigenous communities with their own education, economic, and political systems rooted in everyday practices of Indigenous culture that are learned and experienced from birth.12 In this context, article 30 of the un Declaration of the Rights of the Child represents both a tangible international commitment and a national opportunity to push the government of Canada to ensure that every Indigenous child has the opportunity to live, learn, and enjoy their language, culture, and religion. 2. Language, culture and identity: Good care for Indigenous children For Indigenous peoples, the care and education of children is a sacred and highly valued responsibility.13 Children are vital to the survival of Indigenous cultures because they are imbued with the ways of knowing and being of their collectives.14 The provisions of article 30, which set out the right for Indigenous children to enjoy their language, culture, and spirituality, are crucial to the survival and resurgence of Indigenous peoples as a whole, not least because language is intimately tied to our identity as individuals and collectives. Thus, it is critically important to explore the connections between Indigenous languages, ways of knowing (epistemology), ways of being (ontology), and the values underlying relational accountability (axiology).15 Although too much knowledge about the care and education of Indigenous children in traditional settings has bowed to the assimilation and erasure policies of colonization, much is being preserved by

88

Margo Greenwood

Indigenous individuals and groups, and documented by Indigenous scholars working in many different parts of the world.16 As many Indigenous scholars have pointed out, Indigenous knowledge is embedded, transmitted, and created in Indigenous languages.17 In other words, Indigenous languages carry the world views of Indigenous cultures and communities – world views that are rooted in deep connections to the land. Henderson (2000a) writes that Aboriginal languages express an awareness of a local ecology and are directed to understanding both external life forms and the invisible forces beneath them, which Algonquin languages describe by the sounds mntu, manidoo, manito, manitu or Manitou. These words can be equated with the forces or essences of life or spirit, knowledge and thought … Aboriginal consciousness and language are structured according to Aboriginal people’s understanding of the forces of the particular ecosystem in which they live. They derive most of the linguistic notions by which they describe the forces of an ecology from experience and from reflection on the forces of nature.18 Indigenous languages are verb oriented, acknowledging and respecting the constantly changing energy of the land. They are also primarily oral – the sound, meaning, and relationships conveyed in the spoken word relate the essence of Indigenous knowledge(s) in a way that the written word cannot. Recognizing the crucial relationships between the orality of Indigenous languages and the embedded nature of the knowledges and world views they convey is crucial for understanding the fuller implications of article 30. The immersion of children in their language provides them with access to knowledge that helps define who they are in the context of their broader collectives. It also helps them construct their own knowledge as they interpret the world around them through the lens of their own cultures. Language is a keystone element in the good care of Indigenous children, and immersion provides access to knowledge built into the stories that demand understanding and participation as they transmit and teach Indigenous knowledge(s). Stories and storytelling are a primary mode of knowledge transmission in oral languages and cultures – stories are a “living history” that teach adults and children “who and what they are, where they come from, and how they are to interact with others, with natural things and with spirits.”19 Storytelling is a crucial link between elders and children, ensuring cultural continuity in the transmission of knowledge from

Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation

89

generation to generation. Storytelling is cultural remembering, and stories can be seen as “mnemonic devices” that help us to remember history.20 For Indigenous children, stories offer pathways not only to their elders and family members, their history and knowledge(s) – they also lead ultimately to their identity as individuals and members of the collective. Storytellers play an essential role in Indigenous societies. Sterling (2002) describes the storyteller Yetko as a “tradition-bearer, the teacher of values and morals, and the entertainer”21 whose knowledge is passed through the generations. Archibald (1990) writes that “it was the magic of the storytelling skill that allowed the thoughts and meanings to meet and create new patterns of understanding; personal and communal knowledge found a meeting place with orality.”22 Storytellers also have a responsibility to teach the morals and ethics that go along with knowledge.23 The care and education of children is a sacred responsibility for Indigenous people. Some traditions believe that each child brings with him/her a special gift, and others believe that children are the ancestors reborn.24 Secwepemc elder Mary Thomas teaches that the care of children begins from the time of conception: When a young woman got pregnant, she was careful about what she ate and about the exercise she got. She drank a lot of good medicines, a lot of broth, and she did not overdo herself. The young Mother was also given the most attention – loving, caring attention. She wasn’t allowed to see anything that was unpleasant, like spilled blood, a smashed finger, whatever. She wasn’t allowed to go to a funeral where there was a lot of crying. She was only allowed to see nice things, like singing and dancing. The old people strongly believed that whatever happened to the young Mother also happened to her unborn child.25 These beliefs, anchored in distinct Indigenous knowledge(s) and spirituality, direct adults and others to interact with children in ways that may differ from those in mainstream, Western, or secular notions of child care. Whereas at one time Indigenous children learned primarily from their families and communities (parents, grandparents, siblings, aunties and uncles, and community members), the school system and early childhood programs for young children have now taken over a large part of this role.26 Most often, these formal systems of care and education perpetuate a philosophy and set of values about the world that is representative of the broader dominant society and not those of Indigenous or colonized peoples. Yet this is the contemporary and

90

Margo Greenwood

colonial present in which Indigenous peoples in Canada and many other Indigenous peoples around the globe find themselves. In a summary about traditional Aboriginal life and the context in which children were raised, the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (rCaP), Vol. 3 (1996) offers this description: Babies and toddlers spent their first years within the extended family where parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters all shared responsibility for protecting and nurturing them. Traditional Aboriginal child-rearing practices permitted children to exert their will with little interference from adults. In this environment, children were encouraged to develop as thinking, autonomous beings. At the same time, they acquired language and were integrated into the rhythms of daily life in the family and community. In this early stage of development, children learned how to interpret and respond to the world. They learned how to walk on the land, taking in the multiple cues needed to survive as hunters and gatherers; they were conditioned to see the primacy of relationships over material possessions; they discovered that they had special gifts that would define their place in and contribution to the family and community. From an early age, playing at the edge of adult work and social activities, they learned that dreams, visions and legends were as important to learning as practical instruction in how to build a boat or tan a hide.27 In this context of family and community, the primacy of relationships to Indigenous knowledge(s) is apparent. The importance of relationships (including how to develop and maintain them) is often one of the first Aboriginal teachings taught to children.28 Little Bear (2000) writes, “the function of Aboriginal values and customs is to maintain the relationships that hold creation together.”29 Without relationships, the collective is fragmented and the interdependent ways that have ensured the survival of Indigenous communities is endangered. Survival of Indigenous knowledge(s) is dependent upon the interrelationships developed at the individual and collective levels. This learning of relationships and collective begins with the children and their teaching and learning.

Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation

91

3. Honouring Indigenous children’s rights: Early childhood programs with a focus on language development As noted in the previous section, today early childhood centres play a significant role in the care and education of many Indigenous children, who often spend the majority of their days outside their homes and collectives in systems of care not necessarily anchored in their ways of knowing and being. Considering the importance of language to Indigenous peoples and the role it plays in sustaining their epistemologies, early childhood programs can be sites of individual knowledge transmission and of collective cultural continuity. The collective nature of language adds a significant dimension to consider when implementing “language rights” for Indigenous children as articulated in article 30. This dimension demands understanding the colonial relationship that exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples; it is a relationship that is necessarily political, social, cultural, and historical, with all the complexities that go with those realities. This section explores some examples of early childhood programs focusing on Indigenous languages. Some are total immersion programs  (language nests) designed and controlled by Indigenous peoples, while others offer language as a part of a larger early childhood program or as stand-alone programs. In Canada, a patchwork of early childhood programs serving Indigenous children has emerged over the years. The diversity of these programs and services is in part dictated by the context in which the program is situated, by the degree of control Indigenous peoples have over the programs, or by the origin of the program itself. In Canada, the mid-1990s saw the development of two key early childhood programs for Indigenous communities at a national level: the First Nations Inuit Child Care Initiative (FnICCI) and the Aboriginal Head Start (aHS) program. Both programs sought to provide early childhood programs and services for Indigenous children where previously there had been none. These programs emphasized the importance of language and culture to the children and communities they serve. Both programs are government funded and as such are accountable to the funding agency and the program frameworks they implement. The FnICCI was developed by the Joint First Nations Inuit Federal Working Group, made up of Indigenous technical experts from across the country. The aHS program, on the other hand, was adopted from the highly successful United States program and adapted for Indigenous children, families, and communities in Canada.

92

Margo Greenwood

FnICCI and aHS programming demands engagement and participation of local Indigenous communities and consequent acknowledgement of the knowledge(s) held by Indigenous peoples. The development of the FnICCI was based on seven guiding principles: 1) First Nations and Inuit directed and controlled; 2) community based, holistic, and focused on child development; 3) quality services including the culture, language, and values of the people being served; 4) inclusive, comprehensive, and flexible; 5) accessible; 6) accountable; and 7) affordable.30 Both programs promote the cultural, spiritual, physical, and emotional development of each child and community. They encompass traditional cultural practices and a holistic approach to learning and early development, which empowers children and strengthens their pride in themselves and their community. While not total language immersion programs, both programs offer opportunities for Indigenous children to engage with their language and their culture. At the core of these programs are values centred on involving community, acknowledging diverse systems of knowledge and facilitating individual and collective learning – all of which lay the groundwork for realizing the provisions of article 30 for Indigenous children. Language nest programs are Indigenous cultural early childhood language immersion programs where young children can learn the language through meaningful interaction with proficient speakers. Language immersion programs are considered to be the most successful way of reviving languages.31 This approach involves teaching an Indigenous language in the early childhood program by using only that Indigenous language without any use of English or French. The concept of the language nest originated in New Zealand in the early 1980s as a part of Maori language revitalization and has served as a model for other countries, including Canada. Some First Nations communities in BC have been working towards creating language nests. One example can be found in the Splatsin First Nation near Enderby, BC, where the Splatsin Tsm7aksaltn (Splatsin Teaching Centre) Society offers early childhood education based on language revitalization efforts reaching back to the 1970s, including a program which brings grandmothers and elders into the program to teach young children the Splatsin language.32 Other examples in BC include the Adams Lake Band in south-central BC and the Lil’wat Nation (formerly known as Mount Currie). These programs are situated in community and focus on the local language and culture. While they may be funded externally, the programming and pedagogy is anchored in the ways of the community and is accountable for the transmission of the specific cultural and linguistic knowledge.

Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation

93

Language nests (known in Maori as Kohanga reo) in Aotearoa, New Zealand have a long history of being anchored in community and originating from the people. In the late 1970s, a series of conferences held by the Department of Maori Affairs focused on concerns that the Maori language was nearing extinction.33 The Kaumaatua (Elders) articulated the following principle: “The language is the life principle of the Maori mana [spirit, pride].”34 The centrality of this principle to Maori mana necessitated that Maori people “take control of the future destiny of the language and to plan for its survival.”35 In response, the New Zealand government sponsored a preschool pilot project in Wainuiomata, located close to Wellington, which became the first official Kohanga reo. The success of the pilot quickly spread throughout the country, leading to the establishment of fifty-four programs by the end of the calendar year 36 and more than 600 within the next seven years.37 These programs received very little funding. In fact, their success has been attributed to “the dedication of a small team within the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust and the personal commitment that the Maori people gave through voluntary assistance and aroha.”38 Each program is implemented differently, given local interpretation of the broad policies and how best to implement them for their children. This understanding appears to have been expressed from the onset of the development of the Te Kohanga Reo movement by both the Maori community as well as the government. In short, the Kohanga reo are developed by the people for the people, with control in the hands of the families and communities which create, govern, and administer language nests for their own children. Conclusion Article 30 is critical to Indigenous children around the world insofar as it enshrines their rights to enjoy their languages and cultures, preserving and supporting the core of their identity development and cultural continuity in national contexts where they are in the minority. Above all, article 30 acts as a stimulus for states to meaningfully acknowledge the importance of actions preserving and revitalizing threatened Indigenous languages and cultures and to support those. This is especially important for nation-to-nation relationships in colonial countries around the globe. In Canada, our emerging patchwork of local, regional, and national programs reflects the diversity of Indigenous traditions from coast to coast to coast. However, concerted efforts to analyze, understand, and maintain a commitment to the provisions of article 30 are necessary

94

Margo Greenwood

across the diversity of government-funded and community-based programs. The experiences of the Kohanga reo in Aotearoa New Zealand are instructive in this regard – each program has been developed based on a commitment to the Maori language and the specific epistemologies and ontologies of the communities and families involved in developing programs for their own children. In this way, the process and content for developing early childhood programs focused on culture and language are rooted in local needs, knowledge, and ways of being. In Canada, we are in a time of significant transformation. It is time to take stock of our strengths and weakness and build on those strengths to create the changes needed for Indigenous children and their nations to take their rightful place in Canada. Assimilative government policies have undermined the hearts of our communities for generations, and so we must go back to our original knowledge in order to rebuild our nations through our own languages and ways of knowing and being in the world. It is time for Canadian government and society to recognize that other knowledge systems and cultures preexist the Western knowledge(s) brought with the newcomers to our territories. Living in a relationship of harmony and balance, as articulated in the treaties, means that current relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples must be transformed, not only for today, but also for those generations coming behind us. These transformations must happen at all levels of governance, administration, and implementation, for all ages and at all times. Indigenous knowledge tells us that we are in the time of the 7th fire, a time of action. It is our collective responsibility to engage this time of change and opportunity in Canada, to change today and to set the foundation for tomorrow.

noteS 1 Reprinted from the Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights 3, 1 (2016): 16–31. Available at: https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/cjcr/issue/view/1. 2 Murray Sinclair, cited in S. Mas, (2 June 2016), “1 Year after Truth and Reconciliation report: ‘Not Seeing Change Yet.’” CbC News. Available at http:// www.cbc.ca/news/politics/truth-and-reconciliation-murray-sinclair-1.3611110. 3 Liberal Party of Canada. (n.d.) Explore the platform. Available at https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/. 4 Assembly of First Nations (aFn), “aFn National Chief Says Federal Budget a Significant Step in Closing the Gap for First Nations.” Press release, 22 March 2016. Available at http://www.afn.ca/en/news-media/latest-news/16-3-22-afnnational-chief-says-federal-budget-a-significant-step-in-c.

Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation

95

5 N. Macdonald, “The Liberals’ Relationship with Indigenous Communities Sours,” Macleans (16 October 2016). Available at http://www.macleans.ca/ politics/liberals-relationship-with-indigenous-communities-sours/. 6 Government of Canada, Minister of Supply and Services, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa, 1996). n.p. 7 Truth and Reconciliation Commission (trC), Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation, (Ottawa, 2015). Available at http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/ Honouring_the_Truth_Reconciling_for_the_Future_July_23_2015.pdf. 8 CBC News, “Canada Endorses Indigenous Rights Declaration,” CbC News online, 12 November 2010. Available at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ canada-endorses-indigenous-rights-declaration-1.964779. 9 C. Blackstock, “The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on First Nations Child Welfare: Why if Canada Wins, Equality and Justice Lose,” Children and Youth Services Review 33, 1 (2010): 187–94. 10 T. Fontaine, “Canada Discriminates Against Children on Reserves, Tribunal Rules,” CbC News, 26 January 2016. Available at http://www.cbc.ca/news/ indigenous/canada-discriminates-against-children-on-reserves-tribunalrules-1.3419480. 11 aptn, “Tribunal Orders Canada, Again, to Comply With its Ruling on First Nation Child Welfare,” aPtn News, 15 September 2016. Available at http:// aptn.ca/news/2016/09/15/tribunal-orders-canada-again-to-comply-with-itsruling-on-first-nation-child-welfare/. 12 J. Corntassel, “Re-envisioning Resurgence: Indigenous Pathways to Decolonization and Sustainable Self-Determination,” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1, 1 (2012): 86–101. 13 M. Greenwood, Places for the Good Care of Children: A Discussion of Indigenous Cultural Considerations and Early Childhood in Canada and New Zealand. (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Faculty of Education, 2009). 14 L. Little Bear, “Jagged Worldviews Colliding,” in Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, ed. M. Battiste (Vancouver: uBC Press, 2010), 77–85. 15 S. Wilson, “What is an Indigenous Research Methodology?” Canadian Journal of Native Education 25, 2 (2001): 175–9. 16 M. Battiste and J. Henderson, Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge (Saskatoon, SK: Purich Publishing, 2000); J. Chisholm, “Learning ‘Respect for Everything’: Navajo Images of Development,” in Images of Childhood, eds. C.P. Hwang, M. Lamb, and I. Sigel (Mahwah, nJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996), 167–83; S. Goforth, “Traditional Parenting Skills in Contemporary Life,” Healing Words 4, 1 (2003): 17–19; O. Kawagley, A Yupiaq Worldview: A Pathway to Ecology and Spirit. (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1995); Little Bear, “Jagged Worldviews Colliding.”

96

Margo Greenwood

17 M. Battiste, Indigenous Knowledge and Pedagogy in First Nations Education: A Literature Review with Recommendations, (2002). Retrieved 7 August 2003, from http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/krw/ikp_e.html; E. Gardner, “Where There Are Always Wild Strawberries.” Canadian Journal of Native Education 24, 1 (2000): 7–13; K. Williamson, “Celestial and Social Families of the Inuit,” in Expressions in Canadian Native Studies, eds. R.F. Laliberte, P. Settee, J.B. Waldram, R. Innes, B. MacDougall, L. McBain, and L. Barron (Saskatoon, SK: University Extension, University of Saskatchewan, 2000), 125–46. 18 J. Henderson, “Ayukpachi: Empowering Aboriginal Thought,” in Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, ed. M. Battiste (Vancouver: uBC Press, 2000), 248–78. Quotation found at 262–3. 19 Kawagley, A Yupiaq Worldview, 17. 20 L. Holmes, “Heart Knowledge, Blood Memory, and the Voice of the Land: Implications of Research Among Hawaiian Elders,” in Indigenous Knowledges in Global Contexts: Multiple Readings of Our World, eds. G. Dei, B. Hall, B., and D. Rosenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 37–53; Kawagley, A Yupiaq Worldview; Shirley Sterling, “Yetko and Sophie: Nlakapamux Cultural Professors,” Canadian Journal of Native Education 26, 1 (2002): 4–10; H. Storm, Seven arrows (New York: Ballantine Books, 1972). 21 Sterling, “Yetko and Sophie,” 4–10. 22 J. Archibald, “Coyote’s Story About Orality and Literacy: Using Two Pairs of Eyes,” Canadian Journal of Native Education 17, 2 (1990): 66–81, 77. 23 Battiste and Henderson, Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage. 24 Little Bear, “Jagged Worldviews Colliding”; Joint First Nations/Inuit Federal Working Group, “Considerations and Recommendations for the First Nations/Inuit Child Care Program and Funding Framework” (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1995); L. Seto-Thomas. Native Child Care: The Circle of Care (Ottawa: Native Council of Canada, 1990). 25 M. Thomas, personal communication, (1995). 26 S. Goforth, Traditional Parenting Skills in Contemporary Life. 27 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa: Government of Canada, Minister of Supply and Services, 1996), n.p. 28 Battiste and Henderson, Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage; J. Henderson, Ayukpachi: Empowering Aboriginal Thought, (2000). 29 Little Bear, “Jagged Worldviews Colliding,” 81. 30 M. Greenwood, “Places for the Good Care of Children: A Discussion of Indigenous Cultural Considerations and Early Childhood in Canada and New Zealand.” (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Faculty of Education, 2009). 31 O. McIvor, Language Nest Programs in bC. (2006). Available at http://www.fpcc. ca/files/pdf/language-nest-programs_in_bc.pdf.

Indigenous Children’s Rights in a Time of Transformation

97

32 Splatisn Tsm7aksaltn (n.d.). Splatsin Tsm7aksaltn Society. Available at http://www.splatsin.org/ 33 G.H. Smith, “Akonga Maori A Discussion Paper of Culturally Preferred Learning and Teaching Methodologies as Used With Te Kohanga Reo and Related Educational Issues” (Auckland, nZ: Auckland College of Education, January 1987); A.R. Tangaere, Learning Maori Together: Kohanga Reo and Home. (Wellington, nZ: New Zealand Council for Education Research, 1997). 34 T.A. Fleras, Te Kohanga Reo Preparation For Life – Preparation for School. A Preliminary Report on the Organization, Objectives and Implications of Maori Language Nests Presented to the Department of Maori Affairs (Waterloo, on: University of Waterloo, 1983); Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board (2003). Structure; history. Te Kohanga Reo National Trust: ko te reo te mauri o te mana maori. Retrieved June 2005 from http://www.kohanga.ac.nz/ structure.html. 35 Government Review Team, (1988), quoted in Tangaere, Learning Maori Together, 6 36 Fleras, Te Kohanga Reo Preparation for Life. 37 Tangaere, Learning Maori Together. 38 Ibid., 6.

BIBLIograpHY Minow, Newton N. and Craig L. LaMay. Inside the Presidential Debates: Their Improbable Past and Promising Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008, 24–5.

6

Policy and Punishment The Struggle for Children’s Rights to Protection in Canada

Joan e. Durrant

For as long as I can remember, I have been driven to work for the care and protection of children. Even as a child, I felt an affinity to those who were marginalized, bullied, and mistreated. If ever I was drawn to participate in such exclusion, I repented for my failure to protect those children for years afterward, up to this day. Each observation of harm to a child was transformative, as I projected myself into that experience of injustice and disempowerment. When I first witnessed harm to a child at the hands of an adult, the experience was shattering. It was the moment when I realized that the strap hanging in my elementary school principal’s office was used to brutalize my classmates. If we stepped out of a line entering the school, talked to another child, forgot our homework, or committed another trivial violation we all were subject to the wrath of the principal and his strap. I lived in terror of that implement and behaved accordingly, never stepping out of the line, never talking in the hallways – but always afraid of the teachers’ whims and the principal’s capacity for committing violence against small children. My fear was deepened by the red, tear-stained faces of children who struggled with unknown challenges returning from the office for all to see. Those faces are seared into my memory, as they elicited feelings for which I had no labels at the time. The trust my parents – and those children’s parents – had placed in the school was being violated before my eyes. We were not safe. We could be hurt and humiliated at any time by those who were entrusted with our care. As I grew older and the extent of injustice against children became increasingly visible to me, I decided to become a child-clinical psychologist with the goal of working on behalf of children. But by the time I reached graduate school, the zeitgeist was heavily behaviourist, and

The Struggle for Children’s Rights to Protection in Canada

99

I found that I was being trained to ignore children’s pleas for comfort and to isolate children to punish them. Some manuals of the time even advised hitting them and described how this should properly be done. This was not at all what I had envisioned I would be taught as a child psychologist. Intervention at that time seemed to largely focus on coercing children’s compliance, rather than understanding and meeting their needs. I struggled as I tried to reconcile all that I had learned about development from Jean Piaget, the Eriksons1, and Lev Vygotsky with the Skinnerian interventions I was being trained to deliver. But I had no language to express the conflict I was feeling between understanding children as active humans with complex inner lives and treating them as tabulae rasae to be shaped to my will. I had not yet been exposed to a human rights framework that could help me understand my discomfort. I had not even heard the term “children’s rights.” Then, out of nowhere it seemed, appeared the un Convention on the Rights of the Child (CrC).

a CHILD-rIgHtS LenS CHangeS tHe VIew I had just begun a new position at the University of Manitoba when I received a package of information about the CrC that included a petition to persuade the federal government to ratify it. I saw before me a document that expressed my ideals – a view of children as participatory agents, as worthy of full protection, and as humans with inherent dignity. I placed the petition before my colleagues to encourage their signatures, which I assumed all would provide. To my surprise, one explained why she would not sign: “They want to take away parents’ right to hit their kids.” In that moment, I realized how little our society had advanced since the days of my childhood when our principal believed unashamedly that he had the right to hit us. I needed to educate myself about this issue to understand all that lay behind this belief and what factors contributed to the belief that children learn through pain. I began by reading the limited literature available at the time, which confirmed my expectation that physical punishment had only risks, no benefits. And then I learned about Sweden’s physical punishment ban. Fascinated by this law and what it symbolized, I dove headfirst into learning about its history, political context, implementation, and outcomes. I came to understand the concept of children as rights-holders and the impact that such a perspective can have on social policy, child protection, and children’s wellbeing. Despite Canada’s ratification of the CrC, however, I could find little evidence that our country was taking steps to implement the convention

100

Joan E. Durrant

or take action on children’s rights. For example, the law still provided a criminal defence for parents and teachers who hurt children in the name of “discipline” – section 43, which appears in the Criminal Code under “Protection of Persons in Authority.” I had learned of the thirteen reports submitted to the federal government between 1976 and 1995 calling for review or repeal of section 43.2 All had been ignored. I had much to learn about the legislative process and the effort required to place children at the centre of it. Where was the children’s champion who would put their interests first in policy and law? Then I discovered Landon Pearson.

MaKIng CHILDren’S rIgHtS reaL While I was in university, before the CrC existed, Landon Pearson was vice-chair of the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child (IYC). The commission produced a report – For Canada’s Children: National Agenda for Action 3  – which set out a plan for following up initiatives taken during 1979’s International Year of the Child. Yet I was unaware of its existence. My education had focused on individual- and family-level interventions, without providing a broad cultural or political framework within which to assess them. Through studying Sweden’s system, I began to appreciate the critical role of social policy, legislation, and human rights instruments in achieving justice for children. I also began to understand psychological theories as worldviews reflecting our assumptions about children and, in some cases, perpetuating cruelty against them. Soon I discovered the Canadian Council on Children and Youth which Landon oversaw as president and, later, chairperson. The council published critical reviews of policies related to childcare,4 culture,5 health care,6 and many other issues affecting children’s lives. It was through those publications that I came to understand the many challenges before us and came to see physical punishment as symbolic of the status of children and of their rights to protection, healthy development, and dignity. As my understanding of Sweden’s corporal punishment ban and Landon’s work coalesced, I realized that the value a country places on the safety of its youngest citizens is expressed through its policies. In Sweden, the corporal punishment ban was one of a cohesive web of policies designed to protect and promote children’s health and wellbeing.7 These policies operationalized children’s rights to an environment free of violence, to safety and security, and to government accountability. The law ensuring children equal protection from assault was a natural

The Struggle for Children’s Rights to Protection in Canada

101

development within a context that protected them from exploitation from advertisers, from accidents in the home, from motor vehicle injuries, and from poverty and material deprivation. For example, in 1979, the same year that corporal punishment was prohibited, Swedish toy retailers banned the marketing and sale of violent toys through a self-imposed regulation.8 In 1989 the toy retailers, the National Board for Consumer Policies, and the National Child Environment Council signed a tripartite accord. This agreement required advertisers to not 1) take advantage of children’s lack of experience or their credulity; 2) imitate, incite, or glorify violent acts; 3) suggest that violence is the only solution to a problem; or 4) show prolonged or salient scenes of violence.9 In the early 1970s, the National Child Environment Council was formed to promote accident prevention. They implemented national standards for merchandise posing a threat to children’s safety, including toys, appliances, bicycles, and housing construction. Between 1955 and 1992, the rate of accident fatalities declined by 75 per cent and Sweden had achieved the lowest rate of child deaths due to injuries in the industrialized world.10 Since the 1970s, urban planners have designed traffic-free neighbourhoods throughout Sweden,11 and the government created and implemented the Vision Zero Initiative as policy in 1997.12 It was into this policy structure that the corporal punishment ban was introduced, a structure that prioritized the promotion of children’s health and wellbeing, and the prevention of harm. The protection of children superseded the interests of all other actors – merchandisers, employers, and developers. As early as the mid-1970s, an ombudsman for children existed within a nongovernmental organization. In 1993, the Swedish government created an independent and well-staffed agency – the Office of the Children’s Ombudsman – to ensure that children’s interests were considered in all policy development, specifically within the framework of the CrC. In 2001, this office created a model for “child impact analyses” that gives due weight to the best interests of the child in decision making at all levels, from local authorities to county councils to government agencies.13 Thus, increasingly, I understood violence against children as an issue of policy, public health, and human rights, and the struggle to prohibit corporal punishment in Canada as a reflection of the challenges in getting children’s rights onto the government agenda. The minister of health and welfare created a children’s bureau in 1991, after Canada’s ratification of the CrC. Its mandate was to ensure “consistency and coordination for all federal programs and policies.”14 This office has since vanished. In 2001, Landon Pearson and Karen Kraft Sloan submitted a formal proposal to the federal government for the creation of a children’s

102

Joan E. Durrant

commissioner, an independent officer of Parliament with a mandate to promote the human rights of children, as set out in the CrC.15 Based on two previous discussion papers and extensive consultations, it called for “a coherent and effective federal approach to children,” giving “greater visibility to children’s issues,” and identifying “policy issues relevant to children,” among other priorities.16 It set out an organizational structure, budget, and model for child impact assessments. Eighteen years later, we are still waiting for the government to create an office of commissioner for children. Without a mechanism for the implementation of the CrC, it is perhaps not surprising that section 43 remains the law of Canada.

tHe StatuS oF CHILDren’S rIgHtS to proteCtIon In CanaDa In 1997, six years after Canada ratified the CrC and seventeen years after the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child submitted its report, the federal Court Challenges Program funded a constitutional challenge to section 43.17 The challenge was led by the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law whose lawyers argued that section 43 violates three sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and articles 3, 18, 19, and 28 of the CrC.18 Despite the “growing body of evidence that even mild forms of corporal punishment do no good and may cause harm” and the fact that not a single expert witness advocated or recommended corporal punishment, the ruling of the lower court dismissed the challenge.19 This ruling was upheld by the Ontario court of appeal and, subsequently, by the Supreme Court of Canada. The standards of the CrC played a minor role in each of these decisions.20 Two years after the Supreme Court released its ruling on section 43, the Senate of Canada authorized its Standing Committee on Human Rights to examine Canada’s “obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; and whether Canada’s legislation as it applies to children meets our obligations under this Convention.”21 Landon Pearson was a member of this committee and contributed to its final report to Senate. The report’s conclusions were clear and explicit: “repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code by April 2009.”22 In its report, the committee referred to Canada’s human rights obligations under the CrC; the concluding observations with respect to Canada of the Committee on the Rights of the Child; and general comment no. 8 on the right to protection from corporal punishment.23 They referenced the Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth, which calls for repeal and was at that time endorsed by more than 220 respected organizations (now more than 645), demonstrating

The Struggle for Children’s Rights to Protection in Canada

103

“broad consensus in the children’s rights community on this issue.”24 The committee consulted with members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, and provincial child and youth advocates. They noted the growing number of nations prohibiting all corporal punishment of children (sixteen at that time; sixty today) and quoted Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, the author of the un Study on Violence against Children: “children’s rights to life, survival, development, dignity and physical integrity do not stop at the door of the family home, nor do States’ obligations to ensure these rights for children.”25 The Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights submitted its report to the Senate of Canada in April 2007. Yet section 43 remained the law in Canada. Two years later, Landon again made the issue visible in a report coauthored with Tara Collins on Canada’s implementation of the general measures of the CrC.26 The report concluded that the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision on section 43 “focuses on adults without serious consideration of the rights of children … dismissed the child’s perspective in deciding whether the law marginalizes the child  … and still sees the child as incompetent and incapable of informing decision-making.”27 Today, section 43 still remains the law in Canada. As dozens of countries take action on this issue,28 Canada remains stuck in 1892 – the year the law was codified.

MoVIng ForwarD From the start, Landon Pearson has called upon all adults to listen to children. I would argue that she views article 12 – the right to express one’s views – as the core CrC standard. As long ago as 1997, she stated There can be no global security without human security; no human security without respect for human rights; no respect for human rights without respect for children; no respect for children without listening to and hearing what they have to say.29 Through the creation of Shaking the Movers, Landon made article 12 concrete. In collaboration with young people, she designed a process to ensure that their views are heard by those in a position to act on their behalf, the members of the Child Rights Academic Network (Cran).30 The inaugural meeting of Cran was held in 2008, the moment in time when I was deeply immersed in developing a program aimed at shifting caregivers’ views of physical and emotional punishment from a necessity to a risk factor.31 The more I learned from Landon about the importance of children’s participation in actions affecting

104

Joan E. Durrant

them, the more I understood that “positive discipline” involves more than parental knowledge and empathy. These factors are necessary but insufficient. To truly transform norms, parents must listen to their children. They must first recognize that their children might have a perspective that differs from their own – one that is no less valid than their own. Then they can begin to understand conflict as a result of differing perspectives, rather than noncompliance, defiance, testing, stubbornness, and so on. Punishment is generally the result of parental attributions for conflict to intentional “misbehaviour” on the part of the child.32 Those attributions are often mistaken. For example, parents might interpret an infant’s inconsolable crying as a rejection of their attempts to comfort, a toddler’s tantrum as a sign of being “spoiled,” or a preschooler’s refusal to eat as rudeness. When parents fail to recognize that the child has their own perspective – one that reflects the child’s own evolving capacities  – they are likely to punish the child who, in turn, will feel misjudged, rejected, and potentially unloved. For example, an infant might be inconsolable due to pain, illness, or a normal developmental phase;33 a toddler might have a tantrum due to hunger, fatigue, or an inability to articulate frustration; a preschooler might refuse to eat due to illness, worry, or a normal appetite decline.34 By first recognizing that the child’s true intent might not be visible in their behaviour and then talking with – and listening to – the child to gain an accurate understanding of their thoughts and feelings, adults can become immeasurably more effective in their role as teachers, guides and mentors to children. The principle of listening to children in the face of conflict became central to the program I was creating – Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting (pDep). Rather than conceiving of “discipline” as something done to children, I approached it from a child-rights perspective, viewing children as agents with valid views and helping parents to recognize, understand, and respect those views. In the model I created, the word “discipline” is reclaimed as teaching, rather than controlling and as scaffolding children’s learning, rather than punishing their mistakes. The activity called “discipline” is an ongoing, moment-to-moment process of simultaneously 1) providing a safe environment, free of punishment and humiliation; 2) engaging in respectful two-way communication; 3) understanding the developmental process; and 4) approaching conflict as a problem to be solved collaboratively rather than a personal affront to be punished. This approach was heavily influenced by what I learned from Landon about making article 12 an everyday reality in children’s lives and the model she provided of opening oneself to the possibility of seeing things differently when viewed through a child’s eyes.

The Struggle for Children’s Rights to Protection in Canada

105

Table 6.1 Percent of Parents who Mostly or Strongly Agreed that pDep Will Help Them Achieve Various Outcomes High IHdI a (n = 201)

Medium IHdI b (n = 166)

Low IHdI c (n = 158)

Use less physical punishment

80.2

83.6

81.6

Understand their children’s development

89.9

91.3

95.6

Communicate better with their children

90.7

96.3

91.9

Understand their children’s feelings

92.4

95.1

94.6

Build stronger relationships with their children

93.9

97.6

95.6

a High IHDI countries: Australia, Canada, Japan b Medium IHDI countries: Georgia, Mongolia, Venezuela, Palestine, Kosovo c Low IHDI countries: Philippines, Paraguay, Guatemala, Gambia, Solomon Islands

It has been remarkable to witness the joy and freedom expressed by parents who experience this program in many countries around the world. They feel joy because they have acquired a different view of their children. They no longer view them as troublesome or offensive but as fascinating human beings expressing their understanding. They feel freedom because they are no longer encumbered by the belief that their children are “bad.” Relationships become the focus of their energy, building a home in which all members feel safe, trusted, and trusting. They understand their obligation as parents to protect their children from violence, respect their children’s human dignity, and listen to their children’s point of view. In a study of thirteen countries classified as high, medium, or low on the inequality-adjusted human development index (IHDI), the vast majority of parents who took pDep believed that the program would help them to understand and communicate better with their children and to not respond to them with violence (see table 6.1).35 Some adults who have taken this program have said My children were afraid of me but now things have changed. I don’t hit them anymore. I use dialogue to communicate with them and I sit with them for longer times. The relationship between me and my children is way better now especially the oldest. He tells me everything and I listen to him. (Gaza)

106

Joan E. Durrant

If I take one thing from this program, that is how I give love to my children. (Somalia) I have stopped yelling and learned to understand things from her point of view. (Somalia) Children perceive and experience the world differently from grown-ups. So if we try to better understand children’s realities and behaviours, adults will surely redefine “misbehaving” and “discipline” and “teaching.” (Georgia) I’ve learned to control myself when trouble arises. I know now to listen first and let the child explain his side. (Philippines) I have learned to consider the child’s feelings and to provide support when the child makes mistakes. (India) I will never in my life use the stick or harass my child or any child again. (Gambia) Recently, an evaluation of the program was conducted in Kosovo that included interviews with children.36 Some children said They threw me out of the class because I didn’t have my book with me. I didn’t tell this to my mother because I thought she was going to be angry … Before [the program], I was afraid she would ignore me and would not talk to me. But during [the program], she noticed when I have a worry and we talked. [Now] if I have any problems, we talk and we find a solution. She is my best friend. I can tell her my secrets and my problems. [My mother’s] behaviour has changed for the better. Our communication is better and more fruitful. It is not only about the way she behaves; she is more open now and explains her behaviour so we can understand why she is behaving like that … I have two ways to manage conflict. The old one, I still can’t get rid of – crying, yelling and staying alone in my room. Now when I do that, Mom doesn’t let me alone. She comes to my room and says that we should discuss and solve together every problem we have.

The Struggle for Children’s Rights to Protection in Canada

107

Now we are discussing more often, and she is not punishing me anymore. Now, it is easier for me to talk and to discuss with her. Ashley Stewart-Tufescu and I have set out five principles of a child-rights-based approach to discipline, based on our experience in delivering pDep:37 1) nonviolence, which is the minimum standard; 2) respect for children’s evolving capacities, based on an understanding of neural architecture, the human drive for mastery, the tension between attachment and individuation, and the development of “self”; 3) respect for children’s individuality, creativity, and temperaments; 4) engagement of children’s participation in their learning through collaboration and problem solving; and 5) respect for children’s dignity  – their innate right to be treated ethically and as worthy of respect. Thirty years after Canada’s ratification of the CrC, it is time to put these principles into practice through repealing the law that justifies violence against children by their parents, ensuring that children know that they are worthy of respect and dignity and supporting parents in their quest to build strong, healthy, trusting relationships with their children.

ConCLuSIon Landon Pearson’s decades-long record of articulate and tireless advocacy has documented the immensity of the struggle to uphold children’s rights – and particularly their rights to protection – in Canada. But her optimism has never wavered. Rather than losing faith in the process or in decision makers, she expanded her advocacy by creating Cran, designing youth participation processes, establishing the Landon Pearson Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights,38 contributing to the development of online learning modules on children’s rights,39 and facilitating the creation of the Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights.40 At the age of ninety, she is as committed, as active, and forward thinking as she has ever been. Her faith in humanity and her dedication to the protection and empowerment of children have inspired a generation of academics, practitioners, and advocates, each of whom constantly carries her words in their minds and hearts: In our interconnected world we have to be more than just observers of children’s suffering, we have to be partners with them in their struggles, talking and consulting with them because they often know better than we do what will help. Then together we can act.41

108

Joan E. Durrant

noteS 1 While Erik Erikson is usually credited for creating the psychosocial theory of development, his wife, Joan Erikson, was an equal contributor. Daniel Benveniste, “The Importance of Play in Adulthood: An Interview with Joan M. Erikson,” The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 5, 1 (1998): 51–64, https:// doi.org/10.1080/00797308.1998.11822474. 2 For example, in 1976, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs called for “further consideration of section 43.” In 1977, the Senate Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Science called for repeal of section 43. In 1978, a Justice Canada memorandum recommended repeal of section 43. In 1980, the Senate Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Science called for repeal of section 43. In 1981, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs called for “immediate repeal of section 43.” 3 Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child, For Canada’s Children: National Agenda for Action (Ottawa: The Commission, 1980). 4 Canadian Council on Children and Youth, Presidential Consultation on Human Development in Infancy and Child Care Policy (Ottawa: The Council, 1988). 5 Canadian Council on Children and Youth, Children and Culture in Canada. Report Submitted to the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee (Ottawa: The Council, 1981). 6 Canadian Council on Children and Youth, Pressures, Problems and Prevention: Children and the Health Care System (Ottawa: The Council, 1988). 7 Joan E. Durrant and Gregg M. Olsen, “Parenting and Public Policy: Contextualizing the Swedish Corporal Punishment Ban,” Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 19, 1 (1997): 443–61, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09649069708410210. 8 N. Nilsson, “Children and the Commercial Exploitation of Violence in Sweden,” Current Sweden 384 (Stockholm: Swedish Institute, 1991). 9 National Board for Consumer Policies, Child and Youth Marketing (Stockholm: The National Board, 1990); Durrant and Olsen, “Parenting and Public Policy,” 447. 10 unICeF, A League Table of Child Deaths by Injury in Rich Nations (Florence, Italy: Innocenti Research Centre, 2001), https://www.unicef-irc.org/ publications/289-a-league-table-of-child-deaths-by-injury-in-rich-nations.html. 11 Durrant and Olsen, “Parenting and Public Policy,” 448–9. 12 Government Offices of Sweden, Renewed Commitment to Vision Zero: Intensified Efforts for Transport Safety in Sweden (Stockholm: Government Offices, 2016), https://www.government.se/4a800b/contentassets/ b38a99b2571e4116b81d6a5eb2aea71e/trafiksakerhet_160927_webny.pdf.

The Struggle for Children’s Rights to Protection in Canada

109

13 Ombudsman for Children in Sweden, Child Impact Analysis (Stockholm: Ombudsman for Children, no date). https://www.barnombudsmannen.se/ globalassets/dokument-for-nedladdning/english/publications/child-impactanalysis.pdf. 14 Government of Canada, Initial Report on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1994) para. 29, https://www.unicef. ca/en/policy-advocacy-for-children/canada%E2%80%99s-reports. 15 Landon Pearson and Karen Kraft Sloan, A Commissioner for Canada’s Children (Ottawa: Authors, 2001), http://www.landonpearson.ca/ uploads/6/0/1/4/6014680/proposal_for_a_childrens_commissioner_2001.pdf. 16 Pearson and Sloan, A Commissioner for Canada’s Children, 5. 17 Funding for the challenge was awarded to Dr Ailsa Watkinson, professor of social work at the University of Regina and long-time human rights advocate. 18 Article 3(1): In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Article 18(1): Parents or … legal guardians have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern. Article 19(1): States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse … while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. Article 28(2): States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention. 19 Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2000. Paragraphs 132 and 17.a.6. 20 Anne McGillivray and Cheryl Milne, “Canada: The Rocky Road of Repeal,” in Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights, ed. Joan E. Durrant and Anne B. Smith (New York: Routledge, 2011), 98–111; Joan E. Durrant, “Slow and Not-so-Steady: Canada’s Long Journey toward Protecting Children from Corporal Punishment,” in Corporal Punishment of Children: Comparative Legal and Social Developments towards Prohibition and Beyond, ed. Bernadette J. Saunders, Pernilla Leviner, and Bronwyn Naylor (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Nijhoff, 2019), 269–92; Joan E. Durrant, “More Than a Symbol: Canada’s Legal Justification of Corporal Punishment of Children,” in A Question of Commitment: The Status of Children in Canada, second edition, ed. Thomas Waldock (Waterloo, on: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2020).

110

Joan E. Durrant

21 Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Children: The Silenced Citizens. Effective Implementation of Canada’s International Obligations with Respect to the Rights of Children (Ottawa: Senate of Canada, 2007), https:// sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/391/huma/rep/rep10apr07-e.pdf. 22 Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Children, 71. 23 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8: The Right of the Child to Protection from Corporal Punishment and Other Cruel or Degrading Forms of Punishment, CRC/C/GC/8 (Geneva: The Committee, 2006), https:// www.refworld.org/docid/460bc7772.html. 24 Joan E. Durrant, Ron Ensom, and Coalition on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth, Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth (Ottawa: The Coalition, 2004), https://www.cheo.on.ca/en/about-us/ physical-punishment.aspx. 25 United Nations General Assembly, 2006. Report of the Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence Against Children, A/61/299 (New York: United Nations, 2006), para. 38, https://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/ reports/SG_violencestudy_en.pdf. Cited in Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Children, 70. 26 Landon Pearson and Tara M. Collins, Not There Yet: Canada’s Implementation of the General Measures of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Florence, Italy: unICeF Innocenti Research Centre, 2009), https://www.unicef-irc.org/ publications/pdf/canada_nty.pdf. 27 Pearson and Collins, Not There Yet, 11. 28 The sixty countries that have prohibited all corporal punishment of children are, in chronological order, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Israel, Germany, Iceland, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Uruguay, Venezuela, Spain, Costa Rica, Moldova, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Poland, Albania, Tunisia, Kenya, Togo, Congo, South Sudan, Turkmenistan, Macedonia, Honduras, Malta, Brazil, Bolivia, Cabo Verde, Argentina, San Marino, Nicaragua, Estonia, Benin, Ireland, Peru, Andorra, Mongolia, Paraguay, Slovenia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Nepal, Kosovo, France, South Africa, Georgia, Japan and Seychelles. Scotland and Wales have also prohibited all corporal punishment of children but as they are not sovereign states, they are not counted into the total number of countries with bans. 29 Landon Pearson, “Seen and Heard: Children’s Rights in Foreign Policy,” O.D. Skelton Memorial Lecture, University of Manitoba, 17 March 1997, 10, https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/programs-programmes/od_skelton/ senatrice_landon_pearson_lecture-conference.aspx?lang=eng. 30 Landon Pearson established Cran in 2008. Its members are social scientists, heath researchers, legal scholars, child rights experts, advocates, and educators who meet annually with the aim of strengthening

The Struggle for Children’s Rights to Protection in Canada

31

32

33

34

35

36 37

38

111

communication, creating collaborations, and – most importantly – listening and responding to young people. Landon created a process through which youth across Canada express their concerns and insights, ask questions, and discuss their rights in a safe, respectful environment. This process, called Shaking the Movers, is conducted annually. The youth’s report is distributed to Cran members, who respond to it from their diverse professional and disciplinary perspectives and integrate its content into their work. See more at: https://carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre/cran-child-rightsacademic-network/. Joan E. Durrant, “Positive Discipline: What It Is and How to Do It” (Stockholm: Save the Children, 2007). This program evolved into Joan E. Durrant, “Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting” (Stockholm: Save the Children, 2016). Julie L. Crouch, Lauren M. Irwin, Joel S. Milner, John J. Skowronski, Ericka Rutledge, and America L. Davila, “Do Hostile Attributions and Negative Affect Explain the Association between Authoritarian Beliefs and Harsh Parenting?” Child Abuse and Neglect, 67 (May 2017): 13–21, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.019. Ronald G. Barr, Marilyn Barr, Takeo Fujiwara, Jocelyn Conway, Nicole Catherine, and Rollin Brant, “Do Educational Materials Change Knowledge and Behaviour about Crying and Shaken Baby Syndrome? A Randomized Controlled Trial,” CMaJ, 180, 7 (2009): 727–33, https://doi.org/ 10.1503/ cmaj.081419. Alexander K.C. Leung, Valérie Marchand, Reginald S. Sauve; Canadian Paediatric Society, Nutrition and Gastroenterology Committee, “The ‘Picky Eater’: The Toddler or Preschooler who Does Not Eat,” Paediatrics and Child Health 17, 8 (2012): 455–7, https://doi-org.uml.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/ pch/17.8.455. Joan E. Durrant, Dominique P. Plateau, Christine A. Ateah, George W. Holden, Leslie A. Barker, Ashley Stewart-Tufescu, Alysha D. Jones, Gia Ly, and Rashid Ahmed, “Parents’ Views of the Relevance of a Violence Prevention Program in High, Medium, and Low Human Development Contexts,” International Journal of Behavioral Development 41, 4 (2017): 523–31, https:// doi.org/ 10.1177/0165025416687415. FCg Sweden, Impact Evaluation of the Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting Programme (pDep) (Stockholm: FCg Swedish Development aB). Joan E. Durrant, and Ashley Stewart-Tufescu, “What is ‘Discipline’ in the Age of Children’s Rights?,” International Journal of Children’s Rights 25, 2 (2017): 359–79, https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02502007. “Landon Pearson Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights (LpC),” Carleton University website, accessed 29 January 2020, https:// carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre/.

112

Joan E. Durrant

39 “Landon Pearson Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights (LpC),” Carleton University website, accessed 29 January 2020, https:// carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre/childrens-rights-modules/. 40 “Landon Pearson Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights (LpC),” Carleton University website, accessed 29 January 2020, https:// carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre/canadian-journal-of-childrens-rights-cjcr/. 41 Landon Pearson, Seen and Heard, 10.

7

Reflections, Opportunities, and Capacities Being Bold and Creative

nataSHa BLanCHet-CoHen

Landon Pearson is famously quoted as saying, “I’ve learned how much children can actually do for themselves if only we provide the necessary means. That part is up to us.” This statement encapsulates what I have learned in the more than twenty years that I have had the privilege to collaborate with Landon. I reflect here on her legacy as it relates to supporting young people’s participation and promoting a rights-based approach in youth workers’ education. I first met Landon while organizing Out from the Shadows, an international summit of sexually exploited youth held in Victoria, British Columbia in 1998, that she cochaired with Cherry Kingsley, a victim, survivor, and spokesperson of sexual exploitation. I had recently graduated and was beginning my work as coordinator at the International Institute for Child Rights and Development in Victoria. The conference was a landmark in many ways: it brought to the centre the voices of young people who had rarely been given the opportunity to share their stories. The declaration and agenda for action that resulted from the summit included categorizing sexual exploitation as a form of child abuse and slavery and stating that the “voices of and experiences of sexually exploited youth must be heard and be central to the development and implementation of action.” It further clarified that the “issue is not ours alone. Governments, communities and society as a whole must be held accountable for the sexual exploitation of children and youth.”1 The way that the conference was organized and unfolded pointed to the critical importance of making a space for young people to discover their voices and gain the confidence to express their views and identify solutions to the issues with which they are confronted. A former sex

114

Natasha Blanchet-Cohen

worker and fourteen-year-old summit participant who I have kept in touch with recollects the impact of this event: “I think meeting people with the same experience empowered me and gave me hope that I could change my life and do something better. It also gave me determination to work in my community.” Now in her thirties with three children, she sees how the summit changed her life course. Even though participation is a basic right provided by the un Convention on the Rights of the Child, opportunities for young people to participate in decisions that affect their lives is not a given. Central to Landon’s approach to promoting children’s rights has been the idea that capacities and opportunities go hand in hand. Capacities must be nurtured both with young people themselves and with the adults and systems with which youth interact. It is through giving opportunities for living, learning, and action that young people develop the capacity to become active citizens and, consequently, adults come to realize the value of young people’s contributions. Paying attention to the type of spaces and the media that enable young people to participate is therefore of utmost importance. This idea also underlies the Shaking the Movers (StM) workshops that Landon has spearheaded for the past decade, in which young people are first provided with the opportunity to explore and assert themselves on a given child rights theme. It is only afterward that decision makers are invited to listen to the youth. At the conclusion of the StM workshop on nondiscrimination that I cofacilitated in Montreal in 2018, refugees and recent immigrant youth stated, “J’ai appris qu’on doit s’exprimer parce qu’on ne va pas aller loin si on dit rien. On peut changer le monde et le monde peut changer si on est ouvert et on s’exprime,” [“I’ve learned that you have to speak up because you’re not going to get very far if you don’t. We can change the world and the world can change if we are open and express ourselves”] and, “Après ce qu’on a vécu aujourd’hui, je suis persuadé que chacun d’entre nous, on est capable de répandre l’amour autour de ce monde et arrêter la discrimination.” [“After what we went through today, I am convinced that each of us is capable of spreading love around the world and stop discrimination.”]2 Breathing life into children’s rights requires providing for this process to unfold in creative ways. With Landon, I have also learned to recognize that what is required to support participation varies depending on the young people. Young people’s lives and contexts shape how they see themselves in the world, where they are in their journey to adulthood, and how they envision their own potential for participation. But their circumstances also have an impact on the opportunities they are afforded. For example, the

Reflections, Opportunities, and Capacities

115

unCrC, whose rights are universal and indivisible, gives young people the right to diversity, language, and culture and, article 30, in respect of these rights, specifically mentions children of Indigenous origin. Implementing the unCrC involves embracing a diversity of perspectives and ways of life and enabling young people to express that difference. For young people who have had challenging childhoods, who have suffered from discrimination and unequal opportunities, their ability to positively engage in their own wellbeing, and that of their collective, will be different than for a young person who comes from a privileged background, from a majority culture, and has a stable family. These insights also apply to my participatory research with young people who have been marginalized by the dominant society. Engaging youth in research who have stories of dysfunctional families or who have experienced racism, drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, inadequate housing, dismissal of cultural rights, and isolation from home calls for an ethic of care and respect. They need to be at the centre of determining the terms and ways of their involvement. For instance, when involving war-affected young people in a youth forum that operated alongside a multidisciplinary research team over the course of two years, we collectively reflected on how young people who have experienced trauma need to be provided with safe participatory methods for finding voice.3 Art proved to be an appropriate method given its restorative and empowering qualities and it became a chosen medium for war-affected young people to share their stories of trauma and resilience. Throughout, we placed emphasis on building relationships amongst the youth who found comfort and healing in sharing their life stories; the when, how, and even whether they wanted to engage with adults in the sensemaking of their stories would be determined by them, on their terms. It was about cocreating spaces for voice. Involving young people  – whether in events, policy making, or research – requires that adults, and the structures they operate within, be open to doing things differently and prepared to offer flexibility, creativity, and care. I have learned from Landon, who has not shied away from discomfort, that this process will, at times, be difficult. For all involved, challenging the status quo will call for ongoing sensitivity and reflexivity. What are the impacts of involving young people in participatory processes when the society within which young people are growing up is not participatory? Is it responsible to provide opportunities for young people to participate and then to allow them to return to communities where they have no voice? Is there a risk of “pockets of participation” being at the expense of a young person’s wellbeing? How can youth participation be safe and empowering both in the immediate

116

Natasha Blanchet-Cohen

and long-term future? Tackling these questions requires being bold when bringing together and creating spaces for dialogue amongst young people, scholars, advocates, and decision makers. Participation activities that concentrate solely on engaging young people while failing to involve adult structures and processes lack sustainability and will not make a difference in children’s everyday lives and our communities. Landon has taught me that the education of those who work with youth is a critical part of increasing opportunities for youth participation in our society. It is because of this principle that she has chosen to dedicate her eighties (yes) to establishing the Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights in Ottawa. In my current position as a professor teaching future youth workers, I focus on integrating a rights-based approach (rBa) into the program. Oddly, the rBa has not been espoused as a core principle of child and youth care programming across the country, and many of those working with youth lack the knowledge and skills to apply the rBa to their work.4 Youth workers too often focus on delivering services and keeping youth busy with activities, with the measure of participation being mere attendance and not the degree of involvement. Landon’s resource centre is a step toward addressing this need. The rBa brings a much-needed shift from a needs-based and charity-based model of youth intervention to one of empowerment. Youth workers broaden their role with a focus on universality and equality, participation, collaboration amongst stakeholders as well as accountability.5 This broadening can be intimidating for youth workers who feel uneasy with the scope and sometimes messiness of the approach. But, as one youth worker shared in a collaborative research study with Equitas that looked at the significance of human rights education, “A rights-based approach allows us to go further.” The rBa encourages those who work with youth to go beyond planning activities, to empower youth to become change agents in their community, and to reframe the supportive role of youth workers from giver to enabler. In conclusion, more of Landon’s thoughtful words come to mind. At an StM event in Montreal, alongside youth, Landon took part in the unity circle. The unity circle is a group activity that involves holding onto a rope with both hands, while leaning backward and folding your legs, and maintaining the shape of the circle and the tight rope. To be successful, each person needs to be able to trust the group. In reporting back after the event, Landon shared with me how she was proud to have felt comfortable and safe participating in the activity alongside the youth despite being in her late eighties. This is symbolic for me of Landon’s legacy: her readiness to trust the collective process while accepting risk and espousing creativity and audacity throughout.

Reflections, Opportunities, and Capacities

117

noteS 1 See Cherry Kingsley and Melanie Mark, Sacred lives: Canadian Aboriginal Children & Youth Speak Out About Sexual Exploitation (Vancouver: Save the Children Canada, 2000), 77. 2 Shaking the Movers report 2018, available on the Landon Pearson Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights website at Carleton University: www.carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre. 3 See Myriam Denov, Natasha Blanchet-Cohen, Alusine Bah, Leontine Uwababyeyi, Jean Kagame, and Andie Buccitelli, “Co-creating Space For Voice: Reflections on a Participatory Research Process With War-Affected Youth Living in Canada,” in Participatory methodologies to elevate children’s voices and agency, eds. Ilene Berson, Micheal Berson, and Colette Gray (Charlotte: Research in global child advocacy series. Information Age Publishing, 2019), 423–42. 4 See Natasha Blanchet-Cohen and Christophe Bedeaux, “Towards a RightBased Approach to Youth Programs: Duty-Bearers Perspectives in Montreal,” Children and Youth Services Review vol. 38 (March 2014): 75–81. 5 See Patti Ranahan, Natasha Blanchet-Cohen, and Varda Mann-Feder, “Moving Towards an Integrated Approach to Youth Work Education,” International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies 6, 4 (2015): 516–38.

pa r t t w o Reflective Essays on Partnership, Collaboration, and Leadership

8

The Power of Partnerships JuDY FinLaY

In tHe BegInnIng It’s difficult to know where to begin when discussing my relationship with Landon Pearson. I have known Landon as a colleague, a mentor, and most importantly a friend for more than twenty-five years. We have weaved in and out of each other’s lives without pause throughout that time period. The roots of our relationship are embedded in child advocacy, Landon as the senator for children and me as the child advocate for the Province of Ontario. Landon has devoted her career to forging meaningful relationships with the “shakers” and the “movers” to transform how we understand, interact with, and engage young people in order to secure their social and political influence. We met when Landon came to speak to the Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates (CCpCYa) in the mid-90s to discuss the need for an office of a children’s commissioner; an issue of shared concern. Although Landon was privileged in many ways throughout her life and she certainly holds her own command through her family and political status, there were times when she experienced a lack of equity as a woman. This was largely due to societal norms in the era in which she grew up. She would slip comments in about her position in the household earlier in her marriage, how she received her first job at age sixty-five, or how she refused to seek permission when the prime minister asked her to consider the appointment as a senator. In her address in 2005 at Emory University, School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia at their conference titled “What’s Wrong with Rights for Children?” she spoke of Canada’s rich and deep history related to human rights. She conceptualized “human rights more as the norms of civilized

122

Figure 8.1

Judy Finlay

Landon Pearson in Sandy Lake First Nation, 2010

behaviour than the entitlements of the individual” and that “Canadians view human rights as referring as much to our responsibility for one another as about personal claims of redress.” These words offered me an appreciation of how she interpreted her role as a woman over the years and I took comfort in this understanding because it intuitively bleeds into her standpoint about children’s rights. When I first met Landon, she would graciously invite me and other provincially appointed child advocates to her home, usually after we had spoken to a Senate Standing Committee about the lived experience of children in our respective provinces. I will never forget my first visit. We drove into her garage that is attached to her basement. We entered the unfinished basement and there, as you walk in, was an enormous painting of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. When we went upstairs, there was a prominently placed picture of the parliament buildings and numerous pictures of Lester B. Pearson at various functions. I whispered to one of my colleagues, “boy, she is a diehard Liberal.” Of course, red-faced, I realized that she was the former prime minister’s daughter-in-law. It

The Power of Partnerships

Figure 8.2

123

Landon Pearson at Shaking the Movers, Ryerson University

never occurred to me that Landon was a part of “the” Pearson family. The reason for recounting this story is that I had indeed met Landon on several occasions before this encounter, and she never once drew attention to her social location. This reinforced for me her humility, modesty, and unobtrusiveness. This approach naturally fosters respectful relationships that are equitable and inclusive. This allowed for an ease in our relationship from the onset.

earLY partnerSHIp DeVeLopMent tHat proVoKeD CHange Landon had the political acumen, wisdom, and authority to challenge nationally and internationally the rights of children to voice, participation, sense of belonging, and citizenship. She was indeed given the tools and resources to create a platform and to stand tall on the world’s stage with and for children and youth. This was strengthened when she became a senator. On a global scale, in 1990 she attended the World Summit for Children at the United Nations (un) that was chaired by the prime minister. This gave her an opportunity to continue to influence the creation of the un Convention on the Rights of Children (CrC) that was ratified by Canada in 1991. In 1996 she was appointed as the advisor on children’s rights to the minister of foreign affairs that fortified her ability to play a role in the framing of the dialogue

124

Judy Finlay

on children’s rights and promoting the unCrC on the international stage. In 1999 the prime minister appointed Landon as his personal representative to the un General Assembly’s Special Session on Children that led to the international document A World Fit for Children. In 2005, she became the advisor to the minister of foreign affairs to bolster American and Canadian involvement in the un secretary general’s study on the violence against children. Landon navigated, negotiated, and secured partnerships with prime ministers, ministers, members of un special committees, and international committees to influence studies regarding children and youth with the intention of informing and activating political change with and on behalf of children and youth particularly as it related to the CrC. She made certain that children and youth were able to participate at each forum or delegation that necessitated a commitment at the political level on the part of the member countries. This had a profound impact on youth engagement at international levels. Nationally, as the vice-chair of the Senate Standing Committee of Human Rights, Landon again negotiated influential partnerships in order to study the implementation of the CrC. In so doing, she tackled the debate about the absence of a federal commissioner for children that would take on national issues that impacted children and youth. She partnered with the Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates that strengthened her agenda, its declaration that an “urgent need to create a national body, such as a Commissioner, Ombudsman, or Advocate for Canada’s children who would be responsible to promote and protect the rights of Canadian children. It must be an independent office, reporting to Parliament, with legislative authority to monitor Canada’s National Plan of Action for children and CrC implementation.” 1 CCpCYa believed that they undertook an advocacy role on national issues related to the wellbeing of children and youth without the authority or resources to do so. Furthermore, there was no provincial obligation to implement the CrC, and this lack of legal authority gave rise to an absence of any mechanism to monitor its implementation. The work of the Senate Standing Committee led to the release of the report Children: The Silenced Citizens (2007). Strategically, Landon invited children’s commissioners, child and youth advocates, and the children and youth they represented to speak as experienced witnesses at parliamentary committees that were studying legislative and constitutional reform. There was a cumulative impact of this intentional approach. Children and youth, prepared and supported by child advocates, uniquely offered their lived experience to inform political reform and transformation related to their wellbeing. The

The Power of Partnerships

125

Figure 8.3 Landon Pearson celebrates unCrC Twenty-Fifth anniversary, Ryerson University

decision makers participating in political processes became accustomed to youth engagement, and it became a recurring opportunity for all parties that was recognized and valued. As Ontario’s child advocate, I spoke with youth before Senate standing committees on numerous occasions, for example the introduction of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, reforms to the Divorce Act regarding custody and access of children, the implementation of the CrC, and so on. Over time, senators and parliamentarians alike embraced youth voice and participation and gave the deserved weight to these young people when policy and legislation were being debated. Landon was fundamentally committed to children and youth in a relational way. She was vice-chair of the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child (IYC) and editor of the commission’s report to Parliament: For Canada’s Children: A National Agenda for Action, 1979 (1979). In that report it was stated, and I have heard Landon say this time and time again in the last twenty years, “every child needs someone in his or her life who is ‘crazy’ about them and prepared to engage with them in increasingly complex ways over the long haul.” This demonstrates her deep-seated belief in the importance of meaningful relationships in children’s lives. She has the exceptional capacity and skill to uniquely blend her relational approach with children and youth with her powerful political influence through

126

Judy Finlay

partnerships. This comes with experience and wisdom. I have watched this unfold every year at the Shaking the Movers workshops. She is so adept at putting the levels of the puzzle together: the shakers and the movers. I thrive on the clarity and deep understanding she offers at these events, although it usually doesn’t sink in for a few days after I mull it over and over again.

SHaKIng tHe MoVerS Through this enduring partnership, Landon and I were uniquely positioned to create and implement a vehicle for young people to have a voice and to learn from each other about ways to influence their rights. Landon retired from the Senate and moved to Carleton University to open the Landon Pearson Resource Centre in 2006. Simultaneously, I left my position as Ontario’s child advocate and took an academic position in the School of Child and Youth Care at Ryerson University. A new enterprise of our partnership began. In 2007, about forty young people from across Canada came to Ottawa to engage in two days of intense conversation about their rights. The theme of the inaugural Shaking the Movers (StM) workshop was “The Civil and Political Rights of Children” (StM I, 2007). Lt General (Rtrd) Roméo Dallaire, a former senator and a colleague of Landon’s, captured the attention of the young people and drove home the message that in order to fully exercise their civil and political rights, “you must engage with the world around you and the movers of the world; the adult decision-makers must create the conditions in which your ideas can shake them up.” This was precisely the message we were hoping for, in order to kick off what has become a decade of StM workshops. StM was born out of years of attempts to shift the way we think about children and youth and to understand how that thinking moulds their development and sense of identity. StM is built on the premise that children and youth are competent players in society and can participate in meaningful ways as full citizens in social, economic, cultural, civil, and political contexts. It was young people who came together and brought to life the original intention and design of StM. Subsequently, the identification and development of annual themes – as well as the organization, preparation planning, implementation, and evaluation of all StM events and initiatives – is facilitated by youth leaders themselves. The purpose of StM from the onset was for youth to identify themes from their own lived experience that would be discussed amongst themselves, without adult interruption, at each workshop. Their presentations about the discussions that took place among the small groups

The Power of Partnerships

127

of youth participants include issues, problems, and recommended solutions; the discussions are collated into a report each year by the youth facilitators and distributed to the “movers” (the children’s rights academic network). These reports capture verbatim the words of the youth participants at StM, and their voices and opinions are intended to “shake the movers.” The child rights academic network (Cran) has been evolving along with the StM workshops that become richer every year. Cran is made up of more than sixty academics in Canada and the uK who have a declared interest in children’s rights. They listen to, and are moved by, what the StM participants have had to say and come together to respond. (“StM: A Decade Later – Does Our Voices Stick?” 2nd edition forthcoming). The evolution of StM has been dependent on the ability to develop safe and trustworthy environments that allow the youth to freely talk about their experience and show empathy for other youth. A balance is established early in the process each year about the level of involvement of adult allies. This requires the ability of the few adults present to know and understand a relational approach to interactions with youth that is respectful, equitable, empowering, and inclusive and honours their histories. The themes that emerged over the years regardless of topic discussed were consistent with what Landon has experienced nationally and internationally. The themes described here are those written by the youth facilitators: Most of the participants, regardless of their background came to the workshops unaware that they actually have rights and were disappointed that no one had ever told them about these rights. They were only too aware that the balance of power is always tilted toward the adults in all of the institutions and systems that surround them as they grow up. The participants were clearly not convinced that rights are actually relational and that adults have a duty to respond. These young people would like us to understand that there is no such thing as a “normal” adolescent and so they are very wary of any of the stereotypes that are used to classify them. The young people wanted adults to recognize that adolescence is a time for trying on identities, not for being trapped inside them.

128

Judy Finlay

Figure 8.4 Celebrating Landon’s birthday at Shaking the Movers, Ryerson University

The themes discussed over and over again by young people and adults echo Landon’s persistent commentary about the promotion and protection of children’s rights and the consequences of not upholding those rights. Youth spoke of power imbalances and did not trust that concrete changes would flow from their engagement and participation. A sense of powerlessness was offset by their passion for social justice. At StM workshops youth partnered with youth and safety and camaraderie grew from that. Cran represented another example of Landon navigating and negotiating partnerships among the “movers” in order to fulfill her commitment to the young people that their voices and opinions did matter and would be heard. In this respect the adults/decision makers were accountable to them. This collaborative approach allowed for the sharing of ideas and thoughts by youth in safe contexts. It promoted a sense of belonging and community.

The Power of Partnerships

129

Figure 8.5 Landon Pearson with Mamow Ki kenda ma win team at Nibinamik First Nation, 2009

MaMow KI-Ken-Da-Ma-wIn: SearCHIng togetHer The core of our work together has been related to the development of trusting, enduring partnerships with First Nations leaders, elders, youth, and community members in remote, fly-in northern First Nations in Ontario. Our approach to these particular partnerships between First Nations and non-Aboriginal peoples has been relational. We believed that it takes “three cups of tea” before any meaningful dialogue can take place. Geographic remoteness inhibited the growth of these relationships, as did language. Learning Oji-Cree would have translated to a deeper understanding of the culture that, in turn, would foster the relationship. Regrettably, competency in the language was not achieved by either of us. As the child advocate for Ontario, I had begun over the years to gain entry to the remote First Nations and, as such, began to nurture the establishment of partnerships. Landon and I understood well Canada’s mainstream narrative about “Indians.” Landon consistently articulated the impact of that narrative. And here I would like to say that, as a society, we have come belatedly to a recognition of how badly we have mistreated the peoples who welcomed us to North America, how disgracefully we have cheated and exploited them and tried to force assimilation. Without a rights-based perspective we caused

130

Judy Finlay

enormous damage and although the tide has now turned the damage we inflicted, often with the best of intentions, it will cost both us and our First Peoples untold grief for generations to come. And, of all the errors we committed, perhaps the worst was to flout the rights of aboriginal children by placing them in residential schools against their will, destroying their attachment to culture and family, breaking the pattern of generational transfer and often subjecting them to physical and sexual abuse – all in the name of “education.” With this as the context, Mamow Sha-way-gi-kay-win: The NorthSouth Partnership for Children (nSp), an incorporated not-for-profit organization, was launched in 2010. nSp represented the coming together of thirty First Nations in remote northwestern Ontario and more than one hundred individuals and voluntary organizations based in southern Ontario. It was imagined that by working together in a partnership that includes and follows the lead of First Nations voices, a network of caring relationships would create, support, and strengthen short- and long-term solutions to the urgent conditions and challenges faced by children, youth, and families in remote First Nations. Landon was the cochair of the governance circle along with Chief Donny Morris from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation for critical periods of nSp’s evolution. There were many successes and challenges throughout the history of nSp. Many of the southern and northern partners expected the partnership to function from a philosophy of a charitable model that was never the intention. Landon and I challenged this understanding and recognized that a “charitable” approach contributed to structural issues of dependency and poverty and didn’t address the underlying issues of social justice. Furthermore, navigating the two worlds, sparked passionate debates among the partners that necessitated a return to the core values of “not speaking for or about.” The fundamental role of nSp was a brokering role: to broker relationships and resources from the south to the north. Landon was an active contributor to this debate and as an elder inspired everyone in the governance circle to revisit and confirm the intended vision of nSp. In a revisioning exercise in 2013, the participants unanimously agreed that the “spirit” of the partnership was its promise. They understood the role of the spirit as achieving dreams, safeguarding the wellness of children and families, fostering relationships across cultures, mentoring “our” future leaders, and integrating the values, way of life, and traditions of “our peoples” in the work of nSp.

The Power of Partnerships

131

Figure 8.6 Landon Pearson with Elder Pauline at Idle No More Rally at Ryerson University, 2014

Over time, largely due to funding constraints, nSp progressed to Mamow Ki-ken-da-ma- win: Everyone Searching Together for Answers (Searching Together). Searching Together continues today at Ryerson University. It is built on the partnership-based approach of nSp and as such it seeks through a community assessment and mobilization process to identify priorities and issues of importance in five remote First Nations in Ontario. It serves as a vehicle for understanding and taking steps to address community wellness. Landon transitioned from nSp to becoming a founding member of the Searching Together team.

tabaCIMowIn: GatHerInG oF StorIeS I believe, and I know Landon agrees, that the creation of Tabacimowin was one the most fulfilling experiences that we had in the north. By the time we undertook the writing of this book, our partnerships had matured and there was mutual respect and reciprocity. Gathering narratives of childhood from Aboriginal elders and community leaders and carrying the messages they wanted to convey to the youth of their communities proved to be both an honour and a privilege for the two of us. For Landon, the elders were contemporaries, and this enriched the interactions throughout our time in the seven different First Nations.

132

Judy Finlay

The narratives were gathered elder to elder. All of the elders and leaders were extraordinarily generous with their personal stories and their time, whether they were speaking to us separately or together. The elders were truly remarkable; they wore their lives visibly on their faces. Most of them had similar stories of childhood in the bush, separation and loss during their school years and long stretches of dislocation, poverty, and pain yet they were all approaching the final stages of their lives as distinct individuals. They had been making their own souls, carried by the current of history from the nomadic ways they and their ancestors had followed for centuries into forced settlement, dependency, and the mixed benefits of the modern age. They had overcome obstacles almost impossible to imagine while at the same time, they retained their profound attachment to their traditional lands, to the kinship and community ties that enable survival, and to their characteristic good humour. Our conversations were continually punctuated by laughter. (Tabacimowin 2010). In the tradition of storytelling, two stories (of many) come to mind about Landon and our northern experience. The first story speaks to the healing power of the partnerships we cultivated, and both stories illustrate how we navigated relationships with Indigenous people as non-Indigenous women. At one of the circles that we attended in the Fort Frances area, shortly after Landon lost her daughter, we were offered the honour of attending the most sacred Ojibwa ceremony, the Shaking Tent. We each went into the Shaking Tent with the spiritual leader separately, and we each had our own question to pose to the leader. At the end of the ceremony Landon explained to me that she had been given advice about how to contend with the recent death and how to support her daughter’s two sons. This was extremely powerful for Landon, and she carried that spiritual advice and the leader’s premonition with her for a very long time. This was truly a gift of healing at a very tough time in her life. The second story was also from a time of transition and healing for Landon. It took place shortly after the death of her husband. We were gathering stories with elders in one community in the heat of summer. Landon would speak to elders and I would record their words by hand. On two occasions in this community, there were two elders who were themselves widowed; during the interviews in their home, they became quite smitten with Landon. They offered to share their meals, presented her with tea and bannock, or transported her from place to place within the community in their pickup trucks. This is highly unusual from my experience. Landon was totally oblivious to

The Power of Partnerships

133

the intention of their overtures and affection. It was blatantly obvious to me. The elders drove dusty, not well-maintained pickup trucks. Typically, I would pull myself up into the cab of the truck and squeeze into the middle half-seat. Landon would sit more comfortably in the passenger’s seat; after all, she is an elder. On more than one occasion the elder would manoeuvre the situation, quite frankly by shoving me over, so that Landon was sitting next to him and he could flirt more comfortably. Finally, Landon understood. We laughed about her naivety for weeks. We were each humbled by these and many other experiences and are truly grateful that we had been welcomed with kindness, respect, and gifts of sharing on each and every occasion. On these trips to remote northern communities, because of the impoverished living circumstances, Landon and I shared spaces and were always in close proximity to each other. We often joke, even today, about sleeping together. We have come to know each other very well. We have moved past “partnership” to a relationship that is blessed with closeness, laughter, tears, and shared hopes and dreams.

power oF partnerSHIpS DeMonStrateD We live in an increasingly complex world. This complexity often leads to inertia because the challenges inherent in this complexity may be viewed as too large or too complicated to tackle. It’s often easier to maintain the status quo than to confront change. Landon wouldn’t allow herself to be constrained by funders, bureaucracies, institutions, global politics, or more locally driven barriers. She was not afraid to take risks and explore new ways of working and being, particular when it came to the rights and wellbeing of children. Change for her was cumulative, always building on the step before. It was shaped and driven, however, by relationships as illustrated in the quote above about “every child needs someone in their life who is ‘crazy’ about them. “Her relational approach to every interaction regardless of the context, situation or circumstance in which it took place, set the stage for meaningful partnerships. She believes that the nature of the relationship will determine the value, the endurance, and the power of any partnership. Strategically, she maneuvered through the development of relationships with national and world leaders that resulted in lasting partnerships and transformative change for children. Similarly, through StM she forged relationships with funders to sustain opportunities for youth. These partnerships evolved effortlessly. She respectfully and sensitively nurtured relationships with elders that led to long-term

134

Figure 8.7

Judy Finlay

Landon Pearson in Eabametoong First Nation, 2010

partnerships with First Nations. This connectedness through relationships progressed instinctively to partnerships that were the vehicles for navigating complex challenges and change. Partnerships launched by Landon were characterized by trust, respect, reciprocity, and mutuality. Noteworthy is that these are the foundation of the seven grandfather teachings. These were illustrated through her actions. For example, she asserted that openness to sharing of information, resources, decision making, responsibility, and accountability were key to enduring partnerships. She also appreciated and honoured the belief that active relationships were built over time and were not abandoned when difficulties arose and required regular nurturance and support. The depth of commitment evident in these partnerships allowed the pursuit of new and innovative approaches that went beyond the boundaries and the experience of each of the partners. In that respect, partnerships built over time became the vehicle to change perceptions and behaviour. Whereas, the outcomes generated by all partnerships, like all relationships, cannot be predicted in advance, what is created is uniquely driven by the synergy between the partners (Lane and Maxwell 1996, 215). This is the value and uniqueness of Landon’s approach to transforming the landscape for children’s rights for voice, participation, belonging, and citizenship. It is her level of comfort with unpredictability and taking risks. She rarely has a predetermined road map or set expectations of others. Through her wisdom, rich experience, and wily intuition groomed over decades, she is content to sit back and observe without feeling pressured or vexed by resistance. She has unwavering confidence in her relational approach and faith in the partnerships she has built. She inherently trusts that things will unfold as they should. And so they have!

The Power of Partnerships

135

BIBLIograpHY Andreychuk, Raynell, and Joan Fraser. “Children: The Silenced Citizens. Effective Implementation of Canada’s International Obligations with Respect to the Rights of Children.” Final report of Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (Ottawa: Senate Standing Committee, April 2007). Available at https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/Committee/391/ huma/rep/rep10apr07-e.pdf. Coates, T. Revisioning Mamow Sha-way--gi-kay-win. Unpublished, Toronto, 2013. Finlay, J. and L. Pearson, “Shaking the Movers: A Decade Later – Does Our Voice Stick?” In A Question of Commitment. The Status of Children in Canada, 2nd ed., edited by Thomas Waldock.Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2019. – Tibacimowin: Gathering of Stories. Ottawa: Provincial Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health at CHeo, 2010. Ogilvie, Doris. For Canada’s Children: A National Agenda for Action. Report of the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child. (Ottawa: Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child, 1970). Available at https://carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre/wp-content/ uploads/1-For-Canadas-Children-1979-part1-1.pdf. Pearson, L. “What’s Wrong with Rights for Children?” Unpublished address. Emory University, School of Law, Atlanta, Georgia, 2005. unICeF. “A World Fit for Children. Millenium Development Goals. Special Session on Children Documents the Convention on the Rights of the Child.” New York: United Nations Children’s Fund, 2002. Available at https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/A_World_Fit_Children.pdf.

noteS 1 Judy Finlay, chief advocate, Ontario, president of Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates; Deborah Parker-Loewen, Saskatchewan children’s advocate; Janet Mirwaldt, Manitoba’s children’s advocate, Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates, “Submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, First Session, Thirty-eighth Parliament, 2004-05.” Fourth Meeting on: Examine and report upon Canada’s obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children. Issue 6 (21 February 2005). Available at https://canadiancrc. com/Senate_Canada_Human_Rights_Committee_transcripts/Senate_hr_ evidence_21FEB05_E.aspx. 2 The United States and the Children’s Convention: The Perspective of an Ally. Honourable Lucy Landon Carter Pearson, Senator (2005). Unpublished.

9

Earthquakes and Guinea Pigs Spreading the Word about Children’s Rights with Landon

KeLLY Stone

On a personal level, I always smile a bit when I hear the name “Shaking the Movers.” These workshops, which are the flagship of Landon Pearson’s initiatives aimed at capturing the voices of children, reflect one of the many interesting adventures that I have shared with Landon. In 2005, Landon and I were visiting unICeF’s regional office in Mexico City near the place where she and her family had lived during the years when her husband Geoffrey was Canada’s ambassador to Mexico. We were meeting on the second floor of a lovely heritage mansion when an earthquake struck. Our well-practiced hosts were out of their chairs in a nanosecond heading for the broad circular stone staircase down to the main floor. Once out on the street, someone made the quip that they had wanted to put on a little show for us. Actually, I thought with a smile, this was a perfect example of how Landon rocks the world around her wherever she goes. With her focus on making better places for children to grow up in, she thinks out of the box, up-ends polite discussion tables and complacency, and helps young people shake the movers. Being in a real earthquake with Landon was somehow just perfect!

IntroDuCtIonS anD HIStorY Like a deer in the headlights, I arrived in my new role as director of childhood and adolescence for Health Canada in the spring of 2002 fresh from helping the Government of Canada deal with the practical impacts of the 9/11 tragedy in the United States. Many had been pulled from their usual work to provide special support that lasted months. I

Earthquakes and Guinea Pigs

137

was emotionally exhausted and more than ready for my new focus on the health and wellbeing of children in Canada and abroad. By way of context, prior to my arrival in 2002 at Health Canada, I had worked in the Government of Canada’s Privy Council office to help shepherd in the National Children’s Agenda and then the federal provincial territorial Ministers’ Early Child Development Agreement. These aspirational blueprints set the scene for Canada’s commitment to children and a vision for which future Canadian governments could be held accountable. In my new Health Canada role, I discovered that under the minister of health and the minister of social services I shared with a public servant colleague governmental coordination related to domestic unCrC implementation. On behalf of my minister, I also had international child rights responsibilities. This is where my role intersected with that of Senator Pearson and where our professional relationship, and later friendship, began to take root. I recognized the incredible leadership and mentorship she could offer and seized upon it wholeheartedly. Looking back, these were heady years, with so much possibility to make progress to the benefit of Canada and the world’s children.

LearnIng tHe ropeS In 1990, a un-sponsored international meeting called the World Summit resulted in twenty-seven aspirational goals that governments around the world agreed to work toward on behalf of their children. While there were check-ins during the 1990s, an end of century stocktaking was planned. This became the 2002 Special Session on Children of the United Nations General Assembly: it took place almost at my arrival. This was also the year to prepare and present the second report on Canada’s progress in implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (unCrC) and for a live appearance by a Canadian delegation before the un Committee on the Rights of the Child to defend this progress, or lack there of, in certain areas. While I began my new job too late to attend the special session, immediately thereafter, I was about to get a crash course on my new unCrC responsibilities in order to help lead the drafting of Canada’s second report. I confess that at this point I was still trying to get acronyms straight. A meeting was scheduled for me to meet with the famous Senator Landon Pearson; she was then the advisor for children’s rights to the minister of foreign affairs. I was absolutely terrified! This unCrC business was still an unfamiliar language, and I had virtually no historical

138

Kelly Stone

grounding or related experience from which to draw. The international relations aspects of my own career thus far had not revolved around children’s issues. At that initial 2002 visit to Senator Pearson’s east block parliamentary office, I met my future guide and personal historian for all things un and unCrC. It was, in fact, my first real introduction to the very concept, let alone importance, of children’s rights. I was about to begin a multiyear tutorial on how the unCrC can positively influence the means by which children can reach their own potential supported by a family, their community, and their government. That day, I also gained a mentor who later became a friend and who, through the next decades, would heavily and positively influence what I consider the second half of my professional career. My path to that charming east block office, with its lovely historic fireplace, would become well trod indeed! Out of the May 2002 un Special Session on Children came an outcome document in the form of a small booklet entitled A World Fit for Children. This booklet would stand as an international declaration on behalf of countries that were signatories to the convention. It invited countries to assume new promises to their children and to identify urgent priorities that could be translated into state action plans for the next decade and perhaps beyond. unICeF’s child-friendly version encouraged children to check in on progress from time to time, thereby holding their governments accountable for promises made especially in the areas of health, education, HIV/aIDS, and the protection of children from violence, abuse, and exploitation. That fall, I joined Senator Pearson for the first time as a member of the delegation she led which would appear before the un Committee on the Rights of the Child regarding Canada’s second report. At Palais Wilson in Geneva, I watched as Senator Pearson expertly choreographed our group of provincial ministers and federal officials through the elaborate dance that is a country appearance before a un committee. A round of committee questions followed by a ten-minute team huddle to assign responders, then one hour to respond and to note additional committee questions – rinse and repeat, again and again; it was a master class in pressure cooker traffic control. But, as guardians of children’s rights, this committee would show no mercy for over defensiveness of officials nor weak answers or political skating. I recall this being a chaotic, stressful experience for delegation members but Senator Pearson kept us focused and on our performance toes. After this introductory trial by fire, I joined her for many Palais Wilson visits over the years especially for General Days of Discussion. Senator Pearson’s international stature as a respected and relentless voice for children

Earthquakes and Guinea Pigs

139

gave license to press unCrC-signatory governments, not-for-profits, and others to step up to their responsibilities. By the end of 2003, governments were just beginning to develop national plans of action to reflect the goals set out in A World Fit for Children. In my public service capacity, I was able to help fund Senator Pearson’s office to orchestrate extensive consultations with young people across Canada and, later, the drafting of Canada’s plan of action. I observed how she pulled all the right political strings to deftly shepherd this plan though ministerial approvals right into cabinet. She sought and obtained un permission to copy the small square blue-and-white World Fit for Children format, creating a small square red-and-white booklet entitled A Canada Fit for Children. It was a magnificently negotiated plan, which political entities, civil society, and, importantly, young people themselves broadly supported. On 22 April 2004, on behalf of the Government of Canada, Senator Pearson submitted A Canada Fit for Children to the United Nations in New York City; Canada’s plan was among the first from industrialized countries. Senator Pearson noted at the time that A Canada Fit for Children was indeed the result of input from thousands of Canadians, including young people, who had a common interest in the rights and wellbeing of children. The impact of this little red-and-white booklet was such that it prompted governments of the day to make significant investments in children’s issues. As our Pied Piper for children, Landon Pearson had successfully corralled everyone into the children’s corner.

LeSSonS For puBLIC SerVantS During my own tenure at Health Canada, and later as part of the new Public Health Agency of Canada, one of the things that I appreciated most about Landon Pearson was that she understood where senior public servants had opportunity. She taught so many of us how to use such opportunity. Equally, she understood where there were limitations. She coached us on how to achieve as much as possible under the presiding political, fiscal, or other constraints but also how best to mitigate the impact of government inaction or worse, of government negative action. The insight, boundless commitment, and focus that Landon Pearson brings to infusing the rights of children into governance encouraged me, along with my public servant peers, to chip away at the margins of possibility while keeping a keen firm eye on the long game. Landon Pearson’s familial experience, as well as observations and tactics honed through her role as an ambassador’s wife, has brought a practical, yet aspirational, tenor to discussions around moving the

140

Kelly Stone

unCrC needle. I have carried these lessons with me beyond my public service career into my role as Ceo of Families Canada, a national not-for-profit. In its work with communities across Canada, Families Canada strives to inform service providers about the unCrC but also to introduce families to the most basic concept of the convention – that respecting children’s rights supports a positive growing-up experience even in the most challenging of socioeconomic or other circumstances.

out oF CanaDa aDVentureS The Courage to Challenge Senator Pearson served as an honorary director of the directing council of the Inter-American Children’s Institute (IIn) which, while headquartered in Montevideo Uruguay, falls under the umbrella of the Organization of American States. The IIn is charged with regional implementation of the unCrC focusing on priority issues for children of the Americas, especially Mexico, Central and South America. Today, Canada remains a voting member of the IIn directing council. During my own years as an IIn director on behalf of the Government of Canada, Landon Pearson frequently joined me at meetings. Being a senator and senior statesperson on behalf of children, her presence was coveted and directors from countries across the Americas and their political leadership accorded her deep respect. Her presence also afforded Canada greater status and greater influence on projects, funding opportunities, as well as partnerships with other institutions, governments, and communities. Underpinned by Honorary Director Pearson, Canada helped the IIn navigate regional political pressures in favour of making the best possible choices for children and their families. In addition, she helped broker strategies that would offset external pressure on IIn government delegations and the Montevideo staff to embrace a narrower and more traditional interpretation of “family.” She pressed the IIn to show courage in protecting an inclusive view that better reflects realities of modern life in the developed world as well as in those pockets of the developing world rooted in extreme poverty or social marginalization. Family can take many shapes and forms; what matters is that a child benefits from a close social construct around them which rallies to positively support their growing-up experience.

Earthquakes and Guinea Pigs

141

Embracing Youth Landon Pearson loves to be around young people. Given the opportunity, she is always up for joining young people to hear their point of view. During our IIn years together, she used her Spanish to jump right into the fray with the youth delegations from across the Americas and, whenever possible, chided the Canadian government into sending its own youth delegation to unCrC- specific or IIn events. The Pan American Child Congress, held every five years, was one such example. Thanks to Landon Pearson, Canada had a robust youth delegation in Lima, Peru and later in Queretaro, Mexico, where young people formulated their own unCrC regional priorities and invited the IIn to take their perspectives on board. While South and Central American states were quick to send youth to events, by tradition, expectations were low regarding useful outcomes. But with Landon Pearson present, this was never an issue. As always, she was the bridge between governments and the voices of children and youth. At IIn-sponsored events, youth delegations became empowered to present their views to heads of states and ministers as well as to the IIn directing council. In turn, she coached the IIn on how to incorporate these views into IIn strategic plans and work plans so that young people would see their contribution valued. Moving from lip service to action vis-à-vis the voices of young people was a big step for the IIn directing council and its staff in Uruguay. Young people later represented the Landon Pearson Centre for the Study of Childhood and Child Rights at IIn-sponsored events, including one Canadian youth delegation which travelled to Quito, Ecuador to explore how young people could have greater voice in government decisions that could impact their lives. By way of a positive example, the Ecuadorian government established a youth council that reviewed proposed national public policy through a child-rights lens. Safe Havens for Street Children Not all my excursions with Landon Pearson were institution-based. Like our earthquake- interrupted visit to unICeF, she usually pressed the local Canadian embassy into action. I recall a visit we made to a shelter for Mexican street girls, some as young as four or five years old. A big black embassy car with bulletproof window glass bumped us through some downright scary parts of the city to the multistorey building that offered these girls a safe place to live, recover from trauma, go to school,

142

Kelly Stone

learn to play, and where they could just be children again, all behind a tall impenetrable wall with those ugly, no-man’s-land streets just outside. Some girls stayed at the shelter from primary school through their teens, learning skills like sewing or, in a few cases, continuing to live in a young adult space while taking college classes. It was an inspiring story. The Canadian embassy had provided funds to buy bunk beds for these girls along with basic soccer equipment to use in their aboveground, concrete, heavily fenced outdoor space. The girls gave us gifts as we departed; mine was a beautifully painted pregnant Mexican lady made of clay and wrapped in fancy cellophane paper and ribbon. As I transited customs I was asked, “Madam did you accept any gifts from anyone?” In fact, I had taken my lady out of her pretty wrapping, checked her kneeling underside, and shook her a little. Today, my pregnant lady still occupies a place of honour in my office reminding me just a little of the embarrassment I felt at confessing my lack of trust when I crossed back into Canada. In 2009, during an IIn event, Landon (as I now called her) organized a small group tour that proved one of the more interesting visits made under her wing. In Lima, Peru we were introduced to a pilot juvenile justice project that gave young offenders the choice of standard incarceration in a local jail or volunteer labour within the community combined with school. Through the hardscrabble streets of this peripheral shantytown, we made our way on foot to see the holding cells for young female inmates. Filthy and open to the outside via a small barred window in the concrete walls, they contained a wood bench and a toilet pot in the corner; there were no female showers or exercise space. The police confessed that while they were designed to hold adult males, at times by necessity they still held young women, including juveniles. The pilot project was aimed at offering young women convicted of noncapital crimes an innovative community alternative. Failure to meet mandated goals and obligations meant a return to the jail down the street; the resulting low rate of recidivism was impressive. Also, in Peru, somewhere in the rural outskirts of Lima, we visited a large farm that was giving boys who were previously living on the streets a home, education, and, for teens, a trade. Most, including the very young had been abused or had been exploited within Lima’s sex trade. Helping these boys deal with trauma, learn new social behaviours as well as everyday life skills, was woven into the daily routines of school. Making music together was also considered an important part of their therapy; we enjoyed a fine concert on arrival. Most boys stayed on the farm for years, earning their keep by contributing to

Earthquakes and Guinea Pigs

143

subsistence farm operations. For older boys, there were the quite well equipped shops around the farm where they could learn carpentry, blacksmithing, or metal work, which would be useful to a community in future. As we wandered freely around the farm, we came across a huge barn of gorgeous, fluffy, free running guinea pigs, more than I had ever seen in one place. In our naive oohing and ahhing over their squeaky cuteness we had forgotten that in this part of South America guinea pigs, or cuye, are considered dinner. They require less room than traditional livestock and are good breeders that, in this case, meant enough could be on hand to assure one cuye per boy for special occasion meals. I fear our North American sensibilities that were quite disrupted by our cuye discovery says a lot about our position of privilege as visitors from Canada. Getting to Know Each Other On yet another visit to Mexico, a group of us were far from our hotel late one evening following a terrific restaurant dinner. Mexico City is flooded with unregistered vintage two-door Volkswagen Bug taxis, so the safe choice is to call ahead for a radio taxi or at least pick a Bug with four doors so you cannot be locked in. We did not make the prudent choice this night! Seeing a lone Bug trolling our street, we flagged it down and proceeded, British telephone booth style, to see how many of us we could squeeze inside. In a tangle of indiscrete arms and legs we wedged into the doorless back seat and pulled poor Landon over the top. With faces smooshed against the window glass, we were thankful that Landon was not tall nor the route to the hotel exceptionally long. Happily, our taxi driver did safely deliver us home. We made a noisy, ungainly exit to the amusement of the doorman at our upscale hotel. Another fine example of meeting new friends, up close diplomacy, and solving problems together. I loved travelling with Landon!! Beyond the serious visits, Landon was never above having fun and, in the “fun” context, never stood on ceremony. Those of us who know Landon will all have memories of her dancing. She could be counted on to accept an invitation to adorn herself in sometimes awkward, traditional cultural clothing, including headdresses and paraphernalia. She has partaken in endless ceremonies and has danced with abandon together and before young people. That sense of fun, but also respect for occasion, has been limitless. Young people seem to know that she is the one who will say yes when invited, whatever the event. It has been her hallmark.

144

Kelly Stone

Thank you While our years of international travel together are past, our domestic work together continues. Landon remains a marvel of ingenuity, flexibility, and resilience in the face of intransigence and calm under fire. Her energy and dogged determination to shake those movers in the name of a better world for children remains such an inspiration to all who follow in her wake and are committed to continuing her legacy into the future. Thank you, Landon, for the opportunity to spend these years in your company.

10

On Leadership, Intellect, and Kindness MeLanIe aDrIan

She was much shorter than I had imagined. Before meeting her, I thought of Senator Pearson as a towering figure. I knew of her accomplishments, having studied (children’s) human rights in the United Kingdom. Her steadfast work on children’s rights from the 1970s onwards was legendary to young scholars in this field: her ability to connect women’s and children’s lives to policy and politics – recommending real solutions for real obstacles; her insistence that children’s voices are listened to and heard; her seemingly fearless stand demanding that children are treated with care and dignity. She was that towering figure when I first saw her. Larger than life, to be sure. She was coming to the Department of Foreign Affairs for a conference where, freshly minted with an Ma in human rights, I had just landed my first short-term contract working on anything but human rights issues. I loitered, hoping to catch a glimpse. Soon enough, a flurry of activity came through the front doors. Surrounded by collaborators and assistants, Senator Pearson made her way to the head of the group. She walked quickly and with determination. Those around her were in a light jog trying to keep up. She seemed formidable. I do not remember much about the content of the conference that followed. The life lessons that were formed were much more important. Senator Pearson walked into the room that day and, quite naturally, took her seat in the centre of the podium at the front of the room. She did not waiver and did not ask. She arrived and knew what her place should be. This was the first time that a woman I respected intellectually held her place with certainty and confidence. After she took her place, Senator Pearson commanded the room. She launched the proceedings, introducing the topic and the presenters.

146

Melanie Adrian

She began with her own remarks, weaving together themes through concrete examples, highlighting the interplay of theory and practice. She spoke with impressive insight. Once she had finished, she passed the microphone on to the next speaker. And the next and the speaker after that. Her leadership did not depend on dominance or grasping the room tightly. Her leadership was embodied, certain and fuelled by astute theoretical insight and experience. It was no wonder that, some years later, one of my primary goals was to meet with Senator Pearson at her Centre for Childhood and Children’s Rights. We sat in her office on that warm summer day overlooking the river, discussing children’s rights, the growth of the centre, and my own journey to the university. She was inquisitive and thoughtful. She was demanding and challenging. She exacted a distinct form of intellectual acuity that was precise, fast-paced, and connected to real-life questions. It embodied the melody of the life we walk as women, mothers, sisters, academics, and intellectuals. Senator Pearson seemed to sit at ease in various sides of her strength: that of woman, mother, intellectual, and changemaker. In another place and thinking about another peoples, Wangari Maathai, the first African woman to win the Nobel Prize for her environmental and activist work in Kenya and the wider African continent, emphasized that the power of change builds on what is within. Maathai’s mission was primarily environmental, but in raising awareness for the issues, she started a social movement that connected the power of being with wider social change. In my reading of her movement and work, particularly in her volume Replenishing the Earth, one of the many important messages driven home is that the power to effect change lies within the individual: the many talents and ways of being in the world combine in service to society. This vision is inherently individual while being fundamentally social at the same time. Sitting with Senator Pearson that day demonstrated to me this combination of self in – and for – society. Bringing the whole self, in its variated and complex and talented ways, to the table in the service of the larger world. The larger world  – and the children in it  – have been Senator Pearson’s focus for decades of her professional and personal life. Her commitment to improving their lives through a more encompassing view of rights is impressive. These are the big picture goals. At the same time, she never forgets the people with whom she lives in community in the everyday and to whom she shows her care and concern. And so it was with me. Just a few months after meeting in her office on that sunny summer day, I fell ill. In the midst of the hardest struggles with treatment, Senator Pearson came to visit.

On Leadership, Intellect, and Kindness

147

The table was set with a pale green tablecloth and green plates. She arrived and we sat together in my little kitchen eating cake and drinking tea. We talked about health and the challenges of treatment. We talked about social change and current events. The conversation ebbed and flowed, laced at times with hardship and at other times with a normalcy that seemed unreal in the moment. During that conversation, the formidable senator showed a kindness that was deeply touching. She never lost her critical purchase on the issues of the day. At the same time, she held a gentle listening ear. In that moment, she made me realize that this was but a sprinkle in time, a transition, an incubation of sorts, until the next steps could be taken. As Wangari Maathai famously said in her memoir Unbowed, “A stumble is only one step in the long path we walk and dwelling on it only postpones the completion of our journey” (164). As we were eating cake and drinking tea in that stumble, kindness led the way. Kindness fortified the moment and became integral to understanding leadership and the embodiment of social change.

BIBLIograpHY Maathai, Wangari. Unbowed: A Memoir. New York: Anchor/Random House, 2007. – Replenishing the Earth: Spiritual Values for Healing Ourselves and the World. New York: Doubleday, 2010.

11

Landon Pearson CInDY BLaCKStoCK

Writing about Landon Pearson while in Morocco seems fitting, for she is a woman of the world and a woman of the world’s children. Her love and dignity for children is transnational in every sense of the word. Even here, thousands of miles away from Canada, our Moroccan hosts reserved a chair for her in the front row in case she could join us. While she does not travel internationally as much as in years past, the fondness and respect which people around the globe hold for her is obvious. Though Landon travelled the globe for much of her life, she eventually began a new adventure as a senator, crossing the borders in Canada that separate First Nations children from other Canadians. The erasure of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples from the Canadian consciousness was profound and deliberately enacted by successive governments. It was far easier for colonial governments to operate unimpeded by the moral and legal weight of the injustices perpetrated against Indigenous peoples in Canada if Canadians, particularly prominent ones, did not see them. That erasure created a blind spot for many child rights activists in Canada. While people from many walks of life spoke out about the needless deaths and abuses in residential schools, the child rights community was silent. While First Nations and reports like the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1 called out the profound inequalities in federally funded public services on reserves that contributed to over-representation in child welfare and juvenile justice, poor health, and high rates of suicide, few child rights activists spoke of these crises. When I started my post as executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada in 2002, I began meeting with national and international child rights organizations and

Landon Pearson

149

politicians of all stripes. When I raised the fate of First Nations children back then, I often felt like I was screaming into silence. Vacuous of meaningful education on Canada’s relationship with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, these organizations were focused on the “real” problem of disadvantaged children overseas or on policies affecting “all”  children in Canada. There was little understanding that First Nations children in Canada often faced the very conditions that children in the third world experience like lack of access to clean water, unsanitary waste management, poor housing, contaminated environmental conditions, and discrimination of all forms. The carefully woven white noise barrier constructed by Canadian governments acted like a dike holding back even the most caring and dedicated of child rights actors – Landon was one of few exceptions. When I met with her, she understood the gravity of the dire situation of First Nations children and her need to learn more. She was compelled to visit First Nations communities separated from the Canadian consciousness by colonialism. I cannot speak for her, but if anything, I think she came to understand that the situation for many First Nations children was far worse than I was able to convey in words. There are some things in life that you can only begin to understand by seeing, listening, and – despite the deep discomfort – refusing to turn away simply because you can and these children cannot. Since then she has been a relentless champion for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit children, educating her fellow politicians, child rights actors, and those in her well-connected international circle. She has also taught me more than words can convey. Those who know me well know I have no patience for politics while children suffer and Landon has kept me (mostly) from political shipwreck during the many years we litigated to get the equitable services for First Nations children that the federal government denied them. As much as I enjoy learning with Landon, I know what she truly likes best: hanging out with kids. Guided by the leadership of the board of directors for the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, of which Landon is a member, the Caring Society engages thousands of children in peaceful advocacy so First Nations children can grow up safely in their families, get a good education, be healthy, and proud of who they are. These campaigns are led by our beloved, or rather bear-loved mascot and team member Spirit Bear who ensures this generation of children will grow up knowing and respecting the histories, contributions, and situations of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit children and will be equipped with the tools to stem the injustice now and into the future. Whether the children attended the tribunal, wrote

150

Cindy Blackstock

Valentine’s messages to elected leaders, or attended a teddy bear tea party with Spirit Bear, Landon was an enthusiastic participant donning a bear hat and eating a few cupcakes! Landon is a woman of the world’s children and now – as Spirit Bear would put it – she is a reconciliation am-bear-rister of the first order. May others be inspired by her example.

noteS 1 Canada, Government of Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Gathering Strength, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 3 (Ottawa: Canada Communication Group, October 2016), Available at https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/aboriginal-heritage/royal-commissionaboriginal-peoples/Pages/final-report.aspx.

12

A Testament of the Great Impact of the Honourable Landon Pearson tara M. CoLLInS

Without question, the Honourable Landon Pearson has been one of the greatest influences on children’s rights in Canada as well as exceptionally significant in my life. How fortunate I was to have Landon enter my life in the summer of 1996. I had just started my first job at a nongovernmental organization after completing my master’s degree focussed on human rights. Not only did I have almost negligible knowledge about children’s rights when I first met Landon at a memorable, yet intimidating, meeting at the Senate of Canada, I had no idea that she would become one of the most important people in my life. Her example has inspired the ongoing pursuit and study of children’s rights as my life’s professional calling and passion. In sum, she has made immeasurable contributions to both children’s rights and my professional trajectory. It has been Landon who has motivated and supported my professional pursuits with the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, the federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFaIt as it was then known), the Canadian International Development Agency (formerly CIDa), the Senate of Canada, my doctoral studies, and academic positions. She has also stimulated my work and understanding of the fundamental role of children’s rights for all those generally up to the age of eighteen in accordance with article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CrC).1 As Landon describes, “I have learned that while there are a number of ways in which we can frame issues related to children and youth, the human rights perspective is a particularly constructive one. Using it pushes you to engage directly with young people, for example, and to let them help you find solutions to their problems that are likely to work.”2 Furthermore, Landon has made

152

Tara M. Collins

important contributions to the progress of children’s rights in Canada as evidenced by her membership in the Order of Canada. This short contribution focuses on three key lessons that I have learned from Landon that regularly inform my thinking and conversations about, and work with, young people. These lessons serve to illustrate some of her extensive and invaluable efforts in support of children’s rights.

LeSSon one: CHoICe VerSuS CapaCItY Landon is an incredible champion of child and youth participation, a right articulated primarily in article 12 of the CrC, as well as freedom of expression (article 13), freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 14), freedom of association (article 15), protection of privacy (article 16), and access to information (article 17). The un Committee on the Rights of the Child defines the right to participation as “ongoing processes, which include information-sharing and dialogue between children and adults based on mutual respect, and in which children can learn how their views and those of adults are taken into account and shape the outcome of such processes.”3 Yet, the right to participate has been described as the “most widely violated and disregarded in almost every sphere of children’s lives.”4 Young people attending the first Shaking the Movers workshop hosted by Landon’s Centre in 2007 to focus on children’s and young people’s civil and political rights outlined the challenge that exists in relation to participation: “The right to speak is the right to be listened to; in practice there is a gap between speaking and being listened to.”5 Landon’s multiple and influential efforts to support participation reflect her strong commitment to this right and the critical role it plays in processes that concern children and youth. For example, over the years she has successfully advocated for, and with, young people to be participants in international conferences including the un Special Session on Children in 2002.6 In 2007, she developed the Shaking the Movers model 7 where young people are enabled to “shake” political and other decision makers, labelled as the “movers,” in society. The model has grown from an annual consultation in Ottawa to meetings taking place each year to consider a different article of the CrC or child rights topic in various locations across the country including recent sessions for young children and their families, and for children with disabilities.8 The significance of children’s right to participate and its challenges inspire me to this day. For instance, one of my earlier projects at DFaIt in 1999 was the development of a methodology for child and youth

A Testament of the Great Impact of Landon Pearson

153

participation that engaged civil society including young people. More recently, Shaking the Movers is part of my teaching of children’s rights at Ryerson University. In addition, I am the principal investigator for the International and Canadian Child Rights Partnership that has been pursuing collaborative and engaging research with young people, practitioners, and academics across five countries on children’s rights to participation and to protection.9 Landon’s distinction between choice and capacity is a critical point when considering the right to participation. The opportunity to choose to participate does not necessarily mean that children and youth will have the capacity to do so. With this lesson, Landon highlights the challenges that young people can face when contributing to processes or events, especially when sharing deeply personal and difficult experiences. We must remember that it is not always easy for them and that they may need support to participate. Her interactions with others speak to this sensitivity. For example, once young people, students, or new colleagues learn that I know her, it is remarkable how individuals regularly share how they have been deeply touched by Landon’s tireless dedication, humanity, and care in their conversations with her. The lesson regarding choice and capacity highlights the issue of diversity of young people. It means that they cannot be understood or treated as though they are all the same. Understanding and respecting children and youth in all their diversity means understanding that their participation can never be forced. Participation may seem particularly overwhelming to a child or youth if many things and/or individuals in their lives have constrained and hindered their involvement in society. As such, they may not have the capacity to engage. But a young person’s inability or decision not to participate at one point in time should never define their future participation. Assumptions about capacities must be avoided. For instance, as Perry and Szalavitz explore in their influential book about learning from children who have suffered extreme trauma, children have much to teach us.10 As a process that occurs over time then, participation should never be considered a one-time opportunity. Landon’s lesson highlights the role that each of us has in terms of what we are doing or not doing to promote opportunities and supports for children and youth to participate, not just once, but consistently over time in our efforts. We must regularly reflect upon the dimensions of children’s right to participation. As researchers, practitioners, and caring adults we can and should do as much as possible to support young people in finding strength that they may need to participate and to ensure that experiences are meaningful for them and impactful, not only for the people involved but also on the process and results.

154

Tara M. Collins

LeSSon two: CHILDren’S rIgHtS are reLatIonaL As the preamble of the CrC and other international instruments provide, rights necessarily mean that human dignity must be respected no matter one’s age; rights must be accorded to each member of the human family. Not only are children’s rights fundamentally part of international human rights law, governments are formally required to implement and respect them. Landon and I explored the general measures of implementation in Canada in a 2009 unICeF Innocenti and unICeF Canada report. We noted that rights should also influence inter alia budgets, rights awareness, education, and training as well as civil society.11 Furthermore, rights should also inform personal relationships between a young person and those around them. Landon introduced the powerful and influential concept of relational rights in her Florence Bird Lecture in 2012. She explains that “I have learned that human rights, properly understood, are about relationships rather than entitlements. They are about the relationships between individuals, between individuals and society, and between individuals – either alone or in groups – and the state.” 12 Relational rights make our commitments to respecting children and their human rights meaningful and relevant to our day-to-day efforts with children. It is far-reaching to consider rights as relational because it goes beyond viewing rights as something an individual possesses to the idea that rights occur in interactions or contextually. Rights are “essentially about how we treat one another with respect in society.”13 In other words, rights regulate how we understand and relate to one another. Consequently, Landon’s idea about relational rights informed not only the 2009 report referenced above but also my subsequent writing. For example, in 2013 I argued that constitutional rights should not simply be considered as legally relevant but also as informing other domains including the interpersonal sphere.14 Landon’s idea of relational rights has also informed others’ work.15 Such a conceptualization has such salience as we consider how rights should inform our thinking about, work with, and actions and responses to a young person or young people generally, as well as the interconnections among human rights. In my own work I am addressing the notion of relational rights in a book about children’s rights in professional practice with children and youth. For the child rights community, expanding on the implications of a relational understanding of rights moves beyond the concept and practices that reflect a standard that all children are the same. The concept of relational rights recognizes the differential treatment and

A Testament of the Great Impact of Landon Pearson

155

diverse experiences and realities lived by each young person. This idea of relational rights is relevant within a family setting where parenting must be fair but also respectful in attending to the specificities of each child for whatever reasons including special needs (e.g. disabilities, different cultural background due to fostering and adoption), emotional requirements, and/or unique interests or learning styles. It also informs professional relationships for service providers working with children – whether teachers, child and youth care practitioners, medical and mental health professionals, and others. For instance, taking a view of rights as relational enables questions to be asked such as how do we recognize and reflect the realities of racism and intersectionality whereby a child’s race, ethnicity, class, ability, and other characteristics play out in complex ways influencing the child’s behaviour, experiences, and engagement in society? There is valuable work to assist our child rights efforts16 but are we paying adequate attention and consideration? Landon’s fundamental idea of relational rights holds much promise to support better understanding and respect of each and every child, his/ her/their diversities, and human rights.

LeSSon tHree: tHe IMportanCe For one Young perSon to HaVe at LeaSt one aDuLt wHo ConSIStentLY anD unConDItIonaLLY SupportS tHeM Landon has often outlined Bronfenbrenner’s (1991) insight about how essential it is for every young person to have one person, at an absolute minimum, in their lives who is “crazy” about them and sticks with them no matter what.17 Landon believes that this type of relationship is critical in order to support a young person to overcome adversities; I have seen the power of this kind of relationship in practice over and over again. On a personal level, Landon’s insight into the importance of a consistently supportive relationship has certainly influenced my parenting style as I do not want my three sons to ever doubt how deep and profound my love is for them. Before becoming a parent, when children’s rights were a passion but not yet personal for me, I decided to become a “Big Sister” in the Big Sisters program in Ottawa. As we spent time together every week for two-and-a-half years, I became “crazy” about my “little sister.” Even though I no longer have regular contact with her, this relationship continues to influence my work and thinking about children’s rights and child and youth care; my hope is that I was able to support my “little sister” at that stage in her life. Landon’s advice reflects the critical role of connection guided by empathy and perseverance no matter the obstacles or complications. Moreover, this

156

Tara M. Collins

insight about relationships with young people should be obvious but there is all too much evidence in society about how this is not the case. In conclusion, while the CrC provides an excellent framework Landon recognizes that it may not be perfect, but it is an essential instrument for children’s rights and critical to working with young people. In order to progress with implementation and monitoring of the CrC, champions are needed in order to be successful. The child rights community is so fortunate to have Landon’s guidance and contributions. She is such a critical and essential proponent of children’s rights in Canada who is known across the country, as well as internationally, for her extraordinary intelligence, dedication, and tireless efforts to promote and implement children’s rights. Her ideas and contributions regarding advocacy, rights-based approaches, participation, and child and youth engagement have shaped many of us as well as the initiatives in which we engage in Canada and abroad. Landon has taught us that children’s rights are not just about young people; they are about all of us. She has not only informed understandings of rights, she has also inspired, influenced, and guided many young people as well as adults who reflect on their young lives. To close, Landon has made both extraordinary contributions to children’s rights and to my life both professionally and personally. I deeply appreciate all that I have learned from Landon including the three aforementioned lessons, her longstanding professional support, stimulating conversations, and time together both in Canada and abroad (Toronto, New York, Washington DC, Barbados, Jamaica, Oxford, uK, and Yokahama, Japan!). It is with great love that I offer these few words of recognition, admiration, and gratitude. Landon has been one of my life’s greatest gifts over the past twenty-four years. I am blessed to know her as one of my dearest friends, great godmother to one of my sons, and without question the greatest professional mentor in my life. Thank you ever so much Landon for all that you do, have done, and all that you are. I am forever grateful.

noteS 1 The convention entered into force on 2 September 1990. United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child. un Doc. A/reS/44/25 of 20 (November 1989). Available at https://doi.org/10.2307/4065371. 2 Landon Pearson, “From Strength to Strength: The Interrelated Rights of Women and Children Over the Life Cycle,” Child & Youth Services 33, 2 (2012): 92–103. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/0145935X.2012.704783.

A Testament of the Great Impact of Landon Pearson

157

3 un Committee on the Rights of the Child, “General Comment No. 12: The Right of the Child to be Heard,” un Doc. CrC/C/gC/12, (20 July 2009): 5. 4 H. Shier, “Pathways to Participation: Openings, Opportunities and Obligations,” Children & Society 15, 2 (2001): 107–17. Available at https://doi. org/10.1002/CHI.617. 5 Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights, Carleton University website. Shaking the Movers Speaking Truth to Power: Civil and Political Rights of Children Final Report. (Ottawa, 2007). Available at https://carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre/wp-content/uploads/ Shaking-the-Movers-2007-Report.pdf. 6 Pearson, “From Strength to Strength,” 97. 7 Landon Pearson and Tara M. Collins, “Shaking the Movers: A Model for Collaborative Consultation with Children and Youth on Public Policy,” (Ottawa: Landon Pearson Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights, 2011). 8 See the Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights, Carleton University website. Available at https:// carleton.ca/landonpearsoncentre/shaking-the-movers/ and G. Lansdown, S.R. Jimerson, and R. Shahroozi, “Children’s rights and school psychology: Children’s right to participation,” Journal of School Psychology 52, 1 (2014): 3–12. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.12.006. 9 The International and Canadian Child Rights Partnership website at Ryerson University. Available at https://www.ryerson.ca/iccrp. 10 B.D. Perry and M. Szalavitz, The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog: And Other Stories From a Child Psychiatrist’s Notebook: What Traumatized Children Can Teach Us About Loss, Love, and Healing (New York: Basic Books, 2006). 11 unICeF Innocenti Research Centre and unICeF Canada, Not There Yet: Canada’s Implementation for the General Measures of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Florence: Innocenti Research Centre & unICeF Canada, 2009). Available at http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/canada_nty.pdf. 12 Pearson, “From Strength to Strength,” 99. 13 unICeF Innocenti Research Centre and unICeF Canada, Not There Yet, 63. 14 Tara M. Collins, “International Child Rights in National Constitutions: Good Sense or Nonsense for Ireland?” Irish Political Studies 28, 4 (2013): 591–619. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2013.838951. 15 For example, Noah Kenneally, “Doing Children’s Rights: Moving Beyond Entitlements and Into Relationships in Canadian Contexts,” In The Sociology of Childhood and Youth in Canada, eds. Xaoibei Chen, Rebecca Raby and Patrizia Albanese (Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, 2017), 1–28. 16 See examples including Daniel, B.-J. “Racism is a Thing! Re-examination of the Concepts of Care and Relational Practice in the Preparation of Child and Youth Care Practitioners,” Relational Child & Youth Care Practice 31, 3 (2018):

158

Tara M. Collins

31–42; Amthor R. Fruja, “‘If Only I Did Not Have That Label Attached to Me’: Foregrounding Self-Positioning and Intersectionality in the Experiences of Immigrant and Refugee Youth,” Multicultural Perspectives 19, 4 (2017): 193–206. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2017.1366862; and J. Saraceno, “Mapping Whiteness and Coloniality in the Human Service Field: Possibilities for a Praxis of Social Justice in Child and Youth Care,” International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies 2, 3 (2012): 248–71. Available at https://doi.org/10.18357/iijcyfs32-3201210869. 17 Landon learned this point at a special lecture delivered by U. Bronfenbrenner at Carleton University in the 1970s, which was subsequently discussed in U. Bronfenbrenner, “What do families do?” Institute for American Values, (winter/spring, 1991): 2

pa r t t H r e e On Mentoring

13

Sage Wisdom and Safe Harbours A Life of Social Impact

Ben o’BrIgHt

As a child, I grew up believing I would one day be an engineer. Or an archeologist. Or, when I was feeling particularly ambitious, an astronaut. I would spend hours building great ships out of Lego, and I would draw complex spacecraft ready to take flight. I focused my studies on sciences and math, in preparation for a career that I was convinced would define my future. And then I met Landon Pearson, and all of that changed. The first time I came face-to-face with Senator Pearson was shortly after my first “business” trip to South America. Business, in that my mother was there for her work with the Government of Canada, and I was to accompany her for the experience. It wouldn’t be until later in life that I would come to grasp the magnitude of that trip – particularly being the only young person at a United Nations-sponsored conference about young people. It was a strange moment when asked what I thought about the negotiations taking place by ambassadors, country representatives, and heads of organisations. “Why would they care what I have to say,” I remember thinking to myself, “I’m no one.” And yet, that entire episode began to nurture within me a spark that I had yet to realize existed, one that may have sat dormant had it not been for an unexpected catalyst – Senator Pearson. Shortly after I returned to Canada, I was invited to the first ever incarnation of the now iconic Shaking the Movers workshops, a format pioneered by Senator Pearson to facilitate deep and meaningful engagement between young people and decision makers. It would be the first time I would meet Senator Pearson, beginning what would become a lifelong friendship and mentorship. I certainly never expected that discussing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on a sunny Saturday at Carleton University would propel me into a

162

Ben O’Bright

world of social impact, one in which I’m still happily engaging with to this day. I have distinct and vivid memories of my first conversations with the senator, as she encouraged me to recognize my own voice and to leverage it to drive positive change. For several years to come, I would continue volunteering with Senator Pearson at her newly established Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights. I would come to cocreate future iterations of the Shaking the Movers workshop. Indeed, I still look fondly back at those meetings, and I chuckle at how readily apparent my path forward into the world of social impact was, now that I know what to look for. I suspect Senator Pearson knew she had found an eager protégé in the field of children’s rights, someone to support her undiluted energy, her unrivalled leadership, and her unwavering determination to make the world a better place for young people. But if she did recognize that I could contribute to this space, she stayed true to form and let me discover that potential on my own. I credit a significant portion of my decision to pursue my bachelor’s degree at Carleton University to Senator Pearson. At this point, around 2008, I was deeply invested in the work being done by the senator’s research centre, particularly in Shaking the Movers. But, as always, Senator Pearson had boundless creativity and imagination, readily leveraging these skills to push the boundaries of what her centre could accomplish. And I was happily along for the ride. Over the course of my four years at Carleton, and under the guidance of the senator, I would become its youth representative at a host of international conferences  and meetings, particularly with the Inter-American Children’s Institute and the Organisation of American States. I would find myself speaking to rooms filled with dignitaries, from Ottawa to Lima, while quietly marvelling at where my relationship with Senator Pearson had taken me. In considering this period of my life now, as I write these words, I am not sure if I ever realized the extent to which the senator imbued in me an entrepreneurial spirit, an eagerness to explore the world, and the belief that I could achieve what I likely believed to be aspirational and wholly unattainable goals. With her encouragement, I applied and joined the 2012 cohort of students at the London School of Economics and Political Science. I still remember how proud I was to tell her of this milestone. Of course, as the years progressed, my path began to change. I remained a champion of social impact, but I would come to broach it from a lens comprised of sustainable development, natural resource

Sage Wisdom and Safe Harbours

163

governance, and emergent technologies. And true to form, Senator Pearson never waivered in her support. In our conversations together, over cups of tea at her home in Ottawa or over a delicious meal somewhere in the Byward Market, she would always dive headfirst into conversations about whatever work I was doing at that time, whether she was familiar with the topic or not. She would be an inevitable and expected reminder of my roots, those grounded in human rights and youth engagement. If the topic was sustainable mining supply chains in Zambia, she would ask of the impact on children, youth, and at-risk populations; not to placate me but out of genuine curiosity and interest. Interestingly, in several ways, the branching road I took away from the world of children’s rights would ultimately bring me right back, a magnetism that was impossible to ignore. As I began my PhD, I fell in with the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative, a specialized research organisation out of Halifax (and whose namesake I had met many years prior, thanks again to Senator Pearson). With the initiative, I began exploring topics of education, technology, and peacebuilding, monitoring and evaluation of peacekeeping training, and other similar areas. Upon hearing about this, Senator Pearson promptly encouraged me to return to the Pearson Centre fold, only this time as an academic (in training) as part of her Children’s Rights Academic Network. I had seemingly graduated, from young person with whom Senator Pearson had conversations of the future, to an adult having those same conversations with young people. Today, I work with Global Affairs Canada and I have not forgotten the lessons of Senator Pearson, engrained as they are in my social impact Dna. I work on topics of gender equality and the digital world, particularly as it pertains to young people. I’ve encouraged my unit to consult with the senator on youth engagement and development innovation; an opportunity to learn from Canada’s foremost expert in facilitating the voices of those young people too often left out of conversations that pertain to and will ultimately impact them. It is the values that Senator Pearson distilled in me over years of mentorship that have given me the base from which I can now pursue my career. It is deeply challenging, in words alone, to encapsulate the seismic impact that Senator Pearson has had on my life. In the credit role of my life’s documentary, she would appear throughout. She taught me to value the ideas of young people – their incredible and innate ability to bypass the scepticism and hesitancy of adulthood to prescribe antidotes to societal ills without dilution. She was an ever-present safe harbour in the turbulence of life’s rough seas, ready with a warm drink

164

Ben O’Bright

and an endless stream of sage wisdom. She never took our friendship for granted and consistently nurtured it. She always knew what to do, even if I didn’t. This short piece is hardly enough space to encapsulate the deserved praise for Senator Pearson nor for the number of thanks she is owed. All I can do to appropriately sum up my thoughts is to say that without Senator Pearson I wouldn’t have found my calling to drive social impact in all the ways I can. I wouldn’t have discovered where my passions lie. And, certainly, I wouldn’t have become who I am today.

14

For Landon, Just Landon ILana LoCKwooD

“Landon,” she always insists. “Not Mrs  Pearson, just Landon.” This was perhaps my first lesson in my time with her: don’t bother with formality; don’t stick to antiquated hierarchies. Come down to earth, with everyone. Follow your principles rather than politeness. There is some irony in the fact that Landon is dedicated to a convention but won’t stand on convention otherwise. I remember a Shaking the Movers workshop about the media where two police officers came to speak about cyber security. Given their line of work, they naturally adopted a child protection stance, missing that critical balance between a child’s safety and agency. Needless to say, the young people in attendance responded passionately on this point, both during the presentation and afterwards. And Landon was delighted! Often, workshops of this sort bring together youth who are already activists and leaders, well versed in the language and structure of “academic” events. But here, these youth sat alongside youth who had never attended any kind of workshop, who had never spoken in front of an audience, who had never shared their experiences with others. Through layers of differences that often alienate and divide adults, these young people came together with an empathy, acceptance, and humility that was profoundly moving. Landon set the tone for that because she can pull up a chair next to anyone, and they will quite unexpectedly find themselves not only talking but also deeply and attentively heard. And that’s where it began for me, sitting with Landon and a cup of tea at a kitchen table, as we waded through the Convention on the Rights of the Child, one article at a time, trying to bring out the theoretical richness and practical implications of this document. I still have the blue pocket version of the convention tucked into my bookshelf,

166

Ilana Lockwood

between many much thicker manuals about how to treat children. That slim volume speaks louder than all the rest. It is there to remind me of the twin obligations we all have: to respect and protect the child. Then the work moved to a corner office on a university campus, with those iconic shelves of red boxes. How disappointed we were when we could not finagle (or smuggle) any more of them out of the Senate! The Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights exists in my memories as a lively place. Spiders spun and sparrows nested on the windowsills. Tall trees waved through the glass. There were always young people around. Typing furiously. Musing liberally. Laughing loudly and often. Of course I count Landon among them. There was something remarkable about my summer job at the centre that I only recognize now, many placements and employers later. Working with Landon involved taking on challenging tasks without realizing how hard they actually were because she had such faith in your ability to perform them. You felt entirely trusted and therefore free, free to experiment and fail and try again. You also felt appreciated. Whether with a thoughtful question about your life or a free lunch (for which university students are always supremely grateful) or a tramp through some local woods, Landon went out of her way to show that you mattered. In that same rich vein of kindness, I remember getting drives home from the office, conversations winding like the road taking us along the Rideau Canal. Landon is always full of stories. They touch on literature, history, geography, theatre, anthropology, and, obviously, politics. They treat their protagonists kindly but honestly, without glossing over their foibles. They are generously sprinkled with humour. They very pithily get at the heart of what matters. Landon showed me the vital function of stories as social vehicles, bringing people into relationship with one another. Stories are outlets for self-expression, yes, but more importantly they are the pathways to something bigger than the self, to a sense of universal compassion and accountability. This gets at a question that often came up in the Shaking the Movers workshops: if these are our rights, as children, what are our responsibilities? I was always struck by how passionately participants insisted on taking their rightful (pun intended) place as contributing members of society. They wanted to play an active role in public life and they wanted to make the quality of that life better for fellow and future children. It made the adult world seem laden with prevarication and procrastination by comparison. The importance of commitment

For Landon, Just Landon

167

is therefore another legacy of my work with Landon: give yourself wholeheartedly wherever you are most needed. Everyone who meets Landon is astounded by her energy. It’s inviting. It’s infectious. It’s incredible (in both senses of the word!). A lot has been said about the secret to staying young: be open, be curious, be adventurous. Landon has all of that in spades. I think the extra, magical ingredient is dedication to possibility: belief in the power of the young (and the young at heart) to create change. On that supernatural note, when I refer to Landon as my fairy godmother, I am only half joking. My experiences with her started me off on a series of research positions that culminated in my acceptance to graduate school. I am completing my PhD in clinical child psychology now. I share Landon’s fierce conviction in the ability of children to express and shape their reality. I spend most of my days wondering about children, listening to children, seeing potential in children, learning from children, laughing with children, and inspired by children. Heeding that reminder to stay at ground level, I crawl under furniture, I get covered in paint, I race down hallways, and I sit in silence. Recalling the gift of a serious and intent audience, I strive to receive their experience, in whatever form it is communicated, with gravity and reverence. Holding onto the call of the universal and the infinitely possible, I try to convey my solidarity with and hope for them. And we exchange many, many stories. I am not the only one who can trace a golden thread back to Landon. Countless other students have stories like mine. I met dear friends working with Landon, who continue to enrich my life and who have gone on to lives of service. And in this way the threads multiply and the web grows. So for Landon, just Landon: thank you, just thank you.

15

Creating Consciousness for a Better World LuCY VoroBeJ

I was born in Hamilton, Ontario in the spring of 1990 to a family in which child advocate Landon Pearson was the reigning matriarch. Not long after my birth, Canada signed the un Convention on the Rights of the Child (unCrC). Consequently, my belief in what was possible was never limited by what I witnessed in front of me. On the one hand, my grandmother provided me with a model of women’s engagement so that I knew women could overcome challenges and make a meaningful contribution to their community, despite the fact that gender discrimination existed. Landon was early proof to me of the value of the voices of women. On the other hand, the unCrC provided a rights framework that called its signatories to not only envision but actively work towards a better world for its children. My early knowledge of the convention helped me to imagine how young people could have a major voice in decisions affecting their lives, even if I did not see it around me. My early world brimmed with imaginative possibilities. To imagine a better way is the first step in creating conditions for innovative change. This perspective is one of the most important influences Landon Pearson has had on my life: showing me that the world is not limited to the realities we see in front of us. Over the years, as I spent more time with her, Landon has also provided me with a model of perseverance and passionate activism that has and continues to inform my historical scholarship. In particular, two concepts Landon has imbued her activism with shape my work. First is the principle that rather than asking the marginalized to conform to dominate structures and discourses, meaningful participation requires advocates to open spaces to the ways and views of others. Second is the notion that advocacy, like rights, is a relationship.

Creating Consciousness for a Better World

169

CHange tHe narratIVe, CHange tHe enVIronMent Landon’s decades of advocacy work demonstrate that aspirations to create a better world, while important, are not enough. We cannot believe that without consistent action, circumstances will improve. One avenue of action that Landon has modelled is to rethink the stories we tell about particular populations. In her child-advocacy work, Landon has worked to reframe narratives of children that see them as “adults of the future” whose citizenship will be valued only when they are older. To respect children’s rights, however, children must instead be seen as individuals who can make meaningful contributions to society today. Through Landon’s efforts, I have come to see that a conceptual shift to view children as contemporary actors in society is crucial because it reorients advocacy work to consider not only the protection of children and provision for their needs but children’s participation in matters important to them as well. When the narrative of children as “merely future adults” is challenged and children are viewed as collaborators in community development, relationships within society become less hierarchical and more inclusive. In my own work on the historical development of Indigenous health policy in Canada, I have taken the model of narrative reframing to ask critical questions about why the rights of Indigenous communities are not being respected. I consider how, for example, images of Indigenous people as “lazy” have impaired meaningful collaboration between settlers and Indigenous peoples. Alternatively, I also ask how the notion of Canadian benevolence has fostered the denial of treaty rights and the exploitation of Indigenous populations. By asking critical questions of the stories we tell about ourselves and about others, my own work in narrative reframing involves a challenge to colonial stereotypes that have long plagued Indigenous communities in Canada. While the reality of colonialism in Canada remains an unpalatable truth for many in this country, Landon has taught me to have the courage to tell what others may prefer not to hear.

aDVoCaCY, LIKe rIgHtS, IS a reLatIonSHIp The notion that narratives about populations often need to be reframed is at the heart of a larger advocacy principle Landon has imbued into her work: that is, the idea that human rights are more about relationships than entitlement. Targeted support for children’s rights must acknowledge a need to foster relationships between children and adults. This perspective is one of the reasons the Shaking the Movers model has

170

Lucy Vorobej

been both successful and vital. As a model of collaborative consultation, Shaking the Movers walks the talk of children’s participation by making space for the voices and concerns of young people to be heard and then ensures feedback from adults through the Children’s Rights Academic Network (Cran). This approach creates a feedback system in which young people can offer their unique views and foster collaborative relationships with adults. Such a reciprocal framework is crucial for future planning. As Landon has repeatedly argued, long-term solutions lie with the young. It is clear how, over time, a relationship-building approach to children’s rights nurtures that concept of children as fellow citizens of Canada today and not just citizens of the future. It is the role of child advocates to enhance the structures of participation to make such a collaborative relationship possible. It is not difficult to see the influence of this relational principle in my own work. My research stems from awareness that a relationship of reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and settlers in Canada is hindered when stereotypical meanings and colonial structures continue in Canadian society. For example, the current crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls tragically highlights the persistence of beliefs that view Indigenous women as less valuable than others. Therefore, I strive to identify the historical development of such lines of thinking to educate myself and others about the dangers of colonial systems of meaning. Importantly, my work stems from the view that as a settler, I must take up the task to learn. Just as Landon has not asked children to “grow up” to participate in meaningful conversations, so too does my work seek to facilitate an informed environment in which Canadian society and structures are asked to change. Indeed, decolonization work cannot ask Indigenous peoples who have long been marginalized to conform to the narratives and structures that oppress them. If Canadian society is to foster the reconciliation needed to redress past wrongs, Indigenous communities must be given a space in which their suffering is acknowledged, their voices are heard, and systems exist to support their ideas. The rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada requires settlers to rethink their narrative of past and present relationships with Indigenous communities, to redraw colonial structures, and to actively work for effective alliances. Only then can a relationship of reconciliation move forward and the realization of Indigenous rights be supported.

Creating Consciousness for a Better World

171

ConCLuSIon I will be forever grateful to my grandmother for inviting me into the circle of her advocacy. To know from my earliest memory that my voice was valued and heard is a gift of inestimable value. As a mentee of Landon Pearson, I have learned to gather knowledge for justice-informed narratives, to have collaborative consultation with all stakeholders of an issue, and to support the development of structures that allow for the meaningful participation of all. She has forever helped to shape the person and advocate that I am. To end, I will close where I began. To know that something is possible is the first step in achieving its realization. Landon Pearson has provided me with a powerful model of how a woman can actively shape the world in which she lives and continually strive for what she believes is right. It’s a lesson I will never forget.

16

(Re)Building a Sense of Identity Landon’s Lessons in Trust, Love, and Mentorship

LInDSeY LI

Mrs Pearson ends her emails to me with, “Fondly,/Landon” or “Love,/ Landon.” The first time I read the latter sign off I was taken aback. It was actually the very first time anyone I ever trusted, admired, and held affection for had explicitly expressed their love to me without my initiation. Although I am now closer to Mrs Pearson than I was then, and know she ends emails to a number of others the same way, I am still touched that she continues to remind me of my significance to her. The way Mrs Pearson signs off her emails and texts to me encapsulates, in a singular deed, the multitude of ways she has, over the past decade, enabled me to see myself positively, both within and apart from our kinship, and discover my own worth as having equivalent meaning to that of others. Her incredibly uplifting presence in my life and her belief in me allowed me to (re)build a sense of identity and belief in myself while I was struggling through early adulthood. Still now, as I grow older, Mrs Pearson remains a deeply influential part of my journey. Even distilled to their most impactful iterations, the many lessons I’ve learned from Mrs Pearson cannot be fully acknowledged in this short tribute. I focus on trust, love, and mentorship because they are that which I most clearly recognize as evolving in my mind from concepts to acts, thanks to the way Mrs Pearson so genuinely and whole-heartedly practises them. Through decades of raising children and young people, advocating for them, speaking with them, learning from them, writing about them, working with them, Mrs Pearson has carried out a lifelong labour of love. I have had the privilege of watching her animate the spirit, joy, and imagination of those around her, whatever their ages, through her unique demonstrations of trust, love, and mentorship. Luckily, my own experiences with Mrs Pearson have been no exception.

Landon’s Lessons in Trust, Love, and Mentorship

173

Trust was the first obstacle we encountered upon meeting. Mrs Pearson had been, for lack of a better term, “assigned” to be my mentor through a scholarship program I was participating in for the duration of my undergraduate years. I was not sure if she had taken on the role enthusiastically or reluctantly. She had mentored other scholarship recipients before, and I wondered if I would measure up. I was unclear on the potential outcomes of this pairing or what she or I needed from it. Our first get-together was at Mrs Pearson’s home. I had read about her online, but I had failed to glean from the internet what Mrs  Pearson’s personality would be like. At first impression,  I  interpreted her demeanor to be stern, and her stately decor did not help soften that impression. Our meeting was very formally conducted;  I was, in a word, intimidated. This feeling of intimidation resulted in a self-imposed pressure to posture. The next few meetings were the same. Eventually, I had a bit of a jarring realization: I could not pretend to be something I was not around Mrs  Pearson. She trusted me more than I trusted myself to just be – be and be myself – in her presence. I have not been able to pinpoint which qualities of hers invited this realization, but I think it might be the consistency with which she treats everyone: with utmost respect, patience, and empathy regardless of the circumstance. She is never looking for something to react to; she simply wants to know what your reality is in the moment. A careful consideration of your offerings always takes place prior to a thoughtful response. The kind of trust I hold with Mrs  Pearson goes beyond the ability to divulge ugly details that I know she will hold in the strictest confidence. I have learned from her that fostering trust in its most fulsome form is about honouring a person’s context – and this entails taking the time to understand it first – and treating that knowledge earnestly and with sensitivity as you strengthen your connection. That way, as they carry their world along with them wherever they go, they feel comfortable opening it up to you without the urge to selectively conceal the parts that others have disavowed. Only when that sharing takes place can one’s world expand with the kind of compassion and love that makes people secure in their particular form of being. What is the nature of the love with which Mrs Pearson has imbued my sense of being in the world? It’s as much the warmth, positivity, and concern with which she treats me as it is her unwavering commitment to bringing out the difficult truths that all people hold so that they can be understood and truly supported. Mrs Pearson has shown me how to intentionally seek, reach, and engage those whose voices are often overlooked and ensure that the insight they provide is incorporated into

174

Lindsey Li

the decisions of those who hold the power to change lives. This has been her modus operandi in navigating every course on which she has found herself. Beyond listening with intent, abundant interest, and gratitude, she makes every effort to amplify and reflect the distinct character of each voice. Witnessing this over and over again has taught me that one of the most powerful expressions of humanity is in conscientious space-making for the wisdom that is unlikely to find a home outside of the giver’s lived existence. When that wisdom is properly acknowledged, made visible, audible, and known, lives actually change for the better. Mrs Pearson does this in her own way, with great humour, ingenuity, and sincere curiosity. In making all of us feel unfailingly seen, heard, and known she makes us feel infinitely loved. If mentorship at base is a sustained, deliberate, and thoughtful approach to advising someone through a certain stage of development, then Mrs Pearson has done much, much more than mentor me. She has kept her intellectual, emotional, familial, and vocational world open to me and has inspired me to keep building up my own. In bringing me into her communities, she has given me the chance to observe authentic articulations of inclusion, generosity, and the enduring endeavour to effect an ethic of care. Through Mrs Pearson’s conscience, we encounter the perspectives of so many others, and we are able to continuously see with fresh eyes. This is crucial to advancing positive outcomes for all of us. Mrs Pearson has directly provided me countless opportunities to test my strengths and limits by making requests of me not based on my current capabilities but simply on my willingness to try. She has come along with me on the highs of our creative spurts and the lows of my chaotic slumps, all the while modelling the importance of stewarding successes and facing failures with grace, a steady temperament, and devotion to a cause greater than oneself. All of the foregoing has anchored me throughout many transformative moments in my life and made an indelible mark on the way I strive to conduct myself in every sphere. When we are young, we are taught that fairness, compassion, empathy, and love are the pillars of truly good human relationships. As we undergo our various trials and tribulations, we tend to become bitter and disillusioned about the sanctity of these principles and, more and more, we scrutinize them through the lens of utility. Mrs Pearson has shown me that it is better not to yield to these tendencies. More urgently, it is of mighty consequence that we invoke fairness, compassion, empathy, and love in exercising a high standard of care towards others. It is an act of love to honour the words, will, and wisdom of those we have not been conditioned to see, hear, or seek to comprehend. And although this sounds overused and lofty, love trumps

Landon’s Lessons in Trust, Love, and Mentorship

175

utility. In learning this and experiencing it for myself, I have gained immense security in my selfhood and the notion that I, and all of us, belong here. I am convinced that when people have confidence in their sense of identity and belonging, they are likelier to do right by their fellow humans. Thanks to Mrs Pearson, I am dedicated to inculcating this confidence in young people through my work and community involvement. I will carry Mrs Pearson’s teachings with me wherever I go. I can only hope to emulate the example she has set in affording me the trust, love, and guidance that I am so grateful to write about here.

17

“Sometimes, all it takes is one person to make a difference” Reflecting on the Importance and Impact of Quality Mentorship in Early Career Development

DanIeLLa BenDo As a PhD candidate in the Law and Legal Studies Department at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, my journey has been shaped significantly by the mentorship of the Hon. Landon Pearson. In the passage that follows, I have the honour of sharing my reflections on Mrs Pearson’s presence in my life as a PhD candidate and the impact this experience has had on my subsequent trajectory. Prior to moving to Ottawa in 2016 to begin my doctoral studies, I had a difficult time selecting which program and school I wanted to pursue. As an emerging children’s rights scholar, I was always aware, and highly respectful, of Landon Pearson’s lifelong work in children’s rights as an advocate and former senator for children and youth, along with her international dedication to children’s rights and her achievements in the field. During my Ma studies, I constantly reflected on her international work on children’s rights and, more specifically, her centre’s unique work on Shaking the Movers (StM). Prior to meeting Mrs  Pearson, her work in the field taught me a lot about children’s rights; her mentorship throughout my doctoral studies has significantly influenced my own ideas, worldviews, and philosophical perspectives as an emerging researcher and advocate. My journey started in 2015, when my Ma advisor and mentor, Professor Richard Mitchell at Brock University, suggested that Carleton University would be an ideal school for my doctoral studies considering it housed the Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and  Children’s Rights (LpC). Dr Mitchell reached out to Mrs Pearson and Dr Virginia Caputo (director of the LpC) and informed them that I was considering accepting an offer from Carleton University in the Law and Legal Studies Program and asked if they would be

Importance of Mentorship in Early Career Development

177

willing to meet with me in Ottawa to connect. Without hesitation, I was warmly welcomed to meet Mrs Pearson and Dr Caputo at the LpC in June 2016 where I found myself sitting directly in the middle of a goldmine – a room filled with original archival documents organized by each article of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (unCrC). Mrs Pearson and I spoke about our mutual interests and perspectives on children’s rights, child and youth advocacy, and our worldviews on children and youth. At the end of our meeting, Mrs  Pearson told me that I was welcome at her centre anytime and should stay in touch when I started the doctoral program in September. Little did I know, this trip to Ottawa would be the start of a very exciting journey filled with opportunity, lifelong lessons, wisdom, and a lifechanging experience that would shape my future and my experience as a PhD candidate. In September 2016, Mrs Pearson offered me a position at the LpC as the Child Rights Academic Network (Cran) coordinator. Knowing that I was an emerging scholar interested in children’s rights, Mrs Pearson provided me with the opportunity to network with her personal community of more than seventy-five children’s rights scholars and advocates from across Canada, Europe, and the uK who gather in Ottawa each year with the purpose to respond to rights-related concerns and questions raised by young people who attend Shaking the Movers workshops. Acting as a delegate to coordinate and organize the annual rights-based conference, I have become part of the Cran network and have participated in developing plans for current and future rightsbased activities through collaborative research initiatives. Over the past four years I have had the chance to work closely with Mrs  Pearson and the Cran network which has been essential to the development of my research activities and connections as an emerging children’s rights scholar. Given my doctoral research on child and youth advocacy, children’s rights, and child and youth participation, Mrs  Pearson also offered me a position as the national coordinator for the Shaking the Movers workshops. In this position, I have had the opportunity to travel across Canada to help facilitate and organize youth-led consultative and collaborative rights-based workshops with young people. My experiences in this role since 2016, have broadened and shaped my own research interests as I have plans to continue exploring and implementing participatory approaches with children and youth, which I identify as an essential area of focus in the field of child and youth studies. Mrs Pearson has brought me to presentations in the Senate of Canada, meetings with government officials, parliamentarians,

178

Figure 17.1

Daniella Bendo

Carleton University Convocation, June 2018

legislators, senators and child- and youth-serving organizations across the province. She has invited me to guest lecture with her on child and youth advocacy and children’s rights in undergraduate classes at various universities in Canada. In June 2018, Dr Caputo and Mrs Pearson were invited to give the honorary citation at Carleton University’s spring convocation ceremony. Instead, they requested that I deliver the citation to speak to the importance of the work of children’s rights advocate Gerison Lansdown who was to receive an honorary doctor of laws degree. This opportunity not only gave me confidence in my ability to speak publically, considering the auditorium held hundreds of people, but it also empowered me to honour an influential figure in the field of study in which I am so deeply immersed. The opportunities I have engaged in since my time at Carleton have aided in my own personal and professional development and would not be possible without the LpC and Mrs Pearson’s mentorship. What has emerged from my time spent learning with and from Mrs Pearson is invaluable networking opportunities, work experiences, and unique collaborations in the field of children’s rights. Aside from providing financial support and practical learning experience, two of the most important components for success in a PhD program, I have had the honour of working closely with Mrs Pearson who has taught me invaluable life lessons and wisdom on a personal and professional level. This type of knowledge one cannot find in textbooks, articles,

Importance of Mentorship in Early Career Development

179

or classrooms. Rather, I have learned from what Mrs Pearson refers to as her “intellectual filing cabinet,” which carries her memories of her life’s work with and on behalf of children and youth. Whether it is at Mrs Pearson’s house for tea, in her home library, at her cottage, at a play, a dance performance, in the LpC, or on a walk or drive, I have had the privilege to learn about many of the “files” Mrs Pearson has developed and implemented in her intellectual cabinet. It is difficult to outline all of the files in the intellectual cabinet that Mrs Pearson has shared with me over the past four years, but I highlight some of the most significant ones that have meaningfully impacted my development as a PhD candidate. They relate to three main areas of focus: child and youth advocacy, rights-based approaches, and child and youth engagement. In regard to child and youth advocacy, Mrs Pearson has taught me about the importance of being able to simply listen as an advocate. She has demonstrated how powerful and important it is to listen to what young people have to say and reminds me that often children and youth are not given the opportunity to provide their insights and perspectives. She has also taught me that sometimes it can be harmful to speak on behalf of those who can and want to speak for themselves. As an emerging advocate, I have made it my priority to develop this skill in order to ensure that I always take time to listen to what young people have to say, to take them seriously, and to view children and youth as meaning makers in their own lives. Drawing from another one of Mrs  Pearson’s files, she has taught me that when it comes to human rights, a rights-based approach entails recognizing rights as relational. She reminds me that human rights are culturally, socially, and politically interconnected and that we have a responsibility to protect and promote the rights of others, especially when we recognize that they are being violated. Mrs Pearson has influenced my own theoretical and philosophical thinking about the concept of human rights, which translates into the practical work I do with children and youth as well as my actions towards others in academic and professional settings every day. I have also learned that when it comes to child and youth engagement, there is a difference between superficial, tokenistic forms of involving children and youth in initiatives and meaningful consultative and collaborative ones. As one avenue, I have started to implement this understanding of participation as a sustainable right in my teaching with undergraduate students. Through dialogic and rights-based approaches, I attempt to ensure that students have a space to participate and contribute to their education. I will continue to critically reflect

180

Daniella Bendo

on what constitutes meaningful participation in my future work with young people. My academic career has been shaped by Mrs Pearson as I now identify as both a scholar who is interested in child and youth advocacy, rights-based approaches, and child and youth participation as well as a professional who will always practice these concepts with children and youth. It is well known that the academic world can be an isolating place. When I speak to my peers and fellow doctoral candidates, I often hear about the isolation that they feel as emerging scholars. I must say that I simply cannot relate because I have never felt alone on this journey. What I do feel is inspiration, excitement, desire, motivation, passion, community, and support; I am extremely lucky to have Landon Pearson in my life as a mentor, a teacher, and a friend. As I sit in the centre surrounded by hundreds of children’s rights documents, I reflect on how thankful I am that I was welcomed here four years ago and for the astonishing mentorship I have received during my time at Carleton. I now know what it means to be a good mentor, and I will carry this experience forward as my career unfolds. Through her lifelong work Landon has showed us, and continues to show us all, that sometimes, all it takes is one person to make a difference. Although Landon Pearson is just one person, she is a very special person who has made a difference in my life.

Contributors

MeLanIe aDrIan’s research focuses on the question of rights of minorities in religiously, ethnically, and culturally diverse societies. She examines how states integrate or accommodate culturally distinct peoples while maintaining a healthy balance between international and national rights and respect for national values. Most recently, she has looked at these questions in light of the debate around religious symbols in public schools in France. Her forthcoming book Risking Religious Freedom: France, the Veil and the Right to Act on Faith argues that France, and Europe more generally, are heading down a dangerous path in their reluctance to live up to the spirit of international human rights conventions. Dr Adrian says, “These conventions have historically been interpreted to protect a wide range of manifestations of religious belief – and this stands in direct opposition to the current trend favouring a more narrow interpretation of this same right.” DanIeLLa BenDo is a PhD candidate in law and legal studies at Carleton University. Her research interests include theoretical, social, and legal constructions of the un Convention on the Rights of the Child, the sociology of childhood, children’s rights and citizenship, research methods involving children and youth, child and youth participation, and child and youth advocacy. Daniella’s doctoral research explores how children’s rights are operationalized in child and youth advocacy contexts in Canada and internationally. Daniella is an instructor in the department of sociology and anthropology. She is also the national coordinator for Shaking the Movers and the Child Rights Academic Network at the Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights.

182

Contributors

CInDY BLaCKStoCK is a member of the Gitxsan First Nation with thirty years of social work experience in child protection and Indigenous children’s rights. Dr Blackstock’s research interests are Indigenous theory and the identification and remediation of structural inequalities affecting First Nations children, youth, and families. She is most known for her work on a landmark human rights case that ordered the Government of Canada to provide equitable child welfare and other services to First Nations children and families. An author of three children’s books on child participation in reconciliation, Dr Blackstock has collaborated with other Indigenous leaders to assist the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in the development and adoption of a general comment on the rights of Indigenous children. Recently, she served as a commissioner on the Pan American Health Commission on Health Equity and Inequity. nataSHa BLanCHet-CoHen is an associate professor in the department of applied human sciences at Concordia University and graduate director of the youth work diploma. Dr Blanchet-Cohen’s work focuses on child rights and participation, resiliency, social inclusion, and systems change and innovation. As an interdisciplinary scholar, she has led national research initiatives on building resilient communities through youth engagement and holds a particular interest in immigrant and Indigenous youth. Her work explores the opportunities and limitations for immigrant and Indigenous young people in being change agents in their schools, homes, and communities, as well as the opportunities in providing for rights-based and culturally safe services and programs. She is the colead of the Youth Network Chair in Quebec. VIrgInIa Caputo is an associate professor in the department of anthropology and since 2011 the director of the Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights at Carleton University. From 2005 to 2009 she directed the Pauline Jewett Institute of Women’s and Gender Studies, helping to design and launch a graduate program on the themes of transnational feminisms and globalization. Her particular contribution is her expertise on girlhoods, gendered childhoods, and the changing contours of young people’s lives in the context of globalization. Dr Caputo’s interdisciplinary work lies at the intersection of feminism, anthropology, and childhood/girlhood research. Her ethnographic research focuses on investigating the lives of children, especially girls and young women, viewed as engaged social actors. Her contributions to the literature include in anthropology, girlhood studies, the social study of childhood, feminist scholarship,

Contributors

183

and feminist musicology. Dr Caputo is cofounder, with Landon Pearson, and the managing editor of the Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights. tara CoLLInS has a PhD from the University of London and has worked on international human rights since 1996. Her professional experience includes work for universities in Canada and Ireland, Canadian federal government and Parliament, and a national nongovernmental organization. Dr Collins is a member of the board of directors and the program committee for Equitas: International Centre for Human Rights Education. She is a monitoring committee member (and former board member) of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children and advisory committee member of the Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights at Carleton University. Dr Collins also serves as an editorial board member for Canadian Journal for Children’s Rights and is an active member of the International Child Protection Network of Canada (ICpnC), where she belongs to three separate working groups: monitoring and evaluation, children and work, and child participation. Joan Durrant is a child-clinical psychologist and professor of community health sciences in the faculty of health sciences at the University of Manitoba. Dr Durrant’s research focuses on the psychological, cultural, legal, and human rights dimensions of corporal punishment of children in Canada and worldwide. She was the principal researcher and coauthor of the Canadian Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth and coeditor of “Eliminating Corporal Punishment: The Way Forward to Constructive Discipline” (uneSCo). She was formerly a member of the research advisory group to the United Nations secretary-general’s study on violence against children, and currently serves on the advisory committee. In collaboration with Save the Children Sweden, she created a violence prevention program, Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting, which has been implemented in more than forty countries. JuDY FInLaY is an associate professor and graduate program director in the faculty of community services at Ryerson University and has been faculty member in the school of child and youth care since 2007. She is currently the cochair and principal investigator of the Cross-Over Youth Project, which is designed to learn ways to interrupt the trajectory of youth in the care of the state from entering the youth justice system. Dr Finlay’s current research (in which she is also the principal investigator) includes “Mamow Ki-ken-da-ma-win:

184

Contributors

Searching Together: Enhancing wellness through a partnership-based approach to child, family, and community in First Nations in remote northern Ontario.” Finlay was the longest standing child and youth advocate in Canada and was Ontario’s chief advocate from 1991 to 2007. She has worked for more than three decades in the areas of child welfare and  children’s mental health. Finlay has participated in the development of children’s rights agendas, youth capacity building, and leadership  and community development in Mexico, Jamaica, Japan, Guatemala, and Sierra Leone. Margo greenwooD is the academic leader of the National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. She is an Indigenous scholar of Cree ancestry with more than twenty-five years experience focused on the health and wellbeing of Indigenous children and families. Dr Greenwood received the Queen’s Jubilee medal in 2002 in recognition of her years of work to promote awareness and policy action on the rights and wellbeing of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children, youth, and families. Dr Greenwood is a professor in both the First Nations Studies and Education programs at the University of Northern British Columbia. Her current research interests include historic and contemporary systemic and structural impacts on the development of early childhood programs and services in Canada; social determinants of health with particular emphasis on colonization and children’s rights; children’s cultural identity formation; and the exploration and articulation of Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies. In June 2013, Dr Greenwood accepted the position of vice president of Indigenous health for the Northern Health Authority. In this role, she is providing executive leadership to the Indigenous health portfolio, including the development of relationships with the First Nations Health Council, North Region Health Caucus, and the First Nations Health Authority. Margo is working part-time in her role as vice president of Indigenous health for the Northern Health Authority and continues her role as professor in the College of Arts, Social and Human Sciences at unBC. gerISon LanSDown is an international children’s rights consultant and advocate who has published and lectured widely on the subject of children’s rights. She was actively involved in the drafting of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is an honorary fellow of unICeF-uK, an associate of the International Institute for Child Rights and Development in Victoria, Canada, and codirector of CreD-pro, an international initiative to develop child rights educational programs for professionals working with children. Publications

Contributors

185

include Promoting Children’s Participation in Democratic Decision-Making of Children, unICeF, 2001; The Evolving Capacities of the Child, unICeF, 2005; Can You Hear Me?: The Right of Young Children to Participate in Decisions Affecting Them, Bernard van Leer Foundation, 2005; A Human Rights Based Approach to Education for All, unICeF/uneSCo, 2007; and See Me Hear Me, a Guide to the unCrpD for children with disabilities, Save the Children 2009. She holds an honorary doctorate from Carleton University (2018). LInDSeY LI has worked in education and youth development for almost a decade and has been active in social development spaces for most of her life. She completed her degree in international development and globalization studies at the University of Ottawa as a Loran Scholar and subsequently moved into the nonprofit sector in Toronto. Lindsey has also gained experience in the public sector through social policy research in Winnipeg; in grassroots community development in Ezinqeni; in private sector marketing in North York; in the philanthropic sector managing operations, communications and programming in Toronto; as well as in child rights advocacy in Ottawa. Lindsey serves as board director of a social service organization and as an executive committee member of a civic engagement organization. She previously worked for Landon Pearson at her Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s rights and has benefited from Landon’s mentorship for the past decade. ILana LoCKwooD is a PhD candidate in school and clinical child psychology at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. She has worked with children, adolescents, and families in school board, community mental health, and private practice settings. In 2017, Ilana was one of five applied psychology and human development students to receive the certificate of academic excellence from the Canadian Psychological Association. Her master’s thesis, published in the journal Criminal Justice and Behavior, examined how risk is assessed and needs are addressed for Indigenous justiceinvolved youth in northern Ontario. Ilana’s doctoral dissertation explores rehabilitation theory and practice with Indigenous offenders in four countries, as well as its application to Indigenous youth across Ontario. anne MCgILLIVraY is a professor of law (retired), University of Manitoba. Her research and teaching areas include literature and law; childhood, rights and violence; crime, law and society; and the legal profession. She has authored sixty publications that include books,

186

Contributors

government reports, book chapters, journal articles, and reviews. Her work has been taught across disciplines – law, sociology, social work, education – in universities across Canada and elsewhere. Her research has been cited in decisions at all levels of the Canadian courts including the Supreme Court of Canada. Dr McGillivray’s research involves policy analysis, the criminal justice system, First Nations children, children and corporate wrongs, children’s rights. She has examined sentencing theory and practice, the origins and history of crimes of violence against the person, feminist theory and practice, myth and literature for children, and histories of the emergence of childhood. Dr McGillivray has written on Dracula and Karla Homolka, corporal punishment, sexual abuse legislation and its history, science-fiction futures of children’s rights and other related things. Ben o’BrIgHt is an international development professional with a portfolio of subject matter experience including innovation, emerging science and technology, political science, public policy, natural resources, sustainable development, and human rights. Over close to a decade, Ben has built a unique base of knowledge derived from positions in private sector, civil society, academia, and government as well as from fieldwork in Burundi, Chad, Zambia, Sierra Leone, and other countries. During his career, Ben has led knowledge programming on frontier technologies and applications in international development, consulted on sustainable natural resource governance, and developed and managed large-scale international research projects. He is currently a policy advisor with Google, after having worked for Global Affairs Canada’s development innovation unit as a senior analyst for science, technology, and development. He lives in Dublin, Ireland. KeLLY e.M. Stone was bestowed the Mohawk name Rotiskennenketi – She Who Carries the Burden of Peace – by Elijah Harper, former Manitoba Legislature member and chief, for her work on behalf of Indigenous children (2005). Since 2014, Kelly has been Ceo of Families  Canada (previously named Frp Canada). Through its members,  Families Canada supports half a million Canadian families a year who live in challenging circumstances. During her long Government of Canada career, Kelly had responsibility for child and youth research, domestic public policy, and community-level programming. Through her extensive international work she also advanced child rights-based legislative and public policy frameworks tied with practical in-country, incommunity implementation strategies particularly in Mexico, Central and South America.

Contributors

187

LuCY VoroBeJ is a PhD candidate at the University of Waterloo with research interests in the social history of medicine, Canadian history, and Indigenous health history. As a settler-scholar, her dissertation research examines the nature of Indigenous health policy in the second half of the twentieth century with a particular focus on the development of tripartite health management plans between federal, provincial, and First Nations communities in Ontario.

Index

Aboriginal Head Start, 91–2 A Canada Fit for Children, 4, 13, 9n19, 81, 139 advocacy, 4–7, 16, 25, 40, 65, 107, 124, 156; relational advocacy, 168–9, 179 agency, 10, 22, 51 architecture, 6, 10, 14 Article 12, 21–7, 29, 30, 39, 44n16, 103, 104, 152 Article 30, 17, 81–3, 87–8, 91, 93, 115 A World Fit for Children, 13, 43n10, 124, 139 audience, 30, 31, 36, 38, Axworthy, Lloyd, 12, 13, 51 best interests of the child, 21, 22, 53–6, 59, 101, 109n18 Bronfenbrenner, 155, 158n17 Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, 10, 19n10, 151, 183 Canadian Commission of the International Year of the Child, 4, 9, 100, 108n3 Canadian Council of Provincial Child and Youth Advocates (CCpCYa), 121

Canadian Council on Children and Youth, 100 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, 86 Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights, 5, 15, 107, 182, Carleton University, 4, 5, 14, 15, 20n16, 126, 158n17, 161–2, 177–8, 182–3, 185 capacity, 22–4, 28, 30, 35, 42, 55, 59–60, 98, 114, 125, 152–3, 184 catalyst, 12, 40, 161 champion (championing), 6, 7, 11, 16, 18, 100, 149, 152, 156, 162 change, change-maker, 4, 6, 11, 13, 15, 29, 35, 40, 41, 80–2, 84, 94, 99, 114, 116, 123, 128, 133, 134, 146, 162, 168, 169, 182 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 56, 67 child protection, 5, 11, 14, 22–3, 26, 28–9, 33, 55, 56, 57, 165, 182, 183 Child Rights Academic Network (Cran), 15, 16, 17, 37, 38, 41, 52, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 81, 82, 103, 107, 127–8, 170, 177 Children and Adolescents Pan American Forum in Lima, Peru, 7, 141–2

190

Index

Children of Glasnost, 10, 19n11 Children: The Silenced Citizens, 14, 52 Children’s Bureau, 12, 101 children’s commissioner, 10, 13–14, 102, 121, 124 children’s rights advocacy, 5, 9 children’s rights as human rights, 6, 10 children’s senator, 5, 11, 41, 51, 80, 121, 176 civil and political rights, 8, 16, 25–6, 126, 152; Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 57; civic and political participation, 15 civil society, 24, 30, 139, 153, 154, 186 climate change, 15, 34, 37, 46, 50, 63–7, 76 Cold War, 7 collaboration, 18, 35, 41, 103, 107, 116, 169, 178, 183; collaborative, 3, 4, 14–16, 22, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 67, 104, 116, 128, 153, 170, 177, 179 colonial 74, 77, 82–3, 85, 90–1, 93, 148, 169, 170; colonialism, 76–7, 149, 169 commercial child sexual exploitation, 4, 12–13, 17, 63 Committee on the Rights of the Child, 23–5 Convention on the Rights of the Child, 4, 10, 11, 14,15, 17, 21–3, 26, 37, 42, 46, 67, 80–3, 99, 102, 114, 123, 137, 138, 140, 151, 161, 165, 168, 177, 181 corporal punishment, 55, 103; corporal punishment ban, 100–1 Cuba, 51 culture of respect, 4, 6, 45 custody, 11, 46, 53–4, 58, 124; parens patriae, 53, 54; control, 54

Dallaire, Roméo, 74, 75, 126 Declaration of Children’s Rights, 7 discrimination, 55; racial discrimination, 76–7 duty-bearers, 10, 23 early childhood, 89, 91–2; early childhood education/programs, 17, 83, 91, 94, 184 exploitation, 46, 48, 57, 61, 63, 101, 138, 169; sexual exploitation, 11–13, 15, 17, 37, 54, 80, 113 First Nations children, 148 First Nations elders, 129–33 First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples, 83; First Nations, Metis, and Inuit children, 149 First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, 76, 86, 148 First Nations Inuit Child Care Initiative (FnICCI), 91–2 First World Congress on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, 4, 12, 13, 17 For Canada’s Children: National Agenda for Action, 9, 100 For the Sake of the Children, 11 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, 12, 17 General Assembly of the United Nations, 7 genocide, 74 girl, “girl child” 12, 24, 28, 29, 61, 141–2; Day of the Girl, 4; Indigenous Women and Girls 17, 74, 84, 170 honorary doctorate, 4, 185

Index

Indigenous: children, 5, 9, 13, 17, 24, 59, 81–94, 115, 182, 184; young people, 38; communities, 29, 82, 83–91; women and girls 74; peoples, 75, 76, 77, 83–94, 132, 148, 169 –170, education, 89; children’s rights, 80, 91 Indigenous culture 82–7, 91–4 Indigenous knowledge, 88–91 influence, 4–6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 38, 42, 46, 60, 81, 104 , 123, 125, 138, 151, 155–6, 168, 176 Inter-American Children’s Institute (IIn), 140, 162 International Year of the Child, 9; Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child, 4, 9, 13, 19 n10, 63, 69, 72n60, 100, 102, 125 Jebb, Eglantyne, 7 Juliana, 65–6 Kingsley, Cherry, 12, 13, 113, 117n1 Korczak, Janusz, 7 language 11, 13, 16, 17, 30, 47, 80–4, 86–8, 90–4, 96n31, 97n34, 99, 115, 129, 137, 165; of children’s rights, 7, 8, 10, 15; Aboriginal, Indigenous, 9, 87–8; nests, 92–3 Landon Pearson Resource Centre for the Study of Childhood and Children’s Rights, 4, 46, 81, 166 leadership, 146 League of Nations, 7 Letters from Moscow, 19n11 Liberal government, Liberal Party, 84

191

Maori language revitalization, 92–3 mental health, 15, 37, 46, 60–2, 155, mentor, mentorship, 18, 174, 176 Mexico City, 136 143 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 74, 76 More, Hannah, 46, 48 Mulroney, Brian, 19n10 National Child Day, 4, 5 1000 Women for the Nobel Peace Prize, 4 O.D. Skelton Memorial Lecture, 7 Order of Canada, 4 Out From the Shadows, 13, 113 parental rights, 56; parents, 56–7 participation, 5, 6, 10, 15, 22, 25–9; meaningful, 29; levels of, 31–3; consultative, 31; collaborative, 32; child or adolescent-led, 32; social ecology of, 33–4; measuring outcomes of, 35; conceptual framework of, 36, right to, 152–3 Pearson, Geoffrey, 7 Pearson, Lester B. (L.B.), 7, 8 policy, 98; Indigenous health policy, 169 “positive discipline,” 104; Positive Discipline in Everyday Life (pDep), 104 punishment, 98 power, 8–9 Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, 11 protection, 47, 49, 98–102, 107, 128, 138, 152, 153, 169 Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal, 4; Diamond Jubilee Medal, 4

192

Index

reconciliation, 83, 84, 86, 170, 182 relational, 8, 19, 87, 125. 127, 129, 133–4, 154–5, 170, 179 right to play, 9, 15, 37, 39, 62, 63, 142 rights-based approach, 116, 179 rights bearing, 50 Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative, 163 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (rCap), 85–6, 90 Save the Children, 7 Senate Standing Committee: on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 11; on Aboriginal Peoples, 11; on Human Rights, 103, 124 senate years, 11, 12, 13 senator for children, 5, 11 sex trade, 12, 13 Shaking the Movers, 5, 15, 37–42, 52, 82, 103, 114, 126, 161, 166, 170 sociology of childhood, 7 Special Joint Parliamentary Committee on Child Custody and Access, 11 Special Session on Children, 137–8 Spence, Thomas, 46–8 Spirit Bear, 150 stories, storytelling, storytellers, 88–9 Sweden, 4, 12, 99–100

Thunberg, Greta, 66–7 toys, 100–1 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 77, 81 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 74 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (unDrIp), 81 United Nations Special Session on Children, 13, 124, 135, 137, 138, 152 voice(s), 10, 21, 23, 24, 29, 52, 82, 85, 113, 127–8, 130, 136, 141, 145, 163, 170, 173; hearing children, 38, 63, 65, 67, 103 violence against children, 101 Who’s in Charge Here: Effective implementation of Canada’s international obligations with respect to the rights of children, 14 World Summit for Children, 5, 10, 19n10, 123 Youth Criminal Justice Act, 58–60 youth delegation, 12, 13, 124, 141