Canada tried – and still insists – on erasing Native rights

by Raffaella Milandri©

The issue of colonialism and the rights of Indigenous Peoples is as old as and older than Christopher Columbus, and puts the old Western powers and the rest of the world on both sides of the scales, as in many topical issues in other parts of our planet. The Natives of North America are among the most prominent peoples in these confrontations and struggles that have been going on for over five hundred years. The reason lies mainly in the fact that from the very beginning the ‘new colonies’, in particular the United States, wanted to somehow dislodge themselves from Europe to show that ‘they’ knew how to govern better, by virtue of a democratic constitution, and therefore they have always permeated their treatment of Native Americans with pernicious goodness. This has allowed that, ‘for their own good’, the Native people of North America have suffered absurdly cruel treatment, from apartheid reservations to residential schools, from cultural genocide to extermination. A trickle of legislative and administrative experiments that would have exhausted any people; they have, however, survived. The ultimate goal has always been, of course, to seize the indigenous people’s lands and resources and, possibly, annihilate them without, however, appearing to be executioners.

In the United States and neighbouring Canada – a younger government as a constitution and autonomous from England only since 1931 – the Natives have been subjected to an incredible and shameful (if one were able to feel shame) assault on their human rights: it is shocking that their culture and identity had to be erased in order to make them ‘as civilised as the white man’, but it is even more shocking that the affair is still going on.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Until recently, the United Nations was considered an important and respected world organisation. But it is now being used by governments, and in particular the West, to contradict all the principles for which it was established. International law seems to have been shattered, the mission of guaranteeing peace is an opportunist alibi, and now even humanitarian assistance seems – only to some – an unnecessary hindrance. The figure of the UN Secretary is also subject to double-crossing criticism.

It was within the framework of the United Nations that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was drafted, and signed by many countries, in 2007. An important document to safeguard those countless indigenous peoples who have found their lands invaded by Western powers and deprived of everything. At the time, it was not approved by the very countries founded on colonisation: Canada, Australia, the United States and New Zealand. This important document was drafted and completed in its original draft in 1993 by indigenous leaders, who approved it in 1994 and aimed to have it completed by 2004. ‘But, at that time, pressure from some states started the negotiation of what became a diluted version that the UN General Assembly adopted in 2007,’ Charmaine White Face, spokesperson for the 1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council in South Dakota, told the CBC. In fact, Australian cabinet documents were recently released that showed Canada led efforts to undermine the original draft of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the United Nations by secretly drafting a Canada-friendly replacement, along with Australia, in 2002 and 2003. Charmaine White Face argues that the UN betrayed the indigenous nations by weakening the original draft: ‘We knew as early as 1994 that the English-speaking colonising states would try. They do not want to recognise us as nations with legitimate international treaties’.

The rallying cry of Pam Palmater, Mi’kmaw lawyer and professor of indigenous governance at Toronto Metropolitan University, refers, however, to the present day.  According to her, Canada continues to violate the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the ground. ‘You still see pipelines or mines being imposed on indigenous territories. You still see the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) being sent onto our lands,’ he said.

The Canadian White Paper’s resounding attempt at a ‘clean sweep

Although the current Trudeau government is trying to juggle and ease its conscience amidst the injustices afflicting First Nations (Canada’s Indigenous Peoples, along with the Métis and Inuit), not least the scandal of unmarked graves in residential schools, there is, however, an ‘illustrious’ precedent to be mentioned in Canada’s record, in addition to other cases we have seen in my articles (e.g. ‘Canadian police violence towards Native people: Nine deaths in the last month’ and “Secret medical experiments on Natives in Canada: a case to prove it still happens today”).

The 1969 White Paper (officially ‘Canadian Government Statement on Indian Policy’) is a proposed policy document submitted by the Government of Canada in relation to First Nations. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chrétien, published the paper in 1969. The White Paper proposed to abolish all previously existing legal documents, including (but not limited to) the Indian Act, and to abolish all existing treaties in Canada, which constituted Canadian Aboriginal Law. The proposal proposed to assimilate First Nations as an ethnic group equal to other Canadian citizens. The White Paper was met with widespread criticism and activism, so much so that the proposal was withdrawn in 1970. It proposed legislation to eliminate the status of Indian. Indigenous people would have been granted full rights as citizens, instead of being assisted by the state. First Nations peoples would have been brought under the responsibilities of the provincial government as Canadian citizens, and reservation status would have been eliminated; private property laws would have been imposed on indigenous communities. Any special programmes granted to First Nations peoples under previous legislation would be terminated. The government believed that such special programmes were intended to discriminate against Indian peoples from other Canadian citizens. Therefore, abolishing the reserves and cancelling treaties and compensation benefits would (obviously!) have been a gesture of kindness to the Natives.

A bit of history

After fighting in the First and Second World Wars on behalf of the United Kingdom, First Nations people had returned home motivated to improve their status and living conditions in Canada. In 1945, the government abolished the pass system, which had restricted Indians on reserves for 60 years. Natives could only leave with a pass issued by an Indian agent. With greater freedom of movement, it was felt that Indians could become more involved in Canadian society. In 1946, Parliament created a Special Joint Committee which, with the help of the Senate and the House of Commons, tried to evaluate the effects of the Indian Act of 1876 (which we will not go into here). In 1959, those with Indian status were granted both the right to vote in Canadian elections and to hold office. (Indians who had already thrown away their status and identity had the right to vote since 1876). In the late 1950s, activism continued to grow on the reserves; by the 1960s, a widespread civil rights movement had emerged. In 1963, journalist Peter Gzowski published the article ‘Our Alabama’ in Maclean’s, in which he analysed the murder of Allan Thomas (Saulteaux) on 11 May 1963 by nine white men in Saskatchewan. The author reported that the murder seemed to have been casually accepted by the local white population; Gzowski was told that Thomas was ‘just an Indian’. In the late 1960s, inspired by the Black Power movement in the United States, the Red Power movement was born in Canada.  Malcolm X’s militancy in favour of Black Pride, against racial separatism and against the use of violence made him famous, and his willingness to use violence made him a hero for the nascent Canadian ‘Red Power’ movement.

Canadian activists noted the abuses suffered by First Nations peoples and the deplorable conditions in which many were forced to live. In 1963, the federal government commissioned anthropologist Harry Hawthorn to examine the social conditions of First Nations in Canada. In 1966, he published the report ‘A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada’. He concluded that indigenous Canadians were the most marginalised and disadvantaged group among Canadian citizens. He described them as ‘minus citizens’, attributing these conditions to years of misguided government policies, particularly the Indian residential school system, which was not intended to provide students with the skills they needed to succeed in everyday life. Hawthorne recommended that all forced assimilation programmes, such as residential schools, be abolished and that indigenous peoples be considered ‘citizens plus ’ and given opportunities and resources for self-determination. In 1968, the Liberals, under their new leader Pierre Trudeau (Justin’s father), won the election under the slogan ‘Just Society’. At the end of 1968, as part of the ‘Just Society’, Jean Chrétien, the Minister of Indian Affairs, pledged to amend the Indian Act. The federal government consulted indigenous communities across Canada in an attempt to amend the Indian Act. In 1969, a CBC Television documentary was broadcast about life on the reserves in northern Saskatchewan. The documentary focused on several unsolved murders of Indians and Métis and suggested that they had been killed by whites. The presenter of the documentary described the northern Saskatchewan reserves as the ‘Mississippi of Canada’, referring to a poor state in the Deep South of the United States. In May 1969, the government organised a meeting of regional indigenous leaders from across the nation in Ottawa. He listened to their concerns about their rights and treaties, land title, self-determination, education and health care. After the consultations, Chrétien presented the government’s White Paper to the House of Commons on 25 June 1969. Trudeau’s philosophy tended to favour individual rights over group rights. Trudeau had questioned the Indian Act and proposed its abolition, believing that the few rights that came with it were discriminatory (!!).

When they presented the White Paper in 1969, Trudeau and Chrétien proposed it as a definitive means of addressing First Nations issues. The paper proposed that Indian status be eliminated and that in this way Natives would be equal to other Canadians.

The White Paper proposed (of course!) to eliminate all special programmes for indigenous peoples. Trudeau’s vision of a just society was one in which all discriminatory laws were repealed. The document stated that the elimination of Indian status would ‘allow the Indian people to be free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians’. Provisions included the abolition of the Department of Indian Affairs within five years, the abolition of the reservation system, and the conversion of reservation land into private property, which could be sold. A $50 million economic development fund was to be set up to compensate for the discontinuation of the treaties and the Indian Act (much more is at stake today, just for compensation for abuses in residential schools).

The White Paper stated that these actions would reduce the costs associated with the federal government’s administration of Indian affairs and responsibilities under existing treaties. Indigenous and non-indigenous peoples reacted quickly with strong opposition. Many felt that rather than acknowledging historical wrongs and faults, the Canadian government was trying to absolve itself of its own faults. The document did not fulfil any of the promises made to the indigenous peoples by the Canadian government to redress the injustices suffered as a result of the government’s policies and actions. The Canadian state would change the status of the Natives without any contribution being made.

Chrétien’s invitation to First Nations leaders in Ottawa with proposals that were the opposite of what they wanted was seen as a betrayal. The White Paper was seen as an arrogant document in which the state claimed to know better what was good for the Natives than they themselves did. It also gave much less recognition to First Nations’ territorial claims and implied that no more territorial claims would be allowed. The White Paper was considered provocative and seen as the latest in a series of attempts at cultural assimilation.

Scholar Gordon Gibson noted that many Indians had become accustomed to the reservation system and the proposed abolition would mean yet another total change in their way of life.

Chrétien clashed openly with Indian activists. A First Nations woman asked him, ‘When did we ever lose our identity?’ to which he replied, ‘When you signed the treaties,’ which provoked booing and insults. Another woman from the Haudenosaunnee (Iroquois) reservation in Brantford asked Chrétien: ‘How can you come here and ask us to become citizens, when we were here long before you?’

Harold Cardinal

A prominent critic of the White Paper was Harold Cardinal, a Cree leader of the Alberta Indian Association, who called it a ‘cultural genocide’. In his 1969 bestseller, The Unjust, he described it as ‘a programme of extermination through assimilation’. The title of Cardinal’s book, with its inversion of Trudeau’s ‘just society’ slogan, was one of many ways Cardinal used rhetorical devices to make his point. Cardinal wrote that the Cree, like himself, wanted to remain ‘a red tile in the Canadian mosaic’ and that First Nations were equally opposed to ‘a white white paper created by the white elephant’. He added that the American slogan ‘the only good Indian is a dead Indian’ had been changed in Canada to ‘the only good Indian is a non-Indian’. Cardinal also ridiculed the claim that Trudeau and Chrétien had ‘led the Indians to the promised land’ and insisted that the peoples of the First nations should determine their own destiny without government telling them what to do. He saw the White Paper as a ‘transfer of responsibility’ to the provinces and challenged the rejection with the ‘Citizens Plus in 1970’. The document, popularly known as the ‘Red Paper’ as opposed to the White Paper, embodied the Aboriginal national vision with the statement: ‘There is nothing more important than our treaties, our lands and the welfare of our future generations’.

Protests

The controversy served to mobilise the latest indigenous rights movements. Among the groups were 33 provincial organisations and 4 national indigenous associations. Opposition to the White Paper gave rise to the first national First Nations movement that spanned the entire country. In November 1969, Rose Charlie of the Indian Housewives Association, Philip Paul of the Southern Vancouver Island Tribal Federation and Don Moses of the North American Indian Brotherhood invited British Columbia band leaders to join them. They met in Kamloops: representatives from 140 bands were present and formed the Union of Indian Chiefs of British Columbia (UBCIC). The White Paper was considered particularly provocative in British Columbia, as the British Crown had never signed treaties with the Indian peoples of British Columbia on the cessation of land. The White Paper was seen as an attempt by the Trudeau government to avoid addressing the issue. The First Nations of British Columbia argued that since no treaties had ever been signed with them, they were still the rightful owners of all the land in British Columbia and the Crown must either return the land to them or compensate them at the full market value of the land: this could cost the Crown hundreds of billions of dollars. In 1970, the UBCIC published ‘A Declaration of Indian Rights: The B.C. Indian Position Paper’, or the “Brown Paper”, which rejected the White Paper and affirmed the continued existence of Aboriginal land rights.

Many protests and public marches were organised to oppose the White Paper and demand that more appropriate action be taken to address First Nations problems.

In 1970, Trudeau withdrew the White Paper and said at a press conference, ‘We will keep them in the ghetto as long as they want us to’. Surprising many, Trudeau eventually recognised the White Paper as a failure. Despite the abandonment, many believe that the intent of the White Paper and the values of its legislation continue to be upheld by the Canadian government and that assimilation remains the long-term goal. Since the White Paper was abandoned, Indigenous interest in politics has increased and so has public awareness of Indigenous issues and goals. As political activity in the Indigenous community has increased, experienced and knowledgeable Indigenous leaders have emerged.

British Columbia and consequences

In 1973, the Supreme Court of Canada in Calder v. British Columbia concluded the debate by recognising indigenous title in Canadian law and agreeing that indigenous title to land claims had existed long before European colonisation in Canada. The case was brought to court by Nisga’a Chief Frank Calder. His purpose was to verify the existence of an indigenous land title that had been claimed on land that had previously been occupied by the Nisga’a people of British Columbia. The case was lost, but the Supreme Court’s final ruling established for the first time that indigenous land title has a place in Canadian law. The case served as the basis for the creation of the Nisga’a Treaty in 2000, which established the property rights of the Nisga’a people to self-govern their traditional territory.

In 1982, indigenous and treaty rights were recognised in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, becoming part of the Canadian Constitution. Section 35 protects existing indigenous treaty rights and ‘Indian status’ includes all First Nations peoples, including the Inuit and Métis. Self-administration had been in place since the 1960s, but there continued to be unrest over how administrative powers were delegated. The response to this unrest was a report published in 1983 with recommendations that indigenous communities be given the opportunity to create their own new forms of government and have the opportunity to self-govern. Indigenous governments would function outside the federal and provincial governments. As of January 2015, three self-government agreements have been put in place and 26 territorial claims have been resolved by the federal government. However, there is still much ambiguity in this area, and for indigenous leaders, it is a matter of continuing controversy. 

Published originally in Italian in The AntiDiplomatico,17 October 2024

“Native” column by Raffaella Milandri

https://www.lantidiplomatico.it/news-nativi/53237/