Guest post: The Reserve Paradox (Part II)

[Guest post continued ...]

Aboriginal people in Canada today suffer from much higher rates of poverty, illness, dysfunction and incarceration than non-Native Canadians. Many non-Native Canadians believe that this is due to the Indian Act and the reserve system which set Aboriginals apart from other Canadians. When these non-Natives see protest movements like the Idle No More movement and the land occupation at Caledonia in Ontario, many of them believe that Aboriginal people are simply trying to cling to backward ways of life and squeeze more cash out of the Canadian taxpayer, whether by guilt trips or threatening violence. These critics believe that Aboriginal people would be better off getting jobs and becoming “self-reliant”, in their words. 

These non-Native critics don’t know about the Reserve Paradox, the fact that the Indian Act and the reserves that are now symbols of Aboriginal peoples’ distinctiveness were in fact meant to assimilate Aboriginal people into Canadian society, stripping them of their identities in the process. The thought was that, with education and guidance from white authorities, the Aboriginal people who were their wards would eventually become part of mainstream society. Violence, racism, corruption and incompetence all meant that the assimilation efforts failed, and left an ugly legacy of dysfunction, alcoholism, corruption and crime on Aboriginal reserves that people are still trying to clean up. Part One of this essay provided an overview of the federal government’s assimilation efforts and the disastrous results for Aboriginal people, which are directly responsible for the miserable conditions many Aboriginals still face today. Part Two discusses how many of the problems caused by the Reserve Paradox still exist, how an ugly cycle of two-way racism and violence has only made the problem worse, and how we might finally be able to get beyond it.

1. The More Things Change

Although things have improved in many ways for Aboriginal people, in other ways they have remained much the same.ⁱ The poverty and health issues described by Aboriginal activists such as Harold Cardinal and George Manuel in the 1960s and 1970s still persist in 2013. The Canadian Human Rights Commission noted that Aboriginal people continue to lag behind other Canadians in everything from income to employment to education.ⁱⁱ The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives further noted that half of status First Nations children live below the poverty line, a figure that increases to over 62% in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.ⁱⁱⁱ

One major reason these problems persist is due to the ignorance of non-native Canadians as to the reasons for Aboriginal social problems and the existence of their Treaty rights. Few non-Natives have any problem with Aboriginal cultural ceremonies as dancing or powwows, but they object to Treaty hunting and fishing rights for Aboriginals, which they view as special treatment.^iv Some non-Natives also believe that Aboriginal people are rolling in cash, influenced in part by the results of land claim and resource settlements,^v and likely also due to the billions of dollars spent by the federal government on providing services and funding to Aboriginal reserves.

Another major cause is the fact that many non-Native Canadians simply don’t know about the attempts to assimilate Aboriginal people and the reasons the Treaties were signed, which accounts for their opposition to recognizing Aboriginal Treaty rights.^vi Bob Rae notes that many non-Natives seem to be of two minds on the issue. While they might want to recognize Aboriginal rights, they also believe very strongly that Canadian citizenship should apply equally to all citizens, regardless of background.^vii

This meshes with the attitudes expressed by the government of Pierre Trudeau when it issued the 1969 White Paper and believed that the Treaties were holding Aboriginals back. The Trudeau government’s thinking, in turn, was derivative of the original thinking of the federal government when it set up the Indian Act and the reserve system as a way of removing everything that differentiated Aboriginals from other Canadians.^viii Thankfully, the forced coercion employed by the authorities when Aboriginals refused to assimilate is no longer a tactic either of the federal government or non-Native society at large. However, the same thinking still remains.

In most cases, this is due more to ignorance than racism. Unfortunately, that racism is still entrenched in Canadian society. Harold Cardinal wrote in the 1960s about the ghettoization and racism many Aboriginals encountered when they moved to urban centres.^ix Life for urban Aboriginals in the 21^st century is reportedly very mixed- On the one hand there are reports of higher education, incomes and life expectancy among urban Aboriginals, but there is also the presence of urban gangs, family instability, prostitution and violence.^x More subtle racism exists in the form of “polite” bigotry, with negative stereotypes and derogatory comments.^xi

Not all non-Native assumptions are based on racism, of course. Some stem more from concerns that are in fact much more understandable, like the belief that the billions of dollars spent by Ottawa on Aboriginal people has not been a worthwhile use of taxpayer money. On paper, it seems like a lot of money, but the problem is that it’s much more complicated than most people realize. In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the residential schools for Aboriginals were plagued by underfunding, often using money taken out of the existing Indian Affairs budget, and reducing the amount of money available for other projects. This underfunding was one of the many reasons why the residential schools were such a disaster for Aboriginal people.^xii It was the same story in the second half of the 20^th century, when Harold Cardinal noted that the seemingly large amount of money spent by the federal government on supporting Aboriginal people had to divided among all the thousands of Aboriginal people and pay for all of their living expenses, in addition to anything else they might be interested in pursuing.^xiii

The same problem still exists more than 35 years later. Aboriginal activist Aaron Paquette noted that Ottawa’s $10 billion a year on Aboriginal services amounts to $16,500 per person for all services, while the province of Alberta spends $18,000 per person on education funding alone. Aboriginal chief Carolyn Buffalo got just $90,000 to cover the housing costs of her band.^xiv The northern Ontario reserve of Attawapiskat got a lot of coverage from the supposed mismanagement of the millions of dollars it got from Ottawa. The $90 million the reserve has received is not the amount of funding it’s gotten per year, but actually how much funding it’s gotten since Stephen Harper became Prime Minister in 2006. Attawapiskat has only received some $18 million a year since that time.^xv More generally, it’s been said that the federal government provides 20-30% less funding for Aboriginal education than non-Aboriginal schools that receive provincial funding.^xvi 

One might also point out the fact that Aboriginal leaders are hardly the only ones who mismanage public funds, given the “significant gaps” that Ottawa’s own internal audits have shown in how the federal government is managing over a billion dollars meant for repairing Aboriginal infrastructure. And then there’s Ottawa’s own questionable spending of public money and clashes with the Parliamentary Budget Office over access to budgetary documents.^xvii

As was noted in Part One of this essay, government action regarding the Indian Act, the residential schools and various policies leading up the 1969 White Paper were all unilaterally decided on by the federal government, without much consultation with the Aboriginals. When the Aboriginals were consulted, they were generally ignored. This attitude continued in the 1970s, when Harold Cardinal wrote about how many Indian Affairs programs were unilaterally designed by the federal government and then presented to the Aboriginals without giving them much say in how the programs were designed.^xviii In the 1990s, Matthew Coon Come criticized the federal and Quebec governments for cherry-picking which parts of the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement they chose to implement, effectively dictating the terms to the Aboriginals.^xix 

The federal Conservative government of Stephen Harper has been accused of continuing with its top-down, big-government approach to dealing with Aboriginal people,^xx and current Assembly of First Nations leader Shawn Atleo laments the lack of progress in dealing with the Harper government and its top-down approach.^xxi As Tim Querengesser writes, some individual Aboriginal reserves may in fact be very innovative, but many of their positive ideas for change are rejected by Ottawa.^xxii

Many of these problems have gone on for decades, a century or more. Aboriginal people have typically tried to resolve these issues and make the governing authorities aware of their opinions, but quite often the governing officials have ignored them, driving many Aboriginals to desperation and frustration. This has led to confrontations such as those at Oka and Caledonia, problems which have much deeper roots than most people realize, and contribute to an ugly cycle of anger and racism between Aboriginal and non-Native Canadians.

2. Standoffs and Occupations: Old Causes, New Problems

The standoffs and confrontations that have occurred in places such as Oka, Ipperwash, Gustafsen Lake, Caledonia, Burnt Church and the land of the Lubicon Cree have many of the same origins. These origins generally centre around Aboriginal people protesting non-Native development of lands that the Aboriginals believe were never ceded by a Treaty (in Oka, Ipperwash and Caledonia and on the Lubicon Cree’s traditional territory), or by Aboriginal attempts to make use of land and resources that were never formally ceded by Treaty (at Gustafsen Lake) or they had a Treaty right to use (at Burnt Church).^xxiii Some of these disputes, most notably at Oka, are centuries old, but the pattern has generally been the same. Aboriginal Treaty and land property rights have been consistently ignored by non-Native authorities, who act unilaterally without consideration of the Aboriginals’ rights or needs, in some cases deciding what is “best” for them.^xxiv

To many non-Native observers, these standoffs and confrontations have seemed like just more examples of Aboriginal people refusing to integrate with the modern world, to laze around waiting for handouts instead of getting productive jobs and using violence to extort more money from the public. The reaction in some circles to Idle No More has been no different.^xxv Indeed, as noted by writers like Ojibwa man Mike Alexander, Idle No More can be seen as the latest manifestation by Aboriginal people against policies and attitudes that have harmed them and their ways of life. Citing Aboriginal singer Buffy Sainte-Marie, he notes that there is nothing new about Idle No More, and indeed he doesn’t believe much has changed since the summer of 1990. The same negative perception, without any attempt to understand the Aboriginal point of view, has marked much of the media coverage about the movement.^xxvi

Other parallels exist between Idle No More and previous Aboriginal protests. In 1988, when the frustrated Lubicon Cree of Alberta mounted a blockade, other Aboriginals in Quebec and Ontario mounted blockades in solidarity.^xxvii During the Oka standoff in 1990, sympathy protests, blockades and standoffs erupted across the country at the same time.^xxviii As of this writing, Idle No More and other Aboriginal activists are planning a “Sovereignty Summer” full of protests and potential blockades, meant to stop “business as usual” in Canada, based on the belief that Prime Minister Harper only listens to economics. Aboriginal activist Andrea Landry expressed her concern that violence may flare up, caused by the growing frustration in many Aboriginal communities with what they see as the Harper government’s stonewalling.^xxix

Landry’s comment ties into the much darker side of Aboriginal protest and activism, namely the violence that occurs during these conflicts that further poisons relationships between Aboriginals and non-Native Canadians, and the racism attached to it. Some standoffs have involved gunfire, which led to the death of Dudley George at Ipperwash in 1995 and of Corporal Marcel Lemay in 1990 at Oka. Other outbreaks of violence involved harassment and attacks of Mohawk people by white Quebecers at Oka^xxx and beating of a non-Native man who building a house for his daughter near the land claimed by the Aboriginal Caledonia occupation by Aboriginal protesters.^xxxi More general bigotry could be seen by the attempts by non-Native Quebecers to subtly and not-so-subtly undermine the claims, rights and even identities of the Aboriginal protesters, while some of the Aboriginals in turn demonized the non-Natives with racist statements and attacked the non-Natives’ own identities.^xxxii

When non-Native Canadians don’t understand the backgrounds of these protests, and end up seeing the bigotry and the violence expressed by some Aboriginal radicals, it’s not hard to see why they wrongly conclude these protests are just a cover for Aboriginal extortion. It creates an ugly cycle that feeds on itself, as non-Natives react badly to what they think is just Aboriginal violence, particularly when they themselves are caught up in it, and in turn become opposed to any recognition of Aboriginal peoples’ distinct status. In turn, when Aboriginal people see the non-Native refusal to recognize their distinct place in Canada, it contributes to the frustration many of them feel. As previously noted, these standoffs generally start when the Aboriginals feel that they have no other choice, or when they try to assert their Treaty rights. Even then, the proceedings could be sidetracked by Aboriginal radicals that actively made things worse.^xxxiii

Small wonder, then, that some Aboriginal people hope that Idle No More can be used as an opportunity to “reset” the relationship between Aboriginal Canadians and their non-Native fellow citizens. Aboriginal activist Chelsea Vowel is encouraged by the dialogue she sees going on with non-Native Canadians, and build more understanding between them and their Aboriginal kin and neighbours.^xxxiv This is a hopeful development, and it is exactly what Canada needs. It will be only through that kind of dialogue that a stronger place for Aboriginals will be established in Canada, one that puts an end to the Reserve Paradox.

3. Dialogue And Development

However, achieving that dialogue still presents a challenge in Canada. Many non-Native Canadians simply don’t know the background of the Reserve Paradox, or the real reasons why Aboriginal people have to deal with so many problems in Canada today. This essay has shown many of those reasons, and how they continue to be persistent headaches for many Aboriginals today. The Idle No More movement, and the past work of activists like Harold Cardinal, George Manuel and Ovide Mercredi have all played critical roles in making non-Native Canadians aware of these issues.

However, there are still problems with the Idle No More movement itself. Blogger Stephen Lee, who is of Mik’maq ancestry, has expressed his disgust with those non-Natives who have genuine malice and bigotry against Aboriginals, particularly when it’s of the “soft racist” type. However, he is also concerned that some of the Idle No More movement’s supporters attack all non-Natives who question it as racists, instead of actually answering their questions. Lee is also concerned that Idle No More’s goals are diffuse, and that all of the disparate groups who make it up have no clear, unified message. That, along with many non-Natives’ own unwillingness to accept that problems still exist, are major reasons why there seems to be an impasse when neither side can even seem to agree on the terms of the dialogue.^xxxv Non-Native blogger Patrick Ross puts it rather more bluntly, claiming that Idle No More was able to be hijacked by “any douchebag with an axe to grind”, as he put it.^xxxvi

Non-Native commentator Don Lenihan, however, provides a substantial explanation for Idle No More’s form and its protests against the Harper government’s tactics. Lenihan believes that Idle No More is a truly grassroots movement that is trying to dissociate itself from the established Aboriginal leadership and the controversy over the nepotism and corruption among some Aboriginal reserve governments. Grassroots movements are often eclectic and have sometimes conflicting views among their members.

Idle No More was also formed more specifically in response to the protests many Aboriginals made about the Harper government’s reforms to the parts of the Indian Act governing reserve lands. This essay has already highlighted the way the federal government has frequently made top-down policy for Aboriginals, without actually consulting the people the reforms are meant for. As previously noted, many Aboriginals feel that the Harper government is continuing in this way, and they have little trust for the government or its intentions. Indeed, many people are concerned that Harper’s reforms on land use will enable those in the best position to do so to put their own personal gain ahead of the needs of the reserve community. The community would be unable to stop them, and in turn they would lose their land base, the reserves would be dissolved, and the Aboriginals would ultimately be assimilated.^xxxvii

These are not new concerns. In the 1970s, Aboriginal activist George Manuel wrote about how many Aboriginals were suspicious of promises of economic development that provided an uncertain number of jobs in exchange for nearly unlimited leases and amounts of pollution without local control, which would only exchange one form of stagnant poverty for another. Similarly, many Aboriginals were concerned that the selling off of reserve lands would lead to them being whittled down and disappearing.^xxxviii In the 1980s, Aboriginal activist Georges Erasmus echoed the point, stating that private enterprise and investment would be very welcome in developing Aboriginal economies, but that the Aboriginal communities need the appropriate ownership of land and subsurface rights.^xxxix Manuel also agreed with the positive advantages the private sector could bring for economic development.^xl Jody Wilson-Raybould points out that many Aboriginals are quite happy with economic development, but they want to ensure that the primary beneficiaries are the Aboriginal citizens themselves, not just third parties or potential speculators. Many reserves are also developing their own particular land management initiatives according to their own needs.^xli

Economic development and jobs are a critical part of moving beyond the Reserve Paradox, but they are not the only elements. Aboriginal Treaty rights are specifically recognized in Sections 25 and 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and are a full part of the Canadian Constitution. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Treaties such as the 1752 treaty between the British Crown and the Mik’maq in the Maritimes were still in effect,^xlii and further noted that Aboriginal land titles in Canada exist based on their long-time occupation of the land.^xliii These things cannot simply be wished away-they are part of the law of the land. The question all Canadians, Aboriginals and non-Natives alike, have to answer is how we can live together.

4. The Two Row Wampum Belt: An Alternative

Many Aboriginal people don’t trust the federal government, for the reasons noted in this essay. Some, however, go even further and don’t consider themselves Canadian at all. Aboriginal scholar Patricia Monture-Angus, for instance, isn’t sure what Canadian citizenship really has to offer her, given that most of the actions of the Canadian state have not benefited Aboriginal people.^xliv She further notes that most non-Native commentary centres only on what Aboriginal people must do to solve the problems they face, without commenting on what non-Natives ought to do.

In her view, relations between Aboriginals and non-Natives should be based on the Gus-Wen-Tah, or “Two Row Wampum Belt”, which symbolizes the Treaties signed between the Aboriginals of Canada and the Canadian Crown and government. While this relationship has been defined and is part of the Canadian Constitution, Monture-Angus writes that it has yet to be fully lived by non-Native Canadian society. Reserve lines and borders have been applied with little to no consultation by the Aboriginals themselves. These rigid borders are a sense of frustration to Aboriginals who move onto and off reserves regularly, particularly since their Treaty rights apply only on one side of the border.^xlv Her fellow scholar Taiaiake Alfred is more blunt, saying that Aboriginals are being assimilated by the very acceptance of Canadian citizenship. He believes that the Aboriginals should deal with non-Native Canadians on a “nation to nation” basis, rather than as fellow Canadian citizens.^xlvi

Such stances are controversial, to say the least. In his review of proposals for how Aboriginal governments and people would fit into Canadian society, non-Native political scientist Alan Cairns points out that most of them stress the maximum amount of autonomy for Aboriginal people, with much less regard to how they would interact with non-Native Canadian society.^xlvii He further points out the factors that complicate any effort at maximizing Aboriginal independence, such as intermarriage between Aboriginals and non-Natives, the large population of Aboriginals dwelling in urban areas, the number of people of Aboriginal ancestry who don’t identify with an Aboriginal identity and the smaller sizes and population of many reserves.^xlviii

I myself would also add the questions of whether non-Canadian Aboriginal communities would mint and use their own currencies, set up their own embassies in other countries and generally set up all the practical trappings of state sovereignty, or whether they would continue to use Canada’s currency, embassies and other state creations. Similarly, how and when will Aboriginal or Canadian law apply to non-Natives who run into issues on Aboriginal territories?^xlix Will Aboriginals such as Elijah Harper, who sent such a strong message to non-Native Canadians on behalf of his people when he helped derail the Meech Lake Accord, still be able to run for office in and get elected to Canadian legislatures?^l

Other Aboriginals have provided a solution to these issues. Thinkers like George Manuel^li and Ovide Mercredi^lii have invoked the Two Row Wampum Belt as a symbol for what the relations between Canadians and other Aboriginals can be like. Aboriginal law professor John Borrows also notes that, at the same time that the Two Row Wampum Belt was exchanged, a ‘Belt of Peace’ was exchanged that emphasized just how interconnected the Native and non-Aboriginal peoples were, something the Two Row Wampum Belt also symbolizes. As important as self-government is for Aboriginals, it doesn’t encompass all of the relationships Aboriginals have with the rest of society, or lands outside their own reserves. Borrows argues for an Aboriginal participation in Canadian affairs, which would enable Aboriginals to maintain those bonds with the rest of the land even as they work and thrive alongside their non-Native neighbours. The meaning of being Aboriginal grows and changes with time, and Aboriginal values can help develop and evolve Canadian culture, society and identity.^liii

As with so much relating to the Reserve Paradox, these ideas are not new. In the 1970s, George Manuel wrote that the Two Row Wampum Belt isn’t necessarily just about the separation of non-Native and Aboriginal cultures, but also about straddling both of the vessels, and expressing concern when one or both runs into problems.^liv In his view, the Aboriginal goal of home rule and responsible government wasn’t very different from what non-Natives were looking for. Besides, just as non-Native governing institutions have been modified to meet the changing times, so too can Aboriginal governing institutions adapt to new challenges and integrate into Canada without assimilating.^lv Even institutions such as the Two Row Wampum Belt can change and evolve as needed.^lvi

Of course, some non-Natives might ask why all this is necessary. Why can’t Aboriginal people just be Canadian like all the other residents of the country? In replying to this question, Harold Cardinal pointed out that many Aboriginals feel their identities are tied up with their Treaty rights. Being told to ‘just’ be Canadian is taken by many Aboriginals to mean that they should abandon their identities, and that “white is right”. He stated that most Aboriginals are in fact quite happy to participate in mainstream Canadian society, but they don’t want to have to give up their identities in the process.^lvii

Ovide Mercredi points out that Aboriginals see themselves as distinct peoples in Canada, and have a sacred responsibility to be themselves. Telling them that they should assimilate and conform to the status quo is like telling them that they should “civilize” and stop “acting like savages.”^lviii As noted by Randall White, conflicts like the Caledonia standoff are about much more than just land claims. They are also about a continuing lack of recognition of Aboriginal rights, and the frustrations that come from it. Forcibly dispersing a standoff like Caledonia wouldn’t really solve anything, and would probably just lead to more standoffs in the future.^lix

Cardinal further emphasizes the fact that a declaration of ‘nationhood’ by Aboriginals does not necessarily imply the forming of a separate country. What it actually means is a statement of their unique place in North America. Unfortunately, Aboriginals were never asked if they wanted to be members of more than one nation. The governing authorities apparently saw it as a black and white choice between being Aboriginal or being Canadian, which goes against some of the fundamental philosophical and even religious beliefs of the Aboriginals. They believe that the land was meant to be shared, not just occupied by one group or another.^lx 

The Dene of the Northwest Territories are a classic example, having stated that they are a ‘nation’ and a distinct people in Canada, but they emphasize that they seek to be recognized within Canada.^lxi

Mercredi drives the point home when he states that self-government for Aboriginals is what would make them free, not simply assimilating and abolishing the Indian Act. He notes that it is easy to support strictly individual, undifferentiated rights for all Canadians when all of the equivalents to the collective rights Aboriginals seek to have recognized (e.g., speaking the English language) are secure. Indeed, Mercredi states that recognizing Aboriginals on a “nation to nation” basis would have positive benefits for all of Canadian society, not just the Aboriginals themselves.^lxii Former Northwest Territories Premier Stephen Kakfwi pointed out that, while the Aboriginals of the Northern territories felt they had to “hit back” at the federal government and the resource companies, they did so with the support of and for the benefit of their non-Native neighbours, as well as themselves.^lxiii

The idea of mutual benefits for both Aboriginals and non-Natives is one that repeats itself in Aboriginal discourse. Georges Erasmus wrote about strong Aboriginal economies strengthening the economies of the larger regions they’re incorporated in,^lxiv a point reinforced by the Royal Bank of Canada^lxv and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.^lxvi Idle No More spokespeople such as Chief Shining Turtle^lxvii and Pam Palmater^lxviii emphasize that the changes to environmental regulations passed by the Harper government in 2012 endanger the quality of life for all Canadians, Aboriginal and non-Native alike.

5. Telling A New Story

Recognizing the Two Row Wampum Belt and the meaning behind it would go a long way to overcoming the Reserve Paradox and reinforcing the spirit of the Treaties. As previously noted, the Treaties are part of the fundamental laws of Canada and their recognition is long overdue. Harold Cardinal noted that there is often much more convergence between Aboriginal and non-Native conceptions of what it means to be Canadian than most people realize.^lxix Kathy Brock notes that the idea of Aboriginals being interconnected with non-Natives and participating in the larger country is quite compatible with the idea of Aboriginals developing their own particular institutions and territories in Canada. Many Aboriginal people in fact travel frequently to and from reserves, maintaining strong connections between the on- and off-reserve populations.^lxx

Much of this essay has been devoted to describing all of the problems and suffering caused by the Reserve Paradox, and also to discussing the weaknesses in some elements of the Idle No More movement and the larger Aboriginal movement. As it stands, the Reserve Paradox creates a self-fulfilling cycle of frustration and anger. The lack of recognition of their rights and perspectives, and the unilateral actions of non-Native society, create frustration for Aboriginals that can and does cause violence at places like Oka and Caledonia. In turn, those actions create a backlash against Aboriginal people and a refusal to recognize their rights, which starts the cycle all over again.

But that’s not all there is to it. As Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux and others have pointed out, for all the frustration Aboriginal people have encountered in dealing with the federal government and non-Native society, they are also gaining educations, building businesses, and social initiatives. For them, Idle No More is a way of giving voice to their concerns.^lxxi Even in the ugliest crises, reconciliation can still occur-the book Justice for Natives: Searching For Common Ground is an account of how Aboriginals and non-Natives alike tried to defuse tensions and build a better relationship after Oka. The sister of the slain Marcel Lemay found healing with the Mohawk community nearly 15 years after the crisis.^lxxii

Stories have long played an important role in Aboriginal culture. Currently, the story of the Reserve Paradox is one of broken promises, racism and a long, cycle of frustration. But the story doesn’t have to end there. At the same time as all the problems of the Reserve Paradox remain with us, people have been telling new stories-stories of reconciliation and healing, of rebuilding cultures and societies, of building bridges between Canadians.

The problems we face now do not just affect Aboriginals-they affect all of us. We are all Canadians-we are simply too intertwined to be anything else. But we can tell a new story, one that revives the true spirit of the Treaties by recognizing the distinct place of Aboriginal people in Canada and the Two Row Wampum Belt. It won’t solve all of our problems, but it will go a long way towards healing old wounds and building bridges between Canadians. 

It can be a truly Canadian story, one that builds a better tomorrow for all of us. 

i Harold Cardinal, The Unjust Society. Vancouver, British Columbia: Douglas & McIntyre, 1999. Originally published in Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig Publishers, 1969. Pages viii-xiii.

ii Canadian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Equality Rights of Aboriginal People. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2013. Available online at http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/equality_aboriginal_report_0.pdf.

iii David Macdonald and Daniel Wilson, Poverty or Prosperity: Indigenous Children in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2013. Available online at http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2013/06/Poverty_or_Prosperity_Indigenous_Children.pdf.

iv David R. Newhouse, “All Singing, All Dancing, 24/7” in Centre for Research and Information on Canada, Facing The Future: Relations Between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Canadians. CRIC Papers, June 2004. Available online at http://www.library.carleton.ca/sites/default/files/find/data/surveys/pdf_files/cric-poc-03-not2_000.pdf. Page 12. See also Carol Crowe’s comments in “Interview With Community Leaders On The Prairies” on page 5.

v Kelly Lendsay, “Interview With Community Leaders On The Prairies,” page 5 of Facing The Future: Relations Between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Canadians.

vi Kris Frederickson, Matthew Dunn and Donita Large, commentaries on David Newhouse’s article on pages 14-18 of Facing The Future: Relations Between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Canadians.

vii Bob Rae, “Citizens Plus: A Review”, in Bridging the Divide Between Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State, pages 5-7. The Centre for Research and Information on Canada, CRIC Papers #2, June 2001. Available online at http://www.library.carleton.ca/sites/default/files/find/data/surveys/pdf_files/cric-paper_2-june2001.pdf

viii More details on the original thinking that led to the reserve system, the Indian Act and the 1969 White Paper, can be found in Part One of this essay.

ix Cardinal, The Unjust Society, pages 4-5. See also George Manuel and Michael Posluns, The Fourth World: An Indian Reality. Don Mills, Ontario: Collier Macmillan Canada Ltd., 1974. Pages 123-125.

x Alan C. Cairns, First Nations and the Canadian State: In Search of Coexistence. Kingston, Ontario: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, 2005. Pages 12-13.

xi Donita Large, “Polite Racism and Lack of Mainstream Aboriginal Education in Canada,” commentary on David Newhouse’s article in Facing The Future: Relations Between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Canadians, pages 16-17.

xii Olive Patricia Dickason and David T. McNab, Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples From Earliest Times. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 4^th edition, 2009. Pages 307-310.

xiii Harold Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig Pubilishers, 1977. Pages 152-153. See also Manuel and Posluns, pages 205-206.

xiv Kevin Ma, “Why Idle No More?” Local panel looks at gulf between Aboriginals and leaders. St. Albert Gazette, February 23, 2013. http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20130223/SAG0801/302239978/0/sag

xv Chelsea Vowel, “Attawapiskat: You want to be shown the money? Here it is.” Huffington Post Canada, December 26, 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/chelsea-vowel/attawapiskat-emergency_b_1127066.html

xvi J.F. Foulds, “Reflections on Idle No More.” Straight Goods News, February 11, 2013. http://sgnews.ca/2013/02/11/reflections-on-idle-no-more/

xvii “First Nations funds mishandled by Ottawa, audits show.” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, January 5, 2012. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/01/05/first-nations-audits-infrastructure.html. See also Michael Adams, “First Nations: The media misses the point-again.” IPolitics website, January 10, 2013. http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/01/10/first-nations-the-media-misses-the-point-again/ See also an author with the screen name of “Sixth Estate”, “Is Theresa Spence’s alleged fiscal mismanagement serious because she’s an Indian, or because she’s not a Conservative Cabinet minister? The Sixth Estate blog, January 7, 2013. http://sixthestate.net/?p=7704. See also Sixth Estate’s “If Theresa Spence was a white politician, she could have just fired the auditor.” Sixth Estate blog, January 10, 2013. http://sixthestate.net/?p=7709.

xviii Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians, pages 47-48.

xix Matthew Coon Come, “Different Laws For Different People”, in Justice For Natives: Searching For Common Ground, edited by Andrea P. Morrison with Irwin Cotler. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997. Pages 162-166, citation on pages 164-165.

xx Chris Plecash, “Federal Conservatives taking ‘big government’ approach to First Nations: Critics say the Tories are continuing to impose policies top-down on First Nations.” First Perspectives website, June 17, 2013. http://www.firstperspective.ca/index.php/news/760-federal-conservatives-taking-big-government-approach-to-first-nations

xxi Tim Harper, “Shawn Atleo, Assembly of First Nations Chief, has little to show his people.” The Toronto Star, June 16, 2013. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/16/shawn_atleo_assembly_of_first_nations_chief_has_little_to_show_his_people_tim_harper.html. See also Gloria Galloway, ““Native leaders frustrated by lack of consultation with Ottawa on job program.” The Globe and Mail, March 22, 2013. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/native-leader-frustrated-by-lack-of-consultation-with-ottawa-on-job-program/article10242016/.

xxii Tim Querengeser, “Why Indigenous blockades are now Indigenous to Canada.” This Magazine, February 19, 2013. http://this.org/blog/2013/02/19/why-blockades-are-now-indigenous-to-indigenous-issues-in-canada/.

xxiii Dickason and McNab, pages 333-334, 319-324, 413-415, 443-445.

xxiv For an account of the sorry Oka saga, including the constant and repeated peaceful attempts by the Aboriginals to get fair treatment and have their rights respected, see J.R. Miller, “Great White Father Knows Best: Oka and the Land Claims Process.” Native Studies Review 7.1 (1991), pages 23-52. See also Dickason and McNab, pages 319-321. For an account of the Lubicon Cree’s blockades, see Arthur J. Ray, I Have Lived Here Since The World Began: An Illustrated History of Canada’s Native Peoples. Toronto, Ontario: Key Porter Books, 1996. Pages 350-356. For an account of the Caledonia occupation from the occupiers’ point of view, see John Ahni Schertow/Ahniwanika, “To The People of Caledonia and All Canadians.” http://intercontinentalcry.org/to-the-people-of-caledonia-and-all-canadians/presentation/#/1.

xxv As an example, see Michael Adams, “First Nations: The media misses the point-again.”

xxvi Mike Alexander, “The failed whitewashing of Idle No More.” Divided No More website, February 23, 2013. http://dividednomore.ca/2013/02/23/the-failed-whitewashing-of-idle-no-more/

xxvii Ray, page 354.

xxviii Peter C. Newman, The Canadian Revolution 1985-1995: From Deference To Defiance. Toronto, Ontario: Penguin Books Canada, 1995. Page 360.

xxix Laura Beaulne-Steubing, “First Nations plan ‘Sovereignty Summer’.” IPolitics website, June 19, 2013. http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/06/19/first-nations-groups-mobilizing-for-sovereignty-summer/

xxx Will Ferguson, Bastards and Boneheads: Canada’s Glorious Leaders Past and Present. Vancouver, B.C. and Toronto, Ontario: Douglas & McIntyre, 1999. Pages 216-217.

xxxi “Trio Sought in Caledonia Beating.” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, September 20, 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/09/20/caledonia-beating-charges.html

xxxii Pierre Trudel, De la négation de l’Autre dans les discours nationalistes des Québécois et des Autochtones, in Le nationalité autonomiste des Québécois, extrait de Les Nationalismes au Québec du XIXième au XXiième siècle, edited by Michel Sarra-Bournet with the assistance of Jocelyn Saint-Pierre. Quebec City : Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2001. Pages 203-230.

xxxiii See Dickason and McNab, pages 414-415, for an example of what happened at Ipperwash. The violence at Caledonia can in all likelihood be attributed to radicals as well.

xxxiv Duncan McCue, “The cultural importance of Idle No More.” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, January 9, 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/08/f-vp-mccue-idle-no-more.html.

xxxv Stephen Lee, “Trying To Understand Idle No More.” The Orange Tory blog, January 8, 2013. http://theorangetory.blogspot.ca/2013/01/try-to-understand-idle-no-more.html. See also Lee, “Racist No More,” January 15, 2013. http://theorangetory.blogspot.ca/2013/01/racist-no-more.html.

xxxvi Patrick Ross, “My Personal Response to Nina Waste.” Bad Company Canada blog, March 24, 2013. http://badcompanycanada.blogspot.ca/2013/03/my-personal-response-to-nina-waste.html.

xxxvii Don Lenihan, “Building a Crown-First Nations Relationship On Trust.” IPolitics website, January 8, 2013. http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/01/08/building-a-crown-first-nations-relationship-on-trust/.

xxxviii Manuel and Posluns, pages 151 and 169.

xxxix Georges Erasmus, in his contribution to If I Were Prime Minister, compiled and introduced by Mel Hurtig. Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig Publishers, 1987. Pages 78-82, citation on pages 79-80.

xl Manuel’s contribution to If I Were Prime Minister, pages 186-190. Citation on pages 188-189.

xli Jody Wilson-Raybould, “First Nations want property rights-but on their own terms.” The Globe and Mail, August 10, 2012. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/columnists/first-nations-want-property-rights-but-on-our-own-terms/article4472569/.

xlii Ovide Mercredi and Mary Ellen Turpel, In The Rapids: Navigating The Future Of First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Viking Press, 1993. Page 60.

xliii Newman, page 365.

xliv Patricia Monture-Angus, in a discussion between her, Alan Cairns and Kathy Brock in Bridging the Divide Between Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State, page 19.

xlv Monture-Angus, “Citizens Plus: Sensitivities vs. Solutions,” in Bridging the Divide Between Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State, pages 8-13.

xlvi Taiaiake Alfred, “Who you calling Canadian?” Windspeaker magazine, Volume 18, Issue 5, 2000. Available online at http://www.ammsa.com/node/23047.

xlvii Alan C. Cairns, Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State. Vancouver, B.C.: UBC Press, 2000. Pages 177-182, 191-195 and 200-205.

xlviii Alan C. Cairns, First Nations and the Canadian State: In Search of Coexistence, pages 11-15, 36-38 and 51.

xlix One of my professors in university was Dr. Lloyd Patrick Dempsey, an Aboriginal man who was himself part of the Blood nation in southern Alberta. In a conversation with me on this issue, he observed that, if the practical trappings of sovereignty like currencies were not employed by separate Aboriginal nations, then they were not in fact truly sovereign.

l Elijah Harper, “A Time To Say No”, in Justice For Natives: Searching For Common Ground, pages 219-226. In this speech, Harper specifically notes that he did not say ‘no’ to Meech Lake because of any opposition to Quebec nationalism, but because he wanted to drive home the point that Aboriginal people and their rights could not be ignored in constitutional discussions.

li George Manuel’s contribution to If I Were Prime Minister, page 186. See also Manuel and Posluns, 8-9 and 97-98.

lii Mercredi and Mary Ellen Turpel, page 35.

liii John Borrows, “’Landed’ citizenship: Narratives of Aboriginal political participation,” in Citizenship, Diversity and Pluralism: Canadian and Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Alan C. Cairns, John C. Courtney, Peter MacKinnon, Hans J. Michelmann and David E. Smith. Montreal, Quebec and Kingston, Ontario: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999. Pages 72-86, particularly pages 75-81.

liv Manuel and Posluns, pages 8-9.

lv Ibid., pages 135, 203 and 215-219.

lvi Thomas Hueglin, “Constitutional Federalism vs. Treaty Federalism in Canada: Aboriginal Political Thought Beyond The State”, paper presented to the “New Federalism In North America” conference in Mexico City, CISAN-UNAM, November 1998. 26 pages, citation on pages 17-18.

lvii Cardinal, The Unjust Society, pages 12, 19 and 21.

lviii Mercredi and Turpel, pages 21 and 106-109.

lix Randall White, “Happy birthday to who? And where does the Six Nations Caledonia protest go from here? Counterweights.ca, February 28, 2007. http://www.counterweights.ca/2007/02/happy_birthday/

lx Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians, pages 140-144.

lxi Cited in Jeffrey Simpson, Faultlines: Struggling For A Canadian Vision. Toronto, Ontario: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993. Pages 201 and 232.

lxii Mercredi and Turpel, pages 46-47.

lxiii Stephen Kakfwi, in an interview given in Facing The Future: Relations Between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Canadians, pages 9-10.

lxiv Erasmus, in his contribution to If I Were Prime Minister, page 80.

lxv John McCallum, chief economist of the Royal Bank of Canada, “Aboriginal Economic Development Report”, October 1997. Available online at http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/commercial/aboriginal/rr-economic.html.

lxvi Internal paper published in 2012 by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Available online at http://www.chamber.ca/images/uploads/Resolutions/2012/EN/S-Aboriginal_Governance.pdf.

lxvii Chief Shining Turtle, “Idle No More: An Open Letter To My Non-Aboriginal Neighbours. The Huffington Post, January 25, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/chief-shining-turtle/idle-no-more-movement_b_2551116.html.

lxviii Pam Palmater, “What is the Idle No More movement…really?” Indigenous Nationhood blog, January 3, 2013. http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2013/01/what-is-idle-no-more-movement-really.html

lxix Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians, pages 8-13.

lxx Kathy L. Brock, “Citizens Plus: Old Debates, New Understandings” in Bridging the Divide Between Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State, pages 15-17.

lxxi Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux, “Aboriginal youth find their voice in Idle No More.” Calgary Herald, February 1, 2013. http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/Wesley+Esquimaux+Aboriginal+youth+find+their+voice/7901565/story.html

lxxii Loreen Pindera, “A sister’s grief bridges a cultural divide.” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, July 8, 2010. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/07/07/f-francine-lemay-oka-reconciliation.html

Guest post: The Reserve Paradox (Part I)

Once again, I'm happy to lend over this space to my colleague Jared Milne.   This time, Jared talks about the troubles that the Aboriginal community has been in for years -- or in his words, "how the reserves and the Indian Act, which are seen as ways by which Native Canadians are supposedly clinging to their backward ways of life and preferring to rely on government handouts rather than work for a living and take responsibility for their lives, are in fact the causes of the poverty, corruption and violence we see these days. The reserves and the Act were conceived as ways by which the Natives could be assimilated, and while the assimilation failed, it left a destructive legacy that people wrongly assume is because of the Natives' insisting on being distinct".

The opinions Jared expresses are solely his and not necessarily mine, but I think as usual he asks questions many of us (including me) are afraid to ask.

*****

We have been fighting for so long that the original misunderstandings and differences that created this conflict have been forgotten. Various tactics have been tried by one side and countered by the other, emotions have taken over from reason; and the passions born of hatred have grown until neither fighter any longer knows, or cares, what the fight is about. The fight has become an end in itself.

In the long run such an attitude can be disastrous, not just for our people, but also for our country. To reverse this unfortunate trend of confrontation, we must examine some of the myths that have contributed to the situation currently faced by Indian people in this country. We must re-examine the basic philosophies inherent in any discussion with white society, or white individuals.ⁱ

Such were the words spoken by Harold Cardinal in the mid-1970s regarding relations between Aboriginal and non-Native peoples in Canada. Since then, there have been several high-profile confrontations between Aboriginals and non-Natives, at places such as Burnt Church in New Brunswick, Oka in Quebec, Ipperwash and Caledonia in Ontario and Gustafsen Lake in British Columbia. More recently, a new Aboriginal protest movement calling itself the “Idle No More” movement began late in 2012. 

 

According to Idle No More spokeswoman Pam Palmater, Idle No More is a grassroots citizens’ movement that opposes the legislative changes the Stephen Harper government made in 2012 as part of the omnibus legislation it passed last summer. Idle No More believes that many of the changes affecting environmental protections and the governance of Aboriginal communities were made by the Harper government without consulting the Aboriginals who would be affected by them, in violation of the promises the government had made. It also believes that the changes will threaten the water and land that people rely on for their livelihoods, cause all kinds of legal headaches for Aboriginal communities and violate their treaty rights.ⁱⁱ In response, Idle No More began organizing everything from “teach ins” designed to educate people on the Aboriginal perspective to road blockades to spontaneous dances in public places.ⁱⁱⁱ

 

The movement’s actions attracted a great deal of criticism. Some critics claimed that the Aboriginals were trying to blame others for their poverty and refused to take responsibility for their actions. Other critics claimed that they refused to integrate with the modern world, determined to protect their ancient lifestyles and accepting government handouts instead of working for a living.^iv Sun News Reporter Ezra Levant reported on how he was accused by Idle No More protesters of being racist for wanting to be rid of the Indian Act that governed so many parts of Aboriginals’ lives, even though his overarching goal was to free ordinary Native people from the racism of the Act.^v

The implication here is that the source of Aboriginal poverty, violence and dysfunction is the separate status of Aboriginal people in Canada and their desire to maintain their distinctiveness. The non-Native thinking is that, if Aboriginals were to be rid of their distinct status and the expectations of Treaty handouts while assimilating as full citizens of Canada and taking responsibility for their own actions, then they would be far better off.

But is that really the case? Is the supposed refusal of Aboriginal people to become full parts of Canadian society and leave behind their reserves really the cause of Aboriginal peoples’ problems in Canada? No, it is not. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The reserves that many Aboriginal people now call home are cited as part of the “special treatment” Aboriginal people insist on, but in fact they’re symbols of what can be called the “Reserve Paradox.”

The Reserve Paradox is the fact that the Indian Act, the reserves and other similar tools were originally meant to be tools by which the Canadian government could assimilate Aboriginal people while gaining full title to their land. The bitter irony is that these very efforts to assimilate Aboriginal people and erase their distinct status in Canada have not only failed to achieve their goal, but they are directly responsible for the poverty, corruption and abuse we see in so many communities today. Certainly this was the opinion of Justice John Reilly, an Alberta judge with more than 30 years of experience, who wrote about how colonialism and the residential schools were the major cause of the dysfunction and corruption now seen in Aboriginal society.^vi

1. “Civilizing” Aboriginal People

To understand exactly how this happened, we need to go back to the early 19^th century in Canada. Early on, relations between Aboriginals and non-Natives were characterized by a sense of mutual interdependence and “nation to nation” recognition. The Aboriginal nations shared the land with the British Crown, which developed a formalized process for acquiring land through the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Until that time, the land was originally recognized as belonging to the Aboriginals as separate from what was claimed by British European settlers.^vii

However, as time went on a new narrative started to develop among European settlers to Canada, one whereby the supposedly superior Europeans would tame and “civilize” the wild lands and the Aboriginal peoples who dwelled there. The supposedly backwards, primitive Aboriginal people were doomed to either “civilize” or disappear, doomed by their own inferiority when confronted by the apparently superior European cultures.^viii

The displacement and suffering of Aboriginal communities caused by events such as the War of 1812, diseases such as smallpox and the growth in European settlement further strengthened the led to the belief that Aboriginal people were a primitive people doomed to disappear, and that the British government (then responsible for administering the colonies) should assimilate and “civilize” them as settled farmers on the British model. In the 1820s and 1830s, British colonial governments developed a new method to do this. The government would settle the Aboriginals onto “model villages”, the forerunners of the reserves where they would be taught the “proper” way to live through farming. Aboriginal people, in turn, were often requesting the provision of tools and knowledge to help them adjust to the overwhelming changes that they were facing and work out an accommodation to the new.^ix According to their own narrative, the Aboriginals hoped for a peaceful, friendly coexistence with the new arrivals, while continuing to maintain their own autonomy and control over their homelands and resources.^x

However, it was a sign of things to come that what most Aboriginals were expecting was not what the colonial government had in mind. By the 1860s, when Canada was fully founded, the idea had fully taken root that Aboriginal people would eventually be assimilated. John A. Macdonald asserted that the major aim of the new federal government’s legislation, as expressed in its new Indian Act, was to abolish the “tribal” system of government and assimilate the Aboriginal people in all respects with the rest of the people of the country. Aboriginals were considered wards of the federal government until such time as they chose to assimilate into mainstream society.^xi Of course, the irony was that the process by which Aboriginal identities and statuses were to be erased in fact established the legal distinctions between Aboriginals and non-Natives. It also imposed standards on the Aboriginals that even many European settlers could not hope to meet, namely being literate, debt free and of “high moral character.”^xii

2. The Meaning Of The Treaties

“Civilizing” the Aboriginals in Canada’s own territory was one thing. However, the fledgling Dominion was also concerned with expanding into new territory, knowing full well that the United States might try to claim it first. To gain access to these lands, it began signing the numbered Treaties with the Aboriginals who lived there, making promises of assistance and education to help the Aboriginals adjust to the changing times in exchange for access to the Aboriginal lands. Each party had its own interpretations of the Treaties, and the resulting misunderstanding is directly related to much of the misunderstanding and frustration we face even today.

The Canadian government saw the Treaties as a once-and-for-all means of acquiring title to Aboriginal land and extinguishing Aboriginal rights, after which the lands could be opened up for European settlement and development. Treaty promises related to things such as education and assistance in learning how to farm were seen as privileges that Aboriginals could enjoy at the pleasure of the Crown, rather than inherent human rights. The Aboriginals largely overlooked this, because in their experience Treaties could be continually modified and updated to take changing circumstances into account. For them, the Treaties were a way for them to adapt to the changing world within the framework of their own tradition, in exchange for which they would be loyal subjects of the British Crown, respecting its laws and customs. Government negotiators quickly learned to use phrases like ‘as long as the sun shines and the water flows’ when saying how long the treaties would last, and the Aboriginals expected them to live up to their word on this.^xiii

The basic understanding of what the Treaties meant was problematic enough, but the Aboriginals and the government negotiators also had very different accounts of the actual content of the Treaties. Cree activist Harold Cardinal, who was one of the main opponents to the federal government’s efforts to abolish the Treaties in its 1969 White Paper, writes that the Treaties were based on a recognition of Aboriginal title to the land that Canada wanted to acquire.^xiv

He further noted that much of what the Aboriginals were verbally promised by government negotiators, and that the Aboriginals believed were part and parcel of their Treaty rights, were never written into the written documents that the government now takes as the final and definitive versions of the Treaties. As Cardinal bluntly put it, the plain, literal reading of the Treaties has never meshed with the spirit in which they were signed.^xv

Historical research of the era shows that the Aboriginals often had little advance notice that the government intended to negotiate a Treaty with them and that the Treaties were intended as a safeguard against all of the Aboriginals’ land being seized by non-Native settlers. There was little discussion of massive land surrender in the actual negotiations of the Treaties, much less than there was in the actual written Treaties themselves. Many of the Aboriginals believed that they were only giving up surface rights, and not any subsurface mineral rights that may exist. In some cases, they did not even think they were surrendering any land at all, and that the Treaty they signed was more of a peace treaty.^xvi

In other negotiations such as Treaty Eight, the Aboriginals were very hesitant about accepting the government’s initial Treaty offers, and were only convinced by a speech from the lead commissioner who promised that they would continue to be free, and would not have to live on reserves if they did not want to. Many were very leery of living on reserves, and even some of the white missionaries who urged the Aboriginals accept the Treaties in turn felt as though they had been exploited by the government. The missionaries had only urged the Aboriginals to sign because they believed the oral promises of the government would be in the final versions of the Treaties. Many Aboriginal elders state that the Aboriginals who signed Treaty Eight did not believe that their hunting and fishing practices would be restricted, and indeed saw it as a peace treaty, rather than a land cession.^xvii

Ovide Mercredi, another Cree activist, explains that Aboriginal Treaties were signed on a basis of equality between distinct peoples to forge a lasting and positive relationship. The Treaties are a means of sharing the land in exchange for recognition of the Aboriginals’ land rights, customs and autonomy. The Aboriginals did not see it as a means of extinguishing their rights to self-government, which precede the arrival of Europeans, or title to their lands.^xviii As Dene activist George Erasmus told Jeffrey Simpson, the Aboriginals never meant to give up their sovereignty as nations.^xix Indeed, Harold Cardinal states that many Aboriginals see the Treaties as their equivalent to the English Magna Carta, a critical guarantee of their inherent rights as Aboriginals and as people. They are sacred pacts that cannot be unilaterally abrogated by one of the parties to the agreement, namely the Canadian government.^xx Nor are the reserves the only traditional lands the Aboriginals were meant to maintain their more traditional ways of life on.^xxi

These concepts are not as foreign to Canadian or English law as one might think. Michael Asch has pointed out that, in the old English law, the indigenous people of a territory newly acquired by the British Crown did not immediately lose their property or civil rights unless these rights were eventually-and expressly-extinguished by the monarch.

The problem has not been so much with British law as it is with the application of it. Too often, courts have assumed that, unless they lived a lifestyle similar to those of Great Britain, people in territories that the British eventually acquired did not have any inherent rights, as the land was presumed to be “unoccupied” and its inhabitants were too “uncivilized” to have proper legal rights. Aboriginal rights, for all that they are in fact compatible with English legal tradition, were not recognized as such, or were “extinguished” by general legislation that did not specifically mention them.^xxii Arguably, this is a violation of those rights.

Even with the government’s promises, some prominent Aboriginal leaders were not convinced of its sincerity. The Cree leader Paskwaw opposed the Canadian surveyors who were coming onto Aboriginal land, seeing it as a sign of subordination to the new arrivals. Big Bear, arguably the most influential of the chiefs on the Prairies, believed that Treaty Six would reduce the Aboriginals’ freedom and autonomy. He initially refused to sign it in 1876, and only signed it in 1882 to get food for his people. Other leaders like Little Pine and Poundmaker had similar fears, lobbying for better terms than they were able to get.^xxiii As early as 1884, Aboriginals were complaining that they had been cheated, and that the government did not live up to its promises.^xxiv

3. Assimilation And Control

The concerns of Big Bear and his fellows were well-founded. Even as it signed the Treaties, the federal government passed the Indian Act to carry out its goal of “civilizing” the Aboriginals and assimilate them into mainstream society while erasing their indigenous identities. Lands were set aside as reserved for Aboriginal people, but it was not to help them maintain their distinct place in society. Rather, the reserves were meant to be sites where the Aboriginals could be assimilated and “civilized”. As the Aboriginals assimilated, their share of the reserve land could become part of the provincial land regime, until the reserves disappeared altogether along with the Aboriginal identity.^xxv

To that end, the Indian Act set up a series of white “Indian agents” on reserves, who were given vast powers to direct the lives of the Aboriginals. The Indian agents acted on government bans of Aboriginal religious ceremonies essential to their culture such as the “Ghost Dance” and the potlatch, bans on the sale of guns and ammunition to Aboriginals, overrode the decisions of the elected band councils the agents had convened to govern the reserve, undermined traditional leaders and controlled access to money, all with the intention of “teaching” them a “civilized” way to live. In the eyes of one commentator, it was a way of forcing white ideas on red men.^xxvi

To be very blunt, the results could not have been more of a disaster if the federal government had deliberately tried to cause one. Bureaucracy, paternalism and plain incompetence on the part of the Indian agents led to no end of headaches for those Aboriginals who were quite willing and eager to learn farming on Aboriginal reserves. Even when white missionaries, settlers and policemen tried to alert the government to the problem, the government refused to listen. Aboriginal leaders like Big Bear were blamed for the problems when they complained.

When the Aboriginals tried to unite their reserves, they were forcibly separated, even though this uprooted Aboriginal farming efforts and violated their Treaty rights to choose the locations of their reserves. Some Indian agents also undermined Aboriginal efforts to unite by withholding food rations or arresting Aboriginals who entered reserves that they did not live on without the agent’s permission.^xxvii The destruction of the tribal system, and the occasional withholding of the money due to certain bands (another violation of Treaty promises) were done with the goal of encouraging individualism and self-reliance among the Aboriginals.^xxviii

Shuswap activist George Manuel noted that all of the power exercised by Indian agents, including the dispensing of welfare, subjecting Aboriginal hunting efforts to provincial game laws, and preventing Aboriginals from farming except as the Indian agents dictated, prevented Aboriginal people from making full use of European innovations while maintaining the integrity of their own cultures. This was a critical factor in the undermining of Aboriginal self-confidence and the functioning of their communities.^xxix

Things only got worse as time went on. Very few Aboriginals were interested in assimilating and giving up their rights, and so the government resorted to increasingly harsh and repressive means of control in order to try and force the issue. Indian agents were given the power to select Aboriginal peoples’ marriage partners, dissolve elected band councils, and allotting and leasing reserve lands. Indian agents were even given the power to unilaterally take status away from Aboriginals, expropriating the part of the reserve designated for them and making it of the general land regime, often because non-Natives wanted Aboriginal land for expansion or resource development.^xxx As Georges Erasmus noted, Ottawa would also unilaterally reduce reserves in order to make way for new bridges, railways, roads and other industrial projects.^xxxi Through it all, assimilation remained the ultimate goal, as expressed by government spokesmen in the 1920s and even as late as the 1950s.^xxxii

Harold Cardinal noted that many Aboriginals began to see the Treaties as one big con job, wherein they were ripped off by the government. They began to feel as though the government supposedly owed them a living, and their sense of responsibility to themselves, their communities and the country were nearly totally lost.^xxxiii George Manuel, in turn, pointed out that even the federal government’s own Hawthorn Report, commissioned in the mid-1960s, pointed out that the restrictions of the Indian Act itself was a major cause of the alcoholism and poverty many Aboriginals felt.^xxxiv

The Aboriginals themselves rarely, if ever, had much say in any of the decisions made by governments and non-Native Indian agents. Even entire communities could end up being relocated by bureaucratic fiat, because government officials felt that the movement would benefit the community, to cut administrative costs or to clear the way for industrial or agricultural development.^xxxv As noted by Jeffrey Simpson, Aboriginal people were frequently relegated by industrial development to the margins of the economy and society.^xxxvi The effects were traumatic and catastrophic for many Aboriginal communities, with serious consequences for their health, their economies and their social structures. Substance abuse, violence, poverty, social apathy and suicide were frequent results.^xxxvii

The control exerted by Indian agents over the lives and welfare of the Aboriginals and the relocations of communities both caused immense harm to Aboriginal societies, all with the goal of assimilating them and abolishing their reserves and separate status. The most infamous attempt at assimilation, the residential schools, were yet another source of grief for Canadian Aboriginals. In keeping with its self-appointed mission to “civilize” Aboriginal people, the government created a series of residential boarding schools, where students would live as well as study. The intent was that by giving the Aboriginal students a European education and cutting them off from their “savage” cultures, they would be assimilated into mainstream society. The Aboriginals, on the other hand, believed that the schools would be a means for them to adapt to the modern world, learning the skills they needed without abandoning their traditional identities. They also believed that they themselves would be in control of the schools, something they quickly learned wasn’t true.

The residential schools were nothing less than a catastrophe. Underfunded and overcrowded, the church-run schools kept their students in miserable, squalid conditions and had them spend more time doing grunt labour than actually learning anything useful. Children were ripped away from their families and their homes, told that their cultures and identities were “retrograde” and “savage,” all in the name of abolishing their old identities and replacing them with new ones. Students were also viciously beaten for anything from speaking their own languages to bedwetting. The “education” was so bad that, in the words of one critic, it left Aboriginal students “hanging in the middle of two cultures, and he is not a white man and he is not an Indian. They washed away practically everything an Indian needed to help himself, to think the way a human person should in order to survive.”

Predictably, the residential school system was fiercely opposed by the Aboriginals. Many parents angrily criticized the abuses and ineptitude of the schools, even as they tried to prevent their children from going. In turn, the federal government made school attendance mandatory, and Indian agents used such means as the pass system (where Aboriginals could not leave their reserves without a pass) to keep them from interfering with the schools’ activities, and withholding food rations to “persuade” parents to send their children. In 1969, the federal government would take over from the churches, but conditions did not improve much, if it all. Notably, the last of these schools would only be closed in 1996, less than twenty years ago.^xxxviii

George Manuel was blunt in his assessment of the impact of residential schools on Aboriginal people. He stated that the residential schools played a central role in instilling a sense of inferiority and shame among Aboriginal people, including a feeling of loathing for their ancestors and their original culture. As early as 1966, when many schools were still open, the federal government’s own Hawthorn Report observed that the alcoholism was caused by the residential schools and control of Aboriginal peoples’ lives through the Indian Act, even as urban ghettoes sprang up in Canadian cities.^xxxix

Harold Cardinal noted that the residential schools also caused bitter divisions among communities as the churches competed for students, even as the students themselves were deprived of the critical education that would have enabled them to learn their responsibilities in society and form relationships with their communities. Some Aboriginals became suspicious of education in general, figuring that it was just a way to assimilate them and gradually eliminate their reserves, completing the government’s original goals.^xl

A related phenomenon was the ‘Sixties Scoop’, where Aboriginal children were removed from their families and placed with non-Aboriginal families either as adoptees or in foster care, on the justification that they were better off in the dominant culture than in the extreme poverty of the Aboriginal one. This process continued until it tapered off in the 1980s, when it was finally recognized that the process was “producing individuals who were neither white nor Indian, whose loss of cultural identity led to social dysfunction and was becoming a tradition in itself as it was passed on to the next generation,” as historian Olive Dickason bluntly put it.^xli

4. The Fallout And The 1969 White Paper

These problems persist even today, and have filtered down through the generations. The attempts to assimilate Aboriginal peoples are directly responsible for the alcoholism, imprisonment, domestic abuse, suicide and social breakdown that continue to plague many Aboriginal communities.^xlii George Manuel reminds us that traditional lifestyles and beliefs are not the cause of these problems. The real problem has been the fact that non-Native authorities have been continually making the decisions for Aboriginal people, while they’ve had very little say in or control over their own lives. And for those Aboriginals who have tried to move to the cities and assimilate, it often didn’t work due to government actions that were being formed in response to the problems caused by the last set of government actions.^xliii Another problem, of course, was the plain racism many Aboriginals encountered in non-Native communities, which obviously didn’t help them integrate into these communities.^xliv

As a result of all these actions, and the fallout that has resulted from them, Harold Cardinal notes that many Aboriginals felt as though they didn’t have much control over their own lives.^xlv It’s not surprising, when Ovide Mercredi states that many Aboriginal people living on reserves have little trust in their leadership because under the Indian Act band councils are accountable to the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and not to their own people, which has allowed corruption to fester in various areas. The Indian Act provides a series of cradle-to-grave rules governing how Aboriginal lands are governed, and the many things a Minister must approve before a band council can do them.^xlvi The powers the Minister can exercise are extensive, and allow him or her to override or reject many of the decisions taken by band councils. They persist even to this day.^xlvii

Far from the image of Aboriginals who laze around waiting for their next bit of government cheese, Harold Cardinal tells the story of Aboriginals who feel stuck in what he calls the ‘welfare trap’, hating it but not feeling as though they had the ability or support to build themselves up out of it. He talks about how the federal government would come up with projects without consulting the Aboriginals they were intended for, and then conclude that the Aboriginals weren’t interested when they rejected the government’s proposals.^xlviii Georges Erasmus pointed out that, as late as the 1980s, most of the government’s spending on Aboriginals was directed towards welfare, which illustrates just how long the issue has been going on.^xlix 

Eventually, it got to the point that many Aboriginals were concerned that being rid of Indian Affairs’ influence on their lives would mean they were cast adrift as a people. The idea of Aboriginal dependence on welfare only came about because of government policy, not because of any supposed flaws in Aboriginal societies.^l

The stereotype of the “lazy Indian” has deep roots-historian Daniel Francis notes that it came from Aboriginals refusing to accept the low wages and bad working conditions offered by many employers in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, going off to hunt and trap for their food. Because they walked away from jobs they didn’t like, they were deemed “lazy”. Welfare dependency and high unemployment only came about because of the effects of the Indian Act and everything else already described here.^li Rather than being lazy, the Aboriginals come across as rational actors who are making economic choices based on their own self-interest in preferring the more profitable actions of hunting to the inferior wages and conditions offered by other employers.

One might wonder, then, why we don’t just get rid of the Indian Act, as people have been advocating for so long, given that so many Aboriginals dislike it as much as other Canadians? The reason is because Aboriginals view it as a means of eliminating Aboriginal status altogether. In 1969, the federal government run by a newly-elected Pierre Trudeau issued a “White Paper” that proposed eliminating the Indian Act and the Treaties, based on the belief that the special status the Act and the Treaties recognized for Aboriginals was holding them back. It meshed well with his support for strictly individual rights, without consideration for any sort of distinct legal or constitutional status for any group of people.^lii

Aboriginals like Harold Cardinal, in turn, rebutted that their identities as Aboriginal people were intimately bound up with the Treaties, and distinguishes them from all of the non-Natives who have migrated to Canada over the years.^liii He further pointed out that, in terms of what Trudeau’s White Paper was proposing, Aboriginals were being asked to abandon their very identities and their sense of who they were as people. Indeed, Aboriginal treaty rights are even bound up as a critical part of their religious beliefs, with critical responsibilities accompanying those rights.^liv Ovide Mercredi built on this, stating that the calls for assimilation come across to Aboriginals as telling them they’re inferior and savage.^lv

An Aboriginal person could stop being governed by the Indian Act if he or she agreed to give up his or her Treaty rights and identity as an Aboriginal. This was psychologically painful, to say the least. Indeed, Harold Cardinal noted that many Aboriginal people would prefer to continue to live in bondage under the Indian Act than relinquish their rights.^lvi They do not want to see it repealed, because of the concern that the implicit recognition of Aboriginal rights and status would be lost.^lvii This sentiment still persists today, as noted by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.^lviii

In the face of all this resistance, the Trudeau government was forced to drop the White Paper. Unfortunately, Canada’s Aboriginal people are now stuck in a legal limbo in regards to their rights. While assimilation is no longer a government policy, the Indian Act remains in place because we have not been able to develop an appropriate replacement for it. Most non-Native Canadians continue to support Trudeau’s ideas of strictly individual rights for all Canadians, regardless of their background. This is the reason for their opposition to the Indian Act and their desire to see the Aboriginal reserves abolished, thinking that the distinct status and insistence on maintaining their Treaty rights is the reason for Aboriginal poverty and corruption.

Unfortunately, as historian Christopher Moore noted, they have only seen the Euro-Canadian interpretation of the Treaties, and don’t know about the Aboriginal perspective when they comment on Idle No More and other Aboriginal movements.^lix This is the reason for the Reserve Paradox, the fact that the legislation and reserves were meant to be tools for assimilating Aboriginal people but are now seen as recognition of Aboriginal distinctiveness.

What, then, is the solution to the Reserve Paradox? This will be the subject of Part 2 of this essay, examining such problems as land confrontations, violence and racism on both sides of the fence, and the challenges of Canadian citizenship for Aboriginal people. 

 

i Harold Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig Pubilishers, 1977. Page 7.

ii Pam Palmater, “What Is the Idle No More Movement…Really?” Indigenous Nationhood blog, January 3, 2013. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2013/01/what-is-idle-no-more-movement-really.html See also Palmater, “First Nations Fiasco.” Precedent Magazine, March 14, 2012. http://lawandstyle.ca/opinion_first_nations_fiasco/

iii “Edmonton Idle No More protests draw thousands.” CBC News, January 13, 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2013/01/13/edmonton-idle-no-more-west-ed.html See also Gloria Galloway and Oliver Moore, “Idle No More protests, blockades spread across the country.” The Globe and Mail, January 16, 2013. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/idle-no-more-protests-blockades-spread-across-country/article7406990/?page=all See also Amy Van Den Berg, “Idle No More teach-in discussion at Guelph.” The Ontarion, April 11, 2013. http://www.theontarion.com/2013/04/idle-no-more-teach-in-discussion-at-guelph/

iv For example, see Lorne Gunter, “Theresa Spence shows no interest in taking ownership of issues.” Sun News Network, January 9, 2013. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/01/20130109-080205.html See also Jonathan Kay, “Native dignity will come only from self-sufficiency, not grand gestures from Ottawa.” National Post, January 11, 2013. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/11/jonathan-kay-true-dignity-for-first-nations-will-come-only-from-self-sufficiency-not-grand-gestures-in-ottawa/

v Ezra Levant, “Ezra Replies To Idle No More Protests of Sun Media.” Sun News Network, January 21, 2013. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/2109435478001

vi John Reilly, “First Nations deserve more gratitude and respect.” Calgary Herald, February 2, 2013. http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/Reilly+First+Nations+deserve+more+gratitude+respect/7907920/story.html

vii Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Chapter 9.2 “Indian Sovereignty and the Royal Proclamation of 1763.” Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1996. Archived by Library and Archives Canada, 2006. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211051151/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg22_e.html#73

viii Patricia McCormack, “Competing Narratives: Barriers Between Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian State.” Paper prepared for Indigenous Peoples and the Modern State, Claremont Graduate University, April 5-7, 2002. Pages 3-5.

ix Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Chapter 9.3, “Indian Policy: Protection, Civilization, Assimilation.” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211051151/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg22_e.html#74 See also Olive Patricia Dickason and David T. McNab, Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples From Earliest Times. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 4^th edition, 2009. Page 193.

x McCormack, pages 6-7.

xi Dickason and McNab, page 226.

xii John L. Tobias, “Protection, Civilization, Assimilation: An Outline History of Canada’s Indian Policy.” The Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology, Volume VI, No. 2, 1976.

xiii Dickason and McNab, pages 242-244.

xiv Harold Cardinal, The Unjust Society. Vancouver, British Columbia: Douglas & McIntyre, 1999. Originally published in Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig Publishers, 1969. Pages 24-25.

xv Ibid., 33-36 and 131.

xvi John Leonard Taylor, “Two Views On The Meaning Of Treaties Six And Seven”, in The Spirit of Alberta Indian Treaties, edited by Richard Price. Montreal, Quebec: Institute For Research On Public Policy, 1980. Pages 9-45. Citations on pages 40-45.

xvii Richard Daniel, “Spirit and Terms of Treaty Eight”, in The Spirit of Alberta Indian Treaties, edited by Richard Price. Montreal, Quebec: Institute For Research On Public Policy, 1980. Pages 47-100. Citations on pages 75-79, 82, 85 and 92-99.

xviii Ovide Mercredi and Mary Ellen Turpel, In The Rapids: Navigating The Future Of First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Viking Press, 1993. Pages 30-31 and 61-63.

xix Cited in Jeffrey Simpson, Faultlines: Struggling For A Canadian Vision. Toronto, Ontario: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993. Page 191.

xx Cardinal, The Unjust Society, pages 24-25.

xxi Richard H. Bartlett, “False Analogy of Indian Reserves to Traditional Lands”, in Richard H. Bartlett, Indian Reserves and Aboriginal Lands in Canada: A Homeland. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre, 1990. Pages 65-71. Citation on page 65.

xxii Michael Asch, Hone And Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto, Ontario: Methuen Press, 1984. Pages 41-54.

xxiii Dickason and McNab, pages 266-268.

xxiv A. Blair Stonechild, “The Indian View Of The 1885 Uprising”, in 1885 And After: Native Society In Transition, edited by F. Laurie Barron and James B. Waldram. Regina, Saskatchewan: Canadian Plains Research Centre, 1996. Pages 155-170. Citation on page 158.

xxv Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 9.8, “The Indian Act And Indians: Wards Of The State”. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211051055/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg24_e.html. See also J.L. Tobias, “Indian Reserves In Canada: Indian Homelands Or Devices For Assimilation?” in Native People, Native Lands: Canadian Indians, Inuit and Metis, edited by Bruce Alden Cox. Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University Press, 1988. Pages 148-157. Citation on page 148. See also Simpson, page 190.

xxvi Dickason and McNab, pages 251-257.

xxvii Ibid, pages 269-272.

xxviii James S. Frideres and Rene R Gadacz, Native Peoples In Canada: Contemporary Conflicts, 3^rd Edition. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada, Inc., 2005. Page 29.

xxix George Manuel and Michael Posluns, The Fourth World: An Indian Reality. Don Mills, Ontario: Collier Macmillan Canada, Ltd., 1974. Pages 53-55.

xxx Dickason and McNab, pages 288-295. See also J. L. Tobias, 153-154 and Frideres and Gadacz, 30-36.

xxxi Simpson, pages 191-192.

xxxii Dickason and McNab, page 298.

xxxiii Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians, page 147.

xxxiv Manuel, pages 123-125.

xxxv Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 11.1, “Why Relocations Took Place.” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211055119/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg34_e.html

xxxvi Simpson, page 205.

xxxvii Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Chapter 11.4, “The Effects of Relocation.” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211055149/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg41_e.html#120 and http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211055104/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg42_e.html

xxxviii The preceding two paragraphs are summarized from Dickason and McNab, pages 305-312. See also the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 10, “Residential Schools”, http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211055641/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg28_e.html, Chapter 10.1.2, “Changing Policies,” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211055732/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg29_e.html#102, and Chapter 10.3, “Discipline And Abuse.” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211055821/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg31_e.html. See also Cardinal, The Unjust Society, pages 72-75.

xxxix Manuel, pages 59-68 and 101-102.

xl Cardinal, The Unjust Society, pages 50 and 72-75.

xli Dickason and McNab, page 314.

xlii Mercredi and Turpel, pages 4-5. For more particular examples, see Ken Badger, “Residential School”, based on the testimony of his father, residential school survivor Frank Badger. Paper submitted to the Simon Fraser University “Love Mother Earth” 2009 Weaving Conference. Available online at http://www.sfu.ca/lovemotherearth/08classroom/papers/residential_schools.pdf See also Caroline L. Tait, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Among Aboriginal People in Canada:

Review and Analysis of the Intergenerational Links to Residential Schools. Ottawa, Ontario: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2003. Pages 41 and 60. Available online at http://www.ahf.ca/downloads/fetal-alcohol-syndrome.pdf.

xliii Manuel, pages 161-186.

xliv Georges Erasmus, cited in Simpson, page 199. See also Cardinal, The Unjust Society, pages viii, 3-5 and 21-22.

xlv Cardinal, The Unjust Society, pages 7-8.

xlvi Mercredi and Turpel, pages 80-84.

xlvii James S. Frideres and René D. Gadacz, Aboriginal Peoples In Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada, 2005. Page 4.

xlviii Cardinal, The Unjust Society, pages 53-55.

xlix Georges Erasmus, in his contribution to If I Were Prime Minister, compiled and introduced by Mel Hurtig. Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig Publishers, 1987. Pages 78-82, citation on pages 79-81.

l Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians, page 93.

li Daniel Francis, “Inventing the ‘Lazy Indian’”. The Canadian Encyclopedia blog, August 4, 2011. http://blog.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/blog/posts/inventing-the-lazy-indian-by-daniel-francis/

lii Dickason and McNab, pages 371-372. See also Simpson, pages 208-209.

liii Cardinal, The Unjust Society, pages 18-22.

liv Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians, pages 140-145.

lv Mercredi and Turpel, pages 108-109.

lvi Cardinal, The Unjust Society, pages 119-120.

lvii Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians, pages 110-111.

lviii Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Chapter 9, “The Indian Act.” http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211051151/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg22_e.html#71

lix Christopher Moore, “Kay on Treaty history: Well-meaning, wrong-headed.” Christopher Moore’s History News blog, January 8, 2013.” http://christophermoorehistory.blogspot.ca/2013/01/kay-on-treaty-history-well-meaning.html

OMB caves in to idiots at Hamilton City Hall with "Aerotropolis"

Earlier this week the Ontario Municipal Board gave final clearance to Hamilton destroying 555 hectares of virgin farmland for "development" lands around the Hamilton airport, when at least half that much exists in the wasteland of brownfields in the lower city.   The so-called "Aerotropolis".    The claim is that businesses want clean land, and there really isn't that much left in the brownfield space.   Bunk.   And I make no hesitancy in saying the mayor and those on city council who approved this in the first place are total idiots and those who give a damn will say it with our votes next election.

The OMB is the end of the road, really, and this is a huge loss for a city, indeed an utter amount of hypocrisy, for a city trying to bill itself on its green credentials.   Especially when this encroaches and spills over the Greenbelt south of Airport Road.    So much for the city of "120 waterfalls" (80% of which are drainage ditches falling over the escarpment cliff, and more than a few of the other 20% are on private lands without easements to the conservation authority or the Bruce Trail conservancy).

Well, with an opportunity lost we can make a huge one to gain.    It's simple:   Hamilton should put the brakes on suburban residential development until the brownfields are converted to residential space.    Single homes, condo towers, it doesn't matter.   Just get families back into the heart of the city, what made the city strong before.   We make more than a ton on development charges.   They should easily pay for the cleanup costs and at the same time rebuilding the city's aging sewer and water system which in many parts of the city are a hundred years or older.    We can then get business, especially service ones, to locate downtown as well and fill the empty towers.    That would be smart planning.

And for what it's worth, it's stupid to even consider building up at the airport, until the Airport Bypass and a few other roads including Airport Road are twinned.    That's way down the road.    Do we really need that much congestion when things can get bad down in the lower part of town, even with synchronized lights that are becoming fewer and fewer?