Indigenous Writes

by Chelsea Vowel

  Much of the land promised for reserves was never actually put to this use, and, instead, ended up owned by land speculators and Indian agents themselves. Frank Oliver, for example, used his political power to help remove the Papaschase Band from their traditional territory in Edmonton, and later became Superintendent of Indian Affairs. A staunch anti-Black racist and proud anti-immigrant bigot, he has a whole neighbourhood in Edmonton named after him.14

  Reserve lands that were actually set aside were often eroded by expropriations and shady “surrenders” to benefit the expansion of municipalities. This is a big reason we’re talking about 0.28 percent of the land in Canada instead of something that makes a bit more sense as a land base.

  Creating reserves made it much easier to manage First Nations and, ultimately, to disrupt kinship and governance systems, as well as removing First Nations from their traditional economies and sources of food. The reserve system was essential to the settlement of Canada and was particularly vital to opening up the Plains for that purpose. Disease and starvation, deliberately weaponized against Indigenous peoples on the Plains, helped to force them onto reserves.15

  That sounds horrible! Why do First Nations want to keep living on reserves?!

  It was horrible. In some cases, reserves at the time were likened to open-air prisons.16 However, despite the way reserves were created, and the way in which they have been and continue to be used to control First Nations in various ways, they are also places where First Nations culture continues to thrive. It is very important for Canadians to recognize what even this minuscule land base means to First Nations beyond “poverty and despair.”

  The Indian Act ushered in administrative systems in First Nations communities that displaced traditional leaders. Just because these administrative systems are given the name Chief and Council does not mean they reflect the original sociopolitical governance systems of those First Nations. These are purely Canadian creations, and First Nations people have been given no choice in their design or implementation.

  Despite this, in many First Nations communities, traditional governance systems do continue to exist – although they are not recognized by Canada as being legitimate. They may not always be recognizable to Canadians, because they are rooted in fundamentally different traditions. Nonetheless, having even a tiny land base for communities to remain together upon has helped these traditional governance systems continue to exist.

  Reserves continue to be physical places where First Nations cultures are practised. Some First Nations are culturally healthier than others, but reserves play an important part in providing a space for First Nations to resist the erosion that colonization demands. They also provide a “place to go back to” for those who want to reconnect.

  First Nations people can become disconnected from their communities for many reasons. They may have been “scooped” or adopted out. They may have been seized by child welfare and raised in foster care. They may have left with family members who were experiencing abuse. They may have lost status or been forced out by membership codes. Children and grandchildren of those who have had to leave their community experience many difficulties when it comes to reconnecting with their home community – if they are able to even identify it. However, if those communities ceased to exist because they were considered “unviable,” reconnection would become next to impossible.

  As I pointed out, most First Nations have more than one reserve, and it is often the case that one reserve is for living on, while other reserves are used for traditional activities. In the more crowded south, many First Nations find themselves hemmed in on all sides by urban centres and cottagers, resulting in a loss of access to land. With reserves, there is still some guarantee of being able to access materials and relationships central to Indigenous spirituality.

  On a more practical level, these lands continue to provide First Nations people with food, though environmental degradation and pollution are directly threatening the health of plants, animals, and the humans who rely on them. First Nations people have certain Aboriginal rights to hunt and gather foods off-reserve, as well; but as more and more land is taken up for industry and settlement, those rights become increasingly limited. While few First Nations families are able to subsist entirely on country food anymore, reserves remain an important element of food security.

  Indigenous languages have been in serious decline due to forced assimilation in residential schools, as well as to urbanization and lack of support for Indigenous languages. There are only a handful of off-reserve schools that teach children in an Indigenous language. It is rarer still to find health or social services in an Indigenous language. Moving away from the reserve often means language loss and subsequent loss of culture and identity. Reserves remain linguistic homelands for many, and their physical dissolution would be disastrous for Indigenous-language survival.

  Above all, reserves are communities with histories, families, and aspirations. They experience challenging social and economic conditions. But it is vital to recognize they also create conditions for resilience.

  When people ask First Nations people to abandon the reserves as a gesture of “freedom,” they are really asking First Nations to abandon the places that have helped them resist complete assimilation. If assimilation is something you are championing, then do it honestly, without couching your arguments in progressive-sounding rhetoric.

  NOTES

  1.Indian Affairs and Northern Development, “Search by Reserve/Settlement/Village,” accessed November 20, 2015, http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/SearchRV.aspx?lang=eng.

  2.See note 1, search “Nadleh Whuten.” Nadleh Whut’en First Nation has six reserves for a total of 969 hectares.

  3.A hectare is 10 000 square metres. That’s 100 metres by 100 metres. If you understand acres better, an acre is 0.4047 hectares, so one hectare contains about 2.47 acres.

  4.See note 1.

  5.See note 1, search “Sawridge.”

  6.See note 1, search “Alexis.” It is listed as Alexis Nakota First Nation on the site.

  7.Alexis Nakota First Nation, “Land Use,” accessed November 30, 2015, http://www.ansn.ca/business-economy/land-use/#overview.

  8.INAC, “Resolving Aboriginal Claims: A Practical Guide to Canadian Experiences” (Ottawa, 2003), 2, accessed November 30, 2015, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte-text/rul_1100100014175_eng.pdf.

  9.John Ryan, George Dunford, and Simon Sellars, Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations (London: Lonely Planet, 2006). Micronations are entities claiming to be independent nations or states, but without global recognition as such. They tend to be tiny islands claimed by European settlers who want independence from whatever nation they are living in. The history and legality of micronations is actually quite fascinating. There is a strange and interesting little micronation wiki available here (accessed November 27, 2015): http://mw.micronation.org/wiki/Main_Page. There are also numerous journal articles discussing the micronations in international law that might tickle your fancy, but those are easy enough to find.

  10.One of the Cree words for money is sôniyaw.

  11.Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5. s. 30. “A person who trespasses on a reserve is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to both.”

  12.Ibid., s. 20.

  13.Ibid., s. 18 (my emphasis).

  14.Papaschase First Nation, “A Brief History of the Papaschase Band,” accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.papaschase.ca/history.html; K. Toni Hallihan, “‘A Break Upon the Wheel’: Frank Oliver and the Creation of the Immigration Act of 1906,” accessed November 27, 2015, http://tinyurl.com/nttrs3q; Sarah-Jane Mathieu, North of the Color Line: Migration and Black Resistance in Canada, 1870 (1955; repr., Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010), 25, 32–33, 38–41, 48, 56–57. These sources refer to Oliver’s role in dispossessing the Papaschase band, his
immigration policy, and his anti-Black perspective, respectively.

  15.James Daschuk, Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation and the Loss of Aboriginal Life (Regina: University of Regina Press, 2013). This is not a conspiracy theory – it has been proven as fact.

  16.Alex William, The Pass System (Tamarack Productions, 2015), documentary film, http://www.tamarackproductions.com/the-pass-system/.

  30

  White Paper, What Paper?

  More Attempts to Assimilate Indigenous Peoples

  If you hang around Indigenous people long enough, you’ll probably hear references to white paper, and it might have you scratching your head. What’s so awful about white paper? Don’t Indigenous people prefer some sort of birchbark concoction?

  The trick is to capitalize the words. They’re talking about the White Paper. Now, that still won’t clarify much for you. A White Paper is essentially a federal government policy document presented by a minister. It is intended to “state and explain the government’s policy on a certain issue.”1 There are green papers, too, by the way, “issued by government to invite public comment and discussion on an issue prior to policy formulation.”2

  White Papers are often persuasive in nature, intended to mark a shift in policy before any legislation is actually enacted. They are put out to literally stir the waters, and to see what public reaction is likely to be, though the planning stages have already been fleshed out fairly thoroughly. Green Papers tend to be issued before that level of planning has been done. Anyway, we’re not really talking about Green Papers right now.

  Unsurprisingly, the notorious document being discussed is a very specific one: the White Paper of 1969, officially titled, “Statement of the Government on Indian Policy.”3 It was put out by then Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chrétien. Remember him? Yeah, he was prime minister from 1993 to 2003. Not a lot of Indigenous people really trusted that guy, for reasons you’ll soon see.

  Okay, so why the grim faces when anyone mentions the White Paper?

  First, it is important to understand the context. In 1966, the Hawthorn Report was released.4 It was a federally commissioned investigation of the social conditions faced by Indigenous peoples, which found that Indigenous peoples were the most disadvantaged among the Canadian population. The report stated these social conditions were a direct result of federal policy (in particular the residential-school system), and Indigenous peoples needed resources and opportunities to exercise self-determination, if there was any hope of improving their situation.

  Chrétien, as Minister of Indian Affairs, decided to launch a nationwide series of consultations with First Nations communities across Canada, with the intention of amending the Indian Act. First Nations representatives expressed their concerns with Aboriginal and treaty rights, title to land, and the various struggles First Nations communities experienced accessing services like education and health care. A lot of time and energy went into these meetings, and there was a sense that, after the Hawthorn Report, it was clear the assimilationist policy was a failure and something new must be tried.

  Yet, after all that – after a report that clearly stated the assimilationist policies of the past had failed and were actively harmful and should be rejected completely, and after First Nations in good faith engaged in numerous discussions with the government – what did Chrétien, et al. do?

  They ignored all of this, issued the White Paper, and attempted to finalize the assimilation project by stating their desire to:

  eliminate Indian status

  abolish the Indian Act

  get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs

  convert communally held reserve land to private property that could be sold by a First Nation or its members, “Indian control of Indian lands” (a fee-simple regime)5

  transfer responsibility toward “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” from the federal government to provincial governments

  appoint a commissioner to address any outstanding land claims, ending this issue

  gradually terminate existing treaties

  Can you imagine how frustrating this must have been for Indigenous peoples? Why commission a report if you aren’t going to pay attention to its findings? Why even bother to hold nationwide consultations? Why not just do what you obviously intended to do all along? Sadly, this is not a one-off situation. This exact progression of events has been replicated too many times – studies, reports, recommendations, consultation, inaction. It’s unacceptable and infuriating.

  In essence, the federal government wanted to get rid of the category of Indian altogether. This might not seem like a bad idea to a great many Canadians; in fact, many people continue to suggest that doing this would solve all the problems experienced by Indigenous communities.

  That is precisely why understanding the history of policies toward Indigenous peoples in this country is so vital. So many of what are suggested today as “solutions” have been tried – not only failing, but causing horrific damage along the way. Repeating these social experiments in the face of that history and the evidence available makes absolutely no sense. Harold Cardinal coined the fantastic term buckskin curtain in reference to exactly this sort of indifference and ignorance that continues to exist when it comes to Indigenous peoples, and that curtain has certainly not been drawn back yet.6

  The White Paper causes grim looks because it was grim business. Couched in terms of equality and dignity, the White Paper proposed to pave over the colonial history of Canada and pretend none of it happened, or mattered. It reflected a government intent on doing away, once and for all, with what Duncan Campbell Scott called the “Indian Problem.”

  In response, 24-year-old Harold Cardinal and the Indian Chiefs of Alberta published what was dubbed the Red Paper (ha, get it?) in opposition; it was also known as “Citizens Plus.”7 It countered with the following points:

  Indian status and rights must be maintained; changes should only occur via negotiation with Indians.

  The Indian Act should remain in place, to be reviewed and changed only with the consent of Indians after treaty issues resolved.

  The Department of Indian Affairs needs to be modernized, and truly responsive to Indian needs, with a focus on ensuring treaty and land-rights promises are kept.

  “Indian control of Indian lands” must be recognized as meaning something other than Eurocentric notions of property (i.e., not a fee-simple regime). Also, reserves are already Indian lands; they are held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the actual owners, who are Indian people.

  The federal government cannot abdicate its Constitutional responsibility toward Indians by transferring that responsibility to the provincial governments.

  The spirit and intent of the treaties must be respected and treaties modernized.8

  The name of this counterpolicy paper is explained by a quote from the Hawthorn Report: “Indians should be regarded as ‘Citizens Plus.’ In addition to the rights and duties of citizenship, Indians possess certain additional rights as charter members of the Canadian community.”9

  If any of this sounds dry and boring, you absolutely need to read Arthur Manuel’s description of the events surrounding the White and Red Papers, because it is anything but!10 In fact, his book Unsettling Canada is, in my opinion, one of the most accessible and important resources available to people living in Canada for understanding Indigenous activism and federal policy toward Indigenous peoples over the past half a century. I usually save these kinds of recommendations for the endnotes, so believe me when I tell you how important I think it is that you read this book!

  The White Paper was scrapped, and, hey, it’s ancient history, right? That was 1969, and this is now. Things have completely changed! Indigenous peoples have constitutional rights now, there have been apologies for residential schools and the High Arctic Relocation, and all sorts of things are just super better. The ‘60s and ‘70s were different times, friends. Let bygones be bygones.

  Wait a minute
; that doesn’t sound like you at all…

  You’re right, and I’m sorry. Sometimes, I let my sarcasm get the better of me.

  When the Red Paper was delivered to Pierre Trudeau, Arthur Manuel noted that the prime minister defended his government against accusations of dishonesty, claiming that they were simply trying to find a solution to a very old problem. Manuel goes on to explain:

  It was an interesting response, but the real problem hadn’t been that the government was being dishonest. It was that they were moving ahead, quite openly in fact, to rob our peoples of our homelands and our heritage.

  The dishonesty came later. While the government officially buried the White Paper, Chrétien told my father unofficially, in private, that they “were withdrawing the White Paper but they would hold it aside for the generations of leaders who will accept it.”11

  Okay, I’ll be up front about this. The reason I’m talking about the White Paper is because of a piece of legislation that was proposed in 2009 by Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission,12 called the First Nations Property Ownership Act (FNPOA). Jules was chief, for a time, of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc (formerly known as the Kamloops Indian Band) and had been pushing the First Nations Property Ownership Initiative since 2006.13 The FNPOA was revived in a big way in 2012, and again in 2013, when the Harper government made it known they wanted to introduce this piece of legislation.14 It ended up not being introduced, but it is certainly not dead in the water, and will come up again at any moment. I think people need to take another look at the 1969 White Paper and ask themselves whether or not there has actually been change in the rhetoric being used.