Take a look at this stirring speech used to introduce the FNPOA:
To be a First Nations person is to be a human, with all a human’s needs and abilities. To be a First Nations person is also to be different. It is to speak different languages, draw different pictures, tell different tales and to rely on a set of values developed in a different world.
Canada is richer for its Aboriginal component, although there have been times when diversity seemed of little value to many Canadians.
But to be a First Nations person today is to be someone different in another way. It is to be someone apart – apart in law, apart in the provision of government services and, too often, apart in social contacts.
To be a First Nations person is to lack power – the power to act as owner of your lands, the power to spend your own money and, too often, the power to change your own condition.
Not always, but too often, to be a First Nations person is to be without – without a job, a good house, or running water; without knowledge, training or technical skill and, above all, without those feelings of dignity and self-confidence that a man must have if he is to walk with his head held high.
All these conditions of First Nations people are the product of history and have nothing to do with their abilities and capacities. Aboriginal relations with other Canadians began with special treatment by government and society, and special treatment has been the rule since Europeans first settled in Canada. Special treatment has made First Nations people a community disadvantaged and apart.
Obviously, the course of history must be changed.
To be a First Nations person must be to be free – free to develop Aboriginal cultures in an environment of legal, social, and economic equality with other Canadians.
Now wait a damn minute, I actually have a copy of the 1969 White Paper right here in my hands, and that quote is from the introduction to it!
Oops, caught me. You’re right; I copied and pasted the opening statement from the White Paper, changing some of the terminology from “Indian” to more politically accepted terms like First Nations and Aboriginal.15 I admit it.
Now that you’ve read it, though, does it sound terribly different from present-day rhetoric? I mean, it sounds great! And yet, this is the opening to a proposal that would have seen the unilateral violation of treaties made with Indigenous nations and the destructive forced assimilation of Indigenous peoples into the Canadian politic.
The White Paper dealt with much more than the privatization of reserve land, so perhaps I should narrow the comparison between it and the FNPOA somewhat. What you should really do is compare the “Indian Lands” portion of the White Paper with what the FNPO Initiative has to say.16 The two proposals are essentially the same.
Now, it’s true that just because the wording is very similar in 2015 to what it was in 1969, this does not mean the FNPOA is about complete assimilation the way the White Paper was. On the other hand, what lends credibility to the idea that this is exactly what it intends is the fact that it is being championed and promoted by people who support complete assimilation.
Take Tom Flanagan, for example. Former advisor to Harper, he wrote a book in 2000 delightfully titled, First Nations? Second Thoughts. In it, Flanagan clarifies his position on the assimilation of Indigenous peoples: “Call it assimilation, call it integration, call it adaptation, call it whatever you want: it has to happen.”17
This champion of property rights on-reserve also argues the following:
Indigenous peoples are simply prior immigrants with no real rights (to the land or otherwise).
European colonization was inevitable and justifiable because of the “tremendous gap in civilization” between Indigenous peoples and Europeans.
Indigenous peoples in Canada can’t have sovereignty because they didn’t achieve statehood recognizable to Europeans prior to contact.
Indigenous peoples cannot have nations because they are just tribal communities and must remain subordinate.
Indigenous government, in practice, “produces wasteful, destructive, familistic factions.”
Indigenous title as currently defined is impossible to use in a modern economy.
The historic treaties must not be re-evaluated.
Indigenous peoples can only find prosperity by integrating into the economy, “which means, among other things, a willingness to move.”18
There are plenty of refutations to all of these claims, but the point of this is to sketch out Flanagan’s approach to First Nations issues. Why am I harping on Flanagan? Well, this fine fellow coauthored another book called Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights, which Manny Jules (Chief Commissioner of the FNPO Initiative) wrote a foreword to, and both men are great supporters (and co-architects, perhaps?) of the FNPOA.19 That book reads a heck of a lot like both the White Paper and the discussion of the FNPOA – both of which basically assert that the only rights Indigenous peoples should have are private-property rights.
So, pardon me if I’m skeptical in the extreme of a plan that was virulently opposed by First Nations when it was first proposed in 1969; a plan couched in Western liberal notions of human dignity and freedom of choice just like it is today, over four decades later. Just because they found a First Nation face to slap on top of the FNPOA makes no difference when the attitudes are exactly the same.
So, let’s call this property-rights-specific proposal what it really is: The White Paper Lite.
NOTES
1.Parliament of Canada, “White Papers: Introduction,” parl.gc.ca, last modified December 16, 2009, http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Pages/WhitePapers.aspx. Here, you will find more information on White Papers, as well as a list of those published since 1939.
2.Parliament of Canada, “Green Papers: Introduction,” parl.gc.ca, last modified February 23, 2009, http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Pages/GreenPapers.aspx. (My emphasis.)
3.Jean Chrétien, “Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969,” (1969), http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010189/1100100010191.
4.Harry Hawthorn, ed., “A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada: Economic, Political, Educational Needs and Policies,” 2 vols. (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer Press, 1966–1967). Accessed November 26, 2015, http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/arp/ls/phi-eng.asp.
5.Yes, I italicized this for a reason. This part is going to come up again, later in this chapter. Muahahahaha!
6.Harold Cardinal, The Unjust Society (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1969; 1999).
7.Indian Association of Alberta, Citizens Plus [“The Red Paper”] (Edmonton: Indian Association of Alberta, 1970), https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/aps/article/view/11690/8926.
8.Here, I use the term Indians because that is the language of the Red Paper. You may have noted I did not do this when summarizing the White Paper. It’s one of those prickly “insider versus outsider” uses of language I refer to in chapter 1, and is just how I felt like approaching it.
9.See note 4.
10.Arthur Manuel, and Ronald M. Derrickson, Unsettling Canada: A National Wake-up Call (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2015), 29–36.
11.Ibid., 35.
12.You can find the First Nations Tax Commission webpage here: http://fntc.ca/.
13.You can access the First Nations Property Ownership Initiative webpage here: http://fnpo.ca.
14.Pam Palmater, “Flanagan National Petroleum Ownership Act: Stop Big Oil Land Grab,” Indigenous Nationhood (blog), August 7, 2012, http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2012/08/flanagan-national-petroleum-ownership.html. Here, you can read Pam Palmater’s vociferous challenge to the proposal on her blog.
15.Jean Chrétien, “Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969,” (1969), http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010189/1100100010191#chp1.
16.Jean Chrétien, “Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969,” (1969), http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010189/1100100010191#chp14; First Nations Prop
erty Ownership Initiative, “Proposal: In Summary,” fnpo.ca, last modified 2012, http://fnpo.ca/Proposal.aspx.
17.Thomas Flanagan, First Nations? Second Thoughts (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000), 196.
18.Ibid., chapter 1. Flanagan uses the constitutional term Aboriginal, but I prefer to use Indigenous unless I’m referring specifically to the Constitution.
19.Tom Flanagan, Christopher Alcantara, and Andre Le Dressay, Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010).
31
Our Children, Our Schools
Fighting for Control Over Indigenous Education
Education is widely seen as a key component to future success not only for the individual children who receive that education, but also for the society to which they belong, as a whole. We use graduation rates and postsecondary degree attainment numbers to help determine the efficacy and accessibility of a system of education. These numbers give us fundamental information about the overall health of a society, rather than simply telling us how many individuals are meeting educational standards.
There is no Indigenous system of education in Canada. This fact is sometimes obscured by misunderstandings of reserve or band schools, or even charter schools that may provide “Indigenous content.” Nonetheless, the system of education that exists in Canada is wholly Canadian, both legislatively and in terms of provision.
Another important fact is that the Canadian system of education is failing Indigenous peoples. Regardless of personal opinion, the grim statistics paint a very clear picture. When examining access, graduation rates, and postsecondary-degree attainment in other countries, we do not blame individuals for egregiously poor outcomes. We do not do this because education is a social undertaking that transcends individuals and even minority groups. It requires mobilization of all levels of government, and it affects every single person living within the boundaries of that system of education.
The stats: outcomes
A sizeable gap in student performance between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students is already present by grade 4, with a widening of the gap by grade 7.1
Forty (40) percent of Indigenous peoples aged 20–24 do not have a high-school diploma compared to 13 percent of non-Indigenous peoples.2
High-school non-completion rates are even more pronounced on reserves (61 percent) and among Inuit in remote communities (68 percent).3
Ten (10) percent of the Indigenous population have a university degree compared to 26 percent among non-Indigenous students.4
Sixty-three (63) percent of Indigenous university graduates are women.5
The stats: funding
Non-Indigenous funding is provided by the provinces. Indigenous education is funded federally. Non-status Indians and Métis students receive provincial funding only.
The federal funding formula for on-reserve schools has been capped at 2-percent growth per year since 1996, despite the need having increased by 6.3 percent per year, creating a $1.5 billion shortfall between 1996 and 2008 for instructional services alone.6
Only 57 percent of federal funding for First Nations students is allocated to First Nations schools. The rest goes to support students attending off-reserve schools.7
Unlike their provincial counterparts, First Nations schools receive no funding for library books, librarians’ salaries, construction or maintenance costs of school libraries, nor funding for vocational training, information and communication technologies, or sports and recreation.8
In 2007, there was a need for 69 new First Nations schools across Canada and an additional 27 needed major renovations. Funding was provided for only 21 new schools and 16 renovation projects.9
Despite claims by Indian Affairs to the contrary,10 a recent federal report confirms there are severe funding gaps in First Nations education that must be addressed immediately in the short term, and long-term improvements must be made with the active participation of First Nations stakeholders.11
Postsecondary funding (available only to status Indians and Inuit) has been historically inadequate when meeting funding needs, and has created a backlog of 10 589 students who were denied funding between 2001 and 2006.12
The First Nations control of First Nations Education Act: the top-down approach again
Despite a plethora of reports that recommend the federal government cease acting unilaterally and without consultation with First Nations, the Harper government introduced a draft First Nations Education Act in October of 2013, after minimal engagement with Indigenous communities.13
Even in draft form, First Nations leaders and educators were vociferous in their dissatisfaction with the proposal, and with the engagement process.14 Consultation leading up to the draft was comprised of eight consultation sessions, about 30 teleconferences, and some online activities. Eventually, in Orwellian fashion, the draft was rebranded the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act (Bill C-33) and given its first reading April of 2014.15
Despite promising $1.9 billion in funding (to be spread out over several years), many people identified serious flaws in the proposed legislation – aside from the fact it had not truly been developed in consultation with First Nations.
In particular, despite the name, this act would not have given control over First Nations education to First Nations themselves. In fact, even more control would be put in the hands of Indigenous Affairs appointees. The Act did not even mention Aboriginal or treaty rights to education, which is something First Nations communities have demanded recognition of in any such legislation. Schools that were not “up to the standards” of the Act could be taken over by Indigenous Affairs appointees, with no recourse, and absolutely no liability possible on the part of Indigenous Affairs if things went horribly wrong. Even worse, there was no mechanism to fix the underfunding experienced by First Nations students on-reserve.
The tabling of Bill C-33 created a lot of tension in First Nations communities. New funding is desperately needed, and $1.9 billion sounds like a lot of money; at least until you start breaking it up over several years and realize it was not going to be enough to build the new schools needed or maintain the ones already built, much less bring per-student funding up to par. However, then Minister of Indigenous, Affairs, Bernard Valcourt, insisted it was this or nothing. After some major upheavals, which included the resignation of the Assembly of First Nations National Chief, Shawn Atleo, the bill was shelved.16
Indigenous education means Indigenous planning, development, and control.
Canada needs to finally listen to what Indigenous peoples have been demanding for years: our cultures and languages must be given more importance in our systems of education. This focus has been supported by so many publications including (but not limited to):17
Indian Control of Indian Education, 197218
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Report, 199619
Final Report of the Minister’s Working Group on Education, 200220
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 200721
First Nation Control of First Nation Education, 201022
Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, 201123
Joint FNEC-NAN-FSIN Report, 201124
Report of the National Panel, 201225
Every community wants to have a say in the education of its children. Indigenous peoples want to be able to develop their own standards and programs, along with other governance structures, and this includes the ability to use a pedagogical approach rooted in Indigenous world-views.26 These are not mere aspirations; a lot of work has been done by Indigenous educators on specific frameworks based within specific Indigenous cultures.27
First Nations schools, in particular, need:
school facilities to be located in the community, so students no longer have to leave their homes to study elsewhere (a practice that has been a factor in the tragic deaths of too many First Nations students over the years)
28
adequate funding that ensures cultural and linguistic needs are met
the possibility of a modern education context – meaning access to libraries, technology, sports and recreation, and other resources available to off-reserve students
funding to ensure competitive working conditions so communities do not need to rely on unseasoned staff (or even people who fake their qualifications),29 and an unsustainably high turnover among staff30
Above all, funding must be stable and predictable. The design and implementation of Indigenous education must be in the hands of Indigenous communities.
Not an impossible task; some First Nations are already doing it!
Freedom Schools originated in the 1964 Mississippi Summer Project, as part of a wider Black civil-rights movement.31 In the early 1970s, building on the model of the freedom schools, the American Indian Movement (AIM) opened two survival schools: Heart of the Earth and Red School House in Minneapolis and St. Paul, respectively.32 Survival schools sprung up all throughout Indian country after this, though many were forced to close their doors for lack of funds and support in the mid-1980s and 1990s.
Here in Canada, in 1978 and 1979, the Mohawk communities of Kahnawake and Akwesasne opened their own schools, respectively named the Kahnawake Survival School (high school) and the Akwesasne Freedom School (elementary, junior high). Both schools are still going strong. Focusing on cultural and linguistic immersion and academic excellence, these schools are community funded, the infrastructure was built by the community, and each school has created its own curriculum. In essence, these are private schools that have had to form relationships with provincial authorities to ensure their students graduate with recognized credentials that will be accepted in postsecondary institutions.
In 1999, Mi’kmaq communities in Nova Scotia took control of their schooling through the Mi’kmaq Education Act after tripartite negotiations between the federal government, the province, and First Nations.33 It is a self-governance act and it created the Mi’kmaw Kina’matnewey (MK), a Mi’kmaq education authority, which has 12 member communities and more than 3000 students.34 It operates somewhat like a school board, except rather than directing the activities of community schools it is accountable to those schools.
Indigenous Writes Page 34