First Nations in Canada Contemporary Issues

Transcription

1 First Nations in Canada Contemporary Issues 1) Is it true that First Nation peoples do not pay taxes and get free university? These are both pervasive myths that perpetuate misconceptions about indigenous people. Education is a stipulation in post-confederation treaties, and these treaty rights to education are constitutionally recognized in Canada, under Section 35 (1). However, post-secondary funding is limited to status Indians and does not include non-status, Inuit or Métis peoples. Federally provided education funds are distributed through First Nations bands, which often don't receive amounts that actually match up with the numbers of applicants requesting funding, resulting in long wait lists and restricted access. As for taxes, if you're a status Indian and you live and work off your reserve (which is more than half of all status Indians), then you are certainly paying both federal and provincial taxes.tax exemptions only apply in very specific, limited situations, and for the most part, this means goods and services and income are only tax-free on the reserve. To sum it up, as per treaty commitments, there are tax breaks ON RESERVE and there is the opportunity to secure funding for tuition IF the individual applies, meets a demanding list of requirements, and the money is not exhausted by other band applicants. One other issue is that the quality of primary and secondary schooling on reserve is poor due to underfunding. Therefore, many students do not graduate and cannot access the money, or they do graduate but lack the skills to succeed in university.

2 2) If the Indian Act is such a bad thing, why has it not been repealed? The Canadian government tried to do just that in the late 1960s and early 1970s but failed, largely due to protests from First Nations. Why? See the following piece on the 1969 White Paper: What is a white paper? In the Canadian legislature, a policy paper is called a white paper. For many First Nations people, the term ironically implies a reference to racial politics and the white majority. The 1969 white paper proposing the abolition of the Indian Act was formally called the Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy. In 1969, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chrétien, unveiled a policy paper that proposed ending the special legal relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state and dismantling the Indian Act. This white paper was met with forceful opposition from Aboriginal leaders across the country and sparked a new era of Indigenous political organizing in Canada. The federal government s intention, as described in the white paper, was to achieve equality among all Canadians by eliminating Indian as a distinct legal status and by regarding Aboriginal peoples simply as citizens with the same rights, opportunities and responsibilities as other Canadians. In keeping with Trudeau s vision of a just society, the government proposed to repeal legislation that it considered discriminatory. In this view, the Indian Act was discriminatory because it applied only to Aboriginal peoples and not to Canadians in general. The white paper stated that removing the unique legal status established by the Indian Act would enable the Indian people to be free free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians." To this end, the white paper proposed to Eliminate Indian status Dissolve the Department of Indian Affairs within five years Abolish the Indian Act Convert reserve land to private property that can be sold by the band or its members Transfer responsibility for Indian affairs from the federal government to the province and integrate these services into those provided to other Canadian citizens Provide funding for economic development Appoint a commissioner to address outstanding land claims and gradually terminate existing treaties What led to the white paper? By the 1960s, the federal government could not deny that Aboriginal peoples were facing serious socio-economic barriers, such as greater poverty and higher infant mortality rates than non-indigenous Canadians and lower life expectancy and levels of education. The civil rights movement sweeping the United States brought public attention to the intense racism and discrimination experienced by African Americans and other minorities. The movement

3 also led many Canadians to question inequality and discrimination in their own society, particularly the treatment of First Nations. In June 1969, Ottawa, in answer to the consultations, produced their white paper proposing to dismantle Indian Affairs. Responses to the white paper Aboriginal people across Canada were shocked. The white paper failed to address the concerns raised by their leaders during the consultation process. It contained no provisions to recognize and honour First Nations special rights, or to recognize and deal with historical grievances such as title to the land and Aboriginal and treaty rights, or to facilitate meaningful Indigenous participation in Canadian policy making. Though the white paper acknowledged the social inequality of Aboriginal peoples in Canada and to a lesser degree the history of poor federal policy choices, many Aboriginal peoples viewed the new policy statement as the culmination of Canada s long-standing goal to assimilate Indians into mainstream Canadian society. Aboriginal groups felt that the federal government was simply, as Harold Cardinal put it, passing the buck to the provinces. Canada was absolving itself of its responsibility for historical injustices and of its obligation to uphold treaty rights and maintain Canada s special relationship with First Nations. First Nations were also outraged that Indigenous peoples opinions, expressed during the consultation process, appeared to have been disregarded. Instead of amending the Indian Act, the government had decided to simply abolish it. A forceful spokesperson was Harold Cardinal, the 24-year-old Cree man who headed up the Indian Association of Alberta. Cardinal s book The Unjust Society exposed for the non-native public the hypocrisy of the notion that Canada was a just society. Cardinal called the white paper a thinly disguised programme of extermination through assimilation. He saw the white paper as a form of cultural genocide. In 1970, the Indian Association of Alberta, under Cardinal s leadership, rejected the white paper in their document Citizens Plus, which became popularly known as the Red Paper. Citizens Plus was soon adopted as the national Indian stance on the white paper. Quoting the document, Aboriginal organizations across Canada agreed: There is nothing more important than our treaties, our lands and the wellbeing of our future generations. 3) Have there been other attempts to improve conditions for First Nations? Yes quite a few but with only some success thus far. Here are some noteworthy ones: a) 1982 Constitution Act When Canada repatriated the constitution, First Nation groups fought to have a clause that recognized and affirmed Aboriginal rights (Section 35). This was important because the constitution is the most important legal document in the land and is very difficult to change. This would compel future governments to continue to work with First Nations and would

4 avoid another White Paper. It is important to recognize that Section 35 did not create Aboriginal rights as they were established by the treaties, they simply affirm them. b) The Kelowna Accord 2005 Under Prime Minister Paul Martin, the government tried to work in consultation and collaboration with Indian bands, rather than coming up with a plan on their own and imposing it on First Nations. An ambitious plan was hatched that aimed to reduce the gap in living standards that existed between the First Nation population and the rest of Canada. This was (is) a serious problem. For example, at the time of negotiations, infant mortality in Aboriginal communities was almost 20% higher than in the general Canadian population. Moreover, Aboriginal people were three times more likely to have Type 2 diabetes, and suicide rates were 3 to 11 times higher than in the non-aboriginal population. Thus, the stated goals of the Kelowna Accord included reducing infant mortality, youth suicide, childhood obesity, and diabetes by 20% in five years (and by 50% in ten years), with the federal government allocating over $1.3 billion for health services. The data was also sobering in terms of education. In 2001, around 44% of Aboriginal people (aged years) had not graduated from high school, compared to 19% for non-aboriginal Canadians. One of the Kelowna Accord s targets was therefore to raise the high school graduation rate to the average Canadian rate by 2016, with around $1.8 billion of federal funds committed to this end. As unemployment was significantly higher in the Aboriginal compared to the non- Aboriginal population, the accord dedicated $200 million to developing economic opportunities. Another $1.6 billion was earmarked for housing and infrastructure, and $170 million was allocated for relationships and accountability. In 2006, the Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper took over from Martin and the Liberals. They defeated the Kelowna Accord in Parliament and so the agreement was not implemented. The Conservatives did commit themselves to attempting to solve the issues put forth at Kelowna, but they allocated considerably less funding and did not continue the process of consultation to the same degree. This has been one of the contributing factors to the Idle No More movement across Canada a series of protests against the Federal government bringing to light the terrible conditions on reserves such as Atawaspiskat in Ontario. 4) Has there ever been violence between the Government and First Nations? Violence has erupted between First Nations protestors and law enforcement, in particular in area where there are competing land claims. Serious situations occurred through the 1990s where both protestors and police were killed such as the Oka Crisis (see iconic photo below) and the Ipperwash Crisis. For the most part peace has been maintained.

5 5) Most residential schools closed by 1960 why are they still blamed for problems today? As discussed, the dysfunction contributed to by the residential school system was passed down through the generations as parents struggled to raise children in impoverished communities. Additionally, in many ways assimilationist policies continued through practices such as the Sixties Scoop. It refers to the mass removal of Aboriginal children from their families into the child welfare system, in most cases without the consent of their families or bands. It refers to a particular phase of a larger history, and not to an explicit government policy. The drastic overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system accelerated in the 1960s, when Aboriginal children were seized and taken from their homes and placed, in most cases, into middle-class Euro-Canadian families. This overrepresentation continues today. Questions Use these notes and the videos from class to answer. 1) From the perspective of the Canadian government, briefly summarize the purpose of the White Paper. 2) The White Paper was never implemented due to opposition from First Nations. Explain why they opposed it.

6 3) Why was the Kelowna Accord different from other government attempts to solve the problems that plague First Nation communities? 4) Jot down at least FOUR big ideas that you learned from the videos 5) Complete the following, in appropriate detail, in regards to the current and future relationship between First Nations and the rest of Canada. What makes you Optimistic What Makes you Pessimistic