This site has the complete text of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
June 1, 1993
This site has the complete text of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
This submission was presented on behalf of the Aboriginal Rights Coalition (Project North) to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples on June 1, 1993. The headings used to categorize the following recommendations correspond to the themes addressed in ARC's presentation, the complete text of which is available below.
We recommend that:
We Recommend that:
We recommend that:
We recommend that:
Members of the Royal Commission, the representatives of the Aboriginal Rights Coalition here today thank you for the opportunity to present our recommendations to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The Commission's Terms of Reference call for a serious effort to try to discover solutions to the many problems facing Aboriginal Peoples today. These problems have been identified by numerous studies, reports and inquiries in recent years.
Despite the stated willingness of government to examine the economic and cultural situation of Aboriginal Peoples and cultural situation of Aboriginal Peoples and to explore alternatives to existing structures, we believe the Commission will have to raise a loud and critical voice in condemning those practices and policies which continue to disempower and oppress Aboriginal Peoples today.
In spite of the rhetoric of change and justice, Aboriginal Peoples find themselves in positions of constant struggle, of needing to fight to defend their land and rights. Such constant struggle is exhausting. It absorbs energy and resources that could be dedicated to economic development, cultural and spiritual renewal, family enjoyment and the celebration of life and creation.
We believe that it is the hopes of all Aboriginal Peoples that they will not be fighting for the rest of their lives, that their rightful place will come to be respected and that they will be able to live fully again. Ironically, their greatest struggle is with the very governments that have the constitutional obligation to protect the rights of Aboriginal Peoples.
The creation of this Commission comes at a time of urgency for all Canadians. We are witnessing a growing gap in the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in this country. Daily, we read and hear of the overwhelming despair that afflicts many Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal youth in particular. It is out hope that the experience and recommendation we bring will assist the Commission in its task of identifying and articulating solutions to current problems and long standing injustices.
The Aboriginal Rights Coalition (Project North) is the collective voice of several of Canada's churches on Aboriginal issues. We represent the Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran, Mennonite, and Christian Reformed churches, along with the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). The Coalition includes a network of Canadians- Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal- who are involved with Aboriginal issues at the regional and local levels in many parts of the country.
Project North was launched in September, 1975. The founding churches realized that their relationship with Aboriginal Peoples, many of whom were church members, had to change drastically. The churches were challenged to work toward a new and just relationship. This new relationship, based on solidarity, would include political action directed at governments and corporations on social, economic, environmental and cultural issues affecting Aboriginal Peoples in Canada.
The onslaught of several energy resource mega projects across northern Canada in the 1970's gave direction, and an added sense of urgency, to this new church focus. In 1976, in its submission before the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry in Ottawa, Project North called for a:
...moratorium on all Northern resources development projects, including the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, to give Canadians an opportunity to develop alternative lifestyles, based on conserver rather than consumer attitudes.[1]
This critical approach created an instant backlash within the church constituencies. This is one of the tensions that has characterized the work of the ARC (Project North) over the past eighteen years. This tension enabled the Coalition to clarify its own vision and commitment. We believe that our effectiveness is dependant upon relating concerns for justice to our spiritual understanding.
The Gospel proclaims that God's sovereignty includes all realms of life. Nothing that is human can be outside of the Church's mission...this means that we stand in solidarity with the Native Peoples of Canada who face the inseparable connection between themselves as a people, and the stewardship of the earth's resources...
We are calling for a conversion within our socail and economic structures whereby policy making and dicision making will begin to reflect and make practical the values of justice, dignity and fulfillment of every human being. Our corporate sins must be acknowledged and we must turn aroung if we are to have a society that trulyu reflects the social consequences of the New Commandment. To bless the establishes order unconditionally is to remain unconverted!.[2]
While our commitment has not changed, the structure of this inter-church Coalition has, in recent years, undergone revision. In 1988, after a year of consultation and research, a new structure and vision statement were formulated and the Aboriginal Rights Coalition was launched. ARC was conceived as a three-way partnership consisting of the ten participating churches and religious bodies. Aboriginal political organizations and regional "network groups" throughout the country. Integral to the work of the Coalition is the presence of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal spiritual leaders to deepen spiritual reflection on Aboriginal justice concerns. The Coalition's revised mission is to strive for a new convenant that will ensure Aboriginal justice in this country.
The opportunity to learn from and stand with Aboriginal Peoples in the struggle for justice has enriched the churches in numerous ways. In the midst of much oppression and injustice we have experienced the joy, tenaciousness, creativity and unity that characterizes the efforts of Aboriginal Peoples to struggle together. They have taught us that justice in the social order cannot be achieved in isolation from a recovery of the integrity of creation, that social justice is inextricably linked to environmental justice.
As a result, ARC and its predecessor Project North have participated in a number of Environmental Impact Assessment hearings across Canada, including the following:
ARC works to develop and implement a program of public education and action designed to support Aboriginal Peoples in:
ARC also seeks to:
For two days at the end of March, 1993, twelve representatives of the Aboriginal Rights Coalition gathered to prepare recommendations for submission to this Royal Commission. These individuals came from Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Labrador. They represented the various Churches, Aboriginal organizations and regional network groups that make up the Coalition.
Reflecting on ARC's mandate, the group identified six themes which characterize the commitment of the Coalition and its struggle for Aboriginal justice. Those themes are:
1. The Non-Aboriginal Quest for Resources: An Assault on Aboriginal Lands
2. Land Rights
3. Self-Determination
4. Healing
5. Public Education
6. Non-Violent Struggle
The group then identified the learning that ARC (and Project North) have acquired within each theme. The learning gave rise to the recommendations which we now present to the Commission. This consultation took place prior to the Commission. This consultation took place prior to the publication of Focusing the Dialogue.[3] That document describes the "four touchstones for change" which the Commission has identified during the first two rounds of public hearings. They are- the new relationship, self-determination, self-sufficiency and healing.
In addressing the twofold challenge of transformation in the lives of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and reconciliation between them we have formulated a number of recommendations which fall within these four categories. We have also identified what we believe to be barriers to change and we suggest measures that could be taken toward removing them.
One issue that dominates all aspects of the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people is the imbalance of power that has developed over several centuries in this country. We believe it remains an evil, poisoning our relationships. We name the imbalance of power an evil because wherever it exists, in Aboriginal relations with government, industry and the churches, there we confront what is mean and ugly in this country. History witnesses to the truth that where an imbalance of power exists, the abuse of power follows.
The churches have been slow to recognize and acknowledge how this imbalance of power has been apart of their and work among Aboriginal Peoples. They arrived among Aboriginal Peoples with their own notions of what Aboriginal societies should become. They often allied themselves with powers which had as an aim the assimilation of whole Peoples and the replacement of their distinct languages, cultures, religions and traditions.
Today the churches are beginning to acknowledge that many of the choices they made were wrong. Several have extended apologies for their part in the suffering and abuse inflicted upon Aboriginal Peoples. They have made a commitment to help rectify the injustices that arose within the colonial and paternalistic systems which have dominated the relationship between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals for centuries. Indeed, one of the reasons for the creation of ARC was the churches' recognition of the harm that had resulted from many of their past actions and policies.
suffering that many Aboriginal Peoples are now addressing. ARC recognizes this open wound in the relationship between the churches and Aboriginal Peoples. ARC has assisted in the coordination and facilitation of ecumenical discussion and information sharing on residential schools. In the past two years ARC has facilitated five meetings of the Taskgroup on Residential Schools. A training workshop was offered in October, 1992, on appropriate disclosure and listening skills for church staff and others working in the field. In December, 1992, ARC was asked to coordinate a meeting with the Aboriginal Circle of the Panel on Violence Against Women, and representatives of the churches that administered residential schools. Individual churches will address this issue further in their denominational briefs to this Commission.
The recommendations we make today express our hope that the problems arising from the imbalance of power at all levels will be seriously and continually addressed.
The history of Canada is often presented as an heroic frontier adventure. Many immigrants and settlers considered the land to be an unoccupied territory. They saw it as their task to "push back the wilderness" and to develop the resources of the land to suit a Euro-Canadian life style. This view of history pays little attention to the fact that this land we call Canada comprises the traditional territories of a large number of distinct Aboriginal Peoples. This same history is one in which they were often the victims of cruelty and deceit.
In his report on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline proposal, Justice Thomas Berger challenged Canadians to "recognize the links between (our) attitudes to the environment and attitudes to native peoples. The assault upon the environment was also an assault on their way of life." [4] This assault on Aboriginal Peoples and their lands is essentially a clash between two sets of powerful and conflicting values and attitudes.
On the one hand, we witness a growing ecological and environmental awareness. On the other hand, we experience the power of advancing technologies and the increasing consumption of natural resources. In a minimal effort to address this tension governments have passed legislation which is intended to assess the impact of industrial and technological development and to "minimize" the negative impacts.
Much of ARC's, and Project North's activity over the past eighteen years has placed the coalition in this point of tension between conflicting values and attitudes, particularly when proposals for industrial development have affected Aboriginal lands. The following is some of the learning that we have identified in examining this assault on Aboriginal lands.
Environmental and social impact studies are flawed by a "scientific" bias that gives little or no weight to Aboriginal oral evidence or testimony. [5] As a result, in considering the wide range of impacts of large scale industrial projects, valuable information from Aboriginal Peoples is often disregarded. There is also a strong tendency to underestimate the social impact and cost of a project and to believe that whatever problems may arise, they can be overcome with money. Increasingly this assumption is proving to be dangerously and tragically false.
.
The recent judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Oldman River Dam makes it quite clear that the "environment....understood in its generic sense....encompasses the physical, economic and social environment and touches upon several heads of power assigned to the respective levels of government". [6] Elsewhere states that:
".....the potential consequences for a community's likelihood, health and other social matters from environment change are integral to decision-making on matters affecting environmental quality, subject, of course, to the constitutional imperatives..." [7]
The Environmental Assessment Review Panel for the proposed Eldorado Uranium Refinery in Saskatchewan (Warman Panel) in 1980 described components for an adequate social impact study. The Warman Panel stated that "an adequate social impact study....comprises considerably more than a listing of benefits and a superficial overview of social costs". [8] It went on to describe those components which it felt were "essential" for an adequate study.
Among those components, the Panel included:
Based upon our participation in several environmental reviews, it is our conclusion that the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Organization (FEARO), established by the federal government, is ineffective and works to the detriment of Aboriginal Peoples when assessing proposals that impact on them and their lands. FEARO's review of military flying activities in the territory of the jub_e provides a number of examples.
When considering economic development and self-sufficiency in Aboriginal communities there is a tendancy to underestimate the vitality of the Aboriginal cultures and economies that have persisted. It is assumed that, with the change to permanent settlement, Aboriginal Peoples depend on their ancestral lands.
We have learned that the management proposals Aboriginal Peoples put forward for these lands are often viable alternatives to the "status-quo" exploitation of resources. The "Vision of Co-Existence" as a land stewardship model, developed by the Teme-Augama Anishnabai serves as one example.
The existing Comprehensive Land Claims Policy was identified as a major barrier to change in our discussions concerning the economic assault on Aboriginal lands. This policy does not permit discussion of interim protection for Aboriginal lands during the negotiation process. This, combined with the built-in prolongation of talks, enables governments to give away lands and resources to third parties throughout negotiations.[9] The refusal to permit discussion of interim protection for Aboriginal lands is one of the many examples of the federal and provincial government's betrayal of their obligation to negotiate in good faith.
For decades government an industry have profited from the extraction of resources on unceded lands and on lands belonging by treaty to Aboriginal Peoples. They have done so with no compensation to Aboriginal Peoples and no sharing of revenue or royalties. Governments tend to refuse to enter into land or self-government negotiations until the resources of those lands are judged valuable in the eyes of industry. Once industry has set its sights on Aboriginal lands, it is already too late to ensure a just settlement.
In geographic areas which provide renewable and non-renewable resource economic potential, industry tends toward exploiting non-renewable resources. The reason for doing so is largely because non-renewable resources provide a larger financial return in the short-term. Concentration on the non-renewable resources of a region can have disastrous effects on Aboriginal Peoples and on their continuing efforts to live on the renewable resources of the land.
The devastating loss of the hunting and trapping resources of the Lubicon Cree, as a result of gas and oil exploration and production, serves as one example. In a ten year period four hundred oil wells were built within a fourteen mile radius of Little Buffalo. It is estimated that oil and gas companies have made between $6 and $7 billion since 1979 from oil and gas resources in Lubicon territory. Prior to exploration 95% of the Lubicon people were self-sufficient. Today 95% of the population is on welfare.
It is often the case that once industry has extracted the non-renewable resources of a region, the site is abandoned leaving the land scarred, at times, irreparably.
Aboriginal land rights are often in conflict with the aspirations of industry and government to exploit the resources of a particular region. This is especially the case when the development in question takes place in the north.
Two notions of land ownership exist in Canada today; common and private lands. In the north land is classified primarily as crown land to which everyone has access. In the south land has been privatized. The designation of the north as Crown Land characterizes the inequity that exists in our relationship with Aboriginal Peoples. Despite the efforts of Aboriginal Peoples to protect what they understand to be their lands, both government and industry stubbornly maintain the position that these lands are open and accessible to all.
History shows that when newcomers arrived in this country competition for resources became a determining factor shaping the new society. Where lands and resources were desired, treaties were negotiated. Land considered undesireable was left untreatied.
Governments have been reluctant to acknowledge that Aboriginal rights were violated in this competition for resources. In 1973, then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was forced to acknowledge that Aboriginal Peoples had more rights than he or his government had been ready to recognize. As a result, government was compelled to enact legislation creating a negotiating process which was intended to settle outstanding land conflicts. Today we are witnessing an abdication of this responsibility on the part of the federal government as it transfers responsibilities in these matters to the provinces. With is abdication of responsibility has come the erosion of the original intent and purpose of this legislation.
A further example of federal and provincial unwillingness to negotiate in good faith is witnessed in the tendency of these governments to use agreements and memoranda of understanding as a means to avoid fulfulling responsibilities and commitments. Once on paper, agreements become the subject of unending debate regarding interpretation and intent. The difficulties experienced by the James Bay Cree in getting the federal and provincial governments to implement the terms of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement attests to this.
Non-Aboriginals define land and territory according to human borders. Aboriginal People have reminded us that fish don't stop swimming where courts have placed lines on maps, and moose don't trip over provincial boundaries. This speaks to a basic clash of territorial notions. Aboriginal knowledge of the natural order, their understanding of the spiritual significance of land, and their input on the impact of industrial activity upon this order, is as valid as western scientific thinking and can complement the latter.
In the case of overlapping territory between Aboriginal Peoples, the existing land negotiations policy has created a divisive situation between Peoples who for centuries have been able to work out issues regarding territory and shared access to resources. As a result of the mechanisms of negotiation dictated by government, Aboriginal Peoples have been pitted against each other resulting in prolonged negotiations and increased difficulty in reaching settlements.
As current land rights negotiations proceed in British Columbia, third party advisory committees representing business, industry and municipalities have been granted thei right to consult, in confidence, with the provincial government negotiating team.
However, representatives of municipalities also may be designated as members of the provincial negotiating team, allowing them to participate at the negotiating table as members of the government and not as representatives of third party interest which they are. In fact, as creatures of the province, their interests already are served at the table by the provincial negotiators, and they should not be at the table under any guise.
In order to be accepted into the process, Aboriginal Peoples must first accept that all the land in question are "Crown Lands". In other words, they must give up everything just to get into the process. They are expected to accept the federal and provincial position which maintains that once a settlement is reached Aboriginal rights are extinguished. Then, according to rules, procedures and definitions of "land use" pre-defined by the federal government, they must argue for title to small parts of their original territories. The goal of government is to take as much land and as many resources as possible from the Aboriginal People they are negotiating with.
The Department of Indian Affairs decides who qualifies for negotiations. It decides on the level of loan funding to be provided. It can, and does, choose to suspend negotiations if it's unhappy with the way in which the Aboriginal People is negotiating. Given the abuse of power that this system represents it is not surprising that the federal and provincial governments refuse to negotiate in public.
Justice will never be achieved until governments, and Canadians generally, recognize that title to lands and resources has been taken away from Aboriginal Peoples and that the solution to many of the problems faced by them requires compromises from the dominant society that would return land and resources to them.
Aboriginal People have continually pointed to the futility of the present structure of negotiation which consists of meetings with federal and provincial representatives who have no power to negotiate. They merely present the dictates of senior civil servants, deputy ministers and ministers who remain ensconced in their offices in capital cities.
Understandably, Aboriginal Peoples doubt that the federal government has nay real desire or will to bring about changes to these policies. In 1985, the government commissioned an examination of the Comprehensive Claims Process. The subsequent Coolican Report made very positive recommendations which, if implemented, would have resulted in dramatic improvements. However, in 1987 the government chose to ignore most of these recommendations and made only minor revisions to the claims policy. It is our conviction that radical changes are required to the existing "specific" and "comprehensive" land claims policies to make them more just.
The implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission will provide a unique opportunity for this country to overcome past injustices, to heal old and festering wounds and to develop just relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Peoples. The entrenchment of Aboriginal self-government as an effective right in the Constitution is one way to provide an environment conducive to healing and reconciliation. Constitutional amendments enabling the exercise of Aboriginal self-government are also required.
In February of 1987, the major Christian churches in Canada issues a Statement which advocated a new covenant between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Peoples. [13] In that Statement the churches identified the right to self-government as the means by which this new relationship will be created.
Self-determination is not something to be defined by non-Aboriginal governments, nor can it be granted or awarded by them. Self-determination means the right of Aboriginal Peoples to realize their aspirations as Peoples and Nations; to be distinct in terms of language, traditions and spirituality, and to be the architects of their own future. It means having an adequate land and resource base, and control of those lands and resources. It requires wide-ranging jurisdictions which will enable Aboriginal Peoples to run their own institutions. In light of the dispossesion of Aboriginal Peoples in the past, self-determination also requires compensation for past, and continued, illegal use of Aboriginal lands and resources.
The recognition and implementation of Aboriginal self-government in Canada is a means by which Aboriginal Peoples will give another concrete expression of themselves as distinct Peoples. Through the exercise of self-government they will develop the economic potential of their lands, and determine their own cultural, social and religious institutions.
The Aboriginal Rights Coalition has witnessed government undermining even the smallest efforts of Aboriginal Peoples to exercise self-government. The efforts of the jub_e people of Davis Inlet to mandate jub_e peace officers this past year provides an example.
In the fall of 1991, the jub_e community sent two young men to be trained at a recognized police training institute in British Columbia. In July of 1992, after they had successfully completed their training, the community mandated the two men as peace officers. That same day, the government of the province of Newfoundland announced that if these two men attempted to exercise any aspect of this role, even that of dog control in the community, they would be arrested. Newfoundland Justice Minister, Ed Roberts, told reporters: "These two men are no more police officers than you or I." [14]
In January 1993, it was these same two men who helped save the lives of six Davis Inlet teenagers after finding them semi-comatose from sniffing gasoline in an apparent suicide pact.
The federal government continues to weaken the unity and national identity of Aboriginal Peoples in a number of ways. Too often the tactic of "divide and conquer" is regarded as an acceptable practice on the part of the Department of Indian Affairs.
There are other measures taken by government that have the same effect. For example, it refuses to consider any form of self-government other than a community based model with only municipal-type powers. Its efforts to localize the focus of negotiations to communities and to "territory surrounding communities" enables the government to avoid the broader implications attached to the Aboriginal understanding of traditional territories.
Throughout this country, Aboriginal People are taking steps to recover control and jurisdiction over many aspects of their lives: education, social services, health care, resource and environmental protection, and policing. In some cases the federal government has seen these developments as an opportunity to transfer limited responsibilities to Aboriginal communities. However, the manner in which they have done so suggests that the decision is largely a cost saving measure on their part. The transfer of responsibility does not include adequate funding to fulfull those responsibilities. Most often the transfer of administrative responsibility for programs and services involves no real authority. Aboriginal Peoples are still having to "check out" even minor details with federal or provincial authorities.
Too often, instransigent governments at the federal and provincial levels continue to find ways to defer implementing measures which would assist Aboriginal Peoples in exercising the right of self-determination. As a result, Aboriginal Peoples, increasingly, are forced to exercise that right independently. Taking such actions often results in reprisals from the federal and provincial governments, the most common forms of reprisal being the elimination or witholding of funding. For those groups who are in negotiations with government, such actions also result in the suspension of talks.
In retrospect, it has become all too clear that past deliniations of responsibility in relation to Aboriginal Peoples in this country, and past forms of agreement, including many of the treaties, have not served the demands of justice. Dispossessed of their lands, relegated to reserves or marginalized in urban centres, Aboriginal Peoples experience the highest rates of unemployment, poverty, alcoholism, suicide, imprisonment and infant mortality in Canada, social problems that seem to worsen exponentially in every generation.
Europeans who first arrived here centuries ago appropriated many of the foods, clothing and modes of transportation that Aboriginal Peoples had developed. For some years, Europeans and Aboriginal Peoples lived in a somewhat interdependent existence. However, as European colonizers decided that they needed land for new economic uses such as agriculture, mining and forestry, Aboriginal uses and ways of living on the land were judged irrelevant and economically insignificant.
Great efforts were taken to devalue and then eradicate traditional roles and beliefs. The result has been the tragic loss of roles and standards by which self-esteem was defined.
Federal policies have had the same effect. For many decades government viewed Aboriginal Peoples as an "Indian problem" and it looked forward to the day that they would cease to exist as distinct Nations and Peoples by being assimilated into the Canadian population. It is our experience that this goal continues to influence some aspects of policy, especially in the case of several provincial governments.
There is a tendency for institutions exercising power, be they churches, governments, police or industry, to refuse to admit error or wrong-doing. The injustice and cruelty experienced by Inuit families relocated to the high Arctic in the 1950's, and the refusal of those involved in the decision no to take responsibility, serve as bitter examples.
It is our belief that truth-telling and acknowledgement are necessary preconditions for reconciliation and healing, as is the knowledge of one's history. Over the past three centuries Aboriginal Peoples have been removed from their histories and now must be given the opportunity to reclaim them. Non-Aboriginal people have a responsibility to learn those histories and to acknowledge their own histories. We hope that the churches will provide opportunities for those stories and histories to be told.
In some countries it has been necessary to establish "Truth Commissions" (most recently in El Salvador) to investigate violations of human rights and reveal the truth regarding the actions of governments. Many Canadians feel that only this form of strong and prolonged international pressure will sufficiently shame Canadian governments into enacting the changes which are required to ensure the well-being of Aboriginal Peoples in this country.
Aboriginal Peoples are identifying the many evils suffered by them as being interconnected and originating in their loss of control over their lives, both individually and collectively. They are beginning to develop holistic proposals for change and healing. Several examples come to mind: the efforts of the people of Alkalai Lake, and the "Okanagegayin" program for healing and renewal that is operated by the Anishinaabeg People north of Kenora. Recently the jub_e have also developed a seven point plan for renewal. [15] Each of the seven elements is viewed as essential to the overall objective of renewal. These various approaches to healing are based on the conviction that social renewal and recovery will only be achieved as Aboriginal Peoples regain control of their lives.
These holistic plans for healing and renewal reveal the inadequacy of the federal government's approach to Aboriginal Peoples. For too long the approach has been one of applying administrative band-aids to gaping wounds. It is essential that government support and work with Aboriginal communities as they develop holistic programs for renewal and the creation of a new future.
In this country, the existing dominant economic structures operate with a vision of the north as a store-house of resources to fuel the economic well-being of southern Canada. As René Fumoleau, who has lived in Denendeh for over thirty-five years, has said; "There are eastern Canadians and western Canadians and northern resources." Such a view perpetuates the injustices suffered by Aboriginal Peoples in the north.
There is a persistent fear on the part of Canadians, accentuated all the more in hard economic times, that justice for Aboriginal Peoples, while necessary, will mean that non-Aboriginals will "lose out." We witness similar fear of change on the part of the federal and provincial governments. They fear that the economic, political and environmental alternatives being put forward by Aboriginal Peoples, and which justice demand, will mean, for government, the loss of land, resources, jurisdiction and power.
Much work is required to counter the notion that such change must be viewed negatively. The challenge is to present to Canadians the perspective that justice for Aboriginal Peoples will enrich Canadian society, and that a new relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal holds a potential we have not dared to consider.
Public education is one means of increasing the awareness that the history of Canada's relationship with Aboriginal Peoples is marked by injustice, dishonesty and broken promises, and that our economic and political structures continue to reflect those injustices.
ARC (Project North) and its constituent bodies have facilitated cross-cultural experiences with a number of Aboriginal Peoples. This has involved awareness workshops and programs (in some cases annually) with the Dene, Haida, Lubicon Cree and jub_e. Various Aboriginal Peoples and organizations have also facilitated cross-cultural experiences. Such programs could serve as a model for cross-cultural education for various sectors of society.
It is too often the case that those entrusted with responsibilities in relation to Aboriginal Peoples have little awareness, or appreciation, of the cutlural differences of the Peoples they are expected to serve. Bureaucrats and Ministers of government become "instant experts" with vast powers to shape the destiny of Peoples about whom they know little or nothing.
Many Aboriginal Peoples are continuously confronted by racism, discrimination and attitudes of "white privilege". Both racism and discrimination create a situation of intolerance, domination, ignorance, and fear and hatred of the unknown. "In many ways, those dominated have actually become strong through not having all of these unearned advantages, and this is one of the reasons why they have a lot to teach ..." [16]
We believe it is necessary that governments and churhes recognize their culpability in perpetuating racist practices and beliefs. The response of the Department of Indian Affairs to media stories that gain public sympathy and which accentuate the poverty and desperation of Aboriginal Peoples provides an example.
Very often DIAND responds with its own media campaign emphasizing the number of dollars spent by government on a particular Aboriginal People or community. Invariably, these "information bulletins" conveniently refrain from presenting the whole picture. The revenue accumulated by government through the removal of resources from Aboriginal lands is omitted, as is a break-down of costs related to comparable non-Aboriginal communities. Such publicity campaigns propagate misinformation and are largely responsible for the prevailing attitude that money addressed to Aboriginal Peoples is money "thrown away". These, and other tactics of government, have deeply influenced Canadians and have reinforced ugly stereotyping of Aboriginal Peoples.
Such racist attitudes, combined with the bitterness that often accompanies disputes over land and resources, result in dangerous tensions between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. It has been our experience that, most often, few opportunities exist to bridge the gap that separates both sides. In some regions ministerial associations (organizations comprising the local ministers and pastors) have conducted effective public information and discussion sessions as a way to facilitate dialogue.
These tensions are compounded by the fact that Canadian society has been conditioned to think of Aboriginal Peoples as being violent. The notion pervades our literature (past and present), film and scholarship. Historically, non-Aboriginal society has encouraged such notions to justify and mask its own violence and lust for Aboriginal lands and resources.
In the field of public education, ARC has experienced difficulties in getting the support of its constituencies for Aboriginal issues. However, our experience suggests that it is necessary to remain undiscouraged by the seeming lack of progress in the field of public education. We have learned that people are much more comfortable considering and supporting change in "someone else's backyard." Therefore, it is necessary to be patient when working toward changes in attitude, awareness and behaviour. There can be leaps forward in public knowledge, sympathy and interest if conditions are right. For example, when Canadians are not preoccupied with their own economics they are more willing to be educated and informed. Increasingly, Aboriginal Peoples are developing their own means to inform and educate the Canadian public and they are developing support networks to work for change.
The process we used in formulating these recommendations differed from that followed by the Commission in its work of producing Focusing the Dialogue. However, the themes that emerged within our consultation are remarkably similar to the "four touchstones for change" which the Commission has defined as possible guidelines for the development of final recommendations.
Throughout our presentation we have also identified what we believe to be barriers to the creation of a new and just relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.
One of the greatest obstacles to the goal of transformation in Aboriginal lives and reconciliation with non-Aboriginal people is the intransigence of the federal and provincial governments. These governments persist in their refusal to recognize the right of Aboriginal Peoples to exist and to govern their lives and lands as distinct Nations and Peoples. We see little hope for progress until the federal and provincial governments begin to negotiate in good faith. The approach taken by these governments continues to disregard even the minimum international standards being defined by the United Nations draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. [21]
We wish to present three examples, all from 1993, which illustrate the determination of the federal and provincial governments to undermine the efforts of Aboriginal Peoples to achieve their goals.
The jub_e
Throughout the month of February Canadians witnessed, almost nightly, the horrors that afflict the jub_e in Davis Inlet, Labrador; horrors that are common to a large percentage of Aboriginal communities in this country. Due largely to the political pressure that such media coverage creates, the federal government decided to endorse the jub_e resolve to relocate. In March, the jub_e put forward a seven-point plan for the healing and renewal of the community.
In April of this year, once the issue had faded from newspapers and television, the federal government responded to the jub_e saying that such a plan would require legal and policy changes, as well as changes to the comprehensive claims policy. The Minister judges that such changes would have to be resolved in a "national context". His final words on the matter were: "We are simply not prepared to consider major changes in the absence of such a process." [22]
That response fails to acknowledge the fact that this same government did undertake precisely this type of national review of the land claims policy just over five years ago. The recommendations of that review included many of the changes that the jub_e advocate in their seven-point plan. Typically, the government chose to ignore the major recommendations of its own study and made only minor alterations to the policy. The truth of the government's position is best summarized in its own words: "We are simply not prepared to make major changes ..."
The Algonquins of Barrière Lake
A second example. The Algonquins of Barrière Lake have always lived in the territory near the headwaters of the Ottawa River. Since 1870, their lands have been constantly changed by a series of industrial projects: dams, reservoirs, logging roads, clearcuts and tourist lodges. All of this activity has taken place without consultation or recognition of the rights of the Algonquin.
By 1988 almost half of their traditional lands had been clearcut, seriously depleting the wildlife on which they depend for their livelihood. Beginning in the late 1980's, the Algonquins demonstrated against the spraying of the forest. They also blocked roads in an effort to put a halt to clearcutting practices.
Then they decided to try to persuade the government that a plan based on sustainable development could replace clearcutting and still be sensitive to the interests of all parties. The matter had become and urgent one for the people of Barrière Lake because the government of Quebec had been signing agreements with private forestry companies giving them management authority over all of the forests in the province.
As a result of their persistence and after enduring arrests and police intimidation, the Algonquins managed, in August 1991, to get the federal and provincial government to sign a trilateral agreement providing for a three-year process in which "sensitive" areas of forest would be identified and protected. The Agreement was hailed as a significant breakthrough which could lead to a new model of social and economic development based upon the principle of establishing an environmentally sustainable economy.
The Agreement called upon each of the three parties to choose representatives to oversee this work. The Algonquins chose Clifford Lincoln, former Quebec minister for the environment. In December, 1992, Mr. Lincoln made a presentation to this Commission. In it, he spoke highly of this Trilateral Management Agreement. He commended its principles as a model of co-management and reconciliation and suggested that it was a pilot project for the realization of self-government and Aboriginal self-sufficiency in other parts of the country.
Just two months later, in February 1993, the province of Quebec suspended all negotiations related to the trilateral forestry management agreement and denounced the Algonquins as being unreasonable. In a series of acts of bad faith, taken in the months leading up to the suspension of negotiations, the Quebec government showed its intolerance of the process; an intolerance which suggests that it was never serious about carrying out the trilateral agreement. For example, despite having signed the agreement, the province entered into agreements with private forestry companies for all of the Algonquin lands, ignoring the strong objections of the Barrière Lake people.
In assessing the situation, Boyce Richardson, an authoritative voice on Aboriginal issues and producer of a recent film on the Algonquins of Barrière Lake, writes the following:
... one has to report that all of the Barrière Lake's efforts are failing, wrecked by Quebec's determination that logging must remain the priority in forest management. Quebec seems unready to make way for an alternative style of life in the forest, and appears determined to bulldoze the Algonquin way of life into the ground.
The Lubicon Cree
Our third, and final, example. In March of 1993, the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review, in which ARC was a participant, issued its final report. [24] The principle finding of the Commission is that governments have consistently not acted in good faith in relation to the Lubicon Cree. They have:
a) passed retroactive legislation to undermine legal claims and deny the Lubicon access to legal remedy,
b) appropriated royalties that, had a reserve been established at an appropriate time, would have been in Lubicon hands, and
c) been in conflict of interest because they act as an interested third party, beneficiary of royalties, and presumed judge of the validity of Lubicon claims.
[24]
The Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review - Final Report, Edmonton: The Aboriginal Rights Coalition, March, 1993.
The United Nations Committee on Human Rights released its report concerning the Lubicon in March, 1990. Their conclusion was without precedent in the western world. They acted on the fact that the Lubicon had exhausted all other options for internal remedies to their situation. The Committee condemned Canada in the strongest possible language and issued an order against Canada to stop any action that would further hinder a just settlement with the Lubicon.
In May of 1991, the United Nations Human Rights Committee took a second unprecedented action by appointing a rapporteur to monitor the Lubicon settlement and report t the Committee. Canada's apparent image as a defender of Human Rights on the international scene is seriously undermined by the federal government's failure to deal honourably with this longstanding grievance at Little Buffalo.
These examples illustrate the profound transformation that is required if Aboriginal Peoples are to achieve self-determination, healing and reconciliation with non-Aboriginal people. Canadians want action now in response to the issues and problems affecting Aboriginal Peoples in this country. [25] Despite the urgency, the current political situation does not offer much hope for immediate action.
This Commission faces a formidable challenge in formulating recommendations that will counter those structures and institutions that are intent on maintaining strongly entrenched roles and values based on power and profit. The greatest obstacle is the collusion of government and industry against the interests and well-being of Aboriginal Peoples in this country.
Because of this, there are many people in this country who fear that your work will merely be placed upon library shelves and be overlooked by governments which are astute in the are of avoiding difficult issues. This has been the fate of too many Commissions and Inquiries in the past. Many people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, remain deeply concerned and troubled by the fact that those who called this Royal Commission into being will also decide whether or not to implement the Commission's recommendations.
On August 27, 1991, the Prime Minister of Canada announced the establishment of this Royal Commission. On that day, Mr. Mulroney stated that his government believed that "full participation of Canada's aboriginal peoples in the country's economic prosperity and political life is a goal shared by all Canadians". [26] It is now time to see if government is truly ready to act on that belief.
|
| What is ARC? | Insider | Solidarite | Regional Groups | Lubicon | Jubilee | What's new? | Our Partners | Publications | Member registration| Contact Us | Français |