Aboriginal Peoples: Rethinking the Relationship Chelsea Gabel Health, Aging and Society Department Department of Political Science McMaster University March 11th, 2013

2 Discussion Question  Should a state provide preferential support for services on the basis of ethnicity? 2

3 Discussion Questions  Should a state provide preferential support for services for Canadian Aboriginal peoples?  Should it matter if you live on or off reserve? 3

4 Discussion Question  Should Canadian Aboriginal Peoples be included under the umbrella of multiculturalism? 4

5 Aboriginal Peoples and Multiculturalism  First, Aboriginal peoples exist outside of multiculturalism because their inclusion would fail to recognize their unique claims.  Second, Aboriginal groups were marginalized because their cultural practices left them outside of mainstream society and its accompanying rights.  Third, the urban transition of Aboriginal groups impacts on their collective capacity and accentuates their marginalization to the extent that these groups are essentially communities in crisis rather than the cultural communities that multiculturalism applauds. 5

Class Objectives Who are Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples? Framing the Problem The Politics of Reconciliation Duelling Discourses: Two Models to the So Called “Indian” Problem” Citizens Plus: A Third Model? Aboriginal Self-Governance

7 3 Who are Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples?

8 Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples Terms used to categorize Aboriginal peoples include: Indian Native Status Indian Aboriginal Treaty Indian Non-treaty C-31s Non-status Inuit Metis First Nation Indigenous All these terms are legalistic divisions rather than cultural or national distinctions 4

9 Categories of Aboriginal Peoples Status Indian Membership to status Indian is defined: Admittance to a general registry in Ottawa Affiliation with one of 633 bands Entitlement to residence on band Non-Status Indian Persons of Aboriginal ancestry are classified as non-status if their ancestors failed to register under the Indian Act, signed a treaty with federal authorities or were taken off the register and enfranchised for some reason They do not live on reserves They are scattered in small towns and large cities across Canada 5

10 Categories of Aboriginal Peoples Métis They comprise the offspring (and descendants) of mixed European-Aboriginal unions Inuit They enjoy a special relationship with the government but never signed a treaty arrangement or registered under the Indian Act At local levels they are governed by municipal councils Inuit interests at national level are represented by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada 6

11 Urban Aboriginal Peoples Reasons for migrating to the city are numerous but often reflect push factors (lack of resources, opportunity and excitement) and pull forces related to employment, education and lifestyle Structural, social and cultural factors are also important 7

12 8 Framing the Problem

Policy Problem Aboriginal Peoples have experienced poorer health status than the majority of Canadians. - Chronic diseases- Cancer - Mortality - Cardiovascular disease - FASD- Diabetes - Infectious disease (TB, STDs, AIDS) - Arthritis - Suicide rates- Smoking

14 Socio-Economic Status Aboriginal Peoples remain at the bottom of the socio-economic status Housing is inadequate Unemployment is a major cause of poverty Deterioration of Aboriginal cultural values Loss of language WHY? 10

15 Discussion Question  “Why are Aboriginals so consistently and significantly less well off than other Canadians?” (Richards 2006, 9) 15

Colonization “the subjugation of one people by another through destruction and/or weakening of basic institutions of the subjugated culture and replacing them with those of the dominant culture” (Lee, 1992: p.213).

The Indian Act, 1876 Define who is a “status Indian” Tool of colonization Regulates and controls every aspect of their life

Residential Schools Part of assimilation policy Removed Native children from their homes to be placed in religious based schools

19 14 The Canadian State and Aboriginal Peoples: The Politics of Reconciliation

How has the Canadian State engaged with Aboriginal peoples?

The Politics of “Reconciliation” 1966 The Hawthorn Report introduced the idea of citizens plus (p. 13) 1969 The White Paper proposes the discontinuation of special services for Aboriginal peoples and the assimilation of Aboriginal people into Canadian society (p. 15) 1973 The Calder decision determined that Aboriginal rights were pre- existing Canadian government agreed to constitutionally protect particular aspects of self-government agreements as treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, The Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples (p. 20) 1998 Gathering Strength – Canada’s Action Plan including a Statement of Reconciliation 2008 The Apology 2010 The endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Text

22 Discussion Questions What do you think the relationship should be between a state and Indigenous peoples? Is Canada a good role model in your opinion? Do Government policies contribute to the social problems in Aboriginal communities? 17

23 18 Three Models

24 Duelling Discourses: Two Models to the So Called “Indian Problem” Functionalist theorists look to assimilation as a solution. Aboriginal people should become more like “us” if they want to be successful. However, conflict theorists argue that Aboriginal people should be further removed from the mainstream in order to secure their distinctiveness and prosperity as a people. For Aboriginal people, the solution to the Indian problem lies in becoming less like the mainstream. Two questions to consider in constructing a new social contract for solving social problems are: 1. What do Aboriginal peoples want? 2. What is the government willing to concede? 19

25 Citizens Plus: A Third Model? Respects notion of Aboriginal rights and “positive recognition of difference” Recognizes power of Aboriginal nationalism and accepts aspects of dual citizenship Seeks practical solutions to making current self- government arrangements work better Concerned that Aboriginal nationalism often seek separateness, which cuts them off from solidarity with Canadians 20

26 Three Perspectives on Aboriginal Rights and Self-Government 1. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996 Report: parallel sovereignty 2. Thomas Flanagan, book in 2000 entitled First Nations, Second Thoughts: neo-liberal integration 3. Alan Cairns, book in 2000, Citizens Plus, more pragmatic recognition of difference. Discussion Question: Where do you stand? 21

27 Discussion Question  Are Aboriginal peoples in poverty and powerlessness because of a reluctance to assimilate into the mainstream? 27

28 22 Aboriginal Self- Governance

29 The Meanings of Aboriginal Self- Government Descriptions of Aboriginal self-government vary from the ideal of parity among Aboriginal, provincial, and federal legislative and financial authority to Descriptions of Aboriginal communities simply taking administrative control after governments have made the important policy and financial decisions A common sentiment is that colonial controls and the resulting abuses heaped on Aboriginal peoples for more than a century must be rejected 23

30 “ Cultural revival among Aboriginal people is just one step toward regaining what has been lost. Self-government is the other key to the future of Aboriginal people. When they are permitted to gain influence over the central institutions in their communities - the schools, the justice system, the child welfare system - Indian and Metis people have already demonstrated that they can repair the damage caused by centuries of racism and neglect” 24

31 Problems with Self-Government Self-Government is essentially glorified municipal government, which is far from the ideal of a third level of government that is equal in legislative and financial authority to the federal and provincial governments Differences about the most beneficial structure of self-government, about who controls what, about when self-government should be implemented, and about whether or not true self-government can ever be achieved Aboriginal self-government has no universal standard Self-government proposals also have critics among the very people within the communities for whom they are intended 25

32 The Nisga’a Self-Government The Nisga’a First Nations of Central BC have looked to Ottawa since 1885 to redress the unlawful surrender of their land to the Crown Here are some of the actual terms of the Nisga’a Final Agreement in May 2000: 5500 members of bands who live 800 kilometers north of Vancouver a land base of 1900 kilometres Control of forest and fishery resources Control over health care $200 million in cash Release from Indian Act provisions A supra-municipal level of government including control over policing, education, community services and taxes They will receive forest and timber cutting rights Oil and Mineral Resources $21.5 million to purchase boats and equipment 26

33 Criticisms of the Nisga’a Final Agreement This provides the Nisga’a Nations of British Columbia with more autonomy and self-government than it constitutionally deserves It confers benefits unavailable to other Canadians based solely on culture or skin colour Prohibits non-Nisga’a from voting for the regions administration, thus disenfranchising local residents who may be taxed without representation There is a third order of government-where citizens live by different rules than other citizens WHAT DO YOU THINK? 27

34 Discussion Question Can you think of some other solutions to solve the so-called “Indian” problem? Can you think of some other solutions to solve the so-called “Indian” problem? How does Idle no More factor into the politics of recognition? How does Idle no More factor into the politics of recognition? 34