mr. albert c. lo, chairperson (richmond, british columbia

Directions Vol 5 No 1 / vol 5, no 1Guest Editor/Éditorialiste invitéeMarie Battiste Ed.M., Ed.D., LL.D., D.H.L. (h.c.)

Editorial Advisory Panel/Comité consultatif de rédaction Agnes Calliste*, Ph.D. Associate Professor, St. Francis Xavier University (Antigonish, Nova Scotia)

Jean-Claude Icart*, professionnel de recherche, Centre de recherche sur l'immigration, l'ethnicité et la citoyenneté (CRIEC, UQAM), (Montréal, Québec)

Inez Elliston, Ph.D. (Unionville, Ontario)

David Este*, Ph.D. McGill, University Montreal, Quebec

Jo-Anne Lee*, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Victoria, (Victoria, British Columbia)

Wanda Thomas Bernard*, Ph.D. Dalhousie, UniversityHalifax, Nova Scotia

Karihwakeron Tim Thompson*, President and CEO -First Nations Technical Institute (Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, Ontario)

Sharon Venne*, Chief Negotiator for the Akaitcho Dene (Enoch, Alberta)

Mathew Zachariah, Ph.D. (Professor Emeritus, Calgary, Alberta)

*Research Advisory Panel Members

Executive Director/Directeur généralAyman Al-Yassini, Ph.D.

Managing Editor/Directrice-rédactrice en chefAnne Marrian (Programs Director, Community Support and Knowledge Base)

CRRF staff/Personnel de la FCRRSandra Carnegie-Douglas (Program Director

–Policy & Special Projects)Daniel Chong (Finance & Administration Director)Erin Dowe (Receptionist/Office Assistant)) (Leave of Absence) Dominique Etienne (Senior Social Development Officer)Patrick Hunter (Communications Director)Maggie Lewis (Library & Information Intern)Meg Mochizuki (Executive Secretary)Sandy Yep (Director of Education & Training)Sharry Zoubi (Receptionist/Office Assistant)

Production Management/Direction de la productionTrevor Smith

Translation/TraductionLise J. Roy, traductrice agréée

Design & Layout/Conception et mise en pageTDSmith Design

wPrinted on Canadian-made recycled paperImprimé sur papier canadien recyclé.

Contact us/Veuillez communiquer avec la :Canadian Race Relations Foundation4576 Yonge Street, Suite 701Toronto, ON. M2N 6N4Tel: 416-952-3501 Fax: 416-952-3326 Toll-free tel: 1-888-240-4936 Toll-free fax:1-888-399-0333email: [email protected]

Mr. Albert C. Lo, Chairperson(Richmond, British Columbia)

Ms. Lillian Nakamura Maguire,Vice-Chair (Whitehorse, Yukon)

Mr. Lyn Q. Chow (Calgary, Alberta)

Mr. Roman Melnyk (Toronto, Ontario)

Mr. Ashraf Ghanem (Fredericton, New Brunswick)

Executive DirectorDr. Ayman Al-Yassini (Toronto, Ontario)

Ms. Toni Silberman (Toronto, Ontario)

Ms. Nazanin Afshin-Jam (Vancouver, British Columbia)

Ms. Marge Nainaar (Prince Albert, Saskatchewan)

Ms. Claudia Patricia Cáceres Cáceres(Québec, Québec)

Government RepresentativeMr. Andrew Griffith(Gatineau, Quebec)

NAJC RepresentativeMr. Art Miki(Winnipeg, Manitoba)

CRRF Board of Directors/Conseil d’administration de la FCRR

2

Mission…To provide leadership to the building of a national framework for the struggle against racism in Canada. The Foundation will advance understanding of the pastand present causes and manifestations of racism. The CRRF will provide independent national leadership and serve as a resource and facilitator in the pursuit ofequity, healing, fairness and justice in Canada. The CRRF will contribute to Canada's voice in the international struggle against racism.

Founding…The CRRF was established as one part of the 1988 Japanese Canadian Redress Agreement to work at the forefront of efforts to combat racism in Canada. Underthe terms of the agreement, the CRRF received a one-time endowment of $24 million. The CRRF has registered charitable status and operates on income derivedfrom investments and donations.

The Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act of 1990 was proclaimed by the federal government in October, 1996, and the CRRF opened its doors inNovember 1997. The CRRF is a crown corporation, working at arm’s length from the federal government. The direction of the CRRF is vested in its Board ofDirectors, consisting of a chair and other directors across Canada. An executive director manages the CRRF’s day-to-day operations. All are appointed by thefederal Cabinet.

Vision…To be a leading and authoritative voice and agent in the struggle to eliminate racism in all its forms and to promote a more harmonious Canada.

Notre mission…La Fondation s’est engagée à instaurer un réseau national consacré à la lutte contre le racisme dans la société canadienne et à mieux faire comprendre les causeset manifestations passées et actuelles de ce fléau. Elle agit à titre de chef de file indépendant et consacre ses ressources à la poursuite de l’équité, de la guérison,du renouveau et de la justice sociale. La Fondation se fait de plus le porte-parole du Canada en matière de lutte internationale contre le racisme.

Historique…Créée à la suite de l’Entente de redressement à l’égard des Canadiens japonais, intervenue en 1988, la Fondation canadienne des relations raciales (FCRR) s’estengagée à être au premier plan des initiatives visant à combattre le racisme et toutes les formes de discrimination raciale au Canada. Conformément aux termesde cette entente, elle a reçu un fonds de dotation de 24 millions de dollars. Enregistrée à titre d’organisme de charité, elle exerce ses activités à l’aide des revenusprovenant du fonds de dotation et de la collecte de fonds.

La Fondation a été constituée par décret du gouverneur en conseil en octobre 1996 et a débuté officiellement ses activités en novembre 1997. Corporation dela Couronne n’ayant aucun lien de dépendance avec le gouvernement fédéral, elle est dirigée par un conseil d’administration composé d’un président etd’administrateurs représentant les provinces et territoires. Le fonctionnement quotidien de la Fondation est assuré par un directeur général. Tous sont nomméspar le gouverneur en conseil.

Vision…Agir à titre de chef de file et faire autorité en matière de lutte contre le racisme sous toutes ses formes et contribuer à l’essor d’une société canadienne plus har-monieuse.

Library and Archives Canada has catalogued this publication as follows:

Directions (Canadian Race Relations Foundation)Directions : research reviews from the Canadian Race Relations

Foundation = Directions : comptes rendus préparés par la Fondation canadienne des relations raciales.

Semiannual.Vol. 1, no. 1 (Mar. 2001)-Title from cover.Issues for 2007-have subtitles: research and policy on eliminating racism =

recherche et politique sur l’élimination du racisme.Includes some text in French.Includes bibliographical references.ISSN 1700-2109

I. Canadian Race Relations Foundation II. Title: Research reviews from the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. III. Title: Comptes rendus préparés par la Fondation canadienne des relations raciales. IV. Title : Research and policy on eliminating racism. V. Title: Recherche et politique sur l’élimination du racisme.

FC104.D47 2001- 305.8'00971'05 C2001-301214-2

Données de catalogage avant publication de la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Directions (Fondation canadienne des relations raciales)Directions : research reviews from the Canadian Race Relations Foundation =

Directions : comptes rendus préparés par la Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Publication semestrielleVol. 1, no. 1 (Mar.2001)-Titre de la page couvertureNuméros de l’année 2007 – sous-titre : research and policy on eliminating racism = recherche et politiques sur l’élimination du racismeComprend des textes en françaisainsi que des références bibliographiquesISSN 170-2109

I. Canadian Race Relations Foundation. II.. Title : Research reviews from theCanadian Race Relations Foundation. III. Titre : Comptes rendus préparés par laFondation canadienne des relations raciales. IV. Title : Research and policy on eliminatingracism. V. Titre : Recherche et politiques sur l’élimination du racisme.

FC104.D47 2001- 305.8’00971’05 C2001-301214-2

The analysis, views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the contributors and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.

Copyright © 2008 by the Canadian Race Relations FoundationPrice: $22.50 CDNAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage or retrievalsystems without the permission of the publisher.

Les analyses, conclusions et opinions exprimées dans cette publication sont celles des collaborateurs et ne sont pas nécessairement partagées par la Fondation canadienne desrelations raciales.

Droits d’auteurs © 2008 détenus par la Fondation canadienne des relations raciales.Prix : 22,50 $CANTous droits réservés. Il est interdit de reproduire ou de transmettre cette publication, en totalité ou en partie, sous aucune forme, mécanique, électronique ou autre, notamment par procédéde photocopie ou par systèmes de mise en mémoire ou de récupération de l’information, sans le consentement exprès de la Fondation.

Directions Vol 5 No 1, vol 5, no 1EDITORIAL

4 Editorial Commentary/ÉditorialMarie Battiste

8 Viewpoint • Point de vueLen M. Findlay

DEPARTMENTS

16 Books, Art and Poetry • Livres, arts et poésieHistorical Contributions of Aboriginal Peoples to Canadian Culture and IdentityDeborah Lee

25 Trends • TendancesLand Rights of Indigenous Peoples – not racistSharon Venne

29 PolidiscriminationKiera L. Ladner

37 Can Institutional Systems Learn to Listen? Alex Wilson and Janet Sarson

40 Constitutional Supremacy and the Deadbeat Crowns Suprématie constitutionnelle et gouvernements irresponsablesJames [Sa’ke’j] Youngblood Henderson

44 Two-spirit Identity:

Active resistance to multiple oppressionsAlex Wilson

46 Brief concerning Urban Aboriginal Homelessness in QuebecRegroupement des centres d’amitié autochtones du Québec

50 The Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge as Reconciliationand RestorationLorna Williams

53 Residential Schools and the role of Aboriginal YouthJaime Koebel

56 Kapp’s distinctions: Race-Based Fisheries, the Limits ofAffirmative Action for Aboriginal peoples and SkirtingAboriginal peoples’ Unique Constitutional Status Once AgainJune McCue

FEATURE ARTICLES & PAPERS

64 Resistance, Recognition, Respect: Protocol latest attempt tosecure the place of Métis in CanadaRésistance, reconnaissance, respect : Le Protocole d’entente,la plus récente tentative visant à assurer la place des Métis au Canada Clément Chartier

68 Canaries on Ice: Inuit identity and climate changeLes Inuits et le changement climatique : Des canaris sur la glace?Katherine Minich

73 Racism and the "Reasonable Person": UnderstandingSystemic DiscriminationLe racisme et la « personne raisonnable » : aide à la com-préhension de la discrimination systémiquePatricia A. Monture

81 Constitutional Reconciliation of Education for Aboriginal peoples La réconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et leurs droits éducationnels Marie Battiste

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales4

Confronting systemic discrimination against Aboriginal peo-ples is this issue’s key theme. Systemic discrimination domi-nates political and policymaking spheres, creating massive dis-criminations against Aboriginal persons, whether as groups oras individuals. Systemic discrimination compounds familiarsources of individual discrimination. It operates through inac-tion, silence, neglect, and indifference to the aboriginal,human, and treaty rights, stifling the talents and opportunitiesof individuals while sustaining poverty and malaise and affect-ing diverse social, cultural, political, economic, spiritual, andphysical outcomes among Aboriginal peoples.

The federal Crown has crafted and generated this neglect andindifference for Canadians. Canadians no longer know thetruth, believing that Aboriginal peoples’ third world livingconditions are derived from racial or cultural inferiority andbelieving their requests for respect for their rights—treaty, abo-riginal, and human— are the products of an irrational or spe-cial interests minority who are unwilling to accept their status.These crafted rationalizations generate persistent prejudice anddiscrimination against Aboriginal peoples rather than reme-dies. The federal Crown continues to refuse to eliminate pover-ty among First Nations and Inuit, using allocated money tosupport the bureaucratic imposed status quo. The bureaucracyand politicians attempt to hide these failures by tellingCanadians how much they are spending on Aboriginal peoples’problems, but ignore the recommendations of the RoyalCommission on Aboriginal peoples and other studies, imply-ing that these failures are part of a lack of character or causedby their own doing. In short, they manipulate the discoursesand policies to conceal the consequences of systemic discrimi-nation against Aboriginal peoples.

Editorial CommentarySystemic Discrimination Against Aboriginal Peoples

Marie Battiste, Ed.M., Ed.D., LL.D., D.H.L. (h.c.)

Marie Battiste is Mi’kmaq from the Potlo’tek First Nation ofUnama'ki, Nova Scotia. She is full professor in the Department ofEducational Foundations at University of Saskatchewan, since 1993.More recently she has been appointed Academic Director of theAboriginal Education Research Centre in the College of Educationand Co-Director of the national Aboriginal Learning KnowledgeCentre of the Canadian Council on Learning.

Éditorial Les peuples autochtones et la discrimination systémique

Marie Battiste M.Éd., D.Éd., LL.D., D.H.L. (h.c.)

Marie Battiste est une Mi’kmaq de la Première nation de Potlo’tek, àUnama’ki (Cap-Breton), en Nouvelle-Écosse. Depuis 1993, elle estprofesseure et coordonnatrice de l’Indian and Northern EducationProgram du Department of Educational Foundations de l’Universitéde la Saskatchewan. Elle a récemment été nommée directrice d’étudesà l’Aboriginal Education Research Centre qui vient d’être créé àl'Aboriginal sein du College of Education.

Ce numéro porte sur la lutte contre la discrimination systémiquedirigée contre les peuples autochtones. La discrimination sys-témique domine les milieux de la politique et de la formulationdes politiques; elle marginalise considérablement lesAutochtones, autant collectivement qu’individuellement. Cetype de discrimination combine des sources familières de dis-crimination individuelle. Elle est entretenue par l’inaction, lesilence, le manque d’attention, et l’indifférence aux droits desAutochtones, aux droits de la personne et aux droits issus detraités. Elle réprime les talents et les possibilités des individusautochtones tout en perpétuant la pauvreté et le malaise et enproduisant diverses conséquences nuisibles sur le plan social, cul-turel, politique, économique, spirituel et physique.

L’État fédéral a généré et a façonné ce manque d’attention, cetteindifférence, chez les Canadiens. Les Canadiens ne connaissentpas la vérité, ils croient que les conditions de vie des peuplesautochtones, semblables à celles du tiers monde, sont le résultatd’une infé-riorité raciale ou culturelle et que leurs revendicationsde droits—fondées sur les traités, le statut autochtone ou lesdroits de la personne— sont le fait d’une minorité irrationnelleou d’un intérêt particulier qui refuse d’accepter sa condition. Cesrationalisations génèrent des préjugés et de la discriminationcontre les peuples autochtones. L’État fédéral continue à refuserd’agir pour éliminer la pauvreté parmi les Premières nations et lesInuits en utilisant les fonds qui leur sont affectés pour appuyer unstatut quo imposé par la bureaucratie. La bureaucratie et lespoliticiens essaient de cacher ces échecs en informant lesCanadiens des montants affectés aux problèmes des Autochtonesalors qu’ils ne tiennent pas compte des recommandations de laCommission royale sur les peuples autochtones et d’autresétudes, et entretiennent l’idée que les échecs résultent d’unmanque de caractère ou sont causés par les actes des Autochtoneseux-mêmes. En bref, ils manipulent les discours et les politiquespour dissimuler les conséquences de la discrimination systémiquedirigée contre les peuples autochtones.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation 5

A second subtheme emerging from this issue on systemic dis-crimination against Aboriginal peoples is constitutional recon-ciliation and remedies. Aboriginal people are confronted withsystemic discrimination against their constitutional rights,rights they hold as collective peoples derived from pre-existingsovereignty and treaties, which are not like the individualrights of Canadians. Yet they do not have anyone to oversee theprotection of those rights. The courts have affirmed the rights,but government resists implementing them. Aboriginal peo-ples have proposed that creating an Aboriginal AttorneyGeneral can protect their constitutional rights from abuse bypoliticians and bureaucrats, yet this proposed solution has metwith deaf ears. Constitutional and systemic remedies can elim-inate systemic discrimination.

Our feature essay written by Patricia Monture offers anoverview of the characteristics and the damages of systemic dis-crimination, how it is understood and tested in courts, as wellas the limits of such tests in courts that miss the real contextand effects of racism that affect the mental, emotional, as wellas the spiritual and physical well-being of individuals and col-lectives. Canada is not a safe place yet for Aboriginal people.As well, Canadians are not aware of the large-scale impacts and"layers of intersectional oppressions such as addiction, vio-lence, lack of educational opportunities, over-incarceration,fracturing of family bonds, [and] loss of language" onAboriginal peoples. The gap gets larger yet we do not have sta-tistics that speak to that gap, rather the ones that furtherpathologize Aboriginal peoples.

To understand why systemic discrimination continues requiresthat we understand how whiteness is complicit with and is thecornerstone foundation of Eurocentric systemic discriminationin Canada. This feature essay written by a non-Indigenous crit-ical theorist Len M. Findlay helps Canadians understand howracialization of Aboriginal peoples comes without a criticalperspective of the contesting position of Eurocentric superior-ity that underlies race relations. He asserts skin color does mat-ter to Canadians as internalized racism is about perceiving theworth and value of people in everyday relations and in themthe distribution of power and privilege. He offers Canadiansthree pillars to take up challenge.

Kiera L. Ladner’s examines the contributions Indigenous peo-ples have made to the concepts of governance to Canada, rec-ognizing how treaties made that possible in the first place. Yet,she notes, once established, settlers’ political and economicself-interests motivate them to break the promises of thetreaties, ignore Crown orders for payment and consultation

Un sous-thème est également abordé, celui de la réconciliation etdes solutions constitutionnelles. Les Autochtones sont confrontésà la discrimination systémique contre leurs droits constitution-nels, droits qu’ils détiennent collectivement en tant que peuple etqui sont dérivés de leur souveraineté antérieure et des traités, dif-féremment des droits individuels des Canadiens. Ils n’ont cepen-dant aucun organisme pour veiller à la protection de ces droits.Les tribunaux ont affirmé ces droits mais le gouvernement résisteà leur mise en application. Les peuples autochtones ont proposéla création d’un poste de Procureur général autochtone qui pro-tégerait leurs droits constitutionnels contre les abus des politicienset des fonctionnaires mais les gouvernements font l’oreille sourdeà cette proposition. C’est par les remèdes constitutionnels et sys-témiques que la discrimination systémique peut être éliminée.

L’essai de Patricia Monture offre une vue d’ensemble des carac-téristiques de la discrimination systémique, du préjudice qui enrésulte, de la façon dont les tribunaux la comprennent et descritères qu’ils appliquent, ainsi que des limites de ces critères quiignorent le contexte et les effets réels du racisme sur la santé men-tale, émotionnelle, spirituelle et physique des individus et des col-lectivités. Le Canada n’est pas encore un lieu sûr pour lesAutochtones. De plus, les Canadiens ne sont pas encore cons-cients des impacts à grande échelle sur les peuples autochtones oudes « couches d’oppressions intersectionnelles telles que la toxi-comanie, la violence, le manque d’accès à l’enseignement, l’incar-cération excessive, la rupture des liens familiaux, et la disparitiongraduelle de leurs langues ». Alors que l’écart se creuse, nousn’avons pas les données statistiques qui permettraient de réduireles écarts mais plutôt celles qui font la pathologie des peuplesautochtones.

Pour comprendre la continuité de la discrimination systémique,nous devons comprendre la manière dont la blancheur est à la foisla pierre angulaire et la complice de la discrimination systémiqueeurocentrique au Canada. L’essai du théoricien critique non-autochtone Len M. Findlay aidera les Canadiens à comprendreque la racisation des peuples autochtones arrive sans une perspec-tive critique de l’assertion de la supériorité eurocentrique quisous-tend les relations raciales. Il affirme que la couleur de la peauest effectivement importante pour les Canadiens, car le racismeinternalisé affecte la perception de la valeur des personnes dans lesrapports quotidiens et, par le fait même, la distribution du pou-voir et du privilège. Monsieur Findlay offre aux Canadiens troispiliers pour relever le défi de devenir une société post-raciste.

Kiera L. Ladner examine les apports des peuples autochtonesaux méthodes de gouvernance du Canada et reconnaît que cesont les traités qui ont d’abord rendu ce gouvernement possible.Toutefois, note-t-elle, une fois que les colons se sont établis, leursintérêts politiques et économiques les ont incités à manquer auxengagements pris dans les traités, à ne pas tenir compte desordonnances de la Couronne concernant le paiement et la con-


with First Nations to receive any land, and attempt to destroythe First Nations governments through legislation, replacing"inclusive consensual and democratic Indigenous political sys-tems with undemocratic and unrepresentative systems of colo-nizers."

Sakej Henderson argues that the governments of Canada, fed-eral and provincial/territorial "continue to block Aboriginalnations from assuming the broad powers of governance thatwould permit them to fashion their own institutions and workout their own solutions to social, economic, and political prob-lems." Systemic discrimination ushered in by racial and cul-tural superiority is its source.

Education is one of those places where Canadians believeAboriginal peoples get "free" education. My essay, MarieBattiste, offers how First Nations peoples education is a treatyright, different from other citizens of Canada, but needs since1982 and the Constitutional affirmation of Aboriginal andtreaty rights, the constitutional powers of the provincial/terri-torial and federal laws and policies must be reconciled with theconstitutional rights of Aboriginal people.

Intergenerational impacts of residential schools continue toreverberate among the descendents and relatives of those whoattended those schools. Jaime Koebel, a Métis youth advocate,seeks to enlarge the space and opportunities for the voices ofyouth as they build their leadership from within to make theirimpact on the future and on their collective.

In 1982, Section 35 of the Constitution of Canada provided therecognition of aboriginal and treaty rights, and also namedthree distinct aboriginal groups: First Nations, Métis andInuit. Those rights are still evolving for the Métis; however,with the signing of a Métis Nation Protocol agreement, ClemChartier and the Métis Nation see a glimmer of hope for theirfuture work together with Canada.

Inuit food security is intimately connected to the land, oceans,and global warming. A petition to the Inter AmericaCommission on Human Rights (IACHR) for violations causedby nations that disregard this fact is the basis for KatherineMinich’s essay that suggests further the limits of internationallaw for helping to address the problems among the Inuit, butprovides a process for asserting self-determination on the basisof their Inuit identities.

Sharon Venne asserts we are living in a colonial Canada, not adecolonized neocolonial Canada. By colonial laws, discourses

sultation des Premières nations avant l’octroi des terres, et à essa-yer de détruire les gouvernements des Premières nations par leurlégislation, en remplaçant « des systèmes politiques autochtones,rassembleurs, consensuels et démocratiques, par des systèmescolonisateurs, moins démocratiques et non représentatifs. »

Sakej Henderson soutient que les gouvernements canadiens,tant fédéral que provinciaux et territoriaux, « continuent àempêcher les nations autochtones d’assumer les vastes pouvoirsde gouvernance qui leur permettraient de façonner leurs propresinstitutions et d’élaborer leurs propres solutions aux problèmessociaux, économiques et politiques ». La discrimination sys-témique fondée sur la supériorité raciale et culturelle est la sourcede ce blocage.

L'éducation est l’un des domaines où les Canadiens croient queles peuples autochtones sont avantagés : une éducation « gra-tuite ». Mon essai fait remarquer que l’éducation est un droit con-féré aux Premières nations par traité, différent des autres citoyensdu Canada, mais que depuis l’affirmation des droits ancestrauxou issus de traités dans la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, les pou-voirs constitutionnels des provinces et territoires ainsi que les loiset politiques fédérales restent à concilier avec les droits constitu-tionnels des Autochtones.

Les dommages causés par les pensionnats indiens continuent dese transmettre d'une génération à l’autre, parmi les descendants etles parents des victimes. Jaime Koebel, un intervenant des ser-vices à la jeunesse métisse, cherche à augmenter les possibilitésoffertes aux jeunes pour se faire entendre alors qu’ils développentleur leadership en commençant par l’intérieur, afin de marquerleur avenir et leur collectivité.

En 1982, l’article 35 de la Constitution du Canada a reconnu lesdroits, ancestraux et issus de traités, des peuples autochtones. Letexte de la loi désigne trois groupes autochtones distincts : lesIndiens (Premières nations), les Inuits et les Métis du Canada.Pour les Métis, ces droits sont encore en évolution; toutefois, à lasuite de la signature d’un Protocole de la Nation Métis, ClémentChartier et la Nation Métis voient poindre une lueur d’espoirpour l'avenir en collaboration avec le Canada.

La sécurité alimentaire est intimement liée à la terre, aux océanset au réchauffement de la planète. Une pétition présentée à laCommission interaméricaine des droits de l'homme (CIDH),concernant les violations commises par les nations qui ne tien-nent pas compte de ce fait, est la base de l’essai de KatherineMinich. L’auteure suggère le recours au droit international pourfaciliter la résolution des problèmes auxquels sont confrontées lescollectivités inuites, mais elle offre un processus visant à affirmerl’autodétermination sur la base de leur identité inuite.


of justification of racism and superiority, court tests ofIndigenous peoples rights to title, and doctrines of discovery,forms of legitimacy making on Indigenous homelands are con-tinuing in the national and international arena with the Statesstill holding to the integrity of States sovereignty overIndigenous peoples rights.

It has been long noted that systemic discrimination in theworkforce and in the manner by which health services aredelivered to Aboriginal peoples lead to significant disparities inthe health status of Aboriginal peoples. Alex Wilson and JanetSarson’s essay asks a question in the title "Can InstitutionalSystems Learn to Listen? Developing an effective strategy toimprove Aboriginal peoples’ health status." This strategy is toincrease the number of First Nations, Inuit and Métis healthprofessionals, for as they note, "Aboriginal people are theirown experts" and empowering the youth, adult learners, andbuilding on their knowledge will go a lot further in improvinghealth of Aboriginal peoples.

Homeless Aboriginal people are growing in cities, towns andreserves, a problem to which the Native Friendship Centreoffer a summary of a report of the migration of Aboriginal peo-ples to the city, the reasons, the problems of housing, poverty,and multiple ruptures of the social and cultural bonds. Theyalso offer possible alternatives to address homelessness and pre-vention activities, strengthened by their own work with urbanAboriginal peoples.

‘Two spirit’ is a term that reclaims an identity stolen by homo-phobia and racism among Aboriginal peoples. Alex Wilsonshares its origins and its power and authority for self- repre-sentation that two-spirited peoples can use to recentre what isimportant to them.

Indigenous Studies Portal Librarian, Deborah Lee provides anarchival collection from the Library and Archives Canada torefute inferiority in a pictorial story, illustrating persistentforms of accomplishment and innovation, collaboration andcollective artistry, creativity and partnerships amongAboriginal peoples.

Sharon Venne affirme que nous habitons toujours dans unCanada qui est colonial et non décolonisé ou néocolonial. Par leslois coloniales, les discours de justification du racisme et de lasupériorité, les critères juridiques utilisés pour les titres ancestrauxaux terres des peuples autochtones et par les doctrines de ladécouverte, les pays et les forums internationaux continuent delégitimer les atteintes à la patrie des peuples autochtones, en sou-tenant toujours la primauté de l’intégrité de la souveraineté desÉtats sur les droits des peuples autochtones.

Il est reconnu depuis longtemps que la discrimination systémiqueen matière d’emploi et de prestation de services de santé aux peu-ples autochtones crée des disparités importantes. Alex Wilson etJanet Sarson pose une question dans le titre de leur essai : « Lessystèmes institutionnels peuvent-ils apprendre à écouter?L’élaboration d’une stratégie efficace pour améliorer la santé desAutochtones ». Cette stratégie vise à accroître le nombre de pro-fessionnels de la santé issus des Premières nations et des milieuxinuits et métis. Elles rappellent que « les Autochtones sont lesexperts en matière autochtone » et soutient que la santé des peu-ples autochtones s’améliorera davantage en habilitant les jeunes etles apprenants adultes et en mettant à profit les connaissances desAutochtones.

Le nombre d’Autochtones itinérants ne cesse de croître dans lesvilles et dans les réserves. Le Regroupement des centres d’ami-tié autochtones offre le résumé d’un rapport sur la migration despeuples autochtones à la ville : les motifs du déplacement, lesproblèmes du logement, la pauvreté et les multiples ruptures desliens sociaux et culturels. Le groupe offre des solutions derechange possibles pour remédier au problème de l’itinérance,ainsi que des activités de prévention, et met à contribution l’ex-périence de son propre travail auprès des Autochtones dans lesmilieux urbains.

Le terme « bi-spirituel » permet de récupérer une identité qui aété volée par l’homophobie et le racisme. Alex Wilson nousexplique les origines du terme, son pouvoir et l’autorité qu’elleconfère aux gens bi-spirituels de se représenter et de recentrer cequi est important pour eux.

Deborah Lee, bibliothécaire du « portail en études autoch-tones », puise dans la collection de Bibliothèque et ArchivesCanada pour réfuter la thèse de l’infériorité en présentant un récitimagé qui jette un éclairage nouveau sur des formes persistantesde réalisations et d’innovation, de collaboration et d’art collectif,de créativité et de partenariat parmi les Autochtones.

8 Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

AbstractSystemic racism in Canada is rooted in colonialpresumption, needs, and practices, and has there-fore for centuries been directed most concertedly atFirst Nations, Inuit, and Métis people. Even at atime of increasingly official anti-racism and com-mitment to a public culture of redress, the problemof white privilege remains. In order for Canada tobecome acceptably post-racist it needs first tobecome thoroughly post-colonial. Three keys tothis decolonizing process are cognitive justice, cul-tural portage, and visionary civics.

Systemic RacismHow does systemic racism occur and, even worse,recur or persist? One answer lies in the histories ofboth "system" and "race" and the circumstances ofthese terms’ combination. But neither the phe-nomenon of systemic racism nor the damage itdoes to both racists and those racialized occurs onlyin language. To be sure, words may wound as effec-tively as they may welcome, and the discursivedimensions of racism offer invaluable evidence ofwhat racism is and does. But racism is perpetratedand experienced in many forms and situations; itdraws on fully embodied experience in a specificterritory shared (or contested) with others. It can-not be fully understood, far less defeated, througha single disciplinary lens or from a single socialposition. Indeed, it takes lots of diversely talentedpeople a great deal of thought, effort, and con-spiracy to deny dignity, talent, and a full humanityto other people on the basis of their racialized dis-tinctiveness and to consign them to a sterile orcontaminated margin of territory and status--oreven to outright extinction. And it requires a col-lective, multi-talented, trans-cultural, ultra-deter-mined effort to undo the damage caused by such

denial and consignment. In Canada this power

dynamic applies most conspicuously to our First

Nations, Inuit, and Métis whose prior occupancy

and generous interactions with newcomers made

and still makes them the oldest, most durable, and

After Systemic Racism: The Canada We Can BeLen M. Findlay, M.A. D.Phil. F.R.S.C.

most lucrative target for unscrupulous settler agen-das. Being here first and being everywhere aroundhas for Aboriginal people meant being the primor-dial and ongoing target of newcomers’ resentfuldependency, treachery, greed, and genocide.

Racism appeals to the worst in individuals on thebasis of a demonstrable fiction, namely ‘race.’ Itmobilizes the negative consequences of suchappeals within economic, political, and socio-cul-tural systems convinced of their own validity andwith the power to enforce compliance or punishdissent. Accordingly, aggregates of individual big-otry produce a state apparatus to nationalize andlegitimize the move from human difference asenrichment to human difference as a difficulty orblemish to be removed, more or less violently orinvasively, in a process blending purity withprogress while devaluing otherness. On a personallevel, ignorance and fear are activated and reward-ed so that the domination or elimination of differ-ence will appear an act of charity or an act of God.Ignorance and fear breed phantasies like the neces-sary adversary or the undeserving Indian whichfind themselves grander names as they go abouttheir colonizing business: names like history, the-ology, philosophy, anthropology, law, science, cul-

ture, civilization, modernity.

Whatever the dominant systems in the colonizingapparatus, whether faith-based or knowledge-based or both, they behave too often as creatures ofan over-arching arrogance and rapacity whileingeniously denying their connections to anunderlying hatred. Whether sanctimonious orpseudo-scientific, racism is the reliable and effi-cient fuel and output of colonialism, in Canada aswell as elsewhere, overcoming the misgivings andrecantations of individual colonizers and often tak-ing on the aspect of common sense or of a sporad-ically compassionate social Darwinism. It is there-fore no coincidence that self-righteous and pseu-do-scientific racisms were at their height precisely

About the AuthorLen M. Findlay is Professor ofEnglish and Director of theHumanities Research Unit at theUniversity of Saskatchewan. A for-mer President of ACCUTE andVice-President of HSSFC, he wasfor three years senior policy analyston universities for the Province ofSaskatchewan. Widely publishedin 19th-century European topicsand increasingly in CanadianStudies, his recent work includes anew edition of The CommunistManifesto (Broadview 2004),"Specters of Canada: Image, Text,Aura, Nation" (UTQ 2006),"Towards Canada as AestheticState: François-Xavier Garneau’sCanadien Poetics" (SCL 2007),and collaborative projects for theAustralian Journal of AboriginalEducation and for the Office of theTreaty Commission ofSaskatchewan. He is currentlywriting a polemic in the vein ofGeorge Grant's Lament for aNation, entitled Dissent for aNation, and an intellectual biogra-phy of Alexander Morris.

VIEWPOINT


when Canada was working towards political independencefrom Britain, so that a foundational act of emancipation andAnglo-French entente could double as an act of racist subordi-nation and resettlement. Virtually every aspect of Canadiannation-building in the nineteenth century depended onAboriginal land and Indigenous knowledge, even while bothwere being resituated within the frame of quasi-benevolentpaternalism where treaties could become pro forma exercises ofconciliation-on-the-cheap and the honour of the Crown bereduced to a cynical fiction.

The systemic becomes self-sustaining by gathering the willing,the less willing, and even the actively unwilling behind policiesand practices that demonize and assault other social fabrics andtheir attendant knowledge systems to produce such convenient‘truths’ as: "Our systems are rational and moral, yours irra-tional and immoral." Thus does policy seduce or co-opt oppor-tunistic or timid individuals and people of good will in acts ofcollective bad faith which Alexander Morris during the signingof the numbered treaties nervously endorsed as "the cunningof the white man." (Treaties 96)

Individualizing and personalizing the challenge of racial dis-crimination is part of the antidote to the poisons it purveysand the injustices it seeks to legitimate, but this anti-racistimpulse needs to be nourished and rewarded with all the con-sistency and resourcefulness that went into conceptualizingand implementing discrimination as dehumanization and dis-possession in the first place. The systemic needs to be chal-lenged at the level of the system, especially when racial dis-crimination is now illegal in Canada yet thrives inadvertent-ly in the form of "white privilege" (McIntosh) invisible tomany of its beneficiaries or encrypted in meritocratic hypewhich ignores or aggravates social and economic disparitiesbetween Aboriginal and other Canadians. Here is where the

enabling instruments and institutions of colonialism need tobe transformed or replaced. Moreover, decolonizing our insti-tutions is work for us all, Aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.To this end, Aboriginal Canadians have developed a brilliantdouble gesture to remedy and move beyond their split-headcondition, both mastering the knowledge systems of the dom-inant and refusing their arbitrary ignorance and unfairness.And the fashioners of this Aboriginal renaissance have inspiredand instructed non-Aboriginal scholars working towards adouble gesture of their own to counter the operating contra-dictions of a colonial project both civilizing and brutalizing,Christian and cruel. Each of these double gestures seeks toexpose and eradicate the deep complicities of Eurocentricknowledge with Euro-Canadian colonialism while attending

respectfully and patiently to those aspects of IndigenousKnowledge made available within appropriate protocols ofexchange by Aboriginal thinkers, activists, colleagues, neigh-bours, friends. The most recent books by Sa’ke’j Hendersonand John Ralston Saul offer guidance and inspiration aplentyfor those who seek to make our country more consistently andinclusively what it ought to be: a just society. Let’s hope theirvoices and those of their many supporters at last convince theskeptics and the nay-sayers that Canada has been and contin-ues to be immeasurably enriched by its Aboriginal peoples.

Three Keys to the Canada We Can Be: Cognitive Justice,Cultural Portage, and Visionary CivicsAs Canadians look to multiple anti-racist remedies within anincreasingly public culture of redress with its formal govern-mental apologies, compensation provisions, and Truth andReconciliation Commission, I would like to highlight threekeys to unlocking the doors to mutual understanding andmore respectful, sustainable exchange across differences toooften openly racialized in the past and tacitly racialized in thepresent..

One such key, aptly originating with a scholar from the globalsouth, is "cognitive justice" (Santos), understood modestly as"prudent knowledge for a decent life." Santos’ phrase and briefdefinition offer a reminder and an agenda. Human cognitionis an extraordinary thing, but it will be more broadly beneficialthan divisively harmful only if it is harnessed to a concept likejustice which is descriptive, eagerly trans-systematic, and aspi-rational in accord with the covenants and aims of the move-ment for international human rights and the human rights ofIndigenous peoples. Santos combines what some would see asutopian language to sustainability and the needs of otherseverywhere on the planet, and not to supremacist selfishnessand unlimited ‘growth.’ This example of the so-called margintalking back to imperialist centres underscores the multi-directional flow of knowledge and counsel that has alwayscharacterized colonizing projects but rarely been admitted toor welcomed by colonial powers. Such knowledge and counselis generated from Aboriginal sources all across Canada, if onlywhite Canada learns to listen and listens to learn from the moststigmatized and exploited of its others.

A second key is one I recently introduced in my catalogue essayfor an exhibition featuring the visual work of Lori Blondeau ofthe Gordon First Nation in Saskatchewan, co-founder of theAboriginal-run artist collective, Tribe, and an internationallyacclaimed curator and performance artist. Lori’s work causedme to think once again outside the Euro-centric box, this time

VIEWPOINT


of cultural portage as an effortful moving of experiences,ideas, and shareable agendas from one navigable site to anoth-er. Portage is strongly associated with the voyageurs and thepenetration of the Canadian interior via the fur trade. But ofcourse the First Nations had been using such techniques longbefore contact with newcomers. The portage is, then, an activ-ity expressive of development yet profoundly dependent onAboriginal knowledge and the reliable technologies of prioroccupation. It is an activity with an important history whichno-one today can monopolize and which Aboriginal artists andscholars are reclaiming in endlessly imaginative, carefullyresearched, decolonizing work. Moreover, it is a term stronglyassociated with the sense of movement intrinsic to creativityitself and available also in concepts like metaphor, translation,and discovery. It points to a moment of going beyond wherewe currently are and transforming some things we take with uswhile preserving others unchanged. Lori Blondeau takes thehuman body, especially the thoroughly racialized femaleAboriginal body, including her own body, and re-marks it inways that move us with some collective effort to a place wherewe can once again make progress. The participants in thisprocess are Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, and they bear acommon freight of durable and mutable socio-cultural prac-tices, values, meanings. We can move to the next stage of thisanti-racist project only if we collaborate respectfully, each usingher or his version of the portage strap and doing her or hisshare of the work. The journey undertaken involves culturalopenness and mutual discovery, and gestures towards sustain-able futures together rather than the avaricious designs of colo-nial monoculturalists. And we are lucky indeed to have bril-liant and courageous guides like Lori Blondeau to help us onour way.

My third and symptomatic key to changing Canada may seemlike yet another tool for assimilation of Aboriginal people tothe Euro-Canadian mainstream, but this holds only if we

assume civics to be a white monopoly, and the civis or cityfrom which civics derives its name to be an essentially whitespace where brown presences are ghettoized or criminalized, iftolerated at all. Canada’s cities need to be seedbeds of visionary,post-racist civics, and to do so they need to be creative notonly in Michael Florida’s sense of being receptive to the artsand to all sorts of human differences; they need also to attendto their own particular histories and territories, and the firstpeoples of those territories, in order to change urban spacesinto new configurations of rootedness and movement, resi-dence and transience, that fuel opportunity and friendshiprather than endangerment and exclusion. Both city and coun-try, places of distinctive gathering and dispersal, need to beseen once again through Aboriginal eyes as well as settler-scopes, and recreated as places of sharing and security thatrethink relations to the land as well as the built environment,and do so by investing massively in education for the Canadawe can be. This entails speaking truth to power, of course,and having the courage and knowledge to remind all those inpositions of authority to heed the lessons of multiple historiesand cartographies of violence and care, and of the protractedfailure to understand treaty federalism and make it work for allCanadians as it was intended and crafted to do. But it alsomeans speaking youth to power, in an effort of intercultural,intergenerational solidarity that insists that all our young peo-ple receive an education that empowers them through honour-ing their distinctiveness as well as the gifts and aspirations theyshare with others. Our classrooms are where this visionarycivics can take hold and then take over the Canadian publicsphere and public policy. Our classrooms are where we canmost critically and creatively reclaim what we have been andinfuse the best of that legacy into the heart of what we do

henceforth. The task is difficult but not impossible. As some-

one charismatic recently said, and to astonishing global effect,

"Yes we can!"

ReferencesFindlay, L. M. "Lori Blondeau: Cultural Portage and the (Re)markable Body." Lori Blondeau: Who do You Think You Are?

Exhibition Catalogue. Saskatoon: Mendel Art Gallery, 2008. 7-17.Florida, Richard. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge, 2005. Henderson, James Sa’ke’j Youngblood. Indigenous Diplomacy and the Rights of Peoples: Achieving UN Recognition. Saskatoon:

Purich Publishing, 2008. McIntosh, Peggy. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An

Integrated Study. Ed. Paula S. Rothenburg. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. 165-9.Morris, Alexander. The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories including the Negotiations

on which they were based. Toronto:Belfords, Clarke & Co, 1880. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa ed. Cognitive Justice in a Global World: Prudent Knowledges for a Decent Life. Lanham: Lexington

(Rowman & Littlefield), 2007. Saul, John Ralston. A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada. Toronto: Viking Canada, 2008.

VIEWPOINT

11Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Ce que le Canada peut devenir!Len M. Findlay, M.A., D.Phil., F.R.S.C.

À propos de l’auteur :Len M. Findlay est professeur delittérature anglaise et directeur del’unité de recherche en scienceshumaines à l’université de laSaskatchewan. Ancien président del’association des professeursd’anglais ACCUTE et vice-prési-dent de la Fédération canadiennedes sciences humaines, il a été pen-dant trois ans analyste des poli-tiques sur les universités pour lecompte de la Province deSaskatchewan. Auteur de nom-breux ouvrages sur l’Europe dudix-neuvième siècle et, de plus enplus, en matière d’études canadi-ennes, il a notamment réalisé unenouvelle édition du Manifestecommuniste (Broadview 2004),rédigé "Specters of Canada: Image,Text, Aura, Nation" (UTQ 2006)et "Towards Canada as AestheticState: François-Xavier Garneau’sCanadien Poetics" (SCL 2007) et aparticipé à des projets concertésauprès du Australian Journal ofAboriginal Education et de laTreaty Commission ofSaskatchewan. Il écrit actuellementune polémique intitulée Dissent fora Nation, dans le style de l’ouvragede George Grant, Lament for aNation, ainsi qu’une biographieintellectuelle d’Alexander Morris.

POINT DE VUE

RésuméLe racisme systémique au Canada a ses racines dansla présomption coloniale et dans les besoins et lespratiques du colonialisme. Ainsi, il a surtout ciblédepuis des siècles les Premières nations et les peu-ples inuits et métis. Même à une époque d’anti-racisme officiel ascendant, et d’engagement enfaveur d’une culture publique de réparation, leproblème du privilège blanc demeure. Pour devenirpost-raciste dans une mesure acceptable, le Canadadoit d’abord devenir complètement postcolonial.Trois éléments clés de ce processus de décolonisa-tion sont la justice cognitive, le portage culturel etle civisme visionnaire.

Le racisme systémiqueDe quelle façon le racisme systémique s’est-ildéveloppé ou, pire encore, comment revient-il ouperdure-t-il? Une des réponses se trouve dans leshistoires du « système » et de la « race » et dans lescirconstances où ces concepts se sont retrouvés enassociation. Toutefois, ni le phénomène du racismesystémique ni les torts qu’il cause, à la fois aux per-sonnes racistes et aux personnes en souffrant, ne selimitent au langage. Il est vrai que les mots peuventblesser aussi bien qu’ils peuvent être acceptés et quele discours du racisme offre des preuves incontesta-bles de la nature du racisme et de ses conséquences.Mais le racisme est perpétré et vécu sous plusieursformes et dans plusieurs situations; il est nourri parune expérience concrète sur un territoire précis quiest partagé avec autrui ou contesté. Le racisme nepeut être entièrement compris, encore moinsdéconstruit, à partir de la perspective d’une seulediscipline ou d’une position sociale unique. Eneffet, il regroupe un grand nombre de personnes,aux talents divers, investissant beaucoup d’efforts,de conspiration, pour refuser de reconnaître la di-gnité, les talents et le caractère humain d’autrespersonnes en fonction de certaines distinctionsassociées à la race, et pour les reléguer à une margestérile ou contaminée du territoire et du statut

social – voire à l’extinction absolue. De même, uneffort collectif, transculturel, très déterminé et met-tant à contribution divers talents, est requis pourréparer les dégâts causés par un tel déni, une tellerelégation. Au Canada, cette dynamique du pou-voir s’applique de la manière la plus évidente auxPremières nations, aux Inuits et aux Métis qui, depar leur présence antérieure et leurs rapportsgénéreux avec les nouveaux venus, ont été, et sonttoujours, la cible la plus ancienne, la plus durableet la plus rentable pour les programmes de coloni-sation sans scrupules. Les peuples autochtones,pour avoir été les premiers à occuper ces terres et detoujours s’y trouver, ont été la cible primordiale etpermanente de la dépendance rancunière des nou-veaux venus, de leur traîtrise, de leur cupidité et deleur génocide.

Le racisme fait appel aux aspects les plus négatifsdes gens et repose sur une fiction. Il mobilise lesconséquences négatives des aspects attrayants dansle cadre de systèmes économiques, politiques etsocioculturels assurés de leur propre validité et quiont le pouvoir d’imposer l’acquiescence et de punirla dissidence. Ainsi, la somme des préjugés indi-viduels produit un appareil d’État qui nationalise etrend légitime le passage d’une notion de la dif-férence humaine comme une difficulté ou unetache à éradiquer, de façon plus ou moins violenteou envahissante, dans un processus qui mêle lapureté au progrès tout en dévaluant l’altérité. Auniveau personnel, l’ignorance et la peur sont mobi-lisées et récompensées de sorte que la dominationou l’élimination de la différence est perçue commeun acte de bienfaisance ou un cas fortuit.L’ignorance et la peur donnent lieu à des fantasmescomme celui de l’adversaire nécessaire ou del’Amérindien indigne. À mesure que ces fantasmesfacilitent la colonisation, différents épithètes leursont donné, selon l’époque, comme l’histoire, lathéologie, la philosophie, l’anthropologie, le droit,la science, la culture, la civilisation, la modernité.


Quels que soient les systèmes prédominants dans l’appareilcolonisateur, qu’ils soient fondés sur la religion, le savoir ou lesdeux, ils se comportent trop souvent avec une arrogance et unerapacité toute puissante, tout en niant ingénieusement leursliens à une haine sous-jacente. Qu’il soit moralisateur ou pseu-do-scientifique, le racisme est à la fois le carburant et le produitdu colonialisme, fiable et efficace, au Canada comme ailleurs;il surmonte les doutes et les rétractations de colonisateurs indi-viduels et revêt souvent l’aspect du bon sens ou d’unDarwinisme social sporadiquement compatissant. Ce n’estdonc pas une coïncidence que les racismes moralisateurs etpseudo-scientifiques ont atteint leur zénith précisément àl’époque où le Canada progressait vers son indépendance poli-tique de la Grande-Bretagne, de sorte que son acte fondateurd’émancipation et d’entente anglais-français puisse être enmême temps un acte de déménagement forcé et de subordina-tion raciste. Presque toutes les facettes du développement de lanation canadienne au dix-neuvième siècle dépendaient des ter-res et du savoir autochtones, même si les deux étaient resituésdans le cadre d’un paternalisme quasi bénévole où les traitéspouvaient devenir des exercices pro forma de conciliation à bonmarché et où l’honneur de la Couronne pouvait être réduite àune fiction cynique.

Ce qui est systémique assure sa continuité en rassemblant ceuxqui sont bien disposés, moins disposés et même ceux qui sontactivement non disposés à appuyer le régime, autour de poli-tiques et de pratiques qui diabolisent et qui attaquent d’autresstructures sociales et d’autres systèmes de connaissances pourproduire des « vérités » convenables comme : « Nos systèmessont rationaux et moraux, les vôtres irrationnels et immoraux ».Ainsi la politique séduit-elle ou coopte-t-elle des individusopportunistes ou timides, des gens de bonne foi, dans des actesde mauvaise foi collective qu’Alexander Morris, au cours de lanégociation des traités numérotés, a approuvé, quoique defaçon nerveuse, comme « l’astuce de l’homme blanc ». (Treaties96)

Individualiser et personnaliser le défi de la discriminationraciale fait partie de l’antidote aux poisons que celle-ci répandet aux injustices qu’elle cherche à légitimer, mais cette impul-sion antiraciste doit être nourrie et récompensée avec autant deconstance et d’ingéniosité que celles qui ont d’abord servi àconceptualiser et à implanter la discrimination comme proces-sus de déshumanisation et de dépossession. Ce qui est sys-témique doit être contesté au niveau du système, surtout à uneépoque où la discrimination raciale est illégale au Canada maisdemeure florissante sous forme d’un « privilège blanc »involontaire (McIntosh) qui est invisible à la plupart de ses

bénéficiaires ou encrypté dans un baratin de méritocratie quiocculte ou aggrave les disparités sociales et économiques entreles Autochtones et les autres Canadiens. C’est là que les instru-ments et institutions coloniaux qui rendent la chose possibledoivent être transformés ou remplacés. D’ailleurs, la décoloni-sation de nos institutions est notre tâche à tous, Autochtoneset non-Autochtones. Dans ce but, les Canadiens autochtonesont élaboré un double geste brillant pour remédier à leur con-dition « split-head », divisée entre l’âme autochtone et la têteeurocentrique, et la dépasser, à la fois en maîtrisant les systèmesde connaissances du groupe dominant et en refusant leur igno-rance arbitraire et leur injustice. Et les créateurs de cette re-naissance autochtone ont inspiré et instruit des intellectuelsnon autochtones qui s’emploient à élaborer leur propre doublegeste pour contrer les contradictions opérationnelles d’un pro-jet colonial à la fois civilisateur et brutalisant, chrétien et cruel.Chacun de ces doubles gestes vise à exposer et à éradiquer lescomplicités profondes entre le savoir eurocentrique et le colo-nialisme euro-canadien, tout en écoutant respectueusement etpatiemment les aspects des connaissances autochtones rendusdisponibles, par des méthodes d’échange pertinentes, par despenseurs autochtones, des militants, collègues, voisins, amis.Les derniers livres de Sa’ke’j Henderson et de John RalstonSaul offrent beaucoup de conseils et d’inspiration à ceux et àcelles qui voudraient faire du Canada un pays qui serait, defaçon plus régulière et plus inclusive, ce qu’il devrait être : unesociété juste. Espérons que leurs voix et celles des nombreusespersonnes qui appuient leurs positions sauront enfin convain-cre les sceptiques du fait que le Canada a été enrichi de façonincommensurable par ses peuples autochtones et continue del’être.

Trois éléments clés pour le Canada que nous pouvonsdevenir : Justice cognitive, Portage culturel et CivismevisionnaireLes Canadiens trouvent aujourd'hui plusieurs remèdesantiracistes dans le cadre d’une culture publique de plus enplus marquée par une volonté d’offrir des réparations : l’État aprésente ses excuses officielles, prévu des indemnisations et missur pied la Commission de vérité et de réconciliation. Dans cecontexte, je tiens à souligner trois éléments facilitant la com-préhension mutuelle et un échange plus respectueux et durableà travers des différences qui ont trop souvent été ouvertementracialisées par le passé et qui demeurent tacitement racialiséesde nos jours.

Une première clé qui, avec propos, provient d’un intellectueldu Sud du monde, est la « justice cognitive » (Santos), qui secomprend modestement comme des « connaissances pru-

POINT DE VUE


dentes pour une vie décente ». L’expression de Santos et sacourte définition offrent un rappel et laissent entrevoir un pland’action. La cognition humaine est une chose extraordinaire,mais pour qu’elle soit largement bénéfique, au lieu de créer desdivisions, elle doit être attelée à une notion comme celle de lajustice, une justice descriptive, passionnément transsystéma-tique et qui aspire au changement, conformément aux ententeset aux objectifs du mouvement international pour les droits dela personne et notamment les droits des peuples autochtones.Santos allie ce que d’aucuns appelleraient un langage utopiqueau concept de durabilité et aux besoins des autres partout surla planète, et non à un égoïsme qui croit à la suprématie d’unerace ou d’une culture, ni à la « croissance » illimitée. Cet exem-ple d’une voix marginale qui répond aux centres impérialistessouligne le flux multidirectionnel des connaissances et des con-seils qui a toujours caractérisé les projets colonisateurs mais quia rarement été reconnu ou accepté par les puissancescolonisatrices. Ces connaissances et ces conseils sont générés desources autochtones aux quatre coins du Canada, pour peu quele Canada blanc apprenne à écouter les personnes les plus stig-matisées et exploitées vivant au pays et, écoute pour apprendre.

Une deuxième clé est celle dont j’ai parlé dans un texte publiédans le catalogue d’une exposition de l’œuvre graphique deLori Blondeau, membre de la Première nation Gordon, enSaskatchewan, cofondatrice de Tribe (un regroupementd’artistes dirigé par des Autochtones) , conservatrice d’exposi-tions de renommée internationale et artiste de la scène.L’œuvre de Lori m’a fait, encore une fois, sortir des sentiers bat-tus de la pensée eurocentrique. Cette fois, j’ai pensé au portageculturel, un laborieux déplacement d’expériences, d’idées et deprogrammes partageables, d’un lieu navigable vers un autre. Lanotion du portage est fortement associée aux voyageurs et à lapénétration de l’intérieur du Canada par la traite des fourrures.Évidemment, les Premières nations utilisaient cette techniquebien avant leurs premiers contacts avec les nouveaux venus. Leportage est donc une activité qui exprime le développementtout en étant profondément tributaire des connaissancesautochtones et des technologies fiables qui servaient à l’occu-pation antérieure. C’est une activité qui possède une histoireimportante que personne ne peut aujourd'hui monopoliser etque les artistes et intellectuels autochtones sont en train derécupérer par un travail décolonisateur, infiniment imaginatifet soigneusement recherché. De plus, c’est un terme fortementassocié au sens du mouvement, intrinsèque à la créativité etégalement exprimé dans des concepts comme la métaphore, latraduction ou la découverte. Il désigne un moment de dépasse-ment de notre situation actuelle, dans lequel on transforme cer-taines choses que nous apportons alors que nous en préservons

d’autres inchangées. Lori Blondeau prend le corps humain,surtout le corps profondément racialisé de la femmeautochtone, y compris son propre corps, pour le remarquer defaçons qui nous transportent, avec un certain effort collectif,jusqu’à un lieu où nous pouvons encore une fois réaliser desprogrès. Les participants à ce processus, Autochtones commenon-Autochtones, portent une charge commune composée depratiques, de valeurs et de significations socioculturellesdurables et mutables. Nous ne pouvons passer à la prochaineétape de ce projet antiraciste qu’ collaborant respectueusement,chacun utilisant sa version de la courroie de portage et faisantsa part du travail. Le voyage entrepris implique l’ouverture cul-turelle et la découverte mutuelle ainsi que des gestes vers unavenir durable, plutôt que les complots avares des monocultu-ralistes coloniaux. Et nous sommes très chanceux d’avoir desguides brillants et courageux comme Lori Blondeau pour nousindiquer la voie.

Ma troisième clé pour changer le Canada, une clé symptoma-tique, pourrait sembler être encore un outil pour l’assimilationdes peuples autochtones dans la culture dominante euro-cana-dienne, mais cela n’est vrai que si nous tenons pour acquis quele civisme est un monopole des Blancs, et que le civis (ville),dont le nom est dérivé, est essentiellement un lieu blanc où lespersonnes de couleur sont ghettoïsées ou criminalisées, si ellessont tolérées. Les villes du Canada doivent devenir despépinières d’un civisme visionnaire, post-raciste, et pour cefaire, elles doivent être créatrices, non seulement au sens queMichael Florida donne au mot – accueillir les arts et toutessortes de différences – elles doivent également s’occuper deleurs propres histoires et territoires, afin de changer les espacesurbains en nouvelles configurations d’enracinement et de mou-vement, de résidence et de migration, qui alimentent les possi-bilités et l’amitié plutôt que de créer le danger et l’exclusion. Laville et la campagne, lieux distincts de rassemblement et de dis-persion, doivent être de nouveau regardées à travers des yeuxautochtones aussi bien que ceux des colonisateurs, et recrééscomme des lieux de partage et de sécurité qui repensent leursrapports à la terre ainsi qu’à l’environnement construit, eninvestissant massivement en éducation pour le Canada quenous pouvons devenir. Pour y arriver, il faudra bien sûr rap-peler aux gens de pouvoir le concept de vérité et avoir lecourage et les connaissances requises pour également leur rap-peler qu’ils doivent faire attention aux nombreuses leçons tiréesdes histoires et cartographies de la violence ainsi que de la bien-veillance et du défaut éternisé de comprendre le fédéralisme detraité et de le faire fonctionner pour tous les Canadiens commeil a été conçu. Mais il faut aussi parler aux gens de pouvoir del’apport des jeunes, dans un effort de solidarité interculturelle

POINT DE VUE


et intergénérationnelle qui insiste pour que tous nos jeunesreçoivent une éducation qui leur donne des forces en honorantleurs distinctions ainsi que les talents et aspirations qu’ils parta-gent avec d’autres. C’est dans nos salles de classe que ce civismevisionnaire peut s’implanter, pour ensuite conquérir l’espacepublic canadien et la politique d’État. C’est dans nos salles de

classe que nous pouvons réclamer ce que nous avons déjà été etinsuffler le meilleur de ce patrimoine au cœur de ce que nousaccomplirons. La tâche est difficile mais elle n’est pas impossi-ble. Rappelons que quelqu'un de charismatique a récemmentemployé une expression qui a fait un écho retentissant dans lemonde : « Yes we can! »

RéférencesFindlay, L. M. "Lori Blondeau: Cultural Portage and the (Re)markable Body." Lori Blondeau: Who do You Think You Are?

Exhibition Catalogue. Saskatoon: Mendel Art Gallery, 2008. 7-17.Florida, Richard. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge, 2005. Henderson, James Sa’ke’j Youngblood. Indigenous Diplomacy and the Rights of Peoples: Achieving UN Recognition. Saskatoon:

Purich Publishing, 2008. McIntosh, Peggy. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An

Integrated Study. Ed. Paula S. Rothenburg. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. 165-9.Morris, Alexander. The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories including the Negotiations

on which they were based. Toronto:Belfords, Clarke & Co, 1880. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa ed. Cognitive Justice in a Global World: Prudent Knowledges for a Decent Life. Lanham: Lexington

(Rowman & Littlefield), 2007. Saul, John Ralston. A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada. Toronto: Viking Canada, 2008.

POINT DE VUE

JOIGNEZ VOS EFFORTS À CEUX DE LA FCRR POUR ÉLIMINER LE RACISME AU CANADA

DIRECTIONS : Recherche et politiques sur l’élimination du racisme - se démarque des autres publications par son étude approfondie de la lutte contre le racisme.

Par la création d’un forum national favorisant le dialogue constructif et la recherche sur les droits de la personne et la lutte contre le racisme, DIRECTIONS met l’accent sur la sensibilisation du public, le développement des connaissances et la discussion des questions délicates se rapportant à la lutte contre le racisme au Canada.

En tant qu’organisme à but non lucratif, la Fondation compte sur les contributions financières et les partenariats pour être en mesure de financer la publication et la distribution de cet important ouvrage.

Joignez vos efforts à ceux de la Fondation et des autres organismes et institutions d’avant-garde en contribuant au mandat essentiel de cette publication.

Pour obtenir des renseignements sur les niveaux de financement, veuillez communiquer avec :Fondation canadienne des relations raciales4576, rue Yonge, bureau 701Toronto (Ont.) M2N 6N41 888 [email protected]


Appel d’offresLes numéros de l’année 2009

Depuis 1998, la Fondation canadienne des relations raciales subventionnedes projets de recherche traitant du racisme systémique ciblant les mem-bres des groupes racisés et les peuples autochtones, particulièrement enmatière d’éducation. De par son mandat, la Fondation s’est engagée àappuyer la recherche-action participative à laquelle contribuent leschercheurs universitaires et les organismes communautaires pour tirerparti de tous les niveaux de compétence. Elle veille de plus à concrétiser lesconclusions et les recommandations des travaux de recherche, à contribuerau développement d’une politique de lutte contre le racisme, et à endivulguer les résultats à grande échelle. DIRECTIONS constitue l’une destribunes servant à publier les études sur la lutte contre le racisme et à en fairela promotion.

La Fondation invite la soumission de documents en français et en anglaisprovenant de chercheurs des milieux urbains ou ruraux de tout le Canada.Ils doivent faire valoir la lutte contre le racisme au Canada. Les articles etrapports d’organismes communautaires, préparés en collaboration avecd’autres chercheurs, sont les bienvenus. Tout le matériel est examiné parle Comité consultatif de rédaction avant d’être publié.

Les projets de recherche doivent : • contribuer par leur valeur ajoutée à caractère unique aux débats

présentement en cours en matière de relations raciales et de luttecontre le racisme au Canada;

• avoir des répercussions sur les pratiques et politiques relatives auracisme systémique à tous les échelons, à savoir celui de l’emploi,de l’éducation, du système de justice pénal et ceux visant parti-culièrement les peuples autochtones;

• traiter de questions d’intérêt national ou régional ayant des réper-cussions directes en matière d’élimination du racisme au Canada;

• mettre l’accent sur la promotion des stratégies concrètes visant àfaire valoir l’égalité des droits de tous les Canadiens, notammentdes minorités visibles et des peuples autochtones.

Lignes directrices à l’intention des auteurs :• Les articles, rapports ou exposés doivent être clairs, compréhen-

sibles et être à la portée de l’ensemble des lecteurs.• La Fondation se réserve le droit de modifier les documents ou

d’exiger leur révision.• Tous les projets doivent être soumis à la Fondation en trois exem-

plaires imprimés et sous forme électronique. • Les documents doivent porter les références et les renvois en bas de

page selon le protocole de l’American Psychological Association.• Les droits d’auteur demeurent la propriété des auteurs.• Les points de vue exprimés par les auteurs ne sont pas nécessaire-

ment ceux de la Fondation. • Les articles, de 1500 à 2500 mots, et les résumés, d’environ

100 mots, doivent être présentés en français et en anglais.

Veuillez faire parvenir une version électronique en format Microsoft Word à :

Anne Marrian, directrice-rédactrice en chefFondation canadienne des relations raciales4576, rue Yonge, bureau 701Toronto (ON) M2N 6N4Tél. : (416) 952-3501Téléc. : (416) 952-3326Courriel : [email protected]él. sans frais : 1 888 240-4936Téléc. sans frais : 1 888 399-0333

General Call for Papers 2009 issues of DIRECTIONS

Since 1998, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) has fund-ed research projects that focus on eliminating systemic racism experiencedby racialized minorities and Aboriginal peoples in the areas of education,employment and the justice system. The CRRF is committed to sup-porting participatory action research where academic researchers areencouraged to work with community-based organizations thus combin-ing knowledge from both levels. Our goal is to ensure that the researchfindings and recommendations contribute to the development of anti-racist policy, are actionable and the results are promoted widely. DIREC-TIONS is one of the platforms used to publish and promote researchabout anti-racism.

The CRRF invites papers in English and French from rural and urban set-tings across Canada, with a strong focus on anti-racism in Canada.Articles and reports from community-based organizations and academicswill be welcomed. All material is reviewed by the Editorial AdvisoryBoard CRRF staff prior to publication.

The CRRF will consider papers, reviews and article that: • Make a unique, value-added contribution to current policy debates

in anti-racism and race relations in Canada. • Impact policies and practices in the area of systemic racism at every

level, education, racism against Aboriginal peoples and racism inthe justice system.

• Address issues of national and/or regional relevance that have directimplications for the elimination of racism in Canada.

• Focus on advancing concrete strategies and demonstrate the impactof these strategies in advancing equality for all Canadians, particu-larly those from racialized groups and Aboriginal peoples.

Guidelines for authors:• Articles, reports or briefings should be clear, understandable and

accessible to a wide readership.• The CRRF reserves the right to edit papers and to request revi-

sions.• All submissions should be made available to the CRRF in hard

copy and electronic format. Authors should submit three hardcopies.

• Articles should be appropriately footnoted and reference and bibli-ographies should follow the (American Psychological Association(APA) style as outlined in the guidelines for authors published inthis issue.

• Copyright is held by the authors.• Views expressed by authors are not necessarily those of the CRRF.• Word Count: Article/Report: 1,500 – 2,500 words.

Abstract: 100 word abstract in English and French

Please send an electronic-version in Word Format to:Anne Marrian Managing EditorCanadian Race Relations Foundation4576 Yonge Street, Suite 701Toronto, ON. M2N 6N4Tel: 416-952-3501 Fax: 416-952-3326 email: [email protected] tel: 1-888-240-4936Toll-free fax:1-888-399-0333


"We must come together with one heart, onemind, one love and one determination" –Algonquin Elder William Commanda,"Ojikwanong", holder of three wampum belts,including the Seven Fires Prophecy Belt

"It was prophesized that the time would comewhen the voice of Indigenous peoples would riseagain after five hundred years of silence andoppression, to light a path to an eternal fire ofpeace, love, brotherhood and sisterhood amongstall nations" – Seven Fires Prophecy

IntroductionOne option to counter the effects of systemic racismrelated to Canada’s Aboriginal peoples is to providesome commentary on and celebrate our contribu-tions to Canadian culture and identity. Much of theInformation provided in this article is not new; how-ever, the presentation method may differ from thenorm. As well, sometimes we need to be reminded(nudged) about events and ideas that people tend toforget, i.e. in terms of a paradigm shift with the out-come of changing ingrained or persistent stereo-types. This pictorial essay will incorporate images ofsome of our best achievements, our cultural (andperhaps genetic) memories, or events from the pastthat do us proud as Aboriginal peoples. The imagesthat are incorporated here are archival, are copy-right-expired and therefore do not warrant permis-sions for reproduction. The use of these images(with credits) is strictly because they are in the pub-lic domain. I want to make it clear that by usingthese images, it is not, my intention to perpetuatethe colonial notion that Aboriginal peoples in thiscountry have disappeared, have totally assimilated,or that we are best known from historical sources.To the contrary, we continue to interact in dynamicways, as no doubt the other authors writing for thisissue of Directions will also demonstrate.

The purpose of this essay is to provide Aboriginaland non-Aboriginal people with some images and

ideas about how our First Nations, Inuit and Métishave contributed to the enhancement of Canadianidentity and culture. These images and ideas canthen be used as a backdrop from which to juxtaposethe systemic racism that Aboriginal peoples face, ona daily basis. Further, with the content of this essay(and this journal as a whole), we will then have holis-tic reference points from which to interact with con-fidence, knowing the value of Aboriginal contribu-tions to Canadian culture and identity. In otherwords, rather than acting from a basis of denial andstereotypic thinking and from positions of oppres-sion and colonization, we can act (if we so choose)from a place of knowledge, spirit and well-being.After all, the history taught in the school systems isrooted in the colonization ideology from the per-spective of the colonizer. A shift in curriculumdevelopment to include Aboriginal issues at everylevel of education is long overdue. Educational pro-grams across Canada need to include mandatoryAboriginal Studies courses from kindergartenthrough secondary school.

Historical Contributions of Aboriginal Peoplesto Canadian Culture and IdentityDeborah Lee, M.L.I.S

Tom Longboat (1887-1949), Canadian Runner, Onondaga, standing with Trophy (1907). Credit: Charles A. Aylett (Photographer) /Library and Archives Canada / C-014090

BOOKNOTES

About the AuthorDeborah Lee, is an AboriginalLibrarian of Cree and Mohawkancestry. She is the IndigenousStudies Portal Librarian andTeam Leader at the University ofSaskatchewan, in Saskatoon.Deborah has also worked as aReference Librarian at Libraryand Archives Canada in Ottawa,as well as the former NationalLibrary of Canada. She is alsoactive with various groups suchas the International IndigenousLibrarians Forum and theLibrary Services for Sask-atchewan Aboriginal PeoplesCommittee. Deborah has pub-lished in various academic jour-nals including the Journal ofLibrary Administration and theCanadian Journal of NativeEducation.


BOOKS, ART & POETRYSportsI wanted to start with our athletes especially since Canadians ingeneral are passionate about sport. Here we see a photo of TomLongboat, from the Six Nations Reserve, who won the BostonMarathon in 1907 and the World’s Professional MarathonChampionship in 1909 (Kidd, 1980).

Tom Longboat’s contribution to Canadian identity is significantbecause he was recognized internationally and early on in thehistory of this country as a marathon runner with talent aunique style of running. There are other Aboriginal athletes whohave made a name for Canada over the years, including AlwynMorris, a Mohawk from Kahnawake who won an Olympic goldmedal for pairs kayaking (with Hugh Fisher) in 1984. Therewere also the Firth sisters (Shirley and Sharon), twins from theGwich’in First Nation in Aklavik near Inuvik, who representedCanada in cross-country skiing for four consecutive OlympicGames from 1972 to 1984. And there is the major contributionof the sport of lacrosse, which originated with Canada’s FirstNations people.

Athletics was a way of life for our ancestors who lived ourMother Earth hunting, trapping and fishing. Below is an imageof our people on the Prairies snowshoeing and using archery tohunt the buffalo.

Aboriginal continue to participate in sport in various ways acrossCanada. The Aboriginal Sport Circle has worked to revitalizeAboriginal sport by providing access to more equitable sport andrecreation opportunities for youth since 1995. Youth train forand participate in the recurring North American IndigenousGames (NAIG) that began in Edmonton in 1990 with 3000athletes and most recently was held in Cowichan (BritishColumbia) in 2008, with over 9000 participants. (Seehttp://www.cowichan2008.com/ for more information). Inaddition, the NHL has had on their roster Aboriginal sportsmenthe like of Ted Nolan, Wayne "Gino" Odjick, Jordan Tootoo,Jonathan Cheechoo, and Chris Simon.

Finally, the upcoming Winter Olympics 2010 in Vancouver usesthe Inukshuk as the symbol of Canadian identity in promotingthe Games. The Inukshuk derives from Inuit people, and itsoriginal purpose was to act as a marker for those lost in theArctic enabling them to find their bearings, and sometimes tolead the way to good hunting.

Natural Resources and TradeAnother Aboriginal contribution to Canadian society was theeconomics of trading natural resources evidenced by earlyreports (discussed by Dickason, 1984) of the abundance of foodand other resources upon the arrival of the newcomers. Thebounty of wild game and birds, fish and especially agriculturalproducts (including corn, root vegetables and berries) across theland has been documented (Parker, 1983; Kuhnlein & Turner,

Men from the Mohawk Nation from Kahnawake (Caughnawaga) who were the Canadianlacrosse champions in 1869.

Credit: James Inglis (photographer) / Library and Archives Canada / C-001959

Indian Hunters pursuing the buffalo in the early spring. Watercolour, ca. 1822. Artist: Rindisbacher, Peter, 1806-1834. Place unknown.Credit: Library and Archives Canada, Acc. No. 1981-55-68, Bushnell Collection.

Enukso (Inukshuk), Mar. 11, 1924. Credit: L.T. Burwash (photographer) / Canada. Dept. of Indian and Northern Affairs /

Library and Archives Canada / PA-176566


BOOKS, ART & POETRY1991; Peacock, 1998; McClurken, 2000; Zarrillo & Kooyman,2006). It has been widely acknowledged that if not for thisabundance of resources, the newcomers would not have stayeddue to the harsh weather conditions in winter; neither wouldthey have survived without the assistance and generosity provid-ed by the Indigenous peoples.

Below is a sketch of some of the plant life encountered by thenewcomers not too long after contact. Included in these botan-ical studies is a drawing of blueberries, known for their high con-tent of Vitamin C and possibly used for medicinal properties tocounter symptoms of scurvy (although some attribute this ben-efit to a tea made from boiling white cedar needles and bark).Other plants depicted here, such as Larch (treatment for coughsby the Abenaki and Algonquins) and Service Tree (used by theCree for treating inflammatory diseases and pleurisy), were alsomedicinal in nature (see Moerman, 1998).

The bounty that was available to the newcomers was largely dueto the Indigenous peoples close ties to the land, taking their roleas stewards of the land seriously. The way of life and uneven dis-tribution of resources necessitated strong reciprocal relation-ships conducive to trade and commerce. This piece of docu-mentary art suggests the industrious nature of an Aboriginal vil-lage settlement. A sense of bounty as a result of successful traderelations is depicted.

Below is a photo of a successful fishing catch on the NorthwestCoast (Vancouver Island), suggesting the bounty of this way oflife. It is reminiscent of the gift-giving that was (and is) so mucha part of trading life and of the potlatch ceremony that cele-brated the rich resource base that West coast Indigenous peoplesenjoyed and share with newcomers..

In addition, trade relationships were strong on the Prairies, withthe establishment of countless Hudson Bay and NorthwestCompany trading posts (such as at Fort Garry, York Factory,Norway House, Oxford House, Cumberland House, Fort

Larch, Blueberry, Savine, Service Tree and Boxwood. Botanical studies of plants date1665 or 1744. Credit: Library and Archives Canada / Bibilothèque et Archives Canada(R9266-2593) Peter Winkworth Collection of Canadiana

Indian settlement at Sault Ste. Marie (Ontario) with the canal in the background.Watercolour, 1869. Artist: Armstrong, William, 1822-1914.

Credit: Library and Archives Canada, Acc. No. 1970-188-2230

The salmon are shown in motion in the drag seine net (a large net to circle the salmon onthe Nimpkish River (B.C.). 1930. Credit: E. Finn (Photographer) / National FilmBoard of Canada / Library and Archives Canada.


BOOKS, ART & POETRYCarlton, Fort Edmonton, Fort Chipewyan, etc.), throughoutthis vast region. Below is a photo of Chief Big Bear and tradepartners at Fort Pitt, N.W.T. (now Saskatchewan).

Documentation on the trade networks across Turtle Island exist-ed long before the arrival of the Europeans (see Dickason, 2002,p. 59). The Huron or Wendake people were an agricultural trib-al group that grew surplus corn and squash, and collected sever-al kinds of berries and nuts. They also traded with many groups,including the Algonquins, the Cree and the Innu. Likewise, theOjibway people harvested wild rice for trade purposes (and stilldo). Below is a photo of Indigenous people (possibly Ojibway)gathering wild rice in more modern times in Ontario.

Marine shells, copper and obsidian were also traded widelyacross what we now call North America. An interesting aside is

that the Iroquois had traded as far south as the lands of the

Seminole (present day Florida). This is where the "AlligatorDance" originated and was brought to the Mohawks, and hasrecently been practiced on Mohawk reserves, such as atKahnawake (Heth, 1992).

Mistahi Muskwa (Big Bear ca. 1825-1888), a Plains Cree Chief trading. 1884. At FortPitt. Included are (left to right): Four Sky Thunder, Okemow Peeayis (Sky Bird, BigBear’s third son), Matoose (seated), Napasis, Mistahi Muskwa (Big Bear), OttoDufresne, Louis Goulet, Stanley Simpson, Mr. Rowley (seated), Alex McDonald(behind wheel), Capt. R.B. Sledge, Mrd Edmund (seated), and Henry Dufrain.Credit: O.B. Buell / Library and Archives Canada / PA-118768.

Indians gathering wild rice (at Rice Lake, Ont.). Oct. 14, 1921. Credit: John Boyd /Library and Archives Canada / PA-084653. Photographer: John Boyd, 1865-1941.

Trade networks were essential for the success of the fur trade,which flourished across the land for two hundred years or more.The most essential mode of transportation used to advance thetrade was the canoe, especially given its ease of use on both waterand land, such as by way of portaging. Despite its lightweightnature, the canoe could carry several times its weight in cargo.The making of birchbark canoes was especially ingenuousbecause "the bark of the birch is capable of sophisticated shap-ing into elegant and sophisticated forms…Unlike many otherbarks, birchbark does not shrink or stretch and is remarkablystrong (Jennings, 2002, p. 15). Not only did the First Nationsperfect the design and construction of various types of canoes(depending on their geographic location and the types of waterthey faced, i.e. ocean vs. river), they also perfected its navigationthrough rough waters. This piece of documentary art capturesthe skill attributed to the Mi’kmaq people in navigating a canoein dangerous circumstances.

In the West, the Red River cart was also used, mostly by theMétis, in transporting furs.

The Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island were at first considered

necessary partners in the development of the fur trade. After all,

Micmac Indian Poling a Canoe Up a Rapid, Oromocto Lake, New Brunswick.Watercolour, 1835-1846.

Artist: Levinge, Richard George Augustus (1811-1899). Credit: Library and ArchivesCanada, Acc. No. R9266-302 Peter Winkworth Collection of Canadiana.

Fort Smith Slave Lake / H.B. Co’s Transport Loaded with Fur. No date (public domain).Photo taken from the book, "Forty Years in the Northwest" by W.J. Carter.

Credit: Mathers, C.W. (photographer). University of Saskatchewan Libraries SpecialCollections.


BOOKS, ART & POETRY1949 creation date for Aboriginal contributions to the arts. Itseems that even though our people have always been producingart, we have not been recognized for it until recently (for exam-ple, James Houston’s assistance with promoting Inuit art onlybegan about 1949). Online photos of Inuit artists are availablewith a copyright date starting approximately in the 1950s.However, our Inuit art is renowned worldwide: when the worldthinks of Canadian art, they mostly think of Inuit art. In theForeword to van Finckenstein’s book, Adrienne Clarkson states,

"[Inuit art] is also an art that has so successfully transcendedartistic and cultural boundaries that it has come to representthe very essence of Canada. I remember a time – not so longago- when the only art that seemed to identify Canada with-out question was either by the Group of Seven or by Inuit artistKenojuak Ashevak, Peter Pitseolak, Piseolak Ashoona, LucyQinnuyuak, and others." (p. 8).

First Nations artists have also brought recognition to Canada,such as Daphne Odjig, who was one of four artists in the worldinvited to paint a memorial work of Picasso for exhibition at thePicasso Museum in Antibes, France, in 1986. Likewise,Anishnabe artist, Rebecca Belmore, represented Canada at theVenice Biennale in 2005.

Our Aboriginal authors, poets and writers are also doing theirpart to contribute to a much richer Canadian literature scenethat is appreciated by mainstream audiences (including TomsonHighway’s plays and Thomas King’s CBC Massey Lectureseries).

And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the success of

Zacharias Kunuk’s film, "Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner", which by

2003, was the most financially successful Canadian movie ever.

Other neglected areas in this essay of recent Aboriginal contri-butions include what so many communities are doing forAboriginal education (such as new publications written byAboriginal authors aimed at mainstream Aboriginal Studies cur-riculum in high schools), justice initiatives (including sentencingcircles and restorative justice programs), and various self-gover-nance initiatives (the most successful of which is the establish-ment of the new Territory of Nunavut and its government,which is based on Inuit culture, traditions and values).

But what I would like to close with is a depiction of how vibrantour culture is with an archival photo of a powwow scene fromSaskatchewan. Today, one of the events that instills the mostpride in Aboriginal communities is our powwows.

the Europeans who arrived to exploit the fur trade were neitherinterested in nor capable of navigating the landscape or trappingthe animals (primarily the beaver). The newcomers served onlyas business partners or entrepreneurs who depended on theIndigenous peoples to supply the furs. This engraved imagedemonstrates this partnership.

In terms of contemporary trade, Aboriginal entrepreneurship isan exciting and growing sector, with some notable successes suchas the Canadian Council for the Advancement of NativeDevelopment Officers (CANDO) founded in 1990 forEconomic Development Officers (EDOs) in communities.There are also growing numbers of academic and communitypartnerships related to local entrepreneurship, such as Findlay &Wuttunee’s research related to women’s community economicdevelopment. In addition, Aboriginal tourism has recentlybecome one of the fastest growing sectors of the Canadian econ-omy. For instance, in 2005 Aboriginal tourism in B.C. was $35million annually and is expected to grow to over $50 millionannually by 2012 (Aboriginal Tourism Association of BritishColumbia, 2005).

ConclusionThis pictorial essay has briefly explored some of the areas whereAboriginal peoples have so richly contributed to Canadian soci-ety and identity. It would have been ideal to be able to discussat length other areas where we have made outstanding contribu-tions; however, I was limited to some extent by the nature of thisessay and the need to respect copyright and thus to incorporateimages from within a certain time frame, where the images’copyright had expired.

For instance, there are no archival photos that were readily acces-

sible online that meet the copyright-expired criteria of a pre-

Inset of a Fur Trading Scene on "A Map of the Inhabited Part of Canada from the FrenchSurveys…, ca. 1777. Credit: Engraver: Fadden, William; Artist: Sauthier, ClaudeJoseph (1736-1802). Library and Archives Canada.


BOOKS, ART & POETRY

All our relations. Hay hay / Meegwech / Thank youfor your contributions. I honour our ancestors fortheir courage in surviving the enforced hardship ofthe past and for passing down our cultural knowl-edge, traditions and values.

ReferencesAboriginal Tourism Association of British Columbia (2005). Industry Quick Facts.

http://www.aboriginalbc.com/corporate/corporate_quickfacts [accessed Oct. 28, 2008].Commanda, W. A Circle of All Nations. http://www.angelfire.com/ns/circleofallnations/page2.html [accessed, Oct. 18, 2008]Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers, available at: http://www.edo.ca/homeDickason, O.P. (1984). The Myth of the Savage and the beginnings of French Colonialism in the Americas. Edmonton: University

of Alberta Press.--------- (2002). Canada’s First Nations: A History of founding peoples from earliest times. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University

Press.Findlay, I.M. & Wuttunee, W. (2007). "Aboriginal Women’s Community Economic Development: Measuring and Promoting

Success". IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 1-26. http://www.irpp.org/choices/archive/vol13no4.pdf [accessed Oct. 28,2008].

Government of Canada. Together in 2010 – The Government of Canada’s 2010 Winter Games Website. Sharon and ShirleyFirth. http://www.canada2010.gc.ca/101/athletes/010504-eng.cfm [accessed Oct. 22, 2008].

Heth, C. (Ed.) (1992). Native American dance: Ceremonies and social traditions. Washington, D.C. . National Museum of theAmerican Indian, Smithsonian Institution, with Starwood Pub.

Jennings, J. & Arima, E.Y. (2002). The Canoe: A Living Tradition. Willowdale, Ont.: Firefly Books.Kidd, B. (1980). Tom Longboat. Don Mills, Ont.: Fitzhenry and Whiteside.Kuhnlein, H.V. & Turner, N.J. (1991). Traditional Plant Foods of Canadian Indigenous Peoples: Nutrition, Botany, and Use.

Philadelphia: Gordon and Breach.McClurken, J.M. (Compiler) (2000). Fish in the Lakes, Wild Rice, and Game in Abundance: Testimony on Behalf of Mille Lacs

Ojibwe Hunting and Fishing Rights. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press.Moerman, D.E. (1998). Native American ethnobotany. Portland, Ore.: Timber Press.National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation. Alwyn Morris, Sports. http://www.naaf.ca/html/a_morris_e.html [accessed

Oct. 22, 2008]Parker, A.C. (1983). Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food Plants. Ohsweken, Ont.: Iroqrafts.Peacock, S.L. (1998). Putting Down Roots: The Emergence of wild plant food production on the Canadian Plateau. Ph.D. Thesis,

University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Van Finckenstein, M. (2006). Celebrating Inuit Art. [Gatineau, Que.]: Canadian Museum of Civilization; Toronto: Key Porter

BooksZarrillo, S. & Kooyman, B. (2006). "Evidence for Berry and Maize Processing on the Canadian Plains from Starch Grain

Analysis". American Antiquity, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 473-499.

A Pow-wow at Beardy’s Indian Reserve. 1936. Credit: Photographer unknown. Saskatchewan Archives Board.


BOOKS, ART & POETRYJustice as Healing: Indigenous WaysDavid Milward, University of Minnesota PressISSN: 1533-7901

Justice as Healing is a compilation of articles that explores in detail the use of restorative justice toaddress the present-day plight of Indigenous peoples. It is difficult to provide a chapter-by-chaptersummary of the book, since many of its themes are interwoven through many places. The articles areall nonetheless bound together by a central and coherent thesis. The starting point is the fact of colo-nialism over Indigenous peoples, both historical and present.

Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research MethodsShawn Wilson, Fernwood PublishingISBN: 1-55266-281-0

Indigenous researchers are knowledge seekers who work to progress Indigenous ways of being, know-ing and doing in a modern and constantly evolving context. This book describes a research paradigmshared by Indigenous scholars in Canada and Australia, and demonstrates how this paradigm can beput into practice. Relationships don’t just shape Indigenous reality, they are our reality. Indigenousresearchers develop relationships with ideas in order to achieve enlightenment in the ceremony thatis Indigenous research. Indigenous research is the ceremony of maintaining accountability to theserelationships. For researchers to be accountable to all our relations we must make careful choices inour selection of topics, methods of data collection, and forms of analysis and finally in the way wepresent information.

Indigenous Diplomacy and the Rights of Peoples: Achieving UN RecognitionJames Youngblood Henderson Purich PressISBN: 1895830354

Despite centuries of sustained attacks against their collective existence, Indigenous peoples repre-sent over 5,000 languages and cultures in more than 70 nations on six continents. Most haveretained social, cultural, economic, and political characteristics distinct from other segments ofnational populations. Yet recognition of their humanity and rights has been a struggle to achieve.

Based on personal experience, James (Sa’ke’j) Youngblood Henderson documents the generation-long struggle that led ultimately to the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of IndigenousPeoples by the United Nations General Assembly. Henderson puts the Declaration and the strug-

gles of Indigenous peoples in a wider context, outlining the rise of international law and how it was shaped by European ideas, therise of the United Nations, and post-World War II agreements focusing on human rights.

Henderson analyzes the provisions of the Declaration and comments on the impact of other international agreements onIndigenous peoples. He concludes with his view of what must be done to give the Declaration its full force for Indigenous peoplesaround the world, and what it means for Canada. The full text of the Declaration and selected excerpts of other key internationalagreements are included.


BOOKS, ART & POETRY

Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of CanadaPatrick Macklem, University of Toronto Press ISBN: 0-8020-8049-9

Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada examine the legal status, government relations,and civil rights of First Nations in Canada. Law professor Patrick Macklem effectively argues thatthe constitutional relationship between First Nations and the Canadian state is unique and deserves

special recognition. There are four facts that distinguish this unique relationship: distinctive cultures

of First Nations; occupation of specific territories prior to contact; sovereign power over these ter-ritories; and participation in treaty-making with the Crown. These four factors constituteIndigenous difference. In the Canadian constitutional context, Macklem argues that these differ-ences do not challenge the ideal of equality. The protection of these differences within the consti-tution promotes equality and maintains the ideal of justice. Chapters cover culture, territory, sov-

ereignty, treaties, self-government and other rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the social, fiscal and institu-tional obligations, and contemporary treaty process, including the Nisga’a. This book should interest anyone involved inIndigenous rights, self-government, treaties, and the Canadian Constitution.

The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative (Indigenous Americas)Thomas King, University of Minnesota PressISBN: 978-0-8166-4627-2

In The Truth About Stories, Native novelist and scholar Thomas King explores how stories shape whowe are and how we understand and interact with other people. From creation stories to personal expe-riences, historical anecdotes to social injustices, racist propaganda to works of contemporary Native lit-erature, King probes Native culture's deep ties to storytelling. With wry humor, King deftly weavesevents from his own life as a child in California, an academic in Canada, and a Native North Americanwith a wide-ranging discussion of stories told by and about Indians. So many stories have been toldabout Indians, King comments, that "there is no reason for the Indian to be real. The Indian simplyhas to exist in our imaginations." That imaginative Indian that North Americans hold dear has beenchallenged by Native writers - N. Scott Momaday, Leslie Marmon Silko, Louis Owens, Robert Alexie,and others - who provide alternative narratives of the Native experience that question, create a present,

and imagine a future. King reminds the reader, Native and non-Native, that storytelling carries with it social and moral responsibilities.

"Don't say in the years to come that you would have lived your life differently if only you had heard this story. You've heard it now."

First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law: Case Studies, Voices, and Perspectives (Law and Society)Catherine Bell, UBC PressISBN: 0774814616

First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law is the first of two interdisciplinary volumes exploring FirstNations perspectives on cultural heritage and issues of reform within and beyond Western law. Writtenin plain language and in collaboration with First Nation partners, it contains seven case studies featur-ing Indigenous concepts, legal orders, and encounters with legislation and negotiations; a nationalreview essay; three chapters reflecting on major themes; and a self-reflective critique on the challengesof collaborative and intercultural research. It will be of interest to Indigenous communities and theirleaders, museum personnel and other cultural heritage professionals, academics and students, govern-

ment policy workers, treaty negotiators, lawyers, and others interested in First Nations cultural heritage.

Although the volume draws on specific First Nation experiences, it covers a wide range of topics of concern to Inuit, Metis, and otherIndigenous peoples. Beyond this audience, it will be of interest to cultural heritage professionals; academics and students; governmentworkers; treaty negotiators; lawyers; and others who work with or are interested in First Nations cultural heritage.


BOOKS, ART & POETRYTreaty Rights in the Constitution of CanadaJames (Sakej) Youngblood Henderson, J.D.Carswell PublishingISBN: 978-0-7798-1322-3

This new book structures and comprehensively discusses the treaty rights recognized and affirmed in section 35 ofthe Constitution Act, 1982. It reviews negotiations and treaty text, the principles of treaty interpretation, and caselaw on the treaty relationships, treaty tenure, treaty governance, and the treaty economy. Finally it reviews the prin-

ciple of constitutional convergence with other parts of the constitution and comments on how to institutionally reconcile treaty rightswith the rest of the constitution.

JOIN THE CRRF IN ELIMINATING RACISM IN CANADADIRECTIONS: Research and Policy on Eliminating Racism/Recherche et politique sur l’elimination du racismeis unique in its focus on anti-racism.

By providing a national forum for original anti-racism and human rights research and constructive dialogue, DIRECTIONS promotes awareness,knowledge and discussion of critical issues – with the ultimate goal being the elimination of racism in Canada.

As a not-for-profit organization, the CRRF relies on contributions and sponsorship to fund the publication and distribution of this important journal.

Please join the CRRF and other leading Canadian organizations and institutionsin helping DIRECTIONS to fulfill its vital mandate.

For information about the levels of support, please contact:Canadian Race Relations Foundation4576 Yonge St., Ste. 701Toronto ON M2N [email protected]


Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples – not racistSharon Venne, L.L.B., L.L.M.

TRENDS

About the AuthorSharon Helen Venne (OldWoman Bear) is Cree, butthrough marriage, a citizen of theBlood Tribe in Treaty Seven. Shehas played an active role in thenational and international strugglesof many Indigenous Peoples,including the Lubicon Cree andDene Nation. Sharon has a Mastersof Law degree from the Universityof Alberta.

AbstractIndigenous law passed down to Indigenous Peoplesis based on respect for the spirits of the land and theancestors who have kept the territory. Within ourlegal systems, Indigenous Peoples have allowed non-indigenous people to enter into our territories and touse our resources. Colonization has resulted in occu-pation, pollution and a destroyed the Creation. At amore deadly level than the destruction is the denialthat our territories belong to us. The underpinningof the denial is that Indigenous Peoples are not "civ-ilized". Peoples need to be civilized to own their ter-ritories. This extreme and systemic racism is spokenand used everyday by the colonizers. Under theinternational legal norms of decolonization,Indigenous Peoples have never had the chance todecolonize. Canada and the other states of theAmericas are colonial states. The Supreme Court hasdefined aboriginal title ("right to the land itself") andhas described how Indigenous Peoples must goabout proving our ownership. In Canada, there is alegal industry designed to keep Indigenous Peoplesin the courts trying to "prove" their aboriginal titleto their own territory.

"Racism has historically been a banner to justifythe enterprises of expansion, conquest, colonizationand domination and has walked hand in handwith intolerance, injustice and violence."

– Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Nobel Peace Prize Winner (1992)

RésuméLa loi autochtone repose sur le respect des esprits dela terre et des ancêtres qui ont sauvegardé le territoire.Au sein de nos systèmes de droit, les peuplesautochtones ont permis aux non-Autochtonesd’entrer sur leurs territoires et de profiter de leursressources. La colonisation a amené l’occupation, lapollution et a détruit la Création. Le refus d’ad-mettre que nos territoires nous appartiennent est

plus vicié que la destruction. Cette dénégation s’ap-puie sur l’assertion que les peuples autochtones nesont pas « civilisés ». Les peuples doivent être civiliséspour posséder leurs territoires. Ce racisme extrême etsystémique, les colonisateurs l’expriment et s’en ser-vent tous les jours. Selon les normes juridiques inter-nationales de la décolonisation, les peuplesautochtones n’ont jamais eu la chance de sedécoloniser. Le Canada et d’autres États dans lesAmériques sont des États coloniaux. La CourSuprême a défini le titre aborigène (« le droit au ter-ritoire lui-même ») et a décrit ce que les peuplesautochtones doivent faire pour prouver ce droit. AuCanada, il existe une industrie juridique dont la rai-son d’être est de garder les Autochtones devant lestribunaux à « prouver » leur titre ancestral à leur pro-pre territoire.

« Le racisme a été, dans l'histoire, une bannièrepour justifier les entreprises d'expansion, de con-quête, de colonisation et de domination, et il afonctionné de pair avec l'intolérance, l'injusticeet la violence. »

Rigoberta Menchu Tum, lauréate du Prix Nobel de la Paix (1992)

IntroductionWhen I travel into another territory, I leave tobaccoor a small gift to the spirits of that territory. It is anIndigenous law passed down to Indigenous Peoples1

by our ancestors. The law is based on respect for thespirits of the land and the ancestors who have keptthe territory. The law is based on sharing.Indigenous Nations have shared our territories andresources with everyone. It is not part of our laws todeny anyone the right to live. As humans, we do notposses that right. Within our legal systems,Indigenous Peoples have allowed non-indigenouspeople to enter into our territories and to use ourresources. What has been the result of Indigenous

1 The use of the term "Indigenous Peoples" in this article refers to the political movement of towards the recognition that Indigenous Peoples are sub-jects of international law rather than objects of international law. In the mid 1980's, a political decision was taken in Geneva, Switzerland by the rep-resentatives of Indigenous Nations to always refer to ourselves as "Indigenous Peoples" with the capitals and with the "s" on Peoples. "All Peoples havea right to self-determination" is the start of the first clause in the international covenants. (Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights).

2 Erica –Irene Daes, "Working Paper on combating racism against indigenous peoples" UN DOC A/CONF.189/PC.3/4


Land Rights of Indigenous Peoplespeoples living by our laws? The colonizer has come into our ter-ritories, occupied, polluted and destroyed the Creation. At a moredeadly level than the destruction is the denial that our territoriesbelong to us. There has been an attempt to undermine our giftfrom the Creation by contending that we do not own our terri-tories and resources. The foundation of this argument goes backto the arrival of Columbus to the Americas. The underpinning ofthe denial is that Indigenous Peoples are not "civilized". Peoplesneed to be civilized to own their territories. This extreme and sys-temic racism is spoken and used everyday by the colonizers.Indigenous Peoples are not inferior to the colonizers. Racism iswhen one group believes they are superior to another race. In thecase of Indigenous Peoples, the colonizers believe that we cannotown our lands and territories. This is racism. Colonizers do notquestion this racism. It is the norm among the colonizers.Systemic racism is rooted in this thinking. As former chair of theUN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, Madame Erica IreneDaes wrote:

"Racism is often the reason why indigenous territories are tar-geted for invasion by other groups; racism is also often the rea-son why indigenous Peoples are denied access to effective reme-dies. In this way, racism leads to a vicious circle of dispossession,inaction on the part of public authorities and further disposses-sion. Dispossession results in extreme poverty amongstIndigenous Peoples, which in turn intensifies the racism direct-ed against them. The land problem and the problem of racismmust be addressed together; they are the same problem."2

A Brief HistoryThe history of the colonization of the Americas is "written in theliars scrawl".3 As Indigenous Peoples, we are told by governments,industry, judges, lawyers and individuals that we do not own ourlands and resources. The basis of the racism starts with the arrivalof the colonizers on the shores of our territories. IndigenousPeoples have our own history and the story of colonization.

It is a historical fact that colonizers arrived on the shores ofGreat Turtle Island to lands owned and used by IndigenousNations. This fact was ignored by the colonizers in their attackon our territories. Indigenous Peoples of Great Turtle Island4

are the owners of our territories. The colonizer states of theAmericas claim our territory as their own. It is an ongoingaspect of racism that denies Indigenous Peoples our territories.This is the heart of the issue: Indigenous Peoples have been col-onized and continue to be colonized. Under the internationallegal norms of decolonization, Indigenous Peoples have never

had the chance to decolonize. Canada and the other states ofthe Americas are colonial states. There is no neocolonial era.Indigenous Peoples are still living within the colonial times.When Indigenous Peoples write these basic truths, there arevery forceful denials by the colonizers.

By denying ownership of our territories the resultant ills frommassacres, forced relocations, death by starvation and diseasehas been the experience of Indigenous Peoples. The colonizersbelieve that there is a legal right to wage attacks on our Peoplesand lands. There are many words to give "legal sanction" to theprocess: laws of discovery, conquest, and terra nullius are allwords of dispossession. To this day, Canada maintains that allthe lands that are not ‘private lands’ are ‘crown lands’. How didthe Crown acquire our lands and territories? IndigenousPeoples are expected to accept that the Crown has underlyingtitle to our lands. Where did these ideas originate?

The colonizers call our homelands: the Americas. America is aname that came from an Italian map maker. It is not a wordfrom our Indigenous languages. The colonizers have changedthe names of our mountains, lakes, rivers and places. Recently,there was a suggestion on the west coast of Great Turtle Islandto change the name of a strait back to the Indigenous name,one that had been there for thousands of years. The colonizerswere very vocal in their dissent. The original name is ignoredand a new name or image is imposed on the lands and territo-ries. How many people can remember the original name of theareas around Montreal or Ottawa? For example, what was theoriginal name of the St. Lawrence?

Renaming and rewriting laws began with Columbus findinghimself in our territories. The arrival of the non-indigenous peo-ple to our territories started a process of displacement and colo-nization of our territories as stated by Rigoberta Menchu Tum.She has been involved in the struggle of the Mayan Peoples tohave their territories returned to them. There have been wars inher territory as the colonizers want to retain control over the landsand territories. The settlement of the Americas has been a storyof death and destruction. One of the most creative colonizationtools is to assert that the underlying title of our territories vests inthe Crown (Government of Canada). This is a well known colo-nial myth. Our territories were seen by the non-indigenous peo-ple and became their property. That the Crown wants IndigenousPeoples to prove our own occupation and use of our territories isludicrous. The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a test. The

3 Buffy St. Marie "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee".4 As an Indigenous Person (Cree), our Creation story tells us that we are floating on the back of a giant turtle – hence "Great Turtle Island".5 Degamuukw


Land Rights of Indigenous PeoplesSupreme Court has defined aboriginal title ("right to the landitself") and has described how Indigenous Peoples must go aboutproving our ownership.

Aboriginal title is a right to the land itself…First, under thetest for aboriginal title, the requirement that the land be inte-gral to the distinctive culture of the claimants is subsumed bythe requirement of occupancy. Second, whereas the time forthe identification of aboriginal rights is the time of first con-tact, the time for identification of aboriginal title is the timeat which the Crown asserted sovereignty over the land…Inorder to establish a claim to aboriginal title, the aboriginalgroup asserting the claim must establish that it occupied thelands in question at the time at which the Crown assertedsovereignty over the land subject to the title…Aboriginal titleis a burden on the Crown’s underlying title...Under commonlaw, the act of occupation or possession is sufficient to groundaboriginal title and it is not necessary to prove that the landwas a distinctive or integral part of the aboriginal societybefore the arrival of Europeans. Finally, the date of sover-eignty is more certain than the date of first contact.5

This is the "test" which the Supreme Court of Canada has laiddown for Indigenous Peoples who want to prove aboriginal titlethrough the Canadian legal system. It was the first time the prooffor aboriginal title has been defined by the highest court in thecolonial state of Canada. Under the test, the Supreme Courtdefined aboriginal title ("right to the land itself") and describedhow Indigenous Peoples must go about proving we have it. Thetest can be done in two ways: firstly, oral histories can be used toprove occupancy of our land and the colonial courts will be giv-ing us as much weight as written records; secondly, the time forproof of occupancy is when the Crown asserted sovereignty overour Indigenous Peoples’ territory. The test as set out does notquestion the "crown asserted sovereignty" over the land.

Doctrine of DiscoveryIn order to justify the occupancy of Indigenous territory follow-ing the voyages of Columbus, there was an appeal to the earthlyjudge – the catholic pope. With the assistance of Portugal andSpain, there were two papal bulls enacted to give legitimacy to theprocess. These papal bulls enacted by Pope Nicholas V are:Romanus Pontifex in 1452 and Inter Caetera in 1493. The firstPapal Bull allowed war to be waged against all non-Christiansthroughout the world. This particular papal bull allowed for andpromoted conquest, colonization and exploitation of non-Christians peoples, territories and nations. In 1493, a year fol-

6 Robert A. Williams Jr., Like a Loaded Weapon – the Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights, and the legal history of racism in America (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005)at pages 52 and 53.

lowing Columbus first voyage, Inter Caetera recognized theChristian domination over the "new world". Despite numerousattempts by Indigenous Peoples, these two papal bulls remain inforce. There is a need by the colonizers to hang onto these twopapal bulls to give themselves the mantel of legitimacy in theAmericas. As Robert Williams writes:

The principle of white racial superiority asserted by the doc-trine of discovery and validated by the Supreme Court (of theUSA) in Johnson was part of the colonial-era law ofEuropean Law of Nations…That "principle" of white racialsuperiority under European international law...was embod-ied in the doctrine of discovery.6

The problem with the doctrine of discovery under customaryinternational law is that the law was not to apply to IndigenousPeoples or our territory. It applied to European powers. Forexample, Portugal saw "Brazil" first rather than the Spanish thusPortugal colonized the area. The state should have used its ownlegal system to make arrangements with Indigenous Peoples. Itdid not. The underlying assumption was that Indigenous Peopleswere to be exploited because we were not Christians. As non-Christians, our territories were consumed by colonization. Thewhole doctrine of discovery was racist in its inception and con-tinues to emphasize that Indigenous Peoples need to prove ourrights to our own lands. At the same time, Indigenous Peoples arenot permitted to question the underlying title of the Crown. Letme cite two recent examples of states like Canada not wanting torecognize the rights of the Indigenous Peoples.

Durban DeclarationAt the World Conference Against Racism, racial discrimination,xenophobia and related intolerance (WCAR), a declarationapproved by the conference contains two clauses related toIndigenous Peoples and our rights under international law.Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the final declaration are very telling. Inreading these two paragraphs, remember that the conference wasfocused on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination.

23.We fully recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples con-sistent with the principles of sovereignty and territorialintegrity of States, and therefore stress the need to adoptthe appropriate constitutional, administrative, legislativeand judicial measures, including those derived from appli-cable international instruments;

24.We declare that the use of the term "Indigenous Peoples"in the Declaration and Programme of Action of the WorldConference against Racism, Racial Discrimination,Xenophobia and Related Intolerance is in the context of,


Land Rights of Indigenous Peoplesand without prejudice to the outcome of ongoing interna-tional negotiations on texts that specifically deal with thisissue, and cannot be constituted as having any implicationsas the rights under international law;

In a closer examination of the language of the Declaration, it isclear that the rights of Indigenous Peoples are inferior to all otherrights. The states present at the conference agreed that the use ofthe term does not have any implication within international law.While all other Peoples of the world have rights under variousinternational legal instruments, Indigenous Peoples are singledout for special treatment. The rights of Indigenous Peoples arewithin the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The conceptof discovery is still alive and well within the international legalcommunity and a conference to end racism and racial discrimi-nation encoded the racism within its final declaration andProgramme of action. This language in international legal circlesis not new, look at the Papal Bulls then look at the InternationalLabour Organization (ILO). When the ILO was reviewing theirconvention 107 in 1988 and 1989, the final convention 169included an asterisk at end of the page which made reference toIndigenous Peoples. The asterisk was along the same lines as thewording in the Durban Declaration. The ILO revised conven-tion was in 1989 and the Durban Declaration was in 2001.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesIn 1977, Indigenous Peoples of the Americas approached theUnited Nations to deal with our land and resource rights. As aresult of the work of Indigenous Peoples and supporters, theUnited Nations took up the issues related to Indigenous Peopleswith the establishment of a Working Group (WGIP) in 1982. Aspart of the work of the WGIP, the experts were to develop inter-national standards. During the next few years along with thework of Indigenous Peoples, a Declaration on the rights ofIndigenous Peoples was developed. This declaration after manyyears was finally accepted by the General Assembly of the UnitedNations on 13 September 2007. It is noted that Canada and theUnited States refused to accept the Declaration. The hard fought

declaration contains many clauses related to land, territories andthe relationship that Indigenous Peoples have with the land. Itmight be five hundred and sixteen years since Columbus but ourstruggle for our lands and territories continues. As Madame Daeswrote in her paper on combating racism against IndigenousPeoples:

At the present time, States that expropriate IndigenousPeoples’ lands without consent or full compensation, or con-done the invasion of Indigenous Peoples’ territories are reap-ing an unfair competitive advantage in relation to States thatrespect Indigenous Peoples’ land rights. They are subsidizingtheir export industries with Indigenous Peoples’ naturalresources. This is potentially a considerable trade distortion,as well as an abuse of Indigenous Peoples’ basic rights andfundamental freedoms.

ConclusionRacism comes in many guises. The most difficult to fight are theones against Indigenous Peoples. In Canada, there is a legalindustry designed to keep Indigenous Peoples in the courts try-ing to "prove" their aboriginal title to their own territory. Thegovernment of Canada does not want to reach settlements of landissues until Indigenous Peoples "extinguish" our rights to ourown territories. The whole issue of extinguishment means thatIndigenous Peoples do own our lands. If you did not own yourlands why would the state require Indigenous Peoples to extin-guish? Now, Canada has a modified language related to extin-guishment after the United Nations slapped its hands. The endresult did not change. The language was made more subtle.There is still a requirement for extinguishment of rights to landsand territories. Without this clause, the state of Canada will notresolve issues related to lands and territories. At the same time,Indigenous Peoples cannot ask for proof of the "crown’s underly-ing title". Therein is the heart of racism. Different rules for dif-ferent people. Indigenous Peoples are still treated as second class

Peoples on Great Turtle Island.


PolidiscriminationKiera L. Ladner, Ph.D.

About the AuthorKiera L. Ladner is an AssistantProfessor and Canada ResearchChair in Indigenous Politics andGovernance in the Departmentof Political Studies at theUniversity of Manitoba and is aformer student of Jill Vickers(Ph.D. 2001). Her research inter-ests include: treaty constitutional-ism, Indigenous theory andmethodology, decolonization,constitutional politics,Indigenous governance (‘tradi-tional’, Indian Act and self-gov-ernment) and social movements.Her current community basedresearch into constitutional rec-onciliation and decolonizationattempts to create deeper under-standing both within communi-ties and between Indigenousnations and colonial societies inCanada and Hawaii.

TRENDS

AbstractThe political discrimination of Indigenous peoplesand the obstacles that they encounter in today’ssociety from a political perspective clearly revealshow the Federal government through its policydevelopment has been actively destroyingIndigenous peoples and their traditional ways ofgovernment. Elimination of Indigenous sovereign-ty, government and constitutional orders by thegovernments past and present and replacing it withso-called civilized government is detrimental toIndigenous people who continue to fight for selfgovernment so that they can rebuild Indigenousgovernments and sovereignty and end systemic dis-crimination.

Today, it is quite widely recognized that theAmerican federal system shares its roots with theHaudenosaunee constitutional order (Johansen,1982, 1990, 1998; Barreiro, 1992; Young, 2000).Increasingly, it is also being recognized thatEnlightenment political philosophers such asRousseau, Locke and Marx borrowed from and/orwere inspired by their knowledge of Indigenouspolitical traditions as gleaned from the writings ofadventurers, missionaries and explorers (Gillespie,1920; Weatherford, 1988). This recognition has

been a long time coming and continues to be thesource of much debate as people struggle with thevery idea that the so-called civilized people bor-rowed from and/or were inspired by the so-calledsavages (Sanford, 1961; Flanagan, 2000). Further,people struggle with this idea of influence becauseof the discrimination, violence and destructionthat happened after the so-called civilized peopleborrowed from, stole from and/or were inspired byIndigenous political traditions (both philosophicaland governmental) (Johansen, 1998).

Despite the continued state of political amnesia orthe widespread reluctance to examine the politicalhistory of the early Americas, it is important tounderstand that Indigenous polities were recog-

nized and dealt with as nations with their ownpolitical systems from the start and that these polit-ical systems and Indigenous political philosophieswere often admired and borrowed from. It is equal-ly important to understand that that once it suitedtheir interests, the colonizers broke with thetreaties and with their own traditions and lawswhich respected other constitutional orders (localco-autonomous jurisdictions) and required nation-to-nation relations with Indigenous nations(Ladner, 2003; Henderson, 2006). Hence the fed-eral government set out on a path to destroy thesenations and their governments. In so doing, theCanadian government engaged in acts of politicalgenocide and institutionalized the systemic discrim-ination of Indigenous political systems (this contin-ues to define the Aboriginal policy paradigm).

This historical disjuncture which saw colonialismmorph into a relationship characterized by oppres-sion and domination spread following the War of1812 as Indigenous nations began to loose their‘utility’ as allies (military and trade) and lands weresecured. Colonial governments enacted new poli-cies and practices (initially in eastern Canada andsubsequently throughout the country), which ledto the establishment and institutionalization of anew relationship based upon principles of inequal-ity and subjugation (Milloy, 1990). In part, thesechanges resulted from the racialization of the rela-tionships between the colonizer and the colonizedas Darwin and Spencer's theories of scientificracism and the 'dying race' gained credibility and

importance. Moreover, "the transition in the rela-tionship was also pushed by the western belief in'progress' and in the evolutionary development inhuman beings to lesser to greater states of civiliza-tion" (RCAP, Vol.1, 1996: 142).

Accordingly, the historical disjuncture occurred, inpart, because of a European superiority complex; acomplex or ideology justified on the basis of reli-gion, technology, scientific racism, a teleological


Polidiscriminationbelief in history. Schouls, Olthuis and Engelstad explain howthis presumed superiority was used to justify the abandonmentof principles of treaty federalism and the transformation of thenation-to-nation relationship. They state:

Early settlers believed that they were more advanced as a soci-ety than Aboriginal peoples. … It seemed obvious that the"New World" was destined to become another Europe …believing themselves to be culturally and morally superior, thesettlers could justify action to "improve" the land and"enlighten" the people. … The ability of Canadians to justi-fy the innumerable documented acts of injustice againstAboriginal peoples on the grounds that European culture wasmore "modern" and thus "superior" stands as a legacy of thedistortion still reflected in today’s relationship betweenAboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples (Schouls et al,2002:15).

This new paradigm culminated in the Indian Act of 1876 andits underlying goals of protection, civilization and assimilation(Tobias, 1991). In pursuing their goals, the federal governmentset forth on a mission of political genocide. By political geno-cide I am referring to the federal government’s policies andpractices which were designed to eliminate Indigenous sover-eignty, Indigenous governments and Indigenous constitutionalorders (Ladner, 2003). The idea was that Indigenous forms ofgovernance were to be eliminated by the federal governmentand replaced by ‘civilized’ governments. These ‘civilized’ gov-ernments - the band council system - were modeled aftermunicipalities with very limited scope and delegated authority.Band councils were created primarily to serve as puppet gov-ernments of the federal government and were charged with theresponsibility of providing local administration for IndianAffairs. One should note that the framers of the Canada’sIndian policy thought that the band council system of govern-ment would provide Indigenous peoples with the opportunityto familiarize themselves with ‘civilized’ government and topractice governing themselves (Ladner, 2003; Tobias, 1990).Their idea was that once enough experience had been gained,Indigenous peoples would cease being Indians under the termsof the Indian Act and First Nations would be granted ‘self-gov-ernment’ by way of remodeling band councils as regularmunicipal governments (just like other municipalities whichfall under the jurisdiction of provincial governments) (Ladner& Orsini, 2005).

It needs to be understood that the Indian Act did not create asystem of government (Indian Act Band Councils) for peoplesthat had not already developed their own structures of gover-

nance, laws and political traditions. It was not a neutral policy.

Instead it was a policy that institutionalized the systemic dis-crimination of Indigenous governments, and like other acts ofinjustice this too was justified on the basis of the supposedEuropean superiority. But the federal government did not justdiscriminate against Indigenous governments to the extent thatit ignored Indigenous sovereignty or sought to transformIndigenous constitutional orders in terms of both jurisdictionsclaimed and the system of government itself. The federal gov-ernment took discrimination one step further, in that they calledfor the outright destruction of another nations’ government andadvocated regime replacement - replacing inclusive, consensualand democratic Indigenous political systems with the undemoc-ratic and unrepresentative system of the colonizers.

Arguably, the practice of ‘civilizing government’ resulted in thereplacement of a more ‘civilized’ form of government. This isthe case because of the fact that many Indigenous nations, suchas the Haudenosaunee and the Blackfoot Confederacy, haddeveloped complex democratic political systems (Ladner,2001). Most of these political systems were consensual andwere predicated on the belief that everyone (including women),was to be represented in the decision-making process and in thedecision itself. Meanwhile, colonial governments and theirEuropean counterparts were fairly unrepresentative and unde-mocratic in 1876. These so-called democracies excluded thosewho were not considered ‘persons’ (women and people ofcolour), and those who were deemed as ‘unworthy’ (the major-ity of men or the landless, working class).

No longer were Indigenous governments or the traditionalleadership tolerated. Instead, the federal government activelypursued replacement by any means - including the ‘murder’ ofChief Jack Fire at Akwesasne in 1899 where the RCMP weredeployed to dispose of the Haudenosaunee government(Mitchell, 1989:118). Once replaced, the systemic discrimina-tion of Indigenous governments did not end. Canada contin-ued to ignore Indigenous sovereignty by limiting the abilities ofIndian Act band councils and subjecting them to the authori-tative powers of the colonial administration. To this day,Indian Act chiefs and councils are only permitted to govern inareas of insignificance by passing by-laws concerning issuessuch as the use of buildings, noxious weeds, bee keeping andpoultry raising (Canada, 1985). It must be emphasized thatwhile band councils are allowed to govern in these areas ofinsignificance, their ability to govern is limited by and com-pletely dependent on the colonial administration, which retainsall powers of disallowance. Until the 1960s, the inferiority anddependency of Indian Act band councils was accentuated by thefact that all power on reserves was wielded by Indian Agents -


Polidiscriminationdelegates of the Minister of Indian Affairs. Further, most bandcouncils did not even have a copy of the Act and none had theability to hire lawyers or consultants to assist them in govern-ing. Even today, the colonial government exercises vast powerover inferior and dependent Indian Act band councils. Forexample, the Minister of Indian Affairs controls the electoralprocess, retains the power to dispose and replace a chief andcouncil, defines and controls financial accountability, andretains the power to disallow all activities of the band council(and for that matter, every Indian). To summarize, the IndianAct not only institutionalized a regime of political genocide,but it created a system of institutionalized inferiority and insti-tutionalized systemic discrimination whereby Indian Act bandcouncils are dependent on and responsible to the federal gov-ernment.

It is important to note that Canada not only discriminatesagainst Indigenous governments and Indian Act band councils,but Indigenous women face double discrimination withrespect to governance. Not only are the governments (whetheras Indigenous governments and Indian Act band councils) ofIndigenous women subject to discrimination by the state, butIndigenous women have a long history themselves of being dis-criminated as women under the imposed Indian Act system ofgovernance. With the imposition of the Indian Act, womennot only lost their traditional governments (as governmentsrecognized by and active in relations with Canada) and theirvital role within these political systems, they lost their role ingovernment completely as the Indian Act formally excludedwomen from the political process until 1951 (Voyageur, 2008)while also denying them other essential rights such that ‘citi-zenship’ or status was vested in the male and thus could be lostupon marriage until 1985 and women continue to be deniedproperty rights (Green 2001:729-737; Dick, 2006; Alcantara2006). Further, the Indian Act, and its patriarchic provisionsregarding such matters as status, political rights and propertyrights has resulted in an internalization of colonialism (to somedegree or another) and this in turn has negatively impacted thestanding of women in Indigenous communities while institu-tionalizing heteronormativity and masculinist ideas ofIndigenous nationhood, sovereignty and politics (Smith,2005). Thus while women are no longer formally excluded

from the political process within their communities, Voyager’swork aptly demonstrates that Indigenous women are still con-fronted by systemic discrimination in political life (Voyageur,2008).

Indigenous governments (traditional governments) and IndianAct band councils also continue in a state of systemic discrim-ination. Despite the fact that traditional governments contin-ue to exist and continue to claim a right to govern as definedby their own constitutional order and despite the fact that suchgovernments are perceived as being the legitimate governmentby many (both individuals and communities), they continueto be denied as the state refuses to recognize such governmentsin intergovernmental relations, legal proceedings and in thegoverning of reserves. Thus, despite the continued activismand dedication of many pursuing recognition of, or simplycontinuing to govern using, Indigenous institutions and con-stitutions, little has changed with time as Canadian govern-ments continue to act as though Indigenous peoples had nogovernment prior to colonization and the establishment of‘civilization’.

But its not as though attaining some mark of ‘civilization’ hasaltered the way in which the government’s of Aboriginal peo-ples are systemically discriminated. Such that, though pre-sumably all band councils have achieved that requisite level ofcivilization (having demonstrated success in using ‘civilized’government), the Canadian government continues to treatband councils as inferior, dependent and subordinate ‘govern-ments’ who are incapable of governing. Despite continuedactivism in a variety of arenas (political, legal, internationaland constitutional) and the fight for self-determination, littlehas changed as the federal government denies Indigenous peo-ples their inherent jurisdictions and autonomy and treats theminstead as an inferior government that is able to exercise only

delegated powers and then only in an administrative capacity.Despite this, both band councils and Indigenous governmentscontinue to push for self-government (not self-administration)citing this as a window of opportunity to recreate and/orrebuild Indigenous governments and to reconstructIndigenous sovereignty thus ending the reign of the systemicdiscrimination of Indigenous governments.


PolidiscriminationReferencesAlcantara, Christopher. "Indian Women and the Division of Matrimonial Real Property on Canadian Indian Reserves."

Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. Volume 18, Number 2 (2006), pp. 513-533.Barreiro, José (ed.). Indian Roots of American Democracy, (Ithaca: Akwe:kon Press, 1992).Canada, Indian Act, (Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1985), Canada. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Vol.1: Looking Forward, Looking Back, (Ottawa: Government of

Canada,1996).Dick, Caroline. "The Politics of Intragroup Difference: First Nations' Women and the Sawridge Dispute." Canadian Journal of

Political Science. Volume 39, Number 1 (2006), pp. 97-116Flanagan, Thomas. First Nations? Second Thoughts. (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000).Gillespie, James E. The Influence of Overseas Expansion on England to 1700, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1920). Green, Joyce. "Canaries in the Mines of Citizenship: Indian Women in Canada." Canadian Journal of Political Science. Volume

34, Number 4 (2001), pp. 715-738Henderson, James Sakej. First Nations Jurisprudence and Aboriginal Rights, Defining the Just Society, (Saskatoon: Native Law

Centre of Canada, 2006)Johansen, Bruce E. Debating Democracy: Native American Legacy of Freedom, (Santa Fe New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers,

1998).________. Forgotten Founders: How the American Indian Helped Shape Democracy. (Boston: Harvard Common Press, 1982 )________. "Native American Societies and the Evolution of Democracy in America 1600-1800." Ethnohistory. Volume 37,

Number 3 (1990), pp. 279-290Ladner, Kiera L. "Rethinking the Past, Present and Future of Aboriginal Governance" in J. Brodie and L. Trimble eds.,

Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century (Toronto: Pearson Education, 2003).________."Treaty Federalism: An Indigenous Vision of Canadian Federalisms" in Smith, Miriam and Francois Rocher eds., New

Trends in Canadian Federalism (Peterborough: Broadview, 2003), pp. 167-194________. When Buffalo Speaks: Creating an AlterNative Understanding of Traditional Blackfoot Governance, (PhD Dissertation.

Carleton University, 2001).Ladner, Kiera L. and Michael Orsini. "The Persistence of Paradigm Paralysis: The First Nations Governance Act as the

Continuation of Colonial Policy" in Canada: State of the Federation 2003 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’sUniversity Press, 2005), pp. 185-203

Milloy, John S. The Plains Cree: Trade, Diplomacy, And War, 1780 To 1870, Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1990Mitchell, Mike. "An Unbroken Assertion of Sovereignty", in Boyce Richardson ed., Drumbeat: Anger and Renewal in Indian

Country, (Toronto: Summerhill Press, 1989).Sanford, Charles S. The Quest for Paradise: Europe and the American Moral Imagination, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,

1961).Schouls, Tim. John Olthuis and Diane Engelstad. "The Basic Dilemma: Sovereignty or Assimilation", in John Bird, Lorraine

Land & Murray MacAdam (eds.), Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, (Toronto: IrwinPublishing, 2002), pp.12-28

Smith, Andrea. Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2005).Tobias, John. "Protection, Civilization and Assimilation," in J.R. Miller ed. Sweet Promises, (Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1991).Voyageur, Cora. Firekeepers of the Twenty-First Century: First Nations Women Chiefs, (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press,

2008).Weatherford, Jack. Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World, (New York: Ballentine Books, 1988).Young, Iris Marion. "Hybrid Democracy: Iroquois Federalism and the Postcolonial Project." in Ivison, Duncan, Paul Patton and

Will Sanders eds. Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).


Polidiscrimination Kiera L. Ladner, D.Ph.

À propos de l’auteure :Kiera L. Ladner, D.Ph., est pro-fesseure adjointe et titulaire de laChaire de recherche du Canadasur la politique et la gouvernanceautochtones à la Faculté dessciences politiques de l’Universitédu Manitoba. Elle a étudié sous ladirection de Jill Vickers (D.Ph.2001). Ses recherches portent,notamment, sur le constitution-nalisme des traités, la théorie etméthodologie autochtones, ladécolonisation, les politiquesconstitutionnelles, la gouver-nance autochtone (traditionnelle,Loi sur les Indiens, autonomiegouvernementale) et les mouve-ments sociaux. La recherche com-munautaire à laquelle elle se con-sacre actuellement porte sur laréconciliation constitutionnelle etles tentatives de décolonisation;son étude vise à mieux faire com-prendre ces approches et s’adresseà toutes les collectivités, notam-ment les nations autochtones etsociétés coloniales du Canada etd’Hawaï.

Tendances

Résumé La discrimination politique des peuplesautochtones et les obstacles qu’ils rencontrent dansla société actuelle révèlent clairement que le gou-vernement fédéral, dans son élaboration de poli-tiques, a jusqu’à présent détruit effectivement lespeuples autochtones et leur mode traditionnel degouvernance. L’élimination de la souverainetéautochtone, de son droit de gouvernance et de sonordre constitutionnel par les gouvernements passéset actuels, et le mode de gouvernement soi-disantcivilisé qui les a remplacés, sont profondémentpréjudiciables aux peuples autochtones qui conti-nuent de lutter pour l’autonomie gouvernementaleafin de reconstruire leur propre forme de gou-vernement, obtenir leur souveraineté et mettre finà la discrimination systémique.

On reconnaît généralement de nos jours que le sys-tème fédéral américain partage ses racines avec l’or-dre constitutionnel des Haudenosaunees(Johansen, 1982, 1990, 1998; Barreiro, 1992;Young, 2000). De plus en plus, on admet que lesphilosophes politiques du Siècle des lumières, dontRousseau, Locke et Marx, se sont inspirés des tra-ditions politiques autochtones, telles qu’ils lescomprenaient des récits des aventuriers, des mis-sionnaires ou des explorateurs (Gillespie, 1920;Weatherford, 1988). La reconnaissance de cetteinfluence s’est longtemps fait attendre; les débatssont loin d’être terminés sur l’idée même que lespeuples dit civilisés aient emprunté des peuples ditsauvages (Sanford, 1961; Flanagan, 2000). Enoutre, on éprouve toujours des difficultés à admet-tre que cette influence soit possible en raison de ladiscrimination, de la violence et de la destructionqui ont eu lieu après que les peuples dit civilisésont emprunté ou volé les traditions politiques

autochtones, tant philosophiques que gouverne-

mentales, ou s’en sont inspirés (Johansen, 1998).

Malgré l’état continu d’amnésie politique et lemanque général d’empressement à étudier l’his-

toire politique des premiers Américains, il estimportant de comprendre que leurs organisationspolitiques étaient reconnues et traitées commenations, qu’ils avaient leurs propres systèmes poli-tiques et que ces systèmes politiques et les philoso-phies politiques autochtones faisaient souvent l’ob-jet d’admiration et d’emprunt. Il est égalementimportant de voir que les colonisateurs, dès quecela servait leurs intérêts, violaient leurs traités etleurs propres traditions et lois, qui respectaient lesautres ordres constitutionnels (compétences localescoautonomes), et les relations qui doivent régir lesrapports de nation à nation lorsqu’ils traitaientavec des nations autochtones (Ladner, 2003;Henderson, 2006). Ce phénomène permet decomprendre pourquoi le gouvernement fédérals’est mis, lui aussi, à détruire ces nationsautochtones et leurs gouvernements. Ce faisant, legouvernement canadien s’est livré à des actes degénocide politique et a institutionnalisé la discri-mination systémique à l’égard des systèmes poli-tiques autochtones. Ainsi se définit toujours leparadigme des politiques autochtones.

L’abandon du régime de respect mutuel entrenations coïncidant avec la montée d’un colonia-lisme caractérisé par l’oppression et la dominationa suivi la Guerre de 1812, qui a vu les nationsautochtones cesser d’être utiles à leurs alliés cana-diens, tant au niveau militaire que commercial, dufait que le territoire canadien était désormais pro-tégé des invasions étrangères. Les gouvernementscoloniaux ont adopté de nouvelles lois et pratiques,d’abord dans l’Est du Canada, ensuite dans tout lepays, qui ont abouti à l’établissement et à l’institu-tionnalisation d’une nouvelle relation fondée surdes principes d’inégalité et d’assujettissement(Milloy, 1990). Ces changements résultaient enpartie de la racialisation des relations entre lecolonisateur et le colonisé au fur et à mesure queDarwin et les théories de Spencer sur le racismescientifique et le concept de « race moribonde »gagnaient en crédibilité et en importance. En


Polidiscriminationoutre, « la transition que connaissait la relation était aussimotivée par la croyance occidentale dans le progrès et dans ledéveloppement évolutionnaire des êtres humains qui aurait poureffet de faire passer ces derniers d’un état de civilisation moinsélevé à un état supérieur. » (CRPA, volume 1, 1996 : 142)

Une rupture historique s’est donc produite, en partie en raisondu complexe de supériorité européen, complexe ou idéologiequi se justifie par la religion, la technologie, le racisme scien-tifique et une croyance téléologique en l’histoire. Schouls,Olthuis et Engelstad expliquent la façon dont cette supérioritéprésumée a servi à justifier l’abandon des principes d’unfédéralisme axé sur les traités et la transformation de la relationde nation à nation. Selon eux :

Les premiers colons croyaient qu’ils étaient d’un niveau decivilisation plus avancée que les Autochtones… Il semblaitévident que le « Nouveau Monde » était destiné à devenirune autre Europe… se croyant culturellement et moralementsupérieurs, les colons pouvaient se justifier d’agir afin d’ « améliorer » le territoire et d’« éclairer » le peuple…L’habileté des Canadiens à justifier le nombre incalculabled’actes documentés d’injustice, commis contre les Autochtonesau motif que la culture européenne était plus « moderne » etdonc « supérieure », continue de se refléter encore de nos joursdans la distorsion de la relation entre les Autochtones et lesnon-Autochtones (Schouls et autres, 202:15)

Ce nouveau paradigme a mené à la Loi sur les sauvages de 1876– c’est le titre exact de la loi qui est connue maintenant sous lenom de Loi sur les Indiens - et à ses objectifs sous-jacents deprotection, de civilisation et d’assimilation (Tobias, 1991).Dans la poursuite de ces objectifs, le gouvernement fédéral s’estlancé dans une mission de génocide politique. Par « génocidepolitique », j’entends les politiques et pratiques du gouverne-ment fédéral qui étaient conçues pour éliminer la souverainetéautochtone, les gouvernements autochtones et les ordres cons-titutionnels autochtones (Ladner, 2003). L’idée fondamentaleétait l’élimination des formes autochtones de gouvernance parle gouvernement fédéral et leur remplacement par des gou-vernements « civilisés ». Ces gouvernements « civilisés », le sys-tème de conseil de bande, étaient calqués sur les municipalités,dont les compétences sont restreintes et l’autorité déléguée. Lesconseils de bande avaient été créés essentiellement pour servirde gouvernements fantoches, chargés de fournir les servicesd’administration locale pour le compte des Affaires indiennes.On doit noter que les rédacteurs de la politique indienne duCanada croyaient que le système de conseils de bande don-nerait aux Autochtones l’occasion de se familiariser avec legouvernement « civilisé » et d’apprendre à se gouverner eux-

mêmes (Ladner, 2003; Tobias, 1990). Dès que lesAutochtones auraient acquis suffisamment d’expérience, ilscesseraient d’être Indiens au sens de la Loi sur les Indiens, onconférerait alors aux Premières nations l’autonomie gouverne-mentale en faisant des conseils de bande des gouvernementsmunicipaux, identiques aux autres municipalités relevant de lacompétence provinciale (Ladner et Orsini, 2005).

Il faut comprendre que les Autochtones pour qui la Loi sur lesIndiens créait un système de gouvernement, les conseils debande, n’étaient pas des peuples démunis de structures de gou-vernance, de lois et de traditions politiques. Il ne s’agissait pasd’une politique neutre. Il s’agissait plutôt d’une politique insti-tutionnalisant la discrimination systémique des gouverne-ments autochtones, et comme d’autres actes injustes, cettepolitique était, elle aussi, justifiée par la supériorité présuméedes Européens. Le gouvernement fédéral n’a pas seulement dis-criminé contre les gouvernements autochtones en ignorantleur souveraineté autochtone ou en tentant de transformer lesordres constitutionnels autochtones tant en ce qui a trait auxcompétences qu’au système de gouvernement. Le gouverne-ment fédéral a porté la discrimination à un degré plus élevé eneffectuant la destruction totale du gouvernement d’une autrenation et en prônant le remplacement d’un régime, en rem-plaçant les systèmes politiques inclusifs, consensuels et démo-cratiques des Autochtones par le système peu démocratique etnon représentatif des colonisateurs.

On peut soutenir que la pratique de « gouvernement civilisé »a eu pour effet de remplacer une forme de gouvernement« civilisé » par une autre qui l’était moins. Il en est ainsi du faitque plusieurs des nations autochtones, telles que les

Haudenosaunees et la Confédération des Pieds-Noirs s’étaient

dotés de systèmes politiques démocratiques complexes

(Ladner, 2001). La plupart de ces systèmes politiques étaient

consensuels et fondés sur la croyance que chaque individu,hommes comme femmes, devait être représenté dans le proces-sus décisionnel et dans la décision elle-même. À cette époque,les gouvernements coloniaux et leurs homologues européensétaient peu représentatifs et peu démocratiques. Ces soi-disantdémocraties excluaient ceux qu’elles ne considéraient pascomme des personnes, les femmes et les personnes de couleur,et ceux qu’elles jugeaient indignes, la majorité des hommes, lesgens qui ne possédaient pas de biens fonciers ou les ouvriers.

On ne tolérait plus les gouvernements autochtones ou les chefstraditionnels. Le gouvernement fédéral s’efforçait de les rem-placer par tous les moyens disponibles, y compris l’ « assassinat »du Chef Jack Fire, à Akwesasne, en 1899, où on avait dépêché


Polidiscriminationla GRC pour éliminer le gouvernement des Haudenosaunees(Mitchell, 1989:118). Le remplacement du système tradition-nel ne signifiait pas la fin de la discrimination systémique desgouvernements autochtones. Le Canada continuait à faire fi dela souveraineté autochtone en restreignant les pouvoirs desconseils de bande établis en vertu de la Loi sur les Indiens et enles assujettissant aux pouvoirs autoritaires de l’administrationcoloniale. Encore aujourd’hui, les chefs et les conseils n’ont,selon la Loi sur les indiens, que le droit de gouverner dans desdomaines de peu d’importance en passant des règlements surdes question comme l’affectation des bâtiments, les mauvaisesherbes, l’apiculture et l’élevage de volaille (Canada, 1985). Ilfaut souligner que, même si les conseils de bande avaient ledroit de gouverner dans des domaines d’importance mineure,leurs pouvoirs étaient limités et dépendaient entièrement del’administration coloniale, qui détenait le pouvoir de désaveu.Jusqu’aux années 1960, l’infériorité et la dépendance des conseilsde bande étaient accentuées par le fait que les agents dessauvages, délégués du ministre des Affaires indiennes, détenaientle pouvoir de gouverner les réserves. En outre, la plupart desconseils de bande n’avaient pas d’exemplaire de la Loi sur lesIndiens et ne pouvaient retenir les services d’avocats ou de con-seillers pour les aider à gouverner. Même de nos jours, le gou-vernement colonial exerce de vastes pouvoirs sur les conseils debande, qui sont des organismes inférieurs et subordonnés. Parexemple, le ministre des Affaires indiennes contrôle le processusélectoral, conserve le pouvoir de destituer et remplacer un chefet un conseil, définit et contrôle la responsabilité financière et ale pouvoir de désavouer toute activité du conseil de bande, et, dureste, de tout Indien. En résumé, la Loi sur les Indiens n’a passeulement institutionnalisé un régime de génocide politique,mais a créé un système d’infériorité et de discrimination sys-témique qui fait que les conseils de bande dépendent et relèventdu gouvernement fédéral.

Il est important de noter que le Canada ne discrimine pas seule-ment contre les gouvernements autochtones et les conseils debande, mais aussi contre les femmes autochtones qui doiventfaire face à une double discrimination en matière de gouver-nance. Non seulement les gouvernements, qu’il s’agisse de gou-vernements autochtones ou de conseils de bande établis en vertude la Loi sur les Indiens, sont victimes de discrimination de lapart de l’État, mais les femmes, elles-mêmes, sont depuislongtemps objet de discrimination en tant que femmes dans lesystème de gouvernance imposé par la Loi sur les Indiens. Avecl’imposition de la Loi sur les Indiens, les femmes autochtonesn’ont pas seulement perdu leurs gouvernements traditionnels, entant que gouvernements reconnus par le Canada et ayant desrelations avec lui, et leur rôle vital au sein de ces systèmes poli-

tiques, mais aussi tout rôle dans le gouvernement autochtone,la Loi sur les Indiens les excluant du processus politiquejusqu’en 1951 (Voyageur, 2008). On leur refusait mêmed’autres droits essentiels, comme celui de la « citoyenneté » etde statut personnel : elles pouvaient perdre ces droits en semariant jusqu’en 1985 et elles sont toujours privées des droitsde propriété (Green 2001:729-737; Dick, 2006; Alcantara2006). Qui plus est, la Loi sur les Indiens et ses dispositionspatriarcales sur des questions comme le statut personnel, lesdroits politiques et les droits de propriété ont eu pour résultatd’internaliser le colonialisme, à un degré plus ou moins grand,ce qui a eu pour effet, à son tour, d’avoir une incidence néga-tive sur la position sociale des femmes dans les collectivitésautochtones tout en institutionnalisant l’hétéronormativité etles idées masculines de nation, de souveraineté et de politiqueautochtone (Smith, 2005). Bien que les femmes ne soient plusofficiellement exclues du processus politique au sein de leurscommunautés, le travail de Voyageur démontre bien que lesfemmes autochtones font toujours face à une discriminationsystémique dans la vie politique (Voyageur, 2008).

Les gouvernements autochtones (les gouvernements tradition-nels) et les conseils de bande établis en vertu de la Loi sur lesIndiens continuent d’être soumis à une discrimination sys-témique. Bien que les gouvernements traditionnels continuentd’exister et de revendiquer le droit de gouverner selon leur pro-pre ordre constitutionnel et bien que ces gouvernements soientperçus comme le gouvernement légitime par plusieurs, des per-sonnes comme des collectivités, l’État continue de nier leur exis-tence et de les reconnaître en matière de relations intergou-vernementales, des procédures judiciaires et du gouvernementdes réserves. Malgré l’activisme continu et le dévouement deplusieurs qui cherchent à obtenir la reconnaissance ou simple-ment à gouverner dans le cadre d’institutions autochtones etselon les constitutions autochtones, peu a changé. Les gou-vernements canadiens continuent à agir comme si lesAutochtones sont des peuples qui n’avaient pas de gouverne-ment avant la colonisation et la « civilisation ».

Mais ce n’est pas comme si obtenir un certain niveau de « civi-lisation » ait changé quelque chose à la discrimination sys-témique dont font l’objet les gouvernements autochtones.Même si tous les conseils de bande ont, on peut le supposer,atteint le niveau requis de civilisation et démontré qu’ils peu-vent pratiquer une forme de gouvernement civilisé, le gou-vernement canadien continue de les traiter comme des gou-vernements inférieurs, dépendants et subordonnés, incapablesde gouverner. Malgré un activisme continu en plusieursdomaines (politiques, juridiques, internationaux et constitu-


Polidiscriminationtionnels) et la lutte pour l’autodétermination, peu a changé : legouvernement fédéral continue à refuser aux Autochtones leurscompétences inhérentes et l’autonomie et à les traiter commedes gouvernements inférieurs capables d’exercer uniquementles pouvoirs délégués et seulement en tant qu’administrateurs.Malgré cela, les conseils de bande et les gouvernementsautochtones continuent à lutter pour obtenir l’autonomie gou-

vernementale, non pas l’autonomie administrative, voyantdans l’autonomie gouvernementale une occasion de recréer oude remettre sur pied des gouvernements autochtones et derebâtir la souveraineté autochtone, mettant fin ainsi au règnede la discrimination systémique à l’endroit des gouvernementsautochtones.

Références Alcantara, Christopher. "Indian Women and the Division of Matrimonial Real Property on Canadian Indian Reserves."

Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. Volume 18, Number 2 (2006), pp. 513-533.Barreiro, José (ed.). Indian Roots of American Democracy, (Ithaca: Akwe:kon Press, 1992).Canada, Loi sur les Indiens, (Ottawa: Ministère des travaux publics et services gouvernementaux Canada, 1985), Canada. Rapport de la Commission royale sur les peoples autochtones, Vol.1: Looking Forward, Looking Back, (Ottawa:

Gouvernement du Canada,1996).Dick, Caroline. "The Politics of Intragroup Difference: First Nations' Women and the Sawridge Dispute." Revue canadienne de

sciences politiques, Volume 39, no 1 (2006), p. 97-116Flanagan, Thomas. First Nations? Second Thoughts. (Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000).Gillespie, James E. The Influence of Overseas Expansion on England to 1700, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1920). Green, Joyce. "Canaries in the Mines of Citizenship: Indian Women in Canada." Revue canadienne de sciences politiques,

Volume 34, no 4 (2001), p. 715-738Henderson, James Sakej. First Nations Jurisprudence and Aboriginal Rights, Defining the Just Society, (Saskatoon: Native Law

Centre of Canada, 2006)Johansen, Bruce E. Debating Democracy: Native American Legacy of Freedom, (Santa Fe New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers,

1998).________. Forgotten Founders: How the American Indian Helped Shape Democracy. (Boston: Harvard Common Press, 1982 )________. "Native American Societies and the Evolution of Democracy in America 1600-1800." Ethnohistory. Volume 37,

Number 3 (1990), pp. 279-290Ladner, Kiera L. "Rethinking the Past, Present and Future of Aboriginal Governance" in J. Brodie and L. Trimble eds.,

Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century (Toronto: Pearson Education, 2003).________."Treaty Federalism: An Indigenous Vision of Canadian Federalisms" in Smith, Miriam and Francois Rocher eds., New

Trends in Canadian Federalism (Peterborough: Broadview, 2003), pp. 167-194________. When Buffalo Speaks: Creating an AlterNative Understanding of Traditional Blackfoot Governance, (PhD Dissertation.

Carleton University, 2001).Ladner, Kiera L. and Michael Orsini. "The Persistence of Paradigm Paralysis: The First Nations Governance Act as the

Continuation of Colonial Policy" in Canada: State of the Federation 2003 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’sUniversity Press, 2005), pp. 185-203

Milloy, John S. The Plains Cree: Trade, Diplomacy, And War, 1780 To 1870, Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1990Mitchell, Mike. "An Unbroken Assertion of Sovereignty", in Boyce Richardson ed., Drumbeat: Anger and Renewal in Indian

Country, (Toronto: Summerhill Press, 1989).Sanford, Charles S. The Quest for Paradise: Europe and the American Moral Imagination, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,

1961).Schouls, Tim. John Olthuis and Diane Engelstad. "The Basic Dilemma: Sovereignty or Assimilation", in John Bird, Lorraine

Land & Murray MacAdam (eds.), Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, (Toronto: IrwinPublishing, 2002), pp.12-28

Smith, Andrea. Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2005).Tobias, John. "Protection, Civilization and Assimilation," in J.R. Miller ed. Sweet Promises, (Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 1991).Voyageur, Cora. Firekeepers of the Twenty-First Century: First Nations Women Chiefs, (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press,

2008).Weatherford, Jack. Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World, (New York: Ballentine Books, 1988).Young, Iris Marion. "Hybrid Democracy: Iroquois Federalism and the Postcolonial Project." in Ivison, Duncan, Paul Patton

and Will Sanders eds. Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).


AbstractIncreasing the number of Aboriginal people work-ing in health professions is frequently prescribed asa way to improve the health status of First Nations,Inuit and Métis peoples. Toward this, many post-secondary health-related training and educationprograms have instituted "best practices" to sup-port successful outcomes for Aboriginal students.Still, the gap between the proportions ofAboriginal and non-Aboriginal adults with univer-sity degree continues to widen. To develop moreeffective strategies for change, we need to learnfrom Aboriginal people and communities whatthey need, measure and assess the extent to whichpost-secondary systems meet those needs and, onan ongoing basis, take guidance and direction fromFirst Nations, Inuit and Métis leadership.

Résumé Pour améliorer l’état de santé des membres desPremières nations, des Inuits et des Métis, il estfréquemment recommandé d’augmenter l’effectifautochtone dans les professions de la santé. À cettefin, plusieurs programmes postsecondaires d’édu-cation et de formation du domaine de la santéprévoient des pratiques exemplaires visant àencourager les étudiants autochtones. Cependant,l’écart entre la proportion d’Autochtones et denon-Autochtones possédant un diplôme universi-taire est de plus en plus important. Pour élaborerdes stratégies efficaces de changement, nous devonsconnaître les besoins des peuples et collectivitésautochtones, les mesurer et déterminer la façonselon laquelle le système d’éducation post-secondaire peut mieux répondre à ces besoins; deplus, sur une base permanente, nous devons suivreles conseils et respecter l’orientation des chefs defile des Premières nations, des Inuits et des Métis.

IntroductionThe federal government’s Aboriginal HealthHuman Resources Initiative (AHHRI) is currentlyunderway. The government is working in close

partnership with First Nations, Inuit and Métisleadership to increase Aboriginal peoples’ participa-tion in health care professions, enhance the cultur-al sensitivity of health professional curricula andimprove the retention of workers in health care sys-tems that serve Aboriginal peoples. AHHRI is partof an action plan "to improve health services for allAboriginal peoples" and "to close the gap betweenthe health status of Aboriginal peoples and theCanadian public" (Government of Canada, 2004). The AHHRI initiative is based on the understand-ing that increasing the number of First Nations,Inuit and Métis health professionals will, in turn,make health services more accessible to Aboriginalpeoples. This is not a new idea. In 1996, the RoyalCommission on Aboriginal peoples (RCAP) calledfor a "co-ordinated and comprehensive humanresources development strategy" to support thetraining and education of "10,000 Aboriginal pro-fessionals over a 10-year period in health and socialservices" (Report of the Royal Commission onAboriginal peoples, Volume 3, Gathering Strength,Section 3, Health and Healing, 1996).

What has changed in the twelve years since RCAPand even in the four years since the governmentfirst announced its action plan is the urgency of theneeds that AHHRI intends to address. There con-tinue to be significant disparities between thehealth status of Aboriginal peoples and that ofother Canadians (Statistics Canada, 2007). Thesehealth disparities, in turn, have their roots in deepdisparities with respect to key health determinants,including housing, socio-economic status, access toeducation and employment, social conditions andaccess to health services. We know that existinghealth services do not meet the needs of Aboriginalpeoples and we know that Aboriginal people arethe fastest growing segment of our population. Ifwe do not take effective action now, theseinequities will, at the very least, persist and perhapsdeepen.

Can Institutional Systems Learn to Listen?Developing an effective strategy to improve Aboriginal peoples’ health status.

Alex Wilson, M.A. Ph.D. and Janet Sarson, B.A.

About the AuthorsAlex Wilson, Opaskwayak CreeNation, holds a Master’s and aDoctorate in HumanDevelopment & Psychology fromHarvard University. She is cur-rently an assistant professor in theCollege of Education at theUniversity of Saskatchewan. Dr.Wilson has collaborated on anumber of research projects withthe U of S’s Aboriginal EducationResearch Centre.

Janet Sarson (B.A., WellesleyCollege) is a research consultantand student in the newly-estab-lished, land-based IndigenousEducation Graduate programoffered by the University ofAlberta.

TRENDS


Can Institutional Systems Learn to Listen? Taking Effective ActionA crucial first step we must take is to understand what effectiveaction means. Our research team is in the initial phases of aresearch project that will inform the design of AHHRI activi-ties in Saskatchewan. As is true across the country, theprovince’s Aboriginal population is much younger than thepopulation as a whole. Roughly 15% of people inSaskatchewan self-identify as Aboriginal, with roughly two-thirds of these identifying as First Nations and one-third asMétis (Aboriginal Population Profile, 2006 Census, 2008;Saskatchewan Bureau of Statistics, n.d.). Today, one in five 15-to-29 year-olds in the province is Aboriginal and by 2026 morethan one in three people in this group will be Aboriginal.

These numbers matter because the majority of new entrantsinto both the labour force and post-secondary education andtraining are in this age group. AHHRI activities that maydevelop from our research will likely target this group. Thesurge in the population of Aboriginal youth is seen by some asa potential solution to the shortage of skilled labour Canadacurrently faces. As a recent National Post article pointed out,this "should be good news" (emphasis added) for Aboriginalpeople in Canada but, in fact, Aboriginal people are not likelyto be part of the solution unless dramatic changes are made tothe way education is delivered (Ivison, 2008).

System is Failing Aboriginal peoplesTo date, Aboriginal people have not been well served by formaleducation and training systems. Forty-four percent ofAboriginal people 15 years of age or older in Canada do nothave any kind of high school or post-secondary degree, certifi-cate or diploma. For the same age group within the country’spopulation as a whole, this figure is only 24% (StatisticsCanada, 2008). Between 2001 and 2006 the percentage ofAboriginal people aged 25-64 holding a university degreeincreased from 6% to 8%, but Aboriginal people continue tolag well behind the non-Aboriginal population in this agegroup, 23% of whom hold a university degree. The gapbetween the two groups actually widened over this period(Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 2008).

A large body of research and literature that explores how and whythe post-secondary system has failed Aboriginal peoples has accu-mulated over the last decade (Battiste, 2005; Canadian Councilon Learning, 2006a, 2006b; Malatest, 2004; Mendelson, 2008;Richards, 2008; Richardson & Blanchet-Cohen, 2000a, 2000b).It includes no shortage of suggestions about how post-secondaryservices to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples might beimproved. Across Canada, many post-secondary institutions

have designed health-related programs and supports specificallyfor First Nations, Inuit and Métis students and communities(National Aboriginal Health Organization, 2003). As Malatest (2004) has noted, while there may be anecdotalsupport for what the literature reports does or doesn’t generatesuccessful education and training outcomes for Aboriginal stu-dents and communities, There is actually very little data orresearch that measures the long-term impacts of what has beenput forward as best practices. Additionally, the informationthat post-secondary institutions gather and share about theirAboriginal students typically does not distinguish betweenFirst Nations (or within that group, people with or without sta-tus), Inuit and Métis students. This limited information pre-sumably meets the needs of post-secondary institutions, butdoes not offer us much help in understanding what the reali-ty is for Aboriginal students at these institutions. We need datathat distinguishes between First Nations, Inuit and Métis stu-dents because this aspect of their identity can have significantimpacts on that which can make-or-break them as students,including their ability to access funding and other resources,the knowledge and experiences they bring to the institution,the opportunities available to them after program completionand their individual and their communities’ need from post-secondary institutions.

Individual and Community NeedsUnderstanding what First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoplesand communities want and need from post-secondary institu-tions is crucial. Without that information, we cannot assessthe extent to which post-secondary institutions are willingand/or able to meet those needs. As one First NationEducation Director in Manitoba cautions, we must learn tomeasure what First Nations, Inuit and Métis people and com-munities value and then to value what we measure (JamesWilson, personal communication, August 2008). Post-sec-ondary institutions typically have the capacity to measure andgather whatever information they might need. Who has thecapacity and the will to measure and gather the informationthat First Nations, Métis and other Aboriginal people, organi-zations, communities and nations need as consumers of theservices provided by the post-secondary system?

Aboriginal people are their own experts. They know their ownstrengths, resources and needs. They must be actively involvedand empowered in the design, development and implementa-tion of any strategies or programs intended for their use. Forour Saskatchewan research project, we need to learn from FirstNations, Inuit and Métis people what they value: What doFirst Nations and Métis people and communities (including


Can Institutional Systems Learn to Listen? the health sector) in Saskatchewan want and need from healthtraining and education programs? How can post-secondaryinstitutions and other stakeholders help to meet those needs?Their answers to these simple questions will be the starting place

from which we will be able to understand how to enhance par-ticipation and successful outcomes for Aboriginal peoples inhealth-related post-secondary education and training.

ReferencesAboriginal Population Profile, 2006 Census. (2008). Retrieved September 17, 2008, 2008, from

www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/aboriginalBattiste, M. (2005). State of Aboriginal Learning: Background Paper National Dialogue on Aboriginal Learning. Ottawa: Canadian

Council on Learning.Canadian Council on Learning. (2006a). What Are the Factors that Facilitate and Impede Post-Secondary Access and Participation

of Aboriginal Students? Ottawa: Canadian Council on Learning.Canadian Council on Learning. (2006b). What factors facilitate Aboriginal post-secondary success? Ottawa: Canadian Council on

Learning.Government of Canada. (2004). News Release - Improving Aboriginal Health: First Ministers' and Aboriginal Leaders'

Meeting. http://www.scics.gc.ca/cinfo04/800041005_e.htmlIndian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2008). Fact Sheet: 2006 Census Aboriginal Demographics.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/info/cad-eng.aspIvison, J. (2008). Faulty federal math hurts reserve schools. 2008, www.nationalpost.comMalatest, R. A. (2004). Aboriginal Peoples and Post-Secondary Education: What Educators Have Learned. Montreal: Canada

Millennium Scholarship Foundation.Mendelson, M. (2008). Improving Education on Reserves: A First Nations Education Authority Act. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of

Social Policy.National Aboriginal Health Organization. (2003). Analysis of Aboriginal Health Careers Education and Training Opportunities.

Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organization.Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 3, Gathering Strength, Section 3, Health and Healing.

(1996).): Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.Richards, J. (2008). Closing the Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal Education Gaps (No. 116). Toronto: C. D. Howe Institute.Richardson, C., & Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2000a). Postsecondary Education Programs for Aboriginal Peoples: Achievements and

Issues. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 24(2), 169-184.Richardson, C., & Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2000b). Survey of Post-Secondary Education Programs in Canada for Aboriginal Peoples.

Victoria: UNESCO, Institute for Child Rights and Development and First Nations Partnerships Program, University ofVictoria.

Saskatchewan Bureau of Statistics. (n.d.). Saskatchewan Aboriginal Peoples, 2006 Census of Canada. http://www.stats.gov.sk.ca/Statistics Canada. (2007). Aboriginal health and well-being. 2008, http://www41.statcan.ca/2007/10000/ceb10000_004-

eng.htmStatistics Canada. (2008). Saskatchewan (table). Aboriginal Population Profile. www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/pro-

files/aboriginal/Index.cfm?Lang=E


Constitutional Supremacy and the Deadbeat CrownsJames [Sa’ke’j] Youngblood Henderson, J.D., LL.D.

About the authorJames [Sakej] YoungbloodHenderson is Professor and Re-search Director of the Native LawCentre of Canada at the Collegeof Law, University of Sask-atchewan. Born to the Bear Clanof the Chicksaw Nation andCheyenne Tribe in Oklahoma in1944.

Constitution binds all governments, both federaland provincial, including the executive branch…. They may not transgress its provisions: indeed,their sole claim to exercise lawful authority rests inthe powers allocated to them under theConstitution, and can come from no other source.

The Court, Reference re Quebec Secession,[1998] 2 S.C.R. at paras. 70 and 72.

Since constitutional reform in 1982, the on-goingfederal and provincial Crowns’ failure of constitu-tional supremacy and the rule of law have generatedan extraordinary version of systemic discriminationagainst Aboriginal holders of aboriginal and treatyrights. The avoidance of these rights by Crowns, itselected politicians, and administrators is a violationof constitutional supremacy. The failure to reformexisting legislation and policy are largely responsiblefor perpetuating the dysfunctional environments ofconcentrated poverty of Aboriginal peoples’ lives.

For a society recovering from parliamentarysupremacy and colonialism, this systemic discrimi-nation is mostly invisible to Canadians. It is basedon unreformed law and public policy that avoid andignore Aboriginal peoples’ constitutional rights,thwart their constitutional integration, and dilute itspractical benefits in eliminating discrimination andpolicy. It generates the theory of deadbeat and recal-citrant Crowns, who avoid the constitutionalresponsibility of the honour of the Crown and hon-ourable governance toward Aboriginal peoples.

The concept of the deadbeat Crowns is not new.Since affirming aboriginal and treaty rights, an end-less parade of court decisions, and commissions andinquiries that substitute for litigation have revealedthe Crowns’ overwhelming pattern of systemic dis-

crimination against Aboriginal people’s lives .The

highlights to the monumental Report of the Royal

Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) revealed

the Crown’s history with Aboriginal peoples "take[s]

the form of dishonoured treaties, theft of Aboriginal

AbstractThe principles of constitutionalism and the rule oflaw lie at the root of our system of government. Theessence of constitutionalism in Canada is embodiedin s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, whichprovides that "[t]he Constitution of Canada is thesupreme law of Canada, and any law that is incon-sistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, tothe extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect."The constitutionalism principle requires that allgovernment action comply with the Constitutionwhich binds all governments, both federal andprovincial including the executive branch …. Thefailure to reform existing legislation and policy arelargely responsible for perpetuating the dysfunction-al environments of concentrated poverty ofAboriginal peoples’ lives. Since affirming aboriginaland treaty rights, an endless parade of court deci-sions, and commissions and inquiries that substitutefor litigation have revealed the Crowns’ overwhelm-ing pattern of systemic discrimination againstAboriginal people’s lives . Since 1982, theCommission highlighted that “governments have sofar refused to recognize the continuity of Aboriginalnations and the need to permit their decolonizationat last.

The principles of constitutionalism and the rule oflaw lie at the root of our system of government.The essence of constitutionalism in Canada isembodied in s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act,1982, which provides that "[t]he Constitution ofCanada is the supreme law of Canada, and anylaw that is inconsistent with the provisions of theConstitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,of no force or effect." Simply put, the constitution-alism principle requires that all governmentaction comply with the Constitution. … ThisCourt has noted on several occasions that with theadoption of the Charter, the Canadian system ofgovernment was transformed to a significantextent from a system of Parliamentary supremacyto one of constitutional supremacy. The

TRENDS


Constitutional Supremacylands, suppression of Aboriginal cultures, abduction ofAboriginal children, impoverishment and disempowerment ofAboriginal peoples (p.4)." Since 1982, the Commission high-lighted that "governments have so far refused to recognize thecontinuity of Aboriginal nations and the need to permit theirdecolonization at last. By their actions, if not by their words,governments continue to block Aboriginal nations from assum-ing the broad powers of governance that would permit them tofashion their own institutions and work out their own solutionsto social, economic, and political problems. It is this refusal thateffectively blocks the way forward (p. 13)." In short, the Crownshave resisted and denied constitutional supremacy and the ruleof law to Aboriginal peoples.

In 1998, the federal Crown admitted attitudes of racial and cul-tural superiority led to a suppression of Aboriginal culture andvalues that resulted in weakening the identity of Aboriginal peo-ples, suppressing their languages and cultures, and outlawingtheir spiritual practices. These attitudes led to once self-sustain-ing nations being disaggregated, disrupted, limited or evendestroyed by the dispossession of traditional territory and therelocation. It acknowledged that the result of these actions wasthe erosion of the political, economic, and social systems ofAboriginal people and nations.

Since most of Crowns sought to overturn aboriginal and treatyrights by prosecuting Aboriginal peoples rather than reformingexisting law, they forced the judiciary into explaining or inter-preting these meanings of constitutional rights. In more than 40decisions, the Court has significantly affirmed aboriginal andtreaty rights have constitutional status, protection, and priority,which constitutionally empowers and sanctions Aboriginal peo-ples to challenge policy objectives embodied in general federal orprovincial legislation that affect those rights. It acknowledgedthat over the years the rights of the Indians were often (dis)hon-oured in the breach and virtually ignored by the Crowns. It heldthat neither historical nor current legislation nor policy on thepart of the Crowns could delineate the aboriginal and treatyrights or determine the content and scope of the constitutionalrights. It affirmed that existing legislation, regulation, and poli-cy has to be consistent with aboriginal and treaty rights. If theselaws are inconsistent, in part or whole, with the constitutionalrights of Aboriginal peoples, they are of no force and effect.

It held that no part of the constitution can abrogate another, butno power or right is absolute—they all have to read together.Each Crown has constitutional duty of honourable governmentsand a fiduciary relationship with Aboriginal people to the extentof its constitutional power to affect Aboriginal peoples’ rights orit exercises discretionary control over their rights. Thus, the fed-eral Crown under s. 91 and the provincial Crown under ss. 92and 93 of Constitution Act, 1867 must be read with Aboriginalpeoples’ rights in section 35(1) of Constitution Act, 1982 to alloweach levels of government to fulfill the honour of the Crownwithin their receptive fields of competence. This creates a revo-lutionary concept of honourable government for Aboriginal peo-ples that displaces the familiar concept of good government. Theintegral theme of constitutional reconciliation between theseparts of the constitution permeates the concept of honourablegovernment.

What happened (or didn’t)? The simple answer is nothing hap-pened. The politicians and agents of Crowns have not reformedtheir legislation, regulations, and policies to be consistent withaboriginal and treaty rights. These legal regimes and governmen-tal techniques often acknowledge that respecting Aboriginal peo-ples’ rights have real cost and that resistance to them is often anattempt to avoid these costs. These techniques reflect unac-knowledged systemic discrimination based on out-dated colonialassumptions that deserve constitutional scrutiny and critique.They have attempted to camouflage their resistance by stigma-tizing Aboriginal peoples as a race and their issues as racial segre-gation, cultural differences, or multi-culturalism, rather than aconstitutional empowered people seeking to preserve theirknowledge, heritage, and rights and extend federalism.

They continue to generate systemic discrimination againstAboriginal peoples’ rights and leave little or no room for consti-tutional governments, laws, or choices for Aboriginal peoples.

While they possess constitutional rights, Aboriginal peoples arestill forced into living with out-dated and discriminatory gov-ernmental legislation and policies. With a few exceptions, theexisting legislative regimes have chosen to perpetuate and rein-force systemic discrimination against the constitutional rights ofAboriginal peoples, rather than reform these regimes, make themconsistent with the constitution, and undermine the practicalpromise of constitutional empowerment.

ReferencesCanada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996). People to People, Nation to Nations: Highlights from the Report of the

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Ottawa, ON: Canada Communication Group online: <http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/rpt/index_e.html> (last accessed on October 6, 2008).


Tendances

Suprématie constitutionnelle et gouvernements irresponsablesJames [Sa’ke’j] Youngblood Henderson J.D., LL.D.

L’auteur :James [Sakej] YoungbloodHenderson est professeur etdirecteur de la recherche au NativeLaw Centre of Canada du Collègede droit de l’Université de laSaskatchewan. Il est né enOklahoma, en 1944, dans le clan del’ours de la nation Chicksaw et de latribu Cheyenne.

Résumé Les principes du constitutionnalisme et la primautédu droit sont au cœur de notre système de gouverne-ment. L’essence du constitutionnalisme au Canadaest concrétisé dans l’art. 52(1) de la Loi constitution-nelle de 1982, qui prévoit que « [l]a Constitution duCanada est la loi suprême du Canada; elle rendinopérantes les dispositions incompatibles de touteautre règle de droit ». Le principe du constitution-nalisme exige que toute action gouvernementale seconforme à la Constitution. Cette exigence s’ap-plique à tous les gouvernements, fédéral et provin-ciaux, y compris leurs organes exécutifs. Le défaut deréformer dans ce sens les lois et les politiques exis-tantes est en grande partie responsable de la perpé-tuation des milieux dysfonctionnels de la pauvretéchez les Autochtones. Depuis l’affirmation des droitsdes Autochtones et des droits issus de traités, unesérie interminable de jugements de tribunaux, decommissions et d’enquêtes substitués aux litiges, arévélé la discrimination systémique de la Couronnecontre la vie des Autochtones. Depuis 1982, commel’a souligné la Commission royale sur les peuplesautochtones, « [j]usqu'ici, les gouvernements onttoujours refusé de reconnaître la continuité desnations autochtones et la nécessité d'enfin lesdécoloniser ».

Les principes du constitutionnalisme et de la pri-mauté du droit sont à la base de notre système degouvernement… L'essence du constitutionnalismeau Canada est exprimée dans le par. 52(1) de laLoi constitutionnelle de 1982 : « LaConstitution du Canada est la loi suprême duCanada; elle rend inopérantes les dispositionsincompatibles de toute autre règle de droit. » End'autres mots, le principe du constitutionnalismeexige que les actes de gouvernement soient con-formes à la Constitution... Notre Cour a soulignéplusieurs fois que, dans une large mesure, l'adop-tion de la Charte avait fait passer le système cana-dien de gouvernement de la suprématie parlemen-taire à la suprématie constitutionnelle. LaConstitution lie tous les gouvernements, tantfédéral que provinciaux, y compris l'exécutif… Ilsne sauraient en transgresser les dispositions: en effet,leur seul droit à l'autorité qu'ils exercent résidedans les pouvoirs que leur confère la Constitution.Cette autorité ne peut avoir d'autre source.

La Cour suprême du Canada, Renvoi relatif àla sécession du Québec, [1998] 2 R.C.S. 217,

paragraphes 70 et 72

Depuis la réforme constitutionnelle de 1982, lesmanquements continus de la Couronne fédéraleainsi que des Couronnes provinciales à la suprématieconstitutionnelle et à la primauté du droit ont donnéjour à une version extraordinaire de discriminationsystémique contre les détenteurs de droitsautochtones et de droits issus de traités. La violationde ces droits par l’État, par les élus et par les admi-nistrateurs constitue un manquement à la suprématieconstitutionnelle. Le fait de ne pas modifier les lois etles politiques actuelles est la cause principale de laperpétuation de milieux dysfonctionnels où lesAutochtones, entassés les uns sur les autres, viventdans la pauvreté.

La discrimination systémique dont sont victimes lesAutochtones est généralement invisible auxCanadiens, qui, eux, vivent toujours dans une sociétése remettant des suites de la suprématie parlemen-taire et du colonialisme. Elle se fonde sur des lois quiont été modifiées pour en supprimer les règlesinjustes et sur une politique qui ne tient pas comptedes droits constitutionnels des Autochtones, con-trarie leur intégration constitutionnelle et dilue leseffets pratiques de l’élimination de la discriminationet des politiques discriminatoires. Elle a donné jour àla théorie des Couronnes irresponsables et récalci-trantes, qui ne se soucient pas de leur responsabilitéconstitutionnelle de respecter les obligationsengageant leur honneur, notamment en ce qui a traità la gouvernance des Autochtones.

Le concept de Couronnes ou gouvernements irres-ponsables n’est pas nouveau. Depuis la déclarationconstitutionnelle des droits autochtones et des droitsissus de traités, une série interminable de décisionsjudiciaires, ainsi que de commissions et d’enquêtes sesubstituant aux procès, a révélé la discrimination sys-témique des gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux àl’endroit des Autochtones. Les points saillants durapport extrêmement important de la Commissionroyale sur les peuples autochtones (1996) démon-trent que le comportement de la Couronne envers lespeuples autochtones « prennent des formes diverses:


Suprématie constitutionnelle traités non respectés, vol de terres autochtones, élimination descultures autochtones, enlèvement d'enfants autochtones, appau-vrissement et suppression de la liberté d'action des peuplesautochtones. » (page 4). Comme le soulignait la Commission, de1982 : « jusqu'ici, les gouvernements ont toujours refusé dereconnaître la continuité des nations autochtones et la nécessitéd'enfin les décoloniser. En actes, sinon en paroles, les gouverne-ments continuent à empêcher les nations autochtones d'assumerles pouvoirs qui leur permettraient de structurer leurs propresinstitutions et d'élaborer leurs propres solutions aux problèmessociaux, économiques et politiques. En fait, c'est ce refus quiempêche tout progrès. » (page 13). Bref, les Couronnes ont refuséaux peuples autochtones les droits qui étaient leurs en vertu de lasuprématie constitutionnelle et de la primauté du droit.

En 1998, la Couronne fédérale admettait que des attitudes desupériorité raciale et culturelle avaient mené à l’élimination de laculture et des valeurs autochtones et, comme résultat, à l’affai-blissement de l’identité des Autochtones, à la suppression de leurslangues et cultures et à la mise hors-la-loi de leurs pratiques spiri-tuelles. Du fait de ces attitudes des nations autrefois autonomes sesont vues décomposées, perturbées, restreintes ou même détruitespar la perte de leur terres traditionnelles et par leur relocalisation.Elle a reconnu que ces actions ont abouti à l’érosion des systèmespolitiques, économiques et sociaux des Autochtones et desnations autochtones.

Puisque la plupart des Couronnes ont tenté d’annuler les droitsautochtones et les droits issus de traités en intentant des pour-suites contre les Autochtones plutôt que de modifier les loisactuelles, les tribunaux se sont vus forcés d’intervenir et d’expli-quer ou interpréter le sens des droits constitutionnels reconnusaux Autochtones. Dans plus de 40 décisions, la Cour suprême duCanada a déclaré de façon très claire que les droits autochtones etles droits issus de traités ont un statut constitutionnel et jouissentd’une protection et d’une priorité constitutionnelle, ce quihabilite les Autochtones à contester les objectifs de politiquesincorporés dans les lois fédérales et provinciales ayant une inci-dence négative sur leurs droits. La Cour a reconnu qu’au fil desans les droits des Indiens n’avaient pas été respectés et, à toutesfins pratiques, ignorés par les Couronnes. Elle a jugé que les loisou politiques, anciennes comme actuelles, des Couronnes nepouvaient définir les droits autochtones et les droits issus detraités ou déterminer le contenu et l’étendue de leurs droits cons-titutionnels. Elle a déclaré que les lois, règlements et politiquesactuelles doivent être conformes aux droits autochtones et auxdroits issus de traités. Si ces lois sont incompatibles, en tout ou enpartie, avec les droits constitutionnels des Autochtones, elles sontnulles et non avenues.

La Cour suprême a décidé qu’aucune partie de la Constitution nepouvait en abroger une autre et qu’aucun pouvoir ou droit n’étaitabsolu – ils doivent s’interpréter les uns au regard des autres.Chacune des Couronnes a l’obligation constitutionnelle de secomporter en gouvernement respectueux de ses engagements etdoit tenir compte de sa relation fiduciaire envers les Autochtonesdans l’exercice de ses pouvoirs constitutionnels et discrétionnairesrelativement aux droits des Autochtones. Les pouvoirs de laCouronne fédérale, en vertu de l’article 91, et des Couronnesprovinciales, en vertu des articles 92 et 93 de la Loi constitution-nelle de 1867, doivent s’interpréter en fonction des droits desAutochtones prévus par l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de1982, de façon à ce que chaque palier gouvernemental respecteles obligations de la Couronne dans le champ de compétence quilui est propre. Ainsi a été créé le concept révolutionnaire de gou-vernement honorable des Autochtones qui se substitue au con-cept bien connu de bon gouvernement. Le thème intégral de laconciliation constitutionnelle des différentes parties de laConstitution informe le concept de gouvernement honorable.

Que s’est-il produit? La réponse est simple : rien. Les politicienset les mandataires de la Couronne n’ont pas modifié leurs lois,règlements et politiques pour les rendre conformes aux droitsautochtones et aux droits issus de traités. Ces régimes juridiqueset ces techniques gouvernementales reconnaissent que le respectdes droits autochtones entraîne souvent des coûts, ce qui expliquele peu d’empressement à les respecter. Ce sont là le reflet d’unediscrimination systémique, non reconnue, fondée sur deshypothèses coloniales démodées, qui devraient faire l’objet d’unexamen et d’une critique constitutionnelle. Ils ont tenté de ca-moufler leur résistance en stigmatisant les Autochtones au pointde vue racial et en voyant la solution de ces problèmes dans laségrégation raciale, les différences culturelles ou le multicultural-isme, plutôt que dans l’existence d’un peuple habilité constitu-tionnellement, qui cherche à préserver son savoir, son patrimoineet ses droits et d’être reconnu à l’intérieur du fédéralisme.

Ces régimes juridiques alimentent la discrimination systémiquecontre les Autochtones et laissent peu ou pas de place aux gou-vernements, lois ou choix constitutionnels des Autochtones. Bienque détenteurs de droits constitutionnels, les Autochtones sonttoujours forcés de composer avec des lois et des politiques gou-vernementales discriminatoires et démodées. Sauf quelquesexceptions, les régimes législatifs actuels ont choisi de perpétueret de renforcer la discrimination systémique des Autochtonesplutôt que de modifier ces régimes, de les rendre compatibles avecla Constitution, minant ainsi la promesse d’habilitation constitu-tionnelle.

Références Canada, Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones (1996). Points saillants du rapport de la Commission royale sur les peu-

ples autochtones. À l'aube d'un rapprochement, Affaires indiennes et du Nord Canada, http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ap/pubs/rpt/rpt-fra.asp


Two-spirit Identity: Active resistance to multiple oppressions.Alex Wilson M.A. Ph.D.

About the AuthorAlex Wilson, Opaskwayak CreeNation, holds a Master’s and aDoctorate in Human Develop-9ment & Psychology fromHarvard University. She is cur-rently an assistant professor in theCollege of Education at theUniversity of Saskatchewan. Dr.Wilson has collaborated on anumber of research projects withthe U of S’s Aboriginal EducationResearch Centre.

and transgendered (LGBT) people describe them-selves as "two-spirit." Two-spirit is an empoweredidentity that emerged within the context of sus-tained racism, homophobia and sexism. It is verycontemporary and, at the same time, deeply root-ed in history and tradition. When someone statesthat they are two-spirit, they are proclaiming anidentity that honours and integrates sexuality, gen-der, culture, spirituality and all other aspects ofwho they are.

The term two-spirit first appeared in the 1990s, inthe midst of a movement among LGBT Aboriginalpeople to organize and develop a collective identi-ty. A considerable body of literature about LGBTIndigenous Americans existed at that time.However, virtually all the authors of these texts –whether they were explorers, missionaries, otherearly immigrants to this continent or conventionalor LGBT anthropologists and historians – were ofEuropean descent and the literature consisted pri-marily of texts written for non-Indigenous people,offering non-Indigenous interpretations of andattributing non-Indigenous meanings toIndigenous peoples’ customs, bodies, behavioursand lives.

In Canada, government policies and actions havethreatened the integrity of Aboriginal people’s fam-ilies, relationships and other loving partnerships,communities and nations. Aggressive assimilationactivities have attempted to displace our ownunderstandings, practices and teachings aroundsexuality, gender and relationships and replacethem with mainstream, Judeo-Christian/Euro-Canadian ones. Ironically, for many LGBTAboriginal people, we have tried to repair this lossof cultural continuity and better understand whowe are by turning to historians, anthropologistsand the deeply compromised body of literaturedescribed above.

Abstract An ever-increasing proportion of First Nations,Métis and other Aboriginal lesbian, gay, bisexualand transgendered (LGBT) people describe them-selves as "two-spirit." It is an empowered identitythat emerged within the context of sustainedracism, homophobia and sexism. The term two-spirit first appeared in the 1990s, in the midst of amovement among LGBT Aboriginal people toorganize and develop a collective identity.Aggressive assimilation activities have attempted todisplace our own understandings, practices andteachings around sexuality, gender and relation-ships and replace them with mainstream, Judeo-Christian/Euro-Canadian ones. Two-spirit identi-ty, however, reclaims our authority to define whowe are. Two-spirit identity fits these distinct cul-tures, histories and ways of being.

Résumé Une proportion grandissante de membres desPremières Nations, des Métis et d’autresAutochtones qui sont gais, lesbiennes, bisexuels outransgenres (GLBT) se disent « bi-spirituels ». Ils’agit d’une identité dont les gens qui l’ont élaboréedans un contexte de racisme, d’homophobie et de

sexisme soutenus ont acquis certains pouvoirs. Leterme « bi-spirituel » est d’abord apparu dans lesannées 1990, au sein d’un mouvement organisépar les Autochtones GLBT pour élaborer une iden-tité collective. Les activités énergiques d’assimila-tion ont tenté de déplacer nos propres compréhen-sions, pratiques et enseignements, concernant lasexualité, les sexes et les rapports de couple pour lesremplacer par des idées du courant dominantjudéo-chrétien/euro-canadien. L’identité bi-spiri-tuelle nous remet le pouvoir de définir qui noussommes.

The Meaning of "Two-Spirit"An ever-increasing proportion of First Nations,Métis and other Aboriginal lesbian, gay, bisexual

TRENDS


Two-spirit IdentityReclaiming Our Authority Two-spirit identity, however, reclaims our authority to definewho we are. It connects us to our past and restores culturallinks that had been disturbed or severed by systemic and insti-tutionalized racism, sexism and homophobia. In researchactivities for my doctoral thesis, I asked two-spirit people totalk with me about their identity. They described feelingaccepted and embraced by their families and communities atthe beginning of their lives and then encountering racism, sex-ism and/or homophobia at a relatively young age, experiencesthat diminished and fragmented their sense of self. They nowlinked these experiences to the history of colonization inCanada and, in particular, the negative intergenerationalimpacts of the residential school system. They recognized thatthese historic experiences and the accompanying imposition ofChristianity had attacked the foundations of their families,communities and cultures and engendered shame, culturalconfusion and self-division.

For this group of two-spirit people, as they grew older andtheir racial/sexual/gender identity became more articulatedand identifiable, they were exposed to more and more homo-phobia in their families and communities. Ultimately, manyparticipants made a decision to cut themselves loose, to escapefrom homophobia, sexism and racism by leaving their homecommunities. Moving to the city provided opportunities toactively and openly explore their sexualities, genders and iden-tities and most who made this transition found valuable sup-

ports and resources there that helped them, to varying extents,to come to terms with aspects of who they were. Eventually,however, they recognized that, as Aboriginal LGBT people,their stories, experiences and identities differ in many waysfrom those of mainstream LGBT Canadians.

Affirming an IdentityAs a final step in the development of their identities as two-spirit people, group members recognized that, rather than try-ing to squeeze into someone else’s established identity, theyneeded an identity that fit who they were. Two-spirit identityfits their distinct cultures, histories and ways of being. Unlikemainstream ‘coming out’ stories, in which an LGBT persontypically announces and asserts their individual right to be whothey are, the narratives of these two-spirit people describe aprocess of 'coming in' and affirming an interdependent identi-ty. 'Coming in' is not a declaration or an announcement; it issimply presenting oneself and being fully present as anAboriginal person who is GLBT.

Two-spirit identity is an empowered identity that integratestheir sexuality, culture, gender and all other aspects of who theyunderstand and know themselves to be. By coming into theiridentity as two-spirit people, they acknowledged their placeand value in their own families, communities, cultures, historyand present-day world.


Brief concerning Urban AboriginalHomelessness in QuebecRegroupement des centres d’amitié autochtones du Québec (RCAAQ)

Submitted to the Public Hearings on Homelessness held by the Social Affairs Committee, October 2008

TRENDS

Abstract The Native Friendship Centres (NFC) are urbanservice institutions for Aboriginal people. Theyhave also become important educational and train-ing organizations for thousands of Aboriginals.They advocate on behalf of the rights and interestsof Aboriginal people, and work daily to promotebetter understanding, not just by Québécois butalso by Aboriginal people living in their communi-ties, of the issues, problems and challenges facingurban Aboriginals.

The mission of the Regroupement des centresd’amitié autochtones du Québec (RCAAQ) is topromote the individual and collective rights andinterests of Aboriginal people in the urban setting.

In carrying out its support and representation mis-sion in Quebec for more than 30 years the RCAAQhas been able to obtain an overview of the prob-lems facing Aboriginal people in the urban settingand develop a holistic approach encompassing thenotions of empowerment, culture, community andthe social economy.

The growing problem of homelessness affectingurban Aboriginal people is a reality of which theRCAAQ has direct knowledge. Every day, the NFCmust confront the challenge of this ever-increasingphenomenon which appears in several forms, andthey must do so by showing creativity and innova-tion using the often limited means at their disposal.

RésuméLes Centres d’amitié autochtones sont des éta-blissements de service en milieu urbain pour lesAutochtones. Ils sont devenus des organismesimportants d’éducation et de formation pour desmilliers d’Autochtones. Ils défendent leurs droits etintérêts et se consacrent quotidiennement à la com-préhension des enjeux, des problèmes et des défisauxquels sont confrontés les Autochtones habitant

dans les villes du Québec, autant de la part desQuébécois que de la part des Autochtones eux-mêmes.

La mission du Regroupement des centres d’amitiéautochtones du Québec (RCAAQ) est d’assurer lerespect et l’avancement des droits et des intérêts,individuels et collectifs, des Autochtones en milieuurbain.

En accomplissant sa mission de soutien et dereprésentation au Québec depuis plus de 30 ans, leRCAAQ a pu acquérir une vue d’ensemble desproblèmes auxquels font face les Autochtones dansles villes et élaborer une approche holistique quienglobe les notions d’autonomie, de culture, decollectivité et d’économie sociale.

Le problème croissant de l’itinérance chez lesAutochtones dans les villes est une réalité que leRCAAQ connaît concrètement. Chaque jour, lescentres d’amitié doivent répondre au défi de cephénomène qui se présentent sous plusieursformes. Pour ce faire, ils doivent faire preuve decréativité et d’innovation en ayant recours à leursmoyens souvent limités.

Homelessness…among Aboriginal peopleFew systematic studies have been conducted onAboriginal homelessness and urban wandering; butthere are indicators which tell us that a significantpercentage of homeless people in Québec andCanada are of Aboriginal origin. We know thatalthough they make up 3% of Canada’s popula-tion, Aboriginal people account for 10% of thecountry’s entire homeless population, for a home-lessness rate three times higher than that of non-Aboriginal people.

We therefore clearly note an Aboriginal dimensionto homelessness, one which is explained by the spe-


Urban Aboriginal Homelessnesscific conditions experienced by First Nations members. Andthese conditions are not simply economic in nature, but theyare also of a social, political and cultural nature. Social and eco-nomic inequalities, social exclusion and political guardianshipcombine their effects with dramatic results.

In this regard, we cannot set aside the issue of housing, notonly because, as we indicated, Aboriginal housing conditionsare clearly inferior to those in the non-Aboriginal population,but also because the Aboriginal demand for social housing onand off reserve) is infinitely higher than what is offered andavailable. Here we must add that government programs havebeen largely inadequate over the past several years.

Homelessness…among urban Aboriginal peopleFurther to the economic factors more directly linked to thelack of income and financial resources, we must consideranother dimension of the reality experienced by urbanAboriginal people to better understand the "Aboriginal dimen-sion" of homelessness.

For several decades during which the economic and social sit-uation on the reserves has stagnated, many Aboriginal peoplehave been leaving their community in the hope of improvingtheir lives. Others find that they must go to urban centres tocontinue their general or occupational training or to receivehealth services. Others yet, such as women and children, leavein order to escape domestic violence and the bleak futureawaiting them in their own communities.

This migration has grown to such an important extent thattoday, urban Aboriginals account for 37% of Québec’s entireAboriginal population, or between one-third and one-quarterof the registered Aboriginal population in Québec. Migration

to the cities for different reasons has significantly increased thepopulation of Aboriginal people living away from their com-munities. As a result, succeeding generations of Aboriginalpeople are being born in the urban centres and more than one-half of the Aboriginal population is younger than 25.

To summarize, having been led for numerous reasons to leavetheir home territories an increasing number of Aboriginal peo-ple find themselves forced to confront the urban reality. Theyare thrust into a setting that is not their traditional one; theyare isolated and cut off from all of their usual social bearingsthat define their culture and identity, far from the minimalprotections they can receive from their communities of origin.

They find themselves in a particularly vulnerable positionwhich can lead them experience situations of severe povertyand to undergo the breakdown in the social bond. In short,urban Aboriginals are brought up against the possibility ofmultiple ruptures at the affective, economic and cultural levels,which so aptly characterize homelessness today

This phenomenon may first appear among urban Aboriginalsas a particular type of "urban wandering," as a step towardschronic homelessness which is expressed as a form of socialexclusion often leading to difficulties in finding a stable andsustainable place to live and even the incapacity to do so.

Although urban wandering may reflect certain cultural tradi-tions stemming from the nomadic lifestyle of the past, it provesto be a very difficult way of life in today’s socio-economic con-text of overcrowding combined with a sharply felt lack of workand housing. In the end, it is self-destructive for the peoplewho must find accommodations with others as well as for thenatural helpers who provide them with this support.

Furthermore, if urban Aboriginals today are more at risk, it isbecause they are isolated and marginalized in the cities theyhave gone to live in. They are also more at risk of being direct-ly subject to racism and social exclusion because of their ethnicorigin.

Possible Alternatives: How do we address the problem of Aboriginal Homelessness?It cannot be stressed enough that homelessness is caused bynumerous factors, with the lack of financial resources (espe-cially for housing) among the most important ones. We mustwork upstream of the problem; that is, prevention activities arenecessary for overcoming homelessness.

The expertise acquired by the Québec Native FriendshipCentre MovementWhen we look at homelessness itself and the breakdown in thesocial bond that it represents, we see that the NFC are wellplaced to be decisive stakeholders in the search for sustainablesolutions. This is precisely because we make the individual thefocus of our work, in taking account of the component madeup of Aboriginal identity and culture. What we seek, then, isto reinforce the social bond which is so important for thosewho leave their communities for the urban centres, where theyfind themselves marginalized and isolated, even if not due sole-ly to discrimination or racism.


Urban Aboriginal HomelessnessFurthermore, using the notion of "Aboriginal empowerment"allows the NFC to help individuals regain power over theirown lives and ultimately to play their rightful role as citizenswithin the urban political framework and as part of the urbansetting in itself. Our approach goes well beyond the delivery ofservices.

The RCAAQ must be proactive in building awareness amongcivil society stakeholders of the specific conditions affectingurban Aboriginal people and of the solutions to consider. In thisregard, the 2006 First Nations Socio-Economic Forum allowedus to create alliances and to formalize partnership agreementswith stakeholders such as the Chantier de l’économie sociale, theConfédération des syndicats nationaux, the Union desMunicipalités and Réseau interuniversitaire Dialog.

The Québec government made several commitments with theRCAAQ covering the areas of health, social services, earlychildhood and social development, education, culture and lan-guages, economy, employment and income security, infra-structure and housing, sustainable community development,and support for youths.

Recommendations1. Therefore, RCAAQ recommends, on the basis of its

expertise in the search for sustainable solutions, its deliv-ery of services and its positioning within Quebec’s urbansociety, that the Quebec Native Friendship CentreMovement become a key stakeholder as part of theaction plans of the Government of Quebec, to ensurethat such action plans take account of the specific reali-ties affecting urban Aboriginals.

The RCAAQ ensured that the entire series of commitments

made at the FNSEF would be elaborated on the basis of thefollowing strategic direction: Improving the quality of life ofurban Aboriginal people depends directly on efforts made tocombat poverty and social exclusion. It was in keeping with this philosophy that the RCAAQbrought forward 11 commitments in the areas of health, socialservices, early childhood, education, economy, employment,infrastructures, sustainable community development andyouth.

2. Therefore, the RCAAQ recommends that the commit-ments made at the First Nations Socio-Economic Forumbe formalized and renewed by way of services agree-ments between the Native Friendship Centres and thevarious departments of the Government of Quebec.

3. We also recommend that support be given to the socialeconomy initiatives developed by the RCAAQ for pur-poses of diversifying Aboriginal economic development.

Other approaches: Build on earlier accomplishments and develop promising initiatives togetherIt is also imperative to promote joint action by all urban stake-holders who seek to address the issue of homelessness: commu-nity organizations, governments, municipalities, health andsocial services, and so on. But all actions must take account ofthe cultural dimension, which is the means for remedying thebreakdown in the social bond. In this respect, the NFC canprovide invaluable support because they are already devotingefforts towards restoring and strengthening the social bond. Wecannot combat homelessness without restoring this bond andwe need the close collaboration of our partners to do so.

1. Therefore, the RCAAQ recommends that confirmationbe given concerning renewal of the HomelessnessPartnership Initiative, which ends March 31, 2009 andthat its budgets be revised.

Combating homelessness requires concrete and adaptedapproaches. In this regard, a province-wide study is essential forpurposes of identifying strategies adapted to the Aboriginalreality.

2. Therefore, we recommend that the RCAAQ conduct astudy to identify intervention strategies adapted to theAboriginal reality, based on a holistic philosophy ofAboriginal empowerment as means of ensuring thatefforts are carried out in complementary manner withpartners from the Quebec network.

For example, the idea of promoting public housing for

Aboriginal people with community support takes on its entiremeaning in this context. We know that if Aboriginal people atrisk of being homeless cannot benefit from housing conditions

within their means, combined with support from genuinely

warm and human contact which takes account of their situation,

including the cultural aspect, they will only run a greater riskover the long term of falling into the trap of vagrancy and fromthere, homelessness. We must therefore seek solutions which inall cases are based on the cultural dimension. It is in this areawhere the RCAAQ can play an extremely important role.

3. Therefore, we recommend that the Government ofQuebec encourage the development of public housing byincreasing the number of housing units through therenewal of the Accès Logis program.

needs which have been assessed. We must join forces with allother involved stakeholders. And all those involved mustacknowledge the importance of this cultural dimension andthe role it can play in rebuilding a genuine social bond.

Improving the quality of life of urban Aboriginal peopledepends squarely on efforts made to combat poverty and socialexclusion. This is the condition that must be met if we are toeffectively address the problem of Aboriginal homelessness, ashas been well demonstrated by the extensive experienceacquired by our Native Friendship Centres.

Contact informationE-mail: [email protected] Website: www.rcaaq.info


Urban Aboriginal Homelessness

BibliographyNational Association of Friendship Centres and Law Commission of Canada. Urban Aboriginal Governance in Canada: Re-

fashioning the Dialogue, Ottawa, 1999, 148 p.Boucher Jacques L. L’itinérance en Outaouais 2002: un portrait, Plan de recherche, memo, July 2002, 29 p.Native Friendship Centre of Val-d’Or. Brief submitted to the Public Hearings on Homelessness held by the Social Affairs

Committee, October 20, 2008.Ducharme Marie Noëlle. Conditions de développement du logement social avec support pour des personnes vulnérables, Master’s the-

sis in Social Work presented at UQAM, April 2009, 127 p. Descent Danielle, Vollant Tshiuetin. Implementation of a Native Friendship Centre in Sept-Îles: Urban Aboriginal Clientele Needs

Assessment and Profile, Sept-Îles 2007.Aboriginal Women and Homelessness, presentation made at the National Aboriginal Women’s Summit, Corner Brook,

Newfoundland and Labrador, June 20-22, 2007.APIRG and RCAAQ, Needs assessment concerning psychosocial services at six Native Friendship Centres in Quebec, Quebec City,

Regroupement des centres d’amitié autochtones du Québec, April 2008.Laberge Danielle (ed.). L’errance urbaine, Éditions Multimondes, Quebec City, 2000, 439 p.Mouterde Pierre. Lutter contre l'itinérance dans l'Outaouais « à la recherche d'alternatives pratiques », Groupe recherche focus,

Quebec City, 2002.Newhouse, David and Peters, Evelyn (eds.). Not Strangers in These Parts: Urban Aboriginal Peoples, Policy Research Initiative,

Canada, 2003. (The Presence of Aboriginal Peoples in Quebec’s Cities: Multiple Movements, Diverse Issues)

http://www.policyresearch.gc.ca/doclib/AboriginalBook_E.pdf )RCAAQ. Pashkabigoni: A History Full of Promise, Quebec City, Regroupement des centres d’amitié autochtones du Québec, July

2008.RCAAQ. Portrait of Literacy within the Quebec Native Friendship Centre Movement, Quebec City, Regroupement des centres

d’amitié autochtones du Québec, 2008.RCAAQ. Kapakan: The Implementation of the Native Friendship Centre of Sept-Îles, presented to Service Canada (Homelessness

Partnership Initiative), Quebec City, December 2007.RCAAQ. Breaking down the wall of silence and indifference, brief submitted to the public consultation Towards a Government

Policy for Combating Racism and Discrimination, Wendake, September 2006.RCAAQ. Community Support Initiative for the Education of Urban Aboriginal Children, Quebec City (internal document), 2006.RCAAQ. Change Tomorrow Today! Quebec City, Regroupement des centres d’amitié autochtones du Québec, 2005.Simard Michel. Itinérance et grande pauvreté, brief presented to the Social Affairs Committee, Trois-Rivières, October 2002.Ship Susan Judith, M.A., Ph.D. (ABD). Community consultation on Aboriginal homelessness, Native Friendship Centre of

Montreal, November 8, 2001.

ConclusionAccording to the needs assessment of urban Aboriginals, thevast majority of Aboriginal respondents considered that theirmain needs, apart from the basic needs of food, clothing andshelter, were to be able to develop a feeling of belonging totheir community, to have a place where they could gather andinteract with others, and to be able to count on a social net-work for support.

This is precisely what the RCAAQ is seeking to accomplishthrough its mission to improve the quality of life of urbanAboriginal people and to develop effective, innovative strate-gies for combating poverty and social exclusion. But we muststress once more; we require adequate resources that meet the


The Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge as Reconciliation and RestorationLorna Williams, Ph.D.

TRENDS

About the AuthorLorna Williams is a member ofthe Lil’wat First Nation, MountCurrie BC. She is AssistantProfessor and Program Director ofAboriginal Teacher Education atthe University of Victoria, BC.She worked for the Ministry ofEducation as Director of theAboriginal Education Enhance-ments Branch where she directedresearch and policy developmentand implementation in all areas ofeducation for Aboriginal students.She worked as a First NationsEducation Specialist with theVancouver School Board. Heresearch focus is in the are ofteacher development.

AbstractIn Canadian schools racism is evident in what welearn and when and what we teach. It is in how weteach and whom we think we teach. It is in thehuman interactions between and among learnersand teachers, parents and communities. It is in thelabels assigned, and how we measure.Colonization has rendered our knowledge voicelessand invisible in the schooling structures in whichour children attend to study and prepare for theirfutures and the futures of our communities.Indigenous wisdom and knowledge has been ren-dered invisible and deemed to be worthless andirrelevant for generations. In the schools of todayrarely can we find Indigenous knowledge in thefacilities, curricula, and instructional process or inthe structures of education. Canadian citizens canstill graduate from K-12 and from post secondaryinstitutions with only a limited knowledge of FirstNations, Métis and Inuit. However, we persist andcontinue to speak our languages, practice our cer-emonies to honour our ancestors, the land and ourdescendents. A challenge for those who have theopportunity to construct curricula, programs andteach from an Indigenous perspective is first, tomake institutional for space for Indigenousknowledge and processes. an Indigenous principleof learning is communal and collective learning. ashumans we are making a connection with oneanother, with the plants and animals that are alsopart of our community, with the land and ances-tors. In all of our actions we are not alone – we areall connected.

RésuméDans les écoles canadiennes, le racisme est évidentau moment de l’apprentissage comme à l’enseigne-ment. Il se retrouve dans notre façon d’enseigner etdans les idées véhiculées aux apprenants. Il est dansl’interaction personnelle entre les apprenants, lesenseignants, les parents et les collectivités. En con-séquence de la colonisation, nos connaissances

sont devenues muettes et invisibles à l’intérieurd’une structure scolaire dans laquelle nos enfantsétudient et préparent leur avenir et l’avenir de noscollectivités. Depuis des générations, la sagesse etles connaissances autochtones ont été renduesinvisibles et ont été considérées comme sans valeuret sans pertinence. Dans les écoles d’aujourd'hui,rares sont les traces des connaissances autochtonesdans les livres, les programmes d’études, les proces-sus ou les structures de l’enseignement. Lescitoyens canadiens peuvent toujours devenirdiplômés des écoles secondaires ou post-secondaires avec des connaissances très rudimen-taires des Premières nations, des Métis et desInuits. Toutefois, nous persistons; nous continuonsà parler nos langues, à pratiquer nos cérémoniespour honorer nos ancêtres, la terre ainsi que nosdescendants. Un premier défi pour ceux et cellesqui ont l’occasion de construire les programmesd’études et d’enseigner à partir d’une perspectiveautochtone est de faire de la place dans les éta-blissements pour les connaissances et les processusautochtones. Chez les Autochtones, l’apprentissagecommunautaire et collectif est un principe de l’en-seignement. En tant qu’êtres humains, nous créonsdes liens avec les autres personnes et avec lesplantes et les animaux qui font également partie denotre communauté, avec la terre et les ancêtres.

Dans toutes nos actions, nous espérons que nousne sommes pas seuls : nous sommes tous liés.

Racism in Canadian schoolsRacism runs through Canadian schools andsplashes you in the face unexpectedly or washesover you relentlessly. It is in what we learn andwhen and what we teach. It is in how we teach andwhom we think we teach. It is in the human inter-actions between and among learners and teachers,parents and communities. It is in the labelsassigned, and how we measure. From the time of contact with Europeans afterColumbus there have been assaults and insults on


Recognition of Indigenous Knowledgethe Indigenous Peoples of the Americas – on our bodies, spirits,families, communities and nations in the forms of disease,forced separation policies, forced disconnection from life on ourlands and water and racism suffered directly and institutionally.Colonization has rendered our knowledge voiceless and invisi-ble in the schooling structures in which our children attend tostudy and prepare for their futures and the futures of our com-munities.

The legacy of colonization has been the disruption of inter-generational relationships, the core to passing on knowledgefrom one generation to another. School policies disrupted theuse of Indigenous languages in the home, community, and onthe land. The stories, songs and dances that carry the wisdomof each nation could not be practiced holistically for severalgenerations. Ceremonies and relationships with the ancestorsand the spirit dimension were interrupted and could not beexperienced by many descendents. The relationships with theland, plants, animals, rivers, streams was disrupted, the respon-sibility for caring and protection of the land as it cares for itspeople could not be carried out, and Indigenous people havewatched the ecosystems deteriorate in support of progress.

Indigenous wisdom and knowledge has been rendered invisibleand deemed to be worthless and irrelevant for generations.Indigenous people have been dehumanized and demonized sothat Canadians can forget our presence, ignore our existence orfear our presence. In the schools of to day rarely can we findIndigenous knowledge in the facilities, curricula, and instruc-tional process or in the structures of education. Canadian cit-izens can still graduate from K-12 and from post secondaryinstitutions with only a limited knowledge of First Nations,

Métis and Inuit. However, we persist and continue to speak

our languages, practice our ceremonies to honour our ances-

tors, the land and our descendents.

Indigenous knowledge, learning and teachingAll societies develop systems to ensure it’s own continuationand existence. Indigenous societies in Canada are no different.We need to look to the wisdom found in our languages todirect us to understanding the systems, processes and princi-ples that form the foundation of an Indigenous understandingof teaching and learning. In the Sencoten language of theWsanc1 people, their word for education is ELTLNIWT. Asexplained by J. Elliott2, Sencoten language teacher, it means,"to be a whole human being". The Wsanc have effective sys-

tems to ensure that each of its members grows up to know thattheir knowledge and ways of knowing are inseparable from theland, place, spirit and kin. To the Dine, commonly known asNavajo, k’e3 is a morpheme added to words describing learningand teaching, to connote understanding interdependent, com-passionate relationships as they manifest in life. Relationshipsbetween earth and sky are in balance and harmony; self, fami-ly, community and nation are intricately connected; animalsand plants; and between the ancestors and descendents – all areinterconnected, all are one. To be healthy the waters – streams,rivers, oceans and lakes need the health of plants on the shore,it is a reciprocal relationship. To care for the water and waterlife is to care for the land.

A person who is regarded to be brought up knowing tradition-al values is hard working, persistent, self disciplined, one whoworks at a task with consistent effort, never over exerting to thepoint of behaving aggressively. A young person described ascelhcelh4 is someone who is aware of their personal capabili-ties, one who knows how to fit themselves into a group that isworking on a task, and one who can assess a situation andknow what to do, when to do it and know how to join a taskgroup without someone directing them.

DecolonizationA challenge for those who have the opportunity to constructcurricula, programs and teach from an Indigenous perspectiveis first, to make institutional space for Indigenous knowledgeand processes. The second is to maintain the focus in theIndigenous world when all the templates, criteria, philosophiesthat inform those activities come from Euro western, modernworld. For example, an Indigenous principle of learning iscommunal and collective learning. Each individual in a com-

munity has skills, gifts, knowledge, experiences and insightsthat can make available and contribute to the over all work ofthe learning community. If a class is structured in this way, itchallenges learners who have been socialized to compete formarks by with holding information from their classmates orshowing they know more than their classmates. Assignments,assessments and grading on a hierarchical basis can tend toforce a competitive and individualistic orientation. In a recentuniversity class I taught, that was project- based the studentsparticipated in constructing a database framework and con-structed survey and interview questionnaires for a languageproject. The course began with an invitation to the students towork on the project, after describing the scope of the project

1 The Wsanc reside in their territories on Southern Vancouver Island and Georgia straits islands. 2 John Elliott in a personal communication during a meeting on curriculum devleopment personal communication from Larry Emerson, Dine scholar3 celhcelh is from the Lil’wat language, my language, this is the word I heard from elders in my community.


Recognition of Indigenous Knowledgeand purpose; I explained that each member of the class hadgifts, knowledge and experiences that would contribute to theproject. In the reflective dialogue at the end of the class, par-ticipants shared that for each it took time to adjust to theexpectations. For some the invitation was a surprise but theycould accept it and as one explained, "I went with it" for oth-ers it took longer, they were so habituated to having a classschedule that told them exactly what to expect from week toweek, rather than having the work of each week and the con-tributions they made collectively; the new developments of theproject; developments due to further research readings directthe next weeks assignments and the activities of each class. Forall but one student, they found that by the end of the class theyhad no stress about their performance; they were surprised bywhat they had collectively and cooperatively produced. Andthey were satisfied that their work made a difference and has apurpose in the world beyond the class. This is congruent withthe Indigenous principles of learning with a purpose and inservice to the self and the community. The class structure sup-ports the belief that the more the individual uniqueness isacknowledge and recognized the stronger the community.

In a class offered at the University of Victoria called Learningand Teaching in an Indigenous World that attempts to createan Indigenous learning community in a university setting. Alearning principle identified as central to Indigenous people isto learn by doing. To learn while working along side elders andthose with expertise in the task at hand. While working on thetask, participants also learn how to approach the task, the spir-itual and emotional dimensions of learning and workingtogether. For example participants learned that before begin-ning work in each class they each made a transition into theclass by stopping to become conscious of their emotional state,what stresses were they needing to clear from their minds, bod-ies and hearts. At the beginning of each class, standing in a cir-cle time is devoted to giving thanks for being part of the circle,

remembering those who are not physically part of the circle,those who are ill or needing our support. In the pole carvingclass the whole class participated in a cleansing ceremony tocleanse our minds and hearts and the ground on which wewould do the carving so that all would work safely and in har-mony. In the Earthsongs class before making the drums, theclass thanked the trees that provided the drum frame, thankedthe deer and elk for their skins that would provide the beauti-ful sound of the drums, and in Earthfibres, the class jointogether cloaked in a rush tapestry to commit to workingtogether – all in a good way, with clear minds and strong heartsso that the work and learning occurs in a respectful way. In thisway as humans we are making a connection with one another,with the plants and animals that are also part of our commu-nity, with the land and ancestors. In all of our actions we arenot alone – we are all connected. A challenge for the learning community is to sustainIndigenous processes in an environment that demands a shiftto Euro western processes. It occurs by the time schedule andthe habits of students to compete for grades. The evaluation ofinstructors is oriented to a class structure where there is a sin-gle, expert or knowledge specialist to direct their learning.

When Indigenous learners are in the classrooms, they are con-stantly shifting from one cultural world to another. In ourhomes and communities much of the interaction continues tofollow an oral tradition, Stories, songs and dances continue tobe the way we make sense of the world, the way we interactwith one another. It is the same when a class is structuredaccording to Indigenous principles. Students and instructorsmust shift from one worldview to another. In the end of classreflections both Indigenous and non- Indigenous class partici-pants expressed their appreciation for their experience of learn-ing and teaching in an Indigenous world and that they werecommitted to recreating this learning experience in their futurework situations.


Residential Schools and the role of Aboriginal YouthJaime Koebel, M.A. candidate

About the AuthorJamie Koebel Jaime Koebel iscurrently an M.A., candidate andResearch & Development Officerwith the Metis SettlementsGeneral Council. Jaime has beenan active advocate for youthengagement since 1993.

TRENDS

AbstractFrom those who attended to those who were affect-ed and remain affected throughout generations oftrauma, young people are at the centre of the issuessurrounding the implementation of residentialschool policies across Canada. During implementa-tion of the schools the lost voices belonged to theyoung and along the lines of generational trauma,the voices of those young people remained silent.Today, healing among Aboriginal peoples nation-wide has moved toward the direction of healing.Healing has induced support systems of whichyouth have benefitted from and as a result the insur-gence of Aboriginal youth groups and support sys-tems is a positive effect of a nation moving forward.

RésuméQu’ils aient été pensionnaires ou parents d’une vic-time qui portent les séquelles du passé, les jeunessont au cœur des enjeux qui entourent la mise enapplication de la politique des pensionnats indiensd’un bout à l’autre du Canada. Pendant les années depensionnat, leurs voix ne parvenaient pas à se faireentendre, et pendant plusieurs générations, leurs voixsont demeurées muettes. Aujourd'hui, les Autoch-tones du pays entier ont progressé vers la voie de laguérison. Ces progrès ont donné lieu à la création deréseaux de soutien dont les jeunes bénéficient; ainsi,la relance des groupes jeunesse autochtones etd’autres réseaux de soutien est une conséquencefavorable d’une nation qui va de l’avant.

HistoryThe 1996 the Royal Commission on AboriginalPeoples recommended a call for a public inquiry toexamine the origins, purposes, and effects of resi-dential school policies as well as to identify abusesand recommend remedial measures to begin theprocess of healing (Aboriginal HealingFoundation, 2008). The Law Commission ofCanada released Restoring Dignity: Responding toChild Abuse in Canadian Institutions in 1998 whereit recommended that acknowledgment, apology

and reconciliation take place where abuse hasoccurred. (LCC, 2000) The final report of theRoyal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP)also recommended that those responsible for theresidential schools apologize to former studentsand their communities.

In 1998 with a Statement of Reconciliation deliv-ered from then Indian Affairs Minister, JaneStewart on behalf of the CanadianGovernment.(AHF, 2008) The statement includedan apology for the physical and sexual abuses thattragically occurred in the schools and a fund wasset up to support community healing. The ideabehind community healing as a necessary step inmoving forward acknowledged that the peoplewho attended the schools as well as their familiesfor generations afterwards were hugely affected bythe policies of forced removal which ultimatelyresulted in the re-socialization of First Nation,Inuit and Metis children.

The intergenerational impacts of residentialschools were extensive and the effects of theschools continue to infiltrate communities andindividuals across the country. In the 2008Aboriginal Healing Foundation’s publication FromTruth to Reconciliation; Transforming the Legacy ofResidential Schools, has an article, written byRupert Ross , which details the reality that childrenwho have never been exposed directly to residentialschools have felt the damaging effects of intergen-erational impacts of others who went to school.(AHF, 2008) Those impacts included being inflict-ed with traumatic experiences from student vic-tims of abuse who then became abusers. Youngpeople have consistently been the recipients incycles of trauma.

According to the Indian Residential SchoolsSurvivors Society, Aboriginal communities experi-ence higher rates of violence (3-6 times higher)than other Canadians. Health problems occurred 3


National Apology and Youth of Todaytimes higher amongst Aboriginal communities while highschool drop-out rates were at 63 percent. Among other issuesthat Aboriginal peoples face, poverty ranked among the high-est of inequities for Aboriginal peoples compared to the rest ofCanada. In Urban Poverty in Canada: A Statistical Profile(CCSD, 2000), evidence from the 1996 Census data showedthat Aboriginal peoples in urban areas were more than twice aslikely to live in poverty as non-Aboriginal peoples and 52 per-cent of all Aboriginal children are poor (Statistics Canada,1996).

With these types of intergenerational impacts to affect the stateof Aboriginal youth in a current context there is already aninherent challenge for young Aboriginal people to workthrough. Between 1831 and into the 1970’s when the schoolswere actively in operation, children and youth did not have avoice in deciding whether or not they attended the schools.Today, in 2008, there are numerous avenues and opportunitiesfor a youth voice to be expressed. These opportunities shouldbe offered and initiated to ensure a genuine understanding ofwhat needs to happen for real healing to be done.

Inuit, First Nations & MetisMany Aboriginal leaders make a link between Aboriginalyouth of today and residential schools; however, there appearsto be a disconnect between what happened in the past such asmemories of residential schools and what youth relate to. Inher speech after the national apology was presented by PrimeMinister Stephen Harper, Mary Simon, National Leader forthe Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami makes the link between Aboriginalyouth of today and residential schools by making the pointthat the apology will help entire communities in their healingprocess. She acknowledged that the Residential Schools issueskipped from generation to generation and gave the examplethat the percentage of Inuit who graduate from high school is

only 16 percent compared to the 63 percent for the rest ofCanada and the reason is because parents of those children areafraid to send their children to school because for them, theschool was something bad. President Simon declared that theapology will help close that gap.

National Chief Phil Fontaine expressed the need for allCanadians who witnessed the apology to see an improvedquality of life for First Nation children and citizens. He isquoted as saying: "Canadians know that when First Nations dowell, we all do well as a country." (Fontaine, 2008)The storyfor Metis and Residential Schools is somewhat different albeitequally as important. Many Metis attended Indian ResidentialSchools however, many Metis also attended similar institutions

called boarding schools, Missions or day schools. The titles ofthese places may be different from Indian Residential Schoolsbut their experiences are the same. The tragic difference isbecause they are not technically an Indian Residential School,boarding schools, Missions or day schools and subsequentlythe students who attended them do not qualify for compensa-tion. Similarly, Metis who attended these schools were notincluded in the most recent Apology delivered by StephenHarper, Prime Minister of Canada unless they attended anIndian Residential School proper. For young people whobelong to families of these former students, they are doublyimpacted as none of the services implemented for IndianResidential School Survivors and their families apply to themor their families.

It is important that so many leaders have identified the linkbetween Aboriginal youth and children of today with the resi-dential schools that were in place before today’s youth wereeven born. There has been much said by national Aboriginalleaders on the importance of protecting and serving Aboriginalyouth, but there seems to be a disconnect of engaging withAboriginal youth to determine what direction they think isnecessary to move forward on the path of healing. The ques-tion of whether or not young people within the aforemen-tioned Aboriginal organizations have been consulted is animportant one. It is important that we as Canadians andAboriginal people do differently from what had happened inthe past if we are to create genuine change and thoughtfuldirection. Genuine change requires genuine effort for thatchange. Who is asking Aboriginal youth what they think thedirection should be with regard to the issues around residentialschools?

Walking the Talk TogetherExamples of genuine effort could include creating a spacewhere young people can voice their opinions, concerns andideas for the future. In the past there was not that opportuni-ty for Aboriginal to express their voices in a recent colonial his-tory. The space for expression to occur could be in a numberof youth friendly environments including in their communi-ties or perhaps in a larger space such as giving young people achance to meet with National Aboriginal leaders who oftenclaim to speak on their behalf. Even more genuine would be toinvite young people to speak for themselves in spaces whereNational Aboriginal leaders meet with those in power. Thepolitical arena is closer to where changes in policy have thepotential to happen such as on Parliament Hill, in the Senateand within National organizations themselves. An on-goingopportunity for youth friendly space such as round-tables,


National Apology and Youth of Todayconferences or within Aboriginal youth council events them-selves requires financial contributions to make these spaceshappen; however, young people should not limit themselves orbecome complacent until funding is put in place. Manynational organizations have existing youth councils that canbegin consultations with the people they represent or engage inpolicy drafting sessions to share those statements for youthinclusion on issues pertaining to residential schools. For therepresentative bodies that specifically deal with the residualeffects of residential schools, such as the Aboriginal HealingFoundation and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, itis important that space in these places is also created for youthengagement and consultation. Either young people can ask forinclusion but better to have it offered as there can often beissues of power dynamics between young people and experi-enced adults.

Contemporary spaces for young people to join in on the con-versations include the internet in the form of chat rooms,blogs, electronic newsletters and YouTube. There are many

opportunities for the voices of Aboriginal youth to be heardabout the issue of Residential Schools. If National Aboriginalleaders think they need to protect and facilitate the positive,healthy development of young people this space for voice isimperative. Similarly, young Aboriginal people need to findtheir own spaces and take responsibility for learning about res-idential school issues as well as be provided the guidance indoing so. This is a responsibility for all. We are now in a timewhen young people can have a voice and it should be heardand valued.

The need for a youth voice in the process of reconciliation isan important step in building a genuine foundation for ahealthier people. It starts with hearing the voices that could notbe heard. Aboriginal youth are a prime resource in contribut-ing to an understanding of what needs to be done to make theprocess of reconciliation a genuine process with long-term andfar reaching positive effects. Empowerment to the historicallydisempowered offers a path towards successful recovery andexemplary leadership.

ReferencesAboriginal Healing Foundation. From Truth to Reconcilation: Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools, Ottawa, 2008.

Canadian Council on Social Development. Aboriginal Children in Poverty in Urban Communities: Social Exclusion and thegrowing racialization of poverty in Canada presentation to subcommittee on children and youth at risk, 2003.

Fontaine, Phil. Speech on the Government of Canada’s National Apology on Residential Schools. June 2008.

Indian Residential Schools Survivors Society. History, www.irsss.ca, 1996.

Law Commission of Canada. Restoring Dignity: Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions, 1998.

Ross, Rupert. Telling Truths and Seeking Reconciliation: Exploring the Challenges. Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2008.

Simon, Mary. Speech on the Government of Canada’s National Apology on Residential Schools, June 2008.


Kapp’s distinctions: Race-Based Fisheries, the Limits of Affirmative Action for Aboriginal peoplesand Skirting Aboriginal Peoples’ Unique Constitutional Status Once AgainJune McCue, B.A. (Hons.) LL.B. LL.M.

About the AuthorProfessor June McCue is a mem-ber of the Ned'u'ten People locat-ed along Lake Babine in northernBritish Columbia and is anAssistant Professor at theUniversity of British Columbia’sFaculty of Law. ProfessorMcCue's current efforts arefocused on research, writing andteaching in the Indigenous lawfield.

TRENDS

Abstract This paper briefly examines 1) the Supreme Courtof Canada’s handling of the commercial fisher’sposition regarding aboriginal communal fisheriesas "race-based fisheries; 2) the limits of using affir-mative action equality guarantees to support theconstitutionality of the aboriginal communallicenses; and 3) how the Supreme Court of Canadain my view, has missed an opportunity to validatethe licenses, policy and regulation pertaining toaboriginal peoples based on the unique constitu-tional status of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada asargued by aboriginal participants in the case.While equality specialists see Kapp in terms of sub-stantive equality and a success, I see Kapp as ashort-term practical solution to conflicts that arisebetween Aboriginal Peoples and the Crown orCanadian citizens in the context of who controlsthe salmon fisheries. It is a partial victory toaddress the historical inequality and prejudice thatAboriginal peoples have faced in Canadian society,- or an example of formal equality. But in terms ofon-going disadvantage caused by political discrim-ination through the non-recognition of aboriginalrights, title, sovereignty/jurisdiction, and self-determination, Kapp continues to substantivelyprejudice the unique constitutional status, rightsand jurisdiction of Aboriginal Peoples, especially inrelation to harvesting and management of fisheriesin Canada. From an aboriginal perspective, wehave a long way to go to achieve substantive equal-ity between Canada and Indigenous Peoples.

Résumé Ce mémoire examine brièvement : 1) le traitementaccordé par la Cour suprême du Canada à l’argu-ment des pêcheurs commerciaux selon lequel lapêche communautaire des Autochtones bénéficierait

d’une « mesure discriminatoire fondée sur la race »;2) les limitations de l’utilisation des garanties d’éga-lité fondées sur « l’action positive » au soutien de laconstitutionnalité des permis communautairesoctroyés aux groupes autochtones; et 3) la manièredont la Cour suprême du Canada a raté, selon l’au-teure, une occasion de valider les permis, les poli-tiques et les règlements concernant les peuplesautochtones, selon le statut constitutionnel particu-lier que leurs représentants ont revendiqué dans cettecause. Alors que les spécialistes de l’égalité voientdans Kapp un succès en termes d’égalité réelle, l’au-teure trouve qu’il s’agit d’une solution pratique et àcourt terme aux conflits qui existent entre lesAutochtones et la Couronne ou les autres citoyenscanadiens dans le contexte du contrôle de la pêcheriede saumon. Il s’agit d’une victoire partielle par rap-port à l’inégalité et au préjudice auxquels les peuplesautochtones ont fait face dans toute l’histoire de lasociété canadienne – ou d’un exemple d’égalitéformelle. Mais, par rapport au désavantage persistantcausé par la discrimination politique sous forme denon-reconnaissance des droits, des titres, de la sou-veraineté, de la juridiction et de l’autodéterminationautochtones, Kapp continue de porter un préjudiceréel au statut constitutionnel, aux droits et à la juri-diction des peuples autochtones, notamment en cequi concerne la pratique et la gestion de la pêche auCanada. D’un point de vue autochtone, nous avonsbeaucoup de chemin à faire avant d’être en mesurede constater une égalité réelle entre le Canada et lespeuples autochtones.

IntroductionIn August 1998, there was an exclusive 24 houropening for three Aboriginal communities to har-vest salmon for food, ceremonial, and social pur-poses1, including sales along the lower Fraser River.

1 This is known as the "Sparrow fishing right". In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that Mr. Ron Sparrow, a commercial fisher fromMusqueam, had an aboriginal right to fish for food, ceremonial and social (FCS) purposes which was protected by s. 35 (1) of the Constitution Act,1982. The Court did not, however, address the commercial aspects of his claim. The Sparrow case also built on American jurisprudence to establishin Canada the legal principle that there is a priority to access fisheries after conservation objectives have met: Aboriginal FCS fishery, commercial fish-ery and then sports/recreational fishery. See R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075.


Kapp’s distinctions: Some members of Musqueam, Burrard and Tsawwassen bandshad casted their nets along the banks of their traditional terri-tories. At the same time, a group of commercial fishersopposed to the aboriginal only opening launched a "protestfishery". They were subsequently charged under the FisheriesAct2 for fishing during a closed time, which is a contraventionunder the Pacific Fishery Regulations. The commercial fisherswent to court.

In their defence, the commercial fishers argued that theirexclusion from the Aboriginal-only opening violated theequality guarantee under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms (Charter)3. They said a discriminatory dis-tinction was made in law to exclude them from harvestingsalmon based on race or a ground analogous to race.Specifically, these fishers argued that because they did not havea blood-line connection to these Aboriginal communities, theycould not access the commercial fishery at the same time. Thecommercial fishers asked for a remedy to stay their charges.This position was accepted by Provincial Court Judge Kitchen.However, subsequent appellant courts, including the SupremeCourt of Canada (SCC) disagreed with the trial judge. Thecommercial fishers’ convictions were affirmed and they wereordered to pay the fines.

At the heart of the dispute in the Kapp4 case is the commercialfishers’ challenge to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans(DFO)’ regulation of the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy (AFS)which included a Pilot Sales Program (PSP) and was set up inthe 1990’s post Sparrow, to provide Aboriginal access to thefisheries. A coalition of commercial fishers in B.C. had madeprevious unsuccessful attempts5 to legally challenge the consti-tutional validity of the communal fishing licence made pur-suant to the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations(ACFLR)6 that authorized the pilot sales to the exclusion of thecommercial fishers. The SCC reviewed the AFS, PSP, ACFLRscheme and found it to be a constitutionally sound programbased on the equality principle of affirmative action, the cor-nerstone of s. 15(2) of the Charter.

Importantly, the Kapp case sends a clear signal to governmentsthat they can create affirmative action programs that amelio-rate the disadvantaged status of Aboriginal peoples and com-bat discrimination. Such programs, according to the SCC, byvirtue of this feature are not themselves discriminatory despitetheir differential regulation along race. The communal fishinglicence granted by DFO to the Aboriginal communities wasfound to be constitutionally valid as a means to achieve sub-stantive equality under the Charter.

The Kapp case, however, raises two serious issues7 that I addressin this paper: 1) the use of race-based distinctions in law thathave the affect of racializing Aboriginal peoples and their ter-ritories; and 2) whether affirmative measures are sufficient toprotect the unique constitutional status of Aboriginal peoples.Some equality specialists see Kapp as a success in terms of sub-stantive equality. I see Kapp as a short-term practical solutionto conflicts that arise between Aboriginal peoples and theCrown or Canadian citizens in the context of who controls thefisheries and how access to the fisheries is regulated. It is a par-tial victory that addresses the historical inequality and preju-dice that Aboriginal peoples have faced in Canadian society.Kapp fails, however, to provide a robust and holistic solutionto the complex constitutional issues existing in the fishing dis-pute. From an Aboriginal perspective, the SCC did not fullyexamine how the commercial fishers’ challenge toAFS/PSP/ACFLR program impacts the unique constitutionalstatus of Aboriginal peoples.8 If it had done so, substantiveequality could truly have been achieved.

1. Distinctions based on race In the Kapp case, the SCC accepts the commercial fishers’ posi-tion that the PSP and conferral of a communal fishing licenceexclusively to Aboriginal communities in 1998 created a dis-tinction based on the enumerated ground of "race" in s. 15 ofthe Charter9 . This special fishing privilege was treated by theSCC as a benefit under law. Thus, the commercial fishers weredenied a benefit under the law on the basis of race10. Justice

2 Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, s. 78. See s. 53(1) of the Pacific Fishery Regulations, SOR/93-54.3 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982 c. 11, s. 15(1), s. 15(2) (Charter).4 R. v. Kapp 2008 (SCC)41 (Kapp).5 Alford v. Canada (A.G.), [1999] B.C.J. No. 1937 (B.C.S.C.); R. v. Cummins, [1998] B.C.J. No. 125 (B.C.Prov.C.t); R. v. Huoviven (2000), 188 D.L.R. (4th) 28 (B.C.C.A.); and R.

v. Anderson [2003] B.C.J. No. 1408 (B.C. Prov. Ct.) are cases that raised race-based fishery positions. None of these cases were considered by the SCC. 6 Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations, SOR/93-332 (ACFLR).7 Many writers have raised these issues in their analysis of the lower court decisions in Kapp. See A. Goldenberg, "Salmon for Peanut Butter": Equality, Reconciliation and the Rejection

of Commercial Aboriginal Rights (2004) 3 Indigenous L.J. 61. [Goldenberg]8 Under the constitutions of Canada, Aboriginal Peoples have a unique or special status. First, S. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30&31 Vict., c. 3, reprinted in R.S.C.

1985, App.II, No. 5, gives the federal government constitutional responsibility and jurisdiction for Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians. Second, Under the Constitution Act, 1982,being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, s. 35(1) recognizes and affirms the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. And third,s. 25 of the Charter, supra note 4, states that there is the guarantee that Charter rights and freedoms will not abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or free-doms that pertain to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.

9 Kapp, supra note 5 at para. 3.10 Kapp, ibid., at para. 58.11 Kapp, ibid., at para. 112.


Kapp’s distinctions: Bastarache articulated that this distinction had a detrimentaleffect on the non-Aboriginal commercial fishers by creating adisadvantage for them based on "racial differences"11. He con-cluded that the commercial fishers have established that theprogram is race-based beyond a doubt12. But on what evidencedoes the SCC base such conclusions? What rationalizationsare offered to explain why the SCC has categorized and classi-fied the program, licence and regulations in dispute as race-based? Not much. The SCC reasons that the communal fish-ing licence granted by the DFO is limited to the designateAboriginal communities, and excludes the commercial fish-ers.13 Such government action therefore constitutes differentialtreatment based on race. The SCC relies on a precedent for theapplication of the affirmative action principle to determinewhether the AFS/ PSP/ ACFLR program is constitutional. Inmy view, the SCC also relies on precedent for its classificationof Aboriginal peoples as a "race".

In the 1981 SCC decision of Athabasca Tribal Council v. AmocoCanada Petroleum Company Ltd.,14 the SCC said affirmativeaction hiring programs with "racial criteria" designed to benefitan Aboriginal community were not discrimination.15 In Kapp,the Court cites Amoco to show support for an affirmative actionfishery for disadvantaged Aboriginal communities:

…The measures proposed by the affirmative action programshould not be construed as "discriminating against" otherinhabitants. The plan was not to displace non-Indians fromtheir employment, but rather to advance the lot of Indiansso that they could be in a competitive position to obtainemployment without regard to the handicaps whichtheir race inherited.16 (emphasis added)

The SCC in Amoco disagreed that an energy board could havejurisdiction to alleviate the social inequalities and disadvan-tages of Aboriginal peoples by offering an affirmative actionprogram to hire them for work in the tar sands. Specifically,the SCC stated:

…The powers with which the welfare of its inhabi-tants, and it would, in my view, require express lan-guage to extend the statutory authority so vested in theBoard so as to include a program designed to lessen theage-old disadvantages which have plagued the native peoplesince their first contact with civilization as it is known to thegreat majority of Albertans. It is however true that the

expenditure of four billion dollars in the creation of a newtown and a new industry in an area formerly enjoyed exclu-sively by the native peoples undoubtedly presents new prob-lems for those people and it may well be that some form oflegislation could be devised and adopted to meet their needs.No such legislation appears to have been enacted in Albertaand in my opinion it is no compensation for this lack ofauthority to seek to apply legislation designed for the conser-vation of energy resources to the amelioration of socialinequalities.17(emphasis added)

Aboriginal peoples are treated as being inferior and responsiblefor their handicaps in terms of employability, victimhood, orbeing plagued with disadvantages.

It is problematic that the SCC in Kapp has carried forward intotoday’s times the paternalistic, stereotypical and racist catego-rization of Aboriginal peoples as a "race" as previously used inthe Amoco decision. Patricia Monture speaks of stereotypesthat lead to the discriminatory treatment of Aboriginal peoplesas being on-going colonialism:

"eventually colonial relations required First Nations to becharacterized as inferior… this idea justified the taking ofAboriginal land…This idea of inferiority is still embedded inmany stereotypes about Aboriginal peoples. And stereotypes arethe process by which oppression is delivered. Colonialism mustbe seen as a living phenomenon, not a historical fact. The pastimpacts on the present, and today’s place of Aboriginal peoplesin Canadian society cannot be understood without a well-developed historical understanding of colonialism and the pres-ent-day trajectories of those old relationships.(Trish 207)

In reviewing the Kapp case, I could find no other rationale forwhy Aboriginal peoples are categorized as a race. In fact, thereis very little mention of race in the judgment. This does notmean that the categorization of Aboriginal peoples as a race,and subsequently their fisheries, as race-based fisheries shouldgo unchallenged. At least, the SCC should have conducted acritical race analysis of its judgment to ensure existing stereo-types and prejudices in its classifications and categorizations ofAboriginal peoples are prevented. It could have also canvassedwritings on Indigenous legal theory to see if such classificationscan withstand scrutiny under Indigenous legal traditions ormeet decolonization standards or norms set out in interna-

12 Kapp, ibid., at para. 114. 13 Kapp, ibid.14 Athabasca Tribal Council v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co, Ltd. et.al, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 699. [Amoco]15 Amoco, ibid., at 711.16 Kapp citing Amoco, supra note 5 at para. 31; Amoco., ibid.17 Amoco, supra note 15 at 708.18 United Nations, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples A/61/L.67.


Kapp’s distinctions: tional law concerning Indigenous peoples18. By providing ahistorical, contextual and contemporary analysis of race in itsjudgment, the Supreme Court of Canada could have explainedits use of race in the case.

When the Supreme Court of Canada accepts a race-based cat-egorization of Aboriginal peoples and their fisheries, it implic-itly facilitates the commercial fishers’ objective to racializeAboriginal fisheries. The impact for Aboriginal peoples is thatthere is a perpetuation of prejudice and stereotyping, both inrelation to their status as peoples and their relationship to theirtraditional territories, including waters and fisheries.Let us take a look at how narratives and counter-narratives onrace were presented to the Court.

a. Kapp’s Narrative19: the construction of the Aboriginal fishery as a race-based fishery The commercial fishers in this case have employed substantialresources (financial, political and legal) to construct in law thestance that Aboriginal interests are race-based and an affront tothe equality of all Canadians. Strategically, the commercialfishers found a way to manipulate equality and Aboriginalrights jurisprudence to mask attempts to keep the power andprivilege they have historically held (and continue to hold) inthe fishing industry. Their calculated attempts to argue thatreverse discrimination occurs when Canada makes programsfor Aboriginal peoples did not go unnoticed by the Court. TheSCC, in my opinion, used affirmative action as a way tocounter this strategy. However, the SCC’s acceptance of poli-cies and regulations specific to Aboriginal fisheries as a distinc-tion based on race or as a form of race-based governance, con-dones the racially motivated conduct of the commercial fisherstowards Aboriginal peoples. The Court’s characterization ofthe AFS/ PSP/ ACFLR program as a distinction in law basedon race, is a form of agency20 that structurally reinforces themarginalization of Aboriginal peoples. The Supreme Court ofCanada’s simple conclusion that Aboriginal communal licenc-ing of the sale of salmon is a legal distinction based on raceindirectly shapes the dispute as one involving the DFO andracialized stakeholders (commercial fishers and Aboriginalpeoples) rather than the federal Crown and Aboriginal peoplesas constitutional and sovereign entities. In Kapp, the commercial fishers based its constitutional chal-lenge to the DFO’s Aboriginal communal fishing program on

a narrative that casts the commercial fishery as now a "raciallysegregated workplace" with preferential rules that advantageAboriginal peoples and restrict the public right to fish for non-Aboriginal fishers. The commercial fishers also advance thestereotype that Aboriginal peoples poach rather than exercisetheir distinct inherent rights. They advocate for a multi-cul-tural or racially-diverse public fishery regulated by the samerules for everyone. This is classic formal equality that deniesAboriginal communities their distinct status as peoples withhomelands. The image painted for the Court is that whileAboriginal communities get an increased access the commer-cial fishery, commercial fishers are "tied up at the docks" or atthe "back of the line" during the Aboriginal opening afterwhich they get the "leftovers".

There is an attempt by the commercial fishers to de-historize,disconnect or displace Aboriginal peoples from their powers ofjurisdiction over their people and traditional territory whichinclude the waters. The historic understanding of race as a bio-logical and scientific trait is alive in the commercial fishers’narrative and captured when they claim discrimination by nothaving a bloodline connection to the Aboriginal communitieswho hold the communal fishing licence. The commercial fish-ers argue that they are excluded on the basis of a personal char-acteristic (race) that is immutable rather than on the basis ofmerit, ability or equal opportunity. The commercial fisherscall for a colour-blind fishery and ask the Court to blind itselfto the "age-old" Aboriginal connection to the fishery. PatriciaMonture argues that colour blindness rest on the "tenets offormal equality"21. Using colour-blindness as a social constructwould also make the non-Aboriginal commercial fishers thenorm, as well as render their sources of power and privilegeinvisible and unchallengeable22. In fact, the commercial fish-ers argue that the Aboriginal fishery creates inflexibility forDFO to manage the fisheries which, in my view is the crux ofthe commercial fishers’ challenge.

The commercial fishers argue that Aboriginal peoples shouldnot have any constitutionally protected priority to the publiccommercial fishery because this would create a classification ofthe public right to fish based on race. They advocate that allAboriginal rights in the fishery (including the Sparrow priori-ty for FSC fisheries) be extinguished so that every Canadiancitizen, including Aboriginal individuals, can have the oppor-

19 List of Appellant and Interveners Facta at all court levels reviewed for Kapp’s narrative: Kapp, Sportsfishing Defence Alliance, B.C. Seafood Alliance, Pacific Salmon Harvesters Society,Aboriginal Fishing Vessel Owners Association, United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, Japanese Canadian Fishermens Association and the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance.

20 Robert Carter, "Prospects for a Post-Race Sociology" in Sean P. Hier & B.Singh Bolaria, eds., Race and Racism in the 21st Century Canada: Continuity, Complexity, and Change(Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2007) 35 at 46.

21 Patricia A. Monture, "Race and Erasing: Law and Gender in White Settler Societies" in Sean P. Hier & B.Singh Bolaria, eds., Race and Racism in the 21st Century Canada: Continuity,Complexity, and Change (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2007)197 at 207. [Monture]

22 Monture, ibid., at 201.


Kapp’s distinctions: tunity to access a public fishery that is an integrated, multi-racial, multi-cultural and democratic workplace regulatedthrough one system of licencing by DFO. Like Crown titleunderlying Aboriginal title, the commercial fishers argue thatrights for Aboriginal peoples under the Constitution are limit-ed by the public right to fish. They have argued that if there isno more priority for Aboriginal commercial fisheries thanthere is no need to recognize or reconcile/balance the consti-tutional rights of Aboriginal peoples with the public interest ofCanadians. The commercial fishers recognize that Indiannessincludes language and culture but, when it comes to the fish-eries, Aboriginal peoples should be treated as ordinaryCanadian citizens. In their view, Aboriginal communities arecast as the "chosen ones" within a racial hierarchy regardingfisheries. Finally, Aboriginal fisheries create exclusive fisheriesthat displace commercial fishers and the opportunity of theaverage Canadian citizen, including Aboriginal individuals,from accessing a public right to fish. This race-based narrativesets the foundation for the commercial fishers’ claims to a vio-lation of their rights to equality under the Charter. It is reallya collateral attack on the unique constitutional status thatAboriginal peoples hold under the Constitution and under-mines efforts to build better relations between the state andAboriginal peoples. This distinction between "rights/status"and "race" is key.

b. The Aboriginal Counter-narrative23:Aboriginal fisheries based on distinct status and rightsThe SCC placed little weight on the counter-narratives to therace-based fishery construction put forward by the Aboriginalinterveners in Kapp. A common position presented by theAboriginal interveners was that the DFO created the PSP torespect the unique and special constitutional status ofAboriginal peoples in Canada. The AFS, PSP and communalfishing licence provided a scheme to negotiate the implemen-tation of various rights and benefits that flow from Aboriginalstatus under s. 91(24), s. 35 and s. 25 of the Constitution. Italso provided a means to ensure that crown obligations con-tinue to flow from the relationship between Aboriginal peoplesand the Crown. As a small step towards recognizingAboriginal rights to harvest salmon, the PSP and AFS arestructured to take into account Aboriginal peoples’ historicand contemporary relationship to the fishery. The scheme canbring sensitivity to traditional Aboriginal values and gover-nance. Further, it can provide a source for economic opportu-nities for Aboriginal peoples. The Aboriginal interveners

argued that the scheme can also assist Aboriginal peoples inmaintaining their cultural security by promoting self-sufficien-cy. The agreements negotiated under the AFS could meet thes. 35 purpose of reconciling the prior occupation and sover-eignty of Aboriginal peoples with assumed crown sovereignty.The scheme could offer accommodation of asserted rights toharvest fish for trade or sale. The agreements negotiated underthe AFS could be seen as preliminary self-government agree-ments relating to the fishery, or interim measures for treaty-making and increased access to the fishery for food, ceremoni-al, social and commercial purposes. Finally, some Aboriginalinterveners argued that the scheme can rectify the impacts ofhistorical restrictions and discriminatory laws24 towardsAboriginal peoples in the fishery which have contributed tohistorical and on-going disadvantages. In this context, theAFS/ PSP/ and communal fishing licence formed a "rights-based policy" for negotiating a new relationship between thecrown and Aboriginal peoples, rather than a "race-based poli-cy" as contended by the commercial fishers.

The Aboriginal interveners argued that in managing the fish-eries, the DFO created a program that partially respectedAboriginal fisheries and was constitutionally valid even thoughit created a distinction and differential treatment in relation tothe commercial fishers and Aboriginal organizations. This his-torical distinction, flowing from Aboriginal peoples’ prioroccupation and distinct political communities or organizedsocieties, represents communal and political characteristicsrather than a characteristic based on race. Under Canada’sConstitution, it was argued that Aboriginal peoples’ status isdistinctly treated as being separate and apart from minorities,a status not shared by the rest of Canadians. Thus, DFO couldcreate different licencing schemes to manage the fishery thatrespects the distinct status and rights of Aboriginal peoples inCanada, not as racial groups but as peoples.

The Aboriginal interveners in the case also challenged the race-based fishery construction by looking to the interpretation ofwhat the term "Aboriginal" means. For example, it was arguedthat Aboriginal is not a racial classification, but rather anadjective to describe the people who were here in Canadabefore the colonists came. It was pointed out to the SCC thatthe term Aboriginal has been used by a previous Chief Justiceof the SCC to connote "pre-existing Aboriginal societies" andnot races. An Aboriginal perspective was put forward that theACFLR was directed to Aboriginal organizations and not races.

23 List of Respondent and Intervener Fact at all court levels reviewed for the Aboriginal Counter-narrative: Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Tsawwassen First Nation, HaislaFirst Nation, Songhees Indian Band, Malahat First Nation, T’Sou-ke First Nation, Snaw-naw-as First Nation and the Beecher Bay Indian Band collectively the Te’mexw Nations,Heiltsuk First Nation, Musqueam Indian Band, Cowichan Tribes, Nee Tahi Buhn Indian Band, Tseshaht First Nation and the Assembly of First Nations.


Kapp’s distinctions: Licences issued by DFO to the Aboriginal communities in thiscase were communal, geographically defined and available toAboriginal organizations that were capable of asserting andholding rights. Finally, Aboriginal interveners (and evenDFO) rejected the idea that the commercial fishers were partof a community, with personal characteristics such as race.Ultimately, Aboriginal interveners viewed theAFS/PSP/ACFLR program as not race-based or requiringbloodline connections but a political commitment to them byDFO to honour their unique status in Canada. In the equali-ty and Aboriginal rights context, Aboriginal status forms thebasis for Aboriginal fisheries rather than race. Therefore, thecommunal fishers did not experience reverse discrimination orhave their equality rights under the Charter violated by thescheme in question.

Rather than accepting these positions offered to the SCC bythe Aboriginal interveners, the SCC held that the distinctionwas based on race, but was not discriminatory because theimpugned program had an ameliorative purpose to provideredress to a historically and presently disadvantaged group. Byrejecting the Aboriginal interveners’ counter-narrative to therace-based fishery construction, the SCC opened the door tofuture race-based constructions of Aboriginal peoples. Theimmediate consequence of this conclusion is that Aboriginalpeoples’ status and identity along with their traditional territo-ries continue to be racialized by powerful commercial fishinglobby groups organized to eliminate any differential treatmentAboriginal peoples receive in their engagement with manage-ment of the fisheries. Prejudice and stereotyping continue toshape the life experiences of Aboriginal peoples.

A more detailed critical race and Indigenous theory analysis ofthe consequences of the Court’s acceptance of a race-basedfishery construction reveals the structural or institutional

power imbalances Aboriginal peoples face in securing protec-tion and respect for their constitutional status in the context ofthe fishery.

2. The Limits of Affirmative Action rationales for Aboriginal peoplesIn the Kapp case, the SCC chose to characterize theAFS/PSP/ACFLR program as an affirmative action measurethat met the standards within a newly formulated test for

achieving substantive equality under s. 15(2) of the Charter.The program was found to be constitutionally valid because:1) its purpose was remedial or ameliorative in that it providedsolutions for negotiating Aboriginal rights to fishing claims,economic opportunities to native bands, and supported theirprogress towards self-sufficiency; and 2) the program targeteda disadvantaged group identified by enumerated or analogousgrounds as set out in s. 15(1) of the Charter25. Although theSCC does not state which ground, I presume it is "race". TheSCC found Aboriginal peoples to be indisputably historicallydisadvantaged26. Thus, communal fishing licences or specialfishing privileges granted to Aboriginal organizations such asthe Musqueam, Burrard and Tsawwassen communities wereaccepted as a rational means for the DFO to pro-actively com-bat the discrimination against these communities that hascaused disadvantage.27 In the fishing context, the DFO hasdenied the distinctive and distinct fishing rights of Aboriginalpeoples for a long time28. Aboriginal interveners argued thatthe ability to exercise Aboriginal rights to fish was severely reg-ulated by DFO restrictions on quantities of fish to harvest,places to fish, type of fish species, times and fishing methods.Because of the impoverished state of Aboriginal peoples causedby historical disadvantages, Aboriginal peoples today have ahard time exercising even their food/ceremonial and socialfisheries. It is too costly to buy equipment or commerciallicences. The AFS/PSP/ACFLR program provided a way topartially remedy this reality.

While this approach to resolving the fishing dispute in theKapp case is a breath of fresh air in terms of the evolution of s.15 equality guarantees, I am concerned about the temporalnature of affirmative action measures in resolving conflictsbetween Aboriginal peoples and Canada. Equally, affirmativeaction measures can produce outcomes that represent formalequality rather than substantive equality. My worry is thatonce the scheme like the one created by DFO in this case hasbeen found to rectify the historic disadvantage of Aboriginalpeoples, there is no longer a need to treat Aboriginal peoplesdistinctly. This could lead to the assimilation of Aboriginalpeoples and an erosion of their unique constitutional status inthe fishery context. If the purpose of the affirmative measure ismet and equality achieved, then the constitutional status orcharacter of the affirmative action program becomes transito-ry or impermanent as well.

24 Douglas C. Harris, Landing Native Fisheries: Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia, 1849-1925 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008), ch. 7. 25 Kapp, supra note 5 at paras. 56-61.26 Kapp, ibid., at para. 59.27 Kapp, ibid., at paras. 37 and 48.28 These experiences were conveyed to the SCC by some of the aboriginal interveners. Douglas Harris demonstrates how aboriginal legal traditions in relation to the harvesting of fish

have been denied by Canadian governments in his first book. See D. H. Harris, Fish, Law, and Colonialism: The Legal Capture of Salmon in British Columbia (Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press, 2001). In my view, the denial of aboriginal fishing rights cannot be separated from colonial policy to deny aboriginal title and sovereignty.


Kapp’s distinctions: Formal equality achieved through affirmative measures couldleave the monopoly that DFO has in managing the fisheriesintact. In my opinion, this could lead to a disruption inAboriginal peoples’ attempts to recover their political, eco-nomic, social, cultural and legal decision-making processes inrelation to the fisheries. Critiquing the purposes and limits ofameliorative programs, Goldenberg correctly states:

…the basic theory of amelioration as a tool of substantiveequality demands that restitution for past injustices must bemade to individuals or groups who have suffered historicaldisadvantages that have led to current inequities, in order toachieve "balance" in society or an "equal playing field" forsuch groups or individuals. Equality, therefore even when itis offered and framed in more substantive forms, is expressedas the creation of a "basic starting point" for all groups andindividuals. The goal of s. 15(2) of the Charter and all ame-liorative or affirmative action programs, then, is one of inte-gration or of creating an "equal playing field." …For certain groups, and Aboriginal peoples in particular, con-struing the goal of substantive equality as differential treat-ment in order to produce sameness in result (that is, an"equal playing field"), misconstrues the very nature of theneed or the claim for differential treatment. Such a claim inthe Aboriginal context is based not on a desire for integrationand sameness in result, but rather on recognition of theunique relationship Aboriginal peoples enjoy with the state,expressed in their constitutionally-protected rights.29

By accepting a government program as constitutionally validbecause it meets the standards for affirmative action now setout in s. 15(2), we do not get to examine substantively,whether or not the program is consistent with other parts ofthe Canadian Constitution that protect the interests ofAboriginal peoples. For example, while the AFS/PSP/ACFLRprogram was found to be constitutional by the SCC, we haveno inquiry to assess if that same scheme violates other rightsand powers held by Aboriginal peoples under the Constitution.Some of the structural limits placed in the fishing agreements(and the experiences of implementing the fishing agreements)as argued by the aboriginal interveners, included examplessuch as: no priority for the pilot sales fishery meaning thatthere was always a commercial fishery elsewhere that was open,increased levy fees, Aboriginal organizations had to agree thatthe fishing agreement did not recognize an aboriginal com-mercial right to fish, increased enforcement and regulation of

fisheries (both FSC and Pilot Sales) included mandatory land-ing sites, and the use of inaccurate data to set target escape-ment levels. It was argued that the licence retirement program30

favours commercial fishers who receive above market buyoutsfor their licences which, then get sold to Aboriginal organiza-tions. These are some examples of the structural imbalancesthat exist in the AFS program. And we have yet to see anymeasureable data that scrutinizes these programs according totraditional aboriginal governance in relation to the fisheries.By not scrutinizing the AFS/PSP/ACFLR program, the SCCshields DFO’s discretionary powers to set the parameters formanagement of the fisheries from constitutional review byAboriginal peoples.

Contrast this with an approach to substantive equality thatdirects governments to combat discrimination by intending tocommit to programs that recognize and maintain Aboriginalpeoples’ special constitutional and distinctive status. Thisapproach to substantive equality could ensure that there is con-sistency in the respect for Aboriginal jurisdiction and rights/obli-gations to their territories by both Canada and its citizens.

While this is a more holistic approach to ensuring equalityamongst Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state, I am notconvinced that the SCC is the appropriate venue to adjudicateconstitutional claims that involve the intersection betweensubstantive equality, aboriginal rights, division of powers inrelation to Aboriginal peoples, and the Charter. Perhaps anindependent tribunal could hear disputes in a manner thataddresses all constitutional questions that impact Aboriginalpeoples’ interests. Such a tribunal could provide a full hearingof issues that impact the unique constitutional status ofAboriginal peoples. A tribunal created to specifically deal withissues that straddle the constitutional apparatus of division ofpowers, s. 35, the Charter, and the growing recognition forinternational rights that pertain to Indigenous peoples andCanada is needed. A tribunal comprised of members fromboth Canada and Aboriginal representatives could structurallyaddress the distribution of burden of proof in conflicts, factu-al problems, any issue relating to a conflict of interest forCanada when it comes to regulating Aboriginal interests andthe interests of Canadians, and whether or not, ethically, par-ties are making proper use of the Constitution. Finally, anindependent tribunal could employ Indigenous legal theoryand traditions to the disputes.

29 Goldenberg, supra note 8 at 81. 30 The Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative (PICFI) was recently established by DFO to enhance conservation goals and increase limited access to commercial fishery for

First Nations. Current commercial fishers can relinquish or retire their licences, and get compensated. The licences can then be allocated or sold to a First Nation. For more informa-tion see http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/PICFI/default e.atm


Kapp’s distinctions: This critique of the Court’s use of affirmative action to resolvethe fishing dispute in the Kapp case demonstrates the limitedor short-term nature of its remedy.

3. Concluding ThoughtsThe DFO continues to offer increased access to the commer-cial fishery for Aboriginal organizations through licencingschemes and the negotiation of "economic opportunity" fish-ing agreements for sale or trade. DFO has yet to publicly statewhether these practices (which pre-date Kapp) meet the affir-mative action standards set by the Supreme Court of Canadain Kapp.

The B.C. First Nations Fisheries Council, and other Aboriginalorganizations31, hold Kapp as a victory for First Nations seek-ing constitutional protection of their rights to fish, ameliora-tion of their indisputable disadvantaged status in relation tothe fishery and more widely. Further, they feel vindicated thatAboriginal fisheries can provide economic opportunities toFirst Nations on a priority basis, which in turn can promoteself-sufficiency and sound protection for the health of the fish-eries. Other First Nations located along the Fraser River haverejected the terms for negotiating economic opportunity agree-ments under the AFS strategy from the beginning, includingthe PSP, because it undermines their Aboriginal rights claimsand prioritizes economic goals over adequate protection of thefish. For those First Nations not participating in the DFO’scurrent licencing programs, their members continue to: facefishing prosecutions when they assert their inherent rights,experience racial tension on the waters, and witness theSparrow priority not being policed or enforced by DFO. Theyhave concluded that the AFS and current licencing scheme

maintaining DFO’s jurisdiction over resources as being incon-

sistent with their jurisdiction over their traditional territories.

They view the protest fishery conducted by the commercialfishers in the Kapp case, as not justifiable and racially motivat-ed. A remaining question considering all these responses to theKapp case, is whether the SCC has provided enough guidanceand legal principles to address these lingering issues.

Meanwhile, the commercial fishers have continued their race-based construction of Aboriginal fisheries by filing a re-hear-ing/direction motion to the SCC in August, 2008. Theyargued that the SCC should grant a re-hearing of Kapp becausethe SCC made an error by not upholding the trial judges’ rul-ing that 1) DFO’s AFS program created discrimination againstthe commercial fishers based on race, and 2) dismissed hisfindings of fact that the Aboriginal communities in questionwhere likely not disadvantaged financially. The commercialfishers questioned whether affirmative action programs areimmune from Charter scrutiny. At the heart of their plea – theyquestioned whether "racial segregation in the workplace" (i.e.commercial fishery) could ever be justified in a free and dem-ocratic society. They finally argued that the Aboriginal bandsthat have a communal fishing licence are already "advantaged"and that there is no need to provide affirmative measures forthem.

Kapp has left many surprised by the SCC’s equality approachto this historic and on-going dispute over the salmon betweenAboriginal and non-Aboriginal societies. However, the dis-tinctions in Kapp based on race undermine the unique consti-tutional status that Aboriginal peoples hold in this country.Without addressing this impact, affirmative measures designedto redress the historic disadvantage of Aboriginal peoples willresult in formal equality, rather than substantive equalitybetween the Canadian state and Aboriginal peoples.

31 See B.C. First Nations Fisheries Action Plan at http://www.FNFisherciesCouncil.ca


FEATURES

About the AuthorClément Chartier was elected presi-dent of the Métis National Councilby acclamation at the MétisNational Council’s GeneralAssembly on October 24, 2003 andwas re-elected to this post onFebruary 23, 2008. A lawyer bytrade, for the last 25 years Mr.Chartier has used his legal trainingto push forward the Métis Nation’srights agenda in the courts and actedas a spokesperson and advisor to theMétis Nation in several FirstMinisters Conferences on theCanadian Constitution and in ses-sions of the Human RightsCommission of the United Nationsin Geneva.

AbstractThe signing of Métis Nation Protocol onSeptember 5, 2008, is a turning point for Canadaísrelationship with the Métis. It creates a new oppor-tunity for open dialogue between the federal gov-ernment and the Métis National Council (MNC)and offers hope for fundamental changes through anew process between the MNC, the federal gov-ernment and, eventually the provinces. Over thepast 25 years the Métis have struggled to gainrecognition, justice, acknowledgement of land andrights as a distinct Aboriginal people and nation inCanada. This protocol provides a clear understand-ing of the Métis cultural background, where theyoriginated from, and their relationship with theCanadian Government. It is hoped that throughthis, there will be an end to systemic discriminationand that it will build new relationships for futureinterventions between the Métis Nation and thefederal government

On September 5, 2008, Honourable ChuckStrahl, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairsand Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, announced the signing of a MétisNation Protocol with the Métis NationalCouncil. This agreement marked a significantturning point in Canada’s relationship with theMétis by creating a new opportunity for opendialogue between the federal government and theMNC. There is also great hope that this protocolwill begin a process that will finally address thesystemic discrimination faced by the MétisNation throughout history.

As the Métis National Council (MNC) begins anew partnership with the federal government thereis some reflection on the past and one question thatlingers: Do Canadians know the truth about theMétis? The MNC, as the national body represent-ing five provincial Governing Members fromOntario west to British Columbia, has represented

the interests of the Métis in Canada since 1983.Over the past 25 years there have been both tri-umphs and frustrations in the pursuit of recogni-tion and justice. Upon reflection of the past, it ishoped that the Métis Nation Protocol will movethe agenda of the Métis Nation forward throughtwo fundamental changes in policy: establishing anew bilateral process between the federal govern-ment and the MNC, and initiating multilateraldiscussions between the MNC, the federal govern-ment and the provinces. This article will provide abrief overview of the rise of the Métis Nation, the

fight for identity and inclusion and the deal that

establishes a new relationship between the federal

government and the MNC.

Who are the Métis?In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centurythe fur trade was expanding across western Canadaand with this trade emerged distinct new commu-nities that celebrated both old and new world cul-ture and traditions. These people were the Métis, aproud new nation of European and First Nationsancestry with an independent self-identity, territo-ry, language and collective consciousness. TheMétis Nation grew in numbers and strengththroughout the 1800s, building a new economybased on hunting, guiding and commercial tradeof fur and other provisions and establishing rightsas land title holders in the western plains. However,Métis settlements came into conflict with the pow-erful Hudson’s Bay Company and the CanadianGovernment, as the new Dominion began to buyits way to nationhood.

In 1869, when the Hudson’s Bay Company soldRupert’s Land to the Dominion of Canada, noprovisions were made for the rights of the Métismajority in the Red River Settlement of Manitoba,despite the fact that the Métis had settled anddeveloped the land, communities and economy ofthe west. This loss of title and entitlement led to

Resistance, Recognition, Respect: Protocol latest attempt to secure the place of Métis in Canada

Clément Chartier


Resistance, Recognition, Respectthe Red River Resistance, where Louis Riel and his ProvisionalGovernment fought for political status, language and land forthe Métis Nation. In April 1870, the Red River Settlemententered confederation as the new province of Manitoba withcompensations and recognition of land occupied by the Métisand their children in exchange for extinguished Indian title tothe land. However, this agreement was never honoured by thestate and to this day the Métis Nation is fighting for recogni-tion of their distinct existence within the Canadian federationand acknowledgement of land and rights as first peoples ofCanada.

Rights and Recognition of the Métis in CanadaSection 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, marked a new era forthe Métis Nation in Canadian history by outlining constitu-tional protection for the existing Aboriginal and Treaty rightsfor the Métis. This momentous event was the result of genera-tions that refused to give up their rights as first peoples andtireless efforts by leaders of the Métis Nation. In spite of this,Section 35 sat as an unfulfilled promise to the Métis, as the fed-eral and provincial governments maintained that the Métis hadno existing Aboriginal rights, consequently refusing to negoti-ate or deal with the Métis.

This changed on September 19, 2003, when the Métis finallywon what they had been fighting for. In a unanimous decisionby the Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Powley ["Powley"] wasthe first Supreme Court case to establish the distinct existenceand protection of the existing Aboriginal hunting and harvest-ing rights of the Métis. Since 2003, the federal government hassupported the Métis Nation through post-Powley funding thatenhances the research and recorded history of the Métis andsupports rights claims to further the fight for justice and recog-nition. Today, there have been many more victories for Métisrights as well as continued pursuits for justice across the MétisNation, from land claims to the right to self governmentthrough the provision of programs and services for the Métis.

The Signing of the Métis Nation Protocol Building upon the hard fought victories in recent history, theMNC has taken a great leap forward with the signing of theProtocol. Systemic discrimination has occurred at the federaland provincial levels since before confederation, but the

Protocol will work to end it by establishing a new bilateralprocess for the MNC, and begin multilateral discussionsbetween the federal government and the provinces. This agree-ment lays out a process of inclusion in governance and the pol-icy making of the state and represents a new commitment ofthe federal government to build new relationships between theMétis Nation and the federal government for the future.

Specifically, the bilateral process will address jurisdictionalissues related to federal and provincial responsibilities; therecognition of injustice and abuse experienced by Métis sur-vivors of residential or boarding schools; access to benefits andsettlements by Métis veterans; the development of Métis gov-ernance and institutions; economic development and capacitybuilding; Métis Aboriginal rights, including those that may berelated to lands and harvesting; and, other issues the federalgovernment and Métis Nation may agree to.

The multilateral discussions identified in the agreement sup-port relationship building between the MNC and itsGoverning Members, the Federal Government and theprovinces from Ontario westward. These discussions mayrelate to lands and resources, harvesting rights, economicdevelopment, education and training, health, child and familyservices, housing, justice and policing, all areas that have beenunderdeveloped when it comes to the inclusion of the Métis inprograms and services or policy making. Together with the newbilateral process, it is hoped that multilateral discussions willopen new doors for increased participation of the Métis in thegovernance process and improved opportunities for the Métisas Aboriginal rights are recognized.

ConclusionWith a rich history and culture, the Métis have been fightingfor generations to protect their rights and recognition as firstpeoples in Canada. While this fight is not over, 2008 marked

the start of a new chapter in the MNC’s fight for justice withthe signing of the Métis Nation by Chuck Strahl, the Ministerof Indian and Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocutor forMétis and Non-Status Indians. As this story unfolds, the MNCreflects on the past and is cautiously optimistic the Protocol isthe next step to overcoming systemic discrimination of theMétis Nation in federal and provincial policy, programs andservices.


Résumé La signature du Protocole de la Nation Métis, le5 septembre 2008, représente un tournant dans lesrapports du Canada avec le peuple Métis. LeProtocole crée de nouvelles possibilités de dialogueouvert entre le gouvernement fédéral et le Ralliementnational des Métis (RNM). Il offre l’espoir dechangements fondamentaux par un nouveau proces-sus entre le RNM, le gouvernement fédéral et, à lalongue, les provinces. Au cours des 25 dernièresannées, les Métis ont lutté pour obtenir la justice, lareconnaissance de leur statut, de leurs terres et deleurs droits en tant que peuple et nation autochtonesdistincts au Canada. Ce Protocole clarifie les antécé-dents culturels des Métis, leurs origines et leurs rap-ports avec le gouvernement du Canada. On espèrequ’il aura pour effet de mettre fin à la discriminationsystémique et de créer de nouveaux rapports pour lesinterventions futures entre la Nation Métis et le gou-vernement fédéral.

Le 5 septembre 2008, l’honorable Chuck Strahl,ministre des Affaires indiennes et du Nord cana-dien et interlocuteur fédéral auprès des Métis et desIndiens non inscrits, annonçait la signature d’unProtocole d’entente sur la nation métisse avec leRalliement national des Métis. Cette entente cons-titue un tournant important dans les rapports duCanada avec les Métis en créant une nouvelle pos-sibilité de dialogue ouvert entre le gouvernementfédéral et le Ralliement national des Métis. Ellesuscite également de grands espoirs chez les Métisqu’amorce ainsi le processus qui aboutira à l’élimi-nation de la discrimination systémique à laquellea été confrontée la nation métisse au cours de touteson histoire.

Au moment où le Ralliement national des Métis(RNM) entame un nouveau partenariat avec le gou-vernement fédéral, il est opportun de se pencher surle passé et sur une question qui persiste : lesCanadiens connaissent-ils la vérité sur les Métis?Organisme national regroupant cinq organisationsmembres, représentant les Métis de l’Ouest del’Ontario à la Colombie-Britannique, le RNMdéfend les intérêts des Métis du Canada depuis

1983. Durant les vingt-cinq dernières années, il aremporté de grandes victoires tout comme il a connudes frustrations dans la poursuite de la reconnais-sance des droits des Métis et de la justice à laquelleils ont droit. En réfléchissant sur le passé, il fautespérer que le Protocole d’entente sur la nationmétisse fasse avancer la cause de cette dernière enapportant deux changements fondamentaux denature politique : l’établissement d’un nouveauprocessus bilatéral entre le gouvernement fédéral etle RNM et le commencement de discussions multi-latérales entre le RNM, le gouvernement fédéral etles provinces. L’article offre une vue d’ensemble surla montée de la nation métisse, sur la lutte qu’ellemène pour son inclusion et pour le maintien et lareconnaissance de son identité, ainsi que sur l’en-tente qui établit une nouvelle relation entre le gou-vernement fédéral et le RNM.

Qui sont les Métis?À la fin du dix-huitième et au début du dix-neu-vième siècle, le commerce des fourrures s’étendaitdans tout l’Ouest du Canada et donnait naissance àde nouvelles collectivités célébrant la culture et lestraditions du Nouveau Monde comme de l’ancien.Ces collectivités regroupaient des Métis, membresd’une nouvelle nation fière de ses ancêtres européenset autochtones qui s’était donné sa propre identité,avait son propre territoire, sa langue et une cons-cience collective. La nation métisse s’est accrue ennombre et en force au fil du dix-huitième siècle,construisant une nouvelle économie fondée sur lachasse, le guidage et le commerce des fourrures etd’autres marchandises et acquérant des droitsfonciers dans les plaines de l’Ouest. Mais les coloniesmétisses entrèrent en conflit avec la puissanteCompagnie de la Baie d’Hudson et avec le gou-vernement canadien, le nouveau Dominion, quicommençait à se frayer une voie vers l’indépendancenationale.

En 1869, la Compagnie de la Baie d’Hudson vendla Terre de Rupert au Dominion du Canada. L’actede vente ne contient aucun article protégeant lesdroits de la majorité métisse de la colonie de la

Résistance, reconnaissance, respect :Le Protocole d’entente, la plus récente tentative visant à assurer la place des Métis au Canada Clément Chartier

Articles de fond

L’ auteur :Clément Chartier a été élu paracclamation à la présidence duComité national des Métis lors del'assemblée annuelle tenue le 24octobre 2003 et a été réélu le 23février 2008. Avocat, il a consacré les25 dernières années àfaire progresserles droits de la nation Métis devantles tribunaux et a agien tant queporte-parole et conseiller dans lecadre de plusieurs conférences despremiers ministres sur la Constitu-tion canadienne et séances de laCommission des droits de la per-sonne des Nations-Unies tenues àGenève.


Résistance, reconnaissance, respectrivière Rouge, malgré le fait que les Métis se soient établis sur cesterritoires, y aient créé des collectivités et développé l’économiede l’Ouest. La perte de leurs droits fonciers et de leurs autresdroits pousse les Métis à la Rébellion de la rivière Rouge, qui voitRiel et son gouvernement provisoire lutter pour la reconnaissancedu statut politique, de la langue et du territoire de la nationmétisse. En avril 1870, la colonie de la rivière Rouge devientmembre de la Confédération canadienne en tant que provincedu Manitoba : les Métis se voient octroyer une indemnité et lareconnaissance des terres qu’eux et leurs enfants occupaient enéchange de l’extinction de leur titre indien à ces terres. Mais l’en-tente n’est pas respectée par l’État et, encore aujourd’hui, lanation métisse lutte pour la reconnaissance de son existence dis-tincte au sein de la fédération canadienne et pour la reconnais-sance de ses droits et titres en tant que Première nation duCanada.

Droits et reconnaissance des Métis au CanadaL’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 marque le débutd’une nouvelle ère pour la nation métisse dans l’histoire cana-dienne : il confirme la protection constitutionnelle dont jouissentles Métis quant à leurs droits autochtones et à leurs droits issus detraités. Cet événement majeur est l’aboutissement du refus desgénérations précédentes de renoncer à leurs droits en tant quePremière nation et des efforts inlassables des dirigeants de lanation métisse. Malgré son statut constitutionnel, les promessesde l’article 35 sont restées sans suite : les gouvernements fédéralet provinciaux soutenaient en effet que les Métis n’avaient pas dedroits autochtones et refusaient pour cette raison de négocier oude conclure des ententes avec eux.

La situation a changé le 19 septembre 2003. Les Métis ont finale-ment réussi à obtenir ce pour quoi ils luttaient depuis tant d’an-nées. Par décision unanime, la Cour suprême a dédicé, dans R. c.Powley (Powley) que les Métis avaient des droits de chasse et derécolte autochtones jouissant d’une protection constitutionnelle.Depuis cette décision, le gouvernement fédéral appuie la cause dela nation métisse : il octroie aux Métis des fonds visant à amélio-rer la recherche et leurs écrits historiques et appuie leurs revendi-cations en quête de justice et de reconnaissance. Les Métis ontremporté depuis plusieurs autres victoires quant à la reconnais-sance de leurs droits et à leur quête incessante de justice pourtoute la nation métisse : des revendications territoriales à l’au-tonomie gouvernementale, de même que la fourniture de pro-grammes et de services.

La signature du Protocole d’entente sur la nation métissePrenant appui sur ses victoires récentes obtenues de haute lutte,le RNM a franchi une étape importante par la signature duProtocole. Les Métis ont été victimes, avant et depuis laConfédération, de discrimination systémique au niveau du gou-vernement fédéral comme à celui des provinces. Le Protocole s’ef-

forcera de mettre fin à cette discrimination en établissant un nou-veau processus bilatéral de discussions et négociations avec leRNM et en amorçant des discussions multilatérales entre le gou-vernement fédéral et les provinces. L’entente définit un processusd’inclusion des Métis dans la gouvernance et dans la formulationde politiques gouvernementales. Elle constitue un nouvel engage-ment de la part du gouvernement fédéral de nouer de nouvellesrelations avec la nation métisse.

Plus particulièrement, le processus bilatéral s’attaquera aux ques-tions de compétence fédérale et provinciale, à la reconnaissance età la correction des situations injustes et des abus dont ont été vic-times les Métis dans les pensionnats, à l’accès des Métis auxprestations des anciens combattants et au régime d’établissementdes soldats, au développement de la gouvernance et d’institutionsmétisses, au développement économique et au renforcement descapacités, aux droits autochtones des Métis, y compris les droitsrelatifs aux terres, à la chasse et la récolte ainsi qu’à toute autrequestion que le gouvernement fédéral et la nation métissedécideront de traiter.

Les discussions multilatérales mentionnées dans l’ententeappuient l’établissement de relations entre le RNM et ses organi-sations membres et le gouvernement fédéral et cinq provinces :l’Ontario, le Manitoba, la Saskatchewan, l’Alberta et laColombie-Britannique. Ces discussions pourront porter sur lesterres et les ressources, les droits de récolte, le développementéconomique, l’éducation et la formation, la santé, les servicesd’aide à l’enfance et aux familles, le logement, la justice et les ser-vices de police, domaines qui sont tous peu développés pour cequi est de l’inclusion des Métis dans les programmes et les ser-vices ou l’établissement de politiques. On espère que, conjointe-ment au nouveau processus bilatéral, les discussions multilatéralesauront pour effet d’accroître la participation des Métis au proces-sus de gouvernance et d’améliorer les possibilités de reconnais-sance de leurs droits autochtones.

ConclusionForts de la richesse de leur culture et de leur histoire, les Métis lut-tent depuis des générations pour la protection de leurs droits et deleur reconnaissance comme Première nation. La lutte doit con-tinuer mais, par la signature en 2008 du Protocole d’entente surla nation métisse par l’honorable Chuck Strahl, ministre desAffaires indiennes et du Nord canadien et interlocuteur fédéralauprès des Métis et des Indiens non inscrits, les parties ont tournéla page et entamé un nouveau chapitre de l’histoire du combat duRNM afin d’obtenir justice pour la nation métisse. Le RNM nepeut oublier le passé, mais peut maintenant faire preuve d’unoptimisme prudent et espérer que le Protocole constitue uneétape qui favorisera l’élimination de la discrimination systémiquedont la nation métisse fait l’objet dans les politiques, programmeset services fédéraux et provinciaux.


Abstract Inuit are calling on their Aboriginality, rather thantheir national identities of being American orCanadian citizens, in an effort to arrest the globalclimate change effects on their homelands. A deepersocial analysis of the Inuit petition at the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights for viola-tions resulting from climate change demonstratesthat the corridors of institutional power and his-toric/colonial discrimination are actively morphingInuit efforts to decolonize mitigation and adaptationstrategies used to address climate change. Not onlydoes Inuit health continue to suffer as a result of sus-tained colonization but now the second wave of col-onization, that of climate change, seeks to furtherassimilate remaining Indigenous structures.

Surviving in the ArcticFrom the vantage point of having an ongoing andintimate relationship with the environment, Inuithave since time immemorial survived and thrived inthe Arctic and recently placed information aboutthis relationship into a petition to the Inter-AmericaCommission on Human Rights (IACHR) for viola-tions resulting from global warming caused by theUnited States (Watt-Cloutier, 2006). Similarly, com-puter forecasting models indicate that the Arctic issusceptible to greater warming levels than the globalaverage (Arctic Council 2004:27). The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) report that both hydrological and terrestrialecosystems have changed, thus effecting thermalstructures, water quality, temperature, salinity, oxy-gen levels and circulation which are caused by indus-trial activity cultivated by humans. Industry changedland-use patterns and fossil fuel consumption andconsequently huge increases in greenhouse gases(GHG) were emitted into the atmosphere. (IPCC2007: 5). IPCC (2004) stresses that synergistic andsustainable adaptation strategies are necessaryregardless of how people, nations and industry aregoing to mitigate climate change (p.21-22).However, both adaptation and mitigation strategies

Canaries on Ice: Inuit identity and climate changeKatherine Minich, MHSc

represent ethically charged grounds that reinforcepolarities such as developed and undeveloped orhaves and have nots. The distribution of risk toadverse outcomes from climate change continues toplague those already marginalized and favour thoseprivileged by colonization via economic systems ofresource exploitation. Furthermore, climate changeexasperates colonization and Inuit leader, SheliaWatt-Cloutier (2006) even parallels climate changeas the second wave of colonization.

Cultural Jeopardy – a humanity issueBecause Indigenous populations are closely connect-ed, even inseparable to the land and oceans, Inuit inparticular are in cultural jeopardy as the Arctic cli-mate changes. However, the investigation beforeIACHR persists a viable measure to arrest environ-mental disconnect that climate change perpetuates,especially in comparison to the linear models thatendorse gradual Arctic melting. The Inuit petitionpresents 7 key human rights violations:

1) right to enjoy the benefit of culture2) right to use and enjoy lands traditionally

occupied3) right to use and enjoy personal property 4) right to the preservation of health 5) right to life, physical integrity and security6) right to their own means of subsistence 7) rights to residence and movement

and inviolability of the home.

Situating a petition at IACHR is risky because itsrulings are nominal (Spicer 2007) and more persua-sive than enforceable because of the separationbetween international law and domestic affairs ofnation-states. International law is weak becausepowerful nation-states hold out on agreements. Forexample, while Canada and the United States aremembers of the IACHR, they did not ratify the1969 American Convention on Human Rights,rather both are signatories to the 1948 Declarationof the Rights and Duties of Man (Abate 2007: 36).Not only are Canada and United States distancedfrom the Commission, the organizational structure

FEATURE

About the AuthorKatherine Minich, (MHSc) is anInuk from Nunavut, living inToronto and works for the Centreof Health Promotion at theUniversity of Toronto.


Canaries on Icethat has created the climate crisis. IACHR is not immune to theconvenience of decontextualizing and dehistorizing so thatdecolonizing projects are disrupted by the forces that lent to theCommission’s creation. In exploring the tensions betweenIndigenous peoples, citizenship and responses to climate change,it is important to render obvious the point about predetermin-ing Indigenous peoples as full fledged citizens of nation-statesand as pointed out earlier, the assumption that Indigenous issuesare compatible with domestic affairs. In comparison to the gen-eral public’s status in nation-states, the health, social welfare andwell-being of Indigenous peoples fall below the average. Forexample, Inuit in Canada have the highest level of youth suicide(Tester & McNicoll 2003); something keeps Inuit from beinghealthy individuals and societies within one of the mostadvanced nation-states in the world and the most differentiatingfactor is colonization.

ConclusionDespite being the majority of Arctic residents and beingCanadian citizens, Inuit in Canada encounter disparate climatechange responses directly influencing their traditional lands. Inthis essay I touched on how ethnic difference brought on by col-onization forced Inuit to move beyond domestic affairs into therealm of international law. It is obvious that Inuit depart fromneo-liberal governments’ acceptance of climate change projec-tions and models in linear anticipation of Arctic melt. Inuit areinvesting in efforts to arrest climate change. To do so, Inuit havenot called on their Canadian or American identities; rather theycalled upon their Aboriginality. In doing so, a set of institutionsand processes that serves to promote self-determination anddecolonization were invoked at the same time general Canadiansand the ‘environmental’ community are kept at bay.

of the Commission puts the Inuit petition at the mercy of a fewpanelists who review admissibility of their case, investigates,explores settlement options and report on deliberations, onlythen can the petition go a hearing at the Inter American Court.On the contrary, the normative influence is powerful becausemany developed nations go to great lengths to avoid interna-tional shaming. In fact, Abate (2007) thinks the Inuit petition isone of "conscience" with significant public awareness implica-tions. Furthermore Abate (2007) positions hypothetical recom-mendations that reprimand the United States inaction in GHGemission as an appeasement to the ‘global community’ engagedin protecting the environment. Although from the Inuit pointof view Shelia Watt-Cloutier says:

"…this is a family, community issue, this is not just abouttrading of carbon, sinks and emission trading and so on. It isnot just technology, not just politics, this is a people issue, thisis a human issue, this is a humanity issue. The world has notbeen seeing it in that light at all" .

Personally, I find it hard to be critical of this plea to humanitybecause I too feel the passion, believing that people make changehappen, and the rationale for the Inuit petition is compelling.However, power in its normative form is a difficult concept torealize in a global capitalist system that prioritizes currency andeconomic growth. The stark contradiction of normative versus‘real’ power reflects differences between Indigenous organizationaround eco-centricity and community versus the colonial organ-ization that fosters egocentricity.

Decontextualizing and dehistorizingIndigenous peoples’ self-determination is in particular, erased bythe colonial framework incorporated under domestic law muchin the same way that "global consciousness" erases the history

References:Abate, Randall S. (2007) Climate change, the United States, and the impact of arctic melting: a case study in the need for

enforceable international human rights. Stanford Journal of International Law, 26A (43A).Arctic Council (2007) Human Health Report. Chapter 4. Ecological Characteristics of the Arctic (pp. 117-139). IPCC, 2007:

Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. In B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A.Meyer (eds), Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Spicer, Jonathan. (2007). Hearing to Probe Climate Change and Inuit Rights. Reuters.Tester, Frank James and McNicoll, Paule. (2004) Isumagijaksaq: mindful of the state: social constructions of Inuit suicide.

Social Science & Medicine 58:2625-2636.Watt-Cloutier, Shelia and Inuit Circumpolar Conference. (2005). Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human

Rights: Violations Resulting from Global Warming Caused by the United States. 175 Pages. Watt-Cloutier, Sheila. (2006). Climate Change and Human Rights: Inuit Perspectives (An interview by Michael Stohl.)

University College of Santa Barbara. 54 minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFIsrwrjHoY (last accessed02/20/2008)


Les Inuits et le changement climatique : Des canaris sur la glace?Katherine Minich, MHSc

L’auteure : Katherine Minich, (MHSc), estune Inuite originaire du Nunavut.Elle demeure à Toronto et travailleau Centre de promotion de la santéà l’Université de Toronto.

RésuméLes Inuits font appel à leur aboriginalité, plutôt qu’àleur identité nationale canadienne ou américaine,pour prévenir les répercussions du changement cli-matique mondial sur leur territoire. Une profondeanalyse sociale d’une pétition relative au change-ment climatique, présentée à la Commission inter-américaine des droits de la personne, révèle que leslabyrinthes du pouvoir institutionnel et de la dis-crimination historique/coloniale métamorphosenteffectivement les efforts déployés par les Inuits afinde décoloniser les stratégies d’atténuation duchangement climatique et les mesures d’adaptation.Non seulement en conséquence de la colonisationsoutenue la santé des Inuits continue-t-elle d’ensouffrir, mais une deuxième vague de colonisation,celle causée par les répercussions du changement cli-matique, tente d’assimiler davantage les structuresautochtones restantes.

La survie dans l’Arctique Sous l’angle privilégié de leur relation intime etdurable avec l’environnement, les Inuits ont, de touttemps, survécu et prospéré dans l’Arctique. Ils ontrécemment présenté une pétition à la Commissioninteraméricaine des droits de la personne deman-dant réparation pour les dommages causés à leurpeuple par le réchauffement climatique dont lesAméricains sont responsables (Watt-Cloutier,2006). De façon semblable, des systèmes informa-tiques de prévision indiquent que l’Arctique est plusgravement touché que la moyenne mondiale(Conseil de l’Arctique 2004:27). Le Groupe d’ex-perts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat(GIEC) a déclaré que les écosystèmes hydrologiqueset terrestres ont été modifiés par l’activité indus-trielle, et que ces changements affectent, par con-séquent, la structure thermique, la qualité de l’eau,la température, la salinité, la teneur en oxygène et sacirculation. Le changement d’affectation des terrespar les industries et la consommation des com-bustibles fossiles sont responsables de l’augmenta-

tion considérable des émissions de gaz à effet deserre dans l’atmosphère (IPCC 2007: 5). Le GIEC(2004) souligne que la synergétique et les stratégiesd’adaptation durables sont nécessaires peu importeles mesures que les gens, les nations et les industriesprendront pour atténuer les répercussions duchangement climatique (p.21-22). Les stratégiesd’adaptation et d’atténuation des effets comportentcependant, du point de vue moral, des argumentsrenforçant les deux tendances, les nations dévelop-pées et non développées, nanties ou démunies. Leseffets négatifs du changement climatique conti-nuent d’affliger une nation déjà marginalisée tandisqu’ils favorisent celles privilégiées par la colonisationet par le biais de systèmes économiques reposant surl’exploitation des ressources. La situation exaspèred’autant plus Shelia Watt-Cloutier, chef des Inuits etleader mondial en matière de changements clima-tiques et de droits de la personne, parce qu’elle yvoit, parallèlement, une seconde vague de colonisa-tion.

Mise en péril culturelle – un problème mondialLa vie des populations autochtones est étroitementliée à la terre et aux océans, pour ne pas dire qu’elleen est inséparable. C’est pourquoi les Inuits, en par-ticulier, sont culturellement mis en péril par les con-séquences des changements climatiques en Arctique.Toutefois, l’enquête entamée à la suite de la plaintedéposée devant la Commission interaméricaine desdroits de la personne demeure un moyen viabled’empêcher l’absence de liens avec l’environnementque les changements climatiques perpétuent, spé-cialement en fonction des modèles linéaires qui con-firment la fonte graduelle des glaces des régions arc-tiques. La requête des Inuits comprends 7 princi-pales contraventions aux droits de la personne :

1)droit de jouissance des avantages de la culture 2)droit d’utilisation et de jouissance des terres

traditionnellement occupées3)droit d’utilisation et de jouissance des biens

personnels 4) droit à la préservation de la santé

Articles de fond


Les Inuits et le changement climatique: Des canaris sur la glace?5) droit à la vie, à l’intégrité physique et à la sécurité6) droit d’accès à leurs propres moyens de subsistance 7) droit de séjour, de se déplacer et à l’inviolabilité du foyer

Présenter une plainte à la Commission interaméricaine desdroits de la personne est hasardeux parce que les décisions qu’ellerend sont négligeables (Spicer 2007) et plus convaincantesqu’exécutoires en raison de la distinction entre le droit interna-tional et les affaires intérieures des États-nations. Le droit inter-national est faible parce que les États-nations concluent desententes. Par exemple, bien que le Canada et les États-Unissoient membres de la Commission interaméricaine des droits dela personne, ils n’ont pas ratifié la convention américaine relativeaux droits de l’homme (1969), non plus qu’ils ont été signatairesde la Déclaration américaine des droits et devoirs de l'homme de1948 (Abate 2007: 36). Non seulement le Canada et les États-Unis sont-ils distancés de la Commission, mais, selon les struc-tures organisationnelles de la Commission, la requête des Inuitsse retrouve à la merci de quelques membres d’un jury qui évalu-ent l’admissibilité de leur cas, font enquête, explorent différentes

possibilités de règlement, dressent un rapport de leur délibéra-tions, puis transmettent la plainte pour audition devant le tribu-nal de la Commission interaméricaine. De façon assez para-doxale, l’influence normative est puissante puisque de nom-breuses nations développées vont très loin pour éviter la honte àl’échelle internationale. Cependant, M. Abate (2007) croit quela pétition du peuple Inuit est un geste de conscientisation dontles répercussions sensibiliseront le public de façon très impor-tante. Il prévoit hypothétiquement une recommandation quiréprimandera l’inaction des États-Unis à l’égard des émissions degaz à effet de serre pour apaiser la communauté mondiale mili-tant en faveur de la protection de l’environnement. Toutefois,d’un point de vue inuit, Shelia Watt-Cloutier déclare :

« …il s’agit d’une question qui concerne la famille et la collec-tivité, non le commerce du charbon, de puits et réservoirs degaz à effet de serre, et ainsi de suite. Ce n’est pas un enjeu quiconcerne la technologie ou la politique. C’est un problème quinous concerne tous, qui concerne l’humanité toute entière. Lemonde ne voit tout simplement pas la question de ce point devue. »

Il m’est personnellement difficile de critiquer le plaidoyer deMme Watt-Cloutier parce que je suis animée de la même pas-sion. Je crois que les gens ont la possibilité de procéder auchangement et que le bien-fondé de la pétition inuite est unargument convaincant. Cependant, dans sa forme normative, lepouvoir a moins de portée dans un système capitaliste mondialqui accorde la priorité au taux de change et à la croissance

économique. La nette contradiction entre le pouvoir normatif etle pouvoir réel illustre la différence entre la philosophieautochtone qui favorise l’écocentrisme et la collectivité, et le sys-tème colonialiste qui est axé sur l’égocentrisme.

Un oubli du contexte et de l’historique?L’autonomie gouvernementale du peuple autochtone en parti-culier est éclipsée par le cadre conceptuel colonial qui sous-tendle droit national tout comme la « conscience mondiale » veutignorer les causes de la crise du changement climatique. LeGIEC n’échappe pas à la commodité de ne pas tenir compte ducontexte ou de l’historique de sorte que les projets visant ladécolonisation ne soient pas perturbés par les puissances qui ontcontribué à la création de la Commission. En examinant les ten-sions entre les Peuples autochtones, les citoyens et les réactionsface au changement climatique, il est important de souligner laprédétermination des Peuples autochtones à titre de membre deplein droit des États-nations et, tel que mentionné plus tôt, l’hy-pothèse selon laquelle les enjeux autochtones sont du domainedes affaires intérieures. Si l’on compare le statut des citoyens desÉtats-nations à celui des Autochtones, la santé et le bien-être col-lectif des Peuples autochtones sont bien en-dessous de lamoyenne. Mentionnons, à titre d’exemple, que le taux de suicidele plus élevé figure chez les Inuits du Canada (Tester &McNicoll 2003); quelque chose empêche les Inuits d’être desindividus en santé et de se démarquer en tant que l’une dessociétés les plus évoluées des États-nations du monde. L’élémentle plus différenciateur : la colonisation.

ConclusionEn dépit du fait que les Inuits du Canada constituent la majoritédes résidents de l’Arctique et qu’ils soient citoyens canadiens, lesréactions à l’échelle nationale ou internationale au changementclimatique affectant directement leur terre sont des plus dis-parates. J’ai voulu démontrer ici que la différence ethniqueimposée par la colonisation a forcé les Inuits à s’adresser à uneautorité de droit internationale bien qu’il s’agisse d’une affaired’ordre nationale. Il est évident que les Inuits s’écartent d’ungouvernement néolibéral qui accepte les projections et modèleslinéaires projetant la fonte des glaces de l’Arctique. Le peupleinuit préfère plutôt déployer des efforts visant à mettre un freinau changement climatique. Pour ce faire, ils n’ont pas fait appelà leur identité canadienne ou américaine, mais plutôt à leur abo-riginalité. Ils se sont ainsi prévalu de l’ensemble des institutionset de processus dont l’objectif consiste à promouvoir l’au-todétermination et la décolonisation. Pendant ce temps, lesCanadiens en général et la communauté d’environnementalistessont tenus à distance.


Les Inuits et le changement climatique: Des canaris sur la glace?Références Abate, Randall S. (2007) Climate change, the United States, and the impact of arctic melting: a case study in the need for

enforceable international human rights. Stanford Journal of International Law, 26A (43A).

Conseil de l’Arctique (2007) Human Health Report. Chapter 4. Ecological Characteristics of the Arctic (pp. 117-139).

GIEC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. In B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave,L.A. Meyer (eds), Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Spicer, Jonathan. (2007). Hearing to Probe Climate Change and Inuit Rights. Reuters.

Tester, Frank James and McNicoll, Paule. (2004) Isumagijaksaq: mindful of the state: social constructions of Inuit suicide.Social Science & Medicine 58:2625-2636.

Watt-Cloutier, Shelia and Inuit Circumpolar Conference. (2005). Petition to the Inter American Commission on HumanRights: Violations Resulting from Global Warming Caused by the United States. 175 Pages.

Watt-Cloutier, Sheila. (2006). Climate Change and Human Rights: Inuit Perspectives (Entrevue dirigée par Michael Stohl.)University College of Santa Barbara. 54 minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFIsrwrjHoY


Abstract An overview is presented of the characteristics andthe damages of systemic discrimination, how it isunderstood and tested in courts, as well as the lim-its of such tests in courts that miss the real contextand effects of racism that affect the mental, emo-tional, as well as the spiritual and physical well-being of individuals and collectives. Canada is nota safe place yet for Aboriginal people. As well,Canadians are not aware of the large-scale impactsand ìlayers of intersectional oppressions such asaddiction, violence, lack of educational opportuni-ties, over-incarceration, fracturing of family bonds,[and] loss of languageî on Aboriginal peoples. Thegap gets larger yet we do have not statistics thatspeak to that gap, rather the ones that furtherpathologize Aboriginal peoples.

Racism is a lived experienceDiscrimination is a lived experience. People whosurvive racial discrimination learn it by living it.Because Canadian society does not acknowledgethe amount or effects of discrimination racializedpersons confront, survivors often turn the hatred inon themselves and feel they are lesser persons.They do not always see the social patterns thatoppress them nor do they necessarily recognize theimpacts of the racism they experience. Racism is abelief that one racial or ethnic group is superior(Isajiw 1999:149). From the sociological perspec-tive, in this situation there is a failure to see theexperience as a social problem rather than a privatetrouble for the individual to address (Mills 1959,1977:3-4). Our lives are organized within thesocial structures in which we live. To remedy theproblem of oppression in our social systems, forexample, our educational systems must stop label-ing children who are surviving racism as angry,defensive or worse, deficient. Our educational sys-tems must provide sufficient opportunities for allchildren to learn positive responses to the racismthey survive or see being perpetrated on.

Racism and the "Reasonable Person":Understanding Systemic DiscriminationPatricia A. Monture, LL.D.

Aboriginal persons in Canada still continue toexperience racial hatred and as a result remainoppressed persons. Racism is a costly presence inour society because some racialized individuals areso traumatized by the experience that they do nothave the opportunity to grow into productive andcontributing citizens. Aboriginal women far toooften confront a sexualized racial hatred, whichleads to violence.

The different forms of discriminationDiscrimination takes many forms. It’s most com-mon form is individualized and direct. This formmight be an attitude or value judgment about somereal or imagined characteristic of an individual.When the trait is generalized to group it becomes aracial stereotype of Aboriginal persons. A stereo-type assumes that all people belonging to a grouppossess the same characteristics. Usually, these gen-eralizations are negative (Isajiw 1999: 144). Whenthese stereotypes are used as the justification todeny an individual access to services, jobs, educa-tional opportunities or housing then this is dis-crimination. Direct discrimination might also be aracial slur that can hurt feelings and damage a per-son’s sense of self worth. Many Canadians recog-nize this behaviour as wrong when they see it. Thecourageous ones speak against racialized and sexu-alized discrimination.

More insidious is a form of hatred that is called sys-temic discrimination. Systemic discrimination isnot individualized nor is it direct. Systemic dis-crimination is sometimes called institutionalracism because it is embedded in the norms, values,culture, discourses and practices of an organiza-tion, institution, society or state. A commonexample is the now abandoned rule that to be apolice officer you must be a certain height. Thisrule about height included men and excludedwomen as well as certain racial minorities. On itsface, the rule seems neutral enough, but in practice

FEATURE

About the AuthorPatricia A. Monture is a citizen ofthe Mohawk Nation, Grand RiverTerritory (near Brantford,Ontario). Educated as a lawyer inOntario she has studied at theUniversity of Western Ontario,Queen’s University and OsgoodeHall Law School. Dr. Monture is aprofessor at the University ofSaskatchewan where she is also theAcademic Coordinator of theAboriginal Justice and Crimin-ology Program.


Racism and the "Reasonable Person"it was a rule that systemically excluded both women and cer-tain racialized groups. For this reason, systemic discriminationis often referred to as a barrier.

Discrimination and Canadian LawThe act of discrimination, although as old as this country, hasbeen prohibited by international law for only the last 60 years.Legally, then, discrimination is a new concept. Canadiancourts have been asked to consider matters of systematic dis-crimination in only a few cases. This might be a reflection ofthe denial that racism is as prominent in this country as it is.It also reflects the connection between racialization and pover-ty. Taking cases to court is a very expensive endeavour.Moreover, systemic discrimination cases are very difficult toprove because of the kinds of evidence the court processdemands.

There have been several decisions issued by Canada’s highestcourt that deal with systemic discrimination. In Canadian law,one of the common tests used by judges and lawyers is whatthe "reasonable person" would do in the same circumstances asthe defendant. In my law school days (1984-1988), it was rec-ognized that a "reasonable person" was not just a man but alsoa woman. In a 1997 decision, the "reasonable person’ becameracially conscious:

"a reasonable person is not only a member of the Canadiancommunity, but also, more specifically, is a member of thelocal communities in which the case at issue arose (in thiscase, the Nova Scotian and Halifax communities). Such aperson must be taken to possess knowledge of the local popu-lation and its racial dynamics, including the existence in thecommunity of a history of widespread and systemic discrimi-nation against black and aboriginal people, and high profileclashes between the police and the visible minority popula-tion over policing issues (R. v R.(S.D.) 1997 3 S.C.R. 484,paragraph 47).

Courts must go a step further. The standpoint of this reason-able person is still "whiteness" as the experiential harms of sur-viving racism are absent from the high court’s decision.

Cases of systemic discrimination are difficult to bring forwardas often little evidence is available to demonstrate the waysinstitutional norms, values, culture and practices exclude cer-tain groups. Statistics can demonstrate the patterns of exclu-sions that exist in organizations. Statistics, however, can onlyalert us to these exclusions and alone are not sufficient todemonstrate systemic discrimination in either a court of law orthe court of public opinion. Proving systemic discrimination

requires enlightenment around the barriers that exist and howthese barriers operate. Racialized persons are often the first tobe aware of the existence of barriers and exclusionary practicesbecause they feel marginalized and isolated. These feelings,however, are difficult to share and are often dismissed when aperson raises the issues.

In Canada, statistics that should alarm us have been availablefor many years. Aboriginal persons are among the poorest peo-ple in the country. It is estimated that 42.7% of Aboriginalwomen live in poverty. "The average annual income of anAboriginal woman is $13,300, compared to $19,350 for anon-Aboriginal woman and $18,200 for an Aboriginal man"(Mercredi 2008). In 1967, a report commissioned by theCanadian Corrections Association, noted the alarming rates ofover-representation of Aboriginal persons in Canada’s criminaljustice system (Laing and Monture). In 1988, the CanadianBar Association reported that in comparison to non-Aboriginalpeople, "male treaty Indians were 25 times more likely to beadmitted to a provincial correctional centre" (Jackson: 216). Afemale treaty Indian was 131 times more likely to be admittedto a provincial correctional centre.

The report concludes:Put another way, this means that in Saskatchewan, prisonhas become for young native men, the promise of a just soci-ety which high school and college represent for the rest of us.Placed in a historical context, the prison has become formany young native people the contemporary equivalent ofwhat Indian residential school represented for their parents(216).

In R. v Williams (1998 1 S.C.R. 1128), the Supreme Court ofCanada noted: "There is evidence that this widespread racismhas translated to systemic discrimination in the Canadiancriminal justice system" (paragraph 59). Saskatchewan leadsthe country in the rate it imprisons Aboriginal youth andremoves them from their homes through child welfare prac-tices (Blackstock et al 2004). Most disturbing of all, the rateof over-representation of Aboriginal persons in Canada’s crim-inal justice system has continued to grow since it was firstreported in 1967 (Monture 2006).

Often when the topic of conversation is Aboriginal over-repre-sentation in the Canadian criminal justice system, our inquiryends too soon. Not only are Aboriginal persons more likely tobe charged or convicted of an offence. Aboriginal persons aremore likely to be victims. A report prepared for theDepartment of Justice’s Policy Centre for Victims Issues noted:


Racism and the "Reasonable Person"… that 35 per cent of Aboriginal people (versus 26 per centof non-Aboriginal people) tend to be victims, and thatAboriginal people are three times more likely to be victims ofviolent crimes. Sexual assault rates are five times higher forAboriginal people and domestic violence is three times high-er. Under reporting of crimes is more pronounced amongAboriginal peoples; in fact, one study found that 74% ofAboriginal victims did not report the crimes. One reason fornot reporting was a lack of confidence in the system(Chartrand and McKay 2006).

Remedying past wrongs These figures demonstrate clearly the diminished quality of lifeof an Aboriginal person living in Canada. It is a serious viola-tion of international law norms to allow for the situation ofdiscrimination and racial hatred directed at Aboriginal personsto continue denying the right to live without violence andwithout the fear of violence. Yet, for Aboriginal people inCanada, the right to be safe is still denied. This denial is par-ticularly acute for Aboriginal women. In 2004, AmnestyInternational released it’s reported titled, "Stolen Sisters".Both Amnesty International and the Native Women’sAssociation of Canada have worked very hard to make visiblenot only the number of murdered and missing Aboriginalwomen in this country – estimated at 500 Aboriginal women– but equally how the criminal justice system has failed thosewomen and their families (2004; 14). The report concludes:

Because of the vital role they play in society, and the powerthey wield, it is critical that the police are held accountable.That must include accountability for failing to fulfill theirduties… to fully and impartially investigate all reports ofthreats to women’s lives (2004: 19).

This is just one example how the present system of justice failsAboriginal women. Canadians must begin to imagine whatlife is like for an Aboriginal living in this country.

Canada has recently apologized for the atrocities that churchand state committed against Aboriginal children in residentialschools. Compensation has been offered to the survivors ofthis atrocity. Yet, some of those survivors are among the menand women who are presently incarcerated in Canada’s prisonsand jails. The money paid does not provide a remedy for theways that the impacts of residential schools created layers ofintersectional oppressions such as addiction, violence, lack of

educational opportunities, over-incarceration, fracturing offamily bonds, and loss of language and so on. These complexpatterns of oppression continue to deny opportunities for fartoo many Aboriginal Peoples to live full and productive lives.This is the real, but hidden, cost of racial hatred. Remedies forthe racial hatred that Aboriginal people have survived in thiscountry remain partial and Aboriginal people are continuallyblamed for their poverty.

The opportunity to remedy the impacts of past and ongoingsystemic discrimination is a matter that requires attention.Canada’s justice systems are not always a solution to the prob-lems systemic discrimination poses for Aboriginal people. TheCommissioners of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitobaexplain the complexity of the question about remedies:

From the perspective of Aboriginal people, the justice systemhas contributed to Aboriginal poverty by failing to providethem with the means to fight the oppressive conditionsimposed upon them. It has not assisted Aboriginal peoples indefending their claim to their lands or in enforcing theirtreaty promises. In fact, at one time it was illegal for lawyersto represent Aboriginal persons without the consent of the fed-eral government or for Aboriginal people to raise money topress their land claims. The loss of Aboriginal land is a clearcontributor to poverty.

Nor has the justice system assisted Aboriginal peoples indefending their freedoms of religion and association. The lawforced Aboriginal parents, under threat of prosecution fromthe justice system, to send their children to residential schools.The justice system also failed to protect families from thechild welfare practices of the 1960s and 1970s, which con-tinue to create problems off reserve today. The separation offamilies, the oppression of culture and language, and the lackof Aboriginal control over decisions within their communitieshave contributed to inadequate education and to communi-ty breakdown, which in turn lead to poverty, as communityresources are underdeveloped (1991: 94-95).

Once the Canadian community acknowledges the complexityof the problem, then the size of the challenge before us is read-ily apparent. The focus of our efforts must be remedial as todeny to a population, Aboriginal Peoples, access to humanrights is a serious travesty of justice.


Racism and the "Reasonable Person"BibliographyAmnesty International. 2004. Stolen Sisters – A Human Rights Response to Discrimination and Violence Against Indigenous Womenin Canada (Canada: Amnesty International).

Blackstock, Cindy, Nico Trocmé and Marilyn Bennett. 2004. "Child Maltreatment Investigations Among Aboriginal andnon-Aboriginal Families in Canada" in 10:8 Violence Against Women, 901-916.

Chartrand, Larry and Celeste McKay. 2006. A Review of Research on Criminal Victimization and First Nation, Métis and InuitPeoples 1990-2001 (Ottawa: Department of Justice, Policy Centre for Victims Issues).

Isajiw, Wsevolod W. 1999. Understanding Diversity: Ethnicity and Race in the Canadian Context (Toronto: ThompsonEducational Publishing).

Jackson, Michael. 1988. Locking up Natives in Canada: A Report of the Canadian Bar Association (Ottawa: Canadian BarAssociation).

Laing, The Honourable Arthur and Gilbert Monture. 1967. Indians and the Law (Ottawa: Canadian CorrectionsAssociation and the Department of Indian Affairs).

Paula Mercredi. 2008. "Aboriginal Women Face Challenges in the Canadian Economy" available at:www.trudeausociety.com/home/business/2008/03/16/01000.html.

Monture, Patricia. Summer/Fall 2006. "Confronting Power: Aboriginal Women and Justice Reform" in 25: 2 & 3 CanadianWoman Studies, pp. 25-33.


Articles de fond

L’auteurePatricia A. Monture est membre dela nation Mohawk, territoire deGrand River, près de Brantford, enOntario. Avocate, elle est diplôméede l’Université de Western Ontarioet de l’Osgoode Hall Law School.Elle est professeure adjointe audépartement d’études autochtonesde l’Université de la Saskatchewan etenseigne au département de sociolo-gie des cours sur la Justiceautochtone.

Le racisme et la « personne raisonnable » : aide à la compréhension de la discrimination systémiquePatricia A. Monture, LL.D.

blème de l’oppression dans nos systèmes sociaux,par exemple, nos systèmes éducatifs doivent cesserd’étiqueter les enfants qui s’efforcent de survivre auracisme comme des enfants en colère, défensifs, oupire, déficients. Nos systèmes éducatifs doivent leuroffrir suffisamment de possibilités d’acquérir desréactions positives à l’endroit du racisme auquel ilssurvivent ou qu’ils voient infliger à d’autres.

Les Autochtones du Canada continuent de con-naître la haine raciale et, pour cette raison, d’êtreopprimés. Le racisme est coûteux pour notresociété, puisque les personnes racialisées sont sitraumatisées par l’expérience qu’elles n’ont pas lapossibilité de devenir des citoyens productifs etutiles. Les femmes autochtones font face trop sou-vent à de la haine raciale sexualisée, ce qui mène àla violence.

Les différentes formes de discriminationLa discrimination revêt plusieurs formes. La formela plus commune est la discrimination individua-lisée et directe. Il peut s’agir d’une attitude ou d’unjugement de valeur sur une caractéristique réelle ouimaginée d’une personne. Lorsque l’on appliquecette caractéristique à tous les membres d’ungroupe, les Autochtones, on a alors affaire à unstéréotype racial. Un stéréotype présume que toutesles personnes appartenant à un groupe possèdentles mêmes caractéristiques. En règle générale, cesgénéralisations sont négatives. Quand ces stéréo-types servent à contrôler l’accès d’une personne àdes services, à des emplois, à des possibilitésd’études et au logement, on peut parler de discri-mination. La discrimination directe peut aussi con-sister en des insultes raciales blessantes ou quiaffaiblissent le sentiment de valeur personnelled’une personne. Beaucoup de Canadiens reconnais-sent que cette conduite est condamnable, quand ilsen sont témoins. Ceux d’entre eux qui sontcourageux se prononcent ouvertement contre ladiscrimination racialisée et sexualisée.

RésuméVue d’ensemble des caractéristiques et des dom-mages causés par la discrimination systémique etde la façon dont ce problème est incompris maisattesté par les tribunaux qui ne perçoivent ni lecontexte ni les répercussions sur la santé mentale,physique, affective, spirituelle et le bien-êtregénéral des individus et des collectivités. LeCanada n’est toujours un milieu sécuritaire pourles peuples autochtones. Par surcroît, les Canadiensne sont pas conscients des effets à grande échelle dela discrimination systémique et croisée sur les peu-ples autochtones, notamment la toxicomanie, laviolence, le manque de possibilités d’accès à l’en-seignement, l’incarcération excessive, le fraction-nement des liens familiaux et la disparition gradu-elle de leurs langues. Les lacunes sont de plus enplus importantes, mais aucune statistique n’en faitmention. Cependant, les données les pluscourantes tendent à donner une teinte patho-logique à leur situation.

Le racisme est une expérience que l’on vitLa discrimination est une expérience que l’on vit.Les personnes qui survivent à la discriminationraciale apprennent à la connaître en vivant cetteexpérience. Parce que la société canadienne nereconnaît pas la force et les effets de la discrimina-tion à laquelle font face les personnes racialisées,ceux qui y survivent détournent leur haine contreeux-mêmes et se sentent diminués en tant que per-sonne. Elles ne voient pas toujours les modèlessociaux qui les oppriment et ne reconnaissent pasles incidences du racisme qu’elles vivent. Le racismeest la croyance qu’un groupe racial ou ethnique estsupérieur (Isajiw 1999 : 149). D’une perspectivesociologique, c’est une situation où existe une inca-pacité de voir l’expérience comme un problèmesocial et non une difficulté personnelle que doitrésoudre un individu (Mills 1959, 1977 : 3-4).Notre vie est organisée en fonction des structuresdans lesquelles nous vivons. Pour résoudre le pro-


Le racisme et la « personne raisonnable »La forme la plus insidieuse de haine s’appelle la discriminationsystémique. La discrimination systémique n’est ni individualiséeni directe. Elle est parfois connue sous le nom de racisme insti-tutionnel parce qu’elle est enracinée dans les normes, les valeurs,la culture, les discours et les pratiques d’un organisme, d’uneinstitution, d’une société ou d’un État. Un exemple communest la règle, maintenant abandonnée, voulant qu’un agent depolice soit d’une telle taille. Comme telle, la règle semblait neu-tre, mais, en pratique, elle avait pour effet d’exclure de façonsystématique les femmes ainsi que certains groupes racialisés.Pour cette raison, on qualifie souvent la discrimination systé-matique d’obstacle.

La discrimination et le droit canadienLa discrimination, qui remonte à la naissance du pays, n’est pro-hibée en droit international que depuis 60 ans. En droit, la dis-crimination est un nouveau concept. On a demandé aux tri-bunaux canadiens de se prononcer sur des questions de dis-crimination systémique que dans quelques cas. Le petit nombrede décisions sur cette question est peut-être la conséquence dela négation du fait que le racisme occupe la place importantequ’il a au pays. Le lien qui existe entre la racialisation et la pau-vreté est un autre facteur : les procédures judiciaires sont trèscoûteuses. Ce qui plus est, les cas de discrimination systémiquessont très difficiles à prouver en raison du type de preuve exigépar le processus judiciaire.

Le plus haut tribunal du Canada a rendu plusieurs décisions trai-tant de la discrimination systémique. En droit canadien, l’un descritères généralement utilisé par les juges et les avocats est cequ’une « personne raisonnable » ferait dans les mêmes circons-tances que le défendeur. Quand j’étudiais le droit, de 1984 à1988, on reconnaissait qu’une « personne raisonnable » pouvaitêtre aussi une femme. En 1997, la Cour suprême décidait que la« personne raisonnable » pouvait être sensible au facteur racial :

La personne raisonnable fait non seulement partie de la sociétécanadienne, mais, plus particulièrement, des collectivités oùl’affaire a pris naissance (en l’espèce, la Nouvelle-Écosse etHalifax). Cette personne est censée connaître la populationlocale et sa dynamique raciale, y compris son passé de discri-mination généralisée et systémique contre les Noirs et lesAutochtones, ainsi que les heurts retentissants entre la police etles minorités visibles sur des questions de police (R. c R. (S.D.)1997 3 R.C.S. 484, paragraphe 47).

Les tribunaux doivent faire un pas de plus. Le point de référencede la personne raisonnable demeure celui d’un Blanc : les leçonsapprises des blessures subies par ceux qui ont survécu au racismesont absentes de la décision de la Cour suprême.

Il est difficile de présenter des dossiers de discrimination sys-témique vu qu’il y a souvent peu de preuve démontrant lesfaçons dont les normes, les valeurs, la culture et les pratiquesinstitutionnelles excluent certains groupes. Les statistiques peu-vent servir à démontrer les modèles d’exclusion qui existentdans les organisations. Mais les statistiques ne peuvent que noussignaler la possibilité d’exclusions, à elles seules, elles ne peuventdémontrer l’existence de discrimination systémique à un jugeou à l’opinion publique. La démonstration de l’existence de dis-crimination systémique exige que l’on connaisse mieux ce quesont les obstacles et la façon dont on s’en sert. Les personnesracialisées sont souvent les premières à se rendre compte del’existence d’obstacles et de pratiques d’exclusion parce qu’ellesse sentent marginalisées et isolées. Ces opinions sont toutefoisdifficiles à communiquer et souvent rejetées quand elles sontexprimées.

Au Canada, les statistiques qui devraient nous avertir de l’exis-tence de discrimination systémique existent depuis plusieursannées. Les Autochtones sont parmi les plus pauvres desCanadiens. On estime que 42,7 % des femmes Autochtonesvivent dans la pauvreté. « Le salaire annuel moyen d’uneAutochtone est de 13 300 $ par rapport à 19 350 $ pour unenon-Autochtone et 18 200 $ pour un Autochtone. » (Mercredi2008). En 1967, un rapport commandé par l’Association cana-dienne de la justice pénale notait les taux alarmants de sur-représentation d’Autochtones dans le système de justice pénal(Laing et Monture, date). En 1988, l’Association du Barreaucanadien soulignait que, par rapport aux non-Autochtones,« la probabilité qu’un Indien inscrit soit admis à un établisse-ment correctionnel provincial était 25 fois plus élevée »(Jackson, date : 216) et celle d’une Indienne inscrite 131 fois.

Le rapport concluait que :Autrement dit, en Saskatchewan, la prison symbolise pour lesadolescents autochtones l’avenir que leur réserve la société, aumême titre que l’école secondaire et le collège pour tous lesautres Canadiens. Dans un contexte historique, la prison est,pour bon nombre de jeunes autochtones, l’équivalent de ce queles pensionnats étaient pour leurs parents. (216)

Dans R. c. Williams (1998 1 R.C.S. 1128), la Cour suprême duCanada mentionnait que « Il y a une preuve que ce racismelargement répandu s’est traduit par une discrimination sys-témique dans le système de justice pénale (paragraphe 59). LaSaskatchewan est la province canadienne qui connaît le taux leplus élevé d’incarcération de jeunes autochtones et d’enfantsautochtones séparés de leur famille du fait des pratiques de pro-tection de l’enfance (Blackstock et autres 2004). L’élément le


Le racisme et la « personne raisonnable »plus troublant est que le niveau de surreprésentation desAutochtones dans le système de justice pénale a continué àcroître depuis 1967, l’année où on a commencé à en noter letaux (Monture 2006).

Il arrive souvent que nous cessons trop rapidement d’examinerla question de la surreprésentation des Autochtones dans le sys-tème de justice pénale canadien. Non seulement il est plusprobable qu’un Autochtone soit accusé ou condamné, il est plusprobable aussi qu’il soit victime d’un acte criminel. Selon unrapport préparé pour le Centre de la politique concernant lesvictimes du ministère de la Justice :

… 35 p. 100 des Autochtones (par rapport à 26 p. 100 chezles non-Autochtones) tendent à être des victimes; en outre, lesAutochtones sont trois fois plus exposés à devenir des victimesde crimes violents. Le taux d'agression sexuelle est cinq fois plusélevé chez les Autochtones que chez les non-Autochtones; quantà la violence familiale, elle est trois fois plus élevée. La décla-ration partielle des crimes se constate plus souvent chez lesAutochtones; en fait, une étude a révélé que 74 p. 100 des vic-times autochtones n'avaient pas rapporté les crimes. Une desraisons de ne pas faire rapport est le manque de confiance dansle système (Chartrand et McKay, 2006)

Réparer les erreurs du passéCes chiffres démontrent clairement la diminution de la qualitéde vie d’un Autochtone vivant au Canada. Permettre la conti-nuation de la discrimination des Autochtones et de la haineraciale à leur endroit, leur refusant ainsi le droit de vivre sansviolence et sans crainte de violence, constitue une infractionimportante aux normes du droit international. Et le fait est quele droit à vivre en sécurité continue d’être refusé auxAutochtones du Canada, et ce refus est particulièrement cri-tique en ce qui a trait aux femmes autochtones. En 2004,Amnistie internationale et l’Association des femmesautochtones du Canada ont travaillé fort à rendre visible nonseulement le nombre de femmes autochtones assassinées ouportées disparues au pays – on estime leur nombre à 500 – maisaussi la façon dont le système de justice pénale n’a pas apportéà ces femmes et à leurs familles ce qu’elles étaient en droit d’at-tendre de lui (2004 :14) Selon le rapport :

Il est indispensable que la police, en raison du rôle vital qu’ellejoue dans la société et de son pouvoir, soit tenue responsable,notamment du fait qu’elle n’a pas rempli son devoir … d’en-quêter complètement et impartialement sur tous les rapports demenaces à la vie de femmes (2004: 19).

Ce n’est là qu’un exemple de la façon dont le système de justicepénale n’a pas répondu aux attentes légitimes des femmes

autochtones. Les Canadiens doivent commencer à se mettre à laplace des Autochtones et à comprendre ce qu’est leur vie auCanada.

Le Canada vient de s’excuser auprès des Autochtones pour lesatrocités que l’Église et l’État ont commis contre les enfantsautochtones dans les pensionnats. On a offert une indemnitéaux survivants à ces sévices. Quelques-uns d’entre eux sontprésentement en prison. Le versement d’indemnité ne porte pasremède aux dommages causés par le système de pensionnats :toxicomanie, violence, absence de possibilités d’instruction,niveau trop élevé d’incarcération, rupture de liens familiaux,perte de la langue autochtone, etc. Ces modèles complexes derépression continuent à priver beaucoup trop d’Autochtonesd’une vie productive et utile. Voilà le véritable coût, caché, de lahaine raciale. Les solutions apportées aux problèmes liés à lahaine raciale à laquelle les Autochtones ont survécu au Canadacontinuent de n’être que partielles : les Autochtones sont con-tinuellement blâmés pour leur pauvreté.

On doit porter attention à la possibilité de solutions auximpacts de la discrimination passée et actuelle. Les systèmes dejustice pénale du Canada ne sont pas toujours la solution auxproblèmes que la discrimination systémique pose auxAutochtones. Les Commissaires de la Commission manito-baine d’enquête sur le système judiciaire expliquent ainsi lacomplexité de la question :

Du point de vue des Autochtones, le système judiciaire a con-tribué à leur appauvrissement en ne leur donnant pas lesmoyens de lutter contre les conditions abusives qui leur étaientimposées. Le système judiciaire ne les a pas aidés à défendreleurs revendications territoriales et à faire respecter les promes-ses des traités. Il était en fait, à une certaine époque, impossi-ble aux avocats de représenter les Autochtones sans le consente-ment du gouvernement canadien ou aux Autochtones de leverdes fonds pour financer leurs revendications territoriales. Laperte de terres autochtones est un facteur clair de l’appau-vrissement des Autochtones.

Le système de justice n’a pas aidé les Autochtones à défendreleur liberté de religion et d’association. La loi forçait les pa-rents autochtones à envoyer, sous peine de poursuite, leursenfants au pensionnat. Le système judiciaire n’a pas su pro-téger les familles des pratiques de protection de l’enfant desannées 1960 et 1970, qui continuent à poser des problèmeshors réserve de nos jours. La séparation des familles, l’oppres-sion culturelle et linguistique, et l’absence de pouvoirautochtone sur les décisions affectant les collectivitésautochtones ont contribué à des services éducatifs inadéquats


Le racisme et la « personne raisonnable »et à l’éclatement de leurs collectivités, ce qui s’est traduit enpauvreté, vu la faiblesse des ressources communautaires (1991;94-95).

Lorsque la communauté canadienne aura reconnu la comple-xité du problème, on pourra voir clairement l’importance du

Bibliographie

Amnesty International. 2004, Stolen Sisters – A Human Rights Response to Discrimination and Violence Against Indigenous Womenin Canada (Canada: Amnesty International).

Blackstock, Cindy, Nico Trocmé et Marilyn Bennett. 2004, Child Maltreatment Investigations Among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Families in Canada, 10:8 Violence Against Women, 901-916.

Chartrand, Larry et Celeste McKay. 2006, A Review of Research on Criminal Victimization and First Nation, Métis and InuitPeoples 1990-2001 (Ottawa: Ministère de la Justice, Centre de la politique concernant les victimes de crime).

Isajiw, Wsevolod W. 1999, Understanding Diversity: Ethnicity and Race in the Canadian Context (Toronto: ThompsonEducational Publishing).

Jackson, Michael. 1988, Locking up Natives in Canada: A Report of the Canadian Bar Association (Ottawa: Association duBarreau canadien).

Laing, l’honorable Arthur et Gilbert Monture. 1967, Indians and the Law (Ottawa: Association canadienne de la justice pénaleet le ministère des Affaires indiennes).

Paula Mercredi. 2008, "Aboriginal Women Face Challenges in the Canadian Economy": www.trudeausociety.com/home/busi-ness/2008/03/16/01000.html.

Monture, Patricia. Printemps/été 2006. "Confronting Power: Aboriginal Women and Justice Reform" in 25: 2 & 3 CanadianWoman Studies, pp. 25-33.

défi à relever. On doit faire porter nos efforts sur des solutionsaux problèmes, vu que nier à un peuple, les Autochtones, l’ac-cès aux droits de l’homme est un déni de justice.


FEATURES

Abstract Treaties were negotiated in good faith to provide,among other services, an education that wouldenable First Nations to enrich their new livelihood.This transformative education has not been deliv-ered. Instead policies built on supremacy ofEuropean heritages have left a legacy of trauma aproduct of an education system meant to "kill theIndian in the child." In 1982, the Constitution ofCanada affirmed Aboriginal and treaty rights, andin so doing generates the shared competency of thefederal and provincial/territorial governments andFirst Nations to take action to preserve and pro-mote the distinct knowledge, traditions, and dis-tinctive cultures that underlay these rights.

Foundations of Indigenous KnowledgePrior to formal schooling, Indigenous learning wasresponsive to the needs of families within an ecol-ogy that cultivated holistic lifelong processes thatwere the foundations of Indigenous knowledgeand culture (IK). These educational processes ofthe Aboriginal peoples of Canada created vastlearning civilizations based on multiple competen-cies in Aboriginal languages and knowledge, facili-tating Indigenous peoples connections with theirown communities and with large Aboriginal con-federacies and alliances. The success of these holis-tic processes for lifelong learning created a collec-tive sustainable lifestyle that contributed sufficient-ly to the needs of the present and took into con-

sideration the needs of the future seven generations(Battiste & Semeganis, 2002). These educationalprocesses continued as Aboriginal rights.

Aboriginal peoples’ enthusiasm for learning isrevealed in their many treaties with EuropeanCrowns. In them and in the records of their nego-tiation, the future education of First Nations stu-dents was a prime concern of our ancestors in thetreaties, as they transferred jurisdictions of vast ter-

ritories to fund the promised educational andlivelihood obligations (Henderson, 2007). Treatyeducation provided both a shared vision of theirfuture and an enriched livelihood of First Nations,since the transmission of European knowledgewould effectively give the families competencies tonegotiate the enriched livelihoods of the new rela-tionships. Under the written terms of the treaties,parental choice would sustain the education in thefamilies and in the communities the selection ofteachers. Parents did not give up their rights tocontrol the education of their families, but treatiesgave the Crown different levels of discretion in thefunding and establishing of schools and education-al programs that would benefit their families(Henderson, 1995).

Canadian educators have not been able to imple-ment either the Indigenous vision of education northe treaty commitments due to systemic discrimi-nation of the federal government and provincesand territories that have instead chosen to use edu-cation as a tool of forced assimilation (RCAP,1996). Colonial Eurocentric attitudes of superiori-ty and the assumption that Aboriginal languages,cultures, and livelihood are inferior, have led to thelegacy of federal residential and day schools andlater provincial schools that failed to fulfill theAboriginal theory of lifelong learning and theeducational commitments of treaties. The legacy ofeducation began with the Canadian residentialschool system that comprised of a number ofschools for First Nation children, operated duringthe 19th and 20th centuries by churches of variousdenominations (about sixty per cent by RomanCatholics, and thirty per cent by the Protestants)funded under the Indian Act by Indian andNorthern Affairs Canada (INAC), a branch of thefederal government. The schools' purpose was,according to the Indian Act, to "civilize" FirstNation children, teach them English or French,

Constitutional Reconciliation of Education for Aboriginal Peoples Marie Battiste, Ed.M., Ed.D., LL.D., D.H.L. (h.c.)

About the Author: Marie Battiste is Mi’kmaq fromthe Potlo’tek First Nation ofUnama'ki, Nova Scotia. She is fullprofessor in the Department ofEducational Foundations atUniversity of Saskatchewan, since1993. More recently she has beenappointed Academic Director ofthe Aboriginal Education ResearchCentre in the College of Educationand Co-Director of the nationalAboriginal Learning KnowledgeCentre of the Canadian Council onLearning.


Constitutional Reconciliation of Education for Aboriginal Peoplesconvert them to Christianity, and end their traditional ways oflife (Barman & Hébert, 1986). The legacy of federal educationpolicy has been a systemic and human tragedy that has deniedAboriginal peoples their dignity. This human experiment incultural erosion and destruction unfolded, sapping them of theopportunities that a healthy collective society and a transfor-mative and responsive education could provide. Thus federaleducation policy became a distrusted concept associated withtraumatic educational processes.

Healing and ReconciliationIn 2008, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologizedto Aboriginal peoples who were forced to attend Canada’s resi-dential schools, not only for the known excesses of the residen-tial school system, but for the creation of the system that wasmeant to "kill the Indian in the child".(Harper 2008) Canada’sapology to Aboriginal peoples for the destruction of their lives,their parenting, and jeopardizing their continued livelihoodbased on their rich cultures and heritages comes as a welcomedfirst step in creating a responsive approach for Aboriginal peo-ples, yet the translation of this apology into concerted actionhas not emerged. Furthermore, an apology cannot erase thedamage suffered by thousands of Aboriginal peoples and theirdescendents who have experienced cycles of abuses. A newconsciousness of their past trauma can be one aspect of heal-ing and reconciliation.

The next step required is a constitutional reconciliation withAboriginal peoples’ constitutional rights to education support-ed by constitutional power from federal, territorial, and provin-cial education systems. To initiate such a step educators have tofirst understand how aboriginal and treaty rights of theAboriginal peoples in regard to education has reorientated theconstitutional framework of education in Canada. Then, edu-cators have to understand the mandatory force of constitution-al reconciliation that the Court has created to converge thesedifferent constitutional sources of power, creating a complexintersection of interrelated issues that should be addressed intransforming current and future educational outcomes.

Constitutional Framework for Education Constitutional law of Canada creates the education systems.Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 affirms and recognizesthe education rights of First Nations in the treaties with theCrown. In the absence of an imperial treaty, Aboriginal rightscontinue to empower Indigenous education, which is based onIK and the choices of Indigenous parents. The Court hasdeclared that these constitutional rights to education have to beread together with the other constitutional provisions (Paul v.

British Columbia, 2003, para. 24). It has held that no part ofthe Constitution can abrogate another, as no power or right isabsolute. Under this constitutional framework, the federalCrown under s. 91(24) and the provincial Crown under s. 92and s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 must be read withAboriginal peoples’ rights in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982to allow each level of constitutional governance to fulfill thehonour of the Crown within their receptive fields of compe-tence (Henderson 2007).

The existence of educational rights in aboriginal and treatyrights cannot negate the constitutional law-making powersunder section 91(24) Constitution Act, 1867 toward Indians.Conversely, federal legislation, like the Indian Act, cannotnegate the constitutional rights of education to Aboriginalnations or peoples. All legislation and policy enacted pursuantto a valid constitutional power has to be consistent with all theparts of the constitution to be legitimate. This recast federallegislation and policy toward education that is consistent withaboriginal and treaty rights generates the shared competency ofthe federal government and First Nations to take action to pre-serve and promote the distinct knowledge, traditions, and dis-tinctive cultures that underlay these rights.

The province has jurisdiction over education in s. 93 of theConstitution Act, 1867. The provincial Crown and its localgovernments provide funding and oversee formal education inCanada to all other students, including Métis students.Education (elementary, secondary, and post-secondary) iswithin provincial Crown’s jurisdiction and the ten provinciallegislatures and educational departments oversee their curricu-lum. Territorial education in the North is under the jurisdic-tion of INAC that funds education for Inuit students.

The same constitutional convergence principles apply toprovincial constitutional authority over education and aborig-inal and treaty rights involved with education. Provincial pow-ers under s. 93 do not give the provinces any original power todeal with Aboriginal peoples’ constitutional rights. Any director incidental exercise of educational authority under contractwith federal authorities has to be consistent with the educa-tional rights contained in aboriginal and treaty rights in s. 35.Under its legitimate constitutional powers, the provincialCrown has the ability to take action to preserve, promote, andimplement aboriginal and treaty rights in regards to educationand the distinct knowledge and distinctive cultures that under-pin these rights. Moreover, any provincial legislation, agree-ment, or policy that negatively affects constitutional rights ofAboriginal people will be judged by the constitutional stan-


Constitutional Reconciliation of Education for Aboriginal Peoplesdards of consistency, honour of the Crown, fiduciary obliga-tions, division of powers, inter-jurisdictional immunity, para-mountcy and the justification on any infringements onAboriginal peoples rights.

The concepts of convergence and consistency establish theframework of constitutional reconciliation. The Court hasstated that the fundamental objective of the modern law ofaboriginal and treaty rights is to attempt the constitutional rec-onciliation of Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal peoplesand their respective claims, interests, and ambitions (HaidaNation, 2004; Mikisew, 2005). This would include constitu-tional reconciliation about the education of Aboriginal peopleswith the federal and provincial Crowns.

Need for Constitutional reconciliationThe need for a constitutional reconciliation is rooted in thefailure of existing federal and provincial systems to recognizethe needs of Aboriginal peoples, both parents and children.The Auditor General of Canada (2000) has estimated thatFirst Nations students will require more than twenty years ofaccelerated and restorative education to catch up to the nation-al average for high school graduation. Despite the terminationof federal residential schools, the contractual transfer of educa-tion authority over First Nations to the province, and therestoration of some educational policy to First Nations, nonehas resulted in significant changes. The result has been consis-tently a failure with only 40% of Aboriginal students aged 20-24 having graduated from secondary schools through the lastthree censuses (Howe, 2008). Only about 8% of Aboriginalstudents have graduated from post-secondary schools (RCAP,1996). This negative legacy of policies represents a significanteducational challenge and a crucial test and resolve of manyeducators, policymakers, and Aboriginal peoples that theymust be part of this dialogue and action to affect different out-

comes from the past. Understanding and remedying this fail-ure of education has been challenging for many agencies, fed-eral and provincial.

Constitutional reconciliation is an important critical educa-tional response in patriated??? Canada. The reconciliation ofeducational rights in the constitution is central to a responsiveand non-discriminatory Canadian education system.Reconciliation is rooted in the educational choice of First

Nations parents in aboriginal and treaty rights and the trans-fer of jurisdiction of land to the Crown provides the meansand framework for implementing educational rights for thebenefit of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. TheSupreme Court of Canada has identified several constitution-al purposes that include: determining the historical rights ofAboriginal peoples and giving aboriginal and treaty rights con-stitutional force to protect them against legislative powers (R.v. Sparrow, 1990 para. 65); sanctioning challenges to socialand economic policy objectives embodied in legislation to theextent that aboriginal and treaty rights are affected, (ibid.,para. 64), and a commitment to recognize, value, protect, andenhance their distinctive cultures (R. v. Powley, 2002, paras. 13&18). To ensure the continuity of Aboriginal customs and tra-ditions, the Supreme Court has determined that every sub-stantive constitutional right will normally include the inciden-tal constitutional right to teach such a practice, custom andtradition to a younger generation (R. v. Coté). Current educa-tion systems have not implemented these constitutionalreforms in the education of Aboriginal peoples. The constitu-tional framework and court decisions generate an emergingreconciliation of IK and culture in learning and pedagogy thatmust be translated into policy, practice and impact on all pub-lic forms of education. It creates the context for systemic edu-cational reform to include Indigenous science, humanities,visual arts, and languages as well as existing education philos-ophy, pedagogy, teacher education, and practice.

To some degree under the emerging Indigenous renaissance,Aboriginal educators have begun the reconciliation in theiracademic and social justice activist agendas now growing withnew avenues, empowering Aboriginal people to realize their

educational goals and join various professions. However, this is

not the responsibility of Aboriginal peoples alone. The federal

and the provincial Crown must reconcile these constitutional

rights to education. At present, they have not done so as evi-denced in the lack of negotiation of these Constitutionalrights with provincial and territorial education systems. Thusthe task is great to sensitize the Canadian politicians, policymakers, and educators to be more responsive and proactive toreconcile the national and provincial curricula and to displacethe continuing education failures of Aboriginal peoples in thediverse educational systems across Canada.


Constitutional Reconciliation of Education for Aboriginal PeoplesReferencesAuditor General of Canada. (2000). Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Elementary and secondary education. Report to the

House of Commons, Ch. 4. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Available at http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/0004ce.html/$file/0004ce.pdf

Barman, J. & Hébert, Y., & McCaskill, D. (1986). Indian education in Canada: The legacy. Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Press.

Battiste, M., & Semeganis, H. (2002). First thoughts on First Nations citizenship: Issues in education. In Y. Hébert (Ed.),Citizenship in transformation in Canada (pp. 93–111). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Canada. (June 11, 2008). Prime Minister Harper offers full apology on behalf of Canadians for the Indian Residential Schoolssystem Prime Minister Harper offers full apology on behalf of Canadians for the Indian Residential Schools system.http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=2149

Henderson, J.Y. (2007). Treaty rights in the Constitution of Canada Scarbrough, ON: Thompson Carswell.

Henderson, J. Y. (1995). Indian education and treaties. In M. Battiste & J. Barman (Eds.), First Nations education in Canada:The circle unfolds. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Richards, J. (2008). Closing the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal achievement gaps. C.D.Howe Institute. C.D. Howe InstituteBackgrounder, No. 116. October, 2008.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) (1996). Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 5 vols.Ottawa: Canada Communication Group.


Articles de fond

RésuméDes traités visant à offrir aux Premières nations,entre autres services, des services d’éducation leurpermettant d’améliorer leurs nouveaux moyensd’existence ont été négociés de bonne foi. LesAutochtones n’ont pas reçu l’éducation, prévue parces traités, qui leur aurait permis de transformerleur vie. Ce qu’ils ont reçu au lieu des droits sti-pulés dans ces traités, ce sont des politiques fondéessur la suprématie des patrimoines européens qui lesont traumatisés en leur léguant un système d’édu-cation qui visait à « tuer l’Indien en l’enfant ». En1982, la Constitution du Canada affirmait l’exis-tence de droits autochtones et de droits issus destraités. Elle créait ainsi un régime de compétencespartagées entre les gouvernements fédéral, provin-ciaux et territoriaux et les Premières nations afinque les mesures nécessaires à la préservation et à lapromotion du savoir, des traditions et les culturesdistinctives qui sous-tendent ces droits puissentêtre prises.

Fondements du savoir autochtoneAvant l’établissement d’écoles officielles, lesAutochtones recevaient tout au long de leur vie uneformation qui répondait aux besoins de famillesvivant en accord avec leur milieu écologique et quiexploitait des processus holistiques servant defondements au savoir et à la culture autochtone.Les processus éducationnels des Autochtones cana-diens ont donné naissance à de vastes civilisationsde savoir fondées sur des compétences multiples enlangues et en connaissances autochtones, qui faci-litaient l’établissement et le maintien de liens desAutochtones avec leurs propres collectivités et avecde grandes confédérations et alliances autochtones.La réussite des processus holistiques à transmettreune formation tout au long de la vie à l’Autochtonea créé un style de vie collective durable, qui lui per-mettait de satisfaire les besoins de sa générationtout en tenant compte de ceux des sept autresgénérations suivantes (Battiste et Semeganis,

2002). Les processus éducationnels autochtonescontinuent à exister en tant que partie intégrantedes droits autochtones.

L’enthousiasme manifesté par les Autochtonespour l’apprentissage et la formation ressort claire-ment des nombreux traités qu’ils ont conclus avecles Couronnes européennes. À la lecture de cestraités et de leurs travaux préparatoires, on constateque l’éducation future des jeunes Autochtones étaitla préoccupation majeure de nos ancêtres, ce quiles a convaincus de transférer la compétence sur devastes territoires en contrepartie pour l’exécutionpar les Couronnes d’obligations relatives à l’éduca-tion de leurs enfants et à leurs moyens de subsis-tance (Henderson, 2007). L’éducation prévue parles traités reflétait une vision commune de l’avenirdes Autochtones et de l’amélioration de leursmoyens de subsistance : la transmission du savoireuropéen donnerait aux familles les compétencesnécessaires à la négociation de meilleurs moyens desubsistance dans leurs nouvelles relations. Selon letexte des traités, c’est aux parents qu’incombaientles décisions quant à l’éducation au sein desfamilles et quant au choix des enseignants dans lescollectivités. Les parents ne renonçaient pas dansces traités à leurs droits de diriger l’éducation deleurs familles : les traités conféraient à la Couronnedivers niveaux de pouvoirs discrétionnaires en cequi a trait au financement et à l’établissementd’écoles et de programmes scolaires dont lesfamilles autochtones profiteraient (Henderson,1995).

Les enseignants canadiens n’ont su mettre enœuvre les principes de la vision autochtone de l’é-ducation ou les obligations prévues par les traités,du fait de la discrimination systémique dont ontfait preuve le gouvernement fédéral, les provinceset les territoires, qui ont choisi de se servir de l’é-ducation comme instrument d’assimilation forcéedes Autochtones (CREPA, 1996). Les attitudes

L’ auteure : Marie Battiste est une Mi’kmaqde la Première nation de Potlo’tek,à Unama’ki (Cap-Breton), enNouvelle-Écosse. Depuis 1993,elle est professeure et coordonna-trice de l’Indian and NorthernEducation Program duDepartment of EducationalFoundations de l’Université de laSaskatchewan. Elle a récemmentété nommée directrice d’études àl’Aboriginal Education ResearchCentre qui vient d’être créé au seindu College of Education.

La réconciliation constitutionnelle desAutochtones et leurs droits éducationnels Marie Battiste, M.Éd., D.Éd., LL.D., D.H.L. (h.c.)


La réconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et leurs droits éducationnelscoloniales eurocentriques de supériorité et la supposition del’infériorité des langues, cultures et moyens de subsistance desAutochtones se sont soldées par des pensionnats et des écolesfédérales, par la suite provinciales, qui n’ont pas réa-lisé lathéorie autochtone d’une formation prodiguée tout au long dela vie et respecté les obligations des traités en matière d’éduca-tion. Le système canadien de pensionnats autochtones comp-tait un certain nombre d’écoles destinées aux enfantsautochtones. Ces écoles étaient exploitées durant le dix-neu-vième et le vingtième siècle par différentes confessionsreligieuses - 60% environ d’entre elles par l’Église catholique et30% par des églises protestantes. Elles étaient financées enapplication de la Loi sur les Indiens par le ministère fédéral desAffaires indiennes et du Nord canadien (AINC). Leur objectifétait, selon la Loi sur les Indiens de « civiliser » les jeunesAutochtones, de leur enseigner l’anglais ou le français, de lesconvertir au christianisme et de mettre fin à leurs modes de vietraditionnels (Barman et Hébert, 1986). La politique fédéralesur l’éducation autochtone s’est soldée par la tragédie sys-témique du déni de la dignité des Autochtones. Cette expé-rience en érosion et en destruction culturelle a miné toutes lespossibilités qu’une société collective saine et une éducationtransformationnelle et adaptée à la situation pouvaient offrir.La politique éducationnelle fédérale s’était transformée en unconcept lié à des processus éducationnels traumatisants, dontles Autochtones se méfiaient.

Guérison et réconciliationEn 2008, le premier ministre du Canada Stephen Harper s’estexcusé auprès des Autochtones qui avaient été forcés de vivredans les pensionnats du Canada, non seulement pour les excèsdéjà connus du système des pensionnats, mais aussi pour lacréation d’un système dont le but était de « tuer l’Indien enl’enfant ». (Harper, 2008). Les excuses du Canada auxAutochtones pour la destruction de leur vie, de leur rôle deparents et pour avoir mis en danger leurs moyens de subsis-tance, qui s’appuyaient sur leurs riches cultures et patrimoines,ont été bien accueillies. Il s’agissait de la première étape d’uneapproche adaptée aux besoins des Autochtones, mais la tra-duction de ces excuses en mesures concertées se fait toujoursattendre. En outre, des excuses ne peuvent effacer les dom-mages subis par des milliers d’Autochtones et leurs descen-dants qui ont été victimes de longues périodes de sévices. Laprise de conscience de leurs traumatismes n’est qu’un aspect dela guérison et de la réconciliation.

La prochaine étape doit être la mise en œuvre d’un régimerespectueux des droits constitutionnels des Autochtones enmatière d’éducation, régime qui s’appuie sur les pouvoirs cons-

titutionnels des systèmes d’éducation fédéraux, provinciaux etterritoriaux. Pour entreprendre cette étape, les enseignantsdevront d’abord comprendre la façon dont les droitsautochtones et les droits issus des traités en matière d’éduca-tion ont donné une nouvelle orientation au cadre constitu-tionnel régissant l’éducation au Canada. Ils devront ensuitecomprendre la force obligatoire de la réconciliation constitu-tionnelle que la Cour suprême a décidée afin de pouvoir faireconverger les différentes sources de pouvoir constitutionnel,établissant ainsi une intersection complexe de questions liéesentre elles qui devront être abordées si l’on veut assurer latransformation des résultats éducationnels, actuels et futurs.

Le cadre constitutionnel de l’éducationLe droit constitutionnel du Canada crée les systèmes d’éduca-tion. L’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 affirme etreconnaît les droits à l’éducation des Premières nations stipulésdans les traités qu’ils ont conclus avec la Couronne. En l’ab-sence de traité impérial prévoyant des règles contraires, lesdroits autochtones continuent à être le fondement juridiquedes droits relatifs à l’éducation autochtone, fondée sur la cul-ture et le savoir autochtone et le choix des parents. La Coursuprême a déclaré que ces droits à l’éducation devraient s’in-terpréter avec les autres dispositions constitutionnelles (Paul c.Colombie-Britannique, 2003, par. 24).

La Cour suprême a déclaré qu’aucune partie de la Constitutionne pouvait en abroger une autre, de même qu’il n’existaitaucun pouvoir ou droit absolu. Dans ce cadre constitutionnel,les pouvoirs de la Couronne fédérale, en vertu de l’article91(24), et ceux de la Couronne provinciale, en vertu des arti-cles 92 et 93 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, doivent êtreinterprétés en tenant compte des droits reconnus auxAutochtones par l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982,de façon à ce que chaque palier de gouvernance constitution-nelle respecte les obligations engageant l’honneur de laCouronne dans leurs champs de compétence respectifs(Henderson, 2007).

L’existence de droits éducationnels en tant que partie inté-grante des droits autochtones et des droits issus des traités nepeut faire fi des pouvoirs législatifs conférés au Parlement duCanada en vertu de l’article 91(24) de la Loi constitutionnellede 1867 en ce qui a trait aux Indiens. Inversement, les loisfédérales, comme la Loi sur les Indiens, ne peuvent faire fi desdroits constitutionnels à l’éducation conférés aux nationsautochtones et aux Autochtones. Toute loi ou politique adop-tée en vertu d’un pouvoir constitutionnel valide doit être con-

forme à toutes les parties de la Constitution pour être valide.


La nouvelle législation et politique sur l’éducation qui est con-forme aux droits autochtones et aux droits issus des traités apour effet de permettre, dans le respect des compétencespartagées du gouvernement fédéral et des Premières nations, laprise de mesures visant à préserver et à promouvoir les savoirs,traditions et cultures distinctives qui sous-tendent ces droits.

Les provinces ont compétence en matière d’éducation en vertude l’article 93 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867. La Couronneprovinciale et ses municipalités financent et supervisent l’en-seignement officiel prodigué, au Canada, à tous les autres étu-diants, y compris les étudiants métis. L’enseignement, deniveau élémentaire, secondaire ou postsecondaire, relève de lacompétence de la Couronne provinciale, et les dix législaturesprovinciales et leurs ministères de l’éducation en supervisentles programmes d’études. Dans les territoires, l’enseignementprodigué aux Inuits relève de l’AINC, qui le finance.

Les mêmes principes de convergence constitutionnelle s’ap-pliquent à l’autorité constitutionnelle provinciale en matièred’éducation et des droits autochtones ainsi que des droits issusdes traités liés à l’éducation. Les pouvoirs qui relèvent de laprovince en vertu de l’article 93 n’autorisent pas la province àtraiter des droits constitutionnels des Autochtones. Tout contratconclu avec les autorités fédérales doit être conforme aux droits àl’éducation faisant partie des droits autochtones et des droits issusde traités visés par l’article 35. En vertu de ses pouvoirs constitu-tionnels, la Couronne provinciale peut prendre les mesures néces-saires à la préservation, à la promotion et à la mise en œuvre desdroits autochtones et des droits issus des traités en ce qui à trait àl’éducation et aux connaissances et cultures distinctives qui sous-tendent ces droits. En outre, toute loi, contrat ou politiqueprovincial qui a des incidences négatives sur les droits constitu-tionnels des Autochtones sera jugé au regard des normes consti-tutionnelles de conformité, d’honneur de la Couronne, d’obliga-tions fiduciaires, du partage des compétences, de l’exclusivité descompétences, de la suprématie et de la nécessité de justifier touteatteinte aux droits des Autochtones.

Les concepts de convergence et de conformité établissent lecadre de la réconciliation constitutionnelle. La Cour suprêmea jugé que l’objectif fondamental du droit moderne des droitsautochtones et des droits issus des traités est de réaliser laréconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et des non-Autochtones et de concilier leurs revendications, intérêts etambitions respectifs (Nation Haïda, 2004, Mikisew, 2005).Cette démarche doit comprendre aussi la conciliation consti-tutionnelle des droits autochtones sur l’éducation desAutochtones avec ceux des Couronnes fédérale et provinciales.

Nécessité d’une réconciliation constitutionnelleLa nécessité d’une réconciliation constitutionnelle tire ses ori-gines du fait que les systèmes fédéraux et provinciaux actuelsne reconnaissent pas les besoins des Autochtones, des parentscomme des enfants. Le vérificateur général du Canada (2000)est d’avis que les étudiants des Premières nations auront besoinde plus de 20 ans d’éducation accélérée et renforcée pour per-mettre aux étudiants autochtones de rattraper la moyennenationale de diplômés d’études secondaires. La fermeture despensionnats fédéraux, le transfert par contrat de l’autorité enmatière d’éducation autochtone aux provinces et la remise decertaines politiques aux Premières nations n’ont pas abouti àdes changements importants. Le niveau d’échec des étudiantsautochtones continue à être trop élevé : seulement 40% desétudiants autochtones, de 20 à 24 ans, ont obtenu un diplômed’études secondaires durant la période couverte par les troisderniers recensements (Howe, 2008), et seulement 8% environd’entre eux un diplôme d’études postsecondaires (CREPA,1996). Les résultats négatifs découlant des politiques cons-tituent un défi éducationnel de taille et un test crucial de ladétermination de plusieurs éducateurs, décideurs de politiqueset d’Autochtones qui doivent participer au dialogue et prendredes mesures cherchant à atteindre des résultats différents queceux du passé. La compréhension et la correction des erreurs del’enseignement autochtone ont été un défi pour plusieursagences, fédérales et provinciales.

La réconciliation constitutionnelle constitue un élément essen-tiel de la solution au problème critique de l’éducation depuisla canadianisation, en 1982, de la Constitution. La concilia-tion des droits à l’éducation dans la Constitution est au cœurd’un système d’éducation canadien adapté et non discrimina-toire. La réconciliation a son origine dans le choix en matièred’éducation qui appartient aux parents autochtones en vertudes droits autochtones et aux droits issus des traités; le trans-fert de compétence sur les terres autochtones à la Couronnefournit les moyens et le cadre de la mise en œuvre des droits àl’éducation des Premières nations, des Inuits et des Métis. LaCour suprême du Canada a dégagé plusieurs objectifs consti-tutionnels, dont : la détermination des droits historiques desAutochtones et l’octroi aux droits autochtones et aux droitsissus des traités de la force constitutionnelle dont ils ont besoinpour les protéger des pouvoirs législatifs (R. c. Sparrow, 1990,par. 65); la sanction des défis aux objectifs politiques sociaux etéconomiques incorporés dans les lois dans la mesure que cesdernières portent atteinte aux droits autochtones et aux droitsissus des traités (ibid., par. 94) et l’engagement à reconnaître,protéger et favoriser les cultures autochtones distinctives et àleur accorder leur juste valeur (R. c. Powley, 2002, par. 13 et 18).

La réconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et leurs droits éducationnels


La réconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et leurs droits éducationnels Afin d’assurer la continuité des coutumes et traditionsautochtones, la Cour suprême a décidé que tout droit consti-tutionnel autochtone, de chasse ou de récolte par exemple, doitnormalement comprendre le droit constitutionnel incidentd’enseigner cette pratique, coutume ou tradition à la généra-tion suivante (R. c. Côté). Les systèmes d’éducation actuelsn’ont pas mis en œuvre ces réformes constitutionnelles.Le cadre constitutionnel et les décisions judiciaires ont créé lanécessité d’intégrer le savoir et la culture autochtones à la for-mation et à la pédagogie, ce qui doit se traduire en politiques,pratiques et avoir des incidences sur toutes les formes del’éducation publique et établit le contexte dans lequel doits’inscrire une réforme éducationnelle systémique qui porte surles éléments suivants, entre autres : les sciences, les arts, les artsvisuels et les langues autochtones ainsi que des matières exis-tantes, comme l’éducation, la philosophie, la pédagogie, la for-mation et les stages des enseignants.

Jusqu’à un certain niveau, dans la renaissance autochtone, lesenseignants autochtones ont amorcé la conciliation des diversdomaines et aspects de l’enseignement autochtones dans lecadre de leurs programmes scolaires et de justice sociale, quiont frayé de nouvelles voies habilitant les Autochtones à réali-ser leurs objectifs éducationnels et à devenir membres dediverses professions. Mais cette responsabilité n’incombe pasaux seuls Autochtones. La Couronne fédérale et les Couronnesprovinciales doivent concilier leurs droits constitutionnels avecles droits autochtones à l’éducation. À l’heure actuelle, lapreuve qu’elles ne l’ont pas fait se voit dans l’absence de négo-ciations relatives à ces droits constitutionnels avec les systèmesd’éducation provinciaux et territoriaux. Il est essentiel de sen-sibiliser les politiciens canadiens, les décideurs de politiques etles enseignants à se montrer plus ouverts et proactifs afin deconcilier les programmes d’études nationaux et provinciaux etd’éliminer le retard dont souffrent les Autochtones dans lesdivers systèmes d’éducation du Canada.

Références Rapport du vérificateur général du Canada. (2000). Ministère des Affaires indiennes et du Nord Canada – L’enseignement

primaire et secondaire, Rapport au Parlement, chapitre 4. Ottawa : Ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernemen-taux. Disponible à : http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/Francais/parl_oag_200004_04_f_11191.html

Barman, J. & Hébert, Y., & McCaskill, D. (1986). Indian education in Canada: The legacy. Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Press.

Battiste, M., & Semeganis, H. (2002). First thoughts on First Nations citizenship: Issues in education. In Y. Hébert (Ed.),Citizenship in transformation in Canada (pp. 93–111). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Canada. (11 juin 2008). Le Premier ministre Harper présente des excuses complètes au nom des Canadiens relativement auxpensionnats indiens. http://pm.gc.ca/fra/media.asp?id=2149

Henderson, J.Y. (2007). Treaty rights in the Constitution of Canada Scarborough, ON: Thompson Carswell.Henderson, J. Y. (1995). Indian education and treaties. In M. Battiste & J. Barman (Eds.), First Nations education in Canada:

The circle unfolds. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Richards, J. (2008). Closing the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal achievement gaps. C.D.Howe Institute. C.D. Howe Institute

Backgrounder, No. 116. Octobre 2008.Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones (CRPA) (1996). Rapport à la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones, 5

vols. Ottawa : Groupe Communication Canada. Mikisew Cree First Nation c. Canada (Ministre du Patrimoine canadien), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388Haida Nation c. British Columbia (Ministre des Forêts), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511R. c. Côté, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139.R. c. Powley, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207.R. c. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 (tiré de Quicklaw, online QL)Paul c. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585

mr. albert c. lo, chairperson (richmond, british columbia

Documents