Directions vol 5 no 1 by CRRF-FCRR

Directions Vol 5 No 1 / vol 5, no 1 Guest Editor/Éditorialiste invitée Marie 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, University Halifax, 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 général Ayman Al-Yassini, Ph.D. Managing Editor/Directrice-rédactrice en chef Anne Marrian (Programs Director, Community Support and Knowledge Base) CRRF staff/Personnel de la FCRR Sandra 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 production Trevor Smith Translation/Traduction Lise J. Roy, traductrice agréée Design & Layout/Conception et mise en page TDSmith Design

Printed on Canadian-made recycled paper Imprimé sur papier canadien recyclé.

Contact us/Veuillez communiquer avec la : Canadian Race Relations Foundation 4576 Yonge Street, Suite 701 Toronto, ON. M2N 6N4 Tel: 416-952-3501 Fax: 416-952-3326 Toll-free tel: 1-888-240-4936 Toll-free fax:1-888-399-0333 email: info@crrf-fcrr.ca www.crr.ca

CRRF Board of Directors/Conseil d’administration de la FCRR Mr. Albert C. Lo, Chairperson (Richmond, British Columbia)

Ms. Toni Silberman (Toronto, Ontario)

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

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

Mr. Lyn Q. Chow (Calgary, Alberta) Mr. Roman Melnyk (Toronto, Ontario)

Ms. Marge Nainaar (Prince Albert, Saskatchewan) Ms. Claudia Patricia Cáceres Cáceres (Québec, Québec)

Mr. Ashraf Ghanem (Fredericton, New Brunswick)

Government Representative Mr. Andrew Griffith (Gatineau, Quebec)

Executive Director Dr. Ayman Al-Yassini (Toronto, Ontario)

NAJC Representative Mr. Art Miki (Winnipeg, Manitoba)

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 past and present causes and manifestations of racism. The CRRF will provide independent national leadership and serve as a resource and facilitator in the pursuit of equity, 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. Under the terms of the agreement, the CRRF received a one-time endowment of $24 million. The CRRF has registered charitable status and operates on income derived from 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 in November 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 of Directors, consisting of a chair and other directors across Canada. An executive director manages the CRRF’s day-to-day operations. All are appointed by the federal 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 causes et 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’est engagée à être au premier plan des initiatives visant à combattre le racisme et toutes les formes de discrimination raciale au Canada. Conformément aux termes de 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 revenus provenant 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 de la Couronne n’ayant aucun lien de dépendance avec le gouvernement fédéral, elle est dirigée par un conseil d’administration composé d’un président et d’administrateurs représentant les provinces et territoires. Le fonctionnement quotidien de la Fondation est assuré par un directeur général. Tous sont nommés par 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 harmonieuse.

Library and Archives Canada has catalogued this publication as follows:

Données de catalogage avant publication de la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

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.

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

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

Publication semestrielle Vol. 1, no. 1 (Mar.2001)Titre de la page couverture Numéros de l’année 2007 – sous-titre : research and policy on eliminating racism = recherche et politiques sur l’élimination du racisme Comprend des textes en français ainsi que des références bibliographiques ISSN 170-2109

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.

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

FC104.D47 2001-

305.8'00971'05

C2001-301214-2

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 Foundation Price: $22.50 CDN All 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 retrieval systems 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 des relations raciales. Droits d’auteurs © 2008 détenus par la Fondation canadienne des relations raciales. Prix : 22,50 $CAN Tous 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 procédé de 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 1 EDITORIAL 4

Editorial Commentary/Éditorial Marie Battiste

Viewpoint • Point de vue Len M. Findlay

DEPARTMENTS 16 Books, Art and Poetry • Livres, arts et poésie Historical Contributions of Aboriginal Peoples to Canadian Culture and Identity Deborah Lee 25 Trends • Tendances Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples – not racist Sharon Venne 29 Polidiscrimination Kiera 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 irresponsables James [Sa’ke’j] Youngblood Henderson 44 Two-spirit Identity: Active resistance to multiple oppressions Alex Wilson 46 Brief concerning Urban Aboriginal Homelessness in Quebec Regroupement des centres d’amitié autochtones du Québec 50 The Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge as Reconciliation and Restoration Lorna Williams 53 Residential Schools and the role of Aboriginal Youth Jaime Koebel 56 Kapp’s distinctions: Race-Based Fisheries, the Limits of Affirmative Action for Aboriginal peoples and Skirting Aboriginal peoples’ Unique Constitutional Status Once Again June McCue

FEATURE ARTICLES & PAPERS 64 Resistance, Recognition, Respect: Protocol latest attempt to secure the place of Métis in Canada Résistance, 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 change Les Inuits et le changement climatique : Des canaris sur la glace? Katherine Minich 73 Racism and the "Reasonable Person": Understanding Systemic Discrimination Le racisme et la « personne raisonnable » : aide à la compréhension de la discrimination systémique Patricia A. Monture 81 Constitutional Reconciliation of Education for Aboriginal peoples La réconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et leurs droits éducationnels Marie Battiste

Editorial Commentary

Éditorial

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

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

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

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

Confronting systemic discrimination against Aboriginal peoples is this issue’s key theme. Systemic discrimination dominates political and policymaking spheres, creating massive discriminations against Aboriginal persons, whether as groups or as individuals. Systemic discrimination compounds familiar sources of individual discrimination. It operates through inaction, silence, neglect, and indifference to the aboriginal, human, and treaty rights, stifling the talents and opportunities of individuals while sustaining poverty and malaise and affecting diverse social, cultural, political, economic, spiritual, and physical outcomes among Aboriginal peoples.

Ce numéro porte sur la lutte contre la discrimination systémique dirigée contre les peuples autochtones. La discrimination systémique domine les milieux de la politique et de la formulation des politiques; elle marginalise considérablement les Autochtones, autant collectivement qu’individuellement. Ce type de discrimination combine des sources familières de discrimination individuelle. Elle est entretenue par l’inaction, le silence, le manque d’attention, et l’indifférence aux droits des Autochtones, aux droits de la personne et aux droits issus de traités. Elle réprime les talents et les possibilités des individus autochtones tout en perpétuant la pauvreté et le malaise et en produisant diverses conséquences nuisibles sur le plan social, culturel, politique, économique, spirituel et physique.

Systemic Discrimination Against Aboriginal Peoples

Les peuples autochtones et la discrimination systémique

The federal Crown has crafted and generated this neglect and indifference for Canadians. Canadians no longer know the truth, believing that Aboriginal peoples’ third world living conditions are derived from racial or cultural inferiority and believing their requests for respect for their rights—treaty, aboriginal, and human— are the products of an irrational or special interests minority who are unwilling to accept their status. These crafted rationalizations generate persistent prejudice and discrimination against Aboriginal peoples rather than remedies. The federal Crown continues to refuse to eliminate poverty among First Nations and Inuit, using allocated money to support the bureaucratic imposed status quo. The bureaucracy and politicians attempt to hide these failures by telling Canadians how much they are spending on Aboriginal peoples’ problems, but ignore the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples and other studies, implying that these failures are part of a lack of character or caused by their own doing. In short, they manipulate the discourses and policies to conceal the consequences of systemic discrimination against Aboriginal peoples.

L’État fédéral a généré et a façonné ce manque d’attention, cette indifférence, chez les Canadiens. Les Canadiens ne connaissent pas la vérité, ils croient que les conditions de vie des peuples autochtones, semblables à celles du tiers monde, sont le résultat d’une infé-riorité raciale ou culturelle et que leurs revendications de droits—fondées sur les traités, le statut autochtone ou les droits de la personne— sont le fait d’une minorité irrationnelle ou d’un intérêt particulier qui refuse d’accepter sa condition. Ces rationalisations génèrent des préjugés et de la discrimination contre les peuples autochtones. L’État fédéral continue à refuser d’agir pour éliminer la pauvreté parmi les Premières nations et les Inuits en utilisant les fonds qui leur sont affectés pour appuyer un statut quo imposé par la bureaucratie. La bureaucratie et les politiciens essaient de cacher ces échecs en informant les Canadiens des montants affectés aux problèmes des Autochtones alors qu’ils ne tiennent pas compte des recommandations de la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones et d’autres études, et entretiennent l’idée que les échecs résultent d’un manque de caractère ou sont causés par les actes des Autochtones eux-mêmes. En bref, ils manipulent les discours et les politiques pour dissimuler les conséquences de la discrimination systémique dirigée contre les peuples autochtones.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Un sous-thème est également abordé, celui de la réconciliation et des solutions constitutionnelles. Les Autochtones sont confrontés à la discrimination systémique contre leurs droits constitutionnels, droits qu’ils détiennent collectivement en tant que peuple et qui sont dérivés de leur souveraineté antérieure et des traités, différemment des droits individuels des Canadiens. Ils n’ont cependant aucun organisme pour veiller à la protection de ces droits. Les tribunaux ont affirmé ces droits mais le gouvernement résiste à leur mise en application. Les peuples autochtones ont proposé la création d’un poste de Procureur général autochtone qui protégerait leurs droits constitutionnels contre les abus des politiciens et des fonctionnaires mais les gouvernements font l’oreille sourde à cette proposition. C’est par les remèdes constitutionnels et systémiques que la discrimination systémique peut être éliminée.

A second subtheme emerging from this issue on systemic discrimination against Aboriginal peoples is constitutional reconciliation and remedies. Aboriginal people are confronted with systemic discrimination against their constitutional rights, rights they hold as collective peoples derived from pre-existing sovereignty and treaties, which are not like the individual rights of Canadians. Yet they do not have anyone to oversee the protection of those rights. The courts have affirmed the rights, but government resists implementing them. Aboriginal peoples have proposed that creating an Aboriginal Attorney General can protect their constitutional rights from abuse by politicians and bureaucrats, yet this proposed solution has met with deaf ears. Constitutional and systemic remedies can eliminate systemic discrimination. Our feature essay written by Patricia Monture offers an overview of the characteristics and the damages of systemic discrimination, how it is understood and tested in courts, as well as the limits of such tests in courts that miss the real context and effects of racism that affect the mental, emotional, as well as the spiritual and physical well-being of individuals and collectives. 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, violence, lack of educational opportunities, over-incarceration, fracturing of family bonds, [and] loss of language" on Aboriginal peoples. The gap gets larger yet we do not have statistics that speak to that gap, rather the ones that further pathologize Aboriginal peoples.

L’essai de Patricia Monture offre une vue d’ensemble des caractéristiques de la discrimination systémique, du préjudice qui en résulte, de la façon dont les tribunaux la comprennent et des critères qu’ils appliquent, ainsi que des limites de ces critères qui ignorent le contexte et les effets réels du racisme sur la santé mentale, émotionnelle, spirituelle et physique des individus et des collectivités. Le Canada n’est pas encore un lieu sûr pour les Autochtones. De plus, les Canadiens ne sont pas encore conscients des impacts à grande échelle sur les peuples autochtones ou des « couches d’oppressions intersectionnelles telles que la toxicomanie, la violence, le manque d’accès à l’enseignement, l’incarcération excessive, la rupture des liens familiaux, et la disparition graduelle de leurs langues ». Alors que l’écart se creuse, nous n’avons pas les données statistiques qui permettraient de réduire les écarts mais plutôt celles qui font la pathologie des peuples autochtones.

To understand why systemic discrimination continues requires that we understand how whiteness is complicit with and is the cornerstone foundation of Eurocentric systemic discrimination in Canada. This feature essay written by a non-Indigenous critical theorist Len M. Findlay helps Canadians understand how racialization of Aboriginal peoples comes without a critical perspective of the contesting position of Eurocentric superiority that underlies race relations. He asserts skin color does matter to Canadians as internalized racism is about perceiving the worth and value of people in everyday relations and in them the distribution of power and privilege. He offers Canadians three pillars to take up challenge.

Pour comprendre la continuité de la discrimination systémique, nous devons comprendre la manière dont la blancheur est à la fois la pierre angulaire et la complice de la discrimination systémique eurocentrique au Canada. L’essai du théoricien critique nonautochtone Len M. Findlay aidera les Canadiens à comprendre que la racisation des peuples autochtones arrive sans une perspective critique de l’assertion de la supériorité eurocentrique qui sous-tend les relations raciales. Il affirme que la couleur de la peau est effectivement importante pour les Canadiens, car le racisme internalisé affecte la perception de la valeur des personnes dans les rapports quotidiens et, par le fait même, la distribution du pouvoir et du privilège. Monsieur Findlay offre aux Canadiens trois piliers pour relever le défi de devenir une société post-raciste.

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

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

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

with First Nations to receive any land, and attempt to destroy the First Nations governments through legislation, replacing "inclusive consensual and democratic Indigenous political systems with undemocratic and unrepresentative systems of colonizers."

sultation des Premières nations avant l’octroi des terres, et à essayer de détruire les gouvernements des Premières nations par leur législation, en remplaçant « des systèmes politiques autochtones, rassembleurs, consensuels et démocratiques, par des systèmes colonisateurs, moins démocratiques et non représentatifs. »

Sakej Henderson argues that the governments of Canada, federal and provincial/territorial "continue to block Aboriginal nations from assuming the broad powers of governance that would permit them to fashion their own institutions and work out their own solutions to social, economic, and political problems." Systemic discrimination ushered in by racial and cultural superiority is its source.

Sakej Henderson soutient que les gouvernements canadiens, tant fédéral que provinciaux et territoriaux, « continuent à empêcher les nations autochtones d’assumer les vastes pouvoirs de gouvernance qui leur permettraient de façonner leurs propres institutions et d’élaborer leurs propres solutions aux problèmes sociaux, économiques et politiques ». La discrimination systémique fondée sur la supériorité raciale et culturelle est la source de ce blocage.

Education is one of those places where Canadians believe Aboriginal peoples get "free" education. My essay, Marie Battiste, offers how First Nations peoples education is a treaty right, different from other citizens of Canada, but needs since 1982 and the Constitutional affirmation of Aboriginal and treaty rights, the constitutional powers of the provincial/territorial and federal laws and policies must be reconciled with the constitutional rights of Aboriginal people.

L'éducation est l’un des domaines où les Canadiens croient que les peuples autochtones sont avantagés : une éducation « gratuite ». Mon essai fait remarquer que l’éducation est un droit conféré aux Premières nations par traité, différent des autres citoyens du Canada, mais que depuis l’affirmation des droits ancestraux ou issus de traités dans la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, les pouvoirs constitutionnels des provinces et territoires ainsi que les lois et politiques fédérales restent à concilier avec les droits constitutionnels des Autochtones.

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

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

In 1982, Section 35 of the Constitution of Canada provided the recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights, and also named three distinct aboriginal groups: First Nations, Métis and Inuit. Those rights are still evolving for the Métis; however, with the signing of a Métis Nation Protocol agreement, Clem Chartier and the Métis Nation see a glimmer of hope for their future work together with Canada.

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

Inuit food security is intimately connected to the land, oceans, and global warming. A petition to the Inter America Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for violations caused by nations that disregard this fact is the basis for Katherine Minich’s essay that suggests further the limits of international law for helping to address the problems among the Inuit, but provides a process for asserting self-determination on the basis of their Inuit identities.

La sécurité alimentaire est intimement liée à la terre, aux océans et au réchauffement de la planète. Une pétition présentée à la Commission interaméricaine des droits de l'homme (CIDH), concernant les violations commises par les nations qui ne tiennent pas compte de ce fait, est la base de l’essai de Katherine Minich. L’auteure suggère le recours au droit international pour faciliter la résolution des problèmes auxquels sont confrontées les collectivités inuites, mais elle offre un processus visant à affirmer l’autodétermination sur la base de leur identité inuite.

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

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Sharon Venne affirme que nous habitons toujours dans un Canada qui est colonial et non décolonisé ou néocolonial. Par les lois coloniales, les discours de justification du racisme et de la supériorité, les critères juridiques utilisés pour les titres ancestraux aux terres des peuples autochtones et par les doctrines de la découverte, les pays et les forums internationaux continuent de légitimer les atteintes à la patrie des peuples autochtones, en soutenant toujours la primauté de l’intégrité de la souveraineté des États sur les droits des peuples autochtones.

of justification of racism and superiority, court tests of Indigenous peoples rights to title, and doctrines of discovery, forms of legitimacy making on Indigenous homelands are continuing in the national and international arena with the States still holding to the integrity of States sovereignty over Indigenous peoples rights. It has been long noted that systemic discrimination in the workforce and in the manner by which health services are delivered to Aboriginal peoples lead to significant disparities in the health status of Aboriginal peoples. Alex Wilson and Janet Sarson’s essay asks a question in the title "Can Institutional Systems Learn to Listen? Developing an effective strategy to improve Aboriginal peoples’ health status." This strategy is to increase the number of First Nations, Inuit and Métis health professionals, for as they note, "Aboriginal people are their own experts" and empowering the youth, adult learners, and building on their knowledge will go a lot further in improving health of Aboriginal peoples.

Il est reconnu depuis longtemps que la discrimination systémique en matière d’emploi et de prestation de services de santé aux peuples autochtones crée des disparités importantes. Alex Wilson et Janet Sarson pose une question dans le titre de leur essai : « Les systèmes institutionnels peuvent-ils apprendre à écouter? L’élaboration d’une stratégie efficace pour améliorer la santé des Autochtones ». Cette stratégie vise à accroître le nombre de professionnels de la santé issus des Premières nations et des milieux inuits et métis. Elles rappellent que « les Autochtones sont les experts en matière autochtone » et soutient que la santé des peuples autochtones s’améliorera davantage en habilitant les jeunes et les apprenants adultes et en mettant à profit les connaissances des Autochtones.

Homeless Aboriginal people are growing in cities, towns and reserves, a problem to which the Native Friendship Centre offer a summary of a report of the migration of Aboriginal peoples to the city, the reasons, the problems of housing, poverty, and multiple ruptures of the social and cultural bonds. They also offer possible alternatives to address homelessness and prevention activities, strengthened by their own work with urban Aboriginal peoples.

Le nombre d’Autochtones itinérants ne cesse de croître dans les villes et dans les réserves. Le Regroupement des centres d’amitié autochtones offre le résumé d’un rapport sur la migration des peuples autochtones à la ville : les motifs du déplacement, les problèmes du logement, la pauvreté et les multiples ruptures des liens sociaux et culturels. Le groupe offre des solutions de rechange possibles pour remédier au problème de l’itinérance, ainsi que des activités de prévention, et met à contribution l’expérience de son propre travail auprès des Autochtones dans les milieux urbains.

‘Two spirit’ is a term that reclaims an identity stolen by homophobia and racism among Aboriginal peoples. Alex Wilson shares its origins and its power and authority for self- representation that two-spirited peoples can use to recentre what is important to them.

Le terme « bi-spirituel » permet de récupérer une identité qui a été volée par l’homophobie et le racisme. Alex Wilson nous explique les origines du terme, son pouvoir et l’autorité qu’elle confère aux gens bi-spirituels de se représenter et de recentrer ce qui est important pour eux.

Indigenous Studies Portal Librarian, Deborah Lee provides an archival collection from the Library and Archives Canada to refute inferiority in a pictorial story, illustrating persistent forms of accomplishment and innovation, collaboration and collective artistry, creativity and partnerships among Aboriginal peoples.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Deborah Lee, bibliothécaire du « portail en études autochtones », puise dans la collection de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada pour réfuter la thèse de l’infériorité en présentant un récit imagé qui jette un éclairage nouveau sur des formes persistantes de réalisations et d’innovation, de collaboration et d’art collectif, de créativité et de partenariat parmi les Autochtones.

VIEWPOINT

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

Abstract Systemic racism in Canada is rooted in colonial presumption, needs, and practices, and has therefore for centuries been directed most concertedly at First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people. Even at a time of increasingly official anti-racism and commitment to a public culture of redress, the problem of white privilege remains. In order for Canada to become acceptably post-racist it needs first to become thoroughly post-colonial. Three keys to this decolonizing process are cognitive justice, cultural portage, and visionary civics.

About the Author Len M. Findlay is Professor of English and Director of the Humanities Research Unit at the University of Saskatchewan. A former President of ACCUTE and Vice-President of HSSFC, he was for three years senior policy analyst on universities for the Province of Saskatchewan. Widely published in 19th-century European topics and increasingly in Canadian Studies, his recent work includes a new edition of The Communist Manifesto (Broadview 2004), "Specters of Canada: Image, Text, Aura, Nation" (UTQ 2006), "Towards Canada as Aesthetic State: François-Xavier Garneau’s Canadien Poetics" (SCL 2007), and collaborative projects for the Australian Journal of Aboriginal Education and for the Office of the Treaty Commission of Saskatchewan. He is currently writing a polemic in the vein of George Grant's Lament for a Nation, entitled Dissent for a Nation, and an intellectual biography of Alexander Morris.

Systemic Racism How does systemic racism occur and, even worse, recur or persist? One answer lies in the histories of both "system" and "race" and the circumstances of these terms’ combination. But neither the phenomenon of systemic racism nor the damage it does to both racists and those racialized occurs only in language. To be sure, words may wound as effectively as they may welcome, and the discursive dimensions of racism offer invaluable evidence of what racism is and does. But racism is perpetrated and experienced in many forms and situations; it draws on fully embodied experience in a specific territory shared (or contested) with others. It cannot be fully understood, far less defeated, through a single disciplinary lens or from a single social position. Indeed, it takes lots of diversely talented people a great deal of thought, effort, and conspiracy to deny dignity, talent, and a full humanity to other people on the basis of their racialized distinctiveness and to consign them to a sterile or contaminated margin of territory and status--or even to outright extinction. And it requires a collective, multi-talented, trans-cultural, ultra-determined 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

most lucrative target for unscrupulous settler agendas. Being here first and being everywhere around has for Aboriginal people meant being the primordial and ongoing target of newcomers’ resentful dependency, treachery, greed, and genocide. Racism appeals to the worst in individuals on the basis of a demonstrable fiction, namely ‘race.’ It mobilizes the negative consequences of such appeals within economic, political, and socio-cultural systems convinced of their own validity and with the power to enforce compliance or punish dissent. Accordingly, aggregates of individual bigotry produce a state apparatus to nationalize and legitimize the move from human difference as enrichment to human difference as a difficulty or blemish to be removed, more or less violently or invasively, in a process blending purity with progress while devaluing otherness. On a personal level, ignorance and fear are activated and rewarded so that the domination or elimination of difference will appear an act of charity or an act of God. Ignorance and fear breed phantasies like the necessary adversary or the undeserving Indian which find themselves grander names as they go about their colonizing business: names like history, theology, philosophy, anthropology, law, science, culture, civilization, modernity. Whatever the dominant systems in the colonizing apparatus, whether faith-based or knowledgebased or both, they behave too often as creatures of an over-arching arrogance and rapacity while ingeniously denying their connections to an underlying hatred. Whether sanctimonious or pseudo-scientific, racism is the reliable and efficient fuel and output of colonialism, in Canada as well as elsewhere, overcoming the misgivings and recantations of individual colonizers and often taking on the aspect of common sense or of a sporadically compassionate social Darwinism. It is therefore no coincidence that self-righteous and pseudo-scientific racisms were at their height precisely

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

VIEWPOINT when Canada was working towards political independence from Britain, so that a foundational act of emancipation and Anglo-French entente could double as an act of racist subordination and resettlement. Virtually every aspect of Canadian nation-building in the nineteenth century depended on Aboriginal land and Indigenous knowledge, even while both were being resituated within the frame of quasi-benevolent paternalism where treaties could become pro forma exercises of conciliation-on-the-cheap and the honour of the Crown be reduced to a cynical fiction.

respectfully and patiently to those aspects of Indigenous Knowledge made available within appropriate protocols of exchange by Aboriginal thinkers, activists, colleagues, neighbours, friends. The most recent books by Sa’ke’j Henderson and John Ralston Saul offer guidance and inspiration aplenty for those who seek to make our country more consistently and inclusively what it ought to be: a just society. Let’s hope their voices and those of their many supporters at last convince the skeptics and the nay-sayers that Canada has been and continues to be immeasurably enriched by its Aboriginal peoples.

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

Three Keys to the Canada We Can Be: Cognitive Justice, Cultural Portage, and Visionary Civics As Canadians look to multiple anti-racist remedies within an increasingly public culture of redress with its formal governmental apologies, compensation provisions, and Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I would like to highlight three keys to unlocking the doors to mutual understanding and more respectful, sustainable exchange across differences too often openly racialized in the past and tacitly racialized in the present..

Individualizing and personalizing the challenge of racial discrimination is part of the antidote to the poisons it purveys and the injustices it seeks to legitimate, but this anti-racist impulse needs to be nourished and rewarded with all the consistency and resourcefulness that went into conceptualizing and implementing discrimination as dehumanization and dispossession in the first place. The systemic needs to be challenged at the level of the system, especially when racial discrimination is now illegal in Canada yet thrives inadvertently in the form of "white privilege" (McIntosh) invisible to many of its beneficiaries or encrypted in meritocratic hype which ignores or aggravates social and economic disparities between Aboriginal and other Canadians. Here is where the enabling instruments and institutions of colonialism need to be transformed or replaced. Moreover, decolonizing our institutions is work for us all, Aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. To this end, Aboriginal Canadians have developed a brilliant double gesture to remedy and move beyond their split-head condition, both mastering the knowledge systems of the dominant and refusing their arbitrary ignorance and unfairness. And the fashioners of this Aboriginal renaissance have inspired and instructed non-Aboriginal scholars working towards a double gesture of their own to counter the operating contradictions of a colonial project both civilizing and brutalizing, Christian and cruel. Each of these double gestures seeks to expose and eradicate the deep complicities of Eurocentric knowledge with Euro-Canadian colonialism while attending

One such key, aptly originating with a scholar from the global south, is "cognitive justice" (Santos), understood modestly as "prudent knowledge for a decent life." Santos’ phrase and brief definition offer a reminder and an agenda. Human cognition is an extraordinary thing, but it will be more broadly beneficial than divisively harmful only if it is harnessed to a concept like justice which is descriptive, eagerly trans-systematic, and aspirational in accord with the covenants and aims of the movement for international human rights and the human rights of Indigenous peoples. Santos combines what some would see as utopian language to sustainability and the needs of others everywhere on the planet, and not to supremacist selfishness and unlimited ‘growth.’ This example of the so-called margin talking back to imperialist centres underscores the multidirectional flow of knowledge and counsel that has always characterized colonizing projects but rarely been admitted to or welcomed by colonial powers. Such knowledge and counsel is generated from Aboriginal sources all across Canada, if only white Canada learns to listen and listens to learn from the most stigmatized and exploited of its others.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

A second key is one I recently introduced in my catalogue essay for an exhibition featuring the visual work of Lori Blondeau of the Gordon First Nation in Saskatchewan, co-founder of the Aboriginal-run artist collective, Tribe, and an internationally acclaimed curator and performance artist. Lori’s work caused me 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 another. Portage is strongly associated with the voyageurs and the penetration of the Canadian interior via the fur trade. But of course the First Nations had been using such techniques long before contact with newcomers. The portage is, then, an activity expressive of development yet profoundly dependent on Aboriginal knowledge and the reliable technologies of prior occupation. It is an activity with an important history which no-one today can monopolize and which Aboriginal artists and scholars are reclaiming in endlessly imaginative, carefully researched, decolonizing work. Moreover, it is a term strongly associated with the sense of movement intrinsic to creativity itself and available also in concepts like metaphor, translation, and discovery. It points to a moment of going beyond where we currently are and transforming some things we take with us while preserving others unchanged. Lori Blondeau takes the human body, especially the thoroughly racialized female Aboriginal body, including her own body, and re-marks it in ways that move us with some collective effort to a place where we can once again make progress. The participants in this process are Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, and they bear a common freight of durable and mutable socio-cultural practices, values, meanings. We can move to the next stage of this anti-racist project only if we collaborate respectfully, each using her or his version of the portage strap and doing her or his share of the work. The journey undertaken involves cultural openness and mutual discovery, and gestures towards sustainable futures together rather than the avaricious designs of colonial monoculturalists. And we are lucky indeed to have brilliant and courageous guides like Lori Blondeau to help us on our way.

assume civics to be a white monopoly, and the civis or city from which civics derives its name to be an essentially white space where brown presences are ghettoized or criminalized, if tolerated at all. Canada’s cities need to be seedbeds of visionary, post-racist civics, and to do so they need to be creative not only in Michael Florida’s sense of being receptive to the arts and to all sorts of human differences; they need also to attend to their own particular histories and territories, and the first peoples of those territories, in order to change urban spaces into new configurations of rootedness and movement, residence and transience, that fuel opportunity and friendship rather than endangerment and exclusion. Both city and country, places of distinctive gathering and dispersal, need to be seen once again through Aboriginal eyes as well as settlerscopes, and recreated as places of sharing and security that rethink relations to the land as well as the built environment, and do so by investing massively in education for the Canada we can be. This entails speaking truth to power, of course, and having the courage and knowledge to remind all those in positions of authority to heed the lessons of multiple histories and cartographies of violence and care, and of the protracted failure to understand treaty federalism and make it work for all Canadians as it was intended and crafted to do. But it also means speaking youth to power, in an effort of intercultural, intergenerational solidarity that insists that all our young people receive an education that empowers them through honouring their distinctiveness as well as the gifts and aspirations they share with others. Our classrooms are where this visionary civics can take hold and then take over the Canadian public sphere and public policy. Our classrooms are where we can most critically and creatively reclaim what we have been and infuse the best of that legacy into the heart of what we do henceforth. The task is difficult but not impossible. As someone charismatic recently said, and to astonishing global effect, "Yes we can!"

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

References Findlay, 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.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

POINT DE VUE

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

Résumé Le racisme systémique au Canada a ses racines dans la présomption coloniale et dans les besoins et les pratiques du colonialisme. Ainsi, il a surtout ciblé depuis des siècles les Premières nations et les peuples inuits et métis. Même à une époque d’antiracisme officiel ascendant, et d’engagement en faveur d’une culture publique de réparation, le problème du privilège blanc demeure. Pour devenir post-raciste dans une mesure acceptable, le Canada doit d’abord devenir complètement postcolonial. Trois éléments clés de ce processus de décolonisation sont la justice cognitive, le portage culturel et le civisme visionnaire. Le racisme systémique De quelle façon le racisme systémique s’est-il développé ou, pire encore, comment revient-il ou perdure-t-il? Une des réponses se trouve dans les histoires du « système » et de la « race » et dans les circonstances où ces concepts se sont retrouvés en association. Toutefois, ni le phénomène du racisme systémique ni les torts qu’il cause, à la fois aux personnes racistes et aux personnes en souffrant, ne se limitent au langage. Il est vrai que les mots peuvent blesser aussi bien qu’ils peuvent être acceptés et que le discours du racisme offre des preuves incontestables de la nature du racisme et de ses conséquences. Mais le racisme est perpétré et vécu sous plusieurs formes et dans plusieurs situations; il est nourri par une expérience concrète sur un territoire précis qui est partagé avec autrui ou contesté. Le racisme ne peut être entièrement compris, encore moins déconstruit, à partir de la perspective d’une seule discipline ou d’une position sociale unique. En effet, il regroupe un grand nombre de personnes, aux talents divers, investissant beaucoup d’efforts, de conspiration, pour refuser de reconnaître la dignité, les talents et le caractère humain d’autres personnes en fonction de certaines distinctions associées à la race, et pour les reléguer à une marge stérile ou contaminée du territoire et du statut

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

social – voire à l’extinction absolue. De même, un effort collectif, transculturel, très déterminé et mettant à contribution divers talents, est requis pour réparer les dégâts causés par un tel déni, une telle relégation. Au Canada, cette dynamique du pouvoir s’applique de la manière la plus évidente aux Premières nations, aux Inuits et aux Métis qui, de par leur présence antérieure et leurs rapports généreux avec les nouveaux venus, ont été, et sont toujours, la cible la plus ancienne, la plus durable et la plus rentable pour les programmes de colonisation sans scrupules. Les peuples autochtones, pour avoir été les premiers à occuper ces terres et de toujours s’y trouver, ont été la cible primordiale et permanente de la dépendance rancunière des nouveaux venus, de leur traîtrise, de leur cupidité et de leur génocide. Le racisme fait appel aux aspects les plus négatifs des gens et repose sur une fiction. Il mobilise les conséquences négatives des aspects attrayants dans le cadre de systèmes économiques, politiques et socioculturels assurés de leur propre validité et qui ont le pouvoir d’imposer l’acquiescence et de punir la dissidence. Ainsi, la somme des préjugés individuels produit un appareil d’État qui nationalise et rend légitime le passage d’une notion de la différence humaine comme une difficulté ou une tache à éradiquer, de façon plus ou moins violente ou envahissante, dans un processus qui mêle la pureté au progrès tout en dévaluant l’altérité. Au niveau personnel, l’ignorance et la peur sont mobilisées et récompensées de sorte que la domination ou l’élimination de la différence est perçue comme un acte de bienfaisance ou un cas fortuit. L’ignorance et la peur donnent lieu à des fantasmes comme celui de l’adversaire nécessaire ou de l’Amérindien indigne. À mesure que ces fantasmes facilitent la colonisation, différents épithètes leur sont donné, selon l’époque, comme l’histoire, la théologie, la philosophie, l’anthropologie, le droit, la science, la culture, la civilisation, la modernité.

À propos de l’auteur : Len M. Findlay est professeur de littérature anglaise et directeur de l’unité de recherche en sciences humaines à l’université de la Saskatchewan. Ancien président de l’association des professeurs d’anglais ACCUTE et vice-président de la Fédération canadienne des sciences humaines, il a été pendant trois ans analyste des politiques sur les universités pour le compte de la Province de Saskatchewan. Auteur de nombreux ouvrages sur l’Europe du dix-neuvième siècle et, de plus en plus, en matière d’études canadiennes, il a notamment réalisé une nouvelle édition du Manifeste communiste (Broadview 2004), rédigé "Specters of Canada: Image, Text, Aura, Nation" (UTQ 2006) et "Towards Canada as Aesthetic State: François-Xavier Garneau’s Canadien Poetics" (SCL 2007) et a participé à des projets concertés auprès du Australian Journal of Aboriginal Education et de la Treaty Commission of Saskatchewan. Il écrit actuellement une polémique intitulée Dissent for a Nation, dans le style de l’ouvrage de George Grant, Lament for a Nation, ainsi qu’une biographie intellectuelle d’Alexander Morris.

POINT DE VUE Quels que soient les systèmes prédominants dans l’appareil colonisateur, qu’ils soient fondés sur la religion, le savoir ou les deux, ils se comportent trop souvent avec une arrogance et une rapacité toute puissante, tout en niant ingénieusement leurs liens à une haine sous-jacente. Qu’il soit moralisateur ou pseudo-scientifique, le racisme est à la fois le carburant et le produit du colonialisme, fiable et efficace, au Canada comme ailleurs; il surmonte les doutes et les rétractations de colonisateurs individuels et revêt souvent l’aspect du bon sens ou d’un Darwinisme social sporadiquement compatissant. Ce n’est donc pas une coïncidence que les racismes moralisateurs et pseudo-scientifiques ont atteint leur zénith précisément à l’époque où le Canada progressait vers son indépendance politique de la Grande-Bretagne, de sorte que son acte fondateur d’émancipation et d’entente anglais-français puisse être en même temps un acte de déménagement forcé et de subordination raciste. Presque toutes les facettes du développement de la nation canadienne au dix-neuvième siècle dépendaient des terres et du savoir autochtones, même si les deux étaient resitués dans le cadre d’un paternalisme quasi bénévole où les traités pouvaient devenir des exercices pro forma de conciliation à bon marché et où l’honneur de la Couronne pouvait être réduite à une fiction cynique.

bénéficiaires ou encrypté dans un baratin de méritocratie qui occulte ou aggrave les disparités sociales et économiques entre les Autochtones et les autres Canadiens. C’est là que les instruments et institutions coloniaux qui rendent la chose possible doivent être transformés ou remplacés. D’ailleurs, la décolonisation de nos institutions est notre tâche à tous, Autochtones et non-Autochtones. Dans ce but, les Canadiens autochtones ont élaboré un double geste brillant pour remédier à leur condition « split-head », divisée entre l’âme autochtone et la tête eurocentrique, et la dépasser, à la fois en maîtrisant les systèmes de connaissances du groupe dominant et en refusant leur ignorance arbitraire et leur injustice. Et les créateurs de cette renaissance autochtone ont inspiré et instruit des intellectuels non autochtones qui s’emploient à élaborer leur propre double geste pour contrer les contradictions opérationnelles d’un projet colonial à la fois civilisateur et brutalisant, chrétien et cruel. Chacun de ces doubles gestes vise à exposer et à éradiquer les complicités profondes entre le savoir eurocentrique et le colonialisme euro-canadien, tout en écoutant respectueusement et patiemment les aspects des connaissances autochtones rendus disponibles, par des méthodes d’échange pertinentes, par des penseurs autochtones, des militants, collègues, voisins, amis. Les derniers livres de Sa’ke’j Henderson et de John Ralston Saul offrent beaucoup de conseils et d’inspiration à ceux et à celles qui voudraient faire du Canada un pays qui serait, de façon plus régulière et plus inclusive, ce qu’il devrait être : une société juste. Espérons que leurs voix et celles des nombreuses personnes qui appuient leurs positions sauront enfin convaincre les sceptiques du fait que le Canada a été enrichi de façon incommensurable par ses peuples autochtones et continue de l’être.

Ce qui est systémique assure sa continuité en rassemblant ceux qui sont bien disposés, moins disposés et même ceux qui sont activement non disposés à appuyer le régime, autour de politiques et de pratiques qui diabolisent et qui attaquent d’autres structures sociales et d’autres systèmes de connaissances pour produire des « vérités » convenables comme : « Nos systèmes sont rationaux et moraux, les vôtres irrationnels et immoraux ». Ainsi la politique séduit-elle ou coopte-t-elle des individus opportunistes ou timides, des gens de bonne foi, dans des actes de mauvaise foi collective qu’Alexander Morris, au cours de la négociation des traités numérotés, a approuvé, quoique de façon nerveuse, comme « l’astuce de l’homme blanc ». (Treaties 96)

Trois éléments clés pour le Canada que nous pouvons devenir : Justice cognitive, Portage culturel et Civisme visionnaire Les Canadiens trouvent aujourd'hui plusieurs remèdes antiracistes dans le cadre d’une culture publique de plus en plus marquée par une volonté d’offrir des réparations : l’État a présente ses excuses officielles, prévu des indemnisations et mis sur pied la Commission de vérité et de réconciliation. Dans ce contexte, je tiens à souligner trois éléments facilitant la compréhension mutuelle et un échange plus respectueux et durable à travers des différences qui ont trop souvent été ouvertement racialisées par le passé et qui demeurent tacitement racialisées de nos jours.

Individualiser et personnaliser le défi de la discrimination raciale fait partie de l’antidote aux poisons que celle-ci répand et aux injustices qu’elle cherche à légitimer, mais cette impulsion antiraciste doit être nourrie et récompensée avec autant de constance et d’ingéniosité que celles qui ont d’abord servi à conceptualiser et à implanter la discrimination comme processus de déshumanisation et de dépossession. Ce qui est systémique doit être contesté au niveau du système, surtout à une époque où la discrimination raciale est illégale au Canada mais demeure florissante sous forme d’un « privilège blanc » involontaire (McIntosh) qui est invisible à la plupart de ses

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

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

POINT DE VUE dentes pour une vie décente ». L’expression de Santos et sa courte définition offrent un rappel et laissent entrevoir un plan d’action. La cognition humaine est une chose extraordinaire, mais pour qu’elle soit largement bénéfique, au lieu de créer des divisions, elle doit être attelée à une notion comme celle de la justice, une justice descriptive, passionnément transsystématique et qui aspire au changement, conformément aux ententes et aux objectifs du mouvement international pour les droits de la personne et notamment les droits des peuples autochtones. Santos allie ce que d’aucuns appelleraient un langage utopique au concept de durabilité et aux besoins des autres partout sur la planète, et non à un égoïsme qui croit à la suprématie d’une race ou d’une culture, ni à la « croissance » illimitée. Cet exemple d’une voix marginale qui répond aux centres impérialistes souligne le flux multidirectionnel des connaissances et des conseils qui a toujours caractérisé les projets colonisateurs mais qui a rarement été reconnu ou accepté par les puissances colonisatrices. Ces connaissances et ces conseils sont générés de sources autochtones aux quatre coins du Canada, pour peu que le Canada blanc apprenne à écouter les personnes les plus stigmatisées et exploitées vivant au pays et, écoute pour apprendre.

d’autres inchangées. Lori Blondeau prend le corps humain, surtout le corps profondément racialisé de la femme autochtone, y compris son propre corps, pour le remarquer de façons qui nous transportent, avec un certain effort collectif, jusqu’à un lieu où nous pouvons encore une fois réaliser des progrès. Les participants à ce processus, Autochtones comme non-Autochtones, portent une charge commune composée de pratiques, de valeurs et de significations socioculturelles durables et mutables. Nous ne pouvons passer à la prochaine étape de ce projet antiraciste qu’ collaborant respectueusement, chacun utilisant sa version de la courroie de portage et faisant sa part du travail. Le voyage entrepris implique l’ouverture culturelle et la découverte mutuelle ainsi que des gestes vers un avenir durable, plutôt que les complots avares des monoculturalistes coloniaux. Et nous sommes très chanceux d’avoir des guides brillants et courageux comme Lori Blondeau pour nous indiquer la voie. Ma troisième clé pour changer le Canada, une clé symptomatique, pourrait sembler être encore un outil pour l’assimilation des peuples autochtones dans la culture dominante euro-canadienne, mais cela n’est vrai que si nous tenons pour acquis que le civisme est un monopole des Blancs, et que le civis (ville), dont le nom est dérivé, est essentiellement un lieu blanc où les personnes de couleur sont ghettoïsées ou criminalisées, si elles sont tolérées. Les villes du Canada doivent devenir des pépinières d’un civisme visionnaire, post-raciste, et pour ce faire, elles doivent être créatrices, non seulement au sens que Michael Florida donne au mot – accueillir les arts et toutes sortes de différences – elles doivent également s’occuper de leurs propres histoires et territoires, afin de changer les espaces urbains en nouvelles configurations d’enracinement et de mouvement, de résidence et de migration, qui alimentent les possibilités et l’amitié plutôt que de créer le danger et l’exclusion. La ville et la campagne, lieux distincts de rassemblement et de dispersion, doivent être de nouveau regardées à travers des yeux autochtones aussi bien que ceux des colonisateurs, et recréés comme des lieux de partage et de sécurité qui repensent leurs rapports à la terre ainsi qu’à l’environnement construit, en investissant massivement en éducation pour le Canada que nous pouvons devenir. Pour y arriver, il faudra bien sûr rappeler aux gens de pouvoir le concept de vérité et avoir le courage et les connaissances requises pour également leur rappeler qu’ils doivent faire attention aux nombreuses leçons tirées des histoires et cartographies de la violence ainsi que de la bienveillance et du défaut éternisé de comprendre le fédéralisme de traité et de le faire fonctionner pour tous les Canadiens comme il a été conçu. Mais il faut aussi parler aux gens de pouvoir de l’apport des jeunes, dans un effort de solidarité interculturelle

Une deuxième clé est celle dont j’ai parlé dans un texte publié dans le catalogue d’une exposition de l’œuvre graphique de Lori Blondeau, membre de la Première nation Gordon, en Saskatchewan, cofondatrice de Tribe (un regroupement d’artistes dirigé par des Autochtones) , conservatrice d’expositions de renommée internationale et artiste de la scène. L’œuvre de Lori m’a fait, encore une fois, sortir des sentiers battus de la pensée eurocentrique. Cette fois, j’ai pensé au portage culturel, un laborieux déplacement d’expériences, d’idées et de programmes partageables, d’un lieu navigable vers un autre. La notion du portage est fortement associée aux voyageurs et à la pénétration de l’intérieur du Canada par la traite des fourrures. Évidemment, les Premières nations utilisaient cette technique bien avant leurs premiers contacts avec les nouveaux venus. Le portage est donc une activité qui exprime le développement tout en étant profondément tributaire des connaissances autochtones et des technologies fiables qui servaient à l’occupation antérieure. C’est une activité qui possède une histoire importante que personne ne peut aujourd'hui monopoliser et que les artistes et intellectuels autochtones sont en train de récupérer par un travail décolonisateur, infiniment imaginatif et soigneusement recherché. De plus, c’est un terme fortement associé au sens du mouvement, intrinsèque à la créativité et également exprimé dans des concepts comme la métaphore, la traduction ou la découverte. Il désigne un moment de dépassement de notre situation actuelle, dans lequel on transforme certaines choses que nous apportons alors que nous en préservons

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

POINT DE VUE et intergénérationnelle qui insiste pour que tous nos jeunes reçoivent une éducation qui leur donne des forces en honorant leurs distinctions ainsi que les talents et aspirations qu’ils partagent avec d’autres. C’est dans nos salles de classe que ce civisme visionnaire peut s’implanter, pour ensuite conquérir l’espace public canadien et la politique d’État. C’est dans nos salles de

classe que nous pouvons réclamer ce que nous avons déjà été et insuffler le meilleur de ce patrimoine au cœur de ce que nous accomplirons. La tâche est difficile mais elle n’est pas impossible. Rappelons que quelqu'un de charismatique a récemment employé une expression qui a fait un écho retentissant dans le monde : « Yes we can! »

Références Findlay, 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.

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 raciales 4576, rue Yonge, bureau 701 Toronto (Ont.) M2N 6N4 1 888 240-4936 info@crr.ca

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

General Call for Papers 2009 issues of DIRECTIONS

Appel d’offres Les numéros de l’année 2009

Since 1998, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) has funded research projects that focus on eliminating systemic racism experienced by racialized minorities and Aboriginal peoples in the areas of education, employment and the justice system. The CRRF is committed to supporting participatory action research where academic researchers are encouraged to work with community-based organizations thus combining knowledge from both levels. Our goal is to ensure that the research findings and recommendations contribute to the development of antiracist policy, are actionable and the results are promoted widely. DIRECTIONS is one of the platforms used to publish and promote research about anti-racism.

Depuis 1998, la Fondation canadienne des relations raciales subventionne des projets de recherche traitant du racisme systémique ciblant les membres des groupes racisés et les peuples autochtones, particulièrement en matière d’éducation. De par son mandat, la Fondation s’est engagée à appuyer la recherche-action participative à laquelle contribuent les chercheurs universitaires et les organismes communautaires pour tirer parti de tous les niveaux de compétence. Elle veille de plus à concrétiser les conclusions et les recommandations des travaux de recherche, à contribuer au développement d’une politique de lutte contre le racisme, et à en divulguer les résultats à grande échelle. DIRECTIONS constitue l’une des tribunes servant à publier les études sur la lutte contre le racisme et à en faire la promotion.

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

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

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 in the justice system. • Address issues of national and/or regional relevance that have direct implications for the elimination of racism in Canada. • Focus on advancing concrete strategies and demonstrate the impact of these strategies in advancing equality for all Canadians, particularly those from racialized groups and Aboriginal peoples.

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 lutte contre le racisme au Canada; • avoir des répercussions sur les pratiques et politiques relatives au racisme systémique à tous les échelons, à savoir celui de l’emploi, de l’éducation, du système de justice pénal et ceux visant particulièrement les peuples autochtones; • traiter de questions d’intérêt national ou régional ayant des répercussions directes en matière d’élimination du racisme au Canada; • mettre l’accent sur la promotion des stratégies concrètes visant à faire valoir l’égalité des droits de tous les Canadiens, notamment des minorités visibles et des peuples autochtones.

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 revisions. • All submissions should be made available to the CRRF in hard copy and electronic format. Authors should submit three hard copies. • Articles should be appropriately footnoted and reference and bibliographies should follow the (American Psychological Association (APA) style as outlined in the guidelines for authors published in this 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

Lignes directrices à l’intention des auteurs : • Les articles, rapports ou exposés doivent être clairs, compréhensibles 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 exemplaires 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 nécessairement 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.

Please send an electronic-version in Word Format to: Anne Marrian Managing Editor Canadian Race Relations Foundation 4576 Yonge Street, Suite 701 Toronto, ON. M2N 6N4 Tel: 416-952-3501 Fax: 416-952-3326 email: amarrian@crr.ca Toll-free tel: 1-888-240-4936 Toll-free fax:1-888-399-0333

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Veuillez faire parvenir une version électronique en format Microsoft Word à : Anne Marrian, directrice-rédactrice en chef Fondation canadienne des relations raciales 4576, rue Yonge, bureau 701 Toronto (ON) M2N 6N4 Tél. : (416) 952-3501 Téléc. : (416) 952-3326 Courriel : amarrian@crr.ca Tél. sans frais : 1 888 240-4936 Téléc. sans frais : 1 888 399-0333

BOOKNOTES

Historical Contributions of Aboriginal Peoples to Canadian Culture and Identity Deborah Lee, M.L.I.S "We must come together with one heart, one mind, 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 come when the voice of Indigenous peoples would rise again after five hundred years of silence and oppression, to light a path to an eternal fire of peace, love, brotherhood and sisterhood amongst all nations" – Seven Fires Prophecy

About the Author Deborah Lee, is an Aboriginal Librarian of Cree and Mohawk ancestry. She is the Indigenous Studies Portal Librarian and Team Leader at the University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon. Deborah has also worked as a Reference Librarian at Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa, as well as the former National Library of Canada. She is also active with various groups such as the International Indigenous Librarians Forum and the Library Services for Saskatchewan Aboriginal Peoples Committee. Deborah has published in various academic journals including the Journal of Library Administration and the Canadian Journal of Native Education.

Introduction One option to counter the effects of systemic racism related to Canada’s Aboriginal peoples is to provide some commentary on and celebrate our contributions to Canadian culture and identity. Much of the Information provided in this article is not new; however, the presentation method may differ from the norm. As well, sometimes we need to be reminded (nudged) about events and ideas that people tend to forget, i.e. in terms of a paradigm shift with the outcome of changing ingrained or persistent stereotypes. This pictorial essay will incorporate images of some of our best achievements, our cultural (and perhaps genetic) memories, or events from the past that do us proud as Aboriginal peoples. The images that are incorporated here are archival, are copyright-expired and therefore do not warrant permissions for reproduction. The use of these images (with credits) is strictly because they are in the public domain. I want to make it clear that by using these images, it is not, my intention to perpetuate the colonial notion that Aboriginal peoples in this country have disappeared, have totally assimilated, or that we are best known from historical sources. To the contrary, we continue to interact in dynamic ways, as no doubt the other authors writing for this issue of Directions will also demonstrate. The purpose of this essay is to provide Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people with some images and

ideas about how our First Nations, Inuit and Métis have contributed to the enhancement of Canadian identity and culture. These images and ideas can then be used as a backdrop from which to juxtapose the systemic racism that Aboriginal peoples face, on a daily basis. Further, with the content of this essay (and this journal as a whole), we will then have holistic reference points from which to interact with confidence, knowing the value of Aboriginal contributions to Canadian culture and identity. In other words, rather than acting from a basis of denial and stereotypic thinking and from positions of oppression 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 is rooted in the colonization ideology from the perspective of the colonizer. A shift in curriculum development to include Aboriginal issues at every level of education is long overdue. Educational programs across Canada need to include mandatory Aboriginal Studies courses from kindergarten through secondary school.

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

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

BOOKS, ART & POETRY Aboriginal continue to participate in sport in various ways across Canada. The Aboriginal Sport Circle has worked to revitalize Aboriginal sport by providing access to more equitable sport and recreation opportunities for youth since 1995. Youth train for and participate in the recurring North American Indigenous Games (NAIG) that began in Edmonton in 1990 with 3000 athletes and most recently was held in Cowichan (British Columbia) in 2008, with over 9000 participants. (See http://www.cowichan2008.com/ for more information). In addition, the NHL has had on their roster Aboriginal sportsmen the like of Ted Nolan, Wayne "Gino" Odjick, Jordan Tootoo, Jonathan Cheechoo, and Chris Simon.

Sports I wanted to start with our athletes especially since Canadians in general are passionate about sport. Here we see a photo of Tom Longboat, from the Six Nations Reserve, who won the Boston Marathon in 1907 and the World’s Professional Marathon Championship in 1909 (Kidd, 1980). Tom Longboat’s contribution to Canadian identity is significant because he was recognized internationally and early on in the history of this country as a marathon runner with talent a unique style of running. There are other Aboriginal athletes who have made a name for Canada over the years, including Alwyn Morris, a Mohawk from Kahnawake who won an Olympic gold medal for pairs kayaking (with Hugh Fisher) in 1984. There were also the Firth sisters (Shirley and Sharon), twins from the Gwich’in First Nation in Aklavik near Inuvik, who represented Canada in cross-country skiing for four consecutive Olympic Games from 1972 to 1984. And there is the major contribution of the sport of lacrosse, which originated with Canada’s First Nations people.

Finally, the upcoming Winter Olympics 2010 in Vancouver uses the Inukshuk as the symbol of Canadian identity in promoting the Games. The Inukshuk derives from Inuit people, and its original purpose was to act as a marker for those lost in the Arctic enabling them to find their bearings, and sometimes to lead the way to good hunting.

Men from the Mohawk Nation from Kahnawake (Caughnawaga) who were the Canadian lacrosse champions in 1869. Credit: James Inglis (photographer) / Library and Archives Canada / C-001959

Athletics was a way of life for our ancestors who lived our Mother Earth hunting, trapping and fishing. Below is an image of our people on the Prairies snowshoeing and using archery to hunt the buffalo. Enukso (Inukshuk), Mar. 11, 1924. Credit: L.T. Burwash (photographer) / Canada. Dept. of Indian and Northern Affairs / Library and Archives Canada / PA-176566

Natural Resources and Trade Another Aboriginal contribution to Canadian society was the economics of trading natural resources evidenced by early reports (discussed by Dickason, 1984) of the abundance of food and other resources upon the arrival of the newcomers. The bounty of wild game and birds, fish and especially agricultural products (including corn, root vegetables and berries) across the land has been documented (Parker, 1983; Kuhnlein & Turner,

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.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

BOOKS, ART & POETRY 1991; Peacock, 1998; McClurken, 2000; Zarrillo & Kooyman, 2006). It has been widely acknowledged that if not for this abundance of resources, the newcomers would not have stayed due to the harsh weather conditions in winter; neither would they have survived without the assistance and generosity provided by the Indigenous peoples.

The bounty that was available to the newcomers was largely due to the Indigenous peoples close ties to the land, taking their role as stewards of the land seriously. The way of life and uneven distribution of resources necessitated strong reciprocal relationships conducive to trade and commerce. This piece of documentary art suggests the industrious nature of an Aboriginal village settlement. A sense of bounty as a result of successful trade relations is depicted.

Below is a sketch of some of the plant life encountered by the newcomers not too long after contact. Included in these botanical studies is a drawing of blueberries, known for their high content of Vitamin C and possibly used for medicinal properties to counter symptoms of scurvy (although some attribute this benefit to a tea made from boiling white cedar needles and bark). Other plants depicted here, such as Larch (treatment for coughs by the Abenaki and Algonquins) and Service Tree (used by the Cree for treating inflammatory diseases and pleurisy), were also medicinal in nature (see Moerman, 1998).

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

Below is a photo of a successful fishing catch on the Northwest Coast (Vancouver Island), suggesting the bounty of this way of life. It is reminiscent of the gift-giving that was (and is) so much a part of trading life and of the potlatch ceremony that celebrated the rich resource base that West coast Indigenous peoples enjoyed and share with newcomers..

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

In addition, trade relationships were strong on the Prairies, with the establishment of countless Hudson Bay and Northwest Company 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 date 1665 or 1744. Credit: Library and Archives Canada / BibilothĂ¨que et Archives Canada (R9266-2593) Peter Winkworth Collection of Canadiana

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

BOOKS, ART & POETRY Carlton, Fort Edmonton, Fort Chipewyan, etc.), throughout this vast region. Below is a photo of Chief Big Bear and trade partners at Fort Pitt, N.W.T. (now Saskatchewan).

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 the trade was the canoe, especially given its ease of use on both water and land, such as by way of portaging. Despite its lightweight nature, the canoe could carry several times its weight in cargo. The making of birchbark canoes was especially ingenuous because "the bark of the birch is capable of sophisticated shaping into elegant and sophisticated forms…Unlike many other barks, birchbark does not shrink or stretch and is remarkably strong (Jennings, 2002, p. 15). Not only did the First Nations perfect the design and construction of various types of canoes (depending on their geographic location and the types of water they faced, i.e. ocean vs. river), they also perfected its navigation through rough waters. This piece of documentary art captures the skill attributed to the Mi’kmaq people in navigating a canoe in dangerous circumstances.

Mistahi Muskwa (Big Bear ca. 1825-1888), a Plains Cree Chief trading. 1884. At Fort Pitt. Included are (left to right): Four Sky Thunder, Okemow Peeayis (Sky Bird, Big Bear’s third son), Matoose (seated), Napasis, Mistahi Muskwa (Big Bear), Otto Dufresne, 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.

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

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 Archives Canada, Acc. No. R9266-302 Peter Winkworth Collection of Canadiana.

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.

Marine shells, copper and obsidian were also traded widely across 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 "Alligator Dance" originated and was brought to the Mohawks, and has recently been practiced on Mohawk reserves, such as at Kahnawake (Heth, 1992).

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

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 Special Collections.

In the West, the Red River cart was also used, mostly by the Métis, in transporting furs. The Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island were at first considered necessary partners in the development of the fur trade. After all,

BOOKS, ART & POETRY the Europeans who arrived to exploit the fur trade were neither interested in nor capable of navigating the landscape or trapping the animals (primarily the beaver). The newcomers served only as business partners or entrepreneurs who depended on the Indigenous peoples to supply the furs. This engraved image demonstrates this partnership.

1949 creation date for Aboriginal contributions to the arts. It seems that even though our people have always been producing art, we have not been recognized for it until recently (for example, James Houston’s assistance with promoting Inuit art only began about 1949). Online photos of Inuit artists are available with a copyright date starting approximately in the 1950s. However, our Inuit art is renowned worldwide: when the world thinks of Canadian art, they mostly think of Inuit art. In the Foreword to van Finckenstein’s book, Adrienne Clarkson states, "[Inuit art] is also an art that has so successfully transcended artistic and cultural boundaries that it has come to represent the very essence of Canada. I remember a time – not so long ago- when the only art that seemed to identify Canada without question was either by the Group of Seven or by Inuit artist Kenojuak Ashevak, Peter Pitseolak, Piseolak Ashoona, Lucy Qinnuyuak, 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 world invited to paint a memorial work of Picasso for exhibition at the Picasso Museum in Antibes, France, in 1986. Likewise, Anishnabe artist, Rebecca Belmore, represented Canada at the Venice Biennale in 2005.

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

In terms of contemporary trade, Aboriginal entrepreneurship is an exciting and growing sector, with some notable successes such as the Canadian Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers (CANDO) founded in 1990 for Economic Development Officers (EDOs) in communities. There are also growing numbers of academic and community partnerships related to local entrepreneurship, such as Findlay & Wuttunee’s research related to women’s community economic development. In addition, Aboriginal tourism has recently become one of the fastest growing sectors of the Canadian economy. For instance, in 2005 Aboriginal tourism in B.C. was $35 million annually and is expected to grow to over $50 million annually by 2012 (Aboriginal Tourism Association of British Columbia, 2005).

Our Aboriginal authors, poets and writers are also doing their part to contribute to a much richer Canadian literature scene that is appreciated by mainstream audiences (including Tomson Highway’s plays and Thomas King’s CBC Massey Lecture series). 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 contributions include what so many communities are doing for Aboriginal education (such as new publications written by Aboriginal authors aimed at mainstream Aboriginal Studies curriculum in high schools), justice initiatives (including sentencing circles and restorative justice programs), and various self-governance initiatives (the most successful of which is the establishment of the new Territory of Nunavut and its government, which is based on Inuit culture, traditions and values).

Conclusion This pictorial essay has briefly explored some of the areas where Aboriginal peoples have so richly contributed to Canadian society and identity. It would have been ideal to be able to discuss at length other areas where we have made outstanding contributions; however, I was limited to some extent by the nature of this essay and the need to respect copyright and thus to incorporate images from within a certain time frame, where the images’ copyright had expired.

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

For instance, there are no archival photos that were readily accessible online that meet the copyright-expired criteria of a pre-

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

BOOKS, ART & POETRY All our relations. Hay hay / Meegwech / Thank you for your contributions. I honour our ancestors for their courage in surviving the enforced hardship of the past and for passing down our cultural knowledge, traditions and values.

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

References Aboriginal 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/home Dickason, 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 Shirley Firth. 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 the American 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 Books Zarrillo, 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.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

BOOKS, ART & POETRY Justice as Healing: Indigenous Ways David Milward, University of Minnesota Press ISSN: 1533-7901 Justice as Healing is a compilation of articles that explores in detail the use of restorative justice to address the present-day plight of Indigenous peoples. It is difficult to provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book, since many of its themes are interwoven through many places. The articles are all nonetheless bound together by a central and coherent thesis. The starting point is the fact of colonialism over Indigenous peoples, both historical and present.

Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods Shawn Wilson, Fernwood Publishing ISBN: 1-55266-281-0 Indigenous researchers are knowledge seekers who work to progress Indigenous ways of being, knowing and doing in a modern and constantly evolving context. This book describes a research paradigm shared by Indigenous scholars in Canada and Australia, and demonstrates how this paradigm can be put into practice. Relationships don’t just shape Indigenous reality, they are our reality. Indigenous researchers develop relationships with ideas in order to achieve enlightenment in the ceremony that is Indigenous research. Indigenous research is the ceremony of maintaining accountability to these relationships. For researchers to be accountable to all our relations we must make careful choices in our selection of topics, methods of data collection, and forms of analysis and finally in the way we present information.

Indigenous Diplomacy and the Rights of Peoples: Achieving UN Recognition James Youngblood Henderson Purich Press ISBN: 1895830354 Despite centuries of sustained attacks against their collective existence, Indigenous peoples represent over 5,000 languages and cultures in more than 70 nations on six continents. Most have retained social, cultural, economic, and political characteristics distinct from other segments of national 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 generationlong struggle that led ultimately to the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the United Nations General Assembly. Henderson puts the Declaration and the struggles of Indigenous peoples in a wider context, outlining the rise of international law and how it was shaped by European ideas, the rise 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 on Indigenous peoples. He concludes with his view of what must be done to give the Declaration its full force for Indigenous peoples around the world, and what it means for Canada. The full text of the Declaration and selected excerpts of other key international agreements are included.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

BOOKS, ART & POETRY First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law: Case Studies, Voices, and Perspectives (Law and Society) Catherine Bell, UBC Press ISBN: 0774814616 First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law is the first of two interdisciplinary volumes exploring First Nations perspectives on cultural heritage and issues of reform within and beyond Western law. Written in plain language and in collaboration with First Nation partners, it contains seven case studies featuring Indigenous concepts, legal orders, and encounters with legislation and negotiations; a national review essay; three chapters reflecting on major themes; and a self-reflective critique on the challenges of collaborative and intercultural research. It will be of interest to Indigenous communities and their leaders, museum personnel and other cultural heritage professionals, academics and students, government 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 other Indigenous peoples. Beyond this audience, it will be of interest to cultural heritage professionals; academics and students; government workers; treaty negotiators; lawyers; and others who work with or are interested in First Nations cultural heritage.

Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada Patrick 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 that the 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 territories; and participation in treaty-making with the Crown. These four factors constitute Indigenous difference. In the Canadian constitutional context, Macklem argues that these differences do not challenge the ideal of equality. The protection of these differences within the constitution promotes equality and maintains the ideal of justice. Chapters cover culture, territory, sovereignty, treaties, self-government and other rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the social, fiscal and institutional obligations, and contemporary treaty process, including the Nisgaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;a. This book should interest anyone involved in Indigenous rights, self-government, treaties, and the Canadian Constitution.

The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative (Indigenous Americas) Thomas King, University of Minnesota Press ISBN: 978-0-8166-4627-2 In The Truth About Stories, Native novelist and scholar Thomas King explores how stories shape who we are and how we understand and interact with other people. From creation stories to personal experiences, historical anecdotes to social injustices, racist propaganda to works of contemporary Native literature, King probes Native culture's deep ties to storytelling. With wry humor, King deftly weaves events from his own life as a child in California, an academic in Canada, and a Native North American with a wide-ranging discussion of stories told by and about Indians. So many stories have been told about Indians, King comments, that "there is no reason for the Indian to be real. The Indian simply has to exist in our imaginations." That imaginative Indian that North Americans hold dear has been challenged 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."

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

BOOKS, ART & POETRY Treaty Rights in the Constitution of Canada James (Sakej) Youngblood Henderson, J.D. Carswell Publishing ISBN: 978-0-7798-1322-3 This new book structures and comprehensively discusses the treaty rights recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It reviews negotiations and treaty text, the principles of treaty interpretation, and case law on the treaty relationships, treaty tenure, treaty governance, and the treaty economy. Finally it reviews the principle of constitutional convergence with other parts of the constitution and comments on how to institutionally reconcile treaty rights with the rest of the constitution.

JOIN THE CRRF IN ELIMINATING RACISM IN CANADA DIRECTIONS: Research and Policy on Eliminating Racism/Recherche et politique sur lâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;elimination du racisme is 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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 institutions in helping DIRECTIONS to fulfill its vital mandate. For information about the levels of support, please contact: Canadian Race Relations Foundation 4576 Yonge St., Ste. 701 Toronto ON M2N 6N4 1-888-240-4936 info@crr.ca

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

TRENDS

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

Abstract Indigenous law passed down to Indigenous Peoples is based on respect for the spirits of the land and the ancestors who have kept the territory. Within our legal systems, Indigenous Peoples have allowed nonindigenous people to enter into our territories and to use our resources. Colonization has resulted in occupation, pollution and a destroyed the Creation. At a more deadly level than the destruction is the denial that our territories belong to us. The underpinning of the denial is that Indigenous Peoples are not "civilized". Peoples need to be civilized to own their territories. This extreme and systemic racism is spoken and used everyday by the colonizers. Under the international legal norms of decolonization, Indigenous Peoples have never had the chance to decolonize. Canada and the other states of the Americas are colonial states. The Supreme Court has defined aboriginal title ("right to the land itself") and has described how Indigenous Peoples must go about proving our ownership. In Canada, there is a legal industry designed to keep Indigenous Peoples in the courts trying to "prove" their aboriginal title to their own territory. "Racism has historically been a banner to justify the enterprises of expansion, conquest, colonization and domination and has walked hand in hand with intolerance, injustice and violence." – Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Nobel Peace Prize Winner (1992) Résumé La loi autochtone repose sur le respect des esprits de la terre et des ancêtres qui ont sauvegardé le territoire. Au sein de nos systèmes de droit, les peuples autochtones ont permis aux non-Autochtones d’entrer sur leurs territoires et de profiter de leurs ressources. La colonisation a amené l’occupation, la pollution et a détruit la Création. Le refus d’admettre que nos territoires nous appartiennent est

plus vicié que la destruction. Cette dénégation s’appuie sur l’assertion que les peuples autochtones ne sont pas « civilisés ». Les peuples doivent être civilisés pour posséder leurs territoires. Ce racisme extrême et systémique, les colonisateurs l’expriment et s’en servent tous les jours. Selon les normes juridiques internationales de la décolonisation, les peuples autochtones n’ont jamais eu la chance de se décoloniser. Le Canada et d’autres États dans les Amériques sont des États coloniaux. La Cour Suprême a défini le titre aborigène (« le droit au territoire lui-même ») et a décrit ce que les peuples autochtones doivent faire pour prouver ce droit. Au Canada, il existe une industrie juridique dont la raison d’être est de garder les Autochtones devant les tribunaux à « prouver » leur titre ancestral à leur propre territoire. « Le racisme a été, dans l'histoire, une bannière pour justifier les entreprises d'expansion, de conquête, de colonisation et de domination, et il a fonctionné de pair avec l'intolérance, l'injustice et la violence. » Rigoberta Menchu Tum, lauréate du Prix Nobel de la Paix (1992) Introduction When I travel into another territory, I leave tobacco or a small gift to the spirits of that territory. It is an Indigenous law passed down to Indigenous Peoples1 by our ancestors. The law is based on respect for the spirits of the land and the ancestors who have kept the territory. The law is based on sharing. Indigenous Nations have shared our territories and resources with everyone. It is not part of our laws to deny anyone the right to live. As humans, we do not posses that right. Within our legal systems, Indigenous Peoples have allowed non-indigenous people to enter into our territories and to use our resources. 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 subjects of international law rather than objects of international law. In the mid 1980's, a political decision was taken in Geneva, Switzerland by the representatives of Indigenous Nations to always refer to ourselves as "Indigenous Peoples" with the capitals and with the "s" on Peoples. "All Peoples have a right to self-determination" is the start of the first clause in the international covenants. (Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). 2 Erica –Irene Daes, "Working Paper on combating racism against indigenous peoples" UN DOC A/CONF.189/PC.3/4

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

About the Author Sharon Helen Venne (Old Woman Bear) is Cree, but through marriage, a citizen of the Blood Tribe in Treaty Seven. She has played an active role in the national and international struggles of many Indigenous Peoples, including the Lubicon Cree and Dene Nation. Sharon has a Masters of Law degree from the University of Alberta.

Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples peoples living by our laws? The colonizer has come into our territories, occupied, polluted and destroyed the Creation. At a more deadly level than the destruction is the denial that our territories belong to us. There has been an attempt to undermine our gift from the Creation by contending that we do not own our territories and resources. The foundation of this argument goes back to the arrival of Columbus to the Americas. The underpinning of the denial is that Indigenous Peoples are not "civilized". Peoples need to be civilized to own their territories. This extreme and systemic racism is spoken and used everyday by the colonizers. Indigenous Peoples are not inferior to the colonizers. Racism is when one group believes they are superior to another race. In the case of Indigenous Peoples, the colonizers believe that we cannot own our lands and territories. This is racism. Colonizers do not question this racism. It is the norm among the colonizers. Systemic racism is rooted in this thinking. As former chair of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, Madame Erica Irene Daes wrote: "Racism is often the reason why indigenous territories are targeted for invasion by other groups; racism is also often the reason why indigenous Peoples are denied access to effective remedies. In this way, racism leads to a vicious circle of dispossession, inaction on the part of public authorities and further dispossession. Dispossession results in extreme poverty amongst Indigenous Peoples, which in turn intensifies the racism directed against them. The land problem and the problem of racism must be addressed together; they are the same problem."2

had the chance to decolonize. Canada and the other states of the 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 are very forceful denials by the colonizers. By denying ownership of our territories the resultant ills from massacres, forced relocations, death by starvation and disease has been the experience of Indigenous Peoples. The colonizers believe that there is a legal right to wage attacks on our Peoples and lands. There are many words to give "legal sanction" to the process: laws of discovery, conquest, and terra nullius are all words of dispossession. To this day, Canada maintains that all the lands that are not ‘private lands’ are ‘crown lands’. How did the Crown acquire our lands and territories? Indigenous Peoples are expected to accept that the Crown has underlying title to our lands. Where did these ideas originate? The colonizers call our homelands: the Americas. America is a name that came from an Italian map maker. It is not a word from our Indigenous languages. The colonizers have changed the names of our mountains, lakes, rivers and places. Recently, there was a suggestion on the west coast of Great Turtle Island to change the name of a strait back to the Indigenous name, one that had been there for thousands of years. The colonizers were very vocal in their dissent. The original name is ignored and a new name or image is imposed on the lands and territories. How many people can remember the original name of the areas around Montreal or Ottawa? For example, what was the original name of the St. Lawrence?

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

Renaming and rewriting laws began with Columbus finding himself in our territories. The arrival of the non-indigenous people to our territories started a process of displacement and colonization of our territories as stated by Rigoberta Menchu Tum. She has been involved in the struggle of the Mayan Peoples to have their territories returned to them. There have been wars in her territory as the colonizers want to retain control over the lands and territories. The settlement of the Americas has been a story of death and destruction. One of the most creative colonization tools is to assert that the underlying title of our territories vests in the Crown (Government of Canada). This is a well known colonial myth. Our territories were seen by the non-indigenous people and became their property. That the Crown wants Indigenous Peoples to prove our own occupation and use of our territories is ludicrous. The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a test. The

It is a historical fact that colonizers arrived on the shores of Great Turtle Island to lands owned and used by Indigenous Nations. This fact was ignored by the colonizers in their attack on our territories. Indigenous Peoples of Great Turtle Island4 are the owners of our territories. The colonizer states of the Americas claim our territory as their own. It is an ongoing aspect of racism that denies Indigenous Peoples our territories. This is the heart of the issue: Indigenous Peoples have been colonized and continue to be colonized. Under the international legal norms of decolonization, Indigenous Peoples have never

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

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples Supreme Court has defined aboriginal title ("right to the land itself") and has described how Indigenous Peoples must go about proving our ownership.

lowing Columbus first voyage, Inter Caetera recognized the Christian domination over the "new world". Despite numerous attempts by Indigenous Peoples, these two papal bulls remain in force. There is a need by the colonizers to hang onto these two papal bulls to give themselves the mantel of legitimacy in the Americas. As Robert Williams writes: The principle of white racial superiority asserted by the doctrine of discovery and validated by the Supreme Court (of the USA) in Johnson was part of the colonial-era law of European Law of Nations…That "principle" of white racial superiority under European international law...was embodied in the doctrine of discovery.6

Aboriginal title is a right to the land itself…First, under the test for aboriginal title, the requirement that the land be integral to the distinctive culture of the claimants is subsumed by the requirement of occupancy. Second, whereas the time for the identification of aboriginal rights is the time of first contact, the time for identification of aboriginal title is the time at which the Crown asserted sovereignty over the land…In order to establish a claim to aboriginal title, the aboriginal group asserting the claim must establish that it occupied the lands in question at the time at which the Crown asserted sovereignty over the land subject to the title…Aboriginal title is a burden on the Crown’s underlying title...Under common law, the act of occupation or possession is sufficient to ground aboriginal title and it is not necessary to prove that the land was a distinctive or integral part of the aboriginal society before the arrival of Europeans. Finally, the date of sovereignty is more certain than the date of first contact.5

The problem with the doctrine of discovery under customary international law is that the law was not to apply to Indigenous Peoples or our territory. It applied to European powers. For example, Portugal saw "Brazil" first rather than the Spanish thus Portugal colonized the area. The state should have used its own legal system to make arrangements with Indigenous Peoples. It did not. The underlying assumption was that Indigenous Peoples were to be exploited because we were not Christians. As nonChristians, our territories were consumed by colonization. The whole doctrine of discovery was racist in its inception and continues to emphasize that Indigenous Peoples need to prove our rights to our own lands. At the same time, Indigenous Peoples are not permitted to question the underlying title of the Crown. Let me cite two recent examples of states like Canada not wanting to recognize the rights of the Indigenous Peoples.

This is the "test" which the Supreme Court of Canada has laid down for Indigenous Peoples who want to prove aboriginal title through the Canadian legal system. It was the first time the proof for aboriginal title has been defined by the highest court in the colonial state of Canada. Under the test, the Supreme Court defined aboriginal title ("right to the land itself") and described how Indigenous Peoples must go about proving we have it. The test can be done in two ways: firstly, oral histories can be used to prove occupancy of our land and the colonial courts will be giving us as much weight as written records; secondly, the time for proof of occupancy is when the Crown asserted sovereignty over our Indigenous Peoples’ territory. The test as set out does not question the "crown asserted sovereignty" over the land.

Durban Declaration At the World Conference Against Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (WCAR), a declaration approved by the conference contains two clauses related to Indigenous Peoples and our rights under international law. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the final declaration are very telling. In reading these two paragraphs, remember that the conference was focused on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination. 23.We fully recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples consistent with the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, and therefore stress the need to adopt the appropriate constitutional, administrative, legislative and judicial measures, including those derived from applicable international instruments; 24.We declare that the use of the term "Indigenous Peoples" in the Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance is in the context of,

Doctrine of Discovery In order to justify the occupancy of Indigenous territory following the voyages of Columbus, there was an appeal to the earthly judge – the catholic pope. With the assistance of Portugal and Spain, there were two papal bulls enacted to give legitimacy to the process. These papal bulls enacted by Pope Nicholas V are: Romanus Pontifex in 1452 and Inter Caetera in 1493. The first Papal Bull allowed war to be waged against all non-Christians throughout the world. This particular papal bull allowed for and promoted conquest, colonization and exploitation of nonChristians 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.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples and without prejudice to the outcome of ongoing international negotiations on texts that specifically deal with this issue, and cannot be constituted as having any implications as the rights under international law; In a closer examination of the language of the Declaration, it is clear that the rights of Indigenous Peoples are inferior to all other rights. The states present at the conference agreed that the use of the term does not have any implication within international law. While all other Peoples of the world have rights under various international legal instruments, Indigenous Peoples are singled out for special treatment. The rights of Indigenous Peoples are within the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The concept of discovery is still alive and well within the international legal community and a conference to end racism and racial discrimination encoded the racism within its final declaration and Programme of action. This language in international legal circles is not new, look at the Papal Bulls then look at the International Labour Organization (ILO). When the ILO was reviewing their convention 107 in 1988 and 1989, the final convention 169 included an asterisk at end of the page which made reference to Indigenous Peoples. The asterisk was along the same lines as the wording in the Durban Declaration. The ILO revised convention was in 1989 and the Durban Declaration was in 2001.

declaration contains many clauses related to land, territories and the relationship that Indigenous Peoples have with the land. It might be five hundred and sixteen years since Columbus but our struggle for our lands and territories continues. As Madame Daes wrote in her paper on combating racism against Indigenous Peoples: At the present time, States that expropriate Indigenous Peoples’ lands without consent or full compensation, or condone the invasion of Indigenous Peoples’ territories are reaping an unfair competitive advantage in relation to States that respect Indigenous Peoples’ land rights. They are subsidizing their export industries with Indigenous Peoples’ natural resources. This is potentially a considerable trade distortion, as well as an abuse of Indigenous Peoples’ basic rights and fundamental freedoms. Conclusion Racism comes in many guises. The most difficult to fight are the ones against Indigenous Peoples. In Canada, there is a legal industry designed to keep Indigenous Peoples in the courts trying to "prove" their aboriginal title to their own territory. The government of Canada does not want to reach settlements of land issues until Indigenous Peoples "extinguish" our rights to our own territories. The whole issue of extinguishment means that Indigenous Peoples do own our lands. If you did not own your lands why would the state require Indigenous Peoples to extinguish? Now, Canada has a modified language related to extinguishment after the United Nations slapped its hands. The end result did not change. The language was made more subtle. There is still a requirement for extinguishment of rights to lands and territories. Without this clause, the state of Canada will not resolve issues related to lands and territories. At the same time, Indigenous Peoples cannot ask for proof of the "crown’s underlying title". Therein is the heart of racism. Different rules for different people. Indigenous Peoples are still treated as second class Peoples on Great Turtle Island.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples In 1977, Indigenous Peoples of the Americas approached the United Nations to deal with our land and resource rights. As a result of the work of Indigenous Peoples and supporters, the United Nations took up the issues related to Indigenous Peoples with the establishment of a Working Group (WGIP) in 1982. As part of the work of the WGIP, the experts were to develop international standards. During the next few years along with the work of Indigenous Peoples, a Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples was developed. This declaration after many years was finally accepted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007. It is noted that Canada and the United States refused to accept the Declaration. The hard fought

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

TRENDS

Polidiscrimination Kiera L. Ladner, Ph.D.

Abstract The political discrimination of Indigenous peoples and the obstacles that they encounter in today’s society from a political perspective clearly reveals how the Federal government through its policy development has been actively destroying Indigenous peoples and their traditional ways of government. Elimination of Indigenous sovereignty, government and constitutional orders by the governments past and present and replacing it with so-called civilized government is detrimental to Indigenous people who continue to fight for self government so that they can rebuild Indigenous governments and sovereignty and end systemic discrimination. Today, it is quite widely recognized that the American federal system shares its roots with the Haudenosaunee constitutional order (Johansen, 1982, 1990, 1998; Barreiro, 1992; Young, 2000). Increasingly, it is also being recognized that Enlightenment political philosophers such as Rousseau, Locke and Marx borrowed from and/or were inspired by their knowledge of Indigenous political traditions as gleaned from the writings of adventurers, missionaries and explorers (Gillespie, 1920; Weatherford, 1988). This recognition has been a long time coming and continues to be the source of much debate as people struggle with the very idea that the so-called civilized people borrowed from and/or were inspired by the so-called savages (Sanford, 1961; Flanagan, 2000). Further, people struggle with this idea of influence because of the discrimination, violence and destruction that happened after the so-called civilized people borrowed from, stole from and/or were inspired by Indigenous political traditions (both philosophical and governmental) (Johansen, 1998). Despite the continued state of political amnesia or the widespread reluctance to examine the political history of the early Americas, it is important to understand that Indigenous polities were recog-

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

nized and dealt with as nations with their own political systems from the start and that these political systems and Indigenous political philosophies were often admired and borrowed from. It is equally important to understand that that once it suited their interests, the colonizers broke with the treaties and with their own traditions and laws which respected other constitutional orders (local co-autonomous jurisdictions) and required nationto-nation relations with Indigenous nations (Ladner, 2003; Henderson, 2006). Hence the federal government set out on a path to destroy these nations and their governments. In so doing, the Canadian government engaged in acts of political genocide and institutionalized the systemic discrimination of Indigenous political systems (this continues to define the Aboriginal policy paradigm). This historical disjuncture which saw colonialism morph into a relationship characterized by oppression and domination spread following the War of 1812 as Indigenous nations began to loose their ‘utility’ as allies (military and trade) and lands were secured. Colonial governments enacted new policies and practices (initially in eastern Canada and subsequently throughout the country), which led to the establishment and institutionalization of a new relationship based upon principles of inequality and subjugation (Milloy, 1990). In part, these changes resulted from the racialization of the relationships between the colonizer and the colonized as Darwin and Spencer's theories of scientific racism and the 'dying race' gained credibility and importance. Moreover, "the transition in the relationship was also pushed by the western belief in 'progress' and in the evolutionary development in human beings to lesser to greater states of civilization" (RCAP, Vol.1, 1996: 142). Accordingly, the historical disjuncture occurred, in part, because of a European superiority complex; a complex or ideology justified on the basis of religion, technology, scientific racism, a teleological

About the Author Kiera L. Ladner is an Assistant Professor and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Politics and Governance in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba and is a former student of Jill Vickers (Ph.D. 2001). Her research interests include: treaty constitutionalism, Indigenous theory and methodology, decolonization, constitutional politics, Indigenous governance (‘traditional’, Indian Act and self-government) and social movements. Her current community based research into constitutional reconciliation and decolonization attempts to create deeper understanding both within communities and between Indigenous nations and colonial societies in Canada and Hawaii.

Polidiscrimination belief in history. Schouls, Olthuis and Engelstad explain how this presumed superiority was used to justify the abandonment of principles of treaty federalism and the transformation of the nation-to-nation relationship. They state: Early settlers believed that they were more advanced as a society than Aboriginal peoples. … It seemed obvious that the "New World" was destined to become another Europe … believing themselves to be culturally and morally superior, the settlers could justify action to "improve" the land and "enlighten" the people. … The ability of Canadians to justify the innumerable documented acts of injustice against Aboriginal peoples on the grounds that European culture was more "modern" and thus "superior" stands as a legacy of the distortion still reflected in today’s relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples (Schouls et al, 2002:15).

Instead it was a policy that institutionalized the systemic discrimination of Indigenous governments, and like other acts of injustice this too was justified on the basis of the supposed European superiority. But the federal government did not just discriminate against Indigenous governments to the extent that it ignored Indigenous sovereignty or sought to transform Indigenous constitutional orders in terms of both jurisdictions claimed and the system of government itself. The federal government took discrimination one step further, in that they called for the outright destruction of another nations’ government and advocated regime replacement - replacing inclusive, consensual and democratic Indigenous political systems with the undemocratic and unrepresentative system of the colonizers. Arguably, the practice of ‘civilizing government’ resulted in the replacement of a more ‘civilized’ form of government. This is the case because of the fact that many Indigenous nations, such as the Haudenosaunee and the Blackfoot Confederacy, had developed complex democratic political systems (Ladner, 2001). Most of these political systems were consensual and were predicated on the belief that everyone (including women), was to be represented in the decision-making process and in the decision itself. Meanwhile, colonial governments and their European counterparts were fairly unrepresentative and undemocratic in 1876. These so-called democracies excluded those who were not considered ‘persons’ (women and people of colour), and those who were deemed as ‘unworthy’ (the majority of men or the landless, working class).

This new paradigm culminated in the Indian Act of 1876 and its underlying goals of protection, civilization and assimilation (Tobias, 1991). In pursuing their goals, the federal government set forth on a mission of political genocide. By political genocide I am referring to the federal government’s policies and practices which were designed to eliminate Indigenous sovereignty, Indigenous governments and Indigenous constitutional orders (Ladner, 2003). The idea was that Indigenous forms of governance were to be eliminated by the federal government and replaced by ‘civilized’ governments. These ‘civilized’ governments - the band council system - were modeled after municipalities with very limited scope and delegated authority. Band councils were created primarily to serve as puppet governments of the federal government and were charged with the responsibility of providing local administration for Indian Affairs. One should note that the framers of the Canada’s Indian policy thought that the band council system of government would provide Indigenous peoples with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with ‘civilized’ government and to practice governing themselves (Ladner, 2003; Tobias, 1990). Their idea was that once enough experience had been gained, Indigenous peoples would cease being Indians under the terms of the Indian Act and First Nations would be granted ‘self-government’ by way of remodeling band councils as regular municipal governments (just like other municipalities which fall under the jurisdiction of provincial governments) (Ladner & Orsini, 2005).

No longer were Indigenous governments or the traditional leadership tolerated. Instead, the federal government actively pursued replacement by any means - including the ‘murder’ of Chief Jack Fire at Akwesasne in 1899 where the RCMP were deployed to dispose of the Haudenosaunee government (Mitchell, 1989:118). Once replaced, the systemic discrimination of Indigenous governments did not end. Canada continued to ignore Indigenous sovereignty by limiting the abilities of Indian Act band councils and subjecting them to the authoritative powers of the colonial administration. To this day, Indian Act chiefs and councils are only permitted to govern in areas of insignificance by passing by-laws concerning issues such as the use of buildings, noxious weeds, bee keeping and poultry raising (Canada, 1985). It must be emphasized that while band councils are allowed to govern in these areas of insignificance, their ability to govern is limited by and completely dependent on the colonial administration, which retains all powers of disallowance. Until the 1960s, the inferiority and dependency of Indian Act band councils was accentuated by the fact that all power on reserves was wielded by Indian Agents -

It needs to be understood that the Indian Act did not create a system of government (Indian Act Band Councils) for peoples that had not already developed their own structures of governance, laws and political traditions. It was not a neutral policy.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Polidiscrimination delegates of the Minister of Indian Affairs. Further, most band councils did not even have a copy of the Act and none had the ability to hire lawyers or consultants to assist them in governing. Even today, the colonial government exercises vast power over inferior and dependent Indian Act band councils. For example, the Minister of Indian Affairs controls the electoral process, retains the power to dispose and replace a chief and council, defines and controls financial accountability, and retains the power to disallow all activities of the band council (and for that matter, every Indian). To summarize, the Indian Act not only institutionalized a regime of political genocide, but it created a system of institutionalized inferiority and institutionalized systemic discrimination whereby Indian Act band councils are dependent on and responsible to the federal government.

from the political process within their communities, Voyager’s work aptly demonstrates that Indigenous women are still confronted by systemic discrimination in political life (Voyageur, 2008). Indigenous governments (traditional governments) and Indian Act band councils also continue in a state of systemic discrimination. Despite the fact that traditional governments continue to exist and continue to claim a right to govern as defined by their own constitutional order and despite the fact that such governments are perceived as being the legitimate government by many (both individuals and communities), they continue to be denied as the state refuses to recognize such governments in intergovernmental relations, legal proceedings and in the governing of reserves. Thus, despite the continued activism and dedication of many pursuing recognition of, or simply continuing to govern using, Indigenous institutions and constitutions, little has changed with time as Canadian governments continue to act as though Indigenous peoples had no government prior to colonization and the establishment of ‘civilization’.

It is important to note that Canada not only discriminates against Indigenous governments and Indian Act band councils, but Indigenous women face double discrimination with respect to governance. Not only are the governments (whether as Indigenous governments and Indian Act band councils) of Indigenous women subject to discrimination by the state, but Indigenous women have a long history themselves of being discriminated as women under the imposed Indian Act system of governance. With the imposition of the Indian Act, women not only lost their traditional governments (as governments recognized by and active in relations with Canada) and their vital role within these political systems, they lost their role in government completely as the Indian Act formally excluded women from the political process until 1951 (Voyageur, 2008) while also denying them other essential rights such that ‘citizenship’ or status was vested in the male and thus could be lost upon marriage until 1985 and women continue to be denied property rights (Green 2001:729-737; Dick, 2006; Alcantara 2006). Further, the Indian Act, and its patriarchic provisions regarding such matters as status, political rights and property rights has resulted in an internalization of colonialism (to some degree or another) and this in turn has negatively impacted the standing of women in Indigenous communities while institutionalizing heteronormativity and masculinist ideas of Indigenous nationhood, sovereignty and politics (Smith, 2005). Thus while women are no longer formally excluded

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

But its not as though attaining some mark of ‘civilization’ has altered the way in which the government’s of Aboriginal peoples are systemically discriminated. Such that, though presumably all band councils have achieved that requisite level of civilization (having demonstrated success in using ‘civilized’ government), the Canadian government continues to treat band councils as inferior, dependent and subordinate ‘governments’ who are incapable of governing. Despite continued activism in a variety of arenas (political, legal, international and constitutional) and the fight for self-determination, little has changed as the federal government denies Indigenous peoples their inherent jurisdictions and autonomy and treats them instead 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 governments continue to push for self-government (not self-administration) citing this as a window of opportunity to recreate and/or rebuild Indigenous governments and to reconstruct Indigenous sovereignty thus ending the reign of the systemic discrimination of Indigenous governments.

Polidiscrimination References 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, JosĂŠ (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. 97-116 Flanagan, 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. 715-738 Henderson, 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. 279-290 Ladner, 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-Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University Press, 2005), pp. 185-203 Milloy, John S. The Plains Cree: Trade, Diplomacy, And War, 1780 To 1870, Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1990 Mitchell, 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: Irwin Publishing, 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).

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Tendances

Polidiscrimination Kiera L. Ladner, D.Ph.

Résumé La discrimination politique des peuples autochtones et les obstacles qu’ils rencontrent dans la société actuelle révèlent clairement que le gouvernement fédéral, dans son élaboration de politiques, a jusqu’à présent détruit effectivement les peuples autochtones et leur mode traditionnel de gouvernance. L’élimination de la souveraineté autochtone, de son droit de gouvernance et de son ordre constitutionnel par les gouvernements passés et actuels, et le mode de gouvernement soi-disant civilisé qui les a remplacés, sont profondément préjudiciables aux peuples autochtones qui continuent de lutter pour l’autonomie gouvernementale afin de reconstruire leur propre forme de gouvernement, obtenir leur souveraineté et mettre fin à la discrimination systémique. On reconnaît généralement de nos jours que le système fédéral américain partage ses racines avec l’ordre constitutionnel des Haudenosaunees (Johansen, 1982, 1990, 1998; Barreiro, 1992; Young, 2000). De plus en plus, on admet que les philosophes politiques du Siècle des lumières, dont Rousseau, Locke et Marx, se sont inspirés des traditions politiques autochtones, telles qu’ils les comprenaient des récits des aventuriers, des missionnaires ou des explorateurs (Gillespie, 1920; Weatherford, 1988). La reconnaissance de cette influence s’est longtemps fait attendre; les débats sont loin d’être terminés sur l’idée même que les peuples dit civilisés aient emprunté des peuples dit sauvages (Sanford, 1961; Flanagan, 2000). En outre, on éprouve toujours des difficultés à admettre que cette influence soit possible en raison de la discrimination, de la violence et de la destruction qui ont eu lieu après que les peuples dit civilisés ont emprunté ou volé les traditions politiques autochtones, tant philosophiques que gouvernementales, ou s’en sont inspirés (Johansen, 1998). Malgré l’état continu d’amnésie politique et le manque général d’empressement à étudier l’his-

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

toire politique des premiers Américains, il est important de comprendre que leurs organisations politiques étaient reconnues et traitées comme nations, qu’ils avaient leurs propres systèmes politiques et que ces systèmes politiques et les philosophies politiques autochtones faisaient souvent l’objet d’admiration et d’emprunt. Il est également important de voir que les colonisateurs, dès que cela servait leurs intérêts, violaient leurs traités et leurs propres traditions et lois, qui respectaient les autres ordres constitutionnels (compétences locales coautonomes), et les relations qui doivent régir les rapports de nation à nation lorsqu’ils traitaient avec des nations autochtones (Ladner, 2003; Henderson, 2006). Ce phénomène permet de comprendre pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral s’est mis, lui aussi, à détruire ces nations autochtones et leurs gouvernements. Ce faisant, le gouvernement canadien s’est livré à des actes de génocide politique et a institutionnalisé la discrimination systémique à l’égard des systèmes politiques autochtones. Ainsi se définit toujours le paradigme des politiques autochtones. L’abandon du régime de respect mutuel entre nations coïncidant avec la montée d’un colonialisme caractérisé par l’oppression et la domination a suivi la Guerre de 1812, qui a vu les nations autochtones cesser d’être utiles à leurs alliés canadiens, tant au niveau militaire que commercial, du fait que le territoire canadien était désormais protégé des invasions étrangères. Les gouvernements coloniaux ont adopté de nouvelles lois et pratiques, d’abord dans l’Est du Canada, ensuite dans tout le pays, qui ont abouti à l’établissement et à l’institutionnalisation d’une nouvelle relation fondée sur des principes d’inégalité et d’assujettissement (Milloy, 1990). Ces changements résultaient en partie de la racialisation des relations entre le colonisateur et le colonisé au fur et à mesure que Darwin et les théories de Spencer sur le racisme scientifique et le concept de « race moribonde » gagnaient en crédibilité et en importance. En

À propos de l’auteure : Kiera L. Ladner, D.Ph., est professeure adjointe et titulaire de la Chaire de recherche du Canada sur la politique et la gouvernance autochtones à la Faculté des sciences politiques de l’Université du Manitoba. Elle a étudié sous la direction de Jill Vickers (D.Ph. 2001). Ses recherches portent, notamment, sur le constitutionnalisme des traités, la théorie et méthodologie autochtones, la décolonisation, les politiques constitutionnelles, la gouvernance autochtone (traditionnelle, Loi sur les Indiens, autonomie gouvernementale) et les mouvements sociaux. La recherche communautaire à laquelle elle se consacre actuellement porte sur la réconciliation constitutionnelle et les tentatives de décolonisation; son étude vise à mieux faire comprendre ces approches et s’adresse à toutes les collectivités, notamment les nations autochtones et sociétés coloniales du Canada et d’Hawaï.

Polidiscrimination outre, « la transition que connaissait la relation était aussi motivée par la croyance occidentale dans le progrès et dans le développement évolutionnaire des êtres humains qui aurait pour effet de faire passer ces derniers d’un état de civilisation moins élevé à un état supérieur. » (CRPA, volume 1, 1996 : 142)

mêmes (Ladner, 2003; Tobias, 1990). Dès que les Autochtones auraient acquis suffisamment d’expérience, ils cesseraient d’être Indiens au sens de la Loi sur les Indiens, on conférerait alors aux Premières nations l’autonomie gouvernementale en faisant des conseils de bande des gouvernements municipaux, identiques aux autres municipalités relevant de la compétence provinciale (Ladner et Orsini, 2005).

Une rupture historique s’est donc produite, en partie en raison du complexe de supériorité européen, complexe ou idéologie qui se justifie par la religion, la technologie, le racisme scientifique et une croyance téléologique en l’histoire. Schouls, Olthuis et Engelstad expliquent la façon dont cette supériorité présumée a servi à justifier l’abandon des principes d’un fédéralisme axé sur les traités et la transformation de la relation de nation à nation. Selon eux : Les premiers colons croyaient qu’ils étaient d’un niveau de civilisation plus avancée que les Autochtones… Il semblait évident que le « Nouveau Monde » était destiné à devenir une autre Europe… se croyant culturellement et moralement supérieurs, 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 incalculable d’actes documentés d’injustice, commis contre les Autochtones au motif que la culture européenne était plus « moderne » et donc « supérieure », continue de se refléter encore de nos jours dans la distorsion de la relation entre les Autochtones et les non-Autochtones (Schouls et autres, 202:15)

Il faut comprendre que les Autochtones pour qui la Loi sur les Indiens créait un système de gouvernement, les conseils de bande, n’étaient pas des peuples démunis de structures de gouvernance, de lois et de traditions politiques. Il ne s’agissait pas d’une politique neutre. Il s’agissait plutôt d’une politique institutionnalisant la discrimination systémique des gouvernements autochtones, et comme d’autres actes injustes, cette politique était, elle aussi, justifiée par la supériorité présumée des Européens. Le gouvernement fédéral n’a pas seulement discriminé contre les gouvernements autochtones en ignorant leur souveraineté autochtone ou en tentant de transformer les ordres constitutionnels autochtones tant en ce qui a trait aux compétences qu’au système de gouvernement. Le gouvernement fédéral a porté la discrimination à un degré plus élevé en effectuant la destruction totale du gouvernement d’une autre nation et en prônant le remplacement d’un régime, en remplaçant les systèmes politiques inclusifs, consensuels et démocratiques des Autochtones par le système peu démocratique et non représentatif des colonisateurs.

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 le nom de Loi sur les Indiens - et à ses objectifs sous-jacents de protection, de civilisation et d’assimilation (Tobias, 1991). Dans la poursuite de ces objectifs, le gouvernement fédéral s’est lancé dans une mission de génocide politique. Par « génocide politique », j’entends les politiques et pratiques du gouvernement fédéral qui étaient conçues pour éliminer la souveraineté autochtone, les gouvernements autochtones et les ordres constitutionnels autochtones (Ladner, 2003). L’idée fondamentale était l’élimination des formes autochtones de gouvernance par le gouvernement fédéral et leur remplacement par des gouvernements « civilisés ». Ces gouvernements « civilisés », le système de conseil de bande, étaient calqués sur les municipalités, dont les compétences sont restreintes et l’autorité déléguée. Les conseils de bande avaient été créés essentiellement pour servir de gouvernements fantoches, chargés de fournir les services d’administration locale pour le compte des Affaires indiennes. On doit noter que les rédacteurs de la politique indienne du Canada croyaient que le système de conseils de bande donnerait aux Autochtones l’occasion de se familiariser avec le gouvernement « civilisé » et d’apprendre à se gouverner eux-

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 fait que 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 processus décisionnel et dans la décision elle-même. À cette époque, les gouvernements coloniaux et leurs homologues européens étaient peu représentatifs et peu démocratiques. Ces soi-disant démocraties excluaient ceux qu’elles ne considéraient pas comme des personnes, les femmes et les personnes de couleur, et ceux qu’elles jugeaient indignes, la majorité des hommes, les gens qui ne possédaient pas de biens fonciers ou les ouvriers. On ne tolérait plus les gouvernements autochtones ou les chefs traditionnels. Le gouvernement fédéral s’efforçait de les remplacer par tous les moyens disponibles, y compris l’ « assassinat » du Chef Jack Fire, à Akwesasne, en 1899, où on avait dépêché

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Polidiscrimination la GRC pour éliminer le gouvernement des Haudenosaunees (Mitchell, 1989:118). Le remplacement du système traditionnel ne signifiait pas la fin de la discrimination systémique des gouvernements autochtones. Le Canada continuait à faire fi de la souveraineté autochtone en restreignant les pouvoirs des conseils de bande établis en vertu de la Loi sur les Indiens et en les assujettissant aux pouvoirs autoritaires de l’administration coloniale. Encore aujourd’hui, les chefs et les conseils n’ont, selon la Loi sur les indiens, que le droit de gouverner dans des domaines de peu d’importance en passant des règlements sur des question comme l’affectation des bâtiments, les mauvaises herbes, l’apiculture et l’élevage de volaille (Canada, 1985). Il faut souligner que, même si les conseils de bande avaient le droit de gouverner dans des domaines d’importance mineure, leurs pouvoirs étaient limités et dépendaient entièrement de l’administration coloniale, qui détenait le pouvoir de désaveu. Jusqu’aux années 1960, l’infériorité et la dépendance des conseils de bande étaient accentuées par le fait que les agents des sauvages, délégués du ministre des Affaires indiennes, détenaient le pouvoir de gouverner les réserves. En outre, la plupart des conseils de bande n’avaient pas d’exemplaire de la Loi sur les Indiens et ne pouvaient retenir les services d’avocats ou de conseillers pour les aider à gouverner. Même de nos jours, le gouvernement colonial exerce de vastes pouvoirs sur les conseils de bande, qui sont des organismes inférieurs et subordonnés. Par exemple, le ministre des Affaires indiennes contrôle le processus électoral, conserve le pouvoir de destituer et remplacer un chef et un conseil, définit et contrôle la responsabilité financière et a le pouvoir de désavouer toute activité du conseil de bande, et, du reste, de tout Indien. En résumé, la Loi sur les Indiens n’a pas seulement institutionnalisé un régime de génocide politique, mais a créé un système d’infériorité et de discrimination systémique qui fait que les conseils de bande dépendent et relèvent du gouvernement fédéral.

tiques, mais aussi tout rôle dans le gouvernement autochtone, la Loi sur les Indiens les excluant du processus politique jusqu’en 1951 (Voyageur, 2008). On leur refusait même d’autres droits essentiels, comme celui de la « citoyenneté » et de statut personnel : elles pouvaient perdre ces droits en se mariant jusqu’en 1985 et elles sont toujours privées des droits de propriété (Green 2001:729-737; Dick, 2006; Alcantara 2006). Qui plus est, la Loi sur les Indiens et ses dispositions patriarcales sur des questions comme le statut personnel, les droits politiques et les droits de propriété ont eu pour résultat d’internaliser le colonialisme, à un degré plus ou moins grand, ce qui a eu pour effet, à son tour, d’avoir une incidence négative sur la position sociale des femmes dans les collectivités autochtones tout en institutionnalisant l’hétéronormativité et les idées masculines de nation, de souveraineté et de politique autochtone (Smith, 2005). Bien que les femmes ne soient plus officiellement exclues du processus politique au sein de leurs communautés, le travail de Voyageur démontre bien que les femmes autochtones font toujours face à une discrimination systémique dans la vie politique (Voyageur, 2008). Les gouvernements autochtones (les gouvernements traditionnels) et les conseils de bande établis en vertu de la Loi sur les Indiens continuent d’être soumis à une discrimination systémique. Bien que les gouvernements traditionnels continuent d’exister et de revendiquer le droit de gouverner selon leur propre ordre constitutionnel et bien que ces gouvernements soient perçus comme le gouvernement légitime par plusieurs, des personnes comme des collectivités, l’État continue de nier leur existence et de les reconnaître en matière de relations intergouvernementales, des procédures judiciaires et du gouvernement des réserves. Malgré l’activisme continu et le dévouement de plusieurs qui cherchent à obtenir la reconnaissance ou simplement à gouverner dans le cadre d’institutions autochtones et selon les constitutions autochtones, peu a changé. Les gouvernements canadiens continuent à agir comme si les Autochtones sont des peuples qui n’avaient pas de gouvernement avant la colonisation et la « civilisation ».

Il est important de noter que le Canada ne discrimine pas seulement contre les gouvernements autochtones et les conseils de bande, mais aussi contre les femmes autochtones qui doivent faire face à une double discrimination en matière de gouvernance. Non seulement les gouvernements, qu’il s’agisse de gouvernements autochtones ou de conseils de bande établis en vertu de la Loi sur les Indiens, sont victimes de discrimination de la part de l’État, mais les femmes, elles-mêmes, sont depuis longtemps objet de discrimination en tant que femmes dans le système de gouvernance imposé par la Loi sur les Indiens. Avec l’imposition de la Loi sur les Indiens, les femmes autochtones n’ont pas seulement perdu leurs gouvernements traditionnels, en tant que gouvernements reconnus par le Canada et ayant des relations avec lui, et leur rôle vital au sein de ces systèmes poli-

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Mais ce n’est pas comme si obtenir un certain niveau de « civilisation » ait changé quelque chose à la discrimination systémique 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 peuvent pratiquer une forme de gouvernement civilisé, le gouvernement canadien continue de les traiter comme des gouvernements inférieurs, dépendants et subordonnés, incapables de gouverner. Malgré un activisme continu en plusieurs domaines (politiques, juridiques, internationaux et constitu-

Polidiscrimination tionnels) et la lutte pour l’autodétermination, peu a changé : le gouvernement fédéral continue à refuser aux Autochtones leurs compétences inhérentes et l’autonomie et à les traiter comme des gouvernements inférieurs capables d’exercer uniquement les pouvoirs délégués et seulement en tant qu’administrateurs. Malgré cela, les conseils de bande et les gouvernements autochtones continuent à lutter pour obtenir l’autonomie gou-

vernementale, non pas l’autonomie administrative, voyant dans l’autonomie gouvernementale une occasion de recréer ou de remettre sur pied des gouvernements autochtones et de rebâtir la souveraineté autochtone, mettant fin ainsi au règne de la discrimination systémique à l’endroit des gouvernements autochtones.

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. 97-116 Flanagan, 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. 715-738 Henderson, 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. 279-290 Ladner, 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’s University Press, 2005), pp. 185-203 Milloy, John S. The Plains Cree: Trade, Diplomacy, And War, 1780 To 1870, Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1990 Mitchell, 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: Irwin Publishing, 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).

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

TRENDS

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.

Abstract Increasing the number of Aboriginal people working in health professions is frequently prescribed as a way to improve the health status of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Toward this, many postsecondary health-related training and education programs have instituted "best practices" to support successful outcomes for Aboriginal students. Still, the gap between the proportions of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal adults with university degree continues to widen. To develop more effective strategies for change, we need to learn from Aboriginal people and communities what they need, measure and assess the extent to which post-secondary systems meet those needs and, on an ongoing basis, take guidance and direction from First Nations, Inuit and Métis leadership. Résumé Pour améliorer l’état de santé des membres des Premières nations, des Inuits et des Métis, il est fréquemment recommandé d’augmenter l’effectif autochtone dans les professions de la santé. À cette fin, plusieurs programmes postsecondaires d’éducation et de formation du domaine de la santé prévoient des pratiques exemplaires visant à encourager les étudiants autochtones. Cependant, l’écart entre la proportion d’Autochtones et de non-Autochtones possédant un diplôme universitaire est de plus en plus important. Pour élaborer des stratégies efficaces de changement, nous devons connaître les besoins des peuples et collectivités autochtones, les mesurer et déterminer la façon selon laquelle le système d’éducation postsecondaire peut mieux répondre à ces besoins; de plus, sur une base permanente, nous devons suivre les conseils et respecter l’orientation des chefs de file des Premières nations, des Inuits et des Métis. Introduction The federal government’s Aboriginal Health Human Resources Initiative (AHHRI) is currently underway. The government is working in close

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

partnership with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leadership to increase Aboriginal peoples’ participation in health care professions, enhance the cultural sensitivity of health professional curricula and improve the retention of workers in health care systems that serve Aboriginal peoples. AHHRI is part of an action plan "to improve health services for all Aboriginal peoples" and "to close the gap between the health status of Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian public" (Government of Canada, 2004). The AHHRI initiative is based on the understanding that increasing the number of First Nations, Inuit and Métis health professionals will, in turn, make health services more accessible to Aboriginal peoples. This is not a new idea. In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples (RCAP) called for a "co-ordinated and comprehensive human resources development strategy" to support the training and education of "10,000 Aboriginal professionals over a 10-year period in health and social services" (Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples, Volume 3, Gathering Strength, Section 3, Health and Healing, 1996). What has changed in the twelve years since RCAP and even in the four years since the government first announced its action plan is the urgency of the needs that AHHRI intends to address. There continue to be significant disparities between the health status of Aboriginal peoples and that of other Canadians (Statistics Canada, 2007). These health disparities, in turn, have their roots in deep disparities with respect to key health determinants, including housing, socio-economic status, access to education and employment, social conditions and access to health services. We know that existing health services do not meet the needs of Aboriginal peoples and we know that Aboriginal people are the fastest growing segment of our population. If we do not take effective action now, these inequities will, at the very least, persist and perhaps deepen.

About the Authors Alex Wilson, Opaskwayak Cree Nation, holds a Master’s and a Doctorate in Human Development & Psychology from Harvard University. She is currently an assistant professor in the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan. Dr. Wilson has collaborated on a number of research projects with the U of S’s Aboriginal Education Research Centre. Janet Sarson (B.A., Wellesley College) is a research consultant and student in the newly-established, land-based Indigenous Education Graduate program offered by the University of Alberta.

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

have designed health-related programs and supports specifically for First Nations, Inuit and Métis students and communities (National Aboriginal Health Organization, 2003). As Malatest (2004) has noted, while there may be anecdotal support for what the literature reports does or doesn’t generate successful education and training outcomes for Aboriginal students and communities, There is actually very little data or research that measures the long-term impacts of what has been put forward as best practices. Additionally, the information that post-secondary institutions gather and share about their Aboriginal students typically does not distinguish between First Nations (or within that group, people with or without status), Inuit and Métis students. This limited information presumably meets the needs of post-secondary institutions, but does not offer us much help in understanding what the reality is for Aboriginal students at these institutions. We need data that distinguishes between First Nations, Inuit and Métis students because this aspect of their identity can have significant impacts 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 completion and their individual and their communities’ need from postsecondary institutions.

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

Individual and Community Needs Understanding what First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and communities want and need from post-secondary institutions is crucial. Without that information, we cannot assess the extent to which post-secondary institutions are willing and/or able to meet those needs. As one First Nation Education Director in Manitoba cautions, we must learn to measure what First Nations, Inuit and Métis people and communities value and then to value what we measure (James Wilson, personal communication, August 2008). Post-secondary institutions typically have the capacity to measure and gather whatever information they might need. Who has the capacity and the will to measure and gather the information that First Nations, Métis and other Aboriginal people, organizations, communities and nations need as consumers of the services provided by the post-secondary system?

System is Failing Aboriginal peoples To date, Aboriginal people have not been well served by formal education and training systems. Forty-four percent of Aboriginal people 15 years of age or older in Canada do not have any kind of high school or post-secondary degree, certificate or diploma. For the same age group within the country’s population as a whole, this figure is only 24% (Statistics Canada, 2008). Between 2001 and 2006 the percentage of Aboriginal people aged 25-64 holding a university degree increased from 6% to 8%, but Aboriginal people continue to lag well behind the non-Aboriginal population in this age group, 23% of whom hold a university degree. The gap between 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 why the post-secondary system has failed Aboriginal peoples has accumulated over the last decade (Battiste, 2005; Canadian Council on Learning, 2006a, 2006b; Malatest, 2004; Mendelson, 2008; Richards, 2008; Richardson & Blanchet-Cohen, 2000a, 2000b). It includes no shortage of suggestions about how post-secondary services to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples might be improved. Across Canada, many post-secondary institutions

Aboriginal people are their own experts. They know their own strengths, resources and needs. They must be actively involved and empowered in the design, development and implementation of any strategies or programs intended for their use. For our Saskatchewan research project, we need to learn from First Nations, Inuit and Métis people what they value: What do First Nations and Métis people and communities (including

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Can Institutional Systems Learn to Listen? the health sector) in Saskatchewan want and need from health training and education programs? How can post-secondary institutions 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 participation and successful outcomes for Aboriginal peoples in health-related post-secondary education and training.

References Aboriginal Population Profile, 2006 Census. (2008). Retrieved September 17, 2008, 2008, from www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/aboriginal Battiste, 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.html Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2008). Fact Sheet: 2006 Census Aboriginal Demographics. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/info/cad-eng.asp Ivison, J. (2008). Faulty federal math hurts reserve schools. 2008, www.nationalpost.com Malatest, 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 of Victoria. 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_004eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2008). Saskatchewan (table). Aboriginal Population Profile. www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/aboriginal/Index.cfm?Lang=E

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

TRENDS

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

Abstract The principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law lie at the root of our system of government. The essence of constitutionalism in Canada is embodied in s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides that "[t]he Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect." The constitutionalism principle requires that all government action comply with the Constitution which binds all governments, both federal and provincial including the executive branch …. The failure to reform existing legislation and policy are largely responsible for perpetuating the dysfunctional environments of concentrated poverty of Aboriginal peoples’ lives. Since affirming aboriginal and treaty rights, an endless parade of court decisions, and commissions and inquiries that substitute for litigation have revealed the Crowns’ overwhelming pattern of systemic discrimination against Aboriginal people’s lives . Since 1982, the Commission highlighted that “governments have so far refused to recognize the continuity of Aboriginal nations and the need to permit their decolonization at last.

About the author James [Sakej] Youngblood Henderson is Professor and Research Director of the Native Law Centre of Canada at the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan. Born to the Bear Clan of the Chicksaw Nation and Cheyenne Tribe in Oklahoma in 1944.

The principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law lie at the root of our system of government. The essence of constitutionalism in Canada is embodied in s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides that "[t]he Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect." Simply put, the constitutionalism principle requires that all government action comply with the Constitution. … This Court has noted on several occasions that with the adoption of the Charter, the Canadian system of government was transformed to a significant extent from a system of Parliamentary supremacy to one of constitutional supremacy. The

Constitution binds all governments, both federal and provincial, including the executive branch …. They may not transgress its provisions: indeed, their sole claim to exercise lawful authority rests in the powers allocated to them under the Constitution, 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-going federal and provincial Crowns’ failure of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law have generated an extraordinary version of systemic discrimination against Aboriginal holders of aboriginal and treaty rights. The avoidance of these rights by Crowns, its elected politicians, and administrators is a violation of constitutional supremacy. The failure to reform existing legislation and policy are largely responsible for perpetuating the dysfunctional environments of concentrated poverty of Aboriginal peoples’ lives. For a society recovering from parliamentary supremacy and colonialism, this systemic discrimination is mostly invisible to Canadians. It is based on unreformed law and public policy that avoid and ignore Aboriginal peoples’ constitutional rights, thwart their constitutional integration, and dilute its practical benefits in eliminating discrimination and policy. It generates the theory of deadbeat and recalcitrant Crowns, who avoid the constitutional responsibility of the honour of the Crown and honourable governance toward Aboriginal peoples. The concept of the deadbeat Crowns is not new. Since affirming aboriginal and treaty rights, an endless parade of court decisions, and commissions and inquiries that substitute for litigation have revealed the Crowns’ overwhelming pattern of systemic discrimination 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

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Constitutional Supremacy lands, suppression of Aboriginal cultures, abduction of Aboriginal children, impoverishment and disempowerment of Aboriginal peoples (p.4)." Since 1982, the Commission highlighted that "governments have so far refused to recognize the continuity of Aboriginal nations and the need to permit their decolonization at last. By their actions, if not by their words, governments continue to block Aboriginal nations from assuming the broad powers of governance that would permit them to fashion their own institutions and work out their own solutions to social, economic, and political problems. It is this refusal that effectively blocks the way forward (p. 13)." In short, the Crowns have resisted and denied constitutional supremacy and the rule of law to Aboriginal peoples.

It held that no part of the constitution can abrogate another, but no power or right is absolute—they all have to read together. Each Crown has constitutional duty of honourable governments and a fiduciary relationship with Aboriginal people to the extent of its constitutional power to affect Aboriginal peoples’ rights or it exercises discretionary control over their rights. Thus, the federal Crown under s. 91 and the provincial Crown under ss. 92 and 93 of Constitution Act, 1867 must be read with Aboriginal peoples’ rights in section 35(1) of Constitution Act, 1982 to allow each levels of government to fulfill the honour of the Crown within their receptive fields of competence. This creates a revolutionary concept of honourable government for Aboriginal peoples that displaces the familiar concept of good government. The integral theme of constitutional reconciliation between these parts of the constitution permeates the concept of honourable government.

In 1998, the federal Crown admitted attitudes of racial and cultural superiority led to a suppression of Aboriginal culture and values that resulted in weakening the identity of Aboriginal peoples, suppressing their languages and cultures, and outlawing their spiritual practices. These attitudes led to once self-sustaining nations being disaggregated, disrupted, limited or even destroyed by the dispossession of traditional territory and the relocation. It acknowledged that the result of these actions was the erosion of the political, economic, and social systems of Aboriginal people and nations.

What happened (or didn’t)? The simple answer is nothing happened. The politicians and agents of Crowns have not reformed their legislation, regulations, and policies to be consistent with aboriginal and treaty rights. These legal regimes and governmental techniques often acknowledge that respecting Aboriginal peoples’ rights have real cost and that resistance to them is often an attempt to avoid these costs. These techniques reflect unacknowledged systemic discrimination based on out-dated colonial assumptions that deserve constitutional scrutiny and critique. They have attempted to camouflage their resistance by stigmatizing Aboriginal peoples as a race and their issues as racial segregation, cultural differences, or multi-culturalism, rather than a constitutional empowered people seeking to preserve their knowledge, heritage, and rights and extend federalism.

Since most of Crowns sought to overturn aboriginal and treaty rights by prosecuting Aboriginal peoples rather than reforming existing law, they forced the judiciary into explaining or interpreting these meanings of constitutional rights. In more than 40 decisions, the Court has significantly affirmed aboriginal and treaty rights have constitutional status, protection, and priority, which constitutionally empowers and sanctions Aboriginal peoples to challenge policy objectives embodied in general federal or provincial legislation that affect those rights. It acknowledged that over the years the rights of the Indians were often (dis)honoured in the breach and virtually ignored by the Crowns. It held that neither historical nor current legislation nor policy on the part of the Crowns could delineate the aboriginal and treaty rights or determine the content and scope of the constitutional rights. It affirmed that existing legislation, regulation, and policy has to be consistent with aboriginal and treaty rights. If these laws are inconsistent, in part or whole, with the constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples, they are of no force and effect.

They continue to generate systemic discrimination against Aboriginal peoples’ rights and leave little or no room for constitutional governments, laws, or choices for Aboriginal peoples. While they possess constitutional rights, Aboriginal peoples are still forced into living with out-dated and discriminatory governmental legislation and policies. With a few exceptions, the existing legislative regimes have chosen to perpetuate and reinforce systemic discrimination against the constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples, rather than reform these regimes, make them consistent with the constitution, and undermine the practical promise of constitutional empowerment.

References Canada, 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).

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Tendances

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

L’auteur : James [Sakej] Youngblood Henderson est professeur et directeur de la recherche au Native Law Centre of Canada du Collège de droit de l’Université de la Saskatchewan. Il est né en Oklahoma, en 1944, dans le clan de l’ours de la nation Chicksaw et de la tribu Cheyenne.

Résumé Les principes du constitutionnalisme et la primauté du droit sont au cœur de notre système de gouvernement. L’essence du constitutionnalisme au Canada est concrétisé dans l’art. 52(1) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, qui prévoit que « [l]a Constitution du Canada est la loi suprême du Canada; elle rend inopérantes les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre règle de droit ». Le principe du constitutionnalisme exige que toute action gouvernementale se conforme à la Constitution. Cette exigence s’applique à tous les gouvernements, fédéral et provinciaux, y compris leurs organes exécutifs. Le défaut de réformer dans ce sens les lois et les politiques existantes est en grande partie responsable de la perpétuation des milieux dysfonctionnels de la pauvreté chez les Autochtones. Depuis l’affirmation des droits des Autochtones et des droits issus de traités, une série interminable de jugements de tribunaux, de commissions et d’enquêtes substitués aux litiges, a révélé la discrimination systémique de la Couronne contre la vie des Autochtones. Depuis 1982, comme l’a souligné la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones, « [j]usqu'ici, les gouvernements ont toujours refusé de reconnaître la continuité des nations autochtones et la nécessité d'enfin les décoloniser ». Les principes du constitutionnalisme et de la primauté du droit sont à la base de notre système de gouvernement… L'essence du constitutionnalisme au Canada est exprimée dans le par. 52(1) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 : « La Constitution du Canada est la loi suprême du Canada; elle rend inopérantes les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre règle de droit. » En d'autres mots, le principe du constitutionnalisme exige que les actes de gouvernement soient conformes à la Constitution... Notre Cour a souligné plusieurs fois que, dans une large mesure, l'adoption de la Charte avait fait passer le système canadien de gouvernement de la suprématie parlementaire à la suprématie constitutionnelle. La Constitution lie tous les gouvernements, tant fédéral que provinciaux, y compris l'exécutif… Ils ne sauraient en transgresser les dispositions: en effet, leur seul droit à l'autorité qu'ils exercent réside dans les pouvoirs que leur confère la Constitution. Cette autorité ne peut avoir d'autre source.

La Cour suprême du Canada, Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec, [1998] 2 R.C.S. 217, paragraphes 70 et 72 Depuis la réforme constitutionnelle de 1982, les manquements continus de la Couronne fédérale ainsi que des Couronnes provinciales à la suprématie constitutionnelle et à la primauté du droit ont donné jour à une version extraordinaire de discrimination systémique contre les détenteurs de droits autochtones et de droits issus de traités. La violation de ces droits par l’État, par les élus et par les administrateurs constitue un manquement à la suprématie constitutionnelle. Le fait de ne pas modifier les lois et les politiques actuelles est la cause principale de la perpétuation de milieux dysfonctionnels où les Autochtones, entassés les uns sur les autres, vivent dans la pauvreté. La discrimination systémique dont sont victimes les Autochtones est généralement invisible aux Canadiens, qui, eux, vivent toujours dans une société se remettant des suites de la suprématie parlementaire et du colonialisme. Elle se fonde sur des lois qui ont été modifiées pour en supprimer les règles injustes et sur une politique qui ne tient pas compte des droits constitutionnels des Autochtones, contrarie leur intégration constitutionnelle et dilue les effets pratiques de l’élimination de la discrimination et des politiques discriminatoires. Elle a donné jour à la théorie des Couronnes irresponsables et récalcitrantes, qui ne se soucient pas de leur responsabilité constitutionnelle de respecter les obligations engageant leur honneur, notamment en ce qui a trait à la gouvernance des Autochtones. Le concept de Couronnes ou gouvernements irresponsables n’est pas nouveau. Depuis la déclaration constitutionnelle des droits autochtones et des droits issus de traités, une série interminable de décisions judiciaires, ainsi que de commissions et d’enquêtes se substituant aux procès, a révélé la discrimination systémique des gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux à l’endroit des Autochtones. Les points saillants du rapport extrêmement important de la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones (1996) démontrent que le comportement de la Couronne envers les peuples autochtones « prennent des formes diverses:

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Suprématie constitutionnelle traités non respectés, vol de terres autochtones, élimination des cultures autochtones, enlèvement d'enfants autochtones, appauvrissement et suppression de la liberté d'action des peuples autochtones. » (page 4). Comme le soulignait la Commission, de 1982 : « jusqu'ici, les gouvernements ont toujours refusé de reconnaître la continuité des nations autochtones et la nécessité d'enfin les décoloniser. En actes, sinon en paroles, les gouvernements continuent à empêcher les nations autochtones d'assumer les pouvoirs qui leur permettraient de structurer leurs propres institutions et d'élaborer leurs propres solutions aux problèmes sociaux, économiques et politiques. En fait, c'est ce refus qui empêche tout progrès. » (page 13). Bref, les Couronnes ont refusé aux peuples autochtones les droits qui étaient leurs en vertu de la suprématie constitutionnelle et de la primauté du droit.

La Cour suprême a décidé qu’aucune partie de la Constitution ne pouvait en abroger une autre et qu’aucun pouvoir ou droit n’était absolu – ils doivent s’interpréter les uns au regard des autres. Chacune des Couronnes a l’obligation constitutionnelle de se comporter en gouvernement respectueux de ses engagements et doit tenir compte de sa relation fiduciaire envers les Autochtones dans l’exercice de ses pouvoirs constitutionnels et discrétionnaires relativement aux droits des Autochtones. Les pouvoirs de la Couronne fédérale, en vertu de l’article 91, et des Couronnes provinciales, en vertu des articles 92 et 93 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, doivent s’interpréter en fonction des droits des Autochtones prévus par l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, de façon à ce que chaque palier gouvernemental respecte les obligations de la Couronne dans le champ de compétence qui lui est propre. Ainsi a été créé le concept révolutionnaire de gouvernement honorable des Autochtones qui se substitue au concept bien connu de bon gouvernement. Le thème intégral de la conciliation constitutionnelle des différentes parties de la Constitution informe le concept de gouvernement honorable.

En 1998, la Couronne fédérale admettait que des attitudes de supériorité raciale et culturelle avaient mené à l’élimination de la culture et des valeurs autochtones et, comme résultat, à l’affaiblissement de l’identité des Autochtones, à la suppression de leurs langues et cultures et à la mise hors-la-loi de leurs pratiques spirituelles. Du fait de ces attitudes des nations autrefois autonomes se sont vues décomposées, perturbées, restreintes ou même détruites par la perte de leur terres traditionnelles et par leur relocalisation. Elle a reconnu que ces actions ont abouti à l’érosion des systèmes politiques, économiques et sociaux des Autochtones et des nations autochtones.

Que s’est-il produit? La réponse est simple : rien. Les politiciens et les mandataires de la Couronne n’ont pas modifié leurs lois, règlements et politiques pour les rendre conformes aux droits autochtones et aux droits issus de traités. Ces régimes juridiques et ces techniques gouvernementales reconnaissent que le respect des droits autochtones entraîne souvent des coûts, ce qui explique le peu d’empressement à les respecter. Ce sont là le reflet d’une discrimination systémique, non reconnue, fondée sur des hypothèses coloniales démodées, qui devraient faire l’objet d’un examen et d’une critique constitutionnelle. Ils ont tenté de camoufler leur résistance en stigmatisant les Autochtones au point de vue racial et en voyant la solution de ces problèmes dans la ségrégation raciale, les différences culturelles ou le multiculturalisme, plutôt que dans l’existence d’un peuple habilité constitutionnellement, qui cherche à préserver son savoir, son patrimoine et ses droits et d’être reconnu à l’intérieur du fédéralisme.

Puisque la plupart des Couronnes ont tenté d’annuler les droits autochtones et les droits issus de traités en intentant des poursuites contre les Autochtones plutôt que de modifier les lois actuelles, les tribunaux se sont vus forcés d’intervenir et d’expliquer ou interpréter le sens des droits constitutionnels reconnus aux Autochtones. Dans plus de 40 décisions, la Cour suprême du Canada a déclaré de façon très claire que les droits autochtones et les droits issus de traités ont un statut constitutionnel et jouissent d’une protection et d’une priorité constitutionnelle, ce qui habilite les Autochtones à contester les objectifs de politiques incorporés dans les lois fédérales et provinciales ayant une incidence négative sur leurs droits. La Cour a reconnu qu’au fil des ans les droits des Indiens n’avaient pas été respectés et, à toutes fins pratiques, ignorés par les Couronnes. Elle a jugé que les lois ou politiques, anciennes comme actuelles, des Couronnes ne pouvaient définir les droits autochtones et les droits issus de traités ou déterminer le contenu et l’étendue de leurs droits constitutionnels. Elle a déclaré que les lois, règlements et politiques actuelles doivent être conformes aux droits autochtones et aux droits issus de traités. Si ces lois sont incompatibles, en tout ou en partie, avec les droits constitutionnels des Autochtones, elles sont nulles et non avenues.

Ces régimes juridiques alimentent la discrimination systémique contre les Autochtones et laissent peu ou pas de place aux gouvernements, lois ou choix constitutionnels des Autochtones. Bien que détenteurs de droits constitutionnels, les Autochtones sont toujours forcés de composer avec des lois et des politiques gouvernementales discriminatoires et démodées. Sauf quelques exceptions, les régimes législatifs actuels ont choisi de perpétuer et de renforcer la discrimination systémique des Autochtones plutôt que de modifier ces régimes, de les rendre compatibles avec la Constitution, minant ainsi la promesse d’habilitation constitutionnelle.

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

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

TRENDS

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

Abstract An ever-increasing proportion of First Nations, Métis and other Aboriginal lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people describe themselves as "two-spirit." It is an empowered identity that emerged within the context of sustained racism, homophobia and sexism. The term twospirit first appeared in the 1990s, in the midst of a movement among LGBT Aboriginal people to organize and develop a collective identity. Aggressive assimilation activities have attempted to displace our own understandings, practices and teachings around sexuality, gender and relationships and replace them with mainstream, JudeoChristian/Euro-Canadian ones. Two-spirit identity, however, reclaims our authority to define who we are. Two-spirit identity fits these distinct cultures, histories and ways of being.

About the Author Alex Wilson, Opaskwayak Cree Nation, holds a Master’s and a Doctorate in Human Develop9ment & Psychology from Harvard University. She is currently an assistant professor in the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan. Dr. Wilson has collaborated on a number of research projects with the U of S’s Aboriginal Education Research Centre.

Résumé Une proportion grandissante de membres des Premières Nations, des Métis et d’autres Autochtones qui sont gais, lesbiennes, bisexuels ou transgenres (GLBT) se disent « bi-spirituels ». Il s’agit d’une identité dont les gens qui l’ont élaborée dans un contexte de racisme, d’homophobie et de sexisme soutenus ont acquis certains pouvoirs. Le terme « bi-spirituel » est d’abord apparu dans les années 1990, au sein d’un mouvement organisé par les Autochtones GLBT pour élaborer une identité collective. Les activités énergiques d’assimilation ont tenté de déplacer nos propres compréhensions, pratiques et enseignements, concernant la sexualité, les sexes et les rapports de couple pour les remplacer par des idées du courant dominant judéo-chrétien/euro-canadien. L’identité bi-spirituelle nous remet le pouvoir de définir qui nous sommes. The Meaning of "Two-Spirit" An ever-increasing proportion of First Nations, Métis and other Aboriginal lesbian, gay, bisexual

and transgendered (LGBT) people describe themselves as "two-spirit." Two-spirit is an empowered identity that emerged within the context of sustained racism, homophobia and sexism. It is very contemporary and, at the same time, deeply rooted in history and tradition. When someone states that they are two-spirit, they are proclaiming an identity that honours and integrates sexuality, gender, culture, spirituality and all other aspects of who they are. The term two-spirit first appeared in the 1990s, in the midst of a movement among LGBT Aboriginal people to organize and develop a collective identity. A considerable body of literature about LGBT Indigenous Americans existed at that time. However, virtually all the authors of these texts – whether they were explorers, missionaries, other early immigrants to this continent or conventional or LGBT anthropologists and historians – were of European descent and the literature consisted primarily of texts written for non-Indigenous people, offering non-Indigenous interpretations of and attributing non-Indigenous meanings to Indigenous peoples’ customs, bodies, behaviours and lives. In Canada, government policies and actions have threatened the integrity of Aboriginal people’s families, relationships and other loving partnerships, communities and nations. Aggressive assimilation activities have attempted to displace our own understandings, practices and teachings around sexuality, gender and relationships and replace them with mainstream, Judeo-Christian/EuroCanadian ones. Ironically, for many LGBT Aboriginal people, we have tried to repair this loss of cultural continuity and better understand who we are by turning to historians, anthropologists and the deeply compromised body of literature described above.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Two-spirit Identity Reclaiming Our Authority Two-spirit identity, however, reclaims our authority to define who we are. It connects us to our past and restores cultural links that had been disturbed or severed by systemic and institutionalized racism, sexism and homophobia. In research activities for my doctoral thesis, I asked two-spirit people to talk with me about their identity. They described feeling accepted and embraced by their families and communities at the beginning of their lives and then encountering racism, sexism and/or homophobia at a relatively young age, experiences that diminished and fragmented their sense of self. They now linked these experiences to the history of colonization in Canada and, in particular, the negative intergenerational impacts of the residential school system. They recognized that these historic experiences and the accompanying imposition of Christianity had attacked the foundations of their families, communities and cultures and engendered shame, cultural confusion and self-division.

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 ways from those of mainstream LGBT Canadians. Affirming an Identity As a final step in the development of their identities as twospirit people, group members recognized that, rather than trying to squeeze into someone elseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s established identity, they needed an identity that fit who they were. Two-spirit identity fits their distinct cultures, histories and ways of being. Unlike mainstream â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;coming outâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; stories, in which an LGBT person typically announces and asserts their individual right to be who they are, the narratives of these two-spirit people describe a process of 'coming in' and affirming an interdependent identity. 'Coming in' is not a declaration or an announcement; it is simply presenting oneself and being fully present as an Aboriginal person who is GLBT.

For this group of two-spirit people, as they grew older and their racial/sexual/gender identity became more articulated and identifiable, they were exposed to more and more homophobia in their families and communities. Ultimately, many participants made a decision to cut themselves loose, to escape from homophobia, sexism and racism by leaving their home communities. Moving to the city provided opportunities to actively and openly explore their sexualities, genders and identities and most who made this transition found valuable sup-

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

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

TRENDS

Brief concerning Urban Aboriginal Homelessness in Quebec Regroupement des centres d’amitié autochtones du Québec (RCAAQ) Submitted to the Public Hearings on Homelessness held by the Social Affairs Committee, October 2008 Abstract The Native Friendship Centres (NFC) are urban service institutions for Aboriginal people. They have also become important educational and training organizations for thousands of Aboriginals. They advocate on behalf of the rights and interests of Aboriginal people, and work daily to promote better understanding, not just by Québécois but also by Aboriginal people living in their communities, of the issues, problems and challenges facing urban Aboriginals. The mission of the Regroupement des centres d’amitié autochtones du Québec (RCAAQ) is to promote the individual and collective rights and interests of Aboriginal people in the urban setting. In carrying out its support and representation mission in Quebec for more than 30 years the RCAAQ has been able to obtain an overview of the problems facing Aboriginal people in the urban setting and develop a holistic approach encompassing the notions of empowerment, culture, community and the social economy. The growing problem of homelessness affecting urban Aboriginal people is a reality of which the RCAAQ has direct knowledge. Every day, the NFC must confront the challenge of this ever-increasing phenomenon which appears in several forms, and they must do so by showing creativity and innovation using the often limited means at their disposal. Résumé Les Centres d’amitié autochtones sont des établissements de service en milieu urbain pour les Autochtones. Ils sont devenus des organismes importants d’éducation et de formation pour des milliers d’Autochtones. Ils défendent leurs droits et intérêts et se consacrent quotidiennement à la compréhension des enjeux, des problèmes et des défis auxquels sont confrontés les Autochtones habitant

dans les villes du Québec, autant de la part des Québécois que de la part des Autochtones euxmêmes. La mission du Regroupement des centres d’amitié autochtones du Québec (RCAAQ) est d’assurer le respect et l’avancement des droits et des intérêts, individuels et collectifs, des Autochtones en milieu urbain. En accomplissant sa mission de soutien et de représentation au Québec depuis plus de 30 ans, le RCAAQ a pu acquérir une vue d’ensemble des problèmes auxquels font face les Autochtones dans les villes et élaborer une approche holistique qui englobe les notions d’autonomie, de culture, de collectivité et d’économie sociale. Le problème croissant de l’itinérance chez les Autochtones dans les villes est une réalité que le RCAAQ connaît concrètement. Chaque jour, les centres d’amitié doivent répondre au défi de ce phénomène qui se présentent sous plusieurs formes. Pour ce faire, ils doivent faire preuve de créativité et d’innovation en ayant recours à leurs moyens souvent limités. Homelessness… among Aboriginal people Few systematic studies have been conducted on Aboriginal homelessness and urban wandering; but there are indicators which tell us that a significant percentage of homeless people in Québec and Canada are of Aboriginal origin. We know that although they make up 3% of Canada’s population, Aboriginal people account for 10% of the country’s entire homeless population, for a homelessness rate three times higher than that of nonAboriginal people. We therefore clearly note an Aboriginal dimension to homelessness, one which is explained by the spe-

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Urban Aboriginal Homelessness cific conditions experienced by First Nations members. And these conditions are not simply economic in nature, but they are also of a social, political and cultural nature. Social and economic inequalities, social exclusion and political guardianship combine their effects with dramatic results.

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

In this regard, we cannot set aside the issue of housing, not only because, as we indicated, Aboriginal housing conditions are clearly inferior to those in the non-Aboriginal population, but also because the Aboriginal demand for social housing on and off reserve) is infinitely higher than what is offered and available. Here we must add that government programs have been largely inadequate over the past several years.

This phenomenon may first appear among urban Aboriginals as a particular type of "urban wandering," as a step towards chronic homelessness which is expressed as a form of social exclusion often leading to difficulties in finding a stable and sustainable place to live and even the incapacity to do so. Although urban wandering may reflect certain cultural traditions stemming from the nomadic lifestyle of the past, it proves to be a very difficult way of life in today’s socio-economic context of overcrowding combined with a sharply felt lack of work and housing. In the end, it is self-destructive for the people who must find accommodations with others as well as for the natural helpers who provide them with this support.

Homelessness… among urban Aboriginal people Further to the economic factors more directly linked to the lack of income and financial resources, we must consider another dimension of the reality experienced by urban Aboriginal people to better understand the "Aboriginal dimension" of homelessness.

Furthermore, if urban Aboriginals today are more at risk, it is because they are isolated and marginalized in the cities they have gone to live in. They are also more at risk of being directly subject to racism and social exclusion because of their ethnic origin.

For several decades during which the economic and social situation on the reserves has stagnated, many Aboriginal people have been leaving their community in the hope of improving their lives. Others find that they must go to urban centres to continue their general or occupational training or to receive health services. Others yet, such as women and children, leave in order to escape domestic violence and the bleak future awaiting them in their own communities.

Possible Alternatives: How do we address the problem of Aboriginal Homelessness? It cannot be stressed enough that homelessness is caused by numerous factors, with the lack of financial resources (especially for housing) among the most important ones. We must work upstream of the problem; that is, prevention activities are necessary for overcoming homelessness.

This migration has grown to such an important extent that today, urban Aboriginals account for 37% of Québec’s entire Aboriginal population, or between one-third and one-quarter of the registered Aboriginal population in Québec. Migration to the cities for different reasons has significantly increased the population of Aboriginal people living away from their communities. As a result, succeeding generations of Aboriginal people are being born in the urban centres and more than onehalf of the Aboriginal population is younger than 25.

The expertise acquired by the Québec Native Friendship Centre Movement When we look at homelessness itself and the breakdown in the social bond that it represents, we see that the NFC are well placed to be decisive stakeholders in the search for sustainable solutions. This is precisely because we make the individual the focus of our work, in taking account of the component made up of Aboriginal identity and culture. What we seek, then, is to reinforce the social bond which is so important for those who leave their communities for the urban centres, where they find themselves marginalized and isolated, even if not due solely to discrimination or racism.

To summarize, having been led for numerous reasons to leave their home territories an increasing number of Aboriginal people find themselves forced to confront the urban reality. They are thrust into a setting that is not their traditional one; they are isolated and cut off from all of their usual social bearings that define their culture and identity, far from the minimal protections they can receive from their communities of origin.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Urban Aboriginal Homelessness Furthermore, using the notion of "Aboriginal empowerment" allows the NFC to help individuals regain power over their own lives and ultimately to play their rightful role as citizens within the urban political framework and as part of the urban setting in itself. Our approach goes well beyond the delivery of services.

3. We also recommend that support be given to the social economy initiatives developed by the RCAAQ for purposes of diversifying Aboriginal economic development. Other approaches: Build on earlier accomplishments and develop promising initiatives together It is also imperative to promote joint action by all urban stakeholders who seek to address the issue of homelessness: community organizations, governments, municipalities, health and social services, and so on. But all actions must take account of the cultural dimension, which is the means for remedying the breakdown in the social bond. In this respect, the NFC can provide invaluable support because they are already devoting efforts towards restoring and strengthening the social bond. We cannot combat homelessness without restoring this bond and we need the close collaboration of our partners to do so.

The RCAAQ must be proactive in building awareness among civil society stakeholders of the specific conditions affecting urban Aboriginal people and of the solutions to consider. In this regard, the 2006 First Nations Socio-Economic Forum allowed us to create alliances and to formalize partnership agreements with stakeholders such as the Chantier de l’économie sociale, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Union des Municipalités and Réseau interuniversitaire Dialog. The Québec government made several commitments with the RCAAQ covering the areas of health, social services, early childhood and social development, education, culture and languages, economy, employment and income security, infrastructure and housing, sustainable community development, and support for youths.

1. Therefore, the RCAAQ recommends that confirmation be given concerning renewal of the Homelessness Partnership Initiative, which ends March 31, 2009 and that its budgets be revised. Combating homelessness requires concrete and adapted approaches. In this regard, a province-wide study is essential for purposes of identifying strategies adapted to the Aboriginal reality.

Recommendations 1. Therefore, RCAAQ recommends, on the basis of its expertise in the search for sustainable solutions, its delivery of services and its positioning within Quebec’s urban society, that the Quebec Native Friendship Centre Movement become a key stakeholder as part of the action plans of the Government of Quebec, to ensure that such action plans take account of the specific realities affecting urban Aboriginals.

2. Therefore, we recommend that the RCAAQ conduct a study to identify intervention strategies adapted to the Aboriginal reality, based on a holistic philosophy of Aboriginal empowerment as means of ensuring that efforts are carried out in complementary manner with partners from the Quebec network.

The RCAAQ ensured that the entire series of commitments made at the FNSEF would be elaborated on the basis of the following strategic direction: Improving the quality of life of urban Aboriginal people depends directly on efforts made to combat poverty and social exclusion. It was in keeping with this philosophy that the RCAAQ brought forward 11 commitments in the areas of health, social services, early childhood, education, economy, employment, infrastructures, sustainable community development and youth.

For example, the idea of promoting public housing for Aboriginal people with community support takes on its entire meaning in this context. We know that if Aboriginal people at risk 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 risk over the long term of falling into the trap of vagrancy and from there, homelessness. We must therefore seek solutions which in all cases are based on the cultural dimension. It is in this area where the RCAAQ can play an extremely important role.

2. Therefore, the RCAAQ recommends that the commitments made at the First Nations Socio-Economic Forum be formalized and renewed by way of services agreements between the Native Friendship Centres and the various departments of the Government of Quebec.

3. Therefore, we recommend that the Government of Quebec encourage the development of public housing by increasing the number of housing units through the renewal of the Accès Logis program.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Urban Aboriginal Homelessness Conclusion According to the needs assessment of urban Aboriginals, the vast majority of Aboriginal respondents considered that their main needs, apart from the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, were to be able to develop a feeling of belonging to their community, to have a place where they could gather and interact with others, and to be able to count on a social network for support.

needs which have been assessed. We must join forces with all other involved stakeholders. And all those involved must acknowledge the importance of this cultural dimension and the role it can play in rebuilding a genuine social bond. Improving the quality of life of urban Aboriginal people depends squarely on efforts made to combat poverty and social exclusion. This is the condition that must be met if we are to effectively address the problem of Aboriginal homelessness, as has been well demonstrated by the extensive experience acquired by our Native Friendship Centres.

This is precisely what the RCAAQ is seeking to accomplish through its mission to improve the quality of life of urban Aboriginal people and to develop effective, innovative strategies for combating poverty and social exclusion. But we must stress once more; we require adequate resources that meet the

Contact information E-mail: infos@rcaaq.info Website: www.rcaaq.info

Bibliography National Association of Friendship Centres and Law Commission of Canada. Urban Aboriginal Governance in Canada: Refashioning 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 thesis 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.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

TRENDS

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

About the Author Lorna Williams is a member of the Lil’wat First Nation, Mount Currie BC. She is Assistant Professor and Program Director of Aboriginal Teacher Education at the University of Victoria, BC. She worked for the Ministry of Education as Director of the Aboriginal Education Enhancements Branch where she directed research and policy development and implementation in all areas of education for Aboriginal students. She worked as a First Nations Education Specialist with the Vancouver School Board. He research focus is in the are of teacher development.

Abstract In Canadian schools racism is evident in what we learn and when and what we teach. It is in how we teach and whom we think we teach. It is in the human interactions between and among learners and teachers, parents and communities. It is in the labels assigned, and how we measure. Colonization has rendered our knowledge voiceless and invisible in the schooling structures in which our children attend to study and prepare for their futures and the futures of our communities. Indigenous wisdom and knowledge has been rendered invisible and deemed to be worthless and irrelevant for generations. In the schools of today rarely can we find Indigenous knowledge in the facilities, curricula, and instructional process or in the structures of education. Canadian citizens can still graduate from K-12 and from post secondary institutions 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 ancestors, the land and our descendents. A challenge for those who have the opportunity to construct curricula, programs and teach from an Indigenous perspective is first, to make institutional for space for Indigenous knowledge and processes. an Indigenous principle of learning is communal and collective learning. as humans we are making a connection with one another, with the plants and animals that are also part of our community, with the land and ancestors. In all of our actions we are not alone – we are all connected. Résumé Dans les écoles canadiennes, le racisme est évident au moment de l’apprentissage comme à l’enseignement. Il se retrouve dans notre façon d’enseigner et dans les idées véhiculées aux apprenants. Il est dans l’interaction personnelle entre les apprenants, les enseignants, les parents et les collectivités. En conséquence de la colonisation, nos connaissances

sont devenues muettes et invisibles à l’intérieur d’une structure scolaire dans laquelle nos enfants étudient et préparent leur avenir et l’avenir de nos collectivités. Depuis des générations, la sagesse et les connaissances autochtones ont été rendues invisibles et ont été considérées comme sans valeur et sans pertinence. Dans les écoles d’aujourd'hui, rares sont les traces des connaissances autochtones dans les livres, les programmes d’études, les processus ou les structures de l’enseignement. Les citoyens canadiens peuvent toujours devenir diplômés des écoles secondaires ou postsecondaires avec des connaissances très rudimentaires des Premières nations, des Métis et des Inuits. Toutefois, nous persistons; nous continuons à parler nos langues, à pratiquer nos cérémonies pour honorer nos ancêtres, la terre ainsi que nos descendants. Un premier défi pour ceux et celles qui ont l’occasion de construire les programmes d’études et d’enseigner à partir d’une perspective autochtone est de faire de la place dans les établissements pour les connaissances et les processus autochtones. Chez les Autochtones, l’apprentissage communautaire et collectif est un principe de l’enseignement. En tant qu’êtres humains, nous créons des liens avec les autres personnes et avec les plantes et les animaux qui font également partie de notre communauté, avec la terre et les ancêtres. Dans toutes nos actions, nous espérons que nous ne sommes pas seuls : nous sommes tous liés. Racism in Canadian schools Racism runs through Canadian schools and splashes you in the face unexpectedly or washes over you relentlessly. It is in what we learn and when and what we teach. It is in how we teach and whom we think we teach. It is in the human interactions between and among learners and teachers, parents and communities. It is in the labels assigned, and how we measure. From the time of contact with Europeans after Columbus there have been assaults and insults on

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge the 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 our lands and water and racism suffered directly and institutionally. Colonization has rendered our knowledge voiceless and invisible in the schooling structures in which our children attend to study and prepare for their futures and the futures of our communities.

tems to ensure that each of its members grows up to know that their knowledge and ways of knowing are inseparable from the land, place, spirit and kin. To the Dine, commonly known as Navajo, k’e3 is a morpheme added to words describing learning and teaching, to connote understanding interdependent, compassionate relationships as they manifest in life. Relationships between earth and sky are in balance and harmony; self, family, community and nation are intricately connected; animals and plants; and between the ancestors and descendents – all are interconnected, 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 water life is to care for the land.

The legacy of colonization has been the disruption of intergenerational relationships, the core to passing on knowledge from one generation to another. School policies disrupted the use of Indigenous languages in the home, community, and on the land. The stories, songs and dances that carry the wisdom of each nation could not be practiced holistically for several generations. Ceremonies and relationships with the ancestors and the spirit dimension were interrupted and could not be experienced by many descendents. The relationships with the land, plants, animals, rivers, streams was disrupted, the responsibility for caring and protection of the land as it cares for its people could not be carried out, and Indigenous people have watched the ecosystems deteriorate in support of progress.

A person who is regarded to be brought up knowing traditional values is hard working, persistent, self disciplined, one who works at a task with consistent effort, never over exerting to the point of behaving aggressively. A young person described as celhcelh4 is someone who is aware of their personal capabilities, one who knows how to fit themselves into a group that is working on a task, and one who can assess a situation and know what to do, when to do it and know how to join a task group without someone directing them.

Indigenous wisdom and knowledge has been rendered invisible and deemed to be worthless and irrelevant for generations. Indigenous people have been dehumanized and demonized so that Canadians can forget our presence, ignore our existence or fear our presence. In the schools of to day rarely can we find Indigenous knowledge in the facilities, curricula, and instructional process or in the structures of education. Canadian citizens can still graduate from K-12 and from post secondary institutions 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 ancestors, the land and our descendents.

Decolonization A challenge for those who have the opportunity to construct curricula, programs and teach from an Indigenous perspective is first, to make institutional space for Indigenous knowledge and processes. The second is to maintain the focus in the Indigenous world when all the templates, criteria, philosophies that inform those activities come from Euro western, modern world. For example, an Indigenous principle of learning is communal and collective learning. Each individual in a community has skills, gifts, knowledge, experiences and insights that can make available and contribute to the over all work of the learning community. If a class is structured in this way, it challenges learners who have been socialized to compete for marks by with holding information from their classmates or showing they know more than their classmates. Assignments, assessments and grading on a hierarchical basis can tend to force a competitive and individualistic orientation. In a recent university class I taught, that was project- based the students participated in constructing a database framework and constructed survey and interview questionnaires for a language project. The course began with an invitation to the students to work on the project, after describing the scope of the project

Indigenous knowledge, learning and teaching All societies develop systems to ensure it’s own continuation and existence. Indigenous societies in Canada are no different. We need to look to the wisdom found in our languages to direct us to understanding the systems, processes and principles that form the foundation of an Indigenous understanding of teaching and learning. In the Sencoten language of the Wsanc1 people, their word for education is ELTLNIWT. As explained by J. Elliott2, Sencoten language teacher, it means, "to be a whole human being". The Wsanc have effective sys-

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 scholar 3 celhcelh is from the Lil’wat language, my language, this is the word I heard from elders in my community.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge and purpose; I explained that each member of the class had gifts, knowledge and experiences that would contribute to the project. In the reflective dialogue at the end of the class, participants shared that for each it took time to adjust to the expectations. For some the invitation was a surprise but they could accept it and as one explained, "I went with it" for others it took longer, they were so habituated to having a class schedule that told them exactly what to expect from week to week, rather than having the work of each week and the contributions they made collectively; the new developments of the project; developments due to further research readings direct the next weeks assignments and the activities of each class. For all but one student, they found that by the end of the class they had no stress about their performance; they were surprised by what they had collectively and cooperatively produced. And they were satisfied that their work made a difference and has a purpose in the world beyond the class. This is congruent with the Indigenous principles of learning with a purpose and in service to the self and the community. The class structure supports the belief that the more the individual uniqueness is acknowledge and recognized the stronger the community.

remembering those who are not physically part of the circle, those who are ill or needing our support. In the pole carving class the whole class participated in a cleansing ceremony to cleanse our minds and hearts and the ground on which we would do the carving so that all would work safely and in harmony. In the Earthsongs class before making the drums, the class thanked the trees that provided the drum frame, thanked the deer and elk for their skins that would provide the beautiful sound of the drums, and in Earthfibres, the class join together cloaked in a rush tapestry to commit to working together â&#x20AC;&#x201C; all in a good way, with clear minds and strong hearts so that the work and learning occurs in a respectful way. In this way as humans we are making a connection with one another, with the plants and animals that are also part of our community, with the land and ancestors. In all of our actions we are not alone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we are all connected. A challenge for the learning community is to sustain Indigenous processes in an environment that demands a shift to Euro western processes. It occurs by the time schedule and the habits of students to compete for grades. The evaluation of instructors is oriented to a class structure where there is a single, expert or knowledge specialist to direct their learning.

In a class offered at the University of Victoria called Learning and Teaching in an Indigenous World that attempts to create an Indigenous learning community in a university setting. A learning principle identified as central to Indigenous people is to learn by doing. To learn while working along side elders and those with expertise in the task at hand. While working on the task, participants also learn how to approach the task, the spiritual and emotional dimensions of learning and working together. For example participants learned that before beginning work in each class they each made a transition into the class by stopping to become conscious of their emotional state, what stresses were they needing to clear from their minds, bodies and hearts. At the beginning of each class, standing in a circle time is devoted to giving thanks for being part of the circle,

When Indigenous learners are in the classrooms, they are constantly shifting from one cultural world to another. In our homes and communities much of the interaction continues to follow an oral tradition, Stories, songs and dances continue to be the way we make sense of the world, the way we interact with one another. It is the same when a class is structured according to Indigenous principles. Students and instructors must shift from one worldview to another. In the end of class reflections both Indigenous and non- Indigenous class participants expressed their appreciation for their experience of learning and teaching in an Indigenous world and that they were committed to recreating this learning experience in their future work situations.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

TRENDS

Residential Schools and the role of Aboriginal Youth Jaime Koebel, M.A. candidate Abstract From those who attended to those who were affected and remain affected throughout generations of trauma, young people are at the centre of the issues surrounding the implementation of residential school policies across Canada. During implementation of the schools the lost voices belonged to the young and along the lines of generational trauma, the voices of those young people remained silent. Today, healing among Aboriginal peoples nationwide has moved toward the direction of healing. Healing has induced support systems of which youth have benefitted from and as a result the insurgence of Aboriginal youth groups and support systems is a positive effect of a nation moving forward. Résumé Qu’ils aient été pensionnaires ou parents d’une victime qui portent les séquelles du passé, les jeunes sont au cœur des enjeux qui entourent la mise en application de la politique des pensionnats indiens d’un bout à l’autre du Canada. Pendant les années de pensionnat, leurs voix ne parvenaient pas à se faire entendre, et pendant plusieurs générations, leurs voix sont demeurées muettes. Aujourd'hui, les Autochtones du pays entier ont progressé vers la voie de la guérison. Ces progrès ont donné lieu à la création de réseaux de soutien dont les jeunes bénéficient; ainsi, la relance des groupes jeunesse autochtones et d’autres réseaux de soutien est une conséquence favorable d’une nation qui va de l’avant. History The 1996 the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended a call for a public inquiry to examine the origins, purposes, and effects of residential school policies as well as to identify abuses and recommend remedial measures to begin the process of healing (Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2008). The Law Commission of Canada released Restoring Dignity: Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions in 1998 where it recommended that acknowledgment, apology

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

and reconciliation take place where abuse has occurred. (LCC, 2000) The final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) also recommended that those responsible for the residential schools apologize to former students and their communities. In 1998 with a Statement of Reconciliation delivered from then Indian Affairs Minister, Jane Stewart on behalf of the Canadian Government.(AHF, 2008) The statement included an apology for the physical and sexual abuses that tragically occurred in the schools and a fund was set up to support community healing. The idea behind community healing as a necessary step in moving forward acknowledged that the people who attended the schools as well as their families for generations afterwards were hugely affected by the policies of forced removal which ultimately resulted in the re-socialization of First Nation, Inuit and Metis children. The intergenerational impacts of residential schools were extensive and the effects of the schools continue to infiltrate communities and individuals across the country. In the 2008 Aboriginal Healing Foundation’s publication From Truth to Reconciliation; Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools, has an article, written by Rupert Ross , which details the reality that children who have never been exposed directly to residential schools have felt the damaging effects of intergenerational impacts of others who went to school. (AHF, 2008) Those impacts included being inflicted with traumatic experiences from student victims of abuse who then became abusers. Young people have consistently been the recipients in cycles of trauma. According to the Indian Residential Schools Survivors Society, Aboriginal communities experience higher rates of violence (3-6 times higher) than other Canadians. Health problems occurred 3

About the Author Jamie Koebel Jaime Koebel is currently an M.A., candidate and Research & Development Officer with the Metis Settlements General Council. Jaime has been an active advocate for youth engagement since 1993.

National Apology and Youth of Today times higher amongst Aboriginal communities while high school drop-out rates were at 63 percent. Among other issues that Aboriginal peoples face, poverty ranked among the highest of inequities for Aboriginal peoples compared to the rest of Canada. In Urban Poverty in Canada: A Statistical Profile (CCSD, 2000), evidence from the 1996 Census data showed that Aboriginal peoples in urban areas were more than twice as likely to live in poverty as non-Aboriginal peoples and 52 percent of all Aboriginal children are poor (Statistics Canada, 1996).

called boarding schools, Missions or day schools. The titles of these places may be different from Indian Residential Schools but their experiences are the same. The tragic difference is because they are not technically an Indian Residential School, boarding schools, Missions or day schools and subsequently the students who attended them do not qualify for compensation. Similarly, Metis who attended these schools were not included in the most recent Apology delivered by Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada unless they attended an Indian Residential School proper. For young people who belong to families of these former students, they are doubly impacted as none of the services implemented for Indian Residential School Survivors and their families apply to them or their families.

With these types of intergenerational impacts to affect the state of Aboriginal youth in a current context there is already an inherent challenge for young Aboriginal people to work through. Between 1831 and into the 1970â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s when the schools were actively in operation, children and youth did not have a voice in deciding whether or not they attended the schools. Today, in 2008, there are numerous avenues and opportunities for a youth voice to be expressed. These opportunities should be offered and initiated to ensure a genuine understanding of what needs to happen for real healing to be done.

It is important that so many leaders have identified the link between Aboriginal youth and children of today with the residential schools that were in place before todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s youth were even born. There has been much said by national Aboriginal leaders on the importance of protecting and serving Aboriginal youth, but there seems to be a disconnect of engaging with Aboriginal youth to determine what direction they think is necessary to move forward on the path of healing. The question of whether or not young people within the aforementioned Aboriginal organizations have been consulted is an important one. It is important that we as Canadians and Aboriginal people do differently from what had happened in the past if we are to create genuine change and thoughtful direction. Genuine change requires genuine effort for that change. Who is asking Aboriginal youth what they think the direction should be with regard to the issues around residential schools?

Inuit, First Nations & Metis Many Aboriginal leaders make a link between Aboriginal youth of today and residential schools; however, there appears to be a disconnect between what happened in the past such as memories of residential schools and what youth relate to. In her speech after the national apology was presented by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Mary Simon, National Leader for the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami makes the link between Aboriginal youth of today and residential schools by making the point that the apology will help entire communities in their healing process. She acknowledged that the Residential Schools issue skipped from generation to generation and gave the example that the percentage of Inuit who graduate from high school is only 16 percent compared to the 63 percent for the rest of Canada and the reason is because parents of those children are afraid to send their children to school because for them, the school was something bad. President Simon declared that the apology will help close that gap.

Walking the Talk Together Examples of genuine effort could include creating a space where young people can voice their opinions, concerns and ideas for the future. In the past there was not that opportunity for Aboriginal to express their voices in a recent colonial history. The space for expression to occur could be in a number of youth friendly environments including in their communities or perhaps in a larger space such as giving young people a chance to meet with National Aboriginal leaders who often claim to speak on their behalf. Even more genuine would be to invite young people to speak for themselves in spaces where National Aboriginal leaders meet with those in power. The political arena is closer to where changes in policy have the potential to happen such as on Parliament Hill, in the Senate and within National organizations themselves. An on-going opportunity for youth friendly space such as round-tables,

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

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

National Apology and Youth of Today conferences or within Aboriginal youth council events themselves requires financial contributions to make these spaces happen; however, young people should not limit themselves or become complacent until funding is put in place. Many national organizations have existing youth councils that can begin consultations with the people they represent or engage in policy drafting sessions to share those statements for youth inclusion on issues pertaining to residential schools. For the representative bodies that specifically deal with the residual effects of residential schools, such as the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is important that space in these places is also created for youth engagement and consultation. Either young people can ask for inclusion but better to have it offered as there can often be issues of power dynamics between young people and experienced adults.

opportunities for the voices of Aboriginal youth to be heard about the issue of Residential Schools. If National Aboriginal leaders think they need to protect and facilitate the positive, healthy development of young people this space for voice is imperative. Similarly, young Aboriginal people need to find their own spaces and take responsibility for learning about residential school issues as well as be provided the guidance in doing so. This is a responsibility for all. We are now in a time when young people can have a voice and it should be heard and valued. The need for a youth voice in the process of reconciliation is an important step in building a genuine foundation for a healthier people. It starts with hearing the voices that could not be heard. Aboriginal youth are a prime resource in contributing to an understanding of what needs to be done to make the process of reconciliation a genuine process with long-term and far reaching positive effects. Empowerment to the historically disempowered offers a path towards successful recovery and exemplary leadership.

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

References Aboriginal 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 the growing racialization of poverty in Canada presentation to subcommittee on children and youth at risk, 2003. Fontaine, Phil. Speech on the Government of Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s National Apology on Residential Schools, June 2008.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

TRENDS

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

About the Author Professor June McCue is a member of the Ned'u'ten People located along Lake Babine in northern British Columbia and is an Assistant Professor at the University of British Columbia’s Faculty of Law. Professor McCue's current efforts are focused on research, writing and teaching in the Indigenous law field.

Abstract This paper briefly examines 1) the Supreme Court of Canada’s handling of the commercial fisher’s position regarding aboriginal communal fisheries as "race-based fisheries; 2) the limits of using affirmative action equality guarantees to support the constitutionality of the aboriginal communal licenses; and 3) how the Supreme Court of Canada in my view, has missed an opportunity to validate the licenses, policy and regulation pertaining to aboriginal peoples based on the unique constitutional status of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada as argued by aboriginal participants in the case. While equality specialists see Kapp in terms of substantive equality and a success, I see Kapp as a short-term practical solution to conflicts that arise between Aboriginal Peoples and the Crown or Canadian citizens in the context of who controls the salmon fisheries. It is a partial victory to address the historical inequality and prejudice that Aboriginal peoples have faced in Canadian society, - or an example of formal equality. But in terms of on-going disadvantage caused by political discrimination through the non-recognition of aboriginal rights, title, sovereignty/jurisdiction, and selfdetermination, Kapp continues to substantively prejudice the unique constitutional status, rights and jurisdiction of Aboriginal Peoples, especially in relation to harvesting and management of fisheries in Canada. From an aboriginal perspective, we have a long way to go to achieve substantive equality between Canada and Indigenous Peoples.

d’une « mesure discriminatoire fondée sur la race »; 2) les limitations de l’utilisation des garanties d’égalité fondées sur « l’action positive » au soutien de la constitutionnalité des permis communautaires octroyés aux groupes autochtones; et 3) la manière dont la Cour suprême du Canada a raté, selon l’auteure, une occasion de valider les permis, les politiques et les règlements concernant les peuples autochtones, selon le statut constitutionnel particulier que leurs représentants ont revendiqué dans cette cause. Alors que les spécialistes de l’égalité voient dans Kapp un succès en termes d’égalité réelle, l’auteure trouve qu’il s’agit d’une solution pratique et à court terme aux conflits qui existent entre les Autochtones et la Couronne ou les autres citoyens canadiens dans le contexte du contrôle de la pêcherie de saumon. Il s’agit d’une victoire partielle par rapport à l’inégalité et au préjudice auxquels les peuples autochtones ont fait face dans toute l’histoire de la société canadienne – ou d’un exemple d’égalité formelle. Mais, par rapport au désavantage persistant causé par la discrimination politique sous forme de non-reconnaissance des droits, des titres, de la souveraineté, de la juridiction et de l’autodétermination autochtones, Kapp continue de porter un préjudice réel au statut constitutionnel, aux droits et à la juridiction des peuples autochtones, notamment en ce qui concerne la pratique et la gestion de la pêche au Canada. D’un point de vue autochtone, nous avons beaucoup de chemin à faire avant d’être en mesure de constater une égalité réelle entre le Canada et les peuples autochtones.

Résumé Ce mémoire examine brièvement : 1) le traitement accordé par la Cour suprême du Canada à l’argument des pêcheurs commerciaux selon lequel la pêche communautaire des Autochtones bénéficierait

Introduction In August 1998, there was an exclusive 24 hour opening for three Aboriginal communities to harvest salmon for food, ceremonial, and social purposes1, 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 from Musqueam, 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 establish in Canada the legal principle that there is a priority to access fisheries after conservation objectives have met: Aboriginal FCS fishery, commercial fishery and then sports/recreational fishery. See R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Kapp’s distinctions: Some members of Musqueam, Burrard and Tsawwassen bands had casted their nets along the banks of their traditional territories. At the same time, a group of commercial fishers opposed to the aboriginal only opening launched a "protest fishery". They were subsequently charged under the Fisheries Act2 for fishing during a closed time, which is a contravention under the Pacific Fishery Regulations. The commercial fishers went to court.

Importantly, the Kapp case sends a clear signal to governments that they can create affirmative action programs that ameliorate the disadvantaged status of Aboriginal peoples and combat discrimination. Such programs, according to the SCC, by virtue of this feature are not themselves discriminatory despite their differential regulation along race. The communal fishing licence granted by DFO to the Aboriginal communities was found to be constitutionally valid as a means to achieve substantive equality under the Charter.

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

The Kapp case, however, raises two serious issues7 that I address in this paper: 1) the use of race-based distinctions in law that have the affect of racializing Aboriginal peoples and their territories; and 2) whether affirmative measures are sufficient to protect the unique constitutional status of Aboriginal peoples. Some equality specialists see Kapp as a success in terms of substantive equality. I see Kapp as a short-term practical solution to conflicts that arise between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown or Canadian citizens in the context of who controls the fisheries and how access to the fisheries is regulated. It is a partial victory that addresses the historical inequality and prejudice that Aboriginal peoples have faced in Canadian society. Kapp fails, however, to provide a robust and holistic solution to the complex constitutional issues existing in the fishing dispute. From an Aboriginal perspective, the SCC did not fully examine how the commercial fishers’ challenge to AFS/PSP/ACFLR program impacts the unique constitutional status of Aboriginal peoples.8 If it had done so, substantive equality could truly have been achieved.

At the heart of the dispute in the Kapp4 case is the commercial fishers’ 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 in the 1990’s post Sparrow, to provide Aboriginal access to the fisheries. A coalition of commercial fishers in B.C. had made previous unsuccessful attempts5 to legally challenge the constitutional validity of the communal fishing licence made pursuant to the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations (ACFLR)6 that authorized the pilot sales to the exclusion of the commercial fishers. The SCC reviewed the AFS, PSP, ACFLR scheme and found it to be a constitutionally sound program based on the equality principle of affirmative action, the cornerstone of s. 15(2) of the Charter.

1. Distinctions based on race In the Kapp case, the SCC accepts the commercial fishers’ position that the PSP and conferral of a communal fishing licence exclusively to Aboriginal communities in 1998 created a distinction based on the enumerated ground of "race" in s. 15 of the Charter9 . This special fishing privilege was treated by the SCC as a benefit under law. Thus, the commercial fishers were denied a benefit under the law on the basis of race10. Justice

2 3 4 5

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, s. 78. See s. 53(1) of the Pacific Fishery Regulations, SOR/93-54. 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). R. v. Kapp 2008 (SCC)41 (Kapp). 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 freedoms 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.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Kapp’s distinctions: Bastarache articulated that this distinction had a detrimental effect on the non-Aboriginal commercial fishers by creating a disadvantage for them based on "racial differences"11. He concluded that the commercial fishers have established that the program is race-based beyond a doubt12. But on what evidence does the SCC base such conclusions? What rationalizations are offered to explain why the SCC has categorized and classified the program, licence and regulations in dispute as racebased? Not much. The SCC reasons that the communal fishing licence granted by the DFO is limited to the designate Aboriginal communities, and excludes the commercial fishers.13 Such government action therefore constitutes differential treatment based on race. The SCC relies on a precedent for the application of the affirmative action principle to determine whether the AFS/ PSP/ ACFLR program is constitutional. In my view, the SCC also relies on precedent for its classification of Aboriginal peoples as a "race".

expenditure of four billion dollars in the creation of a new town and a new industry in an area formerly enjoyed exclusively by the native peoples undoubtedly presents new problems for those people and it may well be that some form of legislation could be devised and adopted to meet their needs. No such legislation appears to have been enacted in Alberta and in my opinion it is no compensation for this lack of authority to seek to apply legislation designed for the conservation of energy resources to the amelioration of social inequalities.17(emphasis added) Aboriginal peoples are treated as being inferior and responsible for their handicaps in terms of employability, victimhood, or being plagued with disadvantages.

In the 1981 SCC decision of Athabasca Tribal Council v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd.,14 the SCC said affirmative action hiring programs with "racial criteria" designed to benefit an Aboriginal community were not discrimination.15 In Kapp, the Court cites Amoco to show support for an affirmative action fishery for disadvantaged Aboriginal communities: …The measures proposed by the affirmative action program should not be construed as "discriminating against" other inhabitants. The plan was not to displace non-Indians from their employment, but rather to advance the lot of Indians so that they could be in a competitive position to obtain employment without regard to the handicaps which their race inherited.16 (emphasis added)

It is problematic that the SCC in Kapp has carried forward into today’s times the paternalistic, stereotypical and racist categorization of Aboriginal peoples as a "race" as previously used in the Amoco decision. Patricia Monture speaks of stereotypes that lead to the discriminatory treatment of Aboriginal peoples as being on-going colonialism: "eventually colonial relations required First Nations to be characterized as inferior… this idea justified the taking of Aboriginal land…This idea of inferiority is still embedded in many stereotypes about Aboriginal peoples. And stereotypes are the process by which oppression is delivered. Colonialism must be seen as a living phenomenon, not a historical fact. The past impacts on the present, and today’s place of Aboriginal peoples in Canadian society cannot be understood without a welldeveloped historical understanding of colonialism and the present-day trajectories of those old relationships.(Trish 207)

The SCC in Amoco disagreed that an energy board could have jurisdiction to alleviate the social inequalities and disadvantages of Aboriginal peoples by offering an affirmative action program to hire them for work in the tar sands. Specifically, the SCC stated: …The powers with which the welfare of its inhabitants, and it would, in my view, require express language to extend the statutory authority so vested in the Board so as to include a program designed to lessen the age-old disadvantages which have plagued the native people since their first contact with civilization as it is known to the great majority of Albertans. It is however true that the

In reviewing the Kapp case, I could find no other rationale for why Aboriginal peoples are categorized as a race. In fact, there is very little mention of race in the judgment. This does not mean that the categorization of Aboriginal peoples as a race, and subsequently their fisheries, as race-based fisheries should go unchallenged. At least, the SCC should have conducted a critical race analysis of its judgment to ensure existing stereotypes and prejudices in its classifications and categorizations of Aboriginal peoples are prevented. It could have also canvassed writings on Indigenous legal theory to see if such classifications can withstand scrutiny under Indigenous legal traditions or meet 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.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Kapp’s distinctions: tional law concerning Indigenous peoples . By providing a historical, contextual and contemporary analysis of race in its judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada could have explained its use of race in the case.

a narrative that casts the commercial fishery as now a "racially segregated workplace" with preferential rules that advantage Aboriginal peoples and restrict the public right to fish for nonAboriginal fishers. The commercial fishers also advance the stereotype that Aboriginal peoples poach rather than exercise their distinct inherent rights. They advocate for a multi-cultural or racially-diverse public fishery regulated by the same rules for everyone. This is classic formal equality that denies Aboriginal communities their distinct status as peoples with homelands. The image painted for the Court is that while Aboriginal communities get an increased access the commercial fishery, commercial fishers are "tied up at the docks" or at the "back of the line" during the Aboriginal opening after which they get the "leftovers".

When the Supreme Court of Canada accepts a race-based categorization of Aboriginal peoples and their fisheries, it implicitly facilitates the commercial fishers’ objective to racialize Aboriginal fisheries. The impact for Aboriginal peoples is that there is a perpetuation of prejudice and stereotyping, both in relation to their status as peoples and their relationship to their traditional territories, including waters and fisheries. Let us take a look at how narratives and counter-narratives on race 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 substantial resources (financial, political and legal) to construct in law the stance that Aboriginal interests are race-based and an affront to the equality of all Canadians. Strategically, the commercial fishers found a way to manipulate equality and Aboriginal rights jurisprudence to mask attempts to keep the power and privilege they have historically held (and continue to hold) in the fishing industry. Their calculated attempts to argue that reverse discrimination occurs when Canada makes programs for Aboriginal peoples did not go unnoticed by the Court. The SCC, in my opinion, used affirmative action as a way to counter this strategy. However, the SCC’s acceptance of policies and regulations specific to Aboriginal fisheries as a distinction based on race or as a form of race-based governance, condones the racially motivated conduct of the commercial fishers towards Aboriginal peoples. The Court’s characterization of the AFS/ PSP/ ACFLR program as a distinction in law based on race, is a form of agency20 that structurally reinforces the marginalization of Aboriginal peoples. The Supreme Court of Canada’s simple conclusion that Aboriginal communal licencing of the sale of salmon is a legal distinction based on race indirectly shapes the dispute as one involving the DFO and racialized stakeholders (commercial fishers and Aboriginal peoples) rather than the federal Crown and Aboriginal peoples as constitutional and sovereign entities. In Kapp, the commercial fishers based its constitutional challenge to the DFO’s Aboriginal communal fishing program on

There is an attempt by the commercial fishers to de-historize, disconnect or displace Aboriginal peoples from their powers of jurisdiction over their people and traditional territory which include the waters. The historic understanding of race as a biological and scientific trait is alive in the commercial fishers’ narrative and captured when they claim discrimination by not having a bloodline connection to the Aboriginal communities who hold the communal fishing licence. The commercial fishers argue that they are excluded on the basis of a personal characteristic (race) that is immutable rather than on the basis of merit, ability or equal opportunity. The commercial fishers call for a colour-blind fishery and ask the Court to blind itself to the "age-old" Aboriginal connection to the fishery. Patricia Monture argues that colour blindness rest on the "tenets of formal equality"21. Using colour-blindness as a social construct would also make the non-Aboriginal commercial fishers the norm, as well as render their sources of power and privilege invisible and unchallengeable22. In fact, the commercial fishers argue that the Aboriginal fishery creates inflexibility for DFO to manage the fisheries which, in my view is the crux of the commercial fishers’ challenge. The commercial fishers argue that Aboriginal peoples should not have any constitutionally protected priority to the public commercial fishery because this would create a classification of the public right to fish based on race. They advocate that all Aboriginal rights in the fishery (including the Sparrow priority for FSC fisheries) be extinguished so that every Canadian citizen, 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.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Kapp’s distinctions: tunity to access a public fishery that is an integrated, multiracial, multi-cultural and democratic workplace regulated through one system of licencing by DFO. Like Crown title underlying Aboriginal title, the commercial fishers argue that rights for Aboriginal peoples under the Constitution are limited by the public right to fish. They have argued that if there is no more priority for Aboriginal commercial fisheries than there is no need to recognize or reconcile/balance the constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples with the public interest of Canadians. The commercial fishers recognize that Indianness includes language and culture but, when it comes to the fisheries, Aboriginal peoples should be treated as ordinary Canadian citizens. In their view, Aboriginal communities are cast as the "chosen ones" within a racial hierarchy regarding fisheries. Finally, Aboriginal fisheries create exclusive fisheries that displace commercial fishers and the opportunity of the average Canadian citizen, including Aboriginal individuals, from accessing a public right to fish. This race-based narrative sets the foundation for the commercial fishers’ claims to a violation of their rights to equality under the Charter. It is really a collateral attack on the unique constitutional status that Aboriginal peoples hold under the Constitution and undermines efforts to build better relations between the state and Aboriginal peoples. This distinction between "rights/status" and "race" is key.

argued that the scheme can also assist Aboriginal peoples in maintaining their cultural security by promoting self-sufficiency. The agreements negotiated under the AFS could meet the s. 35 purpose of reconciling the prior occupation and sovereignty of Aboriginal peoples with assumed crown sovereignty. The scheme could offer accommodation of asserted rights to harvest fish for trade or sale. The agreements negotiated under the AFS could be seen as preliminary self-government agreements relating to the fishery, or interim measures for treatymaking and increased access to the fishery for food, ceremonial, social and commercial purposes. Finally, some Aboriginal interveners argued that the scheme can rectify the impacts of historical restrictions and discriminatory laws24 towards Aboriginal peoples in the fishery which have contributed to historical and on-going disadvantages. In this context, the AFS/ PSP/ and communal fishing licence formed a "rightsbased policy" for negotiating a new relationship between the crown and Aboriginal peoples, rather than a "race-based policy" as contended by the commercial fishers. The Aboriginal interveners argued that in managing the fisheries, the DFO created a program that partially respected Aboriginal fisheries and was constitutionally valid even though it created a distinction and differential treatment in relation to the commercial fishers and Aboriginal organizations. This historical distinction, flowing from Aboriginal peoples’ prior occupation and distinct political communities or organized societies, represents communal and political characteristics rather than a characteristic based on race. Under Canada’s Constitution, it was argued that Aboriginal peoples’ status is distinctly treated as being separate and apart from minorities, a status not shared by the rest of Canadians. Thus, DFO could create different licencing schemes to manage the fishery that respects the distinct status and rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada, not as racial groups but as peoples.

b. The Aboriginal Counter-narrative23: Aboriginal fisheries based on distinct status and rights The SCC placed little weight on the counter-narratives to the race-based fishery construction put forward by the Aboriginal interveners in Kapp. A common position presented by the Aboriginal interveners was that the DFO created the PSP to respect the unique and special constitutional status of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. The AFS, PSP and communal fishing licence provided a scheme to negotiate the implementation of various rights and benefits that flow from Aboriginal status under s. 91(24), s. 35 and s. 25 of the Constitution. It also provided a means to ensure that crown obligations continue to flow from the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown. As a small step towards recognizing Aboriginal rights to harvest salmon, the PSP and AFS are structured to take into account Aboriginal peoples’ historic and contemporary relationship to the fishery. The scheme can bring sensitivity to traditional Aboriginal values and governance. Further, it can provide a source for economic opportunities for Aboriginal peoples. The Aboriginal interveners

The Aboriginal interveners in the case also challenged the racebased fishery construction by looking to the interpretation of what the term "Aboriginal" means. For example, it was argued that Aboriginal is not a racial classification, but rather an adjective to describe the people who were here in Canada before the colonists came. It was pointed out to the SCC that the term Aboriginal has been used by a previous Chief Justice of the SCC to connote "pre-existing Aboriginal societies" and not races. An Aboriginal perspective was put forward that the ACFLR 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, Haisla First 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.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Kapp’s distinctions: Licences issued by DFO to the Aboriginal communities in this case were communal, geographically defined and available to Aboriginal organizations that were capable of asserting and holding rights. Finally, Aboriginal interveners (and even DFO) rejected the idea that the commercial fishers were part of a community, with personal characteristics such as race. Ultimately, Aboriginal interveners viewed the AFS/PSP/ACFLR program as not race-based or requiring bloodline connections but a political commitment to them by DFO to honour their unique status in Canada. In the equality and Aboriginal rights context, Aboriginal status forms the basis for Aboriginal fisheries rather than race. Therefore, the communal fishers did not experience reverse discrimination or have their equality rights under the Charter violated by the scheme in question.

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 provided solutions for negotiating Aboriginal rights to fishing claims, economic opportunities to native bands, and supported their progress towards self-sufficiency; and 2) the program targeted a disadvantaged group identified by enumerated or analogous grounds as set out in s. 15(1) of the Charter25. Although the SCC does not state which ground, I presume it is "race". The SCC found Aboriginal peoples to be indisputably historically disadvantaged26. Thus, communal fishing licences or special fishing privileges granted to Aboriginal organizations such as the Musqueam, Burrard and Tsawwassen communities were accepted as a rational means for the DFO to pro-actively combat the discrimination against these communities that has caused disadvantage.27 In the fishing context, the DFO has denied the distinctive and distinct fishing rights of Aboriginal peoples for a long time28. Aboriginal interveners argued that the ability to exercise Aboriginal rights to fish was severely regulated 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 caused by historical disadvantages, Aboriginal peoples today have a hard time exercising even their food/ceremonial and social fisheries. It is too costly to buy equipment or commercial licences. The AFS/PSP/ACFLR program provided a way to partially remedy this reality.

Rather than accepting these positions offered to the SCC by the Aboriginal interveners, the SCC held that the distinction was based on race, but was not discriminatory because the impugned program had an ameliorative purpose to provide redress to a historically and presently disadvantaged group. By rejecting the Aboriginal interveners’ counter-narrative to the race-based fishery construction, the SCC opened the door to future race-based constructions of Aboriginal peoples. The immediate consequence of this conclusion is that Aboriginal peoples’ status and identity along with their traditional territories continue to be racialized by powerful commercial fishing lobby groups organized to eliminate any differential treatment Aboriginal peoples receive in their engagement with management of the fisheries. Prejudice and stereotyping continue to shape the life experiences of Aboriginal peoples.

While this approach to resolving the fishing dispute in the Kapp case is a breath of fresh air in terms of the evolution of s. 15 equality guarantees, I am concerned about the temporal nature of affirmative action measures in resolving conflicts between Aboriginal peoples and Canada. Equally, affirmative action measures can produce outcomes that represent formal equality rather than substantive equality. My worry is that once the scheme like the one created by DFO in this case has been found to rectify the historic disadvantage of Aboriginal peoples, there is no longer a need to treat Aboriginal peoples distinctly. This could lead to the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples and an erosion of their unique constitutional status in the fishery context. If the purpose of the affirmative measure is met and equality achieved, then the constitutional status or character of the affirmative action program becomes transitory or impermanent as well.

A more detailed critical race and Indigenous theory analysis of the consequences of the Court’s acceptance of a race-based fishery construction reveals the structural or institutional power imbalances Aboriginal peoples face in securing protection and respect for their constitutional status in the context of the fishery. 2. The Limits of Affirmative Action rationales for Aboriginal peoples In the Kapp case, the SCC chose to characterize the AFS/PSP/ACFLR program as an affirmative action measure that met the standards within a newly formulated test for

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: University of Toronto Press, 2001). In my view, the denial of aboriginal fishing rights cannot be separated from colonial policy to deny aboriginal title and sovereignty.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Kapp’s distinctions: Formal equality achieved through affirmative measures could leave the monopoly that DFO has in managing the fisheries intact. In my opinion, this could lead to a disruption in Aboriginal peoples’ attempts to recover their political, economic, social, cultural and legal decision-making processes in relation to the fisheries. Critiquing the purposes and limits of ameliorative programs, Goldenberg correctly states: …the basic theory of amelioration as a tool of substantive equality demands that restitution for past injustices must be made to individuals or groups who have suffered historical disadvantages that have led to current inequities, in order to achieve "balance" in society or an "equal playing field" for such groups or individuals. Equality, therefore even when it is offered and framed in more substantive forms, is expressed as the creation of a "basic starting point" for all groups and individuals. The goal of s. 15(2) of the Charter and all ameliorative or affirmative action programs, then, is one of integration or of creating an "equal playing field." … For certain groups, and Aboriginal peoples in particular, construing the goal of substantive equality as differential treatment in order to produce sameness in result (that is, an "equal playing field"), misconstrues the very nature of the need or the claim for differential treatment. Such a claim in the Aboriginal context is based not on a desire for integration and sameness in result, but rather on recognition of the unique relationship Aboriginal peoples enjoy with the state, expressed in their constitutionally-protected rights.29

fisheries (both FSC and Pilot Sales) included mandatory landing sites, and the use of inaccurate data to set target escapement levels. It was argued that the licence retirement program30 favours commercial fishers who receive above market buyouts for their licences which, then get sold to Aboriginal organizations. These are some examples of the structural imbalances that exist in the AFS program. And we have yet to see any measureable data that scrutinizes these programs according to traditional aboriginal governance in relation to the fisheries. By not scrutinizing the AFS/PSP/ACFLR program, the SCC shields DFO’s discretionary powers to set the parameters for management of the fisheries from constitutional review by Aboriginal peoples. Contrast this with an approach to substantive equality that directs governments to combat discrimination by intending to commit to programs that recognize and maintain Aboriginal peoples’ special constitutional and distinctive status. This approach to substantive equality could ensure that there is consistency in the respect for Aboriginal jurisdiction and rights/obligations to their territories by both Canada and its citizens. While this is a more holistic approach to ensuring equality amongst Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state, I am not convinced that the SCC is the appropriate venue to adjudicate constitutional claims that involve the intersection between substantive equality, aboriginal rights, division of powers in relation to Aboriginal peoples, and the Charter. Perhaps an independent tribunal could hear disputes in a manner that addresses all constitutional questions that impact Aboriginal peoples’ interests. Such a tribunal could provide a full hearing of issues that impact the unique constitutional status of Aboriginal peoples. A tribunal created to specifically deal with issues that straddle the constitutional apparatus of division of powers, s. 35, the Charter, and the growing recognition for international rights that pertain to Indigenous peoples and Canada is needed. A tribunal comprised of members from both Canada and Aboriginal representatives could structurally address the distribution of burden of proof in conflicts, factual problems, any issue relating to a conflict of interest for Canada when it comes to regulating Aboriginal interests and the interests of Canadians, and whether or not, ethically, parties are making proper use of the Constitution. Finally, an independent tribunal could employ Indigenous legal theory and traditions to the disputes.

By accepting a government program as constitutionally valid because it meets the standards for affirmative action now set out in s. 15(2), we do not get to examine substantively, whether or not the program is consistent with other parts of the Canadian Constitution that protect the interests of Aboriginal peoples. For example, while the AFS/PSP/ACFLR program was found to be constitutional by the SCC, we have no inquiry to assess if that same scheme violates other rights and 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 examples such as: no priority for the pilot sales fishery meaning that there was always a commercial fishery elsewhere that was open, increased levy fees, Aboriginal organizations had to agree that the fishing agreement did not recognize an aboriginal commercial right to fish, increased enforcement and regulation of

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 information see http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/PICFI/default e.atm

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

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

They view the protest fishery conducted by the commercial fishers in the Kapp case, as not justifiable and racially motivated. A remaining question considering all these responses to the Kapp case, is whether the SCC has provided enough guidance and legal principles to address these lingering issues.

3. Concluding Thoughts The DFO continues to offer increased access to the commercial fishery for Aboriginal organizations through licencing schemes and the negotiation of "economic opportunity" fishing agreements for sale or trade. DFO has yet to publicly state whether these practices (which pre-date Kapp) meet the affirmative action standards set by the Supreme Court of Canada in Kapp.

Meanwhile, the commercial fishers have continued their racebased construction of Aboriginal fisheries by filing a re-hearing/direction motion to the SCC in August, 2008. They argued that the SCC should grant a re-hearing of Kapp because the SCC made an error by not upholding the trial judges’ ruling that 1) DFO’s AFS program created discrimination against the commercial fishers based on race, and 2) dismissed his findings of fact that the Aboriginal communities in question where likely not disadvantaged financially. The commercial fishers questioned whether affirmative action programs are immune from Charter scrutiny. At the heart of their plea – they questioned whether "racial segregation in the workplace" (i.e. commercial fishery) could ever be justified in a free and democratic society. They finally argued that the Aboriginal bands that have a communal fishing licence are already "advantaged" and that there is no need to provide affirmative measures for them.

The B.C. First Nations Fisheries Council, and other Aboriginal organizations31, hold Kapp as a victory for First Nations seeking constitutional protection of their rights to fish, amelioration of their indisputable disadvantaged status in relation to the fishery and more widely. Further, they feel vindicated that Aboriginal fisheries can provide economic opportunities to First Nations on a priority basis, which in turn can promote self-sufficiency and sound protection for the health of the fisheries. Other First Nations located along the Fraser River have rejected the terms for negotiating economic opportunity agreements under the AFS strategy from the beginning, including the PSP, because it undermines their Aboriginal rights claims and prioritizes economic goals over adequate protection of the fish. For those First Nations not participating in the DFO’s current licencing programs, their members continue to: face fishing prosecutions when they assert their inherent rights, experience racial tension on the waters, and witness the Sparrow priority not being policed or enforced by DFO. They have concluded that the AFS and current licencing scheme maintaining DFO’s jurisdiction over resources as being inconsistent with their jurisdiction over their traditional territories.

Kapp has left many surprised by the SCC’s equality approach to this historic and on-going dispute over the salmon between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal societies. However, the distinctions in Kapp based on race undermine the unique constitutional status that Aboriginal peoples hold in this country. Without addressing this impact, affirmative measures designed to redress the historic disadvantage of Aboriginal peoples will result in formal equality, rather than substantive equality between the Canadian state and Aboriginal peoples.

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

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

FEATURES

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

Abstract The signing of Métis Nation Protocol on September 5, 2008, is a turning point for Canadaís relationship with the Métis. It creates a new opportunity for open dialogue between the federal government and the Métis National Council (MNC) and offers hope for fundamental changes through a new process between the MNC, the federal government and, eventually the provinces. Over the past 25 years the Métis have struggled to gain recognition, justice, acknowledgement of land and rights as a distinct Aboriginal people and nation in Canada. This protocol provides a clear understanding of the Métis cultural background, where they originated from, and their relationship with the Canadian Government. It is hoped that through this, there will be an end to systemic discrimination and that it will build new relationships for future interventions between the Métis Nation and the federal government

About the Author Clément Chartier was elected president of the Métis National Council by acclamation at the Métis National Council’s General Assembly on October 24, 2003 and was re-elected to this post on February 23, 2008. A lawyer by trade, for the last 25 years Mr. Chartier has used his legal training to push forward the Métis Nation’s rights agenda in the courts and acted as a spokesperson and advisor to the Métis Nation in several First Ministers Conferences on the Canadian Constitution and in sessions of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations in Geneva.

the interests of the Métis in Canada since 1983. Over the past 25 years there have been both triumphs and frustrations in the pursuit of recognition and justice. Upon reflection of the past, it is hoped that the Métis Nation Protocol will move the agenda of the Métis Nation forward through two fundamental changes in policy: establishing a new bilateral process between the federal government and the MNC, and initiating multilateral discussions between the MNC, the federal government and the provinces. This article will provide a brief 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.

On September 5, 2008, Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and NonStatus Indians, announced the signing of a Métis Nation Protocol with the Métis National Council. This agreement marked a significant turning point in Canada’s relationship with the Métis by creating a new opportunity for open dialogue between the federal government and the MNC. There is also great hope that this protocol will begin a process that will finally address the systemic discrimination faced by the Métis Nation throughout history.

Who are the Métis? In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century the fur trade was expanding across western Canada and with this trade emerged distinct new communities that celebrated both old and new world culture and traditions. These people were the Métis, a proud new nation of European and First Nations ancestry with an independent self-identity, territory, language and collective consciousness. The Métis Nation grew in numbers and strength throughout the 1800s, building a new economy based on hunting, guiding and commercial trade of fur and other provisions and establishing rights as land title holders in the western plains. However, Métis settlements came into conflict with the powerful Hudson’s Bay Company and the Canadian Government, as the new Dominion began to buy its way to nationhood.

As the Métis National Council (MNC) begins a new partnership with the federal government there is some reflection on the past and one question that lingers: Do Canadians know the truth about the Métis? The MNC, as the national body representing five provincial Governing Members from Ontario west to British Columbia, has represented

In 1869, when the Hudson’s Bay Company sold Rupert’s Land to the Dominion of Canada, no provisions were made for the rights of the Métis majority in the Red River Settlement of Manitoba, despite the fact that the Métis had settled and developed the land, communities and economy of the west. This loss of title and entitlement led to

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Resistance, Recognition, Respect Protocol will work to end it by establishing a new bilateral process for the MNC, and begin multilateral discussions between the federal government and the provinces. This agreement lays out a process of inclusion in governance and the policy making of the state and represents a new commitment of the federal government to build new relationships between the Métis Nation and the federal government for the future.

the Red River Resistance, where Louis Riel and his Provisional Government fought for political status, language and land for the Métis Nation. In April 1870, the Red River Settlement entered confederation as the new province of Manitoba with compensations and recognition of land occupied by the Métis and their children in exchange for extinguished Indian title to the land. However, this agreement was never honoured by the state and to this day the Métis Nation is fighting for recognition of their distinct existence within the Canadian federation and acknowledgement of land and rights as first peoples of Canada.

Specifically, the bilateral process will address jurisdictional issues related to federal and provincial responsibilities; the recognition of injustice and abuse experienced by Métis survivors of residential or boarding schools; access to benefits and settlements by Métis veterans; the development of Métis governance and institutions; economic development and capacity building; Métis Aboriginal rights, including those that may be related to lands and harvesting; and, other issues the federal government and Métis Nation may agree to.

Rights and Recognition of the Métis in Canada Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, marked a new era for the Métis Nation in Canadian history by outlining constitutional protection for the existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights for the Métis. This momentous event was the result of generations that refused to give up their rights as first peoples and tireless efforts by leaders of the Métis Nation. In spite of this, Section 35 sat as an unfulfilled promise to the Métis, as the federal and provincial governments maintained that the Métis had no existing Aboriginal rights, consequently refusing to negotiate or deal with the Métis.

The multilateral discussions identified in the agreement support relationship building between the MNC and its Governing Members, the Federal Government and the provinces from Ontario westward. These discussions may relate to lands and resources, harvesting rights, economic development, education and training, health, child and family services, housing, justice and policing, all areas that have been underdeveloped when it comes to the inclusion of the Métis in programs and services or policy making. Together with the new bilateral process, it is hoped that multilateral discussions will open new doors for increased participation of the Métis in the governance process and improved opportunities for the Métis as Aboriginal rights are recognized.

This changed on September 19, 2003, when the Métis finally won what they had been fighting for. In a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Powley ["Powley"] was the first Supreme Court case to establish the distinct existence and protection of the existing Aboriginal hunting and harvesting rights of the Métis. Since 2003, the federal government has supported the Métis Nation through post-Powley funding that enhances the research and recorded history of the Métis and supports rights claims to further the fight for justice and recognition. Today, there have been many more victories for Métis rights as well as continued pursuits for justice across the Métis Nation, from land claims to the right to self government through the provision of programs and services for the Métis.

Conclusion With a rich history and culture, the Métis have been fighting for generations to protect their rights and recognition as first peoples in Canada. While this fight is not over, 2008 marked the start of a new chapter in the MNC’s fight for justice with the signing of the Métis Nation by Chuck Strahl, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians. As this story unfolds, the MNC reflects on the past and is cautiously optimistic the Protocol is the next step to overcoming systemic discrimination of the Métis Nation in federal and provincial policy, programs and services.

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

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Articles de fond

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

L’ auteur : Clément Chartier a été élu par acclamation à la présidence du Comité national des Métis lors de l'assemblée annuelle tenue le 24 octobre 2003 et a été réélu le 23 février 2008. Avocat, il a consacré les 25 dernières années àfaire progresser les droits de la nation Métis devant les tribunaux et a agien tant que porte-parole et conseiller dans le cadre de plusieurs conférences des premiers ministres sur la Constitution canadienne et séances de la Commission des droits de la personne des Nations-Unies tenues à Genève.

Résumé La signature du Protocole de la Nation Métis, le 5 septembre 2008, représente un tournant dans les rapports du Canada avec le peuple Métis. Le Protocole crée de nouvelles possibilités de dialogue ouvert entre le gouvernement fédéral et le Ralliement national des Métis (RNM). Il offre l’espoir de changements fondamentaux par un nouveau processus entre le RNM, le gouvernement fédéral et, à la longue, les provinces. Au cours des 25 dernières années, les Métis ont lutté pour obtenir la justice, la reconnaissance de leur statut, de leurs terres et de leurs droits en tant que peuple et nation autochtones distincts au Canada. Ce Protocole clarifie les antécédents culturels des Métis, leurs origines et leurs rapports avec le gouvernement du Canada. On espère qu’il aura pour effet de mettre fin à la discrimination systémique et de créer de nouveaux rapports pour les interventions futures entre la Nation Métis et le gouvernement fédéral. Le 5 septembre 2008, l’honorable Chuck Strahl, ministre des Affaires indiennes et du Nord canadien et interlocuteur fédéral auprès des Métis et des Indiens non inscrits, annonçait la signature d’un Protocole d’entente sur la nation métisse avec le Ralliement national des Métis. Cette entente constitue un tournant important dans les rapports du Canada avec les Métis en créant une nouvelle possibilité de dialogue ouvert entre le gouvernement fédéral et le Ralliement national des Métis. Elle suscite également de grands espoirs chez les Métis qu’amorce ainsi le processus qui aboutira à l’élimination de la discrimination systémique à laquelle a été confrontée la nation métisse au cours de toute son histoire. Au moment où le Ralliement national des Métis (RNM) entame un nouveau partenariat avec le gouvernement fédéral, il est opportun de se pencher sur le passé et sur une question qui persiste : les Canadiens connaissent-ils la vérité sur les Métis? Organisme national regroupant cinq organisations membres, représentant les Métis de l’Ouest de l’Ontario à la Colombie-Britannique, le RNM défend les intérêts des Métis du Canada depuis

1983. Durant les vingt-cinq dernières années, il a remporté de grandes victoires tout comme il a connu des frustrations dans la poursuite de la reconnaissance des droits des Métis et de la justice à laquelle ils ont droit. En réfléchissant sur le passé, il faut espérer que le Protocole d’entente sur la nation métisse fasse avancer la cause de cette dernière en apportant deux changements fondamentaux de nature politique : l’établissement d’un nouveau processus bilatéral entre le gouvernement fédéral et le RNM et le commencement de discussions multilatérales entre le RNM, le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces. L’article offre une vue d’ensemble sur la montée de la nation métisse, sur la lutte qu’elle mène pour son inclusion et pour le maintien et la reconnaissance de son identité, ainsi que sur l’entente qui établit une nouvelle relation entre le gouvernement fédéral et le RNM. Qui sont les Métis? À la fin du dix-huitième et au début du dix-neuvième siècle, le commerce des fourrures s’étendait dans tout l’Ouest du Canada et donnait naissance à de nouvelles collectivités célébrant la culture et les traditions du Nouveau Monde comme de l’ancien. Ces collectivités regroupaient des Métis, membres d’une nouvelle nation fière de ses ancêtres européens et autochtones qui s’était donné sa propre identité, avait son propre territoire, sa langue et une conscience collective. La nation métisse s’est accrue en nombre et en force au fil du dix-huitième siècle, construisant une nouvelle économie fondée sur la chasse, le guidage et le commerce des fourrures et d’autres marchandises et acquérant des droits fonciers dans les plaines de l’Ouest. Mais les colonies métisses entrèrent en conflit avec la puissante Compagnie de la Baie d’Hudson et avec le gouvernement canadien, le nouveau Dominion, qui commençait à se frayer une voie vers l’indépendance nationale. En 1869, la Compagnie de la Baie d’Hudson vend la Terre de Rupert au Dominion du Canada. L’acte de vente ne contient aucun article protégeant les droits de la majorité métisse de la colonie de la

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Résistance, reconnaissance, respect rivière Rouge, malgré le fait que les Métis se soient établis sur ces territoires, y aient créé des collectivités et développé l’économie de l’Ouest. La perte de leurs droits fonciers et de leurs autres droits pousse les Métis à la Rébellion de la rivière Rouge, qui voit Riel et son gouvernement provisoire lutter pour la reconnaissance du statut politique, de la langue et du territoire de la nation métisse. En avril 1870, la colonie de la rivière Rouge devient membre de la Confédération canadienne en tant que province du Manitoba : les Métis se voient octroyer une indemnité et la reconnaissance des terres qu’eux et leurs enfants occupaient en échange de l’extinction de leur titre indien à ces terres. Mais l’entente n’est pas respectée par l’État et, encore aujourd’hui, la nation métisse lutte pour la reconnaissance de son existence distincte au sein de la fédération canadienne et pour la reconnaissance de ses droits et titres en tant que Première nation du Canada.

forcera de mettre fin à cette discrimination en établissant un nouveau processus bilatéral de discussions et négociations avec le RNM et en amorçant des discussions multilatérales entre le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces. L’entente définit un processus d’inclusion des Métis dans la gouvernance et dans la formulation de politiques gouvernementales. Elle constitue un nouvel engagement de la part du gouvernement fédéral de nouer de nouvelles relations avec la nation métisse. Plus particulièrement, le processus bilatéral s’attaquera aux questions de compétence fédérale et provinciale, à la reconnaissance et à la correction des situations injustes et des abus dont ont été victimes les Métis dans les pensionnats, à l’accès des Métis aux prestations des anciens combattants et au régime d’établissement des soldats, au développement de la gouvernance et d’institutions métisses, au développement économique et au renforcement des capacités, aux droits autochtones des Métis, y compris les droits relatifs aux terres, à la chasse et la récolte ainsi qu’à toute autre question que le gouvernement fédéral et la nation métisse décideront de traiter.

Droits et reconnaissance des Métis au Canada L’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 marque le début d’une nouvelle ère pour la nation métisse dans l’histoire canadienne : il confirme la protection constitutionnelle dont jouissent les Métis quant à leurs droits autochtones et à leurs droits issus de traités. Cet événement majeur est l’aboutissement du refus des générations précédentes de renoncer à leurs droits en tant que Première nation et des efforts inlassables des dirigeants de la nation métisse. Malgré son statut constitutionnel, les promesses de l’article 35 sont restées sans suite : les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux soutenaient en effet que les Métis n’avaient pas de droits autochtones et refusaient pour cette raison de négocier ou de conclure des ententes avec eux.

Les discussions multilatérales mentionnées dans l’entente appuient l’établissement de relations entre le RNM et ses organisations membres et le gouvernement fédéral et cinq provinces : l’Ontario, le Manitoba, la Saskatchewan, l’Alberta et la Colombie-Britannique. Ces discussions pourront porter sur les terres et les ressources, les droits de récolte, le développement économique, l’éducation et la formation, la santé, les services d’aide à l’enfance et aux familles, le logement, la justice et les services de police, domaines qui sont tous peu développés pour ce qui est de l’inclusion des Métis dans les programmes et les services ou l’établissement de politiques. On espère que, conjointement au nouveau processus bilatéral, les discussions multilatérales auront pour effet d’accroître la participation des Métis au processus de gouvernance et d’améliorer les possibilités de reconnaissance de leurs droits autochtones.

La situation a changé le 19 septembre 2003. Les Métis ont finalement réussi à obtenir ce pour quoi ils luttaient depuis tant d’années. Par décision unanime, la Cour suprême a dédicé, dans R. c. Powley (Powley) que les Métis avaient des droits de chasse et de récolte autochtones jouissant d’une protection constitutionnelle. Depuis cette décision, le gouvernement fédéral appuie la cause de la nation métisse : il octroie aux Métis des fonds visant à améliorer la recherche et leurs écrits historiques et appuie leurs revendications en quête de justice et de reconnaissance. Les Métis ont remporté depuis plusieurs autres victoires quant à la reconnaissance de leurs droits et à leur quête incessante de justice pour toute la nation métisse : des revendications territoriales à l’autonomie gouvernementale, de même que la fourniture de programmes et de services.

Conclusion Forts de la richesse de leur culture et de leur histoire, les Métis luttent depuis des générations pour la protection de leurs droits et de leur reconnaissance comme Première nation. La lutte doit continuer mais, par la signature en 2008 du Protocole d’entente sur la nation métisse par l’honorable Chuck Strahl, ministre des Affaires indiennes et du Nord canadien et interlocuteur fédéral auprès des Métis et des Indiens non inscrits, les parties ont tourné la page et entamé un nouveau chapitre de l’histoire du combat du RNM afin d’obtenir justice pour la nation métisse. Le RNM ne peut oublier le passé, mais peut maintenant faire preuve d’un optimisme prudent et espérer que le Protocole constitue une étape qui favorisera l’élimination de la discrimination systémique dont la nation métisse fait l’objet dans les politiques, programmes et services fédéraux et provinciaux.

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

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

FEATURE

Canaries on Ice: Inuit identity and climate change Katherine Minich, MHSc Abstract Inuit are calling on their Aboriginality, rather than their national identities of being American or Canadian citizens, in an effort to arrest the global climate change effects on their homelands. A deeper social analysis of the Inuit petition at the Inter American Commission on Human Rights for violations resulting from climate change demonstrates that the corridors of institutional power and historic/colonial discrimination are actively morphing Inuit efforts to decolonize mitigation and adaptation strategies used to address climate change. Not only does Inuit health continue to suffer as a result of sustained colonization but now the second wave of colonization, that of climate change, seeks to further assimilate remaining Indigenous structures.

About the Author Katherine Minich, (MHSc) is an Inuk from Nunavut, living in Toronto and works for the Centre of Health Promotion at the University of Toronto.

Surviving in the Arctic From the vantage point of having an ongoing and intimate relationship with the environment, Inuit have since time immemorial survived and thrived in the Arctic and recently placed information about this relationship into a petition to the Inter-America Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for violations resulting from global warming caused by the United States (Watt-Cloutier, 2006). Similarly, computer forecasting models indicate that the Arctic is susceptible to greater warming levels than the global average (Arctic Council 2004:27). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that both hydrological and terrestrial ecosystems have changed, thus effecting thermal structures, water quality, temperature, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation which are caused by industrial activity cultivated by humans. Industry changed land-use patterns and fossil fuel consumption and consequently huge increases in greenhouse gases (GHG) were emitted into the atmosphere. (IPCC 2007: 5). IPCC (2004) stresses that synergistic and sustainable adaptation strategies are necessary regardless of how people, nations and industry are going to mitigate climate change (p.21-22). However, both adaptation and mitigation strategies

represent ethically charged grounds that reinforce polarities such as developed and undeveloped or haves and have nots. The distribution of risk to adverse outcomes from climate change continues to plague those already marginalized and favour those privileged by colonization via economic systems of resource exploitation. Furthermore, climate change exasperates colonization and Inuit leader, Shelia Watt-Cloutier (2006) even parallels climate change as the second wave of colonization. Cultural Jeopardy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a humanity issue Because Indigenous populations are closely connected, even inseparable to the land and oceans, Inuit in particular are in cultural jeopardy as the Arctic climate changes. However, the investigation before IACHR persists a viable measure to arrest environmental disconnect that climate change perpetuates, especially in comparison to the linear models that endorse gradual Arctic melting. The Inuit petition presents 7 key human rights violations: 1) right to enjoy the benefit of culture 2) right to use and enjoy lands traditionally occupied 3) right to use and enjoy personal property 4) right to the preservation of health 5) right to life, physical integrity and security 6) 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 its rulings are nominal (Spicer 2007) and more persuasive than enforceable because of the separation between international law and domestic affairs of nation-states. International law is weak because powerful nation-states hold out on agreements. For example, while Canada and the United States are members of the IACHR, they did not ratify the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, rather both are signatories to the 1948 Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Abate 2007: 36). Not only are Canada and United States distanced from the Commission, the organizational structure

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Canaries on Ice of the Commission puts the Inuit petition at the mercy of a few panelists who review admissibility of their case, investigates, explores settlement options and report on deliberations, only then can the petition go a hearing at the Inter American Court. On the contrary, the normative influence is powerful because many developed nations go to great lengths to avoid international shaming. In fact, Abate (2007) thinks the Inuit petition is one of "conscience" with significant public awareness implications. Furthermore Abate (2007) positions hypothetical recommendations that reprimand the United States inaction in GHG emission as an appeasement to the ‘global community’ engaged in protecting the environment. Although from the Inuit point of view Shelia Watt-Cloutier says: "…this is a family, community issue, this is not just about trading of carbon, sinks and emission trading and so on. It is not just technology, not just politics, this is a people issue, this is a human issue, this is a humanity issue. The world has not been seeing it in that light at all" .

that has created the climate crisis. IACHR is not immune to the convenience of decontextualizing and dehistorizing so that decolonizing projects are disrupted by the forces that lent to the Commission’s creation. In exploring the tensions between Indigenous peoples, citizenship and responses to climate change, it is important to render obvious the point about predetermining Indigenous peoples as full fledged citizens of nation-states and as pointed out earlier, the assumption that Indigenous issues are compatible with domestic affairs. In comparison to the general public’s status in nation-states, the health, social welfare and well-being of Indigenous peoples fall below the average. For example, Inuit in Canada have the highest level of youth suicide (Tester & McNicoll 2003); something keeps Inuit from being healthy individuals and societies within one of the most advanced nation-states in the world and the most differentiating factor is colonization. Conclusion Despite being the majority of Arctic residents and being Canadian citizens, Inuit in Canada encounter disparate climate change responses directly influencing their traditional lands. In this essay I touched on how ethnic difference brought on by colonization forced Inuit to move beyond domestic affairs into the realm of international law. It is obvious that Inuit depart from neo-liberal governments’ acceptance of climate change projections and models in linear anticipation of Arctic melt. Inuit are investing in efforts to arrest climate change. To do so, Inuit have not called on their Canadian or American identities; rather they called upon their Aboriginality. In doing so, a set of institutions and processes that serves to promote self-determination and decolonization were invoked at the same time general Canadians and the ‘environmental’ community are kept at bay.

Personally, I find it hard to be critical of this plea to humanity because I too feel the passion, believing that people make change happen, and the rationale for the Inuit petition is compelling. However, power in its normative form is a difficult concept to realize in a global capitalist system that prioritizes currency and economic growth. The stark contradiction of normative versus ‘real’ power reflects differences between Indigenous organization around eco-centricity and community versus the colonial organization that fosters egocentricity. Decontextualizing and dehistorizing Indigenous peoples’ self-determination is in particular, erased by the colonial framework incorporated under domestic law much in 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 Climate 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 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 accessed 02/20/2008)

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Articles de fond

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

Résumé Les Inuits font appel à leur aboriginalité, plutôt qu’à leur identité nationale canadienne ou américaine, pour prévenir les répercussions du changement climatique mondial sur leur territoire. Une profonde analyse sociale d’une pétition relative au changement climatique, présentée à la Commission interaméricaine des droits de la personne, révèle que les labyrinthes du pouvoir institutionnel et de la discrimination historique/coloniale métamorphosent effectivement les efforts déployés par les Inuits afin de décoloniser les stratégies d’atténuation du changement climatique et les mesures d’adaptation. Non seulement en conséquence de la colonisation soutenue la santé des Inuits continue-t-elle d’en souffrir, mais une deuxième vague de colonisation, celle causée par les répercussions du changement climatique, tente d’assimiler davantage les structures autochtones restantes.

L’auteure : Katherine Minich, (MHSc), est une Inuite originaire du Nunavut. Elle demeure à Toronto et travaille au Centre de promotion de la santé à l’Université de Toronto.

La survie dans l’Arctique Sous l’angle privilégié de leur relation intime et durable avec l’environnement, les Inuits ont, de tout temps, survécu et prospéré dans l’Arctique. Ils ont récemment présenté une pétition à la Commission interaméricaine des droits de la personne demandant réparation pour les dommages causés à leur peuple par le réchauffement climatique dont les Américains sont responsables (Watt-Cloutier, 2006). De façon semblable, des systèmes informatiques de prévision indiquent que l’Arctique est plus gravement touché que la moyenne mondiale (Conseil de l’Arctique 2004:27). Le Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC) a déclaré que les écosystèmes hydrologiques et terrestres ont été modifiés par l’activité industrielle, et que ces changements affectent, par conséquent, la structure thermique, la qualité de l’eau, la température, la salinité, la teneur en oxygène et sa circulation. Le changement d’affectation des terres par les industries et la consommation des combustibles fossiles sont responsables de l’augmenta-

tion considérable des émissions de gaz à effet de serre dans l’atmosphère (IPCC 2007: 5). Le GIEC (2004) souligne que la synergétique et les stratégies d’adaptation durables sont nécessaires peu importe les mesures que les gens, les nations et les industries prendront pour atténuer les répercussions du changement climatique (p.21-22). Les stratégies d’adaptation et d’atténuation des effets comportent cependant, du point de vue moral, des arguments renforçant les deux tendances, les nations développées et non développées, nanties ou démunies. Les effets négatifs du changement climatique continuent d’affliger une nation déjà marginalisée tandis qu’ils favorisent celles privilégiées par la colonisation et par le biais de systèmes économiques reposant sur l’exploitation des ressources. La situation exaspère d’autant plus Shelia Watt-Cloutier, chef des Inuits et leader mondial en matière de changements climatiques et de droits de la personne, parce qu’elle y voit, parallèlement, une seconde vague de colonisation. Mise en péril culturelle – un problème mondial La vie des populations autochtones est étroitement liée à la terre et aux océans, pour ne pas dire qu’elle en est inséparable. C’est pourquoi les Inuits, en particulier, sont culturellement mis en péril par les conséquences des changements climatiques en Arctique. Toutefois, l’enquête entamée à la suite de la plainte déposée devant la Commission interaméricaine des droits de la personne demeure un moyen viable d’empêcher l’absence de liens avec l’environnement que les changements climatiques perpétuent, spécialement en fonction des modèles linéaires qui confirment la fonte graduelle des glaces des régions arctiques. La requête des Inuits comprends 7 principales 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 occupées 3)droit d’utilisation et de jouissance des biens personnels 4) droit à la préservation de la santé

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Les Inuits et le changement climatique: Des canaris sur la glace? 5) droit à la vie, à l’intégrité physique et à la sécurité 6) droit d’accès à leurs propres moyens de subsistance 7) droit de séjour, de se déplacer et à l’inviolabilité du foyer

économique. La nette contradiction entre le pouvoir normatif et le pouvoir réel illustre la différence entre la philosophie autochtone qui favorise l’écocentrisme et la collectivité, et le système colonialiste qui est axé sur l’égocentrisme.

Présenter une plainte à la Commission interaméricaine des droits de la personne est hasardeux parce que les décisions qu’elle rend sont négligeables (Spicer 2007) et plus convaincantes qu’exécutoires en raison de la distinction entre le droit international et les affaires intérieures des États-nations. Le droit international est faible parce que les États-nations concluent des ententes. Par exemple, bien que le Canada et les États-Unis soient membres de la Commission interaméricaine des droits de la personne, ils n’ont pas ratifié la convention américaine relative aux droits de l’homme (1969), non plus qu’ils ont été signataires de la Déclaration américaine des droits et devoirs de l'homme de 1948 (Abate 2007: 36). Non seulement le Canada et les ÉtatsUnis sont-ils distancés de la Commission, mais, selon les structures organisationnelles de la Commission, la requête des Inuits se retrouve à la merci de quelques membres d’un jury qui évaluent l’admissibilité de leur cas, font enquête, explorent différentes possibilités de règlement, dressent un rapport de leur délibérations, puis transmettent la plainte pour audition devant le tribunal de la Commission interaméricaine. De façon assez paradoxale, l’influence normative est puissante puisque de nombreuses nations développées vont très loin pour éviter la honte à l’échelle internationale. Cependant, M. Abate (2007) croit que la pétition du peuple Inuit est un geste de conscientisation dont les répercussions sensibiliseront le public de façon très importante. Il prévoit hypothétiquement une recommandation qui réprimandera l’inaction des États-Unis à l’égard des émissions de gaz à effet de serre pour apaiser la communauté mondiale militant en faveur de la protection de l’environnement. Toutefois, d’un point de vue inuit, Shelia Watt-Cloutier déclare :

Un oubli du contexte et de l’historique? L’autonomie gouvernementale du peuple autochtone en particulier est éclipsée par le cadre conceptuel colonial qui sous-tend le droit national tout comme la « conscience mondiale » veut ignorer les causes de la crise du changement climatique. Le GIEC n’échappe pas à la commodité de ne pas tenir compte du contexte ou de l’historique de sorte que les projets visant la décolonisation ne soient pas perturbés par les puissances qui ont contribué à la création de la Commission. En examinant les tensions entre les Peuples autochtones, les citoyens et les réactions face au changement climatique, il est important de souligner la prédétermination des Peuples autochtones à titre de membre de plein droit des États-nations et, tel que mentionné plus tôt, l’hypothèse selon laquelle les enjeux autochtones sont du domaine des affaires intérieures. Si l’on compare le statut des citoyens des États-nations à celui des Autochtones, la santé et le bien-être collectif des Peuples autochtones sont bien en-dessous de la moyenne. Mentionnons, à titre d’exemple, que le taux de suicide le plus élevé figure chez les Inuits du Canada (Tester & McNicoll 2003); quelque chose empêche les Inuits d’être des individus en santé et de se démarquer en tant que l’une des sociétés les plus évoluées des États-nations du monde. L’élément le plus différenciateur : la colonisation. Conclusion En dépit du fait que les Inuits du Canada constituent la majorité des résidents de l’Arctique et qu’ils soient citoyens canadiens, les réactions à l’échelle nationale ou internationale au changement climatique affectant directement leur terre sont des plus disparates. J’ai voulu démontrer ici que la différence ethnique imposée par la colonisation a forcé les Inuits à s’adresser à une autorité de droit internationale bien qu’il s’agisse d’une affaire d’ordre nationale. Il est évident que les Inuits s’écartent d’un gouvernement néolibéral qui accepte les projections et modèles linéaires projetant la fonte des glaces de l’Arctique. Le peuple inuit préfère plutôt déployer des efforts visant à mettre un frein au changement climatique. Pour ce faire, ils n’ont pas fait appel à leur identité canadienne ou américaine, mais plutôt à leur aboriginalité. Ils se sont ainsi prévalu de l’ensemble des institutions et de processus dont l’objectif consiste à promouvoir l’autodétermination et la décolonisation. Pendant ce temps, les Canadiens en général et la communauté d’environnementalistes sont tenus à distance.

« …il s’agit d’une question qui concerne la famille et la collectivité, non le commerce du charbon, de puits et réservoirs de gaz à effet de serre, et ainsi de suite. Ce n’est pas un enjeu qui concerne la technologie ou la politique. C’est un problème qui nous concerne tous, qui concerne l’humanité toute entière. Le monde ne voit tout simplement pas la question de ce point de vue. » Il m’est personnellement difficile de critiquer le plaidoyer de Mme Watt-Cloutier parce que je suis animée de la même passion. Je crois que les gens ont la possibilité de procéder au changement et que le bien-fondé de la pétition inuite est un argument convaincant. Cependant, dans sa forme normative, le pouvoir a moins de portée dans un système capitaliste mondial qui accorde la priorité au taux de change et à la croissance

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

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 on Climate 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 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 (Entrevue dirigée par Michael Stohl.) University College of Santa Barbara. 54 minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFIsrwrjHoY

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

FEATURE

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

Abstract An overview is presented of the characteristics and the damages of systemic discrimination, how it is understood and tested in courts, as well as the limits of such tests in courts that miss the real context and effects of racism that affect the mental, emotional, as well as the spiritual and physical wellbeing of individuals and collectives. Canada is not a safe place yet for Aboriginal people. As well, Canadians are not aware of the large-scale impacts and ìlayers of intersectional oppressions such as addiction, violence, lack of educational opportunities, over-incarceration, fracturing of family bonds, [and] loss of languageî on Aboriginal peoples. The gap gets larger yet we do have not statistics that speak to that gap, rather the ones that further pathologize Aboriginal peoples. Racism is a lived experience Discrimination is a lived experience. People who survive racial discrimination learn it by living it. Because Canadian society does not acknowledge the amount or effects of discrimination racialized persons confront, survivors often turn the hatred in on themselves and feel they are lesser persons. They do not always see the social patterns that oppress them nor do they necessarily recognize the impacts of the racism they experience. Racism is a belief that one racial or ethnic group is superior (Isajiw 1999:149). From the sociological perspective, in this situation there is a failure to see the experience as a social problem rather than a private trouble for the individual to address (Mills 1959, 1977:3-4). Our lives are organized within the social structures in which we live. To remedy the problem of oppression in our social systems, for example, our educational systems must stop labeling children who are surviving racism as angry, defensive or worse, deficient. Our educational systems must provide sufficient opportunities for all children to learn positive responses to the racism they survive or see being perpetrated on.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Aboriginal persons in Canada still continue to experience racial hatred and as a result remain oppressed persons. Racism is a costly presence in our society because some racialized individuals are so traumatized by the experience that they do not have the opportunity to grow into productive and contributing citizens. Aboriginal women far too often confront a sexualized racial hatred, which leads to violence. The different forms of discrimination Discrimination takes many forms. It’s most common form is individualized and direct. This form might be an attitude or value judgment about some real or imagined characteristic of an individual. When the trait is generalized to group it becomes a racial stereotype of Aboriginal persons. A stereotype assumes that all people belonging to a group possess the same characteristics. Usually, these generalizations are negative (Isajiw 1999: 144). When these stereotypes are used as the justification to deny an individual access to services, jobs, educational opportunities or housing then this is discrimination. Direct discrimination might also be a racial slur that can hurt feelings and damage a person’s sense of self worth. Many Canadians recognize this behaviour as wrong when they see it. The courageous ones speak against racialized and sexualized discrimination. More insidious is a form of hatred that is called systemic discrimination. Systemic discrimination is not individualized nor is it direct. Systemic discrimination is sometimes called institutional racism because it is embedded in the norms, values, culture, discourses and practices of an organization, institution, society or state. A common example is the now abandoned rule that to be a police officer you must be a certain height. This rule about height included men and excluded women as well as certain racial minorities. On its face, the rule seems neutral enough, but in practice

About the Author Patricia A. Monture is a citizen of the Mohawk Nation, Grand River Territory (near Brantford, Ontario). Educated as a lawyer in Ontario she has studied at the University of Western Ontario, Queen’s University and Osgoode Hall Law School. Dr. Monture is a professor at the University of Saskatchewan where she is also the Academic Coordinator of the Aboriginal Justice and Criminology Program.

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

requires enlightenment around the barriers that exist and how these barriers operate. Racialized persons are often the first to be aware of the existence of barriers and exclusionary practices because they feel marginalized and isolated. These feelings, however, are difficult to share and are often dismissed when a person raises the issues.

Discrimination and Canadian Law The act of discrimination, although as old as this country, has been prohibited by international law for only the last 60 years. Legally, then, discrimination is a new concept. Canadian courts have been asked to consider matters of systematic discrimination in only a few cases. This might be a reflection of the denial that racism is as prominent in this country as it is. It also reflects the connection between racialization and poverty. Taking cases to court is a very expensive endeavour. Moreover, systemic discrimination cases are very difficult to prove because of the kinds of evidence the court process demands.

In Canada, statistics that should alarm us have been available for many years. Aboriginal persons are among the poorest people in the country. It is estimated that 42.7% of Aboriginal women live in poverty. "The average annual income of an Aboriginal woman is $13,300, compared to $19,350 for a non-Aboriginal woman and $18,200 for an Aboriginal man" (Mercredi 2008). In 1967, a report commissioned by the Canadian Corrections Association, noted the alarming rates of over-representation of Aboriginal persons in Canada’s criminal justice system (Laing and Monture). In 1988, the Canadian Bar Association reported that in comparison to non-Aboriginal people, "male treaty Indians were 25 times more likely to be admitted to a provincial correctional centre" (Jackson: 216). A female treaty Indian was 131 times more likely to be admitted to a provincial correctional centre.

There have been several decisions issued by Canada’s highest court that deal with systemic discrimination. In Canadian law, one of the common tests used by judges and lawyers is what the "reasonable person" would do in the same circumstances as the defendant. In my law school days (1984-1988), it was recognized that a "reasonable person" was not just a man but also a woman. In a 1997 decision, the "reasonable person’ became racially conscious: "a reasonable person is not only a member of the Canadian community, but also, more specifically, is a member of the local communities in which the case at issue arose (in this case, the Nova Scotian and Halifax communities). Such a person must be taken to possess knowledge of the local population and its racial dynamics, including the existence in the community of a history of widespread and systemic discrimination against black and aboriginal people, and high profile clashes between the police and the visible minority population over policing issues (R. v R.(S.D.) 1997 3 S.C.R. 484, paragraph 47).

The report concludes: Put another way, this means that in Saskatchewan, prison has become for young native men, the promise of a just society which high school and college represent for the rest of us. Placed in a historical context, the prison has become for many young native people the contemporary equivalent of what Indian residential school represented for their parents (216). In R. v Williams (1998 1 S.C.R. 1128), the Supreme Court of Canada noted: "There is evidence that this widespread racism has translated to systemic discrimination in the Canadian criminal justice system" (paragraph 59). Saskatchewan leads the country in the rate it imprisons Aboriginal youth and removes them from their homes through child welfare practices (Blackstock et al 2004). Most disturbing of all, the rate of over-representation of Aboriginal persons in Canada’s criminal justice system has continued to grow since it was first reported in 1967 (Monture 2006).

Courts must go a step further. The standpoint of this reasonable person is still "whiteness" as the experiential harms of surviving racism are absent from the high court’s decision. Cases of systemic discrimination are difficult to bring forward as often little evidence is available to demonstrate the ways institutional norms, values, culture and practices exclude certain groups. Statistics can demonstrate the patterns of exclusions that exist in organizations. Statistics, however, can only alert us to these exclusions and alone are not sufficient to demonstrate systemic discrimination in either a court of law or the court of public opinion. Proving systemic discrimination

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

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

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

educational opportunities, over-incarceration, fracturing of family bonds, and loss of language and so on. These complex patterns of oppression continue to deny opportunities for far too many Aboriginal Peoples to live full and productive lives. This is the real, but hidden, cost of racial hatred. Remedies for the racial hatred that Aboriginal people have survived in this country remain partial and Aboriginal people are continually blamed for their poverty. The opportunity to remedy the impacts of past and ongoing systemic discrimination is a matter that requires attention. Canada’s justice systems are not always a solution to the problems systemic discrimination poses for Aboriginal people. The Commissioners of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba explain the complexity of the question about remedies: From the perspective of Aboriginal people, the justice system has contributed to Aboriginal poverty by failing to provide them with the means to fight the oppressive conditions imposed upon them. It has not assisted Aboriginal peoples in defending their claim to their lands or in enforcing their treaty promises. In fact, at one time it was illegal for lawyers to represent Aboriginal persons without the consent of the federal government or for Aboriginal people to raise money to press their land claims. The loss of Aboriginal land is a clear contributor to poverty.

Remedying past wrongs These figures demonstrate clearly the diminished quality of life of an Aboriginal person living in Canada. It is a serious violation of international law norms to allow for the situation of discrimination and racial hatred directed at Aboriginal persons to continue denying the right to live without violence and without the fear of violence. Yet, for Aboriginal people in Canada, the right to be safe is still denied. This denial is particularly acute for Aboriginal women. In 2004, Amnesty International released it’s reported titled, "Stolen Sisters". Both Amnesty International and the Native Women’s Association of Canada have worked very hard to make visible not only the number of murdered and missing Aboriginal women in this country – estimated at 500 Aboriginal women – but equally how the criminal justice system has failed those women and their families (2004; 14). The report concludes: Because of the vital role they play in society, and the power they wield, it is critical that the police are held accountable. That must include accountability for failing to fulfill their duties… to fully and impartially investigate all reports of threats to women’s lives (2004: 19).

Nor has the justice system assisted Aboriginal peoples in defending their freedoms of religion and association. The law forced Aboriginal parents, under threat of prosecution from the justice system, to send their children to residential schools. The justice system also failed to protect families from the child welfare practices of the 1960s and 1970s, which continue to create problems off reserve today. The separation of families, the oppression of culture and language, and the lack of Aboriginal control over decisions within their communities have contributed to inadequate education and to community breakdown, which in turn lead to poverty, as community resources are underdeveloped (1991: 94-95).

This is just one example how the present system of justice fails Aboriginal women. Canadians must begin to imagine what life is like for an Aboriginal living in this country. Canada has recently apologized for the atrocities that church and state committed against Aboriginal children in residential schools. Compensation has been offered to the survivors of this atrocity. Yet, some of those survivors are among the men and women who are presently incarcerated in Canada’s prisons and jails. The money paid does not provide a remedy for the ways that the impacts of residential schools created layers of intersectional oppressions such as addiction, violence, lack of

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Once the Canadian community acknowledges the complexity of the problem, then the size of the challenge before us is readily apparent. The focus of our efforts must be remedial as to deny to a population, Aboriginal Peoples, access to human rights is a serious travesty of justice.

Racism and the "Reasonable Person" Bibliography Amnesty International. 2004. Stolen Sisters – A Human Rights Response to Discrimination and Violence Against Indigenous Women in Canada (Canada: Amnesty International). Blackstock, Cindy, Nico Trocmé and Marilyn Bennett. 2004. "Child Maltreatment Investigations Among Aboriginal and non-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 Inuit Peoples 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: Thompson Educational Publishing). Jackson, Michael. 1988. Locking up Natives in Canada: A Report of the Canadian Bar Association (Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association). Laing, The Honourable Arthur and Gilbert Monture. 1967. Indians and the Law (Ottawa: Canadian Corrections Association 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 Canadian Woman Studies, pp. 25-33.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Articles de fond

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

Résumé Vue d’ensemble des caractéristiques et des dommages causés par la discrimination systémique et de la façon dont ce problème est incompris mais attesté par les tribunaux qui ne perçoivent ni le contexte ni les répercussions sur la santé mentale, physique, affective, spirituelle et le bien-être général des individus et des collectivités. Le Canada n’est toujours un milieu sécuritaire pour les peuples autochtones. Par surcroît, les Canadiens ne sont pas conscients des effets à grande échelle de la discrimination systémique et croisée sur les peuples autochtones, notamment la toxicomanie, la violence, le manque de possibilités d’accès à l’enseignement, l’incarcération excessive, le fractionnement des liens familiaux et la disparition graduelle de leurs langues. Les lacunes sont de plus en plus importantes, mais aucune statistique n’en fait mention. Cependant, les données les plus courantes tendent à donner une teinte pathologique à leur situation. Le racisme est une expérience que l’on vit La discrimination est une expérience que l’on vit. Les personnes qui survivent à la discrimination raciale apprennent à la connaître en vivant cette expérience. Parce que la société canadienne ne reconnaît pas la force et les effets de la discrimination à laquelle font face les personnes racialisées, ceux qui y survivent détournent leur haine contre eux-mêmes et se sentent diminués en tant que personne. Elles ne voient pas toujours les modèles sociaux qui les oppriment et ne reconnaissent pas les incidences du racisme qu’elles vivent. Le racisme est la croyance qu’un groupe racial ou ethnique est supérieur (Isajiw 1999 : 149). D’une perspective sociologique, c’est une situation où existe une incapacité de voir l’expérience comme un problème social et non une difficulté personnelle que doit résoudre un individu (Mills 1959, 1977 : 3-4). Notre vie est organisée en fonction des structures dans lesquelles nous vivons. Pour résoudre le pro-

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

blème de l’oppression dans nos systèmes sociaux, par exemple, nos systèmes éducatifs doivent cesser d’étiqueter les enfants qui s’efforcent de survivre au racisme comme des enfants en colère, défensifs, ou pire, déficients. Nos systèmes éducatifs doivent leur offrir suffisamment de possibilités d’acquérir des réactions positives à l’endroit du racisme auquel ils survivent ou qu’ils voient infliger à d’autres. Les Autochtones du Canada continuent de connaître la haine raciale et, pour cette raison, d’être opprimés. Le racisme est coûteux pour notre société, puisque les personnes racialisées sont si traumatisées par l’expérience qu’elles n’ont pas la possibilité de devenir des citoyens productifs et utiles. Les femmes autochtones font face trop souvent à de la haine raciale sexualisée, ce qui mène à la violence. Les différentes formes de discrimination La discrimination revêt plusieurs formes. La forme la plus commune est la discrimination individualisée et directe. Il peut s’agir d’une attitude ou d’un jugement de valeur sur une caractéristique réelle ou imaginée d’une personne. Lorsque l’on applique cette caractéristique à tous les membres d’un groupe, les Autochtones, on a alors affaire à un stéréotype racial. Un stéréotype présume que toutes les personnes appartenant à un groupe possèdent les mêmes caractéristiques. En règle générale, ces généralisations sont négatives. Quand ces stéréotypes servent à contrôler l’accès d’une personne à des services, à des emplois, à des possibilités d’études et au logement, on peut parler de discrimination. La discrimination directe peut aussi consister en des insultes raciales blessantes ou qui affaiblissent le sentiment de valeur personnelle d’une personne. Beaucoup de Canadiens reconnaissent que cette conduite est condamnable, quand ils en sont témoins. Ceux d’entre eux qui sont courageux se prononcent ouvertement contre la discrimination racialisée et sexualisée.

L’auteure Patricia A. Monture est membre de la nation Mohawk, territoire de Grand River, près de Brantford, en Ontario. Avocate, elle est diplômée de l’Université de Western Ontario et de l’Osgoode Hall Law School. Elle est professeure adjointe au département d’études autochtones de l’Université de la Saskatchewan et enseigne au département de sociologie des cours sur la Justice autochtone.

Le racisme et la « personne raisonnable » La forme la plus insidieuse de haine s’appelle la discrimination systémique. La discrimination systémique n’est ni individualisée ni directe. Elle est parfois connue sous le nom de racisme institutionnel parce qu’elle est enracinée dans les normes, les valeurs, la culture, les discours et les pratiques d’un organisme, d’une institution, d’une société ou d’un État. Un exemple commun est la règle, maintenant abandonnée, voulant qu’un agent de police soit d’une telle taille. Comme telle, la règle semblait neutre, mais, en pratique, elle avait pour effet d’exclure de façon systématique les femmes ainsi que certains groupes racialisés. Pour cette raison, on qualifie souvent la discrimination systématique d’obstacle.

Il est difficile de présenter des dossiers de discrimination systémique vu qu’il y a souvent peu de preuve démontrant les façons dont les normes, les valeurs, la culture et les pratiques institutionnelles excluent certains groupes. Les statistiques peuvent servir à démontrer les modèles d’exclusion qui existent dans les organisations. Mais les statistiques ne peuvent que nous signaler la possibilité d’exclusions, à elles seules, elles ne peuvent démontrer l’existence de discrimination systémique à un juge ou à l’opinion publique. La démonstration de l’existence de discrimination systémique exige que l’on connaisse mieux ce que sont les obstacles et la façon dont on s’en sert. Les personnes racialisées sont souvent les premières à se rendre compte de l’existence d’obstacles et de pratiques d’exclusion parce qu’elles se sentent marginalisées et isolées. Ces opinions sont toutefois difficiles à communiquer et souvent rejetées quand elles sont exprimées.

La discrimination et le droit canadien La discrimination, qui remonte à la naissance du pays, n’est prohibée en droit international que depuis 60 ans. En droit, la discrimination est un nouveau concept. On a demandé aux tribunaux canadiens de se prononcer sur des questions de discrimination systémique que dans quelques cas. Le petit nombre de décisions sur cette question est peut-être la conséquence de la négation du fait que le racisme occupe la place importante qu’il a au pays. Le lien qui existe entre la racialisation et la pauvreté est un autre facteur : les procédures judiciaires sont très coûteuses. Ce qui plus est, les cas de discrimination systémiques sont très difficiles à prouver en raison du type de preuve exigé par le processus judiciaire.

Au Canada, les statistiques qui devraient nous avertir de l’existence de discrimination systémique existent depuis plusieurs années. Les Autochtones sont parmi les plus pauvres des Canadiens. On estime que 42,7 % des femmes Autochtones vivent dans la pauvreté. « Le salaire annuel moyen d’une Autochtone est de 13 300 $ par rapport à 19 350 $ pour une non-Autochtone et 18 200 $ pour un Autochtone. » (Mercredi 2008). En 1967, un rapport commandé par l’Association canadienne de la justice pénale notait les taux alarmants de surreprésentation d’Autochtones dans le système de justice pénal (Laing et Monture, date). En 1988, l’Association du Barreau canadien soulignait que, par rapport aux non-Autochtones, « la probabilité qu’un Indien inscrit soit admis à un établissement correctionnel provincial était 25 fois plus élevée » (Jackson, date : 216) et celle d’une Indienne inscrite 131 fois.

Le plus haut tribunal du Canada a rendu plusieurs décisions traitant de la discrimination systémique. En droit canadien, l’un des critères généralement utilisé par les juges et les avocats est ce qu’une « personne raisonnable » ferait dans les mêmes circonstances que le défendeur. Quand j’étudiais le droit, de 1984 à 1988, on reconnaissait qu’une « personne raisonnable » pouvait être 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 société canadienne, mais, plus particulièrement, des collectivités où l’affaire a pris naissance (en l’espèce, la Nouvelle-Écosse et Halifax). Cette personne est censée connaître la population locale et sa dynamique raciale, y compris son passé de discrimination généralisée et systémique contre les Noirs et les Autochtones, ainsi que les heurts retentissants entre la police et les minorités visibles sur des questions de police (R. c R. (S.D.) 1997 3 R.C.S. 484, paragraphe 47).

Le rapport concluait que : Autrement dit, en Saskatchewan, la prison symbolise pour les adolescents autochtones l’avenir que leur réserve la société, au même titre que l’école secondaire et le collège pour tous les autres Canadiens. Dans un contexte historique, la prison est, pour bon nombre de jeunes autochtones, l’équivalent de ce que les pensionnats étaient pour leurs parents. (216) Dans R. c. Williams (1998 1 R.C.S. 1128), la Cour suprême du Canada mentionnait que « Il y a une preuve que ce racisme largement répandu s’est traduit par une discrimination systémique dans le système de justice pénale (paragraphe 59). La Saskatchewan est la province canadienne qui connaît le taux le plus élevé d’incarcération de jeunes autochtones et d’enfants autochtones séparés de leur famille du fait des pratiques de protection de l’enfance (Blackstock et autres 2004). L’élément le

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

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

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

autochtones. Les Canadiens doivent commencer à se mettre à la place des Autochtones et à comprendre ce qu’est leur vie au Canada. Le Canada vient de s’excuser auprès des Autochtones pour les atrocités que l’Église et l’État ont commis contre les enfants autochtones dans les pensionnats. On a offert une indemnité aux survivants à ces sévices. Quelques-uns d’entre eux sont présentement en prison. Le versement d’indemnité ne porte pas remède 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 de répression continuent à priver beaucoup trop d’Autochtones d’une vie productive et utile. Voilà le véritable coût, caché, de la haine raciale. Les solutions apportées aux problèmes liés à la haine raciale à laquelle les Autochtones ont survécu au Canada continuent de n’être que partielles : les Autochtones sont continuellement blâmés pour leur pauvreté.

Il arrive souvent que nous cessons trop rapidement d’examiner la question de la surreprésentation des Autochtones dans le système de justice pénale canadien. Non seulement il est plus probable qu’un Autochtone soit accusé ou condamné, il est plus probable aussi qu’il soit victime d’un acte criminel. Selon un rapport préparé pour le Centre de la politique concernant les victimes du ministère de la Justice : … 35 p. 100 des Autochtones (par rapport à 26 p. 100 chez les non-Autochtones) tendent à être des victimes; en outre, les Autochtones sont trois fois plus exposés à devenir des victimes de crimes violents. Le taux d'agression sexuelle est cinq fois plus élevé chez les Autochtones que chez les non-Autochtones; quant à la violence familiale, elle est trois fois plus élevée. La déclaration partielle des crimes se constate plus souvent chez les Autochtones; en fait, une étude a révélé que 74 p. 100 des victimes autochtones n'avaient pas rapporté les crimes. Une des raisons de ne pas faire rapport est le manque de confiance dans le système (Chartrand et McKay, 2006)

On doit porter attention à la possibilité de solutions aux impacts de la discrimination passée et actuelle. Les systèmes de justice pénale du Canada ne sont pas toujours la solution aux problèmes que la discrimination systémique pose aux Autochtones. Les Commissaires de la Commission manitobaine d’enquête sur le système judiciaire expliquent ainsi la complexité de la question : Du point de vue des Autochtones, le système judiciaire a contribué à leur appauvrissement en ne leur donnant pas les moyens de lutter contre les conditions abusives qui leur étaient imposées. Le système judiciaire ne les a pas aidés à défendre leurs revendications territoriales et à faire respecter les promesses des traités. Il était en fait, à une certaine époque, impossible aux avocats de représenter les Autochtones sans le consentement du gouvernement canadien ou aux Autochtones de lever des fonds pour financer leurs revendications territoriales. La perte de terres autochtones est un facteur clair de l’appauvrissement des Autochtones.

Réparer les erreurs du passé Ces chiffres démontrent clairement la diminution de la qualité de vie d’un Autochtone vivant au Canada. Permettre la continuation de la discrimination des Autochtones et de la haine raciale à leur endroit, leur refusant ainsi le droit de vivre sans violence et sans crainte de violence, constitue une infraction importante aux normes du droit international. Et le fait est que le droit à vivre en sécurité continue d’être refusé aux Autochtones du Canada, et ce refus est particulièrement critique en ce qui a trait aux femmes autochtones. En 2004, Amnistie internationale et l’Association des femmes autochtones du Canada ont travaillé fort à rendre visible non seulement le nombre de femmes autochtones assassinées ou portées disparues au pays – on estime leur nombre à 500 – mais aussi la façon dont le système de justice pénale n’a pas apporté à ces femmes et à leurs familles ce qu’elles étaient en droit d’attendre de lui (2004 :14) Selon le rapport : Il est indispensable que la police, en raison du rôle vital qu’elle joue dans la société et de son pouvoir, soit tenue responsable, notamment du fait qu’elle n’a pas rempli son devoir … d’enquêter complètement et impartialement sur tous les rapports de menaces à la vie de femmes (2004: 19).

Le système de justice n’a pas aidé les Autochtones à défendre leur liberté de religion et d’association. La loi forçait les parents autochtones à envoyer, sous peine de poursuite, leurs enfants au pensionnat. Le système judiciaire n’a pas su protéger les familles des pratiques de protection de l’enfant des années 1960 et 1970, qui continuent à poser des problèmes hors réserve de nos jours. La séparation des familles, l’oppression culturelle et linguistique, et l’absence de pouvoir autochtone sur les décisions affectant les collectivités autochtones ont contribué à des services éducatifs inadéquats

Ce n’est là qu’un exemple de la façon dont le système de justice pénale n’a pas répondu aux attentes légitimes des femmes

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Le racisme et la « personne raisonnable » et à l’éclatement de leurs collectivités, ce qui s’est traduit en pauvreté, vu la faiblesse des ressources communautaires (1991; 94-95).

défi à relever. On doit faire porter nos efforts sur des solutions aux problèmes, vu que nier à un peuple, les Autochtones, l’accès aux droits de l’homme est un déni de justice.

Lorsque la communauté canadienne aura reconnu la complexité 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 Women in Canada (Canada: Amnesty International). Blackstock, Cindy, Nico Trocmé et Marilyn Bennett. 2004, Child Maltreatment Investigations Among Aboriginal and nonAboriginal 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 Inuit Peoples 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: Thompson Educational Publishing). Jackson, Michael. 1988, Locking up Natives in Canada: A Report of the Canadian Bar Association (Ottawa: Association du Barreau canadien). Laing, l’honorable Arthur et Gilbert Monture. 1967, Indians and the Law (Ottawa: Association canadienne de la justice pénale et le ministère des Affaires indiennes). Paula Mercredi. 2008, "Aboriginal Women Face Challenges in the Canadian Economy": www.trudeausociety.com/home/business/2008/03/16/01000.html. Monture, Patricia. Printemps/été 2006. "Confronting Power: Aboriginal Women and Justice Reform" in 25: 2 & 3 Canadian Woman Studies, pp. 25-33.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

FEATURES

Constitutional Reconciliation of Education for Aboriginal Peoples Marie Battiste, Ed.M., Ed.D., LL.D., D.H.L. (h.c.)

Abstract Treaties were negotiated in good faith to provide, among other services, an education that would enable First Nations to enrich their new livelihood. This transformative education has not been delivered. Instead policies built on supremacy of European heritages have left a legacy of trauma a product of an education system meant to "kill the Indian in the child." In 1982, the Constitution of Canada affirmed Aboriginal and treaty rights, and in so doing generates the shared competency of the federal and provincial/territorial governments and First Nations to take action to preserve and promote the distinct knowledge, traditions, and distinctive cultures that underlay these rights. Foundations of Indigenous Knowledge Prior to formal schooling, Indigenous learning was responsive to the needs of families within an ecology that cultivated holistic lifelong processes that were the foundations of Indigenous knowledge and culture (IK). These educational processes of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada created vast learning civilizations based on multiple competencies in Aboriginal languages and knowledge, facilitating Indigenous peoples connections with their own communities and with large Aboriginal confederacies and alliances. The success of these holistic processes for lifelong learning created a collective sustainable lifestyle that contributed sufficiently to the needs of the present and took into consideration the needs of the future seven generations (Battiste & Semeganis, 2002). These educational processes continued as Aboriginal rights. Aboriginal peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; enthusiasm for learning is revealed in their many treaties with European Crowns. In them and in the records of their negotiation, the future education of First Nations students was a prime concern of our ancestors in the treaties, as they transferred jurisdictions of vast ter-

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

ritories to fund the promised educational and livelihood obligations (Henderson, 2007). Treaty education provided both a shared vision of their future and an enriched livelihood of First Nations, since the transmission of European knowledge would effectively give the families competencies to negotiate the enriched livelihoods of the new relationships. Under the written terms of the treaties, parental choice would sustain the education in the families and in the communities the selection of teachers. Parents did not give up their rights to control the education of their families, but treaties gave the Crown different levels of discretion in the funding and establishing of schools and educational programs that would benefit their families (Henderson, 1995). Canadian educators have not been able to implement either the Indigenous vision of education nor the treaty commitments due to systemic discrimination of the federal government and provinces and territories that have instead chosen to use education as a tool of forced assimilation (RCAP, 1996). Colonial Eurocentric attitudes of superiority and the assumption that Aboriginal languages, cultures, and livelihood are inferior, have led to the legacy of federal residential and day schools and later provincial schools that failed to fulfill the Aboriginal theory of lifelong learning and the educational commitments of treaties. The legacy of education began with the Canadian residential school system that comprised of a number of schools for First Nation children, operated during the 19th and 20th centuries by churches of various denominations (about sixty per cent by Roman Catholics, and thirty per cent by the Protestants) funded under the Indian Act by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), a branch of the federal government. The schools' purpose was, according to the Indian Act, to "civilize" First Nation children, teach them English or French,

About the Author: Marie Battiste is Miâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;kmaq from the Potloâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;tek First Nation of Unama'ki, Nova Scotia. She is full professor in the Department of Educational Foundations at University of Saskatchewan, since 1993. More recently she has been appointed Academic Director of the Aboriginal Education Research Centre in the College of Education and Co-Director of the national Aboriginal Learning Knowledge Centre of the Canadian Council on Learning.

Constitutional Reconciliation of Education for Aboriginal Peoples convert them to Christianity, and end their traditional ways of life (Barman & Hébert, 1986). The legacy of federal education policy has been a systemic and human tragedy that has denied Aboriginal peoples their dignity. This human experiment in cultural erosion and destruction unfolded, sapping them of the opportunities that a healthy collective society and a transformative and responsive education could provide. Thus federal education policy became a distrusted concept associated with traumatic educational processes.

British Columbia, 2003, para. 24). It has held that no part of the Constitution can abrogate another, as no power or right is absolute. Under this constitutional framework, the federal Crown under s. 91(24) and the provincial Crown under s. 92 and s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 must be read with Aboriginal peoples’ rights in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to allow each level of constitutional governance to fulfill the honour of the Crown within their receptive fields of competence (Henderson 2007).

Healing and Reconciliation In 2008, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized to Aboriginal peoples who were forced to attend Canada’s residential schools, not only for the known excesses of the residential school system, but for the creation of the system that was meant to "kill the Indian in the child".(Harper 2008) Canada’s apology to Aboriginal peoples for the destruction of their lives, their parenting, and jeopardizing their continued livelihood based on their rich cultures and heritages comes as a welcomed first step in creating a responsive approach for Aboriginal peoples, yet the translation of this apology into concerted action has not emerged. Furthermore, an apology cannot erase the damage suffered by thousands of Aboriginal peoples and their descendents who have experienced cycles of abuses. A new consciousness of their past trauma can be one aspect of healing and reconciliation.

The existence of educational rights in aboriginal and treaty rights cannot negate the constitutional law-making powers under section 91(24) Constitution Act, 1867 toward Indians. Conversely, federal legislation, like the Indian Act, cannot negate the constitutional rights of education to Aboriginal nations or peoples. All legislation and policy enacted pursuant to a valid constitutional power has to be consistent with all the parts of the constitution to be legitimate. This recast federal legislation and policy toward education that is consistent with aboriginal and treaty rights generates the shared competency of the federal government and First Nations to take action to preserve and promote the distinct knowledge, traditions, and distinctive cultures that underlay these rights. The province has jurisdiction over education in s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The provincial Crown and its local governments provide funding and oversee formal education in Canada to all other students, including Métis students. Education (elementary, secondary, and post-secondary) is within provincial Crown’s jurisdiction and the ten provincial legislatures and educational departments oversee their curriculum. Territorial education in the North is under the jurisdiction of INAC that funds education for Inuit students.

The next step required is a constitutional reconciliation with Aboriginal peoples’ constitutional rights to education supported by constitutional power from federal, territorial, and provincial education systems. To initiate such a step educators have to first understand how aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples in regard to education has reorientated the constitutional framework of education in Canada. Then, educators have to understand the mandatory force of constitutional reconciliation that the Court has created to converge these different constitutional sources of power, creating a complex intersection of interrelated issues that should be addressed in transforming current and future educational outcomes.

The same constitutional convergence principles apply to provincial constitutional authority over education and aboriginal and treaty rights involved with education. Provincial powers under s. 93 do not give the provinces any original power to deal with Aboriginal peoples’ constitutional rights. Any direct or incidental exercise of educational authority under contract with federal authorities has to be consistent with the educational rights contained in aboriginal and treaty rights in s. 35. Under its legitimate constitutional powers, the provincial Crown has the ability to take action to preserve, promote, and implement aboriginal and treaty rights in regards to education and the distinct knowledge and distinctive cultures that underpin these rights. Moreover, any provincial legislation, agreement, or policy that negatively affects constitutional rights of Aboriginal people will be judged by the constitutional stan-

Constitutional Framework for Education Constitutional law of Canada creates the education systems. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 affirms and recognizes the education rights of First Nations in the treaties with the Crown. In the absence of an imperial treaty, Aboriginal rights continue to empower Indigenous education, which is based on IK and the choices of Indigenous parents. The Court has declared that these constitutional rights to education have to be read together with the other constitutional provisions (Paul v.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Constitutional Reconciliation of Education for Aboriginal Peoples dards of consistency, honour of the Crown, fiduciary obligations, division of powers, inter-jurisdictional immunity, paramountcy and the justification on any infringements on Aboriginal peoples rights.

Nations parents in aboriginal and treaty rights and the transfer of jurisdiction of land to the Crown provides the means and framework for implementing educational rights for the benefit of First Nations, Inuit, and MĂŠtis peoples. The Supreme Court of Canada has identified several constitutional purposes that include: determining the historical rights of Aboriginal peoples and giving aboriginal and treaty rights constitutional force to protect them against legislative powers (R. v. Sparrow, 1990 para. 65); sanctioning challenges to social and economic policy objectives embodied in legislation to the extent that aboriginal and treaty rights are affected, (ibid., para. 64), and a commitment to recognize, value, protect, and enhance their distinctive cultures (R. v. Powley, 2002, paras. 13 &18). To ensure the continuity of Aboriginal customs and traditions, the Supreme Court has determined that every substantive constitutional right will normally include the incidental constitutional right to teach such a practice, custom and tradition to a younger generation (R. v. CotĂŠ). Current education systems have not implemented these constitutional reforms in the education of Aboriginal peoples. The constitutional framework and court decisions generate an emerging reconciliation of IK and culture in learning and pedagogy that must be translated into policy, practice and impact on all public forms of education. It creates the context for systemic educational reform to include Indigenous science, humanities, visual arts, and languages as well as existing education philosophy, pedagogy, teacher education, and practice.

The concepts of convergence and consistency establish the framework of constitutional reconciliation. The Court has stated that the fundamental objective of the modern law of aboriginal and treaty rights is to attempt the constitutional reconciliation of Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal peoples and their respective claims, interests, and ambitions (Haida Nation, 2004; Mikisew, 2005). This would include constitutional reconciliation about the education of Aboriginal peoples with the federal and provincial Crowns. Need for Constitutional reconciliation The need for a constitutional reconciliation is rooted in the failure of existing federal and provincial systems to recognize the needs of Aboriginal peoples, both parents and children. The Auditor General of Canada (2000) has estimated that First Nations students will require more than twenty years of accelerated and restorative education to catch up to the national average for high school graduation. Despite the termination of federal residential schools, the contractual transfer of education authority over First Nations to the province, and the restoration of some educational policy to First Nations, none has resulted in significant changes. The result has been consistently a failure with only 40% of Aboriginal students aged 2024 having graduated from secondary schools through the last three censuses (Howe, 2008). Only about 8% of Aboriginal students have graduated from post-secondary schools (RCAP, 1996). This negative legacy of policies represents a significant educational challenge and a crucial test and resolve of many educators, policymakers, and Aboriginal peoples that they must be part of this dialogue and action to affect different outcomes from the past. Understanding and remedying this failure of education has been challenging for many agencies, federal and provincial.

To some degree under the emerging Indigenous renaissance, Aboriginal educators have begun the reconciliation in their academic and social justice activist agendas now growing with new 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 evidenced in the lack of negotiation of these Constitutional rights with provincial and territorial education systems. Thus the task is great to sensitize the Canadian politicians, policy makers, and educators to be more responsive and proactive to reconcile the national and provincial curricula and to displace the continuing education failures of Aboriginal peoples in the diverse educational systems across Canada.

Constitutional reconciliation is an important critical educational response in patriated??? Canada. The reconciliation of educational rights in the constitution is central to a responsive and non-discriminatory Canadian education system. Reconciliation is rooted in the educational choice of First

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Constitutional Reconciliation of Education for Aboriginal Peoples References Auditor 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 British Columbia 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 Schools system 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 Institute Backgrounder, 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.

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

Articles de fond

La réconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et leurs droits éducationnels Marie Battiste, M.Éd., D.Éd., LL.D., D.H.L. (h.c.) Résumé Des traités visant à offrir aux Premières nations, entre autres services, des services d’éducation leur permettant d’améliorer leurs nouveaux moyens d’existence ont été négociés de bonne foi. Les Autochtones n’ont pas reçu l’éducation, prévue par ces traités, qui leur aurait permis de transformer leur vie. Ce qu’ils ont reçu au lieu des droits stipulés dans ces traités, ce sont des politiques fondées sur la suprématie des patrimoines européens qui les ont traumatisés en leur léguant un système d’éducation qui visait à « tuer l’Indien en l’enfant ». En 1982, la Constitution du Canada affirmait l’existence de droits autochtones et de droits issus des traités. Elle créait ainsi un régime de compétences partagées entre les gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux et territoriaux et les Premières nations afin que les mesures nécessaires à la préservation et à la promotion du savoir, des traditions et les cultures distinctives qui sous-tendent ces droits puissent être prises. Fondements du savoir autochtone Avant l’établissement d’écoles officielles, les Autochtones recevaient tout au long de leur vie une formation qui répondait aux besoins de familles vivant en accord avec leur milieu écologique et qui exploitait des processus holistiques servant de fondements au savoir et à la culture autochtone. Les processus éducationnels des Autochtones canadiens ont donné naissance à de vastes civilisations de savoir fondées sur des compétences multiples en langues et en connaissances autochtones, qui facilitaient l’établissement et le maintien de liens des Autochtones avec leurs propres collectivités et avec de grandes confédérations et alliances autochtones. La réussite des processus holistiques à transmettre une formation tout au long de la vie à l’Autochtone a créé un style de vie collective durable, qui lui permettait de satisfaire les besoins de sa génération tout en tenant compte de ceux des sept autres générations suivantes (Battiste et Semeganis,

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

2002). Les processus éducationnels autochtones continuent à exister en tant que partie intégrante des droits autochtones. L’enthousiasme manifesté par les Autochtones pour l’apprentissage et la formation ressort clairement des nombreux traités qu’ils ont conclus avec les Couronnes européennes. À la lecture de ces traités et de leurs travaux préparatoires, on constate que l’éducation future des jeunes Autochtones était la préoccupation majeure de nos ancêtres, ce qui les a convaincus de transférer la compétence sur de vastes territoires en contrepartie pour l’exécution par les Couronnes d’obligations relatives à l’éducation de leurs enfants et à leurs moyens de subsistance (Henderson, 2007). L’éducation prévue par les traités reflétait une vision commune de l’avenir des Autochtones et de l’amélioration de leurs moyens de subsistance : la transmission du savoir européen donnerait aux familles les compétences nécessaires à la négociation de meilleurs moyens de subsistance dans leurs nouvelles relations. Selon le texte des traités, c’est aux parents qu’incombaient les décisions quant à l’éducation au sein des familles et quant au choix des enseignants dans les collectivités. Les parents ne renonçaient pas dans ces traités à leurs droits de diriger l’éducation de leurs familles : les traités conféraient à la Couronne divers niveaux de pouvoirs discrétionnaires en ce qui a trait au financement et à l’établissement d’écoles et de programmes scolaires dont les familles autochtones profiteraient (Henderson, 1995). Les enseignants canadiens n’ont su mettre en œuvre les principes de la vision autochtone de l’éducation ou les obligations prévues par les traités, du fait de la discrimination systémique dont ont fait preuve le gouvernement fédéral, les provinces et les territoires, qui ont choisi de se servir de l’éducation comme instrument d’assimilation forcée des Autochtones (CREPA, 1996). Les attitudes

L’ auteure : Marie Battiste est une Mi’kmaq de la Première nation de Potlo’tek, à Unama’ki (Cap-Breton), en Nouvelle-Écosse. Depuis 1993, elle est professeure et coordonnatrice de l’Indian and Northern Education Program du Department of Educational Foundations de l’Université de la Saskatchewan. Elle a récemment été nommée directrice d’études à l’Aboriginal Education Research Centre qui vient d’être créé au sein du College of Education.

La réconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et leurs droits éducationnels coloniales eurocentriques de supériorité et la supposition de l’infériorité des langues, cultures et moyens de subsistance des Autochtones se sont soldées par des pensionnats et des écoles fédérales, par la suite provinciales, qui n’ont pas réa-lisé la théorie autochtone d’une formation prodiguée tout au long de la vie et respecté les obligations des traités en matière d’éducation. Le système canadien de pensionnats autochtones comptait un certain nombre d’écoles destinées aux enfants autochtones. Ces écoles étaient exploitées durant le dix-neuvième et le vingtième siècle par différentes confessions religieuses - 60% environ d’entre elles par l’Église catholique et 30% par des églises protestantes. Elles étaient financées en application de la Loi sur les Indiens par le ministère fédéral des Affaires indiennes et du Nord canadien (AINC). Leur objectif était, selon la Loi sur les Indiens de « civiliser » les jeunes Autochtones, de leur enseigner l’anglais ou le français, de les convertir au christianisme et de mettre fin à leurs modes de vie traditionnels (Barman et Hébert, 1986). La politique fédérale sur l’éducation autochtone s’est soldée par la tragédie systémique du déni de la dignité des Autochtones. Cette expérience en érosion et en destruction culturelle a miné toutes les possibilités qu’une société collective saine et une éducation transformationnelle et adaptée à la situation pouvaient offrir. La politique éducationnelle fédérale s’était transformée en un concept lié à des processus éducationnels traumatisants, dont les Autochtones se méfiaient.

titutionnels des systèmes d’éducation fédéraux, provinciaux et territoriaux. Pour entreprendre cette étape, les enseignants devront d’abord comprendre la façon dont les droits autochtones et les droits issus des traités en matière d’éducation ont donné une nouvelle orientation au cadre constitutionnel régissant l’éducation au Canada. Ils devront ensuite comprendre la force obligatoire de la réconciliation constitutionnelle que la Cour suprême a décidée afin de pouvoir faire converger les différentes sources de pouvoir constitutionnel, établissant ainsi une intersection complexe de questions liées entre elles qui devront être abordées si l’on veut assurer la transformation des résultats éducationnels, actuels et futurs. Le cadre constitutionnel de l’éducation Le droit constitutionnel du Canada crée les systèmes d’éducation. L’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 affirme et reconnaît les droits à l’éducation des Premières nations stipulés dans les traités qu’ils ont conclus avec la Couronne. En l’absence de traité impérial prévoyant des règles contraires, les droits autochtones continuent à être le fondement juridique des droits relatifs à l’éducation autochtone, fondée sur la culture et le savoir autochtone et le choix des parents. La Cour suprême a déclaré que ces droits à l’éducation devraient s’interpréter avec les autres dispositions constitutionnelles (Paul c. Colombie-Britannique, 2003, par. 24). La Cour suprême a déclaré qu’aucune partie de la Constitution ne pouvait en abroger une autre, de même qu’il n’existait aucun pouvoir ou droit absolu. Dans ce cadre constitutionnel, les pouvoirs de la Couronne fédérale, en vertu de l’article 91(24), et ceux de la Couronne provinciale, en vertu des articles 92 et 93 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, doivent être interprétés en tenant compte des droits reconnus aux Autochtones par l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, de façon à ce que chaque palier de gouvernance constitutionnelle respecte les obligations engageant l’honneur de la Couronne dans leurs champs de compétence respectifs (Henderson, 2007).

Guérison et réconciliation En 2008, le premier ministre du Canada Stephen Harper s’est excusé auprès des Autochtones qui avaient été forcés de vivre dans les pensionnats du Canada, non seulement pour les excès déjà connus du système des pensionnats, mais aussi pour la création d’un système dont le but était de « tuer l’Indien en l’enfant ». (Harper, 2008). Les excuses du Canada aux Autochtones pour la destruction de leur vie, de leur rôle de parents et pour avoir mis en danger leurs moyens de subsistance, qui s’appuyaient sur leurs riches cultures et patrimoines, ont été bien accueillies. Il s’agissait de la première étape d’une approche adaptée aux besoins des Autochtones, mais la traduction de ces excuses en mesures concertées se fait toujours attendre. En outre, des excuses ne peuvent effacer les dommages subis par des milliers d’Autochtones et leurs descendants qui ont été victimes de longues périodes de sévices. La prise de conscience de leurs traumatismes n’est qu’un aspect de la guérison et de la réconciliation.

L’existence de droits éducationnels en tant que partie intégrante des droits autochtones et des droits issus des traités ne peut faire fi des pouvoirs législatifs conférés au Parlement du Canada en vertu de l’article 91(24) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 en ce qui a trait aux Indiens. Inversement, les lois fédérales, comme la Loi sur les Indiens, ne peuvent faire fi des droits constitutionnels à l’éducation conférés aux nations autochtones et aux Autochtones. Toute loi ou politique adoptée en vertu d’un pouvoir constitutionnel valide doit être conforme à toutes les parties de la Constitution pour être valide.

La prochaine étape doit être la mise en œuvre d’un régime respectueux des droits constitutionnels des Autochtones en matière d’éducation, régime qui s’appuie sur les pouvoirs cons-

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales

La réconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et leurs droits éducationnels La nouvelle législation et politique sur l’éducation qui est conforme aux droits autochtones et aux droits issus des traités a pour effet de permettre, dans le respect des compétences partagées du gouvernement fédéral et des Premières nations, la prise de mesures visant à préserver et à promouvoir les savoirs, traditions et cultures distinctives qui sous-tendent ces droits.

Nécessité d’une réconciliation constitutionnelle La nécessité d’une réconciliation constitutionnelle tire ses origines du fait que les systèmes fédéraux et provinciaux actuels ne reconnaissent pas les besoins des Autochtones, des parents comme des enfants. Le vérificateur général du Canada (2000) est d’avis que les étudiants des Premières nations auront besoin de plus de 20 ans d’éducation accélérée et renforcée pour permettre aux étudiants autochtones de rattraper la moyenne nationale de diplômés d’études secondaires. La fermeture des pensionnats fédéraux, le transfert par contrat de l’autorité en matière d’éducation autochtone aux provinces et la remise de certaines politiques aux Premières nations n’ont pas abouti à des changements importants. Le niveau d’échec des étudiants autochtones continue à être trop élevé : seulement 40% des étudiants autochtones, de 20 à 24 ans, ont obtenu un diplôme d’études secondaires durant la période couverte par les trois derniers recensements (Howe, 2008), et seulement 8% environ d’entre eux un diplôme d’études postsecondaires (CREPA, 1996). Les résultats négatifs découlant des politiques constituent un défi éducationnel de taille et un test crucial de la détermination de plusieurs éducateurs, décideurs de politiques et d’Autochtones qui doivent participer au dialogue et prendre des mesures cherchant à atteindre des résultats différents que ceux du passé. La compréhension et la correction des erreurs de l’enseignement autochtone ont été un défi pour plusieurs agences, fédérales et provinciales.

Les provinces ont compétence en matière d’éducation en vertu de l’article 93 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867. La Couronne provinciale et ses municipalités financent et supervisent l’enseignement officiel prodigué, au Canada, à tous les autres étudiants, y compris les étudiants métis. L’enseignement, de niveau élémentaire, secondaire ou postsecondaire, relève de la compétence de la Couronne provinciale, et les dix législatures provinciales et leurs ministères de l’éducation en supervisent les programmes d’études. Dans les territoires, l’enseignement prodigué aux Inuits relève de l’AINC, qui le finance. Les mêmes principes de convergence constitutionnelle s’appliquent à l’autorité constitutionnelle provinciale en matière d’éducation et des droits autochtones ainsi que des droits issus des traités liés à l’éducation. Les pouvoirs qui relèvent de la province en vertu de l’article 93 n’autorisent pas la province à traiter des droits constitutionnels des Autochtones. Tout contrat conclu avec les autorités fédérales doit être conforme aux droits à l’éducation faisant partie des droits autochtones et des droits issus de traités visés par l’article 35. En vertu de ses pouvoirs constitutionnels, la Couronne provinciale peut prendre les mesures nécessaires à la préservation, à la promotion et à la mise en œuvre des droits autochtones et des droits issus des traités en ce qui à trait à l’éducation et aux connaissances et cultures distinctives qui soustendent ces droits. En outre, toute loi, contrat ou politique provincial qui a des incidences négatives sur les droits constitutionnels des Autochtones sera jugé au regard des normes constitutionnelles de conformité, d’honneur de la Couronne, d’obligations fiduciaires, du partage des compétences, de l’exclusivité des compétences, de la suprématie et de la nécessité de justifier toute atteinte aux droits des Autochtones.

La réconciliation constitutionnelle constitue un élément essentiel de la solution au problème critique de l’éducation depuis la canadianisation, en 1982, de la Constitution. La conciliation des droits à l’éducation dans la Constitution est au cœur d’un système d’éducation canadien adapté et non discriminatoire. La réconciliation a son origine dans le choix en matière d’éducation qui appartient aux parents autochtones en vertu des droits autochtones et aux droits issus des traités; le transfert de compétence sur les terres autochtones à la Couronne fournit les moyens et le cadre de la mise en œuvre des droits à l’éducation des Premières nations, des Inuits et des Métis. La Cour suprême du Canada a dégagé plusieurs objectifs constitutionnels, dont : la détermination des droits historiques des Autochtones et l’octroi aux droits autochtones et aux droits issus des traités de la force constitutionnelle dont ils ont besoin pour les protéger des pouvoirs législatifs (R. c. Sparrow, 1990, par. 65); la sanction des défis aux objectifs politiques sociaux et économiques incorporés dans les lois dans la mesure que ces dernières portent atteinte aux droits autochtones et aux droits issus des traités (ibid., par. 94) et l’engagement à reconnaître, protéger et favoriser les cultures autochtones distinctives et à leur accorder leur juste valeur (R. c. Powley, 2002, par. 13 et 18).

Les concepts de convergence et de conformité établissent le cadre de la réconciliation constitutionnelle. La Cour suprême a jugé que l’objectif fondamental du droit moderne des droits autochtones et des droits issus des traités est de réaliser la réconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et des nonAutochtones et de concilier leurs revendications, intérêts et ambitions respectifs (Nation Haïda, 2004, Mikisew, 2005). Cette démarche doit comprendre aussi la conciliation constitutionnelle des droits autochtones sur l’éducation des Autochtones avec ceux des Couronnes fédérale et provinciales.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

La réconciliation constitutionnelle des Autochtones et leurs droits éducationnels Afin d’assurer la continuité des coutumes et traditions autochtones, la Cour suprême a décidé que tout droit constitutionnel autochtone, de chasse ou de récolte par exemple, doit normalement comprendre le droit constitutionnel incident d’enseigner cette pratique, coutume ou tradition à la génération suivante (R. c. Côté). Les systèmes d’éducation actuels n’ont pas mis en œuvre ces réformes constitutionnelles. Le cadre constitutionnel et les décisions judiciaires ont créé la nécessité d’intégrer le savoir et la culture autochtones à la formation et à la pédagogie, ce qui doit se traduire en politiques, pratiques et avoir des incidences sur toutes les formes de l’éducation publique et établit le contexte dans lequel doit s’inscrire une réforme éducationnelle systémique qui porte sur les éléments suivants, entre autres : les sciences, les arts, les arts visuels et les langues autochtones ainsi que des matières existantes, comme l’éducation, la philosophie, la pédagogie, la formation et les stages des enseignants.

Jusqu’à un certain niveau, dans la renaissance autochtone, les enseignants autochtones ont amorcé la conciliation des divers domaines et aspects de l’enseignement autochtones dans le cadre de leurs programmes scolaires et de justice sociale, qui ont frayé de nouvelles voies habilitant les Autochtones à réaliser leurs objectifs éducationnels et à devenir membres de diverses professions. Mais cette responsabilité n’incombe pas aux seuls Autochtones. La Couronne fédérale et les Couronnes provinciales doivent concilier leurs droits constitutionnels avec les droits autochtones à l’éducation. À l’heure actuelle, la preuve qu’elles ne l’ont pas fait se voit dans l’absence de négociations relatives à ces droits constitutionnels avec les systèmes d’éducation provinciaux et territoriaux. Il est essentiel de sensibiliser les politiciens canadiens, les décideurs de politiques et les enseignants à se montrer plus ouverts et proactifs afin de concilier les programmes d’études nationaux et provinciaux et d’éliminer le retard dont souffrent les Autochtones dans les divers 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 gouvernementaux. 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 British Columbia 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 aux pensionnats 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. 388 Haida Nation c. British Columbia (Ministre des Forêts), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511 R. 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

Fondation canadienne des relations raciales